Talk Elections

New Poll: Michigan President by Marketing Resource Group on 2011-09-20 (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2012/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=2620110919121)

Summary: D: 45%%, R: 44%%, U: 10%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details (http://www.mrgmi.com/MRG_IMP_09_21_11_FINAL.pdf)

Obama 45%
Romney 44%

Obama 50%
Perry 39%

Averaged? That makes no sense. Since when do we do that? I think we should go with either Perry or Romney numbers depending on who we think is favoured to win.

(I'd personally go with Romney, simply since we all know Perry is way behind anyway)

Yeah, just add the one who's ahead in the state's primary.

In this case it is Romney.

I honestly would rather we just stick with one candidate, preferably Romney. :P Otherwise the map's going to look really weird with Republicans very competitive in some "toss-up" states while trailing big in others, the one Perry lead  in.

That doesn't make any sense for a presidential primary, but I changed it.

This is the opposite of Pennsylvania.  Romney is very close and that is surprising.  I thought Romney's opposition to the auto-bailout would hurt him coupled with how long ago his father the governor there.   Guess not.  Of course more polls would be needed to determine whether or not Michigan is going to move from the Safe category over to the Likely or Lean category

You really need to read up on Romney's actuall position on the autobailout, rather than stopping at that damn NYT headline.

In the very same NYT's article, Romney basically called for "me two only sooner and for less money". The thing is, it isn't really "me two" because Romney published the article prior to the bailout actually occuring in November 2008.

It essentially laid out the very bankrupcty design that Obama ended up using in June of 2009. So Obama's position is actually "me two but for more money and six months late".

It will be used against him in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. Any Republican will need to win at least two of those states to have a chance.  Democrats just have not been bringing it up.

 

If Democrats start talking about Romney's supposed opposition to the bailout, it will relatively quickly become a useless talking point. I realize you people have a very cynicall view of the electorate, but I think if the Democrat's only plan to hold onto these states is hoping people stop at the title of an article from 2008, you guys are really screwed.

You better also hope the Perry campaign doesn't attack the paragraph where Romney says "The gov't should back the warranties and cover all costs of the bankrucpty" in that very article.

The only way this works, is as part of a last week advertising blitz. Just long enough to mislead the voters, but not enough to respond.

... and only if necessary. Probably the last two weeks, though.

It's not just an article, it's peoples jobs.  With unemployment so high imagine Romney going out and saying "Yes, I would not have supported the bailout which saved so many of your jobs"

Contrary to what some people think, Romney would be damaged in Michigan by his opposition to the auto bailout. It really did save jobs in the state and a lot of people just won't see the logic in his opposition, because all they care about is jobs.

Bad for Obama.

Don't play your stupid populist games with me. I know goddamn well the personal effects of unemployment and I don't appreciate you trying to lecture me about it. >:(

Your entire strain of thought and pbrower's is based off a misinterpretation of Romney's position created initially by a poorly titled article titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" by Mitt in Nov 2008. In which Romney laid out the very same strategy BARACK OBAMA USED IN JUNE 2009. Pre-packaged bankruptcy, coupled with sufficient gov't support to ensure it's success. Now spin that.

Romney's line will be that OBama mishandled the auto companies and thus cost MI jobs. Which objectively, is probably the case. His months long delay worrying about the optics of a bankrucptcy most likely did.

lol at you trying to lecture me about about the same topic, nice try

The bottom line is that the bailout saved the auto industry and Romney's choice of words to placate the conservatives will be used against him, and rightfully so.

It is not choice of words but rather ignorance of their definitions. Something Democrats conveniently stop caring about once they are the ones on the populist binge.

I didn't lecture you on unemployment, like you did. You used the fact that I was doing an intellectual analysis of the real content of the NYT's article from 2008, to claim that I was ignoring what really mattered here. A claim one could only make if they weren't interested in actually having the discussion or caring about the truth. The truth is you are the one who doesn't give a damn about them or their jobs, you care about Obama's reelection. I have learned one thing in politics, and that is the populist canard often used to sway blue collar worker is one of the oldest scams in politics. Take a guy freshly laid off from the textile mill and promise to bring the mill back either with tariffs he will never get enacted (no sane politician really supports these anymore primarily because they are counterproductive) or by promising to remove loopholes that for the most part don't exist (The few that do exist will actually lead to more jobs being lost if they are removed). And then people wonder why nothing happens and you guys wonder why they keep voting for corporate guys in elections. It is pretty damn obvious if you ask me.

As far as I see it, Romney had the plan from the start, the one people should have utilized, immediately. Instead they screwed around with politics (Bush not having any political capital left), and optics combined with naive stupidity (Obama's first five months), only then to realize why bankrupcty was created in first place, to allow for restructuring. It's only companies that have no chance of survival that are liquidated. If capital is tight because of unreleated circumstances (housing crash etc), then have the gov't finance the restructuring, which is reasonable in those circumstances.

The truth is Obama badly mishandled the autobailout. Rather then leading, he handed them a blank check and said "please fix your problems". And we spent six months playing this game under both Bush and Obama (yes, I blame Bush for this too), waisting billions of dollars and serving to make the problems at GM worse during that intermediate time, most likely costing jobs. Bankruptcy restructuring was the only way to solve the problem. If you knew anything about GM, their entrenched management structure and status quo thinking since the 1960's, plus the reasonable (and unreasonable) instransigence of the UAW trying to protect it's members and you have a disaster that could only be settled in court, by the gov't or a combination of both.  

Yes, you may be able to win an election off a 30 second sound bite, but I'll say it is of no service to the manufacturing sector, it's employees, or the economy at-large. It will only serve to provide us with four more years of this piss poor President who wasn't ready for the job on day 1 and by using the same tactics you condemn the tea party for using. And more likely in so doing you provide an opportunity for Romney to hit back making a question seeking to establish a false choice, into a refrendum on Obama's real failure. Which is why I said it would only work in the last week of the campaign if at all


Also, learn how to quote a post, people might confuse what you say with what I said.

Were it not for the far right running around opposing the auto-bailout, this would be the discussion on this topic that dominates, rather then their nonsense.

But if you think you can defeat Romney by pretending he is Michelle Bachmann, to quote Obama, "Go for it!"

Um... no lol

Oh please drop the act.  I want unemployment to go down.  Now I know you see that as a detriment to the GOP chances.  I know you are your conservative friends want unemployment high through 2012 because that helps your parties chances in 2012.  An unemployment of 10% would have the GOP jump for joy, why do you think they are oppose the American Jobs act?  Your disdain for blue-collar workers is clear, you apparently think very low of them

Don't even start with the 30 second sound bite talk because the conservatives are chalk full of them
"Cutting taxes generates revenue"
"Don't raise taxes on 'job creators' (rich)"

The bottom line is Romney is desperately trying to play to the conservative base (the tea party and such) as well as trying to maintain a position of moderation.  He will be called out on it whether you like it or not.  The conservative policies have failed

Damn it, I got caught up in one line of attack and forgot to pursue perhaps the more important one. >:(

I am not even going to respond to the latest post directly, because I find it both insultingly disgusting and hilariously ironic at the same time. That first paragraph is just so rich, especially that last sentence.

We have clearly moved into a realm in which we are both hitting each with partisan talking points based on presumptions made ironically based on superficials observations, including avatars and PM scores and then extrapolating in a very presumptious way. I find this incredibility distastefull and to have been a strategic error on my part, but I just couldn't contain myself. ;D

As for the last paragraph it starts with a generalization and ends with a childish back bite, and yet another mischaracterization.


The overall lesson here, is the same one that pbrower too often ignores to the detriment of his own credibility. When you make an anaylsis that is supposedly objective with the intent of being atleast somewhat accurate, it generally doesn't serve to incorporate ones personally biased interpretations of candidates and events into them. Now granted, TXMichael never specifically claimed to be making an objective analysis and frankly neither did I.

Yes, there is on the surface a significant vulernability here if Obama is able to frame Romney has having opposed any bailout to the point of letting the big three get liquidated. This however is contrary to the facts of the matter. Romney didn't oppose giving any help to them. As far back as the MI primary in 2008, Romney took hits from McCain "for supporting a bailout of the auto industry", which I beleive was a reference to Romney's support for boosting R&D on Energy and Transportation tech to $20 billion from $2 billion. He then laid out a plan (in the NYT Article in Nov 2008) to ensure a restructure that ended up being very similar what events finally forced Obama to use.

The analysis given that " this poll is outside of what is expected, 'because Romney opposed the bailouts" rests on one of two of the following things:

1) the person making the anaylsis doesn't know his facts,

or

2)  that the Obama campaign will be successfull with establishing this mischaracterization and that the Romney campaign will be powerless to prevent it.

As far as number 1, is concerned, the facts have been presented and rejected based on partisan bias. There is no way to argue with that. "If you can't establish that 2+2 equals 4, there is no basis to keep debating." - Abraham Lincoln

As for number 2, it is a possibility, but it assumes that Romney will just roll over and let Obama define him as anti-Detroit. Considering some of the effective strategies employed against Perry, it seems doubtfull he will let this happen. If number 2 occurs, it will be because Romney's response was poorly crafted or because of insufficient time to respond (end of campaign).

In conclusion though, Romney can safely oppose the bailout of the auto-industry as enacted by Obama, as long as he can establish his desire to not only preserve the Detroit automakers, but to restore them to some prominence, as genuine with a difference between the two just over how to do it. As long as both candidates supported some plan to avoid liquidation, the debate will shift to whose was superior, who would have been a more effective leader in an economic crisis of this nature, and ultimately who would have saved more jobs. Romney has one hell of an arguement to make here, and this is why I think that Obama should avoid using this, except as a final week (maybe 2 weeks as Pbrower stated) desperation strategy. If Obama is in need of such in MI, he has probably already lost the election in other states, anyway.

It is not a mischaracterization to refer to the tea party as conservative.  Most of them admit to being conservative.  Being unable to reference political reality is your problem, and reality doesn't yield to your analysis :)

So your only problem with the auto bailout is that it was a few months late? How many job losses do you think that led to? Rather than what would have happened if the far right got their way, Yank? I doubt Romney is going to run on a platform supporting Obama's plan, is he? Even if he supposedly did come up with it first?

And if you think Obama did it worse, what exactly did he do that was so wrong? Except for diddly daddling around. We already know he isn't the best leader out there, but at least he didn't let Detroit, Michigan and the surrounding states go into a real depression. That's what most of your party wanted Yank! You cannot deny that.

The bailouts here really did work, as opposed to on Wall Street. Public Private partnerships are the way to go. Your party needs to understand that or they need to go the way of the Federalists, Whigs and the Know nothings.

Pure Laissez faire Capitalism has never worked, never will.

A mischaracterization doesn't mean something is necessarilly false. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. I never called your references to the TP as being conservative as such. That is obviously the case. What I was referring to was "Romney desperately connecting with base" and the part where "conservative policies have failed".

Romney is connecting with the base, but he isn't doing it as thoroughly as you suggested. He hasn't abandoned his health care bill or the mandate in it. That is why I called it a generalization, which mischaracterizes the situation by giving the impression that Romney is converting, changing everything about him to satisfy the TP.

As for the other, that is completely up to one's opinion. Any ideology fails when taking to extreme. In this case we have seen extreme deregulation, combined with extreme regulation, plus a little incompetence and corruption, create one hell of a giant economic mess. I'll stop here, because I have already gone roller skating in the buffalo herd with you once already, and another tangent would only confuse and distract. In short, one debate at a time. ;)

OH NO!!! Oh Yeah!!! Alright!!! It's your turn. >:D 

But what the far right wanted isn't the point. If Romney is nominee (our little scenario we are playing with here), you have two people who wanted to save Detroit. You can't run against Bachmann or Perry, unless Bachmann or Perry is the nominee. If it is Romney, you have to run against Romney. Of course Romney isn't going to run on supporting Obama's plan. He is going to say Obama screwed around, played politics, worried about optics, before finally accepting reality billions of dollars, thousands of jobs, and five months too late (can't blame him for the first month, since Bush was still in office). Is that not a legitimate arguement to have, and one that the people of MI would be very interested in hearing? Yes, we know Obama isn't a good leader, we are political junkies. A lot of people would decide to vote against someone based on that, Sbane.

The only way to not have this discussion is to successfully establish a falsehood, that Romney wanted Detroit to drop dead. If you fail, you then ensure the discussion above will occur. Depending on the campaigns run, anything is possible and failure is certainly a big risk to trying to use this strategy, unless there isn't enough time allowed for it to fail (last days of the campaign).

When have I ever given a damn about "what most of the GOP thinks", sbane? :P Most of them don't even know what they think, just what they are programed to receive. Same with most of the Democrats, for the most part. And of course most of them in both parties checked out a long time ago, but of course they never leave. If you want to talk about how to make them, lets meet in the redistricting board and debate how CA can spread the wealth of non-partisan reform. :P

Yeah, as I have said before, Romney will probably win if things don't improve with the economy. He is already keeping a sanity about him, while still attacking Obama, and doing it better than anybody out there. And yes, Obama's lack of leadership could just cost him the White House.

That said, this whole let's cut taxes and jobs will magically come back isn't going to work. Of course let's get rid of loopholes and lower rates accordingly, but really revenues need to be raised. At least things will be on a more even playing field. And we need to somehow take care of the healthcare mess. That is another reason we are hemorrhaging jobs. No one wants to pay for something for which costs go up more than inflation each year. Whether government taking it all on it's shoulder will solve all the problems, I don't know, but one way to create jobs is to get it off businesses, and especially small businesses shoulders. And of course Obamacare does not do this, not even close.

Finally, I do think there is some merit in the notion that government can work together with businesses to create the conditions needed to create jobs. Without creating another Solyndra of course. I give up. :P

Romney is desperately trying to connect to the conservative base.  Perry and Bachmann are to his right and that is where Romney is weakest.  Romney isn't viewed as the ideological right wing conservative that the GOP is looking for.  Granted Perry doesn't fit in to that perfectly either due to his mandate of vaccinations.  Saying otherwise shows you are clearly out of touch.

He is trying to connect with them, yes.
He is currently in a position to left of them and regarded with suspicioun, yes.

Is he frantically doing everything possible to make himself 100% in line with the TP, no. He hasn't abandoned his mandate and even treaded into dangerous territory last week, basically undermining the legal suit against Obamacare in the process of defending his own plan, when asked a question abotu it at a townhall or something of that nature. Use of the word "desperately" is extremely misleading and thus you are mischaracterizing via over generalization here.

I now see that for once in a billion times, Limbaugh was right. The instate tuition for illegals has done more harm to Perry, than the HPV nonesense. It is hard to effectively make a case that a guy is corrupt unless you have enough convincing evidence to send him to jail or atleast court, at which point it doesn't matter because they are out of campaign. Yea, the mandate aspect conflicts with the TP dogma, but it's really trivial in nature. Just one more thing weighing down the camel. Alone, it is nothing without the corruption aspect of it. Supporting In-state tuition for illegals and then saying to oppose it is immorall, that drives a wedge right between Perry and his base. Cleaves it like a sharp knife.

Thanks for agreeing with me

I hate to break it to you, but we never disagreed on that. The source of your mischaracterization is described in the second post and deals with your use of the word "desperately" in reference to Romney seeking to connect with the TP. He isn't desperately doing anything. He is methodically taking steps to bring himself in line with the general electorate in a very risky way, even though the primary is still going on. And so far he hasn't done himself any real damage by doing so. If anything Romney is brazenly differentiating himself from the TP where he thinks he can get away with it.


If he were "desperately" seeking to bring himself in line with the TP, would he:

1) Say Global Warming is real and caused by humans?
2) Stand by his individual mandate in MA?
3) Say Obama isn't a Marxist?


Romney has done all of those things and more. If he were frantically working to bring himself in line with the TP out of desperation, as you said, wouldn't convicted flip flopper Mitt Romney just say the mandate was a mistake and that he would not do it again, that AGW is fake and made up by scientists, and that Obama was a marxist anti-colonialist?

The facts just don't back your assertion that Romney is moving too far right in the primary. This is a standard talking point that I have seen before. That Romney will have to destroy his general election chances to get through the primary. However, the actions his campaign have taken haven't followed that predicted path/strategy. He has pursued a strategy of seeking to maintain his electability arguement. Hence why he so aggressively pushed Perry on the ponzi scheme comments even if it would have no effect on the primary, because it served to destroy Perry's parity in national polling with Romney (Perry has gone from performing about 3% worse which can be attributed to name recognition to about 10% worse then Romney, which means he has been caricatured along with Bachmann and Palin as a nutcase). Romney has also sought to show himself as the traditional and sane GOP candidate, in a field of crazies. I am sorry, but this is not a pander to the base primary strategy like he used in 2007, and as such your mischaracterization moves into the territory of bordering on being a complete factual innaccuracy.

When has pure laissez faire capitalism been implemented? And when has pure anything worked?

Probably never, gustaf. But some people here fantasize about it.

If you think he is not desperate to lock up the conservative vote, the tea party type, then you are out of touch

Romney gets that, he gets the nomination