SOUTH CAROLINA by T. Edwin Perry
Today, I just want to make a few quick observations about the results from the South Carolina Primary from 1/21/2012. First off, I’d like to congratulate Newt Gingrich for his victory in the “Palmetto State.” With all of the controversy regarding the interview with his ex-wife now out in the open, it’s clear that his history of cheating on wives and then marrying his mistress is not going to influence is candidacy one bit. At least that’s one skeleton out of the closet and out of the way. But the winner of the Primary is not nearly as interesting to me as the other things that this Election Process has revealed.
Let’s start with an acknowledgement that, like Iowa and New Hampshire, the South Carolina Primary is an OPEN election, meaning that any registered voter can vote, regardless of Party Affiliation. This is a big deal. In 2008, both the Republicans and Democrats were in the process of picking their Candidates, so Democrats voted for Democrats and Republicans voted for Republicans. This is not the case for 2012. Since President Obama is running unopposed for the Democratic Nomination, all votes cast were in the Republican Primary. This is reminiscent of “Operation Chaos” in 2008, where Rush Limbaugh listeners were urged to participate in the Democratic Primaries to vote for Hillary Clinton after it was made clear that John McCain was going to have the nomination sewn up. In this case, there is a distinct possibility that Democrats may have actually served to prop up Gingrich, who is openly a Progressive, has publicly stated his appreciation of FDR and his similarities to Woodrow Wilson, and has supported both Cap & Trade Legislations and Individual Mandates for Health Care. In other words, he’s a LOT like President Obama…except for his Party Affiliation. So, when a Progressive like Gingrich wins in an Open Primary, I don’t take it as a sign that he’s the RIGHT candidate to win the Nomination.
Next, let’s do a quick Comparison of the data. Taking a look at this chart, the numbers in the left column represent the National Polling Data for these candidates as of 1/21/2012 according to www.realclearpolitics.com, which averages multiple national polls into a single statistical total. Notice, if you will, that according to these polls, Mitt Romney had a COMMANDING lead over Newt Gingrich. In the column on the right, you have the numbers from the South Carolina Primary from the same date, which indicates that Newt Gingrich has an even MORE commanding lead over Mitt Romney. The two “Leaders” essentially switch places. What does this mean? Does it mean that the National Polls are wrong, or could it mean that the Open Primary in South Carolina has been manipulated by non-Republican Voters? And does Newt’s victory in South Carolina suggest that he could pull Independent and Democratic Voters away from President Obama in November, or is it just as likely that, if this election was manipulated, then if Newt Gingrich wins the Nomination that it will signify another four years with Obama? These are only questions, folks. I don’t have an answer.
There’s another interesting piece of data that we can gather from this comparison as well. In the National Polling, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are in a statistical tie, with 14.3% of the support for each. While the South Carolina data shows that Rick Santorum has a SLIGHT advantage over Ron Paul, from a statistical point of view, they are essentially tied. And, worse, they split the truly Conservative and Libertarian voters, about 30%. I doubt that supporters of either Santorum or Romney would switch to Romney or Gingrich in the Primaries, making this a statistical three-way tie if one of them were to drop out today. The question is whether either of these idealistic candidates will drop out willingly, or if they will both stay in the race until it is too late?
I haven’t been shy about my support for Rick Santorum, and have even cast my vote in his favor in the Early Voting in Florida, because it is Florida that will prove to be the best bellweather in this election to date. It will be the first time that the Primary is CLOSED to those not registered as a Republican, and the first time that the outcome will be unquestionable. The real question is whether the OPEN Primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire & South Carolina will influence the outcome in Florida.
Until then, all that we really have are questions.
Of course, the other thing that’s interesting about the Florida primary is that it’s the first one that’s “winner take all” on the constituents… If Santorum could somehow pull out a win in Florida (and I have no idea how likely that is), he’d be in a decent position to drive the rest of the way…
But, even if this *is* Operation Chaos Redux, the thing that about it that makes me happy is that it takes away a little bit of the mainstream media’s certainty in trying to award the nomination to Romney already…
What really has me concerned though, is the rumor that the party leaders are considering holding a “brokered convention” — essentially meaning that all of the votes in the primaries wouldn’t matter one bit, since the nominee would truly be chosen by a deal in a smoke-filled back room…
Well, as for Santorum’s chances, I don’t think that they’re great. The unfortunate probability is that we’re going to end up with Romney or Gingrich, but neither one of them are a very good choice, in my Humble yet Outspoken Opinion. Given the timeframe, I think the only way Santorum could win in Florida would be if both Romney & Gingrich face a “October Surprise” in tonight’s debate that totally crush their support in Florida.
As for the “Brokered Convention” potential, one thing is certain: if the GOP resorts to this methodology, the GOP is history. If the country survives, there will be a third party, possibly the Libertarians, that will rise up, and we’ll be dealing with a nation that never again elects a President by Majority, but by Plurality. I’m certainly not looking forward to that outcome, but, then again, I’m not eager to having to vote for either Gingrich or Romney in November.
The problem is, with “winner takes all” distribution of electoral votes, it’s virtually impossible for a 3rd party candidate to have a chance — except in times of extreme political participation by an upset public.
Winner-takes-all isn’t the only *huge* hurdle for third party — it’s also the way that public election funds are distributed based on prior election cycle results.
If a third party candidate could accumulate votes, but not win a state, and still receive electoral votes, they’d have a shot at actually winning (imagine a candidate that could win California as a Libertarian that could *never* win as a Republican, while simultaneous winning many of the states in the South), but with winner take all, finishing *every* state in second place means no electoral votes. It’s not hard to come up with a scenario where a third party candidate could actually win a *majority* of votes and come away with virtually *no* electoral votes.
Which means next time around, no significant portion of the publicly available campaign funds would be available to the party that won the popular vote in the prior election. Without winning multiple states, it would be virtually impossible to be a serious force.
I don’t know about all of that, Steve. I think a 3rd Party Candidate could have a good chance of winning an upset, especially if his/her supporters are the ones participating, while the supporters of the “Status Quo” parties remain complacent. Think about the participating in Iowa: 5% of the Voting Age Population. The number of votes cast in the South Carolina Primary constituted less than 17% of the State’s voting age population. New Hampshire has had the highest amount of activity, with just over 24% of its voting age population participating. Based on these figures, a strong minority of the population could EASILY upset the results of a National Election under the current system. In fact, I would wager that if all of the Primaries were conducted simultaneously rather than in sequence, the results would be dramatically different, and the winner would be someone completely different than the one we will eventually have to accept. And in the event of a Plurality Decision, as a 3-Party race would cause, I think, the possibilities are endless. Remember, Lincoln won the election without winning a single Southern State. Clinton won Plurality but never garnered even 50% of the vote in either of his Presidential Bids.
As for the issue of Campaign Funding, the money is there. Relying on Federal Funds is a fools bet because the deck is always going to be stacked against a 3rd Party. The only way a 3rd Party could break into the game would be with Private Sector Support, and it’s the Candidate that would defend the rights and freedoms of the Private Sector that would actually support the changes necessary to 1) fix the economy and 2) restore the Constitutional Limitations on the Government. Call me an optimist if you must (WOW…just imagine it…ME, an Optimist!), but I still retain hope, even when the odds are good that we’ll end up with Romney or Gingrich.
I think we should get a third party candidate on the ballot — Hilary. Seriously, if somehow Hilary was to wind up on the ballot for one of the left-wing fringe parties, we could do virtually anything on the right without risk of giving up a re-election… Of course, there’s a chance that Hilary would win, but even THAT would be better than what we have now…