Jan 16th 2012, 16:20 by R.M. | WASHINGTON
DURING our live-blog of the New Hampshire primary results, none of us were sold on Jon Huntsman's claim to have won a "ticket to ride" to South Carolina. It now seems even he wasn't convinced. Mr Huntsman has dropped out of the race and endorsed Mitt Romney (whom he previously pilloried in online attacks). More pertinent to our own tasks, the loss of Mr Huntsman means one less sensible (albeit dull and dispassionate) voice on tonight's debate stage. I'll leave you to debate how many sensible voices are now left. The candidates begin sparring at 9pm ET on Fox News. Our live-blog will begin shortly before then.
In this blog, our correspondents share their thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics and the policy it produces. The blog is named after the study of American politics and society written by Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political scientist, in the 1830s
Advertisement
Over the past five days
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
I think it would be a good move but it's not a good sign that Romney wasn't at Huntsman's announcement and just released a 2-sentence reaction statement praising Huntsman.
RR, you're overthinking it. Why would Romney show up at Huntsman's announcement? The DNC (whose chairwoman is the insufferable Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) is already trying to capitalize off Huntsman's previous attacks on Romney.
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/204351-dnc-releases-ad-highlighting-hu...
Lesser endorsements have been announced with the endorsed on stage at the same time. Politico has a piece about how Romney doesn't like Huntsman. Huntsman seemed to have been angling for something in return but didn't get anything. Douthat says Huntsman figured he had a better shot as Romney's Secretary of State than winning the nomination but that even that's a long shot.
The candidates begin sparring at 9pm ET on Fox News.
Sparring? I figure it's Fox, so it'll probably be more like a slo-pitch softball game.
Regards
hedgie, you have a crappy memory. I think even DiA has been impressed with the debates hosted by Fox News.
gardner,
I don't pay to watch TV.
I think we all were impressed MORE by the comments of our blogging hosts.
Regards
Doug,
More like chauffeur.
"Huntsman, you can drive my car."
Regards
In a Romnet administration, he'd be a good fit. But I rather doubt that any of the other potential Republican nominees, whould they go on to win, would even consider him. It's always so irritating to have someone in the room who insists on injecting reality into discussions.
I always look forward to the debates, the comments by The Economist team while blogging are insightful and entertaining.
I'm looking forward to tonight's debate, in order to see how Mr. Gingrich continues his most recent attack line on Mr. Romney:
"Romney is an even bigger money-grubbing, immoral, flip-flopping, narcissistic hypocrite than I am. Plus, he's a MODERATE!!"
Devastating, that.
Indeed, the Republicans should settle for nothing short of the very best. All hail Newt, because he most closely mirrors the Republican masses.
Yeah, it's perfectly sensible to speak Mandarin to people who don't understand it.
The only sensible voice on stage belongs to Dr. Ron Paul. Only he has the wisdom, foresight, honesty and integrity to become our next president. Only he will defend both the constitution and our civil liberties, and, is for peace and prosperity.
Ron Paul is a patriot!
If you take what they say at face value, there are no sensible candidates. But there's a good chance Romney is secretly sensible. Bill Maher said there's a 46% chance Romney's a secret Democrat. The debates should be more exciting without Huntsman but I'm not excited about the debates anymore anyway. Romney can literally say nothing but "I believe in America" and still win. He doesn't have to attack, make his case, or even defend himself from attacks.
It was the tweet where he claimed to believe in evolution, wot did it. We can't possibly have someone who subscribes to scientific, fact-based reasoning occupying the White House. A case of God moving in mysterious ways, I guess...
FF, they're not necessarily saying that evolution didn't happen, but that it was driven by an insidious progressive agenda.
Before evolution, there was no debt, and taxes were at historic lows. Repeal Evolution!
Man who claims to believe in evolution laments the outcome of a contest that operates on the principle of survival of the fittest.
It appears that Huntsman had quoted the wrong Beatles song, and instead should have cited the following -
"Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away,
Now it looks as though they're here to stay,
Oh, I believe in yesterday."
Secretary of State, you reckon?
The day Huntsman launched his campaign, Peggy Noonan wrote that he looked like someone running for Secretary of State, not president.
I think it would be a good move but it's not a good sign that Romney wasn't at Huntsman's announcement and just released a 2-sentence reaction statement praising Huntsman. It's possible that ahead of South Carolina, Romney doesn't want to advertise the fact that he got the endorsement of the most liberal candidate. The McCain endorsement actually might've hurt Romney.