Newt Gingrich to run for president - has he got a snowball's chance?

[Palo Verde]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/09/6611425-gingrich-to-make-run-official-wednesday-

Newt Gingrich is throwing his hat into the ring to make a try for GOP nominee for president. On the one hand he's got lots of political experience, ex-Speaker of the House, wrote the Contract for America, he's got name recognition.

On the other hand he's old, hasn't done anything important for years, and there's that whole 'left dying wife to bang another' thing in his past.

The Republican field isn't very strong so far, and very few have officially announced their intentions. So has Gingrich got a snowball's chance?

[astorian]

Short answer: No, he doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting the nomination, or even at making a respectable showing.

He has no base that he can rely on. Never mind the public at large, just which faction in the Republican Party do you expect to rally around him or get excited by his candidacy?

I’ve been saying for a long time, the Republican Party doesn’t pick candidates by ideology. Rather, the party looks around and asks “Whose turn is it?” They usually pick a runner-up from previous election seasons.

Hence, as much as I HATE to say this, we’re likely to be stuck with Mitt Romney.

[Jas09]

He has exactly a snowball's chance.

But it will keep his name in the lights, and let him get another nice Fox contract when the election is over. So it's win-win.

[Profound Gibberish]

+1 for astorian

He's doing it for the money. He can sell more books about his "incredible odysssey" or some other nonsense when he ultimately withdraws from the race. Of course he gets to keep the campaign contributions, too. Nice.

[XT]

Not much of a chance, no. My dad is excited about the fact that he's running, but other than a few folks like that I don't see even most Republicans getting behind Gingrich. Certainly the public at large isn't going to, IMHO...too much baggage.

-XT

[Marley23]

Moved to Elections from Great Debates.

[Death of Rats]

The heavy hitter Iowa Republican donors are undertaking a desperate mission into the heart of NJ to beg Christie to run so that they can have someone to give money to, so I would give better odds to the snowball right now.

[Phlosphr]

Not much of a chance, no. My dad is excited about the fact that he's running, but other than a few folks like that I don't see even most Republicans getting behind Gingrich. Certainly the public at large isn't going to, IMHO...too much baggage.

-XT

Interesting, my dad who is 70+ is kind of excited, but he is waiting ot see what other big names come into play - he's not so excited about Romney, because he thinks he will keep healthcare reform even though his talking head is saying he won't. But how could he not? He did the same darn thing in MA...

Dad was hoping for a military nominee, but there are none.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Short answer: No, he doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting the nomination, or even at making a respectable showing.

He has no base that he can rely on. Never mind the public at large, just which faction in the Republican Party do you expect to rally around him or get excited by his candidacy?

I’ve been saying for a long time, the Republican Party doesn’t pick candidates by ideology. Rather, the party looks around and asks “Whose turn is it?” They usually pick a runner-up from previous election seasons.

Hence, as much as I HATE to say this, we’re likely to be stuck with Mitt Romney.

I thought Huckabee was the runner up.

[Steve MB]

Interesting, my dad who is 70+ is kind of excited, but he is waiting ot see what other big names come into play - he's not so excited about Romney, because he thinks he will keep healthcare reform even though his talking head is saying he won't.

None of them are going to undo the popular parts of the program (allowing young-adult children to remain on parents' policies; preventing exclusions for preexisting conditions), no matter what their talking heads say.

Getting back to the OP, of course not. The man has more baggage than Hartsfield-Jackson Airport.

[elucidator]

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! I chortle in my glee. Thank you, Jesus!

[RTFirefly]

I really didn't expect Gingrich to go through with it. (Assuming he does, but that looks pretty definite right now.) He'll be lucky to finish in the top 3 anywhere, and the inside-the-Beltway pundits will be forced to acknowledge, however briefly, that essentially nobody other than themselves gives a flying fuck about this has-been.

[elucidator]

Well, there's that, to be sure. He had such a good money making machine going, but it more or less depended upon his not actually, officially running, I was pretty sure he wouldn't pull the pin. So maybe this "announcement" will just be another announcement of forming an exploratory committee to examine the possibility of maybe considering something like this, if you send a contribution today! I would totally believe that.

[Chronos]

None of them are going to undo the popular parts of the program (allowing young-adult children to remain on parents' policies; preventing exclusions for preexisting conditions), no matter what their talking heads say.
And of course, if they keep the bit about preexisting conditions, they'll also have to keep the individual mandate.

[astorian]

I thought Huckabee was the runner up.

Huckabee is A runner-up, but he's shown absolutely ZERO ability to appeal to any voters who aren't evangelical Christians.

Evangelical Christians can be an important building block in a winning coalition, but you can't win with them alone.

Mitt Romney CAN win SOME votes on the Religious Right, if he becomes the clear frontrunner. But Mike Huckabee CAN'T win votes from suburbanites in the North or Midwest.

[Frostillicus]

America will NEVER elect a man with a funny-sounding name to the presidency.





Oh wait...

[Onomatopoeia]

America will NEVER elect a man with a funny-sounding name to the presidency.
Then again, Barack is a nice woody name, so it's no wonder he was elected. Newt is right tinny. I mean, come on. Newt, Newt, Newt. Tinny. Terribly tinny. Barack. Baraaaaack. Now there's a woody name for you. Barack. Woody. Electable.



:p

[rocking chair]

this is the fellow that has sex with women to whom he isn't married, when he is feeling patriotic, yes?

hhhhmmm, this campaign should go well...

[Rhythmdvl]

Then again, Barack is a nice woody name, so it's no wonder he was elected. Newt is right tinny. I mean, come on. Newt, Newt, Newt. Tinny. Terribly tinny. Barack. Baraaaaack. Now there's a woody name for you. Barack. Woody. Electable.



:p

Great username/post combo!




Newt has a massive funding mechanism and the support of Fox News/talk radio (full support in the general, tempered support during the primaries). A single successful retaliatory strike*, some bad economic events (irrespective of whether they are rationally attributable to Obama) and a juicy target in the White House (again, rationality notwithstanding) could lead to his election.

{{{shudder}}}

This is particularly exacerbated by an apparent (not necessarily real) perception of complacency on the Left--not only has Obama let a lot of people down (e.g., Gitmo still open), but can't hold a candle to the fear-mongering and pandering of the right. People still believe he nationalized the auto industry, health care, etc., and are horrified at this horrible socialist horrible path he's horribly taken us down (horribly).

I'd like to believe that Newt, Palin, Bachman, et al don't really have a chance, but there are too many people who 'just ask questions', take Fox news literally, and believe WND is a news organization. Elections aren't won just by majorities, they can be won by motivated minorities.






*Newt prez; Gulliani vp; Palin sec o state; Bachmann nat sec chief; Jerome Corsi press sec...

[Mosier]

Gingrich has quite more than a snowball's chance, in my opinion. He doesn't have instant mass appeal like Palin, but he is seen as a responsible fiscal conservative by everyone who would consider voting for a fiscal conservative. Many people give him credit for balancing the budget in the 90s, even though he was the chief architect of the (failed) resistance to the balanced budget bill.

I give him a fair shot at winning the Republican primary. A much lower shot of actually beating Obama, though.

[Locrian]

Then again, Barack is a nice woody name, so it's no wonder he was elected. Newt is right tinny. I mean, come on. Newt, Newt, Newt. Tinny. Terribly tinny. Barack. Baraaaaack. Now there's a woody name for you. Barack. Woody. Electable.



:p

That is THE funniest MPFC skit! "Vacuum, recidivist..." :D

I don't think Newt will be regarded as a GOP top candidate. Unfortunately, why anyone in the world would that that Romney or Huckabee is an upstanding candidate is beyond me.

[Boyo Jim]

Gingrich has quite more than a snowball's chance, in my opinion. He doesn't have instant mass appeal like Palin, but he is seen as a responsible fiscal conservative by everyone who would consider voting for a fiscal conservative. Many people give him credit for balancing the budget in the 90s, even though he was the chief architect of the (failed) resistance to the balanced budget bill.

I give him a fair shot at winning the Republican primary. A much lower shot of actually beating Obama, though.

I pretty much agree that Gingrich has a decent shot at the nomination, of only because no better canduhdates are showing up.

As for the banging other women, well, he just has to put on a show of remorse and claim he's spoken to Jesus and asked and been given forgiveness. Christians will eat that shit up.

The other thing is that he has, for some inexplicable reason, a rep as an intellectual. Given some of the amazing things that have come out of his mouth over the years, I would have thought this would have been debunked years ago.

[RickJay]

America will NEVER elect a man with a funny-sounding name to the presidency.





Oh wait...
"Barack" is unusual, but it's not comical. "Newt" is comical.

If you told me "King Barack" was a character in a movie I'd think maybe it was a key character in some fantasy epic, a wizened but tough as nails warlord who has to be prevailed upon to commit his mighty army of veteran warriors to the hero's cause.

"King Newt" as a character in a movie would be the chubby 12-year-old leader of a gang of misfits at Camp Whackalotta who get into a lot of wacky hijinks trying to put one over on mean Old Man McCourt.

[Boyo Jim]

Is Newt his actual name or just a nickname that has come to overshadow the real one?

I'm afraid I'm going to need to see a birth certificate to prove this either way -- the long form, please.

[Raygun99]

Short for "Newton", apparently.

[Zakalwe]

As for the banging other women, well, he just has to put on a show of remorse and claim he's spoken to Jesus and asked and been given forgiveness. Christians will eat that shit up.Except that he didn't ask Jesus for forgiveness, he asked the Pope.* That will matter to some of the Southern vote that he HAS to count on. On the other hand, it may well help him in South Florida, so it's a toss-up.

*Note to Catholics (and others), yes, *I* know that's not how it works, but enough people I know think that way that it's a valid point to bring up in this forum.

[Boyo Jim]

Except that he didn't ask Jesus for forgiveness, he asked the Pope.* That will matter to some of the Southern vote that he HAS to count on. On the other hand, it may well help him in South Florida, so it's a toss-up.

*Note to Catholics (and others), yes, *I* know that's not how it works, but enough people I know think that way that it's a valid point to bring up in this forum.

I'm sure he did both. He chatted with Jesus before he converted - afterward he had to use the Vatican switchboard.

[waterj2]

I'm sure he did both. He chatted with Jesus before he converted - afterward he had to use the Vatican switchboard.Well, there's hell of a question to hav to answer: "So, after you cheated on and left your first wife, you confessed you sought forgiveness from God, but after you did the same with your second wife, you became a Catholic and confessed your sins to your priest, and sought an annulment from the Church? Do you chose the new religion before the new wife, or vice versa? Are you weighing your options for wife #4 and religion #3 yet?"

[Boyo Jim]

Now he's claiming he's to old and settled to cheat any more. Translation: the Viagara hasn't worked.

[Richard Parker]

Let's assume a best case scenario for Newt in terms of the GOP field. Trump announces that it was all a misguided attempt at a ratings boost. Huckabee and Palin opt for money over power. Bachman goes back on her meds. Daniels and Huntsman stay out.

So the field is Romney, Pawlenty, Santorum, Cain, Paul, Johnson, and Gingrich. Let's assume Cain never gets a following, and that Paul and Johnson split the hard-core libertarian vote, keeping Paul from making the kind of showings he made in 2008. So that leaves Romney, Pawlenty, and Santorum as genuine contenders for the top three slots in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

The question becomes whether Gingrich can (1) beat Pawlenty and Santorum in Iowa, or (2) beat Romney in New Hampshire, or else (3) take second in both contests and win South Carolina. Any of those paths gives him a legit shot at the nomination.

That final scenario -- show in IA and NH and win SC -- doesn't sound so crazy to me, actually. He can beat Santorum in Iowa because he's more electable, and Santorum is a terrible candidate (see: the last debate). If Gingrich can best Pawlenty in New Hampshire, then he's the only Southerner and the candidate with the best foreign policy credentials (i.e., marginally more than zero) for the older vet population that dominates the SC GOP. Indeed, Gingrich is currently running behind only Huckabee in SC. If Huckabee doesn't run, then he's the front-runner in that state for the moment.

So I'd say more than a snowball's chance. But it will require the right people to stay out; the marginal candidates to not take off; and will require him to do well enough in New Hampshire to survive until South Carolina. That last bit will be the real trick.

If he gets nominated, he could beat Obama. That's just the nature of the economy and presidential elections. If unemployment is at 9% in November, pretty much anybody but Palin has a shot at Obama.

[a35362]

Newt Gingrich was the guy who sat on a stool across from President Clinton and talked about real issues. He was the guy who recruited and trained a lot of young Republicans in how to campaign (by using words like "sick" and "traitors" to describe Democrats). He taught silly college courses and wrote silly novels and had silly ideas, but darn if he can't speak authoritatively in complete sentences and act properly indignant when you call him on his bullshit.

IIRC, when he left Congress suddenly, he had just been re-elected with something like 70% of the vote. There was a rumor about his being caught with a hooker and how he knew his time was up; if he left office it wouldn't be pursued. Now I guess he figures nobody cares or has forgotten.

I agree with those who think this is another Palin-Trump-look at me fake candidate, just in it for the fundraising and the attention. The thing is he may be a narcissist like Palin and Trump but he is a smart guy and is sorta knowledgable about the issues, I think. Maybe he figures this is his last chance; why not run and see what happens?

[astorian]

As for the banging other women, well, he just has to put on a show of remorse and claim he's spoken to Jesus and asked and been given forgiveness. Christians will eat that shit up.



I'm almost tempted to pit you for saying something so ignorant, but I'll let this pass.

Even IF your silly theory made a lick of sense, you're forgetting that Newt has converted to Catholicism.... which means he's not a real Christian at all in the eyes of fundamentalist Southerners.

[Boyo Jim]

I'm almost tempted to pit you for saying something so ignorant, but I'll let this pass.....

That would be my 4th pitting. I'd be up in the big leagues!

Oh well... I expect I'll offend someone even worse some day soon.

[Kolak of Twilo]

The fact that people are devising elaborate scenarios where Newt could get the nomination and then, through even more elaborate (and unlikely) scenarios win the Presidency seems to me to be nothing more than yet another illustration of how shallow the Republican field actually is.

I would have to agree with those who see this as little more than a vanity run, much like the recent hissy fit that odd man with the bad case of mange on his head was having on all the news channels.

[Leaper]

The fact that people are devising elaborate scenarios where Newt could get the nomination and then, through even more elaborate (and unlikely) scenarios win the Presidency seems to me to be nothing more than yet another illustration of how shallow the Republican field actually is.


I dunno, it seems that some feel that almost ANY Republican COULD beat Obama if the economy is bad enough, so I don't know if "elaborate and unlikely" comes into it, assuming Gingrich can get the nomination.

[AlienVessels]

Why do people assume that just because someone puts their hat in the ring they think they're going to win? Seems to me if you have enough funding, you can grab enough of a following to become a kingmaker, and if that weren't enough, the funds you raise even if you drop out are available for that purpose as well as I understand it.

[RTFirefly]

So has Gingrich got a snowball's chance?No. Even in this unbelievably weak field, the Newt don't stand a chance.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

No. Even in this unbelievably weak field, the Newt don't stand a chance.

Somebody's gotta run. Are the pubbies gonna put up "Generic Candidate"? Name a name who will run, IYO.

[Jas09]

IMO, it's Mitt Romney's to lose. I haven't seen anything to disabuse me of that notion yet. In the end, the desire to beat Obama will override how much they distrust Romney.

[astorian]

IMO, it's Mitt Romney's to lose. I haven't seen anything to disabuse me of that notion yet. In the end, the desire to beat Obama will override how much they distrust Romney.

Unfortunately, you're right. Mitt doesn't excite anybody, but he's in the driver's seat for now, and everybody knows it.

The media know it too, but he's so boring that they feel driven to look for someone more exciting to cover- like Trump.

[Chronos]

I'm almost tempted to pit you for saying something so ignorant, but I'll let this pass.What's so ignorant about it? That's the way it's always worked in the past. If it worked for Reagan and for McCain, and it worked for Gingrich while he was in Congress, why wouldn't it work now? I guarantee, if the general election came down to happily-married with his first wife and two kids who are turning out OK Barack Obama versus serial-marrying-and-adulturing Newt Gingrich, the so-called "family values" voters would still think that Gingrich had better "family values" than Obama.

[gonzomax]

The cupboard is bare. It is like being snowed in for a week and eating all the good stuff early. Then you look in the cupboard and all that is left is the soups you bought because they were on sale. Nobody likes them. Nobody wants them. But the Repubs have to make a selection.

[joebuck20]

Unfortunately, you're right. Mitt doesn't excite anybody, but he's in the driver's seat for now, and everybody knows it.

The media know it too, but he's so boring that they feel driven to look for someone more exciting to cover- like Trump.

This is sort of like the position the Dems were in in 2004. I don't think anybody was really excited about Kerry (certainly not in the same way people were excited about Obama four years later). If you recall, it was Howard Dean getting most of the attention in the run up to the primaries. But then his campaign imploded, and Kerry just ended up being the guy who seemed most likely to beat Bush, despite his lack of charisma. A lot of the votes that Kerry received that year (including mine) weren't so much votes for him, as they were votes against Bush.

