South Carolina Primary

Suryavarman

Today is the South Carolina Primary and polls close in a few minutes.

According to the last poll before voting from Public Policy Polling Gingrich was leading with 37%, Romney with 28%, Santorum with 16% and Paul with 14%.

American Research Group on the other hand had Gingrich with 40%, Romney with 26%, Paul with 18% and Santorum with 13%.

Personally I think American Research Group have the order correct although it will be interesting to see if Gingrich can pull off such a large victory.

I also think that Santorum will drop out of the race after this primary and endorse Gingrich.

To follow the results as they come in, check out Politico. Fox News is also covering it online.

timesnap

Gingrich has it in the bag,even allowing for margins of error in exit polls.

Suryavarman

timesnap wrote: »

Gingrich has it in the bag,even allowing for margins of error in exit polls.

That is beyond doubt and I'd imagine he has Florida as well.

kev9100

Romney has 29% CNN exit poll. That's horrific if you're the supposed front-runner. I'd love to know what some Romney supporters are thinking right now.

Suryavarman

First results are coming in, Gingrich is marginally ahead although there is only a couple of hundred votes counted.

kev9100 wrote: »

Romney has 29% CNN exit poll. That's horrific if you're the supposed front-runner. I'd love to know what some Romney supporters are thinking right now.

Any chance of a link?

People are dissatisfied with Romney as the leader though.

timesnap

Suryavarman wrote: »

That is beyond doubt and I'd imagine he has Florida as well.

Oh no Florida could upset FOX and leave people hanging by their chits!:D

kev9100

Suryavarman wrote: »

Any chance of a link?

I'm watching CNN, that's where I got it from. I'm sure they have their poll on their website if you want to take a look at it.

timesnap

Well CNN are calling it for Newt without reservation now.

Ironic that it was the CNN anchor along with Perry pulling out that turned Gingrich into a rotweiler towards the host of the debate when it was suggested that he wanted an open relationship with his wife.

Suryavarman

Here is the CBS exit poll.

Silvio.Dante

38% to 36% for Newt... He owes CNN's Debate moderator a cigar after tonight...:)

http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2012/south-carolina/republican/primary/

timesnap

Anybody care to guess how further this will go after Florida?

What about Super-tuesday, will it go beyond then?

timesnap

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

38% to 36% for Newt... He owes CNN's Debate moderator a cigar after tonight...:)

http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2012/south-carolina/republican/primary/

it was really funny watching the debate live,when it was over his fellow CNN panel had to console him,despite his claim that it was 'the elephant in the room' he knew the Grinch had destroyed him.:)

Suryavarman

timesnap wrote: »

Anybody care to guess how further this will go after Florida?

What about Super-tuesday, will it go beyond then?

I'm thinking this will at least go to Texas (early April), if it is still close then, it will be a brokered convention.

kev9100

Suryavarman wrote: »

I'm thinking this will at least go to Texas (early April), if it is still close then, it will be a brokered convention.

My thoughts exactly. This could be the perfect storm for the dems with the GOP incapable of deciding a nominee before the convention.

timesnap

Paul coming behind Santorum bit of a surprise to me.

anybody care to figure what Santorum has going for him?

Suryavarman

timesnap wrote: »

Paul coming behind Santorum bit of a surprise to me.

anybody care to figure what Santorum has going for him?

The pro-life/pro-war paradox seems to be pretty popular among Republican voters.

timesnap

Suryavarman wrote: »

The pro-life/pro-war paradox seems to be pretty popular among Republican voters.

Not as much a paradox as it is to me Suryav, but i am very grateful to people who educate by their posts as well as just giving their personal beliefs

thank you.:)

InTheTrees

timesnap wrote: »

anybody care to figure what Santorum has going for him?

Its the south. Religion.

Even though santorum is a catholic which irks the southern white christian fundamentalists, he's more devout than Ron paul who is practically an anarchist.

Santorum wants to ban birth control he's so far out there, they must love him down south.

Memnoch

Suryavarman wrote: »

The pro-life/pro-war paradox seems to be pretty popular among Republican voters.

It's not actually that paradoxical. They are quite fanatical in their religious beliefs. And fanatical belief in religion is not that different to fanatical xenophobia.

Not that I think the prolife argument is without merit.

timesnap

Memnoch wrote: »

They are quite fanatical in their religious beliefs. And fanatical belief in religion is not that different to fanatical xenophobia

Agreed Memnoch but no person that declares themselves Agnostic/Atheist in the US would ever reach the WH.

in many ways American voters are left with poor choices in an election by their own set in stone beliefs.

it is a shame as it often not the best choice for the country and its future.

RichieC

Shocker.. Looks like Gingrich has it... "oh the surprise result- the Phoenix from the fire!!!" - really? because all Ive heard all week is that the state is majority baptist and they like the Grinch.

kmart6

As much and all as this is good for Gingrich, I think it's showing that Romney is still the strongest candidate! After him it's changing too much between the rest of them, need to find one main strong competitor or else they'll just take votes/primaries away from each other!

timesnap

RichieC wrote: »

Shocker.. Looks like Gingrich has it... "oh the surprise result- the Phoenix from the fire!!!" - really? because all Ive heard all week is that the state is majority baptist and they like the Grinch.

RichieC, Gingrich won the primary.
it was a free and fair election,what more can be asked of a democracy?
you do know he became a catholic?

He has just made his victory speech and looked totally exhausted,however he attacked Obamas policies not the man.

As someone who would only vote Democrat if i had the vote i dislike many of his policies and despite his apparent many turns about face, is it just possible that he has changed?

he was gracious towards his Republican rivals,again might he just have being speaking his truth, or being a cynic?

whoever emerges as the GOP candidate the Obama camp have to win the war of ideology.
if Gingrich continues along the same vein i would not be surprised if he beats Romney.

RichieC

Can't see that happening... He polls awfully nationally. I imagine democratic strategists are rubbing their hand with glee. And has he changed? this is the real world. no. he hasn't changed and never will.

timesnap

RichieC wrote: »

I imagine democratic strategists are rubbing their hand with glee.

For Obamas sake i hope they are not the same strategists that managed to be so arrogant they failed to replace Teddy Kennedys seat with a Democrat.:)

amacachi

timesnap wrote: »

For Obamas sake i hope they are not the same strategists that managed to be so arrogant they failed to replace Teddy Kennedys seat with a Democrat.:)

Gingrich has no chance among moderates and the young.

The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding. Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment's cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles. But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won't be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.

That'll be cropping up again if he gets near the nomination.

southsiderosie

RichieC wrote: »

Can't see that happening... He polls awfully nationally. I imagine democratic strategists are rubbing their hand with glee.

Yup.

timesnap wrote: »

For Obamas sake i hope they are not the same strategists that managed to be so arrogant they failed to replace Teddy Kennedys seat with a Democrat.:)

That was the fault of the Massachusetts Democratic party, which has an unfortunate habit of nominating horrible female candidates who don't connect with voters at all. Hell, that's how Mitt Romney won his seat as governor there ten years ago; the Dems here are lazy and arrogant as hell.

southsiderosie

kmart6 wrote: »

As much and all as this is good for Gingrich, I think it's showing that Romney is still the strongest candidate! After him it's changing too much between the rest of them, need to find one main strong competitor or else they'll just take votes/primaries away from each other!

How's that? Romney's vote share among Republicans has generally hovered in the mid 20s since he started running for president in 2008. People are just not that enthusiastic about him as a candidate, and even the millions of dollars he's spent have not made up the difference.

kmart6

General consensus here is the only Republican with any chance of defeating Obama is Romney, and even at that it'll be a stretch!

timesnap

amacachi wrote: »

Gingrich has no chance among moderates and the young.

amachi who knows who has a chance just yet? Gingrich was down and out less than a week ago,
may'be if he continues to just 'rage against the machine' it might win over people who want someone to stop being diplomatic and just get ANGRY!

