If the student loan interest rate doubles in July, as it is set to do, with mainly-Republican lawmakers continuing to obstruct measures to prevent the increase, i think the youth vote might just get energized again in the run-up to the election.
Yeah, but the really cool part is that the Pubbies are claiming it is the Democrats who are causing the rate to go up. The Dems are the ones who put the expiration date for the interest rates in the original bill! :smack:
Reality be damned. It’s like the GOP all believe Adam in Mythbusters when he says “I reject your reality and substitute my own!”
Here’s an idea: None. Make all ads about Obama and what he has done and hopes to do, and never mention Romney, don’t even admit Obama is not running unopposed. Seems to me the people would like it better if all political advertising were like that.
It works for Coke - but somebody’s gotta be Pepsi.
You realize that Barack Obama’s entire political style, beginning with his work for the DCP in Chicago before he entered Harvard Law School, is built on the idea of progress forward through engagement with ideological opponents, right? Over his first term of office so far, he’s allowed the GOP to define themselves as more and more blindly partisan, even when it means they must contradict themselves to oppose whatever position the POTUS takes.
It’s beyond me why you would think it clever for Obama to ignore the stark contrasts his opponents have already worked so hard to draw between the rollbacks they desire and the accomplishments he’s made and plans to make.
I know you agree that this general election is about more than the White House; the President has to run on behalf of a Democratic Congress if he hopes to get anything done in 2013/14. That means he can’t just sell his own political agenda, but he has to defeat the Republican Party platform as well. So he’s got to talk about it.
Well, I was only talking about TV ads, not events or stump speeches or debates. Isn’t positive better than negative for ads?
Positive is definitely better than negative. I think we may disagree about what constitutes a negative ad, though. I don’t see any inclination on the President’s part to attack Romney on any personal, qualitative level, but instead to hold him to the positions he staked out to win over Republican primary voters. IMO, critiquing the declared GOP economic and social strategies while presenting his own won’t necessarily be seen as going negative.
As a bonus, I don’t believe whining from the right wing commentariat about such an approach will win any votes not firmly in their camp already.
He did have a Democratic legislature. I think that’s why they are disillusioned.
I would like to see Obama pledge that if he was elected to a second term he would not pursue or sign any legislation further restricting gun ownership with the exception of keeping guns out of the hands of convicted criminals. The idea that Obama is gonna grab guns in his second term is widely believed and being used by the right to great effect in my experience. I’d advise him to take it right off the table now, before the election.
I’m a gun owner and enthusiast, btw.
As far as i can tell, it’s only “widely believed” by stupid people, and also by people who would be very unlikely to vote for Obama even if he came to their house and personally presented them with a gift-wrapped semi-auto.
As a gun enthusiast in a very gun friendly state I spend a lot of time talking guns with people, many quite reasonable, that are concerned that the right wing propaganda that Obama is waiting for the second term to try to drastically restrict gun ownership might be true. There are plenty of other issues to be addressed if he’s reelected and offering an olive branch now to 2nd amendment supporters could go a long way.
Bolding mine. You realize you haven’t refuted anything mhendo said, right?
The part about them not voting for Obama no matter what?
He won this state. That shocked me. This is a very gun friendly state, meaning a lot of those gun owners voted for him once.
Sure, BrainGlutton. That’s why nobody ever runs negative ads.
You guys need to watch The Young Turks and Russia TV on youtube. Many young people do. You will quickly learn why they are disillusioned. Basically, Obama is a Reagan Republican politically, not a progressive. And Wall Street owns him. That’s why young people are disillusioned. And properly so.
[quote=“pkbites, post:34, topic:619256”]
Liar. 
The first thing you read you don’t like or agree with you’ll start pointing shit out. Pat is not a candidate today and we’re now talking 20 years ago.
No way, I don’t want an argument right now. Just curious
What exactly is his stances on immigration, civil rights, or free trade?
Why on Earth would they believe him? After all, he’s done everything short of produce video of his birth with girls in the background doing the goddamned hula, and a nontrivial number of people still won’t believe he was born in Hawaii. Even if we allow that some reasonable people might be concerned about all the RW propaganda on this issue, they’re still the sort of people who pay attention to RW propaganda, and who are generally inclined to believe the worst about Obama.
“Offering an olive branch” as you describe would only fuel the fire. They’d claim it was all part of his fiendish plot to lull gun owners into complacency so they won’t stock up on guns before the election.
And an Attila the Hun Republican would be better?
How the hell is that supposed to work?
I’m a young person who watches almost every single Young Turks video that comes out, every day. And I am disillusioned, but not with Obama. It is with a country of old people that are selling out MY future for pennies on the dollar because they are too hateful to support universal healthcare which is the ONLY system that makes sense, and too racist to support (or at least, not obstruct every single bill and make the government DEFAULT) an amazingly moderate president because they have stated that their number 1 goal is to keep him from re-election, not actually y’know, governing.
Obama is not the progressive I voted for, but he has still done amazingly well with the worst of the worst of American politics against him. I will vote for him happily than some rich boy who SAYS OUTRIGHT HE IS NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE POOR. :mad:
I was going to go with mainly the part about people who believe that to be true not being very smart. I don’t think all gun owners believe that Obama is just two seconds away from taking away all our guns. But a lot of them do, because of propaganda put out by the gun lobby that really isn’t based in any fact. I just had this argument with my dad about a month ago, he is also convinced that Obama will take away all the guns next term. I also consider him to be a very smart man. So why does he think so? Well, he read a lot of very reasonable, rational articles in Gun Enthusiast and he is convinced now. :rolleyes:
My attempts to press him for facts that demonstrated any such intent was met with “well of course he’s not going to do anything now, but once he gets reelected…”
Your gun friends are likely the same way. Any acknowledgement of the “taking your guns away” conspiracy will only fuel the fire. “See, he knows we are on to him! Why would he be trying to placate us now if it wasn’t a trick?”
That’s how conspiracy theories work. They aren’t based on fact, and evidence to the contrary is met with “Yeah, but that’s just what they want you to think…”