2012 Presidential Election Thread

[Vampyr]

Going to go ahead and start a new thread to discuss this, instead of continuing to use the 'first debate' thread.

Also a good visual aide:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/romney-vs-obama-electoral-map#map

[Bond]

Let's see some predictions before the results start coming in later tonight.

I will keep 289-249, Romney.

[The Germanator]

I'll go

Obama: 309
Romney: 229

[Vampyr]

281 Obama
257 Romney

[Professor S]

This is not cool. RCP is releasing numbers before polls close across the country. This is the type of crap that can influence voting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

[Professor S]

281 Obama
257 Romney

That seems realistic. I'll throw in a wrinkle. Romney wins the popular vote.

Another wrinkle: In the aftermath of a FUBAR election, America hate-fucks itself to death. But I'm an optimist... :D

[Jason1]

Let's see some predictions before the results start coming in later tonight.

I will keep 289-249, Romney.

Ha, your dreaming here. No chance.

Im not going to make any predictions except for Obama will win, and its not as close as everyone is thinking.

[TheGame]

Ha, your dreaming here. No chance.

Im not going to make any predictions except for Obama will win, and its not as close as everyone is thinking.

Lol I'm on the same page as you.

If Romney wins I'm gonna be shocked.

[The Germanator]

Florida is sooooo close. If Obama takes it, it's definitely over though.

[TheGame]

Florida is sooooo close. If Obama takes it, it's definitely over though.

He's barely winning, but as I said yesterday I think he'll win there.

[The Germanator]

So much for PA being in play. I knew it was a last minute desperate strategy for Romney. McCain tried the same thing.

[Professor S]

Not looking good for Romney right now.

[Jason1]

Florida might as well be over with Miami county only coming in with 54% of the votes currently. You know those remaining votes will be primairly Obama.

[The Germanator]

Ohio! Hahaha!!! That's it!

[TheGame]

That's all she wrote. I still think Obama will get 300, but we'll see lol

[Fox 6]

Somewhere Clint Eastwood is shooting a chair full of .44s

[TheGame]

So Obama broke 300 before even getting florida lol. Also won the popular vote.

Anyone who paid attention to the polls saw this coming. It's sad that the media's spin on things made it seem like it would be so much closer. Heck even last night CBS and Fox were quick to say "Obama lost the popular vote" like it was already over. I think this election more then any other before shows the conspiracy by the media to get more people worked up about the election to help ratings.

[Professor S]

In end end, nothing has changed. Republican controlled Congress, a Dem controlled Senate, and a Pres. re-elected without the mandate he needed to put Republican lawmakers on their heels. I hope everyone liked the last two years, because we're about to get more of the same.

Congrats?:unsure:

[Teuthida]

I'll take more of the same over certainly worse.

http://isnatesilverawitch.com/

[Professor S]

In the end I think it was less Nate Silver's brilliance, and more turn out and Sandy ending Romney's momentum and the optics bringing the undecided vote to Pres. Obama.

There is one thing Nate's models can't predict, that is turn out, and if this election proves anything it is that young people are fully engaged and eager to vote. 2008 was not an anomaly. If Republicans want to be able to compete in the future, they are going to have to move towards Bond and I, offering visions of economic AND SOCIAL freedom, and not simply economic freedom. The single woman and Latino vote killed them this year, while social conservatives are a base on the verge of election irrelevancy. Somehow I think they're try and tack farther right, though... definition of insanity and all...

[Vampyr]

I'll take more of the same over certainly worse.

http://isnatesilverawitch.com/

Same here. I mean, I don't want change for the sake of change. I want change I agree with.

It is sad that no progressive policies are going to go through and we are still going to be at the whim of reactionaries, though.

[Professor S]

Same here. I mean, I don't want change for the sake of change. I want change I agree with.

It is sad that no progressive policies are going to go through and we are still going to be at the whim of reactionaries, though.

1) You got the change you agreed with in 2008

2) He passed exactly what he wanted for 2 years when he controlled government.

You have received what you asked for. But as I've often said when it comes progressive policy, the overriding reaction to failure tends to be "We just need to do it HARDER!"

At the very least we should get gridlock, and gridlock is much better than another Dodd-Frank or other interventionist policies that have frozen growth.

[Vampyr]

I'm not displeased with what I got the first four years, which is why I voted for him again.

I do think more could have been done, and more could be done that won't be done.

And I don't think he passed everything he wanted during those two years. Dems compromised on things they really didn't have to.

[TheGame]

In end end, nothing has changed. Republican controlled Congress, a Dem controlled Senate, and a Pres. re-elected without the mandate he needed to put Republican lawmakers on their heels. I hope everyone liked the last two years, because we're about to get more of the same.

