Good stuff. Resonates with how Romney's strategies are terrible for 95% of the population but great for himself.
-
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
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Good stuff. Resonates with how Romney's strategies are terrible for 95% of the population but great for himself.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
"Those people are all rich, they all have more money then they'll ever spend, yet they didn't have the money to take care of the people who made the money for them"
Boom
The big problem I see for Romney with this attack is it's not going to be easy to fight off. If Romney admits he made a mistake with the steel mill or that "we tried to save the company but not every company, blah blah blah" he's going to look bad and like he's admitting he screwed up.
I'm sure they'll probably roll out that talking point again about how many jobs companies owned by Bain "created", but surely the Obama campaign is ready for that one.
The Super PACs probably aren't ready to directly respond to this by attacking Obama (and there's really only so much they can do to counter a direct negative ad). Romney just ignoring the ad and saying "he's trying to take attention away from his negative record" isn't going to help with the media.
The Republicans going after the guys in the ad individually (which will happen) probably won't be very smart either.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
That would be the absolute worst thing they could do, Obama's campaign could turn them into this year's "Joe the Plumber"s
Also, good YouTube comment for once:
I hope not. Joe the Plumber is a horrible human being, otherwise I'd feel bad that McCain's campaign ruined his life.
The easiest way for Romney to go would require some sincerity on his part. Spin it as having to make the hard decisions for the good of the future.
It'd be tough for him, I'm thinking, if only because I don't think Bain was ever in it for the companies involved just to raise the value enough to make a good profit before offloading.
It'd be tough for him, I'm thinking, if only because I don't think Bain was ever in it for the companies involved just to raise the value enough to make a good profit before offloading.
Might want to inform the rest of the US, as it has been on a pretty significant upswing over the past 8 years.
The U.S is also the third biggest producer of oil in the world, accounting for 9 percent of the total production.
Texas still has 4.5-5 billion barrels of proven oil. Which would put it ahead of Egypt and slighly behind the entire EU.
If you introduce widespread fracking, that number could could skyrocket.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I almost want to make a thread on that and get wider reactions, but I don't want the OT to become a spam of campaign videos as the year continues...
Too good to be left languishing at the bottom of the last page.
http://www.romneyeconomics.com/
Doesn't look like this will be the end of the attacks on Bain. I love it.
Doesn't look like this will be the end of the attacks on Bain. I love it.
*jacknicholsonnodding.gif*
Officerrob
Banned
Romney should have never touted his time at Bain as one where he created a net 100,000 jobs. It's almost impossible to prove and in doing so he has to take credit for all the jobs he destroyed. He is going to get killed on that as this goes forward
He got beat up pretty bad on Bain by his own party in the primaries and it was effective against him. All the Obama camp has to do is keep putting out stories of the actual damage that Bain did. Romney won't be able to dance around it. Sure, not everything Bain did was like that, but the fact that there are several stories like this and Romney continues to use it as the main reason he should be president is pretty telling. It reinforces the "Rich, weird guy who doesn't care about the middle class" image stronger than anything.
Romney campaign response
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/...e-on-romneys-bain-years/?mod=google_news_blog
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/...e-on-romneys-bain-years/?mod=google_news_blog
This is roughly... "I created more jobs in 17 years at a private company and as the governor of a liberal state than you did in 4?"
He claims that he created around 100,000 jobs at Bain, right? There were only about 49,000 jobs added while he was governor, as well. How is 149,000 more than the 4.2 million private sector jobs added under Obama's term?
Well when you put it like that...
I see Obama as a nearly break even President in terms of job growth. Are you not including his first few months in office?
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
We all know that the president is hardly liable for any job creation or destruction unless they sign legislation that does one or the other, as in bailouts vs austerity, and so on.
But it is asinine to include his first few months, unless the mere thought of having a black communist socialist leftist islamist (and now GAY) president influenced people to fire people en masse.
Almost shed a tear just thinking about it.
cartoon_soldier
Member
I don't expect GST Steel to be the last story Obama campaign uses either.
The 6 minute video is worth the watch.
Also, Politico story today says Romney's ideal VP candidate is an incredibly boring white guy
So, Portman or Pawlenty?
The 6 minute video is worth the watch.
Also, Politico story today says Romney's ideal VP candidate is an incredibly boring white guy
So, Portman or Pawlenty?
He has pretty much broke even in terms of job numbers when you factor in what was lost in his first few months, which he can't really be blamed for. I'm just using the number that ads up the last 25 months of jobs added.
Regardless, like others have discussed in this thread, the president can't really have THAT much of an impact on the economy, he just gets blamed/praised for everything that happens under him regardless. I think it's fair to highlight the total number of jobs added over the last two years. I was mostly just trying to point out how silly Romney's claim is and how easy it would be to refute it in an ad.
Manmademan
Member
I understand where you're coming from, but look at this:
January 2009 – 741,000 jobs lost
February 2009 – 681,000 jobs lost
March 2009 – 652,000 jobs lost
April 2009 – 519,000 jobs lost
May 2009 – 303,000 jobs lost
June 2009 – 463,000 jobs lost
July 2009 – 276,000 jobs lost
The VAST majority of jobs lost under this administration were January through April. Obama didn't even get inaugurated until January was half over. There isn't a realistic argument that one could make that those early losses were due in any part to what the administration was doing.
I've been saying portman for a few months now.
A president isn't responsible for job growth.
Nor does it make any sense to draw arbitrary marks on a calendar when he is 'responsible' for whatever happens in the economy. The decision a president or an adminstration makes can often take months or even many years before it has some kind of discernable effect on a 14 trillion dollar economy. For that reason, it's pretty pointless to even to try to assess some kind of blame/credit for whatever metric there may be.
--- // ---
I don't mind the attacks on Bain, but there seems to be a willful ignorance among some when they don't acknowledge that there was a huge wealth of inefficient, poorly managed, obsolete businesses in America in the 80's and 90's. As the transition to a service-based, globalized economy happened, many companies were left holding a bag of shit due to past poor decisions. So, there was ample opportunity for a group like Bain to come in and make hard decisions that were neglected for the decades previous. It wasn't like Bain was alone, there were many others like them doing similar things around America because there was such a glut.
Nor does it make any sense to draw arbitrary marks on a calendar when he is 'responsible' for whatever happens in the economy. The decision a president or an adminstration makes can often take months or even many years before it has some kind of discernable effect on a 14 trillion dollar economy. For that reason, it's pretty pointless to even to try to assess some kind of blame/credit for whatever metric there may be.
--- // ---
I don't mind the attacks on Bain, but there seems to be a willful ignorance among some when they don't acknowledge that there was a huge wealth of inefficient, poorly managed, obsolete businesses in America in the 80's and 90's. As the transition to a service-based, globalized economy happened, many companies were left holding a bag of shit due to past poor decisions. So, there was ample opportunity for a group like Bain to come in and make hard decisions that were neglected for the decades previous. It wasn't like Bain was alone, there were many others like them doing similar things around America because there was such a glut.
cartoon_soldier
Member
I am pretty sure if you only just remove the January numbers, Obama is in a net positive and over the 149000 jobs Romney created.
Well, even if you do just take the net jobs created in the strict time frame Obama has held office, we're in the range of 202,900 jobs added, which still beats 149,000, right? But I'd imagine a case could be made for excluding the first few months, because we're talking about economic growth as a result of his economic policy; not just the net job growth that occurred during the months he occupied the office... The first few months, while they show huge job losses also show a struggling, massive reversal of course from the preceding months:
I mean, isn't Romney's claim misleading because, while the net jobs during the time frame Obama has held the office may be nearly "breaking even," the 4.2 million added show a trend of continuous ongoing growth; it would be hard to argue that Romney is still at this point creating more jobs than Obama by any metric.
It's net positive even with January, I just did the math to the hundreds column. Opiate's claim of "nearly break even" on a national scale isn't wrong though, when we're talking 4+ million lost and recovered.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
The real scoop is this:
Does the Romney campaign deliberately misstate facts and positions because:
A) They know that nobody in conservative media will call them out on it.
B) They know that the "liberal" media comprised almost entirely of liberal blogs, MSNBC, and, apparently Real Time with Bill Maher have a limited audience.
C) The inbetween and so-called unbiased media report on such a wide-scale of issues that taking a presidential candidate to task for the lies of its campaign can only receive a small part of the overall reporting.
D) The main voting bloc of the country, those 45 and older comprise over half of all votes cast. Those in this older bracket are also largely white, who have favored republicans in every presidential election for the last 35+ years. They are largely fed by a steady diet of half-truths by the same sources as mentioned in A) and also deliberately avoid sources as mentioned in B) and C)
Anything else anyone wants to add?
I don't remember a presidential candidate that has lied this much in a campaign. In the age of instant news reporting and the dissemination of such through every type of media, it strikes me as strange that candidates wouldn't just run on real issues and positions, rather than attack after attack. Within 10 years, the current crop of 18-36 year olds will be the main voting bloc. They will be more informed, more interested, and better-founded in reality than any group of such voters ever before. The current Republican platform, as it has existed for the last 6 years, will cease to exist except for in the most backwards of states (MS, UT, AL, AR, etc.)
EDIT - while looking over demographics, I noticed a crazy stat: Latinos won Bush his Releection. It was the first time that Hispanics voted over 40% Republican. 44%!! All the stuff Bush did to get the Hispanic vote was instantly wiped out by Johnny Build-a-Fence. The divide went from 9% in 2004 to 36% in 2008!
Does the Romney campaign deliberately misstate facts and positions because:
A) They know that nobody in conservative media will call them out on it.
B) They know that the "liberal" media comprised almost entirely of liberal blogs, MSNBC, and, apparently Real Time with Bill Maher have a limited audience.
C) The inbetween and so-called unbiased media report on such a wide-scale of issues that taking a presidential candidate to task for the lies of its campaign can only receive a small part of the overall reporting.
D) The main voting bloc of the country, those 45 and older comprise over half of all votes cast. Those in this older bracket are also largely white, who have favored republicans in every presidential election for the last 35+ years. They are largely fed by a steady diet of half-truths by the same sources as mentioned in A) and also deliberately avoid sources as mentioned in B) and C)
Anything else anyone wants to add?
I don't remember a presidential candidate that has lied this much in a campaign. In the age of instant news reporting and the dissemination of such through every type of media, it strikes me as strange that candidates wouldn't just run on real issues and positions, rather than attack after attack. Within 10 years, the current crop of 18-36 year olds will be the main voting bloc. They will be more informed, more interested, and better-founded in reality than any group of such voters ever before. The current Republican platform, as it has existed for the last 6 years, will cease to exist except for in the most backwards of states (MS, UT, AL, AR, etc.)
EDIT - while looking over demographics, I noticed a crazy stat: Latinos won Bush his Releection. It was the first time that Hispanics voted over 40% Republican. 44%!! All the stuff Bush did to get the Hispanic vote was instantly wiped out by Johnny Build-a-Fence. The divide went from 9% in 2004 to 36% in 2008!
Not yet.
Those jobs are private sector, not net. Obama's record is still -579,000 jobs in total job creation (counting from February 2009 on). Though I expect Obama's overall record will turn positive before the election.
You've pretty much nailed it. I think the debates are going to be a key moment for Romney, because he won't be able to run away from his lies and from looking at how fast the Obama campaign has been to call Romney out on pretty much everything, I don't think he's going to get away with it in the debates.
RustyNails
Member
Anyone?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yeah, I really hope Obama plays hardball in debates. Its going to be glorious.
Very, very true. Over 1.2 million government jobs were lost under Obama's term.
Manmademan
Member
Debates tend to be more about playing to the audience than strictly facts and substance though. Palin was said to do "well" in her VP debate just on the merit of forming coherent sentences.
Unfortunately for Romney he's pretty bad at that, too- there have been some notable moments where he's gotten flustered and upset on the podium, and a couple of bizarre moments where ad-libbing a rebuttal ($10,000 bet) backfired on him.
While this is also true, it's very easy to tie those job losses to the agenda of the Republicans in congress, and Governors that came to power during his term. Obama himself argued for much, much stronger stimulus and government employment than he actually got.
Pennsylvania isn’t alone. Republicans seized control of both branches of the legislature in 11 states after the 2010 elections. It’s in these very states that public sector layoffs are disproportionately concentrated, leading to one of the biggest rounds of job losses for the public workforce since record keeping began. Governors and state legislators promised to focus on creating jobs and balancing budgets during campaign season—even newly elected Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett still claims that creating jobs is one of his “top priorities.” Instead, these newly Republican states are targeting public workers, causing a significant drop in employment in the public sector that has threatened the entire economy.
Red States See Massive Public Sector Job Losses
Where I work some of our clients (who use both Medicare and Medicaid) are forced to see doctors every quarter for issues they have no serious problems with because the doctor gets paid every visit. Generally it's for things they don't need to see doctors for more than once a year for, but in order to prevent the doctor from dropping them, we have to stick to their quarterly visits. There are so few doctors in this area that we have no choice but to stick to their schedule. Anecdotal, but it may help.
