The first primary in the nation concluded 24 hours ago, and with no surprise, Mitt Romney came out on top. It was projected that he would win by a large margin since New Hampshire is next door to his home state where he served as Governor. Ron Paul, continuing his strong showing, came in second, with Jon Huntsman coming in third. Huntsman placed the foundation of his campaign on the New Hampshire primary, choosing to ignore the Iowa Caucus last week. With securing 17% of the vote (and earning 2 delegates), he feels that he’s in a good position to carry his campaign to South Carolina.
|Christopher V. Hill||108||0.04%||0|
|Michael J. Meehan||49||0.02%||0|
|L. John Davis, Jr.||15||0.01%||0|
|James A. Vestermark||4||0.00%||0|
Notes on the results:
Drop outs – None of the first and second tier candidates have hinted at dropping out of the race before the South Carolina primary.
Mitt Romney – Romney became the first non-incumbent Republican candidate to win both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Buddy Roemer – While not in the second tier, he continues to lead the rest of the lower-tier candidates.
Rick Perry – Perry came in “last” of the top two-tier candidates. He chose not to be active in the New Hampshire primary, instead of focusing his attention on the South Carolina primary instead.
Taxes, Stupidity, and Death: The first, and greatest opportunity that this presidential election has provided the GOP field is the opportunity to offer a stark and clear alternative to the reigning Democratic philosophy that, if carried to its logical conclusion, can only make us either vassals or wards of a bankrupt state. As conservatives, we know where the path we are on will take us. We can point to evidence of this now in the results of government “compassion”. We are smart enough to illustrate that the “poor” are the biggest victims of the government’s help without making them the villans. And yet, what are we doing? Standing by, watching people who have let their own egos blind them to this simple, powerful truth, as they prove themselves unworthy, or more ambitious than focused on what really matters. What do I mean? I’m glad you asked.
Some election cycles, the various parties will have their top two-tiers populated by candidates that the voters do not find competent or genuine. It could be due to the lack of being able to convey their message, or they have a political history that spans three decades and full of things that aren’t popular today. Or maybe they are stuck in the lower tiers and can’t break through the media ceiling because they lack the ego (aka “passion”) to do whatever it takes to be the President. Whatever the reason, voters are often forced to pass on voting for a candidate that matches their ideals and choose the one that can best win the election.
(The article is well written, and goes down the list of the top-tiered candidates explaining why they do or do not like them and worth the few minutes to read.)
Cmblakes6′s Weblog: And if he actually plays the game like he spoke the speech, I think I can like this guy! [The] only problem is his moderately waffled history. I guess he’s played the game how he had to play it to ride where he rode, but it does make one nervous about commiting, you know?
This ties in with what I noted on the article by “Taxes, Stupidity, and Death”. With a long political history, you’re going to find things you don’t like about a candidate. Sometimes, the culture has changed over the decades, and what was good back then is bad now. Other times, the candidate has had a change of stance due to personal convictions. And then sometimes the candidate has danced the “political jig” so many times to remain in office that you’ve grown dizzy by watching them.
Connecting.the.Dots: After all the demographic slicing and dicing, the final primary figures disclose one New Hampshire result pundits are ignoring: The only two candidates who unequivocally want to take us of out of Afghanistan and most of the Middle East muddle now, Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, together received 39.8 percent of the vote to Mitt Romney’s 39.6 percent.
That is an interesting analysis. The author goes on to say how New Hampshire voters were more focused on the economy than leaving the Middle East, so the 39.8% and 39.6% do not reflect the actual sentiment on our nations current wars. But, if the topic does turn in this direction at some point in the campaign, it will be interesting to see if the authors analysis is given weight if Paul/Huntsman’s vote totals continue to rise.
Questions and Observations: So, like it or not, Romney appears headed toward the nomination at this time. Watch for Gingrich to remain to the bitter end and be much more destructive to the GOP’s chances than the Obama campaign ever will be. Obama, after all, has to run on his poor record which means the campaign has to be careful about what issues they raise and what they don’t want raised. Gingrich is the Attila the Hun of politics, with no such limits and no qualms about pulling out all the stops even if his effort is doomed. As I said once before, it was only a matter of time until “bad Newt” showed up, and he’s here.
Romney has done a good job in this election cycle to frame himself as the presumptive nominee – even before any votes were cast. Because of this, he has gained a lot of media attention and financing, though it hasn’t come without a price. The criticism against him by his own party-mates is harsh, but I think it will be the impression of how well he should do in each primary/caucus that can hurt him more. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said today that Romney “came out of this primary now as a wounded candidate” because he didn’t break 40% in the vote totals. Should he have done better in such a crowded campaign field?