|
United States22883 Posts
On March 14 2012 10:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 10:31 Derez wrote:On March 14 2012 10:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2012 10:14 DoubleReed wrote:On March 14 2012 10:12 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2012 10:04 Derez wrote:On March 14 2012 09:54 Probulous wrote:On March 14 2012 09:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2012 09:14 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't get it. Do we want another war? We just got out of Iraq, and I thought that was a massively popular move. Why is the American populace ready to go to war again? Shouldn't they be booing the war-hungry rhetoric???
Man, I don't understand politics at all... It has everything to do with Obama's appeal to the American electorate. The vast majority of the people who do not support bombing Iran are going to vote for Obama anyway, regardless of what he does. However, by bombing Iran, Obama will cement his position among many independents and groups from whom he has lost support (re: Jews.... just look at what happened in Weiner's district to see how badly democrats are doing among that voting block). That's pretty sickening. Bombing another country to shore up your own local support. Holy shit what has the world come to. I mean people are so jaded about politicians but if they persuaded by this kind of crap you can't really blame the politicians can you? I try my best not to become a cynic but reality really bites. Its not true. Obama has not lost support disproportionally among jewish americans ( gallup), and most of them live in uncompetitive states in the general anyhow (NY, Mass, Cali). Next to that, to my knowledge the jewish american community is essentially split on bombing Iran, there's no actual broad support for bombing Iran (ignoring AIPAC which has very little to do with the actual jewish community). The issue is just as divisive within the US population as a whole as it is within the jewish american community (something like 52ish percent in the american population as a whole, 54ish in the jewish) (Quite the useless stereotype you have there) How can you say that Obama has not lost support among Jewish Americans when that poll that you cited shows that he has lost 30 fucking points? In the past, Jewish Americans have voted for democrats almost as reliably as the African American population. Disproportionally was the keyword in that sentence. And really the approval rating doesn't mean they would vote republican considering the options. This kind of willful denial is so amusing. Ignore 2010. Ignore all the special elections where democrats lost when they should have won. It's different in 2012. Just wait. I honestly don't know how to argue with nostradamus-like predictions of the future. Show me a poll that has a republican candidate even near Obama in a state with a significant jewish american population and you might have a point. It's way too early to pay much attention to polls. I think this is absolutely true. People tend to put a lot more faith in polling than they realistically should.
|
It seems like Romney ended up third in Mississippi and won most delegates, while Santorum took about the same win in Alabame but took almost half the delegates. Something tells me the state-wide numbers can be decieving.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
What a nightmare for Mittens.
|
Why is Gingrich still in the race? His chances of winning are pretty much gone, he is only hurting the party at this point by splitting votes.
what if he is being paid by Romney to stay in so he can secure his win vs Santorum : o
|
On March 14 2012 12:34 biology]major wrote:
Why is Gingrich still in the race? His chances of winning are pretty much gone, he is only hurting the party at this point by splitting votes.
what if he is being paid by Romney to stay in so he can secure his win vs Santorum : o
it just looks like this whole primary is a train wreck
|
Gingrich is still in the race because the ego of Gingrich is enormous. He basically considers himself the American version of Winston Churchill.
|
Yikes, Romney came in 3rd in both AL and MS. He's very fortunate that Gingrich is still running.
|
Gingrich keeping that Moon Base dream alive!
Also doing Romney a favor.
|
On March 14 2012 11:55 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 10:54 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2012 10:31 Derez wrote:On March 14 2012 10:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2012 10:14 DoubleReed wrote:On March 14 2012 10:12 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2012 10:04 Derez wrote:On March 14 2012 09:54 Probulous wrote:On March 14 2012 09:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2012 09:14 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't get it. Do we want another war? We just got out of Iraq, and I thought that was a massively popular move. Why is the American populace ready to go to war again? Shouldn't they be booing the war-hungry rhetoric???
Man, I don't understand politics at all... It has everything to do with Obama's appeal to the American electorate. The vast majority of the people who do not support bombing Iran are going to vote for Obama anyway, regardless of what he does. However, by bombing Iran, Obama will cement his position among many independents and groups from whom he has lost support (re: Jews.... just look at what happened in Weiner's district to see how badly democrats are doing among that voting block). That's pretty sickening. Bombing another country to shore up your own local support. Holy shit what has the world come to. I mean people are so jaded about politicians but if they persuaded by this kind of crap you can't really blame the politicians can you? I try my best not to become a cynic but reality really bites. Its not true. Obama has not lost support disproportionally among jewish americans ( gallup), and most of them live in uncompetitive states in the general anyhow (NY, Mass, Cali). Next to that, to my knowledge the jewish american community is essentially split on bombing Iran, there's no actual broad support for bombing Iran (ignoring AIPAC which has very little to do with the actual jewish community). The issue is just as divisive within the US population as a whole as it is within the jewish american community (something like 52ish percent in the american population as a whole, 54ish in the jewish) (Quite the useless stereotype you have there) How can you say that Obama has not lost support among Jewish Americans when that poll that you cited shows that he has lost 30 fucking points? In the past, Jewish Americans have voted for democrats almost as reliably as the African American population. Disproportionally was the keyword in that sentence. And really the approval rating doesn't mean they would vote republican considering the options. This kind of willful denial is so amusing. Ignore 2010. Ignore all the special elections where democrats lost when they should have won. It's different in 2012. Just wait. I honestly don't know how to argue with nostradamus-like predictions of the future. Show me a poll that has a republican candidate even near Obama in a state with a significant jewish american population and you might have a point. It's way too early to pay much attention to polls. I think this is absolutely true. People tend to put a lot more faith in polling than they realistically should.
On top of that, people need to recognize the difference between a poll of:
1) all Americans
2) registered voters
3) likely voters
Type 3 tend to be the most accurate, type 1 is almost meaningless.
|
On March 14 2012 13:42 Signet wrote:
Yikes, Romney came in 3rd in both AL and MS. He's very fortunate that Gingrich is still running.
Yes, its quite a shame. The awarding of delegates is split proportionally, so with his wins Santorum doesn't get much of a gain on Romney as it stands. But if Santorum had most of Gingrich's backers + Show Spoiler +(which I assume he would, because Gingrich called those voting for him and Santorum the "true conservative vote", as opposed to Romney)
Its at this point though that I'm actually starting to get a bit worried, what if Romney doesn't get the amount of delegates he needs and it goes to an open convention, and the Republican's actually pick a good, electable republican candidate to challenge Obama? Seems like that would be the best option for the Republican party at this point, because all of those running have had their names muddied too much.
|
On March 14 2012 13:55 itkovian wrote:Its at this point though that I'm actually starting to get a bit worried, what if Romney doesn't get the amount of delegates he needs and it goes to an open convention, and the Republican's actually pick a good, electable republican candidate to challenge Obama?
and that would be? I think if this goes to convention the republicans are going to have a real issue in the General. Not enough time and makes whoever they choose and easy target to pillory. I mean their own private mini-election couldn't even elect them 
|
On March 14 2012 13:55 itkovian wrote:Yes, its quite a shame. The awarding of delegates is split proportionally, so with his wins Santorum doesn't get much of a gain on Romney as it stands. But if Santorum had most of Gingrich's backers + Show Spoiler +(which I assume he would, because Gingrich called those voting for him and Santorum the "true conservative vote", as opposed to Romney) he would have gotten quite a bit more delegates then Romney. Its at this point though that I'm actually starting to get a bit worried, what if Romney doesn't get the amount of delegates he needs and it goes to an open convention, and the Republican's actually pick a good, electable republican candidate to challenge Obama? Seems like that would be the best option for the Republican party at this point, because all of those running have had their names muddied too much.
Right now, I don't think the Republican Party has a more electable candidate (who they'd actually pick -- ie, they're not going with a Guiliani type) than Romney. Daniels and Jindal aren't any stronger. Christie maybe, but I think he really doesn't want to run in 2012.
The November election will mostly be about Obama anyway. Who the Republican candidate is will only make a small difference. Maybe Santorum would energize liberals/Democrats to turn out to keep him out of office, but you're not going to have a Republican who scares liberals/moderates less than Romney. I think everyone recognizes that most of what Romney is saying now is just what he thinks the ultraconservative base wants to hear in order to nominate him.
If unemployment is below 8% by October, Obama has a good chance of being re-elected regardless of his opponent. If it's above 8.5%, he will probably lose unless the GOP candidate is Santorum or a similar nominee from a brokered convention.
|
On March 14 2012 14:08 Signet wrote:
If unemployment is below 8% by October, Obama has a good chance of being re-elected regardless of his opponent. If it's above 8.5%, he will probably lose unless the GOP candidate is Santorum or a similar nominee from a brokered convention.
The fact that this is probably true is a truly sad indictment of the way democracy works. When shit goes well, government is great, when shit goes bad, government is bad. Doesn't matter if government has any impact on how the shit is going. There is no connection between policy and voting choice, so people aren't choosing how they want their country run. They are just expressing their opinion on the current state of life.
|
Canada5062 Posts
On March 14 2012 09:56 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:42 liberal wrote:On March 14 2012 09:32 seiferoth10 wrote:On March 14 2012 09:14 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't get it. Do we want another war? We just got out of Iraq, and I thought that was a massively popular move. Why is the American populace ready to go to war again? Shouldn't they be booing the war-hungry rhetoric???
Man, I don't understand politics at all... That's why you shouldn't vote for a GOP candidate in the general election (unless it's Paul, but it won't be Paul). Edit: He was booed at the Arizona debate for speaking against war while the other three clowns got applause for supporting war. You'd be surprised how malleable politicians principles become once they reach office. I don't doubt that the Obama administration would send us to war if the time came. Try to think of the president as a public relations figure-head for the people to focus on, instead of some singular decision maker. I would go with that, except he surely had his big boy pants on in time to pick his cabinet appointments, which were less than flattering. Might as well been McCain's list
Obama had little choice in his selection.
|
Canada5062 Posts
There is little incentive for the Obama administration to bring anything to a head in the Middle East, much less go to war, in an election year. Obama will continue to repeat the twin mantras of diplomacy and sanctions. He is essentially stalling so that he doesn't have to make a decision on Iran until after he is re-elected.
Obama is the incumbent. Surveying the motley ship-of-fools that the Republicans have arrayed to run against him, he understands that maintaining the status quo virtually guarantees his re-election.
|
On March 14 2012 14:35 mensrea wrote:
There is little incentive for the Obama administration to bring anything to a head in the Middle East, much less go to war, in an election year. Obama will continue to repeat the twin mantras of diplomacy and sanctions. He is essentially stalling so that he doesn't have to make a decision on Iran until after he is re-elected.
Obama is the incumbent. Surveying the motley ship-of-fools that the Republicans have arrayed to run against him, he understands that maintaining the status quo virtually guarantees his re-election. Yes, I think once the general election debates start playing out the GOP's huge lurch to the right will manifest itself as huge mistake.
|
Tuesday's results weren't bad for Romney, the media is always making a big fuss about Santorum winning. Romney took the most delegates winning Hawaii and Samoa and almost matching Santorum's delegate count in the southern states. The associated press states on tuesday "Romney added at least 41 delegates and Santorum won at least 35". Romney wasn't even supposed to do well in the south anyways so getting a third of the vote is a good sign.
I would say the two most important factors of why Romney isn't taking off like a rocket is because 1. He's Mormon 2. He's Rich. If you look at the states Romney has won, it is either on the east coast or the west and really nothing in between. These areas make up the bible belt and more rural areas...filled with evangelicals that would never vote for a mormon because they see it as the equivalent of satan's church.
I've been following the news sites during this race and I am really seeing how they like to hype every primary as being the most essential turning point for someone's campaign. It seems like the media is trying to prop up the losing candiate to make the race go as long as possible because they make money out of an exciting race. If it was one sided who would be interested in the news sites? They want to balance the powers as best they can and drag this thing on as long as possible.
|
United States22883 Posts
The candidates say anything they can to get a vote, and the media says anything they can to get ratings. All three cable news networks are just terrible. I implore people not to watch them for election coverage, just go to the NYTimes or Washington Post front page instead.
|
On March 15 2012 00:48 Jibba wrote:
The candidates say anything they can to get a vote, and the media says anything they can to get ratings. All three cable news networks are just terrible. I implore people not to watch them for election coverage, just go to the NYTimes or Washington Post front page instead.
Try the 538 blog through the New York times if you want some real insight, the people that run that blog seem to have all the knowledge when it comes to elections.
|
On March 14 2012 11:55 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 10:54 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2012 10:31 Derez wrote:On March 14 2012 10:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2012 10:14 DoubleReed wrote:On March 14 2012 10:12 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2012 10:04 Derez wrote:On March 14 2012 09:54 Probulous wrote:On March 14 2012 09:33 xDaunt wrote:On March 14 2012 09:14 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't get it. Do we want another war? We just got out of Iraq, and I thought that was a massively popular move. Why is the American populace ready to go to war again? Shouldn't they be booing the war-hungry rhetoric???
Man, I don't understand politics at all... It has everything to do with Obama's appeal to the American electorate. The vast majority of the people who do not support bombing Iran are going to vote for Obama anyway, regardless of what he does. However, by bombing Iran, Obama will cement his position among many independents and groups from whom he has lost support (re: Jews.... just look at what happened in Weiner's district to see how badly democrats are doing among that voting block). That's pretty sickening. Bombing another country to shore up your own local support. Holy shit what has the world come to. I mean people are so jaded about politicians but if they persuaded by this kind of crap you can't really blame the politicians can you? I try my best not to become a cynic but reality really bites. Its not true. Obama has not lost support disproportionally among jewish americans ( gallup), and most of them live in uncompetitive states in the general anyhow (NY, Mass, Cali). Next to that, to my knowledge the jewish american community is essentially split on bombing Iran, there's no actual broad support for bombing Iran (ignoring AIPAC which has very little to do with the actual jewish community). The issue is just as divisive within the US population as a whole as it is within the jewish american community (something like 52ish percent in the american population as a whole, 54ish in the jewish) (Quite the useless stereotype you have there) How can you say that Obama has not lost support among Jewish Americans when that poll that you cited shows that he has lost 30 fucking points? In the past, Jewish Americans have voted for democrats almost as reliably as the African American population. Disproportionally was the keyword in that sentence. And really the approval rating doesn't mean they would vote republican considering the options. This kind of willful denial is so amusing. Ignore 2010. Ignore all the special elections where democrats lost when they should have won. It's different in 2012. Just wait. I honestly don't know how to argue with nostradamus-like predictions of the future. Show me a poll that has a republican candidate even near Obama in a state with a significant jewish american population and you might have a point. It's way too early to pay much attention to polls. I think this is absolutely true. People tend to put a lot more faith in polling than they realistically should.
That's rather obvious. But if you actually want to discuss the possible outcomes of either the primary or the general at this point, people should refer to actual information, especially when making claims about the preference of a bloc of voters. 'Wait and you'll see I'm right' or 'my gut feeling tells me otherwise' aren't actual arguments, which is one (of many) problems I have with xdaunt's posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
