Specifically how will Obama's 2012 campaign differ from 2008?

[MikeK]

I think the main reason so many are drawn to Gingrich is his ability to articulate the differences between the positions of Obama's move towards Eurpean Democratic socialism and the expanded entitlement/welfare state and that of a more conservative position. Gingrich is quick on his feet and many believe he would absolutely trounce Obama, who really isn't a strong debater. McCain was horrible, just awful mostly because he's not a conservative (not that Gingrich is either), and when you are confronted with answering questions and have no grounded position to come from, your answers aren't going to be compelling. And with McCain they weren't. Newt, while not the most conservative, can carry a conservative tune better than anyone else (except Santorum and Bachmann) and unlike Sant/Bach can actually debate.

I still think Romney has the best chance to beat Obama. He can win on the economic issues and can easily overcome the healthcare issue.

The primary GOP voters want blood and victory, not just victory, that's the problem.

Interesting.

It's called personality and salesmanship. He can talk a great game. After all, that is the name of the game. Remember "Hope and Change"?

You are so right.

 

[Lovebears65]

I am too afraid to know what will happen. He cant run again so he will pass so many of his stupid agenda he will be like a kid in a candy shop!

 

[rdean]

In 2008, it was how Republicans led us into an unnecessary war and ruined the economy.

In 2012, it will be about how Republicans want to start more wars and are keeping the economy from getting better.

Hope that helps.

Tell us again how Canada is just like Iran, I Hate Republican Man

I never said it the first time. And if you have a quote that I did, show us. Otherwise, some might think you are a lying sack of shit who lacks any credibility. Go ahead, show me the quote. Prove it. Make me apologize by proving I said Canada is just like Iran. I'm waiting.

Well?

Well?

Thought so.

Frank, you won't find that quote there in that derriere.

 

[Annie]

When the GOP Candidate has leaned to the right- Nixon, Reagan, Bush-43, he wins.

None of those candidates "leaned to the right." Richard Nixon was (his criminality aside) the most liberal president we've had since Franklin Roosevelt. I say that even comparing him to his predecessor. LBJ was progressive on social issues, but he also got us into Vietnam, while Nixon (eventually) got us out of it. Nixon recognized China, got a big arms-control treaty and improved relations with the USSR, and signed the Environmental Protection Act. He pushed civil rights legislation and regulations strongly (back then the GOP was still the main civil rights party and had only just begun to court the white South).

I wasn't speaking of how they governed, but how they campaigned. There was a lot of conservative stuff under Nixon that conservatives were happy about, and he ran against the Hippies for all intents and purposes. Especially in 1972, when the Democrats ran on Abortion, Acid and Amnesty. Nixon won 42 states.



Were you actually there for the 1980 campaign. because I was, and it was a lot different from that bullshit. Reagan ran as an unapologetic conservative. So much so, that the GOP insisted on saddling him with Bush-41.

Bush? Bush tacked so far to the middle (as did his opponents both times) that there was hardly anything to choose from in those elections, which is why they were so close. Seriously, to hear them talk in 2000 the only difference between him and Gore was that Gore would provide a smaller tax cut and a more generous prescription-drug program. What was there to get excited about? Tweedledum and tweedledee, and in the end the vote was too close to call.

Sorry, when did he do that? My biggest complaint with Bush was that he ran on the "Compassionate Conservative" label, which was kind of silly. But he clearly stood for stronger national defense, tax cuts, less regulation and traditional values. That last part being important when you had a guy who had just admitted to having sex with interns in his office.

If you want to look at what happens when the Republicans nominate a real fire-eating right-winger (perceived as such) for president, look at 1964.

The very fact you have to go back to 1964 says a lot.

Liberal Republicans always whine about 1964, like Rockerfeller could have really done any better with his "Me, Too!" version. In 1964, we were at peace, the economy was booming, unemployment was non-existant, and LBJ had the fortune of running under the mantle of a martyred president.

But whenever the Beltway Establishment wants to push losers on us, and not stand up for principles, they first thing they scream is "Goldwater". Ignore our four moderate LOSERS since, we are going to keep going back 50 years to find when a "conservative" lost.

Not really. Gore was for a stronger foreign policy, everyone seems to forget the GW ran in 2000 as a 'domestic' president. Indeed, in many ways he sounded then like Ron Paul today. Was he actually planning to do so after elected? Until 9/11 everything pointed that way.

 

[Psychoblues]

None of those candidates "leaned to the right." Richard Nixon was (his criminality aside) the most liberal president we've had since Franklin Roosevelt. I say that even comparing him to his predecessor. LBJ was progressive on social issues, but he also got us into Vietnam, while Nixon (eventually) got us out of it. Nixon recognized China, got a big arms-control treaty and improved relations with the USSR, and signed the Environmental Protection Act. He pushed civil rights legislation and regulations strongly (back then the GOP was still the main civil rights party and had only just begun to court the white South).

I wasn't speaking of how they governed, but how they campaigned. There was a lot of conservative stuff under Nixon that conservatives were happy about, and he ran against the Hippies for all intents and purposes. Especially in 1972, when the Democrats ran on Abortion, Acid and Amnesty. Nixon won 42 states.



Were you actually there for the 1980 campaign. because I was, and it was a lot different from that bullshit. Reagan ran as an unapologetic conservative. So much so, that the GOP insisted on saddling him with Bush-41.



Sorry, when did he do that? My biggest complaint with Bush was that he ran on the "Compassionate Conservative" label, which was kind of silly. But he clearly stood for stronger national defense, tax cuts, less regulation and traditional values. That last part being important when you had a guy who had just admitted to having sex with interns in his office.

If you want to look at what happens when the Republicans nominate a real fire-eating right-winger (perceived as such) for president, look at 1964.

The very fact you have to go back to 1964 says a lot.

Liberal Republicans always whine about 1964, like Rockerfeller could have really done any better with his "Me, Too!" version. In 1964, we were at peace, the economy was booming, unemployment was non-existant, and LBJ had the fortune of running under the mantle of a martyred president.

But whenever the Beltway Establishment wants to push losers on us, and not stand up for principles, they first thing they scream is "Goldwater". Ignore our four moderate LOSERS since, we are going to keep going back 50 years to find when a "conservative" lost.

Not really. Gore was for a stronger foreign policy, everyone seems to forget the GW ran in 2000 as a 'domestic' president. Indeed, in many ways he sounded then like Ron Paul today. Was he actually planning to do so after elected? Until 9/11 everything pointed that way.

Wasn't his byline "compassionate conservative?" I've often wondered why he, his father and RR felt like they needed at least a similar byline in the first place. Good to see you Annie!

 

[WatertheTree]

Any thoughts?

No change from 2008. Neocon policy will continue. The corporate liberals will continue to stifle funding to social programs while expanding both government and crony capitalism.

To think that Obama would change policy mid stride is silly. He hasnt changed policy from George Bush.

 

[JoeB131]

Perhaps I could have been more precise in my post. I wasn't saying that the GOP candidate would have lower odds of winning the election in 2012 than McCain did in 2008, I meant that he or she would lack some of McCain's appealing personal qualities and/or possess negative traits that McCain lacked. That's a subjective measure and it's perfectly possible that I'm wrong, of course. I freely admit that I have little comprehension of the reasons that Gingrich in particular appeals to people as much as he does.

I think the main reason so many are drawn to Gingrich is his ability to articulate the differences between the positions of Obama's move towards Eurpean Democratic socialism and the expanded entitlement/welfare state and that of a more conservative position. Gingrich is quick on his feet and many believe he would absolutely trounce Obama, who really isn't a strong debater. McCain was horrible, just awful mostly because he's not a conservative (not that Gingrich is either), and when you are confronted with answering questions and have no grounded position to come from, your answers aren't going to be compelling. And with McCain they weren't. Newt, while not the most conservative, can carry a conservative tune better than anyone else (except Santorum and Bachmann) and unlike Sant/Bach can actually debate.

