Hey KB, how are you? A while back I recall you referring to the election process in the US as the "silly season". From an entertainment standpoint, I'd say it's been a decent silly season but for all the talk of vitriol, I'd say that this has paled in comparison to '08 but perhaps that is because both candidates are somewhat vetted from previous runs. There's no Palin and well, we've already been down the Reverend Wright road. What has been your take on this "silly season"? As for last night, both candidates had clear objectives, Obama's was to paint Romney as lacking foreign policy experience and being "all over the map". Romney's agenda was to appear moderate to independent voters and reassure people that he was not going to be a war monger. imo, Obama was more effective in his objective.
It's a centrist vs. a centrist, it's going to be dull. That's why "Anybody but Romney" was leading in the polls up to the primaries - from the mile-high view, Mitt Romney is John Kerry without the bags under his eyes. As soon as Newt Gingrich couldn't talk about moon colonies and Herman Cain couldn't put forth tax plans whose problems could be enumerated by fourth graders, the Republicans have had to settle with "we'd do much the same thing this guy is doing only we'd do it Republican-style." As Congress still has a lower approval rating in the American public than Hugo Chavez, "Republican-style" just doesn't cut it. Romney needs to throw as much inbred insanity as he thinks he can get away with to keep the hillbillies who hate having a darkie president from staying home out of spite, and Obama needs to be just hopey-changey enough to keep the "I didn't vote" hipsters from staying true to their word. '08 was different because Cheney and Turdblossom were still pulling the strings. I think if you look at it most inside-the-beltway pundits accept that either party will control the White House for 8 years; for the democrats, that gives them ample time to point fingers and borrow heavily and for the republicans, it gives them time for infrastructure and reserves to be built up enough to go spending again. Clinton was an anomaly that Lee Atwater warned about in 1986 and he upset the balance, that's one reason they hate him so much. That said, look to a Jeb Bush run in 2016 for things to get truly interesting because then the Republicans will actually be trying.
I agree with your centrist vs. centrist take as to why it has been "dull". It also accounts for why the race is so close in my opinion. I'm interested to know what you think the results will be from a numbers perspective? what are your predictions? The reason I ask is that you seem pragmatic enough to make a call void of emotional attachment. I'm headed to a neighborhood Halloween party and given the varied nature of front lawn election signs and the closeness of the election, it should prove interesting. I love talking politics. Hope my wife is prepared to be embarrassed.
I could see Jeb being the most formidable GOP candidate in 2016. It makes sense, if he wants it. I expect to see Hillary, and unless Obama doesn't get an economic turnaround, she will be very tough to beat. Many felt that Obama delayed what was hers, and thus, feel it is her due. The GOP has a creeping weakness that doesn't help Jeb, though. Every year there are less white men. It might take an election or two before they get their heads around that in a meaningful way. They might be facing an intractable issue in taking the White House.
Obama will get an economic turnaround. The question is who will be in the White House when it happens. The numbers have been pretty clear recently, especially home prices and housing starts. If Romney wins, he'll reap the benefits, just like Clinton did from 93-96. If the 92 turnaround had started one or two months earlier, then there's no way Bush gets defeated; instead it was all hail Bill. The economy is its own beast, and it operates at its own whims.
Jeb Bush, huh? One thing that seems apparent is that the GOP is attempting to cultivate some new brands within the party -Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Tim Pawlenty, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan and even Rand Paul and Sarah Palin make for a strong lineup of right wingers and moderates to pull from. But you think they'll go old guard in 2016? You think Hillary will make a go of it in 2016? That would be an interesting silly season, Clinton vs. Bush the next chapter.
Bobby Jindal was a fail. Chris Christie cares more about Chris Christie than the Republican Party. Tim Pawlenty isn't interested in kowtowing to the Tea Party. Marco Rubio is a puppet with nothing of his own. Paul Ryan? Paul Ryan they're grooming. Rand Paul? If he thought he could make a better run with the Libertarians he'd bolt in a minute. Sarah Palin? She got her 15 minutes, baby. She's in it for the cash. Jeb sat this one out because it was obvious there was no point.
I didn't watch too much (Lions MNF and all), but when I flipped over I mostly saw Romney agreeing with the President's policies then adding "I would have done it sooner." I don't really blame him. The US basically has one foreign policy, independent of the leader, so what else can Mitt do. The president is always going to have the upper hand in a foreign policy debate, because he has the keys to the Pentagon and State dept. The exception is W, who by all rights dropped the ball and still won somehow.
Odd that Mitt claimed that Syria was Iran's 'route to the sea' when he made the same mistake back in February. You would think that someone would have corrected hime between then and now.
I would say that Obama certainly held the night but I wouldn't say he "dominated completely". The only debate where one candidate "dominated" was the first. Obama certainly won the 2nd and 3rd but I'm not sure it made up for the gains Romney received after the first. Unfortunately, what determines who won is the spin after the fact. Last night and today all of the press will be dissecting the event. Obama had some clear "zingers" -bayonets/horses that will make for good press and he did a nice job of combating the "apology tour" line. But Romney had his moments too. "attacking me is not a policy for the future", which will get spin in the conservative media. I guess my point is that there was enough content on both sides to spin it in the direction the pundits are already pointed. With the first debate Obama gave them nothing to work with. I am still amazed at how badly he did in that one. He certainly showed up last night though.
I felt like Obama won that one almost as thoroughly as Romney won the first. Better on substance, made Romney look out of touch, got Romney to flip flop some more and agree with Obama's own policies, had the most memorable one liners and attacks (stupid, but it matters). I don't think that that will translate to much though. Romney was so far behind going into the first that his initial debate performance was able to reap large rewards. Obama doing well in the next two doesn't magically make Romney non-viable in the way that many undecided voters saw him previous to the first debate.
Do you think Obama has a clear victory in site?Romney was so far behind going into the first that his initial debate performance was able to reap large rewards.
Agreed. There was nowhere but up for him at that point but Obama didn't need to give him a ladder?! I also agree that Obama clearly won the debate and had last night been the first of the debates, this election process would be over.
I do think Obama has a clear victory in sight, though it will be close. I'm just talking from the standpoint of poll aggregates and electoral college math rather than policy positions or or feelings of who "should" win or who I want to win. If you step back and just kind of coldly analyze the language of Republican surrogates almost across the board, it also coming across as desperate. It isn't overt, but it is there, -an awful lot of active narrative constructing centered around how Romney really could win. Obama wins this debate handily and Rodney's foreign policy is confused and conciliatory towards the current admin's positions? The messaging from the right post debate is "Romney passes the Commander in Chief test" You expect both sides to spin every utterance of campaigns in their own favor, but what is interesting is how much of the pro Romney spin is centered on convincing people that he is viable and has an actual shot. It's a bit nuanced, but I think it is very telling, and in perfect keeping with the electoral college math.
That bayonet and horses line was pretty slick. Seems to me that Romney essentially is saying, "I would do what the administration has done... but better". Not a lot of differences on foreign policy.