Obama vs Romney

Jimmy Snyder

I'd vote for Allen Fisher, but he's not running.

Obama declares war on arm-wrestling.

BobG

The campaign is getting long (and deep).

Best question of the campaign, so far, on Fox News:

The answer should have been: "Yes, it is, especially in prison!"

But, alas.....

http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/1...ylist_id=87937

Oltz

Does Obama know that Robin hood was stealing back tax money and giving it to the people who paid the taxes?

We all say he stole from the rich but the rich was the government who got rich from taxes...

Ryan_m_b

That's not really the case. The folklore goes that Robin Hood stole from the feudal oligarchs who acquired their riches through immoral means. The moral of the stories aren't "stealing from the government" or even "stealing from the rich" but "redistributing wealth from kleptocratic oligarchs".

BobG

An interesting side effect of Super Pacs is the use of third party candidates. Third party candidates still have no chance to win, but a focused effort by Super Pacs in swing states could decide the overall election - especially if the donors are anonymous.

The ideal third party candidate for this kind of effort is Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party. As an extreme social conservative, he can only steal votes from one party - the Republican Party.

He's only on the ballot in 17 states so far, but those states include Ohio, Colorado, and Wisconsin. And the former Virginia Congressman has turned in enough signatures to get on the ballot in Virginia, with his petition undergoing validation.

Granted, Virginia has the toughest requirements to get on the ballot in the nation (remember Gingrich and Perry failed to get on the Republican primary ballot), but if he gets on the ballot in Virginia, he causes grave damage to Romney's hopes in that state. Based on July polls, Obama held a 50-42 edge against Romney alone, but a 49-35 edge in a 3-way race including Goode (who polls at 9%).

I seriously doubt Goode would pull in 9% of the vote, since third party candidates never perform as well at the voting booth as they do in polls, but it wouldn't take a huge effort by a Democratic funded Super Pac to lift Goode high enough to guarantee the state for Obama.

Similar efforts in sympathetic areas of Colorado, Ohio, and Wisconsin could similarly hurt Romney in the specific parts of the state he pulls in the most votes from.

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, could also be a weapon, although using Johnson would require some very strategic targeting. Johnson is on the ballots in 40 states, including several swing states. But Johnson's effect will vary as he has conservative economic views and very liberal social views.

You could see both Republicans and Democrats contributing to separate Super Pacs supporting Johnson, with each Super Pac targeting specific areas of swing states trying to damage their major party opponent without damaging the major party candidate they support. That's a pretty tricky tactic, but could be effective if done right.

BobG

Too good to pass up: What Mitt would like to tell the Republican convention.

Strangely (or not so strangely), Romney looked like a very promising candidate at one time.... like back in 2007 before he actually started campaigning to be President. But, then again, I was one that listened to Christie's endorsement of Romney and wished I was voting for Christie (that was an endorsement of Romney, wasn't it?)

ThinkToday

I'm hoping for a comeback by Nader and the Green Party http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2010/...e-___________/

or

www.vote-socialist.org to pull some votes off Obama

hehe

mheslep

Obama won in 2008 in Virginia. But since then, McDonnell, the current Va Republican governor won by 16 points in the 2009-10 election, replacing a term limited Democratic governor. McDonnell campaigns heavily with the Romney campaign. Three of the Va US House seats turned Republican with no Republican losses. I have a hard time seeing how Romney does not win Virginia. This Aug 24th poll has them even at 47% each.

BobG

How Obama and Romney compare on the top 14 American science policy questions: Science debate

Overall, the Romney campaign team seemed to take this a lot more seriously than the Obama campaign team and gave some surprisingly detailed answers. That doesn't necessarily mean his answers were better, but they did put in a lot more effort than the Obama team.

BobG

If you're comparing conventions, I think the Democrats clearly won.

By the end of the convention, the transformation was complete. It was process of confession (why the economy hasn't rebounded as fast as people would hope), and then a transition to a focus on why Obama is the person we need to solve the problems left by the previous administration - which also happens to be Obama's, but they somehow created a feeling that our current problems were Romney's fault and that it was Romney that failed to solve our economic problems.

In fact, the economy took on the feel of a war - a war that's been tough, but we've turned the corner and are finally triumphing over... who? The Republicans? Or is it class warfare between the middle class and the 1%, of which Romney is definitely a member?

Even a cynical person could laugh, just because they pulled it off so well.

I liken it to the 1980 primary debate between Reagan and Bush (and the dwarves) when Reagan stood at the microphone claiming he paid for this microphone and could invite anyone he wanted. It was a scene right out of the Jimmy Stewart movie, "Mr Smith Goes to Washington", and was executed so well I had to laugh, even though I was a Bush supporter and was suddenly beginning to realize he just wasn't going to beat Reagan.

ThinkToday

I'm not so sure. I think the Democratic base was infused, but for me, it was a "here we go again" moment. Blame, blame, blame, and Democrats are just victims of Republicans, even though Obama and the Democrats had absolute control of the legislative and executive branches of government for his first two years. One of the more interesting moments was the platform votes on God and Jerusalem; 3 voice votes to "pass", and the passes were booed as fakes. The voice vote sounded like a clear "no", but was ruled as "yes". I doubt Obama will ever take ownership of his presidency for anything that doesn’t work out. IMO, Obama needs to learn to eat the humble pie and be real with people about what has and hasn’t worked, as well as why (faulty assumptions, etc.) and what and why his next solution is best. We also can’t forget the Senate, under Democrat control, hasn’t passed a budget in three years!

Sure, Obama got a raw deal in the economy and the tail end of the Iraq war Bush never should have started, but let’s not forget: Bush got the ".com" bust, which took out 1/2 of my retirement and savings (hit me far more than the housing bust under Bush). The dot com bust was totally under Clinton's watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble . Bush also got 9/11, which put us at war in Afghanistan, and 9/11 trashed the economy, airline industry, our civil liberty, ego, sense of security, etc. And, let’s not forget the housing bubble was set in motion long before Bush ever took office. Some still blame Bush (e.g. Obama) but the Fed, Congress, and previous President (Clinton) carry a good bit of the burden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_...housing_bubble . It's been a long time ago, but I don't remember Bush blaming Clinton at every turn for why the economy was bad.

Evo

What I see is Romney pontificating on his political agenda, inappropriately using this questionare as a platform to attack his opponent. It's a skill to make your points without being verbose, and refrain from making a political speech as opposed to answering the questions. Obama did a much better job of "just the facts".

IMO to above.

edward

So if the housing bubble dynamics were all in motion when Bush entered office why didn't the Bush administration do anything about it?? Have you seen the documentary The Warning??

It doesn't look like Bush was alarmed at all about the housing situation in the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

As for your blather about Bush never blaiming Clinton......!!!! ; Blaiming Clinton for for what?? Bush inherited a balanced budget.

You talking points about Clinton are oranges and apples especially in this thread.

mheslep

For the Community Reinvestment Act, for letting Fannie and Freddie off the leash.

russ_watters

...for signing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

Gokul43201

Aren't you guys talking about Gramm-Leach-Bliley? I think Bush might have had a hard time blaming Clinton for signing a bill named after its 3 Republican sponsors.

mheslep

No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines