2012 Presidential Campaign

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Geez... Romney cannot catch a break. This is going to kill him:

[LEAKED VIDEO] Mitt Romney Talks About Bain Profitting From Chinese Slave Labor - YouTube

How did this guy make it through the GOP primary?

That video isn't that bad. I know how it can be spun, but he's basically talking about capitalism and bringing it to China and the good it's doing for people there. Also talking about how lucky we are to be born here.

We all profit and live the lives we do thanks to the "slave labor".

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That video isn't that bad. I know how it can be spun, but he's basically talking about capitalism and bringing it to China and the good it's doing for people there. Also talking about how lucky we are to be born here.

We all profit and live the lives we do thanks to the "slave labor".

I see it as bad for a couple of reasons.

Loses credibility in manufacturing areas by investing in overseas sweatshops. Yeah, we all pretty much knew what he was doing with Bain -- but here he is on film talking about it and the conditions the workers labored in. Has he toured and/or invested in overseas factories with child labor? Someone is probably going to ask him at some point in the near future.

Looks pretty insincere with all of his tough talk against China. "They are our geopolitical foe. They are socialist. Oh, BTW...I would rather invest in their companies."

[molson]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I see it as bad for a couple of reasons.

Loses credibility in manufacturing areas by investing in overseas sweatshops. Yeah, we all pretty much knew what he was doing with Bain -- but here he is on film talking about it and the conditions the workers labored in. Has he toured and/or invested in overseas factories with child labor? Someone is probably going to ask him at some point in the near future.

Looks pretty insincere with all of his tough talk against China. "They are our geopolitical foe. They are socialist. Oh, BTW...I would rather invest in their companies."

Child labor/working conditions is still a fringe issue here, nobody's going to give up or pay more for their iphones or clothes any time soon, so I don't see a lot of outrage on this. There are people who are very careful about everything they purchase/consume, but that's a pretty small group. It's tough to criticize Romney, these companies, and these business practices, if you're a general American consumer that takes advantage of them.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

Child labor/working conditions is still a fringe issue here, nobody's going to give up or pay more for their iphones or clothes any time soon, so I don't see a lot of outrage on this. There are people who are very careful about everything they purchase/consume, but that's a pretty small group. It's tough to criticize Romney, these companies, and these business practices, if you're a general American consumer that takes advantage of them.

Its not hard at all actually. What I expect from the CEO of a manufacturing company (cheapest method to produce the most products) is certainly NOT what I want or expect from my President (higher standard, sometimes ridiculously high)

Is that fair? No. is it the way MANY MANY citizens in this country will react?
You bet yer sweet ass it is.

[larrymcg421]

Romney Just Saying He Grew Up Poor In Memphis Now | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Romney then produced a harmonica from his hip pocket and played a stirring, lonesome melody.

[JPhillips]

STOP TALKING MITT!

My heritage, my dad as you probably know was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico, and, uh, had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot at winning this.

But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico. He lived there for a number of years. And, uh, uh, I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be, uh ... Latino.

Yep. When was the last time a white guy was president?

There's more!

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

edit: followed by:

[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

Both of these are apparently from a speech at a fundraiser.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

STOP TALKING MITT!



Yep. When was the last time a white guy was president?

Where is this from and what context was it said in?

[JPhillips]

As I edited, it's from a fundraiser that was secretly taped. According to TPM, David Corn published it and the story on the video.

[SirFozzie]

Here's a link to the story on it..

Secret Romney fundraiser video: The 47 percent backing Obama like government-sponsored stuff (UPDATED) - POLITICO.com

Also, looks like Romney's given up on persuading the undecideds to go for him, and is going to launch the "shock and awe" negative campaign, and try to turn this into a battle where the Undecideds stay home (in disgust) and turn it into a GoTV vs GoTV operation

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Also, looks like Romney's given up on persuading the undecideds to go for him

{shrug} There aren't that many of those left, and going after them is likely a diminishing returns thing as he turns off votes he might otherwise have gotten.

ABC/WaPo poll shows only 13% admitting a chance that they might change their minds by November. But the actual number of undecideds -- who can't predict which way they'll vote -- seems to be quite smaller, only 2% according to this LA Times piece (republished by AP) and that's a figure that includes people who are largely disaffected & aren't likely to vote anyway.

A couple of great points in that LAT/AP piece
1)

Political scientist Alan Abramowitz of Emory University has estimated that in 2008, only about one-third of the swing voters who were leaning toward one candidate or another actually switched sides before Election Day. But of those who did, most “came home” to their own party’s nominee.

That’s one reason the presidential campaign is becoming more vitriolic. Partisan rhetoric doesn’t always drive swing voters away; instead, it can remind them where their loyalties are, and convince them that there’s something they just don’t like about the other side.

In other words, only 13% can't tell you for sure already and only 1/3rd of those seem likely to switch ... that's about 4% IF they vote at all.

2)

As Vanderbilt political scientist John G. Geer told me: “A billion dollars is chasing 5 percent of the vote in 20 percent of the states.”

Hell, even Stephen Colbert managed a solid observation: “The fate of our country is now in the hands of people who don’t think about what they want until they get right up to the register at McDonald’s,”

Besides, if you're undecided at this point then what are the odds that you're gonna vote anyway?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Besides, if you're undecided at this point then what are the odds that you're gonna vote anyway?

Count me as one of the 2% or whatever the number is. Actually undecided at this moment, but almost a certainty that I will cast a vote.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

Count me as one of the 2% or whatever the number is. Actually undecided at this moment, but almost a certainty that I will cast a vote.

And you're probably as good an example as any of the most irrelevant voter of all (from a campaign perspective): an undecided in a state that isn't remotely in play. (Obie's lead is over 20 points there, he could rape a goat in downtown LA and still win CA)

Not knocking your or your vote, just trying to look at things from the perspective of what campaign strategy makes sense in the big picture.

[stevew]

I'm somewhat undecided as to which non-Romney guy I'm going to vote for. My PA vote is probably irrelevant too.

Voting is largely shaping up to be a major pita due to my Tuesday schedule.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And you're probably as good an example as any of the most irrelevant voter of all (from a campaign perspective): an undecided in a state that isn't remotely in play. (Obie's lead is over 20 points there, he could rape a goat in downtown LA and still win CA)

Not knocking your or your vote, just trying to look at things from the perspective of what campaign strategy makes sense in the big picture.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I have no illusions that my vote counts or that either party should spend any money to get me to the ballot box.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

I'm somewhat undecided as to which non-Romney guy I'm going to vote for. My PA vote is probably irrelevant too.

Voting is largely shaping up to be a major pita due to my Tuesday schedule.

Don't you guys do some form of early voting?

[stevew]

I doubt it. We are pretty old school. No ballot initiatives, etc.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

I doubt it. We are pretty old school. No ballot initiatives, etc.

Well I'll be darned, sure enough a little Googling produced this reference

Then there are a handful of holdouts like Pennsylvania and Virginia have traditional absentee balloting laws that extend early voting only to those who provide a valid excuse.

I guess it (no-fault/no-excuse absentee voting) has just been in place here for so long that I took it for granted it was pretty much nationwide.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

STOP TALKING MITT!



Yep. When was the last time a white guy was president?

There's more!



edit: followed by:


Both of these are apparently from a speech at a fundraiser.

I'm confused. Are those the same people that crave their guns and religion?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I'm confused. Are those the same people that crave their guns and religion?

I thought it was nearly universally agreed that that statement hurt Obama politically.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{shrug} There aren't that many of those left, and going after them is likely a diminishing returns thing as he turns off votes he might otherwise have gotten.

ABC/WaPo poll shows only 13% admitting a chance that they might change their minds by November. But the actual number of undecideds -- who can't predict which way they'll vote -- seems to be quite smaller, only 2% according to this LA Times piece (republished by AP) and that's a figure that includes people who are largely disaffected & aren't likely to vote anyway.

A couple of great points in that LAT/AP piece
1)

In other words, only 13% can't tell you for sure already and only 1/3rd of those seem likely to switch ... that's about 4% IF they vote at all.

2)

Hell, even Stephen Colbert managed a solid observation: “The fate of our country is now in the hands of people who don’t think about what they want until they get right up to the register at McDonald’s,”

Besides, if you're undecided at this point then what are the odds that you're gonna vote anyway?

Not only do they wait until the last minute, but they're far less likely to vote based policy than on "Who would you like to have a beer with," or because of a chain email they got from their cousin, or in an effort to bandwagon onto who they think will be the winning team.

In a close race the stupid, apathetic and distracted pick the winner.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

We just need to keep Romney talking.

By November, Jon may even walk in, hold his nose & vote Obama.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

By November, Jon may even walk in, hold his nose & vote Obama.

Hell would freeze over ... under the current circumstances.

I've already dismissed Romney as an empty suit pseudocon. But he's no more/less dangerous than a complete p.o.s. like B.O.

If a complete lunatic like Ron Paul had gotten the nomination, yeah, then that's a whole different story.

Obama is just plain evil, RP is utterly batshit insane.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hell would freeze over ... under the current circumstances.

I've already dismissed Romney as an empty suit pseudocon. But he's no more/less dangerous than a complete p.o.s. like B.O.

If a complete lunatic like Ron Paul had gotten the nomination, yeah, then that's a whole different story.

Obama is just plain evil, RP is utterly batshit insane.

If only for such astute observations as this I will proudly walk in & vote Obama come November.

We get four more years of this!

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I've already dismissed Romney as an empty suit pseudocon. But he's no more/less dangerous than a complete p.o.s. like B.O.

Things I never thought I'd hear JiMGA say for $500. Even if it's in a backhanded kind of way.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Things I never thought I'd hear JiMGA say for $500. Even if it's in a backhanded kind of way.

You've had me on ignore too much lately or something, I'm virtually certain I've said essentially the same thing previously (re Obama vs Robamney)

The bigger shocker, worth more than $500 I'd think, would be that there's actually been a recognizable candidate in the picture (however far on the fringe) that's so absurdly bad that I'd legitimately consider voting for B.O.

[cartman]

This Op Ed by David Brooks pretty much sums up my feelings on Romney's statements.

Thurston Howell Romney - NYTimes.com

[M GO BLUE!!!]

You forgot to call the President of the United States a "complete piece of shit."

You're slippin'.

[molson]

So much talk about the economy and taxes, so little talk about stuff presidents actually influence - like foreign policy and national security, and Obama's been so strong in those areas. I'm surprised that's not being pushed more, maybe they think the election is in the bag anyway and the class warfare stuff will help with congressional elections.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

You forgot to call the President of the United States a "complete piece of shit." You're slippin'.

Seems like overkill to beat that dead horse too much. I'm reasonably confident that it's well established that I wouldn't piss on the sumbitch if he spontaneously combusted in front of me, why belabor the point?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You've had me on ignore too much lately or something, I'm virtually certain I've said essentially the same thing previously (re Obama vs Robamney)

The bigger shocker, worth more than $500 I'd think, would be that there's actually been a recognizable candidate in the picture (however far on the fringe) that's so absurdly bad that I'd legitimately consider voting for B.O.

On the other hand, that absurdly bad candidate might've actually done Obama some damage with the youth vote. Not sure if the older voters woulda pulled a JiMGA and run for Obama's arms.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cartman

This Op Ed by David Brooks pretty much sums up my feelings on Romney's statements.

Thurston Howell Romney - NYTimes.com

That's a good piece. I agree with most of it. I also agree with what Joe Scarborough said last week. He's not a courageous moderate or true conservative. He's just an ambitious man. A guy who doesn't really stand for anything except wanting to be President.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

So much talk about the economy and taxes, so little talk about stuff presidents actually influence - like foreign policy and national security, and Obama's been so strong in those areas. I'm surprised that's not being pushed more, maybe they think the election is in the bag anyway and the class warfare stuff will help with congressional elections.

Foreign policy is always less important in the campaign and more important when in office. Generally the American people don't know or care much about foreign policy. They want to be told they'll all have good jobs.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Foreign policy is always less important in the campaign and more important when in office. Generally the American people don't know or care much about foreign policy. They want to be told they'll all have good jobs.

Or that the government checks will keep rolling in. I agree that Romney's 47% number is absurd, but I also don't think that number is under 1%. Anything between 5% and 35% wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Or that the government checks will keep rolling in. I agree that Romney's 47% number is absurd, but I also don't think that number is under 1%. Anything between 5% and 35% wouldn't surprise me one bit.

35%? Really??

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Or that the government checks will keep rolling in. I agree that Romney's 47% number is absurd, but I also don't think that number is under 1%. Anything between 5% and 35% wouldn't surprise me one bit.

So narrowing it down to somewhere between 15 and 109 million people narrows it down for you?

One of the biggest problems I find to the counterarguments for supporting the poor are that they don't do anything and just sit around and collect their checks. And while I don't deny that there are people who do that, but the actual percentage is so small that lumping everyone together who is on government benefits is a horrid stereotype. It's just an oversimple rationalization against another group of people not unlike the ethnic cleansing or segregation arguments of the past.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

So narrowing it down to somewhere between 15 and 109 million people narrows it down for you?

One of the biggest problems I find to the counterarguments for supporting the poor are that they don't do anything and just sit around and collect their checks. And while I don't deny that there are people who do that, but the actual percentage is so small that lumping everyone together who is on government benefits is a horrid stereotype. It's just an oversimple rationalization against another group of people not unlike the ethnic cleansing or segregation arguments of the past.

I bet the actual number of people who sit around and just collect checks and don't do anything (excluding the elderly and disabled obviously) is less than 15 million.

As PilotMan says - it's just an oversimple rationalization to demonize and sub-humanize people on the lower end of the economic scale so that those on the upper end don't have to feel bad that they're out there.

[Young Drachma]

SMH.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Or that the government checks will keep rolling in. I agree that Romney's 47% number is absurd, but I also don't think that number is under 1%. Anything between 5% and 35% wouldn't surprise me one bit.

We definitely fit into your 35%. As a recipient of a Pell Grant and subsidized student loans 10 years ago, I guess I'd better quit my job and just start collecting checks. My wife works for a government institution so my immediate family is wholly dependent on them.

I'm following in the lines of my parents. My dad doesn't work. He's on the government's dole, collecting Social Security and using Medicare. And I'm sure my mom longs for the day when she can do the same in a few years. It's embarrassing, really- they have a large house and go on overseas vacations, just to do it. They got tax breaks on (the interest of) that house and to even have kids!

Speaking of siblings, my sister is a freeloader, too. To be fair, she only took subsidized student loans to go to med school. But her husband is the big abuser of the system. Government subsidies for housing, school, moving across the country, health care, you name it. If you're in the Navy, the government gives you EVERYTHING! That must be a really sweet deal.

And let's not even talk about my grandparents. They practically live off of their government checks for social security. Tho, my grandpa was part one of those evil unions so he gets health insurance and a pension and he's less dependent on the government.

We're just a whole family of freeloaders. And Mitt's right, not a one of us are voting for him in November.

SI

[larrymcg421]

Another stupid simplification is that this 47% is going to break 100% for Obama. If Romney wins none of the poor white vote (ESP in the south), then Obama would win by Reaganesque margins.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Another stupid simplification is that this 47% is going to break 100% for Obama. If Romney wins none of the poor white vote (ESP in the south), then Obama would win by Reaganesque margins.

A good chunk of the 47% are seniors on SS/Medicare. That's Mitt's best demo.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A good chunk of the 47% are seniors on SS/Medicare. That's Mitt's best demo.

Although as their plans for Medicare come to light that is shrinking...

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Or that the government checks will keep rolling in. I agree that Romney's 47% number is absurd, but I also don't think that number is under 1%. Anything between 5% and 35% wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Romney's quote started with - the 47% of people pay no income tax - those are the people dependent on government, victims, etc.

Tax Policy Center chart here - many of them pay payroll tax, or are elderly and have no jobs, thus no income tax.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

We definitely fit into your 35%.

I'm not talking about the folks who use government money and then give back, I'm talking about the ones who demand their check and don't give back. It's one thing to use government assistance as a leg up, or when you truly need it (a true disability), or because you are giving service to our country (I don't think our veterans get anywhere near enough benefits for what they sacrifice for us, that's one area where I'd like to see spending increase), it's quite another to demand it as your just due and not care about the folks who work hard to provide it to you.

I think that number is higher than many of the folks here do, but I don't think it's anywhere near where Romney claims. As I said, any number between 5% and 35% without surprising me one bit.

I personally know people like this, I hear additional anecdotes all the time, you see the periodic interviews with them on the news, but no, I don't know precisely how big a number or how common it is.

[Passacaglia]

So this 28.3% -- this is just people who pay the same income taxes as everyone else, but just have enough withheld such that they're getting a refund instead of making a payment on April 15? Or am I missing something and this is something else completely?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

So this 28.3% -- this is just people who pay the same income taxes as everyone else, but just have enough withheld such that they're getting a refund instead of making a payment on April 15? Or am I missing something and this is something else completely?

They are below the threshold, where they earn money but don't pay enough taxes to cover deductions, etc, so their final income tax owed is zero (or less, some may qualify for "rebates" and actually make money on it). But they still work, so the employer is paying payroll taxes on them.

[Masked]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

They are below the threshold, where they earn money but don't pay enough taxes to cover deductions, etc, so their final income tax owed is zero (or less, some may qualify for "rebates" and actually make money on it). But they still work, so the employer is paying payroll taxes on them.

The employee is also paying their share of the payroll taxes.

[JediKooter]

Looks like Mitt wants to piss off a big chunk of the country that would vote for him (based on 2008 numbers):

[stevew]

I'm amazed by older people I know who are on SS and Medicare who don't feel like they are even remotely collecting welfare.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Looks like Mitt wants to piss off a big chunk of the country that would vote for him (based on 2008 numbers):

Non-southerners tend to forget just how many poor black people there are in the South. (Yes, there are poor whites, too, but nobody cares about them.) I'll hazard a guess that a good chunk (if not the majority) of the people that turn that chart red in GA/SC/AL/MS/LA are poor blacks who would never, ever, ever think of voting for him in the first place, so I'm not sure that it hurts him like you're saying there. Consider the fair number of poor whites who are old-line Democrats or who simply do not vote, and the impact is even less significant.