Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate - Ever

[mathwonk]

Well said Alephzero.

I will go out on a limb here and predict that this statement by Romney just lost him the election, as it should do. The only people left to support him would be those who actually agree with him, and I am optimistic enough about America not to believe that is a majority.

The point some people seem to still ignore about the 47% is that it has been made very clear that many of them are traditionally Republican voters, so dismissing them all would be a serious blow to Romney, if they realize what he really said about them. Of course many people take welfare and do not feel any stigma. E.g. there was a clip played on tv tonight of Romney's mother apparently stating that his own (grand?)father was on welfare for 4 years.

Another article online today stated that 7,000 members of the 47% are multimillionaires. In 1970 I read that Arco (a gas and oil company) had paid no corporate income taxes for the previous 5 years on profit of over $300,000,000, at that time a large sum. Indeed if Mr. Romney wants to remove any doubt that he himself has been in the 47% in the recent past, he might be well advised to release his own tax returns.

Most poignantly, his support for, and exploitation of, a tax code that allows him to pay his own taxes at a rate less than half what most of the rest of us pay, makes his comments ludicrous at best. Indeed he is not questioning that the 47% who do not pay taxes in fact do so legally, exactly as he also pays far less than the normal rate charged for actual working people.

Moreover from what I have read today, the rolls of non tax paying poor were enlarged most recently by people like Reagan and George Bush who supported tax credits for the poor (to their own credit), rather than Obama.

This suggests that many Republican presidents have been considerably friendlier to the poor than the current version of Mr. Romney.

This is not about Republicans versus Democrats, but about the debate between those who believe in helping the unfortunate and those who do not, even while they themselves are helped by others. This is like the last scene of "12 angry men", and we will see whether it is Henry Fonda's character who prevails, the voice of reason, or that of Lee J. Cobb, the last angry man.

 

[chemisttree]

That's taking the quote out of context -- and admittedly it was badly put: Romney was answering a question on tax policy, so all he really intended was to say that you can't win over a person on taxes if they already don't pay taxes (it is in the last couple of sentences in the quote). As I said previously, he's missing that people think they have a chance to move up, but otherwise, it isn't far from the mark.

What nonsense is this? He was asked the question...

For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, "Don't worry, we'll take care of you." How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?

NOT tax policy. He was asked about personal responsibility. He answered that question in terms of personal responsibility. He stupidly stated that the 47% of folks that pay no income tax are dependent on the government, that they want everything paid for by the government, health care, food, housing, you name it. He equated them with Obama's supporters... 47% will support Obama, "no matter what." You will note that he answered the question, "How will you convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?" with, "And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like." Stupidest statement by a presidential candidate, ever.

I can read, you know.

 

[mheslep]

Stupidest statement by a presidential candidate, ever.
...

There are other strong contenders for the award, not the least of which is the current guy in the chair.

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re going to reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’

Comes to mind. Then there's the gaff track from Biden, who was also a presidential candidate once upon a time.

 

[mheslep]

...
Indeed if Mr. Romney wants to remove any doubt that he himself has been in the 47% in the recent past, he might be well advised to release his own tax returns.
..

I read somewhere he released them ...
http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2011/wmr-adr-return
http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2010/wmr-adr-return
http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2002/state-disclosure

 

[D H]

I will go out on a limb here and predict that this statement by Romney just lost him the election, as it should do.

Probably not. The election is still a month and a half away; the media and the electorate will have forgotten this gaffe and resultant this imbroglio by then.

You can see this right here in this thread: To those who already support Romney, this wasn't a gaffe at all. It was the truth. To those who already support Obama, this wasn't just a gaffe. It was far worse.

Those strong Romney supporters and strong Obama supporters most likely are not going to decide this election. It's only those who in that mirky middle who count, and of those, even they don't count if they don't live in one of the in the battleground states. To that mirky battleground state middle, this Romney statement is somewhere in between a non-gaffe and a clown-sized foot in the mouth kind of gaffe. There's a lot of in between there, and a lot of time for perceptions to change.

 

[BobG]

It's only those who in that mirky middle who count, and of those, even they don't count if they don't live in one of the in the battleground states.

True. The stupidest statement by Romney could wind up being his stance on wind energy - essentially he wants to let the tax credits and subsidies for wind energy expire.

That shouldn't matter, except that Iowa might well be one of those battleground states.

Wind Power and Agriculture

One of the easiest and most attractive ways for farmers to benefit from wind power is to allow developers to install large wind turbines on their land. The royalties are typically around $2,000 to $5,000 per year for each turbine, depending on its size. These payments can provide a stable supplement to a farmer's income, helping to counteract swings in commodity prices.

