Unconventional Wisdom: Gingrich Is More Dangerous To Obama Than Romney

I know this is going against all political polls, political thought and conventional wisdom. But we are in unconventional times. People actually believe that a Romney nomination would give President Obama a run, while a Gingrich candidacy would ensure an Obama victory. I’m not sold on that and here is why.

Romney is not inspirational. Romney reminds me of a CEO who is giving a lecture to the shareholders on the direction of the company. He is detached from the average American, and American people know that. Also, as the old cliche goes, it’s better to elect the “devil” you know than the “devil” you don’t and considering the similarities between Romney and Obama, think Healthcare mandate, people will gravitate toward the incumbent.

Newt Gingrich, on the other hand has a great ability to “inspire”, not with hope but with fear. Fear is always the tactic of the right. Rather than using fear of Osama Bin Laden, like Bush did in 2004 with the terror alerts Newt is using the economy. Newt uses “food stamps” like Reagan used the term “welfare queen.” Newt’s use of epithets strikes fear and uncertainty into the voting populace and they may gravitate toward the polar opposite of Obama. It would be a fight over ideals, and the two candidates would present a stark contrast in the tone of our politics.

Romney doesn’t have this ability. As I said before, he reminds me of a lecturer explaining his direction for a corporation.

Obama, like Newt has the ability to communicate and rally people around him. Obama is a great communicator, much like Reagan, which is why I believe a Gingrich communicator vs Obama communicator will be a tougher fight than Romney against Obama.

So, against all conventional wisdom, where the belief is that a Newt nomination would be a walk in the park for Obama, I think the opposite is true. Obama will beat Romney profoundly, by 3-5% but against Newt, it would be very marginal victory, possibly less than 1% either way.

Image: Loop 21

24 Replies to “Unconventional Wisdom: Gingrich Is More Dangerous To Obama Than Romney”

  1. The religious right seems to have amazingly elastic “values” when it comes to Republican politicians, but I’m pretty sure that only applies to men. Given the fundies’ determination to relegate women to 2nd class citizenship, I kinda think Newt’s greatest liability is Callista . . . you know, the evil adultress who lured him away from the woman who lured him away from his first wife.

    I seriously doubt the Republican base will vote to put “Evil Eve” in the White House.

  2. And how would First Lady Gingrich explain 6 years of adultery with the Ging?

    First Lady Obama got hammered for wearing a sleeveless shirt.

  3. i tend to agree with you. Gingrich is a nasty man and is a dirty fighter. You listen to him talk and it is like listening to a schizophrenic. What he says and what he talks about are totally different.
    How can people trust this guy? And if palin actively campaigns for him or if God forbid he picks her to be his VP for the evangelical vote, I don’t know.
    He sounds good, but he is damaged goods. The republicans and democrats that worked with him know. I’m curious how the real republicans, who care about the country, not themselves, what will they do? Will they denounce him?

  4. This is what I have thought, too. Gingrich is the “anti-Obama”: fat, white, vicious, bigoted, warlike, cruel, tyrannical, and a standardbearer for male privilege. As such, he is going to be a magnet for mean white males and their Stepford twunts, and he’d rally not only all their votes but all the dirty tactitians Hell-bent on slandering and suppressing the opposition. If he is the candidate, we had better be prepared for turds flying like cannon balls.

  5. Gingrich is more dangerous – he will say or do anything to win. No dirty tactic or slur will be off the table.

  6. The “Big Dog” (that would be President Clinton) warned about the Newtser a couple of months ago; he said do NOT take Gingrich lightly. He would know…and that’s all I need to know.
    Of course, the “establishment Repubs” aren’t going to let Newt be nominated, anyway. It’s going to go all the way to their convention and it’s going to be uglier than any of us have ever seen.

  7. She doesn’t have to explain. She was a good little Stepford twunt, obeying her lord and master (Almost two centuries ago, many of those good Victorians were scandalized by Jane Ey’res “effrontery” in refusing to become her employer’s mistress, even though that would have made her an outcast from society. What right had a mere woman, with no important male relatives’ reputations at stake, to put her own “self-respect” before her master’s pleasure? That mindset is still out there).

