Huge Romney bounce in Florida

By: Neil Stevens (Diary) | January 26th, 2012 at 11:00 AM |

RESIZE: AAA

Gingrich Romney

We were spoiled by the New Hampshire and South Carolina polling. Those states weren’t stagnant in voter opinion, but they at least moved at reasonable speeds, and allowed for a clear understanding of what was going on.

Florida is different. After swinging 20 points to Newt Gingrich, has now gone 10-15 points right back to Mitt Romney.

Today I’m looking at the polls that ended Tuesday and Wednesday. That includes three big, familiar names this cycle: ORC/CNN/Time, Rasmussen Reports, and InsiderAdvantage.

I hate inconsistencies. The less consistent the polling is, either across pollsters or between readings, the less confident we can be in making predictions based on that polling. We can never be sure whether the changes are the result of real movement in the electorate, or the result of some form of measurement error.

In the case of Florida right now, the polling is looking to be inconsistent over time. Rasmussen Reports (750 LVs, MoE 4) shows Romney 39, Gingrich 31, a 17 point swing from the Romney 32, Gingrich 41 reading of just three days before. Inside Advantage (530 LVs, MoE 4) is very close to that: Romney 40, Gignrich 32, a 16 point swing from three days before.

CNN/Time (369 LVs, MoE 5) didn’t poll a few days ago, and in fact didn’t poll in a week. So CNN apparently missed the Gingrich bump and kept Romney ahead all the time. Be careful though, while Romney 36, Gingrich 34 though is a worse result for Romney than the other two, don’t be misled by the fact that CNN shows a 22 point pro-Gingrich swing since its last poll. This is why only looking at swings within a single pollster’s results isn’t a technique I use.

Estimated win probabilities based on each poll: 84% Romney, 84% Romney, 57% Romney. So it’s very near even if CNN is right, otherwise Gingrich needs pull another surge from his sleeve to get Florida on his side.

Some will say Gingrich clearly can do it, since Florida has been volatile. Others say Gingrich’s lead was a mirage, and was a bump he was never going to sustain, just basking in great media coverage after South Carolina and a debate. My suspicion is that voters just aren’t sure. In the YouTube era, every candidate is now visibly flawed.

Crossposted from Unlikely Voter

Tags: 2012, CNN, Florida, InsiderAdvantage, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, ORC International, President, Rasmussen Reports, Republicans

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

edintexas

I’ll hold my nose and vote for either one.
redmymind

Being “presidential” does not mean letting the other guy keep swingin’ at you. You can be “presidential” once you’ve established a clear pattern of being the likely nominee. One win in SC does not put Newt in that category. This is not the time to sit back and let the foot off the gas. Newt should have continued to hammer Romney that night. Also, joking (or not) about having your grandkids as your “debate coaches,” I think, does not inspire that much confidence. It’s a “cute” imagery arguably, but perhaps not the most appropriate, given the sheer gravity of 2012. Many may take it the wrong way.

Just my $0.02.
mikeymike143

and rick santorum has my vote.
benko

Fortunately Nancy Reagan has other things to say:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/greghengler/2012/01/26/nancy_reagan_1995_ronnie_turned_that_torch_over_to_newt
Common_Cents
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Florida’s at-large delegates are WTA by state. And due to the penalty, all of FL’s delegates are at-large this time.
http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

At any rate, Newt the Bologna Man is being exposed for who he really is.Drudge hammered Gingrich this morning on his attacks on Reagan and his lies about “witnesses” he supposedly offered to ABC.

Newt’s baggage will continue to dribble out as the campaign wares on.

Popcorn!! Get your popcorn!
In The Hook

Let’s listen to the embryonic stem cell research supporter and psychic-believer Nancy. I suppose I should also take cues from Ronnie or Michael as well.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Listen buddy. Nobody actually takes you seriously.
izoneguy
fightnright

late at night in his or her flashy sports car (the envy of everybody in school!), scene-stealing outfit, and pickup lines to make one’s knees weak, Floridians have said to themselves ‘let me sleep on this’, and in the sober light of morning, decided that the duller but (possibly) wiser guy/gal next door for me.

It sure does bite most of us having to vote for a candidate that we think stinks just because we think that the other guy stinks worse.
jakeofalltrades

You should pick one. Almost all the primaries are winner take all now, and Rick is only in this now for an executive appointment.
courdeleon02

I wonder what Nancy would think today had she known that Newt called his meeting with Gorbachev at the Summit a meeting between Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler. Calling Ronny, Chamberlain was typical of Newt’s extremist personality and unstable judgement. Check todays Drudge Report for more facts about he utter fraud that Newt really is.
tyman

filling in for Boortz.

I thought the video loaded twice with a 1-2 second delay.

Romney’s and the establisment’s tactics are absolutely disgusting.

He must really feel like the presidency is owed to him.
In The Hook

Look, I’m not even going to start with Romney and his disingenuousness or flip-flops. The reason the base hates him is because they KNOW he’s not one of them. And they are dead-set accurate. But at the very, very least Romney hasn’t tried to assert “yes, I am one of you.” He’s said he has a conservative record given constraints of being in Massachusetts and is personally conservative. Both of those things are true.

Newt, on the other hand, is a dangerous demagogue and is not conservative either. His desire is for power and for power alone. He is a moral and political snake and why we would ever want him as our standard bearer I could not imagine.

Yeah, a glowing endorsement for Romney this is not. But we have the candidates we have. If Santorum wasn’t such a statist and actually had a chance of winning the primary, much less the general, I’d toss in with him. At least he’s a pretty good guy and has a stellar conservative record on the social side.
Death_of_the_Donkey

with a silent audience, he just doesn’t exude the same charisma and his answers can seem more like lecturing. If the audience at the next one is allowed to be vocal, he may come right back. Having said that, the presidential debates are historically silent and I would guarantee they are this year as well, in other words Newt could be in trouble if/when he gets to those as well.

Let’s be honest here, do we really like any of our current candidates?
courdeleon02

He was not really a Reaganite. Comments are supported by numerous conservatives. Newt’s history of unstable views and comments are out there for all to see. Thank God someone is speaking out about this fraud before he gets the nod. The Gingrich candidacy would be a gift to the Obama White House. Obama must go but Newt can’t do it. Also according to the polls Newt does not fair well with women voters. I have always said that women are more perceptive than men and i think their assesment of Gingrich is correct. Nasty Newt is arrogant, selfish and unstable.
http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

Newt will not be the nominee. You may not take me seriously, but the voters in Florida are about to make my predictions come true.

Popcorn!! Get you popcorn!!!
cfoy65

Personally, next Tuesday can not come fast enough. I am getting at least three recorded telephone messages and three pieces of mail daily from the Romney camp. There is nothing touting any Romney accomplishments only hit pieces on Gingrich. After Perry dropped out, I was really bummed, but no other choice but to go with Gingrich. At least he was responsible for the contract with America and getting a majority in the house of representatives. I don’t know of any Romney accomplishments. Because the media is so vehemently opposed to Gingrich, I know I am making the right choice. I know the political process is a nasty one, but I’m really getting totally turned off by the Republican party, Drudge and Fox news.
In The Hook

I don’t think Romney for one second would try to cloak himself in Reagan’s mantle. And if he did, it would be an utter trainwreck.

The point is that neither of these guys are Reagan and frankly, nobody even out there that could run is Reagan. He’s gone. We have to move forward with the very flawed field we have (unless we get a brokered convention and a white knight, but I don’t know who would play that role) and thank God that the guy we’re running against is even MORE flawed.

So if you want the “fighter” who is going to “tell the truth” by delivering full-throated lies then by all means, go right ahead. I’ll take the guy who by all accounts has the best chance of winning in the general and isn’t seen as more of a liar than any other politician by the populace. Newt gets that special prize for being an even bigger liar and demagogue than your typical Washington gasbag.
hls87

but I think I have to wash my hair on the first tuesday in November, and I hardly have any hair. With so many things to do and life so short, it seems a shame to waste half an hour casting a ballot for Mitt Romney (or Newt Gingrich either for that matter although he won’t be on the ballot).

Yeah, I know, conservative in the primary Republican in the general . . . . Remind me how that’s working out for us. Consider this list: Hoover, Landon, Wilke, Dewey, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain and Romney. Republicans have been full partners with Democrats in the progressive demolition of America. They have rarely given conservatives anything to cheer about and they certainly aren’t going to do so this year.

Republicans have decided to let Obama run unopposed for the second time in a row. It’s time for a revolution within the GOP and conservatives have to focus their efforts on staging one. The presidential game is over until 2016.
Samsara

Romney’s new campaign slogan for the remaining Primary States

“Eat Your Peas”

And in the General Election?

Old? Rich? Vote Romney
thosjefferson

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49068
BA Cyclone

Nearly all primaries are not simply “winner take all”; most have some caveat for that (like getting a majority of the vote). There are a lot of straight proportional primaries through March….including Texas with 155 delegates on 3 April.

