Rasmussen poll puts Gingrich up by 7 nationally
posted at 2:30 pm on January 24, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Rasmussen conducted a national poll of 1,000 likely Republican primary voters yesterday, and it confirmed what Gallup’s tracking poll also shows — Newt Gingrich’s second boomlet is for real. In the Rasmussen poll, Gingrich has vaulted to a seven-point lead as Romney settles back into the mid-20s:
After his game-changing win in South Carolina, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich continues to ride his surge to the front of the pack among likely Republican primary voters nationwide. He now leads Mitt Romney by seven points.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely GOP Primary Voters shows Gingrich with 35% of the vote, representing an eight-point increase in support from last week. Former Massachusetts Governor Romney now draws 28%. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum’s support is little changed at 16%, while Texas Congressman Ron Paul picks up 10%. …
Support for Gingrich has jumped a total of 19 points in two surveys since early January, while Romney’s support has held steady in that same period. Gingrich’s highest level of national support to date, however, came in late November when he captured 38% of the vote after receiving less than 15% in prior surveys. This came following businessman Herman Cain’s decision to quit the race as conservative Republicans looked for an alternative to the more moderate Romney.It is worth noting that 41% of GOP voters nationwide are certain of their vote at this time, but 50% could still change their mind between now and their primary. Santorum’s supporters are the most likely to say they could still change their minds at some point.
Romney had made it to 30% last week when Gingrich’s national numbers first started spiking again, but slipped only a little as Gingrich shot past. The withdrawal of Rick Perry from the race probably made a significant impact on Gingrich’s support; Perry got 4% in the last poll but endorsed Gingrich on his way out, and almost all of the rest could be explained in small shifts from Romney and Ron Paul, whose support declined a little more than Romney’s between the two polls (both within the margin of error, however).
The favorability ratings of the two top candidates have begun to equalize, at least among likely Republican primary voters. Romney gets a 68/28, while Gingrich improved to a 64/33, closer than they have been in the past. However, among independents, the difference is more dramatic, with Romney at 65/33 and Gingrich at 53/45. Just as in Florida, Gingrich scores low on personal character among likely primary voters, only getting 9% as “best personal character” — in this survey falling below even “Not Sure,” while Santorum leads with 37% and Romney gets 31%. I warn about this in my column for The Week today, that the risk/reward calculation is a lot more problematic with Gingrich than with Romney or Santorum:
The difference between the two is that Gingrich is perceived to be a fighter, someone who will take on the media, the entertainment industry, and Barack Obama with ferocity unmatched in the field. But with that ferocity comes a number of complications, some of which have been evident in polling all along, and corroborated in Rasmussen’s Florida poll this week. When it came to issues of character, 41 percent of likely voters chose Romney as having the best personal character, while Santorum came in second with 30 percent — and Gingrich a distant third with 11 percent. National pollster Quinnipiac showed Gingrich’s favorability at a net -12 (30 percent approval versus 42 percent disapproval) among all registered voters in late November, when he first led in the primary, while Romney got a 36-31 (+5) result. The Fox News poll from this month was even worse: Gingrich has a 27-56 (that’s a negative 29) favorability rating, compared to 45-38 for Romney and a 51-46 for Barack Obama. (Though a new Washington Post poll does show Romney’s unfavorable rating climbing to 51 percent among independents — the first time he’s been viewed this poorly in years.)
This is where the risk/reward calculation gets very tricky for Gingrich and his supporters. The more Gingrich attacks in all directions, the more polarization we can expect in those numbers, and the more likely the election becomes about Gingrich than Obama. That is exactly what Democrats want — to avoid the usual dynamic of a re-election bid becoming a referendum on the incumbent and to make it about the alternative. Having a bland challenger might not excite the base, and that could force Republicans to pay a price in organizing and fundraising. However, nominating a candidate for the top of the ticket that excites the party base while alienating everyone else — and handing Democrats a boogeyman to attack — may end up producing a net negative support, especially with the disparity consistently shown in favorability ratings for Gingrich, Romney, and Obama.
Still, we’d need a good national poll or two of likely general-election voters to determine just how much of a risk differential there would be, especially with the latest WaPo survey indicating that the general-population negatives have begun equalizing.
