We are now just 1 month away from the first votes being cast in the Iowa Caucuses and the race seems to be boiling down to a two man race.
Gov. Romney has remained the frontrunner, continuing to lead all-comers in money, organization, and endorsements. Romney’s campaign has continued along as scheduled, ramping up after Thanksgiving, and beginning to launch the very first television ads of his campaign. He has yet to be damaged in any debates, and has shown the steadiest support of any candidate. However, he has once again been challenged by the revolving door of “Not Romney” candidates, this time in the form of a resurrected Newt Gingrich. What Gingrich lacks in money and organization he is making up for with hype and buzz, for the moment. Romney’s total domination of New Hampshire was dented somewhat by the New Hampshire Union Leader’s surprising endorsement of the disgraced former Speaker. Still, Romney remains the top choice of the party’s key donors, organizers and activists, though he will have to begin expending his resources to solidify his position.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has surged in recent polls, becoming the race’s latest boomlet candidate. The anti-Romney forces seem to be settling on Gingrich as the man best positioned to stop the former Massachusetts governor’s nomination. While Gingrich has risen in the polls, he remains one of the worst organized candidates, trailing others in both Iowa and New Hampshire in terms of a ground game. He is only now beginning to rehire some staff who ditched the Georgia congressman in the summer, as the campaign tries to regain some organizational footing. With Gingrich rising in the polls most of the establishment and numerous other elected republicans around the country will likely begin lining up against the former Speaker, whose dramatic fall from power still remains fresh in the minds of party leaders. This group includes current Speaker John Boehner, one of the leaders who lead the effort to remove Gingrich from power due to the shame and disgrace he brought to his office. Whether Gingrich can withstand this barrage will determine if he can keep up his surge. Gingrich will also have try and change the polls that show him being destroyed by President Barrack Obama in a general election matchup, compared to Gov. Romney, who continues to poll very well against the incumbent.
Georgia Businessman Herman Cain seems to be heading towards the final days of his campaign now that a woman has come forward alleging a 13-year affair. On top of the serious allegations of sexual harassment, the affair allows us to safely render Cain’s campaign finished.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul remains the only other contender aside from Romney raising serious money and building a legitimate organization. Though it is still hard to see how Paul expands on his base, his large small donor list and impressive money bombs will make him a factor in the early states, and may surprise and confound the conventional wisdom.
Former Ambassador Jon Huntsman’s campaign suffered a blow when the Union Leader chose exiled former Speaker Newt Gingrich over the New Hampshire-centric former Utah governor. Huntsman campaign now hinges on a miracle finish in the New Hampshire primary.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has seen his numbers fall to all-time lows as he continues to struggle through the race. In a great stroke of irony, it is Gingrich, the man who Perry poached staff from just a few months again, replacing the Texas governor as the “Not-Romney” alternative. However, Perry still commands a top notch campaign operation, now headed up by Joe Allbaugh, and a big bank account that he is just beginning to tap. If the Gingrich balloon deflates, could we see another Perry boomlet?
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann continues to see her campaign fade away, though remains an outside threat in the Iowa Caucus, especially now that the Cain implosion is complete.
And yes, Rick Santorum is still running for President. But despite his best efforts and 99 county Iowa organization, evangelical leaders still refuse to back Santorum, despite being their most logical destination.
On to the rankings:
1. Mitt Romney
2. Newt Gingrich
3. Ron Paul
4. Jon Huntsman
5. Rick Perry
6. Michele Bachmann
7. Herman Cain
8. Rick Santorum
VP Watch: 1. Marco Rubio 2. Chris Christie 3. Bob McDonnell 4. Tim Pawlenty 5. John Thune
Due to popular demand, I give you the early 2016 Power Rankings (if Gingrich is nominated):
1. Chris Christie
2. Jeb Bush
3. Bobby Jindal
4. Bob McDonnell
5. Marco Rubio
6. Mike Pence
7. Paul Ryan
8. John Thune
9. Jon Huntsman
10. Rand Paul
November 30th, 2011 at 11:44 am
Great analysis Max! This fight ain’t over. Hopefully, Newt’s record will coe out in full force this month.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:45 am
You have huntsman on your 2016 rankings twice. Is that on purpose? LOL. Good rankings.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:46 am
Newts a Nice man but I worry more about the GENERAL ELECTION that should be our focus and Priority!
