If Gingrich is the nominee, Democrats should focus 100% on the House and Senate

[Mr.Phips]

If Gingrich is the Republican nominee, there is no way he wins the general election.  That's a simple fact.  What Democrats need to do is make the most of it and shake Obama down for as much money as possible and try to win back the House and keep the Senate.  Once Obama has 270 electoral votes, he doesnt need anymore and gets into the diminishing marginal utility zone by trying to win more than that.  Republicans are not going to respect him anymore if he wins all 538 electoral votes. 

Democrats need to use this opportunity to make serious gains. 

[Jayhawker]

I don't think it's a sure thing Gingrich wouldn't win, especially if an economic collapse occurs.

[RBH]

So Democrats shouldn't try to undermine Obama so that they can win the House in 2014 any more?

[Jbrase]

Remember when it was a simple fact that the GOP would lose that house race for Wiener's seat?

I thought we have moved past making these assumptions so far out.

[Ogre Mage]

Besides his big political baggage, Gingrich has no discipline and is, quite frankly, an unlikable asshole who will have zero appeal outside of the base.  Back during his heyday he was always running off at the mouth with stupid statements which got him in trouble and his recent comments about child labor and the work habits of poor children show things haven't changed.  Eventually he will self-destruct, it is only a question of when.

[Gravis Marketing]

Besides his big political baggage, Gingrich has no discipline and is, quite frankly, an unlikable asshole who will have zero appeal outside of the base.  Back during his heyday he was always running off at the mouth with stupid statements which got him in trouble and his recent comments about child labor and the work habits of poor children show things haven't changed.  Eventually he will self-destruct, it is only a question of when.

Bingo.

It's not that Gingrich is "too conservative" to be elected, it's that he's someone most Americans wouldn't want to get within 50 feet of and is his own worst enemy. He'd need a massive anti-Obama vote to win. Possible, but pretty damn hard for him.

[Oakvale]

Besides his big political baggage, Gingrich has no discipline and is, quite frankly, an unlikable asshole who will have zero appeal outside of the base.  Back during his heyday he was always running off at the mouth with stupid statements which got him in trouble and his recent comments about child labor and the work habits of poor children show things haven't changed.  Eventually he will self-destruct, it is only a question of when.

Bingo.

It's not that Gingrich is "too conservative" to be elected, it's that he's someone most Americans wouldn't want to get within 50 feet of and is his own worst enemy. He'd need a massive anti-Obama vote to win. Possible, but pretty damn hard for him.

Absolutely. Gingrich's policy positions aren't the important thing, his biggest problem is his character/personality.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Obama would have to sink as low as Truman or Nixon at their worst points to lose to Gingrich.

Romney is overrated and doesn't guarantee a victory if nominated, but he stands a decent chance under right circumstances. Gingrich is dead in general under 90% of scenarios.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Presidential, House, and Senate elections aren't independent events. There's little doubt Newt will drag down the Republican ticket, however. Romney would at least have a neutral effect.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

The assumption of Mr.Phips that success in a presidential election detracts from success at lower levels is odd, to say the least.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

The assumption of Mr.Phips that success in a presidential election detracts from success at lower levels is odd, to say the least.

Indeed. There were elections when success in presidential election did not produce coattails, but also, there were elections with clear coattails, aiding down ballot.

[redcommander]

Absolutely. There is no way Gingrich can defeat Obama. He comes off as a complete assh*le, and will bring down every Republican running for Congress. America can say hello to Senators Heitkamp, Warren, Carmona, and Donnelly if Gingrich is the nominee, and another tenure for Pelosi as Speaker of the House. I would like to know what these purists are smoking that makes them somehow think Gingrich can win.

[Kevin]

Remember they said this "unlikeable dysfunctional damaged goods asshole" "stood no chance".



Guess the Pubbies who said that in 1992 wrong in that assumption?



Lesson learned" Assuming your candidate is going to win because the other guy is flawed" has the karma to come back and bite you in the ass.

[redcommander]

Remember they said this "unlikeable dysfunctional damaged goods asshole" "stood no chance".



Guess the Pubbies who made that assumption in 1992 wrong in that assumption?



Lesson learned" Assuming your candidate is going to win because the other guy is flawed" has the karma to come back and bite you in the ass.

Gingrich is no Clinton. Unlike Gingrich, Clinton actually had a likeable personality, and was able to articulate solutions to the economy that didn't make him seem like a radical liberal like Democrats had been accused of nominating since Carter. Gingrich talking about ending child labor laws, and how poor people are in their situation because they never had any positive role models in their lives is not going to get him elected.

[Gravis Marketing]

Remember they said this "unlikeable dysfunctional damaged goods asshole" "stood no chance".

Clinton was extremely likeable and not an asshole, and his damage in 1992 was from that year only and not from a 20+ year career in the public eye.

[Ogre Mage]

While Gingrich and Bill Clinton are similar in their womanizing and lack of self-discipline, the comparison makes little sense otherwise.  When Clinton ran in 1992, he had been a sitting governor for a decade; Gingrich has been out of office for over a decade.  Clinton did not hypocritically present himself as a socially conservative candidate.  Finally, Clinton rivaled Ronald Reagan in his people skills. There is a reason why he was considered one of the most skilled politicians of his generation.  Bill has more charisma in his pinky finger than Gingrich has in his whole body.

Watch this Presidential town hall debate question from 1992. Bush I gives a defensive, totally tone-deaf answer to the question.  Then watch Bill Clinton afterward.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffbFvKlWqE

[RBH]

So, it's not fashionable for Republicans to compare Newt to Richard Nixon and use that as a favorable thing?

[nkpatel1279]

Watching the 1992 Debate, how come when discussing the cause and solution for nations economic problems, Republicans blame lifestyle choices of low income people, ie teen pregnancy,drug use,gay marriage.

[t_host1]

Besides his big political baggage, Gingrich has no discipline and is, quite frankly, an unlikable asshole who will have zero appeal outside of the base.  Back during his heyday he was always running off at the mouth with stupid statements which got him in trouble and his recent comments about child labor and the work habits of poor children show things haven't changed.  Eventually he will self-destruct, it is only a question of when.

  Don't bet on that, keep in mind that the Obama regime has discharged working white's as being of any support for him, making the dependent workless people wanting, so to vote for him, Obama. Obama will campaign the Newt position - that poor work habits are rampant and a destructive societal fact - as being the usual GOP heartlessness, when, the conversation finally matures it will be realized that it was a Gingrich, George Patton soldier - get off your ass - moment.

 as for as a Clinton / Gingrich comparison - recapturing the house, fit these points in - Clinton said he will have a administration that looks like America. Gingrich, just made the point, it will be Americans working together that will be the look. That is, it appears he wants to have a election that will be of a coalition - house & senate - with an already established policies/platform presented in Jay-Madison-Hamilton format...
 ...it's how it could be, if, their were a press that would understand the conversation/argument and accepted the forwarded info. It would not fit the/their democrat progressive party political affiliation position.

[Former Moderate]

I know that was written in English, just not a form I'm readily capable of understanding.

[Invisible Obama]

Remember they said this "unlikeable dysfunctional damaged goods asshole" "stood no chance".



Guess the Pubbies who said that in 1992 wrong in that assumption?



Lesson learned" Assuming your candidate is going to win because the other guy is flawed" has the karma to come back and bite you in the ass.

Gingrich doesn't have that sort of crossover appeal. Lots of voters established long ago that they don't like him, Clinton didn't have that issue.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

This feels like trying to decipher Finnegans Wake.

  Don't bet on that, keep in mind that the Obama regime has discharged working white's as being of any support for him, making the dependent workless people wanting, so to vote for him, Obama.

Don't bet on that. Keep in mind that the Obama regime has concluded that working whites will not support them. Thus, Obama is attempting to keep the jobless in their state of dependence, so that they vote for him.

Obama will campaign the Newt position - that poor work habits are rampant and a destructive societal fact - as being the usual GOP heartlessness, when, the conversation finally matures it will be realized that it was a Gingrich, George Patton soldier - get off your ass - moment.

In his campaign, Obama will portray Newt's position (that poor work ethic is rampant in our society today and destructive to society) as being just as heartless as the GOP usually is. However, history will portray Gingrich in the same way as George Patton; both will be considered men who motivated others to get off their asses.

as for as a Clinton / Gingrich comparison - recapturing the house, fit these points in - Clinton said he will have a administration that looks like America. Gingrich, just made the point, it will be Americans working together that will be the look.

Comparisons have been made between 2012 and 1996, given that both times an incumbent Democrat was running for reelection after his party lost the House of Representatives two years before. Back then, Bill Clinton said that his government would reflect the composition of the American population. Newt Gingrich does not concern himself with such things; for him, what is important is that Americans work together.

That is, it appears he wants to have a election that will be of a coalition - house & senate - with an already established policies/platform presented in Jay-Madison-Hamilton format...
 ...it's how it could be, if, their were a press that would understand the conversation/argument and accepted the forwarded info. It would not fit the/their democrat progressive party political affiliation position.

Gingrich does not just want to win the presidency. He intends to see a united and coherent Republican Party elected at the same time to control the House and the Senate. The party should have clear, public policies presented in a platform structured similarly to The Federalist. This would be possible if the media were to simply accept whatever the government might tell them. Unfortunately, because the media is composed of progressives who are affiliated with the Democratic Party, it is unlikely that they would blindly accept whatever Republicans tell them.

[The Mikado]

This feels like trying to decipher Finnegans Wake.

You're approaching the sort of age at which I will be able to accept those comments coming from you.  If you'd written that post two years ago, I'd probably have written something about you being an obnoxious know-it-all kid.

[Nym90]

The idea that Gingrich can't win is false. Given where his polling is today, President Obama will lose so long as the GOP nominee comes across as reasonable and competent. There is certainly at least a decent chance of Gingrich managing to do that. I agree that he has a lot of vulnerablities that can be exploited, but the idea that he is guaranteed to implode is a dangerous line of thinking for the left in my opinion.

Of course, it's pretty obvious that Romney has a much better chance of coming across as reasonable and competent; the GOP is taking a huge risk by nominating Gingrich over Romney. The right might well argue that the risk is worth taking, but it's quite present nonetheless.

I would estimate Romney's chances of victory at about 65 percent today and Gingrich's at 35 percent if they were nominated.

I doubt that an Obama victory, even a large one over Gingrich, is likely to produce much in the prospect of Democratic gains in Congress.

I think the Senate will go whichever way the Presidential race goes. The GOP is nearly certain to gain seats; they almost certainly will net at least 3 if Obama loses, but are unlikely to get to 4 if he wins.

In the House, Dem gains are likely unless Obama loses by a lot; but it would take a pretty solid landslide to win control of the House.

I would give the GOP a 50 percent chance of taking the Senate, all told, and the Dems a 10 percent chance of winning the House.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Remember they said this "unlikeable dysfunctional damaged goods asshole" "stood no chance".



Guess the Pubbies who said that in 1992 wrong in that assumption?



Lesson learned" Assuming your candidate is going to win because the other guy is flawed" has the karma to come back and bite you in the ass.

Are you seriously comparing Clinton to Gingrich? Clinton was controversial, but never generated that much negative feelings, as Gingrich and for sure was better skilled as a candidate.