All fine points, but re your opening paragraph – Santorum didn’t win. He came second by eight votes.

“I would much rather prefer that President Obama face a weaker candidate so he can successfully make the case that only he can turn around the economy.”

How’s that working out so far, by the way? Obama would need to go up against a blancmange to have any chance of winning that particular argument…

Oh, and of course – like most of the mainstream press – you completely fail to mention Ron Paul, who polled a respectable third.

Rick Perry has given up, Michele Bachmann is finished and Newt Gingrich seems to be planning a scorched-earth policy to take down Mitt Romney. All this is music to my ears because I’d rather that any other person than Mitt Romney gets selected as the Republican nominee.

I’m not sure that should be music to your ears if you don’t want a Romney candidature. The demise (or non-appearance) of all other serious candidates (Santorum, for all his success in Iowa, isn’t a serious candidate – he just timed his bubble better than Bachmann, Perry, Cain or Gingrich) means that Romney is now runaway favourite for the nomination, unless a real white knight figure appears from somewhere.

The best Republican candidate is pretty much barred from office due to his name.

I would much rather prefer that President Obama face a weaker candidate so he can successfully make the case that only he can turn around the economy. It really is that simple.

Yeah but who would believe it? He has spent, what is it now?, some seven trillion dollars and the economy is worse than he said it would be if he did nothing.

Obama can’t run on his record because he doesn’t have anything to show for his time in office except Health Care. And this is the problem because Romney can’t campaign against that.

And while it’s true that America has elected hard-right nuts beforehand, Obama is a much better campaigner than Al Gore or John Kerry.

No he wasn’t. He just had a much more supine media. Who continue to cover up for him and lick his …. err hand. But I am not sure that will help this time.

To some extent the powers of a president are more limited in the US, and so it doesn’t matter as much, as the political process is beyond repair – thomas friedman recently argued (I think it was him anyway) that presidents only matter for the first 100 days of the term because after that everyone focuses on the next electoral cycle and blocks everything from happening on party political grounds. However George W Bush illustrates the dangers of an ideological and incompetant man in charge all too well, and as such it is better that Romney wins than any of the nutters.

There was only one story from last night- the astonishing result of libertarian, Ron Paul, who took 22% of the vote without any party or media support.

I don’t think he will ever be president but it is clear that his ideas have a resonance with the American public that no one else can match.

Very encouraging.

As I suggested earlier on Twitter, the Romney win at Iowa may actually suit your jujistu perspective, Sunny. Anyone-but-Romney sentiment may be concentrated and fired up by an early win. The other early states won’t want simply to fall into line with Iowa.

However, the best GOP candidate from my perspective would be (the admittedly unlikely prospect of) a win either by the paleoconservative (isolationist, anti-corporatist) candidate (Paul) or the only Republican with the slightest respect for climate science (Huntsman) – regardless of their many other faults.

Obama administration has been terrible on many fronts: neo-imperialist foreign policy, carbon emissions obstructionism, in bed with the financial sector. Their only halfway decent achievement is healthcare – and then massively compromised by insurance interests. Anyway, I don’t see why we non-Americans should give a monkeys about the candidates’ domestic agenda: it’s none of our business.

Are Americans mad?

If you think my asking that is more than a tad chauvinistic or OTT, try this assessment of the candidates in the Republican primaries by Mark Mardell, the BBC’s correspondent there:

“Are the Republican candidates all crazy?”

Quote: “I’ve lost count of the number of times over the Christmas break that people have asked me some variation of that question. Weird, mad or bonkers, whatever word they used their contemptuous dismissal was the same.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16386176

From BBC news reports, it appears that the European Social Model and the “entitlements” resulting from that have emerged as a leading Republican campaign issue in the Iowa caucuses. From there, it’s a short leap to concluding that the headline reports about the Eurozone crisis are due to the European Social Model – even though that is nonsense.

- the European Social Model, whatever that is, was going decades before the Euro was launched on 1 January 2000
- there isn’t one European Social Model but several with distinct differences between them: Andre Sapir distinguishes four variants:

The Nordic model, in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands.
The Continental model, in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg.
The Anglosaxon model, in Ireland and Great Britain.
The Mediterranean model, in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_social_model

Sapir concludes that only the Nordic and AngloSaxon models are sustainable over the long term.

- in America, on American figures, before the healthcare insurance reforms of the Obama administration, 30 million Americans were without insurance cover for healthcare costs and that despite Americans spending 15 pc of national GDP on healthcare, which is almost twice the percentage spent in Britain.

All of which rather goes to show that a significant percentage of Americans really are clueless, which helps to explain how pathetic cases like GW Bush get elected to the Presidency for two terms.

Incidentally

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-winner-iowa-caucuses-strategy-201201

You have got to wonder, how the party that has spent the most time being the government of the USA for the past century, manages to successfully position itself as being ‘the anti-government party’.

9 – As PJ O’Rourke puts it “The GOP run on the slogan that Government doesn’t work, and then get elected and prove it”.

I sort of sympathise – but it seems a bit of a dangerous wish …

I want Ron Paul to be the Republican nominee. Even if he doesn’t win the presidency, he’ll put to the top of the political agenda issues that the other candidates are ignoring — such as civil liberties, an end to America’s perpetual warmaking, and an end ot the war on drugs.

@12 It’d also guarantee an Obama victory, because the majority of the GOP base find Ron Paul’s views on such matters utterly terrifying. Though they’d probably be alright with his economic policies.

Romney is a foregone conclusion. Santorum has no money (no doubt will get some), but he’s currently polling at 4% in New Hampshire. The 2nd place bump will do what in 6 days?

I agree that Romney is the strongest candidate the Republicans have (in the field).

However Santorum has yet to be the subject of real scrutiny and, hilariously, this process has been defined by the way the right of the Republicans have had great white hope after great white hope who’ve all been entirely unable to withstand any real examination.

I’m doubtful Santorum will go the distance to be honest.

However, that might be good. With the state the US right is in at the moment a centrist Republican candidate might be just the momentum the right need to stand their own candidate. If that candidate can get between 5 and 10 % then Obama should win (ala Clinton) – if the right win the nomination there is no chance of a ‘sensible’ Republican split candidate.

The tea Party has been an absolute disaster for the Republicans and is one reason why I’ve always been repelled when people have said the left needs an equivalent – no thanks.

Yeah yeah Ron Paul is the greatest EVER etc etc – but he won’t be nominee. End of. He has even less of a chance than Herman Cain.

All fine points, but re your opening paragraph – Santorum didn’t win. He came second by eight votes.

Sure – but by most measures the night was his.

“the astonishing result of libertarian, Ron Paul, who took 22% of the vote without any party or media support.”

“He has even less of a chance than Herman Cain.”

When you add in the fact the libertarian vote was also split accross several candidates, then you could expect his support to rise as other candidates drop out.

I think it’s a long shot he’ll get the nomination, as i’m lead to believe he is an actual libertarian who belives in legalizing drugs and civil liberties rather than the useful idiot nutjobs who are about guns ‘n’ taxes but who otherwise don’t care about liberty. This means he won’t have the support of the vested interests who are crucial to winning, but then stranger things have happened.

Sure – but by most measures the night was his.

You mean, if you don’t count the votes Santorum won? As for Big Mo’, have you seen the latest polling in New Hampshire – the next primary? Mitt’s on 47%, Santorum’s on 10% – behind Huntsman.

I wonder if anyone ever said: “I want Hitler to become head of the National Socialist Party, because an extremist like that would have no chance of winning a national election”?

Given that the Republican nominee will have a roughly 50 per cent shot at being the most powerful man on earth, shouldn’t even us liberals want the best candidate to win?

On any sane criteria, this is is Romney, admittedly from a very bad bunch. If he can take the nomination in the face of relentless Tea Party demonisation as a “moderate”, and then win the general with an alliance of the centre-right and Obama-disenchanted swing voters, I don’t think your second point necessarily applies. After all, Obama has shown no inclination to prove to his base that he is “one of them”.

Yeah yeah Ron Paul is the greatest EVER etc etc – but he won’t be nominee. End of. He has even less of a chance than Herman Cain.

Hmm.

I seem to remember Obama wasn’t highly touted as a Democrat nominee ………

@13 – He’s a conspiracy theorist who would cancel most state education and healthcare programs, roll civil rights back a century and isolate America.

@ Leon

He’s a conspiracy theorist who would cancel most state education and healthcare programs, roll civil rights back a century and isolate America.

Yes, and you’re a giant panda……..

@24 – Oh yes, because idiotic is a decent response for the truth. Your ignorance of his platform and statements is sickening.

@ Leon

You clearly know nothing about Ron Paul.

And when you know nothing it is better to say nothing and just eat your bamboo leaves.

Long live Ron Paul!

Leon, I might have known you’d be a Gingrich supporter.

@26 – Oh yes, so sorry than I’m not a racist piece of crap and I can actually read about someone’s statements.

And of course you want me to shut up. HEIL PAGAR!

@27 – Out of the field? Huntsman. But never mind, keep assuming that everyone else is a twisted piece of shit!

Whatever you say about him, Santorum has deeplly held principles (even if they can be odious). Mitt Romney, in contrast, is a two-faced, lying weasel prepared to change his position and risk the overall good for the slightest political advantage. In short, superb President material.