Barack Obama (D-IL) vs. Newt Gingrich (R-GA)

[Wonkish1]

Gingrich will need to go for broke -- and get reckless. I don't know whether he will be wise enough to avoid the "talking points" of Rove and Norquist; if he tries to embellish or explain them he shows how empty they are, and if he tries to end the political debate with those glittering generalities, then the legally-trained Professor of Constitutional Law will force him to explain them or get mired in such nonsense as "They mean exactly what they say".  Without question, had President Obama gone one way he would have been about as fearsome a DA as one could face.

Gingrich would be a throwback to politics of the 1980s or 1990s, for whatever that is worth. That could be an improvement over recent R campaigns for President, including those of Dubya. If his vanity gets to him he would waste resources on quixotic efforts that try to flip California...  and fail in California and throw away his chance to win every one of Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia -- and he will have to win every one of them. Unlike Romney he will not win New Hampshire and he will also lose with the combination of Colorado and Nevada with all states that Gore or Kerry won.  

The President will try to 'control variables', starting with the economy. He is a cautious fellow, and however vain he might be he is not self-destructive.  I can imagine Gingrich making things close -- but I can as easily see him losing a landslide. That is what happens when one's strategy goes to "D@mn the variables -- full speed ahead!"

We would never know who Farragut was if his craft had met one of the torpedoes and sunk with great loss of life -- right?

There are so many areas in your post that show a complete misunderstanding of Newt that I don't know where to begin.

I will say that you seem to think that Obama would fare well in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate against Newt. I hope Obama thinks so, too(even though if he doesn't Newt will just pull a Lincoln and hammer the living the hell out of Obama until he gives in).

Just given that 1 change alone in how Newt is going to try to take on Obama makes this process of predicting the map almost meaningless.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

He's a partisan relic of the 90s, and many folks over the age of 30 will remember his negative accomplishments from the 90s before his positives ones. The young voters that aren't familiar with him won't get excited either: he's old and his conservative positions are far from the average millennial. Barring another recession, he'd have a tough time beating Obama. If unemployment stays constant or falls slightly, I think the map would look close to this.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Context:  U.S. Recession, UE 10.3%

Obama 223
Newt    315

...and the alternative? or is that an admission that that's the only circumstance in which Gingrich could win?

well, since that circumstance has Newt at 315, it's not exactly a squeaker of a scenario.  If Obama's foreign policy luck holds up, Obama could win with UE 8.5% as long as the rate shows steady improvement and the economy creates 150-200k jobs per month.

[memphis]

Different world today. Primaries are more volitile than ever because they are largely personality driven, but generals are much more stable today. People live in online echo chambers where their views are constantly reinforced. We're not getting our information from Walter Cronkite anymore. A close race could easily still move, but a serious underdog would face such an uphill climb.  Especially with somebody like Newtie who already a well known figure to people over 35 (ie those who usually get out and vote)

I think while you are correct in stating that general elections are more stable I think you don't understand why. If you meet people that are high up in campaigns they will tell you the one thing they are trained to do more than anything else is "control variables, control variables, control variables" they do not like risk at all. So you always see a general reversion to traditional and established campaigning because its the least risky thing to do. That also means that the results tend to follow predictions very closely.

But I've actually watched over a hundred of Newt's speeches. He has made it abundantly clear that if he were to ever enter a presidential general election he's going full tilt high risk, high reward and he's going to try to go for the knock out punch for the Dems for at least the next decade.

Now when you have a candidate that is very politically talented who has effectively admitted that he is going to ditch practically all established campaign theory out there today, operate instead on a plan he's been developing for at least the last decade, and focus entirely on high risk high return campaigning the idea that this election would be "stable" is an extreme overstatement.

Newt's going high risk, partly because that's just his style, but mostly because that's what you do when you're the underdog. You have to be bold because if everything just flows smoothly, you're on track to lose. It's why McCain chose Palin, for instance.

Actually that isn't his reason why. He is doing it because he wants to "produce the biggest wave election in American history capable of producing a 'breakout' establishing the GOP the dominant political force moving forward." He's going high risk, high return because he's playing for keeps!

Your talking about a man that has spent huge quantities of time studying all of the major realignment elections going back to the Federalists. His sole mission in life is to produce one of those not just be president.

Dude, that's what I said. It's Newt personal style to go big risk/big reward. There are different ways of looking at this (and not just about politics, the inverse relationship between risk and reward is true about everything in life). Newt's just a risky kind of guy. Some people are like that. And he'll justify that by saying that he wants to be the next FDR or Nixon or whatever electorally. And I'm sure he does too. And that strategy could upset the more stable modern dynamic.  At the same time, he still would be a clear underdog (as would any anti-Romeny), so it further serves him well to play the high risk/high reward or fail game. That would actually make a great angle for him during the primaries if he can get that point across in a tactful way.
However, I think you're way off base if you don't think he wants to be President if he can't get to be FDR too. Something is better than nothing. Even for the pompous type A, better to be Dwight Eisenhower than Adlai Stevenson. Better to be a has been than a never was. Guarantee you he'd rather be Ike.

[Wonkish1]

Dude, that's what I said. It's Newt personal style to go big risk/big reward. There are different ways of looking at this (and not just about politics, the inverse relationship between risk and reward is true about everything in life). Newt's just a risky kind of guy. Some people are like that. And he'll justify that by saying that he wants to be the next FDR or Nixon or whatever electorally. And I'm sure he does too. And that strategy could upset the more stable modern dynamic.  At the same time, he still would be a clear underdog (as would any anti-Romeny), so it further serves him well to play the high risk/high reward or fail game. That would actually make a great angle for him during the primaries if he can get that point across in a tactful way.
However, I think you're way off base if you don't think he wants to be President if he can't get to be FDR too. Something is better than nothing. Even for the pompous type A, better to be Dwight Eisenhower than Adlai Stevenson. Better to be a has been than a never was. Guarantee you he'd rather be Ike.

Sorry then I thought that you meant that Newt is going high risk because *he* sees himself as an underdog...that isn't his reason. If instead that is you just pointing that out because *you* see Newt as a clear underdog than never mind on my response.

In regards to Newt settling for being just president(LOL) well of course. But watching Newt I don't think he would let off the high risk stuff even if he found himself 10% up in the polls. He's going to keep on doing it and doing it and doing it until the election day because he is 100% focused on being the next Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR, or Reagan. He wont "settle for just president"(again LOL) until the day of the election. He wants infamy! To be like one of the guys he's spent so much of his life studying and reading about.

You can't say the guy isn't aiming high I'll tell you that much!

[porker]

Dude, that's what I said. It's Newt personal style to go big risk/big reward. There are different ways of looking at this (and not just about politics, the inverse relationship between risk and reward is true about everything in life). Newt's just a risky kind of guy. Some people are like that. And he'll justify that by saying that he wants to be the next FDR or Nixon or whatever electorally. And I'm sure he does too. And that strategy could upset the more stable modern dynamic.  At the same time, he still would be a clear underdog (as would any anti-Romeny), so it further serves him well to play the high risk/high reward or fail game. That would actually make a great angle for him during the primaries if he can get that point across in a tactful way.
However, I think you're way off base if you don't think he wants to be President if he can't get to be FDR too. Something is better than nothing. Even for the pompous type A, better to be Dwight Eisenhower than Adlai Stevenson. Better to be a has been than a never was. Guarantee you he'd rather be Ike.

Sorry then I thought that you meant that Newt is going high risk because *he* sees himself as an underdog...that isn't his reason. If instead that is you just pointing that out because *you* see Newt as a clear underdog than never mind on my response.

In regards to Newt settling for being just president(LOL) well of course. But watching Newt I don't think he would let off the high risk stuff even if he found himself 10% up in the polls. He's going to keep on doing it and doing it and doing it until the election day because he is 100% focused on being the next Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR, or Reagan. He wont "settle for just president"(again LOL) until the day of the election. He wants infamy! To be like one of the guys he's spent so much of his life studying and reading about.

You can't say the guy isn't aiming high I'll tell you that much!

Can you post links of Gingrich talking about his capaign electoral strategy?

[Wonkish1]

Can you post links of Gingrich talking about his capaign electoral strategy?

I'll give you some search terms because it might take a while to look these up and your going to find long speeches, presentations, etc. that you'll have to wade through to get to it.

Google:
Newt and Tulane(youtube) At Carville's class
Newt and Cooper Union
Newt and Sarkozy
there is of course Newt and 9 Lincoln Douglas debates(but that part has since become public)
Newt and 21st century Contract with America(you don't think he isn't going to have a signing ceremony with the GOP house and senate incumbent candidates, think again)

After that you're really going to have to wade through some a lot of stuff to find what your looking for and much of it might not be as direct
Newt and Solutions workshop
Newt and Solutions project
Newt and FDR
Newt and "yes if, not no because"(doubt you'll find it)
Newt and "personal than historical than political"(doubt you'll find it because those are too common of words in a search function)
Newt and "platform of the American people"


If you can track down a lot of his criticism of 2008 GOP candidates that is another good area to look.


And I realize I'm probably forgetting a ton of things that could easily be put on this list.


P.S. Newt never discusses all of his campaign theory in one speech. He covers a little here and little there. Maybe that is because he doesn't want to produce a 1 stop shop for anybody that is looking at going against him or maybe its because it would bore to many audiences. Newt's address to Carville's class in Tulane is probably the one that has the most in it.

[California8429]

[memphis]

Dude, that's what I said. It's Newt personal style to go big risk/big reward. There are different ways of looking at this (and not just about politics, the inverse relationship between risk and reward is true about everything in life). Newt's just a risky kind of guy. Some people are like that. And he'll justify that by saying that he wants to be the next FDR or Nixon or whatever electorally. And I'm sure he does too. And that strategy could upset the more stable modern dynamic.  At the same time, he still would be a clear underdog (as would any anti-Romeny), so it further serves him well to play the high risk/high reward or fail game. That would actually make a great angle for him during the primaries if he can get that point across in a tactful way.
However, I think you're way off base if you don't think he wants to be President if he can't get to be FDR too. Something is better than nothing. Even for the pompous type A, better to be Dwight Eisenhower than Adlai Stevenson. Better to be a has been than a never was. Guarantee you he'd rather be Ike.

Sorry then I thought that you meant that Newt is going high risk because *he* sees himself as an underdog...that isn't his reason. If instead that is you just pointing that out because *you* see Newt as a clear underdog than never mind on my response.

In regards to Newt settling for being just president(LOL) well of course. But watching Newt I don't think he would let off the high risk stuff even if he found himself 10% up in the polls. He's going to keep on doing it and doing it and doing it until the election day because he is 100% focused on being the next Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR, or Reagan. He wont "settle for just president"(again LOL) until the day of the election. He wants infamy! To be like one of the guys he's spent so much of his life studying and reading about.

You can't say the guy isn't aiming high I'll tell you that much!

Regarding Newt as the underdog, I'm sure any number of polling outfits would be more than happy to prop up that happy fact. It's not just me saying it. Swing voters and even many Republicans don't like him. Heck, ask around on the Forum if you want. There's a reason his own party dumped him as speaker even as they maintained the House.  As for the notion of Newt being foolish enough to pusue a ballsy candidacy even if he were ahead by 10 points, I don't think even Newt Gingrich is that foolhardy at the end of the day. That wouldn't be innovation. It would be stupidity.

[Wonkish1]

Dude, that's what I said. It's Newt personal style to go big risk/big reward. There are different ways of looking at this (and not just about politics, the inverse relationship between risk and reward is true about everything in life). Newt's just a risky kind of guy. Some people are like that. And he'll justify that by saying that he wants to be the next FDR or Nixon or whatever electorally. And I'm sure he does too. And that strategy could upset the more stable modern dynamic.  At the same time, he still would be a clear underdog (as would any anti-Romeny), so it further serves him well to play the high risk/high reward or fail game. That would actually make a great angle for him during the primaries if he can get that point across in a tactful way.
However, I think you're way off base if you don't think he wants to be President if he can't get to be FDR too. Something is better than nothing. Even for the pompous type A, better to be Dwight Eisenhower than Adlai Stevenson. Better to be a has been than a never was. Guarantee you he'd rather be Ike.

Sorry then I thought that you meant that Newt is going high risk because *he* sees himself as an underdog...that isn't his reason. If instead that is you just pointing that out because *you* see Newt as a clear underdog than never mind on my response.

In regards to Newt settling for being just president(LOL) well of course. But watching Newt I don't think he would let off the high risk stuff even if he found himself 10% up in the polls. He's going to keep on doing it and doing it and doing it until the election day because he is 100% focused on being the next Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR, or Reagan. He wont "settle for just president"(again LOL) until the day of the election. He wants infamy! To be like one of the guys he's spent so much of his life studying and reading about.

You can't say the guy isn't aiming high I'll tell you that much!

Regarding Newt as the underdog, I'm sure any number of polling outfits would be more than happy to prop up that happy fact. It's not just me saying it. Swing voters and even many Republicans don't like him. Heck, ask around on the Forum if you want. There's a reason his own party dumped him as speaker even as they maintained the House.  As for the notion of Newt being foolish enough to pusue a ballsy candidacy even if he were ahead by 10 points, I don't think even Newt Gingrich is that foolhardy at the end of the day. That wouldn't be innovation. It would be stupidity.

Actually CNN just released a poll with Newts General population Favorability at 36/39 which is off a 51 unfavorability a month ago and a 60s unfavorability 3 months ago. By the way Romney's numbers in that poll were 39/35.

Also PPP is about to release a poll tomorrow showing Newt has considerably closed the gap on Obama. That comes off of other polls showing Newt polling better against Obama than his rivals minus Romney.

The amount of change Newt has made in both his GOP primary voter favorability(+58 change since June) and his general election favorability(~+30s) in the last 4 months have shattered any possible record held since the beginning of polling(at least that I've ever seen). And that level of momentum doesn't just halt it has to slow down before it plateaus.


Feel free to believe that America hates Newt, but the polling, the trends, etc. are showing otherwise and you can go ahead and believe Newt is the easier challenge for Obama instead of Romney, but I have a pretty good feeling that you'll be regretting that belief in the future.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Context:  U.S. Recession, UE 10.3%

Obama 223
Newt    315

(late edit:  ignore shades)

actually, under that scenario, it would probably end up:

Newt:   369
Obama: 169

(again, ignore shading)

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

After seeing Kentuckians' reaction to Newt's Contract With America garbage, I have a hard time seeing him win Kentucky, to be perfectly frank.

When the alternative is a black, they'll line up behind it.

[You kip if you want to...]

After seeing Kentuckians' reaction to Newt's Contract With America garbage, I have a hard time seeing him win Kentucky, to be perfectly frank.

When the alternative is a black, they'll line up behind it.

It's funny, 'cos it's true.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

When the alternative is a black, they'll line up behind it.

Most Kentuckians I know really don't even care what race a candidate is.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

When the alternative is a black, they'll line up behind it.

Most Kentuckians I know really don't even care what race a candidate is.

what exactly are you doing?! You're a Dem.  You're supposed to tell lies about the South, not speak the truth - that the South is much more tolerant of race than most places north of the Mason-Dixon line.

[Heimdal]

When the alternative is a black, they'll line up behind it.

Most Kentuckians I know really don't even care what race a candidate is.

That might be true, but it really doesn't matter to the race baiters on this forum.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

what exactly are you doing?! You're a Dem.  You're supposed to tell lies about the South, not speak the truth - that the South is much more tolerant of race than most places north of the Mason-Dixon line.

For starts, I'm a Green. For another, Kentucky really isn't even that far south.

[pbrower2a]

When the alternative is a black, they'll line up behind it.

Most Kentuckians I know really don't even care what race a candidate is.

Kentucky went 57-41 for John McCain.  Only 7.8% of the population is African-American, so it is safe to say that many white Kentuckians actually did vote for a black man for President. The most significant split after race was the urban-rural divide.

Most of Kentucky is part of the Appalachian-Ozark cultural region for which Barack Obama was a very poor cultural fit.  Bill Clinton was a fairly good fit for the state in 1992 and 1996.

That the Democrats swept the 2011 statewide election, suggesting that the right sort of Democrat can win Kentucky in a statewide election for the Presidency or the Senate. President Obama wins Kentucky only if the Republicans nominate a turkey of a nominee, issues trump culture in 2012 in Kentucky, and the economy improves. But that is asking for a lot. I don't see the President campaigning there because the state doesn't have an open Senate seat.  Indiana has far more to offer politically (should the republicans successfully tea-bag Senator Lugar) and is a better cultural match for President Obama.  

[Bandit3 the Worker]

President Obama wins Kentucky only if the Republicans nominate a turkey of a nominee,

Well, that part is a certainty.

[GLPman]

Although I sincerely hope that Gingrich isn't the nominee, I would like to see an Obama-Gingrich debate.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

what exactly are you doing?! You're a Dem.  You're supposed to tell lies about the South, not speak the truth - that the South is much more tolerant of race than most places north of the Mason-Dixon line.

For starts, I'm a Green. For another, Kentucky really isn't even that far south.

yeah, but Kentucky's percentage of crackers is among the highest in the South.

[Ty440]

YES I HOPE NEWT GETS THE NOMINATION IF YOU THINK HE WILL BE THE GUY THATS DOES BETTER THAN MCCAIN THEN VOTE FOR NEWT. YAY YAY YAY


I'M VOTING FOR NEWT TOO

STAND IN LINE LETS VOTE FOR NEWT

ALOT OF KOOLAID DRINKERS ON HERE

Are you proposing a democrat version of operation chaos?