They closed a number of them recently. The particular one I recall my mom talking about was her company can't double bill medicare for her time anymore.
Basically, you'd have a physical therapist doing a group therapy session for an hour. 60 minutes of billable time, right? Well, not until recently, no. If your session had 2 people in it, you were billing Medicare 60 minutes for each patient, so 120 minutes. 3 people, 180 minutes. Not that there was ever a single minute above 60 actually being expended by the physical therapist in question, but because the company could bill for 60 minutes per person, they did.
That's really the only major one my mom ever mentioned.
Then there's Obama who debated the entire Republican House of Representatives, and made them all look like fools.
Romney better bring his big boy pants.
That's what I mean. When Romney is pressured in debates, he gets frustrated and comes out of it looking like a baby who can't defend himself. All Obama has to do is press him on a few things to push him over the edge to make himself look like an ass.
Also with the 08 VP debate, Biden was fighting with kid gloves on. He could have destroyed Palin, but he knew that he would come off as a "bully" if he did, so he just let her get her points out and get on with it.
One of the most profound acts of restraint I've seen in recent human history. Once she started winking at the camera I know I would have gone for the jugular.
empty vessel
Member
Maybe you should point me to what you're looking at in this document, because I don't see what you assert. I also have no idea why you're looking at the last 8 years as though that were remotely meaningful. Here is what historical US oil production looks like:
Read the fine print: "Note that oil production refers to the sum of barrels of crude oil extracted each day from drilling operations compounded with the equivalent production of natural gas liquids and refinery gains from domestic or imported petroleum production." Do you really think if we were the third highest producing oil country that we would need to import oil?
It doesn't matter. There's nowhere to go but down.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=RCRR01STX_1&f=A
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=RCRR08STX_1&f=A
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=RCRR10STX_1&f=A
People talk about Biden being a loose cannon who can't control what he says when his performance here shows otherwise. I don't know how he did it.
RustyNails
Member
Thanks guys. Yeah my wife is a budding Occupational Therapist and her experience working at a for-profit outpatient healthcare facility is downright disheartening. Her major complaint is that people in that facility are more concerned with squeezing money out of insurance/medicare rather than taking good patient care. She also worked in a University setting at UIC, and she used to love going there. Here, not so much. But it's a rotation, which will end soon.
I can see it. I truly hope I see our healthcare system fixed during my lifetime. This stuff is severely depressing.
I'm not so sure. Romney is very good at being coached to throw out counter talking points lightning fast. He's going to have some zinger or comeback for every claim Obama makes. I bet you that whenever he's not at events or sleeping, he's practicing debating. And he actually seems to debate better under pressure. Every time in the primary where the narrative was that Mitt had to have a good showing, or else, he did with flying colors. When it mattered, he slapped around Gingrich like he was nothing.
His opponents were generally on the same page as him in the republican debates, though. They were mostly just arguing semantics over who was the most conservative. He hasn't had to debate against points from someone who isn't a republican since his run for governor, likely.
Gingrich is also a pretty easy target.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Truth. I don't know if you guys didn't watch the last 3 debates (I wouldn't blame you, but I am a masochist) but Romney actually performed really well. Jokes, zingers, retorts, and clear, nuanced speaking. Not saying everything he said was factual, but he said it very well. If Romney can somehow make enough of a convincing and mostly-factual debate performance, it could be pretty convincing for a lot of independents.
I still think, no matter what, Obama wins the elections by 5 or 6%
Manmademan
Member
exactly. Not only were Santorum, Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, and Gingrich possibly the worst candidate field in modern political memory, all of them backed the same (flawed) economic and social policies. None of them were forced to defend ludicrous conservative positions like the Ryan plan, the only issue was who backed it MORE.
And even THEN that field was successfully able to paint him as out of touch, and his experience with Bain as a negative, rather than a positive. Romney came out of the republican primary as extremely damaged goods- The general election and associated debates will not be kind to him.
A competent candidate that actually disagrees with Romney on what the Republican party has been doing, with the facts to back it up will be an extremely tough opponent for him.
Black Republican
Member
so the romney team are seriously considering picking a "boring white guy" according to politico
http://politi.co/JP7L1w
http://politi.co/JP7L1w
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked