News Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate - Ever

[mheslep]

It's not prejudiced, it's just a fact that the deep south is the venue of the longest lasting classic examples of prejudice policies (i.e. state-sanctioned prejudices: slavery, segregation, banning women from voting, banning inter-racial marriages. ...

Yes you used 'policies' this time as opposed to only 'examples' the first time and two are different. I agree the prejudice and oppression of the large minority groups in the old south were accompanied by, and institutionalized through, government policies. With small, even tiny, minority populations elsewhere that continue to this day (New Hampshire 1.3% black) the friction hardly registers. My objection is there are examples of prejudice where ever one finds minority groups.

 

[mheslep]

When I say the rich want to take the poor's last dime, I mean it. The poor in this country, particularly the 47% who do not pay taxes, have almost nothing to their name compared to the rich.

Nonsense. I drive through work through one of the poorest areas in my state and I drive past row house after row house with satellite tv antennas. Labeling such people "poor" is pure fantasy.

Hopefully the conversation can move on beyond the tiresome claim that the US 'poor' have nothing and stipulate the facts.

In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, a clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The relevant argument now seems to be that in order to have a stable society those with low earnings need be granted parity with the top earners, regardless of the baseline. I think Carville articulated that point a couple months ago.

 

[Gokul43201]

...

3. You said "rich people wanting to take their last dime". The rich do not take money from the poor via taxes (net). The wealth transfer is heavily from the upper to the lower. This is a highly misleading propaganda-type statement at best.

It seems to me like the rich and the poor get federal tax money from the middle.

The lower 46% (or so) earn some small fraction, 'f%' of the "pie" and pay less than 0% federal income tax (and therefore less than f%), so they are contributing less than their share.

Similarly, going by the numbers you cited in an earlier post (top 25% pay 87% of fed taxes), we find that the top 20% of income earners make 93% of the pie, but only pay about 70-75% of Fed taxes, so they're not paying a proportional share either.

I believe this means the group in the middle, occupying a range of incomes from the 47 percentile to about the 80 percentile, pay a disproportionately large share of their incomes as Fed income taxes. The money flows both upward and downward from this group.

 

[russ_watters]

"getting" and "not paying their share" are two very different things.

Edit: That said, I do agree with the general sentiment that the upper middle class get hit the hardest, measured using effective tax rates.

 

[Oltz]

It seems to me like the rich and the poor get federal tax money from the middle.

The lower 46% (or so) earn some small fraction, 'f%' of the "pie" and pay less than 0% federal income tax (and therefore less than f%), so they are contributing less than their share.

Similarly, going by the numbers you cited in an earlier post (top 25% pay 87% of fed taxes), we find that the top 20% of income earners make 93% of the pie, but only pay about 70-75% of Fed taxes, so they're not paying a proportional share either.

I believe this means the group in the middle, occupying a range of incomes from the 47 percentile to about the 80 percentile, pay a disproportionately large share of their incomes as Fed income taxes. The money flows both upward and downward from this group.

Gokul you are conflating two separate statics the 93% number is controlled wealth that includes all assets, property and other holdings.

The income pie is broken up as follows from this source the 2009 numbers are what I have on hand.
http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats---Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Tax-Rate-and-Income-Percentile

These are percents of all AGI "share" and all Federal income tax paid so this does not even include net negative from pay outs.

TOP quartile AGI income share 65.81% Taxes paid 87.3% of all federal income taxes paid.

Q3 50-75% earners Income 20.71% Taxes paid 10.45%

Bottom half Income 13.48% Taxes paid 2.25%

So no the upper class pays more then they make. Accumulated assets are not a valuable measure for tax comparison.

 

[Evo]

So no the upper class pays more then they make. Accumulated assets are not a valuable measure for tax comparison.

Uhm, no, the upper class does not pay more than they make. And "adjusted gross income" doesn't take into consideration the amount of real income.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

My vote would be for this one, in a speech to a group of African-Americans:

My heart is as black as yours.

However, the silly season is still in full swing. I look forward with trepidation to the nonsense we are going to hear from these two featherweights right up until the day we get to say which political philosophy we adhere to.

 

[Oltz]

Uhm, no, the upper class does not pay more than they make. And "adjusted gross income" doesn't take into consideration the amount of real income.

I am sorry you are correct they do not pay "more" then they make they pay a larger share of taxes then the share of income they recieve.

AGI is what you are taxed on in the US so why would we not use that as the basis of this conversation?

What "real income" would you like to use? Does that mean we use the "real income" to determine who is poor so no child tax credits or allowances for filling jointly or any other deductions cause the bottom end does not talk about "real income" either.

I personally am all for these basic deductions and allowances after all most loopholes were created for a reason.

If we go back and look that reason was typically to help those on the borderline of tax brackets move down if they are supporting other people in addition to themselves.


I guess we cold discriminate and say you get a tax break for having kids but only if you make less then 250K a year and you get a break for filling jointly but only if you combined income is less then 200k a year. You can write off business expenses but only if you make under 100K a year those people do not get any loopholes to exploit. I seem to recall this nation not wanting to target legislation like that at certain minority groups though.

Since this conversation is about income tax and not property tax or capital gains tax or inheritance tax or payroll tax or sales tax or state taxes or energy tax or consumption tax or any other tax you can think of. Why do these other issues keep getting brought up and nobody mentions that they are off topic. Keep in mind all those "other taxes" the poor have to pay are also paid by the rich so kind of a moot point.We can always have a thread about payroll or any other tax if you like.

 

[russ_watters]

Oltz meant compared to income fraction, similar to what Gokul was showing vs wealth. The US doen't tax wealth, though, so Gokul's way of looking at it doesn't match how taxes are tackled...though he is of course entitled to a preference on reformulating the concept of taxation nearly from the ground-up.

 

[BobG]

In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, a clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

This is one of the strange things about earned income credit. Technically, a person with an income and enough dependents to get earned income credit could get that credit spread out over the course of the year. In practice, I'm not sure how many know they can do that, let alone know how to get that done.

Usually, people get their earned income credit in their income tax refund. So a family with 3 kids struggle along on a single minimum wage job all year long, then suddenly have more than $5000 in a single check to play with.

In a way, that's good for businesses, because even low income people become large consumers at least once per year.

But that may not be the best way to improve their day to day lives, which does raise a valid point. If low income people live without earned income credit in their daily lives, how necessary is it?

Of course, some use it to catch up on bills that have been accumulating during the year, or replace vital transportation on its last legs with a car that actually runs, and some do get advanced income credit to help them get by with monthly expenses, so you can't categorically say all people receiving earned income credit just blow it on luxuries.

Plus, I guess if you're comparing "American poverty" to someone living in the bush, a stove and refrigerator might be considered a luxury, but those are pretty essential items in an American household.

It still does raise questions just how well earned income credit works, though.

 

[BobG]

Oltz meant compared to income fraction, similar to what Gokul was showing vs wealth. The US doen't tax wealth, though, so Gokul's way of looking at it doesn't match how taxes are tackled...though he is of course entitled to a preference on reformulating the concept of taxation nearly from the ground-up.

We do, but we haven't been talking about that or including them in the calculations. We assess property taxes, inheritance taxes, etc.

 

[mheslep]

The US doen't tax wealth, though, .

...with the exception of the inheritance and state/local property taxes. Edit: too slow. Thanks BobG

 

[mheslep]

...
Plus, I guess if you're comparing "American poverty" to someone living in the bush, a stove and refrigerator might be considered a luxury, but those are pretty essential items in an American household...

Essential to what? Those items have come to be universally expected items in the American household, including things on that list like the X Box. Many of them are are far from essential, none of them if compared to what was essential for life and limb a hundred years ago.

 

[BobG]

Essential to what? Those items have come to be universally expected items in the American household, including things on that list like the X Box. Many of them are are far from essential, none of them if compared to what was essential for life and limb a hundred years ago.

Essential to keep people from cooking my dog in my own back yard.

I kind of like civilization.

 

[russ_watters]

We do, but we haven't been talking about that or including them in the calculations. We assess property taxes, inheritance taxes, etc.

Neither property taxes nor inheritence taxes are wealth taxes: Inheritence taxes are levied on the transfer of wealth, which is why they are put on your 1040 - like gifts.

Property taxes tax the value of the property in your posession, regardless of if you own the value. In other words, if you own a house valued at $200,000 and have no equity, your wealth based on your house is zero, but you are still taxed based on the $200,000 value.

 

[mheslep]

...

I kind of like civilization.

Me too, and it existed long before the items on that list.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yes you used 'policies' this time as opposed to only 'examples' the first time and two are different. I agree the prejudice and oppression of the large minority groups in the old south were accompanied by, and institutionalized through, government policies. With small, even tiny, minority populations elsewhere that continue to this day (New Hampshire 1.3% black) the friction hardly registers. My objection is there are examples of prejudice where ever one finds minority groups.

I'm contending that when prejudice is sanctioned by state policy, and enforced by law, the socioeconomic pressure is more significant. When authority condones these things, there is no one to turn to; they are our leading example of acceptable behavior. It's hard to appreciate all the things the state's power does for you when you haven't had it used against you.

 

[AlephZero]

This seems to have wandered off into a discussion about US tax policy and terminology, but isn't he essential stupidity of the MR's statement the equating of "the 47% who will vote for Obama" and "the 47% who pay no federal tax" as the same set of people? Of course both numbers are defiensible as "correct" if you accept opinion polls for the first number and and the Tax Policy Center's data for the second.

But the actual situation is that 53% of "the old" (age >= 65) voted McCain in 2008 and 52% say they will vote Romney. For "the poor" (income < $20,000) the numbers were 33% McCain, 37% Romney. (Sources: Tax Policy Center, Gallup, CNN, Census Bureau, IRS - as reported in the UK Financial Times today).

So apparently MR doesn't even care about some of the people who say they might vote for him. That sounds like a good winning strategy to me

 

[Evo]

Thank you Aleph, yes, we need to return the thread to the topic. No more off topic posts.

 

[russ_watters]

This seems to have wandered off into a discussion about US tax policy and terminology, but isn't he essential stupidity of the MR's statement the equating of "the 47% who will vote for Obama" and "the 47% who pay no federal tax" as the same set of people? Of course both numbers are defiensible as "correct" if you accept opinion polls for the first number and and the Tax Policy Center's data for the second.

But the actual situation is that 53% of "the old" (age >= 65) voted McCain in 2008 and 52% say they will vote Romney. For "the poor" (income < $20,000) the numbers were 33% McCain, 37% Romney. (Sources: Tax Policy Center, Gallup, CNN, Census Bureau, IRS - as reported in the UK Financial Times today).

So apparently MR doesn't even care about some of the people who say they might vote for him. That sounds like a good winning strategy to me

That's taking the quote out of context -- and admittedly it was badly put: Romney was answering a question on tax policy, so all he really intended was to say that you can't win over a person on taxes if they already don't pay taxes (it is in the last couple of sentences in the quote). As I said previously, he's missing that people think they have a chance to move up, but otherwise, it isn't far from the mark.

It is also why the left's anti-1% message plays better even though it is equally poorly targeted: certainly not all of the 1% will be Romney voters, but since they are a much smaller group than the 47%, Obama is much safer in ignoring them (antagonizing them!) than Romney is in doing the same to the 47%.

 

[mathwonk]

Well said Alephzero.

I will go out on a limb here and predict that this statement by Romney just lost him the election, as it should do. The only people left to support him would be those who actually agree with him, and I am optimistic enough about America not to believe that is a majority.

The point some people seem to still ignore about the 47% is that it has been made very clear that many of them are traditionally Republican voters, so dismissing them all would be a serious blow to Romney, if they realize what he really said about them. Of course many people take welfare and do not feel any stigma. E.g. there was a clip played on tv tonight of Romney's mother apparently stating that his own (grand?)father was on welfare for 4 years.

Another article online today stated that 7,000 members of the 47% are multimillionaires. In 1970 I read that Arco (a gas and oil company) had paid no corporate income taxes for the previous 5 years on profit of over $300,000,000, at that time a large sum. Indeed if Mr. Romney wants to remove any doubt that he himself has been in the 47% in the recent past, he might be well advised to release his own tax returns.

Most poignantly, his support for, and exploitation of, a tax code that allows him to pay his own taxes at a rate less than half what most of the rest of us pay, makes his comments ludicrous at best. Indeed he is not questioning that the 47% who do not pay taxes in fact do so legally, exactly as he also pays far less than the normal rate charged for actual working people.

