Is Newt’s moment in the sun about to arrive? Rasmussen Reports:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely GOP Primary voters shows Cain with 26% of the vote over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s 23%. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich draws 14% support, with no other GOP contender reaching double-digits. Thirteen percent (13%) of GOP voters are undecided at this time. . . .
As for the rest of the field, Texas Governor Rick Perry picks up eight percent (8%) support, Texas Congressman Ron Paul gets seven percent (7%), both Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman each pick up two percent (2%), while former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum draws support from just one percent (1%).
It is important to note, however, that only 32% of GOP voters nationwide are firmly committed to their current candidate. Most (68%) say it is possible something could come up that causes them to change their mind.
I really thought Perry would get a bounce off the floor with his tax plan and whatnot. Boy, I couldn't have been more wrong.
It's also time to cull the herd and remove Bachmann, Huntman and Santorum from the debates
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf it ends up being Newt he'll be the John McCain of 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAt the debates? McCain vs. Obama = Newt vs. Obama?
No Chance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusekreminitly gets it right here. John McCain was one of the worst debaters the GOP has ever fielded, arguably worse than Bush.
Gingrich, OTOH, is the best debater - in either party - since Lincoln. We really don't have a chance to see that in the current format because the answers are so limited. But as an opponent, Newt can make you look very stupid, very quickly. His understanding of how federal government works hasn't been equaled in a candidate since LBJ. And, his ability to frame problems and solutions to those problems, particularly in a way that average people can understand is perhaps second to none.
Gingrich's only problems are personal, whereas McCain's problems were structural.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"been equaled in a candidate since LBJ"
That's reassuring.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScott, Newt's problem is Al Gore's problem: that he can win debates all day on "points," and at the end of the debate, lots of folks who aren't his red meat partisans come away saying, "What an abrasive jerk!"
He's mellowed somewhat, but I don't see Gingrich 2.0 playing out with the public much differently than in 1995. But he'll probably be the next beneficiary of Cain's fall.
Get ready to stick your face in the fanblades, Mr. Speaker!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt's a jerk... and Obama isn't?
A lot of people, more every day, are getting sick of that guy. Folks are kidding themselves if "Obama fatigue" isn't epidemic by next fall.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy on Earth would you run a jerk against another jerk? Run someone who's at least not unlikeable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe Newt can have a "harem" of secretaries in the West Wing too. And for old time's sake he can carpet-bomb southeast Asia.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich is not going to win, period.
And if you think Cain has problems, they are nothing compared to Newt's. And this isn't even getting into Newt's weak positions and record on climate change and illegal immigration.
Like it or not, it's time we rally around someone who has a chance of beating Obama, i.e., Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcept Romney has much bigger problems than the other two and is by far the weakest general election candidate out of the bunch. He would also make much worst President than Cain or Newt, but I detect that you don't care about that little detail...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are factually incorrect as the credible polling shows that Romney runs best against Obama.
Like I said, like it or not at least at this point, Romney appears to be the guy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGeneral election polling a year out is anything but "factual", all it measures is a name recognition. People mostly are saying "Romney, yeah, I remember the fella, sure, why not, Cain - who?".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Factual" is this - Romney has no standing to exploit Obama's main vulnerabilities (like Obamacare) and Romney makes an easy target for Dems with his flip-flopping on video on every major issue within last 10 years. They will saturate TV with this cr*p. That will be all the "news" outlets will be talking about for 5 months.
"General election polling a year out is anything but "factual", all it measures is a name recognition. "
This gets repeated all the time, but it's factually inaccurate and historical precedent proves it.
In June of 1979, Ronald Reagan trailed Jimmy Carter by double-digits in hypothetical match-up polls. However, Gerry Ford - who many people wanted to run again - led Carter. But, everyone knew who Ronald Reagan was. He was a man who certainly wasn't suffering from a "name recognition problem.
Fast forward four years - Ronald Reagan, now an incumbent himself, was trailing Walter Mondale by as much as 6 or 7 points. Clearly, Reagan wasn't less well known after being President for three years than Walter Mondale, was he?
Want more? In February of 2008, USA Today/Gallup had a poll between the theoretical match-up of Obama/McCain. McCain - a guy who had been a Senator for more than 25-years, a staple on Sunday shows for a decade and a man with prior national campaign experience, was losing to Obama 50-46 Surely you aren't going to suggest Obama was winning because of "name recognition", are you?
While it's true that polling a election that is a year away can be far from accurate, it's not necessarily true that it has anything at all to do with name recognition. Instead, when they're wrong they're usually wrong because a year is a lifetime in the world of politics and things can change in that lifetime - big-time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOk, maybe it's not the name recognition but it is something that gives a leftover from the last cycle irrelevant boost in such pols.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, if it wasn't for the personal stuff, I'd do the Gingrich switch (sorry, couldn't resist) from Perry. But man, I just can't see Newt beating Barry with all that, well, you know. In fact, I honestly can't even see him getting nominated. Sure, Clinton got elected twice but there really is a double standard for Dems vs. Repubs. Ask Rudy Giuliani.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow is it that Red State - a blog that I consider to draw from, shall we say, the shallower end of the conservative pool - has all but disowned Cain. And they were big Cain supporters to begin with. Here people are still making excuses for his incompetence. What gives?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore sleaze! More brains! Gingrich 2012!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe next 500 billion is sure to do the trick! Obama 2012!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI honestly think Gingrich has a much better shot at beating Obama than Rick Perry or Herman Cain does. The problem is, debates are not the only criteria people use to judge a candidate.
Gingrich's baggage is a significant issue, particularly the hypocrisy charge of going after Clinton for his affair while he was having his own. Conservatives are held to a much higher standard than liberals, where amorality is part of the platform. Also, I don't exactly remember Gingrich being very effective in political battles when he was Speaker, especially since he was basically expelled by his own Party.
Gingrich is the type of candidate I would nominate if I knew we were going to lose no matter what, it would be worth the show. But I'm not nominating someone to make a point, I want to win an election, and I'd rather deal with the occasional headache of a moderate Republican like Romney in the White House than Obama winning a landslide 2nd term.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse