LOL @ the Republicans.

C'mon, a Mormon former governor of Massachussetts was going to win South Cackalacky?

SC tends to vote 'establishment'. GOP just hit self-destruct button.

The establishment candidate of the GOP is usually an evangelical from the more regressive states in the union, not a guy who's on public record as supporting the rights of gays to not be herded into concentration camps.

Meh, aside from Bush II the GOP hasn't nominated evangelicals for President which is why the tea party insurgency came to being. McCain was for DADT and refused to sign a pledge to ban gays in the military. He's since moved hard-right, but he was once upon a time considered fairly rational as far as Repugs go.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/21/schmidt_gop_establishment_will_have_a_meltdown_if_gingrich_wins_florida.html

I've been watching the debates. I was not surprised to see Gingrich do well. He was pretty damn good in the CNN debate on the 19th. I think I'd PREFER Romney as president to him, but Gingrich definitely comes of as a great deal less slippery and untrustworthy.

Which is saying something:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/45363831#45363831

Two comments:

1. It was pretty much a forgone conclusion Romney wouldn't win SC because of his religion, so it's not too bad a blow to his front-runner status, I think...he's set himself up for other, bigger primaries, and those are yet to come (see: Florida.) That being said--3 primaries, 3 winners...not quite the clear consensus a party would hope for after, what, 214 debates?

2. I also now notice RON PAUL HAS YET TO WIN A PRIMARY--Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich all have...so yeah, RP-boosters, it's not critical, yet...but at some point, you sort of have to win a an actual primary to get delegates and keep rolling...Florida is a winner-take-all state, there's no prize for second place--do or die time, yet, for such a "highly-touted" candidate, isn't it about time he won a primary or decreased the surplus population of candidates? (And that can apply to Rick Perry, to be fair, as well.)

Paul is ahead of Santorum in delegates, and when you stated Florida was a winner-take-all primary you just gave the perfect reason as to why Paul won't be competing there: it would be putting lots of money and effort into a state with hardly any tangible results. In the near-term, Paul is focusing on the Nevada, Maine, and Colorado caucuses, all in early February, and he is above all focused on amassing delegates, and only 2% of those have been awarded so far. If anyone should be dropping out it is Santorum, who still intends to compete in Florida and has little money or organization.

Rick Perry already dropped out, genius. So did Bachman and Huntsman, in case you haven't heard. Thanks for your analysis.

Romney basically killed himself on Friday when he admitted Obama has been good for the economy after spending his whole campaign saying he made it worse. His support in SC completely collapsed after his horrible debate performances. Romney is even skipping an upcoming Florida debate.

OK, all-knowing Putin...what is YOUR analysis? Who wins? Someone has to...eventually...

I have no idea, this primary is nuts since the candidates are so pathetically weak. Romney should win on paper through sheer force of his millions he has already spent in Florida, but if he loses Florida he is in real trouble. The great thing about Romney is he is increasing support for campaign finance reform almost singlehandedly since the only reason he is even in the race is because of his PAC money.

One thing is for sure a Gingrich administration would be good for the gambling ''industry''

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/despite-supreme-court-ruling-texas-congressional-map-still-very-uncertain/2012/01/20/gIQACvSrBQ_blog.html

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5.
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7.
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29.

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7.
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14.
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32.

PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3.
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18.
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34.

Fox News is biased by definition. You have invalidated your whole point by mentioning Fox News garbage.

Fox News is biased...and yet here they are giving the best ratings to Obama. Gobbledyddok, you just proved your OWN irrational bias and inability to actually READ and COMPREHEND before making a jackass of yourself.

Gingrich won't win Florida. Even if some bizarre thing happens and he does, he won't be able to build the national infrastructure to compete with Romney during February when there are no primaries and no debates. Romney should be able to handily win Michigan and Arizona on the 28th, and the Super Tuesday states are also places he's likely to do very well in (Gingrich isn't even on the ballot in Virginia). They're also all winner-take-all after March 5th. Romney will get this for sure and he deserves to.

"Romney will get this for sure and he deserves to."

Wait, Mr. Everything is Unpredictable is asserting that Romney will be the nominee for certain? Oh how things change. And by 'deserve' I assume you mean that elections should go to the highest bidder. In terms of his performance as a candidate he has been atrocious, and his record as a businessman is an embarrassment, as his record of losing elections. The only thing that might be redeemable is his performance as Mass governor and he's running away from that like the plague.

"Fox News is biased by definition. You have invalidated your whole point by mentioning Fox News garbage."

The point was that even Fox News has Gingrich's unfavorables at a very high level, and he *worked* for them!

I am by no means a Fox Noise supporter, just thought I'd point that out.