[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…I think Romney is a quintessential plastic politician…[/quote]
No…he is the “severe” Conservative!
(What the heck is that? Sloth?)
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…I think Romney is a quintessential plastic politician…[/quote]
No…he is the “severe” Conservative!
(What the heck is that? Sloth?)
Mufasa[/quote]
Rofl. If you have to say you’re a ‘severe’ conservative, it’s because people haven’t been buying it. I think he might have said ‘conservative’ 20 plus times in that speech, too.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Zeb:
Before you go…
I’m feeling what you’re saying; but I have to ask you this:
Why is the “MSLM” given MORE of a probable impact on this election…than perhaps the fact that there is a poor field of candidates going up against the President?
(Again…I personally think that the President has a HUGE up-hill-battle in order to win the election, “MSLM” or not.)
Mufasa
[/quote]
Mufasa,
When the media wants a candidate to win, the other side has no chance…it’s already started.
Bad link, Lama.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Bad link, Lama.
Mufasa[/quote]
Hopefully it works this time…
Worst part about Santorum’s rise - do you know how hard it is to say “Santorum-mentum”?
No doubt Santorum’s rise will be helped by the incredibly dumb policy of the birth-control mandate (and the incredibly dumb timing of it). One polls shows a full 59% of Catholics now disapprove of how Obama is handling his job, and the “passion index” shows 44% strongly disapprove and 19% strongly approve - pretty lopsided, and that is especially bad because Catholics tend to vote Democrat.
Santorum gets a boost from this particular bunch, and he also gets the boost as the candidate in touch with this sentiment, even for non-Catholics (as Mike Huckabee noted, on this issue, “we’re all Catholics now”). It gives him a natural platform to stake out his case. It’s been said that Santorum is taking straight aim at the “Reagan Democrats”, and by gum, he’s on to something, with the help of a fumbling Obama.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
especially bad because Catholics tend to vote Democrat.
[/quote]
They are a very socially conservative group of people, why is it that they vote Democrat?
Is it a holdover from the Kennedy era?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
They are a very socially conservative group of people, why is it that they vote Democrat?
Is it a holdover from the Kennedy era?[/quote]
Good question, I’m not Catholic, so I am not speaking as someone who has personal knowledge, but I think it has to do with (1) tradition (as you note), (2) the “social justice” side of the (very active) Catholic church, (3) the predominance of Catholics (and Catholicism) in ubran areas, and (4) the fact that lots of Catholics don’t abide in practice by church rules on some of the more socially-conservative rules (i.e., birth control).
But I actually think that history plays a big part - it’s only recently that the Democratic Party went whole hog into unblinking social liberalism and urban/coastal politics. The Democratic Party had a (very important) conservative wing for years, as did the Republicans with its liberal wing. I think a lot of Catholics fit that mold of the “conservative Democrat” - for example, socially conservative but still pro-labor, etc. - and have never found their way out (voting for Reagan being an exception), mainly because of economics.
That’s my best guess, but a Catholic would have a better sense of this than me.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No doubt Santorum’s rise will be helped by the incredibly dumb policy of the birth-control mandate (and the incredibly dumb timing of it). One polls shows a full 59% of Catholics now disapprove of how Obama is handling his job, and the “passion index” shows 44% strongly disapprove and 19% strongly approve - pretty lopsided, and that is especially bad because Catholics tend to vote Democrat.
Santorum gets a boost from this particular bunch, and he also gets the boost as the candidate in touch with this sentiment, even for non-Catholics (as Mike Huckabee noted, on this issue, “we’re all Catholics now”). It gives him a natural platform to stake out his case. It’s been said that Santorum is taking straight aim at the “Reagan Democrats”, and by gum, he’s on to something, with the help of a fumbling Obama.
[/quote]
Only one problem, Santorum ain’t no Reagan and when the general election rolls around those “Reagan Democrats” won’t even give him a second look.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
They are a very socially conservative group of people, why is it that they vote Democrat?
Is it a holdover from the Kennedy era?[/quote]
Good question, I’m not Catholic, so I am not speaking as someone who has personal knowledge, but I think it has to do with (1) tradition (as you note), (2) the “social justice” side of the (very active) Catholic church, (3) the predominance of Catholics (and Catholicism) in ubran areas, and (4) the fact that lots of Catholics don’t abide in practice by church rules on some of the more socially-conservative rules (i.e., birth control).
But I actually think that history plays a big part - it’s only recently that the Democratic Party went whole hog into unblinking social liberalism and urban/coastal politics. The Democratic Party had a (very important) conservative wing for years, as did the Republicans with its liberal wing. I think a lot of Catholics fit that mold of the “conservative Democrat” - for example, socially conservative but still pro-labor, etc. - and have never found their way out (voting for Reagan being an exception), mainly because of economics.
That’s my best guess, but a Catholic would have a better sense of this than me.[/quote]
I was a Catholic for the first 30 years of my life and you nailed it on the head TB!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Only one problem, Santorum ain’t no Reagan and when the general election rolls around those “Reagan Democrats” won’t even give him a second look.[/quote]
He lacks the big personality to generate big electoral shifts on his own, I agree, but I wouldn’t rule out his ability to pick off the Reagan Democrats. Again, I think he is the beneficiary of Obama’s overreach, moreso than a Romney is, and that is where his advantage lies.
But I still don’t think Santorum is a very good general election candidate, but he may not have to be.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Only one problem, Santorum ain’t no Reagan and when the general election rolls around those “Reagan Democrats” won’t even give him a second look.[/quote]
He lacks the big personality to generate big electoral shifts on his own, I agree, but I wouldn’t rule out his ability to pick off the Reagan Democrats. Again, I think he is the beneficiary of Obama’s overreach, moreso than a Romney is, and that is where his advantage lies.
But I still don’t think Santorum is a very good general election candidate, but he may not have to be.[/quote]
Tell me TB where do you think Obama’s poll numbers would be right now if he was a republican and his last name was “Bush”?
If Obama is pulling high 40’s border line 50 in approval currently it is a direct gift of from the MSLM. If they treated him the way they did Bush his numbers would be floating around
40%. The masses do believe what they see and hear in the media, it is all that they know as critical thinking regarding Presidential elections is not their strong suit.
If they even get a whiff that Obama might lose the election, just a tiny hint, they will come down on Santorum (or whomever the nominee is) with all the force they can muster.
As for Santorum we don’t need to worry about the Reagan democrats, rather we should be very worried about all the independents and women that he won’t be winning.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
They are a very socially conservative group of people, why is it that they vote Democrat?
Is it a holdover from the Kennedy era?[/quote]
Good question, I’m not Catholic, so I am not speaking as someone who has personal knowledge, but I think it has to do with (1) tradition (as you note), (2) the “social justice” side of the (very active) Catholic church, (3) the predominance of Catholics (and Catholicism) in ubran areas, and (4) the fact that lots of Catholics don’t abide in practice by church rules on some of the more socially-conservative rules (i.e., birth control).
But I actually think that history plays a big part - it’s only recently that the Democratic Party went whole hog into unblinking social liberalism and urban/coastal politics. The Democratic Party had a (very important) conservative wing for years, as did the Republicans with its liberal wing. I think a lot of Catholics fit that mold of the “conservative Democrat” - for example, socially conservative but still pro-labor, etc. - and have never found their way out (voting for Reagan being an exception), mainly because of economics.
That’s my best guess, but a Catholic would have a better sense of this than me.[/quote]
Interesting…thanks for the info.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If they even get a whiff that Obama might lose the election, just a tiny hint, they will come down on Santorum (or whomever the nominee is) with all the force they can muster. [/quote]
True, and I don’t know that with respect to this issue - media bias - Romney or Santorum has much an advantage over the other. It’s built into the electoral battlefield.
Although, I think the media overreached in 2008, and there may be enough cynicism out there about the exceptionally poor job they did in 2008 (and it was almost criminally poor) to neautralize some of the bias by making an election issue out of the bias.
As an aside, provocateur Andrew Breitbart says he has video of Obama in college and that it is pretty damning. I don’t know if it will damage Obama that much (maybe, but most people get that their former college selves are much different than their adult selves), but it might serve as a very useful tool to indict the media.
Thing is, many of the Reagan Democrats are independents now, with polls consistently showing party identification with the Democrats at generational lows.
I’d like Bolts thoughts on this one;
BASED ON POLLS; I just don’t think that “piling on the President” with things that are more inflammatory “rhetoric than reality” is a winning strategy (e.g. being a Kenayan/Nazi/Socialist/Caucasian-Hating/Muslim/Fascist/abortionist who wants to take away all your freedoms and turn the U.S. into "The Euro States of America).
Poll after poll (especially among women and independents) continue to find:
-
A high “likability” rating.
-
A feeling that he is a hard worker
-
A greater dislike of an “obstructive” Congress and
-
A feeling that he did the best job he could with the hand he was dealt.
Now…I know that each one of these points can be disputed and countered with page upon page of “facts”…but as Zeb so often says, these elections will often turn on perceptions, not reality.
Like it or not…there seems to be a large number of Voters whose PERCEPTION is that the President is doing the best job he could with the cards he was dealt. (And some are my own relatives!)
Thoughts?
Mufasa
Just to add to what I think.
I think that the groups that came our strong for the President in 2008 are not nearly as “fired up”; in some cases are disappointed; and for those who “switched” from their “traditional” voting blocks to vote for the President, will “switch back”.
And Conservatives/TeaRepubs are ready to fight in numbers.
I think that the GOP nominee wins (despite the “MSLM”).
(DISCLAIMER: I also picked “McCain/Palin” to win!)
Mufasa
National GOP: Santorum 39%, Romney 27%, Gingrich 15%, Paul 10%
Santorum is also leading in Michigan, Romney’s home-turf.
Excellent, excellent, response to the new Romney super-pac ads. This is how to do it. Play into the already growing feeling among conservatives (Romney can only destroy Republicans, not sell himself). Use humor.
http://bcove.me/mvjfzvza
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’d like Bolts thoughts on this one;
BASED ON POLLS; I just don’t think that “piling on the President” with things that are more inflammatory “rhetoric than reality” is a winning strategy (e.g. being a Kenayan/Nazi/Socialist/Caucasian-Hating/Muslim/Fascist/abortionist who wants to take away all your freedoms and turn the U.S. into "The Euro States of America).[/quote]
I agree, except w/r/t the attempt to emulate Europe. That’s a perfectly valid angle. Look, Obama wanted to be a transformational president, and he now has to run on his attempted transformation. All the other stuff - “Kenyan socialist” stuff - I don’t think will resonate with the public, but the where we’re headed in terms of entitlements/welfare state? I don’t that any of that is lost on the public.
[quote]Poll after poll (especially among women and independents) continue to find:
-
A high “likability” rating.
-
A feeling that he is a hard worker
-
A greater dislike of an “obstructive” Congress and
-
A feeling that he did the best job he could with the hand he was dealt.[/quote]
Well, some of that is true, but something has to account for rise in independents’ disapproval of him, and it’s not because he has failed to be “left-wing” enough during his tenure. Whatever that reason, it’s worth seizing upon, if you are the GOP.
[quote]Like it or not…there seems to be a large number of Voters whose PERCEPTION is that the President is doing the best job he could with the cards he was dealt. (And some are my own relatives!)
Thoughts?[/quote]
I don’t think the idea that “he did the best job he could with the cards he was dealt” will hold - Democrats controlled Congress when he was elected, and instead of staying focused on the immediate priorities, he detoured into health care. Independents understand this, and this is one of the reasons their approval rating has gone south.
“While the house was on fire, Obama decided to add a swimming pool” - independents understand this.
Also, I think part of independents’ disapproval stems from the fact that Obama can’t govern without a Democratic Congress. While there is plenty of disapproval with Congress (as well there should be), Obama doesn’t have the record or history to cast all blame on Congress - as I have said a number of times, Obama and the Tea Party are two sides of the same coin, as a matter of perception, and just because one could complain that the Tea Party are just being ideologically uncooperative, the same can be said of Obama. The fact that the Tea Party was “uncooperative”, even if true, doesn’t help Obama, because he is guilty of the same sin.
Independents wanted a post-partisan pragmatist. Likeable or not, Obama is not a post-partisan pragmatist, and I think independents are still looking.