Seven things we learned in South Carolina

posted at 1:30 pm on January 22, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Now that the dust is beginning to settle in South Carolina and the candidates – with their press pack trains in tow – have fled to Florida, we’ve reached a rather remarkable juncture in the battle of 2012. With that in mind, it’s worth taking a moment to see where we stand and what, if anything, we learned in the Palmetto State on Saturday night. Ed already weighed in with some of this thoughts, and supporters of various candidates have begun chiming in as well. From Erick Erickson to Doug Ross, everyone is trying to redefine the race for roughly the millionth time so far.

But what did the South Carolina primary really teach us? I think there’s a few important lessons which came clear after the polls closed. Here are a few.

1. Debates and earned media still matter – possibly more than ever

There has been a lot of carping about Super PACs and the overwhelming effect of “big money” in the campaign. (In fact, that’s what is generally blamed for Newt’s poor showing in Iowa.) Rasmussen this week said a majority want campaign finance laws dredged up yet again. This has been matched by the griping (including mine) over the large number of debates, with questions as to whether or not anyone was even paying attention to them anymore, aside from hard core political nerds and geeks. South Carolina should put that to rest.

In exit polls, 2/3 of primary voters said that not only did they watch the debates, but they affected their decision as to who they selected. This obviously benefited Newt Gingrich in the extreme with his strong performances. In contrast to that, Mitt’s Super PAC outspent Newt’s by a wide margin. Which had more impact? The returns speak for themselves. People are watching and judging for themselves, frequently shrugging off the negative ad blitzes.

2. The anti-establishment GOP meme is not just a meme

I’m reminded of a scene from the cult classic film, Princess Bride. “Inevitable. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Newt Gingrich may not be the Conservative Ideal for many in the base and his record (or “baggage” if you prefer) may give many pause in terms of the general election. But one thing he’s not is Mitt Romney. Another thing he’s not is the establishment candidate. South Carolina’s history in the modern era of politics should teach us that they are, if nothing else, a generally pragmatic group. If any early state was going to go with the candidate they were “told” was the inevitable winner, it would have been them. But let’s face it… Mitt got his backside handed to him in a fairly decisive fashion. This came in spite of endorsements from prominent “establishment” figures up and down the line, as well as those of ultraconservative, Tea Party favorites. It didn’t matter in the end. The running theme of primary voters being tired of being “told who to vote for” can no longer be taken as a Tea Party talking point, in my opinion. We now have solid voter data to back it up.

3. Mitt Romney is made of flesh and blood

Romney had a double digit lead in South Carolina as little as a fortnight before the voting began. Now that the janitors are mopping the blood up off the canvas, we should be reminded of that scene when Rocky opened up a cut on Ivan Drago’s head. You see? He’s not a machine, he’s a man!

Until now you could make excuses for Romney if you wished. Aside from the Super PAC blitz against Newt at the end, Mitt never really competed in Iowa at anywhere near the level the rest of the contenders did and he still managed what can only be called a tie. He blew the doors off in New Hampshire. And if he had strolled out of Florida with a 4-0 record, let’s face the facts… everyone but Ron Paul would have quit. But Mitt chose to actively campaign and spend big in South Carolina. He always tried to manage expectations downward, but it was obvious he thought he could continue to build momentum going into Florida. He failed. He’s been cut. He’s not a machine.

That’s not to say that Mitt is washed up. Not by a long shot. He’s still got a ton of money and a national campaign infrastructure built for a marathon, not a sprint. But he can only take so many of these losses before the money starts drying up.

4. Newt Gingrich far less unstable than nitroglycerin

The common theme among many – particularly Santorum supporters – is that all they really need to do is wait for a while and Newt will blow himself up and go away. I mean, he always does, right? Well, Newt’s combustible tendencies may be real, but they haven’t managed a feat of self-immolation yet. Every time he says or does something which veteran observers think will be a fatal shot to his own foot, he somehow manages to turn it into a positive and gets standing ovations from the base. (Quite frequently literal standing ovations.)

Is it just possible that what the “experts” think of as fatal errors sometimes turn out to be exactly what conservative voters have been waiting for? South Carolina would seem to add weight to that argument. This isn’t to say that Newt might not yet trip over his own tongue and fall flat, but it certainly hasn’t happened yet. And the upcoming audiences in Florida already seem to be taking approving notice.

5. Rick Santorum prefers turtle soup to rabbit Fricassee

Rick Santorum isn’t going anywhere. Despite a third place finish, he’s on his way to the Sunshine State. Newt is still speaking very kindly of Rick in public, knowing that he needs Santorum’s supporters if he does manage to turn it into a two person race with Romney, but he’s got to be annoyed.

For his part, Santorum is correct to note that he has now won exactly as many primary contests as Mitt and Newt. And as per number 4 above, he has no reason to leave. Newt may have all the momentum at the moment, but if he does trip and fall, number 2 above should tell us that there is an excellent chance that Newt’s backers will actually stampede to Rick, rather than “falling in line” behind Romney. If he can just put in another strong pair of performances at the Florida debates, he will remain well positioned to lurk in the background and wait for his opportunity.

6. Ron Paul’s car only travels in one gear

This isn’t something we really “learned” in South Carolina, since it’s not really a new story. But Ron Paul has the money, the time and the patience to hang in there until the convention. He openly stated after the polls closed that he is “hunting for delegates” and will focus on the caucus states. What he intends to do with those delegates is anybody’s guess, but you can be sure he will stick around until the bartender signals last call. Last night, Michael Steele said he thought that the Palmetto State results made it “a 50-50 chance that we’re heading for an open convention” this year. Is Ron Paul playing a bigger game than any of us suspect at this point?

7. The conventional wisdom is, yet again, neither

I have lost track of the number of times since last summer that one expert or another told me how “obvious” it was that things were going to be one way or another this election. And on the heels of every major development, the “obvious” outcome seems to change. Sure… it’s possible that it ends just like many of us thought in the fall. Mitt might still lock up Florida and go on to swamp everyone else with money, endorsements and ground game organization, sweeping to his inevitable nomination. In fact, I’d personally still put the odds in favor of that happening. But it won’t be quick, it won’t be clean, and it won’t be pretty. And it might not happen at all.

Goes to show what we know, eh?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Please tell us why you believe her Lie in that video about the video was in fact true, and we’ll go from there.

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:12 PM

“We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with.”

Is that the ‘lie’ you refer to?

verbaloon on May 7, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Yes. Now please tell us why you believe she was telling the truth when she said those words. And why you are desperately bending over backwards to give her and O’bama the benefit of the doubt in this matter, when we know you would have never done had this tragedy happened on Bush and Rice’s Watch.

But before doing so, please remember that many folks here on the Right Side of the blogosphere confirmed last fall that when she said those words, youtube’s own records (the view count for the video) showed that hardly anyone had viewed that “evil video” at the time she Lied about it on TV. You are familiar with the mechanics of youtube view counts, aren’t you?

F-

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM

You’re a sad figure for typing that comment. If you don’t know it, you can’t be helped.

I told you immediately after it happened what was behind it. Amb. Stevens should have been in the bunker of the main embassy, in Tripoli, that day. It’s the MO of all major embassies, on such days. All else went sour from there and is a huuuuuge cover up, to keep Obama in power.

It’s very sad that you, of all the trolls, are as insane as all the others on this topic.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line:

When it first became clear that the CIA’s Benghazi talking points had been altered, many of us viewed the White House as the prime suspect. After all, it served President Obama’s political purposes to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which he was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism.

It turns out, however, that the State Department was the prime culprit. It was State that pushed back hard against the original talking points. The White House, probably for the political reason cited above, took its side.

Why did State want the talking points changed? Because it had ignored warnings about rising terrorist activity in Libya and had reduced security rather than beefing it up, as our embassy requested.

-snip-

Was Hillary Clinton directly involved in this cover-up? It’s difficult to see how she could not have been.

As I understand it, when State pushed back against the CIA’s talking points, a White House meeting was scheduled to thrash out the issue. One can imagine Clinton failing to keep apprised of something as mundane as a mounting threat to be safety of her personnel in Libya. But surely she was in the loop when it came to a bureaucratic struggle about how our U.N. ambassador was going to spin the Benghazi debacle. And surely, her representatives would not attend the meeting in which that bureaucratic struggle was to be resolved without being able to state the desires of the Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton, then, is culpable at the front end of the Benghazi disaster — when she and/or her agents ignored requests for enhanced security — and at the back end — when she and her agents engineered an attempted cover-up.

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Media, most of you, suffocate from consuming Obama’s shit. It ain’t Beluga caviar and you all deserve to be depleted of oxygen over such dereliction of duty.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Send in the clowns…

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Why, you are already here. Your histrionics continues to amuse. You aren’t interested in a genuine investigation. You’re a pathetic little hack with your head so far up Obama’s azz it’s comical. Oh, and who is going to lead a genuine investigations? The democrats? The State Dept? The media? ROFLMAO!!!!! Your pathetic attempts to chastise commenters here who want the truth are a laugh riot.

Now phuck off and go back to blowing your Obama doll.

HumpBot Salvation on May 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Petraeus should burn in Hell on Earth, and then some.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM

verbie you lost your 2% of credibility on this thread. You are now the same as all the others, sadly.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Obama, McCain and Rubio were fully pushing the Libya invasion.

Obama owns Benghazi.

Hillary owns Benghazi.

Benghazi proved, without a shred of doubt, that Hillary is as dumb at 3:00a.m., when the phone rings, as is Obama.

Obama flew to Vegas to campaing, the next day, after he’d gone to sleep after being told the embassy was on fire.

Some caring characters they are.

Most derelict are the parents of Amb. Stevens. Were they not so leftist they’d have pushed for answers before the election. How derelict are they?

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:41 PM

verbie, you’re needed on the Sheila Jackson Lee thread.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Based on actual documents and official releases (not the alleged secret hidden ones) the admin’s statements reflected that which they were getting from the CIA. The information evolved as time went on.
There is nothing that shows at any time the WH officially offering up anything that stood in contradiction to what they were being provided by intelligence services.
There is nothing that shows them knowingly providing false info.

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Yeah sorry no. Based on the various revisions to the “talking points” out there, it’s pretty clear they were edited in a way that made it possible to push the patently false youtube video narrative, i.e. removed all references to AQ, Ansar al-Sharia, weapons and militants in Libya. To say their later statements reflect what they got from the CIA … lol.

rightmind on May 7, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM

And as I offered back then, a valid point to question why Stevens wasn’t more secure…or provided with more security.

(And thanks…but I’ll leave you to whatever i going on re: Shelia Jackson.)

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 6:01 PM

There is nothing that shows them knowingly providing false info.

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 5:17 PM

You’re lying, verbaluce.

blink on May 7, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Yea…everyone’s lying.
/sarc

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Benghazi Embassy:

The official told story, as of now seems to be falling apart at a fast and ferocious paced. Just thinking about some things that may not mean anything but here goes!

Looking back to the internet posting of 11-13 September 2012, there are literally 10,000′s posting stating in one manner or another that Sam Bacile and his film caused the riots that caused the deaths. Then almost nothing until he is arrested and gets 1 year in federal prison for parole violation. Then nothing after that he seems to completely disappear of the grid. There seems to be some indication that he may be out and under Federal protection but nothing provable.

The internet acts fast BUT 10,000′s postings all pointing to a film, with in 24 hrs, look a lot more like a mass mailing then news and opinion reporting. There is very limited evidence of any sustainability of outrage.

Next thing I fine most interesting is: If all this was outrage caused by the film, then why is the film still available on Youtube and no one in the world cares anymore?

Just all seems a bit strained of ones imagination.

jpcpt03 on May 7, 2013 at 6:23 PM

You are trying way too hard with that line.

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Nope. Go back and read the thread.

‘Well of course it bothers you. You are predisposed to be bothered by virtually any irrelevant detail presented as some piece of some mysterious puzzle.’

