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

[memphis]

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)

[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.

[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.

[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.