[worry]

Good news for those of you who think Romney is not conservative enough: http://www.buzzfeed....egy-turns-right

[worry]

On the other hand, there's a good 47% of us he already doesn't concern himself with. http://politicalwire...ama_voters.html

Makes a lot of sense.

[HoosierDaddy]

worrywort, on 17 September 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

On the other hand, there's a good 47% of us he already doesn't concern himself with. http://politicalwire...ama_voters.html

Makes a lot of sense.

Yet, many of those who will vote for him are exactly who he is describing.

[HoosierDaddy]

Romney campaign is imploding and it'll still be a close election.

[worry]

[HoosierDaddy]

I'd be remiss and hypocritical if I didn't chastise you for the same thing I've chastised others, Worry.

Discussion forum. Pics with texts aren't discussion.

[Vengeance]

Oh but there is more.


Romney slips.....



It looks like motherjones has hit the mother load... Bloomberg and CNN have picked it up. Romneys camp is going into crisis mode... How many times in just over a week can a campaign for president of America go into crisis mode. If you have to repeatedly go into crisis mode should you even be running for president.

This post has been edited by Vengeance: 18 September 2012 - 04:15 AM

[Vengeance]

The times has a nice piece on looking for voter fraud.

voter fraud


Sigh... Litmus tests in evolution should be necessary in order to challenge voter fraud.

[Obdigore]

Aye, it was mentioned a couple posts up. Edit -> The 47% Freeloaders thing.

The most ironic thing, to me, is that if you look at a map of states that routinely vote republican in elections and a map of states that get more from the federal government (for things like welfare and housing assistance) than they pay in, it is almost entirely the same states.

Just like the voters who vote with republicans because they don't like Pell Grants or Welfare or Food Stamps but are actually using one of those programs.

And there is big business in keeping those citizens naive or misinformed.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 18 September 2012 - 04:22 AM

[Vengeance]

Obdigore, on 18 September 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

Aye, it was mentioned a couple posts up. Edit -> The 47% Freeloaders thing.

The most ironic thing, to me, is that if you look at a map of states that routinely vote republican in elections and a map of states that get more from the federal government (for things like welfare and housing assistance) than they pay in, it is almost entirely the same states.

Just like the voters who vote with republicans because they don't like Pell Grants or Welfare or Food Stamps but are actually using one of those programs.

And there is big business in keeping those citizens naive or misinformed.

Yes but now there are more videos.

[Obdigore]

You would think that someone who says 'I don't care about nearly half the country' would be automatically disqualified from winning the election, but it is still going to be close.

[worry]

Fair enough, HD, though in my (admittedly meager) defense that particular picture with text quite accurately depicts my reaction to your previous two posts -- though I hope it does not reflect the bulk of my contribution to this thread -- and so while I'd hate for you to be remiss, in the end we all gotta live with ourselves and our various posting faults and foibles, the ways we disappoint even ourselves. We're all works in progress, HD. You, me, President Barack Obama, his challenger Mitt Romney. I can only promise that I will try to do better next time.

As far as the 47% video...I find it fascinating that he goes on to suggest that his job is convincing the "thoughtful" center -- which he gauges at 5-10% of voters -- and, he suggests, vote often on emotion. There's no logical consistency there, but besides that, when you add that 47 + 10 (max) you wind up with 57%, leaving a good 43% of presumably his own base, people he doesn't have to convince of anything I suppose. This alone might not tell you his opinion of them, merely by inference of their exclusion. But then there's the video of "Mitt Romney on What Wins an Election" where he states outright "My dad used to say, 'Being right early is not good in politics.' And in a setting like this, a highly intellectual subject—discussion on a whole series of important topics typically doesn't win elections." So Obdigore, what I'm getting from this -- and certainly there's filling in the blanks, but I don't think it's a huge stretch -- is that he's not saying he doesn't care about nearly half the country...he's saying he doesn't care about roughly 90% of the country, and the 5-10% of "emotional" but "thoughtful" center independents matter precisely because he has to convince them to vote for him. Both sides have their strategists and run the numbers often enough, but this clearly seems to be the primary way Romney thinks about the nation's people. This particular peer group he's comfortable with; the numbers get his heart pumping; the vast majority of actual people? Not so interested.

[HoosierDaddy]

worrywort, on 18 September 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

Fair enough, HD, though in my (admittedly meager) defense that particular picture with text quite accurately depicts my reaction to your previous two posts -- though I hope it does not reflect the bulk of my contribution to this thread -- and so while I'd hate for you to be remiss, in the end we all gotta live with ourselves and our various posting faults and foibles, the ways we disappoint even ourselves. We're all works in progress, HD. You, me, President Barack Obama, his challenger Mitt Romney. I can only promise that I will try to do better next time.
.....

You should be remiss at your faults and foibles, but I also think we are all disappointments to ourselves despite being works in progress. But, we all have hope for the future, truly.

That being said: Romney is an elitist hack and we all know it. He's just doing his best impersonation of a "regular rich guy Republican." He sucks at it. Really, really, sucks at it. Yet, I still honestly believe, like sir asshole himself, there are 47% of the population that will refuse to vote for Obama.

At least Mitt was honest about that. Partisan nation = partisan elections.

[worry]

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but there's a murkiness to these numbers when you get into differentiating voting eligible vs. likely voters. And further, there's percentage vs. raw numbers. And we know that besides voter suppression (and other than Pennsylvania so far, several key states have had courts overturn the efforts -- Ohio, Texas, Florida, etc.), another key element of Romney's strategy is the Enthusiasm Gap for Obama between 2008 and 2012 (which is real, but possibly overestimated), I'm not sure Romney/Ryan aren't failing in their own enthusiasm gains. I know conservatives are generally more counted on to come out and vote each and every time, but I dunno if that's gonna hold up, at least to the level expected. I guess what I'm saying is that though the gap exists for Obama, Romney isn't necessarily making up for it, and might even be losing his own ground.

[Terez]

Yeah, I would be surprised if this changed the poll numbers at all. It just makes for an interesting campaign historically (along with all the other comments along the same lines). I really hope someone is writing a book about it...

[Vengeance]

Terez, on 18 September 2012 - 07:25 AM, said:

Yeah, I would be surprised if this changed the poll numbers at all. It just makes for an interesting campaign historically (along with all the other comments along the same lines). I really hope someone is writing a book about it...

I am sure that several are being written. If past historical elections are any indication.

[Aptorian]

Vengeance, on 18 September 2012 - 04:13 AM, said:

Oh but there is more.

Romney slips.....

It looks like motherjones has hit the mother load... Bloomberg and CNN have picked it up. Romneys camp is going into crisis mode... How many times in just over a week can a campaign for president of America go into crisis mode. If you have to repeatedly go into crisis mode should you even be running for president.

I stumbled upon this video on Reddit earlier and I honestly don't understand the uproar. I listened to all the "compromising clips" on that page and... well, it actually paints Romney in a very favorable light in my eyes. He's being candid (oh I am sure he is lying even when being honest) and open hearted. Admitting that it's all basically down to campaign strategies and luck, rather than actual politics. I can tell he is fuzzing the numbers and I am sure he is lying when he states that 50% of kids in the big cities are failing Highschool, but there's nothing in these videos that is particularly shocking or compromising in my opinion. It's just a Republican politician saying republican things.

It's not nearly as damning as that old fundraising clip where he's talking about buying sweatshops in China.

[worry]

That China thing is from the same event, I believe. Also, what's so favorable about the fact that he can only be candid or "open hearted" in front of his very narrow, financially elite peer group, one that happens to be bankrolling his campaign? He's not running for president of the rich, he's running for president of the US -- the vast majority of its citizens he -- easily, so easily -- dismisses out of hand. At his emergency press conference last night he didn't even take it back, his one concession was that he phrased some of it inelegantly.

[Tapper]

For a lighter approach to the subject of Romney: This
10 out of twelve correct for me, I was Mitt-ranking.

With regard to Apt: I think it is staggering that he is actually daring to say he is not doing a job for 47% of the nation, whether in private or public. Politicians have apologized for less (calling a reporter a dick while a microphone was open). Honesty doesn't cover that.
Even George W. had the political sense to have it included in his first presidential speech (or at the least he read the autocue) that he was President for every single American. And that was after a much, much more contested and heated confrontation over the Florida votes (OK, he was the victor, but even so, George W. also was a bit of a streetfighter). Romney is not going to be able to make that particular statement without being mocked everywhere. Naturally, this will be spinned into: 'his current job' (none), not 'his future job' (president). Still.

It would be the same as our multi-party-coalitions declaring they only represent their own constituency when elected into governmental positions. Completely not done. I understand the Democrats being hesitant in attacking him over this (you don't want to advertize yourself as a shitflinging monkey, antagonizing Republicans who cringe at this, and dignity is the best answer), but I'd expected European foreign political pages/topics dedicated to the US elections to be dominated by moderate Republicans distancing themselves. I did read how campaign strategy is shifting from targeting the moderate middle/ swing vote to mobilization of the hardcore party base, but the combination of those two factors alone should set moderates thinking, shouldn't it?

Or is it so late in the campaign that even moderates are going to swallow their objections against this candidate, and soldier on?

[Vengeance]

Tapper, on 18 September 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

For a lighter approach to the subject of Romney: This
10 out of twelve correct for me, I was Mitt-ranking.

With regard to Apt: I think it is staggering that he is actually daring to say he is not doing a job for 47% of the nation, whether in private or public. Politicians have apologized for less (calling a reporter a dick while a microphone was open). Honesty doesn't cover that.
Even George W. had the political sense to have it included in his first presidential speech (or at the least he read the autocue) that he was President for every single American. And that was after a much, much more contested and heated confrontation over the Florida votes (OK, he was the victor, but even so, George W. also was a bit of a streetfighter). Romney is not going to be able to make that particular statement without being mocked everywhere. Naturally, this will be spinned into: 'his current job' (none), not 'his future job' (president). Still.

It would be the same as our multi-party-coalitions declaring they only represent their own constituency when elected into governmental positions. Completely not done. I understand the Democrats being hesitant in attacking him over this (you don't want to advertize yourself as a shitflinging monkey, antagonizing Republicans who cringe at this, and dignity is the best answer), but I'd expected European foreign political pages/topics dedicated to the US elections to be dominated by moderate Republicans distancing themselves. I did read how campaign strategy is shifting from targeting the moderate middle/ swing vote to mobilization of the hardcore party base, but the combination of those two factors alone should set moderates thinking, shouldn't it?

Or is it so late in the campaign that even moderates are going to swallow their objections against this candidate, and soldier on?

No moderates are starting to move away from him. By moderate republican's I mean republican elected in blue states.

Moderate Republicans moving away