Confirmed: Gingrich’s numbers starting to slip

posted at 5:30 pm on December 15, 2011 by Allahpundit

The Gallup trendlines don’t lie. That’s Newt in brown and Romney in black:

Those are national numbers, not the numbers in all-important Iowa, but sneak a peek at the latest polls there in Pollster.com’s table. From the end of November through the first week of this month, Newt was above 30 percent in three separate surveys; in the three latest polls, he’s stuck between 20 and 22 percent, making the race a toss-up between him, Romney, and Ron Paul. If Perry gets a second look over the next two weeks, which seems increasingly likely, and some Iowans come home to the native Bachmann, then we’ve got a five-way jump ball on caucus day. Madness. What happens in New Hampshire if Iowa shakes out as, say, Paul 23, Gingrich 21, Perry 18, Romney 17, Bachmann 15? Is that the political equivalent of a “push” in gambling, leaving Romney the presumptive winner in NH, or does finishing fourth detonate the idea that he’s a lock to win in the northeast?

He’s not just tanking in Gallup, either. Here’s an interesting survey flagged by Sean Trende, who wonders whether Gingrich has a glass jaw:

It proceeded by dividing respondents into three groups. One of them, a control group, watched generic, non-political commercials.

A second group, the so-called “Gingrich condition,” watched a positive Gingrich ad, a negative ad about Gingrich, a positive Perry ad, and a negative ad about Perry (you can view the different ads here).

A third group, the “Romney condition,” watched a positive Romney ad, a negative Romney ad, a positive Perry ad, and a negative Perry ad.

In the control group, 42 percent of respondents made Gingrich their top choice in the GOP primary. But in the “Gingrich condition,” support for the former speaker was only 26 percent, a drop-off of 18 points. The winner in this scenario was Romney, who numbers ticked up substantially, even though viewers didn’t see any Mitt Romney ads.

Interestingly, in the “Romney condition,” where viewers saw ads about Romney and Perry, there was little effect on Romney’s support, and Gingrich’s support increased only marginally. This suggests that most of the negative information about Romney (and Perry) truly is “priced in” at this point.

Voters simply didn’t know the bad stuff about Newt yet, but thanks to Ron Paul’s attack ads, withering criticism from prominent conservatives, and media scrutiny of Newt’s old dirty laundry, they’re getting a crash course. That’s why he’s sinking — and more importantly, because of his organizational problems and decision to (mostly) avoid criticizing his opponents, he might not be able to reverse the trend. He’s not even exerting himself terrible in Iowa, in fact: He’s airing just one ad there right now and isn’t planning to begin his final barnstorming tour of the state until December 27. According to Nate Silver’s statistical model of Iowa polling, his odds of winning IA are down to 38 percent from 70 percent just a week ago; the pessimism’s even begun to show up in his InTrade numbers, which recently were cruising at around 35 percent and now are sagging at just 18. I’m not sure tonight’s debate will help him, either. Everyone knows by now that he’s good at them, which will blunt the impact of a strong performance, and meanwhile he’ll be taking shots from everyone onstage. (Except Huntsman, of course.) He’s still got seniors solidly behind him, which is a big deal, but if they start to abandon ship I don’t know how he survives. Time for some patented Romney Mediscare tactics, perhaps.

And if you don’t think things can get worse for him, here’s Ron Paul basically calling him a chickenhawk on Fox News today. Via GOP12:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

That’s some coward type move…

apocalypse on December 15, 2011 at 7:50 PM

hey newbie, you’ll get used to it…LOL

idesign on December 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Well if you engage in the drinking game tonight (every time Newt says “frankly” or “fundamentally”), then only one in three will probably be a good batting average.

JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Don’t forget “profoundly” and “deeply”.

TxAnn56 on December 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM

JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Those are very important words. I hope you listen to what the man says even if you don’t want to vote for him. But if you really want to get drunk, take a shot everytime one of the other candidates say: “Newt is right” or “I agree with Newt” because they all want to sound conservative.

mike_NC9 on December 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM

I wonder if Nancy Gingrich will look pretty tonight?

apocalypse on December 15, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Do the in state tuition for illegals and crony capitalism not bother you?

LevinFan on December 15, 2011 at 7:32 PM

Not as much as “community boards”, supporting ethanol subsidies, endorsing Dede” Scozzafava and telling me with a straight face that Newt was hired by Freddie as an historian.

JPeterman on December 15, 2011 at 7:48 PM

But, wait, there’s MORE! Newt supported gun-control! “death panels”! Cap and Trade! Dept. of Ed! Lobbying! All for this for a low, low price — er, well maybe the price is 1.6 million?

Aslans Girl on December 15, 2011 at 7:54 PM

idesign on December 15, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Look my friend. This is where I disagree with you and many others over at C4P (I’m NHConservativ0221 btw).

I didn’t like it when MB had Rollins attack Palin either, but the fact is Sarah isn’t running.

MB is the best conservative in the race.

Perry is weak on illegals and crony capitalist.

Newt Romney are both Progressives.

Paul is nuts on foreign policy.

Santorum is good but voted for Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. Plus he’s defending earmarks, saying its his job to bring them back to his district.

LevinFan on December 15, 2011 at 7:55 PM

I didn’t like Perry… UNTIL the debates. That’s when I got behind Perry. I got behind Perry not for his style or debate ability, but, gasp, because of substance.

On matters of substance, Perry has a superior conservative record over everyone else in the primary. It really is that simple.

IcedTea on December 15, 2011 at 7:55 PM

TxAnn56 on December 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM

We’re going to be so drunk by the end! lol ;)

Aslans Girl on December 15, 2011 at 7:55 PM

idesign on December 15, 2011 at 7:51 PM

Good luck..:)

Dire Straits on December 15, 2011 at 7:56 PM

hey newbie, you’ll get used to it…LOL

idesign on December 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Newbie? I don’t think so (big laughs). Cowards like you want to comment on things you know NOTHING about… stop making assumptions.

apocalypse on December 15, 2011 at 7:57 PM

It is hard to forgive Newt for attacking Romney by attacking capitalism.
This graphic shows how he is more at home with the “Occupy” crowd!!
https://twitter.com/#!/swindleVision/status/146687930990206976/photo/1

Brad Swindell on December 15, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Don’t forget “profoundly” and “deeply”.

TxAnn56 on December 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Are you crazy? I’m worried just “frankly” will cause liver failure among a large part of the commentariat here.

JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2011 at 7:57 PM

We’re going to be so drunk by the end! lol ;)

Aslans Girl on December 15, 2011 at 7:55 PM

LoL!..I sense a real opening for Rick tonight..:)

Dire Straits on December 15, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Well it seems that the all-out assault on Newt by the MSM, the conservative punditry and the other candidates did indeed have an effect. But tonight there’s another debate. And we all know how Newt got his boost to begin with.

eaglephin on December 15, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Not as much as “community boards”, supporting ethanol subsidies, endorsing Dede” Scozzafava and telling me with a straight face that Newt was hired by Freddie as an historian.

JPeterman on December 15, 2011 at 7:48 PM

I can’t stand Newt Romney or Perry.

I’m for the best conservative in the race: Bachmann.

LevinFan on December 15, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Don’t forget “profoundly” and “deeply”.

TxAnn56 on December 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Ok, let’s see, we have

Fundamentally
Frankly
Profoundly
Deeply

And I’m adding another
Solutions.

This is going to be one drunken group of posters tonight.

JPeterman on December 15, 2011 at 7:59 PM

LoL!..I sense a real opening for Rick tonight..:)

Dire Straits on December 15, 2011 at 7:57 PM

:)

Aslans Girl on December 15, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Aslans Girl on December 15, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Just out of curiosity, may I ask how old you are? And if you think it’s NOMDB, just tell me it’s NOMDB. :-)

Flora Duh on December 15, 2011 at 7:59 PM

JPeterman on December 15, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Will did a column on the 13th about Newt’s three “Fs”: frankly, fundamentally, and future.

Oh, and “dramatically” needs to be added to the drinking game!

Aslans Girl on December 15, 2011 at 8:01 PM

But, wait, there’s MORE! Newt supported gun-control! “death panels”! Cap and Trade! Dept. of Ed! Lobbying! All for this for a low, low price — er, well maybe the price is 1.6 million?

Aslans Girl on December 15, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Don’t answer yet! If you vote in the next four months, we’ll also throw in, at a mere few billion dollars a year, lunar mining bases, janitorial positions for 9 year-olds, federal orphanages, mandatory death penalties for domestic crime, and your own personal visit with Newt, and a special guest to be chosen from Al Sharpton or Nancy Pelosi!!

So don’t wait!! Vote now!!

JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2011 at 8:01 PM

LevinFan on December 15, 2011 at 7:55 PM

Sorry to disagree, but I can’t get on the Bachmann bandwagon. I think she’s a phony. What legislation has she passed or even introduced. How many days has she missed in congress the last year? Why doesn’t she go after Romney like she goes after everyone else? I could go on and on about her

idesign on December 15, 2011 at 8:02 PM

JPeterman on December 15, 2011 at 7:59 PM

You’re going to be drunk quicker than you think. Unfortunately I am no longer able to drink because of medical issues. So every time you take a drink for yourself, I’m expecting you guys to take one for me. :-)

Flora Duh on December 15, 2011 at 8:03 PM

And I’m adding another
Solutions.

JPeterman on December 15, 2011 at 7:59 PM

I must warn you, in some states, this would count as reckless disregard for human life, and you might be prosecuted for manslaughter.

I mean I know we’re a tough breed here, but the human liver was only designed to go so far.

JohnGalt23 on December 15, 2011 at 8:04 PM

This time around it will be fun on the R side as up until 01 APR the primaries are proportional (which means you get a proportion of delegates equal to the percentage you got)… then after 01 APR it is winner take all.

This was done to make sure that the first few primaries DIDN’T shake out too many candidates and gave bigger States that hold later primaries a better chance of being able to weigh in.

Time to start whipping out delegate counts and minimum percentages for a delegate per each of the early primaries. This will drag on at least until mid-APR and possibly all the way to the last primary.

ajacksonian on December 15, 2011 at 8:04 PM

Ok, let’s see, we have

Fundamentally
Frankly
Profoundly
Deeply

And I’m adding more…
Solutions.
Future
Dramatically

This is going to be one drunken group of posters tonight.

JPeterman on December 15, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Feel free to add, if your liver can handle it.

JPeterman on December 15, 2011 at 8:04 PM

Thanks for responding and please tell us what the spending cuts were. I really do want to know.

KMav on December 15, 2011 at 7:16 PM

“While there is no question that Governor Romney’s initial fiscal discipline slacked off in the second half of his term, on balance, he imposed some much-needed fiscal discipline on a very liberal Massachusetts Legislature,” said the Club for Growth.

KMav Here is a pretty good quote from the Club for Growth. I think it is a fair analysis. As you may know, many of Romney’s cuts got through but many others were undone by the Legislature. He did cut a State Hospital that had a staff to patient ratio of 3:1 but that was also undone by the Legislature. He did balance the state budget all four years of his tenure (conservative)and I believe he acted quite conservatively (except for Romney care)during his tenure especially given what he had to work with. The answer may lie in giving him a conservative Senate and House to work with.

Natebo on December 15, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Reagan Romney couldn’t even win the nomination in 1976 2008 he lost to Ford McCain who lost to Carter Obama.

Dr Evil on December 15, 2011 at 7:44 PM

FIFY

gotsig on December 15, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Yes, he’ll be there, smiling, chin up in the air, waving at the enthusiastic crowds, smoothly delivering his scripted lines. Picture your candidate tonight sharing a stage with him next year as he patiently explains how, despite a feckless Congress, he began the great work of restoring America’s greatness from the debacle of the Bush Years.

If you cannot imagine your favorite candidate standing up to this huckster, looking him confidently in the eye, attacking him relentlessly and with verve, wit, and power, landing telling blows and confidently turning aside his counterjabs–then you need to honestly reassess your support. This isn’t a game of My Guy is More Conservative Than Your Guy, it’s more like Survival of the Fittest.

spiritof61 on December 15, 2011 at 8:06 PM

I can’t stand Newt Romney or Perry.

I’m for the best conservative in the race: Bachmann.

LevinFan on December 15, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Bachmann seems insincere to me. She also tends to spread unsubstantiated gossip like HPV vaccines causing mental retardation and the $200 million/day Mumbai trip. Why do you like her over Perry?

ZGMF_Freedom on December 15, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Newbie? I don’t think so (big laughs). Cowards like you want to comment on things you know NOTHING about… stop making assumptions.

apocalypse on December 15, 2011 at 7:57 PM

LOL

I’ll take Newt over Bachmann any day….

What has she ever done? What legislation has she introduced or passed? how many days has she missed in congress the last year? She’s all hat and no cattle. She’s a cheap Sarah Palin impersonator with no honesty or class.

idesign on December 15, 2011 at 8:09 PM

Sorry to disagree, but I can’t get on the Bachmann bandwagon. I think she’s a phony. What legislation has she passed or even introduced. How many days has she missed in congress the last year? Why doesn’t she go after Romney like she goes after everyone else? I could go on and on about her

idesign on December 15, 2011 at 8:02 PM

I don’t think she’s a phony, I just don’t think she’s qualified. Being a “true” conservative doesn’t qualify you to be the leader of the free world. Her resume is just way to thin to be considered for a job as CEO of a major corporation let alone CEO of the entire country.

gotsig on December 15, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Look my friend. This is where I disagree with you and many others over at C4P (I’m NHConservativ0221 btw).

Perry is weak on illegals and crony capitalist.

LevinFan on December 15, 2011 at 7:55 PM

Welcome to Hot Air, LevinFan.

Since you mentioned that you are also a member of C4P, I will encourage you to let go of all the negative stuff you’ve been told about Perry.

Take time and research into Perry’s record. Even his detractors cannot deny he has one of the best records among the slate of candidates.

Perry is NOT weak on illegals. Neither is he a crony capitalist.

Vote for Perry 2012 and you will never regret you did.

TheRightMan on December 15, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Will did a column on the 13th about Newt’s three “Fs”: frankly, fundamentally, and future.

Oh, and “dramatically” needs to be added to the drinking game!

Aslans Girl on December 15, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Fine, only if we can drink everytime Perry stares into space or stumbles on his words or just forgets what he was saying.
I figure I better call 911 now.

AllahsNippleHair on December 15, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth continue from the bitter Romney haters.

Get over it guys….the most important issue is getting rid of Obama. Even with a RINO like Romney. And he is the only candidate we have that has consistently proven that he can do that.

csdeven on December 15, 2011 at 7:32 PM

O RLY??????

(1) Mitt Romney was the last of FOUR Republican governors of Massachusetts in a row, over a period of sixteen years: William Weld (1991-1997), A. Paul Cellucci (1997–1999), Jane Swift (1999–2001), and Mitt Romney (2003-2007). So it’s not as if Romney had that hard a hill to climb in order to become the governor.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Massachusetts

(2) Romney has faced the voters 22 times and won only FIVE of those contents. “The only candidate we have that has consistently proven that he can [get rid of Obama]” my ass.

Romney has the least-impressive electoral history of any Republican frontrunner in a very long time. Most of the politicians who chase the White House are proven vote-getters with very few electoral blemishes on their record. John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, Michael Dukakis—what unites all of these men is that before getting to the presidential level, they had demonstrated a talent for getting people to vote for them. (Barack Obama is the exception who proves the rule.)

Over the years, Mitt Romney has faced voters in 22 contests. He won 5 of those races and lost 17 of them. (This total includes a win in the 1994 Massachusetts Republican Senate primary as well as results from the 19 primaries he participated in during 2008. It excludes caucuses because their rules make them complicated enough to be considered distinct from straight-up lever-pulling.)

Romney’s electoral record becomes even more underwhelming when you examine the particulars. He first attracted national notice in 1994 when he mounted what was considered a strong challenge to incumbent senator Ted Kennedy. But when it came time to vote, Romney lost by 17 points in what turned out to be the best year for Republicans in more than half a century. In 2002, Romney won the gubernatorial race in Massachusetts. This victory—the triumph of a Republican in deep-blue Massachusetts—is now the cornerstone of his 2012 “electability” rationale.

SOURCE: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/overestimating-romney_611846.html

Now explain to us poor lost souls one more time: How is it that Romney is the only candidate who can beat Obama?

Aitch748 on December 15, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Vote for Perry 2012 and you will never regret you did.

TheRightMan on December 15, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Speaking of hiding the pills and sharp objects when Perry finally gives it up…..

AllahsNippleHair on December 15, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Yes, he’ll be there, smiling, chin up in the air, waving at the enthusiastic crowds, smoothly delivering his scripted lines. Picture your candidate tonight sharing a stage with him next year as he patiently explains how, despite a feckless Congress, he began the great work of restoring America’s greatness from the debacle of the Bush Years.

If you cannot imagine your favorite candidate standing up to this huckster, looking him confidently in the eye, attacking him relentlessly and with verve, wit, and power, landing telling blows and confidently turning aside his counterjabs–then you need to honestly reassess your support. This isn’t a game of My Guy is More Conservative Than Your Guy, it’s more like Survival of the Fittest.

spiritof61 on December 15, 2011 at 8:06 PM

THIS.
This is why I can’t support Romney or Perry.

AZgranny on December 15, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Beck now on O’Reilly bashing Gingrich every which way.

silvernana on December 15, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Sorry to disagree, but I can’t get on the Bachmann bandwagon. I think she’s a phony. What legislation has she passed or even introduced. How many days has she missed in congress the last year? Why doesn’t she go after Romney like she goes after everyone else? I could go on and on about her

idesign on December 15, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Couple of things:

1. It’s disingenuous to criticize her for not getting anything done. Pelosi was the Speaker! What’s going to get passed? MB led 40,000 patriots to DC to protest Obamacare. We all failed in stopping Obamacare. MB fought for a bill for the incandescent light bulb but again Pelosi was in charge. Then the RINO Boehnor took over. MB fought him over the $108B in funding for Obamacare that was in the continuing resolutions passed last spring. MB also fought the RINO establishment over raising the debt ceiling while so called conservatives (like Allen West) voted for it.

