Sassenach wrote:People have a short attention span, so most of the damage done in the Republican primaries is likely to be short term.

Although, that also means that people might have forgotten an issue and it can be raised again in the autumn.

Having said that though, I'm assuming here that Romney will ultimately win. If Gingrich wins a gruelling knife fight of a contest then it could get very ugly. Two-thirds of Americans apparently have a negative opinion of him, and his ratings have reportedly gotten worse since the start of the primary campaign. The longer he keeps getting exposure the worse it could potentially get.

I think the worry for Republicans is if Romney wins but ends up doing so at the expense of his own 'likeability'.

Sassenach wrote:If Gingrich wins a gruelling knife fight of a contest then it could get very ugly. Two-thirds of Americans apparently have a negative opinion of him, and his ratings have reportedly gotten worse since the start of the primary campaign. The longer he keeps getting exposure the worse it could potentially get.

I talked with my 79-year old father yesterday, and he's been a solid Republican since Ike. He told me that he'd never vote for Gingrich and that if it was between Gingrich and Obama, he'd vote for the Libertarian. Gingrich may win the primary, but there is no way he gets the general.

Sassenach wrote:People have a short attention span, so most of the damage done in the Republican primaries is likely to be short term.

Having said that though, I'm assuming here that Romney will ultimately win. If Gingrich wins a gruelling knife fight of a contest then it could get very ugly. Two-thirds of Americans apparently have a negative opinion of him, and his ratings have reportedly gotten worse since the start of the primary campaign. The longer he keeps getting exposure the worse it could potentially get.

This is why I hope last week was an anomaly. It's all well and good to respond to Newt's debating skill and to want to take his side against the "lamestream" media.

However, at some point, Republican voters have to ask themselves if they want to win. If the answer is "yes," the candidate will be ABN.

I read a quick blurb somewhere this morning (Redstate I think) that Republican Establishment people are starting to talk about giving Santorum some big money quick to prop him up in Florida to cut into Gingrinch's vote so Romney can win. Not sure how accurate it is being Redstate and all but I thought it interesting if true.

Archduke Russell John wrote:I read a quick blurb somewhere this morning (Redstate I think) that Republican Establishment people are starting to talk about giving Santorum some big money quick to prop him up in Florida to cut into Gingrinch's vote so Romney can win. Not sure how accurate it is being Redstate and all but I thought it interesting if true.

Erickson is bonkers. He imagines Gingrich can defeat Obama. So, like you, I'm discounting this.

Steve, what's your take on Gingrich's surging popularity. Ideologically he probably lines up better with you than does Romney, but you are discounting that and focusing on the person, which makes perfect sense to me. But why are so many Republicans (40%?) seeing the world differently?

Ray Jay wrote:Steve, what's your take on Gingrich's surging popularity. Ideologically he probably lines up better with you than does Romney, but you are discounting that and focusing on the person, which makes perfect sense to me. But why are so many Republicans (40%?) seeing the world differently?

Because he is saying things about Obama that a lot of the base believe and saying it forcefully. There are a large number of the base who have simply lost touch with reality. They want a guy who is going to throw haymakers at Obama, not someone who is going to bob and weave.

As for Newt lining up with me more ideologically, that depends on which Newt you're talking about. I love the "Drill Here, Drill Now" Newt. I'm not so much in love with the "we agree on climate change," sit on the sofa with Nancy Pelosi Newt. His attacks on Bain, whatever the motivation (feeling that Romney took cheap shots at him in Iowa), disqualifies him in my book.

Many are looking for a smart version of Palin. They see Newt as that. I think they are seeing what they want to see.

Doctor Fate wrote:
As for Newt lining up with me more ideologically, that depends on which Newt you're talking about. I love the "Drill Here, Drill Now" Newt. I'm not so much in love with the "we agree on climate change," sit on the sofa with Nancy Pelosi Newt. His attacks on Bain, whatever the motivation (feeling that Romney took cheap shots at him in Iowa), disqualifies him in my book.

Yes, I see that, and no insult was intended. No doubt the ethanol / Freddie Mac Newt is not your cup of tea either. But the point that Newt comes across as generally more conservative than Romney holds.

Ray Jay wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:
As for Newt lining up with me more ideologically, that depends on which Newt you're talking about. I love the "Drill Here, Drill Now" Newt. I'm not so much in love with the "we agree on climate change," sit on the sofa with Nancy Pelosi Newt. His attacks on Bain, whatever the motivation (feeling that Romney took cheap shots at him in Iowa), disqualifies him in my book.

Yes, I see that, and no insult was intended. No doubt the ethanol / Freddie Mac Newt is not your cup of tea either. But the point that Newt comes across as generally more conservative than Romney holds.

No insult received.

Because Newt knows that's where the hole in the primary field is, he's taken the mantle "Reagan conservative" and doesn't want to talk about any of his deviations. He knows a large swath of the primary electorate don't trust Romney and he's trying to get them to ignore the alarm bells in clanging in their heads. We all intellectually know Newt is unelectable, but some are caught up in the emotion of the moment. "Surely," they think,"Obama is so bad that everyone can see that. We need a guy who will highlight that--someone who will rip off his mask during a debate."

The other problem with Gingrich: Obama will take as few debates as he can get away with. It doesn't matter that he's been campaigning for months already. It doesn't matter that he's complaining about a "do-nothing Congress," which, theoretically, means he has less to do. If Congress is doing nothing, then that's a whole front removed, right? Reality is immaterial. Obama doesn't want debates because the more there are, the more his record might actually be scrutinized. So, Gingrich's whole rationale for being the nominee goes out the window.