Hey, remember yesterday’s post about Newt’s high unfavorability ratings? Byron York points out that, as of this morning, the point may be moot:

In a survey conducted January 18-22, the Washington Post found that Gingrich’s favorable-to-unfavorable rating among all voters is 29-to-51 percent. Romney’s is 31-to-49 percent . . .
Among independents, Romney has a 23-to-51 favorable-to-unfavorable rating. Gingrich’s is 23-to-53.
Among Republicans, Romney has a 58-to-32 favorable-to-unfavorable rating. Gingrich’s is 55-to-34 percent.
The paper says that President Obama’s favorable ratings have increased recently and stand at 53 percent among all Americans, and 51 percent among independents.

A couple of readers have pointed to the example of President Nixon as a figure who was not widely liked but who won national races several times. But it’s not 1972 anymore. Can we argue that any figure since then won a presidential race while being disliked? Did any of our elected presidents win while having low favorables and high unfavorables?

Last year Brendan Nyhan pointed out:

In January 1979, Ronald Reagan’s poll ratings were 38% favorable/39% unfavorable in a Cambridge Reports survey (compared to 46%/43% for Carter) but he ended up sweeping the Electoral College in 1980 as a result of the terrible economy.

What seems rather astounding is that Reagan — sunny, funny, principled, but never harsh Reagan! — could have such a mediocre split in his numbers on favorability.

On the one hand, no criticism of Romney or Gingrich that we’ve heard this primary season was going to go unmentioned in a general-election fight against Obama. But one can’t help but look at the way this primary has developed — with candidates using every resource they have to spotlight the other’s flaws, for weeks on end, to as broad an audience as possible — as a formula to drive down their favorable numbers with the electorate at large.