General Election Thread (no partisan sniping allowed!)

[Tom B.]

There might not be any "sniping" going on but I smell a lot of partisanship.

Hope this isn't seen as partisan -- it's truly meant in good fun.



Separated at birth:


Paul Ryan

220px-Paul_Ryan_official_portrait.jpg



Gabe from The Office

The-office-zach-woods-0.jpg

[OldPhiKap]

Hope this isn't seen as partisan -- it's truly meant in good fun.



Separated at birth:


Paul Ryan

220px-Paul_Ryan_official_portrait.jpg



Gabe from The Office

The-office-zach-woods-0.jpg

That's better than the one I saw of Paul Ryan and Eddie Munster that's going around.

Bet Gabe and Eddie have more than 8% body fat, though.

[Tom B.]

And just to show that I'm bipartisan:



Joe Biden

Joe-Biden-UAW-Toledo-fist.jpg




1980s Paul Verhoeven movie uber-villain Ronny Cox

RonnyCoxRobocop.jpg

[Mal]

This or something like it is my thought as well. There's probably nothing illegal, but there's likely something (or somethings) that the Romney campaign thinks is embarrassing.

I think it's not so much personally embarrassing, but rather strategic, and in both a narrow and a broader sense. For one thing, Romney's already allowed himself to be painted as Monty Burns a little bit, with his comments about liking having the ability to fire people, and his various other (easily portrayed as) out of touch rich guy statements earlier in the campaign. The environment right now is more ripe than at any time in recent years for holding those in the financial services industry in lower regard than usual, and there's still (as evidenced by OWS among other trends) some definite resentment out there, and a feeling that some people do, indeed, "play by a different set of rules." As sage nicely laid out above, in fact Mitt Romney does play by a different set of rules, or more to the point and less incendiary, perhaps, with his money, has access to a whole different game than 99% of the population. Allowing everyone to see that he makes somewhere in the range of $20M a year while running for president for the last 7 or 8 years is simply not good optics for him, right now, when he still hasn't managed to put across any sort of positive image for himself that's picked up any steam. So, there's that. And there's the lingering issue of everyone knowing his effective tax rate is probably lower, if not significantly so, than that of many regular income earners, and until he actually details something markedly different from Ryan's budget thesis (and, IMHO, I don't believe he will), he's tied to an economic plan that calls for dramatically slashing his own tax rate. But beyond that, there's the meta issue: whatever's in his tax returns, their release at this point would open up for general discussion the broader topic of taxation of capital vs. labor. That's a discussion that, in the current environment, the GOP appears to really not want to have. Currently, they've seemingly held off the sharks by pumping the "job creators" meme and other tactics, but when Romney can't really account for the creation of any jobs over the last 10 years, while he's continued to earn incredible amounts of money as an investor, that whole thing might go poof with 10 years of his tax returns being scrutinized for several consecutive news cycles.

I agree with all those who say Romney could have put this to bed by just biting the bullet months ago. Not doing so not only opens him up for crazy speculation and extremely negative comparisons to his father, but more importantly, makes him look kind of politically wimpy and unable to take actual risk. That sort of non-specific negative impression thing never serves candidates for President well, I think.

[gus]

Allowing everyone to see that he makes somewhere in the range of $20M a year while running for president for the last 7 or 8 years is simply not good optics for him, right now

I wonder if the issue is the reverse: a few years he made substantially less, undermining his image as a successful businessman in a rather embarrassing way?

[Mal]

Now obviously its been taken out of context and I don't think Obama meant it as has been shown in the media but this quote does serve to show the differing ideologies of the two candidates and what I would hope some of the race actually boiled down to.

How so?

I think the flap over the "you didn't build that" thing is remarkable for two things. First, that the media would actually allow the fauxtrage revolving around the President's words to float. It's patently obvious (and I think, based on your statement above, that you agree) that he was not saying "You don't deserve to be rich" or "You didn't actually have a good idea" or "You didn't stay up late and make sacrifices for your wealth and success" or "We all hate you, rich people!" All he was saying is that we in our very wealthy society should be cognizant of the fact that publicly funded things like school systems (and educated employees and customers coming from them), the internet, the court system, the police, the interstate highway system, and countless other things are critical to a thriving economy.

The second is that this, in itself, is now apparently a controversial statement that, as sporthenry alludes, highlights a philosophical difference between the two major parties in American politics. Is one of the ideologies of the candidates that public infrastructure is not a necessary component of a society in which people can get fabulously wealthy? This strikes me as an important development, because I could be way off my rocker, but I feel like as recently as five years ago what the President said in that speech would have been about as uncontroversial as announcing that water was wet. And yet, I've now heard the opposite from a number of folks in this cycle, in addition to sporthenry. Heck, the Republican party has now added a guy who's been known to make his staffers read Atlas Shrugged to the GOP ticket. I think this would have been unheard of as recently as 2008, and yet it's now unremarked upon in normal political media discourse.

[tommy]

Hey Throaty and Rasputin, what do you guys think the impact will be, both on the Senate race and even perhaps the presidential in Missouri, of Todd Akin's comments today on rape and abortion? For those of you who missed it, Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin, who is leading the polls and seemed poised to oust incumbent Claire McCaskill (perhaps with relative ease), stated today that "legitimate rape" victims have a biological defense mechanism to prevent pregnancy. With the upshot of such a position being that if you got pregnant, you probably weren't really "legitimately" raped. Sheer nonsense of course.

Uproar, followed by quick backtracking by Akin, claiming he "misspoke" and, in my opinion, a rather tepid distancing by the Romney campaign from Akin's remarks. "We disagree" with Akin, that kind of thing.

I've read that a significant number of conservative activists want Akin out, feeling he's no longer viable after making such an extreme, and simply ignorant, statement. I guess they probably think there's still enough time before the election to get someone else in there, and with Missouri being pretty solidly red right now, even their second choice could still take out McCaskill.

And it may tend to draw some attention to Paul Ryan, who favors a complete ban on abortion, even in the case of rape or incest.

But you guys are obviously a lot closer to the ground than I. Thoughts on the situation right now and going forward?

[throatybeard]

Hey Throaty and Rasputin, what do you guys think the impact will be, both on the Senate race and even perhaps the presidential in Missouri, of Todd Akin's comments today on rape and abortion? For those of you who missed it, Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin, who is leading the polls and seemed poised to oust incumbent Claire McCaskill (perhaps with relative ease), stated today that "legitimate rape" victims have a biological defense mechanism to prevent pregnancy. With the upshot of such a position being that if you got pregnant, you probably weren't really "legitimately" raped. Sheer nonsense of course.

Uproar, followed by quick backtracking by Akin, claiming he "misspoke" and, in my opinion, a rather tepid distancing by the Romney campaign from Akin's remarks. "We disagree" with Akin, that kind of thing.

I've read that a significant number of conservative activists want Akin out, feeling he's no longer viable after making such an extreme, and simply ignorant, statement. I guess they probably think there's still enough time before the election to get someone else in there, and with Missouri being pretty solidly red right now, even their second choice could still take out McCaskill.

And it may tend to draw some attention to Paul Ryan, who favors a complete ban on abortion, even in the case of rape or incest.

But you guys are obviously a lot closer to the ground than I. Thoughts on the situation right now and going forward?

Thanks for the shout-out. I have been not on the Missouri ground for the last four days (NC ground, actually), and I'm gonna let Rasputin (or Kexman, or anyone else) talk first about what might actually happen. Rasputin strikes me as an StL P-D subscriber, as well as a stand-up dude. I'm more of a splattered traveler these days.

I have some thoughts though, and it will take me a while to formulate them in a "non-partisan" way. Meantime, I will say Mssr Nate Silver already has a column on this on fivethirtyeight, and he analyzes it in terms of major missteps a la "macaca" in 2006. As a D sympathizer, I don't know what I'm rooting for. Silver suggests the Rs might could replace Akin with one of the other primary folks, now or soon.

In other news, the software won't let me give Mal any more positive feedback.

[rasputin]

Thanks for the shout-out. I have been not on the Missouri ground for the last four days (NC ground, actually), and I'm gonna let Rasputin (or Kexman, or anyone else) talk first about what might actually happen. Rasputin strikes me as an StL P-D subscriber, as well as a stand-up dude. I'm more of a splattered traveler these days.

I have some thoughts though, and it will take me a while to formulate them in a "non-partisan" way. Meantime, I will say Mssr Nate Silver already has a column on this on fivethirtyeight, and he analyzes it in terms of major missteps a la "macaca" in 2006. As a D sympathizer, I don't know what I'm rooting for. Silver suggests the Rs might could replace Akin with one of the other primary folks, now or soon.

In other news, the software won't let me give Mal any more positive feedback.

Shortly before the primary, there were polls showing several of the Republican candidates for the Senatorial nomination to be ahead of McCaskill if they were to run head to head. And Claire supporters clearly saw Akin as the weakest of the potential opponents, because they were running pro-Akin TV ads here just before the primary.

