|
|
On April 20 2012 10:01 tree.hugger wrote:
I've just finished redoing the OP. I redid all the polls to include a third option and to call Mitt Romney by his popular name. Sorry, just vote again. If there's anything you think should be in the OP, please let me know.
Could you divide "Other" into "Other-Liberal" and "Other-Conservative"?
"Other" is really, really broad, and can encompass people on both sides of the party, for completely different reasons.
|
On April 20 2012 09:46 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 08:17 U_G_L_Y wrote:
Mitt Romney got a perfect score on his SAT and graduated with honors from Harvard Business and Harvard Law SIMULTANEOUSLY. He invested huge amounts of money in small companies like Staples, Domino's, Brookstone, Sealy, and Sports Authority. After he retired, Bain was struggling financially and begged him to come back and turn them around, which he did. He then made the scandal-plagued, debt-ridden over-budget 2002 Winter Olympic games the ONLY PROFITABLE WINTER GAMES IN HISTORY. He then took a huge budget deficit in Massachusetts and turned it into a surplus, all while managing the "Big Dig" scandal and making Massachusetts the first US state with universal healthcare. He has given a large percentage of his income to charity his entire life, not just once he began running for president, he was a Mormon bishop and oversaw a huge welfare program and interviewed and counseled people seeking financial assistance.
I always thought that Romney was a worthy, moderate conservative candidate. But his pandering to the dregs of the GOP base in the primary has really hurt his viability and image, and just reinforced the stigma of Republican's offering another puppet candidate. The problem with the Republican party isn't their leaders, such as Romney or McCain, it's the party's current brand and their base. They have positioned themselves as the anti-tax, anti-welfare, anti-social services, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-regulation, anti-environment, pro-rich, pro-Wall street, pro-oil, pro-Christian, pro-war party. They are neither libertarians or fiscally conservative. They are a mess. Governor Romney was not out-of-touch until the GOP molested him. Now he's a flip-flopping automaton. The GOP needs a serious reboot, or all their candidates will seem out-of-touch.
The last national election would imply that it is not Republicans who have the problem with being out of touch, but rather, it is you who is out of touch with what American voters want.
You don't win one of the largest electoral victories in 60 years by being out of touch with what voters want.
|
On April 20 2012 10:01 tree.hugger wrote:I've just finished redoing the OP. I redid all the polls to include a third option and to call Mitt Romney by his popular name. Sorry, just vote again. If there's anything you think should be in the OP, please let me know. Please avoid discussing candidates who will not be on the ballot in November. This is a thread about the Presidential election then, in which Barack Obama and Mitt Romeny are the presumptive nominees. If something ridiculous happens to upend that consensus, well then I guess we'll have to make a new thread. If you still wish to discuss the republican nomination process, knock yourself out here. Unless Ron Paul enters the election as an independent, please don't derail this thread with your Austrian fanboyism. Thank you. 
Could it be possible to add a poll for the non US-citizen, for who would they vote if they could?
|
On April 20 2012 10:04 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The last national election would imply that it is not Republicans who have the problem with being out of touch, but rather, it is you who is out of touch with what American voters want.
Meanwhile, in Political Science...
User was warned for this post
|
On April 20 2012 10:06 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 10:04 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The last national election would imply that it is not Republicans who have the problem with being out of touch, but rather, it is you who is out of touch with what American voters want. Meanwhile, in Political Science...
that's your response?
|
|
|
On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world.
Directed at your comment:
He is very nice to the rest of the world he emulates the normal style of more socialist or psuedo-socialist governments popular in europe, however, he had a democratic super majority in the beginning of his term in office because everyone was angry at the republicans. He proceeded to do absolutely jack shit and attempted to pass a health care bill that was too costly for our government right now, and too much for our economy to handle, he shoved it down the throats of all the democrats and if they didn't vote, they were called racist. Sounds totally legit, IKR. The fact is that until you live here, you don't understand why our politics are as weird as they are. You are in Ireland, or so your moniker states, its fine that you don't know the intimate details of the literal amount of 0 change he brought, but at the same time, to be so forward about who we as a nation should vote for is a bit out of tune with reality.
Directed at the original idea:
The president doesn't matter much after appointing the supreme court judges, because he is now mostly a figure head since modern politics have placed a lot of power in the legislative body even after George Bush created the pocket veto. What matters is congress, and this largely republican congress was elected because the democrats had the worst popularity EVER, seriously it was at 13% at one point. People inside and outside of the U.S. are quick to forget how little got done and how much was spent during that time.
Granted some say Obama pulled us out of a coming depression, but afterward many economists stepped forward and said that they had said before that the recession was just that, and the fear mongering was popularized by the liberal media and conservative media for no reason other than views.
Basically its all about congress and the senate once you understand american politics,
|
The only reason i will end up voting is for propositions on the Ballot. The nominee's don't inspire me. I'm a libertarian myself, no Other is my choice for the poll.
|
On April 20 2012 10:30 Jisall wrote:
The only reason i will end up voting is for propositions on the Ballot. The nominee's don't inspire me. I'm a libertarian myself, no Other is my choice for the poll.
I am a libertarian as well.. Obama is obviously the opposite of small government and Romney isn't small government either but a little better.. Going to get drunk and vote for Romney
|
On April 20 2012 10:30 Jisall wrote:
The only reason i will end up voting is for propositions on the Ballot. The nominee's don't inspire me. I'm a libertarian myself, no Other is my choice for the poll.
"Other" here as well, except the opposite (leftist/far left). Voting Green Party.
|
On April 20 2012 10:30 Jisall wrote:
The only reason i will end up voting is for propositions on the Ballot. The nominee's don't inspire me. I'm a libertarian myself, no Other is my choice for the poll.
you could always write in mickey mouse
or donald duck
or richard nixon, he's still a popular write-in candidate and he's been dead for 18 years!
and if you can't write-in in your state, if it's just a list of the "official" candidates, well that's fucked up.
|
On April 20 2012 10:21 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. Directed at your comment: He is very nice to the rest of the world he emulates the normal style of more socialist or psuedo-socialist governments popular in europe, however, he had a democratic super majority in the beginning of his term in office because everyone was angry at the republicans. He proceeded to do absolutely jack shit and attempted to pass a health care bill that was too costly for our government right now, and too much for our economy to handle, he shoved it down the throats of all the democrats and if they didn't vote, they were called racist. Sounds totally legit, IKR. The fact is that until you live here, you don't understand why our politics are as weird as they are. You are in Ireland, or so your moniker states, its fine that you don't know the intimate details of the literal amount of 0 change he brought, but at the same time, to be so forward about who we as a nation should vote for is a bit out of tune with reality. Directed at the original idea: The president doesn't matter much after appointing the supreme court judges, because he is now mostly a figure head since modern politics have placed a lot of power in the legislative body even after George Bush created the pocket veto. What matters is congress, and this largely republican congress was elected because the democrats had the worst popularity EVER, seriously it was at 13% at one point. People inside and outside of the U.S. are quick to forget how little got done and how much was spent during that time. Granted some say Obama pulled us out of a coming depression, but afterward many economists stepped forward and said that they had said before that the recession was just that, and the fear mongering was popularized by the liberal media and conservative media for no reason other than views. Basically its all about congress and the senate once you understand american politics,
So... budgetary discretion, war powers, executive orders, signing statements, speeches, veto power, administrative oversight over executive orgs like HSC/NSA, appointments besides the S. Court are all pretty insignificant compared to the congress and senate. People argue we are in the age where the presidency (or in reality the executive branch) is the most powerful in history besides Lincoln's reign.
|
On April 20 2012 10:04 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 09:46 Defacer wrote:On April 20 2012 08:17 U_G_L_Y wrote:
Mitt Romney got a perfect score on his SAT and graduated with honors from Harvard Business and Harvard Law SIMULTANEOUSLY. He invested huge amounts of money in small companies like Staples, Domino's, Brookstone, Sealy, and Sports Authority. After he retired, Bain was struggling financially and begged him to come back and turn them around, which he did. He then made the scandal-plagued, debt-ridden over-budget 2002 Winter Olympic games the ONLY PROFITABLE WINTER GAMES IN HISTORY. He then took a huge budget deficit in Massachusetts and turned it into a surplus, all while managing the "Big Dig" scandal and making Massachusetts the first US state with universal healthcare. He has given a large percentage of his income to charity his entire life, not just once he began running for president, he was a Mormon bishop and oversaw a huge welfare program and interviewed and counseled people seeking financial assistance.
I always thought that Romney was a worthy, moderate conservative candidate. But his pandering to the dregs of the GOP base in the primary has really hurt his viability and image, and just reinforced the stigma of Republican's offering another puppet candidate. The problem with the Republican party isn't their leaders, such as Romney or McCain, it's the party's current brand and their base. They have positioned themselves as the anti-tax, anti-welfare, anti-social services, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-regulation, anti-environment, pro-rich, pro-Wall street, pro-oil, pro-Christian, pro-war party. They are neither libertarians or fiscally conservative. They are a mess. Governor Romney was not out-of-touch until the GOP molested him. Now he's a flip-flopping automaton. The GOP needs a serious reboot, or all their candidates will seem out-of-touch. The last national election would imply that it is not Republicans who have the problem with being out of touch, but rather, it is you who is out of touch with what American voters want. You don't win one of the largest electoral victories in 60 years by being out of touch with what voters want.
You're right. You win it by spending everyone else into the ground.
|
If you are looking to condense the race down to one state...I'd look at Pennsylvania.
This is the county by county map of Pennsylvania in 2008. All that red is McCain. The rest of that blue is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Which Obama carried those areas 85% to 15%. And Obama won the state 55% to 45%
This is probably the single most important state in the 2012 election. If Obama keeps Pennsylvania he will probaly win. If Romney wins Pennsylvania, he will win.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DyWWa.jpg)
Now what people forget... is Hillary beat Obama in the Pennsylvania primary rather handliy in 2008. So outside of Philadelphia, there's not alot of love for Barak. And there's not much better he can do than 85% to 15%.
Question is if the "Hillary Dems" will stick with Barack this time around?...will they stay home and not vote?...or can Romney flip some of them
Romney needing to close a 10% gap is a huge task, and I'm not saying he will do it.
But when folks say "Obama's gonna win"... or "Romney's gonna win"... you need to point at Pennsylvania and ask how they will win that state.
And Ohio is a really close 2nd in importance.
|
So... budgetary discretion, war powers, executive orders, signing statements, speeches, veto power, administrative oversight over executive orgs like HSC/NSA, appointments besides the S. Court are all pretty insignificant compared to the congress and senate. People argue we are in the age where the presidency (or in reality the executive branch) is the most powerful in history besides Lincoln's reign.
Congress isn't interested in taking power back from the executive, ever since Watergate the Executive and the Legislature have been merging more and more. People just think that it's been the Executive slowly gaining more and more power at the expense of the Legislature, in reality they have more of a symbiotic relationship. The only time Congress is interested in actually being a counterweight to the President is when Congress and the presidency are held by different parties.
The president doesn't matter much after appointing the supreme court judges, because he is now mostly a figure head since modern politics have placed a lot of power in the legislative body even after George Bush created the pocket veto
Well actually James Madison was the first president to use the pocket veto in 1812.
|
I vote MC, protoss president!
|
On April 20 2012 10:53 RCMDVA wrote:
Question is if the "Hillary Dems" will stick with Barack this time around?...will they stay home and not vote?...or can Romney flip some of them
I can see no reason why they wouldn't support Obama. He's about as blue dog as you can get. He also passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act and has shown to be stronger on women's rights compared with the GOP platform. His administration is filled with Clintonites and centrists (not to mention Hillary herself lol). I see no reason for him to lose that base at all.
(The real question is how much support he will get from the left, not the center).
|
|
|
Hope Obama wins. This will be my first time voting as well :D
|
On April 20 2012 10:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +So... budgetary discretion, war powers, executive orders, signing statements, speeches, veto power, administrative oversight over executive orgs like HSC/NSA, appointments besides the S. Court are all pretty insignificant compared to the congress and senate. People argue we are in the age where the presidency (or in reality the executive branch) is the most powerful in history besides Lincoln's reign. Congress isn't interested in taking power back from the executive, ever since Watergate the Executive and the Legislature have been merging more and more. People just think that it's been the Executive slowly gaining more and more power at the expense of the Legislature, in reality they have more of a symbiotic relationship. The only time Congress is interested in actually being a counterweight to the President is when Congress and the presidency are held by different parties. Show nested quote +The president doesn't matter much after appointing the supreme court judges, because he is now mostly a figure head since modern politics have placed a lot of power in the legislative body even after George Bush created the pocket veto Well actually James Madison was the first president to use the pocket veto in 1812.
Congress severely neutered the executive branch post watergate with FOIA, WPA, FISA and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act out of spite. Slowly but surely under the direction of Dick Cheney and David Addington did the executive branch flex and wrestle back much of the power through action (although the Iraq War gave them carte blanche to not only regain but vastly expand executive power)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
