2012 GOP, who's it going to be?

Papageno · 2012-02-01T13:10:06.000Z

Houngan:

Romney actually is the “establishment” candidate now, since the establishment is driven for and by the ultra-wealthy. Too subtle a point for the campaign trail, but the entire process has become a joke at this point. The Democrats had a tiny window where they could have meaningfully reformed banking and finance and they blew it on idealism.

H.

I don’t know what kind of “idealism” you’re talking about, unless it’s the Administration’s misguided belief that the GOP members of Congress during 2009 and 2010 had any intention of bargaining in good faith on ANYTHING. Unfortunately, the Dems are mostly in bed with Wall St. and the investment banking sector, so Dodd-Frank ended up being so watered down as to be nearly meaningless.

Dave_Markell · 2012-02-01T13:41:55.000Z

NPR had a brief piece last night where one of the guests compared the main donors to the Romney and Obama campaigns. They were identical–GoldmanSachs, Citi, and so on. Both sides are primarily financed by the establishment, with predictable results. We’re going to be paying for the Citizens United decision for a long, long time.

Papageno · 2012-02-01T14:23:27.000Z

Interestingly, however, a much greater number of donors to the Obama campaign are in the “under 200 dollar” range vs. the Romney campaign, per what I heard on Morning Edition today (or maybe it was yesterday on ATC). Now whether it makes much of a difference as a proportion of the amounts raised (or on policy positions), who knows.

Jason_Townsend · 2012-02-01T14:27:32.000Z

“Small-dollar donations aren’t expected to matter as much in this election” is by all accounts the understatement of 2012; it’s “our” millionaires against theirs.

Elizabeth Drew, NYRB: Can We Have a Democratic Election?

Papageno · 2012-02-01T14:32:45.000Z

One can only hope that “our” millionaires believe in “noblesse oblige” and long-term sustainability and somewhat shared prosperity vs. their own short-term gain.

Tin_Wisdom · 2012-02-01T15:05:16.000Z

JeffL:

It is exactly what Clinton was able to do with Bush I - we were absolutely coming out of the recession (one which was MUCH less severe than this one, and one in which far fewer people felt the pain) but as Bush tried to tell the voters, hey, we’re coming out of this, things are getting better, Clinton was able to repeatedly ask the voters “Do you know anyone who is still looking for a job? Ask them how good they feel about the economy. Does it feel like it’s a lot better for you?” and that easily caught on. Again - in a much, much less painful and catastrophic economy.

Primary difference was that Bush was held responsible for the recession because his party (and to a lesser extent, he himself) had been in power for twelve years – he could not claim that the economy wasn’t his doing. Sure, it was getting better, but the electorate still blamed him for its existence in the first place.

By contrast, Obama still doesn’t “own” this bad economy: even Republicans (in polling) blame Bush II for the current situation. They can try and say that Obama has had four years to fix it and done nothing, but recent crap like the payroll tax extension has cemented in the voters’ minds that it is the GOP/Tea Partiers that are preventing him from doing anything meaningful.

Ironically, one area of relatively good economic news is from the Detroit car manufacturing sector. And here the general public gives credit to Obama… when the majority of the heavy lifting was actually done by Bush II.

Lorini · 2012-02-01T15:18:21.000Z

The heavy lifting wouldn’t have counted for much had GM gone bankrupt…

Jason_Townsend · 2012-02-01T15:22:18.000Z

Tin Wisdom:

Primary difference was that Bush was held responsible for the recession because his party (and to a lesser extent, he himself) had been in power for twelve years – he could not claim that the economy wasn’t his doing. Sure, it was getting better, but the electorate still blamed him for its existence in the first place.

The GOP had the Senate from '81-'87, but the House was Democratic from '33-'95, aside from '47-'49. It was a different Democratic party back then, of course, but the “party was in power” thing has to be surrounded by caveats.

I put it down to perceptions of the economy, party fatigue at the Presidential level, and the charisma gap, which may not be very different from what you’re saying.

strategy · 2012-02-01T16:01:57.000Z

Romney just keeps on delivering fantastic soundbites: “I’m not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there.”

Facepalm. I know this is taken out of context, but it’s really amazing that this guy is actually an electable candidate in the current economic climate.

Scuzz · 2012-02-01T16:22:54.000Z

strategy:

Romney just keeps on delivering fantastic soundbites: “I’m not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there.”

Facepalm. I know this is taken out of context, but it’s really amazing that this guy is actually an electable candidate in the current economic climate.

That really means nothing without knowing the context, although it would make great Demo billboard fodder.

strategy · 2012-02-01T16:30:29.000Z

I know the context (it’s a CNN interview from earlier this morning). It’s just absurd that his campaign even let him say something like that, no matter what the context is. They should know how it will sound.

Even norwegian papers are running this quote as a headline to US election stories now. It’s that dumb.

Jason_Townsend · 2012-02-01T16:33:12.000Z

Exactly what kind of context could rescue a remark like that? He was rehearsing for a play?

Timex · 2012-02-01T16:38:31.000Z

He said that he wasn’t focusing on the very poor, or the very rich, but rather wanted to focus on the 90-95% of America that made up the middle.

EDIT:
Actual Quote:

As the day began, Romney told CNN from Florida: “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich. They’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”

“You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus,” he said.

Jason_Townsend · 2012-02-01T16:42:17.000Z

I’ll grant that his apparent innumeracy does momentarily distract from his appalling callousness.

Scuzz · 2012-02-01T16:48:12.000Z

Jason Townsend:

I’ll grant that his apparent innumeracy does momentarily distract from his appalling callousness.

Stated in context that isn’t nearly as stupid sounding as it did on it’s own. But he will very much regret the way he said it.

Timex · 2012-02-01T16:51:49.000Z

Ya, its not really something that you can spin in a real positive light.

Murbella · 2012-02-01T22:33:21.000Z

I was under the impression that Republicans in general wanted to (at least partially) disable the “safety net” so Romney saying the poor are fine because they have food stamps is kind of shockingly out of touch.

Taken by itself, his comment wasn’t hugely damning. It was pretty clear he didn’t mean he didn’t care about the poor if you listen to the whole thing, but if he says the poor are fine because they have their safety nets and then he wants to cut those same safety nets that make the poor fine…

On the other hand, you can’t make up better attack ad material than this.

Romney: “it is time we get people back to work!” (crowd cheers)(freeze and slow zoom on Romney’s face)
Announcer: “Romney says he cares about the american people, but who is he really talking about?”
Romney: “I don’t care about the poor, they have their safety nets.”
Announcer: “Safety nets romney campaigned on cutting in order to keep his 15% tax, lower than his secretary”
Romney: “corporations are people too my friend. Where do you think the money goes?”
(Crowd responding with laughter and telling him in his pocket)
Gingrich: (comments about Romney firing people and making record profits)
Perry: “Down in the south we like to call people like Romney Vulture capitalists” (whatever he said to that effect)
(cut to that black and white video of romney in his early years, wearing a suit and shaking hands with his bain friends)
Announcer: “This year, tell romney that there are more ‘people’ than just Corporations”
Romney: “I don’t care about the poor”

strategy · 2012-02-02T04:18:12.000Z

Scuzz:

Stated in context that isn’t nearly as stupid sounding as it did on it’s own. But he will very much regret the way he said it.

That’s kind of my point. When is anything ever quoted in context in politics? This is just such a dumb thing for a candidate to say - even more dumb when you are THE rich candidate.

jeffd · 2012-02-02T05:46:54.000Z

Murbella:

I was under the impression that Republicans in general wanted to (at least partially) disable the “safety net” so Romney saying the poor are fine because they have food stamps is kind of shockingly out of touch.

They very much do, which is what, IMO, truly makes his comment ridiculous. “The poor are doing fine. I intend to change that.”

Houngan · 2012-02-02T06:08:00.000Z

Papageno:

I don’t know what kind of “idealism” you’re talking about, unless it’s the Administration’s misguided belief that the GOP members of Congress during 2009 and 2010 had any intention of bargaining in good faith on ANYTHING. Unfortunately, the Dems are mostly in bed with Wall St. and the investment banking sector, so Dodd-Frank ended up being so watered down as to be nearly meaningless.

That would be exactly the idealism to which I was referring. After the first six months they should have started cracking the whip and gotten shit done.

H.