Obama/Biden vs Romney/Ryan--America's Choose Your Own Adventure Moment

[wally]

I hope that the news networks start calling Romney/Ryan "R-squared."

[Pelado]

And Ryan's favorable rating jumped an equal 15 points, from 23% on Wednesday through Friday, to 38% on Saturday and Sunday. And among independent voters, the poll indicates that Ryan's favorable rating jumped 20 points, from 19% Wednesday through Friday, to 39% over the weekend.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/13/polls-was-ryan-a-good-pick-for-romney/?hpt=hp_t2

[Ma'ake]

As a Democrat, I think my fellow Dems may be celebrating Ryan as VP candidate just a little too much, certainly too early.

Mediscare may very well work - we'll see. I'm unconvinced, and suspect Axelrod and Plouffe have multiple contingencies ready if the numbers don't move in the right direction.

My hope is Obama decides it's time to bring Hillary back home from foreign policy service to run as VP, and let Biden do something else. Everyone who hates Hillary weren't voting for Obama anyway, so the downside is limited.

She looks decidedly more aged than she did just a few years ago, which in the contrast with Ryan I think might be a benefit. Hillary will help deliver the single women vote, and may pick off some of the married women, as well.

Paint R+R as the capitalists, Ryan in particular as the upstart GOP budget wiz who has figured out that the magic formula is lower taxes on the rich, increased defense spending, incrementally higher taxes on the folks who make $30K, and substantially lower social spending. More tax cuts is exactly how we got in the situation we're in. 60% of Americans don't believe the President can have a dramatic effect on job creation, which is Mitt's calling card, though I think the campaign investment in attacking his record at Bain and his opaque tax record certainly paid off.

Hillary can say "hold on a minute Paul, that's not the vision of America the older generation worked so hard for", Obama can make the case that a 2nd version of Teddy Roosevelt's square deal is what the US needs, that greater & greater income inequality is a serious threat not just to the lower classes, but to businessmen who depend on a middle class, a threat to America itself, and that the upper classes (embodied in Mitt), who've seen their wealth grow dramatically over the past 10 years, really do owe their countrymen a greater commitment to America than they've had to pay recently (manifested by Romney's 13.9% tax rate, where his father paid much higher).

Without question, this campaign pivots now to ideology and divergent visions of America's future.

[LA Ute]

As a Democrat, I think my fellow Dems may be celebrating Ryan as VP candidate just a little too much, certainly too early.

Mediscare may very well work - we'll see. I'm unconvinced, and suspect Axelrod and Plouffe have multiple contingencies ready if the numbers don't move in the right direction.

My hope is Obama decides it's time to bring Hillary back home from foreign policy service to run as VP, and let Biden do something else. Everyone who hates Hillary weren't voting for Obama anyway, so the downside is limited.

She looks decidedly more aged than she did just a few years ago, which in the contrast with Ryan I think might be a benefit. Hillary will help deliver the single women vote, and may pick off some of the married women, as well.

Paint R+R as the capitalists, Ryan in particular as the upstart GOP budget wiz who has figured out that the magic formula is lower taxes on the rich, increased defense spending, incrementally higher taxes on the folks who make $30K, and substantially lower social spending. More tax cuts is exactly how we got in the situation we're in. 60% of Americans don't believe the President can have a dramatic effect on job creation, which is Mitt's calling card, though I think the campaign investment in attacking his record at Bain and his opaque tax record certainly paid off.

Hillary can say "hold on a minute Paul, that's not the vision of America the older generation worked so hard for", Obama can make the case that a 2nd version of Teddy Roosevelt's square deal is what the US needs, that greater & greater income inequality is a serious threat not just to the lower classes, but to businessmen who depend on a middle class, a threat to America itself, and that the upper classes (embodied in Mitt), who've seen their wealth grow dramatically over the past 10 years, really do owe their countrymen a greater commitment to America than they've had to pay recently (manifested by Romney's 13.9% tax rate, where his father paid much higher).

Without question, this campaign pivots now to ideology and divergent visions of America's future.

A debate between Hillary and Ryan would be epic, and probably quite educational. Each of them would present their side's case clearly, I think. I'm all for it.

[myboynoah]

As a Democrat, I think my fellow Dems may be celebrating Ryan as VP candidate just a little too much, certainly too early.

Mediscare may very well work - we'll see. I'm unconvinced, and suspect Axelrod and Plouffe have multiple contingencies ready if the numbers don't move in the right direction.

My hope is Obama decides it's time to bring Hillary back home from foreign policy service to run as VP, and let Biden do something else. Everyone who hates Hillary weren't voting for Obama anyway, so the downside is limited.

She looks decidedly more aged than she did just a few years ago, which in the contrast with Ryan I think might be a benefit. Hillary will help deliver the single women vote, and may pick off some of the married women, as well.

Paint R+R as the capitalists, Ryan in particular as the upstart GOP budget wiz who has figured out that the magic formula is lower taxes on the rich, increased defense spending, incrementally higher taxes on the folks who make $30K, and substantially lower social spending. More tax cuts is exactly how we got in the situation we're in. 60% of Americans don't believe the President can have a dramatic effect on job creation, which is Mitt's calling card, though I think the campaign investment in attacking his record at Bain and his opaque tax record certainly paid off.

Hillary can say "hold on a minute Paul, that's not the vision of America the older generation worked so hard for", Obama can make the case that a 2nd version of Teddy Roosevelt's square deal is what the US needs, that greater & greater income inequality is a serious threat not just to the lower classes, but to businessmen who depend on a middle class, a threat to America itself, and that the upper classes (embodied in Mitt), who've seen their wealth grow dramatically over the past 10 years, really do owe their countrymen a greater commitment to America than they've had to pay recently (manifested by Romney's 13.9% tax rate, where his father paid much higher).

Without question, this campaign pivots now to ideology and divergent visions of America's future.

I agree with your last point.

Dumping O'Biden and bringing in Hillary in VP candidate will be a sure sign that the Obama bus is in trouble.

[Ma'ake]

The election might well hang on whether the Democrats succeed in making Ryan look like the guy who wants to throw Granny under the bus. It's going to be interesting to watch.

Certainly. The VP candidates may play a larger role this year than they typically do, but likely the race will eventually settle back down to Mitt vs Obama, where general likeability will be an uphill battle for Mitt, something like 2-1 for Obama.

[byu71]

that greater & greater income inequality is a serious threat not just to the lower classes, but to businessmen who depend on a middle class, a threat to America itself, and that the upper classes (embodied in Mitt), who've seen their wealth grow dramatically over the past 10 years, really do owe their countrymen a greater commitment to America than they've had to pay recently (manifested by Romney's 13.9% tax rate, where his father paid much higher).

You may have not been around when the market crashed in '87. There was a very popular book out that pointed out another depression was coming just as was the case after the '29 crash. The main theory was, it will happen because of the great income disparity. This song has been song many times before.

Look at the countries where the government has stepped in to correct such disparities. The powerful become uber rich and everyone elses quality of life measured by income goes down.

I could be wrong, could you point out which countries that determine "equality" hold even a candle to the entepreneurship and innovation that has occured in the US?

Lastly, making Romney and his ilk pay their fair share to cure our financial ills is a joke. Most of the money that will come from tax increases will come from those who make $250,000 to a million. Most of those people are building wealth. Obama and his ilk are going to make it harder for them to accumulate wealth, like Romney and Obama already have.

By the way, Obama is now a millionaire. Good for him. What companies did he start? What jobs did he create to accumulate his millions?

I will admit, my last two paragraphs don't fit nicely in a campaing slogan. Let's get those millionaires and billionaires is a much better sound bite.

[Ma'ake]

The current issue of Newsweek has a very thought provoking article about general economic anxiety in the US.

Of particular note is the anxiety of the "lower upper class", those who are worth between $1M and $10M. I think everyone here is familiar with the anxiety and angst that Obamacare has brought to this sub-class, government regulation, etc. (To be clear, I don't think Obama believes he can win this group of voters.)

