South Carolina: Gingrich 32, Romney 26, Paul 11, Santorum 9

posted at 4:15 pm on January 20, 2012 by Allahpundit

The methodology’s odd but this is right in line with yesterday’s polls. Result: Newt’s now at 70 percent on InTrade as a favorite to win tomorrow. In fact, follow that last link and play around with InTrade’s chart showing Newt’s numbers over time. As recently as two days ago, he was below 10 percent. Then the polls started moving after Monday night’s debate and InTrade’s clientele started moving with them. And now here we are. Amazing.

That’s the finding of the third Clemson University 2012 Palmetto Poll, a sample of 429 South Carolina GOP voters who indicated they plan to vote Saturday. The telephone poll was initiated Jan. 13 and recalibrated Jan. 18-19 to measure changing dynamics. Twenty percent of the likely voters remain undecided.

“We expect a reaction by the electorate to the personal revelations about Gingrich to be registered on Saturday, however, we do not think it will be substantial enough to erase the lead Gingrich has over Romney,” said Clemson University political scientist Dave Woodard.

“Our head-to-head matchup of the candidates has consistently shown Mitt Romney competitive. The margin for Romney has evaporated this week, and we believe that Gingrich — who led our December poll with 38 percent to Romney’s 21 percent — will win the South Carolina primary,” he said.

Honesty/integrity was one of the two factors most commonly cited by respondents for their vote (ideology, not electability, was the other), so who knows how that ABC interview with Newt’s ex-wife will shake out tomorrow. Even so, Romney is scrambling to lower expectations: One of his top advisors told reporters today “of course” they might lose tomorrow, and Mitt himself told Laura Ingraham that he expects to lose a few states to Gingrich. (Listen below.) So much for the 50-state sweep, but if SC does break for Newt and Romney holds on to win the nomination, it’ll be the first time that Carolina voted for an eventual loser. Does Romney care whether he loses tomorrow so long as he ends up as the nominee? He should, says James Antle:

An early-state sweep would have contained, and maybe eliminated outright, Romney’s Southern problem. Romney trailed Herman Cain and then Gingrich in many Southern states. If he wins South Carolina, Gingrich could go on to beat Romney in many of those primaries. To win the nomination, Romney will then have to amass many delegates in states that aren’t as red. That’s doable, but suboptimal in terms of pleasing the base ahead of a closely contested general election.

An even worse scenario for Romney: his numbers have just risen in part because Republicans have been acclimating — resigning? — themselves to him nomination. But what if the shattering of his inevitability makes those numbers fall again? Then Romney could have a much bigger problem than pleasing disaffected Southern Republicans in the fall.

Romney should win Florida regardless of what happens, but like I say, go look at that InTrade chart. Things change awfully fast in modern primaries. Kaus’s “Feiler Faster Thesis” vindicated? Exit quotation from Romney, laying it on thick even by his usual standards: “Frankly, to be in a neck-and-neck race at this last moment is kind of exciting.” I’m sure he and his team are thrilled.

Update: Christian Heinze flags another interesting bit from the Ingraham audio. He keeps talking about how the economy is getting better while stressing that Obama deserves zero credit for it. Ingraham, quite understandably, wonders how we win with that message:

INGRAHAM: Isn’t that a hard argument to make if you’re saying — Okay, he inherited this recession, and he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now we’re seeing some more jobs, but vote against him anyway?

Isn’t that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?

ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? [laughter] It just happens to be the truth…. at some point it’s going to get better, but I don’t think President Obama’s helping it.

Conceding that the economy’s recovering while denying credit to The One is an odd way to play it when he could be questioning the strength and durability of the recovery instead, but my hunch is that it wouldn’t matter much either way. If unemployment begins to tick down in a significant way, there’s no way to spin it away that’ll seem compelling to undecideds, especially low-information undecideds. That’s the peril of running against an incumbent. He’ll get credit whether he deserves it or not.


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 4 5 6

You’re new around here, aren’t you?

kingsjester on January 20, 2012 at 6:39 PM
By the looks of the threads since the new registrations, it appears we received quanity over quality.

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 6:54 PM

I came in here to improve myself!

KOOLAID2 on January 20, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Hey AP, since Newt himself admitted that it was her words that moved the ball, opened millions of donations and volunteers for his campaign, would it kill you to give her credit?

promachus on January 20, 2012 at 7:57 PM

LOL, we’ll see…

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 8:28 PM

If you want to know WHY Romney is such a toxic candidate, look at the past two weeks at how Romney’s base support has collapsed, and imagine what would happen to him in the fall.

There is a reason Palin wants this race to go on: this guy has worse base performance numbers than Che Guevara.

victor82 on January 20, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Like I said, there’s a big difference between forgiving someone and voting for someone. None of us are even in a position to grant forgivness to Newt, so this is all a moot point. That’s between him and God, and him and his wives.

haner on January 20, 2012 at 7:59 PM

LOL, when you see what I posted to you, you’ll see we are in agreement!!

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 8:30 PM

We don’t need to forgive him, since in this case we weren’t married to him. All we need to do is decide whether we want to vote for him. Two separate issues.
Is that the point you are making? If so, I agree then.

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Exactly. Thanks. I know we don’t always agree, but I like how you go out of your way to hear what others are saying. I don’t do enough of that myself and get hotaired too often.

haner on January 20, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Why are we here? Why are we considering Newt Gingrich? He was conservative anathema prior to the Tea Party movement, supporting anything liberal, conservative or moderate if it increased his lobbyist or speaker fees.

His lack of integrity is staggering, I mean staggering. The infidelity and dishonesty is only the beginning. It was only a year ago that he was in Ohio pushing ethanol subsidies!

I was going to vote for Rick Perry but now…I have to support Romney.

Both candidates have switched their positions, one has more legitimate excuses for switching than the other in my opinion. At least Romney’s family is picture perfect and he has a more solid religious servie background (3..2..1..for the Mormon haters).

I am not voting for Newt Gingrich, I will take my ball and go home. I will also go convince my neighbors to take their ball and go home. For me, a vote for Gingrich is a vote for a piece of crap.

ConservativeLaw on January 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Interesting that the Republican race seems now to be devolving to the two most fundamentally dishonest, the two most demonstrably RINO candidates.

Have fun.

urban elitist on January 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM

U.S. Congress’s song. “Money for Nothing and the Checks are Free.”

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM

One good thing will be a result of the S.C. primary vote.

We will know the % of kooks in America via the Laup Nor vote total.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 20, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Interesting that the Republican race seems now to be devolving to the two most fundamentally dishonest, the two most demonstrably RINO candidates.

Have fun.

urban elitist on January 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM

I know we get to miss out on supporting reprobates like Obama, Kucinich, and Shrillery.

:/

tom daschle concerned on January 20, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Arguing that Newt is powerless to get things done in Washington is basically arguing that our representatives are no longer representing us and will not listen to us. Newt did it before, it will be much harder for the big government, power loving, lording over the small people politicians in Washington to take him down if we Elect him.

astonerii on January 20, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Good point. Also I wasn’t aware of the first paragraph of your post. Now that is similar to what Reagan did; speaking directly to the American People. Good info:-)

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Interesting that the Republican race seems now to be devolving to the two most fundamentally dishonest, the two most demonstrably RINO candidates.

Have fun.

urban elitist on January 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Perhaps maybe for once the tie-breaker should be the candidate’s actual family values as he lives and not what he preaches to the choir….

There’s always Ron Paul I guess.

haner on January 20, 2012 at 8:41 PM

I’d love to see Reid taken down as leader.

tinkerthinker on January 20, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Now THAT is a worthy goal!!!

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Interesting that the Republican race seems now to be devolving to the two most fundamentally dishonest, the two most demonstrably RINO candidates.

Have fun.

urban elitist on January 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Yes.

And if by “Have fun,” you mean “Buy stock in liquor providers,” then I’m one step ahead of you!

alchemist19 on January 20, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Loathed in DC huh? Sounds like a guy I could vote for.

bgibbs1000 on January 20, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Sometimes who your enemies are speaks a lot about you:-)(Newt, not you)

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Newt has multiple wives, and all the “social conservatives” and tea party types are supporting him, lol.

1punchWill on January 20, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Newt only has one wife. He’s not a bigamist. I don’t think social Conservatives or Tea Party members are against voting for a Divorced person.

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Why are we here? Why are we considering Newt Gingrich? He was conservative anathema prior to the Tea Party movement, supporting anything liberal, conservative or moderate if it increased his lobbyist or speaker fees.

His lack of integrity is staggering, I mean staggering. The infidelity and dishonesty is only the beginning. It was only a year ago that he was in Ohio pushing ethanol subsidies!

I was going to vote for Rick Perry but now…I have to support Romney.

Both candidates have switched their positions, one has more legitimate excuses for switching than the other in my opinion. At least Romney’s family is picture perfect and he has a more solid religious servie background (3..2..1..for the Mormon haters).

I am not voting for Newt Gingrich, I will take my ball and go home. I will also go convince my neighbors to take their ball and go home. For me, a vote for Gingrich is a vote for a piece of crap.

ConservativeLaw on January 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM

My thoughts exactly. I won’t vote for Gingrich period. The man does not care about anything but himself – it’s obvious to everybody but the “true conservatives” out there that think somehow he’s the guy that’s going to beat Obama (and that it’s worth selling the party’s soul to do it).

1punchWill on January 20, 2012 at 8:52 PM

I don’t think social Conservatives or Tea Party members are against voting for a Divorced person.

If we were, we never would have had President Reagan.

kakypat on January 20, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Not to mention people that are truly repentant tend to show sorrow, remorse, and humilty – none of which have been shown by Newt except at the most opportune moments. In fact he’s shown the exact opposite of that last night at the debate to a cheering crowd.

No Newt, not ever.

1punchWill on January 20, 2012 at 8:14 PM

He has been married for 10 years to his current wife. He doesn’t need to wear sackcloth the rest of his life. Even a widow in some cultures only wears black for a year!!

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 8:54 PM

I just watched Newt’s takedown of John King.

I will vote for Newt.

davidk on January 20, 2012 at 8:54 PM

If we were, we never would have had President Reagan.

kakypat on January 20, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Don’t you dare try to compare Reagan to Newt. Reagans heart was broken. Newt did the breaking – multiple times and utterly dishonestly.

1punchWill on January 20, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Don’t you dare try to compare Reagan to Newt. Reagans heart was broken. Newt did the breaking – multiple times and utterly dishonestly.

1punchWill on January 20, 2012 at 8:55 PM

What you lack in reading comprehension skills, you make up for in anger.

I said no such thing.

kakypat on January 20, 2012 at 8:57 PM

I came in here to improve myself!

KOOLAID2 on January 20, 2012 at 8:28 PM

LOL

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 8:57 PM

McCain would have even won if he actually tried despite the messaging being so lopsided. Instead, he chose to move to the left of Obama in the last debates, suspended his campaign, ran around like he was missing his brain, finally settled down on supporting the true capitalism destroying measure, TARP. McCain could have won, he chose not to. Was not a damn bit of the messaging ratio that ruined his chances. It was the message.

You just described Newt’s campaign to the T, but I guess it registered so high off the irony meter you didn’t even realize it.

Running around with half a brain, running to the left of Obama? What do you call trashing capitalism – running to the RIGHT of Obama? For God’s sake, get him off the debate stage and he sounds like a Marxist lately, gathering compliments from one left-wing flack after another.

Glad you decided to educate me. Now I know to pretty much avoid reading your posts for any actual value and just make sure to repudiate it as needed. The advertizements are the only aspect of the race that matters!

astonerii on January 20, 2012 at 8:16 PM

I don’t care whether you read my posts. It’s obvious that your reasoning isn’t grounded in reality. My only objective is to deconstruct your house of cards arguments for the benefit of others.

The Count on January 20, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Why are we here? Why are we considering Newt Gingrich? He was conservative anathema prior to the Tea Party movement, supporting anything liberal, conservative or moderate if it increased his lobbyist or speaker fees.

