I Dream of Newt

Somehow, rumors of a Newt Gingrich candidacy continue to circulate. I bet Democratic operatives go to bed every night saying a brief prayer that the Lord will, in His infinite wisdom, cause the GOP faithful to continue being discontented with the current crop of baby killers, Mormons, and McCain-who-they-don't-like-for-unclear-reasons and turn to the Newt in their hour of despair. Jonathan Singer remarks that Gingrich "is remarkably unpopular for someone who has been out of office for nearly a decade."

It's worth driving this home. In August 2000 when Dick Gephardt was the Democratic Leader in the House of Representatives, 54 percent of voters told a CNN/Time poll they weren't familiar with him. By contrast, in CNN's November 2006 poll -- when Gingrich had held no political office for about eight years -- only 13 percent had never heard of him, and an additional 16 percent said they were unsure of how they felt about him. A larger number, 28 percent, took a favorable view of him. And a staggering 44 percent had an unfavorable view. An April 2007 CBS poll gave Gingrich a 16/43 favorable/unfavorable split. In March 2007 he got 29/48. A December 2006 NBC poll that took the unusual step of offering a "neutral" option produced a more favorable 26/35 split with 23 percent professing neutrality.

As the best you can do, that's a terrible place to be starting a presidential campaign. And, of course, in 1996 the Democrats ran a very successful campaign whose main negative attack was that Bob Dole resembled Newt Gingrich in his political views, a case that's very easy to make when the candidate in question is, in fact, Newt Gingrich.

Comments

Note also that the current "San Francisco speaker" (thanks, Sean Hannity!), who has weathered a few tempests generated by the GOP conference and talk radio, has an approval rating between 35 and 45 and a disapproval a little lower than that. That is actually higher than Gingrich ever clocked in.

Pelosi might well be as unpopular as Gingrich some day, but so far Republicans have really been shooting at her through an echo chamber.

Posted by Dave Weigel | May 15, 2007 9:52 AM

Funny stuff! I mean what party would be foolish enough to treat a candidate with unfavorables in the 40s seriously? It boggles the mind that any major party takes such a hated candidate and elevate him(or her!) to a nomination.

Posted by Rob | May 15, 2007 9:56 AM

Can the Republicans make it more of a three ring circus than it already is? Hell, why doesn't Pat Robertson just run again. That would warm the cockels of the Fundies' hearts.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 15, 2007 9:57 AM

Newt and Rudy serve to highlight the Right's hypocrisy regarding marriage, loyalty and fidelity. Imagine any two Democratic pols with the harem of ex-wives, ex-girlfriends, slept-with coworkers and subordinates, divorces, very public adultries, property and custodial fights and a slew of other marital/relationship disfunctions. These two guys are the poster boys for how NOT to treat a woman and yet they're serious presidential material within their party. Then there are the details and dalliances we DON'T know about. It'll be interesting should one of them get (or get close to) the nomination. The press will perform some amazing contortions to avoid delving into any of it. Free pass.

Posted by steve duncan | May 15, 2007 9:57 AM

And that becomes even more true if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton. "Gingrich vs. Clinton" is a matchup we've seen many times before, and Gingrich got his tail whipped pretty much every time, despite having the media on his side.

Posted by OhioBoy | May 15, 2007 9:58 AM

And a staggering 44 percent had an unfavorable view

So, basically, he matches--or does a little better than--HRC's unfavorable ratings. And yet she's not only running for President, she's widely considered the front runner at a time when many people believe Democrats are likely to win the Presidency. And this strikes no one as crazy.

All of which leads me to suspect that it's the Republican Party's unpopularity that makes a Gingrich run look so laughable, not any particular characteristic that can be ascribed to Newt.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 15, 2007 10:07 AM

There's a difference between a polarizing figure and a flat-out disliked figure.

Posted by Steve | May 15, 2007 10:09 AM

And this strikes no one as crazy.

Dude, whose blog are you commenting on?

Posted by Dave Weigel | May 15, 2007 10:17 AM

There's a difference between a polarizing figure and a flat-out disliked figure.

Could you clarify that? I'm not sure which person is "polarizing" and which is "flat out disliked" in your formulation. I'm not actually sure what the distinction between the two categories is.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 15, 2007 10:17 AM

"Gingrich got his tail whipped pretty much every time, despite having the media on his side."

The media on his side? You people are living in a fucking fantasy world.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | May 15, 2007 10:23 AM

The difference is that while HRC, who shouldn't be the nominee, has high unfavorables (and this is part of the reason she shouldn't be the nominee), she also has much higher favorables than Gingrich. She's "polarizing" because she provokes few "don't knows" and a pretty even favorable/unfavorable split.

Gingrich, by contrast, is widely loathed with unfavorable ratings that far exceed his favorable ones.

That said, I would strongly prefer that the Democrats not nominate Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | May 15, 2007 10:25 AM

Oh please, please. A landslide victory over Newt's big mouth would be even more fun than beating McCain or Guiliani. How about a Gingrich-Limbaugh ticket?

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 15, 2007 10:28 AM

"she also has much higher favorables than Gingrich."

What you are saying is quite true.

Hillary is a lousy general election candidate. But Newt is an apocalyptically bad general election candidate.

Of course, the odds on Newt winning the nomination make Rudy look like a shoo-in by comparison.

Posted by Petey | May 15, 2007 10:34 AM

I yearn to see the Newtster run on a family values platform. It'd rival "The Life of Brian" for sheer hilarity.

Posted by sglover | May 15, 2007 10:38 AM

Frankly these republicans are the biggest gang of losers I've ever seen. We might as well stop paying attention to them now since whoever wins the democratic primary is going to be president...period.

Nevertheless I can't resist and so my guess is that going to be Giuliani for the republicans and a christian fascist third party candidate, so that the republicans can try and prevent themselves from being totally wiped out in the congress.

Posted by bourbaki | May 15, 2007 10:46 AM

The neocons and the conservative base loves Newt. He could get the nomination.

Posted by judson | May 15, 2007 11:17 AM

McCain-who-they-don't-like-for-unclear-reasons

Unclear? Well, I realize this is tangential to your main point, but McCain's problems on the right have never seemed that complicated to me.

The relatively moderate Republicans, and I'm basing this mostly on John Cole, don't like him for McCain-Feingold. There are reasons to dislike him for that, even separate from disliking the law itself — it may have looked like he was doing it as revenge for having been smeared in 2000, people may expect that of librul wackos like Feingold but feel betrayed getting it from a Republican, whatever. The theocons don't like him because he had always cast himself in opposition to them until some time last week or so. In a year's time he may be able to overcome that, and he may be better for them than Romney and Giuliani, but for now, they can easily see problems with him. "Agents of intolerance" and all that. And the people for whom fear of terrorism is the major issue have Giuliani. (Yes, you and I understand that his only qualification on that score is knowing which end of a bullhorn to talk into. But if Al hasn't noticed the valid complaints about his record, he can't be the only person.)

So, in brief, McCain's problems with the right aren't hard to understand at all, at least that's how it seems to me. Just wanted to get that out there.

Posted by Cyrus | May 15, 2007 11:20 AM

You left out the fact that a lot of Republicans dislike McCain because he basicly attempted a hostile takeover of the GOP nomination in 2000, actively soliciting Democratic crossover votes in Republican primaries. I don't imagine Democrats would have very fond memories of a Democrat who attempted that, either; Party members tend to prefer that THEY get to pick their own party's candidates.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 15, 2007 12:14 PM

That's a good point, Brett, but in hindsight you'd think Republicans would feel a little more gratitude towards the guy who tried to save the party from George W. Bush.

Posted by Steve | May 15, 2007 12:17 PM

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I'm pretty sure the Democrats' successful main negative attack on Dole was that he was too old.

Posted by phil | May 15, 2007 12:24 PM

" Democrats' successful main negative attack on Dole"

Democrats scarcely even needed to attack Dole; So far as I could tell, he lost all interest in campaigning after he'd secured the nomination. Perhaps he viewed that nomination as a kind of retirement gift from the party, like a gold watch? And didn't really want to be President?

Indeed, he'd no sooner gotten enough delegates, than he started burning bridges with the party's base. It was like he was going down a list of Republican interest groups, checking them off as he dissed them. At least Bush (The elder) waited until he was elected to do that...

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 15, 2007 1:02 PM

"I yearn to see the Newtster run on a family values platform."

That's completely missing the point of what makes Newt popular on the right: He's not peddling a biography; if he runs, he'll be running on ideas.

Anyone who has seen Newt Gingrich debate Chuck Schumer or anyone else on CSPAN knows that Dr. Gingrich would be the most intelligent candidate on either side and the one with the most constructive and well-thought-out policies for the future of this country.

That said, Gingrich would bomb in the general election, which is why he won't be nominated. But if we're lucky, some of his ideas will be incorporated into the GOP platform.

Posted by Fred | May 15, 2007 1:32 PM

"Anyone who has seen Newt Gingrich debate Chuck Schumer or anyone else on CSPAN knows that Dr. Gingrich would be the most intelligent candidate on either side and the one with the most constructive and well-thought-out policies for the future of this country."

Like the federal shutdown and impeachment. Boy those were constructive and well thought out, weren't they? But never mind his record, you think he gives good pundit.

(Plus, I'd say Gingrich intellectually is middlebrow at best: to draw an analogy to magazines, he's about 'Wired' and 'Businessweek' level, wheras Obama and maybe HRC are New York Review of Books level.)

Posted by Sock Pupper of the Great Satan | May 15, 2007 1:50 PM

Sock Pupper OTGS,

"(Plus, I'd say Gingrich intellectually is middlebrow at best: to draw an analogy to magazines, he's about 'Wired' and 'Businessweek' level, wheras Obama and maybe HRC are New York Review of Books level.)"

Please back this up with... anything. What has Obama said that's "New York Review of Books level"? Comparing the "verbal violence" of a washed-up former Clinton booster using the phrase "nappy-headed hos" to the mass murder at V-Tech? Promising to "transcend" politics?

BTW, I love how you chose the NY Review of Books in your analogy -- the periodical that Woody Allen's Alvy Singer placed his personal ads in in Annie Hall. Were you trying to be ironic or just pretentious?

Posted by Fred | May 15, 2007 2:08 PM

I understand why conservatives would think of Gingrich as just about the smartest politician ever, but for the rest of us, it's just more comic relief from that fantasy world they live in.

Posted by Steve | May 15, 2007 2:13 PM

"What has Obama said that's "New York Review of Books level"?"

His editing of the Harvard Law Review, for one. And his two bestselling memoirs.

Gingrich, by contrast, is like Wired - a bunch of random observations that don't congeal into a worldview. A professed technophile, but still shot the Office of Technology Assessment in the head. The idea that anything Gingrich does, the guy who got fined $300K from the normally toothless ethics committee, is well thought out is laughable.

Oooops. [slaps head - what am I doing]

No, no, Fred, I see your point. Gingrich would make a wonderful GOP candidate. Please, please, form a "Draft Newt" petition drive, and make hefty contributions to him if he runs. Us democrats are quaking in our shoes about facing him. We're just laughing to cover up our fear of the invincible Newt.

Posted by Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | May 15, 2007 2:29 PM

Sock Puppet (that "t" helps) OTGS:

"His editing of the Harvard Law Review, for one. And his two bestselling memoirs."

Let me rephrase my question: "What has Obama said that's "New York Review of Books level"? Still waiting to hear any statement of Obama's that you've gleaned from your recollections of his two books, or his tenure as president of the Harvard Law Review.

"Oooops. [slaps head - what am I doing]

No, no, Fred, I see your point. Gingrich would make a wonderful GOP candidate."

For someone who deigns to be an arbiter of what ideas are highbrow versus middlebrow, you're not a close reader. If you were, you would have grasped the meaning of these two sentences I wrote the first time:

That said, Gingrich would bomb in the general election, which is why he won't be nominated. But if we're lucky, some of his ideas will be incorporated into the GOP platform.

Posted by Fred | May 15, 2007 3:59 PM

General William Odom told me that when he was head of the National Security Administration under Reagan, he invited rising Congressman Newt Gingrich in to be briefed on national security issues. Gingrich spent the entire two hours lecturing the NSA staff on military strategy.

People like to imagine that their leaders know more than they say, but in the case of Gingrich, who has never had an unspoken thought, that's an impossible fantasy to maintain.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 15, 2007 4:29 PM

I think most people think only of the arrogant Congressman when they think of Newt, and they miss the brilliant policy intellectual he has shown himself to be since leaving office.

Posted by Fred | May 15, 2007 4:59 PM

I think most people think only of the arrogant Congressman when they think of Newt, and they miss the brilliant policy intellectual he has shown himself to be since leaving office.

When you're in a hole, stop digging. I guess when your party has drunk from the well of hardcore anti-intellectualism for long enough, even the mediocrities start to look brilliant.

You know your movement has gone down the tubes when you can distinguish yourself as an intellectual just by acknowledging that global warming is not, in fact, a hoax.

Posted by Steve | May 15, 2007 5:13 PM

"I guess when your party has drunk from the well of hardcore anti-intellectualism for long enough..."

Yes, if only more Republicans were as open to new ideas as the average Matt Yglesias commenter. Nevermind that intelligent Dems like Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Mario Cuomo agree that Newt Gingrich has innovative ideas worthy of discussion; better to remain in ignorance about what those ideas might be, and instead engage in puerile attacks on an entire political party.

Posted by Fred | May 15, 2007 5:54 PM

Goalpost-moving alert! From a "brilliant policy intellectual" and "the most intelligent candidate on either side and the one with the most constructive and well-thought-out policies for the future of this country"

...all the way down to a guy who "has ideas worthy of discussion." Yeah, good for him. You still look like an idiot praising him as though he's the new Ben Franklin.

Do I claim Gingrich is a mouth-breathing idiot? Of course not; he was probably an above-average professor by the standards of West Georgia College. But the over-the-top praise you shower upon him only serves to demonstrate the extent to which the intellectual chops of the conservative movement have utterly disintegrated over the years.

Posted by Steve | May 15, 2007 6:30 PM

If Gingrich runs, he would clearly be the most intelligent candidate on either side. Whether or not you think that's faint praise depends on your view of the other candidates' intellects.

Posted by Fred | May 15, 2007 7:19 PM

If Gingrich runs, he would clearly be the most intelligent candidate on either side.

Yeah, good one.

Gingrich = mediocrity.

Posted by JP | May 15, 2007 7:55 PM

If Gingrich runs, he would clearly be the most intelligent candidate on either side.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAH....whew, thanks, that was a good one.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | May 15, 2007 11:47 PM

I hope that hypocritical bastard runs on "family values".

Posted by merlallen | May 16, 2007 4:38 AM

xhfygnab jtfpdkmn qnbjaux lpeqt vdjhcu fxav hflkpyrj

Posted by uiexsj uljkdawvq | June 11, 2007 8:09 PM

mltwzpfyc linvyqea btgxqvzs czqnhu chfvkn palvue ujxz http://www.pfkq.pjqnl.com

Posted by nqvyxlw rxmntk | June 11, 2007 8:09 PM