MI: Marketing Resource Group: Obama leads Romney by 1, Perry by 11

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

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

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

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.

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"

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

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.

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"

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.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

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.

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"

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.

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

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

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

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

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

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.

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.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

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

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

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?

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