The Republican nomination

On to New Hampshire

Mitt Romney strengthens his place as front-runner. But now he has a new rival

See article

Readers' comments



It seams obvious that Santorum's latest success is just Romney team's smart manipulation. In former USSR countries it's called "technical candidate" (not sure the same term is in use in English)


Except for Ron Paul none of these GOP aspirants can beat Obama. They represent the obstructionist side of the GOP, its worst side. And people are way too tired of them, of their discourse, their non-sensical economic and social policy proposals, their bigotry, their exacerbated partisanship, of just about everything they represent.

It looks very likely Obama will be there for another 4 years as he is by far the least bad option being offered to the American people in the 2012 election.


And what would President Paul do? Veto every law that Congress passes while Congress and the Courts block Paul's attempt to repeal every law?

Enjoying the Obama gridlock? If so vote Ron Paul for 4 years total gridlock and the perfect demonstration of what checks and balances is all about.


Yet another article that seeks to ridicule and marginalize Ron Paul. I expect that from the garbage mass media but now from the Economist? How sad.

Yes, some of RP's views seem extreme to those that only know government intrusions. Reminds me of the allegory of the cave. But what about discussing how overextending our American forces are? Or, how our liberties are being chiseled away? How about mentioning how RP's view on monetary policy, the Federal Reserve and it's march to kill the dollar as a reserve currency via inflation?

Let's not even talk about what isolationism really means. Which tells me the Economist subscribes to the Demopublican's press releases and attempts to masquerade as new.

If you want to mention extremes, why not mention Romney's instance that corporations are people too? Or, Santorum's pledge to escalate into a 6th war, this time with Iran?

50 Cent Peasant Troll

"Death & Empire is the only growth sector in the US economy"

Yes Apple and Google are making death rays for the US military, so that the US could colonize the rest of the world.

But I suppose that if you believe this then you also believe that the Illuminati is pulling all the strings behind the US government.


Santorum appears to be on the road to making big mistakes - he just made a controversial comment comparing himself to Jesus. Paul, I would say, is the bigger challenger to Romney in the remaining GOP race - since Paul has a bigger appeal to more secular and independent (and conservative) voters; although it is not clear how his earlier racist comments will come to haunt his campaign, and some recent polls seem to indicate a decline of support (if we can believe these polls). So, all in all, it seems that Romney will remain the front runner, as he seems to have steadily been according to most previous polls, the Iowa win, and NH polls. That's how it is looking like so far on the GOP side.

Beyond the GOP Primaries, based on current trends, it would seem that Obama has the edge over Romney. Obama has several things under his belt that he could use to his advantage - and he has at his disposal the many negative criticisms the GOP candidates have been leveling at each other. Of course ... in politics ... all can change, we are never be sure so we will just have to let the dynamics ride things out.

jimmy huntington

Don't be too navie about politics! Politics like chameleon, it changes according to the time and place for survive to thrive!
Now it is very clear that Mr. Mitt Romney will win the GOP nomination, I 98% gurantee after he got the nomination, he'll shift his positon from right to centre! He is a pragmatic one! Looking back his day in Harvard, to survive and thrive , he got double dregrees, Law And MBA!

Fossil American

Hong Kong wrote: "...Ron Paul rejects every piece of legislation that was not explicitly authorized by the US Constitution. So I suppose that America should appeal all laws protecting its citizens from all of the evils that was not present in 1776, such as wall street?"

* * *

Ron Paul is running for Federal Office. If he is running for State Office, he would be holding different positions. What "We the People" created a Federal Government to do is explicit. There is a process to amend the Constitution lawfully if the nation wants to do so.

That said, Wall street would fall into the Interstate Commerce clause. Not only is it interstate, it is also international. So Wall Street is well within the Feds responsibility. Had say New York set up a commodity exchange to sell only to New Yorkers within the boundary of New York City or New York State, then that exchange will be none of the Federal Government's business. (Except if other federal laws are broken)

Ron Paul is running for the president of Separated States of America. Ron Paul doesn't even support a Federal legislation on free trade between the different states in the USA.

If you subscribe to Mr. Paul's views, then you might as well break up the country into 50 different pieces now.

HK - I agree, Ron Paul is an isolationist nutcase - but fits in very well with the rest of the nutcases running for the position of losing against Obama, who, hasn't even taken the drop sheets off his artillery.

My country is full of black and white idiots, who are incapable of distinguishing good ideas from bad, and stick to myths written years ago, as if they were cast in stone (or gold in Romney's case.).

The constitution is an amazing document, but has its flaws. The Bible is wall to wall rubbish, but has its lessons, etc. etc.

You cannot argue with believers. Ever heard of "flogging a dead horse?"

Ron Paul’s believes in himself, good, but his view of the world is distinctly of the navel gazing isolationist bent, and would be a disaster for the world.

A mixture of collective solutions and individual freedoms is required to make the world go round.


But regarding all of those "nut cases" running for president, there's that Jon Huntsman guy who by far seems to be the most sensible. Also Romney made a pretty sensible governor of Massachusetts, and is probably just pretending to be a mainstream Bible-wielding tea-bagging Republican until the primaries are over, so it's probably OK to vote for him too.


What a thrilling contest in Iowa! Absolutely a gut-wrenching, shock-horror,roller coaster ride with a twist at the finish worthy of Die-hard VII. The long-shot dark horse ...comes in. But is he Presidential timber? What would Ike say? Ah, he's a light-weight, high-finance , holy roller. Make a good game show host but Commander-in-Chief. I don't think so. Didn't serve in Vietnam or the Texas Air National Guard but he did serve in France. That counts as hostile territory , I guess. Reminds me of Thomas Dewey.
I see a Romney/Huntsman tie-up. The Mormon Juggernaut. "Oh when the Saints"..." Oh when the Saints go marchin in ". Paul for Treasury! Now make sure to have lots of State Troopers at the polling booths. They tend to be crime hotspots. A motorcade of Dominos delivery drivers down the Mall. The Tabernacle Choir at the inauguration.
Everyones a winner!

Fossil American

Hong Kong wrote "...Dear Americans, Contrary to popular belief, you do not have to choose between a highly efficient market economy and a robust social welfare system..."

* * *

Dear Hong Kong, The American Constitution created the Federal Government for national defense, international affairs and inter-state issues. Social welfare system is not the role of our Federal Government. Our Constitution is very clear that powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved for the States.

So, your suggestion makes as much sense to me as this suggestion would be to you: the Hong Kong Jockey Club should play a role in China’s national security by using the jockeys and horses as the core of a part-time cavalry regiment. Efficient, yes; but national defense is not the role of the Jockey Club perhaps except under extreme circumstances.

That in mind, there is massive disagreement in the USA. Now we have a Comrade Chairman Obama in charge who does not understand that he is president and not king. So, we Americans are fighting it out in the courts.

My view is, Obama is the most lawless president in my life time. Just the last few days, he is tired of waiting for congress and decided to make recess appointment while the senate is not in recess.

The horror story continues for now. Next election cannot come soon enough...

So you're saying that the American government should do nothing but what a 240 year old document tells literally you to do. Obviously the world has not changed one bit or has not become more complex at all since the Constitution was written.

Sounds reasonable to me... Maybe this attitude is why America is falling behind the rest of the world economically and otherwise?


Every last one of 'em caricatures-of-humankind, make me wanna double over with laughter! What a hillarious circus the Repugs have come up with!

Is this the America, we all looked up to, once upon a long time ago?? Holy smokes!

Top Hat 001

The real question is whether the Tea Party is now a deficit hawk movement or a social conservative movement. If it is a deficit hawk movement Mr. Santorum could fall faster than even Mr. Gingrich. However, the fact that Mr. Gingrich fell so quickly suggests it is a social conservative movement as Newt was a fairly fiscally conservative guy. If the latter is true, Santorum's rise in the polls may last a while.

All that said, Romney's win in Iowa does make him seem inevitable in my mind.

stands for truth

What a circus US Politica has become.It goes on and on Iowa New Hampshire super Tuesday! What a joke!
No wonder it bankrupts any one who throws his/her hat in the race to White House!
No wonder no decent American ever thinks of running for the High Office of President of USA!
Only those who can sell their souls to the Lobbies and Corporation join the race!
In 2008 race to WH Mr Obama could beat the odds by relying on online donations by ordianry Americans.\Now he faces the GOP financed by AIPAC Tea Party etc all the War Party types.
Who says Foreign Policy will not be the issue.

Mitt Newt Rick all are trying to out do who will serve the Israel lobby best which is pushing for war on Iran first.Then there are others on the wish list of Netyanhu!!


Like the comic, shouldn't Santorom uses a bus instead of aircraft? Ron Paul seems to be riding on a wizardry.

The more you come to know about Ron Paul's followers, the more such picture as early stage of Nazi/Commies comes to mind, passionate youths can be good and can be dangerous, fortunate that so far Ron Paul has been such a fatherly figure and has very calm and realistic idealogies, which really confuses me why his supporters remain so stubborn.

Only Romney will appeal to the general public, but this guy is very sneaky, much more so than Jon Kerry for sure, aren't politicians from Massachusetts all the same?

Truly Yours

It's finally time for The Economist to stop perpetuating the lie that this party constitutes "conservatism": today's tea-bagger-poisoned GOP is a spawning ground for radical deviations from morality, common sense, and the rule of law. This unstable coalition of extremists and ideologues--gerrymandered by the oligarchs to protect their grip on money and power--is bent on self-destruction, like all terrorist organizations. May we all survive its inevitable implosion.

New Conservative

What are Ron Paul's crazy civil liberties stance? He's the only one on either side who actually protests the sort of seizure without charges warrantless wiretapping and massive increase in government powers following the PATRIOT act.

Republican voters are supposed to distrust Ron Paul because he believes in due process for people?

What a crazy dude.

Because despite believing the government can do no right when it comes to education, the environment, regulation, taxes, the economy, Republicans trust that law enforcement never ever makes a mistake when it comes to prosecuting people.


Wow. It just never stops. The Economist is either incorrigible, ignorant, or just deliberately lying. It is still demeaning Mr. Paul with the derogatory label of "isolationist," as if he is some sort of hermit or wants to insularize America! I believe you editors know better, so I hereby call "BS on you." 1. Allowing free trade, travel, and cultural exchanges, and fostering diplomacy with other nations is the opposite of isolationism. 2. Following the U.S. Constitution (there is an oath, remember) and having a legal declaration of war by Congress is not "isolationist." 3. Promising to meet any imminent threat to the borders with the full force of the U.S. military is not isolationism. 4. The Economist does not call Canada or Sweden "isolationist."

I must be the 5,000th person to comment to your paper that Mr. Paul is not an isolationist. He can best be described as non-interventionist. What the Economist's political writing deserves to be called, on the other hand, is a question that warrants increasing consideration. The adjectives I suggested atop are my effort to be charitable and civil, and serve as merely a starting point.

isolationist; non-interventionist

potato; potado

Actually both Sweden and Canada have very recently participated in American-led war efforts, so calling them "isolationists" would be incorrect. Luxembourg is "isolationist", but nobody ever talks about them because they are so insignificant on the world stage.

Concerning point 1:

How does Ron Paul "foster free trade" if he rejects every free trade legislation because he believe he thinks that it's "government managed trade"? FTAs are bilateral agreements. Even if the US chooses to be libertarian, it will still have to negotiate with other countries that are not libertarians. Thus the need for "government" negotiations.

Concerning point 2:



Very exciting race. Can't wait to see how it goes in New Hampshire and beyond. It really can go either way, and there's no doubt it will be very unexpected whatever the outcome as the process continues.

50 Cent Peasant Troll

Also for the people who support Ron Paul mainly because you agree with his foreign policy (foreign policy seems to be where most of his appeal lies), can you please explain to me what Mr. Paul plans to do with the 2 million soldiers he wants to immediately bring home? Surely Mr. Paul's planned budget of slashing US$ 1 trillion in his first year cannot afford to keep them on the government payroll. Maybe the Army private who joined because he couldn't find employment elsewhere should think twice before voting for Mr. Paul?

50 Cent Peasant Troll

Dear Americans,

Contrary to popular belief, you do not have to choose between a highly efficient market economy and a robust social welfare system. If executed correctly, you can have both.

Example of social welfare done well:
Providing a practical education and essential healthcare services to everyone. Doing so would provide not only provide an improvement to all American lives but also drastically improve productivity in the American workforce.

Example of social welfare done poorly:
Pandering to teacher unions that protect underperforming teachers from being replaced, or helping the labour unions squeeze an unnatural amount of compensation out of the few still-profitable manufacturing firms in America such as Boeing. Unfortunately the President has allowed far too much of this type of liberal selfishness during his first term which has resulted in a stagnant economy.

And then there are the moderate business-friendly (wealth-generating) presidential candidates. But unfortunately for America, the GOP-LOL party would rather vote for the gay-bashing and Israel-infatuated Rick Santorum or the irrational, and impractically inflexible Ron Paul rather than provide more than a quarter of the vote to any sensible and electable moderate candidate.

So I guess that America is stuck with Barack Obama for another five years. But I suppose that if Mr. Obama would agree to attend a crash course in business and economics before his second term, or if he would agree to listen more to the many smart businessmen or economists on both sides of the aisle, then he may yet still be the president that America so desperately needs.


What have you seen from America that makes you think we're capable of properly executing a social welfare system? A culture of entitlement is not conducive to a state that is both big and efficient.

So what would you have America do?

Elect the government-eradicating Ron Paul and allow the no-so-capable average American to fend for themselves in all matters as if it were the year 1870.

Or the head of the Occupy movement and run the government like the Chinese did in the 1960s?

Also I should add that if America does not have a strong social welfare system, then it cannot have a strong economy.

Just look at the quality of education provided to the average American because of a lack of a strong public education system. How do you expect these University of Phoenix or DeVry Institute graduates to every become productive members of the economy?

I hardly see how socializing healthcare would solve our problems. Giving more people free stuff won't help. Unless what you really mean is that we need to ration healthcare more to control costs. That is what Europeans do after all, I agree rationing would control costs.

I love how that despite having the smallest government as a percentage of GDP of all the rich world countries, some Americans still label their president as a "communist" or "socialist", and will "destroy" America with a slightly larger government.

There's a good reason why Americans are dumb, fat, and sick.

It is the same reason for why America is falling well behind of Northern Europe, Australia, Singapore, and many other countries in GDP per capita.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

