Skip to comments.Of the 'Santorum Surge' (and Gingrich Slide) in Iowa...
Posted on 12/30/2011 1:23:47 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
He went on to say that none of the other GOP candidates can hold a candle to Gingrich's record of 'getting things done in Washington' :
I just clicked the link--1.8% nationally.
I don't think Newt can beat Obama. I wish I didn't believe that.
Thanks Reaganite Republican.
Thank you, SC
If I don’t talk to you have a gr8 New Year
Weak slam on Santorum. He lost 1 race in a terrible year in a deep blue state. Newt basically got shown the door when he was Speaker from a House revolt. That didn't look good either. I will stay with my principles and back Santorum just because he "ticks off all the boxes" for me.
I was watching Morris on Fox the other night. I know a lot of FReepers don’t like him, and his track record can be spotty, but every so often he hits the nail on the head.
Basically, he said Newt is less electable than Romney but real conservatives have a problem with his morality, and Romney seems more electable but people have problems with him also, and Santorum seems to be one of the few conservative choices left.
But he said Gingrich isn’t out, and looks for him to take SC, and feels then that could give him new momentum for FL.
I remember last time around they hit FL like a pack, and then the day before the primary Crist came out with his arm around McCain. And McCain won FL, to my huge chagrin. So while I always disliked Crist, I really disliked him after that.
I'll take Santorum any day over Newt, despite how much you howl about it.
Newt would be even worse than Romney. We better hope and pray the 'Santorum surge' continues to take votes from Newt, because nominating Newt would be a death wish for the GOP.
Eh, Newt would make mincemeat of Obama 1-1. Under any circumstances where a decisive contrast could be shown between the two men, Obama would be irrefutably exposed as the incompetent pretender president he is.
Further, the only real way Republicans can win in 2012, is by articulating a vision consistent with actual American ideals and values, that inspires people to take seriously what these meani.e., we need ‘hope’ and ‘change’, except for real this time. Newt gets that IMO, far more so than any the others.
Above all, if Republicans fail to present an inspiring alternative to how life can be, the electorate will just apathetically tune them out. Languishing under 4 more years of Obama will seem more preferable simply because he’s a known quantity and because the other side wasn’t offering enough compelling difference to justify a shift, so why bother? At which point the war of ideas will be lost for the foreseeable future and the US will fade into a slumber of bureaucratic socialism.
I don’t see this sudden surge of love for Gingrich.
I think too many people are blinded by the anticipation of two debates where Newt wins. Who thinks that’s going to do anything?
I think the American people have had it with Obama. Yet I don’t know if that even matters. The ducks are already in a row—the racism charges, the media helping Obama run a campaign that ignores the first three years of his administration...
I don’t know. I just don’t see Newt doing it. Too many negatives that can be used against him, and too many people over-confident that because he can spout facts viewers will simply vote for him over hopey changey.
In this wussified society of ours, I don’t see it being as simple as some here do.
It’s not about finding an ‘American Idol’ candidate. It’s that Santorum comes off as a weak personhe’s nervous, whiny, insecure, self-congratulating, etc. He may be an upstanding person on moral issues, I don’t know. But he’s not a leader to me, and that’s what actually matters.
Likewise. And 2013 will be even better.
For example, Michelle Bachmann is almost certainly coming to the end of her run and cannot be expected to be considered a factor in New Hampshire and thereafter. Rick Perry will not do well in Iowa nor will he do well in New Hampshire. His persistence in the race can only be a function of deep pockets. Expect him to be gone after South Caroline.
Ron Paul is in the process of being dismantled as a viable candidate for the bulk of the party which had been aware only of his foreign policy deficiencies as these voters now become aware of his disqualifying views expressed about Jews and blacks in his newsletter. Paul will retain his fanatical followers but the rest of the party will regard Paul as purely marginal, his surge is probably already finished and his support will taper off to its irreducible core of fanatics.
Gingrich's lost 20 points in as many days which demonstrates that he is vulnerable to a negative ad campaign, at least when he has no money with which to conduct an air war on paid media. Free media, of which Gingrich is a master, has simply not been able to stanch the flow of blood. Gingrich will not do well in New Hampshire and he faces a make or break in south Carolina. If he does not have money for South Carolina he is probably finished because it appears that he runs out of supporters before Romney runs out of negative ad money.
Santorum is experiencing a mini surge in Iowa as the next and perhaps last conservative hope. Santorum has an advantage over Rick Perry in that he has not been closely scrutinized before by the bulk of the Republican electorate and he has not been rejected as a klutz. It remains to be seen whether Santorum's apparent absence of baggage will make them less vulnerable to the Romney/establishment attacks which are bound to come if Santorum shows signs in the Iowa caucus vote of threatening Romney's position.