Not enough to make a living on unless they have a lot of windmills on their property, but enough to make a difference in a drought year.

This only affects a small number of people, even in Iowa, and shouldn't matter at all since most mostly rural states are strongly pro-Romney. But Iowa is starting to look like a very close state.

But, you could probably find one seemingly obscure policy that's important to a small percentage of people in any battleground state. The little differences that could wind up having an impact greater than one would have imagined. After all, niche voters almost never have an impact, so when they do, they ought to take the opportunity to punish just so they won't be ignored in the future.

I'd call those types of situations bad luck more than stupidity, since it would be impossible to hit every niche market and still have some appeal to the masses.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul you are conflating two separate statics the 93% number is controlled wealth that includes all assets, property and other holdings.

You're right. I was being lazy. I interpreted a previous post in this thread (where that number was cited) to be referring to share of income, rather than wealth. My bad. My conclusions are therefore wrong, as shown by the numbers you cite.

 

[mheslep]

True. The stupidest statement by Romney could wind up being his stance on wind energy - essentially he wants to let the tax credits and subsidies for wind energy expire...

Stupidity has become cuts to any government subsidy or spending program with a constituency in an election year? Good bye republic if that has become absolutely true.

The Wind PTC expires in three months. It costs about one billion a year, and expiration would only impact new wind turbines. The guys with turbines in Iowa corn fields and elsewhere continue to receive ten years PTC, including a turbine that goes up Dec 31, 2012.

Anyway, without approval of the House it doesn't matter who is President come January.

 

[mathwonk]

mheslep, i am not sure you are not joking, since even the watergate tapes only had an 18 minute gap compared to the 8 year romney tax gap, but assuming you are not:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...fa40ec-dff6-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_story.html

 

[mheslep]

mheslep, i am not sure you are not joking, since even the watergate tapes only had an 18 minute gap compared to the 8 year romney tax gap, but assuming you are not:

A gap? Is that the same thing as suggesting Romney did not "release his own tax returns"? Knock yourself out:
http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/main

Where are Obama's return for the 1990's? Because 10 years is even more than 8

 

[russ_watters]

NOT tax policy. He was asked about personal responsibility.

You're right -- not sure where I got that impression, sorry.

Regarding the impact, CNN commissioned a poll, which showed a 16% gap in people who said it made them less likely to vote for Romney vs more likely. It would be nice if they did some polls on some of Obama's gaffes last week to see how they stack up. I see the potential for an inherent negative response to even an innocuous question, as simply asking about it implies there's something in the content that should matter to voters. If nothing else, asking a similar question about an Obama gaffe would enable a comparison.
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/3091

 

[rootX]

Probably not. The election is still a month and a half away; the media and the electorate will have forgotten this gaffe and resultant this imbroglio by then.

You can see this right here in this thread: To those who already support Romney, this wasn't a gaffe at all. It was the truth. To those who already support Obama, this wasn't just a gaffe. It was far worse.

Those strong Romney supporters and strong Obama supporters most likely are not going to decide this election. It's only those who in that mirky middle who count, and of those, even they don't count if they don't live in one of the in the battleground states. To that mirky battleground state middle, this Romney statement is somewhere in between a non-gaffe and a clown-sized foot in the mouth kind of gaffe. There's a lot of in between there, and a lot of time for perceptions to change.

I wonder how productive are all these recent PW&A threads. They all were literally about throwing mud at the presidential candidates over gaffes and misinterpreting stats etc. None of them had a topic with substance for productive discussion. Should it be a right time for requesting to ban such threads? I would prefer to see threads centered around Romney and Obama policies rather than one that focus on negatively attacking the candidate himself not the candidate policies.

 

[russ_watters]

Since, as DH said, people don't even agree on what is and isn't a gaffe, I don't see how that would be feasible. Indeed, any of these recent threads could have been based on cold, rational analysis of the candidates' statements only - they just weren't.

 

[lisab]

I wonder how productive are all these recent PW&A threads. They all were literally about throwing mud at the presidential candidates over gaffes and misinterpreting stats etc. None of them had a topic with substance for productive discussion. Should it be a right time for requesting to ban such threads? I would prefer to see threads centered around Romney and Obama policies rather than one that focus on negatively attacking the candidate himself not the candidate policies.

You're such a smart and reasonable puppy .

As you know, I shot a maybe-too-subtle shot across the bow to keep the passions on simmer:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=637173

Not sure if it will work, though. Sigh.

 

[Evo]

It's the hidden insight's into what a candidate really thinks that is so much more important than what their speech writers put on paper. IMO.

We'll have more to discuss when the debates start.

 

[rootX]

Since, as DH said, people don't even agree on what is and isn't a gaffe, I don't see how that would be feasible. Indeed, any of these recent threads could have been based on cold, rational analysis of the candidates' statements only - they just weren't.

I think it's too hard to get clear picture of candidate views just by analyzing one statement here and there. Many times candidates just misspeak about their policies and it's just pointless to have a cold rational analysis on what the candidate said e.g. today. You have to account for what the candidate has been saying over for longer time to get clear interpretation of his views. No matter how rational you get, you cannot have a productive discussion based on what Romney/Obama in one single video IMO.

It's the hidden insight's into what a candidate really thinks that is so much more important that what their speech writers put on paper. IMO.

But, no one would speak a speech that goes against his/her core beliefs. Politics is messy and it's so easy to catch politicians off-guard. However, when it comes to actual policy-making and decisions, I believe President will have big group of people to consult, he will not necessarily be doing what he really thinks. I think people similar to who write him speeches will be the one who will be advising him in important national matters.

You're such a smart and reasonable puppy .

As you know, I shot a maybe-too-subtle shot across the bow to keep the passions on simmer:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=637173

Not sure if it will work, though. Sigh.

 

[Evo]

Once the debates start, I will also do what we did last election, have one thread for US citizens that plan to vote, and a thread for all others. This way we will get a clear picture of US voters.

 

[SixNein]

It's the hidden insight's into what a candidate really thinks that is so much more important than what their speech writers put on paper. IMO.

We'll have more to discuss when the debates start.

And governance is different from political campaigns.

 

[BobG]

You're right -- not sure where I got that impression, sorry.

Regarding the impact, CNN commissioned a poll, which showed a 16% gap in people who said it made them less likely to vote for Romney vs more likely. It would be nice if they did some polls on some of Obama's gaffes last week to see how they stack up. I see the potential for an inherent negative response to even an innocuous question, as simply asking about it implies there's something in the content that should matter to voters. If nothing else, asking a similar question about an Obama gaffe would enable a comparison.
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/3091

The rule of gaffes:

1) Anything a candidate's opponent claims is a gaffe is worth at least some analysis.

2) Pointing out random gaffes winds up being pointless noise. For the gaffe to have an effect, it has to support some key point a candidate is making about his opponent and there has to be more than one gaffe in the same category. In other words, the gaffes have to fit into some theme; not just be random gaffes that fade into oblivion by the next news cycle.

3) The most significant gaffes are when the message isn't really a gaffe - only the way the message was conveyed. For example - "Instead of raising taxes, we should eliminate tax loopholes that prevent everyone from paying their fair share" followed by "Everyone should pay at least something in taxes". The latter statement indicates which loopholes are going to be closed and reveal whose taxes are going to be "raised". This kind of follows from #2 - the gaffe has to mean something.

Romney's 47% statement fits into the theme that Romney doesn't care about the middle class and the poor, especially when paired with some of his statements about the poor made during the primaries.

Obama's statement at Univision's town hall, "The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside, you can only change it from the outside", is certainly a strange statement for a President to make, seeing as how he's about as inside Washington as one can get, but it has to be tied to a theme to actually mean anything. It has to be tied to the inability to get things done, not getting the wrong bills passed, for example.

A lot of tiny holes in a campaign just don't do that much damage. The holes have to be grouped together to make a single hole big enough to do real damage.

And, to be honest, even most of the gaffes that can be tied to a theme won't actually have much effect. You almost have to be lucky and have the gaffe sway some small group of voters that happen to be significant in this particular election. For example, making a gaffe that pushes a few undecided Latinos one way or the other doesn't affect a candidate's overall performance, but does hurt them in Florida, Colorado, and Nevada - states that have chance of being the tipping state, but also may wind up not mattering.

 

[D H]

You almost have to be lucky and have the gaffe sway some small group of voters that happen to be significant in this particular election.

Example: This picture swayed a small group of voters in one particular state to vote against Gore in 2000:

The rest of the nation had pretty much forgotten the Elián González affair by the time the election came around, but the Cuban population in Florida hadn't. Some estimate that this affair caused up to 50,000 Cuban-Americans to switch their leanings from Gore to Bush. No Elián and there wouldn't have been a hanging chad problem.

 

[mathwonk]

mheslep, as i thought, apparently you are not joking.

 

[russ_watters]

Obama's statement at Univision's town hall, "The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside, you can only change it from the outside", is certainly a strange statement for a President to make, seeing as how he's about as inside Washington as one can get, but it has to be tied to a theme to actually mean anything. It has to be tied to the inability to get things done, not getting the wrong bills passed, for example.

I considered that one pretty serious since "Change" was pretty much the central theme of Obama's campaign last time around. So he's acknowledging that he can't do the main thing he told people to vote for him for. Seems like it should negate his primary advantage and have people questioning the wisdom in voting for him.

Romney's "47%" comment fits with peoples' preconceptions of him on both sides of the spectrum, while Obama's is against the preconceptions of his supporters, which is why, theoretically, Obama's should be more impactful.

 

[BobG]

I considered that one pretty serious since "Change" was pretty much the central theme of Obama's campaign last time around. So he's acknowledging that he can't do the main thing he told people to vote for him for. Seems like it should negate his primary advantage and have people questioning the wisdom in voting for him.

Romney's "47%" comment fits with peoples' preconceptions of him on both sides of the spectrum, while Obama's is against the preconceptions of his supporters, which is why, theoretically, Obama's should be more impactful.

Rule of gaffes #4:

A voter's gut feeling is never wrong! Not quite the same as a voter's preconceptions, but preconceptions are heavily influenced by a voter's gut feelings - the irrational side of the voter.

Gaffes don't affect ardent supporters or ardent opponents. They affect those that are undecided specifically because there's a conflict between their irrational side (their gut feelings) and their logic side.

Rule of gaffes #5:

Except when all of your friends have been telling you were wrong all along and the gaffe provides absolute proof. It's hard to stand against the current, so gaffes can cause a person to "conform to the norm". So, you're right that Obama's gaffe can cause some Republican defectors to come back (assuming they still have any Republican friends left).

But gaffes that go against a candidate's perceived image have a somewhat limited effect - especially when one viable solution is for the voter to simply shut up about who he supports.

 

[mikelepore]

"Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate - Ever" -- I think the winner would be Barry Goldwater's proposal in 1964 to use atomic bombs in Vietnam.

 

[chemisttree]

"Stupidest Statement by a Presidential Candidate - Ever" -- I think the winner would be Barry Goldwater's proposal in 1964 to use atomic bombs in Vietnam.

I called this the stupidest because it was the wrong thing to say to a group of donors. You don't tell someone that you are conceding 47% to 49% of the voters to your opponent and instead focus on the remaining 51% to 53% of reasonable voters, ie., voters that pay taxes. That is plain stupid. There are so many ways he could have answered that without resorting to that 'canned' 47% of americans are beholden to big government nonsense. This isn't an insight to Romney's world view IMO, it's just his restatement of the question is an absolutely idiotic way. I wouldn't be swayed to donate to someone that told me to my face that 47% of the voters will vote for my opponent no matter what. He effectively told that prospective donor that he wasn't even going to try to convince everybody that they were going to have to take care of themselves. They were going to vote for Obama anyway.

He should have started his answer with, "Everybody has a stake in the success of America, especially those who count on the Government for benefits. Retirees, the poor, sick and disadvantaged deserve our support but we can only do so much and remain fiscally viable..."

 

[russ_watters]

He should have started his answer with, "Everybody has a stake in the success of America, especially those who count on the Government for benefits. Retirees, the poor, sick and disadvantaged deserve our support but we can only do so much and remain fiscally viable..."

No, he shouldn't have.

1. These were Republican donors.
2. Donors pay big money for private dinners to hear candid answers, not fluffy drivel.

He effectively told that prospective donor that he wasn't even going to try to convince everybody that they were going to have to take care of themselves. They were going to vote for Obama anyway.

This is naive. Both candidates are doing the vast majority of their campaigning in a very small number of states (9 I think). Both are aware that only a relatively small fraction of voters in those states are undecided. The rule of thumb is 40/40/20, so at worst he was off in the amount by 7 percentage points from the conventional wisdom. He's really not that far off on this. It isn't that bad of an answer given the audience. Yeah, we get that you think it is bad, but you weren't the target audience. What makes the quote bad is mostly the fact that it was leaked. Obama's open mic comment to Medvedev was the same way.

 

[chemisttree]

Of course, I disagree. It was Reagan who said, "It is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work -- work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. ... We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen, and loving them, not reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they are sick, and provide opportunities to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?"

I really miss Pres. Reagan.

 

[russ_watters]

Did Reagan say that to a group of high-paying donors in a private dinner?

 

[chemisttree]

Did Reagan say that to a group of high-paying donors in a private dinner?

He said that during his first inaugural address. The perfect answer doesn't need to be specific to a particular venue.

You should read something uplifting once in awhile.

 

[russ_watters]

He said that during his first inaugural address.

So no. That's my point.

 

[SixNein]

I called this the stupidest because it was the wrong thing to say to a group of donors. You don't tell someone that you are conceding 47% to 49% of the voters to your opponent and instead focus on the remaining 51% to 53% of reasonable voters, ie., voters that pay taxes. That is plain stupid. There are so many ways he could have answered that without resorting to that 'canned' 47% of americans are beholden to big government nonsense. This isn't an insight to Romney's world view IMO, it's just his restatement of the question is an absolutely idiotic way. I wouldn't be swayed to donate to someone that told me to my face that 47% of the voters will vote for my opponent no matter what. He effectively told that prospective donor that he wasn't even going to try to convince everybody that they were going to have to take care of themselves. They were going to vote for Obama anyway.

He should have started his answer with, "Everybody has a stake in the success of America, especially those who count on the Government for benefits. Retirees, the poor, sick and disadvantaged deserve our support but we can only do so much and remain fiscally viable..."

His argument was targeting rich people who had a bigoted view of the poor. Proportionally, people like him have it fairly made on taxes thanks to years of trickle down policy.

 

[chemisttree]

So no. That's my point.

Perhaps you forget that he was asked how he will convince everybody that they will have to take care of themselves. He was asked to describe his argument to others, not the gathered donors. It was a time for him to rise above the bare knuckles of the campaign and describe his direct argument to everybody that they need to take care of themselves. It wasn't a time to slice and dice the electorate based on whether they pay income tax.

Total fail IMO.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps you forget that he was asked how he will convince everybody that they will have to take care of themselves. He was asked to describe his argument to others, not the gathered donors. It was a time for him to rise above the bare knuckles of the campaign and describe his direct argument to everybody that they need to take care of themselves. It wasn't a time to slice and dice the electorate based on whether they pay income tax.

Total fail IMO.

You are so wrong, IMO. The first part of the answer was to define who he would be pitching his ideas to and who he would be ignoring. The answer to a different question might have started off (truthfully) 'Well, I'll be totally ignoring Pennsylvania, New York and California and 30 other states in my campaign...' That wouldn't have gone over well in a nationwide address either, but it would have been fine here -- and it is probably the right thing to do.

Romney doesn't need to convince "everybody" that they need to take care of themselves because some people already believe it and some never will. He started his answer by pointing that out.

Again, the audience at the fundraiser doesn't want to hear fluff, they want to hear the logic behind the fluff. And that logic starts with who the fluff is intended to speak to.

 

[Pythagorean]

According to Adam Curtis ("Century of the Self"):

Reagan and Thatcher were among the first major political players to design a campaign using the focus groups and psychoanalysis techniques that had been developed mostly for big business in the early 20th century by Edward Bernays. Bernays had developed the techniques in the US, but the UK was happy to have the Americans come over and teach them how to do it.

Both of them had campaign aides that new exactly what the swing voters wanted to hear as that's who they largely targeted in their focus groups. Bill Clinton and Tony Blair did the same thing to take their respective countries back in the 90's.

According to Curtis, the labor party in the UK was resistant to the idea of "appealing to people's desires" and thought the people should be led by their needs instead, but the new wave of appealing to people's desires that Reagan and Thatcher had brought was tough to compete with.

Of course, this is all from a documentary that has some anti-business undertones to it, but a lot of it can be verified by looking into the history of Edward Bernays (who admits to changing the word "propaganda" to "public relations" due to the distaste in the word during the Great War.)

 

[mheslep]

According to Adam Curtis ("Century of the Self"):

Reagan and Thatcher were among the first major political players to design a campaign using the focus groups and psychoanalysis techniques ...

...

According to Curtis, the labor party in the UK was resistant to the idea of "appealing to people's desires" and thought the people should be led by their needs instead, ...

With even a superficial look at history prior the 1990s does the idea that Reagan and Thatcher were the first seem even remotely valid? Does Hoover's "http://hoover.archives.gov/info/faq.html#chicken not count in 1928 as an appeal to people's desires?

...Of course, this is all from a documentary that has some anti-business undertones to it, but a lot of it can be verified by looking into the history of Edward Bernays (who admits to changing the word "propaganda" to "public relations" due to the distaste in the word during the Great War.)

How does the history of only this PR guy verify he was original in any sense?