Romney Campaign: CO, NV, OH and VA will decide General Election

[Brittain33]

I'm guessing this means that if we're talking about Florida, Romney has already lost.

[Brittain33]

If you go by that strategy, then only 2-3 states are really important.

Isn't that how things boiled down in 2000 and 2004, though? Kerry reduced everything to Ohio and Colorado by the end, playing defense in other states and not expending energy on small prizes like NM. Even in 2008, McCain finished the race by focusing on a few key states he really couldn't win (PA) but which, if all went well, would have made up the last 40 or so EVs needed for victory in a close race.

[Brittain33]

Not necessarily. If Romney picks up CO, IA, IN, NC, FL, and PA, he wins.

And I don't think Pennsylvania will be as much of a longshot this year as people think. Romney's not doing bad there. He is doing bad in Virginia though. Bad enough that it's almost looking like a lost cause.

The polling from PA does look weak for Obama, but it just seems odd that this candidate in this year would be the first Republican to break a 20-year losing streak in PA.

[Brittain33]

Obama is going to play well in the Rust Belt?  Did you witness 2010?  What part of hostile to your existence is appealing?  Obama's Energy and Environmental policy (for instance) is driving a wedge into his coalition.  In WI, OH, PA, MI he needs to win blue collar whites or its over.  They BUILD things and use a ton of energy to do it.  Obama (and increasingly his party) is a mortal threat to their livelihood.         

His record in saving the U.S. auto industry vs. recommending bankruptcy and potential liquidation (there was no private capital to be had in fall '08 to save Detroit) is going to help Obama. His energy record is more conservative (i.e., more drilly) now than his rhetoric was in '08. If these issues didn't deliver PA to McCain, I don't see how they're going to deliver it to Romney.

[Brittain33]

Obama is going to play well in the Rust Belt?  Did you witness 2010?  What part of hostile to your existence is appealing?  Obama's Energy and Environmental policy (for instance) is driving a wedge into his coalition.  In WI, OH, PA, MI he needs to win blue collar whites or its over.  They BUILD things and use a ton of energy to do it.  Obama (and increasingly his party) is a mortal threat to their livelihood.         

His record in saving the U.S. auto industry vs. recommending bankruptcy and potential liquidation (there was no private capital to be had in fall '08 to save Detroit) is going to help Obama. His energy record is more conservative (i.e., more drilly) now than his rhetoric was in '08. If these issues didn't deliver PA to McCain, I don't see how they're going to deliver it to Romney.

Romney said he would have had the government step in if there were no private capital (although he thinks their would be), to save the industry, but not government money to save the unions and their pension plans, which is what happened.   The BK tool would have been used for that.  So the message is anti union (when it comes to spending government money on them), not anti industry.

How does Romney distinguish between money that goes in to "save the industry" but not "to save the unions"? This kind of logic usually doesn't fly when applied to health insurance funding and abortion.

[Brittain33]

Torie, I'm talking about what Romney proposed for the auto industry in 2008 and what form it would have taken. You're talking about broader goals you think would be good for the industry, and I don't see the point of contact with what Romney suggested, which was basically a fantasy meant to dodge responsibility for either the industry collapsing or a federal bailout, which were the two options on offer, but neither of which was acceptable to both the economy and the Republican electorate.

I can't discuss complex policies solely on whether they spank unions enough. Yes, the auto industry has crazy obligations--but note that they're actually profitable now and the unions did take quite a haircut.

[Brittain33]

Put another way, the auto industry had ongoing issues, but the financial crisis was like a piano falling on its head. It needed immediate help. If an out-of-shape person has a heart attack, the immediate response is to treat the heart attack, not counsel on weight loss and exercise, or else you'll be talking to a corpse. Romney proposed laying off the EMTs.

This is totally the same argument we always have over the stimulus funding to states.

[Brittain33]

Torie, I'm talking about what Romney proposed for the auto industry in 2008 and what form it would have taken. You're talking about broader goals you think would be good for the industry, and I don't see the point of contact with what Romney suggested, which was basically a fantasy meant to dodge responsibility for either the industry collapsing or a federal bailout, which were the two options on offer, but neither of which was acceptable to both the economy and the Republican electorate.

I can't discuss complex policies solely on whether they spank unions enough. Yes, the auto industry has crazy obligations--but note that they're actually profitable now and the unions did take quite a haircut.

How specifically did I mischaracterize what Romney said?  And did he say something different in 2008 than what he said this year and last on the topic? At least more recently, Romney made clear that after all the debt was cleaned out, if investment was needed and not raised from private sources, then the government would have a role.  That of course was not what happened. Just like the bank shareholders were not cleaned out, when the government had to step in to save the banks - yet another mistake. Government seems to specialize sometimes in giving subsidies to the undeserving, un-poor. Who knew? It is time to put an end to it.  We're broke.

Can you find a link to Romney's defense of his 2008 position? I tried, and wasn't able to.

[Brittain33]

Here is the article.  Mittens does not fully elucidate what a "managed bankruptcy" means in it, but he does say the government has a role. I am not sure at that time, there was much of a belief that if the auto industry shed all of its debt, it would still not be able to function or raise capital as needed. If that issue had been in play, I presume Mittens would have addressed that hypothetical, as he did later. And both he and I question whether that hypothetical would have come to pass.

It sounds as if government's role is to provide a court structure to administer the bankruptcy, but not to provide funding. My understanding of the situation in 2008 was that if an auto company went into bankruptcy, it would pull under its suppliers, which would have made collateral damage of a reasonably healthy company like Ford that used the same suppliers and turn Michigan into something resembling East Germany, 1991. This was one of those cases where long-term strategic advice of the kind Romney offered was not realistic. And GM did go into bankruptcy in 2009, so that did happen once the immediate crisis was put aside with an infusion of cash and government oversight.

Under the federal bailout, the unions did make concessions, big ones. Workers are making a lot less than they used to. Not as big as they would have made under a President McCain, surely, and if the companies had gone under they all would have been unemployed.

Note that Romney was predicting that a bailout would lead to the demise of Detroit. The opposite has happened - even with Obama overseeing the bailout, the unions made concessions, Detroit pivoted to producing smaller vehicles, and the automakers are profitable.

[Brittain33]

According to Bloomberg News, the Rep. governor of Michigan said that Romney's proposal would have led to massive job losses in Michigan.

A different quote: "His proposed alternative -- a “managed bankruptcy” to allow the car companies to restructure -- wasn’t feasible, according to Republicans and Democrats involved in the industry rescue who said there was no entity at the time willing to provide the money that would have been needed to prop up the companies while they reorganized."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-16/romney-s-shifting-auto-bailout-stance-risks-becoming-liability.html

The reason I get partisan about this is because it is so very, very easy to criticize a bailout and score points against it, but Romney wasn't providing a real alternative. Even if it sounds good as a plan, it was not appropriate for the malady. It's like Bachmann voting against all taxes and against raising the debt limit and parading her virtue around, it's easy to do that when you don't bear responsibility for the contradiction. I don't think he should be able to score free points on something that was politically unpopular but essential for economic stability, and which has turned out to be successful by most metrics. At least he's been saddled with an unfortunate headline "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" which puts him out of the running of making MI competitive.

[Brittain33]

I tried to engage this discussion in the spirit of the first quote. I didn't expect "I don't care, I'm right, you're wrong."

The purpose of this thread is to have a substantive and data based discussion of this issue, as opposed to engaging in ideological rhetoric.

So case closed. It is time to move on. Mittens has this one in lockdown.

Oh and Mittens is right too that just giving the auto companies money, without a restructuring, would lead to their demise. That is what Obama did. He just used government money to give a big handout to the unions. So the article you put up appears to be wrong on its face as to the assertions made that are quoted in it.

I have no intention of allowing the Dems to get any mileage out of this issue if I have any say in the matter.  They are just out of gas.

[Brittain33]

Mittens  actually did say government financing would be involved (which we both missed I guess). That is what the word "guarantees" means. So case closed. It is time to move on. Mittens has this one in lockdown.

Guaranteeing post-bankruptcy funding does nothing to solve the immediate liquidity needs which were causing GM problems in 2008, and which threatened dissolution. Post-bankruptcy funding assumes the company has made it into and through bankruptcy. This did not address the problem at the time. We did not miss anything. 

[Brittain33]

No, "managed bankruptcy" means you have a pre-negotiated deal, your flush the creditors, and as part of the package, post bankruptcy, the government issues guarantees to the extent necessary to keep the wheels moving. I don't know if the Dems are just being obtuse here, or being deceptive as part of an effort to confuse and propagandize the "dumbs."  In any event, it isn't working with me. Hopefully Mittens at the right moment, will kick them where it hurts most.

Ok, I see where you are on this, and that continuing would not serve the purpose of this forum. Cheers.

[Brittain33]

No, "managed bankruptcy" means you have a pre-negotiated deal, your flush the creditors, and as part of the package, post bankruptcy, the government issues guarantees to the extent necessary to keep the wheels moving. I don't know if the Dems are just being obtuse here, or being deceptive as part of an effort to confuse and propagandize the "dumbs."  In any event, it isn't working with me. Hopefully Mittens at the right moment, will kick them where it hurts most.

Ok, I see where you are on this, and that continuing would not serve the purpose of this forum. Cheers.

Cheers to you. This issue and the Buffet Rule rantings, annoy me, I admit.

I think any time unions come into the picture, you and I go at it like Rottweilers. I don't even like unions that much.

[Brittain33]

At least he's been saddled with an unfortunate headline "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" which puts him out of the running of making MI competitive.

I wouldn't rest on that if that is your plan to "disqualify" Romney as a competitor in Michigan.

Well, I'm just a red avatar bloviating on the Atlas, not Obama's campaign manager. I'm sure he's got a few offices open, too.