Why 2012 is different to 2004 (and why that could mean a Romney win)

[Politico]

Great post.

Romney is an infinitely better challenger than Kerry, and that's ignoring how much more personable and down-to-earth Ann is compared to Theresa Heinz. Kerry went after Bush on his strength of national security by highlighting his military experience, and Team Bush effectively Swift Boated him on the issue. Romney already has an advantage on the economy and the deficit, which are to 2012 what national security was to 2004. He will continue to strengthen his lead on these issues as the two candidates continue to speak. Unfortunately for Obama, there is no last-minute videotape that will be released which solidifies the issue of the economy/deficit in Obama's corner.

Clearly Obama is out of his depth when it comes to economics. There is no shame in that. Some people are successful businessmen and some people are community organizers. What do you want in your president, though? Are you really happy with this economy? Heck, is anybody really happy with this economy?

I'm glad that so many young Democrats are convinced that Obama is cruising to re-election. That means there's no need for any of them to bother voting in November. Tell your friends not to waste their time voting!

[Politico]

Not only that, but the Occupy stuff hasn't even hit its full stride yet. Once that happens, that's the end of the Romney campaign.

That Occupy stuff is a BIG loser for the Democrats. Populism never works in a national campaign. Go ask Walter Mondale. It doesn't even usually work well at getting the Democratic nomination (see: Gephardt, Edwards, et al.)

[Politico]

Not only that, but the Occupy stuff hasn't even hit its full stride yet. Once that happens, that's the end of the Romney campaign.

That Occupy stuff is a BIG loser for the Democrats. Populism never works in a national campaign. Go ask Walter Mondale.

Yeah, and go talk to Truman about it too.

Newsflash: He's dead and so are most of the people who voted for him. We might as well talk about Andrew Jackson next. The New Deal era died in the late 1970s. Stagflation was the legacy of naive Keynesianism. Why anybody thought things would turn out differently this time is beyond me.

The hilarious part: Romney, and people like me, want America to progress economically and technologically as we did over the past thirty years prior to the financial crisis. So-called "progressives" want America to simply stagnate until it withers into a wimpy shade of its former self (like most of Europe).

[Politico]

For that matter, in 2004 the Republican ground game was much stronger than the Democratic ground game, which was probably critical. I don't see anyone claiming that the Romney ground game is better than the Obama ground game.

If the election ends up turning on the ground game, then Romney will lose and likely lose badly.  His performance in the primaries indicates that he places little importance in a ground game, tho when the rules such as those in Virginia with its complicated ballot requirements required he build at least some ground game, he was able to.  So it's not a lack of ability to engage in the ground game, but rather a feeling that he is better off focusing on other campaign aspects.

I think the ground game matters in any close election. And it's worth remembering that the Obama campaign is really, really, good at it.

Are you sure that the Obama Ground Game will be just as good this time around?

I'm seeing an Obama enthusiasm gap. 

In 2008, there was a lot of talk about voting for "Change" and that excited a lot of people. 

What do you think the rally cry will be for Obama in 2012?  We want free health care?

The volunteers were young people, but now the young people are unemployed and trying to pay off their college loans, they won't have time to canvas for Obama. 

Mitt has the Mormon volunteers, which love to canvas neighborhoods to convert voters. 

Granted, some Democratic supporters will be disappointed in Obama, and particularly for his having implemented a Republican health care plan. The Republican primary has helped there, in terms of sharpening the choices for people, and polls now show Democrats united behind Obama, and African Americans as the demographic most excited about voting in the fall. So I'm not convinced there's an enthusiasm gap, or at least not one favoring Romney.
But look, also, at how much money the Obama campaign has already invested in campaign offices and staff across the country -- remember that Obama had more offices in Iowa before the primary there than the entire Republican field put together.

there will still be a high african american turnout, but the hispanic and youth vote won't be as high for Obama this time around.  As mentioned, young people are concerned about the economy and getting jobs and paying off college loans.  In 2008, young people were concerned about getting drafted into a long war, and changing foreign policy.  I suppose you can say that 2012 will be about changing economic policy, but this mantra would favor Romney. 

If romney picks a hispanic-loving candidate like Rubio or Jeb Bush, then there will be a huge Hispanic turnout for Romney in Florida and the Southwest.  This Hispanic turnout may be higher than the african american turnout.  Remember, Dubya Bush had a huge Hispanic turnout in his favor, and that probably helped him win his 2 close elections. 

I just don't think Obama has a catchy slogan for 2012.  What do you think Obama's slogan will be?  "Hope for more change"?

Obama's slogan might as well be "don't worry, be happy."

[Politico]

Not only that, but the Occupy stuff hasn't even hit its full stride yet. Once that happens, that's the end of the Romney campaign.

That Occupy stuff is a BIG loser for the Democrats. Populism never works in a national campaign. Go ask Walter Mondale.

Yeah, and go talk to Truman about it too.

Newsflash: He's dead and so are most of the people who voted for him. We might as well talk about Andrew Jackson next. The New Deal era died in the late 1970s. Stagflation was the legacy of naive Keynesianism. Why anybody thought things would turn out differently this time is beyond me.

The hilarious part: Romney, and people like me, want America to progress economically and technologically as we did over the past thirty years prior to the financial crisis. So-called "progressives" want America to simply stagnate until it withers into a wimpy shade of its former self (like most of Europe).

The progress of the 90's just created an artificial bubble and an inevitable bust.  High prosperity creates deep recessions, while steady growth means weaker recessions. You should know that.

Government policy (i.e., Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, repealing Glass-Steagall, etc.) created incentives that caused the 2008 financial crisis, so you'll have to excuse me for not having faith in more government. Government policy does not create results. Government policy creates incentives, which cause results. The old-style "more government is always better" policy is a recipe for further disaster down the road.

Free people and free markets power America. Government has a role, but too much government distorts progress.

[Politico]

Not only that, but the Occupy stuff hasn't even hit its full stride yet. Once that happens, that's the end of the Romney campaign.

That Occupy stuff is a BIG loser for the Democrats. Populism never works in a national campaign. Go ask Walter Mondale.

Yeah, and go talk to Truman about it too.

Newsflash: He's dead and so are most of the people who voted for him. We might as well talk about Andrew Jackson next. The New Deal era died in the late 1970s. Stagflation was the legacy of naive Keynesianism. Why anybody thought things would turn out differently this time is beyond me.

The hilarious part: Romney, and people like me, want America to progress economically and technologically as we did over the past thirty years prior to the financial crisis. So-called "progressives" want America to simply stagnate until it withers into a wimpy shade of its former self (like most of Europe).

The progress of the 90's just created an artificial bubble and an inevitable bust.  High prosperity creates deep recessions, while steady growth means weaker recessions. You should know that.

Government policy (i.e., Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, repealing Glass-Steagall, etc.) created incentives that caused the 2008 financial crisis, so you'll have to excuse me for not having faith in more government. Government policy does not create results. Government policy creates incentives, which create results. More of the old-style "more government is better" policy is a recipe for further disaster down the road.

1. I oppose the government encouraging people to take on loans they can't pay. It's a recipe for predatory loaning.
2. Yeah, I'm not exactly a fan of Clinton & Bush's policy towards Wall Street.

Your support of Obama indicates otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reintroducing Glass-Steagall to separate commercial and investment banking is necessary sooner or later. Doing more than that, or doing something differently like Frank-Dodd (which is bound to be a pandora's box of perverse incentives and unintended consequences), is not necessary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney is not doing anything for any "buddies." Unlike Chicago politicians, Romney is not going to give preferential treatment to his buddies. Unlike a certain president, Romney is going to care about one thing and one thing alone: Economic growth.

No, Obama can't. Yes, Romney will.

[Politico]

Not only that, but the Occupy stuff hasn't even hit its full stride yet. Once that happens, that's the end of the Romney campaign.

That Occupy stuff is a BIG loser for the Democrats. Populism never works in a national campaign. Go ask Walter Mondale.

Yeah, and go talk to Truman about it too.

Newsflash: He's dead and so are most of the people who voted for him. We might as well talk about Andrew Jackson next. The New Deal era died in the late 1970s. Stagflation was the legacy of naive Keynesianism. Why anybody thought things would turn out differently this time is beyond me.

The hilarious part: Romney, and people like me, want America to progress economically and technologically as we did over the past thirty years prior to the financial crisis. So-called "progressives" want America to simply stagnate until it withers into a wimpy shade of its former self (like most of Europe).

The progress of the 90's just created an artificial bubble and an inevitable bust.  High prosperity creates deep recessions, while steady growth means weaker recessions. You should know that.

Really? The recession of 2001 saw an economic contraction of 0.3%. Seems to me that the 'Great Recession' followed a period that saw wealth become increasingly concentrated at the top as opposed to prosperity being more broad-based; while the recession of early 1980s was caused by some rigid dogmatic adherence to a contractionary monetary policy

When you have double-digit inflation along with double-digit unemployment, you have to crush inflation or else you'll eventually get runaway inflation that completely distorts your entire economy. Volcker's "shock therapy" was the lesser of two evils (i.e., runaway inflation versus higher unemployment with disinflation).

The 1992 recession was also mild, but I love how you ignore it and talk up how mild the 2001 recession was. This, despite the fact that Clinton did little differently from George H.W. Bush, not to mention George W. Bush doing little differently from Ronald Reagan, with regards to economic policy.

[Politico]

Oh, I forgot to mention: "High prosperity" is rarely so when you look below the surface. You're right. I prefer growth that is steadier and more even.

Your support of Obama indicates that you prefer growth/unemployment more in line with Europe than America. Apparently you're fine with young Americans having difficulty finding quality jobs. Is the new Obama youth mantra the following: Yes, we can (live in our parents' basement forever)?

[Politico]

"Europe" is a broad term. I much prefer Scandinavian economics, for instance, to Italian economics.

"Europe" is a broad term, but so is "America" in the sense that we have 50 separate states that differ in many ways (e.g., I much prefer economic conditions in North Dakota to economic conditions in West Virginia).

[Politico]

The EU is a confederation; the United States is a federation. North Dakota and West Virginia may have different conditions and policies, but they have much less leeway than Germany and Greece do.

The point is moot. You can check out the unemployment rate in Scandinavia (excluding Norway, which gets a boon from natural resources just like North Dakota, for example), and you will see that my comment about you generally preferring European-style growth/unemployment, which traditionally lags behind America, as being valid. Scandinavia is not paradise on earth. No nation our size is even able to compare to our quality of life and traditional levels of economic growth.

[Politico]

Boys, it's just Politico. He is just as annoying now as he was before his apology for being such a jerk a couple of weeks ago.

Ignore him, maybe he will leave when nobody reacts to his remarks anymore.

Even if nobody reads my posts, I still read theirs, and enjoy responding to some of them even if nobody cares to read my responses. Of course, this place is not nearly as informative as it was six or seven years ago. Alas, nothing lasts forever. People are free to choose not to read my posts just as I am free to choose not to read theirs. I'll never understand why anybody takes the tone of my posts as being disparaging. I can assure you I am respectful of different viewpoints, even if they may be completely wrong IMHO. This place is not Democratic Underground, so one should not be surprised when they encounter opposition to their Democratic sensibilities.

For a political forum, you would expect most everybody to have thicker skin...

[Politico]

A couple of weeks ago you apologized for being such a Romney hack. You said yourself that you were trolling around but that you were finished now.

And now you are doing the same thing again. That is annoying because it shows how much your words are worth.

I do not believe I am being hackish right now. I am not attacking Obama in the way that I attacked Santorum and Gingrich, in particular, back when I was being undeniably hackish.

Believe it or not, I fully support Romney and believe in his message of economic freedom. I strongly believe it is in America's best interests for Romney to become the 45th POTUS.

[Politico]

A couple of weeks ago you apologized for being such a Romney hack. You said yourself that you were trolling around but that you were finished now.

And now you are doing the same thing again. That is annoying because it shows how much your words are worth.

I do not believe I am being hackish right now. I am not attacking Obama in the way that I attacked Santorum and Gingrich, in particular, back when I was being undeniably hackish.

Believe it or not, I fully support Romney and believe in his message of economic freedom. I strongly believe it is in America's best interests for Romney to become the 45th POTUS.

So, you are really serious when you blame Obama for the behaviour of the Secret Service agents in Colombia?

What? I was talking about how the Obama Administration is responsible for the misspending on Gingrich's protection. It's a good example of the type of waste that is characteristic of this Administration. Obviously the Administration is not responsible for the actions of off-duty Secret Service agents. The situation there is completely different from continuing to waste resources on Gingrich's protection. Is somebody pretending to be me on the IRC chat again, and claiming that I have blamed Obama for the behavior of SS agents in South America? I've never been in the IRC room, and never will be (I barely have enough time for this place), so do not believe anything you see in the IRC chat room if it is coming from somebody claiming to be me. It's not me.

[Politico]

Right, sorry, that was Winfield.

But every candidate has the right to ask for Secret Service protection. And there was a moment in the campaign that Gingrich was leading so it's not totally weird for him to get that protection.

Using that as a sample of the waste within the Obama government is just nonsense.

That time was many months ago. We should not give Secret Service protection to people who clearly cannot win the presidency. For example, John McCain stopped receiving Secret Service protection immediately after the 2008 election results.

[Politico]

As for as I know it's law. After the murder of RFK every candidate has the right to have Secret Service protection when it's needed.

Actually, RFK had SS protection, I believe. If memory serves, RFK did not follow the SS's proposed route for leaving the hotel. Or perhaps I am confusing the SS with his private security and/or local law enforcement.

I believe you can only get SS protection if there are credible death threats and/or you are a serious candidate who can win the presidency, either as an independent or one of the prospects for the nomination of a major party. Gingrich has not met this criteria in months. Any other administration would no longer be wasting resources like this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Romney is the presumptive nominee, but nobody in the Obama Administration knows how to properly handle resources, so nobody realizes it's probably prudent to pull the plug on Gingrich's SS protection. I am not arguing Gingrich should have never received SS protection. Obviously he was a serious candidate at one time who deserved the protection. I am arguing the SS protection should have been dropped quite a few weeks ago.

[Politico]

Politico- I think there are far bigger issues then the what- 10K per day that is spent on Newt's protection? Lord knows some whackjob could wake up and want to be in the news...God forbid.

We're talking about $40K/day, so over $1 million/month.

There are bigger problems, but this is symbolic of the type of mismanagement of resources in Washington under the Obama Administration.