Newt is no Hillary.

[DCBob]

TAMPA, FLORIDA — Assuming Tuesday’s primary vote here goes the way the polls say it will, Newt Gingrich will have to figure out a way to make good on his promise to take the primary fight all the way to the GOP convention. And he’s going to have to do it quick.

Gingrich seems intent on playing this year’s Hillary Clinton, refusing to let defeats and polls stop him and pushing on until the bitter end. Some conservatives have already begun to ponder the ramifications of that scenario. But they probably don’t need to. Virtually nothing about Gingrich’s campaign resembles Clinton’s, which was able to hold on for months thanks to a huge well of money and well-built national infrastructure.

So while Gingrich backers say he can stay in due to the strength of his support among conservatives if nothing else — and Democrats would certainly like to see the brutal primary continue — it’s difficult to see how Gingrich can make good on his promise to plague Mitt Romney until the bitter end.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/why-newt-gingrich-cant-play-the-hillary-clinton-of-2012.php

============

This artilce is correct in many points but they forgot to mention Gingrich is has an ego the size of Jupiter and has nothing to lose by staying in and everything to gain. I think he hangs on to the bitter end.

[BeyondGeography]

1. If he had an organization he could pile up delegates in caucus states

But that's Ron Paul's strategy.

Newt can't run anything except his mouth. It's a problem.

[DCBob]

2. I am thinking Gingrich and Santorum might form a coalition of sorts..

to keep Romney from getting 51%. If they both stay in I think they get more total votes and delegates than if one or the other drops out. Then they could fight it out at the convention.

Just a theory.

[customerserviceguy]

5. One thing's for sure

they would have to stop attacking each other completely, and I don't think they've quite done that. Also, while Noot seems to have a bottomless pit of super-PAC money from that casino guy, I don't see where Santorum has anything but futile prayers behind him as he goes on.

I really don't see where he finds the fuel to keep going throughout February. I'm somewhat surprised that he hasn't dropped out yet. I expect that Noot will do simple math (if he loses), add up his and Santorum's share of the vote to show that we have hit the time for only one anti-Romney, that two of them simply give the victory to Mittens.

Anyway, February should be much quieter on the campaign trail, the few contests in that month are not going to generate the headlines that we've seen in January, and the extension of UC benefits, FICA tax holiday, and doc fix for another ten months will totally dominate the news for the next four weeks.

[quaker bill]

3. I think he hangs on until the money dries up

the remaining question is when does the money dry up? Part of that will depend on today's result. If he just loses a close contest, the money probably keeps coming. If he is blown out massively, money quickly becomes a real problem. Newt is not poor, but he does not have Mitt money, so he can't self finance.

It is possible that the die-hard T-wacaloon fringe doubles down and throws him a financial lifeline that at least keeps him going to super tuesday, we will see.

[DCBob]

6. Yes thats probably true but..

if he can make a plausible case that he can force a brokered convention if he stays in then I think the comes in too.

[liberal N proud]

4. The only reason Newt is staying in the race is to bolster his speaking fees

and write another book.

There is no parallel between him and Hillary.

[DonCoquixote]

7. hillary

Look, I may still bash heads with the "oh, Hillary would have been so liberal" types here, but even I realize that Newt and Hillary do not deserve to be ion the same sentence. Yes, Hillary is power hungry, like any Politician is, but she also had some ideas to back her up. What the hell does Newt have?

[Skinner]

8. Not sure this is true. In the era of Citizens United, all you need is one Sugar Daddy...

...willing to bankroll your campaign. Newt can stick around and throw bombs as long as he likes.

Before Citizens United, the continued losses would ultimately make the money would dry up and end your campaign. But these days if you have just one billionaire on your side, and you have nothing to lose, you can keep going.

The only questions are whether Sheldon Adelson wants to keep bankrolling the campaign, and whether Newt is willing to keep trashing Romney after Romney sews up the nomination.

[JNelson6563]

9. You touch on an important point

"...whether Newt is willing to keep trashing Romney after Romney sews up the nomination."

I think we have seen enough evidence to claim with certainty that Newt is a very sore loser. I cannot for a moment believe he will show a fraction of the class or team spirit Hillary showed once she was out of the race.

I believe Newt will be a thorn in the GOP's side throughout the election. He is so self absorbed he cannot see what a great service he does for us Dems by doing so. So funny how narcissism in one's opponent can be such an advantage.

Julie

[MADem]

20. It really is down to how long Sheldon wants to keep shovelling dough at the blowhard.

I think Newt wants to destroy Romney, and fix it so that, if Newt can't have it, Romney will be so bloodied and damaged that he won't be able to have it either.

If someone will pay for Newt to keep at it, I think Newt is mean enough to press on.

[AtomicKitten]

10. The only thing they have in common is the dogged determination to take it to the end.

[Beacool]

11. How insulting to Hillary!!!

Hillary was able to hold on thanks to the voters. Remember them? The close to 18M who voted for her? Furthermore, she won most major states' primaries, while Obama's small pledged delegate advantage was due to the caucuses. Neither Obama nor Hillary had enough pledged delegates to win the nomination outright. The nomination was eventually decided by the super delegates.

To compare that vile man to Hillary is nauseating.

[DCBob]

12. If you read the article you would realize the author is not insulting Hillary..

quite the contrary.. here one quote:
"
"Virtually nothing abut Gingrich’s campaign resembles Clinton’s"

[Beacool]

15. This illustrates how many of us felt.

One of the comments:

"This story & comparison is a joke. Almost seems like some sort of manufactured crap for the likes of Michelle Malkin to cut and paste onto her blog to help Romney. In the end, Hillary WON more votes than Obama. Lest we forget, Howard Dean and the DNC awarded Obama votes in states that he wasn't even on the ballot for. If the RNC does the same for Newt, since he isn't on the ballot in VA, then I can almost see that ONE comparison."

[rocktivity]

17. My favorite "comment"

hillary should have been president screw obama i regret voting for him and will NEVER EVER VOTE FOR BLUNDER BOY

Freeper troll much?


rocktivity

[DCBob]

19. Do you recall why Obama wasnt on the ballot for those states??

Comparing that to Gingrich not being on the ballot in VA is either ignorant or misleading or both.

[rocktivity]

21. Michigan and Florida changed their primary dates in violation of DNC rules

which states the punishment as loss of the delegates. Hillary and Obama removed their names from the ballots and had to be written in. Hillary "won" both primaries and insisted the rules be ignored. It had absolutely nothing to do with not getting enough signatures.


rocktivity

[AtomicKitten]

22. Hillary did not remove her name from the Michigan ballot.

Last edited Wed Feb 1, 2012, 10:28 PM - Edit history (3)

link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-10-09-mich-primary_N.htm

Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden did. Hillary essentially ran against "uncommitted." In spite of all the candidates signing a pledge regarding disposition of states that violated the rules, Hillary demanded that the votes she got in Michigan be awarded to her regardless of the rules and regardless of the fact that four candidates weren't on the ballot.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. The 2008 Dem primaries got contentious, but not like this.

As much as both Obama and Hillary were jabbing each other with some pretty sharp elbows, even at their worst I never got the sense that they loathed each other personally (and it soon became clear that they didn't). Notwithstanding some over-the-top behavior by the PUMA contingent, their campaigns themselves weren't going for a mutual assured destruction result like Romney vs. Gingrich. I'm sure they understood that they couldn't totally kneecap each other and still expect a Democratic victory in the general election.

In contrast, Mittens is carpet-bombing the airwaves with extremely negative anti-Newt ads; his entire campaign seems to be based only on convincing people that Newt sucks. Newt is likely to lose, but he doesn't care. I think he'll become Mittens' stalker, following him from primary to primary knowing he probably can't win but intending only to fuck Mittens up as much as possible. Newt is so grandiose that he'd happily damage Mittens so badly that he can't defeat Obama; then Newt can claim that if he (Newt) had been nominated he'd have won and that it was Mittens who lost the election for the GOP.

Mittens wants so badly to be president that he will say and do anything. Newt wants only to fuck up Mittens. It's not at all like the Obama vs. Hillary primaries - those two were sane adults; these guys are pathetic clowns.

[DCBob]

14. Yes, it never got close to the crazy shit these candidates are saying.

Democrats clearly have alot more class than Republicans.

[rocktivity]

16. DING DING DING! Velveteen Ocelot, you're our grand prize winner!

Last edited Sun Jun 15, 2014, 08:53 PM - Edit history (4)

...I never got the sense that (Obama and Hillary) loathed each other...(T)heir campaigns...weren't going for a mutual assured destruction...like Romney vs. Gingrich. I'm sure they understood that they couldn't totally kneecap each other and still expect a Democratic victory in the general election...

That's something I've been thinking about for the past month -- so much so that I've also started looking at the DU posts I wrote during the 2008 primary season. I didn't give the GOP race the same amount of attention back then, of course. But I had to make sure that it wasn't a just case of faded memory, and that even with the Michigan/Florida delegate seating controversy, things hadn't REALLY been that nasty.

When it became clear to the GOP that their voters preferred McCain to Romney in 2008, they seemed to be fairly graceful about it. Now they're trying to ramrod Romney through while Gingrich appears to prepared to destroy himself if it will destroy them. Kneecapping each other? they're dismembering each other!


rocktivity

[grantcart]

18. Mitt is no Obama.

For that matter Mitt is no McCain either.