Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Obama is using the same political strategy that lost Bush the election against Clinton in 1992   (foxnews.com) divider line 144
    More: Obvious, President Obama, George H. W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Bill Clinton, GOP, human beings, anti-war, Brian Schweitzer  
•       •       •

3863 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Apr 2012 at 1:58 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



144 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-24 02:45:13 PM  
i42.tinypic.com
 
2012-04-24 02:51:18 PM  
Wishful thinking is wishful.
 
2012-04-24 02:53:27 PM  

Lando Lincoln: colon_pow: that BOOM! will be obamacare getting shot down.

Yeah, boy, the day that the Supreme Court says, "Ha ha! Your kids are no longer eligible to be our your health insurance" is the day I get really mad at the Democrats.


Hahahaha....that was beatiful. Well done.

I'm surprised they didn't try to pin Citizen's United on Obama, now that you mention it. It's consistent with the MO.
 
2012-04-24 02:54:45 PM  
Regardless of what is happening in your local economy, the perception is it's still in the shiatter.

Pres. Clinton was brilliant in his use of the KISS principal. It's the economy stupid. Fartbongo is going to lose because the people are hurting financially. It ruined Carter, it clobbered Bush, it's going to sink Fartbongo.
 
2012-04-24 02:55:15 PM  

violentsalvation: Romney is using the same political strategy that lost Kerry the election against W in 2004.


The common theme I'm seeing from the righties is "Anyone but Obama" which was what Kerry used. It'll work about as well for Romney, though probably worse since things are better than they were 4 years ago.

/Obama 2012
//Warren 2016
 
2012-04-24 02:55:57 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: WombatControl: That's why you have the Obama people trying to paint this as a "choice" election rather than a "referendum" election - because if the election is a referendum on the last 4 years, Obama loses.

It is a choice. Go back to the policies of the Bush era by repealing HCR, repealing FinReg, more (even bigger) tax cuts for the rich at the expense of poor and middle class programs.

Or Obama.


Yes, who would want to go back to the terrible days of the Bush presidency when unemployment was less than 5%, GDP growth was healthy, and the deficit was trillions less?

Most American oppose ObamaCare, and for good reason. Running on repealing it is a winning issue for Republicans.

The argument that Obama is going to stand up for the little guy against big business is laughable. His cabinet meetings could double as a board of directors meeting for Goldman Sachs. The financial regulations bill is full of loopholes that benefit the power players in the financial sector - because financial industry lobbyists wrote the bill. The rules in Dodd-Frank have made it more expensive for Americans to get credit and haven't produced any concrete benefits.

And all that Obama has left is the same old class-warfare politics of envy B.S. that the Democrats trot out year after year after year. It's the old-school DNC playbook line that's never worked - remember when Al Gore cruised to victory with his populist message? Oh yeah, he lost in the Electoral College and probably wouldn't have won the popular vote had the drunken-driving allegations against Bush not come out late in the game. Remember when John Edwards swept the 2008 primaries with his "two Americas" schtick? Oh wait, he got creamed. (Thank God for that!) Remember how John Kerry's attacks against Bush on taxes worked for him?

Yeah, the whole "EBIL TAX CUTS FOR THE RICHY RICH!!!!!!one!!111!1eleventy" line is like catnip for Fark Liberals™, but the rest of the country has heard it all before. "The Buffett Rule" isn't going to put anyone back into a job. Attacking "millionaires" isn't going to get America competitive in a world economy where both money and jobs are fungible. The politics of envy plays very well to the Democratic base, but that's it.

The fact that Obama is running on those lines strongly suggests that he's having problems with his base, which is a sign that his campaign is in deep trouble. Obama is not going to repeat his performance among independents from 2008, which means that it's going to be very difficult for him to win.
 
2012-04-24 02:55:58 PM  

WombatControl: That's why you have the Obama people trying to paint this as a "choice" election rather than a "referendum" election - because if the election is a referendum on the last 4 years, Obama loses.

...this remains a referendum election against an incumbent with potentially fatal issues.


His approval ratings are hovering near 50%.

Finally, the Romney campaign is a hell of a lot more on-the-ball than the hapless and hopeless McCain campaign.

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.
 
