Image 01 Image 03

South Carolina Primary — Open and Updates

South Carolina Primary — Open and Updates

6:25pm (Exit Poll data statistics)

As the polls draw to a close tonight at 7pm, we look first to the exit poll data to get a bit of a feel for how the candidates are lining up. Although it is still to early to make any sort of proclamation, the exit polling data suggests that Gingrich had a good day in South Carolina.

We were all wondering whether Gingrich’s late surge would carry enough weight to translate into votes in the booth. The data suggests that it will, as just over half of all voters in today’s primary considered themselves “late deciders.” Additionally, about two-thirds of voters found that the candidates’ performance in the debates played an important factor in their decision, another advantage to Gingrich.

A lot of Evangelicals showed up to vote today, comprising nearly two-thirds of primary goers. This likely will help Santorum in his hunt for third place, but according to a short breakdown of the numbers conducted by Fox News, Gingrich fared better than expected among Evangelical voters.

Interesting exit poll data, but we won’t have the final answer of who is to win the usually prophetic primary of South Carolina for a few hours. The polls officially close in about 35 minutes and then the tallying begins.


5:08pm (In South Carolina, mixing pork and politics doesn’t stop at bill writing)

It appears a potential crisis was averted at Tommy’s Ham House today. The restaurant, a popular spot for candidates to reach out to South Carolina voters, was booked by both the Romney and Gingrich campaigns on the same day, at the same time. As supporters of both candidates filled the Ham House holding their respective campaign signs, it looked as though the two candidates were headed for a collision course at the restaurant.

The highly hyped run-in between the top two candidates in the state never materialized however, as Mitt Romney ultimately showed up roughly 45 minutes early to give his remarks. His bus was out and on the road 20 minutes before Gingrich’s bus pulled up. When Newt walked in, he jokingly remarked, “Where’s Mitt? I thought he was gonna stay and maybe we’d have a little debate here this morning.”

The Romney campaign asserts his early arrival was merely a consequence of being ahead of schedule. Others, however, opine that in the staring contest leading up to the ill-fated Ham House run-in, Romney blinked.



For Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, it appears to be a battle for third. Whatever the outcome between them, Santorum has signaled that he intends to be out on the campaign trail in Florida next week. It will be interesting to see if this does play out because I’m not sure that Santorum has the money or the infrastructure to carry on a very successful campaign in Florida. Only time will tell.

Additionally, I don’t see any reason for Ron Paul to bow out because of a third or fourth place finish in South Carolina. Paul has the funds and stable support base to stay in the race for a lengthy period of time if he so chooses. However, Paul’s results in South Carolina will be illustrative of his campaign’s Achilles heel. Although he has a strong and consistent base, he is going to have a tough time broadening that base to reach the average Republican voter.

In other news, the race for the top spot in South Carolina saw Gingrich and Romney trading jabs at each other in a last ditch effort to try and rally some of the remaining undecided voters over to their respective camps. Although the most recent polls show Gingrich has a substantial lead in the state, its no time for him to get comfortable. The race tonight will very likely go down to the wire.



Its no secret, the Republican field has gotten interesting over the past week. Last Saturday, we still had 6 candidates vying for the nomination but the field has rapidly been winnowed down to 4, each of whom have more riding on this primary than any leading up to it. Today promises to be a contest worth watching very closely, as a victory here will have huge ramifications in the race for the Republican nomination.

As far as the early contests go, South Carolina is far and away the most important. A win in Iowa is good, but it serves mostly to add media attention to your campaign. A win in New Hampshire is equally impressive, but its not exactly a microcosm of the Republican electorate. I am a firm believer, insofar as the Republican party goes, that South Carolina picks Presidents. Since 1980, no Republican has secured the nomination without first securing victory in South Carolina’s primary. Building off my post from last week on the candidates and South Carolina, let’s review a few of the shifts in the field that took place over the last week.

