Why Gingrich is Bad (and Romney is Awesome): A Politico Megathread Spectacular

[BigSkyBob]

Aiming for 100% coverage is not what most people have against Obamacare.

Actually, providing even more expansive health care for illegal aliens would be even more of a magnet than the free emergency room care they exploit now.

Even Obama was careful enough to claim that it was a "lie" to say illegals would be included in Obamacare.

[Simfan34]

If the Republican party opposes everyone in the United States being covered by some sort of health insurance, then they are even crazier than I thought.

You didn't know this?

[Torie]

One can move towards universal coverage, with far fewer freeloaders (that pesky moral hazard thingy), in ways that are considerably different than Obamacare of course, as outlined for example, by yours truly, with a more market based and consumer price sensitive approach.  In addition, in 2005 the US was in considerably better financial shape than now. What can the US afford, and when can it afford it?  

But this should slow Newt down vis a vis hanging Mittens up on a tree over Romneycare. Mittens is going to need to get a bit more specific in outlining just how he approaches this and that differently than Newt, and why.  Hopefully, reducing the body count on stage over time, will give both guys more time for this kind of back and forth.

Also, Newt is not very well positioned to paste the flipper label on Mittens. Heck, Newt flipped on Libya within the same week, from yes do the no fly zone, to no, don't get involved at all, without any real explanation. Newt's arrogance sometimes induces him to mouth off, without adequately pondering matters. That is but one of the reasons I consider him unfit for office and would not be tempted in the slightest to vote for him under any conceivable circumstance. I far prefer the more cautious types.

In a word, this particular old  man, has just come to "know" Newt far too well over the decades. I have not forgotten much of any of it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Aiming for 100% coverage is not what most people have against Obamacare.

Actually, providing even more expansive health care for illegal aliens would be even more of a magnet than the free emergency room care they exploit now.

Even Obama was careful enough to claim that it was a "lie" to say illegals would be included in Obamacare.

Obamacare doesn't aim for 100% coverage. The mandate exempts people whose insurance would be too expensive. There will still be hard working people who want health care and won't have it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Gee, man, Romney internet campaign workers are so dull.

[Politico]

Does anybody happen to have a gender breakdown of the voting share by state, and the 2008 exit polls for those states with regards to gender voting patterns (at least the states Obama won and Missouri)?

[sg0508]

I don't see Gingrich winning the key states. He'll get absolutely destroyed in suburban Philly, DC and South Florida..maybe even worse than McCain in 2008

I'm telling you right now.  Gingrich will lose the suburban vote in America by at least 3:1.  Romney can possibly split it.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

I don't see Gingrich winning the key states. He'll get absolutely destroyed in suburban Philly, DC and South Florida..maybe even worse than McCain in 2008

Yes we know that no Republican could possibly win the election and yet lose the District of Columbia.

More seriously, I presume you meant NoVA rather than DC itself.  Yes, Virginia and Pennsylvania look to be swing states, but Florida shouldn't be.  If Florida is seriously in play, it looks to be an excellent night for Obama unless Florida swings considerably less Republican than the country as whole.

Or he was talking about the suburbs of D.C. in Virginia, a state that is nearly a must win for the .

[Politico]

Politico, you're a good man -- and I like you.  And you have been loyal to the jmfcsts for years.  I know you have doubts about Newt -- but you need to trust the jmfcsts on this one and show your loyalty by not stepping on the Newt.  Instead, I want you to be fair with Newt and end your relationship with Romney.  I have business that's important with POTUS-Elect Newt -- I don't want it disturbed.

...Look at it this way, Newt simply wants to be a "great man", not a newt...so we're going to give him a chance to be a man, by being, once again, our bitch.

Sir, yes, sir! I hope you can forgive the insubordination. It's just that I have it on good authority that the jmfcsts can trust Romney but cannot trust Gingrich. Gingrich is uncontrollable once he gets that nomination. Romney is your bitch if he gets that nomination.

[Simfan34]

Let me propose an alternative, and you all know what it is, and the two of you can agree on it.

But seriously, what he said isn't so bad, and Romney can't say anything about it, anyway.

[© tweed]

...Look at it this way, Newt simply wants to be a "great man", not a newt...so we're going to give him a chance to be a man, by being, once again, our bitch.

you've actually bought into the whole line of sh**t.  that you have political power.  capital has political power and it has taken Christ along for the ride.  you're a pawn.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see Gingrich winning the key states. He'll get absolutely destroyed in suburban Philly, DC and South Florida..maybe even worse than McCain in 2008

Yes we know that no Republican could possibly win the election and yet lose the District of Columbia.

More seriously, I presume you meant NoVA rather than DC itself.  Yes, Virginia and Pennsylvania look to be swing states, but Florida shouldn't be.  If Florida is seriously in play, it looks to be an excellent night for Obama unless Florida swings considerably less Republican than the country as whole.

Or he was talking about the suburbs of D.C. in Virginia, a state that is nearly a must win for the .

