By focusing on the offensive (Romney), Obama isn't required to defend anything. Strategically, if you're explaining anything then you're losing.

But, this is certainly the election to try something new. Obama is going to win.

Magorn: Considering Bomb Shrum basically ran EXACTLY this sort of "Get a load of the other guy" campaign against the best target for it of all time (George W Bush) and STILL lost, you'd think he'd have to grace to STFU and stop giving advice to Democratic campaings.

This is the idiot who told Kerry, when he was being attacked by the Bush campaign for being "sort on terrorism" not to talk about his pioneering investigations in the 90's of the Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) which he exposed as a terrorist money laundering front and helped shut down

Why? Because, he told Kerry, it would just "confuse" voters who would wonder why he investigated the BBC

Sent from your iPhone?

Considering Bob Shrum basically ran EXACTLY this sort of "Get a load of the other guy" campaign against the best target for it of all time (George W Bush) and STILL lost, you'd think he'd have to grace to STFU and stop giving advice to Democratic campaigns.

Bears repeating. Loudly. Seriously - Bob Shrum needs to STFU.

FlashHarry: was shrum the guy who advised kerry not to refute the swift boat bullshiat because it was "beneath him?" yeah, that worked out really well.

pretty much this. Obama does have to defend (or play up) his record, especially with the amount of bullshiat thrown around by the Republicans. Romney's going to have a hard time shaking the flip-flop persona he's been labelled with, nor does he seem too keen on shaking that label off either; so that part shouldn't get quite as much emphasis from Obama.

Awwwww, subby actually thinks the 2004 election results were honest! I wonder if subby also thinks pro wrestling is real?


/still, Kerry handled the Swift Boat BS totally wrong

Lucky LaRue: As a liberal, this worries me because the conservatives have so much more practice at this type of campaigning... :(

lol you actually believe that? Both sides do it equally. 2004, for example, Kerry ran the campaign of "I am not Bush". In the WI recall election, Tom Barrett is running on "I am not Scott Walker". Your side does it as much as the other side.

Magorn: Considering Bomb Shrum basically ran EXACTLY this sort of "Get a load of the other guy" campaign against the best target for it of all time (George W Bush) and STILL lost, you'd think he'd have to grace to STFU and stop giving advice to Democratic campaings.

I cannot possibly imagine there is anything else to add to the thread than ^^^ This ^^^

One slight tick in the unemployment numbers and people are jumping out windows.

Dusk-You-n-Me: They made a movie about the last three years. Thanks Mr. Hanks.

WOW!!!

They managed to get only 17 minutes of "good" stuff from 3 whole f*cking years.

lol thats just terrible..

Attacking Romney and the Congressional Republicans is a winning strategy all around. Romney has a record too and it should be torn apart.

cman: EyeballKid: Awwwww, subby actually thinks the 2004 election results were honest! I wonder if subby also thinks pro wrestling is real?



Yes, and Israel along with the Soviet Union faked the moon landing for us

Cman mocked it, therefore it must be true. I believe with that, Ken Blackwell's subpoena can be mailed out...

Heh, that's probably the biggest reason Kerry lost, too.

Kerry: "Vote for me, the other guys sucks."

Voters: "Yeah, OK, he sucks, acknowledged. What've you got that's better?"

Kerry: "..."

//Not as effective as they were hoping, I suspect.

in farkworld, obama is invincible.
in the real world, not so much.

colon_pow: in farkworld, obama is invincible.
in the real world, not so much.

I think this is the best endorsement I've heard of Romney so far. Were you pushing the "Close Door" button really fast in the elevator while typing it?

It's like asking the Chiefs how to win a Super Bowl.

It's like asking Stephen Seagal what's the best strategy for winning an Oscar.

It's like asking Mitt Romney how to feed a family of four on ten dollars.

Basic fact is, if you voted for Bush, the blood of his decisions is on your hands.
Blaming Kerry or Gore for it now after the fact just shows how lame you really are.

I think you can have both ads targeting Romney and others that talk about your record. Not really a one or the other kinda thing...

Good thing Mitt Romney is an even more out-of-touch rich doofus than John Kerry.

cman: Gary Johnson

Just once. Juuuuuuuust once I'd like to see a 34 percent of these "I'm going to hold my nose and vote for..." folks vote Libertarian. But then they won't because half of America wigs out over drug legalization and the other half wigs out over the fair tax. We're a country that is farking obsessed with using the government to run each other's lives and pick each other's pockets.

bobbette: Attacking Romney and the Congressional Republicans is a winning strategy all around. Romney has a record too and it should be torn apart.

A record of a successful capitolist.

Obama was a community organizer and didn't make a dime for himself.

I think i'll vote for the guy who knows how to run a business and not a guy who breaks evey promise he made.

alphalemming: cman: Gary Johnson

Just once. Juuuuuuuust once I'd like to see a 34 percent of these "I'm going to hold my nose and vote for..." folks vote Libertarian. But then they won't because half of America wigs out over drug legalization and the other half wigs out over the fair tax. We're a country that is farking obsessed with using the government to run each other's lives and pick each other's pockets.

Then we can get behind Buddy Roemer.

I'm all for C, D, or E. I even want a 'none of the above' choice where the election is held again but anybody currently running can't run in the new one.

TIKIMAN87: A record of a successful capitolistkapitulest.

/ftfy
/pet pieve

Lost Thought 00: Hows about both? Perhaps a campaign can be waged on multiple fronts simultaneously?

That doesn't tend to work so well for wars, and war metaphors have been used in political campaigning for a very long time. It's not really surprising that candidates would be reluctant to try that.

Shrum? loser. But Obama could do worse, see: Donna Brazile

Robert Shrum never won an election, did he? Pure genius.

Lucky LaRue: This is, unfortunately, too true. The next five month are going to see billions of dollars spent trying to convince voters that the other guy is worse. As a liberal, this worries me because the conservatives have so much more practice at this type of campaigning... :(

It is unfortunate. Because Romney isn't nearly as bad as left wingers think he is or as bad as Obama's campaign will pragmatically make him appear to be.

Also because Obama's done a pretty good job and deserves to win reelection based on his record.

EyeballKid: TIKIMAN87: A record of a successful capitolistkapitulest.

/ftfy
/pet pieve

lol.. Oh you liberals!!!

Debeo Summa Credo: It is unfortunate. Because Romney isn't nearly as bad as left wingers think he is or as bad as Obama's campaign will pragmatically make him appear to be.

It's easy to lose track of the fact that Romney is quite competent and fully capable of handling executive office and working with both parties, because to be frank Obama's record indicates he's better at both of those things. But yeah, in a different election I would consider Romney a legitimate contender, it's his party that's going to lose this round more than him personally, because he's just a bit weak on the economy whereas they're bat-farking insane.

That said, though, Obama will still most likely win quite handily even if he never goes negative at all. Which is actually unfortunate, in a way, since Romney's loss is going to convince a lot of GOP people that they need to run the actual crazy candidates in the future.

Debeo Summa Credo: Because Romney isn't nearly as bad as left wingers think he is or as bad as Obama's campaign will pragmatically make him appear to be.

The party he would be leading is nuttier than a collective of shiathouse rats and the republican SCOTUS is already screwing the middle class over.

cman: Gary Johnson

Doesn't have a chance in hell. What's your point?

Jim_Callahan: Debeo Summa Credo: It is unfortunate. Because Romney isn't nearly as bad as left wingers think he is or as bad as Obama's campaign will pragmatically make him appear to be.

It's easy to lose track of the fact that Romney is quite competent and fully capable of handling executive office and working with both parties, because to be frank Obama's record indicates he's better at both of those things. But yeah, in a different election I would consider Romney a legitimate contender, it's his party that's going to lose this round more than him personally, because he's just a bit weak on the economy whereas they're bat-farking insane.

That said, though, Obama will still most likely win quite handily even if he never goes negative at all. Which is actually unfortunate, in a way, since Romney's loss is going to convince a lot of GOP people that they need to run the actual crazy candidates in the future.

Pretty much agree except I think Obama has gone negative and will continue to go negative to win. It's sad that he has to, but that's the way it is.

Also agree with you and headso that Romney wouldn't be too bad but to hand more power to today's GOP is not in the country's best interests.

Debeo Summa Credo: Because Romney isn't nearly as bad as left wingers think he is or as bad as Obama's campaign will pragmatically make him appear to be.

I don't think Romney would be nearly as bad as other republican candidates, which is why I thought it was likely he would win the GOP nomination. But I think the support he gets from Republicans would push him in a direction I don't think he would take if he were, say, still the Governor of MA. He doesn't really seem to invest any thoughts on the positions that he mimics from others.


I see Romney as more or less being John Kerry of 2004. He may do a better job at swatting down flip-flop accusations in the short term, but there seems to be a new accusation every other day that seem to build a larger picture.

alphalemming: cman: Gary Johnson

Just once. Juuuuuuuust once I'd like to see a 34 percent of these "I'm going to hold my nose and vote for..." folks vote Libertarian. But then they won't because half of America wigs out over drug legalization and the other half wigs out over the fair tax. We're a country that is farking obsessed with using the government to run each other's lives and pick each other's pockets.

Because what America needs is to watch over the finance industry even less.

/Other than that, Gary Johnson's not bad.