NH Union Leader endorses Newt

[Vasall des Midas]

Misleading title now. "Union leader endorses Gingrich" wtf? The Teamsters?

[© Tweed the Younger]

Misleading title now. "Union leader endorses Gingrich" wtf? The Teamsters?

f*** Frank Fitzsimmons

[Meeker]

Oh yes! Yes, yes, yes!

[anvi]

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.   

[Meeker]

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.

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

[nhmagic]

The endorsement will matter in this state - very few newspapers have the influence that the Union Leader holds and republican voters in this state buy the paper.  The support for Romney here is only about an inch deep.  They're only supporting him because they don't see an alternative in this field.  When Bachmann had some great initial debates, her poll numbers rose to about 15% in the state.  Even Cain got a rise in his numbers prior to the fake Politico hit piece and money grubbers who came out against him.  

I must say when I picked up my copy this morning and saw Newt on the front I was slightly shocked - it felt too soon, but then I realized how close we are to the primary.  I thought the paper would wait Newts baggage out a little before it endorsed.  But McQuaid desperately wanted to endorse someone other than Romney and they gave a very fair chance to the other candidates - they called out Bachmann for not visiting the state precisely because they initially wanted to endorse her - they reamed Cain out in the paper because of his ridiculous (lets not give McQuaid an hour like he always gets with a candidate because of a bad interview earlier in the week).  Huntsman was too liberal for the paper, Santorum went nowhere and there's Paul (who the paper rarely covers unfortunately).  Thus the endorsement battle was between Gingrich and Perry.  Perry courted it hard and has been up in this state a lot, but his debate performances killed it.  

[anvi]

Ok, but that was a 19 point spread and not a 29 point spread as exists now.  29 points strikes me as more than an inch deep.  The Union Leader endorsement is not, by itself, going to wipe out a 30 point difference.  Hey, if I'm wrong, I'll gladly and publicly eat crow on January 10th.  But I greatly doubt it.

[justW353]

If Gingrich wins Iowa and New Hampshire (which looks like a real possibility now), I don't see how Romney can recover.

Would have been very interesting to see a Huntsman endorsement, though.  A Gingrich win in Iowa, followed by a Huntsman victory in New Hampshire would be very fun to watch.

[nhmagic]

If Gingrich wins Iowa and New Hampshire (which looks like a real possibility now), I don't see how Romney can recover.

Would have been very interesting to see a Huntsman endorsement, though.  A Gingrich win in Iowa, followed by a Huntsman victory in New Hampshire would be very fun to watch.

Huntsman wouldn't have got the endorsement though - McQuaid is a social conservative.  The paper was practically falling all over itself to goad Palin to get in the race earlier in the year - I think she tipped (at least McQuaid off) early because the stories stopped after a bit.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Ok, but that was a 19 point spread and not a 29 point spread as exists now.  29 points strikes me as more than an inch deep.  The Union Leader endorsement is not, by itself, going to wipe out a 30 point difference.  Hey, if I'm wrong, I'll gladly and publicly eat crow on January 10th.  But I greatly doubt it.

Gingrich doesn't need to win NH. If he prevails in Iowa and holds Romney to a single-digit, low-double-digit win in his adopted home state then he will become the frontrunner.

[Yank2133]

The end is near for Willard Mitt Romney.

If Newt does wins Iowa, and does well in NH, then it is all over for Mitt. He will not win SC, and Newt may have enough momentum to pull a close one out in FL.

[A-Bob]

The end is near for Willard Mitt Romney.

If Newt does wins Iowa, and does well in NH, then it is all over for Mitt. He will not win SC, and Newt may have enough momentum to pull a close one out in FL.

^

Or even worse, win FL with a comfortable margin. And if by some means he wins NH then it obviously is over right there. But I'm still skeptical. At least this may allow for him to not get blown out of the water in NH even if he's coming in second.

[anvi]

Yeah, on some level, I just can't shake my skepticism of all this.  Throughout the summer and fall, the GOP has been casting about for the "anti-Romney."  First it was Bachman, then Perry, then Cain; one by one they fell from grace as it was discovered why each were bad candidates.  This will also happen to Gingrich.  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.

[Meeker]

I agree that Gingrich is the latest anti-Romney/flash in the pan/whatever term you want to use, but at some point people are going to vote. And if he's the one holding the title at that moment...

[ucscgaldamez]

I think Gingrich is peaking at the right time. This will add momentum  to his campaign. The media also plays a role creating a narrative that a lot of voters take in. If the narrative continues to be the rising campaign of Newt and if he is able to continue to lead despite his immigration stance, then he will become the frontrunner.

Mitt is making a mistake not addressing Newt at this point. He thinks Newt will self-destruct like the rest. But Newt's campaign was supposed to be done. It is now December and if he is leading at the end of the month in Iowa, then he will likely also take South Carolina. I don't feel Mitt will win SC.

[Wonkish1]

The only realistic path to a win that I see for Newt.

-Pick up the Union Leader endorsement(the most valuable endorsement in the primaries) in New Hampshire, the editor's only positive thing he's said about any of the candidates has been directed at Newt
-Due to endorsement, jump about 15 pts in New Hampshire

From back in September.

Yeah baby I'm on fire!

[A-Bob]

Yeah, on some level, I just can't shake my skepticism of all this.  Throughout the summer and fall, the GOP has been casting about for the "anti-Romney."  First it was Bachman, then Perry, then Cain; one by one they fell from grace as it was discovered why each were bad candidates.  This will also happen to Gingrich.  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.

American voters are lazy, and still haven't even begun to look at the candidates. Even republicans are barely beginning to learn the names of the candidates. Look at McCain's opposition research on Romney, it is far worse than anything Gingrich has ever flipped on. And Newt can strive that he was bi-partisan while Obama is responsible for today's partisan politics. If the candidates drop out and endorse him as the race goes on, he'll have no trouble winning against Romney since the field won't be split of the anti-Romney. With that he can satisfy the conservative base and reach out to moderates and independents on positions like illegal immigration. He's much more articulate than Romney and does better in the debates. Romney does have a better staff and fundraising ability though. But then again, he's had some week quarters for being the anointed frontrunner, Mitt Romney, and the guy who's been running for 5 years. Gingrich has been out of power for a decade, but that doesn't mean he hasn't been active. He's sat on every commission possible in that time and managed his own Newt enterprise which was extremely successful. Voters right now are getting to know Newt again, he still is building a staff and JUST laying the groundwork for networks of volunteers and money sources yet still in the lead. He had a slow rise in the polls which suggests the committed part of his base and then added that huge bump to overtake Cain and Romney. If he can solidify those wavy voters, he'll be good. He only goes up from here. He can absolutely still collapse, but this isn't a flair like a radical crazy Bachmann or anything that just appeared so everyone flocked to her because they had no idea who she was, just NOT Romney.

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

Yeah, on some level, I just can't shake my skepticism of all this.  Throughout the summer and fall, the GOP has been casting about for the "anti-Romney."  First it was Bachman, then Perry, then Cain; one by one they fell from grace as it was discovered why each were bad candidates.  This will also happen to Gingrich.  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.

A slew of recent polls specifically show that electability is a weaker concern for primary voters than issues and also consistently show no candidate has firm support, including Romney in NH.  Voters are still making up their minds.  I also see Romney as sweating the base's hostility to him and still trying to avoid centrist positions at this point (e.g. Ohio labor issue, Mississippi personhood).  Newt, on the other hand, with more credibility to burn, has tacked to the middle more than Romney but then comes under fire and scurries to his right (e.g. Paul Ryan plan, immigration).  And one more quibble: Bachmann lost support because of Perry's entry unlike Perry and Cain, who imploded because of their own flaws.  So I think she's still in the game, particularly in Iowa, but needs to damage Newt to make room for herself.  If Romney's lucky, she'll do so just enough for him to run the table.

[Verily]

I agree that Bachmann disappeared from the race mostly due to circumstances outside of her control rather than a self-induced implosion, the way Perry and Cain disappeared (and thus neither has any hope of recovering). That said, Bachmann is probably too crazy to make a comeback, and insofar as she has distinguished herself since declining in popularity, all of that distinction has been negative.

If Gingrich were to decline, perhaps it would finally be Santorum's time. However, I continue not to understand why he lingers with support well below characters like Perry and Bachmann, so maybe there's something intangible about Santorum that makes him less palatable to the kooks than the rest of the anti-Romney crazy train.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

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

[Senator Snowstalker]

On the bright side for Mitt, he's been endorsed by pretty much every Republican politician in the state.

[CathKhan]

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

Who were the others? Kemp, Buchanan?

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

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.

[Meeker]

Nate Silver has a post up showing that, on average, the endorsee does 11 points better in the primary than their poll numbers indicated prior to being endorsed.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/newspapers-endorsement-has-been-leading-indicator-in-new-hampshire/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Well, I stand corrected