US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Warren Dew]

Hopefully, whoever wins will be seriously into isolationism...

I guess you'll be glad if Ron Paul wins, then. Just don't blame us when the Ayatollahs start nuking Europe.

[Warren Dew]

I was more than a little surprised to see almost all the candidates in the Republican debate in favor of bringing our troops home from Afghanistan now. It appears that the Democrats will be in the odd position of having to support the continued war in Afghanistan, while the Republicans shift to the party of peace.

A large military presence in Afghanistan was never a Republican position. Bush wanted just enough of a presence there to shut down Al Qaeda. It was Obama who expanded the effort and changed the mission to ... well, I'm not sure exactly what he thought he was doing, but it was clearly something more than just countering terrorists.

[Tyrannical]

Hopefully, whoever wins will be seriously into isolationism...

I guess you'll be glad if Ron Paul wins, then. Just don't blame us when the Ayatollahs start nuking Europe.

Oh please. They'll be too busy fighting some Arab civil war.

[JimC]

Hopefully, whoever wins will be seriously into isolationism...

I guess you'll be glad if Ron Paul wins, then. Just don't blame us when the Ayatollahs start nuking Europe.

The key will be a serious reduction in overseas-based ground troops. When you leave Afghanistan and Iraq, and have minimal overseas bsaes for ground troops elsewhere, you will have less opportunity to become bogged down in no-win ground wars. By all means retain a very powerful Navy, and an Air Force with whatever minimal number of overseas bases that requires, and by all means have mutual defence treaties with traditional allies such as Australia (no issues with some minimalist basing here, with pre-postioned supplies etc.). The ability to respond with rapid force anywhere in the world when your interests are threatened is naturally important.

But you will gain enormous benefits from a clear and straightforward refusal to become bogged down in long-term ground operations involving asymmetrical warfare, particularly in support of corrupt local governments. How many campaigns like that does it take before the light dawns?

[Hermit]

WWII ended 66 years ago, and the cold war 20. Why does the USA still have 54,000 military personnel stationed in Germany, 33,000 in Japan and 10,000 in Italy? According to the DoD the USA had more than 369,000 of its 1,580,255 active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories in 2007. I am sure those forces are not spread across the globe merely as forward defense positions, or to dig wells for the natives.

[Robert_S]

WWII ended 66 years ago, and the cold war 20. Why does the USA still have 54,000 military personnel stationed in Germany, 33,000 in Japan and 10,000 in Italy? According to the DoD the USA had more than 369,000 of its 1,580,255 active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories in 2007. I am sure those forces are not spread across the globe merely as forward defense positions, or to dig wells for the natives.

They should be here in the US pissing away their pay pay in Merkin bars.

[JimC]

WWII ended 66 years ago, and the cold war 20. Why does the USA still have 54,000 military personnel stationed in Germany, 33,000 in Japan and 10,000 in Italy? According to the DoD the USA had more than 369,000 of its 1,580,255 active-duty personnel serving outside the United States and its territories in 2007. I am sure those forces are not spread across the globe merely as forward defense positions, or to dig wells for the natives.

They should be here in the US pissing away their pay pay in Merkin bars.

And with a certain amont of cross-training, be available as a disciplined disaster relief force...

As a side issue, I can well understand why a certain number of conventional ground forces should be stationed in South Korea; any fighting they have to do will not be asymmetrical...

[Coito ergo sum]

The key State - Florida.

Is it too early to say that Barack Obama has lost Florida? Not according to a new survey from Magellan Strategies, which finds the incumbent sharply under water in all key election categories. His job approval and re-elect numbers are an identical 37/57, while his “image rating” — favorability — is almost as bad:

Currently, the President’s image rating is upside down with 40% of respondents having a favorable opinion of him, and 55% having an unfavorable opinion. Looking at responses among key voter subgroups, 52% of women, 53% of independents, 67% of Hispanics, and 58% of seniors have an unfavorable opinion of the President. Among voters aged 18 to 29, a vital voter subgroup in Barack Obama’s 2008 victory, 39% have a favorable image of him and 49% have an unfavorable image of him.

Among all respondents, only 37% approve of the job the President is doing and 57% disapprove of the job he is doing. Again looking at key voter subgroups, 53% of women, 56% of independents, 72% of Hispanics and 59% of seniors disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing. The most alarming number for the President and his election team is that 26% of Democrats disapprove of the job he is doing. Among voters aged 18 to 29, 48% approve of the job he is doing and 52% disapprove of thejob he is doing.

Among all respondents, 37% think Barack Obama deserves re‐election and 57% think he does not deserve re‐election. Among women voters, 55% do not think the President deserves re‐election. Among other key voting subgroups, 55% of independents, 72% of Hispanics, 60% of seniors, and 27% of Democrats think the President does not deserve re‐election. Among voters aged 18 to 29, 38% think Barack Obama deserves re‐election and 50% think he does not deserve re‐election.

Obama won Florida in 2008 by three points over John McCain in a close-fought battle. Turnout in that election favored Democrats by three points, 37/34/29. In 2010, as Republicans rebounded in the Tea Party midterms, the turnout evened up at 36/36/29. In the Magellan sample, Democrats have a three-point edge at 42/39/19, with independents obviously undersampled. That model assumes Democrats turn out in stronger numbers in 2012 than they did in 2008, which seems highly unlikely for an incumbent with 37/57 re-elect and 40/55 favorability numbers.

If he’s hoping for help with independents, he can forget it. The underrepresentation of independents in this survey probably helped Obama with these numbers rather than hurt him. His favorability among indies is 35/53, worse than the overall number. Obama’s job approval among indies is 37/56, just about the same as the overall number.

Even with the somewhat-friendly sampling, Obama loses all three head-to-head matchups posed by Magellan. Mitt Romney beats Obama by ten points, 49/39, and Rick Perry beats him by 7 at 46/39. Obama only gets into the 40s against Michele Bachmann, who still edges him by a single point, 43/42. Romney wins an eleven-point margin among the undersampled independents (44/33) and Perry wins that category by 7 (38/31). Only Bachmann loses the independent vote 33/37 to Obama. Romney is the only Republican to win both men and women (Perry gets edged by a single point, Bachmann down 7), but all three win the senior vote — and all three win Hispanic voters by landslide margins.

When an incumbent president can’t get above 39% against two named primary candidates of the opposition party, it’s a sure sign of impending doom in that state. Florida’s 29 electoral votes seem destined to go to Republicans.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/24/o ... n-florida/

To suggest that the only folks that are really against Obama at this point are teabagger whackjobs does not appear to be accurate.

[Ian]

To suggest that the only folks that are really against Obama at this point are teabagger whackjobs does not appear to be accurate.

I don't think anybody here would argue that. I wouldn't. But unless Romney manages victory in the primaries, it'll be a teabagger whackjob taking the GOP nomination. My underlying point remains the same as it has been for months: Obama will not beat his opponent so much as the Republicans will beat themselves.

[Coito ergo sum]

To suggest that the only folks that are really against Obama at this point are teabagger whackjobs does not appear to be accurate.

I don't think anybody here would argue that. I wouldn't. But unless Romney manages victory in the primaries, it'll be a teabagger whackjob taking the GOP nomination. My underlying point remains the same as it has been for months: Obama will not beat his opponent so much as the Republicans will beat themselves.

My point is - if Florida is lost to Obama, is there a road to victory for him?

[Ian]

To suggest that the only folks that are really against Obama at this point are teabagger whackjobs does not appear to be accurate.

I don't think anybody here would argue that. I wouldn't. But unless Romney manages victory in the primaries, it'll be a teabagger whackjob taking the GOP nomination. My underlying point remains the same as it has been for months: Obama will not beat his opponent so much as the Republicans will beat themselves.

My point is - if Florida is lost to Obama, is there a road to victory for him?

That's still a big if, and even if he loses Florida, yes he could still win in any number of ways. Bush won Florida in 2004 but came within a few points of losing Ohio - if that had happened, he would've lost the election. To John Friggin' Kerry. Any of the potential contenders will have a tougher fight against Obama.

Obama's campaign machine hasn't even started moving yet (and besides, the election is fourteen months away), so any head-to-head polls now are meaningless. But he's not likely to face any serious challenges on his side. The GOP, meanwhile, is in a state of virtual civil war:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_c2

[Coito ergo sum]

To suggest that the only folks that are really against Obama at this point are teabagger whackjobs does not appear to be accurate.

I don't think anybody here would argue that. I wouldn't. But unless Romney manages victory in the primaries, it'll be a teabagger whackjob taking the GOP nomination. My underlying point remains the same as it has been for months: Obama will not beat his opponent so much as the Republicans will beat themselves.

My point is - if Florida is lost to Obama, is there a road to victory for him?

That's still a big if, and even if he loses Florida, yes he could still win in any number of ways. Bush won Florida in 2004 but came within a few points of losing Ohio - if that had happened, he would've lost the election. To John Friggin' Kerry. Any of the potential contenders will have a tougher fight against Obama.

Obama's campaign machine hasn't even started moving yet (and besides, the election is fourteen months away), so any head-to-head polls now are meaningless. But he's not likely to face any serious challenges on his side. The GOP, meanwhile, is in a state of virtual civil war:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_c2

Not the way it's looking. He is really down among the Jewish vote and the Latino vote - two hefty chunks of voters in Florida.

If one if Romney gets the nomination, and was to take, say, Rubio as his running mate - Obama is toast. All the Cubans here would vote for Rubio. And, as can be seen by the recent New York election for that House seat held by the Democrats since 1923, the Jews is pissed at Obama.

Well - we will see, and your right that it's a long way off. The bad signs for 'bama, however, is that the economy is still shit, and there aren't any signs of it coming around. If unemployment doesn't change for the better between now and a year from now, the villagers will be lighting their torches and sharpening their pitchforks.

[Robert_S]

Obama could make a deal with the Cubans that we'll normalize trade relations if they let all the refugees and their children and grandchildren return?

[eXcommunicate]

To suggest that the only folks that are really against Obama at this point are teabagger whackjobs does not appear to be accurate.

I don't think anybody here would argue that. I wouldn't. But unless Romney manages victory in the primaries, it'll be a teabagger whackjob taking the GOP nomination. My underlying point remains the same as it has been for months: Obama will not beat his opponent so much as the Republicans will beat themselves.

My point is - if Florida is lost to Obama, is there a road to victory for him?

Of course there is. He still would have won in a landslide in 2008 without Florida. 338 - 200.

[Ian]

Fareed Zakaria has a nice little article on the clout of the Tea Party and other grassroots right-wing groups on the upcoming GOP primary:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com ... ?hpt=hp_t2

Which fits my theory about the 2012 election cycle perfectly:
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 80#p848523

Another article which fits it perfectly, this one with a handy little graph:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... more-15949