Posted on 02/01/2012 8:23:50 AM PST by Vigilanteman
As the guy who predicted here that Newt would pull out a narrow win in Florida, I have to admit I was wrong. Dead wrong.
This doesn't change the fact that I was dead right about Newt's upset win in South Carolina. All the pundits were predicting a close election or a narrow win for Newt. I was alone in predicting a blow-out. The only thing I was wrong about is UNDER estimating his margin of victory.
Not to make excuses, but I had sources on the ground in South Carolina. In Florida, I was limited to looking at news, polls and crunching numbers. So how could the results have been so different? Let's examine each reason:
Reason #1: The Newtzilla Factor. Jonah Goldberg's explanation still very much applies. It is just that the Newtzilla wounded himself far worse in the final debate that even I imagined. More on that when we get to Reason #7.
Reason #2: Mitt Romney. He didn't underperform his polling this time. In fact, he achieved actual results on the high end of his polling for the first time in his political career. Less than 24 hours after the primary, I am at a loss to explain it and it will require further analysis.
Reason #3: Money. Yes, I know Mitt vastly outspent Newt in Florida. But Newt still does not lack for money. His PACs are still buying anti-Romney ads in Pennsylvania and we don't vote until April 24. Money is definitely a factor, but how and where you spend it is even more important.
Reason #4: Florida is still a southern state. In the breakdown of exit polling shown here, Newt was polling 1% more of the large self-identified Evangelical voters than Mitt. One percent. He needed about 20% to win Florida. I don't have the resources to analyze why. But Newt needs to do so if he's going to turn his campaign around. Here's a guess: Knock off the attacks from the left on Bain Capital and immigration. The hard conservative vote (Free Republic readers) will forgive you because we know you (probably) don't mean it. For the remainer, not being Mitt Romney is just not good enough.
Reason #5: Early voting. Yes it was huge. But turnout on primary election voting day was even bigger. Bigger than in 2008. Bigger than most of the pundits predicted.
Reason #6: National polls. These reflected a big bounce from Newt's huge South Carolina win. There is a portion of the electorate which is always swayed by the bandwagon effect. And Newt was the front-runner after South Carolina. Not anymore. Those polls will tighten now. I've never understood this mentality. Logical thinker that I am, I'd vote for the candidate more likely to lose in a close election where all things were equal. But bandwagon voters, like feelings voters are more prevalent in a large mostly urban state somewhat insulated from reality than they are in a smaller mostly rural state which has to face reality head-on.
Reason #7: Immigration. This really comes into focus when you look at the results of Hispanic voters. It's all Romney, even an absolute majority which crosses the 50% barrier. Some might dismiss this by pointing to the popularity of Marco Rubio, a Romney backer. Others by saying Hispanics like free stuff from the government.
Either would be a mistake. Notice Mitt drew more from Cuban-American Hispanics than non-Cuban-American Hispanics. Cubans are the more conservative subset of the two.
Let me suggest the real reason was Newt's attack from the left in the last debate about Romney's suggestion of self-deportation. Legal Americans of Hispanic descent are not so hung-up on non-enforcement of our immigration laws as the La Raza crowd. In fact, they would like to see more enforcement. These people came here legally, worked hard, appreciate the advantages which America has to offer and are more interested in contributing to America than they are in getting free stuff like the La Raza crowd. It is a hard concept for politicians steeped in the ways of Washington to understand. Newt will need to understand it and learn it if he is going to reverse positions with the new front runner.
Target your enemy, freeze it, and destroy is politics 101 and not the Alinski rules. Gingrich should do the same to Romney and he should show no mercy, just expose the SOB as a liberal flips floper, an abortionist, a gun grabber, creator of the Romneycare which the Obamacare was based on, etc… Romney must be defeated at all cost, period.
Were Newt to lend his solid ideas and Mitt his solid organization, I have no doubt this fantasy could become reality.
The bottom line is that whether Newt or Mitt becomes that nominee, they are going to need almost all of Santorum's supporters plus most of their opponents supporters to limp across the finish line in November. Given the current bad blood between the Romney and the Gingrich people, I see Rick Santorum as the best way of making that happen. Possibly even the only way, at this point.
I'm looking at the new trends from Florida, the states remaining and the building rancor between the Gingrich and Romney camps. I'm considering how bitter the Romney people will feel if Gingrich takes it to the convention and wins a nasty floor fight. It was their turn, they played by the rules and they got the nomination snatched from them anyway.
I'm also considering how bitter the Gingrich people will feel if the Romney organization and money machine rolls over them and limps across the finish line to the convention. You have the nomination, but no united party for the big contest in the fall.
Unless one or the other can open up a decisive lead by, say, the last big round of primaries on April 24, I see no other way than a compromise candidate out of this pickle. Do you?
He should do both. Advertise himself as someone who can defeat socialism and at the same time destroy Romney by exposing him as a liberal on many issues. He should show no mercy toward Romney, no mercy at all.
Yes, they do. But the problem is they don't know if he's the Eddie Haskell (Wally's friend, actually) as shown on television who is smooth on the surface and a shyster underneath or the Eddie Haskell in real life who invested the money of the cast from the series well and enabled them to do reasonably well after the series ended, back in the day when television actors were paid relatively modest salaries.
You have a similar dilemma with Gingrich, which is why he does so well among the young who have limited memories of what he has done since he peaked in the mid-90s.
Either way, you have a problem with winning the big prize in November. Which is exactly why we need another candidate which both camps could support.
The turnout was 1.6 million but turnout in 2008 was 1.9 million. Source.
I saw the attack ads on Tampa TV; they were vicious and frequent. Newt DOES lack money. He and the Super PAC supporting him were outspent 4 or 5 to 1.
You don't consider whether "sexual harasser" Cain's "endorsement" had a Judas Kiss effect on Newt among women. Is there polling on his to show a shift there among women in FL before vs. actual vote?
I guess Romney's name checking a laundry list of Republican Latinos during the last debate had the effect I thought it might.
It'll be interesting to see if you can figure out how Romney beat Newt + Santorum combined and for the first time did not underperform in his polling.
[ Either way, you have a problem with winning the big prize in November. Which is exactly why we need another candidate which both camps could support. ]
We don’t have one.. Santorum does not inspire.. and Ron has his Political Tourettes thing..
Why did Newt lose? He screwed up in the debate.
Santorum and Newt are splitting the conservative vote. This is how we got McCain last time
“I see little to be gained by attacking Mitt’s business experience. If Newt created his own company then he could talk.”
I don’t quite see it that way. I think there is a valid tactical opening, but it has to be handled with finesse, and it wasn’t. It was slopped over. Mitt’s business experience is to be lauded. He is clearly skilled at what he does/did. His Salt Lake Olympics achievement is a fact, a matter of record. His track record at Bain is great. His goal there was (presumably) not to act as a private sector employment agency, but to make money for himself & investors. At that, he succeeded mightily.
The angle of attack is that “his success is your failure”. Him succeeding at that enterprise cost large number of jobs.
I am trying to be as specific as I can: If Mitt “does not connect” with voters (and you and I have both heard that) then the connection we DO want to forge is that of Mitt > job losses. That hits in the gut.
Secondarily, there was the opportunity for Newt to compliment Mitt on his biz success and make him own it, but at the same time, make him own the job losses. Also serves to disarm the extreme vitriol that was already clearly in the works when Newt decided to so blindly strike back. Why didn’t Newt talk about the XYZ corporation that lost 1300 jobs when the plant was closed and moved to China? Why didn’t he (if he wanted to get deeply into the weeds) go interview 3 people whose homes were foreclosed when they lost their jobs therefrom?
I repeat, it’s a tactic. I am entirely uncritical of Mitt’s investment activities, at last as far as I happen to know about them at this moment. Conducted poorly as it was, the tactic backfired on Newt. Remember, as we are seeing, it is not so much whether ones’ accusations against an opponent in this game are true; it is the effort and missteps and misstatements and the defensive postures that might be induced on the part of the opponent, the waste of media face time.
[ Win with Newt and his base of conservative white men plus a few women who vote with their brains rather than their feelings? ]
Really?.. Women elected Negrodamus..
But you still haven't answered my question.
[ So what’s your suggestion? ]
Like I said.. Newt is our only choice..
Willard is Obmama’s Plan “B”... if he even can win the election..
Newt has a plan even if he loses.. They both may lose..
Willard is no more electable than any other republican..
I am for meanest son of a b!tch I can find to vote for..
Thats Newt.. not Rick and for sure not Willard..
Paul can be pretty mean tho... but his eyes roll back.. and he drools..
Not just one company, but several, including for-profit and non-profit, from scratch, actually creating jobs and helping conservative causes, organizations and candidates. What did Mitt and Rick do, except running for office all that time?
BTW, Gingrich was also on the board of one of the largest white-shoe PE firm, Forstman Little, so he knows and understands "capital" and "creative destruction" pretty well, and never attacked "capitalism," just unfounded and unsubstantiated claims by Romney that he "created" 100,000 jobs because he was, as Warren Buffett said, "shoving around money" at Bain and was a Governor (not much different from another investor, Senator, Governor from small New England state, Jon Corzine).
Gingrich's Secret Weapon: Newt Inc. - FR, 2012 January 25, / WSJ, by Neil King Jr. and Patrick O'Connor, 2011 May 09
what does meme mean. I have seen it used and it is not in my dictionary, so it must be a made up word like homophobe..
A meme is a small phrase repeated over and over to get into the brain....”A little dab ell do ya” Drop drop, fizz fizz.
It’s used a lot in marketing. (Axelrod’s expertise and earlier work)
Politically it’s Cain’s 999; Obama’s Change and Hope
A meme can be good. PUtting John 3 : 16 has gotten a lot of hits on google.
Or it can be used for evil. Think how many people were addicted because of tobacco or alcohol memes before advertising was cut.
Better understanding now? Once you recognize what is being done you are no longer “under the power of the meme”
Priceless Hoosiermama.
Newtron needs to stay on message. Those who stand by him can make the points he needs made with a tad bit of humor.
Feel free to use and send to anyone you wish.
Thought it up last night and a freeper who is a bit more tech savvy created it, then other freepers connected it to Newt home page.
What’s the Churchill quote? Somethink like he may be a bastarad, but he’s our bastard.
Try telling a GOP friend that you are not going to vote for Mittens under any circumstances. One went postal and defriended me on FB and the other practically accused me of being a serial killer...frothing at the mouth. :-)
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.