"Gingrich Passes the Social Conservative Test"

Byron York wrote the article. An excerpt:

Saturday evening's Family Leader forum in Des Moines was widely viewed as a key test for Republican presidential candidates trying to win the support of still-undecided Iowa social conservatives. And after an extraordinary and sometimes soul-baring discussion between six candidates gathered at First Federated Church, there are signs Newt Gingrich has come out ahead in the race to become the candidate behind whom social conservatives unite behind in their drive to stop Mitt Romney.

Discussions with some social conservative leaders after the forum brought praise for all of the participants, particularly Gingrich and Rick Santorum. But it turns out that pollster/strategist Frank Luntz, who conducted the forum, also ran a focus group after the session, and it appears Gingrich scored very well with the group. "I think the focus group that Luntz did afterward would bear out that Newt Gingrich came a long way Saturday night," says Family Leader president Bob vander Plaats. "I think it would bear out that Gingrich won the forum."

"When you watch it, you'll say, 'Wow,'" vander Plaats continued. "It also looked very good for Santorum, but primarily for Gingrich." The focus group was taped for later showing on Fox News.

York concludes:

What is happening now is that social conservatives are working their way through his liabilities, particularly his three marriages, and trying to decide if they can support the Gingrich of today -- not the Gingrich of 15 or 20 years ago -- without compromising social conservative principles. In the Family Leader forum Saturday, it appears that all involved made a big step toward doing that.

Video of Frank Luntz' focus group from a couple of debates ago

This is older, but for those who haven't seen it, it's a nice video.

Link to video.

Frank Luntz' focus group: Newt won the CNBC debate

As we head into another debate on Saturday, I thought this post would be interesting:

Newt Gingrich won the latest Republican debate because of his consistency and ability to credibly answer questions, according to the vast majority of members of a focus group assembled by Republican pollster Frank Luntz. This was the second debate in a row where a Luntz group backed Gingrich — the first last month in Las Vegas.

Video of Frank Luntz discussing Newt's debate performance

Link.



Interesting to hear what he says about the straw poll -- "purely how many people you can get in a a tent at one time."

Luntz points out that five million people watched the debate, a much bigger number than the attendance of the straw poll.

The entire electorate has not already locked in an opinion of Newt, as many suggest

One of the many bits of conventional wisdom surrounding the coverage of Newt Gingrich the past few months is that due to his high-profile Speakership from 1995-1998 and continuing to appear on Fox News for nearly the past decade, that everyone knows of him. And more importantly, everyone knows whether they will support him or not already. Thus, the argument goes, Newt has no room to grow.

Rich Galen, a Republican strategist who used to work for Newt, summed up this line of thinking by telling The Washington Post:

“Newt’s name ID is 130 (percent) so just about everyone who has ever even flipped by a cable news channel en route an NCIS rerun knows who (he) is, and has an opinion of him."

While Newt's name identification -- 80-85% -- is quite high, it is in line with the other GOP frontrunners: Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney. More importantly, in my opinion, is that it is a soft identification (some polls put the undecided about Newt number at nearly 40%). While Galen and others are right that most people know of him, how well do they know him? A recent CBS poll even had more Republican primary voters undecided about Newt than Huckabee.

It is easy for Beltway writers and political consultants to assume that everyone in the country follows politics as closely day-to-day as they do. The fact, of course, is most do not. So while most have heard of Gingrich, they may not have necessarily formed a solid opinion of him. In fact, as Matt Towery pointed out recently, nearly half of the public does not even know Newt was Speaker of the House. Some of that is the younger voters who were not old enough to remember obviously but that does not explain all of it.

But, according to Towery's data, when people are told of the numerous accomplishments during the time Newt was Speaker -- a balanced federal budget four years in a row for the first time in 70 years at the same time taxes were being cut, along with the only time an entitlement program (Welfare) has been significantly rolled back -- he shoots to the top of Republican voters' lists.

And while there were controversial parts of Newt's time as Speaker, a focus group of Frank Luntz's that I have discussed before shows that those low moments may not mean much at all:

Gingrich continues to enjoy a gut connection with Republican voters. Back in 2005, consultant Frank Luntz held focus groups in Iowa and New Hampshire on the Republican candidates. In a report published afterward, Luntz wrote, 'We were genuinely surprised by the strongly favorable reaction' to Gingrich's 'speeches and interviews.' According to Luntz, voters ignored, or in some cases forgot, the controversial nature of Gingrich's speakership. 'The words he spoke were like nothing they had heard from anyone else,' Luntz went on. 'While he didn't start either session with any measurable support, he ended both Iowa and New Hampshire sessions with the most new converts.' Out of office, Gingrich has remained largely insulated from the scandals and debacles of the Bush Republicans. In fact, the 2006 midterm election results could be viewed as confirmation of what Gingrich has been saying for some time: that the Republican party and broader conservative movement have lost their way, and the time has come for a rebirth of the reform impulse that in 1994 brought the GOP to congressional majority status for the first time in 40 years.

Earlier this year, Luntz did a focus group in Iowa in which he played clips of all the GOP contenders -- and Newt took the top spot.

Here is a partial video of the focus group:


All of which is to say that Newt has plenty of room to grow -- and he is already in good standing in polls. If he sticks to a few issues -- his record balancing the budget and the other policy wins as Speaker, jobs, energy, and security -- the public will rally to him.

Newt, Christie, and Romney get the most applause at California GOP convention

The Sacramento Bee on the California GOP's convention luncheon today, at which there were "hundreds of people":

While advising Republicans on how to use political language, Luntz conducted an informal applause poll among the crowd on the possible GOP presidential candidates.

Those winning the loudest applause were former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin also received a good amount of applause. Other names such as Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who will address the convention tonight, and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels received less applause.

Jack Chang added this to the story:

UPDATE: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie received one the loudest -- if not the loudest -- rounds of applause in the informal poll. However, Christie has said repeatedly that he won't run for president in 2012.

The problem with Public Policy Polling's conclusions on Newt's chances

Today, Public Policy Polling (PPP) analyzed some of their GOP Primary poll results and concluded that Newt has a "tough road ahead."

Let me say that I think that PPP's polls are very accurate -- more importantly, the statistics back up their accuracy. And despite being a Democrat firm -- and being the uber-left Daily Kos' polling firm -- I don't think they have a bias; I trust their polling data.

Their analysis starts out accurately, in my opinion: they state that he is generally placing fourth right now in most polls -- "with just the occasional second or third place finish." Their polls and just about everyone else's polling data says that.

However, then they conclude that Newt will not be able to improve because, chiefly, "his name recognition is already at 70 to 80% in most states." Most people do know him, and so on the surface it might appear has though he has peaked.

But what PPP does not point out is that the three ahead of him currently -- Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee -- either ran for President or Vice President in 2008, and so also have high name identification and more people are familiar with their speeches and policies. After all, Romney and Huckabee campaigned for a year each, and Palin was a huge story for the last stretch of that election.

Newt, on the other hand, has not run for office since 1998, and while most people still know of him, have not watched him on Fox News, read his books (even if they are best-sellers), or read his newsletters. Their recollection of him may be colored by his confrontational Speakership.

Plus, we have evidence that once people actually hear Newt's ideas and the way he presents them, they become supporters, even if they had been fully aware of him before. I once again will quote Matthew Continetti, who wrote in 2007:

Gingrich continues to enjoy a gut connection with Republican voters. Back in 2005, consultant Frank Luntz held focus groups in Iowa and New Hampshire on the Republican candidates. In a report published afterward, Luntz wrote, 'We were genuinely surprised by the strongly favorable reaction' to Gingrich's 'speeches and interviews.' According to Luntz, voters ignored, or in some cases forgot, the controversial nature of Gingrich's speakership. 'The words he spoke were like nothing they had heard from anyone else,' Luntz went on. 'While he didn't start either session with any measurable support, he ended both Iowa and New Hampshire sessions with the most new converts.' Out of office, Gingrich has remained largely insulated from the scandals and debacles of the Bush Republicans. In fact, the 2006 midterm election results could be viewed as confirmation of what Gingrich has been saying for some time: that the Republican party and broader conservative movement have lost their way, and the time has come for a rebirth of the reform impulse that in 1994 brought the GOP to congressional majority status for the first time in 40 years.

More recently, Luntz held a focus group in Iowa:

They liked a video of Gingrich effectively blasting the national debt and the radical fixes proposed by Obama’s debt commission, like ending the home mortgage deduction. One panel member says, 'We want to see him dismantle Obama in the debates, and he can do it.' Luntz’s own conclusion is, 'Principles matter more than pragmatism to these voters, and principles with solid debating skills matter most.'

(Thank you to splicd.com)

Once again, those voters in Iowa assuredly knew who Gingrich was before -- and coming in it was doubtful he had the most support -- but after listening to Newt, Romney, Palin, Huckabee, and every other possible Republican running, he won. (What's remarkable is that Romney was one of the first "eliminated" in the focus group."

Newt the favorite among Iowa Republicans in a focus group (video)

Last week, Frank Luntz had a focus group of 26 Iowa Republicans who voted in the 2008 Presidential caucus. Some of the reactions can be seen in the above video.

The rules, according to U.S. News and World Report: "Like the television show Survivor, the 26 would discuss the candidates after Luntz showed videos of each. Then one would be voted out of the 2012 Iowa Caucus."

The results unfolded like this, writes Paul Bedard:

Some went fast. Daniels was 'boring,' Barbour’s southern accent was 'a turnoff,' and Santorum was 'yesterday’s news.' Romney went down next, labeled 'another Obama.' Next was Thune, though the Iowans say he has potential. Christie, who doesn’t want to run, went next. The reason, says one panelist to Luntz, author of the hit Words That Work and the upcoming Win: “He doesn’t want the job, so why should we give it to him?”

The Iowans then argued for their favorites, like Pawlenty, whose 'blue collar conservatism' and victories in Democratic-dominated Minnesota were a hit. When he was next to go, some of his supporters vowed that he’d make the cut down the road.

That left four: Huckabee, Gingrich, Palin, and Bachmann, who then bested Palin because Bachmann was 'less polarizing.' But because Bachmann was seen by the group as the least presidential of the remaining three, she was dumped, followed by Huckabee, making Gingrich the surprise winner.

They liked a video of Gingrich effectively blasting the national debt and the radical fixes proposed by Obama’s debt commission, like ending the home mortgage deduction. One panel member says, 'We want to see him dismantle Obama in the debates, and he can do it.' Luntz’s own conclusion is, 'Principles matter more than pragmatism to these voters, and principles with solid debating skills matter most.'

This focus group squares with another Luntz group, back in 2005:

Gingrich continues to enjoy a gut connection with Republican voters. Back in 2005, consultant Frank Luntz held focus groups in Iowa and New Hampshire on the Republican candidates. In a report published afterward, Luntz wrote, 'We were genuinely surprised by the strongly favorable reaction' to Gingrich's 'speeches and interviews.' According to Luntz, voters ignored, or in some cases forgot, the controversial nature of Gingrich's speakership. 'The words he spoke were like nothing they had heard from anyone else,' Luntz went on. 'While he didn't start either session with any measurable support, he ended both Iowa and New Hampshire sessions with the most new converts.' Out of office, Gingrich has remained largely insulated from the scandals and debacles of the Bush Republicans. In fact, the 2006 midterm election results could be viewed as confirmation of what Gingrich has been saying for some time: that the Republican party and broader conservative movement have lost their way, and the time has come for a rebirth of the reform impulse that in 1994 brought the GOP to congressional majority status for the first time in 40 years.

If Gingrich jumps in, he needs to continue with the same message -- not dampen it down like so many candidates do -- and he needs to keep being willing to talk about it anywhere he goes.

If he does that, and if Luntz's focus groups are any indication, he could make up the small deficit he has in the current polls -- in a hurry.

Frank Luntz on Newt's communication

From 2004:

The change in Republican language began with Newt Gingrich in 1994, and while much of his communication still came across as angry and partisan, when Newt was speaking about policy and not talking about those who opposed him, there was none better, and there has been none better. Newt Gingrich had the ability to explain a very complicated process in very clear-cut, common-sense ways, unlike anyone I've ever seen. He explained the difference between taxing and spending. He explained the difference between investment and savings. He explained the difference between a weak foreign policy and a strong one. This is a guy who knew how to articulate a philosophical point of view in a way that just made sense. And if it wasn't coming from Newt Gingrich, you believed it; you absolutely supported it. The problem with Gingrich was he was too angry in some of his communication.

Newt has gone a long way, in my opinion, of moderating his tone and doing certain things that help him appeal to those in the middle. How successful those efforts have been will likely determine if Gingrich becomes the Republican nominee or even the next President.

Good News on Undecided Voters

Matthew Continetti:

Gingrich continues to enjoy a gut connection with Republican voters. Back in 2005, consultant Frank Luntz held focus groups in Iowa and New Hampshire on the Republican candidates. In a report published afterward, Luntz wrote, 'We were genuinely surprised by the strongly favorable reaction' to Gingrich's 'speeches and interviews.' According to Luntz, voters ignored, or in some cases forgot, the controversial nature of Gingrich's speakership. 'The words he spoke were like nothing they had heard from anyone else,' Luntz went on. 'While he didn't start either session with any measurable support, he ended both Iowa and New Hampshire sessions with the most new converts.' Out of office, Gingrich has remained largely insulated from the scandals and debacles of the Bush Republicans. In fact, the 2006 midterm election results could be viewed as confirmation of what Gingrich has been saying for some time: that the Republican party and broader conservative movement have lost their way, and the time has come for a rebirth of the reform impulse that in 1994 brought the GOP to congressional majority status for the first time in 40 years.

2012 polls

It needs to be said at the beginning that relying on polls two years before the Iowa caucuses is not the best thing to do. However, they do serve some purpose, and as such, a quick overview can reveal some things.One of the knocks against running Gingrich is his divisiveness. While that was true when he stepped down as Speaker of the House, he has done a very good job in recent years of rehabbing his image. Some of those events -- when he met with Hillary Clinton over health information technology, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry on the climate, and most recently, Al Sharpton and President Obama on education -- have drawn ire from many conservatives.Their criticism has been largely silly, acting as if Gingrich has advocated for large-scale surrender of principles. All is he has done is tried to open a dialogue -- and he is confident his ideas will beat out those of the liberals he has met with. It was a message he spoke forcefully at CPAC.

Combined with that, as well as his focus on actual ideas and solutions, his popularity has been rising. In fact, in a June 2009 poll -- the last such poll I can find -- his popularity number with independents is split 37-38%. Being able to hold his own with that bloc is vital, of course, to any chance of victory. And chances are, when exposed to more of Newt's ideas, the 29% undecided will break more for him, handing him a win among unaffilated voters.

One of the interesting things the poll shows is that those under 30 are much more undecided than those above that age. Of course, much of that is because the older crowd remembers his days as Speaker, when he was target number one of the Clinton White House and liberal groups. The more people focus on the issues and reality, not the media spin and half-truths, the better it is for Newt.

Gingrich's standing in polls against President Obama have been improving, better than than the other top Republican contenders. A Public Policy Polling (PPP), a Democratic firm, survey from April 2009 showed Obama winning, 52-39%. But just two months later, the lead was down to 49-41% and Newt's numbers were better than Mike Huckabee (50-43) or Sarah Palin (52-40) and very close to Mitt Romney (48-40).

The next poll that pitted Obama and Gingrich was one from Clarus. It had Obama winning 48-36, right in the middle of the pack of GOP candidates. Romney did much better than every other Republican in the poll, trailing just by four points. Of course, that could be an outlier, or just an obvious result of having spent all of 2007 and two months in 2008 running for President already. His name identification is high.

President of Clarus Ron Faucheux said, "Gingrich improved his standing since the August poll when he was trailing Obama by 18 points. He's narrowed the gap to 12 points. Relative to Obama, Huckabee and Palin experienced only minimal improvement since August."

That is a pretty obvious sign that Gingrich is doing something that Huckabee and Palin are failing at. When combined with the results of Frank Luntz's focus groups that showed people warmed very much to Gingrich after actually his policy proposals, it would seem to suggest that over the course of a months-long campaign, Newt would only rise in the polls, while others would stagnate or fall.

Clarus also confirmed the findings of many polls that the former Speaker is at the top of the list of Republican spokesman, trailing only 2008 GOP Presidential nominee John McCain and the man who was second to McCain when he dropped out, Romney, among Republican voters. A Gallup poll from May 2009, for example, found Gingrich tied with Rush Limbaugh for first.

Newt's new PAC

Since leaving office after the 1998 elections, Newt has only started groups that advocated certain policies and had no hand in elections. Shortly, however, he will be starting a political action committee, with the same name as his 527: American Solutions. The goal of the PAC will be to support candidates who stand and fight for the policies that the 527 advances.

American Solutions raked in the third-most dollars -- 22.7 million -- of all 527s in 2008. And since it's inception three-plus years ago, $38 million.

Starting a PAC is often a sign of gearing up for a presidential run. When combined with his usual barnstorming of the country for candidates this year -- "Gingrich said that wants to be active for GOP candidates in the '10 midterm elections" -- he will have a lot of goodwill built up among elected Republicans, as well as getting a chance to talk to voters. And the latter's importance cannot be understated.

Pollster Frank Luntz, who worked with Gingrich on the Contract with America, found that when people in his focus groups during 2006 heard Gingrich, they "ignored, or in some cases forgot, the controversial nature of Gingrich's speakership," as Matthew Continetti wrote. "The words he spoke were like nothing they had heard from anyone else," Luntz says. "While he didn't start either session with any measurable support, he ended both Iowa and New Hampshire sessions with the most new converts."

That is important because despite staying in the headlines pretty consistently in the eleven years since resigning as speaker, a Pew Research Center poll found that 26% of the public is undecided about him. His favorability split is 35/38, but if the remaining quarter of the electorate -- as well as "soft" opposition -- find his message as appealing as the focus groups that did not come in as Gingrichites, he could improve those numbers a lot. Having a full debate of the issues over the course of 2011 would likely benefit him more than any other candidate heading into Iowa and New Hampshire in the early part of 2012.