Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, dropped his bid for the Republican nomination for president on Sunday morning, saying his disappointing performance in Iowa’s straw poll convinced him that his campaign had run its course.
Just hours after his third-place finish in Iowa, Mr. Pawlenty said on ABC’s “This Week” program that his message “didn’t get the kind of traction we needed and hoped for” in order to continue….
Mr. Pawlenty, who had been weighing a presidential campaign for years, had developed a robust plan to win the Republican nomination. But his strategy did not take into account the rising popularity of a fellow Minnesotan, Representative Michele Bachmann, whose candidacy had overshadowed Mr. Pawlenty’s. He had staked his entire campaign around a strong finish at the Iowa straw poll, which he did not achieve.
Pawlenty, in case you missed it, finished a distant third in the Iowa straw poll, behind winner Michele Bachmann and close second Ron Paul. Let’s just take a moment to consider *sniff* what might have been … *wipes eyes*
Of course, I cannot resist noting that I predicted this exact outcome on the day Bachmann said she was running:
Now, clearly, [Bachmann’s] candidacy represents someone’s “Waterloo.” The question is, whose?
I think it’s Tim Pawlenty’s, not Mitt Romney’s…. Pawlenty, on the other hand, has to win Iowa to have any shot at all. He lives next door, and he’s been working the state hard for months. Yet, so far, he’s got almost nothing to show for it…. Pawlenty’s problem is that he’s basically a crappy candidate. Nothing is going to change that…. Bachmann will take Pawlenty down with her, just like in 2008, Huckabee took down Romney.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether the second half of my prediction – that Bachmann will win the Iowa caucuses, but then “fade as people get serious about who should actually be the next president, at which point Romney will finally seal the deal by amassing too many delegates for anyone else to have a shot” – holds up. Bachmann was on all the TV shows today, and she is apparently getting pretty good at deflecting questions about her kooky beliefs. As long as she can keep managing the Jekyll & Hyde strategy of telling her adoring fans what they want to hear (in code, to some extent) while not quite letting the general public in on the secret, she’ll stay way up in the polls.
Oh, Rick Perry? Yeah, he’s in, and he’ll make a show of it for a while. But frankly, I think Bachmann is going to beat him. He’s actually crazier than she is in some ways, and that will come out quickly. I mean, secede? Declare Social Security and Medicare unconstitutional? That’s genuine crazy talk, and even Bachmann hasn’t gone that far. So, at the end of the day IMHO, it’s Romney v. Bachmann. I still think Romney wins it, but this year, anything could happen.
So, who’s next? My money is on Rick Santorum.
1. Anemic fundfaising
2. Not getting traction in Iowa/South Carolina
3. His home state doesn’t like him
4. His pesky Google problem (NSFW)
I suppose a case could be made for Newt Gingrich, but I think he’ll be in as long as he can keep funnelling money to himself through his “Leadership PAC”. One of my politically astute friends picked Cain, but he has decent fundraising numbers and he provides crucial “look, we’re not racists” cover for the GOP.
Thoughts?
Santorum is going nowhere fast. Gingrich has never recovered from his catastrophic kickoff, and isn’t likely to, but he’ll stick it out longer than Santorum, and Cain will stay in for a while – he’s rich, he’s raising money, and he’s enjoying himself (since he knows he’s not going to win).
He really loves the debates. He’s the smartest and most well educated person behind those podiums, and he loves that people actually listen to him. He’s not going to motivate enough donors, volunteers, nor voters… but at least he gets to mention six -smegma- sigma.
Jon Huntsman or Thad McCotter are both going nowhere fast. McCotter isn’t getting debate invites, and Huntsman is going to fall fast.
In a way, Pawlenty:Bachman::Huntsman:Romney. Huntsman needs to tap the Mormon West for support, and Romney’s already got a big chunk of it. Huntsman simply doesn’t have the Wall Street network that Romney does, his religion will preclude GOP primary support from Christian zealots, and what with his cries for more civil rights at the debate, he sure as hell isn’t going to get the social conservative support.
At some point, Huntsman will drop out of the debates; I doubt he’ll make it through September. McCotter arguably doesn’t even count — if a candidate drops out of a race and nobody notices, was he ever a candidate at all? See also: Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer.
