5021 replies to this topic

[wjag]

So for you political wonks on here, let's use this thread for al things about the first Tuesday in November..

So I'm watching Ryan speak now as the VP wannabee. Very strategic choice by Mitt.  Wisconsin is one of the few swing states that are in play..  I think this may be the first decision made by Mitt that I actually like.  Not sure it helps Mitt in the big cities, but it sure seems like a safe pick..

Edited by spndnchz, 13 November 2012 - 08:38 AM.

[d4rksabre]

"America is the only country in the world founded on an idea." - Paul Ryan



If you're going to quote GK Chesterton, at least use the right words so that the meaning stays the same...

[weave]

This won't end well.

[d4rksabre]

weave, on 11 August 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

This won't end well.

Yup.

[wjag]

I think it could be quite entertaining.  There's some strong opinions on here.  I personally can't wait for a Biden - Ryan debate. The Obama - Romney debates will be interesting too...

[wyldnwoody44]

Debate= who can lie better

Politics,  as corrupt as politics have always been,  an all time high has been reached.  The president does not have as much power as many people think (somehow George w. Was able to be an awful exception)  I will be personally affected by "Obama care" but I try and not follow too much as every time I see a politician on tv,  I want to vomit.  Too much lobbying,  big$$ being tossed around,  and only 2 parties.  This equals bad things.  

Although Obama has been very disappointing since his inauguration,  I think he still squeaks out a tight victory.

[Eleven]

weave, on 11 August 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

This won't end well.

Certainly not.  I'm going to sit in the back and make fun of the rest of the class.

[d4rksabre]

One of these years a candidate is going to "wow" me. This isn't one of those years.

I like the youthful choice, but Ryan's opening remarks are already underwhelming. They just don't make politicians like they used to.

[SwampD]

d4rksabre, on 11 August 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

One of these years a candidate is going to "wow" me. This isn't one of those years.

I like the youthful choice, but Ryan's opening remarks are already underwhelming. They just don't make politicians like they used to.

Look at the bright side, at least we don't have to hear the word "Gravitas" used by every pundit and reporter that wants to pretend they went to an Ivy league school.

[wjag]

d4rksabre, on 11 August 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

One of these years a candidate is going to "wow" me. This isn't one of those years.

I like the youthful choice, but Ryan's opening remarks are already underwhelming. They just don't make politicians like they used to.

As I said, I like the choice.  It'll be interesting to see how the Dems attack his image. Family is photogenic.  Has to appeal to the Catholics.  What skeleton will they unearth?

[sabres13]

wjag, on 11 August 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

As I said, I like the choice.  It'll be interesting to see how the Dems attack his image. Family is photogenic.  Has to appeal to the Catholics.  What skeleton will they unearth?

That he owns 3 million dollar companies and spits on poor people in his spare time.

Or he picks up illegals from home depot and pays them to choke him in the shower. Lol!

[PASabreFan]

I don't see how the choice helps Romney appeal to independents. Ryan's a "red meat conservative." Maybe it's meant to turn on the soccer moms, I don't know.

I still see Obama defying historical trends and sneaking in based on personal popularity and, well, the fact that his opponent is an unlikable turd.

Love the thread.

[d4rksabre]

PASabreFan, on 11 August 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

I don't see how the choice helps Romney appeal to independents. Ryan's a "red meat conservative." Maybe it's meant to turn on the soccer moms, I don't know.

I still see Obama defying historical trends and sneaking in based on personal popularity and, well, the fact that his opponent is an unlikable turd.

Love the thread.

I agree with everything in this post. This selection seems to me like the GOP actually sees Romney for what he is: a soft conservative.

They've tried to portray him as a "red meat conservative" but I think the truth is that he isn't. Now they're trying to appease republicans who don't like Romney by adding Ryan.

[Claude_Verret]

Republicans and Democrats can't give you the facts
Your parents won't tell you 'til you're grown
That every star that shines in the back of your mind
Is just waiting for its cover to be blown


Uncle Tupelo  "We've Been Had"


Have at it kids.

[deluca67]

I want to see the ultimate Obama add that will guarantee his victory.

"Vote Obama! If we win Ted Nugent will kill himself."

[Eleven]

PASabreFan, on 11 August 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

I don't see how the choice helps Romney appeal to independents. Ryan's a "red meat conservative." Maybe it's meant to turn on the soccer moms, I don't know.

I still see Obama defying historical trends and sneaking in based on personal popularity and, well, the fact that his opponent is an unlikable turd.

Love the thread.

I have seen at least one facebook post from a female acquaintance suggesting that this might swing the vote for her.  Assuming for the moment that she is serious and not sarcastic, I don't know if that's a commentary on our poor choices this election or on her vapidity.  (Or both.)

Claude_Verret, on 11 August 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

Republicans and Democrats can't give you the facts
Your parents won't tell you 'til you're grown
That every star that shines in the back of your mind
Is just waiting for its cover to be blown


Uncle Tupelo  "We've Been Had"


Have at it kids.

Wish we still had the +1 system for this one.

Edited by Eleven, 11 August 2012 - 10:45 AM.

[wjag]

PASabreFan, on 11 August 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

I don't see how the choice helps Romney appeal to independents. Ryan's a "red meat conservative." Maybe it's meant to turn on the soccer moms, I don't know.

I still see Obama defying historical trends and sneaking in based on personal popularity and, well, the fact that his opponent is an unlikable turd.

Love the thread.

So he only really matters in a handful of states that will determine the presidency.  How he plays in Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Michigan, Ohio and Florida will decide the fate of the Romney ticket..   I agree he shores up the conservative base.  He may help with the soccer Mom vote. But he doesn't help in the big cities where Obama's strength is.  

That 8 percent unemployment rate may be the biggest factor in a 2nd term for team O.....

[nucci]

wyldnwoody44, on 11 August 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Debate= who can lie better

Politics,  as corrupt as politics have always been,  an all time high has been reached.  The president does not have as much power as many people think (somehow George w. Was able to be an awful exception)  I will be personally affected by "Obama care" but I try and not follow too much as every time I see a politician on tv,  I want to vomit.  Too much lobbying,  big$$ being tossed around,  and only 2 parties.  This equals bad things.  

Although Obama has been very disappointing since his inauguration,  I think he still squeaks out a tight victory.

Agree 100%

[d4rksabre]

I'll be perfectly honest and say that my leanings in this election are half idealistic, and half selfish.

At 59 years old, my father just started a new career in the solar energy industry. The success of the company he works for, and the future of all types of alternative energy in this country, rely on the federal funding that has been implemented in the Obama administration.

I have no doubt that if Romney is elected, conservative financial tactics will see the elimination of federal alternative energy funding. I cannot and will not abide that.

[inkman]

In the high pitched, pain laden shriek of Nancy Kerrigan,  "Whhhhhhyyyyyyy!"

[Bullwinkle III]

Obama, for all the difficulty he's faced in four years, has really lucked out in this election. Think about it...the only serious competitor - John Huntsman - was dumped early in the primaries. The rest of the candidates were clowns and one of the biggest, and most unelectable, won.

Romney then proceeds to shoot himself in the foot by refusing to release tax returns, making gaffs right and left, and being unable to relate to common people.

Now he picks Ryan, one of the most radical advocates of their economic program. AND Ryan has the personal endorsement of G.W. Bush!

This is like the perfect storm. In an election in which the incumbent would, nine times out of ten, lose the election because of the economy, Obama has lucked into a situation in which he can easily win!

All he now has to do is follow Kathy Hochul's path to victory and make sure Bush's endorsement is in all of his advertising!

At this point even I could run his campaign without a problem.

[wjag]

Bullwinkle III, on 11 August 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

Obama, for all the difficulty he's faced in four years, has really lucked out in this election. Think about it...the only serious competitor - John Huntsman - was dumped early in the primaries. The rest of the candidates were clowns and one of the biggest, and most unelectable, won.

Romney then proceeds to shoot himself in the foot by refusing to release tax returns, making gaffs right and left, and being unable to relate to common people.

Now he picks Ryan, one of the most radical advocates of their economic program. AND Ryan has the personal endorsement of G.W. Bush!

This is like the perfect storm. In an election in which the incumbent would, nine times out of ten, lose the election because of the economy, Obama has lucked into a situation in which he can easily win!

All he now has to do is follow Kathy Hochul's path to victory and make sure Bush's endorsement is in all of his advertising!

At this point even I could run his campaign without a problem.

I don't think Ryan hurts the ticket as much as you indicate.  This election isn't about California or New York or even Texas.  It really comes down to who can win the Midwest states.  Wisconsin would never have gone for Romney unless he picked a local son.  The regional states of Michigan and Ohio are now in play.  I do think this pick all but abandons Florida to Obama.  This election is going to be closer than you think.  The red states are more red and the blue states are more blue this year.  Obama won't win in some of the places he did 4 years ago.  For example, he has no shot in West Virginia after his coal policies.  He's going to have to stitch together a different coalition of states. I doubt he gets Virginia either.  So a Midwest pick for Romney makes a lot of sense.

Edited by wjag, 11 August 2012 - 03:30 PM.

[Bullwinkle III]

wjag, on 11 August 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

I don't think Ryan hurts the ticket as much as you indicate.  This election isn't about California or New York or even Texas.  It really comes down to who can win the Midwest states.  Wisconsin would never have gone for Romney unless he picked a local son.  The regional states of Michigan and Ohio are now in play.  I do think this pick all but abandons Florida to Obama.  This election is going to be closer than you think.  The red states are more red and the blue states are more blue this year.  Obama won't win in some of the places he did 4 years ago.  For example, he has no shot in West Virginia after his coal policies.  He's going to have to stitch together a different coalition of states. I doubt he gets Virginia either.  So a Midwest pick for Romney makes a lot of sense.

If Obama wins Florida, and it appears more likely now, he has the election.  He can lose Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, Virginia, Iowa and Nevada and he still wins the election because he will have Michigan, Pa, Minnesota, N. Mexico and all the other traditionally blue states.  If Romney loses Fla, he's toast.

[Taro T]

weave, on 11 August 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

This won't end well.

I'm running with scissors!!!!

(What could possibly go wrong? )

Bullwinkle III, on 11 August 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

If Obama wins Florida, and it appears more likely now, he has the election.  He can lose Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, Virginia, Iowa and Nevada and he still wins the election because he will have Michigan, Pa, Minnesota, N. Mexico and all the other traditionally blue states.  If Romney loses Fla, he's toast.

To me, it's an interesting choice.  He'll energize conservatives which will help Romney in the short term.  If Romney wins, he will have a fiscal conservative along side him that is willing to actually propose budgets and explain why he believes what is in his budget is the right way to do things; but he will also have that fiscal conservative in arguably the least useful position in all of Washington to help get those budgets though.  Ryan would be more useful to him post election in the House of Representatives in his current role of Chairman.

The Democrats are already running ads essentially claiming that Romney was responsible for a woman's death.  I'm not sure that bringing Ryan onboard can make the attack ads any worse.

The move will likely mean the President will have to spend more in WI to ensure he carries it than he had planned / hoped.

I am definitely looking forward to the VP debate now.  That should be truly entertaining.

Again, I see the choice as interesting.  And, as if it wasn't already a choice between 2 very different courses for the future, the differences between what the candidates would do upon election are even more starkly contrasted.

[TrueBluePhD]

Let me begin by saying I am not going to get into any kind of policy debate about what I think should happen or should be done, or evaluate the job Obama has done, or anything like that.  It's something I simply don't have the stomach to do.  This thread, as others before it, has potential to actually stimulate interesting conversation, at least until it devolves into a partisan bickering fest.  That said, I do have a really good working knowledge of elections and voting behavior, so hopefully I can add a little something to the conversation.  

By and large, VP candidates don't matter--people vote for the president, not vice president.  They are almost never pivotal, and when they are, it's limited to their home state.  So while the media is going to have a fun time with this, don't pretend for a second it's going to change the election outcome.  That's not to say that VPs can't change anything--for example, if Romney had selected a skinhead, then yea, that would probably sink his bid for the White House.  But presidential candidates don't make such a terrible choice that will sink them.  Even the selection of Palin in 2008, which some have claimed sunk McCain...that's just not the case.  Obviously she didn't carry him to the White House, but 2008 was a Democratic year and after the financial collapse it was over.  McCain probably wasn't going to win even if Jesus were running with him.  

So what can Ryan do for Romney?  The focus should be on what happens in Wisconsin, as that's the only place Ryan is capable of mattering.  It may be easy to conclude that Ryan's budget will become an issue and harm Romney in a senior-heavy state like Florida.  That's unlikely.  Basically, Ryan's proposed changes to Medicare were already an issue because Romney had endorsed the changes, and selecting Ryan as his running mate really doesn't change anything--the issue was already on the table, so to speak.  So what happens in Wisconsin?  Historically, VPs have been able to help carry their home state for their ticket--but this isn't always the case, and even if it were, why does this happen?  The vast majority of the time the VP is either a popular governor or Senator--this is an important distinction from a House member, because governors and Senators serve a state-wide constituency.  That helps give them name recognition, and if they're popular, pull the vote towards their party.  

What's unique about Ryan is he is from the House--the last House member on a winning ticket was in 1932.  House members simply have more trouble pulling their home state because they've never represented the state.  So their name recognition is lower, and it's also possible they represent a district which is not in congruence with the rest of the state politically.  This is essentially what is happening with Ryan--he's a very conservative representative, in a conservative district, which happens to be located in a traditionally Democratic state.  Of those in Wisconsin who are familiar with Ryan (roughly 2/3 of the electorate, IIRC), he's polling slightly more favorable than unfavorable.  If we assume the remaining 1/3 will end up rating him the same way, it's possible that his presence on the ticket will help pull more voters towards Romney than if he weren't on the ticket.  But will it matter?  That's very unlikely.  Obama has had a consistent and comfortable (by comfortable I mean outside the margin of error) lead--a recent poll had him at +6 in Wisconsin.  Even if Ryan were to close that gap by 3 points (which make no mistake, would be significant as far as polling is concerned) and into the margin of error, it's still unlikely that his pull is strong enough to flip the state.  

At the end of the day, it remains highly, highly unlikely that Romney will win Wisconsin (Nate Silver pegged it at 2.5% more likely Romney wins the state--which makes him still 90%+ likely to lose it).  The biggest impact of this selection may be that Ryan pulls Wisconsin just close enough that the Obama campaign has to expend more resources than planned in Wisconsin to hang on, leaving them more vulnerable in a different battleground state.  To me, this selection isn't about possibly stealing Wisconsin from the Dems--it's all about shoring up the conservative base, which never fell in love with Romney.

Taro T, on 11 August 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

I'm running with scissors!!!!

(What could possibly go wrong? )

To me, it's an interesting choice.  He'll energize conservatives which will help Romney in the short term.  If Romney wins, he will have a fiscal conservative along side him that is willing to actually propose budgets and explain why he believes what is in his budget is the right way to do things; but he will also have that fiscal conservative in arguably the least useful position in all of Washington to help get those budgets though.  Ryan would be more useful to him post election in the House of Representatives in his current role of Chairman.

The Democrats are already running ads essentially claiming that Romney was responsible for a woman's death.  I'm not sure that bringing Ryan onboard can make the attack ads any worse.

The move will likely mean the President will have to spend more in WI to ensure he carries it than he had planned / hoped.

I am definitely looking forward to the VP debate now.  That should be truly entertaining.

Again, I see the choice as interesting.  And, as if it wasn't already a choice between 2 very different courses for the future, the differences between what the candidates would do upon election are even more starkly contrasted.

I fully expect Ryan to "win" the VP debate, not that it will have any impact on the election.  He's not Sarah Palin--he has a fantastic grasp and understanding of the issues, particularly economic issues, and he's not going to go out there and make a fool of himself that's for damn sure.

Edit:  Oh, and that's an excellent point about the budget, which I definitely hadn't considered.  He'd certainly be more useful as budget chairman than VP.

Edited by TrueBluePhD, 11 August 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[Eleven]

Yeah, yeah, and before Obama the last one to successfully run from the Senate was 1960.

I'm enjoying the length of the essays.  That's fun to watch.

Edited by Eleven, 11 August 2012 - 06:18 PM.

[Taro T]

TrueBluePhD, on 11 August 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

Let me begin by saying I am not going to get into any kind of policy debate about what I think should happen or should be done, or evaluate the job Obama has done, or anything like that.  It's something I simply don't have the stomach to do.  This thread, as others before it, has potential to actually stimulate interesting conversation, at least until it devolves into a partisan bickering fest.  That said, I do have a really good working knowledge of elections and voting behavior, so hopefully I can add a little something to the conversation.  

By and large, VP candidates don't matter--people vote for the president, not vice president.  They are almost never pivotal, and when they are, it's limited to their home state.  So while the media is going to have a fun time with this, don't pretend for a second it's going to change the election outcome.  That's not to say that VPs can't change anything--for example, if Romney had selected a skinhead, then yea, that would probably sink his bid for the White House.  But presidential candidates don't make such a terrible choice that will sink them.  Even the selection of Palin in 2008, which some have claimed sunk McCain...that's just not the case.  Obviously she didn't carry him to the White House, but 2008 was a Democratic year and after the financial collapse it was over.  McCain probably wasn't going to win even if Jesus were running with him.  

So what can Ryan do for Romney?  The focus should be on what happens in Wisconsin, as that's the only place Ryan is capable of mattering.  It may be easy to conclude that Ryan's budget will become an issue and harm Romney in a senior-heavy state like Florida.  That's unlikely.  Basically, Ryan's proposed changes to Medicare were already an issue because Romney had endorsed the changes, and selecting Ryan as his running mate really doesn't change anything--the issue was already on the table, so to speak.  So what happens in Wisconsin?  Historically, VPs have been able to help carry their home state for their ticket--but this isn't always the case, and even if it were, why does this happen?  The vast majority of the time the VP is either a popular governor or Senator--this is an important distinction from a House member, because governors and Senators serve a state-wide constituency.  That helps give them name recognition, and if they're popular, pull the vote towards their party.  

What's unique about Ryan is he is from the House--the last House member on a winning ticket was in 1932.  House members simply have more trouble pulling their home state because they've never represented the state.  So their name recognition is lower, and it's also possible they represent a district which is not in congruence with the rest of the state politically.  This is essentially what is happening with Ryan--he's a very conservative representative, in a conservative district, which happens to be located in a traditionally Democratic state.  Of those in Wisconsin who are familiar with Ryan (roughly 2/3 of the electorate, IIRC), he's polling slightly more favorable than unfavorable.  If we assume the remaining 1/3 will end up rating him the same way, it's possible that his presence on the ticket will help pull more voters towards Romney than if he weren't on the ticket.  But will it matter?  That's very unlikely.  Obama has had a consistent and comfortable (by comfortable I mean outside the margin of error) lead--a recent poll had him at +6 in Wisconsin.  Even if Ryan were to close that gap by 3 points (which make no mistake, would be significant as far as polling is concerned) and into the margin of error, it's still unlikely that his pull is strong enough to flip the state.  

At the end of the day, it remains highly, highly unlikely that Romney will win Wisconsin (Nate Silver pegged it at 2.5% more likely Romney wins the state--which makes him still 90%+ likely to lose it).  The biggest impact of this selection may be that Ryan pulls Wisconsin just close enough that the Obama campaign has to expend more resources than planned in Wisconsin to hang on, leaving them more vulnerable in a different battleground state.  To me, this selection isn't about possibly stealing Wisconsin from the Dems--it's all about shoring up the conservative base, which never fell in love with Romney.



I fully expect Ryan to "win" the VP debate, not that it will have any impact on the election.  He's not Sarah Palin--he has a fantastic grasp and understanding of the issues, particularly economic issues, and he's not going to go out there and make a fool of himself that's for damn sure.

