InsiderAdvantage (R) Georgia 2012 GOP Primary Poll
- Newt Gingrich 54.1% {17%} [9%] (12%)
- Mitt Romney 12.4% {10%} [6%] (10%)
- Ron Paul 5.5% {5%} [5%] (1%)
- Michele Bachmann 3.8% {1%} [8%] (13%)
- Rick Perry 2.9% {9%} [24%]
- Rick Santorum 1.7%
- Jon Huntsman 1.5% {1%} [1%]
- Someone else 0.7% {4%} [4%] (4%)
- No opinion 17.4% {12%} [20%] (22%)
Survey of 516 likely Republican primary voters was conducted December 8, 2011. Results from the poll conducted October 3, 2011 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 18, 2011 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 2, 2011 are in parentheses.
–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal
December 9th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Nice little surge for Mitt…..up 2.4%.
December 9th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
•Jon Huntsman 1.5% {1%}
===
Interesting, something is happening here..
Where’s Matt “MWS”?
December 9th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Wow, Rick Perry at 2.9%.
To think I bought into the nomination being his for the asking.
December 9th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
InsiderAdvantage (R) …
Congress(wo)men 65.1%
Governors 16.8%
December 9th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
Well…your only miscalculation is that you assumed he was capable of asking.
Don’t feel bad. I made the same mistake.
December 9th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Perry’s numbers in GA is the real story in this GA poll. I bet TEAM ROMNEY wishes Perry was a lot stronger candidate now to help split up Newt’s votes in the South and other places.
Newt has a wide open lane to run on…….I guess that is why John Sununu crossed the line today in calling Newt unstable. The only chance Mitt has is to use Scorch Earth methods to win this election by running out surrogates calling the competition unstable….
I call that unreal…….but it isn’t unreal..it’s happening.
John Sununu is trying to put a bullet in the heart of Newt’s candidacy…..your gun just jammed up Johnny.
December 9th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Sununu has always been a little weasel.
December 9th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
It’s only across the line if it’s not accurate, Smack …
December 9th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
7.
I agree. Probably why he’s so attracted to Willard.
December 9th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
6,
Unfortunately for Mitt, he never really got his message out there. I assume he had planned on waiting until the last several weeks. Newt Gingrich’s surge never factored in to the equation. It’s too late now. Just when the voters start paying attention, Mitt has no choice to run a slash and burn campaign. In short, he’s screwed.
December 9th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
I’m all for negative campaigning (I don’t think Newt should do it…it would not work in his case)
Sometimes Negative campaiging works, sometimes it doesn’t. It’s a thing of beauty when it does….I’m a big fan of it.
But this cycle is different..very different…I’m not sure it will work in a Primary this time, will see,
For Sununu to go out and call Newt unstable, means Mitt’s numbers are unstable.
The former Governor of New Hampshire crossed the line today.
If you want to say Newt does not have the Leadership qualities needed to be President,that’s fine…but to call Newt unstable is not cool with me…and it won’t be with many GOP voters.
Why don’t you just call Newt mentally sick John?
Desperate men do desperate things…John and Team Mitt is desperate.
December 9th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
We can thank Sununu for two things:
1. Justice Souter
2. Bill Clinton…because Sununu convinced Bush to break his “no new taxes” pledge. Newt was in fierce opposition to this.
December 9th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
11. The Romney surrogates were calling McCain “unstable” in 2008. It will likely have the same effect this time.
December 9th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Irish,
The only way Mitt can win this race is if TEAM MITT can convince the GOP voter that Newt is mentally sick?
To have surrogates go out there and call Newt unstable?
If that is the case Mitt is not much of a candidate.
December 9th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
I’ve exhausted my 4 comment limit. I’m out.
December 9th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Weasel? Crossed the line? If they were supporting Gingrich they’d be conservative heroes.
December 9th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
I think the reason he seems particularly weasel-like is because, like Williard, Sununu only got to be a one termer because of daddy’s political connections.
December 9th, 2011 at 10:13 pm
17 – That DOES explain how Mitt became governor of Michigan…oh, wait.
December 9th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
This is my 4th comment as well….
…….As a McCain supporter here at RACE42012 I remember the whole unstable comments coming out of the Romney camp in 2007. I didn’t mind the attacks on McCain’s temperment, because that is always an issue with all candidates. But the old “unstable” line is crossing the line.
Gov. Sununu knows what he is doing….he knows the “unstable” phrase leads people to think in a certain way. Sununu threw a grenande in the Poltical race and hopes it blows up in Newt’s face.
I hope Newt stays positive in the debate, but I hope he turns to Mitt and asked him directly if he agrees with John’s pop psychology assement. If Mitt say yes…Mitt will get booed off the stage…if Mitt says no, then Newt should ask Mitt to tell John it off. Either way it’s a winner on the stage if Newt does it correctly.
My 4th and last comment….I’m out on this thread.
SMACKDADDY will be back.
December 9th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
Newt is teflon like Huck was. And growing stronger when it counts.
Newt’s strength will show in Iowa. If he comes in first or second and distances Romney, he will be almost impossible to beat for the nomination.
December 9th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Smack! Newt IS unstable. His entire life makes this truth terrifyingly clear.
December 9th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
When are we gonna poll Massachusetts?
Newt dominates GA, Mitt dominates MA.
Let’s see it.
December 9th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
I agree Newt has teflon armor given to him by Cain. But I think the crucial state will be New Hampshire. If Romney doesn’t win New Hampshire by a WIDE margin, it’s over.
December 9th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
19 In the case of Gingrich the case is being made that he was a poor leader, which does seem to add up. He was basically forced out by his own party, he has no endorsements from when he was speaker that I know of, yet there are people who he lead that are very against him winning.
I think this is a very important issue. Is Gingrich a good leader or not? Right now I think the evidence is on the side of not, however I’d like to see if there’s another side of this. I’d like to hear from more representatives who served with Gingrich.
December 9th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
In an attempt to tone things down a little I think the question of Gingrich being a good leader is a real issue. I think his personal shortcomings are an issue. I don’t think Gingrich is a wild crazy man and I hope nobody’s actually saying that.
December 9th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
#25 This is precisely what some of us have been saying for some time now. It’s not about leadership; it’s about a stable personality. IMO Newt shows signs of a person who should not be considered for the Oval Office. I know neither Slate nor Weisberg are particularly dependable, but in this case, I believe they have something we should be concerned about.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2011/12/is_newt_gingrich_nuts_consider_the_symptoms_.html
PS: I always believed McCain the Maverick was too unpredictable to be POTUS. The American voter should probably demand candidates undergo a psych eval.
December 9th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
A thread for tomorrow: 2 Dozen Republicans in the state legislature of New York just endorsed Mitt. Gingrich recently made a trip to that state to declare that he will take on Obama in all 50 states, including New York…..the only problem being that he has NO organization in the state, and doesn’t have the resources to buy a week’s worth of advertising in South Carolina, much less a GE campaign in New York.
Gingrich wouldn’t be able to run an effective campaign against the President. For one thing, he’s never run anything successfully in his life, much leas a Presidential campaign. Obama hasn’t been able to run anything ELSE successfully, but he HAS run a successful Presidential campaign.
In recognition of this, virtually every Republican officeholder in New York who has endorsed, has endorsed Mitt.
December 9th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
I can tell you Mitt has done absolutely nothing in this state. He’s been here a few times and he was endorsed by Attorney General Sam Olens but I haven’t seen anything in the form of a campaign. Olens, incidently lives in Newt’s old Congressional District and was once the County Commission Chairman for the County Newt lived in and resided near one another.
I haven’t seen any efforts from any other candidate either.
December 9th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Something isn’t adding up with this poll. Not Sure goes up, Mitt goes up, Newt goes up by 30+. Where did all those numbers come from?
December 9th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
#27 Dave,
His presidential campaign tanked and everybody quit in disgust. Supposedly it was in disarray and 1.6 million in debt. If that’s indicative of how he’d run the country, voters perhaps need to consider whether he is ready to lead something far, far bigger than a campaign.