Open your windows and shout "I'm as mad as hell and i am not going to take it anymore!"

Hell, that's how Mitt Romney won his seat as governor there ten years ago; the Dems here are lazy and arrogant as hell.

Romney won in Chicago posing as a Democrat Rosie?
i knew he was all things to all people.:)

New poll just out:

Romney has 43% of the national vote according to it.
no link, CNN just said so.
somebody on IRC chat called it the Communist News Network Lol.

politics is very important to our lives but it can also be a great spectator sport at times

kmart6

You say it's a spectator sport, but all of this that will go on for the next few months just to determine the Republican candidate is such a waste of money! Heard a figure last week that to run ads in Florida it will cost $5m+ a week! That's just a ridiculous waste of money for them to bitch about each other and broadcast ads people flick off when they see them!

timesnap

kmart6 wrote: »

You say it's a spectator sport, but all of this that will go on for the next few months just to determine the Republican candidate is such a waste of money! Heard a figure last week that to run ads in Florida it will cost $5m+ a week! That's just a ridiculous waste of money for them to bitch about each other and broadcast ads people flick off when they see them!

Some parts of politics like elections are like the Superbowel to those who follow it.

the money it all costs and how many candidates that prevents from running for POTUS is wrong i agree.

i suppose when a really rich and moral person wins the Presidency the world will have found god.:)

southsiderosie

timesnap wrote: »

amachi who knows who has a chance just yet? Gingrich was down and out less than a week ago,
may'be if he continues to just 'rage against the machine' it might win over people who want someone to stop being diplomatic and just get ANGRY!

Open your windows and shout "I'm as mad as hell and i am not going to take it anymore!"

Romney won in Chicago posing as a Democrat Rosie?
i knew he was all things to all people.:)

New poll just out:

Romney has 43% of the national vote according to it.
no link, CNN just said so.
somebody on IRC chat called it the Communist News Network Lol.

politics is very important to our lives but it can also be a great spectator sport at times

No, Romney won in Massachusetts (where I have unfortunately spent far too much of my adult life) and was a single-term governor. Chicago democrats know how to vote-count.

According to RealClearPolitics.com (a good resource for up-to-date polling data), Romney is polling at 30% among Republican voters, and is in a statistical tie in a head to head matchup with Obama. The same page shows Obama with a 10-point lead over Gingrich, but we'll see how those numbers move in the next week.

kmart6

timesnap wrote: »

i suppose when a really rich and moral person wins the Presidency the world will have found god.:)

I'm not sure if that's supposed to be tongue in cheek or what!

timesnap

kmart6 wrote: »

I'm not sure if that's supposed to be tongue in cheek or what!

It is Kmart, but honestly i would hate to be a candidate my *Halo* would slip and choke me.:(

think we expect either too much or too little from our politicians at times.

Suryavarman

southsiderosie wrote: »

According to RealClearPolitics.com (a good resource for up-to-date polling data), Romney is polling at 30% among Republican voters, and is in a statistical tie in a head to head matchup with Obama. The same page shows Obama with a 10-point lead over Gingrich, but we'll see how those numbers move in the next week.

Even Santorum is doing better than Gingrich against Obama. So much for the Republicans wanting an electable nominee.

Memnoch

It seems to me like the republican base just want a conduit for their hatred.

Gingrich gets their support by being a 'true conservative.'

What I don't get is how all these social conservatives can rally behind a guy who led the crusade against Clinton's infidelity while at the same time being up to all sorts himself. For people for whom the sanctity of marriage is supposedly of paramount importance you'd think Gingrich's hypocrisy would mean something?

And what about his constant tirades against the elites and Washington insiders. This guy was speaker of the house. He's almost as much of a corporate shill as Romney, how much more insider can you get?

But they love the fact that rather than answer tough questions in a debate (though I think questions about personal life should be off limits in a policy forum) he simply dodges them by raving about the media elite.

The fox news strategy of the right's victimisation has got these people so frothing at the mouth that they've lost all sense. Which is great. I hope they nominate Gingrich. Four more years for Obama.

irishh_bob

never ceases to amaze me the kind of " trite ****e " which american voters go weak at the knees go for

here we have a guy like gingrich ,railing against washington elites when he himself was part of that ( elite ) for decades , add to that his story about having had to put things right with GOD during a time in his life when he strayed , american voters ( or at least GOP voters ) appear to be a cheap date

irishh_bob

Memnoch wrote: »

It seems to me like the republican base just want a conduit for their hatred.

Gingrich gets their support by being a 'true conservative.'

What I don't get is how all these social conservatives can rally behind a guy who led the crusade against Clinton's infidelity while at the same time being up to all sorts himself. For people for whom the sanctity of marriage is supposedly of paramount importance you'd think Gingrich's hypocrisy would mean something?

And what about his constant tirades against the elites and Washington insiders. This guy was speaker of the house. He's almost as much of a corporate shill as Romney, how much more insider can you get?

But they love the fact that rather than answer tough questions in a debate (though I think questions about personal life should be off limits in a policy forum) he simply dodges them by raving about the media elite.

The fox news strategy of the right's victimisation has got these people so frothing at the mouth that they've lost all sense. Which is great. I hope they nominate Gingrich. Four more years for Obama.

hypocrosy is the cornerstone of american chirstian politics , no reason why ginrich,s rank hypocrosy should put them off

theese are people who like to claim jesus was something akin to gordon gekko , rabidly capitalist and vehemently opposed to wealth distribution , just goes to show you that thier is truth in the old saying , god is created in the immage of man

InTheTrees

Its also important to understand (a little!) the US Media.

Its not like europe where the press acts as the eyes and ears of the public.

The US news media is a conduit for politicians to get their message out and they understand their role well. Politicians are always treated deferentially and gently, there's no awkward follow up questions either.

Watching a politician being interviewed on US tv is an orwellian experience. They can stare right at the camera and tell you the sky is a shade of light pink and the interviewer's reaction will be to move on to the next question.

There's a few interviewers (charlie rose, er and who else?) who have some honesty but they're still absolutely softball compared to the brits.

You'll never see a US politician sweat under the pressure of questioning in a TV interview. Never happens. Interestingly as well, you will never see a foreign interview of a US politican on US tv either. They used to show british "newsnight" for awhile but only abbreviated and late at night and it was edited for the US.

I think if you havent experienced it, its hard to appreciate but it should explain why some of these completely inappropriate candidates manage to keep going.

southsiderosie

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its also important to understand (a little!) the US Media.

Its not like europe where the press acts as the eyes and ears of the public.

:eek:

Ho, ho, having lived in Europe for two years, that is news to me!

InTheTrees wrote: »

The US news media is a conduit for politicians to get their message out and they understand their role well. Politicians are always treated deferentially and gently, there's no awkward follow up questions either.

I would say this is relatively true of local news, and the White House Press Corps rolled over for the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11 when they should have been asking hard questions about Iraq. And cable news is a disgrace. But traditionally, the political reporters for the major networks do ask tough questions - "Meet the Press" under the late Tim Russert was must-see TV for political junkies

InTheTrees wrote: »

Watching a politician being interviewed on US tv is an orwellian experience. They can stare right at the camera and tell you the sky is a shade of light pink and the interviewer's reaction will be to move on to the next question.

There's a few interviewers (charlie rose, er and who else?) who have some honesty but they're still absolutely softball compared to the brits.

This is true. But the British press is more adversarial in general. And the tabloids are a whole another level of awful - and given the revelations around Murdoch's papers, and the clubbiness between the media and political elite, I think that those walls have crumbled significantly in recent years.

InTheTrees wrote: »

You'll never see a US politician sweat under the pressure of questioning in a TV interview. Never happens. Interestingly as well, you will never see a foreign interview of a US politican on US tv either. They used to show british "newsnight" for awhile but only abbreviated and late at night and it was edited for the US.

OK, this is just wrong. Have you seen "60 Minutes"? It is consistently one of the most watched tv shows every week in the US, and it is a) an in-depth news show and, b) they frequently include foreign news/leaders on the show.

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think if you havent experienced it, its hard to appreciate but it should explain why some of these completely inappropriate candidates manage to keep going.

The US has always had dumb and/or scary populist candidates, at both the state and the national level, and for both parties. There is a pretty simple explanation: voters are dumb. Much of the information they think they have is wrong, if they seek out information at all, it is to confirm their biases, and when confronted with their errors, they generally don't change their minds. Any study on voting behavior is enough to make one wish for enlightened dictatorship.

InTheTrees

Russert? Americans like to hold him up as "hard hitting" but I didnt see it. He was the same as the others. He's no jeremy paxman thats for sure.

And 60mins? CBS has been effectively politically castrated by the right. They may make a politician sweat over some local scandal or injustice. But they would never ever do a piece on a contender for a major post without that candidates ability to edit/approve the story. It just doesnt happen.

And I think the ineffective media is the reason there isnt an informed electorate.

JONJO THE MISER

Newt Gingrich to be only the 2nd Irish catholic president ever.

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/people_and_politics/will-newt-gingrich-be-the-next-irish-catholic-president---new-republican-frontrunner-heads-romney-obama-in-poll-match-ups-134892198.html

Cardinal Richelieu

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Newt Gingrich to be only the 2nd Irish catholic president ever.

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/people_and_politics/will-newt-gingrich-be-the-next-irish-catholic-president---new-republican-frontrunner-heads-romney-obama-in-poll-match-ups-134892198.html

Irish!! Knew about the Catholic conversion but the Irish is well watered down.

Time for Romney to talk about his Mexican 2nd Cousins to secure some of the Latin vote.

Suryavarman

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Newt Gingrich to be only the 2nd Irish catholic president ever.

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/people_and_politics/will-newt-gingrich-be-the-next-irish-catholic-president---new-republican-frontrunner-heads-romney-obama-in-poll-match-ups-134892198.html

1) Newt isn't Irish.

2) Newt is never going to be president.

irishh_bob

southsiderosie wrote: »

:eek:

Ho, ho, having lived in Europe for two years, that is news to me!



I would say this is relatively true of local news, and the White House Press Corps rolled over for the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11 when they should have been asking hard questions about Iraq. And cable news is a disgrace. But traditionally, the political reporters for the major networks do ask tough questions - "Meet the Press" under the late Tim Russert was must-see TV for political junkies



This is true. But the British press is more adversarial in general. And the tabloids are a whole another level of awful - and given the revelations around Murdoch's papers, and the clubbiness between the media and political elite, I think that those walls have crumbled significantly in recent years.



OK, this is just wrong. Have you seen "60 Minutes"? It is consistently one of the most watched tv shows every week in the US, and it is a) an in-depth news show and, b) they frequently include foreign news/leaders on the show.



The US has always had dumb and/or scary populist candidates, at both the state and the national level, and for both parties. There is a pretty simple explanation: voters are dumb. Much of the information they think they have is wrong, if they seek out information at all, it is to confirm their biases, and when confronted with their errors, they generally don't change their minds. Any study on voting behavior is enough to make one wish for enlightened dictatorship.

tim russet was like a cuddily uncle , he was no jeremy paxman , thats for sure

southsiderosie

InTheTrees wrote: »

Russert? Americans like to hold him up as "hard hitting" but I didnt see it. He was the same as the others. He's no jeremy paxman thats for sure.

irishh_bob wrote: »

tim russet was like a cuddily uncle , he was no jeremy paxman , thats for sure

TBH, Paxman always comes off as a tool to me. I think a lot of the British press confuse being a prick with being a good reporter. Badgering people only makes both of you look bad.

