Other than in South Carolina, 2012 GOP Primary turnout has been somewhat flat, or below that of 2008. Up +3 in Iowa and +6 in New Hampshire, it jumped to +35 in South Carolina but dropped to -14 in Florida. It’s possible that the last minute surge by Gingrich and his debate performances brought some added excitement to the race, turning out voters in South Carolina.

South Carolina, of course, was the strongest state for Newt Gingrich. In contrast, turnout among Republican identifiers was down for Mr. Romney’s two victories so far, as well as for his near-win in Iowa.

While it’s possible to argue that Romney’s negative advertising in Florida lowered turnout, along with the lack of a special real estate-related initiative – one was on the ballot in 2008 – a closer look at the numbers still points to a problem, especially for for Romney.

In both South Carolina and Florida, district-level turnout was more likely to trend up in districts that went to Newt, and flat, or down in ones that went for Romney. Once one looks at party identification, the trend gets even worse.

Turnout was heavier than normal in some portions of Charleston, Calhoun, Georgetown, Greenville, Kershaw, Pickens, Richland, Saluda and York counties, the state election commission reported based on anecdotal responses from county elections offices. Turnout was light in Allendale, Bamberg, Dillon, Hampton, Jasper, Newberry, Orangeburg, Union and Williamsburg counties, most of which lean Democratic.

Registered Republican turnout was -11 in Iowa, -15 in New Hampshire, +20 in South Carolina – where Gingrich won – and -16 in Florida. This is not a good sign for Republicans in 2012 and perhaps an ever worse sign for Mitt Romney.

This observation is most particularly true for the nominating process of either party seeking to replace an incumbent President or the party of an incumbent who is not running for re-election.

With Iowa’s caucus and the New Hampshire primary finished, we should pause and look at a little history to illustrate how our current process, in effect, disenfranchises a majority of voters.

In 1952, Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois (perhaps one of that state’s last governors who did not go on to a career of making license plates)  was selected as the nominee at the Democratic convention through a series of state primaries and won the 1952 nomination at the Democratic convention on the third ballot.  Today, nominating conventions have no real purpose to them except for the public learning the nominee’s vice-presidential choice.  Bringing party professionals into the mix might spare us another Sarah Palin debacle.  Perhaps there is a role for smoke filled rooms, even though smoking would be banned!

In 1952 the process produced Senator John Sparkman as the democratic Vice-Presidential choice, an obvious sop to party bosses who did not trust the candidate Estes Kefauver, who went into the convention with the most pledged delegates. After the first two ballots Kefauver led but was overtaken on the third ballot when Stevenson was nominated.  The 1952 presidential race had earlier been thrown into disarray when President Truman announced that he would not seek re-election.  As we all know, General Eisenhower was elected President in November 1952. In 1956 Kefauver ran again and won the New Hampshire and Minnesota primary over Stevenson.  Although Stevenson was again nominated, this time around the party chose Kefauver as his running mate.

Fast forward to 1968 when President Johnson made his surprise announcement to a nation bitterly divided by the Vietnam War that he would not seek another term.  Senator Robert Kennedy won the California primary in June, defeating anti-war Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota.  Kennedy in his final words said “on to Chicago” before being shot by a lunatic, Sirhan Sirhan.  In the end, Senator Hubert Humphrey received the nomination, but lost the general election to Richard Nixon, who had stated in 1962, after losing the California governorship, that we wouldn’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.

But for the poorly-thought-out rule change the Republicans instituted for the 2012 primaries, it would have been possible, even likely, that the Republican nominee could have been decided within the next 30 days.  Thus, after the first three or four state primaries, less than three percent of registered voters could have decided the Republican nominee.  Talk about outsize influence.  States that have storied histories associated with their primaries (Wisconsin…always in April and California always in June) will have been effectively disenfranchised as will the remaining US voters in the United States which has an estimated 2011 population of 312 million people. We think the Republican rule change was rather harebrained anyway. If proportional allocation of delegates makes sense prior to April 1^st, why doesn’t make sense thereafter?

What is the solution?  There are numerous ways vastly to improve the system all of which are better than what we now have.  Former President Carter and James Baker, in a report on US elections which contains a mish mash of proposals on voter registration, proposed several serious ideas, one of which recommends four regional primaries, held after the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary at one-month intervals from March to June.  The plan would substantially expand participation in the selection of presidential nominees and give voters the chance to evaluate presidential candidates over a period of three to four months.

The Carter Baker report states:

“Think of a major election in which less than 8 percent of voters cast a ballot, yet millions of other voters want to vote but never get the chance.  While such an election is hard to imagine in the United States, that is precisely how we select the candidates for the highest public office in the land.

In recent election cycles, the races for the presidential nomination of each of our major political parties have effectively ended by March, before people in most states have the opportunity to vote.  As a result, most Americans have no real say in the selection of the nominee. Intense candidate scrutiny by the media and the public is limited to about 10 weeks.  Candidates must launch their presidential bids a year or more before the official campaign begins, so that they can raise the $25 million to 50 million needed to compete.

The Presidential primary schedule has become increasingly front-loaded.  While eight states held presidential primaries by the end of March in 1984, more than three times that – 28 states – held their primaries by March in 2004.

[We have] recommended a comprehensive overhaul of the presidential primary system.  This recommendation was received enthusiastically in numerous editorials, which expressed the view of a great many voters across the country who want a say in choosing their presidential candidates.

We believe that it is important for the parties to maintain control of their own primaries.  Therefore, we would encourage the two parties to make the needed changes in their primary schedule.  If the parties don’t take action, they risk losing that power to Congress, which should make the desired change through federal legislation if the parties remain unwilling to do so.

In the end, voters throughout America deserve a say in the selection of candidates for the most powerful job in the country.”

We would add a provision that over four election cycles, the regions would rotate so each region would have the opportunity to go first. The current system of selecting candidates is not a credit to either American Democracy or our long tradition of American Exceptionalism.  We can do better in selecting candidates for the presidency of a great and exceptional nation.

By Hal Gershowitz and Stephen Porter

Remembering the old adage, “all politics is local,” Republican candidates weighed in on this topic during two consecutive debates in New Hampshire earlier this month. Mitt Romney claimed “Right-to-work legislation makes a lot of sense for New Hampshire.” In fact, it makes more sense for New Hampshire’s legislature to implement this policy than for most other local governments. How can the “Live Free or Die” state deny its workers the basic liberty to choose which organizations they associate with and contribute money to? Why would one of the first states to ratify our national Constitution continue to impose a policy that contradicts that document’s emphasis on freedom of assembly? In a nation of citizens who value their freedoms, right-to-work should be a common sense principle rather than a rare policy only enacted by 22 of 50 states. No one is doubting a worker’s right to join a union, so why must today’s liberals doubt their right to not join one?

Next Rick Perry asserted that a right-to-work labor market would make New Hampshire a “powerful magnet” for jobs in the region. Indeed since no other Northeastern state has adopted similar legislation yet, if New Hampshire became right-to-work, that state would be the first in the region to do so. As a result, any skilled workers in the area hesitant about union membership or businesses unable to meet the demands of unreasonable union bosses would flock to New Hampshire, providing a significant boost to its economy.

Although purporting to be the party that supports workers’ rights, the Democrats have risen in unified opposition to guaranteeing American laborers one of their most fundamental freedoms: the ability to choose whether or not to join a union. For instance, the Democratic Governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, vetoed a previous right-to-work bill passed overwhelmingly by his state’s legislature.

Even President Obama has injected himself into these local disputes, claiming: “When I hear some of these folks trying to pass so-called ‘right to work’ laws for private sector workers, that really means the right to work for less and less and less. When I hear some of this talk, I know this is not about economics. This is about politics.”

However did the President consider the economic impact of his actions when he sided with the National Labor Relations Board to prohibit thousands of new jobs being created in South Carolina purely because those jobs were not unionized? Did the President consider the economic impact of his actions when he awarded labor unions significant shares in the same auto companies that they helped bankrupt through unprecedented wage and benefit demands? Did President Obama consider the economic impact of his fellow Democrats’ actions in Wisconsin when they childishly fled their state in order to preserve the unions’ right to collectively bargain at the expense of their fellow taxpayers? Repeatedly President Obama and the Democratic Party have prioritized their lucrative relationship with Big Labor over the economic concerns of their constituents.

Through his unwavering support of labor unions, President Obama consistently refuses to take into account the negative effect those institutions have on the American economy and, in consequence, the workers they claim to protect. Winning a higher wage and more extravagant benefits for workers in a particular industry might benefit those individuals in the short term. However in the long term as American businesses struggle to compete in a competitive global marketplace, those demands harm the average worker by encouraging his employer to outsource his job elsewhere. Is the temporary increase in benefits and salary that unions provide worth the higher likelihood of unemployment that will result from an increased burden on the employer?

Apparently we are not the only ones who have realized the destructive force of American labor unions. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2011 union membership fell to 11.9% of the American workforce, its lowest percentage in over 70 years, demonstrating the increasing irrelevance that such institutions possess. Although labor unions face declining membership, declining usefulness, and declining purpose in our society, the Democratic party functions as their last life-line, using every legislative measure necessary to artificially keep a dying system alive. Right-to-work legislation, card-check bills, and a sympathetic National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are all examples of measures designed by liberals to artificially boost the ranks of labor unions in response to their declining influence and membership. President Obama even granted labor unions special waivers from his health care plan in order to protect their valuable Cadillac insurance agreements, negotiated through collective bargaining. Democrats claim that, by supporting unions, they are supporting the American worker, but the motivations are unfortunately much more selfish.

While President Obama ironically criticizes Republicans for playing politics with the issue of labor relations, only his own motives for supporting the unions’ efforts are actually very shady. The Center for Responsive Politics has cited three labor unions as being among the top five donors to political candidates in the last campaign season. Collectively these entities donated 170 million dollars to Democratic candidates during the 2010 midterm elections. AFSCME, a public sector union representing government workers, earned the distinction of being the biggest donor of that election, handing over 90 million dollars of its members’ salaries to liberal campaigns. Although liberals protest corporations and Big Business for controlling politics in America, labor unions spend more annually in lobbying expenditure than any private market industry.

Labor unions unfairly contribute their members’ dues on these liberal campaigns regardless of those individuals’ political leanings. Therefore whenever union membership is increased, and such organizations collect more dues as a result, the Democratic Party benefits financially. It is thus no coincidence that all their initiatives relating to labor consequently result in greater union membership. When Democrats cannot encourage more workers to join unions, they force them to through opposing right-to-work legislation. Liberals’ opposition to right-to-work is not based on any fundamental concern they have for the American worker, but instead a well coordinated political scheme to fund their campaigns.

Meanwhile Republicans’ labor relations policies result in millions of dollars worth of attack ads being spent against their candidates and highly motivated union representatives organizing protests and recalls against their initiatives. The fact that conservative candidates, such as Governor Scott Walker, Governor Chris Christie, and Governor John Kasich, continue to reveal the same truths about unions without fearing the repercussions listed above demonstrates that their actions regarding labor relations are based on convictions rather than their future reelection campaigns. Can the same be said about Democratic candidates who accept millions of dollars in campaign funds from such organizations each year?

Whether granting waivers to unions from Obamacare, opposing Governor Walker’s efforts to reduce public workers’ benefits in Wisconsin, or outlawing non-unionized jobs, President Obama and his Democratic Party have blindly accepted the demands of America’s labor unions for their own political expediency. As the debate over the Keystone pipeline reveals, the only group liberals pander to more are the environmentalists, another major Democratic campaign donor. Who will buy the Democratic Party next? Hopefully a group that actually values the free market.

Written by Evan Draim

After Tuesday night, here’s the delegate count. Mitt Romney leads the pack with 20, followed by Rick Santorum at 12. Paul has 3, Huntsman has 2, and everyone else has zero. You need 1144 delegates to win, so every candidate has a long, long way to go.

Part of the issue here is how the delegates are apportioned. In the past, most of the primaries were winner-takes-all. This led to some odd incentives where candidates would try to win a specific state or primary and then use that to springboard on to the next state.

Now they are proportionate. This means that this race will go on for a long, long time. Candidates can lose first place in a race, but rack up enough second place delegates in other states to actually win the nomination contest.

The only winner-take-all primary is Florida, which has only 48 delegates. Florida’s delegates will be awarded by congressional district, so a candidate winning eight of Florida’s 25 districts could wind up with nearly as many delegates as a candidate winning 10 districts.

That, and the fact that a number of states–California (June 5) and New York (April 24)–will hold their primaries a lot later than February 2008. In fact, there will be ten times fewer delegates committed by March 1 than there were in 2008. Super Tuesday this year is March 6, but it is a lot smaller than it was in 2008.

In the past, campaigns have ended because candidates didn’t have enough money to continue. They had “maxed” out their donors. But that won’t be a problem in 2012 where Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited money so long as they do not coordinate with a campaign.

Mitt Romney has raised a record amount of money, but he has paid dearly for every delegate he has secured. Romney raised $56 million in 2011 and unlike 2008, none of it came from himself. He had $19 million in the bank at the end of December, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Still money does not buy a presidential nomination, especially when there are so few winner-take-all primaries early in the primary process. That changes after April but that’s four months away.  As long as Romney is running there are ample reasons for the other candidates to stay in the race. Romney still has never won over 50% of a primary election, despite his strong showing in New Hampshire. Assuming that they have the money to continue mounting a campaign (or that their friends have money to continue making them run that campaign), it seems that taking it to a convention is the rational strategy, especially if Romney can’t even crack 40% in New Hampshire.

“Tonight we made history,” Romney told cheering supporters before pivoting to a stinging denunciation of President Barack Obama. “The middle class has been crushed,” in the past three years, he said, “our debt is too high and our opportunities too few” – remarks that made clear he intends to be viewed as the party’s nominee in waiting after only two contests (Associated Press).

New Hampshire was a no-contest, really, as Romney’s ground game and support was too much for any candidate to overcome. Ron Paul and John Huntsman each made hardy efforts in the state but were unable to effectively challenge Romney. Since Huntsman chose New Hampshire to make his stand and finished third, it’s hard to see the wisdom of staying in. If he was unable to convince New Hampshire, there’s no way he can convince the folks in South Carolina.

Now Romney looks to roll in, or through, South Carolina and Florida. It will be the last chance Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry have at ending what is now shaping up to be a very real chance of clean sweep by Romney. If he wins South Carolina, which he is currently leading, he will almost certainly win Florida.

After which, nothing else will matter. Romney will have secured the nomination in the same month in which it all began.

Alex Marlow, Managing Editor, Breitbart.com:

Last week, after Rick Santorum’s impressive finish in Iowa, the media would have had you believe that he was bound to keep up the momentum and roll straight into New Hampshire for a photo finish with Willard Romney.  I thought this sounded highly unlikely, so I headed over to RCP to view their latest poll round-up and realized I was wrong: it was downright impossible.  Romney was polling over 40% at the time and Santorum was just under five percent.  When they weren’t grilling conservatives on the constitutionality of contraception, the media were hoping for, praying for, and ultimately fabricating a horse-race that never existed.  This narrative didn’t make it through the weekend, of course, and the key stories heading into today became that Romney was going to cake-walk and Obama admin-alum Hunstman was going to emerge from obscurity… to lose by a mere 20%.

Obviously Iowa and New Hampshire are just the first two stops in what could still potentially be a lengthy nominating process, but all signs point in one direction, and that’s to a Mitt Romney candidacy.  Jon “Comeback Dad” Hunstman is polling less that Stephen Colbert in South Carolina and it’s doubtful Rick Perry will even be invited to the CNN debate there (New Hampshire voters were apparently unaware they were allowed to vote for Perry).  Newt is all of a sudden campaigning on an “Occupy Mitt” platform, and Santorum will need to regroup after a single-digit finish in N.H. and survive a more thorough vetting process if he’s really going to be a contender on the national level.

On the day of the first presidential primary since the inception of the Tea Party movement, it’s surprising to think we’re on a fast-track to nominate the New England moderate Romney to challenge Barack Obama.  Yet, Republican voters have danced with just about everyone else in this (very limited) field looking for their anti-Romney dream date, and more and more of them are deciding that none of the other suitors are looking so hot.

“What I’m shocked at is someone like Mr. [Sheldon] Adelson, who is a smart, free-enterprise guy” using his money to attack free-enterprise. “Those attacks… are on the investment community of this country.” Newt’s “defining himself in the Obama corner.” (Sheldon Adelson is one of America’s richest men and a casino mogul in Las Vegas.)

Gingrich and Sununu have long disliked each other, with Sununu calling Gingrich “not stable” in early December. Conservatives have often bristled at Sununu’s politics. The former governor-turned white house chief of staff had a controversial tenure that led to him getting George H.W. Bush to appoint David Souter to the Supreme Court.

Like Gingrich, Sununu had his share of ethics problems. The Washington Post reported that, as White House Chief of Staff, that Sununu’s jets “took him to fat-cat Republican fund-raisers, ski lodges, golf resorts and even his dentist in Boston.” Sununu was forced to pay back $47,000 to the government for the flights on the orders of White House counsel C. Boyden Gray, with the help of the Republican Party but reimbursements were at commercial rates, which are about one-tenth the cost of the actual flights; one ski trip to Vail, Colorado alone had cost taxpayers $86,330.