Who had the worse campaign flameout?

[Lief 🗽]

Meh, Perry isn't finished yet. He's gone from leading Romney by double digits to being tied with him. Hardly comparable to Bachmann, who went from a front-runner to pretty much tied with Santorum.

[Wonkish1]

I'm not referring to McCain's bad 3rd Q. I'm referring to the fact that McCain was blowing his money faster than it was coming in on expensive offices, expensive consultants, etc. and by the time the primaries got started he was forced to close most of everything down, get a loan collateralized by his contact/donor list and fly coach to New Hampshire. If it wasn't for the fact that McCain picked up the Union Leader endorsement(the most important endorsement in the primaries) he would have never had a shot in he!! of winning the nomination. So yeah its a perfect example of how money doesn't matter. McCain's campaign had gone quiet for at least 2 months ahead of Iowa.

Yes, money is irrelevant, and since fundraising is the only difference between Gingrich '12 and McCain '08, Gingrich is the inevitable nominee. You're completely right!

As for statewide polling, at this point except for Iowa, it is virtually meaningless. That said, Romney is not strong in any of these states. My guess is that if Gingrich is doing well, it's because many Bachmann and Perry supporters have reverted to being effective undecideds and are choosing the name-recognition candidate.

We don't even have the full results from the PPP polls yet. So calm down. Breaking out the punch over a few statewide polls that haven't even been released yet only further undermines your credibility.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said that Newt was still in this. You disagreed. Then in order to try to prove a point you acted as if I said "he was the inevitable nominee", I don't if that's how you try to win all of your arguments, but it isn't flying here.

The fact is that the person who is 2nd in 3 very different red states is not someone that is out of the race. And I can assure you after seeing other polling data that Newt has really high 2nd choice numbers.

[You kip if you want to...]

Michele has gone from potential front-runner to Jon Huntsman levels of support in just under a month and a half. Rick Perry still isn't out the game, so Michelle... for now.

[Averroës Nix]

Don't put words in my mouth. I said that Newt was still in this. You disagreed. Then in order to try to prove a point you acted as if I said "he was the inevitable nominee", I don't if that's how you try to win all of your arguments, but it isn't flying here.

I apologize for posting without regard for your complete inability to recognize sarcasm.

Here's what my point was: I described a number of reasons why McCain was a legitimate contender while Newt is not, of which McCain's superior fundraising is only one. You ignored most of them in your response.

The fact is that the person who is 2nd in 3 very different red states is not someone that is out of the race. And I can assure you after seeing other polling data that Newt has really high 2nd choice numbers.

A lot of candidates with negligible odds of winning the nomination have polled well. Bachmann, Cain, and Trump are only the most recent examples. To make the case for Gingrich, you need more evidence.

[Wonkish1]

Don't put words in my mouth. I said that Newt was still in this. You disagreed. Then in order to try to prove a point you acted as if I said "he was the inevitable nominee", I don't if that's how you try to win all of your arguments, but it isn't flying here.

I apologize for posting without regard for your complete inability to recognize sarcasm.

Here's what my point was: I described a number of reasons why McCain was a legitimate contender while Newt is not, of which McCain's superior fundraising is only one. You ignored most of them in your response.

The fact is that the person who is 2nd in 3 very different red states is not someone that is out of the race. And I can assure you after seeing other polling data that Newt has really high 2nd choice numbers.

A lot of candidates with negligible odds of winning the nomination have polled well. Bachmann, Cain, and Trump are only the most recent examples. To make the case for Gingrich, you need more evidence.

Look even in the most expansive case there are only 4 people that even remotely stand a chance(assuming nobody else gets in) and that is Cain, Romney, Perry, and Newt. There is going to be an anti-Romney whether you believe there should be or not. Now if Cain falls the data shows that the support is moving to Newt. Now its unlikely that Perry and Cain could mount a turn around in that time unless Newt screws up himself then. Got it!!

There is only 2 things that matter for judging the growing effectiveness of a candidate polling and fundraising. Your opinions of a persons baggage, his previous political career, etc. is meaningless just because you believe that doesn't mean others do. And if you assume so then your just projecting on to others.

In terms of fundraising Newt's numbers are currently lacking, but that can be made up quickly when you emerge as a frontrunner (whenever that happens). There have been a lot of candidates so far that have moved up a ton in the polls without a dime being spent to move them. But his polling is fine and I've told you the data shows that Newt as second choice numbers are really, really high. So yes I believe I have adequately shown that he has a chance of winning, not that he will be the nominee.

[Averroës Nix]

Look even in the most expansive case there are only 4 people that even remotely stand a chance(assuming nobody else gets in) and that is Cain, Romney, Perry, and Newt. There is going to be an anti-Romney whether you believe there should be or not. Now if Cain falls the data shows that the support is moving to Newt. Now its unlikely that Perry and Cain could mount a turn around in that time unless Newt screws up himself then. Got it!!

Got it! (For the record, I'd be very surprised if anyone other than Romney or Perry were the nominee. I'm not just picking on Newt.)

There is only 2 things that matter for judging the growing effectiveness of a candidate polling and fundraising. Your opinions of a persons baggage, his previous political career, etc. is meaningless just because you believe that doesn't mean others do. And if you assume so then your just projecting on to others.

I'm not the only person who thinks that Gingrich has too much "baggage," nor have I been making the case against Gingrich on the basis of my personal opinion. A candidate's past is relevant as far as it affects the opinions of those within the party who matter: donors, elected officials, and activists, among others. Can you honestly assert that these party actors have confidence in Gingrich when no sitting governor or congressperson has endorsed Gingrich, and his fundraising continues to lag well behind what is necessary to run an effective national campaign?

In terms of fundraising Newt's numbers are currently lacking, but that can be made up quickly when you emerge as a frontrunner (whenever that happens). There have been a lot of candidates so far that have moved up a ton in the polls without a dime being spent to move them. But his polling is fine and I've told you the data shows that Newt as second choice numbers are really, really high. So yes I believe I have adequately shown that he has a chance of winning, not that he will be the nominee.

Believe what you want, but a bump in the polls won't convince me that Newt's candidacy is serious.

[Wonkish1]

I'm not the only person who thinks that Gingrich has too much "baggage," nor have I been making the case against Gingrich on the basis of my personal opinion. A candidate's past is relevant as far as it affects the opinions of those within the party who matter: donors, elected officials, and activists, among others. Can you honestly assert that these party actors have confidence in Gingrich when no sitting governor or congressperson has endorsed Gingrich, and his fundraising continues to lag well behind what is necessary to run an effective national campaign?

That's not the point. If polling data is showing that the primary voters aren't caring any more then you can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true. Every candidate in the history of presidential elections has baggage, some more than others and Newt definitely is one of those on the "more" side. But what you may think is baggage may not be that big of a deal to others and what you dismiss as not important may be HUGE baggage to others. If you're asking me what the GOP is more pissed about that Newt resigned his speaker ship, RomneyCare, or the "Heartless" comment its not even close.

[Averroës Nix]

That's not the point. If polling data is showing that the primary voters aren't caring any more then you can say it all you want, it doesn't make it true. Every candidate in the history of presidential elections has baggage, some more than others and Newt definitely is one of those on the "more" side. But what you may think is baggage may not be that big of a deal to others and what you dismiss as not important may be HUGE baggage to others. If you're asking me what the GOP is more pissed about that Newt resigned his speaker ship, RomneyCare, or the "Heartless" comment its not even close.

What do you mean by "the GOP"? Republican voters? Elected officials? Donors? Activists? Why do you assume that polls are a good measure of  a candidate's standing within each of these groups?

[Simfan34]

For me, Perry's just kind of happened. Frontrunner, contest between Romney and him, then suddenly, boom.

[Paul Kemp]

Bachmann was over-performing. It made sense for Perry to do well based on his resume but he was never going to win then nomination.

[Torie]

The problem with Newt beyond his bio is his bedside manner. He comes across as a know-it-all and belligerent. That is not what folks are looking for in a POTUS in general. He also has trouble seeing the grays, although on that front he has matured a bit.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Perry is still strong enough that I'd still say he'll end up #2 in the race, barring some big scandal.