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

Aid and comfort. And note that SEIU Purple has become the ‘power tie’ color of choice. It’s everywhere, like a metastasizing cancer.

rayra on December 10, 2012 at 6:29 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

That wasn’t the point. He made the prediction in December 2011 and withdrew from the primary 6 months later although he was out of the running long before that. 6 months — hell, 6 weeks — is an eternity in politics so I will take Gingrich’s prediction 4 years out with massive quantities of salt.

Why didn’t Democratic “giants” like Mario Cuomo, Ben Bradley, etc, run in 1992?

Hint: In one poll conducted in early 1991, the man, who most Democrats believed had the best chance of beating Bush – Mario Cuomo – trailed Bush in a head-to-head match up by — drumroll, please — 62 points. ~15/16 months later, a relatively unknown governor from Arkansas had a double-digit lead and never looked back as he was on his way to the first of his two terms. He would be the first Democrat elected to a second term since FDR.

The idea that Hillary “Benghazi” Clinton is a shoo-in in 2016 is as set in stone as Hillary “elect-one-get-one-free” Clinton was a lock for 2008.

She may be popular, but Cuomo, O’Malley, etc, are going to take a pass because it’s Hillary’s turn is a joke. The Democrats aren’t the Republicans. They don’t automatically nominate last presidential primary’s runner-up or Miss Congeniality.

Gingrich is prone to make a sweeping statements and predict that they are givens. He is also prone to grandiosity on a scale that few other than Obama have reached. Other than Obama, how many politicians have you ever seen compare themselves to Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Dwight David Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Henry Clay, Charles de Gaulle, Abraham Lincoln, the Duke of Wellington, Marion Barry, Ho Chi Minh, William Wallace, Moses, Pericles, a Viking (and not the Minnesota kind either), Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, Vince Lombardi, Sam Walton, Ray Kroc, and those are just a few of names of people that join Newt in his Lamed Vav Hall of Fame, which aren’t just 36 special people in the world at one time, but the top special people in the history of world civilisation.

Mark Steyn once wrote of Newt that he is “A lead zeppelin with more baggage than the Hindenburg.” He should have added “and a bigger ego than the entire Panzergruppe 4.”

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Does anyone think Ryan has any political capital left to run in 2016?

scalleywag on December 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Hillary VS. Palin. It’s the only logical choice and has my vote for “would be” best election season evah.

Every time there’s a loss, any loss, it’s because the establishment screwed the base, they were too moderate, the big wigs didn’t provide support, on and on and on.

So let’s put it to the test. Get Sarah to run this time. She’ll easily win the republican nomination. She would have waltzed to it last time.

If she loses though, it’s gonna be hard to keep making the same post-election arguments about how “more conservative” red meat style politics is what was needed.

Genuine on December 10, 2012 at 6:43 PM

I don’t think Hillary would be tough to be beat. I’m sorry but I don’t see the appeal in her. Dems were quick to get rid in 2008. And it seems the modern voter likes young and charismatic. So put Hillary up against Rubio who is young and charismatic and I think she will have a hard time. Her argument will be my nomination is “historic” because she’s a woman…..well Rubio can make the exact same case.

terryannonline on December 10, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Secretary Clinton? Isn’t she the one that landed under gunfire while the little girls gave her welcome flowers?

Browncoatone on December 10, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Does anyone think Ryan has any political capital left to run in 2016?

scalleywag on December 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM

why not? he didn’t use of any of it in 2012. Did he disappear or is that how the media usually covers VP choices?

Joey24007 on December 10, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Genuine on December 10, 2012 at 6:43 PM

seems legit.

Joey24007 on December 10, 2012 at 6:52 PM

There will be several new black upcomers in the democratic primary in 2016. How will Hillary look then, an old white woman vs a whole slew of candidates that will sell themselves as Obama II?

I can’t see Hillary winning those races. Wouldn’t it be racist of her to try and take the White House back for the white race?

slickwillie2001 on December 10, 2012 at 7:06 PM

scalleywag I definitely think that Ryan has enough political capital to run in 2016. He ran a relatively clean VP race and ended up unscathed by the experience. I haven’t heard a peep about how Ryan’s Medicare plan cost Romney the election. For me, the 2016 election depends on what things look like in 2014 and 2015. If the economy is okay and they actually come up with a grand bargain, then Rubio wins the nod. If people turn against Barry, then an anti-Obama will probably win.. Biggest anti- Obama politician in my mind is Paul Ryan.

Illinidiva on December 10, 2012 at 7:11 PM

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.

She’ll trounce Rubio and Christie by picking up the white working/middle class along with the other core Democrat constituencies.

Punchenko on December 10, 2012 at 7:12 PM

I think the best plan is to have a resource-draining divisive primary that lasts right up until a couple months before the convention. /

Professor_Chaos on December 10, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Genuine. It seems like you are advocating a blowout against Hillary. I don’t want to experience that.

Illinidiva on December 10, 2012 at 7:15 PM

I think the best plan is to have a resource-draining divisive primary that lasts right up until a couple months before the convention. /

Professor_Chaos on December 10, 2012 at 7:13 PM

yes, and make sure the other candidates have no realistic shot of winning the nomination.

