General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Mitt's smirking disaster (The Difference in Demeanor When Americans Are Killed) [View all]JoeyT
(6,785 posts)I think a good many of them would rather see Mitt than Obama, for a few reasons:
1) Obama isn't nearly hawkish enough. Drone attacks aren't enough. Even if we put a billion drones in the air, you can still funnel far more money to the "right" sort of people with a ground war; especially if you've ensured the ground war is one we'll lose because we have no idea what "winning" is supposed to be. (Like George the Lesser did in Iraq)
2) Obama is disappointing to many of us on economic issues, but Mitt is entirely preferable to Obama to many of the 1% because they don't view it as accumulating money, they view it as looting a sinking ship. So they absolutely want the guy that will give them the biggest shovel.
3) Obama isn't distracting the bottom 98% or so from the looting as much as Romney. Romney would go to any lengths, including starting a massive war just to create one more smokescreen to hide the guys dragging the giant bags of money off. Even if you disagree with Obama's actions, his rhetoric during the campaign is helping shine a light on them, and they're not enjoying it.
Look at how hard most of the media is working to make sure we know what an awesome guy Mitt is if you don't think the 1% have a strong preference.