Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It looks like the former governor has a good chance to win the election if you go by the polls. With as much as he has changed positions on various issues I gotta admit this is surprising. I wonder whether the close election is a rebuke of President Obama or a true embracing of Romney?
In considering my answer, keep in mind my view, expressed in the other thread you've started here, that Obama's presidency has been an abysmal failure, across the board. That's a good point to keep in mind since it means that of course I'm going to lean toward the idea that a rejection of Obama figures heavily into the poll numbers.
In fact, though, I think the answer is that it's some of each. Keep in mind that Obama was leading in the polls up until the first debate between the two. The fact that even then Obama's lead was unusually narrow for an incumbent shows some negative feelings about Obama. Also I'm sure it shows some dim views about the general state of things, which the incumbent president usually gets blamed for. However, narrow lead or not, Obama still led, until the first debate was done.
I've heard several pundits offer the analysis that many people were less than thrilled with Obama but had at least a mild inclination to stick with the devil they knew when Romney was still viewed as largely an unknown. Once Romney showed during the debates, especially the first debate, that he seemed like a man whom many could see as president, it became easier to give Obama the boot.
I'm inclined to believe that this analysis has it about right. You start with a negative view of Obama (and how things have gone on his watch, which, again, the president tends to get blamed for), but then fear of the unknown made people hesitant to embrace Romney. Because Romney had been seen as an unknown, voters weren't entirely ready to jump ship from Obama and go for Romney solely because he was not Obama. They had to see something positive in Romney. Of course I have no idea how enthusiastically positive many people are feeling about Romney. My guess is that it's in the middle somewhere--better than lukewarm but not quite wildly excited, rather more solidly positive.
It does appear, though, that there was quite a bit of negative sentiment toward Obama, but people weren't ready to go with Romney without some degree of positive feeling toward him. So my answer to the original question is that it's most likely a combination of both.
(By the way, just as a suggestion, I wonder whether you'd find it interesting to post this question in the Great Debates forum--not Politics and Other Controversies if you want serious discussion and not a lot of sniping back and forth. After all, the question you pose in this thread goes beyond Massachusetts, so maybe Great Debates would be the place to get a good feel for how voters across the country see these candidates.)
It looks like the former governor has a good chance to win the election if you go by the polls. With as much as he has changed positions on various issues I gotta admit this is surprising. I wonder whether the close election is a rebuke of President Obama or a true embracing of Romney?
It's close because the media wants it close. For its own viewership, a photo-finish is more exciting than a runaway. There is very little "news" in the corporate media - just "entertainment". These decisions were made several years ago in the name of profitability, since entertainment "sells".
In considering my answer, keep in mind my view, expressed in the other thread you've started here, that Obama's presidency has been an abysmal failure, across the board. That's a good point to keep in mind since it means that of course I'm going to lean toward the idea that a rejection of Obama figures heavily into the poll numbers.
In fact, though, I think the answer is that it's some of each. Keep in mind that Obama was leading in the polls up until the first debate between the two. The fact that even then Obama's lead was unusually narrow for an incumbent shows some negative feelings about Obama. Also I'm sure it shows some dim views about the general state of things, which the incumbent president usually gets blamed for. However, narrow lead or not, Obama still led, until the first debate was done.
I've heard several pundits offer the analysis that many people were less than thrilled with Obama but had at least a mild inclination to stick with the devil they knew when Romney was still viewed as largely an unknown. Once Romney showed during the debates, especially the first debate, that he seemed like a man whom many could see as president, it became easier to give Obama the boot.
I'm inclined to believe that this analysis has it about right. You start with a negative view of Obama (and how things have gone on his watch, which, again, the president tends to get blamed for), but then fear of the unknown made people hesitant to embrace Romney. Because Romney had been seen as an unknown, voters weren't entirely ready to jump ship from Obama and go for Romney solely because he was not Obama. They had to see something positive in Romney. Of course I have no idea how enthusiastically positive many people are feeling about Romney. My guess is that it's in the middle somewhere--better than lukewarm but not quite wildly excited, rather more solidly positive.
It does appear, though, that there was quite a bit of negative sentiment toward Obama, but people weren't ready to go with Romney without some degree of positive feeling toward him. So my answer to the original question is that it's most likely a combination of both.
(By the way, just as a suggestion, I wonder whether you'd find it interesting to post this question in the Great Debates forum--not Politics and Other Controversies if you want serious discussion and not a lot of sniping back and forth. After all, the question you pose in this thread goes beyond Massachusetts, so maybe Great Debates would be the place to get a good feel for how voters across the country see these candidates.)
You are doing what other right-wingers on this forum and in the media are doing - ignoring Congress in your "assessments". So Congress suddenly has nothing to do with country's affairs. Right...
Obama has not performed to your liking because:
A. The president somehow "runs the country" like its CEO, and he is not "running the business" properly.
B. He has not capitulated enough to congressional republicans (who want to destroy him).
It looks like the former governor has a good chance to win the election if you go by the polls. With as much as he has changed positions on various issues I gotta admit this is surprising. I wonder whether the close election is a rebuke of President Obama or a true embracing of Romney?
Is "the close election is a rebuke of President Obama or a true embracing of Romney?"
The answer is Yes.
I am truly embracing Romney as a rebuke of President Obama.
It's close because the media wants it close. For its own viewership, a photo-finish is more exciting than a runaway. There is very little "news" in the corporate media - just "entertainment". These decisions were made several years ago in the name of profitability, since entertainment "sells".
You know, I was going to answer what I thought it was but after reading this when I was scrolling down to the "post reply" button, there really isn't much more to say. I agree with this.
I wonder whether the close election is a rebuke of President Obama or a true embracing of Romney?
It is neither. It is yet another illustration of the simplicity of the American people, who cannot genuinely understand that a) the government does not completely control the economy, and b) the president does not completely control the government. Just like almost all other presidential elections since the rise of mass media, this one is a referendum on the question "do you feel happy"; the point that it is technically phrased as a choice between two candidates for the highest magistracy is tangential, irrelevant and lost to the minds of most voters. This being so, it is both an indictment of the intellectual sophistication of the American people, who would clearly prefer to vote for a god-king every four years, and of the American constitution, which is too impractically a product of Enlightenment rationalism to be understood by ordinary people, and certainly not by the sort of simple-minded people, yearning for a pharaoh who will make the Nile flood, the crops grow, and all his human cattle contentedly fat, who make up the bulk of the American electorate.
It is neither. It is yet another illustration of the simplicity of the American people, who cannot genuinely understand that a) the government does not completely control the economy, and b) the president does not completely control the government. Just like almost all other presidential elections since the rise of mass media, this one is a referendum on the question "do you feel happy"; the point that it is technically phrased as a choice between two candidates for the highest magistracy is tangential, irrelevant and lost to the minds of most voters. This being so, it is both an indictment of the intellectual sophistication of the American people, who would clearly prefer to vote for a god-king every four years, and of the American constitution, which is too impractically a product of Enlightenment rationalism to be understood by ordinary people, and certainly not by the sort of simple-minded people, yearning for a pharaoh who will make the Nile flood, the crops grow, and all his human cattle contentedly fat, who make up the bulk of the American electorate.
You are doing what other right-wingers on this forum and in the media are doing - ignoring Congress in your "assessments". So Congress suddenly has nothing to do with country's affairs. Right...
Obama has not performed to your liking because:
A. The president somehow "runs the country" like its CEO, and he is not "running the business" properly.
B. He has not capitulated enough to congressional republicans (who want to destroy him).
Looks as if you need to read my post more closely.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
