E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Could Mitt Romney become the first non-incumbent Republican presidential candidate to win in both Iowa and New Hampshire? After all, what happens in the Hawkeye State doesn't always follow in the Granite State...
NBC's deputy political director Mark Murray has a closer look at the N.H. primary.
Produced by NBC's John Bailey.
Leave a Comment:
Can someone help me out here?
In 2008 didn't then Senator Obama, head into NH with a double digit lead over Hillary?
One thing about NH voters, they usually hand us a January 'surprise'...
It wasn't double digits. Polls in NH were beginning to show Obama leading Clinton -- and expanding his lead -- but they turned out to be wrong. And Obama never had the lead that Romney currently enjoys
If Weathervane doesn't win this one, then who? If he doesn't carry this state than how's his Yankee ass going to carry SC? Just a thought.
Thanks Mark!
Sometimes, 4 years feels like a lifetime in politics! ;o)
I have no doubt Willard will win, the more interesting story line is who takes the 'silver'...
LoL Do you anticipate that someone is going to cry, Feisty?
Because otherwise, I wouldn't count on it.
I hear Santorum can't even buy any ads because he got into the picture too late.
I just gave birth ... cute ain't they.
Vick's Vapor Rub - a little dab will do ya! ☺
Thank you Glen Beck!
I hope they take after their mothers side of the family! lol
They are named NoJo and NoNo and write in tongues.
OMG!!!!!!! FIRST READ actually posted a factoid, with prostituting itself to Obama!
Way to go Mark, you're making progress!
Next, how about some coverage of Obama's connections to Tony Rezko, and William Ayers, and some coverage of the no-bid contract(s), that Obama was instrumental in awarding, which spurred fellow Democrat Claire McCaskill to call for a congressional investigation?
But do we know Romney actually won the Iowa Caucus? If a candidate won elected office by eight votes, you can be sure there's be a recount. Don't they usually find a box of ballots in a closet?
ideologyspoilstheview - TOO FUNNY! Your "children" are adorable.
Mark---my Steelers sure missed Casey Hampton last night!!
By the way; I meant to say "without prostituting itself to Obama."
Unfortunately, Until the Republicans, any of them, show real support for women and minorities in their ranks they aren't going to be any better off than they were in the previous election. Moreover, some of the more religious oriented ones should have a greater appreciation for the fact that we live in a pluralistic society. I do not relish the thought of another four years with Obama. Just may not vote at all, and be proud of it!
Hmmm...why the shot of KERRY and EDWARDS?...
Insinuating that Mitt is the Republican version of KERRY?
Because the rules for amassing delegates has changed, the significance of simply WINNING has been diminished, it's how many delegates, not finishing first.
...and lost in all noise about Sarah Palin being unqualified for VP is the fact that John "SLIMEBALL" Edwards ran for the same office.
Tell me again which party has the worst candidates?
Basically ALL politicians of all parties Alan, because SLIMEBALL knows no party, ideology or POLITICS...
No, I have to say alan has you on THIS one, Dangerfield.
Part of the reason Obama got the nomination in '08' was the hatchet job he, and John Edwards did to Hillary during the Philadelphia debate in late 2007.
I wonder how that would have affected the nomination if Democratic primary voters would have known what Edawards was doing on the campaign trail, while his wife was home dying of cancer.
Edwards was/is, and will always BE a SCUMBAG.....(and he endorsed OBAMA!)
The question was "which party has the worst candidates"?
I was a supporter and fundraiser for Hillary, so despite your lingering personal animosity towards the despicable and odious John Edwards, an animosity that I share, he is just one SLIMEBALL in a galaxy of slimeballs from every end of the political spectrum who have been candidates for our highest office.
The one thing that TRULY is bipartisan is SCANDAL and CORRUPTION...
Corruption is rampant in both parties. However, stupidity and extremism are premium credentials in the current Republican field. Can you imagine a Bill Clinton or a John Kennedy dissecting these specimens in a debate? Romney is not stupid, but he played stupid in not remembering Griswold v. Connecticut on Saturday night. Republicans never want to seem the least intellectual or even specifically informed. They would rather rattle a saber about going back into Iraq, like Perry has been doing. Let's spend all of our blood and treasure. Let's invade Iraq and Iran now. Let's keep the defense budget as if we were still fighting everywhere. Yeah, that's the ticket.
MY take is that there is no lack of corruption either side of the fence....but the Dems are at least willing to do something for the people, the GOP takes the money and runs.....
The Democrats have had proportional allocation of delegates for those getting more than 15%. The Republicans, until this year, had winner take all. (To see how strange that is - the count on election night would have given Romney all the Iowa delegates - if the claim that there was a 20 vote error in Romney's favor is true and there were no other errors, they all would have gone to Santorum.)
As to why Kerry and Edwards, that was the last election against an incumbent President. However, as Edwards was in a two way tie for third, it might have been better to show Kerry vs Dean.
As to the mapping of Kerry to Romney, it is ignoring basic differences - while noticing obvious similarities - ie tall, good hair, MA, elite background. The differences are that Kerry was not the expected frontrunner for the previous year, nor was the media calling him the candidate most likely to defeat Bush, when he was mentioned, it was usually in the context of when he would drop out. After Kerry's Iowa win - done without being the media or party favorite, but with retail politics, there was no Anybody but Kerry movement. The reason for that is that Kerry was in the Democratic wing of the Democratic party and strongly supported by Kennedy - he was not on the Centrist edge of the party - as Gephardt, Lieberman and Edwards were. Romney's past has many seeing him on the extreme centrist edge of their party which is exactly what leads to a Anyboby but ... movement.
Another difference is that in a field of about the same size, Kerry got 38% of the vote - a very compelling win. Romney got 8 votes more than Santorum.
Another observation is how the media is handling Romney potentially winning NH - with Tsongus and Dukakis - it was assumed that they would win - as they were from the neighboring state. 2004 was different only because both Vermont and Massachusetts border NH. It was important to Kerry that he defeat Dean, but it was not until he won 5 of the 7 contests in the fisst multistate day - those states were not states that should be won by a New Englander. (DE, SC, ND, NM,AZ, MO,OK). Look back and you will find many articles hyping John Edwards immediately after NH. The media seemed to hope that - like 1992, the Southern "charmer" would win those states and gain the momentum. (Dean actually seemed to have gambled that would happen - so he skipped those states to concentrate on the next batch of claims.)
The Democrats have had proportional allocation of delegates for those getting more than 15%. The Republicans, until this year, had winner take all. (To see how strange that is - the count on election night would have given Romney all the Iowa delegates - if the claim that there was a 20 vote error in Romney's favor is true and there were no other errors, they all would have gone to Santorum.)
As to why Kerry and Edwards, that was the last election against an incumbent President. However, as Edwards was in a two way tie for third, it might have been better to show Kerry vs Dean.
As to the mapping of Kerry to Romney, it is ignoring basic differences - while noticing obvious similarities - ie tall, good hair, MA, elite background. The differences are that Kerry was not the expected frontrunner for the previous year, nor was the media calling him the candidate most likely to defeat Bush, when he was mentioned, it was usually in the context of when he would drop out. After Kerry's Iowa win - done without being the media or party favorite, but with retail politics, there was no Anybody but Kerry movement. The reason for that is that Kerry was in the Democratic wing of the Democratic party and strongly supported by Kennedy - he was not on the Centrist edge of the party - as Gephardt, Lieberman and Edwards were. Romney's past has many seeing him on the extreme centrist edge of their party which is exactly what leads to a Anyboby but ... movement.
Another difference is that in a field of about the same size, Kerry got 38% of the vote - a very compelling win. Romney got 8 votes more than Santorum.
Another observation is how the media is handling Romney potentially winning NH - with Tsongus and Dukakis - it was assumed that they would win - as they were from the neighboring state. 2004 was different only because both Vermont and Massachusetts border NH. It was important to Kerry that he defeat Dean, but it was not until he won 5 of the 7 contests in the fisst multistate day - those states were not states that should be won by a New Englander. (DE, SC, ND, NM,AZ, MO,OK). Look back and you will find many articles hyping John Edwards immediately after NH. The media seemed to hope that - like 1992, the Southern "charmer" would win those states and gain the momentum. (Dean actually seemed to have gambled that would happen - so he skipped those states to concentrate on the next batch of claims.)
Isn't it about time for ANOTHER Huntsman thread?...
It's hard to say nice things all day about someone.
They were going to write another Huntsman thread, but no one was around to translate the Mandarin. (Which, I admire the heck out of the fact he can speak).
Ideology,
Cute kids. Reminds me of someone...................
Kudos to the residents of places like Dixville Notch and Hart's Location who will once again go "old school" and gather at midnight tonight to cast their ballots in the primary.
Yes, it does appear that Romney will be the first GOPer to accomplish a win in both Iowa and New Hampshire. But let's look at what he is up against....Newt Gingrich, the self-absorbed, self-promoting adulterer who was removed by his own party for wrong doing as Speaker of the House. Then we have Ron Paul, a man whose ideas aren't likely to make it through Congress because they are so bizaar that if implemented would make the US look like Somolia. Of course who could forget nutty Rick Perry who finally remembered three things and who's been stepping in it during the entire campaign. Texans cheer that he is not in their state while he is on the road campaigning. Rick Santorum is just sleezy looking and seems to have that Cheney-like sneer on his face as he spouts extremist doctrine and teapublican blather. Finally we have the only one of the remaining six that has any sense of reality and that is Huntsman. Unfortunately he got started too late and isn't all that well known to make enough of an impact that would knock Romney off the first place pedestal. Huntsman seems uncomfortable and seems to have to defend himself for having worked as part of the Obama Administration claiming that he was serving his country and one who does so shouldn't ask which party holds the White House.
Romney will win NH and SC and then roll on as one-by-one the others fall by the wayside with each successive caucus and primary.
LoL Your reference to Texans being happy while Perry being on the road campaigning just gave me a wicked thought.
What if we made Congress part-time, as Perry proposes? Then, not only would they have to work less, they would have a lot more time to get out on the road and raise campaign money. Campaigns would become even MORE expensive, and with the new soft hours and easy working conditions, Congress would fight even harder to hold on to their seats so they can bravely defend your right as a citizen not to have any rights if you don't want to, and to work hard at saving American jobs.
There's a lot of golf courses in the DC area to support, after all.
I wonder if they've thought it through yet. Don't worry. They will.
Baldeagle:
I agree with almost all of your specifics, but not your general assessment. There is still a sentiment out there that Romney just won't do. The Republicans want a fight on taxes and social issues. The primary voters don't want somebody who will govern; they want a political bomb thrower. Whichever arch conservative survives through Florida will make Romney sweat until the convention. He will probably win, but he is going to have to bow down to the kooks. And I think his vague answers and outright refusals to answer debate questions are getting old. Santorum is more the heart and soul of the new GOP.
The Republican primaries are no longer "winner take all".
This fact may litter Mitt's road to the nomination with at least TWO very large obstacles...
Rep.Paul has MONEY and about 10-20% support of Republicans/Conservatives/Independents that he can count on in almost every contest.
If Romney fails to score decisive victories in SC and Fla., one of the current "real" Conservatives, or "Anti-Romneys (Newton, Santorum. Perry(?)) will STAY in the race as the "alternative" have funds, and garner 20-30% of the vote and DELEGATES...
Mitt Romney will probably win the majority of the upcoming contests, but will fail to top whatever "benchmark" (50%? 60%?) the MSM sets for his "inevitability" and may potentially go to the convention with less than the 1144 delegates needed.
The fact that Rep. Paul has a dedicated following and a healthy campaign war chest, and no expressed desire to run as a Libertarian alternative, or drop out and endorse ANY of his rivals, would indicate that he will amass and leverage his delegates at the Republican Convention.
If one candidate becomes the Conservative alternative to Mitt, and the anti-Romney vote (and MONEY) coalesces around that candidate, they (and 15-30% of the delegates) may also make it through the primary process to the convention.
The combination of the change from "winner-take-all", and the current fractious internal party dynamic makes for a potentially fascinating next few months...
dangerfield,
If several of the "conservative" candidates drop out, do you think the right that does not favor Romney will rally around the remaining candidate?
Better to ask someone who is supporting one of those candidates than someone without a dog in the fight like me, but the tone of the Conservative media right now says "yes", but as "politics makes strange bedfellows", that could change in a heartbeat...
The weaknesses of Mitt Romney and his record are finally being exploited by his Republican opponents. Romney is poised for a big win in New Hampshire, and is likely to win the nomination outright, but he has become damaged goods as far as the general election and matching up with President Obama. There are a litany of serious questions about Mitt's character, his honesty, his qualifications for the job, and his record of killing jobs to make himself a fat profit. Romney is winning the GOP fight, but appears to be losing the overall war for the White House.
I think it's amazing the Republicans are going to choose a Bain Capital executive, who made his fortune flipping businesses, and whom the federal government had to bail out a pension fund he decimated, in the same year of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Great timing, that.
Breaking News!
Sources close to the Romney campaign have confirmed that when Mr. Romney is elected President his first order of business will be issuing an executive order declaring all Corporations to have "special" citizenship rights, Mr. Romney when asked why responded: "Since the Supreme Court ruled that Corporations are indeed people then how the hell can people also be people, it just doesn't add up", he went on to say: "No longer can Americans expect that just because they are born human they are people, no way, if Americans want the same respect afforded Corporations then just like those Corporations they will be required to buy it, the more you spend the more respect and power you get, it's the God Dam# American way, the America I love and helped create". Mitt 2012. Film at eleven.
Gee----Never thought of it that it that way but maybe willard is right.
Why no mention of g dubya bush in the republican debates?
If they mentioned Bush it would tip voters off to what their future under Republicans would look like. For example, we haven't invaded Iran yet or deregulated Wall Street for a second time.
Why not Newt? Even though Newt is a greed driven, immoral, lying, elitist, backstabbing, cheating, corrupt, pompous, arrogant, war-mongering, out of touch, un-trustworthy, egotistical, racist, gas bag with mole like facial features, he still shines compared to Romney, just say'in.
w bush,
wow, the kool aid is strong today.
You have all those names for Newt, a man who works with Al Sharpton to bring a better education system to the poorest kids in the poorest neighborhoods??
People like you are either liars or you just don't know what the he$% you are talking about. Which is it??
The manufacturer of Depends has just endorsed David Vitter and Ron Paul as their preffered candidates on the GOP ticket. Will this have any affect on the senior and racist vote?