Feel the Newtmentum: up by 15 in Iowa, 23 in South Carolina, and only down 4 in New Hampshire.
Who knows if these numbers will hold up, but the voting isn’t that far off, and if they do hold up, Newt has a real chance at being the nominee.
How great would that be? After the brilliant parade of Burkean wise men and heartland himbos that Bobo and Joe Scar have been masturbating to for the last year, they’d be stuck cheering for unfrozen caveman Congressman, a thrice-married snake-oil salesman whom the non-Republican population despises.
Please, please, please.
Actually, it would be okay to have Newt, the Inflated Amphibian.
It would be an excellent contrast of the old way [that got us into this mess] and the new [that’s trying to get us out of the muck and mire].
He’s also a historian, and historians are Very Serious People. I think Brooks and crew will be able to adjust.
You know the really salient sad part of this threads opening statement? That wise Village Elders spank their stuff to these cretins. And it’s plainly obvious they do.
When fellow Village Elders are no longer in a position to bestow Village Elderhood on others, only then will the MSM start recovering from it’s addiction to these unholy assholes.
I’m all for a Newt nomination, just so the nation can be treated to lots of pix of NewtWife v3.0, the Callista 9000.
Villago Delenda Est
FSM doesn’t love us that much. Newt will do something to fuck it up over the next month.
The NotRomney poltergeist carries, always, the seeds of the destruction of the current host with it.
@Linda Featheringill: I’m sure by the time the election rolls around BoBo’s narrative will be that Newt is a proven man of ideas.
Is it bad luck to reveal my Christmas wish? A Gingrich/Cain ticket
mittens should simply shave his head and become a sanyasin (look it up) and quit the whole shite. All that fucking campign for years hasn’t moved a single shite in his favor is reason enough.
As I will not tire of saying…Mitt Romney will NEVER get the Republican nomination for president.
Romney is a Mormon, and to the fundamentalist Christial evangelical base of the Republican party, Mormonism is a satanic cult. The base of the Republican party would sooner vote for the rotting corpse of Mao Tse-Tung than for Mitt Romney.
Members of the Balloon Juice commentariat just don’t seem to understand this. You know why? I’ll tell you why: because you’re progressives, and therefore you think rationally and use logic and facts. The evangelical fundamentalist Christian base of the Republican party has no use for logic and regards facts as pointless annoyances. The evangelical fundamentalist Christian base of the Republican party truly honestly believes that in another year or perhaps four or five, the seas will turn to blood and the earth will open up and the dead will rise from Megiddo and the Last Days will be upon us and Jesus Christ will return to earth.
Those kind of people are completely 100% impervious to evidence and logic, and as a result it doesn’t matter jack diddly whether Mitt Romney might actually beat Barack Obama in a general election according to the latest polls: that’s just evidence, and evidence doesn’t mean shit. All that matters to the evangelical fundies who form the base of the Republican party is ZOMG MORMONISM IS A SATANIC CULT DIE, ROMNEY, DIE DIE DIE DIE!
Do not make the mistake of thinking about the Republican presidential primaries from a rational evidence-based standpoint. It will lead you astray.
This is some seriously funny shit, Doug. Water–>keyboard funny.
@Satanicpanic: watching fundamentalist Republicans defending a serial adulterer and a serial sexual harasser would certainly be worth putting up with election silly season.
@mclaren: You’re forgetting the IOKIYAR rule. They will get over the Mormon thing, if it ends up being Romney. Mormon vs. Black Muslim Soshulist dictator, that’s not even a close call.
Paul in KY
@r€nato: Yes, the Callista 9000 will really match up well against the Michelle & her adorable kids.
Edit: Working men & women will love to hear about Newt’s special account at Tiffanys. I think I need a cigarette…
Cannot decide which is better: the post, the title, the nicknames, or the snark. Knob’s turned all the way to 11 on ALL of them.
The Republic of Stupidity
Seen this yet?
I know… I know… off topic…
I’m giving Newt a longing look.
Really, I won’t allow myself to get my hopes up.
Special Patrol Group
Newt’s on a faux Presidential run book tour. He’s not really running for Prez. I reckon he could still back into the nomination, but it doesn’t seem as though he really wants it. Unlike Mitt. Who wants it soooooo bad.
What the hell is a man of ideas supposed to mean? I mean everyone has ideas, what makes Newt different? If he becomes the nominee, can you imagine the contrast between smiling, lean good looking Obama next to a pudgy, scowling Newt? And the difference between their wives couldn’t be starker. The party of family values indeed.
Paul in KY
@mclaren: Who will they get then? Newt? Perry? Cain? ZombieReagan?
@Paul in KY: according to sufferers of OBD, Michelle is an ugly dog while Laura Bush was teh hawt.
I’ve yet to hear any vicious comments about Sasha and Malia from prominent righties, but it’s early in the campaign.
The beauty of this is that he will run on classic republican ideas. It’ll be glorious.
@mclaren: Some evidence of this: One of my best mate’s parents are the sweetest Lake Woebegonest folks from northern MN. His dad still has traces of his father’s Norwegian accent. Solid, commonsensical farm stock. And they believe in this Mordor scenario. They think it’s coming. Craziness.
@Special Patrol Group: I agree that he’s not really running for prez, but that doesn’t mean he can’t win the nomination. Newt probably knows better than anyone that he can’t beat Obama, but losing to him will probably get that sputtering gravy train up and running on all cylinders in a way losing to Mitt wouldn’t, so that’s hopefully enough incentive for him to win the nomination.
Fer realz? Sheeyit. WTF is this, a day ending in y?
David in NY
Any data on this?
Also, Newt scares me. If this blog had been around in 1968, it would have been saying the same things about Richard Nixon it’s saying about Newt. And I remember what happened then.
The Callista 9000 has much of the same circuitry as the v 2.0 McCindy model.
An Elvis Costello post title and a REO Speedwagon tag???
Tell me I’m not seeing this, blasphemer.
He is that now, and has been for many years. The only problem is that all of the ideas are stupid.
Looks like I need to change my “Democrats for Herman Cain” bumper stickers to “Democrats for Newt Gingrich.”
@David in NY: Newt’s a serious candidate who understands history. The last time we had a balanced budget, he was leader.
Let the media fawning begin. I agree with you, he’s a dangerous man. The NYTimes has two articles on Gingrich and both are interesting. Link
I don’t want the linky things to throw me in moderation but the second article is on economix blog written by Bartlett.
Bumpy ride ahead, folks. Willard is probably on the phone to Karl Rove right now, and we can expect all sorts of …inconvenient facts about Newton Gingrich to mysteriously appear in outlets like the Post which serve as the journalistic equivalent of a thief’s fence.
Newt is getting dangerously close to recreating the scene at the end of “The Candidate” where the main character is reminded that winning was never part of the plan.
(My apologies to fans of the film and/or Robert Redford.)
@JPL: In the comments to that Times article, the first commenter won the thread, hands down:
To channel my inner TBogg: The Deity-of-your-choice Cannot Love Me This Much.
Or, to go all Audrey Hepburn on you, “Oh, wouldn’t that be loverly!”
Run Newt, Run.
EC day at B-J? More so than usual, that is.
Well, I’m sure Joe Scar and Bobo are giving Newt a long hard look. And I won’t be surprised when they post a fresh new, revisionist, appreciation of the guy.
@dmsilev: I found the Bartlett article terrifying. Newt is an ego-maniac who would not listen to his advisers.. link
Whether or not Newt actually wants to win is beside the point IMO. For Newt, it’s win-win. If he gets the nomination, he automatically collects tens of millions in donations and becomes the darling of the right for 8-9 months. That’s gotta be great for Newt, Inc.’s bottom line, even if he loses. In fact, if he loses he gets to do whatever he wants with his piles of cash. And if by some miracle he wins, well great! Now he’s president.
Noot is despised by a wide range of people, not just non-Republicans. Go chat with Dick Armey about Noot, if you want to see someone spit.
The Bearded Blogger
@daveNYC: Right now they are thinking of a way to make him seem sexy (see: Velva, Aqua, 2008)
@nevsky42: I think his biggest motivation is just the chance to be on TV a lot, and talk a lot and whatnot.
@dmsilev: Yeah, but his peccadilloes are well known to the base… maybe, hopefully, they won’t care.
What would be sweeter:
A guy can hope
David in NY
@JPL: Interesting, the Times article, which I think engages in both respect and mockery of Newt. Anyway, Newt styles himself in just the way I would:
Newt, of course, thinks DeGaulle. I think Nixon.
Culture of Truth
Newt is the perfect nominee, in that he combines the charm of Mitt Romeny, the ethics of Herman Cain, the personal appeal of Rick Santorum, and the intellectual rigor of Michelle Bachmann with the electability of Ron Paul.
OT, but holy crap. Your printer could be used for all sorts of hacks.
The Bearded Blogger
@MattF: So is Mittens…
@The Bearded Blogger: The male village punditubbies have no idea what women consider attractive. In the last election cycle Fred Thompson was supposed to be the hawt according to them.
If I had to bet a ten-spot on NH’s results right now, I’d go for Newt. If Romney’s firewall in FL fails, he probably doesn’t survive that.
Like David in NY up above, I wouldn’t start braying just yet. Newt has had two decades to style himself into the Avatar of Elder White Rage: He’s gotten pretty good at it. Should Newt get the nomination, the media fawning will begin right on schedule.
(And BTW, Republicans… when I keep saying that “I really just want the 1990s back”… Newt Fecking Gingrich was not what I had in mind, OK!?)
The Bearded Blogger
@schrodinger’s cat: Next year, the double chin is in!
Also, expect the phrase “allure of the intellectual”…
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@MattF: Didn’t Linsdey Graham charge the podium (not a euphemism) at some House GOP caucus meeting back when Newt had hung the right wing out to dry over the gov’t shutdown back in the nineties?
@David in NY: “Also, Newt scares me. If this blog had been around in 1968, it would have been saying the same things about Richard Nixon it’s saying about Newt. And I remember what happened then.”
The most popular democratic candidate was killed and the democratic nominee was somewhat sabotaged by LBJ. Some of that might not happen again.
Sirhan Sirhan is asking for release, and claiming conspiracy theories.
@mistermix: Bobo is going to fawn over whoever the Republicans pick.
