It was like a job interview where Obama knew he had the gig but didn't want it and Romney wanted the gig but knew he didn't have it.
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.