Joey24007 on December 10, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Let the Dems have the Whitehouse and the Senate for the next 12 years, because those years are not going to be good. Let them own the economy, lock stock and barrel until 2024. Let them not propose or pass a budget for the next 16 years and see how that works out. The $880 billion “stimulus” has already been cooked into the books for three fiscal years now, lets see how another 16 years of $1 Trillion plus deficits work out for them.

I say give them everything they want and pick up the pieces later if there are any left.

Johnnyreb on December 10, 2012 at 7:16 PM

I think the best plan is to have a resource-draining divisive primary that lasts right up until a couple months before the convention. /

Professor_Chaos on December 10, 2012 at 7:13 PM

It would also help not to have a crappy incompetent candidate who basically agrees with everything the Democrats want.

sharrukin on December 10, 2012 at 7:17 PM

It makes it virtually impossible to stop her for the nomination.”

Newt, were you under a rock in 2008?

I bet they (demorats) (metaphorically) slit her craggy old throat if she runs….I’m sure Billy Jeff got the promise from JugEars for the Hillary endorsement but i wouldn’t count on him keeping his word, he’ll have absolutely no use for either of the Clintons when his term is over…

Tim Zank on December 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Punchenko One of Rubio’s strengths to me is that he is able to speak to the aspirations of all Americans eloquently. I really don’t feel that Rubio will appeal to Latinos based on ethnicity, but he will be able to appeal based on culture and background. I think that background appeal probably extends to white working class voters as well as at least a slice of African American community. The next step is Rubio creating a policy agenda around that appeal.

Illinidiva on December 10, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Joey24007. I think that the poster was being ironic. The 2008 primary didn’t hurt the Ds.

Illinidiva on December 10, 2012 at 7:32 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

So you’d vote for an establishment democrat over an establishment republican. Shocking, lol.

xblade on December 10, 2012 at 7:38 PM

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

Question? Who here believes that Newt angling to be Hilary’s HHS Secretary? He seemed to have some positive things to say about her healthcare proposals in the past.

antifederalist on December 10, 2012 at 7:38 PM

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

…YES!…Let’s face it!…”I am the presumptive Republican NOMINEE!”

KOOLAID2 on December 10, 2012 at 7:40 PM

I’m not saying any of this (at least as it pertains to the Dem nomination) is wrong, but I’m kind of disappointed that AP is writing all this certitude without taking note of the obvious irony of how Hillary’s mathematically certain candidacy in 2008 turned out.

HitNRun on December 10, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Newt is simply one-upping all the republicans who are running around today saying we can’t win on any issue by saying we can’t win in 2016, lol.

Now for a reality check it. In 2016, it won’t really matter who wins. That ship sailed for good on November 6 2012.

xblade on December 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM

I say give them everything they want and pick up the pieces later if there are any left.

Johnnyreb on December 10, 2012 at 7:16 PM

That’s a pretty ironic and deeply cowardly position for someone with the nic ‘Johnnyreb’ to be espousing. Shouldn’t you instead be advocating for civil war or something?

rayra on December 10, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Part of the GOPs problem is they keep listening to the old dinosaurs like Newt who have been around since, well, forever it seems. Guess what, Newt? This is a whole different world now, with a whole new set of problems. We need fresh new voices and a whole team of tech-savvy marketers to rebuild the party message from the ground up. Not some old guy saying how hopeless it is to try and beat the old gal from the 70s.

scalleywag on December 10, 2012 at 8:02 PM

So you’d vote for an establishment democrat over an establishment republican. Shocking, lol.

xblade on December 10, 2012 at 7:38 PM

That’s what our Mobys do.

slickwillie2001 on December 10, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Question? Who here believes that Newt angling to be Hilary’s HHS Secretary? He seemed to have some positive things to say about her healthcare proposals in the past.

antifederalist on December 10, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Sorta asinine and ahistoric. Newt says whatever it takes to make himself relevant. He played the staunch opponent of socialized medicine and in fact rose to prominance / the Speakership based no that rhetoric and other such jingoism in his ‘Contract With America’ in ’94-95. Hillarycare in ’93, right out of the gate with Clinton’s first year in office, then the AWB in ’94, triggered a huge backlash that put the House in GOP hands with Newt as Speaker, in the Nov’94 elections, the Jan’95 session. And it was Newt’s Congress that FORCED the pseudo-balanced budget and ‘welfare reform’ on Clinton. That same ‘balanced budget’ that lying / ignorant leftists claim ownership of today.

rayra on December 10, 2012 at 8:08 PM

scalleywag on December 10, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Nothing against “old guys”, I’m an “old gal” myself, we just need some fresh new faces instead of the same tired bloviaters to talk about the next election.

scalleywag on December 10, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Cafeteria Catholic Newt remains lost in the mess he helped create when Speaker. Newt…how about no surrender no compromise.

SANTA on December 10, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Hint: In one poll conducted in early 1991, the man, who most Democrats believed had the best chance of beating Bush – Mario Cuomo – trailed Bush in a head-to-head match up by — drumroll, please — 62 points. ~15/16 months later, a relatively unknown governor from Arkansas had a double-digit lead and never looked back as he was on his way to the first of his two terms. He would be the first Democrat elected to a second term since FDR.

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Except that you and many others conveniently forget Ross Perot who mostly pulled votes from Bush. Clinton won by “default”, no other reason.

riddick on December 10, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Part of the GOPs problem is they keep listening to the old dinosaurs like Newt who have been around since, well, forever it seems. Guess what, Newt? This is a whole different world now, with a whole new set of problems. We need fresh new voices and a whole team of tech-savvy marketers to rebuild the party message from the ground up. Not some old guy saying how hopeless it is to try and beat the old gal from the 70s.

scalleywag on December 10, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Would be interesting to hear your thoughts on just who qualifies on your list of “new voices”.

riddick on December 10, 2012 at 8:13 PM

The reason Democrats are hard to beat is because Republicans try to win by becoming Democrat Light. It will not win.

astonerii on December 10, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Except that you and many others conveniently forget Ross Perot who mostly pulled votes from Bush. Clinton won by “default”, no other reason.

riddick on December 10, 2012 at 8:09 PM

He sure did. Of course, the reason Ross Perot ever entered the ring was because Bush Sr sucked so bad. We have third party candidates in EVERY election, why on earth did they defect? Because they were not willing to support the reneger!

astonerii on December 10, 2012 at 8:18 PM

If the DEMOCRATIC economy TANKS, does Newt honestly believe that people will flock to another DEMOCRATIC standard bearer?

GarandFan on December 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM

The first question I ask about this is: Is he wrong? The Republican Party is so devoid of leadership, they have no clue what they need to do. The truth is they should be a tea party group, yet they keep listening to the Democrats tell them not to be tea party. I don’t know if they’re afraid or they really want to spend like the Democrats but know if they tell people they won’t vote for them.

Boehner should let the Bush Tax Cuts expire and allow the bus to head toward the cliff. Let people understand what all these taxes are going to do to the middle class, since they all believe the Bush tax cuts were just for the rich.

Finally, Obama wants 8 days forth of spending for his taxes, what does he plan to do for the remaining 357 days?

bflat879 on December 10, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Except that you and many others conveniently forget Ross Perot who mostly pulled votes from Bush. Clinton won by “default”, no other reason.

riddick on December 10, 2012 at 8:09 PM

My point, which you missed, was that first-string Democrats made decisions in 1991 to sit out the race because Bush was “going to be awfully tough to beat in 1992.” They thought that he’d win and they could run in 1996. Things didn’t turn out that way because a year is an eternity in politics. If one year is an eternity in politics, how would you like to describe 4?

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM

You’re not helping, Newt.

Your need to be in front of a camera is oft-times grating.

How about you either help or STFU.

Tim_CA on December 10, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Yeah well we only have four years to go and it’s not like that’s enough time for anything significant to happen, like a major recession, complete economic collapse, a terrorist attack, or war in the Middle East. So let’s just concede the race now.

And Clinton’s Benghazi baggage? Nothing to see there.

/

Erich66 on December 10, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Here’s the real question. What does the near-inevitability of Hillary’s nomination mean for the GOP primaries in 2016?

Answer:

Benghazi Investigation
Benghazi Investigation
Benghazi Investigation.

Keep pressuring…keep digging…..make the shrew own it….along with the rest of her tainted record.

But the Repubs won’t.

They’ll bend over and go with another establishment approved moderate retread….cuz that works so damned well.

Tim_CA on December 10, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Blue Collar Man here, not buying what you’re selling.

Ugly on December 10, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Except that you and many others conveniently forget Ross Perot who mostly pulled votes from Bush. Clinton won by “default”, no other reason.

riddick on December 10, 2012 at 8:09 PM

AND Clinton never got more than 50% of the vote. He won with pluralities, both times. Thanks to Perot and the GOP’s feckless choice of squishy RINO candidates.

rayra on December 10, 2012 at 9:03 PM

He sure did. Of course, the reason Ross Perot ever entered the ring was because Bush Sr sucked so bad. We have third party candidates in EVERY election, why on earth did they defect? Because they were not willing to support the reneger!

astonerii on December 10, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Wrong for the umpteenth time, you retard. Perot was in the race solely to grudge-screw Bush the Elder. Personal business. It was NEVER about his being a viable alternative candidate.

rayra on December 10, 2012 at 9:05 PM

And I would vote for her (Hillary) before I would vote for anyone that the pathetic GOP put up. I am seriously done with these clowns. The GOP puts up more liberals than the Democrats. I will be writing in someone from here on out. Conservatives had someone that was classically conservative this time and they chose to silence him. That’s okay, he still got my vote. Another great statesman to be watching out for in the near future, I hope, is David Simpson. He would definitely get my vote if he ever ran for the big one.

air_up_there on December 10, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Again, folks– Newt knows what he’s doing. He’s trying to stick the Democrats with an unstoppable, but generally un-electable juggernaut. He’s Br’er Rabbit asking not to be thrown in the briar patch.

Romney even got the yutes—the WHITE yutes. They were simply out-voted by minority yutes jazzed at the current White House Occupant’s level of melanin. Are they going to turn out as enthusiastically for an old white woman? Especially when the yute vote by 2016 won’t have memories of the 90′s that didn’t involve diapers and Power Rangers?

Sekhmet on December 10, 2012 at 9:07 PM

I am continually mystified by those who believe it’s inevitable she will run. Is this a GOP mind trick to convince other Democrat hopefuls not to even bother?

I guess anything is possible, but I really think that ship has sailed for her. And esp. if Chelsea pops out a kid soon — I will double down on my prediction in that case. Besides, the Dems have even more sexists in their ranks than the GOP does. These people talk a good game now but when the time comes to put their money where their mouth is and really back her, they will pull out the long knives just like they did last time.

NoLeftTurn on December 10, 2012 at 9:08 PM

My point, which you missed, was that first-string Democrats made decisions in 1991 to sit out the race because Bush was “going to be awfully tough to beat in 1992.” They thought that he’d win and they could run in 1996. Things didn’t turn out that way because a year is an eternity in politics. If one year is an eternity in politics, how would you like to describe 4?

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM

This isn’t accurate either. The conservative disenchantment was already well underway. Bush the Elder had already violated his campaign slogan of ‘No New Taxes’.
’80, Reagan-Carter-Anderson, 44M to 35M to 6M
’84, Reagan-Mondale, 54.5M to 38M
’88, Bush-Dukakis, 49M to 42M
’92, Bush-Perot-CLinton, 39M to 20M to 45M
’96, Dole-Perot-Clinton, 39M to 8M to 47M
’00, Bush-Gore, 50.5M to 51M
’04, Bush-Kerry, 62M to 59M
’08, McCain-Obama, 60M to 69M
’12, Romney-Obama, 61M to 65.6M

rayra on December 10, 2012 at 9:17 PM

These people talk a good game now but when the time comes came to put their money where their mouth is and really back her, they will pull out the long knives just like they did last time.

NoLeftTurn on December 10, 2012 at 9:08 PM

That’s what I don’t get about Gingrich and AP and all the rest’s straight-line handicapping.

Was there any conceivable possibility in the quantum universe that Hillary Clinton could have lost the 2008 nomination? No. But she did. And it wasn’t a fluke and it wasn’t an accident.

The netroots don’t like her and the people holding the keyboards over there are vicious misogynists who have proven they have immunity when they rip off her clothes and kick her around the mud by virtue of being liberals. Half of the female libs have proven twice now they’ll throw the advancement of women out the window for a smooth SOB with a little game. And the other half (the PUMAs) have proven that, in the end, they’ll fall in line in the general election.

Why on Earth would 2008 not happen again to Hillary?

HitNRun on December 10, 2012 at 9:18 PM

If the Repubs would slime her with Benghazi-gate for the next 3 1/2 years (as the Dems would do if she were a Repub), she’ll be tenderized enough to beat like a cheap rug.

Newt needs to concentrate on the Lunar Colony.

profitsbeard on December 10, 2012 at 9:23 PM

’84, Reagan-Mondale, 54.5M to 38M
’88, Bush-Dukakis, 49M to 42M

Look familiar? Same sort of stagnation happened with McCain and Romney.
Somehow in a campaign that appeared full of enthusiasm and support, facing an existential domestic enemy of this nation, millions of conservatives failed to vote. With the same (questionable) polls citing far more self-identifying as conservative than liberal.
With something like over 200M ELIGIBLE voters in this nation, 75M failed to vote. More DIDN’T vote, than voted for either candidate.

rayra on December 10, 2012 at 9:25 PM

My, that was helpful.

Cylor on December 10, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Video games and center-right politics? :)

So, you guys are working together on that blog? Are you CWS? This was some high-density stuff, right here:

http://sincronos.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4100#p4100

Axe on December 10, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Here we go, already working the money donors up for 2016. We can stop calling this four year cycle the run for the presidency, and start calling it the selling of the presidency. Over 2 Billion dollars was spent on the last “selling” and all we got was the same old sick socialist. Not a very good investment for conservatives, but a money maker for the liberal media. The Republicans will never win by trying to out Democrat the Democrats. What the Republican Party really needs to do is embrace Integrity, Honor, and our Founder’s Principles and get rid of this progressive ideology they are embracing now. I keep getting the idea that they like losing, it means they do not have to lead.

savage24 on December 10, 2012 at 9:43 PM

If Hillary wants to run, she would require one hell of a makeover at an even more advanced age. The old gray mare ain’t what she used to be. I will skip any resulting jokes.

Philly on December 10, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Does anyone think Ryan has any political capital left to run in 2016?

scalleywag on December 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM

To my surprise, Paul Ryan didn’t energize conservatives (or anyone else) in 2012. Hamdsome, nice bicepts, but not exactly Mr. Excitement.

bw222 on December 10, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Hillary looks like a physical train wreck. All of the excesses by herself and Bubba in Arkansas and all the nose candy and Bacchanal allegedly utilized by the WH in the 1990s she and Slick physiologically are locked in a battle to see who can evade the Grim Reaper the longest.

viking01 on December 10, 2012 at 9:52 PM

The problem isn’t beating Hilary. The problem is beating the 65,000,000 idiots and socialists who want to elect her. That’s why the GOP doesn’t stand a chance in 2016. Have you looked at opinion polling recently? The country has gone even nuttier than it did in 2008.

When a numerical majority can impose their will on the minority without protection of law, this country has no more legitimacy than it did in the days of slavery.

SAMinVA on December 10, 2012 at 9:53 PM

scalleywag I definitely think that Ryan has enough political capital to run in 2016. He ran a relatively clean VP race and ended up unscathed by the experience.

Illinidiva on December 10, 2012 at 7:11 PM

I have yet to hear the first person say, “I didn’t vote for Romney; I voted for Paul Ryan.” Ryan was a surprisingly lackluster candidate who couldn’t even deliver his own state. But, like Mitt, Ryan is handsome, which makes him a harpy favorite.

bw222 on December 10, 2012 at 9:59 PM

This isn’t accurate either. The conservative disenchantment was already well underway. Bush the Elder had already violated his campaign slogan of ‘No New Taxes’.
’80, Reagan-Carter-Anderson, 44M to 35M to 6M
’84, Reagan-Mondale, 54.5M to 38M
’88, Bush-Dukakis, 49M to 42M
’92, Bush-Perot-CLinton, 39M to 20M to 45M
’96, Dole-Perot-Clinton, 39M to 8M to 47M
’00, Bush-Gore, 50.5M to 51M
’04, Bush-Kerry, 62M to 59M
’08, McCain-Obama, 60M to 69M
’12, Romney-Obama, 61M to 65.6M

rayra on December 10, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Yes, my post was accurate. It had NOTHING to do with conservatives. The issue, which you are failing to grasp, was the fact that first-string Democrats made the decision after the Gulf War and in 1991 NOT TO RUN because they did not believe that they could beat Bush, who had a 90% approval rating at one point.

Less than 2 years out, the marquee Democrats thought Bush could not be beaten at all, but that’s an eternity in politics. They didn’t see the effects of broken pledge, the recession, and Perot’s run. Those were 3 things that happened that changed the playing field.

Of course, none of that is important since that timeframe was less than 2 years. Newt is talking about 4 years so, obviously, his prediction is much more likely to be accurate because, you know, I mean, like, um, what could possibly happen in 4 years???

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Does anyone think Ryan has any political capital left to run in 2016?
scalleywag on December 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM
To my surprise, Paul Ryan didn’t energize conservatives (or anyone else) in 2012. Hamdsome, nice bicepts, but not exactly Mr. Excitement.
bw222 on December 10, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Ryan is a great, smart man but not a great salesman. He speaks wonk but doesn’t explain conservatism as well as Rubio or Rand, IMHO. Gotta sell the sizzle, not the steak, etc.

The Count on December 10, 2012 at 10:11 PM

bw222 I guess by lackluster you mean that Ryan can name a newspaper that he reads and doesn’t cause controversies on the ticket and isn’t the punchline of jokes. Jeez, Palin generated excitement the way that daytime soaps generate excitement, through constant melodrama. It really sidetracked McCain in 2008. Poor, cynical choice on his part. Ryan turned out to be a good campaigner and he made less gaffes than the guy running for President.

A few other thoughts…

1. Yes the Ryan pick made me more likely to vote for Romney. I thought he was going to go for boring like Portman, but he went a bit riskier. It is clear that Romney was hiring a COO and picked the guy who aced his interview. Ryan is a big ideas guy and would have done interesting things as VP. Much more interesting than the current bozo.

2. Palin is old news..sorry. Rubio has Palin’s charisma+ some without her baggage. He also seems willing to work on his issues (lack of substance), something Palin decided against. Ryan and Jindal (although Jindal’s public statements the last month have been sleazy) are much more substantive than Palin and work better as anti-Obamas. All are six to seven hears younger than Palin and Generation X guys.

3. Wow… so a Palinista feels the need to call women who disagree with him a harpy… Sexist much?

Illinidiva on December 10, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Yeah it is time to worry on December 10 2012 about the 2016 elections… But I am sure many idiots will fall for this sh*t…

mnjg on December 10, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Ryan, to his personal credit but political detriment, is probably too much of a gentleman to run the kind of sleazy campaign necessary to defeat these a-holes. They turned a 40 year faithful husband and family man into a tax felon and murderer. Hard to believe I’m not even being hyperbolic as I say that. Can anyone see Ryan getting down in the mud with the Clinton machine? I can’t.

The Count on December 10, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Yeah it is time to worry on December 10 2012 about the 2016 elections… But I am sure many idiots will fall for this sh*t…

mnjg on December 10, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Exactly! Is there a reason we are already driving the party into the ground 3 years a head of schedule?

It might as well be a millenium btw now and 2016, relax, this is the last freaking thing the Repub’s need right now!

We have a great bench, let them marinate.

ccrosby on December 10, 2012 at 10:46 PM

There are three ways to beat Hillary: ridicule, ridicule, and ridicule. A portrait of Monica Lewinski in a kneeling, ready-to-go position should greet her everywhere she goes. People like to laugh, and people like sex stories, so let them rejoice in both.

Archivarix on December 10, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Does anyone take Fat Newt the Propagandist seriously? After he lost to Romney,does Newt have anything to offer or say? Really? I can see him as a Wal-Mart Greeter for the 2013 Season.

Tbone McGraw on December 10, 2012 at 11:03 PM

This has got to be the stupid article yet. Rubio ain’t shiz. What the heii has Rubio done.

Have you people learned nothing with losing with Romney.

Are you completely stupid.

Who the heii is Rubio and what has he done?

oldyeller on December 10, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Illinidiva on December 10, 2012 at 10:29 PM

Rubio doesn’t have shiz.

oldyeller on December 10, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Her absolute best chance to win was after President Bush.

She couldn’t beat a junior senator from Illinois and, unlike the Republicans that had to run against him in the general, she didn’t have the press entirely against her.

Her inevitability is highly over-rated.

JadeNYU on December 10, 2012 at 11:16 PM

My point, which you missed, was that first-string Democrats made decisions in 1991 to sit out the race because Bush was “going to be awfully tough to beat in 1992.” They thought that he’d win and they could run in 1996. Things didn’t turn out that way because a year is an eternity in politics. If one year is an eternity in politics, how would you like to describe 4?

