• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Karl Rove Correct?

What Will Obama dedice to do?

  • Total voters
    16
cpwill

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,611
Reaction score
39,893
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We are on the cusp of the most negative reelection campaign ever


Now.... removing the bit never; are we about to see an extremely negative campaign? Obama is claiming he is going to collect $1 Billion, and he's not going to have to spend it in a primary. I would say he's unlikely to want to run on his record over the last 4 years, will he spend all that attacking the Republican and demagogueing the Ryan Plan? Or will we see a replay of 2008, when there was actually a fairly positive campaign as both candidates focused on what they wanted to bring to the country?
 
Wasn't the last one supposed to be the most negative? What argument is left? Are we going to blame Bush for the republican candidate?
 
tessaesque said:
Wasn't the last one supposed to be the most negative? What argument is left? Are we going to blame Bush for the republican candidate?
Click to expand...

I would say that 2004 was probably the most negative - that was the year that Democrats all but endorsed Farenheight 9/11, after all, and Republicans didn't endorse but certainly didn't criticize the SwiftBoaters for Truth. 2008 was actually a relatively nice break - both McCain and Obama had a few items go overboard, but generally kept things respectable.
 
It depends on what Obama's approval rating looks like next year, and on who the Republicans nominate. If Obama is at least as popular as he is now, both sides are more likely to run a positive campaign. If his approval rating drops into the mid-40s or lower, I think there will be a lot more mudslinging across the board, as both candidates try to paint the other as unacceptable.

Certain nominees will also lend themselves to nastier campaigns than others. If Obama is running against Mitt Romney, you can bet on a pretty nasty campaign. If he's running against Jon Huntsman, probably not so much.
 
Of course Ryans plan is going to be fodder, he gave the democrats a treasure trove of talking points. The NY election shows that.

I dont think this will be the most negative...just the most expensive ever
 
tessaesque said:
Wasn't the last one supposed to be the most negative? What argument is left? Are we going to blame Bush for the republican candidate?
Click to expand...

Every one seems more negative than the last one.
 
I personally don't believe any Republican candidates have a chance this election period. The Republicans have shown they are increasingly being influenced by the Tea Party, which by all means is a far right conservative group. This IMO will push Independents away from voting for them.

I foresee more negative comments coming from the Republican candidate than from Obama, though Obama's campaign will be sure to use the same tactic.
 
No. I don't think we can yet beat the atmospheres of many elections in the 19th century. Rove is playing it up, just like everyone else in the short-sighted media. Wake me up when Obama is openly called an atheist, when Congressmen are beaten with cains in the halls of Congress, when some of our most important leaders are about ready to step outside and have a shooting match to the death, when our nation is going to separate with threats of war. Until then, stop watching television and read some history books.

Now, will it be negative? You bet your butt it will be. Will it be more so than other times? You bet your butt it will be. Does that make it special? No.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I agree with you 100% on the "ever". You're not going to beat the Jackson story for personal attacks. I was trying to ask the question more in reference to the last few cycles.
 
cpwill said:
We are on the cusp of the most negative reelection campaign ever


Now.... removing the bit never; are we about to see an extremely negative campaign? Obama is claiming he is going to collect $1 Billion, and he's not going to have to spend it in a primary. I would say he's unlikely to want to run on his record over the last 4 years, will he spend all that attacking the Republican and demagogueing the Ryan Plan? Or will we see a replay of 2008, when there was actually a fairly positive campaign as both candidates focused on what they wanted to bring to the country?
Click to expand...
I picked Gentlemans' Campaign, I reject the word 'smear' and replace it with the words 'tell the truth.' It's Republicans that use smear tactics.
 
pbrauer said:
I picked Gentlemans' Campaign, I reject the word 'smear' and replace it with the words 'tell the truth.' It's Republicans that use smear tactics.
Click to expand...

The utter definition of naïveté.
 
Obama can't run on his record because it's a series of failed programs, empty promises, what has to be approaching 200 confirmed lies, billions in wasted money we don't hope to have any time soon, so he has no choice but go on the attack.

Liberals are arguing that Obama has been great blah, blah, blah, but if they have two brain cells they know deep down inside that none of it's true because, Liberals get laid off too, and everyone suffers from the cost of inflation.

So I have to say duck & cover. That's me on the right. lol
33%20Duck,%20Cover,%20and%20Hold.gif
 
Most negative campaign I can remember is 1988... Bush I vs. Dukakis. But Fiddy is correct. Nothing can compete with the campaigns of the 19th Century.
 
megaprogman said:
Every one seems more negative than the last one.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this tell all that campaign and campign finance reform are a must - NOW !
No "republican" is worth wasting one billion dollars on.
The Presidential run time should be 60 days only and cost no more than one million, which to me is a lot !
 
pbrauer said:
I picked Gentlemans' Campaign, I reject the word 'smear' and replace it with the words 'tell the truth.' It's Republicans that use smear tactics.
Click to expand...


Both parties use "smear" - a sad reflection on the American people.
The "truth" ?
I admit that I do not know this.
IMO, the liberal way is better, but our people may not be ready for this...
Hope I am wrong..
A most pleasant surprise that Mr Obama was elected in the first place..
 
cpwill said:
We are on the cusp of the most negative reelection campaign ever


Now.... removing the bit never; are we about to see an extremely negative campaign? Obama is claiming he is going to collect $1 Billion, and he's not going to have to spend it in a primary. I would say he's unlikely to want to run on his record over the last 4 years,
Click to expand...

He will run in part on his record for sure. He has to appeal to liberals and the middle, which parts of his record will do. He will also promote his successes, notably things like continuing to withdraw from Iraq, killing OBL, getting rid of DADT. The economy if it is recovering(it looks quite possible) will also be a positive he emphasizes.

will he spend all that attacking the Republican and demagogueing the Ryan Plan? Or will we see a replay of 2008, when there was actually a fairly positive campaign as both candidates focused on what they wanted to bring to the country?
Click to expand...

You do not have to demagogue the Ryan plan, and you and other republicans have done a nice job of demagogueing those who oppose the plan. The Ryan plan is so easy to use as honest ammunition it is almost scarey, and will certainly be in play. "The party of no" will get a repeat. I would tend to think the republican will probably go more negative than Obama, since unseating a sitting president is hard to do, but there is no guarantee of that.
 
Fiddytree said:
No. I don't think we can yet beat the atmospheres of many elections in the 19th century.
Click to expand...

Jackson against Adams was probably the worst. It'd be pretty hard to beat a campaign where one of the candidates wives was repeatedly referred to as a whore and an adulteress.
 
Fiddytree said:
No. I don't think we can yet beat the atmospheres of many elections in the 19th century. Rove is playing it up, just like everyone else in the short-sighted media. Wake me up when Obama is openly called an atheist, when Congressmen are beaten with cains in the halls of Congress, when some of our most important leaders are about ready to step outside and have a shooting match to the death, when our nation is going to separate with threats of war. Until then, stop watching television and read some history books.

Now, will it be negative? You bet your butt it will be. Will it be more so than other times? You bet your butt it will be. Does that make it special? No.
Click to expand...

Poor Charles Sumner :lol:
 
Redress said:
He will run in part on his record for sure. He has to appeal to liberals and the middle, which parts of his record will do. He will also promote his successes, notably things like continuing to withdraw from Iraq, killing OBL, getting rid of DADT.
Click to expand...

"continuing to withdraw from Iraq" is so far "continuing to stay in Iraq" - I see that as not appealing to the liberal base that he promised we would leave rapidly.

Killing OBL is a good-feelings shot, no doubt. But I don't really see him getting alot of long-term traction from it, unless he uses it as an excuse to begin speeding up a withdrawal from Afghanistan, which will appeal to moderates and the left.

Getting rid of DADT appeals I think only really to the Left. A majority of people probably thought it was a good move, but was only really a "cause" for them.

The economy if it is recovering(it looks quite possible) will also be a positive he emphasizes.
Click to expand...

the "economic recovery" we are experiencing is the weakest point in his record - it is well below every single post-war recovery in American history, by several factors. It's a 30-second ad for Republicans to compare Obama's Stimulus Recovery to Reagan's in terms of jobs-created, and the picture isn't pretty for the President.

You do not have to demagogue the Ryan plan
Click to expand...

I agree, they do not. They should instead put forth their own alternative. But I think they will[/il] demagogue the Ryan Plan - the President made this clear with his "grannie and autistic kids" speech, and we have only seen demagoguery since.

and you and other republicans have done a nice job of demagogueing those who oppose the plan.
Click to expand...

where? I accuse them generally of not having an alternative, and being dishonest when they describe it as "killing" Medicare or attacking seniors. Why would Republicans want to attack Seniors? That's like arguing that since Democrats are bigger spenders, they must hate and want to attack our children (who will have to suffer the burden of this debt).

The Ryan plan is so easy to use as honest ammunition it is almost scarey, and will certainly be in play.
Click to expand...

The Ryan plan is indeed scary - but we are at the point where our fiscal reality is scary. Any realistic attempt to avoid a debt crises will involve solutions that seem scary. But that is not an excuse to accuse each other of seeking to pull seniors out of nursing homes and throw them into the snow.

"The party of no" will get a repeat.
Click to expand...

hard to accuse a party of simultaneously seeking to do too much to solve the country's problem and accuse them of doing nothing at all.

I would tend to think the republican will probably go more negative than Obama, since unseating a sitting president is hard to do, but there is no guarantee of that.
Click to expand...

I think that the Republicans will need to spend a good chunk of money defending and explaining the Ryan Plan. The Administrations' refusal to release an alternative may be bad policy, but it is good politics, as it leaves them nothing to explain and defend themselves.
 
Cp, if you where going for humorous irony, you succeeded grandly. Obama is not going negative yet, but you are not wasting time, and whining about the fact that Obama might go negative some day is pretty lame.

Do me a favor in the future though...if you do not want to have an honest, actual discussion on a topic, mention it in advance so I know better than to formulate a polite reply.
 
Tucker Case said:
Jackson against Adams was probably the worst. It'd be pretty hard to beat a campaign where one of the candidates wives was repeatedly referred to as a whore and an adulteress.
Click to expand...

that would be the Jackson campaign as well - which was absolutely brutal. The psychological trauma was actually so bad that Jackson's wife had a nervous breakdown and died.
 
Past incumbent presidents have been far more respectful of their opponents than BO has been since he was elected. The speech in El Paso, with the "next they'll want a moat, with alligators" line, is a good example. Mischaracterization and villification of his opponent, often preceded, ironically, by a call for civility, is his thing. This won't be the same guy we saw in 2008.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Jackson against Adams was probably the worst. It'd be pretty hard to beat a campaign where one of the candidates wives was repeatedly referred to as a whore and an adulteress.
Click to expand...

But back in those days the candidates didn't get directly involved in their campaigns. They had to remain above the fray. The partisans wrote and spoke on their behalf.
 
Redress said:
Cp, if you where going for humorous irony, you succeeded grandly. Obama is not going negative yet
Click to expand...

you must have missed the speech where he brought Republicans to the school by hinting he was going to offer a compromise and begin negotiations, only to go on live television and accuse them of abandoning seniors and attacking autistic kids.

but you are not wasting time, and whining about the fact that Obama might go negative some day is pretty lame.
Click to expand...

:shrug: i'm not whining - i'm thinking strategically and predicting. The man doesn't want to spend it talking up himself, and he doesn't need to spend it in a primary. the main area of focus for political campaigns that is left is "define the opposition".

Do me a favor in the future though...if you do not want to have an honest, actual discussion on a topic, mention it in advance so I know better than to formulate a polite reply.
Click to expand...

what? my reply to you was both honest and perfectly polite.
 
When was the last time Karl Rove was actually right? The guy predicted that Republicans would take the house and the senate in 2006, he's lost touch and his role as a campaign man is gone. I don't know how it will go but it definitely won't be as nice as the last campaign. I think Obama will win by a slim margin. It all depends on what happens in Ohio and Florida the next year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom