Jon Huntsman Quits

Jon Huntsman is now dropping out of the race. Could his decision have been influenced by one poll showing that he was behind Stephen Colbert in South Carolina (5% versus 4%)? I looked through some of the details of this poll to determine the source of such a contradiction (a fake conservative doing so well in a poll of Republicans). Are there Republicans who don't realize that Colbert is being satirical? Are the participants really just not very well informed about the candidates and just picking a familiar name from the list? The only restriction on the poll was that it was of people who say they plan to vote in the Republican Primary. Of the participants, 4% described themselves as somewhat liberal, while 3% described themselves as very liberal. I'll leave it for you to decide why these people plan on voting in a Republican Primary. But the question in this poll that really made me think was number 19: "Do you think that corporations are people or that only people are people?" 33% felt that corporations are people. I'm not concerned here with the 2010 Supreme Court decision that increased the ability of corporations to intervene in elections (which the question is probably meant to refer to). The question, upon detailed examination, appears to be an exercise in set theory. The question could have been, "Do you believe that the set A includes only the objects composing the set A, or that it also includes other objects?" Or perhaps they should have asked, "If A is the number of people in the world, and B is the number of corporations in the world, then does A+B=A?" 

Many have anticipated Rick Perry and either Gingrich or Santorum dropping out so that Romney might have a serious challenge in South Carolina. A January 13 poll shows that 12% of Huntsman supporters have Romney as their second choice (32% have Buddy Roemer as their second choice). Huntsman's departure makes it all the more inevitable that Romney will win the nomination. The Democratic Party appears to be assuming a Romney nomination. They have Many anti Romney videos on their YouTube channel, but many of them were uploaded before the Iowa Caucuses. Furthermore, their favorite attack on Romney appears to be the claim that he employed illegal immigrants. Ironically, the 28-minute anti Romney video produced by the pro Gingrich PAC Winning our Future is far more left wing than anything the Democratic Party has produced. I think the Democrats have calculated that if they can convince Republicans to endorse Ron Paul or Rick Santorum rather than Romney, then Obama will have an easy victory. The calculation that Winning our Future has made is that if they can convince Republicans that Romney will be painted as a ruthless vulture capitalist by Obama, then maybe Republicans will take a second look at Gingrich. 

Here are my predictions for South Carolina:

1 Mitt Romney 42%

2 Newt Gingrich 22%

3 Ron Paul 19%

4 Rick Santorum 14%

5 Rick Perry 2%

2012 New Hampshire Primary Prediction

My Iowa prediction was quite inaccurate, but I've refined my method a little. Here is my prediction for the New Hampshire Primary (this time with percentages):

1 Mitt Romney 53%

2 Ron Paul 17%

3 Rick Santorum 13%

4 Newt Gingrich 11%

5 Jon Huntsman 5%

6 Rick Perry 1%

2012 Iowa Caucus Prediction

My prediction for the rankings of the 2012 Iowa Caucus:

1 Ron Paul

2 Mitt Romney

3 Michele Bachmann

4 Rick Perry

5 Newt Gingrich

6 Rick Santorum

7 Jon Huntsman

Debate 9: Winner: Romney Losers: Cain, Perry

CNN and the Western Republican Leadership Conference hosted the ninth in a busy schedule of Republican debates for the 2012 Presidential Election. 

Absent was Jon Huntsman, perhaps indicating that he has gained a willingness to face the reality that he will not win the nomination. Back in August, after she won the Ames Straw Poll, I heard some people say that Michelle Bachmann is locked into the nomination. John McCain got the nomination after receiving .7% in the Ames Straw Poll in 2007, so I concluded that you need to get at least .7% in Ames to win it. This means that even Newt Gingrich is still solidly in it with 2.3% in Ames. Huntsman, on the other hand, got .4%

The debate opened with a round of attacks on Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan. I refer to it as his 9-9-9-0-0 plan to emphasize the fact that it proposes an elimination of both capital gains and estate taxes. The attacks were predictable considering that Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have been the focus of attacks whenever they were leading the polls. The most recent polls show Romney back in the lead, and continuing to make gains. Most of the criticism of the 9-9-9 plan (9% flat income tax, 9% flat business income tax, and 9% sales tax on new products) focused on claims that it would open up the possibility of higher sales taxes in the future. It was also criticized for being too regressive. It was pointed out that the Tax Policy Center estimates it would increase taxes for most people earning less than $100,000.

I've begun to notice a habit Bachmann has of trying to play teacher. "And the American people think that it’s the — the — it is the vendor that creates the tax, but it’s the government that creates the tax." Thank you Michelle Bachmann for explaining to us how taxes work.

Romney had trouble getting a word in edgewise more than once during the debate. After interrupting him four times, Rick Santorum tried to usurp the moderator saying, "You’re out of time. You’re out of time." The most intense part of the debate was the back-and-forth between Perry and Romney over whether Romney had employed illegal immigrants. "This has been a tough couple of debates for Rick, and I understand that, and so you’re going to get — you’re going to get testy. But let’s let — I’ll tell you what: Let me take my time, and then you can take your time," Romney said with a positive audience reaction. The audience was noticeably more pro Romney than the audiences at previous debates. Perhaps the debate sponsors screened for a more moderate audience after some embarrassing audience reactions at previous debates (audience members shouting that an injured person without health insurance should be allowed to die, applause at the number of people executed in Texas, and booing of a gay soldier in Iraq who asked a question about don't ask don't tell).

Finally, I must mention the Herman Cain electrified fence controversy. Cain is beginning to make this election seem surreal. If you're not familiar the Cobert Report summarized it pretty well. Is Cain really worried that he'll lose votes if he doesn't support building a fence that will kill people? Either way, it is worth pondering how someone making such inflammatory comments could get to the level he is at. 

For the record, Romney, Perry, and Gingrich are the only candidates with a realistic chance of getting the nomination.

"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself!"

These were the words of Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain in reference to people participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement. Normally such a remark could be dismissed as an outburst from a candidate whose probability of being nominated is approaching zero, but according to a Public Policy poll conducted shortly after the remark, Cain is now in the lead. 30% of respondents said they would vote for Cain, while only 22% said they would vote for Mitt Romney (who came in second place). I don't think that Cain's exceptional performance in this one poll means that he has any chance of being nominated. In some respects Cain reminds us of Steve Forbes. Forbes was noted for making his 1996 and 2000 campaigns into essentially single issue campaigns around his proposed 17% flat tax. Cain now talks about his 9-9-9 tax plan so much that I think his goal is to mention it at least nine times at every debate. Both Forbes and Cain have also promoted themselves as someone coming from outside of politics. This concept may have some populist appeal, but ultimately it probably won't help Cain get the nomination anymore than it did Forbes. The last person to be elected president without previously serving as a governor, US senator, or vice president was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Moreover, since Eisenhower, neither of the two major parties have nominated a candidate who hadn't previously served in one of these three roles. Eisenhower was one of only four such presidential candidates withing the past 100 years.