knapplc Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 The Republicans are going to nominate the wrong guy, and Obama will steam roll him. I'm not convinced. I'm thoroughly unimpressed by the GOP field but the economy might very well end in an Obama reelection defeat. The longer the recovery takes the better the GOP candidates chances are. I can say one thing for certain . . . I don't like when one political party has an incentive to stall the recovery. Here's the problem with that Republican strategy: Obama can very easily pin the lack of recovery on the GOP candidate - and the party - as well. There won't be anything resembling a sincere effort to fix the economy by the GOP in the next 12 months, and it will be very obvious. No legislation, no jobs bills, nothing. How do the Republicans explain that away? Why do I vote for them when they've held my lack of employment hostage for a year? I think the economy is going to end up a zero-sum game for both parties. It's not Obama's issue, and it's not the GOP's issue - they share it jointly. EDIT - and, case in point, the GOP's own actions are going to be used against them: LINK Gotta protect those poor millionaires from those awful taxes. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 The Republicans are going to nominate the wrong guy, and Obama will steam roll him. I'm not convinced. I'm thoroughly unimpressed by the GOP field but the economy might very well end in an Obama reelection defeat. The longer the recovery takes the better the GOP candidates chances are. I can say one thing for certain . . . I don't like when one political party has an incentive to stall the recovery. Here's the problem with that Republican strategy: Obama can very easily pin the lack of recovery on the GOP candidate - and the party - as well. There won't be anything resembling a sincere effort to fix the economy by the GOP in the next 12 months, and it will be very obvious. No legislation, no jobs bills, nothing. How do the Republicans explain that away? Why do I vote for them when they've held my lack of employment hostage for a year? I think the economy is going to end up a zero-sum game for both parties. It's not Obama's issue, and it's not the GOP's issue - they share it jointly. EDIT - and, case in point, the GOP's own actions are going to be used against them: LINK Gotta protect those poor millionaires from those awful taxes. Unfortunately, it's easy to see how comprehensive this Republican strategy is. They've spent a decade (or longer) telling us that government is the problem so that now they can say that their lack of action on the economy is a good thing because government only makes things worse. I don't trust the voting public enough to make the connection that the GOP blocked all meaningful economic legislation. Instead I fear that they will take the mentally lazy route and say that Obama failed to accomplish anything. It's similar to their attacks on the "mainstream media." Because they repeatedly pound that argument home they can just dismiss anything said by a non-conservative media outlet. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 The voting public will believe whatever story is presented to them in the best manner at the moment they vote. There's no memory, no sense of history, in the mass of voters. Come election time all that will be left of the campaign and the debates will be vague impressions of like/didn't like. That's why this strategy the GOP is using will work, and why similar strategies have worked for both parties in past elections. It's why terms like "sheeple" crop up to describe the masses. The key will be the endgame storylines that each candidate can sell. Certainly the article I just linked to will be long forgotten, but the fact that *I* don't have a job will be fresh in their minds. It all depends on who can best label that lack of job. Who can pin it on the other guy the best. In that scenario, I think Obama has the best chance. Nobody I've seen from the GOP is showing the ability to better characterize the moment than Obama. Link to comment
Husker_x Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 The Republicans could run a corpse in the next election and would still have an overwhelming chance of winning. The odds of an incumbent carrying the day with unemployment over 9%--which we have every reason to suspect it will be around election day--are horrid. The Republicans will probably run someone like Romney, in which case he can pound the pulpit of executive experience (as opposed to Obama) and business experience (as opposed to Obama). When the narrative of your candidate nationally is that he's in over his head Jimmy Carter style and even lickspittles like Bill Maher are talking about 'buyer's remorse', the ship is sinking. Right now this looks like the reverse tide of 2008. If Obama attempts to blame republicans for obstructionism, they'll simply point to the fact that he had two years with a supermajority in the legislative. When he points to his stimulus, they'll point to the Green company scandals. In the chess match of politics I don't see what Obama's play is. No one cares about his speeches anymore. His mojo has been gone for three and a half years. And the economy still sucks. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 You could have said the same thing about the Democrats in 2004 after Bush squandered the "Bill Clinton" economy (which had zero to do with Clinton, but I digress) and after he'd pissed off pretty much the whole world, gotten us into two stupid wars, etc, etc, etc. Actually, come to think of it, the Dems just about did run a corpse against Bush, and they still got beat, badly. It's not always about the condition the country is in. The challenger has to be better than the incumbent. The Dems had nobody better than Bush, and at the moment the GOP has nobody better than Obama. Link to comment
Husker_x Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 The economy is the worst it's been since the Great Depression. We're still involved in two wars. The economy does not look to improve significantly in the next year. The recession under Bush is not comparable to our current situation. 9% unemployment is going to be the rock Obama has to push up the mountainside all through the campaign, and it's the unspinnable reality that he had the majorities and political clout to pass anything. What he passed didn't drop that number. It doesn't even matter if he could have not even in theory done anything about it--perception is reality. "Better" is perception, and Obama's approval numbers are in the low forties without a single national campaign attack ad run. The generic republican is polling higher than Obama. The top three repubs are polling higher than Obama. The dems have lost both the midterms and every special election I can recall since he took office. Polls change like the wind, but anyone who thinks Obama is in the driver's seat when his administration has not brought the recession to an end and is currently about to be embroiled in two scandals is unrealistic. This isn't even a value judgement on my part. To me this is facts and numbers. Big O is in T-rub-le. Oh, and on Bush, barring other factors, it's difficult to defeat a wartime incumbent generally. This war feels less like a war than it did seven years ago. I doubt Obama gets the same benefit from that. 1 Link to comment
The Dude Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 That's kind of my thought Husker_x. The Republicans don't have to put a quality candidate up against Obama to beat him. And that's really unfortunate for the country. I voted for Obama, but I can't in good conscious do it again. Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I just can't believe how the Republicans continue to trash(debate) eachother over and over again with the national spotlight on. Anderson Cooper is the next moderator? Seriously? When is Keith Obermann coming aboard? It's like trying to commit suicide with a toothpick. Yeah, you'll get it done eventually. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 13, 2011 Author Share Posted October 13, 2011 Does anyone know - is this the most debates by any challenging party in election history? This seems like a LOT of debates, especially this early. And gobigger is right - it seems like it's hurting the frontrunners more than anything. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 13, 2011 Author Share Posted October 13, 2011 The generic republican is polling higher than Obama. The top three repubs are polling higher than Obama. The dems have lost both the midterms and every special election I can recall since he took office. Polls change like the wind, but anyone who thinks Obama is in the driver's seat when his administration has not brought the recession to an end and is currently about to be embroiled in two scandals is unrealistic. This isn't even a value judgement on my part. To me this is facts and numbers. Big O is in T-rub-le. I was just looking at some poll numbers, and unless this is grossly in error, it looks like Obama is actually polling higher than any specific candidate. LINK Link to comment
Husker_x Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 The generic republican is polling higher than Obama. The top three repubs are polling higher than Obama. The dems have lost both the midterms and every special election I can recall since he took office. Polls change like the wind, but anyone who thinks Obama is in the driver's seat when his administration has not brought the recession to an end and is currently about to be embroiled in two scandals is unrealistic. This isn't even a value judgement on my part. To me this is facts and numbers. Big O is in T-rub-le. I was just looking at some poll numbers, and unless this is grossly in error, it looks like Obama is actually polling higher than any specific candidate. LINK It's probably not in error. Polls change. Last week I saw one that had Romney, Perry, and Cain all ahead. At RCP Obama looks to be in a statistical tie with Romney in about all of them (within the margin of error). And of course most Tea Partiers aren't going to poll well for Romney right now, but when he wins the nomination I wager the tune will change. Romney is also polling pretty well among independents, from what I understand. We'll have a clearer picture after the primaries are over. Edit- And while I'm pondering this, I watched a bit of the debate last night. I've seen two or three of them this fall, or parts of them, and Romney has upped his game considerably from last time. He's looking pretty salty, and hasn't been much effected by the battering from the other candidates. He took Perry's shots easily and left his campaign dead on the ground. At this point he looks to be all but a shoe in unless someone else picks up major traction. Link to comment
strigori Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 One of the biggest issues the GOP has with their candidates is most of them look like caricatures or jokes. Of the three front runners Only Romney looks at all presidential. Cain gets way too animated, and looks flat out angry when anyone asks a hard question, or disagrees with him. Perry comes off as a stereotypical red-neck Texan. If either Cain or Perry get the nomination I think Obama wins easy. At the end of the day I can't see the moderates and independents voting for the Red-neck or the 'angry black man.' Romney, I think, poses a much more serious challenge. But ultimately I don't think the Presidential part of the election will matter as much as the house and senate will. If we keep around all the fools who just want to argue and 'win' then we continue to go nowhere, Link to comment
Husker_x Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 One of the biggest issues the GOP has with their candidates is most of them look like caricatures or jokes. Of the three front runners Only Romney looks at all presidential. Cain gets way too animated, and looks flat out angry when anyone asks a hard question, or disagrees with him. Perry comes off as a stereotypical red-neck Texan. If either Cain or Perry get the nomination I think Obama wins easy. At the end of the day I can't see the moderates and independents voting for the Red-neck or the 'angry black man.' Romney, I think, poses a much more serious challenge. But ultimately I don't think the Presidential part of the election will matter as much as the house and senate will. If we keep around all the fools who just want to argue and 'win' then we continue to go nowhere, Gingrich looks like he'll soon have taken Perry's old slot. In fact today I saw he's in double digits now while Perry continues to plummet and his wife has an emotional episode on TV. Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 I like how they give Paul 2 questions in the debate... Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 14, 2011 Author Share Posted October 14, 2011 I like how they give Paul 2 questions in the debate... It's sad how Ron Paul is being treated. Who decides he doesn't get a voice? Is that democracy? Link to comment
Recommended Posts