November 30th, 2011 at 11:47 am
I still don’t get why they don’t give Paul and Santorum a shot in Iowa? I mean the evangelicals. I’m an evangelical…and if you aren’t a neocon, Paul is the logical choice. If you are a neocon but are looking for an alternative to romney, Santorum is the logical choice. Just doesn’t make sense.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:47 am
You forgot Ron Paul in your second list.
You know he will run next time too, right?
November 30th, 2011 at 11:52 am
4. It’s a mystery. Paul obviously has been getting some traction, but Santorum, nothing whatsoever. Can’t figure that one out.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:56 am
Romney and Gingrich are the only candidates with a significant shot at the nomination, and for the reasons given are in the right order.
Max, my quibble with this list is that the only 2 OTHER candidates who have ANY shot at the nomination, and therefore should be #3 and #4, are Huntsman, if he pulls first or second in NH, and Bachmann, if she pulls first in Iowa…..and right now, almost ANYTHING can happen there.
Excellent list, and gutsy timing after the Florida poll that came out today.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:57 am
I was fully expecting to see Newt in first here. I’d say if the polls keep up similarly at this point in December, Newt has to be considered the frontrunner regardless of organization, etc. It’ll be voters that determine the nomination, not organization and endorsements. Of course, I’m hoping that these will have the much needed impact in favor of Romney over the course of the next several weeks.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:57 am
Gunlock,
Next time, Paul will be an octogenarian.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:57 am
Waterseeds,
Thanks, just a typo.
As for Paul, you could say the evangelicals reject him due to the libertarian view that marriage laws are a state decision, which would condone New York’s gay marriage law for example. Evangelicals are not small government people when it comes to values issues. They love big government that stops gay marriage and abortion, so Paul wouldn’t fit. They also love Israel, and Paul is the least friendly to Israel of all of the GOP candidates.
Santorum or Bachmann should be their natural fit.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:57 am
Need to add 3 names to 2016:
* Paul Ryan
* Nikki Haley
* Sarah Palin
November 30th, 2011 at 11:58 am
4 and 6, I think it’s because he comes across as a yippy, whiny dog when he attacks in the debates.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Oops, Paul Ryan is already there. So just add Nikki & Sarah
November 30th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Cain/Newt (Or reverse the ticket) beats Obama/Biden.
Fork Romney. He’s toast in IA/SC/FL.
Game.
Set.
Match
November 30th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Dave
That poll aside, I can’t imagine that the Florida GOP and Jeb will allow Gingrich to win there. I just don’t see it.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:59 am
I would think huck should be on the veep and 2016 list.
November 30th, 2011 at 11:59 am
15.
You will, Max.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Neither Nikki Haley or Palin are going to run in 2016.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
16.
Max hates Huck (and Newt.)
November 30th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Great FPP, Max.
I AM a bit nervous that the media seems to be purposely obscuring the worst of Newt’s baggage.
I’m hopeful that the 2nd and 3rd tier candidates will take up the call and attack Gingrich on his past, so Mitt can stay above it AND retain resources.
And, I’m still mildly concerned about what Perry plans to do with his millions on hand (I’m guessing its about about 10 mill, right now.)
November 30th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Despite all the recent contortions and hype, your analysis is correct and only one candidate is positioned to go the distance.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
9 “Next time, Paul will be an octogenarian.”
So?
Do you think that will stop him from running again? I don’t.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
All Newt needs is a cute little graphic to brand his name and this thing is over…
Maybe they could do something with this:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/42/newtk.jpg/
November 30th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Gingrich’s temporary flare works in the country’s favor right now. I’m good with this. Gingrich is into Berwick, yikes. Rationed healthcare, anyone?
November 30th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Is this a suggestion that if MITT gets the nomination there won’t BE a 2016 republican primary?
November 30th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
23 “All Newt needs is a cute little . . . . ”
Are you sure you want to go there?
