Vulnerable? Mmm yeah. Very vulnerable? No. But watching two ads from the Romney campaign will give one a distorted impression of Mitt's chances so far.Obama would be in real trouble if the Republicans had a strong candidate. Romney is not that candidate. He has money but he doesn't have the base energised. Romney will have to stoke the anti-Obama sentiments to make the conservative base forget they don't like Romney that much either.The one factor that will give Romney a fighting chance is the new, unregulated campaign money steered through SuperPACs thanks to the ruling from the Supreme Court. This means wealthy backers can buy their own ads without complying with FEC regulations. That will give Romney's wealthy backers a way to fill the airwaves with negative ads. We have already seen this in the Republican primary. It's how Romney pummelled Gingrich in Florida and savaged Santorum in Michigan. He outspent them and regained those key states. That is a new force in US elections that may affect the national. Obama was good at fundraising but this year there are new rules (or no rules, almost).But Mitt's credentials? Not enough to make Obama 'very vulnerable'. Mitt's been so inconsistent throughout his career the past versions of himself keep coming back to haunt him. Check out this video of Old Romney and New Romney clashing in rather embarrasing ways. Romney continues to decry the national health bill that is almost identical to the one he put in place in Massachusetts as governor. It's one big train of cognitive dissonance.There's plenty wrong with Obama, but there is not reason to believe Romney will right those wrongs. Or that he's a strong challenger.
We will see droog. Romney has a long history of winning unlikely elections. Obama is very weak on the economy. My money is on Romney. The guy is a born winner.
There is a slight odour of desperation in Obama's campaign. The "war on women" for example...
The election of Obama was reflecting a strong desire by the American public to move away from those unfortunate warmongering/environment-destroying years under Bush. So of course Obama now looks vulnerable. The American public have now just realised he is not superhuman and can not fix all their problems.
Anonymous:Can you list part of this long history of unlikely electoral victories?Romney lost the Mass Senate race and won the governor role later on. He served one term. That's it. That's hardly a long list of accomplishments.If you count the primary races for all the offices he has competed for he was still under 50% as recently as January. He lost to a very under-funded John McCain four years ago. Let's not pretend this guy is a rising star. He's the only meal left in the fridge and Republicans will now have to eat it.This election will be about low voter turnout and super PAC negative ads. Both sides are unhappy about different things. The side that stays at home in larger numbers will lose. The side running the most ads will influence that outcome the most.---Roger R. First off that's a pot vs kettle line of argument. Second, if you look at bills passed in state and federal legislatures you'll see that the Tea Party fiscal conservatives elected in 2010 have been very unproductive at being fiscally conservative (whatever that means, I prefer the term fiscally responsible). But the right wing legislatures have successfully turned the clock back on abortion and contraception. Also, remember in 2009 when Obama signed his first bill, the Ledbetter Act. Only the Republican female senators voted for the bill; all the blokes voted against it.Third, this is one of the few moments where Democrats have understood language. Check out this column from a former Republican strategist. I quote:"How do they manage to do this? Because Democrats ceded the field. Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? - can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative "Obamacare" won out. Contrast that with the Republicans' Patriot Act. You're a patriot, aren't you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn't the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme?You know that Social Security and Medicare are in jeopardy when even Democrats refer to them as entitlements. "Entitlement" has a negative sound in colloquial English: somebody who is "entitled" selfishly claims something he doesn't really deserve. Why not call them "earned benefits," which is what they are because we all contribute payroll taxes to fund them?"Straight out of the GOP party machine, I couldn't agree more with that assessment. Democrats have allowed the Republicans define the discourse far more often than the other way around. "War on women" is accurate as far as campaign slogans go and it's good use of language to push the discourse in the opposite direction. Republicans are complaining because it stings. It's a bit shrill, but Republicans that has never stopped Republicans.
A lot of people presumably voted for O on the grounds that he wasn't McCain, and in reaction to the awfulness of Bush the Younger. I might well have done had I been American. But he's turned out to be a bit of a dud, has O. I'd incline to Romney this time, I suspect, were I American.
Romney is a woodentop. He can't win.
Post a Comment