» The point here isn’t that Gingrich won’t win. It’s that that attempting to predict election results based on polls is tricky, and remains tricky even when you factor in historical precedent. To drive the point home even further: Ronald Reagan led in Iowa polls by about 9 points a month prior to the caucuses. He ended up losing (to his future VP, George H.W. Bush), but then ultimately came back to win the nomination, making his Iowa loss more or less irrelevant. Every election has its own quirks and nuances; Gingrich is looking good in Iowa right now, no doubt, but so was Herman Cain before him, and Rick Perry before him, and Michele Bachmann before him.
Everything about Newt Gingrich—the operatic temperament, the multiple divorces, the six-figure credit line at Tiffany’s, the ego, the solipsism, the sheer haplessness and capacity for self-delusion—it all summons up the ‘Real House Wives of Beverly Hills.’TNR’s Johnathan Cohn • It may sound like a pithy, superficial comparison, but Cohn backs up his argument effectively: “They’re all aging, camera-hungry divas who used to be something that they can’t seem to let go of…they remain the stars of their own universe, blind to the indifference of the world around them…They’re always causing scenes, having fights, and then apologizing to their “frenemies” but not really meaning it.” Sounds spot-on to us. We’d add one more: Like Gingrich, the Housewives are highly entertaining to watch, but ultimately irrelevant in the 2012 presidential election. source (via • follow)