Congrats?:unsure:

Time for republicans to change their strategy and get out of that radical far right wing mentality. If we get more of the same, it's just going to hurt the republicans more come next election.

[Vampyr]

Also I think Germanator won the prediction contest.

[The Germanator]

In the end I think it was less Nate Silver's brilliance, and more turn out and Sandy ending Romney's momentum and the optics bringing the undecided vote to Pres. Obama.

There is one thing Nate's models can't predict, that is turn out, and if this election proves anything it is that young people are fully engaged and eager to vote. 2008 was not an anomaly. If Republicans want to be able to compete in the future, they are going to have to move towards Bond and I, offering visions of economic AND SOCIAL freedom, and not simply economic freedom. The single woman and Latino vote killed them this year, while social conservatives are a base on the verge of election irrelevancy. Somehow I think they're try and tack farther right, though... definition of insanity and all...

Sandy did not end Romney's "Romentum". It had already ended. Romney peaked with the week following the Denver debate and was still losing. It was a lot closer at that point, but Obama made back whatever he lost in the three weeks following. Sandy was politically helpful for Obama as callous as it sounds, but the cake was already in the oven.

And I guess I was too conservative in my predictions...I thought Romney might flip more than just NC and Indiana.

On another note: It's pretty awesome news that Maine, Maryland, and Washington state voted on pro-gay marriage referendums. Makes me feel better about things. Also that both Aiken and Mourdock lost after their ridiculous rape comments...

Also: I don't smoke marijuana, but congrats to Colorado and Washington for passing laws for recreational use. We'll see what the Federal government does, but I feel like that's a step in the right direction.

[Professor S]

Sandy did not end Romney's "Romentum". It had already ended. Romney peaked with the week following the Denver debate and was still losing. It was a lot closer at that point, but Obama made back whatever he lost in the three weeks following. Sandy was politically helpful for Obama as callous as it sounds, but the cake was already in the oven.

Not when you look at trends from RCP polling aggregates prior to the election. The last week saw an incredible spike for the Pres. along with Romney going flat when previously he had slowed, but steady, polling growth. If you look back at my posts you'll see I had a considerable shift in election opinion once Sandy hit.

Oh, and Chris Matthews agrees with me:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1_tKa-JN7Uk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Classy guy, that one.

[BreakABone]

Not when you look at trends from RCP polling aggregates prior to the election. The last week saw an incredible spike for the Pres. along with Romney going flat when previously he had slowed, but steady, polling growth. If you look back at my posts you'll see I had a considerable shift in election opinion once Sandy hit.

Oh, and Chris Matthews agrees with me:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1_tKa-JN7Uk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Classy guy, that one.

I felt like if anything, the storm took away one of Romney's key talking points that Obama couldn't work across the aisle when he worked alongside one of the most prominent Republican governors for the relief effort.

Also, nothing to do with anything, but I think Donald Trump has completely checked out

[Seth]

It will be interesting to see the policy stance shift in the next four years regarding war with Iran. Predictions are that under Obama, there will be a further focus on the Southeast Asian region, whereas Romney with his lobbyist (Netanyahu) support would have been much more likely to engage Iran.

"However, he showed a lack of moral character when he let American generals intensify the use of killing drones in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, thus killing thousands of people, many of them innocent civilians. He has surprisingly demonstrated a lack of respect for civil liberties, going as far as claiming for his administration the right to target even American citizens for extrajudicial assassinations." --Professor Dr Rodrigue Tremblay
This should be of concern to anyone who thinks in terms of inalienable rights. For Obama to codify into law extra judicial killings of American citizens(and by proxy its allied nations' citizens) is something that Bush wouldn't have been able to get away with. Democrat peace chanties were way too silent on this issue.

Well, the $45+ million that Dupont, Dow Chemical, Monsanto, CocaCola (and brands like Kashi cereals huh) worked in dissuading voters in California to reject proposition 37. Hard to imagine that it actually got voted down since most people (9 in 10) want GMO labeling. Hopefully, like the Colorado decriminalization both movements will generate further referendums in other states. Dr. Mercola donated 1.5$ million to the Yes on Prop 37. Quite an amazing amount.
Anyone who has a family and loved ones should find out more about the health consequences of consuming gmo foods.


Denver = New Amsterdamn?? Apparently Washington state just legalized recreational use as well..

Most likely the DEA will be given the same green light to enforce federal law. Legal response by the federal government will be quick.
Not that I smoke it either, but this could be very important in terms of public health. Juicing the raw plant material and bud (not dried) doesn't have ANY psychoactive affects and produces a neurotransmitter "echo" response that initiates healing on all sorts of levels. Cannabinoids work with the natural endo recepters (it's in mother's breast milk!) and now the black market growers that have been breeding high THC content are now interested in the prospect of breeding in a higher ratio of non-THC cannabinoids back into the strains. This is important, and a good reason to decriminalize but not legalize. Federally supervised growing will wreck this medicinal potential.

Anyway, it's a big issue since you can literally 'cure' crohns disease in a matter of a month or two. Not much is known about the raw-healing qualities of cannabis since it requires large crop yields in order to supply appropriate dosage.
Also, Rick Simpson has brought public awareness to the healing qualities of cannabis oil(not hemp seed oil). He uses different solvents but any high grade alcohol will work. You can treat skin cancer topically with it and see regression literally overnight.

You probably don't know this, but Harper is ready to ratify a free trade agreement with China that would contract our country for 25 years. It stipulates that China can "discreetly sue" the Canadian taxpayers if we as a nation attempt to protect our environment from resource extraction attempts by Chinese companies. The lawsuit would have a publication ban and would be arbitrated by a private third party.
http://elizabethmaymp.ca/news/publications/press-releases/2012/11/02/warning-to-pm-harper-from-green-leader-about-canada-china-investment-treaty-ratification-deadline/

Just like NAFTA it would have a net negative effect on Canada's trade. Freaky shit. Our PM has prorogued parliament twice. It's lunacy and unfortunately the Liberal Party will probably have its savior in the form of Justin Trudeau. My country's boned if this is the alternative. "The horror! The horror!"

[Typhoid]

Not sure where else to put this.
But the end of Obama's 'fuck you, I won, motherfucker' (I just like to imagine that's what he referred to it as in his own mind) speech was probably one of the best bits of Presidential Speeching I've seen. He was so legitimately passionate about what he was saying, and it completely showed. Hopefully the almost half of people who didn't vote for him watched that, and saw what was clearly there.

[Professor S]

Not sure where else to put this.
But the end of Obama's 'fuck you, I won, motherfucker' (I just like to imagine that's what he referred to it as in his own mind) speech was probably one of the best bits of Presidential Speeching I've seen. He was so legitimately passionate about what he was saying, and it completely showed. Hopefully the almost half of people who didn't vote for him watched that, and saw what was clearly there.

Would you like to swap Presidents/Prime Ministers?

[Bond]

Well, I was wrong. No shame in making a prediction (hopefully). I was anticipating a +2-3 D advantage, but it appears as though it was indeed the +6 D advantage as predicted by Nate Silver and Obama's campaign manager (I forget his name).

I'm surprised. But it looks as though the Obama ground game was extremely effective at courting minorities (garnering ~72% of the Hispanic vote and ~91% of the black vote) and young people. Those figures are difficult to overcome when minorities encompass 28% of the electorate. I'd argue this is why the Republican party needs to liberalize its immigration and social platform to widen the tent, but I'll digress.

Anyway, I thought I saw a comment about my prediction being crazy, but I can't find it anymore. Like I said in the first paragraph, it was based on my idea of the electorate composition and not any partisan feeling.

Truth be told, Republicans like Prof and I are in the minority in the GOP these days (arguably the extreme minority). The party needs to promote its fiscal conservatism and silence its social conservatism. I think most Americans remain fiscally conservative and socially liberal -- it's time to pivot to them.

[Typhoid]

Would you like to swap Presidents/Prime Ministers?

Fuck no.
30 million people and our dollar is on par if not half-of-a-half-of-a cent above yours.
I hate how conservatively conservative that guy his, but I'll stick with Harper, thanks - illusion of a "strong" economy or not. :lol:
He might not know how or when to convey tone in his speeches, and he might have the emotional range of Keanu Reeves doped up on pills, and he may have a Lego-man haircut - but damnit, the guy can run (half of) a country pretty well. ;)

[Fox 6]

Would you like to swap Presidents/Prime Ministers?

He is even more left of Barrack. All of the mainstream political parties in Canada are.

Aside from the joking, I think Americans are seeing the social benefits of moderation and voted as such. It seems that there is a fragmentation developing in the conservative camps, and hopefully this will make them take more liberal stances on things like immigration. On another note, Those Teas Party whack jobs give me the willies.

[Jason1]

Anyway, I thought I saw a comment about my prediction being crazy, but I can't find it anymore. Like I said in the first paragraph, it was based on my idea of the electorate composition and not any partisan feeling.



Yea, that was me. Its earlier in this thread.

Anyways, I somewhat disagree with the notion that the republicans will be as "blocking" if you will of the democrats plans. I feel if they are as bi-partisan as they were the last 4 years it will really come back and backfire on them.