In getting back to the matchups in Rasmussen, Gingrich leads by 11 points among Republicans (38/27) and 23 points with “very conservative” voters. It’s closer among independents, who back Romney 30/26, and “somewhat conservative” voters are a virtual tie at 33/32 Romney. Gingrich wins men by 14 but loses women by two points still. Romney wins voters under 40 years of age, but Gingrich wins the rest, and Gingrich is soaring among evangelicals, 43/19 over Santorum, with Romney in third place.
Of course, all this took place before last night’s debate. Gingrich took a couple of body shots in that event, but didn’t have a collapse by any stretch of the imagination. I suspect that Romney may have stopped the bleeding after South Carolina, but I doubt that he was able to swing momentum back to his campaign.









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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Don’t be dense, you know perfectly well it means moderates threw a temper tantrum and voted democrat becuase they didn’t get their way in the primary. Moderates have no problem telling conservatives to get in line but always fail to practice what they preach.
Basically republican moderates are prissy little prima donna’s willing to watch Rome burn if they don’t get what they want; they expect others to choke on a turd sandwich which they themselves refuse to do. There clear enough for you?
Skwor on January 24, 2012 at 4:26 PM
I guess you misunderstood me, of course you can “google” and find anything you want…did you know that Bush was behind 9/11 and the we never landed on the moon? I can link those for you. How about the Luminati, I have a lot of links for that…yeah, Google it and you will get the truth…that is how low the Mitt supporters have gone.
What I was hoping for, and of course know I wouldn’t get, is actual facts, you know facts, those horrible things that you guys seem to misplace when talking about and gossiping about Newt.
So now if a reporter reports something, we convict? That is how it happens now? And you fall for that? Really? Really?
Sorry pal, but gossip doesn’t convict anyone in my book…say, did you know that the Jews were the mastermind behind 9/11…thought you should know.Here, it has to right, it’s been Googled…HAHAHA!
right2bright on January 24, 2012 at 4:27 PM
As of now I will vote for the k-street lobbyist and go home and take a shower if it comes to that. It will be a losing vote though. However, that 24% is still something you have to account for in winning the white house.
V7_Sport on January 24, 2012 at 4:28 PM
Maybe once Mittens loses he will team up with Charlie Crist and run in the “No Labels” Party. Never underestimate a “moderate”
Raquel Pinkbullet on January 24, 2012 at 4:28 PM
The ACTUAL Fannie and Freddie lobbyists IN Mitt’s employ and Mitt’s Fannie and Freddie holdings-to-this-present-day are going to be made into Newt’s ads, they’ll start airing shortly.
bigmike on January 24, 2012 at 4:29 PM
Romney/Crist 2012
TitularHead on January 24, 2012 at 4:30 PM
One more reason that RINOs are the problem: when thy do manage to get elected, they reinforce the “there’s-no-difference-between-the-Democrats-and-the-Republicans” argument by their actions …
RedPepper on January 24, 2012 at 4:32 PM
I disagree, but regardless: You need them to win.
I disagree, but regardless: You need them to win.
And there is nothing “conservative” about Gingrich. If you don’t want t be a “moderate” you would probably be better off voting for Sanatorum
V7_Sport on January 24, 2012 at 4:32 PM
Of the remaining (top) three – Santorum is our best bet – only Santorum can honestly and substantively distinguish himself form obama. Santorum has a lot to offer, and he is highly electable – if we vote for him. Why should we be stuck with choosing the lesser of two PROGRESSIVE evils – Gingrich or Romney – when we can choose a conservative? Santorum is the best choice, and he would be great against obama. Don’t fall for the establishment meme that this is a two man race – vote your conscience!
Pork-Chop on January 24, 2012 at 4:33 PM
Gingrich saying he got paid $1.6 million from Freddy Mac is even less believable than Charley Sheen saying he went to the Nevada Mustang Ranch for a chiropractic session.
VorDaj on January 24, 2012 at 4:33 PM
Here within are the hard cold facts.
Not one thing the no good commie Democrats lusted for would have pass if not for the “moderate, RINO’s , Pres.’s, House members and Senators”. These well known “12′s” or “10′s” or in some cases 1 or 2 enablers of the lefts agenda, with John McCain as the dull shining example.
We know where we are and we must act upon the clear evidence before U.S.
Newt is not one of them any longer, they view him as down ther, over with “those people”.
Each of U.S. over the last 50 years have had the moment when we heard them just out of view in low voices,”well you know,, its those people over there”. Long low looks over the tops of their high priced Yale eye glasses.
Fight.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 24, 2012 at 4:34 PM
OK. But what Republican would’ve won, in that environment? I voted for Fred in the VA primary (though he was out of it by that point), but I’m not even sure he would’ve beaten Obama. It was a toxic time for any Republican, conservative or otherwise.
And I get that people want a fighter…but I think Romney has gone after Obama, or at least tried to. In that CNN debate before SC, the President was his focus. He’s no bomb thrower, though, which is what I think a lot of people seem to be after.
changer1701 on January 24, 2012 at 4:35 PM
And you need conservatives to win, guess what this time we are willing to watch you burn and lose. Kind of blows having to finally live in the reality you created doesn’t it?
Skwor on January 24, 2012 at 4:38 PM
Funny you say that, since most of that type of behavior I’ve seen has come from the not-Romney crowd.
Btw, don’t assume Romney supporters are moderate — most aren’t. In fact, he probably has more notable conservative endorsements than anyone else. There’s a reason for that — he’s our only viable candidate. You can lament that fact all you want but it is what it is. Those of us (conservatives) who realize that and back Romney don’t make us RINOs. But it’s cute how you guys love to put everything in an us vs. them dichotomy. You against the “Establishment,” and the “Elites,” the media, etc. It’s almost as if policy doesn’t matter, so long as you can stick it to ‘the man.’
jjraines on January 24, 2012 at 4:38 PM
Of the remaining (top) three – Santorum is our best bet – only Santorum can honestly and substantively distinguish himself form obama. Santorum has a lot to offer, and he is highly electable – if we vote for him. Why should we be stuck with choosing the lesser of two PROGRESSIVE evils – Gingrich or Romney – when we can choose a conservative? Santorum is the best choice, and he would be great against obama. Don’t fall for the establishment meme that this is a two man race – vote your conscience!
Pork-Chop on January 24, 2012 at 4:33 PM
You know, I’ve been pretty impressed with Santorum. I don’t think he has a prayer in the general, and I couldn’t vote for him in the primary if I wanted to since he didn’t qualify for VA’s ballot, but he’s held his own and shown, I think, why he ran to begin with (something, initially, I didn’t quite understand).
changer1701 on January 24, 2012 at 4:38 PM
I gave you links to 2 stories from a reliable source that stated Gingrich was a k-street lobbyist who has lobbied for Freddy Mac and the Pharmaceutical industry to establish an entitlement program. While you may stick your fingers in your ears and yell to prevent yourself from being made aware of this, the general electorate wont. Any authentic conservative would be horrified at the prospect of electing someone who worked for the pharmaceutical lobby to establish a big government entitlement program.
V7_Sport on January 24, 2012 at 4:38 PM
s/b Gingrich saying he got paid $1.6 million from Freddy Mac for “history lesions” is even less believable than Charley Sheen saying he went to the Nevada Mustang Ranch for a chiropractic session.
VorDaj on January 24, 2012 at 4:39 PM
We needed them to win in a small blue state. We will see whether this applies nationally or not. Let me try a different tack. Suppose Gingrich in the nominee. Which states do you see Gingrich losing, that Bush won in 2004?
Okay. Stop.
You just said, one sentence ago, that you think we need
moderateliberal Republicans to win. Then you stated that Gingrich is not a conservative. If Gingrich is not conservative, then won’t liberals like him? Supposedly, the further left a candidate is, the more the liberal like him, right?Of course, Gingrich is obviously a conservative, look at his record as Speaker of the House. If he wasn’t, you wouldn’t have arguments like the one above insisting Gingrich can’t win liberal Republicans over.
Doomberg on January 24, 2012 at 4:39 PM
I cannot argue with the bolded part above, it does seem likely few if any could have.
Skwor on January 24, 2012 at 4:39 PM
Why do I have to account for it? I am not a “moderate” who will sabotage the country in a hissy fit because Romney doesn’t get the nomination.
Raquel Pinkbullet on January 24, 2012 at 4:40 PM
Skwor
Just like last time when it was McCain versus Obama. In my opinion if you help re-elect Obama to the presidency you are a traitor to the country, and if you do it because you think Gingrich is a conservative you are an idiot.
It wasn’t my creation, and the reality you are helping to create is permanent european socialism in the USA.
V7_Sport on January 24, 2012 at 4:42 PM
Santorum, why not?
kirkill on January 24, 2012 at 4:43 PM
Those moderate always take us conservatives for granted. We can do just fine without them. They can self purge themselves and vote for “No Labels” party.
Charlie Crist/Mike Castle 2016
Raquel Pinkbullet on January 24, 2012 at 4:44 PM
So the only way to stop european socialism is by voting for socialism lite??
Become like the UK conservatives?
Raquel Pinkbullet on January 24, 2012 at 4:46 PM
Hey changer1701, I agree with you that Romney is no bomb thrower, because , when he went after Newt last night, I’ll bet his aides, said,”DON’T EVER DO THAT AGAIN, cause you looked like you were afraid someone was going to slap you, and we have surrogates to do the bomb throwing for you.”
bigmike on January 24, 2012 at 4:49 PM
She also did better than McCain in her state.
The O’Donnell loss served a purpose. It sent a message: No more RINOs. Whether we hold them to that however is a different story. I suspect we won’t.
xblade on January 24, 2012 at 4:49 PM
You already saw whether or not it applies nationally, in 2008. That’s the model, not 2004. Yes, we need moderates to win.
No. He is a polarizing beltway insider who has the capacity to turn off genuine conservatives , moderates AND liberals. Look at his ratings.
You can’t lobby for entitlement programs, Freddy Mac, etc and consider yourself a conservative, let alone live like a moral pygmy with your wives.
The only one in US history censured and driven out…
V7_Sport on January 24, 2012 at 4:50 PM
To all the people yelling their predictions of a landslide blowout by Obama if Gingrich gets the nom, I have a prediction of my own that is just as valid.
My prediction: Newt wins everything Bush did in 2008 plus Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Minnesota.
Galadriel on January 24, 2012 at 4:51 PM
Actually, every election we’ve ever had since the last great realignment says you can’t. If the moderates vote Democrat, or go their own way, the Republicans lose elections. Simple as that.
You can keep braying about how conservatives are a “majority” in this country (conservatives are a plurality, with 40% at maximum), but it still doesn’t change the fact that moderates and conservatives must vote for the same candidate, or the Democrats win.
KingGold on January 24, 2012 at 4:51 PM
See what you guys are missing: it’s not too late, there is still time.
We are not that far apart. Come back to the founding principals!
http://www.dailypaul.com/207980/militia-the-true-definition-intent-and-the-limitations-that-james-madison-set-upon-standing-armies-quotes
dom89031 on January 24, 2012 at 4:52 PM
How many candidates have you supported this election cycle? Yes, Newts support is a hissy fit.
V7_Sport on January 24, 2012 at 4:52 PM
Wishing that this assertion is true will not make it so. Neither will endlessly repeating it. Mitt has been a miserably bad candidate so far, and I do not expect he would improve in a match-up with Obama. I am not denying that Newt is far from an ideal choice. However, that does not make Romney a good one.
RedPepper on January 24, 2012 at 4:53 PM
Hey Galadriel, You meant 2004, right?
bigmike on January 24, 2012 at 4:54 PM
Gahahahaha!
Hahahahahaha! Hahahahaha! Hum.
I needed a good joke. Thanks.
KingGold on January 24, 2012 at 4:55 PM
That’s unbelievably self defeating. It’s the way to defeat and that has been proven over and over to you. How many times do you need to be taught the same lesson?
V7_Sport on January 24, 2012 at 4:55 PM
You can’t have a mixed record (hey, if Newt has a mixed record, doesn’t that mean he’s a moderate?), but you can have a 100% liberal governing record like Romney? This doesn’t pass the smell test.
Then he wouldn’t be winning any elections, anywhere, even in a conservative bastion like SC. What will you say if he wins a more purple state like FL where the Republican voters are more moderate?
Doomberg on January 24, 2012 at 4:57 PM
Obama is our ace in the hole.
He is so bad, such a stark raving commie that even the independents and moderates know the dark evil within.
Put Newt up in front of Obama and prove up our case.
Done deal.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 24, 2012 at 4:57 PM
Where is this vast reservoir of rock ribbed conservatives and why aren’t they running? Are people under the impression that they are being kept from you by some secret “Republican establishment”?
Is there some kind of conspiracy to prevent these rock-ribbed republicans from running?
Why don’t any of you run? You can see how far the “purge everyone who doesn’t agree with me” meme gets you.
V7_Sport on January 24, 2012 at 5:00 PM
Newt will be our criminal district attorney.
He will get Obama on the stand and dispose him and force him to admit to God and everybody each and every sin of commission and omission.
Just do it.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 24, 2012 at 5:01 PM
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
~James Madison
War…should only be declared by the authority of the people…instead of the government which is to reap its fruits.
~James Madison
The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.
~James Madison
It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.
~James Madison
War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement
~James Madison
The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.
~James Madison
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps the most to be dreaded because it compromises and develops the germ of every other.
~James Madison
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
~James Madison
About the quote: This quote is from the period he served as a US Congressman (he represented Virginia from 1789-1797).
The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.
~James Madison
Sounds a little like Ron Paul huh? Maybe he’s not so crazy after all…
dom89031 on January 24, 2012 at 5:02 PM
Mitt could have done that in 2012, and chose the honorable thing because he is a conservative.
1punchWill on January 24, 2012 at 5:06 PM
V7_Sport
Yes, the re-election money cult.
Yes, the local county committees, the Senatoral dist. leaders in the states, the state party, the state conventions and the rules committees ect. there.
My wife and I have been $ supporters for rock ribbed conservative Republicans for 40 years, and it is not easy at all for sure.
We have both been county chairs in counties around Texas.
We have both been State deg. and National deg. as well as on state committees such as the platform and rules.
Hell they threw me out of the 2004 platform committee in San Antonio because I attempted to get some real wording in the platform on illegal immigration. They set the Sgt. of Arms on me and escorted me out of the room.
Facts like this all over the U.S..
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 24, 2012 at 5:07 PM
I dispute the 100% liberal record, however this is the terrain in which we find ourselves. We have a choice now of 2 viable candidates to run against Obama. One has favorability rates in the toilet, the other doesn’t. One was a business man, the other was an influence peddler.
Angle, Hoffman, Miller, O’Donnell… Winning a primary is a LOT different than winning a general.
I’ll say: God help us, we hopped on a fad because he can trash the press and we blew our opportunity to get rid of Obama.. I’ll say, I’m not giving thousands of dollars any more, I’m not driving to hell and back to help, I’ll pull the lever but that’s it. Let the “non RINOs” fight this one. (Complaining on the internet wont do it folks)
Gotta go…
V7_Sport on January 24, 2012 at 5:09 PM
It’s funny to see the Michael Moore-approved Newtist colony of anti-Romney paranoids now demanding “loyalty” to the nominee now that Gingrich has had a whiff of success. We’ve got a few more days of this until Romney wins Florida and the disgruntled party arsonists go rogue again.
cicerone on January 24, 2012 at 5:10 PM
My bet is that Obama will not debate Newt.
He will call Newt “outside mainstream America” and not worthy of a debate or some such coward way.
He is not up to the task and all the Democrat leadership know it.
If he does debate Newt he is cooked.
If he does not he has some chance not much but some due to the low turn out of our fellow countrymen on vote days.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 24, 2012 at 5:10 PM
If Newt is elected POTUS he will be divisive to the country and cause more in-fighting within the Republican Party than has been seen in many years. I think it would all end in an impeachment, which would be poetic justice, in a way, because as he was impeaching Clinton for diddling the help, Newt was doing the same thing. But not to worry, Newt will never win the General because his negatives are rock bottom and hang like an albatross from his neck. The tragedy is that he will probably also cause us to lose the House and Senate too. But man, can he smack-down a journalist, every now and then. Go Newt, go! Smack-down-in-Chief!
Oracleforhire on January 24, 2012 at 5:11 PM
And CNN is doing the death-by-a-thousand-anonymous-sources on Gingrich now, to prop up Romney.
bigmike on January 24, 2012 at 5:12 PM
There will be great boo/hoos and great rivers of tears if Romney does not win large in Fl.
Better lay in some extra towels.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 24, 2012 at 5:13 PM
Gingrich couldnt win in the general in November if Obama keeled over and died of a heart attack. If he gets nominated Obama wins – period.
