Rasmussen nat’l poll showing second Gingrich boomlet?

posted at 11:10 am on January 18, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

After a brilliant debate performance by Newt Gingrich on Monday, some wondered whether it was too late in the cycle for a second bounce.  According to a Rasmussen poll taken yesterday of 1,000 likely GOP primary voters, Mitt Romney’s team may want to keep the party favors in the box for a little while longer:

The race for the Republican presidential nomination is now nearly even with Mitt Romney still on top but Newt Gingrich just three points apart.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters nationwide shows Romney with 30% support and Gingrich with 27% of the vote. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, who was running second two weeks ago, has now dropped to 15%.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul captures 13% support from likely primary voters, and Texas Governor Rick Perry remains in last place with four percent (4%). Another four percent (4%) like some other candidate in the race, and seven percent (7%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)  

But the story in the new numbers, taken Tuesday night, is Gingrich’s jump 11 points from 16% two weeks ago. Romney’s support is essentially unchanged from 29% at that time, while Santorum is down six points from 21%. Paul’s and Perry’s support is also unchanged. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman earned four percent (4%) of the vote at the start of the month but dropped out of the race this week. This suggests that many voters are still looking for an alternative to Romney and currently see Gingrich as that candidate.

Bear in mind that Rasmussen polled South Carolina the day before and found Romney in the lead by 14 points.  That’s a big margin to overcome in a short period of time, but that is what debates can do for candidates, thanks to their immediate reach.

Gingrich still has issues in the internals.  Romney edges him among Republicans (31/28) and non-Republicans (27/25), the latter of whom comprise 28% of the overall sample.  Gingrich has a three-point lead among men but an 11-point deficit among women. He also has a lower favorability rating than Romney (58/38 and 68/29, respectively), which means that undecideds are a little more likely to drift to Romney than to Gingrich.  Also, Romney leads bt 14 points on the question of which would be stronger against Obama (13 points among Republicans and 16 points among non-Republicans), and 70% expect Romney to win the nomination anyway.

Still, the bounce upward indicates momentum for Gingrich, who squandered it in Iowa in December.  Romney hasn’t actually lost any momentum, either.  At whose expense has this momentum swung toward Gingrich?  It looks like Rick Santorum, while still polling respectably in the mid-teens, has begun dropping off the pace.  If the race comes down to Romney and a Romney alternative, at the moment the latter would be Gingrich — which is interesting, because Santorum has at least arguably tied for the win in one state, something Gingrich hasn’t even come close to doing as of yet.

Gingrich had better hope that this momentum is for real, and that it reaches the Palmetto State.  Coming in second in South Carolina won’t work, as Hugh Hewitt explains in his post titled “Elect Me Because The Guy I Can’t Beat Can’t Beat Obama”:

Trying to brand Romney a “moderate” is a fine campaign tactic that most voters just shrug off as noise, but they do hear the “and the odds are fairly high that he will lose to Obama,” which doesn’t hurt Romney but Gingrich himself, just as did the attacks on Bain.  Ginrich has risen when he has attacked Obama or the MSM or the sacred cows of media elites.  He falls when he lashes out at his competition or at the prospects of the party in the fall.

That’s because it’s a process argument, not a policy argument, and Gingrich hasn’t ever won a statewide election in this cycle or any other, let alone a national election for himself.  That doesn’t make Gingrich’s point false, but it doesn’t exactly give him the standing to make it, either.  If he wins South Carolina, this argument might work better for him in Florida.


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

Oooh things are getting interesting.

gophergirl on January 18, 2012 at 1:07 PM

right2bright on January 18, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Well, once again, if we’re going by leadership then he wasn’t a good leader. He made several unforced errors that quite practically marched his troops off the side of a cliff. If not for the combined efforts of several leaders in Congress and Dick Morris’ efforts in the White House Newt Gingrich’s ‘leadership’ would’ve leader the Republican Congress absolutely nowhere.

Also, once again, a Newt supporter depending on historical grandiosity when Newt can’t even compare to the people they mention.

WealthofNations on January 18, 2012 at 1:08 PM

If the race comes down to Romney and a Romney alternative, at the moment the latter would be Gingrich — which is interesting, because Santorum has at least arguably tied for the win in one state, something Gingrich hasn’t even come close to doing as of yet.

Yes, but that state was Iowa, which is the reason we’re on the verge of nominating Romney to begin with, because they insisted on voting for Romney, Non Candidate, and Non Candidate to Win, Place, and Show.

HitNRun on January 18, 2012 at 1:08 PM

29Victor on January 18, 2012 at 1:05 PM

No, if Newt’s the nom then the election will be about ‘how much longer before Newt Gingrich gets so angry about Obama having the balls to attack him that he’ll try to vomit his intestines onto the man’.

Also, other image issues like Kenyan colonialist and what not.

WealthofNations on January 18, 2012 at 1:09 PM

right2bright:
Prehaps you’re monicker should be “not too bright”… since there were several hundred other representatives in the House and 100 senators in the Senate who all worked together to ultimately force Clinton TOWARD the ‘center’. To claim that Gingrich, as Speaker, was responsible, single-handed, for forcing Clinton to do anything is patently ridiculous.

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Sonny, you are new here, your changing my moniker has been done for the past 6 years of me posting…it’s nothing new, but I am sure you think you are original and clever.
I am used to people not reading posts, but just commenting…so let me enlighten you, I said he was their leader, he was the Speaker of the House, right? Maybe you didn’t know that. Under his leadership he was the architect that wrought the 40 year control from the dems, maybe you didn’t know that either.
But like any general, or leader, he uses people to get the job done, as I had stated, he was the House leader, and no he didn’t “write” the contract as many had stated, he helped format the contract and developed the strategy to win each of those “contracts”…get it now?
He was a leader of one of the most pivotal conservative movements in history…and now tell me, what pivotal, in fact what any movement has Mitt led involving conservatives? What appointments of conservatives…or what attacks has he led against liberals?
For weeks I have been asking that…what conservative movement has Mitt led?

right2bright on January 18, 2012 at 1:10 PM

While I usually trust Rasmussen, I usually distrust wild swings in polls. So I’m not sure what to think of this.

WolvenOne on January 18, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Well, I don’t like any of the candidates very much, but…

If I had to vote in South Carolina, in order to keep this thing going, I would vote for Newt and I would want this to continue – more debates, more vetting of candidates, because we know the mistake made in our country four years ago was having a candidate who was not vetted to the degree he should have been.”

At least, through April or May and the release of all the candidates tax records.

Fallon on January 18, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Those who are resorting to comments like ‘back to the nursery room with you’ show their appalling lack of ability to respond with a substantive argument and, instead, resort to the kind of comment normally reserved for children on a playground.

If you can defend your position with fact and a well conceived argument.. let’s see it.

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:11 PM

If Romney is the nom, this election will be about image.

If Newt is the nom, this election will be about ideas.

29Victor on January 18, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Ha…once bluefox pointed out that Mitt had one hair out of place…

I’ll take the ideas.

tinkerthinker on January 18, 2012 at 1:11 PM

michaelo on January 18, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Of course NOT…the Democrats and the Old Stale Stalinist Media…ONLY want Romney….because Romneycare VALIDATES their position and makes him easier to destroy in the General!!!

RedLizard64 on January 18, 2012 at 1:12 PM

If you can defend your position with fact and a well conceived argument.. let’s see it.

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:11 PM

We don’t have to… we razed you for not looking for yourself or listening to your elders who were there first hand.

tinkerthinker on January 18, 2012 at 1:14 PM

At least, through April or May and the release of all the candidates tax records.

Fallon on January 18, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Indeed. Too much for irrelevancy!

TheAlamos on January 18, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Also, once again, a Newt supporter depending on historical grandiosity when Newt can’t even compare to the people they mention.

WealthofNations on January 18, 2012 at 1:08 PM

If you asked Eisenhower if all of his decisions were correct after the fact, I am sure he would have changed some and maybe many.
Every leader makes mistakes, that is what leadership is, you are out in front taking those hits, and successes.
You can point out dozens of errors made by any leader, there isn’t one that would trade their position…and that is a mark of a leader, they want the “ball in their hands”…Mitt doesn’t want the ball in his hands.
Newt goofed, but along with that he led one of the greatest conservative movements, led the battle to rid us of Jim Wright and others…and he was vilified for his actions.
If you do nothing, you never make a mistake…and no I wasn’t comparing Newt to Churchill, a common mistake people make, confusing an analogy with a comparison…I have quoted Jesus, that doesn’t mean I think I am Jesus. But it’s a tact the weak minded try to use.
Now tell me, what conservative movement has Mitt led?

right2bright on January 18, 2012 at 1:17 PM

right2bright:
You just proved my point. Thanks. By the way… what evidence convinces you that I’m younger than you… and on what evidence are you basing the assumption that I’m a man…hence referring to me as ‘Sonny’? Brush up on the critical thinking skills.

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Well, I don’t like any of the candidates very much, but…

“If I had to vote in South Carolina, in order to keep this thing going, I would vote for Newt and I would want this to continue – more debates, more vetting of candidates, because we know the mistake made in our country four years ago was having a candidate who was not vetted to the degree he should have been.”

At least, through April or May and the release of all the candidates tax records.

Fallon on January 18, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Coincidentally I just commented on this here. Palin is so full of it, it’s hard to know where to begin. But I’ll start with this: Has she vetted Newt’s PAC ad? Has she talked about how the people filmed in the ad weren’t talking about Romney? How about the fact they were paid to appear in the ad? Funny, but I haven’t heard a peep from Palin about any of that. Nope, she’s too busy uttering platitudes, and telling the people of S.C. they should vote for him.

Buy Danish on January 18, 2012 at 1:19 PM

“….the election would be about ideas.”
Yes, as long as they are Newt’s ideas and his only. He is unable to get along with anyone and throws word tantrums when questioned. The man is quite unstable. Not equipped tempermentally to run the country.

jeanie on January 18, 2012 at 1:20 PM

If you can defend your position with fact and a well conceived argument.. let’s see it.

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:11 PM

If you make a ridiculous claim, you are ripe for being sent to the children’s table…claiming that 8000 ethic violations were broken by Newt, when you should understand the historical context, sends you to the children’s table.
The major one, the one that he was “censored” for, was later shown by the IRS to not be factual and he should have never paid the fine…it was a political attack.
The beginning of the RINO’s bowing to the MSM, and it hasn’t stopped with Mitt, he will say anything not to offend the MSM…including saying that gov. takeover is the same as Bain…good grief.

right2bright on January 18, 2012 at 1:21 PM

tinkerthinker:
You have no evidence on which to base the assumption you’ve made that I’m younger than you, and even if I was younger than you, that’s no excuse for trying to hide behind advanced years instead of offering up a persuasive and convincing argument.

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Yes, as long as they are Newt’s ideas and his only. He is unable to get along with anyone and throws word tantrums when questioned. The man is quite unstable. Not equipped tempermentally to run the country.

jeanie on January 18, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Ahhh, yes, his ideas, one of the few that actually articulate a strategy to dismantle what Obama has done is a “tantrum”…so you like the czars?
To be a leader you have to be proven…so tell us, what conservative movement has Mitt led?

right2bright on January 18, 2012 at 1:23 PM

“….the election would be about ideas.”
Yes, as long as they are Newt’s ideas and his only. He is unable to get along with anyone and throws word tantrums when questioned. The man is quite unstable. Not equipped tempermentally to run the country.

jeanie on January 18, 2012 at 1:20 PM

I don’t see him like that at all. He’s a fighter and what we need right now is a fighter. Newt would make a fine president.

tinkerthinker on January 18, 2012 at 1:24 PM

right2bright:
I wrote 83 ethics violations, which is the correct number of violations that were filed. I can’t be held responsible for your poor reading skills.

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Mitt Romney the White Obama at the Fox News Debate tells us that “we better pay our 35% tax” and he only pays 15% in taxes. What a JERK!!!

I’m sick of the GOP games promoting liberal policies. Once Obama is gone there will be no rainbows and sunshine. There is corruption in both parties. The GOP will continue to push more spending, more of the liberal agendas. Ron Paul’s message of “draining the swamp” is the only way to go!!!

Capitalist75 on January 18, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Ron Paul is the only small government constitutionalist in the race, yet some so called ‘conservatives’ would rather vote for a progressive like Newt or Romney. Doesn’t make sense. If Mitt wins we’re stuck with Obamacare forever! Newt has proved time and time again that he is against capitalism. He belongs in the Democrat party with his pal nancy pelosi.

steve123 on January 18, 2012 at 1:26 PM

If you can defend your position with fact and a well conceived argument.. let’s see it.

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Very briefly:

All the ethics charges against Newt were found to be without merit in congress, except the one he paid the $300K fine over. The IRS investigated the issue that led to the $300K fine, and found it without merit.

The fact that you launched this failed line of attack shows you lack the judgment to interpet the facts. Now it’s obviously past your bed time and I’ve wasted enough time with your silliness, little man.

WhatNot on January 18, 2012 at 1:27 PM

right2bright:
You just proved my point. Thanks. By the way… what evidence convinces you that I’m younger than you… and on what evidence are you basing the assumption that I’m a man…hence referring to me as ‘Sonny’? Brush up on the critical thinking skills.

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:18 PM

It was a rhetorical word, meaning that you are thinking like a child.
Funny, many think I am a woman, and I never retort to that, since it is impossible to tell if one is a woman or man when posting, so whatever term is used is used out of convenience. I will be more politically correct with you since that is obviously important.
Thanks for the retort “unknown sex person”…

right2bright on January 18, 2012 at 1:28 PM

right2bright:
Oh.. and by the way… its not ‘censored’. The term you’re looking for is CENSURED. in any case, he was actually formally reprimanded.

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:28 PM

right2bright:
I wrote 83 ethics violations, which is the correct number of violations that were filed. I can’t be held responsible for your poor reading skills.

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Ha, I was being sarcastic, because 83 or 8,000 they were all trumped up…thanks for responding unknown sex person.

right2bright on January 18, 2012 at 1:29 PM

They’ve all promised to ‘undo’ Obama. I’m not interested in ‘movements’. I’m interested in results and a man as abrasive and divisive as Newt will only impede this.

jeanie on January 18, 2012 at 1:30 PM

the fact that he racked up 83 ethics violations

[snip]

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Your agenda is showing. You’re either ignorant of the facts or intentionally twisting them. Either way, your opinion is not to be trusted.

cane_loader on January 18, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Drudge currently has a picture posted of a young Prof. Gingrich, who bore a remarkable resemblance to Dwight Schrute.

MidniteRambler on January 18, 2012 at 1:32 PM

I wrote 83 ethics violations, which is the correct number of violations that were filed. I can’t be held responsible for your poor reading skills.

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:26 PM

And you can’t slither away from your poor writing skills.

You said “racked up.”

A violation is not a violation until proved.

Mitt was exonerated on 83 of 83.

Go peddle your partisan cant elsewhere.

cane_loader on January 18, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Gingrich is way more interesting than Romney, but he overestimates his own worth and power with an almost pathological consistency. This creates a host of knock-on problems and effects, including his notorious disorganization.

He is a little fat fountain of chaos.

bifidis on January 18, 2012 at 1:32 PM

right2bright:
Oh.. and by the way… its not ‘censored’. The term you’re looking for is CENSURED. in any case, he was actually formally reprimanded.

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:28 PM

You are new here, so I will cut you some slack…grammar police belong on other sites…we are here to discuss thoughts, ideas, policies…not grammar. If you don’t understand a word, than ask and we will define it for you…get it.
We are looking for a free flow of ideas, and sometime they come of the page as not being corectly speled…get it?

right2bright on January 18, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Buy Danish on January 18, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Do you really think I care what you think about Palin or Newt or Romney?

The candidates need to continue to be vetted. Illinois doesn’t vote until March 20th, two weeks after Super Tuesday. I’d like a choice.

States that don’t vote until April or later:

District of Columbia, Maryland, Wisconsin, Texas, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, North Carolina, West Virginia, Nebraska, Oregon, Arkansas, Kentucky, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota and Utah.

Fallon on January 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Mitt Newt was exonerated on 83 of 83.

cane_loader on January 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM

For weeks I have been asking that…what conservative movement has Mitt led?

right2bright on January 18, 2012 at 1:10 PM

I have been begging Romney supporters to name one single thing that Romney has done to advance the conservative cause in America that wasn’t directly tied to his campaign.

One paper he’s written, one article, one speech, one candidate or cause he’s supported financially or otherwise. Anything, anything at all.

Thus far…crickets. They don’t even try. They just call Romney’s opponents “stupid, liberal, liars, fat, etc.”

29Victor on January 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM

jake-the-goose on January 18, 2012 at 11:17 AM
AGREED

Kataklysmic on January 18, 2012 at 11:21 AM
KLASSIC!!!

right2bright on January 18, 2012 at 11:31 AM

SPOT ON!!!

cane_loader on January 18, 2012 at 11:36 AM

INDEED!

right2bright on January 18, 2012 at 11:37 AM

I believe it was…”Youth and inexperience”

portlandon on January 18, 2012 at 11:40 AM

OUCH…Harsh…but accurate.

dmn1972 on January 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM

My sentiments also!

cane_loader on January 18, 2012 at 11:52 AM

We need you to volunteer to take over press secretary when the time comes…you are saying what I have been saying since 2010…take it to the press and take the President ON!!!!

RedLizard64 on January 18, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Hugh Hewitt explains in his post titled “Elect Me Because The Guy I Can’t Beat Can’t Beat Obama”

This sounds clever, but recall that McCain the moderate couldn’t beat Obama in large part BECAUSE he was moderate. I think Newt would have an easier time beating Obama than Romney. But he may not get that chance.

The Rogue Tomato on January 18, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I have been begging Romney supporters to name one single thing that Romney has done to advance the conservative cause in America that wasn’t directly tied to his campaign.

29Victor on January 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM

The whole first 2 years of the 0bamanation, while Palin was writing response after response to 0bama’s usurpations, Romney was pretty quiet. He definitely did not take the lead in calling 0bama the disaster that he is. He wasn’t a guest on the cable shows exposing 0bama’s errors and explaining how he’d do it right. He was quiet as a mouse.

IMO, Romney wanted to stay quiet and have it given to him. He really does remind me of Bush 41 – and that ain’t good….

cane_loader on January 18, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Ron Paul is the only small government constitutionalist in the race, yet some so called ‘conservatives’ would rather vote for a progressive like Newt or Romney. Doesn’t make sense. If Mitt wins we’re stuck with Obamacare forever! Newt has proved time and time again that he is against capitalism. He belongs in the Democrat party with his pal nancy pelosi.

steve123 on January 18, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Where do Paul and his pal Cynthia McKinney belong? World Worker’s Party? He didn’t just sit on a couch with the commy/truther/anti-semite, he endorsed her for president, someone who would have shredded the Consitution (quite possibly literally).

29Victor on January 18, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Rush talking about the McCain Opp Research on Romney-now

bluefox on January 18, 2012 at 1:37 PM

If Newt is the nom, this election will be about ideas.

29Victor on January 18, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Not a chance. The election will be decided by the least informed therefore the election will be about that fat old nasty white guy that impeached Clinton while he was having an affair. Is it unfair? You bet.

rhombus on January 18, 2012 at 1:37 PM

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I think he is referring first and foremost to your lack of seniority for time posting…that’s all.

RedLizard64 on January 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM

tinkerthinker:
You have no evidence on which to base the assumption you’ve made that I’m younger than you, and even if I was younger than you, that’s no excuse for trying to hide behind advanced years instead of offering up a persuasive and convincing argument.

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:23 PM

The evidence is what you said.
If you were alive back then, then you would know that our so called rinos were so afraid of the negative press they stopped ‘fighting’ liberals and caved… Newt paid the price for that. Liberals were doing and saying everything they could to bring Newt down(your talking points). More recent example is the war on Bush by the liberals/media and how our rinos never stood up for him or anybody… There is nothing to hide behind here.

tinkerthinker on January 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM

You just proved my point. Thanks. By the way… what evidence convinces you that I’m younger than you… and on what evidence are you basing the assumption that I’m a man…hence referring to me as ‘Sonny’? Brush up on the critical thinking skills.

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:18 PM

You have no critical thinking skills, if you equate 83 ethics accusations with 83 ethics convictions, and then use it to lead your polemic against Gingrich.

Pride goeth before a fall.

cane_loader on January 18, 2012 at 1:41 PM

whatnot:
The fact remains that those 83 violations were FILED. That he had the sort of conduct as Speaker that LEFT HIM OPEN to just such an assault and that time and effort and funding had to go into proving or disproving each charge and that the spectacle that it engendered damaged the entire party. That’s not the kind of leadership that I want to see in the White House.
The real issues are that his own caucus… the republicans in the HOUSE who actually had to work with him wanted to remove him mid-term and that he ushered in the era of shutting down the entire federal government rather than negotiating for the best interest of the nation. His own reputation was such that it took over twenty years for him to be able to come back to the political arena. Waiting, no doubt, for people to forget just how volatile and destructive his tenure was as Speaker. If that’s a taste of the kind of Presidency we could expect with him at the helm, he’s a poor candidate for the position.

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Do you really think I care what you think about Palin or Newt or Romney?
Fallon on January 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Why did you quote Palin if you don’t care? I took issue with Palin’s unequal demands that candidates be vetted, their taxes be released, and so forth. I may have missed it but I don’t recall her making this demand to Newt, you know the guy she’s wishin’ she could vote for. I said nothing about primary schedules and have no problem whatsoever with you voting for whomever you wish in the primary. But if she wants this thing to go on forever, she should at least use a minimum of due diligence on her part (especially since, unlike us, she’s being paid a hell of a lot of money by Fox).

Buy Danish on January 18, 2012 at 1:45 PM

The infamous, much maligned RINOs will not support Newt this time either. That alone will destroy his chances against Obama.

jeanie on January 18, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Not a chance. The election will be decided by the least informed therefore the election will be about that fat old nasty white guy that impeached Clinton while he was having an affair. Is it unfair? You bet.

rhombus on January 18, 2012 at 1:37 PM

One of the things that Gingrich is better at enunciating conservative ideas in understandable ways than almost any current Republican politician. This is one of the reasons I initally supported him. And, since he’s so good at taking on and talking around the press, I believe that he could make this election about ideas.

29Victor on January 18, 2012 at 1:47 PM

The fact remains that those 83 violations were FILED. That he Gov. Palin had the sort of conduct as Speaker governor that LEFT HIM HER OPEN to just such an assault and that time and effort and funding had to go into proving or disproving each charge and that the spectacle that it engendered damaged the entire party. That’s not the kind of leadership that I want to see in the White House.

[snip]

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:44 PM

FIFY

cane_loader on January 18, 2012 at 1:55 PM

What are the chances that Newt’s upsetting of the hogs’ trough led them to file 83 ethics violations, with a 100% failure rate?

Using failed allegations to discredit Gingrich is quite insidious.

The same thing was done to Sarah Palin in Alaska.

I could accuse anyone on here of child abuse and incest.

I might not be able to prove it.

Does that mean that when you run for your local school board, your opponents should be able to use my unproved allegations to discredit your fitness for public service?

cane_loader on January 18, 2012 at 1:58 PM

First, if you’re going to respond to me, do me the honor of responding to what I actually wrote… not what you think I wrote or what you misread and kindly stop trying to attribute things to me that I didn’t write.

Second, Right2bright…as to that ‘grammar police’ defense… when I mentioned that ‘censored’ is not the same thing as ‘censured’… that’s a pitifully weak defense. Its not a grammatical error to substitute one term for the other, its a mistaken use of the term itself.

But not as weak as “Since you’re new here…”. Claiming that you’re a veteran of this particular forum is neither argument, nor excuse. Get it?

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 2:00 PM

If Newt’s main claim to fame is his ability to talk–don’t we have a guy like that already? One way to assure an Obama win is to attempt to replace him with an ideologue from the opposite camp.

jeanie on January 18, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Does that mean that when you run for your local school board, your opponents should be able to use my unproved allegations to discredit your fitness for public service?

cane_loader on January 18, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Indeed. I don’t like Newt either. But compared to Romney, I can live with President Gingrich!

TheAlamos on January 18, 2012 at 2:06 PM

If Newt’s main claim to fame is his ability to talk–don’t we have a guy like that already? One way to assure an Obama win is to attempt to replace him with an ideologue from the opposite camp.

jeanie on January 18, 2012 at 2:02 PM

No, Newt’s “main claim to fame” is his ability to enunciate conservative principles in an understandable way. Romney’s “main claim to fame” is that his campaign has spent the last five years training him to say what the focus groups tell them he should say. That is what we have already, someone whose main “qualification” was that he was good at running for office.

29Victor on January 18, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Romney doesn’t have a single conservative bone in his body. It’s so painfully obvious every time he tries to talk about “conservatism” or contrasting it with liberalism, I don’t understand why others don’t see this.

tkyang99 on January 18, 2012 at 2:13 PM

If Newt’s main claim to fame is his ability to talk–don’t we have a guy like that already? One way to assure an Obama win is to attempt to replace him with an ideologue from the opposite camp.

jeanie on January 18, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Idjit! That’s the main job of a Politician and Leader! Policy and other executive instructions converted to Talk talk talk talk talk talk …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. TALK!

… and of course sign sign sign sign sign sign sign sign sign ……………………………………………………………………………………

other thing is pay pay pay pay using other’s money, which we, conservatives, want to reduce!

TheAlamos on January 18, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Drudge currently has a picture posted of a young Prof. Gingrich, who bore a remarkable resemblance to Dwight Schrute.

MidniteRambler on January 18, 2012 at 1:32 PM

…but now bears a remarkable resemblance to Chucky, from “Cild’s Play”.

Norky on January 18, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Child’s

Norky on January 18, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Using a pro Romney quote from Hugh Hewitt? Really? He’s basically been a lapdog for Mitt since the last election. In fact I got so tired of his pushing Romney that I haven’t listened to him in 3 years. It was like listening to a 3 hour Romney commercial every day.

Minnfidel on January 18, 2012 at 2:27 PM

This is why no one does the one-day polling any more. Three to five days is more usual. One day of good headlines gives a very fleeting boost the next day.

Adjoran on January 18, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Living opulent lifestlye with private funds: bad
Living opulent lifestyle with public funds: good

/lib4life
Newt Gingrich
BARAFF & MOOCHELLE OBAMA

Kataklysmic on January 18, 2012 at 11:21 AM

There, finally corrected

NOMOBO on January 18, 2012 at 2:37 PM

BTW. While not a Romney fan. I still can’t get excited about Newt, especially after his whole Bain attacks. It was stupid and he doubled down on it. I think he did too much self inflicted damage. He already was hard to like and Newt himself kept making it harder. I liked Perry but he’s shot himself way too many times as well. Frankly all of our choices suck.

Minnfidel on January 18, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Minnfidel on January 18, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I can’t get excited about any of them, but would be happy to have Newt ahead of Obamney.

Norky on January 18, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Ha…once bluefox pointed out that Mitt had one hair out of place…

I’ll take the ideas.

tinkerthinker on January 18, 2012 at 1:11 PM

ROFL!! I did! You have a good memory, LOL I think in the last debate he had more than one out of place:-)

bluefox on January 18, 2012 at 2:56 PM

This is hilarious sitting here reading some of the Romney-heads in panic mode over Newt’s surge in the polls! The Romney-heads are doing their darndest to run out the clock with Romney’s so-called “lead,” but it ain’t gonna last. Hey Romney-heads–the word’s out; Romney is a timid, milktoast, Massachusetts moderate/liberal with absolutely no core values whatsoever. Romney is just like Slick Willie was; he’s in support of whatever’s convenient to support that’ll benefit him.

jfs756 on January 18, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Churchill had WWII to help him out. His election losses in 1945 led to 40 years of liberals running England.

haner on January 18, 2012 at 11:54 AM

That’s so wrong. During the 40 years from 1945 to 1985, there were only 17 years of Labour prime ministers, not 40 years. The Tories were in power the other 23 years. Labour is the liberal party in Britain, and the real British Liberal party didn’t have a majority during that period.

The Conservatives stayed in power for 9 years after Churchill was no longer in office.

Emperor Norton on January 18, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Conservative pundits, the establishment, the elected pols and their constant hypocritical attacks on Newt are pushing me right to him. Perry has no chance and should drop out. As of now, this long time Perry backer has switched to Newt. Sorry Governor Perry, it’s not going to be you this year, step out of the way and endorse your friend Newt. Don’t let the establishment bastards win.

Go Perry Newt!

Malachi45 on January 18, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Romney doesn’t have a single conservative bone in his body. It’s so painfully obvious every time he tries to talk about “conservatism” or contrasting it with liberalism, I don’t understand why others don’t see this.

tkyang99 on January 18, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I believe that most of Romney’s support comes from Republicans who either (1) aren’t all that conservative or (2) aren’t aware of his very Liberal record. In category 1 are Republicans who like big government (Bushies), only not the moral, religious, and financial excesses of the Democrats. In category 2 are voters who judge candidates primarily by debates and information they get from a mostly liberal media. Our nominating system, which includes the liberal media, favors the big money, big government Republicans.

Gladtobehere on January 18, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Malachi45 on January 18, 2012 at 3:31 PM

I agree on all of your points. Perry was the best man for the job, but his time has come and gone. He’ll be out of the race by Monday.
I am sick and tired of having the Republican establishment team up with the MSM, to choose the candidate for us. I don’t care for Newt, but he’s not the chosen one and that’s good enough for me. It’s not like we have a variety of choices.

Norky on January 18, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Okay, I’ve had a little time to analyze this, and I’m gonna try reconciling these numbers with numbers from other pollsters.

Most of the numbers are the same as the other pollsters numbers. The difference appears to be that Gingrich picked up some undecideds, but the timing of the poll makes that somewhat suspect. The most accurate polls tend to be tracking polls, this is because the act of spreading question collection out over several days acts as a stabilizing force against things like outliers, or a single good day for candidates.

I suspect, that because Rasmussen collected their polls entirely yesterday morning, after Gingriches good debate performance, the timing ended up benefiting him disproportionally, at least on a national level. This doesn’t mean that Gingrich didn’t get a bump off the debate, but chances are that many of these undecideds will see-saw between several candidates over the next few days, so a large swath of this boost is likely illusory.

Additionally, it is important to remember that national polls matter less than polls in South Carolina, at this moment. This isn’t meant to be dismissive or anything, but trends on the national level are not necessarily going to be reflected in South Carolina. Not only does South Carolina’s demographics and economic situation differ somewhat from the country as a whole, but South Carolina republicans are likely paying a lot more attention. Not only are there numerous campaign events playing around the state every day, but there are far more ads playing in the state as well. This doesn’t mean the debates are entirely unimportant within the state of South Carolina, but with so many other opportunities to get to know the candidates, debates will play a somewhat diminished role within the state.

So in short, this poll is probably most useful as an indicator of who voters feel won the debate on Monday.

WolvenOne on January 18, 2012 at 4:22 PM

So in short, this poll is probably most useful as an indicator of who voters feel won the debate on Monday.

WolvenOne on January 18, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Bingo. If Romney wins SC, that boost will also be reflected in national polling going into Florida (which, last we saw, is solid Romney territory.)

Not that I think Romney necessarily has it sewn up, but those numbers would be much more informative than national numbers at this point.

athenanyc on January 18, 2012 at 5:06 PM

But not as weak as “Since you’re new here…”. Claiming that you’re a veteran of this particular forum is neither argument, nor excuse. Get it?

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 2:00 PM

I also get you attacking me with some name calling and when I called you “sonny” you whined like a little baby…get over it.
Here let me remind you:

right2bright:
Prehaps you’re monicker should be “not too bright”…

thatsafactjack on January 18, 2012 at 1:03 PM

And I responded, mildly but enough to make you snivel…

Sonny, you are new here, your changing my moniker has been done for the past 6 years of me posting…it’s nothing new, but I am sure you think you are original and clever.

right2bright on January 18, 2012 at 1:10 PM

You equate someone calling a person “not too bright” with “sonny”…gee, what a surprise…

right2bright on January 18, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Trying to brand Romney a “moderate”… most voters just shrug off.. – Hugh Hewitt aka Mittens Mufflerman

Actually
Monsieur Mitty “branded” his own damnself!
Massah Newt simply targeted the RINO CEO’s image & appetites,
a movable feast the D’crats had planned for their campaign roast.

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on January 18, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4