Skip to comments.Why Newt May Be More Unelectable Than Santorum
Posted on 02/18/2012 12:25:54 PM PST by OrangeHoof
I keep reading on FR that Rick Santorum is unelectable (although Rasmussen's latest poll has him just 6 points behind Obama in a head-to-head matchup) as they try to justify why they are supporting Newt Gingrich.
Santorum is definitely less well-known than the former Speaker, but that's the problem for Newt. He is well-known and not well-liked.
Talking Points Memo has a rolling track of Gingrich's favorable/unfavorable numbers in national polls. His favorables are now consistently in the 20-25% range since the Florida primary but his unfavorables have topped 60% in two of the last three polls (click link below).
On 2/13, CNN had Newt with 25% favorable and 63% unfavorable. CBS/NYT has Newt with 16% favorable and 54% unfavorable. PPP has Newt with 24% favorable and 62% unfavorable.
Okay, these are all left-wing polling firms but is it wise to think they are all wrong? Even at his peak, Newt was 40% favorable and 47% unfavorable back before Iowa. Can we expect someone with such high negatives to beat Obama in the fall?
Now, the media and Mitt Romney are taking their shots at Rick Santorum but, for now, his polling is much better.
There have been five polls since February 12th and his favorables average 32.6% in those polls and his unfavorables average 35.6%. His favorables were higher than his unfavorables in two of the five polls and his margin of difference was never more than 10%. In fact, his worst showings are in the two openly Democrat polls (PPP and Greenberg) which likely oversample Dems.
Gingrich had all of the 1990s to be tarred and feathered by the media. Most voters know who he is and their minds are made up. Santorum, however, is a blank slate to many of them and he has his chance to make his case to America about whether he best represents their values over Obama's. It's probable that Santorum's negatives will go up as he goes through the vetting process and the media anal exam but his favorables are likely to climb too if he sticks to his message on freedom and fiscal responsibility.
Really. Hunter had no traction and Thompson had no fire in the belly. We learned the hard way that both are fatal for a presidential candidate’s chances. Others might well have seen what we didn’t at the time.
14 in my family have decided on Santorum. They don’t trust the Newt.
I can answer that one.
Your average American would rather have an acknowledged, fallen sinner, a la Bill Clinton, than an uptight, preachy moralizer in chief, a la Jimmy Carter.
There are a lot of negatives for Newt. Liberals and non-thinkers will believe that he is a right wing extremist, because the media can make that case. He also has done a number of things to trouble conservatives. And there are those women problems, which will trouble women voters and the religious right, when they are reminded of them.
But I don’t think this is a good time for conservatives to be attacking Newt OR Rick. I’d like to see both of them stay in the race until we see what happens.
A few months ago, everyone thought that the others should drop out and make way for Cain. Where would we be now if that had happened? I assume that the motive of this thread is to remind the Newt supporters that they shouldn’t keep attacking, and even passing liberal lies about, Rick’s electability, because their guy is vulnerable to similar attacks.
And that, in your mind, is reason to endorse a cross-dressing, pro-abortion liberal? If so I couldn’t disagree more.
So when you hear the word "electable", think "loser".
As opposed to Mitt? Huck? RuPaul? The choices sucked. I didn't agree with the endorsement, but it wasn't like there was a clear conservative candidate with a chance in the field.
“For me, if Gingrich quitsI no longer support any candidateI will only be voting against Obama.”
Which is how most people feel, and you know what that means? Whoever it is may get a vote but noooooo moola. Exactly what happened with McCain.
I can’t imagine someone who lived through the history making 1994 conservative revolution, forgetting that incredible national onslaught against it’s leader, Newt Gingrich, until Palin, we had never seen anything like it.
I still have boxes of publications and newspapers from the time, the rage from the left was terrifying, people died, were destroyed, the federal government was killing people and burning them out in the Midwest, and in what had previously been “flyover country”, the heartland.
The left was sending a message to middle America, that they were not outside the reach of Government and the new policies. Middle America was to be taught that their God, and guns, and tax complaints, and conservative rebellion would not be tolerated, the 1990s became a dark period of open war by the hard left as led by the Clintons, and the conservatives led by Newt Gingrich.
The media was as radical as it has ever been, and Newt as the opposition leader, was one of it’s biggest targets.
“Oh yes, poor downtrodden Newt.”
The problem with posting negatives about a candidate is that they are always in endless supply — for all candidates.
Newt’s record of achievement, for all his personal and political liabilities, blows his competitors’ achievements away.
Rick was just one of 100 senators. He often voted the right way but what are his biggest accomplishments and how do they stack up against Newt’s?
Rick sponsored a number of pro-life bills and was a leader in Congress for the fight for social issues. That’s good stuff and yes, I can vote for Santorum without holding my nose but how does that compare to:
Contract with America
Welfare Reform Act
Paying down the national debt by $400 billion
First tax cut in 16 years
Orchestrating the first Republican takeover of the House in 40 years
All done under a Democratic President.
That’s far more impressive in my opinion. Without going negative, what else has Santorum done that I am missing?
I hope Obama doesn’t know who his rival is until fall. That will make him nuts.
Some are saying the choices suck this year also. I'm beginning to sense a pattern forming here.
I think the problem is, the process as it currently works ensures that anyone qualified for the office is utterly unwilling to subject themselves to the process to win the office. That’s basically what happened with Fred, IMO.
Unfavorable/favorable ratings don’t mean much. The Pope probably has a high favorable rating, but wouldn’t be elected president. And Dick Cheney never had a high favorable rating, but people were confident in his ability to lead the country if he had to. People may “like” someone but not think they’d make a good president. No doubt by the fall, most people will still like Obama. They aren’t suddenly going to be convinced he’s the spawn of Satan. We’re not running a campaign on likability, we’re running a campaign based on who would make a better president.
Besides, poll numbers now mean nothing with regards to a November election. Where where Obama’s, Rick’s, Mitt’s and Newt’s poll numbers back in May, 2011? That was 9 months ago, and the election is 9 months from today. Why don’t you stop reporting the poll numbers from today and go back and report the May, 2011 numbers, since by your logic, the polls today must be exactly where they were 9 months ago.
My motive is to question why Newt supporters are so certain that Santorum can't be elected and their man can when the numbers would appear to be just the opposite. To beat Obama, at the very least, Newt would need to drop his negatives down to 45%. Perhaps he can do that but there's very little evidence that he can. He's only beaten Romney one time so far while Santorum has beaten Romney four times and is poised to do it again in Michigan.
I simply don't understand the venom thrown at Santorum when he is catching the party's attention while Newt appears to be fading.
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.