With just 5 days until the Iowa Caucuses, Team Newt is “managing expectations” for Gingrich’s crash and burn.
On Wednesday evening around 6:30 ET, Newt Gingrich strategist Joe DeSantis declared the Gingrich surge in Iowa officially over.
“Oh I think anywhere in the top five would be surviving Iowa,” DiSantis told CNN.
Just a couple weeks ago, Gingrich was riding high in Iowa, leading by huge margins. DeSantis acknowledged that his candidate is no longer in “the top tier” however, chalking up the decline to the blanket of negative ads that have been run against Gingrich since he surged.
“I don’t care what candidate’s in the race, if they get $9 million in negative advertisements against them they’re going to drop in the polls,” he said. “Considering we’ve been outspent 30-1 on the air, that still being very competitive for fourth place right now and, frankly, really not that far off from being in the top tier in Iowa still is pretty impressive.”
The latest polls find Romney having regained the lead, with Ron Paul now dropping to second, Gingrich dropping to fourth rapidly, and if anything, Rick Santorum gaining a bit of momentum as he’s now in third. Gingrich has disintegrated, going from 33% to 14% and falling.
But Mitt can’t seem to break that 25% mark. That means a vast majority of Republicans still want him to jump off the nearest pier. That probably explains why Newt is talking about sticking around after finishing fifth or so: whoever does drop out after Iowa would end up giving their votes to, well, anybody but Mitt. And it’s not going to take much to beat Mitt’s weak showing down the road.
And for now, that may be enough to keep everyone alive for a while. If Mitt does win Iowa, but manages to win with a showing involving 30-35% at best, it’s still anyone’s ball game, no matter how much Romney wants to declare the primary season over on January 4.
amk
This day is full of sweet schadenfreude.
Odie Hugh Manatee
The right needs their own ABM (Anyone But Mitt) treaty.
@amk:
The last couple of weeks have been packed with it. Lately I’ve been swimming in it.
Misery can be sweet.
Yevgraf
Y’know what’s funny? If it does come down to Obama and Romney, the O man (who I find to be a little stiff at times) becomes the warmest, friendliest guy in the room.
That factor alone is worth about 10 percentage points.
MattF
Noot must not allow the word ‘loser’ to get anywhere near his aura. Gets ‘waaay too close to the bone.
Paul W.
Nate Silver thinks that Paul is likely still outperforming Romney, and that continues to make sense to me as Romney doesn’t really have a base in the caucus there whereas Paul is a perennial favorite and has way more passion with his supporters.
More polls will come out to confirm or deny this theory, but I wouldn’t count Paul out yet… even with his old newsletters.
Violet
After Anne Laurie linked to RedState, I just went over there to look around. They’re all still talking about Perry and how they wish people would reconsider him. Is it possible he could get another shot at being a Not Mitt?
dmsilev
@Violet: I think it is possible. Someone has to be the last notMitt standing, and if nothing else, Perry does have enough money that he should be able to last for a while. And who knows, maybe sometime in the next few months, science will develop a cure for foot-in-mouth disease.
EconWatcher
@Violet:
I have been consistently maintaining that we’ll likely see a Perry comeback, because none of the other not-Mitts has a remotely plausible resume to become President of the United States. It’s true that Perry is only a plausible candidate on paper, but that’s more than the rest have.*
*Yes, Newt was Speaker of the House, but then he was censured and fined $300,000 for ethics violations by the legislative body he led, with a near unanimous vote. Again, not a plausible resume.
Schlemizel
Does anyone know how delegates are apportioned in Iowa? Republicans used to be winner-take-all everywhere but when that came up a while ago people said that is not the case in every state any longer.
If WTA is the rule in enough places Willard’s 25% is enough to get the nomination unless there is only one not-Mitt. I guess it depends on who survives after IA. We know ‘ol foamy is out unless he is in the top 2, Batshit Bachmann at least has a NH operation but is probably dead. W-II and Noot can limp on another state or two and Paul is in it for a long time. But none of them seems to have what it takes to be the one true not-Mitt.
Schlemizel
@Violet: @dmsilev: @EconWatcher:
I was wondering about W-II, The Redeadening making a comeback, are voters memories that short that they forget even Willard took him apart in the debates? I know he has some operations outside of IA but thought they were falling apart & broke. If he finishes in the top 3 I could see him going on but if he doesn’t who is going to pour money into his effort?
