Romney: 47% of Americans are losers, don't care about 'em

[Razgovory]

That's still "more fluff"!

[sbr]

Sorry Phil, but I don't think more fluff pieces are going to help him that much.  And running one ad in one area but may lose you votes in another area doesn't work as well in world with internet.

But see, it's not "more fluff". There is a current lack of fluff. Most of their ads and messaging are anti-Obama pieces.

Romney can't win, he can only hope Obama loses.

[Phillip V]

That's still "more fluff"!

Ah, so it's just "Will fluff work?"

Phillip V: "Yes."
Razgovory: "No."

[Eddie Teach]

The question is, can fluff ads make Romney seem likable? Seems a tall order from all I've heard about him.

[sbr]

The question is, can fluff ads make Romney seem likable? Seems a tall order from all I've heard about him.

Early in the process it might have been possible, as of now he has spent over a year showing everyone how unlikable he is.  I don't think he can come back from that with 'fluff ads'.

[Phillip V]

The question is, can fluff ads make Romney seem likable? Seems a tall order from all I've heard about him.

It's a question that every campaign faces, thought we may now be late in the game.

How to get a scandal-prone guy from hick Arkansas elected? (Clinton) "Comeback Kid"

How to get a rich idiot kid elected? (Bush II)

How to get an aloof black man with weird name elected? (Obama)

[Sheilbh]

The polls have been consistently close--over a month away I don't think a 4% lead or whatever it is should be considered all that secure. I think the tendancy is to give Romney less chance than the polling would normally indicate because he has shown no life as a candidate. Which I think is fair--if he is a crap candidate for the first years of his campaign, why should we expect a turnaround in the last month?

I think one change is that the media will tire of the story about Romney being a loser and Obama running away with it.  Any sign of Romney staging a fightback makes for a new story that's more interesting and better copy.

I seem to remember the Democrats doing a bang-up job of working very adamantly against Bush while he was in office, too. 

I think this is overstating things.  The only example I can think of Congressional Democrats just obstructing was social security reform.  In all of his other domestic initiatives he received significant support from Democrats in Congress: Bush tax cuts, immigration reform, NCLB.  I've always thought that critics of the Democrats conflated the blooming of the base on the internet with the Democrats.

There are, I think, probably two reasons for that.  Bush's domestic policy placed more emphasis on 'compassionate conservatism' - which is something I think Romney desperately needs (Edit:  I think of all the politicians' speeches I saw Rice's, which was 'compassionate conservatism' was second only to Bill's).  But then Obama's healthcare proposals were very similar to what Republicans supported a decade ago and his policies were generally more shaped by Baucus and Nelson than Pelosi.  The other aspect is that I think while people conflated the Democratic base with their party in Congress, the Republican base and party in Congress seem more genuinely linked.  Though I think there's been a restraining of the Tea Party as much as them assuming control.  It's been observed, I think rightly, that they're extreme in primaries but then swing behind whoever's the candidate - look at Scott Brown.

I also think there's an issue with seeing the problem as moderates and radicals.  Moderates do as much damage as radicals to public trust in politics.  There are a few, precious few, conviction moderates in politics.  Politicians I think are often passionate about specific issues and occasionally that adds up, with a small dose of philosophy to a passionate centrism - again Scott Brown and Jim Webb spring to mind.  More often however moderates are posers like Evan Bayh (whose chances of voting liberally swung wildly when  there was potential for him to be a VP nominee or run in the primary), or politicians who will more of less sell their vote on any issue if you sweeten the pot - Arlen Specter, say.

The real problem, in my view, is the hacks vs pols with some conviction.  I don't mind a radical, I think they're a bracing and important part of politics.  For example Tom Coburn may be fiercely conservative but he's actually motivated by beliefs so he's hinted that he'd be willing to make a deal on revenue to reduce the deficit and the debt.  Similarly I think someone like Ted Kennedy would've worked with anyone (and did work with Bush) on issues he cared about like immigration reform.  Radicals and moderates can have a good faith negotiation over issues they care about and try to build consensus around them - hacks and careerists can't do good faith, however moderate they may try to appear because of their state, or their election chances, or to balance a ticket.

Look at Ryan who works out a budget plan that tickles his parties fancy (and includes some of Obama's policies) and then attacks that same policy when giving his VP acceptance speech because that's what the party wants to hear then.

People want positive character and culture fluff

With respect character isn't fluff.  First of all you're electing a head of state.  Secondly, character matters.  It's the basis of those immediate responses, the 3 AM phone calls and the nature of your relations with Congress.  And, above all, remember Burke: 'his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.'

Also my view is that Romney's tragedy is that if he loses, I don't think he'll look back with pride.  He wanted to be President and in 2006 facing Giuliani and McCain he decided to run as the social conservative candidate: the complete Reaganite conservative.  That meant he had to repudiate his relatively successful bipartisan record as a Governor and had to campaign for the votes of people who were suspicious of his faith meaning he had to keep that more quiet - despite it being something he's sincere and devout about (I thought the Mormon testimonials at the RNC were one of the best bits).  Romney's campaign has, for 6 years, been running against himself and his best hope as a 'moderate' Republican is that enough moderate voters think he's been lying for that long.  It's a real shame, because I think the 'real' Mitt Romney - a compassionate Mormon leader, a pragmatic technocrat with a record of bipartisanship - could do very well in this election.

[Sheilbh]

As an example, people who think that they would rather risk a member of the other party in a seat rather than tolerate a moderate member of their own. Just picking a random example out of recent history...say the people who worked hard to vote out Blue Dog Democrats...and got Tea Party Republicans instead.

You've a point, but I don't see the problem with lefty Democrats in New England wanting a lefty Democrat to represent their lefty state (or Republicans wanting a sensible moderate in the same state) - they may be a better representative.  But you're right that it's counter-productive for the Democratic left to primary a moderate in Nebraska, or the Republicans to decide against, say, Mike Castle.

On the other hand I don't think it's all bad - I'd always rather Rubio than Crist.

[Razgovory]

A good post Shelf.

[Martinus]

The Romney campaign is now at its worst point since Mitt was being battered in the primaries season. They need to start thinking different this current weekend. Besides trying to make this Wednesday's presidential debate a a game-changer, they need to rethink the campaign's strategy and tactics. I keep hearing them say the focus needs to be on the economy, but the economy is not bad enough to win on that alone. They would need a coming recession and/or unemployment reaching back towards 9% in order to win on that.

Further, most of the ads and messages I see coming out the Romney campaign are negative, usually about Obama's handling of the economy. As I mentioned above: 1. The economy is not bad enough, but also 2. People want positive character and culture fluff. I search the mittromney YouTube channel in vain: http://www.youtube.com/user/mittromney/videos?view=0

It's not too hard. Many Americans admire Obama's family and biography. The only book Romney wrote---besides one about the Olympics---is boring as hell. Nobody cares about a book full of patriot-spun policies.

Create Hollywood-quality ads about:
- raising 5 sons
- father's poor family immigrating from Mexico
- father's rescue of the auto industry
- father's failure as a Presidential candidate due to speaking out against the Vietnam War
- mother's failure as a Senate candidate due to being a woman
- lifelong marriage with Ann since high school
- Ann's various health problems
- two years of being a young missionary in France, including his near-death car crash and learning a new language
- the pressure and fear of starting a new company (Bain Capital) at age 33
- building a new church (Mormon temple in Massachusetts)
- rescuing the 2002 Winter Olympics
- working with Democratic legislators to balance the budget in Massachusetts all four years
- being the first and only Governor to bring universal healthcare to his state

Please tell me you are joking. 

Especially the mother/father ads or an ad about Ann's health problems. Wtfux? What would that prove?

Edit: I sincerely hope Americans are not THAT stupid to be influenced by ads like this.

[Martinus]

We need a "Leave Mitt Alone" youtube vid, by the way.

[Phillip V]

The Romney campaign is now at its worst point since Mitt was being battered in the primaries season. They need to start thinking different this current weekend. Besides trying to make this Wednesday's presidential debate a a game-changer, they need to rethink the campaign's strategy and tactics. I keep hearing them say the focus needs to be on the economy, but the economy is not bad enough to win on that alone. They would need a coming recession and/or unemployment reaching back towards 9% in order to win on that.

Further, most of the ads and messages I see coming out the Romney campaign are negative, usually about Obama's handling of the economy. As I mentioned above: 1. The economy is not bad enough, but also 2. People want positive character and culture fluff. I search the mittromney YouTube channel in vain: http://www.youtube.com/user/mittromney/videos?view=0

It's not too hard. Many Americans admire Obama's family and biography. The only book Romney wrote---besides one about the Olympics---is boring as hell. Nobody cares about a book full of patriot-spun policies.

Create Hollywood-quality ads about:
- raising 5 sons
- father's poor family immigrating from Mexico
- father's rescue of the auto industry
- father's failure as a Presidential candidate due to speaking out against the Vietnam War
- mother's failure as a Senate candidate due to being a woman
- lifelong marriage with Ann since high school
- Ann's various health problems
- two years of being a young missionary in France, including his near-death car crash and learning a new language
- the pressure and fear of starting a new company (Bain Capital) at age 33
- building a new church (Mormon temple in Massachusetts)
- rescuing the 2002 Winter Olympics
- working with Democratic legislators to balance the budget in Massachusetts all four years
- being the first and only Governor to bring universal healthcare to his state

Please tell me you are joking. 

Especially the mother/father ads or an ad about Ann's health problems. Wtfux? What would that prove?

Edit: I sincerely hope Americans are not THAT stupid to be influenced by ads like this.

Viewers of a 2008 debate said one of Obama's high points was when mentioned that his mother died of cancer. On the campaign trail, Obama would also describe how his mother was on food stamps for a time. Don't remember if this stuff was also put into his commercials. Then again, it's also in his book.

[Neil]

You know what?  I'm starting re-evaluate my position on gays.  Shielbh seems like he's capable of thought and reason, even if I don't agree with it.

Maybe the problem is being Polish, or slavdom in general.

[Eddie Teach]

You know what?  I'm starting re-evaluate my position on gays.  Shielbh seems like he's capable of thought and reason, even if I don't agree with it.

Maybe the problem is being Polish, or slavdom in general.

Well, on the one hand you've got Sheilbh, garbon, and grallon. OTOH, BB, Scipio and Guller. Make of this what you will.

[Neil]

It's possible that garbon and Grallon's unacceptable behavior is a result of racial inferiority as opposed to sexual inferiority.