That seems to be what they are building to. They're starting to make the transition to focusing on Romney's policies, after working to define him and hammer at his business experience. Once the policy points are made, I think they'll follow up with the GWB connections closer to the end of the election, when the scare factor could be more effective.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
That seems to be what they are building to. They're starting to make the transition to focusing on Romney's policies, after working to define him and hammer at his business experience. Once the policy points are made, I think they'll follow up with the GWB connections closer to the end of the election, when the scare factor could be more effective.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I kind of wonder whether the ramp up of comments dehumanizing Obama are meant to stir some type of race discussion or accusation of racism - as a means of generating conservative support. It's an anonymous comment, meaning it could be fake or it could just be some dumbass adviser, but the charge is way too specific and forced imo.
Disclaimer: I am not saying Romney is running a racist campaign or anything like that. But what I will say, and I'd love Kosmo's opinion, is that conservatives have been Other-izing Obama for four years now. He's certainly the most multicultural president we've had, or perhaps anyone has had in modern history, but most of his life has been spent in America. He was raised by his white mother, and then his white grandmother and grandfather. He went to school, worked jobs (yes, he has had a job before), married, had kids, etc. Yet apparently none of that is good enough, and the right continues to insinuation that something is wrong.
It's like what the right did to Bill Clinton, who was basically the first baby boomer president, didn't serve in a war, participated in war and civil rights protests, etc. He was essentially the living embodiment of the type of person Richard Nixon demonized as trouble making threats to Law and Order. But I'd argue the racial undertones make this far more blatant and ugly
Disclaimer: I am not saying Romney is running a racist campaign or anything like that. But what I will say, and I'd love Kosmo's opinion, is that conservatives have been Other-izing Obama for four years now. He's certainly the most multicultural president we've had, or perhaps anyone has had in modern history, but most of his life has been spent in America. He was raised by his white mother, and then his white grandmother and grandfather. He went to school, worked jobs (yes, he has had a job before), married, had kids, etc. Yet apparently none of that is good enough, and the right continues to insinuation that something is wrong.
It's like what the right did to Bill Clinton, who was basically the first baby boomer president, didn't serve in a war, participated in war and civil rights protests, etc. He was essentially the living embodiment of the type of person Richard Nixon demonized as trouble making threats to Law and Order. But I'd argue the racial undertones make this far more blatant and ugly
The guy who wrote the robocalls was sent to jail for 60 days though.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/06/13/julius-henson-faces-sentencing-in-robocalls-case/
Fox News fans have been calling Obama The Great Divider since 2009. He's been Other-ized since a few days after he took office.
Yes, the most unpopular President in recent American history who was just in office 4 years ago has no relevance in today's politics. Brilliant take.
People still run against Jimmy Carter for christ sakes.
Aaron Strife
Banned
He's still caucusing with the Democrats so they still have a majority.
I agree with you basically, but the main problem is that Romney and Dubya are perceived to be very different, and they have very different public images.
While many of their policy proposals are the same (especially with regard to taxes), one is seen as a good old boy from Texas while the other is seen as the slick corporate Mormon titan of industry. Mitt is also an overachiever in his private life, while Bush was an aimless loser before he became governor of Texas. Bush was a politician of conviction (for better or worse), while Romney is viewed as willing to change positions on anything to increase his chances of election.
Mind you, I'm not saying limited comparisons or allusions to the "Bush Years" won't work, but I don't think it's as much of a slam dunk as you're making it sound.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Whose campaign is bringing up Carter?
More than a few people I know who loathed Bush now think of him as a pretty funny- if not pathetic- figure.
Nobody wants to hear any crap about Bush anymore. If there's a particular point to make, if Portman is the VP pick, then it would make sense.
It seems like you were projecting when you said people had short term memories when it comes to politics.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/06/09/4437354-mccain-obama-means-2nd-carter-term?lite
I missed that. Do you remember which economists advocated that plan? I'd like to read up on it.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
I can see where you're coming from now. That was pretty effective for McCain.
RustyNails
Member
W will pop up. Bet on it.
cartoon_soldier
Member
AP: Romney was involved in Bain past 1999
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...t_gyHA?docId=b98e5f18e1d1437191f1fa3a71a6ea6c
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...t_gyHA?docId=b98e5f18e1d1437191f1fa3a71a6ea6c
Aaron Strife
Banned
Good numbers. It doesn't seem like Obama is really in trouble in the Obama-Kerry-Gore states as much as the media likes to purport otherwise. If he just wins NV+CO, Virginia, NC, Ohio, or Florida he's in, and I'd go on a limb to say he'll win all of those.
They also mention that Romney picking Rice would make PA a tie and bring Obama's margin down in Michigan by 6 points. To me it seems like she's having a sort of Hillary effect where she hasn't really been in the news that much lately and people like her now as a nonpartisan figure. I doubt it would have that effect if she really were chosen. Her pro-choice stances would alienate conservative voters (consider that Romney was also pro-choice as Mass. governor, particularly in RomneyCare covering abortion), while Obama's campaign would make her the poster child for Bush's foreign policy, unquestionably the least popular element of Bush's presidency and the biggest advantage Obama has over Romney in policy.
PhoenixDark
Banned
14 points in Michigan? I don't believe that at all, I'll have to look at who was polled...
I'm sure Obama will win Michigan, but this seems like a 4-6 point race right now
I'm sure Obama will win Michigan, but this seems like a 4-6 point race right now
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
This is silly.
The republicans are still running on Reagan for christ sakes.
metalslimer
Member
Why?
speculawyer
Member
Do you think anyone that listens to AM radio could believe this?
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
http://www.marctomarket.com/2012/07/great-graphic-us-federal-spending-by.html
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
http://www.marctomarket.com/2012/07/great-graphic-us-federal-spending-by.html
Aaron Strife
Banned
Even Rasmussen has it at Obama+6, at the low end for a Democrat. PPP could always be off but 14 - 6 is a pretty heavy margin of error.
Related to polling: Did you know that Romney is the first modern GOP presidential candidate to have a negative favorable rating in NBC's polling? Even Kerry was never underwater. Obama however is still at an okay 49% approval rating.
That's right. Back to your hole.
You mean Mitt "Let Detroit Go bankrupt" Romney would have a close election in Michigan? I would be astounded if Mitt actually gets close to 6% loss in the GE there much less a tight race. 14% is probably an outlier but its also probably no where close to 4-6%.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Do you think anyone that listens to AM radio could believe this?
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
http://www.marctomarket.com/2012/07/great-graphic-us-federal-spending-by.html
I'm seriously at a crossroads.
Do they simply know what they're saying is bullshit, but lie to themselves and call it "liberal Propaganda!!!!"
Or do they genuinely not know these facts that are blatantly obvious?
I have a SERIOUSLY Hard time believing that someone would genuinely reject irrefutable proof (outside of religion mind you) that what they've been saying is wrong.
Because on the whole, most people, outside of their politics, aren't really that bad of people. In fact, I'd say a lot of them are good people at their core. It's just when politics come up, it's like a complete 180 in terms of attitude, cognitive dissonance, etc.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I blame media. I think most people aren't having this information presented to them, and when they are its absolutly drowned out by people claiming the opposite.
Do you think anyone that listens to AM radio could believe this?
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
http://www.marctomarket.com/2012/07/great-graphic-us-federal-spending-by.html
Look at that reckless spending by libruls!
empty vessel
Member
Change "people" to "corporate 'media,' well-funded right-wing 'think tanks,' and business interests." The benefit of steeply progressive income taxation is that it leaves these entities with less money to propagandize with.
Do you think anyone that listens to AM radio could believe this?
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
http://www.marctomarket.com/2012/07/great-graphic-us-federal-spending-by.html
This is like arguing that Someone who weighs 360 pounds going up to 380 pounds is controlling their weight better than someone who weighs 160 and goes up to 175.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Do you think anyone that listens to AM radio could believe this?
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Reality tells me that Congress controls spending more than a President does. Too bad no one usually acknowledges that when they make silly little graphs like this.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
fucking gibberish man
PhoenixDark
Banned
That petition/recall won't go anywhere lol
TacticalFox88
Banned
Good ol' Kosmo missing the point, yet again.
Political elites may still invoke Carter, but does the public actually care? I am highly skeptical. Bush is more relevant given the recency of his presidency. And his unpopularity may still harm Republicans. But the circumstances have changed. A Democrat is the incumbent. The War in Iraq, easily his signature failure, has ended. I think the electoral gains from the Bush association are exaggerated.
Obama wanted to triple spending! But the valiant Republicans in Congress thwarted his socialist plan to bankrupt our beloved Republic!
NathanMcMahon
Banned
but wait, I thought he gave well thought out and reasoned responses... am I missing something?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
The claim (that I've actually heard) is that Obama is increasing government spending more than any president before him. Bam, graph shows that that claim is false. He has not increased spending more then his predecessors.
electricpirate
Member
It's not so much that Obama is some incredible spendthrift, it's that the common view is that Obama's polcies increased the size of government in a massive way. The argument "Hey the government was really big before and under Obma it stayed at about the same size, we'd have preferred if he shrunk it" is dramatically different then the common refrain you might hear on talk radio which is "Obama is a giant socialist who is dramatically increasing government spending."
Yeah, not really.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
no, really... you did, and it's pathetic how often you do...
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Actually if the person who weighs 360 pounds got to 360 pounds while being possessed by the soul of another person (or another dozen people) then you can make an argument that they're controlling their weight better in the context of the initial conditions they were given
Blergmeister
Member
According to the percentages, Bush increased spending by more than 7% his first term and 8% his second (more than that but lets use easy numbers.) So the diet Bush had the 160lb person on took him from 160 to 184. Then the person used Obamas prescribed diet and only gained 2 pounds up to 186. That is your example.
Edit: Obviously not taking a 2nd Obama term into account but at the current rate the total weight gain would be 4-5 pounds total.
What if the 360lb person is 8' tall and the 160lb person is 4' tall? What if the 360lb person has 7% bodyfat and the 160lb person has 25% bodyfat?
What people have a problem with in regards to Obama's spending is the increase in the DEFICIT, not year over year budget dollars. This is the graph they are referring to:
(*cue "Bush" tax cut talking points*)
Blergmeister
Member
What people have a problem with in regards to Obama's spending is the increase in the DEFICIT, not year over year budget dollars. This is the graph they are referring to:
(*cue "Bush" tax cut talking points*)
So you are saying that Obama can spend the same amount of dollars he is but should take more money in via taxes?
Edit: My understanding that the two biggest reasons for the increase in deficit there was the drop in taxes coming in due to the recession and the Iraq and Afghanistan war finally being put on the books after not being on due to Bush era accounting shenanigans.
If they are talking absolute dollars spent over a 4 year period, they are correct. If they are talking "growth" (since Obama started so high to begin with) on purely a percentage basis, they are wrong. Now who is arguing the latter? Links.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
They are. Political ad that I saw on television three nights ago explicitly said "Obama has increased government spending more than any president in history". Not "Obama has spent more" but "Obama has increased spending more"
I'll try and find it on YouTube but it was so utterly generic that I doubt any search is going to pull it up.
Black Mamba
Member
What people have a problem with in regards to Obama's spending is the increase in the DEFICIT, not year over year budget dollars. This is the graph they are referring to:
(*cue "Bush" tax cut talking points*)
Over $400 billion a year as a result of reduced tax receipts thanks to the recession.
Also, Obama did little to the deficit in 2009. 2009's budget was signed By President Bush. Your graph is intentionally lying. This is despite saying the fiscal year ends in September! It contradicts itself.
What people have a problem with in regards to Obama's spending is the increase in the DEFICIT, not year over year budget dollars. This is the graph they are referring to:
(*cue "Bush" tax cut talking points*)
So, Obama should have made the recession dramatically deeper and longer by slashing government spending during it? This is a very odd suggestion.
Black Mamba
Member
How do you "increase government spending" and not mean "growth?" Do you know how words work?
edit: And who the hell argues in absolute terms. This is hilarious because earlier this page you used a weight gain problem to illustrate absolute numbers don't matter.
- Status