Former Speaker Newt Gingrich Predicts Electoral College Slaughter for Joe Biden

  
Via:  Trump 2024  •  4 weeks ago  •  69 comments

By:   Matt Vespa

 Former Speaker Newt Gingrich Predicts Electoral College Slaughter for Joe Biden
"He has a better likelihood than he did at this stage in 2016 when he was clearly behind and closing rapidly," Gingrich said. "The people I trust the most, the pollsters that have been the most accurate over the last 5 or 6 years who seem to understand the dynamics of the age of Trump." "I saw today the first electoral college map that made sense to me and it showed Trump at 326 electoral votes plus," Gingrich said. "I think that is probably about right. I think the left is going to be...

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

We are going to wake up Tuesday morning with no idea who is going to win and the same going into evening news coverage and then what newt said!


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



ecdebb69-02a6-4822-b537-8a0afa6bf8c9-500x250.jpg

Source: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

We’re either right or wrong. There is no in-between here concerning the polls. These liberal outlets are oversampling Democrats, ignoring Trump Democrats, not accounting for fewer young voters turning out, and including way too many college-educated voters to craft a narrative that this country holds a D+15 electorate. It's just not true. Trump Democrats are being ignored. Rural Republicans are being bypassed. The suburban cohort of the GOP—sure. They’re the squishiest and most vocally anti-Trump of the group. At Trump’s rallies, around 25 percent of the attendees didn’t vote in 2016. Some firms haven’t even moved off from registered voter samples. It’s a trainwreck. Biden is supposedly ahead by double-digits, which his camp says is not true. They’re admitting the polls are inflated, which could also be a ploy to keep their base anxious and ready to vote. They don’t want complacency to settle in like it did in 2016. Yet, the rule hasn’t changed: never underestimate anything when Trump is on the ballot and at the top of the ticket.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is also feeling good about President Trump’s chances for re-election. Appearing on Fox News’ Sean Hannity’s show, the former speaker said that the Electoral College result will shock the Left. He has Trump clinching another Electoral College landslide, nabbing 326 electoral votes (via RealClearPolitics ):


Newt Gingrich said the left is going to be shocked by a Trump victory and said an electoral map showing the incumbent president with 326 electoral votes seems right to him in an interview Wednesday night with FNC's Sean Hannity.

"He has a better likelihood than he did at this stage in 2016 when he was clearly behind and closing rapidly," Gingrich said. "The people I trust the most, the pollsters that have been the most accurate over the last 5 or 6 years who seem to understand the dynamics of the age of Trump."

"I saw today the first electoral college map that made sense to me and it showed Trump at 326 electoral votes plus," Gingrich said. "I think that is probably about right. I think the left is going to be terribly shocked."

[…]

"I think every day that Biden hides and Trump goes out and campaigns, the psychological message being driven to the American people is really deeper than just ideology or partisanship," Gingrich said. "It says one guy has the guts, the willingness, the toughness to actually be out here, taking on things including Covid. The other guy is hiding, frightened, hoping the news media will save him because he can't possibly save himself."

One side will be eating a lot of crow next Tuesday night. We all bank on it being Biden and his crew. And I think Newt’s prediction is about right, but taking off my MAGA hat, I can see this swinging the other way toward Biden as well. I just cannot believe the polls right now. They’re all over the place, and the early vote totals which usually trend toward Democrats aren’t trending so favorably toward Biden, especially in key states like Florida

Still, even with the hesitations here, I feel like we’ll be drinking up a lot of liberal tears next week.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
MAGA
1  seeder  MAGA    4 weeks ago
Newt Gingrich said the left is going to be shocked by a Trump victory and said an electoral map showing the incumbent president with 326 electoral votes seems right to him in an interview Wednesday night with FNC's Sean Hannity.

"He has a better likelihood than he did at this stage in 2016 when he was clearly behind and closing rapidly," Gingrich said. "The people I trust the most, the pollsters that have been the most accurate over the last 5 or 6 years who seem to understand the dynamics of the age of Trump."

"I saw today the first electoral college map that made sense to me and it showed Trump at 326 electoral votes plus," Gingrich said. "I think that is probably about right. I think the left is going to be terribly shocked."

[…]

"I think every day that Biden hides and Trump goes out and campaigns, the psychological message being driven to the American people is really deeper than just ideology or partisanship," Gingrich said. "It says one guy has the guts, the willingness, the toughness to actually be out here, taking on things including Covid. The other guy is hiding, frightened, hoping the news media will save him because he can't possibly save himself."

One side will be eating a lot of crow next Tuesday night. We all bank on it being Biden and his crew.

https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/10882/former-speaker-newt-gingrich-predicts-electoral-college-slaughter-for-joe-biden

 
 
 
Gsquared
2  Gsquared    4 weeks ago

Isn't Newt busy looking for wife #4 about now?  

Donald will be about January 21st.

It's something they have in common, as well as abject stupidity.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Gsquared @2    4 weeks ago

Gingrich has been remarkably quiet for the past four years.  I assume he can't stand Trump and vice versa. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
2.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    4 weeks ago

If we never hear another word out of Gingrich again, it will be too soon.

He is definitely one of the worst players in the history of American politics.

 
 
 
MAGA
2.1.2  seeder  MAGA  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    4 weeks ago

That must be why Trump appointed Gingrich’s wife as US Ambassador to The Vatican, because they hate each other.../s

 
 
 
TᵢG
3  TᵢG    4 weeks ago
"I saw today the first electoral college map that made sense to me and it showed Trump at 326 electoral votes plus," Gingrich said. "I think that is probably about right. I think the left is going to be terribly shocked."

Where is the data which shows Trump winning with an electoral landslide?   

 
 
 
MAGA
3.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @3    4 weeks ago

326-212 doesn’t qualify as a landslide in the EC?  It’s over 60% of it.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @3.1    4 weeks ago
326-212 doesn’t qualify as a landslide in the EC?  It’s over 60% of it.  

Good grief man how could you possibly not understand my question?

I asked you for the supporting data for the 326 claim and you simply repeat the claim.

Hello?   Where is the data that predicts a 326 electoral count?

 
 
 
MAGA
3.1.2  seeder  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/10/28/gingrich_map_of_trump_with_326_electoral_votes_looks_right_left_is_going_to_be_terribly_shocked.html

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

Where is the data supporting the 326 claim?

 
 
 
MAGA
3.2  seeder  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @3    4 weeks ago

Do you feel that you know more about electoral politics at the national level than the former House Speaker does?  

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.1  Krishna  replied to  MAGA @3.2    4 weeks ago
Do you feel that you know more about electoral politics at the national level than the former House Speaker does?

Well...whatever.

But no-one knows more about that than Donald Trump!

(But he's so humble its hard to get him to admit it)

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @3.2    4 weeks ago
Do you feel that you know more about electoral politics at the national level than the former House Speaker does?  

I am asking for the data .   Understand the concept?   I do not simply accept what Gingrich says as truth.   I want to see the data.  

Do you believe things to be true simply because some authority says so?   Rhetorical .... jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MAGA
3.2.3  seeder  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.2    4 weeks ago

Perhaps you could write to him or call him and ask him for a copy of the data he used that led to this article...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @3.2.3    4 weeks ago

So the answer to this question:

Do you believe things to be true simply because some authority says so?

is "yes".

Does that seem like a good thing?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @3.2.3    4 weeks ago

How can you simply accept this as truth without any supporting data?

 
 
 
MAGA
3.2.6  seeder  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.5    4 weeks ago

I trust and respect his experiences and expertise in matters such as this.  He wouldn’t have said written and published the seeded article if he didn’t have access to data to back it up.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @3.2.6    4 weeks ago

Why not?  People do it all the time.

 
 
 
MAGA
3.2.8  seeder  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.4    4 weeks ago

I’ll speak for myself, thank you very much!  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @3.2.8    4 weeks ago

Did I interpret your evasive answers incorrectly?

No, I did not.  You even went on to confirm as much @3.2.6

 
 
 
MAGA
3.2.10  seeder  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.7    4 weeks ago

That may be how things work in secular progressive nightmare land but not in the real world.  

 
 
 
MAGA
3.2.11  seeder  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.9    4 weeks ago

No.  I maintain that he has the data to back up what he wrote.  I said it then and say it now.  I stand by what he wrote and wear the opposition to his words like a badge of honor.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @3.2.10    4 weeks ago
That may be how things work in secular progressive nightmare land but not in the real world.

That's funny.  You're doing exactly what you're accusing secular progressive of doing (without evidence to back that up, either).

Most amusing.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @3.2.11    4 weeks ago
I maintain that he has the data to back up what he wrote.

And you say so without presenting any evidence to support either your assertion or his.

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.2.14  Gsquared  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.13    4 weeks ago

That's because there is no evidence.  Have you noticed that most delusional reactionaries, like Newt and his followers, base their opinions on their "feelings", not on anything rational?  And how proud they are of it?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.15  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gsquared @3.2.14    4 weeks ago

Of course there isn't evidence.  I just find it to be extremely ironic that MAGA is accusing libs of making comments unsupported by evidence, while doing exactly that, himself.  Classic projection. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.2.16  Gsquared  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.15    4 weeks ago

Yes, it is classic projection.  Of course, that's a recurring issue and every day thing among the reactionary right.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.17  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @3.2.6    4 weeks ago
I trust and respect his experiences and expertise in matters such as this.  He wouldn’t have said written and published the seeded article if he didn’t have access to data to back it up.  

That is beyond naïve .    This is a key problem with many people today ... they blindly accept as truth what their authorities declare.   That is an excellent way to get bad information.   Then, these same people act on this bad information.

Critical thinking is the key.   If Gingrich declares that there are data to support a 326 electoral victory for Trump then we need to find that data.   Adding a  declaration to one's list of 'truths' simply because people like Gingrich say so is a perfect way to walk around with a distorted reality.

 
 
 
MAGA
4  seeder  MAGA    4 weeks ago

Newt Gingrich said the left is going to be shocked by a Trump victory and said an electoral map showing the incumbent president with 326 electoral votes seems right to him in an interview Wednesday night with FNC's Sean Hannity.

"He has a better likelihood than he did at this stage in 2016 when he was clearly behind and closing rapidly," Gingrich said. "The people I trust the most, the pollsters that have been the most accurate over the last 5 or 6 years who seem to understand the dynamics of the age of Trump."

"I saw today the first electoral college map that made sense to me and it showed Trump at 326 electoral votes plus," Gingrich said. "I think that is probably about right. I think the left is going to be terribly shocked."

[…]

"I think every day that Biden hides and Trump goes out and campaigns, the psychological message being driven to the American people is really deeper than just ideology or partisanship," Gingrich said. "It says one guy has the guts, the willingness, the toughness to actually be out here, taking on things including Covid. The other guy is hiding, frightened, hoping the news media will save him because he can't possibly save himself."

https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/10882/former-speaker-newt-gingrich-predicts-electoral-college-slaughter-for-joe-biden#cm1447658

 
 
 
IMT
4.1  IMT  replied to  MAGA @4    4 weeks ago
'a Trump victory'

It helps if you get to eject electors not oriented toward you. He threatened that in 2016. I assume you supported him/that.

Not that it matters. Bourgeoisie elections are fraudulent.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @4    4 weeks ago

Again, where is the data underlying Gingrich's assessment?   All you deliver is Gingrich's declaration;  not a shred of supporting data.

While Gingrich might be correct, one should not simply accept his declaration as truth.   Gingrich either has good data on which he is basing his declaration or he is just talking (aka bullshit).   The only way to distinguish bullshit from intelligent analysis is to review the underlying data.

Where is it?

 
 
 
MAGA
4.2.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @4.2    4 weeks ago

Go ahead and believe the repression polls all you want.  The other side is going to be as disappointed late Tuesday night as they were in 2016.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.2.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

So, no data?  No surprise.

 
 
 
MAGA
4.2.3  seeder  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.2    4 weeks ago

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LS5uO0pw-8A

 
 
 
MAGA
4.2.4  seeder  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.2    4 weeks ago

Wanting to troll and derail and not talk about the actual subject of the seeded article? No surprise.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @4.2.1    4 weeks ago
Go ahead and believe the repression polls all you want.  The other side is going to be as disappointed late Tuesday night as they were in 2016.  

I said nothing about believing the polls.   Focus, MAGA, on what I have written instead of inventing strawman allegations.  

As noted, Gingrich could be correct but he offers no supporting data and you have no supporting data either   So how on Earth can you simply believe the man is correct given he has offered nothing to back up his extraordinary claim?

I do not believe the polls either.   The polls are a general indication but what I have noted consistently is that turnout in the right districts in the right swing states is what matters.    Nobody knows how this is going to turn out.   So you pretending to know is absurd ... especially when you cannot deliver any supporting facts ... just your 'belief'.

I expect Biden to win but would not be shocked if Trump were to be reelected.   Turnout in the right spots is what will determine the winner.

 
 
 
IMT
4.2.6  IMT  replied to  MAGA @4.2.1    4 weeks ago
.  The other side is going to be as disappointed late Tuesday night as they were in 2016

Don't you mean 1933?

 
 
 
MAGA
4.2.7  seeder  MAGA  replied to  IMT @4.2.6    4 weeks ago

1933 is our future only if Biden is elected our next president.  That would make it a virtual certainty 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.2.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @4.2.4    4 weeks ago

Asking you to support your assertion is neither derailing nor trolling.  Not even when you demonstrate that you can't support it.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.2.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @4.2.3    4 weeks ago

Long on whining, short on data.

 
 
 
MAGA
4.2.10  seeder  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.8    4 weeks ago

I made no assertion.  I seeded an opinion article. Anything that is not directly commenting about the content of the seeded article is in fact trolling and derailing as has been done to this seed non stop by some.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.2.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @4.2.10    4 weeks ago
I made no assertion.

Yes, you did.

He wouldn’t have said written and published the seeded article if he didn’t have access to data to back it up.

You can't produce said data.  You can't provide proof that he has the data.  You just assume it exists, assert that it exists, and expect us to accept that it exists on your say-so.

Nope.

 
 
 
MAGA
4.2.12  seeder  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.9    4 weeks ago

I would not give you data under any circumstances.  I simply posted an opinion article and stand by it.  I think that Newt is on solid ground in stating his opinion.  Since I didn’t seed the article as a fact you and Tig have no ground to stand on demanding data from me.  Enough trolling now.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.2.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @4.2.12    4 weeks ago
I would not give you data under any circumstances.

Yes, especially when you don't have it jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MAGA
4.2.14  seeder  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.11    4 weeks ago

Like I said, the data is his, not mine.  The seed author did not state what the former Speaker of the House used for his data when writing about what he said.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.2.15  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @4.2.14    4 weeks ago

You assume, without evidence, that any data at all exists.  Conjecture is not data.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @4.2.14    4 weeks ago
The seed author did not state what the former Speaker of the House used for his data when writing about what he said.  

Why do you believe his declaration is correct?    You have no data yet believe Trump will secure 326 electoral votes just because Gingrich said so.    Believing politicians and/or talking heads simply because they said so explains why we have so many crappy politicians elected and reelected.

 
 
 
MAGA
4.2.17  seeder  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.13    4 weeks ago

The Beverly Hills Police Departmentdeclared an unlawful assembly Saturday after fights broke out between Trump supporters and counterprotesters. 

The "USA Freedom Rally" was planned for 3 p.m. PT featuring multiple Republican California congressional candidates.

A group of protesters, mostly clad in black, marched from Roxbury Park to the site of the USA Freedom Rally. 

"A couple of the members got into a violent attack on a pro-Trump member. It was at that point that an unlawful assembly was declared," Lt. Max Subin of BHPD told Fox News.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/unlawful-assembly-beverly-hills-trump-supporters-counterprotesters-clash

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.2.18  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @4.2.17    4 weeks ago

And you complain about derails?

 
 
 
MAGA
4.2.19  seeder  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.18    4 weeks ago

You and TIG are the ones doing that here freely.  That was meant for my Trump seed I’ve also been posing on and both were open it was a minor mistake.  No big deal since you two have already taken the seed so far off the tracks.  

