Good news for Evan Bayh

I disagree with mistermix on this one:

Listening to this, I’m struck by one thing: if Newt is the candidate, he’s going to drive the discussion into all the nooks and crannies of noise and diversion that have occupied Fox News viewers since Obama’s victory. In other words, Newt is the candidate of the 2009 media cycle, where the Tea Party dominated media coverage. If Romney is the candidate, a big part of the discussion will be how he managed to pay 15% tax on the millions he made. He’s the candidate of the 2011 media cycle, dominated by Occupy Wall Street and issues of jobs and equity.


Newt is like a kid with ADHD who’s off his Ritalin when it comes to distraction, and Republicans win when they make the election about distractions rather than the issues. The question isn’t whether Gingrich is the best imaginable candidate, just whether he’s the best of this bunch, and after watching that speech, I can’t say that Romney is any better.

Newt’s favorability/unfavorability split is 27/59. That’s a killer. (Romney is 39/44, by contrast.) The non-Republican portion of the electorate dislikes Gingrich too much to vote for him in a general.

The stories about the open marriage, leaving his wife after he was diagnosed with MS, etc., true or not (and they’re mostly verifiably true anyway), are “part of a the culture” as Cokie would say. Yes, voters get sick of sex scandals and, yes, Republican voters blame it all on the librul media, but all those suburban “soccer moms” Chuck Todd is always yakking about, I just don’t see them voting for Newt.

If Newt is the candidate, the conversation won’t be about fiat money or income inequality, it will be about Newt and how a major party ever put someone like him up as their nominee. And I would assume that if Newt is the nominee (I don’t think he will be), there will be some at least semi-serious third-party candidacy.

85 replies
  1. 1
    arguingwithsignposts says:

    I wonder if Ron Paul will run 3rd Party?

  2. 2

    Agreed. SC was good news for people who like America (read: non-Republicans), because it’ll drag out the GOP nomination a bit. But long term, Romney can just turn his firepower back on Newt like he did in Iowa. Apart from being a repulsive character to most Americans, Newt has a history of saying completely absurd things about more or less everything.

    I’d love to see a GOP primary negative ad featuring Newt comparing Ronald Reagan to Neville Chamberlain. ‘Cause he did, ’cause that’s Newt. Every moment is always the end of the world, and everyone who disagrees with him is always Chamberlain or Hitler.

  3. 3
    Jennifer says:

    I just posted something pretty much along these lines over at my joint.

    To summarize: Romney isn’t really loved by much of anybody, but unlike Gingrich, he’s not loathed by many, either. Newt has the dog-whistle down pat, but that shit doesn’t play all that well, even with the Republican base, outside of the states of the old Confederacy. You aren’t going to turn out evangelicals in the Midwest with appeals to racism like you can in the south, and Newt doesn’t have the evangelical chops to pull off the switcheroo where he needs to have even the slightest prayer of winning a general election; he’ll struggle to even win the nomination due to this fact. But here’s hoping he stays in as long as possible – with any luck, he might win it, but if he doesn’t, Romney’s bloodied carcass will be a much easier target.

  4. 4
    beltane says:

    I agree about the 3rd party thing. However, with Republican party being the way it is, a Romney nomination could also prompt a 3rd party teabagger run. I always used to believe that GOP voters fall in line no matter what but this year feels different.

    The only true thing David Brooks ever wrote was when he referred to Sarah Palin as a “fatal tumor” on the Republican party. Well, now it looks like that tumor has metastasized and the doctors are calling for the morphine drip.

  5. 5
    schrodinger's cat says:

    Can Newt can win the nomination? I would say no.

  6. 6
    Schlemizel says:

    I hope you are right about how it would go down if Salamander gets the nod. My fear is the media will be cowed by him though & that they do seem to like him more than Willard. They will want to keep it close so they can generate the sorts of horse race stories that draw eyeballs.

    I think there is a very high likelihood of a third party simply because the GOP has nothing but losers so they will fund a third in hopes of drawing morans repulsed by their candidate but still in the thralls of their BS. RP would be one choice Bloomberg if his ego runs free, Certainly an Evan Bayh would fit nicely with their plans.

  7. 7
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    I think of my Catholic relatives for whom the first issue is abortion. They’ll vote for Romney, I don’t think they’ll vote for Gingrich.

  8. 8
    just me says:

    I’m not convinced that the tax return issue matters much. Once the return is out, folks will probably forget. After all,you would think that there would have been some fuss about Biden’s returns which show a very stingy charity record, and a mere 22% tax rate. Obama gave much more to charity (mostly as profits from a book sale) and was taxed at just under 26%.

  9. 9
    r€nato says:

    Newt’s favorability/unfavorability split is 27/59

    there’s that number again…

  10. 10
    beltane says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Despite Newt’s conversion to Catholicism, his marital history will be a liability with many Catholic voters.

  11. 11
    Maude says:

    I bet he’s like to try and see if he can succeed.

  12. 12
    Mike in NC says:


    Every moment is always the end of the world, and everyone who disagrees with him is always Chamberlain or Hitler.

    Hasn’t every one of the assholes running this year tossed out some variation of the “Most Important Election of Our Lifetimes” hyperbole?

  13. 13
    Mark S. says:

    Serious question: Is there any economic proposal that would be more insane than going back to the gold standard? I’m not an economist, but I think it would cause absolute chaos.

    Well, maybe defaulting on the debt would be worse. Thank you, teabagger Republicans, for bringing both of these horrible proposals up for consideration!

  14. 14
    wrb says:

    I agree, if the economy remains stable.

    But there is a hopefully small but certainly non-trival chance that it will be plunging, unemployment and foreclosures soaring. In that case Obama’s negatives would soar and a frightened and angry country could elect any of them, especially one who is good at playing on anger.

    But if times are not dire, I don’t think Newt has much chance.

  15. 15
    Maude says:

    Dear Mrs. Cole,
    I have just humiliated myself with a spelling error and the Edit function doesn’t work.
    Could you please speak to John about this?
    I am sure he will listen to you.
    Thank you,

  16. 16
    schrodinger's cat says:

    Speaking of centrists, MoU is yearning for a centrist to run for President.

  17. 17
    just me says:

    To be precise in terms of charity…
    Biden: 1.3% of income
    Obama: 14.2% of income (this was an unusual year – other years show about 1%)

    And just for completeness..
    Newt: 31% tax rate, 2.3% charity.

    Low charitable giving is not uncommon in presidential candidates. Al Gore caught some heat in 1997 for his paltry $353 out of $197K in income.

  18. 18
    MikeBoyScout says:

    If Newt is the candidate,…

    Then we’ll succumb to flying pigs and money growing on trees.

    Stock up on the popcorn, get your snark on and enjoy the Goat Rodeo.

    And for a laugh this morning take a peak at Willard’s breaking of the Republican secret handshake: “I Think Grandiose Thoughts”.

    Gnoot’s response when it comes should be pee your pants funny.

  19. 19
    PeakVT says:

    I still think Romney is the nominee, and I still think Romney would make for better results for the Dems in the House and Senate b/c he would depress the base and attract any deliberate ticket-splitters on the top line.

    A third party candidate from the far right would be immediately fatal to Romney, and a third party candidate from the center-right would be fatal to Gnoot. I don’t know what either kind of third party would do down-ticket, though.

  20. 20
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @just me: IIRC Biden is not a rich man; the Obamas had comfortable salaries but big debts before the first book. As to Newt’s charitable contributions, I wanna see names and know who runs them. I imagine they’re variations of “The Newt Gingrich Foundation For Giving Away Copies of My Books” and “The Calista Gingrich FUnd for the Subsidizing of Right Wing Hackery”

  21. 21
    trollhattan says:

    Campaigning against Newt would be the Dems’ dream, fulfilled. Campaigning against Mittens ain’t a bad assignment either. My main question about November is whether Obama will have any coattails at all–can they preserve the Senate majority and at least close the gap in the House?

  22. 22
    Schlemizel says:

    @Mark S.:
    Yes, I can think of one worse idea than the gold standard. We could follow the lead of the Golgafrinchens in the B ark & make leaves our currency.

  23. 23
    cmorenc says:


    And I would assume that if Newt is the nominee (I don’t think he will be), there will be some at least semi-serious third-party candidacy.

