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

[Jayhawker]

More and more bits and pieces are surfacing about Gingrich's past, and he'll probably keep apologizing and saying he's made mistakes. So if Barack Obama stood up tomorrow and said "You know what, I've made some mistakes during my Presidency, and I'm sorry for those. Will you please support my Presidential candidate?" Under Newt's logic, everyone should just forgive him and give him another term.

[Jayhawker]

An excellent article about Gingrich:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2011/1214/Gingrich-s-tax-plan-takes-him-from-irresponsible-to-reckless

Cain 2.0

[RogueBeaver]

An excellent article about Gingrich:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2011/1214/Gingrich-s-tax-plan-takes-him-from-irresponsible-to-reckless

Cain 2.0

You're using Robert Reich? In a GOP primary? IMO the most devastating critique of Gingrich is from David Brooks essentially saying Gingrich is even to his left.

[greenforest32]

Pivotal endorsement for Newt: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/carl-paladino-for-newt-107795.html

[redcommander]

Pivotal endorsement for Newt: http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/carl-paladino-for-newt-107795.html

My reaction

[Jayhawker]

We all were saying a week or two ago when Newt shot up that it wasn't over, that Romney was still going to win, and by the way things are starting to look, I think we're going to be right.

[True Federalist]

We all were saying a week or two ago when Newt shot up that it wasn't over, that Romney was still going to win, and by the way things are starting to look, I think we're going to be right.

If so, then Obama likely gets a second term.

I will grant that Romney as the nominee should secure the GOP taking control of the Senate and retaining the House, but unless something unexpected happens, I don't see where Mitt can overtake Obama.

[Torie]

I don't see where Mitt can overtake Obama.

Have you seen an optometrist lately? 

[The Mikado]

Yeah, Romney as nominee pretty much guarantees a highly competitive general.

[Jayhawker]

I'm not going to sit here and say Romney's going to be the next President - Obama has at least a 45% against him right now. But Romney is the only GOP candidate who would have a competitive race against Obama if the economy is roughly the same. Just like any other candidate, he'd probably lose if we had an economic boom (though not as badly). However, if the economy gets worse, Romney would have a pretty solid chance of winning the White House. If economic conditions decline with any other GOP candidate, this race goes from lean-Obama to toss-up.

[True Federalist]

I don't see where Mitt can overtake Obama.

Have you seen an optometrist lately? 

Have you taken a good look at the polls?  Based on current polling, Obama has a solid win in the electoral college versus Romney.  Mitt is not a good enough campaigner to change those numbers on his own, and frankly the Republican "optimism" that if the economy goes in the toilet so does Obama's chances of reelection strikes me as wildly optimistic.  In order for the economy to feel significantly worse than it does now will require a European collapse or some other comparable external shock. If you think a multi-millionaire ex-CEO of a private equity firm with a reputation of getting its acquisitions to be profitable by laying-off employees is the ideal candidate for the Republicans to field in such a situation, then I think you are quite mistaken.

If Romney does become the nominee, I expect the general election against Obama to much more resemble his 1994 loss to Kennedy than his 2002 plurality victory over O'Brien.  O'Brien was hobbled by having to exhaust her early fundraising to win the primary, so she was unable to respond to Romney's attack ads as effectively as she wanted.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

I'm not going to sit here and say Romney's going to be the next President - Obama has at least a 45% against him right now. But Romney is the only GOP candidate who would have a competitive race against Obama if the economy is roughly the same. Just like any other candidate, he'd probably lose if we had an economic boom (though not as badly). However, if the economy gets worse, Romney would have a pretty solid chance of winning the White House. If economic conditions decline with any other GOP candidate, this race goes from lean-Obama to toss-up.

If Mitt Romney is the GOP's only real hope in 2012, then, for the first time, I'm really sorry for this party.

[Torie]

OK Ernest, no problem. I evaluate the candidates, and how they will perform against Obama, not so much on current polls, but how I think they will hold up, and what the defection rate will be, and so forth. Romney imo is an even money bet against Obama, maybe a tad better, unless the economy materially improves. Other than Huntsman, I don't think that of the other candidates. I think they are all losers. Granted I would not myself vote for any of them over Obama (the other candidates), but that is just me.

[Jayhawker]

Romney has lead or tied Obama in Ohio, led in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Maine and Connecticut are somewhat close with Romney as the nominee, and NJ and IA aren't out of reach.

I'm not trying to say Romney will be headed into the general election with an advantage, but I certainly don't Obama has a "solid win in the electoral college". Maybe against Gingrich, but not Romney.

[Torie]

Romney has lead or tied Obama in Ohio, led in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Maine and Connecticut are somewhat close with Romney as the nominee, and NJ and IA aren't out of reach.

I'm not trying to say Romney will be headed into the general election with an advantage, but I certainly don't Obama has a "solid win in the electoral college". Maybe against Gingrich, but not Romney.

The other bit, which has a lot of truth, is that undecideds tend not to vote for the incumbent. They just want to be reassured that the alternative is not a risky scheme. Fox was hawking a poll last night, or the night before, that 53% don't think Obama should be re-elected, about a 10 point deficit after factoring in the undecideds. Whatever Mittens is, it will be very hard to paint him as a risky scheme. As to Newt, well the answer is obvious.

The polls that really matter will be the ones after we have a nominee, and the post convention bounce fades.

[Politico]

There is not another person capable of running for president who is as squeaky clean as Mitt Romney. You want to talk about a good guy with a clean background, he's your man. If Obama has to use serious resources on Pennsylvania and Michigan in October, a distinct possibility against Romney, Obama is Jimmy Carter 1980 at worst and Al Gore 2000 at best. It will be a one term proposition for the president.

Everybody thinks the EC is going to keep looking a lot like it did from 2000-2008. All bets are truly off. This is a different America that is really fed up with the way things are going. I see massive backlash next year against Obama. People like the guy, I still do, but somebody needs to take the blame for things not improving, and fair or not it's going to be him. I have said it before, and I'll say it again: Romney could blow this thing right wide open. I am not saying it is going to happen, but do not be THAT shocked if Romney wins the most EVs since George H.W. Bush in 1988. That is all I am saying.

[True Federalist]

If Obama has to use serious resources on Pennsylvania and Michigan in October, a distinct possibility against Romney, Obama is Jimmy Carter 1980 at worst and Al Gore 2000 at best. It will be a one term proposition for the president.

The only evidence so far  that Obama is in serious trouble in Michigan are a pair of very questionable EPIC/MRA polls.  Obama might have a problem there if the economy goes into another mild stall, but I don't see that happening.

[Jayhawker]

If Obama has to use serious resources on Pennsylvania and Michigan in October, a distinct possibility against Romney, Obama is Jimmy Carter 1980 at worst and Al Gore 2000 at best. It will be a one term proposition for the president.

The only evidence so far  that Obama is in serious trouble in Michigan are a pair of very questionable EPIC/MRA polls.  Obama might have a problem there if the economy goes into another mild stall, but I don't see that happening.

Two other polls by two different firms had Obama leading Romney by 3 and 1 points, respectively. Certainly not good news for Obama, considering he easily won the state in 2008.

[Politico]

I do not know what is going to happen in Iowa, but I am pretty sure that Newt Gingrich is not going to win there. It could go to Romney, Paul or maybe even Santorum based on current polling trends. Based upon everything I have seen, I am quite certain that New Hampshire and Nevada are locked-up for Romney regardless of what happens in Iowa and South Carolina.

If Romney wins Iowa, even by the slimmest of margins, it is really hard to see him not steamrolling to victories in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, etc., and basically ending this race much earlier than most expected. Iowa has always been a reach for Romney, but maybe it will happen.

Here is the big question: If Paul or Santorum wins Iowa, what kind of momentum boost will they get in New Hampshire and how will that boost there translate to South Carolina? It is really hard to see Gingrich winning South Carolina if he comes in third or fourth place in Iowa and New Hampshire, but who knows? And, let's face it, it is really hard to see Paul or Santorum winning the nomination. It also seems abundantly clear that Perry and Bachmann are write-offs.

My guess, and I've held this all along: All of this is a matter of when, not if, Romney will become the nominee...

[RogueBeaver]

Paul has a hard ceiling and can't go beyond Iowa. Remember GOP nominees Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan? As for Santorum, like the Huckster, he doesn't have the resources to go beyond Iowa and he knows it, whatever he might say on the trail.

[Jayhawker]

Amen. Even in early December when many were writing Romney off, I remained firm. The only time I ever even came close to doubting a Romney nomination was when it was rumored Christie would run. Even though I figured he wouldn't, the small chance that he did would have probably ended Romney's hopes.

Barring a major scandal (unlikely), I don't see any real possibility for Romney to win Iowa and lose the nomination. He's downplayed it so much that winning there as well as a big win in New Hampshire will likely lead to a 50-state sweep.

If Paul or Santorum wins, it benefits Romney. Anyone but Gingirch winning in Iowa actually benefits Romney, and considering Gingrich's chances in Iowa are very low, there's about a 99% chance Romney will be happy after January 3rd. Santorum would probably be the best of the two, as he has virtually no chance in New Hampshire, and him winning would turn South Carolina into a battleground with Gingrich, Santorum, and Perry all splitting the conservative vote. That'd probably be enough, considering the momentum he'd have after New Hampshire and his string of endorsements, for Romney to squeeze through. And once he had those three, he'd likely easily win in Florida as well.

Now, Paul winning Iowa would be interesting. Probably the most important thing for Romney then would be how Gingrich places - a 5th or 6th would dampen the Gingrich campaign even more. I believe that once anti-Gingrich ads start hitting the airwaves in SC and FL, his lead there is going to evaporate. Paul winning Iowa would likely turn this into a three-person race, though considering his cash, Perry will probably make a strong play for South Carolina as his last stand. Paul winning Iowa could also help Romney, as many would be worried of a potential Paul nomination, and unite behind the person best suited to beat him.

Caucus night is going to be big, but I don't think it'll be nearly as nerve-wracking for Romney supporters this time as it was 4 years ago, when we absolutely needed either a win or a close second there.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

Anyone but Gingirch winning in Iowa actually benefits Romney,

Disagree - then again, I've always doubted the potency of the Gingrich campaign. Romney would probably prefer that Paul or Bachmann takes the caucuses, but Santorum or Perry winning Iowa could make the campaign more difficult for Romney than a Gingrich victory would have.

[Jayhawker]

Anyone but Gingirch winning in Iowa actually benefits Romney,

Disagree - then again, I've always doubted the potency of the Gingrich campaign. Romney would probably prefer that Paul or Bachmann takes the caucuses, but Santorum or Perry winning Iowa could make the campaign more difficult for Romney than a Gingrich victory would have.

Are you sure about that? Santorum or Perry winning would give the momentum to make it a race in South Carolina, where they would likely draw most of their support from Gingrich, turning what is currently a two man race there into a three person race. Gingrich winning Iowa would solidify his position as a frontrunner and make it essentially a two-person race in South Carolina and Florida. While Romney still would have a shot, I think it'd be hard for him to win either against only Gingrich. Meh.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

Are you sure about that? Santorum or Perry winning would give the momentum to make it a race in South Carolina, where they would likely draw most of their support from Gingrich, turning what is currently a two man race there into a three person race. Gingrich winning Iowa would solidify his position as a frontrunner and make it essentially a two-person race in South Carolina and Florida. While Romney still would have a shot, I think it'd be hard for him to win either against only Gingrich. Meh.

I didn't realize that we weren't working under the shared assumption that after Iowa, Gingrich will be a non-factor. He's squandered his chance at victory there and at this point he'll be lucky if he finishes fifth.

Gingrich doesn't have the money, the organization, the party support, or the endurance to withstand a poor performance in Iowa. If no one else breaks out, he may continue to draw double-digit support in the early Southern contests, but  I can't imagine his presence being much of an obstacle to a surging Santorum or Perry.

[Yelnoc]

Are you sure about that? Santorum or Perry winning would give the momentum to make it a race in South Carolina, where they would likely draw most of their support from Gingrich, turning what is currently a two man race there into a three person race. Gingrich winning Iowa would solidify his position as a frontrunner and make it essentially a two-person race in South Carolina and Florida. While Romney still would have a shot, I think it'd be hard for him to win either against only Gingrich. Meh.

I didn't realize that we weren't working under the shared assumption that after Iowa, Gingrich will be a non-factor. He's squandered his chance at victory there and at this point he'll be lucky if he finishes fifth.

Gingrich doesn't have the money, the organization, the party support, or the endurance to withstand a poor performance in Iowa. If no one else breaks out, he may continue to draw double-digit support in the early Southern contests, but  I can't imagine his presence being much of an obstacle to a surging Santorum or Perry.

He could be enough to split the conservative vote in South Carolina like Thompson did to Huckabee last cycle, allowing McCain to win.