Setting the Field for South Carolina

The New Hampshire primary is over, and the candidates have moved on to South Carolina. Generally all the results so far have been predictable, with the one wild card continuing to be Ron Paul.

Huntsman was all in for New Hampshire, and managed to finish a weak third. Keeping in mind that the exit polls showed that 51% of the people who voted for him in New Hampshire would find it satisfactory if Barack Obama was reelected, it is clear that Huntsman support was greatly enhanced by left-leaning voters choosing to vote in the republican primary instead of the meaningless democrat one. And so despite the third place win in New Hampshire, Huntsman saw the futility of continuing his campaign, and will be announcing he is dropping out of the race as I predicted he would. Again, I expect Perry will continue through South Carolina, if only out of stubbornness. It would help Newt and Santorum if he dropped out now, especially in light of Huntsman’s impending endorsement of Romney. Conventional wisdom would say that Huntsman’s supporters will flock to Romney (though they are so few that “flock” may exaggerate their numbers!), but there may also be a number of them who are also “anti-Romney” voters, and may be able to find another candidate they can support.

The surprise in New Hampshire was Ron Paul who had an exceptionally strong finish at second. It has never been Ron Paul’s intention to actually secure the nomination, but rather to legitimize his libertarian, or more importantly, his constitutionalist agenda. By so doing he is, perhaps intentionally, paving the way for his more politically viable son Rand to make a future run at the Oval Office. In any case, his strategy seems to be to secure a prominent place for himself and his agenda at the convention, which I think is why you won’t see him mounting a third party bid (include in that the ramifications such a move would make on his son). Inasmuch as Paul can garner more than 20% in any primary, he will show himself to be a force that the establishment will need to acknowledge, if they want his support for the general election. Ironically, the last thing the establishment supporters of Romney want to see, is an early Romney blow-out of Gingrich and Santorum. This would leave Paul as the less amiable “Huckabee” of this race, since he won’t go away until he gets what he wants, and his numbers would swell without other opposition.

South Carolina will be much closer than New Hampshire, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see first and second divided by only a point or two. Gingrich will live to fight another day if he can take a strong second over Paul, and will gain tremendous momentum if he can pull a first place over Romney. He has a lot of work to do if he expects to do that. If Santorum finishes 4th, as I expect he will, he may pull out along with Perry, which will greatly help Newt going forward if he can remain viable through South Carolina. If Ron Paul takes second over Newt, I would see that as an almost game-ending score for Romney, and also for Ron Paul’s agenda. The media will finally have to cover Ron Paul, because there won’t be anything else to cover!

Finally, I find amusing the idea that Romney is considered the candidate most likely to be able to beat Obama in the general election. The thought that the Democrats fear him the most, is a little like Brer Rabbit imploring Brer Fox not to throw him in the briar patch! Romney, of all the candidates, best fits the Democrats’ template of what they would like to run against. Obama’s greatest liability is the unpopularity of Obamacare as it relates to his political philosophy. The candidate least likely to be able to capitalize on this weakness is obviously Romney. The one place Democrats have been able to shift blame for the bad economy, partially thanks to the Occupy Wall Street movement, is toward Big Business capitalists who have “made their fortunes on the backs of the 99%”. Which candidate best fits this template of “the fat cat 1%”? Again Romney. 2010 showed the voting power of the Tea Party, and evangelical Christians are always an enormous voting block if they are energized… and which candidate is least likely to energize these constituents? Hint: his name starts with “Mitt”.

Republicans tend to think that moderation equals viability, because of the sizable number of voters who call themselves “independent”. History belies that notion, however, and a dearth of conviction and strong ideas usually guarantees only complacency and defeat. Independents do not shun strong positions, so much as they do partisanship; and there is a difference. Romney seems to be the candidate chosen to offend the fewest and let Obama defeat himself, but that hardly seems a hopeful strategy against as skilled and popular a politician as the President.

IMHO: When no charismatic candidate rises to the top, Republicans tend to go to their default position of nominating the next guy in line, who is also generally the most bland. If Romney runs away with the nomination as expected by most pundits, the big winners will be Barack Obama and Ron Paul. Look for republican gains in Congress though.