tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post8386333836305410741..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: No, You Can't Skip New Hampshire EitherJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-23515104126447971912012-01-03T14:47:06.157-06:002012-01-03T14:47:06.157-06:00Barack Obama certainly could skip Iowa and New Ham...Barack Obama certainly could skip Iowa and New Hampshire this year, even if he had a primary challenger.<br /><br />It isn't an issue of skipping Iowa and New Hampshire. The favorites tend to LIKE Iowa and New Hampshire, because they create narratives that they prefer (such as labeling Bill Clinton the "Comeback Kid" when he was the favorite to win the nomination).<br /><br />And often times, candidates who skip the first two contests are also candidates who have ballot access and money and support issues down the line.<br /><br />But assuming this all means that the actual favorite in a presidential race "cannot" skip Iowa and New Hampshire is confusing correlation with causation. In the end, media narratives don't determine presidential primary results. If a big favorite (such as an incumbent President or Vice President) said "screw it, Iowa and New Hampshire don't matter", that would be the end of Iowa and New Hampshire, not the end of that presidential candidate.Dilan Esperhttp://www.twitter.com/dilanespernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-63032206105609377262012-01-03T10:45:19.468-06:002012-01-03T10:45:19.468-06:00Scott, I disagree. McCain didn't maximize reso...Scott, I disagree. McCain didn't maximize resources there, but he didn't skip it. <br /><br />http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/09/you-really-cant-skip-iowa.htmlJonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-32215119820613886592012-01-03T10:17:20.585-06:002012-01-03T10:17:20.585-06:00One caveat: McCain for all intents and purposes sk...One caveat: McCain for all intents and purposes skipped Iowa. Obviously, this is a luxury that politicians who don't already have a national brand can't afford.Scott Lemieuxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06701388686242654576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-91403659191155579032012-01-03T07:07:25.702-06:002012-01-03T07:07:25.702-06:00CSH,
You're right about the InTrade numbers. ...CSH,<br /><br />You're right about the InTrade numbers. To me, however, it's just another indication that the conventional wisdom is really wrong this time around, not that they're on to something.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-37498733042357802092012-01-03T06:15:41.145-06:002012-01-03T06:15:41.145-06:00Santorum has had a presence in New Hampshire. I s...Santorum has had a presence in New Hampshire. I saw him speak at an event in a living room in Franklin, NH back at the end of November.Fred Huebscherhttp://www.politicalscientists.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-33529803409042181622012-01-03T01:58:58.363-06:002012-01-03T01:58:58.363-06:00(BTW: of course 0.7% is still not a very high prob...(BTW: of course 0.7% is still not a very high probability for Bush. However, if the clock was just about to strike midnight a couple of weeks ago, and Bush was at 0.2%, and then he did nothing in the meantime, by now Bush's probability should be much lower than the 0.2% a few weeks ago.<br /><br />The fact that Bush's odds have more than tripled, in spite of his complete inactivity with his window apparently slamming shut, is probably a hint that something exceptionally bizarre might be going on in the Republican primary...)CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-13188928060918664182012-01-03T01:48:43.415-06:002012-01-03T01:48:43.415-06:00If Santorum has no shot, then we're left with ...If Santorum has no shot, then we're left with the following: 2 candidates in likely irreversible freefall (Gingrich, Perry), 2 candidates that have all but disappeared (Bachmann, Huntsman), 1 candidate who really and truly has no shot (Paul), and an obvious frontrunner that no one wants (Romney). And Santorum.<br /><br />Something has to explain the lack of enthusiasm for Romney so late in the game. No other candidate fits the bill, so "plausible Santorum" steps in. The lack of coalescence around Romney makes sense if Santorum is a plausible candidate. <br /><br />In defense of Bryce; however, I read the other day that Santorum will be leaving Iowa with a pitiful $200,000 in his coffers. He'll raise some dough after a top 3 tomorrow. But if $200 K is all it takes to be President, a couple of bake sales and you're on your way to 1600 Pennsylvania...<br /><br />One last scandalous thought. A little while ago this blog hosted a discussion that it was too late for a "white knight" to come in and save the Republicans. The infrastructure barriers were much too large.<br /><br />At that time, the most plausible white knight, Jeb Bush, was at 0.2% on intrade.<br /><br />Between then and now, Jeb has done nothing to advance a possible 11th hour candidacy.<br /><br />Nevertheless, he's jumped to 0.7% on intrade.<br /><br />Just sayin'CSHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-68313394463027149072012-01-03T00:04:42.632-06:002012-01-03T00:04:42.632-06:00Waiting for South Carolina seems like a particular...Waiting for South Carolina seems like a particularly bizarre strategy for Perry. New Hampshire's not exactly friendly territory for him, but SC is far more friendly to candidates like Gingrich (from neighboring Georgia originally) and Santorum (more reliably conservative on more hot button issues). If that's his gambit, I get the feeling Santorum will get closer to the nomination than Perry.Kevin S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06076147424768269913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-562317405435320632012-01-02T18:12:07.648-06:002012-01-02T18:12:07.648-06:00Bryce,
I don't know that he won't (and mo...Bryce,<br /><br />I don't know that he won't (and more on that tomorrow). But: why do you think he won't come close to the nomination?Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-71727433853101179762012-01-02T17:59:19.940-06:002012-01-02T17:59:19.940-06:00Please don't write something as specious as &q...Please don't write something as specious as "Santorum may or may not wind up coming close to the nomination." You know that he won't and giving that possibility any credence diminishes your credibility as an analyst.Bryce Haugennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-14057014477844053462012-01-02T13:54:35.007-06:002012-01-02T13:54:35.007-06:00I think this year is unusual. Perry's and Ging...I think this year is unusual. Perry's and Gingrich's statements sound to me as if they were trying to make sure the conservative trio Perry/Gingrich/Santorum will beat Romney in Iowa and get close to him in New Hampshire, until they finally fight it out in South Carolina, with the winner facing a still-beatable Romney.<br /><br />(If every candidate fought in every state, I think Romney would have the nomination in the bag)Ambi Valenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03488247852564879628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-38820231127161428892012-01-02T13:15:13.366-06:002012-01-02T13:15:13.366-06:00Ah, Jon, how quickly you forget about Presdient Gi...Ah, Jon, how quickly you forget about Presdient Giuliani, who proved that you can skip Iowa AND New Hampshire AND Nevada AND South Carolina!Matt Jarvisnoreply@blogger.com