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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:34:26 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Barack Obama (D-IL) vs. Newt Gingrich (R-GA)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Barack Obama (D-IL) vs. Newt Gingrich (R-GA)  (Read 7490 times)
You kip if you want to...
change08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,940
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 14, 2011, 01:49:08 PM »

Discuss with maps.
Logged
WhyteRain
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 949
Political Matrix
E: 6.19, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2011, 02:00:06 PM »

Discuss what?  Btw, in 1979, Carter led Reagan in the polls by 25 points.  A year later, he lost by 10.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2011, 02:01:10 PM »

Should be a narrow win for Gingerrich:

Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2011, 02:03:22 PM »

Discuss what?  Btw, in 1979, Carter led Reagan in the polls by 25 points.  A year later, he lost by 10.

Btw, in 1979, Carter's approval ratings reached 60%. A year later, they were down into the 30's.
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2011, 02:06:21 PM »

By the way since 2001 its Newt Gingrich(R-VA) not (R-GA).
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2011, 02:17:37 PM »


Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,951


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2011, 02:47:43 PM »

It's Gingrich, folks. It's a crazy man.

Obama wins probably 45 states.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2011, 02:50:42 PM »

Guys, Gingrich is no Reagan. Reagan never had his baggage.
Logged
"'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"
DarthNader
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 483


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2011, 03:04:16 PM »

Would start out like this:



But if there's a recession next year, opebo's map.
Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,967
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2011, 03:15:59 PM »

Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2011, 03:17:49 PM »

Gingrich is abrasive and unpresidential.  He won't generate any excitement for people who aren't already far right ideologues.
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,951


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2011, 03:18:46 PM »

After seeing Kentuckians' reaction to Newt's Contract With America garbage, I have a hard time seeing him win Kentucky, to be perfectly frank.
Logged
cavalcade
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 739


Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2011, 03:20:13 PM »


I would give Montana to Newt.  Other than that, this.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 14, 2011, 03:31:55 PM »

Gingrich is one of the least likable people in politics. He will not win.
Logged
NVGonzalez
antwnzrr
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,687
Mexico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2011, 03:33:28 PM »

Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 14, 2011, 03:42:02 PM »

Would start out like this:



But if there's a recession next year, opebo's map.

This is what the map will look like in about March-April. After that its Newt's talent vs. Newt's baggage and no one can seriously guess how that plays out.

A general election with Newt in it would be so wildly different than anything we have ever seen that it would be an election that would go down in the 'political campaign theory' annals of history and mark such a dramatic change in the way campaigns are carried out that in 8 years from now we'll look back at how campaigns were carried out in the 00s the way people look back at how people got information before the internet.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 14, 2011, 03:48:08 PM »

Discuss what?  Btw, in 1979, Carter led Reagan in the polls by 25 points.  A year later, he lost by 10.

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)
Logged
Yelnoc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,146
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 14, 2011, 03:56:49 PM »

Scenario 1: Recession
Gingrich: 286
Obama: 252




Scenario 2: No Recession
Obama: 410
Gingrich: 128

Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2011, 03:56:56 PM »
« Edited: November 14, 2011, 03:58:44 PM by Wonkish1 »

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.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2011, 04:01:55 PM »

I've actually watched over a hundred of Newt's speeches.

My condolences.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 14, 2011, 04:05:48 PM »

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.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2011, 04:09:08 PM »

Context:  U.S. Recession, UE 10.3%

Obama 223
Newt    315




(late edit:  ignore shades)
Logged
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2011, 04:09:46 PM »
« Edited: November 14, 2011, 04:22:57 PM by Wonkish1 »

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.


And if you don't think Newt is capable of reaching deeeeep into your side of the aisle you could be in for a rude surprise. I have personally seen straight ticket democrat journalists leave his speeches saying that he was impressive enough for them to seriously consider being a Newt supporter(women to boot). Anybody that is capable of opening up the field like that is such a wild card in an election that trying to predict the outcome is a fools errand.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2011, 04:11:08 PM »

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?
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2011, 04:18:32 PM »

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.

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?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 13 queries.