2012 Presidential Election

[bean]

I think Orc's point is that Obama is vulnerable, and he's right. The Obama that campaigned back in 2008 and didn't have 4 years of not getting much done for his base would be a runaway candidate, but we got a President who didn't get out of the wars until just recently (and not completely by any means yet either), passed Romney's healthcare bill instead of one penned by Democrats, and whose stimulus plans were only slightly more effective than Bush Jr.'s.

However, I think most everyone knows that Obama is vulnerable and had the GOP chosen to go for it with one of their legitimate candidates, they'd have given Obama a race. The problem is that Romney would have been a very hard sell had he not been bloodied so often in the primaries, and now he has numerous issues.

[Ink Asylum]

Sure, Obama's vulnerable, but as long as the economy doesn't take a mini-dive this summer I still think he'll win. Romney is just an awful candidate. He's not capable of winning on his own, he needs a bad economic situation to drag Obama down so he can limp over the finish line.

[GunnyMo]

Originally Posted by Heretic Machine

I'm trying to avoid this forum, but I'm voting for Romney. Obama is a piece of shit who has done virtually nothing good for us, and seems to be nothing but a corporate tool. Of course, with the election being between Romney and Obama, your choice is sort of like the choice between Vanilla and French Vanilla. Have fun.

Lol virtually nothing. Riiiiiiiight. A simple Google will show he has accomplished quite a bit on the positive side. Of course, he also has done some incredibly non-Democratic things as well. However, thanks to his changes to PTSD disability claims, I and thousands of other veterans were able to recieve benefits. That alone gets my vote. Ending the war in Iraq and being the President in office when Bin Laden was killed give him major votes.

I was sorely hoping Santorum would get the GOP nomination. Not only would it have resulted in the most lopsided Democratic win in history, it would most likely have resulted in the death of the current GOP. What came from the ashes would have, hopefully, been an improvement.

As it is, the GOP is putting forward a bland, wet noodle candidate as a sacrificial lamb.

[bean]

Originally Posted by GunnyMo

I was sorely hoping Santorum would get the GOP nomination. Not only would it have resulted in the most lopsided Democratic win in history, it would most likely have resulted in the death of the current GOP. What came from the ashes would have, hopefully, been an improvement.

The scary thing about the GOP is that it used to just be a strategy.

At some point though, "energize the base" turned into some parts of the party actually believing some of the crazy. Obviously, most candidates are still rational and understand that they are pandering to voters, but could you ever imagine Santorum ever doing this well in the 90s? He'd have been a laughed at "hate" candidate like Pat Buchanan or David Duke. If Romney didn't have support from wealthy Moremans to outspend Santorum more than 5 to 1, there is a chance he could have actually gotten the nomination.

The GOP would have had a fit over it and tried desperately to get him to distance himself from touchy subjects like his denial of marriage equality to homosexuals and the "war on women". Instead of distancing himself in the primaries, his response to divisive questions like these is to march further right and infer the other Repubican candidates are RINOs for not doing so too.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Originally Posted by Ink Asylum

Sure, Obama's vulnerable, but as long as the economy doesn't take a mini-dive this summer I still think he'll win. Romney is just an awful candidate. He's not capable of winning on his own, he needs a bad economic situation to drag Obama down so he can limp over the finish line.

I'm not convinced he's a bad candidate - although things would be a lot better without Newt and Santorum out of nowhere. The fact that his own party didn't have much faith in him made it look like his party had no faith in him.

Anyway, I have a pet theory that whoever the election is "about" is always going to be the winner. Neither candidate in 2000, Bush in 2004, Obama in 2008, and likely Obama in 2012.

And needing a bad economy doesn't indicate a poor candidate - I wouldn't call Clinton a bad candidate, and he would have been toast without the economic drop leading up to the election torpedo-ing Bush's campaign.

Also, it's weird that Rasmussen did so poorly in 2010, because in a number of previous elections he was picked as the most accurate overall. He does lean more republican than most polls, which he attributes to only targeting likely voters - polls that do not do this tend more towards Democrats (who represent groups like young people who don't vote)

edit: I don't like Santorum, but I think that calling him more hateful than David "Actually led the KKK" Duke is absolutely laughable, Bean.

double edit @ Gunny - Ending the War in Iraq on the pre-established Bush Timetable is hardly an accomplishment.

[Ink Asylum]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingOrc

And needing a bad economy doesn't indicate a poor candidate - I wouldn't call Clinton a bad candidate, and he would have been toast without the economic drop leading up to the election torpedo-ing Bush's campaign.

If Bush Senior had to run with the economic situation Obama has Clinton would've won by an even larger margin, and might not have needed Perot's intervention at all.

[bean]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingOrc

edit: I don't like Santorum, but I think that calling him more hateful than David "Actually led the KKK" Duke is absolutely laughable, Bean.

That's not what I said Orc. I was saying he would have been marginalized like those candidates were back when there wasn't an army of crazy-talk-radio and Fox news-tainment punditry shows that alternately excuse and marginally advocate for people like Santorum. The process used to weed out extremists instead of providing fertile soil.

Also, the reason Clinton won his election vs. Bush, Sr. was Perot sapping Republican votes. Same thing happened to Gore vs. Bush, Jr. (with Nader leeching).

[TheFlyingOrc]

Originally Posted by bean

That's not what I said Orc. I was saying he would have been marginalized like those candidates were back when there wasn't an army of crazy-talk-radio and Fox news-tainment punditry shows that alternately excuse and marginally advocate for people like Santorum. The process used to weed out extremists instead of providing fertile soil.

My problem is that they're worlds apart. Hell, Robertson and Duke are worlds apart. Santorum's pretty far right, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been a laughingstock in the 90s. Hell, as much as I don't like the guy, I don't think he should be a laughingstock at any time, though his candidacy was...foolish at best.

Also, the reason Clinton won his election vs. Bush, Sr. was Perot sapping Republican votes. Same thing happened to Gore vs. Bush, Jr. (with Nader leeching).

I'm pretty familiar with the 1992 election. Without an economic downturn, Bush Sr. would have coasted regardless of Perot, and Perot pulled a lot more votes from Bush than Nadar did from Gore, considering Perot was winning in the polls at one point.

[ShivaX]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingOrc

and Perot pulled a lot more votes from Bush than Nadar did from Gore, considering Perot was winning in the polls at one point.

True, but Gore vs Bush Jr was a hell of a lot closer so it doesn't take much to get the same effect.

[bean]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingOrc

My problem is that they're worlds apart. Hell, Robertson and Duke are worlds apart.

Apples and oranges can both be found on trees. I was pointing how extremist candidates used to be marginalized. If you want to talk about stuff beyond that point, how about bringing up other completely irrelevant stuff? Like puppies. I think puppies are adorable.

Also, as far at that goes, hating homosexuals and leading a government initiative to limit their rights is just as bad as hating black people and joining an organization that is about hating black people. All the modern hate groups are just as bad as the KKK, they've just gotten better at naming their groups with words like "Family" and "Christian" in them. They are still all about hate.

I'm guessing you are saying that the severity isn't there in one hate group to the next, and, if so, you're right. The KKK murdered black people in addition to campaigning to withhold equality from them. Most hate groups that are against homosexuals are non-violent.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Originally Posted by bean

I'm guessing you are saying that the severity isn't there in one hate group to the next, and, if so, you're right. The KKK murdered black people in addition to campaigning to withhold equality from them. Most hate groups that are against homosexuals are non-violent.

Not allowing a group to enter into a specific type of government contract is a far cry from making sure that they go to different schools, use different bathrooms, and literally have to give up their seat for you.

[bean]

Sure, I already granted that they are not equally evil hate groups, and I gave the most extreme example: murdering people.

Still, the point that I was making was not about comparing the severity of extremism between these candidates or the hate groups to which they belong, but in pointing out that the process used to marginalize extremists.

[bean]

Btw, it's interesting to see Democrat's strategy in this election. Though it was Republican's ineptly going crazy over women's issues that gave them the opening, Democrats are going to continue to make the election (as much as they can) about the Republican's war on women. The reason for this is that women voters only have a 30% approval rating of Romney, and because of this, the swing-states that decide elections are as much as 20 points in favor of Obama.

As the election goes on, Republicans will try to blame the terrible economy and the erosion of middle class jobs on Obama, and they may be able to do it. Though this is both party's fault, you can argue it is more Obama's fault because he is the captain of the ship. Also, it's not like he is doing much about it now. . . a silly little employment tax cut that gives people an extra $20-40 on their paycheck doesn't help the unemployed and the under-employed. If Obama had a bill that would directly increase middle class jobs and the Republicans defeated it in Congress, then he could lay the blame at their feet, but the President sets the agenda, and job creation hasn't been central. How much worse will it be when the soldiers come home?

[National Kato]

Originally Posted by bean

If Obama had a bill that would directly increase middle class jobs and the Republicans defeated it in Congress, then he could lay the blame at their feet, but the President sets the agenda, and job creation hasn't been central. How much worse will it be when the soldiers come home?

'If?' I thought that's what his 'American Jobs Act' was all about?

[bean]

@National Kato - Exactly right. Now how could I have forgotten that?

Obama has tried to address the joblessness issue and Republicans have repeatedly killed bills aimed at it. Unfortunately, the Senate killed the bill and then when Obama split it up into smaller bills, the main one that dealt with this, the Rebuild American Jobs Act was again voted down by Republicans.

[National Kato]

Originally Posted by bean

@National Kato - Exactly right. Now how could I have forgotten that?

I assumed you were serious because of your comments just earlier in that post where you said he hasn't done much. True, he hasn't succeeded at much, but not for lack of trying. The sticking point on both the larger bill and the smaller 'Rebuild' bill seems to be paying for it with increased taxation on millionaires.

The 'Buffet Rule' legislation likely failed yesterday for that same reason. Ultimately, we as a country need to decide if our representatives are representing the majority of the country (majority support on fair taxation of millionaires has been repeatedly proven by large margins) or just the highest earners.

[bean]

@National Kato - Oh, yeah, it wasn't a troll intended to get people to pile on before revealing that information. I brain-farted.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Originally Posted by National Kato

'If?' I thought that's what his 'American Jobs Act' was all about?

Not that I'm one of those people who thinks the presence of unemployment benefits reduces desire to search for jobs, but putting $50 billion in the "American Jobs Act" for unemployment benefits is pretty ridiculous. That might be A Good Thing To Do, but it sure as balls isn't promoting job growth.

[National Kato]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingOrc

That might be A Good Thing To Do, but it sure as balls isn't promoting job growth.

I agree. It doesn't promote job growth. It does, however, stimulate the economy for those who have been long unemployed. People will take that benefit and buy stuff. Once someone who has been unemployed for that long loses their benefits, you better believe they ain't spending money on anything but housing and food.

Honestly, that part isn't even something I'd hang my hat on, but I think other portions of that bill were good for the economy and good for middle-class jobs. Bad for millionaires, naturally, so that's why we don't get it. So it goes.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Originally Posted by National Kato

I agree. It doesn't promote job growth. It does, however, stimulate the economy for those who have been long unemployed. People will take that benefit and buy stuff. Once someone who has been unemployed for that long loses their benefits, you better believe they ain't spending money on anything but housing and food.

Yeah, like I said, I don't object to it, it just really irritates me for that to be part of "The American Jobs Act".