Newt Surges

The rollercoaster ride Republicans were on in the weeks before Iowa ain't over yet. Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary by a margin the size of Chris Christie.

Newt Gingrich	40%
Mitt Romney	28%
Rick Santorum	17%
Ron Paul	13%

This tells us that Newt is a far more serious candidate than the Press wants acknowledge. It also tells us something we already knew about the Republican electorate.

Like the Democratic electorate in 2008, Republicans are divided between those whose desire to win is greater than their desire for authenticity in a candidate and those whose priorities are the opposite. In 2008, Senator Clinton looked like the safe candidate and Senator Obama the authentic one. In one of those ironies of politics, they went with Obama and won the White House only to find out that authenticity is easier to put on a poster than to translate into policy.

Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul all offer various brands of authenticity. For any number of reasons, Paul is doomed to be a marginal candidate. What Gingrich has that Santorum does not is belligerence and utter fearlessness. He doesn't care what the media thinks and he isn't afraid to challenge anyone and everyone who he thinks deserves it.

If Gingrich had had the discipline to do what Romney did, carefully build his organization state by state over the last four years, and if (very big if) he managed to avoid shooting himself off the platform, he would very probably be the Republican nominee. As it is, it is hard to see how Gingrich can sustain his South Carolina momentum. He won't even be on the ballot in Virginia. If I was betting I'd still bet on Romney, but I won't wager much.

Michael Barone is reporting that turnout was way up in South Carolina. If that holds, it reverses the trend in Iowa and New Hampshire. Newt can claim to be the candidate who generates enthusiasm.

Romney won three counties: Richland (Columbia), Charleston, and Beaufort (Hilton Head Island). That tells you that Romney does better among establishment Republicans.

CNN reports the exit polls. Gingrich won both among women and men, the latter by a slightly larger margin. He won decisively among older voters. Ron Paul won the under 29 vote. He won self-described Republicans by a wider margin and also independents, but by a narrower margin. Romney won self-described moderate or liberal voters.

There is no doubt that Gingrich is the kind of candidate who can generate enthusiasm in the Republican ranks. Romney surely looks like the kind of candidate who can have a broader appeal. He is also the kind of candidate that Republicans usually nominate.

I still have grave doubts that Newt Gingrich has the character needed to win the nomination, let alone to be President. I am not inspired by Mitt Romney. I do think he is a pretty typical specimen of a Republican presidential candidate. The Press, for obvious reasons, treats each contest at this point as a message from the Almighty. I won't indulge in that tendency. Nothing much is yet known.

I wish that the Republican candidates would focus more on the real question facing the nation. We are on the road to financial insolvency. The man in the White House doesn't seem to be aware of that fact. It would be good to know that whoever might replace is aware of it.

Ps. For a really devastating picture of Romney's loss, see Sean Trende.

Comments

[sdpride]

Obviously Republicans have a fetish for candidates who spend their time attacking the "liberal media" in the debates instead of discussing the issues. Unfortunately, that won't work well for Gingrich in the general election.

But that aside he is an arrogant, egotistical, shday blowhard who is absolutely not fit to be President. He couldn't lead the Republicans in the 90's, they forced him out. What makes people think he is any different now?

[The Dude]

Newt obviously gets plenty of undeserved criticism. Sure Newt loves Newt but who cares?

Just compare him and his accomplishments in the 90's to Boehner and those in power today. I'd take Newt any day over what we have now in DC.

Newt isn't who I wanted for an alternative to Romney but I don't want Romney and I dont' want Santorum. Doesn't mean I dislike Romney it just means I want to see him fight it out and prove he's the best choice.

[sdpride]

Your first mistake is to give so much credit for what happened in the 90's to Newt. If you don't believe that just ask yourself why if he was as great as he and his supporters claim, was he forced out?

