Talk Elections

in spite of a most drawn out and bruising primary campaign in which Romney's opponents  launched a nuclear war on him,

Romney is closing the gap on Obama,

Romney is closing the gap among women voters,

Romney is closing the gap in fund raising.

My friends, this race is far from over.  As a matter of fact, this race has just begun.  

I agree with all of this!

Hey, I'd be fine with Democrats sitting back and thinking they have this in the bag. Further increases our chances! :)

Obama will try to divert attention from the economy, but at the end of the day, that's what Americans will vote on, and he doesn't currently have a record strong enough to win.

There's been surprisingly little change in the Obama-Romney polls since 2010 or so. Of course, this election wouldn't matter all that much if Romney would just be himself.

In fact, Obama has already been attempting to divert attention away from his sorry handling of the economy, with his petulant and misleading Bain attacks on Romney, which, by the way, were not even factual, placing Romney at Bain years after he had actually left.

These attacks have backfired.  

Obama has a secret weapon tho: Donald Trump.

Yes, I wish Trump would go to deepest, darkest Peru, with no communication devices, until December.

http://theothermccain.com/2012/05/15/distraction-tactic-backfires-romney-gains-in-polls-after-obama-gay-shift/

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign strategy could be summarized in four words: “It’s Obama’s Economy, Stupid.”

Romney and his aides have made clear that they regard every other issue as a distraction from what polls — as well as common sense — indicate as the main concern of American voters: Jobs, the economy and the explosion of deficit spending under the Obama administration.

So when the news cycle last week was dominated by President Obama’s announcement of his support for same-sex marriage, this was viewed by Republicans as yet another attempt to distract voters from the economy — and thus, strategically, as another “win” for Team Obama.

Yet the first polls reflecting public reaction to the president’s endorsement of gay marriage show the move has, at least so far, backfired on the White House. A CBS/New York Times poll taken Friday through Sunday shows Romney leading Obama 46% to 43%, whereas a CBS/NYT poll taken April 13-17 showed the race a tie at 46%. This result verifies polling by Rasmussen Reports showing Romney moving ahead. Obama has clearly lost support since a month

Sounds in line with the Romney strategy "look over there!!!!"

from his miserable handling of the economy:

1. The War on Women
2. Ann Romney's clothes
3. The Car Elevator
4. The Swiss Bank Account
5. Eeeevil Bain Capital
6. The Sudden Fascination With Mormonism
7. 50 Year Old High School Pranks
8. Ann Romney's horses

http://drawandstrike.blogspot.ca/2012/05/look-over-there-horse-looking-at-my.html

9. Gay marriage
10. Dog on the roof
11. Romney wouldn't have got bin Laden

Yes, voters are only allowed to vote on one issue and that issue should be selected and framed by Mitt Romney. Got it, Winfield.

12. ()

Congrats on the new job at the Romney campaign Winfield!

Nah.  I think he works for a SuperPAC.  The actual, official, campaign is not that trollish.

How can you say definitively that the strategy has backfired? First of all, calling it a strategy or a ploy is simply your opinion. Secondly, I can find a thousand articles that tell us Obama's support for gay marriage has actually unified the democratic base, even among black voters.

You need to be a little more level headed instead of a mindless Romney cheerleader. It's cool that you like Romney so much but you won't get any respect here if you don't try to analyze things more objectively.

Are you implying that Peru is a third-world country that has no communication? In case you missed it, I am implying you are racist.

I actually read an article cited on a left-leaning political website that I'm fond of despite it's bias, that it does indeed appear that it's Obama off message, not Romney.

President Barack H. Obama consistently is off message. One day it's class warfare, the next it's war on women, the next day it's politicizing bin laden's death. I've heard some argue that Bush politicized 9/11. Indeed, 9/11 was a giant part of his Presidency, but you didn't see ads saying, "George Bush captured Saddam Hussein and John Kerry wouldn't have."

This is why I enjoy being a Republican so much. When I say what I truly feel, I often feel as though a majority of Americans agree with me. No matter how hard-hitting and slap-in-the-face blunt it may be, I always seem to be able to be free and clear with my beliefs.

On the other hand, it does seem that Democratic candidates, especially for national office, have difficulty being 100% truthful in their beliefs. This is why Barack Obama took so long to support gay marriage. Those of us who oppose it have been open and bluntly honest for years. You may disagree, but atleast we didn't cower to the slim minority of people who support liberal causes in fear of losing votes.

