Could Gingrich beat Obama? Gingrich tied with Romney in national poll, Cain leads

Rasmussen has him heavy in the polls. Like +12 or so.

 

I would dance in the street to see Newt beat the liberal's messiah.

I'm starting to think maybe he can.

 

What has changed, to make you think he can? it would be one of the most entertaining general elections from a debate standpoint, but I don't know if Gingrich is going to be able to rally the independents and simpletons to his side like Obama has done before.

 

Gingrich won't win the nomination, nor could any of the non-Romney candidates hope to defeat Obama. I seriously think the cavernous hole of overwhelming conservative ideology in East Tennessee has deluded the reactionary right wingers there that they somehow reflect the general public as a whole. Every time I visit family in Knoxville, they think Obama's defeat is a shoe-in and look perplexed when I tell them otherwise. I guess that Knoxville political culture generally frowns upon diversity of opinion of thought (one of its few faults), the rest of the country must think in the same manner. Fortunately, it doesn't.

I also see the fallacy of Obama not being a formidable debater is still alive and well among the Republican masses, which is always interesting after he destroyed McCain in the last election's three debates. I know misinformation regarding Obama is sort of the modus operandi of the right wing, but the last three years have been ridiculous in their hysteria and sabotage regarding the Obama administration.

 

Obama is a pretty decent debater but he does have trouble going off script. I disagree that he "destroyed" McCain in the 3 debates and let's not forget that we are talking McCain. I have no doubt that Gingrich could win debates against Obama. I do have doubts he could win the general. Alternatively, I think Romney can win convincingly.

 

I still think you are underestimating the abilities of Obama in regards to Romney, but, yes, Romney is still the only Republican candidate that can win the general election. I just wonder if they have the sense to nominate him or are they going to try and deliver the nomination to the most ideological right winger and guy they see as the prototypical "common man" (which invariably leads to surreal identification with someone like silver-spooned George W.). The periodic fascination with Palin, Bachmann, Perry and Cain leads me to believe that Republicans have lost the good sense that once led them to nominate intelligent, rational candidates like Bush the Daddy or Bob Dole, even if I vehemently disagreed with their politics. It seems they are back to their Reagan fantasies created from the myth of Reagan instead of who he actually was (Which, in fact, I hated both versions, but that's beside the point).

 

And I would say you are overestimating Obama's appeal. In my reading of the tea leaves, Independent and some Dems will leave in droves if there is an alternative to Obama that isn't too extreme. Romney fits the bill. I'd say the odds are better that Romney wins by 5+% points than that he loses to Obama (assuming no opposition research that uncovers a bombshell).

Obama offers nothing of interest to the middle ground voter.

 

Location is everything, even in politics. You don't think people in New York have a distorted view of politics? People in cities were flabbergasted when Bush beat Kerry in 2004, but that's because they forget "fly-over" country still accounts for 80-percent of the electorate.

 

Says who? You cast a pretty wide net that isn't justified by current polling. Like I said, too many have been deluded by their right wing media sources and fail to investigate beyond their own personal biases. Hell, my rabidly right-wing brother-in-law, who is normally an astute person (and a medical doctor), is convinced that Obama will lose because he knows three Obama voters that won't vote for him again. I tried to explain anecdotal evidence and the fact that Obama voters in Tennessee were irrelevant anyway, but is adamant.

I seriously think that Obama has caused some sort of a divorcement from reality for right wing thinkers. It really is amazing how much their pronouncements don't jibe with what's really happening.

 

It really isn't hard to get the information correct if people get it from sources that don't cater to their confirmation bias.

 

I agree that Obama can win in 2012, but he would have to hold on to states like North Carolina and Virginia, and probably win Ohio. That is easier said than done. Also, the reality is Obama is as unpopular now as he has ever been. That's not anecdotal evidence... that's month and weeks of polling throughout the country.

 

So you are saying all the media and pundits predicted 2004 correct? Who has the bias, Knoxville, New York, or both of them? And which sources should I be turning to for unimpeachable, quality information?

 

There are multiple sources. An easy gander over to realclearpolitics.com will lay out the reality of the situation and it's even a conservative run site. 2004 was supposed to be close and it was. It just seems that 2012 has delivered more unrealistic expectations for one side than I can ever remember.

 

North Carolina and Virginia, not really. Ohio, yes. However, "more unpopular than ever" isn't exactly factual. He's hovering slightly lower than where Bush was in 2004, hell he's about the same as Reagan was at this point in time, and, even then, it all matters upon his opponent.

 

Realclearpolitics aggregates news and polls. I use it every day. But I am talking about confirmation bias within the polling model itself.

 

More unpopular than ever for him.

 

Somewhat. He's always been a steady 42-50% throughout his presidency. In fact, his approval rating is remarkably similar to Reagan's at the same points.

 

Well, most don't use this site and just tune into Hannity or something. However, the most accurate, in my opinion, has been Nate Silver's 538.

 

It is one factor among many. And it isn't anecdotal. The numbers regarding unemployment are not very favorable toward him, either, btw.

Obama can win because incumbent's have natural advantages. But you shouldn't mock Knoxvillians -- or anyone -- as ignorant rubes knowing full well these problems are universal throughout our country. We see what we want to see from the vantage point of our front porch.

 

Knoxvillians are a great bunch and I loved living there, but it's a fact that they are insulated and small-minded when it comes to differing opinions, especially regarding politics. They play the stereotype very well. Not everyone, of course, but in a general sense, definitely. Sorry, but it's true.

I grew up in a small, SW Wisconsin farm town and I could still find more differing opinions there than anything in E TN.