'Next US President' Betting Thread

The Pontiac

Thought I'd start a thread and get the opinions of the experts here. We might make a few quid.

Obama is the clear favorite at present even though the economy is still in a bit of a mess. But he'll still get a large portion of the black vote, I presume.

Current odds with Paddy Power:


Barack Obama 1/2

Mitt Romney 5/2

Rick Santorum 10/1

Newt Gingrich 40/1

Hillary Clinton 50/1

Ron Paul 50/1

Chris Christie 200/1

Mitch Daniels 200/1

Denerick

Obama will win comfortably.

If the Republicans pick Mitt Romney they'll have a member of the plutocracy challenging a social democrat in the midst of the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression. With economic indicators improving and unemployment falling, Obama will be able to take credit for his stimulus packages as well as slate the Republicans for their obsession with lowering taxes on the wealthy during such hardship. The growing inequality in the USA is also becoming more evident and voters as a whole are becoming less tolerant of it (As more of them are experiencing it - its funny what poverty can do to someones social conscience) Some of the tea party/evangelical fringe will stay at home thus improving Obama's overall margin.

If its Rick Santorum Obama will coast easily to victory. Santorum is a certified nutter and middle America will recoil at his reactionary views on social issues and his muddling incomprehensible views on economic issues. I could see a major landslide along the lines of Goldwater V Johnson '64.

Gingrich might do slightly better than Santorum, but he'd be a dreadful candidate and Obama should expect to win comfortably in that unlikely event.

If its Ron Paul (Which is impossible) the election will be a mere formality.

The only danger for Obama is if a Bloomberg pops out of nowhere and decides to run as an independent. This would drain the votes of moderate Democrats across the country - and if it was Bloomberg, (Even though he said he wouldn't run) expect Obama to lose New York's many electoral votes. This could be the looming disaster. But I think that possibility is so unlikely that it won't factor into the Obama HQ strategies.

All of this is mere conjecture. The 2010 midterms are unrepresentative - turnout was comparatively low, and the Republicans were for the most part reclaiming seats that were won on Obama's coat-tails two years earlier. For all the bluster of the tea party, the national political landscape has changed. Middle America recoils at the reactionary populism of the far right, and the polls reflect it.

EDIT: I'm using the word 'reactionary' a lot. Forgive me, I've recently finished a biography on a famed communist and that word is peppered around at least five times a page.

The Pontiac

Cheers Denerick. Interesting views!

spank_inferno

I suppose the only candidate there worth a punt is Santorum at 10/1.

The other two are just too short to even bother.

The Pontiac

spank_inferno wrote: »

I suppose the only candidate there worth a punt is Santorum at 10/1.

The other two are just too short to even bother.

Not sure though. 1/2 is a 50% profit, for the current President getting reelected.

An interesting statistic would be how many US Presidents have served a second term? The answer is as follows..

1. George Washington

2. Thomas Jefferson

3. James Madison

4. James Monroe

5. Andrew Jackson

6. Ulysses S. Grant

7. Grover Cleveland (2 full, non-consecutive terms)

8. Woodrow Wilson

9. Franklin D. Roosevelt (served 3 fulls terms and died early in his 4th term).

10. Dwight Eisenhower

11. Ronald Reagan

12. Bill Clinton

13. George W. Bush.


There were three presidents who were elected to two terms, but they didn't complete the second term:

1. Abraham Lincoln (assassinated at the beginning of his second term).

2. William McKinley (assassinated at the beginning of his second term).

3. Richard Nixon (resigned during his second term).


There were four presidents who were elected to a second term, but they hadn't been elected to the first (they didn't serve a full first term).

1. Theodore Roosevelt (completed McKinley's second term and was elected to one term of his own).

2. Calvin Coolidge (completed Warren Harding's term and was elected to one term of his own).

3. Harry Truman (completed FDR's fourth term and was elected to one term of his own).

4. Lyndon B. Johnson (completed Kennedy's term and was elected to one term of his own).

southsiderosie

<Ollie> wrote: »

Thought I'd start a thread and get the opinions of the experts here. We might make a few quid.

Obama is the clear favorite at present even though the economy is still in a bit of a mess. But he'll still get a large portion of the black vote, I presume.

That doesn't matter in a general election because blacks overwhelmingly vote democrat anyway.

Obama still has a higher favorability rating with independents than any of the GOP candidates, so that is what I would keep my eye on.

The other X-factor in all of this are these nominally independent issue PACs that can collect unlimited campaign donations. I have to wonder if the sheer volume of money that is going to be poured into attack ads isn't going to backfire with voters at some point. But I am curious at to what exactly they are going to come up with this fall.

Barring some unforeseen disaster or late entry into the race, I'd wager that Obama will stagger to the finish line ahead of whoever the GOP puts up to run against him.

The Pontiac

Cheers Southsiderosie, excellent post.

Another for Obama then, but not a dead cert as Denerick thinks.

3DataModem

What about Biden?

If Obama has a stroke or heart attack or other serious health problem (or is assassinated) then Biden is next. Got to be better than 66/1?

Suryavarman

I think a Republican has a much better chance of beating Obama than some people in this thread are letting on. In 2008 Obama won by a comfortable margin of 192 votes. In 2012 assuming all states vote the same way that margin slims to 180 votes due to population changes. If we assume that some states swing back Republican it isn't too difficult for a Republican to squeeze out a slim victory of 2 votes. The states I think might swing back are; Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska (Congressional district 2), Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia. If you want to look at the Electoral College votes by state I have an Excel spreadsheet below.

Orion

All of those states would have to swing back for that to happen. With the current GOP candidates and Obama's popularity that's extremely unlikely.

southsiderosie

Suryavarman wrote: »

I think a Republican has a much better chance of beating Obama than some people in this thread are letting on. In 2008 Obama won by a comfortable margin of 192 votes. In 2012 assuming all states vote the same way that margin slims to 180 votes due to population changes. If we assume that some states swing back Republican it isn't too difficult for a Republican to squeeze out a slim victory of 2 votes. The states I think might swing back are; Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska (Congressional district 2), Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia. If you want to look at the Electoral College votes by state I have an Excel spreadsheet below.

The big traditional swing states are Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The question is, are rust belt voters going to buy what Romney is selling? I am skeptical. Florida is a toss-up because they have been hit so hard by the housing crisis - Nevada has as well, but there is a much larger unionized workforce there than in Florida. Virginia has swung red since 2008, and the governor has been mentioned as a potential running mate for Romney (which would certainly help turn it red again), but he and the Virginia GOP have really put their foot in it with the proposed changes to the abortion laws. Colorado is another mixed bag; it has a big evangelical population, but also a pretty lefty population as well, especially in Boulder and Denver.

Again, the polling - that I believe you posted - suggested that Obama's favorability ratings are still higher than those of any of the GOP challengers. So a race that seemed like it would the the GOP's to lose, given Obama's polling and the the economy, may not be such a cakewalk after all.

If employment picks up, this will all be moot anyway.

Suryavarman

Orion wrote: »

All of those states would have to swing back for that to happen. With the current GOP candidates and Obama's popularity that's extremely unlikely.

southsiderosie wrote: »

The big traditional swing states are Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The question is, are rust belt voters going to buy what Romney is selling? I am skeptical. Florida is a toss-up because they have been hit so hard by the housing crisis - Nevada has as well, but there is a much larger unionized workforce there than in Florida. Virginia has swung red since 2008, and the governor has been mentioned as a potential running mate for Romney (which would certainly help turn it red again), but he and the Virginia GOP have really put their foot in it with the proposed changes to the abortion laws. Colorado is another mixed bag; it has a big evangelical population, but also a pretty lefty population as well, especially in Boulder and Denver.

