@Santa
Only question I have in response: Do you often have similar theories?
if the answer is "Yes": No, you're a conspiracy theorist, I don't believe those people. Period.
if the answer is "What do you mean by often": No, you're a conspiracy theorist, I don't believe those people. Period.
if the answer is "No": No, you're a conspiracy theorist in his denial phase, you'll predict something of great importance in the future, but you are one for sure.
if the answer is "not often": I doubt it, they're in the same league, but at this point in the GOP primaries, this theory is too conditional.

I'm sorry, power politics is in the realm of conspiracy now? You honestly think that backroom bargaining is not part of the electoral process? You honestly think Romney is not sending out feelers on what it would take to get people out of the race? Why wouldn't he send out similar feelers to keep someone in when it benefits him and likely his party. Unless this is against some election law I don't know about I think this is far from a conspiracy theory.

I think the suggestion has merit. Politics is a very dirty business and deals like this aren't surprising. Everyone knows that part of the reason Clinton stepped down gracefully from the Democratic nomination race at the time she did was because Obama offered her the Secretary of State position.

Let me say it this way. If I was a candidate that is exactly what I would do. It is one hell of a political maneuver

And in terms of the Santa-carpenter debate:

I would rather listen to cynics and political conspiracy theorists any day over listening to people who think everything is rosy and fine and politicians are the tin they represent themselves to be.

@carpenter: Is Santa's comment any sillier than in a game of diplomacy, Turkey getting Italy to stab Austria so Turkey can roll over the both of them on the way to France? Hardly conspiracy, just solid strategy.

One reason: $

It gives him an excuse to keep the campaign coffers open. He won't be taking in much, but anything is better than the 0 he gets if he quits. He'll end it after SC, but not before.

Then why did Bachman leave? Why did he make a show about going back to texas when he could have just kept trucking, and, finally, why raise money when there is no hope to win. The final one I am serious about because I assume there is a reason for your statement. How could Perry use extra campaign funds when he dropped out of the race? Why would it matter if he raised more money, he obviously can't use it personally. But I am not an expert on the subject so I could be missing something.

For the most part, campaign funds are squishy in the sense that money given to a candidate can then be given out by them to other candidates (if, for whatever reason, they should want to) or just put aside for another campaign by the same person.

In other words, any money Perry gets now toward his presidential campaign can just be moved over into his reelection campaign for governor or used for a senate bid or whatever. There are very few restrictions on what a candidate can do with his money, legally speaking, so he will be looking to milk the national audience he has right now for every penny.

Oh, and Bachmann was undoubtedly taken aside by someone in Republican leadership who explained to her that her bills/committee assignments/financial problems/whatever would be looked at in a much more favorable light if she were to step aside.

At some point, the party looks after itself if someone's campaign goes too far off the rails, as it makes the rest of the party look bad and it's divisive. That's why Perry won't stick around all the way to the convention - after SC, someone will have the same conversation with him.

The only exceptions are people like Ron Paul, who has a long history of not caring what the party thinks of him, and just running the way he wants to run. He knows he can't win, but staying in the race and being in all the debates gives him name recognition, which helps him win races without any help from the national party. They, in turn, tolerate him in order to boost their numbers in Congress.

It's all complicated, but most of it revolves around the dollars. If you ever wonder why someone is doing something in Washington that seems strategically stupid on its face, it's probably down to money.

Well I'm not so sure about the money argument. Clinton finished left the primaries with a staggering debt still to be paid off.

Oh, and Bachmann was undoubtedly taken aside by someone in Republican leadership who explained to her that her bills/committee assignments/financial problems/whatever would be looked at in a much more favorable light if she were to step aside.

Undoubtedly? It's a hypothesis, but undoubtedly is a leap.

Perry is sticking in because the next caucuses are in the south. Perhaps he feels he might gain traction there. Of course Romney is looking strong. But at this time even Romney's campaign sees Perry as its greatest threat, however, limited that is. Gingrich is damaged and Santorum has no organization.

"Ron Paul... They, in turn, tolerate him in order to boost their numbers in Congress."

This is incorrect. The GOP actually supported his Democrat challenger twice in the '90s, and when Dr. Paul was re-elected in 1996, they broke with longstanding tradition and refused to consider his three prior terms in the House for seniority purposes. The Republican Party establishment has never tolerated Dr. Paul. They just gave up on trying to get rid of him because they couldn't do it. They've been a little nice (or less mean) to him since 2008 mostly because they're worried about a third party run (look at how Gary Johnson was treated - and the result) and - if they're thinking this far ahead (which I wonder about) - losing the under 35 demographic forever.

Also, I suspect some Republicans are starting to believe that Ron Paul's federalist, libertarian, states rights approach to social issues is now the last, best way to impose conservative social mores on society. The blue states might very well go for abortions and gay marriage, but the idea that certain states could ban these things forever, and no challenge could ever be mounted against them on a national level, would certainly be appealing. Instead of winning the gay marriage debate once, the LGBT community would have to fight it 50 times over, in different jurisdictions, arguing with different constitutional underpinnings. A much much more challenging task. And they get to look progressive because Hey! Gay marriage is totally allowed, if the state decides it is.

Also you can totally replace "gay marriage" with "abortion" in the above paragraph and it holds true just the same.

"the LGBT community would have to fight it 50 times over"

Um... the LGBT community *is* fighting 50 times over already. And you know what? In many cases, they are winning. If gay marriage were a completely federalized issue and the people of Nowheresville Alabama had as much say over California marriage laws as the people of San Francisco, do you really think that would be an improvement? And what appeal can you have from a federal gay marriage ban? Under the present system, 1) gay marriage is legal in some states, and 2) it's relatively easy (if you feel strongly enough) to pack up and move to one of those states if you feel the need to. Under a Federal Government Decides Everything/Winner Takes All system that you are advocating, how certain are you that these gains would survive? Do you really want to roll the dice on a nationwide referendum on the subject, from which no appeal would be possible?

I think it's also important to point out that Ron Paul appeals most strongly to younger people who are far less worried about who bangs who and how than the old farts who currently rule this country. I've been actively involved supporting Ron Paul's presidential bids since 2007 and I still haven't met anyone (out of hundreds) in the r3VOLution who cares about the issue (either way) enough to bring it up even once. The Ron Paul Revolution is something LGBTs should be supporting (or at least not working against), since the alternatives on 'the Right' are Christofascist kooks like Santorum and Perry who would like to see Sodomites burned at the stake. Do you really think Ron Paul is worse than that? The Ron Paul/libertarian position, incidentally, is that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all (at the state level as well as the federal) - it is a personal contractual issue between two people and whatever religious authority(ies) they choose to recognize.

Here's Ron Paul being pressed to denounce homosexuality as sinful by (from a 2007 radio interview, while he was running for president):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bqW4ZsYC5M

With Perry recommending that we re-invade Iraq, the "Perry is taking a dive" theory actually seems pretty plausible.

@Santa
Well, to me it's at this point in the nomination process highly unlikely that he stays in the race for the sole purpose of diminishing Santorum's chances of winning. I think he stays in it for the money (also mentioned by others). If he stays in after another beating in NH like the one he had in Iowa, and would be changing his views to become a mere copycat of Santorum (but with a better record), I change my opinion. But until that time...
@ODaly
Agreed, but too situational. Especially since staged events are harder to apply in the real world.

@ Tolstoy - The view that government shouldn't be involved in marriage is misguided and historically misinformed.

And the LGBT community only has to fight the same fight in 50 states so long as DOMA is in effect. If DOMA is repealed it's all over for opponents of marriage equality. Yes, in the very short term the issue may go the other way, but it'll turn round, and quicker for everyone than if the issue is compartmentalized. Dividing it up on a state by state basis allows conservative hold outs to deny marriage rights to LGBT people for as long as possible. Why the hell else do you think DOMA exists at all? It sure as hell wasn't the LGBT community that fought for its passage. Are you really that blind to the nature of Ron Paul's libertarianism?

Ron Paul wants to give people the right to be regressive bigots above all else. The fact that that some people might use that chance to be progressive instead is just the selling point he's latched on to, but otherwise an unintended side effect.

You might find a lot of young people who don't care about who's having sex with who among Ron Paul's supporters, but I'll bet you a disproportionately large number of them are straight (and male, and white), and don't actually understand enough about the impact of Paul's policies on actual minorities.