Taking the country back, one talking point at a time
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Do the Math
This is one big reason Bloomberg shows Obama has a 13 point national lead over Romney.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/06/19/poll-64-of-likely-voters-support-obamas-immigration-policy/
The answer for this problem has been around a long time. Ronald Reagan had it down and GWB was close on it. The answer is reform the citizenship process FIRST. This is the largest disconnect between most people I know and reality. They want reforms AFTER the boarder is secured which frankly isn't reasonable or doable.
Right now a Mexican living in a garbage dump can't afford to legally immigrate here, so he comes here illegally and leaves his family at home and send the fruits of his labor back home.
The answer isn't what Obama is doing, which is simply not enforcing the law. The answer is opening a path to citizenship and making that path easy and cheap. I'm all for more immigrants in this country. They are a huge asset. Is that possible? Yeah no. I get that. And that is why I think YOU thinking this is a bonus isn't quite right. If letting in more people and letting more people immigrate were popular politicians would do it. Bottom line.
What Obama did is popular because it's reasonable. He's just talking about young people who were brought here as children and have never even lived in Mexico or wherever.
Basically what Obama is saying here is "I'm not going to even try to fix this problem Latinos, because that might prove unpopular. Instead I'll just kick the can down the road and hope you like me anyway."
Do you really think that is going to work with Latino voters?
Absofuckinglutely. It's a hell of a lot better than anything Romney is proposing. I bet Obama ends up with more than twice as many Latino votes as his opponent.
According to 'Latino FOX News' on March 5, their poll showed Obama favored by Latinos 70-14 over Mitt Romney. More recent polls from different organizations had him leading Romney by similar margins, and this was prior to the announcement.
Call it pandering if you like, but Obama's recent announcement could be another nail in the GOP coffin when it comes to the Latino vote. Some of the margin may erode a bit by election time, but I'd say this recent business will give him enough of a bump that will last long enough for him to match what he did in 2008, which was to take 67% of the Latino vote.
It might depend on turnout more than anything, as the article in the link suggests. Like the author, I am also not convinced that Latinos are generally enamored with Obama. I think maybe they are less enamored with Mitt Romney, though.
Haha I notice no one responded to that because lets face it... nobody panders like Mitt Romney!
Hey, as soon as he wraps up the GOP convention he's going to swing "moderate" and will be trying to lap up every demographic except the gays. He's probably got a small army of consultants working on it, timing it to the minute.
They're all pretty much that way, I think, when it comes to the timing and the heading a different direction once circumstances allow it.
As for the pandering, I think they all do it... While Romney was pandering to the NALEO group today, Obama will be doing it tomorrow. Some would say Obama is pandering to the Latino voters, and some would say Romney is pandering to libertarians and 'tea partiers' by saying things that are uncharacteristically/uncomfortably farther to the right for him.
I agree with you about what Romney will do. I believe they all like to try and be centrists or else try to say whatever they have to say to get whatever groups on their side during campaigns, and then once they win a nomination or get elected they return to their roots as much as they can get away with it. Just as I believe Romney will gradually head back to the middle, I believe under the right circumstances Obama would move farther to the left.
In Mitt's case, I think you're right, he will swing "moderate" but he will save some things that are farther to the right to pull out of his bag of tricks depending on where he is campaigning and to whom he is speaking. So while he will be saying mostly moderate things, he will also pull out something now and then that screams "I'm not moderate!" that will really confuse everybody... so the problem with not knowing what he stands for is going to continue.
It seems to me our presidential elections have deteriorated and are chock full of lip service, show, Kabuki theater, whatever you want to call it. It's like a sort of sad circus.
I thought it was amusing today to hear about how Romney and a large number of GOP power brokers are meeting at a resort in Utah, and Mitt is calling it a "Victory Retreat" (the first in a series).
Does victory really ever include retreat? If it includes a retreat from taking a firm stance on any issues, then I suppose it does.
I was referring to 'retreat' when it comes to Mitt's positions on issues, and he often retreats on those, but I see your point.
Romney is campaigning on union turf and the GOP feels empowered by the non-recall of Walker. That's fine, he uses that to sow seeds of doubt. Obama also campaigns in areas where voters don't trend his way so much. This is what candidates have to do
I suspect that if Romney has superior strategy in this one area, it will probably serve to make the final margin in the election a bit closer than it might have been otherwise. I wouldn't say I'm overly concerned at this point. It's still over four months until the election, and we'll see how things start trending in a few months.
As far as Romney campaigning in union-heavy areas, you yourself have commented on numerous occasions (and delighted in) the serious decline in union membership and power. This leads me to believe, according to some of what you have said previously, that Romney campaigning successfully in union areas might not make as much impact as you think.
I recall that a while back you were predicting a June economic swoon that would turn things the GOP's way, and that doesn't seem to be happening either. Just wait until June, you were saying, as if our economy might turn into a pumpkin or something. According to what you were making it sound like back then, things were going to get worse. I'm still waiting for that to happen.
Because such dire things are not happening, and because things continue to gradually improve (and because gradual improvement is better than no improvement and better than things going the other direction), policies that lean toward economic austerity may not gain as much traction as you think. And Mitt certainly favors those kinds of policies...
It happens every year now. Business hires in anticipation of the christmas season, and then its all down hill from there. Especially after April tax season. Its cyclical. It will bottom out in October, and then begin to climb again. Does this every year. I made a lot on stocks back in the day by buying before christmas because if you look stocks are always at their lowest around then and then selling in late March or early April because they spike during that time because people dump their tax returns into their 401ks.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/06/19/poll-64-of-likely-voters-support-obamas-immigration-policy/
12 comments:
The answer for this problem has been around a long time. Ronald Reagan had it down and GWB was close on it. The answer is reform the citizenship process FIRST. This is the largest disconnect between most people I know and reality. They want reforms AFTER the boarder is secured which frankly isn't reasonable or doable.
Right now a Mexican living in a garbage dump can't afford to legally immigrate here, so he comes here illegally and leaves his family at home and send the fruits of his labor back home.
The answer isn't what Obama is doing, which is simply not enforcing the law. The answer is opening a path to citizenship and making that path easy and cheap. I'm all for more immigrants in this country. They are a huge asset. Is that possible? Yeah no. I get that. And that is why I think YOU thinking this is a bonus isn't quite right. If letting in more people and letting more people immigrate were popular politicians would do it. Bottom line.
What Obama did is popular because it's reasonable. He's just talking about young people who were brought here as children and have never even lived in Mexico or wherever.
The answer then isn't to not enforce a broken law but to change a law.
Basically what Obama is saying here is "I'm not going to even try to fix this problem Latinos, because that might prove unpopular. Instead I'll just kick the can down the road and hope you like me anyway."
Do you really think that is going to work with Latino voters?
Absofuckinglutely. It's a hell of a lot better than anything Romney is proposing. I bet Obama ends up with more than twice as many Latino votes as his opponent.
According to 'Latino FOX News' on March 5, their poll showed Obama favored by Latinos 70-14 over Mitt Romney. More recent polls from different organizations had him leading Romney by similar margins, and this was prior to the announcement.
Call it pandering if you like, but Obama's recent announcement could be another nail in the GOP coffin when it comes to the Latino vote. Some of the margin may erode a bit by election time, but I'd say this recent business will give him enough of a bump that will last long enough for him to match what he did in 2008, which was to take 67% of the Latino vote.
It might depend on turnout more than anything, as the article in the link suggests. Like the author, I am also not convinced that Latinos are generally enamored with Obama. I think maybe they are less enamored with Mitt Romney, though.
an interesting item
Some of the margin may erode a bit by election time
Think about this. If you get into a pandering contest with Mitt Romney who do you think wins that?
Haha I notice no one responded to that because lets face it... nobody panders like Mitt Romney!
Hey, as soon as he wraps up the GOP convention he's going to swing "moderate" and will be trying to lap up every demographic except the gays. He's probably got a small army of consultants working on it, timing it to the minute.
They're all pretty much that way, I think, when it comes to the timing and the heading a different direction once circumstances allow it.
As for the pandering, I think they all do it... While Romney was pandering to the NALEO group today, Obama will be doing it tomorrow. Some would say Obama is pandering to the Latino voters, and some would say Romney is pandering to libertarians and 'tea partiers' by saying things that are uncharacteristically/uncomfortably farther to the right for him.
I agree with you about what Romney will do. I believe they all like to try and be centrists or else try to say whatever they have to say to get whatever groups on their side during campaigns, and then once they win a nomination or get elected they return to their roots as much as they can get away with it. Just as I believe Romney will gradually head back to the middle, I believe under the right circumstances Obama would move farther to the left.
In Mitt's case, I think you're right, he will swing "moderate" but he will save some things that are farther to the right to pull out of his bag of tricks depending on where he is campaigning and to whom he is speaking. So while he will be saying mostly moderate things, he will also pull out something now and then that screams "I'm not moderate!" that will really confuse everybody... so the problem with not knowing what he stands for is going to continue.
It seems to me our presidential elections have deteriorated and are chock full of lip service, show, Kabuki theater, whatever you want to call it. It's like a sort of sad circus.
I thought it was amusing today to hear about how Romney and a large number of GOP power brokers are meeting at a resort in Utah, and Mitt is calling it a "Victory Retreat" (the first in a series).
Does victory really ever include retreat? If it includes a retreat from taking a firm stance on any issues, then I suppose it does.
Does victory really ever include retreat?
It does when you are playing hit and run politics to keep Obama off balance... which Romney is doing masterfully.
And like I said, the only thing Romney won't go "moderate" on is the gays... which doesn't really matter because they are a small voting block. Even now, he's behind enemy lines causing insurgency on your turf.
I still hate Mitt Romney, but I have come to the conclusion his campaign is very smart and yours is very stupid.
I was referring to 'retreat' when it comes to Mitt's positions on issues, and he often retreats on those, but I see your point.
Romney is campaigning on union turf and the GOP feels empowered by the non-recall of Walker. That's fine, he uses that to sow seeds of doubt. Obama also campaigns in areas where voters don't trend his way so much. This is what candidates have to do
I suspect that if Romney has superior strategy in this one area, it will probably serve to make the final margin in the election a bit closer than it might have been otherwise. I wouldn't say I'm overly concerned at this point. It's still over four months until the election, and we'll see how things start trending in a few months.
As far as Romney campaigning in union-heavy areas, you yourself have commented on numerous occasions (and delighted in) the serious decline in union membership and power. This leads me to believe, according to some of what you have said previously, that Romney campaigning successfully in union areas might not make as much impact as you think.
I recall that a while back you were predicting a June economic swoon that would turn things the GOP's way, and that doesn't seem to be happening either. Just wait until June, you were saying, as if our economy might turn into a pumpkin or something. According to what you were making it sound like back then, things were going to get worse. I'm still waiting for that to happen.
Because such dire things are not happening, and because things continue to gradually improve (and because gradual improvement is better than no improvement and better than things going the other direction), policies that lean toward economic austerity may not gain as much traction as you think. And Mitt certainly favors those kinds of policies...
Have you not seen the now jobs numbers Snave? Go check it out yourself.
It happens every year now. Business hires in anticipation of the christmas season, and then its all down hill from there. Especially after April tax season. Its cyclical. It will bottom out in October, and then begin to climb again. Does this every year. I made a lot on stocks back in the day by buying before christmas because if you look stocks are always at their lowest around then and then selling in late March or early April because they spike during that time because people dump their tax returns into their 401ks.
Post a Comment