Anyone else getting behind Newt?

[Habib]

It's over for Mr. Gingrich.

 

Mr. Romney will win FL in a landslide and it's all over but shouting and crying.

 

Food for thought: Gingrich still leads nationally and Georgia's primary - one with more delegates than Romney will have won so far, including Florida - is on "Super Tuesday" where Gingrich's lead is commanding.

[The Professor]

Food for thought: Gingrich still leads nationally and Georgia's primary - one with more delegates than Romney will have won so far, including Florida - is on "Super Tuesday" where Gingrich's lead is commanding.

 

I wasn't aware of the bolded. I thought maybe Romney was leading nationally. According to Rasmussen, Gingrich has a 35% to 28% lead over Romney in a Jan 23rd poll.

Edited January 31, 2012 by The Professor

[75center]

I think Newt is still enjoying the benefits of his John King exchange. I imagine Romney will be back on top of the national polls soon. Particularly if Florida is as big of a win as predicted.

[Habib]

I think Newt is still enjoying the benefits of his John King exchange. I imagine Romney will be back on top of the national polls soon. Particularly if Florida is as big of a win as predicted.

 

Probably. Gingrich doesn't have many reasons to be optimistic. I also wouldn't be shocked if it continued to be a battle. Republicans don't seem to care much for either candidate and the one who makes the other look more terrible is getting the votes. Romney has the money to do it and Gingrich has used the debates to do it, but Gingrich struck out in the Florida debates. He'll get another opportunity in a month.

[UKMustangFan]

Probably. Gingrich doesn't have many reasons to be optimistic. I also wouldn't be shocked if it continued to be a battle. Republicans don't seem to care much for either candidate and the one who makes the other look more terrible is getting the votes. Romney has the money to do it and Gingrich has used the debates to do it, but Gingrich struck out in the Florida debates. He'll get another opportunity in a month.

 

I think one thing to keep in mind is that Romney will win a lot of the bigger "winner take all states" that are traditionally moderate to democratic states (i.e. NY, California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, the entire NE). Newt will do better more than likely in the crazy deep south states, but overall, I don't see how he can get a win. JMO.

[leatherneck]

Probably. Gingrich doesn't have many reasons to be optimistic. I also wouldn't be shocked if it continued to be a battle. Republicans don't seem to care much for either candidate and the one who makes the other look more terrible is getting the votes. Romney has the money to do it and Gingrich has used the debates to do it, but Gingrich struck out in the Florida debates. He'll get another opportunity in a month.

 

Whoa now. Perhaps some Republicans don't care for either candidate; but some most certainly do. While Romney may be to the left of me on some issues, it's that very fact that leads me to believe he is the right person to be the President of this county at this time in its history. So I greatly care for Romney. Almost every small to medium size business owner and executive I've spoken to feels the same way that I do. They have a very high confidence level that he has the leadership skills and executive management skills needed at this time for our country. The ones that weren't frankly are far right tea party members and there weren't many of them.

 

I believe people have to stop the litmus test method of choosing a candidate. As a nation we must, absolutely must, elect a President that can find a way to work with a majority of Congress or else we are doomed to more drawn out and ugly fights. Case in point the budget cutting commission. What a thoroughly wasted opportunity. Romney may not fit my litmus test (Paul may be closer) but Paul has zero chance of enacting what he's proposing. He just doesn't. Neither does Gingrich. So if either one of them got elected, we'd replace a Democratic President that can't get what he needs from the Republican House to move the country forward, with a Republican President that can't get what he needs from a Democratic Senate to move the country forward.

 

Sure that could change if the House went to the Democrats and President Obama got re-elected, or if a Republican got elected President and the Senate went to the Republicans. But I'm not going to base my Presidential vote on either one happening. Too much is at stake for the country to base my vote on the "what if". It just is. And to be honest, I don't want one party to control the WH and both houses of Congress. Too much power in one party with policy and legislation swings too dramatic in one direction (ie. President Obama's first two years). I prefer a Republican President that needs the cooperation of moderates in both houses to gradually move the country to the right.

[75center]

Read in The Kiplinger Letter this morning that Gingrich is short on both money and organization which is expected to hurt him when the pace picks up in February and March. They expect him at most to delay Romney's nomination.

[Clyde]

Read in The Kiplinger Letter this morning that Gingrich is short on both money and organization which is expected to hurt him when the pace picks up in February and March. They expect him at most to delay Romney's nomination.

 

I just read this article about Mr Gingrish's main money man.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/politics/the-man-behind-gingrichs-money.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

[Habib]

Whoa now. Perhaps some Republicans don't care for either candidate; but some most certainly do.

 

This is certainly true. But on the whole I don't think Republicans are particularly happy with their options this time around. I saw a poll that more or less confirms this. 52% of Republicans are unimpressed with the field this cycle. In 2008, nearly 70% were happy with the field.

 

I don't believe Romney struggles because he is perceived as a moderate. As I said in another thread, other moderate, establishment-supported candidates have had little trouble winning the primary (at least much less trouble than Romney has had thus far). I don't think Romney's trouble is due to his being a "moderate" (I don't think he is), but I think it's because he's generally viewed as inauthentic, willing to do/say anything to win an election. I think people struggle to trust him or believe what he says. I think that's why this nomination battle has been so volatile and why it's been so nasty - the candidates are flawed more so than usual and are thus resorting to tearing each other down at every opportunity.

[Randy Parker]

This is certainly true. But on the whole I don't think Republicans are particularly happy with their options this time around. I saw a poll that more or less confirms this. 52% of Republicans are unimpressed with the field this cycle. In 2008, nearly 70% were happy with the field.

 

I don't believe Romney struggles because he is perceived as a moderate. As I said in another thread, other moderate, establishment-supported candidates have had little trouble winning the primary (at least much less trouble than Romney has had thus far). I don't think Romney's trouble is due to his being a "moderate" (I don't think he is), but I think it's because he's generally viewed as inauthentic, willing to do/say anything to win an election. I think people struggle to trust him or believe what he says. I think that's why this nomination battle has been so volatile and why it's been so nasty - the candidates are flawed more so than usual and are thus resorting to tearing each other down at every opportunity.

 

Well put.

[leatherneck]

This is certainly true. But on the whole I don't think Republicans are particularly happy with their options this time around. I saw a poll that more or less confirms this. 52% of Republicans are unimpressed with the field this cycle. In 2008, nearly 70% were happy with the field.

 

I don't believe Romney struggles because he is perceived as a moderate. As I said in another thread, other moderate, establishment-supported candidates have had little trouble winning the primary (at least much less trouble than Romney has had thus far). I don't think Romney's trouble is due to his being a "moderate" (I don't think he is), but I think it's because he's generally viewed as inauthentic, willing to do/say anything to win an election. I think people struggle to trust him or believe what he says. I think that's why this nomination battle has been so volatile and why it's been so nasty - the candidates are flawed more so than usual and are thus resorting to tearing each other down at every opportunity.

 

Perhaps you are right. But I don't think so. Newt's constant attack on Romney is based on Romney not being a conservative. At least in the debates and commercials I've seen, that is how Gingrich has attacked Romney. That's where he obviously feels Romney if vulnerable. Yeah I've heard a little bit of the flip flop stuff. But any voter willing to spend the time searching will find that almost every candidate flip flops and Gingrich has flopped on issues as much as anyone, so I really doubt that any pro Gingrich/anti Romney sentiment is based on the "willing to say what it takes" impression you have of Romney. Besides, if every voter was turned off by every candidate who supposedly said whatever it takes to win the election, no votes would ever be cast for anyone.

 

I strongly believe that the Rs off by Romney are turned off by his moderate positions of the past. While he's talking more conservative on those issues now, it's not the fact that he's flopped that is bothering some conservatives, it's the concern that he's really a moderate and will take moderate positions if elected.

[Clyde]

There is a sense of desperation on Mr Gingrich's part. He criticized Gov Romney yesterday for cutting off kosher food to elderly Jews on Medicare. (Yes, I know who his audience was). He accused him of suppressing religious freedom, said he is buying the election, linked him with Goldman Sachs, attacked his tax returns, and accused him of being a liar.

 

I think it's more than just conservative vs moderate.

[Habib]

Perhaps you are right. But I don't think so. Newt's constant attack on Romney is based on Romney not being a conservative. At least in the debates and commercials I've seen, that is how Gingrich has attacked Romney. That's where he obviously feels Romney if vulnerable. Yeah I've heard a little bit of the flip flop stuff. But any voter willing to spend the time searching will find that almost every candidate flip flops and Gingrich has flopped on issues as much as anyone, so I really doubt that any pro Gingrich/anti Romney sentiment is based on the "willing to say what it takes" impression you have of Romney. Besides, if every voter was turned off by every candidate who supposedly said whatever it takes to win the election, no votes would ever be cast for anyone.

 

I strongly believe that the Rs off by Romney are turned off by his moderate positions of the past. While he's talking more conservative on those issues now, it's not the fact that he's flopped that is bothering some conservatives, it's the concern that he's really a moderate and will take moderate positions if elected.

 

But, aren't you saying that voters don't believe he is a conservative because he has only recently switched his stances from the more moderate positions he held when running for office in Massachusetts to the conservative views he espouses now? Isn't that saying that they don't believe/trust him? If I understand you correctly, it seems that you are also saying you do not believe much of what he says now, but believe he would govern as more of a moderate.

 

I think this image of him is also compounded by his frequent equivocation and what I would term "focus-group tested" style of speaking. I think many find him to be very robotic and rehearsed, not authentic.

[leatherneck]

But, aren't you saying that voters don't believe he is a conservative because he has only recently switched his stances from the more moderate positions he held when running for office in Massachusetts to the conservative views he espouses now? Isn't that saying that they don't believe/trust him? If I understand you correctly, it seems that you are also saying you do not believe much of what he says now, but believe he would govern as more of a moderate.

 

I think this image of him is also compounded by his frequent equivocation and what I would term "focus-group tested" style of speaking. I think many find him to be very robotic and rehearsed, not authentic.

 

To answer your first question: yes. The issue is not that some Rs are upset about his flopping; it's their concern that he might not stick to his more recent more conservative stances. To answer your second question: again yes. I think there are Rs that don't trust him. I mean seriously, when the evangelical right is willing to support a fellow that has lead the personal life that Gingrich has, it's either the LDS thing or a lack of trust for Romney. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure that out. To address your third sentence, I am saying he'll need to be more moderate than his current stances if he intends to form enough of a coalition in Congress to stop the current trench warfare even if he genuinely believes in his more recent more conservative positions. I think Romney, much more so than Gingrich, Paul, etc, has the ability to build that consensus. The people on the far right aren't going to be happy because they aren't going to get everything they want. Tough. That's life. Romney will take positions that are too moderate for me. I'll live with it if it means getting some positive economic things accomplished. Things might be looking a little better economically right now but we are no where close to being out of the woods yet.

 

Might not look like it on this site, but for every far right R, there is a far left L. They aren't going to sit back and idly let a far right President move the country dramatically and drastically to the right. Whether I believe much of what he is now saying is irrelevant to me. It's not like he's the first nor will be the last that campaigned in the general election with a more moderate platform than was used to campaign in the primary. You seemed surprised at such behavior. Surely not I hope. If so, harken back four years ago and look at Obama's speeches during the primary and during the general.

 

He at times does come across as robotic, I'll give you that. We recently elected a very charismatic and charming fellow as President. Not happy with those results at all. I'm so sick of what has happened in DC the last several years, that if it took a robot to build a consensus in DC to move the country forward, I'd vote for R2D2. I want someone who can lead. If that's a robot, then it's a robot.

[leatherneck]

There is a sense of desperation on Mr Gingrich's part. He criticized Gov Romney yesterday for cutting off kosher food to elderly Jews on Medicare. (Yes, I know who his audience was). He accused him of suppressing religious freedom, said he is buying the election, linked him with Goldman Sachs, attacked his tax returns, and accused him of being a liar.

 

I think it's more than just conservative vs moderate.

 

Newt probably will say tomorrow that Romney kicked his dog too.