Support NeoGAF

[thefit]

Yeah, I can't believe I'm saying this but Santorum would have probably been doing better right now.

I saw a Santorum sticker today there is still hope.

 

[Diablos]

I don't know what to make of this post...

Santorum would have been slaughtered, because he's a crazy nutjob. Perhaps he gets his crazy nutjob message across too well?




No way. Santorum just couldn't help himself when it came to crazy ass stuff. He just had to open his mouth whenever he could. No way would he be doing better.

He also would have scared the shit out of anyone younger than... say 35. I think you'd see young people just as enthused to vote this year as they were in 08, just to vote against someone rather than for. (though I swear we're not far off of that as it is)

He's a better politician though. I thought Mitt was before, but it's clear Rick is now. That said, yes, his social views would have been as toxic as Mitt's gaffes. The difference is that Rick would have probably handled the politics better.

 

[Basileus777]

I don't know what to make of this post...

Santorum would have been slaughtered, because he's a crazy nutjob. Perhaps he gets his crazy nutjob message across too well?

Santorum's ideas would be toxic in a national race, there's a reason Romney has remained vague and refrained from shouting out a bunch of ultra conservative plans.

 

[Diablos]

Yeah, I am not necessarily saying Rick would have been more likely to win, but, he would handle the optics of bouncing back from a fuckup much better. I know all too well from when he was my senator for so many years. He is a crybaby when his back is up against the wall, however, most of Romney's fumbles thus far have been self-inflicted wounds and thus the real Rick would not have come out in those types of situations.

 

[RDreamer]

He's a better politician though. I thought Mitt was before, but it's clear Rick is now. That said, yes, his social views would have been as toxic as Mitt's gaffes. The difference is that Rick would have probably handled the politics better.

I don't think he's that good at politics. That's mostly because, again, he just can't help himself when it comes to some topics. For a while in the primaries he just had to shut the hell up and keep doing his hands speech or whatever, but people just kept egging him into spewing his nut job philosophies. He also had a few pretty stupid ass lies that would have been called out by the media had he ever been the actual presidential contender.

Thing is that Mitt seems like an awful politician now because he's toeing two different lines at the same time. I guess you could say Santorum would be better, because there's no way in hell Santorum would ever even try to toe that median voter line. He'd be way off in nutjob land saying nutjob things the whole time, whereas Romney just tries to play that half the time. There wouldn't be a move to the center for Santorum, either, and that also makes him a bad politician.

 

[Stinkles]

Not the case pre-9/11. His worldview changed.

Also, there was no invasion of Iraq planned by Bush and there was a lot of in-fighting in his administration between Rice, Powell, and Tenet against the neocons with Bush not taking a stance, much. Bush wanted Saddam out but not via invasion (more from within, maybe a Libya approach like Obama took).

In fact, all indications form the fist year's security meetings made it seem like they wanted to do something about Iraq but were kicking the can down the road. Bush was also against nation-building.

Right before 9/11 it was looking more and more Rice/Powell were winning the argument (sanctions, pressure, but no force) versus wolfowitz-rumsfeld-cheney.

9/11 changed everything. No way we invade Iraq without it even though they were not directly related.

I can accept that, but ultimately I can't realistically think of Bush as an independently operating president. he was always and only in thrall to the neocon elements, with very few sensible voices around him.

 

[Tim-E]

Obama's tune has similarly changed on foreign affairs/war as well, as compared to his rhetoric as a candidate.

Not really. In the 2008 he was against the Iraq war but was vocally all for putting more effort into Afghanistan and focusing on Al Queda. He frequently said he wasn't anti-war in all instances, but that he was just very much against the War in Iraq. I think in terms of FP he's governed very similar to how he campaigned.

 

[Forever]

Obama's tune has similarly changed on foreign affairs/war as well, as compared to his rhetoric as a candidate.

He was consistent in saying he would use drones and go into Pakistan if necessary, he ran to the right of McCain on that. He has never been opposed to all wars. Even his famous Iraq speech before he ran for Senate said he was only opposed to dumb wars.

 

[PhoenixDark]

This should be the nail in the coffin of party ID complaints, but of course it won't be
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/the_bottom_line_on_party_id.php

Party ID fluctuates. But unfortunately for republicans, it tends to move away from them. There are really just two bumps for them: one for the 08 election, and one for the 2010 election. After that people go back to being independents or democrats.

There are a lot of "republicans" who will be identifying as independents in November, and we might just see the dem ID lead increase over 2008 because of this.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

I was just watching some primary debates (mostly between Hillary Clinton and Obama). Clinton was obviously coached by her husband (similar style) but she isn't able to connect with the viewers as well as Bill can. Obama had some pretty good zingers though.

I never really thought Hillary was a good campaigner. She always seemed to me to trade in on her husband's success and connections. And that was why she lost. She dependent too much on the name and money to win. Also Mark Penn was a dumb ass. She needed a better campaign organization.

 

[watershed]

That's so ridiculous. What an intrusive law for purposes that are hardly a concern.

This is an example of where Romney can kick ass in debates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLn24Z9bKos&t=1m57s

Yeah, this was a good moment for him. The only danger, if he does reproduce a moment like this with Obama, is aggressively attacking a popular President is further dragging down his own numbers.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Not really. In the 2008 he was against the Iraq war but was vocally all for putting more effort into Afghanistan and focusing on Al Queda. He frequently said he wasn't anti-war in all instances, but that he was just very much against the War in Iraq. I think in terms of FP he's governed very similar to how he campaigned.

Yeah, it was weird how liberals were disappointed when he announced the troop surge. I'm pretty sure he stated something to that effect during the campaign. He was never against the war there.

 

[watershed]

Not that it wasn't obvious but this is what I said Romney would spend the whole debate trying to do a while back:

Mr. Romney’s team has concluded that debates are about creating moments and has equipped him with a series of zingers that he has memorized and has been practicing on aides since August. His strategy includes luring the president into appearing smug or evasive about his responsibility for the economy.

I don't think he's going to have any long, angry rants just short jabs to make the audience laugh or applaud and watch as the new shows run them on loop for days.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/u...uning-for-first-presidential-debate.html?_r=1

 

[Forever]

Not that it wasn't obvious but this is what I said Romney would spend the whole debate trying to do a while back:



I don't think he's going to have any long, angry rants just short jabs to make the audience laugh or applaud and watch as the new shows run them on loop for days.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/u...uning-for-first-presidential-debate.html?_r=1

I hope this strategy backfires somehow, it's awfully cynical but as a cynic I think it might be effective.

 

[Zabka]

I get the feeling that most of his zingers are based on the Obama that only Conservatives are familiar with.

 

[Mario]

I hope this strategy backfires somehow, it's awfully cynical but as a cynic I think it might be effective.

It's going to backfire completely if Obama brings any substance to the table. Having a menu list of zingers is not going to do Romney any good if he finds himself in an actual debate.

 

[Drakeon]

Why would they announce they are practicing zingers? Why would they give Obama their playbook? Who does that?

 

[Chumly]

Why would they announce they are practicing zingers? Why would they give Obama their playbook? Who does that?

They didn't? This is all leaked stuff

 

[watershed]

It's going to backfire completely if Obama brings any substance to the table. Having a menu list of zingers is not going to do Romney any good if he finds himself in an actual debate.

But they are right about the nature of debates, most direct back and forth talking between candidates is limited and designed to produce fireworks. Candidates can more or less completely ignore the actual questions they are asked and give prepared responses. These "debates" are designed to highlight a candidate's political skills and ability to produce "moments". They are not designed to produce substantial contrasts between two policies or ideologies. I think this is the best strategy for Romney as long as he sticks the landing and doesn't get flustered.

In a way, the less Romney has to say the better and the more Obama talks the more likely it is he will complicate his response beyond the average American's ability to understand who's up and who's down.

 

[Jackson50]

That's so ridiculous. What an intrusive law for purposes that are hardly a concern.

This is an example of where Romney can kick ass in debates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLn24Z9bKos&t=1m57s

Somehow, Romney's more fucked than he already is.

I sometimes wonder just how different things would have played out without 9/11

Prior to 9/11, the public would have probably constrained any push for overt military action in Iraq; at least, it would have prevented a large-scale invasion. But 9/11 primed the public for war. And the Bush Administration exploited their vulnerabilities to a devastating effect.

Yeah, I can't believe I'm saying this but Santorum would have probably been doing better right now.

No. His extremism would have been far more toxic than Romney's "gaffes." Had Man-On-Dog received a platform to disseminate his extreme, reactionary platform, the Republicans would have been devastated.

Not really. In the 2008 he was against the Iraq war but was vocally all for putting more effort into Afghanistan and focusing on Al Queda. He frequently said he wasn't anti-war in all instances, but that he was just very much against the War in Iraq. I think in terms of FP he's governed very similar to how he campaigned.

Yeah, the escalation in Afghanistan was a major plank in his platform. Whether you agree or disagree, and I disagree with some of his policies, he was forthright about much of his foreign policy. And that's not terribly surprising as he clearly subscribes to the Democratic Party's traditional liberal interventionist inclination.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

If Romney focuses on zingers the media might call him out on it. They might love them some zingers and soundbites, but they've been hostile enough towards him that I wouldn't be surprised to see them pounce on him for bringing little substance and focusing on zingers.

 

[Mario]

But they are right about the nature of debates, most direct back and forth talking between candidates is limited and designed to produce fireworks. Candidates can more or less completely ignore the actual questions they are asked and give prepared responses. These "debates" are designed to highlight a candidate's political skills and ability to produce "moments". They are not designed to produce substantial contrasts between two policies or ideologies. I think this is the best strategy for Romney as long as he sticks the landing and doesn't get flustered.

In a way, the less Romney has to say the better and the more Obama talks the more likely it is he will complicate his response beyond the average American's ability to understand who's up and who's down.

I understand these debates are by their nature somewhat shallow. But I guess I'm suggesting if Obama goes "off script" and digs deeper into an issue than Team Romney anticipate, then a precompiled list of zingers won't cut it.

 

[polyh3dron]

Yeah if Mitt is this focused on getting a Zinger Moment, it'll end up all awkward and badly timed like when Sarah Palin was all like "Say it ain't so Joe there you go again".

I'm beginning to think like some others here that Mitt has a mild form of the Ass Burgers.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

The problem with this whole "zingers" strategy is that it requires Romney to control the narrative and frame the debates in a way that makes sense to use them. I doubt his ability to do that.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNKfbO_PvkI&feature=player_detailpage#t=11s

Paul Ryan on healthcare reform to Obama. Hehehe. So I guess he was focusing on the economy.

 

[Cloudy]

Maybe Romney should be running ads with zingers instead of using them in the debates? I haven't really seen any tough ads against Obama like in 2008. Nothing on social/wedge issues at all. Really strange.

Then again, I'm not in a swing state so the only ads I see these days are on cable

 

[PhoenixDark]

It'll be hard for Obama to not come off professorial. After all he has to make nuanced arguments/spin about his entire record outside of Bin Laden. That makes him vunerable to attacks from the media, and these Romney zingers. Given the media's interest in a close race I expect them to focus on Obama seeming tired, off his game, etc at the slightest thing. This will either be a boring tie (which equals an Obama win) or a Romney victory, I don't see any middle ground. Obama doesn't throw knock out punches

 

[Aaron Strife]

It'll be hard for Obama to not come off professorial. After all he has to make nuanced arguments/spin about his entire record outside of Bin Laden. That makes him vunerable to attacks from the media, and these Romney zingers. Given the media's interest in a close race I expect them to focus on Obama seeming tired, off his game, etc at the slightest thing. This will either be a boring tie (which equals an Obama win) or a Romney victory, I don't see any middle ground. Obama doesn't throw knock out punches

No need to be so generous to Obama, we all know Romney's been saving his best material for these debates. He's going to knock him out worse than Carter. All a part of the perfect campaign.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

You're the one who sounds tired, off his game and boring, PD.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

No need to be so generous to Obama, we all know Romney's been saving his best material for these debates. He's going to knock him out worse than Carter. All a part of the perfect campaign.

