« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

More new polls, Newt Gingrich still leads

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  December 15th, 2011 at 08:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Gingrich Romney

Newt Gingrich has now led eleven national straight polls, counting just the latest Gallup tracking, and now covering a span of four weeks. He’s been ahead a month. That’s already four times longer than Herman Cain ever led, and getting close to the span of Rick Perry’s lead, which lasted about five weeks.

But is there any sign of weakness?

We see a wide range of results in the polls. Even though Gingrich leads them all, the specifics are different in Gallup’s tracker (1000 RVs, moving average), Ipsos for Reuters (443 Republican/Leaning RVs, no mention of mobiles, MoE 4.7), GfK for Associated Press (460 Republican and leaning RVs, MoE about 4.5), Hart/McInturff for NBC News/Wall Street Journal (unspecified number of Republican LVs), and then Pew (392 very likely primary/caucus voters, MoE 6).

So yes, the Thanksgiving lull in polling is long gone, but now we have to try to figure out whether Gingrich is solidly in place. Consider the range of polls:

Poll Gingrich Romney
Gallup Tracker 31 23
Ipsos/Reuters 28 18
GfK/AP 33 27
H/M NBC/WSJ 40 23
Pew 35 21

Of these five polls, Gingrich has a mean lead of 10.6, with mean support of 33 to Romney’s 22.4. But there’s a lot of variance: Gingrich has a range of 12, Romney has a range of 9. Yet Gingrich goes no lower than 28, and Romney goes no higher than 27. So as wild as it looks, I think we can still be pretty confident that Gingrich still has a solid lead.

In fact if I run my handy percentage tool on each poll, using the margins of error of each, Gingrich has lead probabilities of 90%, 85%, 74%, 97%, and 87%. Being that these percentages are inherently ratios, we might take the geometric mean of the underdog’s percentages to average these numbers to put Gingrich at 89%. However with five different polls, all giving Gingrich a range strictly above Romney’s range, this is great news for Newt.

What about the favorabilities? I’ve long called those the key to reading these polls. I think they matter less with Mitt Romney and New Gingrich, as both are relatively very well known, but I’m not giving them up. Among all adults, the NBC poll puts Gingrich at -16 vs Romney’s -8. Sounds bad, but again this is among all adults, and for Gingrich that’s much better than his -32 in June. That’s a major turnaround. In June Romney was at +1, so Romney’s gone backward by 9 points, while Gingrich has come forward 16 points.

Pew didn’t directly ask favorability among Republicans. They did ask whether people had a chance of supporting a given candidate, or no chance at all, no matter what a person’s first choice was. For Newt Gingrich he had 35+35 for 70% who support or had a chance to support him, and 18% (the lowest in the poll) who had no chance to support him. Romney came in second in both categories: 21+40 for a 61% who do or might support him, and 26% who absolutely will not do it.

Again we find that outside the Internet, this race never was Romney vs not-Romney. Not when Romney led, not when Perry led, not when Cain led, and not now when Gingrich leads was the Republican base that neatly divided. Opinion leaders maybe, but not the base.

By the way, I was asked to watch for a gender gap for Newt Gingrich. Pew showed one. Pew had Gingrich up 40-19 among Republican likely primary voting men, but only up 29-22 among the women. Note that Romney barely changes, so the gap is almost entirely in the level of Gingrich’s support. Are Republican women slower to warm back up to Gingrich? That will remain a question as long as he’s in contention.

Crossposted from Unlikely Voter

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    USA Today/Gallup Obama 50, Gingrich 44

    NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Obama 51, Gingrich 40

    Rasmussen Reports Obama 49, Gingrich 39

    PPP Obama 50, Gingrich 43

  • SoFiMil

    Thanks.

  • justluthien

    The National Review gang must be having a fit with Newt’s numbers. I’ve become so bored with all their cheerleading for Romney while serially bashing any serious challengers to Milquetoast Mitt that I seldom even visit the site anymore.

  • sunshinek67

    of the current mudslinging. Don’t those numbers go up once the nomination process is over? Also, was curious as to the recently reported Gallup downward trend for Newts polling, yes he may have a solid lead, but are his numbers from the various cited polling companies showing up or down for Newt?

    Not a good favorability percentage. I am skeptical of all polls, though, including those of my favorite candidate.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    .

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    http://newtcantwin.com/

    Newt’s numbers will be going down very soon.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    ..

  • Common_Cents

    before consolidation on a nominee spells trouble for Obama. H2H are worthless at this point when primary candidates are firing at each other.

  • benko

    I’m relatively new to things, but gather they do not represent conservatives the way this place does. Do people take them seriously?

  • bzip

    Speaking of polls a new Iowa poll out from Rasmussen

    A couple key notes:
    “Rasmussen warns that the race remains volatile, with only 40 percent of likely caucus-goers sure of how they will vote.”

    “Gingrich has now fallen into second place in the Iowa race, behind Mitt Romney, who is at 23 percent, up from 19 percent in the last Rasmussen survey.”

    “Gingrich, on the other hand, fell 12 points”

    So if you are a person who allows polls to dictate who you support as “Anti-Romney” candidate – Can we say at the very least that the race is externally fluid and unpredictable at the point?