December 9th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Everything but Perry and Santorum went up. How does that work?
December 9th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
I’m an idiot … obviously it is because Cain dropped out. Just more evidence that Newt’s support is fake. These are all just RomNots who will fall off the bandwagon again in a few weeks. Not that Georgia matters at all anyways.
December 9th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
29 Jaxemer11,
I think you are seeing the effect of Herman Cain’s withdrawal. Being from Georgia and a well known radio show host, he was quite popular here. He was polling far ahead of Newt but now those supporters are looking for a place to go. Some went to Mitt, most to fellow Georgian, Newt, and then some are now not sure.
I wish Herman’s numbers were still listed.
December 9th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
20 – Which explains why Gingrich is going negative in Iowa, right? You are truly a genius Craig. You make this place worth visiting. I don’t know what I would do without your huge intellect to help me get through the day.
December 9th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
What ever happened to Cain endorsing Gingrich, by the way? Must have been BS as I predicted.
December 9th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Several previous candidates have been trumpeted, and Gingrich hasn’t proved he has any staying power – yet. Time will tell, but Newt’s negatives are coming out, and Romney’s starting to make the case for himself.
I have to say though, I’m not sure why Santorum hasn’t been given his shot yet. Sometimes he comes off bad, but he’s definitely conservative, he has no skeletons I know of, and he served as a senator.
December 9th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Jax, Newt is NOT “going negative” in Iowa. Good grief you are pathetic.
Newt is staying positive…only desperate candidates go negative …like Romney, the most desperate man in the race.
Aspire…you know who hasn’t proved he has any staying power? Mitt Romney…the guy has been running for 7 years and is below 20%
December 10th, 2011 at 12:01 am
37 – Except there were reports of him preparing attacks on Romney today. Another true genius of a contributor to this board. What would we do without you? Do you know a single thing about Newt? He is a nasty person.
December 10th, 2011 at 12:08 am
Nothing negative from Newt here at all, right?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9RHAC5G2&show_article=1
December 10th, 2011 at 12:15 am
38. No there were NOT reports of any such thing. You are the nasty person…I think you are projecting.
Newt is staying positive.
Desperate Willard of Woe is in panic mode. He will say or do anything at this point. Sad to watch.
Here’s a tip…try to comprehend this.
If Newt’s campaign comments on Romney’s negative attacks…that is not “going negative.” They are just responding to Mitt’s negativity.
When Gingrich runs an attack ad on Mitt (hasn’t happened and won’t) – that will be “going negative” and if Mitt responds to it, that WON’T be going negative, that will be defending himself.
Are you in grade school?
December 10th, 2011 at 12:18 am
27.
Donations are ramping up big time, which will enable Newt to strategize effectively and deploy/hire more staffers. He recently increased his staffers to 15 in New Hampshire. A win in Iowa will help him gain the momentum he needs.
Rarely do endorsements influence a person’s vote.
December 10th, 2011 at 12:27 am
39.
No negative 30-second attack ads. For the most part, by running a positive campaign, doesn’t mean Newt can’t defend himself and counterattack as needed. It’s very effective and will work in Newt’s favor.
It can get ugly when candidates are desperate, because they have lots of ground to make up for. Mitt’s attacks ads inundating Iowa, surrogates, etc… will backfire for sure.
December 10th, 2011 at 12:35 am
40. Its called being vetted. If Newton cant handle a small attack from Romney, he’ll crumble when Obama hits him.
Newt was the one who attacked Paul Ryan, Newt is the one who attacked his plan. Romney was merely showing us all how Newt would govern. Newton is not a reformer, he has no interest in the work Ryan has done, Newton is just another career politician.
December 10th, 2011 at 12:39 am
41. I agree, I think Newt needs a win in Iowa. If he fails to place first his donations will dry up pretty fast, and that will only make it more of a challenge to compete in FL and SC.
