A Big One For Newt
All along, my concern about Newt Gingrich has been electability. Would his personal baggage, his sometimes abrasive style, and his penchant for Oh-my-God-did-he-really-say-that-isms simply make him unacceptable to too much of the electorate?
Well, a Rasmussen poll of likely voters released today shows Newt actually leading Barack Obama, 45% to 43%. Yes, that's within the margin of error; and yes, it's only one poll. But this is the first time I've seen a national poll with Gingrich even with or leading Obama.
This, I think, is big for Newt. As I recall, there was a period of about one week when Rick Perry also tied or led Obama -- but that was when Perry was virtually unknown. Newt is much better known now than Perry was then. There is a substantial portion of Mitt Romney's "support" that has derived from a belief that he is the only candidate who could beat Obama in anything other than a double-dip recession scenario. If Newt can maintain this level of viability vs. Obama -- i.e., if he can keep from shooting himself in the foot -- we could be seeing the beginning of the end-game of the GOP nomination process.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: A Big One For Newt
I don't take Rasmussen polls all that seriously until they are confirmed by at least one other poll. Ras systematically exaggerated Republican's edge in 2010 (as did Gallup, according to Nate Silver), and they have become a little bit like what PPP is for democrats. I just don't trust their numbers.
But, assuming it is true...Barack Obama has not started using his $700 million advertising campaign to slowly unpack all of Newt's baggage in front of the American electorate.
Jul '10
Re: A Big One For Newt
You sure about that Steve? I have four more questions:
1. Does Newt have any money or organization?
2. The President isn't elected by national plebiscite, how does Newt v. Barry look in the battlegrounds?
3. Are we sure that Newt hasn't already amputated both feet?
4. Do you believe Mitt will keep the gloves on if it's a two dog fight?
Edited on Nov 30, 2011 at 5:33pmMar '11
Re: A Big One For Newt
There are other reasons than electability for conservatives to be concerned about Newt, the biggest one being his outsized conception of himself as a world-historical figure (beautifully skewered in an old Weekly Standard piece by Andrew Ferguson, which also points out that he's only an intellectual in comparison with other Congressional types). Mickey Kaus's impression of him (forged in the fight to pass welfare reform under Clinton) is that he wants most of all to be the guy who comes into the back room and brokers the historic compromise which gets his name attached to it for the ages; which means he's always looking for an opportunity to sell out his side (i.e., us). He's not the guy you want heading up the negotiation for your team.
Aug '10
Re: A Big One For Newt
This poll reflects all the publicity Newt has been getting recently more than actual voter intent.
Jan '11
Re: A Big One For Newt
Your assumption is that Newt's baggage is more troublesome than Obama's. Anybody seriously believe that?
Palaeologus
4. Do you believe Mitt will keep the gloves on if it's a two dog fight?
There are two problems with a Mitt candidacy, one of which you illustrate here:
Mitt has no gloves; he doesn't fight. I have no confidence in Mr. Nice Guy besting Obama in a debate.
The other, I would say terminal problem, is that Mitt is tethered to Romneycare and he can't, and apparently doesn't want to hide from it. Newt has made mistakes, and he owns up to them forthrightly. Compare that to someone trying to get loose from a tar baby who keeps saying "What tar baby"?
Every poll has Romney below viable candidacy levels. Newt, overtaking Romney, with little funds, small organization, and national press, even some conservative ones, bleating negatives is very good indicator of how Romney would do in a general election. Without question, he will loose.
Jan '11
Re: A Big One For Newt
That seems to be a common view among Romney supporters, but, you know that - how? Exactly.
Dec '10
Re: A Big One For Newt
Newt is for real! Yet, I will wholeheartedly support Mitt if he wins the nomination. Will you Jeff, Frozen and Palaeo, support Newt if he wins. Come on guys we are on the same team? We have to defeat the real enemy. Polls, smolls. Lets not let the media decide for us.
Jun '11
Re: A Big One For Newt
I am no fan of Newt. IMO, he's not more reliably conservative vs. Mitt. However, I'll crawl through broken glass to vote for him over our Dear Leader.
Jun '10
Re: A Big One For Newt
Newt has some personal baggage. So what? So does half of America. The politicians that get in trouble over affairs, typically, get in trouble for lying to the public about it. The voters care less about your hormones than they care about your lying to them. Prime example: Gary Hart. Lie to your wife, but don't lie to the voters. That's when the big trouble starts. I think even with the hardest cases, like John Edwards, with his wife slowly dying (Newt's first wife didn't die) Edwards could've survived politically in some capacity, if he'd just owned up the very first time he was asked by a reporter. Trying to fool your wife is one thing, but don't try to fool the public about issues they understand all too well.
Apr '11
Re: A Big One For Newt
I am not a social conservative, so it doesn't really bother me. But if evangelicals and "family values" voters accept Newt it really will go a long way to prove the liberal's charges against them of being fundamentally hyprocritical and insincere. I am aware that Newt had some kind of supposed spiritual awakening, so it's all better now, but still...
Newt's conduct in 98' was just so incredibly brazen. I remember his vow to mention Clinton-Monica in every speech, and he does this while carrying on his own extramarital affair.
Jun '10
Re: A Big One For Newt
jeffp: ...
He's not the guy you want heading up the negotiation for your team. · Nov 30 at 6:28pm
Unless you look at what he actually did negotiate -- from getting himself made the minority whip to making fools of all the Mickey Kaus's and Andrew Fergusons of the time and flipping the Congress from 60 years (almost) of Democratic-KKK-Commie hegemony. Newt, like Churchill before him, has been dealing with High IQ idiots (Reagan's term) all his life. If he is elected as president he will change this country's direction well into the region of sanity.
Who will be calling Newt an amiable dunce first, I wonder. Republicans who are effective and can actually get things done have an uphill fight against three elements: the MSM, the Democratic Party and the Republicans and conservatives whose predictions are proved wrong.
Jun '10
Re: A Big One For Newt
wmartin
...
Newt's conduct in 98' was just so incredibly brazen. I remember his vow to mention Clinton-Monica in every speech, and he does this while carrying on his own extramarital affair. · Nov 30 at 9:04pm
I agree that Newt had something to worry about regarding the country and its tolerance of a sexual scandal around him especially at that time.
But, conservatives should actually be interested enough to get the facts straight about Clinton. For example, it is not true that Newt lied to a grand jury, suborned perjury or abused his power. Remember what the impeachment was really about and stop blithely and carelessly buying into the essential meme that the MSM and the Dems want everyone to believe that it was all about sex.
And please show some skepticism about the "Everyone lies about sex." This is a classic lawyer trick. Of course, people lie about sex if they're feeling guilty -- true. Just like murderers, thieves, robbers, etc. -- you just can't get these people to admit it. They lie about it. Wow -- what a revelation!
Dec '10
Re: A Big One For Newt
wmartin
I am not a social conservative, so it doesn't really bother me. But if evangelicals and "family values" voters accept Newt it really will go a long way to prove the liberal's charges against them of being fundamentally hyprocritical and insincere.
I don't see this at all. If Christians claimed to be infallible you'd have have a point, but they don't. They are not perfect because they are Christians; they are Christians because they are imperfect. As self-acknowledged, deeply-flawed human beings, the real hypocrisy would be if they were unwilling to accept the flaws of others (assuming said others are sincere in their attempts to walk the straighter path).
For the record, I'm not a Christian -- call me a reluctant agnostic -- so I'm not claiming to speak for them. But it's never made sense to me to point to the failures of Christians as evidence of insincerity or hypocrisy. It's quite possible to fail to meet standards (and accept this failing in others) while genuinely endorsing and striving to meet them.
Jul '10
Re: A Big One For Newt
I'd vote for Callista against Barry.