Culture of Truth
If Romney has a strong showing in Iowa, and then wins New Hampshire he could certainly win the nomination while the not-Mitt voters dither over who is least objectionable.
Villago Delenda Est
Paul’s got his zombie legion working for him in a caucus state, so there’s that. But Santorum’s bribe to that VanderAsswipe guy seems to be paying off.
MikeBoyScout
It’s very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high that Gnoot is not going to be the nominee.
Schlemizel
I guess Bachmann’s IA manager decided he still wanted a job next Wed. He knows Paul will go on so he will collect the campaign welfare check. My guess is he knows her numbers mean she is toast.
cmorenc
Serious question:
While there’s none of the current GOP candidates who would not be a nightmare if he/she actually won the Presidency in Nov 2012, and the prospects for that happening have diminished over the past three or four months, NEVERTHELESS the odds of that outcome are still way short of “impossible”.
WHICH ONE among the current GOP candidates, if they defeated Obama in 2012 to become President, would be:
1) your LEAST nightmare?
2) your WORST nightmare?
I know, I know, this is sort of like an adult version of that childhood rhetorical game where you ask e.g. “would you rather slide down a banister made of razor blades or swim through a pool filled with bloody snot?”…except that there’s at least some remaining chance we may find ourselves faced with something politically that awful in Jan 2013 if Obama loses.
Villago Delenda Est
@MikeBoyScout:
What a difference a couple of weeks makes!
Yevgraf
Now is when we start pushing the idea of perfect conservative Alan Keyes. Give the 27% what they really want.
Cacti
Another “not-Romney” falls by the wayside, and still Mitt can’t close the deal.
I thought he was a businessman.
Wee Bey
I keep posting this and posting this…
Everyone should keep in mind the 15 percent viability threshold in Iowa. Any candidate who can’t make 15 percent at any given caucus gets no votes, and their voters then re-caucus with other candidates or stand uncommitted.
Wait for the DMR poll. Then try to figure out who among the top tier is the top second choice. There’s your winner.
middlewest
Next week is going to be awesome.
MikeBoyScout
I don’t know which of the two scenarios will most greatly benefit the popcorn industry:
1) Willard barely winning in Iowa and then sealing the deal with ever decreasing voter participation numbers in the months ahead as Goopers accept that the best they can offer is this philosophically gymnastic vulture capitalist robot.
2) Paul and/or Santorum beating the Willard while the Gooper commentariat demands a fresh new NotRomney to be destroyed by Romney/Rove machine.
merrinc
@Paul W.:
lacp
@cmorenc: If the country’s so screwed up at that point that the public is desperate enought to actually elect one of these freaks, I don’t think it’s going to matter who is president.
gbear
@Schlemizel: That Bachmann story deserves a link. I wanted to blockquote the entire article – every paragraph has a delicious tidbit.
Wee Bey
@merrinc:
Paul’s problem is I doubt he’s many people’s second choice. If you like him at all, you’re probably caucusing for him.
My money’s on Romney, who will have precinct captains on the ground. But I’m not there, so I dunno for sure.
Jay C
Kinda-sorta offthread, but is there any reason why Charles Pierce’s Esquire blog isn’t on the Balloon Juice blogroll?
I know he’s been recently touted around the starboard blogosphere as This Year’s Model Everything, but the guy’s razor-edge takedowns of rightwing sociopathy wrt contemporary politics are a joy to read.
Admittedly, going off on David Brooks’ inane maunderings IS an fairly easy and obvious target, but someone who can write stuff like:
deserves at least a link….
RTWT
gf120581
I do think that Paul’s going to win Iowa, because the CNN poll didn’t count his likely support from indies. After that, it’s anyone’s guess. I never thought I’d say it, but if Santorum can keep up this late surge, he could possibly swipe second place from Romney. Bachmann’s downfall aides him.
I don’t know why they even bother polling Romney. Just stick 25% by his name in every poll. You know that’s what he always gets (except in NH).
amk
@Jay C: The guy has the gift of the gab, so to speak.
MikeBoyScout
@24 gbear: thanks for the link.
My fave is
Crazy Woman says something Krazy. Close associates are shocked! 7 foot tall doctor vows revenge.
Hoodie
Something that seems to go unnoticed is that Obama has substantially co-opted the ground that Republicans have traditionally occupied in presidential elections, i.e., they do not have a credible candidate for Commander in Chief this time around. Bachmann, Santorum and Paul are niche candidates. Gingrich is warmed over hash, larded up with personal issues and without much standing on foreign policy because his background is legislative. Perry is a more imbecilic version of Bush, who already discredited that persona. Huntsman is too unknown, and Obama titularly was his boss, so the power dynamic does not work well for him.
Romney is an odd bird. I think a lot of his problems with conservatives are not just his former holding of positions antithetical to conservative orthodoxy. His image simply is not that authoritative or strong, which is reinforced by his vacillation on issues. That is deadly with an authoritarian group like the Republican base.
That leaves all of them largely campaigning on social issues and the economy. I can’t see social issues providing much traction for them this cycle and, in fact, they kill them with key demographic groups like Hispanics. While the economy is a big issue, there are fundamental impediments to Republicans running for president on the economy alone because of their inherit association with the wealthy. Average people are not inclined to trust that Republicans have their economic interests at heart.
JGabriel
Iowa’s GOP Primary is almost completely meaningless. There’s a part of me that wants to say I’m watching it for the horse race starting gate aspects, but even that’s not true.
Really, at this point, I’m just watching for the comedy. And the competitive batshittery.
The first primary that really counts is SC. Iowa and NH are just pageant walks.
.
GregB
I see Drudge is promoting the latest Rasmussen meme setter indicating that there is good news in the polls for
JohnMcCainMitt Romney.WereBear
Does it really matter?
While we are slicing and dicing the differences between the candidates, I’m wondering if any of them have any appeal for the Sapien in the Street.
The usual shills are going to have to work overtime no matter which of these nightmare travesties of statesmanship winds up as the Republican offering as Potential Leader of the Free World.
This is what makes the situation so schaden-tastic.
Amir Khalid
@Cacti:
As long as he can avoid a disqualifying scandal or gaffe, which he seems better at than the rest of the Republican field, the nomination remains Mitt’s to lose. (Unless someone else’s candidacy unexpectedly catches fire, which looks less and less likely now.) It’ll be a slow road, though: he’s unpopular enough that he’ll have to wait for all the other contenders to finally drop out. But when they do, the ABMs will fall in line, still grumbling under their collective breath, and sign up for Mitt/Whoever In 2012. So Mitt will have decided to go with the slow but steady route: mostly leaving his primary opponents those opponents to do their own chances in, and taking his shots at the incumbent.
Veritas
Romney is in the catbird’s seat. A one-two knockout punch of Iowa and New Hampshire will propel him to a big win in SC. The nomination’s almost over, folks.
Then the REAL battle begins. Methinks it’s going to be a long, hot spring and summer for Obambi and his supporters.
RealityCheck
Splitting Image
@Wee Bey:
The viability threshold I believe applies only to the Democratic caucus. The Republican process (I think) involves a single ballot, and the results are tabulated and passed on to the state caucus.
The Iowa process seems to be almost meaningless in terms of actual delegates. What matters is which candidates seem to be viable going into the next round of primaries. Dying in Iowa will cause a candidate’s funding to dry up.
My prediction is that if Paul and Romney are running neck and neck in the polls, Paul will win by 5-10% due to the enthusiasm gap.
Gingrich will likely underperform. Bachmann might do better than current polls indicate, but not well enough to stay in the race. Either Perry or Santorum might surge as Newt’s votes find somewhere else to land.
I think that after New Hampshire the field will be down to Romney, Paul, and the surviving not-Mitt. If support seems to be coalescing around one person, Gingrich’s lead in South Carolina will pass to that person.
JGabriel
@Paul W.:
Paul’s newsletters aren’t a problem for the base (both meanings).
I expect it to become a two-way race between Paul and Santorum, w/ Romney coming in third. Bachmann, Perry, and Gingrich in a 3-way (stop snickering you immature brat) race for fourth.
.
Splitting Image
@Veritas:
So you’re saying you’d rather have Romney fronting the party for ten whole months instead of lying low for a few extra months while the other idiots thrash around making him look good by comparison?
Okay. If you insist….
amk
@Veritas: Heh willard. Donchu have some campaigning aka complaining to do ?
Ian
@Wee Bey:
Thats Dems only. Republican caucus in Iowa is more like a primary
Triassic Sands
I’d love to see a nice tidy timeline of GOP frontrunners. It would be a testament to the impressiveness of each of these titans of American politics.
Bonus: I just heard a report this morning that despite soon-to-be-former (optimism!) Governor Walker’s promises of robust job creation, since his draconian treatment of Wisconsin’s workers, the state has lagged behind all others in job creation.
Add this to the huge pile of evidence that Republican economic policies are destructive nonsense. When will the rank-and-file Republicans get the message? I’m betting [pause] never.
MikeBoyScout
@35 Veritas:
Of course Willard wins in the end, but how can you possibly think his candidacy leads to a long, hot spring and summer for Obambi?
Romney’s a terrible candidate. He has, at best, lukewarm support from the 40% who will hold their nose and vote for him. Not even those who support him can identify what he wants to do.
The political operatives for Obama are licking their chops for this easy mark.
JGabriel
@Amir Khalid:
Nooo! We still have to go through Santoro-mentum and Huntsmania! You gotta BELIEVE!
.
MeDrewNotYou
@cmorenc: Least Worst- Romney: I think that he’d be pretty similar to GWB. The Teabaggers would get more red meat and we’re much more vulnerable to the fuckups, but don’t see him as ending Western Civilization.
Worst Worst- Bachman: All the standard GOP bullshit, but now with more Rebublican Jeebus (R)! Seriously, with her, I imagine a huge lurch towards theocracy plus all the economic and foreign policy woes.
Davebo
Who cares about Iowa?
With 3 million people statewide how many US cities outrank them if not doubling their population.
And what’s with the idea of caucuses. The candidate with the best bean dip in homes wins?
Iowa represents much of what is wrong with the primary process.
Nemesis
I still cant wrap my head around the huge swings of popularity experienced by the gop candidates.
Is this reflective of goper voters short attention spans, their lack of enthusiasm for willard or some other hard to explain tin-foil-hat-worthy manipulation from the party elites?
The whole sorted mess seems so unusual. It makes little sense for a candidate to lead Iowa one week and be in 5th place the next.
Confused blegger haz a confused.
MikeBoyScout
In other GOP funny….
via TPM
Veritas
@MikeBoyScout
I see someone has forgotten what a game changer Citizens United was. Take a gander at what Crossroads America and Crossroads GPS managed to do in 2010 for starters.
This contest will be between a wasteful spender (who does things like send an airplane to pick up his dog for a photo op on the taxpayer dime) and a successful private sector businessman who has turned around failing companies and saved the Winter Olympics.
Add to that the new election integrity laws that will. stop the kind of shenanigans we saw in 2008, and it isn’t looking good for Obambi.
RealityCheck
Ian
@Veritas:
Explain to us how Mitt Romney is going to win over 30% in SC. Show me one f*cking poll that has Mitt over this number in SC.
We have had this argument at least 8 times, but why again do you think an investment corporate raider with no identifiable spine or human empathy should be president? I could understand if you were a Perry or a Sploogetorum supporter, but Mitt? What do you see when you look into his robotic eyes?
Yevgraf
@cmorenc:
Mittens. He’s a gutless, craven chickenshit at heart, and won’t go out of his way to create big international problems. His fuckups, which WILL be soul-crushingly awful, will be in his management of problems which he faces.
Perry or Santorum, but in different ways.
Perry would be Dubya II without the competence, good policy direction, good hires or devotion to efficient government that would be our recollection of Dubya’s administration by comparison.
Conversely, Santorum would be a competent evil fuck that would spur the country into a massive civil war over his psychotic Opus Dei-style views.
With either, city dwellers would ultimately be roasting sparrows with curtain rods, and rural dwellers would ultimately be reduced to an existence that would resemble “The Road.”
Splitting Image
@Triassic Sands:
Here you go. This was originally done a month or so back, but it looks like they’ve kept it up to date.
Timeline of GOP frontrunners
Ian
@Veritas:
Grrr… And what taxpayer funded entities had to bail out the 2002 winter Olympics? Linky
Oh and that dog flying thing- faux noise.
Chyron HR
@Veritas:
Cry more, your tears are delicious.
Schlemizel
@cmorenc:
Least would be Huntsman – I think he is mentally stronger than Willard and would drive his own agenda instead of following the party 100% – still gawd-awful but better than the rest. A slower decent into madness.
Worst would be a dead heat between the true believers – Batshit Bachmann and ol frothy. Really I don’t think we could survive either of those two at all
Veritas
@Charon you all didn’t steal the last election, though you probably did do shady stuff to pas your victory. Nobody, NOBODY can tell me that Obambi really won my home state (IN) for example.
This time, when it will be down to the wire, I think every fair minded person can agree on election integrity laws.
Schlemizel
@Veritas:
Please don’t ever get banned – your comic relief may be the only ray of light I see around here some days.
MikeBoyScout
@48 Veritas:
I heard Obama is using tax dollars to pay for Bo’s flight training so Bo can fly a government funded 747 anywhere he wants whenever he wants. Post your email address and I’ll send you frequent emails with lots of capitalization and bold of all kinds of interesting info. Also, Bo’s herding abilities are to be used to round up folks into FEMA camps.
Brian S
@Davebo:
According to Wikipedia, 2 US cities have more than 3 million people, with Chicago just under than number. And only New York has more than double that number. What was your point again?
Look, I’m not going to defend Iowa’s position as first in the nation or the caucus system based on tradition. Tradition is a pretty shitty way to defend any process as far as I’m concerned. But I’d hope I could come up with something better than what you did for an attack against it.
EconWatcher
@Yevgraf:
Spot on.
Veritas
As of now, the race between Obambi and Romney is dead heat–too close to all, down-to-the-wire. Given 2000 and 2004, I like our chances in those kinds of races! The Super PACs with big-ass stacks of corporate cash will make all the difference and Romney will win by one or two states.
Veritas
And in some polls, Romney is already putting this thing away:
see here.
WereBear
@Veritas: The Republicans seem to need to come up with at least a fresh lie:
Just a little tip: if it does wind up being Romney… don’t bring up dogs.
rlrr
@Veritas:
NOBODY can tell me that Obambi really won my home state (IN) for example.
He got more votes. Is that so hard to understand?
Comrade Javamanphil
@MikeBoyScout: I hear Debbie Gibson is set to endorse Mega Python.
rlrr
@Veritas:
, I think every fair minded person can agree on election integrity laws.
Please provide actual evidence for the need of such laws. Provide evidence that even one fraudulent vote was cast for Obama.
Veritas
@rlrr:
He got “more votes” in Indiana (barely) by having ACORN and friends bus in homeless people from Chicago and Louisville. This doesn’t matter since McCain would have lost anyway, but stuff like this going on in 2012 WOULD have made a difference as it’s may very well be a to be a too-close-to-call race right up until the end (shades of 2000, 2004, liberals?) Thank God for the new election integrity laws.
Chyron HR
@rlrr:
No, he only won because of voter fraud!
But voter fraud has been outlawed forever, which means that it can never happen again.
This is what Republicans actually believe.
rlrr
@Veritas:
Is there any actual evidence that ACORN and friends bus in homeless people from Chicago and Louisville.
NOTE: I heard it on Fox “News” or talk radio is not evidence.
What you’re claiming, if true, is a serious crime. Why has there not been any prosecutions?
JGabriel
@Veritas:
Rasmussen is to polling as Fox is to news and The Boy Who Cried Wolf is to truth-telling: Rasmussen Polls Were Biased And Inaccurate — Nate Silver, November 4, 2010
.
Chyron HR
@Veritas:
Wow, it’s not even 2012 yet and you’re already trying to convince yourself that Mitt’s inability to take the lead is a sign of VICTORY!
JGabriel
@Veritas:
So you’re saying Indiana’s stringent Voter ID laws didn’t work? Who coulda knew?
I guess that means we should stop pursuing draconian Voter ID requirements, huh?
.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Ian: “What do you see when you look into his robotic eyes?”
DougJ?
Yevgraf
@Veritas:
To vote where, precisely? You’d think that Republican Secretary of State Todd Rokita would have noted the irregularity fo a surge of people in a narrow number of conspiring precincts in Northwest Indiana and Southern Indiana.
Plus, the man won by 28000 votes in Indiana. It would have taken, by most counts, the entire homeless population of both cities two times voting to make that number.
In other words, you are, once more, wrong. Come up with better lies next time.
Mnemosyne
@cmorenc:
Okay, first — ewwwww! to the bannister vs. pool question.
My question when choosing would be, “Which of the current candidates would be stupid enough to stand by while the head of their vice-presidential search committee announces that he’s done an extensive, nation-wide search and it just so happens that the best possible VP candidate is … himself.”
I think Perry and Bachmann are stupid enough to fall for something like that. Probably Santorum is, too. Multiple Choice Mitt would go along with it if his advisors say it’s a good idea. Ron Paul might be the only one strong-minded enough to refuse.
ETA: And my answer to part two is, ironically, also Ron Paul. He’s the only one who explicitly wants to take us back to the Articles of Confederation.
Ian
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Good point. I (probably falsely) assume this person is a real person I can try to communicate some sense into. More likely, it is Dougj trying to troll us.
WereBear
The worst candidate… yeah, Ron Paul. Strip away all the frills and what he wants is all of us getting to relive those alternate histories where the Confederacy won.
The best option would be a seven foot tall space alien whose planet wants to eat all humans. Because at least we would be fed well and get universal medical care while all armed conflicts cease!
That’s streets ahead of what any Republican candidate offers.
Villago Delenda Est
@Veritas:
The stupid, it burns.
Once SOMEONE locks up the sacrificial lamb nomination for the Rethugs, it’s going to be all quiet on the election front until August.
This of course will drive the horserace watching vermin of the Village nuts, but that’s the way it is. The only thing they have to cover is the Rethug process, and once that’s done, it’s snooze until Labor Day.
Barry
@Cacti:
“Another “not-Romney” falls by the wayside, and still Mitt can’t close the deal.
I thought he was a businessman.”
Another way to phrase it is that the others go up and down like yo-yo’s (with more downs than ups), while Mitt just keeps chugging along.
The big factor, IMHO, is the delegate apportionment in the first few events. The closer it is to winner take all, the faster Mitt sews this up.
But in the end, it’s Mitt.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Ian:
I think it’s DougJ. The character is too ‘winger’ to be a Romulan, too happy with the primary mess and too willing to move goalposts instead of defending the indefensible.
Not a bad imitation winger though, just a bit too much of a caricature of one.
Tractarian
That’s not true. A week before Iowa in 2008, Obama and Hillary each were polling around 25%. And yet, that didn’t mean that a majority of Dems disliked those two candidates (other than PUMAs and anti-PUMAs, which I don’t think even existed at that point..)
Tractarian
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Oh yeah, Varitas is definitely DougJ.
Or someone that really wants to sound like a classic circa 2006-2007 DougJ spoof.
RealityCheck!
JGabriel
@Veritas:
Fixed for accuracy.
.
Schlemizel
@rlrr:
He didn’t say Obama DIDN’T get more votes, only that nobody could tell him that. When you live in a fantasy world the last thing you want is for reality to tell you anything.
RSA
It’s as if the Iowa caucuses are a game where everyone’s showing really bad cards. And no one, except maybe Mitt, is playing with his or her own money. So I can see the reluctance to drop out.
ruemara
While this…speculation over the inevitable loser to President Obama is…fascinating, I wonder when we’ll start talking about the the real issue, those House and Senate races? I wouldn’t say the Presidency is in the bag, far from it, but let’s be honest here–we need the House and the Senate not infected with the insane and the spineless. I know it isn’t sexy, but then again, neither is Newt.
cckids
@Wee Bey: It’s very like American Idol that way, isn’t it?
PeakVT
@Jay C: The blogroll is a lagging indicator. It took years to get Silly Sully into the right category.
S. cerevisiae
I think our resident troll isn’t DougJ, it’s our old friend The Truth from Sadly No ca. 2008. Bookmark it, libs!
pseudonymous in nc
In some polls, Reality Chuck is ranked as “frothier and messier than santorum”.
No, really.
Triassic Sands
@Splitting Image:
Thanks! That’s just what I wanted.
bob h
This is going to have bad effects on his speaking fees, which were the whole reason he got into the race.