Romney Alienates Half the Country in One Go

[Andara Bledin]

In most races (besides Perot) we are talking a couple hundred thousand for any non D or Non R..vs MILLIONS for D or R.

I wish there were a way to know how many people didn't vote for someone who wasn't a D or R because they weren't from the two parties and thus "didn't have a chance of winning."

^-.-^

[s_stabeler]

I wish there were a way to know how many people didn't vote for someone who wasn't a D or R because they weren't from the two parties and thus "didn't have a chance of winning."

^-.-^

Exactly. Does a single vote influence the result? No, excepting during elections that are won by a single vote I suppose.( which would have lawyers rubbing their hands with glee, no doubt. Recounts etc are either automatic with such a close result, or may as well be.)
However, several single votes end up becoming the large voting blocks that DO influence the election.

Think of it this way: Obama fundrising in the 2008 elections. He got small donations from a lot of people, not a few large ones from big people. ( this had the side effect of allowing him to ask those same people to donate again later, as a matter of fact. McCain was hampered by the fact that he had to keep attracting new donators ( his previous donators couldn't legally donate any more), while Obama could raise more money from those who had already donated.) Obama ended up getting more donations $wise than McCain.

[Rapscallion]

An interesting perspective I heard the other day suggested that Obama wasn't doing as much as he could to win the election, but he was mostly ahead because Romney was desperately trying to lose it.

I think there's a bit of truth in there.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

It would not surprise me were Team O saving some stuff aside pending Team R coming up with anything at all to rally their support.

We'll see how things play out after tonight's debate. It historically favors the challenger, but Romney is so out of touch with "the common people," I'm not sure he can make the kind of connection he'd need.

^-.-^

[protege]

You know, I would have been okay with him telling the auto companies to FOAD if he had told the banks the same thing. But somehow, bailing the banks was better for the economy than bailing out the auto industry. If one didn't deserve to be bailed out, it was the banks since they caused the mess in the first place but I understand why it was done. Now, alot of people will say that GM put themselves in the mess they were in, but with the credit crunch, it was going to be hard for them to bail themselves out. Chrysler's problems were different.

Problem is, that so much of our economy is driven by the banks. Think about it, very few people have an extra $20,000 lying around for a new, or even a used vehicle. Unless someone wants to save for several years, there's no way they can get that vehicle. Only way they can, is to take out a loan. Same with mortgages, equipment, and other expensive items.

I'm sure there were some shady deals going on. Too many banks (and other businesses) were making loans that they had no chance in hell on collecting. Part of that is pure greed. Part of it was because of certain Federal parties insisting that loans be made to lower-income people. But in the end, too many people were being told *exactly* what they wanted to hear. Think about it, would you want to be told that you can't afford a Cadillac and should get a Cavalier instead?

Some of that last bit is what got GM into trouble. But, quite a bit of GM's problems, simply stemmed from the fact...that GM was a bloated mess that couldn't adapt to changing market conditions. A bloated mess, that had too many car lines, chasing the same dollars. Having similar cars being sold under the Chevy/Pontiac/Oldsmobile lines might have worked in the 1950s, since they were all distinctive. Chevy was the "cheap car," Pontiac was the "sporty car" and Olds was a step above Chevy. Buick and Cadillac were higher up in the "food chain." But, by the 1990s and 2000s,, such distinctions were long gone--their products were mere clones of each other.

Also, GM has always been slow to changing conditions. Back in the 1960s, GM enjoyed a huge market share. They could get away with selling the same "land yachts" that they'd sold in the 1950s. Then the '70s came along, and with it came the gas shortages. Customers were demanding smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.

GM's answer? The Chevette, Vega, and later...the Citation. Truly dreadful quality control meant that many customers started buying Toyotas, Datsuns (Nissans), and Hondas. You'd think that GM would have learned its lesson. They didn't. 30 years on, gas prices spiked again. But now, not only do they have the Japanese companies to deal with...but the Koreans as well. GM's market share is a shadow of what it once was. Sure, you see plenty of Chevy/GMC/Buick/etc vehicles, but it's not like it once was.

Still, GM has managed to return itself to profitability. They've discontinued several of their brands--Saturn, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Hummer; closed several dealerships and factories, and managed to get out of some of the legacy costs with the unions. Also gone, is CEO Wagoner. He wasn't a "car guy" and didn't really understand the automotive business. That's why he was removed when the company was nationalized. Unfortunate, but he had to go. Getting into trouble was probably the best thing that could have happened to GM.

And I think that we could have weathered Chrysler going under...but not both companies.

Yep, we could have probably survived without Chrysler. Much like we got along OK without American Motors But, Chrysler has always seemed to be an "also ran." They've been bailed out before, and were (pardon my French) pretty fucking lucky to get out of trouble. Without the K cars and the minivan, they'd have been sunk. Neither one of those vehicles was anything...other than basic transportation. Still, it got them out of trouble.

Eventually though, Chrysler found themselves in pretty much the same situation that GM had--too many similar products chasing the same dollars. But, they didn't have as many product lines...so dropping Plymouth really wasn't a problem. It wasn't enough to keep them out of bankruptcy in 2009...and eventual takeover by Fiat.

Anyway, losing one or the other probably wouldn't have hurt the US all that much. However, to lose both...would have been much more than we could handle. Not only would the manufacturers be hurt...but so would the suppliers, dealers, shippers...all the way down to the guy who runs the diner across the street...get hurt.

[Greenday]

I'm enjoying how Romney is giving the guy giving questions the middle finger.

"We're going to move onto our..."
"No, I'm going to respond to that. Blah blah blah..."

My mom said he's been doing that.

[Skunkle]

Mytical said it: Another negative that'll hopefully hamper Romney is the failure card.

The Veterans Job Corps Act was a bipartisan bill. Republicans got all they wanted in that. They said they'd vote for it. They filibustered it. Because OBAMA.

Romney introduced a lot of health care policies that eventually became what's derisively termed 'Obamacare'. Now he's staunchly against them. Because OBAMA.

It seems to have been decided from the start that Obama must fail at everything he tries. If I remember correctly, we've had an unprecedented number of filibusters during his term. It seems to me that the idea isn't to have the public remember that many bills failed because Republicans (not that Democrats being wishy-washy didn't have a part in it, too) made them fail, but that many bills failed...
...because OBAMA.

He did get a lot done. He didn't fulfill all his promises. Some of those, he didn't fulfill just because he didn't touch them. Most of them, it seems, failed because the Republicans had determined that anything Obama supported - even if Republicans formerly supported it, even if Republicans originally CREATED it - had to be stopped simply to make absolutely certain that Obama looked like a failure.

My big question is: Republicans and Democrats have never really been pals, but they used to get shit DONE, even when there was a Democrat President and a Republican Majority. So why is Obama different? What about him, specifically, makes them determined to be pigheaded?

...in the end, I think this would hurt whoever became the nominee. But I think it'll hurt Romney more because it'll stack behind all his other issues.

[Andara Bledin]

WHARRGARBL - The Home Game

If I remember correctly, we've had an unprecedented number of filibusters during his term.

Yes and no.

Over the years, the filibuster went from a rare thing to an everyday thing, losing power as it went. It's as much a shift in congressional culture as anything else.

However, there also appears to be a notably significant jump in the number of clotures (the procedure to break a filibuster - filibusters themselves aren't recorded) for the most recent presidential term. The previous high was just over 80 under Clinton. Under Obama, the high is now 139 for his first year. That's almost double the highest number that were filed under Bush.

Original article in the Harvard Law School's Journal on Legislation: The Senate Filibuster: The Politics of Obstruction by Emmet J Bondurant. (note: PDF)

Washington Post blog article about the HLSJoL article: Is the filibuster unconstitutional? by Ezra Klein (with a prettier version of the graph in the first article)

Another Washington Post blog article, The history of the filibuster, in one graph by Ezra Klein (also with the prettier graph)

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

My mom said he's been doing that.

He also said he'd cut funding for PBS. To Jim Lehrer.

[Skunkle]

Of course he'd cut PBS spending. Every man for himself. States support themselves. No gov't funding for education. None for medical assistance. Or for job creation. Or for public services like PBS. If you can't make it, sucks to be you. Cut taxes. Create jobs by aiding the group he knows best: the wealthy.

I stand by my opinion that he's firm in saying the 47% don't matter. To him, the voting base that matters are the rich people. His friends./ His lobbyists. His business associates. The people he grew up with. He doesn't know much about the real middle class. He claims he's working for them, but he's already stated the income level he considers to be "middle class" and guess what? To us middle class, that level he thinks is middle is actually pretty wealthy. We're the "poor people" who need to attention because there's a safety net - and he'll fix said safety net, he says, if it breaks, implying that is not only not broken now, but that it exists at all.

If there's a safety net for the very poor, Mr. Romney, and if said net is working, why are they still very poor?

[mikoyan29]

Show me any time in the last 50 years..in which a single vote would have changed who made president, especially when that somebody was not D or R.

In fact, I will do that for us. The closest ANY not D or R candidate come was Perot in 1992. A whole 20 million votes behind the LOSER of the two main candidates. http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

In most races (besides Perot) we are talking a couple hundred thousand for any non D or Non R..vs MILLIONS for D or R.

There are some that argue that Ralph Nader cost Gore Florida. He siphoned enough votes from Gore that it cost Florida. And since Florida ended up being the deciding state it cost him the election.

[mikoyan29]

Well Chrysler wasn't helped by Daimler bleeding them dry and Cerebus taking what Daimler didn't. Before they were "merged" with Daimler they had like 8 Billion in reserve.

[Andara Bledin]

Just chiming in that I'm not a huge fan of Daimler's AP habits. >_>

At least not the group I had to deal with, anyway.

^-.-^

[Racket_Man]

Just like in the 1992 elections when G. Bush the 1st AND Bill Clintion wwere asked certain questions I want to ask Mit Romney the following questions (without looking at notes or consulting any person or database)

1. What is the average price of a pound of ground meat?
2. what is the average price of a loaf of bread?

and related "average American" questions.

In 1992 Bill Clinton was able to answer with nearly the correct answer. George 1st did NOT have a clue. that was one of reasons that George 1st lost.

[Skunkle]

I'm quite certain Obama could tell you the price of basic foods without asking anyone or looking it up.

I'm also quite certain that Romney could not.

I'd bet money on both of those, and I'm not usually a betting man.