Will Obama win a landslide victory?

Denerick

At this stage I'm assuming Romney will be the Republican nominee.

The economic indicators look better every day and he is going to romp home with the lions share of the independent's vote, the Hispanic vote (Hispanics will not vote for the guy who hires them to clean his mansion) not to mention all the other minority votes (With the exception of the Mormons, obviously) This is Obama's to lose. He'll even be able to match the spending of Romney's corporate campaign.

We're going to have an amoral shill, a venomous coward who will say anything to get elected, versus an effortlessly cool, socially progressive, economically competent sitting President. Romney doesn't stand a chance.

Eliot Rosewater

Denerick wrote: »

He'll even be able to match the spending of Romney's corporate campaign.

He'll do far more than that: the NY Times reports that Obama has raised more than double what Romney has: link. Notice too, in relation to the corporate comment, that 85% of Romney's donations are over $200 - as opposed to less than 50% for Obama. An indicator that Obama still has a very large grassroots organization to call upon, perhaps?

matthew8

He could potentially get a landslide, if the economy improves and nothing happens in Europe/Iran and unless he introduces controversial new legislation.

Brian?

I doubt it'll be a landslide, commited Republicans will turn up enough numbers no matter who they pick for no other reason than they hate Obama so much.

It will be more of a calk walk than a landslide.

matthew8

briankeating wrote: »

I doubt it'll be a landslide, commited Republicans will turn up enough numbers no matter who they pick for no other reason than they hate Obama so much.

It will be more of a calk walk than a landslide.

Yeah a cakewalk seems probable now. America is so polarised now that landslides are incredibly rare unless there's a centrist running (and if you've gone through the process of getting a major nomination, you are not a centrist).

timesnap

There will be no landslide,in fact 08 was not a landslide either when the stats are broken down.
Obama still has many anybody but him voters to deal with.

Denerick

timesnap wrote: »

There will be no landslide,in fact 08 was not a landslide either when the stats are broken down.
Obama still has many anybody but him voters to deal with.

I should probably clarify. By landslide I mean of course an electoral college landslide - think of Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, maybe even Virgina all staying blue due to the numerous causes I mentioned above. I doubt he'll get more than 52/53% of the popular vote nationally.

timesnap

Denerick wrote: »

I doubt he'll get more than 52/53% of the popular vote nationally.

I agree,even53% is probably optimistic.:)

Denerick

timesnap wrote: »

I agree,even53% is probably optimistic.:)

Yeah, even the landslides that stick out in our memory, such as Johnson '64 or Reagan '84 were relatively small landslides (mid 60s and high 50s, respectively)

The key difference was that the electoral map basically went one colour.

Manach

If the Republican candidate picks Marco Rubio as VP - would that not put some of the Hispanic vote in play, especially in Florida?

Denerick

Manach wrote: »

If the Republican candidate picks Marco Rubio as VP - would that not put some of the Hispanic vote in play, especially in Florida?

Just the Cubans - who would vote Republican anyway. Rubio would grant Florida but remember he is a tea party favourite - he would add little nationally and would re-inforce the notion of the Republicans as a party of cranks. He would be a turn off for independents.

Cuban Americans are much more integrated than the average Hispanic and tend to be more right wing also. Hispanics are making states like Arizona, Colorado etc. much more competitive, and are part of the reason why Obama won California with over 60% of the vote in 2008 - effectively killing off any Republican dream of restoring California to its ancestral 'red state' status, as it was under its most famous political son, Ronald Reagan. California is not meant to be such a banker for the democrats, it is too large and varied as a state and should be by its nature a 'swing state'. However the Republicans seem to be so talented at pissing off anyone who isn't a white male that they consistently shoot themselves in the foot.

matthew8

Denerick wrote: »

Just the Cubans - who would vote Republican anyway. Rubio would grant Florida but remember he is a tea party favourite - he would add little nationally and would re-inforce the notion of the Republicans as a party of cranks. He would be a turn off for independents.

Cuban Americans are much more integrated than the average Hispanic and tend to be more right wing also. Hispanics are making states like Arizona, Colorado etc. much more competitive, and are part of the reason why Obama won California with over 60% of the vote in 2008 - effectively killing off any Republican dream of restoring California to its ancestral 'red state' status, as it was under its most famous political son, Ronald Reagan. California is not meant to be such a banker for the democrats, it is too large and varied as a state and should be by its nature a 'swing state'. However the Republicans seem to be so talented at pissing off anyone who isn't a white male that they consistently shoot themselves in the foot.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees right through Rubio.

Memnoch

Denerick wrote: »

We're going to have an amoral shill, a venomous coward who will say anything to get elected, versus an effortlessly cool, socially progressive, economically competent sitting President.

This is what really kills me. The propaganda on the right is just conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory and they swallow it up to the point where 20%+ of the republican base think Obama is some kind of anti-christ.

The saddest thing is that a lot of these people are probably poor and not very highly educated and exactly the kind of people that would benefit and have a chance to succeed and get their kids a good education in a fairer, more progressive society.

Yet somehow, through the manipulation of their ignorance they get suckered into voting for people who only care about how good the wealthy do.

In medicine there is the concept of informed consent. I.E. It's not just enough that a patient signs their name on a piece of paper. They have to understand the proceedure and the risks and benefits before their consent is valid. How can democracy function when close to 50% of Americans trust fox news?

Manic Moran

I think it might be closer than we might expect. The problem is that Obama hasn't really managed to do anything particularly amazing, and the novelty value of him has sortof worn out. All that hope and change has rather lost its luster, as has 'first black man in the White House'. I still think he'll win unless some disaster strikes, but I think it's more because the Republicans continually shoot themselves in their feet than because of any huge superiority or appeal of Obama.

NTM

amacachi

At the moment I'd say he'd top 55% easily enough and carry a couple more states than he did last time. Depends on whether or not there's a "major event" before the election though. Just looking at a map of the results last time I can't see many of the blue states turning red. Most of the reds from last time should hold but I don't think there'll be much of a rallying of the GOP base.

FreudianSlippers

Memnoch wrote: »

This is what really kills me. The propaganda on the right is just conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory and they swallow it up to the point where 20%+ of the republican base think Obama is some kind of anti-christ.

The saddest thing is that a lot of these people are probably poor and not very highly educated and exactly the kind of people that would benefit and have a chance to succeed and get their kids a good education in a fairer, more progressive society.

Yet somehow, through the manipulation of their ignorance they get suckered into voting for people who only care about how good the wealthy do.

In medicine there is the concept of informed consent. I.E. It's not just enough that a patient signs their name on a piece of paper. They have to understand the proceedure and the risks and benefits before their consent is valid. How can democracy function when close to 50% of Americans trust fox news?

That's the problem. Republicans know exactly what they're doing and play on the hyper-Christian angle with the poorest (and usually southern) people in the country. I'm always slightly flabbergasted at how well the Republican machine works.

Memnoch

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think it might be closer than we might expect. The problem is that Obama hasn't really managed to do anything particularly amazing, and the novelty value of him has sortof worn out. All that hope and change has rather lost its luster, as has 'first black man in the White House'. I still think he'll win unless some disaster strikes, but I think it's more because the Republicans continually shoot themselves in their feet than because of any huge superiority or appeal of Obama.

NTM

If you truly believe that then you've obviously fallen victim to the GOP's propaganda machine.

Obama's achievements as I see them:

1) Rescued an economy in freefall. DOW was what, 7000 points when he was elected? Now 13,000 plus. Economy is growing jobs. All of this despite absolutely fanatical obstructionism from the GOP in Congress who have seemed time and time again to be happy to wreck the country if that means regaining power.

If you want a contrast, look at the UK with a conservative government and their policy of austerity and deep public sector cuts. Look at the stagnation there.

2) Repealed DADT

3) Made a big step in fixing the healthcare mire that too many Americans find themselves in. Again against trenchant GOP opposition who seem to be in the pockets of the insurance companies (along with the oil industry, weapon's manufacturers, and any other big corporate cabal you can think of)

4) Osama, Zarawi (or however you spell his name). Though personally I'm not happy about his methods.

5) He genuinely tried to be bi-partisan and a uniter. But the GOP haven't been interested in any compromise other than what has been forced out of them by manouvering them into a corner politically.

6) Had the guts to say that any real peace in the middle east between Israel and Palestine can only happen when you start with the 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps. Though had to backtrack due to the cluelessness and ignorance of most Americans on the issue and the GOP making hay politically of anyone in power who doesn't think that Israel should be allowed to summarily wipe Palestine off the map.

7) Saved the American auto industry who are now creating jobs and posting profits.

8) Reintroduced stronger financial regulation to reign in the banking industry. Something the GOP are already arguing against after having been successfully lobbied by wall street.

I'm not sure what more or what kind of CHANGE you were expecting, especially in the face of a political environment that is rife with lies, propaganda and downright hatred.

His failures in my view:

1) Not closing down Guantanemo. But I blame the GOP for this and their inability to see sense.

2) Drone strikes. Too many civillian casualties.

3) Election reform. Again, I blame the GOP. Superpacs are killing American democracy. At least Obama came out against them, which is more than any other headline politician in a while. Though he's had to backtrack since he's not going to be able to compete with Romney's big business buddies in the fall otherwise.

Overall, while I acknowledge that perhaps expectations were too high, I don't think that Obama has let them down, rather, the political system, which is still grossly diseased and rotten has shown us the ugly reality of the American body politic.

Manic Moran

1) Rescued an economy in freefall. DOW was what, 7000 points when he was elected? Now 13,000 plus. Economy is growing jobs. All of this despite absolutely fanatical obstructionism from the GOP in Congress who have seemed time and time again to be happy to wreck the country if that means regaining power.

If you want a contrast, look at the UK with a conservative government and their policy of austerity and deep public sector cuts. Look at the stagnation there.

It would have taken near active interference not to have the economy start to rebound. Given that budgetary policy is actually controlled by Congress, which I believe is still the least popular Congress in history, and that they appear to be setting records for nothingness, I don't believe too much of that credit should go to the Feds. The States, however, seem to generally be sorting themselves out, although with the very obvious notable exception of the economic powerhouse which is California, but even at that, the local governments are doing OK. I'm hearing in the news every day of actions being conducted by State and local governments, debt restructuring deals, pension reform deals, government cutbacks and hirings, tax deals, corporate incentives... basically things that the Feds are supposed to be doing as well, but don't seem to be doing a very good job of it.

The US is a union of fifty independent States with their own legislatures. Any comparison between the UK which has very limited fiscal policy abilities below the national government level and the US where things are much more decentralised suffers a major failing.

2) Repealed DADT

Hardly a major deal in the grand scheme of things. Especially since DOMA is still in effect so the benefits to the military homosexual community are limited.

3) Made a big step in fixing the healthcare mire that too many Americans find themselves in. Again against trenchant GOP opposition who seem to be in the pockets of the insurance companies (along with the oil industry, weapon's manufacturers, and any other big corporate cabal you can think of)

I'll give credit for that (In four years, you'd think he'd manage to push at least one thing through). I'm not sure too many people are entirely pleased with the outcome, though there is always the concept that a good compromise is when nobody is happy. But if nobody's happy, who's going to vote on that grounds? And the long-term viability of the healthcare act is still an open question.

4) Osama, Zarawi (or however you spell his name). Though personally I'm not happy about his methods.

Another item of not huge significance in the grand scheme of things. I have no quarrel at all with his methods, and personally believe he made the right call. I also personally believe that any President worth his nuts would have made the same call, so I don't think it's going to be a major vote-influencer. Finally, the killing of Osama has limited effect on the future: Votes aren't about 'what have you done for us in the past', it's 'what are you going to do for us in the future?'

5) He genuinely tried to be bi-partisan and a uniter. But the GOP haven't been interested in any compromise other than what has been forced out of them by manouvering them into a corner politically.

Agreed. (But have you heard some of the rhetoric coming out of the Democrats as well? Both sides are pathetic, probably explaining the low Congressional approval rates). To quote the portrayal of Patton, "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. Now, I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed." It is quite probable that Mahatma Ghandi himself could not get the D and R Congresscritters to unite, but that's not Obama's problem. The problem is that he hasn't done it.

6) Had the guts to say that any real peace in the middle east between Israel and Palestine can only happen when you start with the 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps. Though had to backtrack due to the cluelessness and ignorance of most Americans on the issue and the GOP making hay politically of anyone in power who doesn't think that Israel should be allowed to summarily wipe Palestine off the map.

Good for his moral character, sure. But you hit the nail on the head with second part, terrible for his re-election chances. Remember, the question before us is not "Is Obama a good president", the question is "will he get re-elected by a landslide" I'm sure you'll have observed by now that the two are not necessarily correlated.

7) Saved the American auto industry who are now creating jobs and posting profits.

He merely continued the policy set by his predecessor, but yes, he will be able to take the credit for that one as the person sitting in the seat when the effects hit.

8) Reintroduced stronger financial regulation to reign in the banking industry. Something the GOP are already arguing against after having been successfully lobbied by wall street.

Since I'm not actually keeping track of that one, I'll grant it to you.

I don't think that Obama has let them down, rather, the political system, which is still grossly diseased and rotten has shown us the ugly reality of the American body politic.

I agree with you to a large extent here, although I think we probably will find we disagree at the lower levels of just where the political system in the US should be changed. But for the purposes of the election, it doesn't matter. Saying "I tried, failed, it's their fault, but vote for me again anyway" is fundamentally not all that appealing, even if it's true.

NTM

Memnoch

I don't disagree with you too much about voter perception, or his ability to win a landslide.

I disagreed with you about the idea that he hasn't accomplished anything or lived up to his promise of hope and change.

If you want to add the caveat, in the eyes of voters who might not see the bigger picture, then I'll agree with that.

Overall, I don't think anyone else could have done better, given the climate and current politics of the US.

He's highly intelligent, compassionate, willing to compromise, calm, has integrity and is highly determined. A true leader. It's a pity so many Americans don't see this.

stretchtex

Looking more and more like Romney will assume the seat in the oval office and the Republicans will have a net gain of 5 Senate seats.

RichieC

It won't be a land slide, I'm pretty sure the republicans will have a "swift boat" type attack lined up, but he'll win.

timesnap

stretchtex wrote: »

Looking more and more like Romney will assume the seat in the oval office and the Republicans will have a net gain of 5 Senate seats.

Hi stretchtex,what are you basing this on? has there been a poll to that effect or something?
I am only asking through interest not demanding a link from you:)
i would have thought Amerika where ever he is hiding would be posting about this,;)

mikemac1

Don't know a lot about US politics but try to keep up

I read the politics section of an American football forum and the hate for Obama is intense:
A communist, a Muslim and to type socialism is almost a swear word
There will be death panels where bureaucrats will decide if you deserve care or be sent home to die, that's Obamas fault
He gave away islands in the Artic Sea to the Russians though those talks have been ongoing for decades
Oh by taxing the rich he wants a class war, sure the Democrats are the party of welfare sponges

There is a thread in After Hours about companies asking job applicants for their facebook logins. After Hours ripped the piss over it as AH does best
I read the same story on the football site and this is Obamas fault


Yeah, I bitch and moan about the Taoiseach and the last one but this is just pure hatred on display

I think he will win comfortably.
But to many he seems to be the devil and most evil man on earth. And tbh I wouldn't be shocked if some crackpot takes a shot at him some day

stretchtex

The narrative that's developing here in the states is if the Republicans control both chambers and the white house will they discontinue the Bush/Obama policies of uncontrolled spending or return to some semblance of fiscal sanity. Are we to believe the polls that 4 out of 10 Americans approve of the Presidents performance??...that's not reflected in my unscientific sampling.

timesnap

stretchtex wrote: »

The narrative that's developing here in the states is if the Republicans control both chambers and the white house will they discontinue the Bush/Obama policies of uncontrolled spending or return to some semblance of fiscal sanity. Are we to believe the polls that 4 out of 10 Americans approve of the Presidents performance??...that's not reflected in my unscientific sampling.

Oh right,as i tried to indicate i only asked through interest.
Amerika was not meant to be in any way offensive to you,he is a die hard Republican who has not posted in a while on threads i subscribe to,as he said sometime lately we will know for sure in November.

stretchtex

My friends on the left like to use certain unsettling buzz terms to frame the debate between Dems and Repubs. Neocon, evangelical, redneck, jingoistic, unsophisticated, racist. I don't fall into any of those category's and I also do not believe the President is a Muslim and wouldn't have a problem if he were. I get up 6 days a week at 5:30 am and go to work and I'm happy to do it. I expect any capable person to do the same. I believe in a strong defense but I'm opposed to the US meddling in others affairs. I'm mindful that a healthy diet and exercise is an essential component of a healthy existence but not interested in "the nanny state". $16 trillion is not an insignificant number to me. I believe that people who hold similar views an mine will be a factor in the upcoming election.

RichieC

stretchtex wrote: »

My friends on the left like to use certain unsettling buzz terms to frame the debate between Dems and Repubs. Neocon, evangelical, redneck, jingoistic, unsophisticated, racist. I don't fall into any of those category's and I also do not believe the President is a Muslim and wouldn't have a problem if he were. I get up 6 days a week at 5:30 am and go to work and I'm happy to do it. I expect any capable person to do the same. I believe in a strong defense but I'm opposed to the US meddling in others affairs. I'm mindful that a healthy diet and exercise is an essential component of a healthy existence but not interested in "the nanny state". $16 trillion is not an insignificant number to me. I believe that people who hold similar views an mine will be a factor in the upcoming election.

While baring your rather centrist (in US terms) views in mind I wonder why you so much identify with the republicans?

Do you honestly believe the Republicans would have not bailed out the banks?

timesnap

RichieC wrote: »

While baring your rather centrist (in US terms) views in mind I wonder why you so much identify with the republicans?

Do you perceive stretctex as Republican Ritchie? i read him more as a libertarian ?

Do you honestly believe the Republicans would have not bailed out the banks?

They did but to a much larger extent than i ever knew,(i googled banks that Bush let fail,hoping i could blame it all on Dubya.:))
the results for that search term threw up many results of bank failures allowed by both main parties,too many to reproduce or link to,not to mention thanks to Minister Sherlock we have to walk on eggshells as to what we can reproduce.
a little sample from wiki:

Government support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

In addition to the government conservatorship, which CBO estimates will increase the federal government's net liabilities by $238 billion, several government agencies have taken steps to increase liquidity within Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Among these steps includes:[33]
Federal Reserve purchases of $23 billion in GSE debt (out of a potential $100 billion) and $53 billion in GSE-held mortgage backed securities (out of a potential $500 billion).
Federal Reserve purchases of $24 billion in GSE debt.
Treasury Department purchases of $14 billion in GSE stock (out of a potential $200 billion).
Treasury Department purchases of $71 billion in mortgage backed securities
Federal Reserve extension of primary credit rate for loans to the GSEs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac

the google results are a real eye opener to me at least.

RichieC

Do you perceive stretctex as Republican Ritchie? i read him more as a libertarian ?

Is his answer to the problems to vote out the centre right Obama in favour of a far right social republican? if the answer is yes then my question is valid.

timesnap

RichieC wrote: »

Is his answer to the problems to vote out the centre right Obama in favour of a far right social republican? if the answer is yes then my question is valid.

Richie i only asked you because you a poster i respect a lot,it was not an attack on you,more that i am always on a learning curve simply because i have no faith in any particular party or ideology anymore, i am inclined to believe that the west has entered a post Democracy era(as to how it defined democracy until recently)
I am curious what will be the end game of this new world,thats all.:)
hopefully he will post when he can to clarify his beliefs.

RichieC

timesnap wrote: »

Richie i only asked you because you a poster i respect a lot,it was not an attack on you,more that i am always on a learning curve simply because i have no faith in any particular party or ideology anymore, i am inclined to believe that the west has entered a post Democracy era(as to how it defined democracy until recently)
I am curious what will be the end game of this new world,thats all.:)
hopefully he will post when he can to clarify his beliefs.

I don't think we're entering a post democracy era, I think we've been post democracy for a long long time. Consider, in americas case the McCarty era hearings, Cointelpro, water gate, the destruction of workers rights. in ours, well, we've basically been run by a church for 70 years and then a corruption ridden body politic from then on. I think the American style dictatorship of money is moving on to take over us now.

Memnoch

stretchtex wrote: »

My friends on the left like to use certain unsettling buzz terms to frame the debate between Dems and Repubs. Neocon, evangelical, redneck, jingoistic, unsophisticated, racist. I don't fall into any of those category's and I also do not believe the President is a Muslim and wouldn't have a problem if he were. I get up 6 days a week at 5:30 am and go to work and I'm happy to do it. I expect any capable person to do the same. I believe in a strong defense but I'm opposed to the US meddling in others affairs. I'm mindful that a healthy diet and exercise is an essential component of a healthy existence but not interested in "the nanny state". $16 trillion is not an insignificant number to me. I believe that people who hold similar views an mine will be a factor in the upcoming election.

All that is fine... but you would really vote for someone like Romney? Really?

stretchtex

I believe that religion should play no role in matters of the state.
I'm Catholic..don't believe in abortion.
I don't see that as a contradiction.
I don't subscribe to a cradle to the grave mentality.
I believe a safety net of some degree should exist.
I have no patience for loafers.
I'm no teetotaler..I drink, curse and generally raise hell on occasion.
Unions tend to prove to be a source of irritation for me. They played an important role in Chicago beef slaughter houses at the turn of the 20th century.
In the grand scheme of things life is short and life is hard, I want to live free.
The fact that a person aspires to be a politician automatically prevents them from obtaining my unwavering support.
I'm generally optimistic.
Gray, rainy days put me in a disagreeable mood.

Memnoch

As I said... all of that is fine... though some of that seems confusing.

What do you mean you don't believe in abortion? I'm assuming you mean you are against it. All that stuff you said is very poetic etc. I'm not questioning that you are a unique, complex or interesting individual.

But none of the above helps to advance discussion or debate on the subject at hand...

So I'll ask again... are you seriously thinking of voting for Romney in November. And if I may be so bold as to ask, I'd love to know why?

Brian?

stretchtex wrote: »

I believe that religion should play no role in matters of the state.
I'm Catholic..don't believe in abortion.
I don't see that as a contradiction.
I don't subscribe to a cradle to the grave mentality.
I believe a safety net of some degree should exist.
I have no patience for loafers.
I'm no teetotaler..I drink, curse and generally raise hell on occasion.
Unions tend to prove to be a source of irritation for me. They played an important role in Chicago beef slaughter houses at the turn of the 20th century.
In the grand scheme of things life is short and life is hard, I want to live free.
The fact that a person aspires to be a politician automatically prevents them from obtaining my unwavering support.
I'm generally optimistic.
Gray, rainy days put me in a disagreeable mood.

If these are beliefs, why would you vote Republican?

Manic Moran

What else should he vote?

Some of that list tends to lean towards Democrat thinking, some Republican. Some items, like the safety net, can swing either way depending on the details. Voting for a moderate Republican is not inconsistent.

InTheTrees

I can never understand the US conservative abhorrence of "cradle of grave" care of citizens.

I mean why not care for your neighbours? Is it really such a bad thing?

Is not caring for your people something to be proud of?

southsiderosie

stretchtex wrote: »

The narrative that's developing here in the states is if the Republicans control both chambers and the white house will they discontinue the Bush/Obama policies of uncontrolled spending or return to some semblance of fiscal sanity. Are we to believe the polls that 4 out of 10 Americans approve of the Presidents performance??...that's not reflected in my unscientific sampling.

But that is the point - it is unscientific sampling.

I live in Massachusetts. If I judged public opinion by the views of the people I know from my time here (most people who have left end up in New York, DC, or San Francisco), I would have a very warped view of American politics! Lucky for me, my political temperament was shaped by growing up in the Midwest where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."

Obama's approval/disapproval rating is approximately 47% pro/47% con.

Manach

There are always the unexpected "Black Swan" events which could unseat the incumbent. Perhaps people have too much expectation in the office of President and should events happen that call the competence of the officeholder in question (thinking of Carter and the Iranian Hostages) - even if a President is unable to influence the event, he will still get punished at the polls.
Thus, I'll be only heading down to bet on the result about month before the election.

Denerick

InTheTrees wrote: »

I can never understand the US conservative abhorrence of "cradle of grave" care of citizens.

I mean why not care for your neighbours? Is it really such a bad thing?

Is not caring for your people something to be proud of?

To be fair to US conservatives they tend to be quite charitable in their personal lives - as in, they give a lot to charity and tend to volunteer for worthy causes in their communities.

US conservatism is rooted in a suspicion of big government that harkens back to the culture of the frontier.

Paradoxically, the modern conservative movement sees no contradiction in supporting draconian restrictions on the private lives of citizens or in enforcing religious dogma on the masses. They do, however, supposedly find the idea of a welfare state/socialism to be abhorrent.

US conservatism died with Goldwater in '64; it was replaced by a social extremism that the likes of Goldwater wouldn't have been capable of recognising. US conservatism is at its best when it held to the philosophy of Edmund Burke - supporting change at a gradual pace, upholding the 'civilising' traditions of society, a skepticism of the extremism of left or right. Unfortunately this kind of conservative is now a tiny minority in a movement comprised mainly of fanatics, religious cranks and social extremists.

Manic Moran

InTheTrees wrote: »

I can never understand the US conservative abhorrence of "cradle of grave" care of citizens.

I mean why not care for your neighbours? Is it really such a bad thing?

Is not caring for your people something to be proud of?

The issue comes up when people view the care as an entitlement which they will always get, not as a helping hand for then when times get tough. The belief is that unrestricted caring provides little incentive for people who would otherwise simply leech. Limited caring will get people past the worst times, which can happen to the best of persons.

NTM

Mr.Micro

Manic Moran wrote: »

The problem is that Obama hasn't really managed to do anything particularly amazing, and the novelty value of him has sortof worn out.

He got Osama did he not? Rather amazing IMO. The Americans should be grateful forever for that, so that they can sleep in their beds knowing that the bad man is gone. That is worth re-election alone.

matthew8

I don't blame Obama for the recession and though I don't like the means Osama was caught, that's not why I dislike him. It's the legislation he's brought in. The NDA and Obamacare come to mind, as well as his flip flop on the war on drugs.

Stupendousman

Hey everyone likes Obama. He has achieved so many little things that have made things better for Americans, he gets very little press for this. But the most interesting is the race by the Republicans. I would love to see a Republican I could support. It is dangerous when one party becomes 'full of nutters'. Look at what happened in Ireland when we had no opposition party that you could support, it led to Bertie.

matthew8

Stupendousman wrote: »

Hey everyone likes Obama. He has achieved so many little things that have made things better for Americans, he gets very little press for this. But the most interesting is the race by the Republicans. I would love to see a Republican I could support. It is dangerous when one party becomes 'full of nutters'. Look at what happened in Ireland when we had no opposition party that you could support, it led to Bertie.

If you really think everyone likes Obama you're out of touch. What are these little things?

Denerick

matthew8 wrote: »

If you really think everyone likes Obama you're out of touch. What are these little things?

Oh I don't know - saving the world from economic collapse, in spite of a crazy right wing belief that fiscally stable America with record low interest rates should eliminate the entire deficit in the space of a year or two?

Winding down the war in Afghanistan?

Attempting to fix America's absurd healthcare system?

Stupendousman

I mean people in Ireland like Obama. Plus 47% of Americans.
47% of Americans won't like the other guy no matter who he/she is.

What has he done.....
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_has_President_Barack_Obama_done_so_far

There are plenty more sites.

matthew8

Denerick wrote: »

Oh I don't know - saving the world from economic collapse, in spite of a crazy right wing belief that fiscally stable America with record low interest rates should eliminate the entire deficit in the space of a year or two?

Winding down the war in Afghanistan?

Attempting to fix America's absurd healthcare system?

Obama saved the world from economic collapse- yeah right. He's increased the deficit and the workforce participation rate is far lower than when he took office. And the most right wing senators' deficit plan had the budget balancing within 5 years. The only people who have been saved are the shareholders. He has been spineless in his attacking of the economy and the deficit.

The surge in Afghanistan you mean? Forcing people to buy health insurance is not fixing the healthcare system, it's just forcing people to buy health insurance.

Right now there are less civil liberties than when Bush was president.

Brian?

Manic Moran wrote: »

What else should he vote?

Some of that list tends to lean towards Democrat thinking, some Republican. Some items, like the safety net, can swing either way depending on the details. Voting for a moderate Republican is not inconsistent.

Oh I agree, he should be a swing voter if those are his beliefs. I just wanted to know why he was voting Republican based on the above.

Manic Moran

He got Osama did he not? Rather amazing IMO. The Americans should be grateful forever for that, so that they can sleep in their beds knowing that the bad man is gone. That is worth re-election alone.

Whatever Carter's failings during the Iran hostage crisis, I have always thought he unfairly got a bad rep with regards to Eagle Claw. He merely authorized an operation which most any President would have. That it screwed up was not his fault, but the fault of the military.

It's not as if Obama was spending any time doing any inversion or detective work, not is there any reason to believe that the various services weren't working on the problem for the previous ten years. Just how much credit do you suggest that Obama receive for the final result beyond taking the political question of entering Pakistan?

Sindri

Denerick wrote: »

At this stage I'm assuming Romney will be the Republican nominee.

The economic indicators look better every day and he is going to romp home with the lions share of the independent's vote, the Hispanic vote (Hispanics will not vote for the guy who hires them to clean his mansion) not to mention all the other minority votes (With the exception of the Mormons, obviously) This is Obama's to lose. He'll even be able to match the spending of Romney's corporate campaign.

We're going to have an amoral shill, a venomous coward who will say anything to get elected, versus an effortlessly cool, socially progressive, economically competent sitting President. Romney doesn't stand a chance.

I don't think Obama will win by a landslide victory though I do think he will win fairly comfortably.

First of all Romney will be the Republican candidate. Romney is unconvincing, a vacillator, disconnected from the party's base and he lacks charisma or a sincere charm. He's like a plank. Many Republicans aren't to enthusiastic about him for some of is past misdemeanour's. As a moderate though I quite like him (even though I don't like him), I prefer him to his opponents (Santorum) and I think he's pandering to the social conservatives. In the past his views have been more liberal, views I still think he holds and I think he's a lot less socially conservative than he lets on.

Romney though is unconvincing. He is in some ways I think unelectable, he's the American Pat Kenny. Expect a comprehensive, concentrated and charismatic campaign by Obama and an eventual lacklustre campaign from Romney (where his past misdemeanour's are viciously cut asunder). I think he'll fall short. He doesn't have the calm cool confidence of Obama, he doesn't have the same oratory skills of Obama (Obama will destroy him in the debates, he doesn't play the game fairly ) and he doesn't take risks, his character is some what insincere and detached and that confidence and air of command of Obama, his image particularly in front of an audience counts for a lot in elections.

The economy is and will continue to pick up as well. Expect Obama to take credit for it and when he's re-elected expect the history books to give him the credit too, even though it doesn't particularly matter whose sitting in the Oval Office at the time.

Only man capable of beating Obama (in an election ) is not running. That man is Chris Christie.

I don't think we should make the naive mistake of debating the merits of the policies of the respective candidates. The most important thing in an election is image, and Obama comes out on top there by a country mile.