I still think Romney has the best chance to beat Obama. He can win on the economic issues and can easily overcome the healthcare issue.

The primary GOP voters want blood and victory, not just victory, that's the problem.

Well said.

I think it's a matter of how one defines "victory".

If you define victory as "Well, we got a guy with an "R" behind his name in there", then, yes, getting Romney elected would do that. But in substance, Romney isn't really any different than Obama. He's a big government, nanny-state liberal who thinks the government should be running your health care.

I also seriously dispute this nonsense that Romney has a "better" chance. One thing Romney has a wonderful record of is LOSING elections. And if he were such an outstanding candidate, you wouldn't need the Beltway Establishment and the MSM teaming up to make his life easier.

He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994 by 17 points.
He lost all but three Primaries to John McCain in 2008.

He did beat a non-entity named Kathleen O'Brien once. With a whopping 49% of the vote. Only because the Democrats and Greens split the oppossition vote did he win. He opted against running for a second term.

Seriously, Romney's electability is like the Chicago Cubs World Series prospects. It involves a lot of magical thinking by hard core fans.

 

[cheetah440]

I think the main reason so many are drawn to Gingrich is his ability to articulate the differences between the positions of Obama's move towards Eurpean Democratic socialism and the expanded entitlement/welfare state and that of a more conservative position. Gingrich is quick on his feet and many believe he would absolutely trounce Obama, who really isn't a strong debater. McCain was horrible, just awful mostly because he's not a conservative (not that Gingrich is either), and when you are confronted with answering questions and have no grounded position to come from, your answers aren't going to be compelling. And with McCain they weren't. Newt, while not the most conservative, can carry a conservative tune better than anyone else (except Santorum and Bachmann) and unlike Sant/Bach can actually debate.

I still think Romney has the best chance to beat Obama. He can win on the economic issues and can easily overcome the healthcare issue.

The primary GOP voters want blood and victory, not just victory, that's the problem.

Well said.

I think it's a matter of how one defines "victory".

If you define victory as "Well, we got a guy with an "R" behind his name in there", then, yes, getting Romney elected would do that. But in substance, Romney isn't really any different than Obama. He's a big government, nanny-state liberal who thinks the government should be running your health care.

I also seriously dispute this nonsense that Romney has a "better" chance. One thing Romney has a wonderful record of is LOSING elections. And if he were such an outstanding candidate, you wouldn't need the Beltway Establishment and the MSM teaming up to make his life easier.

He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994 by 17 points.
He lost all but three Primaries to John McCain in 2008.

He did beat a non-entity named Kathleen O'Brien once. With a whopping 49% of the vote. Only because the Democrats and Greens split the oppossition vote did he win. He opted against running for a second term.

Seriously, Romney's electability is like the Chicago Cubs World Series prospects. It involves a lot of magical thinking by hard core fans.

You and others can continue all you want and say Romney is no different than Obama. Continuing to say it won't make it any more true. I'm from MA, I understand what Romney did as Gov of a state with a legislature 85% moonbat D. Not just run of the mill D, but leftist hardcore moonbats.

Here's a big difference, the one that matters most to me. He won't raise taxes the way Obama wants to raise taxes. Obama is a spend and tax liberal. Liberal 2.0. I said this 3 yrs ago and have been proven right. He has decided to wait for re-election to go full bore on taxation. He knew he couldn't do it right away, instead focused on creating yet another entitlement(although Obamacare does have about 500B of new taxes in it). So that is a stark difference.

Romney will also repeal Obamacare. I know the non thinking class likes to look at what Romney did in MA and without applying much in the way of thought simply say he did Obamacare first. It couldn't be more incorrect. MA health is a STATE law regulating the healthcare of a STATE. To me that is the essence of Conservativism. States rights to implement what STATES feel is best. If VT wants universal health care and a 40% state income tax, go for it. If the people of that state support it, great. It's sad that this even has to be explained but so many liberals, contrary to what they always say, are just so uneducated on the subject OR they are purposefully misleading on the subject. Either way they are wrong.

Romney lost to a Kennedy in MA. Shocking.

The MSM sold McCain and the moderates bought into it. Once nominated they turned on him. Again, shocking.

Romney can win because it's all about the economy. In the battleground states (really all that matters), Romney simply has to stay on message. Obama has been a failure on the economy. Complete disaster. Everyone knows it and that is the debate. Do you believe Obama has the right plan, the right policies to move America in the right direction. In places like PA, IA, FL, NC, SC the answer will be and has to be no.

 

[Oldstyle]

Well said.

I think it's a matter of how one defines "victory".

If you define victory as "Well, we got a guy with an "R" behind his name in there", then, yes, getting Romney elected would do that. But in substance, Romney isn't really any different than Obama. He's a big government, nanny-state liberal who thinks the government should be running your health care.

I also seriously dispute this nonsense that Romney has a "better" chance. One thing Romney has a wonderful record of is LOSING elections. And if he were such an outstanding candidate, you wouldn't need the Beltway Establishment and the MSM teaming up to make his life easier.

He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994 by 17 points.
He lost all but three Primaries to John McCain in 2008.

He did beat a non-entity named Kathleen O'Brien once. With a whopping 49% of the vote. Only because the Democrats and Greens split the oppossition vote did he win. He opted against running for a second term.

Seriously, Romney's electability is like the Chicago Cubs World Series prospects. It involves a lot of magical thinking by hard core fans.

You and others can continue all you want and say Romney is no different than Obama. Continuing to say it won't make it any more true. I'm from MA, I understand what Romney did as Gov of a state with a legislature 85% moonbat D. Not just run of the mill D, but leftist hardcore moonbats.

Here's a big difference, the one that matters most to me. He won't raise taxes the way Obama wants to raise taxes. Obama is a spend and tax liberal. Liberal 2.0. I said this 3 yrs ago and have been proven right. He has decided to wait for re-election to go full bore on taxation. He knew he couldn't do it right away, instead focused on creating yet another entitlement(although Obamacare does have about 500B of new taxes in it). So that is a stark difference.

Romney will also repeal Obamacare. I know the non thinking class likes to look at what Romney did in MA and without applying much in the way of thought simply say he did Obamacare first. It couldn't be more incorrect. MA health is a STATE law regulating the healthcare of a STATE. To me that is the essence of Conservativism. States rights to implement what STATES feel is best. If VT wants universal health care and a 40% state income tax, go for it. If the people of that state support it, great. It's sad that this even has to be explained but so many liberals, contrary to what they always say, are just so uneducated on the subject OR they are purposefully misleading on the subject. Either way they are wrong.

Romney lost to a Kennedy in MA. Shocking.

The MSM sold McCain and the moderates bought into it. Once nominated they turned on him. Again, shocking.

Romney can win because it's all about the economy. In the battleground states (really all that matters), Romney simply has to stay on message. Obama has been a failure on the economy. Complete disaster. Everyone knows it and that is the debate. Do you believe Obama has the right plan, the right policies to move America in the right direction. In places like PA, IA, FL, NC, SC the answer will be and has to be no.

The important thing to remember about Romney is that he was a Republican Gov. in a HEAVILY Democratic State, yet he was able to work with the other side to accomplish things. Sound like something that might come in handy given our present state of gridlock? It certainly does to me.

By the way, board libs...as another Massachusetts native it's always struck me as telling that such a liberal State has a long history of electing GOP Governors to run their State for them. Why would that be? Because liberal Democrats have a nasty habit of running things into the ground and the State turns to Republicans to restore order.

 

[JoeB131]

You and others can continue all you want and say Romney is no different than Obama. Continuing to say it won't make it any more true. I'm from MA, I understand what Romney did as Gov of a state with a legislature 85% moonbat D. Not just run of the mill D, but leftist hardcore moonbats.

well, I think you've just made the best argument as to why those of us in the rest of the country should be concerned. Confronted by a Democratic legislature, he folded like a cheap set of magic underwear....

