Don't leave us Newt!

As a Democrat, I of course am rooting for the optimum amount of chaos and confusion in the Republican primary nomination process. Many Democrats believe (rightly I suspect), that Rick Santorum is the more easily defeated candidate in the Republican field, and as such, are rooting for Newt Gingrich to drop out so it can be (essentially) a two-way race between the bat-shit crazy Rick Santorum and the gaffe-prone, flip-flopping plutocrat, Mitt Romney. They believe (somewhat rightly, somewhat wrongly), that Gingrich's removal would consolidate the conservative voting bloc into a Rick Santorum Voltron that could possibly dethrone the presumptive nominee Mitt Romney. The press has embraced this theory as well. As such, the conventional wisdom has emerged that Santorum needs Gingrich to drop out in order to win the nomination. This, in a word, is wrong.

Why is this so wrong? Well, when the media covers presidential races, they like to cover and create stories (narratives), not report mathematical realities. This is why the media pretended that Hillary Clinton could win the Democratic nomination in 2008 WELL WELL WELL after the race was mathematically conclusive. I mean, these people have newspapers to promote, or blogs to pimp, or commercials on shitty cable television shows to sell. Conflict sells. Inevitability does not.

What does the math tell us in this case? Well, Santorum can't win enough delegates to take the nomination outright. Period. Even if Gingrich dropped out, and Santorum gained every single Gingrich voter (a HIGHLY dubious assertion), Santorum could not win enough of the remaining delegates needed to win the nomination. As it stands, Santorum would have to win 69% of the remaining delegates to reach the magical 1,144 needed to secure the nomination. Romney needs to win 48%. Latest polls show that, at a minimum, roughly a quarter of Newt supporters would jump to Romney. Without full-fledged Gingrich supporter backing, there is no logistical way Santorum wins 69% of the remaining delegates.

No, the best route to the nomination for Santorum (his only route to the nomination), is to prevent Romney from receiving 48% of the remaining delegates and then taking it to a brokered convention, where conservatives can finally coalesce around their conservative lunatic of choice. And the best way to prevent Romney from winning 48% of the remaining delegates is to field as many viable candidates as possible - that includes Gingrich and the increasingly irrelevant (though in our scenario, relevant) Ron Paul. [Ironically, critics of Ron Paul have pointed out that Ron Paul appears to be acting in coordination with the Romney campaign, specifically citing Paul's track-record of attacking every single GOP candidate BUT Mitt Romney. In this case though, Paul's remaining in the race clearly hurts the Romney campaign].

Again, as somewhat who enjoys watching Republicans alienate as many voting groups as possible, I want the clown posse to keep the circus on tour. I mean, I know we say Republicans look out for rich, white men, but perhaps we can narrow that down even further. Maybe Santorum will call all rich West coast men dandies. Maybe Ron Paul will accuse all rich Northeastern men of being NAMBLA enablers. Maybe Newt will claim all white factory workers in unions in the Midwest are enthrall to a Jewish cabal. The sky is limit with these people! I say let's cut to the chase and winnow Republican voters down to its critical essence -  rich, white, racist Southerners!

So don't get anywhere Newt! Stick around Paul! The show's just getting started!

Newt

The persistence of Newt Gingrich in the Republican nomination battle has been a boon to Democrats. I mean, attacking Mitt Romney from the left! Wonderful! I'm not even sure the Obama administration would have had the balls to do this in the general election battle, but this opens that very door. Even Nate Silver, the world's best electoral analyst and most cynical Democrat, concedes that a capitalist critique from both the left and the right on Mitt Romney can give credibility to the charge and it could inflict long term damage to the Romney brand. Apropos of this observation, I stumbled upon this picture of Newt Gingrich.

Newt spends the holidays with a close relation.

This reminded me of the time I saw Newt Gingrich at the NYC Museum of Natural History near the dinosaur exhibit. This was funny because I would have just assumed that it was canon in Republican orthodoxy that dinosaurs never existed - or if they did, the skeletons should be staged in musuems fighting battles with Adam and Eve or being ridden like horses by Moses and Jesus. However, this wasn't the worst of it. Gingrich was actually waiting in line for the (fee additional) Darwin evolutionary exhibit! Does Gingrich believe in evolution? Apostasy! Perhaps instead he was there to point out the theory's inherent flaws to museum curators? I wanted to take a candid photo of him but it felt a little creepy. Alternatively, I was considering approaching the speaker and a) challenging him on evolution and global warming or b) cordially addressing him as Mr. Speaker and making small talk. You know, just to tell people I met Newt Gingrich. Instead I chose c) ignore him completely. That blowhard didn't need another person reinforcing his continued relevancy!

Also, too, I was probably just too intimidated to do either a) or b).

The triumph of Mitt Romney?

I have to say, the coverage of the Iowa caucuses has been pretty terrible. The conventional wisdom has been [re]emerging that Mitt Romney might just pull off a win in Iowa and then cruise to the nomination. This is because a) Newt appears to be in a free-fall and b) the racist and utterly insane Ron Paul newsletters seem to be undermining his support. Both of these things are probably true. But, trust me, Mitt Romney still won't win Iowa. Why? Because as every single article on the Iowa horserace fails to analyze, Iowa is a god damn caucus state. What does that mean? That means intensity of support is a HUGELY important variable. And Romney's support is not intense at all. The anti-Mormon, anti-Romney intensity is particularly acute when the caucus process is involved. Now, I personally despise the caucus process. It is intimidating, bullying, and anti-democratic. Even I won't stand up in front of a caucus delegation and make the case for my candidate and I have stood in front of 400 students talking about political science. Caucuses suck. But nevertheless, that is the process in Iowa. In a caucus, voter preference matters. And I guarantee you, the people in Iowa that don't like Mitt Romney, really don't like Mitt Romney. They will not rally to his cause once their preferred candidate is eliminated. Instead, they will gravitate to whichever "anti-Romney" candidate emerges within their particular caucus group. So while Romney might poll at 22% (or whatever it is now) in Iowa, it's a soft 22% and it probably won't translate in a strong showing in socially conservative Iowa. Now, this certainly doesn't mean Romney won't win the overall GOP nomination. I mean, McCain got slaughtered in Iowa and he rebounded. I just mean to say Romney will almost certainly lose Iowa and, call me crazy, but I still say Gingrich is the frontrunner there.