November 30th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Due to popular demand, I give you the early 2020 Power Rankings AFTER President Cain or Gingrich’s second term:
1. Vice President Huckabee
2. Jeb Bush
3. Bobby Jindal
4. Bob McDonnell
5. Marco Rubio
6. Mike Pence
7. Paul Ryan
8. John Thune
9. Jon Huntsman
10. Rand Paul
November 30th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
22
Paul will be 81 in 2016. That’s why if any Paul will be running in 2016, it will be Rand.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
25
There could be. But if it’s Newt then it’s a guarantee.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
“All Newt needs is a cute little graphic to brand his name”
What like a little cartoon hooker? That seems to fit.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
—-Breaking—-
Barack Obama serious reaction to Newt’s big surge!
http://tinyurl.com/d2z2q6d
November 30th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Electability!!! (the last vestige of scoundrels)
“The Newt Gingrich surge has moved him to the top of the polls in Iowa, big gains in New Hampshire and now a two-point edge over President Obama in a hypothetical general election match-up.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds Gingrich attracting 45% of the vote while President Obama earns support from 43%.”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups
November 30th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
AHHHHhhhhhhhhh……
Max puts out a FPP that makes all the ROMBOTS feel good again.
Very nice gift you gave yourself, and for your fellow ROMBOTS.
Good for you Max.
I hope all the other ROMBOTS appreciate your effort in disguising the true weakness of the Mitt candidacy.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
“Romney has remained the frontrunner, continuing to lead all-comers in money, organization, and endorsements.”
The only thing missing?
Actual voters.
Wow you guys need a software upgrade or something.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Yes, yet The Grand Willard is stuck or declining in the polls both at state and national levels, and declining in terms of the intensity of his support according to Gallup. Go Willard! And by “go” I mean that Amity Horror style: get out.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Teledude,
Newt is coming on strong against Obama.
I wished someone has posted the Purple Strategy poll that came out earlier this month showing Newt surging to only a 2 point deficit to Obama.
Now Rasmussen shows Newt up by 2 points on Obama.
The ROMBOTS and Mitt would have a better argument for electability if Obama was in a stronger position…and if Mitt’s numbers would show a little movement upward…but nope.
The Rasmussen Poll you just put up should make the ROMBOTS here take notice.
But they are living in a ROMBOT WONDERLAND
November 30th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Just so. To have all those advantages and yet still circle the drain in terms of the actual support of actual GOP voters is a sign of the end-times for The Grand Willard.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
I think it’s more like an Amish Paradise. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXd6zETRw2U
November 30th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Use this link instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOfZLb33uCg&ob=av3e
November 30th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Everything is coming to an end in 2012 anyway so why are you looking toward 2016?
Haven’t you seen the 2012 movie and the Mayan calendar?
November 30th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
I agree with this except that Newt ought to be tied with Romney for first. The reasons Newt should not have 1st to himself is that his organization is lacking, he’s only recently been higher in the polls, and I think he is about to get a barrage of attacks from other candidates and actual conservative who don’t like the idea of voting for a guy that got booted from the speakership by his own party, has had a consistent problem with keeping his junk in his pants, took money from fannie and freddie.
Newt Gingrich will be the fat that the Tea Party fries itself in if they elect him as the nominee. There is no other candidate more anathema to the supposed Tea Party ideals than Newt. Corruption, big spender, no personal values whatsoever, self described Rockefeller Republican. He will literally kill the Tea Party wing of the party, which is a shame.
I would rather vote for every single other republican candidate than Newt, even if he has a better chance of winning. The idea of pulling the lever for him makes me nauseous. The only reason I will vote for Newt over Obama is that Obama is really that bad of a president, although on a personable basis I would prefer Obama’s company to Newt’s any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
My heavens, TPAW really should have stayed in this thing, at least we would have a decent and viable alternative if Romney doesn’t pull it off.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Why is it that Newt reminds me of Howard Dean, all the buzz, but no real organization. I see a major loss for Newt in Iowa and beyond.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
The Willardist template: I would rather vote for any other single Republican candidate than [the curent frontrunner other than Willard].
A month or so ago when Perry was in the ascendent one Willardist after another lined up for the microphone to declare that they would support anyone, anyone at all but Governor Perry.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Thunder, we can only hope. I have honestly been sick to my stomach over the thought of Newt as the nominee. We can’t survive four more of Obama, and Newt will lose in a landslide. I don’t care what the polls say about his electability, he will get slaughtered. Honestly, how in the world can the Republican party nominate the same guy they kicked out of the Speakership?
The voters I’m worried about are the ones like my parents. Generally conservative independents but willing to vote for a dem, and who were around and aware of the debacle that was Newt’s term as a speaker. No way in hades they will vote for him.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
The voters don’t even know Newt yet
November 30th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Casuist, you are ridiculous. I’ve been consistent in my disdain for Newt. I remember posting early in the year that I would have a difficult time voting for Gingrich. The man makes my skin crawl.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
This is for the Gingrich fanclub:
ppppolls PublicPolicyPolling
2nd choice of Newt supporters in FL and MT is…Mitt…so if Newt collapses we may end up with what we expected the whole time
10 minutes ago
November 30th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
39 Why am I not surprised at the Amish connection? I’m getting pretty tired of the cultist language that you use. Its hateful, divisive and goes beyond the boundaries that Kavon has set for this site when it comes to religion. You can tiptoe all you want around Mitt’s faith but your use of the term “Willardist” and “cultist” reveal your true motivations for being here 24/7 and its disgusting.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Michael Savage hammered Newt yesterday on his show. He also gave some pretty good praise for Romney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7BnL-f_6j8&feature=related&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1
Romney praise starting at min 31.
That’s Gibson, Medved and now Savage getting behind Romney. Like I said before the ABR crowd can only go so far – Newt is too far. They are starting to back Romney.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
I’m sorry; but this needs to be reprinted in its entirety, from Geraghty/National Review. Yeah, Newt’s a real conservative standard bearer:
A few of Newt Gingrich’s… Not-So-Greatest Hits:
August 30, 2004: “Now he’s back, preaching the gospel of party moderation. At an Aug. 30 forum held by the centrist Republican Main Street Partnership, Gingrich heralded the GOP’s new, bigger big tent. “Everywhere I’ve been, I’ve argued in favor of electing the moderates,” Gingrich said… He even chastised the fiscally conservative Club for Growth — a group that finances primary challengers to Republican incumbents they deem too liberal — for not getting with the program. “Their strategy is explicitly wrong,” Gingrich said. “The key is to elect more Republicans and have a bigger majority and be more inclusive.”
In June 2005, the New York Times raved about a “balanced and thoughtful” report from a bipartisan task force headed by Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and George Mitchell, the former Senate majority leader, declaring, “Lawmakers should take the time to at least thumb through this report, especially those who have been demanding Secretary General Kofi Annan’s resignation, supporting the ill-conceived nomination of John Bolton as the United States ambassador to the United Nations and backing the latest benighted attempt to withhold America’s legally obligated dues.”
In October 2005, Gingrich called for “universal but confidential” DNA testing.
In April 2006, Gingrich appeared to suggest that too many U.S. troops were in Iraq. At the time, there were 23,800 U.S. troops participating in Operation Enduring Freedom.
During speaking engagements Monday at the University of South Dakota, Mr. Gingrich faulted the White House for installing an American-run government in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was driven from power.
“It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003,” Mr. Gingrich told students and faculty, according to the Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, S.D. “We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it.”
In November 2006, Gingrich suggested “adopting rules of engagement” that would “break up” terrorists’ “capacity to use free speech.”
“My prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us,” Gingrich said in the transcript.
“This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement,” he said.
In April 2007, he raved about the leadership skills of New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg:
“Mayor Bloomberg’s potential presidential bid is getting a boost from a former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and a former Democratic congressman of Tennessee, Harold Ford, who during a visit to New York praised the mayor for his leadership and ability to make government run effectively.
During a lunch at the Four Seasons Hotel with some of the city’s biggest political donors yesterday, Mr. Gingrich said he takes his hat off to the mayor for proving government can be effective. He also credited Chancellor Joel Klein for his work in the city’s schools.
“The effectiveness they ‘ve shown in actually getting the city to work is an integral story of what could happen in Albany or could happen in Washington if you had leadership that understood the power of metrics and understood the power of forcing really big decisions,” Mr. Gingrich said.
Also that month, he took a surprising tone at a “debate” with Sen. John Kerry on the topic of climate change.
Before Kerry got a word in, Gingrich conceded that global warming is real, that humans have contributed to it and that “we should address it very actively.” Gingrich held up Kerry’s new book, “This Moment on Earth,” and called it “a very interesting read.” He then added a personal note about saving vulnerable species from climate change. “My name, Newt, actually comes from the Danish Knut, and there’s been a major crisis in Germany over a polar bear named Knut,” he confided.
The warm and fuzzy Gingrich surprised Kerry, who jettisoned prepared remarks that accused the former speaker of “marching in lock step with the climate-change deniers.” Instead, Kerry found himself saying: “I’ve always enjoyed every dialogue he and I have ever had.” He added that “your statement is very, very important” and gushed: “I frankly appreciate the candor.”
The debate ended. They shook hands. Kerry put an arm around Gingrich. Gingrich put an arm around Kerry. For a brief but terrifying moment, they appeared to be on the verge of a hug.
In 2007, he accused the Bush administration of fighting a “phony war” on terrorism, and declared “a more effective approach would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil.”
In 2008, he hailed John McCain’s efforts in the crafting of the TARP legislation:
Gingrich put out a statement hailing McCain’s eleventh-hour intervention. “This is the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate and rivals President Eisenhower saying, ‘I will go to Korea’.” Eisenhower’s pledge was enough to reassure voters that if elected he would find a way to resolve the Korean conflict. McCain’s high-octane involvement in the bailout is meant to convey the same sense of stature and leadership, and to provide cover to reluctant Republicans to support a deal that runs counter to everything they thought they stood for.
In December 2008, he criticized the RNC for its ad attacking Obama’s connections to Rod Blagojevich, calling it “a destructive distraction.”
In January 2009, he declared that newly-elected RNC Chairman Michael Steele would be “a force for real change in America.”
In February 2009, he assessed three potential Republican nominees:
Alaska’s Governor Palin, John McCain’s running mate in 2008, could be “very formidable” as a presidential candidate in 2012, Gingrich said. But he stipulated that would be the case only if she “seeks out a group of sophisticated policy advisers” and “spends time developing a series of fairly sophisticated positions.” He noted that “Palin starts in Iowa with a substantial advantage. I think she has a very big base among the fundamentalist wing of the party.” He also mentioned two other potential Republican presidential candidates. “If the economy is still a mess a year from now, then [former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt] Romney’s economic credentials start to come back in an important way,” Gingrich said. He cautioned that “Romney has got to figure out how to close the sale.”
And if Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison becomes governor of Texas, the second largest state, “she is an instantly formidable candidate,” Gingrich said.
The former Speaker has also found time to review 156 books on Amazon.com, including a rave review of Sen. Chuck Schumer’s “Positively American.”
November 30th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
http://gop12.thehill.com/2011/11/romneys-new-tv-ad-in-new-hampshire.html
a great Romney ad that is going to air in New Hampshire. Romney needs to run lots more of these in Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida too. Spending 85K is loose change for the Romney campaign.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Geez, I love the 2016 lineup. Too bad we can’t have that today. Right now it is two sane and electable candidates (Romney and Huntsman), one sane but unelectable (Gingrich), and a bunch of yahoos. (Though I think Bachmann could be formidable in the future with more experience, she ran too soon.)
The first nine of the 2016ers are reasonable and solid candidates. How did we end up with this mess for 2012. What a traveshamockery this has become.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Well, this goes both ways. We have heard ABR supporters tell us they would vote for Satan rather than Mitt. I wouldn’t spend too much time on this. I think both sides are exaggerating. Just relax.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Man, it’s as if someone hit the Romney hive with a stick.
They are all buzzing around wildly!
great fun!
November 30th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Don’t forget the quote where Newt said he was a Rockefeller Republican.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
#45, I feel the same way. There is such disappointment in the Tea Party and the religious right. When they were jumping from one conservative to another, it annoyed me, but at least they were sticking somewhat to their ideological guns, by backing Gingrich they have compromised all credibility and can no longer be taken remotely seriously as a movement.
Newt has all the negatives Mitt has (except being Mormon – which I don’t personally find as a negative) plus serial adulterer including having an affair while investigating Clinton for having an affair, corrupt, career politician and is more liberal (see his Pelosi ad from last year). And he has few of Mitt’s strengths. It completely baffles the mind.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
It’s time for Mitt to flood the airways and mail boxes in IA, NH, SC, and FL. No more of this sitting back and waiting for people to self destruct. Time is short and he needs to get his message out.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Moving Gingrich to the top of the list, because he really gets the vetting that has killed off so many other campaigns is foolishness. I’m sorry, but thats truth.
The establishment doesn’t like him. His baggage has baggage. He leaves plenty for the die hards to hate (once pushed the mandate at the national level, went to bat with NANCY PELOSI for GLOBAL WARMING, wants amnesty, etc). He is a good debater, but not a terribly exciting speaker, and certainly not organized to the same level Romney is. Gingrich is easy fodder for any of the lobbyist/career politician/character ads.
Maybe he’ll out last – maybe. I’d like to think the GOP would not nominate such a seriously personally flawed man, but perhaps it will…though I still doubt it, and we have no more evidence now that Newt will be the nominee than we did back in the fall that Perry or Cain was going to be the nominee. look where they ended up.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
58, Yeah, Romney needs to be more pro-active. I hope that his political decision to wait until this last month to start sending out tv ads wasn’t a bad one, but it may very well be that he waited too long to engage.
November 30th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
11.Boss Hogg Says:
“Need to add 3 names to 2016:
* Paul Ryan
* Nikki Haley
* Sarah Palin ”
Do you think Palin can bring her favoribility numbers up in the next four years? If she does, she would be formidable candidate for 2016, if Obama gets re-elected in 2012.
BTW, if Obama does win 2012 or ven if he loses, who do you think would be the Dems nominee in 2016? Biden? Hillary? Nancy? Howard Dean? Or someone else?
November 30th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Yes, I should have used this video to more aptly depict Willard’s campaign tactics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=ss_BmTGv43M He’s not flip-flopping! He performs this way.
November 30th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
They actually believe their own lies. So when the data turns against their fantasy speculations it is to them as if the laws of physics were suspended in favour of their political opponents. So they raise their fists and curse the gods. Hilarity ensues. You know the rest. We’ve seen the movie before.
November 30th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
He needs something to be sure. He’s been campaigning since 2006 and this is the only level he can achieve? He needs a turn-around manager.
November 30th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
62 are you enjoying your little sideshow?
November 30th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
56.
He didn’t just claim to be a Rockefeller Republican, he was Rockefeller’s state chair in Georgia.
It’s not really fair to call Newt a flip flopper. He takes all positions at all times. Whatever works for Newt at any given moment is his firm conviction.
November 30th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Forgive me but this “analysis” is clueless. Romney is hemorrhaging support. We know he has a ceiling; the question now is whether he has a floor. “He has yet to be damaged in any debates.” One can argue that getting suckered into the immigration issue is damaging, but the most damage suffered recently was self-inflicted. The Bret Baier interview revealed some of Romney’s worst qualities – untruthful, arrogant, calculating, evasive, and prissy. And he’s a terrible politician.
The democrats are probably reassessing their strategy today. That interview and their recent ad have done more damage to Romney than all the other GOP candidates combined. If he’s this fragile without much damage in the primary, why would they not want to run against him in the general?
November 30th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
The point in time when I was the most concerned was when Perry was at his pinnacle in the polls. The same cast of characters (minus Tele and Smack) were prancing around gleefully (kind of like they are now). I was pissed for about two days. That was my “meltdown”.
Newt certainly is proving to be a competitor with pros AND cons the others didn’t have. I’m hoping the preparation Mitt did behind the scenes over the past couple of years will begin to pay dividends. We’ll see during the next few weeks.
November 30th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Hemorrhaging? He’s bleeding out precisely as he did at this juncture in the last cycle before he lost Iowa by 9 points after spending US$11m on the state. Last time we could all point to Huckabee as the cause. But recent events argue that what we assumed was a cause was just a correlation (post hoc ergo propter hoc): the cause of Willard’s fall from grace with the sea was Willard himself. He underperforms even in the absence of any other opponent as the voters themselves organize to oppose him.
November 30th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
#69 – That is indeed a strange phenomena. Romney’s poll numbers are falling as if he were in office.
November 30th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Max,
I agree on Ron Paul. Obviously as a small government evangelical who loves Israel, i’m in the minority for supporting Paul. If people that read their bible would think for a second, they would realize that government has no role in marriage, and should have no role in marriage. By having government recognition of marriage they are taking God out of the equation and replacing it with government. We should have no marriage laws. And on israel, Paul isn’t anti-israel. He’s for peace with all nations. And he wants to end foreign aid to the enemies of Israel. I don’t get why people who support israel would vote for someone that wants to continue aid to Israel’s enemies….who get more than 3 times the money israel gets from us. It makes no sense. I wish Paul were a little better on Israel, but his position is the most pure and unbiased. I’ll take Romney in a general election against Obama though. Romney has the capacity to be the next Reagan. I believe he can do it. And his theology doesn’t matter to me when it comes to politics. But make no mistake, if i ever meet him….i’m handing him a gospel tract
November 30th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Yes, Willard left office ranked at #48 among U.S. governors in favourability. Only 2 other governors were despised as much as Willard for their incompetence combined with a lack of vision.
November 30th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Regarding the 2016 list, I’ll bet less than half decide to run. Reason #1? The toxicity, faux purity, and hypocrisy rampant now in the GOP. Same reason we don’t have several more excellent candidates for 2012.
November 30th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
72. Yes, Mitt was the most conservative governor ever in Mass. Makes sense.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Yes, he was conservative in the sense that he always looks uptight, but in objective terms he was the most progressive governor in MA history, the precise opposite of conservative. He was the only governor in the entire country to reorganize the entire health-care sector to deliver a new entitlement called RomneyCare with all its new rules, new taxes, its exchanges, and its mandates, functionally identical to ObamaCare.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
73,
Agreed completely. Some very good people decided not to run, and I expect that to continue in the future, with more and more potential candidates opting to spare themselves and their families the front pages of the various propoganda machines out there. The hyper partisan atmosphere, with a 24 hour news cycle and know it all bloggers makes it a tough decision for any who would decide to enter the race. It is getting to the point where being president doesn’t seem nearly as hard as becoming president
November 30th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
So the cowards and belly-crawlers who would otherwise consider higher office can self-select for the obscurity of their tempered ambitions in favour of complete and utter frauds void of conscience like The Willard?
November 30th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Now you know this is disingenuous. If he were in the top 3 of favourability, you would spin it that he couldn’t possibly be conservative to be liked by that many MA citizens.
And for the record, it wasn’t his incompetence that engendered those numbers (he did what they wanted him to do, bring back fiscal sanity), but rather his positions that he took (more conservative than MA liked) as well as his perceived absence in order to run for president.
I am sure you will focus on the second point I mentioned but I believe everything should be on the table.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Obama and ACORN are PRAYING it’s Gingrich. I’ll bet you they’ve suddenly become religious.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
PabloZed Says:
November 30th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Forgive me but this “analysis” is clueless. Romney is hemorrhaging support. We know he has a ceiling; the question now is whether he has a floor. “He has yet to be damaged in any debates.” One can argue that getting suckered into the immigration issue is damaging, but the most damage suffered recently was self-inflicted. The Bret Baier interview revealed some of Romney’s worst qualities – untruthful, arrogant, calculating, evasive, and prissy. And he’s a terrible politician.
^^^ THAT ^^^
November 30th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Cas on fire as usual swatting Rom-flies.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
And on israel, Paul isn’t anti-israel. He’s for peace with all nations. And he wants to end foreign aid to the enemies of Israel. I don’t get why people who support israel would vote for someone that wants to continue aid to Israel’s enemies….who get more than 3 times the money israel gets from us. It makes no sense. I wish Paul were a little better on Israel, but his position is the most pure and unbiased.
My thoughts on Paul’s foreign policy is that in the long term it is far better for Israel. By heavy-handed (and expensive) tactics to manipulate the Middle East, we’ve driven a lot of people into the arms of Islamist groups whose major appeal is independence from American policy. This was the real factor in the Iranian Revolution and in all the revolutions that have taken place in Islamic nations since that one. These groups are winning democratic elections all across the region. And none of them are as friendly to Israel as the dictators that existed before.
Rumsfeld asked the same when he wondered if invading Iraq wasn’t creating more enemies than the enemies we wanted to uproot. In the end the Muslims mainly resent being controlled by the Western world, and as we hurtle towards bankruptcy, they will become assuredly bolder in their opposition and even more driven to use their newfound independence to take out their grievances on their perceived oppressors, the Israelis.
It’s hard to stop events already in motion. But by abandoning neocon foolishness in the Middle East we not only carefully preserve our power and influence at a time when its finances are not good, we also remove the main factor motivating anti-American and anti-Israeli backlash. There are always some jihadis. But if the soft Muslims that make up the majority are not being squeezed by Western and perceived Israeli control, they think more about their differences, than about the need to unite to defeat a foreign threat.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
61.Ozzy Says:
November 30th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
“BTW, if Obama does win 2012 or ven if he loses, who do you think would be the Dems nominee in 2016? Biden? Hillary? Nancy? Howard Dean? Or someone else?”
Mrs. Bill Clinton.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
MPC Says:
November 30th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
“My thoughts on Paul’s foreign policy is that in the long term it is far better for Israel.”
But in the short term: KABOOOOOM!! Israel becomes a PARKING LOT.
November 30th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
84. Israel has enough strength to take care of itself in relation to a country that does not have a nuke or the infrastructure to launch any sort of coordinated attack.
Besides, do you really think that cracking down on Iran with sanctions or whatever will actually stop them from doing whatever they please? Of course it won’t! They’ll end up doing whatever they want and get angrier at us in the process.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
84,
Read your bible and you’ll know why that can’t happen.
November 30th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
85,
Totally agree.
BTW: The next major Israeli war is Psalm 83/Isaiah 17/Amos 1
If you understand what i’m saying…you’ll see quickly that Israel is going to be just fine.
November 30th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
wow. is it just me, or are 9 out of 10 on your hypothetical 2016 list better than every name on the real 2012 list? that is depressing.
December 1st, 2011 at 5:50 am
Good article, I found myself agreeing pretty much throughout.
@10. I disagree, I think Paul’s policies are more beneficial towards Israel than the other candidates. We currently give three times as much money to the “enemies” of Israel than we do to Israel itself. Paul wants to cut foreign aid, which would put Israel in a significantly better position, relatively. Furthermore, if Israel wants to attack Iran, and it’s appearing like they do want to, Paul wouldn’t hold them back or dissuade them.
@20. I think Romney needs to join the fray against Gingrich. There’s simply too much damage being done to his campaign. Gingrich has enough problems that Romney can still maintain a level of purity with his attacks by going after policy and positions, like Paul did with his ad, and not delving into the mud of personal attacks. If he doesn’t get involved, he risks losing in all the early states, which would pretty well doom his chances. He needs to attack, and he needs to attack now. He should also start doing interviews as often as possible, though if they’re going to have to spoon feed him his own positions like Bret Baier did, that might be a bad idea. Perhaps he should read his own book again, I think he forgot parts of it.
@22. I think this is Paul’s last run. You make it sound like he’s run more times than anybody, when he hasn’t. For example, Reagan ran twice and lost, then won on his third and fourth runs. This is Paul’s third. If he doesn’t win, I’m certain he won’t run again. If he does win, I’m undecided leaning towards wouldn’t run, but could see it go either way.
@84. Israel has a couple hundred nukes. Nobody is going to try to turn them into a “parking lot” because they would get their own country turned into a sheet of radioactive glass. They also have the strongest military in the region. If we stop funding their neighbors with our foreign aid, they’ll be too busy worrying about their internal issues to try to rustle up the money to launch a suicidal assault anyway.