As I feared Rick Perry is going "all in" in SC. Sound familiar? Exactly what Fred Thompson did in 2008 mainly to stop Huckabee NOT because Thompson thought he could win. Perry still has a reasonable amount of cash on hand to spend and I imagine his strategy will be to go negative on Newt feeling Newt's vulnerable due to his baggage and is the most likely candidate he can steal support from. This will allow Romney to spend a little on negative ads against Santorum but mainly stay positive. The end result in SC Romney gets around 35% with the also rans splitting 65% probably Gingrich 25% Perry 15% Paul and Santorum 10% each Huntsman/Other 5%.


Out of money Perry drops out after SC. With little money left Gingrich makes a last ditch effort in FL but will drop out after a disappointing showing there. That leaves Romney who will still be lucky to pull 60% Paul who will benefit and probably be consistently around 20%, and because it costs nothing to stay on the ballot Santorum and Huntsman may stay in till the end about split 15% or so.

The Republican primary process is broke and must be fixed. Candidates good or bad, never get to be known in battleground states like NC, VA, PA, etc. because the nomination is usually wrapped up by mid February.

(01-04-2012 06:10 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  As I feared Rick Perry is going "all in" in SC. Sound familiar? Exactly what Fred Thompson did in 2008 mainly to stop Huckabee NOT because Thompson thought he could win. Perry still has a reasonable amount of cash on hand to spend and I imagine his strategy will be to go negative on Newt feeling Newt's vulnerable due to his baggage and is the most likely candidate he can steal support from. This will allow Romney to spend a little on negative ads against Santorum but mainly stay positive. The end result in SC Romney gets around 35% with the also rans splitting 65% probably Gingrich 25% Perry 15% Paul and Santorum 10% each Huntsman/Other 5%.


Out of money Perry drops out after SC. With little money left Gingrich makes a last ditch effort in FL but will drop out after a disappointing showing there. That leaves Romney who will still be lucky to pull 60% Paul who will benefit and probably be consistently around 20%, and because it costs nothing to stay on the ballot Santorum and Huntsman may stay in till the end about split 15% or so.

The Republican primary process is broke and must be fixed. Candidates good or bad, never get to be known in battleground states like NC, VA, PA, etc. because the nomination is usually wrapped up by mid February.

Perry hates Romney. Romney will be the target, not Newt. Perry will let the ads do the damage and stay positive, just like Romney did to Gingrich in Iowa.

Perry is going after Romney and possibly Santorum. Going after Newt brings him nothing. I honestly think he just wants to scorch the Earth like he did to Kay Bailey just for ***** and giggles.

Hope hope you guys are right. If Perry is nuking the ones he dislikes that will benefit Newt and at least make the race interesting beyond FL. I really think Newt is the only one that has a chance of beating Romney in SC and for that matter for the nomination.

(01-04-2012 06:10 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  The Republican primary process is broke and must be fixed. Candidates good or bad, never get to be known in battleground states like NC, VA, PA, etc. because the nomination is usually wrapped up by mid February.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida are all battleground states, much more so than North Carolina actually.

I, too, would like to see other states get the chance to play a meaningful role in the nomination process, but how can that be done?

(01-04-2012 08:03 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Perry is going after Romney and possibly Santorum. Going after Newt brings him nothing. I honestly think he just wants to scorch the Earth like he did to Kay Bailey just for ***** and giggles.

Yeah but with KBH, Perry was actually winning the war. With Romney... not so much. At least so far.

It looks like Gingrich and Perry are both going to pour all of their resources into attempting to derail the Romney campaign in South Carolina. The problem with that strategy, IMHO, is that if Romney rolls to a big win in New Hampshire (and it looks like he will, but stay tuned), he will probably have earned a kind of unofficial "mulligan" in South Carolina and be able to keep going into Florida, still as the co-frontrunner along with whoever wins South Carolina. And once in Florida, Romney's overwhelming advantages in money and organization will probably be too much for anyone else to overcome.

(01-04-2012 09:29 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 08:03 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Perry is going after Romney and possibly Santorum. Going after Newt brings him nothing. I honestly think he just wants to scorch the Earth like he did to Kay Bailey just for ***** and giggles.

Yeah but with KBH, Perry was actually winning the war. With Romney... not so much. At least so far.

That's why I said ***** and giggles. He destroyed Kay because he could. I think he is attempting to that again now.

(01-04-2012 10:57 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 09:29 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 08:03 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Perry is going after Romney and possibly Santorum. Going after Newt brings him nothing. I honestly think he just wants to scorch the Earth like he did to Kay Bailey just for ***** and giggles.

Yeah but with KBH, Perry was actually winning the war. With Romney... not so much. At least so far.

That's why I said ***** and giggles. He destroyed Kay because he could. I think he is attempting to that again now.

Kinda agree. I think Perry knows he cant win, but Romney irritates him. I think he spends 6 million on negative ads in Carolina (hopefully a couple million in New Hampshire too) and knocks Romney down enough to make a race out of it. If its close in New Hampshire and Newt wins in S Carolina, the tide just might turn. Four years ago McCain and Hucakbee tag teamed Romney in SC and flipped the race.

(01-05-2012 01:34 AM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 10:57 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 09:29 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-04-2012 08:03 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Perry is going after Romney and possibly Santorum. Going after Newt brings him nothing. I honestly think he just wants to scorch the Earth like he did to Kay Bailey just for ***** and giggles.

Yeah but with KBH, Perry was actually winning the war. With Romney... not so much. At least so far.

That's why I said ***** and giggles. He destroyed Kay because he could. I think he is attempting to that again now.

Kinda agree. I think Perry knows he cant win, but Romney irritates him. I think he spends 6 million on negative ads in Carolina (hopefully a couple million in New Hampshire too) and knocks Romney down enough to make a race out of it. If its close in New Hampshire and Newt wins in S Carolina, the tide just might turn. Four years ago McCain and Hucakbee tag teamed Romney in SC and flipped the race.

I think not having Winner Take Aall until April may change the dynamics some. If the delegate count is close by April, then that will build momentum for other candidates. In the past, because of WTA in the early states, there was usually a lopsided delegate count early in the process.

I'm torn over what needs to happen. On one hand, I think having all of the primaries on one day - like the fall election - makes the most sense. However, that set up likely costs the candidates a lot of money up front and overall vs the staggered approach where the weaker candidates are quickly weeded out and the stronger candidates likely conserve more cash for the general elections.

(01-05-2012 10:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm torn over what needs to happen. On one hand, I think having all of the primaries on one day - like the fall election - makes the most sense. However, that set up likely costs the candidates a lot of money up front and overall vs the staggered approach where the weaker candidates are quickly weeded out and the stronger candidates likely conserve more cash for the general elections.

12 regional primaries of 4 states each and end the process with a massive primary including AK, HI, DC, and the territories. Make the order based on highest turnout in the previous presidential election.

(01-05-2012 11:10 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-05-2012 10:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm torn over what needs to happen. On one hand, I think having all of the primaries on one day - like the fall election - makes the most sense. However, that set up likely costs the candidates a lot of money up front and overall vs the staggered approach where the weaker candidates are quickly weeded out and the stronger candidates likely conserve more cash for the general elections.

12 regional primaries of 4 states each and end the process with a massive primary including AK, HI, DC, and the territories. Make the order based on highest turnout in the previous presidential election.

I would do something similar except work from smallest states to largest. Smallest get heard from first, so their voice counts. And you can play with it a little bit to make it regional:

Week 1--IA (tradition), NH (tradition), VT, RI
Week 2--AK, HI, DC, territories
Week 3--WY, ND, SD, MT
Week 4--DE, ME, SC, CT
Week 5--ID, OR, WA, NV
Week 6--NB, KS, IA, OK
Week 7--MS, AR, AL, LA
Week 8--NM, CO, UT, AZ
Week 9--MD, TN, KY, WV
Week 10--MI, IN, WI, MN
Week 11--GA, NC, VA, NJ
Week 12--IL, PA, OH, MA
Week 13--CA, TX, NY, FL

Obviously, you'd need a lot of agreement by the states, but this would have some logic to it. Start Jan 15 or Feb 1, be done by Apr 15 or Apr 30.

(01-05-2012 12:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2012 11:10 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-05-2012 10:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm torn over what needs to happen. On one hand, I think having all of the primaries on one day - like the fall election - makes the most sense. However, that set up likely costs the candidates a lot of money up front and overall vs the staggered approach where the weaker candidates are quickly weeded out and the stronger candidates likely conserve more cash for the general elections.

12 regional primaries of 4 states each and end the process with a massive primary including AK, HI, DC, and the territories. Make the order based on highest turnout in the previous presidential election.

I would do something similar except work from smallest states to largest. Smallest get heard from first, so their voice counts. And you can play with it a little bit to make it regional:

Week 1--IA (tradition), NH (tradition), VT, RI
Week 2--AK, HI, DC, territories
Week 3--WY, ND, SD, MT
Week 4--DE, ME, SC, CT
Week 5--ID, OR, WA, NV
Week 6--NB, KS, IA, OK
Week 7--MS, AR, AL, LA
Week 8--NM, CO, UT, AZ
Week 9--MD, TN, KY, WV
Week 10--MI, IN, WI, MN
Week 11--GA, NC, VA, NJ
Week 12--IL, PA, OH, MA
Week 13--CA, TX, NY, FL

Obviously, you'd need a lot of agreement by the states, but this would have some logic to it. Start Jan 15 or Feb 1, be done by Apr 15 or Apr 30.

Good idea. Bit of a death march though. I think I'd spread it out from Jan 1 to May 15. Put in a couple of debates.

(01-05-2012 12:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-05-2012 11:10 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(01-05-2012 10:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm torn over what needs to happen. On one hand, I think having all of the primaries on one day - like the fall election - makes the most sense. However, that set up likely costs the candidates a lot of money up front and overall vs the staggered approach where the weaker candidates are quickly weeded out and the stronger candidates likely conserve more cash for the general elections.

12 regional primaries of 4 states each and end the process with a massive primary including AK, HI, DC, and the territories. Make the order based on highest turnout in the previous presidential election.

I would do something similar except work from smallest states to largest. Smallest get heard from first, so their voice counts. And you can play with it a little bit to make it regional:

Week 1--IA (tradition), NH (tradition), VT, RI
Week 2--AK, HI, DC, territories
Week 3--WY, ND, SD, MT
Week 4--DE, ME, SC, CT
Week 5--ID, OR, WA, NV
Week 6--NB, KS, IA, OK
Week 7--MS, AR, AL, LA
Week 8--NM, CO, UT, AZ
Week 9--MD, TN, KY, WV
Week 10--MI, IN, WI, MN
Week 11--GA, NC, VA, NJ
Week 12--IL, PA, OH, MA
Week 13--CA, TX, NY, FL

Obviously, you'd need a lot of agreement by the states, but this would have some logic to it. Start Jan 15 or Feb 1, be done by Apr 15 or Apr 30.

Funny thing is if you do my plan Iowa and New Hampshire are still in the first 2 weeks because the Upper Midwest and New England vote at much higher levels than southerners or westerners.

Wk1--WI, MN, IA, ND--138 GOP delegates (71.85% turnout)
Wk2--ME, VT, NH, MA--94 (69.53%)
Wk3--MT, ID, WY, SD--105 (65.53%)
Wk4--MI, OH, IN, IL--211 (65.23%)
Wk5--WA, OR, CA, NV--271 (64.38%)
Wk6--CT, RI, NY, NJ--192 (64.05%)
Wk7--KS, MO, NE, OK--170 (63.53%)
Wk8--VA, NC, KY, TN--207 (62.78%)
Wk9--PA, WV, MD, DE--157 (62.73%)
Wk10--GA, FL, AL, SC--201 (62.60%)
Wk11--UT, CO, AZ, NM--128 (60.60%)
Wk12--TX, LA, AR, MS--277 (58.38%)
Wk13--AK, HI, DC, VI, PR, GU, NM, AS--86

(01-04-2012 06:10 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  As I feared Rick Perry is going "all in" in SC. Sound familiar? Exactly what Fred Thompson did in 2008 mainly to stop Huckabee NOT because Thompson thought he could win. Perry still has a reasonable amount of cash on hand to spend and I imagine his strategy will be to go negative on Newt feeling Newt's vulnerable due to his baggage and is the most likely candidate he can steal support from. This will allow Romney to spend a little on negative ads against Santorum but mainly stay positive. The end result in SC Romney gets around 35% with the also rans splitting 65% probably Gingrich 25% Perry 15% Paul and Santorum 10% each Huntsman/Other 5%.


Out of money Perry drops out after SC. With little money left Gingrich makes a last ditch effort in FL but will drop out after a disappointing showing there. That leaves Romney who will still be lucky to pull 60% Paul who will benefit and probably be consistently around 20%, and because it costs nothing to stay on the ballot Santorum and Huntsman may stay in till the end about split 15% or so.

The Republican primary process is broke and must be fixed. Candidates good or bad, never get to be known in battleground states like NC, VA, PA, etc. because the nomination is usually wrapped up by mid February.

Gingrich may be the next to leave, he said at least once if he doesn't WIN SC he's finished. Perry might be able to remain in if Gingrich drops and benefit from his departure, BUT, he'll in all probability be out of money so he won't be very effective. Huntsman needs a 2nd or 3rd in NH to stay in, so he's likely gone. Santorum also out of money may stay in but be able to collect a few protest votes.

I'll stick with my assessment barring a major change in SC it's over.

(01-05-2012 10:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm torn over what needs to happen. On one hand, I think having all of the primaries on one day - like the fall election - makes the most sense. However, that set up likely costs the candidates a lot of money up front and overall vs the staggered approach where the weaker candidates are quickly weeded out and the stronger candidates likely conserve more cash for the general elections.

I think Id like to see the party use swing states and reliable large red states early in the process instead of letting a blue state like NH set the agenda (or even a handul of voters in a sparsely attended Iowa caucus). Say Florida, then Texas, then Ohio, then NC...something like that. They have larger more representative republican voting blocks than NH or Iowa.