2. Did you catch the Newt Romney line from the last debate? She coined the term and attacked BOTH of them over mandates, illegal immigration, TARP, and global warming. Who else has done that? Santorum praised Newt at the end of the debate which was a terrible move. Newt’s the PRogressive frontrunner and you praise him?

I wish Sarah had run, but now we have to pick the best conservative. WHo are you supporting?

LevinFan on December 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Oh if you think what Gingrich experienced was bad let everyone become convinced that Ron Paul is a threat. He will be treated as conspiracy theorist racist. The MSM will eat him up.

RonDelDon on December 15, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Welcome to Hot Air, LevinFan.

Since you mentioned that you are also a member of C4P, I will encourage you to let go of all the negative stuff you’ve been told about Perry.

Take time and research into Perry’s record. Even his detractors cannot deny he has one of the best records among the slate of candidates.

Perry is NOT weak on illegals. Neither is he a crony capitalist.

Vote for Perry 2012 and you will never regret you did.

TheRightMan on December 15, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Speaking as someone who is probably going to vote for Perry. Perry is weak on illegals. All of the candidates who have a shot at winning the nomination are. So no matter who we vote for, be prepared to fight him on illegals when he is President.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 15, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Welcome to Hot Air, LevinFan.

Since you mentioned that you are also a member of C4P, I will encourage you to let go of all the negative stuff you’ve been told about Perry.

Take time and research into Perry’s record. Even his detractors cannot deny he has one of the best records among the slate of candidates.

Perry is NOT weak on illegals. Neither is he a crony capitalist.

Vote for Perry 2012 and you will never regret you did.

TheRightMan on December 15, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Thank you.

Umm, the guy gave in state tuition to illegals and told conservatives that we didn’t have a heart! You don’t have to subsidize them to go to college.

ALso, did you see the post from Cherrybombsbigbrownbeaver about the crony capitalism from the ETF in Texas with Convergen LifeSciences?

LevinFan on December 15, 2011 at 8:19 PM

I wish Sarah had run, but now we have to pick the best conservative. WHo are you supporting?

LevinFan on December 15, 2011 at 8:15 PM

I’m not sure, but if it’s Newt vs Romney my vote goes to Newt!

idesign on December 15, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Being a “true” conservative doesn’t qualify you to be the leader of the free world. Her resume is just way to thin to be considered for a job as CEO of a major corporation let alone CEO of the entire country.

I think a lot of conservatives have a tendency to overrate and lionize CEOs. There are a lot of liberal idiot CEOs.

In a president, political philosophy matters. I don’t get the impression Mitt Romney even cares about political philosophy. It’s not going to matter how well he “manages” if he working against conservative ideals.

Dr. Tesla on December 15, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Bachmann seems insincere to me. She also tends to spread unsubstantiated gossip like HPV vaccines causing mental retardation and the $200 million/day Mumbai trip. Why do you like her over Perry?

ZGMF_Freedom on December 15, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Because she has a much better record of sticking to conservatism than Perry or anyone else.

She was wrong to take the mental retardation line about Garadsil. It blows my mind though that she gets more criticism for that than Perry for actually trying to implement that vaccine mandate!

Is this a parallel universe??

Also, she’s tough on illegal immigration unlike Mr “You don’t have a heart” Perry.

LevinFan on December 15, 2011 at 8:23 PM

So Mitt Romney cut a Hospital? Thats the best cut you can tell us about?

Listen, I agree its tough to do anything in Massachussetts. But thats why I asked the question. Since he hasn’t always been a Governor of a liberal state. If the best that Romney supporters can come up with is a half hearted comment from the club for growth, raised fees to balance a budget and the cutting of a Hospital, you can see how I might not see a conservative in Mitt Romney.

KMav on December 15, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Beck now on O’Reilly bashing Gingrich every which way.

I don’t get how Beck, Coulter, National Review can bash Newt while giving Romney a free pass.

If Newt is bad, so is Romney.

I think Beck has said he would support Ron Paul 3rd party if Newt is our candidate. I’d say Beck has jumped the shark but that seems to be what makes him popular with his fans.

Dr. Tesla on December 15, 2011 at 8:26 PM

I don’t think she’s a phony, I just don’t think she’s qualified. Being a “true” conservative doesn’t qualify you to be the leader of the free world. Her resume is just way to thin to be considered for a job as CEO of a major corporation let alone CEO of the entire country.

gotsig on December 15, 2011 at 8:10 PM

The ideal candidate would’ve been Palin due to her combination of experience, policy, and courage.

However, we’re on the brink now. We need a conservative to get back on track.

What’s more important? Executive experience as a Progressive RINO (Romney) or no executive experience but a committed conservative in MB?

We can’t afford anymore progressive giving big gov’t policies. It’ll crush the US. A proven conservative we can trust is what we need.

MB is the best candidate.

LevinFan on December 15, 2011 at 8:26 PM

In a president, political philosophy matters. I don’t get the impression Mitt Romney even cares about political philosophy. It’s not going to matter how well he “manages” if he working against conservative ideals.

Dr. Tesla on December 15, 2011 at 8:21 PM

I think that’s accurate–it’s a major problem I’ve had with him.

INC on December 15, 2011 at 8:29 PM

I don’t get how Beck, Coulter, National Review can bash Newt while giving Romney a free pass.

If Newt is bad, so is Romney.

I think Beck has said he would support Ron Paul 3rd party if Newt is our candidate. I’d say Beck has jumped the shark but that seems to be what makes him popular with his fans.

Dr. Tesla on December 15, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Don’t lump Beck in with those people.

He doesn’t support Romney. He said Bachmann is the best candidate.

Yes he worded the whole racist thing very poorly. It was explained much better on his radio show. Beck’s point is valid though in that both Newt and ROmney are Progressives. No Tea Party person should support either in the primary.

LevinFan on December 15, 2011 at 8:30 PM

She was wrong to take the mental retardation line about Garadsil. It blows my mind though that she gets more criticism for that than Perry for actually trying to implement that vaccine mandate!

It was a gaffe on her part, but I tend to give female conservatives some slack on stuff like this. If Romney had said the same thing, it would have been ignored for the most part.

She has enough experience to be president. People want to make the presidency into something it’s not. We don’t need Einstein…somebody who will take on the repeal ObamaCare effort with vigor, fight higher taxation, advocate tax reform, entilement reform, etc is what we need.

Romney’s been idle the past 6 plus years except running for president. He rarely comments on the issues of the day much less advocate conservatism. I don’t see what he has ever done to deserve the nomimination and RomneyCare esssentially takes Obamacare off the table as an issue.

Dr. Tesla on December 15, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Beck’s point is valid though in that both Newt and ROmney are Progressives. No Tea Party person should support either in the primary.

I don’t think Newt ever governed as a “Progressive”. I think the sitting on the couch with Pelosi stuff he did was just to count the image he is some kind of anti-government hardliner. He was setting the stage to make himself more electable. To say he’s a liberal seems silly to me.

Dr. Tesla on December 15, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Beck doesn’t seem to think it’s possible that some politicians don’t care about the issues.

Neither McCain or Romney are liberal ideologues. They simply think you have to pander to moderates and young people on issues like global warming to win elections.

The problem with Romney isn’t that he’s a progressive, it’s he has no core convictions and thus he can be convinced to do anything if he thinks it benefits him.

Ann Coutler argues that Romney tricked liberals in Mass into voting for him but it seems to me he was more than happy to govern like a liberal. I see no evidence he even tried to move the state to the right.

If he wins this nomination, and then the presidency, it’s going to be seen as mandate for moderates and moderation, which is a highly subjective thing, and Romney isn’t going to end up some Trojan horse of conservatism if he won by running as a moderate.

Even if you don’t like Gingrich, he is associated with conservatism by most voters, and a Gingrich win be seen as mandate for smaller government, and I think Gingrich will have greater incentive to represent conservative ideals than Romney.

Dr. Tesla on December 15, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Let’s face it, none of these candidates is perfect; in fact, I don’t particularly like any of them. But if the primaries continue to be about who’s the least-hated, whoever wins will have his chances hurt in the general election.

Maybe Michelle Bachmann was right about “Romney-Gingrich”. I would like to think Newt has been consistent for longer; yes, the fact that he hasn’t bothers me. But I still think it’s far better to come in from the cold, than to be lukewarm all your life. It’s time to rally behind Newt now, but once he’s the nominee, keep reminding Newt that we expect him to deliver on what got him the nomination. Like choosing a running mate with a clean record.

Captain Obvious on December 15, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Dr. Tesla on December 15, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Newt never “governored” period. He’s never been in executive office.

Aslans Girl on December 15, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Newt was the Speaker in the House in the 1990s. That’s a leadership position, and more applicable to being president in my view because he was dealing with national issues and battling Democrats on political philosophy and policy.

Dr. Tesla on December 15, 2011 at 8:58 PM

What’s the source of your data, stoner?

Basilsbest on December 15, 2011 at 6:45 PM

The United States government.

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/ria19/expendria.htm

There have been many such studies, they all point to the exact same thing. Essentially, half the population uses 97% of all health care in terms of dollars. If you are a healthy person, your best bet is to have a savings account along with a catastrophic insurance policy, just in case you ever do become part of the top 25% for some odd reason.

astonerii on December 15, 2011 at 9:01 PM

Ron Paul comes across very likable in debates, and with so many of the other candidates self-imploding, that may be enough to stand out. To his credit, he’s a true fiscal conservative, and he’s also been very consistent. However, that means he’s been consistently weak on defense (contrast that with Newt), and basically wants to leave all social issues to the states to decide. Well, then what’s the point of running for national office? It reminds me of Cain’s trouble explaining his position on “life” vs. “choice”: on some issues, you just cannot have both, you have to stand your ground. Where I agree with Paul is that we need a leaner government, but I don’t think we need a weak one. My hope with Gingrich is that he delivers the former, while Ron Paul would almost certainly deliver both.

Captain Obvious on December 15, 2011 at 9:05 PM

Ron Paul comes across very likable in debates

He’s always come across as grumpy old elf to me. I think he and Huntsman are really the only two candidates we have with no shot at beating Obama.

Dr. Tesla on December 15, 2011 at 9:07 PM

It was no doubt inevitable, but I can’t get over what a flatline Romney’s graph is. D-E-A-D.

ddrintn on December 15, 2011 at 5:54 PM

You used to post an excerpt from the American Thinker about how Mitt would be the nominee, etc. Still have that handy?

Kataklysmic on December 15, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Yeah, I do. Sorry I’m late with it, but here it is:

She will be back. Not for 2012. The GOP has its plans already worked out. Very clever ones, too. The Republicans will do what they always do when they’re up against it: grab an empty suit and run around shaking it in people’s faces while shouting, “Here’s the man!” By 2012, after his policies really hit home, as gas and home fuel prices triple and quadruple, as medical rationing begins, as the renewed Axis of Evil runs wild across Eurasia, Obama will be ready to drop. At that point he could be defeated by a ticket consisting of Charley Manson and Jojo the Dogface Boy. But the GOP will blow it all the same. Exactly as the party did in ’96, following the same script to the letter. They will, to coin a phrase, Mitt it up.

I still think that article is prophetic. And yeah, I’d still bet that Romney’s going to be the nominee.

ddrintn on December 15, 2011 at 9:19 PM

And one more point, on electability: Romney is up against the republican field in most hypothetical 1:1 match ups vs Obama. But let’s not forget that this is before the actual contest has even started. Let’s have half a dozen debates, Romney vs. Obama or Newt vs. Obama – I would bet (though not $10k, sorry!) that the results would look a lot different!

As for Paul, part of his success in the primary debates has been owed to the fact that he has not been perceived a threat (same with Bachmann, and Cain in the early stages). Romney probably actually likes the fact that he’s beginning to shift votes from Newt now, so Romney only has nice things to say about Paul. Gingrich, whom Paul has attacked personally, probably doesn’t want to retaliate right now, not to appear as if he feels threatened (though that may change).

Paul vs Obama would be totally unknown territory (the only thing that’s certain would be the relentless MSM backlash). You cannot win a national election as a Republican, if you appear even weaker on national security than the Democrat.

Captain Obvious on December 15, 2011 at 9:21 PM

And one more point, on electability: Romney is up against the republican field in most hypothetical 1:1 match ups vs Obama. But let’s not forget that this is before the actual contest has even started. Let’s have half a dozen debates, Romney vs. Obama or Newt vs. Obama – I would bet (though not $10k, sorry!) that the results would look a lot different!

Captain Obvious on December 15, 2011 at 9:21 PM

If Romney’s the nominee, as I believe he will be, his numbers from about April on will be pretty similar to McCain’s, probably though without the “Palin bounce” that McCain got after the convention.

ddrintn on December 15, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Don’t lump Beck in with those people.

He doesn’t support Romney. He said Bachmann is the best candidate.

Yes he worded the whole racist thing very poorly. It was explained much better on his radio show. Beck’s point is valid though in that both Newt and ROmney are Progressives. No Tea Party person should support either in the primary.

LevinFan on December 15, 2011 at 8:30 PM

I think Beck’s decline has set in. He had a really good 2 years or so, but won’t have anywhere near Limbaugh’s staying power.

ddrintn on December 15, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Confirmed: Gingrich’s numbers starting to slip

The chromatophores are failing. Proper treatment requires a steady intake of debates and flip-flops. As this eventually triggers an increase in the number of hypocrisy excretions, its’ scales will need to be changed more frequently.

After following these simple steps, sit back and enjoy the rise.

rukiddingme on December 15, 2011 at 9:35 PM

I think Beck’s decline has set in. He had a really good 2 years or so, but won’t have anywhere near Limbaugh’s staying power.

Rush is naturally funny and better at showbiz than Beck is.

Plus he doesn’t cry when talking about politics. Beck thinks he’s some kind of hero, that’s why he always tears up, he’s in love with himself.

Dr. Tesla on December 15, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Rush is naturally funny and better at showbiz than Beck is.

Plus he doesn’t cry when talking about politics. Beck thinks he’s some kind of hero, that’s why he always tears up, he’s in love with himself.

Dr. Tesla on December 15, 2011 at 9:42 PM

You know what I think it is? Limbaugh doesn’t care as much what other people think of him as Beck does. I honestly think all the demonization, boycotts etc got to Beck.

ddrintn on December 15, 2011 at 9:56 PM

His number will go back up after tonight’s debate. I’m not a Gingrich fan, I support Ron Paul, but he was cleaning up on his answers tonight. I’m beginning to believe his history lessons have truly given him some core values.

Brikony on December 15, 2011 at 11:10 PM

NEWT!!!

princetrumpet on December 15, 2011 at 11:25 PM

Romney couldn’t even win the nomination in 2008 he lost to McCain who lost to Obama.

Unless the republicans are trying to get into the Guinness book of world records- how many moderates can they run against Obama and keep their losing streak. It makes no sense to fight the last war.

Dr Evil on December 15, 2011 at 7:44 PM

The economy is what did McCain in. When faced with the collapse, Americans would have elected Romney over Hopy-Changey.

csdeven on December 15, 2011 at 11:25 PM

I’ll take Newt over Bachmann any day….

idesign on December 15, 2011 at 8:09 PM

…just baffles me how an idiot like you will give your vote to an insider and think Washington is going to change the way it does business. Gingrich has been in Washington for over 30 years.

apocalypse on December 15, 2011 at 11:35 PM

I’m with LevinFan on this one. Bachmann is the true, dependable Conservative in this race. Unfortunately, because of her negativity in the debates, her numbers won’t go up much in Iowa and she’ll be finished. I’m having a hard time deciding who my second choice will be. By the time the primaries come here to California, I’m thinking it will be all Newt Romney.

Decoski on December 15, 2011 at 11:50 PM

Has Bachman really been that negative? It is a primary, afterall. She’s not going to win by saying positive things about her opponents. For example, is coupling Romney and Newt as Newt Romney as example of Bachman going negative? That seems harmless to me.

Dr. Tesla on December 16, 2011 at 12:48 AM

Remind me again when was the last time a representative was nominated to be POTUS? Bachmann is a conservative, but like Palin she was too in your face about it to win over the indies. Nominating her would require that the indies suddenly become evangelical Christians.

csdeven on December 16, 2011 at 1:38 AM

Intrade has Newt at 16.5% now, down 10% from the morning of the debate.

haner on December 16, 2011 at 6:32 AM

If Romney’s the nominee, as I believe he will be, his numbers from about April on will be pretty similar to McCain’s, probably though without the “Palin bounce” that McCain got after the convention.

ddrintn on December 15, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Oh please. The DOW crashed 3000 pts 3 months before the 2008 general election. Lehman Bro collapsed just two months prior. All under Bush’s watch.

Reagan himself would not have won that election.

haner on December 16, 2011 at 6:36 AM

Oh please. The DOW crashed 3000 pts 3 months before the 2008 general election. Lehman Bro collapsed just two months prior. All under Bush’s watch.

Reagan himself would not have won that election.

haner on December 16, 2011 at 6:36 AM

Oh, please. If McCain had addressed the situation in anything other than his usual squishy way, he would’ve had a chance. “But…but…this time will be different! The moderate is going to win like moderates ALWAYS do!!!” LOL.

ddrintn on December 16, 2011 at 7:52 AM

The chromatophores are failing. Proper treatment requires a steady intake of debates and flip-flops. As this eventually triggers an increase in the number of hypocrisy excretions, its’ scales will need to be changed more frequently.

Idid’t understand it but it sounds intuitive

gerry-moderate republican-Romney groupie(someone called me that in another post)

gerrym51 on December 16, 2011 at 8:12 AM

Sorry….for all you Bachmannite’s……for your viewing Pleasure.
Going viral…as I write this!!!
Judge of Character?? Hmm Mooooochele….thanks for the fuzzy hug.
Love you toooooooooooo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8zz5myJ_hs&feature=player_embedded

coach1228 on December 16, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4