2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Xiahou]

I think things like the iPhone app and Polandgate illustrate how thin the campaign is right now. It truly is silly season. Will this whole thing get more substantive? Maybe. Possibly.

Obama has nothing to run on, and Romney's platform mainly consists of "I'm not Obama & I made alot of money in business". I'm not really expecting anything interesting in this campaign until the debates.


Since you brought it up, Polandgate is a little more noteworthy than a typo in an iPhone app that no one uses. This was an amateurish mistake by a speechwriter that has managed to offend an important ally. They'll get over it, but it was a gaffe.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Obama has plenty to run on, but like every Democratic candidate I have payed attention to in my life (see: all of them since 9/11) he won't capitalize on it because it provides fodder for attacks and it's better to be bland and slippery than spicy and mischaracterizable (not a word).

[Xiahou]

Obama has plenty to run on, but like every Democratic candidate I have payed attention to in my life (see: all of them since 9/11) he won't capitalize on it because it provides fodder for attacks and it's better to be bland and slippery than spicy and mischaracterizable (not a word).

What would he run on? Bin Laden was killed under his administration- but he can't beat that drum too hard without risking backlash. Obamacare is wildly unpopular, unemployment is still very high... what am I missing?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh, look, a substantive economic debate between people who have valid points and data. Too bad I can't see this sort of thing here in the USA.

I enjoyed it when the woman said that young people who just graduated with $30,000+ in student loan debt should be making their own jobs, forming their own businesses. Because it's so easy to create a start up when you have to be making $800 payments every month starting as soon as you get your piece of paper. But then again, it wasn't as if the previous generation were able to get cushy, lifelong, union jobs with only a high school diploma. I don't want to come across as generational bashing, because I don't think any generation is to blame, but something is amiss there.

What would he run on? Bin Laden was killed under his administration- but he can't beat that drum too hard without risking backlash. Obamacare is wildly unpopular, unemployment is still very high... what am I missing?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me.../promise-kept/

Obama could pull out any of those if he really wanted to, he has the money and the PR people to brute force an image of someone who has done a lot. Because he really has. But the point is that all of those achievements are just as provoking of the right as well of the left. If he wants to tout about closing the "donut hole" for medicare users, he knows that the dreaded death panels will be creeping into the vernacular again.

[Lemur]

Obamacare (such a stupid name btw)

In fairness, Obamacare is the slang term, not the proper name, just as Romneycare isn't really Romneycare. I think Obamacare is actually PPACA, or more often just ACA. Romneycare is "An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care" to its friends.

People call it "Romneycare" or "Obamacare" as a diminution, which I think should be embraced. Much like John Wheeler with the term "Black Hole," the insult becomes a rather catchy name.

[Xiahou]

Who is Obamacare unpopular with? You? People in red-state strongholds? Most people who vote democrat (roughly half the damned country, amirite?) want some kind of universal healthcare system, and would gladly prop up Obamacare (such a stupid name btw) as the first big step in the right direction.

A majority of Americans want it repealed. Many of his own supporters don't even like it- many do. But they don't really matter because they'll vote for him either way. Independents also favor repeal of the mandate (24%) or all of it (46%). That doesn't make for a good campaign platform.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me.../promise-kept/

Obama could pull out any of those if he really wanted to, he has the money and the PR people to brute force an image of someone who has done a lot. Because he really has. But the point is that all of those achievements are just as provoking of the right as well of the left. If he wants to tout about closing the "donut hole" for medicare users, he knows that the dreaded death panels will be creeping into the vernacular again.

I don't have the time or inclination to vet that entire list- but man are they being charitable towards Obama. Many of them read to the effect "well, he hasn't actually followed thru completely, but we'll call it a promise kept anyhow." Contrast that with this check of a promise by Boehner where all their evidence indicates he kept the promise, but it gets an "In Progress" rating.

Here's another gem I saw: Increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps

Meanwhile, there is a plan to shrink to 186,800 Marines at the end of Marine Corps operations in Afghanistan, Wolf said.

But Obama said nothing about keeping the higher levels indefinitely. We rate this a Promise Kept.

So he's actually going to cut the size of the military- but screw it, 'promise kept!'

[Xiahou]

Read what I wrote- it's widely disliked. He can't campaign on it. Because people dislike it for a host of different reasons doesn't make it any more marketable.

[a completely inoffensive name]

stuff

Ehh, you are being disingenuous here. The point wasn't the validity of politifact, the point was that he can make statements about following through on many promises, because whether they are substantiated or not, there are articles that would support said statements. Bold faced lies generally are exposed sooner or later in a general election and often trying to redefine the words/meaning of your original statement makes you look even worse "What is the definition of "is"?"

You are not really contesting my point that he could run on a lot of things, you are just expressing your dissatisfaction with everything that he did. Case in point the fact that just because left leaning and right leaning people don't like Obamacare, doesn't translate into "neither group will be voting for obama". Progressives will still vote Dem because the changes Obamacare made had some steps forwards as well as steps backward whereas they 'know' that under Romney it would all be steps backwards.

Read what I wrote- it's widely disliked. He can't campaign on it. Because people dislike it for a host of different reasons doesn't make it any more marketable.

This is also false. If Obama really wanted to he could achieve tentative support of Obamacare by using PR magic on the good portions of the law. Closing the donut hole which seniors love and extending parents coverage for children until 26 (I think it was 26) years old which young people love. The fact is just that it is easier to be slippery and not make such definitive statements over the bill and let the GOP use it as fodder.

[PanzerJaeger]

This is also false. If Obama really wanted to he could achieve tentative support of Obamacare by using PR magic on the good portions of the law. Closing the donut hole which seniors love and extending parents coverage for children until 26 (I think it was 26) years old which young people love. The fact is just that it is easier to be slippery and not make such definitive statements over the bill and let the GOP use it as fodder.

Could you explain your thinking a bit more on this? Obama has plenty of money, the bully pulpit, and unquestionably strong communication skills. If all it would take to turn the political loser that is Obamacare into a winner, why is it easier to continue to let the GOP bash him over the head with it? It will be, perhaps, one of the three major issues he will be judged on along with the economy and spending. Of those three, it is perhaps the easiest to put wrap a bow around. I'm actually quite impressed that the American people have seen through all the gimmicks and giveaways and disapproval has remained as high as it has.

It seems to me that in actuality the Dems have been spending a lot of time, effort, and money trying to sell Obamacare and it just isn't taking.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Could you explain your thinking a bit more on this? Obama has plenty of money, the bully pulpit, and unquestionably strong communication skills. If all it would take to turn the political loser that is Obamacare into a winner, why is it easier to continue to let the GOP bash him over the head with it? It will be, perhaps, one of the three major issues he will be judged on along with the economy and spending. Of those three, it is perhaps the easiest to put wrap a bow around. I'm actually quite impressed that the American people have seen through all the gimmicks and giveaways and disapproval has remained as high as it has.

It seems to me that in actuality the Dems have been spending a lot of time, effort, and money trying to sell Obamacare and it just isn't taking.

Sure. By trying to spin Obamacare into a winner (which in many ways I think it is), he is putting all his chips into one hand. By diversifying he can get together a strong coalition without agitating the GOP base. Obamacare was obviously the number 1 thing on the tip of every GOP candidates mouth during the debates. By spreading himself out over a bunch of different, perhaps small accomplishments and refusing to battle it out over Obamacare, the word then just becomes a talking point by the GOP and not something to fight over as long as Obama doesn't fight over it too much.

To put it in another way Obama is (or should be) trying to throw everything he can at the wall to see what sticks, a couple things will and he can run with those. The GOP it seems wants to rely on one or two things that look like sure things (Obamacare and the economy). But by restricting themselves to those two, it helps Obama dismantle their position and by Obama focusing on a plethora of other subjects he doesn't put himself at the same risk. If people somehow manage to get tired of Romney talking about Bain Capital and want something else out of him, it will be a lot harder for Romney to change gears because he has built nearly his entire persona around being a businessman.

I disagree that the Dems have been trying to spin Obamacare. It seems obvious to me that up until this month Obama has been more than happy to remain silent while the GOP candidates make themselves look like fools. Because the spotlight was solely on the GOP for the past 6 months, it's no surprise that 6 months of hearing the GOP saying "Repeal Obamacare." will have people echoing the sentiment. Once Obama goes into full swing over this coming month, we will actually see what spins the Democrats have in store.

[Lemur]

Obama has nothing to run on, and Romney's platform mainly consists of "I'm not Obama & I made alot of money in business".

Yeah, as ACIN points out, Obama has plenty of record. And Romney has a record as governor; both men are perfectly capable of having a substantive debate.

However, we are in silly season, and the points being made and campaign videos are all yawners, or unintentionally hilarious.

For reasons I cannot explain, this seems more relevant than any campaign video so far.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Silly season gets longer each election. Eventually, if the trend continues (and if we aren't already there), substantive debates and hard numbers won't even enter into the equation.

I really don't think that substantive debates and hard numbers have even entered politics since 9/11. I have watched the youtube videos of the 2000 debates, and I would have voted for Bush Jr. if I could have back then, he made a lot of sense on the campaign trail. Then the 2004 debates which I watched first hand I remember being part of the decade long (and counting) blur of "FEAR! FEAR! 9/11! TERRORIST SLEEP CELLS! NEED MORE TSA! I'M MORE PATRIOTIC!"

Substantive debate don't involve closing your ears and shouting LALALALA when someone questions the war on drugs. Hard numbers don't involve McCarthy-lite accusations when someone brings up the fact that the billions spent on TSA security have resulted in zero terrorists being caught at the scanner stations.

9/11 extended the silly season to be all year long and now we are living in an alternate reality that people have been conforming to, not rejecting.

[Lemur]

This is why we can't have nice things.

Oh, look, a substantive economic debate between people who have valid points and data. Too bad I can't see this sort of thing here in the USA.