What's he going to do if the Democrats retake Congress in 2014?

Here's a big difference, the one that matters most to me. He won't raise taxes the way Obama wants to raise taxes. Obama is a spend and tax liberal. Liberal 2.0. I said this 3 yrs ago and have been proven right. He has decided to wait for re-election to go full bore on taxation. He knew he couldn't do it right away, instead focused on creating yet another entitlement(although Obamacare does have about 500B of new taxes in it). So that is a stark difference.

But you conceded that he'll raise taxes. My concern is that when he submits to the inevitable and has to raise taxes, he'll raise them on working folks instead of his rich trust fund buddies, so not being rich, I'm not seeing an upside for me on that one.

Romney will also repeal Obamacare. I know the non thinking class likes to look at what Romney did in MA and without applying much in the way of thought simply say he did Obamacare first. It couldn't be more incorrect. MA health is a STATE law regulating the healthcare of a STATE. To me that is the essence of Conservativism. States rights to implement what STATES feel is best. If VT wants universal health care and a 40% state income tax, go for it. If the people of that state support it, great. It's sad that this even has to be explained but so many liberals, contrary to what they always say, are just so uneducated on the subject OR they are purposefully misleading on the subject. Either way they are wrong.

So the contradiction of the Romney supporter. RomneyCare was AWESOME on the state level, but on the federal level, it becomes horrible. I'm really not seeing the logic in that. If I'm forced to buy insurance I don't want, or don't need, it doesn't really matter who told me to do it.

Romney lost to a Kennedy in MA. Shocking.

It is in context. Ted Kennedy had become very unpopular by that point. The William Kennedy Smith rape trial overturned a lot of ugly looks into the Kennedy household. And is some polls, Romney was making a race out of it... until Teddy decided to expose Mitt Romney for what he really was. He brought out all these crying AmPad workers who lost their jobs because AmPad was a big pile of money for Bain to loot. His small lead quickly turned into a 17 point deficit.

Now, if you are from MA like you say you are, you'd know this. Not to worry, though, Obama is going to repeat the trick next year.

The MSM sold McCain and the moderates bought into it. Once nominated they turned on him. Again, shocking.

And you don't think that the MSM are going to do the EXACT same thing to Romney? That they don't have their "Racism in the Mormon Church" stories already filed and ready for release? That they haven't gotten the address of every working Joe who lost a job in a Bain Capital screwover?

Watch any MSM show, and they all shake their heads about how we dumb old Republicans aren't supporting Romney.

And honestly, Mitt Romney isn't fit to carry John McCain's luggage.

Romney can win because it's all about the economy. In the battleground states (really all that matters), Romney simply has to stay on message. Obama has been a failure on the economy. Complete disaster. Everyone knows it and that is the debate. Do you believe Obama has the right plan, the right policies to move America in the right direction. In places like PA, IA, FL, NC, SC the answer will be and has to be no.

That works on two assumptions-

1) The economy won't get better by next November, when it very well might.
2) That Obama won't be able to effectively vilify Romney as part of the problem, as he is one of these guys who was a big player in the Crazy Clown Casino on Wall Street.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Any thoughts?

Hope and Change and "Bush's fault" won't work.

He'll have to defend his crappy record.

And he'll lose, of course.

 

[cheetah440]

That they haven't gotten the address of every working Joe who lost a job in a Bain Capital screwover?

I'm sure Obama and the Dems will make Romney and Bain out to be the boogeyman. Most people aren't really smart enough to understand their business. It's up to Romney to learn from 94 and do a better job. Of course, back then he was up against the entire Boston press, media the works. Most people in MA or New England will always just vote for a Kennedy, no matter who. How else can one explain "Patches" (Fatboy's drug addict congressman kid who "struggles with his addiction" every day) and Joe being elected?

The MSM is ready willing and able with all of it. I understand this. But the fact is the economy isn't going to improve for a vast many of people. For those like me and other professionals it is. But for many it isn't and they are sick and tired of the empty rhetoric from Obama. Again, forget the polling data as it is irrelevant. Only the polls in about 6-8 states matter. The moonbats on the coasts are always going to vote D moving forward. It all comes down to these states and in places like PA, and FL, they got snookered once, won't happen again.

 

[cheetah440]

I think it's a matter of how one defines "victory".

If you define victory as "Well, we got a guy with an "R" behind his name in there", then, yes, getting Romney elected would do that. But in substance, Romney isn't really any different than Obama. He's a big government, nanny-state liberal who thinks the government should be running your health care.

I also seriously dispute this nonsense that Romney has a "better" chance. One thing Romney has a wonderful record of is LOSING elections. And if he were such an outstanding candidate, you wouldn't need the Beltway Establishment and the MSM teaming up to make his life easier.

He lost to Ted Kennedy in 1994 by 17 points.
He lost all but three Primaries to John McCain in 2008.

He did beat a non-entity named Kathleen O'Brien once. With a whopping 49% of the vote. Only because the Democrats and Greens split the oppossition vote did he win. He opted against running for a second term.

Seriously, Romney's electability is like the Chicago Cubs World Series prospects. It involves a lot of magical thinking by hard core fans.

You and others can continue all you want and say Romney is no different than Obama. Continuing to say it won't make it any more true. I'm from MA, I understand what Romney did as Gov of a state with a legislature 85% moonbat D. Not just run of the mill D, but leftist hardcore moonbats.

Here's a big difference, the one that matters most to me. He won't raise taxes the way Obama wants to raise taxes. Obama is a spend and tax liberal. Liberal 2.0. I said this 3 yrs ago and have been proven right. He has decided to wait for re-election to go full bore on taxation. He knew he couldn't do it right away, instead focused on creating yet another entitlement(although Obamacare does have about 500B of new taxes in it). So that is a stark difference.

Romney will also repeal Obamacare. I know the non thinking class likes to look at what Romney did in MA and without applying much in the way of thought simply say he did Obamacare first. It couldn't be more incorrect. MA health is a STATE law regulating the healthcare of a STATE. To me that is the essence of Conservativism. States rights to implement what STATES feel is best. If VT wants universal health care and a 40% state income tax, go for it. If the people of that state support it, great. It's sad that this even has to be explained but so many liberals, contrary to what they always say, are just so uneducated on the subject OR they are purposefully misleading on the subject. Either way they are wrong.

Romney lost to a Kennedy in MA. Shocking.

The MSM sold McCain and the moderates bought into it. Once nominated they turned on him. Again, shocking.

Romney can win because it's all about the economy. In the battleground states (really all that matters), Romney simply has to stay on message. Obama has been a failure on the economy. Complete disaster. Everyone knows it and that is the debate. Do you believe Obama has the right plan, the right policies to move America in the right direction. In places like PA, IA, FL, NC, SC the answer will be and has to be no.

The important thing to remember about Romney is that he was a Republican Gov. in a HEAVILY Democratic State, yet he was able to work with the other side to accomplish things. Sound like something that might come in handy given our present state of gridlock? It certainly does to me.

By the way, board libs...as another Massachusetts native it's always struck me as telling that such a liberal State has a long history of electing GOP Governors to run their State for them. Why would that be? Because liberal Democrats have a nasty habit of running things into the ground and the State turns to Republicans to restore order.

Many either forget or don't know that the MA legislature was working on a health care program and Romney simply per-empted it. Can you imagine what the moonbats would have done? And they over turned about 10 veto's of Romney's.

You are correct about the Dems running MA into the ground. It is exactly what Dukakis did. Patrick has actually Governed much more moderately than I thought. There just aren't any Republicans in this state who would even bother trying. Why would you?

 

[Oconnor4NYC]

He wont have as many liberals since he turned his back on the environment, started more wars, and economically protected only the rich...

 

[Dragon]

I don't care how much it hurts, the fact is that the American Left is economically to the left of genuine Communists.

CrusaderFrank is a liar.

I'm going to repeat this every time I catch you repeating this lie. I say "lie" because it is not just something you got wrong, but something you don't believe yourself. You are not only stating something untrue, but something you KNOW is untrue.

You are a liar.

 

[JoeB131]

That they haven't gotten the address of every working Joe who lost a job in a Bain Capital screwover?

I'm sure Obama and the Dems will make Romney and Bain out to be the boogeyman. Most people aren't really smart enough to understand their business. It's up to Romney to learn from 94 and do a better job. Of course, back then he was up against the entire Boston press, media the works. Most people in MA or New England will always just vote for a Kennedy, no matter who. How else can one explain "Patches" (Fatboy's drug addict congressman kid who "struggles with his addiction" every day) and Joe being elected?

The MSM is ready willing and able with all of it. I understand this. But the fact is the economy isn't going to improve for a vast many of people. For those like me and other professionals it is. But for many it isn't and they are sick and tired of the empty rhetoric from Obama. Again, forget the polling data as it is irrelevant. Only the polls in about 6-8 states matter. The moonbats on the coasts are always going to vote D moving forward. It all comes down to these states and in places like PA, and FL, they got snookered once, won't happen again.

A lot of assumptions here...

The first one is that Romney can really paint the whole Bain thing in a positive light. Sorry, you can talk Powerpoints and bar graphs all day, and compare that to some guy who lost his job and his house so a rich guy could make more money, that's instant, pure hate from most decent people.

The second one is that Romney is going to be be able to pull off an electoral win even if he loses the popular vote. Sorry, the GOP is not going to get away with that one a second time. People simply won't stand for it. Romney has to win clean or not at all.

 

[Dragon]

I wasn't speaking of how they governed, but how they campaigned.

So was I. It's true that Nixon campaigned on a "law and order" theme against the protesters and the rioters, but that and targeting Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren were really his only nods to conservative politics in the 1968 election. He also campaigned on an environmental theme (the EPA was fulfilling a campaign promise), promised to end the draft (another one he kept), suggested race-targeted tax incentives for black-owned small businesses and home improvements, and claimed he had a "plan" to bring peace in Vietnam.

I also see 1972 differently than you do. (And before you ask: I am not only old enough to remember the 1980 election, but also old enough to remember the 1968 election, although I wasn't old enough to vote in it.) Nixon, after an incredibly successful first term, had pretty much locked down liberal politics. It ruled the country, and he exemplified it. About the only thing he hadn't done yet was to pull us out of Vietnam, so that was the main issue McGovern ran on. Confronted with a liberal Republican president, McGovern distinguished himself by running even further to the left than the American people were comfortable with during that strongly progressive period in our history. A guaranteed minimum income and the sharp cutbacks in military forces that he advocated were not popular. We already had a liberal president, and the economy was doing well, so what was McGovern's selling point? Only the war, and since Nixon had brought most of the troops home already and ended the draft that wasn't as hot an issue anymore.

Reagan ran as an unapologetic conservative. So much so, that the GOP insisted on saddling him with Bush-41.

I certainly was there, and no, he did not. His campaign was quite mixed. Where he did steer to the right (on military spending and a change in economic policy) he was following popular opinion. (60% of the people wanted a strengthened military and the economy was obviously in dire straits, so our nation of economic doofuses were ready to try anything different, even it if was cockeyed -- which it was.) He also ran on a feminist platform and promised to appoint the first female Supreme Court justice (a promise he kept) and to pursue anti-discrimination federal laws even though the GOP that year dropped its longstanding commitment to the Equal Rights Amendment.

It wasn't Reagan who campaigned as an unabashed right-winger, it was the Democrats who tried to paint him that way, using gaffes and comments taken out of context, as well as some of the things he'd said when he was governor of California. Remember the second presidential debate? President Carter tried to pin Reagan down as a radical right-winger, claiming that he was against Medicare and Social Security, Reagan responded with the famous "There you go again!" Carter claimed Reagan was a flaming right-wing nut job, Reagan didn't claim that. He denied it. The people believed him. (Whether it was true or not is another question. Unlike Nixon, he certainly didn't govern as a liberal.)

My biggest complaint with Bush was that he ran on the "Compassionate Conservative" label, which was kind of silly. But he clearly stood for stronger national defense, tax cuts, less regulation and traditional values.

Bush criticized Clinton's warmongering (in essence) in Somalia and the Balkans, and said we shouldn't be engaged in nation-building. (Ironic, of course, in hindsight.) He also promised to govern in a "bipartisan" way and to end the toxic atmosphere in Washington. "Compassionate conservative," if it means anything, means "moderate." Gore didn't campaign much on issues at all, since his policy proposals hardly differed from Bush's anyway; he mainly targeted Bush himself, saying he wasn't experienced enough or was too dumb to be president.

The very fact you have to go back to 1964 says a lot.

What it says is that it's been 48 years since the Republicans last ran an unabashed hard-line right-winger for president. Perhaps next year they'll try it again. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's their call.

 

[Clementine]

It'll be that he needs more time to give us change. Some people are still waiting for Obama to put gas in their car and pay for their mortgage. And the idiots will vote for him again. So it goes when they only see race and don't give a thought to ideology.

I think all incumbents should run on their record and everything they've done should be discussed in detail. Instead, we see Obama vilifying the others and avoiding his so-called accomplishments, like Obamacare, sneaking cap and trade through using his EPA chief and handing over a half billion tax payer dollars to Solyndra.

 

[bodecea]

Any thoughts?

OBL....check

Iraq....check

DADT...check

Health care...check

(Off the top of my head)

 

[cheetah440]

That they haven't gotten the address of every working Joe who lost a job in a Bain Capital screwover?

I'm sure Obama and the Dems will make Romney and Bain out to be the boogeyman. Most people aren't really smart enough to understand their business. It's up to Romney to learn from 94 and do a better job. Of course, back then he was up against the entire Boston press, media the works. Most people in MA or New England will always just vote for a Kennedy, no matter who. How else can one explain "Patches" (Fatboy's drug addict congressman kid who "struggles with his addiction" every day) and Joe being elected?

The MSM is ready willing and able with all of it. I understand this. But the fact is the economy isn't going to improve for a vast many of people. For those like me and other professionals it is. But for many it isn't and they are sick and tired of the empty rhetoric from Obama. Again, forget the polling data as it is irrelevant. Only the polls in about 6-8 states matter. The moonbats on the coasts are always going to vote D moving forward. It all comes down to these states and in places like PA, and FL, they got snookered once, won't happen again.

A lot of assumptions here...

The first one is that Romney can really paint the whole Bain thing in a positive light. Sorry, you can talk Powerpoints and bar graphs all day, and compare that to some guy who lost his job and his house so a rich guy could make more money, that's instant, pure hate from most decent people.

The second one is that Romney is going to be be able to pull off an electoral win even if he loses the popular vote. Sorry, the GOP is not going to get away with that one a second time. People simply won't stand for it. Romney has to win clean or not at all.

Bain saved and created far far more jobs than were lost. That is left wing hyperbole. Far more success stories like Staples than the ones that will be trotted out. Those jobs were dead man walking. Of course you make a good point, the MSM, Chris Matthews (not that anyone watches) will paint this as if profits were made off the backs of fired employees. Anyone who understands even the basics will know this is nothing but a lie. But it will be the lying season, so yeah, you do bring up some good points. Romney will have a good deal of education to do, something he isn't or at least to date, hasn't been real impressive doing.

I still think the overall horrible job by Obama will trump all. Just a terrible terrible job, and all the protection by the MSM won't save him IMO.