Given the current state of the GOP field, the phrase “but not as large as it might think” might more accurately be phrased “and the party hopes it’s not too large”.

In my circle of friends, Romney, Paul and Gingrich all generate automatic write-in votes if they’re the GOP nominee. And that ain’t good.

http://www.mapquest.com/#f004e0d9ae9ce46ddfc3280d

I believe they will be covering virtually all caucus sites [~800].

Even if your lousy premise that conservative talkers need opposition to thrive is true, there will be plenty for conservatives to oppose if Romney is the president.

But if we had a Tea Party to protest healthcare, to protest bailouts, to protest Fannie and Freddie’s manipulation, why on earth is Romney the front runner.

Why on Earth is Gingrich being touted as a conservative? He stood in the last debate defending Fannie and Freddie (not to mention Gingrich threw Paul Ryan under the bus).

Why is Ron Paul polling so well. It’s because he’s the only fiscal conservative in the race. And if he wasn’t so wrong on foreign policy is so many ways, he should win the nom hands down.

I get voting for Perry over Obama, but even Perry isn’t exactly a champion of tax cuts. Gingrich or Romney, over Obama, what’s the difference? If either of those two are the nominee, the liberals can’t lose, they have both candidates.

There is so much overstatement about Romney here and a lot of hypocrisy since so many, including Erickson, called Romney the best conservative option back in 2008.

I think a lot of these so-called conservatives actually want Obama to win again because it drives traffic to their sites and radio shows. Obama means RedState makes more money, Rush makes more money, Beck makes more money, and Levin makes more money. Why would they want a viable candidate to win when it’ll mean less cash for them?

Pew Hispanic poll last week:

Obama 63%
Romney 20-something%

Rick Perry needs to go talk to them.

In Iowa, Romney has a decent shot at coming in first, or at least second, in the caucuses today. That means that plenty of Republicans voted for him–very likely more Republicans than voted for Perry. And it’s their party too.

Some folks on RS have this attitude that “The GOP is *our* party, and we don’t want to share it with anybody else.” There are some in the Dem party that have the same attitude, which has resulted in chasing so many voters out that now Independent voters outnumber both Dems and Repubs.

If you truly want to welcome young Americans and anyone else into the party, then you’re going to have to accept that they’re going to want to back the candidates of THEIR choice and support the policies of THEIR choice.

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=70&threadid=6297336&start=1&currentPage=1

Politicians lie. Let me repeat that. Politicians lie. Don?t be so upset about it: so do you.

–Why hasn’t Perry?

If the Iowa caucus was unimportant, people wouldn?t be obsessing over it.

–Iowa will yield a consolidation of the Conservative field in one [no more Michele] and perhaps two [The Newt's plummeting] ways.

If the Iowa caucus was all-important, we?d have it in August and combine it with the nominating convention.

–It initiates a balloting-process that will be a “marathon” [not sprint], per Perry.

When Candidate X?s supporter tells you that Candidate Y has a problem, s/he is not necessarily lying. But, yeah, s/he is very likely being a jackass about it.

–Not necessarily; the truth-telling by Perry [particularly regarding Santorum] has been statesman-like, right-on, and highly-effective.

Money, buzz, crowds, speeches, debates, polls, commercials, zingers, phone banks, ads, leaflets, and hand-knitted tea cozies with the candidate?s campaign logo on them are great? but not as great as winning the precinct votes. Winning precincts is also the only metric that goes up on the scoreboard.

–The prodrome yields an enhanced chance of achieving the latter; this is the
positive effect of organization.

When it comes to elections, the saying is inverted: defeat has a thousand fathers, victory is an orphan.

–[...sorta like BHO's rationalizations.]

Pollsters have reputations to protect, but they also know darn well that the acceptable margin of error in primary polling is larger than normal. Trying to figure out whether it?s the former or the latter point that applies in any given case is one of the things that makes life interesting.

–Pundits are constantly citing the 50%-undecided [or, rather, "not firmly committed"] figure as a potential “out.”

Reagan?s fabled 11th Commandment does not include the clause ??so you must forgive an over-zealous supporter for being an jackass.? I mention this because many people seem to have that clause penciled in.

–No one should be lionized/forgiven for what he/she advocates on behalf of anyone else; the candidates do “adopt by reference” @ their peril.

The Republican party has a large contingent (but not as large as it might think) of people who will answer the question ?What are you going to do, sit this one out?? with a flat ?Yes? if you push them too hard. If this happens, well, you were warned.

–Ultimately, both parties will subsume their bases…but a Mitt-nomination could provide potent ammo for a 3-rd party formation [of TEA Party Movement activists and Evangelicals].

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who noted that the idea is not to pray that God be on your side; but rather that you pray for help for you to stay on His.

–This may be why EVERY preparation-day of the Perry Campaign is preceded by [optional] Prayer!