Again, the polling - that I believe you posted - suggested that Obama's favorability ratings are still higher than those of any of the GOP challengers. So a race that seemed like it would the the GOP's to lose, given Obama's polling and the the economy, may not be such a cakewalk after all.

If employment picks up, this will all be moot anyway.

If Romney wins the nominee I think he can win Ohio and Florida but not Pennsylvania. Although if Santorum gets it he might get all three. If either were to choose Marco Rubio as a running mate then that could probably seal Florida. If Romney gets the nomination I think that he will grab a huge amount of the Mormon which should win him the state.

Virginia's abortion legislation has been amended and the controversy surrounding it might die down by November. Another factor in Virginia is that there is a senate election that day and if either parties candidate is performing well in the debates that could rub off on the presidential election. I have a feeling that Virginia will be the closest state in November.

As for Colorado, Republicans have won it in 12 of the last 15 elections. They probably lost it because of Ross Perot in '92 and because Goldwater wasn't exactly popular in '64. Along with Bush being extremely unpopular and Obama's energetic young base the Democrats managed to win it again in '08. I do not think they will do it again this year as I don't believe Obama will get out the youth vote again and I think he will be rather unpopular by November.

As for the Obama's popularity, I think it will peak around May and fall steadily until the election. By May I think unemployment will have fallen to around 7.5% BUT I think gas will be up to $4 a gallon and will remain there for the whole summer and maybe to the end of the year. With so much money having been printed in the last couple of years it has finally caused the economy to get moving again and unemployment to fall. With that though as money starts making it's way into ordinary peoples hands and they begin consuming again it will cause inflation to pick up to maybe +3.5% and continue to increase for the year. I also think there is good reason to believe that China is heading into a deep recession and I think that might cause them to start selling the treasury bonds they hold which in turn will cause the interest rates to start rising.

southsiderosie

Santorum's nomination would be the best thing that ever happened to Democrat and left-wing organization fundraising. He scares the hell out of liberal and moderate women.

Also, given that he lost his re-election campaign by 18 percentage points, I wouldn't count on Santorum regaining PA. Plus he is particularly unpopular with independent voters nationwide - again, this is pretty clear from the polling data that you posted.

I also wouldn't count on the abortion thing dying down in Virginia. Certainly NARAL, Emily's List, and other groups are not going to let it die. A lot of liberals may be pissed at Obama but every time the far right of the GOP rears its head, it becomes quite clear that the alternative is much, much worse. These groups are going to may hay out of the ultrasound issue, and Santorum's comments in general regarding reproductive rights - that 'compassionate conservative' crap isn't being lapped up anymore.

jackiebaron

The President will be the same president since Eisenhower left office, i.e. Goldman Sachs.

Manic Moran

I think a Republican has a much better chance of beating Obama than some people in this thread are letting on

I agree. But the problem is that that Republican doesn't seem to be running for office right now. Instead we have a bunch of people who seem to be stepping over each other to alienate moderates.

Amerika

The one big variable right now that might be a game changer to Obama’s chances of getting reelected is the price of gasoline. His stance on drilling and his nixing of the Keystone Pipeline will hurt him dramatically when the price over here reaches $4 a gallon. And if it reaches $5 a gallon before the election I will bet he can kiss any chances goodbye.

Memnoch

Because Americans are idiotic enough to believe that the keystone oil pipeline approval a few months ago would somehow have prevented the price of petrol from going up like it has? Meanwhile, lets completely ignore the fact that oil companies are making crazy amounts of profit while pushing up the price. Maybe they could make a little less profit (but still a crap load of money) and gas prices could be more affordable.

RichieC

Amerika wrote: »

The one big variable right now that might be a game changer to Obama’s chances of getting reelected is the price of gasoline. His stance on drilling and his nixing of the Keystone Pipeline will hurt him dramatically when the price over here reaches $4 a gallon. And if it reaches $5 a gallon before the election I will bet he can kiss any chances goodbye.

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

The one big variable right now that might be a game changer to Obama’s chances of getting reelected is the price of gasoline. His stance on drilling and his nixing of the Keystone Pipeline will hurt him dramatically when the price over here reaches $4 a gallon. And if it reaches $5 a gallon before the election I will bet he can kiss any chances goodbye.

Thats just silly. Neither would have changed the price of oil NOW (It would have in the future though) rendering your point worse than irrelevant. Take off the partisan glasses, this is what is wrong with American politics.

matthew8

Unless something happens in Iran or Europe I expect Obama to win with around 300 EVs. I see the republicans taking back Indiana, Florida and North Carolina.

Memnoch

Denerick wrote: »

Thats just silly. Neither would have changed the price of oil NOW (It would have in the future though) rendering your point worse than irrelevant. Take off the partisan glasses, this is what is wrong with American politics.

Just want to focus on this bit.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/24/news/economy/gingrich_gas_prices/

According to a 2009 study from the government's Energy Information Administration, opening up to drilling areas off the East Coast, West Coast and Florida's Gulf Coast would yield just 500,000 extra barrels a day by 2030 -- not enough to replace U.S. imports or bring global prices down.
The world currently consumes 89 million barrels a day, and by then would likely be using over 100 million barrels. By the time OPEC finished cutting production to adjust for the increased supply, Americans might save 3 cents per gallon.
"The notion that somehow we can produce so much domestically that we will move the global price is incorrect," Bledsoe said.

So even if you drill baby drill everywhere, it's going to make fudge all of a difference to gas prices.

Again, it seems like Gingrich and the GOP believe their supporters and the rest of the American electorate are stupid enough to think that drilling will help Americans.

The only people it will help are oil companies, who, as we all know, need all the help they can get to make unlimited profit, since all that money will trickle down into the US economy from untaxed accounts in Switzerland and new slave labour factories in China.

Amerika

Somehow, I don’t think the American people will consider all this as “just coincidences.” Right or wrong, the American people will be blaiming Obama... That's just politics! (remember when ya'll were blaming GWB for everything that was wrong in the world? ). And now Obama want's algea to provide 17% of our energy? I really want some of what he's smoking.

JANUARY 2, 2011 – TIME reported that the Obama administration issued the first in a series of regulations on January 2 designed to unilaterally impose a national energy tax. Gas is $3.05 a gallon.

MAY 5, 2011 – The White House issues a formal statement opposing ouse-passed Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act (H.R. 1230) and Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act (H.R. 1229), legislation designed to jumpstart American energy production, address rising gas prices, and help create new jobs. Gas is $3.96 a gallon.

JUNE 21, 2011 - The White House opposes the House-passed Jobs & Energy Permitting Act that would unlock an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Gas is $3.65 a gallon.

NOVEMBER 8, 2011 – The Obama Administration releases a plan for a five-year moratorium on offshore energy production, placing “some of the most promising energy resources in the world off-limits,” according to the House Natural Resources Committee. Gas is $3.42 a gallon.

JANUARY 18, 2012 – President Obama rejects the bipartisan Keystone XL pipeline and the more than 20,000 jobs that would come with it. Gas is $3.39 a gallon, and rising faster and earlier than ever before.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/24/video-why-gas-prices-are-so-high-hint-its-not-the-evil-oil-companies/

Denerick

Amerika wrote: »

Somehow, I don’t think the American people will consider all this as “just coincidences.” Right or wrong, the American people will be blaiming Obama... That's just politics! (remember when ya'll were blaming GWB for everything that was wrong in the world? ). And now Obama want's algea to provide 17% of our energy? I really want some of what he's smoking.

The difference was that GWB was directly responsible for most of the present malaise in American politics - two costly, immoral and ill planned wars in countries America barely understood, and huge tax cuts and spending increases leading to un-necessary debt.

While GWB has much to be deeply ashamed of, Obama has comparatively little. Obama is constantly getting compared to Carter, and the reason for this is that he is a fundamentally good man in a city full of fools and fiends. He will win the election in 2012, and restore decency to the body politic once again. You'll see.

HOPE!

veritable

I love the talk of Ron Paul having no chance. He polls higher than Gingrich or Santorum in most polls.:rolleyes:

veritable

Denerick wrote: »

The difference was that GWB was directly responsible for most of the present malaise in American politics - two costly, immoral and ill planned wars in countries America barely understood, and huge tax cuts and spending increases leading to un-necessary debt.

While GWB has much to be deeply ashamed of, Obama has comparatively little. Obama is constantly getting compared to Carter, and the reason for this is that he is a fundamentally good man in a city full of fools and fiends. He will win the election in 2012, and restore decency to the body politic once again. You'll see.

HOPE!

You must be kidding mate. Obama is a worse GWB. Look at the NDAA. Guantanamo is still open. Obama is assinating US citizens. He is killing thousands of brown people with drones half-way around the world. He has added more to the US debt in 2 years than GWB did in 8! By what measure of sanity do you say he is doing a good job!

Denerick

veritable wrote: »

I love the talk of Ron Paul having no chance. He polls higher than Gingrich or Santorum in most polls.:rolleyes:

And which polls would these be? Which states is he leading in?

The reason why he's performing better in the RCP average when matched up against Obama Vs the other Republicans is because Americans know absolutely nothing about him and know mostly negative things about the other three. In internal Republican polling he does exactly how he is expected to do - fourth in a four way race.

If Ron Paul is the President come Autumn I will literally swim across the Atlantic and personally give you $50,000 USD.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Denerick wrote: »

If Ron Paul is the President come Autumn I will literally swim across the Atlantic and personally give you $50,000 USD.

I formally witness for this bet.

veritable

Denerick wrote: »

And which polls would these be? Which states is he leading in?

The reason why he's performing better in the RCP average is because Americans know absolutely nothing about him and know mostly negative things about the other three. In internal Republican polling he does exactly how he is expected to do - fourth in a four way race.

If Ron Paul is the President come Autumn I will literally swim across the Atlantic and personally give you $50,000 USD.

Having read your comments on this thread I'll decline your offer as it is immoral to gamble with a handicapper. My money is on a Ron/Rand ticket.

southsiderosie

veritable wrote: »

I love the talk of Ron Paul having no chance. He polls higher than Gingrich or Santorum in most polls.:rolleyes:

What polls are you talking about? On average, Paul is polling far behind both Santorum and Romney, and is in a statistical tie with Gingrich - and this is across multiple polling firms.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

The average data for February:

Santorum: 33.4%
Romney: 28.4%
Gingrich: 14.6%
Paul: 12.4%

Paul has high favorability ratings, but he does not poll well with likely voters.

veritable

southsiderosie wrote: »

What polls are you talking about? On average, Paul is polling far behind both Santorum and Romney, and is in a statistical tie with Gingrich - and this is across multiple polling firms.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

The average data for February:

Santorum: 33.4%
Romney: 28.4%
Gingrich: 14.6%
Paul: 12.4%

I'm talking about head-to-head with obama. e.g. (of many) http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/02/recent-iowa-poll-shows-ron-paul-performs-better-against-obama-than-any-other-republican-candidate/

veritable

My point is that it is ignorant to say he has no chance of winning. Why does nobody say that about Gingrich?

southsiderosie

veritable wrote: »

I'm talking about head-to-head with obama. e.g. (of many) http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/02/recent-iowa-poll-shows-ron-paul-performs-better-against-obama-than-any-other-republican-candidate/

First, it doesn't matter how well he polls in a head to head if he doesn't get the nomination.

Second, that is from Iowa.

National polling shows Obama beating Paul by 8 points, which is outside of the margin for error: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

Obama is up 13 points on Gingrich, and 4.8% on Romney - now THAT is an actual race.

southsiderosie

veritable wrote: »

My point is that it is ignorant to say he has no chance of winning. Why does nobody say that about Gingrich?

LOL - I'll say it about Gingrich too: He has no chance of winning!

It's not ignorant to say this about either candidate if you actually keep up with the polls - I highly recommend Real Clear Politics, as they compile polling data from a number of sources and races, and post it in real time.

veritable

southsiderosie wrote: »

LOL - I'll say it about Gingrich too: He has no chance of winning!

It's not ignorant to say this about either candidate if you actually keep up with the polls - I highly recommend Real Clear Politics, as they compile polling data from a number of sources and races, and post it in real time.

Thanks for your recommendation. I had never heard of RCP nor have I ever visited their website. ...

veritable

www.lewrockwell.com has lots of useful news too.

veritable

btw, don't know if it's old news here but has anybody ever googled "santorum" ?

SirDelboy18

If there were a stronger republican candidate then maybe, because Obama is vulnerable without doubt, but I'd be extremely confident that he will make it back for another term.

bob50

Cant see Obama winning this again in November Main reason is The Economy

his only hope between now and November would be if the USA got into a war with Iran

I really do beleive that hes lost the votes of middle america and the black vote

BTW why is the irish media obsessed with Obama if the GOP wins this race theres going to be a lot red faces here lol

southsiderosie

bob50 wrote: »

I really do beleive that hes lost the votes of middle america and the black vote

What? What in the world makes you think that? Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democrat anyway, and certainly there is little in the current crop of GOP candidates who would encourage black voters to cross party lines in a general election.

Denerick

southsiderosie wrote: »

What? What in the world makes you think that? Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democrat anyway, and certainly there is little in the current crop of GOP candidates who would encourage black voters to cross party lines in a general election.

I don't know why people keep saying this rubbish about the black vote. Obama could re-introduce slavery and would still get over 90% of the black vote.

kev9100

veritable wrote: »

My point is that it is ignorant to say he has no chance of winning. Why does nobody say that about Gingrich?

Because Gingrich, despite being a horrible person by all accounts, won South Carolina. Ron Paul has so far not won a state and is coming last in a lot of polling. (even though he did come close to winning in Maine)

Some Ron Paul supporters really do my head in sometimes. The simple fact of the matter is that Paul has no national organisation besides a core group of individuals who worship the man.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Denerick wrote: »

I don't know why people keep saying this rubbish about the black vote. Obama could re-introduce slavery and would still get over 90% of the black vote.

but remember, it's not racist

Denerick

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

but remember, it's not racist

The black vote is more reliable for the democrats than the evangelicals are for the Republicans. They are almost certainly going to vote for Obama in excess of 90%. The fact that Obama had a shouting chance (At one point) of taking a state like Georgia in 2008 is because African Americans turned out to vote for him disproportionately, thus causing strange distortions in certain states. The turnout will not be as high this year because the whole 'first black President' thing has kinda lost its sparkle.

bob50

southsiderosie wrote: »

What? What in the world makes you think that? Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democrat anyway, and certainly there is little in the current crop of GOP candidates who would encourage black voters to cross party lines in a general election.

Ronald Reagan used to pick up a lot of the "Black vote " in the eighties

of course in the current crop of GOP Candidates theres no one there to pick up the vote That is unless Herman Cain re enters the race

my point is the the race wont be won with the black vote it will be won by someone who can say to the american people they will get economy going and i dont think Obama is trusted now by the people

southsiderosie

bob50 wrote: »

Ronald Reagan used to pick up a lot of the "Black vote " in the eighties

of course in the current crop of GOP Candidates theres no one there to pick up the vote That is unless Herman Cain re enters the race

I don't think that black voters would support Cain. Now if Colin Powell had run in 2000, that would have been interesting: he is a moderate Republican, and he served in the military (which blacks are over-represented in).

bob50 wrote: »

my point is the the race wont be won with the black vote it will be won by someone who can say to the american people they will get economy going and i dont think Obama is trusted now by the people

He may not be trusted, but the bigger question for the general election is, would swing voters trust the GOP candidate more than they trust Obama? The current crop certainly does not inspire confidence!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

amacachi

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

They still have a better chance than him.

matthew8

kev9100 wrote: »

Because Gingrich, despite being a horrible person by all accounts, won South Carolina. Ron Paul has so far not won a state and is coming last in a lot of polling. (even though he did come close to winning in Maine)

Some Ron Paul supporters really do my head in sometimes. The simple fact of the matter is that Paul has no national organisation besides a core group of individuals who worship the man.

Ron Paul has a better national organisation than Gingrich and Santorum by a mile.

southsiderosie

matthew8 wrote: »

Ron Paul has a better national organisation than Gingrich and Santorum by a mile.

Apparently there is no love lost between the Paul and Santorum & Gingrich campaigns:

It has been going on for some time now. Santorum publicly called Paul “disgusting.” Gingrich has been telling others to get out of the race for months. In the debate, an eye-rolling Santorum couldn’t contain his disdain for Paul, who returned the favor with blow after blow to Santorum’s self-image of a “courageous” conservative warrior (wasn’t that self-definition by Santorum an unintentional moment of Newt-like ego?) .

At a staff level, the Romney team, perhaps due to an awareness of the personal relationship between the candidates, has been cordial and professional toward Paul’s people. These things matter.

But stepping away from the personal aspects for a moment, consider things from Paul’s perspective. He’s been a candidate who has openly said he wants to get as many delegates as possible — to win if he can or to influence the party and its platform if he can’t. If he thinks Gingrich and Santorum, like Rick Perry and others before him, are going to flame out, doesn’t he want to be on firm ground with the man who is best positioned to win a multi-state, long campaign?

And consider as well that Paul speaks of himself as the grandfather of the Tea Party. If he’s not going to get the nomination, does he want a Gingrich or a Santorum to crash and burn, taking with them the reputation of the Tea Party? Or would Paul prefer a Romney figure, who will either win (and then take his advice and calls in the White House) or lose and not be seen as confirming the Tea Party’s demise?

There is an additional factor at play. The Tea Party, Paul has repeatedly said, has brought the party closer to him, meaning it has been focused to a greater extent than in the recent past on individual liberty, limited government and sound fiscal policy. Gingrich’s erratic policy positions and personal instability would place that progress at risk. Santorum’s zealous interest in pronouncing on personal morality would shatter that alliance as well. So, from Paul’s vantage point, better to have a stable businessman who is not obsessed with contraception than either of the other two.

If he can’t win the nomination, Paul’s interests at this point are threefold. He wants: 1) to be influential on issues he cares about (the Fed, fiscal sobriety); 2) to been seen as a responsible figure who brings his followers into the party; and 3) to leave his son Rand in a position to lead his segment of the party. With Romney, those are within his grasp. With the other two, they become increasingly remote.

The most significant factor in this flurry of gossip-masquerading-as-news is that with the advent of Twitter and blogs, speculation and conspiracy-mongering become commonplace and largely swamp actual reporting. Unfortunately, the real story about Romney and Paul, which is far more interesting and significant to the future of the conservative moment, goes underreported.

There is an old adage in Washington that the way a presidential campaign is conducted tells you something about the way the White House will be run. Given the erratic nature of the Gingrich campaign, and the nastiness of the Santorum campaign, I can't begin to imagine what things would be like in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if either of these men were to become president.

RichieC

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

They'll take the bet, Im sure. one hojillion/one odds!

southsiderosie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think because there is growing desperation within the GOP establishment to find a candidate who the party will coalesce around, but is also palatable to independents and moderates. A Washington Post columnist today brought up resurrecting Jeb Bush.

As a Johnson supporter, what would you think of a Johnson-Bloomberg ticket? I don't know that I'd bet on them to win, but I'd certainly take the odds on them being spoilers...