I have also been told that legally, the deadline for Akin to withdraw from the race is today or tomorrow, so if Akin is to back out, he has to do so now.

Yes Throaty, I am a Post-Dispatch subscriber, the dinosaur kind who has an actual newspaper in his driveway every morning.

[Olympic Fan]

Nate Silver, while pointing to the impact in the polls to major gaffes like Akin's (I don't think it's partisan to suggest it was a major gaffe when Mitt Romney calls your remarks "indefensible), also cites a study by Chad Longt that examines 21 instances in recent years when candidates have made major verbal flubs and finds that the usual impact is a loss of 5 points in the polls -- which, along with he five point gain by your opponent -- result in a 10-point swing.

If that's case, then the Missouri senate race just went from Akin +5 (the latest polls) to McCaskill +5.

[Tom B.]

Uproar, followed by quick backtracking by Akin, claiming he "misspoke" and, in my opinion, a rather tepid distancing by the Romney campaign from Akin's remarks. "We disagree" with Akin, that kind of thing.

Yeah, I was struck by the tepidness of Romney's initial response, which said that he "disagreed" with Rep. Akin's comments. Um, you "disagree?" As if this is the kind of thing on which reasonable people could disagree?

He's now beefed up his response, though, calling Akin's comments "inexcusable." The roundtable on Morning Joe this morning speculated that Romney's first response was so meek because he knows that conservatives still don't really trust him, and he didn't want to say anything too harsh (at least initially) because he was afraid of offending them. Once other conservatives came out with stronger condemnations, tough, it was as though Romney decided it was OK to use stronger language, and he followed suit.

This whole incident will likely put both Romney and Ryan's position records on abortion back in the spotlight. Ryan previously sponsored a "personhood" bill that would have made all abortions illegal unless necessary to save the mother's life, even in cases of rape and incest, and that also would have made some forms of contraception (e.g., the morning after pill) illegal. And Romney, of course, has been all over the map on abortion, claiming he was pro-choice when he ran for governor of Massachusetts, then flip-flopping a few years later when he decided to run for President.

Politically, Akin's comments couldn't have come at a better time for President Obama and the Democrats, who have been trying to elevate issues of reproductive rights in the campaign and who actually just started running an ad in selected markets over the weekend -- before Akin made his comments -- hitting both Romney and Ryan on that issue. This could get interesting.

[rasputin]

Yeah, I was struck by the tepidness of Romney's initial response, which said that he "disagreed" with Rep. Akin's comments. Um, you "disagree?" As if this is the kind of thing on which reasonable people could disagree?

He's now beefed up his response, though, calling Akin's comments "inexcusable." The roundtable on Morning Joe this morning speculated that Romney's first response was so meek because he knows that conservatives still don't really trust him, and he didn't want to say anything too harsh (at least initially) because he was afraid of offending them. Once other conservatives came out with stronger condemnations, tough, it was as though Romney decided it was OK to use stronger language, and he followed suit.

This whole incident will likely put both Romney and Ryan's position records on abortion back in the spotlight. Ryan previously sponsored a "personhood" bill that would have made all abortions illegal unless necessary to save the mother's life, even in cases of rape and incest, and that also would have made some forms of contraception (e.g., the morning after pill) illegal. And Romney, of course, has been all over the map on abortion, claiming he was pro-choice when he ran for governor of Massachusetts, then flip-flopping a few years later when he decided to run for President. Could get interesting.

Speaking of Massachusetts, their Republican Senator (Scott Brown), who is in a tight race of his own, has publicly called for Akin to withdraw. Apparently the rules call for Akin to withdraw, if at all, by close of business tomorrow (although the news reports are also saying that a court order could get him off the ballot).

[Tom B.]

Speaking of Massachusetts, their Republican Senator (Scott Brown), who is in a tight race of his own, has publicly called for Akin to withdraw. Apparently the rules call for Akin to withdraw, if at all, by close of business tomorrow (although the news reports are also saying that a court order could get him off the ballot).

My understanding, based on admittedly incomplete information, is that there are two important dates, the first of which is tomorrow. If Akin were to withdraw by tomorrow, he could do so with no strings attached and no repurcussions. The second date is September 25 -- he could still withdraw by that date, but it would take a court order (which I don't fully understand), and he'd have to foot the bill for reprinting the ballots (not sure if his campaign or the party would be on the hook).

[Tommac]

Haven't noticed a single comment about the sitting vice president's statement on putting "y'all back in chains" or forgetting which state he was in when making the comment.

[tommy]

First of all, I've read in multiple places this morning that Akin has gone on the air and declared that he's "not a quitter" and won't be leaving the race. I'm sure that Sen. McCaskill is not displeased with that news.

Second, it is really starting to irk me that so many of the commentators on this are describing what Akin said as a "gaffe" or a "flub" or a "blunder." A "gaffe" is a social error or faux pas. A "flub" or a "blunder" is defined as a careless mistake. What all of these words have in common is that they are properly used to describe something unintentional -- a mistake.

This was not a mistake by Akin. To the contrary, there has been a history of politicians who are hostile to abortion rights repeating this meme about women having some natural biological defense against getting pregnant as the result of a rape. I've read about this history in a number of places over the last day or so, including here. Akin is either stupid enough to have actually adopted the belief that this biological process exists, or he expressed the belief even though he doesn't hold it, which is indefensible as well. But I don't see how this fits into the category of a simple "mistake." This is who he is.

[OldPhiKap]

Haven't noticed a single comment about the sitting vice president's statement on putting "y'all back in chains" or forgetting which state he was in when making the comment.

To quote Sarah Palin, "there you go again, Joe."

(To quote Michael Palin, "I always wanted to be an explorer, but - it seemed I was doomed to be nothing more than a very silly person." Perhaps not applicable, but you can't have a Ying without a Yang).

What Biden said was also indefensible, clearly. It seems that the Obama folks are quicker to get back on message, though, than the Romney folks and that to me (Mr. Impartial Observer) is the salient point. We are less than three months from election, and Romney can never get to the economy because he's fighting backfires on releasing taxes, the Ryan budget, and now this.

The Democrats are defining Romney, because he won't/can't do it himself. Reminds me of John Kerrey, who had a very interesting story to tell as well but was defined as a flip-flopping, monied noodle monkey before he got out of the starting gate.

At some point, Romney needs to plant his flag instead of trying to appease folks and remain noncontroversial. At least, if he wants to win he better start.

[gus]

Haven't noticed a single comment about the sitting vice president's statement on putting "y'all back in chains" or forgetting which state he was in when making the comment.

I think most people recognize it was a dumb and meaningless gaffe that will have no impact on the race, and that republicans feigning outrage over this themselves have used similar methaphors in the past. (e.g., Romney 12/19/11: "Our first principle is freedom. If we remove the shackles of government... we can become the Opportunity Society that we once were...").

Besides, Biden saying silly things is hardly noteworthy.

[Tommac]

I think most people recognize it was a dumb and meaningless gaffe that will have no impact on the race, and that republicans feigning outrage over this themselves have used similar methaphors in the past. (e.g., Romney 12/19/11: "Our first principle is freedom. If we remove the shackles of government... we can become the Opportunity Society that we once were...").

Besides, Biden saying silly things is hardly noteworthy.

Your response proves my point that this thread is heavily partisan. You dismiss Biden's gaffes as "meaningless" and "hardly newsworthy." Is the sitting vice president of the US that inconsequential? I also don't think your referral of Romney's "shackle" comment is relevant or comparable to Biden's "chain" comment which is certainly racial in nature. My $.02.

[blazindw]

Your response proves my point that this thread is heavily partisan. You dismiss Biden's gaffes as "meaningless" and "hardly newsworthy." Is the sitting vice president of the US that inconsequential? I also don't think your referral of Romney's "shackle" comment is relevant or comparable to Biden's "chain" comment which is certainly racial in nature. My $.02.

I didn't take it to be racial in nature, though I read and heard the context of the quote. But, we shouldn't go down that road in this thread.

[gus]

Your response proves my point that this thread is heavily partisan. You dismiss Biden's gaffes as "meaningless" and "hardly newsworthy." Is the sitting vice president of the US that inconsequential? I also don't think your referral of Romney's "shackle" comment is relevant or comparable to Biden's "chain" comment which is certainly racial in nature. My $.02.

First of all, you are quoting me incorrectly. I said "noteworthy", not "newsworthy". Further, the comment was very obviously a joke. Lighten up.

As for the substance of your response to me... You could have posted a comment about biden to elicit debate any time you chose. But you didn't. Why not? Biden's comment could certainly be intepreted as racial, and he should have chosen his words more carefully... but that does not mean his comment was intended to be racial. It was clearly a play on the meme of unchaining and unshackling republicans have been running with for a very long time. "...they want to unchain wallstreet..."

Honest question: Are you really, truly offended by what Biden said? Why is Romney's reference to "shackle" copacetic to you? You do realize "to shackle" and "to chain" are related? The relevant definition of chains here is "shackles or fetters". You chose to ascribe a racial motivation to Biden, but not Romney, for using the same metaphor. Why?