Edit:  Oh, and that's an excellent point about the budget, which I definitely hadn't considered.  He'd certainly be more useful as budget chairman than VP.

Which comes back to why it's an interesting choice.  Right now it doesn't look like it wins him WI and on paper it makes FL a tougher slog.  But it makes the President spend money he doesn't want to in WI and highlights the differences between the 2 candidates.

Romney wants to keep the narrative that this is an election about big choices and this selection maintains that narrative.  But it also makes it tougher for him to get those 'big choices' enacted if he wins.  I'm curious to see if Ryan runs for both his House seat and VP in November.  It would be a huge blow to fiscal conservatives to have him entirely out of Washington if Romney loses.

WI is turning into a really interesting place.  It's almost as reliably liberal as NY is and yet it brought us Paul Ryan and a huge defeat for public sector unions (which are reliably voting D right down the line) in the Walker recall.

[wjag]

First let me state categorically I think Obama will win a second term. If I'm team Romney, I spend the balance of my campaign going around a handful of states: NH, IA, MI, WI, IN, OH and VA.  Forget most of the rest.  Assuming MO, stays leaning Red, Romney could win by taking his solid red and these states.  He wins these and he has 273 electoral votes.  Turning MI, OH, and WI can only be done with a full court press on the economy.  MI appears really difficult with his stance on the auto bailout.  I'd take all that campaign cash and spend it on things that matter in MI and OH.. I'd get on the universities and remind them that they're graduating into a difficult work force.  Take a page out of Obama's 2008 play book.  Hire folks savy in electronic media and exploit the hell out of it.   Forget about Florida other than to remind Floridians that Obama promised a robust space program and in fact laid off tons of engineers.  I'd use that as a wedge in MI. which has a high tech and unemployed workforce to the maximum extent possible.  I'd also force Obama to defend PA.  I expect the unemployment rate to tick up as the summer employment goes away..  If Obama heads into November with an unemployment rate over 8 and high gas prices and high food prices (midwest is in a drought and prices are going up) he is going to be in a real dog fight.

[Bullwinkle III]

Taro T, on 11 August 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

I'm running with scissors!!!!

(What could possibly go wrong? )

To me, it's an interesting choice.  He'll energize conservatives which will help Romney in the short term.  If Romney wins, he will have a fiscal conservative along side him that is willing to actually propose budgets and explain why he believes what is in his budget is the right way to do things; but he will also have that fiscal conservative in arguably the least useful position in all of Washington to help get those budgets though.  Ryan would be more useful to him post election in the House of Representatives in his current role of Chairman.

The Democrats are already running ads essentially claiming that Romney was responsible for a woman's death. I'm not sure that bringing Ryan onboard can make the attack ads any worse.

The move will likely mean the President will have to spend more in WI to ensure he carries it than he had planned / hoped.

I am definitely looking forward to the VP debate now.  That should be truly entertaining.

Again, I see the choice as interesting.  And, as if it wasn't already a choice between 2 very different courses for the future, the differences between what the candidates would do upon election are even more starkly contrasted.

Here is something you don't know: The Soptic ad about his wife's death isn't running anywhere except on the internet!   It appears as if it's in every battleground state running 24/7 because the Republicans are so apoplectic about it.

The gist of the ad is not that Romney killed this woman, but that Bain Capital was so profit-driven that they didn't even leave enough money behind to fund the health care systems of the newly unemployed.   This shows lack of compassion for the average guy in the interest of pure profit.

True Blue's take on the effect on Wisconsin is irrelevant if Obama wins Florida, as I've stated above.  No, I don't think Ryan will make Wisconsin red and I don't think the Dems will spend much money up there.  Instead I expect them to double-down on Florida since it seems to be more winnable than ever.  Again, as I said, they will use Hochul's strategy and scare the old-timers (like me) to death.

wjag, on 11 August 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

First let me state categorically I think Obama will win a second term. If I'm team Romney, I spend the balance of my campaign going around a handful of states: NH, IA, MI, WI, IN, OH and VA.  Forget most of the rest.  Assuming MO, stays leaning Red, Romney could win by taking his solid red and these states.  He wins these and he has 273 electoral votes.  Turning MI, OH, and WI can only be done with a full court press on the economy.  MI appears really difficult with his stance on the auto bailout.  I'd take all that campaign cash and spend it on things that matter in MI and OH.. I'd get on the universities and remind them that they're graduating into a difficult work force.  Take a page out of Obama's 2008 play book.  Hire folks savy in electronic media and exploit the hell out of it.   Forget about Florida other than to remind Floridians that Obama promised a robust space program and in fact laid off tons of engineers.  I'd use that as a wedge in MI. which has a high tech and unemployed workforce to the maximum extent possible.  I'd also force Obama to defend PA.  I expect the unemployment rate to tick up as the summer employment goes away..  If Obama heads into November with an unemployment rate over 8 and high gas prices and high food prices (midwest is in a drought and prices are going up) he is going to be in a real dog fight.

But Romney's fighting against his own interest.  Consider: He says he can fix the economy because of this business experience, but at the same time, refuses to allow anyone to look at the dollars & cents of his experience via his taxes!

I am more and more certain that he's hiding something because the obvious course of action is to reveal them and put that argument to rest.

[wjag]

Bullwinkle III, on 11 August 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

But Romney's fighting against his own interest.  Consider: He says he can fix the economy because of this business experience, but at the same time, refuses to allow anyone to look at the dollars & cents of his experience via his taxes!

I am more and more certain that he's hiding something because the obvious course of action is to reveal them and put that argument to rest.

I think the taxes thing gets blown out of proportion. After all WE HAVE a Treasury Secretary that forgot to pay taxes.  If he can be appointed, then anything is possible... Everyone knows all these guys make a ton of money and pay as little in taxes as possible.  Having tons of money and paying as little in taxes kind of go hand in hand.

[Taro T]

Bullwinkle III, on 11 August 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

Here is something you don't know: The Soptic ad about his wife's death isn't running anywhere except on the internet!   It appears as if it's in every battleground state running 24/7 because the Republicans are so apoplectic about it.

The gist of the ad is not that Romney killed this woman, but that Bain Capital was so profit-driven that they didn't even leave enough money behind to fund the health care systems of the newly unemployed.   This shows lack of compassion for the average guy in the interest of pure profit.

True Blue's take on the effect on Wisconsin is irrelevant if Obama wins Florida, as I've stated above.  No, I don't think Ryan will make Wisconsin red and I don't think the Dems will spend much money up there.  Instead I expect them to double-down on Florida since it seems to be more winnable than ever.  Again, as I said, they will use Hochul's strategy and scare the old-timers (like me) to death.



But Romney's fighting against his own interest.  Consider: He says he can fix the economy because of this business experience, but at the same time, refuses to allow anyone to look at the dollars & cents of his experience via his taxes!

I am more and more certain that he's hiding something because the obvious course of action is to reveal them and put that argument to rest.

To the 1st bolded:  The problem is, the whole ad is a line of ######.  The guy was offered a buyout (which he didn't take) before the place went bankrupt.  He and his wife were on HER health insurance policy for 2 years after he lost the 1st job.  He was onto a different job by the time the wife lost her insurance.  Bain had nothing to do with her death.  And Romney had nothing to do with him losing his job.

To the 2nd bolded:  That is exactly what the President's camp wants you to believe.  I would have hoped you'd be smart enough not to believe it.  The main reason that Romney doesn't want to release the records is that he most likely paid very little (if any) taxes in '08 because the stock market tanked that year, most of his income is in capital gains, and he almost certainly took losses that year that would have wiped out most (if not all) of his gains.

The President desperately wants that record made public because that's how Ann Richards beat Clayton Williams in Texas 20 or so years ago.  'The rich guy didn't pay any taxes (in Williams' case when oil went bust in the late '80's; in Romney's case when the economy went to heck)' is the mantra the D's desperately want to run with.  That is one of the few things that really will be able to distract from the economy, and jobs, and Syria, and ending workfare as we know it with the stroke of a pen, and ...

[Bullwinkle III]

Taro T, on 11 August 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

To the 1st bolded:  The problem is, the whole ad is a line of ######.  The guy was offered a buyout (which he didn't take) before the place went bankrupt.  He and his wife were on HER health insurance policy for 2 years after he lost the 1st job.  He was onto a different job by the time the wife lost her insurance.  Bain had nothing to do with her death.  And Romney had nothing to do with him losing his job.

To the 2nd bolded:  That is exactly what the President's camp wants you to believe.  I would have hoped you'd be smart enough not to believe it.  The main reason that Romney doesn't want to release the records is that he most likely paid very little (if any) taxes in '08 because the stock market tanked that year, most of his income is in capital gains, and he almost certainly took losses that year that would have wiped out most (if not all) of his gains.

The President desperately wants that record made public because that's how Ann Richards beat Clayton Williams in Texas 20 or so years ago.  'The rich guy didn't pay any taxes (in Williams' case when oil went bust in the late '80's; in Romney's case when the economy went to heck)' is the mantra the D's desperately want to run with.  That is one of the few things that really will be able to distract from the economy, and jobs, and Syria, and ending workfare as we know it with the stroke of a pen, and ...

1st paragraph:  Taking the buyout would not have given them health insurance for very long.  The guy was too old to be very employable IMO.  The job he took after GST Steel folded paid $15,000 a year - try to purchase health insurance with that.  Bain had everything to do with the loss of his health insurance because they didn't leave enough behind to fund it.  That is the bottom line.

2nd paragraph:  Of course the economy is a losing issue for Obama - I've stated that before.  But at the same time Romney refuses to reveal his taxes, which are a record of his business dealings.  You must see the problem here.  Romney wants us to trust him.  He pulled the same trick when he ran for governor.  His opponent provided her taxes yet Romney complained because her husband didn't reveal his, while at the same time Romney didn't reveal any himself.

If you're Obama, you have to go after this.  Just like Romney stated that if he didn't take every tax deduction offered, he would not be qualified to be president, so too Obama would not be qualified if he failed to take advantage of an opponent who delivers self-inflicted wounds.

