If it’s broke, fix it

Via Hot Air:

Shrum: If Obama runs on his record, he’s toast

“If you let his just be a referendum, I don’t think the president can win because the truth of the matter is he may have created over 4.3 million jobs, he may have saved General Motors, but the country is still not back to where it needs to be,” Shrum said on the CBS’s Face the Nation. “This needs to be a choice election…And if [voters] have that choice I think the president is going to be just fine.”

Shrum made the comments in response to the poor job numbers that were released on Friday and the Obama administration’s attempts to contrast the White House’s efforts to restart the economy to Mitt Romney’s record on jobs as governor of Massachusetts and at a private equity firm Bain Capital.

Appearing on the same program, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, however, said it was “laughable” to claim the election is not a referendum on Obama’s record. “Are you kidding, of course that’s how you run elections,” she said. She added, “Really, it is his record that will win the election” for Romney.

There are two basic types of presidential elections – “choice” and “referendum.” There is some overlap between them, but the basic difference is whether one of the candidates is the incumbent.

2008 was a choice election. No matter who won we would have a new POTUS and a bunch of new faces in the administration. Ideally (but rarely) the choice is between good and better. This year is a referendum election.

There will always be a bunch of voters who can be counted on to loyally for for either the “R” of the “D” on the ballot. It’s those swingers out there that make the difference. If the swingers are happy, the incumbent always wins. (If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.) In good economic times, the swingers are generally happy. That’s where the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid” comes from.

If the swingers aren’t happy (and right now they aren’t) the race becomes a choice election. That’s when they compare both candidates and try to decide which one is worse.

So on November 6th, hold your nose and vote for the bad candidate, because the other one is worse.

About Myiq2xu

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in 2012 Elections, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to If it’s broke, fix it

  1. HELENK says:

    there is still a simmering anger from the 2008 election among many former democrats. Many that say hell will freeze over before i vote democratic again.
    at this time, in this country there is a great divide fostered by the backtrack bunch.

    between economic classes
    between races
    between young and old

    this is the first time I have ever seen a government try to divide rather than try to get people to work together.
    what backtrack and bunch took from Lincoln’s words
    “A country divided can not stand ”
    seems to be lets see how much we can divide the people and change the direction of the country from freedom to serfdom

    So if this is a referendum vote, for the good of the country backtrack and bunch must go

  2. myiq2xu says:

    From The Amateur:

    Shortly after Obama entered the White House, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner warned him, “Your legacy is going to be preventing the second Great Depression.” To which Obama boasted, “That’s not enough for me.”

    * * * * * * * *

    On the evening of Tuesday, June 30, 2009, Barack Obama invited nine like-minded liberal historians to have dinner with him in the Family Quarters of the White House. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, personally delivered the invitations to each historian with a word of caution: the dinner was to remain private and off the record….At the time of this dinner, Barack Obama was still enjoying a honeymoon period with the American people. According to the most recent Gallup Poll, 63 percent of Americans approved of the job he was doing. Not surprisingly, he was in an expansive mood as he tucked into his lamb chops and went around the table questioning each historian by name—Doris Kearns Goodwin, Michael Beschloss, Robert Caro, Robert Dallek, David Brinkley, H. W. Brands, David Kennedy, Kenneth Mack, and Gary Wills.

    * * * * * * * *

    Tonight, in front of nine prominent American historians, Obama wasn’t shy about flaunting his famous self-confidence. He intended to bring the Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table and create a permanent peace in the Middle East. He would open a constructive dialogue with America’s enemies in Iran and North Korea and, through his powers of persuasion, help them see the error of their ways. He’d pass legislation in Washington to revolutionize the country’s healthcare system and energy policy. And he’d inject the regulatory hand of the federal government into the American economy in an effort to create “a more just and equitable society.” When several of the historians brought up the difficulties that Lyndon Johnson had faced trying to wage a foreign war while implementing an ambitious domestic agenda, Obama grew testy. He knew better. He could prevail by the force of his personality. He could solve the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, put millions of people back to work, redistribute wealth, withdraw from Iraq, and reconcile the United States to a less dominant role in the world.

    It was, by any measure, a breathtaking display of narcissistic grandiosity from a man whose entire political curriculum vitae consisted of seven undistinguished years in the Illinois Senate, two mostly absent years in the United States Senate, and five months and ten days in the White House. Unintentionally, Obama revealed the characteristics that made him totally unsuited for the presidency and that would doom him to failure: his extreme haughtiness and excessive pride; his ideological bent as a far-left corporatist; and his astounding amateurism.


    • HELENK says:

      interesting book isn’t it?

    • cj says:

      Doris Kearns Goodwin, Michael Beschloss, Robert Caro, Robert Dallek, David Brinkley, H. W. Brands, David Kennedy, Kenneth Mack, and Gary Wills.

      WTH’s wrong with them? They, of all people, know how dangerous this kind of delusional narcissism is in a POTUS, and yet not a peep out of any of them for 3 years? Pathetic suck-ups.

    • DandyTiger says:

      Stunning. His narcissism knows no bounds. There is no one around him to tell him the truth. I think he’s lived most of his life in this delusional bubble of self aggrandizement. He really believes this crap. Holy fuck.

    • r u reddy says:

      “Far left corporatist”? Really? I get the “corporatist” part, but “far left”? Or even “any left at all”?

      • threewickets says:

        Ideologic conservatives seem to believe that big corporations (those multinational behemoths who haven’t been hiring in the US lately) are part of the crony-bailout neo-liberal establishment. I personally think Obama on economics is right of Hillary, left of the Tea Party, and actually not that far from Romney. Certainly not a socialist by any stretch…but it is the season of partisan rhetoric. I also think if Romney is elected, he will strike a bigger grand bargain on deficit spending and tax cuts than Obama would be capable of with this Congress. In other words, Romney’s run rate on deficits would be bigger, just as they were during Bush. And given the deep ongoing weakness in the private sector alongside the lowest treasury yields (borrowing costs) that we’ve seen in 220 years, such a grand bargain would be the obvious play for Romney, and he’s pretty much hinted as much. But that won’t necessarily be his outward campaigning rhetoric thru November. No matter. Obama is looking more like burnt toast everyday.

  3. yttik says:

    In 2008 Obama and his supporters took away my choice. In 2012, I’m taking it back.

    “..hold your nose and vote for the bad candidate, because the other one is worse…”

    I really prefer these kind of elections. It’s more in line with our American tradition of being irreverent towards our leaders. Nothing scares me more then having the perfect candidate, anointed by God or something.

    If you just cast a jaded eye towards all elected officials, you’re always pleasantly surprised when they actually accomplish something good.

  4. r u reddy says:

    Even if it is a choice election, some people may consider Obama to be too dangerous a choice. People who think Obama really is “the more effective evil” and who fear he wants to be the Democrat who pulls a “Nixon goes to China” on SoSec/M-care may well vote for Romney in order to deny the Senate Democrats that cover for voting to destroy SoSec/M-care. (Of course, to apply that theory fairly would involve voting or re-voting for Senate Democrats so as to see what they do with their majority or filibusting minority as the case may be).

Comments are closed.