If he’s a billionaire he can spend $200 mil and still be able to snort coke off gorgeous hooker’s asses several times a day.
Are you seriously saying that if the evangelicals got behind newt that they don’t provide enough fo a ground force to make a viable candidacy? Its not just evangelicals, its conservatives generally. Romney has been almost indistinguishable from Obama on too many issues for conservatives to be comfortable that his newly found conservative values are any more genuine than Newt’s newly found fidelity.
I have no idea why this guy is backing Newt quite so much. My understanding is that Israel is a big issue for this guy but I didn’t get the impression that Newt was any more pro-Israel than any of the other Republican candidates besides Ron Paul.
I don’t know if newt has a chance to win this but this guy Adelson probably knows a good bet when he sees one. If Newt wins, he will owe one guy and he will owe him big. If Romney wins, he will owe it to dozens of billionaire supporters. Maybe its a good bet on a risk adjusted basis. Its only 10 million dollars and at the very least he will have political capital as the guy who was willing to throw 10 million dollars behind a candidate. Noone is going to piss him off.
Doesn’t your second sentence acknowledge that evangelical voters aren’t enough?
Let me rephrase; perhaps we’re saying the same thing. The only characteristic where Gingrich (up till Florida) easily beats Romney is the ferocity with which he attacks his enemies. By going on the attack–and I don’t think anyone doubts Romney was far more ferocious in FL compared to his past “above the fray” debates–Romney blunts this lone Gingrich advantage and there’s no longer any mitigation for Newt’s negatives.
The point is that the Republican base thinks this election is a battle for the soul of America. Most of them IMO think that the presidential debates will be a defining moment in the campaign; they believe Obama has pulled the wool over America’s eyes. They don’t want someone who just criticizes Obama and offers an alternative, they want a fighter who will expose Obama for the anti-American, Kenyan-programmed, teleprompter-fed interloper they so clearly think he is…if only the rest of us weren’t so charmed by his rhetoric or bamboozled by his liberal friends in the media. You can bet that if Romney loses the general they won’t take that as a message to review their position. Instead they’ll conclude Romney wasn’t the true hero they needed to defeat the One, and they will double down for 2016.
They always think that. Even so, they want someone who will get elected. And they doubled down after losing in 2008, but they might end up with Romney all the same.
I will if you’ll tell me where to find the creep.
So Mitt wins, and in a post-electoral-coitus haze, immediately steps on his dick by telling the nation that “I’m not worried about the poor; there are safety nets for them.” The knucklehead just gave the Obama team a soundbite to flog him with for the rest of the year. I love these guys. . .these are some funny guys.
The Gallup 5-day tracker has Romney up by 5 already, and since it’s taken over 5 days, it’s a bit of a trailing indicator. Newt’s toast.
If Newt ever again shows the least bit of momentum developing, anti-Newt ads will rain from the sky.
Really all Newt can do at this point is to hang around just to force Mitt to spend a bunch of money on anti-Newt ads.
I won’t say that until Santorum drops out and we see where his support ends up going.
I wasn’t saying that the majority of the **voting[/] republican electorate (although I bet it’s pretty close). I was saying that they are enough to swing the election and I was pointing out that you werent just relying on evangelicals, you are also talking about a conservatives generally.
Agreed on all counts. It’s just whether Newt wants to trade getting thumped repeatedly for more attention and book sales. My guess is he does, at least for as long as he has enough money to.
Yes, we were talking about evangelicals specifically- Jas09 mentioned Southern white evangelical voters specifically. My impression is that Romney doesn’t do great with conservative voters but doesn’t do horribly, and he’s had more problems with voters who describe themselves as evangelical. Exit polls say that Gingrich beat Romney among self-described “very conservative” voters in Florida, but it was close, and they tied for the evangelical vote. That’s only Florida, but if it’s that close between them, then no, it’s not enough to give Gingrich a real shot.
It’s not just what he wants, though, it’s what he can afford to do.
I don’t think it’ll play out the way you figure: come at him with that and Romney will surely reply that he’s worried about looking out for the middle class instead of the poor, and that Obama is more worried about helping the poor at the expense of the middle class.
That’s already what he was saying. It was a horrendous choice of words.
But how do you go after him for it without letting him cheerfully make the same point again and again? That you care about the poor, and he cares about the middle class, sure as most voters consider themselves middle-class?
The problem is that, at this point, Romney professing concern for the middle class is about as credible as a schizophrenic street person delivering a warning about invisible Lizard People.
Because unlike all the caterwauling about the left’s ‘class warfare’ against the rich, this dismissal of the poor will more likely strike a chord with the middle class, many of whom have been poor at some point in their lives. The arrogance of the remark makes for good political ads.
The middle class are the new poor. You profess caring about them before the election, ignore them afterward.
If the Democratic Party had the LEAST amount of brains they’d get one of their moneybags to siphon a few millions into Newt’s PAC so he can fight Romney more effectively. But … they don’t.
The point that he’s not concerned about the very poor? I think you can let him make that point again and again. The wording reflects poorly on him. In a general election both campaigns talk extensively about the middle class, but he was making it pretty clear that he sees the poor as the Democrats’ purview. That’s not a good way to appeal to people who have been poor or who are desperately trying to avoid becoming poor.
He wants to position himself as the guy who’ll help those folks in the middle class “avoid becoming poor” – probably by painting, uh, ‘Bailout Obama’ as a guy who’ll keep looting the middle class. You don’t think that’s what Romney had in mind when making the statement in the first place?