Posted on 01/04/2012 12:04:37 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Sounds good to me. Go Rick!
But what about the elephant in the living room? How does a guy whose last political act was losing a Pennsylvania Senate election six years ago have enough national appeal to be elected President in 2012?
It’s really not that hard to imagine anything. Ron Paul does it everyday.
“Next, suppose that Gingrich — having finished a disappointing third or fourth in New Hampshire — decides to drop out. And as a parting shot to Romney, he endorses the surging Santorum — just before South Carolina”
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
And the otherwise plausible analysis falls apart. Gingrich is focusing his entire strategy on SC and FL, knowing that IA and NH are merely the exhibition season. He is polling very well in both states. He may even win both states, and that may well propel him to frontrunner status.
So, no, Gingrich will not be handing over the keys to his kingdom to anyone.
Yep. He might not be able to carry his own state (PA) because the Dems in Philly, Scranton and Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) will be dusting off the playbook that they used to beat him when they ran "Little Casey" against him.
The whole northeast is very liberal compared to most other States.
Romney’s only Republican popular support is in the northeast and the west coast.
The rest would far prefer Santorum to Romney.
The correct strategy is always to go after the leader.
So far, Romney was acknowledged to be the leader by the media if though he has a support ceiling.
But other candidates have not all ganged up on him to push him out. Instead, they’ve gone after the leader of the “non-Romney” group.
If Romney is the leader, go after him, get him out, and be done with it.
The longer Romney is in, the more saps will believe what the media says and the media manipulation will become reality.
Get Romney out now.
Or prepare for 4 more years of Obama.
We know the door is shut in Virginia for Santorum. What other states are the doors shut on the campaign because they didn’t have the resources to get him on? How does that play in the overall scenario of Matt Lewis?
ROFLMAO!
Santorum lost for three reasons, none of which would factor into a general election run against Obama in PA, much less nationwide.
1. 2006 was a horrible year for the GOP and a great year for Dems. 2012 looks to be the opposite.
2. His opponent was the son of a beloved governor and lied about his views on abortion, causing a number of blue collar Catholics to vote for him when they normally would have voted for Rick. Those folks will not only recognize their mistake, the opponent this year is President Soiled Utility Room.
3. Conservative enthusiasm was reduced by the Specter-Toomey decision. While some people might still be frosted by that, no one is going to sign up for four more years of Obama because of it, and enthusiasm is our way big time. Certainly independent voters aren't going to care.
article is stupid saying if Newt dropped out before SC(where he is leading) and endorses Santorum Santorum can win the nomination.. well I guess if Romney and Newt drop out Santorum could win too.. there will only be one unRomney candidate AFTER the SC primary(Perry, Gingrich or Santorum).. then it will be one on one.. then we can say to Romney.. “well.... bye”
Yup, that is his achilles' heel. An 18 point loss is craptacularly bad. Santorum will have so many electability questions that I don't see how he can overcome them. Many people are applauding Santorum's near win in Iowa and attributing it to his campaign strategy - I believe he nearly won because so many conservatives had already cycled through all the other candidates searching for the anti-Romney. I think the Iowa results are more a rejection of Romney the chameleon than they are an endorsement of Santorum (who had been in single digits almost within days of the caucus).
I rather suspect the conservative candidate that goes the furthest will be someone other than Santorum. My guess is Perry made the same calculations, saw Bachmann drop out and decided to stay in the race for this very reason.
In fact, Gingrich is leading in SC and FL by nice margins.
SC 37-21 over Mittens:
Florida 35-28 over Mittens:
So my opinion of the original analysis just went from implausible to ludicrous.
A strong conservative. Look, people said Reagan was too far to the right to beat Carter and that we would have been better off with a moderate. Nominate a guy we can be enthusiastic about and enthusiasm will bring the independents along.
Anyone but Willard Flip Flopney.
Doesn’t matter. The social conservatives are enamored with the narrative of little Ricky, and are entirely willing to ignore the actual facts and content of Santorum’s record—i.e., that he’s a big government “compassionate conservative” with an incredibly dismal record fiscal policy. Independents won’t go for this guy and will just see him as someone who’s attempting to shove religion down the country’s throat.
The 18% came from the facts 1)It was a Democrat tsunami that year, so much so that the Senate went Dem. 2) The Toomey issue 3) Enough stupid votes that confused Casey with his (dead) Dad. Countering that today: 1) I am praying for Tea Party Tsunami II 2) Toomey will be campaigning for Rick 3) Stupid is as stupid does, but even with as little as Bobby Casey has shown his face people have figured out that he’s too young to be his dead dad.
All of that said, I still look for Rick as a possible VP, not the top of the ticket. I think he will have the ability to put the GOP on top in PA for the first time in a long time, and he will add important Conservative Cred to the top of the ticket.
See my post 13. The Pennsylvania loss is not a reason we should worry about putting this guy up against Obama.
” So, no, Gingrich will not be handing over the keys to his kingdom to anyone. “
His Kingdom ? what’s up with that one ? dictatorship ? nope, no thank you....
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Dude, ease up. “Keys to the kingdom” was my metaphor for Gingrich’s nice leads in SC and FL polls, which has been his strategy for winning the nomination.
It has nothing to do about his style of governing. Gingrich is a constitutional scholar and historian with few equals in the world.
Sheesh.
Like someone once told me about playing poker, when you start thinking “I could win if x happens, and if y doesn’t happen, and if...”, it’s probably time to fold your hand.
If Wlllard doesn’t do significantly better in NH he is done. Noway he survives the south.
Santorum lost his home state of Pennsylvania 2006 re-election bid by 18 points. EIGHTEEN. That isn't just a bad year, or a few factors working against him, an 18 point avalanche loss is in epic fail range. I'm talking truly awful, Christine O'Donnell loss bad territory.
Electability issues are going to dog Santorum for however long he stays in, and the big money is not going to gamble it on a guy who lost his home state by 18 points. If a politician loses that bad and has higher political ambitions, they'd usually run and win something else first to erase the stink of that defeat. Santorum didn't, therefore it will remain the hugely massive elephant in the room no matter how much folks want to wish it away.
Yes we already know the anti-Gingrich folks don’t understand analogies.
And Gingrich is the answer to get independents. OK
Like someone once told me about playing poker, when you start thinking “I could win if x happens, and if y doesn’t happen, and if...”, it’s probably time to fold your hand.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Good analogy, although, in some fairness, I would liken this to a poker tournament, and Santorum, while the short stack in Iowa, just doubled up.
To continue your analogy, my point was that the author says that Santorum needs Gingrich to fold in SC and FL. The problem is right now, Gingrich has flopped a flush in SC and has pocket aces in FL. He’s not going to fold to Santorum or anyone with those hands.
Like someone once told me about playing poker, when you start thinking “I could win if x happens, and if y doesn’t happen, and if...”, it’s probably time to fold your hand.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Good analogy, although, in some fairness, I would liken this to a poker tournament, and Santorum, while the short stack in Iowa, just doubled up.
To continue your analogy, my point was that the author says that Santorum needs Gingrich to fold in SC and FL. The problem is right now, Gingrich has flopped a flush in SC and has pocket aces in FL. He’s not going to fold to Santorum or anyone with those hands.
Bob Casey was an incredibly popular pro-life Democrat Pennsylvania governor who the Democrats attacked at times. The Catholic vote is big in PA and is essentially pro-life and pro-welfare, hence they like pro-life Dems. Casey’s son had the same name and was enough of an unknown quantity than everyone assumed he would be a carbon copy of his dad. Santorum had no chance. The margin was enhanced by the overall rout Republicans suffered.
Keep in mind Romney lost by 17 points to Ted Kennedy, so I hope anyone who questions Santorum’s electability will say the same holds true for Romney. So far none of the Fox analysts have brought that up, even the clearly anti-Romney ones like Bill Kristol (who was pretty great last night at subtly dismantling Romney).
But he's been outside the public eye for six years. Nobody but us political junkies know who he is outside Pennsylvania and Iowa.
I guess it's possible he could win. Anything seems possible in this very weird political year.
Way to misunderstand what I was saying.
Point is, those who vote on social issues at the exclusion of fiscal issues, are going to inevitably be a cause in handing this election over to the moderates (Romney) / ensure an Obama win.
This situation isn’t fundamentally different than the one starring Huckabee in ‘08.