ObamatheMessiah on January 24, 2012 at 5:16 PM
Have they discussed Newty’s endorsement of Dede Scozzafava in 2009 yet? LMAO!! That was your “true conservative” in action. I can’t remember…was that before or after he sat on Nancy’s couch?
cicerone on January 24, 2012 at 5:16 PM
everyone needs to relax. either of these guys will win. in a cakewalk. the dsicussion of 2008 is illustrative: dems only win in rare black swan conditons. 76, watergate aftermath. 92, a 3-way and bubba wins with 43%, and 08 (as described, abe lincioln couldnt have pulled it out for the GOP). in the last 40 years we’ve had anomolies. thats a dem potus. a rare event. THIS aint one of those years. BHO really gets MORE than 53%? is there any way he gets 50? no. flat out, no. against anyone. and if you look at elec coll he is toastier. we gotta get a grip on ourselves here. this self-flagilation and intra-mural squabbiling is rediculous. good god.
t8stlikchkn on January 24, 2012 at 5:17 PM
I like how all Romney supporters have “crystal balls” and they all predict apocolypse and perdition if Newt is nominated.
Let me tell you something about those crystal balls – which they handed out to you guys in the last establishment cocktail party as door prizes …
THEY DON’T WORK.
HondaV65 on January 24, 2012 at 5:18 PM
He apologised for both of those – said he was “off my rocker” with the Pelosi couch thing.
Has your boy apologized for RomneyCare?
HondaV65 on January 24, 2012 at 5:19 PM
wrong. name the states GWB won in ’00 that BHO wins? none. BHO maxes out at 250 elec coll votes. and more likely 190-200 range. name the states. lets do the math.
t8stlikchkn on January 24, 2012 at 5:20 PM
I used to be interested in Newt — until I heard him echo the open border crowd’s false dichotomy of “We would never be so harsh as to deport 25-year residents, THEREFORE we must reward them with legalized residency (and a green card). And then I read point 6 of his immigration plan.
I refuse vote for someone whose thinking is so muddled that he plans to rescue the country from the clutches of Obama — only to GIVE IT AWAY to foreign invaders. If only he would remove point 6 from an otherwise good plan.
Newt is either ignorant or deceptive on this issue. He ignores the most humane, effective, economical, just, fair, and POLITICALLY POPULAR strategy — attrition through enforcement.
Hey, Newt — if this illegal alien understands how attrition works so well, why don’t you, if you’re so smart??
fred5678 on January 24, 2012 at 5:25 PM
“Off his rocker” or just being himself? You understand that Newt is the Washington establishment insider, right? And as for my boy Romney, he can actually get elected and do something about ObamaCare.
cicerone on January 24, 2012 at 5:26 PM
Soooo many who were Cain supporters are now Newt supporters; the “I am against the establishment and for the outsider” crowd. ROFLOL. Newt is a maverick and outsider??? Duh… In a few weeks you will looking at Newt the way you now look at Cain… Go Newt, go! Smack-down-in-Chief!
Oracleforhire on January 24, 2012 at 5:27 PM
Newt had me at, “Hello…I Don’t Want to Bloody His Nose. I Want to Knock Him(BHO)Out.”
It’s no contest on whom to send into battle.
More/as important as beating the WWII and Cold War characters?
Typicalwhitewoman on January 24, 2012 at 5:27 PM
Mega DITTO!
Go Newt!
Pragmatic on January 24, 2012 at 5:28 PM
Paul Ryan voted for it.
Punchenko on January 24, 2012 at 5:28 PM
Hey go Newt! And yes, all you mitties will vote for Newt.
tinkerthinker on January 24, 2012 at 5:28 PM
What has Romney done for the conservative movement?
social-justice on January 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM
Exactly…Mitt thinks obama is a nice guy, just in over his head!v
tinkerthinker on January 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM
Twice
katy the mean old lady on January 24, 2012 at 5:31 PM
.
Doubtful, to ask someone to compromise their moral principles for expediency sake is a slippery slope…..
but hopefully it won’t matter anyway… Ron Paul will go third party, and you know the rest of the story.
