22 January 2012

Obligatory South Carolina Primary Post

Newt won with 40% of the vote, which should kill Romney’s heat for the time being. Romney’s expensive political machine could only buy him a second-place finish with 28% of the vote. Santorum’s star faded to third, with 17% of the vote, and Ron Paul placed fourth with 13% of the vote, which was about as expected (although this result was considerably better than 2008’s 3.6%).

The race is still muddled, obviously. Santorum’s not looking good right now, and since he couldn’t get any heat from Iowa until it was too late, his campaign is probably dead. Romney’s invincibility is now a thing of the past, and I don’t think he’ll recover very well from it. I don’t care about Newt, and don’t think he’ll make a good candidate or president. I’m not sure what to make of Ron Paul’s situation

9 comments:

  1. I think the word, "unelectable" sums up Rom Paul quite nicely.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Prof. Hale- you would think that, wouldn't you? But of the three Republican stooges, which one (if any), do you think is electable?

    ReplyDelete
  3. If by "electable" you mean able to get enough votes to win an election to the Presidentcy, the answer is any one of the three "real candidates". That doesn't mean that I necessarily prefer any of them. The Republican machine is strong enough to get any candidate into striking distance. The winner will be decided by the margin of error and fraud. Since the Democratic party normally carries the error and fraud segments, Republicans depend on a strong voter turnout. They should be able to get just enough of that by running ads about how disasterous the Obama administration has been without focusing on the fact that Rom-newt-Sant wouldn't be any better (except for not appointing all those communists).

    Paul is unelectable, not because I don't agree with him or would not prefer him as the candidate, but because he can't get anywhere near a majority of votes in the Republican primary. Even if he runs as a third party candidate, I expect he won't get more than 10% of the vote. 15% would be considered a landslide for him but still not enough to get him elected.

    He can't win because not enough people want him to win.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Keep in mind, the "RP is unelectable" meme is being furthered here in your comment thread by an employee of the fedgov. Take that for what it is worth!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Justin, I am also a DoD employee who thinks that the DoD is too large and should get cut by at least 1/2. And I think taxes are too high and federal and state governments have grown far in excess of their constitutional boundaries. You may as well point out that I am a Jew.

    Don't you hate it when your assumptions are challenged?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Justin- Quit the ad hominems. If you have a problem with Professor Hale's assertion, rebut it factually and logically. Also, please note that I too think that RP is unelectable. Most people don't desire liberty or federal fiscal restraint, so it seems reasonable to conclude that the one candidate whose platform is liberty and federal fiscal restraint will likely lose.

    @Prof. Hale- If you don't mind me asking, how do your policies regarding the DoD (or, more generally, the military) differ from Ron Paul's?

    ReplyDelete
  7. He is a nutcase and I am not.

    No. Seriously, I am not aware that his opinion and mine differ in any substantial way. But as a 30 year insider in this business, I have a reason for what I am saying besides just "spending less" (which is itself a reasonable goal) or "hobbling Laviathan" (also not unreasonable).

    My opinion about reducing the size of the armed forces is based on spending years in the field of quantifying what the right size ought to be. I already know that the practices we use to determine force size, as well as the National Military Strategy, are fantasies with no analytically rational, legal or moral basis behind them.

    I think the force should get smaller because there is no rational basis for keeping them this big.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @prof. Hale- Basically, you have roughly the same policy, just different approaches. His stance is on philosophical grounds, yours is on pragmatic grounds. Interesting how those two approaches can lead to the same conclusion...

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am every bit as irritated with those people who think that any reduction of military size would be an invitation to China to Over-run California.

    We can still be internationally adventurous and empire building with a much smaller military.

    ReplyDelete