Posted on 01/16/2012 11:27:01 AM PST by VinL
The withdrawal of Jon Huntsman from the Republican presidential race is drawing a range of reactions from his competitors. Newt Gingrich told Politico that he could be a beneficiary of the move.
"It narrows down the field, and I think the next five or six days are going to tell the tale. If the conservatives consolidate, it's clear that I'll beat Romney,” he said.
Gingrich said he is looking forward to the candidates debate in South Carolina tonight. “I'm having to re-gear myself,” he said.
“Notice that they said we're now going to get 90 seconds to answer. The next five days are going to be wild. Really, the test here is simple: If the conservatives consolidate, Romney loses decisively. If they don't consolidate, it's going to be very close,” he said, referring to the South Carolina primary on Saturday.
Meanwhile, Rick Perry apparently will miss the campaign entertainment that Huntsman’s three daughters. "I was hoping I'd get the Huntsman girls,” he said, lamenting the fact that Huntsman moved into former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s camp when he dropped his own bid today.
“We love the Huntsman girls, our kids get along well, and Mary Kaye [Huntsman’s wife] and Anita [Perry’s wife] are best friends. Jon’s a dear friend, too, and we’ve had a wonderful time getting to know the candidates.”
Although Huntsman and Perry were competing for the same job,
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
” These are the states (blue for GOP; red for Democrat) I believe Newt can win.”
I like your color choices!
; )
Nope. The essence of capitalism is competition, which you can characterize as “squeezing out a company’s assets” to make a profit if you like, but they are after all your assets, and the profit motive is what drives capitalism. You are under no obligation to keep running your assets at a loss just because some politician thinks you should. You can use them in some other business that might be more profitable than this dog-of-a-business you’ve been running, or you can sell them and let the next guy try to make a go of it.
Socialism, by contrast, is where a politician decides that you are behaving “unethically” and therefore substitutes the “power that comes out of the barrel of a gun” for the profit motive. That, historically, is what a lot of other nations have done, and ended up poor. Ours has instead embraced the concept of private property and competition, and gotten rich. It’s the voters choice. They can continue to do what made us the wealthiest nation on Earth in the history of the world, or they can go the way of Cuba, Mexico, Iran, or any number of other nations where the politicians thought they knew better than the free markets.
Harry Reid was (and still is) enormously unpopular in Nevada. To quote a news article: "An October 2007 Las Vegas Review-Journal favorability poll indicated 51% of Nevadans viewed Reid unfavorably, with 32% indicating favorability. A December 2007 Las Vegas Review-Journal job approval poll showed 42% of Nevadans rating Reid "poor", 41% "excellent or good", and 16% "only fair".
Before Angle was the GOP nominee, polls showed Harry Reid would lose to any GOP challenger. He was trailing all 3 of the announced Republican candidates, including Angle, in hypothetical match-ups. Her poor campaign in the general election and the fact she kept shooting herself in the foot are directly the cause of Reid being re-elected. His son Rory Reid was on the statewide Nevada ballot simultaneously in that election and got crushed, winning only 41% of the vote. Bottom line: Had anyone besides Angle been the GOP nominee in 2010, we would have defeated Harry Reid.
You make a good point regarding Willard. He is the very portrait of the stereotypical rich Republican (nevermind he’s a left-winger and has been for his adult life) and has far more in common with the “Republican” Mayor of NYC, the Socialist Nanny-Stater Bloomberg, than any grassroots Conservative (most of whom are either middle-class or working class). I have no comprehension as to why so many rich subscribe to such abhorrant notions on morals/ethics, as if they want to destroy the very culture that allowed them the ability to make (or inherit) money. But that’s another discussion...
Of course, every election is contentious and is often viewed as “the” most important. There’s been 10 Presidential elections in my lifetime (6 of whom I could legally participate in), and they’ve all been quite important. 4 out of 9 have gone the wrong way and soon perhaps to be 5 out of 10 (I hope not). As I wrote to another FReeper, it’s very possible our best chance for victory, Sarah Palin, stayed out because she surmised that no occupant of the WH from 2013-17 will be in an enviable position or able to turn the current crisis around. After all, if we had 1928 to go back to, would most of us not have voted for Al Smith to make sure the Democrats and not the GOP got the full blame for the Depression ? I would’ve (and Hoover himself was much like Willard, an opportunist who had been a liberal Democrat, became a Republican liberal in opposition to his two Conservative GOP predecessors, Harding and Coolidge. Despite being much-maligned, Harding was actually a good President. He turned around a recession left over from Wilson in very rapid order).
Regarding the polling data you cited, it sounds a bit funny. Reagan, of course, was still in a contested primary at the time in early 1980 (with the establishment making the argument he was “too Conservative”). The February polling is clearly an outlier. I’d have to see the breakdown for party sampling (anything from ABC News would be quite suspicious and biased). Those numbers also don’t match up with Carter’s actual approval ratings of the time. His numbers for reelection shouldn’t have been above the low to mid 40s, tops (and the “not sures” are ridiculously low, too).
With regard thet states, I think that Santorum could carry New Mexico, albeit it narrowly. Running mates could tip a state one way or the other, too. If a certain running mate is chosen, perpahs Nevada, Colorado, and even Minnesota could be tipped to our side if Santorum is the nominee and he does everything right.
Maybe we’ll luck out and Willard will be found in bed with a live boy. ;-D
I guess you’re not familiar with the term Social Darwinism — hint: it has nothing to do with socialism!
Well Newt...sad to say they likely will not unite
their egos and lust for power will trump their conservative bonafides with ease
and along with talk radio conservatives abysmally in the Romney camp either openly or by their inaction (except Levin who at least says a bit)
and the Romney News Network..
and all beltway GOP brass
it will now take a miracle to beat Romney....
I have not witnessed anything like this since Ford versus Reagan in 1976
and Mitt will be something like Ford
Social Conservatives are the “niggers” of the Republican party
There’s a reason I didn’t give any GOP candidate New Mexico... and that’s entirely due to now-Libertarian Gary Johnson. Johnson may get 10-15% of the vote there. Zero will probably get in the low 40s, maybe even 45%, but any of our guys may only get around 40%. Absent Johnson, we might get a 2004-style victory there. Ironically, this might help our GOP nominee for Senator there (presuming the Libertarian candidate is a desultory one). I can’t quite see MN coming to us, though.
none of these clowns in talk radio will take a serious stand against Romney
they want their access to power
they are whores
Rush included.
To say I am disappointed in him is a gross understatement.
Where exactly is the competition in seeking out weak or underperforming companies to dismantle them? Racing to get there ahead of the other scavengers?
You make interesting points. I do think that if Santorum is the nominee, we may get an unusually high turnout among highly observant Catholics and in states with large churchgoing Catholic populations, he could do what Obama did with the African-American and youth vote.
Yes, and also (and more importantly), different businesses competing for the use of these same assets. If you’ve got a drill press, for example, and the business you’re running can’t seem to make a profit using the drill press in your business, but the guy across the street has a competing business, and he’s making a boatload of money, you could sell it to him for more than it’s worth to you (which isn’t much), and he could use it to make his product that he sells at a profit. In the process, he might even hire some of your laid off workers.
Why is that unethical? It’s that kind of “vulture capitalism” that made our economy the envy of the world. Your argument, by contrast, just proves that politicians should NOT be making these decisions, or even offering their stupid opinions on the topic.
I've been saying for a while that if Santorum picks New Mexico governor Susana Martinez, we can probably flip that state into the GOP column as well (New Mexico is a tough but doable for Republicans, Bush won it in '04.) She hasn't had a chance to govern very long but she's popular with New Mexicans and Lt. Gov. John Sanchez would take over if she became veep, so we'd still have a conservative Hispanic governor giving the left ulcers in that state. So I agree with your map but if Santorum went with my suggestion we had can 5 additional electoral votes to his total.
I do think the one downside is Santorum would have a tough time winning his former state, Pennsylvania. But since his opponent would be the Jimmy Carter level-approval rating Obama it would be at least be competitive unlike the Bob Casey fight where junior ran on daddy's good name.
Democrats still loathe Santorum, but independents outside of PA aren't familiar with him and if he runs like he did in 2000, he'd be very strong in swing states.
The scenario some freepers are mulling over, a Gingrich/Santorum ticket to "stop Romney", wouldn't be helpful at all if the goal is "beating Obama". Santorum would be forced to defend all the dirt the media has on Gingrich and it would be the second time his career gets killed. Newt is better known and the focus would be entirely on the top of the ticket.
I agree that Newt nationally would be a 50-state version of Angle in NV and Harris in FL. I've said many times that a Gingrich nomination would be disastrous for our party, and might be jeopardize our chances of winning the Senate. Democrats possibly loathe Newt even more than Santorum, but the killer is the 40% of the electorate that doesn't identify with either party ALSO despises Newt. Anyone who's forgotten the '90s will quickly get a lesson from the Obama camp who will run endless campaign ads about Newt's skeletons (real or media created), and have a field day. (They'd run stuff like: "Newt Gingrich. The ONLY Speaker of the House in American history to be censured for unethical conduct. Censured by his OWN Party. If Republicans can't trust him, why should you? Paid for by Citizens to Elect Barack Obama". I don't care if Newt debates well, so did Alan Keyes and we know his record of "winning" (and for any freeper who's going to whine that's different because he was a carpetbagger in Illinois, how do you explain his other half dozen or so election losses?) Simply put, Gingrich is the RATs dream opponent, just as most of us here would relish Nancy Pelosi being the RAT nominee nationwide.
I wish Newt fans were as smart as the "smartest guy in the room" and look at the big picture. Newt Gingrich should be unacceptable to any thinking conservative. It's not that his record is worse than Romney, but he would kill us in November and guarantee a second Obama term. Sadly, this simple fact falls on deaf ears for most of FreeRepublic. Freepers have backed some bad candidates in the past and this is one of them. Remember when this forum was swooning over the idea of Romney as McCain's running mate in 2008? Thank God he didn't listen to that one and we got McCain/Palin instead of McCain/Romney. Let's hope GOP voters nationally do the same and reject the possibility of running Newt.
This conversation has stoked my curiosity about a couple things, and I’d like to hear your take on them.
You’ve made the point that Gingrich is too unpopular to beat Obama. What would you say to people who constantly beat the drum that Palin was too unpopular and couldn’t win against Obama?
Second, I went back and looked at all the presidents who got elected once and then got re-elected in their own right. All of them, with the exception of Andrew Jackson, got a higher popular vote percentage the second time around.
Abraham Lincoln:
1860 39.65%
1864 55.03%
Ulyssess S. Grant:
1868 52.66%
1872 55.58%
William McKinley:
1896: 51.02%
1900: 51.64%
Woodrow Wilson:
1912: 41.84%
1916: 49.24%
Franklin Roosevelt:
1932: 57.41%
1936: 60.80%
Dwight Eisenhower
1952: 55.18%
1956: 57.37%
Richard Nixon
1968: 43.42%
1972: 60.67%
Ronald Reagan
1980: 50.75%
1984: 58.77%
Bill Clinton
1992: 43.01%
1996: 49.23%
George W. Bush
2000: 47.87%
2004: 50.73%
It seems that presidents either build on their support from their last election, or they just don’t win (I’m excluding FDR’s third and fourth term elections, as no president can run for them any more). Given that, is it really likely Obama could beat even an unpopular opponent like Gingrich? (I’m not counting the whackjobs like Ron Paul).
For the record, I would definitely prefer we not take the chance on Gingrich. I’m supporting Santorum.
We like to blame it on the Republican Establishment, but the truth is that they are just trying to get the candidate who is most electable of a field that is generally very poor. It’s really our fault because the GOP candidate has got to be a Republican. If none of the existing candidates are acceptable, then the burden is on each of us to either recruit one that is, or offer up our own services. On the other hand, I’m as guilty as anyone. Each of us has our own flaws that we think disqualify us. Heck, that never stopped a Democrat from running for office. The only difference is that most of us Republicans have the opportunity to hold a real job, and aren’t willing to give it up just to enter the risky world of politics, when we think that the deck is stacked against Republicans in any event.
FM,
Seems we’d be better off over sitting with a drink. I wrote my honors thesis on American Third Party movements (many years ago).
Gov. Palin was primed to lead a populist movement after 2008- but I suspect, she understood the real dangers. She tried to cozy up with the Establishment- but they have no respect for her.
Your history of the Derpression era Presidents is apt- and history may repeat itself. Europe is tanking big time- and clearly, the global ruling classes have become far removed from the people.
Of one thing I’m certain- if it’s Romney v. Obama— it will be brutal.
Grover Cleveland
1884 - 48.9% (Won)
1888 - 48.6% (Lost)
1892 - 46.0% (Won)
Also, FDR's numbers in his third and fourth races were below those of his first. But regardless, I believe Rick Santorum represents our best chance at defeating Obama and our ONLY chance at getting a conservative in the White House.
“Socialism is redistributionist economics.”
Not by any definition I’ve seen. The essence of socialism is government control of the means of production. Marx said “ownership.” Ownership is just another word for control. He who owns something has the right to control it. If the government waters down your right of control to nothing, then they control it, and the claim that you still “own” it is simply a sham.
Of course, there are varying degrees of control, and the liberals would like you to think that the level they’ve imposed does not rise to the level that one could say makes us socialist. I think that is a matter of debate, but as the iron hand of government continues to grow, that debate becomes more and more one-sided.
Gingrich now thinks it is the government’s prerogative to define what business practices are acceptable in the market place. That’s control no matter how you slice it.
I don’t have any problem with the government exercising control over fraud, theft, enforcing contracts, etc. These things are all assumptions of the free marketplace anyway. It’s where you have government making business decisions, which businesses to keep open, which to shut, who to lay off, who not to, etc., where you have the problem. Gingrich’s condemnation of what is commonly known as vulture capitalism is one such example. The government has no legitimate role in telling you that you can’t sell your failing company to someone who wants to break it up and sell off the pieces.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.