[astorian]

What's so ignorant about it? That's the way it's always worked in the past. If it worked for Reagan and for McCain, and it worked for Gingrich while he was in Congress, why wouldn't it work now? I guarantee, if the general election came down to happily-married with his first wife and two kids who are turning out OK Barack Obama versus serial-marrying-and-adulturing Newt Gingrich, the so-called "family values" voters would still think that Gingrich had better "family values" than Obama.


Tell you what- give me ONE example of Ronald Reagan proclaiming publicly that he had repented (of ANYTHING) and that Jesus had forgiven him (for ANYTHING).

Think of an instance. If this meme is as established as you pretend, it should only take you 5 seconds to come up with ONE example.

Welll...?

[astorian]

This is sort of like the position the Dems were in in 2004. I don't think anybody was really excited about Kerry (certainly not in the same way people were excited about Obama four years later). If you recall, it was Howard Dean getting most of the attention in the run up to the primaries. But then his campaign imploded, and Kerry just ended up being the guy who seemed most likely to beat Bush, despite his lack of charisma. A lot of the votes that Kerry received that year (including mine) weren't so much votes for him, as they were votes against Bush.

Or, if Republicans want to be more optimistic, we can pretend it's 1992.

In 1992, the exciting potential candidates for the Democrats (Mario Cuomo, Lloyd Bemntsen, Richard Gephardt, Al Gore, Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn) all looked at George H.W. Bush's poll standing and wimped out, figuring it would be easier to win against Dan Quayle in 2000.

The Democratic field looked anemic that year. NOBODY was excited about Bill Clinton, Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas. But as it turned out, the incumbent was weaker than he looked, and a Democratic candidate who had once seemed like a joke (remember how Clinton was mocked for his boring keynote spech at the 1992 Convention?) turned out to be a successful, popular two-term President.

If unemployment stays at or over 9%, Obama will be vulnerable, and even a seemingly lame-o GOP candidate can win.

[Rhythmdvl]

Or, if Republicans want to be more optimistic, we can pretend it's 1992.

In 1992, the exciting potential candidates for the Democrats (Mario Cuomo, Lloyd Bemntsen, Richard Gephardt, Al Gore, Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn) all looked at George H.W. Bush's poll standing and wimped out, figuring it would be easier to win against Dan Quayle in 2000.

The Democratic field looked anemic that year. NOBODY was excited about Bill Clinton, Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas. But as it turned out, the incumbent was weaker than he looked, and a Democratic candidate who had once seemed like a joke (remember how Clinton was mocked for his boring keynote spech at the 1992 Convention?) turned out to be a successful, popular two-term President.

If unemployment stays at or over 9%, Obama will be vulnerable, and even a seemingly lame-o GOP candidate can win.
Didn't Perot get close to 20% of the vote that year? Not all of it would have gone to Bush, but IIRC Perot stripped away a significant number of otherwise-for-Bush votes.

Not that that turns your post on its head, but the Perot factor has to be accounted for. It seems that another third party candidate is likely to do the same thing to the GOP again--a disgruntled tea party candidate here and there and you're missing crucial votes.

[Steve MB]

Didn't Perot get close to 20% of the vote that year? Not all of it would have gone to Bush, but IIRC Perot stripped away a significant number of otherwise-for-Bush votes.

Not that that turns your post on its head, but the Perot factor has to be accounted for. It seems that another third party candidate is likely to do the same thing to the GOP again--a disgruntled tea party candidate here and there and you're missing crucial votes.

The polling data I've seen indicates that Perot drew about equally from people who would have otherwise voted for Bush or Clinton -- much of his support was the "throw the bums out" vote that would have gone to Clinton or just stayed home.

[Saint Cad]

I predict that not only will Gingrich run, but that he will win the Rep primary. Why? Because whenever a Democratic president/candidate is vunerable, we alway nominate exactly the wrong person to run against them.

[Voyager]

Tell you what- give me ONE example of Ronald Reagan proclaiming publicly that he had repented (of ANYTHING) and that Jesus had forgiven him (for ANYTHING).

Think of an instance. If this meme is as established as you pretend, it should only take you 5 seconds to come up with ONE example.

Welll...?

Plus, Reagan had been married to Nancy for a long time then, and he got divorced as a movie star, and they were allowed to do that even back then.

[Voyager]

IMO, it's Mitt Romney's to lose. I haven't seen anything to disabuse me of that notion yet. In the end, the desire to beat Obama will override how much they distrust Romney.

Unlikely. He lost to McCain even before the tea partiers. I suspect the psychotic right thinks that McCain lost for being too librul, and so are not going to go with the leftmost candidate around. Plus he's got MittCare hanging over his head, no matter how much he tries to evade it.

It's too bad, since Mitt is actually sane, but I don't think he has a chance.

[Jas09]

Unlikely. He lost to McCain even before the tea partiers. I suspect the psychotic right thinks that McCain lost for being too librul, and so are not going to go with the leftmost candidate around. Plus he's got MittCare hanging over his head, no matter how much he tries to evade it.

It's too bad, since Mitt is actually sane, but I don't think he has a chance.You may be right - I wouldn't be at all surprised.

But I'm riding the "electability" plus "runner-up" train until proven otherwise. :)

Although my Dad, a pretty centrist Republican, can't stand Mitt - maybe there is such a thing as a politician that is *too* phony.

[Icarus]

Somebody mentioned it tangentially upthread - Newt has a network of Republicans in office in Washington DC, and at some level, in assemblies and statehouses all over the country, that were part of the revolution he led when he was speaker. Even though he's been out of elected office for some time, he's been "around". He may be successful at marshalling enough of these influential party figures to make a serious dent in the primaries.

[Frank]

Somebody mentioned it tangentially upthread - Newt has a network of Republicans in office in Washington DC, and at some level, in assemblies and statehouses all over the country, that were part of the revolution he led when he was speaker. Even though he's been out of elected office for some time, he's been "around".
What's he done for them lately? I would suggest that he has done very little in in the last 10 or 15 years to shore up support for a run at president.

[Chronos]

Quoth astorian:Tell you what- give me ONE example of Ronald Reagan proclaiming publicly that he had repented (of ANYTHING) and that Jesus had forgiven him (for ANYTHING).
What's important isn't what he ever actually said; it's how people perceive him. Ask any member of the "Moral Majority" why they're not upset about Reagan's (or McCain's, or Gingrich's) philandering, and they'll all tell you it's because they repented and found religion.

[elucidator]

What's he done for them lately? I would suggest that he has done very little in in the last 10 or 15 years to shore up support for a run at president.

You aren't crediting the fundamental loyalty of the politician. With a politician, its never "what have you done for me?", but rather, "what can you do for me?"

[Boyo Jim]

He's built quite a cash machine. I wonder if he has a PAC that doles out money to right wing pols and causes.

[astorian]

Quoth astorian:What's important isn't what he ever actually said; it's how people perceive him. Ask any member of the "Moral Majority" why they're not upset about Reagan's (or McCain's, or Gingrich's) philandering, and they'll all tell you it's because they repented and found religion.

Translation: you CAN'T come up with a single instance of Ronald Reagan appealing to fundies by saying or even implying that Jesus had forgiven him, but you're going to keep right on pretending that he did... but too subtly for anyone but clever folks like YOU to perceive.

Moreover, if there WAS any philandering on Reagan's part, it never became an electoral issue in 1980 or 1984, so he never HAD to play the "I'm forgiven" game.

[Captain Amazing]

I don't think Reagan really talked about religion very much at all, other than that he was generally in favor of it. Fundies liked him because he could be generally counted on to be against abortion and gay rights and smut on tv and all the other things that fundies are against; not because of any deep religious feeling on Reagan's part.

[Chronos]

Translation: you CAN'T come up with a single instance of Ronald Reagan appealing to fundies...Depends what you mean by "appealing to fundies". He never made an appeal on those grounds, but fundies did find him appealing on those grounds.

[RTFirefly]

Somebody's gotta run. Are the pubbies gonna put up "Generic Candidate"? Name a name who will run, IYO.WTF? A whole bunch of people are running.

Are you asking who will win the nomination? Hell if I know, but I can give you a long list of names I think have a better chance of winning the nomination than Newt does.

Mitt Romney
Tim Pawlenty
Mitch Daniels
Mike Huckabee
Michele Bachmann
Hell, even Sarah Palin, though not by much.
Jim DeMint, if he decided to run.

Each of these people has a better chance of winning the GOP nomination than the Newt does.

[Rhythmdvl]

WTF? A whole bunch of people are running.

Are you asking who will win the nomination? Hell if I know, but I can give you a long list of names I think have a better chance of winning the nomination than Newt does.

Mitt Romney
Tim Pawlenty
Mitch Daniels
Mike Huckabee
Michele Bachmann
Hell, even Sarah Palin, though not by much.
Jim DeMint, if he decided to run.

Each of these people has a better chance of winning the GOP nomination than the Newt does.
Nomination or general? Palin and maybe Huckabee and Bachmann have similar levels of support of Fox News and talk radio, though I think all told both have less than Newt.

It takes more than Fox/radio support, but if it's the nomination that's at play I wouldn't be so quick to discount that, plus his entrenched, far-reaching and well-oiled political machine. Palin is the closest to that network-wise, but from what I understand despite its size it's dwarfed by Newt, Inc.

How these translate to getting out the vote is the key question, of course, but with regards to the nomination perhaps he isn't that far from obtaining it--or securing behind the doors agreements to take the VP slot.

My core assumption in this is that the nomination process is driven by motivated minorities much more so than the general. An in-place network gives him a huge advantage.

[aceplace57]

How long before people remember horny Newt makes John Edwards look like a choirboy?

His dick ruined Newt 14 years ago. He'll get shredded in this election. Multiple divorces, affairs you name it. Maybe John Edwards should run too?

I guess it proves no matter the scandal a politician can always run for office.

His first marriage, to his former high school geometry teacher, Jackie Battley, ended in divorce in 1981. Although Gingrich has said he doesn't remember it, Battley has said Gingrich discussed divorce terms with her while she was recuperating in the hospital from cancer surgery.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17527506/ns/politics/t/gingrich-admits-having-affair-clinton-era/

[Boyo Jim]

Can anyone tell me --- if Newt gets in the race but pulls out before the party nominates a candidate, what happens to any unspent money that he raises? I don't think that any of it will be public money by that point.

I think he's got a scheme to make money out of this, though I have only suspicion and no evidence.

[Richard Parker]

Mitt Romney
Tim Pawlenty
Mitch Daniels
Mike Huckabee
Michele Bachmann
Hell, even Sarah Palin, though not by much.
Jim DeMint, if he decided to run.

Each of these people has a better chance of winning the GOP nomination than the Newt does.

Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels, Huckabee: yes, they have a better chance (though note that two of them might not even run).

Bachmann, Palin, DeMint: no way.

All of the objective evidence -- the fact that he's actually running, name-recognition-adjusted polling (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/a-polling-based-forecast-of-the-republican-primary-field/), and fundraising (http://visiontoamerica.org/553/gingrich-builds-impressive-political-machine/) (more than all the other potential Republican presidential candidates combined) -- all points toward Gingrich being more likely to win the nomination than those three. To argue otherwise you have to have as a premise that GOP primary voters don't really know who Gingrich is, and will sour on him when they are reminded of his weaknesses. But the evidence suggests they do know who he is, and his unfavorables are comparable to others, and far better than Palin. And he will have plenty of money to help his image.

He's clearly not a top-tier candidate. But he has a much better shot than most in this thread think.

[Captain Amazing]

Can anyone tell me --- if Newt gets in the race but pulls out before the party nominates a candidate, what happens to any unspent money that he raises? I don't think that any of it will be public money by that point.

I think he's got a scheme to make money out of this, though I have only suspicion and no evidence.

