Reply #10: A few problems with that. 1)It is not 1980 2)Obama is not Carter 3) Newt is not Reagan

[yellowcanine]

I agree that Newt may try to be Reaganesque and draw parallels with 1980 and Carter. And this is exactly why Obama will flatten him.

Under Carter the economy was stuck on a high "misery index" - high unemployment, high interest rates. - not of his making, but nevertheless, it was.

Iran was holding Americans hostage.


Carter was a technocrat unable to connect with the American people.

Reagan was a disciplined candidate who was able to connect with the American people and could stick to the script his handlers had devised.


Today the economy, while not great at all, is showing signs of improvement, and unlike 1980, the majority of Americans really do not blame Obama for the slowness of the recovery. The things Obama has done with regard to the economy are more or less seen as having helped to keep things from getting much worse. No amount of bs from Newt - or Mitt - is going to change those perceptions.

The perceptions of Obama on foreign policy are even better. The Bush wars are winding down. Most of the U.S. interventions have more or less worked - Egypt, Libya, etc. And Obama gets credit for finally getting Osama bin Laden. Again, no amount of bs from Newt or Mitt is going to change those perceptions.

Obama is the disciplined candidate who can connect with the American people.

Newt is an undisciplined candidate who cannot help but say outrageous things which piss off one part of the electorate or another. Eventually nearly every part of the electorate has something about Newt which pisses them off - maybe not enough to make them vote for Obama, but enough to make them less than enthusiastic about Newt. And people inclined to vote for Obama have extra incentive to go vote, people sort of neutral have incentive to vote against Newt even if they are not terribly thrilled with Obama.