How to Vote (If You Must)

Yes, I am on record as having arrived at the conclusion that voting changes not much at all and nothing for the better.

But I'm also aware that some of my readers disagree, and that they will, after some ritualistic hand-wringing, choose to once again reprise their participation in the perennial performances of Democracy®.

OK, fine ... but if you're going to do that, please do it right. Vote for what you want, not just against what you fear.

The Republicans are already playing that tedious old game again -- "a vote for anyone but X is a vote for Y" -- with respect to both their primaries ("a vote for anyone but Gingrich is a vote for Romney") and the general election ("a vote for anyone other than the GOP nominee is a vote for Obama").

Horseapples.

It does not follow from your friend's insistence that Candidate X is better than Candidate Y, that your vote for Candidate Z helps Y at the expense of X. Your vote doesn't belong to any of those candidates, nor does it belong to your friend. It belongs to you, and it is owed to no one.

There's a very good chance that Mitt Romney will receive the Republican presidential nomination this year, even though he has yet to demonstrate the support of more than 40% of his party -- and that much only in his de facto home state.

In South Carolina, somewhere in the neighborhood of 2/3 to 3/4 of the Republican primary electorate wants no part of Romney.

I've suggested jokingly (mainly because this is a meaningless horse race to me), and others seriously (mainly because they've hypnotized themselves with that "Obama's is the most left-wing administration EVAH and the NUMBER ONE PRIORITY is to get rid of him" crap) that Rick Santorum and/or Rick Perry and/or Newt Gingrich should drop out and unify behind one of the three to swamp Romney.

But why should they?

And why should any voter engage in the same calculus?

If you really think that Rick Santorum is Da Bomb ... well, okay, you should probably seek psychiatric treatment ... but you probably think so for specific reasons, and don't believe that Perry or Gingrich measure up to those reasons any better than Romney does.

Compromising in support of the "lesser evil" -- voting for someone you despise just because that candidate's supporters claim you should despise him less than a common opponent -- gains you nothing. It merely sets you up for more demands to continue doing so in perpetuity. The people who make such demands never reciprocate. It's all downhill from the first surrender. Ron Paul's main strength is that his supporters understand that, deep down in their guts where it counts.

Ditto in the general election. If R. Lee Wrights, or whomever Americans Elect saddles up, are more to your liking than the major party horses, why should you sacrifice your values in order to ensure victory for the "possibly slightly less objectionable" Republican or Democrat?

The only way (if there is any way) to get what you actually want in electoral politics is to vote for it, not against the least nauseating alternative to it. Sure, you may not win this time, but if you surrender this time the demands will just be more strident, and the alternatives you're presented with more nauseating, next time.

It's Way Too Early to Say I Told You So ...

... but instead of getting a New Hampshire bump, Mitt Romney's taking a South Carolina dump.
Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr
The first post-Granite-State-primary poll [PDF] in South Carolina shows Romney tumbling seven points from his pre-New-Hampshire 30%, to 23.1%. I don't see a margin of error listed, but it looks like Newt Gingrich would be well within said margin at 21.3% (not because he's gaining -- he isn't -- but because Romney's nosediving).

In freefall instead of rising the day after his second putative victory in this race, and the target is on nobody's back but his for the next eight days. The Republican Establishment is trying to gin up a "backlash" on the Bain attacks, but that would at best likely be a holding action. Things aren't looking very good for Mitt.

Absent some kind of game-changer, I (still) expect Gingrich to at least de facto tie Romney in South Carolina, and possibly beat him; to knock him on his ass in Florida after Perry and possibly Santorum drop out; and to romp on Super Tuesday.

Update, 01/13/12: Just got a campaign email from Newt.

Subject line? "Poll: Newt surging in SC -- we can still stop Romney."

First graf: "The InsiderAdvantage poll of South Carolina likely Republican primary voters shows Newt Gingrich surging, coming within a statistical tie of Mitt Romney."

Like I said above, yes, Gingrich is probably within the margin of error ... but it's not due to a Newt "surge." The last pre-New-Hampshire poll, by PPP, had Gingrich at 23%. He's not gaining ground on Romney, Romney's losing voters to Santorum and Perry. Here's the South Carolina poll track at Real Clear Politics.

Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things -- whatever gets him even with or ahead of Romney will do, and of course a purported surge is better advertising than "sittin' here, watching my opponent fall past me." But it's our job to notice what's really what. We are, after all, professionals.

Related articles

• Romney looks forward to South Carolina (Emily Goodin/Ballot Box) (memeorandum.com)
• Two Newts emerge in South Carolina to take down Mitt Romney (guardian.co.uk)
• Mitt Romney's New Hampshire primary speech (TEXT) (Felicia Sonmez/Reuters) (memeorandum.com)
• Rick Santorum Adds Staff, Offices, Money and Key Endorsement in South Carolina (theothermccain.com)
• Newt Gingrich hits Mitt Romney on abortion in South Carolina ad (Rachel Weiner/Washington Post) (memeorandum.com)
• Coming Soon: The Second Ascent of Newt Gingrich (knappster.blogspot.com)
• Newt the Inevitable (knappster.blogspot.com)

Desultory In-Progress Debate Notes

9:01pm Central Time: Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ ... there are "major party" presidential candidates running on a platform of sending troops back into Iraq?


9:05pm: Obama wrapped up Iraq on the Bush timetable. He "surged" Afghanistan, amped up the drone war in Pakistan, launched a renewed covert war in Somalia, honchoed the takedown of bin Laden ... there's just no way to get around his "national security" flank from the hawk direction. But a bunch of these bozos are trying. As usual, the only one talking a lick of sense on foreign policy is Ron Paul.

9:07pm: Santorum notices that the Iranian people think America is cool -- then says what we need to do is keep trying to change that. Because the best way to overthrow an unfriendly regime is to do everything you can to keep its popular support level at the highest level possible.

9:13pm: Riffing on break commentary -- 53% of Americans support ending marriage apartheid. Republican candidates: "Fuck'em."

9:15pm: Newt Gingrich thinks that every issue is a "very big, very important topic." Ask him about his bunions and he'll roll out a plan for massive revisioning of NIH.

9:17pm: Mitt wants to get rid of all the "loopholes and deductions" that keep the poor politicians so destitute. Santorum wants to get rid of all the deductions except the ones that are actually there, so that it can be 1955 in Pennsylvania's factories again.

9:20pm: Mitt and taxes, sittin' in a tree ... Says we're "inches from not being a free economy any more." Because, you know, back in the days of Nixon's wage and price controls, things were so much freer.

9:21pm: Oh, shit, Paul's giving an economics lecture. Everything he's saying is absolutely right. He also sounds like he's about to scream "get off my lawn!" at any second.

9:23pm: That one guy from Texas, the other one, Rick somethin' or other, is flapping his gums. He's got the whole "get off my lawn" tone thing going, too. Someone plug in the shrill-meter.

9:24pm: Huntsman's glad someone's actually letting him speak this time. Mitt's rambling. He seems very much off his game tonight. He's worried he'll fall below 40% next Tuesday. He's right to be worried.

9:27pm: Newt thinks that Obama is a radical European socialist now. Quite a transformation from Kenyan anti-colonialist, huh? But now he's trying to make Romney into Obama, and I admit Romney looks more like Switzerland than Swaziland. Santorum looks ... lost.

9:28pm: Santorum will "use the language of bringing people together." As long as they're heterosexual and there's no contraception involved, of course.

9:30pm: Anonymous is ... China.

9:35pm: Huntsman: A trade war is a bad idea. Mitt: China will swerve first.

My partial impression (I came in way late): So far I'd say that Huntsman is picking up some points (that break into Chinese was gold), Santorum and Romney are cratering, Newt and Paul are holding their own, and Perry should have gone ahead and dropped out last Tuesday.

OK, wow, it's over. Or are there closing statements still to come? If that's it, I'm thinking the bloom came off Santorum's rose in a pretty big way already, but that the big loser was Romney. He sounded shrill and defensive, the whole time I was watching. Yes, it's over. Talking heads now. Buh bye.

Coming Soon: The Second Ascent of Newt Gingrich

This looks like it was captured with a webcam in front of a TV set or something, but it was the only YouTube clip I could find of the scene I want to use to set up this post:



The situation isn't precisely analogous, but it's a good start. The thing to take away from it is that Mitt Romney can't win the New Hampshire primary next week. By "can't win," I mean that even the most crushing victory there will get him a yawn, but failing to pull away from the pack will just highlight his vulnerability.

As I noted in my Iowa wrap-up last night, Romney is the wounded gazelle. He entered this presidential race as the presumptive GOP frontrunner, and after six years of campaigning in Iowa, he "won" that state's caucus -- if the returns from Iowa really are finally final -- by a whopping eight votes, polling almost exactly as well in first place this year as he did in second place four years ago.

There's a smidgen of a chance that he'll take his big fall in New Hampshire: Instead of romping, or even credibly edging out his opponents, ending up in a three-way dogpile like he just did with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul in Iowa. If that happens, Newt Gingrich is more likely than Santorum to be the third guy in the mix.

The more likely scenario is that he ekes out a barely credible New Hampshire victory (anything less than 40%), then comes to grief in South Carolina (I know just the town for his primary night party there).

Who's going to bring him to a halt in South Carolina?

I know a lot of my readers want very much for Ron Paul to win the GOP presidential nomination. Sorry, I still don't see it happening. Like it or not, the bulk of Republicans still aren't with him on foreign policy, and the social conservatives don't trust his "states' rights" approach to issues they agree with him on. He does best in smaller states where a grass roots ground game and dedicated activist base pump him up versus turnout ... and even in those states, he's not winning outright. He's not going to win South Carolina. He's not going to win Florida. Dream of a deep enough split to get to a brokered convention if you want, but he's certainly not going to arrive in Tampa Bay with a majority of delegates.

Rick Santorum ran a hell of a campaign in Iowa (contrary to the claims of some Paulistinians who are screaming "fraud!"). He spent most of his time there, and most of his money there. He visited all 99 counties, and he had 250 volunteer county and precinct workers. And as a 100% Catholic candidate, he had the advantage of an electorate that's 23% Catholic. South Carolina is 7% Catholic. Absent a miracle of some sort, it's all downhill from here for Santorum. He doesn't have the money to buy South Carolina, and he doesn't have time to build the kind of ground game there that he ran in Iowa.

Michele Bachmann "suspended" her campaign about the time I started writing this post, and after her Iowa finish she didn't have the gas to get to South Carolina in fighting shape anyway.

It looks like Rick Perry's still in, but he's run a lackluster campaign so far, so much so that the pundit buzz continues to be that he's just basically burning money to make work for a raft of consultants who weren't able to get on payroll with other campaigns.

I'm not ready to write Perry off completely just yet, but the "Mitt is too moderate but I can't stomach Paul" vote is about to start coalescing either around Perry or around Gingrich, and Gingrich has the advantage.

The next two big primaries are in South Carolina and Florida, southern states adjacent to Gingrich's native Georgia. If he shuts Perry down there, it's going to be tough for the Texan to catch a break -- next comes the Nevada caucus, where Romney and Paul (and maybe Jon Huntsman, if he's still playing at this) will suck any anti-Gingrich air out of Perry's efforts.

By Super Tuesday, I expect the three remaining candidates who remain in the contest in anything but name to be Gingrich, Romney and Paul, with Gingrich in a clear lead for the nomination.

Iowa Caucus Predictions: Hot Washup

Well, there you have it: My caucus predictions were off in key respects.

I got the top three (Santorum, Romney, Paul) right, but not in the right order, or within 3 percentage points of each candidate's actual performance. It looks at the moment like I just about pegged Gingrich and Perry, and gave Bachmann and Huntsman more than their due (I did get everything below the top three in the right order as well).

Tonight's big winner, of course, is Rick Santorum. Last time I looked, he was five votes ahead of Mitt Romney. Even if that changes, and even if he ends up technically placing second, he radically outperformed the expectations, as of a month ago, of all but his most devoted supporters.

Ron Paul's a winner in an important sense too. He held the lead at one point, he carried 17 of Iowa's 99 counties (the same number of counties as Mitt Romney), he finished in the top tier, he outperformed his 2008 run, and he did it all in a record high turnout caucus in good weather (both of those factors tend to diminish the "my supporters are dedicated activists" advantage). His campaign and his supporters will be nearly as energized by this outcome as they would have been by a win, and he may be able to manage it again, or even move up a notch to second place, in New Hampshire.

The huge loser -- even if he makes good that five-vote difference and technically beats Santorum -- is Mitt Romney. He's been campaigning in Iowa for six years, he's been the presumptive national front-runner thus far ... and yet he wasn't able to improve on his 2008 Iowa performance as a percentage of the vote. He is a limping gazelle, and there are lions waiting to take him down for good in South Carolina.

The 25-delegate question, of course, is which lion will gorge on him. I've got some thoughts on that (okay, okay, it's Gingrich) but they'll wait for another post.

Iowa Caucus Predictions

Because it would just be chicken to wait until any closer to make them.

My predictions:

Paul -- 24%
Santorum -- 22%
Romney -- 20%
Gingrich -- 13%
Perry -- 9%
Bachmann -- 9%
Huntsman -- 3%

Plus or minus 1% on each, of course, with the minuses more likely toward the bottom half of the field.

The RealClearPolitics polling averages for the last 10 days show Mitt Romney and Ron Paul in tight -- within 1.1% of each other and closing in around 20% each -- and Paul gaining (with Rick Santorum surging up toward them). That can only be bad news for Romney.

The caucus rules for Republicans aren't as beneficial toward "activist-enthusing" candidates as the Democratic rules are (I thought they were, but Jake Porter corrected me on that awhile back), but it's still not just "walk up and fill out a ballot." You have to listen to some speechifying, etc. before voting. That benefits Paul (and Santorum) as well. Their supporters would walk six miles in the snow, uphill both ways, then wait in line for a month, to support them. A large portion of the Romney crowd will have trouble deciding whether to spend the evening at home with some popcorn, watching Lifetime^® movies or hang out for more than 20 minutes or so for their guy.

Unfortunately for Paul and Santorum, it's not supposed to snow in Iowa on Tuesday. Matter of fact, after starting cold in the morning, it's supposed to pop above freezing for awhile. That reduces the "my supporters are like those bare-chested, purple-painted guys you see at every one of their teams' football games, even the exhibition games in Angkor Wat" advantage some, but doesn't eliminate it.

Of course, I could have this all wrong. It's happened before. The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that Mitt Romney isn't going to come out of Iowa with anything that looks like a convincing victory. And hell, I could be wrong about that too.

Addendum: Could anyone have possibly predicted the "Santorum surge" a month ago? No? Actually, The Other McCain did ... and he's a little miffed that nobody writing about it now is acknowledging that. Thought I'd mention it both by way of "credit where credit is due" and because at my level of blog traffic a link back here from there is a sort of scale model "Instalanche" (which I like to encourage).

Why I don't feel sorry for Perry, Gingrich et. al

Before 1884 in the United States, voting systems ran the gamut from the "oral ballot" -- you went to the polling, told the officials for whom you wished to vote and yes or no on any questions, and they added your preferences to a tally -- to paper ballots printed by the candidates and parties, or written out in longhand by the voter.

Between 1884 and 1891, the states each adopted the "Australian" ballot -- a standardized form printed by the government.

The ostensible purpose for this change was confidentiality, but the real effect was to finally and permanently cement the power of the Republican and Democratic parties -- for with government printing of ballots came "ballot access" requirements.

In some states, it's as simple as "non-Republicans/Democrats need not apply." It's harder for a "third party" to get on the ballot in Oklahoma than it is for a secularist party to get on the ballot in Iran, and for the same reason. In other states, filing fees and/or petition signatures are required (in some cases for everyone, in others only for "third" parties).

Like pretty much every form of government regulation, these requirements raise the cost of entry into the regulated field: The golden-haired boys of the major party Establishments have little trouble covering the costs (if they're even required to) from their deep, special-interest-funded campaign treasuries, but new parties and underdog primary candidates are forced to spend their much of their time and campaign money just getting their names on those government-printed pieces of paper before they can ever turn to actually campaigning for office.

So when I hear that Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum just got bit on the ass by the same rules designed to spare them genuine opposition in their past congressional and gubernatorial outings, not even the world's smallest violin is small enough to register the smallness of my sympathy for them.

Note: If you're interested in ballot access news, then you should be reading Ballot Access News. The only reason I link to CBS above is that BAN has separate stories on each of the Virginia fiascoes, and I wanted a catch-all (I suspect BAN publisher Richard Winger will do one at some point).

Bit'o'Liveblog: GOP debate

Coming in a little late as usual.

8:58 -- They're taking a break and I'm packing it in. This one is like watching paint dry.

Favorite SCOTUS justices: Santorum -- Thomas; Perry -- Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia; Gingrich -- Scalia, but the other three Santorum named as well; Paul -- All good, all bad; Bachmann -- Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito; Huntsman -- Roberts and Alito. Did they skip Romney?

8:55 -- Romney appointed 3/4 Democrats to bench as governor, why should GOP trust him? Romney says appointments had to be approved by a Democrat council, but he picked good nominees.

8:53 -- If judge misbehaves, impeach him, but questions subpoenaing judges to "explain" themselves. Maybe not such a good idea to abolish a bunch of courts.

8:52 -- Bachmann: Real issue is whether or not courts follow Constitution. What we need to do about it is have president and Congress take authority back. Court system isn't final arbiter of law. Praises Iowa for removing judges who uphold Constitution and abolish marriage apartheid.

8:49 -- Gingrich wants to subpoena judges to explain decisions they make, and impeach them if the decisions were bad? Gingrich: "Damn straight." People who disagree with the promotional flag pledge crafted by a socialist flag salesman and modified by mossback religionists hate America.

Switching to the judiciary.

Liveblog -- GOP debate

Just quick takes:

Michele Bachmann suggests that what we really need to do is raise taxes on 47% of Americans.

Mitt Romney is all about plans. Obama doesn't plan enough.

Rick Santorum: I'm all for tax cuts, but not for the peasants.

Ron Paul: If you want to save Social Security, stop spending money on everything else.

Q: "Who is the most consistent conservative candidate?" Mitt Romney says he understands meritocracy, while Newt wants to mine minerals on the moon. And because he's been in the private sector, he understands that central planning works.

Oh, snap! Gingrich to Romney: "The only reason you didn't become a career politician is you lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994." Gets big applause for defending letting young people work.

Paul and Bachmann take Gingrich down a few notches on Freddie Mac.

Bachmann says she's the real consistent conservative because she's spent 50 years in the private sector (doing tax law and collecting farm subsidies).

Bachmann accuses Romney of being the only governor who put socialized medicine into place. Apparently she was too busy in the private sector to notice Howard Dean.

Bachmann: "Newt Romney," evil twins.

Gingrich to Bachmann: You're lying about me. I opposed cap and trade, I opposed ObamaCare, I wasn't a lobbyist.

Romney: "I know Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich is a friend of mine. But Newt and I aren't clones."

Perry. Sorry, I can't seem to stay awake when Perry talks.

Hate to say it, but Bachmann's winning this debate. She's making Romney and Gingrich look like chumps, and she's keeping Santorum from getting much of a word in edgewise.

Santorum compliments Bachmann on fighting the good fight and losing, claims he fought and won. Bachmann rebuts that she was in the GOP minority, Santorum had a majority to work with.

Diane Sawyer says hey, we need to go by the rules here. I don't think George Stephanopoulos has said a word yet.

At the commercial break, I read Bachmann as pretty much romping. She's got Romney and Gingrich on the defensive. I was hearing that this debate would be Santorum's showcase, and he's not doing too badly, but Bachmann's on a rampage and taking scalps.

OK, we're back and George is now talking. Q: Should voters consider marital fidelity an issue?

Perry: His vow to his wife and to God is even stronger than a handshake in Texas.

Santorum: Character counts, but people make mistakes and it's not the only thing to worry about. More accommodating line than I expected from him.

Paul: Important, but not something we should have to talk about. Gets on a pretty good roll about the oath of office.

Romney: I've got core values to keep us from becoming a Greece or Italy. Because Mussolini didn't know how to make the trains run on time, but I do.

Bachmann: "The measure of a man or woman" is what the founders emphasized. She's a Christian, proud of it, may even be a virgin.

Gingrich: It's a real issue. People have the right to ask any question to decide if they trust. I've made mistakes, I've had to go to God for forgiveness. But I'm a 68-year-old grandfather and I hope people will look at who I am now.

Immigration. We know you all want to secure the borders, but the question is what to do about the 11 million immigrants who are here without some politicians' permission.

Gingrich: Local boards should decide who gets to stay based on whether they're an honest, valuable part of the community. But I still want a police state and to conscript employers as unpaid ICE agents.

Romney: Not for amnesty. Any kind of amnesty encourages people going places without my permission.

Perry: Enforce the laws already on the books (except for the Constitution, which makes all federal immigration laws void, of course). Opposes Obama's "catch and release" method (never mind that Obama has deported nearly as many in three years as Bush did in eight).

Q: Gingrich called the Palestinians an "invented people." Do you agree?

Paul: Disagrees. Opposes intervention, but believes we should re-write history to make Arab "Palestinians" exist as a group before 1948 because it's the diplomatic thing to do. Or something like that.

Gingrich: "Is what I said factually correct? Is it historically true? Yes." And doesn't care if the Arab "leaders" are mad about it because they're terrorists anyway. "Enough lying about the Middle East."

Romney: Agrees with most of what Newt says except for Palestinians being an invented people. We shouldn't get ahead of Israel or try to set their positions for them. Obama, despite the fact that he takes exactly the same line as every president since Reagan, is anti-Israel.

Gingrich: This is a propaganda war in which the Arabs are lying and we need to stand for the truth.

Romney: We shouldn't speak for Israel.

Gingrich: I'm not speaking for Israel, I'm speaking as an historian.

Bachmann's no longer controlling the floor. She needs to get back in there or lose what she gained in the first segment.

Gingrich: "I am a Reaganite. I am proud to be a Reaganite. I will tell the truth ..."

Bachmann: I went to Israel in 1974 and worked on a kibbutz. Been to Israel as a congresswoman. Talked with Fayed, asked him why they teach children hatred of Jews, he says they don't do it. I pulled out pages showing it. That's what needs to change.

Santorum: You have to speak the truth, but you have to do it prudently. We have an ally, Mitt is right, we should be working with them, not saying inflammatory stuff. Then says West Bank is Israeli land.

Perry: This is a minor issue. Obama has a muddled foreign policy. Now Iran has one of our drones. Completely incoherent, but gets big applause.

Q: Last time one of you had a personal financial strain that forced you to cut back -- hold your answers for commercial break.

Back.

Perry: Grew up without running water until I was five, home-sewn clothes until college. Didn't have much, but never felt like I gave anything up. I know there are people suffering, that's why we need to get the economy running again.

Romney: I didn't grow up poor. But I grew up with a dad who had been poor and wanted me to understand hard work. Had jobs when I was growing up, served my church, worked with people who were struggling. I'm in this race not because I grew up without means, but because I understand what it takes to fix things.

Paul: Raised during Depression, but didn't really know I was poor. My wife worked to get me through medical school. Middle class is suffering because of monetary policy that transfers their wealth to the upper class. Got to stop overspending, overborrowing, printing too much money.

Santorum: Grew up in modest home but had my needs met. Family makes the difference, sense of security. Family breakdown is behind economic status breakdown. Promote marriage (for heterosexuals).

Bachmann: Opposed bailout for troubled banks while troubled homeowners got evicted. Privatized profit, socialized risk. I took on Paulson, I took on the president. My folks got divorced with four kids, we went to below poverty, I went to work at 13. I know what it's like to struggle. We still clip coupons and go to thrift stores today.

Gingrich: Grew up in an apartment over a gas station, dad was a soldier. Frugal but not desperate. I have relatives who have been out of work. Callista and I have a small business and we know how difficult it is.

Q for Gingrich and Romney: Yahoo! audience wants you to tell us more about your past support for healthcare mandates. Romney, you encouraged other states to try it like you did in Massachusetts. Gingrich, what changed your mind?

Romney: States can do what they want. That's federalism. My plan was for my state, other states should do whatever they think is best for them. ObamaCare's federal mandate is BS.

Gingrich: Unconstitutional. Tenth Amendment. Been working on health issues since 1974, been trying to find a way to break out of failed third party payment model. We need to fundamentally rethink entire health system along lines suggested by Santorum, doctor-patient, not insurance company.

Q: Heard pharmacists talking about unhealthy habits. Anything government should do?

Paul: No. Government is a referee to keep people from hurting other people. If it's trying to protect you from yourself, you're in trouble (big applause). Why should we have a candidate who has to keep explaining himself on healthcare. Government is force, and once it molds behavior/economy, it violates whole concept of revolution/Constitution.

Perry: Agrees with Paul about federal government, but states should be able to jab 12-year-old girls with STD vaccines whether their parents like it or not.

Commercial break. If you're not liking my takes, you can find others at Memeorandum.

Q: Tell us one thing you've learned from another candidate on stage.

Santorum: When I was first running for office, I listened to Newt Gingrich's tapes. He taught me how to be a conservative.

Perry: Congressman Paul got me intrigued about the Federal Reserve.

Romney: Everyone here exhibits different qualities of leadership. Every time I come to a debate, all the signs I see outside are Ron Paul signs, he enthuses people. Now let's talk about me for awhile.

Gingrich: Two people, one onstage, one not. Governor Terry Bransted, because he's like me, left government, came back. Rick Perry got me engaged on 10th Amendment. Rick Santorum's consistency and courage on Iran will be what makes us survive if we do.

Paul: Appreciates Perry for coming his way on the Fed. We shouldn't be fighting among ourselves if we just follow the Constitution.

Bachmann: Herman Cain showed us power of being plain-spoken and simplistic. I'm the proven consistent conservative.

The end.

Instant Evaluation: Bachmann won the debate in general, and may pull up past Santorum for the caucus because of it, but Gingrich won by not losing. Nobody got a real mitt (pun intended) on him. He's probably still the frontrunner. Biggest loser was Romney. He's just not convincing.

Why Gingrich's Immigration Statement was a Smart Move

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich gestures while speaking at the First Coast Tea Party town hall meeting at Jacksonville Landing in Jacksonville, Florida November 17, 2011. REUTERS/Daron Dean (UNITED STATES - Tags: ELECTIONS POLITICS)

I don't agree with former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich on immigration -- hey, I'm an anarchist and he's still far too hung up on an issue that even the extremely statist US Constitution explicitly bars the federal government from any involvement in.

But: The polls say that majorities agree with him on, and sympathize with immigrants on, most of the positions he articulated in Tuesday's Republican presidential debate.

And the ones that don't have majority support at least have plurality support. Apply that to a multi-candidate race in which most of the candidates are going against those majorities and pluralities, and Gingrich is sitting pretty.

Republicans and Democrats alike have waited hand and foot on Know-Nothing voters for years now, giving them virtually everything they've demanded, from East German style border fences to attempted conscription of business owners as unpaid ICE agents ("E-Verify") to presidential sentence commutations for dirty cops who cover up attempted murder.

Hell, President Obama is on pace to deport more immigrants in his first term than George W. Bush did in his entire two-term administration.

The only two major-party presidential candidates who seem interested in the majorities and pluralities that favor moving away from totalitarianism and toward at least mild pro-freedom reform on the issue of immigration are Newt Gingrich and Texas governor Rick Perry, who has otherwise performed, to put it mildly, in a less than stellar manner.

Will the issue hurt or help Gingrich in the Iowa caucus? The conventional wisdom seems to be that it will hurt him. I suspect otherwise.

Iowa farmers and business owners are probably more likely than "man on the street" to actually show up on caucus day. They know that their enterprises' profitability depends to a non-trivial degree on the state's estimated 70,000 "illegal" immigrants. They've seen the devastating effects of Know-Nothingism on the economies of Arizona, Alabama and Georgia. And all things considered, they'd probably rather make money than lose money. Gingrich is probably picking up votes there.

Here's the debate segment:

Whodunit?

One of the fun parts of any political campaign scandal is trying to figure out who leaked the thing to the press.

Speculation over who leaked such details as we now know about Herman Cain's sexual harassment settlements as CEO of the National Restaurant Association seems to be centered around whether the leak came from the Romney campaign or the Perry campaign.

My guess -- and I think we'll know at some point whether I'm right -- is that it came from either the Bachmann campaign or ... the Cain campaign.

Here's my cui bono logic:

- Romney is running neck and neck with Cain in Iowa. If he was behind this, it would have come out right before the Iowa caucus, so that Cain wouldn't have time to respond, and so that former Cain supporters wouldn't have time to coalesce around another candidate. If this thing came from the Romney camp, it was a rogue supporter, not a campaign operation.

- Perry is intentionally and specifically dialing back expectations in Iowa. He's not a contender there, so he's writing it off and focusing on later states. The best outcome for him would be for Cain to go into Iowa strong and hurt Romney badly there. It makes no sense at all for this thing to be coming from the Perry campaign.

There are two candidates who stand to benefit most, and one who stands to be harmed least, by this thing happening when it happened.

Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul are both behind Romney and Cain in Iowa. This could help either or both of them, but if so, they need a few weeks to capitalize on it. In other words, the timing is perfect for them.

The whole thing isn't really Paul's style, but it is Bachmann's.

Iowa is, realistically, Bachmann's last stand. She romps there or she is out either that night or right after the New Hampshire primary. Paul's in it for the long haul regardless, because that's just how he rolls.

Finally, at least one DC lobby ("Concerned Women for America") that seems to be in the tank for Bachmann was primed and ready with pointed questions for Cain on the very evening the story broke.

Bachmann is the prime suspect. She has the most to gain, she's the most desperate to get back into contention, as a female she's best positioned to capitalize on allegations of another candidate's misogyny, and her backers seem to have been prepped to exploit.

The only other possibility I see is that the Cain campaign brought this thing out themselves. They knew it was going to come out some time in the next 12 months, and this was the least bad time for it to do so -- with their man on top and with several weeks to do damage control before the Iowa caucus. Better now than on the Friday before Super Tuesday, or on the last Friday in October 2012.

Perry sets up his Iowa excuse

Fox headline:

Perry Disses Ethanol in Iowa, Says Feds Shouldn't Pick Energy Winners and Losers

This doesn't really seem that headline-worthy. It's not like it's a new Perry position. He's always been against subsidies for anything except Texas's cash crop, oil. He made an issue of ethanol in 2008, and he stood by his position (in at least a half-assed way) during the period around his presidential announcement and the Ames Straw Poll.

But, says the Fox story, "Perry brought up ethanol during a jobs forum in Pella in response to a question about whether wind energy subsidies should continue." (emphasis mine).

So what this really amounts to is that he's trying to dial back expectations in Iowa, where he's already trailing badly in the polls and probably doesn't have time to catch up (even if time was the only thing he needed to catch up). He'll start shifting campaign resources out of the state (if he hasn't already), then try to write a poor showing in the Iowa caucus off to "they didn't like what I said about ethanol" and see if he can make his stand with a credible second in New Hampshire and some wins after that.

Election 2012: GOP Handicapping Update

Yes, it's been many moons since I did one of these, but it's finally starting to get interesting from a horse-race perspective. Hell, the last time I handicapped the 2012 GOP nomination, most of the candidates weren't even formally declared yet (and they still may not be).

After Thursday's debate, a lot of conservative pundits seem to be re-considering whether or not Texas governor Rick Perry is "front-runner material" -- just as I'm starting to think he is, and that there may even be a path to victory over Obama next November for him.

Yes, he stumbled and mumbled a bit, blowing a chance to really stick it to Mitt Romney on the "flip-flop" issue.

But he also separated himself from the rest of the "top tier," and in a Reaganesque way (and tactically, possibly in a "plurality for me, majority split amongst the rest of you" way), on immigration.

That's his path to victory over Obama: Relentlessly positive, visionary Ronald Reagan "Morning in America 1980 redux." And that seems to be the kind of campaign he's trying to get going.

Whether that approach can get him the nomination or not is another question, of course. But who are the other realistic choices?

Right now I'd say the "top tier" is Perry, Romney and -- can you believe you're actually hearing this from me? -- US Representative Ron Paul.

Paul has garnered more support this time around, and what support he has seems solid. I'm still not seeing any sign that he's about to break away from the pack, but hey, I guess it could happen.

Romney seems to always be in the top three for the nomination, but the simple fact is he has about as much chance of beating Obama next November as I have of winning the Boston Marathon. He's too much like Obama to energize the GOP base (who want something very different from Obama), or to court the center (in centrist versus centrist, the incumbent centrist has a definite advantage with the center).

Absent some kind of unpredictable Ron Paul surge that I still just don't expect to see, Perry versus Romney is shaping up as Ronald Reagan 1980 versus Bob Dole 1996. There's not only one way that can end, but there's only one way it can end that gives the GOP a reasonable shot at the White House.

If Perry sticks to his guns on immigration, a Rick Perry/Marco Rubio ticket might put the hispanic vote into play, and even possibly make the GOP competitive in Florida, where "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" probably costs them 10% right off the top.

Or how about Perry and a northeastern Republican -- Chris Christie, John Sununu or Judd Gregg, perhaps? Christie might do a lot for the ticket not just in the northeast proper, but extending west into the Rust Belt -- maybe not Michigan so much, but Ohio and western Pennsylvania (remember those "Reagan Democrats" of yesteryear?). Longer shot, but given Obama's abysmal civil liberties record, Gregg or Sununu might pull some anti-Patriot Act, etc. votes from the center.

Anyway, it's not over 'til it's over, but my take right now is that Perry can stay out front and pull away if he plays his cards right; that Romney's in second and whether it's a close or distant second is up to Perry, not Romney; and that Paul is lurking in the tall grass and just might find a way to pounce, to unknown effect.

Election 2012: GOP Handicapping Update

Yeah, it's been awhile since I did one of these, but the Iowa straw poll results are too interesting not to do an update.

Random thoughts:

- I always expect Ron Paul to do well in events like this, where supporter enthusiasm and intense grassroots focus can make a big difference. I didn't expect him to come within 152 votes of winning it. In 2007, he came in a distant 5th place. This time he came in a close second -- and got more votes than the winner (Mitt Romney) did in 2007. I'm not a Paul supporter, but it's certainly an interesting datum.

- I'm well aware of the danger of writing a candidate off this early. Remember, I predicted John McCain as the 2008 GOP nominee in late May/early June of 2007, when everyone else was taking bets on when he'd shut down his campaign and bow out.

That said, I think Romney's done. He's not in the same position as McCain was in mid-2007 -- apparently on his last legs. He's been the presumptive front-runner for months now ... and the old "I'm not going to actively campaign for the Ames vote" gambit just doesn't cover 7th place, 3.4%, 9/10ths of a percent behind write-in candidate Rick Perry, behind Herman Cain, behind Rick Santorum, behind Tim Pawlenty.

A day or so ago -- before the poll began, anyway -- I commented over at Eric "Master Shake" Dondero's site that if this was a keno slip, the four names I'd pick to end up on the 2008 GOP ticket were Bachmann, Perry, Romney and Cain, with Cain the only one not having a real shot at the top slot but a good shot at veep.

Now I'm down to three spots. Romney isn't going to be the presidential nominee, nor is he likely to want to be vice-president, nor is he the kind of candidate you pick for vice-president anyway. He isn't needed to carry Utah, nor can he be expected to roll New England into the Republican camp. Cain, on the other hand, would bring business acumen to the ticket, is from the all-important south, and yes, might put the black vote in play.

Things can always change, but for now at least I'm calling it a Bachmann-Perry contest for the nomination. And no, I'm just not seeing either one of them beating Obama. But like I said, things can always change.