Who Do You Think Will Win The Presidential Election?

[dayman]

Dude, you're really starting to disappoint me. How in the hell is the President's opinion that American entrepreneurs owe their success to the government less substantive than Romney's PERSONAL finances?

 

 

B/c that is a mischaracterization of what Obama was saying. Which is totally fine mischaracterizations fly on both sides it's valid political ammo...but Romney's nondisclosure (be it legit to attack or not...once again this is all political) is not a mischaracterization.

 

Now the substance of what he's pitching is still something the GOP can attack, the more middle class pitch and that the base of America is where what makes it work as opposed to those who ultimately succeed. They can and will still attack that narrative but Obama is running with that narrative.

 

It's less substantive in terms of it's political ammo b/c he wasn't actually trying to say they owe success to the government and will correct/be sure to say pitch his middle class value angle more delicately in the future. Where as Romney may never release any tax information.

[fjl2nd]

Romney should have taken the opportunity to call Barry a communist. Whether true or not (and what's good for the goose...), it would have really been a body blow.

 

Hope you're not serious. That would backfire in a heartbeat.

[IDBillzFan]

That said a it's not nearly as substantive as Romney's actual nondisclosure (whether relevant or not in anybody's opinion) so it wont' completely dwarf it.

I'm sorry, dwarf what? I couldn't hear you over the huge sound of people throughout the world discussing how Barack Obama believes that successful people didn't do that on their own...that "someone else did that."

 

Even some small business colleagues of mine who don't generally discuss politics are online asking "WTF is he saying?" And the dumbasses on the left are making things worse by trying to explain how by saying "someone else did that," he was referring to building the roads and bridges. Yeah, that's the ticket! Roads and bridges!

 

Try this...from Reason.

 

The president's supporters have a multipronged counterargument: Either he didn't make those comments or they were taken out of context or even if they are in context they don't matter because we should be reading between the lines.

 

....

 

There is no nebulousness here. Beyond the paragraph quoted above, Obama calls government spending "the investments that grow our economy." He ridicules the tendency of Americans to brag about being hard workers with a variant of "So's your old man." ("Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.") He instinctively names "a great teacher" when looking for somebody to credit for causing success in the working world. The president has boldly presented his view on how an economy works. His supporters should give him the respect of taking his words seriously.

[Rob's House]

B/c that is a mischaracterization of what Obama was saying. Which is totally fine mischaracterizations fly on both sides it's valid political ammo...but Romney's nondisclosure (be it legit to attack or not...once again this is all political) is not a mischaracterization.

 

Now the substance of what he's pitching is still something the GOP can attack, the more middle class pitch and that the base of America is where what makes it work as opposed to those who ultimately succeed. They can and will still attack that narrative but Obama is running with that narrative.

 

It's less substantive in terms of it's political ammo b/c he wasn't actually trying to say they owe success to the government and will correct/be sure to say pitch his middle class value angle more delicately in the future. Where as Romney may never release any tax information.

How is he being mischaracterized? Claiming entrepreneurs owe their success to the government is exactly how it's being characterized, and is probably the most outrageous thing a sitting President has ever said out loud in public. If you don't understand why that is I'm not sure I can help you. It's more than an outrageous statement; it's !@#$ing stupid.

 

Edit: His statement was worse than what you deem a mischaracterization. His point is basically that we're all in it together, everyone contributes to everyone else's success, so when the government reaches out and wants to take more from you or more tightly regulate you, you should shut up and get with the program because you're unfairly benefitting from the contributions of others.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Rob's House

[dayman]

How is he being mischaracterized? Claiming entrepreneurs owe their success to the government is exactly how it's being characterized, and is probably the most outrageous thing a sitting President has ever said out loud in public. If you don't understand why that is I'm not sure I can help you. It's more than an outrageous statement; it's !@#$ing stupid.

 

 

B/c it just is. Which is fine, of course they need to take that soundbite and run with it.

 

His message is that all things are possible based on the strength of the middle class as America's base. Not that all things are possible through government.

 

The GOP will take the other reasonable position that our wonder is more b/c of those who strive/sour and they pull the rest up...and it's them that provide the value.

 

Those are the two narratives. Obama's narrative that he is running on, and that he was speaking about is not that everybody owes the government. GOP can and should jump on the sound byte now, but over time it's just a soundbyte...and it doesn't have the staying power that the vilification of Romney's tax issues has if in fact Romney continues to not release them.

 

This general clashing of the middle class v. successful class will carry through the election b/c it's the narrative they'll both frame...it's what Obama (and probably Romney) will run on.

 

But the "all things through government" isn't something Obama is actually running on or will go around saying in the future where as Romney indicates (as of now anyway) that he won't release the additional tax information. Therefore one is a sound byte to jump on, the other appears to be a lingering problem that Romney won't address. Now maybe he will address it. Who knows. All I'm saying is sound byte not framing his pitch perfectly v. not actually doing something ... the not actually doing something is more substantial in terms of political ammo w/ staying power.

[Rob's House]

I'm sorry, dwarf what? I couldn't hear you over the huge sound of people throughout the world discussing how Barack Obama believes that successful people didn't do that on their own...that "someone else did that."

 

Even some small business colleagues of mine who don't generally discuss politics are online asking "WTF is he saying?" And the dumbasses on the left are making things worse by trying to explain how by saying "someone else did that," he was referring to building the roads and bridges. Yeah, that's the ticket! Roads and bridges!

 

Try this...from Reason.

Never underestimate the power of denial

 

B/c it just is. Which is fine, of course they need to take that soundbite and run with it.

 

His message is that all things are possible based on the strength of the middle class as America's base. Not that all things are possible through government.

 

The GOP will take the other reasonable position that our wonder is more b/c of those who strive/sour and they pull the rest up...and it's them that provide the value.

 

Those are the two narratives. Obama's narrative that he is running on, and that he was speaking about is not that everybody owes the government. GOP can and should jump on the sound byte now, but over time it's just a soundbyte...and it doesn't have the staying power that the vilification of Romney's tax issues has if in fact Romney continues to not release them.

 

This general clashing of the middle class v. successful class will carry through the election b/c it's the narrative they'll both frame...it's what Obama (and probably Romney) will run on.

 

But the "all things through government" isn't something Obama is actually running on or will go around saying in the future where as Romney indicates (as of now anyway) that he won't release the additional tax information. Therefore one is a sound byte to jump on, the other appears to be a lingering problem that Romney won't address. Now maybe he will address it. Who knows. All I'm saying is sound byte not framing his pitch perfectly v. not actually doing something ... the not actually doing something is more substantial in terms of political ammo w/ staying power.

Okay, two things. First, "it just is" isn't worth typing. It's not an argument nor is it in any way informative.

Second, you're the one mischaracterizing his statements. It takes a big stretch to come to your conclusion. I get it that you got on board with this guy and to recognize that he's a straight up Marxist is hard to swallow, but be honest with yourself, you'll be a better person for it.

 

Edit: Look at the context. We've long suspected this guy was a socialist. From his upbringing, to his associations, to his writings. Even in his first campaign he let his true feelings about spreading the money around slip out. Now he's out here regurgitating Marxist collectivist rhetoric and you claim it's some endorsement of the strength of the middle class in a capitalist system? I think you're stretching here. Maybe in a full split at this point.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Rob's House

[dayman]

 

Edit: His statement was worse than what you deem a mischaracterization. His point is basically that we're all in it together, everyone contributes to everyone else's success, so when the government reaches out and wants to take more from you or more tightly regulate you, you should shut up and get with the program because you're unfairly benefitting from the contributions of others.

 

 

That'll be the way you and many choose to take his pitch as, and thus you won't identify with it, but that isn't what his pitch will be.

 

It's simple he'll say the middle class makes it all possible and the other side will say the upper class pulls everyone up. It's all nonsense b/c they're both true. But this is what they'll run on and see what resonates more and who can pitch their nonsense better.

 

The reason I say the attack on his quote there is less substantial is simply b/c it was not well said and a blurb they will attack, but it is something he'll be able to clarify given the long term pitch of his campaign. Where as Romney's tax attack isn't something his pitch over time does anything to clarify or marginalize. The tax attacks will probably continue to November unless he releases some more...just my opinion it won't just go away. The attacks on one quote when Obama will continue to give his pitch...that will fade that much if obvious.

 

Hence, the tax issue will stick around longer than the current Obama blurb.

 

 

EDIT: LOL look this topic is about the politics. His campaign narrative isn't' that he's a Marxist and government is responsible for all. That is obvious. Calm down, understand we're talking messages here...and that no way in hell would anyone in their right mind run on that message.

Edited July 18, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Rob's House]

That'll be the way you and many choose to take his pitch as, and thus you won't identify with it, but that isn't what his pitch will be.

 

It's simple he'll say the middle class makes it all possible and the other side will say the upper class pulls everyone up. It's all nonsense b/c they're both true. But this is what they'll run on and see what resonates more and who can pitch their nonsense better.

 

The reason I say the attack on his quote there is less substantial is simply b/c it was not well said and a blurb they will attack, but it is something he'll be able to clarify given the long term pitch of his campaign. Where as Romney's tax attack isn't something his pitch over time does anything to clarify or marginalize. The tax attacks will probably continue to November unless he releases some more...just my opinion it won't just go away. The attacks on one quote when Obama will continue to give his pitch...that will fade that much if obvious.

 

Hence, the tax issue will stick around longer than the current Obama blurb.

 

 

EDIT: LOL look this topic is about the politics. His campaign narrative isn't' that he's a Marxist and government is responsible for all. That is obvious. Calm down, understand we're talking messages here...and that no way in hell would anyone in their right mind run on that message.

Okay, I get what you're saying here. I don't believe that's what he was saying, but I'm sure that's how he's going to try to sell it. I don't think he'll be able to explain that one away to anyone who doesn't really want to be convinced, but I'm sure he'll try to.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Rob's House

[Adam]

How is he being mischaracterized? Claiming entrepreneurs owe their success to the government is exactly how it's being characterized, and is probably the most outrageous thing a sitting President has ever said out loud in public. If you don't understand why that is I'm not sure I can help you. It's more than an outrageous statement; it's !@#$ing stupid.

 

Edit: His statement was worse than what you deem a mischaracterization. His point is basically that we're all in it together, everyone contributes to everyone else's success, so when the government reaches out and wants to take more from you or more tightly regulate you, you should shut up and get with the program because you're unfairly benefitting from the contributions of others.

It doesn't matter- mischaraterization has been going on for a long time in elections. With the amount of research voters do, it isn't surprising.

[dayman]

Okay, I get what you're saying here. I don't believe that's what he was saying, but I'm sure that's how he's going to try to sell it. I don't think he'll be able to explain that one away to anyone who doesn't really want to be convinced, but I'm sure he'll try to.

 

 

At it's core it's going to be "Blue Collar Obama" v. "White Collar Romney" and Obama is going to be able to explain/appeal to people pretty well in that way. And Romney will be able to sell his pitch well as well.

 

All I was saying with regards to the Obama blurb is that even though a botch, it's somewhat on message with his blue collar pitch and it will be naturally clarified and damage minimized as a matter of course. Where as Romney's tax issues and any suspicion over that they keep drummed up while the campaign goes on hurt his pitch and won't be explained by it. Hence...one will last longer. They will hammer Romney on taxes until the end or until they're released.

Edited July 18, 2012 by TheNewBills

[IDBillzFan]

"Blue Collar Obama"

Are you freaking kidding me? In what world do you think Obama has any knowledge, understanding or connection with blue collar workers? Trying to sell a "Blue Collar Obama" is like trying to sell a Sexy Helen Thomas.

 

Blue Collar Obama. That's priceless, man.

[B-Man]

Dr. Charles Krauthammer on why Mitt Romney should not release more tax returns:

 

"Because once you do it, it never stops. And you concede the premise to the opposition that he is hiding something. Give them three years — they want six. If you give them six — they want 10.

 

And this is playing into the Obama strategy. I disagree that Romney talking about what Obama said in Virginia — about private enterprise being ultimately rooted in government — is somehow a distraction, a way to change the subject. Tax returns and Bain are a distraction. The real issue of the campaign is precisely what Obama said. That’s precisely at the center of the division between left and right, between Republican and Democratic. How do you see free enterprise capitalism in American society? Obama said clearly that it’s rooted in — its success is the result of government, [government-created] infrastructure.

 

And the worst part about it he says: It’s because we’re all in this together. It’s society that ultimately supports you. Yes, society. But Obama always identifies society or collective action with government. In fact, society is civil society. It’s the family. It’s the church. It’s the little platoons that were talked about in Tocqueville about how Americans organize themselves in organizations that are voluntary. That’s society, that’s what sustains us, not government.

 

And this emphasis on government — that it’s at the root of all good in America — is what is wrong with the Obama vision. And that is what Romney ought to attack. That is what the campaign ought to be about."

 

.

[....lybob]

How is he being mischaracterized? Claiming entrepreneurs owe their success to the government is exactly how it's being characterized, and is probably the most outrageous thing a sitting President has ever said out loud in public. If you don't understand why that is I'm not sure I can help you. It's more than an outrageous statement; it's !@#$ing stupid.

 

Edit: His statement was worse than what you deem a mischaracterization. His point is basically that we're all in it together, everyone contributes to everyone else's success, so when the government reaches out and wants to take more from you or more tightly regulate you, you should shut up and get with the program because you're unfairly benefitting from the contributions of others.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that alone. Others helped make that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

 

 

 

Rob you seem to be a little more shrill and emotional than usual.

[SactoBillFan]

Wow I read almost all the posts. Back to the OPs question. Despite most of the dislike for the President on this board, he's most likely going to be reelected. Why? Because historically incumbents most often do. In recent history it's understandable why Ford and Carter didn't and I think the Ross Perot had a lot to do with the first Bush (at least it would have been closer). Americans usually don't fire their President. If I were to bet it would be Obama.

 

My 2 cents...

[Rob's House]

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that alone. Others helped make that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

 

 

 

Rob you seem to be a little more shrill and emotional than usual.

I'm told the tone of my writing comes off as aggressive (my boss actually said this yesterday). If you heard the words in my spoken voice you wouldn't find it shrill or overly emotional.

[3rdnlng]

Obama's statement is right up there with:

 

"I voted for it before I voted against it."

 

"We have to pass it to see what's in it."

 

"Read my lips, no more taxes."

 

Heard on the news today a clip of a Romney speech:

 

"In the last 6 months Barack Obama has held 100 fundraisers while not meeting with his Job Council once. Whose job do you think he's worried about?"

[Doc]

Hope you're not serious. That would backfire in a heartbeat.

Funny that tossing out "vulture capitalist" and "felon" didn't backfire on Barry. I say throw crap against a wall and see what sticks because Barry is sinking to new lows and apparently that's all some people understand.

[dayman]

Wow I read almost all the posts. Back to the OPs question. Despite most of the dislike for the President on this board, he's most likely going to be reelected. Why? Because historically incumbents most often do. In recent history it's understandable why Ford and Carter didn't and I think the Ross Perot had a lot to do with the first Bush (at least it would have been closer). Americans usually don't fire their President. If I were to bet it would be Obama.

 

My 2 cents...

 

 

There's actually a fantastic documentary on HBO on demand about Bush Sr. and he's real frank and open but when asked if he'll talk about Perot he just says: "No...I don't like him and I think he cost me the election and that's all I'll say about that." lol

[IDBillzFan]

If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that alone. Others helped make that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

You know what's funny? You added one little word to soften the blow, and it stands out like a sore thumb.

 

He didn't say "...you didn't build that alone." He said "...you didn't build that."

 

BIG difference. But nice try.

[Rob's House]

I see great irony in the characterization of Obama as the blue-collar President and Romney as the white-collar guy. In reality, liberal policies benefit the very rich and very poor (if you don't count the opportunity the poor are deprived of) mostly at the expense of the middle class. A good example is the ACA.

 

This is why people like Chris Matthews don't understand why the middle class vote "against their economic interests" (Republican), because in his elitist bubble little Chrissy doesn't understand that his party does next to nothing to help those people, but does a great deal, both directly and indirectly, to deprive them of wealth and opportunity.