    Depending on who the third-party nominee is and the demographics behind it, this could actually increase rather than destroy the chances for Newt to side-slip into winning the Presidency if the third-party candidate is someone who drains enough people who would otherwise likely have voted for Obama (possibly Bloomberg?) As Ralph Nader proved in 2000, there’s unfortunately a non-trivial supply of folks unwilling to think realistically about the big-picture strategic results of their third-party indulgences, and willing to entertain whatever plausible rationalizations they can seize for making it seem a sensible option. Even someone like Ron Paul may counter-intuitively potentially drain off more votes from Obama than from Gingrich, especially among the youth vote.

  24. 24
    Shalimar says:

    @just me: Drip, drip, drip, drip. Releasing just the 2010 returns/2011 estimates is a mistake. It makes people wonder what is hiding in the previous years, something Gingrich will be more than happy to continue hammering at. Romney’s tax returns should be a minor issue, but his bungling is making it huge.

  25. 25
    MattF says:

    One other thing about Noot– the People’s Army of staff and bureaucrats in DC really, really despise him. I know there’s mixed feeling about the Feds here, but I have friends and acquaintances among them, and they just uniformly hate Noot’s guts.

  26. 26
    Boo says:

    Newt is not going to be the nominee. The republican base cannot be that stupid.

  27. 27
    Argive says:


    I’m waiting for some political science PhD student to write a dissertation on the 27% phenomenon.

  28. 28
    Cacti says:

    I keep thinking of the ads with Bill Clinton talking about the time Gnewt shut down the government in a tantrum over his seats on Air Force One.

  29. 29
    lamh35 says:

    So Romney’s gonna release his 2010 taxes (which are prob all cleaned up now) and Newt has already said the Romney’s 2010 release is good enough.

    So who exactly is gonna be pressuring Mittens to release more??? Not the MSM that’s for sure.

  30. 30
    KG says:

    I’ve been saying for a while that Romney gets the nod because it’s his turn. I also said, I think, that Newt was the one guy who could steal the “it’s my turn” argument.

    This next month is going to be very interesting. A lot of different sites in play with very different populations.

  31. 31
  32. 32
    KG says:

    @Boo: Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

  33. 33
    Roger Moore says:


    I think there is a very high likelihood of a third party simply because the GOP has nothing but losers so they will fund a third in hopes of drawing morans repulsed by their candidate but still in the thralls of their BS. RP would be one choice Bloomberg if his ego runs free, Certainly an Evan Bayh would fit nicely with their plans.

    I think this is the whole idea behind American Select Americans Elect. It’s a ready made faux independent candidacy waiting to be filled with some 1%er who will appeal to non-teabagger republicans and republican-leaning independents. The big questions are whether they’d be able to funnel away enough democratic leaning independents to kill Obama’s chances and what effect they’d have on the down-ballot races.

  34. 34
    cbear says:


    Dear Mrs. Cole,
    I have just humiliated myself with a spelling error and the Edit function doesn’t work.
    Could you please speak to John about this?
    I am sure he will listen to you.
    Thank you,

    Dear Maude,

    Thanks so much for your letter. Apparently you missed the recent Balloon Juice Memo.
    Allow me to reprint it for you:
    We don’t give a shit.

    Now fuck off.

    Mrs. Cole

  35. 35
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @KG: I think it was BooMan who pointed out that Willard has advantages in MI, NV and AZ, and there’s more than one state where Newtie isn’t even on the ballot (VA, MO?). But my uninformed sense is that Newtie has at least a fifty/fifty shot in Florida, and that will cause Willard some difficulty and he doesn’t seem to handle political pressure well.

  36. 36
    Wee Bey says:


    I think you’re right, but it’s not because they’re not just that stupid.

  37. 37
    Redshift says:


    So who exactly is gonna be pressuring Mittens to release more??? Not the MSM that’s for sure.

    I wouldn’t be so sure, after he got booed by Republican primary voters for his “maybe.” Anyone can see that releasing only the returns during the time he’s been actively running for president is a “I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake!” moment, or alternatively, a one-percenter massaging of the numbers.

    I think he’s going to end up either stonewalling or dribbling them out, and nothing will stir up media attention more than that. Just when I thought the Romney campaign couldn’t get any more incompetent…

  38. 38
    Roger Moore says:

    @Mark S.:

    Well, maybe defaulting on the debt would be worse.

    I think defaulting on the debt would be an inevitable consequence of, not an alternative to, switching to the gold standard. With a fiat currency, we can always let inflation run up a bit to erode the debt away rather than go into a hard default. Under the gold standard, in addition to all the other chaos involved in switching over, all our debt would now be denominated in gold and couldn’t be inflated away. In practice the gold standard would probably lead to a deflationary spiral, which would make the debt even worse and default inevitable.

  39. 39
    Redshift says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Yeah, Newt’s not on the ballot in VA, just Romney and Ron Paul.

  40. 40
    Roger Moore says:


    The republican base cannot be that stupid.

    You want to bet on that? There’s an old saying that nobody ever went broke betting on the stupidity of the American public, and the Republicans are doing their damnedest to test that theory.

  41. 41
    Villago Delenda Est says:


    You can bet that the servants of the 1% (some are actually members of it) that constitute the MSM will not push things.

    They’re not paid to slit their master’s throats, after all.

    Odds are good that Romney survives, albeit beaten, and gets the nomination.

    Then it will be up to Obama to make hay of this. He probably will.

  42. 42
    KG says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: It’s tough to say because we not have many polls for the upcoming states. Nevada seems to be a good shot for Romney, but Newt was leading in Colorado, and there’s been nothing from Minnesota for a long while. And with caucuses, don’t count out Paul (who I could see getting a win in Virgina as a protest vote for all the Not-Mitt voters)

  43. 43
    JPL says:

    @me: What a touching video.

  44. 44
    SteveinSC says:


    Campaigning against Newt would be the Dems’ dream, fulfilled.

    Like I mentioned before, Newt as nominee would be a dream come true for MoveOn.Org. They still have a warehouse full of Newtron Bombs. They are probably in there right now dusting those things off, doing a little inventory and resetting the proximity fuzes. Rumbling out the 16 inch shells with Newts picture already painted on them. To paraphrase LOTR “Looks like Newt’s back on the menu, boys!”

  45. 45
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Roger Moore:

    And with this post Roger demonstrates he knows a lot more about economics than the Birchite moron.

  46. 46
    Donut says:

    Mrs. Donut and I have been saying for a long time over here that a fourth or even fifth party run (the Libertarian tickect is in as the third party already) representing disaffected Teahadis is at least better than 50/50 odds. Paul is the most likely to split off, but Palin could also jump in. Neither one would expect to win, but they certainly would be self-gratified in contributing to the anti-Obama primal screeeeeee! coming from stage Right.

  47. 47
    jheartney says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Newt not on the ballot here in MO, but that ballot is for a meaningless preference vote that delivers no delegates. If he’s still alive at the time the caucuses roll around, the amphibian could get Missouri delegates.

  48. 48
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    IIRC Biden is not a rich man; the Obamas had comfortable salaries but big debts before the first book.

    YRC. Biden has always been in the bottom “net worth” among the Senate, and the Obamas had a bunch of student loans that they only paid off fully after 2004 and the resultant spike in sales of Dreams from My Father.

  49. 49
    Argive says:


    Are you sure about that? I mean, I hope that’s the case, but I just don’t know. Never underestimate the 27%.

  50. 50
    andy says:

    Off topic, but Gabrielle Giffords resigns- and the Washington Post can’t even get her affiliation right in their e-mail News Alert.

  51. 51
    RossInDetroit says:


    but Palin could also jump in.

    I haven’t the remotest idea of the odds on another candidate in the general, but I think it would have to be closer to the conventions before anything like that ramped up.

    As for Palin, I’ll quote the world’s laziest private eye: “The whole thing smacks of effort.”

  52. 52
    trollhattan says:


    A damn shame but an honest move. She’s given her all for the country, literally.

