Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:...That said, I'm a bit depressed that Bachmann carried 5%, she, or at least the persona she assumes, is a moron.

Does it help to be reminded Iowa is the state she was born in?

Frazzled wrote:
Wait, they just did that actually.

Link?

Rented Tritium wrote:If Obama does decide to play against republicans going far right, they can just go center instead and it makes him look pretty mean.

They could, but they won't.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Wait, they just did that actually.

Link?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-campaign-warns-extremist-republicans-111823245.html

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Wait, they just did that actually.

Link?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-campaign-warns-extremist-republicans-111823245.html

Well, that's a misstep.

Yep, it more than likely is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the off chance that someone insane gets the nomination, then it was a good play. If romney gets it though, saying things like that really hurts him.

Well, expecting the Repubs to go Far Right could be a rational calculation. After their drubbing to Obama in 2012, the conclusion many Repub pundits made was that they hadn't gone conservative enough, and hence lost.

I think the wins in the 2010 mid-terms may only reinforce this thinking. Hence, it would make sense that the Repubs would go Far Right.

However, Romney may not be the guy who can pull that off, and therefore the Romney cmapaign should avoid such an strategy. Here comes the big BUT. In order to motivate the base, Romney may have try to go far right anyway.

Elections are won by getting more of your people out to vote than the other guy. Independnets generally all ready lean one way or another, so "true" nuetrals don't really exist or are a very small number. If you motivate the base; you motivate the leaners too.

The question in my mind, is who can get the base out in the key states.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Wait, they just did that actually.

Link?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-campaign-warns-extremist-republicans-111823245.html

Well, that's a misstep.

Why? I'd proffer the only ones paying attention on the D side currently are hardcores, and he's taken the strategic step of focusing on core constituencies, and getting them out. Right now he's trying to drum money and troopers. The "try to get everyone else" will occur later.

Easy E wrote:Well, expecting the Repubs to go Far Right could be a rational calculation. After their drubbing to Obama in 2012, the conclusion many Repub pundits made was that they hadn't gone conservative enough, and hence lost.

It's a bad call to make a move this early based on an expected strategy that you haven't confirmed they're even using yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Wait, they just did that actually.

Link?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-campaign-warns-extremist-republicans-111823245.html

Well, that's a misstep.

Why? I'd proffer the only ones paying attention on the D side currently are hardcores, and he's taken the strategic step of focusing on core constituencies, and getting them out. Right now he's trying to drum money and troopers. The "try to get everyone else" will occur later.

That's true, but the risk is that this will get picked up by the republicans and bandied about. They can put up romney and wave that post around like, "this guy? Is this the radical you were talking about? LOOOOOL"

Frazzled wrote:
Why? I'd proffer the only ones paying attention on the D side currently are hardcores, and he's taken the strategic step of focusing on core constituencies, and getting them out. Right now he's trying to drum money and troopers. The "try to get everyone else" will occur later.

Because it will be trotted out to moderates by the winner of the GOP nomination.

It would have been better to get Bill, or even Kerry, to say it.

dogma wrote:It would have been better to get Bill, or even Kerry, to say it.

Yep.

Easy E wrote:However, Romney may not be the guy who can pull that off, and therefore the Romney cmapaign should avoid such an strategy. Here comes the big BUT. In order to motivate the base, Romney may have try to go far right anyway.

This was McCain's dilemma. He had problems with his base, and thus moved right and picked Palin. But that just undermined his appeal to moderates as an independent thinker, etc. Meanwhile, even with the change, I'm not sure the GOP base really trusted him or was as motivated/enthusiastic as they could have been. It's no wonder that election got away from him they way it did.

Personally, I feel like you have to "go with what brung ya" and let the chips fall where they may. The voting public is mostly stupid, but they do have a way of sniffing out a phony. In my nonpolitical advertising life, I call it the "no BS factor." Gross misrepresentations of reality will almost always come back to bite you in the butt. Shades of truth are a different thing, of course.

If Romney gets the nom, he's got no real choice but to run his campaign in the more traditional manner, trying to appear more fatherly and capable and exuding calm. To do otherwise goes against his longstanding image.

If Ron Paul gets the nom, he's got to light his campaign bus on fire and crank the attitude to 11.

Given those two, the first is the harder one for Obama to deal with.

Santorum is a joke of a 1 turn Senator that lost his first reelection campaign by nearly a 1.5 to 1 margin. If anti Romney spite causes him to win the primaries the general election would just be a repeat of his 2006 reelection.

Santorum served two terms in the Senate.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:Well, expecting the Repubs to go Far Right could be a rational calculation. After their drubbing to Obama in 2012, the conclusion many Repub pundits made was that they hadn't gone conservative enough, and hence lost.

It's a bad call to make a move this early based on an expected strategy that you haven't confirmed they're even using yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Wait, they just did that actually.

Link?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-campaign-warns-extremist-republicans-111823245.html

Well, that's a misstep.

Why? I'd proffer the only ones paying attention on the D side currently are hardcores, and he's taken the strategic step of focusing on core constituencies, and getting them out. Right now he's trying to drum money and troopers. The "try to get everyone else" will occur later.

That's true, but the risk is that this will get picked up by the republicans and bandied about. They can put up romney and wave that post around like, "this guy? Is this the radical you were talking about? LOOOOOL"

Again, I don't see the risk. The MSM is nnot gooing to grill him on it. The right wing already is voting against him. Whats the risk? Its not he hasn't been doing that for some time now.

gorgon wrote:

Easy E wrote:However, Romney may not be the guy who can pull that off, and therefore the Romney cmapaign should avoid such an strategy. Here comes the big BUT. In order to motivate the base, Romney may have try to go far right anyway.

This was McCain's dilemma. He had problems with his base, and thus moved right and picked Palin. But that just undermined his appeal to moderates as an independent thinker, etc. Meanwhile, even with the change, I'm not sure the GOP base really trusted him or was as motivated/enthusiastic as they could have been. It's no wonder that election got away from him they way it did.

Yes, and I think Romney will have the exact same issue. He has never bested 25% among Repubs in polls or in Iowa. That seems like a base issue.

However, the question is if he is going to bother with them or not, and if he can win with only lukewarm base support? Karl Rove would tell you to motivate the Base and feth the rest.

Frazzled wrote:
Again, I don't see the risk. The MSM is nnot gooing to grill him on it. The right wing already is voting against him. Whats the risk? Its not he hasn't been doing that for some time now.

His opponent will bring it up. Why is his actual opponent and their party not part of your list of people who won't say anything?

I'm sorry, Santorum is a joke of a 2 turn Senator that lost his 2nd reelection campaign by nearly a 1.5 to 1 margin. If anti Romney spite causes him to win the primaries the general election would just be a repeat of his 2006 reelection.

Easy E wrote:

gorgon wrote:

Easy E wrote:However, Romney may not be the guy who can pull that off, and therefore the Romney cmapaign should avoid such an strategy. Here comes the big BUT. In order to motivate the base, Romney may have try to go far right anyway.

This was McCain's dilemma. He had problems with his base, and thus moved right and picked Palin. But that just undermined his appeal to moderates as an independent thinker, etc. Meanwhile, even with the change, I'm not sure the GOP base really trusted him or was as motivated/enthusiastic as they could have been. It's no wonder that election got away from him they way it did.

Yes, and I think Romney will have the exact same issue. He has never bested 25% among Repubs in polls or in Iowa. That seems like a base issue.

Which suggests that the GOP's real problem is that it's become too conservative for its own good. Personally, I think this will change. They know the demographic challenges they're facing, and ultimately winning elections trumps ideological purity.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

schadenfreude wrote:I'm sorry, Santorum is a joke of a 2 turn Senator that lost his 2nd reelection campaign by nearly a 1.5 to 1 margin. If anti Romney spite causes him to win the primaries the general election would just be a repeat of his 2006 reelection.

Although it has to be said that Casey was a strong opponent in 2006. Maybe not in IQ wattage (LOL), but the Casey name is still big in PA, and the Democratic machines in Philly and Pittsburgh are formidable. Personally I'm not a fan of Casey or his dad, but that's neither here nor there.

I tend to agree he couldn't win. He wouldn't even carry his home state.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Again, I don't see the risk. The MSM is nnot gooing to grill him on it. The right wing already is voting against him. Whats the risk? Its not he hasn't been doing that for some time now.

His opponent will bring it up. Why is his actual opponent and their party not part of your list of people who won't say anything?

Because they will say it anyway. This is Presidential Politics 101. Candidates campaign on the fringes during party voting, then center in main voting. The other side accuses them of covering their real fringe agenda and saying they are flip/floppers. Been done since like, for ever.

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Again, I don't see the risk. The MSM is nnot gooing to grill him on it. The right wing already is voting against him. Whats the risk? Its not he hasn't been doing that for some time now.

His opponent will bring it up. Why is his actual opponent and their party not part of your list of people who won't say anything?

Because they will say it anyway. This is Presidential Politics 101. Candidates campaign on the fringes during party voting, then center in main voting. The other side accuses them of covering their real fringe agenda and saying they are flip/floppers. Been done since like, for ever.

the corrolary to this is making sure people actually vote. Campainging to your base isn't about make sure they don't vote for the other guy, but that they actually put their ass in a voting booth.

Which is why Romney's nomination is so scary to the GOP: there is fear that the base will just stay home instead of coming out. OTOH, it's not like Obama's base is wild about him either, so this might end up getting decided in the trenches.

And to backtrack a few page, while I'd agree with any assessment of Obama's presidency as "spectacularly mediocre," it's simply dopey to call his actual governence "wacky left wing." He is, admittedly, probably the most liberal president we've had in a while, but this is a guy that spent three years dicking around with DADT (pun delightfully intended), barely got a half baked compromise health care bill passed, and has rolled over on raising taxes for anybody much less the rich.

That doesn't mean he's not left wing Polonius, just incompetent. Many will argue - and I bet this is a future debate point - that he spent the first year on “misplaced priorities.” I can hear it now…

Romney: “Mr. President while millions of people were being laid off you spent an entire year attempting to pass a multi thousand page healthcare people that the American people didn’t want, a cap and tax bill that never made it through your own Senate, and tried to get known terrorists tried in New York City, making the city a magnate for new attacks.”

Obama: “Jane you ignorant slut. We also passed…”(and so it goes)

Everything else in your post-agreed.

Frazzled wrote:That doesn't mean he's not left wing Polonius, just incompetent. Many will argue - and I bet this is a future debate point - that he spent the first year on “misplaced priorities.” I can hear it now…

Romney: “Mr. President while millions of people were being laid off you spent an entire year attempting to pass a multi thousand page healthcare people that the American people didn’t want, a cap and tax bill that never made it through your own Senate, and tried to get known terrorists tried in New York City, making the city a magnate for new attacks.”

Obama: “Jane you ignorant slut. We also passed…”(and so it goes)

Everything else in your post-agreed.

Yeah, he's left wing: he's a liberal democrat!

I guess the phrase an earlier poster used was "swung hard to the wacky left," and I guess if you find anything left of McCain "wacky" that's a fair assessement, but as a person with friends in the wacky left, i can assure you that "hey maybe people should be able to buy healthcare" is not on the fringes of liberal thought.

Bush II was a conservative republican, but only a democrat hack is going to call him part of the "wacky right" for the same reasons.

Frazzled wrote:That doesn't mean he's not left wing Polonius, just incompetent.

More likely it means that he's simlpy not as extreme as you want to make him out to be and he's had to try to deal with both an incompetent democratic party and an increasingly obstructionist republican party.

I would vote for Ron Paul just for entertainment value. It doesn't really matter who the president is, after all. The corporate lobbyists run the country.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:That doesn't mean he's not left wing Polonius, just incompetent. Many will argue - and I bet this is a future debate point - that he spent the first year on “misplaced priorities.” I can hear it now…

Romney: “Mr. President while millions of people were being laid off you spent an entire year attempting to pass a multi thousand page healthcare people that the American people didn’t want, a cap and tax bill that never made it through your own Senate, and tried to get known terrorists tried in New York City, making the city a magnate for new attacks.”

Obama: “Jane you ignorant slut. We also passed…”(and so it goes)

Everything else in your post-agreed.

Yeah, he's left wing: he's a liberal democrat!

I guess the phrase an earlier poster used was "swung hard to the wacky left," and I guess if you find anything left of McCain "wacky" that's a fair assessement, but as a person with friends in the wacky left, i can assure you that "hey maybe people should be able to buy healthcare" is not on the fringes of liberal thought.

Bush II was a conservative republican, but only a democrat hack is going to call him part of the "wacky right" for the same reasons.

I'm not saying he's wacky lefty fyi. Liberal yes. Incompetent, in spades. Wacky left, no.

Nah, he's not incompetent. There have been very few incompetent Presidents (Grant, Arthur, B. Harrison, and that's about it.).

He's very average, maybe a bit above average and placed into a period not befitting his demeanor, but not incompetent.

His dealings with congress have been pretty wimpy. He's backed down on a bunch of stuff. But the actual responsibilities of the executive branch have been carried out correctly.

Not getting your legislative agenda to happen can make you a mediocre president, but it doesn't make you incompetent. Incompetent means you literally cannot run the day to day white house, which he obviously can.

Rented Tritium wrote:His dealings with congress have been pretty wimpy. He's backed down on a bunch of stuff. But the actual responsibilities of the executive branch have been carried out correctly.

Not getting your legislative agenda to happen can make you a mediocre president, but it doesn't make you incompetent. Incompetent means you literally cannot run the day to day white house, which he obviously can.

Thats your standard for competent? How could you judge a president incompetent on anything then?