As was to be expected, Jon Huntsman dropped out of the race early this week and put his support behind Mitt Romney, declaring him the candidate “best equipped to defeat Barack Obama.” Huntsman’s endorsement, which may have carried more weight had he done it leading up to the New Hampshire primary, appears to have fallen on deaf ears in South Carolina where the moderate voting bloc is far less substantial.  In addition to Huntsman, Governor Rick Perry also has bowed out of the race, throwing his full support behind Newt Gingrich. While neither Hunstman nor Perry carried a substantial amount of votes in South Carolina, Perry’s adamant and forceful endorsement of Gingrich may prove to make the difference when the votes are tallied. In what was undoubtedly Perry’s best speech, he came out in full support of Gingrich calling him “a conservative visionary who can transform our country.” Additionally, Perry alluded to an issue that would eventually become a national headline regarding Newt’s previous marriage. Drawing on his belief in offering forgiveness to those who seek it, Perry said of Gingrich, “We’ve had our differences, which campaigns will inevitably have, and Newt is not perfect, but who among us is?”

Its not clear just how much weight Perry’s endorsement of Gingrich will carry, but when the race is as tight as it is, every vote counts and the glowing recommendation Newt received from Perry certainly won’t hurt him. Additionally, recent polls from Clemson University and Public Policy Polling indicate that Newt has opened up a sizable lead in South Carolina due in large part to a combination of stellar debate performances, superior campaign organization in the state, and his more than adequate handling of his ex-wife Marianne’s interview with ABC News that was aired the other night.

Ultimately, we all must wait until the votes are tallied, but signs are becoming more and more apparent that an upset is looming in South Carolina. As the day progresses, I’ll continue updating periodically and also be taking a look at where Ron Paul and Rick Santorum stand.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Professor, if you can find it, in one of the debates Santorum says he would pick Newt as his VP among the seven other candidates at the time. Saw the video clip last night as I was just drifting off to sleep on the couch. I don’t think it was a dream.

    MKReagan in reply to LukeHandCool. | January 21, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    Santorum chose Newt in the 9/22 Florida debate – way before Newt’s surge. It was on O’Reilly or Hannity but I can’t find any video online. Last nite’s segment highlighted Santorum’s flipflopping opinion on Newt. There was at least one other clip of Santorum saying nice things about Newt in a debate.

    Santorum said he would pick Gingrich as his VP? LOL…he’s got it backwards.

    janitor in reply to LukeHandCool. | January 21, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    The debate in which there was a question along the lines of which of the other candidates on the stage do you admire and why. Santorum picked Gingrich, and had praise for his being a conservative mentor.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to janitor. | January 21, 2012 at 2:38 pm

      FOX contrasted those clips of Santorum with his debate attacks on Newt. The clips would make a great endorsement for Newt, for when Rick drops out.

      I noticed Santorum make special note that he would continue on to Florida, reminiscent of Bachmann declaring she would definitely be continuing of to SC. I guess that’s what you have to do as a last gasp.

really there is 2 candidates. newt and flipper.
and paulbots in 3….2….1…GO!!

StrangernFiction | January 21, 2012 at 1:18 pm

Ann Barnhardt on Romney:

From 28:17 on (regarding Romneycare) this is devastating. How a conservative can vote for this guy is beyond me.

    Let’s see if one example will clear things up – Local review boards for immigrant amnesty. Who pays for their decisions? The discrimination lawsuits? Which board will people approach – the one in sanctuary cities like SF or LA? Then they are free to continue to abuse the system as before but now it is legal. This is just one example of Big Idea Newt not thinking all the way to the end of the road. I have not even mentioned how he behaves when his grand ideas are challenged or defeated.

    I am not against a man who has been married 3X I am aghast that ANY GOP voter would condone a serial cheater. Perhaps we should ask Anthony Weiner or Bill Clinton to run as a Republican? Did we not condem Mark Sanford? Our credibility will be seriously damaged if Newt is given a pass on this. Forgiveness granted does not = trustworthiness earned.

    There is no perfect candidate but Newt is possibly the least of the remaining 4 and that says a lot since Ron Paul is still in there. It’s a shame more conservatives do not rally to Santorum or to Perry.

      StrangernFiction in reply to drrogera. | January 21, 2012 at 1:49 pm

      Pull your head out, Mitt Romney is a scumbag. So take the scumbag who is not a statist. This is not rocket science.

        When you have to use insults instead of reasons, you lost the argument. Perhaps you should go back to the playground and let the adults have a discussion.

        I do not believe Mitt Romney to be a scumbag but I have my concerns about Newt. Perhaps if you had been cheated on by him you might feel differently.

        William A. Jacobson in reply to StrangernFiction. | January 21, 2012 at 4:05 pm

        Please don’t us that language here.

      retire05 in reply to drrogera. | January 21, 2012 at 1:51 pm

      And let’s not forget giving total amnesty to anyone who has been here 25 years. So, as long as you can stay out of trouble, avoid ICE and managed to stay in the U.S. for 25 years, although illegal for you to do so, President Newt will let you stay.

      But don’t call it amnesty.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to retire05. | January 21, 2012 at 3:48 pm

        A powerful argument, were it only true. Please post a link showing Gingrich promising “total amnesty” to illegal aliens in the US for 25 years.

        Here’s a link supporting my argument:

          retire05 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 21, 2012 at 4:11 pm

          Check out Item #6

          What Newt wants to do is give those who are currently here a pathway to legality. Not citizenship, he says, but being legal residents.

          Had Newt bothered to check the Pew Hispanic Research polls, he would have learned that citizenship does not take priority for illegals. Being able to stay, and have all the benefits of a citizen anyway, is the only important factor.

          If you are a “legal” resident, you basically have all the Constiututional protections of citizens. And how are you going to deal with those minimum wage earners who can’t afford the $5,000 fine? Are you going to deport them? How? That’s going to go over well with the Democrats, right?

          Work place enforcement. Enforce the laws we already have. Clean up E-Verify so that it actually works and fine employers who hire illegals because they don’t use it. Deport the illegals and not let them back in until they prove they have no criminal record. No more chain migration, which can be done by a “legal” resident.

          And again I ask you; what did Newt do as Speaker to reduce the problem of illegal immigration or are you of the opinion that it didn’t exist back then?

          retire05 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 21, 2012 at 4:13 pm

          One other thing; as President, Newt says the illegal must show that they are not on the public dole. The federal government has no control over welfare programs designed by the states.

          You know, that whole 10th Amendment thingie.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 21, 2012 at 4:38 pm

          I know exactly what Gingrich proposes. It’s you who does not. You claimed “total amnesty”. Still waiting……..

          Just a reminder to all that there’s an issue with the powerful Florida Cuban Republicans, many of whom came here illegally, and many others who came here legally under special dispensations. Gingrich has it correct for them.

          retire05 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 21, 2012 at 5:18 pm

          Henry, perhaps you can show me where amnesty also involves citizenship? Or does amnesty simply mean “you broke the law, you get to stay because you have outlasted the ICE agents”?

          retire05 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 21, 2012 at 5:19 pm

          janitor, there are specific laws governing the Cubans.
          Wet foot, dry foot.

          Look it up.

          stevewhitemd in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 21, 2012 at 5:28 pm

          So explain to me then what we’re supposed to do with long-term illegal aliens in the U.S.

          I get building a tall fence. No problem.

          I get having a proper E-verify system and punishing employers who violate the law. No problem.

          I get arresting those illegal aliens who are freshly arrived in the U.S. and sending them back to their country of origin. No problem.

          A person who has been here a long time is smart enough to keep his/her head down, work, not cause problems, and not violate the law (otherwise). He or she is likely to be a reasonable pillar of the local community.

          How do you find them unless you go door-to-door? Or encourage an entire nation of snitches? A million midnight no-knock SWAT raids?

          Is that the kind of America we want to live in?

          I’m leaning toward Romney but I think Newt has the better argument on this one. I’m not sure a ‘local board’ is the right solution, but Newt understands we’re not going to deport large numbers of long-time illegal aliens. We’re just not.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 21, 2012 at 6:06 pm

          Gingrich’s immigration policy (only that pertaining to hispanic illegals):

          -Full control of Mex/US border by Jan 2014
          -Nothing happens till border is secure.
          -Criminal record? – you’re out.
          -Short-termer in US? – you’re out.
          -Already on or in need of gov’mt assistance? – you’re out.
          -No matter what, illegals who qualify to stay in US pay $5,000 penalty.
          -Citizenship is off the menu. Legality only.
          -You want full citizenship? Go home and apply for it like everybody else.

          Using these general strictures (and many others), local leaders would decide and also apply local requirements they might need. Gingrich suggests 25 yrs in US as benchmark, but is open to compromise – including increasing the years.

          In other words, if you’re an illegal but have been in the US for 25 yrs and have broken no laws (other than your initial entry, obviously), are not on government assistance, do not need government assistance,can and will pay a $5,000 penalty for entering illegally, and have been judged by a local citizen board to be a good bet to be a decent American citizen… then you can proceed with obtaining a legal visa to be here.

          Retire05 says this is “total amnesty”.

          Either retire05 is either:

          1) Ignorant
          2) Willing to lie for political reasons

          Take your pick, buddy.

          Which is it?

          @retireo5. Yes, special dispensations. What I said.

          I know of a woman who was deported to Jamaica under terribly unfair conditions. She lived her entire life in the U.S. (since age 4), went to school, was married, had two darling children, straight As, etc. During her divorce, her husband questioned her immigration status. It seems that she had been taken in as a month-old infant by her aunt and uncle after the deaths of her parents in a car accident. Three years later, this aunt and uncle legally immigrated to Miami for his work with their (older) other children. It never occurred to them that they had not formally adopted their niece (who did not even know until she was much older that they were not her real parents.)

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 21, 2012 at 6:31 pm

          A few years ago NC State basketball had a decent little guard by name of Gavin Grant, recruited out of NYC where he’d been brought to the US as a baby by his mother, a Jamaica native. An irregularity of some sort was found in her entry paperwork (15 years after she got here!) and it affected his status as well. The federal gov’mt went after him anyway, tried to deport him, and may have. I’ve lost track of his story. But I do recall an interview he had with local Raleigh TV news. He said all the dozens of meetings at this office and that agency and his lawyer’s office and whatnot took him all over NYC and DC, and that everywhere he went he passed through lawn crews, maintenance personnel, cafeteria staff, and the like, and if he had to guess, half of them were illegal immigrants whom the gov’mt apparently leaves completely alone. Well spoken and a good student, he cited ‘equal justice under the law’ and lamented its disappearance from a major area of American jurisprudence.


    You seem to have struck a nerve.

So let’s see…

Iowa – win goes to Rick

N.H. – win goes to Romney

S.C. – sounds as if the win will go to Newt

yep, that’s “inevitability” if I’ve ever seen it…

[…] Readers: Like many of you, I will be following the South Carolina primary with much interest. I suspect that the establishment GOP tactic of crowning their preferred […]

“Perry’s best speech”.

How many Perry speeches have you listened to, Professor? Or does the fact that Rick Perry threw his support behind the candidate you have been supporting all along, constitute making that his “best” speech?

What I find absolutely ironic is how much importance we Perry supporters now find in those who were always supporting someone else.

You, and all the NOT-Mitt supporters threw the best man for the job of ending the progressive oppression that this nation has been suffering under since Woodrow Wilson under the bus because he was not a graduate of the Dale Carnegie School of Public Speaking.

Meanwhile, the announcement was made that the Texas unemployment rate is now 7.8% down from 8.1% just last month and unlike the Obama administration who throws people off the work force rolls to lower the national unemployment rate, saw 17,000 workers ADDED to the Texas work force rolls. Higher work force numbers, lower unemployment.

Yep, I was foolish for supporting a “Texan” who wasn’t a glib speaker. Records and results be damned.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to retire05. | January 21, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    Perry’s first mistake – deciding to run too late. Second mistake – calling the voters whose support he sought heartless. Third mistake – trying and failing to answer simple questions during a televised debate.

    Perry’s failure is Perry’s fault, no one else’s. The American people DID support Perry right out of the gate – he shot to the top of the poles. Rick Perry then committed one gaffe after another and revealed a highly pertinent factor in picking a candidate – Rick Perry was not ready for prime time.

    You’re still stuck in the first stage of grief: DENIAL.

      retire05 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 21, 2012 at 1:59 pm

      I see, Henry; so thinking that we should not punish children for the crimes of their parents (as ruled by the SCOTUS in Plyler) is wrong, but saying that if you manage to avoid the ICE agent for 25 years we will let you stay is not? Perhaps you can point me to the things that Newt did as Speaker that would have helped the illegal immigration problem? Or do you think it didn’t exist then?

      And of course, Newt has NEVER made a gaffe, right? Nothing so absurd like sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi pandering for the global warming greenweenies or any of the other absurd things he has done in the recent past.

      Pleeeeeeze, if you are being swayed by someone who simply takes on the left wing press with his “Hey, I’ll fight with the press because I really am a conservative” then you might as well text your vote into the next American Idol.

      I’m not stuck in denial. There is no denial that the best man for the job dropped out. There is no denial that de Tocqueville was right. And there is no denial that conservatives are now willing to throw their values overboard, moving the goalposts, for political expendiency. But then, when it comes to Newt supporters, character no longer seems to matter.

        punfundit in reply to retire05. | January 21, 2012 at 4:32 pm

        Okay, let’s dance.

