But if we are talking electability in the general, when was the last time somebody that looked like Gingrich was elected president? When was the last time somebody so utterly incapable of connecting with anybody other than his base was elected president? Before television for sure.
You might not be a shallow voter. You might spend your evenings pouring over policy papers. But the people that decide presidential elections are shallow and spend their evenings watching "American Idol". Ignoring this obvious fact reveals true shallowness on the part of many Newt people around here, if you ask me.
If I could simply choose the next president from what is left, it would probably be Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney, in that order. Perhaps I would pick Gingrich over Santorum just for the pleasure of watching leftist heads explode. He'd be a better president than Romney, but it doesn't matter. He won't get the chance.
I would enjoy watching Newt dice Obama in debates. But I am not naïve enough to think a debate performance would prevent Gingrich from losing 40 states, as shallow, apolitical voters recoil in horror at the thought of seeing him on their TV screens for 4 years.
I will always be grateful for what Newt engineered in 94, and would move mountains to vote for him over any Dem. But if you can see anything personally likable about him, you have better eyesight than most. I do enjoy his rhetorical zingers from time to time, but can't see much that's admirable or likable about him. I don't think am the only republican that views him that way.
There is way more to getting elected president than appealing rhetorically to your base. Looks and personality matter. Sorry, but denying it requires a shallowness that can't be denied. Given that, how do you think he will play with 19 year old college girls?
There is no way in hell apolitical people, without core beliefs would vote for him. He would suffer an historic drubbing, in an election against a very beatable incumbent. The purists and anti-Morman voters he would attract better than Romney would be dwarfed by the moderate, apolitical, and shallow he would lose compared to Romney. Why is that so hard to understand?
“The purists and anti-Morman voters he would attract...”
If you are going to parrot stupid concepts you might at least try to spell them correctly. Otherwise it is like some “rappa” ranting against “Jooz”. The illiteracy further undermines the vapid argument.