US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Dreams said:
will disagree Frosty. You are saying no matter who is the President the righties will prevail. Both sides can filibuster.

Elections have consequences. The leaning of the court will depend on which party retains the presidency.
Click to expand...

Ironically the key is the Senate, not the Presidency. If the Republicans control the Senate, and the Tea Party candidates make gains (as they may do in Indiana at least), then the Court will shift rightward.

If the Senate remains Democratic, and Obama wins the Presidency, then I think Kennedy and Scalia will retire in 2016. After all, the last Democrat President elected following a two-term Democratic President was technically Martin van Buren.

The White House is the GOP's in 2016.
 
This is the best year for the GOP to win the Senate....but they wont. The Dems will retain it...just.

I must disagree about 2016. The GOP will not win the white house with the nonsense policies they are proposing. Just look at the Ryan Budget which Romney thinks marvelous. The only way the GOp will gain the white house is move to the middle....if they can.
 
Both parties pander to Israeli lobby groups. That said, it's not the most critical issue of the campaign.
 
the New York Times said:
He is even further to the right than the main pro-Israeli lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which he broke with in 2007 when it supported economic aid to the Palestinians.
Click to expand...

That's so crazy it's almost impressive.
 
Why It's Unlikely That A Big GOP Win Will Lead to Deficit Reduction In One Chart

1340627489526.jpg.CROP.article568-large.jpg


From Slate.
 
Interesting that there are more independents than Republicans who want to see major cuts in Medicare. Does that mean independents are generally libertarians?

Also.. are there really more Republicans in favour of cutting in the military than cutting in social security? :eek:
 
Frosty said:
1340627489526.jpg.CROP.article568-large.jpg


From Slate.
Click to expand...

I wonder what none of the above is? Can some american sum up what the Republican position on spending cuts is? 50%+ on none of the above is a shocking figure and clearly outlines the problem in US politics:

There seems to be no policy for spending cuts despite talking about it...
 
Red Dreams said:
Republicans want cuts in welfare programs because they think only blacks and hispanics are on it.

Boy are they in for a shock.....
Click to expand...

This makes no political sense. Mainly because Hispanics are vital for a Republican presidential win. I feel that the currently argument doesn't make sense, and doesn't look workable. Something, somewhere has to be cut, the US electorate are not that dumb!
 
Jaz said:
I wonder what none of the above is? Can some american sum up what the Republican position on spending cuts is? 50%+ on none of the above is a shocking figure and clearly outlines the problem in US politics:

There seems to be no policy for spending cuts despite talking about it...
Click to expand...

The Republican Party's position on spending cuts (as told by the Ryan budget) is that you can eliminate the deficit by cutting taxes, privatizing social security, eliminating Medicare and "cutting government waste" (waste meaning: programs we don't like).

Your rank and file Republican doesn't want social security or Medicare messed with, but thinks the rest of it sounds like a solid plan, ergo they think you can pay for massive tax cuts by defunding Planned Parenthood and PBS.
 
Red Dreams said:
Republicans want cuts in welfare programs because they think only blacks and hispanics are on it.

Boy are they in for a shock.....
Click to expand...

Yeah, but po' white folks are still too dumb to vote for anyone else....speshly them that want to take away their guns and religion and allow the gay, Jewish cabal to run things.
 
Sir Matt said:
Also, SCOTUS struck down 3/4 of the Arizona immigration law leaving only the section about police asking for papers.
Click to expand...

As far as I understood police can still ask for papers if "reasonable suspicion" is there that the person is illegal.

Doesn't the interpretation of "reasonable suspicion" open another can of worms.
 
Jaz said:
This makes no political sense. Mainly because Hispanics are vital for a Republican presidential win. I feel that the currently argument doesn't make sense, and doesn't look workable. Something, somewhere has to be cut, the US electorate are not that dumb!
Click to expand...

you are right that it does not make political sense. The problem is the GOP is currently held hostage by a very stupid minority who don't understand economics and changing demographics.

Lack of education can take you to strange places.
 
Jaz said:
I wonder what none of the above is? Can some american sum up what the Republican position on spending cuts is? 50%+ on none of the above is a shocking figure and clearly outlines the problem in US politics:

There seems to be no policy for spending cuts despite talking about it...
Click to expand...

They want to cut things that don't really affect the budget. They moan about foreign aid spending despite it being a fraction of a percent of the total budget. There are also the shrimp treadmills projects, etc. Mostly, it's morons who want to get back to the "old days" despite not having a clue about what the US actually did in the "old days." I can guarantee you that 90%+ of them couldn't tell you what the Marshall Plan was, how much it cost, and where that money went.

In essence, I think we're on the way to Idiocracy at an alarming rate. I'm cynical and assume that most people are clueless and want to remain that way. I have seen little to suggest otherwise.
 
Grinner said:
All arguments about fiscal responsibility end when you consider that the repubs will not touch any defence cuts.
Click to expand...

Chris Matthews had a bunch of tea party leaders on his show some months agao. Ask what they considered were the biggest expenses, they came out with ridiculous Fox News talking points...which obviously were minimal amounts.

They are totally clueless.

These idiots are controlling congress currently.

Talk about scary....
 
Increasing capital gains and income tax would allow for smaller cuts in defense, medicare, and SS. Reworking corporate tax to a lower rate but with fewer exceptions would be a help. But the GOP refuses to increase taxes at all. If they do, they get primaried by Grover Norquist and his bunch of loons.
 
Frosty said:
Ironically the key is the Senate, not the Presidency. If the Republicans control the Senate, and the Tea Party candidates make gains (as they may do in Indiana at least), then the Court will shift rightward.

If the Senate remains Democratic, and Obama wins the Presidency, then I think Kennedy and Scalia will retire in 2016. After all, the last Democrat President elected following a two-term Democratic President was technically Martin van Buren.

The White House is the GOP's in 2016.
Click to expand...

Frosty. I did not explain why I disagreed with you.

2 main reasons.

Firstly...each year more and more Democrats are registering to vote than Republicans.
Secondly. The policies being advocated by the GOP goes against what most people want. Just look at the Ryan Budget. That's suicide.
 
Frosty said:
Ironically the key is the Senate, not the Presidency. If the Republicans control the Senate, and the Tea Party candidates make gains (as they may do in Indiana at least), then the Court will shift rightward.
Click to expand...

Why would the Senate being Republican affect Obama's Supreme Court nominees ? They may vote along partisan lines, but even so, there are usually enough defectors to push nominees through, unless they nominee is very controversial like Robert Bork.

Frosty said:
If the Senate remains Democratic, and Obama wins the Presidency, then I think Kennedy and Scalia will retire in 2016. After all, the last Democrat President elected following a two-term Democratic President was technically Martin van Buren.

The White House is the GOP's in 2016.
Click to expand...

Historical precedent can't however account for shifts in demographic trends towards the Dems. Every four years, several million people become citizens and most of them tend to come from other political systems that value greater social protections for citizens, which the Dems are also closely aligned with. The same holds true for American youths who reach the age of 18 between Presidential cycles. They tend to me more idealistic and accepting of progressive policies that Dems tend to be in favor for. Therefore, its hard to make blanket predictions about who will win in 2016. A lot of it depends on the candidate, the political platform of each party, the economic and security circumstances etc. The only area where the GOP would do better than the Dems would be on big money donations.
 
Red Dreams said:
Frosty. I did not explain why I disagreed with you.

2 main reasons.

Firstly...each year more and more Democrats are registering to vote than Republicans.
Secondly. The policies being advocated by the GOP goes against what most people want. Just look at the Ryan Budget. That's suicide.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I think I am more pessimistic than you though. After all, you yourself predicted in 2008 that the GOP would take 8 years at least to recover, and they did so in 2. With a weak economy and a two-party system, the GOP can never be written off. If Obama wins in November (and I think he is the favourite to do so in a tight race), I will get more optimistic.

Raoul said:
Why would the Senate being Republican affect Obama's Supreme Court nominees ? They may vote along partisan lines, but even so, there are usually enough defectors to push nominees through, unless they nominee is very controversial like Robert Bork.
Click to expand...

The Senate could be swayed by Tea Partiers. A group which votes against any tax increases and wants no compromise with the President. This is a President who compromised too much in his first two years in power. There would be a lot of pressure from Tea Partiers threatening the filibuster.

Conider that the moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe are stepping down, and their replacements are nowhere near as moderate, and you have a gulf between the parties which will rarely be bridged. I think that past precedent relating to Supreme Court nominees (e.g. the 97-0 and 89-8 confirmations) are a thing of the past. We are in the midst of a conservative judicial revolution against the New Deal, after all.

Historical precedent can't however account for shifts in demographic trends towards the Dems. Every four years, several million people become citizens and most of them tend to come from other political systems that value greater social protections for citizens, which the Dems are also closely aligned with. The same holds true for American youths who reach the age of 18 between Presidential cycles. They tend to me more idealistic and accepting of progressive policies that Dems tend to be in favor for. Therefore, its hard to make blanket predictions about who will win in 2016. A lot of it depends on the candidate, the political platform of each party, the economic and security circumstances etc. The only area where the GOP would do better than the Dems would be on big money donations.
Click to expand...

And we will see the results in the first Citizens United election. I hope you are right.
 
I don't think Congressional elections would be affected solely by Supreme Count nominations. There hasn't really been a contentious nomination since the early 90s.
 
Frosty. On Olympia Snow. Her replcement is an independent but will caucus with the Democrats. He has said he is voting for Obama.

The key to the elections is Big Money.

My theory about Citizens United is the 'Scalia court' set up this law to give the Republicans an edge in the next elections, because they too can see the demographic changes we see. If a Republican president gets in Scalia and Kennedy can retire without too much worry.
 
Sir Matt said:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012-Platform-Final.pdf

:lol: They oppose almost all forms of taxation, "multicultural education", critical thinking(seriously), amongst other things. Also, the Gold Standard and Sharia Law. Has Arizona released its platform yet? They are the only challengers I can see to the retardedness from Texas.
Click to expand...

"We encourage the enforcement of laws regarding all forms of pornography, because pornography is detrimental to the fabric of society."

They can burn in hell, goddammit.
 
Nobby style said:
http://antemedius.com/content/al-jazeera-breaks-down-us-military-spending-dollar
Click to expand...

That is a pretty weak article, and inaccurate. Taking the total defense budget and then assuming the only tax revenue is income tax is a gross manipulation.

The total defense budget is around $900 billion, and US public (federal and state) spending is over $6,000 billion. So a more accurate percentage would be 14%.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2012USbf_13bs1n#usgs302
 
mjs020294 said:
That is a pretty weak article, and inaccurate. Taking the total defense budget and then assuming the only tax revenue is income tax is a gross manipulation.

The total defense budget is around $900 billion, and US public (federal and state) spending is over $6,000 billion. So a more accurate percentage would be 14%.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2012USbf_13bs1n#usgs302
Click to expand...

How on Earth do you figure taking the FEDERAL defense budget as a portion of ALL public spending (which, if you're calling it $6T, you must be including state AND local spending) is MORE accurate? :wenger:
 
Interesting how the debt skyrocketted under distinctly Republican administrations during the 80s, early 90s, and 2000s; each corresponding with big defense buildups and subsequent wars.

usgs_chart4p02.png
 
Cheers Jaz, but only Plechazunga is allowed to report on Silver's findings in this thread.

:p
 
Raoul said:
Cheers Jaz, but only Plechazunga is allowed to report on Silver's findings in this thread.

:p
Click to expand...

:lol:

Still Silver is an economists/statisticians wet-dream.

He's made a decent prediction model which takes into consideration variation between polls, runs multiple simulations and get some brilliant probabilities of success, which are understandable for the common man. I wish I had this idea a few years ago!

Credit to one of the best websites on the web, really need it for the UK.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.