The Gingrich Dilemma
As widely noted these past few days, the Newt Gingrich campaign is indeed growing in popularity. Though he’s still, at best, in the lower teens in terms of percentage of voter support, and substantially trailing Romney and Cain, looking ahead it’s hard not see him attracting more and more support as the other candidates prove themselves to be incompetent or ideologically unpalatable.
As a long time supporter of the man, my opportunity to say “I told you so!” now seems possible. I then plan to become as annoying as a rabid Archers of Loaf fan talking about how I’ve been in to them since their first EP.
Before I spend too much time perfecting my sneering pose, today’s analysis of Newt’s prospects by Nate Silver bears reading. He identifies the major impediments Gingrich faces that could stop him even if he is the best man on substance. Excerpt:
Overall, I would read three of these factors, establishment support, personal liabilities, and (especially) fund-raising, as being clearly negative for Mr. Gingrich. This contrasts against one, ideological positioning, which is potentially favorable for him. He has both strengths and weakness in the key early-voting states, meanwhile.
That balance is unfavorable enough to suggest that his chances of winning the nomination are weaker than his polls alone would imply. That certainly does not mean that his chances are zero, or 1,000-to-1 against. If Republican voters decide that they really don’t want to nominate Mitt Romney, Mr. Gingrich could be the last man standing. But even if Mr. Gingrich continues to gain in the polls, he will have some major weaknesses to overcome.
As always, his assertions are backed up with a solid logical foundation and persuasive argument. Although the number crunching support he usually provides is largely absent in this opinion piece. For some of that Nate Silver statistical magic, you can refer to this article from the New York Times magazine, handicapping Obama’s prospects for re-election next year.
Silver is also behind this slick interactive calculator, which rates the likelihood of a number of potential GOP nominees to win versus Obama, given various levels of GDP growth and Obama’s poll numbers in 2012.
Critics might say Silver’s liberal inclinations are exposed in his built-in assumptions, which result in the GOP candidate having the best chance under any scenario being .... John Huntsman. And the second best chance under any scenario goes to Mitt Romney. These determinations do have a basis in political science, an analysis of past election results and how they correlate with ideological positioning (extreme to moderate). Results show more moderate challengers to an incumbent President have won far more often than more ideologically extreme candidates.
The calculator does not include Newt Gingrich at all, perhaps an indication of how weak his prospects were considered to be, even a few weeks ago. Silver notes that Gingrich’s ideological positioning is closest to Rick Perry’s and his results can serve as an acceptable proxy.
Under this analysis, to overcome all of his shortcomings, a Gingrich victory in the general election would require something on the order of a stalled economy (<0.5% GDP growth) at election time or Obama’s approval ratings to drop below 37%. Both of these are higher hurdles than would be faced by Huntsman, Romney or Herman Cain, who could theoretically win with greater economic growth levels and higher Obama approval ratings.
Given the diminished standing Gingrich’s reputation has among the general electorate, that overall conclusion strikes me as correct. He wouldn’t be as easy to elect as these other candidates, unless it’s a time of more acute crisis in 2012. That still wouldn’t change my vote in a primary election. It’s time to take a chance on the best man for the job.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Re: The Gingrich Dilemma
The trouble with Nate Silver's calculator and with the work of political scientists generally is that they assume without thinking that the future will be very much like the past. No political scientist accurately predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Arab Spring . . . the list is long. What the historian can bring to the table is an awareness that there are times of rupture -- when the old rules do not apply. We live at such a moment.
Jan '11
Re: The Gingrich Dilemma
I'll vote for any Republican candidate, but Newt is the only one that won't compel me to wash my hands after doing so.
Jul '11
Re: The Gingrich Dilemma
Their is a large subset of social and fiscal conservatives that are wandering around looking whom they will back. Bachman, then Perry, then Cain, and now Newt.
Newt is the smartest and most qualified of the bunch by far. I suspect none are electable unless zero drops far further as outlined above.
What we will end up with is the finger in the wind fellow instead and that is a pity.
If Romney gets the nod I suspect I'll vote for him but feel like this afterword
ace ventura - einhorn is a man
Jul '11
Re: The Gingrich Dilemma
Jul '10
Re: The Gingrich Dilemma
Nate Silver? He's that leftist who takes the averages of polls and used that metadata to catapult himself to NY Times stardom, right?
I think I'll get my political analysis elsewhere.
Perhaps Michael Barone is available.
Re: The Gingrich Dilemma
Good points Professor Rahe. But political scientists DO predict the results of elections all the time. (And they blow predictions plenty of the time as well!).
Of course, one cannot forget the historian's perspective. But statistical evidence is as much a part of the historical record as anecdotes are. Silver's work is valuable in bringing in this perspective, to go along with the awareness of broader historical trends.
Jul '10
Re: The Gingrich Dilemma
Brian Ward: A
As always, his assertions are backed up with a solid logical foundation and persuasive argument.
Critics might say Silver’s liberal inclinations are exposed in his built-in assumptions, which result in the GOP candidate having the best chance under any scenario being .... John Huntsman. And the second best chance under any scenario goes to Mitt Romney. These determinations do have a basis in political science, an analysis of past election results and how they correlate with ideological positioning (extreme to moderate). Results show more moderate challengers to an incumbent President have won far more often than more ideologically extreme candidates.
So your argument is to vote for Huntsman.
As for Natey's analysis. Let's consider: Ford was an incumbent. He was ousted by Carter, who can not be considered under any circumstances to be a moderate. He, in turn, was ousted by Reagan. Was Reagan a moderate? Hoover was a leftist, and he was outed by a leftist bigger than he was.
Mr. Silver should stick to baseball. Or not, as how many Championships have Billy Beane's teams won?
Nate Silver is the hackiest hack who ever hacked. Q.E.D.
Apr '11
Re: The Gingrich Dilemma
Brian Ward: Good points Professor Rahe. But political scientists DO predict the results of elections all the time. (And they blow predictions plenty of the time as well!).
Of course, one cannot forget the historian's perspective. But statistical evidence is as much a part of the historical record as anecdotes are. Silver's work is valuable in bringing in this perspective, to go along with the awareness of broader historical trends. · Nov 9 at 5:56pm
Right. We have a lot of very good, very detailed, data on democratic demographics. Compare the Arab Spring, where there was essentially none.
Jun '11
Re: The Gingrich Dilemma
@DocJay Don't forget to bring your plunger to the polling place!
Re: The Gingrich Dilemma
Michael Tee
So your argument is to vote for Huntsman.
As for Natey's analysis. Let's consider: Ford was an incumbent. He was ousted by Carter, who can not be considered under any circumstances to be a moderate. He, in turn, was ousted by Reagan. Was Reagan a moderate? Hoover was a leftist, and he was outed by a leftist bigger than he was.
Mr. Silver should stick to baseball. Or not, as how many Championships have Billy Beane's teams won?
Nate Silver is the hackiest hack who ever hacked. Q.E.D. · Nov 9 at 7:11pm
No, my argument is for Gingrich. Silver's model merely predicted Huntsman would have an easier time winning in a general election. An arguable premise.
Your examples of a more extreme candidate winning may be true, but they were accounted for in this analysis. None of these models produce absolutes, only tendencies. Check that NYT Magazine article for a more complete description of the methodology and results, or the original source cited, The Party Decides by Marty Cohen.
Aug '10
Re: The Gingrich Dilemma
Overall, I would read three of these factors, establishment support, personal liabilities, and (especially) fund-raising, as being clearly negative for Mr. Gingrich. This contrasts against one, ideological positioning, which is potentially favorable for him.
Silver notes that Gingrich’s ideological positioning is closest to Rick Perry’s and his results can serve as an acceptable proxy.
This completely misses the point. Newt has one enormous asset, as compared to everyone else in the running: he could take Obama apart and humiliate him in a debate (something that I long to see). Only Newt seriously understands the nature of the left, and has the mental agility not to get sucked into accepting the leftist premises of his debate opponent or the moderators.
We're in a position where to win the presidency, and more importantly to accomplish what is necessary after the election, will require that an awful lot of people in the middle have their minds changed about a lot of things in the next twelve months. People may come to like other candidates, but I can't imagine anyone else in the race being able to persuade anyone of anything significant that they don't already believe.
Edited on November 10, 2011 at 7:37amOct '10
Re: The Gingrich Dilemma
Paul DeRocco
Newt has one enormous asset, as compared to everyone else in the running: he could take Obama apart and humiliate him in a debate (something that I long to see). Only Newt seriously understands the nature of the left, and has the mental agility not to get sucked into accepting the leftist premises of his debate opponent or the moderators.
We're in a position where to win the presidency, and more importantly to accomplish what is necessary after the election, will require that an awful lot of people in the middle have their minds changed about a lot of things in the next twelve months. People may come to like other candidates, but I can't imagine anyone else in the race being able to persuade anyone of anything significant that they don't already believe.
Maybe the most important point to be made this election cycle: The persuasiveness of our front man. (The problem to which Ryan was the answer.)
With the problems of big government daily illustrated around the globe, now is time for a leader that can connect the dots for the voters and convince them that conservatism is the answer.
Jun '10
Re: The Gingrich Dilemma
Paul and Severely: So true, so true. It's the background debate that we never have. I would love to see their ideas brought out clearly. Obama is an obfuscator -- which all people on the hard left have to be. They have to lie.
Obama is so used to softball questions and when he gets into trouble he uses the race card (March '08 speech on race). I would love to see Newt drill down on the silly notions (and anti-Americanism) that Obama harbors about his philosophy of Marxism.
Obama is not that reflective -- as Newt is about American Exceptionalism and his other beliefs -- and, though Newt would never convince an ardent true believer like Obama, I believe that Newt could convince normal Americans how destructive the leftist ideas are. This could have long term lasting effects on America.
But, the most important thing is what Newt is making the case for over and over: get the MSM out of the debate. No moderators, just timekeepers. This won't happen because Obama is no fool but as Severely Ltd says Newt could just keep driving this point home -- how the process is rigged.
Jun '10
Re: The Gingrich Dilemma
I started following Newt in the late 1980s because he was the only one in the GOP even trying to get into a majority frame of mind in the House of Representatives.
Later in 1994 and 1995 while most Republicans were looking askance at Newt because they really don't like controversy, Newt was going hammer and tong against the setup questions in the media. I loved his press conferences and his attacks against the press. I consider the left and their lapdog press to be our enemies -- seriously, I do. Newt somewhere along his progress decided this was true also. He was the only politician to see the problem with our present system and how we had lost the ideological battle in America for traditional American ideas against socialistic notions planted in the minds of Americans.
Jun '10
Re: The Gingrich Dilemma
Newt has tremendous courage.