People who doubt Obama's reelection chances aren't taking into account the fact that there are 7 states that the Republicans don't even know about. barfo
Gingrich has little money and no ground organization per se. It's rather amazing that he's even where he is at this point.
And, he's certainly enough of a political insider to know what it means to have no money and no organization. So it follows that he's not so much running for president as just going off on a long and winding ego trip. barfo
I guess you can read minds, particularly his. Perhaps anyone who runs for president is doing so for the ego trip. My take is he is enough of a political insider to know to run a campaign that differentiates himself from the others running. Like he's the 1% and the others are the 99% (based upon money). Or that he fired just about his entire campaign staff (or they quit) early on because they didn't agree with how he wanted to run. Yet here he is, at or near the top of the polls.
Hmm. Very likely. I guess you can read minds, particularly his? As for being at the top of the polls, do the names Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain ring a bell? barfo
I'm not reading his mind in any way, shape, or form - as you try to. I'm just looking at what he's said and done. Those others you mention are all much better funded, so their options are different.
That's pretty funny. You are reading his mind in exactly the same way as I am reading his mind. My point was that being at the top of the polls is not a lasting achievement (and therefore not a meaningful achievement). Gingrich is already falling. Bye bye Newt. barfo
Let's put it this way. You have no money and no organization, and you don't even register in the polls. Newt registers better in the polls than the entire list of names you mentioned, as well as Huntsman, Gary Johnson (who's now going to run as a Libertarian Party candidate), Buddy Roemer, and quite a few others. Basically, all Newt's done is fire his staff and show up for the debates, yet here he is near the top of the polls. He doesn't need to be on all 57 states' ballots to win the nomination, you know.
I don't know if he will win. My guy is Paul, and he's been steady if not improving in the polls. Republicans don't like Romney, even though getting behind him early would almost assure victory. Maybe it will be a brokered convention. The scenario for Newt is a win in Iowa, the New Hampshire and then it's southern states where Newt should do well. The flip side is he loses the first two and becomes irrelevant.
A brokered convention would be great fun; I hope I hope I hope it happens. Paul has the same problem that Romney has - only a limited number of Republicans can stand him. What Romney's got that Paul doesn't is that the few that can stand Romney are influential, rather than fringe-y. Not sure what you were saying about NH, but Newt's certain to lose that. Anyway with proportional delegates, winning early doesn't matter so much as staying in the race (as far as eventually being the nominee). Some of the dwarfs are going to run out of money. Romney and Paul and possibly Perry can stay in regardless, not sure the rest of them can keep going if they don't start winning. Maybe Newt will stay in in a low-budget way, but as Virginia shows, lack of money and organization can and will hurt him badly. The answer is: no, Newt Gingrich is not "electable". Yes, Virginia, there is a Newt Gingrich. Just not on the ballot. barfo
Unfortunately Obama will win the election and he'll win it easily. Bummer since he's done the worst job of any president in my lifetime.
Correct. Triple points for acknowledging a reality that you don't like. Do you think President McCain would have done better? How, exactly? Or, maybe more relevantly, what would President Romney have done differently? barfo
