Sure.  But when you don't have any home run hitters on your team -- they're either injured or holding out -- sometimes bunting the guy home is the best strategy you've got.  Agree that we need more home run hitters, and we need the ones we've got to play.  But right now they're not.

It's relatively simple.  If the economy accelerates meaningfully in 2012, we lose.  End of story.  If we keep the House it will be a victory.  If the economy deteriorates appreciably from where it is today, virtually any Republican will win, and we will likely pick up the Senate regardless of who the nominee is.  But if the economy keeps limping along -- a little good news here, a little bad news there, modest growth, not much change in unemployment -- then the nominee matters.  In this scenario, I don't see any of the current crop beating the Big O decisively.  A narrow win or narrow loss probably doesn't affect the Senate battle in any meaningful way.  The question is -- who carries the least risk of losing decisively enough to lengthen the odds of recapturing the Senate?  Pending new news or further developments, I still think the answer is Mittens.

Ditto.  The only thing I'd quibble with is describing 1994 as "historic" and "transformational."  The only thing 1994 transformed, as far as I can tell, was Bill Clinton, from the overt liberal of his heart to the semi-moderate pragmatic of his head.  It didn't transform the GOP, which promptly gave us Dole, Bush, Bush, & McCain as standard-bearers.  It stopped Clinton's intended rapid expansion of the welfare state, but didn't stop the slow, steady growth of same.  And, having lived through both, I don't think 1994 "transformed" the electorate in the same way that Reagan's run in 1980 -- and subsequent successes -- palpably moved the electorate as a whole a bit to the right.

The question is whether the electorate as a whole -- or a very large part of it -- can be made to see this moment as a "pivot point."  If so, then I agree that this might be the one environment in which Newt could pull it off.  But I'm just not sure whether that's going to be the case.

You'll have a lot of company....

It will be no conservative Utopia, but it will be immeasurably better than what we've had to endure the past three years -- and better by quite a few parasangs than the alternative of another four years of BHO.

Garfield not only knew both Latin and Greek; he could write in both languages simultaneously, using his left hand for one and his right hand for he other.

Let's see Obama top that, Chris Matthews!

Well -- I was guilty of a certain laziness in expression when I wrote "a poll."  In fact, Mitt has consistently polled near or ahead of Obama for some time now, across multiple polls from multiple sources.  Any one poll at this point is fairly meaningless.  When Newt shows the same pattern as Mitt -- consistently competitive or ahead in polls from different sources -- then I will start to Believe.  Will he?  Dunno.  My gut tells me no -- I just don't see his appeal stretching far beyond the hard core who love watching liberal media types get smacked down once in a while.  But I am wholly open-minded here -- and will be watching the polls.

I'd like to be able to pull for Newt -- I really would -- but until I see a credible poll indicating that he could beat Obama, he remains for me just another one of the Dwarfs.  I suspect there are a few other people in the same boat.  Per Mr. Walker, above -- it is precisely the McGovern scenario that is so worrisome here.  If Newt can effectively allay fears of that as a remotely plausible outcome, he may well "stick" as the only viable non-Romney.  If not, I think he will fade back into the pack.

I am personally acquainted with several independent voters who, if the election were held today, would vote for Romney over Obama, but would not vote for Cain or Perry.  (They are, by and large, still undecided about Gingrich.)

Moreover, 2008 did not "prove" anything.  First of all, McCain was actually leading, albeit narrowly, when the September meltdown occurred.  Absent that, he might have won.  But more broadly, you (and others who have made the same point) are simply engaging in a non sequitur here.  To say that the claim that "A would do better than B" is "disproved" by the fact that last time around A lost, simply makes no sense.  If you have "proof" that a more conservative candidate would have done better against Obama, then you can make that claim.  Otherwise, what you have is simply your own opinion.

Well, that's the million-dollar question, isn't it?  I'd give a lot to believe it, but at least for now I don't.  The gold standard in unpopular incumbency was set by Jimmy Carter and roughly equaled by GWB.  Obama has yet to poll anywhere near their levels of disapproval.  At the moment, he is barely underwater in the Real Clear Politics average.  Is it all that hard to imagine, with just a little bit better economic news, his approval ratings crossing the 50% mark?  I don't think so.

At the time, liberals never understood what ordinary people "saw" in Reagan -- and so they consistently underestimated him.  Those of us who don't get what anyone "sees" in Obama need to remember that not all the ordinary people have give up on this guy yet.

This is an very good point.  Don't forget that just before the meltdown, McCain was actually up a few points in most polls -- and this was when Obama was all "hope and change," with no record.  I find the argument that a "centrist" can't beat Obama singularly unconvincing.

I can't speak for Troy, but if you accept his premise that a Gingrich candidacy could result in a "Goldwateresque" defeat, I think the risk is not just in the down-ticket races in '12, but in presidential as well as congressional races for years to come.  Goldwater's defeat was followed by 16 years of overwhelming Democratic hegemony in Congress and simply God-awful presidents.  Conservatism was effectively discredited in the eyes of 2/3 of the electorate for much of that time.  And yes, it eventually regained its footing and found its popular champion in Ronald Reagan -- but 16 years is a long time, and a lot of damage was done, which Reagan only began to undo, and which we are still living with today.  I understand the desire to swing for the fences -- but if we strike out???

Very nicely put.  But doesn't the consideration of just what that "Goldwateresque" defeat would mean for the country, in fact, lend weight to the case for Romney?  If Mitt loses, we live to fight another day, and with an incredibly strong "bench."  If Newt loses -- and I agree that if he loses, he will likely lose badly -- we are, in a word, hosed.  Just look at what the last "Goldwateresque" defeat got us -- the Great Society, Nixon, Ford, Carter....  Maybe I'm just risk-averse, but even for gamblers some risks are just not worth taking.  We could survive (however painfully) a narrow, credible loss in '12 -- but a blowout?  Boy, I don't know.

Ronald Reagan sometimes evoked FDR, for heaven's sake.... 

If I thought Herman Cain had a snowball's chance in hell to pull in 1/3 of the black vote, I'd consider him more electable than Romney, and I'd be on his bandwagon in a heartbeat.  Unfortunately, I think there's not even enough snow to make that snowball in the first place.  In extremely large numbers, black voters appear to identify not simply with "race," but with the whole ideological and cultural nexus of "minority politics."  That's why liberal, Democrat blacks are "real" and conservative or Republican ones aren't.  At the margin, of course, there would certainly be some black voters who would go for Cain but not Romney, Gingrich, or any of the others -- but unfortunately I suspect that number is more like 5% than 25%.  If you have any evidence that I might be wrong here, I'd love to see it.

"Referred them to Penn State authorities"???  To the authorities at a school where the football program is the crown jewel, almost sacred?  Sorry, Peter, but I disagree with you on this.  Paterno's first call should have been to the police, then to the university president, informing him that he had already notified the police.  Instead, he punted.  Given the nature of the accusations here, this is unacceptable.

I've had great respect and admiration for JoePa as a coach for many, many years now, but "punting" to the "university authorities" in a situation like this was a gross abdication of his responsibility, and the university trustees were right to do what they did.