The way I see it, the country has again CLEARLY spoken and said "this is the person we want to lead our country, and we want him and his ideas to be continued." Obama will be much more agressive this time around because he dosent have another election to win. Republicans will be the ones who end up looking stupid, not democrats, if this bi partisanship continues.

In my person opinion without some DRASTIC changes in the Republican party's point of views, they will have a very hard time ever winning another election EVER again. This country is becoming more and more minority and poorer and this obviously is bad for the Republicans. Republicans are dying off, younger democrats are not. More and more minorities reaching legal voting age. I realise this is a huge generalization, but look how much the younger vote, especially minorities, sways democrat.

And for good reason. I can kinda see why a rich person might like Romneys views, but pretty much everyone else? Who knows. Personally I dont get why a median income or poor person would ever vote republican inless they change drastically, but thats just me.

[Vampyr]

From my point of view, all of those middle or lower class people who vote for the kind of republican you're talking about have a few things going on in there head:

1. They're voting because they view the Republican party as the Christian party, mostly due to the gay marriage issue.

2. They support giving benefits to the wealthy because they like the idea of the American dream, and they think they could be that wealthy one day.

3. They hate "entitlement" programs. They feel that giving a "handout" to someone is pretty much the most evil thing you can do.

edit:

Also, in my area, and in West Virginia and other south-east states, coal is a huge issue. People blame Obama for coal's decline. They see coal as a lifestyle because it's something their family has been doing for a long time.

[Seth]

A lot of Christians I know would never vote for the right because of exactly what you just outlined Vampyr.
Social issues take precedent over domestic observances. Maybe it's a Canadian thing and binaries don't rule the day quite as much?

Here, people vote for Harper because we are a resource economy and on a provincial level, the feds have vowed not to mess with regional profit holdings. Mercer makes it funny.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LTIOMJT5ubg?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Professor S]

Back to the Hurricane Sandy vs Nate Silver argument: Hurricane Sandy hit on the 29th and 30th. Looking at the chart below, it correlates almost to the day that political fortunes switched. Switch the chart to 30 or 14 days to see the trend.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

[The Germanator]

Back to the Hurricane Sandy vs Nate Silver argument: Hurricane Sandy hit on the 29th and 30th. Looking at the chart below, it correlates almost to the day that political fortunes switched. Switch the chart to 30 or 14 days to see the trend.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Yeah, but you're using RCP's averaging numbers, which obviously weren't as correct as Silver's...and I mean that they don't necessarily explain all of it...538 actually has a few more words that go into the details of the polls. I can't take time to find it right now, but if you go to the 538 archives, you can see Silver talking about Romney's momentum ending weeks ago. I'm not sure why you'd keep citing RCP when they weren't as accurate as The Princeton Election Consortium (http://election.princeton.edu/), 538, or this blog http://votamatic.org/election-day-forecast-obama-332-romney-206/

http://election.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/autographics/EV_history.png

I guess here's an example from Sam Wang's site. Basically after the 2nd debate, all the momentum is in Obama's favor. That's well before Sandy.

EDIT: Here is Silver's post regarding Mitt Romney's momentum, dated 10/24.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/oct-24-in-polls-romneys-momentum-seems-to-have-stopped/

[Professor S]

Yeah, but you're using RCP's averaging numbers, which obviously weren't as correct as Silver's...

Obviously incorrect? How so? Did RCP's aggregate polling estimate that Romney would be the winner? No, if you look at the trends you would guess Pres. Obama would have won re-election. All of these models, if you can call RCP a model since it doesn't make predictions, are based on whether or not they were correct. Both 538, and RCP's polling aggregates, showed strong signs Pres. Obama would win. They both proved correct.

If you look at the trends, and at the movement of undecided voters to Pres. Obama after Sandy, it's very difficult for me to understand how people can say the storm had no effect on voting. Also, please keep in mind I don't think Sandy was the only reason. Youth turnout was huge, and Silver had that nailed, along with single females and minority voting. But Sandy made it an easier victory for Pres. Obama, IMO.

[TheGame]

Just imagine if Romney's camp would have won all 4 debates. (lol)

There's a lot of reasons Romney lost that had nothing to do with the Hurricane.

[Bond]

I think Sandy may have expedited the fall of Romney's momentum, but I also believe the race was moving toward parity before the storm.

However, this is interesting: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324439804578107191429662874.html

[Typhoid]

it's very difficult for me to understand how people can say the storm had no effect on voting.

I think it's the simple fear of "Give an inch, take a mile". The second an important Democrat says "Well, I'm sure the Hurricane had some effect on voting and the way some Republicans perceived the President", some Republican media source will most certainly turn that into "The only reason Obama won was because of a timely hurricane."


Looking at the chart below, it correlates almost to the day that political fortunes switched.

While that's true, it could also just be simple coincidence of "The election is getting nearer, so people are making more concrete choices."

[The Germanator]

Obviously incorrect? How so? Did RCP's aggregate polling estimate that Romney would be the winner? No, if you look at the trends you would guess Pres. Obama would have won re-election. All of these models, if you can call RCP a model since it doesn't make predictions, are based on whether or not they were correct. Both 538, and RCP's polling aggregates, showed strong signs Pres. Obama would win. They both proved correct.

If you look at the trends, and at the movement of undecided voters to Pres. Obama after Sandy, it's very difficult for me to understand how people can say the storm had no effect on voting. Also, please keep in mind I don't think Sandy was the only reason. Youth turnout was huge, and Silver had that nailed, along with single females and minority voting. But Sandy made it an easier victory for Pres. Obama, IMO.

I never said the storm had no effect on voting. Your original argument was that "Sandy ended Romney's momentum." My argument is that isn't true, when any positive polling towards Romney basically ended 10 days after the Denver debate and started regressing to Obama. Sandy increased Obama's momentum back to his pre-Denver debate levels.

Maybe the problem is definition of momentum...I would think momentum means at least a gradual climb since Denver until Sandy. If Romney's momentum had increased until Sandy hit, he should have been ahead in the Electoral College by then, but he wasn't. Romney's best numbers were the week after Denver, maybe except for that errant Gallup poll that had Romney up 7 points or something.

[Professor S]

I never said the storm had no effect on voting. Your original argument was that "Sandy ended Romney's momentum." My argument is that isn't true...

It DID end Romney's momentum. I said it had slowed before Sandy, but Sandy ENDED it, and the aggregate polling data SHOWS THIS. Not only did it end Romney's momentum, but it gave Pres. Obama a last minute boost.

My argument is that if Sandy never happened the election would have been far from predetermined, not that Romney would have necessarily won. Many of these states were incredibly tight. To say that Sandy was not a significant contributor in such tight margins is foolish, especially considering how undecided voters, a.k.a. morons, flocked to Pres. Obama during that time, impressed with the optics of a bi-partisan Obama hugging a Republican governor during a time of crisis.

There is really no point in arguing this further because we both have data to back up our arguments, and both of them proved correct.

[Vampyr]

<iframe id="nbc-video-widget" width="560" height="315" src="http://www.nbc.com/assets/video/widget/widget.html?vid=1418227" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[TheGame]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kxjXcDT8pzk?list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&amp;hl=en_US" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Professor S]

While I disagree with Cenk that Romney was "crushed" (I still don't get that narrative from the left), I agree that the Republican party needs to become more socially liberal if they want to remain relevant. Demographics have changed, and the new voter will not stand for candidates or a party that won't move with them culturally.

To do list for the GOP

- Accept gay marriage
- Promote practical and welcoming immigration reform
- Come to the middle on abortion (but remain strongly against late term)
- Move from idealistic taxation stances. Namely, if you get an honest 10 to 1 deal on spending cuts vs tax increases, TAKE IT (just make sure the are tied to the cuts). But remain strongly against punitive progressive policies that hurt revenue and private investment.
- Reform existing regulation instead of moving to repeal it.

[Vampyr]

While I disagree with Cenk that Romney was "crushed" (I still don't get that narrative from the left), I agree that the Republican party needs to become more socially liberal if they want to remain relevant. Demographics have changed, and the new voter will not stand for candidates or a party that won't move with them culturally.

To do list for the GOP

- Accept gay marriage
- Promote practical and welcoming immigration reform
- Come to the middle on abortion (but remain strongly against late term)
- Move from idealistic taxation stances. Namely, if you get an honest 10 to 1 deal on spending cuts vs tax increases, TAKE IT (just make sure the are tied to the cuts). But remain strongly against punitive progressive policies that hurt revenue and private investment.
- Reform existing regulation instead of moving to repeal it.

A Republican like that could even sway me. I really hope we get a good candidate next time around. I want to feel conflicted.

[TheGame]

While I disagree with Cenk that Romney was "crushed" (I still don't get that narrative from the left), I agree that the Republican party needs to become more socially liberal if they want to remain relevant. Demographics have changed, and the new voter will not stand for candidates or a party that won't move with them culturally.

To do list for the GOP

- Accept gay marriage
- Promote practical and welcoming immigration reform
- Come to the middle on abortion (but remain strongly against late term)
- Move from idealistic taxation stances. Namely, if you get an honest 10 to 1 deal on spending cuts vs tax increases, TAKE IT (just make sure the are tied to the cuts). But remain strongly against punitive progressive policies that hurt revenue and private investment.
- Reform existing regulation instead of moving to repeal it.

It sucks how many people vote based on the emotions or being against gay marriage and being pro life. -___- If they make those changes, they need to be careful about it. They need to separate what their personal beliefs are from what they believe is best for the country.

For example gay marriage... they should take it right out of Obama's playbook. Say your personal belief is that marriage is between a man and woman, but also support equal rights for gay and lesbian couples, and explain yourself. That would force democrats to go even more 'left' on the issue to keep their gay and lesbian base, and make the republican base reject them... or it would neutralize the issue.

Or on abortion... Republicans can say they're personally pro life. And they would hope that everyone would make the 'choice' to have the children, then turn around and state that they’re not going to force their beliefs on others, and state that they're not looking to overturn any of these laws... or something like that... and yes, stay against late term abortion.

Immigration is a big issue too. I'm not sure about how they could change their stance without at least rattling their base.

As for taxes... until people forget about Bush, across the board tax cuts, or any type of cuts for the top 5% will be unpopular. Sometimes you just have to cut your losses and accept the popular position on things. If the model of empowering the middle/lower class fails, then that's when you go back and point out how well your old system works. Yes, if you truly believe in 'trickle down' economics, it is a very bad thing to put the economy in danger just to give the people what they want... but there really isn't a choice now, it failed and democrats will play on that until their own system fails.

The Democratic Party right now is way more conservative than it used to be in my opinion. And as they moved to the right, they republican party moved even further to the right to keep their identity separate. I think it's time for the republicans to start moving to the left, and forcing the democrats to start being more aggressively trying to appeal to their base.

[Bond]

A Republican like that could even sway me. I really hope we get a good candidate next time around. I want to feel conflicted.
That's thing -- all of us probably agree more than we disagree ... we just turn our vote on different issues.

[Professor S]

As for taxes... until people forget about Bush, across the board tax cuts, or any type of cuts for the top 5% will be unpopular. Sometimes you just have to cut your losses and accept the popular position on things. If the model of empowering the middle/lower class fails, then that's when you go back and point out how well your old system works. Yes, if you truly believe in 'trickle down' economics, it is a very bad thing to put the economy in danger just to give the people what they want... but there really isn't a choice now, it failed and democrats will play on that until their own system fails.

The main problem with tax policy is that what makes for great policy makes horrible politics. Example: I'm a strong proponent of a progressive flat tax for income. Every dollar earned up to $35 - 40k is taxed at a low rate, maybe 5%., or not at all. Then every dollar earned above $40k us taxed at 25-30%, and that's that. This way the more you earn, the higher percentage of your income taxed at the higher rate. Someone who earns $50k only have $10k taxed, while someone who earns $140k have $100l taxed. Simple, easy, and no loopholes outside of charitable donations and maybe average home mortgages.

You may say: Well what about the super rich? The super rich don't pay earned income tax; they pay taxes on dividends and capital gains because while they don't work, the money they already earned (and paid income taxes on) does. Now we could tax this at a higher rate, but history shows this not only chases money away from investment (vital to the economy), but it also reduces the revenue derived from these taxes. It's a tricky balance between rates, participation, and revenue.

Now, take the content of those two paragraphs and challenge any politician to explain them in a debate, especially primary debates where you get 30 seconds to create a soundbite for 24/7 news media obsessed with tickling people's ballsacks instead of real news. This is why we get simplistic bullshit like "999" or "pay their fair share".

[Fox 6]

....Wow...

VERY VERY NSFW

http://youtu.be/wLoqti0lzAw

I think the best part is when she blames Sarah Palin for Republicans losing the election because she didnt run.

[BreakABone]

....Wow...

VERY VERY NSFW

http://youtu.be/wLoqti0lzAw

I think the best part is when she blames Sarah Palin for Republicans losing the election because she didnt run.

On the bright side, she finally got people to watch her YouTube videos!

[TheGame]

....Wow...

VERY VERY NSFW

http://youtu.be/wLoqti0lzAw

I think the best part is when she blames Sarah Palin for Republicans losing the election because she didnt run.

She needs to chill lol

[TheGame]

The main problem with tax policy is that what makes for great policy makes horrible politics.

At the end of the day, that's the problem. You explain it in a way that makes sense, then a Democrat will just be like "read between the lines, they want to tax the rich less and someone's going to have to pay for it *coughyoucough*"

I think it'd be better if the party is split on the issue like how democrats are now. But the public and media mainly pay attention to the presidential candidate, so he HAS to take the popular position on it. He can say he understands top down economics, and give a long explanation, but say that he's more in favor of the popular position.

Then when something gets on his table, if it's the popular stance or not, he can say making the change was better than doing nothing. Yeah that's misleading, but that's basically what Obama does. Note how he passed a healthcare bill that he was "against" in many ways as a candidate. That's just playing politics to get what you want... who knows, maybe he honestly didn't want a mandate, maybe he did... but he said he didn't, and that was popular and part of why he got in the position to make that decision.

Look at how the democrats treated Bush when he was president. They gave him just enough to get his agenda through, and it failed. And he got all the blame for it. They should give Obama a hand, and seem reasonable. Staying 100% against him 8 straight years will just result in them losing again because -EDIT- they will just blame all of their short comings and failures on Bush and the Republicans, and take credit for anything that happens good even if nothing changes that directly results in a positive change. "Hey we tried to pass the policy that you guys voted for, but the republicans stood together to block it. Get more of us in office to stop this!"

[Vampyr]

....Wow...

VERY VERY NSFW

http://youtu.be/wLoqti0lzAw

I think the best part is when she blames Sarah Palin for Republicans losing the election because she didnt run.

She reminds me of Francis (boogie2988), except serious. XD

[Bond]

I will never understand what possesses one to communicate political views on Facebook (or YouTube I guess) ... just seems like a no-win situation to me.

[Typhoid]

This is going to be the most overstated, (stoned and) obvious comment of the year - but you guys need at least another viable party. I think nearly every single political problem with your Republic stems from only having 2 real options.

No country can run on a basis of 2 parties. You get no middle ground. You get no real compromise, no real overlapping issues. You just get black and white. All or nothing. Republican or Democrat; As if you can define every issue that 300 million people have easily into one of those two categories. You can't run a country on ultimatums, that shit isn't right, nor is it remotely politically fair.

Do you really want a country of 300 million people to be run on the campaign of "Vote for me, because I'm not that guy."
Because that's basically what every one of your elections is, and that's no way to pick the leader of a country.

I'm sure so many people on both sides voted for _______ because he wasn't ______; rather than what ________ was saying/thought/felt about ________.

One believes one thing, so the other has to believe the other - because it's the opposite. But with another party in there, each party can form legitimate positions on things that aren't simply because "The other guys think the other way", and each party, and candidate (and voter) can not only stop and think "Wait, how do I feel on this", and can actually express their real political views, opposed to spewing proper trash to garner votes.

Hell, your country is so split down the middle and typically always has been it seems sort of ridiculous to force nearly half of 300 million people to live unhappily with a leader they don't agree with. That's typically why countries fracture in the first place.
You can't rise above things like that if nothing ever changes politically, it will just continue to fracture.

You need more parties and more legitimate candidates not only so your candidates have more outlets for hate and negative ads - but so they can also simply stop being puppets to a two party system.

Ramble ramble rant and such.

[Professor S]

To answer Mana's question from another thread: My feelings on Pennsylvania being in play were based on exactly that, feeling. Romney had a huge turnout at a rally in Bucks Co PA, but I later learned many of those in attendance were from NJ and NY. It proved a mirage.

That, and I thought Romney would do much better in Philly suburbs than McCain, and he did, but not enough to make a difference.

But overall, this number shocks me: Pres. Obama received 9 million fewer votes this year compared to 2008 (69.4 mil to 58.7 mil). If as many Republicans voted for Romney as they did for McCain (59.9 mil), we'll have a new President Elect. But Romney received nearly 4 million fewer votes. Considering there was a tremendous economic crash in 2008 under Bush, and a demoralized Rep base, I find that fact amazing and the Republican party better take notice.

They had a softball this year, and whiffed.

[BreakABone]

To answer Mana's question from another thread: My feelings on Pennsylvania being in play were based on exactly that, feeling. Romney had a huge turnout at a rally in Bucks Co PA, but I later learned many of those in attendance were from NJ and NY. It proved a mirage.

That, and I thought Romney would do much better in Philly suburbs than McCain, and he did, but not enough to make a difference.

But overall, this number shocks me: Pres. Obama received 9 million fewer votes this year compared to 2008 (69.4 mil to 58.7 mil). If as many Republicans voted for Romney as they did for McCain (59.9 mil), we'll have a new President Elect. But Romney received nearly 4 million fewer votes. Considering there was a tremendous economic crash in 2008 under Bush, and a demoralized Rep base, I find that fact amazing and the Republican party better take notice.

They had a softball this year, and whiffed.

Yeah a lot of folks saying it was their race to lose.. and they managed to do it.. in grand fashion as well.

I just feel like in order to appeal to their vocal mass, they really alienated too many other voters

Even in the fall-out of the election, a lot of their supporters don't blame the candidates or the campaigns.. but the others...

Those good for nothing, take, take, take segment of America who is all about having unprotected sex so they can have their weekly abortions, live off the government's money and food and illegals.

And I just don't get their play.. they need to start casting those aside, and focus on casting a wider net.

~Edit~
Also, I think they need to start dealing in the world of facts.
The fact that it caught so many off-base that Obama, not only won re-election but with a pretty hefty margin in the PV and EC shouldn't have been too shocking if you were following the polls.

But for weeks, we heard that the polls were skewed.. that they couldn't be taken at face value.. they oversampled Democrats.. that there was an air around Romney... none of that was ever proven in fact, but they went with it.

When your own candidate begins to believe this non-sense, and is shocked that he lost.. it becomes a problem.

[TheGame]

~Edit~
Also, I think they need to start dealing in the world of facts.
The fact that it caught so many off-base that Obama, not only won re-election but with a pretty hefty margin in the PV and EC shouldn't have been too shocking if you were following the polls.

But for weeks, we heard that the polls were skewed.. that they couldn't be taken at face value.. they oversampled Democrats.. that there was an air around Romney... none of that was ever proven in fact, but they went with it.

When your own candidate begins to believe this non-sense, and is shocked that he lost.. it becomes a problem.

Thank you.

The media needs to start doing this too. Who cares what the democrats or republicans say, both sides will always say whatever it takes to make their voters more confident that they have a chance. Focus on neutral polls and don't make excuses. Obviously the pre election polling isn't 100% accurate, but at least point out that it would be a huge upset of Romney were to pull it off.

[BreakABone]

This is also a fairly telling chart

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/10/opinion/marshpdf/marshpdf-popup-v2.jpg

[Bond]

I advocate more editorials like this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324894104578114791679213644.html?KEYWORDS=bret+stephens#articleTabs%3Darticle

[Vampyr]

Great article, one point I thought I would draw out:

Mitt Romney won the nomination for the simple reason that every other contender was utterly beyond the pale of national acceptability

Why was every candidate so terrible? Normally I'd say it's because none of the really good candidates wanted to run against an incumbent, but I see you guys saying things like "they had a softball and whiffed." If it was truly that easy to oust the current president, why didn't "better" candidates step up?

I mean, c'mon. Santorum? Rick Perry? Those guys are joke fodder for the Daily Show, nothing more.

[Professor S]

Great article, one point I thought I would draw out:

Why was every candidate so terrible? Normally I'd say it's because none of the really good candidates wanted to run against an incumbent, but I see you guys saying things like "they had a softball and whiffed." If it was truly that easy to oust the current president, why didn't "better" candidates step up?

I made those comments in hindsight, and they were more about how many votes the Romney lost than Pres. Obama lost. I don't think the Republican party ever thought they wouldn't have an increase in turnout in this election, and that's why they were so confident.

As for bad candidates, I think that can be attributed to 1) self-promotion, and 2) the misguided idea that taking a hard right turn in the social realm of politics would push up Republican turnout.

[BreakABone]

I made those comments in hindsight, and they were more about how many votes the Romney lost than Pres. Obama lost. I don't think the Republican party ever thought they wouldn't have an increase in turnout in this election, and that's why they were so confident.

As for bad candidates, I think that can be attributed to 1) self-promotion, and 2) the misguided idea that taking a hard right turn in the social realm of politics would push up Republican turnout.

I also think.. at least to me.. that most on the right weren't pushing for Romney..but pushing to remove Obama.

Dislike can only get you so far.. they really needed to show WHY we needed Romney.. not just why Obama should go.

Feel same thing happened in 04 with Bush and Kerry

[Seth]

Maybe this is why:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2295-dead-enough-the-reality-of-the-qlesser-evilq.html

Any candidate who gets nominated automatically must be an 'evil' rich-douche. Obammy included. Evil rich-douche against evil rich-douche means most Americans can't see past the 9th inning in a 170+ game season, so they put their money on the one team who is most likely not to totally fuck up their hope for a good stretch. Chance at actual pennant.

This poem sums up my thoughts on the republican wing and the possibility of good leadership. By Prof Peter Dale Scott, Berkeley.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/poem-to-the-tea-party-patriots-a-berkeley-professor-says-hello/21727

[Seth]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2kKZQyKJ3h8?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Seth]

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XvgnOqcCYCM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>





///mic drop



Trump isn't my president.

Thank God Hillary is not POTUS

#hatersgonnahate

[BlueFire]

i'd love some hot takes on the 2016 election