Delegate calendar
BA Cyclone

Nearly all primaries are not simply “winner take all”; most have some caveat for that (like getting a majority of the vote). There are a lot of straight proportional primaries through March….including Texas with 155 delegates on 3 April.

Delegate calendar
unsk

If will be a very sad day for America if Romney wins the nomination.

America will have become a one party state. The socialist Democrat/RINO Progressive Party will have taken total control of our electoral process.

Expect your freedoms to disappear one by one all in the name of what’s good for you.

Obamacare will become a permanent fixture in your life. Your taxes will go through the roof, with an all but certain passage of a VAT. Our defense will be drastically cut., and our enemies will slowly strangle us. The Too Big To Fail Banks will take total control of the economy. Nanny State regulations will monitor your every waking moment. And say good by to small business, because such independent initiative will not be allowed.

But, hey we’ll be a lot more fashionable in Europe.
carolynr

Yes…I read the pieces on Gingrich. One of my posts states exactly how I feel…TERRIBLE. I don’t want Romney in there. It is evident that his lies…DURING THE DEBATES, i.e., “the first thing I will do after taking the oath of office is repeal Obamacare”…are but a string of many. Now, his campaign is stating that they will REPLACE Obamacare. I don’t want the GD thing replaced. Get health accounts, sell across state lines AND GET TORT REFORM PASSED. But…oh no…we can’t have that, we’d put the lawyers (who are 99% of Congress) OUT OF BUSINESS.

Like was predicted…Gingrich came off the rails…why…because he made statements that were untrue. What we have to ask ourselves is this…WHO IS THE BIGGEST LIAR. Because that is all we have to pick from.

Santorum fans…forget it…the man does not have the experience and every sentence in the debates is either to garner to Evangelicals of SPEND, SPEND, SPEND. He’s a Bushie…what more do you need to convince you people…isn’t his voting record enough?? And…let’s not forget…that EVEN Saint Santorum is not all that pure when it comes to poor decisions and paybacks to contributors via a charity.

The Republican Party’s biggest threat it Ron Paul. If those voters do not come over to the nominee…we’re cooked. We have four more years and the loss of the country known as America.

Romney will, I predict, do NOTHING, but occupy the oval office. The policies of Obama will be in place and he will do nothing. His contributors on Wall Street will profit and the Middle Class will be no more.

So…what say you.. Who is the biggest liability….Who is the biggest liar? That’s our choice.
Scope

was out there for everyone to see long ago, yet Palin comes out and gives her nod to vote for him in SC. So now we have the anti-Romney, who may actually be worse than the Romney, if that’s even possible. The field was successfully cleared by Fox, the pundits, talking heads, moving lips, bloggers and bloviators. The Evangelicals sold their voices for a candidate that will likely be gone before the Fla. primary, some have indicated by design. Now we are left with Frick and Frack, and we’re supposed to be thrilled. Those styrofoam columns are being dusted off as we speak.
romansdaughter

candidates that are left beating Obama. If you are thinking Mittens, then let me clue you in that given how he can not take criticism and etc..Obama is going to wipe him out in the General. I think Newt would do better but he won’t win either. No we blew it!
In The Hook

We didn’t “blow it” man. Obama is weak. He’ll only get stronger if the economy markedly improves and then to be honest it doesn’t matter what we bring to the table.

This needs to be a referendum on Obama. The question is which of these guys is most likely to be able to keep the spotlight on Obama and his record? The maniacal gasbag with a never-ending closet of scandal and sleaze, or the guy who is personally clean and a competent executive but has a shoddy record when it comes to conservatism?

I prefer the guy who is competent and doesn’t say outrageous things every five seconds, because that way the election can stay a referendum on Obama. And who knows? If Mittens is the nominee, maybe Obama will overplay his hand and make this an Occupy election in the general, which would give our side the advantage. I don’t think Obama would have to make a single campaign stop or speech to win if Newt was the nominee.
In The Hook

Perhaps the prospect of Newt being the nominee makes the base a bit more enthusiastic about Romney being the guy. It has for me. Just a small, small bit, but it’s there.
benko

how they will govern.

Sowell says it best: (Townhall can’t find exact link)

Whichever candidate the Republican voters finally choose from this year’s field, they are bound to have reservations, if not fears. Gingrich’s worst could be worse than Romney’s worst, both as a candidate and as a president. But Gingrich’s best is much better than Romney’s best.