2012-04-24 02:59:38 PM  

Jodeo: [i42.tinypic.com image 640x216]


Oh wow, that's just amazingly stupid

newsjunkiepost.com

www.npr.org
 
2012-04-24 03:01:24 PM  
I only foresee one of the whackadoodles (Newtie, etc) splitting the GOP vote. Who do they think is challenging Obama from the left?
 
2012-04-24 03:01:57 PM  
Obama is a republican now and about to lose to the most liberal democrat of all time by the name of Romney, Ann Romney that is, the wealthy Chicago democrat pulling all of Mitts strings! America under seige! Rush rooms activate!
 
2012-04-24 03:02:53 PM  

Car_Ramrod: His approval ratings are hovering near 50%.


Yes, Obama's approval ratings have consistently "hovered near" 50%. And unless Obama outperforms his approval ratings, he'll lose. An incumbent President who can barely break 50% approval is in trouble.

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

Romney's managed to outmaneuver Obama on the whole "war on women" argument to the point that the Obama team is barely bringing it up and trying to disavow it. The rapid reaction to Hilary Rosen's moment of honesty shows that they're not going to treat Obama with kid gloves like McCain did. They are going to go after Obama, but they're going to hit him on substance rather than personality.

Granted, it's early in the campaign, and there's plenty of opportunity for them to fark it all up, but so far they've managed to show competence that the McCain team never did.
 
2012-04-24 03:04:49 PM  

WombatControl: Car_Ramrod: His approval ratings are hovering near 50%.

Yes, Obama's approval ratings have consistently "hovered near" 50%. And unless Obama outperforms his approval ratings, he'll lose. An incumbent President who can barely break 50% approval is in trouble.

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

Romney's managed to outmaneuver Obama on the whole "war on women" argument to the point that the Obama team is barely bringing it up and trying to disavow it. The rapid reaction to Hilary Rosen's moment of honesty shows that they're not going to treat Obama with kid gloves like McCain did. They are going to go after Obama, but they're going to hit him on substance rather than personality.

Granted, it's early in the campaign, and there's plenty of opportunity for them to fark it all up, but so far they've managed to show competence that the McCain team never did.


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-24 03:05:06 PM  

WombatControl: Yes, who would want to go back to the terrible days of the Bush presidency when unemployment was less than 5%, GDP growth was healthy, and the deficit was trillions less?


We've been over this. Worst job and GDP growth of any administration since Eisenhower.
Then you say "but if you don't count the recession".
Then I say, "But other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the theatre?"

Sorry, those are the facts. Bush's economic record was historically bad. And not so long ago that people have forgotten it.

WombatControl: The fact that Obama is running on those lines strongly suggests that he's having problems with his base, which is a sign that his campaign is in deep trouble. Obama is not going to repeat his performance among independents from 2008, which means that it's going to be very difficult for him to win.


Again, all he has to do is point to Romney's podium and give people the choice. We can go back to the policies of the Bush era or we can go forward and build the middle class. Romney has no new ideas. Good luck debating Obama with the same ideas that Obama ran against in 2008. You're gonna hang your hat on that? H'okay.
 
2012-04-24 03:05:30 PM  
So far, we're seeing the Obama campaign run very much like the Bush campaign in 1992. The focus is on painting Romney as a secret radical whose personal background should be disqualifying to hold the highest office in the land.

Well, not really. But besides that, how else is an incumbent going to portray their challenger? Did W tell us all that Kerry was solid on key issues? Did Clinton reassure us that Dole would make a fine head of state?
 
2012-04-24 03:06:04 PM  

WombatControl: Car_Ramrod: His approval ratings are hovering near 50%.

Yes, Obama's approval ratings have consistently "hovered near" 50%. And unless Obama outperforms his approval ratings, he'll lose. An incumbent President who can barely break 50% approval is in trouble.


Not if the mouthbreathers stay home because they don't want to vote for a Mormon.
 
2012-04-24 03:07:07 PM  
Its just like that race, because Ross Perot is going to get 27% of the vote this year, too.
 
2012-04-24 03:08:27 PM  
I have a suggestion. How about if every current election and current issue is judged on its own terms and merits, rather than on some historical antecedent? 2012 is not 1992. Obama in Afghanistan is not LBJ in Vietnam. Obama is not Carter. The current economic doldrums are not the Great Depression. There is no such thing as Obama's Katrina. Lessons from history can be useful; shallow parallels to one-time events at different times in dissimilar conditions are not.

I blame the nostalgia-crazed, navel-gazing Boomer generation for this problem.
 
2012-04-24 03:10:34 PM  

Jacobin: Its just like that race, because Ross Perot is going to get 27% of the vote this year, too.


Amusingly, the threat of a third party spoiler once again comes from the more conservative side of the aisle.

I think there is a moderate chance of their being a Tea Party candidate, but it won't be Sarah Palin or any of the candidates named "Not Romney".

Not since she and the others have followed the party line about Romney.
 
2012-04-24 03:11:37 PM  

enry: WombatControl: Car_Ramrod: His approval ratings are hovering near 50%.

Yes, Obama's approval ratings have consistently "hovered near" 50%. And unless Obama outperforms his approval ratings, he'll lose. An incumbent President who can barely break 50% approval is in trouble.

Not if the mouthbreathers stay home because they don't want to vote for a Mormon.


It'd be extremely easy to sabotage the GOP in the South. Ensure that a bunch of FWD:FWD:FWD talk boldly about the Mormon born in Mexico running against the Christian.
 
2012-04-24 03:15:30 PM  

WombatControl: Car_Ramrod: His approval ratings are hovering near 50%.

Yes, Obama's approval ratings have consistently "hovered near" 50%. And unless Obama outperforms his approval ratings, he'll lose. An incumbent President who can barely break 50% approval is in trouble.


Not really, because, despite how much you don't want it to be, the election WILL be a choice between Obama and Romney. There will be those that may not approve of Obama's job performance, but sure as hell don't want Romney in the big boy chair. And, as enry pointed out, Romney hasn't exactly elicited enthusiasm amongst the GOP faithful.

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

Romney's managed to outmaneuver Obama on the whole "war on women" argument to the point that the Obama team is barely bringing it up and trying to disavow it. The rapid reaction to Hilary Rosen's moment of honesty shows that they're not going to treat Obama with kid gloves like McCain did. They are going to go after Obama, but they're going to hit him on substance rather than personality.

Granted, it's early in the campaign, and there's plenty of opportunity for them to fark it all up, but so far they've managed to show competence that the McCain team never did.


How exactly did Romney outmaneuver Obama on that issue? Was it when the media found and ran the quote from Romney that said stay at home moms don't have the dignity of working moms? Thus showing him to be, surprise surprise, a hypocrite? You're taking a third party person (who I'd never heard of before this little kerfuffle), who was immediately disavowed by Obama, as representative of the Obama campaign? And you think Romney somehow used that moment to get the nation to ignore the law after law the GOP is pushing to limit women's rights and women's health care? Good luck with that.
 
2012-04-24 03:15:40 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: We've been over this. Worst job and GDP growth of any administration since Eisenhower.
Then you say "but if you don't count the recession".
Then I say, "But other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the theatre?"

Sorry, those are the facts. Bush's economic record was historically bad. And not so long ago that people have forgotten it.


Which again, if the question is "are you better off than you were four years ago?" the answer for most Americans is "no." If President Obama wants to run against President Bush again, fine. But it was rather pathetic in 2008, and it's beyond pathetic now. Trying to tie Romney with Bush and refighting the battles of 6 years ago isn't going to be successful because it's so transparently political.

The reason why this is a refendum election is because Obama cannot run away from his record. And despite all the cherry-picking of data and all the whole artificial media narrative about how the economy's just stonking great, the American people don't feel it. One out of every five Americans is either unemployed, underemployed, or has given up on finding a job. One out of every two college graduates can't find a decent job. Every single poll shows that the American people don't buy the "economy getting better" line that they're being sold. You can spin the facts in a political campaign, but you can't change them.

That's why Obama will lose - because the entire tenor of his campaign is about attacking the right, playing the class warfare card, and doing anything but talking about Obama's record as President. Meanwhile Romney is coming in with the argument that "sure, you may like Obama personally, but what has he done?" Add to that the drip, drip, drip of scandals like the Secret Service and the GSA fiascos, and that message resonates far more than Obama's message of fear and envy.

Again, all he has to do is point to Romney's podium and give people the choice. We can go back to the policies of the Bush era or we can go forward and build the middle class. Romney has no new ideas. Good luck debating Obama with the same ideas that Obama ran against in 2008. You're gonna hang your hat on that? H'okay.

And again, Obama can try to do that, but the American people are rationally disinterested, not stupid. Obama can't run from his record. He can't run from the fact that the American people see a President who can't even keep his own Secret Service agents from banging prostitutes and his own GSA from blowing taxpayer money like it was going out of style. Obama can't run from the fact that the economy is still incredibly weak, and just about everything he's done has done very little to improve it.

Obama will try to do anything but talk about his record, but the more he does that the less pursuasive and the more desperate he sounds.
 
2012-04-24 03:17:43 PM  

WombatControl: Obama will try to do anything but talk about his record, but the more he does that the less pursuasive and the more desperate he sounds.


Hey guys! Look! It's Romney's projectionist!
 
2012-04-24 03:18:02 PM  
Fade in: Two hands holding an Etch-a-Sketch. First scene: superimposed video on Etch-a-Sketch of Romney discussing his position on any issue. Second Scene: Hands shake Etch-a-Sketch, fade in video of Romney taking opposing position on said issue. Repeat several times, there is plenty of material. Air commercial on every major network. Enjoy your landslide victory.
 
2012-04-24 03:19:31 PM  
Fox News is using the same strategy that made them a laughingstock throughout the 2008 elections.
 
2012-04-24 03:20:32 PM  

WombatControl: Obama cannot run away from his record.


WombatControl: and doing anything but talking about Obama's record as President.


WombatControl: Obama can't run from his record.


WombatControl: Obama will try to do anything but talk about his record


I see a theme here. Not sure where you're pulling this from, but it isn't true. He has talked about his record. Hell they made a movie about the accomplishments of his first 3 years. It was really inspiring too (thanks, Tom Hanks). He'll run on his record and he'll win doing it.
 
2012-04-24 03:21:45 PM  

Diogenes: WombatControl: Obama will try to do anything but talk about his record, but the more he does that the less pursuasive and the more desperate he sounds.

Hey guys! Look! It's Romney's projectionist!


You know that headline from earlier:

"The dirty little secret about political punditry, that is not actually a secret to anyone who watches and reads it, is that it's all lies. It requires very little knowledge or skill, and there are no consequences for being wrong"

You could easily replace "political punditry" with "WombatControl".
 
2012-04-24 03:22:19 PM  

WombatControl: That's why Obama will lose - because the entire tenor of his campaign is about attacking the right, playing the class warfare card, and doing anything but talking about Obama's record as President.


If any of that were true, as opposed to total farking projection, you might have a point. You'd still be wrong, but at least you might have a point.
 
2012-04-24 03:24:09 PM  

WombatControl: Which again, if the question is "are you better off than you were four years ago?" the answer for most Americans is "no."


You're saying that most people are worse off now than shortly after the economy cratered? After the millions of job losses in a short amount of time? After all the foreclosures? After major financial institutions almost (and in some cases did) go out of business?
 
2012-04-24 03:34:05 PM  
Oh Fox News. You kidders you.

Say, when are you expecting to get raided over that wiretapping crime spree of yours?
 
2012-04-24 03:34:13 PM  
But he does have an economy in much worse shape than it was in 1992 and a widespread belief that President Obama doesn't understand the economy.

1) The economy tanked under the George H.W. Bush presidency (so Clinton was able to attack him on economic issues) and the Obama's economy was tanked while George W. Bush was still in power.
2) People are not largely going to buy into the GOP's usual solution of "more tax cuts for the rich."
3) It should be pretty easy to point out all of the bills currently being filibustered in the Senate.

Basically, all Obama has to say is, "Romney's solutions are the same thing we tried throughout the previous decade, and look where that got us."

Slam dunk.
 
2012-04-24 03:35:04 PM  

imnotadoctor: Fade in: Two hands holding an Etch-a-Sketch. First scene: superimposed video on Etch-a-Sketch of Romney discussing his position on any issue. Second Scene: Hands shake Etch-a-Sketch, fade in video of Romney taking opposing position on said issue. Repeat several times, there is plenty of material. Air commercial on every major network. Enjoy your landslide victory.


Seriously, just hire one of the video guys away from the Daily Show for a few months.
 
2012-04-24 03:38:33 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Not really, because, despite how much you don't want it to be, the election WILL be a choice between Obama and Romney. There will be those that may not approve of Obama's job performance, but sure as hell don't want Romney in the big boy chair. And, as enry pointed out, Romney hasn't exactly elicited enthusiasm amongst the GOP faithful.


The last polls I've seen show Romney with 90% GOP support. Obama's attacks have increased Romney's support among the GOP base, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

And yes, this is a referendum election. Obama can and will keep attacking Romney, but after a while that stops being an effective tactic and ends up turning off independent voters. Obama won in 2008 because he promised to be a post-racial, post-partisan, transformative figure who could get things done and restore the economy. He's lost that sense of competency. Look at the Secret Service scandal, the GSA scandal, Solyndra, etc. All of those events undercut Obama's narrative as being an effective leader with real solutions. And the more Obama relies on attacking Romney, the more he undercuts the source of his electoral strength in 2008.

How exactly did Romney outmaneuver Obama on that issue? Was it when the media found and ran the quote from Romney that said stay at home moms don't have the dignity of working moms? Thus showing him to be, surprise surprise, a hypocrite? You're taking a third party person (who I'd never heard of before this little kerfuffle), who was immediately disavowed by Obama, as representative of the Obama campaign? And you think Romney somehow used that moment to get the nation to ignore the law after law the GOP is pushing to limit women's rights and women's health care? Good luck with that.

Three responses:

First, look at the polls. The whole "war on women" line of attack has backfired. You don't hear the Obama campaign using that theme very much any more because they've lost the narrative. The Romney campaign seized on Hilary Rosen's comments, created their own counter-narrative, and got it to stick. That's a sign of an effective campaign.

Second, the whole idea that Romney is a hypocrite line has gained absolutely no traction outside of the left-wing echo chamber. I know Fark Liberals™ think it's terribly clever, but it's not even remotely intelligent. In fact, the Obama campaign isn't touching it with a ten-foot pole because the last thing they want to do is put themselves in a position of supporting "welfare mothers" and going back to the days pre-welfare reform when that was a toxic political issue for the Democratic Party. It's a dumb argument to make, and not even the Obama campaign is touching it.

Third, the more the Obama campaign talks about "women's issues," the less time they're talking about the economy. The Romney team has largely moved on, but the more Obama brings up contraception (second-to-last in importance in most polls) and gay rights (dead last in importance in most polls) the less they can talk about the most important issue to voters: the economy.

If you look beyond the left-wing pro-Obama echo chamber, the facts on the ground tell a very different story from what the political spin coming from Obama's team would have everyone believe.
 
2012-04-24 03:43:52 PM  

WombatControl: Yes, who would want to go back to the terrible days of the Bush presidency when unemployment was less than 5%, GDP growth was healthy, and the deficit was trillions less?


Isn't it strange that, with how awesome everything was, he was still voted out of office? It's all about context. Bush was seen as a continuation of prior policy (even if that is not entirely accurate), and Bush did not inherit anything close to what Obama did. Add to that the very clear fodder being handed to the dems. There is such a glut of obstructionist silliness, it will be easy to make the argument that hope and change can only occur with cooperation and compromise. If the answer to everything is "filibuster," nobody moves forward. There is a cornucopia of examples.

Most American oppose ObamaCare, and for good reason. Running on repealing it is a winning issue for Republicans.

Most Americans enjoy the individual provisions, and the benefits to individuals are being felt. There is plenty of time to shore up the defenses on that. Not to mention, it will be the height of hilarity to see Romney go toe to toe with Obama on HCR.

The argument that Obama is going to stand up for the little guy against big business is laughable. His cabinet meetings could double as a board of directors meeting for Goldman Sachs. The financial regulations bill is full of loopholes that benefit the power players in the financial sector - because financial industry lobbyists wrote the bill. The rules in Dodd-Frank have made it more expensive for Americans to get credit and haven't produced any concrete benefits.

I feel you on the Goldman Sachs aspect of things, but, again, this is not exactly a solid argument to make for Romney. With Romney, it will feel as though we are cutting out the need to have that sort of person hanging out in the periphery, when that sort is occupying the seat of power. If he rails against a person from the financial industry having influence... tsk. Plus, when you consider the absolute wailing and gnashing of teeth that the typical Republican has when Warren is in an adjacent room, and the fact that Republicans want to remove any teeth that Dodd-Frank has, period, not solid ground for Romney.

And all that Obama has left is the same old class-warfare politics of envy B.S. that the Democrats trot out year after year after year. It's the old-school DNC playbook line that's never worked - remember when Al Gore cruised to victory with his populist message? Oh yeah, he lost in the Electoral College and probably wouldn't have won the popular vote had the drunken-driving allegations against Bush not come out late in the game. Remember when John Edwards swept the 2008 primaries with his "two Americas" schtick? Oh wait, he got creamed. (Thank God for that!) Remember how John Kerry's attacks against Bush on taxes worked for him?

I have to respectfully disagree. I think there is quite a bit more substance to the arguments they will make than you give them credit for. Honestly, they could probably take some of the ads that Ted used against him, cross out Ted's name, and put Obama's. He was not a job creator, he wants to continue policies that have lead to stagnating wages and loss of worker protections, he is disingenuine about his beliefs on a variety of subjects, and on and on.

Yeah, the whole "EBIL TAX CUTS FOR THE RICHY RICH!!!!!!one!!111!1eleventy" line is like catnip for Fark Liberals™, but the rest of the country has heard it all before. "The Buffett Rule ...

The problem with this line of argument is context. This issue is far more in the forefront than it has been in the past. People are actually thinking about it, considering it. I have seen plenty of people switch gears, who did not vote for Obama last time, and are voting for him now. Record profits for many companies while off-shoring and low wage growth continues, wasting time arguing over birth control while the economy should be first and foremost on the plate, all while you still have people out there asking for the REAL birth certificate...

Don't make the mistake of forgetting that Obama is playing a long game. He will sell his successes (and yes, they do exist), and he will mark that his opponent wants to return to the same failed economic policies of the past that got us in the mess he inherited in the first place.

Or underestimate him. That will probably REALLY make him mad, and he'll just give up. I heard he is like that.
 
2012-04-24 03:45:33 PM  
George HW Bush lied about taxes, which is the real GOP Jesus.

Bill Clinton was the most charismatic presidential candidate of the second half of the 20th century.

Obama ran as an anti-war game changer who was going to revolutionize out political system. Of course he didn't, and he'll loose some independent votes because of that, but his base acts like a bunch of battered wives and will vote for him again despite the fact that he disappointed them.


Also Romney is a creep with no principles and most Republicans don't even like him.

The only thing that could beat Obama is if the economy stops growing or gas goes over $5.
 
2012-04-24 03:46:25 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: WombatControl: Obama cannot run away from his record.

WombatControl: and doing anything but talking about Obama's record as President.

WombatControl: Obama can't run from his record.

WombatControl: Obama will try to do anything but talk about his record

I see a theme here. Not sure where you're pulling this from, but it isn't true. He has talked about his record. Hell they made a movie about the accomplishments of his first 3 years. It was really inspiring too (thanks, Tom Hanks). He'll run on his record and he'll win doing it.


Honestly I don't get this talking point being a positive thing for Romney. Does he even admit he was a governor any more?
 
2012-04-24 03:46:46 PM  

WombatControl: First, look at the polls


Okay.

Rasmussen is the only pollster that puts Romney out front, and with their +4 Republican bias that translates to Obama being tied with Romney there. You're a nimrod.
 
2012-04-24 03:49:56 PM  

violentsalvation: Romney is using the same political strategy that lost Kerry the election against W in 2004.


You mean strutting around being a vainglorious, preening douchebag? Sorry, Romney doesn't come within a thousand miles of fitting that mold.
 
2012-04-24 03:54:38 PM  
The ONLY comparison of note is that Bush lost conservative votes after (wisely) flipping on his no new taxes pledge. POTUS may lose some lefties over not going for single payer (though he never said that's what he wanted to do)
 
2012-04-24 03:55:10 PM  

jjorsett: violentsalvation: Romney is using the same political strategy that lost Kerry the election against W in 2004.

You mean strutting around being a vainglorious, preening douchebag? Sorry, Romney doesn't come within a thousand miles of fitting that mold.


vain·glo·ry
[veyn-glawr-ee, -glohr-ee, veyn-glawr-ee, -glohr-ee]
noun
1. excessive elation or pride over one's own achievements, abilities, etc.; boastful vanity.
2. empty pomp or show.

Have we been watching the same person? Especially in respect to his "job-creator" status? Or how things would have been turned around in short order if he had been prez instead of Obama? I don't know... I think there is an argument to be made that he fits the definition.
 
2012-04-24 03:59:28 PM  
Why Bush lost the 1992 elections...

www.perfectpeople.net

That is all.
 
2012-04-24 04:00:43 PM  

deeproy: Why Bush lost the 1992 elections...

[www.perfectpeople.net image 398x450]

That is all.


Which, no doubt, is why rightists keep pushing the line that Occupy should be fielding presidential candidates...
 
2012-04-24 04:02:08 PM  

themindiswatching: There was also a recession in 1992, plus Ross Perot split the GOP vote. Comparison invalid, failmitter.


No, he did not "split the GOP vote".
 
2012-04-24 04:03:28 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Regardless of what is happening in your local economy, the perception is it's still in the shiatter.

Pres. Clinton was brilliant in his use of the KISS principal. It's the economy stupid. Fartbongo is going to lose because the people are hurting financially. It ruined Carter, it clobbered Bush, it's going to sink Fartbongo.


you and your post have inspired me to add a new favourites colour scheme. From now on those are just plain sad will appear in blue.

/ps it was exclusively the use of the term "fartbongo" simple type Obama and your post is both releveant and valid.
 
2012-04-24 04:05:35 PM  
Does anybody think Obama's campaign strategy is in any way significant to the outcome?

In a cycle where the biggest villains in the country are Wall Street's parasitic class, the GOP is running that group's poster child. And every time he opens his mouth he sounds like he's auditioning for the role of Thurston Howell III in the inevitable Gilligan's Island remake.

The comic opera that was the GOP primary season sealed the deal - Obama could invite the New Black Panthers to a barbecue at the White House and let Bill Ayers live in the Lincoln bedroom, and he'd still win by a margin bigger than '08.

/Palin thinks she'll get to play Ginger
// Nikki Haley is angling for Mary Anne
/// And Mitch McConnell as some repulsive thing that washed up on the beach
 
2012-04-24 04:05:54 PM  

deeproy: Why Bush lost the 1992 elections...

[www.perfectpeople.net image 398x450]

That is all.


Bears repeating

This

Obvious....

Etc....etc....etc....
 
2012-04-24 04:10:02 PM  

deeyablo: Not to mention, it will be the height of hilarity to see Romney go toe to toe with Obama on HCR.


You know, I've finally gotten around to accepting this. There will be debates, with Romney at one podium and Obama at the other. And the issue of health care will come up. Obama will claim it's a success, and Romney will accuse Obama of implementing the very same thing he did in MA. Like, it's actually going to happen. On television.

/cant' wait
 
2012-04-24 04:10:46 PM  

deeproy: Why Bush lost the 1992 elections...

[www.perfectpeople.net image 398x450]

That is all.


Ross Perot did not cost Bush the election. Exit polls existed in 1992. They showed Perot drew evenly more or less from dems and republicans. Also, when Perot dropped out of the race from july-october of 1992, Clinton maintained a HUGE lead over Bush when it was a 2-person race. The ONLY state where exit polls indicated a state might have flipped Clinton to Bush was Ohio, and even that was in the margin of error. Even if you give Bush Ohio in 1992, Clinton still wins big. This is one of the most annoying myths.
 
2012-04-24 04:12:46 PM  

WombatControl: Most American oppose ObamaCare,


They do until they find out what's in it, and they like what's in it. If you poll Americans about the specific provisions, including insuring children up to 26 and not being rejected for pre-existing conditions, they love it. If that goes away, then the people won't blame the guy who fought to get those things, they'll blame the people who fought take it away.

If the new Health Care law goes down, the people will be very angry with the Republicans who celebrate the fact that Americans, by the tens of thousands, are suddenly being botted from insurance coverage. You don't think Obama can't work with that?

And all that Obama has left is the same old class-warfare politics of envy B.S. that the Democrats trot out year after year after year.

Except that this time the Middle Class is really shrinking, and a lot of the middle class is made up of government workers, firefighters, police officers, postal workers, teachers, and many others who get their paychecks due to government spending. If the Republicans continue to attack those groups, cut their jobs in favor of tax cuts for the rich, then why would the formerly middle class people vote for the party whose platform is all about cutting their jobs?

Government spending created the middle class, and if Obama points to specific Republican policies designed to nuke the Middle Class, then people aren't going to vote for the party dropping the bombs.

Face it, the reason Obama has a really good chance is that he's running against Romney, a politician who not only has a history of changing his position when convenient, but who has no real plan to help out the poor and middle class. If you want me to believe Romney has a chance, if Romney wants to win on economics, then he needs to present an actual plan for getting the middle class back to work, and that's going to require government spending.

Instead, he's going to propose tax cuts and trickle down economics, because to do otherwise would completely alienate his supporters who aren't really thrilled with him anyway. The best thing for the economy is to get people working, and the government can do that with increased employment of a lot of them iddle class workers, who can then spend their salaries on goods and services. You can't get an economy going with tax cuts.

Romney's managed to outmaneuver Obama on the whole "war on women" argument to the point that the Obama team is barely bringing it up and trying to disavow it.

No, they just disavowed the idiot who was never on their team in the first place. The War on Woman narrative is going to come back because Romney is going to have to take a position on things like forced ultrasounds, forced transvaginal ultrasounds, equal pay (another economic issue) and all the other actual legislation made by members of his own party designed to strip away the rights of women. And even if Obama doesn't directly address it, many others will.

After all, while birth control isn't a big issue at the moment, it will likely come back with a vengence, especially if the Catholic Church keeps pushing. Romney's going to have to side with them or lose further evangelical support, and doing so will lose him a lot of women and independent voters. if Romney does take a more moderate stance, then he loses support of a fundamentalist evangelical base that still doesn't trust him. While Obama won't win the election on this issue alone, he can use it to fracture Romney's support.

Remember that Romney was forced to the hard right to win the primary, and all those statements were recorded and will be played back again and again. We're not seeing much of it now except through the pundits because there's no need to right now. Wait until August and everything Romney has ever said about women, latinos, gays, and every other group will be played back again and again. Romney will have to deal with those statements, and by then, no one will care about an insignificant Dem strategist when Romney's own words are damning him.

Can Obama lose? Possibly. Is it likely? Not as much as you think?
 
2012-04-24 04:13:34 PM  

mcnguyen: deeproy: Why Bush lost the 1992 elections...

[www.perfectpeople.net image 398x450]

That is all.

Ross Perot did not cost Bush the election. Exit polls existed in 1992. They showed Perot drew evenly more or less from dems and republicans. Also, when Perot dropped out of the race from july-october of 1992, Clinton maintained a HUGE lead over Bush when it was a 2-person race. The ONLY state where exit polls indicated a state might have flipped Clinton to Bush was Ohio, and even that was in the margin of error. Even if you give Bush Ohio in 1992, Clinton still wins big. This is one of the most annoying myths.


This is truth
 
2012-04-24 04:13:53 PM  

mcnguyen: Ross Perot did not cost Bush the election. Exit polls existed in 1992. They showed Perot drew evenly more or less from dems and republicans. Also, when Perot dropped out of the race from july-october of 1992, Clinton maintained a HUGE lead over Bush when it was a 2-person race. The ONLY state where exit polls indicated a state might have flipped Clinton to Bush was Ohio, and even that was in the margin of error. Even if you give Bush Ohio in 1992, Clinton still wins big. This is one of the most annoying myths.


You droppin some knowledge up in here.
 
Displayed 50 of 144 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report