Which I acknowledged in my reply.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

I don't see Gingrich winning the key states. He'll get absolutely destroyed in suburban Philly, DC and South Florida..maybe even worse than McCain in 2008

Yes we know that no Republican could possibly win the election and yet lose the District of Columbia.

More seriously, I presume you meant NoVA rather than DC itself.  Yes, Virginia and Pennsylvania look to be swing states, but Florida shouldn't be.  If Florida is seriously in play, it looks to be an excellent night for Obama unless Florida swings considerably less Republican than the country as whole.

Or he was talking about the suburbs of D.C. in Virginia, a state that is nearly a must win for the .

Which I acknowledged in my reply.

But you still felt the need to take a shot at him, so I used it against you.

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

...Look at it this way, Newt simply wants to be a "great man", not a newt...so we're going to give him a chance to be a man, by being, once again, our bitch.

you've actually bought into the whole line of sh**t.  that you have political power.  capital has political power and it has taken Christ along for the ride.  you're a pawn.

What exactly are you trying to convince me of?  That Romney's, who has all the establishment support and capital, getting killed is a sign capital has more political power than the jmfcsts?

[Simfan34]

...Look at it this way, Newt simply wants to be a "great man", not a newt...so we're going to give him a chance to be a man, by being, once again, our bitch.

you've actually bought into the whole line of sh**t.  that you have political power.  capital has political power and it has taken Christ along for the ride.  you're a pawn.

What exactly are you trying to convince me of?  That Romney, who has all the establishment support and capital, is getting killed is a sign capital has more political power than the jmfcsts?

Gingrich is a political player, jmfcst. He plays the people, not the other way around. Last time, he kept his play up for five years... can he do it again?

[© tweed]

...Look at it this way, Newt simply wants to be a "great man", not a newt...so we're going to give him a chance to be a man, by being, once again, our bitch.

you've actually bought into the whole line of sh**t.  that you have political power.  capital has political power and it has taken Christ along for the ride.  you're a pawn.

What exactly are you trying to convince me of?  That Romney's, who has all the establishment support and capital, getting killed is a sign capital has more political power than the jmfcsts?

I'm trying to convince you to renounce Christ and become a Marxist-Leninist, obviously.  as for the rest of that, let us wait and see.  McCain was able to be nominated without the support of capital but eventually fell to the preferred Obama; many rounds are to be fought.

[Politico]

How do you win the presidency without being competitive among women voters (53% of the electorate last time)? Let's hear how it is possible. I am, of course, looking at supporters of a certain GOP candidate with John Edwards-style sexual behavior...

[Dereich]

I thought you were done with the anti-Gingrich threads? And the answer would have to be the popular vote winner over-preforming in uncompetitive states while under-performing in swing states.   

[Politico]

I thought you were done with the anti-Gingrich threads?

I am. This is an objective question that needs to be adequately answered if one is interested in beating Obama next year.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Women were 53% of the electorate in Florida/Iowa/Indiana, 52% in Ohio/Nevada/New Mexico/New Hampshire and 54% in Pennsylvania/North Carolina/Virginia/Missouri. The 50% in Colorado bodes well, of course, but it still begs the question: How in God's name can a candidate with a more sordid sexual history than John Edwards manage to win in these states?

[Dereich]

I thought you were done with the anti-Gingrich threads?

I am. This is an objective question that needs to be adequately answered if one is interested in beating Obama next year.

What? When you first made this thread, you even included Gingrich's name. Besides, its not this forum you need to tell this to, pretty much all the red and green avatars here agree with you. Probably more then half of the blues too.

[RI]

In a two-way race, you win 55% of the male vote for a majority (assuming female vote at 46%), but you might be able to get by with 53%-54% of the male vote depending on the exact support of third party candidates. That's how.

[Napoleon]

Are you talking about Herman Cain or The Frothy One? Oh, I get it, you're attacking Rick Perry for cheating on his wife with men right?

[Politico]

In a two-way race, you win 55% of the male vote for a majority (assuming female vote at 46%), but you might be able to get by with 53%-54% of the male vote depending on the exact support of third party candidates. That's how.

Theoretically, yes. In practice, Bush managed 55% of the male vote in 2004, and still needed 48% of the female vote to barely win (60,000 vote swing in Ohio and Kerry wins the election). In fact, Bush is the only person in recent history to win the presidency without winning the female vote (and nobody needs a reminder on how close both elections were).

[RI]

Females also represented 54% of the electorate in 2004. That changes the numbers from what you asked.

[Politico]

Females also represented 54% of the electorate in 2004. That changes the numbers from what you asked.

We have to consider that all of the polls have a margin of error. The last few election cycles it has been anywhere between 52-54%, so I picked 53% in the original post as it is the average/median.

In any case, how does a candidate with a history of behaving like John Edwards win over 46% of females even? I see those numbers being below 45% but above 40%. I do not see how he gets his numbers up to 46%, let alone 47%, so I do not see how he beats Obama.