Newt Gingrich's South Carolina Win Proves 2012 Race Still Wide Open

January 24, 2012 RSS Feed Print

The fight for Florida began Monday as the dust from South Carolina continued to settle.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who performed below expectations in Iowa and New Hampshire, posted a convincing win Saturday in the Palmetto State, taking just over 40 percent of all ballots cast. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who went into the contest as the nominal front-runner, finished second with just a hair under 28 percent of the vote.

His failure to deliver the goods in South Carolina is, along with the Gingrich surge, reflected in national polls showing Romney losing support. Even the early Florida polls show Gingrich out in front.

[See a collection of political cartoons on Mitt Romney.]

Some commentators have suggested that Gingrich's rise can be tied directly to the forceful way in which he responded to an ill-advised query concerning his ex-wife Marianne posed by CNN's John King, moderator of the final South Carolina debate. Asked by King if he would like to address the allegations she made in an interview with ABC News's Brian Ross, Gingrich responded, "No. But I will," to which the crowd responded enthusiastically.

Hitting back at the media has worked for Gingrich many times over the years. Attributing his success to this answer alone, however, is bad analysis. The fact is that Gingrich has greater appeal to the voters in South Carolina because of his stance on a whole series of issues, voters who are hungry for the kind of change they thought Obama had promised to bring to Washington but has failed to deliver.

[Vote: Is Newt Gingrich Right to Bash Media over 'Open Marriage' Claim?]

"South Carolina is more representative of the GOP than Iowa and New Hampshire," former South Carolina GOP Chairman Van Hipp wrote for Fox News over the weekend. "It is comprised of economic, social and national security conservatives. All three came together to elect Ronald Reagan in 1980. Once again, all three need to be motivated and come together for the GOP to defeat President Obama."

"Following last Monday night's Fox News debate, these three necessary components to a 'winning GOP strategy' began to coalesce around Gingrich," Hipp continued, an analysis that is backed up by the polling data.

The results from the primary also bear that out. There were 30,000 more votes cast last Saturday than in the 2000 GOP primary ,and 157,000 more than in 2008. The total increase in turnout from the last primary to the latest is in fact greater than the total number of voters who turned out for the Iowa caucuses which, it must be pointed out, included Democrats as well as independents.

[Read the U.S. News debate: Can Newt Gingrich Beat Barack Obama?]

So convincing was his win in South Carolina that, going into the Florida primary Gingrich is now ahead in the delegate count. According to TheGreenPapers website "soft" count, Gingrich now has 27 of the 1,144 delegates needed for nomination. Romney is in second place with 17, Texas Rep. Ron Paul has nine, and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has six.

There's a long way to go between now and when the GOP returns to Tampa to pick its nominee late in the summer. The lack of fireworks in Monday's debate, despite Romney's effort to light a few, means the race may still have a few more twists and turns left in. If Hipp is correct, however, and the "three-legged stool" that made up the Reagan coalition has turned to Gingrich, then we may look back and see Florida as the place where he began to pull away.

 

Tags:
2012 presidential election,
Newt Gingrich,
Mitt Romney,
Ron Paul,
Rick Santorum

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

fact checker,what you need to take into account is that when it comes to newt and his tenure as speaker,mr. bill has a biased case of selective memory.

bruce b of NV 9:43AM January 25, 2012

PS: Per your crossed-eyed, uncomprehending statement, "Be for Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. JUST DON’T LIE. TRY TO FIND _ GOOD _ PAUL HAS DONE. I'd like to know..."

I wrote, "Now, I'll have a look at Rick Santorum and Ron Paul....."

...keep your imbibing down to a fifth-a-day, eh, bulldog!!!

Fact-Checker of MO 3:27AM January 25, 2012

Bill Hedges of MO: You are as full of "hot air" as Gingrich himself....

You bet, "Let's do some checking...."

Your "tongue-in-cheek" statement:

"There was a length of time between the two that could of stopped reimbursement (iF possible). Newt might of wanted to MOVE ON. Don't know."

1) Jan. 17, 1997: "....lawyers for Gingrich agree that the speaker's punishment should be a reprimand plus a $300,000 penalty to reimburse the ethics committee for time wasted due to his inconsistent statements. The panel holds a public hearing into Gingrich's violations, then votes 7-1 in favor of the judgment."

April 22, 1997: "Gingrich announces he will pay the $300,000 penalty using a loan from former GOP presidential candidate and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/gingrich/index3.html

Then your baloney statement: "Who is 'his guy'. What does that have to do with Newt ?"

2) "....Gingrich himself was among the 450 members of the House who had engaged in check kiting; he had overdrafts on twenty-two checks, including a $9,463 check to the Internal Revenue Service in 1990." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich

3) THEN you state: "....from 'Gingrich only cares about himself ....also, not for the American people”'

...."Oh I would NOT say THAT. Newt with Contract with America balanced budget, surplus, welfare reform, last civil rights bill, got taxes reduced and brought in MORE government revenue than Bill C’s tax increase on rich did."

A) "Not So Fast, Newt" :

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/03/newts_surplus.html

"There are, indeed, two main heroes in the story of the remarkable budget surplus of 1998, but neither of them are Newt Gingrich or his Republican Congress. It turns out that their contribution to deficit reduction did more harm than good. No, the true heroes of deficit reduction were, first, President Clinton, whose 1993 budget—passed without a single Republican vote—raised taxes on the wealthy and dramatically altered the nation’s fiscal path, and second, a steadily improving economy. Those two factors, and particularly the interaction between them, account for virtually the entire fiscal improvement. Contrary to the Gingrich assertion, legislation passed by the Republican-led Congress of 1995 through 1997 combined to actually worsen the fiscal situation—albeit slightly."

"B) "McClatchy: Sorry, Newt. You never balanced the budget" http://ctj.org/ctjinthenews/2011/03/sorry_newt_you_never_balanced_the_budget.php

Here's what really happened: "In fact, the budget surpluses that we enjoyed from 1998 to 2001 had nothing to do with Gingrich's balanced budget act. Instead, the surpluses stemmed from a dramatic surge in federal revenues, mainly personal income taxes.

....then you have the 'nads to tell me, "...JUST DON’T LIE"!

Read ALL of these articles , Bill Hedges of MO! To pick and choose (not unlike today's MSM) is lying by omission!

You unnerstand now, boy???

Fact-Checker of MO 3:11AM January 25, 2012

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. A former senior political writer for United Press International, he is currently a senior fellow at the Institute for Liberty and at Let Freedom Ring, a non-partisan public policy organization. His writing has also appeared on Fox News' Fox Forum.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Obama's Mixed-Bag Week

The Obama camp can celebrate Dick Lugar defeat, but should worry about the Scott Walker recall.

Mary Kate Cary

The Catholic Bishops vs. the Nuns

The Vatican is criticizing its dedicated female servants when it should be giving them a larger role.

Latest Video

advertisement