Um, it would bother me if ANY Commander-in-Chief did it. I was and still am bothered about what was said in the lead up to the Iraq War.

And of course how perfect that you’re troubled by a conversation he did NOT have. What does it mean? Well maybe not much.

Um, it means that he was NOT acting as a Commander-in-Chief should when the first Ambassador in 33 years has gone missing – he wasn’t told until the following morning that Stevens had died even though it was known before then.

Why would any President not be concerned enough to about a missing Ambassador and an attack on the Benghazi consulate? Why would he NOT being in touch with the Secretary of Defence?

Of course something went wrong in Benghazi…Americans died there.

And, we deserve the TRUTH about it.

And if some folks around Obama had concerns about the political angles…well sure as heck so did Mitt Romney. And so did the GOP, DNC, Karl Rove, James Carville, etc.

A sitting American President lied to the American public, his fellow citizens, for political reasons about a terrorist attack and, therefore, was actually covering up the real reason behind the attack: Islamists militants and Al Qaeda in a country that he decided to destabilise by acting militarily without the consent of Congress and during an election when his narrative that ‘GM is alive, OBL is dead, and AQ is on the run.’

But to extrapolate from that all this murderous and nefarious malice and conspiracy and heartless motivations…it’s just drama-queening.

See Bob Scheiffer and Salon mag, to name two, about that.

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM

What’s really a shame is that any genuine investigation into what went wrong and resulted in the tragic deaths over there is thwarted to make room for one of Issa’s circuses.
Send in the clowns…

verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM

What genuine investigation?

The Mullins-Pickering investigation that failed to interview Hillary Clinton?

The one that would not allow – think how Orwellian that is – Congress access to the survivors and went so far as to change the names of them in their own medical records?

The one that didn’t interview the people on the ground?

The one where the Obama administration said ‘No comment pending the report of the ARB’ and then started squawking that ‘Benghazi happened a long time ago. We need to move on…’?

Resist We Much on May 7, 2013 at 6:54 PM

What’s really a shame is that any genuine investigation into what went wrong and resulted in the tragic deaths over there is thwarted to make room for one of Issa’s circuses.
verbaluce on May 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Nice attempt at lowering expectations.
J/K Verbie, that was actually a pathetic attempt.

JusDreamin on May 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Instapundit.com ‏@instapundit 4h

Note Hillary still blaming video in funeral speech, long after truth was known. At 16:25-17:45 in video. #Benghazi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY81JQZ3_bI

ted c on May 7, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Heck, if the CIA is that dishonest and willing to bend over for politicians in office, why didn’t Hillary ask the CIA to blame Bush????

fred5678 on May 7, 2013 at 5:15 PM

I have known a number of federal agents. Up to a point, most feds just do as they are told and they have good days and bad and weak sisters (excuse the sexism) in different jobs.

As indicated above, the entire video and spontaneous protest meme was absurd from the start. So the obvious question is who was selling it or ordering people to include it in the narrative?

It certainly lived long enough. It was publicly cited by the two Dem POTUS candidates in statements. Money was spent on TV ads in Pakistan.

Repeat, slowly…“money was spent on TV ads in Pakistan”.

LOL

And these people control nuclear weapons and a billion rounds of ammo in DHS!

IlikedAUH2O on May 7, 2013 at 7:20 PM

So I see not Bret hair, or bill o idiot is talking about the whistleblowers.mwell there you have it. No big deal mova along

Conservative4ev on May 7, 2013 at 8:04 PM

This week, we will see whether the Leader of the Free World will throw his Former Secretary of State under his now world-famous bus, as he apparently did those 4 brave Americans on that horrible night of September 11, 2012.

It will not surprise anyone if he does.

Harry S. Truman had a plaque on his desk which read,

The Buck Stops Here.

President Barack Hussein Obama has one on his desk, which reads,

It’s Not My Fault.

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Pretty sure the sign on Obama’s desk reads, “The Buck Stops …. uhhhh, in the Bush Administration.”

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 8, 2013 at 12:23 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3