FlaMurph on January 24, 2012 at 5:39 PM
and if OWS fires up again in spring/summer either newt or romney will win in similar fashion as dick did in 68, for similar reasons. and 16 will look like 72. lets hope 17 doesnt look like 73.
t8stlikchkn on January 24, 2012 at 5:42 PM
The Illuminati I’ve heard of, the Luminati not so much. Since illegitimate and legitimate are antonyms, I assume the Luminati’d be a public society dedicated to being dominated by everyone in the World.
Ah… do you mean the Republicans?
PersonFromPorlock on January 24, 2012 at 5:43 PM
sure do:
paul 3%
BHO 46
GOP 51
t8stlikchkn on January 24, 2012 at 5:43 PM
Would that be right-wing social engineer Paul Ryan?
After all, it does seem as if Newt’s been out there defending entitlement programs an awful lot lately.
KingGold on January 24, 2012 at 5:44 PM
Every election it is the same thing. We have to vote for the safe guy, we don’t want to scare independents. but sometimes, you just have to take a chance. Without taking chances, nothing really ever changes.
And, this feels like one of those times to me. I could be wrong, but it just feels like going with the safe-bet, status quo guy is wrong and that we need desperately to shake it up.
Everything else being equal, my gut tells me it is time to let the dogs loose. And, in past years, I have almost always gone with conventional wisdom and been right there with everyone else arguing that we needed to back the safe guy so we didn’t scare the moderates. It just feels different to me this year. It feels like its time to take a chance.
I know, a bunch of people will come on and tell me I’m dooming the republic, etc., etc. I think Romney, even if he wins, will do nothing to change the current status quo. So I’m not sure there is really that much “doom” that can happen.
Monkeytoe on January 24, 2012 at 5:45 PM
Tup, she was a mess. I wonder if she will endorse anyone.
katy the mean old lady on January 24, 2012 at 5:46 PM
As I see it Romney’s biggest problem other than Romneycare:
Mitt believes that the President is “over his head” and sounds supercilious in describing Obama and thus does not strike the requisite indignation that the President is a socialist/Marxist.
As a result Romney will NOT run an aggressive enough campaign to contend against the demagogic Obama and our side will lose.
technopeasant on January 24, 2012 at 5:46 PM
.
BullSheet- He still has Nancy on speed dial- they’re freakin buddies… and you who claim to be Tea Party loyalists have to look real hard past newts love for Nancy as she thinks of you as Nazi’s.
.
“Off my rocker” my ass !
SOOOOO- You gonna let oblamer say he was “off his rocker” about Porkulus?
Comprende??
FlaMurph on January 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM
I’m not voting for Newt . Just can’t. My vote is safe so don’t worry. I have the privilege of living in the Commie State of Ca.
sandee on January 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM
God bless, Rick Santorum, but he looks like my Choir Director at church. Perception counts.
Ron Paul, is very smart and seductive to listen to, but listen a little longer, than there’s that crazy part of his brain that shows up.
Newt’s depth is unparalleled in knowledge, about most stuff, that’s going to blow up in our faces over the next four years.
Typicalwhitewoman on January 24, 2012 at 5:49 PM
So we’re serious about nominating a guy who can’t even get on the ballot in his own state…
Ok then…
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 24, 2012 at 5:49 PM
And imagine if Jugears gets some riots going for us too. Hoo boy.
katy the mean old lady on January 24, 2012 at 5:50 PM
you can bet you butt he wins VA in 12, and NOT BHO as he did in 08.
t8stlikchkn on January 24, 2012 at 5:51 PM
Listen up Mittards…its over.
After running for 6 years, your guy has squandered a 22 point National lead in a matter of days. Myth Romney is not the most electable. In fact, he is not electable whatsoever. No candidate has ever lost SC and FL and won the nomination. Myth Romney is too timid and weak to break that sort of streak.
Myth Romney is not such a great manager either as it turns out. He and Charlie Crist’s people can’t manage a campaign, much less a country.
Enjoy voting for Newt, which you will in the end.
Typhonian on January 24, 2012 at 5:53 PM
I’ll be very interested to see the voter turn out.
Romey or Paul?
katy the mean old lady on January 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM
What? Newt’s on top nationally?
OMG! Wherever on earth are the dirt-digging mediots digging now and what fresh Newt dirt will they dig up? And when the mediots exhaust all the dirty possibilities from this life, will they go dirt-digging in Newt’s past lives? Quick, tell me again, how many ex-wives did Newt have in his past lives?
stukinIL4now on January 24, 2012 at 5:58 PM
What she is telling you is that no matter how bad O’Donnell was, she was the Republican candidate, and Republicans (24%) did not get in line and vote for her, they voted for the Democrat. If Romney is the candidate, even though we don’t want him, you think we owe it to you to vote for him anyway. There is a poll showing that more Gingrich supporters have said they would vote for Romney if he is the nominee, but less of Romney supporters would vote for Gingrich. To put it bluntly, the people on your side of this are far more likely to vote for Obama or stay home if things don’t work out your way. Do you promise to vote for Newt if he is the nominee?
Night Owl on January 24, 2012 at 6:01 PM
You mean beside helping a lot of Republicans get elected in 2009-2010?
Gunlock Bill on January 24, 2012 at 6:01 PM
Well, THAT IS just the Newtron being the Newtron.
Gunlock Bill on January 24, 2012 at 6:02 PM
But, but, but Newtie is SOOOOOO SMART!!!
Gunlock Bill on January 24, 2012 at 6:06 PM
Would you be willing to bet $10,000 that Newt is not on the ballot in Virginia?
mike_NC9 on January 24, 2012 at 6:21 PM
She endorsed Romney.
Night Owl on January 24, 2012 at 6:25 PM
First sign that the left will soon be risking whiplash to portray the GOP flavor-of-the week front-runner as the best and easiest candidate for Oblotto to defeat, and convince the unwashed masses thereof.
stukinIL4now on January 24, 2012 at 6:32 PM
Your horse is the guy who lost to McCain. And you call those who don’t support him traitor. Good luck with that.
cozmo on January 24, 2012 at 6:35 PM
I’m glad to see the people in this country waking up and seeing Newt is for real and the only one who can destroy Obama. Go Newt
Shain1611 on January 24, 2012 at 6:36 PM
Well here we are – heading down the wrong road and facing the possibility that the worst President we have ever had in this country may win in November.
Newt Gingrich – don’t make me laugh. If the dirt we know isn’t enough to turn voters off – wait until the Dems start lobbing more of his shmoozer adventures.
As a Conservative I cannot stand the man. He’s a fake. But worse he will NEVER pull the Independent Voters and that’s where the rubber hits the road in November. Face fact on those stats.
I cannot believe after the win in 2010 that we are now selecting from the group we have. And worse they spend all their time slicing and dicing each other INSTEAD OF OBAMA……………
Keep your eye on ball – that’s how you win the game.
IlonaE on January 24, 2012 at 6:46 PM
Night Owl
You are talking to someone who spent thousands of dollars to get John mcCain elected while he was fully aware of what a lousy candidate he was. Yes, you owe it to me and the country to vote for the most viable alternative to Barack Obama.
I haven’t seen that, do you have a link? Is that exclusive to the GOP? If not, I’m not surprised.
Last time out Karl rove estimated that 4 and a half million Bush voters stayed at home rather then pull for McCain.. So no, history shows differently. Regardless, when you run people like Hoffman, O’Donnell and Gingrich you are going to lose people and probably lose elections.
Probably, but this s#!t isn’t going to help:
V7_Sport on January 24, 2012 at 6:53 PM
WHAT!? Holy Crap.
Daemonocracy on January 24, 2012 at 6:54 PM
There is no patriotic case for helping to re-elect Obama. Indeed, the only case that has been made for this lying blowhard flavor of the week is that he’s p!$sed off as well.
V7_Sport on January 24, 2012 at 6:56 PM
V7_Sport and all the other Gingrinch hatin’ nutballs are p!$sed.
cozmo on January 24, 2012 at 7:01 PM
Hear hear.
SparkPlug on January 24, 2012 at 7:08 PM
Sarc tags have gotten too expensive for me.
katy the mean old lady on January 24, 2012 at 7:11 PM
Since your humor is appreciated you can borrow a few of mine.
Here ya go (they come in packs of six) \\\\\\
SparkPlug on January 24, 2012 at 7:20 PM
The Mittbots are Mitastasizing all over the place.
SparkPlug on January 24, 2012 at 7:22 PM
Thats was done by the tea-party and Sarah Palin.
social-justice on January 24, 2012 at 7:34 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »