Hopefully, one of the tougher things I’ll be facing over the next eight to ten months is the job of watching Republican debates. It’s the kind of thing a judge might sentence you to in lieu of community service. The clown car is emptying out in Iowa tonight for a 9pm (Eastern) demonstration of collective insanity. Texas Governor Rick Perry won’t be there. His plan is to step on the Ames Straw Poll by announcing his candidacy the same day. This should have the effect of killing any hope the lesser candidates might have of getting a boost either from the debate tonight or from a victory in Ames on Saturday.
Because Rick Perry’s imminent announcement hovers over tonight’s debate, there is a certain anachronistic quality to it, even though it has not yet even occurred. TPMDC (cited above) does a good job of running down what you should be watching for, but I’ll just add a little bit to what they’ve said. Mitt Romney is still solidly entrenched as the frontrunner in the polls but he isn’t making any serious effort to win the Ames Straw Poll, nor to win the Iowa Caucuses in December or January. He assumes, probably correctly, that Iowa’s Republican base is way too evangelical to make a Mormon their standard bearer. But that doesn’t mean he can’t win tonight’s debate. Tonight will be the debating debut for former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, who is a more moderate (and consistent) version of Romney. He, too, is not seriously contesting for Iowa’s delegates, but he’ll need to make a strong first impression. There can be only one moderate Mormon in the race, so Huntsman’s job is to supplant Romney as the “electable” establishment choice before the voters start going to the polls. How will Huntsman go about doing that? Will he be stridently negative towards Romney? Or will he try to be a more reasonable and less flip-floppy alternative to him?
Another thing to keep an eye out for is how former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty will handle the humiliation of seeing himself upstaged by backbencher Michele Bachmann. In the last debate, Pawlenty emasculated himself by failing to say to Romney’s face what he’d been saying to the press in the days leading up to the debate. His campaign barely has a pulse, and he’s going to have to make some news.
As for the rest of the candidates, you can rely on Ron Paul, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum to say some strange things. The only suspense is in waiting to see what those strange things are. For example, Santorum made news this week by holding up a napkin and telling the assembled people the following:
“I can call this napkin a paper towel,” Santorum told a crowd of roughly 40 people “But it is a napkin. And why? Because it is what it is. Right? You can call it whatever you want, but it doesn’t change the character of what it is. So when people come out and say that marriage is something else – marriage is the marriage of 5 people – 5, 10, 20. Marriage can be between fathers and daughters. Marriage can be between any two people, any four people, any 10 people, it can be any kind of relationship and we can call it marriage. But it doesn’t make it marriage. Why? Because there are certain qualities and certain things that attach to the definition of what marriage is.”
This can be roughly translated to, “Gay people are paper towels; straight people are napkins.” If we’re lucky, we’ll get something even better from him tonight.
I set up my spreadsheets on a road trip the other day, and just using a few scenarios with Rick Perry…I have them all right around each other until the winner-take-all primaries start.
Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann…they’re all around 150-170 delegates by the time the winner-take-all’s start.
So with Rick Perry jumping in, I see what you’re seeing: a brokered convention.
I’d love to start a spreadsheet, but the calendar is too unsettled for it to mean anything.
Yeah, I mean…I couldn’t include Florida because they still don’t have a date (and it’s likely to be an early primary). But the order of the states that are early are still likely to stay the same even with changed dates, so I figured I’d just make the framework now. Plus, all it takes is a date change and the click of a mouse to change the order.
Yes, their calendar is a freaking mess. They also have too many damn candidates. It’s gonna be really unpredictable until after Nevada or South Carolina.
I think it’s almost a given that the winner of Iowa will not be the winner in New Hampshire. The question is whether the winner of South Carolina will be a new face or not.
If we have three different winners in the first three contests, we could be headed for a brokered convention.
Right…which is what I’m getting: Perry in SC, Romney in NH, Bachmann in IA.
Of course, with the proportional voting, Bachmann could overtake Romney by doing well in both SC and IA (as could Perry).
But that’s not so important. It isn’t the delegate take from those three states that matters, but getting the attention for early wins.
If there are three different winners, that’s the story, not the delegate leader.
Yes of course.
I was pretty sure the eventual nominee would be Pawlenty, but Perry’s getting into the race shakes things up a bit. The advantage of Pawlenty is that nobody finds him unacceptable, and huge segments of the party find Bachmann and Romney unacceptable.
We’ll see what happens in tonight’s debate, but I still think Huntsman will get more votes than Pawlenty. He’s not inspiring, he’s boring, he doesn’t fight…and he’s attacking Michele Bachmann, which is pissing off a lot of the base.
He’s also fighting with Bachmann over Iowa, and he won’t win there (while I suspect Romney and Huntsman duke it out over New Hampshire).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/08/10/bachmann_and_pawlenty_in_iowa_a_contrast_in_sty
les_responses_110884.html
I thought that for a while, too. But, it turns out that Pawlenty suffers from Low-T, and people find that even more unacceptable than being crazy.
Lawrence O’Donnell had a great take down of that Santorum nonsense the other night — basically pointing out how people use napkins and paper towels interchangeably. Little Ricky is worse than a bigot, he’s a mean idiot.
And either can be used if one has any Santorum lying around.
And just in time for the debate!
Romney touted tax increases to S&P when governor:
Buahahaha. I was just about to post that. You’re like 5 seconds ahead 🙂
Now will he be pounded, or will they all continue holding hands and attacking Obama together again?
LOL! I came in from No More Mister Nice Blog, where I’d spotted that, saw this thread, and scurried to post.
One wonders whether Barack’s good buddy Deval Patrick had a hand in the timing of the release?
You mean the Deval Patrick who went on one of the national Sunday talk shows and praised Romney for being so willing to deal with Democrats in passing the health care bill?
He’s done that more than once, actually.
Heh. That Deval, he’s just such a NICE guy, isn’t he? Always willing to help someone out.
Now, which someone, and out where, well………..
Heh.
What a delightful time for trashing Rick Perry to be the theme of the debate.
Exposing the “jobs” governor for creating more minimum wage jobs and losing good paying jobs; some of them are the same jobs. The anti-immigration governor for wanting a throughway so Mexican truckers can service large portions of the South Central states. The anti-evolution governor whose school board just reintroduced evolution into the science curriculum.
Don’t forget to urge Iowa GOP voters to write in Rick Parry.
It’s funny, but I don’t think it really throws a monkey-wrench into anything. The Ames Straw Poll isn’t some kind of legally-binding, government run poll. It’s an Iowa Republican Party fundraiser. If they get a ton of write-in votes for “Rick Parry” the only way that Perry doesn’t get those votes is if a group of someones high up in the Iowa Republican Party want to torpedo him.
And honestly, that’s why the Ames Straw Poll is so Grod-damn ridiculous. It’s supposed to be a poll of what Iowa Republicans who are willing to pay $30 to attend a fair where they vote for one of the fools running for President next year. Instead it’s a poll of which campaign can get the most paid staffers and bussed-in volunteers to attend and run up their scores. I suppose in some ways that’s some kind of metric of a campaign’s ability to take ridiculous media circus acts seriously (which, sadly, is important in American politics), but it isn’t really anything more than that.
Oh – and it’s a great way for campaigns to funnel money into the Iowa Republican Party’s war chest. Which I assume is the reason the Iowa Republican Party came up with it.
The speculation is that Huntsman isn’t in it to win it, but to set himself up for 2016. I can buy that.
If the GOP nominates a wingnut and they lose the next election, they just might finally be willing to acknowledge that running to the right is a loser.
Were it not for the bad economy helping them so much in the 2010 elections, they might have learned this lesson already.