The 2012 Presidential Election: Who do you think will in?

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

You know what the really funny thing is?

I remember that, a whole ago, someone had posted a thread about whether Obama would be re-elected. Someone brought up, "What if it was obama and palin? Would you still not vote for Obama?"

I initially thought it was crazy, as I thought that no idiot like palin could stand a chance.

But now...what do you know? It's pretty much that. Never thought it was possible.

 

[Aesir]

apparently as close as 20% of republicans might vote for obama.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm down. He's managed to get a lot accomplished. It's kind of like a torrent. I see four more years as essential to completing the downloads so to speak. He's got the ball rolling on tons, and/or passed bills that encompass huge initiatives, but many of them are short of the goal, and his continuation as president should mean he'll be able to complete what he's started. If he's smart, his economics policies will be in such a way that even after his 8 years total are up, that to change from his policy would set the country back, meaning that a new democrat or a switch back to republican in 2016 would be moot, so long as whoever takes it will continue what Obama's started.

 

[Aesir]

He's not a radical guy at all lol.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'm expecting Romney to have a big day on Super Tuesday, finally quieting some of this talk about Santorum.

I predict Romney will win Ohio, Virginia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Vermont at the very least. Santorum, who seems to be strong in the midwest and very conservative states, could have a strong showing in Georgia, North Dakota and Idaho. I'm not sure about Alaska and Oklahoma but I'd say they're more likely to go Romney's way than anyone else's. Gingrich is largely insignificant except perhaps in Georgia and Paul will essentially just siphon away delegates from other candidates in states with proportional delegate allocation.

All in all, I think Romney will win at least 7, and possibly 8 or 9, of the 10 states up for grabs on Tuesday. Those, coupled with later probable wins in large winner-take-all states like California, should give Romney a big advantage towards getting the Republican nomination. That said, I expect Obama to beat him in the main election.

(I'm excited because I just turned 18 so I get to vote for this election finally!)

 

[Aesir]

I'm liking how this Birth Control thing is being blown so far out there that people actually believe their tax dollars pays for abortions. Or that some how that's what people are asking for.

Another prime example on how the Media doesn't do it's job.

Here's hoping next year when we think of Rush we think of the band rather than that degenerate blow hard.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

I'm down. He's managed to get a lot accomplished. It's kind of like a torrent. I see four more years as essential to completing the downloads so to speak. He's got the ball rolling on tons, and/or passed bills that encompass huge initiatives, but many of them are short of the goal, and his continuation as president should mean he'll be able to complete what he's started. If he's smart, his economics policies will be in such a way that even after his 8 years total are up, that to change from his policy would set the country back, meaning that a new democrat or a switch back to republican in 2016 would be moot, so long as whoever takes it will continue what Obama's started.

what kinds of things has he gotten accomplished? Not saying i disagree with you but I would just like some examples.

 

[Aesir]

http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/

 

[Jam Stunna]

Obama's going to win re-election. The only thing to worry about is who gets the Republican nomination, because Obama vs. Romney will be the most boring general election in history.

 

[blazedaces]

Here is an awesome video of an interview with Jonathan Haidt where he explains using human psychology most of the issues we face in politics today. It's long, but definitely worth watching. Just start playing it for a few minutes and if you're like me you won't be able to stop:

http://billmoyers.com/segment/jonathan-haidt-explains-our-contentious-culture/

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

Obama's going to win re-election. The only thing to worry about is who gets the Republican nomination, because Obama vs. Romney will be the most boring general election in history.

Kinda like Bush vs Kerry

 

[Sucumbio]

what kinds of things has he gotten accomplished? Not saying i disagree with you but I would just like some examples.

Here's a comprehensive list.

Like I said many things are start-ups that either will need 10+years unabated (as in not interrupted by newer administrations) to work, or are otherwise multi-step plans that will need years to complete. But as you can see from that list, he's done a lot, and will do a lot more if elected later this fall.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

 

[#HBC | Mac]

Woahh... how did that happen? forum bug I guess. My post:

Thanks for the lists, I really needed something like that.

Just to be balanced: http://whatinthe****hasobamadonesofar.com/

Obviously I'll be voting for obama just because the GOP is insane. (Ron Paul is insane too but he's a better kind of insane then the rest.) But I still dislike some of the things he's done. Specifically in increasing the Military and TSA budgets. (Military budget has reached ww2 levels)

alot of his actions also seemed to be eroding the rights of the american people such as;
extending the patriot act,
dropping charges against the CIA for destroying videotapes documenting torture of detainees,
cracking down the harder on whistleblowers than any president before, government immunity in prosecutions for domestic spying,
trying to get government immunity in prosecutions for domestic spying.
anti war activists raids.
So I'm really not liking this trend of giving more power to the federal government.

I'm also bothered by some of the ****ty people who he appointed to his offices. Like the guys from Monsanto.

But he's done some good things, despite having a ****ty senate and congress and he needs to be credited for that. I just don't think we should forget the bad stuff he's done and push him to do better. Just because he isn't bush or santorum doesn't mean he's amazing. We should hold our politicians to the highest standard. I'm excited to see what good he can do in the next four years.

edit: @blazedaces: that video seems interesting, watching it now. The ted talk that he shows early on is really good and I definitely suggest it. http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html


edit2: I definitely learned alot from that interview with Haidt. It reinforces some ideals that I've come to believe in over the last few years. That people need to learn how to see things from other people's perspectives. I think empathy is one of the most important traits and we need to constantly try to put ourselves in the other persons shoes and try to understand where they're coming from. Haidt says that one of our biggest issue in politics that we can't understand the other party and so instead we demonize them. Which leads us (specifically the republican party in america) to be so unwilling to compromise.

I do think Haidt might be overgeneralizing a little bit, and that what he says doesn't really account for all the issues current politics has. Specifically I think there are those who don't have nobel reasons for thinking the way I do but are instead using the system to their own personal benefits. But at the Haidt acknowledges that, and states that their are those who don't fit the bill. He says we should sacralize purity and mobilize against corruption. And I agree wholeheartedly, it goes inline with what Larry Lessig says is the core issue plaguing government. I do think that those sorts of people who are corrupting politics tend to use the GOP as a vehicle for their personal gains. Which is why I think conservatives aren't really be represented strongly in current American politics.

 

[Crimson King]

So, Santorum won Kansas. The GOP is in such a bad position where their front runner can't win these one-off states. Santorum has no real shot at presidency, but if Romney can't consistently and decisively beat him, then how can Romney beat the President of the United States.

On June 5th, the next date with a lot of Primaries, there will be 299 delegates for grabs. Romney winning these will put him at about 700+ not including any he gets before that. Santorum winning all these puts him at 502, not including any he wins before that. The last primary is on June 26th in Utah. Assuming Romney wins, I think that will be the date we find out. Santorum is close enough to Romney, especially since Newt hates Romney, and may give his delegates to Santorum, that this may go on until the very bitter end.

That will hurt Romney so much that he couldn't prove himself amongst two very bad candidates for the GOP (Ron Paul is a nonentity).

 

[rvkevin]

I don't think the talk helped illuminate anything for me. I agree that from the Republican side that 'compromise' is the equivalent to dealing with the devil, and that's my problem with them. It's like the religious right having a zero tolerance policy on reproduction issues. They feel like they would be murderers for supporting it even if only slightly indirectly. They think that this violates some sacred principle. This brings forth the following questions. Is this rational? Is this appropriate for a secular nation? How does the value of sacredness fit into policies that are supposed to apply to everyone? Shouldn't the first amendment cut out any legislation based on sacredness from the get go?

I see that from a certain viewpoint, you would get to the Republican position; but why start from such a viewpoint and where is the evidence for such a view? The lack of evidence is what I have trouble with, not that they approach issues from a different value perspective.

 

[Dre89]

If I understand correctly, America is a predominantly religious country though. I think like 80% of America is theist.

This reminds me of the issue of whether kids should have to leave the classroom in public schools to say their prayers. The religious argument was that the majority of the kids in the classes are religious, so 90% of the class shouldn't leave it to accommodate 10%. The secular response is that it violated the constitution, and that if 90% of people wanted black people to have separate toilet and schooling facilities that wouldn't justify passing that bill.

 

[rvkevin]

If I understand correctly, America is a predominantly religious country though. I think like 80% of America is theist.

This reminds me of the issue of whether kids should have to leave the classroom in public schools to say their prayers. The religious argument was that the majority of the kids in the classes are religious, so 90% of the class shouldn't leave it to accommodate 10%. The secular response is that it violated the constitution, and that if 90% of people wanted black people to have separate toilet and schooling facilities that wouldn't justify passing that bill.

This is correct, the USA is not a pure democracy so the majority doesn't rule. The constitution takes precedence over the majority. As you pointed out, this safeguards minorities from the oppression of the majority. So regardless of what theists want to legislate, it must pass the first amendment in order for it to have any force. This means that it must have a secular reason behind it (although research has shown that people are really good at justifying irrational prejudices).

 

[Sucumbio]

Is this rational? Is this appropriate for a secular nation? How does the value of sacredness fit into policies that are supposed to apply to everyone? Shouldn't the first amendment cut out any legislation based on sacredness from the get go?

No, it's not rational
It's not appropriate for a "secular" nation.
Sacredness is at the forefront of policy choices most of the time.
The 1st amendment should, but it doesn't because of God.

In essence one would expect policies to be fully secular - that was the original intention - but most politicians are Christians, and most Right-wing politicians uphold their Christian values above the spirit of the Constitution. This attitude stems from bible interpretations that basically say "obey all laws except ones that conflict with God" - that it is a Christian's duty to uphold the law of the land, because those in power are put there by God's will (so obeying them is in turn obeying God's will) SO LONG AS the law doesn't go against God's will as is stated elsewhere in the Bible.

This is why women's reproductive rights are at the forefront of the right-wing agenda. They strongly believe that abortion and birth control are sinful avenues, against God, and so laws should be passed to make them illegal.

"We ought to obey God rather than men." -In any conflict between what God says is right and what the laws of man demand of us, we must be prepared to stand up for God's law at whatever personal cost.- Acts: 5:29

 

[rvkevin]

Sucumbrio, I agree, but it almost seemed as though in the interview that he was framing the Republican position as a reasonable position that Democrats fail to understand, (and hence Democratic criticisms of the right are invalid). However, their 'principles' deserve no weight when legislating and their actions should disqualify them due to breaching the constitution. There's no misunderstanding, it's simply that we don't like what they are doing to this country.

 

[Sucumbio]

A liberal blogger wrote about George Soros' accusation last month that republicans are purposefully tanking stimulus so that Obama looks bad. It's kinda obvious but it just goes to show that the Right-wing really has no interest in actually helping America, only in hurting the Left. As he points out, the 2-party system in America - indeed politics in general, is defunct. The trouble is that this broken machine still makes all the laws that citizens have to obey, and that means our wallets get screwed in the process.

This day and age just won't work like the 80's. They can't see that, but it's ... what, 30 years now since Regan first took office? It's a VERY different country now. Gays and minorities are far more vocal. Baby boomers are retiring, and a lot of the "old money" from those prosperous work-12-hours-a-day-6-days-a-week-and-pinch-every-penny days are frankly getting spent like crazy by their kids trying to find an identity in the modern age of information and electronics. AND they don't have 1/10th the work ethic their parents did. Then you have entire populations of people like the NEETs (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) going on 30, or even 35 and literally just sucking the estate dry. It can't work both ways, in Reganomics everyone has to work tons of hours and rack up huge credit card debt.

I see the entire old-school republican base shifting anyway. Check this out. Basically the middle-of-the-road politicians are as far right now as the extreme ones were 40 years ago. At this rate they'll be Fascists before the decade is out! (though I'd argue that in their hearts they are that anyway, just they have to be quiet about it in order to get elected - it explains everything.)

 

[Aesir]

Credit cards are not economical actually, big thumbs down for the Reagan administration for that one. Actually big thumbs down for Reagan entirely but that's a different topic.

If this election has taught me anything it's that I'm in the wrong business, I really need to just drop out of college get my own radio program and just pull **** out of my *** an I can make 8 figures a year.

The very fact that Santorum is doing so well when he says things like; "Birth control leads to more children born out of wedlock" and no one seriously calls that out outside of Colbert, then there's a problem with this country that extends far beyond the two parties.

 

[Sucumbio]

Speaking of Santorun...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IfjAMRgpoug

I'm not surprised he won AL and MS but Newt NOT dropping out is a godsend. They can continue to cannibalize the Republican ticket and come November Obama really won't have anything to worry about.

 

[Aesir]

Thats because he's an egomaniac.

 

[GoldShadow]

Obama's going to win re-election. The only thing to worry about is who gets the Republican nomination, because Obama vs. Romney will be the most boring general election in history.

Looks like we'll be in for the most boring general election in history.

 

[Aesir]

I'm just gonna create a blog and document crazy lies about Romney. Like did you know Romney owns a diamond mine in Africa?

 

[rvkevin]

It looks like Gingrich is bowing out. Is there anyone left running besides Romney?

Edit: Never mind, forgot about Ron Paul, but not like he has a chance. Romney it is...

 

[Jam Stunna]

Looks like we'll be in for the most boring general election in history.

Yeah, someone wake me up in November.

 

[Lore]

I'm in the south, so naturally everyone here is massively against Obama and for Romney no matter what I say.

How are things looking everywhere else? I want to make a guess as to what the results will be, but I can't really judge much from my area.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Germans still think Obama is decent: not great, but miles better than any republican candidate. Shame that they can't vote.

 

[Aesir]

The dumb thing about this election is that the population is so dumb they actually believe Keynesian economics has failed.

 

[GwJ]

There are so many dumb things in this election.

I think at this point, let's just give Ralph Nader a shot. I mean, he's been at it for so long. I want to make his wish happen.

 

[rvkevin]

Germans still think Obama is decent: not great, but miles better than any republican candidate. Shame that they can't vote.

I think this goes for most of Europe. I find myself becoming increasingly jealous of Europeans...

 

[Jam Stunna]

Is it just me, or is the only competent person in Obama's administration Hillary Clinton?

 

[GwJ]

What HAS Hills been up to lately anyway?

 

[Jam Stunna]

Dealing with China.

Where the hell is Eric Holder? It's like they hid him under a rock after the KSM fiasso.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

The dumb thing about this election is that the population is so dumb they actually believe Keynesian economics has failed.

Isn't it Friedman economics that failed? i.e. led to all the economic crises that we've had since the 70s


Hilary would be cool if she wasn't planning to go to Sweden to nab Assange =/

 

[KrazyGlue]

Some people are still convinced that Romney has a good chance at beating Obama. Anyone buy into that? Personally I think the media just wants to drum it up as a close race to increase their ratings. It's not a complete beatdown obviously, but it does seem to me that Obama has held a pretty consistent edge. Could there be momentum going for Romney, or is this all an illusion caused by his winning of the primary?

 

[rvkevin]

Some people are still convinced that Romney has a good chance at beating Obama. Anyone buy into that? Personally I think the media just wants to drum it up as a close race to increase their ratings. It's not a complete beatdown obviously, but it does seem to me that Obama has held a pretty consistent edge. Could there be momentum going for Romney, or is this all an illusion caused by his winning of the primary?

I think it could be a close race if the disenfranchised voters are mostly Democrats. That is, the voters who say they aren't going to vote because neither candidate represents their views. Democrats have largely been disappointed by the administrations decisions, so the attitude of "they represent the same interests, they are just different packages" is hard to overcome. Republicans have an out (blame Obama) so they have a motive to show up to the polls. If Democrats don't show up at the polls, then Romney stands a chance even if less of the country supports him.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

This article seems to believe that it'll be alot closer than we think

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/how-racist-are-we-ask-google/

it states basically that America's racism cost obama many votes in 2008 and that it could do the same in 2012, it backs up this by cleverly presenting data ascertained from searches people made to google and prior election numbers

although idk if I completely agree with the assessment, it's definitely an interesting read.