I wanted to ask a question about Romney’s sound bites, and where on earth he is making them from, perspective wise.
But then I realize, it’s a more general question.
How on earth can Obama be classified as a “Desperate” president?
Why doesn’t the Democratic party fight back?
What tactic is this, to simply just say something, with balls so big, they are obviously inflated, and fast approaching bursting point?
And last, and most sadly
If this angle is working with voters, why?
Romney needs to secure the support of people who don’t much like him. He needs the support of people who would vote for gonorrhea before they would vote for Obama. The best way to do that is to convince them that Romney is winning. He has given up trying to convince them to vote for him, now he is concentrating on getting them to vote against Obama.
Those people are already somewhat antagonistic towards the Pubbie leadership, they wanted their candidate, not some guy carved from a slab of frozen mayonnaise. It wouldn’t take much for them to adopt the stance of “We tried, you wouldn’t listen, so fuck you!”. And the Pubbies absolutely have to have them, if they bail, its all over.
So their line is “Look! Obama is desperate, he’s losing, our strategy is working!”
Comfort yourself. I have decreed that the Republicans are not to be permitted to put another of their number in the White House. Ever.
So mote it be.
I’m not really clear what you’re trying to get at with the desperate bit, but every campaign tries to set its own narrative. They’ll do this both in terms of what they want the overall campaign to be about and what perspective they want people to take on it.
For instance, at least until the Ryan pick the Romney team desperately wanted the campaign to be about the economic growth and unemployment. They further wanted to convince people that Obama was to blame for poor growth and high unemployment.
I’m hardly a neutral observer but I think anyone would agree they’ve almost entirely failed at this. Yes THEY brought it up every chance they had but nobody else was seriously talking about the economy except once a month when job numbers came out.
The economy sucks for most people, some blame Obama, some don’t. But either way it wasn’t the focus of what people were talking about.
So by that measure not only did the Democratic party fight back but they won… the campaign thus has has been dominated by Bain capital and tax returns and stuff they wanted to bring up to redefine Romney’s strengths as a negative.
I guess another way to put it would be that it would actually be weaker to say “hey he’s not desperate, polls give him a overwhelming lead in the electoral college and he did really good on the economy considering what a shit pile it was”, because then you’re engaging them on the narrative they want.
You always say the other guy is cared, desperate, whatever.
Democrats were “desperate” when Palin came on the scene as well, if you’ll recall. It’s just part of the mudslinging lexicon.
The other guy is always desperate in politics.
It’s also a way to reframe attacks without having to answer them.
Yeah, the most effective response to a political attack like being “desperate” isn’t to explain why you are not, in fact, desperate. Desperation isn’t something that one can disprove, and if you can’t prove that the other side is lying about something, talking about it just makes people think that you are, in fact, desperate.
The more effective response to these kinds of attacks is typically to throw a punch right back. And there has been plenty of that.
Because:
Despite his best efforts, the 2008 recession is still lingering.
The Pubs showed an unforeseen reaction-resurgence in the 2010 midterms.
Obama’s opponents are motivated, at the base. The level of hatred against him, while not felt by a majority, is in intensity the highest against any sitting POTUS since Nixon.
When you have to say that the other guy is desperate, it is pretty clear that you are the one who is desperate.
Romney wants the election to be about the economy, but it keeps being about his tax returns, or about the Republican war on women, and all sorts of other things we are supposed to be ignoring.
I heard this morning that Olympia Snowe said that the Republicans are not where they should be with regard to women. (An understatement if I ever heard one.) There was some Republican senator, female, didn’t get her name who when asked about this started going into the “voters really want to hear about the economy” shtick. She sounded like Palin during the debate, but from desperation, not stupidity.
Looking for a cite I found this gem.
No shit, Sherlock. That also smells like desperation.
So, the proper response of the Dems to being called desperate is a big smile and a “where are the tax returns again, Mitt?”
I think it’s just dart throwing. If one uses a whole bunch of different adjectives, maybe one of them will resonate with the targeted voter and swing that voter your way. So it’s best to use as many different descriptors as possible.
It seems to me, the strategy is thus:
If your oponent’s campaign is desperate – don’t draw attention to it; let it be desperate and flounder.
If your oponent’s campaign is not desperate – accuse it of being so, so everyone will think it is.
Hence: which ever campaign is accusing the other of being desperate, well … you do the math.
An administration that would prefer to make the election about its opponent than its record in office is by definition in desperate straits.
And Obama’s “This is what the election is going to be about” statement, referring to Romney’s Bain record, not sure how that can be interpreted as anything but desperate.
Because Romney is supposedly running on his strength as a businessman. Why *wouldn’t *his record with Bain be important?
But I do agree with you- an administration that would prefer to make the election about its opponent is, certainly, desperate. As a matter of fact, I’d say that when it comes to desperation, the Romney campaign DID build it.
Which campaign are you watching, again? :rolleyes:
Romney’s business record is certainly fair game, but an election is not a referendum on the challenger.
Why? If I was running against, say, Hitler, it would be stupid to make the campaign about my accomplishments when all you have to do is say how bad the opponent is. And let’s be clear – how lousy the opposition is is an entirely valid reason to stick with those currently in power (at least, when they’re the only two choices). Drawing attention to the fact that the opponent is shit is not a sign of desperation – it’s simply smart campaigning.
In fact, anything else would most definitely be stupid campaigning – democrats tried this in '04, and we all remember how well that went. It’s been shown quite conclusively that the public reacts far more to negative news than to positive news. Making the campaign about the opponent is just smart politics, and in this case, there’s a LOT to work with. Romney is basically Bush Jr turned up to 10 without the likeability. Every quality that would define him as a person has gone from strength to weakness – that is, the one quality that would make him more than Joe Average.
I don’t see it. Especially when you consider that that’s what Romney was trying to do anyways! Before it became a liability for him, Romney was basically running as a businessman – his experience at Bain Capital was supposed to make him a good candidate. And then, all of a sudden, people realized, “Wait, hang on, this is a company that is so detached from how any normal business or government works that it’s actually a BAD thing that he ran it!”
It is, otherwise you are implying that we should not ask questions or that he deserves to be president just for his looks and his richness. And that we should not check if he mostly looks to protect the interests of the wealthy of America.