Sometimes caution can be carried to the point where it is dangerous. When the Super Bowl is on the line, you don’t go with the quarterback who is least likely to throw an interception. You go with the one most likely to throw a touchdown pass.
In The Hook

Interceptions mean a whole heck of a lot more than touchdown passes. Trust me, I’m a Packers fan that lived through the Brett Favre years. Yes, we won one Super Bowl but Favre singlehandedly lost a huge number of playoff games with his reckless style.

Races against incumbents are decided mostly on factors that neither campaign can control. If the economy improves, Obama wins. If it slips backwards, the GOP wins. If it stays the way it is today, it’s a total coin flip. I’m betting that we’re going to muddle through when November comes around, so I’ll take the game manager over the gunslinger.

And Gingrich isn’t Favre. He’s Ryan Leaf.
kestrel

or you might understand how crass your comment appears by comparison. Just keep talking up your guy Romney in exactly this manner. Thanks.
fightnright

you’re not considering the enormous new bloc of general election votes to be had in 2012 from the desperate ‘anybody but Obama’ folks who got burned with loss of jobs, homes, and our entire national security after their new kewl date showed up last year bearing flowery promises and whispering sweet nothings all hope and changey. They are a real and too-often forgotten force in this contest, in which everything will depend on that sliver of percentage points which got the fraud in the WH elected with the blankest slate in history as his cover.

You’re forgetting the genuine state of the economy for the middle classes who see as I do, store after store closing in their communities, and family member after family member without living wages or hope for the future. You’re forgetting now PROVEN far-leftist Obama as a negative force in himself, who will motivate more voters to get to the polls – both litmus test Repubs who threaten to sit it out, and past unreliable voters in droves. Even a small percentage of African-Americans more influenced by the states of their wallets than the color of their skin are having buyer’s remorse.

You’re forgetting Obama as the ultimate candidate to move minds in a nose-holding contest , who wipes clean the old saw that moderate candidates will erase the energy of the base. The new dynamic of a proven and failed radical as the only alternative is what will be deciding the outcome this fall – the important thing for Republicans is not to nominate someone who will be perceived as the MORE dangerous radical to moderates than O.
moodyboots

Newt spent the 80s bashing what he’d call “Goldwater conservatism” that he’d see as too “strict” and “unfashionable”. He became the leader of the Rockfeller wing of the GOP and would often criticize the conservative wing and the Reagan Administration on the floor. He’d be constantly praising presidents like Roosevelt because they were “pro-active”. I still remember Newt being one of the earliest and most ardent defenders of a living wage, for example.

Newt is a man who’s a true believer in the power of government. He doesn’t like the way liberals used the government, but he thinks the government can and should be used to cure society of its warts and to make us better persons and America a more glorious country and all that.
http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

He’s still the only Republican Speaker that forced a Democrat President to run to the right. Every other one has allowed them to run to the left.
elayman

He would have had something to say about Obamacare ! Where are the amazing candidates when you need them ?

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120126005145/en/Presidential-Candidate-Jon-M.-Huntsman-Jr.-Named

Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah (HCI) today announced that Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. will be appointed to the position of Chairman of the Huntsman Cancer Foundation (the Foundation), effective immediately.
In The Hook

The terrible part of this is that we had people in this race that had better records than Romney and could still fill that “generic Republican” mantle: Pawlenty and Huntsman. Both ran just terrible, God-awful campaigns in the primary.

So we’re stuck with what we have. Who do we want? The guy who can plausibly make the race about Obama or at least make this an “embrace Occupy Wall Street or don’t” contest or do we want a race where our guy will blow himself and the party up a dozen times over?

Yet again I plead with you folks who hate the establishment to realize that the establishment is not quashing a conservative to favor a moderate ala Ford or GHWBush over Reagan or Crist over Rubio. They’re trying to quash a crazy person in favor of a not-crazy person. Despite having held office in the past, Newt is as radioactive as Angle or O’Donnell. And Romney’s not Castle or even GHWB. So there’s that.
tyman

Bill Clinton would have been a one termer.

Clinton owed his second term to Newt. Look at a DJIA chart. It didn’t go up during the Clinton administration until Republicans took control of Congress, thanks to Newt.

If you look at the chart, it is absolutely indisputable.

If all that economic explosion hadn’t happened, Clinton would have NEVER gotten re-elected. And, it happened in spite of all the Marxist stuff Clinton tried to do. Robert Reich is still so clueless he doesn’t remember what happened.

If Newt doesn’t get the nomination, and Romney is elected, I wish Newt could at least be speaker to force Willard to the right. Good luck with that with Boehener and McConnell.
goodgovernance

Our memories are not so short. Romney has indeed tried to cloak himself in Reagan’s mantle, time and time again. And his supporters have most certainly tried to wrap him in that mantle as well.

Here’s an example from the 2008 GOP debate at the Reagan library (an event where Romney turned to Nancy Reagan and told her to her face the out and out lie that he was a great admirer of Reagan and a Reagan conservative):

MODERATOR: We’ll start with Governor Romney. Would, and if so why — why would Ronald Reagan endorse you? Would Ronald Reagan endorse you? And if so, why?

ROMNEY: Absolutely… like Ronald Reagan, I’d go to Washington as an outsider… I would be able to be the independent outsider Ronald Reagan was… I would be with Ronald Reagan.

MODERATOR: Senator McCain, would Ronald Reagan endorse you?

MCCAIN: Ronald Reagan would not approve of someone who changes their positions depending on what the year is.
goodgovernance

Our memories are not so short. Romney has indeed tried to cloak himself in Reagan?s mantle, time and time again. And his supporters have most certainly tried to wrap him in that mantle as well.

Here?s an example from the 2008 GOP debate at the Reagan library (an event where Romney turned to Nancy Reagan and told her to her face the out and out lie that he was a great admirer of Reagan and a Reagan conservative):

MODERATOR: We?ll start with Governor Romney. Would, and if so why ? why would Ronald Reagan endorse you? Would Ronald Reagan endorse you? And if so, why?

ROMNEY: Absolutely? like Ronald Reagan, I?d go to Washington as an outsider? I would be able to be the independent outsider Ronald Reagan was? I would be with Ronald Reagan.

MODERATOR: Senator McCain, would Ronald Reagan endorse you?

MCCAIN: Ronald Reagan would not approve of someone who changes their positions depending on what the year is.
moodyboots

All he does it’s to attack him from the left.
ajdx3

shows Romney leads Obama by 47 percent to 42 percent in the Florida survey, while Obama tops Gingrich by 9 points, 49 percent to 40 percent. Among independents, Obama leads Romney 44 percent to 38 percent and opened up a 56 percent to 29 percent advantage over Gingrich. Gingrich grabbed 12 percent of registered Democrats, while Romney secured 18 percent of registered Democrats.

Doesn’t bode well for defeating Obama if Republicans nominate Newt and lose Florida.
moodyboots

with Obama. After all, we haven’t had anything remotely close to Obamacare and stimulus since Boehner became the Speaker.

In fact, I’d say that this House has been further to the right than Newt’s one (not the Senate obviously).

Newt has a gift: he’s very good at throwing red-meat. That’s why he created the impression he was doing something unique as Speaker. And in a way, he was. As Tom Coburn and many others explain. And he ended up re-electing Clinton and making the GOP so unpopular that we had the worst midterm performance in for a party that didn’t hold the presidency since the Great Depression.
General_Confusion

It?s go-along, get along vs might actually do something.

Can you imagine the Go along, get along dream team of Romney, McConnell and Boehner.

Newt is certainly not my first choice but we cannot have another round of go along, get along. Mitt?s people are already walking back Obamacare repeal.
texashistorian

don;t mean too much at this point. They can change a lot once we have a single candidate focusing on Obama.
romeg

of FDR and the election of Ronald Reagan the government and the government run education system in this country elevated FDR to god-like status. Those that lived through the depression believe it was HE who “Saved the country from economic doom” rather than the truth: that he was largely responsible for much of that destruction. That he imprisoned thousands of American citizens, confiscating their property in the process was completely ignored.

That he was President during WWII did much to cause the notion that he saved democracy itself to be internalized by two generations of Americans. So, yes, Republicans went along with it.

That Truman was able to successfully run against what he called “The Do-Nothing Congress” and turn control of both chamber os that body further aided in this socialization of America. Not until Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich began to seriously push back against that did things begin to change and since 1980 Republicans sent to Washington seemed to forget why it was that they were sent there.

But as long as everyone was getting rich no one really seemed to mind very much that America was merrily drifting toward the roaring falls of a Niagra like precipitous decline and that unless we reversed course, our economic demise would be inevitable.

Perhaps it isn’t too late and we can pull ourselves out of this mess but we won’t be able to do so if we allow Obama to be re-elected and continue his utter abrogation of the U.S. Constitution with his “Recess” appointments while the Senate is still in session and the implementation of his enormous give-away programs and the virtual nationalization of small businesses that have nothing to do with Interstate Commerce.

There is NO candidate on the Republican side that is worse that Obama. We all just need to get over the idea that we can sit home an pout and mope because OUR candidate didn’t earn the nomination.

OMG

Obama
Must
Go
renl57

Senator Sharron Angle hasn’t done much.
That’s because she’s not Senator.

This is a center-right country (with the emphasis on CENTER), not a right-wing country.

The kind of candidate who might be near and dear to our hearts, can’t win.

Remember that the platform that Reagan campaigned on in 1980–as well as all his campaign promises–included vows to preserve Social Security and Medicare.

A candidate who would pledge to undo the entire social safety net enacted since Herbert Hoover can’t win. It’s as simple as that. The center and of course the left long since made their peace with a government-provided social safety net. Laissez-faire capitalism will always be just an impossible dream.
goodgovernance

He could get back in the race, but having endorsed Romney, I don’t think he could get in until Romney drops out.

I can respect the fact he endorsed Romney, even though I really dislike him. I think Huntsman was trying to do right by the party, and at the time it looked like Romney was about to take the whole thing. Also, there was a lot of speculation by some people that Huntsman only ran to set himself up for a third party candidacy, so Huntsman needed to endorse another candidate to quell those rumors.
cfoy65

It is these type of hit pieces that are pushing me towards Newt. Ann Coulter is not someone who is going to sway my opinion…sorry! I don’t pay attention to any of these “pundits” anymore as they all have a personal agenda. Honestly, when we have two flawed candidates the best position would be for these people to say nothing and just let the voters decide.
General_Confusion

All Romney is going to do if he wins is to continue with ?steady as she goes?. McConnell, Boehner and the rest of the establishment will cheer as the apple cart will remain undisturbed. Government will continue to grow unabated and spending will remain unchecked.

Problem is we are on an absolutely unsustainable course. Reality will kick in and very bad things will happen.

Romney is not a choice, he is a Obama echo (just like the current establishment), inaction will be deadly.

Newt is not my first choice but he is the ONLY one who might apply the brakes on this Federal Leviathan.
ajdx3

Quinnipiac also shows the former Massachusetts governor is also in a better place to challenge President Obama. According to a Quinnipiac University poll of Florida voters on Thursday, Romney runs even with Obama 45 – 45 percent in Florida while Gingrich is 11 points back from the president, 50 – 39 percent.
In the poll of 1,518 registered voters in Florida, independents support Romney against Obama almost evenly, but they break for Obama over Gingrich by a substantial 50-33 margin.
ajdx3

but I do not think you can ignore these types of polls entirely, particularly the state-by-state polls, as opposed to the national polls which mean even less. The ability to appeal or not appeal to independents is critical in the toss-up states and Newt is doing very poorly with independents.
jswolter

You’ve accused Newt of every despicable character flaw a candidate could have, yet provide nothing to back it up. Calling presidential candidates names without substance does nothing to further the discussion.

Newt only wants power? How do you know this? Newt is a political snake?…on what grounds? Newt is crazy…by what actions? Newt is radioactive?…on what form of public opinion?

For the last one, I know you might point to Newt’s disfavorables but also realize that those can be pretty volatile considering he just had a large swing to favorable after SC.
jswolter

Newt’s enhancement from the audience seems to be based on providing
bonnman

will probably be judged more on the unemployment rate than other factors. Unemployment is a more tangible measure for voters than debt to GDP for example. As long as unemployment remains where it is or as it has been, slightly dropping, voters aren’t going to feel that “unsustainable course”. I’d like to see both Romeny and Newt start to offer more than an Obama is bad campaign.
Finrod

.
Finrod

But only if you’re looking to minimize how much you lose by.

By your logic the Republican Party should have gone with Bush in 1980, not Reagan. When was Reagan’s first lead in the polls against Carter?
rightkindofred

…and overtake him. I don’t want to rehash everything that’s been said about Newt, but on the Presidential Persona-tron, Romney scores much higher readings. You can imagine him in the Oval Office, first wife/first lady in tow. You just can’t say the same for Newt.

If Romney can’t pull away, we might be looking at a brokered convention, with Jeb as the nominee who will wipe the floor with Obama, no questions asked.
http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

Everyone knows Clinton was Obama his first two years and then moved to the center. That was in 1994. Contract with America. Speaker Newt Gingrich. Welfare Reform. Balanced budgets. Budget surpluses. High employment. etc. etc. etc. It certainly wasn’t Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole that did that. And we know there’s no way Clinton wanted to do that on his own.

Somehow, I just don’t see the same thing in the past year with Obama.

Look, we know you don’t like Newt. That’s fine. But enough of us have been around long enough that we can tell the difference between Gingrich and Boehner. We can also tell the difference between Romney and Reagan. We also know that Santorum is Dole/McCain redux, only not as good.
david1313

At this point a brokered convention is sounding pretty good. If it is Jeb Bush I would be delighted, if not we are in serious trouble. I can’t support Mitt Romney, ever. I think he is more dangerous than Obama. Newt might make me nervous, but I can live with anxiety, I can’t live with deciet.
rightkindofred

Start screwing with people’s SS and Medicare, and just watch how quickly the emerging Republican majority unravels. I’ve known many people who were staunch Republican conservatives, who would sooner have voted for FDR than see their monthly checks reduced by a single penny.

Laissez-faire capitalism? I’m all for capitalism, but the rise of this country as an industrial giant owed very little to laissez-faire, and much to federal spending on canals, roads, railroads, armaments, etc., as well as the government’s maintenance of a “tariff wall” until quite recently, the dismantling of which has been paralleled by the decline of industry and, concomitantly, living standards in this country.
In The Hook

You play to win the game. You don’t play just to play.

The difference is that if and when you win, you have to advance your agenda instead of giving free plays to the other side like with Medicare Part D or NCLB.

Compromise is not a terrible thing if you get most of what you want. Look at the libs. They “compromised” with Obamacare. They didn’t get a public option and certainly didn’t get single payer. But it was a huge win for the left nonetheless.

If we compromise on a few things when we have a governing majority, that’s OK, but we need to not just hand the other side victories in the name of “compassionate conservatism” or as Rush called it “the BIG theory” that we’d move people into our tent if we not only water-down our views but actually gave the other side some wins.
mikeymike143

i was chatting with richard denapoli today(the chairman of the republican party of broward county) and he pointed out that florida very well may may end up being proportional instead of winner take all. and he also sent me this newspaper article about the subject:

Fla’s winner-take-all primary could lead to messy challenge

The question boils down to this: Did the RNC properly allow the Republican Party of Florida to decree its primary a winner-take-all contest for Florida delegates? Or should Florida’s 50 delegates in fact be divvied up proportionally by each candidate’s share of the primary vote?

“The rule is absolutely clear ? it should be proportional,” said former RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who led the national party when the rules were drawn up.

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/flas-winner-take-all-primary-could-lead-messy-challenge

and i got richard to give me a quote about this issue:

“I’ve read that the decision by the RNC to allow Florida as a Winner-Take-All Primary is subject to challenge. If there was indeed a challenge, then the party’s contest committee would have to consider the issue when it meets in August just before the RNC convention. So there appears to be a possibility that Florida’s delegates may eventually be allocated proportionally. We may not know the final answer, however, until August. If it’s a close race it could get very interesting and Florida could end up in the spotlight again.”- Richard DeNapoli,, Chairman of the Republican Party of Broward County.
General_Confusion

We are literally multi trillions in the negative just with future liability not even addressing the current debt. Add in Obamacare (which Romney now doesn?t want to repeal) and economic Armageddon is assured.

Sure we could ?win? with a do nothing, maintain ?steady as she goes?, give the Dems whatever they want (as the current crew is doing in congress) but what have we as a nation won?

There?s winning for winning sake and then there?s winning because we must. I?m in the latter camp. Romney is not a win for the country and I don?t buy that he is a auto-winner.

P.S. And no Newt is not a conservatives utopia but he might actually try to put us on track whereas Romney, not a chance.

P.S.S. Government investments as economic engine forward: How is Solyndra and GM for example working for ya?
General_Confusion

We are literally multi trillions in the negative just with future liability not even addressing the current debt. Add in Obamacare (which Romney now doesn?t want to repeal) and economic Armageddon is assured.

Sure we could ?win? with a do nothing, maintain ?steady as she goes?, give the Dems whatever they want (as the current crew is doing in congress) but what have we as a nation won?

There?s winning for winning sake and then there?s winning because we must. I?m in the latter camp. Romney is not a win for the country and I don?t buy that he is a auto-winner.

P.S. And no Newt is not a conservatives utopia but he might actually try to put us on track whereas Romney, not a chance.

P.S.S. Government investments as economic engine forward: How is Solyndra and GM for example working for ya?
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

Saying there could be a challenge doesn’t really refute the point.

Santorum voters are throwing their vote away in a cheap cop out, at a time when men and women must step up and make decisions.
texashistorian

something to focus on if/when he gets past Romney. I agree, it shows an area of concern, but there is time to work on those numbers this far out, and Obama has shown that he is plenty capable of digging himself a deeper hole.
texasref

nt
moodyboots

If you cant’ discuss politics without name-calling, you can’t discuss politics with me. Understood?

I showed how Obama has also moved to the center after his first 2 years. I mean, he lost control of the House.

The budget deficit started being controlled by the Bush-Foley agreements. It started declining strongly since 1992. The first surplus actually only happened in FYI 1998, after Newt left, but the deficit started being cut in 1992 and the pace wasn’t really faster during Newt’s years. The 90s were a decade of budget improvement – mostly due to the economic turnaround that followed the world wide recession in the late 80s and early 90s. Heck, the unemployment rate had followed 1.4% in the two years before Gingrich was the speaker.

In fact, I’d say that the – much maligned by Newt – new instruments of capital funding that surged in the 80s were more important in that turnaround than anything done by the congress.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out the facts.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

50? 55?
http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

You’ve shown nothing. He’s done nothing but play golf the past year. He’s accomplished nothing except for what he’s been able to do by executive fiat. All of that is still very liberal. There’s been no move to the center at all.

You’re playing loose with the facts. It’s all Republicans have been able to talk about that Newt forced Clinton to the center during those years. That is, until he became a serious candidate this year and now, suddenly, that never happened.

What a crock.
moodyboots

He didn’t pass anything remotely close to Obamacare, the stimulus, the Dodd-Frank act or the auto-bailout since Boehner is the speaker.

I pointed out numbers. Check the evolution of the budget deficit/surplus during the 90s, with or without Newt as the speaker. Check the evolution of the unemployment numbers. Or keep living in a land of fantasy because you bought Newt’s propaganda more than one decade ago and you don’t want to stop believing in it.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

That Newt & Co would prevent anymore HillaryCare scares.
moodyboots

Any chance on economic indicators showing that the gridlock had a measurable impact? Which ones? The economy started booming in 1992. In 1993 the GDP annual grow was above 4%.

Defeating Hillarycare was definitely important though. But I’d say folks like William Kristol and Herman Cain played more instrumental roles than Newt Gingrich.
JSobieski

Obama has effectively been stopped, but with Clinton it was more than that.

Obama has not executed the equivalent of welfare reform.

Nor has Obama seriously engaged (as Clinton did before impeachment) in discussions re: entitlement reform.

Whether Newt can be attributed credit for Clinton can be questioned.

That Clinton behaved differently than Obama cannot be fairly refuted.

Boehner was not as successful as Newt—-not even close.
http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

It’s a stop. He’s not passed anything. All he’s done is through executive orders, recess appointments, etc. He’s worked around Congress, not with them.

That’s quite a bit different than what happened between 1994 and 1998.

Like I said, you’re either ignorant or dumb. At this point, it doesn’t really matter which.
willstauff

What I don’t understand, is how Newt’s crowds in Florida are in the thousands, while Romney is just a few 100. Romney’s people say they are confident they are in a lead based on structure and internal polling but what are they supposed to say?

With overflow crowds at virtually every stop for Newt you’d think it would dramatically effect polling. Dick Morris is suggesting that he’s seen a drop among women for Newt and he believes the ABC Ex wife piece is catching up to him. I have a tough time buying that with what we already know about Newts’ marriages. His negatives have always been built into his polling and I’m just not buying it.

Please help me out. Lay some knowledge on me. I need it!!!
falconrap

Reagan was down, what, 25 points with 7 months to go…to Carter, of all people. Polls at this point mean squat. Wait until you have head to head debates and people get to actually contrast the two candidates.

Every time we put a moderate up, the election is either close, or we lose. When we put a conservative up (or someone that has convinced the electorate that they are conservative), we win big. On matters of economics and defense this country is over 60% conservative, so the moderates are more in-line with us on the issues that matter right now.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

that taxes and regulations will not get worse.
SoFiMil

Give it a rest. You do Gov. Huntsman a huge disservice my constantly telling everyone about Huntsman’s donations to this and that.
SoFiMil

Give it a rest. You’re doing disservice to your candidate by constantlyc

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Huge Romney bounce in Florida

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL