So Newt's in Freefall

Unabogie said:
So it's pretty amazing, but Newt's support is just evaporating.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/12/newt_in_free_fall.php?ref=fpblg

My question is why? Is it really just the attack ads? Is there something happening on right wing talk radio that I missed (because I never listen to right wing talk radio)?

Folks on the right: what's your take? Why is he just plummeting without a scandal or a debate gaffe?
Click to expand...

The 'Serial Hypocrisy' ads were run pretty hard in Iowa, I believe:

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...aul-newt-gingrich-serial-hypocrisy-ad-iowa-/1

The "serial hypocrisy" video was e-mailed to conservatives in Iowa and other early voting states last week. It uses Gingrich's own words on climate change, Medicare and his post-congressional career of offering "strategic advice" to mortgage giant Freddie Mac.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul stuck the knife in.
 
Trakar said:
Please identify the nation(s) which you feel lacks incompetent political parties.
(I'm just trying to figure out the comparison group).
Click to expand...

Darat is just commenting on the American drive for excellence and supremacy. Every nation has incompetent politicians, but this is America, doggonnit! We must have the most incompetent politicians!
 
cwalner said:
Darat is just commenting on the American drive for excellence and supremacy. Every nation has incompetent politicians, but this is America, doggonnit! We must have the most incompetent politicians!
Click to expand...

I'm willing to settle for bronze.

You know, I'm willing to setting for a gold star just for participating but letting other countries display their superiority. Yes, this could be the ice dance of olympic-level politics!
 
I wonder if Huckabee is kicking himself right now. While he isn't a strong candidate IMO, he would be the only one in the race that Republicans don't view as fatally flawed and would win almost without even needing to campaign at this point.
 
Democracy Simulator said:
The 'Serial Hypocrisy' ads were run pretty hard in Iowa, I believe:

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...aul-newt-gingrich-serial-hypocrisy-ad-iowa-/1

Ron Paul stuck the knife in.

BenBurch said:
Good for him!

One thing I will give RP is that "hypocrisy" does not enter my head when I think of him.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I so agree. It's funny but his favorable points are considerable. It's the failure to accept evolution, women's rights, etc., etc.. But he is consistent and for that he's head and shoulders above many candidates. GOP and Democrat.
 
Ron Paul Attacks Gingrich...AGAIN!

He is kicking ass and taking names. I gotta say he's doing a hell of a job of getting Newt (this is a Young Turks video that plays the Paul add attacking Newt).

 
As far as I can tell the Republican party doesn't WANT to beat Obama. In my opinion, if they wanted to win they'd get behind someone marketable and shove them in the face of the voters.

The lack of marketability of the Republican offering suggests The Party is either a) not interested in winning 2012 or b) not capable of controlling the offerings to the voters.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
As far as I can tell the Republican party doesn't WANT to beat Obama. In my opinion, if they wanted to win they'd get behind someone marketable and shove them in the face of the voters.

The lack of marketability of the Republican offering suggests The Party is either a) not interested in winning 2012 or b) not capable of controlling the offerings to the voters.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they want to beat Obama, but I'm not sure they think they can. Obama has a lot of support from a lot of areas, and his handling of foreign policy has won over even some conservatives. The thing is, no politician wants to be on a losing ticket. They fear that if they go down once, there's no chance of getting another crack. (Though Richard Nixon bucked this trend.) So there may be some "marketable" candidates who are saving it up for 2016 when they won't be facing a fairly popular incumbant. Obama is up to almost 50% approval rating, which is pretty damn good considering the economy.
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
But Ron Paul won't win outside of that state. Iowa wingnuts come with extra nuts. Are we all out of flavors of the month? Teapeople will just sigh and give up and let Romney have it?
Click to expand...
Just wondering if the majority of Iowans are ever going to catch on that no one gives a crap whether or not they mate with their farm animals or their kids marry same sex or not. None of us have any intention/desire to make them do either of those things - more precisely, we just don't care. Why they think we do and keep voting republicker as if that will save them from the real world I have no idea - but most of them are still voting against their and our best interests.
 
Freefall?

Iowa? I don't think I'd write him off, just yet. Iowa's no barometer of anything for the GOP. The battle will be fought and won/lost in NH, SC, FL. And I'm happy to say those states are nicely messed up. Can Paul get any momentum out of a possible caucus win in Iowa? Probably enough to take some Newt votes in SC and FL, but is Newt really going to drop to the teens or just even out some of this ridiculous blip he had - hell, he rose to 40% in some polls for a moment or two.

I like a scenario with Paul taking Iowa, Romney taking NH and Pual making it close for second,... and then Newt takes SC but closer than anyone expected from his neighboring state, and Romney steals FL with a Ron Paul surge helping him out.
 
Tricky said:
So there may be some "marketable" candidates who are saving it up for 2016 when they won't be facing a fairly popular incumbant. Obama is up to almost 50% approval rating, which is pretty damn good considering the economy.
Click to expand...

I think you are right, 2012 is already a wash. Frankly so was 2008. I wonder who will be on deck for the Democrats in 2016? Maybe Hillary?
 
Uh oh! I keep learning that old terms I thought I knew the meaning of actually mean something else. Does "a wash" not mean "a tie or draw", of sorts?
 
Well, the sub-plots for the Dems could get Machiavellean.

In fact, worthy of its own thread.... Rather than continue I'm going to go annoy all the "Eeew, aren't there enough USA election threads" crowd.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
As far as I can tell the Republican party doesn't WANT to beat Obama. In my opinion, if they wanted to win they'd get behind someone marketable and shove them in the face of the voters.
Click to expand...

There is also the possiblity that they have all lost their marbles and are entertaining the delusion that one of these clowns is actually competent.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Uh oh! I keep learning that old terms I thought I knew the meaning of actually mean something else. Does "a wash" not mean "a tie or draw", of sorts?
Click to expand...
I believe it basically means "a waste of time" or "pointless lol.
 
Trakar said:
Please identify the nation(s) which you feel lacks incompetent political parties.
(I'm just trying to figure out the comparison group).
Click to expand...

That wasn´t Darat´s point.

His point was that the US lacks competent politicial parties.

What you have is two right-wing coalition who care almost exclusively about gaining more power, one of whom has stated openly that it is willing to betray the principles of the Constitution and sabotage the country in order to achieve its goal.
 
Juniversal said:
I believe it basically means "a waste of time" or "pointless lol.
Click to expand...

According to Webster "a wash" is a situation in which losses and gains or advantages and disadvantages balance each other. Another dictionary defines it as an action or enterprise in which losses and gains cancel out.

-Bri
 
Obama and his team must be enjoying all the infighting on the Republican side. No one wants the one that is in the lead in Republican race and the all the others seem to self destruct after about month of challenging Romney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom