Newt: Let’s face it, Hillary’s going to be awfully tough to beat in 2016

posted at 5:01 pm on December 10, 2012 by Allahpundit

He doesn’t say it’s impossible, mind you. Just next to impossible. Dude, I’m nervous:

“First of all, she’s very formidable as a person,” he said. “She’s a very competent person. She’s married to the most popular Democrat in the country; they both think [it] would be good for her to be president. It makes it virtually impossible to stop her for the nomination.”

In addition to having Bill Clinton’s support, Hillary Clinton would also have the backing of President Barack Obama, who will still be a “relatively popular president,” Gingrich added. “Trying to win that will be truly the Super Bowl.”

Is it “virtually” impossible to stop her in the primaries or is it impossible? Democrats need to overcome eight years of big-government fatigue and win a third straight presidential election. Their bench is far thinner than the GOP’s, except for an internationally famous, extremely popular former first lady turned senator turned Secretary of State who’s angling to make history as the first woman president. What Democratic voter in his or her right mind is going to roll the dice on Cuomo or Martin O’Malley or whoever when they could take their chances with Hillary! and the Clinton machine instead?

Here’s the real question. What does the near-inevitability of Hillary’s nomination mean for the GOP primaries in 2016? I think Republican voters will feel tremendous pressure to nominate someone with enough star power of their own that they won’t be completely overshadowed by her in the general. That’s good news for Rubio and Chris Christie, not such good news for Jindal and Rand Paul. Rubio would also benefit insofar as he and Jindal would likely be the only Republicans with a “historic candidacy” narrative capable of somewhat neutralizing Hillary’s. The wild card is Jeb Bush, insofar as he’s the only prospective nominee — at least right now — whose “brand” is as well known as the Clintons’. Is that a good thing in his case, though? Asking voters whether they want to revisit the Clinton era or the Bush era seems, shall we say, not so smart; besides, if you nominate Jeb, you forfeit the talking point that the other side’s candidate is old news, a stale dynastic offering at a moment when a new, more diverse America is being born. Exit question: Would Rubio want to challenge Hillary?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I dunno. Hillary Clinton is looking pretty old and tired these days.

Blake on December 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM

If Clinton runs, probably only Christie or Condi could beat her. The American electorate has shown they’ll vote for failure as long as they get their values. Re Rubio: he’ll run someday when he thinks he has the best chance, he’s very young yet.

IR-MN on December 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Rs are incredible fools.

The land is incredibly fooled and foolish.

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM

We need to send all the Rs to summer camp to learn how not to be a doofus.

SparkPlug on December 10, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Republicans are pathetic

rob verdi on December 10, 2012 at 5:06 PM

AP, do we really have to have a “novelty candidate” from now on?

Axe on December 10, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Eh, only matters if all those mysterious Democrat superdelegates can’t find another Ayers-lovin’ pothead to steal the nomination from her again. And of course President Obama has and will continue to do his level best to tar her with all the worst parts of his Administration, so she’ll be climbing the mountain with a ton of bricks strapped to her back. Should be fun to watch!

JeremiahJohnson on December 10, 2012 at 5:08 PM

A drunk squirrel would be hard to beat. As long as you can train the squirrel to say “tax the rich” and “republicans hate women” it’ll be a landslide. Today’s voters have the intellect of acorns.

darwin on December 10, 2012 at 5:08 PM

America has become a joke. And the GOP is the punchline.

keep the change on December 10, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Exit question: Would Rubio want to challenge Hillary?

Wrong question. The real question is would Rubio want to follow 8 years of Obama? Would any Republican who isn’t after the Presidency merely to stroke their own ego?

As for Hillary’s candidacy, her strengths are obvious. Her name. The historic nature of electing the first woman President. Nostalgia for the Clinton years(that could help mitigate the anti-Democrat sentiment of 8 years of Obamanomics).

Here are the drawbacks. She’s popular because she’s not on the campaign trail. The moment she starts having to take actual positions on issues(especially if they’re in line with Obama’s), those favorability ratings will start to decline. She’s a Democrat which will be a problem in 2016 unless Obama pulls off the mother of all 2nd terms which I don’t think even his supporters are expecting. And she’ll be 69 in 4 years and is already looking haggard. I know that’s superficial and sexist, but then again so is our culture.

Doughboy on December 10, 2012 at 5:08 PM

I hope she and McCain, all who’re over 60 from DC, end up with Reid and McConnell, in the same creche, same pen, in diapers and Depends, with Michael Tomasky chaghing hers.

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 5:08 PM

I don’t think Clinton will run. She would be styling her hair and wearing makeup if she was interested in running, or at least she should!

bopbottle on December 10, 2012 at 5:08 PM

America has become a joke. And the GOP is the punchline.

keep the change on December 10, 2012 at 5:08 PM

…and her voters are the harlots on the dole. Enjoy and always starve the Looters.

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Well d’oh.

At least someone is speaking truth to power..

katy on December 10, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Ummm.. Like how Clinton was totally going to be President in 2008? Come on.. Already. I still think that voter fatigue trumps all. Also, Obamacare is going to turn out really badly. (Might be a good told you so moment for the Rs).

But yes.. Hillary does make Rubio much more likely. But Rubio was probably going to be the nominee even without Hilllary.

Illinidiva on December 10, 2012 at 5:09 PM

A complete and thorough investigation on Benghazi might put a damper on her chances.

Whats that? She’s a Dem? Oh never mind.

antipc on December 10, 2012 at 5:09 PM

If Clinton runs, probably only Christie or Condi could beat her. The American moocher electorate has shown they’ll vote for failure as long as they get their values free stuff.

IR-MN on December 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM

That’s more like it. As far as Christie, I think he’s done on a national level. He’s not only a RINO, but an egotistical backstabber too.

TxAnn56 on December 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Chris Christie?
Why not just run Charlie Crist instead?

Wasn’t Hillary going to win the Democratic primary in 2008?

sharrukin on December 10, 2012 at 5:11 PM

I don’t get it. Any spouse that would stay with their husband/wife after that much cheating and lying and embarassment…well that just speaks to their character for me. It’s enough for me to be embarassed that she would be my Aunt or friend, let alone President!

Then again I don’t get Obama…is the desire to vote in “history” really just that important to people?

nextgen_repub on December 10, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Democrats need to overcome eight years of big-government fatigue and win a third straight presidential election. Their bench is far thinner than the GOP’s, except for an internationally famous, extremely popular former first lady turned senator turned Secretary of State who’s angling to make history as the first woman president.

1.)The majority of people are not “fatigued” by ‘big government’ except in so far as they keep hearing the same platitudes from the right. It might be true of fiscal conservatives and libertarians, but they do not constitute a majority.

2.)You’re forgetting about Elizabeth Warren. I could very easily see her being the first female president. She’d be the fresher face, has the brothers with the military background, and has the Ivy league position. In several ways that makes Warren a better match for the Democrats than Hillary is.

Here’s the real question. What does the near-inevitability of Hillary’s nomination mean for the GOP primaries in 2016? I think Republican voters will feel tremendous pressure to nominate someone with enough star power of their own that they won’t be completely overshadowed by her in the general. That’s good news for Rubio and Chris Christie, not such good news for Jindal and Rand Paul.

Hillary was “inevitable” in 2008, too. Remind me again, who’s president right now?

Neither Christie nor Rubio have “star power” that Jindal, Rand Paul, or any other candidate doesn’t possess. What they have are a set of surrogates in the establishment with quick and easy access to media megaphones. That doesn’t make them admired by the masses. It means that the folks at the top like a particular pair of people.

The wild card is Jeb Bush, insofar as he’s the only prospective nominee — at least right now — whose “brand” is as well known as the Clintons’

Pointless speculation. Before you even get to his record, Jeb has the family dynasty effect. I have fond memories of George W. Bush. I like George W. Bush. At the same time, I’m not interested in giving a single political family ownership of the entire thing. Jeb Bush will never be president, and I seriously doubt he’d ever be the nominee. The base won’t like him, and the establishment will (rightly) fear the dynastic implications.

Stoic Patriot on December 10, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Oh come on guys! There’s that Murkowski babe. And either one of the Maine twins could take her down…okay I’m done. Anybody else think of another repub gal on her level?

DanMan on December 10, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Nah, Hillary is old news. The Dems always have to nominate someone new and unknown. If Hillary’s the “next in line” she should try the GOP.

rhombus on December 10, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Ummm.. Like how Clinton was totally going to be President in 2008? Come on.. Already. I still think that voter fatigue trumps all. Also, Obamacare is going to turn out really badly. (Might be a good told you so moment for the Rs).

But yes.. Hillary does make Rubio much more likely. But Rubio was probably going to be the nominee even without Hilllary.

Illinidiva on December 10, 2012 at 5:09 PM

I said it about Palin 4 years ago, and I’ll say it about Rubio now. The nomination’s his if he wants it. The field is deep, but he’s a terrific public speaker, he’s young and telegenic, and he’ll draw enough of the Latino vote to make him the most formidable general election candidate. His only real drawback is his thin resume. A one-term Senator in the minority party(unless by some miracle the GOP wins 6+ seats in the 2014 midterms) won’t really have much to run on. Then again, that didn’t stop the current President.

Doughboy on December 10, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Newt,

Go ahead and have a bronze made of yourself, with that and your mirror that you use way to much, you should find it an just enough an alter to bow to, we others will deal with things thar are real and needed to take the country back from the elites like you and others.

Like That.

Your self love is a problem for you andd U.S., plus its not not all that a good thing.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 10, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Okay, said this in the earlier Headlines thread, but…

Romney got beat by Obama. Newt got beat by Romney. And we’re taking advice from Newt on how to win elections… why?

Romney was most definitely the problem. He’s not a conservative. He didn’t energize the base. Independents turned out for him. Conservatives did not.

Newt would have been a problem too. Because he’s a self-promoting tool. And conservatives know that too.

It’s time for the GOP to wise up and realize that their base is not a bunch of lemmings like the Democrat base. We’re not just going to show up and vote for whatever garbage they throw at us because they happen to have an “R” next to their name. And while outreach to independents is all well and good, the GOP is never going to win an election without the support of their base.

When Republicans nominate conservatives, they win. When they nominate moderates, they lose. It’s just that simple.

Shump on December 10, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Rubio would also benefit insofar as he and Jindal would likely be the only Republicans with a “historic candidacy” narrative capable of somewhat neutralizing Hillary’s.

Ted Cruz is probably running too. I predict that if he does he will get more votes in the primary than Rubio. And there will probably be at least one female GOP candidate: Ayotte, Fallon, Martinez, Haley are all possibilities.

Jon0815 on December 10, 2012 at 5:14 PM

A drunk squirrel would be hard to beat. As long as you can train the squirrel to say “tax the rich” and “republicans hate women” it’ll be a landslide. Today’s voters have the intellect of acorns.

darwin on December 10, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Yup.

Common Sense Floridian on December 10, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Meh. Hillary won’t run in 2016, let alone be the nominee. I see this as Newt both telling the GOP to get their crap together while trolling the Dem hacks that likely will run in ’16.

My guess is they’ll run some standard fool like O’Malley and they’ll win. The nation has gone full retard, and the GOP seems to be focused on amnesty and identity politics rather than investigating voter fraud and decreased intensity among blue-collar white voters. If we run actual conservatives maybe we’ll have a chance at fixing the latter. But I expect we’ll be focused on repeating stupidity. We’ll question what skin color our candidate should have, and whoever emerges will run with moderate feminist Kelly Ayotte in another ticket that plays tee-ball and tells us what a bunch of nice guys the Dems are.

Gingotts on December 10, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Then again I don’t get Obama…is the desire to vote in “history” really just that important to people?

nextgen_repub on December 10, 2012 at 5:11 PM

No, people are simply grossly uninformed and have become extremely susceptible to propaganda after years of conditioning by political correctness.

darwin on December 10, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Look, she is formidable only because the Liberals get excited simply putting up “landmark” candidates. First Africa-American President. First Woman President. It has nothing to do with competency. After the last election I learned that the biggest challenge is not the Democrats per se but the mindset of the electorate that has no qualms about placing them and their ruinous policies in the seat of power.

DaveDief on December 10, 2012 at 5:15 PM

IR-MN Rubio is most definitely running in 2016. He isn’t even being really shy about it. Unless Obama is seriously at Clinton/ Reagan level popularity in 2016.. Reagan won in a 49 state landslide with 60% of the vote in 1984 and Clinton had the go-go 1990s tech boom, so I don’t think that is likely.

Illinidiva on December 10, 2012 at 5:16 PM

When the topic turned to Chris Christie, Mr. Gingrich fell mute. The thought-bubble over his head read: Thou Shalt Put No Other Fat Man Before Me.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 10, 2012 at 5:17 PM

2.)You’re forgetting about Elizabeth Warren. I could very easily see her being the first female president. She’d be the fresher face, has the brothers with the military background, and has the Ivy league position. In several ways that makes Warren a better match for the Democrats than Hillary is.

Stoic Patriot on December 10, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Or Julian Castro which may be why they had him speak at the Democratic Convention.

Kathleen Sebelius
Tim Kaine
Andrew Cuomo
Rahm Emanuel

Or even…
Michelle Obama (gah)

Their bench ain’t that thin. Crazy, but not thin.

sharrukin on December 10, 2012 at 5:18 PM

This could work out in our favor. We turn the tables on the democrats. For the last two presidential elections, we allowed the media to appoint our nominee. Now it’s our turn to appoint theirs. Make her the “presumptive” nominee from the get-go, then spend the next four years taking her apart.

It can be done, but we’ll have to rely entirely on conservative media, the blogosphere, and social media, since it’s a given that Republicans inside the beltway are useless to us anymore.

It can be done. There’s nothing special about Hillary. She puts her pants on one leg at a time just like all the other guys.

CurtZHP on December 10, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Awesome! Can’t wait to have another Secret Muslim Brotherhood agent in charge of this country!

sadsushi on December 10, 2012 at 5:21 PM

The Clinton era is to far in the past to use as a talking point against her.

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Just so you understand rinos/eSTABrepubs… Nominate a Conservative or you will have won Hillary the election in the primary! No Conservative votes! No Libertarian Votes! No Evangelical Votes! Let me just congratulate you, eSTABrepubs/rinos, on getting Hillary elected in 2016. I can do this now because you have proven, “YOU DON”T LEARN!” You will jam another rino down everyone’s throat with the same stupid saying,”He’s the only one who’s electable”. Just like McLib & Romney, you will lose again in 2016, with the exact same excuses you had in 2008 & 2012. How smart are you? Let us know how that works out for all the Million Dollar Donors who won’t be buying your BS in the future!

http://www.paratisiusa.blogspot.com

God Bless America!

paratisi on December 10, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Or,

Just keep on TV with Hannity and sell books.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 10, 2012 at 5:22 PM

None of them are that tough to beat. We just need a real Conservative.

Our candidate needs to be Conservative all the way around.

Our candidate needs to say again and again and again . . . . .

“Government isn’t the solution to the problem, Government is the problem.”

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Democrats need to overcome eight years of big-government fatigue and win a third straight presidential election. Their bench is far thinner than the GOP’s, except for an internationally famous, extremely popular former first lady turned senator turned Secretary of State who’s angling to make history as the first woman president.

You’re looking at this in the wrong way. For the GOP to continue to compete at the national level, the party has to either come to grips with its existing base or else find a new one. Right now the GOP is suffering an existential crisis. We’ve already had a look in this election about what happens if even a smallish chunk of the party base stays home. If the GOP cannot field a candidate that most of the party will vote for, they’ll keep losing. I don’t see the GOP being smart enough to field such a candidate since the most likely team is Jeb/Rubio in 2016.

A far more likely scenario is the GOP gets shellacked in 2014 and basically dissolves after losing again in 2016.

Doomberg on December 10, 2012 at 5:22 PM

STFU, Newt. I’m getting so tired of defeatists.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 10, 2012 at 5:24 PM

I dunno. Hillary Clinton is looking pretty old and tired these days.

Blake on December 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM

20 lifetimes worth of political corruption and human bitterness packed into a 65 year old body. Tough to overcome. But if anybody can do it, Hillary can!

rrpjr on December 10, 2012 at 5:26 PM

I think Newt’s game here is to ensure heavy and early Democrat investment in Hillary like there was heavy and early investment in Romney. When the focus becomes making Candidate X win, instead of making Party Y win, that which could have benefitted Party Y, and a candidate other than Candidate X, Team Candidate X will squash it instead of using it–often to the detriment of Candidate Y.

Sekhmet on December 10, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Of course she’s going to be hard to beat. Any Democrat is going to be hard to beat by Republicans who think that control of the House = no leverage. (Which is surprising given that in 2009 we actually did have no leverage. DC has short memories.)

The only think even remotely working in the Party is the Tea Party, and even they are having growing pains. If the GOP ever wants to win anything again, their leaders need to reconnect with the grassroots activists who give a damn about the direction of the country and then do what we want them to do, not what the Washington Post wants them to do.

alwaysfiredup on December 10, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Newt etal,

Now some facts are needed.

What does Ms Cliton weigh?

What are her mesurements?

28-44-56?

Height

Age in dog years?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 10, 2012 at 5:27 PM

New hotness:

Newt, December 2012: “Let’s face it, Hillary’s going to be awfully tough to beat in 2016″

Old and busted:

Newt, December 2011: “I’m going to be the nominee. They are not going to be the nominee. I don’t have to go around and point out the inconsistencies of people who are not going to be the nominee. They are not going to be the nominee. I’m going to be the nominee. It’s very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I’m going to be the nominee.”

I’d like to see the head-to-head success rate between Newt Gingrich and Dick Morris. :-)

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Ya, she is a dog, dog back then in her anti-war unamerican college days and worse now.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM

A far more likely scenario is the GOP gets shellacked in 2014 and basically dissolves after losing again in 2016.

Doomberg on December 10, 2012 at 5:22 PM

That would be too tidy. More likely we’ll have another 2010 in 2014, when the Establishment will again think they got their groove back and no longer need to “pander to the base” or make any real changes, at which point we lose (again) in 2016.

This pattern could go on ad infinitem, and if the choice is an endless loop of repetitive behavior and consequences, that seems much more the MO of the GOP than actually going away.

alwaysfiredup on December 10, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Based on the tack the GOP has taken since the election, I think any Democrat will be hard for them to beat. While running against an America hating Marxist it was easy for the GOP to draw a contrast, even with a moderate condidate. However in 2016 Obama won’t be on the ballot (hopefully–*shudder*). So whether it’s Hilary, Cuomo, Julian Castro, or some dark horse Dem they won’t be beat by an opposing party that has basically acquiesced to their entire agenda.

Kataklysmic on December 10, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Doughboy That is my concern with Rubio.. He is quite fluffy. Of course, Barry is as well, but he can get away with it. Rubio or his people more likely are aware of this. Hence why he now has a new speech that talks about stuff rather than him being the son of immigrants. But hope and change 2.0 vibes could hurt Rubio.

As for Palin, everyone was tired of her act by 2011 and she knew it. She didn’t run because it would hurt her speaker fees when she fizzled.

Illinidiva on December 10, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM

What self-respecting presidential candidate would go on television and predict their own loss? None, that’s what.

alwaysfiredup on December 10, 2012 at 5:30 PM

sorry,

“commie dog years”

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 10, 2012 at 5:30 PM

As for Palin, everyone was tired of her act by 2011 and she knew it. She didn’t run because it would hurt her speaker fees when she fizzled.

Illinidiva on December 10, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Full of crap as always. Didn’t you predict a Romney blowout?

alwaysfiredup on December 10, 2012 at 5:30 PM

If you want a complete rundown on how all of Hillary’s and Soros’ “non-profit groups” work together in her plan to take over America, get yourself a copy of the book by her mentor, Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals. In it, you’ll find the complete outline for throwing Judeo/Christian principles and honesty to the winds of revolutionary fervor. Hillary Clinton has been the perfectly patient disciple of Alinsky’s since she wrote her thesis about him her senior year at Wellesley in 1969.

What America needs is more Alinsky.

tom daschle concerned on December 10, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Newt should stay off those shows. The liberal megaphone grabs random thoughts and blasts it thru the ether-verse.

Fleuries on December 10, 2012 at 5:31 PM

If it’s Hillary verses Jeb Bush, Rubio or Paul Ryan or some other establishment hack, I’d vote for Hillary first, (although actually I’ll be voting 3rd party, I hope alone with most of the rest of you all here)!

FloatingRock on December 10, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Alone = along

FloatingRock on December 10, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Democrats seem to be following the European model …

- promise people everything
- get as many people dependent on government as possible
- import people from poor countries to take the place of the dependent people
- raise the unemployment rate to a steady 10-15%
- demonize your opponents as haters of everything
- forget about any sort of fiscal responsibility
- When it all comes crashing down be prepared to exert brutal force to clamp down on the angry government dependents

darwin on December 10, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Rubio would also benefit insofar as he and Jindal would likely be the only Republicans with a “historic candidacy” narrative capable of somewhat neutralizing Hillary’s.

This “historic” stuff is really getting old.
2008 – First (half) black preezy
2012 – First (half) black + American Indian preezy
2016 – First woman preezy
2020 – First gay preezy
2024 – First illegal alien preezy (Dems will have changed the Constitution to allow it by then)
2028 – First actual alien preezy (like, from Mars)
2032 – First (half) black, Am. Indian, female, gay, illegal alien preezy
All Democrats, of course.
Americans — the “Squirrel!” voters.

