As for the media…I just don’t think they are nearly as important as independent actors as, say, Polsby thought they were in 1972-1980 (I think he was correct then, but things changed). On pre-Iowa, yes, they’ll look to polling and $$, but they’ll also be influenced by party insiders — after all, they’re heavily discounting Palin now for that reason. Then from Iowa on, I think the evidence shows that the media does as much relaying of party spin as it does independent spinning.

There’s clearly some of the latter still that can matter, e.g. the media efforts to keep McCain alive vs. Bush in 2000. But I’d say it’s now a minor factor.

I should be clear that I don’t disagree – as I said in my post – that Newt’s candidacy is a very very long shot, and – right now – I don’t think he’s nearly as strong as Romney. But weaker than Pawlenty? I honestly don’t know. In any case, it’s May – a lot can, and will, happen before January, 2012.

More generally, I think you’re giving too much credit in the invisible primary process to the press as independent actors, and too little to the importance of party leaders (even if you think of party leaders, as I do, as broadly defined). Indeed, I think part of the reason why Newt’s rollout went so badly was that a whole lot of people who have worked with the guy don’t want him to succeed, so when he commits a gaffe they’re going to play it up instead of making excuses for him (as is also happening with Palin). It’s possible to win with support from other parts of the party even if Washingtonians aren’t thrilled with you, probably, but it’s not as if Newt has a lot of support among state party organizations, or among activists, or anywhere else that I know of.

I agree that it’s a mistake to focus on a bad week — I’d guess that every eventual nominee has survived worse weeks. But I can’t see him as a serious threat to Romney or Pawlenty (or Perry).

First things first: despite yesterday’s split, the natural equilibrium in the A.L. East continues. Of this all right-thinking Americans can be grateful.

You make an excellent point that Huntsman’s service as Obama’s ambassador to China cuts both ways; it will be as hard for Obama to disassociate himself from Obama as it will be for Obama to disown Huntsman. But the crucial point is that Huntsman must survive the nominating phase first. It is far too early to make credible projections, but at this early date I think he faces tough slogging. The Tea Party is going to push hard on the economy – Huntsman does have a record he can cite from his five years at Utah’s governor: he instituted tax reform and pushed for school vouchers. But he also backed immigration reform, cap and trade for climate control and civil unions – all anathema to elements in the Republican base. And that’s on top of serving as Obama’s ambassador to China. Does this mean he can’t win the nomination? No. But – and it’s very early to make these projections – he has some high hurdles to clear.

With regard to Huntsman – While his position working for Obama indeed puts Huntsman in somewhat of a difficult spot positioning himself against the president, wouldn’t this, in some ways, pose some serious problems for Obama potentially running against him? We keep talking about the disadvantages for Huntsman, but what about those for Obama?

In the intense media environment of the general election, candidates attack each other with extreme intensity as election day looms nearer and nearer. I would think it would be very difficult for Obama to criticize Huntsman in the way that some may see as necessary since Obama himself appointed/hired him! As I see it, It’s a pretty tough sell for Obama to say that Huntsman will not lead the country in the right direction given that Obama appointed him to perhaps the most important diplomatic position in US foreign policy. Why would you appoint someone to be the ambassador of China if you thought his political stance was truly different than your own? Huntsman can pull the patriot public servant card, saying that when your president asks you to represent America the Beautiful, you answer the call no matter what without hesitation (almost the same way that the military obeys the commander-in-chief). I think it’s a much harder sell for Obama in the general election rather than Huntsman, since Obama was the one who took the initiative and made the conscious decision to appoint/”hire” Huntsman.

Of course, all of this will only be of use to Huntsman if he wins the primaries where Huntsman’s affiliation with Obama will only be a negative in appealing to the base. Who knows – if Huntsman gets as far as the general election, maybe we’ll see a more civil discourse in an Obama-Huntsman competition in which the two candidates appeal to the crucial independent middle, using their partnership a proof of bipartisanship, centrist tendencies, etc. With the media scrutiny and the stakes, of course, I doubt it will be very civil, but it’s an interesting possibility.

Lastly, let’s all remember that the current order of the AL East (http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings) is the most stabilizing and positive trend in America right now and that any truly legitimate presidential candidate should support this current order.