Romney vs. Obama

[dwar0123]

According to BusinessInsider, real soon: Mitt Romney's October Surprise Is Going To Be Legendary

 

 

How much will Romney's money advantage help? It will be interesting to see what Nate's simulations show in the coming weeks.

 

In 3 months, I look forward to reading that guy's article about how Romney blew the election by waiting until it was to late to spend his cash reserves. Calling it lessons learned for the future or some such thing, as if money is the source and solution to all problems and Romney was really a good candidate who deserved to win if not for the flawed election strategy.

[kenberg]

I think that the David Brooks commentary is right on,at least it resonates strongly with me. "There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own."

 

Most of us know people who are in adverse circumstances, at least to some degree. Some of us have memories of things not being so great for ourselves. We hear some of the right wing rants and we wonder what planet these guys grew up on.

 

 

Phil, earlier, remarked " I am sure that a serious republican candidate could be beating Obama easily.

Of course, "serious republican candidates" seem to be rarer than big foot, but that is a different story."

 

I agree entirely. If the republicans really cannot take the White House after four years of 8% unemployment, they need to take a very hard look at their approach. I suggested the Romney campaign slogan "The best we could come up with", Winston prefers "At least it isn't Bachman" . Some retooling is needed.

[hrothgar]

 

Phil, earlier, remarked " I am sure that a serious republican candidate could be beating Obama easily.

Of course, "serious republican candidates" seem to be rarer than big foot, but that is a different story."

 

 

Could have sworn that Romney was the "serious republican candidate"

 

Sure wasn't Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain, Santorum, Perry [fill in the whack-job of your choice]

Huntsman sure didn't catch fire...

 

Maybe there are some serious Republican's waiting off in the wings (Presumably they anticipated that the party would self immolate in 2012 and tack back to the center in 2016... However, as I read things the lesson that the party based will take from a 2012 is that they need to pick a "real" conservative)

[kenberg]

Back, way back, there was an event called the Demolition Derby. Think 1955 or so. For six bits or maybe a buck you could watch people with old cars drive into each other. Idiocy is not a new invention. I guess the last car standing was the serious one!

 

I have never before heard of a presidential nominee from a major party writing off 47% of the population as not worthy of his thoughts. He needs to be really confident of the other 53%.

[barmar]

Demolition Derby still exists, it's owned by NAPA Auto Parts.

 

I wonder if Romney assumes that a large number of the 47% don't vote, so there's no need to court their vote.

[dwar0123]

Demolition Derby still exists, it's owned by NAPA Auto Parts.

 

I wonder if Romney assumes that a large number of the 47% don't vote, so there's no need to court their vote.

No, in the speech, he is specifically saying they will vote for Obama, that trying to woo their vote is pointless.

 

The issue really isn't so much about his election strategy, which is probably sound, it is about the level of contempt he holds for 47% of the country.

[luke warm]

No, in the speech, he is specifically saying they will vote for Obama, that trying to woo their vote is pointless.

do you think that's true? about who they will vote for, i mean

[dwar0123]

do you think that's true? about who they will vote for, i mean

My understanding is that a big percentage of that 47% are the retired living on social security who lean Republican.

 

Another portion are veterans with disabilities, whom also tend to lean Republican.

 

A rather large portion is lower middle income families who pay a good chunk of social security and Medicaid(payroll taxes) but don't actually pay any income taxes due to credits. This group leans democratic but not overwhelmingly, certainty not enough to discount their vote.

 

And of course the actual poor, who do heavily lean democratic as well as students making use of government loans who also lean democratic.

[lalldonn]

do you think that's true? about who they will vote for, i mean

 

Isn't that a goofy question? "They", by definition, are people who will vote for Obama. ("There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...") You know, prior to the part where "they" were offensively stereotyped as helpless victims.

 

Although, I didn't find the whole thing offensive, for example the part about believing people are entitled to health care.

[dwar0123]

Isn't that a goofy question? "They", by definition, are people who will vote for Obama. ("There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...") You know, prior to the part where "they" were offensively stereotyped as helpless victims.

 

Although, I didn't find the whole thing offensive, for example the part about believing people are entitled to health care.

 

Actually they was referring to the 47% that don't pay income tax. Not quite that much of a tautology.

[lalldonn]

Ok, fair enough, I was basing it on the order he stated thing. Weird since I suspect a higher percentage of "them" will vote for Romney than Obama. Isn't it known that red states generally take in more in federal government assistance than they pay out, relative to blue states?

[hrothgar]

do you think that's true? about who they will vote for, i mean

 

The statement is provably false

 

If you break down the 47% who don't pay income taxes, roughly a quarter of the individuals are elderly social security recipients who are part of Romney's base.

 

The remaining 75% have a very high turnover year over year. The individuals who aren't paying income taxes this year (generally) aren't the same individuals who didn't pay income tax the year before. Given that partisan voting patterns are fairly well locked in, year to year...

[kenberg]

Imo, trying to make any sense out of Romney's statements in that video is pointless. He was addressing a group whose proclivities were known to him, he said what he thought would sound good to them. It's a mistake to regard what he says as somehow connected to what he thinks. I am sure he knows that people are perfectly capable of taking massive government assistance while railing against the evils of big government. Hell, corporation bigwigs do it all the time.

[dwar0123]

It's a mistake to regard what he says as somehow connected to what he thinks.

The truth of this is pretty damning in its own right. With such an outlook, what value can we place on anything he says, ever.

 

If the man hasn't the balls to speak his truth to his own people and glibly descends into the most horrid clichés that matches the puerile views of his audience, what ever audience that may be. Then how can he be President, how can he be anything other then a mockery of a man.

 

I know I am coming off harsh, but this is a question of integrity, the lack of which you are using as a defense? The absurdity of the situation is just too much.

[hrothgar]

The truth of this is pretty damning in its own right. With such an outlook, what value can we place on anything he says, ever.

 

If the man hasn't the balls to speak his truth to his own people and glibly descends into the most horrid clichés that matches the puerile views of his audience, what ever audience that may be. Then how can he be President, how can he be anything other then a mockery of a man.

 

The man has executive quality hair...

[PassedOut]

If the man hasn't the balls to speak his truth to his own people and glibly descends into the most horrid clichés that matches the puerile views of his audience, what ever audience that may be. Then how can he be President, how can he be anything other then a mockery of a man.

 

I know I am coming off harsh, but this is a question of integrity, the lack of which you are using as a defense? The absurdity of the situation is just too much.

I don't take Ken's observation to be a defense, just a statement of reality. The knock on Romney -- particularly from the republicans who opposed him in the primaries -- has been that he takes whatever positions that he deems advantageous at the time. These recordings play into that by reminding folks of those proclivities.

 

This is quite different from Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and (even) Michele Bachmann, all of whom have the courage of their convictions -- no matter how nutty those convictions might be.

 

BTW, here is the complete video: Mitt Romney wanted the full tape. Here it is.

[Winstonm]

I hate to bring in religion to this discussion, but really, how can anyone want to elect as president and put in charge of the largest and best equipped army in the world and the world's greatest array of nuclear arms a man who is stupid enough to buy into the Joseph Smith/angel Moroni/golden tablet/ancient-Jews-in-North-America story?

Someone like that might just believe all Muslims are bent on world domination.

 

Of course, I guess the justification for that vote is: at least he isn't Bachmann...

[jdeegan]

:P The latest Intrade is 68% for Obama, up sharply in recent days due to post-convention bounce and the recent Romney leaked video tape. Obama is also ahead in the crucial state polls. It is very clear that Romney cannot win just by showing up. His 1/3 chance depends on the first debate and the appeal of his upcoming five point economic plan.

[dwar0123]

I hate to bring in religion to this discussion, but really, how can anyone want to elect as president and put in charge of the largest and best equipped army in the world and the world's greatest array of nuclear arms a man who is stupid enough to buy into the Joseph Smith/angel Moroni/golden tablet/ancient-Jews-in-North-America story?

Someone like that might just believe all Muslims are bent on world domination.

 

Of course, I guess the justification for that vote is: at least he isn't Bachmann...

As opposed to the virgin birth, ressurection, trinity, water into wine, walking on water and that isn't even touching on the massive number and scale of what we would now call crimes against humanity, proudly described in the old testiment.

 

Even more contemporary history, mormans have a lot less blood on their hands than any other christian group, of course that is mostly because they are so new, perhaps it is their turn to dirty their hands.

[Zelandakh]

what value can we place on anything heany politician says, ever.

FYP.

 

 

Even more contemporary history, mormans have a lot less blood on their hands than any other christian group

Less than the Amish?

 

There are a number of problems with this tape for Romney and I am surprised he has not at least backed away from some of it. He say 47% do not pay income tax and "his job is not to care about those people." First of all, if you are a Democratic voter who does not pay income tax and here this, are you more of less likely to vote? This in a group that is statistically quite likely to be wishy-washy about voting. Worse, if you are a Republican voter in the group, and despite what he said there are plenty, how does it make you feel that he is not going to care about you at all? And the Republican voters in this 47% are primarily the elderly and veterans - two of the groups most likely to vote!

 

Worst of all, even if you do pay income tax there is a high chance that you know someone that does not. Those friends and/or relatives are likely to be in a more precarious position than you are. How can you feel good about voting for someone who essentially says he is going to make their life worse? It is just stupidity for him to defend this position. The point is that it is nebulous what he means by 47% - first he says 47% will vote Obama no matter what, then 47% believe they are victims, then 47% pay no income tax. These are all different 47%s, even if believe the premise of the 47% number for each! So the simple defence for him is to simply state that he meant he did not need to worry about the 47% who would vote for Obama no matter what during the election but that of course his policies would benefit them should he win. Moreover that he got a little carried away with the other numbers and only meant that a sizeable portion of that 47% who would vote for Obama feel like victims and pay no income tax. Then go on to point out (again) that even those who pay no tax will benefit from his policies because of the extra jobs and increased prosperity. Naturally finishing with a soundbite, say: "I want to give opportunity back to those who have fallen through the cracks, nay chasms, that Obama has created in our great country. I will give them opportunity through jobs and education - help people to help thelselves, not comdemn them to living off the State in poverty."

 

OK, I am no speech-writer but surely this kind of damage limitation is Politics 101 - converting your own gaff into a chance to attack the competition.

[Vampyr]

(1) This is a quote for guy's and dolls character Sky Masterton, in case anyone missed it.

 

I didn't miss it, but I think that quotes without attribution are wrong and possibly liable to prosecution.

[billw55]

Forecasts about the political landscape in two months, are about as reliable as weather forecasts. Lets be honest, the single biggest factor in this election will be the economy, if it continues to improve (albeit slowly) then it robs the republicans of ammuntion. If it should tank in the next few months, then obama will lose a huge number of votes.

 

The fate of the economy rests entirely with the FOMC, which, sadly, appears to consist almost entirely of lunatics. More than half of whom were appointed by Obama. If they vote against further QE this week, it will almost certainly kill off the US recovery, and possibly the global recovery aswell. I would not fancy Obama's chances then. :)

 

I think being more than 60% sure of the election, when I cannot be more than 60% sure of where the economy will be in November, is surely fairly irrational. I am sure that a serious republican candidate could be beating Obama easily.

 

Of course, "serious republican candidates" seem to be rarer than big foot, but that is a different story.

Serious candidates don't show for "mid term" elections. We will see them next election, after Obama's second term is up. The only serious candidate against an incumbent president that I can think of was Bob Dole in 1996. Although as pigeons go, Romney isn't terrible.

 

The best republican candidate I know of would be Mitch Daniels, but I don't think he will run next time. I wonder who it will be. Whoever it is will likely be elected, just by alternation.

[Bbradley62]

Serious candidates don't show for "mid term" elections. We will see them next election, after Obama's second term is up. The only serious candidate against an incumbent president that I can think of was Bob Dole in 1996.

In 1976, Bob Dole was a serious candidate for VP; 20 years later he was a 73-year-old retiree-in-waiting who was simply holding his party's space on the ballot. Ronald Reagan (1980) and Bill Clinton (1992) were serious enough candidates to defeat incumbent presidents. Edited September 19, 2012 by Bbradley62

[jdeegan]

:P Oooops. Has a Romney been brainwashed? Again. Doubling down on his 47% gaffe was, imo, not smart. It sounds like he doesn't understand that the FICA payroll tax is also an income tax that is paid by almost all workers. Indeed, it is usually twice what most people see on their pay stub.

If he really doesn't understand the simplest thing about the federal tax system, how is he supposed to design and implement an economic plan to help the economy get out of the current slump? He can still get out of the pickle, but it will take some doing. Right now Nate Silver's 80% for Obama is looking good.

[ggwhiz]

This whole business of what you say is not necessarily what you think and Romney basically admitting that probably means this election is over.

 

He has a shifty look to him (to me) as in a poker player with a "tell" when they are bluffing. Even if it's not accurate that's what I see and I strongly suspect that the one on one debates will bury this guy.