NH Union Leader endorses Newt

[Averroës Nix]

Well, I stand corrected

Not necessarily. Silver's analysis doesn't establish a causal relationship.

[Alcon]

Well, I stand corrected

Not necessarily. Silver's analysis doesn't establish a causal relationship.

Definitely not, and I imagine it's confounded (newspapers probably tend to endorse candidates that are increasing their showing), but that still does suggest the potential of major sway and I was being too dismissive of the possibility.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Despite that, I think we can say that it's not a great thing for Romney...

[Averroës Nix]

Despite that, I think we can say that it's not a great thing for Romney...

Well, the Union Leader had to endorse someone, and it sure as hell was not going to be Willard. A Perry or Huntsman endorsement would have been just as bad for the Romney campaign.

[TomC]

Well, Gingrich gets a meaningful but not decisive bump in NH and a positive new cycle nationally. A little momentum- he needs some pol endorsements now to keep the momentum. I do believe he is NOT a flavor of the month.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

More than anything, the GOP wants to take back the White House, not just posture, and the only candidate who has consistently polled even with Obama has been Mitt, and because Mitt has done his groundwork in the last four years, he is drawing the lion's share of establishment support and money.  And, despite all the criticism of Romney's flip-flopping, he has managed to position himself in a very interesting way, taking centrist stances on lots of issues in prep for the general, but harder lines on tax reform and immigration for the nomination, and on the latter issue a harder line than some of his supposedly more conservative rivals.  Gingrich has been out of power for more than a decade, has his own flip-flop issues, has articulated positions lately that are likely to alienate the conservatives he has to court, and is incredibly undisciplined and gaffe-prone.  He is just all-around a much spookier, and more hostile, general election candidate than Romney is.  One paper's endorsement doesn't change any of that.  It's the sudden, flash in the pan, support for Gingrich that strikes me as an inch deep, not Romney's.   I'm sure my own biases are showing in this assessment, of course, so, JMO.  But if I were on the Obama campaign staff, I'd rest a lot easier with a Gingrich nomination than with a Romney nomination, for lots and lots of reasons.

anvi, to a large extent the general election race will depend on how the economy does, not how the candidates do.  It's one reason why the republican base is not making electability a litmus test.  As for myself, yes Gingrich has his problems, but Romney's flip-flops have always been a little too politically convenient.

[Eraserhead]

Despite that, I think we can say that it's not a great thing for Romney...

Well, the Union Leader had to endorse someone, and it sure as hell was not going to be Willard. A Perry or Huntsman endorsement would have been just as bad for the Romney campaign.

Why? Perry and Huntsman are non-factors. Gingrich is an actual threat (for now at least).

[Averroës Nix]

Why? Perry and Huntsman are non-factors. Gingrich is an actual threat (for now at least).

An endorsement that brings them loads of positive press and momentum in an early primary state would be a big deal for either Perry or Huntsman, both of whom are polling only somewhat lower than Gingrich in New Hampshire. (It would probably be an even bigger deal for the Huntsman or Perry campaigns since both of these candidates are currently receiving little attention.) Both may be non-factors in New Hampshire at the moment, but they're still potential threats to an easy Romney victory.

Gingrich's momentary strength shouldn't be overrated as an advantage before it becomes clear that the field has become less volatile. In fact, the best part about this endorsement coming now for Gingrich is that it disrupts a news cycle that otherwise would be dominated by stories about him taking millions in consulting fees from a public company.

More importantly, no matter who the UL had picked, this endorsement plays into the dominant Anyone But Romney narrative.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

lol!  The Union Leader pick will have no effect on the winner in New Hampshire this year.  Presently, according to the latest Bloomberg poll, Romney has a 29 point lead over Gingrich in New Hampshire, along with a 17 point lead over the nearest challenger, Paul.  Joke.  Romney will win New Hampshire in a breeze.   

Right, just like how Romney's large lead in November 2007 allowed him to win New Hampshire in a breeze.

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2008R/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=33200711290

good post, dude!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Fun fact: McCain was the first UL-endorsed candidate to win a contested nomination since Reagan in 1980.

Who were the others? Kemp, Buchanan?

Reagan '76, Reagan '80, Dupont '88, Buchanan '92, Buchanan '96, Forbes '00, IIRC.

WOW!  That's an interesting list.  Major outsider/unconventional tone to it.  Interesting that Newt meets their criteria.