Cain is now old news, and GOPs are now supporting Newt Gingrich as the GOP guy. GOP voters, especially those who think that Mitt Romney is neither conservative enough nor christian enough are now flip-flopping to Gingrich. This may or may not be another temporary flirtation.
But Newt, who was a house speaker who left Congress 1999, does not have history on his side. We have had a few presidents whose experience was in the US House and even a president who was a former House Speaker, but no one who came from the House of Representatives has ever unseated the incumbent president. Can it be done? Here is the History.
First, you have to go a long way back to find where a member of the house even won the nomination of the party.
1924--Congressman John W. Davis loses in a landslide to President Calvin Coolidge. Silent Cal won 382 electoral votes, Davis carried 12 states and won 136 electoral votes. 3rd party candidate, Former Governor Robert M. LaFollette carried his home state of Wisconsin and their 13 electoral votes.
1908--In his third try, William Jennings Bryant, a Democratic Congressman from Nebraska lost to William Howard Taft 321 to 162.
1900--In his second try, Bryant lost to President William McKinnley 292 to 155.
1896--Congressman William Jennings Bryant of Nebraska lost to Governor William McKinley from Ohio 271 to 176.
1880--Congressman James A. Garfield from Ohio defeated Major General Winfield Scott Hancock of Pennsylvania 214 to 155.
1860--Former Congressman Abraham Lincoln of Illinois defeated Vice President John C. Breckenridge, Former House Speaker John Bell or Tennessee and Senator Stephen A Douglas also of Illinois 180-72-39-12. The US is forever grateful that Lincoln won.
1844--House Speaker James A. Polk of Tennessee defeated Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky. Polk was also, at one time, the Governor of Tennessee. He won 170 to 105. Polk would no doubt be touting his experience as both a state governor and as House Speaker. Polk is the only man who served as President, Speaker of the House and as his state's governor.
1824--There were four candidates on the final ballot, all from the same party. In this election Secretary of State John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts defeated Senator Andrew Jackson from Tennessee, former Senator William H. Crawford of Georgia and then House Speaker Henry Clay. Jackson won 99 electoral votes, but that was not enough to win the Presidency, so the election was decided in the House of Representatives. Clay was not put onto the ballot sent to the House, but was House Speaker and used his influence to persuade the House to vote for Adams. Clay would be named Secretary of State by Adams. After Adams was defeated by Jackson in 1828, Clay would run successfully for the Senate.
Conclusion
Only twice has a member of the House taken on a former president, and he has lost both times. That is probably not conclusive enough to say that it can not be done. Certainly a member of the House is considered qualified, or even Lincoln and Garfield would have lost.
When running for president, members of the House of Representatives are 2 wins and 6 losses. But a member of the US House has only been formally nominated 8 times. Probably the main reason that House Members are not nominated for this office very often is the logistical impracticality of running for President and keeping a seat in the House. Basically, one would be running and raising money for two separate campaigns at the same time.
What about Newt's History?
Newt has some successes as House Speaker. He is credited with the Contract with America which helped win a GOP majority in 1994 and he became House Speaker as a result. As House Speaker, he pushed welfare reform, balanced the federal budget and pushed through a large tax cut.
However, there are some things that are sure to haunt him if he continues to lead the GOP. First, for two consecutive years, late in 1995 and early in 1996 there was a showdown over the budget that caused a government shutdown. Gingrich spinned the shutdown as a positive because it led to success in producing a balanced budget, but the Republicans paid for it as the polls that fall. The GOP lost 8 seats in the House, but picked up 2 seats in the Senate. The shutdown did not seem to have an effect on Bob Dole's chances, one way or another, in the Presidential Election of 1996.
Gingrich was challenged in his leadership of the House in 1997 and one of the leaders of the GOP coup was John Boehner, who is the current house speaker. If Newt wins the nomination, his first priority will be to make peace with Boehner. Otherwise, the bad blood will be exploited by Obama.
After the election of 1998, the GOP lost 7 seats in the House, and it was the worst performance by the GOP in mid-term elections before 2006. Newt was forced to take the blame.
In 1998, Newt's public image suffered as a result of the Clinton Impeachment Scandal, and he was forced to resign both as House Speaker and as a Representative from Georgia. It was rumored, but not proven that Newt was having his own affair at the time. He would divorce his second wife and marry his third in 2000.
Gingrich deserves a lot of credit for balancing the budget, but it should be also be pointed out that federal revenue was at a record high in the late 1990s. Spending was not reduced when Newt was Speaker, but it was curtailed at a time when Congress was tempted to spend even more than they did.
Even though Clinton was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, many Americans felt that Clinton was being impeached for Adultery. There was simply bad blood between Gingrich and the American People afterwards, which is why he did not run for president earlier.
The real question is whether or not Newt can win in key battleground states, especially Ohio and Florida--states that are must-haves for the GOP nominee. As of today, some polls have Gingrich neck and neck with Obama, while Quinnipiac has Obama with a 9 point lead over Newt, where Romney has a 1 point lead.
Many "red states" will vote republican no matter who the nominee is...but in the swing states, Newt's success will depend upon how well voters remember Newt when he was speaker. It will be key to accentuate the positive and what he accomplished and downplay the negative. Now, if people begin to remember what happened in 1997 and 1998 and if the spin goes against Newt, Gingritch's positives may not help. In the end, it's not US History that could doom Newt, it's his own. People will forgive and forget in time. Is 12 years enough time?
To read more about Newt when he was House Speaker...
http://americaneedsmitt.com/blog/2011/11/18/baggage-adultery-dishonesty-corruption/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm
(Warning, this is a Romney site and not very neutral at that.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich
http://www.newt.org/get-involved-now
(Newt's campaign site.)
Posts