You made 4 threads.

There is a problem here.

Right... The Republicans are free to use purely ideological issues in every cycle, but when Democrats are doing it, it's deception ::)

Are you really saying in the same breath, that hardly anyone supports gay marriage and that Obama is only supporting it to get votes?

This is called, you know, political campaigning.

Also I find it foolish if someone is simply focusing on one issue, even if it is probably the most important issue of the day, it just shows Romney has no other plans that aren't economic.  His economic plans have been widely panned by most economists who aren't conservative by the way.  By that I mean most who are liberal, moderate, nonpartisan, basically any who aren't in it just to help Mittens get elected.

How many threads can you post saying essentially the same thing Winfield?

Bore, I actually think that's a fair thing to say. Obama will get votes from supportIng gay marriage in that he was successfully able to distract voters from his crap record. So it was really a matter of what would lose him more votes... Unpopular social positions or unpopular economic ones. He opted to try the former.

Sure. We all know when a Republican candidate is using issues other than economy it's completely fine, but when a Democratic candidate is doing the same, that's a ploy to divert attention away.

Naturally, when George H. W. Bush, for example, was talking about school prayers during his campain in 1988, that was fine. When your beloved Mitt Romney was trying to cast himself more liberal on social issues than Ted Kennedy in 1994, that was fine too. But when Obama is endorsing gay marriage: OMG CONSPIRACY TO DIVERT OUR ATTENTION!

So, Winfield, I don't know whether you're an utter hypocrite, disconnected from reality or just enjoy your trolling. I sincerely hope it's the latter. Either way, it's just pathetic.

Obama is supporting gay marriage to raise millions of dollars from Hollywood liberals like Clooney.  He wants to excite lazy college students into campaigning for him this fall.  He's hoping the Youth vote will come out again to vote for him, because Obama knows that the over 30 adults will be voting for Romney. 

where that Politico guy go?  Did he graduate from college or something.

How does he know this?

well, with today's jobs numbers, Mitt's strategy has gotten much more effective. I'm starting to get worried.

The May jobs report is not good, but it not a disaster, and of course it does not reflect the boost the conomy got this month from declining gas prices.  It does make the prospect of an Obama landslide more remote, but I never did think that was gonna happen.

I would say it was a disaster, and represents the cherry on a Obama's diarrhea sundae that was May 2012.

An unemployment uptick and an underwhelming jobs report is not how you want to kick off election season.

An Obama landslide has always been out of the question, though the odds of a landslide loss increased because of today's awful report.

If you're a Democrat, here's hoping June will be better.

If you're an AMERICAN, here's hoping June will be better.

He's implying Trump should go to a remote cave in the Andes and not leave till the election is over.

Well, it's certainly not the final nail in Obama's coffin. I mean, there are still five more jobs reports before the election and things could get better. But the trend since April has not been good and a continuing fiscal crisis in Europe could make things worse.

If this happens, Obama can certainly try to deflect the blame on congress, wall street, big business, or even Europe, but it's a tall order and hasn't been done effectively since Truman.

It may work. This is Obama's economy now, and while it looked like things were improving early in the year, it's clear we are losing steam, and fast. The left may dismiss it very quickly but Barack hasn't solved our problems. The economic numbers coming out now are not good at all.

If you're a HUMAN, here's hoping June will be better.

More bad news because of the May jobs reports.  Not only did it also decrease March and April, but the NYSE has also surrendered all of its gains for the entire year.  5 months of gains in the Dow, Nasdaq, and S&P 500 all lost.  The faint hope of an Obama landslide has been extinguished.  If anything, if the trend continues, we could very possibly be looking at a still unlikely, yet growing, possibility of a Romney landslide.

Since when is 270 to 280 EV is a landslide?

It is likely Romney will win.  It is unlikely, but a growing possibility that Romney will have a small landslide (over 300).

The notion of Obama invincibility was always a joke

Well, Obama is trying to push divisive unpopular social policies like homosexual marriage while job growth is failing. Who is surprised?

He wrote off PA, I don't think there is any way he will get over 300 after doing that.

Did you not read the word "unlikely"?

He secured the nomination for Mittens, so now his work is done.

No, not really. But I would have used a different adjective.

That's fine.  Another adjective could be used, yes, but I still stand by my prediction that we are going to be swearing in the 45th President of the United States Willard "Mitt" Romney on Sunday, 20 January 2013.  Of course, just like in sports, it doesn't really matter if you win with 270 EV's or you win with 320 EV's, the fact is you still win.  Your political capital is less with a 270 nail biter than it is with 300+ EV's, but that doesn't affect your victory.

Then you, sir, do not comprehend my statement, nor do you know anything about  my abhorrence of racism. 

Let me explain this to you.

Trump should go to Peru until December, and Trump, note I said TRUMP, should not be given any communication devices to use while in Peru, therefore, he will be unable to communicate any more of his outlandish statements to the U.S. during the remainder of the campaign.

And I find your accusation of racism to be personally insulting.

No, Kalwejt, what is pathetic is Obama's handling of the U.S. economy.

I just love how some Republicans (specifically Mitt Romney) love to talk trash about the economy right now while offering no alternatives except the Bush ideas, which were how the recession began in the first place or saying Obama ideas(such as the auto bailout) were their ideas.  Its true we are no where near where we want to be economically but objective analysis easily concludes we are FAR better off than we were when the President first took office.

Romney will magically produce 500,000 new jobs a month with the same economic policies of Bush, despite that neither him nor his father came close to averaging this puny 69,000 we got last month.

Well, let’s see,
SCOTUS decisions on Obama Care – the fed control of every breath, belch, fart and tear.

SCOTUS decision on the states enforcement of current fed laws.  – AZ and the illegals.

WI - decision on union governance too its extinction or not.

Greece Vote – Obama’s not vacationing there, no big deal there.

Fed meeting – decision on continued funding of the democrat party, other wise known as QE3 - diluting the republic.

Yep, should be a better month for Obama, if not he’ll just move up his plan of “screw‘em” declare he, the last POTUS and have Eric Holder annul the US Constitution, then placing himself as the Chief Of All Justice, saving all this trouble with the voter ID issue.

Or, maybe, 

Obama realizes there’s no more money, having established himself as the greatest bank robber known to mankind, and resigns. If such, the only minor question is, which country will the first exiled American Presidential family move to? I’m sure he’ll have that birth certificate thing all re-worked out.

The Obama Inheritance and Romney’s strategy, to what end?   

Despite your ridiculously stupid post, you do have a point about the SCOTUS ruling. That could really roil the Obama campaign, depending on public reaction to it. Obama will have to carefully think about how he wants to respond. I'm not sure declaring war on the Supremes is the right option, especially given the unpopularity of the law.

A roiled Obama campaign or a freed America, which would be a better June?

Could you explain how the Obama campaign might be roiled? I don't quite understand your terminology.

The lynchpin of Obamacare, to wit, the mandate, is struck down, leaving Obama with a wave that hits his boat with which he needs to contend, to wit, roiled. Also, the challenges to the Indiana voter ID law, and the AZ immigration law, managed by the Obama administration, will also be rejected, and by lopsided SCOTUS margins, rather than 5-4, most probably. That is another "roiling" wave.

When it rains, it pours.

It's still some rather odd phrasing.

And I have to say, Torie, off-topic, you're one of my favorite posters here, particularly your posts on economics. Fascinating.

To be fair, Axelrod and the team probably cooked up the response (for a victory or a defeat), months ago.

A Jerry Brownesque statement along the lines of "While I do not agree with their decision, the Court has spoken and I will abide by their ruling," and throwing in a pledge to still fight for healthcare would probably be the best way to go.

As Torie explained above, it would probably take the form of the fascist reactionary Supreme Court continuing their war on social progress in a dramatic fashion by striking down the healthcare law, coupled with the rightist hordes in Congress completely vetoing any further economic stimulus and, as we've been seeing, sacrificing the US economy on the altar of permanent austerity.

Am I the only one that can see the Supreme Court not hurting Obama that much? It's quite possible that that will ram up turnout for the Dems.

It 'could' go any way, but striking Obama of his main/only 'accomplishment' is hard to spin into a positive.  It also calls to question his only serious experience before politics -- being a guest lecturer of constitutional law.  It's like calling a completely empty glass half full.       

Generally speaking my rule is the only important thing during an election year in which there's uncertanity about the future is the economy and Foreign policy.

I'd only vote on social issues when we have a balence budget , much smaller debt and lower unemplyment

From how I feel about where we stand I'd vote for Obama based on Foreign policy and Romney based on the economy

Why?

I mean Romney would likely continue Obama's foreign policy, and as for Romney's economic policies, it's nothing more than empty platitude which hide the fact that, he want to adopt the policies which brought you into this mess in the first place.

No. Romney's foreign policies advocates being more agressive in regards to Russia, Iran, China and Syria. As a non interventionist who realizes that the amount of money we invest on overseas investments is unsustainable I'm quite simply supporting the guy who'd does less .

What policies are you speaking of? Bush wasn't a fiscal conservative in any sort of the word the expansion of Medicade/Medicaid part B, Building up huge deficits whiles overspending both domestically and overseas. For any Politician to replicate that they must not only have the same policies but they must have also have zero understanding of the economy. From 10 seconds listening to Mitt Romney I can already tell you that his intelligence far exceeds Bush's.

I don't view policies as inherently good or bad. Cutting taxes, Raising spending, Cutting spending, Raising taxes ext they all have the potential to be good or bad depending on how the President implements them.  I don't support Romney on the economy but I feel the way Obama's implemented his policies isn't producing the desired message for the strength of this recovery.


I consider myself a debt hawk and personally I feel our road to the future is a short term stimulus after we establish a long term debt reduction plan. If either Romney or Obama delivers that message then they have my vote. But most likely I'll vote for neither considering Obama's fear to touch Entitlements and Romney's fear to cut the military budget/raise taxes

Tonight's results will echo beyond Wisconsin.

This is a horse race.

Yes.

()

You know, you should just create a thread titled "Winfield's Soapbox." Every time a sentence leaves Romney's mouth, you can go post it in there.

Now, that's not nice!

I believe most of what I post for discussion is of interest to readers and pertinent to today's events.         

You and NHI, who I'm beginning to suspect may be an automatic-response machine, are nearly alone in that.

Also, the adjective form is 'Democratic'.

I wonder if you're capable of posting something better than "yes"/"no" or empty quote.

In Winfield's defense, is it wrong to wholeheartedly support Romney?  He's just passionate about his candidate.  He's not doing anything malicious.  He may be a little overbearing at times, but he's just passionate about his candidate.  Romney has just as much right to be celebrated on this forum as Obama does.

That's a huge understatement.

No, it's just...it does get a little excessive. Most of us have our hackish tendencies (I myself am feeling especially hackish tonight, and not in a positive way, for obvious reasons) but the extent and timbre of these get a bit grating after a while.

I can see where you're coming from, but I get the feeling, though, that if someone were to be just as passionate about Obama that not much would be said about it.

I can't speak for others. I despite hackery, whether it's about Obama or about Romney, or about someone else.

Yes, because pbrower is soooo popular.

I see Winfield is opening a bottle of champagne every time he hear about the people losing their jobs, homes and insurance, because, you see, Obama is bad and Romney is awesome.

Yes, we want to elect a man capable of reversing Obama's record of people losing their jobs, homes and insurance SO THAT people lose their jobs, homes and insurance AND we celebrate this with champagne.  

Don't forget Bandit!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/06/19/nyts-frank-bruni-after-obamas-g20-press-conference-he-doesnt-seem-com

Frank Bruni of NYT on Piers Morgan

Shortly after the press conference (G20 Summit in Mexico) ended, Morgan played a clip from the event and said to Bruni, “He looks a little bit on edge, the President, at the moment. A little less self-assured and calm.”

“Well, right there, I mean, he looked really de-energized,” responded Bruni. “I was watching him, you know, as he stepped to the podium. One of the whole advantages of being President, of being the incumbent, is you get those settings – the flags behind you, the podium. You get the international audience.”

“And he strode out there,” Bruni continued, “and the cadence of his speech was very slowed down. There was a lot of hemming and hawing. He got the first question from the press and answered, that answer went on and on and on, and he provided this really strange tutorial on European economic dynamics, and I just, I don’t think that’s what he went to do when he went to that microphone.”

Bruni put an exclamation point on this critique adding, “He doesn’t seem in command.”

No, he doesn't.

When columnists from the New York Times start not only thinking it but also saying it on national television, this President's in trouble.

This is why I can never totally align myself to the Democratic party. They and their supporters are ing pathetic. They handwring constantly and undermine their own guy constantly by doing so. Unlike GOP-leaning media, which never admits how idiotic and wrong the Republicans are on issue after issue.

I don't know that I would phrase it that way. FNC and conservative talk radio were pretty brutal on W and his GOP allies when he tried to work on immigration reform. It was even an issue W had run on, but the GOP-leaning media wanted none of it.

Frank Bruni? Isn't he just the NYT restaurant critic?