Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: Holy shnikeys! Elizabeth Warren raises $8.7 million! (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  yes, up till now he's insisted it'll be very tight (5+ / 0-)

    even at points where state polling was suggesting a much more comfortable Obama advantage.

    Here's a link to the full article

    Basically he's adding to the chorus saying that the Bain ads are a serious problem for Romney. Didn't Mittens read about the 2004 campaign and a certain problem Kerry had over swiftboats...?

    Voters also have to be willing to hire Romney. If the challenger is deemed unacceptable, a potentially decisive slice of the electorate could reluctantly return to the incumbent. Voters’ willingness to hire Romney is being severely damaged, at least in swing states, by the advertising efforts of the Obama campaign and Priorities USA, a pro-Obama super PAC. The ads are devastatingly tough, portraying the former Massachusetts governor as a private-equity version of Gordon Gekko, a heartless corporate barracuda who has made a fortune acquiring and looting companies, laying off workers, and ruining lives and communities. That’s the story line, anyway. These ads lead to the conclusion that Romney is not to be trusted in the Oval Office.

    Romney’s tenure running Bain Capital, layoffs, outsourcing, and now his personal finances give Democrats plenty of great fodder. If you live in or visit a swing state and turn on a television set, you will be deluged by these ads. Maybe they are accurate and fair, maybe they aren’t. Regardless, they are hard-hitting and running with great frequency.

    •  I wonder what Rove thinks about this (6+ / 0-)

      as it's a classically Rovean tactic - focus on something about your opponent that's supposed to be a strength and turn it into a weakness. With Kerry it was his vietnam vet status; now with Romney it's his business expertise.

      I have to say I'm not a huge fan of negative advertising, preferring contests that play more by the Queensberry rules. Still, if it's going to happen at least let it be our side that's better at it. Unusual for Democrats, frankly.

      •  Just desserts for what they did in 2004 to us... (10+ / 0-)

        What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  It is classic Rovian, and I love that we are doing it.  They deserve some of their own medicine.


        by LordMike on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 05:49:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think the great myth of 2004 was... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KingofSpades, markhanna

        ...that the Swift Boat ads hurt Kerry, that they were the key.

        I saw something, I think on ABC's blog The Note, just this morning repeating that tripe.

        I know even Kerry's own campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, after Kerry's defeat cited the Swift Boat attacks as the killer.

        I think she was very wrong.

        I recently watched a few Bush '04 ads attacking Kerry, and they were far more devastating than what the Swift Boaters did.  And those Bush '04 ads didn't attack Kerry's military service, they attacked his national security record as a Senator.

        Oh, and Rove didn't conceive of the Swift Boat attacks, those were by an independent wingnut group.

        What Obama is doing is "Rovian" for sure, but not in the sense of "attacking the opponent's strength."  Rather, both Obama now and Rove then exploited the opponent's weakness.  And Kerry, as a Massachusetts liberal with a liberal Senate voting record except for his lone vote in favor of the Iraq War, was easily exploited as "weak on national security" based simply on the longtime public perception toward Democrats as being just that.  Kerry tried to use his war record to insulate him from that, but it proved irrelevant to voters because, as has been proven for a long time, voters disregard military service virtually altogether.

        44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

        by DCCyclone on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 07:00:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd hate to say this (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          New Rule, Odysseus, LordMike

          But Kerry defeated Kerry in '04. He just wasn't that good a candidate. As a result, Indie voters didn't see a good enough reason to change from the devil they already knew.

          •  I Didn't Think He Did Much Wrong.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            His idiotic "I'm John Kerry reporting for duty" posture at the convention speech was the only real mistake he made.  He was a light years better candidate than Gore four years earlier.

            •  I agree that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              he really didn't do that much wrong, but that is not enough. I think he just didn't come off as all that likeable, and sort of stiff.  Let's face it, the knuckleheads that ultimately seem to end up deciding elections in this country are mostly basing their vote on that sort of factor.

            •  His hands were tied by uncontrollables (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              itskevin, stevenaxelrod, LordMike

              The big thing Kerry lacked was money.  His campaign was near-broke at one point after he wrapped up the nomination.  That's why he went dark on TV for awhile.  None of this was his fault, he just didn't have an organic following to be able to raise a lot of money, and as a Democrat he belongs to a party that doesn't have nearly as many rich supporters as the Republicans do.

              Perhaps he made a mistake accepting public financing for the general and could've done better on his own, but that's very speculative.

              I do think the hyper-focus on trying to insulate himself from "weak on national security" by touting his military record was a mistake, not because of Swift Boaters but because voters had long established they don't care about military service in picking a President.  If anything, Kerry's big messaging strategy mistake was in failing to explain how he would keep America safe that was different from Bush, and also explaining more clearly what he would do in Iraq (to this day I don't remember what he said other than to slam Bush).

              44, male, Indian-American, married and proud father of a girl and 2 boys, Democrat, VA-10

              by DCCyclone on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 09:39:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Didn't Mitt remember his 1994 campaign.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Same thing...


      by LordMike on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 05:49:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Post poll this morning (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      suggests Bain isn't having much of an impact.

      "Romney's work buying and restructuring companies before he went into politics
      Major Reason to support  23
      Major Reason to oppose  24
      Not a major Reason
      to support or oppose  50

      Maybe swing state numbers are different.  The same polls say that by 40-36 voters believe Romney cut jobs in business rather than creating them.

      There is something Rovian in all of this - his business background is a net wash right now - credit Obama's advertising for it.

      But it doesn't look decisive in a poll that is tied at 47.

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 06:38:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong question, perhaps (0+ / 0-)

        I think the right question is on who voters trust with the economy. I think it's too early to tell the effects of the Bain ads on that measure.

        but I think Rs have historically have had a lead in that polling question.

        If that measure can be neutralized in our so-so economy (and I think the Bain ads can do that), then President Obama wins re-election.

        "I hope; therefore, I can live."
        For SSP users, see my Tips for Swingnuts diary

        by tietack on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 07:27:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Trust on the economy (0+ / 0-)

          has varied with its ups and downs, obviously.  I don't get why anyone who isn't a GOP hack or right wing ideologue would trust Republicans more on the economy since 1990 or so.  

          At least Romney's narrow edge on "trust to handle the economy" is neutralized by Obama's better understanding of the problems people face and the perception that he has a clearer plan to deal with the economy (though neither gets majority support on that score.)  The Bain criticism may really be working to shape these perceptions; the record of the GOP in Congress might be hurting Romney as well. (Don't give control of the government to Boehner and the Bain-er?)

          36, MD-8 (MD-6 after 2012) resident, NOVA raised, Euro/Anglophile Democrat

          by Mike in MD on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:48:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  PPP in VA asked the "softer" question (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          of whether it made voters there more positive or negative about Romney, and it was 40-29 "more negative". Hard to say how much any of this actually translates into votes but it surely can't help his prospects that one of the main items on his CV is now perceived as a negative.

      •  but we don't know (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        what the answer to that question could have been if Bain was actually a highly respected company.  If not for the negative attention it is being given, those numbers very well could have been 60% or higher as a major reason to support.  Considering Romney's main claim to being qualified to be president is his corporate experience, having only 23% thinking it is a major reason for support might be concerning to the Romney campaign.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site