# Who wins an Obama vs Gingrich debate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-wins-an-obama-vs-gingrich-debate/604755 "2011-12-01T22:15:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-wins-an-obama-vs-gingrich-debate/604755/141 "2011-12-05T17:17:08Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Add to that, the freezing of oil drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico (while oil prices soar . . . No, the voters won’t hold that against Obama. You think the BP spill is already forgotten?! ---
**Author:** ![Linden\_Arden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/53a042/32.png) [@Linden\_Arden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Linden_Arden)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-wins-an-obama-vs-gingrich-debate/604755/142 "2011-12-05T18:13:49Z")
Obama didn’t “freeze oil drilling operations in the Gulf”. Its a right-wing myth. He temporarily stopped issuing NEW deepwater permits - a very small percentage of production there. E&P is way UP in the Gulf under Obama as measured by Baker Hughes (the source for rig counts). This is another point he will need to be prepared for when Newt pulls out a right wing lie. In fact, Goldman Sachs forecasts the US will be the #1 crude oil producer in the world by 2016. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-wins-an-obama-vs-gingrich-debate/604755/143 "2011-12-05T18:39:45Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > I liked Obama’s argument that the mandate was unnecessary from a demand-side perspective. If the subsidies are generous enough, and the state-run exchanges flexible enough, then everyone will buy insurance - even the “invincibles”. I still think this is likely true. Fine with all but this. I think that the fact that insurers made sure that individual mandate is part of the act tells me that any return on investment – where there is no mandate – would hinge on probablity of someone buying into it. They pushed for turning a probablity into a certainty because they have numbers and those numbers showed that relying on market forces (i.e. if this, if that and then it’s cheap) is not sufficient for it to work. And also, this idea that if all buy into it, it will be cheaper for all is very hard to prove. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-wins-an-obama-vs-gingrich-debate/604755/144 "2011-12-05T19:56:15Z")
Here’s a possible scenario: Gingrich: “the waste of taxpayer funds on (reputed “Green” technology) is an important issue” Obama: “we are attempting to jump-start the economy with judicious investments” Gingrich: “you mean Solyndria? The firm that lost (the taxpayers)$538 million?” Obama: “I am not familiar with that firm”😃 ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-wins-an-obama-vs-gingrich-debate/604755/145 "2011-12-05T20:10:40Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > I think that the fact that insurers made sure that individual mandate is part of the act tells me that any return on investment – where there is no mandate – would hinge on probablity of someone buying into it. They pushed for turning a probablity into a certainty because they have numbers and those numbers showed that relying on market forces (i.e. if this, if that and then it’s cheap) is not sufficient for it to work. Well, maybe. But if you give me the choice between a guaranteed return and a likely return, I’ll push for the guaranteed one. I think any industry lobbyist would do the same, no matter how high their accountants thought the probability of voluntary enrollment was. > [@](#): > > And also, this idea that if all buy into it, it will be cheaper for all is very hard to prove. But that’s basically how insurance works. The more broadly the risk is spread (especially if you can add low-risk people to the pool), the lower the premiums. To be completely clear, I’m not confident at all that health-care _spending_ will go down under PPACA. The only strong mechanism for cost control seems to be in IPAB, and that is already coming under fire from both sides. The big wins in PPACA are in increased _coverage_ and in reigning in industry abuses. But this is already far afield of the topic at hand. I stand by my point that I think Obama more than held her own with Hillary, and don’t see any reason he couldn’t do the same with Gingrich. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-wins-an-obama-vs-gingrich-debate/604755/146 "2011-12-05T20:17:46Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Here’s a possible scenario: > Gingrich: “the waste of taxpayer funds on (reputed “Green” technology) is an important issue” > Obama: “we are attempting to jump-start the economy with judicious investments” > Gingrich: “you mean Solyndria? The firm that lost (the taxpayers)$538 million?” > Obama: “I am not familiar with that firm”😃 From _A Contract with the Earth_ by Newt Gingrich: > [@](#): > > We learned quickly that going green is good, but we’re been slow to learn that going green is also hard. Going green in a serious way takes diligence, discipline, and patience. Alternative energy source aren’t perfect, cheap, or simple to implement… It’s not enough to talk like true believers. We have to behave like true believers. There is plenty more where that came from - Newt was a pretty staunch environmentalist before his latest campaign (remember the Climate Change ad with Nancy Pelosi?). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-wins-an-obama-vs-gingrich-debate/604755/147 "2011-12-05T20:54:53Z")
Perhaps Obama isn’t familiar with that firm because you misspelled Solyndra. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-wins-an-obama-vs-gingrich-debate/604755/148 "2011-12-05T20:59:08Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > Here’s a possible scenario: > Gingrich: “the waste of taxpayer funds on (reputed “Green” technology) is an important issue” > Obama: “we are attempting to jump-start the economy with judicious investments” > Gingrich: “you mean Solyndria? The firm that lost (the taxpayers)$538 million?” > Obama: “I am not familiar with that firm”😃 Obama would probably just casually explain [the facts](http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/nov/15/americans-prosperity/solyndra-ad-president-barack-obama-taxpayer-money/) about the issue, not the _batshit insane melodrama_ that the right-wing-misinformation-bubble told you is true. ---
**Author:** ![RickG](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rickg/32/5174_2.png) [@RickG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickG)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-wins-an-obama-vs-gingrich-debate/604755/149 "2011-12-05T22:56:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > As for Huntsman, he might make a showing in NH and get a kick start. I can’t see him winning the nomination, though. Just not conservative enough and he also has the Mormon issue to deal with. Still, a debate between him and Obama would be nice to watch. Correction. Huntsman is “not conservative enough” only in the sense that he seems to accept a reality-based worldview on science (evolution and climate change). On virtually every other issue, he’s about as conservative as they come. He’s pro-life/anti-choice (depending on your POV). He’s for low tax rates, low regulation, wants to eliminate all taxes on investment income, etc. He’s also got great foreign policy chops compared to the rest of the GOP field (wasn’t G. H. W. Bush also once ambassador to China?). His big problems are the whole believing-in-science thing, being a Mormon, and the fact that he worked for the Obama administration as a senior ambassador (which, at the time of his appointment, some said was Obama’s way of neutralizing him as a challenger in 2012). Some conservative pundits, like George Will, are pushing him, but it may already be too late. A sane Republican party would nominate him in a heartbeat. I don’t think the GOP could properly be called “sane” anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2011, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-wins-an-obama-vs-gingrich-debate/604755/150 "2011-12-05T23:13:51Z")
If anything Huntsman is significantly _more_ conservative than Romney and Gingrich, at least if you look at their policy plans and their governance. Where Hunstman fails is in tone (much like Romney, but without even faking it). He doesn’t reflect any of the rage that the Tea Party has. Gingrich has this rage down to a T. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2011, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-wins-an-obama-vs-gingrich-debate/604755/151 "2011-12-06T02:42:18Z")
> [@Crawlspace](#): > > If Newt is the Republican nominee, neither side wins. Him having to debate Obama simply means America loses more slowly. > > No, he doesn’t. He has a PhD, but Mr. I Love and Understand America More Than Anyone studied Belgian educational influences in the Congo. I stand corrected on this point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-wins-an-obama-vs-gingrich-debate/604755.md?page=7)