Agreed, Newt still has the best chance to be the conservative frontrunner in SC and FL. I think his “attacks” in NH will be much more of a contrast between him and Mitt, so they won’t automatically benefit Santorum. He does have a much tougher time distinguishing himself from Santorum. Best shot is on his tax policy and other plans, which appear to be far more fleshed out than Rick’s.
The problem will be voters looking for a candidate who is “purist” on one issue and ignoring other issues. Santorum is the religious right choice for sure, even if Newt’s only failing there is his marriage history. Paul is a purist on small government. Romney is formidable on the “electability” front, mainly because his campaign operation still looks rock solid compared to the gaffes of the others in Virginia and elsewhere.
Newt’s problem is he comes in second on ALL of these fronts, but he’s jack of all trades and master of none. Second best on pro-life/religious issues, second best on economy/budget issues, second best on electability, and not an obvious standout on national security. So OVERALL he’s clearly the best candidate, but single-issue voters all have a more attractive choice. How he navigates that to sell himself as the complete package is going to be a challenge.
Absolutely agree about SC being much more representative of the nation than Iowa, where unemployment is 5%. Santorum should do well there, and Gingrich could secure a place in history (not to mention in a Santorum Cabinet or as VP) by throwing his support behind him, while remaining the attack dog against Romney.
Starting to sound like a plan, and getting exciting.
I should add the one thing Newt is a definite master on is the debates. He will have the benefit of the January debates coming MUCH, MUCH closer to all 3 elections. Chances are the attacks will not be as focused on him as they were in the December debates, and IA may have immunized him to some of the attack angles. So those are some aces up his sleeve.
Plus I believe SC and FL are not open primaries, so Paul will not be able to steal fiscal conservative votes, which Newt should be able to absorb thanks to his 1990s balanced budgets.
1/7 Debate
1/8 Debate
1/10 NH
1/16 Debate
1/19 Debate
1/21 SC
1/23 Debate
1/26 Debate
1/31 FL
Because he isn't Obama and the election will be about Obama's record?
Obama would have a lot less ammunition to use against Santorum than any of the potential nominees. There are no personal scandals to exploit. No record of flip-flopping. No ties to Wall Street to attack.
Exactly right. You nailed it!
What load of crap. Santorum as junior senator helped lead the charge for welfare reform and toward a balanced budget.
All these false and idiotic attacks are doing is helping Mitt Romney.
But, as a open conservative he won TWICE in a blue state before that.
There isn't a Republican candidate in the race that does better in Pennsylvania against Obama.
That’s the same nonsense argument they use to defend Mitt. We cannot run a solely negative anti-Obama campaign and win. I saw how some moderate Democrats reacted to Fox News this summer when every story was pretty much focused on attacking Obama. They get sick of the negativity and end up wanting to defend Obama. The same thing is happening to non-Romney backers who saw Mitt’s non-stop negative attacks in Iowa.
We need to put up a candidate who has a positive message about who he is and what he can bring to Washington. This cannot be solely an anti-Obama affair. That’s great for the primary, but is not enough in the general election.
Santorum will be savaged by the left since they despise social conservatism more than anything else. They will find enough negative stuff on him. Same with Mittney Mouse, whose Wall Street ties add to the sense of untrustworthiness about him.
Newt is the STRONGEST general election candidate with the least chance for anyone to develop a negative narrative against him. He has governed as a pragmatist who gets things done, not as an uncompromising far-right ideologue. Yet he has done more than enough for the conservative movement to not be a “hold your nose and vote for him” candidate. The personal stuff is his only one baggage and that’s one tiny issue, that will be overshadowed by his policies and experience.
Pennsylvania has moved further to the left since Santorum won his elections. Newt is the strongest candidate for PA thanks to growing up in Harrisburg for his first 10 years and being a pragmatist. PA doesn’t like ideological candidates, they like pragmatic problem-solvers. Newt stood up to his own party. PA voters like that independence. By explaining his conservatism as the best solution for the country, Newt would sell more PA voters on his policies than Rick would.
He has more appeal than someone driven from congress.
Why would you say that considering Republicans just swept into power in the state and now control the governorship and legislature?
I never suggested the Republican nominee do so. Santorum or whoever the nominee is can and should present conservative economic ideas and contrast them to Obama's record of failure.
It's Obama that has to go completely negative and Santorum is a much harder candidate to go negative against than some of the other potential nominees.
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.