2012 Presidential Campaign

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Apparently Michelle killed it - I didn't see, but will have to check it out. Looking forward to Bill's speech tonight - he's still without a doubt the best public speaker we've had in the office in my lifetime, so my expectations are high and I'll probably tune in live for it.

I was reading an article about reviews of Michelle Obama's speech last night and the social media activity surrounding it -- twice as much traffic as Romney's acceptance speech.

As I was reading the article, I though that Bill Clinton has a hell of a job to do tonight -- he has to follow Michelle Obama, and the expectations are ridiculous high. There is no way he can meet these expectations.

Then I realized, that has been said about Clinton many times since he fumbled the 1988 Dukakis nomination speech, and he has cleared the bar every time. Will be interesting to see if he can pull a rabbit out of the hat one more time.

[ISiddiqui]

Truth. We are talking about Bill Clinton here. No one in the last 20 years has been able to give a speech like him, not even Obama.

[sterlingice]

And not just any speech but he does a great "come together" speech that appeals to everyone but shifts the discussion a little

SI

[JPhillips]

I don't think the points in the speech are that difficult. He has to say he cleaned up the mess in 1992 and then Bush2 fucked it all up again. Obama's plan is in line with what worked in the 1990s, but Romney wants to go back to Bush times ten.

Delivery is harder, but the basic points are pretty easy to see.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think the points in the speech are that difficult. He has to say he cleaned up the mess in 1992 and then Bush2 fucked it all up again. Obama's plan is in line with what worked in the 1990s, but Romney wants to go back to Bush times ten.

Delivery is harder, but the basic points are pretty easy to see.

I voted for Clinton in '96. The situation is not even close to Obama in '12. But if the kool-aid tastes good keep on drinking it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

I voted for Clinton in '96. The situation is not even close to Obama in '12. But if the kool-aid tastes good keep on drinking it.

You're missing the point.

The point is that that's Obama's plan in a general sense (not talking policy specifics here), and has been his plan, only it's taken so long to dig out of the fuckups of Bush2 that it hasn't yielded the same results as Clinton (due to starting from a more difficult starting point, and having, unthinkably, a more hostile House of Representatives who are even less prone to compromise).

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

I voted for Clinton in '96. The situation is not even close to Obama in '12. But if the kool-aid tastes good keep on drinking it.

Um, that's how politics works. It is Clinton's job to frame the debate that way even if the situation isn't exactly the same.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Um, that's how politics works. It is Clinton's job to frame the debate that way even if the situation isn't exactly the same.

And it's a narrative that passes my personal "will it work*" sniff test pretty easily.

1. Is it simple enough to convey to the average American? Yes.
2. On the surface, does it sound logical? Yes.
3. If it's not entirely true (and most successful political narratives are at least partially lies, if not completely,) is the rebuttal complex enough that the average American won't follow it, or even bother to pay attention? Yes.

Panerd, it's Presidential Politics, a silly little thing like having truth on your side just isn't all that important when it comes to winning elections.


*---"Work," not necessarily meaning "will the policy do well in the real world." "Work," simply meaning, "will enough people believe it to win the election."

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

And it's a narrative that passes my personal "will it work*" sniff test pretty easily.

1. Is it simple enough to convey to the average American? Yes.
2. On the surface, does it sound logical? Yes.
3. If it's not entirely true (and most successful political narratives are at least partially lies, if not completely,) is the rebuttal complex enough that the average American won't follow it, or even bother to pay attention? Yes.

Panerd, it's Presidential Politics, a silly little thing like having truth on your side just isn't all that important when it comes to winning elections.


*---"Work," not necessarily meaning "will the policy do well in the real world." "Work," simply meaning, "will enough people believe it to win the election."

This right here is good simple analysis.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

And it's a narrative that passes my personal "will it work*" sniff test pretty easily.

1. Is it simple enough to convey to the average American? Yes.
2. On the surface, does it sound logical? Yes.
3. If it's not entirely true (and most successful political narratives are at least partially lies, if not completely,) is the rebuttal complex enough that the average American won't follow it, or even bother to pay attention? Yes.

Panerd, it's Presidential Politics, a silly little thing like having truth on your side just isn't all that important when it comes to winning elections.

And the fact that Clinton has such a prime speaking spot compared to Bush's treatment at the GOP convention helps give the idea legitimacy in the minds of voters.

And truth is not only unimportant to winning elections, but can often be to your detriment. Mondale's promise to raise taxes at the 84 convention is probably one of the most honest political moments in history, and it was also one of the dumbest.

[molson]

I wonder if Clinton feels slighted at all by the current narrative that any inability of the Democrats to fulfill their goals/promises is based solely (or primarily, depending on the version of the narrative), on obstructionism from the other party rather than any shortcomings on their side. He has to think about how he would do if he was president today, and I wonder what his honest thoughts on that are.

[Crapshoot]

Did you guys read this piece on the Clinton / Obama relationship? Actually fascinating.

Sorry, link fixed: http://snip.it/snips/275284?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Did you guys read this piece on the Clinton / Obama relationship? Actually fascinating. Snip.it | Collect Your Web

Thanks!

[albionmoonlight]

I think that you are also seeing the GOP's* decision to portray the President as an un-hinged leftist-Marxist-Muslim come back to bite them a bit. You spend all of this time saying that the President is radically outside of the mainstream, then it rings a bit hollow when you have the personification of the mainstream--Bill Clinton--able to vouch for him.

I think that the line of attack that works much better is "President Obama is a good man. But he is a weak/ineffectual/bad/overmatched President." You were seeing a lot of that line at the RNC, but I think that it may be too little, too late.

If your reason for opposing him is that he is radical, then you don't have much on which to rely when he is shown not to be. And Clinton is a powerful antidote to those charges.

*When I say "GOP," I mean the whole message machine. Which I acknowledge is largely outside of the control of the party proper. Radical Marxist Muslim is going to get Rush the biggest ratings, so that is what he is going to say, regardless of whether it actually helps the cause or not.

[Swaggs]

Virginia is allowing a third party candidate, former Congressman Virgil Goode, on the ballot:Ex-congressman Virgil Goode makes presidential ballot in Virginia - The Washington Post

He held office in Virginia for over 20-years, is well-known in the state, and is running to the right of Romney. He had 5% of the vote (in VA) in a poll a few months ago. Could be a big x-factor in a close race there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

the personification of the mainstream--Bill Clinton--

{giggle}

[sterlingice]

This would have been a lot different race if Romney had been able to tack towards the center rather than continue to veer right to boost GOP turnout. Let's say that boring Rob Portman is his VP pick, who is much less a lightning rod, more likely to deliver a key state, and can share some "work across party lines" rhetoric. This could have been a friendly, polite race by Presidential standards (to be fair, it still kindof is) where Romney gets to go to "He's a good man but we need a good leader" which would play more to Romney's strength. Arguably, the GOP could get a lot more done this way but it wouldn't be as "pure" as the Dems have always shown they'll fold pretty quickly across party lines if presented with a deal that screws them 70-30 because they're too scared of 90-10 and too stupid to push for 60-40.

But if only 90-10 is acceptable, you end up in this position with lukewarm support for a candidate because everyone else was so batty but they all cut down the frontrunner. And now Romney is at around 25% to win, as of this morning from Nate Silver.

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I think that the line of attack that works much better is "President Obama is a good man. But he is a weak/ineffectual/bad/overmatched President." You were seeing a lot of that line at the RNC, but I think that it may be too little, too late.

I've read that this is what Rove's focus groups are saying. After fours yeas in office people don't believe Obama is a wild-eyed radical.

[Swaggs]

Saw this on Onion.


Romney, Ryan Sneak Into DNC While Posing as Caterers

[mckerney]

CP: Hackers Say They Nabbed Romney's Tax Records Through Franklin Office, Plan to Release | Pith in the Wind

A group claims to have obtained copies of Mitt Romney's tax returns and says they'll release them unless they are paid $1 million in bit coins.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Saw this on Onion.


Romney, Ryan Sneak Into DNC While Posing as Caterers

I was a bit partial to this bit on Cracked this morning:

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by mckerney

CP: Hackers Say They Nabbed Romney's Tax Records Through Franklin Office, Plan to Release | Pith in the Wind

A group claims to have obtained copies of Mitt Romney's tax returns and says they'll release them unless they are paid $1 million in bit coins.

Which begs the question, what is a bitcoin? I'm reading the wiki page but I still don't quite get it.

SI

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by mckerney

CP: Hackers Say They Nabbed Romney's Tax Records Through Franklin Office, Plan to Release | Pith in the Wind

A group claims to have obtained copies of Mitt Romney's tax returns and says they'll release them unless they are paid $1 million in bit coins.

Seems strange that Suite 260 is on the 3rd floor.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Which begs the question, what is a bitcoin? I'm reading the wiki page but I still don't quite get it.

SI

Online currency that doesn't have a central backing, but instead uses a peer to peer network. No inherent value and the price can fluctuate quite a bit (in the last year the value of a bitcoin has been as low as $2 and as high as $15), but it also can allow for anonymous transfer of money online. There are some online stores that allow for bitcoins as a payment method, though if I had to guess I don't think that's the primary use for bitcoins.

As for all of the how behind, I couldn't possibly begin to explain how it works.

[sterlingice]

I got that much but I guess the value of all bitcoins outstanding being worth $97M with no backing and no inherent value seems odd to me. How do you generate them? I'm trying to determine that

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by mckerney

CP: Hackers Say They Nabbed Romney's Tax Records Through Franklin Office, Plan to Release | Pith in the Wind

A group claims to have obtained copies of Mitt Romney's tax returns and says they'll release them unless they are paid $1 million in bit coins.

Maybe I don't have all the tech lingo down but is going into someone's office suite in the middle of the night, making copies of papers, scanning them, putting them on flash drives, and then physically mailing the flash drives to different entities considered "hacking"?

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe I don't have all the tech lingo down but is going into someone's office suite in the middle of the night, making copies of papers, scanning them, putting them on flash drives, and then physically mailing the flash drives to different entities considered "hacking"?

No, it definitely does not seem like hacking. Not that the news media seems to properly know how to use the term though.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I got that much but I guess the value of all bitcoins outstanding being worth $97M with no backing and no inherent value seems odd to me. How do you generate them? I'm trying to determine that

SI

How are new bitcoins created?

New bitcoins are generated by the network through the process of mining. In a process that is similar to a continuous lottery, mining nodes on the network are awarded bitcoins each time they find the solution to a certain mathematical problem (and thereby create a new block). Creating a block is a proof of work with a difficulty that varies with the overall strength of the network. The reward for solving a block is automatically adjusted so that in roughly the first four years of operation of the Bitcoin network, 10,500,000 BTC will be created. This amount is halved each four years, so it will be 5,250,000 over years 4-8, 2,625,000 over years 8-12 and so on. Thus the total number of bitcoins in existence will not exceed 21,000,000. See Controlled Currency Supply.
Blocks are mined every 10 minutes, on average and for the first four years (210,000 blocks) each block includes 50 new bitcoins. As the amount of processing power directed at mining changes, the difficulty of creating new bitcoins changes. This difficulty factor is calculated every 2016 blocks and is based upon the time taken to generate the previous 2016 blocks. See Mining.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe I don't have all the tech lingo down but is going into someone's office suite in the middle of the night, making copies of papers, scanning them, putting them on flash drives, and then physically mailing the flash drives to different entities considered "hacking"?

Richard Nixon, master hacker!

SI

[larrymcg421]

What I don't understand about Romney and his tax returns issue is that he's been running for President for so many years now that you'd think he'd sacrifice whatever shady deduction or whatever else might be in there he doesn't want people to see for a few years. If he had done that for say the past 5 years, then this isn't an issue. He has 5 years of good tax returns and that would be enough to make this a non-issue.

[RainMaker]

It's tough to build a platform on cutting taxes for the rich when your own tax returns show you paid a lower rate than most people.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What I don't understand about Romney and his tax returns issue is that he's been running for President for so many years now that you'd think he'd sacrifice whatever shady deduction or whatever else might be in there he doesn't want people to see for a few years. If he had done that for say the past 5 years, then this isn't an issue. He has 5 years of good tax returns and that would be enough to make this a non-issue.

One would think. Considering how long he's been planning this bid, you would think he would have filed vanilla taxes and taken a small financial hit for the greater reward.

I'll assume there is nothing sinister and he simply doesn't want to release them because all of his income are pretty much capital gains and his effective tax rate is ridiculously low.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

And it's a narrative that passes my personal "will it work*" sniff test pretty easily.

1. Is it simple enough to convey to the average American? Yes.
2. On the surface, does it sound logical? Yes.
3. If it's not entirely true (and most successful political narratives are at least partially lies, if not completely,) is the rebuttal complex enough that the average American won't follow it, or even bother to pay attention? Yes.

Panerd, it's Presidential Politics, a silly little thing like having truth on your side just isn't all that important when it comes to winning elections.


*---"Work," not necessarily meaning "will the policy do well in the real world." "Work," simply meaning, "will enough people believe it to win the election."

Pretty much. And when the facts are on your side, it's even more powerful.

I love Bill and while I think you'll hear a full-throated endorsement of Obama and a pretty good attack on the GOP, you'll also hear the word "I" quite a bit. He'll talk about what he did in the '90s to create budget surpluses and a rousing economy, talk about how the GOP wrecked it, and how Obama is awesome because he's doing exactly what he did in the '90s.

We know politicians will do anything to get elected, but Obama's conciliation with Clinton might be as remarkable as Romney's transformation from liberal Republican to what he is now. The TV ad Obama is running featuring Clinton is powerful. Letting Clinton advocate on his behalf means swallowing an enormous amount of his own ego.

