A devastating Obama ad:
Here’s a new Romney ad intending to counter the impression from the 47 percent gaffe:
Which one do you think makes better use of Mitt’s words? Yeah, I agree. The 47 percent remark is going to turn out to be the most devastating fall presidential campaign gaffe since Gerald Ford said that Poland was free.
Tony D. says: “I may well go third party, but that feels like a wasted vote. I wasted my vote last time.”
No, no, no, no, no. A thousand times, no. A wasted vote is a vote cast for someone you don’t genuinely want holding the office in question. Mine’s going to “Average” Joe Schriner.
Charles Cosimano says: Well Siarlys, don’t go by the same pollsters who had Walker losing. I can see a number of scenarios. One, Obama wins in an electoral walkaway, with the Republicans still holding the House and while still a minority in the Senate, a smaller minority and guess what, we get at least two more years of what we have now.
I can see a result with Romney winning and all the pollsters frantically looking at their data wondering how they could have gotten it so wrong.
I can see a tie in the electoral college and the vote going to the House, with a Republican majority–Romney wins.
And of course there is the outside chance of the Democrats retaking the House and the Republicans learning that the support of the Catholic Bishops is as about as much value as the support of the KKK. (I’m not just indulging in hyperbole there. It is possible that the implied endorsement of the the Catholic Hierarchy may chase away ten votes for every one it brings.)
We just plain don’t know what is going to happen.
Obama’s social views are a huge barrier to [voting for him].
I’m not suggesting you should, Rod–I’m not going to vote for either–but given that the concrete difference it will actually make is going to be pretty close to nil, what difference practically speaking do his (or Romney’s) social views make? We’ve discussed on several threads here how political solutions aren’t changing anything, so why does it matter?
I’m basically looking for a reason to vote Romney, but I’ve not found it.
See, this is what I don’t get. Why on Earth would you “look for a reason” to vote for anyone? I’ve been registered Democratic from 1981 until this year, when I changed to Independent; I’ve voted for people from both parties at different times; at the current time, I can’t see voting for any Republican for national office because there are too many deal-breakers; but I’ve never felt the need to talk myself into voting for “my side”. In 1996 I voted third party; I’ll probably write in this time.
The point is that I feel no loyalty to anyone based on party, even if it’s the party that aligns more with my beliefs. The only way I’d vote for Obama is if there were a snowball’s chance he might win my state and its electoral votes (but there isn’t) and it was a matter of preventing Romney from getting in, since I think Obama would be very, very marginally better. Since that’s not going to happen, though, he’s not getting my vote, for reasons I’ve discussed before.
I mean, it’s like on some level you sort of feel bad for not being able to vote for a Republican. I simply do not get that. For me it’s a cold, cruel calculus of which I think will do the better (or least bad) job. I’m way too cynical to invest more emotion in it than that. If my party can’t manage to field someone I can support, well, too bad for it.
Charles Cosimano says: The important thing to remember is that Social Conservatism is a political loser. Kirk’s ten principals have about as much traction as a drunken albatross. It’s a sort of “they are good for the neighbors but I’m not going to follow them,” thing. For example, is anyone really going to change the way they live because social conservatives do not approve? No need to answer, you already know the answer.
Perhaps Romney may end up taking comfort in the line from Henry Clay, who said that he would rather be right than be President. And if the pun fits..
Of course the fact that Henry Clay ultimately proved to be neither should probably be remembered as well.
If Rod will allow a few more bytes for a neighborhood spat…
Cosimano, I saw the doom of the recall coming the first time Dave Obey opened his mouth to say “Oh, if there’s a recall, the strongest candidate would be Tom Barrett.” This is one reason I’m NOT a Democrat. The party leadership can’t think straight if their life depended on it.
Scott Walker got in running a bland campaign offering himself as a fresh youngish face who carried his lunch to work in a brown paper bag. He also won because he was running against a tired old pol with a fair amount of baggage named Tom Barrett, a decent enough mayor for Milwaukee, but not much more.
So, we all knew the result of Walker v. Barrett. The polls showed a majority for recalling Walker… UNTIL it was a choice of Walker v. Barrett. Then the numbers folded. Nobody seems to have thought that voters who are thoroughly sick of both parties might want a fresher newer face than Scott Walker, not an older, more stale face who’d already lost to him once.
The entire party leadership should have fallen on their swords the day after the recall came in. No, they put out a phony “survey” asking for everyone’s opinion, then followed up with a smug “summary” that amounted to patting themselves on the back.
What matters to most voters simply is NOT what most politicians have on their agenda. IF anyone running for office ever learns this, they are going to romp all over the incumbents. (There are a few Democrats moving into the legislature who have this potential… and Leah Vukmir won’t be able to stand against anyone with more substance and confidence than Mugwump Jim Sullivan).
Jon H says: Tyro wrote: “Yes. Over a 4 year term, that is 3 million jobs per year, or job growth of 250,000 jobs/month, which is pretty much in line what one would expect for a moderately growing economy coming out of a recession.”
Except you need 150,000 or so just to keep up with population growth, which you have to do to make a dent in unemployment. So you really need more like 400,000/month.
JonF says: I do not see how voting for a minor candidate is “wasting one’s vote”. I have done exactly that, when both the major party candidates were utterly unacceptable, and I feel that I did the right thing. When the choice (I am referring to mine back on that past occasion, not today’s candidates) is between a crook and a loon the only valid responses I can see is either to abstain, or to avail oneself of a choice outside the two-party dichotomy.
@Kevin,
The tension you see is between two flavors of conservatism: social conservatism and economic conservatism. It’s really more a difference of emphasis in many cases. In Kirk’s 10 principle’s of conservatism, he describes three principles that largely animate social conservatives: belief in an enduring moral order, adherence to custom, and constraint on human passion. They see protection of the family and the traditional moral order as something the government should be concerned with. Economic conservatives tend to be more animated by the principles linking freedom to property rights, emphasis on voluntary community, and recognition that humans are imperfectable. This emphasis makes them political allies with economic libertarians.
The tension you see between social-cons and economic-cons is very real and likely unresolvable. Finding candidates that can bring these groups together and motivate them is not trivial.