US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[maiforpeace]

Trump Could Help Romney Win Elusive Billionaire Asshole Vote

Bid to Woo Top .00001%

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) – Businessman Donald Trump’s endorsement of former Governor Mitt Romney could help the presumptive GOP nominee win over the support of a constituency that has been cool to him thus far: billionaire assholes.

Reportedly, the top .00001% wealthiest Americans have regarded Mr. Romney with suspicion to date, wondering, in the words of one billionaire, “if he’s really one of us.”

“It’s a bit of a reach for us billionaires to vote for someone like Romney, who just has a couple of hundred million in the bank,” said Grayson Rance, a billionaire who has so far viewed the former Massachusetts governor warily. “But if a bona fide billionaire asshat like Trump is for him, that makes you give the guy a second chance.”

Mr. Rance said that it was hard to believe that Mr. Romney, “who only owns five or six homes, could relate to people like us and understand our problems,” but that Mr. Trump’s thumbs-up “counts for a lot.”

Speaking on CNN’s “Situation Room,” Mr. Trump told host Wolf Blitzer his reason for endorsing Mr. Romney: “After four years of a President who was born overseas, its time for a President who was born here and sends his money overseas.”

As for Mr. Romney, he experienced a rare emotional moment on Memorial Day, placing a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Banker.

[Ian]

I love Donald Trump. I think he should stay side-by-side with Romney throughout the campaign. In fact, how awesome would it be to have a Romney-Trump ticket? Too awesome for words!

Maybe conservative columnist George Will could come up with something though; he's already referred to Trump as a "bloviating ignoramus".

[Coito ergo sum]

Don't underestimate Trump's ability to market to the masses.

[Warren Dew]

Trump Could Help Romney Win Elusive Billionaire Asshole Vote

Bid to Woo Top .00001%

NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) – Businessman Donald Trump’s endorsement of former Governor Mitt Romney could help the presumptive GOP nominee win over the support of a constituency that has been cool to him thus far: billionaire assholes.

Reportedly, the top .00001% wealthiest Americans have regarded Mr. Romney with suspicion to date, wondering, in the words of one billionaire, “if he’s really one of us.”

“It’s a bit of a reach for us billionaires to vote for someone like Romney, who just has a couple of hundred million in the bank,” said Grayson Rance, a billionaire who has so far viewed the former Massachusetts governor warily. “But if a bona fide billionaire asshat like Trump is for him, that makes you give the guy a second chance.”

Mr. Rance said that it was hard to believe that Mr. Romney, “who only owns five or six homes, could relate to people like us and understand our problems,” but that Mr. Trump’s thumbs-up “counts for a lot.”

Speaking on CNN’s “Situation Room,” Mr. Trump told host Wolf Blitzer his reason for endorsing Mr. Romney: “After four years of a President who was born overseas, its time for a President who was born here and sends his money overseas.”

As for Mr. Romney, he experienced a rare emotional moment on Memorial Day, placing a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Banker.

I'll believe it when I see Soros supporting Romney!

[Warren Dew]

Don't underestimate Trump's ability to market to the masses.

Yeah, it's weird. I actually know some people who love Trump; they're pretty much the definition of honest hardscrabble working class people.

[Robert_S]

Don't underestimate Trump's ability to market to the masses.

Yeah, it's weird. I actually know some people who love Trump; they're pretty much the definition of honest hardscrabble working class people.

You mean other people who lose money at casinos?

[Warren Dew]

Don't underestimate Trump's ability to market to the masses.

Yeah, it's weird. I actually know some people who love Trump; they're pretty much the definition of honest hardscrabble working class people.

You mean other people who lose money at casinos?

Maybe that's it, though the people I'm thinking of probably limit themselves to an occasional lottery ticket.

[FBM]

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/30/tech/ ... ?hpt=hp_t2

120530012826-romney-america-ap-story-top.jpg (49.07 KiB) Viewed 2689 times

[amused]

I fucking hate this election and anyone who doesn't vote correctly.

[Coito ergo sum]

I agree. Vote correctly, or I hate you.

[Coito ergo sum]

Wisconsin a bad omen?

Obviously, if the recall worked, it would have been sold as a boon to Obama and highly indicative of what will happen in November. Now that the Democrats were soundly thumped in Wisconsin, in an election they called for, they're saying it doesn't matter.

I think it does, though. They lost big in a State they carried in 2008. It has to mean something.

[Ian]

Wishful thinking. I don't think this means anything at all in terms of November. Polling about the recall election turned out to be accurate: Walker survived by 5-10%. But exit polling yesterday also reflected what polls have been showing about the Obama-Romney campaign: Obama is still favored in Wisconsin by 5-10%. The recall election of one state's governor over the issue of collective bargaining means squat if you're trying to translate it to a Presidential election five months from now.

One thing it does mean: nearly 90% of voters said they had their minds made up more than a month ago. So, just over 10% were undecideds and those were the votes up for grabs in the last month. And in that last month, the Republicans outspent the Democrats by a ratio of 7.5 to 1 - most of that cash coming from out-of-state. All's fair in war and campaigning, but all that out-of-state cash won't be quite so available to focus on one battle in November when there are a bunch of battleground states in a general election. And Romney won't be outraising Obama's campaign by ratios like that, if he can outraise Obama at all.

[Coito ergo sum]

Wishful thinking. I don't think this means anything at all in terms of November. Polling about the recall election turned out to be accurate: Walker survived by 5-10%. But exit polling yesterday also reflected what polls have been showing about the Obama-Romney campaign: Obama is still favored in Wisconsin by 5-10%. The recall election of one state's governor over the issue of collective bargaining means squat if you're trying to translate it to a Presidential election five months from now.

One thing it does mean: nearly 90% of voters said they had their minds made up more than a month ago. So, just over 10% were undecideds and those were the votes up for grabs in the last month. And in that last month, the Republicans outspent the Democrats by a ratio of 7.5 to 1 - most of that cash coming from out-of-state. All's fair in war and campaigning, but all that out-of-state cash won't be quite so available to focus on one battle in November when there are a bunch of battleground states in a general election. And Romney won't be outraising Obama's campaign by ratios like that, if he can outraise Obama at all.

It wasn't just Walker. It was also the Lietenant Governor, who soundly defeated the recall and I think three republican state representatives, and the Democrats lost across the board.

It's not determinative, but I think we both know that if the recall succeeded, the Democrats would be touting it as very favorable to them. When the recall first came about, the Democrats were touting it as a referendum that would show support for the Democrat and Obama agenda. It was only when they saw they were way behind that they started saying that it meant nothing.

[Ian]

Sure they would be touting it. Talking heads tout whatever they can, as Republicans are doing now, but either way I still think it doesn't translate well into November. That's what I thought yesterday morning, and that's what I still think. I probably should've said so here yesterday morning though.

Wait a week and see if polls in Wisconsin have suddenly reversed and are showing Obama trailing in Wisconsin. I'll be astonished if that's the case.

*BREAK*

I came up with a nightmare scenario for November. Try this on for size:

Obama wins the west coast, the northeast (including PA and NH) and the upper midwest (including OH), plus NM.
Romney wins the rest, including CO, NV, IA, VA, FL and MO.

Sound plausible? It does to me. But the result of this map would be a 269-269 electoral tie. In the event of a tie the election goes to our illustrious Congress. Specifically, if I have my facts right, not the current Congress but the incoming one that will be elected this November. A congressional tiebreaker hasn't happened since the election of 1824. How do you suppose people might react to that?

Then again, consider that Nebraska proportions its electors. It's a red state, but Obama could win 1 of the 5 electors there, like he did in 2008, resulting in a 270-268 win.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sure they would be touting it. Talking heads tout whatever they can, as Republicans are doing now, but either way I still think it doesn't translate well into November. That's what I thought yesterday morning, and that's what I still think. I probably should've said so here yesterday morning though.

Wait a week and see if polls in Wisconsin have suddenly reversed and are showing Obama trailing in Wisconsin. I'll be astonished if that's the case.

*BREAK*

I came up with a nightmare scenario for November. Try this on for size:

Obama wins the west coast, the northeast (including PA and NH) and the upper midwest (including OH), plus NM.
Romney wins the rest, including CO, NV, IA, VA, FL and MO.

Sound plausible? It does to me. But the result of this map would be a 269-269 electoral tie. In the event of a tie the election goes to our illustrious Congress. Specifically, if I have my facts right, not the current Congress but the incoming one that will be elected this November. A congressional tiebreaker hasn't happened since the election of 1824. How do you suppose people might react to that?

Then again, consider that Nebraska proportions its electors. It's a red state, but Obama could win 1 of the 5 electors there, like he did in 2008, resulting in a 270-268 win.

1. Each side would pick certain places to demand recounts.
2. Each side would claim the other is cheating. Both would probably be right.
3. Each side would file lawsuits similar to Bush v Gore.
4. The election would be delayed.
5. The Congress would vote one of them in, and that side would claim that Congress' vote ends the dispute and all court cases are moot.
6. Either the losing side will capitulate "for the good of the Republic," or we could have a Constitutional Crisis, and potentially civil strife.
7. The people would, for the most part, pick their favorite team, and claim that the other side "sucks" and is cheating. They will never acknowledge the legitimacy of the other side, preferring to pretend that their guys don't cheat and the other side does.

It would be very dangerous, but most likely we'd get through it. Not 100%, but most likely.