That said, over the last decade Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have done more to highlight the hypocrisy of American politicians - and the media - than most 'real' journalists.

InTheTrees

Here's an example, CBS's Face The Nation interview with Gingrich from this morning.

Face The Nation is the Sunday morning political show from CBS and very well respected.

Doesnt it seem pretty softball? schieffer is practically fawning over newt.

I havent watched the other sunday morning political shows but apparently newt was on all of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgRoDdrTzSo

InTheTrees

southsiderosie wrote: »

TBH, Paxman always comes off as a tool to me. I think a lot of the British press confuse being a prick with being a good reporter. Badgering people only makes both of you look bad.

I think its their duty to badger these people. The fourth estate?

Without some accountability there's nobody to call them on some of the blatant in-your-face lies they tell.

Maybe Paxman is an extreme example but I'd take him over most of the cowards on CNN and msnbc. (I never watch fox!).

Ps. I dont mean to sound too argumentative!

southsiderosie

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think its their duty to badger these people. The fourth estate?

Without some accountability there's nobody to call them on some of the blatant in-your-face lies they tell.

Maybe Paxman is an extreme example but I'd take him over most of the cowards on CNN and msnbc. (I never watch fox!).

Ps. I dont mean to sound too argumentative!

I don't watch cable news. It's better for my mental health that way.

Maybe part of the issue is cultural? Part of the reason that Simon Cowell and Anne Robinson made such a splash when they first came to the U.S. was because American viewers just aren't used to such confrontational, blunt people on television. The other problem is that the networks I think have softened their approach to politicians because they aren't the only game in town anymore - politicians will just limit themselves to ideologically favorable cable news outlets and whine about how the 'lamestream media' doesn't understand them.

TBH, I think the American media market is so vast - yet segmented - that the big cable networks get too much attention for their political coverage. There are plenty of critiques of American politics and politicians out there, especially in print media. And the network/cable new business models today are just not structured to allow for the kind of in-depth investigative reporting (with the exception of 60 Minutes) that was more common a generation or two ago.

Ultimately, I don't think that journalists need to be foaming at the mouth to put the squeeze on politicians - Katie Couric's interview with Sarah Palin is a case in point: Couric was chosen by Palin's handlers because she was viewed as a 'soft touch', but Couric's less confrontational style was even more devastating in that instance because it highlighted how truly unprepared Palin to deal with the national media spotlight and non-Alaska related political issues.

southsiderosie

InTheTrees wrote: »

Here's an example, CBS's Face The Nation interview with Gingrich from this morning.

Face The Nation is the Sunday morning political show from CBS and very well respected.

Doesnt it seem pretty softball? schieffer is practically fawning over newt.

I havent watched the other sunday morning political shows but apparently newt was on all of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgRoDdrTzSo

The most striking thing about that interview is that if you didn't know Newt was the candidate, you would have thought he was the campaign director. Gingrich knows that he can't beat Romney on donations, and he doesn't have the campaign infrastructure on the ground in Florida and other large states that Romney does, so his gains are going to have to come through his media performances - and Gingrich is VERY good on camera, and has been for a long time.

It is an unfortunate fact of Washington that the political media and key officials get very chummy over the years, and Gingrich is definitely a Washington insider. That, combined with the fact that Gingrich would be considered a good interview - ESPECIALLY compared to Romeny-bot - and, yes, it starts to feel a little too familiar.

I would expect that any interviews with Romney over the next week would basically be built on the flip side of the questions that Bob Schieffer asked: why aren't you connecting with voters, why has your support from GOP primary voters not topped 30% since you have been running, despite all the money you've spent, etc.