Alex Massie considers comparisons between the current GOP field and the 2004 Democrats:

Selecting Gingrich would be an act of unpardonable folly and a declaration that the Republican party has lost its political bearings. That’s fine but it’s not serious politics. Newt isn’t Kerry, he’s Howard Dean. (And worse than that: he’s also Newt!)

This is something of an insult to Howard Dean. Dean had his failings, but he was never such a preposterous figure as Gingrich. Dean was a “centrist” Democrat who tapped into progressive disgust with Bush, and Gingrich has done something similar by hiding his big-government instincts behind his snarls of contempt for Obama, but beyond that there aren’t many similarities. What Dean and Gingrich really do have in common is that they are enjoying a surge in polling support ahead of the Iowa caucuses, and like Dean Gingrich doesn’t have the campaign organization to capitalize on it. The late polling surge translated into significant fundraising for Dean, plus a few high-profile endorsements, but not much else. Gingrich cannot even point to any particularly large fundraising hauls to justify the hype surrounding his candidacy, no one of any importance is endorsing him, and he will be fortunate if he does as well as Dean by finishing third in Iowa.

Massie is right in that the Democrats devoutly wish that Republicans are foolish enough to nominate Gingrich, which is how Republicans felt about the possibility of a Dean nomination. Whatever else Gingrich is, he has become the embodiment of the most ideological, dangerous elements of the GOP, which is exactly what Democrats want to run against if they have the chance. If the goal is to make sure that the general election is decided by popular disgust with the Republican candidate, he is the ideal Republican nominee. If Republicans want to have a chance of winning the election, Gingrich’s nomination would be calamitous.