• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Counteroffensive.. Reaching out to some of the 47%

You really are deluding yourself if you don't understand that the 47% comment is a huge negative for Romney.
 
RJKarl said:
You really are deluding yourself if you don't understand that the 47% comment is a huge negative for Romney.
Click to expand...

Not trying to argue that point - just noting this counteroffensive (if Mitt embraces it) would be interesting for multiple reasons (Romneycare, the retiree vote, changes the topic back to an unpopular Obama-led initiative, etc.).
 
beatrix said:
Not trying to argue that point - just noting this counteroffensive (if Mitt embraces it) would be interesting for multiple reasons (Romneycare, the retiree vote, changes the topic back to an unpopular Obama-led initiative, etc.).
Click to expand...

Obama would win every swing state. It would be the second stupidest thing he's done during the campaign. The first is saying it.

If he "embraces" it, the GOP could easily lose MT, NV, IN and other close Senate races.

If he "embraces" it, he puts the House in play. It's not now, but it would be too late for the freshmen to run away form Romney.

"Embracing it" would be the stupidest thing any presidential candidate has done since I started voting in 1972.
 
I'm no fan of AARP, but I don't see what the big deal is here. Big-time lobbies write legislation all the time. Substitute NRA for AARP and Pubs for Dems.
 
RJKarl said:
Obama would win every swing state. It would be the second stupidest thing he's done during the campaign. The first is saying it.

If he "embraces" it, the GOP could easily lose MT, NV, IN and other close Senate races.

If he "embraces" it, he puts the House in play. It's not now, but it would be too late for the freshmen to run away form Romney.

"Embracing it" would be the stupidest thing any presidential candidate has done since I started voting in 1972.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to him embracing Obamacare - I was referring to him embracing the suggested counteroffensive of bringing Obamacare into the conversation.
 
PhDeac said:
I'm no fan of AARP, but I don't see what the big deal is here. Big-time lobbies write legislation all the time. Substitute NRA for AARP and Pubs for Dems.
Click to expand...

It's a major issue that swung the house. My sense is its been avoided in the current campaign (and Obama sure as hell isn't bringing it up). AARP membership opposed it (remember the brutal town hall meetings?). Reminding them of it (and how they were sold out) could be interesting. According to the boards, Mitt is dead man walking anyway. What's he got to lose? Plus it'll be fun to see him go down swinging.
 
What makes that such a great counteroffensive? Obamacare is an old issue. It was the dominant issue around the time of the SCOTUS decision. It doesn't work for either candidate. The issue with Obamacare is more with how it happened, not with the specifics. Americans like most of the specifics. It's not going to move the issue. It's already baked into the numbers and has been hashed to death.

Avoided? Where the hell have you been? It was probably the most followed SCOTUS decision in the last few years. You're really grasping at straws.
 
PhDeac said:
What makes that such a great counteroffensive? Obamacare is an old issue. It was the dominant issue around the time of the SCOTUS decision. It doesn't work for either candidate. The issue with Obamacare is more with how it happened, not with the specifics. Americans like most of the specifics. It's not going to move the issue. It's already baked into the numbers and has been hashed to death.

Avoided? Where the hell have you been? It was probably the most followed SCOTUS decision in the last few years. You're really grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

You don't think Obama has avoided Obamacare?
 
beatrix said:
I wasn't referring to him embracing Obamacare - I was referring to him embracing the suggested counteroffensive of bringing Obamacare into the conversation.
Click to expand...

47% is the "it"......

"Embracing" Obamacare would make him look like more of a flip-flopper than anything he could possibly do. Ever since February he has been saying "Obamacare" should be repealed. If he "embraces" it now, he looks like like a lying opportunist.
 
Embracing Obamacare would be a complete disaster. The fear of big government/larger debt is the only thing Romney has left. If he wasn't such a doofus (no offense twins) he could of run on solely this and had a decent shot at the White House.
 
Romney actually just reversed his previous reversal -- that he was for keeping the "good" parts of Obamacare -- mainly because someone told him that that tack was suicidal, given his having run an entire GOP primary campaign based on repealing it. He may switch again though, stay tuned.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
You don't think Obama has avoided Obamacare?
Click to expand...

He hasn't at all. He has spoken about millions of seniors who have saved billions on their prescriptions.

He has spoken about the millions of 18-26 yos who remained on their parents' insurance.

He has spoken about the fact that the historically #1 reason for personal and family bankruptcies (insurance limits) no longer exists.
 
PhDeac said:
What makes that such a great counteroffensive? Obamacare is an old issue. It was the dominant issue around the time of the SCOTUS decision. It doesn't work for either candidate. The issue with Obamacare is more with how it happened, not with the specifics. Americans like most of the specifics. It's not going to move the issue. It's already baked into the numbers and has been hashed to death.

Avoided? Where the hell have you been? It was probably the most followed SCOTUS decision in the last few years. You're really grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I must have missed that.

Anyway, so we're clear, I'm not Strassel. It's a lead editorial in tomorrow's WSJ, which I interpret as her suggesting a possible Mitt counteroffensive. I.e., let's change the subject. I.e., let's stop talking about how he's an elitist douche who will sell your children to the Chinese as slave labor and instead focus on Obama's record. I don't know if I agree (Mitt dancing around Romneycare comes to mind) but it is an interesting line of attack.
 
BillBrasky said:
Embracing Obamacare would be a complete disaster. The fear of big government/larger debt is the only thing Romney has left. If he wasn't such a doofus (no offense twins) he could of run on solely this and had a decent shot at the White House.
Click to expand...

lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top