Friday afternoon, the Washington Examiner’s Conn Carroll offered a data point that every Republican primary voter can and should consider.
Here are the most recent favorability results I could find for Obama, Romney, and Newt.
Fox News, 1/12-1/14: Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5 Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7 Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29
CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17: Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7 Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14 Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32
PPP, 1/13-1/17: Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3 Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18 Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34
America does not love Romney, but boy do they hate Newt.
Now, favorability numbers can change. Some flight between South Carolina and Florida could suddenly have all the engines fail, and Newt could race to the cockpit and successfully land the plane on the water the way Captain Sullenberger did for US Airways flight 1549. But barring some dramatic new bit of information, 2012 Republican presidential nominee Newt Gingrich would head into the general election as an extraordinarily disliked man.
Now, Newt fans can argue A) somehow between now and Election Day, the country will look at a guy, who’s been in the national spotlight on and off since 1994, and suddenly find him exponentially more likeable than they do now while the Obama campaign is running an expensive negative campaign against him or B) a majority in enough states to win 270 electoral votes will decide that in light of the state of the country, likeability doesn’t matter all that much, and that they will happily vote for the guy they feel unfavorable towards because he will do a better job as president.
Good luck with either of those scenarios. Some of those folks feeling unfavorably about Newt Gingrich may not like him because of his marital troubles, some may not like him because they bought into the Time magazine cover of him as Ebenezer Scrooge, some simply may not like him because of his appearance or some other fairly shallow reason. But I suspect those views are visceral and deeply felt, and sadly, you cannot logically argue a person out of a position that they did not logically argue themselves into.
On Election Night, Gingrich repeated his pledge that, if nominated, he would propose seven three-hour Lincoln-Douglas-style debates with President Obama. If Gingrich and Obama were to debate, I could easily envision Gingrich tearing apart Obama’s tissue-thin record, bringing up a dozen Obama missteps that the incumbent and MSM would prefer to ignore, and the president retreating into ever vaguer platitudes and generalities. And I could also see those same debates ending with Obama leading by an even wider margin because so many non-Republican voters found Gingrich smug, hectoring, condescending, snide, and disrespectful. Style matters, and you don’t go into an election with the electorate you wished you had, you go into an election with the electorate you have.
With Newt as the nominee, the Republican message to swing voters is, “Vote for the guy you detest to replace the president who you still like but who has disappointed you.” That’s not an impossible sales pitch, but it is an extraordinarily difficult one.
Newt's favorables will change. They always do. In fact, if he performs again and again like he did in the last few debates they will substantially improve. People think he won the last debate by attacking the moderator. Far from it.
Newt won that debate, when he ripped Obamacare for letting kids stay on parent's plans until 26, and then said that he had a deal for the parents of America, elect us, and your kids will be able to move out and get jobs. And that is what did it. I remembered thinking that it was that answer that won. It was off the cuff, it was pitch-perfect, and it was exactly what America wants to hear.
We keep hearing about independents. Most independents I know are not moderate, they are just disaffected. People, of all things fondly remember the 90s, and people would like to get back there. If they think Newt offers them the best chance of that, the country by a large margin will take it.
After all Rick Perry's and Newt's favorability ratings are not that far apart and for what has Rick Perry done? Favorability is reasoned into after a person's vote. If people like what they see they will change their mind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe will NOT continue to make the same insane mistake by choosing a RINO in hopes to coax the treasonous and incapable to vote for them! Need an example? Scott Brown!
If we have so many determined Racists/Communists pushing to destroy our Liberty and our economy then we have no choice but to quench the thirst of the Tree of Liberty.
Sure hope you cowards understand this as it's not rocket-science.
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."-Ayn Rand
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo we've heard about Newt's "baggage."
But where does Obama's baggage figure in to this calculation?
Or put it this way, a guy who spent twenty years listening to a raving anti-semite, spent time palling around with anti-American types, and spent vacation time in some very strange place with some very strange people when younger, {Pakistan}, ---------- that being the case, ----------------------- does baggage even have a place anymore in American politics after that, and after the Clinton tenure?
But focus on this for a moment:
1} 10%+ REAL unemployment; and
2} 20%+ REAL underemployment.
Now THAT'S baggage.
THAT'S negatives.
And THAT'S the issue, not Gingrich's personal failings, nor his supposed "zaniness," nor his supposedly want of leadership abilities.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt is certainly a gamble. If nominated, he will run a very aggressive campaign that tries to persuade the American people that they should think like he does. The closest parallels are probably Reagan 1980 and Goldwater 1964, obviously those yield very different predictions. But I'd rather take a big gamble on Gingrich than accept probable defeat without a fight - which is what I expect to get from Romney.
Much has been made of the GOP field running to be "not Romney", but Romney is basically running as "not Obama." And when his record is brought up, it becomes "a better manager than Obama". Obama, meanwhile, will run against him as "not the silver-spooned money guy who likes to fire people and who belongs to a church that discriminated against people who look like me until the 1980's". Romney has shown no ability to overcome attacks like that, or to make an effective case for his own election.
Maybe this analogy is too Indianapolis-centric, but if the two candidates were quarterbacks, Gingrich would be Jeff George (talented but prickly and erratic) and Romney would be Curtis Painter (nice, stable, and utterly lacking in the necessary skills for the position). Gingrich can carry you to a historic victory or destroy a team that should be a winner. Romney just drags you down.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's hard to imagine a Republican candidate with disapproval numbers over 50% winning -- unless the Democrat candidate's disapproval numbers are even higher.
If Obama tanks in his last year (he's already on the cusp of electability), ANY Republican can beat him (just as any Democrat would have beaten the heir to George W. Bush's 26% approval no matter what the candidates: if it had been Clinton or Edwards vs. Thompson or Huckabee, I think the Dems would have won 2008 in any scenario.)
But that's not really a strategy, that's just "being in the right place at the right time" (the story of Obama's career!)
Most Republican voters would like to see the candidate & party take an affirmative strategy rather than wait & hope for Obama to shoot himself in the foot. Newt is a fighter, to put it mildly, while Romney seems uncomfortable and frankly fake in that role. (Though actually I don't think there is all that much difference between them ideologically: both are "moderately conservative" and have a history of compromising with the other side.)
However Romney is clearly more appealing to "independents", and that is likely where the margin of victory will be determined (I think both parties will have strong base turnout.)
Romney is the safe choice, Newt is a gamble. That doesn't mean that a gamble might not pay off.
Personally I do not want to risk 4 more years of Obama and his horrible, mendacious, epic-failing policiest. That seems far more intolerable than electing even the squishiest Republican. I will vote for whoever Republicans nominate, and I want them to 1) beat Obama, and 2) repeal Obamacare -- everything else is a secondary issue (these are the first two crucial steps to getting the economy growing again!!)
I think the odds are better that Romney can achieve both of these things. For tactical reasons I will support Romney for now (Newt needs to show me he can appeal to independents enough to plausibly win a close general election, which is not impossible but I don't see it yet.)
Santorum is a nice guy who will come in third, and there's another guy running whose name I won't mention. At this point 75% of the primary voters have coalesced around the two leaders, so I think it's definitely going to be one of them (a brokered convention calling on Sarah Palin or Paul Ryan strikes me as ridiculous.)
Bonus thought: best VP for Romney would be . . . . PAUL RYAN. A Tea Party guy to unite the base, and also a Numbers Guy to double down on Mitt's perceived strength. Electorally speaking, Wisconsin is gettable by the Red team and Obama wasn't planning on having to campaign there (in fact he's avoiding the state entirely until the union recall stuff calms down.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou make some great points. Newt is a disaster waiting to happen. I seriously doubt his favorability will go up because Newt has a habit of ticking off the Right and the Left. He's already done that in this campaign and at this point I'm just waiting for him to do it again. While it's great to have a fired-up base, if we can't get moderates and independents on board then we will not win. Newt is the man guaranteed to send them flying to the hills. We like the red meat of him attacking the media but moderates don't see the media bias the way we do. They'll probably dislike a tactic such as that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt can challenge Obama to seven three-hour Lincoln-Douglas debates, but I suspect the response is going to be something like this: "Dear Rep. Gingrich: Thank you for your proposal that we hold seven three-hour Lincoln-Douglas debates this fall. Unfortunately, it will not be possible for me to fit those debates into my schedule as President. I'll see you at the three previously scheduled two-hour debates where we will have 90-second answers and 30-second rebuttals. Yours truly, Barack Obama."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusesmug, hectoring, snide, disrespectful. Check, check, check. Newt has always seemed to me a guy a little too in love with his own intellect - a little too sure that he is the smartest person in the room. He may be - but it is the same reason I dislike BHO and Al Gore (mind you not the only reason I dislike those two). It is not anti -intellectualism rather a feeling that their self image is so wrapped up in the notion that they are Better and Smarter than the common man they might not be able to listen when the voters tell them they are wrong when their ego is telling them they are right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse