OK Guys, here's what I want you to make: An advertisement that is mildly amusing, completely ineffective at increasing the oppositions negatives and makes us look petty and silly. Ready? Go!
Philosophically speaking, can we really consider Ron Paul a Republican other than in light of soneone who sees there isn't a big enough third party to actually bother making his stand there?
What I'm saying is that at this point he seems like more of a spoiler than anything else.
Oh god, Dbrock. Are you so fucking desperate to be chicken little?
That isn't even bad news because it is the dumbest fucking attack in existence. They are actually trying to fight Obama's focus on income inequality by constantly reminding voters of their stance regarding the the rich.
That isn't smart with anyone but republicans.
I think you misread the article. They're trying to move the focus away from income equality to Obama's handling of the economy. They'll be using a lot of the stuff Romney's trying to use right now (like throwing out the number of jobs that were lost in the recession, without saying it was from the recession, or how women have been hurt more in Obama's economy etc.). And these attack ads aren't going to be saying anything about Republicans' or Romney's stance on the rich. They won't mention anything about them at all. They'll just be pure smears against Obama.
Without revealing too much, and keeping in mind that this changes weekly, you would be wise to calculate that Mitt Romney has about 106 delegates less than what the national media is now showing. Santorum, even before dropping out, had about 16 less. This includes adding delegates that the media incorrectly withheld from Santorum and then subtracting its false calculations. Now add 98 delegates to Ron Paul. And you have the real picture of where it stands today.
.
There is something else. Many of the delegates who have already been selected to go to Tampa and are pledged to vote for Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are actually Ron Paul activists who were chosen as delegates because they showed up and got elected as such, not because they committed to any of the candidates. We don’t yet have a complete count on any of this but it is substantial. We are in the process of taking over the GOP at many precinct and country levels.
R.P is in it for the long haul!
This delegate skulduggery is interesting, I wonder how it'll play out.
You need 1144 total of course...
Spoilers: nothing is going to happen except a lot of Ron Paul fans being disappointed.
I did not.
Democrats' focus on wealth inequality to a referendum on the White House's economic policies. Describing the scapegoating of rich Americans as a “dystopian vision,” the head of American Crossroads said the early ads were needed because “that narrative has some gravitational pull.”
Of course, as TPM has been pointing out all day, these attacks mean that Romney is fighting the election on Obama's terms instead of on terms more favorable to him. In other words, the President has successfully framed the issues we're currently fighting on.
Yet another instance of Republikerry.
I'm not sure what ground Romney should be trying to stand on, really. I mean:
"Regardless of who you support, which candidate do you trust to do a better job [see below]: Obama or Romney?" RV = registered voters
"Dealing with social issues such as abortion and gay marriage" Half sample (Form
4/5-8/12
46 38 1 5 10
Obama is considered a stronger leader, more consistent, more likeable. Romney doesn't really have the wedge issues, or the want-to-have-a-beer-with edge.
Question: Do people even give a shit about Russia anymore?
Arguably we should, but I don't think they're really worried about Putin the Communist Dragon swooping in our Freedom.
Americans desperately want someone to hate that is frequently too reasonable to actually provoke us into a major response. It's therapeutic, in its own way.
Conversely, and more specifically, Americans want every Russia leader to be Boris Yeltsin. Come next year, Putin could have tanks shoot at Russian Parliament and declare himself Defense Minister as well as President, and if he was fat, easily distracted by shiny American things and a little tipsy on occasion, we'd love him for it.
Why not? We loved autocratic Yeltsin for doing the exact same things.
To be fair, Vladimir Putin *is* essentially what you get if you elect a mafia boss to the office of President. I mean, read some of his press from the Russian media, the guy's alternately being lauded as a superhero and assassinating his political enemies while taking occasional swipes at other groups to remind us all of the Russian "glory days" when they had an Iron Curtain. (and Mammoth tanks, and Tesla Coils, and...nevermind)
Obama is considered a stronger leader, more consistent, more likeable. Romney doesn't really have the wedge issues, or the want-to-have-a-beer-with edge.
