Yes, and those seats were going to be lost to DEMOCRATS, not to more conservative Republicans.
Far more than the impact on any one congresscritter's seat was the conclusion (right or wrong) that Gingrich was wrecking the gains the party had made as a whole. There were actually some Republicans who were actually concerned about maintaining a majority, if at all possible, not just with their own political fate.
This distinction, I think, is at the heart of what is being bandied about as the recent "targeting of Newt by the elites" meme.
So many (including Rush, who made me mad for the first time in 20 years yesterday) *automatically, reflexively* spout the imbecilic psychoanalysis that people who disagree with or don't support a candidate take that stance soley because they "fear" the candidate.
Please. Plenty of people in the GOP "elite" hate Gingrich because they think he's a jerk, a poor leader, someone who betrayed them by being an undisciplined jerk and poor leader after they'd finally gotten a majority, and whom they think might possibly be a trainwreck again.
Sometimes people hate someone for a legitimate reason (whether or not you or I agree with it).
Look, Gingrich was leader of a bunch of politicians, right? If he had been able to convince them that under his leadership they would be able to maintain their majority status, regardless if some seats were turned over to more conservative Republicans (NOT Dems), they would have continued to support him.
They have no problem saying to the guy who can't win against ANOTHER REPUBLICAN, sorry, pal, it sucks to be you.
But Gingrich was (in their view) losing the party seats and, therefore, he had to go.
Of course “their view” is that people like Bush I was a better bet than Reagan, Dole was more electable, McCain was electable and now Romney is “more electable” and will win more seats and we know how that worked out.