GOP Primary Megathread!

[DGuller]

Yeah, throwing John King to Newt was just making it too easy for him (maybe that was the plan?  )  John King always struck me as especially dim even by the very dim standards of cable news networks.

[Ideologue]

Sheilbh: Tory PSYOPS.

Don't compare me with Hans

I was actually thinking of Ank.

[Phillip V]

If Gingrich wins tomorrow, we can say that there are four candidates who have each achieved quite well so far. Are there any comparable nominative races from the past?

[Ideologue]

Heh.

[CountDeMoney]

Are there any comparable nominative races from the past?

Sure there are. 
1988: Bob Dole kicked in the sitting Vice President's teeth in at Iowa with Pat Robertson placing 2nd, but then Poppy broke Reagan's Commandment and edged him out in New Hampshire.
The General never got off the ground. 

The Democrats in 1988 were even more spread out: Hart was the presumptive winner before the primaries until his dick got him, Biden forgot his annotated bibliography once, Gephardt won Iowa, Dukakis won New Hampshire.
More:

In the Super Tuesday races, Dukakis won six primaries, Gore five, Jackson five and Gephardt one, with Gore and Jackson splitting the southern states. The next week, Simon won Illinois. 1988 remains the race with the most candidates winning primaries since the McGovern reforms of 1971. Dukakis eventually emerged as the winner, with Gore's effort to paint Dukakis as too liberal for the general election being unsuccessful and causing him to withdraw.

[Sheilbh]

Oh, you little revolutionary you.  You just can't help but loving extremists of all flavours, can you?

My favourite candidate was Huntsman and I've no real time for Bachmann.  But I judge candidates a lot on their character.  I think policy's somewhat secondary, especially at this point.

With a possible Gingrich upset tomorrow, the Romney campaign may very well get the long battle for the nomination that they had previously prepared for.

Florida, a state Romney only lost by 5 points in 2008, seems solid for him, but a Gingrich win in South Carolina could make it a close call. However, it is winner-take-all: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_republican_presidential_primary-1597.html

I think it'll be problematic for Romney to go from pseudo-incumbency to just the guy who won New Hampshire (and did better in Iowa, and probably SC too, four years ago).  And Romney's national numbers (which are irrelevant) are 'collapsing' according to Gallup's director.

He's still the most likely to win, but I'd note that this past week has really eroded Romney's central selling point.  The entire point of his campaign is that he's 'electable'.  I think that's in doubt now and if he's not electable then what's the point of Romney?  It is mind-boggling for me that Romney's been running for President for the best part of a decade and doesn't seem to have thought through an answer to Bain or his tax status.  I still think he's just a weak, weak candidate.

If this goes to the convention (which, God willing, it will) then you could end up with Paul.  Paul's only way to get nominated is through the convention.  According to Republicans at state level lots of Romney and Gingrich delegates are enthusiastic Paul supporters who've volunteered and got themselves chosen as delegates.  They're only tied to the Romney or Gingrich in the first round of voting.

This election is now between a candidate who makes John Kerry look like a rock-ribbed, horny-handed son of toil; a candidate who wants to bring back child labour; a candidate who has listed various things that aren't 'free for alls' including science, the internet and the bedroom; and a candidate who wants to end the Fed.  I'm no longer convinced that the last guys the craziest nominee for Republicans to make.

Edit:  Incidentally I think Romney made two dangerous concessions last night.  He referred to 'Romneycare' which he's not done before and he promised several years worth of tax returns.

[garbon]

He's still the most likely to win, but I'd note that this past week has really eroded Romney's central selling point.  The entire point of his campaign is that he's 'electable'.  I think that's in doubt now and if he's not electable then what's the point of Romney? 

Probably a ridiculous statement.

And Romney is certainly less beige than Kerry - so I think the comparison is moot unless being a white man from Massachusetts is so rare as to beggar instant comparisons.

[Eddie Teach]

Romney would be the first openly non-Christian President in centuries, that's gotta be worth something.

[Admiral Yi]

Shelf:  Romney's "electability" is a function of the results of his head to head polls with Obama vs. the other candidates' results in similar head to head polls.

If a candidate had to win primaries to be considered electable it wouldn't be much of an asset, now would it?

[sbr]

Romney would be the first openly non-Christian President in centuries, that's gotta be worth something.

Mormons aren't Christian?  I'm sure they will be disappointed to hear that.

[garbon]

Romney would be the first openly non-Christian President in centuries, that's gotta be worth something.

Mormons aren't Christian?  I'm sure they will be disappointed to hear that.

Not really. That's always been a controversy as Mormons identify as Christians but most Christians don't consider them to be.

[Viking]

Romney would be the first openly non-Christian President in centuries, that's gotta be worth something.

Mormons aren't Christian?  I'm sure they will be disappointed to hear that.

Well, they don't believe that belief in Jesus Christ will lead to personal salvation and heaven. They think they get to become gods of their own planet.

[Caliga]

Not this goddamn shit again... 

[Scipio]

No Masons are Christians.  All Mormons are Masons.  Therefore, no Mormons are Christians.

[Sheilbh]

Shelf:  Romney's "electability" is a function of the results of his head to head polls with Obama vs. the other candidates' results in similar head to head polls.

No it's not.  Romney's electability is a message and an argument made by the campaign and his supporters.  It's broadly backed and spread by neutrals.  The polls are, to some extent, evidence but that's all. 

If a candidate had to win primaries to be considered electable it wouldn't be much of an asset, now would it?

No.  I don't understand your point.