  8. It seems to me that ONLY the base Republicans find this man compelling. Americans are no longer in the mood for fear and loathing. Except perhaps of Newt.

  9. Both Willard and Newt are dangerous for different reasons. Newt would not hesitate to get extremely ugly and nasty, and if he were the nominee, the election process would degenerate into a mudfest. Willard is sneaky and would be just as ugly, but he would pretend to be above it all. I wouldn’t take either one lightly, and I especially wouldn’t put it past the GOP establishment to pull out all stops to win.

  10. Including election fraud in all its glory, a false-flag incident in the Persian Gulf, and faithless electors.

  11. I agree. I think the number of people who find fear compelling is dwindling. Many in the Republican base are ON food stamps. Where’s the advantage in demonizing the program or any of the other safety nets–like S.S. and Medicare–that Americans of all striped are so much in need of?

  12. 4 years ago we were lectured, by the right, about how Democrats were morally bankrupt. All because we chose to run a
    baby killing, Marxist, gay loving, closet Muslim, terrorist, who went to the wrong Christian church, and possibly, wasn’t even American! That’s what they sold the American people. That’s was their argument, and nearly 48% of this country swallowed it. Hook, line, and sinker. Now we’re being told that we as Americans need to forgive these candidates and their flaws. “Were all flawed human beings!” The hard line has given way to forgiveness! As long as you’re not a baby killing, Marxist, gay loving, closet Muslim terrorist. Every day that goes by I’m starting to believe, maybe Americans really are stupid.

  13. Better to have the real fight for hearts and minds now, and in public, than beat a “default” candidate like Romney, and watch the nasty right reestablish itself all over again during the coming four years.

    I think the biggest underlying issue of this campaign is whether corporate money can be removed from our elections and our process of government ; or if the corporations just quietly take over. I only hope the President realizes this !

    Romney is the “what” of the 1% and the corporate right ; Gingrich is the “how”. The one needs to be beaten, head to head ; the other soundly repudiated.

  14. Everyone commenting is correct about Newtradamus. As the quintessetinal washington insider Newt knows how to fight the dirtiest of ways. And he’s willing to do so. However, recall that while he may be more dangerous his early errors have hampered his ability. He’s not on the ballot in Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee and Illinois.

    And at the convention the GOP Delegate Guard is not going to go wild and nominate Newt.

  15. Speaking as an outsider, there is nothing “likeable” about Gingrich, and as for Romney — absolutely no charisma. I seriously do not think President Obama has anything to worry about. Oh, and I’m a liberal, and we liberals like to think positive thoughts!

  16. I think the same thing. Newt is the most dangerous of all. He is doing poorly in the polls against the president, but his heavy style of debating with constant debate demands will prove unsettling. If gingrich is the messiah of the GOP, Obama has to find a way to crush his ego very quickly and force grinch to make a fool of himself

  17. I think you’re bang on with respect to Gingrich’s ability to rally troops compared with Romney’s uninspiring dullness. However, Newt could very well spur apathetic Democrats to the polls as well, just to “newtralize” the threat of a nightmarish Gingrich presidency.

  18. What are all the fiscally conservative/socially liberal folks going to do in this election? A friend (registered Repub) in Florida is reluctant to give up her registration but frankly can’t see herself voting for any of the 4 in the primary. Maybe hold her nose and vote for Romney, hoping his more moderate self will make an appearance in the presidential election?

  19. I tend to disagree. Any such election is determined by swaying the moderates and the independents and some just-plain-clueless,-but-determined-to-vote-anyways. Newt is incapable of being consistent. He’s a clever psychopath, but not as good as he thinks he is. Even if I’m wrong, if he wins, it might be the best thing the Occupy movement could hope for. He would embody all that is wrong with America (he helped put us where we are today, more than most). It usually has to get pretty bad before ppl wake up and smell the extraction of their wealth. http:/dfw99.org

Comments are closed.