. . . if Matt Drudge has a preferred candidate in the primary. It’s hard to tell considering he doesn’t produce any original content, like op-ed pieces or short rants. He pretty much sticks to aggregating links to stories he finds interesting and drives traffic to them through links on his homepage. Fortunately, though, there’s some gee-whiz technology available that can analyze the links on his page to see if they reveal a bias toward a particular candidate.
I happen to have that technology at my disposal, thanks to a generous gift from the Our Creator foundation. It’s amazingly efficient, and I’m eternally grateful for the opportunity to use it. It’s called Your Own Two Eyes. And, without further ado, let’s crank it up and see what happens.
Your Own Two Eyes: Macro-Analysis
Oh, wow! Would you look at that? It’s like a perfect reproduction of the top of the Drudge Report homepage! Based on what I can see here, it appears there may be a potentially negative story about Newt Gingrich behind the link under that photo of Ronald Reagan. But, in fairness, there’s some smaller text just above the photo that’s not very easy to read on account of the small print.
Perhaps there’s something more positive about Newt up there. Why don’t we fire up Your Own Two Eyes again and see if it’ll zoom in a little closer on that text? Let’s see here . . .
Your Own Two Eyes: Micro-Analysis
Hmm. That doesn’t really look much better for Newt. At this point, one could be forgiven for jumping to the conclusion that Matt has it in for the old Speaker of the House. But, in the blogging business, it pays to be diligent. And one of the first rules of blogging (that I made up just now) is that you can’t judge a book by its cover. So, it would probably be a good idea to look a little further into things before making any judgments.
Let’s fire up Your Own Two Eyes and scan down the page again to see if maybe the more Newt-friendly stuff is located below the banner headlines. After all, that’s what the scroll bar is for, right? Let’s see here . . .
Your Own Two Eyes: In-depth analysis
Well, let’s see here. Based on what’s revealed by Your Own Two Eyes in this down-the-page scan, there are four stories which, based on their headlines, one can conclude are not friendly to Newt Gingrich. Also, there are two stories which seem to indicate a pro-Romney tilt. So, based on what we’ve seen so far, it would be easy to get the impression that Matt Drudge tends to favor the awkward, French-speaking, Massachusetts Republican who, by the way, didn’t serve in Vietnam.
But, lest we be too hasty in our judgments, let’s take one last scan of the Drudge Report homepage to see if there might still be some pro-Newt coverage that we’ve simply overlooked here. So far, though, Your Own Two Eyes seems to picking up a fairly strong pro-Mitt/anti-Newt bias. But, it does pay to be thorough in matters like these, as sometimes there are statistical anomalies that work themselves out in the final analysis.
Your Own Two Eyes: Final analysis.
Well. I’m not sure what to make of this, but based on what’s uncovered here by Your Own Two Eyes, there appear to be four more links with potentially anti-Newt slants. I’m going to have to contact Our Creator to see if there may be any glitches in the technology that need to be addressed with software or firmware updates. This is certainly a strange outcome that one would be well-served to question.
Still, even assuming there are bugs in the technology, it’s easy to imagine based on what’s shown here that Matt Drudge may have a slight preference toward Mitt Romney. Perhaps it’s a fluke that will work itself out over time, though. But, if this pattern holds, it’ll be difficult to conclude that the man who was once the bane of the establishment media hasn’t become a part of it.
H/T: Ace of Spades HQ via Twitter.
UPDATE: Many thanks to Eric Odom at the LibertyNews Network for the link! I hope visitors will find this humble blog an interesting and accommodating place.
Pingback: Is Matt Drudge waging a personal political war against Newt Gingrich? | Liberty News Network
How long before Drudge exposes newt’s relationship with the Toffler agenda?
I actually just tweeted to Eric that maybe it is more Drudge getting out information about Newt the public doesn’t know… and doesn’t want a repeat of 2008.
I listened to much of Rush today..and he was echoing Drudges front page. Unfortunately, that goes against Rush’s instinct to back Newt no matter what..so his show had a somewhat WTH conclusion.
He said Newt will probably run as the “conservative alternative to himself” now & then Rush laughed as if that would be cool with him.
Now..Ann Coulter and Drudge are VERY close friends. I would have to look back at the front pages of Drudge for the last 6 months to find out the ratio of neg stories about each and positive stories about each. I am betting that since the last CNN debate when he went after John King, Drudge’s front page has has more POSITIVE pics and stories re: the election than negative.
But I am not a blogger…or in the media, so what do I know?
BTW..I am still not FOR any candidate. I just “know”Newt from the past. I have been tweeting about the stuff that just came out the last two days, for MONTHS. But, what do I know?
I don’t support either of the two very bad choices, but, I will say that the long knives are out in full display, every where you look, to insure the establishment’s chosen candidate gets the nod he paid for. Can you imagine that that very same thing would be happening to Gov. Perry right now if he was still in the race, and poised to win Fla. Shoot if anyone thought the rock story was awful, that would have been playground antics compared to what they would be saying about him, even if it wasn’t true.
In case you have forgotten, Drudge only ran negative stories on Perry, and then ignored just as Fox did.
Gov. Perry knew this Romney push was coming down the pike. He looks even smarter and smarter to me every day. I just wonder if Romney will run again in 2016, after he loses to Obama in 2012.
NO. Romney is DONE after 2012. If he can’t win two elections in a row then he needs to take Ronald Reagan’s advice: “Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed, there are many rewards; if you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book.”
The Drudge Report has been towing the Romney line for months now, and I know because I pay attention to these things.
It isn’t just the stories he runs or leaves out, or the headlines he uses, it is also the pictures he selects to highlight certain stories. Drudge picks the worst, nastiest, scariest pictures to portray Newt.
Drudge has been less obvious about this in the past, but since Newt won SC and is mounting a real threat to Romney, Drudge doesn’t even try to hide his bias anymore. Drudge is as much a shill for Romney as LegalInsurrection is for Newt.
When I want to hear the latest Newt spin, I go to LegalInsurrection. When I want to hear the latest Romney spin, I go to the Drudge Report. Neither place has any objectivity whatsoever.
Then there are those that don’t go to Drudge, or Legal Insurrection to read spin on anyone. Drudge, just like The Blaze both became nothing more than National Enquirer tabloids long ago. They know that shock stories are all the rage with our dumbed down society. The Glen Beck Blaze editor, Will Cain, manages to get in Mitt Romney in every sentence he utters on CNN. He couldn’t wait to trash and bash Perry from the beginning, and made sure that he called him the dumb candidate every chance he got. I’m so done done done with all of them.
Just read/saw what Michael Reagan said about Newt on Megyn Kelly’s program. Maybe I’m a bit naiive, but I’ve always trusted what Michael Reagan says when it comes to discussions about his Dad. It’s posted at TRS:
“Michael Reagan defends Newt Gingrich as a Reagan conservative”
Actually you have it a little twisted, its Michael who is naive.
Someone seriously needs to explain how it is you can be a conservative when your vision for America is this:
“For this wisdom above all, we thank Mr. Jefferson, who helped create the system that served us so well for so long and that now must, in its turn, die and be replaced.“
I am getting grief on Twitter by a couple of ppl who were part of Perry Posse….but who seem to have swallowed Perry’s endorsement of Newt as if Newt has been given the crown of “no criticism” because of it.
I agree about Michael Reagan…and some are even using that video with poor Nancy Reagan saying RR had passed the torch to Newt…(not caring about the rest of the line including the Republican Congress).
They keep telling me that I am horrible for not believing enough in Perry to vote for Newt.
It is just too much after all the crap I had to sit and watch being flung by the conservative media.
I don’t know why Perry endorsed Newt, and I am having to deal with him leaving the race AND endorsing the ONE man I think is SO opposite of him. It is the part of “politics” that makes me want to turn away completely.
The ONE thing about Newt (out of HUNDREDS) that I can’t get over, and will stop me from ever voting for him, is his work for Freddie Mac in the 2000s. When Pres. Bush & Republicans KNEW there was some bad stuff happening and trying to get around the smokescreens put up by Frank & Dodd, Newt was helping the OTHER SIDE.
He COULD have been instrumental in we the taxpayers having to bail out the whole housing industry. No “could ” is wrong word. He IS instrumental in the bailout.
NEVER could I trust that man within an inch of the power/money of the Presidency, and I don’t care if Rick Perry called me on the phone to ask me to vote for Newt.
Txsleuth
Drudge did the same thing to Perry. Every article about Perry was negative.
hard to tell that drudge was singling Perry out when Fox, hotgas, the blaze, malkin, coulter, annity, rush and damn near everyone else was too.
Not a single one of them ever exposed the lies bachmann told, or revealed Pery’s relationship with heather burcham or brought up that Perry had just had open back surgery.
But boy they all went into a tissy over cain being “lynched by the media”
I share the same view as Perry of all media, especially conservative media who is more concerned with hit counts to their web pages than waiving the Banner for conservatism and exposing the truth.
Bill Bennett is one of the few talking heads that I admire. He was a Reagan insider, and he is one of the best American historians of our day. Bennett, who holds a Ph.D. from the University of Texas, has also forgotten more about our history than Newt Gingrich ever knew. To my knowledge, when the Dems were trying to destroy any Republican who stood in their path, the only thing they could ever come up with against Bennett was that he liked to gamble, with his own money.
Bennett is also one of the nicest men going and tries to conduct fair interviews, giving his guest plenty of time to respond to his questions. The YouTube video of the interview, which was only audio, has been taken down. So I can only provide you an article that will link to the interview. It is well worth listening to.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/267451/bill-bennett-gingrich-youre-shooting-paul-ryan-behind
I hope the link works.
So as we watch the different groups take sides, remember this: Mitt Romney is what you think he is; progressive, liberal, spoiled and arrogant. But Newt Gingrich is NOT what you think he is; supporter of all things conservative, the man who Reagan handed his legacy over to, honest or truthful. He is an opportunist, just as is Romney.
So, either pick your poison or no, but please, let’s not kill the messengers who are pointing out that the man who is willing to attack reporters are also willing to attack conservatives when the opportunity presents itself.
The bottom line? We core conservatives do not have a candidate. Waifs in the wilderness, are we.
Thanks for the link to the Bill Bennett interview and write up , retire05.
I hope you don’t mind, but I posted it on Twitter after listening to the audio. It was disgusting. Newt sounded jealous of Ryan. I asked on Twitter if we really want Newt to be over the Congress with that attitude, especially one with Paul Ryan.
I can’t imagine it.
If you look at the endorsements by Congress…Newt has very FEW & many from after he left Congress. It is telling, IMO>
Txsleuth
ITA. It’s one thing for a conservative to sigh and say that they support Newt as the best of a bad bunch (I’m not, but I get others who are), but what I’m beginning to hear is cultish hysteria over him. HE IS NOT COSERVATIVE! He’s just saying what people want to hear right now. As of November 2009, he was supporting DeDe Scozzafava, an ESTABLISHMENT pick over the TEA PARTY candidate, Doug Hoffmann. Newt is NOT a savior. I’m sickened by those who think he is. I know the history
Mitt stinks, too. THEY ALL DO. Perry was the only GOOD choice of the bunch. So, I’m sticking with Perry and voting for him in March in my states’ primary & praying for a miracle/brokered convention . Period.
best thing that can happen towards that end is newt and mit knock themselves out and take santorum with them.
It looks like it may happen too, if newt drops out or implodes he will endorse romney.
And after everything that has been orchestrated in virginia and elsewhere giving romney the edge over everyone else… i expect that to go over about as well as people from Georgia received sherman marching through Atlanta.
I removed my “favorites” link to Drudge today. I watched him do this in 2008. He doesn’t declare for a candidate but he pretends to bring out the “truth”. It is selective and deceptive.
What I know about Mitt is he is a loser. He incapable of defending himself, i.e. Bain and his taxes, and he is incapable of defending conservatism. What I know about Newt…when he is good, he is very, very good but you never quite sure which Newt your going to get. Well, seems to me a 50% chance of getting a conservative warrior is better than a 0% chance of a conservative warrior.
The all out full court press by the political/media elite today against Gingrich just put the nail in the coffin for me. If they hate him, I’m for him. The political elite is what is standing in the way of the new TEA party Republicans getting anything changed in Washington. Power wants to protect its own power no matter right or left. The Washington/Media establishment has an incestuous relationship with the right and the left. They have divided the power and agreed to share as long as they each get to stay in power. The country be damned. I’ve had enough!
“The all out full court press by the political/media elite today against Gingrich just put the nail in the coffin for me. If they hate him, I’m for him.”
A pure knee-jerk reaction and exactly what Gingrich is counting on. The problem is that his tactic of attacking the media is just like a card trick. Yeah, it amazes the first couple of times, but then you know its coming and you start watching the hands. Pretty soon you learn it’s not a trick, it’s just slight of hand. Now the shelf life for that trick is quickly expiring. So if Newt doesn’t find a new trick, that one won’t work anymore.
Here are your choices:
Mitt Romney: slick, progressive, governed from the left, poor little rich boy attitude who is seeking vindication for his daddy’s name and cannot connect with the “little” people. Running from his own record as governor because he knows it won’t stand up to scrutiny.
Newt Gingrich: smart, but lets you know it; erradic, has too many ideas, a couple that are really good and many that are really bad, tends to wander off the conservative farm not quite sure where he is going, wants everyone to think he is the sharpest tack in the box, and dismissive of those who don’t. Got his clock cleaned by a truely smart man, Bill Bennett, in a battle of wits. Quick to anger (although he is doing a good job of hiding it in the debates). Can’t be trusted to do the conservative thing if he thinks he has a better idea, and like Romney, is running from his own record as an elite establishment insider.
Rick Santorum: good guy, but was a player in D.C. Strong on family values, but a little too pushy for a nation that is losing its values after 100 years of progressivism. Liked him some big government projects while in office, but now runs from them. Appeals to only a certain segment of the conservative vote.
Ron Paul: probably knows the Constitution by heart but applies his own meaning to it (ignores the Federalist papers). Is a 1938 isolationist, and needs to be schooled on the history of the Islamic hordes that marched across Europe (Allen West could teach him a thing or two about that). Probably thinks Charles Martel is a congressman from South Dakota. Otherwise; certifiable. Needs to retire and go back to riding his bike around Lake Jackson running red lights and forcing drivers to be on the look out for him. Shady history with shady friends.
Basically you have “No Change”, “Change Of Mind”, “Change of Heart” and “Change?”
I agree, our choices stink but we have to choose one of them or keep Obama.
I think Gingrich is the only one of the four that “may” have a shot at it. Yes he is flawed to the max. But he did lead the Reagan Revolution in the house and he is older and perhaps wiser. I do believe in redemption and as Jacob (the deceiver, liar and thief) and David (the adulterer and murderer) and Gideon (hiding in the well out of fear) and Moses (who couldn’t speak) God uses damaged vessels.
We will get whoever God ordains and I pray that we as a nation have repented so as to once again have God’s blessing but He is sovereign and time will tell.
No offense…but when would Newt have changed enough for you to think he would be okay now?
He was messing with Freddie Mac just a few years ago.
He messed with his girlfriends while still married. ‘
He messed with Congress to point he can’t get any endorsements from the FEW conservatives left, like Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn, and NO new TP Congresspeople.
Another thing about ppl telling me I must NOT be critical of Newt b/c Perry endorsed him.
In maybe Perry’s last debate or one of last debates he said that if a man will cheat on his wife, you can’t trust him not to cheat YOU. (paraphrased). Well Newt is at LEAST a two time cheater and that doesn’t count the bimbos he is said to have had sex with in his car parked at the Capitol bldg in DC.
NO…that is not a man to be trusted EVER.
retire05!
Rush has Jeffrey Lord at Am Spectator helping him to call Eliot Abrams’ article in NRO something “spoon fed him by the Romney people”.
IOW Abrams is a liar and libelous?
He hasn’t explained R. Emmett Tyrell Jr’s article in that same AM Spectator critical of Newt also.
Newt is calling in CHITS from everyone.
Rush also said that Newt’s dealings with Freddie Mac DO NOT MATTER!!!
Laura, Lord tried to imply that Abrams had a dog in the hunt (working? for Romney) basically trying to kill the messenger. Today, Lord said that he was contacted someone by the name of Chris Scheve, former foreign policy advisor to Gingrich, who was upset by Abrams article so Scheve, taking it upon himself, went to the George Mason Library and tracked down the Congressional Record of 3/21/81 to which Lord stated “Mr. Abrams has been caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job” once again accusing Abrams of being a Romney mouth piece saying “Mr. Abrams has been caught red-handed in lending himself to this attempted Romney hit job.”
Lord claims to now be in possess of the Gingrich speech, “all seven, fine print pages worth of it exactly as it appeared in its original form” and saying what Abrams wrote “is not worthy of Elliott Abrams.”
Lord goes on to reprint PART of the speech, I am sure being very selective in his reproduction. But it seems apparent that such a smart guy as Jeffrey Lord is not very computer literate, and although being in possession of “all seven fine pring pages” is not aware of scribd.com.
So the questions arrise: if this former Gingrich aid had a problem with Abrams article, why did he not a) go to Abrams himself, since Scheve currently works in D.C. for Aqua Terra Strategies and dispute the article providing an example of how Abrams was wrong b) why did Scheve go to Lord who is clearly in the tank for Gingrich and c) why didn’t Lord download the pages on Scribd, provide a link and let voters decide for themselves what Gingrich said and what was meant by his words.
Instead, we get a few excerps from the Gingrich speech of ’81, with Jeffrey Lord giving his version of what was said and what it meant. This is no different than another episode involving Rick Perry where Pam Geller claimed to have the “Islamic” lesson plan but instead of reproducing the actual lesson plan (which was favorable to Israel) she gave her readers her version of what it said. She was only stopped when another blogger decided to dig a little deeper, got a copy of the actual lesson plan and talked with the Texas teacher who wrote the lesson plan. Also, Geller claimed that ALL Texas teachers were required to present the lesson plan in their classes, yet only 80 teachers state wide, out of over 300 school districts, even sat in on the seminar and none had decided to teach the plan.
Basically, what Lord has done is take selected excerps from the speech, present it in a way that is favorable to Newt, and allowed those like Rush to run with it. Contrary to what Lord says, there is no indication that Abrams is working for Romney, or even supports Romney. That is just Lord throwing red meat for his readers.
The lines are being drawn and those with a dog in the hunt are going to provide just enough information to sway the voters. Just remember, there is no honor among theives.
And let’s take a look at this company, AquaTerra Strategies, that this former Gingrich staffer works for. According to their mission statement:
AquaTerra Strategies helps clients navigate and understand the currents of Washington – to harness the waves that shape politics and policy, to navigate around and if necessary, through political, legislative and regularoty storms and to find opportunities in the fluidity of legislation, regulations and public opinion. Sound decicisions and successful outcomes on strategies that can get you out of the water and onto solid ground.
Bullet poing: Strategic lobbying efforts targeting Members, Senators, Leadership and staff of the United States Congress.
IOW, Mr. Scheve is a lobbyist, pure and simple, who has parlayed his inside track as a former staff member to Gingrich into a tony K Street job.
Yes..I was going to say that this Scheve sounds like a Newt clone. No wonder he went to so much trouble to give Lord and Rush something for Rush to rant about instead of Newt’s less than stellar debate last night.
What explains R. Emmett Tyrell Jr’s take on Newt then?He is at Am Spectator with Lord.
But, Rush went so far to say that what Newt did for Freddie Mac doesn’t matter. Also, what previous associates of Newt says about him doesn’t matter.
Rush is sounding as hysterical as Mark Levin did last night.
If any of these ppl had even given Rick Perry a chance I might not be so eager to bash their hypocrisy, but we are STUCK with NO acceptable replacement for the most conservative, most experienced, most qualified candidate who put his butt on the line…
I find that un-American and unacceptable.
Thanks for all of your comments, retire05!
I have been tweeting some links that I have stored up about Newt. They are quite illustrative of what is known about Newt that ppl were ALLOWED to report before Saint Rush and gang decided he can’t be criticized by Eliott Abrams or anyone else.
Txsleuth
Isn’t saying that Fannie doesn’t matter = Mitt saying that Romneycare isn’t something to “get angry about”? Sheesh. We are scraping the BOTTOM of the barrell with these candidates.
Yep.
Yes..I think so..and Mark Levin and Hannity both said same thing today.
Last night, during the debate, I didn’t tweet much, but when Santorum spoke up and said what Newt did at Freddie Mac & Mitt’s mutual funds in FM “don’t matter”…I tweeted that there is a difference and Newt’s DOES matter b/c he knowingly went against an R POTUS and Congress to help steal OUR tax payer dollars.
But today…the big 3 talkers all say NO BIG DEAL…but 3 wks ago they were calling Newt and Perry unacceptable anti-capitalist OWS ppl because of what Mitt did at Bain!!!
Now tonight Sarah Palin posts a facebook message backing all of that crap up. argh
Look, Laura, Rush, Levin, Hannity, et al, are all in the Newt corner because they are simply Not-Mitt people who didn’t have the cajones to support any really true conservative. Hell, there is no doubt that Bachmann is more conservative than Newt, and it was just a few weeks ago that Levin was telling Don Imus that he supported either Bachmann or Santorum.
Now Levin seems to have changed his mind and is going to support the guy that he was railing on just a decade ago. Perhaps Levin has a thing for the person he considers the under “dog.”
Laura, Chris Scheve’s bio is quite interesting on the AquaTerra website. Seems he is all into the “green” aspect of lobbying. He should fit right in with this current administration. But that should also bother all of us who understand that the “green” movement is nothing more that a indirect way of imposing socialism on all of us.
Laura, on the NRO Corner, Rich Lowry, who I don’t always agree with, takes Jeffrey Lord to the woodshed and beats him like a red headed stepchild. Lowry not only reprints the part of the Gingrich speech that slams President Reagan, but provides a Scribd.com link to it, something that Lord did not do (and now, we know why. Parts of the speech are absolutely damning against President Reagan).
Let the blood flow.
Blood flow indeed.
I see it all over Twitter. Ppl are staking their positions, except for the few sane ones from Perry Posse who see this as a Lose-lose election & no reason to get on either side. Like me.
I am seeing a lot of tweets reminding the Newties and the MItties about Perry & his record. NOT in hopes he will re-enter but to let them feel the sinking feeling I have felt since I read he was dropping out of the race.
Sarah Palin has staked herself with Newt…bless her heart.
Laura, Sarah Palin is just trying to keep that paycheck from Fox coming. But her association with Greta van Sustern’s tort lawyer husband (who even other tort lawyers hate) creates doubt about Palin’s motives. Now she is just another talking head whose followers are just as radical as the Paulbots.
Here is my opinion, and everyone is free to present another senario: I think all this fighting between the two camps, Gingrich and Romney, is going to wind up hurting any chance that the GOP has of retaking the Oval Office in November. Romney slams Gingrich over something stupid, and Gingrich reacts with a “Romney is anti-immigration” ad in Florida that Marco Rubio discredited and within hours, the Gingrich people pulled the ad. But to hear some tell it, Gingrich is this lily white knight in shining armor who has no faults, no warts, and is just an outsider trying to “shake up D.C.” The ultimate D.C. insider is now the outsider. What was up is now down. Crazy.
And what is all this snipping and fighting between camps going to do? Cause those independents, that are needed for a victory, to stay home on election day and just wash their hands of all of them in disgust.
Romney is currently leading in Florida. It will be close. On 1/27/2008, McCain and Romney were neck and neck and McCain won by less than 1%. If Romney takes Florida, that is going to hit Gingrich like a ton of bricks. He may not be able to recover, but WTH, Gingrich has pulled a Lazarus more than once.
retire05
I didn’t see it, but Twitter is abuzz over an interview Greta did with Pam Bondi, the new AG in Florida. She was one of the three AGs Huckabee had on his forum with the candidates a few months ago. Perry was at that forum.
Anyway, Bondi is supposedly in on the lawsuit the State AGs are bringing against Obamacare, and Florida is one of the states that had a judicial ruling.
She just said, according to Twitter, to Greta that Mitt offered her a job to work in his admin…and the people who are mad about that b/c they obviously don’t like Mitt are saying she admitted that Romneycare would be spread all over the US if Romney is elected. Now..as I said, I didn’t see the interview..but if true, it could hurt Mitt badly in Florida primary.
Nikki Haley and Pam Bondi…two supposed “Tea Party” electees supposedly have been bought off by the UN Tea Party Mitt.
If this wasn’t so GOOD for Obama….it would be funny.
These ppl are making fools of our country.
Oh..and Dan Riehl is posting a “picture” of Rich Lowry’s blog with the text of Newt’s speech..but the “picture” is blank. LOLOLOL..NOT
Childish people. All of them.
The only adult is back in Texas, taking care of business.
Laura, Nikki Haley’s population is now down in the 30′s. She may wind up being a one-termer since it’s pretty obvious her state is not in the Mitt camp.