General Election Thread (no partisan sniping allowed!)

[OldPhiKap]

(post withdrawn by OPK -- gonna move the discussion to PPB)

[JasonEvans]

I thought we had already posted enough of these... but then I saw this one and thought, "well, I can't not post that one!!"

The best Binders meme yet --



-Jason

[sporthenry]

If I were to guess why the push for specificity, it's because the media narrative for several weeks after 9/11/12 was that there was a mob outside the Bengazi (sp?) consulate over the American movie trailer and it got out of hand. An American involved with the film was taken in by American authorities in the dark of night with his face obscured by scarves.

Then, recently, ABC reports that there were no riots outside the Libyan consulate (although there were in other countries): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1953057.html And a State department transcript was released saying the state department never thought the movie trailer had anything to do with it: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/201...QQjpX0.twitter

I think the Romney campaign probably wants to highlight the distinction between the first 2 weeks after 9/11/12 and the recent 2 weeks.

Yes, and Romney and Co. are still harping on this that they have Obama between a rock and a hard place. Luckily for them, they have another debate to clarify his words. Of course 3rd debate is usually the least watched but Romney's team is pushing this Libya "thing" (for lack of a better word) very hard. I'd almost say they are marrying themselves to Libya and would I be crazy to say this could end up deciding the election?

If they are able to paint Obama as a bystander while the attack happened, that they rejected claims for more security after multiple attacks on the consulate, that he lied to the American public and knew it was a terrorist attack hours after it occurred, and a bevy of other claims that would make Obama look very unpresidential, that could change the election. I'm not sure they will be able to get enough out to succeed in doing this and Obama will have 6 days to rehearse his response, and it remains to be seen if Americans care as much as Romney does about Libya.

Additionally, do people think we'll have 90 minutes of foreign policy to actually debate? Americans seem to want more isolationism at this moment and it seems we already hashed out a lot of FP in the first 3 debates. I'm sure we'll get the obligatory Afghanistan/Iraq question, Libya, Iran and we'll also get more conversation on trade policies and economic policies with Asia and South America as well as foreign aid and the EU debt. I don't think these topics will excite the undecided voter.

[gus]

I thought we had already posted enough of these... but then I saw this one and thought, "well, I can't not post that one!!"

The best Binders meme yet --



-Jason

red x for me.

[Udaman]

I agree that foreign policy likely won't move the needle much. But I will say this:

1) I think the Romney campaign continuing to reach on the Libya thing is a losing battle. They can harp all they want that Obama never called it a terrorist attack, but his words are what they are (he clearly said act of terror) and the mainstream media (i.e. not the right wing blogs, or Rush, or Fox) will call him out on this repeatedly...and that's what the independents and moderates watch (face it, most of those who watch Fox are voting for Romney already, as are most of those who watch MSNBC voting for Obama).

2) The foreign debate is one where the sitting president has a clear advantages (unless he's running against a senator or someone like that). Why? Because he gets briefed all the time on this stuff. He knows the names of the powers that be. He knows the issues. He's met with them all. Obama has a clear, clear advantage here. Plus he can (and will) point out the gaffes that Romney made on his Europe trip before the Olympics. Plus there's a good chance that Romney will make a mistake and say someone's name wrong, or get a policy wrong, or something like that...simply because there's so much information, and he doesn't get the information that the President gets daily/weekly and has for 3 years. And there's only a 6 day turnaround, and Romney has to campaign some this week. At best he'll have Sunday and Monday to cram....and coming from a person who crammed for many Poli-Sci tests at Duke...that's not much time.

Clearly, the absolute best outcome for Romney in this third debate is a tie (and he'll pounce all over Libya and China to try and get that)....but there's a real chance that he could get smoked in this one.

[AtlBluRew]

Clearly, the absolute best outcome for Romney in this third debate is a tie (and he'll pounce all over Libya and China to try and get that)....but there's a real chance that he could get smoked in this one.

Don't forget Israel. The third debate is going to be in Boca Raton. Here in South Florida, the airwaves (or cablewaves, at least) are being saturated with ads from the Republican Jewish Coalition.

[gus]

I agree that foreign policy likely won't move the needle much. But I will say this:

1) I think the Romney campaign continuing to reach on the Libya thing is a losing battle. They can harp all they want that Obama never called it a terrorist attack, but his words are what they are (he clearly said act of terror) and the mainstream media (i.e. not the right wing blogs, or Rush, or Fox) will call him out on this repeatedly...and that's what the independents and moderates watch (face it, most of those who watch Fox are voting for Romney already, as are most of those who watch MSNBC voting for Obama).

2) The foreign debate is one where the sitting president has a clear advantages (unless he's running against a senator or someone like that). Why? Because he gets briefed all the time on this stuff. He knows the names of the powers that be. He knows the issues. He's met with them all. Obama has a clear, clear advantage here. Plus he can (and will) point out the gaffes that Romney made on his Europe trip before the Olympics. Plus there's a good chance that Romney will make a mistake and say someone's name wrong, or get a policy wrong, or something like that...simply because there's so much information, and he doesn't get the information that the President gets daily/weekly and has for 3 years. And there's only a 6 day turnaround, and Romney has to campaign some this week. At best he'll have Sunday and Monday to cram....and coming from a person who crammed for many Poli-Sci tests at Duke...that's not much time.

Clearly, the absolute best outcome for Romney in this third debate is a tie (and he'll pounce all over Libya and China to try and get that)....but there's a real chance that he could get smoked in this one.

While I agree with you, I believe the bolded is not as much of an advantage as you think. Romney has been included on security briefings for weeks now (I believe his first was actually the day the 47% video was released -- a well timed release from the Democrats standpoint). The real advantage for the incumbent is that he actually is in the role, while votes must imagine the challenger dealing with foreign policy issues.

[Tom B.]

red x for me.

Me too.

[OldPhiKap]

I agree that foreign policy likely won't move the needle much. But I will say this:

1) I think the Romney campaign continuing to reach on the Libya thing is a losing battle. They can harp all they want that Obama never called it a terrorist attack, but his words are what they are (he clearly said act of terror) and the mainstream media (i.e. not the right wing blogs, or Rush, or Fox) will call him out on this repeatedly...and that's what the independents and moderates watch (face it, most of those who watch Fox are voting for Romney already, as are most of those who watch MSNBC voting for Obama).

2) The foreign debate is one where the sitting president has a clear advantages (unless he's running against a senator or someone like that). Why? Because he gets briefed all the time on this stuff. He knows the names of the powers that be. He knows the issues. He's met with them all. Obama has a clear, clear advantage here. Plus he can (and will) point out the gaffes that Romney made on his Europe trip before the Olympics. Plus there's a good chance that Romney will make a mistake and say someone's name wrong, or get a policy wrong, or something like that...simply because there's so much information, and he doesn't get the information that the President gets daily/weekly and has for 3 years. And there's only a 6 day turnaround, and Romney has to campaign some this week. At best he'll have Sunday and Monday to cram....and coming from a person who crammed for many Poli-Sci tests at Duke...that's not much time.

Clearly, the absolute best outcome for Romney in this third debate is a tie (and he'll pounce all over Libya and China to try and get that)....but there's a real chance that he could get smoked in this one.

Romney is very good at giving prepared answers and attack lines. He will be ready. The real question -- like it was last night -- is how he does on follow-ups. His ability to talk off the cuff drops dramatically. Obama is a better counter-puncher; that is how he really beat Hillary four years ago in the later debates IIRC.

Iran, Israel, China, Syria, Libya, trade -- Romney has been speaking on all of these topics for the last two years. It will not be a cram for him.

[Tom B.]

Additionally, do people think we'll have 90 minutes of foreign policy to actually debate? Americans seem to want more isolationism at this moment and it seems we already hashed out a lot of FP in the first 3 debates. I'm sure we'll get the obligatory Afghanistan/Iraq question, Libya, Iran and we'll also get more conversation on trade policies and economic policies with Asia and South America as well as foreign aid and the EU debt. I don't think these topics will excite the undecided voter.

Romney will keep trying to make an issue of Libya. Regardless of whether he'd prefer to or not, I don't think he has a choice now. He'll also try to make an issue out of Iran and, by extension, Israel (and will try to paint Obama as unsympathetic or not caring enough about Israel, dissing Netanyahu, etc.). He'll harp on China and do his stump speech about labeling China a "currency manipulator."

Tricky line for Romney to walk on Israel/Palestine. On his trip to Israel back in August, he basically laid all the blame for that situation at the feet of the Palestinians, saying it was "an issue of culture," or something to that effect. Since then he seems to have backed away from that hard-line rhetoric and expressed support for a two-state solution, though he has been vague about it. Which Romney will show up at the debate?

Syria will come up. Romney says we should arm the rebels. Not sure how that will play.

Obama will talk about getting bin Laden and other Al Qaeda baddies (not really foreign policy, but lots of voters link foreign policy and national security in their minds, so it will come up), and getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. If Romney brings up China, expect Obama to hit him back with outsourcing.

If Romney brings up Libya, I expect Obama will do as he did last night and criticize him for jumping the gun to politicize the tragedy. Also look for Obama to bring up how Romney insulted the British while abroad this summer and called Russia our "number one geopolitical foe." All of this will go towards crafting a narrative that Romney is naive, tone deaf and hair-triggered on foreign policy. Obama also might try to weave in Romney's position that we should arm the Syrian rebels as another example of him looking before he leaps, wanting to get us enmeshed in another Middle East conflict without thinking through the consequences, etc. Obama might bring up the fact that Romney is being advised on foreign policy by a number of Bush 43-era neocons, which will go into Obama's "don't let them take us back" narrative.

Romney may try to bring up the fiscal crises in Greece, Spain, etc. Not that it really has much to do (at least directly) with American foreign policy, but hey, they're foreign countries, right? I could see Romney trying to work in something on this as a backhanded way of criticizing Obama on the debt. If he does this, Obama should be ready to punch back on how Romney hasn't given specifics about how he'd pay for his tax plan, how it would increase the deficit and put us at greater risk, not less, of becoming like Greece, etc.

Energy policy could come up (what will you do to reduce foreign oil dependency, etc.). Romney will talk Keystone and drilling/fracking domestically (and ohbytheway this is part of how I'll create 12 million jobs -- did I mention that I'll create 12 MILLION JOBS???). Obama will talk clean energy alternatives and an "all of the above" approach. Romney will criticize him for bad investments in green energy firms that failed, "picking winners and losers," etc. Obama will paint Romney as being in the pocket of big oil. Again, none if this is really foreign policy -- I'm just spitballing about how it potentially could come up in a forum that's at least nominally a foreign policy debate.

Expect something unexpected to come up. In the 2004 foreign policy debate, a question about Darfur came out of left field. Kerry was ready for it and gave a really strong answer. Bush wasn't and stumbled. Not that it affected the outcome of the race, but it's an example of how an unexpected issue can sometimes appear from nowhere.

[captmojo]

Has anyone seen the interview of Candy Crowley, later on Anderson Cooper's show, where she re-thought her instant fact-check of Romney's description of the Rose Garden statement?

Am I the only one?

The Libyan "thing" is gonna haunt worse than a Halloween ghoul. It harkens back to a 40-year old question, "What did the President know and when did he know it?" One thing for sure, we certainly will not have a total answer before Nov 6.

[Mal]

The binders thing may be getting laughs but it may resonate more than you think with women. I thought it was funny; my wife however immediately said Romney's answer was condescending and not close to an answer on the issue of equal pay.

I was struck by the unspoken corollary of the binders comment, which may annoy women, as well: Romney talks a lot about running businesses and being a highly successful executive and running the Winter Olympics. Yet, after all that, as well as running for Governor of Massachusetts, he needs his staff to go out and find him some qualified women to serve in his administration? I know from my own experience, if I were dropped into a gubernatorial office, I could think of dozens of women to call up about joining the team. It implies he didn't know any, or hadn't worked with any. I'm guessing that's not what he meant to say, and that every new elected official needs some help collecting resumes, and that he at least had a few female names in his Rolodex at the time, but it came off otherwise. Was there a binder full of minorities, too?

Re: the third debate, Obama can seal a win there if he does two things: (1) box Romney in on Iran, potentially asking him point blank if he'd favor a pre-emptive war there and then making him try to reconcile his primary blustering about Iran, and (2) turning Israel into a strength point rather than a defensive one, by framing it as "You want me to just let Bibi take over as Secretary of State? I thought we were tougher and stronger than letting Israel dictate our foreign policy." The responses he gets will determine his closing argument: "Look, they can't say they'd do anything different regarding Iran and yet that's what they've been pounded at for four years. Also, bin Laden dead." Or, alternatively, "Governor Romney would have us sending troops into a nation of 75 million after we've spent the last 10 years bogged down in two Middle Eastern wars. Also, bin Laden dead."

Romney will try to push China and Libya, I guess. The trouble he'll run into on China is that the President has strong counterattacks, in the diplomatic crisis of last Spring, where Romney was out on a limb calling it a shameful episode while Clinton was at that very moment in negotiations to secure the guy's amnesty. When Romney talks about "cracking down on China," whatever that means, the President can (but for some reason hasn't yet done so) note that his Administration has brought twice as many trade claims in international courts against China as his predecessor, and ask Romney what specific additional cracking down he would do. If the debate focuses on the Arab Spring and ongoing Syrian situation and Libya and tension with Egypt, it's better for Romney, I think. I don't know if he can articulate a different foreign policy other than intervention, which is a clear loser right now, but even if he can't, focusing on tense situations and instability and vague threats to American interests helps him, as does a defensive posture for the President, which is more likely with that topic.

[Wander]

I agree she'll be attacked, but what is the justification? I thought Crowley did a phenomenol job.

I have no problems at all with a moderator playing fact-checker or pushing the candidates. In fact, I think it should be done more often. I'm also not someone who believes that both sides are always equal; if one guy is making false or misleading statements more, then he should be called out more. The problem is that when you only pick one specific moment to correct a candidate rather than making it a consistent behavior throughout the night, you're going to look biased against whichever candidate that was.

I'd rather have had her call out Romney for this terror thing, Romney's false job numbers, Obama's misleading quote about imaginary wind jobs, etc.

[sporthenry]

Has anyone seen the interview of Candy Crowley, later on Anderson Cooper's show, where she re-thought her instant fact-check of Romney's description of the Rose Garden statement?

Am I the only one?

The Libyan "thing" is gonna haunt worse than a Halloween ghoul. It harkens back to a 40-year old question, "What did the President know and when did he know it?" One thing for sure, we certainly will not have a total answer before Nov 6.

This is the big thing going around, and I see on tons of Conservative pundits blogs that Crowley "admitted she was wrong." I guess they hope people just read the headline because Crowley didn't really admit she was wrong with what she said, just that she probably shouldn't have interjected but in the heat of the moment and knowing the truth she reacted.

Crowley was 100% correct in her statement during the debate. Lets break this down.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it
was an act of terror.

It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're
saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because
it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi
an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It - it - it - he did in fact, sir.
So let me - let me call it an act of terror...

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He - he did call it an act of terror. It did as well
take - it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there
being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct
about that.

So lets go back to the speech in the Rose Garden

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation

So in a speech about Libya in the Rose Garden, he used "acts of terror." You can say he was talking about 9/11 but he says "acts" insinuating 9/11 and other acts which may I go as far to say he meant the actual "act" that got him to even give a speech to begin with. Now I'm not sure where we get with all this semantics and why Republicans are so hung up on when it was declared a terrorist attack. Either way, I don't know how you can say Crowley was wrong in her facts.

I do know whichever speech writer decided to put in that sentence probably just ensured that he'll be employed for the rest of his career.

I do agree that the President seemed to have known more earlier then he led on but I also don't think it is as bleak as Republicans make it out to be such as this from Fox News

Every leader from the president and vice president of the United States to the Secretary of State, Defense, National Intelligence Director, the National Military Command Center and The White House Situation Room was tuned into or was being briefed about what was unfolding at the Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

In other words, every Operations Center in every operational office in our government was fully aware of what was going on while it was going on in real time and did absolutely NOTHING!!!

[sporthenry]

Romney will keep trying to make an issue of Libya. Regardless of whether he'd prefer to or not, I don't think he has a choice now. He'll also try to make an issue out of Iran and, by extension, Israel (and will try to paint Obama as unsympathetic or not caring enough about Israel, dissing Netanyahu, etc.). He'll harp on China and do his stump speech about labeling China a "currency manipulator."

Energy policy could come up (what will you do to reduce foreign oil dependency, etc.). Romney will talk Keystone and drilling/fracking domestically (and ohbytheway this is part of how I'll create 12 million jobs -- did I mention that I'll create 12 MILLION JOBS???). Obama will talk clean energy alternatives and an "all of the above" approach. Romney will criticize him for bad investments in green energy firms that failed, "picking winners and losers," etc. Obama will paint Romney as being in the pocket of big oil. Again, none if this is really foreign policy -- I'm just spitballing about how it potentially could come up in a forum that's at least nominally a foreign policy debate.

Expect something unexpected to come up. In the 2004 foreign policy debate, a question about Darfur came out of left field. Kerry was ready for it and gave a really strong answer. Bush wasn't and stumbled. Not that it affected the outcome of the race, but it's an example of how an unexpected issue can sometimes appear from nowhere.

Yes, I'm sure Israel will be a big issue especially with it being in Florida. Biden was genius is calling Netanyahu, Bibi showing he knows him but this will certainly be a category when Obama is on the defensive.

I didn't think of energy policy but I could see them tying it into OPEC and Middle East unrest, I just wish someone would call them out on the myth of energy independence. Mitt claims we can be independent in 8 years, regardless of whether we even could with our oil, what does that even mean? The oil market would be less volatile to weather/terrorism in the Middle East but we will always be dependent on others as long as we use oil and gas. Price of oil has nothing to do with Obama, more to do with OPEC but ultimately a lot do with India, South America, and China who have continued to use more percentage of the oil. The price of oil will be determined on the open market, we won't get a hometown discount and gas prices of $1.89 won't come back. There will be countries willing to pay $90/barrel. Perhaps we can inundate the market to drive prices down but then OPEC will just slash production. They will just wait out peak oil and then charge even more. Heck for that reason alone, I wish America and Canada would just sit on the oil Romney wants to drill and use it as reserves, it isn't going to go anywhere.

Finally, I too am interested to see what curve ball or two come out. I'd expect something about Africa either in foreign aid (which can be tied to Pakistan, Egypt etc) or al-Qaeda's growing interest in Africa. And we'll probably get a question on Russia.

[gus]

The Libyan "thing" is gonna haunt worse than a Halloween ghoul. It harkens back to a 40-year old question, "What did the President know and when did he know it?" One thing for sure, we certainly will not have a total answer before Nov 6.

I think this will linger like any good conspiracy theory, and will rest along side birth certificates, Obama is a muslim rumors, Bush knew/planned 9/11 nonsense, etc. But I think it's unlikely to have an effect on the election, except to allow Democrats to paint Romney as a ghoulish opportunist politcizing the deaths of Americans abroad.

[Duvall]

I think this will linger like any good conspiracy theory, and will rest along side birth certificates, Obama is a muslim rumors, Bush knew/planned 9/11 nonsense, etc. But I think it's unlikely to have an effect on the election, except to allow Democrats to paint Romney as a ghoulish opportunist politcizing the deaths of Americans abroad.

SPOILER: The House oversight committee hearings on Benghazi in June 2013 will turn out to be anti-climactic, despite much buildup in the press.

[Chicago 1995]

I was struck by the unspoken corollary of the binders comment, which may annoy women, as well: Romney talks a lot about running businesses and being a highly successful executive and running the Winter Olympics. Yet, after all that, as well as running for Governor of Massachusetts, he needs his staff to go out and find him some qualified women to serve in his administration? I know from my own experience, if I were dropped into a gubernatorial office, I could think of dozens of women to call up about joining the team. It implies he didn't know any, or hadn't worked with any. I'm guessing that's not what he meant to say, and that every new elected official needs some help collecting resumes, and that he at least had a few female names in his Rolodex at the time, but it came off otherwise. Was there a binder full of minorities, too?

He might not have even been completely accurate about said binder. It was a bad answer and one that could have been handled much more easily -- just point to the number of female members of his administration in Massachussetts. Instead, he goes this way and steps in it. If he wasn't accurate about it, it might even end up worse.

http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/tal...he-binder.aspx

[captmojo]

I think this will linger like any good conspiracy theory, and will rest along side birth certificates, Obama is a muslim rumors, Bush knew/planned 9/11 nonsense, etc. But I think it's unlikely to have an effect on the election, except to allow Democrats to paint Romney as a ghoulish opportunist politcizing the deaths of Americans abroad.

Results remain to be seen. I think that calling it a conspiracy theory or placing it on a level equivalent of the 'birthers' or 'truthers' or...'faithers(?)' is a bit of an early verdict. It is valid to use the story as a political point in opposition during an election here. The point being that this case can be used to point to either scandalous neglect/security lapse or incompetence.

I believe it would be a mistake to discount Romney's ability to deflect an arguement over simply trying to use what happened to score political points.

[Udaman]

Yesterday, before the debate, the Electoral-vote.com site showed Obama pretty much trouncing Romney - 332 to 206. It showed Obama up by a decent amount in Ohio, and by a slim amount in Virginia and Florida (as well as Iowa and Colorado). By the next debate, that lead will be gone. Romney will had a decent lead in Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Iowa. Ohio State will be a tossup. Wisconsin will be back in play. Obama will be up 275 to 263 and all the talk will be about the huge momentum swing that Romney got from the debate. Plus a ton of money will be flowing in, and the Republican base will be energized. This is not 2008 and Kerry beating around Bush, or Mondale attacking Reagan with fury. Our economy is still stuggling, and people are looking for a reason to vote for Romney. Up until last night many didn't have one. And it was watched by 60 million or so people.

Up until last night, I thought this election would be close, but that Obama would win due to his lead with women, and due to the swing states of Florida and Ohio, where the demographics favor Obama, and the ads they would run that highlighted all the negatives from Romney (the 47%, the tax cuts, etc).

Now, I'm calling it the other way. Romney is going to win the election. It will be close. It will come down to the wire. But Romney will be our next president. At least that's my call.

So, not to toot my own horn here...but the same electoral-vote.com site now shows Obama up 277 to 239, with Virginia and Colorado as ties, and Obama barely winning in Wisconsin, Iowa and Nevada. Of course this doesn't reflect anything that happened last night, and I think that will give Obama a slight shift back up in pretty much all of those states. But the first debate absolutely hammered Obama.

In the end, this all likely comes down to Ohio. I still think Obama will win Iowa, Wisconsin and Nevada. If he does that, and wins Ohio, he can't lose. If he loses Ohio, then he must also win Virginia and Colorado. It's going to be tight.