Because drinking beer is a sin.
Man, I'm going to repeat that so many times in the next 7 months.
The point is more that Romney shouldn't be embracing the war on women frame at all. Or the income inequality frame. His stump speech should have the word "jobs" in it about 50 times and some mentions of the budget. That shit's dishonest, but it's better for him.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
Question: Do people even give a shit about Russia anymore?
Arguably we should, but I don't think they're really worried about Putin the Communist Dragon swooping in our Freedom.
Americans desperately want someone to hate that is frequently too reasonable to actually provoke us into a major response. It's therapeutic, in its own way.
Conversely, and more specifically, Americans want every Russia leader to be Boris Yeltsin. Come next year, Putin could have tanks shoot at Russian Parliament and declare himself Defense Minister as well as President, and if he was fat, easily distracted by shiny American things and a little tipsy on occasion, we'd love him for it.
Why not? We loved autocratic Yeltsin for doing the exact same things.
To be fair, Vladimir Putin *is* essentially what you get if you elect a mafia boss to the office of President. I mean, read some of his press from the Russian media, the guy's alternately being lauded as a superhero and assassinating his political enemies while taking occasional swipes at other groups to remind us all of the Russian "glory days" when they had an Iron Curtain. (and Mammoth tanks, and Tesla Coils, and...nevermind)
A vote for Obama is a vote for Albert Einstein's assassination of Hitler! Don't let that happen!
The point is more that Romney shouldn't be embracing the war on women frame at all. Or the income inequality frame. His stump speech should have the word "jobs" in it about 50 times and some mentions of the budget. That shit's dishonest, but it's better for him.
Too bad his budget plan will increase the deficit more than Obama's.
Philosophically speaking, can we really consider Ron Paul a Republican other than in light of soneone who sees there isn't a big enough third party to actually bother making his stand there?
What I'm saying is that at this point he seems like more of a spoiler than anything else.
Well, he's a racist who hates abortion and the government (except if it's interfering in lady parts). So he fits right in.
He also talks a lot about personal responsibility and self-determination but will "join the herd" with the GOP rather than run independently. He also hates the gays. He also loads up his district on pork despite shouting about how bad it is. And he's a part of The Man What Keeps You Down.
Ron Paul is just a Republican with better bullshit control than average.
The point is more that Romney shouldn't be embracing the war on women frame at all. Or the income inequality frame. His stump speech should have the word "jobs" in it about 50 times and some mentions of the budget. That shit's dishonest, but it's better for him.
Too bad his budget plan will increase the deficit more than Obama's.
So much for moral imperatives...
Yeah, people don't know that though. As I said, dishonest, but better for him. Because the GOP's narrative of Democrats = Spendy Spender McSpenderson is deeply ingrained, even though it's totally false.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The point is more that Romney shouldn't be embracing the war on women frame at all. Or the income inequality frame. His stump speech should have the word "jobs" in it about 50 times and some mentions of the budget. That shit's dishonest, but it's better for him.
I don't know about that. He can't talk too much about the economy because he'll get hammered by "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" and "I like to fire people." His only hope is the economy goes south again, and if that happens he doesn't need to harp on it. The other half is to reinforce the "Obama is Other" angle. He's going with vague overtones of "He's a scary black guy" and "What kind of name is Barack?" and "Death Panels Doncha Know!"
The point is more that Romney shouldn't be embracing the war on women frame at all. Or the income inequality frame. His stump speech should have the word "jobs" in it about 50 times and some mentions of the budget. That shit's dishonest, but it's better for him.
Too bad his budget plan will increase the deficit more than Obama's.
So much for moral imperatives...
Yeah, people don't know that though. As I said, dishonest, but better for him. Because the GOP's narrative of Democrats = Spendy Spender McSpenderson is deeply ingrained, even though it's totally false.
I fully expect Obama to wield the hammer of thor on this one. If he lets this go, he almost deserves to lose.
I mean, America doesn't deserve to go back in time 150 years, but still.
The point is more that Romney shouldn't be embracing the war on women frame at all. Or the income inequality frame. His stump speech should have the word "jobs" in it about 50 times and some mentions of the budget. That shit's dishonest, but it's better for him.
I don't know about that. He can't talk too much about the economy because he'll get hammered by "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" and "I like to fire people." His only hope is the economy goes south again, and if that happens he doesn't need to harp on it. The other half is to reinforce the "Obama is Other" angle. He's going with vague overtones of "He's a scary black guy" and "What kind of name is Barack?" and "Death Panels Doncha Know!"
I think the same poll you quoted above showed Romney with a double digit lead on the deficit and four point lead on the economy generally (though not with "cares about the middle class" because people are dumb).
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
Both parties are pretty terrible at spending really. I think the difference is the Democrats are ones who have actually been making an honest effort at it. Or if that is too politically charged, the Republicans continue to prioritize foreign affairs and military expenditures to the detriment of domestic programs, when we should really be focusing on some of the huge budget drainers (e.g., military) while keeping the existing plans at least shored up, if not reforming them altogether.
The point is more that Romney shouldn't be embracing the war on women frame at all. Or the income inequality frame. His stump speech should have the word "jobs" in it about 50 times and some mentions of the budget. That shit's dishonest, but it's better for him.
I don't know about that. He can't talk too much about the economy because he'll get hammered by "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" and "I like to fire people." His only hope is the economy goes south again, and if that happens he doesn't need to harp on it. The other half is to reinforce the "Obama is Other" angle. He's going with vague overtones of "He's a scary black guy" and "What kind of name is Barack?" and "Death Panels Doncha Know!"
Well, Romney seems like he'd know what he's talking about with regards to economics. He looks like a CEO, he made his money in business, he is 1980s, Reaganomics Personified. The fact that his economic plan is shit doesn't really enter into it. Image is important.
Without revealing too much, and keeping in mind that this changes weekly, you would be wise to calculate that Mitt Romney has about 106 delegates less than what the national media is now showing. Santorum, even before dropping out, had about 16 less. This includes adding delegates that the media incorrectly withheld from Santorum and then subtracting its false calculations. Now add 98 delegates to Ron Paul. And you have the real picture of where it stands today.
.
There is something else. Many of the delegates who have already been selected to go to Tampa and are pledged to vote for Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are actually Ron Paul activists who were chosen as delegates because they showed up and got elected as such, not because they committed to any of the candidates. We don’t yet have a complete count on any of this but it is substantial. We are in the process of taking over the GOP at many precinct and country levels.
R.P is in it for the long haul!
This delegate skulduggery is interesting, I wonder how it'll play out.
You need 1144 total of course...
There is some truth to this, one of my coworkers got a phone call from the RP peeps to be asked if he wanted to sign up to be elected for LA's delegates. The caucus is coming up soon.
Paul would have a better shot, but Obama's still up on him in most of the swing states. And once someone actually addressed his crazy and the general electorate got to see his newsletters? Toast.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Call me crazy, but I think Ron Paul could easily win if he's the nominee. Obama doesn't really stand a chance.
OK, you're crazy. He might have done well in 1896 against Bryan, campaigning against the evils of free silver and labor unions, but this America isn't going to go for an overtly racist goldbug.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
On the numbers front:
NC: Obama+5
MA: O +11 (Rasmussen)
VA: Romney+5 (bit odd that, Roanoke)
CO: O +13
NM: O +16 (Rasmussen)
NY: O +25
MI: O +4
IN: Romney +9
NV: O+14
The Virginia number is a pretty big swing from previous polls that had Obama up in the mid single digits so we'll have to keep an eye on that. Indiana was a pretty big surprise in 08 so you can't be too surprised by +9 but we'll want more polling to confirm Romney's advantage is that strong. It should be noted that Kerry + CO + NM+ NC+ NV - NH (since that's arguably in doubt) = 277
...but this America isn't going to go for an overtly racist...
