Oh, this was most definitely a negative campaign. Neither side can claim to have avoided using negative tactics, and both were able to get supporting PACs backed with murkey Citizens United money to push them. Frankly, whoever won was going to have a hard time based on how the campaign went.

However, it would be complacent to assume that Obama's side's negative campaigning (and 'gullible voters' falling for it) was enough to blame for last week's result. Apart from smacking of sour grapes, it seeks to absolve Romney and his supporters from their own campaign failings.

First of all, as you say, Romney made his own missteps, and there was always a measure of doubt as to which Romney would be President, the right winger running in the Primaries, or the more standard conservative running in the November elections, or the moderate who governed Mass.

Secondly, it was already being heavily trailed as a negative campaign. So Romney and his strategists had time to work out how to respond. The key period was likely to be in the 'lull' between competitive primaries and the Conventions. Because as soon as the Democrats knew who was standing against them, they could try to set the public image of them. It really is Romney's job to get his image out there first, and not to let himself be defined by his opponents

Thirdly, it says a lot for Romney's management abilities and handling of money that he appears to have run out mid-campaign. The CBA for the overall Republican campaigns overall is pretty poor. If they want to run the budget, they need to prove they can run a campaign, surely?

(yes, I know Obama and the Democrats had oodles of money to spend too, and did it. But it seems they did it wisely, by a combination of ads targeted for effectiveness, and crucially, building up a good ground 'game'. One so good that the Republicans didn't even see it.

Good and fair post until . . .

danivon wrote:Thirdly, it says a lot for Romney's management abilities and handling of money that he appears to have run out mid-campaign. The CBA for the overall Republican campaigns overall is pretty poor. If they want to run the budget, they need to prove they can run a campaign, surely?

No primary was a huge advantage. That cannot be overstated. If Obama had to spend his money to defeat an opponent, then they would have been on even footing. He didn't. They weren't.

(yes, I know Obama and the Democrats had oodles of money to spend too, and did it. But it seems they did it wisely, by a combination of ads targeted for effectiveness, and crucially, building up a good ground 'game'. One so good that the Republicans didn't even see it.

But, it's more than just campaign money. By many analyses, Obama never stopped campaigning. For example, they kept their ground game running from 2008 in Ohio and other States. Who can afford, as a GOP potential candidate, to do that? It's no accident that Obama held more fundraisers than any President ever. He needed the money.

Furthermore, no matter how you unpack the auto bailout (which, strangely, Obama never blamed on Bush even though Bush started it), it was taxpayer money "invested" (and a large chunk of it not recovered) in the Obama campaign. By circumventing bankruptcy law and putting unions in front of investors, Obama guaranteed he had massive political capital with the unions.

___________________________________________________________________________

One thing I wish we would see, now that we see voters weren't "suppressed" (except for those turned off by the mud and, of course, military voters whom the Democrats always suppress) is voter ID laws. I do not believe Romney would have won in any event, but there were cases of outright fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud (the son of Congressman Moran), and more than a few suspicious circumstances. There were a number of precincts in Philadelphia and Chicago in which President Obama obtained 99% of the vote. Now, maybe that's legitimate. However, some of those same precincts appear to have had very high, uniquely high, turnout.

All I'm saying is that it seems to me it is time for a Federal voting registry. The States can control who gets on it, but when you have even a few cases of people being registered in two States and trying to vote, you have to wonder if you're looking at the iceberg or its tip. In any event, if there is any reason to question any votes, the whole election is tainted. In the 21st Century, that is not acceptable--or it should not be.

Note well: I do NOT believe anything below the line I drew would have changed the election. That's not the issue. It may change one in the future and that is not acceptable. Even the idea that such a thing might happen is reason enough to prevent it.

I think it could be tied into a SSN card to prevent non-papered non-citizens from working too. So, it would have a double benefit.

I know civil libertarians won't like it. Too bad. If you can't have confidence in the election process, or even if it can ever be questioned, you've eroded confidence in the foundations of governance. That cannot be permitted.

All very interesting, but given that you say it didn't affect the outcome of this election, how is it relevant to the question of why Romney lost?

danivon wrote:All very interesting, but given that you say it didn't affect the outcome of this election, how is it relevant to the question of why Romney lost?

Hmm, yeah, maybe I should have drawn a dividing line in my post to make it more obvious. I will edit the post.

Doctor Fate wrote:No primary was a huge advantage. That cannot be overstated. If Obama had to spend his money to defeat an opponent, then they would have been on even footing. He didn't. They weren't.

On the other hand, no Primary meant that the Republicans had the stage for months, and the winner had a chance to promote themselves to the whole nation, and particularly those in the middle and right.

Whereas Obama didn't have any debates in Spring, no real excuse for ad coverage, no easy win over a paper candidate to go through.

Sure, Obama could concentrate his spend on the final run off, but there are pros and cons with having no primaries. I think it did Clinton good to have a challenge in 1996, if only to force him to address it.

But, it's more than just campaign money. By many analyses, Obama never stopped campaigning. For example, they kept their ground game running from 2008 in Ohio and other States. Who can afford, as a GOP potential candidate, to do that? It's no accident that Obama held more fundraisers than any President ever. He needed the money.

Well, perhaps if the RNC and state Republican parties had maintained their 'ground games' (or built them up more), regardless of who the candidate was going to be, they could have competed. After all, the build up was pretty much about how bad Obama was, how bad Obamacare was, etc

Furthermore, no matter how you unpack the auto bailout (which, strangely, Obama never blamed on Bush even though Bush started it), it was taxpayer money "invested" (and a large chunk of it not recovered) in the Obama campaign. By circumventing bankruptcy law and putting unions in front of investors, Obama guaranteed he had massive political capital with the unions.

More to the point, his opponent made the fatal error of penning an article that was headlined (not by him, I know) with a call to let auto companies go bankrupt.

It was not so much the unions, as the blue collar voters of the mid-west who looked between someone who saved jobs (yes, with public money) and someone who said let them go bust, and chose according to who seemed to match their interests.

The other thing about the auto bailout is that it came after the bank bailout. The banks were front and centre of the 2007-8 credit squeeze, the 2008 crash, and are still having problems in the recovery. To many, the question then was not only about rewarding failure (and the alternative would have been a domino effect from Lehman Bros), but also about propping up part of the economy that doesn't produce anything tangible itself. The car industry does, and it's collapse would also have been a major hit on a region of the country that was already doing worse than the rest.

It's too easy to treat it as bribery. Point is, unemployment in Ohio is lower than the national average, and the people there notice that for them, the stimulus had an effect.

danivon wrote:More to the point, his opponent made the fatal error of penning an article that was headlined (not by him, I know) with a call to let auto companies go bankrupt.

It was not so much the unions, as the blue collar voters of the mid-west who looked between someone who saved jobs (yes, with public money) and someone who said let them go bust, and chose according to who seemed to match their interests.

<snip>

Point is, unemployment in Ohio is lower than the national average, and the people there notice that for them, the stimulus had an effect.

Precisely. Since the bailout, auto plants in the region have put on additional shifts and called-back workers. What might have happened without the bailout is necessarily pure speculation, but considering the global financial environment in 2008/2009 (banks were lending to hardly anyone, remember?) it is far from clear that private capital could have been found to allow a "normal" bankruptcy restructuring to take place. The possibility that GM & Chrysler, at least, could have simply gone under is one that cannot be dismissed.

[I find it interesting that many people who shrug off that possibility as the natural consequence of business competition (ignoring the unique elements of the 2008/09 business environment) are often the same ones who bemoan the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs.]

As for recouping the costs of the bailout; how do you calculate the tax revenue that would otherwise not have been collected from employees who's jobs were saved? The exercise is impossible, since you really need to factor in hypotheticals that can never be known. What anyone in the region can tell you (and did, I would argue, in the voting booth), however, many with relatives or friends now working again, is that the bailout was the right thing to do.

Doctor Fate wrote:Good and fair post until . . .

danivon wrote:Thirdly, it says a lot for Romney's management abilities and handling of money that he appears to have run out mid-campaign. The CBA for the overall Republican campaigns overall is pretty poor. If they want to run the budget, they need to prove they can run a campaign, surely?

No primary was a huge advantage. That cannot be overstated. If Obama had to spend his money to defeat an opponent, then they would have been on even footing. He didn't. They weren't.

Problem is, you've completely missed, or ignored, the point that Danivon is making. The point here has nothing to do with whether Romney had an advantage or a disadvantage in comparison to Obama. The point speaks to Romney's (or his team's) money-management skills.

Sure the campaign had challenges, and an opponent with a different cost profile; I'm sure you wouldn't suggest that managing the Federal budget is free of challenges. Romney's campaign argued that their guy would be better managing the Federal budget; I'm not saying that the campaign money management proves they couldn't - but it doesn't help the case.

There is one person out there even more upset than DF about Obama getting re-elected...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 ... 19080.html

Danivon, with all due respect, you are completely off-target here.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:No primary was a huge advantage. That cannot be overstated. If Obama had to spend his money to defeat an opponent, then they would have been on even footing. He didn't. They weren't.

On the other hand, no Primary meant that the Republicans had the stage for months, and the winner had a chance to promote themselves to the whole nation, and particularly those in the middle and right.

Whereas Obama didn't have any debates in Spring, no real excuse for ad coverage, no easy win over a paper candidate to go through.

Sure, Obama could concentrate his spend on the final run off, but there are pros and cons with having no primaries. I think it did Clinton good to have a challenge in 1996, if only to force him to address it.

Just wrong from beginning to end. Obama, having no opponent, had free run with Democratic financial backers. Romney, at best, had some commitment from some GOP backers. If all of the GOP money was behind Romney from the beginning, with no diversions or dalliances with Gingrich, Santorum, et al, you would be right. In fact, in that case, Romney would be the favorite. However, it was not clear he would be the nominee until, what, April?

Meanwhile, Obama had uninterrupted money flow for four years. How could Romney have matched that?

But, it's more than just campaign money. By many analyses, Obama never stopped campaigning. For example, they kept their ground game running from 2008 in Ohio and other States. Who can afford, as a GOP potential candidate, to do that? It's no accident that Obama held more fundraisers than any President ever. He needed the money.

Well, perhaps if the RNC and state Republican parties had maintained their 'ground games' (or built them up more), regardless of who the candidate was going to be, they could have competed. After all, the build up was pretty much about how bad Obama was, how bad Obamacare was, etc

Again, just wrong. The RNC cannot fund constant campaigns for unnamed candidates. It's just not feasible. Meanwhile, Obama had constant fundraisers for four years to fund an ongoing campaign. He never left the field.

Furthermore, no matter how you unpack the auto bailout (which, strangely, Obama never blamed on Bush even though Bush started it), it was taxpayer money "invested" (and a large chunk of it not recovered) in the Obama campaign. By circumventing bankruptcy law and putting unions in front of investors, Obama guaranteed he had massive political capital with the unions.

More to the point, his opponent made the fatal error of penning an article that was headlined (not by him, I know) with a call to let auto companies go bankrupt.

It was not so much the unions, as the blue collar voters of the mid-west who looked between someone who saved jobs (yes, with public money) and someone who said let them go bust, and chose according to who seemed to match their interests.

This is, at best, misleading. If Romney's solution had been followed, GM would not have ceased to exist. That is a myth. They would have gone through a structured bankruptcy (which is what happened) according to the law (which is not what happened). The major difference would have been some hits to Labor in terms of contracts.

The other thing about the auto bailout is that it came after the bank bailout. The banks were front and centre of the 2007-8 credit squeeze, the 2008 crash, and are still having problems in the recovery. To many, the question then was not only about rewarding failure (and the alternative would have been a domino effect from Lehman Bros), but also about propping up part of the economy that doesn't produce anything tangible itself. The car industry does, and it's collapse would also have been a major hit on a region of the country that was already doing worse than the rest.

It's too easy to treat it as bribery. Point is, unemployment in Ohio is lower than the national average, and the people there notice that for them, the stimulus had an effect.

Not the Stimulus, the bailout.

Again, the industry was not going to cease to exist. That is a falsehood.

freeman2 wrote:There is one person out there even more upset than DF about Obama getting re-elected...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 ... 19080.html

I wonder about their health insurance ...

Rudewalrus wrote:

danivon wrote:More to the point, his opponent made the fatal error of penning an article that was headlined (not by him, I know) with a call to let auto companies go bankrupt.

It was not so much the unions, as the blue collar voters of the mid-west who looked between someone who saved jobs (yes, with public money) and someone who said let them go bust, and chose according to who seemed to match their interests.

<snip>

Point is, unemployment in Ohio is lower than the national average, and the people there notice that for them, the stimulus had an effect.

Precisely. Since the bailout, auto plants in the region have put on additional shifts and called-back workers. What might have happened without the bailout is necessarily pure speculation, but considering the global financial environment in 2008/2009 (banks were lending to hardly anyone, remember?) it is far from clear that private capital could have been found to allow a "normal" bankruptcy restructuring to take place. The possibility that GM & Chrysler, at least, could have simply gone under is one that cannot be dismissed.

[I find it interesting that many people who shrug off that possibility as the natural consequence of business competition (ignoring the unique elements of the 2008/09 business environment) are often the same ones who bemoan the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs.]

As for recouping the costs of the bailout; how do you calculate the tax revenue that would otherwise not have been collected from employees who's jobs were saved? The exercise is impossible, since you really need to factor in hypotheticals that can never be known. What anyone in the region can tell you (and did, I would argue, in the voting booth), however, many with relatives or friends now working again, is that the bailout was the right thing to do.

Since you all seem to be struggling with what Romney actually said, here it is:

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Emphasis added so you can stop wringing your hands about banks and finances. Please.

freeman2 wrote:There is one person out there even more upset than DF about Obama getting re-elected...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 ... 19080.html

Eventually, the American people will be more outraged than his Mrs. Solomon.

I do seem to recall that it was argued here that Obama was at a disadvantage because of the lack of primaries. Of course, that was from people who predicted Obama would lose.

I never said Romney had all the GOP money. I was talking about the exposure that he (and any other Republican candidate for the nomination) had the opportunity for during the Primary process. So well done in disproving an argument I never made.

And I can't see why the RNC, or allied Republican organisations, can't set up grassroots level activist-based 'ground game', just because they have no candidate. They have a common purpose, right? They aren't banned from talking to voters or laying groundwork or whatever? It's feasible, but it does take effort. It took the Democrats a long time to develop what they have, but they've got where they are through networks of organisations that will be active between elections and regardless of who the candidate is.

danivon wrote:I never said Romney had all the GOP money. I was talking about the exposure that he (and any other Republican candidate for the nomination) had the opportunity for during the Primary process. So well done in disproving an argument I never made.

Mercy. Maybe you should put some fine print on your posts, something like, "Nothing should be inferred, nor perceive to be implied by any of the preceding comments. Any such inference drawn or perceived implication will be denied most strenuously."

Yes, Romney had exposure. The President . . . it is fair to say . . . always gets more. And, that's fine. However, no one was capable of mounting the kind of negative campaign he ran because it took all of his resources (and more, as the DNC actually borrowed money from B of A).

And I can't see why the RNC, or allied Republican organisations, can't set up grassroots level activist-based 'ground game', just because they have no candidate. They have a common purpose, right? They aren't banned from talking to voters or laying groundwork or whatever? It's feasible, but it does take effort. It took the Democrats a long time to develop what they have, but they've got where they are through networks of organisations that will be active between elections and regardless of who the candidate is.

Watch what happens over the next four years. The Democrats will have a hard time maintaining the Obama infrastructure because it is heavily Chicago-centric and Obama-driven. It is the cult of personality.

fate

Watch what happens over the next four years. The Democrats will have a hard time maintaining the Obama infrastructure because it is heavily Chicago-centric and Obama-driven. It is the cult of personality

.

Clinton had a pretty good ground game. Gore did too.
It strikes me as more institutional.

Romney was mortally wounded by having to fight the primaries. But not financially. To win his policies had to be tea party approvable, and that doomed him.... No amount of money, based upon Rove blowing $300 million for a 95% failure rate, guarantees election. Didn't the former CEO of the Wrestling Federation blo $100 million in two elections trying to become Senator?