Boop the Bottle! Don't Annoy the Baby!
All Babies Love Their Bottles
Donate monthly and end FReepathons!
Sponsors will donate $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/17/2012 10:28:06 AM PST by Qbert
Newt Gingrich has told voters in South Carolina not to vote for Rick Santorum because Santorum can’t defeat either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. In particular, Gingrich made an appeal to conservatives: “If you're a conservative, just look at the polls. I am the only candidate capable of stopping a moderate from winning the nomination.” Indeed, Gingrich claimed, “If you vote for Sen. Santorum, in effect you’re voting for Gov. Romney to be the nominee because he's not going to beat him. And the only way you can stop Gov. Romney for all practical purposes is to vote for Gingrich. That's just a fact and it's a mathematical fact now.”
Well, here's a fact, indeed a mathematical fact: In the first actual vote held this year, Rick Santorum came from behind to double Newt Gingrich's vote in Iowa, and then in New Hampshire, Santorum fought Gingrich to a draw. It's pretty nervy—even by Newtonian standards!—for Gingrich to say that mathematics requires voters to abandon Santorum for Gingrich.
As for the polls: In national polls among Republicans, Santorum ties Gingrich. In South Carolina, Gingrich (from neighboring Georgia) is, it's true, ahead of Santorum—by single digits. But if we’re looking at polls (as Gingrich urges we do), there’s one important set of numbers conservatives need to keep in mind.
Two national polls conducted in the last few days, by CNN and Fox, asked the core question of whether voters had a favorable or unfavorable view of the candidates. Romney is at 43 percent favorable to 42 percent unfavorable in one poll, and 45 percent favorable to 38 percent unfavorable in the other, giving him an average of a +4 percent favorability. President Obama is at 49 percent favorable to 49 percent unfavorable and 51 percent to 46 percent, for a +2.5 percent average. Santorum isn't far behind, with numbers that would put him within striking distance in a fall campaign, especially given that he's still less well known: He's at 31 percent favorable to 34 percent unfavorable, and 31 percent to 36 percent, for an average of -4 percent.
So, there are three candidates at +4 percent, +2.5 percent, and -4 percent, all well within competitive bounds of one another. Newt Gingrich? He's at 28 percent favorable to 58 percent unfavorable in one poll, 27 percent to 56 percent in the other—averaging -29.5 percent. Yes, -29.5 percent.
Newt Gingrich should never be underestimated. Perhaps he could even recover from a -29.5 percent unfavorability rating. But it’s quite a stretch for Gingrich to claim that he has an obviously better chance to win than Rick Santorum, either against Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.
(emphasis added)
I think this is true too. There were actually only 2 candidates last night that I thought showed the fire in the belly to win, and that was Newt and Perry. Reagan was by all intents and prognostications unelectable too.
Reagan had that same clarity of message as Newt. We need someone with that same ability to articulate and tie everything back to founding principles.
If Santorum was ever ahead of Romney in the polls, I missed it. Three weeks of unanswered negative ads in Iowa against Newt had a large impact on his results. Pointing to Iowa while ignoring this impact, is an intellectually deficient argument.
Bottom-line is it ain't over till the fat lady sings. It's too early for her to be even warming up. This process may have a long way to go. It's too early to count the most articulate conservative out.
I haven't heard anyone do such a good job since Ronald Reagan. Will the nominee be a bold, articulate, passionate candidate, or not? Will we sacrifice a clear message for perceived electability shaped by LSM?
This is a center right country. There is more of us than there are of them. The clear message works every time - an uncomfortable fact that the Rockefeller wing of GOP doesn't like to acknowledge.
maybe SP/greengrinch, in either order, to double down on the ‘unfavorability’ and polorization demographic...???
You've bought the media hype that the Teleprompter-in-Chief is somehow a brilliant, mesmerizing speaker. Americans quickly discovered that wasn't the case when Obama had to make his own statements and couldn't rely on a pre-written script to help him. It's fairly easy to debate Obama, even Bobby Rush and John McCain held their own and came off well. Pretty much any Republican candidate besides Perry will do fine.
This is all from anti-Santorum websites. Nearly all of it taken out of context like Santorum approving to give felons the right to vote. FReepers should not be spreading these lies by lazy reference to clumsy and untrue weblinks. These are libelous charges against Santorum and every thinking person knows.
Go check the recent CNN polling on how Gingrich fares with key demographics. His negatives fall into the cellar. This is not an election Republicans can afford to lose. Part of the reason Romney bests Gingrich is because of the former’s telegenic appeal. Even in the debates for all his bravado, Gingrich does not look “presidential.” He slouches, and whines against negative ads. His ratings fell into dust after the super-pacs went after him. Gingrich shoots his mouth off like the ads against Bain Capital that backfired big time. All this is kindergarten stuff compared to what’s coming from Obama and his super pacs. Wake up and smell the coffee. If Santorum gets the favorite son vote in PA and brings in the Reagan Democrats, its all over for Obama. Gingrich has the $1.6m Freddie Mac albatross over his neck and Obama ain’t going to let go of that.
"I think that if Newt wins the nomination, and people actually watch him campaign, his negatives will drop significantly."
If he can't even hold the lead with (primarily) Republicans in Iowa without becoming completely undone by Romney's minor (relatively speaking, money-wise) hit jobs... then how is he going to hold up to Axelgoebbels and the MSM in the general?
You’re so wrong. Ricardo (RINO vote) can’t possibly win.
Obama would tear him a new one.
NO...I have NOT bought the MEDIA hype.... Santorum is kind of a snooze....he is NO better than McCain (other than policies, of course) who did “debate” Obama, and as I said, he can be easily pigeonholed...
OK, so Newt had a less than stellar moment in responding to Romney in Iowa, and it cost him.
But I think he will be much better prepared against Obama, from whom he will expect the attacks. (I do think he was caught by surprise with Romney. Maybe he shouldn't have been, but I don't think he'll make that same mistake again.)
You think Rick Santorum or Rick Perry will do better? I don't.
Here's why:
http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-owns-juan-williams-for-race-baiting-question/
Also, this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLweKX3BkNM
You gonna tell me that Santorum or Perry will be anywhere near this passionate or compelling or articulate? Yeah, right.
He fumbled his chance big time: Romney should've been DOA because of Romneycare, and everything else.
Newt's an extremely incisive, bright guy... but he's like a box of chocolates. And he unraveled because Romney's henchmen knew he has his weaknesses- and they exploited them.
Newt had a wonderful chance when he was in the lead before Iowa to put a fork in him... and what did we get? Very little. Then came the weird, convoluted attacks on Bain, ads about how Romney speaks a foreign language, ads about the dog on the car roof, etc. He had months and months to prepare his attack on Myth Romney, and he squandered it. The only questions is... why?
In a supportive post to Santorum a few days ago I had the audacity (afterall who am I compared to the pinheads he has for political advisors)to suggest he ignore Newt, Perry and Romney and go directly after The Usurping Marxist Onada.
Well guess what? He continues his low key, don’t upset anybody campaign plan. And Newt goes directly for Onada in the SC faux debate. Result: Unabashed standing Os.
Santorum is missing the boat. He may still have a chance in SC, but he must take on Onada. There’s plenty of material and conservatives want to hear it. Onada and his Marxist cronies are the enemy that must be defeated. Who ever does that most effectively will win the nomnination—and the election. It really is just that simple.
As for Newt, at this stage in his life he’ll say anything that will return him to the public trough. Nancy Pelosi owns him. I like what he said the other night, but I don’t believe a word he says.
Bill Kristol and the conserv media have been in the Mitt corner , like Hugh Hewitt for now over 5 yrs. They do not like Newt because he is so wild and unconcerned about the Estab. thoughts and policies of going across the aisle. He is a snit guy but that is what we need now to rescue this economy, our military, give us border protection, allow our domestic energy systems to prosper and to clean up the scandal-ridden Bama Admin. and the AG’s DOJ. Rick and Mitt are fine people but we need a tiger not puppies now.
Regarding win-ability, Santorum is the better bet. Since his negatives are nowhere near as high as Gingrich, the pool of voters he will pull from is much larger. And he definitely looks better than Newt. Most of the pull for Obama was that he looked much younger and energetic than McCain. Like it or not, that’s what voters look for in choosing a President.
THank you. I don’t think I’ll ever get tired of that. And he’s had so many of these moments.
I don’t think I was so excited about hearing a politician speak than when Sarah gave her acceptance speech.
But already Fox etc are diluting it, except Krauthammer who was a true believer tonight. You could tell he wanted to talk at length about Newt, but Bair cut him off.
Then that goofy Kristin Powers says, “I’m actually in agreement with much of what Ron Paul says.”
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” - Matthew 5:5
“How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?” - Stalin
You have no idea how much strength, courage and forbearance Santorum has in going forward on principle.
I tell you one thing, no matter what happens, I will never vote for Newt due to the ugliness of his bots.
If your premise is that Obama is such an amazing, brilliant speaker that NO Republican candidate can possibly stand on the same stage as the mighty Obama and do a good job debating him besides the super brainy Newt Gingrich, then you've bought the media hype. Interestingly enough, most of the general public (especially independents) no longer buys this "masterful orator Obama" premise, your portrayal of Obama's dazzling speak skills is right out of the 2008 media script. Most Americans have now seen Obama speak without a teleprompter and realize he's just not that hot at communicating his thoughts to the public on his own.
I've been watching Obama debate since 2000, and if a total zero like Bobby Rush can effectively debate him, then most politicians would be able to do the same (the exception: Rick Perry). Even some dope like Huntsman would have done fine. McCain did fine too, he certainly outmaneuvered Obama on the firing policy questions and there was no debate where Obama kicked McCain's butt (though in the second debate, they BOTH succeeded in putting the viewers to asleep). McCain lost because there's more to elections then how the candidate does during three brief 1-hour debates.
Fieldmarshaldj is right, the Gingrich backers are sounding more and more like Katherine Harris fans on FR who continually blamed everyone else for her problems and would not listen to any negatives about her showing she couldn't win a general election. Just as you've drank the "Obama is a brilliant speaker" kool-aid, the Harris backers heard the "Bush wouldn't be President today if Katherine Harris hadn't changed the game in Florida" so many times they started to believe it. Neither of these premises are true. Obama is not a super smart guy who can whup most people at communicating his ideas, and Katherine Harris did not intervene in Florida and ensure Bush won it in exchange for a cushy political job later on. The voters of Florida "gave" the state to Bush and Harris simply did her job and certified the results to the rightful winner. Obama's not a legendary communicator, and without his teleprompter, is it fairly easy to trip him up. His "amazing" speaking skills are entirely the result of other people (::cough:: *Bill Ayers*) writing speeches for him and the liberal media telling the voters everything that comes out of Obama's mouth will be chiseled in stone someday.
And, of course, using a false premise from the mainstream media to convince conservatives to support your candidate is not a very effective argument.
Are you whinning again?...Most people with any grey matter themsleves recognize Newt’s abilities....to say otherwise is just having blinders in place. Newt doesn’t need a “media hype” tooting his horn...when he opens his mouth it’s quite apparent even to those who oppose him.
I am incensed that you have lumped me here. "cheap personal shots"??? Please!
I gave a measured assessment using my personal and professional opinion. In my opinion, Santorum does not currently carry enough gravitas to win in November. I will not under-estimate the current office holder and this Country can not survive another four years of him. Nice guy that Santorum is, meek is your assessment, not mine, but it is apt (well maybe a little strong).
I'll go with the proven leadership and the person who will not be steamrolled by the democrat machine. Again, my vote goes now to Newt and I personally AND professionally believe he is the best hope in the current field to save this Union.
I'm sorry you feel the way you do...If Santorum were the nominee, I'd vote for him in a second just to help not having another second of Obama as President. I would hope no matter the nominee, you would feel the same way. At least, I hope you'll keep your mind open to the possibility of not helping Obama to another four years.
Ahhh...are you serious? First, let me point out that we are talking about Iowa Caucuses. It's about who has the money to BUY people to show up at each caucus site and "spread the good word about a particular candidate". Good salesmen are expensive and gee, who had the money going in?
Second, it's a primary with only supposed Republican voters. I think the nominee will have ALL of that vote in a general election, don't you think?
Finally, at least what comes right to mind now, is we are talking about a field of 7 candidates...NOT two! When it gets down to one or the other, it's all about who can motivate their people and get slightly more than 50% of the independents to believe that you're better than that "piece of crap" in the other party. Well, who doesn't think Barack Obama is the very definition?
This portion of your post was unnecessary. My assessment stands.
And for the record, I intended "meekness" in the Biblical sense, which is quite different from the secular. Ronald Reagan possessed the same kind of spiritual meekness as Santorum.
No, I'll do a write-in rather than vote for Newt. Good thing there were no televised debates in Lincoln's day. I've read that his voice was rather high.
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.