Rodney looks like the sure winner out of Iowa and one can expect that to be coupled with a win in New Hampshire shortly thereafter. Therefore, the leader for the nomination is clearly Romney at this point. There are only two threats to Romney, Gingrich who is fading, and Santorum who might or might not be surging. Although these challengers to Romney have little money and will be hard-pressed to win an air war in South Carolina and especially in Florida.
So one can expect the field to be reduced to three, Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich, and probably in that order, at the end of Iowa and almost certainly after New Hampshire. The last place to stop Romney appears to be in South Carolina.
The Carl Rove school structures an election in a way similar to what Obama is doing this cycle, by paring down the electorate to 50% plus one vote in the electoral college. In the process Rove gave Bush (barely) two terms in the White House. The first term, you will recall, was one as a minority candidate because Gore actually exceeded him in the popular vote total.
In the 2004 election, Rove ran on the Iraq war succeeded in nationalizing the election on that basis and increasing Bush's popular vote and electoral vote count. Thereafter, and even beginning in 2004, Rove sacrificed the Republican hold on Congress to his minimalist approach to the campaign. In effect, Bush sacrificed the Congress to maintain the war.
The other approach was demonstrated by Ronald Reagan which is to dominate the game and attract the electorate to a new vision. That is what Obama did in 2008. It was so sweeping that the vast middle of America never looked behind the empty rhetoric of "hope and change" which articulated the so-called vision. But the principle remains, Obama swept all before him with his vision, however bogus.
I believe Gingrich is in the Reagan mold and Romney is in the Karl Rove mold.
I don't know if any Republican has the courage of their spouted-conservative convictions to carry it off. I don't see any of those running--Gingrich included--having the cohesive and COHERENT vision that is needed now. The Republicans running seem to have very ragged, malformed 'conservative' visions that finally are half-baked and thus not what is needed to transform the mess we're in. What is needed is a kind of conservative theory of everything that would indeed transform the mess in Washington. I don't think these candidates have that.
Reagan wasn't a policy wonk but he had the large view that cut through all the pet projects and local-political stumbling blocks these people can't free themselves from. His certainty carried along democrats and republicans and independents, eventually.
I'm not expecting another Reagan. I am expecting intelligent, articulate conservatives who live by their convictions and whose lives embody the values they will bring to the White House.
I don't see anyone like that in this bunch.
Nathanbedford, I hope you had a merry Christmas and have a happy New Year.
I’d vote for Gingrich over Obama or Romney. That’s about as nice a thing as I can say about him.
I wouldn’t vote for Romney on a bet.
I have never considered Romney, nor Obama, to be charismatic, regardless of what the media tells me. In a debate setting, I have found Gingrich charismatic, but not for years as a political pundit on TV and radio.
As for Santorum, at times during the debates, given his very limited camera time, I found him articulate, intelligent and persuasive. Like Gingrich, I never witnessed charisma when doing his TV work. But, if he indeed carries (or has carried) that same debate posture over to his campaign speeches and town halls (of which I've never seen him in person), I don't believe that the “lack of charisma” criticism will stick. Time will tell.
, Obama would be irrefutably exposed as the incompetent pretender president he is.
Anyone with eyes already sees that. Very few votes will be gained by beating Obama in a debate.
Kidding - thanks for the perspective. Love reading your posts.
The purity caucus thinks all it will take is a nice smile and some fairy magic to beat Romney/Obama.
Santorium has no organization past Iowa, no money, and no chance.
But these guys don’t care. They rather toss the thing to Romney and feel “principled”.
I think the election in 2012, like 2008, has already been decided and out of our hands.
My point being that how could with all the lawyers in the DNC, the GOP, the US Congress, the states, the 2008 GOP primary candidates, the MSM, etc never ask the question in 2008 was BO Sr., ever a US citizen? Why not? Cause 'the fix' was in.
They needed an incompetent puppet to occupy the Oval Office and an ignorant electorate to feel good about electing him so the NWO could continue to dismantle the US.
Think about it....look what happened to Palin and Cain (Obummer & the DNC & the LSM couldn't play the class/race card if Cain ever became viable).....some group behind the scenes knew such strong conservatives (either) could not be manipulated easily once in the White House.....so 'they' went after their families. The GOP top brass going to AK for Murky is another example.
Ask this question: Why would the media, Wall Street, Congress, the White House, Freddie/Fannie, etc., etc., pimp an artificial housing boom beginning in 2003 knowing full well growth in the US population and upcoming retirement of the baby boomers did not warrant such expansion?
I pose these few questions in hopes that some may be fully aware of the dog & pony show that continues.
Obama and his ilk have seriously damaged the US economy while Congress continues to kick the can down the road.
The GOP may squeak out a win in 2012, however, they will be left holding the blame as a very sick global economy with too many domestic rules, laws, regulations, etc., are now already in place and not to take effect until after the 2012 election.
I really enjoy reading FReepers' comments about the potential candidates regardless. Forgive my being off-topic to some degree. In the meantime, the Big Goobermint Guard Dog (US Senate) still blocks all sensible legislation to protect the lives of the DC elite.
So, what's the reason now the already approved Keystone Pipeline can't be started? Oh, that's right, the Dems do not want the US nor the middle class to prosper. That would go completely against the grain of forced socialist serfdom. Fast & Furious and the DOJ suing states over Voter ID requirements are 2 ongoing examples of such BS being forced upon us.
Why didn't other conservatives throw their hats into the ring: Demint? Jindal? Others?
I’m sticking with Newt. The rest of the FRs here can dwell in the man’s past and stick with the weak sister Santorum...(does anyone think this guy can stand up to the media and our enemies...) and of course slimy Romney.
I don’t get this anti Newt behavior on FR. While Romney was against the Reagan platform, Newt was a leader to implement those ideas. Newt politically has delivered more conservative legislation for the conservative movement than any other figure in our lifetimes other than reagan.
He led the sea change bringing us to majority status after our party was relegated to second class minority status in DC for nearly a half century. He produced a balanced budget, and beat Clinton to deliver welfare reform. Yes, newt has flaws, but so does every one, especially in politics. I am not strongly for Gingrich at this stage in the race, but he is among my top contenders. He has made some stances over the past few years I do to like, but he generally is very effective at articulating what I believe and shows ability to implement it.
>> He lost 1 race in a terrible year in a deep blue state.
Anyone who pimps for Arlen Specter rather than support a good conservative like Pat Toomey doesn’t have the judgment to be POTUS.
PLUS he’s a loser.
No thank you.
Keep supporting losers, genius. Vote for Mitt Obama.
If Newt gets the nod, I should would like to hear his views on how he would reduce the size of the fed goobermint and its associated legacy costs that generations behind the retiring boomers are stuck paying for..........
I too, supported Herman Cain and now support Newt, but I don't feel like a punk.
If you support Rick that's fine, but calling Newt supporters punks isn't going to change any minds.
Read what I wrote again, I said, those who say that a vote for anyone else other than Newt will help Romney... read it again... that’s what I was talking about, don’t paint it with a broad brush.
I don't care what the Newt punks say,
I don't know what you meant to write, and I didn't paint it with a broad brush, I just quoted what you wrote.
I don’t really understand the anti-Newt rhetoric either.
Only thing I can figure is it has something to do with some people being desperately attached to another candidate, to a point that they feel an imperative to bring others down.
I've never understood this mentality. If a candidate ends up losing support, how is it the fault of another one, especially considering conservative credentials? This line is nothing more than another example of entitlement, the 'my guy is in the lead so everyone else better fall in line'.
So don't blame the loss of support on another candidate. Put the blame where it belongs- Newt (and all other 'leaders' who blamed another candidate for their falling numbers).
Newt is likely to win many states and has a strong chance to be the Conservative nominee. Look at how many states Newt is likely to win. Go NEWT !
? - Iowa 28 delegates
? - New Hampshire 12
Newt - South Carolina 25
Newt - Florida 50
Newt - Nevada 28
Newt - Maine 24
Newt - Colorado 36
? - Minnesota 40
Newt- Arizona 29
? - Michigan 30
Newt - Washington 43
Newt - Alaska 27
Newt - Georgia 76
Newt - Idaho 32
RINO - Mass 41
Newt - North Dakota 28
Newt - Ohio 66
Newt - Oklahoma 43
Newt - Tennessee 58
? - Vermont 17
Newt - Virginia 50
Newt - Wyoming 29
Newt - Kansas 40
Newt - Alabama 50
? - Hawaii 20
Newt - Mississippi 40
Newt - Missouri 52
? - Illinois 69
Newt - Louisiana 46
Newt - Maryland 37
Newt or Perry - Texas 155
? - Wash D.C. 19
Newt - Wisconsin 42
? - Connecticut 28
? - Delaware 17
? - New York 95
Newt - Pennsylvania 72
? - Rhode Island 19
Newt - Indiana 46
Newt - North Carolina 55
Newt - West Virginia 31
Newt - Nebraska 35
Newt - Oregon 29
Newt - Arkansas 36
Newt - Kentucky 45
? - California 172
Newt - Montana 26
Newt - New Jersey 50
Newt - New Mexico 23
Newt - South Dakota 28
RINO - Utah 40
It’s Santorum’s turn to be “not Romney”. The battle has always been between Romney and “not Romney”.
First Bachman was “not Romney”; then Perry; then Cain; then Gingrich; now Santorum.
I’ve been saying for over a year that Romney will be the nominee. And he will lose to Obama. Because the GOP is just that stupid.
Its not about finding an American Idol candidate. Its that Santorum comes off as a weak personhes nervous, whiny, insecure, self-congratulating, etc. He may be an upstanding person on moral issues, I dont know. But hes not a leader to me, and thats what actually matters.
As a longtime student of psychology, I see newt, believe it or not, as more insecure than Santorum. Newt’s Cheshire cat smile and bravado is a deeper insecurity, a neediness that he doesn’t understand but tries desperately to hide. Santorum seems much more comfortable in his own skin, real. He isn’t faking. Maybe he does need to stop some of the I, me, mine in debates, trying to explain who he even is, but do not think that newt’s ridiculous bravado is far off from obama’s.
I have always been a Newt fan, but I am also one of those who thinks his famous baggage makes him unelectable. Unfortunate, but there we are.
If Newt's numbers -- in Iowa -- collapse after a week of relatively gentle needling from Romney, Bachman, and other Republicans, what do you think will happen in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and other battleground states, most of them less conservative than Iowa, when Obama puts a billion dollars into a scorched earth big lie campaign?
Back in the day, the iron triangle of battleship design was armor, gunnery, and speed; the naval architects had to allocate weight among those three major factors. The U.S.S. Newt is a battleship with a terrific main battery and admirable speed, with no armor. A couple of hits below the waterline and he's sunk.
I always tell my liberal acquaintences that Bush very likely had a majority of the popular vote if you take vote fraud out of the equation. Bush would also have won a majority of the popular vote had it not been for the scandalous early call on Florida, which was made during prime voting hours in the west. The bad call left people thinking for several hours that Gore had already won. This suppressed the Republican vote, cost Bush the popular vote win, and probably cost Slade Gorton his Senate seat, which ultimately cost the Republicans control of the Senate.
I try not to be pedantic about it, but whenever a dem starts ragging about Bush-Gore, it's an effective way to switch the discussion to vote fraud and rock 'em back a bit.
Great, but Santorum still doesn’t strike me as much of a leader.
I think you have gone right to the heart of the matter. The reason many of us are ambivalent about Gingrich is precisely because he is so eclectic in his conservatism. We have to leap with faith that he will forget about moon mirrors and return to balancing the budget if elected.
I might point out, however, that getting elected is a different matter from governing.
Very recently, perhaps as a result of the influence of the Tea Party and the debt threatening to crash the Republic, conservatism has come to be defined more narrowly than in the past in that we must strictly reside within a constitutional framework marked by the 10th amendment. That suits me fine but I am not sure that it is historically consistent for the Republican Party or even for conservatism.
I have said many times on these threads that many of the people protesting as Tea Party members against federal spending were also out there protesting against Obama for his cuts of their Medicare. That is a microcosm of the dilemma which has confronted Republicans and the conservative movement since Sen. Taft.
I am perfectly willing to get behind the candidate who has Ron Paul's 10th amendment view of the scope of the federal government-provided you get him elected, and we know we cannot get Ron Paul elected.
When Gingrich put his reforms through and balanced the budget etc. it was considered radical and the acme of conservatism. As the times change so has the standard of the times.
There is no single candidate who qualifies as a "pure" conservative as is presently being defined except perhaps Ron Paul and he is on acceptable for other reasons even beyond electability.
To return to the question you raise, is Gingrich, or any other candidate, so eclectic and inconsistent in his version of conservatism that he cannot render a coherent campaign? I think that is a fair question. My answer is that of all these candidates, considering their forensic talents, Gingrich can do that the best despite the fact that he is far from "purest" conservative in the race. Santorum, for example, would take that honor but few believe that he can dominate the election in the Ronald Reagan as opposed to the Karl Rove style.
My subjective judgment is that Gingrich can do that. I say only that the choice is not between Gingrich and the perfect candidate but between Gingrich and a finite field the leader of which is Romney.
This mess between Santorum and Bob Vander plaats is extremely troubling and I believe there are people who know the truth and are keeping their mouths shut.
I like how you think. When the sauce “clarifies” down to those three, and we see that newt cannot sustain himself against Obama (rush said last night on Greta all Obama can run on is annihilating the opposing candidate, and if it’s newt, Obama will have encyclopedic books of ammo), then we can coalesce around Santorum and put truth against obama’s lies and record. Santorum will rise to the occasion. He will listen to Gd and to us, and he will Serve. (something GIngrich would never do.). We Beat down the Romney machine and head into the fight against Obama, where Santorum wins the Apoliticals whom Obama has hurt ( nearly all of them!).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.