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM

No. Point you and others seem to be missing, time and again, is that Clinton won with just 40% plus of the vote.

2012 was the repeat of the 1992 with so called “libertarians”, mostly known as communist lite, OPENLY supporting and then voting for Hussein.

Too bad history is such a strange subject to so many.

riddick on December 10, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Who the heii is Rubio and what has he done?

oldyeller on December 10, 2012 at 11:10 PM

It appears he’s the designated Next In Line lead-pipe-cinch sure-fire winner. If Rubio’s the nominee, it’ll be a real bloodbath for the GOP. The guy wouldn’t even pull in 30% of the Latino vote. He’s far more popular with bloggers and pundits and Red Team cheerleaders than he is with the conservative base. Among them, Rubio’s stock has been going down ever since 2011. As for what he’s done, he got elected to the Senate and has made some speeches.

ddrintn on December 10, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Now for a reality check it. In 2016, it won’t really matter who wins. That ship sailed for good on November 6 2012.

xblade on December 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Yep. After the trial (dry) run in NV Senate race where Angle won, but SEIU rigged the machines to put reid iback in Senate and then full on run with rigging voting machines in FL, PA and OH liberals now have an easy time “winning” elections.

Doesn’t matter who votes, its who COUNTS the votes that matters.

Allen West ring a bell for anyone?

riddick on December 10, 2012 at 11:31 PM

To my surprise, Paul Ryan didn’t energize conservatives (or anyone else) in 2012. Hamdsome, nice bicepts, but not exactly Mr. Excitement.

bw222 on December 10, 2012 at 9:48 PM

You mean same “fiscal conservative” Ryan that voted for TARP? Or same Ryan that had a brilliant budget plan to cut $400 Billion a year to leave with, oh, just $1 TRILLIOn deficit per year? Or the Ryan who just sided with Boehner’s “more taxes” proposal?

That Ryan?

I hope he gets voted out of the House along with Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy, and a number of others come 2014.

riddick on December 10, 2012 at 11:35 PM

I would vote for the ugly old witch because I don’t give a damn anymore.

Your country tis of thee!

Anarchy in the UK!

Sherman1864 on December 10, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Her absolute best chance to win was after President Bush.

She couldn’t beat a junior senator from Illinois and, unlike the Republicans that had to run against him in the general, she didn’t have the press entirely against her.

Her inevitability is highly over-rated.

JadeNYU on December 10, 2012 at 11:16 PM

I agree with the second part, disagree a little with the first. I think her best chance was in 2004. I don’t know why GOPers are so scared of her, though. Hillary Clinton is always popular as long as she’s not a national candidate. I’d say Andrew Cuomo would beat her in the Dem primaries.

ddrintn on December 10, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Of course, none of that is important since that timeframe was less than 2 years. Newt is talking about 4 years so, obviously, his prediction is much more likely to be accurate because, you know, I mean, like, um, what could possibly happen in 4 years???

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 10:02 PM

No. Newt is absolutely right. As usual I should add.

We have no one at this point save for Palin, Perry and now most likely Cruz. If you stretch it, maybe Gowdy. Rubio is Romney Lite, in every respect. Same for Ryan, the idiot who can’t really grasp the numbers and so far has voted with liberals each and every time when it mattered, same as he is doing now with Boehner. Rubio is just another liar in Romney’s stead, who is an idiot enough not to really know his family’s history? Cain can run a a company and that’s about it. Bush should just make a disappearing act, at east I hope he does after all is family “has done for us”.

So, yes, Newt DOES HAVE A POINT. Coulter, Rove and the rest of GOP should just shut the fu** up and let us choose a real conservative to run in 2016.

As I spoke with some people here in NV, some only voted for Romney because Shillary was not a on the ticket. But I know how they will vote if she runs in 2016 and they do not have a better choice.

riddick on December 10, 2012 at 11:48 PM

There are three ways to beat Hillary: ridicule, ridicule, and ridicule. A portrait of Monica Lewinski in a kneeling, ready-to-go position should greet her everywhere she goes. People like to laugh, and people like sex stories, so let them rejoice in both.

Archivarix on December 10, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Clenis: I am thinking of adopting Monica.

Shillary: No, I don’t want another mouth in the family.

riddick on December 10, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Does anyone take Fat Newt the Propagandist seriously? After he lost to Romney,does Newt have anything to offer or say? Really? I can see him as a Wal-Mart Greeter for the 2013 Season.

Tbone McGraw on December 10, 2012 at 11:03 PM

I was really hoping Romneybots would vanish along with their progressive liberal candidate.

Tell me, is your progressive liberal candidate still for abortions for underaged? How about Second Amendment? Or how about higher taxes? Or RomneyCare?

riddick on December 10, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Hang in there, Newt!

tommy71 on December 11, 2012 at 12:04 AM

I was really hoping Romneybots would vanish along with their progressive liberal candidate.

Tell me, is your progressive liberal candidate still for abortions for underaged? How about Second Amendment? Or how about higher taxes? Or RomneyCare?

riddick on December 10, 2012 at 11:53 PM

.
Your criticism would be valid if there was another viable candidate you could have run.
There wasn’t.
Romney was the best person for the job, and that includes Omarxist.

The majority of America is not interested in the best candidate- the are only interested in voting for whomever the media tells them to vote for.

FlaMurph on December 11, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Your criticism would be valid if there was another viable candidate you could have run.
There wasn’t.
Romney was the best person for the job, and that includes Omarxist.

The majority of America is not interested in the best candidate- the are only interested in voting for whomever the media tells them to vote for.

FlaMurph on December 11, 2012 at 12:07 AM

LOL. Romney was the “best person for the job” because that’s what the media fed you for four years.

ddrintn on December 11, 2012 at 12:18 AM

I no longer give a crap what Newt Gingrich has to say on ANY topic. He behaved like an idiot during the Republican primary, and I will never forgive him for his attacks on Capitalism itself in his fervor to harm what turned out to be our nominee. Gingrich was never truly viable, and yet he dragged it on and on, past any semblance of common sense or reason, and all for the sake of his own personal ambitions and vanity.

Murf76 on December 11, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Why not Perry? He’d be younger than Hillary and better looking. I’d take a successful governor who can appeal to hispanics over a failed SOS any day. Seriously, is the Oops moment any worse than four dead Americans?

monalisa on December 11, 2012 at 12:28 AM

ddrintn on December 11, 2012 at 12:18 AM

.
You can’t face the fact there was not a better choice to run against The greatest President ever. But that’s what happened.

But I do agree with you, PALIN is the only sensible choice to run against Shillary. Running a man against Hillary- the FIRST woman president would be a wipe out. With Sara, it would be fun to see her gi ve the lame stream media fits.

FlaMurph on December 11, 2012 at 12:28 AM

You can’t face the fact there was not a better choice to run against The greatest President ever. But that’s what happened.

But I do agree with you, PALIN is the only sensible choice to run against Shillary. Running a man against Hillary- the FIRST woman president would be a wipe out. With Sara, it would be fun to see her gi ve the lame stream media fits.

FlaMurph on December 11, 2012 at 12:28 AM

I didn’t say a thing about Palin. But as for Romney, just about any of the others in the field (excepting Huntsman) would’ve been a better choice. Just because someone’s made oodles of money doesn’t make them presidential material, nor does having polls published over and over telling us how “electable” that person is.

ddrintn on December 11, 2012 at 12:33 AM

Just because someone’s made oodles of money doesn’t make them presidential material, nor does having polls published over and over telling us how “electable” that person is.

ddrintn on December 11, 2012 at 12:33 AM

.
I know you didn’t feel that way on the night of Oct. 3rd.

FlaMurph on December 11, 2012 at 12:48 AM

Exit question: Would Rubio want to challenge Hillary?

Why the hell wouldn’t he? Hillary is the Left’s version of Dole/McCain/Romney the classic “it’s my turn” old white person (yes, a woman but so what?) against a young, charismatic, on-the-ball first-ever Hispanic presidential nominee? Tell me again why you’re giving any credibility to the guy who couldn’t even beat Romney for the GOP nomination?

cicerone on December 11, 2012 at 12:58 AM

No. Newt is absolutely right. As usual I should add.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Stop it! Yer killin’ me!

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Then, OWN him.

Newt: If You Don’t Know Me By Now… (RWM Will Tell You Everything That I Don’t Want You To Know)

M2RB: Harold Melvin and The Blue Notes

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Resist We Much on December 11, 2012 at 1:05 AM

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! If Newt represents the GOP I am abandoning the party! Hillary & Obama debated each other regarding who was best prepared to get that fictitious 1am phone call … and when they BOTH did – 3 times – they abandoned Americans to die! Our Benghazi Consulate was attacked by terrorists TWICE causing Ambassador Stevens’ team to ask for additional security THREE times…all of which were REFUSED by HILLARY (& Obama)! When they were attacked a 3rd attack that lasted over 6 hours, this President ordered Spec Ops teams 2 hours away to ‘Stand Down’, ABANDONING THEM TO DIE! They then DOCTORED the CIA report calling it terrorism, Sent Rice out on 5 talk shows to lie, & then lied themselves for weeks, attempting to stall the scandal until after the election!

IF THE GOP CAN’T DEFEAT THE WOMAN WHO WAS NOT ONLY TOO INCOMPETENT TO ANSWER THOSE PHONE CALLS THAT SHE KNOWINGLY FAILED TO PROTECT AMERICANS, ABANDONED THEM TO DIE DURING A TERRORIST ATTACK, & THEN KNOWINGLY LIED TO THE WORLD ABOUT IT…WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN…THEN THEY AREN’T WORTH A D@MN…CERTAINLY NOT MY VOTE!!!!

easyt65 on December 11, 2012 at 2:08 AM

Hillary doesn’t need to measure the drapes. She knows what size to get already.

I tend to agree with Newt. For some unfathomable reason, most people see Hillary as a “moderate” – and not just any moderate, the kind of moderate that makes them feel squishy and good inside and warms the cockles of their heart. They will happily skip to the polling place and vote for her like good little ignorant plebes.

Meanwhile, the GOP will nominate someone who is afraid to tell it like it is…you know, actually explain to the American people how much trouble we’re in and what it will take to fix it – or GOD FORBID stand for freedom and individual liberty at the expense of feel-good hand-outs and entitlements as far as the eye can see…but he’ll be just “mean” and “heartless” enough to demonize and smooth the way for Hillary.

DRayRaven on December 11, 2012 at 6:31 AM

So let’s put it to the test. Get Sarah to run this time. She’ll easily win the republican nomination. She would have waltzed to it last time.
Genuine on December 10, 2012 at 6:43 PM

I beg to differ. She wouldn’t have lasted more than a month.

She won’t run in 2016 because her inevitable failure during the primaries would hurt her brand.

bluegill on December 11, 2012 at 6:36 AM

Hillary looks pretty worn out if you ask me. I don’t think four years of carrying Obama’s water has served her well.

Everyone says she’s been such a great SoS. Other than travel a lot, what has she accomplished? We’re losing the middle east to radical Islam, and have scared Israel to death. Our European allies don’t trust us anymore.

My real question though is – what is Newt up to in saying this?

TarheelBen on December 11, 2012 at 7:02 AM

NEWT……..is 1/2 right.

It doesn’t matter WHO the Dems (aka American Communists) nominate. The current gop is incapable of beating them.

Why vote for the OTHER Democrat party when you could vote for the real one that REALLY gives Freebies??

I hope the Mayans were right.

PappyD61 on December 11, 2012 at 7:20 AM

All this talk of history and past elections in meaningless

We live in a new culture, a new age

This is the American Idol age. Presidential politics is now a reality show audition

Only a celebrity can contend for POTUS

Records, achievements, and facts are meaningless. It is truly the Cult of Personality– how else can an incompetent moron like Obama get reelected?

Hillary will destroy the Democratic field in 2016. She will lock up all the money and consultants immediately, and suck all the air out of the room instantly. The primary season will be quick and painless for them

Liberals don’t give a damn about her baggage or record– they see her as the Messiah 2.0, and will vote for anyone with a (D) behind their name that they think can win. They are not burdened by our principles, I envy them. The end always justifies the means for them

We will have another pointless, expensive, divisive primary, and our nominee will be another sacrificial lamb

The media will slaughter our candidates for 4 years, it has already begun

The facts are simple:
1. Hillary is their nominee in 2016. Period
2. Hillary will have a billion dollar war chest, a rapturous media, a massive efficient campaign machine, a vocal adoring entertainment industry, and the best retail campaigner in decades (Bill) at her beck and call– we have nothing to combat these facts
3. If we let her waltz to the nomination unscathed, the race is over by June 2016. Our primary and candidate are irrelevant
4. Our only chance in 2016 is to spend the next 4 years destroying Hillary, destroying the faux Bill Clinton legacy, and delegitimizing the media

This is the final battle in the de facto cultural war of our lifetimes to save this Republic

If we don’t start attacking Hillary and the Clinton machine now, and sustain fire for 4 years, the battle is lost for good.

Time to play their game. We need to start bleeding the Clinton legacy starting tomorrow.

thurman on December 11, 2012 at 7:24 AM

Hillary looks pretty worn out if you ask me. I don’t think four years of carrying Obama’s water has served her well.

Everyone says she’s been such a great SoS. Other than travel a lot, what has she accomplished? We’re losing the middle east to radical Islam, and have scared Israel to death. Our European allies don’t trust us anymore.

My real question though is – what is Newt up to in saying this?

TarheelBen on December 11, 2012 at 7:02 AM

Hillary is “owed” the 2016 nomination, after being sidelined by 0bama in 2008. She’s also white as snow in a party that only seems to win by goosing minority turnout. Without another 0bama (and there’s only one Chicago), Hillary could be unstoppable in the Democrat primary in 2016, and unelectable in the general election. I think Newt is encouraging this.

Sekhmet on December 11, 2012 at 7:36 AM

Because the new America embraces a dutiful little woman who’s biggest accomplishment in life is making her husband’s rape victim quietly go away for 20 years, until such time it’s too late to do anything about the crime.

American leadership for an American people, post November 6, 2012.

MNHawk on December 11, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Sekhmet on December 11, 2012 at 7:36 AM

.
A recent poll has Shillary earning 90% of Democommie support for 2016. As mentioned earlier, she is owed the nomination.
She will not pass up the opportunity to become the First Woman President of the USSA.

Newt is no savant on this. It’s common sense. And if you think the war on women is over, just wait.

Presidential politics is ONLY about popularity now and whom the media accepts, and Hillary is the their heir apparent. And the best part is the Reps lose anyway to her, but get destroyed if the run a MAN as a nominee.
The Reps will need to run a woman against Shillary. That’s just the way it is Chance.

FlaMurph on December 11, 2012 at 8:02 AM

Does anyone think Ryan has any political capital left to run in 2016?

scalleywag on December 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Initially I regreted that Ryan didnt run for President himself in 2012 and was thrilled when he became veep. I was wrong. Ryan is a wonkish, competent, reasonable, nice and uplifting guy. He has no teeth. None! Nobody needs that on the presidential ticket. Its the formula for another statue in the GOP hall of fame for honorable losers. Think of the veep debate. Biden tore Ryan a new one and he just sat there like a good boy and took it.

Maybe we should try to run somebody with balls next time.

Valkyriepundit on December 11, 2012 at 8:18 AM

What a maroon.

Can Newt become anymore removed from reality?

Ya know, because all his predictions over the past year have come true. Snort.

I have lost all respect for Newt in his quest to cash-in and become a TV personality.

It is sad really.

Marcus Traianus on December 11, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Ah yes, just what the Republican Party needs . . . Newt constantly bad mouthing them. Take a hike Newt.

rplat on December 11, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3