Not a Done Deal Yet...Yet

I know that we're all enjoying the chaos of the GOP nomination race and hoping that Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich continue beating each other up for a while longer. But, the math is starting to look more promising to Romney after he won Ohio and 5 other states last night. But, that doesn't mean the fun is over.

Santorum has a couple reasons for staying in the race. First, he's narrowly lost Michigan and Ohio to Romney despite Mitt outspending him 4 to 1 in those states. Second, he correctly surmises that if Gingrich drops out, the conservative wing of the GOP will unite behind him. Ultimately, Santorum still looks to be heading for defeat (which is hard to feel bad about) and is going to face increasing pressure from the party to bow out but he can still do some damage.

Big Day in Hyde Park

All of these things happened today:

1. David Axelrod announced that he is creating an Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago.
2. Team Sassy watched Mayor Emanuel, Rachel Maddow, George Stephanopoulos, David Brooks, and Alex Castellanos have a sit down about the 2012 election.
3. Bridget came very close to crying her way into the event where this all took place.
4. Ilsa enabled Bridget to preserve some of her dignity by (sooprise, sooprise) working her connections at the University (real quote: “You didn’t say your friend was ILSA FLANAGAN.”)

It was a fascinating, and oddly sexually charged, conversation. Here are some random highlights from my perspective:

1. The consensus was that Romney would be the Republican’s candidate and that he is a pretty problematic choice, or as Rachel Maddow put it: “[Romney] is the tallest midget.” Brooks tried to walk his criticism back a little, but it was still pretty clear that the Rs on the panel wished they had a stronger choice. This isn’t to say that they feel that Obama is a shoo-in, more that they’re surprised the Rs couldn’t do better.
2. Alex Castellanos ran Romney’s 2008 campaign, but doesn’t seem to have a whole lot of love for him. Nothing overt, but I wouldn’t say he was campaigning for him at this event. On the other hand, Alex (and other panelists) have very clear disdain for Newt. As Castellanos said in dismissing Newt’s surge in SC, “Every time Newt stands up, he hits his head on the ceiling.”
3. Maddow thinks that the Dem base is “inspirationed out.” She would like to see Obama use the SOTU to outline small clear steps the government can take to improve the economy, etc. Rahm disagreed, saying that is how you govern, but not how you campaign. Castellanos was somewhere in the middle, wanting to get people to be able to see “above the horizon again,” but also acknowledging that the fervor of 2008 was unlikely (“It’s not all that exciting when you lose your virginity the 2^nd time.” Yep. He said that.)
4. On the current political context, Brooks made an interesting point about not having a majority party and a minority party right now, but rather 2 minority parties. He believes that this forces parties to be more entrenched, insular, and unwilling to compromise.
5. I found Brooks to be extremely charming and engaging, but he demolished almost all of the good will I was beginning to feel for him when he said that he would like to see a Nader-Buchanan presidential ticket. Uh, say what again? 
6. Rahm was heckled by protesters shouting about budget cuts and Chicago being a police state. It went on longer than I expected, stretched out by the use of the "human megaphone," and was extremely annoying and/but pretty effective.

Thanks to Ilsa for getting me into the event. Looking forward to her thoughts on the afternoon.

Things are getting interesting

Gingrich is up in the polls in SC. Well, a poll.

A CNN/Time/ORC International poll indicates that 33% of likely South Carolina Republican primary voters say they are backing Romney, with 23% supporting Gingrich. The former Massachusetts governor's 10 point advantage over the former House speaker is down from a 19 point lead two weeks ago.

You're Fired

I got no small amount of enjoyment yesterday watching the hullabaloo over Romney saying "I like being able to fire people." Most of the commentary focused on how easy it would be to take that out of context. Ah karma.

But over at The Atlantic, James Fallows has a more interesting take on why people may react strongly to Romney's comment, even knowing the context.

But people with any experience on either side of a firing know that, necessary as it might be, it is hard. Or it should be. It's wrenching, it's humiliating, it disrupts families, it creates shame and anger alike -- notwithstanding the fact that often it absolutely has to happen. Anyone not troubled by the process -- well, there is something wrong with that person. We might want such a person to do dirty work for us. (This might be the point where the Romney campaign wants to take another look at Up In The Air.) We might value him or her as a takeover specialist or at a private equity firm. But as someone we trust, as a leader? No - not any more than you can trust a military leader who is not deeply troubled when his troops are killed.

Check out the full piece here. You know. For more context.