Reply With Quote
Because he can't run on his record.
Look, I love campaigns where opponents accuse one another of murder, hate, and a secret plan to reintroduce Negro slavery as much as the next guy, but why did the Obama folks choose to unload everything in freaking July?
Voters do not have long attention spans, people. Come late October, people will be saying, "yeah, yeah, I know, Mitt Romney actually invented the H1N1 virus and gave Osama bin Laden the idea for 9/11. I'm bored with that story. Where's my free , Obama?"
I want to know why in a campaign where Obama is showing a slight lead in the polls his campaign pulled the equivalent of that San Diego July 4th display. Unwise.
Because he can't run on his record.
And, starting the day after the Republican Convention, Mitty Romney will be free to unleash the financial war chest he's been amassing.
I would expect a non-stop barrage of pro-Romney, anti-Obama political ads and messaging (from all angles) beginning the moment Romney is officially nominated.
That's an interesting question and one I heard being discussed on Morning Joe not long ago. The, mostly liberal, comentators were saying that when they speak with those within the campaign privately the level of nervousness was "palpable" although things look pretty good for them from the public polling. They speculated that there is something within their internal polling that has them quite worried.
Then, on November 7th conservatives will joyously celebrate their hard-fought victory in which the train heading off the fiscal cliff will slow from 150 mph to 140 mph and the despised ObamaCare will receive a few pragmatic tweaks.
Obama has ignored the cliff. At least, Romney acknowledges its existence.
And, I think completely -canning Obamacare is a bit more than a "tweak."
Obama: "Cliff? What cliff? AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"
Romney: "Hey, look at that cliff we're about to goAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"
Yay, we repealed ObamaCare! Let's replace it with this new Heritage Foundation-approved nation health care plan that holds freeloaders accountable!
They won't have the votes in the Senate to can Obamacare even if Romney wins the Presidency.
That's why we need to win the Senate too.
But, as plan B, If I were Romney, I would just do what Obama's been doing and not enforce the law. Issue waivers. Direct my Health and Human Services Secretary to stand down.
60 Republicans in the Senate is credible. BTW, in the world where that is true, the sky is sort of a pinkish-orange, maybe coral.
Yes, that guy running as Mitt Romney is actually Ron Paul in a convincing biomechanical costume. The guy who was governor of Massachusetts is locked in an electrical closet in Wharton, TX.
I think if you look at our total unfunded liabilities Obamcare isn't much more than a blip on the radar.
Couldn't they pull it off with 51 votes through reconciliation?
I didn't suggest it was; I was responding to the specific point that Romney was going to simply "tweak" Obamacare. Although, left as is, Obamacare would probably grow to the size of other unfunded liabilities -- such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, etc...
Harry Reid no longer the Majority Leader is entirely possible.
I guess you forget how many arms had to be twisted just to get Obamacare past that body. Cornhusker Kickback? Louisiana Purchase?
Ah ok, I missed the context.
The Obama campaign went all out early on in order to define who Romney is before he had a chance to do so himself. Once a narrative about a candidate is created, it is hard to change. That strategy has clearly worked, as Romney is viewed poorly in most polls, and Obama was building a steady lead through the summer. I don't think Romney can get elected by getting people to vote FOR him, rather he has to get people to vote AGAINST Obama, and that was his strategy pretty much from day 1.
In a weak economy, the in bent should go negative against the challenger to turn it into a low-turnout election where independents stay home and the in bent can win with the base and the ground game. However, I don't think you unload everything you have three and a half months out. That "Romney killed an innocent lady by taking away her healthcare" ad is something you run the week before the election, not early August. Where do you go from here?
This notion that you can establish a firm narrative against a challenger when people are only barely paying attention... I guess that's why they pay the strategists the big bucks but... wow, I have my doubts. I suppose they thought they should play their money advantage until the RNC when Romney can start unloading his war chest, but that strategy strikes me as trying to mitigate a weakness rather than playing to a strength.
Doesn't look like things have changed that much to me...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...able-1134.html
Maybe that's what the Obama campiagn is worried about. Romney is expected to be able to out spend Obama the rest of the way.
I think they realize they're much less well funded than the opposition and will be much more selective on how the funds are applied in the smear campaign... with that in mind, I think they were testing the waters to see if that narrative would pick up some steam. They're going to have to do that because they just don't have enough money to toss a lot of to see what sticks.... at least not as much as the other side.
I also don't think you can overstate the damage he's done to his brand by denigrating small businesses.
These people sit in Rotary Club meetings around the country and talk about this . Whether it's a baker in Virginia, a wind farm owner or beer tent concessionaire in Iowa (And this is just one day of campaigning at places the Obama/Biden campaign CHOSE to visit).
I think Obama has energized a cons uency that not only votes but also has influence in their respective communities and, it's being witnessed in a big way, across the country.
three anecdotes is a groundswell of course.
Three anecdotes from three businesses the Obama/Biden campaign chose to use as photo ops, in one day. I'd say, yes, it's indicative. You would have thought the campaign could have found Obama-friendly businesses to visit. Perhaps they are rare.
The instances of small businesses across the country that are openly renouncing Obama's redistributionist pap are fairly common...if you're inclined to look.
three and counting
Well, say Obama was up by exactly two votes in Iowa and one vote in Virginia. If those three people change their votes, Romney is now leading in those states and that's 21 electoral votes changing hands. By doing simple math, Romney then just needs to change the votes of 100 more people and he'll win the Electoral College 700 to -162. LANDSLIDE!!!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