Bottom line is he will say and do anything to be elected. It's all about him and gaining power and fame for himself. Why wouldn't we want a guy like that in the most powerful office in the world? Oh yeah because he won't be able to work with others (see his ouster in the 90's) and it will lead to corruption (see his ethics charges).

But Republicans are willing to overlook that as long as he throws out a line about the "liberal media." Too bad that won't work in the general election. Can't see the moderates/indy voters buying into that.

Anyone who votes to put this dirt bag and his home-wrecking wife in office deserve the mismanagement and corruption that follow.

[larry kurtz]

Wishing I could take credit for pointing out: that Newt’s serial polygamy is what Mitt is trying to hide in his own family’s past.

Please, Republicans: don't let it stop.

[Ken Blanchard]

I find it fascinating that Newt's critics here have turned into right wingers when it comes to marital behavior. It seems like only yesterday that Democrats were telling us that such things didn't matter. But back then, Clinton was in the White House.

sdpride: I have carried no water for Newt, but it is perfectly clear that he gets a lot of credit for the Republican victory in the 1994 Congressional elections. Republicans had become complacent. Newt roused them to battle. That's what he is good at. He overplayed his hand as speaker, and that led to his downfall. Has he learned from that? Very good question.

[sdpride]

I'm not a Democrat but I do believe that character and integrity matter when it comes to selecting a President. And from everything I have seen and read, Gingrich has none.

If you want to give Gingrich all the credit for what happened in the 90's go ahead. I think it had something to do with Clinton coming off as too left wing, and that to give one man that much credit is to overlook the other members of Congress.

But the question is whether Newt was involved because he was a champion of conservative values or because he wanted power. Everything I have seen and read, including comments from former colleagues in Congress and Newt's behavior since leaving office, indicate it is the latter.

[sdpride]

And the sad thing about Newt/Clinton marital behavior is that Newt had the nerve to attack Clinton for cheating on his spouse when he was doing the same thing.

[duggersd]

At least he has nerve. I am not so sure Romney will. When Ronald Reagan ran for President, everyone questioned whether he could win. Are you telling us if you have a choice between Newt and Obama you would choose Obama? Yes, I want someone who champions conservative agendas because he agrees with it. On the other hand if nothing else, I will take the person who champions conservative agendas over liberal ones for whatever reason, even if it is the want of power.

[sdpride]

He doesn't champion conservative agendas. Read up on what happened during his tenure. From Senator Tom Coburn's book:

"Gingrich either felt that he could not use his office to control spending or was not willing to lose his office to control spending. This goes to the heart of the matter: If your decisions are based on not losing a position, you cannot effectively serve the best long-term interests of the country."

"They were revolutionaries in name only, content to take possession from the Democrats of the machinery of government and then run it virtually unchanged."

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/11/30/are-conservatives-ready-to-forgive-newt-gingrich-his-sins/

Read through the quotes. He is no conservative. Just a power hungry egomaniac.

And if he is the nominee I won't vote for him. For one thing, Obama would destroy him. But more importantly, how could I vote for somebody who is so morally bankrupt. Character matters

[William]

Obama may be faithful in his marriage but that's not the only measure of character.

Obama is morally bankrupt, just in a different way.

Jimmy Carter is apparently, a "moral" person as regards to his marriage vows. As a President, he is generally ceded as one of our worst, as will be Obama.

[sdpride]

I'm not defending Obama. I'm not a democrat and I don't like him. But there is no way I will ever vote for Newt or anyone like him.

[Dave]

Question: Given the oft stated "roller coaster" and cannibalistic nature of this primary season, will GOPers have the guts to step up and vote for whomever they've nominated? Or will they (you) spend the day reminiscing about the one that got away?

[Ken Blanchard]

Dave: good question. The answer is both, I suspect. Whoever is nominated, Republicans will fall in line. If we lose, some of us will sing the song of losers and complain that we would'a won if only we'd nominated the right person. I won't. Maybe we should'a nominated someone else. However, winning is winning and losing is losing.