Whether you agree with Romney paying little or no taxes or not, the point is that the American people will not be happy to hear this.  Even more so after Romney himself said that he paid at least 13% each year - but retracted that and said he'd have to check up and "get back to you".  He never "got back to us" and his staff dropped the issue.

And I can't believe you fell for the "workfare" nonsense.  To think that Obama wants people to get welfare for no work is ridiculous.  This is more Romney propaganda - IOW, more lies.

[Taro T]

Bullwinkle III, on 11 August 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

1st paragraph:  Taking the buyout would not have given them health insurance for very long.  The guy was too old to be very employable IMO.  The job he took after GST Steel folded paid $15,000 a year - try to purchase health insurance with that.  Bain had everything to do with the loss of his health insurance because they didn't leave enough behind to fund it.  That is the bottom line.

2nd paragraph:  Of course the economy is a losing issue for Obama - I've stated that before.  But at the same time Romney refuses to reveal his taxes, which are a record of his business dealings.  You must see the problem here.  Romney wants us to trust him.  He pulled the same trick when he ran for governor.  His opponent provided her taxes yet Romney complained because her husband didn't reveal his, while at the same time Romney didn't reveal any himself.

If you're Obama, you have to go after this.  Just like Romney stated that if he didn't take every tax deduction offered, he would not be qualified to be president, so too Obama would not be qualified if he failed to take advantage of an opponent who delivers self-inflicted wounds.

Whether you agree with Romney paying little or no taxes or not, the point is that the American people will not be happy to hear this.  Even more so after Romney himself said that he paid at least 13% each year - but retracted that and said he'd have to check up and "get back to you".  He never "got back to us" and his staff dropped the issue.

And I can't believe you fell for the "workfare" nonsense.  To think that Obama wants people to get welfare for no work is ridiculous.  This is more Romney propaganda - IOW, more lies.

No, Bain had nothing to do with his wife losing HER health insurance.  His wife, even while he was working at GST, had HER OWN health insurance coverage through HER OWN employer.  GST went bankrupt in '01.  She didn't lose her health insurance until after she lost her job a year or 2 later.  Bain had nothing to do with his wife losing HER insurance.  And Romney had nothing to do with him losing his insurance.


And no, Romney's taxes are not a "record of his business dealings," at least not after he left his business.  As almost all of his earnings are capital gains since he left Bain, they are a record of his investing, not his business acumen.

To the bolded above, that's correct, and should be considered an indictment of the current President's tenure in office.

[EDIT:]  And people won't be happy that Romney didn't pay much taxes in '08, which is why he's smart enough to not put his returns in the hands of the President's camp.  How does him not doing anything illegal with his taxes effect his ability to be a good President?  I understand why the President would like this election to be about Mr. Romney's tax rate.  But what does Mitt Romney's tax rate have to do with his ability to be President and more specifically how does that trump his actual record leading a private company (Bain), a quasi-private/public endeavor (the Olympics), and the public sector (Massachusetts Governor)?

Edited by Taro T, 11 August 2012 - 08:58 PM.

[Bullwinkle III]

Taro T, on 11 August 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

No, Bain had nothing to do with his wife losing HER health insurance.  His wife, even while he was working at GST, had HER OWN health insurance coverage through HER OWN employer.  GST went bankrupt in '01.  She didn't lose her health insurance until after she lost her job a year or 2 later.  Bain had nothing to do with his wife losing HER insurance.  And Romney had nothing to do with him losing his insurance.


And no, Romney's taxes are not a "record of his business dealings," at least not after he left his business.  As almost all of his earnings are capital gains since he left Bain, they are a record of his investing, not his business acumen.

To the bolded above, that's correct, and should be considered an indictment of the current President's tenure in office.

[EDIT:]  And people won't be happy that Romney didn't pay much taxes in '08, which is why he's smart enough to not put his returns in the hands of the President's camp.  How does him not doing anything illegal with his taxes effect his ability to be a good President?  I understand why the President would like this election to be about Mr. Romney's tax rate.  But what does Mitt Romney's tax rate have to do with his ability to be President and more specifically how does that trump his actual record leading a private company (Bain), a quasi-private/public endeavor (the Olympics), and the public sector (Massachusetts Governor)?

True, Bain had nothing to do with her insurance.  But obviously if he were working and was covered, she would have had coverage.  The bottom line is he lost his insurance.  That's the whole issue.  The thing is, every working man across the country can relate to this situation, which is what makes the ad so powerful.  Why they don't run it is beyond me, considering the non-truths and half-truths of some of the Romney ads.

The deal about Romney's taxes regarding Bain is the fact that he never really left the company, even when running the Olympics.  He was still CEO, although he lied about that to the SEC and on the stump, saying he was no longer connected.  The details of his financial transactions certainly speaks to the way in which he conducts business - and that's the card he wants to play regarding his qualifications.  That was always strange to me...you would think that being governor of a state is more similar to being president of a country than being in private business would.  Yet he doesn't want to talk about his governorship.

Everything in life is perception.  Hell, I even teach classes based upon that one point.  Romney is perceived as a rich elitist out of touch with the common man.  His performance on the stump reinforces that image.  To admit that he has so much money that he pays a smaller percentage of taxes than most Americans enhances the 1% perception.  This is a loser for him.  But holding back his taxes makes it seem even worse - that he might even have done something illegal.

In the past several decades, the guy who won the presidency was the guy people could best relate to.  While this contest may be close now, I think come debate time, Obama's lead will just grow.

[Taro T]

Bullwinkle III, on 11 August 2012 - 09:30 PM, said:

True, Bain had nothing to do with her insurance.  But obviously if he were working and was covered, she would have had coverage.  The bottom line is he lost his insurance.  That's the whole issue.  The thing is, every working man across the country can relate to this situation, which is what makes the ad so powerful.  Why they don't run it is beyond me, considering the non-truths and half-truths of some of the Romney ads.

The deal about Romney's taxes regarding Bain is the fact that he never really left the company, even when running the Olympics.  He was still CEO, although he lied about that to the SEC and on the stump, saying he was no longer connected.  The details of his financial transactions certainly speaks to the way in which he conducts business - and that's the card he wants to play regarding his qualifications.  That was always strange to me...you would think that being governor of a state is more similar to being president of a country than being in private business would.  Yet he doesn't want to talk about his governorship.

Everything in life is perception.  Hell, I even teach classes based upon that one point.  Romney is perceived as a rich elitist out of touch with the common man.  His performance on the stump reinforces that image.  To admit that he has so much money that he pays a smaller percentage of taxes than most Americans enhances the 1% perception.  This is a loser for him.  But holding back his taxes makes it seem even worse - that he might even have done something illegal.

In the past several decades, the guy who won the presidency was the guy people could best relate to.  While this contest may be close now, I think come debate time, Obama's lead will just grow.

You're a teacher?!?!

[waldo]

Taro T, on 11 August 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

You're a teacher?!?!

Frightening huh!>  Two, two word options. "Home school"  or " Private school"

Edited by waldo, 11 August 2012 - 10:04 PM.

[SwampD]

waldo, on 11 August 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

Frightening huh!>  Two, two word options. "Home school"  or " Private school"

Bullwinkle III can teach my kids.

[Bullwinkle III]

Taro T, on 11 August 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

You're a teacher?!?!

Yep.  I teach many things all under one theme - how to live a happier life.

[waldo]

SwampD, on 11 August 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

Bullwinkle III can teach my kids.

Who would have guessed you would let him teach your children!   

He just composed a four paragraph recitation of every White House talking point  used in the last four months replete with their inaccuracies ,lies,  distortions, and erroenous assumptions. An interesting insight into the ability of the people we put in our classrooms,  to teach our children how to digest factual information, objectively and draw their own conclusions. For the record, there probably should have been some quotes in his statement.


1.” True, Bain had nothing to do with her insurance”

Does that make the ad, a premeditated lie?

2 ” considering the non-truths and half-truths of some of the Romney ads”

And they are?

3. “Although he lied about that to the SEC”

  FYI lying to the SEC is a serious Federal crime.  I wonder if Bullwinkle has ever been involved in a CEO level transition in a major company and understands the mechanics of same , as they relate to required SEC filings.



4. ”  Yet he doesn't want to talk about his governorship.”

I wonder if Bullwinkle has ever watched one of his stump speeches because he mentions his experience as Governor of one of the most liberal states in the nation, with a democrat controled legislature,  in many of them .

5. “Romney is perceived as a rich elitist out of touch with the common man”

Just a “wow”  on this one. Not to me BULLWINKLE, and probably not to the majority of people in this country. Is there an overtone of a little class envy, in this statement?  Hmmm ..Who else uses envy, greed, race and class warfare as the tenants of his political campaign? Maybe we should just call Romney , bourgeoisie?

6.” Everything in life is perception”

Perhaps a quote from “Warriors of Love”


7. “To admit that he has so much money that he pays a smaller percentage of taxes than most Americans enhances the 1% perception”

“Most Americans”   as in the 50+ percent that pay no federal income taxes?  The fact that more than 50 % pay no federal taxes invalidates your most Americans statement. Most implies a majority.

8.“he pays a smaller percentage of taxes” ?
Based upon the returns that have been  released to date, in full satisfaction of the Federal Law, it appears he has paid more taxes and donated more to his church in one year than  most of us will pay or contribute  in our  lifetimes!

Edited by waldo, 12 August 2012 - 11:46 AM.

[BuffaloSoldier2010]

The problem with todays political landscape:

The two party system has been taken to the extreme.  Regardless of which one you affiliate yourself with, they've been type cast into good and evil.  if your a conservative, the Democrats are the bad guys, if your more liberal, the GOP is the evil group.  The opposing side never has any good ideas (that seems to be the new general perception anyway) and as a result, nothing gets done.  The problem here is that mudslinging has been taken to such an extreme that its now virtually impossible for the parties to work together now.  Instead of coming to comprimises on legislation each side just blocks eachother whenever they get the chance.

The system is so far gone that i wonder if it will ever return to any kind of equilibrium.

I'm not here to debate, just thought i'd give my 2 cents.