The 2012 US Election

[Dave_LF]

And it shows that Romney genuinely doesn't get that everyone is dependent on the government, and no one makes it on his own.

[Holbytla]

This isn't likely to play well in any of the swing states, where Romney needs votes.

On the other hand, Dukakis had a ten point lead in the polls after the convention and blew it via the tank picture and Willie Horton. Obama isn't that much of a dolt though and as long as he doesn't press the issues too much, Romney will continue to be his own worst enemy.

[Erunáme]

I have to say, it struck me that Romney seemed so much more real and genuine in this video. When I see videos of him campaigning, he strikes me as fake, saccharine sweet, scripted... like he's not being himself and trying to be what everyone wants him to be. Whilst I don't agree with pretty much anything he said in that video, it was almost sorta refreshing to see him act like himself. He sounded a lot more confident. I suppose that happens to a person when they're themselves.

As for party affiliation, who votes for who and "relies on the government", this graphic is interesting.

[River]

Everything that comes out of a candidate's mouth in public is carefully sculpted and scripted. The good ones pull it off. The bad ones don't.

Obama isn't that much of a dolt though and as long as he doesn't press the issues too much, Romney will continue to be his own worst enemy.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama campaign isn't thinking the same thing...

I think Obama and his team have proven themselves way too skilled and smart at campaigning to ever do something akin to Dukakis on a tank. Honestly, I think it's that skill that saving his rear so far. He's in a weak position for an incumbent but his opponent is just inept. And the frightening part is that was the best the GOP could do this cycle.

[River]

From Nate Silver's Twitter feed:

Weird discrepancy today between quite good polls for Obama and pretty terrible ones, with little in between.

Not sure what that means. If anything.

BTW, I'm no fan of Twitter. But I pop in on Silver so I can circumvent the NYT paywall and read 538.

[vison]

I agree with Eruname. He looked like a real person during that video, whereas he usually has that smarmy, slick, smooth-faced rich guy look.

[Griffon64]

I agree with Eruname. He looked like a real person during that video, whereas he usually has that smarmy, slick, smooth-faced rich guy look.

Yep. That smarmy, slick, smooth-faced rich guy look puts me off at first glance, and the words that follow generally doesn't reverse that first impulse. When I worked for that foreign-owned company in South Africa, the company where the "locals" were only suitable for the grunt positions and everything from middle management up were filled with imported suits, we spent many hours being ( subtly ) treated as stock by too well-groomed, smooth-faced men with designer greying hair. I've yet to see much evidence that that particular strain of humanity has much consideration for the "regular" people.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The fact that Romney looks more like a real person when he is telling a bunch of his rich cronies how much disdain he has for half the country than at any other time is extremely telling, and makes me terrified that there is still a reasonable chance that this man still could become president.

[Holbytla]

The fact that Romney looks more like a real person when he is telling a bunch of his rich cronies how much disdain he has for half the country than at any other time is extremely telling, and makes me terrified that there is still a reasonable chance that this man still could become president.

(on soap box)
In my eyes, you could delete the name Romney from that statement, and insert Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan and come out with the same result.
Nobody that goes to those dinners are poor. What does Obama charge for a dinner? Five, ten, fifteen, twenty thousand a plate? I've never known a presidential candidate that didn't have disdain for the opposition or ideologies other than his own. What presidential hopeful's dinner was not attended by cronies, lobbyists or people of the same ilk?
People should be scared of any of these people that pay obeisance to the Washington political machine. Regardless of their political leanings, they are all demagogues, and to support any one of them is in direct opposition to curing the ills of this country.
(off of soap box)

There was a very interesting piece on Rock Center with Brian Williams last night. Ted Koppel "investigates the role of the media in the degeneration of politics into an ugly war of words."
It is worth the six or seven minutes of your day to see the US media "played out".

http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/201 ... ayers?lite

edit:
There are 2 segments btw, so the time is more like 15 minutes. Still worth it.

[vison]

Rupert Murdoch.

Kick the old bugger out.

That would improve things right off the bat.

[axordil]

Well, at least we haven't had anyone beaten unconscious on the floor of the Senate in a while.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

And it shows that Romney genuinely doesn't get that everyone is dependent on the government, and no one makes it on his own.

Using services that you are forced to pay for whether you use them or not (and often could be done better outside the government) is not the same as being dependent on the government.

[Primula Baggins]

"Using" a government service may be a more complicated relationship than you're thinking, C_G. Whether or not you have kids attending local schools, for example, you benefit: kids are off the streets, they get an education, they are ready to go to work when they grow up, and so your neighborhood isn't filled with layabouts. Social Security keeps you from tripping over dying old people outside the grocery store. Medicaid does the same for poor people outside the ER. When your parents are old and infirm, you won't be paying their medical bills (not even close, even if you think of your Medicare premiums as going straight to them). You probably won't have to house and feed them, either.

No doubt you can do fine without any of these programs, at least for now, but your life might be much more difficult and expensive if they didn't exist at all.

[River]

What I find most entertaining about Romney's comment is that many of his supporters are in the rural areas receiving...wait for it...federal farm subsidies. In fact, of the ten states taking more federal dollars than they pay in taxes, nine are red (as I think has been shown upthread). Which makes this whole episode all the more demonstrative of how Romney and his $50K/plate donors look at the nation they live in. And then these guys have the gall to wonder why there's so much resentment directed towards them.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

"Using" a government service may be a more complicated relationship than you're thinking, C_G. Whether or not you have kids attending local schools, for example, you benefit: kids are off the streets, they get an education, they are ready to go to work when they grow up, and so your neighborhood isn't filled with layabouts. Social Security keeps you from tripping over dying old people outside the grocery store. Medicaid does the same for poor people outside the ER. When your parents are old and infirm, you won't be paying their medical bills (not even close, even if you think of your Medicare premiums as going straight to them). You probably won't have to house and feed them, either.

No doubt you can do fine without any of these programs, at least for now, but your life might be much more difficult and expensive if they didn't exist at all.

I think you give these programs more credit than they deserve. Take your first point about education - I live in Los Angeles county and look at the record for LAUSD. If the basic equation is "public provides money, schools provide an education" then the government schools are defaulting on their half of the contract.

[vison]

So, improve the schools. Don't dream of throwing them away.

The US is suffering from the oldest, most decrepit public infrastructure in the western world. Chicago's water system is largely made up of cast iron pipe that is more than 100 years old.

What false economy!!!!!! Bridges, roads, water and sewer systems arer the basis of civilization.

And a poorly educated population must be better than a completely uneducated population.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Yes, a poorly educated population is better than a completely uneducated population, but it is in turn better than a completley miseducated population.

[Primula Baggins]

I am dealing directly with elderly, ill parents and I know exactly what it would do to my husband and children and me if we were financially and otherwise responsible for their medical treatment and all of their day-to-day care.

We would be utterly unable to work (our home is our workplace), and we would lose everything. With no Social Security or Medicare waiting when we hit 65 (or 70, for retirement, realistically), we (and our parents, if still living) would have to descend on our children, who are just starting out and underemployed.

This is in spite of the fact that we've saved 7 to 10 times as much for our retirement as the average couple our age. That would all go the first year my parents depended on us. Maybe the first six months.

This isn't an intellectual exercise or a joke. These government programs are all that stands between millions of hard-working, responsible people and complete disaster. If you haven't had to run the numbers on this, or won't have to face that responsibility, you may not realize this.

We could not have saved enough to provide for our own retirement and our parents' final years, not if we saved 100% of our income.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The fact that Romney looks more like a real person when he is telling a bunch of his rich cronies how much disdain he has for half the country than at any other time is extremely telling, and makes me terrified that there is still a reasonable chance that this man still could become president.

(on soap box)
In my eyes, you could delete the name Romney from that statement, and insert Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan and come out with the same result.
Nobody that goes to those dinners are poor. What does Obama charge for a dinner? Five, ten, fifteen, twenty thousand a plate? I've never known a presidential candidate that didn't have disdain for the opposition or ideologies other than his own. What presidential hopeful's dinner was not attended by cronies, lobbyists or people of the same ilk?
People should be scared of any of these people that pay obeisance to the Washington political machine. Regardless of their political leanings, they are all demagogues, and to support any one of them is in direct opposition to curing the ills of this country.
(off of soap box)

There is no question that there is common thread that runs through all politicians. They are all to some extent arrogant, myopic, and tainted by a corrupt system. If they weren't, they would never get elected. But it is a mistake, in my opinion, to conclude therefore that there is no real difference between them, or no reason to choose among them. Looking specifically at the presidential race, there has rarely in modern times been a larger difference between the two candidates background, experience, temperment, or more most importantly, what the policies that they would seek to implement would mean for the vast majority of the American people. The attitude that there is no real difference between them, and therefore no reason to support one over the other, is in my opinion (and again, this only one person's opinion, and should be therefore taken for what it is worth), one of if not the biggest problem facing the American political system, even exceeding the proliferation of corporate and special interest money flooding the system.

In my opinion, of course.

[yovargas]

The attitude that there is no real difference between them, and therefore no reason to support one over the other, is in my opinion (and again, this only one person's opinion, and should be therefore taken for what it is worth), one of if not the biggest problem facing the American political system, even exceeding the proliferation of corporate and special interest money flooding the system.

That's an amusing point to make considering that I think "one of if not the biggest problem facing the American political system" is the exact opposite - that the two sides are utterly diametrically opposed and therefore anything the "other side" supports will be dumb or evil and must be destroyed. (Which is not to disagree with your post. Just a general observation.)