Topic: Gingrich Gets Big New Hampshire Endorsement

[CatholicCrusader]

Gingrich Gets Big New Hampshire Endorsement
Published November 27, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/27/gingrich-gets-big-new-hampshire-endorsement/

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has received the coveted endorsement of the highly influential Manchester Union Leader in New Hampshire, a boost for the 2012 Republican presidential candidate and a blow to rival Mitt Romney.

The endorsement of the conservative newspaper's editorial board places an exclamation point on Gingrich's impressive surge from has-been GOP contender to frontrunner, and sets him apart as the new anti-Romney candidate among his competitors

"Newt Gingrich is by no means the perfect candidate. But Republican primary voters too often make the mistake of preferring an unattainable ideal to the best candidate who is actually running. In this incredibly important election, that candidate is Newt Gingrich," the editorial board wrote in Sunday's edition.

The Leader added in a banner headline across the front page that the former Georgia lawmaker has something the rest of the candidates don't -- a track record of success in Washington..........<SNIP>

Rest of story: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/27/gingrich-gets-big-new-hampshire-endorsement/

[Libertas]

While I like having it stuck to Mittens on what should be closer to his home turf as anything, a NH endorsement means very little to the rest of the nation, it is what it is.

[CatholicCrusader]

While I like having it stuck to Mittens on what should be closer to his home turf as anything, a NH endorsement means very little to the rest of the nation, it is what it is.

Yes, BUT:

If he wins a couple of the first elections, that means money in his war chest - which he is lacking - and it means a sure rise in his clout.

[Libertas]

And I'll throw my BUT in there...

Super Tuesday, (or whenever they swing into the South and the other states) has a lot more impact.  An early leg up is nice, but if unsustained it can be of just short term benefit.  The quality of the candidate is still more important to voters than the sheer mass of the warchest, a warchest in and of itself can only assure the candidate will be on ballots, at some point that can have a spoiler effect if it only hurts a viable alternative candidate vs the one grabbing up most of the electors.