Gingrich on Romney: “Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?”

posted at 4:50 pm on January 16, 2012 by Allahpundit

A cute zinger which Romney will instantly destroy as soon as he reminds people of where this same logic would have gotten us in 1980.

“Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?” Newt asked a standing-room only crowd in Myrtle Beach, S.C…

Gingrich then challenged Romney to a 90-minute, one-on-one debate “anywhere in the state” of South Carolina on Friday night. He said they could sell $10 tickets and donate the proceeds to the charity of Romney’s choosing.

“There is zero chance he’ll take it,” Gingrich said. “He won’t debate and the reason is simple, he can’t defend his record as governor.”

He’s attacking Romney’s alleged electability here, which is fair enough, but I think it’s too late to change public perceptions about that now. Check out these three data points from today’s Fox News poll. Point one: Republican voters are, understandably, placing more weight on electability as the campaign heats up.

Point two: Not only are tea partiers willing to support a nominee who isn’t ideal, they’re considerably more likely to make that compromise than the average Republicans is:

That jibes with what Scott Rasmussen found when he surveyed Florida, where fully 94 percent of tea-party likely voters say they’ll back the eventual nominee versus just 77 percent of Republicans generally who say so. Job one for TPers this year is beating Obama, even if that means holding their noses and voting for you know who.

Finally, point three: The race for the nomination lurches onward but the race to convince voters who’s most electable is well and truly over.

Yeah, granted, Romney’s numbers there are a product of wins in Iowa and New Hampshire and would take a hit if Gingrich upsets him in South Carolina, but he’s almost certainly going to rebound in Florida 10 days later. He leads by 17 points there in the new ARG poll out today and has all the money and organization he needs to bury Gingrich. At worst he’ll go three for four in the early states, including a win in the last and largest of the four, which will leave him still looking like the most electable candidate in the field come Super Tuesday. In fact, go read this depressing Nate Silver number-crunch of Romney’s national numbers claiming that no one who’s had a lead this large has ever gone on to lose the nomination. Exit quotation: “Thus, although Mr. Romney would help himself to lock up the nomination with a win South Carolina, it is not clear how vulnerable he would be even with a loss there. Polls normally become considerably less volatile after New Hampshire as voter preferences become firmer, which means that Mr. Romney’s Republican rivals have already missed their best window to upend him.”


Related Posts:

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

Posters like Seth Hapern reinforce what we all know.

Obama will lose the White House, the Senate, and the House will be more solid conservative.

Thank You!

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 7:18 PM

If Romney is going to round up illegals and mass deport them, wouldn’t that be something to put on his website? I can’t find the issue mentioned anywhere. I wonder if you will defend Mitt when he runs to the left of Obama on the issue.

mike_NC9 on January 16, 2012 at 7:09 PM

C’mon now. Romney supporters don’t care what he would do in office. They don’t need him to articulate his policies, they’ve just been convinced that he will be the winner and that anyone who doesn’t believe that is a moron. That’s all the reason they need to support him.

I’ll issue the challenge again: Can any of Romney’s supporters name one thing that Romney has done (initiative supported, paper written, candidate or policy fought for) in his entire life that, is not directly tied to his candidacy for president, that has advanced the conservative cause in America?

29Victor on January 16, 2012 at 7:20 PM

alchemist19 on January 16, 2012 at 6:27 PM

You’re saying the dems haven’t been planning on loser, Multiple Choice Mitt, being the nominee, since back when McLame laid down like a dead dog for lil Barry in 08?
Ha ha ha…..got any other funny jokes for us?

Green eyed Lady on January 16, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Is Romney not a Mormon? I’m I missing something?

liberal4life on January 16, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Oh, goody!!! A religious war!!We can now safely use the Rev. Jeremiah (“God damn America”) Wright to tag Obama.

Meanwhile, Mormonism is POPULAR!!!

fred5678 on January 16, 2012 at 7:23 PM

No, Mikey, the ultimate goal is to defeat Barack Obama and that takes a candidate who is competent enough to run a campaign – for starters.

Buy Danish on January 16, 2012 at 7:18 PM

I understand that, but because our focus is so much on beating Obama, this election hasn’t been at all about policies or principles, its been about which candidate could convince the most Republicans that he could beat Obama. It’s been solely about image, just like the Democrat primary and general election were in 2008.

29Victor on January 16, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Buy Danish on January 16, 2012 at 7:18 PM

So you’re all in for the GOP establishment, I get it. Maybe the permanent political class really does know what’s best for us. Excuse me for opening my big fat idiot mouth.

mike_NC9 on January 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Hmmmm…. Mooozlem or Mormon….

Wait! Shouldn’t there be like a Crusade or something?

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM

mike_NC9! Class is dismissed!

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Gingrich really blew it with the Bain thing, not that he wouldn’t have lost anyway. Now he just looks like a Jackass. Why are the candidates always the last ones to realize that they are finished.

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 7:28 PM

See that Newt continues his charm offensive.Hope he goes away soon.

jeanie on January 16, 2012 at 7:29 PM

What I mean is that Newt started out debating the issues and when Mitt couldn’t hang, he went personal. When Newt had to respond in kind, Mitt had to respond to the attacks. The voters never really were able to vet Romney on the issues.

mike_NC9 on January 16, 2012 at 7:15 PM

It’s about more than just issues though. How effective of a campaign you can run matters. Even if I accept everything you say it won’t change the fact that we learned a lot about Newt Gingrich as a candidate when Romney’s people bloodied him up a little bit. I’m glad to have learned Newt can’t take a punch in the primaries as opposed to the general. I can feel disappointed Newt turned out to be a weaker candidate than I had hoped but I don’t count that as me as a voter losing.

alchemist19 on January 16, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Newt….are you speaking of yourself??? Give it up, your time has past.

phoebe1 on January 16, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Funny thing is, my own financial adviser is afraid Romney will win, the GOP will control all three branches, they’ll axe all non-military spending, demand will crater and the stock market will collapse.

Hot Gas really is from a different planet.

Seth Halpern on January 16, 2012 at 7:12 PM

I’d get a new financial adviser. Seriously. Where in the world would anyone get the impression that Romney and the current crop of Congress/Senate would do something so radical? It’s not like they have a tendency towards that kind of spending cuts. There’s no past action(s) in that direction.

Boehner? Cut everything except military? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA. Okay.

Unless your FA can see the future where hardcore Tea Party people are going to Congress and Senate then it’s just not happening.

It may be a wish in Hot Gas Land, but it isn’t going to happen in reality, especially with a Romney WH.

Your FA should be worrying more about Obama getting another term and selling the entire country to China. That’s more possible than this Romney/Congress/Senate financial to the bone cutters.

kim roy on January 16, 2012 at 7:33 PM

It’s about more than just issues though. How effective of a campaign you can run matters. Even if I accept everything you say it won’t change the fact that we learned a lot about Newt Gingrich as a candidate when Romney’s people bloodied him up a little bit. I’m glad to have learned Newt can’t take a punch in the primaries as opposed to the general. I can feel disappointed Newt turned out to be a weaker candidate than I had hoped but I don’t count that as me as a voter losing.

alchemist19 on January 16, 2012 at 7:30 PM

You know that is a really good point you just made.

steel guy on January 16, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Class is dismissed!

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Who left the dog out…who…who…

mike_NC9 on January 16, 2012 at 7:34 PM

I’m waiting for the anti-Mitt “pearls” yet to come from Debbie Whatshername Putz!

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Good question, Newt. One that I’ve pondered since Romney was declared our nominee.

Kissmygrits on January 16, 2012 at 7:38 PM

I can feel disappointed Newt turned out to be a weaker candidate than I had hoped but I don’t count that as me as a voter losing.

alchemist19 on January 16, 2012 at 7:30 PM

That’s fine. But we have no idea how weak Mitt can be because he was force fed to us as the inevitable nominee and his record and weaknesses are being largely ignored by everyone other than Newt.

mike_NC9 on January 16, 2012 at 7:38 PM

If Romney is going to round up illegals and mass deport them, wouldn’t that be something to put on his website? I can’t find the issue mentioned anywhere. I wonder if you will defend Mitt when he runs to the left of Obama on the issue.

mike_NC9 on January 16, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Who mentioned mass deporatation?? Duh.

You are either ignorant or intentionally lying. You pose that tired old false dichotomy of all the open borders crowd of, “We can’t deport 12 20 million illegal aliens, THEREFORE we must legalize them.” And you falsely charge anyone who advocates for attrition through enforcement as someone who must be in favor of your false 2nd choice.

Romney’s policy is attrition through enforcement, as far as I can tell, although he’s still just a C+ on the NumbersUSA scale.

A few weeks ago on the Charlie Rose show, Rose challenged Romney at least three times: “You mean they have to go home and get at the back of the line?” “Yes, they have to go to their home country and get at the back of the line.” Charlie couldn’t believe how adamant Romney was.

BTW, read this poll and stop using that false dichotomy.

I am not excited about ANY candidate, but I sure as hell will not pull a lever for ANYONE who wants to REWARD foreign invaders with their ill-gotten goods — residency. Now THAT is just plain stupid. If you think Newt’s policy is so great, why not try the same thing with the burglars in your own neighborhood??

fred5678 on January 16, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Do you think Newt knows how thoroughly unlikable he is.

jeanie on January 16, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Oh, goody!!! A religious war!!We can now safely use the Rev. Jeremiah (“God damn America”) Wright to tag Obama.

Meanwhile, Mormonism is POPULAR!!!

fred5678 on January 16, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Mormonism = NOT Christianity.

Jesus was NOT married and did not have wives. Mormon ideology is a twisted and sick one in my opinion

liberal4life on January 16, 2012 at 7:44 PM

fred5678 on January 16, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Not even a word on Romney’s website about securing the border which is the first part of Newt’s plan. You’re the one pushing falsehoods. Besides, isn’t the freedom to hire who you want a conservative principle?/

mike_NC9 on January 16, 2012 at 7:46 PM

I understand that, but because our focus is so much on beating Obama, this election hasn’t been at all about policies or principles, its been about which candidate could convince the most Republicans that he could beat Obama. It’s been solely about image, just like the Democrat primary and general election were in 2008.
29Victor on January 16, 2012 at 7:24 PM

I don’t buy that premise, but even if it were true you can’t escape the fact that, with the exception of Paul and Romney, the candidates have been shockingly inept.

So you’re all in for the GOP establishment, I get it. Maybe the permanent political class really does know what’s best for us. Excuse me for opening my big fat idiot mouth.
mike_NC9 on January 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM

HA! You certainly do draw convoluted conclusions. I expect the nominee who will face Barack Obama and his very well organized union thugs to be very well organized, competent and disciplined. If that makes me a member of the “establishment”…guilty!

Buy Danish on January 16, 2012 at 7:46 PM

That’s fine. But we have no idea how weak Mitt can be because he was force fed to us as the inevitable nominee and his record and weaknesses are being largely ignored by everyone other than Newt.

mike_NC9 on January 16, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Mitt may be a weak candidate, sadly though he might also somehow have managed to be the least unacceptable in the field we had to choose from. If your point is the voters lost because we had to select from an awful slate of candidates then I’m right there with you but I reject the notion that they lost because anyone else in the current field didn’t win.

I don’t know, maybe I’m still paranoid over what happened to George Allen in 2006 but for me any time a candidate’s lack of crisis management skills is exposed in the primaries I think that’s a good thing. I would have preferred to see Mitt take a couple more punches (from the right) to see how he handles it but lamenting what we don’t know about him doesn’t change what we do know about the others.

alchemist19 on January 16, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Jesus was NOT married and did not have wives. Mormon ideology is a twisted and sick one in my opinion

liberal4life on January 16, 2012 at 7:44 PM

In case you haven’t noticed, nobody on this site really gives a squirt of pi$$ about your opinion…

BigWyo on January 16, 2012 at 7:52 PM

In case you haven’t noticed, nobody on this site really gives a squirt of pi$$ about your opinion…

BigWyo on January 16, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Obviously someone did by responding…..

liberal4life on January 16, 2012 at 7:55 PM

libtard4life occupying Hot Air…

Roy Rogers on January 16, 2012 at 8:03 PM

BigWyo on January 16, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Plus, it/she/he makes job offers and touts its/his/hers wealth then withdraws the job offers and expects poor folk to provide jobs. How screwy is that? I wonder how pathetic it/his/her life must be in order to come here amongst folks, knowing many of us share none of its/his/her philosophy?
Sad and truly pathetic, I resist feeding it/he/she, as I have serious concerns about it/his/her health as it is. Mental health that is.

Bmore on January 16, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Not even a word on Romney’s website about securing the border which is the first part of Newt’s plan. You’re the one pushing falsehoods. Besides, isn’t the freedom to hire who you want a conservative principle?/

mike_NC9 on January 16, 2012 at 7:46 PM

You assume I am backing Mitt. I am not. I am not supporting any candidate as of now.

As I said, Mitt has only a C+ rating on NumbersUSA. I am speaking about PRINCIPLE — the principle of not rewarding criminals with their ill-gotten goods. Such a policy is illogical at best, insane at worst.

Newt should know better. Everything else on his plan is great, but point 6 is ridiculous and defeats the whole purpose of the rest of his plan. Point 6 would be a giant magnet to the NEXT 20 million to illegally cross the border. Why create such a magnet? Why not just enforce all of our laws as the poll tells us Americans want?? If Newt doesn’t understand this, he skipped Psych 101 — human nature.

From a recent debate.

If Newt eliminated his point 6, I might be backing him. But not when his plan is illogical, self-defeating, and devalues my citizenship.

And if you want to hire illegal workers, you are breaking federal law. Conservatives tend to follow the law, if you hadn’t heard.

fred5678 on January 16, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Mormonism = NOT Christianity.

Jesus was NOT married and did not have wives. Mormon ideology is a twisted and sick one in my opinion

liberal4life on January 16, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Hey, buddy, I told ya yesterday: When you come on conservative sites and try to “catch” folks responding to you in bigoted ways so you can report it back to your friends at Media Matters, you can’t be this obvious. So, let’s go through this again:

1) Your posting name — huge mistake. Should have have with “conservative4life.”

2) Your Mormon bashing won’t take hold because you’re getting us confused with your liberal friends, who are the religious bigots. You’re probably going to have to head back to headquarters and lie about the bigotry you’re reading here…like you guys usually do.

3) You keep bashing Romney with this incredibly hostile invective, signaling your team’s raw fear of his candidacy. You’re supposed to play that much, much cooler. Say things like, “This is the guy Obama wants…the democrats have been dreaming of a Romney candidacy…he’s the only one Obama’s team is sure they can beat.” You’re supposed to be telling us how “scared” Obama is of Santorum and Gingrich and Perry.

It’s bad enough to be a troll, but for God’s sake how can one be such an incompetent troll? Is it some kind of unintended metaphor for the Obama presidency?

Rational Thought on January 16, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Reagan also lost to Gerald Ford in 1976.

Glad we didn’t use that ridiculous logic to nominate a candidate.

BradTank on January 16, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Rational Thought on January 16, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Well stated. I have serious concerns for it/he/she. It/she/he exhibits very peculiar behavior. Masochist?

Bmore on January 16, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Mexican Morman Mitt’s mate, Mccain is mute on the matter.

Little r on January 16, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Newty Fruity Gingbat is so stupid. Reagan lost to Ford who lost to Carter. Has Gingbat never heard of Ronald Reagan?

VorDaj on January 16, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Romney just gave Newt $60 to stay in the GOP race.

Deep Timber on January 16, 2012 at 9:46 PM

The fact is that, to many of us, Romney is McCain, with more money and no Sarah Palin. Romney is a better speaker than McCain but their thought process is not a lot different. The biggest difference, between now and 1980, Ford was a RINO, Reagan was a Conservative. The press was out there warning Americans that Reagan would be bad for the country, while the press is cheering on Romney. Romney and McCain are both moderate Republicans. Right now, we need a conservative Republican.

bflat879 on January 16, 2012 at 9:52 PM

What about the nomnation process then is any different than it is now?

Bradky on January 16, 2012 at 5:50 PM

November of last year was considered “late entry.”

Also, the electorate has changed, and not for the better.

ebrown2 on January 16, 2012 at 10:20 PM

The problem for Newt is that 2008 was a really strong field. And McCain was just a stronger candidate than any of the current candidates.

Mister Mets on January 16, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Can you believe that Newt has attacked Mitt on family values, using the dog carrier incident as proof that Romney lacks these values? This coming from a man thrice married, twice to his mistresses – Egads – Newt has lost his mind

BabysCatz on January 16, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Yeah, history is full of loser guys who lost running for office and then never eventually became president. Ronald Reagan, George Bush I and II,… oh, never mind.

ray on January 16, 2012 at 11:37 PM

How drunk do you have to be to actually believe America would vote for Newt over Obama, or over anybody?

Moesart on January 16, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Gingrich is getting more desperate, and using sophistries like this one. That was then, this is now. It’s not like either of Mitt’s main opponents are running against him now. He’s shameless about making arguments that appeal rhetorically, but not necessarily logically or factually.

Santorum is pretty smooth in debates, but not so much more so than Mitt that he’s likely to catch up,

Newt is a decidedly mixed bag. He drove the government shutdown when Clinton called his bluff and hurt the GOP in the public’s opinion and gave the media fodder to call it the party of hardheartedness. Tonight he was a debate star, but his decisions from the time when he was a “Reagan Republican” until now, when you look at them, are not anything to inspire trust. I can’t imagine Reagan attacking a fellow Republican by attacking his business success. This is more the kind of thing “Tricky Dick” Nixon would have pulled. Both so greedy for power that they lost their sense of perspective and principle.

flataffect on January 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM

There’s a slogan:

Vote for the guy losing to the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama!

Axeman on January 17, 2012 at 7:25 AM

gNewt is right. One of the few times I’ll agree with this Big Govt Repub, but he’s right. But the GOP seems perfectly fine throwing up another sacrifice to democrats, so, just do as you are told!

insidiator on January 17, 2012 at 7:47 AM

“Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?” – Newt Gingrich

Priceless!
Succinct and to the point. I hope to see and hear that often, very often!

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 17, 2012 at 8:02 AM

Reagan also lost to Gerald Ford in 1976.

Glad we didn’t use that ridiculous logic to nominate a candidate.

BradTank on January 16, 2012

Gerald R. Ford was a moderate who was not elected POTUS.
I hope that clears it up.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 17, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Did I click the wrong link? The articles here recently seem like Romney Fan Club fare.

Annar on January 17, 2012 at 8:34 AM

So according to this logic: Reagan should never have been pushed as a nominee the 2nd time.

Badger40 on January 17, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Obama will defeat the Mormon

liberal4life on January 16, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I’m hoping if it comes down to that, that the Mormon will defeat the American hating Marxist-communist Godless muslim-sympathizing narcisisst.

Badger40 on January 17, 2012 at 9:03 AM

“Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?” Newt asked a standing-room only crowd in Myrtle Beach, S.C…

Well, now we know that at least Gingrich reads HotAir…I have been quoting this for over a month, probably at least a dozen times, after stealing it (well, with permission) from another HotAir poster.
It makes sense…this isn’t 1980 with Reagan, the news cycle is completely different, and the characters are completely different.
Obama was a man with no real history, with not one “feather” in his cap, without one notable bill, speech, or accomplishment, and McCain lost to him, and Mitt lost (after record spending, close to $7 a vote, unheard of) badly to McCain.

right2bright on January 17, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Newty Fruity Gingbat is so stupid. Reagan lost to Ford who lost to Carter. Has Gingbat never heard of Ronald Reagan?

VorDaj on January 16, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Yeah, the architect, the man who brought Reagan a Republican Senate, the man who authored the Contract with America for Reagan, never heard of him.
Now you tell me, what notable conservative movement has Mitt led?
Let me answer…NONE…
No movement, no appointments…but he did cheer lead the TARP, to help out Wall Street, that he did…and he was the grandfather of ObamaCare, with his Federal Gov. subsidized RomneyCare.

Seems the conservatives forget who the conservative is…Michelle Bachman knew, and as she stated, Newt was a game changer, he is the one who brought Republican’s back, right alongside Reagan.

right2bright on January 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM

“Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?” — Why would you want to vote for someone who hasn’t done anything, except take money from Freddy mac, since the 80s? The guy is a hypocrite! He took $1.6 Million from Freddy and is brash enough to attack Romney for being a ‘Millionaire’ – good grief. And WHAT is with the commercial attempting to attack Romney because he speaks ‘French’. Ummm, my 17yo DAUGHTER speakd French (mandatory language classes – either Spanish or French)…hellooooo! Is Newt trying to say that any American who speaks French…or ANY other language, for that matter…can’t be trusted?! Someone needs to tell ‘Rosetta Stone’ that a vote for Newt is a vote to put them out of business/to label them ‘Un-American’. Geesh…

easyt65 on January 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4