Check especially the comments. In general, the mainstream news comments section is the most interesting and conveys the most actual information, especially when it has up/down ratings on comments. It gives you an actual sense, normalized to the political position of the outlet, of what ordinary people are feeling.
The sentiment against the TSA is very strong. Romney would be prudent to run against them. Doing so would give him an opportunity to bash the malfeasance and security theater of both Obama AND Bush.
Providing adult supervision to government is probably the most winning narrative he can convincingly put forward---other than the default narrative that---I suck a reasonable amount less than does Obama, and the press will actually criticize me when I do evil things, and the permanent bureaucracy will resist my crazier schemes moreso than it would resist Obama. That narrative has the advantage of being God's honest truth, but it's unlikely to actually inspire many people.
Actually aggressively attacking things that people actually hate probably would. The list of things that the population hates is pretty damned long, but the TSA has bipartisan hatred and even substantial hatred among self-styled cultural elites. Hang a TSA uniform on Obama and beat him like a pinata.
Are people really getting smarter?
11 hours ago
I'm not particularly convinced that this would put Romney over the top. The only groups for whom this is actually an issue is the middle class, who are mostly pro-Romney anyway (relatively speaking of course). The rich hire private jets and skip the TSA security theater and the poor don't fly, son only the middle class cares. However, the middle class does care quite a bit, so Romney could at least use this issue to solidify his base, but I'm not altogether convinced that people would switch sides over this. I'm also not convinced that a stirred-up base is enough for him to win this election. I have been wrong plenty of times before, though.
It'd give him a way to distinguish himself from Bush the Younger and Obama at the same time. It'd be a way to signal that his intent is to govern more like Bush the Elder than Bush the Younger. Political issues like this one are more about symbolism than substance. Also, solidifying even a few more percentage points in groups you get 60%+ in is worth doing, especially if they're large groups as a fraction of the population of actual voters.
@Jehu- I'm not saying he shouldn't do it, only that it won't solve all his problems. It should help him solidify his base, which is a good thing. Of course, this being the GOP, there is no way that they will pursue this strategy, what with them loving to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and all.
I had a look at his first real ad---his 'Day One' ad. Basically he promised to issue executive waivers to Obamacare to all 50 states and to approve the Keystone pipeline. Those are really interesting campaign promises---very unusual because of one thing: They're things a president can do unilaterally by executive order. My gut is that he actually wants to win this. Knowing as I do from previous experience, the US intelligence agencies (especially the NSA) are positively overflowing with Mormons, I wonder how that will play out in the campaign, particularly in the summer. Also, it will be interesting to see if the Mormon church employs its massive organizational capacity (their logistical capability is honestly off the charts) in a low-key way to elect one of their own.
Post a Comment