This exceeds anything I'd expected--or, I'd be willing to wager, anything Ann Coulter feared:

A new national poll shows Mitt Romney is in a free fall with Newt Gingrich now leading for the GOP presidential nomination.

Gingrich now has 31% support from registered Republican voters in the Gallup daily tracking poll, compared with 27% for the former Massachusetts governor.

The former House speaker now has completely erased a 23-point advantage Romney enjoyed earlier this month.

"Free fall."  Lord.  Florida votes on the last day of the month.  Can Romney turn this around?

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

tabula rasa
Joined
Jun '10
tabula rasa
Stuart Creque: Can Mitt turn this around? In the sense that the polls are volatile, certainly if Mitt can blow a 23 point lead, it's possible for him to regain it. But I think it is a good deal less likely that Mitt can earn back a 23 point lead than it is that Newt can give back a 23 point leaf to Mitt. 

Neither of them need a 23-point lead.  They just need the most delegates.

Franco
Joined
Sep '10
Franco

Some of the most enraged over the change in policy were other Republicans, including House Whip Newt Gingrich, the Senate leadership, and Vice President Dan Quayle. They felt Bush had destroyed the Republicans' most potent election plank for years to come. That the Republican leadership was not consulted before Bush made the deal also angered them. This perceived betrayal quickly led to a bitter feud within the Republican Party. When Sununu called Gingrich with the news, Gingrich hung up on him in anger. When Senator Trent Lott questioned the reversal, Sununu told the press that "Trent Lott has become an insignificant figure in this process."    

Many also felt that, while perhaps necessary, the reneging was badly handled. Bush's statement on the issue was simply posted on the notice board in the press room. There was no attempt to sell or defend the reversal. It was also very sudden; there was no attempt to slowly convince the American people of the perceived necessity of raising taxes. No figures with influence on the conservative base were recruited to endorse and try and sell the about-face.

And he did destroy Republican credibility with voters. 

Mendel
Joined
Mar '11
Mendel

The King Prawn

Crow's Nest

From Forbes. If we're gonna have entitlements, shouldn't they at least be like Part D?  Isn't the style of this entitlement the blueprint for Ryan's reforms of the whole Medicare system? If we can't toss the whole mess I'll take this system over the one we have now.

Indirectly, this is what irritates me most about Gingrich.

All of Gingrich's original proposals I have heard so far have involved either creating new government programs or keeping existing ones, but always with a conservative bent, ie:

- local panels to decide which immigrants can stay

- school work programs for poor children

- Social Security reform based on brain science and lean-six-sigma

in other words, for Gingrich, government is the answer, as long as that government is conservative in nature.   How to solve a Medicare problem? With a new "market-based" addition to Medicare, of course!

Is this really the role the state is supposed to play?  Those of you who support him, do you really believe Gingrich wants to reduce the scope of government in daily life?

Paul A. Rahe

I would not be inclined to trace Gingrich's rise to the taste of South Carolinians or anyone else for "cheap thrills." It is largely a function of popular distrust of the proud father of Romneycare. When any other candidate seems to be a plausible alternative, Republicans flock to his banner.

I do suspect that Gingrich will implode, but one never knows. He is a much more accomplished politician than is Romney, and in the past he has done wonders.

What worries me most, however, is what conservative Republicans will do down the road if Romney becomes President and they discover that they have once again been had, as Norm Coleman's remarks suggest will be the case. Barack Obama has stirred up a force that will wreak havoc if it is not given satisfaction.

In the meantime, a thought for Romney partisans. It is not a good idea to display contempt for the voters. They may not be supremely wise, and they can be fooled. But more often than not they are canny. If Romney is in trouble -- despite all of the advantages he possesses in money, advisors, advance planning, and organization -- the fault is most likely his.

Franco
Joined
Sep '10
Franco

Paul A. Rahe: I would not be inclined to trace Gingrich's rise to the taste of South Carolinians or anyone else for "cheap thrills." It is largely a function of popular distrust of the proud father of Romneycare. When any other candidate seems to be a plausible alternative, Republicans flock to his banner.

I do suspect that Gingrich will implode, but one never knows. 

What worries me most, however, is what conservative Republicans will do down the road if Romney becomes President and they discover that they have once again been had, as Norm Coleman's remarks suggest will be the case. Barack Obama has stirred up a force that will wreak havoc if it is not given satisfaction.

In the meantime, a thought for Romney partisans. It is not a good idea to display contempt for the voters. They may not be supremely wise, and they can be fooled. But more often than not they are canny. If Romney is in trouble -- despite all of the advantages he possesses in money, advisors, advance planning, and organization -- the fault is most likely his. · 

Why teach elitists how to hide?

Edited on Jan 24 at 3:00pm
Karen
Joined
May '10
Karen

Franco

Some of the most enraged over the change in policy were other Republicans, including House Whip Newt Gingrich, the Senate leadership, and Vice President Dan Quayle. They felt Bush had destroyed the Republicans' most potent election plank for years to come. That the Republican leadership was not consulted before Bush made the deal also angered them. This perceived betrayal quickly led to a bitter feud within the Republican Party. When Sununu called Gingrich with the news, Gingrich hung up on him in anger. When Senator Trent Lott questioned the reversal, Sununu told the press that "Trent Lott has become an insignificant figure in this process."    

Many also felt that, while perhaps necessary, the reneging was badly handled. Bush's statement on the issue was simply posted on the notice board in the press room. There was no attempt to sell or defend the reversal. It was also very sudden; there was no attempt to slowly convince the American people of the perceived necessity of raising taxes. No figures with influence on the conservative base were recruited to endorse and try and sell the about-face.

And he did destroy Republican credibility with voters.  

Wikipedia? Really? Try this.

K T Cat
Joined
Sep '10
K T Cat
Mendel: Is this really the role the state is supposed to play?  Those of you who support him, do you really believe Gingrich wants to reduce the scope of government in daily life? · 30 minutes ago

Decentralizing control will reduce the scope of the government.  By their very nature, Federal regulations and Federal programs are coarse, crude things, designed to bulldoze problems that can be solved with a shovel.

Perhaps the loss of Federal control is what's got the GOP establishment in such a tizzy.

Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

Samuel Amaral

Pseudodionysius

 Crow's Nest: Newt defended Medicare Part D in the last debate. Business as usual? · 0 minutes ago 

Not if Newt doesn't want the crowd to scream "President Ron Paul". · 8 minutes ago

Never say that again ... Paul Krugman might self-deport to China just thinking about it, lets not even talk about Bernanke. · 2 hours ago

Edited 2 hours ago

And your problem would be???

Mendel
Joined
Mar '11
Mendel

K T Cat

Mendel

Decentralizing control will reduce the scope of the government.  By their very nature, Federal regulations and Federal programs are coarse, crude things, designed to bulldoze problems that can be solved with a shovel.

Obviously true, and Gingrich's proposals usually have sensible delegations of power to lower levels.

My overarching concern is more philosophical: Gingrich seems to view government, regardless of which level, as a hammer, and all of society's ills as nails.  Take this quote cited today in the Corner:

I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism. I recognize that there are times when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development.

I don't think he's a progressive.  But he has a faith in government-driven solutions that gives me the willies.

George Savage
Karen: New'ts not disliked for his principles, he's disliked for his character. He doesn't have one. He's a total dirtbag. He sabotaged Bush 41's bid for a second term, ushering in the era of Clinton.   · 2 hours ago

Karen, George Bush sabotaged George Bush's second term by following the advice of his brilliant but reliably wrongheaded OMB director Dick Darman. President Read My Lips got rolled by the Democrats, who enacted a then-massive tax increase but reneged on the promised spending cuts (sound familiar?). When the economy tanked under the strain, Bill Clinton rode into office running against "the worst economy in fifty years." Even Bush's pre-election debate summation seemed pitched to help his opponent. Who can forget wincing as he made character the central issue by asking, "Who do you trust?" And let's not forget the Perot run, fueled by disenfranchised voters infuriated by untrustworthy politicians who break promises.

Newt has a lot of awful character traits--philandering, signing onto this or that big government cause of the week--but fighting the Darman tax increase was one of his shining conservative moments. President Bush should have listened.

Edited on Jan 24 at 4:32pm
Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus
Karen: New'ts not disliked for his principles, he's disliked for his character. He doesn't have one. He's a total dirtbag. He sabotaged Bush 41's bid for a second term, ushering in the era of Clinton. 

Bush required no assistance destroying his re-election chances. The idiot announced a major compromise on a promise to the base before vetting it with vital Congressional supporters. He was an also-ran candidate until Reagan lifted him up to balance the ticket, and his ludicrous haplessness on the economy (and sentence composition, for that matter) sank his vile, principle-free Great Society Lite puffery like a rock.

Clinton was not much of a fall off from that. 

Pilli
Joined
May '11
Pilli

If Romney wins and Norm Coleman is installed in a Cabinet post, the Republican party will lose the entire Tea Party cohort.  The Tea Party will become a registered political party.  The first thing it will do is put up a candidate against every Republican on a ticket.  The target will not be Democrats but incumbent Republicans.

Republican incumbents need to remember the town halls where they were  taken to the woodshed not by Democrats but by the Republicans that elected them.

Franco
Joined
Sep '10
Franco

Karen,

link won't load for me. Wikipedia is generally more reliable than the Washington Post at least when it comes to Republicans...

Todd
Joined
Oct '10
Todd

Paul A. Rahe:

In the meantime, a thought for Romney partisans. It is not a good idea to display contempt for the voters. They may not be supremely wise, and they can be fooled. But more often than not they are canny. 1 hour ago

The wisdom of crowds.


Joined
Sep '10
Bruce in Marin
Paul A. Rahe: If Romney is in trouble -- despite all of the advantages he possesses in money, advisors, advance planning, and organization -- the fault is most likely his. · 2 hours ago

I don't doubt that the fault for Romney's current troubles lies in his own lackluster performance.  That is no consolation to me though, since I view a Gingrich candidacy as a disaster for both Republicans and conservatives.  I would be happy to be proven wrong, but I have to say I do not share your zen-like calm at this moment. 

DutchTex
Joined
Sep '11
DutchTex

DutchTex: Maybe it's just me, but if Newt keeps saying stuff like this:

"The media doesn't control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to." 

he will turn more people off.  Does he not respect the right of an ostensibly private business to set the parameters for its own event?  This kind of off-the-cuff reaction indicates that he doesn't really care about the private sector, but mainly about the applause he can get to make it seem as if he won debates.  It's of a piece with his use of Bain Capital against Romney. · 4 hours ago

Great minds think alike!  (or rather, even this blind pig finds an acorn occasionally); From Jonah Goldberg:  "Newt’s claim that NBC’s decision to bar applause and cheering at the debate violated the audience’s “free speech” is barmy."

Edited on Jan 24 at 5:40pm
flownover
Joined
Aug '10
flownover

Can we chip in for the prozac for Newt ? Might George Savage have some suggestions now that he reminded how big the engine is under Newt's hood ? 

Second notice : Does anybody know if Newt has a hot car ?

Douglas
Joined
Mar '11
Douglas

Franco

And he did destroy Republican credibility with voters.  · 4 hours ago

And now ex-Congressman Artur Davis (D - Alabama) is calling for Jeb Bush to be drafted to, ahem, "save the conservative movement"

FeliciaB
Joined
May '10
FeliciaB
Jonathan Matthew Gilbert: Here's the thing. I don't really believe Romney's unfavorables are solid, I think he has time to persuade. Newt is pretty known; I'd wager that few of us doubt Marianne's comments, even if we believe he's not the same man now. Newt's unfavorables don't seem likely to move. If we must have a nominee with 56% disapproval...why can't it be Palin? I have no faith that she can win either but I like her a heck of a lot more than Newt. · 5 hours ago

She's also waaaaay hotter!

John Marzan
Joined
Oct '10
John Marzan

Peter Robinson

"Free fall."  Lord.  Florida votes on the last day of the month.  Can Romney turn this around?

Romney is throwing so many things at newt out of desperation (fannie and freddie, expulsion from the House for ethics violations etc) when it is better to let surrogates handle most of this stuff against gingrich.

but he needs gingrich to attack him on bain issue again. focus on this line of attack/defense of bain because this is the most recent coming from newt. if the moderator for whatever reason chose somebody else, he needs bring the issue up himself and drag newt back into the bain mud. what is optimal for mitt is to have a word war with gingrich on bain on live tv in the next debate. newt's attacks on bain was one of the few issues where cons, some tea partiers, the WSJ and even limbaugh rallied to mitt's defense.

so my advice to mitt for the next debate is:

1) go after obama's state of the nation address

2) go after newt's OWS like attacks on bain

Edited on Jan 24 at 9:48pm

Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In