 
 
 
MAGA
4.2.20  seeder  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.18    4 weeks ago

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.2.21  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @4.2.19    4 weeks ago
 No big deal since you two have already taken the seed so far off the tracks.

We have remained on topic.  We have asked for data to back up the statement made by the seeded article.  That can in no way be construed as a derail.  Your off-topic comment and endless meta, however, are derails.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.2.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @4.2.20    4 weeks ago

Yeah, still not supporting the 326 prediction.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2.23  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MAGA @4.2.20    4 weeks ago

Do you actually believe that map is a possibility? It's not remotely close to what 270 has up.

btw.. you can play with that map here:

I would advise you to look at the more competitive races and their polling. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.2.24  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @4.2.19    4 weeks ago
You and TIG are the ones doing that here freely.  That was meant for my Trump seed I’ve also been posing on and both were open it was a minor mistake.

Bullshit.  This seed is about Gingrich's specific claim that Trump will take 326 electoral votes.   You claim that Gingrich is right because he is 'Gingrich'.  I asked you for the data supporting this claim.   You have nothing to offer and instead continue to make excuses and deflect.

Your seed thus provides nothing of value — it merely offers that Gingrich thinks Trump will get 326 electoral votes but Gingrich has not provided any data supporting this declaration and you, as the seeder, cannot do so either.

Does not matter what a talking head says;  what matters is what a talking head can demonstrate with supporting data. 

 
 
 
IMT
4.2.25  IMT  replied to  MAGA @4.2.7    4 weeks ago

1933 IS your future regardless of the outcome of tomorrow's fraudulent little election. You have no say in the matter.

 
 
 
MAGA
4.2.26  seeder  MAGA  replied to  IMT @4.2.25    3 weeks ago

Does that mean it’s your future too?  

 
 
 
Gsquared
5  Gsquared    4 weeks ago

Gingrich talking about a Trump win is just one pompous ass spewing nonsense about another pompous ass.  

 
 
 
MAGA
5.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Gsquared @5    4 weeks ago

Pelosi talking about a Biden win is just one pompous ass spewing nonsense about another pompous ass.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
5.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  MAGA @5.1    4 weeks ago

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness."

-- Oscar Wilde

I'm truly honored.  Thanks again!

 
 
 
JBB
5.1.2  JBB  replied to  MAGA @5.1    4 weeks ago

256

 
 
 
MAGA
5.1.3  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.1    4 weeks ago

Every time you do a sweep about my side and our leaders that stands I’m going to take the same and turn it word for word on your side and Their leaders.

You’re welcome!

 
 
 
Gsquared
5.1.4  Gsquared  replied to  MAGA @5.1.3    4 weeks ago

And you will give further credibility to Oscar Wilde's very appropriate quote every time you do.

 
 
 
IMT
5.1.5  IMT  replied to  MAGA @5.1.3    4 weeks ago
'Every time you do a sweep about my side and our leaders that stands I’m going to take the same and turn it word for word on your side and Their leaders...'

Well that's mature ...

 
 
 
MAGA
5.1.6  seeder  MAGA  replied to  IMT @5.1.5    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Raven Wing
5.2  Raven Wing  replied to  Gsquared @5    4 weeks ago
Gingrich talking about a Trump win is just one pompous ass spewing nonsense about another pompous ass.  

Totally agree. One blithering moron praising and even worse one. Gingrich is far too stupid for anyone with a brain to listen to.

 
 
 
MAGA
5.2.1  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Raven Wing @5.2    4 weeks ago
Pelosi talking about a Biden win is just one pompous ass spewing nonsense about another pompous ass.  

Totally agree. One blithering moron praising and even worse one. Ice cream princess is far too stupid for anyone with a brain to listen to.

 
 
 
Gsquared
5.2.2  Gsquared  replied to  MAGA @5.2.1    4 weeks ago

Making Oscar Wilde more relevant than ever.

 
 
 
MAGA
5.2.3  seeder  MAGA  replied to  Gsquared @5.2.2    3 weeks ago

If you say so...

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



Bob Nelson


46 visitors