        You tell us all exactly HOW the United States of America will round up 11 million illegals and kick them out of the country. Go ahead, tell us.

        “…..conservatives are now willing to throw their values overboard, moving the goalposts, for political expendiency”

        No, retire05, we are not willing but MUST put aside some things that we personally find offensive for the greater good of everyone in this great nation.
        A one-track mind does not constitute a railroad….just a whistle-stop…so whistle on.
        The rest of us will join Newt in building that railroad designed to put the USA back on the right track.

          retire05 in reply to Joy. | January 21, 2012 at 5:28 pm

          And your absolutely sure that Newt will not wander off the conservative farm again how?

          Joy in reply to Joy. | January 21, 2012 at 6:50 pm

          retire05….no, I am not absolutely sure but the alternative is to give up as you have done so I’m willing to vote for the not-perfect candidate who has the best chance of defeating Obama.

          You can ramble on all day about values and Newt’s low morals but the Pretender-in-Chief in the White House must be replaced and I think that Newt knows that if he wanders off that conservative farm there will be many people such as you and I and almost everyone here on LI who will be happy to join together for a mutual ‘get back in line’ kick in the rear to Newt.

          retire05 in reply to Joy. | January 21, 2012 at 9:46 pm


          “I think Newt knows if he wanders off that conservative farm there will be many people such as you and I and almost everyone here on LI who will be happy to join together for a mutual ‘get back in line’ kick in the rear to Newt.”

          And after millions protested, marched on D.C., held rallies, attended town halls and voiced their dissatisfaction with the government loud and clear in 2010, how’s that working out with the Republicans we gave control of Congress to?

    RexGrossmanSpiral in reply to retire05. | January 21, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    There was no Rick Perry conspiracy, he just lost.

      Really, would you like to list the number of positive articles written about Governor Perry on the National Review, or even this blog? Or how about Fox, the gold standard of “conservative” news? When Fox flashes a collage of all the candidates on the screen, six on top and six on the bottom, and does not show Rick Perry or discuss him afterwards although all the others were discussed, including Huntsman, what do you expect?

      You have been sold out. But the RNC, Fox News and all the talking heads that didn’t want a “Southerner” in office again.


      But hey, cheer up. Maybe Newt can insult the Islamists into playing nice.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to retire05. | January 21, 2012 at 3:49 pm

        retire05 and Rick Perry, victims of the entire world.

          retire05 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 21, 2012 at 3:55 pm

          The only victims are those Americans who will watch as they willing give up their freedom, along with their moral compasses, and do nothing because they always vote their wallets.

          Perhaps, Henry, since you think insults win the day, you can go with Newt to Iran and insult them into compliance.

          punfundit in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 21, 2012 at 4:40 pm

          And they’ll all be laughing and pointing at you, retire05, because it’s all a gigantic conspiracy to ruin your life.

          retire05 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 21, 2012 at 5:24 pm

          punfundit, I am glad you think it is a joke (and funny) that those of us who marched with hundreds of thousands of other TEA Partiers on D.C., who attended town hall meetings and voice our complaints, who got out and pounded the pavement to get conservatives like Marco Rubio, Allen West and Francisco Canseco elected are not happy that some of you are absolutely willing to settle for the status quo.

          Of course, having another RINO in the White House who thinks he is sooooooo much smarter than you and will decide what is “good” for you is only going to ruin my life, not yours, right?

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 21, 2012 at 6:09 pm

          Geez, lol.

          Retire05, I’m a local Tea Party co-chairman.

        William A. Jacobson in reply to retire05. | January 21, 2012 at 4:09 pm

        Actually, this blog was only positive about Perry until his horrible roll out of his campaign and abysmal debate performances. And then all we did was tell the truth about how he messed up. Newt was not endorsed here until November 16, long after Perry faded. Sorry for your loss, but no one here caused it.

          Oh, I understand, Professor Jacobson. I understand you were pining for Sarah Palin, and then when she didn’t get in, you wrote wonderful entries in favor of Herman Cain.

