US Election 2012 (Superthread)

Denerick · 26-04-2012 12:18am #1

Maybe we should start a superthread for the elections since Romney is now effectively the Republican nominee.

I had a look at the polls in all of the major battleground states (On realclearpolitics.com, a bible for US politics junkies) and Romney leads in just three - Arizona, Missouri and North Carolina. Obama leads in Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire...

Its much too early to give polls too much credit, but this says something. Obama only needs to win a narrow popular vote majority in order to attain an electoral college landslide. Although I am speaking from the heart as well as the head, I really don't think Romney stands a chance in this election. I see him as a caretaker manager. Its like if Alex Ferguson had a heart attack tonight, Manchester United would appoint someone like Bryan Robson to take charge temporarily until they got a proper manager in place. Romney is a placeholder. The Republicans are attempting to rebuild their party. The problem is that they've completely alienated everyone who isn't middle aged, white, and male. Which will cause huge problems in the years to come.

MountainSniper · 26-04-2012 2:43am

Denerick wrote: »

Maybe we should start a superthread for the elections since Romney is now effectively the Republican nominee.

I had a look at the polls in all of the major battleground states (On realclearpolitics.com, a bible for US politics junkies) and Romney leads in just three - Arizona, Missouri and North Carolina. Obama leads in Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire...

Its much too early to give polls too much credit, but this says something. Obama only needs to win a narrow popular vote majority in order to attain an electoral college landslide. Although I am speaking from the heart as well as the head, I really don't think Romney stands a chance in this election. I see him as a caretaker manager. Its like if Alex Ferguson had a heart attack tonight, Manchester United would appoint someone like Bryan Robson to take charge temporarily until they got a proper manager in place. Romney is a placeholder. The Republicans are attempting to rebuild their party. The problem is that they've completely alienated everyone who isn't middle aged, white, and male. Which will cause huge problems in the years to come.

Your post is contradictory. First you say "Its much too early to give polls too much credit" followed by "but this says something" and " I really don't think Romney stands a chance in this election." Anyway, in your opinion, what has The Obama accomplished in his first term that would warrant a second term? When Reagan took over as president after Jimmy Carter unemployment was 7.2, GDP was 0.3, and we had 3% growth, after just one year Reagan drastically lowered unemployment, raised GDP, and increased growth to 7%. Right now, 3 1/2 years after The Obama became president unemployment is over 8% and we have 2% growth. The Obama has had over 8% unemployment during his entire term. C'mon man!!!

BOHtox · 26-04-2012 11:08am

Can anyone see Paul running as an independent when Romney gets the Republican nomination?

Paul won't drop out of the Republican race as it will hurt Rand's chances if he does.

I think Paul's only chance of winning the nomination went with Santorum and Gingrich dropping out. Gingrich, Santorum and Paul combined might have gotten more than half the delegates meaning a brokered convention. Then delegates could vote without be bound. Candidates would drop out and then he might have had a chance then

Paleface · 26-04-2012 12:04pm

MountainSniper wrote: »

Your post is contradictory. First you say "Its much too early to give polls too much credit" followed by "but this says something" and " I really don't think Romney stands a chance in this election." Anyway, in your opinion, what has The Obama accomplished in his first term that would warrant a second term? When Reagan took over as president after Jimmy Carter unemployment was 7.2, GDP was 0.3, and we had 3% growth, after just one year Reagan drastically lowered unemployment, raised GDP, and increased growth to 7%. Right now, 3 1/2 years after The Obama became president unemployment is over 8% and we have 2% growth. The Obama has had over 8% unemployment during his entire term. C'mon man!!!

Why do staunch Republicans keep bring up Regan's turnaround of the economy as the reason why Romney is the man to do the same now?

It was over 30 years ago! The world is a different place. Also there have been two republican presidents since then and noone mentions their policies.

If running a country was as simple as copying success stories of the past then why do anything different ever.

BOHtox · 26-04-2012 12:19pm

Or will Ron Paul back the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and seek a position as perhaps VP or on the cabinet?

Denerick · 26-04-2012 7:14pm

MountainSniper wrote: »

Your post is contradictory. First you say "Its much too early to give polls too much credit" followed by "but this says something" and " I really don't think Romney stands a chance in this election."

