2012 GOP Presidential Campaign -- "This individual's going to accuse me of an affair for an extended period of time."

Indies don't. I don't know what Dems want.

We want Newt!

(Even if we're Canadian liberals.)

legalized weed!

xp

Indies don't.

indies aren't deciding the GOP primary race.

It's hard to know when you mean primaries and general election.

primaries.

This is pretty amazing:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/151355/Gingrich-Romney-Among-GOP-Voters-Nationwide.aspx

One thing does jump out: if you compare the Nov. 2-6 percentages to Dec. 1-5, one reading would be that everybody stays more or less the same and Cain's 22% migrates en masse over to Gingrich. So I'll try to remind myself that, in addition to Gingrich's own vulnerabilities, that 22% might not be the most stable number in the world.

hm:

What's the scariest news for Mitt Romney in the nearly mirror-image polls out today showing Newt Gingrich rocketing into the lead in Iowa, South Carolina and nationally?
The short answer: the breadth of Gingrich's support. In all three surveys, Gingrich is not only lapping Romney among the ideologically conservative and religiously devout voters who have resisted the former Massachusetts governor throughout the race; Gingrich is also running step for step (or ahead) with Romney among the less ideological, more secular, voters who have been Romney's base.
All of this is a big and ominous change for Romney. Earlier he had the luxury of watching the rivals to his right divide conservative voters while he made steady progress at consolidating the party's more managerial, less ideological wing. For a brief period in late summer, Texas Gov. Rick Perry threatened to reach across the divide - but his poor debate performances quickly deflated his standing with both groups. Now Gingrich, a much steadier (if still volatile) contender than Perry, is not only consolidating conservatives, but loosening Romney's hold on the more pragmatic and managerial components of the GOP coalition.

In the ABC/Washington Post Iowa survey out today, for instance, Gingrich attracts 31 percent of self-identified evangelicals (who constituted a full 60 percent of the Iowa GOP electorate in 2008), according to results from the survey provided to National Journal. Romney, Rick Perry (and incongruously for a libertarian) Ron Paul all attract 14 percent, with Michele Bachmann at 12 percent. Romney's deficit with that group is consistent with the findings of earlier polls.

More worrisome for Romney are the results among the Iowa Republican voters who don't consider themselves evangelicals. Even among that group, Gingrich leads him 27 percent to 21 percent, with Paul at 14 percent and Perry at 11.
It's the same story in the new Winthrop University survey released in South Carolina. Its sample size is smaller, which means the margin of error is larger, but it points in the same direction as the Iowa poll. In the Winthrop poll, Gingrich leads Romney among self-identified evangelical Christians by more than two-to-one and runs about even with the former governor among those who don't identify as evangelicals. That's a formula for clear success in South Carolina since evangelicals there as well comprised 60 percent of the 2008 GOP primary voter.
The story repeats again in the first installment of what will be a daily national tracking poll that Gallup released Tuesday. Overall, the survey placed Gingrich ahead of Romney by 37 percent to 22 percent (strikingly similar to the results of both the Iowa and South Carolina state polls). In the Gallup poll, Gingrich is crushing Romney by two-to-one among Republicans who identify as conservatives and by 47-17 among those who consider themselves supporters of the tea party. But the former speaker runs even with Romney among those who consider themselves moderate or liberal, and those who don't support the tea party.
Further detail on the survey provided by Gallup underscores the breadth of Gingrich's advantage. He leads Romney by almost two-to-one among Republican voters without a college degree - again, not surprisingly, since that has been a group consistently skeptical of Romney. But Gingrich also leads by 37 percent to 26 percent among Republicans with at least a four year degree - the group that earlier in the year had served as Romney's base. The same is true when looking at the race by income: Gingrich leads not only among those Republican voters earning $90,000 or less (by a resounding two-to-one), but also holds a solid 38 percent to 25 percent edge among more affluent Republicans - again, a group expected to provide Romney's foundation.
Religion fills out the picture: Gingrich's lead over Romney is about the same among those who term religion important in their lives as among those who don't.
Romney has all sorts of resource and logistical advantages. But in terms of the range of voters that each man is currently attracting, these results suggest that as of today, at least, Gingrich is positioned to compete in a broader range of states than Romney. All of this will undoubtedly increase the incentive for Romney to find a more effective line of attack against Gingrich in the next round of Republican debates - starting with ABC's encounter in Iowa on Saturday.

