Romney or Gingrich?

[Kozmik]

Simple question. Difficult answer.

If the South Carolina primary tomorrow does not settle it then perhaps the debates on Tuesday and Thursday will.

[BrainGlutton]

Or if not, then an exorcism should.

[Simplicio]

What question your asking isn't exactly super-clear. You mean: who will win the GOP nomination?

Romney. Newt would be an awful candidate. I can't believe the GOP would let him win. Even if he wins in S. Carolina, every Republican functionary within a million miles of a TV camera will spend all of February unloading on him.

[Richard Parker]

There's no way Gingrich will win it unless Europe collapses in the next 3 months.

Parties sometime nominate the less electable candidate. But when the only thing holding the Party together is Obama hatred, it just seems really unlikely that they'll pick the candidate that is not just less likely to win than Romney, but indeed least likely to win.

Electability will win the day for Romney.

[contradancer]

I'm voting for Ron Paul.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

indeed least likely to win.

The weird thing about that link is it shows Obama tied, roughly, or beating soundly each individual opponent but getting his hat handed to him by a generic Republican.

[Gagundathar]

Yeah, if only the GOP could find Mr. Generic, the presidency would be theirs.

[howye]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar

Yeah, if only the GOP could find Mr. Generic, the presidency would be theirs.

They have, yet Mitt seems to not poll very well.

[Damuri Ajashi]

nm

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

The weird thing about that link is it shows Obama tied, roughly, or beating soundly each individual opponent but getting his hat handed to him by a generic Republican.

Both Romney v. Obama and Obama v. Generic GOP are likely within the MOE. I wouldn't be surprised at all if most voters equate "Romney" with "Generic GOP" - he's pretty much the ceiling in this field wrt electability. The question is whether GOP voters will go with that or take a chance on the guys they actually like.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Even if he wins in S. Carolina, every Republican functionary within a million miles of a TV camera will spend all of February unloading on him.

Even if he wins in Florida?

Right now, Gingrich has the advantage of momentum. This momentum won't last, however. Tonight on NBC is a Republican debate, then on Thursday there is another Republican debate on CNN, then, at the end of the month, is the Florida primary. So there is momentum until the end of the month. Then what? Then, there are a few debates in February and March, and, of course, Super Tuesday. Then, the Republican National Convention in August. Then, the Democratic National Convention in September. Then, finally, Election Day on November 6.


Can Gingrich use the momentum to win the Florida primary?

[dorsk188]

I really can't see Gingrich keeping up his momentum throughout all of February. Romney will clean up in most of the caucuses during that period with his infrastructure and inherent advantages in those states and there are few scheduled debates (the only place Newt has an advantage). Then comes Super-Tuesday where money will buy ads. Gingrich has friends with deep pockets, but his superpac can only effectively attack Romney. I don't know if you can win a nomination on bile alone.

People are talking seriously about the possibility of asking Romney to step aside in favor of an establishment candidate like Jeb Bush that the GOP voters won't reject like a type-mismatched baboon lung.

Since the beginning, there's been two basic theories for how this campaign will end: Romney is inevitable, and Romney is unacceptable. It seems more and more like, somehow, they're both right.

[IntelliQ]

Newt won another debate last night, handily.

He made the rest of them, especially Romney and Santorum sound like pull string dolls vomiting up the same recorded phrases over and over.

I think what turns a lot of people off about political candidates is they are boring and repetitive. "I know what it takes to lead",...."I will make the tough decisions",......."I know how to get America working again". Please. Romney and Santorum are dullards.
(This applies to democrats too in general, and believe it's a big reason Obama did well last election - he offers detailed responses)

If Newt continues on this path, and comes off mild mannered instead of pissed off, then he's got the nomination (barring any real past bombshell coming to light that voters can't let slide).

I'm not saying he would be or wouldnt be a decent president and putting his personal stuff aside, have you ever heard a candidate similar to Newt who has a full command of every issue and able to detail such concise responses?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

If Newt continues on this path, and comes off mild mannered instead of pissed off, then he's got the nomination (barring any real past bombshell coming to light that voters can't let slide).

I'm pretty sure that happened already. Might not lose him the nomination, will lose him the election.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Newt won another debate last night, handily.

Really? I thought Newt did rather poorly last night. Romney finally hit him and sort of knocked him back. Without the crowd frenzy he comes off as rather timid and meek.

I'm not sure it's enough, but you can bet the lobbying charge will be blanketing FL between now and the primary, as well as all the ethics-related stuff and maybe some more seamy third-party allegations re: infidelity and sick-wife-leaving.

[dorsk188]

Romney: I only pay 15% in taxes!

Gingrich: That's so horrible I want everyone to pay the same rate.

Romney: Actually, under your plan, I would pay nothing at all... nothing at all... nothing at all...

That debate was a real clunker, as far as I can tell. It's a shame Newt can't just attack at this massively vulnerable underbelly because his superpac runs on billionaires.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by dorsk188

People are talking seriously about the possibility of asking Romney to step aside in favor of an establishment candidate like Jeb Bush that the GOP voters won't reject like a type-mismatched baboon lung.

I have a better chance of beating Obama than anyone named Bush. His brother pretty much ruined the family name at the national level for the foreseeable future.

[PrettyVacant]

When do the sane, rational grown ups declare?

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by PrettyVacant

When do the sane, rational grown ups declare?

1956.

[BrainGlutton]

I have to wonder -- is the GOP base really completely oblivious to how utterly loathsome Newt Gingrich is to the majority?

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I have to wonder -- is the GOP base really completely oblivious to how utterly loathsome Newt Gingrich is to the majority?

Majority of what? Polls show him doing well.

His overly self confident (arrogance) isnt a good attribute, but that hasnt stopped him from finagling meaningful compromises which were a benefit to the country. I can only guess people are more focused on someone who has a profound insight and workable ideas than salesmanship or looking at this like a prom king event as in the past.

[Jas09]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Majority of what? Polls show him doing well.

Majority of the country. As in, non-GOP-primary voters. Overall he's at something like -28 approve/disapprove. In head-to-head matchups he loses by 10 or more to Obama. Women, by and large, hate him. Moderates hate him. Only the GOP primary voting population seems to love him right now.

All of this could change, but there is a reason the GOP establishment is melting down over his potential nomination.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I have to wonder -- is the GOP base really completely oblivious to how utterly loathsome Newt Gingrich is to the majority?

I wonder about this to. I don't think I've ever seen a attack ad bring up electibility. I guess it just seems too wonky and bloodless to bring up someones poll numbers in a TV spot. OTOH, ts probably Romney's best argument if he could figure out a way to make it more well known to the GOP primary electorate.

(oddly in the bits of the debates I've caught, its Newt attacking Romney's electibility by saying he's only won one election that seemed most prominant).

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

His overly self confident (arrogance) isnt a good attribute, but that hasnt stopped him from finagling meaningful compromises which were a benefit to the country.

Going by his record as Speaker, he never did anything but obstruct compromises which were a benefit to the country; while speeding all compromises not beneficial, like the Taxpayer Relief Act. (And, hey, what ever happened to that term-limits thing?!)

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

I wonder about this to. I don't think I've ever seen a attack ad bring up electibility. I guess it just seems too wonky and bloodless to bring up someones poll numbers in a TV spot. OTOH, ts probably Romney's best argument if he could figure out a way to make it more well known to the GOP primary electorate.

(oddly in the bits of the debates I've caught, its Newt attacking Romney's electibility by saying he's only won one election that seemed most prominant).

The problem with bringing up electability in an attack ad is that calling your opponent "too conservative to be elected" will turn off conservatives. That's why they say things like "I can work with both sides" instead.

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Going by his record as Speaker, he never did anything but obstruct compromises which were a benefit to the country; while speeding all compromises not beneficial, like the Taxpayer Relief Act. (And, hey, what ever happened to that term-limits thing?!)

His solutions to illegal immigration seems like a perfect compromise on a huge issue.

Welfare reform? Clinton and the left had different ideas on how to do it but eventually hammered out deals with Newt to get the mostly republican version passed.

That wiki link you provided is full of accomplishments, very impressive to say the least.

As an aside, I see Newt pandering to the far right wing in some ways, like on climate change. If somehow magically overnight the utlra right thought global warming was real and important - New would be back on that couch with Pelosi in time to make the Friday evening news.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I have to wonder -- is the GOP base really completely oblivious to how utterly loathsome Newt Gingrich is to the majority?

Let's hope so.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

I can only guess people are more focused on someone who has a profound insight and workable ideas than salesmanship or looking at this like a prom king event as in the past.

It's been pointed out before: It's not that he's smart; it's that he sounds like a dumb person's idea of how a smart person sounds.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

...New would be back on that couch with Pelosi in time to make the Friday evening news.

Thanks for the image.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by dorsk188

Romney: Actually, under your plan, I would pay nothing at all... nothing at all... nothing at all...

Stupid sexy Romney!


Anyway, Newt can get some cheap applause by playing to his audience's dislike of the "liberal" media, i.e. it's not Obama that's wrong with the country, it's reporters who concentrate on questions about my personal life. Am I right? C'mon, give it up!

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

If somehow magically overnight the utlra right thought global warming was real and important - New would be back on that couch with Pelosi in time to make the Friday evening news.

Why? Is Calista sick?

[Spoke]

It appears that Gingrich will be the last not-Romney standing. (Ron Paul doesn't count, and Santorum in Iowa was a blip.) Therefore, Gingrich will win the nomination. All or most of the not-Romney voters will hop on his train.

Romney has never had anything but a plurality among Republican voters, and I just don't think he will ever muster a majority.

[CJJ*]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

The problem with bringing up electability in an attack ad is that calling your opponent "too conservative to be elected" will turn off conservatives. That's why they say things like "I can work with both sides" instead.

Electability is dicey in a primary because it tacitly concedes the "product" you're trying to sell--conservatism--is something the majority doesn't really want. And no one wants to vote for the best turd-polisher.

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

It's been pointed out before: It's not that he's smart; it's that he sounds like a dumb person's idea of how a smart person sounds.

The same can be said about Obama and it would be mostly true. He just defecated his 3rd consecutive SOTU speech tailored for 8th graders - yet he's heralded as brilliant by his followers.

No one thinks Biden is anything but a nitwit, he's safe from additional scrutiny.

Pelosi's mildly retarded, Romney doesnt know shit, Paul is a fruitcake, and Santorum has kept to a 15 phrase limit so he doesnt risk tripping on an original thought.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

Electability is dicey in a primary because it tacitly concedes the "product" you're trying to sell--conservatism--is something the majority doesn't really want. And no one wants to vote for the best turd-polisher.

You can be un-electable for reasons other then being too conservative. For example, if the last time the public was aware of you you were being drummed out of the leadership by your own party under a haze of scandal and by bi-partisan agreement that you were kind of a dick.

[Bryan Ekers]

I'd like to see Gingrich debate Bill Clinton.

Clinton: So, you stupid son of a bitch, you think you got the stones to be president? Heck, when I cheated on my wife, she was healthy enough to kick my ass!

[BrainGlutton]

No, really, Newt is so repellent to so many that he couldn't beat Jimmy-Carter-come-out-of-retirement. Carter would win a second term.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Simple question. Difficult answer.

For me, it's a simple answer : Romney.

I grew up in Newt's congressional district back when he was Speaker. He came and talked to my high school back in 1991. I have met the man. Not just that day, but afterwards as well. He is more slimy and loathsome than any of you realize.

I'm not a huge fan of Romney, but Newt.... I despise that man, because I have met him and he is as bad a human being as his detractors make him out to be. Probably worse.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by A Monkey With a Gun

For me, it's a simple answer : Romney.

I grew up in Newt's congressional district back when he was Speaker. He came and talked to my high school back in 1991. I have met the man. Not just that day, but afterwards as well. He is more slimy and loathsome than any of you realize.

I'm not a huge fan of Romney, but Newt.... I despise that man, because I have met him and he is as bad a human being as his detractors make him out to be. Probably worse.

I feel you're holding back. How do you really feel about good ol' Newt? Huh?

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

It's been pointed out before: It's not that he's smart; it's that he sounds like a dumb person's idea of how a smart person sounds.

I hadn't heard it put that way but it sums up my feelings about Gingrich and his supporters very well. Thanks for that.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

The same can be said about Obama and it would be mostly true. He just defecated his 3rd consecutive SOTU speech tailored for 8th graders - yet he's heralded as brilliant by his followers.

Its not that Newt says smart sounding things. Its that he says it the way dumb people imagine a smart person might say it.

Granted his SOTU addresses suck ass. I didn't like Bush but every state of the union address I came away thinking that he could connect.

I never thought Obama was brilliant. Smart, well, sure Gingrich got his PhD in European History from Tulane "the Harvard of the South" but Obama got his law degree from Harvard "the Harvard of Cambridge" where he graduated in the top 10% of his law school class. So I think a lot of people just assume he is smart.

But his intellect is not why so many people like him. Its what we THOUGHT he stood for. Its for the vision we THOUGHT he had. Now we are stuck with him and if the Republican candidates weren't all so horrible (thank you tea party) I don't know if people could get excited about him a second time.

[A Monkey With a Gun]

Since Obama is in this conversation, I want to give my opinion of our top three presidential hopefulls:

Obama: Quite possibly wasn't really ready for the office, but still worked for his campaign promises. He hasn't fucked anything over too bad, so he will have my vote.

Romney: He wants to run the Executive branch like he was a CEO. If he's elected, not much will happen. Maybe the economy will get better, maybe it won't. He doesn't have any "vision" - so look for the status quo (whether you like it or not)

Gingrich: Power hungry bastard. He could get us in some very deep shit if he gets the office. This is not a guy that will listen to anybody on his staff. He will be smart enough not to do anything that is quite illegal, but that doesn't mean he will make good decisions.

[dorsk188]

Originally Posted by A Monkey With a Gun

[Newt Gingrich] is more slimy and loathsome than any of you realize.

Good sir, you underestimate my capacity to loathe.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

I can only guess people are more focused on someone who has a profound insight and workable ideas than salesmanship or looking at this like a prom king event as in the past.

Does a permanent moon base by the end of his term sound like a workable idea? Seriously, the most expensive project in the history of the world, funded by cutting taxes? Is that what passes for profound insight these days?

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Does a permanent moon base by the end of his term sound like a workable idea? Seriously, the most expensive project in the history of the world, funded by cutting taxes? Is that what passes for profound insight these days?

Maybe he is planning to have poor inner city school children build the moon bases after class. The kids would actually do work; they'd have cash. They could also be put into service installing giant mirrors to reflect ambient light so it covers entire areas reducing the current danger of criminals lurking in the darkness. Mirrors could be arranged to light given metropolitan areas only during particular periods, so there would be darkness late at night for sleeping. It sounds like genius.

[Simplicio]

He literally "promised voters the moon".

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

Maybe he is planning to have poor inner city school children build the moon bases after class. The kids would actually do work; they'd have cash. They could also be put into service installing giant mirrors to reflect ambient light so it covers entire areas reducing the current danger of criminals lurking in the darkness. Mirrors could be arranged to light given metropolitan areas only during particular periods, so there would be darkness late at night for sleeping. It sounds like genius.

"the floating mirror idea isn’t on this list. Instead, it’s included in Gingrich's recap of a June 1979, NASA-sponsored new concepts symposium in Woods Hole, Mass., "where 30 experts brainstormed a range of pioneering options for NASA worthy of Lewis and Clark."

"Also as a futurist, Gingrich has called some and missed some. In 1984, he saw more clearly than most that computers would touch every aspect of commercial and private life..."


As far as I can tell, this was never a policy initiative.


Back to objectivity and relevance now, I think he has very good ideas, like immigration, drug testing people who get federal aid, entitlement reform, replacing obamacare, replace the EPA, and quite a few solutions for the education system.

Those aren't as fun to talk about though.

[dorsk188]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

He literally "promised voters the moon".

I, for one, believe that humanity's future (if it's to have one) is in space. One of the great disappointments of Obama has been the dramatic scaling back of the Constellation Project and the shift away from manned space flight.

Gingrich may be a broken VCR, but blinking 12:00 isn't wrong when it's noon.

[IntelliQ]

Originally Posted by dorsk188

I, for one, believe that humanity's future (if it's to have one) is in space. One of the great disappointments of Obama has been the dramatic scaling back of the Constellation Project and the shift away from manned space flight.

Gingrich may be a broken VCR, but blinking 12:00 isn't wrong when it's noon.

Please explain what you mean by broken VCR?

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Back to objectivity and relevance now, I think he has very good ideas, like ... drug testing people who get federal aid

An excellent idea. Any idea how much money it'll cost to drug test every aid recipient every month including adding all those government employees needed to administer and process the tests? And any idea whether that number will be smaller or larger than the amount of aid currently given to people who would fail the test? [Hint: it's not smaller.]

This is a perfect example of the difference between being a smart person and saying things that sound vaguely smart as long as you don't think about them.

Originally Posted by IntelliQ

Please explain what you mean by broken VCR?

Okay, now I have to ask in all seriousness: how old are you?

[Typo Knig]

Space is expensive. Really expensive. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly expensive it is. I mean, you may think it's a lot of cash to pick up your prescriptions, but that's just peanuts to space ...
(Sorry, Doug!)

Presidents would love to put money into manned space exploration - especially since that money would be spent in vote-rich states like Texas, Florida and California. Problem is every manned space goal more interesting that an occasional trip to low orbit is a budget buster. We're talking Sagans of dollars just for a manned space station. It's more for a moon trip - let alone a semi-permanent station.