By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Predicting where the Bain capital charges against Romney will lead...

richardhutnik on 16 July 2012
thismeintiel said:
fastyxx said:
Kasz216 said:

I'd say nowhere.

I don't get why Obama is pushing it so hard... it doesn't seem to be pushing the numbers at all, and if anything is hurting his campaign.


False.  Look at the trend lines in the battleground states since the Bain ads starting running.  

here's Ohio, for example, which has been getting heavy play of Bain-related material.  See also Florida and Virginia.

 

It's getting play because it touches on all the chords of discontent in the heartland of the country, and it plays well across all demographics outside of Romney's peers.  When you isolate the Bain attacks outside of the presidential race, it plays even better  - - people's perceptions of the president overcome their distaste for Romney in some cases.  But to say this line of reasoning isn't working is just patently false according to all data available.  Bain and tax returns are going to haunt Romney through November.  If the economic numbers don't collapse, Romney has little chance of prevailing.  

Those polls will change.  Romney has yet to name a VP candidate, which if he chooses wisely, will give him a boost.  Romney is also playing it smart.  Obama is burning through his money pretty much as soon as he gets it, putting out ads way too early.  Ones that the Reps. can easily counter by illustrating Obama's hypocrisy and then redirecting the focus on the economy.  Romney, on the other hand, has not only been outraising Obama of late, but he is also holding on to most of it.  So while Obama will be racking up debt late in the campaign, trying to put out ads to attack Romney, Romney will be unleashing all that money into an ad onslaught focused mainly on the bad economy.  Obama probably won't even see it coming.

Historically, how much of a bounce does the VP nomination give a candidate?  At most, maybe it gets him a few points in the state the candidate is from.  Like, Romney may get a few percentage points in Florida if he picks Rubio.  But that is just one state.

It normally doesn't have a negative impact either.  In the case of the last election Palin ended up a net minus, because of how it ended up being framed in connection with McCain.



Around the Network
Aielyn on 16 July 2012
richardhutnik said:
Pretty much by undermining what would be Romney's strongest argument, in an area that is a big weakness for Obama, that is jobs, the argument gets muted, so Romney has problems bringing up his private sector experience.  Idea is to kill the strongest position of Romney, by turning it into a minus.  

I don't think it'll turn it into a minus, though. People will be willing to overlook it... but only so long as Romney doesn't try to use Obama's jobs record against him. If Romney now tries to blame Obama for anything to do with jobs, it'll harm Romney more than Obama.



richardhutnik on 16 July 2012
Aielyn said:
richardhutnik said:
Pretty much by undermining what would be Romney's strongest argument, in an area that is a big weakness for Obama, that is jobs, the argument gets muted, so Romney has problems bringing up his private sector experience.  Idea is to kill the strongest position of Romney, by turning it into a minus.  

I don't think it'll turn it into a minus, though. People will be willing to overlook it... but only so long as Romney doesn't try to use Obama's jobs record against him. If Romney now tries to blame Obama for anything to do with jobs, it'll harm Romney more than Obama.

If it can't be led in any way, and can then be brought up as a negative, then I was counting as a negative.  At best, it is a non-issue.  At worse, it is a negative.  This is what happened to John Kerry in 2004, with his involvement in Vietman.  It would of normally been a positive, but it got swiftboated.



killerzX on 16 July 2012
thismeintiel said:
The attacks aren't going to to a bit of damage in the end. A company got in business to make money? OMG, what a shock.

Let's look at facts. Private equity firms, like Bain, buy companies that are already in financial turmoil, like Staples and CST were, and try to restructure them to start making a profit. Sometimes it works (see Staples) and sometimes it doesn't (GST Steel). To actually suggest these companies just want to buy companies to sell off their assets for a quick profit is just ridiculous and a flat out lie. One only has to look at the fact that Bain kept GST Steel alive for around 8 years or so after it acquired it, 8 years longer those people kept their jobs if Bain didn't acquire them. If Bain just wanted to sell the assets, they would have done it 7-8 years prior.

It's already obvious this attack didn't work, since now they are switching to the "outsourcing attack." Which is going to do nothing, as well, since Obama had no problem with his job Czar moving factories overseas, is cool with using a travel agency that is located in India and China to book trips, and gave plenty of tax money to foreign companies.

http://youtu.be/ZVdYgU5bsDc

 

cant figure out how to embed



dany612 on 16 July 2012

Polls show that those ads are proving to be very beneficial to Obama especially in the swing states.



 

        

Around the Network
thismeintiel on 16 July 2012
fastyxx said:
thismeintiel said:

  Ones that the Reps. can easily counter by illustrating Obama's hypocrisy and then redirecting the focus on the economy.  

 


People that would buy that line of attack are already firmly in Romney's camp.  That's not a new line of approach, but rather one that's been coming for Rush and O'Reilly and Hannity since 2009.  It won't help him.

Do you really think that if people haven't bought into the Socialist liar apologizer Arab Kenyan non-citizen "gonna take all your guns" propaganda after three years of constant recitation, it ain't happening now.

THe reason the Bain atacks hurt Romeny is that it's the foundation of his entire campaign and it undermines his credibility and establishment of character as an alternative.  People know where they stand on Obama.  The masses who don't watch political TV in non-election years don't really know Romney beyond face value, and this is a poor introduction to a national race.  Remember, if you follow politics, you've seen ROmeny forever, but the vast masses don't pay but passing attention to primaries.  

And I'm sure the people on the left thought all those other attacks against Romney would have worked, as well.  The fact is, people on the right think it will have no affect, while people on the left think it will be the end of Romney.  The truth is it will affect things, but it won't have a large affect.  A lot can happen in ~4 months.  But, I can bet one thing that won't happen is the economy won't make a miraculous recovery.  And with gas prices starting to go up again, that's going to be on people's minds, as well. 

And you're right.  Not a lot of people are paying attention, yet.  Which is why its foolish for Obama to be attacking so hard so soon.  This will be defeated within a week or 2 and definitely be forgotten by Oct./Nov., when the campaign is at its hottest and people are paying attention.  Which again, is when Romney is going to be using all that money for ads.



 

Moonhero on 16 July 2012

If this sticks, good. Works for me. Or you can go with what I use for my kids.
Me: "Kids... This man kills kittens!"
Kids: *Gaspz*



Ask stefl1504 for a sig, even if you don't need one.

thismeintiel on 16 July 2012
killerzX said:
thismeintiel said:
The attacks aren't going to to a bit of damage in the end. A company got in business to make money? OMG, what a shock.

Let's look at facts. Private equity firms, like Bain, buy companies that are already in financial turmoil, like Staples and CST were, and try to restructure them to start making a profit. Sometimes it works (see Staples) and sometimes it doesn't (GST Steel). To actually suggest these companies just want to buy companies to sell off their assets for a quick profit is just ridiculous and a flat out lie. One only has to look at the fact that Bain kept GST Steel alive for around 8 years or so after it acquired it, 8 years longer those people kept their jobs if Bain didn't acquire them. If Bain just wanted to sell the assets, they would have done it 7-8 years prior.

It's already obvious this attack didn't work, since now they are switching to the "outsourcing attack." Which is going to do nothing, as well, since Obama had no problem with his job Czar moving factories overseas, is cool with using a travel agency that is located in India and China to book trips, and gave plenty of tax money to foreign companies.

http://youtu.be/ZVdYgU5bsDc

 

cant figure out how to embed

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/stimulus-money-for-jobs-overseas/

Plenty of stimilus money went to foreign companies.  Now some will swear up and down that they only spent it in the US.  They don't offer papers to prove it, so you'll just have to take their word for it.  And others admit to spending the money in other countries.  Look, I have no problem with outsourcing.  We send jobs to other countries and other countries send jobs to us.  However, it should be done with private money, not the taxpayers money.  Not a penny of that stimulus should have gone to foreign companies, for whatever reason.  If it was going to help out our economy, it should have stayed in our economy and gone to small, local companies.

Also, here's their take on Romney's outsourcing.  http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/



 

johnsobas on 16 July 2012

This is not an argument of substance, just a political argument trying to pull the strings of people that don't understand the economy. I don't like Romney at all, and will not vote for him but companies like Bain are necessary and can help the economy. If they don't have a record of helping, then they won't be hired, that's how the free market works. The economy is built on finding the most efficient way to assign capital and labor. If a company is not making money, then it's not an efficient use of capital and labor could be used more efficiently elsewhere. Yes that means many people will lose jobs, but if the capital and labor is assigned more efficiently elsewhere then it is a net positive for jobs.



currently playing: Skyward Sword, Mario Sunshine, Xenoblade Chronicles X

richardhutnik on 16 July 2012
Moonhero said:
If this sticks, good. Works for me. Or you can go with what I use for my kids.
Me: "Kids... This man kills kittens!"
Kids: *Gaspz*

Considering the dog on the roof incident, wouldn't you prefer to say "kill puppies"?