No Bounce

[Michchamp]

. . . and after all that . . . wouldn't you be oh so surprised if enough happened to swing the tide and he actually wins? What will be your excuse then?

It has happened - it will happen again. The better man doesn't always win the election. You're first paragraph is pretty on target though - you don't get re-elected by making political enemies your first few months in office.

if he wins... well... Obama REALLY screwed up. Or maybe got hit by a meteorite or something.

 

[TheVictors]

Pretty big over-simplification. GW's was made harder by himself and he still won didn't he? That statement can't possibly have come from actually looking at the electoral map as it stands (based on reputable polls).

I don't think it's an over-simplification to say that. In fact, the problem with the spectator sport that is US politics is that it really isn't nearly as complex as it is made out to be in order to cover it 4yrs 24/7 and have entire networks devoted to nothing else.

For all the screaming and shouting and lying, it comes down to one thing - which lever you pull. I would say between 80-90% of all voters have already decided (and did so long ago) who they'll vote for (if not just sit out this election out of disgust for the choices and what the process has devolved into) so all we're left with are these elusive "swing voters" who everyone proclaims to be when asked, but who are also probably pretty sure which way they'll vote.

Condi Rice would have been a good choice but would have overshadowed Mitt. Pawlenty, IMO, would have been a better VP choice because he is very ....vice presidential and would have allowed Mitt to be the focus and run on the "business record."

But regardless, byco is right. The process is broken and this "greatest nation on Earth" should be embarrassed with the choice of candidates we've had the past 20yrs or so.

 

[KAWDUP]

I don't think it's an over-simplification to say that. In fact, the problem with the spectator sport that is US politics is that it really isn't nearly as complex as it is made out to be in order to cover it 4yrs 24/7 and have entire networks devoted to nothing else.

Hey, I definitely have taken the same cynical view, so I am not disagreeing with your assessment of the popular vote. That is spot on.

The oversimplification I was really talking about was the electoral college. A look at any of the electoral maps has the states going one way or another, with the best of them taking an average and using likely voters. But the fact that even with Obama leading in several key swing states, most notably Ohio and Florida, the races are close enough that even though Romney's path is difficult, and both sides will shoot themselves in the foot several times before the election, the analysis goes much deeper than "Romney won't win because he is making it harder on himself."

That will be such a minor factor - it will really only matter to those that haven't already made up their mind (and we know there really aren't many of those, right?), which is to say very little factor at all.

Anyway, that is what I meant.

 

[Michchamp]

Hey, I definitely have taken the same cynical view, so I am not disagreeing with your assessment of the popular vote. That is spot on.

The oversimplification I was really talking about was the electoral college. A look at any of the electoral maps has the states going one way or another, with the best of them taking an average and using likely voters. But the fact that even with Obama leading in several key swing states, most notably Ohio and Florida, the races are close enough that even though Romney's path is difficult, and both sides will shoot themselves in the foot several times before the election, the analysis goes much deeper than "Romney won't win because he is making it harder on himself."

That will be such a minor factor - it will really only matter to those that haven't already made up their mind (and we know there really aren't many of those, right?), which is to say very little factor at all.

Anyway, that is what I meant.

actually, I think you're underestimating how god-awful Romney is in person. Based on some of the accounts I've read his gaffes have been under-reported in the media, and these aren't cute George W. Bush "Is our children learning?" type gaffes, but real callous insult type stuff.

he's gone from telling bakers in a donut shop that he could probably get better baked goods "at a 7-11" to telling a roomful of unemployed people that he understands them because he's unemployed now too. The guy just can't help himself.

I do think one factor which you sort of touched on is something I agree with: the animosity which a number of voters hold against Bush & the GOP for the years 2001-2009 is still strong enough that it will influence this election; I mean, voters elected Obama to fix everything that Bush or his political appointees fucked up, and Obama hasn't... if a "dangerous socialist" like Obama is too far to the right, what is Romney going to be? I'm guessing a lot of voters who are otherwise unhappy with Obama don't want to find out, and therefore will swallow hard and stick with the status quo.

and that's why I keep coming back to Romney himself; the GOP could've seriously threatened Obama if they had gone with a guy who wasn't "Richie Rich and proud of it" during a time when the vast majority of the country is getting squeezed by stagnant wages and benefits & persistent high unemployment.

and while most people aren't economists and are pretty stupid, I think the cries from the right-wing noise machine about socialism and "dangerous government holding business back" are starting to ring hollow by this point. cutting social spending, regulations, and taxes has been going on since the 80s, and things aren't getting better for them. Quite the contrary. And listening to a guy like Romney tell you to pull yourself up by the bootstraps isn't inspiring anymore, it's infuriating to voters. They fell for that shit in the 80s... but you can't fool all the people all the time...

 

[KAWDUP]

actually, I think you're underestimating how god-awful Romney is in person. Based on some of the accounts I've read his gaffes have been under-reported in the media, and these aren't cute George W. Bush "Is our children learning?" type gaffes, but real callous insult type stuff.

he's gone from telling bakers in a donut shop that he could probably get better baked goods "at a 7-11" to telling a roomful of unemployed people that he understands them because he's unemployed now too. The guy just can't help himself.

I do think one factor which you sort of touched on is something I agree with: the animosity which a number of voters hold against Bush & the GOP for the years 2001-2009 is still strong enough that it will influence this election; I mean, voters elected Obama to fix everything that Bush or his political appointees fucked up, and Obama hasn't... if a "dangerous socialist" like Obama is too far to the right, what is Romney going to be? I'm guessing a lot of voters who are otherwise unhappy with Obama don't want to find out, and therefore will swallow hard and stick with the status quo.

and that's why I keep coming back to Romney himself; the GOP could've seriously threatened Obama if they had gone with a guy who wasn't "Richie Rich and proud of it" during a time when the vast majority of the country is getting squeezed by stagnant wages and benefits & persistent high unemployment.

and while most people aren't economists and are pretty stupid, I think the cries from the right-wing noise machine about socialism and "dangerous government holding business back" are starting to ring hollow by this point. cutting social spending, regulations, and taxes has been going on since the 80s, and things aren't getting better for them. Quite the contrary. And listening to a guy like Romney tell you to pull yourself up by the bootstraps isn't inspiring anymore, it's infuriating to voters. They fell for that shit in the 80s... but you can't fool all the people all the time...

All that you're saying - even if it is mostly true does NOT equate to "god-awful". That is just an amplification of your opinion based on your liberal attitudes.

You don't think several of the cries and arguments for both campaigns are ringing rather hollow? C'mon take off the liberal blinders. If one is "god-awful", they both are. I get why you believe what you believe, but it is still only one opinion by a liberal, that was already going to vote for Obama anyway, if you vote at all.

 

[Michchamp]

why do you feel a need to point out that people's opinions are their opinions?

my guess is that there is something in there that bothers you that it might be true, or accurate, and you don't like it, so you feel a need to paint it all with the same brush. "BLEH. This is all just champ's opinion, and he is a liberal, so it's probably not representative of anyone who matters."

 

[TheVictors]

Hey, I definitely have taken the same cynical view, so I am not disagreeing with your assessment of the popular vote. That is spot on.

The oversimplification I was really talking about was the electoral college....

Anyway, that is what I meant.

Gotcha. The Electoral College, gerrymandering and re-districting ...all dirty and convoluted business, indeed.

 

[TheVictors]

he's gone from telling bakers in a donut shop that he could probably get better baked goods "at a 7-11" ....

I think the gaffe you're referring to here was when he was meeting with "typical, average Americans" for the cameras and at a picnic-type setting, commented on the cookies that were passed to him by asking if they were bought at 7-11 or something .. (inferring that they weren't from a Bakery or otherwise the kind of cookie he's used to eating).

At a campaign event in Pennsylvania, Romney refused the cookies that were placed out for him. "I'm not sure about these cookies. They don't look like you made them. Did you make those cookies? You didn’t, did you? No. No. They came from the local 7-Eleven bakery or wherever.”

Mitt's problem is going to be with the Sam's Club Republicans who are working/middle class but persuaded by wedge issues like gay marriage, abortion and so on. If he's so out of touch with those folks that he's insulting their choice of donuts or cookies, they may finally realize that they've been pandered to for the past 10yrs or so and duped into voting not out of their self-interest or for the good of the country, but for non-issues that come up only every 4yrs.

 

[Michchamp]

I think the gaffe you're referring to here was when he was meeting with "typical, average Americans" for the cameras and at a picnic-type setting, commented on the cookies that were passed to him by asking if they were bought at 7-11 or something .. (inferring that they weren't from a Bakery or otherwise the kind of cookie he's used to eating).

At a campaign event in Pennsylvania, Romney refused the cookies that were placed out for him. "I'm not sure about these cookies. They don't look like you made them. Did you make those cookies? You didn?t, did you? No. No. They came from the local 7-Eleven bakery or wherever.?

Mitt's problem is going to be with the Sam's Club Republicans who are working/middle class but persuaded by wedge issues like gay marriage, abortion and so on. If he's so out of touch with those folks that he's insulting their choice of donuts or cookies, they may finally realize that they've been pandered to for the past 10yrs or so and duped into voting not out of their self-interest or for the good of the country, but for non-issues that come up only every 4yrs.

yeah, that was it. I think the cookies came from some famous local bakery or something (somewhere in PA) and his comment was unfortunately directed at the people who baked the cookies.

another story came at a NASCAR race when he implied the people were cheap for buying the type of rain ponchos you typically see at sporting events.

even though he wants them to vote for him, Mitt needs to remind them they're not in his league: he'd either be up in the box with the owners/NASCAR execs, or he'd get a raincoat custom made in London, out of wool fabric treated to make it waterproof, with the matching burberry scarf and all that... but still, they should remember to vote for him because the Democrats are the REAL elitists here, with their college educations, and their Hollywood backers and all that.

 

[Thumb]

It will be funny how Mitt plays in the south.

And by the South I mean the people who are convinced Obama is a Muslim. These same people generally consider the idea of the Mormon Church heresy, and the Catholic Church [Ryan is Catholic] to be a corrupt organization so it will be interesting if they'll consider Mittens the lesser of two evils, or just flat out refuse to participate and stay home.

Pawlenty would have appealed to the South, Rubio to Florida and the southwest.

Again, someone should have shown Mitt an electoral map.

 

[redandguilty]

yeah, that was it. I think the cookies came from some famous local bakery or something (somewhere in PA) and his comment was unfortunately directed at the people who baked the cookies.

another story came at a NASCAR race when he implied the people were cheap for buying the type of rain ponchos you typically see at sporting events.

even though he wants them to vote for him, Mitt needs to remind them they're not in his league: he'd either be up in the box with the owners/NASCAR execs, or he'd get a raincoat custom made in London, out of wool fabric treated to make it waterproof, with the matching burberry scarf and all that... but still, they should remember to vote for him because the Democrats are the REAL elitists here, with their college educations, and their Hollywood backers and all that.

Look who knows what a burberry scarf is...

 

[KAWDUP]

why do you feel a need to point out that people's opinions are their opinions?

my guess is that there is something in there that bothers you that it might be true, or accurate, and you don't like it, so you feel a need to paint it all with the same brush. "BLEH. This is all just champ's opinion, and he is a liberal, so it's probably not representative of anyone who matters."

. . . because of statements like this.
<<actually, I think you're underestimating how god-awful Romney is in person. Based on some of the accounts I've read his gaffes have been under-reported in the media>>

I am not underestimating anything - I read nearly as much as you about all of the gaffes. My contention is they mean very little, and still is.

You however want to attribute "opinions or values" based on your opinion, to me. So when I respond as I did, you need only look at what you posted to see why.

Your entire response does it again. Why you think that I believe your response doesn't matter, I have no clue.

Get it now?

. . . and BTW, applying a brush to entire groups of people is your specialty, not mine. See Republican, religious, southern, and now fat people.

 

[Michchamp]

. . .
. . . and BTW, applying a brush to entire groups of people is your specialty, not mine. See Republican, religious, southern, and now fat people.

it is beyond dispute that those people all suck.

 

[redandguilty]

. . .
. . . and BTW, applying a brush to entire groups of people is your specialty, not mine. See Republican, religious, southern, and now fat people.

it is beyond dispute that those people all suck.

...that doesn't rule out the possibility that MC thinks Democrats, non-religious, northern, and thin people also suck.

 

[tinselwolverine]

...that doesn't rule out the possibility that MC thinks Democrats, non-religious, northern, and thin people also suck.

...don't forget the scientist/engineers, and Hollywood/show biz types...

 

[byco42]

...don't forget the scientist/engineers, and Hollywood/show biz types...

I think that MC believes that all people, himself excepted, suck. Must be an interesting perspective.

 

[redandguilty]

I think that MC believes that all people, himself excepted, suck. Must be an interesting perspective.

I don't think we even have evidence that he excepts himself. There's probably an exception for Krugman and I certainly hope Schembechler and Carr get exceptions...not sure how many people beyond that though.

 

[byco42]

I don't think we even have evidence that he excepts himself. There's probably an exception for Krugman and I certainly hope Schembechler and Carr get exceptions...not sure how many people beyond that though.

Rich Rod, of course.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Rich Rod, of course.

Ha, ha.

Funny.

Actually I would add Hoke to the list.

At least for now.

Even though he's kinda fat, probably religious and I would be surprised if he's not a Republican.

 

[KAWDUP]

...that doesn't rule out the possibility that MC thinks Democrats, non-religious, northern, and thin people also suck.

No but the groups I mention are the groups he seems to be the most vocal about.

There are times, when he is obviously one of the smarter and more well read people on this board. It is hard for me to believe how badly he seems to want to save the planet, and the poor, and down-trodden - but for who, people he hates?

. . . or is having the world get better for all those hated groups acceptable collateral "goodness"?