Governer Etch A Sketch

[djAdvocate]

ok, listen...

what is going on with Romney right now....the thing that is making him RISE in the polls....is PRECISELY what he got bashed around for in the primary. it is PRECISELY what made Republicans like me bristle. it is what made Paul say that he would never vote for him. it is what made a third party candidate come in close second in our election poll earlier this year.

Romney is drifting to the middle, just like Gingrich and Santorum said he would. he is not sticking to his "principles" at all.

i have long contended that due to the fact that most American's don't pay as much attention to politics as members of this board, that this will HELP him in the GE- because there are a lot MORE of them than US. but here is my question for the evening:

is this palpable sense of betrayal going to hurt him with hard line conservatives? if you need specific examples, then i would suggest that you either didn't watch the debate, or you weren't paying attention.

this guy is clearly not severely conservative. but, as we all know, he never was. he was just playing the primary voters like a fiddle.

the question is in bold. i am going to say: probably not.

[mmhmm]

I think it may hurt him with true conservatives. It's the party hacks who will go down with the ship, no matter what. He's the Republican nominee and that's all they care about. True conservatives are those who have thought things through and thrown their lot to the conservative side. They'll know the difference, I think. Will there be enough of them to offset the knee-jerk Republicans? That I cannot say.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 6, 2012 20:20:19 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I think it may hurt him with true conservatives. It's the party hacks who will go down with the ship, no matter what. He's the Republican nominee and that's all they care about. True conservatives are those who have thought things through and thrown their lot to the conservative side. They'll know the difference, I think. Will there be enough of them to offset the knee-jerk Republicans? That I cannot say.

i guess a good followup question would be whether their fear of Obama is sufficient to overcome their distaste for Romney?

[Tennesseer]

Oct 6, 2012 20:28:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 6, 2012 20:20:19 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I think it may hurt him with true conservatives. It's the party hacks who will go down with the ship, no matter what. He's the Republican nominee and that's all they care about. True conservatives are those who have thought things through and thrown their lot to the conservative side. They'll know the difference, I think. Will there be enough of them to offset the knee-jerk Republicans? That I cannot say.

i guess a good followup question would be whether their fear of Obama is sufficient to overcome their distaste for Romney?

True conservatives aren't super-human. Like everyone else, some true conservatives will vote for the lesser of two evils.

[djAdvocate]

i am thinking this is a net gain for him, even though purists like me hate him for it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 6, 2012 20:15:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ok, listen...

what is going on with Romney right now....the thing that is making him RISE in the polls....is PRECISELY what he got bashed around for in the primary. it is PRECISELY what made Republicans like me bristle. it is what made Paul say that he would never vote for him. it is what made a third party candidate come in close second in our election poll earlier this year.

Romney is drifting to the middle, just like Gingrich and Santorum said he would. he is not sticking to his "principles" at all.

i have long contended that due to the fact that most American's don't pay as much attention to politics as members of this board, that this will HELP him in the GE- because there are a lot MORE of them than US. but here is my question for the evening:

is this palpable sense of betrayal going to hurt him with hard line conservatives? if you need specific examples, then i would suggest that you either didn't watch the debate, or you weren't paying attention.

this guy is clearly not severely conservative. but, as we all know, he never was. he was just playing the primary voters like a fiddle.

the question is in bold. i am going to say: probably not.

I agree with you. I made up my mind a long time ago that if the GOP nominates this guy, I'm not going to reward them with my support.

I always thought he was weak, and would likely lose, but there were two things that I consistently underestimated this whole election cycle:

1. His ability to reach the low-information voter. The vast "middle" of mouth-breathing brain stems that have no frame of reference for use of the word "Etch-A-Sketch" who are litterally just now tuning in with 33 days to go and haven't made up their minds. I'm always incredulous that there are roughly 5 million people who will make up their minds in the last two weeks of a campaign-- but I'm wrong. I accept that now.

2. How weak a candidate Obama really is. He was never ready for prime time. He's barely qualified to be an IL State Senator. And next to a wealthy business man and political player on the level of Mitt Romney who has run companies, run a state, and been on the political stage as long as he has been- Obama looks like, well...Obama.

[mmhmm]

Oct 6, 2012 20:28:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 6, 2012 20:20:19 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I think it may hurt him with true conservatives. It's the party hacks who will go down with the ship, no matter what. He's the Republican nominee and that's all they care about. True conservatives are those who have thought things through and thrown their lot to the conservative side. They'll know the difference, I think. Will there be enough of them to offset the knee-jerk Republicans? That I cannot say.

i guess a good followup question would be whether their fear of Obama is sufficient to overcome their distaste for Romney?

For the thinking conservative, they're on the horns of a dilemma. There are devils on either side. Probably, you'll see the same thing among them as you do here on the forum: Some will hold their noses and vote for the Republican party nominee, while some will choose a third party candidate or write someone in.

[Gardening Grandma]

1. His ability to reach the low-information voter. The vast "middle" of mouth-breathing brain stems that have no frame of reference for use of the word "Etch-A-Sketch" who are litterally just now tuning in with 33 days to go and haven't made up their minds. I'm always incredulous that there are roughly 5 million people who will make up their minds in the last two weeks of a campaign-- but I'm wrong. I accept that now.

I agree with this part of your post Paul. In fact, I think it is why the polls are so close. Without the low information voter, Obama would be ahead by double digits.

[Value Buy]

Even us conservatives have to eventually have to settle for the candidate that is representing our party.
What we do with our other votes on the state elections from city council to national Senatorial races are what makes the difference in the long term.
Hell, even Obama was just a state Legislaturer a decade ago. Our actions have consequences, and that is why we now have Obama in the White House. Democrats, regardless of political leanings always back their candidate and get the job done.
Republicans and Tea party members have to learn this simple lesson.

[Gardening Grandma]

Value buy,
How do you know he'll represent your party? He has a history of changin positions based on the polls. He was pro choice, pro healthcare before he was against them. He has done so many gyrations in the last 18 months, I'm surprised he hasn't thrown his back out.

So how can you have any confidence at all that, if elected, he'd give a rip about your party?

[Opti]

How weak a candidate Obama really is. He was never ready for prime time. He's barely qualified to be an IL State Senator. And next to a wealthy business man and political player on the level of Mitt Romney who has run companies, run a state, and been on the political stage as long as he has been- Obama looks like, well...Obama.

It is an interesting point of view. Not one I agree with but interesting.
The debate was a debate, not the race. I agree Obama did not look good and made a tactical mistake in bringing up Romney's old policies when he had swung another way for the debate.

As political players go it took Romney his second try to become the
Republican nominee. Obama got it on his first try quite possibly because of the Bill Clinton effect but nevertheless ran a campaign that was impressive in that it resulted in a win. Very similar to W btw. While I don't like W, I believe as a politician he is exceptional at winning the race.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 7, 2012 10:31:58 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

1. His ability to reach the low-information voter. The vast "middle" of mouth-breathing brain stems that have no frame of reference for use of the word "Etch-A-Sketch" who are litterally just now tuning in with 33 days to go and haven't made up their minds. I'm always incredulous that there are roughly 5 million people who will make up their minds in the last two weeks of a campaign-- but I'm wrong. I accept that now.

I agree with this part of your post Paul. In fact, I think it is why the polls are so close. Without the low information voter, Obama would be ahead by double digits.

Without the low information voter, there is no Obama. Period. There's also no Romney, no Bush, no Clinton...

[Deleted]

Everyone moves towards the middle, he would be a fool not to...and that is where he belongs.

Now for some on this board that is a compromise...but that is who he has always been (apart from the wealth factor).

To get elected you not only need cash from the .005%, you also need to convince that 20 % that are still middle class (Family of four $120k), that you have their best interests at heart.

Tough job, I wouldn't want it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 7, 2012 14:48:41 GMT -5 Opti said:

How weak a candidate Obama really is. He was never ready for prime time. He's barely qualified to be an IL State Senator. And next to a wealthy business man and political player on the level of Mitt Romney who has run companies, run a state, and been on the political stage as long as he has been- Obama looks like, well...Obama.

It is an interesting point of view. Not one I agree with but interesting.
The debate was a debate, not the race. I agree Obama did not look good and made a tactical mistake in bringing up Romney's old policies when he had swung another way for the debate.

As political players go it took Romney his second try to become the
Republican nominee. Obama got it on his first try quite possibly because of the Bill Clinton effect but nevertheless ran a campaign that was impressive in that it resulted in a win. Very similar to W btw. While I don't like W, I believe as a politician he is exceptional at winning the race.

I think Obama won due to circumstances. He rode a wave of anti-Bush sentiment andeasily beat a weak challenger by painting him as the successor to Bush; as well as a media that ran cover for him with respect to his true identity.

[Don Perignon]

Another reason Obama won the first time around... bush/CHENEY left the country in such a pickle that the vast majority of potential contenders in either party were not eager to assume responsibility for the disaster ("IMMINENT TOTAL AND UTTER FINANCIAL MELTDOWN!").
Noting the paucity of authentic competition, Barack Obama saw the opportunity, pounced, and won the Oval Office.

And then the Republican Party frittered away four years trying everything they could to stymie and stall and impede the Obama Adminmistration, in order to make Obama a one-term presidency.
Having thrown away the baby with the bathwater, now they want to regain their former job as Chief Custodians...

[djAdvocate]

Oct 7, 2012 19:19:08 GMT -5 Don Perignon said:

Another reason Obama won the first time around... bush/CHENEY left the country in such a pickle that the vast majority of potential contenders in either party were not eager to assume responsibility for the disaster ("IMMINENT TOTAL AND UTTER FINANCIAL MELTDOWN!").
Noting the paucity of authentic competition, Barack Obama saw the opportunity, pounced, and won the Oval Office.

And then the Republican Party frittered away four years trying everything they could to stymie and stall and impede the Obama Adminmistration, in order to make Obama a one-term presidency.
Having thrown away the baby with the bathwater, now they want to regain their former job as Chief Custodians...

i think this is pretty much what Paul said. but i disagree with him that the press provided cover for the president. i think he was well vetted, actually. it is just that some people don't care for his background. as a white male 10th generation American, i can relate to the discomfort. understanding it and sharing it are two entirely different things, of course.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Spending actually wasn't as big a problem under Bush as it was his last two years after the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. The biggest problem for Bush is that he never quite got a hold of the fact that the lies were working. Bush is one of those people- and I know many- who think that it's best you don't respond to ridiculous accusations and lies because responding to them lends them credence. Things have changed. The news cycle is two to four hours, and if you lose control of it, you just plain lose. It was obvious to me that Bush desperately need to deploy some message management and to educate people on things, but he didn't.

And for the record, Romney won't, either. He's a good mechanic, but he's not going to be able to explain in laymen's terms what he will do, and what he is doing to make things better. I believe Romney will be a good manager. He will move towards balancing the books. He will compromise on things that will make me want to throw up- for example, he will REFORM, but will NEVER REPEAL ObamaCare. That will be a disaster for America, and one from which the country will NEVER recover. It will lead eventually to a hybrid single payer system that will basically be a two-tiered healthcare system where the rich get what they want, the poor and the middle class are stuck with something like Medicaid- but with the ability to "choose their plan" but it'll be from a government menu even if the plans have private-sector-sounding names. But I digress...

The left is going to go apoplectic when Obama loses- I would not rule out civil unrest, and overt revolutionary moves stemming from the left. They'll have their little hissy fit-- and they'll piss and moan all four years of a Romney administration-- and all the while they'll be getting every last thing they want.

[Deleted]

I don't think there is "distaste" for Romney. I am conservative, yet i have always liked Romney. I liked him 4 yrs ago and always have. I think conservatives are solidly behind Romney.

[SweetVirginia]

Oct 7, 2012 23:00:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Spending actually wasn't as big a problem under Bush as it was his last two years after the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. The biggest problem for Bush is that he never quite got a hold of the fact that the lies were working. Bush is one of those people- and I know many- who think that it's best you don't respond to ridiculous accusations and lies because responding to them lends them credence. Things have changed. The news cycle is two to four hours, and if you lose control of it, you just plain lose. It was obvious to me that Bush desperately need to deploy some message management and to educate people on things, but he didn't.

And for the record, Romney won't, either. He's a good mechanic, but he's not going to be able to explain in laymen's terms what he will do, and what he is doing to make things better. I believe Romney will be a good manager. He will move towards balancing the books. He will compromise on things that will make me want to throw up- for example, he will REFORM, but will NEVER REPEAL ObamaCare. That will be a disaster for America, and one from which the country will NEVER recover. It will lead eventually to a hybrid single payer system that will basically be a two-tiered healthcare system where the rich get what they want, the poor and the middle class are stuck with something like Medicaid- but with the ability to "choose their plan" but it'll be from a government menu even if the plans have private-sector-sounding names. But I digress...

The left is going to go apoplectic when Obama loses- I would not rule out civil unrest, and overt revolutionary moves stemming from the left. They'll have their little hissy fit-- and they'll piss and moan all four years of a Romney administration-- and all the while they'll be getting every last thing they want.

So funny to see how Romney has brought you over to the "dark side" simply because he is not Obama. LOL!

[Deleted]

Voting for "Not Obama" is just as valid of a reason to vote for Romney or anyone else for that matter. Voters can decide for themselves to vote for whomever they want for whatever reason.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 7, 2012 23:09:19 GMT -5 @shooby said:

I don't think there is "distaste" for Romney. I am conservative, yet i have always liked Romney. I liked him 4 yrs ago and always have. I think conservatives are solidly behind Romney.

Paul is a conservative. he is not behind Romney.
Driftr is a conservative. he is not behind Romney.
Ron Paul is a conservative. he is not behind Romney.

where are these mythical conservatives of whom you speak?

[djAdvocate]

Oct 7, 2012 23:23:20 GMT -5 @shooby said:

Voting for "Not Obama" is just as valid of a reason to vote for Romney or anyone else for that matter. Voters can decide for themselves to vote for whomever they want for whatever reason.

false equivalency. not all reasons for voting for someone are equally valid.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 7, 2012 23:00:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The left is going to go apoplectic when Obama loses

if, Paul. if.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 7, 2012 23:00:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

And for the record, Romney won't, either. He's a good mechanic, but he's not going to be able to explain in laymen's terms what he will do, and what he is doing to make things better. I believe Romney will be a good manager. He will move towards balancing the books.

what makes you think that? there is absolutely NO evidence from his very sketchy picture of what he plans on doing that he will come anywhere close to that. in fact, candidly, i think that he will do no better than Obama, and he might in fact do substantially worse.

[Don Perignon]

Oct 8, 2012 0:04:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 7, 2012 23:00:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The left is going to go apoplectic when Obama loses

if, Paul. if.

The tightie-righties are still apoplectic... after nearly four years.
That's a very long tantrum.

[Deleted]

Oh, that is funny. I saw 8 yrs of Bush Tantrums.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 8, 2012 0:04:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 7, 2012 23:00:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The left is going to go apoplectic when Obama loses

if, Paul. if.

There's almost no scenario in which Obama can pull this off now. He's toast in IA, WI, MI, IN, OH, VA, NC, and FL. You explain to me how he pulls it off when he's down 16 to 18 points with independents, and I'll listen. He's done.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Oct 8, 2012 5:46:26 GMT -5 @shooby said:

Oh, that is funny. I saw 8 yrs of Bush Tantrums.

Um, yeah- I don't recall a tantrum. I recall action- like the near complete wipeout of the Democrats in 2010.

[djAdvocate]

Oct 8, 2012 12:31:47 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Oct 8, 2012 0:04:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if, Paul. if.

There's almost no scenario in which Obama can pull this off now. He's toast in IA, WI, MI, IN, OH, VA, NC, and FL. You explain to me how he pulls it off when he's down 16 to 18 points with independents, and I'll listen. He's done.

you're dreaming. this will be close, and Obama is still the favourite.

[Don Perignon]

Odd, how the radical fringe insists upon trying to declare a fait accompli for their candidate... like the fanatics at any sporting event obnoxiously declaring their team the winner in advance of the contest. It's ridiculous.
I get the distinct impression that making a spectacle of themselves is much more important to them than the contest.