The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's not a partisian statement. It's just the stupidiy of Republican politics these days. The country is fighting two wars, has a potential nuclear North Korea, is in the worst recession since the 20's and the big issue is about him going on a date to New York. Do you really think at the end of the day that the people who decide elections actually give a shit about this? It's like the Bill Ayers, Joe the Plumber, Rev. Wright stuff from last year. People don't care about it. They care about their jobs, their family, and their future.

I'm someone who would love to see a strong opposition party. Republicans have better ideas on a lot of issues. But they are stuck with their head up their ass worrying about what kind of fucking mustard Obama puts on his cheeseburger.

I don't know how this can be considered "the big issue". I just went to CNN.com and there's no reference to this on the front page. Sarah Palin's wardobe, on the other hand, was front page news/snl material (something that didn't even involve taxpayer money) Maybe the Dems just did a better job hyping that story as relevent.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

How many elections have we had since Obama became president? Seriously, in a thread chock full of nonsensical partisan statements (from both sides), this one still stands out.

Well, there's OH-11, NY-20, and IL-5 so far, but only NY-20 was realistically contested (and the Democrat won). There were also plenty of special elections between 2006 and 2008 that showed a trend towards the Democrats (including flipping seats). So if you look at all the elections, general and special, since 2006, there's at least some basis for a claim that the Republicans continue to lose elections.

As I've noted elsewhere, however (maybe in this thread, I can't remember), it's only 2 years so far, hardly a long-term trend of failure.

[flere-imsaho]

Hey, at least Obama probably got receipts for his date night.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And yet you didn't complain about the "Western White House" and the millions spent to allow Bush weeks away from Washington. Or all the money spent to guard the Bush twins as they partied around Austin. Or the money spent to take Jenn's boyfriend to Maine for a weekend family gathering. Or the money spent on Jenna's wedding. Or money spent on the nearly 500 days Bush spent at Camp David. Or....

No, you only complain about the money spent by Obama. That's the difference between you and I, I guess. I see structural expenses that could be trimmed and you see trivial partisan sniping opportunities.

The Western White House actually was equipped for the President and his staff to do work, much like Camp David. I don't think people are going to be annoyed with Obama for going to Camp David, or for attending his daughter's soccer games (with the associated Secret Service costs).

If Obama had the Hawaiian White House, I don't think that would be a big deal either. After all, FDR had his getaway, Kennedy had Hyannisport, LBJ had a ranch in Texas, Nixon and Reagan both had places in California. If Obama wants to buy a place to use to get away from Washington, more power to him. If he wants to go on a taxpayer funded date with his wife, I'd just like to know the cost.

This was another PR blunder for the administration, and just like it took several years for Republicans to realize they didn't have to defend every one of Bush's decisions, I'm sure it will take Democrats some time to reach the same conclusion about Obama.

As for the "structural expenses", I think it's great that you're complaining about the size of government, but it's not like stories about added staff costs at the White House aren't being filed every day for Americans to react to. If they were, I'm sure MBBF would be talking about them, and you'd be defending the need for the Assistant to the White House Associate Deputy Chief of Personnel (East Wing).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know how this can be considered "the big issue". I just went to CNN.com and there's no reference to this on the front page. Sarah Palin's wardobe, on the other hand, was front page news/snl material (something that didn't even involve taxpayer money) Maybe the Dems just did a better job hyping that story as relevent.

It ran constantly on most right-wing sites and still is today.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Have you been paying attention to this thread? I stated I'd have no issues with Obama doing work in Chicago or even Hawaii since those are both locations he calls home. But don't let that stop you from trying to insinuate that I have not been even-handed in that regard.

So he's allowed to go do date night in Chicago or Hawaii, the latter of which would cost a ton more?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Do you really think at the end of the day that the people who decide elections actually give a shit about this?

Yes, I do, for reasons I explained on the last page. You and I may not like that this is part of politics, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a part of politics. How Obama acts over the next 3 years will have an impact on how people see him, and everything he does as president is open to scrutiny... just like it has been for every president since Gerald Ford (I think the D.C. media still did a great deal of not reporting "lifestyle" stories with Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon).

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

So he's allowed to go do date night in Chicago or Hawaii, the latter of which would cost a ton more?