And if Obama wins this in a close election, Clinton is going to get a lot of credit. And he will call in that favor at some point.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's tough to build a platform on cutting taxes for the rich when your own tax returns show you paid a lower rate than most people.

DING DING DING!

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What I don't understand about Romney and his tax returns issue is that he's been running for President for so many years now that you'd think he'd sacrifice whatever shady deduction or whatever else might be in there he doesn't want people to see for a few years. If he had done that for say the past 5 years, then this isn't an issue. He has 5 years of good tax returns and that would be enough to make this a non-issue.

Can't figure this out myself. Granted, Obama didn't have tens of millions before he got into politics, but when you look back at what tax receipts he released, they started the year that Obama first ran for national office (US House from Illinois)

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Saw this on Onion.


Romney, Ryan Sneak Into DNC While Posing as Caterers

I think the goatee is actually a good look for Romney. He should celebrate the post-election letdown in a Goresque manner!

[RainMaker]

Speaking of The Onion

Good Evening, It's An Honor To Be Used As A Political Prop By My Husband's Campaign | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Grover]

Can't wait for the Warren and Clinton speeches tonight.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

I think the goatee is actually a good look for Romney. He should celebrate the post-election letdown in a Goresque manner!

I think he looks like Tony Stark (Iron Man).

And, he probably actually has the cash to be Iron Man if he loses the election.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Pretty much. And when the facts are on your side, it's even more powerful.

I love Bill and while I think you'll hear a full-throated endorsement of Obama and a pretty good attack on the GOP, you'll also hear the word "I" quite a bit. He'll talk about what he did in the '90s to create budget surpluses and a rousing economy, talk about how the GOP wrecked it, and how Obama is awesome because he's doing exactly what he did in the '90s.

We know politicians will do anything to get elected, but Obama's conciliation with Clinton might be as remarkable as Romney's transformation from liberal Republican to what he is now. The TV ad Obama is running featuring Clinton is powerful. Letting Clinton advocate on his behalf means swallowing an enormous amount of his own ego.

And if Obama wins this in a close election, Clinton is going to get a lot of credit. And he will call in that favor at some point.

And it's fine if he uses "I" a lot - the GOP has not even denied, and has even admitted that the last time we had a surplus was under Clinton. They don't have a line of attack against him - and I saw something earlier (maybe in that article someone posted earlier?) that he is one of only two public figures in the country with favorables over 60%. So if Obama wants to run on "we just want to return taxes to the Clinton era - oh and government spending rose less under me than under any president since Ike" he has a strong economic message that's simple for even the less-informed voters to understand.

[molson]

If he wants to run on the tax thing again I'd love to hear how things will be different this time and how they'll conquer Republican obstructionism. Because otherwise it's just a pipe dream, isn't it?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

If he wants to run on the tax thing again I'd love to hear how things will be different this time and how they'll conquer Republican obstructionism. Because otherwise it's just a pipe dream, isn't it?

How do you force someone else to work with you if they're hellbent on not doing it?

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

How do you force someone else to work with you if they're hellbent on not doing it?

SI

And more importantly - what's the alternative - vote for the Republicans and their undefined plan (which includes no specifics at all on the revenue side, and was labeled by NEWT GINGRICH as "right-wing social engineering")?

[Grover]

Fluke absolutely killed that speech. Fantastic.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

If he wants to run on the tax thing again I'd love to hear how things will be different this time and how they'll conquer Republican obstructionism. Because otherwise it's just a pipe dream, isn't it?

I doubt the Dems have the spine to do this, but...

The tax issue is much different now. Jan 1 all the Bush tax cuts expire unless they are reinstated by Congress. What Obama and Congressional Dems have threatened is to allow all of the cuts to expire and then offer a bill for "Obama" tax cuts that restore much of the Bush tax cuts, but not those for the top marginal rate(not sure about cap gains cuts). That would force the GOP to vote against tax cuts for 90% in order to get tax cuts for the wealthy.

That's much more favorable ground for the Dems.

[Grover]

Clinton is flat-out incredible.

[JPhillips]

Yeah. First convention coverage I've watched because he's giving the speech. If Clinton will do it, Obama should send him to every battleground state. Clinton just loves being back in the game and he's a great player.

[sterlingice]

Bill Clinton: "I've still got it"

SI

[Crapshoot]

You watch Bill speak, and you see how he could talk the pants of a nun.

[sterlingice]

...And MSNBC just showed some woman holding up her Medicare card with her ID and everything in full sight. /sigh/

SI