Okay, here's my question: Is this really the best we can do?

Do you think that Huntsman is running for the VP slot?

Hi,

My question is about voter apathy, the common gripe about the '2 party system', big government and that old internet favourite, Ron Paul.

Paul is presumably doing what every political commentator of the previous 20 years has cried out for - i.e., grass roots support and the engagement of younger voters. In addition to this, his message about the Fed, US involvement overseas etc. is so different and asks so many questions that it is surely newsworthy and worthy of much debate in the press.

So...my question is this. Why does The Press talk about and push establishment candidates with middle of the road policies (when on the surface of things, Paul is everything a journalist after a story should be chasing after)?

Story Weather: The New Hampshire Primary and Presidential Politics

Edit much?

Tom.

That's never going to happen - 2 mormons on the ticket will never fly.

Huntsman is in it for 2016 and/ or a cabinet position in a Romney-Obama administration.

Why do you guys take this whole Caucus Circus thing seriously? It's utterly ridiculous

You frequently hear about how Huntsman is a more intelligent and better qualified candidate than all the others, but despite this the man comes across as just as much of a snake-oil salesman with slippery principles as Romney.

A Romney/Huntsman ticket would be a slippery, greased-up ticket indeed.

Paul can't gain any more support than his base ? so it's Santorum and Gingrich against Romney ? Gingrich is pretty much a busted flush , Santorum's too extreme to pick up too much support outside evangelical country ? SO ? hasn't Romney already won it ? What or Who could derail him ?

Ernekid - New Hampshire is a primary election, not a caucus.

So...my question is this. Why does The Press talk about and push establishment candidates with middle of the road policies (when on the surface of things, Paul is everything a journalist after a story should be chasing after)?

We are all Austrians now! Okay, okay, maybe it's just Arnold Schwarzenegger after all.

Seriously, you know the answer, it's because the American corporate-owned press sticks to the establishment like a toupet on Donald Trump. Even when it has the space to cover what it wants, it still spontaneously self-censors.

Okay, here's my question: Is this really the best we can do?

There are no doubt better people, but they're smart enough to avoid a presidential run.

Are there really 57 states as Obama said in 2008 ?

Regardless of the motivations, it's a dull and unimaginative approach to the entertainment that is supposed to be the news media.

For one thing, commentators from both sides of the imaginary left-right divide have for some time pontificated about demographic change and electability. Ie, on 'the left', Democrat-leaning commentators have claimed that the rising hispanic population are left-leaning and thus this demographic wave makes the Democrats the party of the future. Whilst on the other side of the fence, the higher birthrates amongst evangelical Christians Vs an ageing set of Baby-Boomers puts the future on the side of the Republicans.

All very noble, intelligent and right-thinking of course.

But from where I'm sitting, the 'future' appears to be siding with Ron Paul. So isn't that an angle worth commentating on. Or the fact that with hundreds of thousands of small donors, Paul is actively engaging with the electorate - vs those receiving big corporate donations (such as Barack Goldman Sachs Obama). These are news stories, areas of comment that should be analysed.

But all we seem to get are comments that Paul is either a 'nut job', 'crank' or simply that he 'will never be the candidate.

On a similar note, Paul is often asked about whether or not he'd run as a 3rd party candidate and also the fact that he is has not guaranteed he will support the eventual nominee. Since Gingrich recently stated that he would not vote for Paul, should journalists not be asking him the very same questions and ask whether Gingrich would put the GOP at risk if he stood as a 3rd candidate against Paul.

Good points. The media has been ignoring Ron Paul untill someone found some dirt to throw at him.
It didn't stick ofcourse and now I see they're back to hardly mentioning him again.
I feel for the people working for these news corporations that are trying to be good journalists, instead of having to play politics.

All interesting observation, Mi'Lord, but please do avail yourself of the opportunity to ask Dante something. He really does know stuff!

Whitt, another way of putting that, perhaps to Dante, would be: do you see anyone in the GOP who's not running who might be a more popular candidate than Romney? Christie, Rubio…?

Let me know if you want that put to Dante pls.

Romney must feel like free-market GOP's Jason Bourne. "You created me, trained me, now you've turned your back on me."

I'd like to know whether the apparent inevitability of Romney's win in New Hampshire is likely to have an effect on the voters. Will Romney's supporters be less likely to turn out? And will undecideds be likely to go for a different candidate, just to spite the establishment commentators?

Mr Scala, Sir!

This year we'll have more proportional-result primaries than ever before. Will that make it genuinely possible that Romney might not win a majority of delegates before the convention?

And does it not give the badly performing contestants at least the illusion of a reason for staying around?

And, finally, does it not mean that Paul can reasonably hope to be a king maker at the convention?

A question in response to Dante's answer to Richardoxford: Who's to say that the supporters of Gingrich and Santorum's voters don't come to Paul when their first choice falls by the wayside? Paul's campaign polling (yes, I know, it's their own polling, but I can't find another recent poll with the similar questions) shows that "Paul is the preferred second choice for a plurality of Newt Gingrich and Santorum voters".
(Reported by Katy Steinmetz at http://swampland.time.com/2012/01/09/why-ron-paul-is-gunning-for-rick-santorum/#ixzz1izUi0785)

Yes, many voters in the past polls have said that they wouldn't vote for Paul, but we know these voters who are lifelong Republicans or Democrats. If their state offers straight-ticket voting, they use it. It doesn't matter ultimately who wins the nomination. If they have an R in front of their name, they will get their registered Republican voters.

Dante, you raised the issue of funding when you mentioned Huntsman having a limited budget. And I've been told more than once New Hampshire voters are stubbornly independent-minded bunch.

My question, therefore, is whether there is any evidence for the latter in the funding? Meaning, looking at past results, do they tend to pick candidates who have not been able to spend great wads of cash on ads and other campaign tools...or does the most well-funded candidate tend to triumph in New Hampshire after all, somewhat contrary to the popular image?

Which one is the anti-US imperialism candidate?

"Why do you guys take this whole Caucus Circus thing seriously? It's utterly ridiculous" - Ernekid
*
Think of it this way: if the highest office in the land was decided by whether or not a particular groundhog did or did not see his shadow on a particular day, you'd have hordes of journalists camped out for weeks in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. The airwaves would be filled with interviews with relevant experts (marmotologists, meteorologists, local historians, etc). And of course pundits would be arguing afterwards as to whether the groundhog veered to the left or the right upon leaving his burrow.

Hi Matt,

I have asked him a question (3rd from the top)! I'm interested in the motivations of journalists who appear to be avoiding a very interesting story (i.e. Ron Paul and his positions) in favour of more 'mainstream' (e.g. the Economist) centrist discussions.

I'm not comparing Paul to Le Pen, but even before he nudged out the Socialists and polled 2nd to Chirac, his rise in the polls was plastered all over the broadsheets. There were numerous questions about what it 'meant', whether this was part of a greater European trend and how it contrasted with the persistent low polling of far-right politicians in the UK.

Regardless of whether or not someone agrees with Paul's politics, his impact on the race has been phenomenal. What does that 'mean' in the greater scheme of things? What does that mean in terms of engaging the younger electorate?

Is not the fact that Paul has garnered far less coverage (and air-time in the debates) than most other candidates also a massive story? Is this not something that The Guardian and Independent should be railing against - 'those darned right wing Fox news people are at it again' etc etc.

This is about the fascinating phenomenon of WHY the press has covered Ron Paul in the way that it has done. To me, it's a really interesting story and one that has ramifications well beyond the Republican primaries - and goes instead into the very role and motivations of the the journalistic trade.

DrewV (above) alludes to the idea that journalists must follow a certain party line - for after all, it is the advertisers that generate the bulk of the revenues. Is there any merit to this charge? As a journalist Matt, what do you think about the idea that Big Advertisers don't like Paul and neither do the owners of the media? Nonsense conspiracy theory - or bog standard inductive logic?

Yes, there really are: the 50 in the Federal system, plus on and off, as well as up, down, sideways, strange and charmed.

And childrens do learn, and humans and fish can coexist peacefully.

My question to Dante:

Romney's "I like to fire people" – given the Bain backstory – looks like a big gift to his opponents seeking to portray him as a corporate-cosy, multimillionaire friend of Wall Street. Can it make much difference in NH this late in the day? Will it hurt him in tomorrow's voting?

We got your first question answered; back to you on the rest in a mo. Best, Matt

Hi Dante - there's an interesting contrast between Santorum in Iowa and Huntsman in NH. Retail politics seemed to work for Santorum but not for Huntsman. Is it just because the Romney bandwagon makes it impossible to do in New Hampshire, or has Huntsman just not got what it takes?

Dante,

If Romney gets the nomination, does this signal the end of Christian Conservatism or the acceptance of Mormonism as an acceptable branch of Christianity in the eyes of Republican voters?

DrewV (above) alludes to the idea that journalists must follow a certain party line - for after all, it is the advertisers that generate the bulk of the revenues. Is there any merit to this charge?

That's giving them too much credit.

Ron Paul, sort of?

But did you have a Q for Dante about NH?

Hi Dante,

My perception of the US is that the definition of what is now the political 'centre' is rightward of where it would have been a generation ago. Is this a reasonable statement, and if so, could you outline a little of why it's happened, and whether it might come back the other way?

Richard,

Giving who too much credit? The corporates, media barons (who are sometimes the same thing!) or the journalists? If the latter, is that a reference to syndicated media and lazy journalism or something else?

I hate to sound like I'm defending Romney, but I'm not sure this will hurt him at all with Republican primary voters. I think, if they see the clip in its entirety, they'll likely just agree with the sentiment.

I think it takes something of a leap to infer he's talking about enjoying firing people in general because he's a wall street gazillionaire.

Hi Dante - there's an interesting contrast between Santorum in Iowa and Huntsman in NH. Retail politics seemed to work for Santorum but not for Huntsman. Is it just because the Romney bandwagon makes it impossible to do in New Hampshire, or has Huntsman just not got what it takes?

I'm not Dante (nor is my name the English equivalent: Milton), but I do wish to offer an observation.

In Iowa, Santorum came across like your favourite next-door neighbour, complete with the goof sweater-vest. He almost looks as if he's going to loan you his secateurs for your back garden roses.

In New Hampshire, Huntsman comes across like a college professor - an amiable one, and it's clear he doesn't mean to talk down to people - but he talks like an academic, complete with five-dollar words.

That may turn off some people, especially in Republican ranks, which have a noticeable anti-intellectual side. Fellows like George Will and Bill Buckley could never be political fodder for the same reason.

I understand why it matters to the world who the Americans elect to be President, because the President has power to affect the rest of the world. Thus I understand why people outside the US might be interested in the actual Presidential election next November.

But why on earth should anyone in the UK, or anywhere outside the US, care about the Republican primary races?!

People outside America have no control or influence over who the Republicans choose to be their candidate. It's utterly bizarre of the Americans to allow non party members to vote on what are essentially party decisions, but America is a strange sort of "democracy". But why should anyone else care about Republican party politics. Why don't we wait for them to make their decision and then we can fret over the candidate and consequences?

Thanks to everyone for your questions and comments. Dante's hour is up and he needs to go. You can follow him at @GraniteProf for his updates and observations tomorrow night.

I wasn't surprised while on the 'Commission on Presidential Debates' website to find financial interests well represented. Maybe it contributes to full coverage for divisive social issues, but not areas of common interest requiring substantially more expertise.
Questions: What are the critical factors in having a more open presidential race (including CPD?)
Would public financing or mandatory free airtime work, when so many have cashed in on the privatization of everything (including the franchise)? What are the alternatives you've studied?

Which one is the working-class candidate who wants to redistribute wealth and power?

DrewV (above) alludes to the idea that journalists must follow a certain party line - for after all, it is the advertisers that generate the bulk of the revenues. Is there any merit to this charge?

I appreciate your taking up where I left off, but I must point that what I said there was a bit of a snide overstatement, not very considered, and too simplistic to be a complete answer. I do very much believe that media-ownership must be located at the core of any answer to the question of why candidates such as Ron Paul tend to be ignored. And it would be gratifying if this were the whole answer, but honesty compels me to admit that it is probably a great deal more complicated than this.

So which one of the ultra conservative candidates will eventually take on Mitt?

If they're splitting the right-wing vote between them when a winner on the right faces Mitt alone who do you predict will get the nomination?

(SHould have him back! MIDWESTERN time.)

I tend to agree: it may be too late for his opponents to really broadcast that with their spin to make it stick; plus it may only be offputting to those who were already unfriendly to Romney…

But why on earth should anyone in the UK, or anywhere outside the US, care about the Republican primary races?!

Because Obama's re-election chances are dicey, and one of the GOP nutzoids could well be the next president.

Consider it an opportunity to get a head start digging your nuclear fallout shelter.

Er, this IS the Republican party primary under discussion here.

Sorry, Evelyn, but we've run out of time with Dante today. But look out for Ana Marie Cox and Jim Geraghty doing a double-header Live Q&A here to pick over the NH primary results at 1-2pm EST on Wednesday.

Good question, jonnie. Sorry you missed Dante, but that's well worth bringing back on Wednesday to our two pundits then, after the NH results (see above).

I take it from the tone of your post that you would prefer Obama over a Republican.

This is a serious question - how can you reconcile the fact that Obama's biggest campaign donor (in '08) was Goldman Sachs with the concept that he might be a force for good in the world? GS represents the blunt hard edge of capitalism - the organisation that prospers when times are good and times are bad - the company with the biggest bonuses - the epitome of 'greed is good'.

In other words, Obama is funded by an organisation who's values are lauded by the likes of Romney and Gingrich.

"Hi Dante - there's an interesting contrast between Santorum in Iowa and Huntsman in NH. Retail politics seemed to work for Santorum but not for Huntsman. Is it just because the Romney bandwagon makes it impossible to do in New Hampshire, or has Huntsman just not got what it takes?" - RichardAdams
*
Part of the problem for Huntsman is that he's trying to tap into the same pool of voters that Romney is drawing his support from. It's almost a given that if Huntsman was not in the race, most of the votes he would have gotten would be going to Romney instead. In the same way that if Bachmann had dropped out of the race prior to the Iowa Caucuses, most of her votes would've gone to Santorum instead and he'd have won instead of losing by a hair to Romney.

PS - That plus the fact that Huntsman has repeatedly refused to drink the kool-aid.