PLANK OCTOBER 12, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

What an inversion last night’s vice presidential debate represented. When Mitt Romney selected Paul Ryan in August, there was a lot of talk about conservatives hoping the man at the top of the ticket would take inspiration and direction from his number two; instead, Ryan has taken a surprisingly low profile in recent weeks, and instead we had the oft-overlooked Joe Biden who was showing his boss the way last night, showing how to bring the fight to the Republicans. Amusingly, conservatives knocked back by Biden’s aggressiveness were quick to note that Obama would be making a big mistake next week if he tried to mimic Biden’s pugnacity. This, of course, is self-evident and beside the point: Obama would never be able to duplicate Uncle Joe, nor would it be in his interest to do so. But there are some specific pointers he could take from him:
1. Talk tax-cut specifics, not tax-cut size. Obama got bogged down in a back and forth with Romney about the size of the tax cuts Romney is proposing—Obama calls it a $5 trillion tax cut, an estimate of the revenue that’ll be lost by cutting rates 20 percent across the board as well as cutting corporate taxes and eliminating the estate tax, as Romney proposes; Romney retorts that it’s not, because that revenue will be made up by (totally unspecified) deduction and loophole closures. Biden fared much better by getting specific about who would be hit and who would be helped by the Romney proposal: he put Ryan on the spot about whether the Romney plan would hit the mortgage-interest deduction for the middle class, and he reminded viewers about the carried-interest loophole—“hedge fund loophole”—that allows Romney to pay such a low tax rate, and that Romney would leave untouched.
2. Link your middle-class roots to the 47 percent. Last week’s debate left many wondering why Obama had not invoked Romney’s 47 percent riff against him. It’s quite possible that the Obama campaign had decided to leave this to Biden, given how well situated he, as a son of Scranton, was to play this card against the Ayn Rand acolyte, Ryan. But Bidens deft use of the 47 percent showed what a strong card is is, and how easy it would’ve been for Obama to slip it in. Here’s Biden:
We knew we had to act for the middle class. We immediately went out and rescued General Motors. We went ahead and made sure that we cut taxes for the middle class. And in addition to that, when that — when that occurred, what did Romney do? Romney said, “No, let Detroit go bankrupt.” We moved in and helped people refinance their homes. Governor Romney said, “No, let foreclosures hit the bottom.”
But it shouldn’t be surprising for a guy who says 47 percent of the American people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives. My friend recently in a speech in Washington said “30 percent of the American people are takers.” These people are my mom and dad — the people I grew up with, my neighbors. They pay more effective tax than Governor Romney pays in his federal income tax. They are elderly people who in fact are living off of Social Security. They are veterans and people fighting in Afghanistan right now who are, quote, “not paying any tax.”
I’ve had it up to here with this notion that 47 percent — it’s about time they take some responsibility here. And instead of signing pledges to Grover Norquist not to ask the wealthiest among us to contribute to bring back the middle class, they should be signing a pledge saying to the middle class we’re going to level the playing field; we’re going to give you a fair shot again; we are going to not repeat the mistakes we made in the past by having a different set of rules for Wall Street and Main Street, making sure that we continue to hemorrhage these tax cuts for the super wealthy.
Now, Obama’s not going to get as entertainingly carried away on such a riff as Biden did. But he can make the key point—connecting Romney’s dismissal of the 47 percent to his own family. In the first debate, he did mention his grandmother, the retired bank employee relying on Medicare and Social Security. Why not invoke her as part of the 47 percent—or, for that matter, invoke his single mother, relying on food stamps before she climbed to success as an anthropologist? Placed in this sort of personal context, the riff is even harder for Romney to shrug off.
Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.
3. Hit Social Security privatization. One of the most inexplicable moments of last week's debate was Obama’s declaration that he and Romney were not that far apart on Social Security. True, Romney’s platform does not propose anything for Social Security that approaches the radical restructuring that he offers for Medicare. But his running mate was a leading proponent of Social Security privatization just a few years ago, and the idea retains great currency within Romney’s party. It’s political malpractice not to point this out. Here's how Biden did it: “And with regard to Social Security, we will not—we will not privatize it. If we had listened to Romney, Governor Romney, and the congressman during the Bush years, imagine where all those seniors would be now if their money had been in the market.” Again, that's pretty basic.
4. Capitalize on war-weariness. One of Obama’s stronger points in the debate was going after Romney for proposing increases in military spending beyond what the Pentagon has even asked for. But Biden did an even better job on this front of expanding this critique to explicitly tap into America's war-weariness. Obama needs to bluntly remind voters that he has extricated the country from one war and is in the process of doing so with another. Here's how Biden did it:
On Iraq, the president said he would end the war. Governor Romney said that was a tragic mistake, we should have left 30,000 — he ended it. Governor Romney said that was a tragic mistake, we should have left 30,000 troops there. With regard to Afghanistan, he said he will end the war in 2014. Governor Romney said we should not set a date, number one. And number two, with regard to 2014, it depends....
And on Iran:
When Governor Romney’s asked about it, he said, “We gotta keep these sanctions.” When he said, “Well, you’re talking about doing more,” what are you — you’re going to go to war? Is that what you want to do?...So all this bluster I keep hearing, all this loose talk, what are they talking about? Are you talking about, to be more credible — what more can the president do, stand before the United Nations, tell the whole world, directly communicate to the ayatollah, we will not let them acquire a nuclear weapon, period, unless he’s talking about going to war.
5. Make hypocrisy a question of character. One of Obama’s problems last week was that he was suddenly faced with the dilemma his campaign had expected this year but had not yet had to face: how to deal with Etch-a-Sketch Romney. Simply painting Romney as a flip-flopper doesn’t suffice, because that might just assure some swing voters that Romney will revert from his “severely conservative” mode to his Massachusetts moderate mode once he becomes president. Again, Biden showed the way last night, even though he had less of a target in the more consistently conservative Ryan. He hit Ryan for having attacked the stimulus program at the same time as he was seeking money from it for his own district. The message was plain: Ryan and other Republicans were hypocrites. It was one of Ryan's weakest points of the night:
BIDEN: And I love my friend here. I — I’m not allowed to show letters but go on our website, he sent me two letters saying, “By the way, can you send me some stimulus money for companies here in the state of Wisconsin?” We sent millions of dollars. You know…
(CROSSTALK)
RADDATZ: You did ask for stimulus money, correct?
BIDEN: Sure he did. By the way…
RYAN: On two occasions we — we — we advocated for constituents who were applying for grants. That’s what we do. We do that for all constituents who are…
(CROSSTALK) BIDEN: I love that. I love that. This was such a bad program and he writes me a letter saying — writes the Department of Energy a letter saying, “The reason we need this stimulus, it will create growth and jobs.” His words. And now he’s sitting here looking at me.
Oof. Ryan looked like he’d had the wind knocked out of him. It should be even easier to do the same with Romney. Not to cast him simply as a weathervane, but as someone who will do and say whatever it takes to win the presidency—as, literally, grasping. Yes, I said it: literally!
Addendum, 1:30: It goes without saying that along with these specific issue-based lessons, there are stylistic pointers Obama can take as well. Such as: look like you’re having fun.
Follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
32 comments
Why is it anyone the campaign puts out on the stump makes a better case for 4 more years of Obama is anyone BUT Obama?
- tmmats
October 12, 2012 at 2:22pm
1. Smiling at lies, then explaining why you're smiling, is MUCH more effective than looking "concerned". And as Al Gore demonstrated, taking heavy sighs is very bad. 2. Do Not Say 5 Trillion. Say 20% Tax Cut. Romney/Ryan are proposing a 20% tax cut. That's for sure. All the rest depends on assumptions. Make them defend the 20% tax cut. Denying a 5 Trillion impact is easy. Defending a 20% tax cut reveals the voodoo economics. 3. Once the other guy has made three lies in a row, go ahead and interrupt with "That's Not True". He's not being civil in lying to the American Public, why should YOU be civil with him and let him do it?
- AllanL5
October 12, 2012 at 2:29pm
4. Once you've interrupted with your three words, go ahead and let him finish. Then explain in YOUR time why you interrupted. You don't want this to become a shouting match, after all.
- AllanL5
October 12, 2012 at 2:30pm
Obama should not just "look like he is having fun" in the next two debates. He should hide his personal disdain for Romney. Reminds everyone of all the reports that Obama disdains schmoozing with anyone outside his personal circle. The #1 takeaway from both debates is that Obama/Biden deeply dislike, or disrespect, Romney and Ryan. Which signals zero bi-partisanship and complete gridlock if Obama wins a second term. Do not underestimate that most Americans really want this gridlock to end. NO ONE can keep track of all the policy details in these debates. It is the perception of Presidential temperament that is coming from these debates, and, to my surprise, Romney and Ryan are coming across as genuinely civil.
- K2K
October 12, 2012 at 2:36pm
Here is my advice. Defend the ACA for Sam's sake (I hate Pete because that's why Romney's running). Romney has said he will repeal the ACA. Make the ACA look successful and make it look strange that Romney is repealing it. Repeal is Romney's day one activity. It's not enough to point out that Romney advised for a mandate. Romney says it is causing rates to go up and people to drop their insurance. Hang the wonderful ACA around Romney's neck. Besides, if it is Obama's signature piece of legislation, you think he would sing its praises (finally).
- Nusholtz
October 12, 2012 at 3:10pm
Yes, look like you're having fun. And look like you enjoy being there. Don't look like defending your policies is an unpleasant duty. But also, Obama does not need to say that Romney is a flip-flopper; he just needs to mention Romney's most conservative version of himself, and when Romney flips in front of 60 million viewers, point it out. If Romney pulls a "there you go again" or some such, double down: "No, governor, there *you* go again, changing your position depending on who's watching." Romney during the first debate: I have five sons, so I know what it's like to be told the same thing over and over again in the hopes that I'll believe it, but repeating it doesn't make it true. Imagined Obama response: "It's nice that you have a large family, governor, but I'm not your son. I'm the President of the United States, and when I say your tax plan costs five trillion dollars that you can't possibly make up for with closing deductions and loopholes, you can take that to the bank, because it *is* true, and I'll repeat as often as I like for anyone who'll listen." Romney during first debate: I worked with Democrats during my term as governor, I'll be bipartisan. Imagined Obama response: "That's because they were Democrats, governor, not Republicans. You have to actually believe in bipartisanship, which the Republicans in Congress clearly do not." And so on. Axelrod, you listenin'?
- timteeter
October 12, 2012 at 3:12pm
"Which signals zero bi-partisanship and complete gridlock if Obama wins a second term." GOOD. Time to give the bastards in the GOP some of their own medicine, the GOP refuses to be "bi-partisan" unless it means capitulate to exactly what they want. The GOP has caused that gridlock with Ryan being a big part of the problem. The president tries to negotiate, the prick pubes keep moving the goal posts. Time to play their game and make sure to get rid of the lot of them in 2014, especially the likes of Lyin' Ryan.
- tmmats
October 12, 2012 at 3:13pm
Quote Romney, and when he denies it, say "I'll take the consistent Romney of the last ten months over the new Romney of the last three weeks."
- timteeter
October 12, 2012 at 3:15pm
"Blog posts are not studies, governor."
- timteeter
October 12, 2012 at 3:18pm
I was surprised that Ryan used that "six independent studies" line again, still not mentioning one by name, and surprised too that Biden didn't go in hard at that moment. It's so clearly clutching at anonymous straws.
- ironyroad
October 12, 2012 at 3:32pm
Oh, and one other piece of advice. Obama should say: "My rule for whether we should have 20% tax cuts is whether we would want to borrow from China to finance them." And then the President should act as if he has said something really meaningful.
- Nusholtz
October 12, 2012 at 3:50pm
The item about impugning character is a great observation, and something that Obama should really take to heart in the next debate, because if there is one thing that drives Mitt Romney up the wall and off the reservation it's impugning his character. Remember during the Denver debate, when towards the end of the debate Obama brought up Romney's comment about how college students should just borrow money from their parents to pay for education, directly implying that Romney was disconnected from middle-class reality and perhaps indirectly implying that this was a character flaw. That was the one time that Romney lost his composure, and jumped back to a completely irrelevant point about how bad Obama's "green jobs" initiative was and how it wasted $90 million dollars that could have been spent on education. Obama really needs to draw Romney out like that a lot more -- by mentioning not just the 47% comments, but also Romney's general cluelessness about those less fortunate than him, like people who die because they lack access to health care other than a final ER visit or those who actually need Medicaid to cover their nursing home care or Social Security for their retirement savings. And use Romney's hypocricy against him too, bringing up the recent flip-flopping about abortion, his health plan and other major items. Make those comments a character issue, the way Obama made Romney's dense comment about borrowing money from parents a character issue -- in an understated way, but one that pricks Romney's thin skin and makes him jump around and spit fire. And doing it in a town-hall format, surrounded by average people, would be all the better, so that Americans can see Romney being a jerk in front of the disgusted faces of the voters. Can Obama pull that kind of thing off? He did it once on an otherwise terrible night in Denver, and probably didn't even realize how well it came off. Here's hoping he takes that and runs with it a lot more.
- wildboy
October 12, 2012 at 3:53pm
"NO ONE can keep track of all the policy details in these debates. It is the perception of Presidential temperament that is coming from these debates, and, to my surprise, Romney and Ryan are coming across as genuinely civil." K2K, Bush 43 came across in his first debates as a "nice guy." Then he started a multi-trillion-dollar war in Iraq that did nothing for Americans, except get a bunch of them killed and maimed. Then he deregulated everything he could get his hands on and eventually crashed our economy. Then he went to New Orleans during Katrina and told us what a good time he had partying there when he was younger. He also told a roomful of rich people that he liked to think of them as the haves and the have-mores. And you think someone who is "genuinely civil" in a debate is going to be a swell guy as president? You got disillusioned with Obama, but at least he's consistent. Romney would invade Iran and the same day at at press conference would say, "Did we invade Iran? I don't know who gave the order for that. It wasn't me. I'll have to talk to the Joint Chiefs of Staff about that and find out what the deal is. Next question."
- magboy47.
October 12, 2012 at 4:33pm
As far as bipartisanship is concerned, how many worthless pieces of legislation did the House pass without a chance of getting it enacted? How many separate times did they vote to repeal the ACA?
- poldpf
October 12, 2012 at 7:45pm
1. Governor, you're very specific about your tax cuts, but you refuse to provide any details about closing the loopholes. Why is is ok to be specific -- or "my way or the highway" -- about how you would CUT taxes, but not about how you would close loopholes? 2. Republicans are very good at cutting taxes, but even better at exploding the deficit, because they can't seem to cut spending or close loopholes. How would your administration be different? (Remember, you've promised to increase spending on defense and not to cut any spending on education.) 3. President Bush also claimed that his tax cuts wouldn't increase the deficit, yet they did, even when the economy was not in recession. Why should we believe you? 4. In the eight years before I became president, the Republicans repeatedly cut taxes for the wealthiest, and it didn't create jobs at all. Why do you think it would work this time? 5. The wealthiest Americans have enjoyed tax cuts under my administration, and corporate profits and the stock market are doing extremely well. So why aren't the so-called job creators creating more jobs? 6. If you went to war on Iran, would you put the cost of doing so on a credit card, like the prior Rebublican president and Congress did? 7. What would you say to farmers in the midwest if the Keystone Pipeline were fast-tracked without adequate review to ensure its safety, and an oil spill polluted the groundwater that millions depend on for their livelihood?
- kkseattle
October 12, 2012 at 8:20pm
Seriously, K2K? Did you not get the memo? Has the last two years of Republican rule of the House demonstrated nothing? Their holding the American Economy hostage to their destructive demands not once but THREE TIMES clearly demonstrates, they only talk "bipartisanship" when it means "they get their way". They're not interested in bipartisanship, that's simply a verbal tick they use to get Democrats to fold. They want to blaim Obama for insufficient leadership and compromise, when the only thing they really want is Obama to resign. Obama compromised with them a lot, and they took those compromises as their due and CONTINUE to deny he compromised. That dog simply won't hunt, and Obama would be an idiot to fall for it, yet again.
- AllanL5
October 12, 2012 at 8:31pm
6. Don't wimp out completely.
- NateG
October 12, 2012 at 9:35pm
Seriously AllanL5, when the Dems had 100% control 2009-2010, they wasted their political capital on what they promised would be health care reform, and I recall one of those Obama channelling Cheney moments: WE WON. Now most Americans are fed up with Congress, Obama does not even lead what remains of the Democratic Party (not a single fiscal conservative remains - the faction that gave Pelosi and Reid their majorities now thrown out of the Dem Party), and you think anyone believes bi-partisanship has a future in an Obama 2nd term? As much as I detest anyone from private equity, even more disdain for anyone who ever worked for Bain Consulting, I do now have fun imagining how all those Federal employees are going to feel after Romney sends McKinsey in to do what McKinsey did to so many of us in the 90's: make us disappear. I have no intention of believing anyone can dig the USA out of the hole we are in. But, Obama is certainly not the answer. He should have allowed 100% of those stupid Bush43 tax cuts expire as planned instead of this class warfare that goes around in circles as no one can actually ever define the middle class. Tens of millions of voters started tuning in last week, and all they saw was an Obama who was MIA, and a red faced joker named Biden who interrupted a steady, polite Ryan more than 80 times. Perception of temperament helped Obama in 2008. Why does anyone think same perception does not count with anyone else?
- K2K
October 13, 2012 at 1:01pm
"But, Obama is certainly not the answer. He should have allowed 100% of those stupid Bush43 tax cuts expire as planned instead of this class warfare that goes around in circles as no one can actually ever define the middle class." K2K, I agree that the tax options were not handled well in 2010 but I blame the Congressional Dems as much as the White House as it would have been perfectly within the then majority's power to separate off middle class tax cuts, get the minority GOP on board, and then leave them swinging in the wind if they wanted to defend keeping taxes low for the rich. I think there was some deeper problem at work, such as the received and unmoveable wisdom that the Dems cannot "win on taxes" no matter what they do -- and that leads to paralysis. But at the moment we're faced with a Republican party that continues to spread complete and utter lies about taxation under Obama and a media that -- for the most part -- won't call them on it.
- ironyroad
October 13, 2012 at 3:39pm
kkseattle, Finally, a seattle commenter on this site with a talent for politics and economics [see above kkseattle comment]. The other seattle here has a high IQ, I'm sure, but only in certain areas. To be good at analyzing politics and economics, you first have to have a talent for it (high-IQ people don't have a high IQ for everything), and then you have to apply yourself to study and research over a period of time. The other seattle, otherwise known as Hal the Computer, obviously falls short of both those requirements. Thanks, kkseattle.
- magboy47.
October 13, 2012 at 5:13pm
I'm afraid drof will get his wish. It appears Obama's presidency is history. I was doubtful until I read Joe Klein's column in this week's Time magazine. Klein thinks the GOP is a collection of extremist buffoons, but in his column, entitled Get Down Off the Mountaintop, he lays Obama's personality problem bare. The president thinks the advantages of his policies are self-evident and that he shouldn't have to sell them. He hates debates, press conferences, and anything that is transparently political. Debates are the essence of the latter. I would add that Obama assumes that the average voter is much more intelligent and open-minded that he or she actually is. It is self-evident to anybody but a fool that Obamacare is already helping Americans. But there are many Republican seniors and non-seniors who claim that Obamacare is the work of the devil, while they're cashing donut-hole rebate checks and insurance-company rebate checks that were only made possible because of Obamacare. The average Republican voter is about as intelligent and open-minded as an NRA leader. Nothing is self-evident to a fool like that, except that Satan is everywhere. We are living in a New Age of Religion, where extreme religious beliefs have again become married to politics. The GOP and the people who vote Republican, even against their own self interests, is now a religious organization, a church. All of their beliefs, including economic ones, are faith-based. Obama has faith problems, too. He believes people are more intelligent and open-minded than they are. Witness his courting of House Republicans for almost 3 years. It's not in his personality to drive home the benefits of his policies, like Biden did in his debate. Congratulations, drof. You win. But the American public is just rebellious enough to give the Dems control of both Houses in this election, while putting Weaselly Willard in the Oval Office. It'll be fun to see Romney try to extend the Bush tax cuts and repeal Obamacare. BIG fun!
- magboy47.
October 13, 2012 at 5:54pm
cheer up magboy. seems there are 32 scenarios for the Electoral College to get to 269-269 http://www.270towin.com/ and it will be the new House that then votes for the President. two debates, Halloween, the election. Perfect. because, no matter who wins, everyone else will blame the Jews...
- K2K
October 13, 2012 at 9:54pm
I wouldn't give up on Obama, yet. The Republicans and their cronies in the media have resorting to personal attacks which means that they can't talk about the issues. In one article Britt Hume had this as a headline: "Brit Hume: Biden looked like ‘cranky old man, to some extent, debating a polite young man’" http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/11/brit-hume-biden-looked-like-a-cranky-old-man-to-some-extent-debating-a-polite-young-man/#ixzz29EoH8tTc This is laughable. Ryan looked like the naive teenager he is. As for Obama himself I'll wait till next Tuesday's debate before I write him off. Joe Klein has been wrong before, very wrong.
- arnon1
October 13, 2012 at 10:52pm
Klein didn't write Obama off. He said if Obama can lay out some details of his plans for the next 4 years (which Romney will never do), he's in the race. I haven't given up on Obama either. As long as he stays the course, he has a chance. Klein brought up another good point, though. He said that Obama, because of his presidential duties, didn't have a lot of time to practice before the debate. Plus, his team thought Romney was a pushover. Bet they don't make that mistake again. Someone who's willing to tell a lie to suit any listener is not a pushover. I won't be depressed if Romney wins. I'll fear for America, though. I didn't fear for America while Bush was president, because I thought I'd never witness Wall Street crashing in my lifetime. I won't make that mistake again.
- magboy47.
October 14, 2012 at 2:29am
"because, no matter who wins, everyone else will blame the Jews..." Right O, K2K. I'm waiting for the time after Obama's presidency (whether soon or in 4 years) when the proverbial will hit the fan and his incompetence will no longer be concealed, or excused, or made out to be successes of profound wisdom, by the PC media and his many lay acolytes on message boards such as this and other venues. Who will be blamed for the disaster? Obama? Why, that would be racist. "Them Jews" who steered his campaigns, praised him when he should have been severely criticized, fawned on him when his feet should have been held to the fire, will be blamed by all for everything.
- Noga
October 14, 2012 at 11:54am
"Why, that would be racist. "Them Jews" who steered his campaigns, praised him when he should have been severely criticized, fawned on him when his feet should have been held to the fire, will be blamed by all for everything." you are really expressing a wish more than a prediction, Noga.
- arnon1
October 14, 2012 at 1:57pm
hello noga! Yes, my new mantra is "because, no matter who wins, everyone else will blame the Jews...". However, I had not thought about Obama's campaign team, but the obsession with how the Jews will vote, as if we are the sole micro-targeted voting bloc that matters in the outcome. Caroline Glick's Friday column really annoyed me, and so did Spengler's PJM post, both nagging American Jews as if we are all lunatic liberals. Of course, if the Jewish vote means that much, then New York should be in play where there may be as many 1.5 million Jewish voters, and 5.4 million Catholic voters. TNR.com has taken the weekend off, and I await SOMETHING about Malala Yousafzai from what has become a partisan political blog. My subscription expires in November, and I think, despite the legacy of some great commenters here, I will have to cancel. Obamanomics has NOT worked for me. Wish you could adopt me so I could move to Canada :) After all, America is already broken when the President and Vice President of the USA solely campaign with "liar, liar" attacks, whilst being liar liars themselves.
- K2K
October 14, 2012 at 2:11pm
"...but the obsession with how the Jews will vote,..." The only people obsessed with the "Jewish vote" are some Jewish voters on the right and the left. I couldn't care less how some ethnic groups vote. No single group will make that much of a difference, no matter what some pundits say. I hope Obama wins, though.
- arnon1
October 14, 2012 at 2:40pm
Hi K2K. I don't read Caroline Glick's columns and I even stopped watching Latma satires because they are no longer funny, only political in one direction. That's boring and not at all creative. I find it difficult to read Haaretz because they have gone so much to the Left. And I agree with you about American Jews. They must be left in peace to vote as they please without being bullied from either side, for voting Democrat or for not voting Democrat.
- Noga
October 14, 2012 at 3:00pm
Noga's two posts are inconsistent. First she says: "Right O, K2K. I'm waiting for the time after Obama's presidency (whether soon or in 4 years) when the proverbial will hit the fan and his incompetence will no longer be concealed, or excused, or made out to be successes of profound wisdom, by the PC media and his many lay acolytes on message boards such as this and other venues." Is it credible that some with such contempt for Obama would not care if he is re-elected or not. Why then does she say: "And I agree with you about American Jews. They must be left in peace to vote as they please without being bullied from either side, for voting Democrat or for not voting Democrat." And btw, I hope someone does adopt K2K and take her to some other country. She seems so miserable here.
- arnon1
October 14, 2012 at 6:07pm
Micro-targeting is official campaign policy: "...CHARLOTTE, N.C. (JTA) -- Jewish swing voters could make or break President Obama’s bid for reelection. At least that’s the case that Democratic Party leaders made in a training session that packed one of the larger halls at the convention center here on Monday, the day before the formal start of the Democratic National Convention. ... Ira Forman, the veteran Jewish Democrat who has been running Obama’s Jewish outreach campaign, listed seven states -- Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and Michigan -- where a 10 percent swing among Jewish voters could change the election. A drop in support for Obama from the approximate 75 percent of the Jewish vote that he received in 2008 to 65 percent this year would cost him 83,500 votes in Florida, 41,500 in Pennsylvania and 19,000 in Ohio, according to Forman. The figures were based on educated guesses about eligibility and voter turnout. ..." http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/09/04/3105896/at-democratic-convention-a-focus-on-jewish-swing-voters-as-key-to-election So, in a close election, the Jews will be blamed no matter who wins. When I did mapping for the NY Dems in 2003, I was surprised to see they have voting data linked to street address. and, in 2008, Jews in some Brooklyn neighborhoods were threatened. see you again noga.
- K2K
October 14, 2012 at 6:10pm
"So, in a close election, the Jews will be blamed no matter who wins." Blamed? Why not praised by the winning side? "When I did mapping for the NY Dems in 2003, I was surprised to see they have voting data linked to street address. and, in 2008, Jews in some Brooklyn neighborhoods were threatened." Here comes the personal anecdote. Threatened by whom?
- arnon1
October 14, 2012 at 6:38pm