          But tell me, Professor, where are the glowing entries about how Rick Perry had made Texas the most successful state in the Union, with job creation, low taxes, balancing budgets not once, but many times and how Texas was leading the way, under the guidance of Rick Perry, in fighting the TSA, EPA and DoE who are eroding our freedom on a daily basis? Since I did not want to be unfair, I spent a while going back on all your entries about Governor Perry and saw very little in that regard.

          Perhaps you don’t like Southerners, or guys with state university degress, or maybe it is just Texans that you object to, or Methodists. I don’t know. But to try to indicate that you gave Rick Perry, and his record, a fair shot is absurd.

          Tell me, Professor, have you ever listened to tapes of Harry Truman? He sounded like a country bumpkin that could not find his way out of a wet paper bag, yet he brought us out of a world war and probably saved a million American lives by not invading the Japanese homeland. If being able to rip the left wing press a new one, and sounding professorial is your ballywick, I can understand why you would back Newt.


          For the love of *GOD* get over it! This is ridiculous!

          LukeHandCool in reply to William A. Jacobson. | January 21, 2012 at 5:12 pm


          I wanted Perry to do well as soon as he threw his hat in the ring. He was my choice. He blew it.

          Take how horrible the media will be against Newt or Mitt and square it and then cube that for how they’d have been against Perry. He rendered himself unelectable for 2012. At least Newt, if he becomes the nominee, will put up a great fight against the media.

          But I like Perry more than ever. I’m hoping he’ll try again and be much better prepared in the future. I’ve become a fan of Perry … but it just wasn’t to be this time.

          He gracefully let go … now it’s your turn.

          LukeHandCool in reply to William A. Jacobson. | January 21, 2012 at 6:08 pm

          “Perhaps you don’t like Southerners, or guys with state university degress, or maybe it is just Texans that you object to, or Methodists.”

          Massive, massive, victim complex.

        punfundit in reply to retire05. | January 21, 2012 at 4:28 pm

        Would you rather he genuflected them into being nice, like Barack Obama and Ron Paul?

        celestechristi in reply to retire05. | January 21, 2012 at 4:37 pm

        Perry’s a nice guy, but he’s not acceptable as POTUS. Perry is in bed with the Islamist Aga Khan.

        Gingrich has the Islamist Jihadist problem in his sights. He understand it. You don’t engage Islamists, neither with niceties nor insults – you kill them, or they will kill you. Newt also understands the foundations of Jihad. He supports a constitutional ban on Shariah Law. Without the hope of Shariah Law on the books in America the Islamists will leave – which is imperative unless you want America to look like Muslim Britain. Islam is not a religion, it’s a political system wrapped in religous robes and cannot exsist without Shariah Law. Gingrich understands this.

        Newt is the man America needs at this time in history.

          OMG, take your Pam ” Who-Sees-Islamists-Under-Her-Bed” Geller absurdity and shove it.

          If she is so right, why did Daniel Pipes disagree with her? Or is he also a Shi’ria loving jihadist, as well?

          celestechristi in reply to celestechristi. | January 21, 2012 at 6:45 pm

          To Retire05:

          So a Geller link offends? Okay. I don’t need Geller to understand Islam or to know Perry’s involvement, nor should you. There are plenty of other sources.

          I take it you’re okay with Islamists since you apparently support Perry’s support of them and your response to me is to defame Geller. Careful with that. Jihadists will kill you. Just ask them.

        dmacleo in reply to retire05. | January 21, 2012 at 6:07 pm

        why should a blog owner write anything about a candidate he does not support?

      Rex, don’t tell anyone but there actually is a vast right-wing blogger conspiracy to annoy retire05.

    stevewhitemd in reply to retire05. | January 21, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    Fourth mistake: not building strong local organizations in the early primary states.

    Fifth mistake: not being able to flesh out answers to the various questions that come in. Perry frequently sounded like a ‘Johnny-One-Note’ in Iowa. Retail politics in Iowa and New Hampshire means you have to answer the questions, not rely on sound bites. He couldn’t do that.

    Governor Perry is a decent fellow, a good governor, an interesting man, and not ready to be President in 2012. Perhaps in 2016 or later it will be different, but he lost it fair and square this time.

Don’t discount Sarah Palin’s endorsement:

Gingrich Credits Palin for South Carolina Surge
The former Speaker says that donations, volunteers and support are all up considerably since he received the pseudo-blessing of the former Alaska Governor.

huskers-for-palin | January 21, 2012 at 1:55 pm

Just tweeted the link, Facebooked it, and posted on Free Republic 🙂 are the facts Prof J was mentioning. Important? Well historically they have been. For an early primary nobody can argue historical accuracy. So we need to ask this year so different that suddenly the collective voters in SC will get it wrong?
Maybe. Every election cycle has its own details and reasoning. But on accuracy? SC has a good record

1980: Ronald Reagan won with 55%, defeating runner-up John Connally.
1984: Uncontested (Reagan was the incumbent president and was re-nominated).
1988: George H. W. Bush won with 49%, defeating runner-up Bob Dole.
1992: George H. W. Bush won with 67%, defeating runner-up Pat Buchanan.
1996: Bob Dole won with 45%, defeating runner-up Pat Buchanan.
2000: George W. Bush won with 53%, defeating runner-up John McCain.
2004: Uncontested (Bush was the incumbent president and was re-nominated).
2008: John McCain won with 33%, defeating runner-up Mike Huckabee.

Donald Douglas | January 21, 2012 at 1:58 pm

It’s going to be a big day, and it’s looking good for Gingrich.

See: ‘Newt Could Win the Palmetto State’.

Every candidate stinks, vote for Alfred E Newman! What, me worry?

Good luck to Speaker Gingrich.

DINORightMarie | January 21, 2012 at 2:10 pm

Looking forward to the updates! Hoping and praying for a clear win. 😀

I think Palin’s “endorsement” is being under-appreciated as a factor in Newt’s resurgence.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to raven. | January 21, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    Even more important was her earlier statement that Romney needed to release his tax returns and explain Bain better. That was the game changer.

      stevewhitemd in reply to William A. Jacobson. | January 21, 2012 at 5:36 pm

      That is one I don’t get in two ways:

      First, release the tax returns. Who cares what they say? It’s very, very unlikely that there is a real problem in them. We all know the Romney’s get most of their income from investments. Plenty of Americans do. We all know that most candidates for president are wealthy. None of this is an issue. I like Mitt, but he had to know this was coming. Why wasn’t he prepared? It’s a bozo no-no political mistake, and uncharacteristic of what so far has been a well-oiled political machine.

      Second, why are Republicans damning the man over his tax returns? Isn’t that the job of Democrats?

      Mitt: release them TODAY and tell everyone you found them in the attic next to Obama’s transcripts. Turn the whole thing into a riff. Best you can do now, buddy.

    huskers-for-palin in reply to raven. | January 21, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    Oh, trust me, when CPAC 2012 comes, and Palin is the closing Keynote speaker, all eyes will be upon her.

Henry Hawkins | January 21, 2012 at 5:27 pm

OT….. Killing time waiting on returns from SC? Here’s a link to Ben Smith’s BuzzFeed blog, a collection of regional low budget TV ads. Some of these are hilarious(-ly bad):

What a bunch of lemmings. The professor supports Newt, so golly gee, Newt must be the guy.

Instead of hoping for a brokered convention, where a REAL conservative can be chose, you attack others who have the audacity to think for themselves and are not being lead by someone with a bunch of letters behind his name.

Fine. Thanks for explaining just how mindless Americans have become.

    LukeHandCool in reply to retire05. | January 21, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    What nonsense! My first pick was Perry! When he self-destructed, I decided upon Newt … well before the Professor came out in support of Newt.

    I like Perry even more now because of his classy withdrawal from the race. Imagine how difficult it is to let go after all that hard work and long hours and rubber chicken. But he did so with a smile and not even a hint of bitterness (very Reaganesque … as his good-hearted, kindly demeanor always seems to reflect). I’d say if Nixon could pull off a comeback against all odds, Perry could do so much more easily. I think many people are touched by someone who loses with class.

    I think Perry himself would tell you kindly with a smile … “I lost. Life goes on. Let it go and let’s support the Republican nominee.”

    And he might also say, “Stop blaming the Professor for everything!!”

      retire05 in reply to LukeHandCool. | January 21, 2012 at 6:16 pm

      I know Governor Perry. I have spent time with Governor Perry. And he would tell me to stick to my convictions, no matter what they be. You do not have the authority, nor the knowledge to speak for him. So please, spare me your hypotheticals. And I probably will join him soon at Red’s.

      Also, I do not blame the Professor for “everything”, just an unfair covering of what should really matter, and it ain’t how well you can talk on stage but I do blame how he manages to overlook Newt’s failures and weaknesses but not Governor Perry’s.

      “The person who does not become irate when he has cause sins.

      For an unreasonable patience is the hotbet of many vices. It fosters negligence, and stimulates not only the wicked, but above all, the good to do wrong.”

        LukeHandCool in reply to retire05. | January 21, 2012 at 7:05 pm

        “And he would tell me to stick to my convictions, no matter what they be.”

        If that’s true, he obviously isn’t familiar with your online persona.

        “I do not blame the Professor for ‘everything.'”

        Yeah. It’s just that broken records, when they’re at the point where the stylus has worn through the record and torn through the rubber mat and is now etching the underlying metal plate … just seem to scream, “Everything!!” until the awful noise stops.

        “The person who does not become irate when he has cause sins.

        For an unreasonable patience is the hotbet of many vices. It fosters negligence, and stimulates not only the wicked, but above all, the good to do wrong.”

        Good grief. Is there anything in that quote that says you have to be a tedious pain in the a$$ at the same time?

          retire05 in reply to LukeHandCool. | January 21, 2012 at 7:20 pm

          Nope, and there’s nothing in that quote that says you have to be an insulting a$$hole.

          And because my governor chose to support a serial cheat, doesn’t mean I have to. I would suspect he did it for no other reason than to try to stop Mitt, who he is the polar opposite of. But since you requested it, when I do ask him about it (and I will) I will dutifully report back to you.

          Oh, and the reference to the record? Are you a disc jockey or just a stall cleaner?

          @LukeHandCool….I think retire05 needs to relax…now she’s responding to your “pain in the a$$” remark and my double-dog-dare in the same post. 😉

        “I know Governor Perry. I have spent time with Governor Perry. And he would tell me to stick to my convictions, no matter what they be. You do not have the authority, nor the knowledge to speak for him. So please, spare me your hypotheticals. And I probably will join him soon at Red’s.”

        Please be sure to join him at Red’s so you can speak for him.

        I double-dog-dare you to scold him for endorsing Newt then be honest in reporting his response to those of us here who have less authority than you.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to LukeHandCool. | January 21, 2012 at 6:17 pm

      I’ve been a fan of Rick Perry for years and wish he was my governor. We’ve got Bev Perdue, an Obama coat-tails rider on a thin majority. If you recall the stories at the time, she’s the one who during a speech asked for support of her idea that elections be put off for a while. No. Really. Cancel elections because of all the animosity and opposition and ugliness of Republicans.

      I’m sure her approval numbers in the mid-to-low 30s had nothing to do with it.

Has anyone floated the possibility that Romney could drop to third? Santorum’s arrogance certainly turned off South Carolinians. Assuming most went to Newt, and assuming Paul’s support is a constant (I don’t think he’s attracting new converts), could Romney fall behind Paul and have to settle for third? What then? I know it’s a wild thought, but it’s been a wild week. Crappy weather in the South today. Slightly curious will head to the mall or stay home rather than venture out to let their voices be heard. Romney is the “meh” candidate. His support might stay home in droves.

Santorum is making another major mistake by continuing. His ego has been stroked by the narrow win in an informal caucus vote made by Hawkeye Caucasians and by a manupulated endorsement among Ralph Reed’s religious friends.

Mr. “Slow and Steady” has lost the Libertarians and has not a prayer of attracting Reagan Democrats. He needs to take the taxpayers off the hook for yet-to-be-spent campaign funds.

huskers-for-palin | January 21, 2012 at 6:57 pm

If Santorum bows out, it could only help Gingrich. This is not what Romney wanted! The conservative base will consolidate TOO EARLY for his liking.

The MSM may have shot their ammo too soon while the voters will likely overlook a candidate’s flaws. Opening up the checkbook (Mitt) may not be enough this time around.

For Mitt, he does NOT want this to drag on to Super Tuesday!!! He was hoping that his opponents would split the conservative vote making him the top dog with his 25%-30% base.

All eyes will be on CPAC to see what Palin does at her closing keynote speech. I don’t think she’ll run but will give another “endorsement” which will favor Newt (IMO). Her speech will be amplified by the conservative blogosphere and talk radio. At that point, it’s all inertia.


One of the best anti-Mitt videos.

celestechristi | January 21, 2012 at 7:08 pm

FOX calls it – SC for NEWT!!!

[…] From the South Carolina PrimaryFollow the link Here This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← South Carolina Where […]