Replies

This conversation has stoked my curiosity about a couple things, and I’d like to hear your take on them.

You’ve made the point that Gingrich is too unpopular to beat Obama. What would you say to people who constantly beat the drum that Palin was too unpopular and couldn’t win against Obama?

Second, I went back and looked at all the presidents who got elected once and then got re-elected in their own right. All of them, with the exception of Andrew Jackson, got a higher popular vote percentage the second time around.

Abraham Lincoln:
1860 39.65%
1864 55.03%

Ulyssess S. Grant:
1868 52.66%
1872 55.58%

William McKinley:
1896: 51.02%
1900: 51.64%

Woodrow Wilson:
1912: 41.84%
1916: 49.24%

Franklin Roosevelt:
1932: 57.41%
1936: 60.80%

Dwight Eisenhower
1952: 55.18%
1956: 57.37%

Richard Nixon
1968: 43.42%
1972: 60.67%

Ronald Reagan
1980: 50.75%
1984: 58.77%

Bill Clinton
1992: 43.01%
1996: 49.23%

George W. Bush
2000: 47.87%
2004: 50.73%

It seems that presidents either build on their support from their last election, or they just don’t win (I’m excluding FDR’s third and fourth term elections, as no president can run for them any more). Given that, is it really likely Obama could beat even an unpopular opponent like Gingrich? (I’m not counting the whackjobs like Ron Paul).

For the record, I would definitely prefer we not take the chance on Gingrich. I’m supporting Santorum.

"You’ve made the point that Gingrich is too unpopular to beat Obama. What would you say to people who constantly beat the drum that Palin was too unpopular and couldn’t win against Obama?"

Well, part of it depends on asking the question, "Which group finds Candidate X unpopular ?" Newt remains a polarizing figure within the GOP, but for differing reasons. First of all, I don't consider him a reliable Conservative, he has spent many years attempting to kiss up to the elitists (it's why I have a hard time not considering him as part of the political establishment -- the latter may be for Willard, but that doesn't mean Newt isn't with them). He carries personal baggage that were he a Democrat, we would skewer them over. He is also for all practical purposes, a lifetime politician, having run for office and remaining in the public eye since 1974. His personal demeanor leaves a lot to be desired. At least one FReeper I know met him face to face and was thoroughly repulsed. No one doubts he is a smart man, but that's about as far as it goes.

With respect to Palin, the "unpopularity" could be attributed almost exclusively to the media/left/pop culture. Within the party/grassroots, she remains the biggest superstar without equal. Because she was curtailed by McCain in 2008, we have no idea how she herself would run a campaign in an unfettered way (but we do know it would be unconventional and exclusively done HER way). Given that she also received the baptism by fire, it has given her added experience to make such a race that none of the current candidates have. I think her folksy, optomistic demeanor would also have great appeal (again, in contrast to the current field). Few would have as little difficulty in holding party support together as she.

"It seems that presidents either build on their support from their last election, or they just don’t win (I’m excluding FDR’s third and fourth term elections, as no president can run for them any more). Given that, is it really likely Obama could beat even an unpopular opponent like Gingrich? (I’m not counting the whackjobs like Ron Paul)."

Well, look at Clinton. By all accounts in 1994, it looked like he would be a fluke one-termer. Thanks in large part to Newt Gingrich, Clinton managed one of the most remarkable political comebacks in the modern era. In less than two years, Gingrich became the most unpopular national figure and Dole got saddled with the image as well (and most likely, so would just about any GOP candidate, even if they weren't Dole -- remember the alternative was Colin Powell, and we all ought to be grateful that bullet was dodged. He would've combined the worst aspects of Jerry Ford, Slick Willard, LBJ and, yup, Zero).

Zero has got to know he is in bad shape right now. He doesn't have the skilled political touch of Bill Clinton (Bubba had already perfected triangulation within a year of the GOP taking Congress). What he does have is a few things, he has the media/pop culture to assist him (and the unions, etc.), and he has the race card (doesn't matter if it's maxed out, it ain't like he's ever gonna pay that bill). If he faces Willard, he will rely on the media to attack him on the front of not being a Conservative (to depress GOP turnout), and he will also go after him on the race issue because of the internal problem of the Mormon church and denying Blacks high office within until the 1970s. It will be the three-pronged approach of ginning up Black turnout (painting Willard as a racist or member of a racist church), depressing the GOP turnout and also amongst White Indys and Democrats on being "unsympathetic" to the working stiff during our economic slump. I think it will work.

With Newt, a slightly different approach. Although damaged, Newt has a better standing amongst Republicans (but not great) than Willard. Zero will have to conduct a very personal attack on him, and it will center largely on his marriages and infidelity (and dredging up all manner and sort of rumors, true or false -- including the very damaging one of filing for divorce from the first wife while she was dying in the hospital. Now we know it's false, since wife #1 is still alive these 3 decades later, but it doesn't matter. People continue to repeat untrue claims all the time -- look at the folks on FR that claim MLK, Jr. was a Republican). Zero will turn it into a personal referendum on Newt. Newt, an almost 70-year old career politician with a spouse who looks like a Stepford Wife, corpulent and arrogant, will be a very ugly face for the party to put forth. Zero needs only to have Newt's negatives driven up higher than his, even while the economy tanks, and he might "apologize" that his programs haven't worked, but to stick with him and not entrust the country to someone of questionable moral character and unlikeability like Newt. Again, I think this will work (even if Newt runs rings around Zero in debates... plus add to that, Newt will be called mean-spirited and inferred racist for doing so). Folks here think Newt can win solely on his debating skills. Tell that to Dick Nixon of 1960. Appearances do matter, substance, sadly, is too frequently secondary.