    There seems to be an obsession (at least at RS) with ensuring Romney doesn?t win. An obsession so great that people are allowing the polls to dictate who they support, even to the point of supporting someone ?who isn?t as conservative they may think? (in the words of Erick and many others) or even worse knowing this and excusing everything they see and know about the anti-Romney candidate.

    It’s nice to be able to stay with one candidate after researching and knowing about that candidate and their principles and values as opposed to switching candidates based on poll data as to who beast Romney at any given time.

    Poll: Dramatic drop in Gingrich support in Iowa
    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/poll-dramatic-drop-gingrich-support-iowa/258131

  • beee

    I believe it is because of his feisty knowledgeble delivery in the debates. But as he has moved into frontrunner position, I find his persona to be annoying to a degree. Yes he is smart, but seems unchecked. He goes on and on.Although he gets his zingers in there, .his explanations are not clear and concise many times..Talks down to people. .How will this play in the general election?..People identify with a heartfel message..Newt seems too professorial, too think tank..and then couple that with all his previous positions ie global warming, individual mandate etc and the personal baggage…As conservatives..why have we abandoned the true conservatives? Bachman, Santorum and Perry? Is it strictly on the Obama versus ” so and so” in the debate ring..and the Newt versus Obama is enticing? .Let’s make sure the nominee in the debate ring has our message and values…Polls go up and polls go down..Don’t let the media pick our candidate. If the message is RIGHT…Obama will meet his match…

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    …there’s a sense of serenity and resolution in having chosen a candidate to support based on a belief that they are the best for the job rather than in order to chase a bandwagon.

  • http://tbrickert.wordpress.com tbrickert

    RS does not stand for Redstate.It stands for Romney Sucks. They will ignore this poll or attack Rasmussen for it.

  • renl57

    Despite all the mudslinging, Romney is tied with Obama in most polls (to within the margin of error).

    So no matter what, Romney is doing about 9 points better against Obama than Gingrich is at this time.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Mitt Romney’s married. You shouldn’t lust after him like that.

  • bfelger

    We’re (1) too stubborn and (2) too individualistic to let other people speak for us.

  • Aaron Gardner

    nt

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    It’ll just get him hot and bothered.

  • http://tbrickert.wordpress.com tbrickert

    think comments like that help you?

  • http://tbrickert.wordpress.com tbrickert

    think comments like that help you?

  • http://tbrickert.wordpress.com tbrickert

    think comments like that help you?

  • http://tbrickert.wordpress.com tbrickert

    as civil conversation? Homosexual slurs? Do you really think this helps you? I did not expect this from here, you just gave credence to those who say the right can be just as disgusting as the left?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Not that there’s any thing wrong with that.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Coming out as a Romney fan is a traumatic thing.

  • morstar150

    They have become a voice for the Republican standard bearer. They now speak in a monotone that repeats the montras of the Main Stream Media, that a conservative cannot get elected. Their message is “Mitt because he’s the only one who can win.”

    Very disappointing, too bad William Buckley isn’t around to tear them to shreads.

  • bzip

    No it doesn’t change the fact Romney sucks and it doesn’t change the Fact that Newt isn’t much better or as conservative as some may want him to be.

    It doesn’t change the fact that “some” are selling out conservatives principles just to out Romney.

    I have a sense of peace about myself knowing I don’t change candidates for the sake of outing Romney and I can maintain my conservative principles and values at the same time.

  • http://tbrickert.wordpress.com tbrickert

    A contributiing editor.

  • http://tbrickert.wordpress.com tbrickert

    A contributiing editor.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Which candidate you support in the privacy of your home is none of my concern.

  • kaheo

    If Romney sucks and Newt is going down in the polls, that could be a good thing for Perry. So maybe the RS strategy is a good thing as it could lead to a true conservative becoming the nominee. I highly doubt Newt will be the nominee, and Romney can’t get past 23%, so you do the Math!

  • Aaron Gardner

    Faith, Jobs, and Freedom… what’s not to like?

    ;)

  • http://tbrickert.wordpress.com tbrickert

    Eric condone this conduct from one of hie editors?

  • Paul_Zummo

    But hey, if this all helps Perry to get the nomination, maybe it served a purpose.

  • sunshinek67

    Well like I said on HA, I have the attention span of a gnat right now amid Christmas activities, so I couldn’t get to all of it, research fact check analyze. Probably won’t anyway, I’d rather argue reasons for my candidate than reasons against a Newt Gingrich nomination.

    By the way, Rasmussen “polling” has Newt down 12 @20%, 2nd place in Iowa.

  • Paul_Zummo

    That’s why he shot to the top – plus Perry and Cain’s implosions. Newt gave conservatives the red meat they were looking for while simultaneously doing so in a fashion that comforted conservatives still stinging from the Bush years. As Rush and others have pointed out, we’re so scarred from media caricatures of dumb conservatives that we’ve placed a premium on the appearance of great debating skills.

    Not that Newt isn’t a great debater, but even early on I saw what Newt was doing. By attacking the media and not his opponents in the early debates he drew a lot of positive attention. In a lot of ways it was a performance – a great performance, to be sure – but performance nonetheless. Because when you take away the bombast Newt really wasn’t saying all that much. He certainly wasn’t and isn’t as precise in his policy details as Santorum or even Bachmann.

  • TSquared

    Here’s an example question from an actual poll:

    “If the 2012 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were Barack Obama, the Democrat, and [INSERT CANDIDATE BELOW AND ROTATE LIST], the Republican, for whom would you vote? (ASK ALL ?UNSURE/DK/OTHER?: Would you lean toward Obama or toward [CANDIDATE]?”

    Let’s say you’re all hot to trot for candidate X. So when they fill in that question with candidate X’s name – you’re going to say you would would vote for X. Now, you don’t like candidate Y because he/she is in competition with X (an might beat X). So how are you going to answer that question when they fill it in with Y’s name? If you want to do damage to Y, you’ll say that you favor Obama.

    Since these polls are of all likely voters, what do you think a democrats motivations might be at this stage? Could some be playing a little bit of a Rush Limbaugh like Operation Chaos? Polls like this have not meaning to them at this point. But a poll like this can give democrats a chance to have a hand in selecting who will be their competition.

    These polls are also useful for the media/establishment in trying to influence an outcome. They make for great headlines and can be used to damage confidence in a competitor to their favored candidate.

    Polls measuring an opponent to Obama will only have real meaning when it’s a head to head contest in the general. In such polls you only have two choices and no room for playing games.

  • TSquared

    An actual poll question:

    If the 2012 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were Barack Obama, the Democrat, and [INSERT CANDIDATE BELOW AND ROTATE LIST], the Republican, for whom would you vote? (ASK ALL ?UNSURE/DK/OTHER?: Would you lean toward Obama or toward [CANDIDATE]?

    Let’s say you’re all hot to trot for candidate X. So when they fill in that question with candidate X’s name – you’re going to say you would would vote for X. Now, you don’t like candidate Y because he/she is in competition with X (an might beat X). So how are you going to answer that question when they fill it in with Y’s name? If you want to do damage to Y, you’ll say that you favor Obama.

    Since these polls are of all likely voters, what do you think a democrats motivations might be at this stage? Could some be playing a little bit of a Rush Limbaugh like Operation Chaos? Polls like this have not meaning to them at this point. But a poll like this can give democrats a chance to have a hand in selecting who will be their competition.

    These polls are also useful for the media/establishment in trying to influence an outcome. They make for great headlines and can be used to damage confidence in a competitor to their favored candidate.

    Polls measuring an opponent to Obama will only have real meaning when it’s a head to head contest in the general. In such polls you only have two choices and no room for playing games.

  • wonkish1

    I believe it was you who I was talking about how Newt would respond to the attacks.

    Well, released today!!

    Do I know Newt or do I know Newt? Its almost verbatim what I said he would do!

  • TSquared

    Don’t why that happened…

    Having network problems here. Might of had a hand in it…

  • jasondallastx

    when Christine O’Donnell endorsed Romney yesterday.

    I think this is a direct quote from her: “I’m endorsing Romney because he’s been so consistent.” When the commentator challenged her she said, “Well, he’s been so consistent since he changed his mind” – that’s what she really said. LOL

  • sethellis

    I’m happy to see Romney on top, but this Romney supporter isn’t foolish enough to think this is the big takeaway.

    Almost every candidate saw a gain except Newt. Both Romney and Perry saw gains of 4%. Cain dropped out and Newt has peaked. That support has spread evenly to everyone else. The only exception here is Ron Paul who is up 8%.

  • Lucas Black

    It’s more or less what I was expecting as well. I’m also expecting Newt to really shine at the debate tonight and to turn those attacks back onto Paul, Perry and (especially) Romney. He has to show that he can fight back even if it’s ‘his way’.
    Mind you, no candidate is perfect – he may not have the prefect response, but I’m sure he’s got some good ones lined up. Romney has seemed extra hyper for the past couple of weeks. To me, he doesn’t seem to come off well when he’s on the attack – Ron Paul actually seems to be the best at it. I’m looking forward to the debate, regardless.

  • federalfarmer1

    Perry is becoming a national joke. That strong ad doomed him. Check YouTube to see what the left has done with it.

    You can’t run for president if nobody takes you seriously.

  • bzip

    Kind of cleaver, Perry defines the problems (Romney and Newt) and highlights his solutions – all in one ad:

    Problem/Solution
    http://youtu.be/cTZUV6pz_CM

  • romansdaughter

    nt

  • lepelerin

    http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2011/12/15/newt-when-people-say-im-not-conservativeyou-have-wonder-what-planet-they-have-been

    Her endorsing Romney does not impress me.

  • romansdaughter

    to the Perry ad.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    What about the favorabilities? I?ve long called those the key to reading these polls. I think they matter less with Mitt Romney and New Gingrich, as both are relatively very well known, but I?m not giving them up.

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    Forget the national polls. Nothing counts now, except the Iowa caucuses. Personally, I think Gingrich will not finish in the top three Iowa and his campaign will come crashing to an end. Doesn’t anyone remember Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in 2008? How about Dick Gephart and Howard Dean in 2004 for the Democrats? Iowa may not select the nominee, but it will send two or three candidates to the sidelines.

