The Three Reasons Mitt Is More Electable Than Newt

January 25, 2012 By 26 Comments

The following article presents one interpretation of the race for the Republican presidential nomination. For a counter-view written by Ben Shapiro, in favor of Newt Gingrich’s electability, click here. 

If you can’t get elected, you can’t govern. That’s why electability is a top concern of Republican primary voters, compelling even some of those who would prefer a Gingrich presidency to support Mitt Romney. Each candidate has his flaws and advantages against President Obama, but there are three big reasons why Romney is generally seen as the more electable one. The polls show that Romney is a much stronger candidate, Gingrich has significantly more baggage and Gingrich’s difficulties in leadership could jeopardize his campaign.

The polls have Romney performing better against Obama than Gingrich in every important state. First, look at some of the most Republican-friendly states won by Obama in 2008. Romney wins Missouri but Gingrich loses by 4. In Virginia, Obama loses to Romney by 2 but beats Gingrich by 5. In Florida, Obama leads Romney only 0.2% on average (the latest poll has him up by 2) but defeats Gingrich by 5.5. In North Carolina, Obama leads Romney by 1 and Gingrich by 6. In Ohio, Romney is behind by 5.5, while Gingrich is way behind by 13.5 percentage points.

Now look at some of the more difficult swing states, at least one of which will probably have to be won by the Republican nominee. Romney wins New Hampshire by 6.5 points while Gingrich loses by 10. In Pennsylvania, Obama defeats Romney by 2.3 and Gingrich by 9.5. In Iowa, Romney loses by 2.6 and Gingrich by 10. In Michigan, Obama wins by 2.7 against Romney and 5 against Gingrich. In Nevada, Obama beats Romney by 6.5 and Gingrich by 12. In Colorado, Romney loses by 2 and Gingrich loses by 8.

Pages: 1 2

Filed Under: Daily Mailer, FrontPage
About

Ryan Mauro is a fellow with the Clarionproject.org, the founder of WorldThreats.com and a frequent national security analyst for Fox News Channel. He can be contacted at [email protected]

  • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

    Electability, like Terrorism is a media feedback loop phenomenon. If we made all our decisions by it, then CSPAN, CNN, MSN, and various poll organizations would decide everything. It surprises me that you go along with this.

    • Cmartel

      Agree. We should pick the best candidate then MAKE him electable by spreading his ideas and character. Santorum could win in a walk if the "conservative" pundits would focus on him a little instead of the "horserace" type of media we see pitting two libs against each other because they make great theater.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Okay…let's focus a little on Santorum shall we. With the exception of being opposed to amnesty, Rick Santorum is a carbon copy of GWB as he is a social and compassionate conservative. Indeed, like a Dhimmicrat on steroids, GWB used the 9/11 jihad attacks as a crisis to justify doubling the size, scope, and power of the federal government and at the same time to usurp the formerly heretofore constitutionally protected rights and freedoms of the American people, ostensibly to protect the homeland from so-called terrorist attacks, but in reality to create the false sense of security necessary to continue accommodating mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage.

        The inevitable results is the homeland is actually far more vulnerable to violent jihad attacks today than it was on 9/11 by virtue of the fact that we have far more stealth jihadists living in American today as a fifth column and the out of control exploding national debt that occurred as soon as the economy headed south in 2008 that has put America into steep and rapid decline and on the fast track to becoming the next Greece.

        Like a Dhimmicrat on steroids, Rick Santorum was right there with GWB every step of the way pushing, backing, advocating, and supporting all of this massive expansion in the size, scope, and power of the federal government, and never mind the fact that expanding the size, scope, and power of the federal government never works for anything much less for protecting the homeland.

        Indeed, had GWB and his unhinged acolytes used common sense and outlawed Islam and banned and reversed mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage instead, all of the constitutionally protected rights and freedoms that were usurped from the American people wouldn't have been usurped, the national debt never would have exploded through the roof the instant the economy headed south in 2008 and we wouldn't be in steep and rapid decline and on the fast track to becoming the next Greece, and all the innocent American people that were murdered in cold blood in violent jihad attacks inside the homeland since 9/11/2001 would all still be alive and well today.

        As zero Muslim stealth jihadists living in America as a fifth column would equal zero violent jihad attacks and at the same time would eliminate the much greater threat to our national security, freedom, and prosperity emanating from non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad primarily mass Muslim immigration to America for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme.

        In other words, Rick Santorum like GWB is a social conservative, but when it comes to growing and expanding the size, scope, and power of the federal government, he is a Dhimmicrat on steroids.

        • truckwork

          "Indeed, had GWB and his unhinged acolytes used common sense and outlawed Islam and banned and reversed mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage instead, all of the constitutionally protected rights and freedoms that were usurped from the American people…"

          Just like a Demoncrat, you say you want to uphold the Constitution but you really only want to uphold the part that matters to you.

          The 1st Amendment says; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

          If GWB attempted to make islam illegal, then he certainly would have violated someone's first amendment rights.

          Your logic escapes me

          • Stephen_Brady

            Expect to get savaged, very soon …

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Listen to Stephen. Stephen knows that I don't have much patience for delusional leftists like you moonbats.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            If anyone is a Dhimmicrat you loon, go look in the damn mirror. Moreover, unlike a loon like you, I do uphold the constitution.

            Indeed, it's obvious that you are a humongous useful idiot, as the word Islam in Arabic means “submission” and the word Muslim in Arabic means “one who submits.” As every Muslim must totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to the will of Allah, where the freedom of conscience is forbidden and where blasphemy and apostasy are punished under the pain of death.

            By all means, please name another faith that likewise forbids the freedom of conscience and makes blasphemy and apostasy capital offenses? Let me help you out moonbat, there isn't any, proving irrefutably at the same time that Islam is not a faith based religion, and if it isn't a faith based religion moonbat, it isn't protected under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

            Indeed, if Islam isn't a true faith-based religion like you naively and stupidly assume, then what is it? It is a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology that masquerades as being a religion to dupe the gullible societies it intends to subjugate into a very draconian form of Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia to make Islam supreme.

            As a matter of fact, Islam is far closer to Communism than it is to being a religion, as just like Communism, Islam seeks world domination, and the end result of Islam, exactly like Communism, is totalitarianism and lots and lots of misery.

            Hence, go fly a kite you Muslim apologizing and Jew hating gullible useful idiot.

        • CMartel

          Your point is lost in your rhetoric. Santorum is not less electable than Gingrich or Romney but the media and our own R pundits want a race with exciting characters. Can the perennial candidate from the lib state win over the Tea Party hayseeds? Can the serial philanderer rise from the ashes?

          I would say Santorum is more electable than the other two because he is more conservative. Is he conservative enough for me? No. But is he the most conservative? Yes. Is he the most electable? Yes, because conservatism wins whenever it runs — the unelectable Reagan in a landslide against a candidate indistinguishable from Obama. GWB won in a close race because he tried to pander to the left. If the Tea Party backs Santorum he will win, just like the R landslide in 2010 — wasn't lib-lite candidates winning in that one.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Your point is lost in your rhetoric. Santorum is not less electable than Gingrich or Romney but the media and our own R pundits want a race with exciting characters. Can the perennial candidate from the lib state win over the Tea Party hayseeds? Can the serial philanderer rise from the ashes?

            Santorum, doesn't have a prayer of winning, but in any event, when you closely examine his record, it becomes abundantly clear that he is a big government liberal on steroids exactly like GWB. Indeed, with the exception of amnesty, he is an exact carbon copy of GWB and GWB didn't have a conservative bone in his incredibly leftwing body.

            Indeed, under GWB the Republican Party was morphed into the second-coming of the Dhimmicrat Party. Hence, today the country is on the fast track to becoming the next Greece in order to pay for the massive expansion in the size, scope, and power of the federal government that occurred under GWB with the help, aid, assistance, and support of Rick Santorum in order to continue accommodating mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage.

            Not only that, but Santorum still supports both of GWB's incredibly fantasy based and exceedingly counterproductive and senseless nation-building mission in Iraq and Afghanistan that were based on false PC multicultural myths and misconceptions about Islam. Thus, like GWB he is at least partially responsible for the thousands of US troops that either were killed or otherwise maimed and for the trillions of taxpayer dollars that were inevitably wasted all for nothing. Hence, like GWB he should be held accountable and be severely punished so that these sorts of major strategic blunders never ever happen again in the future.

            I would say Santorum is more electable than the other two because he is more conservative.

            He may be more socially conservative, but when it comes to everything else, he is a big government liberal on steroids exactly like GWB. He is also incredibly blinded by PC multiculturalism at the same time as well.

            But is he the most conservative? Yes

            Only if you consider doubling the size, scope, and power of the federal government and usurping the formerly heretofore constitutionally protected rights and freedoms of the American people in order to continue accommodating mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme to somehow be conservative. While you may define that as being conservative, please excuse me if I'm not that mentally handicapped.

            If the Tea Party backs Santorum he will win,

            The Tea Party is a joke. It's a carbon copy of the establishment Republican Party and is all over the map as demonstrated by this presidential contest. It's a complete and utter failure if the purpose of the Tea Party was to move the country back to the right. The Tea Party was usurped by the establishment Republican Party. It is the establishment Republican Party.

    • Robert

      Well said!

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    What a shameless demagogy, promoting every party talk point on the book!

    If one is in a position to checkmate the opponent in one move, but retreats and takes a peon: what kind of game it is?

    Well, in order to defeat the opponent the first thing one needs is … TO WISH TO DEFEAT THE OPPONENT (rather than to settle with him on 8 years you, 8 years me)…

    And in order to defeat any opponent one must expose his criminality in the first place (unless one is not an accomplice indeed). And how much more criminality you need if your opponent is Obama/Soetoro?!!

    - He is a thief, an identity THIEF (for G-d sake)!

    - He is a fraud who had produced a cheap audacious forgery! He has compromised the entire institute of American presidency more that anybody in the entire history.

    - And he is not US natural born thus not qualified because of this alone – not to mention his numerous acts of treason against our nation. The most recent one – killing the project of Canadian oil pipeline – in order to placate his "green energy" cronies and islamic owners. Yet not a peep from any of the so called "front runners"!

    Pest on the houses of all of them! Just wait how they will bustle when their criminal enterprise is exposed…

    • http://imataxpayertoo.wordpress.com kathy

      I believe the correct terminology is…"a pox on all their houses"! But I think we get your point.

  • pierce

    What bugs me is why are you propping up Mitt Romney. When he was Governor of Mass. he came up with Romneycare, the forerunner of Obamacare, neither of which I am overly impressed with. So why should I want to vote for Mitt, because you tell me to. That is not good enough for me. Mitt comes across to me as a goodie two shoes, maybe a too too good Mr. goodie two shoes. I will vote for him only if becomes the Nominee. So there you have in a nut shell.

    • Jonathan Cousar

      Why do you suppose they wrote this to prop up Mitt? Maybe they wrote it just to inform us what the poll numbers are showing. I've noticed anytime we saw anything negative about Newt – no matter how true it is – we're automatically accused of supporting Mitt. Isn't it possible we can hold negative thoughts about both candidates in our minds at the same time?

      • Jonathan Cousar

        sorry, meant to say "I've noticed anytime we SAY anything negative about Newt…"

    • ObamaYoMoma

      When he was Governor of Mass. he came up with Romneycare, the forerunner of Obamacare, neither of which I am overly impressed with.

      And Newt Gingrich wrote several op-eds endorsing the legislation that Gov. Romney signed into law in 2006. However, if you believe that Obamacare was modeled off of Massachusetts' healthcare solution that Mitt Romney signed into law and Newt Gingrich endorsed, then you must also believe that Bill Clinton didn't inhale.

      In any event, you can go ahead and vote for Newt if you want. I don't care. Nonetheless, if he wins the nomination, say hello to four more years of Obama as Newt can't come close to winning.

  • mrbean

    Most women as herd thinkers will vote for Romney for three reasons: He is better looking than Gingrich therefore more sexually acceptable, he is less of an alpha male than Gingrich so less threatening, and he has never cheated on his wife.

  • truckwork

    Polls tend to be self professing. Right now the R's are beating each other up. Once the R is decided and that person begins to focus on the POTUS, then the polls regardless of who the nominee is, will reflect that change in the lamestream media focus.

  • http://www.GodsSabbathRest.us Gary McAleer

    This whole election has been rigged from the beginning just like pro wrestling. All the 'mystery' as to the outcome is just a ploy to deceive people into thinking they have a voice. What rubbish! If the American people had a voice in their government we wouldn't be facing half the crap we face today. We elected our politicians to prevent meltdowns, job loss, and false promises. The only way to turn this national Titanic away from the iceberg of financial destitution and despotism is to restore Constitutional authority and imprison every elected official who took the oath and betrayed it by constantly sacrificing the many for the ‘selected’ few who care nothing for America, but only their ‘king for a day’ status! Then off to the grave they go while we live and suffer for their immoral decisions.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Newt Gingrich runs a blatantly dishonest ad in Florida claiming that Romney is anti-immigration. Indeed, Gingrich just flat out blatantly lies and Mark Rubio has to come out and tell Gingrich to knock it off. Gingrich doesn't care how low and dishonest he gets, as he is willing do everything and anything to win, including lying, cheating, and stealing. What a lowlife! Meanwhile, some of you guys may want someone like that to be your next president, but no thanks, not me. There is no way I'd vote for that lowlife sleazebag under any circumstances.

  • Anamah

    It seems impossible to find another more destructive presidential candidate than the current occupant of the W.H; who is nothing but a destructive idiot.

  • Al Miller

    Newtoids are populists not conservatives. They are reached through pandering. They think Jimmy Swaggart is a sincere man of God, that pro wrestling is a sport and that porn is real sex. They love Jews (good) except the ones they know( bad) . They hate rich people, poor people, brown people and quite especially black people but only the ones hey don't know.

    If Newt is nominated he will lose and the US and Israel will be hosed.

  • http://www.ourstage.ws winterband

    Please share this site around! Click the share button and put it on your page and/or the pages of friends. This information needs to be known.
    A new Mormon research site about the core tenants of their faith and beliefs. http://www.mormongods.com
    See for yourself what Mitt Romney endorses and believes before you embrace him by voting for him.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Uhm….yeah everyone be a religious bigot like this moron.

      • http://www.ourstage.ws winterband

        ObamaYoMama, since you are ignorant scum, why are you not then supporting Obama? Are you perhaps a racist?

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Because I'm not an ignorant and unhinged religious bigot like you.