David in NY
@dmsilev: The first commenter in the thread my have been the most entertaining, but the second provided the best preview of what we’ll soon be hearing from his campaign (which probably planted the comment):
Newt running on Clinton’s achievements (why haven’t Democrats ever thought of this, by the way?). It’s only the beginning.
im feeling Cain is gunna drop out.
As today has apparently been declared “Elvis Costello Appreciation Day” by BJ front-pagers, permit me to nominate “Let Him Dangle” as the most apposite title for the Gingrich campaign. Newt will be swinging from the political gallows presently, just like all the other preceding non-Mitt GOP dreamboats.
Mr. Costello’s eternal masterpiece, “Tramp the Dirt Down” should be invoked as the anthem for the ignominious raft of malefactors and charlatans that have comprised the leadership of the GOP since 1980.
(IMHO, that song is the most potent, most incisive, most moving protest song of the past several decades.)
@schrodinger’s cat: Wasn’t that just Chris Matthews, though? Aqua Velva scent and all that. That man has issues. Hell, he has editions.
It’s always helpful to remember that “Red Amurka” need never be uniform.
@David in NY: It might be more devastating to him to portray these things as stuff he and Bill Clinton did together.
David in NY
And Obama, of course, has clear sailing, except for that little matter, um…, the worst economy in well more than half a century.
Look, I’m just saying Newt is a guy whom mockery alone will not stop. I would seriously be interested in the truth of Doug J’s notion that non-Republicans despise him. Of course, that could change in an instant, too.
@David in NY:
I agree. Newt scares me too. Yes, he has electability problems from a rational perspective, but he strikes me as the kind of guy who the Republican base can rally around. And he may be able to peel off enough “independent” voters to send us all spiraling in to 4 years of hell. He has experience in Washington, and understands the game. He can tell the crazy ass tea baggers that he knows how to stand up to “Socialist Democrats” in DC – after all he led a “revolution” against Clinton. Plus he has the advantage of not being Romney, which seems to be couting for a whole lot on the right these days.
In the end, I think his weak spot may be the fact that his record in Congress shows that he actually compromised with Democrats to get things done. Compromise seems to be the worst sin of all among Repubs these days.
Still – he scares me more than Ronmey or the rest of the clowns.
David in NY
@El Cid: Well, I suppose there’s no harm in looking on the bright side. But still …
this is for Spock.
@robinenergy Embassy storming sends oil price up $2 per barrel, gaining Iran extra ~$5 million per day
wat i say?
@Villago Delenda Est:
This. We should be so lucky. Newt Gingrich is categorically unelectable at a national level. Having him as the Republican nominee would be manna from heaven.
Now, every time me or someone else says something like that, we get at least one person who points to George Bush and claims that his (s)election means we shouldn’t wish for Newt as a nominee because he might actually win. This is not a good analogy for a variety of reasons.
The most important one, really, is likability. One thing you heard a lot about Bush was that he was “the guy you want to have a beer with”. It didn’t matter that he lied constantly, his numbers didn’t add up, and he his record was abysmal–he was an affable goof, an “everyman” to whom so-called independents could relate. The people who vote based on shallow, superficial crap like that were taken in by him, and it was nearly impossible to fight–because the very people susceptible to that facade are the least likely to respond to a fact-based argument.
Newt is fundamentally unlikable. He has an openly nasty streak that he’s incapable of suppressing, and all the charm and charisma of a used car salesman with leprosy. The more people are exposed to him, the less they like him on a visceral level. Unlike Bush, Newt repulses superficial “personality” voters. The shallowness that defines their voting patterns works directly against him.
@David in NY: I also consider that ‘non-Republicans hate Newt’ is a known fact. Maybe I am
too optimistic in that regard. I also ‘know’ that when Newt has campaigned in the past, the more he campaigns, the less popular he becomes with actual voters.
David in NY
Richard Nixon was the least likable person I have even known. He and Newt strike me as being similar (big thinkers, both, though Nixon probably actually knew more stuff). Let us hope the resemblance does not extend to a victory over a Democratic party, weakened by circumstances, in a Presidential election.
Serious question: If we have a total meltdown in Europe that drags us to, say, 15 to 18% U3 unemployment next year, who wins–Newt or Obama?
I acknowledge we’d need a calamity of that order to make Newt viable. But who can say we won’t have it?
I don’t know… “Keep the gubbermunt outta mah Medicare” seems pretty uniform to me.
I’d be nervous about Gingrich if I thought he wanted to win.
Right now, I’m convinced that if, somehow, he was close to victory in the general, he’d intentionally tank it.
The Bearded Blogger
@EconWatcher: In a calamity like that, Obama could only win by going populist, going against the banksters. Sad to say, fat fucking chance though…
@Culture of Truth: FTW!
I think the difference between Newt and the other book-tour candidates is that Newt really believes (and has always believed) that he ought to be president. He may not have thought his chances were good enough when he entered the race to do more than promote his brand (which is why he spent time doing that instead of campaigning), but now that they’re looking good, he’s definitely in the mindset of “I’m destined to be president,” not “if I happen to win, great!”
According to news reports, since becoming the new NotMitt, he has actually been setting up a campaign staff, so I don’t think the old “he’s not really running for president” applies any more.
If Newt wins the nomination, expect Clinton to campaign aggressively. That will be fun to watch.
I’d love to have a bug on Rove’s phone today. Good Times.
Maybe they will promise him State him he slowly creeps away.
Newt cannot control his mouth. He has never been able to control his mouth. The vanity is off the charts, and the dude simply must let the world know how brilliant his maelstrom of ideas are, unvarnished, raw, even if they are different than the idea he was preaching 5 minutes ago. The past will not sink Newt, it will be the present that turns that worm. That, and his sadistic streak wide as the Mississippi.
The GOP has lost its mind. There need be no explanation beyond that observation. All the viable wingnut wannabe presnits, know this, and wouldn’t touch this election as a candidate with a ten foot pole.
And Newt is not so much a politician/candidate, as he is a one man corporation, selling a single product. His self. I deeply doubt he will win over many independents with such a style, and his whoring of all sorts will not excite the evangelicals to leave the waiting room for the next life, and go vote.
There are enough skeletons in the Gingrich closet to fill a cemetery from hell. If he gets the nod, grab some popcorn, and get ready for permanent Night of the Living Dead.
Paul in KY
@r€nato: Typical from them. Michelle is lovely. Laura was pleasant in appearance, but that was about it (my opinion).
As far as what they’ve done with their time in office, not even close.
That’s the most dangerous scenario, but I still think it’s a toss-up. All of the “no president has won reelection with unemployment at…” ‘rules’ are BS (small sample size, cherry-picked to exclude FDR, etc.); they’re only “rules” until someone breaks them. And unlike 2010, the GOP has spent the past two years aggressively reminding people that they’re part of the problem, not part of the solution, and polls indicate that has carried over to the GOP in general.
So I don’t think there’s an obvious answer, and even in that case, I’d rather have no-drama Obama running against condescending petty tyrant fighting-with-staff Newt than corporate android Mitt.
@schrodinger’s cat: #46
I love the word punditubbies!
And no, they apparently have no idea what women find attractive.
If you are talking home and children, then power and money can be attractive. But if you are just talking plain getting laid or casting a vote, then other qualities come to the fore.
Some good points, but I still have to caution people about speculation before a single primary vote has been cast.
I also imagine that there is a good chunk of the non-Republican population, especially younger people, who have no idea who Newt is, or think he is some hoary figure from the old days.
Paul in KY
@The Bearded Blogger: I’d pick Newt/Bachmann. Sooner or later she’d say some real crazy shit (even too crazy for the Newtster) & then it would be fun watching him trying to extricate himself from the Bachmann-ooze.
@David in NY: Richard Milhous Nixon could not get elected President today, even were he alive and eligible. Anytime he appeared on TV it was a net negative for him, most notably in his disastrous televised 1960 presidential debate. He would never survive as a presidential candidate in the Internet age, where his powerful mean streak and abrasive personality (to say nothing of blatant racism) would be in every American’s face on cable news.
And Newt is an even bigger asshole and bomb-thrower.
Paul in KY
@David in NY: I’m sorta hoping for it to be Trotsky.
@David in NY: Newt is to Nixon as Dr. Evil is to Lex Luthor.
David in NY
Look, Newt is a problem. In the most recent polling I could find, Nov. 15, by McClatchy, Obama led him by only 47-45. And worse, Newt led Obama substantially among Independents. The “good” news is that he did not have as big a lead as Romney among independents:
Also, the underlying numbers are generally grim for Obama, though he’s still ahead of particular candidates. A full 48% says they won’t vote to re-elect, make that about 52% of Independents. Ouch.
I’m just saying — the merriment about Newt is not called for. He could win this whole thing.
That can’t last. Newt’s biggest asset is his lack of name recognition; the fact that a lot of people don’t remember him from the 90’s. The more they see of him, the less they like him. The moment he takes front and center as the Republican nominee, they’ll all be reminded (or learn for the first time) why he was once one of the most despised political figures in Washington.
Can you smell the English leather on
this guyNewt, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man’s shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of — a little bit of cigar smoke?
David in NY
@Catsy: And I remember Nixon being on TV a lot, and everybody said the kind of stuff you’re saying about him back then, and they mocked him, too, and he won. He was the most uncomfortable man I’ve ever seen, and I’m sure he affected lots of people that way, and you could see it any time he gave a speech, which was often, and he won.
I think we’re gonna’ see really low turnout in ’12, because all those self-described ‘moderates’ who don’t like Obama now because he didn’t magically fix things are going to look at Newt as the nominee or hell even Mitt as the nominee and realize they don’t want to vote for that guy either.
Paul in KY
@David in NY: You can probably say this about Pres. Obama as well, but Nixon was very lucky in who he had to run against in 68 & 72.
I know RFK would have wiped the floor with him.
Newt would handily beat Obama, so I don’t know why you are all salivating over that matchup. Obama will get the standard D votes: unions, teachers, minorities, etc. But Newt will get the independent votes, and this country is still predominately conservative. Newt has the experience, intelligence, and debating skills to win a general election, so be careful what you wish for. No one is going to care how many times he’s been married. And don’t forget, he balanced the budget in the 90’s, which will appeal to lots of voters.
If the GOP nominee comes from this batch of clowns (as opposed to some Great GOP Hope who throws his hat into the ring at the last minute), the Republicans might look for another Sarah Palin, an ultra charismatic right wing star for VP, to make up for the wretchedness of the top candidate.
And I still think that non Republicans in their 20s or 30s don’t have much of a sense of Newt at all, or know much about what he did when he was large and in charge.
ETA: I don’t think that Newt is nearly as smart or as cagey as Nixon.
Gin & Tonic
@David in NY: I think “being on TV a lot” by 1968 standards is just so different from today’s environment that you really can’t draw any conclusions. In terms of media exposure, speed of communications, shortness of attention span, the 1968 election may as well be the 1868 election.
Newt only down 4 in NH?
bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
I really dont understand how this gop game of floaters and sinkers is played.
Who are the people making these candidates into “Kings for One Month”? Who says “This month I love Newt. Last month I loved Cain and before that I loved Purry.”
I just do not get it. Where are these potential voters located? Who are these potential voters? From where do they derive their awesome powers?
Its the political equivalent of turning dirty underwear inside out.
Cris (without an H)
@Culture of Truth: nominee, comment of the year
when will Romney start attacking Gingrich?
David in NY
@Paul in KY: I actually sort of did say that about Obama — he has the misfortune (mostly not of his own making) of running in the worst economic times in seventy years.
In ’68 RFK might have run, and in 2012 the economy might be growing at record rates — neither counterfactual is very helpful. Whoever the Republicans nominate will have the wind at his back, and that can, and has, overcome the problems of personal “unlikeability” in the past.
Culture of Truth
I would much rather have a beer with Nixon. He was at least interesting. Gingrich is more like Agnew, without his gravitas.
David in NY
This is the first thought on this thread that has cheered me up a bit.
@Caz: Well then I guesss we can all stay home on election day. Either you are a remarkable snarksist or you make Newts threading of the political needle appear inevitable, which is far from accepted fact.
Give Next some space. He will be much of his own undoing.
Gin & Tonic
@Culture of Truth:
Wow. Swinging for the fences today.
David in NY
See, it’s the professional meme du jour. Why the F haven’t Democrats been claiming this for Clinton the last four years, I’m damned if I know. Now they’re going to have an actual accomplishment (based partly on luck) stolen by the Newt.
Wasn’t it Gingrich who said Ryan’s plan was not the one he would prefer. A Gingrich/Rubio ticket in FL could be a difficult match-up.
Holy sweet Krishna! Money Bomb for Newt starting NOW!
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
Joe Scar has been killing Newt every morning, no way he can back track on what he has said.
She was lip-synching, you know!
I’m not sure why everyone thinks this will be over by the time we get to Florida. The number of delegates to be apportioned in Iowa, NH, SC and FL is miniscule. All of these states are going to be penalized 50% of their delegates because they moved their primaries up. Additionally, the delegates will be apportioned based on the percentage of votes in each state. Nevada is the first state that gets a full share of delegates, and if Romney hangs in there, he should grab about half of them. In fact, 29 states will be apportioned by percentage of vote, while the last 21 will be winner take all. The first 5 winner take all states will include, NY, PA, CN and RI. Romney could very well take all four.
I know the media story will be all about Newtmentoum, but the truth is this could still be anyones to win into April.
Gin & Tonic
@DougJ: Who cares. She was gorgeous.
I’m not as enthused as you are. Richard Nixon was a has-been, too.
David in NY
I guess I’d be hoping for some digging into Newt’s various economic situations. With luck, he’s as punctilious about avoiding the appearance of venality as he is at avoiding the appearance of infidelity.
No one should be overly optimistic that Newt will be easy to beat in the general election. Despite much evidence to the contrary, the “lamestream” media constantly fellates him as an intellectual guy full of ideas. You also have to factor in the extraordinary hatred the Republicans have for Obama. They will come out in droves to vote for anyone against him. And then there’s the economy. I am not at all comfortable with the thought of President Gingrich.
Newt, the “Intellectual”: A Brilliant Mistake
Paul in KY
@David in NY: Agree a bad economy never helps the incumbent. Getting to run against a dick like Gingrich can only mitigate the economic anchor.
Don’t get me wrong, Gingrich would make a perfectly awful candidate, his likeability (or lack thereof) dwarfed by both his track record and his hypocrisy. The current state of the economy points to the fact that the policies Gingrich and his party have championed for decades have, and would continue to, fail.
As to his supposed intellect, there isn’t enough popcorn in the world for an Obama-Gingrich debate. Gingrich is merely an A-list grifter who has the capacity to play the role of a learned man; he may present himself as a political Hawking amongst the GOPers, but to everyone else he’s rather Wile E. Coyote-esque.
@David in NY:
The economy could be growing at a record rate in 2012 and the GOP nominee would still “have the wind at his back”? Nixon would have obviously beat RFK? Think about what you’re saying here, because it makes no sense.
OK, now you’re just concern trolling.
The facts are these: Newt is less electable than Romney, less likable than Cain, and a worse fundraiser than Perry. Does that mean Obama is a lock for re-election if Newt is the nominee? Of course not. But considering the circumstances, Dems have every reason to celebrate Newt’s surge among the GOP field.
Paul in KY
@Joel: Remember, Nixon had his Republican cloth coat (or at least Pat had it). He wasn’t seen as a money grubber.
Newt & the Callistabot 9000 have the Tiffanys account. Lots of fun commercials can be made out of that.
I’m sure no one is more dismayed than Newt. You gotta know he isn’t interested in campaigning. It will distract him from lucrative snake oil selling.
@Joel: Good point. He was about as appealing as Newt, too.
catsy said: “Newt is fundamentally unlikable.” Perhaps to sane people, but to the republican base that thrives on throwing spitballs at liberals he will be the second coming. He will give them everything they want to hear, all the name calling you could ask for, and they will all come out to vote.
David in NY
@Tractarian: You kinda came in on the end of a long thread. If you read the whole thing that makes sense. But you needn’t since somebody else has come along and made the same Newt=Nixon paralell that I did a hundred or so comments ago; just comment on that.
I do know what I’m talking about, and Newt is dangerous. Sort of like Nixon was. No joke.
Seriously, people. 2012 is not 1968. Obama is no Humphrey. And frankly, for all of Nixon’s faults, he was sharp as a tack, he was a solid campaigner, and he had strong support from the hard right. I just don’t see that in Newt – and neither does anyone else who has been paying attention.
@David in NY:
so far, it looks like he does vs. Newt. And as of late, there’s some confidence returning to the economy; consumers, home sales, and confidence in job market
Lets not also forget 1968 had that whole George Wallace thing too which didn’t help at all.
@David in NY:
I did read the whole thread, and this was the first comment that I truly didn’t understand. Care to rephrase?
Actually, you’ve shown by your posts that you don’t know very much at all about American politics in 2011. You’re grasping on to perceived similarities to a bygone era that have no applicability to the present.
Then what explains John McCain in 2008? The republicans hated him, was supposed to be too moderate, yet he was the candidate. I think it will be Romney. Republicans have one very important trait which will help Romney. They will believe the exact opposite of what they believed 5 mins ago. Today they hate him. Tomorrow they will (reluctantly) love him. They are fully capable of keeping two opposite thoughts in their empty heads at the same time (just like Romney in fact).
@David in NY: Well polls show that his unfavorable numbers exceed his favorable numbers allthough the have climbed somewhat in the last couple of months, overall he is viewed unfavorably
That’s my concern too. Right now it looks like the Eurozone has decided to ride the crazy train all the way to the end of the line, and that means an economic implosion. If that happens it’ll drag the U.S. economy down with it.
Fortunately, as other have pointed out, Newt Gingrich is a vicious lunatic who proved so massively untrustworthy that his own party threw him out of congress (and we’re talking about the GOP here, folks, the party that gave you Tom DeLay!). Newt would probably so alienate and polarize the electorate that Obama would pick up the independent voters.
Then again, you never know. If 10 months from now U6 is 28% and riot-armored muggers with badges are rampaging through tent cities containing hundreds of thousands of newly-homeless middle class people camped out around the White House…man, when Americans get to that level of despair and craziness, anything becomes possible.
Most of you people think you’ve got good solid reliable jobs. If the Eurozone blows up and the world economy slides off Niagara Falls like an ocean liner and plunges into the abyss to the point where the world financial system locks up again and you can’t even withdraw cash from your bank ATM because the global financial system is now insolvent and vapor-locked…boy, that rolls the electoral dice big-time.
People keep thinking “but bank runs can’t happen anymore, not like the Great Depression!” Oh yeah? What if the bank run turns into a run on the entire country’s currency and the country tips over into default and you get a nationwide general strike that shuts the whole country’s economy down because of the unendurable austerity measures?
Yeah, that could happen here. It’s actually starting to happen in a small way with the Occupy movement. The fact that we have a nationwide Occupy movement is a measure of the total failure of Barack Obama’s administration to address the most important problems facing American society right now.
If this goes on…
Cris (without an H)
You could have stopped right there. The economy demands that we not take 2012 for granted, regardless of who gets the GOP nomination. But there are definitely some scenarios that look better than others.
Cris (without an H)
Speaking of Nixon
@Tractarian: Yeah, agreed. Nixon was MUCH smarter than Newt (damning with faint praise, I know), a tireless campaigner, and driven to succeed in a way that Newt would never be. Also, he put those tireless campaigning skills to work for any number of candidates between his defeat in the ’62 California gubernatorial election and the ’68 election and therefore had any number of markers to call in. For those who read and enjoyed Nixonland, I strongly recommend Garry Wills’ Nixon Agonistes for a fascinating psychological profile of Nixon.
in 1968, Nixon was not particularly the darling of conservatives.
However, Newt vs Romney in 2008 could contain echoes of Nixon vs George Romney in 1968.
But as I noted before, it remains to be seen if Newt is even half as crafty as Nixon.
Is newt’s campaign organization any better than Cain’s.
Does he have an organization on the ground in any early states?
one thing we know is that Obama can run (or find the right people to run) a successful political campaign. Newt does not strike me as ant better campaign manager than Herman Cain.
Cris (without an H)
He also has this weird mysterious aura that causes his opponents to self-destruct. I’m really curious to see if he still has that superpower.
@David in NY: Dude, people have been saying this about Clinton. For years. Obviously, you don’t listen and the people who will deny that it’s true don’t care. That is the point of that comment. A meme can get picked up by anyone and repeated where ever. Quit whining about what Democrats have not done, especially when they have done it. It’s one fucking comment on an article and you’re manufacturing the entire Newt Gingrich Presidency out of it.
If this story indicates anything, it is that the differences between Nixon and Gingrich are vast. Nixon had a plan, and laid the groundwork for a campaign. Newt’s campaign has so far been mostly apperances and book signings. By all accounts I have read, Newt’s organization in Iowa is allmost non-existant, and his New Hampshire staff quit enmasse in August. No matter who the Villagers are fluffing or what the polls say, you still have to have a ground game to get out the votes. Newt’s groundgame, at least at this point, is woefully lacking.
@catclub: About campaigning. remember the only elections that Newt won were for congress in a district in suburban Atlanta that was strongly republican. He has never won a state wide election for any office
Not even close. Nixon has Gingrich beat by a country mile for sheer wiliness. Nixon actually managed to look decent and upstanding until Watergate broke. At this point, everyone who hasn’t drunk the GOP Kool-Aid realizes Newt is a USDA Grade A Prime slimeball.
But 1968 offers a poor analogy to today. Nixon did not face an incumbent. The big problem of 1968 was self-created (the vietnam war) and could be ended simply and easily merely by withdrawing the troops. The big problem today isn’t something America created for itself, the global financial meltdown seems to result from the fact that capitalism as we know it is increasingly spiralling out of control to the point where, another crisis or two from now, there won’t be enough money in the entier world to bail out the resulting insolvent global financial system. That’s not hyperbole, by the way. There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 67 trillion dollars of derivative instruments out there in the shadow economy, and if that whole mess unwinds, there won’t be any choice but to press the reset button the world economy with some kind of universal debt jubilee and start over again.
But once you get to a financial global “year zero,” all bets are off. The entire post-WW II Bretton Woods international financial system would come unglued, and neither the king nor all his men could put Humpty back together again.
It’s already clear from China’s ascendancy and the Eurozone’s distintegration and America’s military impotence that we’re in the midst of a gigantic change away from the international geopolitcal arrangements that defined the post-WW II period. So we have to ask: why not a gigantic change away from the international economic arrangements that defined the post-WW II period as well?
Capitalism doesn’t look like a good fit for the 21st century. The agile growing “hot” new economic entities so far in the 21st century are not sclerotic dying giant cartels like IBM or Microsoft or Wellpoint or General Motors, they’re non-profit give-it-away-for-free organizations like Wikipedia and the linux foundation and craigslist and YouTube and Facebook. E-books are now eating the publishing industry alive and authors are pricing their books at 99 cents. That’s a near free as makes no difference.
“Free” or “99 cents” or “pay whatever you think it’s worth” is not capitalism as we know it. Somehow I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore, Toto, economically speaking. How this will impact the 2012 election remains to be seen.
I do know that the new decade is likely to witness convulsions as transformative as the end of WW I or WW II. What comes out the other side of that upheaval, I can’t foresee. But it’s clear that right now, economically, things can’t go on like this.
I miss Chris Farley.
Beat me to it. Glad someone called this dude out.
I hope he’s the nominee.
He hasn’t done anything even remotely difficult or arduous in ten years. He’s been surrounded by people who kiss his ass and stroke his ego, people he knows, people exactly like him.
It’s worse than coming from retirement. He’s been coasting along in some alternate universe, pretending he’s working.
Running for President must be grueling. Demanding. I just don’t think this pampered, pompous windbag is up to it.
Even if he wins, he won’t serve a full term. As someone said yesterday on Twitter, he’ll leave us for a younger, hotter country.
@burnspbesq: I’ll happily buy him a one-way plane ticket to South Sudan or Somaliland if that does it for him.
David in NY
@ruemara: Um, these comments, giving Newt credit for balancing the budget, have been proliferating on the web (OK, today I saw two of them), and annoying me greatly, which may account for my testy tone. I think, however, that it is entirely fair to criticize the Democrats for not reminding folks that they were the last ones to balance the budget — I’ve just never heard them do it much. And to see Newt being given the credit … Maybe I’m wrong (I readily encourage actual citations to something disproving my impressions), and the Democrats have milked this accomplishment for what it’s worth, but it was my firm impression that they’d sort of missed the boat here.
And if criticizing Democrats automatically makes one a “concern troll,” suggesting that the writer is insincere, then standards of conduct (or perhaps of reading comprehension) have indeed fallen to unacceptable levels.
Obviously, Obama wins because most voters regulary read Balloon Juice, have digested Paul Krugman’s blog posts and understand that Congress would not pass a sufficiently large stimulus package back in 2009, that Obamacare saves money, that the austerity campaign led by Republicans looking to reduce the deficit on the backs of the lower and middle classes is precisely the wrong economic strategy, and that the Republicans are the reason nothing productive has come out of Congress.
People forget that Obama won less than 53% of the vote in 2008. He had a commanding electoral vote lead but the popular vote was much closer.
If I had to choose between seeing Newt or Mitt over the course of a long campaign, I would gladly take Newt. At least Newt is entertaining and he believes his bs. Mitt is just mean and disingenuous. And at the end of the election, no one on the right could use the excuse that they didn’t nominate a conservative.
With all of his talents and political skills, Barack Obama still has the biggest rabbit’s foot in the world.
@David in NY:
A suggestion; Since your impressions seemingly are driving you into a state of depression, why don’t you use Google and find the disproving citations for yourself. After all it is up to the individual to look out for their mental health.
I think it’s going to be difficult for Obama to win. But I also think Newt Gingrich has been an over-paid, over-sold, over-estimated lobbyist for ten years. I’m sure he believes he’s working hard, and it’s incredibly competitive in his field, which is “profitting off his former political career”, but I don’t believe those things. I think he talks to the same 100 people, they all know each other, they all kiss each other’s ass, and they’re all completely comfortable and secure and complacent. I don’t think he lives or operates in “this country”.
David in NY
@grandpajohn: Don’t just stand there yourself, be an A-hole. You got any evidence of the public use of Clinton’s balancing the budget by Democrats, I’m happy to hear it. Otherwise, stuff it.
Bah, you sound like you’re talking to a roomful of VC’s in 1997. Some of these ideas are over 15 years old (Google “Eric Raymond Gift Culture”). But there’s one little snag to Gift Culture: It only works when basic material requirements are satisfied.
Take away the corporate infrastructure that we currently take for granted (including non-metered internet access and copyrighted material) and all the cool free stuff goes away, really quickly.
The switch to metered/capped internet access is well underway, just ask any Netflix streamer or iPhone user. And if the SOPA atrocity manages to pass, forget it.
I agree with this. Problem is, I don’t see how it doesn’t apply to our entire political class, including Obama himself.
IMO, the isolation of our ruling class from the rest of us isn’t a symptom… it’s the whole problem.
@ChrisB: It’s somewhat amazing the number of people here who seem to forget that nationwide polling in a presidential race is a basically irrelevent practice designed mainly to enrich the polling companies
The hard-right conservatives hate Newt because his past is littered with “liberal” positions.
Not to mention his problem with women. Serving a woman with cancer divorce papers in the hospital? Serial cheating with younger women including the current one who looks like an escapee from Madame Toussads (sp) ? I’m sure women of all political backgrounds can’t WAIT to vote for that asshole.
@David in NY: You really are tone deaf aren’t you . I am not the one that is looking for the information. As one asshole to an an extreme asshole, let me make this as clear as I can, I don’t give a flying fuck about what ever has you in hysterics If you are so concerned about whatever you are concerned about look the shit up for your self, It is not our duty to do your research for you. If its not worth your time to do so then why the hell are you bleating about it?
@David in NY:
I think you’re getting labeled a concern troll because you seem to think that Gingrich is somehow on the level of Nixon, aka “Old Iron Butt,” who worked the Republican establishment from coast to coast for three years so he could maneuver his way into the nomination.
Gingrich ain’t that smart, and he’s not a hard worker like Nixon was. He kinda sorta wants to be president, but he doesn’t actually want to have to do anything other than make a few TV appearances. Sarah Palin was only just barely able to get through two months of solid campaigning before she melted down — you actually think that Newt can get through almost 12 months?
Both IBM and Microsoft have profit growth numbers and profitability in the double digits. Dying? In the Mark Twain sense of the word, maybe.
In contrast, 1968 was Nixon’s fourth national campaign.
I’m pretty much a conservative, inasmuch as I support conserving the social safety net, staying the fuck out of other nations’ business, and letting folks do what they want in the privacy of their own homes.
No way in hell would I vote for any of these clowns over obama (save maybe huntsman…heh heh heh. /trollface)
@David in NY
“And if criticizing Democrats automatically makes one a “concern troll”
Being a concern troll makes you a concern troll. Criticizing democrats has nothing to do with that.
Odie Hugh Manatee
I’ve been enjoying the food fights over at RedState lately. The regulars are attacking each other over the candidates, calling each other names that would get anyone else there Moe’s infamous “BLAM” (ban). Or they are assigned the task of writing some lame essay to prove their conservative credentials and explain what a fool they were to say whatever they did. Ann Coulter is being called names, even hinted at as really being a man, without a word from the admins. The intelligence of Rush and Hannity are being questioned (really!), with some saying that their conservative radio hosts are really letting them down.
This pre-primary run on the right has been an absolute disaster for the Republicans and a blessing for the Democrats. Romney is the only steady candidate and 75% of the Republican party can’t stand him…lol! That’s going to hurt Republicans who are running downticket, something that doesn’t exactly make them overjoyed.
Erickkk, Son of Erickkk, sez:
I had to wipe that copy off before pasting it because of the amount of depression that had condensed on it.
@Odie Hugh Manatee: Oddly enough, I think I agree with Erick’s assessment.
pseudonymous in nc
He’s thinking Churchill, because all idiot GOPers want to be Churchill: i.e. thanked by a grateful public after a long war by being summarily kicked out before the guns have stopped firing. Oh.
Odie Hugh Manatee
I do too, one of the only times ever…lol! Talk about bleak…
Lovin’ every minute of it!
Paul in KY
@pseudonymous in nc: The Brits kicked the Conservative Party out. Mr. Churchill was just a representative of that party.