Presidential Wednesday: Goodbye New Hampshire, Hello South Carolina

New Hampshire has come and gone as everyone expected, Mitt Romney won handily and delivered the speech he probably hoped to deliver on Caucus night in Iowa. By winning New Hampshire, Romney is two for two, something no non-incumbent has ever done. I’ll update the final numbers later but as I type the final rankings are Romney, Paul, Huntsman, Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Roemer.

Exit polling shows Romney getting support from a broad cross-section of voters, including receiving 40% of the votes who say they support the Tea Party. Huntsman’s support was strong from self-described Democrats who oppose the Tea Party.

Nobody is dropping out and at least two candidates (Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry) have indicated South Carolina’s January 21st primary will put them on the comeback trail. The RCP Average of South Carolina polls shows Gingrich in 3rd but close to second place Santorum and Perry a distant 5th with only 5% support.

Jon Hunstman placed his bet that New Hampshire would make him the Not-Romney. His third place finish may or may not be enough to kick-start his campaign but I can’t help but think he hoped to do better there. He currently sits in 6th place in SC with a mere 2.3% in the RCP average (link above). I’m sure Huntsman’s grateful for Buddy Roemer or he’d be in danger of a last place finish.

All campaigns go negative but I must say I’m not happy with the method of attack Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have been using against Mitt Romney lately. Since when did being successful and earning a profit become dirty words among those who profess to support the free market? Rush Limbaugh, Jay Nordlinger, and John Hinderaker take Perry and Gingrich to task while Erick Erickson says it’s good preparation for what Obama will be saying should Romney win and many people agree with the attacks. Hinderaker had the strongest comments:

In their desperation to remain relevant, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have resorted to aping liberal know-nothingism on the economy. Both have launched absurd attacks on Mitt Romney–really, attacks on investment firms in general.

Campaign Potpourri:

Dana Loesch defends Newt against the accusations he’s “an angry little attack muffin.”
RuPaul explains he’s not Ron Paul. Apparently there was some confusion about that.
Coffee and Markets takes a look at Rick Santorum’s tax plan.
You too can own a Rick Santorum sweater-vest.
In shocking news, Tim Tebow has been approached about endorsing a GOP candidate.
Twitter predicted Romney’s NH victory.

Here’s the latest RCP Averages and Intrade Percentages.

22 comments

  1. bowersville says:

    Adam Beam of The State is reporting that Gingrich will appear tomorrow on the steps at SC’s Statehouse with US Representative Jim Clyburn, D-SC, at a home ownership rally sponsored by builders and real estate associations.

  2. John Konop says:

    I do think the GOP has issues with foreign policy. Paul and Huntsman have been very anti-cowboy Bush 2 style policemen of the world policy. And the two of them made that a cornerstone of even their speeches last night after taking a over 40% of the vote in a GOP primary.

    Romney went the opposite direction guaranteeing the aggressive policy that has cost us trillions of dollars that is bleeding us dry. How do we balance the budget with a cowboy style foreign policy? And it seems that the vast majority of people overwhelmingly are asking the same question.

    What will the GOP do with the large amount of Paul supporters at the convention?

    • Engineer says:

      Yeah, I listened to Romney’s speech last night, and was disappointed when I heard him say, “I will insist on a military so powerful no one would ever think of challenging it”, I literally sighed and face-palmed. :\

      The more I watch what is happening, the better those 3rd party candidates look.

    • Three Jack says:

      John, CNN had a SC Republican voter real-time graph going while all of the candidates were giving their speeches last night. Paul scored big when he talked of cutting $1t from the budget, but plummeted when he got on the rant about turning this country into a land of pacifists with no presence anywhere in the world. That kind of rhetoric may play well in the NE, but probably not so much in SC. We’ll see next week.

      I’m with Romney on this issue…he who carries the biggest stick wins without a fight most times. Under Paul’s scenario, America would become one of the weakest countries with little to no influence on the world stage. The cost of such a retreat will be far greater than simply maintaining our current military strength.

      • John Konop says:

        Three Jack,

        The polls show about 65% to 75% of the GOP base does agree with you about foreign policy. This translate into a general population that has 65% to 75% that disagree with you when you add in independents and democrats. Obviously Paul is on the extreme side, but most agree with Huntsman/ Obama policy which is really the Powell doctrine incubated out of the Regan administration and implemented in the Bush 1 administration. BTW Clinton followed the same policy that is how he got so tight with Bush 1.

        And when Bush 2 brought back his dads team( Gates team) and told Cheney and the boys to chill-out that is when things turned around in Iraq. And Obama was smart enough to keep the same group and philosophy in place. I have disagreements with Obama domestically, but in general he is doing a good job on foreign policy. And the cowboy style foreign policy will not fly in a general.

        • Three Jack says:

          Not sure of your source for the ‘most agree with Huntsman/Obama’ Powell doctrine assertion, but if I recall that philosophy led to the ’93 WTC bombing, multiple embassy explosions, the USS York being attacked and finally 9/11. I don’t think ‘most agree’ we should practice containment if containment has been proven to be an insufficient deterrent.

          • John Konop says:

            FYI

            Poll: Americans’ views on foreign policy

            ….Here are highlights from the poll:

            More than three in four Americans – 77 percent – approve of Mr. Obama’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year. Two in three say the war was not worth the cost.

            Republican primary voters see Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich as the presidential candidates most qualified to lead the military and handle a crisis abroad.

            One in two Americans say U.S. should not have gotten involved in Libya; seven in ten oppose U.S. efforts to transform dictatorships into democracies.

            Most Americans believe the threats posted by Iran and North Korea can be contained without military action.

            More than half of Republicans hold an unfavorable view of Islam….

            http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57323511-503544/poll-americans-views-on-foreign-policy/

            • Three Jack says:

              John, from your poll source – “A majority of Americans – 53 percent – say the United States should not be involved in Afghanistan” — not quite the 65%-75% you cited earlier….barely a majority even after 10 years of media bashing the effort.

              I rarely if ever rely upon polls for anything, much less a poll about war 10 years into said war. You have long advocated the Powell/wimp policy which was tried and failed miserably as I noted earlier. I on the other hand continue to believe we maintain peace through overwhelming strength. Might as well just accept we will never find common ground on this issue.

              • John Konop says:

                Three Jack,

                …………More than three in four Americans – 77 percent – approve of Mr. Obama’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year. Two in three say the war was not worth the cost……….

                I guess you do not see this part of the poll.

                • Three Jack says:

                  Actually I did, but that stat is irrelevant since Bush signed the agreement before leaving office to set the withdrawal date. Also that has nothing to do with whether people support the Powell/Obama/Paul doctrine.

      • Engineer says:

        The irony of it all is that George W. Bush ran on the same kind of non-interventionism policy, that you are complaining about, and won in 2000. We already spend more than all the other nations of the world combined on military spending. Why do we need to spend more?

        We are done in Iraq, we’ve already got Bin Laden (the reason to be in Afganistan), so it is time to go home because our objective is complete, not because of retreat like you are claiming.

        • Calypso says:

          “The irony of it all is that George W. Bush ran on the same kind of non-interventionism policy, that you are complaining about, and won in 2000.”

          While the above may be true, keep in mind that September 11, 2001 was chronologically later than November 6, 2000.

          • John Konop says:

            Calypso,

            Keep in mind Bin Laden stated strategy was to hurt us financially by the attack. And Bush 2 took the bait, at the end of the day the Powell strategy is working and the cowboy strategy just got to many innocent people killed and drained our pockets.

            • Calypso says:

              I do understand, I was pointing out that Engineer said, “…Bush ran on the same kind of non-interventionism policy, that you are complaining about, and won in 2000.” but that the events of 9/11 changed this so-called “non-interventionism policy” stance.

              • Engineer says:

                Yes, but our target (regarding 9/11), Bin Laden, is dead, so why are we still in Afganistan? Before you say, to stop the Taliban or some such thing, keep in mind, most of the Taliban forces are hiding out in Pakistan, where we have little to no power to deal with them.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        The thing is, whether you agree or disagree with the military strategy abroad, WE CAN’T AFFORD IT. That’ should suspend the debate right there, and everyone should go back to the drawing board to figure out how or IF we can pay for it, before the debate even becomes relevant.

        I know I know, there are a lot of people in the GOP who dream of having a military that doesn’t cost anything at all and we can just keep racking up the credit cards and putting off reality, but tanks need gas, troops need ammo, etc. Either we come up with a more economically sensible foreign policy, or we end up like the Soviets when they tried to stay in Afghanistan forever.

        NO one is saying that we just roll over and play dead (‘pacificism’ is a mischaracteration of Paul’s position, and you know it).

        No one on earth can defeat the U.S. militarily. Economically speaking, though, even the smallest pests can draw us into a costly game of whack-a-mole. It’s like watching Manny Pacquiao dance around Mike Tyson. Either the heavy-weight lands a blow that knocks the light-weight out of the match early on, or things go on and on until the big man is passed out on the floor. This is what the GOP has to come to grips with. Ron Paul isn’t making this up; [economic collapse] has happened to military superpowers throughout history, and we’d be wise not to continue making the same mistakes.

        • John Konop says:

          You are right and that was Bin Laden’s strategy.

          …..No one on earth can defeat the U.S. militarily. Economically speaking, though, even the smallest pests can draw us into a costly game of whack-a-mole. It’s like watching Manny Pacquiao dance around Mike Tyson. Either the heavy-weight lands a blow that knocks the light-weight out of the match early on, or things go on and on until the big man is passed out on the floor. This is what the GOP has to come to grips with. Ron Paul isn’t making this up; [economic collapse] has happened to military superpowers throughout history, and we’d be wise not to continue making the same mistakes…..

          • Engineer says:

            “[economic collapse] has happened to military superpowers throughout history, and we’d be wise not to continue making the same mistakes…..”

            Can you say, USSR?

Comments are closed.