Five Consequences of Gingrich’s South Carolina Win

New York Magazine's Daily Intel ^ | January 23, 2012 | John Heilemann

[wagglebee]

Also, don't forget that a lot of the votes Obama got four years ago were based on novelty and race:

1. There were a lot of young people who thought it would be "cool" to have Obama as president. That novelty is GONE because on the one hand they've already done it and on the other hand they are now out of college and struggling in the Obama economy.

2. Blacks wanted a black president. But he hasn't done anywhere near what they expected. Many of these voters had never voted before and probably never will again.

3. Upper-middle class white voters looking to overcome white guilt viewed voting for a black for president as "something they needed to cross of the list," but now that's over and the reality of their personal financial prospects has kicked in.

[pallis]

“...Gingrich’s national favorable-unfavorable ratings of 26.5 and 58.6 percent...”

Same tactic and argument that was used against Reagan, and don’t forget how women voters were scared by Reagan, even when they turned out in large numbers to vote for him.

It’s time to show the RNC that there is a new sheriff in town, and the corrupt thinking that brought us McCain and now Romney isn’t going to win the day.

[Kit cat]

I also was very much against Newt, I lived through the magazine
covers, press sliming him it was just awful!!! Although I personally
Thought at the time Newt was doing a great job the establishment
Managed to take him down. He is hated by alot of people on the hill
and he is in for the fight of his life. I now believe he is up for the job.
He has the fire in the belly and with his past experience with the press
he is pissed and not going to takeit any more!!!! Fortunately WE all feel
the same way, Newt does not have an ounce of fear in his body, if he
by the grace of God wins this he WILL get this country on the right
track.

[running_dog_lackey]

-My point follows the premise that Romney is no Reagan.-

agreed, but the republican party is also not a the low ebb of Watergate aftermath. In fact, just two years ago Obama inspired the American people to turn the house over to Republicans in a historic shellacking. I just wouldn’t share your characterization that the republicans are in deep trouble.

[G Larry]

6. We don’t end up w Mitt Milquetoast as the nominee and lose to commie Obamie.

[loveliberty2]

Funny, veritas2002, my own support for Gingrich has absolutely nothing to do with either of the points you make, and I suspect that South Carolina voters had other significant reasons as well.

Paul, Santorum, and Gingrich, all, provide an anchor for their responses to issues within their own personal historical understanding of our Constitution. That kind of response informs voters, reminds them that in America there is a firm foundation upon which to stake out one's position on issues.

Romney, on the other hand, rushes to pile up words on top of words, smiling, blinking and stuttering, focusing on his accomplishments, and then throwing in what appear to be carefully memorized familiar phrases from patriotic songs and Reaganesque utterings. That is unsettling to voters who feel their children and grandchildren will not enjoy the "Blessings of Liberty" unless someone who understands the Founders' ideas retakes the Executive Branch of their government.

That person may not be perfect, as King David was not perfect, in his personal life. He may have a whiny voice, as Congressman Paul does. He may, at times, appear apprehensive, as Santorum does.

But, if he appears to understand the fundamental principles of the Declaration of Independence which resulted in a written Constitution to protect the liberty of individuals and "chains" (Jefferson) on the delegated powers of men and women in government, as those three do, then one of them should be the one who should go up against the leader of those who are placing "chains" on individuals and building a slavemaster government which will end freedom as we know it.

In the Fall battle of ideas, a deep and abiding knowledge of constitutional principles must trump the deep commitment and strategies of the current redistributionist and his ideology.

To say that the entire state of South Carolina is so lacking in knowledge and perception that those voters simply had a visceral hatred of Obama and the media which caused them to defeat Romney is no better analysis than Brit Hume's simplistic "analysis" following the vote.

[Cboldt]

-- I just wouldn't share your characterization that the republicans are in deep trouble. --

Some of them are, and I'm talking down ballot. If Mitt is the nominee, the liberal republicans (down ballot) are in trouble on account of depressed turnout. if Newt is the nominee, and the authors premise is correct that Newt will depress turnout, then the same; and if Newt energizes turnout, the go-along/get-along GOP members are at risk.

I won't ever vote for Snowe or Collins, just to cite an example. But I always vote.

The GOP has some soul-searching to do, if it is going to survive as a party. Talk is cheap, and talk is all it's delivering - well, talk, plus big government and all that comes with it.

[Tanniker Smith]

Newt's unfavorable ratings are high with the GOP, too, and they voted for him. Against a popular Democrat, he might have problems. Against 0bama? Not so much.

Newt will have to go out and earn those votes, but -- KEY POINT -- he has shown that HE CAN DO THAT. Every debate, he picks up supporters, or at least, assauges some detractors. (He'll create more "he's not my guy, but I'll support him if he wins" voters or even "hold their nose and vote" voters.)

[vicar7]

Totally agree!! 270towin.com is an interactive electoral map it is fun to play with. I see the GOP starting off with a 2000 map and building from there. I see Obama just barely breaking 200 EV’s. I know he can forgot about FL my home state.

[veritas2002]

Inherent in our hatred of Obama is our understanding of what he is doing to our constitutional freedoms and our love of liberty. No one hates Obama as a person but we do hate what he has done to our liberties and that is what we understand.

[loveliberty2]

Thanks for your response. My point was that the widespread voting in SC for Gingrich was not, as Brit Hume so narrowly summarized it, that he had a zinger or two in debates, or that it was that he kindled anger. It seems to be much more complex than that.

While the so-called "progressives" have censored the ideas of the Founders' from textbooks for several decades, the TEA movement has called attention to those ideas, and there is renewed interest in rediscovering the ideas that allowed America to be the place in the world where people were seeking opportunity and freedom.

Gingrich's intensive study of those ideas allows him to be the one, along with Santorum and Paul, who can respond to a question about a current issue, with a quick overview of how it relates to a larger principle underlying our Constitution.

Perhaps South Carolina voters, as applies to voters throughout America, are looking for someone who understands enough, and is quick and clever enough, to expose the stark difference between the ideas of a welfare, dependency nation, run by political elites who fancy themselves smart enough to make decisions for everyone else, and a free nation of individuals whose written Constitution prohibits elected officials from assuming such coercive power over their fellow citizens.

Clearly, Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich appear, each in his own way, to be viewing our problems through the prism of Constitutional understanding.

Before November, some candidate must emerge who can help enough voters to discover, or, in some cases, rediscover the ideas of liberty which motivated our ancestors of 1776 to declare to the world the reasons why they would resist, reject, and oppose the coercive rule of King George, and claim their Creator-endowed rights to be free individuals under a rule of law and right and wrong.

[ROTB]

And on the other, Romney will have shown in two successive contests—one in a bellwether Republican state, the other in a key swing state—an inability to beat his deeply unpopular rival. If this scenario unfolds, the sound of GOP grandees whispering calls for a white knight, be it Indiana governor Mitch Daniels (who, conveniently, is delivering the Republican response to Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night) or Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan or even Jeb Bush, will be deafening.

***

Yeah:

1) We did the polite and nice McCain who is loved by the media who did not take the Left to task on their treason, and the Conservative base did not come out.

2) The left got their hardest left candidate to run, and they got record turnout. Playing to the middle to win is a myth. It only disgusts your base, and without your base you lose.

3) I wish Sarah or West or someone else articulate and FAR right are down ticket.

4) A Mormon president is a serious issue. It is OFFICIAL NOTICE that the Christianity going on in the USA is worthless to the max, since it is not producing leaders, along with all the sin among Christians. Most Christians are not ready to admit this, so they will pick a “not Romney”.

5) Who is Mitch Daniels? Not another blue-blood Bush!!!