Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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/SB1000...429662874.html

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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."


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

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

That's thing -- all of us probably agree more than we disagree ... we just turn our vote on different issues.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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".

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

....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.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

She needs to chill lol

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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!"

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

This is also a fairly telling chart

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

I advocate more editorials like this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...Tabs%3Darticle

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

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

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

Maybe this is why:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component...ser-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...ys-hello/21727

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

///mic drop



Trump isn't my president.

Thank God Hillary is not POTUS

#hatersgonnahate

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Thread
 

i'd love some hot takes on the 2016 election