  • jasondallastx

    was the point…she endorsed Romney. Which helps everyone but Romney.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    nt.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    First you tell us to look at Iowa, then you tell us to ignore the Iowa polls consistently putting Gingrich ahead?

    Come now. As Lisa Simpson said to bart, At least forge plausible grades.

  • retire05

    unemployment lines have signs that say “Republican, Independent, Democrat” so that if you are a Democrat you get through quicker, find a job sooner and get more in UE benefits?

    The jobless understand that Obama has been a total disaster. So why would they not look at the man who governs a state that continues to add jobs inspite of our pathetic economy? Do you think the 1,000 people who are moving to Texas every week are all Republicans?

    Rick Perry is NO joke to those people moving to Texas in search of a job. But you do seem to be auditioning for a job as a comedian.

  • ceili_dancer

    but that may be misconstrued.

  • wbb1950

    Steve–there are more factors at work here that you realize judging from the above. Larry has set things in motion in this direction but you need to hear the other side of it, because that may have more effect on the outcome than the factors you describe here. This is a watershed election, and it will tend to determine the direction this nation takes for the balance of this century. What I am asking you and Larry to do is to stop thinking tactically because that is what both of you are doing in my opinion, and start thinking strategically. By the same logic that says if you build a better mousetrap the people will come the power of ideas and solutions is what will determine this election. We think too much about personalities when frankly we do not have that luxury. I gave the analogy previously where Lincoln was losing the Civil War, so he sacked McClellan (may I please have my army back) and hired Grant, and when someone complained that he was a drinker Lincoln responded find out his brand and I will send him a case. It is understandable that the Republican establishment would balk at is candidacy because he represents a direct threat to so many who are feeding at the public trough, and by that I mean lobbyists, staffers, consultants, business interests. The know he means business and if they are not providing value they will be gone. That is a threat. So naturally they trash him but that does not mean that we need to parrot what they say. Their interests are not our interests and I say that because I know these people or at least some of them. It gets down to basic ideas like what kind of a country do you want to have five ten twenty fifty years from now and how do we turn this thing around. Obama cannot hold his own on the debate stage with Gingrich and that experience and knowledge deficit will be pumped into every living room in the country as the election draws near. People will see Obama with all his warts and the only way the media will be able to protect him is by taking commercial breaks. You focus too much on personality and too little on results. Disgraced, adulterer and all that. But the bottom line is he and Bill People will see Obama with all his warts and the only way the media will be able to protect him is by taking commercial breaks. You focus too much on personality and too little on results. Disgraced, adulterer and all that. But the bottom line is he and Bill balance the budget and when he left office there was a trillion dollar surplus. Given the dire state of the economy, I would think that would be worth mentioning. Newts greatest accomplishment? Balanced Budget. Romney’s greatest accomplishment? Romney care. But more than that what he brings to the party is the power of ideas. I think of Newt as someone who can see beyond the horizon and come up with solutions which will serve our nation well in the years ahead. But you will not get there by listening to big media. As the French say that is . . . impossible. The way to get there is to pause for a moment and consider the kind of ideas he is proposing. Maybe the best answer is to stop thinking of ourselves so much and think about the kind of burden we are leaving for our children if we do not adopt some new thinking. The link below will give you deeper insight into the ideas Newt stands for—in case you are interested. In that case, do it for yourself certainly not for me. Many people who were deeply committed to this site have left because their views were attacked. I can see from the tone that my ideas are not welcome here either which is fine and important for me to know. I have other options. I will be limiting my time here accordingly, but leave with good thoughts for all of you. I hope we succeed in removing Obama–I really do. I think Newt is the only one who can do it—but to reach that conclusion you need to understand what he stands for and trust the wisdom of the American People. Cheers.

    http://www.redstate.com/dan_mc……
    show more

  • supergirl2911

    So it stand that before the nominee is chosen the best indicator of electability is really how well do they appeal to moderates. I want someone different than Obama not someone that I appealing to independents or moderates.

  • tailfins1959

    If you look at Intrade, Romney is back in the middle 60s percent range and Gingrich is below 20%. I hope unloading on Gingrich doesn’t give us Romney. People can root for Perry all they want, but is Perry’s responsibility to deliver the results. It’s a given that Perry is a conservative. His campaign need to communicate smart and able. If the thrust of his campaign is to beat the dead horse that he’s a conservative, he won’t move up.

  • romansdaughter

    Hey I just read that Gary Johnson was going to be running now in a 3rd party for President. Do you think this will affect the chances to beat Obama? I am a little concerned about that.

  • supergirl2911

    Perry

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    A third party former drug addict isn’t going to be a credible threat in a Presidential election.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’m using legitimate polling here.

  • romansdaughter

    It should have been I just read that Gary Johnson is going to be running now in a 3rd party.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    I used to like Gary Johnson. But now he’s gone Alice Cooper. “I’m gonna start my own part. A 3rd Party! A WILD Party!”

  • supergirl2911

    I am consistently impressed with their consistent message and almost daily videos on YouTube.

  • romansdaughter

    Thanks Neil!

  • carolynr

    Took your blog and sent it onto the Perry Camp. We know he is a Conservative. We know he has values….This is about economics…JOBS…his big sell. I hope Team Perry gets the message. Besides…I have always said this…Iowa is about Ethanol subsidies…not the values. I know…that sounds crude…but it is the truth…what is the saying…money is the root of all evil. There’s where the problem is. What is Romney and Newtie peddling…Ethanol subsidies.

  • gabs

    Will pull some votes from both parties and independents. Without a doubt. Those whose number one concern is the economy will look at his record in NM and give him serious thought. The only question is whether he has enough money to advertise himself. That’s the main thing standing between him and being a factor. He won’t win, but he could very well have an impact on who does.

  • supergirl2911

    He has almost daily new YouTube ads, interviews, and bought ads. His communication is daily about where he is in the news in places ranging from here and hot air to ABC and fox news.

  • tailfins1959

    Polls, other quantitative measures and qualitative factors are all considerations. If it were easy, political consultants would get minimum wage. So what you’re saying is that Intrade should carry a very low weight? What do you use for early warning of a political change? The number of moving parts is dizzying.

  • hahaiwin

    namely that Gingrich’s support has shown a consistent downward trend. All of the polling outfits seem to indicated he’s peaked and rapidly descending downward.

  • lineholder

    First, thanks for including gender demographics. Secondly, this is more like an observation coupled with a few questions, LOL.

    Have you seen anything to indicate that left-leaning polling organizations might be shifting their data in any way to fit a specific trend favoring to any one candidate? They’d be taking a chance with their reputation by doing it, I know, but it just occurred to me that we might begin to see some of this…the left attempting to use polling data to cloud the true picture of where things stand.

    It’s like what has taken place with the unemployment data. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when they decided not to include the number of people who have simply stopped looking for work in the unemployment data calculations, this shifted the trends in a way that could make it seem that unemployment is decreasing when the actual number of people unemployed isn’t decreasing in the least.

    If that’s true, and we have a lot of people who simply stop looking for work between now and the election in 2012, at least as far as the data being presented is concerned, wouldn’t that go to the left and Obama’s advantage in this case? That would be something they could try to spin to their favor?

    If you see any of these types of things, will you give us a head’s up, please?

  • tailfins1959

    I’m no pundit; just a guy trying to make sense of all this. Like my kids say: “We have had nothing but problems since Obama became President”. How strange is it that Boston is the port in the storm for IT professionals? Liberal meddling sure causes weird circumstances. I know we can only have two nominees, but I wish political career success for all the GOP candidates not considering a third party run.

    I even wish Obama success …. as a real estate attorney :-0

  • Scope

    Is that he will be running on the Libertarian party ticket. Ron Paul already tried running on the third party Libertarian ticket back in the 80′s and went nowhere. At the time he slammed the Republicans and said that Ronald Reagan was a failure, and he wanted nothing to do with the Republicans. He found out that third parties are go nowhere quick schemes, and he crawled back into the Republican party.

    Gary Johnson is an “odd” character, with an “odd” personality to say the least. When my husband and I saw him in the first debate, it was pretty obvious he was unlikely to gain much if any support from the voters, in the polls at least. That has proven true. In that debate I wasn’t sure if he wasn’t trying out as a conductor for the orchestra, or to advertise for a fruitcake manufacturer. His whining about not getting enough questions was only missing the cheese and crackers.

    I’ve read that the Libertarian party was planning on being on the ballot in all 50 states, and I don’t know if they have accomplished that feat or not. Even if that hurdle has been crossed, even that will not help a candidate that will undoubtedly portray himself to the electorate as the next Bozo the Clown.

  • romansdaughter

    That Rick Perry needs to peddle ethanol subsidies?

  • Lucas Black

    This was entirely avoidable. I think the GOP establishment totally screwed Johnson by not giving him a place at the debates. He should have been allowed in and I think he was a more credible candidate than some of those who were there.

  • JSobieski

    When Johnson promises that he will propose a balanced budget in year 1, I believe him.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    He can hook back up with his Home-Slice Tony Resko.

  • Lucas Black

    The Libertarians are nearly always on all 50 state ballots – sometimes they miss one of those with more odious ballot requirements, but they have enough organization to usually overcome it. There will be a Libertarian candidate regardless. If it’s Johnson, they look a bit more serious, but I wouldn’t think it would make much of a difference in terms of votes unless NM is close. He could potentially play spoiler there.

  • jasondallastx

    wouldn’t have endorsed Romney. She would have gone for the eye of Newt.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    of Romney’s Bravo Sierra. Also, if she were a witch, she could wave her magic wand and change Romney’s mind right back.

  • romansdaughter

    Is there some kind of criteria?

  • http://www.changeforrickperry.org louisianapatriette

    He’s moving up and people are cramming his Iowa events. Romansdaughter is right: he’s coming out with great ads every day contrasting himself with Romney and Gingrich. He’s showing why he’s different. What more do you want?

  • Lucas Black

    Yes, but it basically came down to ‘not Gary Johnson’. Their rules were so arbitrary and changed from debate to debate. Often Johnson and Huntsman had virtually identical poll numbers but they found a loophole to let Huntsman in. At least one of the later debates had as a criteria that you had to have been in three debates – Johnson had only been in two but had he risen in the polls, would have been disqualified anyway.
    I can see that after a while, if you want to keep the numbers down, you should impose some sort of screen, but at the start, why was Johnson not given a chance? He was a successful two-term governor. Why should Herman Cain have been given a slot but not him – he’d never been elected to anything!

  • Common_Cents

  • romansdaughter

    But they allowed Ron Paul and he is Libertarian basically…I am thinking he wouldn’t have done well anyways but who knows??

  • tomatin

    Nobody can convince me Romney is not being jammed down our throats and the GOP electorate is stupid enough to follow.

    I don’t know why Perry supporters are cheering this. If Perry rises again the establishment will just crush him again.

    The fix is in for Romney folks. Go ahead and hold your nose voting for him in November. I just can’t do it.

    People who vote for Romney can have their moderate progressive Romney who is not much different than Obama for all I care.

  • Scope

    It would not be beneficial to talk him up on any points. He is running on a third party ticket, and if Ron Paul doesn’t “hold up” which he said himself is possible, the Paulies will then run to Johnson. With the known liberal election tactics, there is no guarantee that no matter how bad Obama’s record is, that the election will be a runaway for the Republicans. In all likelihood the election results will most likely be close. The Republicans cannot afford to give any serious attention to a third party candidate that can give the election back to Obama. To give Johnson any credit for his record, or anything else is suicidal for the Republican party. Hopefully Johnson’s oddness will be a clear turn off to most voters.

  • tomatin

    nt ntnt

  • snowshooze

    My dog has a valid shot against Obama.
    He’s from the party of no. He’s pretty conservative, not the best, but not bad. He can be cranky, he’s known to bite even me at times, but he is the staunch defender of the home and family at all times.
    Nobody likes my dog. He is all business. And he is all beat up and ugly, kinda old and does pretty much whatever he wants, whenever he feels like it. He knows all the tricks.. but refuses to do them.
    He is a working dog, and the best dog for the job.

    But he doesn’t have much of a chance at the fair.

  • JSobieski

    Johnson would have been a great way to split the Ron Paul vote, something that would be kind of useful at the moment.

    A lot of Perry supporters complain about Perry being treated unfairly. Johnson has a lot to complain about as well.

    Johnson wasn’t included on most polls.
    So he didn’t qualify for the debates.
    So he wasn’t included on the polls.
    So he didn’t qualify for the debates.

    Huntsman has been in all of the debates and all the polls even though his numbers were equivalent at the time the MSM dropped Johnson.

    The MSM designed the rules to include Huntsman and exclude Johnson. I guess the GOP is fine with media game playing so long as it isn’t their candidate?

    The guy was a two term governor from NM, a blue state. His record on spending is better than anyone else in the race.

    I am “shocked” that folks so concerned about the “establishment” have no interest in how Johnson was essentially knifed in broad daylight by the MSM in cooperation with the GOP.

    I will stop staying nice things about Johnson if he goes third party, but the crticism over the debates is a valid issue. It is worthy of discussion.

    What ever happened to the “don’t let the media choose our candidates” line?

  • acat

    and we’ll be back to Ross Perot territory.

    “The establishment guy, the outsider with the fiscal plan, and the dem nobody likes”

    Mew

  • Scope

    It did strike me when Huntsman was allowed into a debate, yet Johnson polling around the same number was not. I agree that Johnson should have been allowed into some of the early debates, and then as the traveling road circus went on down the road, those that consistently polled at 1 or 2 should have been eliminated, all of them equally. I have no idea why Santorum is still invited to the debates, he should be eliminated.

    I seriously doubt that Johnson not being included had anything to do with his being libertarian. I also doubt that Johnson was not included because it was anybody but Johnson, as not many even know who he is. I doubt that Johnson has much if any funding, and I’ve not heard of him even attempting to set up any kind of organization in any states. I would guess that Johnson not being included would have more to do with him not appearing to be a serious candidate. Heck even Huntsman and Santorum have gone out and actively tried to gain funds, and put them selves out there to gain some name recognition. Has Johnson done any of that?

    I agree that if he was invited to the debates, at least the first few, he may have figured out that he was not going to gain much if any traction with the voters, and would not be now trying to teach the Republicans a lesson, out of his frustration.

  • tomatin

    But you may want to mix in a paragraph hear and there.

    People never ask themselves the obvious questions enough.

    Why is the establishment GOP so afraid of Newt?

    They come back with the electability but reading between the lines they know they can’t control Newt.

    We are on the verge of seeing the GOP pass another omnicrap bill. Newt had the intestinal fortitude to hold off Clinton and shut down government to make spending lower.

    I can’t do Romney he will be a rubber stamp for anything congress gives him no matter who is in power. He just does not have the conservative convictions we need.

  • acat

    The media – and the debates are a media production, not a party production – thinks in terms of tokens.

    Cain was the token non-white.

    Johnson can’t be the “token libertarian” because Ron Paul is.

    Santorum’s the token “religious right” guy.

    Bachmann’s the token woman.

    Huntsman’s the one the media really wants to run against, which is why he’s allowed into the debates.

    Mew

  • Scope

    I’ve said above that I agreed that Johnson should have been allowed into some of the early debates, and yes the polling also. When Huntsman was invited, but Johnson polling similarly was not was blatant. This is all true, however, it is suicidal to support any third party candidacy, no matter how unfairly some were treated by the debate sponsors, and the polling outfits. Johnson needs to take up his frustration and arguments with those that made those decisions, not the entire Republican party in running on a third party ticket. He isn’t hurting anyone but himself, and possible the chance for the Republicans to take the presidency back from a socialist.

    I highly doubt that RS will support Johnson’s third party candidacy, as well as those that sympathize with him and want to give him any credit that can turn into votes.

  • romansdaughter

    They most likely didn’t think he was a serious candidate and when he was in the debate he whined afterwards that he didn’t get hardly any attention but Ron Paul and Bachmann also whined about this and had to learn that you have to work to get attention.

  • romansdaughter

    Great analogy!

  • acat

    If it’s true that Johnson runs as the Libertarian party nominee …

    ..once Ron Paul loses the nomination, his career is over!

    Mew

  • Scope

    with mostly the leftist media hounds, CNN in particular allowed to schedule so many debates, the candidates that agree to attend them should be mocked and ridiculed. I know that for a while Bachmann and Santorum and Huntsman have been only to happy to say yes to every debate offer, as it is free TV face time for their financially deprived campaigns. The networks have added more and more debates so that they have higher ratings that night, and have something to talk about for the next few days as they take their 30 second clips in an attempt to make our candidates look like idiots, fools, and mud wrestlers.

    As much as I have no respect, or liking for John McCain, yesterday on Fox he said that the number of debates this year has been rediculous. He said that it takes 3 days out of the candidates campaign time, the day before, the day of, and the day after. It’s true as well as destructive.

    I heard Chris Wallace say today that they are going to ask the candidates questions tonight such as, “why is your plan better, and why is your opponents plan worse”? You know it is going to be another Fox promotion of pitbull or cock fighting on stage. I’ve actually gotten to like Wolfe Blitzer and John King more than Chris Wallace. He is the “Fox” watching the henhouse.

  • acat

    Remember how he was locked out of the GOP debates the year he ran for POTUS? (this would be before he ran against Obama for the Illinois senate seat)

    This is not a new phenomenon.

    I agree that there are too many debates, I’ve said so before, and of course the low-tier candidates want to attend – free press!

    The problem is that either (a) the GOP aren’t the ones in control of our own primary or (b) the GOP have colluded with the media to push aside a candidate with solid fiscal-conservative credentials, who was well liked by his States’ social-conservative outfits, and who obviously has cross-over appeal.

    Which one is more despicable? (grin)

    Mew

  • Scope

    He and his supporters still keep complaining constantly that he doesn’t get enough time on TV in interviews. That makes me laugh because Cavuto has had Ron Paul on his show many numerous times over the last months. He’s also been on shows with other hosts often. Speak of the devil, he is on Fox news with Meghan Kelly right now. Last night he did Cavuto, and then within minutes literally he was on with Blitzer.

    Rather than whining about Fox, he should be thanking them, at least in part for his rise in the polls. I heard someone on TV today saying that the Romney camp loves that Paul is polling so high, as he is keeping the other candidates down in the polls. The Romney camp also was sad to see Cain drop out, because of the same reason.

  • supergirl2911

    you were comparing Newt to your dog. Sorry.
    Lately, he has been compared to Tim Tebow (by Sean Hannity or Laura Ingram, I think) and some other very special person. I lose my temper, so I turn the station. So if you are comparing Newt to your dog, in theory, you are comparing your dog to Tim Tebow.
    Sorry, I mean no disrespect to your dog, Tim Tebow or Newt Gringrich. Just enjoying a little humor in what otherwise is annoying.

  • clowngirl

    So, it’s not really reasonable to base an opinion on Newt’s electability purely on how he’s doing while 2 candidates and multiple media figures are going ultra negative.

    Another statistic worth considering is what Neil points out about how much Newt’s favorability has improved since June. It’s more than likely mainly Republicans watching closely now – while Independents and moderate Democrats just see the mudslinging. As nominee, Newt would have the opportunity to make his case and improve his numbers with the general electorate.

    Incidentally, Rasmussen also recently had Newt slaughtering Obama among independents.

  • clowngirl

    Newt isn’t running anti-Romney ads. Neither, AFAIK, is any other candidates.

    Neither is National Review openly trying to take him down – or any other media outlet likely to be read by non-Republicans

  • independentmike

    I’m encouraged by this article, but two new polls also show Newt has dropped 10-12 points in Iowa and is starting to slip in New Hampshire.

    I am disgusted with Romney’s attacks. Most of them are garbage. The few that are technically accurate are unfair and misleading.

    I think Romney’s “zany” charge is rude and inappropriate. It reminds me of the kinds of vicious attacks that Rockefeller Republicans made against Goldwater and then Reagan. Whatever Newt is, he is not “zany.”

    Since Romney is making all these sleazy attacks, someone should do a commercial that features footage that was recently found from 2002–not from the 1990s, but from 2002–that shows Romney proudly declaring the following:

    “I think people recognize that I’m not a partisan Republican, that I’m someone who’s moderate, and that my views are progressive.”

    Those are his words, quote unquote. That’s exactly what he said. In 2002.

    I’d still vote for Romney if he got the nomination, but he’s the last person on earth to be attacking a proven conservative like Newt Gingrich.

  • circlegranch

    As a person that is suspicious of polls, especially the ones that show our guys getting thumped by Obama, I have to wonder exactly what questions are being asked and how they are framed and what the mix is of Republicans, Independents, etc. The big media push to discredit Newt now is that he can’t beat Obama but Mitt can. According to whom? Are they adding some Democrats in the mix? How can it be that the majority of the country things we’re going in the wrong direction, disapprove of O’s job performance but then big disparity in who beats him in the general and who doesn’t. People either are running away from him and looking for an alternative or they aren’t.

    As for the crowd that keeps pushing Mitt, add up the percentages of Newt, Ron Paul, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum and Huntsman. There is a huge majority that does not want Romney. You folks say we have to nominate Romney so he’ll get the independent vote. Why don’t we pick somebody that overwhelmingly gets ALL the Republican vote and then we do our job in convincing 2/3 of independents to join us?

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/11/u-s-debt-will-top-15-trillion-mark-today/

  • JSobieski

    To the contrary—had the party handled Johnson better (not cooperated with the media to keep him to the sidelines), he would have had his shot, lost, and not had this urge to run (or threaten to run) third party.

    The Libertarian party is an annoyance, but it would be nice to get a decent chunk of the people who swing between Libertarian and Republican.

    Nobody should support a Johnson candidacy—but everyone should try to avoid creating these situations.

    A decent chunk of Libertarians should be voting R—at least in federal elections.

  • romansdaughter

    Chin up, we can fight the establishment! Don’t let it get you down!

  • benko

    http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelreagan/2011/12/14/has_the_right_gone_mad

    “The GOP establishment doesn’t like Newt. He’s too outspoken. They like wishy-washy candidates. Their problem is that the majority of Republicans in the real world prefer candidates who hold strong convictions and speak out forcefully and clearly. Every time the GOP picks a candidate with weak Republican convictions, the Republican party loses. And lose they should. A party that will not defend its principles doesn’t deserve to win.

    If Republicans turn their guns on Newt instead of on Obama, Obama will be our president for another four years. Is that what they want?”

  • Common_Cents

    Quit being a baby. You want obama to pick a couple more SCOTUS?

  • Common_Cents

    And they call Gingrich an insider. Not much support from the cushy DC elites.

    Gingrich should actually be out selling his DC experience. That place is extremely complicated and someone completely new to DC will have a tremendously difficult time working the system. This is a big plus for Gingrich in getting more done than anyone.

  • YnotNOW

    National Review must think that Mitt is the most conservative “who can win”.
    Which does have some merit, in that Newt and other non-Romney candidates have shown a propensity to self-immolate. Which could prove disasterous in the General, when it is too late to switch candidates. Maybe they just don’t want to take that chance.
    (speaking from the experience of Colorado Gov race in 2010)

  • snowshooze

    And the analogy is just that the best suited for the job are being cast by the wayside because the are perceived to be unable to win a popularity contest..
    My dog is in charge of 24/7 foot patrol of the castle. And he does a great job.
    All else aside, we should select on merit alone, not marketability.
    This is our last shot, possibly, before we are drug in so deep that we can’t fix it short of an American Spring.

  • jasondallastx

    eye of newt…MacBeth…Shakespeare…witches.

    I’d already said that her endorsement of Romney helps everyone but Romney.

    ps, since you don’t seem to get it, the other day when you called me both pusillanimous AND gutless…well, you realize that those both mean the same thing, right? Why not throw cowardly in there too?

    That would be like me calling you stupid AND an idiot AND a moron. Which just moves the argument forward so substantially.

  • avagreen

    &#&

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Markets only convey the latest information if they are efficient. There’s no evidence Intrade markets, with their relatively low volume, are efficient.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    PPP’s the only real hard lefty outlet I linked to above, anyway. Typically what you’ll see the news media outlets do is use two firms, one left and one right.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You win.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Debate invitations were based on national polling criteria, and they were set so stupidly low that even Huntsman got in. But nobody wanted to support a former drug addict like Gary Johnson, so he failed to meet the standard.

  • Common_Cents

    1st place votes
    Newt Gingrich: 36.5%
    Mitt Romney: 18.8%
    Ron Paul: 17.7%
    Michele Bachmann: 17.4%
    Rick Perry: 9.5%

    2nd place votes:
    Michele Bachmann: 25.4%
    Newt Gingrich: 20.6%
    Mitt Romney: 20.4%
    Rick Perry: 18.2%
    Ron Paul: 15.4%

  • avagreen

    considering tonight debate and decisions of mods/folks that commented here.

    …….And,…..Most people couldn’t even get on to vote….

  • Common_Cents

    don’t be trolling any polls anytime soon then ;)

  • Lucas Black

    Better not tell Rick Perry he’s slipped to 5th in the Hot Gas poll.

  • avagreen

    …….

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Get real