US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Tero]

http://teroreport.blogspot.com/2011/09/ ... -home.html

[Ian]

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.

Here's one even bigger and more important group of Floridian voters to consider: the elderly. You've probably heard Social Security referred to as the third rail of politics: grab it and you could get fried. Well, Rick Perry, who's a decent bet to get the GOP nomination, has been grabbing it, kicking it and pissing all over it. How are his view on Social Security going to go over with the AARP crowd? And we could simultaneously discuss how the GOP's hostility towards Medicare will be considered by the same voters.

And Obama can clearly win without Florida, as he easily still would have three years ago as Excommunicate pointed out. How about this question instead: how easily can a Republican win the Presidency without Florida?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Here's one even bigger and more important group of Floridian voters to consider: the elderly. You've probably heard Social Security referred to as the third rail of politics: grab it and you could get fried. Well, Rick Perry, who's a decent bet to get the GOP nomination, has been grabbing it, kicking it and pissing all over it. How are his view on Social Security going to go over with the AARP crowd? And we could simultaneously discuss how the GOP's hostility towards Medicare will be considered by the same voters.

And Obama can clearly win without Florida, as he easily still would have three years ago as Excommunicate pointed out. How about this question instead: how easily can a Republican win the Presidency without Florida?

"Can?" Sure. He can. If the only state that switches is Florida, then yes - he can lose a few states, actually, from 2008, and win. However, what I'm talking about is likelihoods. It seems to me that with his overall decline in popularity, and now the near uniform across the country dissatisfaction with his job performance, he is going to have a hard time holding on to Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, New Mexico (the immigration issue is going to hurt him there), and Nevada (Las Vegas is one of the worst hit by the economy). North Carolina and Virginia are almost a lock to turn red next election. And, Pennsylvania is not looking good for Obama.

Seniors have not received a COLA (cost of living adjustment) for 2010 or 2011. The Obama administration is planning to deny COLA again in 2012. Over a three-year period, the average senior citizen will suffer a loss of $2,532.00. Please note that Congress received their automatic raises while senior citizens were denied.

http://www.gainesville.com/article/2011 ... /110919891

[Ian]

"We'll see" said the Zen master.

[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.

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.

Isolationist nations don't have any interests outside their borders.

Leaving Afghanistan and Iraq is already being done - basically all the candidates from both parties support that. Isolationism goes a lot further than that, though.

[Warren Dew]

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.

Perry's penchant for big government style interventions is hardly in line with the Tea Party.

Also, the only whackjob who will be running is a Democrat.

[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.

Perry's penchant for big government style interventions is hardly in line with the Tea Party.

Also, the only whackjob who will be running is a Democrat.

What, Rick Perry's not far enough to the right for ya?

If you want to see Obama defeated next year, you'd better hope that Romney gets the nomination. If it's Perry, that could mean an Obama landslide, followed by Huntsman or someone like him getting the nomination in 2016.

[Warren Dew]

What, Rick Perry's not far enough to the right for ya?

More like too far to the right. On that axis, both extremes want strong state power - it's only us moderate Tea Party folks in the middle who prefer less government interference.

If you want to see Obama defeated next year, you'd better hope that Romney gets the nomination. If it's Perry, that could mean an Obama landslide, followed by Huntsman or someone like him getting the nomination in 2016.

Given how skilled his campaign team seems to be, Perry might actually have a better chance of beating Obama than Romney would. A Perry campaign would likely be willing to use all sorts of negative visceral appeals that Romney wouldn't on issues like protectionism and class warfare - appeals that can be very effective. He'd probably be willing to take popular positions that contradicted each other as well, something that seems to work well with the average voter, but that Romney tends to avoid.

Still, how the economy is next year will matter more to whether Obama is reelected than who he is running against. It's ironic, but Obama's best chance is that Boehner manages to undo some of the economic damage that Obama has done.

[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.

Isolationist nations don't have any interests outside their borders.

Leaving Afghanistan and Iraq is already being done - basically all the candidates from both parties support that. Isolationism goes a lot further than that, though.

Well, there is a plan for leaving Afghanistan, but that is still too far away... 6 months would be better...

And OK, not full blown isolationism, but a major reduction in overseas bases for ground forces in particular, and a steely determination not to get bogged down in endless wars of attrition supporting corrupt regimes would be a damn good start...

[Ian]

What, Rick Perry's not far enough to the right for ya?

More like too far to the right. On that axis, both extremes want strong state power - it's only us moderate Tea Party folks in the middle who prefer less government interference.

I think your understanding of politics could do with some edumacation.

[Warren Dew]

Well, there is a plan for leaving Afghanistan, but that is still too far away... 6 months would be better...

It's pretty difficult for most of the candidates to have more than just a plan before the elections.

And OK, not full blown isolationism, but a major reduction in overseas bases for ground forces in particular, and a steely determination not to get bogged down in endless wars of attrition supporting corrupt regimes would be a damn good start...

Endless wars of attrition are foolish, absolutely, and certainly we ought to be able to move some bases out of places like Germany, which aren't on the front lines of anything any more.

I would, however, point out that "corrupt regimes" is redundant; all governments are corrupt, just to varying degrees.

I think your understanding of politics could do with some edumacation.

I take it edumacation camps are where Obama believers are sent if they start deviating from the received pravda. I'll stay away from them and retain the connection to reality so lacking inside the beltway, thanks.

[Ian]

What, Rick Perry's not far enough to the right for ya?

More like too far to the right. On that axis, both extremes want strong state power - it's only us moderate Tea Party folks in the middle who prefer less government interference.

I think your understanding of politics could do with some edumacation.

I take it edumacation camps are where Obama believers are sent if they start deviating from the received pravda. I'll stay away from them and retain the connection to reality so lacking inside the beltway, thanks.

Some elaboration: an axis has one thing on one end and another thing on another end. Perfectly OK to have multiple axes when discussing government (authoritarian-libertarian and left-right economics being a common overlap of two different axes), but there's no axis which has the same thing on opposite ends with the difference being what's in the middle.

Have a look see here. You might want to take the test and see where you stand:
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... =22&t=1493

BTW: the Tea Party doesn't represent the moderate middle of anything. And you're not saying anything to disprove the cliché that conservatives are driven by fear.

[Hermit]

all governments are corrupt, just to varying degrees.

That is understood - and about as trite an observation as noting that "nobody is perfect." I don't regard "corrupt regimes" as unacceptably tautologous insofar as the corruption of the US regime pales into insignificance in relation to some other regimes the US has materially supported. I think this is what JimC had in mind.

[Coito ergo sum]

When Ronald Reagan ran for re-election in 1984, his slogan was "Morning in America." For Barack Obama, it's more like midnight in a coal mine.

The sputtering economy is about to stall out, unemployment is high, his jobs program may not pass, foreclosures are rampant and the poor guy can't even sneak a cigarette.


His approval rating is at its lowest level ever. His party just lost two House elections — one in a district it had held for 88 consecutive years. He's staked his future on the jobs bill, which most Americans don't think would work.

The vultures are starting to circle. Former White House spokesman Bill Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is disillusioned with him, "it's going to be impossible for the president to win." Democratic consultant James Carville had one word of advice for Obama: "Panic."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu ... 512.column

[JimC]

all governments are corrupt, just to varying degrees.

That is understood - and about as trite an observation as noting that "nobody is perfect." I don't regard "corrupt regimes" as unacceptably tautologous insofar as the corruption of the US regime pales into insignificance in relation to some other regimes the US has materially supported. I think this is what JimC had in mind.

I did indeed. I am amazed just how often the US has painted itself into a corner because of the nature of the regimes it has supported.