@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
failures art wrote:Will he be a one-timer? Too soon to say.
Makes it more fun, which way do you lean now (even if only slightly)?
In that case, I'll give the advantage to Obama. I think the GOP Primary has done poorly for any of the candidates on building a election support structure. Obama has a very impressive one. Once the GOP finally pick their front runner, they are usually very skilled at building it up, but they will be playing major catch up. More problematic for the GOP, is that it's not the GOP of old. People won't just fall into line. With the egos on many, I have a hard time thinking that people like Cain or Bachmann will be able to keep their mouth shut.
Robert Gentel wrote:
Quote:The variables are larger than the two opponents (the GOP one TBD).
It's going to be Romney. Perry needs lightning to win, and the others need not to be circus freaks, which is not in the cards.
I think you're correct, but the ticket still has to address the political dynamic. For every weakness that Romney has, the GOP will have to put a VP candidate next to him that eases the electorate. Romney's problems are that he says whatever is best in the moment, and that's even more difficult when he has to start addressing the whole country, not just the GOP. More reasons I feel that some won't be able to resist keeping their mouth shut.
I forecast Obama debating with lead in phrases like "people in your on party..." which are kryptonite for Romney because he doesn't know what the get out of jail answer is.
Robert Gentel wrote:
Quote:I think the economy is certainly a factor, but I think it's over emphasized right now. The emphasis is more a part about the general media narrative on the economy. We're being TOLD that it's important, and so many believe it is. I won't say it's unimportant, but come 6 months from now we could well be talking about something else.
Not gonna happen, the economy is almost never not the #1 issue, it would take an event like 9/11 to change that.
Its the economy, stupid.
I think that rosborne979 is absolutely right that Obama's chances will go largely as the economy does. War is pretty much the only thing that changes politics as significantly and predictably as economy does and the only way the economy won't be the top issue is if it improves dramatically or something much worse happens.
The economy puts the GOP in reach of the White House, so yes it's important. I'm only saying that the nebulous term "the economy" is processed differently by people and so it means different things. Right now, it's better to say that unemployment is the problem, not "the economy." Obama can stand in front of charts if he feels it important to do so. I think that for the effort, better energy is spent elsewhere.
Robert Gentel wrote:
Quote:The lines of discussion on the performance of the economy versus the employment rate can cut both ways. If Obama decides to adopt the more populist message, it could be validating (i.e. - good economic markets, no jobs, a failure of private industry greed, not government).
He can and should try to get on the right side of this economic issue in the hearts and minds of Americans, but the problem is that most people aren't paying attention to anything other than their wallet, and if it's lean they are pissed at the incumbents and that's that (for them). I don't think things are going to get much better for them either, unemployment benefits are going to start running out and I can't imagine an economic recovery that will make it to that level (employment rates are not a leading indicator, they trail the recovery and those folks are at the end of the totem pole when jobs are handed out).
Not to go tangential, but this is why the GOP is so mad about things like #OWS. It has robbed them of their ability to dictate the terms of the argument. They are forced to address the "whys" because the public is being introduced to lots of media that challenges their narrative.
In this regard, if Obama wins he may deserve less credit.
Robert Gentel wrote:
When the economy gets this bad, the national conscience is to lynch and demand "off with their heads." Few care about nuances like figuring out why things are bad, those are complex issues that experts don't agree on, they are just fed up and not going to take it anymore and they notice whether it happens on your watch more so than whether you are genuinely culpable.
Yes, the head-cutting desire is strong, and so the question will become, since I can't vote to remove private CEOs, but I can vote to remove public servants, will I settle for just any head I can put in a basket?
I don't know.
Robert Gentel wrote:
Quote:Still watching. I feel that the GOP lacks any real image. In other words, even if you want Obama out, no real vision of what a GOP admin looks like has really been pushed forth. Anti-Obama is not enough. We get it. The GOP's hardest task is going to be to compete with Obama's current trajectory in a way that people understand and relate to.
I don't think it really works this way, you may be a bit idealistic about expecting the unwashed masses to put as much thought into their choices as you do. Not having any plans may be a deal breaker for you but it certainly isn't an impediment to winning an election. If you have 60 seconds to elucidate your position in a political debate it's much easier to pull a "you're no Jack Kennedy" and put down your opponent than take the policy wonk approach. An anti-incumbent platform is the most common way to get elected, you don't need a great plan (just enough to make it hard for others to attack you as having no plan) because it's easier to just attack the incumbent (or the opponent in general, for that matter).
It's possible I'm being idealistic, but part of my view is rather cynical. I think the gamesmanship that has passed for classical politics was tolerated because people have not reached this degree of disenfranchisement before. Following the advent of the Tea Party, I wonder if people are willing to be sold on the "out with the old" sloganeering.
Robert Gentel wrote:
That's what Obama did to get elected, he largely just portrayed himself as the anti-thesis to the current administration and campaigned on "change". He didn't win because his plans were amazing but because there was a groundswell of dissatisfaction with the incumbent party. Obama doesn't have the anti-incumbency arrow in his quiver this time but he'll likely still use a variation of this technique by making this a referendum on character. That is, it's easier to say why someone else is the wrong person than it is to articulate a silver bullet of a plan (and even if you could come up with a simple and clear one, it may not campaign well because sometimes the right thing to do, like increasing taxes in pretty much any situation that calls for it, is unpopular).
Every new candidate carries that arrow. I think some arrows fly more true than others and hit their target. Obama still as to dodge the arrow, but he's less weighed down.
A
R
T
