Definitive GOP debate analysis, as usual.
First, Michele Bachmann was the main LOSER. She simply does not perceive her problem correctly, Her problem is NOT to ATTACK hker opponents. Her problem is to SHOW that she can EFECTDIVELY atttack Barack Obama. No, Michele, it is not enough to say that you have consistently opposed what Barack Obama has done. Everyone knows that. Yur challenge is to show that you can effectively make the CASE against Barack Obama. You canmpt dp tjat bu ATTACLOMG MEWT GINGRICH. Bad strategy. Very bad--indeed fatal-debate for Michele Bachmann.
RickPerry wn the debate, partly because he has set the bar so low for himself, as far as expectationis, in previous debates. Nevertheless, Perry was surprisingly good. No, he is nover going to be a SMOOTH debatgeer. But the SUBSTANCE of his answers wsa the best tonight, and his STYLE was light years ahead of his previous debates. It waw his best debate by far, following a good performance in his last debate. He is PEAKING at the right time. Gus abswer ib hydges was rught ib, This blog has long advocated a TERM LIMIT for ALL policy making Federal positions, including Congress AND the Federal courts (excepting on ly keeping the 8 year term limit for the President). Perry was good on everfy answer tonight, even includng the illegal immigration isssue. If Perry hasd been this good all along, I mightg have even considered supporting him (although never enthusiasttically--I know him too well here in Texas).
Newt Gingrich was really god on the energy and the Keystone pipeline, just as the GOP leadership if Congresss BETRAYED conseraties by failing to call President Obama's bluff (BLACKMAIL bluff)) on shutting down the government. Buyt Gingrich was NOT as good as Romney tonight. One issue killed Gingrich. Gingrich's SUPPORT (not a typo) of "government sponered entities" was FATAL. And Gingrich's comparison wof Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with credit uninos if ABSURD. No real conservative can support a FEDERAL entity which is a TAXPAYER GUARANTEED ENTITY--which is what the disgracefil hybrids known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were. No excuse for them, and Gingrich could argue for a thousand years and not convince anyne that "government sponsered entities" of THIS TYPE are a good idea. Gingrich tried a SCAM--a logical fallacy--of equating government ENCOURAGED entites, like credit unions, with government CONTGROLLED entites like Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac (with taxpayers on the hook for the "hybrid' entities that are neither government nor turly private). Sorry Newt, no cigar. And you LOST this debate to Romney, although you had many good moments--as, once again, theGOP candidates showed that they are LERNING each week. Again, this was the BEST GOP performance, overall, which represents the second straight week that was true.
Romney did much better He was solid, and even had some vey good liines ATTACKING OBAMA (Bachmann could have leaned from omney on this). Romney was especially good in saying tghat Obama would be right about America being a nation which could not longer lead the world, if OBMAA is Prfesident; but aht this would not be true if ROMNEY were President. A solid performance, but one which did nto really change Romneyh's image as the poster child for an "establishment" candidate.
Rick Santorum was good, but somewhat uninspiring--sort of the sotory of his candidacy, after a much better prerformance last debate (as is true of Bachmann, although Santorum was much beteter than Bachmann). With Santroum, it may be a case of just not getting enough opportunity.Maybe he is doing better in talking to peole IN IOWA, but that seems to be doubtful. Santorum remains perhaps my very favorite candidate ON POLICY, but he is jsut not getting sufficient traction.
Joh Hnntsman is a dead candidate walking, and not impressive.
Ron Paul is Ron Paul, but every time he opens his mouth on foreign policy like Iran), he shows that he is NUTS. On domestic policy, Pual is as good as they come (if the ONLY person I have ever seeen who would dismantelole MORE of teh FederalGovernment than I would) , But Paul is irrationallklyl isolationist on foreign policy, to the extent of BLAMING the United Sates for 9/11 (because we had no business provoking them with our interventin in the Middle East). I would votre for Ron Paul, wiht eyes open, IF he were to become the GOP nominiee. But the fact is that he has no chance.
By the way, did you know that the winner in Iowa DOES NOT MATTER? The corrupt media, including the unfair and unbalanced network, will not tell you this. But it is true. Ron Paul could actually iwin Ioa. So waht. It will mean nothing in the overall nomination process. Romney will win New Hampshir, almsot no matter what. ALL Iowa may do is force a FEW candidates out of the race. But it may not even do that, if the vote is SPLIT enogh. Have you ntocied that this blog told you FIRST that there is a possibility of a DEADLOCKED convention? Now it is all over the media. It is unlikeyl thqat the GOP race will be decided until at least April, because of the revised GOP "proportonal representation" ule for statres voting berfore April 1. Note that this blog talkked about the POSSIBILKITY of a deadlocked conventin BEFFORE Herman Cain was forced out of the race. If Cain were still in the race, a deadlocked convention would be even more of a possibility. Still, Gingrich might be able to stay competitive. Romney will keep his 20 to 25 percent, unless the othe candidates implode. Paul will be at f10 to 15 percent. PERRY might yet get to that same 15 percent level. Notice that adding all of those up does not even come close to 100%. Thaqt meanst hat MAYBE Romney, or Gingrich, can start picking up the remaining votes. OR, the votes might be SPLIT. And maybe Santorum, Bachman, and even Huntasman can stay in the race so long as there is no clear winner emerging.
The likelihood is that a winner will emerge after April 1. Before April 1, it is fairly likely that no one will really put the race away. The other candidates will have to imolode. Once you start having "winner take all" primaries after April 1, it is POSSIBLE that a winner will quickly emerge. However, if the candidates start SPLITTING votes, and state victories, it is still possible a winner will not emerge. Note that PEWRRY is probably the key her.e. I dont' see there being a deadlocked convention unless Perry can stay in until the end, with at least 15% oft eh votre (and some state victories, especaily in the South).
As stated, a definitive analysis, as usual, wihout even a mentino of eivl and meaningless polls. Again, even Iowa is pretty much likely to be MEANINGLESS, in terms of "deciding" the final nominee. The most that Iowa can do is KNOWCK OUT a candidate or two.
Will it even matter? There is word of yet another BETRAYL by GOP members of Congress on a "deal" letting the President get away with BLACKMAIL on thretening a "governmentg shut down". The "deal" just AGAIN uts off any ral GOP attempt to force energy development, reduce the deficit, reduce spending, or other wise stand up for consrvatiave principles. Sad. You can expect articles in the next few days abaout DEFEATING THEM ALL (all members of the GOP i Congress). And this blog has already said that I will not support Romney or Gingrich agaist Obama, and probably not Rick Perry. No, I will never vote for Obama, but I tookk the same position on McCain, and stuck to it. Iwas right. It would be a DISASTER if JohnMcCain were President.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).