P.S. How many official GOP candidates are rocking the sweet Burnside style facial decorations? Two! Republican presidential candidate and GOP presidential candidate.
of being the latest great hope to enter the sweepstakes. He hasn’t faced a voter yet, and he hasn’t faced his opposition yet, either. Wait until then to anoint him as “The One”. Also, what is his explanation going to be for the $27 billion budget gap I heard Texas is facing? I don’t think he can blame it on a liberal Democratic legislature overriding his vetoes. I wonder if he’ll trot out the “weak governor” system of governance in Texas, and blame it on the Lt Gov and the Legislative leaders?
All it measures is who can waste the most campaign resources to basically buy the result by purchasing tickets and bussing people in, hardly a representative indication of where Iowans truly are. Romney, who consensus appears, and I agree, will be the nominee realized this, didn’t try, and came in way behind. Lawrence O’Donnell must be disappointed though; he’s said for months that Pawlenty would be the nominee because he had (in O’Donnell’s view) the fewest negatives.
With anemic fundraising and poor polling, Pawlenty had to demonstrate some strength somewhere somehow. Plain old organizational strength in getting people to vote for him in a straw poll would have worked. So far nothing has worked and the straw poll didn’t either. So for him it mattered.
Romney, by contrast, did not have to do well in this poll. He didn’t. He’s still in the race.
Of course, that’s pretty much exactly what the Iowa caucuses themselves measure too, so by that standard, it’s not unreasonable to give the straw poll some weight. 😉
…you don’t have to pay to caucus, at least I hope not. Sure, we all do GOTV including in some cases rides to the polls, but I still think there’s a big difference between a free community-based official part of the process and a single-location beauty contest that literally is pay-to-play.
but there’s a much larger opportunity cost to be there, since people can’t just pop in for 5 minutes or vote by absentee. Yes, that means people who would have to miss work would have to essentially “pay” to be there, and plenty of people work Tuesday nights.
Moreover, they have to be there for the entire caucus, and if they’re not there — even if they’re in the military and were shipped overseas — they don’t count. These reasons, among many others, are why Iowa only gets a 10% turnout for their caucuses, whereas most other states are going to at least get about 50%.
BTW: the locations for the caucuses tend to be so small that if, say, 80% of the people turned out… I wouldn’t be surprised if 80% of those people would have to “caucus” from outside, given the fact that none of these caucuses are large enough to house all the voters in a ward or district. So, that means they aren’t in a very big hurry to increase turnout, either.
…that this event was essentially a state party fundraiser, and that yes, in order to get in you had to purchase a ticket. However, very often campaigns buy up blocks of tickets and distribute them to their supporters without charging said supporters for them. Thus, if you are already committed to a candidate you might be able to get a ticket from that campaign, but if you wanted to go listen to the candidates and cast your vote then the ticket is on you. Is what I’m saying here not accurate?
I’m really surprised that anyone actually thought this. Pawlenty has always struck me as something of a joke … a mediocre-at-best governor of a not-that-important midwestern state, little charisma, nothing much to say, and looked exceedingly silly in those goofy videos he produced. So he didn’t have big “negatives” – so what? Haven’t these pundits figured out by now that people don’t vote for “no negatives” candidates? They want something to be excited about. Pawlenty never offered than, and he never will.
Hasn’t Lawrence O’Donnell been guaranteeing for years now that Pawlenty was going to win the Republican nomination?
What a hack that dude is. I miss Keith on MSNBC….. /sigh.
Who knew I wouldn’t be the first to comment on it? That only goes to show how much O’Donnell has been harping on it, complete with his trademark smirk and insanely huge ego. I may just have to tune in on Monday night to see him wear egg on his face, but somehow I bet that it just won’t make the show…
The Republican Nominee is easy to figure out, look at the past primary. Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and John McCain all we runner ups in the primary befor they were the Republican Nominee. It is just how the GOP works, seniority rule. Unless Mike “America’s Youth Pastor” Huckabee throws his hat in Mitt will be the nominee. Republicans wont nominate another govenor from texas and after Bush the gop is going to wise up. I have met Michele Bachmann and personaly she is a sweet heart, kind to everyone she meets, and is a true lady. But politicaly even Republicans think she nuts and after Sarah she doesnt have a prayer. She has as much chance of getting the nomination as Ron Paul.