2012 Election thread

[ThisIsTheYear 241]

20 years from now, when researchers go back and try to figure out how it was that, starting in early February of 2012, the United States went into the biggest economic boom in human history, they'll ultimately trace all of it back to Clint Eastwood telling America that their second half was about to start.

 

Seriously, it's completely off topic for this thread, and I don't care: how *****ing awesome was that commercial?

 

I think he's all but guaranteed himself that VP nominee seat.

 

I was gonna start a superbowl thread, halfway through the game, just because of that. Got chills, man.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Now that the Republican party all but has a formal nominee, I figured this thread deserved a bump.

 

Real Clear Politics has finally started updating their electoral map, and it paints a daunting picture for Romney. That can be seen here.

 

While obviously a state being "leaning" one way or the other doesn't set it in stone, Romney clearly needs to start making in-roads as quickly as possible at eliminating Obama's electoral firewalls in the Southwest(Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado, which lean Obama) and the South(Virginia and North Carolina, which both are polling with Obama having slight leads).

 

If Romney can't break those firewalls, there really is no path forward for him towards the presidency. I think it'll be interesting to see what electoral strategy Romney adopts towards getting the needed 270.

 

"Winning the states Bush won in '04" works, but sets a dangerous precedent for the GOP moving forward, and would require flipping quite a few states that Obama won in 2008: Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and one vote from Nebraska. That's a tall order for Romney, particularly when he's going to almost assuredly have a money disadvantage.

 

Man: the US really does stack the deck against politicians challenging incumbents for the presidency.

[Osprey 199]

I can see Florida and Pennsylvania flipping to Romney.

 

Still, lots of roadblocks for Mitt, however, a few things are working against Obama:

 

1. Gas Prices continuing to rise heading into Summer, where they inevitably will rise based on historical trends.

 

2. Obamacare being gutted by the Supremes. Its a toss up to what will happen in June, but killing the mandate effectively takes the bite out of the bill, and as a results, cripples Obama's "Keystone" accomplishment.

 

3. Republicans are going to hammer him on the Economy, unemployment, and energy. If the Dems and media can continue to successfully shift the argument to Women's Issues and distract people from the real problems the nation faces, then Obama wins easily.

[ThisIsTheYear 241]

Pretty sure Santorum effectively killed any chance of Romney getting the independent women vote.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

3. Republicans are going to hammer him on the Economy, unemployment, and energy. If the Dems and media can continue to successfully shift the argument to Women's Issues and distract people from the real problems the nation faces, then Obama wins easily.

 

This is the key one.

 

One thing that was revealed about Romney in the last few months of the primary is that he's not very good at maintaining or controlling the election narrative. If he can't figure out how to do that, and Obama is allowed to turn the political narrative into what he wants, all the other things you mentioned won't matter.

 

There were legitimate questions/concerns raised by the McCain campaign about some of Obama's positions in the 2008 campaign that could have been potentially damaging, but because Obama was pretty deft at controlling the narrative of the debate in the public*, he never really had to address any of those points.

 

That's a serious concern for Romney, and if the last couple days are any indication, it's gonna be a bumpy road for him. His recent "victory lap" interviews in the last few days have been wild, random and frequently off-topic, and he got flustered at some pretty basic questions. He could get away with that when it was the primaries and he still had the inevitable tag. Now he's the nominee, and that will just make him look weak.

 

*I want to make it clear that I've never really bought into the idea of there being an intentional liberal bias in the media. I think a lot of newscasters, maybe even most, are liberals and that they naturally have their own perceptions colored by that, but I think that most decent newscasters will do their best to be fair and even-handed, in the same way that I don't think that Chris Wallace, who is clearly a conservative, is trying to be a Republican shill: he's simply reporting on issues as best he can, and his own leanings will come out in small ways at times. But that effect is pretty minimal, on both sides(at least with actual news coverage. All bets are off for the Hannitys of the world). So when I say "controlling the narrative in the media/in public", I'm talking about an actual skill at making the issues in the debate what you want them to be. Obama proved to be great at it in the primaries in 2008, and absolutely embarrassed McCain with it after that. And I didn't like the guy as a President, but George W. Bush won consecutive elections because of how effective he was at controlling the media narrative, when by all rights, Gore should have slaughtered him.

[Osprey 199]

This recent issue with Rosen attacking Ann Romney has given me confidence that Mitt's Campaign can control a narrative. They were quick to hammer this thing in social media and on the talk shows.

 

Ann Romney is going to be a massive player in the next few months btw.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

They're doing a good job at seizing an opening, but I'm not sure how long they can reasonably expect this one to hold. The comment was made by a "democratic strategist" with no ties to the Obama camp, and Obama himself condemned the comment almost immediately as being incredibly stupid.

 

The Romney camp will fan the flames, as they should, for as long as they can, but I can't imagine this story has any traction left by the end of next week, and no one will care by May 1.

 

Romney is going to have to prove he can drive the narrative in a mistake-free environment and/or force Obama into making mistakes, and I don't really see him being able to do that. But obviously, he's got the next 6 months to prove me wrong on that front.

[Osprey 199]

This story won't have any traction in about a week, agreed, but its a nice stepping stone to get juices flowing following his victory lap.

 

The only way Romney is going to excite the base is if he comes after Obama in a hard, negative way, and really go on the attack during the debates.

 

The best thing Obama had going for him in 2008 was his lack of record, it meant he had nothing to attack and personal attacks could be construed as racism (which the Obama campaign capitalized on).

 

Four years later, Obama has a record, and something to attack, fiercely. Its a mixed bad with a lot of unpopular decisions, and the things he's done well aren't really bumper sticker or campaign bed rocks. Outside of Osama and the Iraq pullout (which are big), he's running thin in an election thats going to focus on the economy.

[barnettej 263]

This year is going to be a blow out in all phases. With Romney winning the GOP nomination, I dont see him fairing well with the rest of the general population. Im not saying Obama hasnt had some faults and will win in a land slide, but he will win convincingly.

 

I dont think the House will remain after their past efforts of sabotaging everything and will flip to the Dem side.

 

I wish their was a third party, like an independent President.... but honestly their is no such thing as independent, your always for somebody.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

but honestly their is no such thing as independent, your always for somebody.

 

Such people certainly do exist, they just don't make it far in politics.

 

It's the biggest reason I can't bring myself to have more than a passing interest in national politics. It's tiring.

[jec 427]

Such people certainly do exist, they just don't make it far in politics.

 

It's the biggest reason I can't bring myself to have more than a passing interest in national politics. It's tiring.

 

'That's how I feel about it.

[Berto 338]

I actually agree with barnette to an extent. To me, calling yourself independent is just another way of saying you're 1.) ignorant 2.) easily persuaded either way 3.) completely apathetic (which is the worst) or 4.) a liar. Now, that doesn't mean you have to be a Democrat or Republican, but if you're a liberal thinking person, you're not exactly doing back flips when you hear Republican rhetoric and vice versa.

 

To get back on the apathy thing: you can be apathetic towards the process or the system (it's a fixed game, my voice isn't heard, they're all crooks, it's stupid etc.), I get that. But you should have opinions, and those opinions more often than not are going to line up with a certain ideology. That doesn't mean you're always going to think the same way on everything. For example: I'm a liberal, but I'm much more hawkish on terrorism than the usual left leaning person.

 

I don't think you have to actually like politics at all to be political.