Posts filed under 'Newt Gingrich'
There’s a great article in the Washington Post called The Decoy Effect, or How to Win an Election that speaks to the effect a 3rd candidate can have on the 2 front runners. I found it quite illuminating.
Huber told some people there was also a choice of a four-star restaurant that was farther away than the five-star option. People now gravitated toward the five-star choice, since it was better and closer than the third candidate. (The three-star restaurant was closer, but not as good as the new candidate.)
Another group was given a different third candidate, a two-star restaurant halfway between the first two. Many people now chose the three-star restaurant, because it beat the new option on convenience and quality. (The five-star restaurant outdid this third candidate on only one measure, quality.)
What the decoy effect basically shows is that when people cannot decide between two front-runners, they use the third candidate as a sort of measuring stick. If one front-runner looks much better than the third candidate, people gravitate toward that front-runner. Third candidates, in other words, can make a complicated decision feel simple.
How would this work in the context of the current political race?
Let’s say you are a centrist Democratic voter who cannot decide between Clinton and Obama because you want a candidate who is strong on national security but also someone fresh. You like Clinton on one measure and Obama on the other. Enter Edwards, whom you see as more dovish than Obama but part of the same establishment as Clinton. Obama looks better than Edwards on both counts, whereas Clinton beats Edwards on only the national security issue.
Makes you think, huh?
April 2nd, 2007
Per the AP: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich acknowledged he was having an 
extramarital affair, with his now-wife Callista Bisek, even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair.
“The honest answer is yes,” Gingrich, a potential 2008 Republican presidential candidate, said in an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson to be aired Friday, according to a transcript provided to The Associated Press. “There are times that I have fallen short of my own standards. There’s certainly times when I’ve fallen short of God’s standards.”
When I first saw the headline, I figured Romney was starting a smear campaign to keep Gingrich on the sideline. I was surprised to see that Gingrich brought this on himself, likely to test the waters to see if he would endure the kind of scrutiny and ill-will accompanying Giuliani (also like Reagan with 2 divorces). We’ll see if it hurts im or not. He’s got as good a chance as anyone even though he isn’t running.
March 9th, 2007
Robert D. Novak talks in the washingtonpost about the void on the right among GOP primary candidates. He speaks of a push poll in which Jim Gilmore of Virginia would win the nomination. It was obviously a manipulated result, but it demonstrates how uneducated and wide open the GOP nomination is. Novak states:
The most commonly mentioned potential void-filler is not Gilmore but Newt Gingrich. A straw poll by the right-wing organization Citizens United of its political contributors showed Gingrich leading with 31 percent (followed by Giuliani at 25 percent, Romney at 10 percent and McCain at 8 percent). But based on his actions as speaker of the House, Gingrich’s conservative record is far from flawless.
Gingrich has really demonstrated some resilience over the past decade. He’s done really good work on the issue of health care and is such a persuasive orator. He is to the democrats, though, as Clinton is to the republicans. An object to be loathed, embodying the worst sterotypes of their party. I doubt he’s electable, but he’d do great in a debate.
UPDATE: 3/5/2007
Rather than a whole new post, I figured I’d add to this one as it’s the same topic. Ann Coulter was questioned about the best candidate for conservatives and had the following to say, per csc:
During a question-and-answer session, Coulter said she believed Romney “is probably our best candidate.”
She described Giuliani as “very, very liberal,” and said that despite doing good things in New York, he “has a list of negatives that makes [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi look like the rational middle.”
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, she said, like 1980s music, was not likely to come back into style.
March 1st, 2007
Update: 8/23/2007
(old odds are at the bottom)
Hillary Clinton 2-1
Al Gore 6-1
John McCain 5-1
George Allen Jr 50-1
Rudy Giuliani 3-1
Sam Brownback 25-1
Bill Richardson 50-1
Mark Warner 30-1
Mitt Romney 8-1
Mike Huckabee 50-1
Evan Bayh 40-1
Chuck Hagel 200-1
Colin Powell 50-1
Joe Biden 50-1
Bill Frist 50-1
John Edwards 6-1
Newt Gingrich 20-1
Tom Vilsack 50-1
Russ Feingold 50-1
Barack Obama 7-2
Rick Santorum 80-1
Tom Tancredo 100-1
Mike Gravel 100-1
Tom Ridge 60-1
Tom Daschle 60-1
Bill Owens 100-1
Bob Kerrey 100-1
John Kerry 40-1
George Pataki 50-1
Condoleezza Rice 30-1
Gary Locke 100-1
Dick Gephardt 100-1
Wesley Clark 20-1
Dick Cheney 75-1
Howard Dean 100-1
Alberto Gonzales 100-1
Bob Ehrlich 100-1
Charles Schumer 100-1
Harold Ford Jr 100-1
Jack Kemp 100-1
Jeb Bush 100-1
Jay Rockefeller 100-1
Ralph Nader 100-1
Paul Bremmer 150-1
Joe Lieberman 150-1
Bob Graham 150-1
Michael Bloomberg 15-1
Tommy Franks 200-1
Jesse Jackson 200-1
George W Bush 200-1
Dennis Kucinich 200-1
Arnold Schwarzenegger 250-1
Bill Clinton 300-1
Paul Wolfowitz 750-1
Alan Keyes 750-1
Elizabeth Dole 750-1
Clint Eastwood 750-1
Ted Kennedy 750-1
Bill OReilly 750-1
Laura Bush 500-1
James Carville 1000-1
Jesse Ventura 1000-1
Al Sharpton 500-1
John Ashcroft 1500-1
Donald Rumsfeld 500-1
Pat Robertson 2000-1
Bill Maher 2500-1
Donald Trump 1000-1
Michael Moore 1000-1
Chris Dodd 100-1
Doug Stanhope 50-1
Wayne Root 1000-1
Ron Paul 8-1
Fred Thompson 4-1
Tommy Thompson 200-1
Duncan Hunter 200-1
Update: 3/15/2007
Republicans:
6/4 Rudolph Guiliani
3-1 John McCain
6-1 Mitt Romney
21-1 Tommy Thompson
26-1 Sam Brownback
34-1 Chuck Hagel
34-1 George Pataki
34-1 Condoleeza Rice
With the announcement this morning that Barak Obama is forming a presidential exploratory committee, I figured it was time to put together a list of who’s running with odds on each (let’s not pretend it isn’t a horse race):
Democrats:
Hillary Clinton - 9:5 odds
Barak Obama - 5:2 odds
John Edwards - 12:1
Al Gore - 50:1
Chris Dodd - 60:1
Joseph R. Biden - 75:1
Bill Richardson - 75:1
Tom Vilsack - 75:1
Wesley Clark - 100:1
John Kerry - 120:1
Dennis Kucinich - 250:1
Republicans:
John McCain - 8:5 odds
Mitt Romney - 3:1 odds
Rudy Giuliani - 6:1
Newt Gingrich - 80:1
Jim Gilmore - 99:1
Tommy G. Thompson - 99:1
Chuck Hagel - 100:1
Mike Huckabee - 100:1
Tom Tancredo - 100:1
Sam Brownback - 120:1
Duncan Hunter - 150:1
Update - 3/2/2007:
No real change on the democatic side. Republican odds have shifted drastically at the top with McCain slipping and Giuliani pulling even / slightly ahead. Duncan Hunter has gained as well with a strong showing in a recent SC straw poll. It’s hard to handicap without an obvious conservative candidate. Without further delay:
Republicans:
Rudy Giuliani - 3:1
John McCain - 3:1 odds
Mitt Romney - 4:1 odds
Duncan Hunter - 50:1
Newt Gingrich - 50:1
Jim Gilmore - 75:1
Chuck Hagel - 100:1
Mike Huckabee - 100:1
Tommy G. Thompson - 120:1
Tom Tancredo - 150:1
Sam Brownback - 150:1
List of candidates per New York Times
January 16th, 2007