KS Rex on December 10, 2012 at 5:35 PM

First of all fool Newt,

1. Never show respect of any kind to these unamerican commie thugs in the commie hate america Democrat party.

2. Show them for what they are and have done to the U.S..

3. Never stop.

4. Turn you back on them, they have turned their backs on U.S. our constitution and in fact attack U.S. all and the constitution. They are all unfit to command.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM

alwaysfiredup. No. I actually was fairly pessimistic about the polls and thought Romney would lose especially after Sandy and Christie’s photo op.

Illinidiva on December 10, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Why keep electing the middlemen? Dig Alinsky up and run his carcass.

kenny on December 10, 2012 at 5:37 PM

What Democratic voter in his or her right mind is going to roll the dice on Cuomo or Martin O’Malley or whoever when they could take their chances with Hillary! and the Clinton machine instead?

Progressives do not like (or trust) Hillary Clinton, and considering the progressives already rolled the dice on Obama why would they not roll the dice again if someone comes out of no where that fits their bizarre view of the world. Basically Hillary will be the establishment Democrat party pick, the question will be who will be the hard core progressive pick to challenge her.

We need to pick someone who is a dynamic speaker, who can articulate a vision of individual freedom for America. In the modern world I have come to the conclusion you need someone who is smooth and can communicate with average Americans. Conservatives sometimes forget that Reagan was not just a conservative, but a former actor and had an understanding that just being a good guy with facts is not enough. You have to move people…that is what separates great leaders from mediocre leaders.

If that means Rubio, Christie or Jindal, so be it. But no more retreads, no one from country club New England elite, and for the love of god no more Bushes. Jeb is a nice guy, but please we cannot afford thatas a party. If the GOP elite think Palin is divisive, they will be in for a rude shock if they push for another Bush. Chris Christie could announce that he was pregnant with Obama’s child and I would still vote for him over another Bush.

William Eaton on December 10, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Newt:

Pandering Fat Ass Know-It-All.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 10, 2012 at 5:38 PM

darwin on December 10, 2012 at 5:33 PM

That last bullet point doesn’t sound so bad.

Kataklysmic on December 10, 2012 at 5:40 PM

That would be too tidy. More likely we’ll have another 2010 in 2014, when the Establishment will again think they got their groove back and no longer need to “pander to the base” or make any real changes, at which point we lose (again) in 2016.

This pattern could go on ad infinitem, and if the choice is an endless loop of repetitive behavior and consequences, that seems much more the MO of the GOP than actually going away.

alwaysfiredup on December 10, 2012 at 5:29 PM

The thing is, 2010 was essentially about conservatives trying to reform the GOP from within in order to deal with messes like Obamacare and the out of control debt and spending. The response of the GOP was to sideline and purge these people and do everything they could to sabotage the electoral chances of high profile Tea Party candidates. I think at this point a third party movement from the outside is far more likely given how badly our internal reform efforts have failed.

That’s why I don’t think a Tea Party will save us this time. If another one rises up the party establishment will just collaborate with the Democrats to wipe them out. I’m in the camp at this point that says the GOP = the 1850s Whigs.

Doomberg on December 10, 2012 at 5:40 PM

My, that was helpful.

Cylor on December 10, 2012 at 5:40 PM

KS Rex on December 10, 2012 at 5:35 PM

2036: Cyborg Putin
2044: Zombie Stalin

2400ish: First pro-life Italian Catholic…

Gingotts on December 10, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Did Alinsky have any kids?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 10, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Romney got beat by Obama. Newt got beat by Romney. And we’re taking advice from Newt on how to win elections… why?

Shump on December 10, 2012 at 5:14 PM

I agree. “Callista and I” is well past his use by date, yet he is still envisioning a run at 72 in 2016. During the years between his resignation from Congress and announcing a run for the presidency, Gingrich was anything but a conservative.

bw222 on December 10, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Its almost as if there is a political establishment class that enjoys playing campaign and election games for fun while the rest of us just suffer under their rule.

Joey24007 on December 10, 2012 at 5:42 PM

We need to send all the Rs to summer camp to learn how not to be a doofus.

SparkPlug on December 10, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Nothing there there. They’re all eunuchs.

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Why are we even talking about 2016?

Shouldn’t the priority be what to do now to halt the socialists and then what to do for 2014?

Galt2009 on December 10, 2012 at 5:43 PM

2044: Zombie Stalin

Are you sure we didn’t have him in 2008/12?

2400ish: First pro-life Italian Catholic…

Gingotts on December 10, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Good one! If it wasn’t so sadly true, it would be funny.

KS Rex on December 10, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Newt: Let’s face it, Hillary’s going to be awfully tough to beat in 2016 2008

December 2004 called and wants its headline back.

BocaJuniors on December 10, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Again, folks–I think Newt knows what he’s doing here. The biggest reason the GOP squelched the Tea Party in ’12 was because so many of them were invested in Romney, and the Tea Party was an obstacle to Romney, no matter how much of a boon it was to the Republicans.

Let the Democrats deal with an unstoppable and unelectable juggernaut of their own.

Sekhmet on December 10, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Chris Christie could announce that he was pregnant with Obama’s child and I would still vote for him over another Bush.

William Eaton on December 10, 2012 at 5:37 PM

No wonder he is so fat!

bw222 on December 10, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Well I guess she gets my vote. Both Newt & Hillary, because they’re both as sexy as a box of dead kittens. But I’m shallow like that.

Ugly on December 10, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Newt just trying to remain relevant, sell books and get a gig on TV.

JPeterman on December 10, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Newt also predicted that Romney would win by a bigger margin than anyone was expecting – a near landslide, he said. People would be astonished by Mitt’s margin of victory, he said. His lifetime in politics had made him an expert in forecasting elections, he said.

Maybe it’s time to start ignoring the Newtster.

sauropod on December 10, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Rubio would also benefit insofar as he and Jindal would likely be the only Republicans with a “historic candidacy” narrative capable of somewhat neutralizing Hillary’s.

Ted Cruz is probably running too. I predict that if he does he will get more votes in the primary than Rubio. And there will probably be at least one female GOP candidate: Ayotte, Fallon, Martinez, Haley are all possibilities.

Jon0815 on December 10, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Face it no one knows who will run, Heck Palin is beating Rubio in a PPP poll.

KBird on December 10, 2012 at 5:49 PM

The Tea Party is not a thing.

The Tea Party was U.S., we are still here.

More conservatives will get elected in 2014 to the house.

The Senate is harder due to the cost.

But, the House does control spending.

Once we win 20 more House seats with conservatives the Republican leadership in the house will go conservative. Hell it is possible now if Bonehead goes turns tail like he wants to.

The borrowing and debt will still be there only more in 2016, the whole thing will be much more clear in 2014 and the voters will start showing up.

This was not made in 6 days with a 7th for rest.

These progressives, commies and RINO’s have been like rats eating holes in the ships hull now for 70 years.

It will take lots of calking and fixing over at least four , four year cycles.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 10, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Rubio would also benefit insofar as he and Jindal would likely be the only Republicans with a “historic candidacy” narrative capable of somewhat neutralizing Hillary’s.

Ted Cruz is probably running too. I predict that if he does he will get more votes in the primary than Rubio. And there will probably be at least one female GOP candidate: Ayotte, Fallon, Martinez, Haley are all possibilities.

Jon0815 on December 10, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Isn’t it literally impossible for Ted Cruz to run? I thought the guy was born in Canada, making him ineligible to be POTUS.

Stoic Patriot on December 10, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Newt also predicted that Romney would win by a bigger margin than anyone was expecting – a near landslide, he said. People would be astonished by Mitt’s margin of victory, he said. His lifetime in politics had made him an expert in forecasting elections, he said.

Maybe it’s time to start ignoring the Newtster.

sauropod on December 10, 2012 at 5:49 PM

This.

Time for Newt to go the way of Dick Morris and Karl Rove.

JPeterman on December 10, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Did Alinsky have any kids?

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 10, 2012 at 5:41 PM

2

tom daschle concerned on December 10, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Newt is just stating the obvious.

Look at the country. Barack Obama was the worst President of the modern era and he was reelected on a playbook that the GOP (at least the current brand) cannot beat.

Point fingers, promise free stuff, and lean on the media.

You think the electorate is going to become more informed or more friendly to conservatives, over the next 4 years.

This is the propaganda administration. Obama has used every trick in the community organizers handbook to make the government into ACORN.

Truth means nothing, facts mean nothing. Obama phone….now thats the new America.

No matter how ugly the economy gets, they will destroy the meaning of the numbers, numb the pain of economic failure, and the media will gladly help with diversions when needed.

The country is over. The radical left did what it always said it would, it took down the US from within.

Obamacare will give the government enough power to bully any freedom left, out of the ignorant citizens, who are now a voting majority in America.

Back to the point. If the Democrats decide its Hillary’s turn, then she will be President.

No Republican will inhabit the White House for the foreseeable future.

