It seems obvious from even the most cursory survey of the 2012 Republican primary, that Newt Gingrich has premised his campaign largely on the notion that he can debate himself to victory against Barack Obama. In other words, those of us concerned about his many and manifest flaws as a candidate should sit back, relax, and watch Newt Gingrich debate the President into the ground. How else explain the appeal of a man who’s campaign, thus far, has consisted of Caribbean cruises, staff shake-ups, the resurfacing of a veritable ocean of personal and professional baggage and a Michael Moore-style critique of capitalism, all be it with significantly lower production values. The one thing which has seemed to justify Newt Gingrich’s success thus far is his debating prowess. Actual conservatives looking for a genuine alternative to Mitt Romney had plenty of other options without Newt’s problems. If you want a passionate social conservative who will stick it to Obama, Rick Santorum’s your guy. A competent conservative accomplishments guy? Tim Pawlenty or, later, Rick Perry would have filled the bill better than Gingrich. A bombastic rhetorician who can be expected to express visceral hatred for anything and everything Obama at the drop of a hat? Meet Michelle Bachmann. And if Mitt Romney’s flip-flops bother you, Newt Gingrich’s sprint to be on both sides of any given issue almost at the same time must make your head want to explode. Newt’s baggage makes him decidedly sub-par in every aspect for which he is lauded by supporters, accept his ability to express himself in debates. Therefore, the argument for a Gingrich nomination, as far as I can tell, rests on the notion that all of Gingrich’s iniquities, personal, professional and organizational, will be washed away when tuned-out suburban swing-voters see him deliver a Lincoln-Douglas smack-down to President Obama, giving him the victory.
Forgive me for pointing it out, but we’ve seen this movie before, and President Obama was the Democrat to be debated into the ground in that election as well. Look back to 2004, and the pinch-hit candidacy of Alan Keyes for senate. Keyes was manifestly a weak candidate who, though lacking much of Gingrich’s personal baggage, was childishly easy to demagogue and demonize in bluish Illinois. But Keyes, you see, had a secret weapon; the man was, and maybe still is, a superlative debater. I would even go so far as to say that, in eloquent presentation, clarity and pyrotechnic combativeness, he more than surpasses Gingrich. And, judging from the reactions of even left-leaning observers of the Obama/Keyes debates of 2004 I talked to, Keyes won the debates on points hands down. Of course, not only did he fail to win the election, he failed to get 30 percent of the vote.
Leaving aside the tragic story of Alan Keyes, let me puncture a few more holes in the “debate win = electoral victory” argument. First, let’s look at Obama’s debating style. As a blind person, I interact with debates purely by listening, and just listening to the 2008 debates, it seemed clear to me John McCain was clearer, and made better arguments. Obama’s debate strategy, from an auditory perspective, is to coolly and calmly say as little as possible for two hours. However, most people watching the debates felt that Obama won them all. The reason is simple; Obama is very very good at looking Presidential. He doesn’t look like he’s sniping, even when he does. He gets in little digs on his opponent, without ever looking angry. Now, think about Gingrich’s debates thus far. Gingrich’s strategy seems pretty straightforward: find an enemy, and use fiery rhetoric to denounce and demolish them. This is what the Republican base wants, but is a huge turn-off for the squishy “can’t-we-all-just-get-along” moderate suburbanites who are unfortunately necessary to any winning electoral coalition. Simply put, the angrier candidate rarely if ever “wins” the debate, because while Newt Gingrich will undoubtedly make the better argument, what you say about pressing national issues is obviously twenty times less important to apathetic, low-information swing-voters than how you look when you say it. Second, there are normally a total of three debates, max, in any post-primary Presidential election campaign. Contrast this with the Republican primary, which seems to have featured about three a week, and it becomes clear that Gingrich’s great strength, which appears outsized in it’s importance in the primary, won’t matter all that much in the general election. Gingrich is going to get three opportunities to make his case to the American public in his preferred method. The rest of the time, he’s going to need to do all the other campaign-related tasks, at which he’s been a manifest failure thus far. He’s going to have to raise money, give interviews to the press, show up to every venue in every swing state in the country, and compete with a constant onslaught of attacks from the Obama campaign and the media, which he’s been pretty consistently vilifying for the past year.
