A huge portion of the country is voting D and a huge portion is voting R. There is only a small minority that actually have a decision to make.......and if repubs go with a far righty like Cruz.....they lose. They find a moderate in a swing state.....that doesn't scare the hell out of independents....they can win if the base comes out. If the last few elections have told us anything.....it's about who is best at getting their base to the polls in the 7 or 8 states that are actually in play.
A huge portion of the country is voting D and a huge portion is voting R. There is only a small minority that actually have a decision to make.......and if repubs go with a far righty like Cruz.....they lose. They find a moderate in a swing state.....that doesn't scare the hell out of independents....they can win if the base comes out. If the last few elections have told us anything.....it's about who is best at getting their base to the polls in the 7 or 8 states that are actually in play.
Ok. The concepts are simple. Obama was ripe in 2012.....he won because Romney was underwhelming and couldn't get his base out and because Obama had incredible ground games in Ohio, Florida and PA. Hillary has the money to make that machine roll again in those same states......and a jobs plan has no impact on that stuff.
In 1980 that stuff was effective.....not so much now. Presidential elections are won a different way now. Get a good candidate that your base can get behind.....be middle enough or cool enough on TV where the independents don't run the other way.....and you're in.
You're conflating two issues that have overlap but aren't the samething.
There is a difference between marketing, message, tone, enthusiasm and actual policies and initiatives
Basically hard substance and soft skills. You need a combo of both to be POTUS.
Saying "Jobs plans" don't matter fits into the 1st part and if you think a President can't get elected on substance anymore then we might as well close up shop.
There is a difference between marketing, message, tone, enthusiasm and actual policies and initiatives
Basically hard substance and soft skills. You need a combo of both to be POTUS.
Saying "Jobs plans" don't matter fits into the 1st part and if you think a President can't get elected on substance anymore then we might as well close up shop.
Yes, the political battle on the national stage is fought between the 45 yard lines but substance and policy still matters.
Bush was seen as better than Kerry on defense and security, that is the main reason he won in '04. American's were still over 50% pro-Iraq then. That's hard policy winning an election.
In '12, that was clearly there for the taking for Romney but Obama wasn't a normal candidate either. He has built in demographic advantages and also had so much support in '08 that he could afford to lose some. Romney struggled with the enthusiasm about the Republican base because of policy as well (his health care plan in MA, his flop flopping on social issues, etc) That's also policy.
Policy matters just like what you're describing matters.
Also how can you say Obama won with 0 substance in '12? Obamacare was the biggest change to health care policy since Medicare and Dems supported it 70/30 at the time I believe? That is getting your base out with Policy.
Obama supports redistribution through taxation, that's policy.
It might not be policy that a lot of people in this thread agree with, but it isn't "We're gonna crush China because I said so and I'm awesome, bring the jobs back blah blah blah" either.
Policy matters in the long-term more than soft skills but in the short-term (winning elections which is what you focus pretty much all of your political analysis on rather than what is optimal for America) a lot of the soft skills and campaign tactics you speak of can seem more important.
Obama supports redistribution through taxation, that's policy.
It might not be policy that a lot of people in this thread agree with, but it isn't "We're gonna crush China because I said so and I'm awesome, bring the jobs back blah blah blah" either.
Policy matters in the long-term more than soft skills but in the short-term (winning elections which is what you focus pretty much all of your political analysis on rather than what is optimal for America) a lot of the soft skills and campaign tactics you speak of can seem more important.
Obamas approval ratings and favorables were in the toilet in 2011 and 2012. The base was not out voting for Obamacare. Obama numbers dropped and he was vulnerable but Romney didn't have it as a candidate and dems could still push their base out.
You think most voters are in the booth voting policy? They aren't.
Substance is secondary now
Trump is certainly going out of his way to prove substance is secondary but it doesn't mean it doesn't have value, especially over the long-term.
If your policies fade in popularity over time then have fun trying to get your party in office after that. Ask McCain about that in '08 following GWB.
He was pretty much dealt 27o because people no longer agreed with the Republican parties ideas.
If your policies fade in popularity over time then have fun trying to get your party in office after that. Ask McCain about that in '08 following GWB.
He was pretty much dealt 27o because people no longer agreed with the Republican parties ideas.
And furthermore, if policy doesn't matter as much as it did in the past then the guys you argue back and forth with on a daily basis whom you deem "too negative" "out of touch" "miserable" are basically right that the world is going to hell and a handbasket. If how to govern has nothing to do with PICKING THE PEOPLE WHO GOVERN then the people you lecture on politics are correct about the state of our society.
Your viewpoints are very diametrically opposed if you think about it.
Your viewpoints are very diametrically opposed if you think about it.
We are talking about presidential elections. Not all elections are this way.
And the people I argue with are the far right variety like zit, Russ and joe. The policies of those people matter because they are so far disconnected from moderates and well....reality. But those people don't win national primary elections.
And I wouldn't say substance doesn't matter at all.....but the other stuff I mentioned are much more important factors to win general election for president. Maybe it is a sad state then.....but it is how I'm saying it is now.
Well I have far more optimism than that and think if a superior message is conveyed properly than it will resonate with folks. It might take some time and not be true in all instances but saying it can't win elections I find to be inaccurate.
Saying "We need to transition our economy to a post-industrial world and here is how....." isn't something to be dismissed.
Maybe you should watch the video.
Saying "We need to transition our economy to a post-industrial world and here is how....." isn't something to be dismissed.
Maybe you should watch the video.
Vit is a DNC hack, which means he sees EVERYTHING through the prism of politics, regardless how shitty it happens to be for the country.
Anyway, back to Rubio:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mr. Rubio has let himself be swayed by a coterie of non-economist conservatives who view the tax code as an engine of social policy. This crowd denigrates marginal-rate cuts as politically déclassé, but then the child credit is one of the hoariest forms of tax gimmickry, an echo of Jimmy Carter’s New Jobs credit, or Mr. Bush in 2001 and his Pelositax rebates in 2008."
Rubio’s Tax Mistake
His supersized child credit does nothing for economic growth.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/rubios-tax-mistake-1434583019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ugh.
So instead of left wing social engineering under Obama we'll get right wing social engineering under Rubio (Compassionate Conservatism 2.0).
Marco Rubio was elected largely because of his "small government" soaring rhetoric in a tea party wave election but sadly has proven another rank self-serving career politician.
Small wonder Rubio is adored by the establishment and their back up plan if and when Bush falters.
Anyway, back to Rubio:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mr. Rubio has let himself be swayed by a coterie of non-economist conservatives who view the tax code as an engine of social policy. This crowd denigrates marginal-rate cuts as politically déclassé, but then the child credit is one of the hoariest forms of tax gimmickry, an echo of Jimmy Carter’s New Jobs credit, or Mr. Bush in 2001 and his Pelositax rebates in 2008."
Rubio’s Tax Mistake
His supersized child credit does nothing for economic growth.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/rubios-tax-mistake-1434583019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ugh.
So instead of left wing social engineering under Obama we'll get right wing social engineering under Rubio (Compassionate Conservatism 2.0).
Marco Rubio was elected largely because of his "small government" soaring rhetoric in a tea party wave election but sadly has proven another rank self-serving career politician.
Small wonder Rubio is adored by the establishment and their back up plan if and when Bush falters.
Sheriff Joe Houser has been wrong about elections since he was Joe Contrarian. He has been wrong about everything for a decade but now we should listen to him.
Seriously Joe, you're a fool in every aspect of politics and sports. Phillies are losing 3-11 tonight. Bwaaaahhhhh
where is Fred Thompson? Is he with BFL?
Seriously Joe, you're a fool in every aspect of politics and sports. Phillies are losing 3-11 tonight. Bwaaaahhhhh
where is Fred Thompson? Is he with BFL?
I won't drop the Christie line on you again but you're not going to agree with every single proposal a politician has. He has 4 kids, of course he wants to supersize the child tax credit! Let the man eat.
He has other non-pro growth ideas.
Like:
-Cut corporate tax rate to compete globally (rather than a certain non-establishment candidate "hey Ford hey we're going to impose tariffs to force you to build plants here. Either that or you're fired." Gee, why didn't we think of that?
-Allow for repatriation of foreign funds so it isn't stuck overseas (right now this actually isn't a huge issue because interest rates are low so companies can just borrow against overseas principal but when rates rise it will be)
You can't change the world tomorrow. As these ideas get implemented and they work, there will hopefully be further goals to deregulate and lower the cost of doing business.
Obviously I would've liked to see him talk about the fed and their misguided policies of the last 15 years in that video but I do think he understands the overall relationship that Big Gov't in the economy is the problem. He can't tackle everything all at once.
At the end of the day GDP, unemployment rate and "household wealth" are just numbers on paper. They measure our growth on a relative basis but they don't measure what makes us the best country in the world to live. This is what I think has been lost on "pro-growth" types like Romney over the years. The true rising tide that lifts all boats aren't going to be #s on a sheet of paper, they're going to be an advanced society in standard of living and that comes through science, technology and innovation.
Nobody else even really comes close to articulating this message as he does.
