Are we in agreement that for the last 3+ year the GOP/tea party "strategy" or lack there of has been to simply preach to the choir and not try to get dems and independents to bail?
Are we in agreement that for the last 3+ year the GOP/tea party "strategy" or lack there of has been to simply preach to the choir and not try to get dems and independents to bail?
It seems that either you have succumb to "sara'shoopla" with his multiple attempts desperately urging you to stop your straight forward, civil dialog ...
OR
I got you stumped as there is no logical rebuttal to my basic point about how the GOP/tea party has fumbled the opportunity to get dems and independents to bail...
If you are choosing to back down... It has been fun and thank you again for giving me the benefit of the doubt and not listening to sara's incessant yapping
It seems that either you have succumb to "sara'shoopla" with his multiple attempts desperately urging you to stop your straight forward, civil dialog ...
OR
I got you stumped as there is no logical rebuttal to my basic point about how the GOP/tea party has fumbled the opportunity to get dems and independents to bail...
If you are choosing to back down... It has been fun and thank you again for giving me the benefit of the doubt and not listening to sara's incessant yapping
Are we in agreement that for the last 3+ year the GOP/tea party "strategy" or lack there of has been to simply preach to the choir and not try to get dems and independents to bail?
You could say that.
Now, as someone supporting the Republican candidate, if they don't go after Conservative Democrats and Independents in upcoming months then I will be disappointed. And how would I go after those two voting bases? Tell the truth.
Attack him on his record (See Post #175). Throw in Solyndra and Fast and Furious and that's a start. Then, the Rep. candidate has to have an alternative or explain why Obama's last three years have been bad. Let's face it. Most people don't follow politics as much as us regulars in the Politics Forum do. It does no good to attack someone or criticize his policies if you don't offer a better alternative.
Are we in agreement that for the last 3+ year the GOP/tea party "strategy" or lack there of has been to simply preach to the choir and not try to get dems and independents to bail?
You could say that.
Now, as someone supporting the Republican candidate, if they don't go after Conservative Democrats and Independents in upcoming months then I will be disappointed. And how would I go after those two voting bases? Tell the truth.
Attack him on his record (See Post #175). Throw in Solyndra and Fast and Furious and that's a start. Then, the Rep. candidate has to have an alternative or explain why Obama's last three years have been bad. Let's face it. Most people don't follow politics as much as us regulars in the Politics Forum do. It does no good to attack someone or criticize his policies if you don't offer a better alternative.
Now, as someone supporting the Republican candidate, if they don't go after Conservative Democrats and Independents in upcoming months then I will be disappointed. And how would I go after those two voting bases? Tell the truth.
Attack him on his record (See Post #175). Throw in Solyndra and Fast and Furious and that's a start. Then, the Rep. candidate has to have an alternative or explain why Obama's last three years have been bad. Let's face it. Most people don't follow politics as much as us regulars in the Politics Forum do. It does no good to attack someone or criticize his policies if you don't offer a better alternative.
Sorry I did not see your response...
I think it is simple math...
No one who voted for mccain/palin will be voting for Obama...
Obama overwhelmingly wont the last election, so they only way that can win is to offer a candidate/solution/direction... So I think we are in agreement on that point...
"Obama whining" is what GOP/teaparty has done for the last 3+ years and I think by not sticking to the record and instead trying to fabricate conspiracy theories, the basic voice of the GOP./teaparty has not been about facts and I think it will hurt their overall credibility when bringing up valid points...
Now, as someone supporting the Republican candidate, if they don't go after Conservative Democrats and Independents in upcoming months then I will be disappointed. And how would I go after those two voting bases? Tell the truth.
Attack him on his record (See Post #175). Throw in Solyndra and Fast and Furious and that's a start. Then, the Rep. candidate has to have an alternative or explain why Obama's last three years have been bad. Let's face it. Most people don't follow politics as much as us regulars in the Politics Forum do. It does no good to attack someone or criticize his policies if you don't offer a better alternative.
Sorry I did not see your response...
I think it is simple math...
No one who voted for mccain/palin will be voting for Obama...
Obama overwhelmingly wont the last election, so they only way that can win is to offer a candidate/solution/direction... So I think we are in agreement on that point...
"Obama whining" is what GOP/teaparty has done for the last 3+ years and I think by not sticking to the record and instead trying to fabricate conspiracy theories, the basic voice of the GOP./teaparty has not been about facts and I think it will hurt their overall credibility when bringing up valid points...
The question was worded "what is your opinion on the GOP/teaparty misplaying their strategy..."
You asked me as if I was going to give an answer on the misplayed strategy.
The premise in your question I don't agree with is I don't think there was a misplayed strategy unless you can tell me what that strategy was.
Also do you agree now in the premise that based on the last 3+ years (which is all we can really talk about) that the GOP/teaparty misplayed their strategy by either not having one or simply preaching to mccain/palin voters?
The question was worded "what is your opinion on the GOP/teaparty misplaying their strategy..."
You asked me as if I was going to give an answer on the misplayed strategy.
The premise in your question I don't agree with is I don't think there was a misplayed strategy unless you can tell me what that strategy was.
Also do you agree now in the premise that based on the last 3+ years (which is all we can really talk about) that the GOP/teaparty misplayed their strategy by either not having one or simply preaching to mccain/palin voters?
Also do you agree now in the premise that based on the last 3+ years (which is all we can really talk about) that the GOP/teaparty misplayed their strategy by either not having one or simply preaching to mccain/palin voters?
Up to now that is correct. At least for the Presidential election.
Remember during the mid-terms Republicans did well. Once the candidate is determined you will see all resources go after Obama's last three years. It will be then that they will start going heavily after Independents and Conservative Democrats.
Also do you agree now in the premise that based on the last 3+ years (which is all we can really talk about) that the GOP/teaparty misplayed their strategy by either not having one or simply preaching to mccain/palin voters?
Up to now that is correct. At least for the Presidential election.
Remember during the mid-terms Republicans did well. Once the candidate is determined you will see all resources go after Obama's last three years. It will be then that they will start going heavily after Independents and Conservative Democrats.
I do remember that the goal in 2010 was the teaparty take over of the legislative branch...
I think the "go after Obama" strategy as you call it is exactly the same fumble that the GOP/teaparty have been doing for the last 3+ years and now you are suggesting that they increase that?
I think that going after independents and conservatives is about offering some thing better, not desperate mud slinging which is only a continuation of the strategy or lack there of...
Talking simply about record seems better... pointing out pros and cons rather then slander, fabrication and Spin... which is that preaching to the choir I have been talking about to massage the bruise ego of the conservative base...
This is why I think that newt has no chance against obama because america and especially dems and independents will not bail on newt's based on history...
If Oromneycare is the worst part of his history I think romney will have a decent chance of beating obama...
Perhaps the actual strategy would be to point out similarities between obama and romney so that people would be more open to the differences that could result in them bailing...
While pointing out differences only further polarizes the sides and we saw in 2008 what happened with that
Sounds like reverse psychology on some level but I actually think that the constant barrage of desperate and petty Spin, fabrication and innuendo towards obama will turn of the dems/independents that are going to try to make logical decision based on the facts/record...
The problem is that I do not see the GOP/teaparty base changing their strategy or lack there of... If they play their cards right I really think Romney has a chance
I do remember that the goal in 2010 was the teaparty take over of the legislative branch...
I think the "go after Obama" strategy as you call it is exactly the same fumble that the GOP/teaparty have been doing for the last 3+ years and now you are suggesting that they increase that?
I think that going after independents and conservatives is about offering some thing better, not desperate mud slinging which is only a continuation of the strategy or lack there of...
Talking simply about record seems better... pointing out pros and cons rather then slander, fabrication and Spin... which is that preaching to the choir I have been talking about to massage the bruise ego of the conservative base...
This is why I think that newt has no chance against obama because america and especially dems and independents will not bail on newt's based on history...
If Oromneycare is the worst part of his history I think romney will have a decent chance of beating obama...
Perhaps the actual strategy would be to point out similarities between obama and romney so that people would be more open to the differences that could result in them bailing...
While pointing out differences only further polarizes the sides and we saw in 2008 what happened with that
Sounds like reverse psychology on some level but I actually think that the constant barrage of desperate and petty Spin, fabrication and innuendo towards obama will turn of the dems/independents that are going to try to make logical decision based on the facts/record...
The problem is that I do not see the GOP/teaparty base changing their strategy or lack there of... If they play their cards right I really think Romney has a chance
In post 203 I said in addition to attacking him on his policies they need to also provide alternatives.
I've said this more than once: There is no getting around his record. If you like what he's done you will vote for him. If you don't like what he's done you won't vote for him.
In post 203 I said in addition to attacking him on his policies they need to also provide alternatives.
I've said this more than once: There is no getting around his record. If you like what he's done you will vote for him. If you don't like what he's done you won't vote for him.
you prove the point tho of the strategy or lack there of, in that you drop and attack list which has an obvious bias and agenda as antiobama...
a skewed, one sided, Spun, rhetoric... This is why fox news is killing the GOP/teaparty and raking it in at the same time
Independents and dems that would bail are going to associate the list of facts with a fox news like bias/slant to be antiobama... The problem unlike your list is that the constant, fabrication and petty attacks on obama become humorous and something that ends up on a SNL sketch with how desperate and compulsively the right winged media has preached to the choir (its watchers) and completely turned off independents and dems. or just 2008 obama voters with potential to bail...
The proper strategy is to sit back and point out the "liberal media" and the independent thinker will come up with their own conclusion of bias and Spin... or at least perceive everything as "right" of what the media is portraying and ingraining that perception on their reality...
So a "conservative media" source would result in the independent thinker being and conscious and aware of an anti-obama spin and perceive everything as "left" of what the media is portraying and ingraining that perception on their reality...
There are those that actually agree with the MSNBC/FOXNEWS propaganda and that is why they profit from selling it...
If the GOP/teaparty want people to decide on them over obama they need to stick to the facts both positive and negative... and avoid doing what they basically have for the last 3+ years...
Decision making is about weighing the pros and cons...
you prove the point tho of the strategy or lack there of, in that you drop and attack list which has an obvious bias and agenda as antiobama...
a skewed, one sided, Spun, rhetoric... This is why fox news is killing the GOP/teaparty and raking it in at the same time
Independents and dems that would bail are going to associate the list of facts with a fox news like bias/slant to be antiobama... The problem unlike your list is that the constant, fabrication and petty attacks on obama become humorous and something that ends up on a SNL sketch with how desperate and compulsively the right winged media has preached to the choir (its watchers) and completely turned off independents and dems. or just 2008 obama voters with potential to bail...
The proper strategy is to sit back and point out the "liberal media" and the independent thinker will come up with their own conclusion of bias and Spin... or at least perceive everything as "right" of what the media is portraying and ingraining that perception on their reality...
So a "conservative media" source would result in the independent thinker being and conscious and aware of an anti-obama spin and perceive everything as "left" of what the media is portraying and ingraining that perception on their reality...
There are those that actually agree with the MSNBC/FOXNEWS propaganda and that is why they profit from selling it...
If the GOP/teaparty want people to decide on them over obama they need to stick to the facts both positive and negative... and avoid doing what they basically have for the last 3+ years...
Decision making is about weighing the pros and cons...
basically I am saying that it is shameless self indulgence to its watchers makes money but at the expense of getting dems and independents to bail...
Fox news basically gave up an GOP/conservative advantage that was created during the reagan years to point out that all media had a liberal bias... because the "conservative media" source calling out "liberal bias" or anti-obama Spin is what they are paid to do...
basically I am saying that it is shameless self indulgence to its watchers makes money but at the expense of getting dems and independents to bail...
Fox news basically gave up an GOP/conservative advantage that was created during the reagan years to point out that all media had a liberal bias... because the "conservative media" source calling out "liberal bias" or anti-obama Spin is what they are paid to do...
Would you agree that that the lack of a strategy to get dems and independents to bail is because there is too much focus on knee jerk, compulsive and petty fabrication and spin which not only caters to the bruised ego of many who were beside themselves with obama winning...
But also because it is something that in the current freemarket journalism, people pay to hear the news they want with the bias they want in a shameless self indulgence, even if it is at the expense of what is best for the party...
and surrendering the conservative advantage they once had with the "liberal media" strategy which worked well in swaying independent thinkers regardless of party affiliation?
Would you agree that that the lack of a strategy to get dems and independents to bail is because there is too much focus on knee jerk, compulsive and petty fabrication and spin which not only caters to the bruised ego of many who were beside themselves with obama winning...
But also because it is something that in the current freemarket journalism, people pay to hear the news they want with the bias they want in a shameless self indulgence, even if it is at the expense of what is best for the party...
and surrendering the conservative advantage they once had with the "liberal media" strategy which worked well in swaying independent thinkers regardless of party affiliation?
You are looking at it from your own perspective. You admitted you voted for Obama. I take it you are going to vote for him again.
The Covers Political Forum will not be the judge if the Republican strategy will work. The election in November will be the judge.
As far as sticking to the facts, both positive and negative: If Newt Gingrich wins the nomination do you honestly think he is going to say "Vote for me because I left my first two wives and I resigned from Congress." Of course not. He is going to talk about balancing the budget and reforming welfare. Do you think in Obama's campaign commercials do you think he is going to admit how he gave Solyndra $500 million in taxpayer money only to have the company fold a year later? Of course not. He is going to talk about how during his administration they killed Bin-Laden and saved or created millions of jobs.
You are looking at it from your own perspective. You admitted you voted for Obama. I take it you are going to vote for him again.
The Covers Political Forum will not be the judge if the Republican strategy will work. The election in November will be the judge.
As far as sticking to the facts, both positive and negative: If Newt Gingrich wins the nomination do you honestly think he is going to say "Vote for me because I left my first two wives and I resigned from Congress." Of course not. He is going to talk about balancing the budget and reforming welfare. Do you think in Obama's campaign commercials do you think he is going to admit how he gave Solyndra $500 million in taxpayer money only to have the company fold a year later? Of course not. He is going to talk about how during his administration they killed Bin-Laden and saved or created millions of jobs.
I find it funny when someone criticizes FOX News but are silent on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS and any other media outlet, television or otherwise. Does that mean the person disagreeing with FOX News agrees with every other outlet?
FOX News has a huge impact on pop culture: positive or negative. How many times has someone started a thread about FOX? How many times has John Stewart or Stephen Colbert talked about them? How many times has some star on the red carpet brought up FOX News? Roger Ailes thanks all of you for watching.
I find it funny when someone criticizes FOX News but are silent on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS and any other media outlet, television or otherwise. Does that mean the person disagreeing with FOX News agrees with every other outlet?
FOX News has a huge impact on pop culture: positive or negative. How many times has someone started a thread about FOX? How many times has John Stewart or Stephen Colbert talked about them? How many times has some star on the red carpet brought up FOX News? Roger Ailes thanks all of you for watching.
You are looking at it from your own perspective. You admitted you voted for Obama. I take it you are going to vote for him again.
The Covers Political Forum will not be the judge if the Republican strategy will work. The election in November will be the judge.
As far as sticking to the facts, both positive and negative: If Newt Gingrich wins the nomination do you honestly think he is going to say "Vote for me because I left my first two wives and I resigned from Congress." Of course not. He is going to talk about balancing the budget and reforming welfare. Do you think in Obama's campaign commercials do you think he is going to admit how he gave Solyndra $500 million in taxpayer money only to have the company fold a year later? Of course not. He is going to talk about how during his administration they killed Bin-Laden and saved or created millions of jobs.
you dont even know my perspective... just assume that because I seem to get under the skin of a few posters that I must then be completely the opposite of their views...
I voted for obama in 2008 and bush in 2004 and 2000...
So consider the fact that Obama is not even my first choice...
My choices for president are in this order
1. paul 2. obama 3. gingrich 4. romney
I think ive been pretty consistent on this through out all my posts in this forum... I have also said that other then paul, newt is the most experienced and qualified candidate for president... I honestly do not give a rats ass about his marriages, affairs, whatever... just like I would like a government that stayed out of my affairs, I model what I would want in my choice...
just like I didnt care about obama/gw using cocaine in their past.... just as long as they are not using it while running for president... I care more about the military records of service then personal history...
I think in 2008 the issue was which president would get us out of the iraq mess... bin ladin was just icing on the cake, but a smart political move...
I think that there will be an issue that comes up that separates the two candidates... 2008=iraq, 2004=samesex marriage...
I doubt if it will be debt/economy or taxes/spending as that is something that neither side has the public's confidence...
You are looking at it from your own perspective. You admitted you voted for Obama. I take it you are going to vote for him again.
The Covers Political Forum will not be the judge if the Republican strategy will work. The election in November will be the judge.
As far as sticking to the facts, both positive and negative: If Newt Gingrich wins the nomination do you honestly think he is going to say "Vote for me because I left my first two wives and I resigned from Congress." Of course not. He is going to talk about balancing the budget and reforming welfare. Do you think in Obama's campaign commercials do you think he is going to admit how he gave Solyndra $500 million in taxpayer money only to have the company fold a year later? Of course not. He is going to talk about how during his administration they killed Bin-Laden and saved or created millions of jobs.
you dont even know my perspective... just assume that because I seem to get under the skin of a few posters that I must then be completely the opposite of their views...
I voted for obama in 2008 and bush in 2004 and 2000...
So consider the fact that Obama is not even my first choice...
My choices for president are in this order
1. paul 2. obama 3. gingrich 4. romney
I think ive been pretty consistent on this through out all my posts in this forum... I have also said that other then paul, newt is the most experienced and qualified candidate for president... I honestly do not give a rats ass about his marriages, affairs, whatever... just like I would like a government that stayed out of my affairs, I model what I would want in my choice...
just like I didnt care about obama/gw using cocaine in their past.... just as long as they are not using it while running for president... I care more about the military records of service then personal history...
I think in 2008 the issue was which president would get us out of the iraq mess... bin ladin was just icing on the cake, but a smart political move...
I think that there will be an issue that comes up that separates the two candidates... 2008=iraq, 2004=samesex marriage...
I doubt if it will be debt/economy or taxes/spending as that is something that neither side has the public's confidence...
I find it funny when someone criticizes FOX News but are silent on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS and any other media outlet, television or otherwise. Does that mean the person disagreeing with FOX News agrees with every other outlet?
FOX News has a huge impact on pop culture: positive or negative. How many times has someone started a thread about FOX? How many times has John Stewart or Stephen Colbert talked about them? How many times has some star on the red carpet brought up FOX News? Roger Ailes thanks all of you for watching.
You are too caught up in your defensiveness with your emotional attachment to fox news so you miss the point here...
the "liberal media" angle formulated in the reagan years was pure gold... basically CNN, ABC, CBS and all of the major networks were characterized as having a liberal spin... all we had to do was sit back and reap the benefits...
But what foxnews did was "capitalistic journalism" in that they presented a spin and bias that people were willing to pay for... and while they banked, what they did was forfeit the advantage that we once had with the "liberal media"... and stewart/colbert/snl and basically any comedian could cash in on mock the absurdity that is this foxnews creation...
Foxnews created a "conservative media" and msnbc is the opposite liberal media and cnn and all the major networks that were once the "liberal media" appears to be the center to the news watcher that is not emotionally attached to either extremist network...
Cant you see that in the self-indulgence of wanting to hear news with and spin that preaches to the choir that conservatives forfeited their information advantaged that they once held?
That is what I call poor strategy to give up such an advantageous position...
I find it funny when someone criticizes FOX News but are silent on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS and any other media outlet, television or otherwise. Does that mean the person disagreeing with FOX News agrees with every other outlet?
FOX News has a huge impact on pop culture: positive or negative. How many times has someone started a thread about FOX? How many times has John Stewart or Stephen Colbert talked about them? How many times has some star on the red carpet brought up FOX News? Roger Ailes thanks all of you for watching.
You are too caught up in your defensiveness with your emotional attachment to fox news so you miss the point here...
the "liberal media" angle formulated in the reagan years was pure gold... basically CNN, ABC, CBS and all of the major networks were characterized as having a liberal spin... all we had to do was sit back and reap the benefits...
But what foxnews did was "capitalistic journalism" in that they presented a spin and bias that people were willing to pay for... and while they banked, what they did was forfeit the advantage that we once had with the "liberal media"... and stewart/colbert/snl and basically any comedian could cash in on mock the absurdity that is this foxnews creation...
Foxnews created a "conservative media" and msnbc is the opposite liberal media and cnn and all the major networks that were once the "liberal media" appears to be the center to the news watcher that is not emotionally attached to either extremist network...
Cant you see that in the self-indulgence of wanting to hear news with and spin that preaches to the choir that conservatives forfeited their information advantaged that they once held?
That is what I call poor strategy to give up such an advantageous position...
also the covers forum is not judge for anything in reality...
I mean it is known for the same 3 or 4 people making multiple aliases and talking to themselves on threads and trying to bail themselves out once they put their foot in their mouth again
could you imagine the democratic process working like the politics forum where the wacko-nutjob aliases got one vote for each alias?
also the covers forum is not judge for anything in reality...
I mean it is known for the same 3 or 4 people making multiple aliases and talking to themselves on threads and trying to bail themselves out once they put their foot in their mouth again
could you imagine the democratic process working like the politics forum where the wacko-nutjob aliases got one vote for each alias?
You are too caught up in your defensiveness with your emotional attachment to fox news so you miss the point here...
the "liberal media" angle formulated in the reagan years was pure gold... basically CNN, ABC, CBS and all of the major networks were characterized as having a liberal spin... all we had to do was sit back and reap the benefits...
But what foxnews did was "capitalistic journalism" in that they presented a spin and bias that people were willing to pay for... and while they banked, what they did was forfeit the advantage that we once had with the "liberal media"... and stewart/colbert/snl and basically any comedian could cash in on mock the absurdity that is this foxnews creation...
Foxnews created a "conservative media" and msnbc is the opposite liberal media and cnn and all the major networks that were once the "liberal media" appears to be the center to the news watcher that is not emotionally attached to either extremist network...
Cant you see that in the self-indulgence of wanting to hear news with and spin that preaches to the choir that conservatives forfeited their information advantaged that they once held?
That is what I call poor strategy to give up such an advantageous position...
You are too caught up in your defensiveness with your emotional attachment to fox news so you miss the point here...
the "liberal media" angle formulated in the reagan years was pure gold... basically CNN, ABC, CBS and all of the major networks were characterized as having a liberal spin... all we had to do was sit back and reap the benefits...
But what foxnews did was "capitalistic journalism" in that they presented a spin and bias that people were willing to pay for... and while they banked, what they did was forfeit the advantage that we once had with the "liberal media"... and stewart/colbert/snl and basically any comedian could cash in on mock the absurdity that is this foxnews creation...
Foxnews created a "conservative media" and msnbc is the opposite liberal media and cnn and all the major networks that were once the "liberal media" appears to be the center to the news watcher that is not emotionally attached to either extremist network...
Cant you see that in the self-indulgence of wanting to hear news with and spin that preaches to the choir that conservatives forfeited their information advantaged that they once held?
That is what I call poor strategy to give up such an advantageous position...
talking out of your ass again I see... typical espalande, who tries so hard when he is embarrassed...
you should stick to your betting 30 numbers on the roulette table betting strategies..
Or the fool who thinks 53-47 is overwhelming Or the idiot who makes a roulette analogy without the faintest understanding of math, numbers, or politics.
We trounced them 53-47 in basketball, an absolute overwhelming rout. What a putz.
talking out of your ass again I see... typical espalande, who tries so hard when he is embarrassed...
you should stick to your betting 30 numbers on the roulette table betting strategies..
Or the fool who thinks 53-47 is overwhelming Or the idiot who makes a roulette analogy without the faintest understanding of math, numbers, or politics.
We trounced them 53-47 in basketball, an absolute overwhelming rout. What a putz.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.