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

[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.

[Torie]

Newt's idea to legalize the residency of a host of illegals, but not make it legal for them to earn a living with a green card strikes me as right up there in the nutter category. But yes, there is just so much to choose from.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you seen an optometrist lately? 

[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.

[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.