Staying positive may have cost Newt Gingrich Iowa. Will he change strategy?

Former front-runner Newt Gingrich has fallen behind going into the Iowa caucuses Tuesday, polls show. The reversal means Gingrich might change course in the days ahead.

Evan Vucci/AP
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, accompanied by his wife, Callista, makes remarks during a campaign stop in Independence, Iowa, Monday.

Throughout his campaign, Newt Gingrich has had one consistent message: Stay positive. And he's seeing how well that's working out.

After leading polls in both the nation and in Iowa for about a month between mid-November and mid-December, the former House speaker has watched his support plummet in Iowa, where caucuses will be held Tuesday evening.

The latest Des Moines Register poll has Mr. Gingrich at 12 percent, down from 25 percent a month earlier. Moreover, the percentage of likely caucusgoers who chose Gingrich as their least-favorite choice rose from 6 percent to 23 percent.

On Sunday, Gingrich was asked whether he had been "swiftboated," (a reference to the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth who hurt John Kerry's campaign in 2004) and Gingrich responed that he had been "Romney-boated." He also criticized Mitt Romney for spending so much, saying that "Romney would buy the election if he could."

If it sounds as if Gingrich is getting more negative, he is – and expect even more in New Hampshire. Gingrich insists he still plans to stay positive, but that he'll tell the truth.

“We’re learning a lot about what our opponents will do,” Gingrich told reporters in Iowa over the weekend. “They are nastier and more dishonest than I expected. So we’ll have to make some adjustments.”

Any shift in strategy will likely come too late to help Gingrich in Iowa, where he has been hammered by ads on all sides: from Rick Perry, Ron Paul, and an external group that supports Mr. Romney. (Romney has used his own campaign funds to run only positive ads, a stance that Gingrich says is disingenuous given how brutally negative the pro-Romney political-action committee ads are.)

A recent analysis of ads in Iowa by Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group found that 45 percent of all ads since Dec. 1 attacked Gingrich. Just 6 percent of the ads were pro-Gingrich. In fact, the number of anti-Gingrich ads was more than twice the number of positive ads promoting Romney, Perry, and Paul combined.

The ads pummeled Gingrich for his ties to Freddie Mac, the embattled government-backed mortgage company, and for his joint support of a climate-change initiative with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat. 

It's hard to blame Gingrich's decline entirely on his refusal to go negative.

As Washington Post blogger Aaron Blake noted Monday, the negativity only works really well when the claims are substantiated.

"The main reason Gingrich has suffered is that there was simply so much material for his opponents to work with," Mr. Blake wrote, adding that Gingrich's lack of a clear message and lack of sufficient funds to get out many ads of his own also played a role.

Gingrich has made it clear in recent days that he regrets not responding to so much negativity. He still says he's waging a "relentlessly positive" campaign, but on Sunday in Marshalltown, Iowa, he outlined for reporters a very different tack that he'll take in the coming week.

"New Hampshire is the perfect state to have a debate over Romneycare and to have a debate about tax-paid abortions, which he signed, and to have a debate about putting Planned Parenthood on a government board, which he signed. And to have a debate about appointing liberal judges, which he did," Gingrich said.

"And so I think New Hampshire is a good place to start the debate for South Carolina."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.