Moreover from what I have read today, the rolls of non tax paying poor were enlarged most recently by people like Reagan and George Bush who supported tax credits for the poor (to their own credit), rather than Obama.

This suggests that many Republican presidents have been considerably friendlier to the poor than the current version of Mr. Romney.

This is not about Republicans versus Democrats, but about the debate between those who believe in helping the unfortunate and those who do not, even while they themselves are helped by others. This is like the last scene of "12 angry men", and we will see whether it is Henry Fonda's character who prevails, the voice of reason, or that of Lee J. Cobb, the last angry man.

 

[chemisttree]

That's taking the quote out of context -- and admittedly it was badly put: Romney was answering a question on tax policy, so all he really intended was to say that you can't win over a person on taxes if they already don't pay taxes (it is in the last couple of sentences in the quote). As I said previously, he's missing that people think they have a chance to move up, but otherwise, it isn't far from the mark.

What nonsense is this? He was asked the question...

For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, "Don't worry, we'll take care of you." How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?

NOT tax policy. He was asked about personal responsibility. He answered that question in terms of personal responsibility. He stupidly stated that the 47% of folks that pay no income tax are dependent on the government, that they want everything paid for by the government, health care, food, housing, you name it. He equated them with Obama's supporters... 47% will support Obama, "no matter what." You will note that he answered the question, "How will you convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?" with, "And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like." Stupidest statement by a presidential candidate, ever.

I can read, you know.

 

[mheslep]

Stupidest statement by a presidential candidate, ever.
...

There are other strong contenders for the award, not the least of which is the current guy in the chair.

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’

Comes to mind. Then there's the gaff track from Biden, who was also a presidential candidate once upon a time.

 

[mheslep]

...
Indeed if Mr. Romney wants to remove any doubt that he himself has been in the 47% in the recent past, he might be well advised to release his own tax returns.
..

I read somewhere he released them ...
http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2011/wmr-adr-return
http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2010/wmr-adr-return
http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2002/state-disclosure

 

[D H]

I will go out on a limb here and predict that this statement by Romney just lost him the election, as it should do.

Probably not. The election is still a month and a half away; the media and the electorate will have forgotten this gaffe and resultant this imbroglio by then.

You can see this right here in this thread: To those who already support Romney, this wasn't a gaffe at all. It was the truth. To those who already support Obama, this wasn't just a gaffe. It was far worse.

Those strong Romney supporters and strong Obama supporters most likely are not going to decide this election. It's only those who in that mirky middle who count, and of those, even they don't count if they don't live in one of the in the battleground states. To that mirky battleground state middle, this Romney statement is somewhere in between a non-gaffe and a clown-sized foot in the mouth kind of gaffe. There's a lot of in between there, and a lot of time for perceptions to change.

 

[BobG]

It's only those who in that mirky middle who count, and of those, even they don't count if they don't live in one of the in the battleground states.

True. The stupidest statement by Romney could wind up being his stance on wind energy - essentially he wants to let the tax credits and subsidies for wind energy expire.

That shouldn't matter, except that Iowa might well be one of those battleground states.

Wind Power and Agriculture

One of the easiest and most attractive ways for farmers to benefit from wind power is to allow developers to install large wind turbines on their land. The royalties are typically around $2,000 to $5,000 per year for each turbine, depending on its size. These payments can provide a stable supplement to a farmer's income, helping to counteract swings in commodity prices.

Not enough to make a living on unless they have a lot of windmills on their property, but enough to make a difference in a drought year.

This only affects a small number of people, even in Iowa, and shouldn't matter at all since most mostly rural states are strongly pro-Romney. But Iowa is starting to look like a very close state.

But, you could probably find one seemingly obscure policy that's important to a small percentage of people in any battleground state. The little differences that could wind up having an impact greater than one would have imagined. After all, niche voters almost never have an impact, so when they do, they ought to take the opportunity to punish just so they won't be ignored in the future.

I'd call those types of situations bad luck more than stupidity, since it would be impossible to hit every niche market and still have some appeal to the masses.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul you are conflating two separate statics the 93% number is controlled wealth that includes all assets, property and other holdings.

You're right. I was being lazy. I interpreted a previous post in this thread (where that number was cited) to be referring to share of income, rather than wealth. My bad. My conclusions are therefore wrong, as shown by the numbers you cite.

 

[mheslep]

True. The stupidest statement by Romney could wind up being his stance on wind energy - essentially he wants to let the tax credits and subsidies for wind energy expire...

Stupidity has become cuts to any government subsidy or spending program with a constituency in an election year? Good bye republic if that has become absolutely true.

The Wind PTC expires in three months. It costs about one billion a year, and expiration would only impact new wind turbines. The guys with turbines in Iowa corn fields and elsewhere continue to receive ten years PTC, including a turbine that goes up Dec 31, 2012.

Anyway, without approval of the House it doesn't matter who is President come January.

 

[mathwonk]

mheslep, i am not sure you are not joking, since even the watergate tapes only had an 18 minute gap compared to the 8 year romney tax gap, but assuming you are not:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...fa40ec-dff6-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_story.html

 

[mheslep]

mheslep, i am not sure you are not joking, since even the watergate tapes only had an 18 minute gap compared to the 8 year romney tax gap, but assuming you are not:

A gap? Is that the same thing as suggesting Romney did not "release his own tax returns"? Knock yourself out:
http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/main

Where are Obama's return for the 1990's? Because 10 years is even more than 8

 

[russ_watters]

NOT tax policy. He was asked about personal responsibility.

You're right -- not sure where I got that impression, sorry.

Regarding the impact, CNN commissioned a poll, which showed a 16% gap in people who said it made them less likely to vote for Romney vs more likely. It would be nice if they did some polls on some of Obama's gaffes last week to see how they stack up. I see the potential for an inherent negative response to even an innocuous question, as simply asking about it implies there's something in the content that should matter to voters. If nothing else, asking a similar question about an Obama gaffe would enable a comparison.
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/3091

 

[rootX]

Probably not. The election is still a month and a half away; the media and the electorate will have forgotten this gaffe and resultant this imbroglio by then.

You can see this right here in this thread: To those who already support Romney, this wasn't a gaffe at all. It was the truth. To those who already support Obama, this wasn't just a gaffe. It was far worse.

Those strong Romney supporters and strong Obama supporters most likely are not going to decide this election. It's only those who in that mirky middle who count, and of those, even they don't count if they don't live in one of the in the battleground states. To that mirky battleground state middle, this Romney statement is somewhere in between a non-gaffe and a clown-sized foot in the mouth kind of gaffe. There's a lot of in between there, and a lot of time for perceptions to change.

I wonder how productive are all these recent PW&A threads. They all were literally about throwing mud at the presidential candidates over gaffes and misinterpreting stats etc. None of them had a topic with substance for productive discussion. Should it be a right time for requesting to ban such threads? I would prefer to see threads centered around Romney and Obama policies rather than one that focus on negatively attacking the candidate himself not the candidate policies.

 

[russ_watters]

Since, as DH said, people don't even agree on what is and isn't a gaffe, I don't see how that would be feasible. Indeed, any of these recent threads could have been based on cold, rational analysis of the candidates' statements only - they just weren't.

 

[lisab]

I wonder how productive are all these recent PW&A threads. They all were literally about throwing mud at the presidential candidates over gaffes and misinterpreting stats etc. None of them had a topic with substance for productive discussion. Should it be a right time for requesting to ban such threads? I would prefer to see threads centered around Romney and Obama policies rather than one that focus on negatively attacking the candidate himself not the candidate policies.

You're such a smart and reasonable puppy .

As you know, I shot a maybe-too-subtle shot across the bow to keep the passions on simmer:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=637173

Not sure if it will work, though. Sigh.

 

[Evo]

It's the hidden insight's into what a candidate really thinks that is so much more important than what their speech writers put on paper. IMO.

We'll have more to discuss when the debates start.

 

[rootX]

Since, as DH said, people don't even agree on what is and isn't a gaffe, I don't see how that would be feasible. Indeed, any of these recent threads could have been based on cold, rational analysis of the candidates' statements only - they just weren't.

I think it's too hard to get clear picture of candidate views just by analyzing one statement here and there. Many times candidates just misspeak about their policies and it's just pointless to have a cold rational analysis on what the candidate said e.g. today. You have to account for what the candidate has been saying over for longer time to get clear interpretation of his views. No matter how rational you get, you cannot have a productive discussion based on what Romney/Obama in one single video IMO.

It's the hidden insight's into what a candidate really thinks that is so much more important that what their speech writers put on paper. IMO.

But, no one would speak a speech that goes against his/her core beliefs. Politics is messy and it's so easy to catch politicians off-guard. However, when it comes to actual policy-making and decisions, I believe President will have big group of people to consult, he will not necessarily be doing what he really thinks. I think people similar to who write him speeches will be the one who will be advising him in important national matters.

You're such a smart and reasonable puppy .

As you know, I shot a maybe-too-subtle shot across the bow to keep the passions on simmer:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=637173

Not sure if it will work, though. Sigh.

 

[Evo]

Once the debates start, I will also do what we did last election, have one thread for US citizens that plan to vote, and a thread for all others. This way we will get a clear picture of US voters.

 

[SixNein]

It's the hidden insight's into what a candidate really thinks that is so much more important than what their speech writers put on paper. IMO.

We'll have more to discuss when the debates start.

And governance is different from political campaigns.

 

[BobG]

You're right -- not sure where I got that impression, sorry.

Regarding the impact, CNN commissioned a poll, which showed a 16% gap in people who said it made them less likely to vote for Romney vs more likely. It would be nice if they did some polls on some of Obama's gaffes last week to see how they stack up. I see the potential for an inherent negative response to even an innocuous question, as simply asking about it implies there's something in the content that should matter to voters. If nothing else, asking a similar question about an Obama gaffe would enable a comparison.
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/3091

The rule of gaffes:

1) Anything a candidate's opponent claims is a gaffe is worth at least some analysis.

2) Pointing out random gaffes winds up being pointless noise. For the gaffe to have an effect, it has to support some key point a candidate is making about his opponent and there has to be more than one gaffe in the same category. In other words, the gaffes have to fit into some theme; not just be random gaffes that fade into oblivion by the next news cycle.

3) The most significant gaffes are when the message isn't really a gaffe - only the way the message was conveyed. For example - "Instead of raising taxes, we should eliminate tax loopholes that prevent everyone from paying their fair share" followed by "Everyone should pay at least something in taxes". The latter statement indicates which loopholes are going to be closed and reveal whose taxes are going to be "raised". This kind of follows from #2 - the gaffe has to mean something.

Romney's 47% statement fits into the theme that Romney doesn't care about the middle class and the poor, especially when paired with some of his statements about the poor made during the primaries.

Obama's statement at Univision's town hall, "The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside, you can only change it from the outside", is certainly a strange statement for a President to make, seeing as how he's about as inside Washington as one can get, but it has to be tied to a theme to actually mean anything. It has to be tied to the inability to get things done, not getting the wrong bills passed, for example.

A lot of tiny holes in a campaign just don't do that much damage. The holes have to be grouped together to make a single hole big enough to do real damage.

And, to be honest, even most of the gaffes that can be tied to a theme won't actually have much effect. You almost have to be lucky and have the gaffe sway some small group of voters that happen to be significant in this particular election. For example, making a gaffe that pushes a few undecided Latinos one way or the other doesn't affect a candidate's overall performance, but does hurt them in Florida, Colorado, and Nevada - states that have chance of being the tipping state, but also may wind up not mattering.

 

[D H]

You almost have to be lucky and have the gaffe sway some small group of voters that happen to be significant in this particular election.

Example: This picture swayed a small group of voters in one particular state to vote against Gore in 2000:

The rest of the nation had pretty much forgotten the Elián González affair by the time the election came around, but the Cuban population in Florida hadn't. Some estimate that this affair caused up to 50,000 Cuban-Americans to switch their leanings from Gore to Bush. No Elián and there wouldn't have been a hanging chad problem.

 

[mathwonk]

mheslep, as i thought, apparently you are not joking.

 

[russ_watters]

Obama's statement at Univision's town hall, "The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside, you can only change it from the outside", is certainly a strange statement for a President to make, seeing as how he's about as inside Washington as one can get, but it has to be tied to a theme to actually mean anything. It has to be tied to the inability to get things done, not getting the wrong bills passed, for example.

I considered that one pretty serious since "Change" was pretty much the central theme of Obama's campaign last time around. So he's acknowledging that he can't do the main thing he told people to vote for him for. Seems like it should negate his primary advantage and have people questioning the wisdom in voting for him.

Romney's "47%" comment fits with peoples' preconceptions of him on both sides of the spectrum, while Obama's is against the preconceptions of his supporters, which is why, theoretically, Obama's should be more impactful.

 

[BobG]

I considered that one pretty serious since "Change" was pretty much the central theme of Obama's campaign last time around. So he's acknowledging that he can't do the main thing he told people to vote for him for. Seems like it should negate his primary advantage and have people questioning the wisdom in voting for him.

Romney's "47%" comment fits with peoples' preconceptions of him on both sides of the spectrum, while Obama's is against the preconceptions of his supporters, which is why, theoretically, Obama's should be more impactful.

Rule of gaffes #4:

A voter's gut feeling is never wrong! Not quite the same as a voter's preconceptions, but preconceptions are heavily influenced by a voter's gut feelings - the irrational side of the voter.

Gaffes don't affect ardent supporters or ardent opponents. They affect those that are undecided specifically because there's a conflict between their irrational side (their gut feelings) and their logic side.

Rule of gaffes #5:

Except when all of your friends have been telling you were wrong all along and the gaffe provides absolute proof. It's hard to stand against the current, so gaffes can cause a person to "conform to the norm". So, you're right that Obama's gaffe can cause some Republican defectors to come back (assuming they still have any Republican friends left).

But gaffes that go against a candidate's perceived image have a somewhat limited effect - especially when one viable solution is for the voter to simply shut up about who he supports.

 

[mikelepore]

"Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate - Ever" -- I think the winner would be Barry Goldwater's proposal in 1964 to use atomic bombs in Vietnam.

 

[chemisttree]

"Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate - Ever" -- I think the winner would be Barry Goldwater's proposal in 1964 to use atomic bombs in Vietnam.

I called this the stupidest because it was the wrong thing to say to a group of donors. You don't tell someone that you are conceding 47% to 49% of the voters to your opponent and instead focus on the remaining 51% to 53% of reasonable voters, ie., voters that pay taxes. That is plain stupid. There are so many ways he could have answered that without resorting to that 'canned' 47% of americans are beholden to big government nonsense. This isn't an insight to Romney's world view IMO, it's just his restatement of the question is an absolutely idiotic way. I wouldn't be swayed to donate to someone that told me to my face that 47% of the voters will vote for my opponent no matter what. He effectively told that prospective donor that he wasn't even going to try to convince everybody that they were going to have to take care of themselves. They were going to vote for Obama anyway.

He should have started his answer with, "Everybody has a stake in the success of America, especially those who count on the Government for benefits. Retirees, the poor, sick and disadvantaged deserve our support but we can only do so much and remain fiscally viable..."

 

[russ_watters]

He should have started his answer with, "Everybody has a stake in the success of America, especially those who count on the Government for benefits. Retirees, the poor, sick and disadvantaged deserve our support but we can only do so much and remain fiscally viable..."

No, he shouldn't have.

1. These were Republican donors.
2. Donors pay big money for private dinners to hear candid answers, not fluffy drivel.

He effectively told that prospective donor that he wasn't even going to try to convince everybody that they were going to have to take care of themselves. They were going to vote for Obama anyway.

This is naive. Both candidates are doing the vast majority of their campaigning in a very small number of states (9 I think). Both are aware that only a relatively small fraction of voters in those states are undecided. The rule of thumb is 40/40/20, so at worst he was off in the amount by 7 percentage points from the conventional wisdom. He's really not that far off on this. It isn't that bad of an answer given the audience. Yeah, we get that you think it is bad, but you weren't the target audience. What makes the quote bad is mostly the fact that it was leaked. Obama's open mic comment to Medvedev was the same way.

 

[chemisttree]

Of course, I disagree. It was Reagan who said, "It is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work -- work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. ... We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen, and loving them, not reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they are sick, and provide opportunities to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?"

I really miss Pres. Reagan.

 

[russ_watters]

Did Reagan say that to a group of high-paying donors in a private dinner?

 

[chemisttree]

Did Reagan say that to a group of high-paying donors in a private dinner?

He said that during his first inaugural address. The perfect answer doesn't need to be specific to a particular venue.

You should read something uplifting once in awhile.

 

[russ_watters]

He said that during his first inaugural address.

So no. That's my point.