Election 2012: On to a Bloodbath in South Carolina

 After the American Century

Romney managed to get 39% of the votes in New Hampshire, a little less than expected but a decent showing. Ron Paul increased his percentage to almost 23%, however, and Huntsman showed that all his hard campaigning in the state paid off, with just shy of 17%. That left Gingrich and Santorum in a dead heat for fourth (and fifth) place with a bit over 9% each. The divided opposition favors Romney. Indeed, it would probably we worthwhile for him to pay some of these candidates to stay in the race, to prevent anyone from getting close to challenging him. What New Hampshire also sugggests is that these voters wanted moderates (Romney and Huntsman) who got 56% of the vote, while the more extreme candidates amassed only 44%.

Now that the New Hampshire results are in, we can look forward to glory combat in South Carolina. This is not going to be nearly so friendly to Romney as New Hampshire. Look for some hard-hitting campaign ads that focus on Romney, who will be attacked by all the other candidates, who are chasing him like a pack of hounds, and they getting more vicious the longer the hunt continues. This may be their last chance to bring him down. for if Romney wins all of the first three contests, the battle will really be over.

In particular, watch Newt Gingrich. He has received $5 million from a single donor, a rich Jewish casino owner from Las Vegas. He and Newt agree on Israel and the need to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. He is reportedly an extremely wealthy man, so one wonders why he waited so long to make the giant contribution. Gingrich has been almost running on empty (in financial terms) for some time. He has also been running empty of new ideas, which is no problem given his opposition. Newt is preparing some strong attack ads that apparently will position him as the populist defender of the little guy against the ruthless and heartless Romney from Bain Capital. Romney was expecting such an attack, but in the fall, coming from the Democrats.

Instead, however, the attack has surfaced now, particularly in a 28 minute film, "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" which can be seen here:

http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/

Governor Perry has also bought lots of airtime, and he has been showing just what a good ole Southern boy he is, skipping the New Hampshire cold to cozy up to like-minded folks in the cradle of the Confederacy. South Carolina is still proud that it led some other states out of the union and into the Civil War. This is the sort of place where they kept flying the Confederate flag on courthouses until quite recently and were angry when pressured to take it down. In short, good Southern credentials are essential here, and Romney will never have them.

Nikki Haley, Governor of South Carolina, is only 39. She has endorsed Romney

Expect Romney to appeal to his core constituency, the bankers, who are think on the ground in Charleston and other cities, and the retirees from the North. who are baking on the beach at Hilton Head. Otherwise, he has the endorsement of Nikki Haley, the attractive young governor (above) who was elected with Tea Party support. At 39 and part Native American, she is breaks the stodgy Republican mould. He will have to leave the rural and small town voters to Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry.

Huntsman is reinvigorated after his strong finish in New Hampshire, but he will be out of his element. Being a Mormon from Utah who speaks Mandarin Chinese is not what South Carolinians are looking for in a politician. In many ways, he is but another version of Romney - rich Mormon, former Governor, non-Southern. Perhaps he should be dubbed "Romney-light." I think he is positioning himself for 2016, should the Republicans lose in 2012.

Ron Paul will presumably keep working the universities and colleges, which pays a double dividend, not only recruting voters but campaign workers as well. He should find South Carolina congenial. They will doubtless respect a doctor from Texas who wants to make the Federal Government weaker. That sounds like a Confederate policy position. However, Paul has had a problem attracting women voters so far, and this may be decisive if a close race develops.

Right now, however, Romney has the organization, and he certainly has the money, needed to roll over his opponents.  South Carolina is his crucial test of electability in the South. If he fails that test, then Republicans will rightly fear that he cannot beat President Obama, and the other candidates will have the chance to discredit him further in the Florida primary.

Obama Breaks Through, Again

After the American Century

Today Barack Obama won a stunning victory in South Carolina, crushing the Clintons with more than double the vote that Bill and Hillary could scrape together. With 55% of the vote, this was the first time any candidate from either party won an absolute majority. Clinton, with only 27%, lost by far more than Obama did in Nevada or New Hampshire, where he trailed by only a few percentage points. As Obama pointed out to a delirious crowd in his victory speech, taking all four primaries together, he has won the most votes and the most delegates. Poor John Edwards was unable even to come in second in the state of his birth, and one might assume he will give up now. But his concession speech said nothing of the kind. He will go on campaigning at least through February 5.

Interestingly, the only group that Edwards won over were white men. If they had been the only ones allowed to vote, then he would have won. But since 1920 women have been voting, of course. And if only white women had been voting, then Hillary would have won. Logically, then it might seem that Obama won because of the Black vote. He did - more than 80%. But one cannot get 56% of the vote with only African-American support. Many Whites had to vote for him too, and this is in South Carolina, where they still fly the Confederate Flag.

Obama gave a powerful victory speech that showed far more than his great rhetorical skills. He presented his victory and his campaign as the expression of the desire for change, and not as a triumph of any single group or faction. He only referred obliquely to the way the Clinton's had campaigned, no doubt content that yesterday the New York Times already criticized them in an editorial. However, the same editorial contained that newspaper's endorsement of Hillary, on the grounds that she has the most experience.

So they have fallen for this rather bogus argument. Bogus because the President does not sit there by himself but with a team of advisors. The question is not "Which candidate locked in solitary confinement could the best decisions?" It is rather, "Which candidate is likely to put together a fine team, and have the values and the character needed to listen to and adjudicate and do what is best for the country?" I am not going to listen to the New York Times. It is my view that Obama is the best leader and that he would make the best president. Clinton has much the same policies, but she does not have the intensity and the vision that Obama has. He has charisma, she does not. Ultimately, I fear she does not have a unifying impulse, but a divisive one. I doubt that she can transcend the bitter partisanship of the past that marked the eight Clinton years. Even if she wants to have a unifying administration, many Republicans hate her, and to elect her is to begin with partisanship and doubt that it can be overcome. With her and Bill Clinton in the White House again, the United States could easily sink back into the divisions and gridlock that have made legislation difficult. I think Obama has a better chance to bring new ideas into practice.

Carolyn Kennedy, daughter of President Jack Kennedy, has written an article that will appear in the New York Times tomorrow. She is endorsing Obama, saying that he is the first politician who inspires her the way her father inspired Americans in 1960. Think about what that endorsement suggests.