MBBF stated "doing work", which to me is pretty much the opposite of "date night". Your marriage may be different, but for your sake I hope not.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Yes, I do, for reasons I explained on the last page. You and I may not like that this is part of politics, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a part of politics. How Obama acts over the next 3 years will have an impact on how people see him, and everything he does as president is open to scrutiny... just like it has been for every president since Gerald Ford (I think the D.C. media still did a great deal of not reporting "lifestyle" stories with Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon).

Ultimately I think people vote based on how well they are doing and what direction they feel the country is going. I don't think there are many moderates who are going to go to the poll and say "well since 4 years ago I got a job, make more money, and have health insurance, but he did go on a date to New York so I'll go with the other guy". I think the people who decide elections vote in their own self interests. It's why people didn't give a shit about Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, or whatever other issue that had no role in his policies.

But I guess in 3 and a half years we'll see how many people had "Went on a date" as their reason for not voting for him in the exit polls.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It ran constantly on most right-wing sites and still is today.

There's a lot of wacky stuff on the left wing sites too. 9/11 conspiracy theories for one.

But when the Palin wardrobe was mainstream, front page news, I think its funny that you think that right wing blogs talking about this is stupid.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

So he's allowed to go do date night in Chicago or Hawaii, the latter of which would cost a ton more?

No, that wasn't what I said. There's a big difference between a flight over for a date night and a working vacation in Crawford, Chicago, Hawaii, etc. And let's be honest, any vacation that the President takes is a working vacation.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Yes, I do, for reasons I explained on the last page. You and I may not like that this is part of politics, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a part of politics. How Obama acts over the next 3 years will have an impact on how people see him, and everything he does as president is open to scrutiny... just like it has been for every president since Gerald Ford

It may have an effect, but I think by concentrating on it, here, you're overstating the effect it will have. Surely the state of the economy will matter considerably more come the time of the next general election?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

There's a lot of wacky stuff on the left wing sites too. 9/11 conspiracy theories for one.

But when the Palin wardrobe was mainstream, front page news, I think its funny that you think that right wing blogs talking about this is stupid.

The Palin wardrobe issue was fucking stupid. Just as this issue is.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, there's OH-11, NY-20, and IL-5 so far, but only NY-20 was realistically contested (and the Democrat won). There were also plenty of special elections between 2006 and 2008 that showed a trend towards the Democrats (including flipping seats). So if you look at all the elections, general and special, since 2006, there's at least some basis for a claim that the Republicans continue to lose elections.

As I've noted elsewhere, however (maybe in this thread, I can't remember), it's only 2 years so far, hardly a long-term trend of failure.

Rainmaker's phrase was "slaughtered". NY-20 did go for the Democrat, who won by 401 votes out of more than 150,000 cast. That's hardly a "slaughter".

I know it's still early, and I certainly expect things to tighten up considerably before November, but right now Jon Corzine is polling about 24 points behind Republican Chris Christie in the NJ Governor's race (if Steve Lonegan wins today's primary, I think Corzine will have an easier time of it). In Virginia, Bob McDonnell wins a head to head matchup with any of the three Democratic candidates. Democrats in VA, btw, have already spent nearly 3-million dollars campaigning against McDonnell. In New Jersey, Democrats have spent about 1.2-million campaigning against Christie, and he hasn't even gotten the nomination yet!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

"well since 4 years ago I got a job, make more money, and have health insurance.......".

You really think there are going to be a lot of people who state this in 4 years?

1. There are going to be just as many people pissed about the time they spent searching for a job in the Obama administration.

2. Given that a recession will take up at least half of Obama's administration, I don't see any chance that people will have an increase in pay from 2008 to 2012. If anything, many people are settling for lesser pay just to have a job, myself included.

3. The Health proposals might as well be called the 'Rainbow and Unicorn Initiative". You're foolish if you think we're going to see any real increase in overall coverage without a heavy increase in cost. If we do, it's going to come at the expense of higher premiums and co-pays. So the people who do get health care will be happy, while those people and businesses who pay for their own coverage will be irritated. There's give and take with everything when it comes to voters.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

MBBF stated "doing work", which to me is pretty much the opposite of "date night". Your marriage may be different, but for your sake I hope not.

So instead of staying in the location, he comes back so he can do work in the White House. As I posited above, and MBBF chose not to answer, what if doing these date nights means he can take less vacations and actually spend less taxpayer money overall?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You really think there are going to be a lot of people who state this in 4 years?

1. There are going to be just as many people pissed about the time they spent searching for a job in the Obama administration.

2. Given that a recession will take up at least half of Obama's administration, I don't see any chance that people will have an increase in pay from 2008 to 2012. If anything, many people are settling for lesser pay just to have a job, myself included.

3. The Health proposals might as well be called the 'Rainbow and Unicorn Initiative". You're foolish if you think we're going to see any real increase in overall coverage. If we do, it's going to come at the expense of higher premiums and co-pays. So the people who do get health care will be happy, while those people and businesses who pay for their own coverage will be irritated. There's give and take with everything.

I have no clue how things will turn out in 2012. I'm not an economist or highly educated in fiscal policies. It was just an example saying that people will vote in 2012 on how their life has gone and the direction they feel it's going. If in 2012 a moderate is still out of work, has no retirement, and is having his taxes raised to pay for a huge deficit, he'll probably vote for the other guy. The example wasn't a prediction on what will happen, just saying that people vote on real issues like their personal well being over some silly date to NY.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

So instead of staying in the location, he comes back so he can do work in the White House. As I posited above, and MBBF chose not to answer, what if doing these date nights means he can take less vacations and actually spend less taxpayer money overall?

I'm guessing we saw the first and last date night of this adminstration. In fact, I think you can bank on that.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Ultimately I think people vote based on how well they are doing and what direction they feel the country is going. I don't think there are many moderates who are going to go to the poll and say "well since 4 years ago I got a job, make more money, and have health insurance, but he did go on a date to New York so I'll go with the other guy". I think the people who decide elections vote in their own self interests. It's why people didn't give a shit about Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, or whatever other issue that had no role in his policies.

But I guess in 3 and a half years we'll see how many people had "Went on a date" as their reason for not voting for him in the exit polls.

Are you trying to be obtuse, or are your critical thinking skills really this underdeveloped? Of course people won't go to the polls and vote one way or the other because Obama went on a date. Like I said, everything the President does between now and Election Day will shape people's opinions of him, and that will have an impact. The President knows that, his staff knows it, I'm damn sure David Axelrod knows it, but for some reason this is beyond your comprehension?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

So instead of staying in the location, he comes back so he can do work in the White House. As I posited above, and MBBF chose not to answer, what if doing these date nights means he can take less vacations and actually spend less taxpayer money overall?

If someone wants to run the cost analysis, I'll read it, but it's going to be difficult since the White House won't release the cost of the trip to NYC.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Just saying that people vote on real issues like their personal well being over some silly date to NY.

And they also vote on resentment when an elected official chooses to go on date nights during the same period that people are trying to find a job. It's not the only reason they use to cast their vote, but there's no question it comes into play. You remember things like that when you're broke and unemployed.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Rainmaker's phrase was "slaughtered". NY-20 did go for the Democrat, who won by 401 votes out of more than 150,000 cast. That's hardly a "slaughter".

I know it's still early, and I certainly expect things to tighten up considerably before November, but right now Jon Corzine is polling about 24 points behind Republican Chris Christie in the NJ Governor's race (if Steve Lonegan wins today's primary, I think Corzine will have an easier time of it). In Virginia, Bob McDonnell wins a head to head matchup with any of the three Democratic candidates. Democrats in VA, btw, have already spent nearly 3-million dollars campaigning against McDonnell. In New Jersey, Democrats have spent about 1.2-million campaigning against Christie, and he hasn't even gotten the nomination yet!

I'm not talking Obama, I'm talking Democrat vs Republican which this is essentially about. Since 2006, the Republicans have been slaughtered. They went from huge majorities in both the Senate and House to huge minorities. They are going into 2010 with much more Senate seats in play than the Democrats.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And they also vote on resentment when an elected official chooses to go on date nights during the same period that people are trying to find a job. It's not the only reason they use to cast their vote, but there's no question it comes into play. You remember things like that when you're broke and unemployed.

Resentment, Bill Ayers, and grey poupon seem to never show up in the exit polls as to why a candidate lost. Maybe that trend breaks in 2012, but I have a feeling the biggest issue will be economy when those polls come out.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It may have an effect, but I think by concentrating on it, here, you're overstating the effect it will have. Surely the state of the economy will matter considerably more come the time of the next general election?

Issues should always matter more, but that doesn't mean that personality will never matter. I'm not trying to be partisan about this one fellas... I'm just pointing out a political truism. No matter what's going on in the world, personality has an impact. It did in 2004, it did in 2008, and I have no doubt it will have an impact in 2012 as well.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And they also vote on resentment when an elected official chooses to go on date nights during the same period that people are trying to find a job. It's not the only reason they use to cast their vote, but there's no question it comes into play. You remember things like that when you're broke and unemployed.

and youve been spot on on knowing what the masses think.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not talking Obama, I'm talking Democrat vs Republican which this is essentially about. Since 2006, the Republicans have been slaughtered. They went from huge majorities in both the Senate and House to huge minorities. They are going into 2010 with much more Senate seats in play than the Democrats.

You said that focusing on things like Obama's date night are the reasons why Republicans are getting slaughtered. Now you're going back to 2006? I can give you plenty of reasons as to why the GOP lost seats in the House and Senate (including some politically savvy moves by the Democrats), but I fail to see how 2006 has much to do with how Republicans have been acting since Obama took office.

[Flasch186]

I do agree with Cam's last statement although it seems the RNC has no real leadership in the party right now and that is causing more problems for themselves than they would like.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

and youve been spot on on knowing what the masses think.

If you'd like to state your opinion, feel free to do so. If you want to snipe at others without debating the topic, that's fine as well, but don't expect any responses. I don't expect people to agree with me, but a basic level of respect in the conversation would be nice.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Rainmaker's phrase was "slaughtered". NY-20 did go for the Democrat, who won by 401 votes out of more than 150,000 cast. That's hardly a "slaughter".

I know it's still early, and I certainly expect things to tighten up considerably before November, but right now Jon Corzine is polling about 24 points behind Republican Chris Christie in the NJ Governor's race (if Steve Lonegan wins today's primary, I think Corzine will have an easier time of it). In Virginia, Bob McDonnell wins a head to head matchup with any of the three Democratic candidates. Democrats in VA, btw, have already spent nearly 3-million dollars campaigning against McDonnell. In New Jersey, Democrats have spent about 1.2-million campaigning against Christie, and he hasn't even gotten the nomination yet!

But the Senate races look good for the Democrats.

I'd expect a small gain for the GOP in the House and a small gain for the Dems in the Senate. 2004 was a good year for the GOP and they aren't strong enough right now to hold on to all those Senate seats, especially given the number of retirees.

Things will swing back towards the GOP eventually, but it would be very surprising to see a major swing in 2010.

btw- I'm more than happy for whatever happens in VA if it denies Mcauliff the governorship.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Rainmaker's phrase was "slaughtered". NY-20 did go for the Democrat, who won by 401 votes out of more than 150,000 cast. That's hardly a "slaughter".

You've misconstrued what I wrote.

I'm not defending RainMaker's claim of Republicans continuing to be slaughtered in elections. I'm taking issue with your claim that since there have been hardly any elections since Obama took office, any claim along these lines is nonsensical.

Which is wrong. If people talk about the Republicans being on a losing streak (which, with perhaps undue emphasis, is what RainMaker is saying) they're looking at the electoral record from 2006 to present, which includes special elections.

So it's not a completely nonsensical claim. Despite your recasting of the context of the statement.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If you'd like to state your opinion, feel free to do so. If you want to snipe at others without debating the topic, that's fine as well, but don't expect any responses. I don't expect people to agree with me, but a basic level of respect in the conversation would be nice.

ROFL, this coming from the poster that regularly uses terms to try and portray other opinions as inconsequential and meaningless.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Issues should always matter more, but that doesn't mean that personality will never matter. I'm not trying to be partisan about this one fellas... I'm just pointing out a political truism. No matter what's going on in the world, personality has an impact. It did in 2004, it did in 2008, and I have no doubt it will have an impact in 2012 as well.

