dagblog - Comments for "Obama, Yes. And Win the House, Too." http://dagblog.com/link/obama-yes-and-win-house-too-14736 Comments for "Obama, Yes. And Win the House, Too." en It would hardly be surprising http://dagblog.com/comment/163745#comment-163745 <a id="comment-163745"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/163739#comment-163739">If this is a conscious</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It would hardly be surprising to learn that Romney's standing with the GOP base is not what Bush's was in 2004.</p> <p>I wonder if all of that can be explained by Romney's shortcomings as a candidate with appeal to that base in comparison with Bush, and the fact that Bush was running for re-election, versus potentially deeper problems for Republicans with what their base vote can accomplish?</p> <p>Rove's 2004 decision was that ignoring public appeals to independents and focusing solely on base turnout could and would win re-election for Bush.  Does this late 2012 campaign decision--if that is what these comments by Romney reflect--suggest a possible (short-term, at least) hit to the GOP base that could carry over to future elections? </p> </div></div></div> Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:39:00 +0000 AmericanDreamer comment 163745 at http://dagblog.com First he said he'd keep the http://dagblog.com/comment/163742#comment-163742 <a id="comment-163742"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/163739#comment-163739">If this is a conscious</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>First he said he'd keep the wavier for pre-existing conditions.</p> <p>Then he said the waiver was only if you'd been continuously insured.</p> <p>I think he's tacking up a narrow channel without much latitude to go left or right, but still needing to tack because the wind is coming straight at him and you can't sail directly into the wind.</p> </div></div></div> Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:28:39 +0000 Anonymous Peter Schwartz comment 163742 at http://dagblog.com If this is a conscious http://dagblog.com/comment/163739#comment-163739 <a id="comment-163739"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/163737#comment-163737">He hasn&#039;t cancelled speaking</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>If this is a conscious strategy I'm sure Romney is hoping that none of these public statements he is making that would typically tend to infuriate base GOP voters will in fact infuriate them--that somehow they won't notice or won't be particularly concerned, not when they have a chance to vote against Obama.  We'll see if that is how it turns out...</p> </div></div></div> Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:03:57 +0000 AmericanDreamer comment 163739 at http://dagblog.com He hasn't cancelled speaking http://dagblog.com/comment/163737#comment-163737 <a id="comment-163737"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/163733#comment-163733">His praise of Bill Clinton</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>He hasn't cancelled <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/us-usa-campaign-clinton-summit-idUSBRE8890UY20120910">speaking at </a><span id="articleText"><span class="focusParagraph"><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/us-usa-campaign-clinton-summit-idUSBRE8890UY20120910">Bill Clinton's eighth annual philanthropic summit, both he and Obama are on the roster for the 25th</a>; methinks that Mitt's pandering-to-the-base days are over, it's Independent time? I suspect he is confident he has them in pocket and fully expects them to continue to be avid to come out and vote no matter what he says from now until the </span></span><span id="articleText"><span class="focusParagraph">election</span></span>. I think that not the least of which <span id="articleText"><span class="focusParagraph">because</span></span><span id="articleText"><span class="focusParagraph">, unlike </span></span>with McCain at this stage, the right wing talk show hosts are mostly all on the Romney bus. The latter will keep the base riled up with Obama bashing, rather than whining about any Mitt moderation.</p> </div></div></div> Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:58:58 +0000 artappraiser comment 163737 at http://dagblog.com His praise of Bill Clinton http://dagblog.com/comment/163733#comment-163733 <a id="comment-163733"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/obama-yes-and-win-house-too-14736">Obama, Yes. And Win the House, Too.</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>His praise of Bill Clinton and comment that he would not do away with all the elements of Obamacare may be an indication that Romney is starting to feel a little desperate.  If one believes the statements were thought out by Romney--and not just impulsive, undisciplined verbal emissions--both statements might be seen as efforts to appeal more to independent voters.  Both risk, one would think, re-infuriating large segments of his party's base, for whom two statements at the core of extremist winger catechism are:</p> <p>*Bill Clinton is satanic (and, for those who believe Satan inhabits the soul of more than one living human, Bill Clinton is one of them, along with Hillary and of course Obama, for starters) </p> <p>*Obamacare is evil and must be repealed</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> </div></div></div> Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:41:31 +0000 AmericanDreamer comment 163733 at http://dagblog.com