I disagree that the GOP lost a chance at the Senate.
Romney is not going to go near Condi, it’s too close of a reminder of Bush.
You are also going to see how the economy is going to be Obama’s undoing, the hopey-changey bullshit is done for 2012, and no one buys into this time. He has nowhere near the momentum he did back then, and people are not as monolithic in their voting as people seem.
I see this where I live, while it’s considered Liberal as hell, people trend more towards jobs, money, and the economy. We in California are about to undo High Speed Rail and another tax increase attempt, because when push comes to shove, no one wants to pay for more bullshit.
Romney wins in November, I call this right now. If I am wrong, I will eat my words.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’ll assure you guys that the Romney Campaign is not underestimating the President’s ability like Conservative Talk Radio, BLOGGERS…and Conservative Bodybuilding Forums.
He is intelligent; he can debate and speak without a Teleprompter…and he now has the experience of the ONLY job that can even remotely prepare someone for being President…the Presidency itself.
So yes; I do feel that he can “win” the debates. However; like I said earlier, I just don’t see the debates making much of a difference.
And talk about a true “Game Changer”? That could really be Condi Rice. She has said, however, that she is more of a “policy” person than a campaigner.
Rubio? (Needs to be Vetted).
Rice? (Definitely a “Game Changer”.
Other?
Great discussion, guys!
Mufasa[/quote]
Obama will be about as sharp in the first debate as Bush was in his first debate against Kerry after Bush served four years. Yes, the office gives you experience but it does not give you good debating skills. Rommey on the other hand has sharpened his skills against the many republican candidates. And as I already said Obama was never that good at debating to begin with. Hillary ate his lunch in two of the three debates! But of course we will all see soon enough won’t we?
As for Rubio being vetted tell me again when Obama was vetted?
Okay…I’ll leave it at that.
Whomever Romney picks it would be smart to pick someone who can deliver an important state. Florida, Ohio, PA, Michigan. Or, someone who can deliver a greater share of women.
One more thing, I believe this election will be even closer than 3 million votes. This could be another Ford/Carter, or even Bush/Gore. This country has never been so divided politically since probably the civil war.
About a point Max brought up (and I think Bolt commented on it in another thread?)
About the Senate.
The point was that in 2010; in their zeal to replace “Rhinos” with what they perceived to be “real” conservatives; the TeaPublicans overplayed their hand and pushed out some seasoned GOP Senators in favor of people like Christine O’Donnell (and others). These individuals won their Primaries, but got beat; and beat badly; by Democratic opponents in the General Election.
The feeling was that by supporting the more experienced GOP candidates, that a majority could have been won in the Senate by the GOP.
A little convoluted…but that’s the basic summary.
The TeaPublicans leaned a lesson that I THINK they will not repeat.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am betting on money , the more money , the more votes [/quote]
And money is currently favoring the Romney Campaign.
Mufasa[/quote]
True Mufasa, but to be more accurate Obama to date has raised more and spent more than Mitt Romney. For example, so far Obama has spent 2 to 1 more on TV advertising than Romney. However, over the past two months Romney has raised more on a monthly basis. In addition to that there are more republican pac’s which will ultimately help Romney.
But so far Obama has spent far more attacking Romney which began even before Romney actually won the republican nomination. They are desperately trying to paint Romney as an out of touch rich guy before Romney introduces himself to the general electorate. This has a small chance of working and is Obama’s only hope for reelection as he cannot run on his record.
I would (almost) never say a challenger to a presidential incumbent is in the position of “it’s his election to lose”. Incumbency has a great many advantages.
I predict Obama will not do well in the debates. He is a speech-reader, not a debater. He gets very uncomfortable when pressed on policy, particularly unsuccessful ones. He has very thin skin. He’s smart, but he isn’t a natural, and anyone who disagrees can go watch his press conferences. In 2008, he could espouse comforting and inspiring platitudes and an electorate exhausted with the bitter politics since 2003 was glad to hear it. Now, he has a record to defend, and a sharply partisan one at that, and experience has shown he is quite terrible at defending it.
After the clown show of ineptitude the freshman Tea Partiers have exhibited since 2010, I think the old bulls of the party will make sure we don’t have any more Sharron Angle or Christine O’Donnell errors. And I think the Senate is in play.
Someone remarked that the Obama campaign is currently employing a “prevent defense” strategy - i.e., spending tons of cash and engaging in “pander-monium” now to prevent a collapse of voter support. I think that sounds about right.
I look forward to the Obama campaign continuing to hit Romney for “outsourcing” at the same time Obama attends fundraisers in Switzerland, Sweden and France. Comedy gold.
It would seem that the President is going out of his way to distance himself from business america…while collecting more money from wall street than any other president in history.
