US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
My mistake, I don't know who I was thinking of.

McGovern was as electable as most of the GOP candiates are today, though Nixon had an impressive first term as well, many of the iniatives Republicans last night were talking about ending he created such as the EPA, not to mention his attempts at minimum wage and healthcare reform.

He really was a bizarre president, pretty much the definition of flawed.
 
What annoys me about Oopsgate is that it's all anyone's gonna take from this debate.

The big thing that I think got overlooked is Romney making pledges that would amount to starting a freaking trade war with China. Now, granted, Romney is pretty upfront about the fact that he has no particular allegiance to any position he currently takes, has ever taken in the past, or ever will take, but still, if people aren't tuned in yet, and a lot aren't, that'll completely escape notice, Romney will outlast all the non-Romneys because all the non-Romneys are either crazy or not non-Romney enough, he'll pivot away from crazy back to non-crazy in the general and maybe look like a reasonable alternative to Obama.

Then who the eff knows what sort of President he'd be?
 
The only people taking notice of these debates have already made up their minds. It's fun to watch but fairly meaningless to the country as a whole.

Romney has to pander to the nutters right now but you're right that he will ease back to the center when he gets the nomination. By then Team Obama will have their attack ads ready and a shitload of money to make him look bad.
 
what was funny is Huntsmam reminding the others that there are probably a lot of people with upside down mortgages watching the debate, when the others were trying to outdo each other about how little each would do to let the market forces 'resolve' the mortgage crisis.

:lol:
 
Grinner said:
The only people taking notice of these debates have already made up their minds. It's fun to watch but fairly meaningless to the country as a whole.
Click to expand...

I disagree, the far right loonies and the left wing moonbeams will follow their respective candidates like a sports team, no matter what happens they'll vote as they always have, just like a true sports fan will.

Thankfully its the less militant swing voters/moderates that decide elections and I can tell you for sure they're watching these debates. The good thing about being in the middle is not having an allegiance to anyone, that way you're able to watch all sides without prejudice.
 
Dresilved said:
I disagree, the far right loonies and the left wing moonbeams will follow their respective candidates like a sports team, no matter what happens they'll vote as they always have, just like a true sports fan will.

Thankfully its the less militant swing voters/moderates that decide elections and I can tell you for sure they're watching these debates. The good thing about being in the middle is not having an allegiance to anyone, that way you're able to watch all sides without prejudice.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that the casual voter is watching a two-hour twatfest on a cable channel instead of the X-Factor or whatever other shit reality show is on.

They might catch a highlight here and there bu on the whole they don't give two fecks about it right now. My MiL and her husband are currently visiting from Ohio...they are average voters and they don't have a clue what's going on currently. The economy and healthcare are generally far too complicated for a casual voter to understand...that's exactly why a dolt like Cain is riding so high. His plan is utter bollocks and he is clueless about most other issues but regular people don't know or don't care.

You have to always remember that the majority of the electorate are fecking thick and disengaged.
 
Grinner said:
I don't believe that the casual voter is watching a two-hour twatfest on a cable channel instead of the X-Factor or whatever other shit reality show is on.
Click to expand...
By casual voter, do you mean moderate? are you suggesting all swing voters are casual voters?.... it seems that you like to generalize, though most people do that in all fairness

They might catch a highlight here and there bu on the whole they don't give two fecks about it right now. My MiL and her husband are currently visiting from Ohio...they are average voters and they don't have a clue what's going on currently. The economy and healthcare are generally far too complicated for a casual voter to understand...that's exactly why a dolt like Cain is riding so high. His plan is utter bollocks and he is clueless about most other issues but regular people don't know or don't care.
Click to expand...
Again, a moderate is not what I'd describe as a casual voter, also you're example is incredibly anecdotal by the way, I don't think 2 people can sum up quite a few million people, hardly what I'd call scientific research

You have to always remember that the majority of the electorate are fecking thick and disengaged.
Click to expand...
Yes I would agree with this statement, I would definitely say that someone who says "everything one party says is completely right" and "everything the other party says is completely wrong" has to fall into the category you've described. I don't even think it can be humanly possible for one person to have completely all the right answers all the time while the other consistently has all the wrong answers all the time, yet, to me that's how most people seem to feel and that not a single shred of sense can come from the opposition party.... mind bogglingly insular in my opinion
 
No, a casual voter is the average American who doesn't follow politics closely. A moderate is something different alltogether. I'm pretty certain I didn't claim any scientific research about the opinion I presented.

How exactly do you know for sure that all moderates are watching these debates, BTW?
 
Grinner said:
No, a casual voter is the average American who doesn't follow politics closely. A moderate is something different alltogether. I'm pretty certain I didn't claim any scientific research about the opinion I presented.

How exactly do you know for sure that all moderates are watching these debates, BTW?
Click to expand...

I only talked about moderates, I didn't mention the casual voter at all, yet your whole reply was about that..... I had to therefore make the assumption that in your opinion casual = moderate

The scientific bit was a joke, I always say that to those who use anecdotal info as some sort of evidence, i'm always saying this to my MIL, she says stuff like "The lady in my church has driven a car for 50 years and has never had an accident therefore old people are better drivers"... she's always doing this!

I read something in the Saturday WSJ a few weeks ago about those who describe themselves as moderates, it was an opinion piece on a poll that singled out the higher than usual average number of moderates watching the debates
 
Is Perry's 'oops' any worse than this...



Brewer got re-elected easily after this performance. It's not over for the Texan tit but it's not looking good either.
 
I am saddened by the fact Romney couldn't have come up with something more inventive for Perry to latch onto when figuring out the third department, I bet he knew exactly what he was doing when he suggested the EPA.
 
LJI2Q.jpg
 
Just watched the entire debate on youtube. Romney is looking sharper and more Presidential where as Cain seems to be stagnating and Perry should pack it in now to spare himself any further embarrassment. Romney could give Obama quite a run for his money next year. The only question at this stage is who he will pick as a running mate.
 
peterstorey said:
Only by contrast with the other dumbclucks. Forrest Gump would look like Einstein in there.
Click to expand...

He's definitely head and shoulders above the rest and will challenge Obama much more than McCain did. Looks like a close election is in the cards.
 
Got to admit I don't think I've ever seen the republican candidates being so pathetic.
 
Raoul said:
He's definitely head and shoulders above the rest and will challenge Obama much more than McCain did. Looks like a close election is in the cards.
Click to expand...

I agree, you could see in the answers he gave that he was focusing on the race for the presidency as opposed to gaining support for the republican nomination.

Such as his support for middle class tax cuts as opposed to rewriting the tax code or initiatives to support the wealthiest.

He is the only candidate who has a chance of winning the republican nomination who can challenge Obama for independents.
 
gambit28 said:
Got to admit I don't think I've ever seen the republican candidates being so pathetic.
Click to expand...

It was far stronger in the 2008 race - McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee...

The fact that Ron Paul's platform is central to the overall narrative this time round when four years ago he was a far flung outsider speaks to that.
 
Romney's going to win the nomination, but his answer on the China question was absurd, and Huntsman continued to look like the only sane person in the GOP field by calling him out on that.
 
peterstorey said:
Only by contrast with the other dumbclucks. Forrest Gump would look like Einstein in there.
Click to expand...

very true. Romney was just like the others in letting market forces have the say as far as upside down mortgages and the government bailout of the auto industry.

...and this was in Michigan. he is already trailing the President in the polls, when Obama has not even begun to campaign.

Still as in all election the polls will close as we come down the wire.
 
Excal said:
Romney's going to win the nomination, but his answer on the China question was absurd, and Huntsman continued to look like the only sane person in the GOP field by calling him out on that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, noticed that as well. I doubt we'll be seeing an all Mormon ticket.
 
Romney has to pick a tea-partier/right-winger type to get that lot behind him. It probably won't be any of his current rivals.
 
The problem as I see it (well one of them) with the GOP, is that in order to win the nomination within their party currently - they have to set their views to the extreme right in order to satisfy members within the GOP (see Tea Party). By the time one of these idiots gets nominated, they will have completely alienated any 'moderate' republicans making it extremely difficult to win the election. Once nominated the candidate is going to need to modify his views somewhat in order to please the moderates. This is going to give the Dems all the ammo that they need in the upcoming campaign.

It's the same with any party really in an election where their candidate is not the incumbent. It is one of the reasons why it is so incredibly difficult to knock an incumbent out of office unless they have made absolutely colossal mistakes in the eyes of the general public.

Because of this, despite the perception amongst some of Obama shortcomings - I can't see the GOP ultimately winning the next election at the moment.

It has to be said though, the republican 'candidates' are bumbling, laughable, borderline retards with what seems like no grip on reality. It's entertaining at least..
 
I could, I mean they are two of his biggest supporters. I'm not sure how the Tea Party and the like would feel about it, but at that point they would have no choice but to vote for Romney..
 
I think they'd be too alike. He'll probably choose someone who's hardcore conservative but doesn't have the public image to outshine him - maybe Santorum? Jim DeMint? Someone like that.
 
kelvinkato77 said:
By the time one of these idiots gets nominated, they will have completely alienated any 'moderate' republicans making it extremely difficult to win the election.

Because of this, despite the perception amongst some of Obama shortcomings - I can't see the GOP ultimately winning the next election at the moment.
Click to expand...
People have got a short attention span, Romney will win the nomination and ditch any loony stuff. The election depends on where the US economy goes in the next 12 months - grind along the bottom with minimal growth (or worse) and Obama is gone.
 
Red-Indian said:
I think they'd be too alike. He'll probably choose someone who's hardcore conservative but doesn't have the public image to outshine him - maybe Santorum? Jim DeMint? Someone like that.
Click to expand...

He doesn't really have to, does he? If he gets the nomination, why not choose someone like thinking to himself. At that point he would have the Tea Party votes by default, no? So why no go for someone more moderate in order to get through to the fence sitters?
 
kelvinkato77 said:
He doesn't really have to, does he? If he gets the nomination, why not choose someone like thinking to himself. At that point he would have the Tea Party votes by default, no? So why no go for someone more moderate in order to get through to the fence sitters?
Click to expand...
Yeah but he's got to keep the core motivated. He doesn't want them to settle into apathy but rather come out and vote. Someone hardcore will give them some red meat while he goes about whoring himself.
 
Red-Indian said:
Yeah but he's got to keep the core motivated. He doesn't want them to settle into apathy but rather come out and vote. Someone hardcore will give them some red meat while he goes about whoring himself.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, I haven't paid too much attention as I personally consider the GOP in this upcoming election nothing short of a joke only worthy for the 'bloop reel' and deserved punchlines. That's my opinion though.

It is a catch 22 for him if he does that though, isn't it? In my earlier post I referred to that. He will get the GOP votes at that point regardless. Add to that the GOP is going to take (in the foreseeable future) a hard line stance against anything associated with democrats. So I guess my question is; what would be the benefit? Fundraising?

Edit: As far as settling into apathy, I think the republican voters will show up regardless. The average republican has no clue what so ever what they want. They just 'know' that they need Obama out or the Country will tank into oblivion.
 
Frosty said:
Does anyone think a Romney/Christie or Romney/Pawlenty ticket could happen?
Click to expand...

I was thinking this earlier, it is much wiser for him to go toward the centre than the right, he shouldn't repeat history and make the mistake that McCain did.
 
Christie is fantastic. The Republicans do have some incredible talents on their side, for some reason they seem to favour these vapid nominees that play up to the neo con' ideal idol, when they should be looking past their want of a new Reagan and instead look to evolve the conservative side to a new ideal. It's time for them to go back to the inspirational side of politics rather than the strausian quasi-religous fear mongering.
 
Excal said:
What annoys me about Oopsgate is that it's all anyone's gonna take from this debate.

The big thing that I think got overlooked is Romney making pledges that would amount to starting a freaking trade war with China. Now, granted, Romney is pretty upfront about the fact that he has no particular allegiance to any position he currently takes, has ever taken in the past, or ever will take, but still, if people aren't tuned in yet, and a lot aren't, that'll completely escape notice, Romney will outlast all the non-Romneys because all the non-Romneys are either crazy or not non-Romney enough, he'll pivot away from crazy back to non-crazy in the general and maybe look like a reasonable alternative to Obama.

Then who the eff knows what sort of President he'd be?
Click to expand...

I agree, we know this is campaign rhetoric, and more importantly Romney has absolutely no spine, but how is his vitriol being given a free pass...this guy is a realistic shot of becoming the president in a years time.

Maybe once he gets the nomination, they'll pull him up for these comments, or maybe they won't need to, because he'll start saying how wonderful China is.
 
and how long has it been since a president or any other political leader truly kept their campaign promises, you may get a basterdised version that is called the same but has no resemblance whatsoever.
 
gambit28 said:
Christie is fantastic. The Republicans do have some incredible talents on their side, for some reason they seem to favour these vapid nominees that play up to the neo con' ideal idol, when they should be looking past their want of a new Reagan and instead look to evolve the conservative side to a new ideal. It's time for them to go back to the inspirational side of politics rather than the strausian quasi-religous fear mongering.
Click to expand...

Christie is a diehard reactionary, opposing every move towards greater democracy and freedom for the people. His history is replete with horror stories with the corporate world; it's hard to gloss over the sheer vileness of his politics.
 
How long will it take the candidates to go full retard tonight in the debate on foreign policy? I'm guessing the first question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.