• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing…

Status
Not open for further replies.
what the fuck!?

Oh boy, this story hasn't completely disseminated yet! It's from the 2008 campaign, actually.

In 1983 he put his dog in a carrier ("with a windshield for protection") and strapped it to the top of his family's car on a twelve-hour road trip. Somewhere along the way the dog shit down the back of the car, gee who could even imagine why. So he hosed the dog and car down at a gas station, strapped him back in the carrier on top of the car and continued on their merry way.

He eventually stopped telling this story once someone clued him in that it wasn't actually a hilarious family vacation anecdote.
 
What was so brilliant about his campaign? The more he talks the less people like him.

You have to step outside the bubble of PoliGAF where everyone is more educated on these issues.

Mitt Romney likes to run a tight ship. Everything has to be perfect, and his strategies have been great at pitting his rivals against each other instead of him for the longest time.
 
Not sure if sarcastic (I think my sarcasm meter may be broken on this entire page, actually), but strictly by the numbers, right now, it would be a close race between Romney and Obama. I mean he's unquestionably the GOP candidate with the best chance to win by a country mile. (Obama 50 / Romney 48 according to Gallup right now)

I think an Obama blowout is possible if the economy and unemployment continue to pick up a real head of steam over the course of the year, and just in general, if I were to place a bet now, it would be on an Obama re-election. But it's hardly delusional to think that Romney would still give Obama the toughest run for his money.

Sure, if we picked our president based on a popular vote then Obama would be in a tough fight.

But how does Romney win Michigan after writing an Op-Ed in the NYT entitled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"? He isn't going to see much support there.

How does he win Ohio after the clusterfuck that Kasich has built there, riling up the unions and forcing them to build a political network for a Nov. 2011 vote that will now just flow right into the 2012 general?

Over a million Wisconsin citizens signed up for a recall on their governor, lt. governor, and three state senators over their collective bargaining issues, which will now be held the same time as the general.

Assuming Obama wins NH and PA (very likely) and then picks up these three gifts from the GOP's failed anti-union/let the middle class burn strategy he only needs any one of the remaining swing states (VA, NC, FL, IA, MO, CO, NM, NV) and he's won.

How exactly can Romney sweep all the remaining swing states against an incumbent with more money, a stronger local network, a better national team, and far superior oratory and debate skills?

Another recession or major white house scandal are the only paths to a GOP victory in 2012.
 
PhoenixDark said:
I think Gingrich will come close but ultimately lose thanks to early voting. Things are going to even out over this week. Gingrich will probably have another good-to-great debate performance tonight though, which could lengthen his momentum. But SC showed that nothing is set in stone, and leads can disappear in mere hours.
Mm, I don't know. If the numbers hold up, and Romney is winning early voters by about the same margin that Gingrich is winning those who haven't voted yet, Romney will only win if not that many other people vote. (That's phrased kind of clumsily, but you get the idea)

Nate Silver said early voting has only been about 12% of the 2008 turnout. If Gingrich keeps the momentum going, it doesn't matter.
 
what the fuck!?

On a family road trip to Canada in 1982, Romney tied the family dog's kennel to the roof. After driving for several hours with no potty breaks, his kids noticed doggy diarrhea pouring down the back glass of the car (mind you, dogs won't "go" in a kennel unless they have no choice).

They pulled over, let the dog out, had a laugh. Then they put him back up there and drove for several more hours. Mitt used to tell the story on news shows and laugh it up, until he started getting asked wtf, at which point he quit talking about it. (Beaten, I'm sure.)
 
what the fuck!?
You haven't heard this one?

They were taking a family vacation; Romney strapped the dog's kennel to the roof of the family station wagon. The dog shat itself in terror, so Romney pulled into a gas station, hosed off the dog and the kennel, put it back on the roof and resumed driving.

You have to step outside the bubble of PoliGAF where everyone is more educated on these issues.

Mitt Romney likes to run a tight ship. Everything has to be perfect, and his strategies have been great at pitting his rivals against each other instead of him for the longest time.
Hang on--the people better informed on the issues are the ones in the bubble?
 
I don't think they are going to come around to the idea until Europe gets its shit together.

So who's situation is worse off right now? Europe's or the United States?

Depends on your criteria, I guess. Standard of living measurements vs. economic growth prospects vs. government stability and so on.
 
The guy has run a brilliant campaign up until his loss in South Carolina. I think to argue that he is crazy is, well, crazy itself. He is a very successful business man who wants to be president and give tax breaks to the rich. He has carefully altered his political ideology to fit the circumstance to an extent. That isn't crazy, that's a typical politician/businessman

If you think that is crazy, than you don't know what crazy is.

A brilliant campaign would include a win in Iowa, which he lost to a fringe candidate that had a tiny fraction of his resources. He regularly appears wooden and uncomfortable around people. He's provided gaffes and missteps throughout the campaign. He seems like he wants the job too badly. He's transparent about his willingness to go any which way on any issue that will give him advantage, and appears weak and unsure about others (Issue 5 in Ohio).

He is not a typical businessman/politician, btw.
 
Have you heard about the time Mitt Romney put his dog in a kennel on top of his car on a family road trip?

Apparently the dog used to work for a steel mill and he really wanted to stick it to him. That is how evil he is.
 
You have to step outside the bubble of PoliGAF where everyone is more educated on these issues.

Mitt Romney likes to run a tight ship. Everything has to be perfect, and his strategies have been great at pitting his rivals against each other instead of him for the longest time.

Sarcasm really needs some sort of punctuation mark.
 
You haven't heard this one?

They were taking a family vacation; Romney strapped the dog's kennel to the roof of the family station wagon. The dog shat itself in terror, so Romney pulled into a gas station, hosed off the dog and the kennel, put it back on the roof and resumed driving.


Hang on--the people better informed on the issues are the ones in the bubble?

This is also known as a Romney.

3AQmK.gif
 
You have to step outside the bubble of PoliGAF where everyone is more educated on these issues.

Mitt Romney likes to run a tight ship. Everything has to be perfect, and his strategies have been great at pitting his rivals against each other instead of him for the longest time.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Romney benefited from the fact that the Tea Party vote was split 5 ways. After Cain, Bachmann, and Perry have dropped out, there is only Newt and Santorum left. He also benefited from the other candidates attacking each other and ignoring him. Now he has to actually campaign instead of coast to victory. Romney has not been challenge at all this election cycle till South Carolina. Iowa was always considered a long shot for him, and he was always expected to win NH. Now he has to actually do some work if he wants to win.
 
Because Democrats are for it?

It was rhetorical...

I know the politics game, I am just ashamed of the way that supposed grown-ass-men can't be mature about issues and why the American people are frankly too gullible, too stupid, and too bigoted to elect people willing to stick by their guns, run on a moral high ground, do what they ran on, and improve the situation for everyone from Tiny Tim to Daddy Warbucks.
 
Oh, well sure. If it was a union dog, that makes sense.

I presume "that's how evil he is" referred to the dog.

Sounds more like an activist dog to me.

"And the time will come when the car ride becomes so odious, that you have to shit yourself upon the gears, and upon the wheels, upon the levers and the whole apparatus--and you've got to make it stop!"
 
ok, thanks guys, lol

I can't believe Romney thought that was actually a good road trip story.....maybe his rich asswipe golf buddies might have found it funny :-/
 
If Newt wins Florida, a moderator has to change the thread's title to "US PoliGAF 2012 | The Gingrich Veepstakes: Waiting for Santorum to Burst onto the Stage"
 
That New Yorker issue is pretty damn good, and a validation of Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign. In some ways it doesn't go as deep as possible into the failure of Obama's post-partisanship delusions. There's a brief mention of Max Baucus being an Obama democrat in terms of yearning for bipartisanship, but no mention of the large amount of time he wasted testing that theory out on his committee. He let Sen. Snowe, Grassley, and others run out the clock, and Reid and Obama did next to nothing to address this.

Even if Obama wins in November it's unlikely dems will retake the house, assuming Romney is the nominee. Which means we'll get more brinkmanship and no legislation. That's not Obama's fault, but the fact remains that his administration wasted precious time to get a series of things done. And while he's first two years were no doubt legislative victories/historic, they could have been even more so if Obama decided to govern as republican governors do: get as much shit done as possible and worry about the consequences later. The economy was going to accuse him of spending too much and being too liberal regardless in November 2010, so why not at least try to get democrats to push through the DREAM Act when you had super majorities, or pass some of the jobs bill ideas, or start a fight on the Bush tax cuts when there was a shot at getting rid of them, etc.
 
If Newt wins Florida, a moderator has to change the thread's title to "US PoliGAF 2012 | The Gingrich Veepstakes: Waiting for Santorum to Burst onto the Stage"


Romney struggling in the South is not news. It was what everybody anticipated before the primaries started. It's if this Newt momentum carries into states like Michigan and Arizona when it really starts to become 'news'.
 
Romney struggling in the South is not news. It was what everybody anticipated before the primaries started. It's if this Newt momentum carries into states like Michigan and Arizona when it really starts to become 'news'.

I don't know what you mean by 'everybody', because I'm pretty sure the polling analysts like 538 were putting Romney's chances at winning Florida at 99% just a week ago.
 
Romney struggling in the South is not news. It was what everybody anticipated before the primaries started. It's if this Newt momentum carries into states like Michigan and Arizona when it really starts to become 'news'.
Newt Gingrich was trailing Mitt Romney by double digits in South Carolina.
 
Hey Kosmo,

Supreme Court says no to debate over Elena Kagan health care role

“I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted,” Roberts wrote in his year-end report. “They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71819.html#ixzz1kJK7n1nR
 
Even if Obama wins in November it's unlikely dems will retake the house, assuming Romney is the nominee. Which means we'll get more brinkmanship and no legislation. That's not Obama's fault, but the fact remains that his administration wasted precious time to get a series of things done. And while he's first two years were no doubt legislative victories/historic, they could have been even more so if Obama decided to govern as republican governors do: get as much shit done as possible and worry about the consequences later. The economy was going to accuse him of spending too much and being too liberal regardless in November 2010, so why not at least try to get democrats to push through the DREAM Act when you had super majorities, or pass some of the jobs bill ideas, or start a fight on the Bush tax cuts when there was a shot at getting rid of them, etc.

The main problem with that logic is the notion that he would be able to get anything done. He had the "Regan Democrats" that wouldn't side with him on the health care bill, and Republicans who got too used to Bush giving them what they want (ways to make themselves pseudo-dictators to fuck everyone else over) and got scared of Obama (someone who wouldn't just bow to them) decided to spin to holy high hell what the health care bill even was. Once the Tea Party did what they had to do to make sure that conservatives took the house and made sure they could filibuster everything, that's exactly what they did. They didn't care what it was or if they supported it yesterday. If Obama was supporting it, it had to be shot down immediately using whatever backdoor, sneaky, dirty tactic they could find regardless of how close to the bottom they were by using such tactics, how often they did them, or how much not doing a certain thing would hurt America.

That's why Obama went to call them out. He was going "hey, want to see the REAL reason why I haven't been able to get anything done? Let me give everyone an offer no one can reasonably refuse, and if they DO vote it down, you'll know exactly who it was." Sure enough, that jobs bill WAS voted down, and all the Republicans have to do was to call the 1% that everyone outcrying about not being taxed enough "job creators" (they seem to have the perfect way to word EVERYTHING).

And lest we forget that we have Fox News that's working for the GOP and calling their opinions as facts/news, and reporting the news in such a way that it makes every single liberal out to be the worst people in existence. And somehow, people are extremely stupid enough to buy into the notion that they are somehow "fair and balanced" (short form version of them trying to say "we think everyone else is working for the big bad liberal elite"), and they continue to have those "OMG ratings" that I just cannot understand why they continue to get them. Seriously, how does O'Reilly keep getting those ratings even though he's been exposed as being a fake, bully, and an asshole way too many times for any of us to count?
 
Romney struggling in the South is not news. It was what everybody anticipated before the primaries started. It's if this Newt momentum carries into states like Michigan and Arizona when it really starts to become 'news'.

While this is true, Romney was leading by 20 points in Florida a week ago, and by nearly that in the national polls. Newt is leading in both now. He could lose in a week what he gained in a week, but if he takes Florida, I can see that national lead solidifying, which will help him in other states.
 
I don't know what you mean by 'everybody', because I'm pretty sure the polling analysts like 538 were putting Romney's chances at winning Florida at 99% just a week ago.

Just a snapshot, a very small window in time. He was riding off that Iowa/NH momentum.

Romney's 2008 performance and his built-in demographic problems have always been there. It's been 'the story' about this primary until Iowa happened and briefly changed the dynamics.

Until very recently, Mitt wasn't even going to compete in Iowa and SC. Then the climate became more favorable for him to go for the kill and end it early. This has always been an election that threatened to go the distance.
 
Romney struggling in the South is not news. It was what everybody anticipated before the primaries started. It's if this Newt momentum carries into states like Michigan and Arizona when it really starts to become 'news'.

I don't think it's entirely accurate to call Florida "the South" in the same sense that South Carolina and Georgia are, although maybe it's the same for purposes of a GOP primary.
 
Romney struggling in the South is not news. It was what everybody anticipated before the primaries started. It's if this Newt momentum carries into states like Michigan and Arizona when it really starts to become 'news'.
Yeah. The South was always going to be an arduous stretch for Romney during the primaries. It is the region in which his flaws are most glaring. The subsequent period should be decidedly more favorable. There are fewer debates. He possesses a robust organization permitting him to compete nationally. The states are a bit more congenial to a Mormon from the NE. And although I expect them to act in FL, the party's attacks on Gingrich will intensify.
The "Republican Establishment" is a myth. I don't think there's anyone in charge of the party these days.
Certainly, how people conceive of the "establishment" is a myth. People typically envision the "establishment" as similar to Tammany Hall where "Boss" Tweed and his knavish coven of miscreants pull the strings. But that variant of the establishment went extinct decades ago. Rather, the parameters of the modern establishment are a bit more relaxed. Instead of a clique of corrupt party officials, the modern establishment is a broad network of party actors. This is an inclusive list of elected officials, party members, and even prominent interest groups. Some even qualify the partisan press as party actors. Generally, they share preferences on policy and party business. And while the process is fluid, a consensus typically emerges on which candidate to select as their nominee.
 
That New Yorker issue is pretty damn good, and a validation of Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign. In some ways it doesn't go as deep as possible into the failure of Obama's post-partisanship delusions. There's a brief mention of Max Baucus being an Obama democrat in terms of yearning for bipartisanship, but no mention of the large amount of time he wasted testing that theory out on his committee. He let Sen. Snowe, Grassley, and others run out the clock, and Reid and Obama did next to nothing to address this.

Even if Obama wins in November it's unlikely dems will retake the house, assuming Romney is the nominee. Which means we'll get more brinkmanship and no legislation. That's not Obama's fault, but the fact remains that his administration wasted precious time to get a series of things done. And while he's first two years were no doubt legislative victories/historic, they could have been even more so if Obama decided to govern as republican governors do: get as much shit done as possible and worry about the consequences later. The economy was going to accuse him of spending too much and being too liberal regardless in November 2010, so why not at least try to get democrats to push through the DREAM Act when you had super majorities, or pass some of the jobs bill ideas, or start a fight on the Bush tax cuts when there was a shot at getting rid of them, etc.

What I took away from the article was that he deferred to his political advisers more than he should have. I think that was clear from the beginning, but his approval ratings right now suggests just how short-sighted the administration was when it came to political battles. It fucked his agenda without any gain.

That he made decisions against his economic team for the fear that his political advisers were right is not surprising, but nevertheless it is disgusting to read. The article is kind of depressing and all of Obama's lost battles remind me of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but without the happy ending. A reminder that there is no final speech in real life politics. Just a never ending election cycle.
 
I don't think it's entirely accurate to call Florida "the South" in the same sense that South Carolina and Georgia are.

No, you are right. It's definitely more midwestern in it's sensabilities, but it still has it's own unique quirks that make it quite unlike Michigan or Missouri.
 
Just a snapshot, a very small window in time. He was riding off that Iowa/NH momentum.

Romney's 2008 performance and his built-in demographic problems have always been there. It's been 'the story' about this primary until Iowa happened.

I agree the core problem has been there, visible, all along. He's Mormon, he's a former governor of Massachusetts, and he's a documented flip-flopper on the issues that so-called "values voters" hold dear. I just don't think some people have been seeing it clearly; a lot of people in the columnist and blogging professions have been treating him as if he were the obvious favorite and a significant threat to Obama. It's taken a maddeningly long time for the chattering class to figure out the anti-Romney phenomenon.

So I don't think it's that "everybody knew he would have trouble". It's that it should have been obvious he'd have trouble, but many people missed it because they don't really understand what makes the Republican party tick anymore.
 
What I took away from the article was that he deferred to his political advisers more than he should have. I think that was clear from the beginning, but his approval ratings right now suggests just how short-sighted the administration was when it came to political battles. It fucked his agenda without any gain.

That he made decisions against his economic team for the fear that his political advisers were right is not surprising, but nevertheless it is disgusting to read. The article is kind of depressing and all of Obama's lost battles remind me of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but without the happy ending. A reminder that there is no final speech in real life politics. Just a never ending election cycle.

Well yes, it also confirms that he's not a leader. Multiple examples of him hedging and in general a sense that he is unwilling to take stands or expose his true beliefs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom