Southern Fried Primary Live Blogging

 

"Mississippi Doublewide" - Caddle

I got a past due notice hanging on my front door
Hanging on the one from the month before
Sheriff comes a knocking almost every day
Got to pack my shit before they haul me away

Obviously guys from the Will Wilkinson school of country music. I have found that I love a certain brand of country music in my middle age and it has little to do with the conservatism that Will Wilkinson (who obviously doesn't know shit about the subject) extols.

I spent the day in Richmond and am heading to Charleston, WV for the next two days.  How this kid from Boston ended up a southern and appalachian rain maker I'll never know.  (I'm heading back to Richmond two more times in the next two weeks and have a trip to Louisville in between.)

So what do you all think tonight?  (Chris Matthews just described it as a race between three cultists in Mississippi and Alabama -- that would be two Catholics (I have a hard time swallowing Gingrich as such) and a Mormon.)  I have a feeling that the continued splitting of the most conservative vote between Gingrich and Santorum and the strong establishment backing for Romney (and his overwhelming money advantage) are going to result in Romney stealing at least one of these two deep southern states, which I think will be very helpful to his cause.

Alright -- time to look at the early vote counts and see what is happening.  Oh yeah -- and grabbing a beer.  One is clearly not going to do the trick tonight. 

Ah yes, Stanley walked (a freakishly warm day here -- it was over 80 and it is still warm enough that wearing a light leather jacket has left me sweating) and a fresh supply of beer laid in. 

Update:  It looks like both Mississippi and Alabama are close three way races with Santorum narrowly in the lead in both with about 33-35% of the vote while Romney and Gingrich both hover in the high twenties.  Right now Romney is in third in both states, which would be a bit of a PR problem but would not prevent him from keeping a wide delegate lead.  I wonder to what degree Gingrich's persistence is preventing Santorum from winning a substantial victory in both places.  Maybe Romney will make Newt the Secretary of Bullshit in his future cabinet.

Further Update: Santorum comes from behind in three way (or what the French call a menagarie) -- he is the projected winner in Alabama.

Romney should have stopped with the grits pandering and done what this Massachusetts boy did and master the art saying "fuck all y'all." 

And still further update:  Santorum is stubbornly clinging to a narrow lead in Mississippi -- right now with 90% of the vote reported (according to CNN), it's Santorum with 74,436 (33%), Gingrich with 71,105 (32%)and Romney with 67,782 (30%).  His lead seems to be holding though.  And I can't see Romney making up a 6,800 vote deficit at this point.  Romney must be pulling for Gingrich to overtake him at the finish.  But the story right now looks bad for Romney -- two Santorum wins and two Romney third place finishes.  Fun for the rest of us. 

Santorum continues to hold on in Mississippi.  With 96% of the vote in, he has put a little more distance between himself and Gingrich.  I think a double victory is pretty damned close to inevitable.  Curious to see what the Pillsbury Dough Boy of Reaction will do now that he has lost both Alabama and Mississippi. 

It's official.  NBC says Santorum is the winner in Mississippi. And Illinois and Louisiana are next, both of which I can see Santorum taking.  And then people in the GOP establishment, such as it is, are going to be more than a little queasy.

And can I just note, contrary to people like Sullivan and Jon Stewart, I believe that the media has given Ron Paul absolutely as much attention in this campaign as he deserved.  He cannot generate even 10% of the vote in southern states.  He is a marginal candidate who has cracked 15% of the vote in only three state primaries -- New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia -- and the latter only because the anti-Romney voters had no one else to choose. 

Comments

[kathy a.]

shit. they're STILL having primaries? and we're supposed to pay attention to them?? even if the primary GOP race is being reported as evangelicals/born-agains, when both catholics and mormons are not exactly the local biblical flavor?

[Sir Charles]

kathy,

The degree to which the electorates in both states are white evangelicals is amazing. (This was a primary reason that I disagreed with Jim about investing any money in these two states -- these people fucking hate Obama.)

It is amusing to me that these folks seem increasingly comfortable with those who obey the Purple Whore of Rome. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that.

[kathy a.]

let's just clarify here: these states are white evangelicals for the GOP primary. the efforts to suppress the voting rights of other residents is all the more reason to get out the votes for the general election.

[Crissa]

While I don't think Obama will win these states, that doesn't mean they're not good places to make downticket inroads.

[Sir Charles]

Crissa,

I think it's tough to win down ticket there except in the majority minority districts.

The white vote is brutally anti-Democratic Party, and even more brutally anti Obama.

[Corvus9]

Well, I still think Romney will be the nominee, due to the delegate math if nothing else, but things like this are still gravy. These results ensure that not only Santorum but Gingrich (yay! second place!) will stay in the race. And that is good, because we want Romney good and bloody when the general roles around, tied to many awful, inhumane positions.

[low-tech cyclist]

The clown car keeps rolling!

And the longer it keeps rolling:

• the more opportunities the Republicans have to say things that will scare the bejeebers out of swing voters
  
• the more hard feelings will build up between different wings of the GOP
  
• the less time there will be to paper over the divides before the general election campaign
  
• the more likely that Romney will have to spend his own money to win this thing
  
• the less likely anybody of any stripe will feel any enthusiasm for Romney
  
• the less interested grassroots Republicans will be in volunteering for the general election campaign

And so forth.

Yes, Romney will be the nominee, but by the time they get to Tampa, Republicans will be about as unenthusiastic about their nominee as it will be possible to be.

[oddjob]

As long as the bishops keep focusing their ranting on sluts and teh gay while looking the other way regarding a conservative Catholic candidate's indifference to the poor and his embrace of torture the evangelicals have allies in the Roman Catholic church.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And yes, I have been around, just haven't had much to say. I contnue to see a completely different poltical world than all of you do, one in which Romney keps losing 'must win' primaries, one in which Santorum is currently the front-runner, and a world in which whatever there is of a 'Republican Establishment' left -- not much of one -- will do everything possible to ensure a brokered convention and another nominee, one that will probably lose but won't hurt the party down the ballot everywhere.

I see the Tea Party and the whole "Obama Hatred" thing dying rapidly -- much the way the 'Radical Youth' vote of the 70s literally almost disappeared between the time of the primaries - when it was already dying but believed strong -- and the election, by which most of the Radical Youths had 'turned inward' and forsaken politics altogether.

It is going at different rates. It's still visible in places like OK and WV -- have fun, Sir Charles -- but there's a lot of pushback. In Alabama, as I said, after reading every available newspaper and news source -- well over a hundred -- and yes, i read every letter to the editor and every political story commented upon -- it is, to all effects, dead. They haven't become Progressive Democrats, they still fall for 'Drill, Baby, Drill, and still -- with some reservations -- accept that the Obama contraceptive decision was an attack on religious freedom -- but those are the only negatives I saw menioned anywhere in the state.

I live in a world where the easiest way of measuring the passion of the Obama-hatred would be to compare the voting turnout between 2008 -- when there wasn't even a certainty that Obama would be the opponent, and neither McCain nor Huckabee, nor Romney for that matter, was setting the Republican world ablaze with enthusiasm.

Well, in Alabama, the total vote last night was 610,938. In 2008 it was 563,822. (In Mississippi the vote almost doubled -- and I haven't checked out the state yet -- but McCain had the nomination won already and only Huckabee was still running -- and the inevitable Ron Paul.)

In other votes, well, I can put together a chart, but the turnouts have been steady or down -- not what I would expect from a maddened group of voters more interested in finding the right candidate to beat the Hated, Satanic Muslim Kenyan Socialist Fascist Obama.

I also love in a world where the most likely result of the nomination possibilities will be major groups of Republicn voters staying home -- and possibly even going for Obama in small numbers. (I've seen polls where he has a good shot at Texas even now.) Forgetting the departers -- most of who will ticket-split -- the stay at homes will give the Democrats about a 5-10% advantage in races down ticket simply because there will be a lower number of Republicans voting -- and I see this as much stronger the deeper Red the state is.

I also see that Crissa would still be right -- as I have insisted -- in having us spend money in the 'hopeless districts' even if Sir Charles were right about his picture of the electorate. No electorate is uniform. There are TPers here in Brooklyn -- oh, yeah, and they even elected a right-wing Congressman, when -- after all, in reality -- they were silly even to try and compete in so deep blue an area, right guys?

We don't even challenge a Liuis Gohmert -- yet there might be at least 5-10% Democrats in the electorate. If there were a Democratic Candidate -- and I mean at least a centrist, not a quasi-Republican -- it would bring them together -- when now they probably see themselves as totally alone. It would give a seed group for future Progressive or even Centrist Democratic growth -- as, at the very least, the electorate becomes less old and less white. (Actually I think we might win a handful of the 'hopeless races' and give scares to others who knew they had no real opposition. But even if we didn't, the future results are worth the money spending.)

But I've said all of this too many times -- as I have my other main themes like 'blimpriders vs. groundhuggers' and the rest. I'm as tired of the sound of my voice as you must be, which is why I'm going to stay back and stay quiet for yet another 'vacation.'

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And I wasn't going to do my usual blog-hunting, but this study of the evangelical mind is worth reading. (So are the recent posts at Desert Beacon on gas and her survey 'coffee and the papers' for this week -- but I've given up suggesting her in any detail.)

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

Welcome back guy -- we missed you.

I think any district so benighted as to elect Louis Gohmert is probably beyond hope.

Romney has managed to win the three must win primaries to date -- Florida, Michigan, and Ohio -- which also happen to be three states the Republicans need to carry in order to win. (Well at least two out of three.) Even yesterday he ended up with more delegates than Santorum. So I see him marching inexorably on to a very, very tepid victory at the Convention. Although if he loses Illinois and Louisiana, the freak out factor will be huge.

[oddjob]

a world in which whatever there is of a 'Republican Establishment' left -- not much of one -- will do everything possible to ensure a brokered convention and another nominee

But that assumes such a nominee is out there to be had and that a brokered convention wouldn't result in said nominee being weakened by the process by which he or she became the nominee.

I strongly disagree with those assumptions.

[oddjob]

It's been decades since there was a brokered convention. Ever since the 1970's national political conventions have been nothing but multi-day political commercials. You can't make a political commercial out of a brokered convention.

A brokered convention would be an admission of weakness, and unless the stealth candidate turned out to be someone universally adored by the party faithful and the base having the candidate selected via brokering would be seen by the base as yet another betrayal of their values and priorities by the Republican establishment.

The perils of a brokered convention are very, very high. The likelihood of a brokered convention leading to a catastrophic general election loss is also very, very high.

[low-tech cyclist]

Also, any politician who had the sense to stay out of this contest from the beginning isn't going to jump into the race at the convention. If you're the prospective draft nominee in the second ballot, you'd think:

• I stayed out because I thought Obama would be hard to beat this year.
  
• And that was last spring. He's looking tougher now.
  
• I also figured that if Obama won in 2012, I'd have a good shot in an open race in 2016. That's still true.
  
• If I'd campaigned for the nomination, I'd have an organization, I'd have bundlers tapping their friends for contributions to my campaign, I'd have a pollster and a press secretary, and a staff that would have already vetted my veep choices.
  
• I've got none of that now, and I've got to pick a veep in the next 24 hours, while picking someone who can help my ticket, without doing a Palin.
  
• I'm screwed, aren't I?
  
• Fuck it - Mitt can run this time. I'll wait for 2016.

[Sir Charles]

I think the brokered convention thing is pretty much a fantasy. The days in which a single figure could deliver a delegation -- like Governors of old often did -- have been over for close to fifty years.

There is no true establishment in the sense of a small group of people with a monopoly on power. There are no Richard Daleys or Jesse Unruhs or other king makers of the past. There are just money men and PR guys and a lot of free agents.

I believe that the last time a convention went to a second ballot was in 1952. It could happen here, but it would be a huge change.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Okay, one more time why I see a brokered convention as likely. Forst, l-tc's argument only holds if you assume the Repulicans see any chance at all of winning with either Romney or Santorum. They do not -- nor do I think they would be 'looking for a winner' at the convention -- merely someone respected enough to 'lose with dignity' and not hurt the party as a whole as badly as Romney or Santorum would. (Or they could try a "Hail Mary" and nominate Paul Ryan or either Scalia or Alito -- it's been done before that someone left SCOTUS to run, Hughes in 1916, but both Jackson and Douglas were hoping for the nod in 1948, if Truman were rejected.)

I see a situation where one or the other has a plurality coming in, but not a majority, and one where the final ratification has to be done by the "Super Delegates" -- remember them, the elected officials and state chairmen.

Romney already looks like a disaster. Remember how we all felt when we saw Dukakis in the tank, how embarrased we were for him and how much we knew it was over for him. Well, Romney gives his own 'tank moment' about once a news cycle.

He has no real personal following. The only reason for supporting him was his 'electability' and his supposed ability to draw moderates and disaffected Democrats. But if he can't score an easy win against an underfunded unknown -- with almost no campaign organization -- who was polling at about 4% until the field cleared out, there goes electability.

And he's taken every far right position he could, including promising to 'end' Planned Parenthood funding. Even if he were willing to 'run to the center' and go 'hey guys, only kidding, really, I'm the guy who ran against Teddy,' he can't without losing the alfready dubious 'base' -- that's shrinking fast (with his help) but is still assumed to be powerful.

And if it was Santorum -- how many days before he becomes this years "Chrissie O'Donnell." (He's been spouting Catholic sex dogma -- if ignoring all other moral teachings -- so much somebody's going to remeber that masturbatuon is also a 'sin' for Catholics.) And there are plenty of other p[rime quotes in the arsenal to be aimed at him.

Again, the question -- from a *shuddr* Republican perspective -- is not 'who can win,' but 'who'll cost us the least when he loses.'

And, on a pure ego standpoint, if you were a Republican Super Delegate, would you want to be the 'vote that nominated Romney' -- if the election is the sort of disaster that seems inevitable.

Again, I'd love to see either of the contenders get it, because it would be magnificent for us -- but I just can't believe that there aren't enough Super Delagates seeing the disaster not to try and stop it.

Oh, it os a risdk, and a brokered convention could be a 1924 multi-ballot mess, and it could hurt the party worse -- let's hope -- but it's a question of risking a disaster or accepting a certain one.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Can't believe the typos, just wrote too fast, still sliding towards the exit for a while, but had to defend that one point.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And one more thing. About Gohmert's district. We don't know how anyone would fare against him, because we haven't put up an opponent since he was elected. Again, I don't think he'd lose -- though a number pf other prime fools might -- but even a 20% vote for a Progressive Democrat would be good and the people who worked on the campaign would have a permanent bond, i'd guess that would help them as the district became -- what is the mantra -- 'younger, less white and less male.'

Again, what would it cost us to put up someone just to challenge him -- and are you sure that money would be wasted, even if Gohmert won easily?

[nancy]

Jim -- While you're here, I wanted to thank you for the link to Religion Dispatches. I think I remember that you know of Leah Burton's God's Own Country , which I've been unable to face lately. RD will work better I suspect. I do like to get some sleep at night. The whole Dominionism thing is very hard to take seriously, but...

Desert Beacon is a reliable barometer. Some of your 'suggested reads' have made it onto my lists, while the Village has largely dropped off. fwiw. Stay well guy. :)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

nancy: RD is probably the best overall source -- and I didn't know of Burton's and will check it out. Bartholomew's Notes on Religion gives an interesting international perspective -- but tends to be somewhat dry.

Of the others, Talk to Action has a lot of good writers, solid information, but they need to cut back on the caffeine by about 98%. Solid, usually; hysterical, always. And PFAW's Right Wing Watch is great but has the flaw of painting all their characters the same height, so you simply can't tell how important a particular subject is unless you've read them regularly and done some outside work.

[Crissa]

I think it's especially important in the two-party races to field a candidate. You can't vote against a guy if you don't have a chance; and you can't take over a state house if the minority districts rebel.

Can't reach people you don't try.

[Crissa]

I'm not saying we should break the bank on hard luck districts or spread out totally evenly, either. Just that we shouldn't leave these voters high and dry, either.

We need good, solid, honest progressive and liberal options. You don't know where the next good speaker or leader or volunteer, and they might be out in these red places alone right now, never getting that hand up to learn the ropes.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

A further note on Gohmert's District -- okay, so I keep edging towards the door and then doing a columbo, sorry. But it isn't quite the totally benighted wasteland that Sir Charles thinks of it as being. It doesn't have any really big cities, but it includes Tyler, Lufkin, Nagadoches, Longview and Marshall -- some of which, particularly Tyler, have noticeable gay communities. The district is only 3/4 white, with almost 20% black, almost 10% Hispanic populations. And, surprisingly, it has a long history of going Democratic -- Gohmert was the first Republican since Reconstruction to win there -- thanks to Tom DeLay's redistricting plan which, surprisingly made the District more urban -- the farmers were the ones that kept reelecting Wright Patman for 47 years.

Could Gohmert be defeatd? Probably not, but with the strong minority population, the gay groups and the farmers, there might just be a chance to put a major scare into someone who is surrently expecting a no-contest win. BBW, do you know when the filing deadlines are for Congress in Texas?

I'm going to do my usual newspaper bit and report back to you in a short while, but the Tyler newspaper has already surprised me by admitting that Conservatives -- and it is very conservative -- have already blown the contraception debate because of Santorum and Limbaugh -- named directly. And that was just the first editorial I read.

Okay, so maybe I will hang around a bit -- I still have strong arguments for leaving, but...

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Didn't expecdt to be back this fast, but have to throw in a link to the Tyler, Texas newspaper editorial page. The editor is obviously a strong, almost a TP Conservative, yet the editorials I am reading are blasting the over-the-top responses by Conservatives -- one is even titled "Obama Victory, Not End of World."

Fascinating, and bolsters my point -- as do several other editorials -- that even extreme Conservatives are leaving the TPers and the ranters behind, that they have all but conceded an Obama victpry and are already looking to the Congressional elections.

Maybe we should start considering putting our main focus there as well, at least to where we have some idea of the districts we are dealing with.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Okay, quick cxhecks. Lufkin seems totall involved in a local murder(?) story that seems rather horrible -- a nurse who is accused of killing dialysis patients by adding bleach to their IVs. Not really political -- though the defense attorney seems to be blaming the owner of the fascility, a Fortune 500 Company called DaVita.

Longview is weird, with two papers, a local one that tends to strong conservative, and the East Texas Review -- "The Community Newspaper with a Global View" which is one of the most progressive papers I've seen anywhere, and even runs regular feeds from both the BBC and Al Jazeera! (And yet it also does feature what you think of as 'local news' announcements of chrity events, retirement parties for long0time court employees, local $2000 drants to High Schools, etc.)

Oh, hell, here's a link. It needs the sort of humor that Mollie could have brought -- and a few less columns by people also flogging on-line meds (ironically, there is a piece under 'transportation' that lists 'online buying of pharmaceuticals' by teenagers as a major contributor to teenage deaths from auto accidents.

Two more cities to check out. But maybe 'people in Gohmert's District' aren't as hopeless as we think.

[big bad wolf]

prup it looks as if the time has passed .

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

BBW yes, but I was the ignorant knowitall this time, see below.

Okay, the other cities were mostly behind paywalls, but I've been checking a couple of things. First, with all my 'big talk' about 'knowing the district' there is a Democrat running against Gohmert, Shirley McKellar, who is a nurse, a teacher, and an ex-Army Major -- whose disabilities, non-combat related, during the first Gulf War gave her a good look at how Vets were treated.

She's not exactly a flaming Progressive, in fact she calls herself a 'compassionate conservative' but she's miles better than Gohmert.

And one thing I suspected has been made pretty definite. We know all about the insanity of Gohmert, we know his wilder and crazier statements -- but his constituents don't, if 'all they know is what they read in the papers -- or hear on tv.'

We actually collect examples of his craziness -- pipelines are valuable because they are aphrodisiacs for caribou -- and the like, because we love having more and more examples of prime screwiness. But his District never hears of them unless he makes them in public meetings as well. The main news he's made in the past two years was in fighting to keep a Post Office in his District open, and I have seen only a couple of hints of his true screwiness -- and nothing on his homophobia.

This makes a point I've been at least suggesting for a couple of years. So let me give it a bold:

We think that when voters vote for a true crazy for Representative, they both know of and approve of hisn screwiness. In fact, they may know far less about him than we do, maybe nothing more than the leter after his name. And if they were told about his crazy statements, they might rethink their votes.

[nancy]

Jim -- A correction. Leah Burton writes at "God's Own Party" . Don't want to send you on a wild goose chase.