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.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nah, only igf you're a lefty yourself, lefty.

Hmm, consider reading deeper. Brooks is as skeptical of the libertarian bread and circuses as many Democrats but he is a committed disciple of Milton Friedman. Brooks's greatest crime from the Republican perspective is that Democrats actually listen to him.

I think there's something to this, Manchu. The Democrats, especially Clinton and Obama, have managed to occupy a lot of previously Republican and conservative positions that it literally gives no room for Republicans to exist in any debate. The only option they have is to just join the Democratic Party and try to influence it from within, or to go completely insane.

Anyway, back on topic, people are kidding themselves if they think this will actually hurt Mitt Romney. Those remarks are a frank statement of what his whole campaign is about -- no surprise here, folks. No one who likes this ticket even slightly is going to like it any less because Romney candidly told his fellow plutocrats what is blasted constantly on Fox News by all those passionate Ayn Rand devotees. Mannahnin mentioned earlier that many people in the 47% Romney mentioned regularly vote Republican. I'll add: and they will continue to do so. I reckon Romney could walk up them in person, spit in their eye, then have Paul Ryan punch their mother, and they'd still vote for him.

Yes, but the entire election is hinging on the 5-7% of stupid people who could go either way, and those people usually hate this type of overt class warfare.

It doesn't put any states in play, but it definitely cements President Obama's lead and will likely hurt Romney with the awful and stupid undecideds, and those are literally the only people who matter.

 Manchu wrote:
Anyway, back on topic, people are kidding themselves if they think this will actually hurt Mitt Romney.

I disagree somewhat. This comment will obviously play well to the base, but Mitt already has the base; he doesn't 'need' them to win, he needs the swing voter.

Although there's very little that I factually disagree with in this statement, it does provide fodder for media frenzy, continues to depict him as an out of touch rich person, and implicitly assists Obama.

TheHammer wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Nah, only igf you're a lefty yourself, lefty.

Hmm, consider reading deeper. Brooks is as skeptical of the libertarian bread and circuses as many Democrats but he is a committed disciple of Milton Friedman. Brooks's greatest crime from the Republican perspective is that Democrats actually listen to him.

I think there's something to this, Manchu. The Democrats, especially Clinton and Obama, have managed to occupy a lot of previously Republican and conservative positions that it literally gives no room for Republicans to exist in any debate. The only option they have is to just join the Democratic Party and try to influence it from within, or to go completely insane.

I've read in a couple of places that US politics is centered slightly to the right. "to the right of what?" is the first, and obvious question, but one article pointed out that candidates can succeed while espousing far right ideals: theocratic rule, total deregulation, leaving the UN, selling the national parks, etc. However, nobody is successful with far left ideas like nationalization of industries, legalized drugs/prostitution, taxation of religious property, or cradle to grave welfare. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but there is an inherent self reliance and vaguely religious morality to the American people that rejects the far left.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Anyway, back on topic, people are kidding themselves if they think this will actually hurt Mitt Romney.

I disagree somewhat. This comment will obviously play well to the base, but Mitt already has the base; he doesn't 'need' them to win, he needs the swing voter.

Although there's very little that I factually disagree with in this statement, it does provide fodder for media frenzy, continues to depict him as an out of touch rich person, and implicitly assists Obama.

This election is also about enthusiasm. Getting out the vote is more important now than winning undecideds. Blue collar conservatives have never warmed up to Romney, and this isn't going to motivate them to actually vote.

Are people seriously saying that there is nothing factually wrong with what Romney said?

Really? Reallllllly?

TheHammer wrote:
I think there's something to this, Manchu. The Democrats, especially Clinton and Obama, have managed to occupy a lot of previously Republican and conservative positions that it literally gives no room for Republicans to exist in any debate. The only option they have is to just join the Democratic Party and try to influence it from within, or to go completely insane.

You've got the right direction but it needs some refinement. The Democratic Party has undergone a drastic moderation since the mid 1980s. The question is, were the Republicans forced to react to this or was this a Democratic reaction to Republicans trending further right? My opinion is that for Republicans a kind of schizophrenia is the legacy of the Reagan years: you do whatever you want to in government, at the cost of huge spending, and you counterbalance it with ultra-rightist, star-spangled rhetoric. You flat-out say that you're opposed to government spending as you're signing blank checks. The Tea Party, for example, ostensibly exists because some Republicans are fed up with this -- and yet the Tea Party itself is if anything even more committed to neoliberal economic theory than the "mainstream" conservatives of the 90s. It's quite a mess. But this isn't the Democrats edging Republicans out of the debate. Let's be clear, the Democrats only wish they could wreak the kind of havoc on the traditionally regimented Republican party structure that clowns like Ron Paul manage. It isn't murder; it's suicide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:
This comment will obviously play well to the base, but Mitt already has the base; he doesn't 'need' them to win, he needs the swing voter.

I think we mollycoddle this supposed swing vote way too much. It seems to me that there are a lot of people who claim to be independents that have in fact made up their minds one way or the other long before the name Romney ever came up. Sure, there is a group of people out there who really don't have an firm decision but I don't think they're truly the "tie breakers" that we imagine them to be. The issue is not getting people to vote for you once they're in the booth; it's getting the people who want to vote for you to the booth and demoralizing the people who want to vote for the other guy so they don't bother to show up.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Polonius.

Well, the tradtional explanation is that Reagan existed as a sharp reaction to the growing welfare state of the 60's and 70's. Dont' forget, there was literally welfare available back then, for pretty much anybody that didn't work. It was also a time of rapidly expanding social spending that we now tolerate/accept/embrace: medicaid, medicare, SSI, etc.

These were well meaning programs, but most American's consider it immoral or wrong to not work when you can. That's different in other countries, by the way. We start from a position that accepting aid from society, especially in an overt way, is shameful. That level of self reliance is right of center, globally.

I think you're close, Polonius, but not quite there.

In America poor people are afraid of rich people, because rich people can fire them and evict them from their home.

In Europe rich people are afraid of poor people because they remember when poor people put the heads of rich people on spikes.

 Polonius wrote:
Blue collar conservatives have never warmed up to Romney, and this isn't going to motivate them to actually vote.

I dunno, Romney did a good job serving up apple pie at the convention. I think lower middle-class Republicans correctly perceive themselves as the most vulnerable in relation to this election. One way or another, they are going to be the least satisfied group by late 2014 so Romney effectively plays to their memories of 2010. The insight I see again and again about Romney from this group is that his personality is immaterial.

I saw some compleling evidence that the % of "true" swing voters is so miniscule that it is almost pointless. That is not where elections are won and lost.

We saw in 2010 the "real" election process. Demotivate your opponents base, and whip up yours. Swing voters play little part in the decision so don't matter. Instead, you try to convince others that their vote is useless. That both parties represent the same thing, so don't go vote, the government is in gridlock, nothing will change, etc. Then, you tell your specific voting blocks exactly what they want to hear to get them to the polls about abortion, guns, and gays.

Therefore, moderation is for chumps!

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Blue collar conservatives have never warmed up to Romney, and this isn't going to motivate them to actually vote.

I dunno, Romney did a good job serving up apple pie at the convention. I think lower middle-class Republicans correctly perceive themselves as the most vulnerable in relation to this election. One way or another, they are going to be the least satisfied group by late 2014 so Romney effectively plays to their memories of 2010. The insight I see again and again about Romney from this group is that his personality is immaterial.

And I suppose I underestimate the level to which people dislike Obama. It's pretty similar to Kerry in that way.

But... man. Lower middle class social conservatives would get almost nothing out of a Romney presidency, except perhaps a few supreme court justices.

While Romney might be the most personally conservative person to run in a while, I can't imagine he cares very much about social issues.

Easy E speaks the truth.

Not that it matters, there's no credible electoral path to victory for Mittens.

4 More Years! 4 More Years! 4 More Years!

 Polonius wrote:
Well, the tradtional explanation is that Reagan existed as a sharp reaction to the growing welfare state of the 60's and 70's.

And I think that's correct. But the canonization of Reagan as the patron saint of libertarianism is emblematic of this ever rightward trajectory. It's not a coincidence but a bullet point on the neoliberal model of public policy: plan the economy but talk (loudly) about the invisible hand. What passes for conservatism among Republicans strikes me as an outright sham. So I find myself in a certain section of the Big Tent party.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
Lower middle class social conservatives would get almost nothing out of a Romney presidency, except perhaps a few supreme court justices.

For the lower middle class, voting Republican has been about voting against your interest for all of my short life.

While Romney might be the most personally conservative person to run in a while, I can't imagine he cares very much about social issues.

The real question is, could he care less?

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Well, the tradtional explanation is that Reagan existed as a sharp reaction to the growing welfare state of the 60's and 70's.

And I think that's correct. But the canonization of Reagan as the patron saint of libertarianism is emblematic of this ever rightward trajectory. It's not a coincidence but a bullet point on the neoliberal model of public policy: plan the economy but talk (loudly) about the invisible hand. What passes for conservatism among Republicans strikes me as an outright sham. So I find myself in a certain section of the Big Tent party.

Well, never forget that nobody who is in the free market wants it to remain a free market. The end game for any successful enterprise is to control your market. Crony capitalism is no more a free market than a centrally planned economy.

Ideology is for speeches. Actions are to benefit somebody, somewhere. The only questions are who pays, and who benefits.

Clearly there is a certain amount of swing or there would never be any variation in election results.

Presumably there is a spectrum of opinion covering hardcore left/right, softcore left/right, and the undecided middle.

The point of electioneering is to get more of the softcore people on to your side as well as the middle.

Indeed, a Free market works when businesses are trying to make it a controlled monopoly, but are prevented from doing so by their competitors and market forces.

Hey, Polonius might join me in the heroic struggle against the evils of capitalism!

Crony capitalism is capitalism. There exists no possibility where a company will do anything it can in its power, including violating any notion of "free market", to maximize its profit.

Trying to differentiate "crony capitalism" from the "pure and good capitalism" is just a lie liars tell people.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Clearly there is a certain amount of swing or there would never be any variation in election results.

Presumably there is a spectrum of opinion covering hardcore left/right, softcore left/right, and the undecided middle.

The point of electioneering is to get more of the softcore people on to your side as well as the middle.

there is swing, but that tends to occur in the time between elections, not during the elections themselves. Meaning: Obama lost some moderates in his first two years, and won some back by the third. Nobody knew exactly how many, and there are some that are making up their mind.

It's not that people dont' make decisions. It's just that: 1) people make decisions earlier than they think, and 2) even those that are consiously undecided have plenty of biases built in.

Especially when an incumbent is running, people tend to have a strong opinion about that candidate. It's hard to choose de novo between a fresh candidate and an incumbent.

TheHammer wrote:
Hey, Polonius might join me in the heroic struggle against the evils of capitalism!

Crony capitalism is capitalism. There exists no possibility where a company will do anything it can in its power, including violating any notion of "free market", to maximize its profit.

Trying to differentiate "crony capitalism" from the "pure and good capitalism" is just a lie liars tell people.

I'm not understanding the bolded part at all.

I think you messed up something there. like forgetting the word not somewhere.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Clearly there is a certain amount of swing or there would never be any variation in election results.

But the question is, where does that swing occur? I don't think it occurs discretely a month before the polls open. It's an organic development that cuts across election cycles. In my experience, people who have some serious problems with their party platform will vote for one or two presidential candidates before finally deciding to switch sides halfway through the term of the president they helped elect. Election season just mobilizes these decisions into actions, or immobilizes them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
It's just that: 1) people make decisions earlier than they think,

Funny enough, you could rephrase that as "people make decisions later than they think," and it would be just as true and get to the same meaning.

TheHammer wrote:
Trying to differentiate "crony capitalism" from the "pure and good capitalism" is just a lie liars tell people.

The free market is a little bit like free will. There is no reason to suspect that it exists, but society doesnt' work unless we pretend it does.

Good catch!

But, I think you get my point: Businesses exist to create profit, and will do anything and everything they can do to make that profit. If it means poisoning drinking water or corrupting officials, they will do it. And if business A won't, business B will.

 Manchu wrote:
Funny enough, you could rephrase that as "people make decisions later than they think," and it would be just as true and get to the same meaning.

Well, you have plenty of post hoc reasoning and all that. "Of course I always wanted this."

I think, in general, people rarely actually make decisions. Various biases, values external pressures, and filters all combine to make us act, for reasons that we later ascribe.

 d-usa wrote:
This was a year that should have handed the presidency to the Republican party on a silver platter.

They managed to knock that silver platter from the table kicking and screaming.

I'm nearly convinced they are doing this on purpose, it something new every week with Romney.

It's not that anything he said was wrong, you just can't say it if you are a politician.

What he said was both wrong and not wrong, in that some of it was true, and some of it was made up for rhetorical purposes to persuade a crowd to part with their money.

The campaign not worrying about the people that are going to vote for Obama either way is both true and reasonable. I imagine the number (47% of voters) is probably accurate as well.

The trouble comes from the rhetorical aspect of turning all of those 47% into unemployed government dependents, which is obliviously a load of manure, but it was manure the crowd wanted shoveled into their garden. Or some other gardening metaphor.

What, what were we talking about again?

Romney said the exact right thing for what he thought was his audience.

'Murica needs more bootstraps!

I've been a lazy piece of garbage for several years, I haven't paid income tax because of deductions... give me bootstraps to pull myself up with Mitt!

Everyone who says you're a vile caricature of Mr.Burns is just wrong, wrong I say! You're clearly a real life sneering plutocrat!

TheHammer wrote:
Are people seriously saying that there is nothing factually wrong with what Romney said?

Really? Reallllllly?

The statement that 47% of people don't pay federal income tax is factually accurate and according to the minute of research not all that misleading. The people in this group are poor working families who take the child tax credit. Or elderly households who no longer have income. Oh and unemployed households also don't pay taxes.

The other stuff sounds like bull.

nomotog wrote:
The statement that 47% of people don't pay federal income tax is factually accurate and according to the minute of research not all that misleading. The people in this group are poor working families who take the child tax credit.

My buddy makes 70k a year. He has a stay-at-home wife, 3 kids, and a house. He pays no federal taxes every year.
70k a year is more than the average college earner makes. Hes not rich, but it's not poor either.
The statement that 47% of people don't pay federal income tax is factually accurate but misleading. He still pays payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc...