• 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 |OT4|: Your job is not to worry about 47% of these posts.

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
The funny thing is that by not caring enough to prepare for the debates effectively, Obama gave the media exactly what he loathes and what they want: a dog and pony show that has nothing to do with policy or real issues. If he showed up and defended his record while effectively attacking Romney, there wouldn't really be a media story right now - Romney would still get a bump, but not nearly as big and the media wouldn't be building narratives non-stop. We'd have two fired up campaigns/bases, and the media wouldn't have a shiny new toy to play with
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
Chrono said:
http://agonist.org/steve-wynn-the-fed-is-doing-is-what-madoff-went-to-jail-for/

Interesting what he says about spending and the deficit, this guy actually knows what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

No, he definitely does not know what he is talking about. He says that the US government was "on a path to living on borrowed money." Of course, it is elementary that the government never has any need to borrow money and, in fact, does not borrow money. When the government issues a bond and somebody buys a bond, the government is simply destroying money today in exchange for promising to create more in the future. That's it.

We can't keep the promise of Medicare and Social Security? Utter nonsense. This guy is a fraud and/or extremely ignorant.
 
C

Cloudy

Banned
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html

An effective counter for the Libya story if Republicans keep trying to politicize it

The purpose of the pre-election hearing, presumably, is to embarrass the administration for inadequate diplomatic security. But Issa seems unaware of the irony that diplomatic security is inadequate partly because of budget cuts forced by his fellow Republicans in Congress.

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.
Click to expand...
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
So I'm watching PBS' The Choice right now, and it opens on the start of Romney's political career, running for Kennedy's seat. During the first Romney/Kennedy debate Romney came out the gate firing, but was quickly knocked off his feet by an aggressive Kennedy, who asked for the specifics of Romney's health care proposal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MXOr3KELqE&t=6m50s

Obviously Romney is a better politician today than he was then, but the fundamentals are the same today: he still refuses to deal in specifics, and instead prefers to take apart his opponent's record or discuss issues he's well verses in (such as business). Going into the debate I and many others assumed Obama would simply ask Romney how he plans to pay for his tax cut, at which point he would be forced to either bullshit or say he had no plans to release them until after the election. Instead Obama kept repeating Romney's proposal to him, at which point Romney kept saying that was not his plan. It was really the start of the end for Obama's performance that night. Romney was never forced to debate the specifics of anything except Obama's record.

During the GOP conference Q&A a couple years ago Obama took on Paul Ryan by explaining his budget plan in general, and then arguing against it. I'm still baffled why Obama didn't use the same strategy against Romney. His basic tax plan is to cut taxes by 20%, but eliminate tax deductions to a point where people making over $250,000 a year don't really see their taxes lowered. Explaining that, and then asking how in the hell he plans on paying for it, and with what deductions, is the most effective way to attack Romney. Not by saying "you're cutting taxes by 5 trillion dollars and raising them for the middle class" - ie not a specific enough charge, and one Romney could easily dismiss as a distortion.

I refuse to believe Obama's camp did not watch the Kennedy/Romney debate. So why wasn't this the plan of attack?
 
7

786110

Member
saelz8 said:
Romney is at 32%

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
Click to expand...

wfKoa.gif
 
C

Cloudy

Banned
Oblivion said:
So, Jason Chafetz is bitching that Obama should have had more security at the Embassy. Here's how that went:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XB4duL1xMmY
Click to expand...

Love it.

During the GOP conference Q&A a couple years ago Obama took on Paul Ryan by explaining his budget plan in general, and then arguing whomney. His plan is to cut taxes by 20% for all people, but also eliminate deductions y he disagreed with it. I'm still baffled why Obama didn't use the same strategy against Romney. His basic tax plan is to cut taxes by 20%, but eliminate tax deductions to a point where people making over $250,000 a year don't really see their taxes lowered. Explaining that, and then asking how in the hell he plans on paying for it, and with what deductions, is the most effective way to attack Romney. Not by saying "you're cutting taxes by 5 trillion dollars and raising them for the middle class" - ie not a specific enough charge, and one Romney could easily dismiss as a distortion.
Click to expand...

I think he'll do better in the next debate. If one debate costs him the election, he wasn't strong enough to win anyways. Time to look forward...
 
D

Dreamcaster

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
So I'm watching PBS' The Choice right now, and it opens on the start of Romney's political career, running for Kennedy's seat. During the first Romney/Kennedy debate Romney came out the gate firing, but was quickly knocked off his feet by an aggressive Kennedy, who asked for the specifics of Romney's health care proposal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MXOr3KELqE&t=6m50s

Obviously Romney is a better politician today than he was then, but the fundamentals are the same today: he still refuses to deal in specifics, and instead prefers to take apart his opponent's record or discuss issues he's well verses in (such as business). Going into the debate I and many others assumed Obama would simply ask Romney how he plans to pay for his tax cut, at which point he would be forced to either bullshit or say he had no plans to release them until after the election. Instead Obama kept repeating Romney's proposal to him, at which point Romney kept saying that was not his plan. It was really the start of the end for Obama's performance that night. Romney was never forced to debate the specifics of anything except Obama's record.

During the GOP conference Q&A a couple years ago Obama took on Paul Ryan by explaining his budget plan in general, and then arguing whomney. His plan is to cut taxes by 20% for all people, but also eliminate deductions y he disagreed with it. I'm still baffled why Obama didn't use the same strategy against Romney. His basic tax plan is to cut taxes by 20%, but eliminate tax deductions to a point where people making over $250,000 a year don't really see their taxes lowered. Explaining that, and then asking how in the hell he plans on paying for it, and with what deductions, is the most effective way to attack Romney. Not by saying "you're cutting taxes by 5 trillion dollars and raising them for the middle class" - ie not a specific enough charge, and one Romney could easily dismiss as a distortion.

I refuse to believe Obama's camp did not watch the Kennedy/Romney debate. So why wasn't this the plan of attack?
Click to expand...

If Romney ends up winning, we may look back at the first debate as Obama's "Kennedy Moment" when, the first time he actually had to defend his record and plans in front of someone who would challenge him, he failed to connect. Romney has a bunch of ammunition for the foreign policy debate and there are a bunch of things he can connect on in the town hall (high gas prices, high food prices, incomes falling $4K per family the last 4 years, etc.). I'm not seeing where Obama can debate from a position of strength on too many things, other than saying "I'm not Romney, he's lying to you." That strategy never connects in Presidential elections.
 
C

Cloudy

Banned
Guys, what was the 2008 projection at this same point? I'll bet you it was about the same. The country is pretty much 50-50. Romney should be > 40% IMO
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Dreamcaster said:
If Romney ends up winning, we may look back at the first debate as Obama's "Kennedy Moment" when, the first time he actually had to defend his record and plans in front of someone who would challenge him, he failed to connect. Romney has a bunch of ammunition for the foreign policy debate and there are a bunch of things he can connect on in the town hall (high gas prices, high food prices, incomes falling $4K per family the last 4 years, etc.). I'm not seeing where Obama can debate from a position of strength on too many things, other than saying "I'm not Romney, he's lying to you." That strategy never connects in Presidential elections.
Click to expand...

Romney has no plans outside of tax cuts and military spending. Obama has to link him to Bush and how he's proposing the same thing as Bush. I don't know why he didn't use Bush's name or directly link his tax cuts and military spending in the same way.

Romney's problem is he's been running "I'm not Obama."

Obama can point out that the UE rate is now lower, almost 1 mil more private sector jobs, 5 mil the last 3 years. That we're in a recover from a huge recession and that things are picking up and Romney will only mess with that. Most people still blame the economy on Bush.

He can talk about how he got OBL and he SHOULD say OBL would still be alive under a President Romney which is true.

he can talk about Libya how they saved thousands of lives. How the repubs cut funding for embassies from the budget he wanted.

he can talk about a lot of things. He just needs to actually defend his record this time and point out how Romney is both lying and offering crap Bush tried.
 
J

jbug617

Banned
Remember that pollster that stopped polling in VA, NC and Florida

Paleologos said he would consider resuming polling in Florida or Virginia if other outlets showed Obama winning 49 percent or more of the vote. "[W]e would certainly revisit, if time and resources allow," he said. "However, we have to make decisions about the numbers immediately before us, as much planning takes place for each poll."
Click to expand...

Seems like money and time played a role in this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/suffolk-poll_n_1956115.html
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Dreamcaster said:
If Romney ends up winning, we may look back at the first debate as Obama's "Kennedy Moment" when, the first time he actually had to defend his record and plans in front of someone who would challenge him, he failed to connect. Romney has a bunch of ammunition for the foreign policy debate and there are a bunch of things he can connect on in the town hall (high gas prices, high food prices, incomes falling $4K per family the last 4 years, etc.). I'm not seeing where Obama can debate from a position of strength on too many things, other than saying "I'm not Romney, he's lying to you." That strategy never connects in Presidential elections.
Click to expand...

It'll also be harder because the town hall setting will certainly feature multiple questions that remind people of how bad the economy has been over the last 4 years. How does Obama respond to someone who says they've struggled to find a job and feel like he's just promising the same stuff he promised four years ago? HW Bush got rocked by a similar question in 1992. Of course Romney is no Clinton, but he doesn't need to be in order to convey the basic message that the recovery is going too slow, people are still hurting, and Obama's policies just have not worked [Romney's message, not mine].

That being said, a town hall is the perfect place to pull the Bush card. Obama doesn't even need to name him, just ask Romney how his policies differ from those the republican party offered from 2000-2008
 
J

Jackson50

Member
Oblivion said:
So, Jason Chafetz is bitching that Obama should have had more security at the Embassy. Here's how that went:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XB4duL1xMmY
Click to expand...
Yet we should increase military spending to obscene levels...I'll ignore the political aspect because I'm certain that's what everyone's fixated on. On a broader level, though, this bespeaks our nation's general inattention to the civilian foreign policy apparatus. Ideally, we'd expand our diplomatic efforts while reducing our reliance on the military to conduct foreign relations. But they're always given the short end of the stick.
SmokeMaxX said:
Debate went great for Romney. Heavy shift in his direction. I think most of the more patient posters on here realize that what will PROBABLY happen is that the numbers will start to normalize soon. Several years from now we'll look at the data and once again conclude that "debates don't matter." Unfortunately we're all stuck in the here and now and don't have the privilege of looking at a month's worth of poll data in the blink of an eye.
Click to expand...
To the point I made yesterday, this is the correct manner in which to interpret the prediction. Debates are examined on the whole. Analyzing them as discrete events risks misconstruing the data. So the data probably will indicate a muted effect. However, there's an inherent uncertainty to induction, so awaiting the prediction to be borne out can be distressing.
 
T

thefro

Member
polyh3dron said:
New Obama Ad: "The Real Mitt Romney"
Click to expand...

That's a web ad, but that's exactly the right strategy.

It can't be just "Romney is a flip-flopper", but "Romney's going to do anything to get elected so that he can implement his real positions X, Y, Z". Forget everything that happened with Romney before this campaign and focus on his flip-flops in the last couple weeks.

Conveniently for the Obama campaign, the 47% remarks fit perfectly into this narrative and can be used as a weapon. He says one thing to the general public and then says his "real plan" to the Tea Party or his super-rich donors.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
PhoenixDark said:
It'll also be harder because the town hall setting will certainly feature multiple questions that remind people of how bad the economy has been over the last 4 years. How does Obama respond to someone who says they've struggled to find a job and feel like he's just promising the same stuff he promised four years ago? HW Bush got rocked by a similar question in 1992. Of course Romney is no Clinton, but he doesn't need to be in order to convey the basic message that the recovery is going too slow, people are still hurting, and Obama's policies just have not worked [Romney's message, not mine].

That being said, a town hall is the perfect place to pull the Bush card. Obama doesn't even need to name him, just ask Romney how his policies differ from those the republican party offered from 2000-2008
Click to expand...
Maybe. But I wonder if Obama would actually benefit from the opportunity to remind the public that the economy has actually improved over the past two years. It seems the more information one receives, the better their perceptions of the economy.
 
D

Dreamcaster

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
That being said, a town hall is the perfect place to pull the Bush card. Obama doesn't even need to name him, just ask Romney how his policies differ from those the republican party offered from 2000-2008
Click to expand...

One thing he can counter with is that Unemployment was at an all-tim low (what was it, under 5%). When it comes to war, I think Romney is much more of a pragmatist than he talks. I think he would support strikes on Iran, if it came to that, but I don't see him as someone who would get attack Iraq for no reason (that was personal for Bush, to some extent) and Afghanistan is just a ridiculous place for us to be involved at this point.

When gas prices come up, I would expect Romney to ask the questioner "What did you pay for gas the last time you filled up? President Obama inherited gas selling for $1.82 a gallon - funny he never mentions that when he talks about what the last administration left him." Again, it's the one problem an incumbent has - Romney's biggest problem will be explaining policy that he might implement - in the future, pie in the sky stuff. Obama's will be explaining away things people in the room are actually feeling day-to-day with him as President. The latter is a much higher hill to climb in a bad economy.


thefro said:
Conveniently for the Obama campaign, the 47% remarks fit perfectly into this narrative and can be used as a weapon. He says one thing to the general public and then says his "real plan" to the Tea Party or his super-rich donors.
Click to expand...

Romney admitting that his comment was "completely wrong" (genuine, or not) helps him a bit in the 47% thing. They will probably try to turn it into a positive by saying he is willing to admit his mistakes and then somehow turn that Obama, maybe pointing to that interview where he said his biggest mistake was that he thought the job was just about getting the policy right and he didn't tell a good enough story.

Anyway, that's a week away and we have the VP debate coming up on Thursday. Some of Ryan's comments almost have him coming off as an ageist.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
You guys suck. Period. Stop panicking like little children. The numbers right now aren't much different than pre debate or pre convention. The race is gonna stabilize pretty soon because Romney peaked for 2 nights, which is what Nate's graph is showing. They're taking into account the laughable Pew poll which showed 8 million people switching Party IDs in one night, and the TIBB poll that has this written at the bottom: *Small sample size. Interpret with caution.
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
RustyNails said:
You guys suck. Period. Stop panicking like little children. The numbers right now aren't much different than pre debate or pre convention. The race is gonna stabilize pretty soon because Romney peaked for 2 nights, which is what Nate's graph is showing. They're taking into account the laughable Pew poll which showed 8 million people switching Party IDs in one night, and the TIBB poll that has this written at the bottom: *Small sample size. Interpret with caution.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in principle, but I also say we should not be fooled ourselves (reality is always better than living in a fantasyland)... it was a pretty big difference than pre debate. Not as big a difference if we're comparing directly pre convention, but pre debate? Big difference. It's actually on the highest end of post debate bounces we've seen for a candidate; might even be unprecedented (we'll have to see at the end of the week).

That said, and more crucially, it still did not change the trajectory of the race. Obama still has his floor that isn't changing for shit, Romney is still not rising above his ceiling; he's merely uniting the Republican leaning "Independents" and getting the unenthused Repubs to come screaming back in force. It's not enough to get him to win the race. If the next three debates are catastrophic for team Obama, then things might be a bit more worrisome. I'm just not sure they could fundamentally change things altogether, because the shock of the first loss was such that I don't think the public could be as surprised by another (because the public was so down at Romney that it did come as a surprise he could even talk in complete sentences). Obama's floor remains his floor. But I do think it's worth being concerned that it will be perilously close and even obtainable for Romney if there is three more catastrophic losses for team Obama.


I cannot imagine how after that debate performance though Obama is not going to dramatically change his aggression. If he doesn't he really might just want to actually lose, whether or not he wins :p
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
thefro said:
Conveniently for the Obama campaign, the 47% remarks fit perfectly into this narrative and can be used as a weapon. He says one thing to the general public and then says his "real plan" to the Tea Party or his super-rich donors.
Click to expand...

This line of reasoning should be an underlining current during the debate. I don't believe attacking Romney as a flip flopper will work; as Clinton and others argued months ago, voters might come to the conclusion that he will moderate in office. A better line of attack would be what you reference: Romney doesn't mean what he says, and would rather tell his plan to insiders/investors instead of the American people. That frames everything in a different light: Romney won't share his tax plan details with the American people, but he will share them behind closed doors with those it will benefit.

Obama got his ass kicked but ultimately Romney is still the guy who called half the country losers, shipped jobs overseas, and benefited from bankrupting companies. He's leading now not because of his ideas, but because he looked better than the president and didn't "seem" as bad in person as he is in ads. Obama needs to remind people of that Romney, while refusing to allow him to be vague. If Romney won't explain his policies, explain them for him. And again, be clear and detailed about them. Notice, Romney did not challenge Obama's assertion that his Medicare changes turn it into a voucher. But imagine Romney did deny that. Well, the obvious next step would be to explain what the plan does: it gives seniors some money that does not scale with inflation or health care cost increases, and tells them to go buy their own insurance. That's a voucher, plain and simple. Romney can escape from talking points ("5 trillion tax cut") but he can't escape the basic details of his plan.
 
G

Godslay

Banned
Dreamcaster said:
When gas prices come up, I would expect Romney to ask the questioner "What did you pay for gas the last time you filled up? President Obama inherited gas selling for $1.82 a gallon - funny he never mentions that when he talks about what the last administration left him." Again, it's the one problem an incumbent has - Romney's biggest problem will be explaining policy that he might implement - in the future, pie in the sky stuff. Obama's will be explaining away things people in the room are actually feeling day-to-day with him as President. The latter is a much higher hill to climb in a bad economy.
Click to expand...

Misleading. Prices between Obama and Bush terms are nearly identical, when adjusted for inflation. I would completely expect Romney to say something like this considering it is bullshit. Gas prices are not related to the President.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Amir0x said:
I agree with you in principle, but I also say we should not be fooled ourselves (reality is always better than living in a fantasyland)... it was a pretty big difference than pre debate. Not as big a difference if we're comparing directly pre convention, but pre debate? Big difference. It's actually on the highest end of post debate bounces we've seen for a candidate; might even be unprecedented (we'll have to see at the end of the week).

That said, and more crucially, it still did not change the trajectory of the race. Obama still has his floor that isn't changing for shit, Romney is still not rising above his ceiling; he's merely uniting the Republican leaning "Independents" and getting the unenthused Repubs to come screaming back in force. It's not enough to get him to win the race. If the next three debates are catastrophic for team Obama, then things might be a bit more worrisome. I'm just not sure they could fundamentally change things altogether, because the shock of the first loss was such that I don't think the public could be as surprised by another (because the public was so down at Romney that it did come as a surprise he could even talk in complete sentences). Obama's floor remains his floor. But I do think it's worth being concerned that it will be perilously close and even obtainable for Romney if there is three more catastrophic losses for team Obama.


I cannot imagine how after that debate performance though Obama is not going to dramatically change his aggression. If he doesn't he really might just want to actually lose, whether or not he wins :p
Click to expand...
Yeah, which is why panicking right now is a little premature. I agree that if Obama bombs at the townhall, he will probably risk the presidency. Conservatives' love-hate relationship with Romney has ended and now they're fully in his column. Obama fully needs the democratic support and the real fence-sitters. But what I mean by pre-debate and pre-convention is that we always got polls that had R+1 intermittently. It's the same right now.
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Black Mamba said:
Most likely driven by that ridiculous IBD poll. Of course tightening a bit in other states not so good, but I wonder if it's due to that poll.
Click to expand...

Just like Obama's previous bounce, the model assumes that Romney will sustain this lead -- so it's a projection for the future. If Romney doesn't, then the model will penalize Romney moreso than it would Obama.
 
E

EatinOlives

Member
The Technomancer said:
Man, if Texas ever goes blue...I don't know how you get past that. That seems insurmountable, you'd have to get basically the entire midwest solid red
Click to expand...

It's not completely impossible.

Texas as a state has pretty low voter turnout, and that combined with a dramatic increase in Latino voters in Texas lately will change the dominant demographics. IIRC, at the rate things are going, Latinos will be the majority (surpassing Anglos) by ~2016 (? I'll need to verify the exact year, but it's basically within the next few years).

EDIT: We're already seeing a shift in party voting in urban areas. Austin, of course, is overwhelmingly democrat, and Houston is rising fast. It was funny in 2008 where those votes were counted first and Texas showed up blue in the voter tracking maps on CNN and the like for a few hours. Wouldn't be surprised if it stays for a little while longer this time around.
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
RustyNails said:
Yeah, which is why panicking right now is a little premature. I agree that if Obama bombs at the townhall, he will probably risk the presidency. Conservatives' love-hate relationship with Romney has ended and now they're fully in his column. Obama fully needs the democratic support and the real fence-sitters. But what I mean by pre-debate and pre-convention is that we always got polls that had R+1 intermittently. It's the same right now.
Click to expand...

I think really all he needs to do is just lose SLIGHTLY in the town hall (no more of this "he didn't want to be there", "where was Obama?" talk - enough fighting spirit to have Democrats defending him) and then land smoothly in the foreign policy debate (enough "I got Osama's and destroyed Al Qaeda's infrastructure" to paint the picture, while surviving the Libya launch) and he'll get his victory (provided the final jobs report in November isn't suddenly an alarming rise up in unemployment again. my prediction has always been, since way back in Jan 2012, that if Obama gets unemployment under 7.8% before election, he will win. How close I am now :p).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Post your backlog list!
2
82
3K
TheDrunkenMerchant replied
[Wired] AI Is Already Taking Jobs in the Video Game Industry
2 3 4
195
8K
TommyCronin6969 replied
  • Locked
Apple's organic push towards AAA gaming jeopardizes PC gaming and benefits from this "need" where Xbox tried to reject. Exclusive Games.
Opinion 2
64
5K
Roxkis_ii replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
234
42K
Bloobs replied
Spectrum Studio Boss in Hot Water as “Naked Sauna” outlined as Part of Employees Requirements Surface
News Drama Cringe 2 3 4
182
10K
PeteBull replied
Top Bottom