Michael Turk at Kung Fu Quip riffs on Chris Cillizza’s speculation regarding Newt’s big event planned for Sept. 27th 2007, which just happens to be the 13th anniversary of the unveiling of the Contract with America:
With the Presidential election process being what it is, and the three prospects we currently have (Giuliani, McCain, and Romney), the next six months are going to be bloody. There will be a brutal battle to win the staff and money battle. If Newt were to jump in now, he’d likely end up battered.
It would be very interesting if he waited until the field settles (perhaps early October), and then jumps in.
While the conventional wisdom argues that would be disastrous – with little time to organize a ground game and raise money, I am not so sure. By that time, especially given the frenetic pace of the campaign at this early stage, there is a possibility that a voter backlash will occur. I have heard many friends commenting that they are thoroughly unthrilled at our current field of GOP candidates. What support exists is generally qualified with “Well, you have to pick one of the three, so I find him more appealing than the other two but I’d still prefer someone else.”
If Newt has a big-splash event in late September, uses that to raise cash, and starts to pick up the staff of candidates who (likely) will be thinning their herd due to resource limitations, he would be able to peak right as we’re entering the primaries. He could, conceivably, run an aggressive insurgent race against a severely wounded GOP frontrunner. and pick up the nomination without engaging in a full year of brutal campaigning.
The only question is whether Newt is the kind of guy that would use a high-risk, high-yield strategy. He would have to know there is a good possibility that the plan fails. He’d have to accept that it’s the equivalent of going all-in on a poker hand before the first card hits the table.
Is he the kind of guy to do that? I think he may be.
If Newt is planning a late entry the race, making a dramatic entry such as this would seem to be the best way to go about it.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Newt would capture the hardcore conservative vote, but I don’t think that would be enough to win the nomination. This would definitely doom the McCain and Romney campaigns.
Even Newt did win the nomination, there is no way he would win the general.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I think Newt would prefer to sit out & play king-maker. If he does not run, who will get his endorsement? Will he hold back & not endorse till the primaries are over? That remains to be seen.
The fact of the matter is the longer he waits, the harder it will be. This article bases it’s thesis on the argument that the big three will fight each other and implode thereby leaving a golden brick road to the Republican nomination for Newt. I don’t see that happening till after some of the early primary votes have been cast. By then, it will be too late. We’ll know very quickly who the nominee will be. I’m afraid that he’ll not have the time.
I also agree with TM that Newt would not win the general election. I’d be curious to see how Newt would poll against Hillary, Obama, or Edwards in an hypothetical matchup.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I agree with the last statement. I have a great deal of respect for Gingrich’s intellectual prowess and his dedication to the conservative cause. But he is very much the GOP Hillary Clinton. Most people of heard of him. Most people have formed their opinions of him.
Bill Clinton and his people ran rings around him while he was in Congress. Why should 2008 be any different?
March 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
I agree with cwpete that the best role for him would be king-maker.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I remember a while back when Condi was taken off the polls that
Rudy seemed to benefit the most. Does the same thing happen when Newt is taken off the polls?
In other words, do Newt voters go more to Rudy or to McCain or Rommney?
I happen to think Newt’s entry would hurt Rommney the most because he is trying to be the credible
conservative alternative, the same group Newt appeals to. Just based upon the polls posted today
on this site, when Newt is not listed Rommney breaks double digits. When Newt is included,
Rommney hovers in the single digits. Newt’s entry might just siphon enough voters from McCain
and Rommney to pave the way for Rudy. There are certain voters that are not going to vote for
Rudy no matter what because of his pro-choice views. Newt’s entry into the race would give
them another choice and thus dillute the anti-Rudy vote.
Does anyone know if the polling data confirms this?
March 7th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Newt is unelecticable in a general elecion.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
cwpete,
In a recent Rasmussen poll, Hillary beat Gingrich 50-43%.
For comparison’s sake, Rudy soundly defeats Hillary 52-43%, and squeaks by John Edwards 46-44%.
This WSJ article co-written by Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich may well foreshadow the GOP ticket next November.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Ain’t no way Gingrich is going to run. (oops, sorry Kavon).
Also, something has just dawned on me while reading about McCain’s behind the scenes work to allow independant voters in California be allowed to vote in the republican primary. It is totally off-subject, but: Mccain and Rudy really are 1) good friends 2) they both have the same philosophy’s, more or less and 3) they are both strong with independant voters. Giuliani, if he wins, will select McCain as his running mate. Man, am I brilliant.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I agree with all the comments, and if Newt were to get in that late, he would be seen as a spoiler, rather
than a king maker. By September I think the two Republican front runners will have solid support, except for a few
undecided. If McCain keeps tanking, it may just be one front runner.
But I would hate to see Newt any where near the Republican candidate on a split screen with Hillary. 1994 and the Contract with America is
a distant memory that ultimately failed and was buried in 2006.
Let it RIP and move on.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
I don’t see Giuliani going with McCain as a VP choice (assuming Rudy gets the nod). The two guys are similar in a lot of ways, but it’s those similarities which would make them highly incompatible. Both can have short tempers and would likely butt heads with eachother. It would also be more advantageous to go with a balancing candidate such as Pawlenty, Huckabee or Romney.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
No way McCain is anyone’s Veep after telling that John Kerry joke in every interview he’s had for the past 3 years.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
What John Kerry joke?
March 7th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I see McCain losing support because of 1) the war and 2)his age.
I don’t see Giuliani getting the nod, because of this:
“Baptist leader says evangelicals don’t like divorced Giuliani”
By ROSE FRENCH
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) _ Calling the messy breakup of Rudy Giuliani’s second marriage “divorce on steroids,” a Southern Baptist leader said the Republican presidential hopeful’s personal life may be too tempestuous for evangelical voters to tolerate.
Richard Land, head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention, told The Associated Press that evangelical voters might accept a divorced presidential candidate, but they have deep doubts about Giuliani, who has been married three times.
Evangelicals believe the former New York City mayor showed a lack of character during his divorce from second wife, television personality Donna Hanover, Land said.
“I mean, this is divorce on steroids,” Land said. “To publicly humiliate your wife in that way, and your children. That’s rough. I think that’s going to be an awfully hard sell, even if he weren’t pro-choice and pro-gun control.”
Giuliani married his longtime companion, Judith Nathan, in 2003. They had dated publicly while Giuliani was married to Hanover.
His first marriage ended in an annulment.”
Perhaps Rudy can get around this, but I don’t see how, since he doesn’t
seem to be willing to change his views on those issues. I know alot
of Southern Baptists who said they could support Romney, because they may not agtee with his faith, they agree with his values.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Bark-
I dont see Romney being anybody’s VEEP. He is too aloof.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I saw that too, Gary. Interesting, considering that this is the same religious right which generally rules out McCain “under any circumstances” and which says that Romney’s membership in a religion they view as a cult in no way diminishes their possible political support of Romney.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
KT…aloof? What gives you that impression?
March 7th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Nusrat,
You know the one, it something along the lines of,
“Many of you may remember that there was some speculation regarding me running for VP the last time around. Of course, which PARTY I was suppose to be running for wasn’t very clear. I kept telling people, I spent 5 years in a Vietnamese prison camp being kept in the dark and fed scraps. Why would I want to go through that again?”
He literally tells that same joke in every single speech he makes and has been doing so since early 2005.
I really wish he’d stop it. Every time he says that line about not being sure of the party it’s like he’s sticking a knife in my gut.
And believe me, I’m not the only Republican who feels that way about that joke either.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Newt is unelectable in ANY election. He has more baggage than romeny, rudy and mccain put together. I’m sick of hearing about him.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
If Newt came in, he’d immediately take away a good chunk of conservative votes from McCain or Romney, handing Rudy the nomination on a plate. Does Newt want that? I think not. Far more likely he is leaving the door open to keep his importance and poll numbers up, so that he can endorse one of McCain or Romney, who will then take all of Gingrich’s support and have enough to then defeat Rudy.
On a separate matter, Romney will never be a VP candidate. He’d be more articulate than the Pres candidate (never good, just ask Kerry) and wouldn’t even shift a home state to the Repub column. Romney is running for President.
Thompson, Gilmore, Brownback and Huckabee on the other hand would be usefulfor the nominee, so they’d be viable VP picks. Possibly thats why they’re running…
March 7th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Thanks for the numbers Argo,
I have not seen anything like that till now.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Pawlenty has more experience than Romney. As a second term governor, that won in a Blue state in 2006, Pawlenty would be an excellent choice for VP.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
I agree Pawlenty would be a good choice, with a couple of riders..
A key attribute of VP choices (other than picking up swing states) is to balance the ticket (e.g. if not much foreign policy experience, you pick someone with lots. Clinton/Gore and Bush/Cheney both did that) But you also have to make sure that your VP doesn’t highlight your key defficiency. So Kerry picking Edwards only reminded everyone how poor Kerry was on the stump.
Is there a danger of McCain/Pawlenty reminding everyone how old McCain is? Should he pick someone a bit older so as not to draw attention to his age? Romney needs an experienced Senator to balance his resume, so wouldn’t go with Pawlenty (would he pick the likes of Lugar?). That would mean Pawlenty would be good pick for Guiliani/Brownback, but maybe not the others.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
This is what I would like to see:
Giuliani/Pawlenty
These guys would kick donkey butt.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:28 am
GOP:
Man, you do sound like a broken record
March 8th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Giuliani – Pence. The best ticket.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Pawlenty would be a great choice for Rudy, especially since he’s still weak in the midwest but has shored up the rust belt and northeast.
Another great choice for Rudy would be Fred Thompson.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Another VP thought for Rudy: I’ve always thought he might pick someone out-of-the-box to help define who he is: a competent CEO. I’ve always thought he might want to select a woman. Would probably have to be pro-life. Who fits this? Meg Whitman, CEO of Ebay. She’s currently supporting Romney, but I bet she’d accept a VP offer from Rudy.
March 8th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
When is Sen. Fred Thompson going to be added to the mix?