The article also noted that while this group has seen their wealth increase about 12% in the past decade, the "lower-uppers" are keenly aware that they're not insiders, that when IPO opportunites arise they're not on the A-list of invitees. This is manifest by the class above $10M seeing their wealth increase 40% in the past decade.

The TED speaker Richard Wilkinson has interesting insights into income & wealth inequalities and how they have a corrosive effect on society, even making it more difficult to move upward economically.

http://www.ted.com/speakers/richard_wilkinson.html

While I suspect the natural reaction here would be to label Wilkinson as a Leninist, it's noteworthy that Canada not only is viewed as having greater "economic freedom" (by the conservative Heritage Foundation), in spite of having higher taxes and (gasp) a 50% capital gains tax, the Canucks have passed the US in average net worth.

The CIA's GINI index gives us a lower (less equitable) .45 score than Canada's .32 - but we're closer to Mexico's .48 ranking - which is another indicator of brewing social instability, which I think everyone can agree is occurring.

Definitely time for a Teddy Roosevelt-like resetting of the rules. His square deal was intended to save capitalism, in the face of widespread social unrest due to no 40 hour work week, no child labor laws, etc, and the emergence of the USSR as the Russian reaction to capitalist excesses.

[calicoug]

Down one road: An ongoing expansion of government and leaders that have shown no serious intent or ability to address America's cataclysmic (if still mostly latent) debt crisis.

Down the other: Probably some near-term pain accompanied by a detailed vision that Clinton and Obama appointee Erskine Bowles calls "sensible," "honest" and "serious" (while raving about Ryan as "amazing" command of detail).

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/13/video-erskine-bowles-says-ryan-budget-sensible-honest-serious/

There are a few ways to summarize the differences in the two visions but, I think that this link might just do it with one image and a single word:



No mistaking the choice.

BTW, as everyone recognizes - the Ryan pick alters the dynamic of the race in a way that no other choice could have. Hence the new thread.

As a final note: R/R have come out blasting on offense against the inevitable Mediscare campaign. And they've got an effective three-piece strategy: (a) Obama cut $710B from Medicare, Romney's plan will not, (b) the cover of Ryan's collaboration on Ryan-Wyden - hard to paint a guy as extreme who has managed a bi-partisan solution with someone as liberal as Wyden and (c) endorsements of Ryan's seriousness, good faith and intelligence from uber-respected Democrats like Erskine Bowles.

And the final card is just this: No one can actually pay attention to Ryan and understand what he's doing and think he's an extremist of any sort.

Do you really support the Republican strategy? Do you consider it to be "honest?" I'm guessing you already know Obama didn't cut $710 billion from Medicare (closer to $500 billion) and that the amounts that were "cut" didn't reduce benefits under Medicare at all (they were directed at fraud and overpayments- plenty of information out there on this). As for "Romney's plan," we have no idea if it would cut from Medicare. He hasn't said what his plan would do. We can, however, look at Ryan's plan for Medicare where, ironically, he maintains the cuts made by Obama as part of his own plan (just to criticize Obama for making them- ballsy).

As for "Ryan-Wyden," I don't know if you are aware of this, but they didn't actually co-sponsor any legislation together. To the contrary, Wyden and Ryan collaborated on a policy paper but Ryan didn't ever implement that paper in full. Instead, he modified it to be more conservative and Wyden voted against it.

[Tex]

Quick question: what is the difference between this thread and the other "final TWO" thread?

[YOhio]

Quick question: what is the difference between this thread and the other "final TWO" thread?

oxcoug doesn't like posting in threads he didn't start.

[Babs]

I don't get it.

[Omaha 680]

I don't get it.

Don't feel bad. Neither does President Obama or Calicoug and they're both pretty smart people.

[LA Ute]

I don't get it.

I think it has something to do with a tweet by David Burge, who runs the Iowahawk blog:

Paul Ryan represents Obama's most horrifying nightmare: math.

It went viral quickly. Iowahawk's a very funny guy, to conservatives.

[Babs]

I think it has something to do with a tweet by David Burge, who runs the Iowahawk blog:



It went viral quickly. Iowahawk's a very funny guy, to conservatives.

Hmm. I don't think I get the tweet, either. But then I never did get twitter.