Holey Moley! Newt Catches Mitt…in New Hampshire

 

I don’t know about you, folks, but this one takes me completely and utterly by surprise.  From the Wall Street Journal:

Poll: Gingrich, Romney in Dead Heat in N.H.

In the shock poll of the day, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has pulled into a statistical tie with Mitt Romney in the former Massachusetts governor’s backyard, New Hampshire.

The poll of likely Republican primary voters by Magellan Strategies for the online New Hampshire Journal shows Mr. Romney with 29% in the Granite State, within the poll’s 3.6-percentage-point margin of error over Mr. Gingrich’s 27%. Texas Rep. Ron Paul has 16% support, with former pizza company executive Herman Cain at 10%.

Astounding.

Troy Senik, you’ve been predicting a boom for Newt, but did even you expect Newt to pose a threat to Romney in New Hampshire?

There are 84 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  1. The (apathetic) King Prawn Member

    Common sense just became uncommon sense. Does this signal more about Newt or more about Mitt? This is to my calculations what the faster than light neutrinos were to physics a few weeks ago.

    • #1
    • November 18, 2011, at 11:31 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. David Williamson Inactive

    I’ve never understood why a State who’s motto is “Live free or die” would go for a Rino squish.

    If I remember rightly, Mr Murphy suggested that Newt need only be #2 in NH, so this may confound his other prediction (and Rob’s) that Newt has no chance against the inevitable Mr Romney.

    • #2
    • November 18, 2011, at 11:52 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. ParisParamus Member

    LOL. Mr. Robinson, feel free to stop reading [balderdash] for your data. Thank you.

    • #3
    • November 18, 2011, at 11:59 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. The (apathetic) King Prawn Member
    David Williamson

    Perfect is the enemy of the Good. · Nov 18 at 11:58am

    But that doesn’t necessarily make Imperfect its ally.

    • #4
    • November 19, 2011, at 1:03 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. Profile Photo Member

    The Primary is the time for Idealism. The General is the time for Realism. Let them slug it out as long as they want. The last man standing gets my vote in the General. ABO.

    • #5
    • November 19, 2011, at 1:15 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. Astonishing Inactive
    David Williamson
    Astonishing:

    Why, you ask, will I never vote for Mitt? Because . . . well, because . . . shhhh, keep this quiet, because Mitt is not a conservative.

    I hate to break this to you, Astonishing, but neither is Mr Obama – if he wins, it will be because of people like you.

    Perfect is the enemy of the Good. · Nov 18 at 11:58am

    Yes, do blame me. That’s my point exactly: That Mitt is not electable because “people like me” won’t vote for him. So you’ve been warned. If “people like you” insist on nominating someone “people like me” won’t vote for, well, maybe that’s your fault.

    At least I will have the consolation of having supported an unelectable conservative, while you will have been deluded into supporting an unelectable candiate who is not conservative. You can’t say I fooled you. I warned you. But if you want to blame me, fine.

    BTW, I don’t require the “perfect.” I’d vote for Newt.

    Going from Obama to Mitt is going from whiskey to beer. Better hit bottom hard fast and ugly with O than slip into the abyss quiet, passive, and polite with Mitt.

    • #6
    • November 19, 2011, at 1:17 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Paul A. Rahe Contributor

    The person who deserves blame because conservatives may be reluctant to vote for Mitt Romney is none other than Mitt Romney himself. Had he boldly backed away from Romneycare and admitted error, he would have been called a flip-flopper. But he would not now have to defend what is indefensible: the very model for Obamacare. What he sowed, he now has to reap.

    The Republicans are inclined to nominate centrists on the calculation that they will do better with the electorate than genuine conservatives. But, in recent years, that has not worked out very well — which explains why, given the issues on the table this year, conservative voters are extremely reluctant to support Mitt Romney.

    Given the weakness of the field, Romney ought to be home free by now. And yet . . .

    • #7
    • November 19, 2011, at 1:51 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. ParisParamus Member

    This is a propaganda poll. Newt wil be last month’s news in…about three weeks.

    • #8
    • November 19, 2011, at 1:52 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. Elena Inactive
    ParisParamus: LOL. Mr. Robinson, feel free to stop reading [balderdash] for your data. Thank you. · Nov 18 at 10:59am

    Did you learn manners in Paris? Or in Paramus?

    Oh…probably in both.

    • #9
    • November 19, 2011, at 1:56 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. K T Cat Inactive

    At some point, you’d think Mrs. Romney would get tired of the guy blowing through all their money and time.

    • #10
    • November 19, 2011, at 2:06 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. Ben Domenech Contributor
    Paul A. Rahe: The person who deserves blame because conservatives may be reluctant to vote for Mitt Romney is none other than Mitt Romney himself. Had he boldly backed away from Romneycare and admitted error, he would have been called a flip-flopper. But he would not now have to defend what is indefensible: the very model for Obamacare. What he sowed, he now has to reap…

    Given the weakness of the field, Romney ought to be home free by now. And yet . . . · Nov 18 at 12:51pm

    Lots of truth in this. I’d add one more suggestion: Romney has actually done nothing of significance to win the conservative base in this cycle. He’s said many things. He’s donated money to causes and such. But given his flip-flops, talk has little value. He should’ve sewn it up by now, but Romney cannot buy a better record. And that gives people pause.

    • #11
    • November 19, 2011, at 2:06 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. Duane Oyen Member

    We’ve addressed the substantive differences between ObamaCare and what was proposed as RomneyCare many times. It is time to stop re-energizing that equivalency myth, perpetrated for the sole purpose of pre-primary politics.

    The silly season continues apace. Newt did not suddenly change from what he was 3 months ago, the ABR lemmings have simply changed horses to this week’s model, and Bachmann’s voters went Newt.

    President Guiliani confirms my assessment…..

    • #12
    • November 19, 2011, at 2:07 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. Xennady Inactive
    The silly season continues apace. Newt did not suddenly change from what he was 3 months ago, the ABR lemmings have simply changed horses to this week’s model, and Bachmann’s voters went Newt.

    President Guiliani confirms my assessment…..

    ABR lemmings are we?

    One of the key things that hardened my opposition to Romney into granite was this sort of dismissive assessment of my concerns from Romney supporters.

    Please stop lecturing me, OK?

    It doesn’t make me like Romney any better. In fact- since I believe the GOP establishment is in the tank for Romney- it makes me think the GOP simply isn’t interested in what potential GOP voters want or care about.

    We’re just supposed to show up and vote for the candidate anointed by the establishment, no matter what, because the establishment knows best.

    This is a lot more lemming-like than trying to find a better candidate than the politically hapless Mitt Romney. He’s been running for president full time since roughly 1979 but still can’t win over anyone except the equally hapless GOP establishment.

    That’s failure, and we’ve had enough.

    • #13
    • November 19, 2011, at 2:40 AM PDT
    • Like
  14. Boots on the Table Member

    I am so tired of the “electability” myth. Ronald Reagan was “UN-electable”. The press and the pundits have been owned and/or espousing for the progressive movement in this country since before Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. If the people of the U. S. have their say the ONLY UN-electable candidate in the field today is the sitting President.

    • #14
    • November 19, 2011, at 2:43 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. Astonishing Inactive
    Duane Oyen: The silly season continues apace. Newt did not suddenly change from what he was 3 months ago, the ABR lemmings have simply changed horses to this week’s model, and Bachmann’s voters went Newt.

    President Guiliani confirms my assessment….. · Nov 18 at 1:07pm

    Then perhaps you should contemplate whether the Bachmann voters, the Newt voters, the Herman voters, and all the other “ABR lemmings” will be willing to wander to Mitt in the general, as to which a few things: 1. Calling us lemmings will not win our hearts (or our votes) to Mitt. 2. Mitt can’t win the general without substantial enthusiastic support from the lemming bloc. 3. Whether or not you call me a lemming, I won’t vote for Mitt, but a few other lemmings might. My opinion is, Mitt can’t win back enough lemmings to get himself elected in the general. 4. Lemmings have feelings, too. 5. I have never seen a lemming on horseback.

    • #15
    • November 19, 2011, at 2:44 AM PDT
    • Like
  16. James Of England Moderator
    Duane Oyen

    Prof. Rahe, I specifically used the modifier “what was proposed”. I encourage you to call Mr. Haislmaier and get a direct brief on exactly what was proposed and why. Read the links.

    Some sort of penalty or showing of responsibility is necessary for any bulk insurance proposition, of course, though the ObamaCare mandate is poorly done and unconstitutional. But the other questions about cost are too nebulous and compkex to address here. · Nov 18 at 9:11pm

    If all tyranny is equal, and suporting paupers is tyranny, I suspect that no amount of information on Romneycare will be useful. All currently running candidates bar Cain are almost definitionally equally tyrannous, having all enacted government programs more intrusive and demanding than pauper care.

    • #16
    • November 19, 2011, at 2:55 AM PDT
    • Like
  17. The (apathetic) King Prawn Member
    Xennady

    He’s been running for president full time since roughly 1979 but still can’t win over anyone except the equally hapless GOP establishment.

    That’s failure, and we’ve had enough. · Nov 18 at 1:40pm

    A quibble: he did win over Massachusetts, once, but I don’t think such a win is the peg conservative voters wish to hang their hopes on.

    • #17
    • November 19, 2011, at 2:59 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. Fricosis Guy Listener

    I just don’t get how Newt can be the conservative alternative to Romney. With Bachmann, Perry, or Cain I can see the attraction…but Newt? Seems to me that with Gingrich you get many of the same progressive instincts as Romney, only without the managerial skill!

    The silly season continues apace. Newt did not suddenly change from what he was 3 months ago, the ABR lemmings have simply changed horses to this week’s model, and Bachmann’s voters went Newt.
    • #18
    • November 19, 2011, at 3:03 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. The (apathetic) King Prawn Member
    Fricosis Guy: I just don’t get how Newt can be the conservative alternative to Romney. With Bachmann, Perry, or Cain I can see the attraction…but Newt? Seems to me that with Gingrich you get many of the same progressive instincts as Romney, only without the managerial skill! · Nov 18 at 2:03pm
    The silly season continues apace. Newt did not suddenly change from what he was 3 months ago, the ABR lemmings have simply changed horses to this week’s model, and Bachmann’s voters went Newt.

    It’s the conservative republicans telling Romney, “It’s not you, it’s us.”

    • #19
    • November 19, 2011, at 3:10 AM PDT
    • Like
  20. Paul A. Rahe Contributor
    Duane Oyen: We’ve addressed the substantive differences between ObamaCare and what was proposed as RomneyCare many times. It is time to stop re-energizing that equivalency myth, perpetrated for the sole purpose of pre-primary politics.. · Nov 18 at 1:07pm

    Yes, we have — and there are none. What Romney touted as “a model for the nation” was taken as a model for the nation, and Mitt now professes to dislike the fruits of his labor.

    There are, of course, many differences between the two measures, but none are substantive. Both, after all, involve an individual mandate forcing ordinary citizens to purchase what they may not want to purchase, and both inevitably increase the cost of health care.

    • #20
    • November 19, 2011, at 3:28 AM PDT
    • Like
  21. James Of England Moderator
    Paul A. Rahe
    Duane Oyen: We’ve addressed the substantive differences between ObamaCare and what was proposed as RomneyCare many times. It is time to stop re-energizing that equivalency myth, perpetrated for the sole purpose of pre-primary politics.. · Nov 18 at 1:07pm
    Yes, we have — and there are none. What Romney touted as “a model for the nation” was taken as a model for the nation, and Mitt now professes to dislike the fruits of his labor.

    There are, of course, many differences between the two measures, but none are substantive. Both, after all, involve an individual mandate forcing ordinary citizens to purchase what they may not want to purchase, and both inevitably increase the cost of health care. ·

    Do you actually believe that there is no substantive difference between states adopting each other’s bad ideas and the federal government unconstitutionally imposing them?

    I have to admit that I’m shocked. I recognize that federalism isn’t a part of the ancient republican model, but it’s a very important, substantive, part of America’s.

    • #21
    • November 19, 2011, at 3:33 AM PDT
    • Like
  22. Paul A. Rahe Contributor

    Let me register here the fact that — at the moment — I am no more enthusiastic about Newt Gingrich than I am about Mitt Romney. I am open to persuasion in both cases, however.

    In the general election, I will vote for the Republican nominee — unless the party loses its collective mind and nominates Ron Paul. In my view, we can argue about how the country should be governed only as long as we still have a country (which rules out utopian libertarianism of the sort that, in foreign affairs, Ron Paul represents).

    If I had to vote in a primary today, I would probably hold my nose and vote for Romney — solely because he has had ample executive experience. Tomorrow, however, I might find Newt more impressive. Neither man is a dope. Both have a great deal to explain. And there is not a plausible conservative in the race.

    What does that say about the Republican Party?

    • #22
    • November 19, 2011, at 3:39 AM PDT
    • Like
  23. Paul A. Rahe Contributor
    James Of England

    Paul A. Rahe

    Duane Oyen: We’ve addressed the substantive differences between ObamaCare and what was proposed as RomneyCare many times. It is time to stop re-energizing that equivalency myth, perpetrated for the sole purpose of pre-primary politics.. · Nov 18 at 1:07pm
    Yes, we have — and there are none. What Romney touted as “a model for the nation” was taken as a model for the nation, and Mitt now professes to dislike the fruits of his labor.

    There are, of course, many differences between the two measures, but none are substantive. Both, after all, involve an individual mandate forcing ordinary citizens to purchase what they may not want to purchase, and both inevitably increase the cost of health care. ·

    Do you actually believe that there is no substantive difference between states adopting each other’s bad ideas and the federal government unconstitutionally imposing them?

    I have to admit that I’m shocked. I recognize that federalism isn’t a part of the ancient republican model, but it’s a very important, substantive, part of America’s. · Nov 18 at 2:33pm

    There is no substantive difference between tyranny and tyranny.

    • #23
    • November 19, 2011, at 3:40 AM PDT
    • Like
  24. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Editor

    Editor’s note: Other acceptable synonyms for the deleted word include rubbish, twaddle, trash, gobbledygook, drivel, babble, palaver, buncombe, and rot.

    • #24
    • November 19, 2011, at 3:40 AM PDT
    • Like
  25. Kofola Inactive

    Well, let’s see more polls reflecting similarly over a longer period of time before we jump the gun. However, this is quite a bit surprising. Maybe this is actually the GOP keeping up with the “next-in-line” strategy. Has Gingrich not been in line much longer than Romney, even if we haven’t noticed for the past 10 years?

    Strangely enough, if a candidate were able grab hold of the evangelical vote (Perry, maybe?) at the expense of Newt in Iowa and use it to win the state, and Newt managed to sneak up on Romney in NH, Romney could be washed out rather quickly, and we’d have Newt vs whoever vote from then on, instead of the expected Romney vs #1 Not-Romney. As strange, and highly unlikely, as that should seem, it might not be entirely outside of the realm of possibility given how strange the cycle has been thus far.

    • #25
    • November 19, 2011, at 3:42 AM PDT
    • Like
  26. Paul A. Rahe Contributor

    In response to James of England, let me add that there would be a substantive difference between Massachusetts having a foreign policy and the United States having the same thing. Some matters are properly reserved for the states; some, for the federal government. We would be much better off if there was a national market for healthcare insurance — given the fact that we often move.

    As for Mitt Romney, when Romneycare was passed, he touted it as “a model for the nation.” Later, of course, he touted it as “a model for the states.” And now he is touting it as a model for Massachusetts alone. The truth is that it is a model for no one — unless, James, you think it appropriate for state governments to command us to buy things that we may not want.

    • #26
    • November 19, 2011, at 3:47 AM PDT
    • Like
  27. Paul A. Rahe Contributor
    Kofola: Well, let’s see more polls reflecting similarly over a longer period of time before we jump the gun. However, this is quite a bit surprising. Maybe this is actually the GOP keeping up with the “next-in-line” strategy. Has Gingrich not been in line much longer than Romney, even if we haven’t noticed for the past 10 years?

    Strangely enough, if a candidate were able grab hold of the evangelical vote (Perry, maybe?) at the expense of Newt in Iowa and use it to win the state, and Newt managed to sneak up on Romney in NH, Romney could be washed out rather quickly, and we’d have Newt vs whoever vote from then on, instead of the expected Romney vs #1 Not-Romney. As strange, and highly unlikely, as that should seem, it might not be entirely outside of the realm of possibility given how strange the cycle has been thus far. · Nov 18 at 2:42pm

    Edited on Nov 18 at 02:45 pm

    The cycle is strange, indeed. And the contest has a purpose. It allows us to test our prospective nominees.

    • #27
    • November 19, 2011, at 3:50 AM PDT
    • Like
  28. James Of England Moderator

    There was this poll 2 days ago. Anyone think that something happened in the last two days to give Newt a 16 point rise from 11% to 27%, Mitt an 11% drop? The poll 2 days ago was in line with other polling.

    Btw, King Prawn was complaining about polls not asking for a second choice. On the poll in line with other New Hampshire polling, Mitt’s at 40% first choice, 20% second choice. This is less than Mike Murphy’s claim of “everyone’s”, but I think that 1/3 is good enough for figurative speech.

    All in all, news like this is probably helpful as it gives the media a chance to pretend that there’s tension in the New Hampshire race and probably helps Newt in Iowa. I do think, though, that it might be a good idea to visit realclearpolitics.com and look at other polling before getting too excited about outliers.

    • #28
    • November 19, 2011, at 3:56 AM PDT
    • Like
  29. Jimmy Carter Member
    David Williamson

    Mr Obama – if he wins, it will be because of people like you.

    · Nov 18 at 11:58am

    You’ve tried this before.

    If Obama wins it will be because of those that voted for him.

    and/or

    Romney, or any other Republican, didn’t do what it takes to win enough voters.

    • #29
    • November 19, 2011, at 4:03 AM PDT
    • Like
  30. K T Cat Inactive

    Reading Ricocheters snarling at each other makes me unhappy and acutely aware of my own guilt. I hereby apologize to all Romney supporters for my previous nasty comments and sneering. That was wrong. You guys are intelligent and have valid points even if I don’t place the same weight on them as you. I’m still a Herman Cain supporter and Romney is still fourth on my list, but I promise I will never again deliberately insult or mock you.

    • #30
    • November 19, 2011, at 4:07 AM PDT
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3