Yes - mostly by default though. My real belief is that Romney's not going to be the nominee. The basis of it is that neither Dems nor GOPers are excited to vote; only Tea Partiers are, and they are going to be the most powerful voting block here. This is the same phenomenon we saw in 2010, both in the general election and the GOP primaries. And the tea party *hates* the GOP establishment. All this griping by the professionals that Newt isn't qualified isn't going to resonate with that group. And Romney, whatever else anyone thinks about him, embodies the establishment. He just can't crack 30%. Ron Paul is going to take 10-15% of the vote. But at some point, someone else is going to consolidate a good chunk of the remaining 55%, and I think that person will be the nominee. At this point, I don't see any alternative out there besides Newt, so he gets it. He passes the basic intellectual test, and many angry GOPers *want* an angry, pissed off President, so that part actually appeals to them. That said, I don't think it's a love of Newt that's driving this - it's hatred for Romney. They won't do it, but I think a Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie could join the race tomorrow and be the front runner overnight.
At this point, my prediction would be: Iowa: Ron Paul (caucuses play to his followers), followed by Newt, then Romney. NH: Romney, Newt, Huntsman, Paul SC: Newt BIG over Romney FL: Newt, Romney And then Romney slowly fades away from there.
I still believe it will be anyone but Newt. Most likely Romney will take it; if not, a late entry. No way Newt will be allowed to win. In the contest to select a presidential nominee, the GOP establishment will not get rolled by Tea Partiers.
If Paul wins Iowa, I think he goes into NH with a lot of momentum and probably pushes Newt out of second there. Then Paul and Romney will have won one each and Newt will have been, at best, 2nd and 3rd. That would bring him into SC wounded and his margin of victory would be diminished. And all that together would do a real number on his mojo going into Florida. Rudy Giuliani can probably speak to this phenomenon more eloquently than I. That's all IF Paul wins Iowa. If Newt wins Iowa, he's the real frontrunner and it's hard to see how he loses the nomination short of a new entrant to the field. If Paul wins, I think Romney gets the gift of a lifetime and probably ekes it out in the end.
The GOP establishment has about as much power in this process as John Boehner does in the House. Which is to say very little.
I think Paul has his ceiling of supporters, though. The only reason he outperforms in my Iowa prediction is that caucuses play to his strength because his supporters will all show up. But I don't think anyone who is looking at Paul now is going to change away from him if he loses; and I don't think anyone not looking at Paul now is going to change to him because he wins. He doesn't strike me as "2nd" on anyone's ballot - he's either first or last. Any other candidate, I agree. But Paul just plays in a separate libertarian subset of the GOP that's about 10-15% and that's it.
I agree Paul's not too many people's second choice, but I believe NH allows independents to vote in the primary. If so, and if he's buoyed by an Iowa win, more non-GOP voters who consider him a first choice are likely to get out and vote. What happens in NH doesn't matter as much as Iowa though, right now at least. Iowa is critically important to Newt. Without it, he definitely has to wait for SC for a win and by then the whole narrative will have changed. And he's expected to win SC and win big so it doesn't help his momentum a lot to do so. And he can be hurt there by underperforming. I agree that Florida is his for the taking now but that may not be the case if he disappoints in the first three states (and anybody finishing within 5% of him in SC would be a major problem for him). I don't think it's really possible to predict that far down the line, because so many things can happen. But aside from the unpredictable future event that will almost happen and almost certainly change everything, it seems to me that a win in Iowa practically sews up the nomination for Gingrich while a loss there -- particularly to Paul -- almost puts him in mortal danger.
Also, though I won't predict a winner in Iowa with things being as volatile as they are now, Gingrich will almost certainly underperform his polling numbers largely because Paul will definitely outperform his. Paul's voters will all be out in force, no matter what the weather. They are true believers. No other candidate has that advantage; there is a huge enthusiasm gap between Paul voters and everybody else. If Gingrich is 10 points up, let's say in the final Des Moines Register poll, I'd say his chances are pretty good but not a safe bet. He needs to be up like 15 over Paul to feel good about his chances in the actual caucus. I'm also very eager to see fresh information on second choices in Iowa and how Gingrich is ranking there. Where are conservative supporters of Bachmann, Perry and Santorum breaking in precincts where there aren't enough of them to stick with their first choice? Each campaign will pass down a strategy in case of not meeting the threshold, who to caucus for instead. Will it be to support the most like-minded candidate in Gingrich or to try to stop the Newt-train, without doing long-term damage, by maybe throwing the race to Paul? I love caucuses. So full of variables. They're a political junkie's playground.
It's also a national disgrace that caucuses in a piddling state like Iowa are so influential in choosing our president.
You have lots of faith in this so-called "GOP establishment" - who is this exactly? This isn't 1996. There are aren't any more Bob Doles or George Bush, pere, running around; there's basically no more adults in the room. That's how you get horrible self-destructive things like the idiotic debt limit struggle, or why the bar for "ideas" is so low that Gabe from the Office is hailed as hero for saying he can balance the budget with just a few simple tax cuts for the rich, or how people like that O'donnell woman in Delaware or confederate-Jim Crow sympathizer Rand Paul or that moron from Nevada as candidates. The tea party morons rolled them in 2008 with Palin -> they rolled them in the last election with the goofball senate & house candidates, why can't they do it again exactly?
Excellent point on NH allowed independents to vote. Liberal GOPers are the ones most supportive of Paul in various polls, so it could attract independents, that could throw a new wrench into things as well. It would be hilarious to see the GOP establishment react if Ron Paul wins both Iowa and NH! I have to admit, my thinking seems to be outdated within days. I feel like a 2nd place showing for Newt in Iowa is good enough for him, but his polling is so strong there now that what would have been great a week or two ago now would be a disappointment. I'm just glad we're almost to the caucuses so we can get some actual votes on record. On a side note, I looked at the polling back in 2008 and Ron Paul basically performed exactly to his polling (10%) in Iowa last time. I find that surprisingly, but maybe it has do to with losing people at the threshold levels, etc.
Did you know that 8.6% is actually HIGHER than 8.8% and, in some cases, higher than 9.0%? It's true! ...seriously, what would be Fox's motive in doing this?
Well duh, that motive is easy. Trying to make the chart look worse so it looks worse on Obama. I get that. What I don't get is what the motive would be to replace Romney's picture with Obama. You think Fox has an agenda to hurt Romney?
Misrepresentations by a national news broadcaster as egregious as this should be illegal or at least warrant a FCC fine or reprimand.