When the people vote for tyranny, the always get it.

alecj on December 10, 2012 at 5:54 PM

2.)You’re forgetting about Elizabeth Warren.

Stoic Patriot on December 10, 2012 at 5:11 PM

We’ve had our disagreements, but I think you could be spot-on here: when liberalism falters (as it inevitably will in a 2nd Obama term), they always think it’s because their guy wasn’t moonbatty enough. They lost in 2000 with Gore and then were poised in 2004 to nominated Dean, who only lost because of the scream. Then they went into outer orbit with the most liberal senator they could find in 2008 and got him elected. You think they’re going to dial it back with Hillary in 2016 if there’s some fire-breathing crackpot like Warren running and promising full frontal Marxism? I’m not so sure.

The Count on December 10, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Full of crap as always. Didn’t you predict a Romney blowout?

alwaysfiredup on December 10, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Nope. She took a lot of heat here for voicing fears he was going to lose. Got called a defeatist, IIRC.

a capella on December 10, 2012 at 5:58 PM

ajecj

If you think that, then sign over all your assets to the Democrats, dig a cave and crawl in and stay until real Americans fix it for you.

to quit is not a way to win

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 10, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Per the Barone article, the Hispanic in-migration ended in 2007. If Castro and Chavez croak soon, Latin America can be the next economic powerhouse, chock full of low-skill manufacturing jobs. That net zero migration could go negative at that point.

Hillary is an old white woman in a party that only seems to win by drawing out minorities to vote. She has negatives all her own, that will come out on the campaign trail. If we’re smart, there will be no charismatic minority who can knock her off the ticket as in 2008. Then we will do to her what the Dems did to Romney.

Sekhmet on December 10, 2012 at 5:58 PM

alecj on December 10, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Can’t disagree with anything you wrote. The first state that eventually breaks away from this misery will be my new home.

The Count on December 10, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Eight years of her and 8 years of Cory Booker to follow. Panama is looking better every day.

FireBlogger on December 10, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Cruz, may be born in Canada but to U.S. citizen parents?/

Could be he was born after they became citizens.

do not know for sure…

Will check.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on December 10, 2012 at 6:00 PM

I’ll say it. the youth who elected Obama twice have no real memory of Hillary as First Lady and only vaguely as SOS. To them, she’s already a chubby old woman with stringy hair who dresses badly. She’s not cool. She’ll be even less cool to the 14 year olds who will be voting in the next election.
Put her in the ring against a youthful, energetic Marco Rubio and she’s toast.

Curmudgeon on December 10, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Sekhmet on December 10, 2012 at 5:58 PM

It would also mean Rubio has nothing to run on.

a capella on December 10, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Eight years of her and 8 years of Cory Booker to follow. Panama is looking better every day.

FireBlogger on December 10, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Sucks that people used to come here to flee from the kind of people now running the government, and in my opinion, will be running the government for the foreseeable future. Will Panama really be much better? Seems like slim pickings.

The Count on December 10, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Obviously Newt is forgetting that the GOP nominee is going to be Mr. Next-in-Line Rick Santorum, who is sure to win because he’s so conservative.

/

Syzygy on December 10, 2012 at 6:10 PM

ALLEN WEST. what this country needs is some straight talk and he is just the guy to do it.

sbvft contributor on December 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM

My theory? The Clintons wanted Obama to get back in there because they knew he’d be a train wreck. And then, when they came along and made adequate changes starting in 2016, and going forward, they would look like heroes.

Because, let’s be serious. How much better do we all think that it would be if Bill Clinton was president than Obama? I don’t think there is any comparison. I suspect that H. Clinton would be a massive improvement over Obama (which is why in 2008, I was telling anyone that would listen to vote in the Dem primary if they could and vote for Clinton). Frankly, comparing B. Clinton’s record to Romney’s record, I’m not sure that I see much daylight there. So, if we thought that replacing Obama with Romney would save the republic, how would it be much different if we were replacing Obama with Clinton?

besser tot als rot on December 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM

they both think [it] would be good for her to be president. It makes it virtually impossible to stop her for the nomination.”

There’s Newt, spouting off like he’s the expert on what the GOP needs. First of all, she hasn’t even said she was interested, she told people to leave her alone until at least April, but the stupid Republicans, once again, aren’t listening. They keep talking her up like that and she just may be unbeatable. Just don’t YOU run again, Newt. We’re tired of reruns.

scalleywag on December 10, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3