Nothing contradictory about it. The election is a long way away and so polls are an unreliable indicator of who shall be victor come November. BUT I think it is telling that Obama is leading in so many important states, despite the 'fact' that he is a socialist communist terrorist Muslim. When you add in the fact that Romney is such an odious character and that Obama is probably the coolest person to become President since JFK, you've got yourself a one sided election.

quote
Anyway, in your opinion, what has The Obama accomplished in his first term that would warrant a second term? When Reagan took over as president after Jimmy Carter unemployment was 7.2, GDP was 0.3, and we had 3% growth, after just one year Reagan drastically lowered unemployment, raised GDP, and increased growth to 7%. Right now, 3 1/2 years after The Obama became president unemployment is over 8% and we have 2% growth. The Obama has had over 8% unemployment during his entire term. C'mon man!!![/QUOTE]

That was a long time ago and conservatives like to forget that Reagan was much more pragmatic than the average rank and file Republican of today.

Obama has accomplished many things in his first term - he has stopped an economic catastrophe and he has almost singlehandedly prevented the doctrine of austerity taking any effective root in American politics. The evidence clearly indicates that mass austerity in a time of profound economic depression is a recipe for further economic stagnation. Just look at the UK, which officially entered a double dip recession this week. Compare that insanity with the American example. Obama is a visionary.

I may not entirely agree with his foreign policy, which is much more muscular than I would have liked, but he has so far been an outstanding President facing a truly insane and fanatical opposition. History will judge him very fondly indeed.

If he gets a second term I reckon he will be much more radical. Bad news for you I suppose, but good news for me.

Amerika · 26-04-2012 8:13pm

As we get closer to the election, and ignoring the elephants in the room (the economy, jobs, rising prices, out-of-control spending, and debt) the voters will be looking at specific examples of Obama’s vision for America... Nationalizing GM and Chrysler, a de facto nationalization of healthcare, shutting down the coal Industry, shutting down the Gulf offshore drilling industry, shutting down the Keystone Pipeline, attacking the sovereignty of Congress, attacking the independence of the Supreme Court, and his constant ruling by executive dictate. And if the voters decide to give the Republicans a greater majority in the House, control of the Senate, and the key spot in the White House, we can pretty much thank Barack Obama for single-handedly turning the reigns of the country back to the Republicans.

Denerick · 26-04-2012 8:17pm

Amerika wrote: »

As we get closer to the election, and ignoring the elephants in the room (the economy, jobs, rising prices, out-of-control spending, and debt) the voters will be looking at specific examples of Obama’s vision for America... Nationalizing GM and Chrysler, a de facto nationalization of healthcare, shutting down the coal Industry, shutting down the Gulf offshore drilling industry, shutting down the Keystone Pipeline, attacking the sovereignty of Congress, attacking the independence of the Supreme Court, and his constant ruling by executive dictate. And if the voters decide to give the Republicans a greater majority in the House, control of the Senate, and the key spot in the White House, we can pretty much thank Barack Obama for single-handedly turning the reigns of the country back to the Republicans.

Stop speaking in slogans.

Amerika · 26-04-2012 8:27pm

Denerick wrote: »

Stop speaking in slogans.

But, but, but... "We Can’t Wait" as we look to "Winning the Future" for "An America Built to Last."

Denerick · 26-04-2012 9:52pm

Amerika wrote: »

But, but, but... "We Can’t Wait" as we look to "Winning the Future" for "An America Built to Last."

Obama uses slogans. I do not. We're having a conversation, not bouncing advertising stickers off each other.

Brian? · 28-04-2012 6:38pm

BOHtox wrote: »

Can anyone see Paul running as an independent when Romney gets the Republican nomination?

Paul won't drop out of the Republican race as it will hurt Rand's chances if he does.

I think Paul's only chance of winning the nomination went with Santorum and Gingrich dropping out. Gingrich, Santorum and Paul combined might have gotten more than half the delegates meaning a brokered convention. Then delegates could vote without be bound. Candidates would drop out and then he might have had a chance then

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul never had a chance of winning the nomination and to fixate on it constantly seems a little deluded to me. He's a fringe player who uses the primary system to publicise himself.

Brian? · 28-04-2012 6:44pm

Amerika wrote: »

As we get closer to the election, and ignoring the elephants in the room (the economy, jobs, rising prices, out-of-control spending, and debt) the voters will be looking at specific examples of Obama’s vision for America... Nationalizing GM and Chrysler, a de facto nationalization of healthcare, shutting down the coal Industry, shutting down the Gulf offshore drilling industry, shutting down the Keystone Pipeline, attacking the sovereignty of Congress, attacking the independence of the Supreme Court, and his constant ruling by executive dictate. And if the voters decide to give the Republicans a greater majority in the House, control of the Senate, and the key spot in the White House, we can pretty much thank Barack Obama for single-handedly turning the reigns of the country back to the Republicans.

Do you put the the red coloured blinkers on first thing in the morning or just when you use boards?

Things he did not do:

Nationalise GM and Chrysler- He bailed them out, which has turned out to be a massive success.

Nationalise health care - complete nonsense.

Shut down the coal industry - again nonsense. The coal industry is working away just fine.

Shutting down gulf coast oil exploration - I think you'll find it was BP that sparked that one.

"attacking the sovereignty of Congress, attacking the independence of the Supreme Court, and his constant ruling by executive dictate" - None of this is even slightly true.

BOHtox · 28-04-2012 6:51pm

briankeating wrote: »

I'm sorry, but Ron Paul never had a chance of winning the nomination and to fixate on it constantly seems a little deluded to me. He's a fringe player who uses the primary system to publicise himself.

Paul did have a chance. Paul has raised millions in campaigning, he has raised the most from the military, he gets thousands at his rallies. To say he NEVER had a chance is using hindsight very well imo!

Denerick · 28-04-2012 7:29pm

BOHtox wrote: »

Paul did have a chance. Paul has raised millions in campaigning, he has raised the most from the military, he gets thousands at his rallies. To say he NEVER had a chance is using hindsight very well imo!

Eh... No. Not even Ron paul thought he had a serious chance of winning the nomination. he appealed to maybe a fifth of the Republican electorate. This ranged from Republicans of an intellectual calibre (Mostly libertarians) and the slightly anarchic youths who watch South Park and get a little muddled by talk of central banking systems and the money supply.

BOHtox · 28-04-2012 7:50pm

Denerick wrote: »

Eh... No. Not even Ron paul thought he had a serious chance of winning the nomination. he appealed to maybe a fifth of the Republican electorate. This ranged from Republicans of an intellectual calibre (Mostly libertarians) and the slightly anarchic youths who watch South Park and get a little muddled by talk of central banking systems and the money supply.

I agree he didn't have a serious chance. But he did have a chance.

Brian? · 29-04-2012 4:52am

BOHtox wrote: »

Denerick wrote: »

Eh... No. Not even Ron paul thought he had a serious chance of winning the nomination. he appealed to maybe a fifth of the Republican electorate. This ranged from Republicans of an intellectual calibre (Mostly libertarians) and the slightly anarchic youths who watch South Park and get a little muddled by talk of central banking systems and the money supply.

I agree he didn't have a serious chance. But he did have a chance.

He didn't even have a slim, glimmer of a chance. He knows this, why can't you accept it?

Yeah, he raised loads of money, but my suspicion is that the majority of donors don't understand what he stands for and simply bought into his rhetoric.

BOHtox · 29-04-2012 4:28pm

briankeating wrote: »

He didn't even have a slim, glimmer of a chance. He knows this, why can't you accept it?

Yeah, he raised loads of money, but my suspicion is that the majority of donors don't understand what he stands for and simply bought into his rhetoric.

end foreign wars
free markets
small constitutional government
to name but a few

Suryavarman · 29-04-2012 4:39pm

briankeating wrote: »

He didn't even have a slim, glimmer of a chance. He knows this, why can't you accept it?

Yeah, he raised loads of money, but my suspicion is that the majority of donors don't understand what he stands for and simply bought into his rhetoric.

Yeah because people are just dying to give money to candidates without actually knowing what they stand for :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul is well known for his desire to reduce Government until it is doing no more than the absolute basics.

Brian? · 29-04-2012 7:33pm

BOHtox wrote: »

end foreign wars
free markets
small constitutional government
to name but a few

Yes, that's his rhetoric. Some people simply eat it up without fully understanding libertarianism.

Brian? · 29-04-2012 7:35pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

Yeah because people are just dying to give money to candidates without actually knowing what they stand for :rolleyes:

They do it all the time when it comes to Mr. Paul, IMO.

I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul is well known for his desire to reduce Government until it is doing no more than the absolute basics.

Yes he is indeed well known for that, he's well known as a libertarian. I don't think most of his supporters fully understand libertarianism.

BOHtox · 29-04-2012 8:26pm

briankeating wrote: »

Yes, that's his rhetoric. Some people simply eat it up without fully understanding libertarianism.

Hardly rhetoric. He goes in to detail in his policies.
Difference:
Rhetoric: we need to balance the budget deficit.
Paul:
We need to get rid of 5 government departments.
End foreign aid
Stop the foreign wars
Take a pay cut himself
Stop corporate subsidies
Not raising the debt ceiling

Brian? · 30-04-2012 12:28am

BOHtox wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

Yes, that's his rhetoric. Some people simply eat it up without fully understanding libertarianism.

Hardly rhetoric. He goes in to detail in his policies.
Difference:
Rhetoric: we need to balance the budget deficit.
Paul:
We need to get rid of 5 government departments.
End foreign aid
Stop the foreign wars
Take a pay cut himself
Stop corporate subsidies
Not raising the debt ceiling

Those are not details, they're paragraph headers.

matthew8 · 30-04-2012 12:33am

briankeating wrote: »

Those are not details, they're paragraph headers.

Paragraph headers are details.

Brian? · 30-04-2012 1:21am

matthew8 wrote: »

Paragraph headers are details.

No they're not.

Anyway isn't this thread supposed to be about the general election? I'll leave the Ron Paul argument there, as it's pointless.

RichieC · 30-04-2012 8:31pm

For all his faults Paul talks with a lot more substance than Mittens and Santorum do/did. But for good reason, they were fighting for big money donations from defence industry and AIPAC and they are fighting over an ageing base of republicans who won't like talk of SS cuts, so any talk of reducing the deficit by them had to be sketchy on details generally just staying in around the old defunding the left rhetoric.

southsiderosie · 01-05-2012 12:11am

BOHtox wrote: »

Can anyone see Paul running as an independent when Romney gets the Republican nomination?

Paul won't drop out of the Republican race as it will hurt Rand's chances if he does.

I think Paul's only chance of winning the nomination went with Santorum and Gingrich dropping out. Gingrich, Santorum and Paul combined might have gotten more than half the delegates meaning a brokered convention. Then delegates could vote without be bound. Candidates would drop out and then he might have had a chance then

BOHtox wrote: »

I agree he didn't have a serious chance. But he did have a chance.

The fact that key planks of Paul's platform were ending both corporate welfare and American overseas military intervention meant that he was never, ever, evereeverever going to be the GOP nominee for any Presidential election EVER. I also doubt that he would run as a libertarian, since it seems his strategy from the get-go has been to focus on reforming the Republican party from within, rather than actually winning. He would give up that leverage if he ditched the party.

Now can we PLEASE talk about the GENERAL ELECTION rather than Ron Paul? There are more than enough threads on him in this forum.

BOHtox · 01-05-2012 12:33am

southsiderosie wrote: »

The fact that key planks of Paul's platform were ending both corporate welfare and American overseas military intervention meant that he was never, ever, evereeverever going to be the GOP nominee for any Presidential election EVER. I also doubt that he would run as a libertarian, since it seems his strategy from the get-go has been to focus on reforming the Republican party from within, rather than actually winning. He would give up that leverage if he ditched the party.

Now can we PLEASE talk about the GENERAL ELECTION rather than Ron Paul? There are more than enough threads on him in this forum.

Ron Paul is still in the race for the GOP and for that reason we have every right to talk about him!

southsiderosie · 01-05-2012 12:57am

BOHtox wrote: »

Ron Paul is still in the race for the GOP and for that reason we have every right to talk about him!

Unless he gets hit by a bus (or struck by some other misfortune), Mitt Romney is going to be the GOP nominee. Ron Paul will NOT be the GOP general election candidate.

BOHtox · 01-05-2012 1:31am

southsiderosie wrote: »

Unless he gets hit by a bus (or struck by some other misfortune), Mitt Romney is going to be the GOP nominee. Ron Paul will NOT be the GOP general election candidate.

I agree it looks unlikely but does that mean we shouldn't talk about him while he's in the race?

Brian? · 01-05-2012 2:47am

BOHtox wrote: »

southsiderosie wrote: »

Unless he gets hit by a bus (or struck by some other misfortune), Mitt Romney is going to be the GOP nominee. Ron Paul will NOT be the GOP general election candidate.

I agree it looks unlikely but does that mean we shouldn't talk about him while he's in the race?

It's exactly what it means IMO.

The general election is Romney v Obama, with some random fringe candidates.

Amerika · 01-05-2012 4:37pm

briankeating wrote: »

Do you put the the red coloured blinkers on first thing in the morning or just when you use boards?

I figure no more so than you putting on thoe rose colored classes and singing Kumbaya to the socialism mantra.

Nationalise GM and Chrysler- He bailed them out, which has turned out to be a massive success.

Hmmm… President Barack Obama forced GM into bankruptcy, fired the executives, and put the government "behind the wheel" of the company. Some would consider that nationalizing GM… I figure Obama calls it just another Monday. And a "success"... perhaps for the unions.

Nationalise health care - complete nonsense.

With the arrival of government-run exchanges in 2014, the government will use its regulatory, pricing, and taxing authority to favor its own plan. And would make it difficult, if not impossible for private health plans to compete and prompt businesses to switch to cheaper, public alternative. I’m looking at a $15,000 family play for employees versus a $3,000 penalty. Sadly, just a no-brainer. Just a fancy way of nationalizing health care in my opinion.

Shut down the coal industry - again nonsense. The coal industry is working away just fine.

Oh yeah… all those new emissions regulations have now forced coal-fired power plant operators to choose between installing pollution control equipment which is far too costly, switch to natural gas which is again far too costly, or shutting down their plants (BINGO!). "Just fine"… my god, six coal-fired plants are now scheduled to shut down in my state so far… nothing to see here… please move along?

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted." - Barack Obama 2008. At least there’s one campaign promise Obama kept.

Shutting down gulf coast oil exploration - I think you'll find it was BP that sparked that one.

Again… who shut down gulf coast oil exploration?

"attacking the sovereignty of Congress, attacking the independence of the Supreme Court, and his constant ruling by executive dictate" - None of this is even slightly true.

Where have you been? Don’t you remember Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court recently calling them "and unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," or his constant use of executive powers to sidestep Congress and our laws.

Brian? · 01-05-2012 6:56pm

Amerika wrote: »

I figure no more so than you putting on thoe rose colored classes and singing Kumbaya to the socialism mantra.

Kumbaya is a christian song. In my dreamed of socialist Utopia religion will be a thing of the past. I wake up every morning and sing "The Red Flag".

I have no idea what a debate on Obama's presidency has to do with Socialism by the way. He's no socialist.

Hmmm… President Barack Obama forced GM into bankruptcy, fired the executives, and put the government "behind the wheel" of the company. Some would consider that nationalizing GM… I figure Obama calls it just another Monday. And a "success"... perhaps for the unions.

Some might well consider that nationalising GM, but they'd be flat wrong. The government lent GM enough money to keep operating. This money was then repaid when GM returned to profitability. The entire thing was a huge success. If you want to take pot shots at the Obama presidency, this is a terrible place to start. Didn't the government even turn a profit on the bailout?

With the arrival of government-run exchanges in 2014, the government will use its regulatory, pricing, and taxing authority to favor its own plan. And would make it difficult, if not impossible for private health plans to compete and prompt businesses to switch to cheaper, public alternative. I’m looking at a $15,000 family play for employees versus a $3,000 penalty. Sadly, just a no-brainer. Just a fancy way of nationalizing health care in my opinion.

Government health insurance does not equal a nationalised health care system. I think you need to actually look into a nationalised healthcare system like the NHS in Britain to realise just how wide of the mark you are.

Oh yeah… all those new emissions regulations have now forced coal-fired power plant operators to choose between installing pollution control equipment which is far too costly, switch to natural gas which is again far too costly, or shutting down their plants (BINGO!). "Just fine"… my god, six coal-fired plants are now scheduled to shut down in my state so far… nothing to see here… please move along?

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted." - Barack Obama 2008. At least there’s one campaign promise Obama kept.

Well now, I admit I could be wrong on that one. But what's your alternative? Allow the pollution to continue? The obvious answer is to spend the money on research into alternative fuels wouldn't you say? I doubt you would say though.

Again… who shut down gulf coast oil exploration?

It wasn't shut down for a start. Only some rigs were closed temporarily, the moratorium was lifted.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/13/nation/la-na-oil-moratorium-20101013

Quote from the above:

The moratorium affected about 36 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico that were exploring new reservoirs of oil and gas in water deeper than 500 feet. Extraction of oil and gas in the gulf, which accounts for a third of domestic oil production, continued largely unabated.

So I ask you; who shut down the gulf of Mexico oil exploration? When was it shutdown?

Where have you been? Don’t you remember Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court recently calling them "and unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," or his constant use of executive powers to sidestep Congress and our laws.

He didn't attack the Supreme Court, he commented on it's actions. It's complete hyperbole to suggest otherwise.

Give me specific examples of him "side stepping congress".

You have taken the position that everything single thing that Obama did was wrong, which as I said before is completely blinkered.

Overheal · 01-05-2012 11:00pm

Amerika wrote: »

Again… who shut down gulf coast oil exploration?

googling Gulf Coast Exploration:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/01/26/obama-administration-announces-new-gulf-oil-exploration-deal

InTheTrees · 06-05-2012 5:36pm

briankeating wrote: »

I have no idea what a debate on Obama's presidency has to do with Socialism by the way. He's no socialist.

Some might well consider that nationalising GM, but they'd be flat wrong.

Government health insurance does not equal a nationalised health care system. I think you need to actually look into a nationalised healthcare system like the NHS in Britain to realise just how wide of the mark you are.

Frustrating isnt it? The amount of misinformation and downright lies Fox News perpetuates.

The american right wingers have whole new definitions of "socialism" and "democracy" that are solely their own.

matthew8 · 10-05-2012 8:47pm

West Virginia held a democratic primary on Tuesday. 2 candidates on the ballot. Barack Obama and Keith Judd. Keith Judd is currently in jail in Texas. The most important thing about Judd is that he's white. Judd got 40%. For those who don't know, WV is full of hillbillies.

Amerika · 11-05-2012 7:39pm

briankeating wrote: »

Shutting down gulf coast oil exploration - I think you'll find it was BP that sparked that one.

Hmmm... Now it might appear that the 6 month ban by the White House administration on deepwater drilling after the BP spill, costing 19,000 jobs and $1.1 billion in lost wages might just have been based on the White House's false rewriting of a drilling report so they could mislead the public. Hopefully the House will dig deeper into this, and hopefully the "most transparent" White House adminsitration ever won't continue to thwart continual requests from Congress to get to the bottom of their many questionable moves.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/05/11/white-house-lied-jobs-died/

Brian? · 11-05-2012 7:58pm

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm... Now it might appear that the 6 month ban by the White House administration on deepwater drilling after the BP spill, costing 19,000 jobs and $1.1 billion in lost wages might just have been based on the White House's false rewriting of a drilling report so they could mislead the public. Hopefully the House will dig deeper into this, and hopefully the "most transparent" White House adminsitration ever won't continue to thwart continual requests from Congress to get to the bottom of their many questionable moves.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/05/11/white-house-lied-jobs-died/

So that's your only argument with all of the points I made in my post? That the WH lied and you back it up with Michelle Malkin as a source? That's laughable.

Amerika · 11-05-2012 9:25pm

briankeating wrote: »

So that's your only argument with all of the points I made in my post? That the WH lied and you back it up with Michelle Malkin as a source? That's laughable.

Just taking my time, and I’ll tackle them a little at a time when time allows. Don’t want to get the dander up of some all at once.

Funny, I thought the actual scans of government official correspondence, connected with this apparent scandal, would have been more persuasive than the fact they were displayed by Michelle Malkin… silly me… my bad. But do you really think media outlets like The New York Times, WaPo, Huffington Post, MSNBC or the big three ABC, CBS or NBC would actually take the lead and report on something like this without being forced to? I think not… it doesn’t fit with their ideals and agenda.

matthew8 · 17-05-2012 7:59pm

Great news for Romney. His Gallup favourability rating is up to 50%, a big spike. I still think he'll need bad economic news to win, but right now the downballot effect could help the republicans take over the senate.

Denerick · 17-05-2012 8:08pm

matthew8 wrote: »

Great news for Romney. His Gallup favourability rating is up to 50%, a big spike. I still think he'll need bad economic news to win, but right now the downballot effect could help the republicans take over the senate.

Its funny really. Romney's hopes rest on his ability to keep his supporters at arms length. If the tea party movement re-emerges in all of its 2010 glory, he will lose. That 50% is very soft indeed. I still think Obama will win comfortably.

matthew8 · 17-05-2012 8:54pm

Denerick wrote: »

Its funny really. Romney's hopes rest on his ability to keep his supporters at arms length. If the tea party movement re-emerges in all of its 2010 glory, he will lose. That 50% is very soft indeed. I still think Obama will win comfortably.

Right now I think Obama will win all his 2008 states except for Florida, Indiana and North Carolina.

Brian? · 17-05-2012 10:08pm

matthew8 wrote: »

Denerick wrote: »

Its funny really. Romney's hopes rest on his ability to keep his supporters at arms length. If the tea party movement re-emerges in all of its 2010 glory, he will lose. That 50% is very soft indeed. I still think Obama will win comfortably.

Right now I think Obama will win all his 2008 states except for Florida, Indiana and North Carolina.

I don't think he'll lose florida. That's based on no real evidence.

matthew8 · 17-05-2012 10:18pm

briankeating wrote: »

I don't think he'll lose florida. That's based on no real evidence.

Based on no real evidence? What about polling and trending?

K-9 · 17-05-2012 11:22pm

matthew8 wrote: »

Great news for Romney. His Gallup favourability rating is up to 50%, a big spike. I still think he'll need bad economic news to win, but right now the downballot effect could help the republicans take over the senate.

Was reading a piece from Time Magazine suggesting that's largely just keeping out of sight and out of mind!

Brian? · 18-05-2012 3:18am

matthew8 wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

I don't think he'll lose florida. That's based on no real evidence.

Based on no real evidence? What about polling and trending?

Well it's even enough in the polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html

Romneys social conservatism won't swing it for him in Florida.

Amerika · 22-05-2012 3:03pm

briankeating wrote: »

Some might well consider that nationalising GM, but they'd be flat wrong.

Technically you are correct, but that is the feeling by many of the voters, and that’s all that really matters in politics. I doubt the voters keep a copy of Websters Pocket Dictionary to reference when they hit the voting booths.

The government lent GM enough money to keep operating.

Is that all they did? Did they not force out the head of GM? Did the stockholders not get screwed and the Labor Union given sizable stock? Did they not force GM to put the foolish Chevy Volt into production? Did not GM go into bankruptcy ANYWAY?

This money was then repaid when GM returned to profitability.

Really... it was all paid? So GM doesn’t owe us anything? Hmm.... Why do I keep hearing a number around $14 billion still owed?

- - - - -

Also, a couple of recent observations on the election I’ve been hearing about:

I’ve been hearing more and more chatter in political circles indicating Barack Obama will dump the Biden the lovable buffoon, and go with Hillary Clinton as his Vice President choice for his shot at a second term as POTUS. The decision might be made right around the time the Democratic convention takes place. Supposedly Obama/Clinton bumper stickers have already been produced and stored in a secret bunker in Little Rock, Arkansas. Personally, it makes sense to me as Obama’s polling keeps dropping and adding Hillary to the ticket will only help to energize the Democratic base and women will come back into the fold.

I’ve also heard there might be a good chance that Romney will win the Electoral College votes, but lose handily in the popular vote because of California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts. It seems all Romney needs to do is add about 650,000 votes (to get the 270 votes) to John McCain’s 2008 totals in six decisive states in order to take an Electoral College victory. An amazingly small number given Obama beat McCain by 9 million popular votes. If that happens, or looks like it might happen, I think you’ll be hearing a lot about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in the courts (seemingly the new Democratic mantra – if you lose… sue!). If you think things are ugly now between the parties and nothing gets done, just wait and see what happens if we get another split presidential vote.

Matt Holck · 22-05-2012 5:09pm

both major party Candidates are from Harvard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3COlAsJk9lU

Brian? · 22-05-2012 5:35pm

Amerika wrote: »

Technically you are correct, but that is the feeling by many of the voters, and that’s all that really matters in politics. I doubt the voters keep a copy of Websters Pocket Dictionary to reference when they hit the voting booths.

Technically correct is correct, how voters feel about it means nothing to me. Who needs a copy of a dictionary to know whether GM was nationalised? If the government doesn't own the company lock, stock and barrell it's not nationalised. It's merely Republican dogma and propaganda that suggests otherwise.

Is that all they did? Did they not force out the head of GM? Did the stockholders not get screwed and the Labor Union given sizable stock? Did they not force GM to put the foolish Chevy Volt into production? Did not GM go into bankruptcy ANYWAY?

Would you give a struggling company money without having a say in how it operates? GM got into trouble in the first place due to how badly it was run, change was needed to turn it around. It has now been turned around.

Also, isn't the Chevy Volt a success? Sales have dropped after a surge, but it's still profitable. That can't be said for some of the cars GM produced before they were bailed out.

Really... it was all paid? So GM doesn’t owe us anything? Hmm.... Why do I keep hearing a number around $14 billion still owed?

Source? Ok it hasn't all been repaid yet, I was wrong about that. But it will be if GM continues the way it is.[/quote]

- - - - -

Also, a couple of recent observations on the election I’ve been hearing about:

I’ve been hearing more and more chatter in political circles indicating Barack Obama will dump the Biden the lovable buffoon, and go with Hillary Clinton as his Vice President choice for his shot at a second term as POTUS. The decision might be made right around the time the Democratic convention takes place. Supposedly Obama/Clinton bumper stickers have already been produced and stored in a secret bunker in Little Rock, Arkansas. Personally, it makes sense to me as Obama’s polling keeps dropping and adding Hillary to the ticket will only help to energize the Democratic base and women will come back into the fold..

Joe Biden is a loveable buffoon? That's highly insulting and unnecessary to a man who's spent his life serving his country. God forbid the man says what he thinks every now and then.

I don't tink Obama needs to drop Biden, the idead that he'll do it to win women back is laughable. The last poll I saw had women 54-39 in favour of Obama.

I’ve also heard there might be a good chance that Romney will win the Electoral College votes, but lose handily in the popular vote because of California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts. It seems all Romney needs to do is add about 650,000 votes (to get the 270 votes) to John McCain’s 2008 totals in six decisive states in order to take an Electoral College victory. An amazingly small number given Obama beat McCain by 9 million popular votes. If that happens, or looks like it might happen, I think you’ll be hearing a lot about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in the courts (seemingly the new Democratic mantra – if you lose… sue!). If you think things are ugly now between the parties and nothing gets done, just wait and see what happens if we get another split presidential vote.

I doubt the Dems will sue if they lose on electoral college votes, it makes no sense for them to do so as it's a losing case. However, the system should be changed to a popular vote system as it's more democratic. Surely you can't deny one person one vote is the fairest system?

Matt Holck · 22-05-2012 6:28pm

US foreign policy has been way too aggressive to consider the secretary of state a viable candidate

they should have nationalized GM

and hooray for the volt

>I don't tink Obama needs to drop Biden, the idead that he'll do it to win women back is laughable. The last poll I saw had women 54-39 in favour of Obama.

I think the Republicans in the roll of "bad guys" got that covered for Obama

Amerika · 22-05-2012 7:29pm

briankeating wrote: »

Joe Biden is a loveable buffoon? That's highly insulting and unnecessary to a man who's spent his life serving his country. God forbid the man says what he thinks every now and then.

That’s what many of us “locals” refer to him as (he’s from what we say... “up the pike,” which means Scranton is a little ways north on the PA turnpike), and the term is much nicer and kinder than what is usually said and printed about him in most of the press here. It's more or less an endearing term.

I don't tink Obama needs to drop Biden, the idead that he'll do it to win women back is laughable. The last poll I saw had women 54-39 in favour of Obama.

The latest CBS News/New York Times poll shows Obama's support among female voters at 44%, and Romney at 46%.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/14/poll-romney-up-obama-down-among-women/

I doubt the Dems will sue if they lose on electoral college votes, it makes no sense for them to do so as it's a losing case.

They did it with Bush – Gore didn't they? As I remember it went all the way to the Supreme Court.

However, the system should be changed to a popular vote system as it's more democratic. Surely you can't deny one person one vote is the fairest system?

No it shouldn't and No I think a Constitutional Republic to be most fair. In a democracy, minorities (whether they be people, states, or any other form) can become taken advantage of by a pure majority vote.

Amerika · 22-05-2012 7:39pm

briankeating wrote: »

Also, isn't the Chevy Volt a success? Sales have dropped after a surge, but it's still profitable. That can't be said for some of the cars GM produced before they were bailed out.

If your definition of "success" means paying $40,000 and getting a $7,500 rebate back from the government (which really means the taxpayers are paying the $7,500) for a vehicle that costs $40,000 to manufacture (forgetting about such things as marketing and advertising costs, dealer selling percentages, recalls... etc), then perhaps so. But definitely not in my book!

US Election 2012 (Superthread)

Comments