2012 Presidential Election Run-Up

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
It’s interesting how each side thinks that the OTHER side will be prone to making a major Gaff.

Conservatives think that the President is more prone because he is arrogant and cocky.

Liberals think that Romney is more prone because he is a rich, out-of-touch guy who just “doesn’t get it”.

Now Ryan and “Killer Joe” should be interesting too (albeit just for one Debate). They both come from similar working-class backgrounds…but Ryan is an admitted “Political Detail/Wonk” guy…and Joe is…“KillerJoe”! Joe is damn good at deflection and “regular-guy-ness”…and not giving a flying f$ck about his gaffs…and Ryan IS a “detail” person.

The problem I see is that the Debates are really not set up for a lot of “substance and detail” (which favors KillerJoe)…but Joe can really, REALLY stick his foot in his mouth.

We’ll see!

Mufasa[/quote]

Neither of them come off as particularly quick witted when taken off message or pressed into answering off the cuff. Just an observation, as being quick on your feet has zero to do with being good presidential material…
[/quote]

Actually, if you recall the republican debates Romney was the only candidate to have a logical beginning, middle and end to his responses. Other than a few minor gaffes that the press ran with, like trying to bet Rick Perry $10,000 at on point he made few errors (He should have dumbed it down and said "bet you ten dollars- You see it’s bad to be wealthy in America today so you have to pretend that you’re “Joe everyman”).

Romney debated something like 12 times or so. He’s polished and he doesn’t melt under fire. I take nothing away from Obama either. The man is brimming with confidence and that is always a good thing when you are facing the bright studio lights and a potential audience of 35 million people. But I also think that Obama is somewhat lost without his teleprompter. And he’s had the use of that teleprompter for four years. No one has pushed him on an issue, especially publicly. He gets softballs from the press we all know that. So let’s see how he performs without a net. He may very well rise to the occasion, but I will tell you this, I’d hate to have to defend this economy. And that is exactly what he has to do. So it’s not just a matter of which man is better on his feet (and I think Romney is) it’s a matter of which position that they have to take.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with what you’ve said here. I was just more referring to expecting a killer ‘off the cuff’ remark from either. I just don’t see that happening.

I don’t think you’ll see a meltdown from either man, either. They’re both too polished and controlled. As an interested spectator, I hope the first debate does spark somewhat, otherwise they could all turn into complete yawnfest non events. In my opinion Romney does have more ‘fire’, that’s perhaps what gets him into a bit of trouble in the off the cuff remark department. I’m liking that more and more (the fire). Saw him on 60 minutes and I thought he came off rather well. Didn’t watch the Obama interview directly after, so can’t make a direct comparison. Obama is coming across REALLY drone like in this run , for me. Maybe I’m just used to his style and delivery at this point, but I really see very little that would excite me there if I was a US voter at this point.

I also don’t think the average voter in the US gets exactly how far down the pike the US is as far as something similar to a Eurozone meltdown happening there. And it is very close. [/quote]

You didn’t watch the Obama interview on 60 minutes? You missed all those hard hitting questions like, “was it hard for Michelle to adjust to life in the White House?”…or some such nonsense.

I agree with you on most of what you’ve posted. There will not me a melt down be either candidate. Although Obama breaking down and saying “Karl Marx was mostly right and he is my hero” would be nice :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Hahahahaaaa…I can see how you would like that. :wink:

I had something pressing to do while Obama was on…like flipping the channel or make a sammich or summat along those lines hehe.

Just not feeling him these days, at all. I think smh it was above in one of his posts summed it up quite nicely, that he seems distant and irritated or something along those lines. Finding him very robotic and much less affable. Perhaps the pressure is getting to him, governing AND running at the same time can’t be easy, plus now he has something to lose.

142

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Therin lies the problem, Zeb.

Romney can’t just zip off a list of negative descriptions of the economy; he has to articulate how he will turn it all around.

He HAS to have (IMO) some “Grand Vision”. As it stands, he is mostly reciting general Supply-Side Economic theory; and that won’t get him over the hump.

Mufasa[/quote]

First of all I do agree that Romney has to lay out a general plan. He has somewhat but during the debates he can do more of that. Secondly, you seem to raise the bar for Romney and lower it for Obama. It is, or should be enough to say “hey this guy failed and here’s how I judge his failures.” And it always used to be enough to say such things. When Reagan took Carter to task for governing over a poor economy it was enough to get him elected. Clinton attacked Bush (41) because of the recession (mild in comparison to today) and it was enough. But now for some reason that is just not enough. The press has elevated Obama to saint hood and unless someone can specifically say with exactness how they would do better they don’t deserve the chance to try. Better we leave the Presidency in the hands of someone incompetent who has ALREADY FAILD. Yeah that makes sense. But, fine attack Obama’s record and compare it to the worst economic records in our country’s history. Then say that you can do better and here’s how.

I think Romney is capable of doing that. Will he do that? I have no idea. He was also capable of picking a VP candidate who could win Florida or Ohio but so far that does not seem to be happening. He picked Paul Ryan and while I love what Ryan stands for he was a bad pick at this particular time. In fact, so bad that they are fighting to win Wisconsin Ryan’s home state. When your VP can’t deliver his home state you made a poor choice. But in all fairness the election isn’t over yet Wisconsin is close and he may very well come through. He may even help with Florida and Ohio, it’s not over.

My point is that Romney is a an exceptionally smart guy. But, exceptionally smart guys, just like the rest of us are capable of making mistakes. It might just be that both candidates stumble over a few words and misstate some things when they first meet. They are both after all human. But the over all view of the electorate better be that Romney took it to Obama and showed him for the poor President that he has been economically and on the health care issue. If that doesn’t happen, well I’ve said it before…you know.

143

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
It’s interesting how each side thinks that the OTHER side will be prone to making a major Gaff.

Conservatives think that the President is more prone because he is arrogant and cocky.

Liberals think that Romney is more prone because he is a rich, out-of-touch guy who just “doesn’t get it”.

Now Ryan and “Killer Joe” should be interesting too (albeit just for one Debate). They both come from similar working-class backgrounds…but Ryan is an admitted “Political Detail/Wonk” guy…and Joe is…“KillerJoe”! Joe is damn good at deflection and “regular-guy-ness”…and not giving a flying f$ck about his gaffs…and Ryan IS a “detail” person.

The problem I see is that the Debates are really not set up for a lot of “substance and detail” (which favors KillerJoe)…but Joe can really, REALLY stick his foot in his mouth.

We’ll see!

Mufasa[/quote]

Neither of them come off as particularly quick witted when taken off message or pressed into answering off the cuff. Just an observation, as being quick on your feet has zero to do with being good presidential material…
[/quote]

Actually, if you recall the republican debates Romney was the only candidate to have a logical beginning, middle and end to his responses. Other than a few minor gaffes that the press ran with, like trying to bet Rick Perry $10,000 at on point he made few errors (He should have dumbed it down and said "bet you ten dollars- You see it’s bad to be wealthy in America today so you have to pretend that you’re “Joe everyman”).

Romney debated something like 12 times or so. He’s polished and he doesn’t melt under fire. I take nothing away from Obama either. The man is brimming with confidence and that is always a good thing when you are facing the bright studio lights and a potential audience of 35 million people. But I also think that Obama is somewhat lost without his teleprompter. And he’s had the use of that teleprompter for four years. No one has pushed him on an issue, especially publicly. He gets softballs from the press we all know that. So let’s see how he performs without a net. He may very well rise to the occasion, but I will tell you this, I’d hate to have to defend this economy. And that is exactly what he has to do. So it’s not just a matter of which man is better on his feet (and I think Romney is) it’s a matter of which position that they have to take.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with what you’ve said here. I was just more referring to expecting a killer ‘off the cuff’ remark from either. I just don’t see that happening.

I don’t think you’ll see a meltdown from either man, either. They’re both too polished and controlled. As an interested spectator, I hope the first debate does spark somewhat, otherwise they could all turn into complete yawnfest non events. In my opinion Romney does have more ‘fire’, that’s perhaps what gets him into a bit of trouble in the off the cuff remark department. I’m liking that more and more (the fire). Saw him on 60 minutes and I thought he came off rather well. Didn’t watch the Obama interview directly after, so can’t make a direct comparison. Obama is coming across REALLY drone like in this run , for me. Maybe I’m just used to his style and delivery at this point, but I really see very little that would excite me there if I was a US voter at this point.

I also don’t think the average voter in the US gets exactly how far down the pike the US is as far as something similar to a Eurozone meltdown happening there. And it is very close. [/quote]

You didn’t watch the Obama interview on 60 minutes? You missed all those hard hitting questions like, “was it hard for Michelle to adjust to life in the White House?”…or some such nonsense.

I agree with you on most of what you’ve posted. There will not me a melt down be either candidate. Although Obama breaking down and saying “Karl Marx was mostly right and he is my hero” would be nice :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Hahahahaaaa…I can see how you would like that. :wink:

I had something pressing to do while Obama was on…like flipping the channel or make a sammich or summat along those lines hehe.

Just not feeling him these days, at all. I think smh it was above in one of his posts summed it up quite nicely, that he seems distant and irritated or something along those lines. Finding him very robotic and much less affable. Perhaps the pressure is getting to him, governing AND running at the same time can’t be easy, plus now he has something to lose. [/quote]

I think you make some valid points.

I’ve watched plenty of Obama interviews (just not when I’m eating) and he always seemed cold and distant and slightly aggravated to me. Almost like “look I know what’s going on how dare you ask me that question there is more to this than you realize. You are a mere mortal…leave me alone”

Whereas when he is speaking in front of a teleprompter he seems to be on.

There will be no teleprompter at the debate and if Romney pushes him hard enough I can see the man getting flustered. As I’ve said he is not used to being pushed, not by anyone in the White House and certainly not by the press. And the ladies on The View just don’t ask those tough questions.

144

I’ve also been thinking about the makeup that a Romney cabinet would have and other key positions he would fill if he were to win, which after all also plays a massive part in how things get done in an administration.

Now this is just my personal opinion , so feel free to tear it apart (esp Obama supporters), but I get the feeling that Romney would make more choices based on talent rather just political expediency or payback for support given to him. I think in this respect his business exp would be a huge asset, as funnily enough would his wealth. He doesn’t NEED anyone for anything, now or after his term /terms end. He seems less beholden to ‘influential party supporters’ (not the right term, but I think you get my drift) or any benefactors post term…he CAN be more his own man. Don’t know if this will happen, like I say just my opinion.

Thoughts?

145

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I’ve also been thinking about the makeup that a Romney cabinet would have and other key positions he would fill if he were to win, which after all also plays a massive part in how things get done in an administration.

Now this is just my personal opinion , so feel free to tear it apart (esp Obama supporters), but I get the feeling that Romney would make more choices based on talent rather just political expediency or payback for support given to him. I think in this respect his business exp would be a huge asset, as funnily enough would his wealth. He doesn’t NEED anyone for anything, now or after his term /terms end. He seems less beholden to ‘influential party supporters’ (not the right term, but I think you get my drift) or any benefactors post term…he CAN be more his own man. Don’t know if this will happen, like I say just my opinion.

Thoughts?[/quote]

Well, each candidate is beholding to a degree to those who helped him win. And if he wants to seek a second term he will follow through with promises, like ending Obamacare etc. But I do agree with you in terms of his cabinet.

What the vast majority of Americans don’t understand (and perhaps never will) is how Romney’s business training and experience will help him make smart economic decisions. He won’t be intimidated by the various challenges. And I do feel, as you say, he’ll put the right people in place in order to get the job done. After all he’s been there before, in the private sector, as Governor and as head of the Olympics. And in all three instances he’s hit it out of the park. He’s far from perfect but then again if someone were to take a step back and look at the two men objectively, and take into account what Obama has actually done over the past four years, I think Romney would be a shoe in. But in order to do that one would need critical thinking skills and ignore most of the talking heads. And that isn’t going to happen any time soon. Once again that is why Romney has one very good chance to seal the deal with the electorate with no media filter during that first debate.

146

…Secondly, you seem to raise the bar for Romney and lower it for Obama…

For MY part…this isn’t true, Zeb. If it was, I wouldn’t be standing firmly behind my prediction of a Romney win.

Let me suggest to you that it actually is CONSERVATIVES whom have set the bar high for Romney. They seem to essentially be saying:

“You’re not our first (or, second, or third, or forth…) choice…but you’re a damn far better choice than the Marxist Muslim-in-Chief”.

One report I recently read is that 6 weeks out…Romney is still trying to convince many conservatives of his “Conservative Credentials” while trying to run a fierce and competitive general election.

I think that if Romney doesn’t win, there are a lot of Conservatives who need to “look-in-the-mirror” than at external “demons” like the “MSLM” and dumb, uninformed Obama worshippers.

Mufasa

147

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
He gets softballs from the press we all know that. So let’s see how he performs without a net. [/quote]

Did you watch 60 minutes last weekend, Zeb?

I actually thought (and was surprised to think) there was more hostility shown toward Obama than toward Romney. And where Romney seemed eager to speak and affable, Obama seemed almost angry that he was being questioned at all. I didn’t see the whole thing though.[/quote]

I didn’t see it all either. But as I said Obama does tend to seem angry when pushed. Romney needs to find that button and stand on it!

148

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…Secondly, you seem to raise the bar for Romney and lower it for Obama…

For MY part…this isn’t true, Zeb. If it was, I wouldn’t be standing firmly behind my prediction of a Romney win.

Let me suggest to you that it actually is CONSERVATIVES whom have set the bar high for Romney. They seem to essentially be saying:

“You’re not our first (or, second, or third, or forth…) choice…but you’re a damn far better choice than the Marxist Muslim-in-Chief”.

One report I recently read is that 6 weeks out…Romney is still trying to convince many conservatives of his “Conservative Credentials” while trying to run a fierce and competitive general election.

I think that if Romney doesn’t win, there are a lot of Conservatives who need to “look-in-the-mirror” than at external “demons” like the “MSLM” and dumb, uninformed Obama worshippers.

Mufasa[/quote]

I think you are mistaken regarding your view of conservatives. Romney doesn’t have to convince any conservatives to vote for him. You nailed it in many previous posts when you said that it is an anti-Obama vote. As you know I am a conservative and my conservative friends are not talking about how great Romney is, but how badly they want to vote Obama out! And I’ve read polls that pretty much echo that sentiment as well.

This will drive a high voter turnout for Romney. That’s why I’ve said that if Romney is down by say two points on election day I believe that he will win. Electorally that means that he has to keep it within two in states like Ohio and Florida and other battle ground states. If I were an Obama advisor I would not feel comfortable heading in to election day with anything less than a lead of 5 points.

The youth vote will not turn out for Obama like they did in 08’ which is going to hurt. And the estimate is that he loses at least 500,000 black votes as well. Not that they’re going to Romney but they will be staying home. And that number could be as high as 1 million. They’ve looked at their lives since Obama was elected and nothing got better. And this is a group that really swallowed the hope and change mantra. And unfortunately things actually got worse for many of them.

So, calling someone and asking whom they will be voting for is one thing. But then those same people have to have the motivation to get out and vote on election day. Romney’s vote will turn out, Obama’s will not be there like they were in 2008.

149

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…Secondly, you seem to raise the bar for Romney and lower it for Obama…

For MY part…this isn’t true, Zeb. If it was, I wouldn’t be standing firmly behind my prediction of a Romney win.

Let me suggest to you that it actually is CONSERVATIVES whom have set the bar high for Romney. They seem to essentially be saying:

“You’re not our first (or, second, or third, or forth…) choice…but you’re a damn far better choice than the Marxist Muslim-in-Chief”.

One report I recently read is that 6 weeks out…Romney is still trying to convince many conservatives of his “Conservative Credentials” while trying to run a fierce and competitive general election.

I think that if Romney doesn’t win, there are a lot of Conservatives who need to “look-in-the-mirror” than at external “demons” like the “MSLM” and dumb, uninformed Obama worshippers.

Mufasa[/quote]

I think you are mistaken regarding your view of conservatives. Romney doesn’t have to convince any conservatives to vote for him. You nailed it in many previous posts when you said that it is an anti-Obama vote. As you know I am a conservative and my conservative friends are not talking about how great Romney is, but how badly they want to vote Obama out! And I’ve read polls that pretty much echo that sentiment as well.

This will drive a high voter turnout for Romney. That’s why I’ve said that if Romney is down by say two points on election day I believe that he will win. Electorally that means that he has to keep it within two in states like Ohio and Florida and other battle ground states. If I were an Obama advisor I would not feel comfortable heading in to election day with anything less than a lead of 5 points.

The youth vote will not turn out for Obama like they did in 08’ which is going to hurt. And the estimate is that he loses at least 500,000 black votes as well. Not that they’re going to Romney but they will be staying home. And that number could be as high as 1 million. They’ve looked at their lives since Obama was elected and nothing got better. And this is a group that really swallowed the hope and change mantra. And unfortunately things actually got worse for many of them.

So, calling someone and asking whom they will be voting for is one thing. But then those same people have to have the motivation to get out and vote on election day. Romney’s vote will turn out, Obama’s will not be there like they were in 2008.

[/quote]

We agree, Zeb! (Although, I need to think a little more about the Black Vote; YOUNG black voters, I probably agree…but across the Board? I want to research that a bit more).

Again…I agree…

ALL ROMNEY HAS TO DO IS KEEP THINGS CLOSE…and Conservative Turnout will put him over the top. (IMO)

Mufasa

150

One other thought:

I think the media IN GENERAL (because FoxNews is citing most of the same Polls)…is falling “prey?” to “POll-itis”.

While I’m not as versed on the history of elections as Zeb; I do know that every once and a while, an election has an “X” factor that doesn’t fit into the Polling. (Truman/Dewey? Other?)

I think that the results of this election, independent of who wins, will a) be determined by some “X” factor and b) will be talked about for months and years to come.

Mufasa

151

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…Secondly, you seem to raise the bar for Romney and lower it for Obama…

For MY part…this isn’t true, Zeb. If it was, I wouldn’t be standing firmly behind my prediction of a Romney win.

Let me suggest to you that it actually is CONSERVATIVES whom have set the bar high for Romney. They seem to essentially be saying:

“You’re not our first (or, second, or third, or forth…) choice…but you’re a damn far better choice than the Marxist Muslim-in-Chief”.

One report I recently read is that 6 weeks out…Romney is still trying to convince many conservatives of his “Conservative Credentials” while trying to run a fierce and competitive general election.

I think that if Romney doesn’t win, there are a lot of Conservatives who need to “look-in-the-mirror” than at external “demons” like the “MSLM” and dumb, uninformed Obama worshippers.

Mufasa[/quote]

I think you are mistaken regarding your view of conservatives. Romney doesn’t have to convince any conservatives to vote for him. You nailed it in many previous posts when you said that it is an anti-Obama vote. As you know I am a conservative and my conservative friends are not talking about how great Romney is, but how badly they want to vote Obama out! And I’ve read polls that pretty much echo that sentiment as well.

This will drive a high voter turnout for Romney. That’s why I’ve said that if Romney is down by say two points on election day I believe that he will win. Electorally that means that he has to keep it within two in states like Ohio and Florida and other battle ground states. If I were an Obama advisor I would not feel comfortable heading in to election day with anything less than a lead of 5 points.

The youth vote will not turn out for Obama like they did in 08’ which is going to hurt. And the estimate is that he loses at least 500,000 black votes as well. Not that they’re going to Romney but they will be staying home. And that number could be as high as 1 million. They’ve looked at their lives since Obama was elected and nothing got better. And this is a group that really swallowed the hope and change mantra. And unfortunately things actually got worse for many of them.

So, calling someone and asking whom they will be voting for is one thing. But then those same people have to have the motivation to get out and vote on election day. Romney’s vote will turn out, Obama’s will not be there like they were in 2008.

[/quote]

We agree, Zeb! (Although, I need to think a little more about the Black Vote; YOUNG black voters, I probably agree…but across the Board? I want to research that a bit more).

Again…I agree…

ALL ROMNEY HAS TO DO IS KEEP THINGS CLOSE…and Conservative Turnout will put him over the top. (IMO)

Mufasa[/quote]

But therein lies the problem. Keeping it close in key battle ground states is proving a real challenge for Romney he is currently sliding in Ohio for example. Obama has gotten traction over the past 3-4 days and is pulling ahead slightly in some states. Overall however they are deadlocked. That’s one of the reasons that I place so much importance in the debates. I really feel that they will play a significant role in this years Presidential election.

Here is the latest Rasmussen if you have not seen it. It’s absolutely close…

152

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
One other thought:

I think the media IN GENERAL (because FoxNews is citing most of the same Polls)…is falling “prey?” to “POll-itis”.

While I’m not as versed on the history of elections as Zeb; I do know that every once and a while, an election has an “X” factor that doesn’t fit into the Polling. (Truman/Dewey? Other?)

I think that the results of this election, independent of who wins, will a) be determined by some “X” factor and b) will be talked about for months and years to come.

Mufasa[/quote]

Interesting read Mufasa. One thing that is usually not measured is the specific samples desire to vote for their candidate. So if, for a quick example, you ask 100 people (statistically ferreted out) whom their going to vote for and 55 say Obama and the other 45 say Romney it’s easy to assume that Obama will win. But in reality it is possible that out of the 55 who said Obama perhaps only 35 of them would vote for him regardless of the weather, sickness, previous engagements and life generally getting in the way. On the other hand out of the 45 who said Romney possibly 40 of them would vote for Romney no matter what, even if they had to walk to the polls in a driving rain storm on crutches…because of their hate for Obama. If there is an X factor that would be it!

Also, you cannot compare today’s sophisticated polling to the pollsters of 1948. The three main pollsters actually stopped polling several days before the Truman/Dewey election! That, and a number of other problems kept the pollsters from being reliable.

If you’d like to read more about it this site isn’t bad

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/mysterypollster/2008/011008.htm

153

as I have said repeatedly, Obama is sometimes very unsteady on his feet without the use of his teleprompter.

Now if that Obama shows up at the debate…

154

[quote]ZEB wrote:
as I have said repeatedly, Obama is sometimes very unsteady on his feet without the use of his teleprompter.

Now if that Obama shows up at the debate…[/quote]

Haha, that was pretty funny.

This article is tons of fun also.

http://news.yahoo.com/biden-blames-bush-administration-deficit-184436550--abc-news-politics.html

155

Obama’s weakness is his ego. He has had his ass kissed his entire life, so when he is criticized he gets mad.

Romney should use this, but he has been a limp dick thus far.

156

Again…I think that both Romney and his campaign know full-well what his weaknesses are (mostly from lessons of the last campaign).

Romney flounders when he either “attacks” or “ad libs”, ESPECIALLY (bless his heart!) when he tries to do the “regular guy” thing.

While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that he is “content” to let the SuperPacs do the attacking; he does know that he is a little more than a month away from recognizing a dream of first his Father then himself…of becoming President of the United States.

He simply is not going to “blow it” after what amounts to almost 8 years of straight campaigning and a blistering 2012 GOP primary.

Are he and his campaign being “too” cautious?

I think time will tell.

Mufasa

157

The biased media have put Romney in a position where he must win this first debate in a big way, or it’s all but over. The Obama sleeze team has done a good job of painting him as an evil rich guy. They’ve made this race about Romney and the media have backed them up. Now it’s time for Mitt to make this race about Obama pathetic four year performance. This is a tall order for one 90 minute debate, but that’s what happens when you run against a sitting President and very biased media.

As I’ve said in the past I’ve seen a lot of these election and I have never seen such a slant in the media toward one candidate - It’s quite disgraceful!

158

Yeah, I’m seeing Obama up by 6 at Gallup. Romney better turn in an extraordinary debate, because I don’t think turnout can save Romney. Can’t help but feel that a rising ‘anti-Romney’ wave will have even disgruntled Obamaniacs turnout. He’s the ultra-rich Wall Street man, paying a low tax rate (yeah, yeah, tell THEM about capital gains and investment, not me), who wants to gut…err, reform, their cradle to grave ‘services.’ He was kind of tailor made for the role he would unwittingly be cast in. So he better knock the debate out of the park, using every second to remind people that they don’t feel better off at the end of Obama’s first term. Remind them of broken promises. The financial cliff we’re approaching. And, so on.

Even then? Well, I saw a poll (gallup) in which the number of Americans who feel the government doesn’t do enough has risen. $16 Trillion in debt, with a financial cliff that nobody denies approaching, and the idea that the government doesn’t do enough is beginning to rise again…

It might not be a Romney problem, ultimately. It might just be the end of economic liberalism (in the fiscal conservative/libertarian usage).

159

While I’m not going so far as saying that Romney’s problems are “media created”; I am also not letting conservatives off the hook for how they have portrayed Romney, Zeb.

The 2012 GOP Primary was brutal. And much of what I’ve seen the DEM SuperPacs and Obama Campaign use come right out of the Gingrich/Bachmann/Santorum Playbook. From Gingrich’s “Bain Capital” film to Santorum’s blistering public critiques of Romney.

This may be “how it’s done”; but once Romney “won” the Primary; he was already in a hole, dug by conservatives, in terms of Public Perception.

Now…should the miserable economy be enough to send the President packing? (ala Carter in 80?)

Yes…a) with a “great communicator” and b) a vision like “It’s Morning in America”, it is possible.

Romney just hasn’t delivered it…and if that is somehow a fault of the “MSLM”; Conservatives themselves certainly are FAR from being blameless.

Mufasa

160

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
While I’m not going so far as saying that Romney’s problems are “media created”; I am also not letting conservatives off the hook for how they have portrayed Romney, Zeb.

The 2012 GOP Primary was brutal. And much of what I’ve seen the DEM SuperPacs and Obama Campaign use come right out of the Gingrich/Bachmann/Santorum Playbook. From Gingrich’s “Bain Capital” film to Santorum’s blistering public critiques of Romney.[/quote]

Which isn’t an indictment against Conservatives. It’s indictment against those who didn’t heed the warning. Those attacks were always going to be hurled Romney’s way. By a guy, and his supporters, with a hell of a lot more resources and money. Gingrich and Santorum have jack to do with Romney’s public image. This is the only image he was EVER going to have. From his time at Bain, to his out of touch ultra wealthy persona, to his taxes. The Dems (and the media) were armed and ready for a Romney victory. Gingrich and Santorum, with scant resources, only asked primary voters “Are you sure this is the guy? Here’s what he’ll face against Obama and the media.”

Gingrich and Santorum have no part in Romney’s present troubles. He was never going to be able to escape the stiff, self-entitled, low tax paying Wall Street raider, who wants to throw granny out of the nursing home to live off of cat food, image. Ever. Santorum and Gingrich, with their scant resources combined, barely even managed to offer a preview for primary voters. Romney was never going to win most likeable. Ever.

He better go fast and hard at Obama on matters economic during this debate. He better convince them that they need to face the financial cliff rapidly approaching, and that they need to do it NOW. That, great, they like Obama better because he’s so dreamily inspirational. But they need someone who’ll do an accounting on that bloated thing in DC. A thing threatening to shackle their children to a miserable burden (entitlement obligations with absolutely no way of being met) and a failed state.