Pre-Convention Election Round-UpFollow

Prepare to get Tweet-spammed 195 times, motherfucker

Sometimes I get someone who decides to follow me for a day which always confuses me. Then they stop following me, but that part makes a lot more sense.

Also, I hope no one is relying on this thread for riveting election coverage right now.

Edited, Aug 13th 2012 2:29pm by Jophiel

I agree

No, they're usually people following politics. I think sometimes someone just trawls through John Avlon's followers list or something.

Don't EVEN make me...

I have a Twitter account that I use just for entering crap online. It's full of useless follows and followers. I sometimes think about making another account that I might actually use. Then I can follow you guys, since I really just don't get enough of you here.

If there is one thing that has been really missing in my life it's more Asylum poster content.

Yeah. Late to the party. Whatever.



I think that the sense was that by picking Ryan, they make it a contest of ideas rather than popularity. IMO, it's not a bad choice. Actually, I think it's a very good choice.



I think that this may be a case of being careful of what you wish for, because you might just get it. I suspect that the tipping point for the decision of Ryan as VP was related to what we were talking about last week with polling. I watched some panel yesterday talking about it, and I guess that the NYT did a piece basically saying that this was what the Dems wanted because then they could make the election about ideas instead of Obama's record. But I think that the Romney camp realized (or feared) that the Left has sufficient influence with the media to run a successful distraction campaign right up to the election, effectively allowing them to avoid having to defend Obama's record anyway. Simply by bringing up a different negative attack on Romney and the GOP each week, they could potentially have pulled that off.


Basically, they don't want to have the public looking at Obama's economic performance and asking if someone else could do better. But with Ryan, they have a target to attack (his budget plans), that appears all tasty and fun. But I suspect it'll backfire. Because if they engage on that front, that gives the Romney campaign the toe in the door they need to make it about economics at least, and not who treats dogs worse, or who's filed how many years of returns, or whether someone's policies/actions resulted in someone dying. Get the Dems to engage on something related to economics, and it gives the Romney campaign the opportunity to contrast their plan with the absence of a plan on the Left. They can point to 3 years of no budgets from the Democrats. They can point to the lack of leadership from Obama.

I think the Dems will not be able to help themselves but to attack Ryan on his budget plans and along the way Romney on Bain. And I think that will ultimately help the GOP.



I think that the Left is making the mistake of thinking this is more about the people than the policies. Polling numbers today aside (which are more about popularity), the last couple years have shown a voting public increasingly disappointed with more empty rhetoric and increasingly demanding actual plans and results. I think that the Ryan pick puts the Romney campaign firmly into the "we've go the ideas and solutions", and makes this an easy comparison between the guys who have those ideas and solutions and the guys who just hope they can distract Americans from their problems with clever rhetoric. It signals that Romney isn't going to just run on surface level politics, but will attempt to show that his team has skill and capability while the other side just looks pretty.


Oh. And Ryan will absolutely decimate Biden in any sort of debate. In an environment where the public demands straight talk, Ryan walks away with the win here.

/shrug

I think that the Ryan pick puts the Dems in the position of having to attack the Ryan budgets. Which at least puts something related to economics in front of the public, as opposed to endless media stories about dogs in containers and the virtues of dressage. It's a smart pick in that it allows the GOP to at least somewhat force the debate to be about economic policy. Of course, they still have to win that debate, but at least it gives them some control over their own destiny. If they succeed in convincing people that the sorts of economic policies reflected in Romey's actions at Bain and Ryans budget proposals are what American needs, they will win. If they don't, they will lose. It's a good risk IMO.

I don't think people are going to be all that impressed by a plan that requires 5 trillion dollars to appear out of thin air and raises taxes on low income households.

I suspect that'll be worth a lot less this time around than at any time during our adult lifetimes Joph. You get that this is really the first presidential election cycle in 32 years in which the US has actually been in a down economy for an entire presidential term, right? You and I (and pretty much everyone on this forum) have lived our entire adult lives in which the assumption of a robust growing US economy was the norm, so election politics became around who had the most clever lines, or the most appealing personality, etc.

I suspect that the voters will want a bit more substance this time around. Because for most of them (just as for most of us), this is the first time they've felt that the actual economic health of the nation is at stake. You'll need more than clever sounding slogans, doubly so when you're the guys trying to run for a second term after the first term went so poorly.



Uh huh. Which is why Romney's choice shows a marked change from past approaches to presidential elections. He's betting that the voters care about real proposals, real ideas, and real solutions. He's making a sharp contrast between his ticket and Obama's, and making economic policy the front and center difference. Again, I happen to think this was absolutely the right thing to do. He could have done this with several possible VP picks, but Ryan probably serves that purpose better than any.




Uh... Ok. You keep on thinking that.

First off. It doesn't. It assumes that by committing to not raising taxes (on anyone), that job creators will feel safer investing in longer term job creation. This will lower the unemployment rate and increase the GDP growth rate. That, in turn, will increase tax revenues without raising a single rate. Over time, it will help to eliminate the deficit. It also assumes cuts in spending to make up the difference. It's a longer term plan. The critics assume that no new jobs will be created and that no economic growth will occur, and engage in zero sum economics to assume that in order to close the deficit, the GOP would then have to raise taxes. Then they speculate that those tax increases will be levied on the middle and working classes. It's all pretty speculative.


Secondly, what are we comparing it against? In the absence of a plan from the Dems, we *will* still go in debt at an increasing rate in the future. The same 5 trillion (more) shortfall will occur. The counter from the left is like insisting that bandaging a wound is pointless because it might not stop the bleeding, with the alternative simply being to not bandage it at all. Ryan's plans at least attempt to do something about the deficit and debt. What exactly is the Dem's plan? Nothing. Just sit around wailing and gnashing our teeth while we fall further in debt. Yeah. Great plan!


The reality is that the GOP has proposed dozens of budgets in the House over the last 2 years. The Dems in the Senate are so scared of making any decision at all that they wont even bring them for a vote or even propose their own budgets at all. Talk about cowardice. And Obama has been completely absent from leading his party in any way in this. And this is *not* just about partisan politics. The Dems failed to pass a budget in 2010, when they still controlled both houses of Congress. They've dug themselves such a deep hole that they can't think of a solution and are afraid to even suggest one. They know that their own members will not go along with the kinds of tax increases that would be necessary to pay our way out of debt, but they can't bring themselves to admit that the GOP was right all along, so they just sit there dong nothing.


I'll ask again: Where is the Dem plan? Not a speech. Not a sound bite. Where is the actual, on paper proposal scored by the CBO, showing what they would do? So isn't the choice really between leadership and no leadership? This is why Ryan was a good choice. He puts that discrepancy between the party's (and the candidates for president) front and center. GOP has a plan. Dems have no plan. And every single time the Dems attack Ryan's plan, they're reminding the public of this fact.

The GOP could pick Big Bird to run for *anything* and he'd think it was a good choice.

I think Ryan has made real proposals & has real ideas, but besides renaming a post office & passing another bill that did something with taxes on arrows, what has Ryan solved in 10+ years in congress? Making economic policy front & center is a pretty bad idea when your VP's plan will reduce your taxes to less than 1%...

Ryan's good looking, can speak well, & shores up the base a bit. What else does he actually bring to the table?