Romney should go on offense

[Likely Voter]

It is clear the "economy sucks and I'll give you details on how I'll fix it after the election" strategy isn't working. Romney is being criticized for it by his own party and the WSJ editorial board.  People believe what they believe about the economy and who is or isn't to blame. Romney has to move on to specifics on what he will do differently than GWBush.

[afleitch]

It would be nice is Romney says something. You know something, f-ck anything. I'll seriously take anything right now.

[King]

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."

Um, if anything, Obama standing right there will make Romney's attacks even LESS effective because Obama will be able to kill the effect right there on the spot.

Also, your belief at this point that Romney is the one with facts and Obama is the one who will say anything to get elected is adorable.

Naso is right in one sense. He should go on offense. However attacking Obama more is not offense.   Romney needs to make this election about Mitt Romney. If he really was presidential material he would be able to do so.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If Romney finishes his argument with "now it's the president's turn to talk: He can't deny the numbers, so watch the spin," Obama won't be able to say much.

I'm not trying to argue that Romney has provided a specific vision with clear numbers of his own... he's done the opposite. But the reality of the American economic situation is clear. Those facts aren't good, and they're there for Romney to use whenever he wants. I can't believe you'd try to argue that Obama hasn't wanted to avoid talking about these facts. Of course he has. So please don't patronize me.

We place our faith in different candidates. That doesn't mean there aren't economic realities that these men have to contend with.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Coming from Liberaltarians, that's an endorsement. May I ask whom is at the top of your ballot at present? Mine is Goode.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If Romney finishes his argument with "now it's the president's turn to talk: He can't deny the numbers, so watch the spin," Obama won't be able to say much.

Yeah, I would like to see that after Mittens throws his usual bullsh**t accusations about gutting welfare reform and Medicare.

[Yank2133]

If Romney finishes his argument with "now it's the president's turn to talk: He can't deny the numbers, so watch the spin," Obama won't be able to say much.

I'm not trying to argue that Romney has provided a specific vision with clear numbers of his own... he's done the opposite. But the reality of the American economic situation is clear. Those facts aren't good, and they're there for Romney to use whenever he wants. I can't believe you'd try to argue that Obama hasn't wanted to avoid talking about these facts. Of course he has. So please don't patronize me.

We place our faith in different candidates. That doesn't mean there aren't economic realities that these men have to contend with.

The problem is the numbers/facts are on Obama's side.

Christ, did you learn anything from Bill Clinton's speech last week?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Barack HUSSEIN Osama... excuse, me, Obama, is not only a Muslim nig... Black, but also a halfbreed, who wants to violate chasity of Christian white virgins. He is a socialist who wants you to marry a gay and your children to listen to hip-hop.


Yeah, Naso, that would work just well.

[King]

If Romney finishes his argument with "now it's the president's turn to talk: He can't deny the numbers, so watch the spin," Obama won't be able to say much.

Except you've already noted in this thread that you don't even know the numbers he could even say that would even make this scenario possible.  As you said, there are certain relaties the candidates have to deal with and the reality is what you want Romney to attack Obama on isn't even real.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If Romney finishes his argument with "now it's the president's turn to talk: He can't deny the numbers, so watch the spin," Obama won't be able to say much.

I'm not trying to argue that Romney has provided a specific vision with clear numbers of his own... he's done the opposite. But the reality of the American economic situation is clear. Those facts aren't good, and they're there for Romney to use whenever he wants. I can't believe you'd try to argue that Obama hasn't wanted to avoid talking about these facts. Of course he has. So please don't patronize me.

We place our faith in different candidates. That doesn't mean there aren't economic realities that these men have to contend with.

The problem is the numbers/facts are on Obama's side.

Christ, did you learn anything from Bill Clinton's speech last week?

Bill's explanation was mostly about Medicare, Obama's help for college kids, and other things that diverted attention away from the jobless rate. He hid Obama's bad jobs record by lumping him in with more successful Democrats. He poked holes in Romney's tax plans without accounting for the possibility that tax revenues would substantially grow as the economy turned around. He framed the debate so that Obama looked like the savior of an unfixable economy. Bill did well, but Obama isn't good at that.

And King: I never said I did not know the numbers. I said I was too lazy to fill in the blanks... and that's because I thought Reaganfan did a great job in his original post:

I say, Romney should [...] 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."

I guess I overestimated my audience when I neglected to repost them word for word. Sorry. It won't happen again.

[King]

I say, Romney should [...] 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."

I guess I overestimated my audience when I neglected to repost them word for word. Sorry. It won't happen again.

Obama can simply point out how these numbers have all fallen significantly from what they were 2 years ago.   You're severely underestimating Obama if you think he won't be prepped to respond to a Romney attack on the economy that basic.  Either that or you also believe in the Rush Limbaugh lie that Obama is lost without a teleprompter, which is not true as he won plenty of debates against both Clinton and McCain in 2008.  Or worse, you think that Mitt "Who Let the Dogs Out" Romney is quick on his feet at all to be able to lay out dishes against the President all night.

Now, I will give you one thing: It's a good line, but it's also the same line Romney has already been using to no avail.  And keep in mind this is a DEBATE.  That's one (not even) 30 second response which will be refuted by Obama one response later.

What's Romney going to do the rest of the time?  Keep going back to that line?  Repeating himself?  He's going to need to start talk about himself sooner or later.  He's going to need to start talking foreign policy sooner or later.  Mitt struggled in the GOP debates and I can't see him doing well here.

Sure, anything can happen, but the evidence shows things don't look good for Mitt.

[Meeker]

The entirety of the debates are not about the economy. The part about healthcare is going to be disastrous for Romney given his history on the issue. Obama also has an abundance of hits to make on foreign policy.

Additionally, Romney is pretty awful at body language presentation (the smirk from yesterday is nothing new) and he also seems to get annoyed quite easily (go back and watch his debates in the primary). The bottom line is - as polling has shown - people like Obama more than Romney. Presentation is just as important (if not more so) than what the candidates actually say.

I know you guys want to think these debates will be a gamechanger and all because they're pretty much Romney's last hope, but there's no real evidence that that's going to be the case besides wishful thinking.

[Mister Twister]

Obama is also good at zingers. Zingers are vital in this day and age. When was the last time Romney delivered a successful zinger? If you can't produce good zingers, it is hard for you to win the debate.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

King: That's why I think Romney benefits by being right there beside Obama. He gets to pre-empt the spin.

But we'll disagree.

[King]

King: That's why I think Romney benefits by being right there beside Obama. He gets to pre-empt the spin.

But we'll disagree.

What spin? Romney's position itself is spin.

[Sbane]

King: That's why I think Romney benefits by being right there beside Obama. He gets to pre-empt the spin.

But we'll disagree.

Obama will just mention that millions of jobs have been created since the depth of the recession. Would you consider that to be spin?

[Bull Moose Base]

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 - the Republican president who was president for 8 years when we landed in this mess?
23- the number of Republican House members who need to be defeated to pass Obama's jobs bill?
47- Massachusetts rank in job growth out of 50 states under Governor Romney?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Remind me where Illinois placed.

[Mister Twister]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Remind me where Illinois placed.

Who cares? Obama wasn't governor of Illinois

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it did well, it would be credited to Obama.

Which is why you all are still blaming Bush.

Carter is the only president never to see an increase in the DOW during his tenure.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

King: That's why I think Romney benefits by being right there beside Obama. He gets to pre-empt the spin.

But we'll disagree.

What spin? Romney's position itself is spin.

43, 23, and 47 aren't.

[Hoverbored123]

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?

I agree, generally; a "gentlemanly" approach is a terrible idea under any circumstances.  This isn't to say Romney should go hog-wild, but he needs to exploit Obama's perceived weaknesses on foreign and domestic policy. 

[King]

King: That's why I think Romney benefits by being right there beside Obama. He gets to pre-empt the spin.

But we'll disagree.

What spin? Romney's position itself is spin.

43, 23, and 47 aren't.

Yes, it's spinning that Obama inherited an economy that wasn't in the toilet and created this problem as oppose to the spin that it's improving from a bottoming out that he did not have control of.