He's up 5, with Cain and Perry losing 1 and 4 respectively.
UPDATE: In another poll released today, from CNN/ORC International Poll, Newt vies with Romney for first place: "24% of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP say Romney is their most likely choice for their party's presidential nominee with Gingrich at 22%. Romney's two-point advantage is well within the survey's sampling error." Significantly, Romney's level of support is stable, while Gingrich is up 14 points since October.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
58 comments:
Gingrich will lose to Obama.
Republicans: the suicide party.
The sleazeball campaign against Cain isn't working.
Good.
I have loved Gingrich in the debates and campaigning in general. BUT, and this is a big but, everything I've ever read about his time as Speaker has indicated to me that he's pretty terrible at leadership and execution. I wasn't particularly politically aware during the time that he was in power; it's possible that I could be convinced that this is wrong.
If Gingrich were new to me, I'd be behind him with no problem. But knowing that, I'm having a really hard time with him.
- Lyssa
David, my cat could beat Obama if, in November 2012, we still have 9% measured unemployment, with actual unemployment around 16%; gas costs $3.40 per gallon; and GDP growth still isn't keeping pace with population growth.
My fucking cat.
And: Consider the fact that Perry went from front-runner to single-digits with a couple of poor debate showings.
What do you suppose will happen when Gingrich humiliates Obama in any debates they have?
No, Gingrich is the best hope we have of getting someone in there to the right of Romney, who might actually get spending under control.
"Gingrich will lose to Obama."
So will Romney.
As would Bachman, Paul, Huntsmann, Santorum . . .well, you get the idea. The only one who might have a fighting chance is Cain, because he could jam the race card right back in Little Black Jesus' face. But I don't think anyone has a chance going up against the treasonous, thieving bastards infesting the Democrat party.
So get ready for four more years of the SCOAMF. With any luck, the collapse of the country and economy will be so complete, he'll replace Hoover as the poster boy for fiscal mismanagement and Carter for all-round loathsomeness.
wv "ankins" - a diet for Hillary.
"Gingrich picking up the percentage points that Cain and Perry are shedding."
Did he doubt or did he try?
Answers aplenty in the bye and bye,
Talk about your plenty, talk about your ills,
One man gathers what another man spills.
Big news, extra, extra: Cain is back from runaway Cain Train to merely even with Romney and Professor Gingrich's lectures impresses the easy to impress freshmen students.
All this is theoretical until the votes are cast in IA (especially), NH, and SC.
What looks good now may freeze in the snow.
PS What Shout said and much of what Pasta and lyssa both said.
Keep in mind those "discouraged workers" who are filling up the food stamp rolls aren't counted by GodZero once they've had their 99 weeks on unemployment.
Right now, they'd add about 7 points to the U-3 (Pasta's 9%) and the U-6 (the 16%) both.
This has to make Ritmo very angry!
I can't for the life of me, wonder who could be worse than obama. Has anyone followed the unemployment numbers and this outrageous debt that we've run up? We want more of this?
The guy knows his stuff and has a ton of experience, but I'm not sure all of that matters in the electability area.
AllenS said...
I can't for the life of me, wonder who could be worse than obama. Has anyone followed the unemployment numbers and this outrageous debt that we've run up? We want more of this?
Right now I'm thinking Pelosi Galore or Patty Murray.
Maybe Bloomie.
We'll know Gingrich is really serious not when he goes up 5 points in the polls but when he goes down 50 on the scale. Remember chubby Al Gore[vp], trim Al Gore[candidate], obese Al Gore[sex kitten planet saver].
We can have a national lottery to pick anyone at random who is legally qualified to be president and other than Joe "The Moron" Biden the winner would certainly be at least as qualified if not better qualified than Obama. Does anyone actually believe that any of the current republican candidates could as bad as Obama?
My fear is that an electorate dumb enough to elect an Obama in the first place is capable of re-electing him in spite of his obvious failure.
Especially since much of that electorate were intellectuals and, uh, educators.
I'm picturing a debate between a tall, lean Obama and shorter dumpy Gingrich.
I don't think that's a visual that works in Newt's favor.
Newt said the reason for his marriage infidelities was because he loved his country so damn much!
If he is monogamous now, does that mean he doesn't love his country anymore?
I can imagine that a debate between obama and Gingrich will show everyone what a dunce obama is. The hell with the visuals.
Visualize this: we are $14 trillion in debt and it's growing.
Can someone more tuned into the Republican zeitgeist explain to me the benefit of treating all these joke candidates seriously?
I mean, it can't just be for the fun of tricking all the rubes into thinking that their preferred guy or Bachmann stands a chance, but I'm not really sure what else this is all about.
[I mean, I do have some ideas, but they don't reflect particularly well on the Republican adults or the rubes, and I'm trying to be more charitable.]
Interesting new article in the NYRB - Kissingers review of John Lewis Gaddis' new biography of George Kennan. Very relevant here - Kennan was a deep thinker, accomplished scholar, impressively articulate, famously influential on policy, and yet incapable of holding any executive position or running anything in the real world. Some men are just better at thinking than doing. Their brains don't trump their personality defects.
Is this Gingrich ? I'm not saying Gingrich is as accomplished as Kennan, nor, probably, is he quite as inclined to analysis paralysis or intellectual hubris, but he may not be good executive material. The leader need not be the smartest guy in the room; arguably its usually a good thing if he isn't, and knows it.
If the comment about Mittens means that he cannot grow his percentage no matter how well the MSM tells us he does in the debates -- I agree, but "stable" isn't good for him because the "undecided" come from Palinistas who have not yet recommitted to another conservative candidate.
In my book, Cain is dropping because of the shallowness of his campaign and his inadequate grasp of our complex problems.
Thats the New York Times Book Review, not NYRB, sorry.
MadMan said: I'm picturing a debate between a tall, lean Obama and shorter dumpy Gingrich.
A few years ago, I was picturing debates between this babyfaced no body who umm'ed a lot and combat vet, worldly, experienced McCain, and thinking what a bad visual that would make, for Obama.
Didn't quite work out that way (although I don't think that I was completely aware of how short McCain was at the time).
- Lyssa
LOL
Why would anyone go from Cain to Gingrich? If one is worried about scandal...
It's just like Penn State.
It's a CLOSED SHOP. With an "insider's field advantage." For a limited time period.
It's shelf life will be overrun by real events.
While, in my book, it pays Sarah Palin to stay clear of this freak show.
She's got all the time in the world to decide if she wants to make an Independent run!
Oh, yeah. Once a ONE NATION Independent run occurs? The media will be doing "sightings" of her bus.
So, go have fun. If you think Obama is disliked ... you have no idea about the size of HATRED there is out in Public Land, for Newt Gingrich.
Heck, Newt's attempt at running for the presidency has already brought out Bill Clinton ... who is asking for a chance to run, again, himself. By saying "first, you get two terms." Then you step aside. And, you look to be recycled later. Is Bill Clinton recognizing Hillary doesn't stand a chance? And, he wants to run, again in 2016?
2016 is gonna be the "big one" ... as parties try to adjust to "outside" reality.
Joke candidates?
Anyone characterizing the Republican lineup as "jokes" who also cast a vote for the half-black, stammering rabble-rouser with no legislative presence, no record of voting beyond "present," no idea what constitutes a "shovel-ready" project and no idea what constitutes comprehensive insurance coverage on an automobile has either an irony meter broken beyond repair or is merely a blinkered partisan hack.
Exactly what - beyond not being a Republican - makes someone a "serous" candidate in your opinion?
Sorry - 'serious' candidate.
And just to make things clear, spare me any praising of Flip Flopney or Useful Idiot Huntsmann.
Why does every Repub ignore Buddy Roemer? A Republican. Former Governor. Why no love I wonder?
"My fear is that an electorate dumb enough to elect an Obama in the first place is capable of re-electing him in spite of his obvious failure."
Sadly, this is true.
"I'm picturing a debate between a tall, lean Obama and shorter dumpy Gingrich."
Like cubanbob said, the electorate is dumb enough that this probably matters.
I saw an Obama 2012 bumper sticker yesterday. I wanted to stop the person and ask, "Really? You're for him, not just against all of the GOP candidates? What would be the dosage of utter failure required to get you to stop supporting him?"
You can't fix stupid.
Flavor of the month.
Andy R. said...
Can someone more tuned into the Republican zeitgeist explain to me the benefit of treating all these joke candidates seriously?
Hatman forgets (those nightsticks to the head on Peachtree) that, last time out, the Demos had 2 front runners who, between them, hadn't accomplished anything in their lives.
And this time, they're running someone who hasn't got a positive accomplishment to his name.
Can someone more tuned into the Republican zeitgeist explain to me the benefit of treating all these joke candidates seriously?
The benefit is that any one of them would be an improvement over Obama. Really, any of them.
"my cat could beat Obama"
You wish.
Obama is the incumbent. He has the black vote locked up--12% of the electorate. The press will favor him again. It's Bush's fault, or the Congress, or the Republicans in Congress, or the Europeans, or Chinese, or Japanese, or bankers or anything other than Obama.
It ain't that easy, Pasta man.
It ain't that easy, Pasta man.
Well, okay. Duly noted. My dog then.
David said...
my cat could beat Obama
You wish.
Obama is the incumbent. He has the black vote locked up--12% of the electorate. The press will favor him again. It's Bush's fault, or the Congress, or the Republicans in Congress, or the Europeans, or Chinese, or Japanese, or bankers or anything other than Obama.
It ain't that easy, Pasta man.
Don't count on the black vote. Right now the second black President is at 58% approval among blacks. They're hurting as much as anybody and, in many cases, more than most.
All they have to do is stay home.
That's what has Kerosene Maxine and the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus so worried.
And we've seen how the media drumbeat about it's not his fault has gone flat.
ScottM, do you think your dog would pick Gingrich for veep?
ScottM's dog/Newt 2012!
"And we've seen how the media drumbeat about it's not his fault has gone flat."
I saw a piece of an amazing interview yesterday. David Gregory was interviewing Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, and was pushing back pretty hard at her ridiculous claims.
Freeman: "Why would anyone go from Cain to Gingrich? If one is worried about scandal..."
I did.
Yeah, I know. But consider: Cain isn't the greatest candidate, and he's just not worth putting up the vociferous defense that will be necessary to counter all this. Maybe if he had the 5-5-5 plan; but it's not worth it, just for 9-9-9.
And even if he hasn't actually harassed anyone, he has been a bit of a rutting he-goat, while he's been married the whole time.
Now, Newt has had his transgressions; but apparently we can count them all on one hand, and they've been with women who aren't lined up outside the offices of tabloids ready to sell their seedy tell-all stories.
And at least one of these transgressions (the serving of divorce papers to a dying wife, on her death bed, dancing on grave, etc) was apparently just made up out of whole cloth.
And Newt is worth the energy to defend. He'll destroy Obama in debates (which apparently are now very important -- just ask Perry.) And he'll have the know-how and guts to curtail spending; he's done that before.
Why would anyone go from Cain to Gingrich? If one is worried about scandal...
I think that the reasoning goes something like this: Gingrich has been in the public eye for the better part of thirty years and it’s unlikely that there’s going to be some new last minute scandal that would hurt his candidacy. Cain, on the other hand, is fairly new to the national stage and is the benefit of a lot of goodwill that can evaporate quickly if there are any October surprises.
Cain did not have a good day in front of the MJS editorial board. Here. This one will leave a mark.
I'll see you a Cain and raise you a Debbie Wasserman-Schultze, hyphen and all. You can't play Perry 53 seconds because he was discarded on the last round.
Listen to the interview, you will more than likely change your mind.
Listen to the interview, you will more than likely change your mind.
You can't cite actual data in a game of internet one-upsmanship.
"And [Gingrich has] the know-how and guts to curtail spending; he's done that before."
This has the makings of a very powerful argument. The Dems all love to harken back to Clinton and the "budget surplus". As I understand it, this was more Congress' doing (with Gingrich as Speaker) than it was Clinton. But, Gingrich can afford to be gracious. He can say that they worked together and produced a balanced budget. Contrast that with President Downgrade.
You can't cite actual data in a game of internet one-upsmanship.
I'll go first:
"President Obama supported the uprising correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi? Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing before I say yes, I did agree or no, I didn't agree." Cain then added, "I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reasons...Nope that's a different one...Got all this stuff twirling around in my head..." Finally Cain asks for a more detailed question. "Specifically what are you asking me did I disagree or not agree with Obama?"
No, I didn't mean YOU couldn't cite data. I meant it's not good snarky form. You doubled down on rudeness with your "facts".
I usually wait until Tuesday, at least, to take internet debates seriously.
Romney or Gingrich in a walk against The Sullen Boy King. If Gingrich is still in it when they get to Mississippi, he will win my vote. If he is out then I will gladly vote for the Mittster. Gingrich's past is irrelevant because the MSM is going to rip any Republican candidate to shreds regardless; we know that now.
The Comrade cannot win as he has been exposed. The white guilt has been assuaged and what a phenomenal waste of leveraged guilt it was.
I like Newt, but I keep hearing this "Gingrich will debate circles around Obama" meme and I don't really think that's true. I guess I'm in the minority on this blog, but I find Gingrich's tone in these debates insufferable and whiny. He calls every single question a stupid game and belittles the moderators instead of actually taking these things seriously. When he does actually bother to answer the questions, the substance is good, but his nasally, naggy vocal tones are pretty grating. Style does matter, especially on TV.
If it's not noticeable to people now, it's because there are seven other people up there eating up time. When it's just Newt and Obama for two hours, I really don't think people will be as enamored with him as some of you believe.
I have loved Gingrich in the debates and campaigning in general. BUT, and this is a big but, everything I've ever read about his time as Speaker has indicated to me that he's pretty terrible at leadership and execution.
All in all, I would say he's the best Speaker in my lifetime. Who should get credit for the economic prosperity of the 1990's? I say the Republican Congress. And he was the Speaker.
And he's been frickin' awesome in the debates. Not only is he smart as hell, but he has gone out of his way to be nice to all the other Republicans, and to nail the media at every opportunity. Not just smart, but super smart. He would wipe the floor with Obama in a debate.
I think Newt can excite the base, and the Tea Party, and appeal to establishment Republicans. He can remind moderates about the economic prosperity of the 1990's, and take credit for it. He has a firm grasp of foreign policy (unlike Cain, or Romney, or Perry).
I wouldn't have said this two months ago, but I think he's going to get my vote.
And at least one of these transgressions (the serving of divorce papers to a dying wife, on her death bed, dancing on grave, etc) was apparently just made up out of whole cloth.
hey Pasta, cool! I thought that was a true story. Who made it up? When? Why? Do you have a link? That actually always bugged me about Newt. I would be happy to know it's a lie.
oh, not just a lie, that's a vicious lie.
Here's his daughter, for the record...
Very good post by Jim, 6:08 PM.
The Newt people are like highly impressed freshmen that encounter an Obama or a Newt in full "Perfessor" act. Posturing like each word out of their mouths is wisdom of some cosmic profoundity.
Newt's normal schtick is incessant whining and belligerance. It plays well when he beats up on the Rights favorite whipping boys - media, Evil Big Gummint, the NEA . But he was a PR disaster for Republicans and asked to step down in 1998 after 4 years as Speaker because he was uninterested in doing more than pumping his idea du jour out and had abysmal administrative and executive skills as a leader. (Newt was sabotaging his own Contract after only 2 years)
Armstrong and Getty said that Ron Paul's support is within the margin of error, implying that it might be zero.
Not realizing that the survey margin of error doesn't apply at the edges, where the variance goes to zero like npq.
So probably somebody supports him.
It seems from some of the comments here that some people may not yet be familiar with what Gingrich is proposing.
To find out, if you're interested, start with "MICHIGAN MUST CHANGE OR DIE", from back in 2010, which lays out important concepts, and which I highly, highly recommend if you're interested in innovative solutions.
Then other speeches; for example:
--Iowa Faith and Freedom conference;
--Alzheimer's annual dinner;
--the manufacturers' conference on Iowa Public Television, at the Vermeer Corporation.
Filter for "longer than 20 minutes" on YT for more if you want more.
Or, search online for: "The Future of Education in America" with Paul Gigot and Joel Klein at The College Board. This is a fabulous interview if you're interested in learning, education or the future.
As I see it, technology is remaking the world, whether we want it to or not. Willy-nilly.
We can let the petty tyrants use technology to nullify our freedoms; or, as free people, we can assert our sovereignty and use that same technology to make government smaller, responsive, transparent; and require government to live under the same laws as the rest of us. For a refreshing change.
IMO Gingrich gets it, would be by far the best Republican nominee and will positively attract the votes of the majority of Americans in the general election.
Plus, I will be looking forward to the Executive Orders he has planned for the first day.
It seems from some of the comments here that some people may not yet be familiar with what Gingrich is proposing.
To find out, if you're interested, start with "MICHIGAN MUST CHANGE OR DIE", from back in 2010, which lays out important concepts, and which I highly, highly recommend if you're interested in innovative solutions.
Then other speeches; for example:
--Iowa Faith and Freedom conference;
--Alzheimer's annual dinner;
--the manufacturers' conference on Iowa Public Television, at the Vermeer Corporation.
Filter for "longer than 20 minutes" on YT for more if you want more.
Or, search online for: "The Future of Education in America" with Paul Gigot and Joel Klein at The College Board. This is a fabulous interview if you're interested in learning, education or the future.
As I see it, technology is remaking the world, whether we want it to or not. Willy-nilly.
We can let the petty tyrants use technology to nullify our freedoms; or, as free people, we can assert our sovereignty and use that same technology to make government smaller, responsive, transparent; and require government to live under the same laws as the rest of us. For a refreshing change.
IMO Gingrich gets it, would be by far the best Republican nominee and will positively attract the votes of the majority of Americans in the general election.
Plus, I will be looking forward to the Executive Orders he has planned for the first day.
Post a Comment