Examining the 2012 Campaign Character Narratives: Obama vs. Romney

[BobG]

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

How will posterity judge us . . .? That is the only question for a statesman. But before it can judge us, it must first remember who we are.

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]

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.

I'm hoping for a comeback by Nader and the Green Party http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2010/07/21/2012-green-party-presidential-candidate-___________/

or

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

hehe

 

[mheslep]

...July polls[/url], 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%).

...

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: http://www.sciencedebate.org/debate12/

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]

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

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_of_the_United_States_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]

How Obama and Romney compare on the top 14 American science policy questions: http://www.sciencedebate.org/debate12/

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.

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]

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_of_the_United_States_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.

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.



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]

blaiming Clinton...

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]

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

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

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]

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.

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

 

[BobG]

I'm not so sure. I think the Democratic base was infused, but for me, it was a "here we go again" moment. ...

You're focusing on the issues. The imagery was the big thing at the conventions.

If they make another Tom Clancy style movie, they'll want a President and Vice President modeled after Obama and Biden.

If they put Romney in a movie, he'll be rescued by Keanu Reeves... not even rescued by a real action hero like Matt Damon!

Obama and Biden owned the economic meltdown in their own way and their way had Francis Scott Key gazing through the smoke and haze and realizing that GM was still there!

There's reasons Romney appears weak.

He was one of the best governors in the US, but he hasn't been able to tell anyone about it. He wouldn't be allowed to even attend the Republican convention if he bragged about what he accomplished in Massachusetts, let alone be the nominee.

He has been a very successful businessman; very good at what he does. He can't brag about that either, because Obama's gaffe gets a slight tweak and becomes "You didn't build it! You dismantled it!" The only way Romney becomes a hero is if he ditches his wife and kids and starts picking up random hookers until he finally finds one that uses dental floss instead of meth... and I don't think he has enough time before the election to pull that one off.

After all this time, the public still doesn't know who Mitt Romney really is. Is he the person that was governor of Massachusetts, pro-choice stance and Romneycare included? Is the real Romney the Romney we see today and his Mass policies simply what he had to do to survive? Or was Mass Romney the real Romney at the time, but his views have evolved to what they are today?

Romney has to keep his strongest assets under cover. The only thing he has to work with is Obama's performance and the issues. Those are pretty strong tools, but he's still working with one arm tied behind his back.

But then again, being President during this economy should do a pretty good job making Obama look weak. Transforming this into a "hero" moment is a pretty good trick and I don't think many could do it as well as Clinton and Biden did (both were much better than Obama, although Obama certainly did prove his bravery by allowing a live microphone within three feet of Joe Biden).

So, perhaps a better candidate could present his strengths in a way that made him look strong - or perhaps this is just the wrong time in the Republican Party for someone like Romney. Let's face it. Just the 'flavor of the month' process the Republican Party went through to find a nominee shows you how excited Republicans were about Romney.

Republicans missed the boat at their convention. They thought Romney had to seem more human and more likeable. Romney really has to look stronger and I don't see how he does that when he can't use half of the successes he's experienced in his life.

 

[Evo]

Bush also got 9/11, which put us at war in Afghanistan,

9/11 got Bush re-elected. It was a positive for him. Did I misunderstand your post, it seems you were saying 9/11 was bad for him. He started the "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan.

Bush began his presidency with approval ratings near 50%.[29] Following the September 11 attacks, Bush held approval ratings of greater than 85%, among the highest for any President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush#Domestic_perception_of_Bush

 

[russ_watters]

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.

What edward and mheslep said are a little different. mheslep mentioned Bush, but what edward said implied (at least to me) that there isn't anything Clinton could possibly be blamed for because he left the economy in great shape. IMO, what Bush might have argued 4 years ago isn't what is relevant: what is relevant is what Obama might argue today.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

It's a good play, for sure: 'Romney's a member of the 1% and it's the 1%'s fault we're in this mess, so do you really want him to be president?'

But Romney can counter with: 'But I got to be in the 1% by being really really good at fixing dying companies, which makes me perfect for this job -- and Obama's shown us he can't do it.'

It is often the case that one Presidential candidate has an easy hook with no defense for the opponent, but it looks to me like this one is going to come down to who does a better job selling their message -- and if we're buying. Obama is a superstar at spin and motivation, but that act can wear thin the second time around. Romney will have better facts, but he's nowhere near as likable a persona as Obama and doesn't have an "us vs them" message to sell against Obama.

 

[OmCheeto]

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

Now that is an interesting story. I'd have done the same thing in his position. (I am part human, and am prone to letting people fall on their own swords.)

But that's a whole thread in itself. It took me weeks to figure out what actually happened.

 

[OmCheeto]

It's a good play, for sure: 'Romney's a member of the 1% and it's the 1%'s fault we're in this mess, so do you really want him to be president?'

I've gotten into a lot of trouble on Facebook by pointing out that a lot of our troubles are caused by, um, us.

Cue the music...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHTTr9y9ObE

Who are these men of lust, greed, and glory?
Rip off the masks and let's see.
But that's not right - oh no, what's the story?
There's you and there's me

People get really mad when I tell them that shopping at big box stores is a cause of unemployment.

 

[Angry Citizen]

But then again, being President during this economy should do a pretty good job making Obama look weak.

Only in America can a man be blamed for not cleaning up someone else's mess fast enough.

General response to thread: The idea that "the Democrats held total control over the legislature" is false. The Democrats are famously a herd of cats. They range from vast extremes, up to and including Bernie Sanders (a self-avowed socialist) and Joe Lieberman (more conservative than some Republicans). If they held such total control, they would've passed Obamacare with the public option and everything they wanted within a month after it was first proposed. No, the Republicans fought them on every key issue (up to and including Obamacare), and forced them to obtain absolute party loyalty in the Senate. Again, for the Democrats, this takes a small miracle.

What needed to happen was a second stimulus. However, by the time it became clear that Obama and company had underestimated the depth of the recession, guess who was back in charge of the House and had seven more seats in the Senate? Oh yes, the Republicans, whose accomplishments include voting to repeal Obamacare over a dozen times and voting down Obama's jobs bill.

The Republicans are dead. They are a dying party, and rather than evolve to the left, they've gone screaming to the right. Nate Silver predicts Obama has nearly a 4 in 5 chance of winning in November, and FiveThirtyEight has never made such an egregious error to date. The polls also suggest that a return to a Democratic House is not out of the question; and with Tea Party fools running rampant in Senatorial elections once again (Missouri, Indiana, etc), we can be reasonably confident that the Republicans will not retake the Senate. The Dems might even pick up a net gain, given that the senator from Maine retired and Warren just got one of the best advertising opportunities anyone could possibly hope for in a senate race - by which I mean a prominent speaking role just prior to a speech by Bill Clinton.

And before you say this is colored by my political leanings, I can support every single one of my claims with the exception of my prediction of a Warren victory. That is my one off-the-wall prediction this election. A hunch, if you will.

 

[Angry Citizen]

But Romney can counter with: 'But I got to be in the 1% by being really really good at fixing dying companies, which makes me perfect for this job -- and Obama's shown us he can't do it.'

In your estimation, his success had nothing to do with his father's enormous wealth and experience in politics? Besides, Bain is one of the many things wrong with this overly capitalist economy. It's just not a good selling point to anyone. If Romney had built a business whose sole existence was not preying on other businesses, the businessman angle might be helpful. Hell, I'd be willing to listen to such a person's arguments. I might even vote for a man like 2007-era Romney if he were pitted against a man like Clinton. But I won't vote for this crazy, radicalized Romney who thinks restructuring companies by laying off workers and rehiring them without pensions and fewer benefits is good experience at "creating jobs" and "stimulating the economy".

 

[russ_watters]

In your estimation, his success had nothing to do with his father's enormous wealth and experience in politics?

No, I never said any such thing. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I didn't. Hence the question mark. I also didn't say you said that. I asked if you had estimated that, as in, thought it.

 

[russ_watters]

General response to thread: The idea that "the Democrats held total control over the legislature" is false. The Democrats are famously a herd of cats.

That the Democrats had total control over the legislature is a straightforward fact -- it is most certainly not false. That they were unable to fully exploit this total control may also be true, but it doesn't change the fact. I also don't consider that a positive attribute (had control, failed to utilize it), though I'm glad they couldn't get their act together.

The Republicans are dead. They are a dying party...

And before you say this is colored by my political leanings, I can support every single one of my claims with the exception of my prediction of a Warren victory.

And, of course, pure opinions don't require substantiation.

Nate Silver predicts Obama has nearly a 4 in 5 chance of winning in November...

Published today and reflecting a convention bounce. Lotta time left, though:

...and FiveThirtyEight has never made such an egregious error to date.

And by "never", you mean in the one Presidential election and one midterm election he's predicted and using his predictions from the day before the election? Yeah, sounds a little less sure when you put it in context.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't. Hence the question mark. I also didn't say you said that. I asked if you had estimated that, as in, thought it.

So are you just bad at grammar then? The statement was declarative, but you added a question mark to it. I'm not a believer in convenient typos.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Published today and reflecting a convention bounce.

FiveThirtyEight's model accounts for this by offsetting the polls by a few points. Nate Silver is not as dumb as you think he is. Furthermore, no polls have come out with a sample size after the convention. Gallup's, for instance, is a seven day running poll that took data mostly from before the DNC (during Romney's bounce-that-never-was). Rasmussen's has data from three days prior to Thursday night and has a huge, well-known Republican house effect. In short, if there was a convention bounce, it was showing up damned early and was erasing Romney's convention bounce quick fast and in a hurry.

That the Democrats had total control over the legislature is a straightforward fact -- it is most certainly not false.

Again, the "Democrats" did not because the "Democrats" are not the "Republicans". Republicans are much more adept at party-line votes than Democrats (which says rather a lot about the Republicans). Simple as that. Would that folks like Lieberman weren't Senators during this crucial time.

And, of course, pure opinions don't require substantiation.

I would be happy to substantiate any 'opinion' you would like me to substantiate, with the exception of the Warren victory. I would be happy, however, to give you several reasons why I suspect Warren's victory is likely.

And by "never", you mean in the one Presidential election and one midterm elections he's predicted and using his predictions from the day before the election? Yeah, sounds a little less sure when you put it in context.

I'd bet money on it at this point. If the election were closer, I'd be more willing to accept that perhaps his model is inaccurate this far away from election day, but it's not. It's really, really not close at all.

 

[Angry Citizen]

So are you just bad at grammar then? The statement was declarative, but you added a question mark to it. I'm not a believer in convenient typos.

The statement becomes interrogative with the use of a question mark. English is malleable. That is its strength. I'll be sure to keep an eye on all your future posts for grammatical errors I can exploit, because surely that is the mark of a strong argument.

 

[BobG]

What needed to happen was a second stimulus. However, by the time it became clear that Obama and company had underestimated the depth of the recession, guess who was back in charge of the House and had seven more seats in the Senate? Oh yes, the Republicans, whose accomplishments include voting to repeal Obamacare over a dozen times and voting down Obama's jobs bill.

It would have helped if the first stimulus was solely focused on stimulating the economy. While good overall, the first stimulus had quite a few parts more focused on revising health care than on stimulating the economy.

Not that that's unique. An effective President uses the tools at his disposal to advance his goals and Obama effectively used the stimulus to start revisions to the health care system.

However, the first stimulus could have had the same effect for less money or it could have had a greater effect for the same money - if Obama and company (and almost everyone else including Republicans) hadn't underestimated the depth of the recession.

In fact, I found it somewhat encouraging that Obama used the stimulus the same as any other President would have. It was a sign that the economic crisis wasn't quite as serious a threat as a few economists claimed. If it were, politics as usual would stop for a bit and the President and Congress would set about doing the job they were hired to do.

Perhaps that was a somewhat naive view.

 

[Angry Citizen]

It would have helped if the first stimulus was solely focused on stimulating the economy. While good overall, the first stimulus had quite a few parts more focused on revising health care than on stimulating the economy.

I think Obama/the Democrats thought of healthcare as part of the economic woes of America. Certainly that seems to be true. An enormous sum of money is paid into the healthcare industry, part of which would be more useful elsewhere. One method of reducing these costs is to move closer to a European-style healthcare system. Obamacare will make for a nice transition to such a system, which I think is inevitable. Without Obamacare, healthcare costs would continue to rise out of control. Whether they do so regardless remains to be seen, of course, but the Democrats' logic on the matter checks out from the standpoint of deficit reduction and economics. It's just a less-obvious path of growing the economy in the long-term.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You think we don't know you're wrong?

 

[camjohn]

That the Democrats had total control over the legislature is a straightforward fact -- it is most certainly not false. That they were unable to fully exploit this total control may also be true, but it doesn't change the fact. I also don't consider that a positive attribute (had control, failed to utilize it), though I'm glad they couldn't get their act together. And, of course, pure opinions don't require substantiation.
Published today and reflecting a convention bounce. Lotta time left, though: And by "never", you mean in the one Presidential election and one midterm election he's predicted and using his predictions from the day before the election? Yeah, sounds a little less sure when you put it in context.

That most certainly is false. Yes they had a majority, and yes they failed to utilize it, but that was a direct result of not having "full control," steming from the Conservatives in the Senate; your first three points contradict each other. The democrats never had "total control." What they did have was a majority in Congress for the first two years of Obama's presidency. People mistakenly assume that this therefore means Democrats could have essentially passed any bill they wanted to do during this time as if the world was in the left's hands; anything not done can't really be blamed by Conservatives because the Democrats really just failed to get anything done.

The problem with this is that the Conservatives in the senate have been so stubborn that they have fillibustered more than 400 times in the last six years. Many of Obama's efforts -- some that include transportation funding act, a job creation act, middle and lower class tax cuts, extending food stamps (during one of the worst weeks for unemployment) among man others -- were simply brought into the painfully unproductive fillibuster process where Conservatives brought Obama's efforts to help the economy and the country to die. That the democrats use Conservative refusal to cooporate as an excuse is a perfectly legitimate one.