Like when Rocky let Clubber Lang beat his ass until he tired himself out?

 

[Jackson50]

It'll be hard for Obama to not come off professorial. After all he has to make nuanced arguments/spin about his entire record outside of Bin Laden. That makes him vunerable to attacks from the media, and these Romney zingers. Given the media's interest in a close race I expect them to focus on Obama seeming tired, off his game, etc at the slightest thing. This will either be a boring tie (which equals an Obama win) or a Romney victory, I don't see any middle ground. Obama doesn't throw knock out punches

It'll be even harder for Romney not to come off as a dumb, extremist ass. He's fucked six ways to Sunday.

 

[speculawyer]

Like when Rocky let Clubber Lang beat his ass until he tired himself out?

Rope-A-Dope!

 

[Oblivion]

This is what Obama should say (insert your own Obama stutters if you'd like):

Before we begin, I'd just like to point something out to the American people. We, as a country, are actually having an election where the choice is between a fire fighter who couldn't put out a fire fast enough, and a guy who was part of the group of arsonists that created the fire in the first place. And that race is essentially tied. This is actually happening. In real life. Just thought I'd point that out.

 

[TacticalFox88]

It'll be even harder for Romney not to come off as a dumb, extremist ass. He's fucked six ways to Sunday.

Wow, Jackson, you've been a lot more agressive about Obama's chances as of late, rather than six months ago you were saying it was a "toss Up" more or less in your view.

I take it you now feel Romney is going to get stomped on Nov 6th?

 

[pigeon]

These "debates" are designed to highlight a candidate's political skills and ability to produce "moments".

This is exactly the problem for Romney.

Remember, the last time Romney was talking about using his political intelligence to exploit weaknesses and attack the President for his "failures," the result was the Libya presser.

 

[Particle Physicist]

It'll be hard for Obama to not come off professorial. After all he has to make nuanced arguments/spin about his entire record outside of Bin Laden. That makes him vunerable to attacks from the media, and these Romney zingers. Given the media's interest in a close race I expect them to focus on Obama seeming tired, off his game, etc at the slightest thing. This will either be a boring tie (which equals an Obama win) or a Romney victory, I don't see any middle ground. Obama doesn't throw knock out punches

Nuance?

Bin laden? I got him
Obamacare? I made that
US auto industry? I saved it
Student loan reform? I passed that
Don't ask don't tell? I repealed that
Marriage equality? I support that
Pirates? I get them
Smooth? I am that

 

[Jackson50]

Wow, Jackson, you've been a lot more agressive about Obama's chances as of late, rather than six months ago you were saying it was a "toss Up" more or less in your view.

I take it you now feel Romney is going to get stomped on Nov 6th?

I had always thought Obama was a modest favorite. But I was more guarded given how much time remained until the election. But with only a month left, it's evident Obama's pulled away. And I see no reason to fear a reversal. To the extent debates shift opinion, and they typically do not, I don't envisage Romney winning. He has no recourse. It's over. I project Obama's margin of victory to fall within 4-6%. What I'm most anxious about are the Congressional elections. It's essential Democrats win both chambers.

 

[IrishNinja]

poliGAF how would you best dismantle the arguments in this austrian school of economics video?

i know lol faith-based economics but specifically

 

[Hitokage]

Nuance?

Bin laden? I got him
Obamacare? I made that
US auto industry? I saved it
Student loan reform? I passed that
Don't ask don't tell? I repealed that
Marriage equality? I support that
Pirates? I get them
Smooth? I am that

"I'm not a candidate."

 

[Aaron Strife]

I had always thought Obama was a modest favorite. But I was more guarded given how much time remained until the election. But with only a month left, it's evident Obama's pulled away. And I see no reason to fear a reversal. To the extent debates shift opinion, and they typically do not, I don't envisage Romney winning. He has no recourse. It's over. I project Obama's margin of victory to fall within 4-6%. What I'm most anxious about are the Congressional elections. It's essential Democrats win both chambers.

I think it's clear the American people want gridlock.

(I actually expect the congressional elections to fall in line with the Obama results, good news if he's winning big)

 

[AniHawk]

(I actually expect the congressional elections to fall in line with the Obama results, good news if he's winning big)

will be difficult to accomplish with redistricting

more of a balance *might* force some compromise though

 

[Aaron Strife]

will be difficult to accomplish with redistricting

more of a balance *might* force some compromise though

Redistricting makes winning the House harder but if Democrats win by a large enough margin it won't matter. Median district is like R+1 this time. If Obama's up by a similar margin as in 08 he'll probably win the battleground districts, it's just a question of if he can pull the congressional candidate across the finish line.

There might be more compromise but I'm not counting on it.

 

[polyh3dron]

It'll be hard for Obama to not come off professorial. After all he has to make nuanced arguments/spin about his entire record outside of Bin Laden. That makes him vunerable to attacks from the media, and these Romney zingers. Given the media's interest in a close race I expect them to focus on Obama seeming tired, off his game, etc at the slightest thing. This will either be a boring tie (which equals an Obama win) or a Romney victory, I don't see any middle ground. Obama doesn't throw knock out punches

Oh my gawd.

 

[Averon]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics...-globe-poll/4u10XRyC5PmIPCkKsutsnN/story.html

Brown’s hurdle is that even as voters from both parties say they like him personally, regard him as bipartisan, and give him high marks on his job performance, many also say they plan to stick with their political party. And in a presidential year, with high turnout expected, that bodes especially well for Democrats on the ballot in Massa­chusetts. The party holds a 3-to-1 registration advantage over Republicans in the state.

In the presidential contest, the poll shows President Obama leading former governor Mitt Romney by 27 percentage points in Massachusetts, a 57 percent to 30 percent landslide. If that holds up, Brown will face a strong Democratic headwind that could overwhelm his individual ­efforts as a candidate in the Nov. 6 election.

Of those who said they will vote for Obama, just 9 percent said they also plan to vote for Brown, while 20 percent of Obama voters say they are still undecided in the Senate race, according to the poll.

The poll shows 33 percent of respondents view the GOP presidential nominee favorably, compared with 60 percent who viewed him unfavorably, a significant drop since a May poll showed a split among Massachusetts voters on that question. His poor showing in ­national polls could dampen Republican participation in Massachusetts.

Warren 43%
Brown 38%
Undecided 18%


First evidence of Romney affecting down ticket races?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

That is way too many undecided voters...

 

[Black Republican]

Nate Silver on Press Pass

http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/27/14126999-press-pass-nate-silver

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Sarah Silverman <3

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/sep/28/sarah-silverman-voter-id-video

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

It'll be hard for Obama to not come off professorial. After all he has to make nuanced arguments/spin about his entire record outside of Bin Laden. That makes him vunerable to attacks from the media, and these Romney zingers. Given the media's interest in a close race I expect them to focus on Obama seeming tired, off his game, etc at the slightest thing. This will either be a boring tie (which equals an Obama win) or a Romney victory, I don't see any middle ground. Obama doesn't throw knock out punches

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiMKCDDgp9Y

If you say so...

 

[AniHawk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiMKCDDgp9Y

If you say so...

i totally forgot he said he would go into pakistan to get bin laden if they weren't cooperating and then he did it.

 

[TacticalFox88]

i totally forgot he said he would go into pakistan to get bin laden if they weren't cooperating and then he did it.

I bet it infuriates the NeoCons that Obama got OBL.