I think that one of the things you are pointing out either came from President Clinton OR Carl Rove (how can I get THOSE two confused!).
“Basic Campaign 101”;
DO NOT let your opposition define you and
Try your best to define your opposition on YOUR terms.
They went on to say that if you let the other guy “define” you…you’ve already lost.
Which of the two said it, I’m not clear, but it was insightful. As it stands now, I think that each Campaign is trying to define the other “in their own light”. Basic politics. However, I think that at least with this election, it is aimed at solidifying the base more than changing minds.
On another point; most of the analyst that I’ve read feel that Romney is waiting to unleash his barrage closer to the election…certainly much closer than the President appears to be doing.
It would seem that the President is going out of his way to distance himself from business america…while collecting more money from wall street than any other president in history.[/quote]
Couple this with “the private sector is doing fine”, etc. - and you can see why businesses small and large find Obama radioactive heading into the election.
And now try to imagine how Obama plans to extricate himself from this type of thinking heading into the debates - he can’t do it.
Try your best to define your opposition on YOUR terms.
They went on to say that if you let the other guy “define” you…you’ve already lost.[/quote]
I completely agree, and I don’t think Romney can wait forever. However, based on polling, Obama’s attempts to define Romney his way aren’t moving the needle. If polling suggested otherwise, I think Romney would be more aggressive. For now, I think Romney is content to let the Obama campaign spin its wheels.
Romney is very smart and understands the dangers of unforced errors early in the campaign. And Obama’s attacks are so outlandish - “he’s a felon!” - that Romney will have a field day when it comes time for Romney to stand up and say who he is.
In other words, rather than hurting Romney now, Obama is supplying even more ammunition with which Romney can define himself. Romney gets to stand up on his business experience, his service as a governor and his role rescuing the Olympics, and then puntuate his resume-blast with a wink and a statement that “oh, and I am not a felon, by the way”.
I also think Romney wants to start “defining himself” at the GOP convention. I think he believes that will be the “true” start of the campaign.
It would seem that the President is going out of his way to distance himself from business america…while collecting more money from wall street than any other president in history.[/quote]
Couple this with “the private sector is doing fine”, etc. - and you can see why businesses small and large find Obama radioactive heading into the election.
And now try to imagine how Obama plans to extricate himself from this type of thinking heading into the debates - he can’t do it.[/quote]
I agree with this, Bolt…BUT…
What has me scratching my head is how has Romney shown himself to be a “friend” of business? (Serious question).
It would seem that the President is going out of his way to distance himself from business america…while collecting more money from wall street than any other president in history.
lolz[/quote]
That’s actually no longer true. It is estimated that Romney will top Obama by a sizeable margin with donations from Wall Street
It would seem that the President is going out of his way to distance himself from business america…while collecting more money from wall street than any other president in history.[/quote]
Couple this with “the private sector is doing fine”, etc. - and you can see why businesses small and large find Obama radioactive heading into the election.
And now try to imagine how Obama plans to extricate himself from this type of thinking heading into the debates - he can’t do it.[/quote]
I agree with this, Bolt…BUT…
What has me scratching my head is how has Romney shown himself to be a “friend” of business? (Serious question).
Mufasa[/quote]
He hasn’t and he never has to. He is running against the most anti business President in the modern day era. This allows Romney to be “the” business candidate without doing a thing. Sort of like Romney not having to go after the anti abortion, or anti homosexual marriage group. Obama is so far left that most even one degree right of center are already voting for him. What Romney is doing now and will continue to do is speak to the independent vote (and women) and others who are dead center.
I certainly hope Obama keeps attacking small business this will certainly help Romney garner more of the independent votes.
Every article you read on Yahoo/CNN is all BAIN all the TIME…The good Senator Kerry’s family trust was also ass deep in VC money but I don’t remember that ever coming up one time.
It’s almost like they know that is their only shot, and they are gonna RIDE that BAINhorse all the way to the end.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
He’s still betting on the viability of class warfare as a strategy. [/quote]
It’s not a bad strategy when you have a record like Obama’s. He has to do this it’s his only way of winning. The bad news for him is that while it works with some, most want to increase their own wealth and see this as a shot against what they are capable of doing. Hence, it fails in the end.
What has me scratching my head is how has Romney shown himself to be a “friend” of business? (Serious question).[/quote]
Well, I think Zeb has it right - by simply not being Obama. Obama has stuck his neck out so far that Romney doesn’t necessarily have to be all that proactive.
Plus, Romney is a businessman and speaks the language of business. He understands economics and is conversant in it. He made a fortune in the private sector. “Business” can relate to him - Romney has been one of them.
That said, Romney still has some cards to play to fend off criticism that his is a pawn of business - i.e., attack crony capitalism and insist on a level playing field.