|
|
On September 01 2012 04:09 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +Cases of fraud and deception are clearly wrong and clearly illegal. But cases where a loan was simply unsustainable the blame and pain should be born by both borrower and lender. Alot of people don't know what an unsustainable loan is, they rely on their bankers to tell them what they can afford, not every case is fraudulant but alot were simply bankers trying to convince people to take out as much as possible which led to people simply taking out too much. Most people I know have no idea what a debenture is let alone what makes a loan sub-prime or not. you say cases where the loan was unsustainable should be both parties fault, but what was the banker doing telling people to take out more money then they can pay for then, shouldn't he know by looking at their numbers they can't afford it?
Mortgage affordability isn't rocket science any more than rent. If you can't figure out if a $1000 mortgage is affordable or not you have no business buying a house.
|
The banks that didn't need bailout money but took it due to the fact it was offered at low rates is a whole other story. Then they went and invested it out of the country LOL.
On September 01 2012 04:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 04:09 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Cases of fraud and deception are clearly wrong and clearly illegal. But cases where a loan was simply unsustainable the blame and pain should be born by both borrower and lender. Alot of people don't know what an unsustainable loan is, they rely on their bankers to tell them what they can afford, not every case is fraudulant but alot were simply bankers trying to convince people to take out as much as possible which led to people simply taking out too much. Most people I know have no idea what a debenture is let alone what makes a loan sub-prime or not. you say cases where the loan was unsustainable should be both parties fault, but what was the banker doing telling people to take out more money then they can pay for then, shouldn't he know by looking at their numbers they can't afford it? Mortgage affordability isn't rocket science any more than rent. If you can't figure out if a $1000 mortgage is affordable or not you have no business buying a house.
Alot of people think they can afford that mortgage until they realize it costs more to heat that house then they thought, and property taxes are a little higher then expected. The person living far beyond their means is not blameless here but a banker is supposed to help you with these things, it is their job afterall!
|
On September 01 2012 04:16 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
The banks that didn't need bailout money but took it due to the fact it was offered at low rates is a whole other story. Then they went and invested it out of the country LOL.
TARP money was expensive for banks. Some didn't want it and were forced to take it.
|
On September 01 2012 04:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 04:09 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Cases of fraud and deception are clearly wrong and clearly illegal. But cases where a loan was simply unsustainable the blame and pain should be born by both borrower and lender. Alot of people don't know what an unsustainable loan is, they rely on their bankers to tell them what they can afford, not every case is fraudulant but alot were simply bankers trying to convince people to take out as much as possible which led to people simply taking out too much. Most people I know have no idea what a debenture is let alone what makes a loan sub-prime or not. you say cases where the loan was unsustainable should be both parties fault, but what was the banker doing telling people to take out more money then they can pay for then, shouldn't he know by looking at their numbers they can't afford it? Mortgage affordability isn't rocket science any more than rent. If you can't figure out if a $1000 mortgage is affordable or not you have no business buying a house.
Well, I' remember dimly that the interest rates in most of the subprime-loaning were not constant but so called adjustable-rate mortgage coupled to some index (which surprise, surprise lead to a surge in interest rates when the crisis started). To decide as a costumer what kind of ARM is a good deal is pretty much rocket science (I would say even harder because by orders of magnitude more dynamic).
I'm really no expert in this so corrections are welcome.
|
On September 01 2012 04:16 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 04:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Mortgage affordability isn't rocket science any more than rent. If you can't figure out if a $1000 mortgage is affordable or not you have no business buying a house. Alot of people think they can afford that mortgage until they realize it costs more to heat that house then they thought, and property taxes are a little higher then expected. The person living far beyond their means is not blameless here but a banker is supposed to help you with these things, it is their job afterall!
For a basic 30yr fixed mortgage you shouldn't be defaulting because the heat was a bit more expensive than you thought. Generally it would be something large, like losing a job, that causes the default.
Non conventional mortgage products were another story.
|
On September 01 2012 04:29 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 04:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 01 2012 04:09 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Cases of fraud and deception are clearly wrong and clearly illegal. But cases where a loan was simply unsustainable the blame and pain should be born by both borrower and lender. Alot of people don't know what an unsustainable loan is, they rely on their bankers to tell them what they can afford, not every case is fraudulant but alot were simply bankers trying to convince people to take out as much as possible which led to people simply taking out too much. Most people I know have no idea what a debenture is let alone what makes a loan sub-prime or not. you say cases where the loan was unsustainable should be both parties fault, but what was the banker doing telling people to take out more money then they can pay for then, shouldn't he know by looking at their numbers they can't afford it? Mortgage affordability isn't rocket science any more than rent. If you can't figure out if a $1000 mortgage is affordable or not you have no business buying a house. Well, I' remember dimly that the interest rates in most of the subprime-loaning were not constant but so called adjustable-rate mortgage coupled to some index (which surprise, surprise lead to a surge in interest rates when the crisis started). To decide as a costumer what kind of ARM is a good deal is pretty much rocket science (I would say even harder because by orders of magnitude more dynamic). I'm really no expert in this so corrections are welcome.
Sub-prime could be an adjustable rate but not exclusively. Adjustable rates would have adjusted up into '08 and the adjusted down substantially during the crisis and into today.
|
Out of interest, do you have numbers which percentage was ARM? The falling of rates recently is a bit of pointless if you defaulted earlier due to "adjusted" rates. Though I don't know how often this was the case, here as well I would be interested to see numbers. Probably it was mostly a combination of factors I suppose (losing a job due to economy+higher interest etc.).
But if most of the loans were in fact ARM the narrative of the stupid debtor doesn't really hold.
|
On September 01 2012 04:44 silynxer wrote:
Out of interest, do you have numbers which percentage was ARM? The falling of rates recently is a bit of pointless if you defaulted earlier due to "adjusted" rates. Though I don't know how often this was the case, here as well I would be interested to see numbers. Probably it was mostly a combination of factors I suppose (losing a job due to economy+higher interest etc.).
But if most of the loans were in fact ARM the narrative of the stupid debtor doesn't really hold.
I'll see what I can find. But I'm blaming the stupid debtor and the bank equally if it is a conventional 30yr fixed rate mortgage. Feel free to disproportionally blame the lender in the case of exotic loans (ARMs included).
|
On September 01 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:
The more that I think about it, the more that I like what the republicans and Romney did at the convention. I like that they largely attacked Obama through the lenses of disappointment and regret. I like that they stayed very positive. Most of all, I like how they humanized Romney. Assuming that Americans at large were paying attention to the convention, democrats are going to have a much harder time demonizing him as a cold-blooded corporate raider. Best of all, I think the convention finally made conservatives comfortable with Romney. They understand him better now through the stories that were told. The partLy is now Romney's in a way that it wasn't last week. Republicans are going to want to vote for Romney now and not just vote against Obama.
I think democrats are going to have a very difficult time matching the positive tone of the republican convention. In fact, the contrast is likely to be quite stark. This won't be the hope and change convention of 2008. It is going to be a far smaller event ideologically.
Now we're on the same page. It was a convention designed to appeal to swing voters and fence-sitters. To be honest, the speeches that did attack Obama or try to characterize him as weak or lazy (so many bad golfing jokes) came off as cheap, superficial and disingenuous.
But Romney and Rubio played it smart -- don't feed the angry base, it's a waste of airtime and only makes the Republican party look more like sore losers. They focused on disappointed, and missed opportunity, and not fulfilling America's potential.
Romney looked less like a blood-thirsty libertarian and more like Dad that was bummed that son couldn't keep a decent job. That resonates.
Essentially, they just stole the Hope and Change card and played it. And now they're daring Democrats to go negative, which is difficult without looking desperate, or becoming the bad guy. They're baiting them to defend their record, which isn't nearly as barren and corrupt as Ryan insinuates but isn't exactly a trophy case of accomplishments.
Well played, motherfuckers. Well played.
|
|
|
On September 01 2012 04:50 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:
The more that I think about it, the more that I like what the republicans and Romney did at the convention. I like that they largely attacked Obama through the lenses of disappointment and regret. I like that they stayed very positive. Most of all, I like how they humanized Romney. Assuming that Americans at large were paying attention to the convention, democrats are going to have a much harder time demonizing him as a cold-blooded corporate raider. Best of all, I think the convention finally made conservatives comfortable with Romney. They understand him better now through the stories that were told. The partLy is now Romney's in a way that it wasn't last week. Republicans are going to want to vote for Romney now and not just vote against Obama.
I think democrats are going to have a very difficult time matching the positive tone of the republican convention. In fact, the contrast is likely to be quite stark. This won't be the hope and change convention of 2008. It is going to be a far smaller event ideologically. Now we're on the same page. It was a convention designed to appeal to swing voters and fence-sitters. To be honest, the speeches that did attack Obama or try to characterize him as weak or lazy (so many bad golfing jokes) came off as cheap, superficial and disingenuous. But Romney and Rubio played it smart -- don't feed the angry base, it's a waste of airtime and only makes the Republican party look more like sore losers. They focused on disappointed, and missed opportunity, and not fulfilling America's potential. Romney looked less like a blood-thirsty libertarian and more like Dad that was bummed that son couldn't keep a decent job. That resonates. Essentially, they just stole the Hope and Change card and played it. And now they're daring Democrats to go negative, which is difficult without looking desperate, or becoming the bad guy. They're baiting them to defend their record, which isn't nearly as barren and corrupt as Ryan insinuates but isn't exactly a trophy case of accomplishments. Well played, motherfuckers. Well played.
Y'see, I like how Romney can easily get in front of a camera and charismatically twist the politics in his favor, but I'm afraid he's going to backstab conservatives if he becomes Pres. Kinda like an oppostie of Clinton. Say one thing to gain a voter base, then shift surreptitiously to the center once elected. I admit, I still don't trust Romney, so I'm still stuck in the "not Obama" camp. Sure hope his positive attitude, and his positions, are honest though.
|
On September 01 2012 05:12 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 04:50 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:
The more that I think about it, the more that I like what the republicans and Romney did at the convention. I like that they largely attacked Obama through the lenses of disappointment and regret. I like that they stayed very positive. Most of all, I like how they humanized Romney. Assuming that Americans at large were paying attention to the convention, democrats are going to have a much harder time demonizing him as a cold-blooded corporate raider. Best of all, I think the convention finally made conservatives comfortable with Romney. They understand him better now through the stories that were told. The partLy is now Romney's in a way that it wasn't last week. Republicans are going to want to vote for Romney now and not just vote against Obama.
I think democrats are going to have a very difficult time matching the positive tone of the republican convention. In fact, the contrast is likely to be quite stark. This won't be the hope and change convention of 2008. It is going to be a far smaller event ideologically. Now we're on the same page. It was a convention designed to appeal to swing voters and fence-sitters. To be honest, the speeches that did attack Obama or try to characterize him as weak or lazy (so many bad golfing jokes) came off as cheap, superficial and disingenuous. But Romney and Rubio played it smart -- don't feed the angry base, it's a waste of airtime and only makes the Republican party look more like sore losers. They focused on disappointed, and missed opportunity, and not fulfilling America's potential. Romney looked less like a blood-thirsty libertarian and more like Dad that was bummed that son couldn't keep a decent job. That resonates. Essentially, they just stole the Hope and Change card and played it. And now they're daring Democrats to go negative, which is difficult without looking desperate, or becoming the bad guy. They're baiting them to defend their record, which isn't nearly as barren and corrupt as Ryan insinuates but isn't exactly a trophy case of accomplishments. Well played, motherfuckers. Well played. Y'see, I like how Romney can easily get in front of a camera and charismatically twist the politics in his favor, but I'm afraid he's going to backstab conservatives if he becomes Pres. Kinda like an oppostie of Clinton. Say one thing to gain a voter base, then shift surreptitiously to the center once elected. I admit, I still don't trust Romney, so I'm still stuck in the "not Obama" camp. Sure hope his positive attitude, and his positions, are honest though.
All you have to do is look at Romney's past. If you think you can trust him to keep his positions now, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
|
On September 01 2012 05:12 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 04:50 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:
The more that I think about it, the more that I like what the republicans and Romney did at the convention. I like that they largely attacked Obama through the lenses of disappointment and regret. I like that they stayed very positive. Most of all, I like how they humanized Romney. Assuming that Americans at large were paying attention to the convention, democrats are going to have a much harder time demonizing him as a cold-blooded corporate raider. Best of all, I think the convention finally made conservatives comfortable with Romney. They understand him better now through the stories that were told. The partLy is now Romney's in a way that it wasn't last week. Republicans are going to want to vote for Romney now and not just vote against Obama.
I think democrats are going to have a very difficult time matching the positive tone of the republican convention. In fact, the contrast is likely to be quite stark. This won't be the hope and change convention of 2008. It is going to be a far smaller event ideologically. Now we're on the same page. It was a convention designed to appeal to swing voters and fence-sitters. To be honest, the speeches that did attack Obama or try to characterize him as weak or lazy (so many bad golfing jokes) came off as cheap, superficial and disingenuous. But Romney and Rubio played it smart -- don't feed the angry base, it's a waste of airtime and only makes the Republican party look more like sore losers. They focused on disappointed, and missed opportunity, and not fulfilling America's potential. Romney looked less like a blood-thirsty libertarian and more like Dad that was bummed that son couldn't keep a decent job. That resonates. Essentially, they just stole the Hope and Change card and played it. And now they're daring Democrats to go negative, which is difficult without looking desperate, or becoming the bad guy. They're baiting them to defend their record, which isn't nearly as barren and corrupt as Ryan insinuates but isn't exactly a trophy case of accomplishments. Well played, motherfuckers. Well played. Y'see, I like how Romney can easily get in front of a camera and charismatically twist the politics in his favor, but I'm afraid he's going to backstab conservatives if he becomes Pres. Kinda like an oppostie of Clinton. Say one thing to gain a voter base, then shift surreptitiously to the center once elected. I admit, I still don't trust Romney, so I'm still stuck in the "not Obama" camp. Sure hope his positive attitude, and his positions, are honest though.
I tend to think that Romney will be the fiscal conservative that we need. As long as he accomplishes that, everything else will be gravy.
|
On September 01 2012 05:12 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 04:50 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:
The more that I think about it, the more that I like what the republicans and Romney did at the convention. I like that they largely attacked Obama through the lenses of disappointment and regret. I like that they stayed very positive. Most of all, I like how they humanized Romney. Assuming that Americans at large were paying attention to the convention, democrats are going to have a much harder time demonizing him as a cold-blooded corporate raider. Best of all, I think the convention finally made conservatives comfortable with Romney. They understand him better now through the stories that were told. The partLy is now Romney's in a way that it wasn't last week. Republicans are going to want to vote for Romney now and not just vote against Obama.
I think democrats are going to have a very difficult time matching the positive tone of the republican convention. In fact, the contrast is likely to be quite stark. This won't be the hope and change convention of 2008. It is going to be a far smaller event ideologically. Now we're on the same page. It was a convention designed to appeal to swing voters and fence-sitters. To be honest, the speeches that did attack Obama or try to characterize him as weak or lazy (so many bad golfing jokes) came off as cheap, superficial and disingenuous. But Romney and Rubio played it smart -- don't feed the angry base, it's a waste of airtime and only makes the Republican party look more like sore losers. They focused on disappointed, and missed opportunity, and not fulfilling America's potential. Romney looked less like a blood-thirsty libertarian and more like Dad that was bummed that son couldn't keep a decent job. That resonates. Essentially, they just stole the Hope and Change card and played it. And now they're daring Democrats to go negative, which is difficult without looking desperate, or becoming the bad guy. They're baiting them to defend their record, which isn't nearly as barren and corrupt as Ryan insinuates but isn't exactly a trophy case of accomplishments. Well played, motherfuckers. Well played. Y'see, I like how Romney can easily get in front of a camera and charismatically twist the politics in his favor, but I'm afraid he's going to backstab conservatives if he becomes Pres. Kinda like an oppostie of Clinton. Say one thing to gain a voter base, then shift surreptitiously to the center once elected. I admit, I still don't trust Romney, so I'm still stuck in the "not Obama" camp. Sure hope his positive attitude, and his positions, are honest though.
Some policies I agree with this, particularly the social conservative ones. If it turns out Romney betrays social conservatives, that's fine by me.
Out of curiosity, are people expecting big things out of the DNC? I feel that people were so sour on Republicans that the RNC has pleasantly surprised by being pretty good, at least for the main players. Gingrich, Huckabee, and Eastwood were...let's say "not good".
|
Mortgage info:
Percent of mortgages that are adjustable rate can be found here.
Percent of mortgages that are sub-prime can be found here.
Delinquency characteristics of sub-prime vs prime and adjustable rate vs fixed rate can be found here.
Delinquency rates seem to be much closely tied to borrower quality (sub-prime vs prime) and economic conditions. Adjustable rate loans are riskier as well, but to a lesser degree.
Edit: I'll also point out that the caveat that adjustable rate loans are more common on the commercial end. People looking to flip houses during the boom partially explain the increase in use of adjustable rate mortgages and subsequent defaults.
|
|
|
On September 01 2012 05:30 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 05:12 cLAN.Anax wrote:On September 01 2012 04:50 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:
The more that I think about it, the more that I like what the republicans and Romney did at the convention. I like that they largely attacked Obama through the lenses of disappointment and regret. I like that they stayed very positive. Most of all, I like how they humanized Romney. Assuming that Americans at large were paying attention to the convention, democrats are going to have a much harder time demonizing him as a cold-blooded corporate raider. Best of all, I think the convention finally made conservatives comfortable with Romney. They understand him better now through the stories that were told. The partLy is now Romney's in a way that it wasn't last week. Republicans are going to want to vote for Romney now and not just vote against Obama.
I think democrats are going to have a very difficult time matching the positive tone of the republican convention. In fact, the contrast is likely to be quite stark. This won't be the hope and change convention of 2008. It is going to be a far smaller event ideologically. Now we're on the same page. It was a convention designed to appeal to swing voters and fence-sitters. To be honest, the speeches that did attack Obama or try to characterize him as weak or lazy (so many bad golfing jokes) came off as cheap, superficial and disingenuous. But Romney and Rubio played it smart -- don't feed the angry base, it's a waste of airtime and only makes the Republican party look more like sore losers. They focused on disappointed, and missed opportunity, and not fulfilling America's potential. Romney looked less like a blood-thirsty libertarian and more like Dad that was bummed that son couldn't keep a decent job. That resonates. Essentially, they just stole the Hope and Change card and played it. And now they're daring Democrats to go negative, which is difficult without looking desperate, or becoming the bad guy. They're baiting them to defend their record, which isn't nearly as barren and corrupt as Ryan insinuates but isn't exactly a trophy case of accomplishments. Well played, motherfuckers. Well played. Y'see, I like how Romney can easily get in front of a camera and charismatically twist the politics in his favor, but I'm afraid he's going to backstab conservatives if he becomes Pres. Kinda like an oppostie of Clinton. Say one thing to gain a voter base, then shift surreptitiously to the center once elected. I admit, I still don't trust Romney, so I'm still stuck in the "not Obama" camp. Sure hope his positive attitude, and his positions, are honest though. Some policies I agree with this, particularly the social conservative ones. If it turns out Romney betrays social conservatives, that's fine by me. Out of curiosity, are people expecting big things out of the DNC? I feel that people were so sour on Republicans that the RNC has pleasantly surprised by being pretty good, at least for the main players. Gingrich, Huckabee, and Eastwood were...let's say "not good".
Obama needs 'big things' to come out of the DNC ... however the tone and tenor of the event has to be perfect in light of how well the RNC panned out, despite all the shitty golfing jokes.
I'm genuinely interested in how the Democrats respond, and personally, I don't know what the best strategy is. They've been on the offense the entire time leading up to the convention, and in light of the RNC they have to prepare to go on the defense without appearing weak ...
The only reason I wouldn't vote for Romney is because of how he has proven, time and time and again, that he can be manipulated and pushed around by the people around him and can't control the extreme elements of his party.
I would consider voting for Businessman Romney, or Governor of Michigan Romney, but NeoConTeaPartyRebulican Romney? No thanks.
|
On September 01 2012 04:09 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +Cases of fraud and deception are clearly wrong and clearly illegal. But cases where a loan was simply unsustainable the blame and pain should be born by both borrower and lender. Alot of people don't know what an unsustainable loan is, they rely on their bankers to tell them what they can afford, not every case is fraudulant but alot were simply bankers trying to convince people to take out as much as possible which led to people simply taking out too much. Most people I know have no idea what a debenture is let alone what makes a loan sub-prime or not. you say cases where the loan was unsustainable should be both parties fault, but what was the banker doing telling people to take out more money then they can pay for then, shouldn't he know by looking at their numbers they can't afford it?
Let's take a scenario where a banker tells a customer that they can get a mortgate on a million dollar house and pay next to nothing for two years, but then after that the payment will rise to $6,000 a month. But the banker also say you probably don't need to worry about the $6,000 payment because in two years your house value will probably have risen so you can refinance or sell at a profit anyway. And the customer decides to take on the mortgage on that basis. And of course the house drops in value instead of rising, and the customer can't afford $6,000 a month. Who do you blame for this situation?
I guess it depends on your world view, but for me the customer is 100% responsible for signing a contract like this. Don't sign an agreement to make payments that you can't afford to make. It's really not that complicated.
|
*Sigh* The Ron Paul cult keeps on complaining how the media is against them and does not care about them. Well they should be glad they receive TV time, most leftists get none and the ones that appear on TV are often sycophants.
|
On September 01 2012 05:40 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2012 05:30 coverpunch wrote:On September 01 2012 05:12 cLAN.Anax wrote:On September 01 2012 04:50 Defacer wrote:On September 01 2012 03:28 xDaunt wrote:
The more that I think about it, the more that I like what the republicans and Romney did at the convention. I like that they largely attacked Obama through the lenses of disappointment and regret. I like that they stayed very positive. Most of all, I like how they humanized Romney. Assuming that Americans at large were paying attention to the convention, democrats are going to have a much harder time demonizing him as a cold-blooded corporate raider. Best of all, I think the convention finally made conservatives comfortable with Romney. They understand him better now through the stories that were told. The partLy is now Romney's in a way that it wasn't last week. Republicans are going to want to vote for Romney now and not just vote against Obama.
I think democrats are going to have a very difficult time matching the positive tone of the republican convention. In fact, the contrast is likely to be quite stark. This won't be the hope and change convention of 2008. It is going to be a far smaller event ideologically. Now we're on the same page. It was a convention designed to appeal to swing voters and fence-sitters. To be honest, the speeches that did attack Obama or try to characterize him as weak or lazy (so many bad golfing jokes) came off as cheap, superficial and disingenuous. But Romney and Rubio played it smart -- don't feed the angry base, it's a waste of airtime and only makes the Republican party look more like sore losers. They focused on disappointed, and missed opportunity, and not fulfilling America's potential. Romney looked less like a blood-thirsty libertarian and more like Dad that was bummed that son couldn't keep a decent job. That resonates. Essentially, they just stole the Hope and Change card and played it. And now they're daring Democrats to go negative, which is difficult without looking desperate, or becoming the bad guy. They're baiting them to defend their record, which isn't nearly as barren and corrupt as Ryan insinuates but isn't exactly a trophy case of accomplishments. Well played, motherfuckers. Well played. Y'see, I like how Romney can easily get in front of a camera and charismatically twist the politics in his favor, but I'm afraid he's going to backstab conservatives if he becomes Pres. Kinda like an oppostie of Clinton. Say one thing to gain a voter base, then shift surreptitiously to the center once elected. I admit, I still don't trust Romney, so I'm still stuck in the "not Obama" camp. Sure hope his positive attitude, and his positions, are honest though. Some policies I agree with this, particularly the social conservative ones. If it turns out Romney betrays social conservatives, that's fine by me. Out of curiosity, are people expecting big things out of the DNC? I feel that people were so sour on Republicans that the RNC has pleasantly surprised by being pretty good, at least for the main players. Gingrich, Huckabee, and Eastwood were...let's say "not good". Obama needs 'big things' to come out of the DNC ... however the tone and tenor of the event has to be perfect in light of how well the RNC panned out, despite all the shitty golfing jokes. I'm genuinely interested in how the Democrats respond, and personally, I don't know what the best strategy is. They've been on the offense the entire time leading up to the convention, and in light of the RNC they have to prepare to go on the defense without appearing weak ... The only reason I wouldn't vote for Romney is because of how he has proven, time and time and again, that he can be manipulated and pushed around by the people around him and can't control the extreme elements of his party. I would consider voting for Businessman Romney, or Governor of Michigan Romney, but NeoConTeaPartyRebulican Romney? No thanks.
Depends on what the goal is. Getting the tone right and putting forth big plans will appeal to the left and left leaning moderates, but it won't do much to sway moderate conservatives to his cause. For that I think he'd need to address fundamental criticisms about his presidency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
