Newt is up in polling in South Carolina, and still rising. Racism wins!!!!


Newt's pissed John King brought up adultery...didn't he put the whole country though a year-long consternation over adultery?

While I don't see a problem with questioning his adultery, I really don't know if the debate was the place to do it, let alone the first question. I think it was way too obvious that King was overly excited to be the first to ask him about it in a live setting (unless I'm missing where he was asked about it earlier). The whole thing was weird. He could have at least waited a bit to question him about it. I saw it more as a "Hey look at me!" moment for King.

Either way, it's a wasted political move. Whomever set it up would have been better off to leak this at a later date, especially if he somehow wins the nomination. It would have a much greater impact in a real debate, not the 347th Republican debate.

I can't think of two worse candidates for the GOP than Romney and Newt. Especially with the current political atmosphere regarding income inequality and lobbying. IMO even Santorum might even have a better chance in the general election because at least he believes what he says and might actually rally the true right-wing base to actually go out and vote on election day. Too bad he doesn't have any money. Ron Paul would be interesting too if more young people voted.

Winning a primary by yelling at debate moderators.

I guess we're still in the id portion of the primary season. Thought we were passed that.

Am I remembering correctly that Nikki Haley endorsed Romney? Because that's not looking like such a hot move right now.

I also think Newt will cause more problems among rank and file evangelicals than many think. I'm remembering when Pryor went up against Tim Hutchison in 2002 and Hutchison got creamed. It wasn't just because of adultery and subsequent divorce, (the Pryor name counts for a lot around here and there was a serious rift in the AR Rep party between the Huckabee faction and the NW AR "shi'ite" Republicans) but it was a problem. If I'm remembering right,Pryor was the only non-incumbent Democrat to win a Senate seat that year.

SC strikes again..

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpps/new ... o_17241015

jerseyhoya wrote:Winning a primary by yelling at debate moderators.

I guess we're still in the id portion of the primary season. Thought we were passed that.

is it that part of the primary season or has the GOP nurtured the id at the expense of common sense for so long that the
id is all that's left in their core voters?

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Winning a primary by yelling at debate moderators.

I guess we're still in the id portion of the primary season. Thought we were passed that.

is it that part of the primary season or has the GOP nurtured the id at the expense of common sense for so long that the
id is all that's left in their core voters?

At the least, I think it's fair to assert that modern primaries are almost all id. Conventional wisdom now is that Obama beat Clinton in 2008 because he ran a tactically superior campaign, and that's almost certainly true. But that wouldn't have mattered if not for the fact that Obama had opposed the Iraq War and Hillary had supported it. As a unit, the Democratic Party by 2008 was opposed to the Iraq War at a visceral level; that had to be the decision point for enough voters otherwise relatively indifferent between the two candidates to swing the nomination to Obama.

But I also think it's fair to argue that the epistemic closure on the right has rendered a large chunk of those voters resistant, if not downright impervious, to big swathes of objective reality.

dajafi wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Winning a primary by yelling at debate moderators.

I guess we're still in the id portion of the primary season. Thought we were passed that.

is it that part of the primary season or has the GOP nurtured the id at the expense of common sense for so long that the
id is all that's left in their core voters?

At the least, I think it's fair to assert that modern primaries are almost all id. Conventional wisdom now is that Obama beat Clinton in 2008 because he ran a tactically superior campaign, and that's almost certainly true. But that wouldn't have mattered if not for the fact that Obama had opposed the Iraq War and Hillary had supported it. As a unit, the Democratic Party by 2008 was opposed to the Iraq War at a visceral level; that had to be the decision point for enough voters otherwise relatively indifferent between the two candidates to swing the nomination to Obama.

But I also think it's fair to argue that the epistemic closure on the right has rendered a large chunk of those voters resistant, if not downright impervious, to big swathes of objective reality.

So you're saying this abortion thing may have legs?

It's really funny--I wouldn't be surprised if the people behind the false rumors have no political agenda at all and are just doing it for yucks.

I just want to know if Callista Gingrich is cool with Newt's whole open-marriage thing.

apparently she's never out of his sight.

MSM reporting something negative about a republican, republican voters rallying to support the target of the story to spite the MSM...is this surprising?

Given his proclivities as a dieter, it probably shouldn't come as a shock that Mike Huckabee indulges in Birtherism Lite.

I've got a bad feeling this gets called right at 7

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is pretty annoying. I could due with less of her.

so, newt winning by 80% or 90%

i just wanna know how many votes cain gets

RT @stephenfhayes: Most interesting exit poll result: of the 45 percent of SC voters who said beating Obama was top consideration - 49% Newt, 41% Romney

OMG

Colbert Effect

jerseyhoya wrote:Winning a primary by yelling at debate moderators.

I guess we're still in the id portion of the primary season. Thought we were passed that.

Well Hillary won NH by crying so why not try something unorthodox like taking the debate moderator out behind the tool shed and putting two behind his ear.