Mitt's gonna have to kick Newt in his newt sack pretty soon.

Not out till Jan. 31, 2012--if you think a couple of us are too preoccupied with Newt's future, there's a publisher out there having seven or eight heart attacks a day.

http://a2.mzstatic.com/us/r30/Publication/cb/9b/1c/mzi.cwaemusz.225x225-75.jpg

This may be of interest to no one but me, but I was thinking about how the last time Newt held political office was 1999. The last major-party nominee to have remained outside of political life for that long -- not including those who were never in it (e.g., Eisenhower) -- was William Jennings Bryan, who won his final Democratic nomination in 1908, thirteen years after he left the House.

Fwiw, the last major-party nominee who did not hold political office at the time -- which would be true of both Gingrich and Romney (and Santorum and Huntsman, for that matter) -- is Walter Mondale in '84. Before him, Nixon in '68.

and the last speaker to gain the presidency was James Polk, I think.

and only one!

Yup, was just looking that up.

Carter announced late '74, finished up his governorship in Jan. '75--I guess you're counting that as more or less holding office at the time?

audio clip of Obama speech is SICKENING. really, GOP nominee should be whoever can scare Matt Armstrong the most.

you have odd priorities

where's timellison?

ppl who take morbius bait on political threads are savages

i used to be a savage but i got better

Carter announced late '74, finished up his governorship in Jan. '75--I guess you're counting that as more or less holding office at the time?

Oh! I actually didn't realize that. I thought he was still governor in '76.

Nixon in '68

this may be the apt - and scary - analogue of Gingrich in '11. Nixon was down & out in 1962 when he famously said "you don't have Nixon to kick around anymore." When he ran for president in 68 he'd been out of office for eight years and was widely perceived as a loser and both republicans and democrats underrated him.

OTOH Nixon was smarter (and crazier) than Gingrich and I fully expect Newt to shoot himself in the foot.

There's a certain mindset that see analogies, and another mindset that sees differences. I'm of the former--I see them all the time in broad outline, and I think there are many similarities between Nixon and Gingrich, especially how much of their appeal was/is based on resentment. A couple of differences specific to this election cycle: 1) Nixon's handlers (led by Roger Ailes, I think) kept close watch on him in '68, and he was very disciplined through the campaign; not sure that Gingrich has anybody filling that role right now; 2) Nixon spent '62-'67 going around the country campaigning for other Republicans and collecting chits--seems like there's still a lot of ill will between Gingrich and other elected Republicans.

I'm reading this right now:

http://covers.openlibrary.org/b/id/6463312-L.jpg

On Stuart Symington, Republican candidate in '60:

As William S. White wrote in the July 1959 Harper's, Symington was "the most possible of all" nominees, but he was also a man lacking "any deep and abiding political philosophy, of the kind which at some point or another is found in most top politicians...His appeal is largely to the older-line professional politicians, and their hope is that the convention will find objections with each of the other candidates and agree on Symington."

I think I recognize that guy, for pete's sake.

What I mean to say: Nixon was handing out chits, to be collected later.

Fox's Kirsten Powers: "Newt’s fantastical repurposing of reality is amusing."

The fantastical repurposing of reality seems to bother many Republican media folks all of a sudden.

poor Symington, one of those figures contemporaries recognized and acclaimed but has become an also-ran

Yup, was just looking that up.

― jaymc, Tuesday, December 6, 2011 4:52 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Permalink

this kinda let me down

I knew Richard Nixon. I hated Richard Nixon. You, Mr Gingrich...

I don't get the sense than mr. gingrich is actually fueled by nixonian resentment - he might be able to channel it to get votes, sure - but this is a guy who fancies himself a college professor, smartest guy in the room and about as 'washington insider' as they come. he has too much self-confidence to be nixon-style bitter.

the public had a much shorter memory of Dick's bitterness than the media did, at least in '68.

Newt's lack of brains in tactics will likely undo him. Open convention for 19th century nostalgia!

i used to think this ^^^^ about gingrich, but he seems semi under-control (for now). and the timing is right (he caught fire in the shadow of crucial early caucuses and primaries, which might give him momentum).

lol he isn't going to be the nominee, probably but lol

i used to think this ^^^^ about gingrich, but he seems semi under-control (for now)

he's not. Did you see last night's pearls?

ew

lol

I meant that Nixon's/Gingrich's appeal is based on the resentment of voters that they're able to tap into--the sense of aggrievement. Palin, too. In terms of their own personalities, no, Gingrich doesn't seem to carry around the grudges/bitterness that consumed Nixon. (As I've said before, I don't think there's ever been a politician that could match Nixon in that department.)

he's not. Did you see last night's pearls?

i didn't! what did he say?

lately I've been waking up each day in eager anticipation of the gems that have dribbled from Newt's lips while I slept

it's the blood of poor children -- not gems -- that dribble from newt's lips.

you people and your effluvia.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/yahoo-exclusive-republicans-disclose-private-call-too-dangerous-175828684.html

conservatives are pissed about this

Republicans on a private Republican National Committee conference call with allies warned Tuesday that party surrogates should refrain from personal attacks against President Barack Obama, because such a strategy is too hazardous for the GOP.

"We're hesitant to jump on board with heavy attacks" personally against President Obama, Nicholas Thompson, the vice president of polling firm the Tarrance Group, said on the call. "There's a lot of people who feel sorry for him."

Recent polling data indicates that while the president suffers from significantly low job approval ratings, voters still give "high approval" to Obama personally, Thompson said.

Voters "don't think he's an evil man who's out to change the United States" for the worse--even though many of the same survey respondents agree that his policies have harmed the country, Thompson said. The upshot, Thompson stressed, is that Republicans should "exercise some caution" when talking about the president personally.

On the call--which Yahoo News was invited to attend because of a mistake by someone on the staff of the Republican National Committee

oh man this is classic. fuckin bozos.

conservatives are convinced that the whole of america (except for the tiny corrupt islands of urban leftism) shares their emotional makeup and outlook on the country. party elites who try to match their messaging and actions as much as possible with popular sentiments find that it's not quite so.

so who's wrong? the people in the bubble, or the people who professionally have to look outside it? depends who you ask:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285050/stupid-party-michael-walsh

that yahoo story has close to 16,000 comments. O_o

who do you even think you're expressing your opinion to at that point

I almost posted that Walsh thing yesterday...

one thing I've always thought curious was how few comments a lot of widely publicized economist-type articles get. considering that tens of thousands of people are gonna read what you write, it actually seems like a decent use of your time?

It's not Obama's policies that are the problem, it's Obama and everything he represents and stands for.

[Approved commenter] Teflon93
: 12/06/11 16:59

Voice in the wilderness, Michael, voice in the wilderness. You are manning the last bastion of conservatism at a once-great magazine.

"Don't attack Obama" is a RINO tic. Most of America can't stand that jugheaded, prissy, sonorous, stentorian, pedantic, phony, lying, mom-jeans-wearing can't-ride-a-bike-without-a-helmet throws-like-a-sissy little girly-man. He's played more golf this year than Tiger Woods and would have played more if only some tee boxes faced somewhere besides Mecca. The man couldn't lead a drunk to a bathroom, much less speak to children without teleprompters.

What precisely does Little Lord MittleRoy intend to attack him with then? His slightly greater embrace of abortion? That Obama didn't copy Romneycare quite closely enough? That Obama wanted a cap on carbon emissions slightly higher than Romney does (right now)? That Romney, architect of a Massachusetts economic miracle equivalent to Oral Roberts turning an able-bodied man into a cripple, will somehow be better for the economy? That Romney will oppose the gay marriages he enacted in the Bay State? That Romney will challenge Obama's quadrupling of the deficit by merely doubling it?

Attack the enemy. Forget the fifth column.

(emphasis added)