Will Newt Gingrich's 2012 Presidential Candidacy Achieve a Lunar Base?

[jduster]

I know I said this before, but now it applies moreso, after losing in the states he was depending on.

He needs to withdraw.

 

[mheslep]

Newt seems to be doing fairly well with one segment of the population: deep south super-religious conservatives...

According this pole, Newt wins "Obama's a Muslim" voters, and "interracial marriage should be illegal" voters. How do these opinions make these voters "super-religious conservatives"? How are they conservative, and how do these opinions suggest they have ever stepped inside a church?

Also, I don't recall seeing similar polling on Democratic candidates (this poll was 100% R. voters). What would you conclude if, in 2008, Biden/Clinton/Dodd/etc won the "Obama's a Muslim" vote in Alabama, or in Vermont with a 95% white population, or if Obama won the "women should not be President" vote?

 

[Gokul43201]

According this pole, Newt wins "Obama's a Muslim" voters, and "interracial marriage should be illegal" voters. Yes this is Alabama. But how do these opinions make these voters "super-religious conservatives"? How are they conservative, and how do these opinions suggest they have ever stepped inside a church?

I think it is fair to say that people that oppose interracial marriage are social conservatives. That follows essentially from definition, doesn't it? I think it's also not a huge stretch to guess that a large fraction of them are likely to be religious - after all, even the judge that ruled on Loving v. Virginia used the Tower of Babel argument to justify racial integrity laws. Newt also ties Santorum among the demographic that doubts evolution, and I think there's a pretty strong correlation between religiosity and anti-evolution positions.

Also, I don't recall seeing similar polling on Democratic candidates (this poll was 100% R. voters).

In this case, the poll was primary in the context of the impending GOP primaries in those states, so naturally was restricted to Republicans. I haven't looked through PPP's archives to see if they had done something similar in 2008 (or earlier years).

What would you conclude if, in 2008, Biden/Clinton/Dodd/etc won the "Obama's a Muslim" vote in Alabama, or in Vermont with a 95% white population, or if Obama won the "women should not be President" vote?

1. As far as this particular poll goes, I didn't draw any conclusions (not anything significant, at least). I merely made observations on who was more popular among which demographic, in fact merely echoing the observations made by PPP. Admittedly, I did characterize the demographic as being extremely religious, which is a bit of an inference. I'm happy to drop that characterization and go with "deep south super-conservatives" if that'll help end that particular disagreement. But, to address further the specifics of your question, it should not be surprising that an Obama primary opponent would win a plurality of support from the "Obama's a Muslim" demographic - that's the trivial solution. Just as one would trivially expect the "Romney is a thief" demographic to favor Obama over Romney. Conclusions might only become worth drawing when you look at the "Romney is a thief" demographic in terms of say, their support for different hypothetical Democratic candidates.

2. What is implicit in discussing this set of observations - a reason I think they are worthy of consideration - is that the demographics we are talking about are not tiny minorities. 46% and 78% of Mississippians not being on board with interracial marriage and evolution respectively make up a fairly large chunk of that electorate. I don't think there would have been as much political relevance if they made up less than say, 20% of the population. Not only do the political implications diminish when the groups are small minorities of the sample, but the relative errors increase when comparing supporters of different candidates.

PS: As of early 2007, according to Gallup, about 11% of respondents say they wouldn't vote for a female President. The sample was not polled for political identity, as far as I can tell, but I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans made up a somewhat larger fraction of that group (going by say the relatively large abundance of Democrats vs. Republicans among the women in Congress).

Link to the Gallup article: http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/so...mormon-72yearold-presidential-candidates.aspx

 

[mheslep]

PS: As of early 2007, according to Gallup, about 11% of respondents say they wouldn't vote for a female President. The sample was not polled for political identity, as far as I can tell, but I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans made up a somewhat larger fraction of that group (going by say the relatively large abundance of Democrats vs. Republicans among the women in Congress).

Catching just this bit at the moment: I suspect the reverse, going by, for example, the sexist nature of the attacks from the left on Republican female candidates, and the history presented by conservative UK PM Margaret Thatcher and her popularity in the US. Declining to set aside one's life and run for office is a different matter from supporting someone else who does.

 

[ThomasT]

I know I said this before, but now it applies moreso, after losing in the states he was depending on.

He needs to withdraw.

I'm guessing he probably will if he keeps coming in a distant third. Which, imo, he will. But the thing is that the campaign keeps his name in the news and should have a positive effect on his earning potential (provided he doesn't say or do something really stupid). I don't know what his campaign's financial situation is. But for some candidates campaigning is a wonderful thing. Living off money that people give you because you're running for public office.

 

[Dotini]

He needs to withdraw.

No, he's going into a brokered convention with X delegates in his pocket.
- Romney does not and will not have enough delegates to win the first ballot.
- Santorum is so disorganized he is failing to collect as many as he "should have".
- Paul will have 100+ and could be kingmaker for Romney.
- Gingrich will have a few hundred and could be kingmaker for Santorum.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Gokul43201]

Catching just this bit at the moment: I suspect the reverse, going by, for example, the sexist nature of the attacks from the left on Republican female candidates, and the history presented by conservative UK PM Margaret Thatcher and her popularity in the US. Declining to set aside one's life and run for office is a different matter from supporting someone else who does.

It's possible. I don't have a definitive source that addresses the distribution of that group by political inclination. I couldn't easily find a poll that looks into it, so I went with the only other quantitative data I had - that Dem women outnumber Rep women in Congress by more than 2:1.

EDIT: Found a 2006 poll - http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/020306woman.pdf

According to that poll, about 5% of Dems and 12% or Reps would not vote for a qualified woman nominated by their party. Note that these are such small numbers that no candidate in their right mind would attempt to curry favor (even subtly, through indirect means) with this demographic at the enormous risk to their reputation among the rest of the electorate.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I vaguely remember a poll that came out in 2008 in which 48% of Democrats said they were willing to vote for a woman to be President.

 

[Gokul43201]

I vaguely remember a poll that came out in 2008 in which 48% of Democrats said they were willing to vote for a woman to be President.

I remember it too, along with a similar poll last July in which about 15% of Republicans said they were willing to vote for a woman to be President. And that was when women were enjoying particularly high ratings among Republicans. Now less than 5% of Republicans will vote for a woman to be President.

 

[mheslep]

I remember it too, along with a similar poll last July in which about 15% of Republicans said they were willing to vote for a woman to be President. And that was when women were enjoying particularly high ratings among Republicans. Now less than 5% of Republicans will vote for a woman to be President.

a small group will not vote for a woman, right?

 

[Gokul43201]

a small group will not vote for a woman, right?

It's a joke, mh. Jimmy was being clever, interpreting the 2008 Dem primary numbers as a reflection of Dems that would not vote for a woman. I applied the same reasoning to Michele Bachman's numbers this season.

 

[mheslep]

I think it is fair to say that people that oppose interracial marriage are social conservatives. That follows essentially from definition, doesn't it?...

I think that usage defines social conservatives those as those in favor of the status quo or recent past, because and only because that is the way it "always used to be", and therefore by that definition social conservatives would also have supported slavery, segregation, etc up until sometime after these things ceased to be. I won't deny the term is often used this way, but I think wrongly. The phrase narrow minded is more accurate, or, to be generous, complacent. I use the term conservative as defined by Edmund Burke, by Russel Kirk, by WF Buckley. That is, to be conservative means to conserve the fundamental tenets and institutions of Western and American society. In this case, that would, for me, mainly entail a serious respect for the institution of marriage, but not the race of the participants, not directly at least.

 

[ThinkToday]

I think that usage defines social conservatives those as those in favor of the status quo or recent past, because and only because that is the way it "always used to be", and therefore by that definition social conservatives would also have supported slavery, segregation, etc up until sometime after these things ceased to be. I won't deny the term is often used this way, but I think wrongly. The phrase narrow minded is more accurate, or, to be generous, complacent. I use the term conservative as defined by Edmund Burke, by Russel Kirk, by WF Buckley. That is, to be conservative means to conserve the fundamental tenets and institutions of Western and American society. In this case, that would, for me, mainly entail a serious respect for the institution of marriage, but not the race of the participants, not directly at least.

The abolitionist movement in the civil war wasn't run by conservatives? Lincoln wasn't conservative? There seems to be a mixing or conservative, redneck and race hate as if they are the same. In my lifetime I've seen interracial marriages go from taboo to "eh", on BOTH the Democrat and Republican sides. I remember a time when my dad recalled proposing to mom and recounting the major “issue” of one being Episcopal and the other Methodist. The same issue still exists in some religious or ethnic groups. Think about the Iranian Muslim that converted to Christianity and now faces a death sentence. The same is true for segregation, or did people forget that George Wallace was a Democrat, as were many of the southern slavers. IMO, a social conservative is more like someone that looks to the founding ideals of the country, which including things like faith, faith based values, personal responsibility, and limited government in our daily lives. Nor can we forget that social conservatives aren’t just Republicans, although I suspect that is more the case than ever now.

 

[mheslep]

The abolitionist movement in the civil war wasn't run by conservatives? Lincoln wasn't conservative? There seems to be a mixing or conservative, redneck and race hate as if they are the same.

Agreed.

 

[lpetrich]

Too many people make the US Founding Fathers in their likeness. If they wanted to decree that everybody practice some approved-of religion, they would have done so. If they wanted a state church, they would have set one up. As it is, there was a remarkable absence of religion in the Constitution. Consider http://www.constitution.org/jadams/ja1_00.htm He acknowledges that many political leaders claim to be descended from gods or appointed by gods or whatever, but he thinks that a purely secular defense is worthwhile.

Abraham Lincoln was anything but a "small-government conservative". If he was, he would have defended slavery as an ancient and noble tradition, as many of his contemporaries had done, and he would have taken the side of slaveowners' property claims against northern states that wanted to interfere with them, like demand that slaveowners present proof of ownership of runaway slaves. That supposed outrage was from South Carolina's secession declaration.

In addition to leading the Civil War on the northern side, his presidency featured several initiatives. He raised taxes with his tariffs and income tax, he gave away at low prices a *lot* of Western land with the Homestead Act, he supported western railroad building, land-grant colleges, national banks, etc. Not very Burkean, it must be said.

Abolitionism in general could easily be interpreted as a radical movement, not as a conservative in the Burkean sense or whatever. A Burkean could say that it's wrong to try to outlaw slavery if it had been legal, since it has existed for millennia, and outlawing it could cause awkward social upheavals. However, if a nation had long rejected slavery, a Burkean would insist that it's wrong to change that.

As to the Democratic Party, it's not a unified ideological front, and I don't think that it ever has been. The Southern Democrats have long been the right wing of the Democratic Party, with Southern "yellow-dog Democrats" rejecting the Republican Party as the party of Abraham Lincoln and his "War of Northern Aggression". But in the 1950's and 1960's, the black civil-rights movement forced Democratic politicians to choose which side they wanted to take, and non-Southern Democrats abandoned the Southern ones. LBJ allegedly stated this his signing of the Civil Rights Act meant that "We have lost the South for a generation". The Republicans moved in with their "Southern Strategy", and since then, it has gradually lost strength in the northeastern states. Mississippi Senator Trent Lott implied in 1984 that the Republican Party was the party of Jefferson Davis. The recent resignation of Maine Senator Olympia Snowe is only the latest event in that realignment.

 

[mheslep]

Abolitionism in general could easily be interpreted as a radical movement, not as a conservative in the Burkean sense or whatever. A Burkean could say that it's wrong to try to outlaw slavery if it had been legal, since it has existed for millennia, and outlawing it could cause awkward social upheavals. However, if a nation had long rejected slavery, a Burkean would insist that it's wrong to change that.

I think you misread Burke, and are twisting him into the simplistic "that's the way it always has been", or redneck, interpretation discussed above. In his writings on revolutionary France, Burke was informed both by the English Glorious Revolution in the prior century and the events transpiring in revolutionary 1789 France. Observing the prior English revolution, Burke did not claim a people have no right rebel simply because it was historical, on the contrary. Rather Burke argued people were not free to abolish their society and all its institutions, as was underway in France at the time, without destroying themselves. Burke condemned the wanton lopping of a heads and the attempt to destroy all French institutions. Similarly he http://books.google.com/books?id=d805lWnjcu8C&pg=PT284&dq=Burke+on+American+Colonies&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xY9jT8-8HMqhgwf2v83uAg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Burke%20on%20American%20Colonies&f=false; he did not insist on keeping them because they had "long" been British, or because it is "wrong to change."

 

[mheslep]

...LBJ allegedly stated this his signing of the Civil Rights Act meant that "We have lost the South for a generation". The Republicans moved in with their "Southern Strategy", and since then,...

There's a little more to that story.


The[/PLAIN] Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

...It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t...

 

[Gokul43201]

...
That is, to be conservative means to conserve the fundamental tenets and institutions of Western and American society.
...

Yes, I was using the connotation that is in common usage today

 

[Astronuc]

I think that usage defines social conservatives those as those in favor of the status quo or recent past, because and only because that is the way it "always used to be", and therefore by that definition social conservatives would also have supported slavery, segregation, etc up until sometime after these things ceased to be. I won't deny the term is often used this way, but I think wrongly. The phrase narrow minded is more accurate, or, to be generous, complacent. I use the term conservative as defined by Edmund Burke, by Russel Kirk, by WF Buckley. That is, to be conservative means to conserve the fundamental tenets and institutions of Western and American society. In this case, that would, for me, mainly entail a serious respect for the institution of marriage, but not the race of the participants, not directly at least.

Yes, I was using the connotation that is in common usage today

I think the problem is that many terms have lost their meaning.

I'm not sure what 'conservative' or 'liberal' mean anymore. It's now a matter of context and who is using the term.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm not sure what 'conservative' or 'liberal' mean anymore. It's now a matter of context and who is using the term.

These terms are used to shoehorn multidimensional people into a one dimensional specturm.

 

[Astronuc]

These terms are used to shoehorn multidimensional people into a one dimensional specturm.

I stopped paying heed to labels when I started hearing about RINOs, DINOs, LINOs, CINOs and other _INOs.

 

[lisab]

Looks like no one's been minding the store while Newt's out campaigning:

Gingrich Group Files for Bankruptcy

Hardly makes him look like a capable businessman, IMO.


Edit - a clarification:

According to this article, Gingrinch "ended his involvement" with the think tank in May 2011.

 

[mheslep]

Looks like no one's been minding the store while Newt's out campaigning:

Gingrich Group Files for Bankruptcy

Hardly makes him look like a capable businessman, IMO.

Is business competence important to your decision process/assessment of candidates in general? That is, is demonstrated business competence important to your assessment of Obama, or perhaps other US Senate/House candidates in your area?

 

[Evo]

Is business competence important to your decision process/assessment of candidates in general? That is, is demonstrated business competence important to your assessment of Obama, or perhaps other US Senate/House candidates in your area?

Has Obama filed bankruptcy?

 

[mheslep]

Has Obama filed bankruptcy?

Has he ever run a company that could go bankrupt?

 

[daveb]

I think Evo's point is that a person's competence is not necessarily a factor to consider, but a person's incompetence is a factor to consider, and filing for bankruptcy is a sign of incompetence. Well, that's what it seems she's saying.

 

[Evo]

Has he ever run a company that could go bankrupt?

He has personal finances.

I would say someone running for Presidency while filing for any type of bankruptcy looks bad.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Is business competence important to your decision process/assessment of candidates in general?

It would really depend on why a candidate is filing for bankruptcy. If it is because of external matters outside of their control that they could not prepare for or cope with then fair enough, it might make them better at understanding the plights of workers in the current economy or it might blind them to reality (i.e. they perceive X to be a big problem because it finished off them when it isn't a big issue). If it is because of incompetence then it shows them to be unsuitable at running large enterprises, in which case why would you want them to run a nation?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think it's a wash. Lincoln went bankrupt before he became president. On the other hand Benedict Arnold went bankrupt and it ruined his reputation.

 

[turbo]

Newt is planning on playing the spoiler, evidently, saying that he will stay in the race until Romney has 1,144 uncontested delegates. I can't imagine what he's thinking. Would a serial philanderer do well in a brokered convention? And how many Republican women would vote for him, opening up the possibility of a Callista Gingrich FLOTUS? He is delusional, in my opinion.

http://news.yahoo.com/newt-gingrich-says-hes-until-romney-reaches-1-002842306--abc-news-politics.html

 

[Char. Limit]

Why do people care so much about the FLOTUS anyway? She has no real power, does she?

 

[turbo]

Why do people care so much about the FLOTUS anyway? She has no real power, does she?

Nope. No real power, legally, but a bully pulpit from which to tout her favorite causes.

 

[BobG]

Why do people care so much about the FLOTUS anyway? She has no real power, does she?

Same reason Americans were so obsessed with Princess Diana.

We may be a democracy, but we're still fascinated with royal families.

 

[lisab]

Why do people care so much about the FLOTUS anyway? She has no real power, does she?

I think some people look at the spouse to get an insight to the candidate's character.

Whether that's a fair way to judge character is debatable.

 

[BobG]

I think some people look at the spouse to get an insight to the candidate's character.

Whether that's a fair way to judge character is debatable.

I think most people liked the character of Elizabeth Edwards, John Edward's wife.

I think most people liked the character of Lurleen Wallace, George Wallace's wife.

I think either of those examples would convince people that a candidate's spouse provides little insight into a candidate's character.

(The George Wallace example is even worse than the John Edwards example. He hid Lurleen's cancer from her so she wouldn't drop out of the race for governor, which delayed her treatment until she was beyond treatment.)