2012 Conventions; Tampa & Charlotte

[U2Fanatic4ever]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i think lots of old white men who watch Fox News spend their days arguing with an invisible Obama.

we get that in here, even.

[trojanchick99]

It's days like this that remind us why the internet is amazing.

[iron yuppie]

It seems to me that Romney has now been overshadowed by others in or affiliated with his party for at least the last two weeks, and at a pivotal time for him as well: first by Ryan, and now by a semi-coherent Eastwood. This is the strangest campaign that I can remember in my life in the sense that it is almost as if Romney is not even the candidate.

[financeguy]

I guess I have a different perspective to most on here. Based on that speech, Romney is looking electable to me. He needs to provide more meat around the jobs plan. Hopefully that will come in time.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i think lots of old white men who watch Fox News spend their days arguing with an invisible Obama.

we get that in here, even.

I think lots of Democrat voting black folk spend their days arguing with an invisible racist system of GOP oppression.

(I don't actually believe that, I am just pointing out the inherent prejudice in your post.)

[Irvine511]

omg, you're such an artist! how deft! keep it up.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by financeguy

I guess I have a different perspective to most on here. Based on that speech, Romney is looking electable to me. He needs to provide more meat around the jobs plan. Hopefully that will come in time.

The reason I don't see Romney being elected is that he does not seem to have any firm message aside from being anti-Obama. In that sense, this election reminds me quite a bit of 2004, when the Democrats trotted out a compromise candidate about whom next to no one was excited and who ran on a predominantly anti-Bush platform.

Like Kerry, Romney seems much more intent on telling voters what he will not do rather than what he will do, and for that reason I expect the same result as 2004: a vulnerable incumbent nonetheless winning the election. Really the best bet that the Republicans had was flipping the ticket so that Ryan became the candidate, but of course that would never have happened.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

The reason I don't see Romney being elected is that he does not seem to have any firm message aside from being anti-Obama. In that sense, this election reminds me quite a bit of 2004, when the Democrats trotted out a compromise candidate about whom next to no one was excited and who ran on a predominantly anti-Bush platform.

Like Kerry, Romney seems much more intent on telling voters what he will not do rather than what he will do, and for that reason I expect the same result as 2004: a vulnerable incumbent nonetheless winning the election. Really the best bet that the Republicans had was flipping the ticket so that Ryan became the candidate, but of course that would never have happened.

Well, I thought his speech was very much targeted at the centre ground of the viewing public rather than hyping up anti-Obama sentiment for the benefit of those actually present in the conference centre who presumably are going to vote for him anyway.

The vibe seemed to me to be: "We all wanted to believe in Obama's message, but, more in sorrow than anger we now have to acknowledge he doesn't have the skillset to get America back to work."

I think those talking about the muted response to the speech in the conference centre totally misunderstand the purpose of that speech - and, arguably, the nature of the type of candidate he is. He's a business-friendly centrist conservative with some liberal leanings - and that is potentially a vote winning stance in 2012, or most election years for that matter. It probably wouldn't have been in 2008, but it was hard to see the Republicans winning in 2008 with any candidate.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

omg, you're such an artist! how deft! keep it up.

I'm no artist, I just have an issue with hypocrisy.

[Von Schloopen]

I'm amazed an actual candidate for president didn't mention the war we're currently fighting.

Nor did his #2.

How do you not talk about that?

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by Von Schloopen

I'm amazed an actual candidate for president didn't mention the war we're currently fighting.

Nor did his #2.

How do you not talk about that?

But surely it's clever positioning. They criticise Obama's record on the wars, it just begs the question of who started it in the first place (yes, ok, arguably OBL, but you know what I mean).

Presenting the GOP as the party of jobs and small business is exactly the right approach from their point of view (never mind that Ryan has only around a year of work experience in the private sector in his entire careeer!)

Banging on about the wars didn't work for McCain in 2008, did it?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by financeguy

The vibe seemed to me to be: "We all wanted to believe in Obama's message, but, more in sorrow than anger we now have to acknowledge he doesn't have the skillset to get America back to work."

I think you and I watched different speeches. Granted he was a little more soft in his approach compared to others in his party, but he went way beyond criticizing his 'skillset'.

Originally Posted by financeguy

I think those talking about the muted response to the speech in the conference centre totally misunderstand the purpose of that speech - and, arguably, the nature of the type of candidate he is. He's a business-friendly centrist conservative with some liberal leanings - and that is potentially a vote winning stance in 2012, or most election years for that matter. It probably wouldn't have been in 2008, but it was hard to see the Republicans winning in 2008 with any candidate.

I feel like maybe there's a lost in translation with how the Irish media is covering this campaign, or maybe it's just the outlets you choose but you are very far off on your assessment. There was definitely a muted response compared to other speakers, and that doesn't bode well when #2 or people not even on the ticket can easily upstage you. And liberal leanings? Have you not noticed how much effort he's made to deny that part of his past?

[Von Schloopen]

Originally Posted by financeguy

But surely it's clever positioning.

That's the problem with it. It reeks of clever positioning.

He should have mentioned it. Not banged on about it, but mentioned it. It's a nasty part of the job he's applying for. It's his job to mention it. Same w/ Ryan. He did't say anything either. Major fail for the party that thinks it's more "American" than the other.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by financeguy

I think those talking about the muted response to the speech in the conference centre totally misunderstand the purpose of that speech - and, arguably, the nature of the type of candidate he is. He's a business-friendly centrist conservative with some liberal leanings - and that is potentially a vote winning stance in 2012, or most election years for that matter.

I agree with you that that is how the party is presenting him, but the question is this, I think: is the image of a competent, nice guy, even if presented immaculately, enough to win him the election? Will he inspire enough trust in those with voter apathy or malaise - which is a coveted demographic - to get off the couch and cast a vote for him? He still seems to be lacking that edge, which has been one of the major knocks on him since day one, and I'm thinking it is getting too late for him to find it.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by BVS

I think you and I watched different speeches. Granted he was a little more soft in his approach compared to others in his party, but he went way beyond criticizing his 'skillset'.

I feel like maybe there's a lost in translation with how the Irish media is covering this campaign, or maybe it's just the outlets you choose but you are very far off on your assessment. There was definitely a muted response compared to other speakers, and that doesn't bode well when #2 or people not even on the ticket can easily upstage you. And liberal leanings? Have you not noticed how much effort he's made to deny that part of his past?

Look, I saw the speech live on Sky. I'm talking about my own assessment of the speech - that's all. It's got jackshit to do with the Irish media - who if anything lean pro-Democrat, incidentally.

Originally Posted by BVS

And liberal leanings? Have you not noticed how much effort he's made to deny that part of his past?

Pre-nomination, yes. Don't be surprised if there is less denial of his liberal leanings from here on.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Von Schloopen

I'm amazed an actual candidate for president didn't mention the war we're currently fighting.

Nor did his #2.

How do you not talk about that?

Why would they, it would just be ammo against them. No, they only like to talk about the wars they'd wage, not the ones they'd bungle.

Eastwood made a comment about the war which I found to be very odd.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Pre-nomination, yes. Don't be surprised if there is less denial of his liberal leanings from here on.

I'd be shocked actually. I don't think Romney or the GOP in general are brave enough or confident enough to lose hold of their base in order to win independents.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Pre-nomination, yes. Don't be surprised if there is less denial of his liberal leanings from here on.

I think that depends on what happens in the house and senate. If the Democrats gain decent majorities in both then perhaps Romney will be inclined to govern more moderately. I don't see that happening with a republican majority, though.

[deep]

I could live with a Romney presidency and a Democrat Senate and House. I think I would even prefer that to an Obama presidency and GOP controlled congress.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

I agree with you that that is how the party is presenting him, but the question is this, I think: is the image of a competent, nice guy, even if presented immaculately, enough to win him the election? Will he inspire enough trust in those with voter apathy or malaise - which is a coveted demographic - to get off the couch and cast a vote for him? He still seems to be lacking that edge, which has been one of the major knocks on him since day one, and I'm thinking it is getting too late for him to find it.

Great and sensible post.

People forget that this isn't Survivor - you don't vote people off, you have to get a mostly lazy and mostly uninformed population to get up off their butts and vote. It's clear from the numbers that relatively few people vote and it's even more clear that this is not the type of election year that will break voting records. I would be shocked if the total number of voters matched that of 2008.

Romney, whatever you may think of his policies, really is a candidate much like John Kerry - probably competent, more intelligent and better educated than your average Joe, refined (or call it elitist if you wish), but a man who doesn't inspire people to get up and join a movement. He just doesn't have "it" - the sort of "it" that Obama does have, that Clinton had, that Reagan had, that even W had.