Yes, but what kind of impact Cam? Because you've spent the last two pages and a good number of posts talking about it. I mean, you give the impression that you think it matters a fair bit, to be honest.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You said that focusing on things like Obama's date night are the reasons why Republicans are getting slaughtered. Now you're going back to 2006? I can give you plenty of reasons as to why the GOP lost seats in the House and Senate (including some politically savvy moves by the Democrats), but I fail to see how 2006 has much to do with how Republicans have been acting since Obama took office.

Yes and I mean it. Republicans have focused on tiny cultural issues over the last few years that I think have hurt them greatly in elections. In 2008 they chose to focus on Bill Ayers. For the last few weeks of the election, that was their platform. This all while the economy was going into a nosedive. Instead of putting out a real economic platform, perhaps comparing himself to Reagan on fiscal policy and that poor economic era and recovery to this, they chose Bill Ayers.

Now it's Obama going on a date to New York. A couple weeks ago it was him putting Grey Poupon on a cheeseburger. I honestly don't believe people care much about this stuff (sure partisians do but not the average moderate voter). So instead of whining about a personal trip that President's have been doing for centuries, why not pick an issue like health care and provide a real solution that would get the public on their side?

[flere-imsaho]

Two election cycles have now seen significant gains by Democrats over Republicans, including the transfer of power in both the House and Senate as well as the White House. Further, the trend has been to solidify Democratic gains, so far, and not to fall back.

Now certainly personality and "image" considerations (akin to the Obamas' date night) have been of importance in some of these races. However, when taken as a whole I expect most political "experts" (whatever that phrase means this day) would conclude that the country as a whole has simply begun to side more with Democrats on the issues.

And this makes sense, given the times in which we live, and the serious concerns the electorate has.

While it is certain that some high-profile elections, such as Presidential elections, are determined greatly on the "image" factors (2000 springs to mind), I'd argue that there are some elections where even our country will vote on the issues. They'll vote for whom they think will help them and the country more. 1980 springs to mind, of course, as well as 1992. I'd argue 2008 was similar, though it's harder to make this claim due to the nuclear-style explosion of "image issues" the McCain campaign had.

Given that we're in a recession and have numerous problems, I'd expect "image issues" to matter less in 2010 and 2012. That's the bottom line. Maybe Cam agrees, who knows?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yes, but what kind of impact Cam? Because you've spent the last two pages and a good number of posts talking about it. I mean, you give the impression that you think it matters a fair bit, to be honest.

I do, and I'm not the only one, otherwise campaigns wouldn't have image consultants and strategists who are tasked with creating the candidate's narrative. Yes, voters will go to polls and cast their votes on issues, but they're not voting for issues. They're voting for candidates, and how they feel about the candidates will have an impact on how they view the candidates and the issues.

Look at the 2008 election and how McCain's health care proposal was characterized by his opponents as "uncaring". This piece in the American Prospect is a pretty good example:

hxxp://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=why_john_mccain_wants_you_to_give_up_your_health_insurance

In 2012, I'm pretty sure (barring any unforseen national security nightmare) that the economy will be the #1 issue. Both candidates will want to be seen as the "candidate that cares about you", and both will use their own record and the record of their opponents to define themselves and each other. In this case, the taxpayer-funded jaunt to NYC, on top of record-setting deficits, rising unemployment, multi-billion dollar bailouts to failed companies, higher taxes, rising fuel costs, etc. could be used to ask the simple question, "What is Obama doing with your money?"

Will this trip be a big issue? Nope. I'd be shocked if was even brought up by whoever runs against Obama in 2012. But Obama's smart enough to understand that for a sitting president, every action they take is another brush stroke in the portrait of public opinion. I think the Obama's were hoping they'd get some glowing press (which they did) about where they ate, what they wore, what they saw, etc. My guess is that they anticipated the conservative reaction to the trip and are now waiting for the news cycle on the story to run its course before pressure builds to release the figures for the cost of the trip (which I'm guessing will also happen).

I've tried to make it clear that I'm not "outraged" by the trip, but I do hope I can convince you and others that, at least as far as the campaign consultants on both sides are concerned, everything Obama does between now and Election Day matters to one degree or another.

[flere-imsaho]

Appreciate the follow-up and clarifications, Cam. That's a post with which I can agree in its entirety.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Two election cycles have now seen significant gains by Democrats over Republicans, including the transfer of power in both the House and Senate as well as the White House. Further, the trend has been to solidify Democratic gains, so far, and not to fall back.

Now certainly personality and "image" considerations (akin to the Obamas' date night) have been of importance in some of these races. However, when taken as a whole I expect most political "experts" (whatever that phrase means this day) would conclude that the country as a whole has simply begun to side more with Democrats on the issues.

And this makes sense, given the times in which we live, and the serious concerns the electorate has.

While it is certain that some high-profile elections, such as Presidential elections, are determined greatly on the "image" factors (2000 springs to mind), I'd argue that there are some elections where even our country will vote on the issues. They'll vote for whom they think will help them and the country more. 1980 springs to mind, of course, as well as 1992. I'd argue 2008 was similar, though it's harder to make this claim due to the nuclear-style explosion of "image issues" the McCain campaign had.

Given that we're in a recession and have numerous problems, I'd expect "image issues" to matter less in 2010 and 2012. That's the bottom line. Maybe Cam agrees, who knows?

Gah... one more response and then I REALLY need to step away from the computer.

1992 was my first election, and I voted for Clinton. Granted, I was 18 and fairly stupid, but I voted for the cool young guy over the stale old guy who raised taxes.

There were certainly serious issues on the table in 1980, but Carter was also sitting at about 31% approval on election day. Exit polling thought 71% of the country was "in deep and serious trouble". When asked what the biggest problem facing the country was, only 4% said "Carter", while 31% said "inflation or prices", yet I'm sure there were plenty of people who held Carter largely responsible for inflation.

I don't know if there's a good way to measure the effect of personality, image, or narrative on a candidate. I just know that the folks who run campaigns (and the candidates themselves) think it's pretty damn important.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Gah... one more response and then I REALLY need to step away from the computer.

1992 was my first election, and I voted for Clinton. Granted, I was 18 and fairly stupid, but I voted for the cool young guy over the stale old guy who raised taxes.

There were certainly serious issues on the table in 1980, but Carter was also sitting at about 31% approval on election day. Exit polling thought 71% of the country was "in deep and serious trouble". When asked what the biggest problem facing the country was, only 4% said "Carter", while 31% said "inflation or prices", yet I'm sure there were plenty of people who held Carter largely responsible for inflation.

I don't know if there's a good way to measure the effect of personality, image, or narrative on a candidate. I just know that the folks who run campaigns (and the candidates themselves) think it's pretty damn important.

I agree with you on how presidential elections work. The problem with the daily attacks on Obama is that they didn't work during the election and haven't dropped his favorability rating measurably after the election. The problem isn't that Republicans are trying to define Obama, the problem is that they keep using tactics that don't work.

I really believe they don't have a lot of say in the 2012 election. Re-election campaigns are referendums on the sitting president and the opposing candidate generally has a harder time breaking through. All of the attempts to define Obama as a reckless elitist aren't working and further won't have much if any bearing on the 2012 election.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yes and I mean it. Republicans have focused on tiny cultural issues over the last few years that I think have hurt them greatly in elections. In 2008 they chose to focus on Bill Ayers. For the last few weeks of the election, that was their platform. This all while the economy was going into a nosedive. Instead of putting out a real economic platform, perhaps comparing himself to Reagan on fiscal policy and that poor economic era and recovery to this, they chose Bill Ayers.

Now it's Obama going on a date to New York. A couple weeks ago it was him putting Grey Poupon on a cheeseburger. I honestly don't believe people care much about this stuff (sure partisians do but not the average moderate voter). So instead of whining about a personal trip that President's have been doing for centuries, why not pick an issue like health care and provide a real solution that would get the public on their side?

Who, among policy makers in the Republican Party, has focused on Grey Poupon and the trip to NYC?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Who, among policy makers in the Republican Party, has focused on Grey Poupon and the trip to NYC?

Rush Limbaugh.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Who, among policy makers in the Republican Party, has focused on Grey Poupon and the trip to NYC?

Well the RNC thought it was important enough to issue a press release criticizing him for the date night.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Gah... one more response and then I REALLY need to step away from the computer.

I know the feeling....

I hear what you're saying, and I think what I'm trying to say is that there's a difference between high-profile elections where people vote more about the candidate himself/herself (i.e. "image") and those where they vote on the main issue and how they feel the candidate will address it (i.e. "issue"). Of course, as you point out, in the latter situation there's still a fair bit of intertwining of image and issue. There's no way away from that, of course.

I don't know if there's a good way to measure the effect of personality, image, or narrative on a candidate. I just know that the folks who run campaigns (and the candidates themselves) think it's pretty damn important.

Probably look at a graph of poll numbers with important PR dates noted (i.e. news of Palin's wardrobe comes out so look at favorables/unfavorables immediately following this). That's probably only a partial answer, of course.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Rush Limbaugh.

He resigned his leadership of the Republican Party a few weeks ago on his show.

[flere-imsaho]

Someone should send the GOP a memo, then.

[KWhit]

I thought the leader was Dick Cheney.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Someone should send the GOP a memo, then.

If they GOP doesn't know about it, it's because they don't listen to his show anymore. Guess that's why he stepped down.

[DaddyTorgo]

I think people really need to get off his ass about the trip to NYC for the "date night."

I mean really - they flew a gulfstream to save money instead of air force one, and they paid for their own meal/tickets. The thing cost $24,000. That's what...1/10th of a cent out of my taxes (if that)? Really...aren't there more important things going on we should be focused on? Is the President of the United States not allowed to take his wife out on a date to the theater? He can't be that much of a normal guy? That's pretty sad.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Now it's Obama going on a date to New York. A couple weeks ago it was him putting Grey Poupon on a cheeseburger. I honestly don't believe people care much about this stuff (sure partisians do but not the average moderate voter). So instead of whining about a personal trip that President's have been doing for centuries, why not pick an issue like health care and provide a real solution that would get the public on their side?

Because they don't have any real solutions? Because the intellectual wing of the party is dried-up because they've driven away anyone who dares to think in anything except black or white, and by-and-large you can't craft a solution to a problem with black-or-white thinking.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I think people really need to get off his ass about the trip to NYC for the "date night."

I mean really - they flew a gulfstream to save money instead of air force one, and they paid for their own meal/tickets. The thing cost $24,000. That's what...1/10th of a cent out of my taxes (if that)? Really...aren't there more important things going on we should be focused on? Is the President of the United States not allowed to take his wife out on a date to the theater? He can't be that much of a normal guy? That's pretty sad.

The President is not a normal guy. The President cannot be a normal guy. That's pretty sad, but we're long past the days where the Presidency is anywhere close to the life that a "normal" American can live.

As for the cost, you're forgetting a few things:

- seperate Gulfstream for staff

- seperate Gulfstream for press

- Transportation of Marine One

- transportation of presidential vehicles (which most likely required the use of a C-130, though I suppose it's possible that the Secret Service drove the vehicles up to NYC).

- overtime costs for security personnel (remember, this was a weekend trip, and many of the officers called in to provide traffic management in D.C., Maryland, and NYC would not have been on duty, but called in to earn time and a half.)

As I understand it, the $24,000 was an estimate from the New York Post, but the Daily Mail in England estimated $75,000. I've estimated $250,000, based on Air Force One's trip to NYC a few months ago. It's hard to know what the real figure is because the White House won't release the numbers.

I know there are plenty of other things to focus on (which is amusing, since you comment about this rather than bring up one of the "more important things"), but people need to get off his ass? Realistically, if this were a Republican president we were talking about, don't you think you'd see Democrats complaining about the cost of the trip during a time of great economic uncertainty? You don't think Maureen Dowd or someone else would wonder how many unemployed people the President and the First Lady flew over on their way to their fancy dinner and Broadway show?

C'mon DT, you're smart...

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Well the RNC thought it was important enough to issue a press release criticizing him for the date night.

I did see the U.S. News and World Report article that quoted the press release the RNC sent out on Saturday. Since then, I haven't been able to find any mention of the RNC harping on the incident. In fact, I can't even find Saturday's press release on the RNC website.

One press release on the day of the trip, in my opinion, isn't "focusing" on the trip or trying to make a bigger deal of it than it is. The GOP saw an opportunity to jab, they jabbed, and now they seem to have dropped it.

Frankly the only reason I'm still talking about it is because the reactions have been amusing to me. In some ways it's kind of fun having the shoe on the other foot. :P