Replies

You don’t have the numbers because they don’t exist. Don’t you think that some of us who do take the time to analyze candidacies can figure out which folks can and which folks can’t win ? For a good long time, Santorum’s candidacy was D.O.A., he was a second tier longshot. However, because the very best people who should’ve gotten in and didn’t (or were forced out), Santorum managed to rise up and all of a sudden, he became viable.

It doesn’t matter what Gingrich does, he’s not a winnable candidate. We can rehash his record, his personals, and everything else (or even note his superior debating skills, which nobody denies), but it still boils down to the fact that his approval ratings haven’t changed since late 1995. He is one of the most polarizing political figures in the country, and not in a good way.

Now, any political figure starts out with almost 30, if not 40% of the public against them solely on political I.D., it doesn’t matter how saintly they are. Gingrich not only has that solid 40% opposition, but he has another 20% on top of that. Some polls show him with at or below 30% approval (which means, he carries the absolute base of the party, but not even the entirety, and virtually nothing beyond). One of the iron rules of politics is that you cannot defeat another politician by running someone more unpopular than they are. Zero is ahead by at least 10% on that account.

As it stands, there is almost no scenario by which Newt can take a majority of the Electoral College based on that polling data. He could carry every state that McCain did, and tip 2 or 3 more (IN, NC, maybe VA) and it still wouldn’t be enough. But this is a general election scenario, and he can’t even with this primary.

Anyway, you support whomever you like, that’s your right. I just wish you folks could take a look at the big picture. Sometimes the candidate we want isn’t necessarily the best and most viable.