If I was him I would be cutting out all of these ridiculous book signings, Trump meetings, and just camp out in Iowa for the next 20 or so days.
December 10th, 2011 at 12:43 am
If Newt thought he could get elected with no one knowing about his warehouse full of skeletons, he is delusional. And if you RomNots thought anyone was going to stand by and let him pretend like a pure as the driven snow conservative you too need to get your brains checked.
You can act all self-righteous, as if Newt has never said anything negative about anyone (which is laughable, given the content of the Romney ad), but no one with any sort of objective reasoning skills is going to buy it.
Can you say “Right wing social engineering?”. Nothing negative about that phrase, right?
LOL
December 10th, 2011 at 12:45 am
43. Newt has handled all attacks from every corner. No problem. Mitt is the one who has trouble with tough questions…unless you think nervous laughter and squirming in your seat is some type of prophylactic.
Romney’s desperate attack ads are not “vetting.” And Iowans understand this.
Here was some actual vetting…a great interview on CNN that discussed Newt’s positions and gives a clear look into his thought process:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I2S__oEGXE&feature=player_embedded#!
December 10th, 2011 at 12:52 am
40.
It’s a compliment to get vetted. This is especially true when it comes to Pelosi/Dems. Newt’s has been through this process over and over again. But at some point, you need to defend and counterattack to outwit your opponent(s).
So why did Newt use the term “right wing social engineering” on Meet the Press when discussing these proposed changes to Medicare?
In response to the host’s hypothetical question of whether Republicans should change Medicare even if there is public opposition, Gingrich’s response was no you should not. One of Newt’s basic governing philosophies is that government should offer a better alternative to existing entitlement programs that seniors can freely choose. Gingrich is opposed to any political party imposing dramatic change against the consent of the governed. Afterwards, Newt quickly admitted that his choice of words was too extreme, and he apologized to Congressman Ryan shortly thereafter. Newt regards Paul Ryan as one of the biggest innovators in Washington, D.C. and he deeply admires the seriousness and boldness of his historic Path to Prosperity budget.
Mitt’s political career started in 1994, when he first ran for Senate. Add to that a 2002 run for the Massachusetts statehouse, and then two runs for the White House. The “career politician” label can be applied to Romney too.
December 10th, 2011 at 12:57 am
Correction
47 is to answer 43
December 10th, 2011 at 1:02 am
If Newt is from Georgia, why doesn’t he talk funny?
December 10th, 2011 at 1:14 am
47. I don’t care that Newt chose to use the words “right wing social engineering”. Again, that’s just another example of how undisciplined he is. I care that he refuses to embrace the Ryan plan. If Ryan offered an “opt-out” provision it would have rendered his plan completely useless. What annoys me even more is that Newt knows this. That pitiful explanation was just a sad attempt to get out of a stupid thing he said.
He’s the one calling for “bold change and ideas” yet bulks at one of the greatest proposals republicans have manufactured in decades. OH and of course he does it during a time when the main stream media is ripping Ryan apart.
Applying for a job doesn’t mean you have a job. If I apply to be a doctor over the course of 10 years yet never get hired, that doesn’t make me a career doctor, it makes me a career applicant. So no, even though you love the narrative, Romney is not a career politician.
December 10th, 2011 at 1:19 am
46. I watched all 20 min of that interview. My god, I hope you don’t consider that vetting. Beck vetted Newt during his interview, you should have linked to that.
http://www.rightspeak.net/2011/12/glenn-beck-exposes-newt-gingrich-full.html
Its a bit harsh but fair, I think even Newton would agree.
December 10th, 2011 at 1:22 am
HAHA this whole thread is mainly full of fat head newt supporters who went from bachmann, to perry, to hermain cain, to newt now. funny little spammers they r
December 10th, 2011 at 2:03 am
Everywoman’s Ex-Husband
During the long battle for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2007-08, a popular conservative radio host—a thrice-divorced male—opined that Hillary Clinton reminded men of their ex-wives. It was not a compliment.
Fast forward to 2011-12 and the Republican race for the same nomination.
When women see and hear Newt Gingrich, of whom are we reminded?
How about the ex-husband who traded you in at middle age for a newer model young enough to be his daughter?
How about the ex-husband who cheated on you with other women during your marriage and, in the end, ditched you to advance his career?
How about the ex-husband with whom you shared marriage vows, bed, and years together, but who petitioned to have his newfound religion “annul” his marriage to you, as though you had never even been his wife?
How about the ex-husband who, despite all this and much more, is today riding high in polls of vacillating Republicans, wavering Evangelicals, and erratic Tea Partiers for the GOP’s nomination to the highest elective office in the nation?
What’s a woman to think? What’s a discarded wife to believe about the ethical moorings of these brand-new Gingrich fans? What are women voters to conclude about the authenticity and moral fiber of Republicans who vehemently “defend” marriage legislatively but are promoting a repeat adulterer to head the GOP ticket in 2012?
Recently Dr. Richard Land, President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, appeared on Laura Ingraham’s radio show to talk about Newt Gingrich. Dr. Land reported that Evangelical men often support Newt under the theological auspices of his professed “repentance” for his past adulteries. However, Evangelical women are not willing to fall in line. In taking the measure of Newt’s character, Evangelical women cannot get beyond his history of marital infidelities. Virtually all the Evangelical women to whom Dr. Land had spoken said they would not vote for Gingrich.
To remedy this gender gap, Dr. Land suggested that Newt give a speech to reiterate his “repentance” and play up his role as a “grandfather.” Maybe such a tactic will win over the grandkids vote, but it’s D.O.A. with wives and ex-wives. Wives are partners—equal, vowed, monogamous sexual partners—not primarily grandmothers. Wives have the right to expect fidelity from their husbands and not merely post-adultery, post-divorce attentiveness to their grandchildren.
I offer these observations as a woman, a lifelong Republican, and a concerned conservative who has been happily married to my first and only husband for nearly 25 years. He is an extraordinary man, a beloved partner, and a transformative influence in my life. That said, I’ve seen many a marriage fall apart because of selfishness, failure to cultivate shared values, and, most painful of all, infidelity. The lies, double-life, and cruel rejections at the core of an extramarital affair leave permanent scars on the betrayed spouse and family.
Except for the “annulment” of Newt’s second marriage (to accommodate the religious qualms of his former mistress/third wife), his marital infidelities are not particularly unusual in the rarefied universe he inhabits. Newt is a consummate Washington, D.C., insider operating in an elite political sphere where power, prestige, and money are the ultimate aphrodisiacs.
What is unusual—shocking, in fact—is that many Republicans seem to be embracing this self-serving cad as their presidential standard-bearer in 2012.
If the Republican Party wants to flush more than half the electorate’s votes down the drain in 2012, by all means pick Newt Gingrich as the nominee. Newt will never be President of the United States. But he may just ensure that legions of women vote against the GOP for years to come.
December 10th, 2011 at 2:56 am
I’d like to pose a question about loyalty. And, I’m not purposely trying to sound patronizing. I’m genuinely interested to know. How many posters on this site have been followers of the FOTM versus supporters who have been with their guy/girl from the start and have stayed loyal? Who here has shifted from one candidate, to another, to another. How many FOTMs are we up to now? 3, 4, 5? How many posters have been with the FOTM all the way along and can count loyalties to multiple candidates? What, in fact, are these people’s loyalties to in that case? To a particular platform or policy? To a particular brand of Conservatism? How many here have been disappointed that their chosen candidate(s) have faltered. And, how quick have these supporters left their chosen candidate lying dead on the ground, they themselves already on to their next rising star. Who on this site can actually say that they have donated time or money to more than one candidate, hoping that one of their choices would eventually stick. Versus, who has been with their candidate through thick and thin, night and day, highs and lows? Who has regrets that they allowed themselves to be fooled by a choice that turned out to be a dud?
December 10th, 2011 at 3:50 am
40:
Pushing video of two and a half minute answer that is shortened and cut partly from the middle to 14 seconds to distort the answer is not an attack? Also his comments that got used against him by Ron Paul to show Gingrich’s hypocrisy, that were aimed originally at Mitt Romney, were they not an attack?
This Newt Gingrich doesn’t attack is a big fat lie.
December 10th, 2011 at 4:02 am
11:
Tom Coburn, who has lifetime ACU rating of over 98%, making him pretty much the most consistently conservative person ever to have served with Gingrich, but still one of the most soft spoken and who usually never has harsh words for anybody, called for need for “stable” president in his criticism of Gingrich, so it’s not just the Romney supporters hinting that Newt Gingrich is unstable:
Asked about Gingrich’s plans to explore a presidential bid, Coburn responded:
———-
“He is undoubtedly the smartest man I’ve ever met. He is a thinker. He has great vision, The question to me is, does he have the capability to lead the country? And having served under him in the House, he is probably not one that I would choose to support in a presidential primary.”
Asked to elaborate, Coburn said that the party’s nominee needed to be someone who is “stable, and learned, and is gonna consistently bring us together rather than alienate us,” adding: “We need somebody whose eye is critical, but is not harsh in their manner.”
———
The inconvenient truth is that Gingrich is somewhere in the hypo manic spectrum and closer there to Charlie Sheen than to Andrew Carnegie. Having milder form of bipolar disorder (Gingrich’s mother had the severe form) may give you creative edge, as trade off his executive functions are so impaired that he couldn’t even run the House. This will come out if not during the primaries, it will come out in general election.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2011/12/is_newt_gingrich_nuts_consider_the_symptoms_.html
From David Frum’s article coming GOP freakout:
The most important thing to remember about Newt Gingrich is that his colleagues in the House of Representatives effectively fired him as their leader even before the impeachment crisis, shifting power instead into the more competent hands of Tom DeLay. It was Tom DeLay who ran the caucus while Newt Gingrich was traveling the country giving speeches about Total Quality Management and the Struggle for Western Civilization.
Gingrich was not pushed aside by his caucus for any of the offenses listed above. He was pushed aside because he plunged the caucus into chaos, because he lost fights that he himself had chosen, because he could not control his mouth, because he wanted to be a star more than he wanted to get things done. There’s a reason Gingrich is fascinated by management gurus: he needs the help.
December 10th, 2011 at 6:50 am
Amazing ? Matt Towery worked for Gingrich for 20 years on his campaigns. Matt Towery is a good personal friend of Newt. Matt Towery and Newt Gingrich started Insider Advantage. Surprise, Surprise…but Georgia knows Gingrich well. Wait and watch. I live there.
By the way, Teemu…..Gingrich is a little nuts
CraigS
December 10th, 2011 at 6:54 am
I woke up wondering how the nomination fight is likely to play out. Just a month or two ago there was talk that Romney might win Iowa and New Hampshire and it would be over quickly. If the polls hold up for Gingrich, it can be argued that if he wins IA, SC and FL that it will be effectively over. But word came out of the Romney camp this week that he would continue to pursue the nomination even after losing 3 of the first 4 contests.
The attacks on Gingrich will have some effect, but I predict he will nevertheless win Iowa by more than 5%. Simply because voters see nowhere else to go. They will not go to Romney. Romney could finish as low as fourth. Although he may stumble into NH, he will win it. Gingrich will win SC despite some high profile endorsements for Romney. Gingrich will then win Florida and he will poll in the 40′s nationally. With a solid base in the south and surprising strength in PA and in the West, Gingrich would be the prohibitive favorite.
The only way Romney keeps going is by adopting a scorched-earth policy (he is halfway there already) and prevent Gingrich from acquiring the necessary number of delegates in order to force a vote at the convention. I don’t know anyone outside the media who thinks that is beneficial to the party. I would think that the establishment, as much as they might oppose Gingrich, opposes a really nasty protracted fight even more and will convince Romney to concede.
That is a long way of saying I think Gingrich will be the nominee.
December 10th, 2011 at 7:34 am
Craig – 57,
What is Newt’s connection at Survey USA? They have Gingrich up by an even bigger margin in Georgia.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ga/georgia_republican_presidential_primary-1602.html
You sound angry….
December 10th, 2011 at 7:40 am
Who cares. No surprise here.
NEWT IS NOT THE ONE!!!!
December 10th, 2011 at 7:42 am
I will now pray, every day, that Newt does not win and Romney does.
December 10th, 2011 at 8:10 am
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-newt-gingrich-attack-super-pac-ad-2011-12
December 10th, 2011 at 8:22 am
To reinforce my #58.
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/how-newt-gingrich-could-essentially-wrap-up-the-gop-nomination-before-february
December 10th, 2011 at 8:55 am
61
Wow, welcome aboard!
December 10th, 2011 at 9:10 am
I am sure I am over my 4 comment limit so this is no a comment but simply a link to a Dec 9 CBS roundtable on the state of the race.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOc4wvzbkzs
December 10th, 2011 at 9:22 am
I gotta wonder how it happened that the Romney team didn’t see this coming.
“But he’s old, pudgy, is snarky, has white hair, and his poll numbers are in the dirt!”
Duh. Alarm bells should have been ringing.
December 10th, 2011 at 9:29 am
66
LOL!
December 10th, 2011 at 9:43 am
64. I have always said that in the end, I would support whoever the nominee is. But now it is CRUCIAL for Romney to beat Newt. In terms of intelligence and articulateness(a word??) – Newt is great. But in terms of being organized, a competent executive and manager, and being steady MENTALLY, its Romney by leaps and bounds.
In fact, I have signed up to volunteer in his Florida campaign. Hopefully, on February 1st we will be drinking champaign… toasting to the LIKELY probability of a President Romney.
December 10th, 2011 at 9:45 am
Rubio for Romney…….didn’t see THAT coming.
Welcome.
December 10th, 2011 at 10:35 am
#69 Rubiozone,
I have supported Romney since the last cycle but I have said that if Gingrich wins, I’d be okay with that too because he’s a bright guy.
However, the more I’ve learn about him, the less inclined I am to think he’d also be okay and after reading the articles linked above by KG in #26 and by me in #51, I am now very disturbed by the prospect of a Gingrich presidency.
All of the personality issues that former colleagues have described in Newt apparently fit with a disorder known as Hypomania that is sometimes passed down to the offspring of Manic Depressives. Newt’s mother, Kit, was Manic Deppressive.
According to the articles, “Hypomanics are brimming with infectious energy, irrational confidence, and really big ideas. They think, talk, move, and make decisions quickly. Anyone who slows them down with questions ‘just doesn’t get it.’ Hypomanics lack discipline, act on impulse, suffer from over-confidence, and often lack judgment.”
Newt’s “character flaws” according to those who’ve observed him match with someone who suffers from Hypomania.
I find the notion of nominating someone potentially suffering from this condition very disturbing and would suggest that everyone read the articles linked above.
December 10th, 2011 at 10:40 am
I am:
70% Newt
30% Mitt
tearing Newt down does not raise Mitt.
Newt is not the problem.
Mitt is the problem.
Solve the problem.
Or lose to Newt.
December 10th, 2011 at 10:43 am
50.
So basically Mitt has been applying, but just can’t get hired.
Meanwhile he’s been training all this time.
Ryan may have a great plan, but I’m sure even he would agree it’s just a lauching pad to work from, where he’s open to ideas to make it better.
December 10th, 2011 at 10:47 am
70. Sounds A LOT like Obama.
Yes, Newt is one scary prospect.
Romney is now the man. I hope republicans wake up soon.
December 10th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
I have family members who are hypomanic. They are very creative and have done quite well for themselves with their creativity, but I don’t consider Newt to be in that category. He happens to have the gift of gab and is super smart, which makes him appear to to be hypomanic. But he is self-centered, and when the chips are down (i.e. when the titantic is sinking) I would not be surprised to see him push some little old lady aside so he could get into the lifeboat. I would expect most of the other candidates to go down with the ship.