Headed for a Photo Finish in Iowa (PPP Poll: Paul-20, Mitt-19, Santorum-18, Newt-14, Perry-10)

PPP ^ | 1/1/2012 | PPP

[TBBT]

Raleigh, N.C. – The Republican caucus in Iowa is headed for a photo finish, with the three leading contenders all within two points of each other. Ron Paul is at 20%, Mitt Romney at 19%, and Rick Santorum at 18%. Rounding out the field are Newt Gingrich at 14%, Rick Perry at 10%, Michele Bachmann at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 4%, and Buddy Roemer at 2%.

[Hoodat]

The bottom line is that if Newt dropped out tomorrow, the election would be over and Romney would have it.

Nuts.

[BCrago66]

My answer is look at the conduct of the Republican House in the decade before Gingrich became speaker: Ineffectual, go-along-to-get-along, little conservative accomplishment. Then look at the Republican House after Gingrich left; corrupt, pork-driven, budget-expanding. The conservative oasis happened during Gingrich's time as speaker: Welfare reform, balanced budgets, capital-gains tax cut, great expansion of jobs & opportunity.

It strains credibility to imagine that Gingrich had little or nothing to do with these results, particularly when in the years preceding Gingrich's reign, he was publicly advocating these policy changes, and dragging an inertia-driven Republican caucus toward his goals. As for those slamming Newt now: Tell me, what are the great conservative achievements of MSNBC star Joe Scarborough? Or even Tom Coburn, for that matter, who had served on one failed ad hoc budget committee after another? These guys struck purist poses during Newt's speakership, but it's easy to be a purist (like Bachmann) when you don't have the responsibility to actually accomplish anything. Newt was the one who actually had to negotiate with a Democratic President and a less conservative Senate to get things done.

[JediJones]

Brilliant analysis! NEWT NEWT NEWT!

[Krankor]

I doubt Bachman will be re-elected to congress. She’s gone almost completely goofy.

[Hoodat]

The budget was never balanced. It was a lie when Clinton claimed it, and its a lie when Newt claims it.

[Lazlo in PA]

It is a waste of time and conceding defeat to back anyone else than Newt against Romney at this time.

LOL. Really? I am curious who Newt is going to vote for this Primary cycle. Being a Mclean VA resident, he will have to vote for either Mittens or RuPaul since he didn't get on the ballot and won't be able to vote for himself. Santorum has just as good a shot of taking down Mittens as Newt does. 25% poll ceiling Mittens is a loser.

[JediJones]

What about the $400 billion of the national debt paid off during Newt’s tenure?

[lquist1]

“I think young Santorum would take THAT for his first try at the nomination.

Don’t you? ; > )”

Um...no. I wont take ANYTHING but a candidate that can BEAT Romney, then go on to BEAT Obama. There’s too much at stake in this election to toy around with a guy who’s trying to make a “nice first try” at running for POTUS. Santorum doesn’t have anywhere near the organization and money needed to compete with Romney, and his momentum out of Iowa will do nothing in NH and perhaps not even much in SC, where Newt & Perry will likely still be around to split the anti-Romney vote 3 ways.

Santorum’s a nice enough guy and right on most issues, but if the Obama incompetence has taught us nothing else, it’s that it’ much better to elect a governor who has chief executive experience, rather than a legislator. Newt’s a bit different cause he was House Speaker, so he actually did run the House for 4 years, but still, I think he’s got too much baggage and not enough organization to really go toe to toe with Romney.

And since Huntsman has no prayer, that leaves only one candidate with a solid conservative record and the right kind of experience with the funds and organization to win-Rick Perry.

[JediJones]

You need to look at some polls that polled Romney against others in a head-to-head matchup. That ceiling is only there while all the candidates are in the race.

McCain had Huckabee beat by Super Tuesday with delegates by over 7-to-1. It would not go any differently for Romney and Santorum. Santorum doesn’t have the gravitas, the money, the verbal skills or the depth on policy positions that Newt does. He is simply winning in IA because of a perfect storm that he cannot replicate anywhere else. He did the on-the-ground campaigning more than anyone else, he stayed “under the radar” low in the polls avoiding any and all negative attacks, and he got endorsed by the IA religious conservatives. He can do good in some Southern states just like Huckabee did, but that’s it.

Perry is in a somewhat stronger position, but as a real-feel Southerner he doesn’t play well outside of the South, and his gaffes have become legendary.

Newt’s the only serious chance we have to beat Romney and we should coalesce around him very quickly. If Romney wins FL, then the primary is probably over.

[Prokopton]

There’s too much at stake in this election to toy around with a guy who’s trying to make a “nice first try” at running for POTUS

Perry is also making a “first try” at running for POTUS, and a pretty inept one at that.

[John Valentine]

There’s a chance that Perry will drop out & endorse Gingrich.

There's a chance that Romney will drop out and endorse Roemer, too, but not much of one. And there is not much of a chance that Perry will drop out at any time short of the South Carolina primary results. He has the money and the message to continue, so why not? And even then, why on earth drop out in favor of Gingrich of all people?

[BCrago66]

Your question was answered by untwist, here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2827594/posts?page=51#51

[John Valentine]

I didn’t have a question. Sorry.

[John Valentine]

I guess I did post that in the form of a question after all, but it was a rhetorical one. I think that if Perry does drop out at some point, he would be more likely to endorse Santorum.

[Yaelle]

Seniors are wise enough to have seen newt do what is best for newt. They don’t respect a man who repeatedly cheats on his wife, either.

[Crichton]

Are you knocking two decades of prosperity

I was pretty clear. We were in a very bad place before Reagan took over, and he got us on track. Unfortunately the dot com and housing bubbles made the 90's and 00's too complacent, papered over a lot of problems that weren't addressed, and now we're paying the price.

[Hoodat]

What about the $400 billion of the national debt paid off during Newt’s tenure?

Here are the debt numbers from '94 to '99:

9/94 - $4.69 trillion
9/95 - $4.97 trillion
9/96 - $5.22 trillion
9/97 - $5.41 trillion
9/98 - $5.53 trillion
9/99 - $5.66 trillion

Please show me how $400 billion of debt was paid off when our debt increased every year.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

[skaterboy]

ah yes the ole mean guy going after the stupid defense...heard that before but only libs discussing us...well you are supporting newt..which explains it i guess

[skaterboy]

ah yes the ole mean guy going after the stupid defense...heard that before but only libs discussing us...well you are supporting newt..which explains it i guess

[skaterboy]

lol it is funny that the newt defenders are pulling out the same lines libs use against us..if you not supporting our guy its because youre stttttttttupid..of course they are supporting a progressive so maybe that explains it...