Originally Posted by TeddyR

And you accuse me of exaggerations?

Kennedy, Reagan and TR all say, what am I chopped liver here?

p.s. He certainly was good at connecting, but best ever?

Chopped liver indeed. Many observers agree with me. At least, best-ever by a small margin. But really, Kennedy and Reagan were GIs. They did not connect in the way Clinton did; they were impersonal. They were just great at making charismatic speeches on TV. In that respect, they were better than Clinton.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Even though you predicted Romney, I see you have laid seeds for having been right even if it isn't him.

At the start, I DID say Gingrich has a good chance; the best chance at stopping Romney. So the seeds are there, yes. But I stick with my prediction.

I still think you'll be right on the original prediction, so you can stop hedging.

I'm not hedging; I'm pointing out that I was right in my prediction about Newt. I made it even before Gingrich's first comeback!

Wow if they nominate Newt. It will make for an interesting horserace with lots of unexpected twists and turns. It will also make the debates high theatre. Newt is quick on his feet and the best debater of the elephant parade (term stolen from Prof. Kaiser).

A Gemini with his Mercury conjunct Uranus there would be! And allied with an over-the-top aggressive Mars in Aries to boot!

Another example of Mars in Aries is Slobadon Milosovic. If Newt had been part of his milieu, what horrors could we expect from him? BUt to be fair, Gingrich has other saving graces in his chart.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

At the start, I DID say Gingrich has a good chance; the best chance at stopping Romney. So the seeds are there, yes. But I stick with my prediction.

I'm not hedging; I'm pointing out that I was right in my prediction about Newt. I made it even before Gingrich's first comeback!

You do have something to crow about, I am surprised you didn't. Your predictions about Santorum's rise seemed out of left field, and you did call that many months ago. I'm not a believer in your "science," but that one does impress me. I'm also back in the "Obama will win" camp with you.

I must admit I am flabbergasted by the SC turnaround. I still think Romney is a huge favorite, but this primary season is like nothing I have ever seen. Perhaps the Republican right only likes people until they seem to have a chance of getting into office?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I must admit I am flabbergasted by the SC turnaround. I still think Romney is a huge favorite, but this primary season is like nothing I have ever seen. Perhaps the Republican right only likes people until they seem to have a chance of getting into office?

I think that the "base" desperately wants to find someone to unite around other than Romney. When they think they have one, it seems like that candidate has flamed out, whether it's Perry or Cain or some other flavor of the month. And when that person flames out, the assumption is again that Romney will unless the far right can unite against him again.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I must admit I am flabbergasted by the SC turnaround. I still think Romney is a huge favorite, but this primary season is like nothing I have ever seen. Perhaps the Republican right only likes people until they seem to have a chance of getting into office?

The GOP right doesn't trust Romney to be a true conservative. Sad that they would overlook major character flaws to push ideology. I am still expecting Romney to win , but in a hard fight.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I must admit I am flabbergasted by the SC turnaround. I still think Romney is a huge favorite, but this primary season is like nothing I have ever seen. Perhaps the Republican right only likes people until they seem to have a chance of getting into office?

If political realities can turn on a dime at any stage of the generational cycle, it is in a 4T.

South Carolina religious voters seem to not like Mormans.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/

Fifty-seven percent of the voters in early exit polls today said it’s very important that a candidate share their religious beliefs - and 46% of those voters backed Newt Gingrich. Romney came in a distant second, at 22%. For those voters who didn’t think shared religious beliefs were all that critical, Romney was the top pick, at 43%. Gingrich was second, at 29%.

I was just sent the following. Good Grief!!!

South Carolina Primary: Newt Gingrich Defeats Mitt Romney, ABC News Projects

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/...5#.Txtl9KUS3KA

Well, this is a stunner. I would have to agree that Obama's re-election prospects just improved considerably.

I just saw the SC exit poll, which includes a generational breakdown. Guess who won the Millennial vote handily? Guess who came in last among Millennials?

Tweet from Robert Reich:

"

Gingrich almost destroyed the GOP in 1996. Now he's been given a second chance."

He sounded like Gordon Gecko tonight, I half expected to hear, "greed is good."

Here is a list of issues he will need to overcome to win the nomination:

1. Personal wealth. In a time of economic distress for many, he is the living embodiment, the very poster child of the 1%. He is completely out-of-touch with the economic reality most of us face. Most of us can't offer to make a bet for $10,000 nor would we consider earned income of $375k "a little money." Reminds me of Bush I not knowing the price of a loaf of bread.

2. Taxes. He is getting hammered on releasing his taxes, from the other candidates, from the media and from the ghost of his father. He either keeps getting hammered or releases them soon. It is a lose-lose scenario. When he does release them, he will stir back up issue #1 above. It may also open a whole new can of worms around offshore accounts and the fairness of the amount of tax (15% reportedly) he pays versus the average American.

3. LDS. This is an issue everyone is thinking about, but so far is too polite to mention. Mitt isn't just a congregate, he was a bishop in a religion still considered restrictive, secretive and just plain odd by many. Distrust of the LDS comes from both the left and the right.

4. Mexico. The Romneys were so in favor of polygamy in the not so distant past, that they moved to Mexico to maintain this practice.

5. Massachusetts. The only thing that would hurt him more than being Governor of Massachusetts was if he was Mayor of SF. There are hours of clips where he is exposed as having different beliefs than he claims now. This makes him either a political whore saying what people want to hear or a secret moderate who denounced Reagan/Bush, supported abortion rights and of course #6....

6. Romneycare. He is the Godfather of Obamacare.

7. Plastic Mitt. He doesn't connect well with anyone. The other three candidates have true believers who will go to the ends of the earth for their candidate. Mitt is the Microsoft of politics --- he needs to be the Apple to win.

8. Willard. This is a silly one, but how excited will people be to vote for a Willard?

9. Brand. He has no discernible brand. Obama is cool. W was a good 'ol boy next door. McCain was "mavericky." The last person to run without a solid brand was John Kerry: a ultra-rich guy from Massachusetts. Sound familiar?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Well, this is a stunner. I would have to agree that Obama's re-election prospects just improved considerably.

Now I know the worm has turned!

Originally Posted by TeddyR

He sounded like Gordon Gecko tonight, I half expected to hear, "greed is good."

Here is a list of issues he will need to overcome to win the nomination:

1. Personal wealth. In a time of economic distress for many, he is the living embodiment, the very poster child of the 1%. He is completely out-of-touch with the economic reality most of us face. Most of us can't offer to make a bet for $10,000 nor would we consider earned income of $375k "a little money." Reminds me of Bush I not knowing the price of a loaf of bread.

2. Taxes. He is getting hammered on releasing his taxes, from the other candidates, from the media and from the ghost of his father. He either keeps getting hammered or releases them soon. It is a lose-lose scenario. When he does release them, he will stir back up issue #1 above. It may also open a whole new can of worms around offshore accounts and the fairness of the amount of tax (15% reportedly) he pays versus the average American.

3. LDS. This is an issue everyone is thinking about, but so far is too polite to mention. Mitt isn't just a congregate, he was a bishop in a religion still considered restrictive, secretive and just plain odd by many. Distrust of the LDS comes from both the left and the right.

4. Mexico. The Romneys were so in favor of polygamy in the not so distant past, that they moved to Mexico to maintain this practice.

5. Massachusetts. The only thing that would hurt him more than being Governor of Massachusetts was if he was Mayor of SF. There are hours of clips where he is exposed as having different beliefs than he claims now. This makes him either a political whore saying what people want to hear or a secret moderate who denounced Reagan/Bush, supported abortion rights and of course #6....

6. Romneycare. He is the Godfather of Obamacare.

7. Plastic Mitt. He doesn't connect well with anyone. The other three candidates have true believers who will go to the ends of the earth for their candidate. Mitt is the Microsoft of politics --- he needs to be the Apple to win.

8. Willard. This is a silly one, but how excited will people be to vote for a Willard?

9. Brand. He has no discernible brand. Obama is cool. W was a good 'ol boy next door. McCain was "mavericky." The last person to run without a solid brand was John Kerry: a ultra-rich guy from Massachusetts. Sound familiar?

#10 or 1a: The Republicans might be ready to drop the Bain issue, since after all they are the party of greed. But look for the Democrats to pounce on it. He is not only wealthy, but made his wealth by buying up companies, firing its employees and shipping jobs overseas in many cases. Bain was successful, but on the backs of many companies who went bankrupt or didn't substantially improve as a result of Bain's investments. Romney is a vulture capitalist. He not only has lots of money, did nothing to earn his money. Quite the opposite.

On the other hand, if Gingrich were the nominee, the United States would be faced with a choice of going down a scary, destructive and intolerant road, though one that many Americans today want. Newt embodies this direction, even despite the fact that he is as shifty, ruthless, unethical and deceptive as Romney is.

Having seen Mitt Romney take the full transition from a near-moderate to a true believer in pure plutocracy. He slipped out that the only purpose of life is to get rich -- not to serve other people. For him the Presidency is the expression of his ego.

Newt Gingrich tries to be ultra-capitalist and anti-capitalist at the same time... bad enough for its dishonesty, but in politics such is either gross confusion (a disqualifier) or a lie through contradiction. This is the sort who tells platitudes to blue-collar workers yet stands behind people who would degrade those same workers. His belligerence on foreign policy recalls Dubya but without any pretense of humanitarian interest. He wants to be the "Paycheck President" instead of the "Food Stamp President". Is anyone certain that the paychecks will offer a real living, especially if labor is emasculated of all rights"?

Rick Santorum is a religious and racist bigot. He has a simplistic solution -- "family life" and "faith". He fails to recognize that poverty itself tears at family life, and that the economic policies of the bulk of the GOP would create poverty instead of prosperity for most.

Ron Paul is oddly to the Left of president Obama on issues of defense and foreign policy; he obviously has no chance. The powerful military-industrial complex would prefer President Obama to this fellow.

So we all know what that leaves.

To TeddyR, PBrower2, and Odin, I can only suggest, please give up the fantasy that your own views of policy, ethics, or ideological consistency, or mine for that matter, have anything to do with how Republican primary voters make up their minds. Or many general election voters. As another New York Times story pointed out yesterday, these folks never even hear opinions like yours--they get all their news from Fox, Limbaugh, and their favorite web sites. We have alternative realities out there nowadays.

Meanwhile, it looks as if I'll have to answer my own question. Ron Paul easily won the Millennial vote in the primary. Mitt Romney finished last among the Millennials. The older the voter, generationally, the better chance he/she had of voting for Newt. I have often reminded people that lots of young Germans voted for Hitler and supported him enthusiastically until the very end. They were Heroes too. (Granted that Hitler had a much stronger idea of civic responsibility than Ron Paul. .. I had better quit now.)

I do think these results raise a serious question as to whether the right-wing Republican base will ever accept Romney. And whether Newt might lead a Tea Party candidacy. But meanwhile, I am just reading that Romney has been running the only media campaign in Florida.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

To TeddyR, PBrower2, and Odin, I can only suggest, please give up the fantasy that your own views of policy, ethics, or ideological consistency, or mine for that matter, have anything to do with how Republican primary voters make up their minds. Or many general election voters. As another New York Times story pointed out yesterday, these folks never even hear opinions like yours--they get all their news from Fox, Limbaugh, and their favorite web sites. We have alternative realities out there nowadays.

You're absolutely right here. The left has ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and most other media outlets (such as "The New York Liberal Times"). I along with many other conservative-leaning people avoid such places like the plague as it's a highly subjective liberal-spin on news. Of course, liberals feel the same way towards news sources I enjoy going to for my information. All the media is political - it's all spun from one political side or another. You have to pick and choose where you go for your information as I do.

j.p.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

To TeddyR, PBrower2, and Odin, I can only suggest, please give up the fantasy that your own views of policy, ethics, or ideological consistency, or mine for that matter, have anything to do with how Republican primary voters make up their minds. Or many general election voters. As another New York Times story pointed out yesterday, these folks never even hear opinions like yours--they get all their news from Fox, Limbaugh, and their favorite web sites. We have alternative realities out there nowadays.

Meanwhile, it looks as if I'll have to answer my own question. Ron Paul easily won the Millennial vote in the primary. Mitt Romney finished last among the Millennials. The older the voter, generationally, the better chance he/she had of voting for Newt. I have often reminded people that lots of young Germans voted for Hitler and supported him enthusiastically until the very end. They were Heroes too. (Granted that Hitler had a much stronger idea of civic responsibility than Ron Paul. .. I had better quit now.)

I do think these results raise a serious question as to whether the right-wing Republican base will ever accept Romney. And whether Newt might lead a Tea Party candidacy. But meanwhile, I am just reading that Romney has been running the only media campaign in Florida.

Hey, my analysis is focused on why Mitt fails with GOP voters. It was Eric and others introducing lefty thoughts. That is why I didn't list Bain as an issue.

I have to wonder if Newt surged ahead because he picked up most the Perry vote which was sitting at around 9 or 10%. Plus Palin unofficially endorsing Gingrich might have picked the Bachman supporters which were at around 4 or 5%. Put those together and you that's somewhere around 13% to 15%. I also noticed that even though Romney had been sitting at around 25% in the polls since this whole process began he jumped up to around 30% in the past week. I think that extra 5% came from Huntsman supporters.

I think the question becomes, if Santorum does leave the race where will his supporters go? I'm thinking since he is more of the tea party flavor, that Newt could get quite a few of them too. I'm sure both Romney and Gingrich will both be heavily seeking his endorsement if he leaves. It will be similar to how both Obama and Clinton were courting Edwards during the last primary before his name became dirt.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I have to wonder if Newt surged ahead because he picked up most the Perry vote which was sitting at around 9 or 10%. Plus Palin unofficially endorsing Gingrich might have picked the Bachman supporters which were at around 4 or 5%. Put those together and you that's somewhere around 13% to 15%. I also noticed that even though Romney had been sitting at around 25% in the polls since this whole process began he jumped up to around 30% in the past week. I think that extra 5% came from Huntsman supporters.

I think the question becomes, if Santorum does leave the race where will his supporters go? I'm thinking since he is more of the tea party flavor, that Newt could get quite a few of them too. I'm sure both Romney and Gingrich will both be heavily seeking his endorsement if he leaves. It will be similar to how both Obama and Clinton were courting Edwards during the last primary before his name became dirt.

That makes a lot of sense. I can't imagine Santorum could bring himself to endorse Newt, but Newt could get some of those votes anyway. And I can't imagine him endorsing Romney.

I'm sure there's nothing regional about this story. . . .

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is no way Romney will win. 2/5 voters in the Republican party are evangelicals and most of them will not vote for someone from LDS. I imagine if he did win the nomination the evangelicals will sit the election our or vote for whoever Dopson endorses. He is the Christian Oprah. People just do what he says.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

To TeddyR, PBrower2, and Odin, I can only suggest, please give up the fantasy that your own views of policy, ethics, or ideological consistency, or mine for that matter, have anything to do with how Republican primary voters make up their minds. Or many general election voters. As another New York Times story pointed out yesterday, these folks never even hear opinions like yours--they get all their news from Fox, Limbaugh, and their favorite web sites. We have alternative realities out there nowadays.

I have no illusion that the Hard Right accepts anything other than its own peculiar view of the world as the only relevant reality. What people like me say about the moral depravity and intellectual weakness of right-wing prattle surely offends Hard Right sensibilities. For those sensibilities truth comes in pre-packaged soundbites that contain all reality -- and all else is just simply wrong at best and evil at worst. I might as well be spewing material from Pyongyang. That view does 'inform' the vote of a huge part of the electorate, and it would vote for a 100%-American (even if it lacks much that is part of the American political tradition, like rule of law, pluralism, and checks-and-balances) fascism over my 'treasonable' way of life. I admit -- my musical tastes suggest that I am not an American but instead perhaps a Czech, even if I have no Czech ancestry.

Meanwhile, it looks as if I'll have to answer my own question. Ron Paul easily won the Millennial vote in the primary. Mitt Romney finished last among the Millennials. The older the voter, generationally, the better chance he/she had of voting for Newt. I have often reminded people that lots of young Germans voted for Hitler and supported him enthusiastically until the very end. They were Heroes too. (Granted that Hitler had a much stronger idea of civic responsibility than Ron Paul. .. I had better quit now.)

Ron Paul is to the Left of President Obama on foreign policy, the military, and drug laws. I see President Obama as a continuation of Bush I - Clinton policies on the military and foreign policy (Clinton was astute enough to go mute on Bush I foreign policy in his 1992 campaign and wise enough to accept Bush I policies with practically no change); maybe there are some good 3T trends worth preserving. As I have said before, even if Ron Paul were to get the Republican nomination for President he would lose to President Obama because the powerful military-industrial complex would support the President against this fellow.

I believed until recently that nobody could attack the President's military and foreign policy from the Right. Oh, was I wrong! In his victory speech newt Gingrich castigated President Obama for being "weaker than Carter"... which may be absurd (I figure that Moammar Qaddafi, while holed up in Sirte as his world collapsed upon him, wished that he had somehow funneled some campaign funds to Senator John McCain in 2008, and that the Obama campaign can use the fact that Osama bin Laden is dead as a positive appeal). Of course it is easy for people to confuse belligerence with strength, as demonstrated by bar-room brawlers who end up in the hospital with broken hand bones from swinging at someones jaw and hitting it or the broken jaw that someone hit. Maybe it is my middle-class culture that suggests that saloons that I don't know well scare me as few other things do.

...GOP reality is easily reduced to the sound-bite accepted as absolute and complete truth, with anything that contradicts it being shown as evil, un-Christian, or treasonous (if not politically, then "culturally"). Newt Gingrich has no difficulty in connecting to people ignorant enough to believe that Tchaikovsky and Dostoevsky were good buddies of Lenin ... or that America (or at least the part that distrusts anything 'exotic') is special because it is America. (You know and I know that the rest of the world has been catching up to us in living standards and surpassing us in the efficacy of government services, but if you believe that you are probably enough of a 'cultural traitor' to have a bonsai tree in your house).

I do think these results raise a serious question as to whether the right-wing Republican base will ever accept Romney. And whether Newt might lead a Tea Party candidacy. But meanwhile, I am just reading that Romney has been running the only media campaign in Florida.

Mercifully the GOP base is not enough to win the Presidential election. If it were, we would never have Barack Obama as President.

I like Gingrich, I find him entertaining. I would like him to be the nominee just because I enjoy listening to him because he is a master bullshit artist. Romney is a poor bullshit artist, though he certainly tries. Gingrich also has some fascist qualities that appeal to me. I want to see him addressing football stadiums of believers, with his arm up in salute. And I love how he won South Carolina, the Traitor State. I guess I like him because he embodies all of America's ugliness. In this way, he is the most American candidate on the right. I'm still a social democrat, so I'll have to vote for Obama to keep the wingnuts out of my hair, but I would like to see Gingrich up there the most. I mean, if you are going to vote for evil, you might as well support the real thing. All the other guys are like evil-lite.