2012 Presidential Election (87 days and counting...)

[Kelly]

What I found interesting is how little of a bump that Obama got after Obamacare being found constitutional, and how quick that bump went away.....

[Webfoot Hero]

Originally Posted by Kelly

What I found interesting is how little of a bump that Obama got after Obamacare being found constitutional, and how quick that bump went away.....

It's just not something that would have resonated with a good portion of potential voters. Right now, the main thing people are concerned about is the economy.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Webfoot Hero

It's just not something that would have resonated with a good portion of potential voters. Right now, the main thing people are concerned about is the economy.

If the public doesn't think that Obamacare doesn't have anything to do with the economy then they are ignorant....

[Webfoot Hero]

Originally Posted by Kelly

If the public doesn't think that Obamacare doesn't have anything to do with the economy then they are ignorant....

The common, everyday voters see them as separate, but those who stay informed know how interconnected they are. The way to turn it against Obama is to point out how Obamacare could hamper any future economic progress and possibly how much more it will cost than what was originally stated when it was signed into law.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

And so far, the Bain attacks from the Obama camp have not been working.

I disagree with this. I think the Bain attacks have made it perfectly clear that their is a difference between a job creator and a wealth creator, and I do think making that distinction does hurt part of the narrative that Romney is trying to paint for himself(ie that he somehow knows how to make the economy better so people create jobs)

Stuff like offshore banks or even his outsourcing might not really do much for some voters(in terms of making them decide) but I do think not allowing Romney to define his own job experience is a winning argument

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

I disagree with this. I think the Bain attacks have made it perfectly clear that their is a difference between a job creator and a wealth creator, and I do think making that distinction does hurt part of the narrative that Romney is trying to paint for himself(ie that he somehow knows how to make the economy better so people create jobs)

You do realize that wealth in business is a part of job creation. He (Romney) has said no, he did not create the jobs, but he created the business ability to hire the people and create jobs....there is nothing wrong with creating wealth.....

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by Kelly

You do realize that wealth in business is a part of job creation. He (Romney) has said no, he did not create the jobs, but he created the business ability to hire the people and create jobs....there is nothing wrong with creating wealth.....

I think it depends how they create that wealth.

If a guy creates a doohickey and then sells the rights to it for 100M dollars, that's great. If the company that buys the doohickey then intern markets it and makes a profit of 200M dollar more power to them. If the store that sells the doohickey makes a profit of 50M off of it more power to them. This is the cycle we should see for creating wealth. In this process model, their are many people who get employed at points 2 + 3 and you can argue the manufacturer and store are both "job creators" on top of being wealth creators

On the other hand if Bain Capital buys a company for 5M, drains it off all it's assets including it's pension plan, declares bankruptcy and makes a 50M dollar profit off of it in the process, I am not sure this is a great way to create wealth. Basically they screwed over all those people with pensions and the tax payer has to cover the loss due to pension insurance. In this business model the company's profits are made at the expense of the average person(although I guess one can argue that a few jobs are created when the CEO buys a million dollar home and a porsche). Now I know not all of Bain's investments went this way but the simple fact that it happened to a few companies they bought is disgusting. Now if you have somebody who can do something like this without flinching, imagine what he would be willing to do as President. And let's not forget this is the guy who believes there is way to much regulations in the way for wealth creating(opps I mean "job creating")

[SV Fan]

For people saying the Bain attack ads don't have any effect

http://washingtonexaminer.com/team-r...rticle/2501620

Confirming what many political professionals from both parties have been saying for weeks, Gallup has a new poll out today purporting to show that President Obama’s television ads attacking Mitt Romney for his tenure at Bain Capital have been effective. USA Today reports: “At this point, Obama is the clear winner in the ad wars. Among swing-state voters who say the ads have changed their minds about a candidate, rather than just confirmed what they already thought, 76% now support the president, vs. 16% favoring Romney.”

Now it should be pointed out Obama has outspent Romney by a large margin so far, so that is definitely a huge favor for Obama and over time I am guessing that number will get lower when Romney fights back, but 76-16 is a huge margin saying they are working and no amount of error in polling can change that fact

[hippie_hunter]

I recall reading that that poll pretty much swayed more Democrats onto the President's side but it has done little to sway independents and Republicans.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

For people saying the Bain attack ads don't have any effect

http://washingtonexaminer.com/team-r...rticle/2501620



Now it should be pointed out Obama has outspent Romney by a large margin so far, so that is definitely a huge favor for Obama and over time I am guessing that number will get lower when Romney fights back, but 76-16 is a huge margin saying they are working and no amount of error in polling can change that fact

What I actually find interesting is that Obama is spending more than Romney right now but Romney is bringing in more money, far more money than the Dems and Obama....so looks like that September and October are going to be quite exciting....

[rowan sjet]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

I recall reading that that poll pretty much swayed more Democrats onto the President's side but it has done little to sway independents and Republicans.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...oll/56097052/1

To be sure, Obama's ads have done more to win back Democrats than to win over independents or Republicans: Thirteen percent of Democrats say their minds have been changed by ads, compared with 9% of independents and 3% of Republicans.

Had to go look this up, but I don't think 9% is anything to sneeze at compared to 13% of democrats, especially when 40% of Americans identify as Independent.

[hippie_hunter]

9% is nothing to sneeze at considering how slim this margin is, but considering how much he is playing the Bain card, you'd think he'd be trying to find something even more effective.

[Belvedere]

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

Just going to leave this here.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Belvedere

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

Just going to leave this here.

And this is why Republicans will never seriously go after the black vote. The black vote doesn't even try to make themselves up for grabs.

[Franklin Richards]

Because they like the ACA?

[Belvedere]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

And this is why Republicans will never seriously go after the black vote. The black vote doesn't even try to make themselves up for grabs.

That strikes me as a somewhat skewed way of looking at things.

It's not up for "the black vote" to make themselves up for grabs, it's up to the Republicans to convince them to vote for them. Blaming the electorate is a sure way to find yourself in the electoral wilderness.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Franklin Richards

Because they like the ACA?

No because they boo a Presidential candidate. It's as incredibly rude whenever Obama gets booed. Granted that out of all the forums to go to, Romney shouldn't have gone to a NAACP gathering (same reason why I say that Michelle Obama should have never gone to a NASCAR gathering), but it's still an incredibly rude thing to do.

Originally Posted by Belvedere

That strikes me as a somewhat skewed way of looking at things.

It's not up for "the black vote" to make themselves up for grabs, it's up to the Republicans to convince them to vote for them. Blaming the electorate is a sure way to find yourself in the electoral wilderness.

It works both ways frankly. Both the black vote and GOP fail to reach out to one another for various reasons. The black vote refuses to listen to the GOP, even when GOP candidates try to reach out to them, and the GOP keeps on finding reasons to alienate them. But incidents like this just reinforces the GOP mentality that they shouldn't even bother.

[Kelly]

I watched the entire speech, and actually I thought it was a pretty damn good speech, and was much more well received than I thought it would be....

The booing was a low point, but he had far more high points than that....and I think it was good for him to be there....he was invited, and he spoke. IMO, nothing wrong with that....

He knew going in that that portion would not go over well, but I give him props for being honest and putting it out there....

No, it probably did not garner him one vote, BUT, he opened a door wide open if he becomes President, and that speech did it, it was a strong speech, and that door that he opened today, IF HE becomes President, will probably still be open for conversation later.

One of the crazy things about watching speeches at the NAACP convention, if they think what you have said is solid, you get an organ "taaadaaa" at the end of it.....when he spoke about wanting a strong communication tie with the NAACP once he becomes President, it was a big "taaaaadaaaa".

The thing is, the NAACP no longer speaks for the black community today, so as far as garnering much, if any, of that 92% black vote, is very doubtful.

[hippie_hunter]

I think that overall, most political figures should just avoid areas where the audience is most likely going to be hostile. It makes you look bad. It's why I really don't feel sorry for Romney when he got booed. It may have been rude, but he was kinda asking for it. And more people are going to remember the booing than the high points.

[Kelly]

But it wasn't a hostile audience, not at all, only in that one instance....now, noooo it certainly was not the reception that his highness would have gotten.....but it wasn't hostile by any stretch.

And as I said, he knew that would be booooed, it didn't phase him a bit.....he went right on.

And he got Obama, he said "If I become President, and if you invite me to speak next year......the answer is a definite yes" ORGAN "TAAAAAADAAAAAA" lol....which by NAACP standards was well received.

Hell, candidates get booed for something at almost EVERY campaign stop.....hell, CPAC booooos Ron Paul ALL THE TIME, throughout his entire speech....

[Franklin Richards]

I'm so tired of your Fox News approved rebranding of Obama as "his highness". He's not acting like a King despite what that propaganda station would have you believe. It's insulting and just stupid due to it's inaccuracy.

A King would have given us a public option.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Franklin Richards

I'm so tired of your Fox News approved rebranding of Obama as "his highness". He's not acting like a King despite what that propaganda station would have you believe. It's insulting and just stupid due to it's inaccuracy.

A King would have given us a public option.

Well, then I guess its a good thing, that I honestly don't care what ya think....: ) And as far as getting it from Fox, nope, could really care less what Fox calls him, that is my title for him, and with each thing that he gets passed through Congress with deception, OR....simply bypasses Congress only strengthens my resolve in using that title.

But thanks for your opinion......; )

[Belvedere]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

I think that overall, most political figures should just avoid areas where the audience is most likely going to be hostile. It makes you look bad. It's why I really don't feel sorry for Romney when he got booed. It may have been rude, but he was kinda asking for it. And more people are going to remember the booing than the high points.

I think not going into hostile environments and confronting them actually only engenders further hostility down the line. If you spend all of your time talking to people that agree with you, all you're going to do is have the views you share that are out of line with public opinion reinforced; making it all the more difficult to go into those hostile environments down the line.

[Kelly]

I agree, I think it was more of a door opener for dialogue later, than it was a chance to garner votes.

[Franklin Richards]

So it's a good thing respect for our highest elected official went out the window when Bush took office. I don't want to hear any whining when a republican eventually gets back in the office. Of course there will probably be some sort of qualifier that will approve said disrespect.

"You can insult our president just don't do it on foreign soil."


Here's hoping that Magical Underwear Mitt get's elected.