In short, if you’re counting on Newt Gingrich being able to debate himself to victory, think again. Obama knows how to beat a candidate who’s only claim to fame is debating prowess; that’s how he launched his national-level career eight years ago. The results of a debate-only strategy against Obama weren’t pretty then, and I have a sinking feeling that, if Gingrich is our nominee at the end of the primary, they won’t be pretty now.
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:25 am
You can’t debate the President of the United States the same way you debate another non-current office holder in your own party. And you can’t debate for a national audience the same way you debate for Republicans in South Carolina.
If Gingrich went up against President Obama before a national audience of independents, and conducted himself the same way he has conducted himself so far, he would appear, at best: rude, disrespectful, and undisciplined. At worst he would appear erratic, fanatical, and quite possibly racist.
Want to pull good news for Romney from South Carolina? Its the fact that voters most care about beating Obama, and that, in order to win the state, Gingrich won this group. There is not an easier argument to knock down than the one that says Gingrich is a stronger general election opponent than Romney.
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:30 am
It amazes me that Newt really is basing his entire general election strategy on Obama accepting a ton of Lincoln/Douglas debates. Someone should be pointing out that it’s not gonna happen, and even if he did it would be woefully inadequate.
The general election isn’t going to swing based on about 20% of the Republican electorate that doesn’t want Romney.
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:35 am
Great post.
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:37 am
There are three debates and only one where they are at a podium. The other they are sitting down and the other they are interacting with the audience. The moderators will not be throwing softballs at gingrich to help him like juan williams and john king did. They know this now. The moderators will be someone like jim leher or schiffer or gwen ifel. Gingrich’s red meat won’t win over independents.
This is a vicious cycle because south carolina republicans think gingrich is most electable then florida republicans will think the same. The media won’t show polls with romney winning florida in the general and gingrich down double digits in florida in the general. Independents are 40 percent of voters in florida and they decide the election. Gingrich’s approval nationwide is 28/58. Gingrich’s people are touting they will win texas primary in april what they aren’t touting is that he loses to obama 47-45 in texas in a poll. 23 percent of even republicans won’t vote for gingrich while only 8 percent won’t vote for romney. Gingrich fires up the converted by that does not win a general election.
You keep hearing how the tea party wants to focus on congress well gingrich won’t help in electing members of congress.
Rick Scott was the tea party candidate and he performed every other republican on the ballot.
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:39 am
General elections are never decided on debates. They are about fundraising, turnout, micro-targeting, data-mining, etc.
Obama would likely win 40 states, including Texas (where he leads Gingrich outside the MOE) in the fall.
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:42 am
By the way, Here are the final results of our contest:
Rank | Name | % Off
1) criggs 6.4%
2) Obamaisastatist 8.8%
3) mitch 8.8%
4) Jake 8.8%
5) Ryan 8.8%
6) Smack1968 8.8%
7) Massachusetts Conservative 10.8%
8. ) Still Hurting 10.8%
9) Lux Veritas 12.0%
10) Rob 12.8%
11) joe c 12.8%
12) jaaron 12.8%
13) TC25 12.8%
14) Right Wingnut 13.0%
15) Chickentrooper 13.4%
16) Riccardo 14.4%
17) davidg 14.4%
18) Jerald 14.4%
19) T.C. Robinson 14.6%
20) Mushroom 14.8%
21) Jrcutler 14.8%
22) Anybody but Newt 14.8%
23) Tommy R 14.8%
24) Teledude 14.8%
25) Bob Hovic 14.8%
26) Doug NYC GOP 14.8%
27) Thomas Alan 15.6%
28) jarvis 15.8%
29) Michael 16.4%
30) bumskyred 16.4%
31) David 16.4%
32) GetReal 16.6%
33) Common Cents 16.8%
34) Dskinner 17.0%
35) Shane 17.0%
36) Kevin W 17.0%
37) Jeff Y 17.4%
38) Swint 17.4%
39) abe 17.8%
40) Micah 17.9%
41) Brett H. 18.4%
42) John Gustavsson 18.4%
43) Henry Hubitt 18.4%
44) aspire 18.4%
45) alaska jake 18.8%
46) Primus 18.8%
47) Ryan60657 18.8%
48) Boomer 18.8%
49) Matt Coulter 18.8%
50) Opey 19.2%
51) OSUPhantom 19.6%
52) Huckarubio 19.8%
53) Dr J 19.8%
54) Noelle 20.4%
55) Jonathan 20.4%
56) R42012 Groupie 20.5%
57) Keith Price 20.8%
58) Joe 20.8%
59) HowardB 20.8%
60) SixMom 20.8%
61) Andrew Ryan 20.8%
62) Eric 21.4%
63) Jeremy 21.4%
64) Matt “MWS” 22.1%
65) DaveG 22.4%
66) Conservative Gladiator 22.4%
67) TennJoe 22.8%
68) Jman 22.8%
69) Paul8148 23.3%
70) Matthew Kilburn 23.6%
71) Florida Conservative 24.4%
72) Heil Preußen! 24.8%
73) Sean 24.8%
74) Mittman2012 28.4%
75) SantorumNoConservative 30.0%
76) Jaxemer11 32.4%
77) GNV 32.8%
78) no newt 38.4%
79) Carlos Reyes 40.0%
80) rightgal 46.8%
Collectively, we did significantly worse than last time, and the winner – criggs – was off by twice as much as the winner of the New Hampshire contest.
I’ll keep doing this, though we may have to adjust things a little when multiple states start voting on the same day.
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:46 am
Romney is releasing his taxes on Tuesday for 2010 and an estimate for 2011. Apparently, releasing in April because McCain did it is not working. Romney will take it to Gingrich in the next debate to question his tenure as speaker on the ethics charges. It’s a CNN debate so you can bet that the moderators will lead into the question of Gingrich’s ethics question at the very least. Why is the Republican establishment so TERRIFIED of Gringrich. The public needs to know. His kiting checks, not considering tax laws, his idea a minute, because it has not hit home with the voters. I myself would know very little about it if I did not search the internet.My husband who is for Gingrich, thinks there were minor ethics violations and that Gingrich left of his own accord. Gingrich’s tenure needs to be vetted and fully discussed or the Obama administration will do it for us after the Republicans have nominated Gingrich because he knows how to tell off moderators. By the way he tells them off to dodge questions.
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:46 am
MK, why don’t you also publish how people did on average for IA, NH and SC?
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:47 am
Gingrich’s debate strategy in the GE always struck me as fancifal and unlikely. In fact, I think it is more likely that Obama will only agree to two debates. But the strategy probably is not rooted in Newt’s belief in the possibility, but rather in the desire to have voters consider the possibility. And, frankly, it is interesting to consider.
BTW, quick summary of what SC said last night.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/22/three_takeaways_from_south_carolina_112861.html
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:48 am
Thanks a lot, Kilburn!
Yes! I came in 7th!
Congrats to Criggs, Obamaisastatist, and the 4 people who tied for third above me.
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:49 am
So Newt won yesterday Among College Graduates as well as those not as fortunate in every income bracket under $200,000 per year.
And received over 100,000 more votes than McCain did in 2008.
Fight on!
Go Newt!
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:51 am
Newt will teach.
Sarah will win!
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:51 am
The importance of the debates may be over stated for the general election, they have obviously had an impact on the primary season.
But why?
In this cycle we have a field of flawed candidates. Most have lamented the low ‘quality’ we have to choose from. The debates have given these flawed candidates a platform to connect with the voters.
We will need a good politician who can connect with people to defeat Obama. I agree Newt’s optics are not as optimum as Mitt’s gleaming smile and perfect hair and strong jaw line.
But he can connect with people. He can move people with his rhetoric.
Which is better? A smooth, good looking cardboard cut out who looks the part but cannot speak with passion and seems uncomfortable if things go off script? Or a rumpled frumpy old war horse that can articulate our values and move people with stirring rhetoric?
The debates are just a platform.
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:56 am
That’s easy. There’s a 20% portion of the Republican base that follow the the election very closely, and are easily persuadable to vote for candidates other than Romney. A good debate performance can send those sheeple from one candidate to the next.
That doesn’t happen in the general election.
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:58 am
Newt Gingrich is a brilliant man with great ideas and a vision for our future. He has a clarity of vision, proven credentials, and the ability to lead and motivate the majority with conviction. Perhaps, we should focus more on his achievements rather than character assassinations and mistakes he made along the way. Gingrich’s overall record shows he has done more to advance the cause of conservatism; and economic and job growth than any of his opponents. Newt’s political achievements in Congress were accomplished because he consistently bucked Washington convention in order to get things done. Americans, regardless of party, will vote for Gingrich over President O’bama because he stands for ideas and results at a time when both parties have.failed the American public. (http://klsouth.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/credentials-gingrich/)
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Iowa
Average: 16.20%
Median: 15.20%
=
New Hampshire
Average: 15.80%
Median: 14.20%
=
South Carolina
Average: 18.70%
Median: 18.20%
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:02 pm
15.
>>Perhaps, we should focus more on his achievements rather than character assassinations and mistakes he made along the way.
An amazing statement coming from a Gingrich supporter after what he did in SC.
Nah, Newt is going to reap what he sewed. I can’t wait to see his contract with Freddie Mac.
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:05 pm
17. Boomer, Newt tried to run a positive campaign.
Mitt went negative in Iowa and destroyed Newt, who had been leading before they dumped their sewer load of crap.
The aggressor sets the rules. Newt had to respond in kind and we are now stuck with a nasty, negative campaign, but Mitt and his PAC started it.
Don’t whine about it now.
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:07 pm
18.
I’m not whining. Just stating a fact. Newt went full OWS on Romney and now the gloves are off.
The pompous professor is about to get trashed.
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:10 pm
19. If Mitt wins by destroying Newt, he will have won nothing.
He needs to find a way to connect with the base of this party or he is finished.
Newt isn’t the problem. Mitt is the problem.
The debates just spotlighted this.
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:10 pm
18:
That’s a false history made up by a bitter Newt. The attacks did not come from Romney. The worst didn’t even come from Romney’s super PAC. Ron Paul and Rick Perry cut Newt down in Iowa.
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Matthew Kilburn Says:
January 22nd, 2012 at 11:42 am
By the way, Here are the final results of our contest:
Rank | Name | % Off
1) criggs 6.4%
2) Obamaisastatist 8.8%
3) mitch 8.8%
4) Jake 8.8%
5) Ryan 8.8%
6) Smack1968 8.8%
===
Wow, five way tie for second. Nice job, Criggers!
I haven’t played since I luckily won the Ames Straw poll contest at Race42012 by picking the percentages on the nose.
But Florida will be my comeback..
Newt 47%
Willard 34%
Santorum 9%
Ron Paul 8%
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:16 pm
21. I lived it.
it is foolhardy to doubt me.
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Amen, Lynn:
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:19 pm
20.
Another myth. Romney has earned more votes than Newt so far.
The base isn’t just people who pretend to overlook Newt’s actual record and cheer him on when he attacks the press instead of answering questions.
Newt did Romney a favor by getting him out of his prevent defense campaign. Now he’s on offense and Newt won’t be able to run his Massachusetts moderate campaign in FL or the coming states.
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:19 pm
MK, I mean people’s individualized average results. So we can see who is really good, vs. who got lucky.
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:24 pm
The harshest attacks on Gingrich were from Ron Paul. And these “harsh” attacks consisted of…playing quotes from Newt Gingrich, and quotes from other people about Newt Gingrich. If Newt Gingrich can’t survive the attacks of the freaking Ron Paul attack machine, how’s that glass jaw going to work against Obama?
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:44 pm
23:
I’ve successfully doubted you plenty of times.
January 22nd, 2012 at 12:52 pm
The next time Newt mentions having kids work as school janitors at a debate, Mitt should offer to hire squads of inner city youths as janitorial and gardening staff at his dozen or so residences. With full benefits.
January 22nd, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Here’s a fair enough take while we wait for the NFL games to begin.. Go Ravens! Go Giants!
Three Takeaways From South Carolina
January 22nd, 2012 at 1:40 pm
30:
That Sean Trende article is crap
1) Unless the lawsuit turns over SC redistricting, CD1 is dominated by Beaufort and Charleston, he should win it.
2) SC was for Gingrich what NH was for Romney, neighboring state, good fit. Romney got 49% of Republican vote in NH so Democrats and independents didn’t cause Romney to win. Gingrich was the only Southern non-libertarian candidate.
3) Simply put, there are very few states where Gingrich can perform among the major demographic groups the way he performed in New Hampshire and still expect to win. Other primaries have lower turnout than presidential primaries, McMahon was not tea party, Peter Schiff was, and the one other serious primary candidate kept suspending and starting his campaign again and again.
January 22nd, 2012 at 1:58 pm
For what it’s worth, Linda McMahon’s candidacy was a pleasant surprise. I thought she’d be a train wreck, but I rarely regretted her getting the nomination. She lost just because the state leaned Democrat still.
January 22nd, 2012 at 2:33 pm
I do wander how much Romney will be able to make of Gingrich’s ethics violations as most of them were a bit esoteric.
January 22nd, 2012 at 5:45 pm
33. AG: I agree. Any attempt so far to show people that Newt is unethical get treated with rebuttals of “that was 13 years ago. Besides didn’t Romney flip-flop on abortion?” Or the other rebuttal is, “but he was acquitted by the IRS, right?”
Fortunately, there is a whole slew of other ethical malfeasance of a more recent nature that most Gingrich supporters like to ignore. (But Romney has RomneyCare, he can never be forgiven of that.)
What I find most interesting about Newt’s victory speech last night was that his first attack was against the media. The same media that has been throwing him softball questions and giving him free air time. His second attack was Obama and the media. Who is he running against? Well, he did challenge Obama to 7 Lincoln-Douglass style debates. It is because he fancies himself as Lincoln. The problem is that Obama will not take the challenge. Why? Incumbents prerogative. Obama doesn’t have to.
January 22nd, 2012 at 9:14 pm
as a squishy “can’t-we-all-just-get-along” moderate independent, I am almost offended at your statement. : )
January 22nd, 2012 at 10:34 pm
To make this point even more worthless – the presidential candidates are the ones who make rules on how debate should be done, and when, unlikely right now, when the media is one scheduling the debates, and the primary candidates just accepted or not. They can make the debate rules up to a point – they do not have the control over the questions being asked. Who would fool themselves into think this won’t be the case with Obama on the stage and Obama-friendly moderators asking the questions?
January 23rd, 2012 at 7:53 am
35: Excellent. I was going for almost-but-not-quite offensive; glad I hit that right on.
January 26th, 2012 at 8:03 am
[...] would win the debates on points, but political debate wins on points are not decisive, A.J. Nolte pointed out recently, Alan Keyes won all three of his debates with Barack Obama was swamped by more than forty [...]