On Wednesday, for the first time since Herman Cain’s
presidential candidacy began gaining traction in September,
Newt Gingrich’s betting odds of
earning the Republican nomination to run for the presidency have
surpassed Cain’s.
Gingrich is trading around 7 percent while Cain hovers
near 5 percent. A week ago, before the Cain sexual harassment
charges surfaced, the numbers were roughly reversed, with Cain
close to 8 percent and Gingrich around 3.5 percent. (For those
unfamiliar with Intrade.com, the odds are not set by bookies;
instead the site works as an exchange with the prices based on
where market participants are willing to buy and sell.)
During this week of turmoil, Mitt Romney’s betting odds
have barely changed, going from about 69 percent to 70 percent,
while Rick Perry’s odds have actually dropped by almost two
percent, from about 12.5 percent to 10.5 percent.
In short, while conventional wisdom is what Romney is the
main beneficiary of the chaos surrounding Herman Cain, betting odds
tell a different story: the big winner, at least for one week, is
Newt Gingrich.
This isn’t a big surprise from a betting perspective with
Romney’s odds already so much higher than his polling numbers. It’s
a lot easier to make a substantial move up from 3 percent, where
Gingrich was 10 days ago (and where I bought some Gingrich
“futures”), than from the high 60s, where Romney has been for most
of the past month.
Also, it speaks to the persistent, almost desperate,
search by much of the GOP base for someone, anyone, other than
Romney with the belief that Romney is a liberal in conservative
clothing. This is of course a theme which pro-Obama forces such as
the Washington Post are eager to
reemphasize, probably because
they (1) expect Romney to be the nominee, and (2) fear him most
among the Republican field. Democrats understand, as many
conservative Republican activists sometimes overlook, that the flip
side of flip-flopping may be to enhance Romney’s ability to portray
himself as a moderate, potentially a major benefit in the general
election. (To be sure, balancing “flip-flopper” and “moderate” will
be an act fit for the political equivalent of a Cirque de Soleil
acrobat, and with the political risk of doing that balancing on a
high wire without a net.)
I wrote a few months ago that former Speaker of the
House
Newt Gingrich had disqualified himself
from the Republican nomination by his statement that Paul
Ryan’s Medicare reform proposals were “right-wing social
engineering.” Although Newt has done much to rehabilitate himself
with conservatives, perhaps enough even to forgive such an
egregious statement, I continue to believe he is not electable as
president.
His personal baggage is too heavy and will make him unable
to narrow the “gender
gap,” a phenomenon in recent elections as
well as in approval ratings of our current president whereby women
prefer Republicans less (or Democrats more) than men by somewhere
from 5 to 10 percent. Gingrich’s professorial approach and his
focus on “big ideas” is laudable and has an important place in
politics, but says nothing about his abilities as an executive. And
how can we forget this gag-reflex-triggering
vision of Gingrich sitting on a couch with
Nancy Pelosi, saying “we do agree that our country must take action
to address climate change”?
To be fair, Gingrich publicly
regretted making the ad, and one year
later described Nancy
Pelosi as “despicable, dishonest, and
vicious.” Slightly too tame, but at least not sitting on a couch
making nice to help an Al Gore organization. Nevertheless, even
rock-ribbed conservatives mistrust Gingrich in a way that might
even be worse than the more common criticisms of Mitt Romney.
As Quin
Hillyer laid out on these very pages, not
only has Gingrich held non-conservative positions on health care
and climate change, not only has he had some spectacular political
failures following the important success of the 1994 elections, but
he seems to bring out his sharpest fangs when criticizing
conservatives.
Pace my friend Quin, on balance I like (or at least
tolerate) Gingrich and could imagine him being a good president,
bringing energy to sweeping reforms and regaining American
influence abroad. But a Gingrich nomination offers more risk than I
am willing to accept of four more years of Barack Obama.
Although the numbers have probably improved slightly in
recent days, the
RealClearPolitics average of three
recent polls matching Gingrich against President Obama gives Obama
a 14 percent advantage. This compares to a 2 point edge for Obama
over Romney.
President Obama currently has, again according to
RealClearPolitics poll averages, an 8
point edge over Herman Cain (though that will probably spike up in
upcoming polls), a 10.5 percent advantage over Rick Perry, a 14
point lead over Michele Bachmann, and a surprisingly narrow 6 point
lead on Ron Paul.
In other words, while Herman Cain’s turmoil is causing
more people to look at Gingrich and is likely to give Gingrich a
slight boost in an Obama matchup, he nevertheless has been one of
the weakest Republicans in the field based on head-to-head polling
against Obama, hardly an insignificant measure.
As much as it may be appealing to support “the smartest
guy in the room” for the most powerful position on the planet, it
is far preferable for Newt to be, at most, the eventual Republican
nominee’s running mate.
Can you imagine a Newt Gingrich versus Joe Biden debate?
True, people rarely cast ballots based on the VP candidate, but
several studies show that Sarah Palin substantially changed that
dynamic in 2008. (The studies tend to conclude,
as this most recent one does, that Palin
ended up costing the Republican ticket substantial support among
“swing voters.”) A Gingrich-Biden debate would highlight better
than any other candidate confrontation I can imagine the literal
stupidity of the Obama administration. It would leave voters, most
importantly independent voters, simply unwilling to vote for a team
that places Biden a step away from the presidency.
But, I hear you say, voters did that already. And correct
you are, but now that the fog of Obama’s “historic” candidacy has
been blown away by the persistent foul wind of over-nine percent
unemployment, people are free to focus on the true destructiveness
and economic idiocy of this administration, and what better
representative of both than “Plugs” Biden?
Whatever good things you may believe of Sarah Palin and
even if you believe she beat Biden in their October
2008 debate (which was watched by a
stunning 70 million people) she was roughly in Biden’s rhetorical
weight class in that contest. Gingrich-Biden would be like putting
the current UFC heavyweight champion, Cain
Velasquez, against Ralph
Macchio, though comparing Macchio to Biden
is patently unfair to Mr.
Miyagi’s eye for talent.
Going back to the conventional wisdom that Romney is the
major gainer from Herman Cain’s troubles and considering the fact
that betting odds have only Gingrich with significant gains in the
past week, I think they’re both right.
Yes, Gingrich has moved up substantially… to the point
where his betting odds are one tenth of Romney’s instead of one
twentieth. So while Mitt Romney’s betting odds have been fairly
stable, the real story is that despite consistently mediocre poll
numbers across the nation (except for in New Hampshire) his odds
have remained stable at roughly twice the entire rest of
the field combined.
Now that the “anybody but Romney” wing of the GOP, which
seems, at least temporarily, to be a majority of the party base,
has cycled its way through Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, Donald
Trump, Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and is halfway
through Herman Cain, it makes sense for Gingrich’s odds to rise.
Meanwhile bettors continue to believe that the “anybody but Romney”
crowd, as large as it is, will be unsuccessful in their quest to
find an other-than-Romney candidate whom William F. Buckley would
approve of as “the most conservative
electable candidate.” (Emphasis
mine.)
Republicans are properly and intensely focused on beating
Barack Obama, a fact that limits Newt Gingrich’s potential success
despite his repeatedly winning debates and showing himself as an
intelligent and mature candidate. For those who like betting on
such things — and I do — I’ll be looking to sell my Gingrich
“futures” soon. Perhaps unfortunately — but perhaps not — the
“anybody but Romney” wing of the GOP is running out of
options.
