Gingrich Polling Poorly Outside of Republican Party

[Toro]

I don't think Gingrich is really popular among Republicans. They will back him because he's going to be the party standard bearer. Everyone likes to listen to him, but no one really likes him and that's why he 's not going to be president. People don't vote for people then don't like.

Then Obama is toast, since people stopped liking him a long time ago...

Wrong

Obama's likeability has continuously led his job approval performance.

Positive - Negative, this year.

December +3
November +5
October +6
August 0
June +12
May +14
April +14
February +14
January +20

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/S..._Today_Stories_Teases/111213DecNBCWSJpoll.pdf

 

[Toro]

The GOP sheep on this board will not admit the stark truth. Newt cannot beat Obama in the general. There is no way he can get rid of all the skeletons in his closet. But the sheep will stick to his slimy side until Romney is nominated.

Newt can definitely beat Obama. But he has work to do.

 

[Toro]

Hell Romeny cant beat Obama.

No real candidate would run this time because they knew the tea party would screw the party.

Romney can beat Obama too.

With the tilt on the right track/wrong track poll at -40 to -50, Obama is very vulnerable.

 

[Toro]

In the above NBC/WSJ poll, the positive/negative readings for Gingrich

December -16
June -32
April -13

 

[Toro]

Romney is the guy with the awesome resume who completely creeps the interviewer out on teh first office visit. The more people see of him, the less they like him.

You've said you hate - "hate" - Romney. That makes you un-objective.

Romney's positive/negative numbers are much better than Gingrich's

From the NBC/WSJ poll

December -8
November -4
October -2
August -5
June +1
February 0

 

[LordBrownTrout]

We need something better than likeability. Raging unemployment, disorder among the markets, chaos, inflation ain't gonna cut it.

 

[Toro]

Then Obama is toast, since people stopped liking him a long time ago...

Now Joe, you know that statement is patently false. While the president's job approval rating might not be spectacular (except when you compare it to the approval rating of Congress), his "likeability" is still extremely high.

54% say he doesn't deserve re-election... I would say the bloom is off the rose...

I would say that you are deflecting from what you wrote. Liking someone and thinking they should be President are two different things.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We need something better than likeability. Raging unemployment, disorder among the markets, chaos, inflation ain't gonna cut it.

We need something other than "anyone but obama" also.

 

[Steelplate]

You see... they really don't want a legitimate candidate... they just want someone who will talk smack about Obama in short sound bytes... like the ones they are used to hearing and posting.

 

[JoeB131]

Now Joe, you know that statement is patently false. While the president's job approval rating might not be spectacular (except when you compare it to the approval rating of Congress), his "likeability" is still extremely high.

54% say he doesn't deserve re-election... I would say the bloom is off the rose...

I would say that you are deflecting from what you wrote. Liking someone and thinking they should be President are two different things.

Again, I don't know anybody who has told me that "I really like Obama as a person, but he SUCKS as a president."

Either they realize he's a fugnut, or they are still willfully blind to how badly he's screwed the pooch.

 

[Toro]

54% say he doesn't deserve re-election... I would say the bloom is off the rose...

I would say that you are deflecting from what you wrote. Liking someone and thinking they should be President are two different things.

Again, I don't know anybody who has told me that "I really like Obama as a person, but he SUCKS as a president."

Either they realize he's a fugnut, or they are still willfully blind to how badly he's screwed the pooch.

It's irrelevant whether you know someone like that or not.

 

[JoeB131]

Romney is the guy with the awesome resume who completely creeps the interviewer out on teh first office visit. The more people see of him, the less they like him.

You've said you hate - "hate" - Romney. That makes you un-objective.

Romney's positive/negative numbers are much better than Gingrich's

From the NBC/WSJ poll

December -8
November -4
October -2
August -5
June +1
February 0

If you're citing MSNBC as a source, that's not saying much.

I'm being perfectly objective. Romney's support has never peaked above 25%.

And it didn't in 2008, either.

Romney's plan was to let his organization carry him while he avoided as many public venues as he could. He avoids Sunday shows like the plague.

 

[Steelplate]

You know what I don't understand? Why us lefties keep pointing out the flaws in the candidates before they even are in a position to run against Obama. We in all actuality, ought to just STFU and let them nominate the most unelectable amongst them.

I say... Bachmann 2012!

 

[Toro]

Romney is the guy with the awesome resume who completely creeps the interviewer out on teh first office visit. The more people see of him, the less they like him.

You've said you hate - "hate" - Romney. That makes you un-objective.

Romney's positive/negative numbers are much better than Gingrich's

From the NBC/WSJ poll

December -8
November -4
October -2
August -5
June +1
February 0

If you're citing MSNBC as a source, that's not saying much.

I'm being perfectly objective. Romney's support has never peaked above 25%.

And it didn't in 2008, either.

Romney's plan was to let his organization carry him while he avoided as many public venues as he could. He avoids Sunday shows like the plague.

You suffer from massive cognitive biases because you, in your words, "hate" Romney. That makes you exaggerate all his negative traits and discount all his positive traits.

This is an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. If you think that the Wall Street Journal biases polls to manufacture a liberal outcome, not only are you massively biased, you're a moron.

 

[JoeB131]

You suffer from massive cognitive biases because you, in your words, "hate" Romney. That makes you exaggerate all his negative traits and discount all his positive traits.

This is an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. If you think that the Wall Street Journal biases polls to manufacture a liberal outcome, not only are you massively biased, you're a moron.

Has it occured to you that I hate Romney for good reasons? I don't like him because he belongs to an evil religion and has spent most of his life screwing working folks to make himself richer. The thing is, I'm a pretty good natured guy. I help people I don't even like when they need help. My hate has to be earned, and it's usually not an easy thing.

I think that the WSJ is exactly that. Wall Street. They want a Romney Presidency. They want Washington to hold the rest of us down while they screw us. Because that worked out so well in 2008.

The GOP Establishment is as scared of Gingrich as the Democrats are. I consider that a good thing. They'd sell us out in a heartbeat if given the chance.

 

[Toro]

Has it occured to you that I hate Romney for good reasons? I don't like him because he belongs to an evil religion and has spent most of his life screwing working folks to make himself richer. The thing is, I'm a pretty good natured guy. I help people I don't even like when they need help. My hate has to be earned, and it's usually not an easy thing.

That's nice. But for whatever reason, that hate makes you biased. That's why you write what you wrote next.

I think that the WSJ is exactly that. Wall Street. They want a Romney Presidency. They want Washington to hold the rest of us down while they screw us. Because that worked out so well in 2008.

Not only is there zero evidence of this, it is massively biased and hilarious conjecture. It is in the same league as the birfers and 9/11 twoofer conspiracy theories.

Yes, you are unable to think clearly because of your massive cognitive biases so you conjure up outlandish scenarios to rationalize your own worldview to obviate an outcome you do not want to see happen. But don't worry. It is a very human response.

That, or you're stupid.

Take your pick.

 

[Mac1958]

Evidently the GOP thinking is this: Sure Gingrich is terribly flawed, questionable political history, VERY questionable personal history, still prone to errors, but all we have to do is get him in a debate with Obama and it's over. Eyes will open all over the country and Gingrich will win easily. Obama will be out. The Democrats are just TERRIFIED that Gingrich will be the nominee.

Something like that.

Funny thing about political ideology - it distorts perception. Obama and the Democrats have their fingers crossed that Gingrich will be the nominee, but the hardcore right just refuses to see it. So they're willing to march off a freakin' cliff to push their agenda.

By the way, I don't have a dog in this hunt - my political goals have deteriorated to the point where I only hope neither ridiculous party is in control of the White House, Senate and House. But watching the circus that is the GOP nominating process has been a real hoot. They keep crowing about 2012, but there is little empirical evidence to back that confidence up.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Has it occured to you that I hate Romney for good reasons? I don't like him because he belongs to an evil religion and has spent most of his life screwing working folks to make himself richer. The thing is, I'm a pretty good natured guy. I help people I don't even like when they need help. My hate has to be earned, and it's usually not an easy thing.

That's nice. But for whatever reason, that hate makes you biased. That's why you write what you wrote next.

I think that the WSJ is exactly that. Wall Street. They want a Romney Presidency. They want Washington to hold the rest of us down while they screw us. Because that worked out so well in 2008.

Not only is there zero evidence of this, it is massively biased and hilarious conjecture. It is in the same league as the birfers and 9/11 twoofer conspiracy theories.

Yes, you are unable to think clearly because of your massive cognitive biases so you conjure up outlandish scenarios to rationalize your own worldview to obviate an outcome you do not want to see happen. But don't worry. It is a very human response.

That, or you're stupid.

Take your pick.

Romney is trailing in three of the four early states to a guy they declared dead six months ago... I think most Republicans actually see what I see in Romney, a corporate bloodsucker with a creepy religion...

And frankly, most of your posts aren't really supporting Mittens, they are attacking whoever happens to be the flavor of the week.

There is plenty of evidence that Romney is a creation of the Wall Street wing of the GOP (or as I like to call it, the wing of the GOP that cheers for Mr. Potter.)

The GOP has always been this unholy alliance between these people and the large mass of us regular folks who believe in strong defense, smaller government and traditional values. The sooner we realize we don't really need these guys, the better.

 

[JoeB131]

Evidently the GOP thinking is this: Sure Gingrich is terribly flawed, questionable political history, VERY questionable personal history, still prone to errors, but all we have to do is get him in a debate with Obama and it's over. Eyes will open all over the country and Gingrich will win easily. Obama will be out. The Democrats are just TERRIFIED that Gingrich will be the nominee.

Something like that.

Funny thing about political ideology - it distorts perception. Obama and the Democrats have their fingers crossed that Gingrich will be the nominee, but the hardcore right just refuses to see it. So they're willing to march off a freakin' cliff to push their agenda.

By the way, I don't have a dog in this hunt - my political goals have deteriorated to the point where I only hope neither ridiculous party is in control of the White House, Senate and House. But watching the circus that is the GOP nominating process has been a real hoot. They keep crowing about 2012, but there is little empirical evidence to back that confidence up.

.

It's a little more practical than that.

2012 will be a referendum on Obama, not Mitt's crazy religion or Newt's marriages.

This is what we saw in the last two elections where incumbants were shown the door. It didn't matter that Reagan was further to the right than Barry Goldwater was, or that Bill Clinton had left a broken trail of molested women in Arkansas and dead business partners.

What mattered was that the economy sucked, and the guy in there wasn't doing anything about it.

So for me, the argument between Newt and Mitt is that do we get a real conservative, or do we get some warmed over empty suit who just says what he thinks people want to hear?

Now, incidently, I think if the economy rallies next year, Obama will probably get a second term regardless of who the GOP nominates.

I just don't really see that happening, based on what I am seeing around me in the economy right now.

 

[SAT2]

I just wish Chris Christie or Marco Rubio would join the race.

How many Pubs have Chris Christie's poster up on their bedroom wall?

After you get to know him, you'd call him a RINO. That's my guess.

Chris Christie: ‘Climate change is real’ | The Raw Story

Newt is unelectable to national office, IMO. He's the loosest of cannons. A big, heavy, self-centered, loose cannon.