I'd like to think so, but this America is one where Santorum's campaign shut down because of his sick daughter, not because he nearly finished saying the second half of the word he thinks our acting president is.
The point is more that Romney shouldn't be embracing the war on women frame at all. Or the income inequality frame. His stump speech should have the word "jobs" in it about 50 times and some mentions of the budget. That shit's dishonest, but it's better for him.
Too bad his budget plan will increase the deficit more than Obama's.
So much for moral imperatives...
Yeah, people don't know that though. As I said, dishonest, but better for him. Because the GOP's narrative of Democrats = Spendy Spender McSpenderson is deeply ingrained, even though it's totally false.
I fully expect Obama to wield the hammer of thor on this one. If he lets this go, he almost deserves to lose.
I mean, America doesn't deserve to go back in time 150 years, but still.
See my sig.
The entire debate will consist of the president going "lol y u lying?"
On the numbers front:
NC: Obama+5
MA: O +11 (Rasmussen)
VA: Romney+5 (bit odd that, Roanoke)
CO: O +13
NM: O +16 (Rasmussen)
NY: O +25
MI: O +4
IN: Romney +9
NV: O+14
The Virginia number is a pretty big swing from previous polls that had Obama up in the mid single digits so we'll have to keep an eye on that. Indiana was a pretty big surprise in 08 so you can't be too surprised by +9 but we'll want more polling to confirm Romney's advantage is that strong. It should be noted that Kerry + CO + NM+ NC+ NV - NH (since that's arguably in doubt) = 277
That Michigan number is totally ridiculous, by the way. It's more like 10 or maybe even 20. Hell, my dad's boss has voted Republican in every election ever, but he HATES Romney and actually basically likes the President.
This may have something to do with the auto industry.
And that Virginia number also contradicts a lot of better pollsters.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Not a lot of Americans know very much about the economy or foreign policy, so the gold standard and no foreign wars might seem appealing to people.
Obviously not to Republicans, though, or they would already be voting for him.
No one stands a chance in any election if they can't carry their own constituency. That's kind of how elections work. What you're arguing is some kind of fantastical situation where somehow a candidate would somehow beat a popular incumbent despite the fact no one in his own party wants to vote for him, nor or they explicitly interested in his platform, and concurrently he offers no appeal to the opposition that would make them consider crossing the aisle.
You have failed to understand the basic premise of elections.
CNN did a "What If?" scenario that ended with Obama polling basically even with Romney, save a small number of battleground states which will decide the election.
CNN did a "What If?" scenario that ended with Obama polling basically even with Romney, save a small number of battleground states.
Made me kinda nervous.
CNN has a financial interest in making the election appear close. At the moment, general consensus is Obama has a lead about as large as the one he ended up winning with 4 years ago. And the state polling is largely the same, with Indiana returning to the status quo and population shifts meaning red states have a few more electoral votes than in 2008.
Two caveats:
1) It's April
2) Undecided voters tend (I think) to swing slightly more against the incumbent. So like a 4 or 5 point win and 320 - 340 electoral votes would be a reasonable expectation if the election were today.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Of course, as TPM has been pointing out all day, these attacks mean that Romney is fighting the election on Obama's terms instead of on terms more favorable to him. In other words, the President has successfully framed the issues we're currently fighting on.
Yet another instance of Republikerry.
I just want Romney to continue projecting his weaknesses on to Obama. "Maybe Obama spent too much time at Harvard!" was hilarious.
Yes, you know who is going to win against the guy who won the Presidency in a landslide in an election where nearly 130 million votes were cast? The 76 year old 4th place guy in the Republican primaries who could barely crack 10% in the primaries.
...but this America isn't going to go for an overtly racist...
I'd like to think so, but this America is one where Santorum's campaign shut down because of his sick daughter, not because he nearly finished saying the second half of the word he thinks our acting president is.
I listened to that, repeatedly. He wasn't saying that. As much as I wanted him to, just so he would get shut down right away. It was just a stutter.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Rolling Stone did an article on Obama's campaign strategies, and they predicted three campaign scenarios, and they all have Obama losing pretty much every state not located on the West coast and the Northeast.
On the numbers front:
NC: Obama+5
MA: O +11 (Rasmussen)
VA: Romney+5 (bit odd that, Roanoke)
CO: O +13
NM: O +16 (Rasmussen)
NY: O +25
MI: O +4
IN: Romney +9
NV: O+14
The Virginia number is a pretty big swing from previous polls that had Obama up in the mid single digits so we'll have to keep an eye on that. Indiana was a pretty big surprise in 08 so you can't be too surprised by +9 but we'll want more polling to confirm Romney's advantage is that strong. It should be noted that Kerry + CO + NM+ NC+ NV - NH (since that's arguably in doubt) = 277
That Michigan number is totally ridiculous, by the way. It's more like 10 or maybe even 20. Hell, my dad's boss has voted Republican in every election ever, but he HATES Romney and actually basically likes the President.
This may have something to do with the auto industry.
And that Virginia number also contradicts a lot of better pollsters.
Yeah Mass+11 is also a bit silly but MI+4 is a real stretch. PPP has Obama matching or bettering his 08 numbers vs Romney in 9 out of 10 races they've polled (WA goes to +15 instead of +17...) in 2012. I'd almost expect Texas to be a battleground before Michigan, and I would be more surprised by Michigan flipping than a Dakota or two going blue.
The Romney campaign's actual response to if they support Lily Ledbetter:
"We'll get back to you on that."
They decided they did about an hour later.
To be honest, and fair, I'd rather a politician say, "Uh, hang on a sec, let me double check what that is" in response to things, rather than be held up by a metaphorical gun to give an answer ASAP.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
Every place that's tried to do an electoral map I've seen has all but ignored outright what the polls are saying and doing this instead:
A) Determine what states are the tipping-point states. Arbitrarily award states in such a fashion that those tipping-point states actually end up deciding things.
C) Sound the alarm about how Obama has to win those states or else he loses, ignoring all those pesky polls that might screw up the narrative by noting how far ahead he actually is in those states plus a number of others they gave to Romney just because.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Posts
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
(SFW)
Still funny though.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
What I'm saying is that at this point he seems like more of a spoiler than anything else.
I did not.
Obama is considered a stronger leader, more consistent, more likeable. Romney doesn't really have the wedge issues, or the want-to-have-a-beer-with edge.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
To be fair, Vladimir Putin *is* essentially what you get if you elect a mafia boss to the office of President. I mean, read some of his press from the Russian media, the guy's alternately being lauded as a superhero and assassinating his political enemies while taking occasional swipes at other groups to remind us all of the Russian "glory days" when they had an Iron Curtain. (and Mammoth tanks, and Tesla Coils, and...nevermind)
Because drinking beer is a sin.
Man, I'm going to repeat that so many times in the next 7 months.
A vote for Obama is a vote for Albert Einstein's assassination of Hitler! Don't let that happen!
Too bad his budget plan will increase the deficit more than Obama's.
So much for moral imperatives...
He also talks a lot about personal responsibility and self-determination but will "join the herd" with the GOP rather than run independently. He also hates the gays. He also loads up his district on pork despite shouting about how bad it is. And he's a part of The Man What Keeps You Down.
Ron Paul is just a Republican with better bullshit control than average.
Yeah, people don't know that though. As I said, dishonest, but better for him. Because the GOP's narrative of Democrats = Spendy Spender McSpenderson is deeply ingrained, even though it's totally false.
I don't know about that. He can't talk too much about the economy because he'll get hammered by "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" and "I like to fire people." His only hope is the economy goes south again, and if that happens he doesn't need to harp on it. The other half is to reinforce the "Obama is Other" angle. He's going with vague overtones of "He's a scary black guy" and "What kind of name is Barack?" and "Death Panels Doncha Know!"
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I fully expect Obama to wield the hammer of thor on this one. If he lets this go, he almost deserves to lose.
I mean, America doesn't deserve to go back in time 150 years, but still.
I think the same poll you quoted above showed Romney with a double digit lead on the deficit and four point lead on the economy generally (though not with "cares about the middle class" because people are dumb).
Well, Romney seems like he'd know what he's talking about with regards to economics. He looks like a CEO, he made his money in business, he is 1980s, Reaganomics Personified. The fact that his economic plan is shit doesn't really enter into it. Image is important.
There is some truth to this, one of my coworkers got a phone call from the RP peeps to be asked if he wanted to sign up to be elected for LA's delegates. The caucus is coming up soon.
You're crazy.
OK, you're crazy. He might have done well in 1896 against Bryan, campaigning against the evils of free silver and labor unions, but this America isn't going to go for an overtly racist goldbug.
I'd call you crazy, but you really already nailed it in there
what with putting "Ron Paul" and "could easily win" next to each other in a sentence.
NC: Obama+5
MA: O +11 (Rasmussen)
VA: Romney+5 (bit odd that, Roanoke)
CO: O +13
NM: O +16 (Rasmussen)
NY: O +25
MI: O +4
IN: Romney +9
NV: O+14
The Virginia number is a pretty big swing from previous polls that had Obama up in the mid single digits so we'll have to keep an eye on that. Indiana was a pretty big surprise in 08 so you can't be too surprised by +9 but we'll want more polling to confirm Romney's advantage is that strong. It should be noted that Kerry + CO + NM+ NC+ NV - NH (since that's arguably in doubt) = 277
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I'd like to think so, but this America is one where Santorum's campaign shut down because of his sick daughter, not because he nearly finished saying the second half of the word he thinks our acting president is.
See my sig.
The entire debate will consist of the president going "lol y u lying?"
That Michigan number is totally ridiculous, by the way. It's more like 10 or maybe even 20. Hell, my dad's boss has voted Republican in every election ever, but he HATES Romney and actually basically likes the President.
This may have something to do with the auto industry.
And that Virginia number also contradicts a lot of better pollsters.
Obviously not to Republicans, though, or they would already be voting for him.
No one stands a chance in any election if they can't carry their own constituency. That's kind of how elections work. What you're arguing is some kind of fantastical situation where somehow a candidate would somehow beat a popular incumbent despite the fact no one in his own party wants to vote for him, nor or they explicitly interested in his platform, and concurrently he offers no appeal to the opposition that would make them consider crossing the aisle.
You have failed to understand the basic premise of elections.
Made me kinda nervous.
CNN has a financial interest in making the election appear close. At the moment, general consensus is Obama has a lead about as large as the one he ended up winning with 4 years ago. And the state polling is largely the same, with Indiana returning to the status quo and population shifts meaning red states have a few more electoral votes than in 2008.
Two caveats:
1) It's April
2) Undecided voters tend (I think) to swing slightly more against the incumbent. So like a 4 or 5 point win and 320 - 340 electoral votes would be a reasonable expectation if the election were today.
I just want Romney to continue projecting his weaknesses on to Obama. "Maybe Obama spent too much time at Harvard!" was hilarious.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I listened to that, repeatedly. He wasn't saying that. As much as I wanted him to, just so he would get shut down right away. It was just a stutter.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Yeah Mass+11 is also a bit silly but MI+4 is a real stretch. PPP has Obama matching or bettering his 08 numbers vs Romney in 9 out of 10 races they've polled (WA goes to +15 instead of +17...) in 2012. I'd almost expect Texas to be a battleground before Michigan, and I would be more surprised by Michigan flipping than a Dakota or two going blue.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
To be honest, and fair, I'd rather a politician say, "Uh, hang on a sec, let me double check what that is" in response to things, rather than be held up by a metaphorical gun to give an answer ASAP.
A) Determine what states are the tipping-point states.
C) Sound the alarm about how Obama has to win those states or else he loses, ignoring all those pesky polls that might screw up the narrative by noting how far ahead he actually is in those states plus a number of others they gave to Romney just because.