ConservativeLaw on January 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Ideas are a dime a dozen, and I hated Newt before he joined the race and slowly learned something about him throughout the race. All those liberal idea he throws out while he is not in office are just that, ideas that he thinks up, throws out to the world and lets the world decide what to do with them. He throws out many conservative ideas, but because they are conservative, they never get reported in the news, because they are the equivalent of dog bites postman. People hire Newt to think and come up with ideas, it is his private citizen job basically. So, now look at Newt while he was in office as a Republican, he was a stalwart but not perfect conservative. When he came out of office, he was not hired to be a stalwart conservative, but an ideas man, and if he kept those ideas from his employers, he really would be an immoral person. The thing is though, no matter how far out into left field one of his ideas is, when the rubber meets the pavement, he moves to the right with it and listens to the conservative part of the base. That is why I warmed back up to him after Nanci and the sofa. He can always be controlled by the conservative side of the base.

How Romney makes money in the private sector, attack on capitalism.
How Newt made money in the private sector, legitimate argument.
Yet you attack Newt on integrity issues.

astonerii on January 20, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Exactly. Thanks. I know we don’t always agree, but I like how you go out of your way to hear what others are saying. I don’t do enough of that myself and get hotaired too often.

haner on January 20, 2012 at 8:30 PM

LOL, hotaired. That’s a good one! You’re ok haner. Glad we worked it out.
Communication is an art, they say. In my family, I don’t always make myself clear. So many times, I have to say, that isn’t what I meant, LOL
Digging a little deeper takes time, but it’s worth it. Thanks for hanging in there.

Going to have a snack:-) Then I’ll review those links you gave me.

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 9:03 PM

urban elitist on January 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Knew it was just a matter of time before this d*ouchebag showed up.

The Count on January 20, 2012 at 9:04 PM

How Romney makes money in the private sector, attack on capitalism.
How Newt made money in the private sector, legitimate argument.
Yet you attack Newt on integrity issues.

astonerii on January 20, 2012 at 9:03 PM

What a joke. Newt made money working for one of the two Deathstars of the mortgage crisis, which was only semi-private anyway.

The Count on January 20, 2012 at 9:08 PM

McCain would have even won if he actually tried despite the messaging being so lopsided. Instead, he chose to move to the left of Obama in the last debates, suspended his campaign, ran around like he was missing his brain, finally settled down on supporting the true capitalism destroying measure, TARP. McCain could have won, he chose not to. Was not a damn bit of the messaging ratio that ruined his chances. It was the message.

You just described Newt’s campaign to the T, but I guess it registered so high off the irony meter you didn’t even realize it.

Running around with half a brain, running to the left of Obama? What do you call trashing capitalism – running to the RIGHT of Obama? For God’s sake, get him off the debate stage and he sounds like a Marxist lately, gathering compliments from one left-wing flack after another.

Glad you decided to educate me. Now I know to pretty much avoid reading your posts for any actual value and just make sure to repudiate it as needed. The advertizements are the only aspect of the race that matters!

astonerii on January 20, 2012 at 8:16 PM

I don’t care whether you read my posts. It’s obvious that your reasoning isn’t grounded in reality. My only objective is to deconstruct your house of cards arguments for the benefit of others.

The Count on January 20, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Funny how people like you think all you need to do is make an accusation and that suddenly everyone around here has to take your word for it. You argue that my statement about McCain’s campaign fit Newt’s to a T, and then you failed to make any relevant connections on how it is similar. You make the argument that he is attacking capitalism, but if that is the case, then you are attacking our republican form of government and trying to destroy our way of life. What kind of anti-american debased human being are you? You see how that kind of attack works? It is the same argument that every progressive on the planet uses day in and day out. It is the argument of I have no idea how to counter your argument, so the only thing I can do is to work hard to shut down debate by making it too expensive for you to continue. RACIST! DENIER! (holocaust implied) Anti-science neanderthal! Anti-environmentalist Earth Hater! and then your sides argument Anti-Capitalist! Yet you argue that Newt is the one fighting to the left of who? LOL what a tool you are. It fits perfectly that it was Romney that brought this leftist strategy to the GOP nomination process.

Funny how it is always those that are Marxists that accuse the others of being one.

astonerii on January 20, 2012 at 9:12 PM

If we were, we never would have had President Reagan.

kakypat on January 20, 2012 at 8:52 PM

True:-)

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 9:13 PM

It fits perfectly that it was Romney that brought this leftist strategy to the GOP nomination process.

Funny how it is always those that are Marxists that accuse the others of being one.

astonerii on January 20, 2012 at 9:12 PM

You ain’t alone sister! The Mitler Youth and their cries of “He is attacking capitalism!” attack on Gingrich is so absurd. I can’t wait till this left coast establishment hack is relegated to history. Mittens would be a disaster. I can see him inviting Brady into the Oval office to craft gun grabbing laws, and vetoing any challenge to Obamacare.

tom daschle concerned on January 20, 2012 at 9:17 PM

How Romney makes money in the private sector, attack on capitalism.
How Newt made money in the private sector, legitimate argument.
Yet you attack Newt on integrity issues.

astonerii on January 20, 2012 at 9:03 PM

What a joke. Newt made money working for one of the two Deathstars of the mortgage crisis, which was only semi-private anyway.

The Count on January 20, 2012 at 9:08 PM

No, the person was arguing about all of Newt’s private earnings. I guess what you would rather have is only Democrats working with those kinds of entities so that the only thing they can do is move more leftward and get no feedback at all from Conservatives. If that is your argument, can you tell me where defense contractors, energy department contractors, aviation industries, farming and so forth fit into the morality window of work? Are all people who contract to the military morally suspect and unworthy of anything? Are all people who contract to the energy department morally bereft? Are all airline industries which are heavily controlled by government indecent human beings? How about all the bankers, tellers and so forth of the banking industry? Worthy of nothing but scorn and derision? Who made you or anyone else the controller of what an honorable job is?

astonerii on January 20, 2012 at 9:18 PM

1punchWill on January 20, 2012 at 8:09 PM
Newt only has one wife. He’s not a bigamist. I don’t think social Conservatives or Tea Party members are against voting for a Divorced person.

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 8:50 PM

If we were, we never would have had President Reagan.

kakypat on January 20, 2012 at 8:52 PM

1punchWill: The above was the order of replies!! No one is comparing Newt to Reagan.

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Funny how it is always those that are Marxists that accuse the others of being one.

astonerii on January 20, 2012 at 9:12 PM

So, I guess when his friend, Rudy Giuliani, said he sounded like Saul Alinksy lately, he must have been talking about some other Newt Gingrich running for president, right?

The Count on January 20, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Don’t you dare try to compare Reagan to Newt. Reagans heart was broken. Newt did the breaking – multiple times and utterly dishonestly.

1punchWill on January 20, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Then again, you were not in the marriage and do not have the details of the marriage prior to Newt cheating on his wives. So therefore you do not know who was the person depriving the other and making the situation ripe for the sin to occur. Not that this absolves him from the sin, but to argue that Newt had no sadness from the failures of his marriages is an attack that you make without facts.

astonerii on January 20, 2012 at 9:22 PM

SERIOUSLY? Newt Gingrich to take on Obama in the General Election?

South Carolina pull your head out.

PappyD61 on January 20, 2012 at 9:23 PM

You ain’t alone sister! The Mitler Youth and their cries of “He is attacking capitalism!” attack on Gingrich is so absurd. I can’t wait till this left coast establishment hack is relegated to history. Mittens would be a disaster. I can see him inviting Brady into the Oval office to craft gun grabbing laws, and vetoing any challenge to Obamacare.

tom daschle concerned on January 20, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Aside from the fact Gingrich was attacking capitalism; you do realize you’re suggesting Mitt would willingly commit political suicide, right? Think “Read my lips: No new taxes,” on steroids. Mitt has stated over and over again that he wants to repeal Obamacare. Getting a full repeal bill to the desk of the president is going to be obscenely difficult but if the GOP could somehow pull it off and Romney were to veto that it would finish him politically. He would be the most isolated president since John Tyler. There are many bad things that can rightly be said about Mitt but the paranoia that he would veto a repeal of Obamacare after everything he’s said about it is a bridge too far.

alchemist19 on January 20, 2012 at 9:26 PM

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Thank you! ;o) I hope 1punchWill gets it now.

kakypat on January 20, 2012 at 9:26 PM

So, I guess when his friend, Rudy Giuliani, said he sounded like Saul Alinksy lately, he must have been talking about some other Newt Gingrich running for president, right?

The Count on January 20, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Or Rudy Giuliani is mistaken in his perception and because he had limited skill in the capitalist world took all the other Romney supporters argument to heart and said something that he did not really believe. He is kind of a camera loving person you know…

As I said, arguing that what Newt said as anti-capitalist is tantamount to arguing that attacking a candidate’s campaign activities is attacking our republican form of government. Do you think that attacking a campaign’s actions is tantamount to attacking our republican form of government? If not, then you may want to review your method of forming ideas, because something is flawed with how you formed your attack.

astonerii on January 20, 2012 at 9:27 PM

The idea that a serial cheating, Pelosi posing, Fanny Mae milking, amnesty proposing, ethics violating, blowhard who takes the line of the occupy Wall st. crowd against Bain capital is a somehow a conservative is a joke.
Running him is going to re-elect obama.

V7_Sport on January 20, 2012 at 9:27 PM

It is jolly fun watching the Romneybots reduced to slugging it out in the trenches, after they tried to kill off all of the other competitors.

SurferDoc on January 20, 2012 at 9:27 PM

you were not in the marriage and do not have the details of the marriage

astonerii on January 20, 2012 at 9:22 PM

That is THE point, too. No one knows except the two involved parties.

kakypat on January 20, 2012 at 9:28 PM

National Review today has an exceptional column this evening by Rich Lowry demonstrating that the red meat served up by Gingrich is no asset in the general election; that Newt would conclusively lose the debates to Obama, notwithstanding all the Newt bravado.

Independents will recoil from the anger, the nasty temperament, and volatility of Gingrich. Worse, these debates are tightly controlled affairs, and there is no way that Newt will win a debate by lashing out at journalists.

I encourage everyone to read this.

matthew8787 on January 20, 2012 at 9:29 PM

I just watched Newt’s takedown of John King.

I will vote for Newt.

davidk on January 20, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Really? Is that really the way you make your decisions?

V7_Sport on January 20, 2012 at 9:31 PM

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 9:20 PM
Thank you! ;o) I hope 1punchWill gets it now.

kakypat on January 20, 2012 at 9:26 PM

I hope so. When you can’t keep track of your own posts, it’s time to take a break, LOL

Take a break 1punchWill:-)

I said I was taking a break for a snack but I’m still here. Ok, going now:-)

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 9:31 PM

It is jolly fun watching the Romneybots reduced to slugging it out in the trenches, after they tried to kill off all of the other competitors.

SurferDoc on January 20, 2012 at 9:27 PM

I don’t think they like what they got. Newt surprised them, LOL He may surprise them Saturday too:-)

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Really? Is that really the way you make your decisions?

V7_Sport on January 20, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Do you really want that question answered?

alchemist19 on January 20, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Amen, Pappy, but it appears that SC voters are having a pent-up emotional reaction to 3 years of Obama and the MSM. It is Newt vs John King and CNN; not Newt vs Santorum and Romney.

Emotion has overtaken logic.

Newt would be a disaster in the general election. He has no money, no organization, no disclipline, no executive experience, no strategic planning and no core convictions.

matthew8787 on January 20, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Would Calista Gingrich be the first confirmed Adultress to be first Lady?

NO NEWT
NO MITT
No more Progressive gop nominees.

PappyD61 on January 20, 2012 at 9:43 PM

I just watched Newt’s takedown of John King.

I will vote for Newt.

davidk on January 20, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Yea. It is OK if he treats his wife like a piece of trash as long as he yells at the media. Good thinking. The Democratic Party in the 1990s made it clear that a candidate’s morals are not important through their defense of Clinton. Now some of the less intelligent folks in the GOP want to bring the same mentality to our party. John King has become to Gingrich’s supporters what Ken Starr was to Clinton; a diversion from his horrible behavior.

kurtd on January 20, 2012 at 9:47 PM

I still don’t understand why it’s driving the Romneybots insane that Newt might win a single primary. It’s like a Newt derangement syndrome now.

If Romney is really so electable, why worry? There’s no way that people would end up nominating a serial adulterer piece of crap like Newt anyway, right? So why all the derangement?

tkyang99 on January 20, 2012 at 9:58 PM

I don’t accept the premise that Newt was attacking free market capitalism. I think you’re manipulating Newt’s statement to further your argument because you can’t acknowledge that Mitt has any baggage whatsoever.

mike_NC9 on January 20, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Well, the entire free market world slammed him for it.

csdeven on January 20, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Well, the entire free market world slammed him for it.

csdeven on January 20, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Appeal to authority. Well, lots of those people in authority are also very fond of Bain and Romney as they do the same thing as he does or profits from what he did. Would not do well for them to have to explain some things perhaps. It is why they went nuclear to shut down debate rather than take the specific charge and attack it. Instead they threw up a strawman that could not be defended and said, DEFEND THAT or SHUT THE F^CK UP! That is boilerplate progressive debate that most everyone on this site moan about day after day after the democrat party tries to use it, frequently with success.

astonerii on January 20, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Or Rudy Giuliani is mistaken in his perception and because he had limited skill in the capitalist world took all the other Romney supporters argument to heart and said something that he did not really believe. He is kind of a camera loving person you know…

As I said, arguing that what Newt said as anti-capitalist is tantamount to arguing that attacking a candidate’s campaign activities is attacking our republican form of government. Do you think that attacking a campaign’s actions is tantamount to attacking our republican form of government? If not, then you may want to review your method of forming ideas, because something is flawed with how you formed your attack.

astonerii on January 20, 2012 at 9:27 PM

You are completely incoherent.

Romney attacked Newt for his policy inconsistencies and his history of unscrupulous behavior – legitimate problems for a GOP candidate. Newt attacked Romney as a cut-throat capitalist, which is an democrat talking point against conservatism, and the reason Giuliani compared Newt’s tactics to that of Alinsky.

Romney started Bain Capital to make money fixing up sick private companies. Newt made his money shilling for one of the 2 government supported entities that Democrat politicians created that literally destroyed the economy. He was bought off by Freddie in order to peddle influence among congressional Republicans so they could continue to make big money off our economic demise.

Your comparison is asinine, illogical and offensive in the extreme to any serious thinking conservative. Newt has pulled the wool over your eyes, and you’ve bought into his BS hook, line and sinker.

The Count on January 20, 2012 at 10:34 PM

has pulled the wool over your eyes, and you’ve bought into his BS hook, line and sinker.

The Count on January 20, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Says the man who parrots every aspect of the MSM narrative.

astonerii on January 20, 2012 at 10:57 PM

haner on January 20, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Ok, I reviewed both those sites. And yes, you are correct. A lot of exchanges on Mormon & other faiths. A lot of the comments were nasty. Just like the political threads here get. Only difference is those two were about religion.

Now even tho a lot of nasty comments about Mormons were there, there were also comments defending the Mormon faith.

Had the threads been about Catholics and Baptists, you would have found the same thing, LOL Hatred doesn’t discriminate you know.

My summary: The posters that are fair minded on the political threads here on HA will also be fair on threads that may be religious. Keep in mind that either topic will bring out strong feelings & beliefs. Those that show no respect for any other poster should as far as can be, ignored.

I have an ignore key, but sometimes I forget to use it:-)

Carry on haner:-)

bluefox on January 20, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Well, the entire free market world slammed him for it.

csdeven on January 20, 2012 at 10:13 PM

This is precisely the hyperbole one can come to expect from the cultist romney and his reprobate soldiers. They represent the establishment. Romney is no different from the RNC…weak, anemic, watered down, only interested in enriching themselves, and securing a modicum of power.

There is no indication from Romney’s record or his campaign that he is a friend of free markets or individual liberty.

Quite the contrary, he enacted Obamacare and signed gun grabber laws.

Romney, like his cult, is a sick joke.

tom daschle concerned on January 20, 2012 at 11:38 PM

His lack of integrity is staggering, I mean staggering. The infidelity and dishonesty is only the beginning. It was only a year ago that he was in Ohio pushing ethanol subsidies!

ConservativeLaw on January 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Oh, the humanity !

You must be new to this planet.

DevilsPrinciple on January 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM

This man is not the conservative you think he is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyeB36ctO5I&feature=player_embedded

Swerve22 on January 23, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6