Looks like the Bain attacks have had...

[WorldTraveller]

Little impact.

 

 

"It may be the political question of the summer: are Team Obama's attacks on Mitt Romney's business background working?

 

Priorities USA polling says yes. Other independent polls -- including from Gallup and NBC/WSJ -- show at least some impact.

 

But Gallup's out with a round of data for USA Today that suggests, whatever the marginal impact of the Bain assault, Romney's businessman brand is more of an asset than anything else, and that in the big picture he's well positioned on the economy:

 

By more than 2-1, 63%-29%, those surveyed say Romney's background in business, including his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, would cause him to make good decisions, not bad ones, in dealing with the nation's economic problems over the next four years. …

 

The Democratic attacks on Romney seem to have had limited effect on voters' assessments of him. In February, 53% said the former Massachusetts governor had the personality and leadership qualities a president should have; now 54% do. Then, 42% said they agreed with Romney on the issues that mattered most to them; now 45% do. "

 

 

So they've spent records amount of negative Advertising, the mainstream media shilling for their cause, and this is what they have to show for it? Ouch!

 

But yeah, keep talking about Mitt's tax returns, that's what a majority of voters care about.

[meazza]

Little impact.

 

 

"It may be the political question of the summer: are Team Obama's attacks on Mitt Romney's business background working?

 

Priorities USA polling says yes. Other independent polls -- including from Gallup and NBC/WSJ -- show at least some impact.

 

But Gallup's out with a round of data for USA Today that suggests, whatever the marginal impact of the Bain assault, Romney's businessman brand is more of an asset than anything else, and that in the big picture he's well positioned on the economy:

 

By more than 2-1, 63%-29%, those surveyed say Romney's background in business, including his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, would cause him to make good decisions, not bad ones, in dealing with the nation's economic problems over the next four years. …

 

The Democratic attacks on Romney seem to have had limited effect on voters' assessments of him. In February, 53% said the former Massachusetts governor had the personality and leadership qualities a president should have; now 54% do. Then, 42% said they agreed with Romney on the issues that mattered most to them; now 45% do. "

 

 

So they've spent records amount of negative Advertising, the mainstream media shilling for their cause, and this is what they have to show for it? Ouch!

 

But yeah, keep talking about Mitt's tax returns, that's what a majority of voters care about.

 

And it looks like less are donating this time around.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78833.html

 

Democrats say they’ve tried just about everything to get their colleagues to open their wallets. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has told members that unless they pay their dues in full, they won’t get to partake in the committee’s Democratic National Convention package, complete with access to much sought-after hotel rooms and parties. And in early June, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tried to shame her members into giving, distributing notes to each of them with a request for cash and asking them if they are part of “the team.”

[Joe Miner]

Little impact.

 

 

"It may be the political question of the summer: are Team Obama's attacks on Mitt Romney's business background working?

 

Priorities USA polling says yes. Other independent polls -- including from Gallup and NBC/WSJ -- show at least some impact.

 

But Gallup's out with a round of data for USA Today that suggests, whatever the marginal impact of the Bain assault, Romney's businessman brand is more of an asset than anything else, and that in the big picture he's well positioned on the economy:

 

By more than 2-1, 63%-29%, those surveyed say Romney's background in business, including his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, would cause him to make good decisions, not bad ones, in dealing with the nation's economic problems over the next four years. …

 

The Democratic attacks on Romney seem to have had limited effect on voters' assessments of him. In February, 53% said the former Massachusetts governor had the personality and leadership qualities a president should have; now 54% do. Then, 42% said they agreed with Romney on the issues that mattered most to them; now 45% do. "

 

 

So they've spent records amount of negative Advertising, the mainstream media shilling for their cause, and this is what they have to show for it? Ouch!

 

But yeah, keep talking about Mitt's tax returns, that's what a majority of voters care about.

 

In the same vein as the stimulus strategy, just think of what those approval numbers would have been without the attacks on Bain.

[The Big Cat]

So what?

[WorldTraveller]

In the same vein as the stimulus strategy, just think of what those approval numbers would have been without the attacks on Bain.

From what I've been reading, the Romney camp is going to begin a strong campaign highlighting all the positives stories that came as a result of Bain Capital, the net jobs created, the steel mills that they saved from shuttering, pension/retirement and endowment funds that it has helped etc. once we get closer to the convention, when most people begin to pay attention.

[Doc]

Just wait until the debates.

[The Big Cat]

From what I've been reading, the Romney camp is going to begin a strong campaign highlighting all the positives stories that came as a result of Bain Capital, the net jobs created, the steel mills that they saved from shuttering, pension/retirement and endowment funds that it has helped etc. once we get closer to the convention, when most people begin to pay attention.

 

And you think that will change minds?

[/dev/null]

In the same vein as the stimulus strategy, just think of what those approval numbers would have been without the attacks on Bain.

Just think of all the jobs these attack ads have created for people involved with politics and media.

And all the money paid to local TV and radio stations to redistribute within their communities

[WorldTraveller]

And you think that will change minds?

On the margin? yes

 

And you think that will change minds?

But you are missing the broader point, which is that no matter how insignificant you may think advertising dollars can have an impact on elections, the Obama campaign and their super pac allies have spent close to $100M over the past few months attempting to define Romney, and they are burning through more money than they are raising, which means that a large part of their electoral strategy is occurring right now, which is the "Defining of Romney" stage. The fact that the national polls, and now this poll shows that their strategy has been largely ineffective, has to be causing lots of heartburn right now at the Chicago HQ.

 

So you can compare this to shooting and missing. Now the Romney campaign will have more money to spend on ads throughout the rest of the campaign and we'll see if they shoot and miss or hit.

[The Big Cat]

On the margin? yes

 

You don't think that message just got a bit washed-out from Obama's so-called ineffectual ads?

 

Obama beat him to the Bain punch, Romney is now defensive on the issue, just in time for people to tune it out.

 

On the margin? yes

 

 

But you are missing the broader point, which is that no matter how insignificant you may think advertising dollars can have an impact on elections, the Obama campaign and their super pac allies have spent close to $100M over the past few months attempting to define Romney, and they are burning through more money than they are raising, which means that a large part of their electoral strategy is occurring right now, which is the "Defining of Romney" stage. The fact that the national polls, and now this poll shows that their strategy has been largely ineffective, has to be causing lots of heartburn right now at the Chicago HQ.

 

So you can compare this to shooting and missing. Now the Romney campaign will have more money to spend on ads throughout the rest of the campaign and we'll see if they shoot and miss or hit.

 

No, believe me, I get the broader point. See my response above.

[WorldTraveller]

You don't think that message just got a bit washed-out from Obama's so-called ineffectual ads?

 

Obama beat him to the Bain punch, Romney is now defensive on the issue, just in time for people to tune it out.

I edited my post up above, but this is an errr, interesting take on things. I addressed this point to a certain degree in my previous post.

[The Big Cat]

I edited my post up above, but this is an errr, interesting take on things. I addressed this point to a certain degree in my previous post.

 

Look, I'm not voting for either one of these guys, so I don't want my perspective to be clouded by bias.

 

Nothing either one of these guys will do is going to affect my life's trajectory.

 

But, one thing I do know about is campaigning/messaging. Obama's squad got the first black president elected.

 

Sure, there were other factors at play, but his campaigns have been very methodical and effective thus far, there's no reason to think they aren't two steps ahead of Romney. They've had a lot of time to prepare, and being the incumbent, they've got the advantage. There's little Romney can do at this point to alter their rollout plan.

 

So when it comes to devising a strategy to get votes, I'll take Obama's team over Romney's any day.

[Doc]

You don't think that message just got a bit washed-out from Obama's so-called ineffectual ads?

 

Obama beat him to the Bain punch, Romney is now defensive on the issue, just in time for people to tune it out.

That's one theory, but mostly wrong. Again the attacks have had minimal impact, or if they had an impact, it was quickly reversed. When the debates roll around and Romney gets to rebut Barry's attacks on Bain, you'll see that the issue hasn't been set in stone.

[Joe Miner]

And it looks like less are donating this time around.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78833.html

 

This is what I'm most curious about for Obama.

 

I wonder how much money his campaign will end up spending, and if that will be enough to get him a victory.

[WorldTraveller]

Look, I'm not voting for either one of these guys, so I don't want my perspective to be clouded by bias.

 

Nothing either one of these guys will do is going to affect my life's trajectory.

 

But, one thing I do know about is campaigning/messaging. Obama's squad got the first black president elected.

 

Sure, there were other factors at play, but his campaigns have been very methodical and effective thus far, there's no reason to think they aren't two steps ahead of Romney. They've had a lot of time to prepare, and being the incumbent, they've got the advantage. There's little Romney can do at this point to alter their rollout plan.

 

So when it comes to devising a strategy to get votes, I'll take Obama's team over Romney's any day.

 

Getting the first black man voted as president is an accomplishment, but I don't see that so much as an accomplishment from the Obama camp as much as I do our society.

 

In regards to "other factors at play" ummmmm, yeah! How about a sitting president who was tremendously unpopular? And what about an even more unpopular war? What about an economy that was falling precipitously, and it's a no brainer that the blame goes towards the incumbent in those cirumstances.

 

"There is no reason to think they aren't two steps ahead of Romneys camp" mmmmm, actually there are quite a few reasons to think that. How about the polling numbers which show a tight race. Or how about the point that I just made, they've spent $100M worth of attack ads, and have a friendly press on their side during this latest onslaught and their strategy hasn't moved the needle at all. You are basing your confidence off of past results, I'm basing mine off of empirical data. So while you say you have no stake in this game, it would appear your conclusion is derived more through emotion than anything else.

 

However, I will agree with you that they do have the advantage of incumbency, and that is a large advantage to have. You would have to be a very weak president to lose as incumbent.

[Doc]

Look, I'm not voting for either one of these guys, so I don't want my perspective to be clouded by bias.

 

Nothing either one of these guys will do is going to affect my life's trajectory.

 

But, one thing I do know about is campaigning/messaging. Obama's squad got the first black president elected.

 

Sure, there were other factors at play, but his campaigns have been very methodical and effective thus far, there's no reason to think they aren't two steps ahead of Romney. They've had a lot of time to prepare, and being the incumbent, they've got the advantage. There's little Romney can do at this point to alter their rollout plan.

 

So when it comes to devising a strategy to get votes, I'll take Obama's team over Romney's any day.

Correction, they got as half-black half-white man elected. Over a septuagenarian who looked frail and who picked a dingbat for a running mate. Using a message of "hope and change" from the previous opposite party regime.

[Taro T]

Look, I'm not voting for either one of these guys, so I don't want my perspective to be clouded by bias.

 

Nothing either one of these guys will do is going to affect my life's trajectory.

 

But, one thing I do know about is campaigning/messaging. Obama's squad got the first black president elected.

 

Sure, there were other factors at play, but his campaigns have been very methodical and effective thus far, there's no reason to think they aren't two steps ahead of Romney. They've had a lot of time to prepare, and being the incumbent, they've got the advantage. There's little Romney can do at this point to alter their rollout plan.

 

So when it comes to devising a strategy to get votes, I'll take Obama's team over Romney's any day.

Regarding the 1st bolded: how much more difficult will it be for the next legitimate African American candidate to win election after the past 4 years of "amateur hour?"

 

Regarding the 2nd bolded: what reason, other than the President has run effective campaigns in the past is there to believe he and his team are "two steps ahead of Romney?"

[The Big Cat]

That's one theory, but mostly wrong. Again the attacks have had minimal impact, or if they had an impact, it was quickly reversed. When the debates roll around and Romney gets to rebut Barry's attacks on Bain, you'll see that the issue hasn't been set in stone.

 

You say I'm wrong, then simultaneously confirm that Obama has painted Romney into a defensive corner on Bain.

 

Getting the first black man voted as president is an accomplishment, but I don't see that so much as an accomplishment from the Obama camp as much as I do our society.

 

In regards to "other factors at play" ummmmm, yeah! How about a sitting president who was tremendously unpopular? And what about an even more unpopular war? What about an economy that was falling precipitously, and it's a no brainer that the blame goes towards the incumbent in those cirumstances.

 

"There is no reason to think they aren't two steps ahead of Romneys camp" mmmmm, actually there are quite a few reasons to think that. How about the polling numbers which show a tight race. Or how about the point that I just made, they've spent $100M worth of attack ads, and have a friendly press on their side during this latest onslaught and their strategy hasn't moved the needle at all. You are basing your confidence off of past results, I'm basing mine off of empirical data. So while you say you have no stake in this game, it would appear your conclusion is derived more through emotion than anything else.

 

However, I will agree with you that they do have the advantage of incumbency, and that is a large advantage to have. You would have to be a very weak president to lose as incumbent.

 

John McCain would have beaten a weaker Democratic candidate. Obama forced a tactical hand or two from the McCain camp. Again, I'm not ignoring certain enormously important factor (too many to list out while at work), but to say Obama didn't run a near perfect campaign (given the political latitudes of the time) is an opinion clouded in bias.

 

 

Correction, they got as half-black half-white man elected. Over a septuagenarian who looked frail and who picked a dingbat for a running mate. Using a message of "hope and change" from the previous opposite party regime.

 

What's your point?

 

Regarding the 1st bolded: how much more difficult will it be for the next legitimate African American candidate to win election after the past 4 years of "amateur hour?"

 

Regarding the 2nd bolded: what reason, other than the President has run effective campaigns in the past is there to believe he and his team are "two steps ahead of Romney?"

 

Question one: there won't many minds changed in this election, yours included, I gather. Just know that there are still a **** ton of Americans who do NOT share your opinion on the President, and see other barriers to success (laregely the GOP Congress) as more significant factors. That's not my opinion, that's just truth. Plus, if they can mobilize the black vote again, and there's no reason to think they can't, that's an entire demo they have completely locked up. Women too. I'm not saying these people are right or wrong to support Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that they do.

 

Question two: well, what evidence do we have--other than his record breaking/Super Bowl winning performances--do we have that Tom Brady is a decent quarterback? To go a step further, I made the assessment of Obama's team in relation to Romney's. So, just as Obama's has proven themselves sharp, Romney's has proven themselves dull.

[Doc]

You say I'm wrong, then simultaneously confirm that Obama has painted Romney into a defensive corner on Bain.

Where did I "confirm that Barry has painted Romney into a defensive corner on Bain?" I did no such thing. There is no corner, much less has Romney been painted into it. Again the attacks on Bain have shown to be fruitless mostly, and that's with Romney's bare-minimum rebuttals so far. When he gets to the debates and gets to counter Barry's claims, you'll see who is painted into a corner.

 

What's your point?

My point is that it's not like Barry being half-white didn't help him a ton, or that he was running against a super-team of opponents, or that he didn't represent a change from the previous party who held power while the country went into turmoil. You're basing your faith on his team over stuff that largely he/they had no control over.

[WorldTraveller]

 

John McCain would have beaten a weaker Democratic candidate. Obama forced a tactical hand or two from the McCain camp. Again, I'm not ignoring certain enormously important factor (too many to list out while at work), but to say Obama didn't run a near perfect campaign (given the political latitudes of the time) is an opinion clouded in bias.

 

 

 

 

Just know that there are still a **** ton of Americans who do NOT share your opinion on the President, and see other barriers to success (laregely the GOP Congress) as more significant factors. That's not my opinion, that's just truth. Plus, if they can mobilize the black vote again, and there's no reason to think they can't, that's an entire demo they have completely locked up.

 

This was Obama's race to lose, hell even John Kerry would of defeated McCain by 5+ % . This was as bad of a year as you could of scripted for a conservative to run. I already listed the reasons, if you don't recognize that, then we can't really go any further regarding this point.

 

 

 

And to your second point, again, this is something that you believe that is not supported by empirical data.

 

From Today:

 

Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.

 

It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame, followed by 23 percent who say Congress is the culprit. Twenty percent point the finger at Wall Street, and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.

 

 

 

So while I understand that you may actually believe what you said, it's simply not backed up by data.