  53. 53
    MikeBoyScout says:

    Uh-oh, Romney endorser xtra large, Gov Christie, unleashed some whoopass this morning on Dancing Dave’s Klown Cavalcade

    DANCING DAVE: What, in your judgment, is Mitt Romney’s greatest contribution to the conservative cause?
    GOV. CHRISTIE: Well, listen, this is a guy who has shown that the American free enterprise system can work and can work to create jobs across America. You look at places like Staples and Sports Authority, everybody who goes to work at those places today has Mitt Romney to thank for it. And he’s going to know how to do that as president, to get government out of the way, to be able to let the private sector create those jobs that we so desperately need and haven’t had in the Obama administration. That’s his greatest contribution to the conservative movement, to show that the American free enterprise system, which is under attack by the Obama administration, does work for people–for real people, middle class people. Because let me tell you, the people going to work at Sports Authority and Staples today, David, those aren’t the elite. Those are middle class Americans who are using those jobs to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads and send their kids to college. Let the president attack that.

    Saving the US Auto industry with government intervention vs. working as a shelf stocker or at the register at Sports Authority and Staples. Yeah! Just let the President attack that!

    F**k! out of popcorn again!

  54. 54
    Professor says:

    O/T Gabby Giffords (AZ) is to resign from congress this week.

  55. 55
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @trollhattan: Hear, hear.

  56. 56
    srv says:

    The conversation will be about IDEAS. Crazy ideas! Open-marriage just being one of them.

    You really should be more open minded about the possibilities of Overton Window movement. Newt may just grab the goal post and start dragging it up the 50 yard line stadium steps. He’s going to do whatever pushes most peoples’ buttons.

    Newt is already playing the long game also, sucking up to the RP fanboys. They’re all white, male and angry (just younger), and they’ll learn to love Newt. So that’s 27% + what? Enough to beat up the establishment?

  57. 57
    Redshift says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    You can bet that the servants of the 1% (some are actually members of it) that constitute the MSM will not push things.

    Then why was Romney asked about the tax returns in the debates?

    Yes, most of the media bobbleheads are in the 1%, and it gives them a tremendous blindness to how things affect ordinary people, but the idea that media owners will direct them not to touch anything that might cause trouble for the rich doesn’t seem to me to be supported by evidence.

    And yes, the Obama campaign will have to push it, too, and that’s a good thing. It means that the story is less likely to be “over” by the time we get to the general election, because the campaign gets to choose when they push it.

  58. 58
    Shawn in ShowMe says:


    There goes a GOP big shot, defining his own reality again. Apparently serfs are now the middle class. Got it. I now view the paintings of Pieter Bruegel with new eyes.

  59. 59
    Martin says:

    As I’ve noted before, elections aren’t won – they’re lost. There’s no requirement that you get at least ⅓ of registered voters to vote for you, or that the election doesn’t count unless half of voters participate.

    Primaries are really deceptive due to this, and the media would do us all a real service to announce the primary vote tallies not in terms of the percentage of primary voters they got, but the percentage of the last general elections voters they got. For example, Newt won 40% of 2012 primary voters, but they only represent 12% of the 2008 South Carolina general election voters. The question should be – how does he get the other 38% he needs to win a general election there? Or report it in the number of registered voters he got to vote for him, which was only 9%.

    They treat these things as though there’s 100% participation and the vote tallies matter due to that. But they don’t, because we don’t know the opinions of the non-participants, at least some of whom will presumably show up for the general. Newts favorables tell us what to expect come the general, but you wouldn’t have a clue about that given the 40% number that he just drew.

  60. 60
    chris murph says:

    You’re probably correct re what the conversation will be about if Newt is the Republican nominee. And that’s unfortunate. Because if Obama were to run an economic populist campaign against Romney he might actually have to deliver on it instead of governing as Wall Street’s pet as he has up to now.

  61. 61
    Donut says:


    Well, I did qualify Palin as a potential who wouldnt expect to win. I brought her up more as an example of how crazy things could get. My point is, I guess, that once it becomes obvious that Obama’s odds are pretty good, the true crazies will br attacking anyone and everyone willy-nilly, including Romney (assuming he is the GOP standard bearer. Eventually the Teahadist purity quest crew will decide “fuck it” and just go completely ape shit on everyone. Palin would never expect to win, but she sure could shore up her stock…

  62. 62
    Schlemizel says:

    @Roger Moore:
    I signed up & I encourage all liberals to do so too. I don’t know if we can screw up their choice (I sort of assume the results will magically be the guy they want no matter the vote). I hope we can force an ugly choice on them if possible.

    If not I think we almost have to work harder against this trojan ass than the GOP bozo

  63. 63

    The stories about the open marriage, leaving his wife after he was diagnosed with MS, etc.

    SHE not he. He left his wife after SHE was diagnosed.

    We could have fun with this one. Newt Gingrich gets that 3 am phone call and what does he do? Pack a back and head for the airport, where we next see him under a palm tree, drinking a cocktail on an umbrella in it.

    Newt at a massive conference table surrounded by his advisors. There’s a bad economic report, a foreign policy crisis, a riot in Chicago, a hurricane bearing down on Florida. He raises his index finger, says “excuse me,” runs out the door, never to be seen again.

    I mean think about it: Newt is the go who, when the going gets tough, he skedaddles.

  64. 64
    handsmile says:

    Sometimes I feel as if I’ve wandered into a bar full of metaphysicians. With all the political acumen assembled here, what other explanation (other than boredom waiting for the football game to start) is there for speculation that Newton Leroy Gingrich will be the 2012 GOP presidential nominee?

    He will not be. It will not happen. There is no domestic scenario, either economic or security-related, in which he will be that nominee. None.

    Gingrich handily won the primary of perhaps the most racist and politically degenerate state in the Union. In last night’s thread “Revenge of the Return of the Giant Newt,” commenter efgoldman (#7) linked to an excerpt (via Digby) from Tom Schaller’s book Whistling Past Dixie that summarizes South Carolina’s revanchist political history.

    The circumstances of Gingrich’s win last night will not and cannot be reduplicated even in other Southern states, much less nation-wide. He has a skeletal political organization, no sources of significant, replenishing financial support, and a sordid personal and elected history that will cripple his efforts to obtain what is necessary of either. His most potent ally at the moment is the corporate media, which in its psychopathology, is happy to abase itself to a campaign that berates it. Unfortunately for Newton, his base loathes that very media, so its potency to propel his campaign is impaired.

    I’ve written several times on different threads here that I am skeptical that Romney will ultimately be selected as the nominee. The debacle of MIttens’ campaign last night and last week underscores that doubt. (The nominee will be brokered at the Tampa Bay convention, imo.) I have no doubt, whatsoever, that it will not be an emotionally unstable, financially erratic, thrice-married, disgraced former US House speaker, despised by the powerbrokers of the GOP establishment, Newt Gingrich.

  65. 65
    SenyorDave says:

    @MikeBoyScout: As opposed to DIAF, for Christie I propose DATSB (Die at the salad bar).

  66. 66
    wrb says:


    So you think Santorum is viable?

    Or someone who isn’t on the ballot in any primary state?

  67. 67
    handsmile says:

    In the continuing absence of the “Edit” function, I was unable to add what should have been the final paragraph of my screed above.

    Herewith the opinion of one of the most politically astute and rhetorically gifted individuals of our time, Barney Frank:

    “I did not think I lived a good enough life to see Newt Gingrich as the Republican nominee….He would be the best thing to happen to Democrats since Barry Goldwater…. It’s still unlikely, but I have hopes.”

  68. 68
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @handsmile: I doubt he will be either, but the biggest reason is history: SC has predicted the last 5 Republican nominees.

  69. 69
    pk says:

    I have no doubt, whatsoever, that it will not be an emotionally unstable, financially erratic, thrice-married, disgraced former US House speaker, despised by the powerbrokers of the GOP establishment, Newt Gingrich.

    I was 100% sure that a black guy would never be the US president in 2008.

  70. 70
    handsmile says:


    Buried in my verbiage above is my unsettled belief that the GOP presidential nominee will be chosen at their convention. Yes, I am aware (and reading to learn more) of the considerable obstacles to that circumstance.

    Each one of the current candidates is despised by another powerful faction within the Republican party. Even given its authoritarian ethos, I struggle to see how a rally of the faithful to one of them will occur.

    Now nothing, and I mean nothing, would please me more politically than a reprise of Goldwater 1964 this year. But frankly, I don’t foresee that being permitted to happen.

  71. 71
    handsmile says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    With the carnival ride of this year’s GOP cavalcade, which continues to whirl away, the deleterious effects of the Citizens United decision, and widespread efforts by GOP state legislatures/governors to disenfranchise voters, I believe political history must be respected and consulted, but this year will prove insufficient.

  72. 72
    wrb says:


    Hard to see how one of the existing candidates, no matter how weird, doesn’t walk into the convention without enough votes to prevent it from being brokered.

  73. 73
    Lyrebird says:

    Um, it’s not really an open marriage when one of the spouses asks for this arrangement after six years of cheating on the original arrangement!

    What a slimy person.

  74. 74

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    SC has predicted the last 5 Republican nominees.

    God I hate that argument. So the fuck what? We do not live in ordinary times. There is giant chasm in the Republican Party right now that never existed before.

  75. 75
    Gust Avrakotos says:

    Yawn, more dot connecting flatulation from the BJ political masturbators. Newt will NOT be the nominee full stop. So just shut the fuck up with your ridiculous what if’s.

    Just enjoy the fact we can watch the circus a little bit longer than many expected.

  76. 76
    wrb says:

    edit button

  77. 77
    David Koch says:

    Gingrich is best debater I’ve ever seen.

    He’ll destroy Obama in the debates.

    Elites in Washington and New York just don’t get it.

    God willing, the Republicans will shot themselves in the foot, again, and nominate Romney.

  78. 78
    Ed says:

    I love most of your posts, but I believe you are off the mark here. Given the low turnout of most primaries, Newt DOES have a path to the nomination. His rhetoric and ability to personalize his attacks rally the most zealous republicans in their collective hatred for Obama. I mean this is the party that allowed Palin to reap huge benefits after she lost w/ McCain and walked away from her responsibilities as governor.

  79. 79
    The Other Chuck says:

    SC has predicted the last 5 Republican nominees.

  80. 80
    The Other Chuck says:

    SC has predicted the last 5 Republican nominees.

    Just 5? Shit, that’s in the territory of “zomg this coin hit heads five times in a row. MAGIC COIN”

    (oh and if you see another post above this one with just the quote: FYWP)

  81. 81

    I think counting Newt out because SC is soooo… is a mistake. SC is certainly a lot of things but GOP Primary voters are also what they are. Primary turnouts are small and it is motivated voters who show up, that doesn’t mean informed voters – it may be no more than pissed off and a voice running. SC voteres chose Newt on electability, nonsense per political numbers, because they feel that way about a rude approach. McPOW did the pissed off routine in the Primaries and into the General. (more convinvingly than Mitt does)

    Liberal states… well OR is one by reputation and I will tell you from extended experience that our GOP could easily go Newt in a Primary. If you think Ohio is immune you paid no attention to Sarah’s reception there.

    Michigan? I have no idea if people proposing MI is safe from Newt have ever been there for more than 10 minutes.

    If we were talking about broad appeal, then Newt ought to have been dead and gone a long time ago – that is not what a GOP Primary is about and especially not this time.

    I’d far rather have an election about the goddam plutocracy than stupidity by Newt for the good of the nation. Newt would be far better for the President. The obvious problem with an election about anything other than stupidity is the electorate.

  82. 82
    Lojasmo says:

    @David Koch:

    Is this the stupider brother hacking the account?

  83. 83
    WaterGirl says:

    @efgoldman: Somebody who uses Twitter should tweet Cole about the Edit button – that’s where he seems to be.

  84. 84
    just me says:

    On Biden’s wealth… He does, indeed, have the lowest net worth of just about any important elected official in DC. It’s somewhat amazing – it seems to be between 200K and 500K which for a man of his age and income seems paltry. He’s 69. He has earned an average salary of about 100K since 1973. Currently, his gross income is about 380K, and he is paying a lot of interest on his house. Of course, he’s been in public service long enough that his pension will be quite generous.

  85. 85
    priscianusjr says:


    The republican base cannot be that stupid.

    You better believe the republican base can be that stupid. However, the decision will not be made by the republican base.

Comments are closed.