The First 2012 Presidential Election Thread

[Brocktoon]

VP choices are much to do about nothing. I don't like the presidential candidate but I love the VP candidate so I am going to switch my vote,... said no ever.

The choice for Veep can only hurt and never help. It is the first presidential choice a candidate makes so it does have some bearing on how the candidate is judged.

Since so few people are undecided voters this cycle, Romney needed to choose a VP that the base liked and that most people believe could assume the presidency at a moments notice. I think Rep. Ryan meets both of these qualifications. I thought Portman was a better choice but I think his time in the Bush administration hurt his chances.

[ColoGI]

Since so few people are undecided voters this cycle, Romney needed to choose a VP that the base liked and that most people believe could assume the presidency at a moments notice. I think Rep. Ryan meets both of these qualifications. I thought Portman was a better choice but I think his time in the Bush administration hurt his chances.

Well, the base is already fired up so that is a wasted choice, as you want to engage the fraction who is not. Seeing as how few qualified candidates come out of the house, that is out too. So what does that leave us? We have incompetent staff, desperate staff, media inexperienced staff...and...um...well...big fibbin' candidates with good hair. Great. Lookin' good going forward, surely.

[Whose Yur Planner]

Personally I think the Ryan pick is a case winning a battle but losing a war. He picked or was forced to pick someone who would solidify him with the base. However that immediately turned off the moderates and independants. You can also pretty much kiss off the states with a large senior population. In someways it will backfire because it turns the discussion from the economy to Ryan budget. The Ryan budget is a loser for Tean Romney.

[imaplanner]

Personally I think the Ryan pick is a case winning a battle but losing a war. He picked or was forced to pick someone who would solidify him with the base. However that immediately turned off the moderates and independants. You can also pretty much kiss off the states with a large senior population. In someways it will backfire because it turns the discussion from the economy to Ryan budget. The Ryan budget is a loser for Tean Romney.

I generally agree with you on this. I don't think Ryan is a good pick because he only appeals to the people that would vote for the republican candidate no matter who it is. He gets them excited, but now instead of a referendum on Obama the election is going to be more of a referendum on Paul Ryan's controversial budget ideas.

On the plus side, the country can maybe have a discussion about what direction we want to go. If Romney and Ryan win- let's go ahead and cut social programs and cut taxes for billionaires. If Obama wins, maybe the conservatives will stop demanding we cut social programs to support tax cuts for billionaires.

[Blide]

I'm still at a loss as to how Romney thought Ryan was a winning strategy. Romney changed the course of the debate right in the direction Obama wanted to take it in the first place. Somehow Romney is going to have to argue that massive cuts are better for dealing with the deficit and creating jobs than a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. To me that doesn't seem like a winning strategy.

On top of that, why pick someone who is so polarizing as your running mate? Seems like Romney is just going to alienate independents and moderates while bolstering Democrats' turnout.

It's great that Ryan has a plan but that doesn't seem like it's enough to warrant being selected as VP. Right now this seems like a Palin like choice that is bound to backfire.

[mgk920]

OK, those in here who trend left...

1) Who should Romney have picked?

and

2) If he picked that running mate, would that have convinced you to support his candidacy, to the point of actively campaigning for the two?



Mike

[Blide]

OK, those in here who trend left...

1) Who should Romney have picked?

and

2) If he picked that running mate, would that have convinced you to support his candidacy, to the point of actively campaigning for the two?



Mike

I honestly think Romney should have selected Rubio, McDonnell, or Portman if he actually wanted to win the election. They could have at least pushed some competitive races in Romney's favor. Simply put, if Romney can't carry Florida or Ohio, he losses. Ryan is not going to turn Wisconsin red nor will his budget plan help in Florida or Ohio.

If Romney picked a more centrist running mate, Obama wouldn't be as such as an obvious choice as he is now. I have no problem supporting a moderate Republican but I do certainly have an issue supporting anyone who'll bend over to the Tea Party.

[michaelskis]

OK, those in here who trend left...

1) Who should Romney have picked?

and

2) If he picked that running mate, would that have convinced you to support his candidacy, to the point of actively campaigning for the two?



Mike

His pick is not going to change my vote. I still can't vote for President Obama, even though I don't care much for Romney either. However, I do think he will do less damage than Obama would do in a 2nd term.

I would have liked to see Rubio, but he was very clear very early on that he would not run as the VP this time around and he wanted to finish out his term in FL before he considered anything else. I foresee Rubio challenging Romeny's reelection in 4 years like Reagan did with Ford in the late 70's.

[Whose Yur Planner]

OK, those in here who trend left...

1) Who should Romney have picked?

and

2) If he picked that running mate, would that have convinced you to support his candidacy, to the point of actively campaigning for the two?



Mike

I don't think there was a potential running mate who was going to flip people from D to R. All ,except the Minnesota governor, had significant baggage. I think it was a no win situation for him. Either he picks a moderate who would appeal to the undecided and the conservative base stays home or he picks Ryan and more conservatives actually vote but he loses the undecided. I don't blame him for who he picked because there was no right answer.

In one website a poster advanced the idea that he picked Ryan as a calculated move to through the election. He's been stumping for a long time and just might be tired of it all.

[Suburb Repairman]

OK, those in here who trend left...

1) Who should Romney have picked?

and

2) If he picked that running mate, would that have convinced you to support his candidacy, to the point of actively campaigning for the two?



Mike

1) Not particularly sure, but not Ryan. Ryan is too polarizing of a figure. I will give Romney this: at least Ryan is qualified (unlike McCain's Palin debacle). I think any potential selection of the "favorites" discussed had signficant issues, but I think Rob Portman was a better choice:

• not an objectivist obcessed with Ayn Rand (yes, I know he denies the objectivist thing, but I don't know how he could possibly reconcile Rand who he says shaped his identity, beliefs & values with a Christian upbringing that he likes to trumpet
• doesn't fundamentally hurt the ticket--not a polarizing figure
• more knowledge in regard to global trade & foreign affairs
• sat on Armed Services Committee, Energy & Resources and Homeland Security--all areas in which Romney is a bit weak
• at least in his House days he was highly pragmatic and worked across the aisle well on legislation. You need somebody capable of playing nice with others, and Ryan is not that guy.
• has executive budget experience (albeit as OMB director under the Bush debacle) in addition to his service on the Senate Committee on the Budget
• he served on the supercommittee for the budget stuff, so he at least theoretically has some better understanding and is perhaps more capable of working out compromises
• won nearly all of Ohio's counties in his last election, which means he was able to successfully garner independent voters (and in Ohio as a tight enough swing state that his nomination could have made the difference)

2) No, it would not have convinced me to vote for Romney. I'm not particularly happy with Obama, but there is not a chance in hell that I'll vote for Romney. Romney takes out-of-touch to a whole new level, and I simply don't trust him. He comes off like he is constantly hiding something or trying to pull a fast one. I hate that Romney doesn't own his past statements and shifts with the wind. Actually, I'll just stop now. I could go for a while on why I'm not willing to consider Romney, but it really boils down to my lack of trust and issues with corporate influence.

[Mastiff]

A good VP choice can give you a little bump, but a bad one can cost you an election. I was considering McCain, but when he picked Palin, I went back to "wasting my vote." If Romney could have gotten Condelezza Rice to join the ticket, it would have been a bump. This is a zero to slight minus choice. Mike is typical (sorry Mike) of a R voter, they will never vote for Obama. Heck, put a Libertarian on there and you'd sew it up.

[wahday]

Well, I think Ryan is a person who is clear and articulate about his stance on issues. In that sense, I appreciate that he is not a shadowy figure who folks don’t know much about who can simply be presented to the public in a way that seems most palatable. At the same time, he is only the VP running mate and so there is now a dynamic in which, particularly through Ryan’s budget proposals, we have a much clearer idea of who the VP candidate is and his underlying philosophies about key issues than the presidential candidate. The problem is, Romney is not Ryan, he doesn’t share all of Ryan’s views and we are still left wondering who the heck Romney is and what HIS political philosophy is built on. That’s what their campaign really needs to work on, IMO.

Overall, I think Obama’s prediction about this election will be right on – that the main discussion will be about the different ways each party feels the economy should be structured to move us into the future. Personally, Ryan’s view and proposals scare the piss out of me (and I base this on just finishing a rather lengthy article on him). But they are based on a particular philosophy (that is, they have an internal logic) and I think that at least affords us the opportunity to talk about all of this honestly as a country and make a decision about what way forward to choose.

[imaplanner]

Reading some cable news stuff from the two sides. Apparently this campaign is now based almost entirely on which candidate will murder more old people.

[mgk920]

This happened here in my hometown, while Wisconsin State Senator Alberta Darling (R - River Hills, WI) was speaking at a local campaign event:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...in_650154.html



Mike

[Whose Yur Planner]

This happened here in my hometown, while Wisconsin State Senator Alberta Darling (R - River Hills, WI) was speaking at a local campaign event:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...in_650154.html



Mike

Lighten up dude, she's 83. We're all lucky she's even attending this types of events. If I get to be 83, which is doubtful, I pretty much plan on doing whatever I want and am able to do.

[ColoGI]

This happened here in my hometown, while Wisconsin State Senator Alberta Darling (R - River Hills, WI) was speaking at a local campaign event:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...in_650154.html



Mike

Its soooooooooooo cool you generalized from one case to cast aspersions on an entire group! That is great! Hasty generalizations and conflation, yay!

[Brocktoon]

Its soooooooooooo cool you generalized from one case to cast aspersions on an entire group! That is great! Hasty generalizations and conflation, yay!

They don't call him "Mike the Troll" for nothin'

[ColoGI]

They don't call him "Mike the Troll" for nothin'

Apologies - I didn't know I was feeding one. :o/

[JNA]

Interesting comparison - question of history repeating itself ?

Article Headline: Paul Ryan’s Irish Problem
Mitt Romney’s running mate is making the same economic mistakes that hurt his forefathers in the Great Famine, writes author John Kelly.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...h-problem.html

[michaelskis]

Most of the time I would say Newsweek is a joke of a publication, but it appears that they got one correct.

LINK

[Hink]

Most of the time I would say Newsweek is a joke of a publication, but it appears that they got one correct.

LINK

How funny is it that you put Newsweek on when it is getting grilled for how awful that report was. I will guess that the half or even less truths will require a formal apology from Newsweek.

How partisan must you be to find such shoddy journalism as acceptable? Honestly, I don't like President Obama. Not a fan. But I am not blind enough to believe that type of journalism... it is just clearly false. I know you must see that. I just don't understand why people can't use fact against our President. There are plenty to have a solid reason not to vote for him in November. You don't need the other stuff, and you really don't need to lie about his record.

He has done some things well... sorry.

[Blide]

Newsweek is just the print version of the Daily Beast now. They purchased the name for literally a dollar a few years back. It's also no secret of what Tucker Carlson's political leanings are either.

Tucker Carlson is probably best known for getting destroyed by Jon Stewart on CNN's Crossfire a number of years ago. It was so bad, the show got canceled and he lost his job at CNN.

[ofos]

Interesting comparison - question of history repeating itself ?

Article Headline: Paul Ryan’s Irish Problem
Mitt Romney’s running mate is making the same economic mistakes that hurt his forefathers in the Great Famine, writes author John Kelly.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...h-problem.html

Interesting but quite a reach. In somewhat the same category as noting the Dem social policies and their "obvious" parallels to the fall of the Roman empire.

[michaelskis]

How funny is it that you put Newsweek on when it is getting grilled for how awful that report was. I will guess that the half or even less truths will require a formal apology from Newsweek.

How partisan must you be to find such shoddy journalism as acceptable? Honestly, I don't like President Obama. Not a fan. But I am not blind enough to believe that type of journalism... it is just clearly false. I know you must see that. I just don't understand why people can't use fact against our President. There are plenty to have a solid reason not to vote for him in November. You don't need the other stuff, and you really don't need to lie about his record.

He has done some things well... sorry.

First of all, I am not voting for one party in Nov. It will be a split ticket. Second, you stated that there are things in the report that are clearly false. What are these. I agree that it is politically biased, but don't believe that here are any lies in the article as you present.

[mgk920]

Its soooooooooooo cool you generalized from one case to cast aspersions on an entire group! That is great! Hasty generalizations and conflation, yay!

And if it was an 83 YO conservative female at a Democrat function....

We've been seeing this kind of behavior from the left with increasing frequency over the past several years. It is not an isolated incident.

Mike