Gingrich rise

[howardcar]

Greetings,
One phenomenon that has been noticeable recently is Newt Gingrich performance in debates.  A few recent polls have him at least tied for the #4 spot. One recent PPP poll has him a percentage point away from being #3.  Are we seeing a return to top tier?  Will his solid debate performances in the next few debates put closer to Romney and Perry and ahead of Paul?
Howard

[Marokai Backbeat]

Personally, I've always considered him a dark horse not to be underestimated. I believe at one point on this board I predicted he would be the nominee. Not sure if I still stick with that prediction today, but I wouldn't be surprised if we saw some John McCain-esque rise from the polling ashes.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'd much prefer him to some of the alternatives. He would make debates with Obama a lot of fun!

[GLPman]

Gingrich would be a much better option if he didn't carry so much baggage.

[Gustaf]

I've been very impressed with Gingrich in the debates. However, his approval polling generally hasn't been looking very good. Since I never observed him back in his Speaker days I've no idea whether this Gingrich is sufficiently "new" to be able to convince all those skeptical of him to change their minds.

I still can't really see him getting nominated.

[Tender Branson]

Well, I never really understood why Gingrich has this lopsided negative favorable ratings. he certainly comes over as much more competent and likeable southern granddad-like than for example a shrill Michele Bachmann or a dull cowboyish Rick Perry. In the unlikely event that I were a Republican, I could imagine myself voting for either Paul or Gingrich ...

The only path to Gingrich winning would probably be if he had a real strong showing in the SC-GA-FL trifecta. But for this Gingrich needs to count on A) Cain dropping out after New Hampshire or even Iowa and B) Perry continuing getting hammered in the debates or saying something stupid. That would give him the boost needed in these 3 "home" states. The media spin could do the rest for him, like it did for McCain after NH. If he does well in the 3 states, but the media is not behind him, I don't see how he can win the nomination, because simply he does not have the money to compete after these 3 states.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I expect the adultery and divorces are enough to doom him among the Republican primary electorate.

[Eraserhead]

He has basically no campaign infrastructure left.

[NHI]

He'd destroy Obama in a debate, but it'll never happen, sadly.

[CARLHAYDEN]

He has basically no campaign infrastructure left.

Exactly!

[howardcar]

Regarding campaign infrastructure-
Despite this he is still rising in the polls.  Will the rise lead to more donations and excitement and therefore more staff and volunteers?

Regarding favorability ratings-
They are only 2 pts less than Bachmann's according to PPP.

Howard

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

PPP has always overrated Gingrich's support. Don't ask me why.

[California8429]

I expect the adultery and divorces are enough to doom him among the Republican primary electorate.

That's been out in the open an talked about for over a decade... people aren't going to move from pro to anti gingrich NOW because of that.

He has regained an image with republicans, used to be in the negatives. He continues to do well in the debates, and I still think he'll be the nominee, as I've thought for a long time. As long as Santorum, Cain, and Bachmann fall behind him he'll be solid moving into a 3 or 2 way race.

[Wonkish1]

A-Bob I asked you this before, so I'll give my answer.


The only realistic path to a win that I see for Newt.

1) Finish in 2nd or a strong 3rd in Iowa
2) Pick up the Union Leader endorsement(the most valuable endorsement in the primaries) in New Hampshire, the editor's only positive thing he's said about any of the candidates has been directed at Newt
3) Due to endorsement, jump about 15 pts in New Hampshire
4) Win South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida in succession partially due to beating expectations in New Hampshire

That aside, I don't see how he could pull it off. Even though what I laid out up top is definitely in the realm of possibility.

[TJ in Oregon]

It's sort of a shame American politics amounts to a popularity contest based on things like Newt's baggage because he could be a pretty good president. He seems to come up with new ideas every time he speaks and frames them correctly unlike many Republicans of today (I'll admit I royally suck at this too...but I'm an engineer not a politician). In some ways he's like a breath of fresh air, but then you remember all the not-so-fresh-air hypocritical stuff from his past and realize the campaign is going nowhere. Though, Newt has only himself to blame.

[Torie]

Newt has precisely the wrong temperament to be a good President. He's confrontational and hyperbolic, demonizes the opposition, and a know-it-all who thinks he knows more than he does.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Newt has precisely the wrong temperament to be a good President. He's confrontational and hyperbolic, demonizes the opposition, and a know-it-all who thinks he knows more than he does.

Doesn't that describe a majority of the GOP's field ?

[Torie]

Newt has precisely the wrong temperament to be a good President. He's confrontational and hyperbolic, demonizes the opposition, and a know-it-all who thinks he knows more than he does.

Doesn't that describe a majority of the GOP's field ?

Well Huntsman, Mittens, and Cain have a good temperament, and Perry and Bachmann sort of do (the latter two of course have other issues, and Cain of course is just demonstrably unqualified to be POTUS by any measure).  Paul, Santorum, and Newt do not.

[California8429]

Newt has precisely the wrong temperament to be a good President. He's confrontational and hyperbolic, demonizes the opposition, and a know-it-all who thinks he knows more than he does.

That is obviously why all through the 90s no major legislation nor balanced budgets were passed in a split congress with a democratic president.

[Torie]

Newt has precisely the wrong temperament to be a good President. He's confrontational and hyperbolic, demonizes the opposition, and a know-it-all who thinks he knows more than he does.

That is obviously why all through the 90s no major legislation nor balanced budgets were passed in a split congress with a democratic president.

I could get into the details of that, but won't. The only thing I remember being passed was welfare reform, and that is because Clinton decided he needed to, to seal his reelection, after Dick Morris hounded him to "triangulate." Other than that, it was just a matter of saying no (which backfired when the "no" caused a government shut down briefly before Newt had to fold his hand because he didn't handle the PR very well), and the robust economy helped balance the books. Those were the days weren't they?  And then Newt had to resign. Great resume right out of the box!

[California8429]

Newt has precisely the wrong temperament to be a good President. He's confrontational and hyperbolic, demonizes the opposition, and a know-it-all who thinks he knows more than he does.

That is obviously why all through the 90s no major legislation nor balanced budgets were passed in a split congress with a democratic president.

I could get into the details of that, but won't. The only thing I remember being passed was welfare reform, and that is because Clinton decided he needed to, to seal his reelection, after Dick Morris hounded him to "triangulate." Other than that, it was just a matter of saying no (which backfired when the "no" caused a government shut down briefly before Newt had to fold his hand because he didn't handle the PR very well), and the robust economy helped balance the books. Those were the days weren't they?  And then Newt had to resign. Great resume right out of the box!

Balancing the federal budget for four years, paying off $405 billion in debt instead of taking in trillions, passing DOMA, passing the first tax cuts in a decade  and a half and keeping unemployment down to 4% all with a democratic president and large minorities or even majorities of democrats in congress voting for the bi-partisan legislation (not your modern day, one guy crosses party lines and it's bi-partisan)= a clear lack of leadership

[Averroës Nix]

Gingrich's record and the suitability of his character to executive office are irrelevant. He has no chance of winning the nomination.

His current "bump" has brought him from just under 5% to just over 5% in most polls. (Keep in mind that this is a candidate who started the campaign with tons of name-recognition driven support, routinely polling between 15-20%, and sometimes higher.)

There's not a lot of evidence that Gingrich is even running a serious campaign. Seriously, how many active campaigners gain weight? He exceeded expectations at the last debate, but that's not sufficient to bring him from "totally irrelevant also-ran" to "serious, first-tier contender."

Best-case scenario for Gingrich: Ron Paul-status. Is it crazy to think that he looked at Ron Paul's 2008 campaign and thought that he could increase his stature and relevancy as a party statesman and increase his book sales and speaking fees by doing the same thing?