Post your Obama v. Gingrich electoral maps

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

I have an idea of what an Obama v. Gingrich electoral map would look like but I am more interested in seeing what other people have in mind

Also if you want to post two maps, one with swing states and one with the final results on election night that would be great.

[Wonkish1]

I have an idea of what an Obama v. Gingrich electoral map would look like but I am more interested in seeing what other people have in mind

Also if you want to post two maps, one with swing states and one with the final results on election night that would be great.

As stated before this is kind of a pointless exercise because Newt doesn't like to control variables in a campaign. He is high risk, high return. And in that instance you could see some very odd results(ones that defy which states you'd think are more GOP or more Dem).

For example: Its not out of question that these states could have these kind of numbers against the national average(or vise versa) with Newt in the race(regardless of who wins):
(by Newt or Obama plus I'm referring to comparing to the national average here)
-Colorado Newt plus 5
-Nevada Obama plus 7
-New Mexico Newt plus 4
-Michigan Newt plus 8
-Ohio Obama plus 8

I mean Newt in the race going high risk, high return will mean people will be scratching their head at the order of the states let alone the election results.

That is why this is almost a completely futile exercise.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Gingrich having multiple variables and a unique personality makes looking at individual states much more interesting that any other candidate.  Like the averages you posted of Obama losing Michigan but winning Ohio.  I wouldn't say it is any more futile guesstimating for Gingrich than it is any other candidate.  At this point it is almost all guesstimating

[pbrower2a]

Blank map for your use:

Obama vs. Gingrich:

Deep red:       Obama 10% or more
Medium red:   Obama 5-9.9%
Pink:               Obama 1-4.9%
White:             less than 1% one way or the other
Pale blue:       Gingrich 1-4.9%
Medium blue:  Gingrich 5-9.9%
Deep blue:      Gingrich 10% or more           

It would be much closer if held now, with at the least a re-election of the President as he was elected in 2008. Inexperience as a campaigner beyond a Congressional district will make him a poor strategist. Although Gingrich is a slick talker and an alleged intellectual, President Obama is even slicker and is more of an intellectual, so that will completely destroy the supposed strength of Newt Gingrich. The further that one gets into the campaign, the worse Newt fares.   

[Wonkish1]

Gingrich having multiple variables and a unique personality makes looking at individual states much more interesting that any other candidate.  Like the averages you posted of Obama losing Michigan but winning Ohio.  I wouldn't say it is any more futile guesstimating for Gingrich than it is any other candidate.  At this point it is almost all guesstimating

I tried to be clear that post was spreads against the average not necessarily wins or losses there is a key distinction(and its more useful). If Obama or Newt won by 10% all of those states I just posted would be carried by 1 or the other.

It is a lot easier to predict the future with someone running a traditional campaign like Romney. That is why campaigns tend to control variables because your pretty close to the 50 50 mark anyway and all your caring about is at least pulling off a narrow victory. Newt on the contrary will keep gunning until election day regardless where he sits because he wants his landslide.

[Wonkish1]

Blank map for your use:

Obama vs. Gingrich:

Deep red:       Obama 10% or more
Medium red:   Obama 5-9.9%
Pink:               Obama 1-4.9%
White:             less than 1% one way or the other
Pale blue:       Gingrich 1-4.9%
Medium blue:  Gingrich 5-9.9%
Deep blue:      Gingrich 10% or more           

It would be much closer if held now, with at the least a re-election of the President as he was elected in 2008. Inexperience as a campaigner beyond a Congressional district will make him a poor strategist. Although Gingrich is a slick talker and an alleged intellectual, President Obama is even slicker and is more of an intellectual, so that will completely destroy the supposed strength of Newt Gingrich. The further that one gets into the campaign, the worse Newt fares.   

Wow I needed that laugh! There is nothing about that post that wasn't absolutely hilarious.

[Lief 🗽]

Hard to say. Unlike Romney, who is basically assured of getting 47-50% of the popular vote, Gingrich has a higher ceiling and a much lower floor (maybe 42% to 53%).

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Gingrich having multiple variables and a unique personality makes looking at individual states much more interesting that any other candidate.  Like the averages you posted of Obama losing Michigan but winning Ohio.  I wouldn't say it is any more futile guesstimating for Gingrich than it is any other candidate.  At this point it is almost all guesstimating

I tried to be clear that post was spreads against the average not necessarily wins or losses there is a key distinction(and its more useful). If Obama or Newt won by 10% all of those states I just posted would be carried by 1 or the other.

It is a lot easier to predict the future with someone running a traditional campaign like Romney. That is why campaigns tend to control variables because your pretty close to the 50 50 mark anyway and all your caring about is at least pulling off a narrow victory. Newt on the contrary will keep gunning until election day regardless where he sits because he wants his landslide.

That is why I am interested in Obama v. Gingrich maps, as for Gingrich's "gunning" for a landslide I'm sure every GOP candidate wants one, especially against the President so that's nothing new

[Lief 🗽]

Nah, Obama's not getting much less than 45% of the vote, even in a worst case scenario.

[Wonkish1]

Hard to say. Unlike Romney, who is basically assured of getting 47-50% of the popular vote, Gingrich has a higher ceiling and a much lower floor (maybe 42% to 53%).

Try 47- 58% for Romney(the extremes more dependent on the economy)
and
40% to 65% for Newt(the extremes more dependent on Newt's performance and the economy)

[Wonkish1]

Nah, Obama's not getting much less than 45% of the vote, even in a worst case scenario.

That is easily false in a 13% unemployment environment. The American people are smarter than that. If they feel they have a reasonable alternative there is no way even many conservative Dems are voting for the incumbent in that environment.

[Oakvale]

Anyone who thinks it's remotely possible for Newt Gingrich to get 65% of the popular vote should be put in hack prison and given the death penalty.

[Wonkish1]

That is why I am interested in Obama v. Gingrich maps, as for Gingrich's "gunning" for a landslide I'm sure every GOP candidate wants one, especially against the President so that's nothing new

No a traditional politician will go safe when they are up. Newt wont let up. He'll keep on going high risk, high return even if he's already up by 8 pts. That makes Newt very different from your typical Romney type candidate.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Hard to say. Unlike Romney, who is basically assured of getting 47-50% of the popular vote, Gingrich has a higher ceiling and a much lower floor (maybe 42% to 53% 63%).

Oh come on... can't accuse pbrower of hackery then pull that lol


For the record, I don't think Newt is a disastrous candidate (ie, would send the EV count backwards... but he's not the Messiah). If Newt runs a decent campaign, he could make the President work for MI, PA, OH, IA (especially if he wins there in Jan) and VA and will probably win NC and IN. But he's unpredictable... which will make things interesting.

I agree that Gingrich being more unpredictable and more of a risky choice, would lead to a wider PV range. I would say 44-52%, I think Romney (assuming a double-dip... a real one, not two recessions happening 3 years apart, unemployment increasing) has a higher ceiling 53-54%, but an equally higher floor 45-47%.

[Wonkish1]

Anyone who thinks it's remotely possible for Newt Gingrich to get 65% of the popular vote should be put in hack prison and given the death penalty.

Oh okay. You're a conservative Democrat in the US. You have 13% plus unemployment and a candidate just made your incumbent look like an incompetent boob in a debate. And you're going to vote for the incumbent? Yeah right. Granted a lot has to line up to hit a number like that, but Newt destroys Obama to the point that Obama has a Richard Nixon moment in a debate while the economy is going down the tubes and you could reasonably see numbers post like that.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Anyone who thinks it's remotely possible for Newt Gingrich to get 65% of the popular vote should be put in hack prison and given the death penalty.

Oh okay. You're a conservative Democrat in the US. You have 13% plus unemployment and a candidate just made your incumbent look like an incompetent boob in a debate. And you're going to vote for the incumbent? Yeah right. Granted a lot has to line up to hit a number like that, but Newt destroys Obama to the point that Obama has a Richard Nixon moment in a debate while the economy is going down the tubes and you'll see numbers post like that quite easily actually.

Honestly... I'd wonder given the polarisation whether 65% is even possible in this GOP wet-dream scenario.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

That is why I am interested in Obama v. Gingrich maps, as for Gingrich's "gunning" for a landslide I'm sure every GOP candidate wants one, especially against the President so that's nothing new

No a traditional politician will go safe when they are up. Newt wont let up. He'll keep on going high risk, high return even if he's already up by 8 pts. That makes Newt very different from your typical Romney type candidate.

What do you even mean by he won't "let up".  You mean back down with the arrogant, snippy attitude?

Edit:  65%!?!?! you must be trolling lol I get it now AHAHAHAHAHA 65% what a joke

[Wonkish1]

Hard to say. Unlike Romney, who is basically assured of getting 47-50% of the popular vote, Gingrich has a higher ceiling and a much lower floor (maybe 42% to 53% 63%).

Oh come on... can't accuse pbrower of hackery then pull that lol


For the record, I don't think Newt is a disastrous candidate (ie, would send the EV count backwards... but he's not the Messiah). If Newt runs a decent campaign, he could make the President work for MI, PA, OH, IA (especially if he wins there in Jan) and VA and will probably win NC and IN. But he's unpredictable... which will make things interesting.

I agree that Gingrich being more unpredictable and more of a risky choice, would lead to a wider PV range. I would say 44-52%, I think Romney (assuming a double-dip... a real one, not two recessions happening 3 years apart, unemployment increasing) has a higher ceiling 53-54%, but an equally higher floor 45-47%.

Look I posted a range that is into the Liberal Republican territory to Conservative Dem territory. You seem intent on saying that Newt can easily lose Liberal Republicans, but stands no chance in hell of picking up conservative Dems. Now who is being unfair?

I don't think anybody on here has a clue as to how high risk, high return Newt plans on going. You guys seem intent on believing that he'll just press for an extra minute to debate answers and increase his length of ad time from 30 seconds to a minute. That isn't what we're talking about here.

Just some ideas as to what we're looking at here:
1) As many of you know "Either he accepts 9 Lincoln Douglas debates or I'll pull a Lincoln and torment him around the country" which would probably go something like this "We have such deep problems and challenges ahead of us, but Pres. Obama isn't even willing to sit down and talk about them because he's afraid it will show him to be more incompetent than he already looks, but what does that tell you are his priorities going forward not the average American citizen and finding solutions to our problems." Or something like that.

2) Newt will probably produce at least 1 very well thought our ad that goes for an entire 3 or more minutes. He's going right for the voters and he wants to convince them to agree with his analysis(a huge departure from attack ads and just rifling off the things you are "for").

3) Likely another signing ceremony for his new contract with America involving the Senate and House candidates and incumbents

4) He'll likely use symbolism and positive controversy and go places like an intercity Detroit school and call the bureaucrats managing that district the incompetent corrupt people they are.

5) He'll probably try to follow in the Sarkozy footsteps and attempt to promote a youtube channel(or something similar) where he actually goes in great detail about the things he wants to accomplish. And by word of mouth and ads promoting it a large number of people(many of which may be Democrats) come on and watch as he has a direct conversation with the American people

6) Another thing he has learned from the Sarkozy election(the largest comeback of the last decade) is that he will trap the media by creating a controversy they think will be juicy and then turn around and turn it into an asset because he's smarter than them.

The list goes on and on. And if you don't think he's prepared a whole different plan than you've ever seen before you're sorely mistaken.

[Wonkish1]

Anyone who thinks it's remotely possible for Newt Gingrich to get 65% of the popular vote should be put in hack prison and given the death penalty.

Oh okay. You're a conservative Democrat in the US. You have 13% plus unemployment and a candidate just made your incumbent look like an incompetent boob in a debate. And you're going to vote for the incumbent? Yeah right. Granted a lot has to line up to hit a number like that, but Newt destroys Obama to the point that Obama has a Richard Nixon moment in a debate while the economy is going down the tubes and you'll see numbers post like that quite easily actually.

Honestly... I'd wonder given the polarisation whether 65% is even possible in this GOP wet-dream scenario.

The amount of actual polarisation in America is actually a lot lower than you think it is. You can dig at least 10% into each others sides and find a ton of people that aren't that partisan. This notion of polarisation is largely a myth. It manifests itself in team playerism, voting within your traditional comfort zone, and the fact that traditional campaigns while low risk turn a lot of voters off and they just show up and vote the way they always have.

There is a huge center in America that is a lot less ideological than you'd think. They've also never had anybody that really dared to lose its side of the pie to try to actually convince the other side of that less ideological center to switch sides.

And I know people on here wont get this because most on here subscribe to a belief that the average American has certain positions on certain issues and you have to position yourself on those issues to get them to come over to you. That is actually not true. Most of the American center votes off their comfort zone and intangibles and are very easy to sway on issue driven topics. If you didn't believe that then how could you explain the large changing positions of the parties over the last couple decades.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The 63% territory requires the perfect 'hurricane' against the President (since it would be the largest primary vote in recorded history) - the fact that I said he could threaten Obama in VA, OH, IA, PA, MI suggests that I think he could win some conservative Democrats.

You seem intent to make our arguments for us...

But I also said that "he's unpredictable, which will make things interesting"

You seem to think that I've reached my conclusions without really thinking or analysing the situation. There are multiple ways that Gingrich could win, but equally multiple ways for Obama to neutralise them.

[Wonkish1]

What do you even mean by he won't "let up".  You mean back down with the arrogant, snippy attitude?

Edit:  65%!?!?! you must be trolling lol I get it now AHAHAHAHAHA 65% what a joke

"Let up" = stop investing precious campaign dollars in ad campaigns that are less repetitious and instead much more expensive and temporary. Become more cautious in debates and interviews. Start relying on focus groups and poll tested responses, etc.

He wont go cautious, ever.



I could just as easily say that a loss with 40% of the vote is a joke, but it isn't. That is the scale of the spread when you have a candidate that will have well over a half billion dollars at his disposal and intends to go high risk, high return the whole way. It cuts both ways. And the Dems on here seem to think that a 40% loss is believable, but a 65% win is impossible under any circumstances. And they are claiming that I'm being optimistic by producing a large spread like that.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Well I certainly don't think any GOPer... maybe Bachmann... would get less than 42% against Obama.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

What do you even mean by he won't "let up".  You mean back down with the arrogant, snippy attitude?

Edit:  65%!?!?! you must be trolling lol I get it now AHAHAHAHAHA 65% what a joke

"Let up" = stop investing precious campaign dollars in ad campaigns that are less repetitious and instead much more expensive and temporary. Become more cautious in debates and interviews. Start relying on focus groups and poll tested responses, etc.

He wont go cautious, ever.



I could just as easily say that a loss with 40% of the vote is a joke, but it isn't. That is the scale of the spread when you have a candidate that will have well over a half billion dollars at his disposal and intends to go high risk, high return the whole way. It cuts both ways. And the Dems on here seem to think that a 40% loss is believable, but a 65% win is impossible under any circumstances. And they are claiming that I'm being optimistic by producing a large spread like that.

You know we have an two party system, it would take a 35% loss to get to a 65% win.  Yes a loss  in the low 40s is possible for both sides, but going down to 35% loss is ridiculous.  Although I think you are sincere in your belief that Gingrich could outperform Reagan.

As for "letting up" with tossing campaign money in, neither side will now that Citizens United has smashed open the doors, that is simply par for the course, although I do acknowledge that conservatives have the edge here

[Wonkish1]

The 63% territory requires the perfect 'hurricane' against the President (since it would be the largest primary vote in recorded history) - the fact that I said he could threaten Obama in VA, OH, IA, PA, MI suggests that I think he could win some conservative Democrats.

You seem intent to make our arguments for us...

But I also said that "he's unpredictable, which will make things interesting"

You seem to think that I've reached my conclusions without really thinking or analysing the situation. There are multiple ways that Gingrich could win, but equally multiple ways for Obama to neutralise them.

There have been other races that resulted in similar percentages. FDR being one of them.

I think we're making the same argument, but that people are balking at the extremes of my range. That is why they are the extreme ends. And I would agree that it would have to be a near perfect storm to hit either side of those percentages.

Since you want to act like the ends of my range are somehow what I'm actually predicting is likely then allow me to be specific. The upper and lower bounds of that range would be approximately lets say 3 standard deviations out and that is based on the limited amount of elections in the last century(only 25).

[Wonkish1]

Well I certainly don't think any GOPer... maybe Bachmann... would get less than 42% against Obama.

What if all of sudden the economy comes roaring back very strong and the GOP candidate manages to say something really bad that pisses off a lot of their side of the aisle.

That is why they are they are lower and upper bounds of range they are very unlikely.