Romney should go on offense

[Reaganfan]

The media is trying (and obviously so) to make it look like Governor Romney fumbled the ball so to speak. I say, that's their trap.

The liberals and the media think Romney's only way to win is to "play it safe". I disagree. Playing it safe failed for Bob Dole and John McCain.

If you look at the 1980 election, a similar mirror to 2012 in many aspects, despite the violence, death and national tragedy of the Iran Hostage Crisis, Governor Reagan adamantly attacked President Carter day in and day out in the final two months on the issue and it payed off.

If Romney does the same, are we to assume that just because 32 years have passed that the electorate would feel differently? I highly doubt that.

I say, Romney should go on offense. Then take it home in the debates. Look President Obama in the eye, give the factual statistics:

"Mr. President, there are only three numbers that matter to the American people watching at home. 43, 23 and 47. 43 straight months of 8% or higher unemployment, 23 million Americans out of work, and 47 million Americans on food stamps. That is your record, Mr. President. You can't hide from your record, and if I'm elected President, I'll get this economy moving again."

Just hammer him. Be on offense. Don't cave in.

Agree or disagree?

[Franzl]

What does Romney have to go on the offense about? Republicans have tried to turn this election into a referendum on Obama already, and it seems people have rejected that premise.

[Earthling]

People still blame Bush more for these numbers than Obama.

He will use the numbers, for sure. But Obama will have his answer ready.

[Reaganfan]

What does Romney have to go on the offense about? Republicans have tried to turn this election into a referendum on Obama already, and it seems people have rejected that premise.

If that is the case, Franzl, and I'm not saying it is, then why? You and I both know that if someone created a thread on this forum saying "What would be near-certain to make a President lose re-election", a scenario like we find in real life this year would almost certainly be one of the replies to that thread.

My question is, why does it seem even with the near certain-one term scenario, Obama could win re-election?

[Keystone Phil]

Bad candidate, Naso. The party was warned.

[Franzl]

What does Romney have to go on the offense about? Republicans have tried to turn this election into a referendum on Obama already, and it seems people have rejected that premise.

If that is the case, Franzl, and I'm not saying it is, then why? You and I both know that if someone created a thread on this forum saying "What would be near-certain to make a President lose re-election", a scenario like we find in real life this year would almost certainly be one of the replies to that thread.

My question is, why does it seem even with the near certain-one term scenario, Obama could win re-election?

Because the alternative is Mitt Romney. (And because Obama actually does have something to show for his first term, despite everything....) But yeah, mainly because of his opponent.

[Wisconsin+17]

Bad candidate, Naso. The party was warned.

Quoted for abso-frakkin' lutely truth.

[Eraserhead]

What does Romney have to go on the offense about? Republicans have tried to turn this election into a referendum on Obama already, and it seems people have rejected that premise.

If that is the case, Franzl, and I'm not saying it is, then why? You and I both know that if someone created a thread on this forum saying "What would be near-certain to make a President lose re-election", a scenario like we find in real life this year would almost certainly be one of the replies to that thread.

My question is, why does it seem even with the near certain-one term scenario, Obama could win re-election?

Because this economy is, quite clearly, largely the fault of people (ex: George W. Bush) and things (ex: housing bubble) that have very little to do with Obama. Obama clearly hasn't done nearly enough to "fix" the problems but Romney would actually do even less, so what's the point of putting him in there?

Anyway, look at how FDR and Reagan tossed aside Landon and Mondale respectively despite the fact that they were both still presiding over bad economies and it's hardly surprising that Obama is favored to win. (We're much more polarized now so he won't get a landslide though.)

Also, I agree with the stuff about Romney being a sh.itty candidate. That doesn't exactly help your cause.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You can't beat something with nothing.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Like others said... it's Mitt Romney we're talking about.

Mitt Romney is neither a Reagan nor a Clinton. He isn't even a particularly good Bob Dole or John Kerry.

(Plus, Obama killed Bin Laden and passed a health care reform.)

[Reaganfan]

Then who would be best? Santorum? Huckabee? Christie? Jeb Bush?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Then who would be best? Santorum? Huckabee? Christie? Jeb Bush?

Any of them would probably be better for the GOP.

[Earthling]

Santorum not so much. The social issues would be a major thing in the election and that is not a winning issue for the Republicans.

Huckabee, Christie and Bush would have been better. But it was a weak bench the Republicans had this time.

[ZuWo]

You can only go on offense if you have something to offer. However, as far as I see Romney only offers criticism of Obama's first term but remains extremely vague overall. If he wants to attack Obama, he must present the voters with an alternative, a clear plan. So far, he has not been able to show that he has a clear plan for the USA.

[7,052,770]

It doesn't really matter what Romney does.  His only hope is to wax Obama in the debates (pretty unlikely) or have some major outside event change the dynamic of the race (completely unpredictable).

[President von Cat]

Reaganfan, Romney has been saying that stuff every day for the past two years and it still hasn't caught fire with the electorate. Why would doing it in a debate be any different?

[Reaganfan]

Reaganfan, Romney has been saying that stuff every day for the past two years and it still hasn't caught fire with the electorate. Why would doing it in a debate be any different?

Debates are always crucial in Presidential elections. So is the state of the U.S. Economy. Why would this election be different?

[Brittain33]

He successfully offended a hell of a lot of people on 9/11.

[DrScholl]

That's what he's been doing the entire campaign, which is part of the problem. He doesn't try to present why he is a better alternative, only that Obama is bad. Kerry tried that with Bush and it didn't work.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I agree with Reaganfan, and that's why I'm actually optimistic about Romney's chances in the debates. I know Romney's consistently been hammering Obama to little effect. But Obama has never been right there beside him to rebut his claims. If I was Romney, this is what I'd do in the first debate:

"Mr. President, you can tell the American people whatever you think they want to hear tonight... and I fully expect you will. But I'm not going to let you avoid the facts. [Insert facts--I'm too lazy to type them]. Odds are, when [moderator] hands the floor over to you, you'll do whatever you can to dodge these facts--you've been doing it for most of your presidency. But I'm not going to let you manipulate the American people. Those aren't just numbers: Those are people. And they deserve a president who will make things better... not a president who's proven that he'll avoid the truth with slick talk and speeches."

[Bull Moose Base]

"Mr. President, you can tell the American people whatever you think they want to hear tonight... and I fully expect you will. But I'm not going to let you avoid the facts. [Insert facts--I'm too lazy to type them].

I expect that to be exactly what Romney says in the debate.  Including the part about being too lazy to find the actual facts.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Romney lecturing Obama about the facts will be like Samantha Jones lecturing about the virtues of abstinence.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see why social issues are a winning issue for democrats and a loser issue for republicans.

I can see why democrats believe this to be so, but it's just not true. Everytime the Republicans nominate a moderate, they lose. Why? Because if the choice is between fake and real, people choose the real thing every time.

[Maxwell]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see why social issues are a winning issue for democrats and a loser issue for republicans.

I can see why democrats believe this to be so, but it's just not true. Everytime the Republicans nominate a moderate, they lose. Why? Because if the choice is between fake and real, people choose the real thing every time.

And Santorum was the leader of K Street, so thats even more of a loss for republicans.

[5280]

There's a certain point Obama has to take responsibility of the economy and stop blaming Bush, clearly he wants to blame Bush until 2017 when he's out of office.