Insta flip-flop - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

Drewski · 03-01-2012, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Well, granted we haven't made it to the general yet, but look at the list of know-nothing mongoloids he's been losing to so far in the GOP primary: Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum. The only reason he's made it this far is because the aforementioned made the mistake of opening their collective mouths, revealing them for the special ed candidates they are/were. When presented an alternative candidate with a scintilla of credibility, GOP voters opted time and time again for "not Romney."

Agreed the R field this year has been completely underwhelming. Interesting choice in terms there…

I would argue the second one is an insult to special ed students everywhere...

Quote:

Romney has no core base of supporters. He is going to have difficult in the general election, when his cash cows in the hedge fund community run up against contribution limits. Super PACs will mollify this somewhat, but Romney has nowhere near the small donor base that Obama does.

I would say his “base of supporters” would be anyone who doesn’t want Obama. Sure there will be many people who write a name in or vote third party. But I don’t see the base of the Republican party, who have been against Romney to this point, all of the sudden voting Obama when the choice is Barack or Mitt.

Quote:

Romney just barely won his home state against someone we all agree has no business being anywhere near elected office at any level. He will almost certainly lose TN and OK to Santorum on Super Tuesday, and GA to Gingrich. OH is a slight Santorum lean. Mitt has yet to show that he can win the core demographic of the Republican party: evangelicals and downscale white voters (both of whom supported Santorum in MI).

How can he show that when there are still religious nuts in the R race? Again see my point above.

Quote:

Romney has absolutely no positive core message for his candidacy. The only reason he is still in the race is because 1.) his opposition is godawful and b.) he has a lot of money, which is useful for carpet bombing his opponents with negative ads. Unless the economy reverses course, he will be left with not a single compelling argument for his candidacy against Obama.

He would have to argue that he is a better; as I think has been his point all along, choice to led us forward than the President. You can disagree with that, as many people do and will. But when you get to a General election isn’t that the only message?

Quote:

Finally, he's a plutocrat in a populist election. People used to talk about how Bush was the type of guy they'd like to have a beer with. Well, if you could have a beer, would you have one with Mitt "The Trees are the Right Height" Romney, or Obama? Romney has serious perception issues a la Kerry (i.e. flip flopping). He's spent the last six months running to the right, whoring himself out to the GOP base in the hopes they'll accept him as one of their own. And then he's going to reverse course AGAIN and tack to the center in the general election? That will only reinforce people's perceptions of the guy as being a cipher with no core convictions aside from raw political ambition.

Agreed that his wealth could make it hard to reach the common man, but didn’t Mitt pass UHC in MA? I would argue that that piece of legislation is about as far from plutocratic as an issue comes. I also agree that he has whored himself out to the right (as I agreed with Mrs. point about playing Tea-Party) But as long as the two fringes are the hotbeds of their respective parties, wouldnt any candidate who isnt a "traditional" one to their party have to do the same?

Quote:

Finally, Obama is a vastly superior campaigner, and unless the election hinges on factors beyond the President's control, I simply don't see him losing.

I could give a rats ass how well someone campaigns. I wanna know how they will lead us. So what if you can bull*hit the country’s pants off during a campaign…how does that help me what the s*it hits the fan and you are in the Oval Office? Being a good campaigner is important in the HS Senior Class President race at Albert E. Einstein HS. Leading the USA is a completely different animal.

Im not saying Obama is going to lose. IMHO this election is a choice between “ehh” and “ehh”.

My point was you saying Romney = Kerry.

Romney, while I am certainly no fan of his, beyond flip flopping, is nothing like Skelator.

Kerry is a “I care cuz I can” golddigger.
Romney is an aloof, “Ten Grand?”, shrewd (ethical??) business person.

However both are politicians = They lie for a living.

Real World · 03-01-2012, 02:59 PM

Good post Drew. Romney is light years better a candidate than Kerry ever was, or ever will be. I think that's a mix of Romney actually having a decent resume (experience wise), and Kerry being so terrible.

If the issue come November is the economy and the deficit, then Romney might win. If the focus is spread elsewhere, then Obama should win. I put the odds at 3-2 right now with Obama being the favorite.

sdaniels7114 · 03-01-2012, 03:22 PM

Some people have to retcon John Kerry into a bad person/candidate to justify their awful, awful, awful vote for Bush in 2004. However nothing can change the fact that you could erase 300 of Romney's worst flip flops and he'd still be able to give lessons on the subject to anyone, Kerry in particular.

Drewski · 03-01-2012, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdaniels7114

Some people have to retcon John Kerry into a bad person/candidate to justify their awful, awful, awful vote for Bush in 2004. However nothing can change the fact that you could erase 300 of Romney's worst flip flops and he'd still be able to give lessons on the subject to anyone, Kerry in particular.

Really? I voted for neither....but I still think Kerry is the worst general election candidate outside of Bob Dole since 1984.

JackBauer · 03-01-2012, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drewski

I would say his “base of supporters” would be anyone who doesn’t want Obama. Sure there will be many people who write a name in or vote third party. But I don’t see the base of the Republican party, who have been against Romney to this point, all of the sudden voting Obama when the choice is Barack or Mitt.

It's not a binary choice, as you said. They can also vote third party, or not vote at all.

If Barack Obama was running in the primary again and losing African-Americans and young people to his opponent (edit: every single opponent he faced), it would be a similar red flag.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drewski

How can he show that when there are still religious nuts in the R race? Again see my point above.

So basically you're making my point for me. The base isn't excited for Mitt, and they'll vote for any plausible alternative before they'll vote for him.

That sounds a lot like.......................John Kerry!

I have no doubt that most Republicans will hold their noses and vote for whomever the nominee is. But voting against Obama isn't a winning proposition, just as voting against Bush wasn't a winning proposition for Kerry. Bush successfully painted Kerry as being an unacceptable alternative, just as Obama will do to Romney (and believe me, it ain't going to be difficult).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drewski

He would have to argue that he is a better; as I think has been his point all along, choice to led us forward than the President. You can disagree with that, as many people do and will. But when you get to a General election isn’t that the only message?

No. You have to spell out a core narrative for your campaign. For Obama it was Hope and Change. For Bush it was consistency and keeping America safe.

For Romney, so far, it's Obama hasn't made the economy good fast enough. And absent the environment to support that message, there is absolutely nothing. And I think that's reflected in his lack of passionate support. Just like Kerry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drewski

Agreed that his wealth could make it hard to reach the common man, but didn’t Mitt pass UHC in MA? I would argue that that piece of legislation is about as far from plutocratic as an issue comes.

So you're saying he should champion a legislative accomplishment that 1.) is inimical to the base of support he's trying to win and b.) diffuses any line of attack he could mount against Obamacare?

Interesting strategy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drewski

I also agree that he has whored himself out to the right (as I agreed with Mrs. point about playing Tea-Party) But as long as the two fringes are the hotbeds of their respective parties, wouldnt any candidate who isnt a "traditional" one to their party have to do the same?

I would argue ideological orthodoxy is much stronger on the right than it is on the left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drewski

I could give a rats ass how well someone campaigns. I wanna know how they will lead us. So what if you can bull*hit the country’s pants off during a campaign…how does that help me what the s*it hits the fan and you are in the Oval Office? Being a good campaigner is important in the HS Senior Class President race at Albert E. Einstein HS. Leading the USA is a completely different animal.

That's nice and all, but being an effective campaigner is an important quality to have. Just ask John McCain and................John Kerry.

So to recap:

Both will lose elections their supporters believe they should have won, both ran against incumbents utterly loathed by their supporters
Both Massachusetts politicians who authored signature legislation that is unpopular with the base
Both lack any ability whatsoever to connect with the average person
Both of their respective greatest strengths turn out to be liabilities
Both were "safe" candidates of last resort
Neither excite their bases

I can't, for the life of me, understand why you two seem to think Romney is a better politician than Kerry. Have you guys watched this primary? If Romney were a GOOD POLITICIAN, he'd have wrapped this up long ago, especially considering the caliber of his opponents.

Oh, and just from today:

Quote:

"Look, I have worn a garbage bag for rain gear myself," - Mitt Romney, who mocked a group of NASCAR fans for wearing cheap plastic ponchos on Sunday.

Yup. Kerry v. 2.0.

JackBauer · 03-01-2012, 03:34 PM

Also:

I'm sure every single Republican who expressed indignation at Kerry's flip floppery will abstain from voting in this election. For certainly no one who criticized Kerry could then turn around and support Romney, right?

Right?

sdaniels7114 · 03-01-2012, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drewski

Really? I voted for neither....but I still think Kerry is the worst general election candidate outside of Bob Dole since 1984.

Dole would have made a good President. I'd feel great if next November's worst case scenario* was Bob Dole, circa 1996 though. Otherwise he'd be 90 on inauguration day, that's just a little too old.

*I make no secret of my stance, obviously best case to me would be Obama trouncing Santorum and having a solid mandate to work with.

***Patters*** · 03-01-2012, 04:18 PM

Drewski, I agree with you that it's all about the Independents and that Obama has a better chance of winning against Santorum than Romney. The problem is, however, that our nation is proven it is capable of electing really incompetent and bad people, such as Reagan and Bush II.

Let's remember that the Republicans will use blatant lies against Obama and will be very well funded by wealthy individuals. Since Obama is really quite moderate anyway, I'd rather risk a Romney presidency than a Santorum one, even if the latter is more easily defeated. If nothing else, let's keep in mind that Romney flip flops will surely be powerful fodder for ads and will cost him credibility. He will be a more difficult candidate than Obama to get inspired over at this point.

Drewski · 03-01-2012, 04:32 PM

Quote:

It's not a binary choice, as you said. They can also vote third party, or not vote at all.
If Barack Obama was running in the primary again and losing African-Americans and young people to his opponent (edit: every single opponent he faced), it would be a similar red flag.

So your argument is “African Americans and Youths” are the base of Dems?
I will say that the base of what currently is the Republican party is the “Religious Right” and fiscal Conservatives. Would you agree?

During a primary, how could Romney win the base (again the religious right and the fiscal cons.) when his religion scares off the zealots and Romneycare scares off the fiscal cons?

I said months ago on this very forum – Romney has a Republican problem. He has to survive the primaries because the loud minority of that party “hates” his views.
The R voters have a choice and have had one all along. They could vote for who shares their views most closely (Santorum/My Pet Newt) or they could vote for the only candidate that could beat Obama, Romney. No one has every claimed there are many things rational about religion.

Quote:

So basically you're making my point for me. The base isn't excited for Mitt, and they'll vote for any plausible alternative before they'll vote for him.

That sounds a lot like.......................John Kerry!

If that is the sense you taking the statement to then yeah I guess I made your point. I was pointing my statements toward life experience, accomplishment etc etc.
If you want to leave it at “IF the base wasn’t excited for Kerry AND isn’t for Romney THEN Kerry=Romney” on those grounds I would agree.

Quote:

I have no doubt that most Republicans will hold their noses and vote for whomever the nominee is. But voting against Obama isn't a winning proposition, just as voting against Bush wasn't a winning proposition for Kerry. Bush successfully painted Kerry as being an unacceptable alternative, just as Obama will do to Romney (and believe me, it ain't going to be difficult).

Obama has one thing going for/against him that in 2004 Bush didn’t have…the economy.
Nothing else will even matter come November. If the economy is still puttering along Obama could be toast. If it continues to improve til then and gas doesn’t hit 5 bucks (which Obama can do little about and has nothing to do with) then Obama should (in a Super Bowl 42 type of way like the spread would be 2 touchdowns and if Romney won it would be the greatest upset ever) win.

Quote:

No. You have to spell out a core narrative for your campaign. For Obama it was Hope and Change. For Bush it was consistency and keeping America safe.

For Romney, so far, it's Obama hasn't made the economy good fast enough. And absent the environment to support that message, there is absolutely nothing. And I think that's reflected in his lack of passionate support. Just like Kerry.

I guess you put a lot into this campaigning stuff. I don’t. I don’t need a narrative, I don’t need a theme, I don’t need a story. Hell I don't even need a bumper sticker. Give me your stance on the issues and if I agree Ill pull the lever when the 4th hits. I don’t have the constant need to be bombarded by the “message”, and maybe im the exception, not the rule.

Quote:

So you're saying he should champion a legislative accomplishment that 1.) is inimical to the base of support he's trying to win and b.) diffuses any line of attack he could mount against Obamacare?
Interesting strategy.

No I was using Romneycare to counter your “plutocrat” statement. Plutocrates wouldn’t give HC to poor people – since they fight for wealthy people right?

I write SQL code, not Campaign strategies….

Quote:

I would argue ideological orthodoxy is much stronger on the right than it is on the left.

Could be. I will certainly agree that the religious right base demands certain qualities of their pols.

Quote:

That's nice and all, but being an effective campaigner is an important quality to have. Just ask John McCain and................John Kerry.

In the modern ADD, 24 hour news cycle, constant headlines, social media America we live in; being able to campaign means something. “If you can’t campaign well how can you get out the message!” (in the voice from Pink Floyd's the Wall)

Again campaigning is inconsequential when the time comes for you to put your chips on the table.

What good does it do me to having a bad president who was a good campaigner?

Quote:

So to recap:
Both will lose elections their supporters believe they should have won, both ran against incumbents utterly loathed by their supporters

Doesn’t a supporter of any candidate believe, until they lose, that they were going to win. Not unique to Romney and Kerry.

Quote:

Both Massachusetts politicians who authored signature legislation that is unpopular with the base

Fact

Quote:

Both lack any ability whatsoever to connect with the average person

Something most Politicians have trouble doing (esp financially). If not all their lives, especially after they become one.

Quote:

Both of their respective greatest strengths turn out to be liabilities

I’m not sure I could identify what these strengths are that you speak of.

Quote:

Both were "safe" candidates of last resort

A Mormon Venture capitalist former R Governor of MA who passed “UHC” sounds anything but a “safe” Republican candidate.

Quote:

Neither excite their bases

Nontraditional candidates running in “a 2 party system” rarely do. See Huntmans and Paul for two other examples.

Quote:

I can't, for the life of me, understand why you two seem to think Romney is a better politician than Kerry.

Ahhhh “Eureaka!!!” my thoughts on Kerry have nothing to do with being a better politician. It was more a critique of him as a person and how his life experiences suited him well or not to be POTUS.

Quote:

Have you guys watched this primary?

Not more than 5 mins of all of them combined.
Primaries are like NASCAR races to me. Why would I watch 4 hours of cars making left hand turns (candidates “campaigning” against each other)? Wake me up when there is a crash!
Usually just get the highlights on here or somewhere else online.

Quote:

If Romney were a GOOD POLITICIAN, he'd have wrapped this up long ago, especially considering the caliber of his opponents.

I agree given the level of competition he should have run away with this. But that pesky religious conservative base kept playing whack a vote with him.

Drewski · 03-01-2012, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackBauer

Also:

I'm sure every single Republican who expressed indignation at Kerry's flip floppery will abstain from voting in this election. For certainly no one who criticized Kerry could then turn around and support Romney, right?

Right?

I am going to be writing my own name in, since I clearly would make a better president than either of these two.

(kidding about the second part.)