Basically, he can donate it to charity, a PAC, or donate some of it directly to other campaigns. Although, as this ABC News article points out, it's sort of possible to get around that. Until 1979, candidates could just pocket the money.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/campaign-finance-senators-house-members-campaign-funds-retire/story?id=10203316

That being said, political campaigns are expensive, and the campaign usually winds up in debt. Hillary Clinton is still paying off her campaign debt, as is, I believe, John McCain. And Mitt Romney has just forgiven himself the last of the $45 million he loaned to himself in the 2008 campaign.

[Boyo Jim]

I have figured it out. He will donate it to some political entity which will then hire him as some kind of spokesperson or "strategic thinker" or some such thing.

[Icarus]

or securing behind the doors agreements to take the VP slot.

I think this is actually the likely outcome - he plays the VP elder statesman role (ala Biden, Chaney) for some Governor who is the Presidential nominee.

[Simplicio]

I think this is actually the likely outcome - he plays the VP elder statesman role (ala Biden, Chaney) for some Governor who is the Presidential nominee.

Maybe, though most of the less experienced candidates now lack foreign policy experience. Bush and Obama chose their running mates to cover that perceived gap as well. But unlike Biden or Cheney, Newt isn't particularly known for his knowledge of foreign policy (other then Muslims==Bad), so I don't really think he fits that model.

[aceplace57]

Given the very weak field of candidates, I'd have to agree Newt does have a snowballs chance. Not much more. But, I haven't heard a new or interesting name fielded so far. It's the same tired rejects from 2008. Romney, Huckabee, maybe the guy from NY. Same old song.

12 years from now, we'll be idly wondering if John Edwards has a chance. By then his antics will have been forgotten too.

[RTFirefly]

Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels, Huckabee: yes, they have a better chance (though note that two of them might not even run). With Daniels and Huckabee, I think they've got better chances than Newt does, even adjusted for the possibility that they won't run.

Bachmann, Palin, DeMint: no way. I have to believe that ultimately someone is going to catch fire with the Teabagging crowd. And that someone will have a better chance than Newt. (No, Newt won't be the one.)

All of the objective evidence -- the fact that he's actually running, name-recognition-adjusted polling (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/a-polling-based-forecast-of-the-republican-primary-field/), and fundraising (http://visiontoamerica.org/553/gingrich-builds-impressive-political-machine/) (more than all the other potential Republican presidential candidates combined) -- all points toward Gingrich being more likely to win the nomination than those three. To argue otherwise you have to have as a premise that GOP primary voters don't really know who Gingrich is, and will sour on him when they are reminded of his weaknesses. I don't get this argument at all. Gingrich's problem is exactly the opposite: everyone already knows who he is, and very few people outside a 30-mile radius of the Nation's Capital give a shit that he's running.

But various Gingrich greatest-hits compilations (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_05/gingrich_launches_the_ultimate029513.php) demonstrate the potential for his unfavorables to still rise dramatically.

He's clearly not a top-tier candidate. But he has a much better shot than most in this thread think.IYHO. My take is that a candidate has to get people to vote for him in the primaries. There are people out there who will vote for Bachmann or Palin. To the extent that someone's relatively unfamiliar to the public at large (e.g. GWB, January 1999; Pawlenty, Daniels this year) a bunch of money can really help if used well.

I don't see who Gingrich is going to win over; I think even most of those who name him in the polls will eventually go elsewhere. Teabaggers will want someone who hasn't been a creature of Washington since the 1980s, and people who want someone who's got some experience with governing will choose between Romney, Pawlenty, and (if running) Daniels.

Nomination or general?
Are you asking who will win the nomination? Hell if I know, but I can give you a long list of names I think have a better chance of winning the nomination than Newt does.

<snip>

Each of these people has a better chance of winning the GOP nomination than the Newt does.I can see why you're confused. ;)

[Rhythmdvl]

Heh, I meant to add an ETA that I was starting from your post but not directly addressing you in particular. Then I realized that that was a bit cumbersome phrasing and didn't quite say what I meant it to say. Then I got distracted.

[RTFirefly]

Heh, I meant to add an ETA that I was starting from your post but not directly addressing you in particular. Then I realized that that was a bit cumbersome phrasing and didn't quite say what I meant it to say. Then I got distracted.Happens to the best of us. No biggie.

[Chronos]

Another point about Gingrich: Everyone's made a big deal about how the health care bill presents problems for Romney, since he passed something similar in Massachusetts. But it's an even bigger problem for Gingrich, since he proposed basically the same thing in response to Clinton's plan. Romney at least can offer up the state vs. federal argument, claiming that it's appropriate or Constitutional or whatever for a single state but not for the entire US, but Gingrich doesn't even have that argument.

[AlienVessels]

Basically, he can donate it to charity, a PAC, or donate some of it directly to other campaigns. Although, as this ABC News article points out, it's sort of possible to get around that. Until 1979, candidates could just pocket the money.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/campaign-finance-senators-house-members-campaign-funds-retire/story?id=10203316

That being said, political campaigns are expensive, and the campaign usually winds up in debt. Hillary Clinton is still paying off her campaign debt, as is, I believe, John McCain. And Mitt Romney has just forgiven himself the last of the $45 million he loaned to himself in the 2008 campaign.

The question is whether a partial campaign could make more than it spends early on. Isn't the heavy duty spending at the tail end of campaigns?

Seems to me you build a constituency, trash the front runners, build up a warchest, and then drop out, down to a "kingmaker" position if you don't think you can win the whole bag of marbles.

You don't even have to give away the money, just dangle it as a potential part of the package, even if you really plan on using it in the election in a more targeted way.

[Simplicio]

Another point about Gingrich: Everyone's made a big deal about how the health care bill presents problems for Romney, since he passed something similar in Massachusetts. But it's an even bigger problem for Gingrich, since he proposed basically the same thing in response to Clinton's plan. Romney at least can offer up the state vs. federal argument, claiming that it's appropriate or Constitutional or whatever for a single state but not for the entire US, but Gingrich doesn't even have that argument.

He was still talking up what would basically be the Obamacare plan as late as 2007 (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/05/newt-gingrich-used-to-love-individual-health-insurance-mandates/). So yea, I'd say he has at least the same amount of exposure on the issue as Romney.

[Boyo Jim]

Not quite. He didn't manage to get a law passed. Did he even introduce any legislation about it? I'm doubtful, as he seems more of an 'idea' guy than a 'work' guy.

[Rhythmdvl]

You don't even have to give away the money, just dangle it as a potential part of the package, even if you really plan on using it in the election in a more targeted way.Given Newt's philandering past, I'd appreciate it if people would rethink putting such word pictures in our minds. Newt's dangling package indeed.



Won't someone think of the children!

[AlienVessels]

Given Newt's philandering past, I'd appreciate it if people would rethink putting such word pictures in our minds. Newt's dangling package indeed.

With all due respect, it was the money dangling. I think you need to take responsibility for the fecundity of your own imagination. :)

[RTFirefly]

Looks like Gingrich has gone flip-flop-flip-flop (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_05/gingrich_struggles_badly_with029619.php) on the House GOP budget over the past few days, being alternately for, against, for, and against it.

Rush says he's 'befuddled', and Krauthammer is sticking a fork in him.

[Profound Gibberish]

That was fun to watch. He specifically stated that he was for an individual mandate, only to back out of it later. He is the classic say anything, mean nothing politician. One flip flop is excusable, but one on top of the other will end up burying him.

[RTFirefly]

SC Gov. Nikki Haley is furious with Newt (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/17/gov-nikki-haley-hammers-gingrich-over-medicare-remarks/).

Haley's a first-class bozoette but beloved of the wingnuts, and her endorsement in a key early primary state carries some heft to it.
"What he said was absolutely unfortunate," Haley told CNN in a phone interview. "Here you've got Representative Ryan trying to bring common sense to this world of insanity, and Newt absolutely cut him off at the knees."

"When you have a conservative fighting for real change, the last thing we need is a presidential candidate cutting him off at the knees," she added.
That's not gonna help the Newt at all.

[Profound Gibberish]

If there is any state where a history of infidelity is not a negative but actually a plus it is South Carolina ;-)

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

Newt's big plus should be his experience, but he's running like a political neophyte. I never gave him much of a chance in this, but he has moved himself from dark-horse territory into spectacular long-shot range now.

[Simplicio]

Newt's big plus should be his experience, but he's running like a political neophyte. I never gave him much of a chance in this, but he has moved himself from dark-horse territory into spectacular long-shot range now.

Yea, did he not forsee people were going to ask him about Medicare? You'd think he'd get his story straight ahead of time.

I actually think coming out against the Ryan plan would've been a good plan, at least as far as separating him from the GOP pack (and from his 90's image as trying to cut the program). But its the kind of move you need to go all in on, trying to walk it back the next day just makes him look like an idiot.

[Chefguy]

Gingrich is getting basted by his own party for his remarks, and the Dems are chortling about him once again shooting himself in the foot. As I mentioned somewhat jokingly in another thread on the guy, the man has never had any self discipline: it's apparent in both his personal and public lives. He's also a political anachronism. He may as well save himself some money and go home now.

[RTFirefly]

Gingrich is getting basted by his own party for his remarks, and the Dems are chortling about him once again shooting himself in the foot. As I mentioned somewhat jokingly in another thread on the guy, the man has never had any self discipline: it's apparent in both his personal and public lives. He's also a political anachronism. He may as well save himself some money and go home now.Hey, it's not his money he's spending on his campaign. :)

ETA: Wonder what the over/under is on when he'll drop out? While he doesn't care about the money, I figure at some point the embarrassment factor will become great enough to get him to abandon the race.

[furt]

Gingrich has quite more than a snowball's chance, in my opinion. He doesn't have instant mass appeal like Palin, but he is seen as a responsible fiscal conservative by everyone who would consider voting for a fiscal conservative. Bollocks. I am a fiscal conservative, and I don't know anyone who thinks of Gingrich in positive terms at all. He's a say-anything egotist asshole. To the extent Gingrich can be said to have fixed positions or convictions, I'd say I agree with 80% of them. And I still wouldn't vote for him.

[Steve MB]

But its the kind of move you need to go all in on, trying to walk it back the next day just makes him look like an idiot.

He manages to go beyond mere idiocy by calling himself a liar (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/18/gingrich-any-ad-which-quotes-what-i-said/):

So let me say on the record, any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood.

[Boyo Jim]

Was that intended to be a factual statement?

[Spavined Gelding]

Factual statement? Hell, I can’t even figure out what it is supposed to mean.

[Boyo Jim]

Factual statement? Hell, I can’t even figure out what it is supposed to mean.

Seriously? It's pretty clear to me, though pretty stupid too.

[Dewey Finn]

He manages to go beyond mere idiocy by calling himself a liar (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/18/gingrich-any-ad-which-quotes-what-i-said/):
Both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report had a field day with this hilarious statement of his. And Politico reports (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55125.html) that he and his wife owe somewhere between $250,000-500,000 to the jeweler Tiffany's. She must have a really big addiction to fancy, expensive jewels (or he's giving gifts to the next wife).

[Maus Magill]

More likely the Tiffany's bills are the result of "I'm sorry, I was being too patriotic" presents.

[Steve MB]

Factual statement? Hell, I can’t even figure out what it is supposed to mean.

It means that the lamestream media shouldn't distort Newt's statements by quoting them verbatim.

Just when you thought he'd hit rock bottom, his press secretary gets out the jackhammer and starts digging (http://www.frumforum.com/gingrich-aide-blasts-media-minions):


The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding. Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment’s cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles. But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.

Great Ghu, it reads like North Korean propaganda about the glories of the Dear Leader.

[Voyager]

Newt's big plus should be his experience, but he's running like a political neophyte. I never gave him much of a chance in this, but he has moved himself from dark-horse territory into spectacular long-shot range now.

I'd say that he was acting as if it were still 1994, and it was still possible to say remotely rational things as a Republican and not get keelhauled. I'd never vote for the guy, but what he said on Meet the Press seemed to have a tinge of rationality. (His hilarious backing away from them didn't.) Destroying Medicare is stupid and extreme, and, even worse, is going to lose a lot of votes. Yet when he is smart enough to distance himself from a loser the tea partiers pitch a fit. That may win primaries, but it is not going to win an election.

Perhaps Newt has been thinking and writing more or less in an ivory tower for so long now that he doesn't really get why reasonable solutions are the kiss of death in the modern Republican party.

[Maus Magill]

It means that the lamestream media shouldn't distort Newt's statements by quoting them verbatim.

Just when you thought he'd hit rock bottom, his press secretary gets out the jackhammer and starts digging (http://www.frumforum.com/gingrich-aide-blasts-media-minions):

The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding. Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment’s cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles. But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.

Great Ghu, it reads like North Korean propaganda about the glories of the Dear Leader.

In case you have no idea what the press secretary meant. Here's the illustrated version. (http://stuff.jonwhitestudio.com/2011/05/presidential-campaign-press-statements-illustrated/)

[Steve MB]

I'd say that he was acting as if it were still 1994, and it was still possible to say remotely rational things as a Republican and not get keelhauled. I'd never vote for the guy, but what he said on Meet the Press seemed to have a tinge of rationality. (His hilarious backing away from them didn't.) Destroying Medicare is stupid and extreme, and, even worse, is going to lose a lot of votes. Yet when he is smart enough to distance himself from a loser the tea partiers pitch a fit. That may win primaries, but it is not going to win an election.

Perhaps Newt has been thinking and writing more or less in an ivory tower for so long now that he doesn't really get why reasonable solutions are the kiss of death in the modern Republican party.

Apparently, he thinks his blame-the-media rants will appease the hardcore base while his positions will attract mainstream voters. Instead, his positions are alienating the base while his rants make him a laughingstock to mainstream voters.

[Ca3799]

Aw. I'm starting to feel a little sorry for the guy. Didn't he used to be a 'real' politician back in the day?

Well, he may have stumbled a little out of the gate, but he still has plenty of time to get his game on. And he does need to up his game. He's got some pretty good competition on the Dem side.

[Rhythmdvl]

The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding. Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment’s cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles. But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.In case you have no idea what the press secretary meant. Here's the illustrated version. (http://stuff.jonwhitestudio.com/2011/05/presidential-campaign-press-statements-illustrated/)

I think it should be read by Tina Fey in full Palin regalia, complete with (in)appropriately timed winks.

Shatner version to follow, complete with bongos.

[Steve MB]

In case you have no idea what the press secretary meant. Here's the illustrated version. (http://stuff.jonwhitestudio.com/2011/05/presidential-campaign-press-statements-illustrated/)

Heh. The sad thing is that he probably thinks he's invoking that sort of heroic image.

In other Newt news, he isn't all alone (yet). St. Sarah still likes him, and charges to his defense (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/sarah-palin-blames-lamestream-media-and-racist-david-gregory-for-newts-political-crisis.php) with an irrefudiatable argument (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoYou):

Palin went much farther than Gingrich has in attacking Gregory, however, labeling him "racist" for asking Gingrich whether his claim that Barack Obama was a "food stamp president" was a dogwhistle.

"Well, talk about racism, that was a racist tinged question from David Gregory," she said. "He made it sound like if you're black, you are on food stamps and the President is referring to you as being on food stamps. I think that's racist."

[Steve MB]

Newt doubles down on the bullshit again (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/05/newt-gingrich-medicare-paul-ryan-/1):

GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich told Rush Limbaugh on Thursday that he wasn't referring to Rep. Paul Ryan when referred to "right-wing social engineering" during a much-criticized appearance on NBC's Meet the Press....

[Ca3799]

Well, that's a big, fat lie.

[RTFirefly]

Well, he may have stumbled a little out of the gate, but he still has plenty of time to get his game on. Describing Newt's past week as "hav[ing] stumbled a little" is like the MP&HG Black Knight's describing his loss of limbs as "just a flesh wound."

Heh. The sad thing is that he probably thinks he's invoking that sort of heroic image.
Black Knight: "I'm invincible!"
King Arthur: "You're a loony."

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Rick Tyler
The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding. Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment’s cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles. But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.

Colbert had John Lithgow come on the show tonight and perform this as a dramatic reading. Pretty damn funny.

[Kolga]

In completely hilarity-related news, please please oh PLEASE great lord of bacon tell me that it's true that Newt's ringtone is Dancing Queen? (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-newt-gingrich-dancing-queen-20110519,0,7453968.story)

[Frostillicus]

All you naysayers obviously don't understand the mass grass-roots appeal that Newt Gingrich possesses. Just look at his April 2011 fundraising effort. His PAC took in a whopping $1,040 for the month. That's right -- over $34 a day! Think of the number of first class stamps that can purchase!



http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/newt_gingrichs_former_pac_took_in_just_34_per_day_in_april.php

[Voyager]

All you naysayers obviously don't understand the mass grass-roots appeal that Newt Gingrich possesses. Just look at his April 2011 fundraising effort. His PAC took in a whopping $1,040 for the month. That's right -- over $34 a day! Think of the number of first class stamps that can purchase!

He is just demonstrating that he is not beholden to moneyed interests!

I think Obama got that much from the left arm of one of the guests at his last fundraiser.

[Boyo Jim]

I would bid more than that for Zsa Zsa's amputated leg on eBay.

[Chronos]

That almost reads like an Onion article... How can the PAC afford to even hire a spokesman to make the statements about the fundraising, at that rate?