Open thread: Just how big will Romney’s NV win be, anyway?; Update: Gingrich to hold press conference after caucus tonight? Update: Entrance poll shows Romney winning a majority

posted at 11:00 am on February 4, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Nevada will open its caucus doors shortly and open the fifth statewide contest in the Republican presidential nomination sweepstakes. This one looks like more of a no-contest, though, as CBS reports this morning.  The short period of time between Florida’s primary and Nevada’s binding caucus didn’t leave much room for significant polling, but what polling did take place shows Mitt Romney in the lead by 20 or more points.  The real suspense will be whether Romney can get a majority as he did in 2008, and whether Gingrich can hold on for second place:

In three campaign appearances Friday, Romney did not even mention Newt Gingrich who, according to the latest poll, done by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, trails Romney in Nevada, 45 to 25 percent.

Hoping to make up ground on the last day of campaigning, Gingrich referred to Romney as “Obama-lite,” and once again seized on Romney’s recent gaffe that he is “not concerned about the very poor.”

“My goal,” said Gingrich, “is the exact opposite of Governor Romney — my goal is not to ignore or forget the poor. My goal is to turn the safety net into a trampoline to allow the poor to rise and be like the rest of us and have a job and buy a house,” he said to applause.

Gingrich has brought up Romney’s remark about the very poor at virtually every event, and it just doesn’t seem to have helped him.

CBS has the polling numbers in the video, and they’re daunting for the other candidates in the race.  Gingrich hasn’t done the kind of touring in Nevada necessary for caucus success, though, and lacks the organization to make up for it.  His team insisted that a second-place finish would be a moral victory — and it would result in garnering a share of the delegates, as Nevada allocates proportionally.  However, Ron Paul has a good organization in Nevada, and I think he has been underestimated in these polls.  It’s possible that Gingrich can underperform and Paul could surprise Gingrich, although Nevada might be the final state in which that can happen.

I’ll predict that Romney ends up with 52% of the vote, Gingrich 18%, Paul 16%, and Santorum 14%.

Update: National Journal reports that Newt Gingrich will hold a press conference rather than give a post-event speech tonight, raising a few eyebrows:

Instead of the traditional election night party, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will hold a press conference after the Nevada Caucus on Saturday, raising new speculation about his future in the race.

An e-mail sent to reporters on Saturday morning set the Las Vegas press conference for 11 p.m. to midnight Eastern time.

That’s 8-9 pm local time, which would be necessary because the caucuses in Clark County are staying open later than the rest of the state, but why a press conference?  That suggests that Gingrich will have some news to announce — and not just an endorsement.  Or it could just mean that Gingrich wants to mix it up with the press as a springboard for the Colorado caucus.

Update II: John Ziegler e-mails to suggest that Gingrich may just want to make sure he gets sufficient press coverage — and supporters sticking around — after the caucuses conclude.

Update III, 7 pm ET: They have just started counting the ballots in Nevada, but if CNN’s exit polling is accurate, Romney won a majority.  He won 57% of women and 53% of men, which means that Romney will finish above 50%, again assuming the exit poll holds up.

Romney won all of the age demos except 17-29YOs, which he lost by only two points to Ron Paul.  He won every education demo, and he won every income demo except under-$30K, which Paul won by just one point.  Paul won independents by 17 points, but Romney won Republicans with a 61/20 win over Newt Gingrich.  Romney also won all three ideological categories, including “very conservative,” by majorities; Gingrich only got 24% of the very conservative vote.  He got 74% of the vote for those whose most important candidate quality was the ability to beat Obama, 55% of those who are looking for the right experience, and 56% of those looking for strong moral character.  On that last category, Gingrich got 1%.

This one’s a wipeout, and I’d guess that Gingrich gets no more than 19% when the votes are totaled, again assuming the exit poll is accurate.

Update IV: I changed the headline; this is an entrance poll, not an exit poll.  That might make the results a little less reliable, if voters changed their minds in the caucusing.


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 16 17 18 19 20

But his more rabid “in-your-face supporters” are indeed nuts. They vacillate between trying to explain away his more liberal points. With either extreme of their schizoid rationalizations, they’re off-putting and if I may carry your point further, turn away more supporters than they make.

hawkdriver on February 5, 2012 at 10:37 AM

One of my friends suggested that they might not be what they seem. No one can win people to a cause they way they go about it, and they have to know that themselves. You’re probably correct, though. They don’t seem intelligent enough to be that devious.

shaloma on February 5, 2012 at 11:44 AM

ray on February 5, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Sorry, I was having a servo replaced, but I’m back now.

MJBrutus on February 5, 2012 at 11:45 AM

LevinFan on February 5, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Levin’s a great conservative and one of the if not the best philosopher of our time, but in my opinion he’s wrong on Romney.

Levin is too focussed on what happened in the past with Romneycare instead of the big picture. Romney “takes Obamacare off the table”, but other candidates either take everything including Obamacare off the table (Gingrich), or wouldn’t beat Obama and Obamacare would remain on the table for the next 4 years aka permenantly.

Swerve22 on February 5, 2012 at 11:45 AM

No, Gingrich’s mistake was upping the ante, with the anti-capitalist crap.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 11:30 AM

I’m a little tired of crocodile tears like that, especially when the Mittbots didn’t seem to get too worked up about Romney’s anti-capitalist “safety net” and minimum wage class-warfare crap. The gripe isn’t Gingrich’s anti-capitalism; that’s just a convenient line of attack which Gingrich idiotically provided.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Ok! Everybody put on your raincoats, and get ready for today!

KOOLAID2 on February 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Levin’s a great conservative and one of the if not the best philosopher of our time, but in my opinion he’s wrong on Romney.

Levin is too focussed on what happened in the past with Romneycare instead of the big picture. Romney “takes Obamacare off the table”, but other candidates either take everything including Obamacare off the table (Gingrich), or wouldn’t beat Obama and Obamacare would remain on the table for the next 4 years aka permenantly.

Swerve22 on February 5, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Levin supported Romney last time against McCain. Apparently, Levin thinks that he can trade up with Newt this time around. I’m just not that convinced that Newt is all that conservative compared with Romney. And I don’t think that Newt is worth getting beat. If there was a sunny, solid conservative like Reagan in the race, I would be happy to take a chance on him. But I’m not going to pretend that Newt is Reagan, because Romney is too moderate.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM

I really don’t understand why Palin is pseudoendorsing Newt.

talkingpoints on February 5, 2012 at 11:43 AM

I don’t either. It’s a huge mistake on Palin’s part. She should be supporting Santorum, even though he’s by no means perfect either. He’s still light-years ahead of Romney or Gingrich.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM

When Romney was the governor here the only people who didn’t have a job were either stupid or lazy. If you wanted a job back then, you had a job.

steel guy on February 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM

We know who dislikes Mitt and who dislikes Newt. Who are the Mittbots?

ray on February 5, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Take the most over-the-top Newt hatin’ nutballs and that will tell you who the main Mittbots are, generally.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM

drintn on February 5, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Not true, I was on the Palin Bandwagon for a long while. I was for Romney in 2008 and I am for Romney now.

I did not change my stance. I thought he was the better candidate in 08. When McCain picked Palin, I drew a sigh of relief. However, when she backed Carly Fiorina over Chuck DeVore, I knew she was not the ‘conservative maverick’ she claimed. Many Palinistas flocked to Carly during the primary here in California. From that point on, I weighed what Palin had to say and wondered: what is in it for her?

What does she have to gain in this? Sorry, I may be for Mit and was in 08, but I was on her side even after the Carly thing. Now, with the backing of Newt. I know longer look at her with as much respect, let me put it that way.

So your premise is false. You generalize way to much.

uhangtight on February 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM

People will need to fall in line because the goal is to remove the Obama.

jazzmo on February 5, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Falling into line is for the checkout counter at a supermarket. We don’t live in a Thugocracy. Sure, sheer hatred of Obama and his policies will incite some to vote against him regardless of his opponent, but the vast amount of voters in the Fall will have to be swayed by Mitt. In other words, he has to really sell himself and earn the confidence of the voter. As a moderate Republican, he hasn’t earned my confidence yet. Right now I’m just not seeing past the game show host phoniness, but that may change as the campaign goes on. Or it may not.

To be honest also, Santorum rubs me the same way. I just don’t like what I see in him and there’s a distinct grovely-whiny thing going on with him that turns me off.

Still for Newt, but I am looking into Dr. Ron Paul and no amount of ridicule or grade-school tactic will stop me from forming my own independent opinion of him.

RepubChica on February 5, 2012 at 11:56 AM

What does she have to gain in this? Sorry, I may be for Mit and was in 08, but I was on her side even after the Carly thing. Now, with the backing of Newt. I know longer look at her with as much respect, let me put it that way.

So your premise is false. You generalize way to much.

uhangtight on February 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Oh, b.s. I’ve heard that sort of stuff way too often as well. “Palin didn’t endorse the ones I wanted, so to hell with that opportunistic money-grabbing tool of the establishment”. PDS comes in all sorts of shapes and sizes.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 11:58 AM

uhangtight on February 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I agree. I still love Sarah, I guess I always will, but I’m voting for Mitt.

steel guy on February 5, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Take the most over-the-top Newt hatin’ nutballs and that will tell you who the main Mittbots are, generally.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM

So, if they point out Newt’s many flaws, they are Mittbots? What if they point out Mitt’s many flaws, are they Newtbots?

ray on February 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM

24813 counted so far in 2012 vs 44,000 who voted in 2008.

About 20,000 less.

Results for Nevada Republican Caucus (U.S. Presidential Primary)
Feb 04, 2012 (71% of precincts reporting)
Mitt Romney 11,822 47.6%
Newt Gingrich 5,623 22.7%
Ron Paul 4,619 18.6%
Rick Santorum 2,749 11.1%
Other 0 0%
Source: AP

Mitt Romney is a wet blanket on the Republican primary. Primary and Caucus’ Turnout is low in the precincts he won in Florida, and over all in Nevada.

This isn’t a helpful sign for the general election if Romney faces Obama in November.

The GOP doesn’t care if they lose or if they don’t take back the U.S. Senate, you need voter turnout and an enthused republican base to turn out and vote. The primary voters won’t even be able to vote for Gingrich in his home state of Virginia, I am sure that won’t effect primary voter turn out in Virginia/ George Allen (R) needs an excited republican base to turn out in Virginia not people who have been given no choices but 2 on the ballot. It’s obvious it’s more important that they keep the status quo in place – the financial oligarchy.

Why is Santorum still in the race? We hear about Gingrich and his campaign’s finances why the media keeps telling us he has to drop out LOL. Who believes that Santorum is raking in lots of campaign money and is a viable candidate? He won in Iowa because he camped out in the state for a year, and he almost tied with Romney.

Dr Evil on February 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM

If the Romney supporters would even attempt to police their own. it could pay off for Romney a lot more than the “shut up, deal with it” nutballs.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 10:13 AM
Amen.

A couple things. I really haven’t had a primary candidate that I was fully sold on. Last time I did back Romney over McCain and Huckabee. I’m consigned to the fact it does seem to be settling down to Romney. Although I wish he had a more Conservative record and would get a better PR line on Bain, I also don’t think he’s the worst we can do. But his more rabid “in-your-face supporters” are indeed nuts. They vacillate between trying to explain away his more liberal points or try to convince you that we ought to be more behind his liberal points. With either extreme of their schizoid rationalizations, they’re off-putting and if I may carry your point further, turn away more supporters than they make.

hawkdriver on February 5, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Just got back from church…so make that a double AMEN!
I wanted Mitt in ’08…but some of these people have moved him into third for me…and Mitt is a good man. ‘They’…are the ‘sh!t’ on his shoes…not his ‘politics’.

KOOLAID2 on February 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM

In other words, he has to really sell himself and earn the confidence of the voter.

RepubChica on February 5, 2012 at 11:56 AM

He can’t. That’s why he’ll lose. He won’t be able to carpet-bomb the country with anti-Obama stuff the way he’s gone after Gingrich. The media won’t let him. Besides, the moderate mindset is that you can’t go after libs the way you go after conservatives or at least those that more conservatives gravitate toward. They apparently assume that indies are 90% liberal, and that being nasty to libs is going to alienate those precious indie votes. Those talking about how hard Mitt is going to go after Obama are deluding themselves.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Levin’s a great conservative and one of the if not the best philosopher of our time, but in my opinion he’s wrong on Romney.

Levin is too focussed on what happened in the past with Romneycare instead of the big picture. Romney “takes Obamacare off the table”, but other candidates either take everything including Obamacare off the table (Gingrich), or wouldn’t beat Obama and Obamacare would remain on the table for the next 4 years aka permenantly.

Swerve22 on February 5, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Baby steps. A Romney supporter to admit that Levin is a great conservative. Most Romney fans badmouth Levin just like that do Palin.

Both Mittens and Newt are very flawed. The difference is that at least Newt has been a conservative with the contract with America. What has Mittens done??

And Newt will fight Maobama and the media. Mittens is a gutless wimp. He’ll smear anyone in the GOP, but I guarantee he’ll fold just like McCain did with Obama. I mean he won’t even call him a socialist!

And ghostwriter:

Get your facts straight. Levin endorsed Fred Thompson in 2008. He only supporter Romney over McCain, which isn’t saying much.

And yes Levin would back Mittens over Maobama. That’s not a ringing endorsement either.

Levin has said countless times that he doesn’t think Romney will repeal Obamacare. Romney said “let’s repeal the bad parts, keep the good parts” in 2010. Plus, he’s never been a fighter, never been someone who’s going to fight for the serious reforms that are needed.

We’re pretty much screwed. Sure we might be able to drag MIttens sorry behind across the finish line, but he’ll only give us a slow march into socialism instead of continuing on the bulletrain to bankruptcy like Maobama is doing.

What disgusts me is all these phonies who can’t see this. They’re celebrating Mittens winning while the real conservatives in Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Santorum never had a shot. Before Maobama, Bush spent more than any president in history, yet these genuises think that just be putting the Establishment hack in there that things are going to get so much better.

LevinFan on February 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM

So, if they point out Newt’s many flaws, they are Mittbots? What if they point out Mitt’s many flaws, are they Newtbots?

ray on February 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM

If you are truly interested, you need only look through this thread. The difference between pointing out flaws, and over the top candidate hatred isn’t hard to notice. That is, if you are truly interested.

Each candidate has his nutballs, that ain’t hard to spot. Then there are some who are just hatin’ nutballs, and some who are lefty plants. Those are a little more difficult to figure out. But not much.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:06 PM

But I’m not going to pretend that Newt is Reagan, because Romney is too moderate.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM

It would be foolish for anyone to suggest that “Newt is Reagan”, but does it not hold any sway with you that Reagan’s own son has said,

“Newt is our only chance in 2012 to contrast a Reagan conservative with Obama’s European’ styled socialism. Newt exemplifies the conservative principles my father championed.” Source

Flora Duh on February 5, 2012 at 12:06 PM

So Mitt is going to be the guy to represent Republicans.

The guy to represent conservative ideals.

The guy who said “I don’t care about the very poor, they’re getting food stamps.”

It’s just mind boggling.

tkyang99 on February 5, 2012 at 12:07 PM

KOOLAID2 on February 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM

So you’re saying that you base your voting decisions on what some cyber-strangers type at H/A?

MJBrutus on February 5, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Just got back from church…so make that a double AMEN!
I wanted Mitt in ’08…but some of these people have moved him into third for me…and Mitt is a good man. ‘They’…are the ‘sh!t’ on his shoes…not his ‘politics’.

KOOLAID2 on February 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Umm.. the same could easily go for the anti-Mittites. They could stand to police themselves a little better.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM

So Mitt is going to be the guy to represent Republicans.

The guy to represent conservative ideals.

The guy who said “I don’t care about the very poor, they’re getting food stamps.”

It’s just mind boggling.

tkyang99 on February 5, 2012 at 12:07 PM

According to the GOP, moderate is the new Consevative….

idesign on February 5, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Umm.. the same could easily go for the anti-Mittites. They could stand to police themselves a little better.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM

We’re not the ones who sit around with then “serial adulterer” “fat greasy socialist” “Newt the Hutt” “Palin’s a media whore” kind of garbage. That would be your side, that really can’t sell your candidate on his own merits without having to destroy the opposition. It’s called being “weak”.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:13 PM

I really don’t understand why Palin is pseudoendorsing Newt.

She does not think a short primary season is good for the party or for its nominee’s chances against Obama.

A quick Romney smash and grab would not have set well with many conservatives, and it would have increased the chances of the serious third party candidate. If Romney has to go through an extended campaign wherein he has to explain himself, it will toughen him up and it will give those who find the idea of nominating him distasteful a chance to get used to it before giving up. The People will have chosen.

On the other hand, if Romney gets beaten during an extended campaign, then he certainly would have lost to Obama, so that would be a good thing, too.

This may strike people as a peculiar way for Palin to decide who she will support in a primary, but Palin is an unusual thinker, and I mean that in a good way.

Also, it means she doesn’t have to argue with Todd.

fadetogray on February 5, 2012 at 12:14 PM

According to the GOP, moderate is the new Consevative….

idesign on February 5, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Gawd you continue with the most simplistic posts. Yep you are our BedBug.

CW on February 5, 2012 at 12:14 PM

We’re not the ones who sit around with then “serial adulterer” “fat greasy socialist” “Newt the Hutt” “Palin’s a media whore” kind of garbage. That would be your side, that really can’t sell your candidate on his own merits without having to destroy the opposition. It’s called being “weak”.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:13 PM

I have never heard “Newt the Hutt” before. I like it.

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM

LevinFan on February 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Look, I read Levin’s book and agreed with every word. But I believe the most important thing right now is defeating Obama. I believe that the best candidate to do that is Romney. You can disagree and that is fine. At one time or another I’ve supported every one of the candidates. If I were to pick my ideological choice it would have been Perry. The only problem is I don’t think he could have beaten Obama. I’m not in love with Romney but I am absolutly sure that the criticisms I am reading of the man and his record are way overblown.

steel guy on February 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM

We’re not the ones who sit around with then “serial adulterer” “fat greasy socialist” “Newt the Hutt” “Palin’s a media whore” kind of garbage. That would be your side, that really can’t sell your candidate on his own merits without having to destroy the opposition. It’s called being “weak”.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:13 PM

No, you’re just the ones sitting around calling people on this forum all manner of names (liar, phonies, etc.). And don’t ask me to prove it, because it happened on this very thread, right under your nose, and you didn’t say a thing about it.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

As for the absolutely idiotic claim that online comments on a blog are turning away people from particular candidates, you need to grow up! Anyone who is basing their vote on the opinions of commenters on a blog has other problems.

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 10:32 AM

It’s the daily GARDISIL shot’s that make us idiots!
Monica Lewinsky didn’t change my opinion of BJ Clinton either, and only Hillary’s staunch support swayed me. Glad that you have the Bible on how opinions are formed!

KOOLAID2 on February 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I have never heard “Newt the Hutt” before. I like it.

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Yeah, if I had to defend Romney’s record I might like me some ad hominem garbage too.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

1726

Starting to have the numbers one only expects from a Palin thread. Of course this should actually been two separate threads. Long life this one.

Bmore on February 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Umm.. the same could easily go for the anti-Mittites. They could stand to police themselves a little better.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM

They do a pretty good job of that already.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Those talking about how hard Mitt is going to go after Obama are deluding themselves.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM

If going after Obama hard is what it’s going to take to win in the Fall, Mitt will probably take Obama down, barring no major October surprises or devastating campaign gaffes (you know the way the media works). Romney is one tough guy and impressively quick on his feet. We don’t know yet how the media or his handlers will try to hamper this strength, because it is a valuable strength to have in today’s presidential politics.

RepubChica on February 5, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Look, I read Levin’s book and agreed with every word. But I believe the most important thing right now is defeating Obama. I believe that the best candidate to do that is Romney. You can disagree and that is fine. At one time or another I’ve supported every one of the candidates. If I were to pick my ideological choice it would have been Perry. The only problem is I don’t think he could have beaten Obama. I’m not in love with Romney but I am absolutly sure that the criticisms I am reading of the man and his record are way overblown.

steel guy on February 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Right now, we’re just haggling over when we admit that Romney is our candidate.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:18 PM

CW on February 5, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Hey look, it’s the Cronic Wanker shilling for Romney…LOL

idesign on February 5, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Yeah, if I had to defend Romney’s record I might like me some ad hominem garbage too.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Pot. Kettle. Black.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Umm.. the same could easily go for the anti-Mittites. They could stand to police themselves a little better.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM

They do a pretty good job of that already.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Romney supporters turn…

I have never heard “Newt the Hutt” before. I like it.

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Levin has said countless times that he doesn’t think Romney will repeal Obamacare. Romney said “let’s repeal the bad parts, keep the good parts” in 2010. Plus, he’s never been a fighter, never been someone who’s going to fight for the serious reforms that are needed.

That has been my objection to Romney. He just doesn’t think things are that bad. His supporters use what he is doing to Gingrich as a sign that he’ll do the same to Obama, which remains to be seen. What I’ve seen is that he hires people to do his fighting for him, with attack ads. If he were president, he’d have to do his fighting himself, and I just don’t see that happening. He didn’t do it in MA.

Night Owl on February 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM

They do a pretty good job of that already.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Perhaps. But I haven’t seen it.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Yeah, if I had to defend Romney’s record I might like me some ad hominem garbage too.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Pot. Kettle. Black.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:18 PM

The extent of my ad hominem attack on Romney is calling him Plastic Man. My criticism of Romney can be kept strictly on a policy basis. Mittbots can’t do the same with any of their idol’s opposition. No. Way.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Romney supporters turn…

I have never heard “Newt the Hutt” before. I like it.

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM

What we are witnessing this primary season is the defeat of the idiot wing of the Republican party (represented by Sarah Palin and her moronic sycophantic followers). The great majority of conservatives are saying “HECK NO” to the idiot wing and are refusing to be represented by incompetents any longer. This time we are going with a strong, competent conservative who will win and actually get the job done.

I have been heartened to see voters come out so strongly for Mitt Romney.

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Calling people idiots doesn’t help anything.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Questions?

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Perhaps. But I haven’t seen it.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM

I have, plenty of it. I have even helped the decent Romney supporters to do it.

Romney supporters, nope, haven’t seen it. And I pay attention.

Newt supporters even acknowledge his flaws.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:23 PM

No, you’re just the ones sitting around calling people on this forum all manner of names (liar, phonies, etc.). And don’t ask me to prove it, because it happened on this very thread, right under your nose, and you didn’t say a thing about it.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I called you a liar…..

I pointed out that Romney supporters here seem to be attacking Palin more than Obama. You basically said it wasn’t true. I called you out.

Deal with it!

idesign on February 5, 2012 at 12:23 PM

So you’re saying that you base your voting decisions on what some cyber-strangers type at H/A?

MJBrutus on February 5, 2012 at 12:08 PM

What some of them have to say, and what they bring to the table…all becomes part of that pie…so in a way…yes, it is an ingredient.

KOOLAID2 on February 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM

According to the GOP, moderate is the new Consevative….

idesign on February 5, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Gawd you continue with the most simplistic posts. Yep you are our BedBug.

CW on February 5, 2012 at 12:14 PM

So…tell us how Romney’s a conservative. “But but but he has SAID in the campaign that he’d cut capital gains taxes!!!!!eleventy!!!” Talk about a simplistic fool.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM

steel guy on February 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM

I disagree. The person who can beat Obama is the one who can most effectively and accurately articulate Conservatism. Romney has failed repeatedly on that. Just look at his most recent statements on the minimum wage and not worrying about the poor because they are on a safety net. Instead, he should have communicated, like Reagan did in his speech in 1992, about getting the poor out of their dependency and hailed Conservative economists like Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell by showing that the minimum wage limits job growth.

Decoski on February 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Questions?

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Only, what took y’all you so long. blue gills has been a nutball since she registered.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM

The extent of my ad hominem attack on Romney is calling him Plastic Man. My criticism of Romney can be kept strictly on a policy basis. Mittbots can’t do the same with any of their idol’s opposition. No. Way.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Spare me the hypocrisy. Earlier this morning you called Romney supporters, awful people (or some such).

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Newt Gingrich wins South Carolina Primary by uniting Reagan Republicans

The national elite media likes to portray Gingrich as a divider. On Saturday, January 21st, despite being outspent 2-1, Newt Gingrich did something that no other Republican presidential candidate has been able to do this election cycle. He began to unite Ronald Reagan’s winning coalition of social, economic and national security conservatives.”

Flora Duh on February 5, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Spare me the hypocrisy. Earlier this morning you called Romney supporters, awful people (or some such).

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM

*gasp* And they’re such dears…

Yeah, I’ve called them Mittbots and Mittler Youth and cultists. When I’m proven wrong, I’ll say otherwise.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Umm.. the same could easily go for the anti-Mittites. They could stand to police themselves a little better.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM

True! Especially the Mormon bigots.

KOOLAID2 on February 5, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Spare me the hypocrisy. Earlier this morning you called Romney supporters, awful people (or some such).

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Nutballs are fair game…for all decent commenters.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:28 PM

I called you a liar…..

I pointed out that Romney supporters here seem to be attacking Palin more than Obama. You basically said it wasn’t true. I called you out.

Deal with it!

idesign on February 5, 2012 at 12:23 PM

There really isn’t any point in lying about something that can be (and has been) easily disproven.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:30 PM

What some of them have to say, and what they bring to the table…all becomes part of that pie…so in a way…yes, it is an ingredient.

KOOLAID2 on February 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Wow. I would never have imagined that anyone would let some anonymous yahoo out in the intertubes have such an effect on them. It saddens me, just a bit to suppose there are people who do.

MJBrutus on February 5, 2012 at 12:30 PM

I have never heard “Newt the Hutt” before. I like it.

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM

If you got away from headquarters more…Chris Christie has had that handle for a couple of years now.

KOOLAID2 on February 5, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Flora Duh on February 5, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Um, that’s an old opinion piece by Newt supporter Van Hipp. If you’re going to post some pro-Newt propaganda, at least make sure its current.

By the way, did you see Newt’s press conference meltdown last night?

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:31 PM

There really isn’t any point in lying about something that can be (and has been) easily disproven.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Really? It can be proven that Romney supporters here have had far more negative things to say about Obama than about Palin? Let’s see it. I can prove otherwise just by directing you to any thread that features an image of Sarah Palin at the head.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Only, what took y’all you so long. blue gills has been a nutball since she registered.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM

I haven’t been here that long.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:32 PM

By the way, did you see Newt’s press conference meltdown last night?

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Gingrich doesn’t hold a candle to you when it comes to meltdowns. And you do it even when your candidate is winning.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Um, that’s an old opinion piece by Newt supporter Van Hipp. If you’re going to post some pro-Newt propaganda, at least make sure its current.

By the way, did you see Newt’s press conference meltdown last night?

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Folks, this is a lib plant. Although admittedly it’s hard to tell lib plants from bona fide Mittbots.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:33 PM

So, if they point out Newt’s many flaws, they are Mittbots? What if they point out Mitt’s many flaws, are they Newtbots?

ray on February 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM

More of a style thang.

katy the mean old lady on February 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM

I haven’t been here that long.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Then I suggest you get the lay of the battlefield before deploying your artillery. This didn’t just start.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM

I disagree. The person who can beat Obama is the one who can most effectively and accurately articulate Conservatism. Romney has failed repeatedly on that.
Decoski on February 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM

I wish Romney could articulate conservative principals better also. I wish he had core coservative principals instead of a poitically pragmatic approach. But similar to Bill Clinton he just doesn’t have core beliefs. What he brings to the table is that he is a good manager, he is willing to play hardball, he has big buck backing him up which he will need to compete in the general. He also seems to be a decent man and pretty darned smart. Besides we all know that he is going to be the nominee weather we like it or not.

steel guy on February 5, 2012 at 12:36 PM

My favorite has always been the gilled one calling anyone with dissenting views “buffoons.” You know I probably just just misunderstood. Maybe to her that is a compliment. Bread Ball anyone?

Bmore on February 5, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Really? It can be proven that Romney supporters here have had far more negative things to say about Obama than about Palin? Let’s see it. I can prove otherwise just by directing you to any thread that features an image of Sarah Palin at the head.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Anybody that has to resort to putting words in somebody else’s mouth to try to win an argument is not worth arguing with. And I’m not proving the same thing over and over again.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM

But similar to Bill Clinton he just doesn’t have core beliefs.

steel guy on February 5, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Don’t you think that about Clinton for a second.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM

MJBrutus on February 5, 2012 at 12:30 PM

For a looooong time, I’ve been reading how “saddened” you are. Their are some very perceptive people here (at times…you are one of them)…so if part of your opinion is not part of that pie, that forms your opinion…you’re the sad one. What feeds yours?

KOOLAID2 on February 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Only, what took y’all you so long. blue gills has been a nutball since she registered.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Stop your whining about Romney supporters, you hypocritical baby! You’re obviously just upset that your preferred candidate turned out to be a stinker or didn’t have the courage to get in the race at all. I don’t see the point in tiptoeing around the issues to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of people like you.

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Anybody that has to resort to putting words in somebody else’s mouth to try to win an argument is not worth arguing with. And I’m not proving the same thing over and over again.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM

In other words, “I made a dumbass tu quoque argument that I can’t back up with facts.” Thank you.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:33 PM

This has occurred to me, sock puppet, was another thought. Some one earlier in the thread took note of identical statements made by two supposedly different commenter’s had made. Might be time to put down the fishing pole in exchange for the gig.

Bmore on February 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM

There is definitely some denial from both camps on this and previous threads here at Hot Air. I dislike candidate Romney, but I loath Newt. Romney is squishy and weak, but I believe Newt is borderline evil based on his actions and words in the last decade. As a result, I hit everything wrong Newt says hard. Doesn’t make me a Mitt supporter, but it does make me an anti-Newton.

ray on February 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM

But similar to Bill Clinton he just doesn’t have core beliefs.

steel guy on February 5, 2012 at 12:36 PM

I think that you misjudge the man. He definitely does have strong core beliefs. They just don’t line up neatly in to the conservative/liberal dichotomy. He believes in this country and its ideals. He believes in freedom and opportunity. He believes that free market capitalism is the most beneficial force for mankind ever invented. He believes that free market capitalism, the voluntary exchange of money for goods and services, is the way to ensure that America lives up to its potential. He believes that the Federalist plan laid for this country in its Constitution is still relevant and indeed essential to our ability to meet the needs of our people.

MJBrutus on February 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM

You is funny little missy. You have no clue who anyone decent here supports, supported, or is leaning towards supporting. All you are capable of doing is spewing your anti-not-Romney sewage every chance you get.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Don’t you think that about Clinton for a second.

ddrintn on February 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Oh I have believed that about Bill Clinton from the beginning. He would change his mind on any issue as long as he thought it was to his politicl advantage. Even James Carval thinks so.

steel guy on February 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM

The person who can beat Obama is the one who can most effectively and accurately articulate Conservatism.

Says who? Ronald Reagan did not defeat Jimmy Carter because he was so goo at “articulating conservatism.” Reagan was a great politician, communicator and leader…and Carter was a discredited president. The fact the Reagan was a great articulator of conservative principles just made him that much greater. But that alone did not win the presidency.

Barry Goldwater was pretty damned good at articulating conservatism and it got him exactly where?

Newt is a fatally flawed candidate who cannot win – not because of his ideology, but because of his character, his record of failure as a leader and the overall negative and desperate tone of his campaign. At this point, the question is truly not whether or not he can win- he can’t – but whether he’ll take the whole party down with him when he loses.

Priscilla on February 5, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Oh, for heaven’s sake!

Mittbots, Newtrons, blah blah blah.

“Mitt did this!”

“Oh yeah, well Newt did this!”

“You Mittbots are ________!”

“You Newtrons are ________!”

Blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum for 18 pages of “commentary.”

Newt sucks. Romney sucks. Neither is a conservative. Neither is a really good candidate. A really good candidate didn’t run, so they are what we have to choose from.

Deal with it, and weigh them both objectively, and make your decision, and stop picking at one another. You are acting like a bunch of fools with your attacks on one another!

JannyMae on February 5, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Doesn’t make me a Mitt supporter, but it does make me an anti-Newton.

ray on February 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Nothing wrong with that, and I’m sure you have plenty of company.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:43 PM

KOOLAID2 on February 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM

I’ll certainly admit that I can be swayed by meritorious arguments. But the silly squabbles, spats or off color humor certainly don’t effect me in the least. For those who are moved by such trifles, I indeed feel pity.

MJBrutus on February 5, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Newt sucks. Romney sucks. Neither is a conservative. Neither is a really good candidate. A really good candidate didn’t run, so they are what we have to choose from.

JannyMae on February 5, 2012 at 12:43 PM

You are expecting logic from nutballs. That’s your first mistake.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM

JannyMae on February 5, 2012 at 12:43 PM

I guess that settles it.

steel guy on February 5, 2012 at 12:46 PM

I haven’t been here that long.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:32 PM

That explains a lot….LOL

idesign on February 5, 2012 at 12:47 PM

I think that we can agree that Romney AND Gingrich each ran destructive campaigns. Gingrich really can’t cry foul, because he came up on the short end of the stick.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Romney and his PACs pissed away $17 million in ONE state. Not multiple states. ONE STATE.

This is why Romney will be a horrible candidate.

Midwestprincesse on February 5, 2012 at 12:48 PM

cozmo, see if you can get the gilled one in the creel while I’m out. ; )

Bmore on February 5, 2012 at 12:49 PM

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:31 PM

How about you responding to the two fact-filled comments that I’ve left on this thread to you that you didn’t respond to. Just like you didn’t respond to them yesterday.

Oh and while you’re at. How about giving a believable explanation for why Romney destroyed the hard drives on computers used during his time as governor?

I have never heard “Newt the Hutt” before. I like it.

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Since you seem to get off on such pettiness, I suppose you like this too.

CNN’s John King Calls Mitt Romney ‘Governor Mormon’

Flora Duh on February 5, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Romney and his PACs pissed away $17 million in ONE state. Not multiple states. ONE STATE.

This is why Romney will be a horrible candidate.

Midwestprincesse on February 5, 2012 at 12:48 PM

He is just trying to end this thing early, saving money in the long run. I think it’s going to work.

steel guy on February 5, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Umm.. the same could easily go for the anti-Mittites. They could stand to police themselves a little better.

ghostwriter on February 5, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Says the supporter whose fellow Mitt supporter, on this same thread, repeated the “Annoy Sarah Palin, Vote Mitt” slogan.

That is when you know that People like Brutus don’t care about beating Obama and instead having Palin living rent-free int heir minds. And yes, I think that some people are reflective of a campaign. On a site such as this one. On a random site such as Fox News, no.

Mitt supporters are a significant reason why Mitt will lose, whether you agree or not.

Midwestprincesse on February 5, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Romney and his PACs pissed away $17 million in ONE state. Not multiple states. ONE STATE.

This is why Romney will be a horrible candidate.

Midwestprincesse on February 5, 2012 at 12:48 PM

And it was worth every penny to crush Newt Gingrich.

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:51 PM

HA should start a thread where we discuss why we hate all of the Republican candidates……………………………

VegasRick on February 5, 2012 at 12:52 PM

I’ll certainly admit that I can be swayed by meritorious arguments. But the silly squabbles, spats or off color humor certainly don’t effect me in the least. For those who are moved by such trifles, I indeed feel pity.

MJBrutus on February 5, 2012 at 12:44 PM

I seriously hope you live in a low-rent state. With all of the time that you spend on THIS blog, I hope you are not squandering your social life. Although, it looks like you don’t have much of one from all of your incessant posting.

Blackburn would be a horrible VP candidate for Mitt. That’s because I like Blackburn. There is no need to take her down with Mitt’s train-wreck.

Midwestprincesse on February 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I wonder what’s taking so long for the rest of those caucus results to come in.

I will admit that I cheered as Romney was giving his speech last night. It was a great speech. I felt a little emotional watching it.

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Don’t be jealous because Mitt has so much money. It’s called success guys.

antisense on February 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM

And it was worth every penny to crush Newt Gingrich.

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Says one of the most boring fish in the lake.

Midwestprincesse on February 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM

So I wasn’t the only one who felt a tingle :-)

MJBrutus on February 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM

My favorite has always been the gilled one calling anyone with dissenting views “buffoons.” You know I probably just just misunderstood. Maybe to her that is a compliment. Bread Ball anyone?

Bmore on February 5, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Oh really? And would you mind enlightening everyone, including me, who my preferred candidate is?

Flora Duh on January 10, 2012 at 7:45 PM

I couldn’t possibly take a guess, but I do know that, come November, you will vote for Romney, and you will like it.

bluegill on January 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Flora Duh on February 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM

I will admit that I cheered as Romney was giving his speech last night. It was a great speech. I felt a little emotional watching it.

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Midwestprincesse on February 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Methwestprincesse on February 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM

antisense on February 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM

I will admit that I cheered as Romney was giving his speech last night. It was a great speech. I felt a little emotional watching it.

bluegill on February 5, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Honey, why feel the need to admit what we all knew?

You and sheryl and petunia and PMSdeven should have gotten yourselves a room.

cozmo on February 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM

I think that you misjudge the man. He definitely does have strong core beliefs. They just don’t line up neatly in to the conservative/liberal dichotomy. He believes in this country and its ideals. He believes in freedom and opportunity. He believes that free market capitalism is the most beneficial force for mankind ever invented. He believes that free market capitalism, the voluntary exchange of money for goods and services, is the way to ensure that America lives up to its potential. He believes that the Federalist plan laid for this country in its Constitution is still relevant and indeed essential to our ability to meet the needs of our people.

MJBrutus on February 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Yes, I think that may be his core and one reason I will support him. That minimum wage think sure pokes a hole in that though.

steel guy on February 5, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 16 17 18 19 20