FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Rabbit of Caerbannog on August 25, 2012, 12:25:15 pm
-
According to two Colorado political science professors, all signs point to a Romney victory in 2012. Based upon their Electoral College Model (http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_21373080), which has apparently been correct in every electoral race since 1980, Romney will win every swing state and end with a total of 320 electoral votes. This is, of course, if current economic trends remain as they are. And simply because of their track record in the past, it does not mean that they will necessarily be correct in this election. Another (unscientific) prediction (http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2012/05/22/romney-crushes-obama-in-presidential-election-blowout/) comes from Forbes contributor Bill Frezza, which is amusing in that it was written in May and designed to predict far more than just the winner of the election. For example, he incorrectly predicts that the Supreme Court would have "eviscerated" Obamacare. Really it's less a prediction and more wishful thinking on his part, which makes it amusing to read.
Any other predictions for Presidential winners and/or electoral vote totals can go in this thread :D
-
Personally I'm going with FiveThirtyEight. Nate Silvers model got every thing right in 2008 save Indiana.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)
-
Obama's had this one in the bag for a while now. At this point, the only way the Republicans can win is if they steal the election or otherwise commit voter fraud.
-
My prediction is that the Republican attempts to fire up their core with all their over the top bullshit is going to work -- at getting the dyed-in-the-wool "I hate 'dat nigger socialist Muslim commie feminist second amendment stealing bastard" types to come out to vote. At the same time it is going to convince a lot of the more mainstream republicans who are pretty cool on Rommney to begin with to sit this election out while convincing democrats who might be inclined to sit out because Obama is a disappointment to vote for him to keep the fuckwits out of office.
In other words, the votes that you actually need to fight for are being handed to the democrats.
Having said that, I am curious to know how you can make any meaningful predictions before the nomination or the debates. Those two events have the chance to change the tone of an election in a damn hurry. Either side could step in it big time, but so far it's the republicans shoes that smell the worst.
-
Obama has some problems going in to this election, most significantly the economy and how poorly he is managing to get his message out about it. The truth is that the economy is improving under Obama, but most people do not perceive it as such because the GOP is spending more money than God to make you think it isn't. When actually pressed with facts, Romney has to admit that the economy is improving, and then spends the next 20 minutes claiming that under his leadership it would "improve faster." This despite the fact that what he wants to do is a more extreme version of what got us in the mess in the first place.
Imagine two men standing by a burning car. The first man has turned off the ignition in the car and has been carefully removing all of the flammable material from the immediate area. He has plans to clean up the mess and restore the car as soon as the flames go out and has been kicking sand and dirt on the places he can to encourage the fire to die. He is having slow success at this. He has admitted that restoring the car is probably going to be expensive and has made some phone calls to start getting the financing on the project together. He knows it is going to take some time to pay off the money he will have to borrow to get the car working again, but he also knows that he absolutely needs the car running or he won't be able to get to work and everything will just fall apart. He doesn't really want to do it this way, but he realizes he has no choice and out of all possible solutions, it's the best of the lot.
Then the second man says, "You know what will really get the car running again?" and throws a can of gas on it.
That's Obama v. Romney on the economy. And Obama doesn't seem to be able to communicate this to the people.
On the other hand, Romney has some SERIOUS issues.
1. He's a Mormon. I'm not one to hold someone's religion against them, even one as retarded as Mormonism, but the GOP base sure as hell is. A large majority of GOP supporters consider themselves to be evangelical or "born-again" Christians, and to an evangelical Christian, Mormons are a dangerous, Satan-worshiping cult. That's not an exaggeration, I have personally heard religious leaders use that exact term. By nominating Romney, the GOP is asking a large portion of their supporters to choose between a "Muslim socialist" and a "Satan-worshiping cultist." I almost expect to see a lot of Mike Huckabee write-in votes come November.
Romney simply lacks the charisma to overcome this, and the only reason the media aren't going after his Mormonism with both hands is because the Mormon church is astonishingly litigious. (To put it in perspective, the Mormons are one of the few targets the Scientologists won't go after.) They tried to offset this disadvantage with the selection of Paul Ryan as VP, but Ryan has his own baggage, from being spotted drinking $350 bottles of wine at lobbyist dinners to having voted for TARP.
2. Romney is too fucking rich. I mean, the man is shockingly rich. And the vast majority of his money comes from other-people's work and sweat. He is the caricature of a rich investor, sitting in his mansion raking in money from legacies, overseas tax haven investment houses, and capital gains, none of which require him to lift a finger to so much as cash a check. The man simply wakes up each morning with more money than he went to bed with.
This is something the average American simply can't relate to, and Romney can't seem to stop acting like the little guy on the Monopoly board. If he isn't hosting $20,000 a plate luncheons in the Hamptons for privileged, arrogant, self-proclaimed "VIPs" in hundred thousand dollar custom SUVs, then he's mentioning his wife's "several" Cadillacs, tearing down his multi-million dollar mansion just so he can build another, bigger multi-million dollar mansion with an elevator for his cars, admitting that his business interests use Chinese sweat shop child labor, or having to admit that under Paul Ryan's proposed revamp of the tax code he would pay a tax rate of 0.86%.
He's not just a rich man, he's a REALLY rich man who can't seem to stop acting like it. Even when he dresses down to be more "relatable" he's still wearing a $500 shirt and imported $1000 Italian leather shoes. He holds himself up as some paragon of the "American dream," a supposedly "self-made man," but he seems to forget the fact that he, like most other millionaires, was BORN a millionaire. His solution to rising college costs and a shrinking Federal Student Loan program is to "borrow more money from your parents." He seems utterly unaware in the Marie Antoinette comment that most Americans, especially the ones who really NEED college, have parents with no money to borrow. Sure, when you grow up a Romney or a Cheney or a Bush, calling dad for money is always an option, but for most of us it stopped being viable the instant the housing market went tits up and all of a sudden mom and dad owed more on their two bedroom bungalow than it was worth despite having made 15 years of payments.
So all things considered, I don't really think he has much of a chance. Between the Sophie's Choice being required of the evangelical GOP base and the sheer unrelatable, arrogant wealth of the man, I don't think this is Romney's year.
But I suppose I could be wrong, God help us all.
-
2. Romney is too fucking rich. I mean, the man is shockingly rich. And the vast majority of his money comes from other-people's work and sweat. He is the caricature of a rich investor, sitting in his mansion raking in money from legacies, overseas tax haven investment houses, and capital gains, none of which require him to lift a finger to so much as cash a check. The man simply wakes up each morning with more money than he went to bed with.
This is something the average American simply can't relate to, and Romney can't seem to stop acting like the little guy on the Monopoly board. If he isn't hosting $20,000 a plate luncheons in the Hamptons for privileged, arrogant, self-proclaimed "VIPs" in hundred thousand dollar custom SUVs, then he's mentioning his wife's "several" Cadillacs, tearing down his multi-million dollar mansion just so he can build another, bigger multi-million dollar mansion with an elevator for his cars, admitting that his business interests use Chinese sweat shop child labor, or having to admit that under Paul Ryan's proposed revamp of the tax code he would pay a tax rate of 0.86%.
He's not just a rich man, he's a REALLY rich man who can't seem to stop acting like it. Even when he dresses down to be more "relatable" he's still wearing a $500 shirt and imported $1000 Italian leather shoes. He holds himself up as some paragon of the "American dream," a supposedly "self-made man," but he seems to forget the fact that he, like most other millionaires, was BORN a millionaire. His solution to rising college costs and a shrinking Federal Student Loan program is to "borrow more money from your parents." He seems utterly unaware in the Marie Antoinette comment that most Americans, especially the ones who really NEED college, have parents with no money to borrow. Sure, when you grow up a Romney or a Cheney or a Bush, calling dad for money is always an option, but for most of us it stopped being viable the instant the housing market went tits up and all of a sudden mom and dad owed more on their two bedroom bungalow than it was worth despite having made 15 years of payments.
This is all very true. He's so out of touch he's essentially a parody of the greedy capitalist, and the only way he can relate to people is by way of a series of uncomfortable compliments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHaMqHh5NZ4) about the local flora and American cars which somehow remind me of Anchorman's Brick Tamland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gId6nrMDmUU). Then there's the photo (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/exclusive-mitt-romney-student-protester) of that slimeball protesting in favor of the Vietnam War draft, which sent thousands of poor Americans to fight and die overseas so that Mittens could continue living in the lap of luxury. Of course, while I feel that Mitt could be viewed by Tea Partiers as their last white hope against a possibly Kenyan-born Islamist usurper, I'm interested in hearing Romney try and convince them that there was some fundamental difference between Romneycare and Obamacare that makes him worth voting for. Add to that his persistent waffling over gun rights, abortion and gay rights and see what happens.
-
Here's a question... which does the religious right hate more? Mormonism, or Islam?
-
Here's a question... which does the religious right hate more? Mormonism, or Islam?
I'd say based on my experiences kn the msin page, Islam, since all of those islamucs are terrurists that are goung to get us with their Muslamic ray guns.
Romney is so bourgeois he makes David Cameron look like a commoner.
-
Here's a question... which does the religious right hate more? Mormonism, or Islam?
I'm going to say Islam, because I can at least find some religious right figures defending Romney in spite of his faith. Matt Barber (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/barber-no-christian-good-conscience-support-obama-trust-romney-appoint-right-wing-judges) for one.
-
I work with a lot of Obama-haters who claim Romney is the greatest thing right now and Obama is destroying the nation. Even when I point out that Romney and Ryan's tax plan will (not 'could') bankrupt 99% of the nation. Combine that with The Republicans' plan to fix the economy being nothing but deregulating everything (and nothing else), and it should be Obvious that Obama is the better choice.
Here's a Question though. I'm seeing ads saying Obama's work with Solyndra did nothing but hurt the taxpayers. Is this true? I looked it up, but all I can find is that the company went bankrupt even after getting funds from the gov't.
-
The claim is that the taxpayers lost money when Obama gave grants to Solynda, supposedly because they were political supporters of his.
It is true that when Solynda went tits up, the taxpayers were out the cash invested in it, just as any investor would be if the company he invested in went bust. But since the money was a grant and not a loan, it would not have been directly repaid anyway, so it's a disingenuous claim to say taxpayers were "hurt."
There is no evidence at all that the grant was made to repay political support. This claim is simply slander.
-
Here's a question... which does the religious right hate more? Mormonism, or Islam?
I'd say based on my experiences kn the msin page, Islam, since all of those islamucs are terrurists that are goung to get us with their Muslamic ray guns.
Romney is so bourgeois he makes David Cameron look like a commoner.
Here's a question... which does the religious right hate more? Mormonism, or Islam?
I'm going to say Islam, because I can at least find some religious right figures defending Romney in spite of his faith. Matt Barber (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/barber-no-christian-good-conscience-support-obama-trust-romney-appoint-right-wing-judges) for one.
And this is what I'm worried about, and why I don't think Romney's religion is important so far as he's not Muslim like they believe Obama to be.
Another question: Which do you think the religious right hates more: Mormonism, or Liberal Christianity?
-
Another question: Which do you think the religious right hates more: Mormonism, or Liberal Christianity?
Well, since the religious right doesn't believe there is even such a thing as liberal Christianity, probably Mormonism. As for liberals who claim to be Christians but obviously aren't because they're liberals, yeah, they definitely hate them more than Mormons.
-
Romney being a stereotypical capitalist isn't a bad thing for the (both really) party's base: business owners, small and large.
-
Romney being a stereotypical capitalist isn't a bad thing for the (both really) party's base: business owners, small and large.
I don't see where they favor small businesses. Actually, I don't see whom they favor aside from super-rich males.
-
Romney is so bourgeois he makes David Cameron look like a commoner.
This made me LOL, mainly because it is true.
Anyway, I'm not terribly impressed with election predictions. Mathematical models are only as good as the assumptions and variables they include. Besides, the election is still more than two months away, and a lot can happen in two months.
-
Sandman's allegory reminded me of this article for some reason. Andrew Sullivan picks apart Obama's critics on both sides.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html)
-
The government is totally dysfunctional. It makes no goddamned difference who wins. The game is over, folks. Go home.
-
If we show the world the 2012 GOP Platform, that'll really tilt things in Obama's favor! That's some scary stuff, right, there!
-
I'm almost certain Romney will win, because there are far more crazies in this country then we like to admit. That, and they all vote.
-
I'm not worried. At this point I really don't care who wins. This country is on a path of destruction, if "the people" want to screw themselves over let them, they get what they deserve.
-
I'm not worried. At this point I really don't care who wins. This country is on a path of destruction, if "the people" want to screw themselves over let them, they get what they deserve.
I'm also in the cynical "We're Fucked Department", but I'll save that for another thread.
-
You know the funny thing is that I used to be a wide eyed optimist, even so that I have a degree in American Politics, now I'm like "Fuck this shit". I still believe in progressive politics, but not like I used to.
-
I know we're screwed no matter who wins, but I'm gonna keep fighting anyway, fuck it. It's an infinitesimal chance that it might change things, but it's still a chance.
-
I'm not worried. At this point I really don't care who wins. This country is on a path of destruction, if "the people" want to screw themselves over let them, they get what they deserve.
So...I, a person that hasn't voted in the 4 years he's been able to, deserve to be fucked because of other people's poor decision-making abilities? You seem to forget that this shit doesn't just affect the people who vote, but every-fucking-body in the nation, including you.
My question to you is this: what have I, myself, done to deserve being metaphorically fucked in the ass dry by my own government?
-
Hey, I haven't voted in 4 years also, but if people want to to destroy the country, let them.You want to try to stop them, get out and vote. I'm tired of worrying over who will win. Personally, I would love for them to put their money where their mouth is for once and secede from the union. I'm at the point that I feel they should be barred from recieving any type of social safety net, given that they're extremely ungrateful fuckwits.
-
Here's a question... which does the religious right hate more? Mormonism, or Islam?
Mormons are white. Muslims are brown.
Take a guess.
-
Here's a question... which does the religious right hate more? Mormonism, or Islam?
Mormons are white. Muslims are brown.
Take a guess.
It was more so a rhetorical question to confirm what all of us already knew :P
-
Romney being a stereotypical capitalist isn't a bad thing for the (both really) party's base: business owners, small and large.
I don't see where they favor small businesses. Actually, I don't see whom they favor aside from super-rich males.
They don't, but small business owners think they do. They think that tax breaks for the rich and attacking worker's rights will help them (the former won't, the latter will).
-
I still haven't reached "We're all fucked" levels of cynicism. In a couple years, after I graduate, if liberalism really does fail, then I'll run to the slightly greener pastures of the UK or Canada. Hell, if Scotland is independent then I might even move there if I agree with the politics.
(Note- I'm not saying I support Scottish independence: I don't know enough about the issue to really decide. I just know there's a chance of it occurring or at least getting a referendum soon.)
-
A few things:
If you are eligible to vote and you do not, it is slightly hypocritical to complain about how the vote turned out. Imagine what would happen if every disillusioned, non-voting citizen got out and voted for change. Considering that 30% voter turn-out in the USA is considered great, it would change the nation.
If you can vote, and do, and the majority still fucks up the country, then by all means bitch to the heavens.
Mormonism is a complex issue for conservative evangelicals in the USA. On the one hand the Mormon church is slightly to the right of Pat Robertson politically, but on the other hand fits the definition of a Satanic cult religiously. On the one hand the Mormon church is lily-white, even to the point of only letting black people into Heaven since 1978 (and that was only done to avoid losing Federal tax exempt status), but on the other hand is actively attempting to replace Christianity. On the one hand they call themselves "Christian," but on the other hand only do this by completely redefining what the word "Christian" means.
That last bit actually helps, because while the GOP and evangelical leadership knows damn well that the Mormon church is not by any traditional meaning of the word "Christian." The fact that they call themselves that combined with the fact that the most common trait of the Republican base is ignorance means they can largely ignore Romney's religion as long as they keep it off Fox News. I guess there are advantages to convincing your base to rely on only a single source of news and information.
Scottish independence is like a fifth Die Hard movie. We all think it would be really cool, and we all like to talk about how awesome it would be, but we don't really want it because the reality would never live up to our imaginations. No one wants to see John McClane in space, and no one wants to see the Scots try to write a constitution. We would just end up taking all the current British documents, crossing out everywhere is says "United Kingdom," and writing in "Scotland." Then we would all stand around and wonder why the fuck it isn't working and constantly telling the Welsh they can't join.
-
Oi Scots! Yer can all piss off and stop being a drain on my ENGLISH TAXES. Bloody Barnett formula.
Nb this is a joke, I don't mind either way. That said, Scots are more lefty than us, so a Scors govt would probably havebetter policies than us. If they had yhe money since your nice universities and lack of prescriptikn fees are all paid for by the English... :P
I personally would always vote even if the opton is a shit party and a slightly less shit party.
-
Interesting. Content I've been reading indicates that Romney would need to win about every single swing state to win, but as stated before, it's too early to really predict. The conventions, the debates, and the October surprises could all make a difference.
Last weekend I went to a family picnic and got to listen/talk to several of my older, more conservative relatives. Only a couple of them hated Obama (the phantom menace version -the misrepresented definition of the guy anyway), but not one of them liked Romney. I was glad to see they didn't care for his smug attitude and his elitism. Several family members talked of writing in Ron Paul, which I hope they do honestly (it would help Obama a lot if Ron Paul could actually run as an Independent, which is unlikely at this point). In summary, there wasn't any enthusiasm for Mitts.
I think it might be a reverse of Bush vs. Kerry. Lots of voters voted against Bush, but not enough voted for Kerry. Mitts may have problems with crucial demographics, which are typically the higher populated urban areas. And even though Mitts has more money, I think Obama and his team are far more strategic.
-
Last weekend I went to a family picnic and got to listen/talk to several of my older, more conservative relatives. Only a couple of them hated Obama (the phantom menace version -the misrepresented definition of the guy anyway), but not one of them liked Romney.
Is it bad that your comment made me think of the fuckwits on various forums that have said: OBAMA=PALPATINE!!!
And all I have to say is:
(http://community.spiceworks.com/attachments/post/0010/0357/implied-facepalm.jpg)
-
@ Sandman: I have Welsh heritage. Does that mean I'm hated and despised now?
-
I have Welsh and Scottish heritage. Does this mean I'm going to implode?
-
I have English, Scottish, Irish, and Cherokee heritage. I've just become a singularity.
-
Oh, don't take that the wrong way. The Welsh are neither hated nor despised. You know that one friend you have that you really like but who just drives you up the wall because they are just so goddamn odd? That guy is the Welsh. You let the Welsh in and the next thing you know everything has a 12 syllable name with no goddamn vowels in it.
I have a mate who swears there is no real Welsh language. According to him they all speak English when no non-Welsh are around and the whole Welsh language is just a giant practical joke.
-
Oh, don't take that the wrong way. The Welsh are neither hated nor despised. You know that one friend you have that you really like but who just drives you up the wall because they are just so goddamn odd? That guy is the Welsh. You let the Welsh in and the next thing you know everything has a 12 syllable name with no goddamn vowels in it.
I have a mate who swears there is no real Welsh language. According to him they all speak English when no non-Welsh are around and the whole Welsh language is just a giant practical joke.
This might be the greatest description of any society ever.
-
Honestly, I don't vote for three reasons:
1) It costs gas, which my family is already tight on to begin with.
2) It adds wear and tear to our 13 year-old van, which by all rights, should've died at least 5 years ago, and is likely in its death throes as I type this.
3) The major WTFery, and likely ranting/bitching/what have you, I'd get from my family would be strong enough to eclipse the sun for a month.
Should those factors change, though...I don't see why I wouldn't, given that I've got the time and manage to actually remember, lol.
-
@ SpaceProg/"Mr. Cosmic Rock": Hey, another part-Cherokee.
Anyway, the 2012 elections, as I see it, will have mixed voting results thanks to access to the internet informing youth about independent political parties, even though a majority of them will vote for Barack Obama. It also helps that the Occupy movement has followers whose majority votes for independent parties. Unfortunately, since Republicans and the Tea Party are sore about their loss to Obama in 2008 (since they were spoiled by George W. Bush aka "Dubya"), they're also trying to disenfranchise voters who are likely to not vote Republican, and are also using appeal to fear and slander/libel (yes, I know. They're two different words and they both are methods of defamation) to gain voters. I also would like to believe that most people who use such tactics assume that the "common man" are morons and just eat shit up because they are "uninformed" (pretty much the reason Rush Limbaugh's radio show, Fox News and other such "propaganda" and "misinformation" exists).
I can't tell if either Obama will win again and I can relax (except for the fact that anti-government runts might attempt to assassinate him) or Mitt Romney will win because his followers, in my eyes, are incredibly sore zealots and are desperate to get their way. Alright... I too am cynical enough to believe this nation is heading into a collision course, but even claiming this nation will end up like Somalia (a warlord state with no central government) is a gross exaggeration and batshit insane. If there is a God (which ever since denouncing my faith in him, I doubt), please save us all.
While I will vote, I'll also take for granted that my preferred candidate will very likely lose.
-
A few things:If you are eligible to vote and you do not, it is slightly hypocritical to complain about how the vote turned out. Imagine what would happen if every disillusioned, non-voting citizen got out and voted for change. Considering that 30% voter turn-out in the USA is considered great, it would change the nation.
I'd like to back this up with some statistics:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/24/cnn-poll-obama-49-romney-47-among-likely-voters/
While Obama polls very close to Romney among likely voters (within 2%,essentially tied) he has a NINE point lead among registered voters (52 to 43). Obama would win in a landslide if just the people REGISTERED voted.
-
I'm voting as early as possible myself. If I'm gonna get screwed anyway by the pols, I might as well go forth and vote for the candidate that at least won't fuck it up any worse. I'm not voting for the party that put us in this situation in the first place (GOP).
-
Well, my first instinct is to vote for General Zod. We'll be too busy kneeling to worry about healthcare and foreign affairs!
-
While I know many people might attack me for this, I feel I should point out that a vote for a liberal third-party candidate is a de facto vote for Mitt Romney. Just look at the 2000 and 1912 elections.
-
Unfortunately that just reinforces the two-party status quo :(
-
While I know many people might attack me for this, I feel I should point out that a vote for a liberal third-party candidate is a de facto vote for Mitt Romney. Just look at the 2000 and 1912 elections.
True in fact that was why Gore lost
-
Sandman's allegory reminded me of this article for some reason. Andrew Sullivan picks apart Obama's critics on both sides.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html)
Just to underline the article, this is a good read. Though I'm probably just saying that because I've tried to say it here a number of times.
-
At the same time it is going to convince a lot of the more mainstream republicans who are pretty cool on Rommney to begin with to sit this election out while convincing democrats who might be inclined to sit out because Obama is a disappointment to vote for him to keep the fuckwits out of office.
I'm an example. I planned to vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate before a few things including Romney's pick of Paul Ryan convinced me of how important it is to keep the Republicans from winning the presidency.
-
Sandman's allegory reminded me of this article for some reason. Andrew Sullivan picks apart Obama's critics on both sides.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html)
Just to underline the article, this is a good read. Though I'm probably just saying that because I've tried to say it here a number of times.
I missed that article earlier...
Yes, that is a good read. Definitely makes me feel better about voting for Obama :D
-
While I know many people might attack me for this, I feel I should point out that a vote for a liberal third-party candidate is a de facto vote for Mitt Romney. Just look at the 2000 and 1912 elections.
True in fact that was why Gore lost
That and disenfranchising voters (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200101--.htm), many of whom are African American. For a more recent example, try the voter ID (http://www.thenation.com/blog/169408/wake-voter-id-ruling-pennsylvania-rep-pushes-myth-voter-fraud#) and early voting (http://jezebel.com/5936990/ohio-republican-party-gop-chairman-made-racist-remarks-because-he-thought-he-was-speaking-off-the-record?tag=racism) laws.
-
While I know many people might attack me for this, I feel I should point out that a vote for a liberal third-party candidate is a de facto vote for Mitt Romney. Just look at the 2000 and 1912 elections.
It was only a matter of time that we got this mantra. I'm not going to attack you, but I'm sick of this bs. I live in a pretty safe state for the democratic party to win(NY), but you know what I'm sick of holding my nose and hoping the democratic party may throw me a bone, if I vote for their presidental candidate. I used to consider myself a democrat, but I don't anymore, given that they only come to us more liberal members when they want our vote, any other time they're more than happy to throw us under the bus. I'm sick of being thrown under the bus. I'll either vote Rocky Anderson or Jill Stein, I'm leaning towards Anderson.
-
I'd start shopping for third party candidates in 2016 myself.
Ironbite-cause any possibility of a Romney presidency scares me
-
I'd start shopping for third party candidates in 2016 myself.
Ironbite-cause any possibility of a Romney presidency scares me
From all I've heard of Stein, if she can prove to back up her talk, I'd HAPPILY vote for her for 2016.
-
I don't want Romney as president, but I'm not going to be scared of it if happens, I once thought that the Bush Jr. years were the end of the world, but I've seemed to have survived it.
-
Unfortunately that just reinforces the two-party status quo :(
No third party has ever come to power anywhere starting with the top office.
I agree we need a third party, and was going to vote for one until recently, but I've realized what we really need is a third party that aims for victories in local, state, and congressional elections before going for the presidency.
It doesn't necessarily have to be too long before seeking the presidency. The Republican Party began and took the presidency within a decade. But they did start out seeking other offices first.
Likewise Britain's Labour Party didn't start off right away capturing the Prime Minister's seat.
Rome wasn't built in a day, but every party third party seems to want that.
-
There are many steps that would have to be taken to allow a third party to even compete on the same level as Republicans and Democrats.
Unfortunately, those steps have not been taken yet.
-
It was only a matter of time that we got this mantra. I'm not going to attack you, but I'm sick of this bs. I live in a pretty safe state for the democratic party to win(NY), but you know what I'm sick of holding my nose and hoping the democratic party may throw me a bone, if I vote for their presidental candidate. I used to consider myself a democrat, but I don't anymore, given that they only come to us more liberal members when they want our vote, any other time they're more than happy to throw us under the bus. I'm sick of being thrown under the bus. I'll either vote Rocky Anderson or Jill Stein, I'm leaning towards Anderson.
Which is fine for you, since the state is safe. I'm still registered to vote in a battleground state, and even if I change my voting to where I live now (which isn't likely), it's also a battleground state. While I am not foolish enough to believe that my 1 vote will tip either state, I do believe that if enough people take the attitude of "my vote won't matter, so I am voting 3rd party," the states can tip to Romney.
-
If you really want to make an impact rather than voting for a 3rd party you would be better off getting involved at a grassroots level with the party that most closely aligns with your views. The problem is the left, almost globally have been weaker in the party rooms than the right.
As for this election, well while the world won't end it will be significantly worse for the US and the rest of the World if Obama doesn't get re-elected. Romney may well push us into a global recession and given the way we slavishly follow the US culturally bring about a new wave of moral puritanism that would be just awful. We are slowly getting out of the moral rectitude of the last decade. It would be nice if people loosen up a bit.
-
There are many steps that would have to be taken to allow a third party to even compete on the same level as Republicans and Democrats.
Unfortunately, those steps have not been taken yet.
Those steps will never be taken. The two current major parties control all of the access paths by which such steps could be taken, and they will never allow serious competition for their base. Besides, the Electoral College can only be gamed with two parties, and they both know this.
-
Romney would be an utter disaster for the USA, and by extension, the world. Mainly because if Romney snags the White House, it will be by riding a wave of fear and anger that will almost certainly gain the Republicans the Senate as well, and that would give us a Federal government in which the GOP controls all three branches.
Romney would then proceed to rubber stamp the Republican agenda like a good little robot, and massive amounts of the tax burden will be shifted off of the wealthy and corporations and on to the shoulders of the poor and middle class. (It is an inescapable fact that Romney's "economic" plans would hand major tax cuts to the wealthy while actually increasing the tax burden on the middle and working classes.)
And with that you have what is likely the last nail in the coffin of the American middle class, and when we go, the entire US economy goes with us. The fact that Romney and his GOP puppeteers either do not understand this fact or do not care is utterly terrifying. If they don't understand, then they are willfully, deliberately, astonishingly stupid. If they don't care, then they are clearly evil in the classical sense of the word. Neither option is comforting.
-
There are many steps that would have to be taken to allow a third party to even compete on the same level as Republicans and Democrats.
Unfortunately, those steps have not been taken yet.
Those steps will never be taken. The two current major parties control all of the access paths by which such steps could be taken, and they will never allow serious competition for their base. Besides, the Electoral College can only be gamed with two parties, and they both know this.
Which is all the more reason we need some serious reforms done to the electoral process. I've been saying this like FOREVER...
-
Unfortunately that just reinforces the two-party status quo :(
No third party has ever come to power anywhere starting with the top office.
I agree we need a third party, and was going to vote for one until recently, but I've realized what we really need is a third party that aims for victories in local, state, and congressional elections before going for the presidency.
It doesn't necessarily have to be too long before seeking the presidency. The Republican Party began and took the presidency within a decade. But they did start out seeking other offices first.
Likewise Britain's Labour Party didn't start off right away capturing the Prime Minister's seat.
Rome wasn't built in a day, but every party third party seems to want that.
This is what I was referring to:
While I know many people might attack me for this, I feel I should point out that a vote for a liberal third-party candidate is a de facto vote for Mitt Romney. Just look at the 2000 and 1912 elections.
The idea that a third-party vote is wasted.
-
Really, when my dad knows Romney will be awful for America, yet will be voting for him anyway because he considers him the lesser of two evils (somehow), then there's probably a huge issue with the system.
-
Really, when my dad knows Romney will be awful for America, yet will be voting for him anyway because he considers him the lesser of two evils (somehow), then there's probably a huge issue with the system.
I know quite a few Republicans who take this stance. They really don't like Romney. He's too much a liberal pansy. But it's still a vote against the Kenyan commie socialist Muslim.
-
Really, when my dad knows Romney will be awful for America, yet will be voting for him anyway because he considers him the lesser of two evils (somehow), then there's probably a huge issue with the system.
I know quite a few Republicans who take this stance. They really don't like Romney. He's too much a liberal pansy. But it's still a vote against the Kenyan commie socialist Muslim.
Actually, my dad hates Romney because of his outsourcing and firing and whatnot.
-
This is what I was referring to:
While I know many people might attack me for this, I feel I should point out that a vote for a liberal third-party candidate is a de facto vote for Mitt Romney. Just look at the 2000 and 1912 elections.
The idea that a third-party vote is wasted.
The point isn't so much that the vote is wasted, but rather that it may as well be a vote for the guy you really, really didn't want in office, rather than the one that didn't live up to expectations of being a messiah.
-
Here's a meta-polling site on the Electoral Map that I've been following. Unsure of the accuracy really so take that for what it's worth:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)
-
Fivethirtyeight is FANTASTIC for accuracy.
-
Unfortunately that just reinforces the two-party status quo :(
No third party has ever come to power anywhere starting with the top office.
I agree we need a third party, and was going to vote for one until recently, but I've realized what we really need is a third party that aims for victories in local, state, and congressional elections before going for the presidency.
It doesn't necessarily have to be too long before seeking the presidency. The Republican Party began and took the presidency within a decade. But they did start out seeking other offices first.
Likewise Britain's Labour Party didn't start off right away capturing the Prime Minister's seat.
Rome wasn't built in a day, but every party third party seems to want that.
I kind of hope the Tea Party becomes a viable third party. Much like the Republican Party sucking up the Dixiecrats and allowing the Democratic party to shift more liberal, if the racists, fascists, and theocrats split off the Republican party, it'll untie their hands to pander to the crazy and they'll be able to move back towards a level of viability. Then we could have the Democrats on the left, the Republicans in the center, and the Tea Party hanging off the edge of the far right.
Ideally in a two-party system, you'd have the "Let's take some risks and innovate" party and the "Let's play it safe and stay where we are for now" party, but at the moment we've got the "Let's fix this with duct tape" party and the "Let's burn this and collect the insurance on it" party.
-
Unfortunately that just reinforces the two-party status quo :(
No third party has ever come to power anywhere starting with the top office.
I agree we need a third party, and was going to vote for one until recently, but I've realized what we really need is a third party that aims for victories in local, state, and congressional elections before going for the presidency.
It doesn't necessarily have to be too long before seeking the presidency. The Republican Party began and took the presidency within a decade. But they did start out seeking other offices first.
Likewise Britain's Labour Party didn't start off right away capturing the Prime Minister's seat.
Rome wasn't built in a day, but every party third party seems to want that.
This is what I was referring to:
While I know many people might attack me for this, I feel I should point out that a vote for a liberal third-party candidate is a de facto vote for Mitt Romney. Just look at the 2000 and 1912 elections.
The idea that a third-party vote is wasted.
You shouldn't take issue with that idea being expressed, as much as that it's factually true. Without changing the election to some sort of runoff system, two major parties is the only stable equilibrium that exists.
-
And with that you have what is likely the last nail in the coffin of the American middle class, and when we go, the entire US economy goes with us. The fact that Romney and his GOP puppeteers either do not understand this fact or do not care is utterly terrifying. If they don't understand, then they are willfully, deliberately, astonishingly stupid. If they don't care, then they are clearly evil in the classical sense of the word. Neither option is comforting.
I believe they just don't care. They have theirs, why should they care about those who don't? Romney knows full well what will happen to the middle class, but he doesn't care because he's rich, and everyone he knows is rich.
I'm voting for Obama. I don't think he's the "lesser of two evils", as many say. He's just an okay president trying to make the average American's life better by giving them healthcare and making those who have more pay a little more so the economy can recover and the middle class can get back on its feet. If Romney wins, who knows when that will happen? You're right, probably never.
-
Even Theodore Roosevelt running on a 3rd party platform wasn't able to secure a victory(although he did beat the republicans) in his time. A 3rd party will never win.
-
I kind of hope the Tea Party becomes a viable third party. Much like the Republican Party sucking up the Dixiecrats and allowing the Democratic party to shift more liberal, if the racists, fascists, and theocrats split off the Republican party, it'll untie their hands to pander to the crazy and they'll be able to move back towards a level of viability. Then we could have the Democrats on the left, the Republicans in the center, and the Tea Party hanging off the edge of the far right.
Absolutely not, I would not fascists gaining a large level of support, enough to break a two party deadlock. And I'm not sure why you think the Democrats will ever move to the left.
Ideally in a two-party system, you'd have the "Let's take some risks and innovate" party and the "Let's play it safe and stay where we are for now" party, but at the moment we've got the "Let's fix this with duct tape" party and the "Let's burn this and collect the insurance on it" party.
Ideally in a two party system you would have parties that actually stand for different things. However that hasn't existed for decades, depending on where you live.
-
Romney would be an utter disaster for the USA, and by extension, the world. Mainly because if Romney snags the White House, it will be by riding a wave of fear and anger that will almost certainly gain the Republicans the Senate as well, and that would give us a Federal government in which the GOP controls all three branches.
Romney would then proceed to rubber stamp the Republican agenda like a good little robot, and massive amounts of the tax burden will be shifted off of the wealthy and corporations and on to the shoulders of the poor and middle class. (It is an inescapable fact that Romney's "economic" plans would hand major tax cuts to the wealthy while actually increasing the tax burden on the middle and working classes.)
And with that you have what is likely the last nail in the coffin of the American middle class, and when we go, the entire US economy goes with us. The fact that Romney and his GOP puppeteers either do not understand this fact or do not care is utterly terrifying. If they don't understand, then they are willfully, deliberately, astonishingly stupid. If they don't care, then they are clearly evil in the classical sense of the word. Neither option is comforting.
Not to mention the GOP's plan to improve the economy is to drop regulations for health and safety. So the only way businesses will create jobs is to make things as dangerous as possible.
-
Romney would be an utter disaster for the USA, and by extension, the world. Mainly because if Romney snags the White House, it will be by riding a wave of fear and anger that will almost certainly gain the Republicans the Senate as well, and that would give us a Federal government in which the GOP controls all three branches.
Romney would then proceed to rubber stamp the Republican agenda like a good little robot, and massive amounts of the tax burden will be shifted off of the wealthy and corporations and on to the shoulders of the poor and middle class. (It is an inescapable fact that Romney's "economic" plans would hand major tax cuts to the wealthy while actually increasing the tax burden on the middle and working classes.)
And with that you have what is likely the last nail in the coffin of the American middle class, and when we go, the entire US economy goes with us. The fact that Romney and his GOP puppeteers either do not understand this fact or do not care is utterly terrifying. If they don't understand, then they are willfully, deliberately, astonishingly stupid. If they don't care, then they are clearly evil in the classical sense of the word. Neither option is comforting.
Not to mention the GOP's plan to improve the economy is to drop regulations for health and safety. So the only way businesses will create jobs is to make things as dangerous as possible.
No OSHA Compliance?
-
Romney would be an utter disaster for the USA, and by extension, the world. Mainly because if Romney snags the White House, it will be by riding a wave of fear and anger that will almost certainly gain the Republicans the Senate as well, and that would give us a Federal government in which the GOP controls all three branches.
Romney would then proceed to rubber stamp the Republican agenda like a good little robot, and massive amounts of the tax burden will be shifted off of the wealthy and corporations and on to the shoulders of the poor and middle class. (It is an inescapable fact that Romney's "economic" plans would hand major tax cuts to the wealthy while actually increasing the tax burden on the middle and working classes.)
And with that you have what is likely the last nail in the coffin of the American middle class, and when we go, the entire US economy goes with us. The fact that Romney and his GOP puppeteers either do not understand this fact or do not care is utterly terrifying. If they don't understand, then they are willfully, deliberately, astonishingly stupid. If they don't care, then they are clearly evil in the classical sense of the word. Neither option is comforting.
Not to mention the GOP's plan to improve the economy is to drop regulations for health and safety. So the only way businesses will create jobs is to make things as dangerous as possible.
No OSHA Compliance?
*Gets the walkway suspended over a giant uncovered tank of green goo*
-
I posted this in another thread, but i'll repost it here. This is basically the GOP's 'Big job Plan.'
http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/10/27/summary-of-jobs-bills-stalled (http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/10/27/summary-of-jobs-bills-stalled)
-
Well don't you know that safety regulations are for pussies and the weak, and all one has to do is pull themselves up by the bootstraps.
-
Reads the first one. I wonder if the GOP knows that if something is good on humans then that doesn't necessarily mean good on the rest of the wildlife.
-
So right now Romney's up 2 points and the media is screaming right now. Uh I'm not. He's only up those 2 points because for the past week the focus has been on him. Obama's up next week and I actually expect those numbers to reverse if not dip down even further.
Ironbite-once the jaws are picked up from the floor that is.
-
So right now Romney's up 2 points and the media is screaming right now. Uh I'm not. He's only up those 2 points because for the past week the focus has been on him. Obama's up next week and I actually expect those numbers to reverse if not dip down even further.
Ironbite-once the jaws are picked up from the floor that is.
Have any of those idiots ever heard of "the post-convention bounce", it happens after every fucking convention.
-
Exactly. Plus it tends to level right back out and the Dems will get their slight bounce before it slides back too. Getting only 2 points from said bounce is really nothing to brag about.
-
Technically it's a 6 point bounce as he was 4 points behind. But yeah I expect everything to even out after next week.
Ironbite-though this week might have cost Romney big time.
-
Michael Moore is predicting Mitt Romney will win (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/08/31), simply due to the large amount of money he's raising (and will continue to raise). This opinion, like the Forbes writer, is non-scientific and should be taken with a grain of salt.
-
Also, to those who worry about a third party hindering Obama, there's always Virgil Goode--an authoritarian candidate with his name on the ballot in over a dozen states (http://www.roanoke.com/politics/wb/312232) and super-PAC support (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/31/13573497-could-super-pac-backed-third-party-candidates-sway-presidential-race?lite)--who could always take vital support from Romney in swing states.
-
Also, to those who worry about a third party hindering Obama, there's always Virgil Goode--an authoritarian candidate with his name on the ballot in over a dozen states (http://forums.fstdt.net/politics-and-government/election-2012-predictions/75/?action=post;last_msg=88648) and super-PAC support (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/31/13573497-could-super-pac-backed-third-party-candidates-sway-presidential-race?lite)--who could always take vital support from Romney in swing states.
Umm,your first link is messed up, it takes me to this forum's reply thread
-
Also, to those who worry about a third party hindering Obama, there's always Virgil Goode--an authoritarian candidate with his name on the ballot in over a dozen states (http://forums.fstdt.net/politics-and-government/election-2012-predictions/75/?action=post;last_msg=88648) and super-PAC support (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/31/13573497-could-super-pac-backed-third-party-candidates-sway-presidential-race?lite)--who could always take vital support from Romney in swing states.
Umm,your first link is messed up, it takes me to this forum's reply thread
Frak....
Okay, fixed it.
-
According to a new national survey (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/romney-bush-favorability_n_1922560.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl4%7Csec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D212303), Mitt Romney's favorability is lower than George W. Bush. Things do not bode well for MittBot 3000. The first debate is coming up though, so we'll see...
-
(http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/picture.php?albumid=37&pictureid=3669)
-
According to a new national survey (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/romney-bush-favorability_n_1922560.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl4%7Csec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D212303), Mitt Romney's favorability is lower than George W. Bush. Things do not bode well for MittBot 3000. The first debate is coming up though, so we'll see...
The most confusing thing about this article to me is the fact that Bush's favorability is so high at 46 percent. It's higher than Biden's, too. What has Biden done?
Americans have a short memory.
-
According to a new national survey (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/romney-bush-favorability_n_1922560.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl4%7Csec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D212303), Mitt Romney's favorability is lower than George W. Bush. Things do not bode well for MittBot 3000. The first debate is coming up though, so we'll see...
The most confusing thing about this article to me is the fact that Bush's favorability is so high at 46 percent. It's higher than Biden's, too. What has Biden done?
Americans have a short memory.
Americans are fucking stupid.
Also, The media have been pushing this narrative about Biden that he's an abrasive jerk who always says stupid things. If you live in the real world and not Fox-news right-wing fantasy land, you'll know that has little relation to reality.
-
When are the debates?
-
When are the debates?
October 3, 2012: Presidential Debate in Denver, CO
October 11, 2012: Vice Presidential Debate in Danville, KY
October 16, 2012: Presidential Debate in Hempstead, NY
October 22, 2012: Presidential Debate in Boca Raton, FL
-
When are the debates?
October 3, 2012: Presidential Debate in Denver, CO
October 11, 2012: Vice Presidential Debate in Danville, KY
October 16, 2012: Presidential Debate in Hempstead, NY
October 22, 2012: Presidential Debate in Boca Raton, FL
All of them will be at 9 PM eastern time. The first presidential debate is about domestic policy, the last is about foreign policy, and the second one will be town hall style.
-
What I read is this is based on if Mitt Romney won in a landslide then Todd Akin may win from the momentum.
Yea, like Mitt Romney is going to win in a landslide...LOL. More like get crushed by Obama's landslide. Romney is doing himself in with his own comments.
-
What I read is this is based on if Mitt Romney won in a landslide then Todd Akin may win from the momentum.
Yea, like Mitt Romney is going to win in a landslide...LOL. More like get crushed by Obama's landslide. Romney is doing himself in with his own comments.
All it takes is for democrats to get complacent for Romney to win.
-
Obama's had this one in the bag for a while now. At this point, the only way the Republicans can win is if they steal the election or otherwise commit voter fraud.
They're trying...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x8mK4ar9w0
-
Wall Street analysts predict (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/wall-street-pundits-see-obama-re-election.php) an Obama victory.
-
Wall Street analysts predict (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/wall-street-pundits-see-obama-re-election.php) an Obama victory.
And they also predict that the Republicans will keep the Senate, I forsee more foot dragging and acting worse than toddlers.
-
So, Mitt Romney apparently won the first debate. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19825263)
-
llewxam1uthor=Zachski link=topic=2526.msg95475#msg95475 date=1348957159]
What I read is this is based on if Mitt Romney won in a landslide then Todd Akin may win from the momentum.
Yea, like Mitt Romney is going to win in a landslide...LOL. More like get crushed by Obama's landslide. Romney is doing himself in with his own comments.
All it takes is for democrats to get complacent for Romney to win.
[/quote]
Obama was doing a great job being complacent last night.
-
llewxam1uthor=Zachski link=topic=2526.msg95475#msg95475 date=1348957159]
What I read is this is based on if Mitt Romney won in a landslide then Todd Akin may win from the momentum.
Yea, like Mitt Romney is going to win in a landslide...LOL. More like get crushed by Obama's landslide. Romney is doing himself in with his own comments.
All it takes is for democrats to get complacent for Romney to win.
Obama was doing a great job being complacent last night.
[/quote]
Silly, don't you know, in American politics, we have an pathetic excuse for a so called "left-wing" but we have to support them no matter what, due to our shittastic excuse for an electoral system.
-
Obama was doing a great job being complacent last night.
My viewpoint on the matter is:
Why kick someone's ass when they're too busy doing it for you? :D
Seriously, if anything, Obama needed to let Romney run his mouth, then interject at key points. Which he did.
One counter attack can do more than a thousand attacks.
-
Wall Street analysts predict (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/wall-street-pundits-see-obama-re-election.php) an Obama victory.
And they also predict that the Republicans will keep the Senate, I forsee more foot dragging and acting worse than toddlers.
What? How can they keep the Senate if they don't have it in the first place?
Unless you're talking about the House.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary
-
Wall Street analysts predict (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/wall-street-pundits-see-obama-re-election.php) an Obama victory.
And they also predict that the Republicans will keep the Senate, I forsee more foot dragging and acting worse than toddlers.
What? How can they keep the Senate if they don't have it in the first place?
Unless you're talking about the House.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary
Or...maybe the Democrats never had the Senate to begin with...
(http://fim.413chan.net/fic/src/134644406818-1438721-what_a_twist.jpg)
-
With how they're behaving now anything less than 60 democrats may as well be them having the senate.
-
My bad, I read it wrong.