Discussion in 'Elections' started by LPH, Jan 22, 2012.
View the Post on the Blog
I wonder what difference these data will have on actual voter behavior, other than adding to time given to such gossip on TV?
Voters follow. Sometimes they just follow Fox News. Sometimes they follow Rupert Murdoch's tweets and suggestions. But many times candidates win simply because others in their campaigns convince voters that the candidate will win. In this case, there is a faction who want a contrarian in the debates against President Obama. This is the hawk faction.
Interestingly, social conservatives convinced themselves to put aside their own beliefs about adultery in order to vote for Dr. Gingrich. His response during the Thursday night debates propelled his win in South Carolina. In the same vein, Mr. Romney is not considered a fighter, therefore, he lost the primary.
The Romney campaign is now on its heels. It needs to respond to Dr. G before the next debates. The news of the release is to stop the chatter. In the long run - it wont matter. In the short term - it opens the chatter up to other topics.
Regardless, Romney will need to become a fighter or risk losing the nomination.
I see the word "Fighter" as metaphore in politics, not a reality. Exactly how would Mitt fight? Dr. Gingrich gets "in your face" enough that people submit to his accusations. Rick Santorum wags his finger in the air. Ron Paul says, "I disagree..." and then mixes facts and opinion from his view. Aside from presenting facts clearly, I wonder what else might Mitt will do to fight, so he doesn't appear as a weak "me too."
Looks like Romney is going to fight back.
As I understand what Gingrich said, he contracted to do something with or for Freddie Mac. He was not employed by them. He has not said anything further as of yesterday about what he or his companies did to fulfill those (4 I think) contracts.