South is up for grabs for GOP

Politico ^ | December 13, 2011 | Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin

[Cincinatus' Wife]

GREENVILLE, S.C. – In the geographic heart of the Republican Party, the contest for the allegiance of Southern conservatives in the 2012 race is as wide open as ever.

Of all the prizes still up for grabs in the GOP presidential primary, few are as desirable as the support of the South. Republican presidential nominations have traditionally been forged here – in South Carolina, especially – and any successful challenger to Mitt Romney would likely have to dominate among heavily conservative, evangelical Southern voters.

Yet the only candidate this cycle who seemed to have a shot at locking down the South, Rick Perry, has stumbled badly. Newt Gingrich, the anti-Romney favorite du jour, is polling well across the region, but politicos question whether the former Georgia congressman has what it takes to dominate in Dixie.

So as the Republican Party looks ahead at the possibility of a long primary fight, there’s a real possibility that none of the finalists will have any distinctive appeal in the core region of the GOP.

“We’re a little more split up this time,” said Henry Barbour, the Republican National Committeeman for Mississippi and a Perry supporter. “I don’t think there’s a natural favorite son of the South in this primary.”

Said Barbour: “Gov. Perry looked really strong down here early on, now unfortunately that’s opened back up … Can Gov. Perry come back? I think he can.”

[af_vet_rr]

Except we haven't even done Iowa yet. Everyone moves and shakes until Iowa is over. How do you pay staff or even have any organization in any state? You can't.

By your measure, Ron Paul should have done much better in 2008 since he had a lot of money and a lot of volunteers and organizers. Thanks to the internet, TV, the debates, if they can be on the ballot, they can have influence, regardless of money. These days, money means nothing, otherwise Romney and Perry would be fighting for the lead and we wouldn't be talking about anybody else.

Perry could very well pull 3rd in Iowa with Romney 4th or 5th. Pull a bad showing in New Hampshire and lose South Carolina and Florida. It's all about momentum

Romney could run away with a huge win in New Hampshire and it won't mean squat anywhere in the South. He's a Mormon and a RINO - he can get a win in New Hampshire, but those two things won't sell well in the South. Well maybe Florida.

It's all about momentum and although you may not believe it, Newt has yet to be vetted. Newt's vetting will be a drip drip drip

It took Jim Robinson and a few others to remind me that Newt has been more thoroughly vetted than any other candidate in the primaries. The Democrats did everything they could time and time again to take him down over the past 20 years.

During the last debate, Snuffleupagus and Sawyer were doing their damnedest to sink Newt and get the other candidates to pile on, and while a few did pile on Newt, Newt came out on top and Romney came out hurting. Gingrich won simply because he had the most to lose in the last debate, and he didn't lose anything - the moderators tried their best to drag him under, and he turned their attacks into pluses and threw it all back in their faces.

Newt has been through the pressure cooker - none of the other candidates have had to go through such pressure and so much vetting over the years. Bachmann and Perry have had easy campaigns during their career for the most part, and neither was subjected to the stress on a national level that Newt has experienced during the leadup to the Republican Revolution. Santorum....well Rick can't even win his own state. Ron Paul is in his own little world where reality rarely intrudes. Romney...the media has been going very light on him in the hopes he gets the nomination.

Like Jim Robinson and others have said, Gingrich is battle-tested on a level that none of the other candidates has ever experienced. Without Gingrich, the Republicans would not have had 1994. I still have a lot of issues with Gingrich, but the man has a proven track record of fighting and beating the Democrats at a national level.

[normy]

Newt hasn't sniffed a campaign battle in 15 years.

We'll keep talking as the campaign goes on.

[af_vet_rr]

Newt hasn't sniffed a campaign battle in 15 years.

From April of this year through October, Newt was consistently polling in the single digits. Now he's at the top and is doing something that Bachmann, Perry, and Cain weren't really able to do - eroding Romney's support. That is catching a lot of peoples' attention. He's doing it even as the media is trying to tear him down in the debates.

I'd say he's up to speed.

Besides, look at the competition - Bachmann hasn't had much in the way of campaign battles. Santorum can't win in his own state. Perry was blessed in 2002 with no Republican challengers and a Democrat who was destroyed by another Democrat, then benefited in 2006 from running against a secessionist in the primary and then a clown car full of third party candidates in the general election that divided the field, then in 2010 against Kay Bailey Hutchison who didn't really care followed up by a Clinton insider during the general. Ron Paul...is Ron Paul. Romney? His track record for winning is the worst of the bunch.

Like I said, not a big fan, but he's faced far tougher challenges than any of the other candidates and he's done so on a national level. He also doesn't let himself get dragged down into petty squabbles in the debate like Bachmann, Romney, and Perry have, and I think it's helped.

Some of these candidates look like they are trying to score points on one another during the debates, as if dragging down one another is going to raise them up, while Gingrich acts like he's running for President.

[af_vet_rr]

I will say it’s unfortunate that we have the field of candidates that we do. I hope that come 2016, the Tea Party movement will have more of an influence.