US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah Romney's path to 270 is extremely difficult. He would have to win Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and North Carolina - and still only wind up with 266. He basically has to win every significant battle ground state which will be difficult. If Romney does win the election, it will be because of superpac money where he spends far more than Obama does. Even so, he's going to have to push his national polling number up by about 5 percent in order to have a solid chance. Once Obama gets into full campaign mode, his number will probably start creeping up again.

I completely agree with this assessment.

I agree that 270 is a bleak prospect, even with Ohio and Florida, he will not win the electoral-vote. Virginia seems to be solidly democratic right now that I doubt he will win that.

I think Romney's better bet is to try states like Michigan (some close polling), maybe Wisconsin, Colorado and new mexico. Rubio, if he's the VP pick, will give Romney Florida, and it might help with Arizona, Mexico and maybe Nevada. Romney needs to make headway in these states, before the Obama campaign focuses on what should be Republican states (Indiana, North Carolina, Missouri).
 
Really looking forward to the Presidential debates. Obama will tear Romney a new asshole...should be fun to watch.
 
They will probably paint Romney as a flip flopping political opportunist and use his previous ads and debate comments against him. He's also a rather mediocre debater, so the debates should be fun.
 
Really looking forward to the Presidential debates. Obama will tear Romney a new asshole...should be fun to watch.

Eh, not really. That's not how he debates. He doesn't rip his opponent to shreds, he's just very skilled at looking better than his opponent. He's damn near unflappable, so never looks out of sorts, and he gives thoughtful, intelligent answers to questions that are accessible to the vast majority of voters.
 
I don't rank Obama as a great debater, in the 08 debates he allways looked like he was stuttering, it was his teaching side of him thinking about the best answer and articulating it, but it didn't look that great on a presidential debate, he's no Josiah Bartlett, lol.
But since I haven't seen any of the thousands of republican debates so I don't have a clue how Romney performs in debates. But Obama only has to say two things:

Obamacare is the same as Romneycare

I Killed Osama and saved Detroit. My opponent would have let Osama live and Detroit to bankrupt.
 
Romney looked mediocre in those debates, and this time he'll be facing a good opponent and won't be able to fill the hall. But then this time round he also won't have to pretend to be a tinfoil hatted clown.

4 if you count the one he already has.

Wait, I make it:

Romney himself
Romney's current arsehole
The new one Obama will rip him just by speaking

Where's the other arsehole?

Come on cnuts, you won't get a better set-up on the Caf
 
Romney looked mediocre in those debates, and this time he'll be facing a good opponent and won't be able to fill the hall. But then this time round he also won't have to pretend to be a tinfoil hatted clown.



Wait, I make it:

Romney himself
Romney's current arsehole
The new one Obama will rip him just by speaking

Where's the other arsehole?

Come on cnuts, you won't get a better set-up on the Caf

whoever his vp pick will be.
 
Do the debates really matter when the majority of people are already voting for one party over the other?

How many additional votes does a debate potentially garner to a candidate? Are there a good number of fence-sitters at large?
 
Do the debates really matter when the majority of people are already voting for one party over the other?

How many additional votes does a debate potentially garner to a candidate? Are there a good number of fence-sitters at large?

good point. think the vast majority already know who they are voting for.

the debates probably help turn out the supporters I think.
 
Bain is irrelevant. It's the nature of the industry. You can't blame him for Bain at all.


its relevant to the people who lost their jobs.

it goes to the heart of who he is.

I'm sure Romney will agree with what you say though.

EDIT: tbf many democrats like Clinton and Booker agree with your view.

But that is the debate in the democratic party. a lot of money comes from this type of company to both parties. But do most people want such people making decisions for them?

this election will determine the direction we as a nation take.
 
Honest question: How can any candidate complain about the economy while spending millions upon millions in campaigning?

That's a daft question. Besides, all that money is going straight back into the economy...not a single penny is leaving the US. It's a fantastic redistribution of wealth.
 
So you're fine with companies and unions continuing to pour in millions in campaign financing which invariably continues influencing policies, meanwhile cutting jobs and benefits?

Do you not agree there should be a cap on campaign spending? It is ok for Obama and Romney to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in campaigning?

How do you know not a single penny leaves the US? Who's to say a recipient of funds for services rendered doesn't channel funds to others outside the US?


Tracking the breakdown of expenditures

Romney http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/expend.php?id=N00000286

Obama http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?cid=N00009638
 
The next to retire will be Ginsburg, but she's not planning on doing it til like 2015 or so. Then Scalia and Kennedy are the oldest after her at 76 and 75 respectively. I have no idea what Clarence Thomas will do without Scalia to tell him how to vote though.
 
I can see a few of them dropping in the next five years irrespective of when they actually plan on retiring, which is why Obama getting reelected will have massive long term implications on the trajectory of the country. Think of how different US policy would have been in the 2000s under eight years of Gore.

If Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg all move on within the next five years under Obama, it would be immense.
 
can a minority in the Senate filibuster any appointment to the Supreme court indefinitely?

even if Obama wins again and the Dems just retain the Senate?

In short, yes. If/when Ginsburg goes the GOP will try to replace her with a Scalia-clone, cementing a right-wing Court.

Could there ever be new/revised legislation putting a max age or term limit for Supreme Court justices?

Theoretically, yes, but it would probably need to be a Constitutional amendment. If it is an Act on Congress it could be argued to impinge upon the separation of powers.
 
In short, yes. If/when Ginsburg goes the GOP will try to replace her with a Scalia-clone, cementing a right-wing Court.

I think a Republican Presidency would result in a bit of pressure to have Scalia and Kennedy retire and be replaced by a younger set of right leaning justices. That's the main concern as it would set the process back by about 25 years. Conversely, if they left under Obama's second term, it would have the opposite effect. There would be more than a few land mark cases that would be codified by more progressive decisions.
 
In short, yes. If/when Ginsburg goes the GOP will try to replace her with a Scalia-clone, cementing a right-wing Court.

This is why the filibuster must only be applied in limited cases.

I don't believe the GOP can ever get a Scalia clone in again...no matter who is the President though.

btw just seeing Rubio being all over the place on immigration. This dunce wants some day to be President?

For once the douchebag Gregory pushing the Republican.

"What other alternative is there for any of the 12 million illegals to get citizenship...other than going back home" No answer.

He does not support the Dream Act.

Good advert for Obama this...
 
its relevant to the people who lost their jobs.

it goes to the heart of who he is.

I'm sure Romney will agree with what you say though.

EDIT: tbf many democrats like Clinton and Booker agree with your view.

But that is the debate in the democratic party. a lot of money comes from this type of company to both parties. But do most people want such people making decisions for them?

this election will determine the direction we as a nation take.

It's not his fault though. This is the nature of the industry. He didn't personally fire people, it's a business decision: if a company is making losses, or has huge expenses, reduce headcount. It's sensible and pragmatic.

In the United States, home of capitalism, you seriously can't think that "firing people" is immoral, or even a problem.
 
the answer is not obvious.

We will only know if a white candidate with Obama's policies runs....tbf even then we may not know...because new registered democrats continue to outnumber new republicans.

Well yes, my point being Obama's skin colour is a contributing factor unfortunately to this election more so from his opponents than the electorate. Unfortunately his opponents can influenece the electorate even more so than in the last election because people were so relieved to have someone who was the complete opposite of Drinky McDumbass.
 
It's not his fault though. This is the nature of the industry. He didn't personally fire people, it's a business decision: if a company is making losses, or has huge expenses, reduce headcount. It's sensible and pragmatic.

In the United States, home of capitalism, you seriously can't think that "firing people" is immoral, or even a problem.

Capitalism does not = firing people.
A company's employees are the assets we do not see on the company's balance sheet.
Romney's way to his fortune is based on loading up a company that is in trouble and making short term huge gains by getting rid of the employees. In all these companies, even if they failed, he made huge profits for himself and his investors. This is what they called 'vulture capitalism' and they are correct.

Even companies that survived like Staples, the employees there hardly have jobs that support a lifestyle they can save for futures or childrens education. These are very low paying jobs. This is the future Romney offers. A few at the top who make huge profits and the majority who just get by. Look at the Republican bastions in teh south...states like Alabama and Mississippi....cheap labour and a few who make huge profits.

Finally, you keep excusing Romeny..saying it is not his fault. It is his fault to choose a business where you make this type of money...at the cost of destroying lives.

While certain democrats are not happy about Obama attacking venture capitalists, because they themselves get money from these type companies, these attacks are resonating in the rust belt states where many such jobs have been destroyed by these types of companies.

These discussions are very relevant indeed. people like Romeny should never be allowed near the Presidency. He just does not have any feelings for ordinary people.

People can see that.

That is why he will never be President.
 
This is why the filibuster must only be applied in limited cases.

I don't believe the GOP can ever get a Scalia clone in again...no matter who is the President though.

I think you underestimate the number of originalists GW Bush put on the Circuit Courts. There will be a large number of them vying for a seat on the Supreme Court. The Court already lurched hugely to the right by replacing O'Connor with Alito (not to mention Thomas for Marshall, and even Souter for Brennan).

The GOP will want to move the Court further to the right, and I think they will do it.

I think a Republican Presidency would result in a bit of pressure to have Scalia and Kennedy retire and be replaced by a younger set of right leaning justices. That's the main concern as it would set the process back by about 25 years. Conversely, if they left under Obama's second term, it would have the opposite effect. There would be more than a few land mark cases that would be codified by more progressive decisions.

I think Kennedy will be replaced by a 'reliable' right-wing vote, and the GOP will only accept a moderate for Ginsburg's seat at a push.

The Court will get less progressive, not more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.