US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
We would rename the country, err state, Old Mexico, or would that just confuse too many Americans?

Perhaps they could just combine Mexico and New Mexico into Mexico, and Alaska with Canada. Voila! 50 states!

And if Michigan can have a piece separated by water, so too can Florida and Puerto Rico, aka Florida South.
 
Well the obvious idiocy which Perry's equally idiotic supporters will try to downplay without coming out and saying "We don't consider Canadians foreigners cuz they're mostly white" is masking the bigger idiocy that his point is wrong regardless, because the oil piped to the Gulf Coast refineries will not be given to US consumers or the government at a cut-rate price, but sold on the world market to the highest bidder.
 
Cheers for that article Raoul.

I'm not even sure what to say about Perry anymore. Its mind boggling that a man like that can become a politician and a presidential candidate in any country, let alone the US.
 
Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party


Noticed this an hour or so after I posted...

"True, people of faith have always tried to bring their interpretation of the Bible to bear on American laws and morals ... it's the American way, encouraged and protected by the First Amendment. But what is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America's great political parties. The country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is, and they are driving American politics, using God as a a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on." Bill Moyers

Tompaine.com - Print Page
 
Romney is leading in all the polls for Iowa. It's within the margin of error in each, but he's consistently 1-3% ahead of Paul. If he wins Iowa, he'll storm New Hampshire and could be on his way to securing the nomination fairly quickly. I can't imagine he'll win SC, but he wasn't supposed to win Iowa either(if he does).
 
With Iowa less than 24 hours away, with Romney leading Paul inside the margin of error this is what the Democrats are talking about. The benefits of being an incumbent whilst your opponents are looking inward.


 
I think Ron Paul would be in the lead if polls weren't landline based. Younger people with cell phones aren't going to be polled but are more likely to be Paul supporters than many older people.

I got a call from Rasmussen the other day so NC is getting into the action even though our primary is pointless since it's in May.
 
I think Ron Paul would be in the lead if polls weren't landline based. Younger people with cell phones aren't going to be polled but are more likely to be Paul supporters than many older people.

I got a call from Rasmussen the other day so NC is getting into the action even though our primary is pointless since it's in May.

Might be. Shows how irrelevant Iowa really is. He doesn't have a chance in most areas. And now that he's showing to be a threat he'll start to get some exposure he doesn't want. He take on AIDS, Iran (all foreign policy really) and even his domestic policy. He says little sound bites that resonate with so many but when you get the details he's a bit crazy.
 
I think Ron Paul would be in the lead if polls weren't landline based. Younger people with cell phones aren't going to be polled but are more likely to be Paul supporters than many older people.

I got a call from Rasmussen the other day so NC is getting into the action even though our primary is pointless since it's in May.

Are polls still landline based these days ?

I would think that even if they are, the polling companies would factor that into their final numbers.
 
With Iowa less than 24 hours away, with Romney leading Paul inside the margin of error this is what the Democrats are talking about. The benefits of being an incumbent whilst your opponents are looking inward.




I think Obama's "path to victory" will be a hybrid of some of the choices he talks about, as I don't think any candidate will come within 100 electoral votes of him. If its not Romney, it could even be another 200 vote semi-landslide as with McCain.
 
Are polls still landline based these days ?

I would think that even if they are, the polling companies would factor that into their final numbers.

Some still are. Some aren't, but the response rate for cellphone calls is far below those of landlines, as cellphone users are more likely not to pick up calls from unknown numbers. The pollsters (the reputable ones, anyway) factor that in, but HOW they factor it in will vary from pollster to pollster.
 
depends on where you are politically though. ask a republican he is a socialist. ask a lefty, he is a republican.

Well I am a liberal. I think he is left of center. He cannot afford to alienate the independents. I think he is pragmatic and will try and do as much as he can for the middle class. Congress is his problem and will remain so even if he wins.
 
depends on where you are politically though. ask a republican he is a socialist. ask a lefty, he is a republican.

Well I am a liberal. I think he is left of center. He cannot afford to alienate the independents. I think he is pragmatic and will try and do as much as he can for the middle class. Congress is his problem and will remain so even if he wins.

Thats a fair point, its just curious how Obama would be deemed right of center in Europe, and in the UK can be deemed more conservative than most Tories.

It begs the question then - does the US really have a prolific left-wing presence in mainstream politics? Or is it all doomed to the obsecure fringes? I mean I have a lot of admiration for the likes of the likes of Kucinich and Sanders, but their support is overwhelmingly minimal from what I understand.

The article makes a good point - is Obama being relatively right wing (or US centrist) for a democrat responsible for the Republicans shifting more to the right, and hence more towards insanity?
 
Thats a fair point, its just curious how Obama would be deemed right of center in Europe, and in the UK can be deemed more conservative than most Tories.

It begs the question then - does the US really have a prolific left-wing presence in mainstream politics? Or is it all doomed to the obsecure fringes? I mean I have a lot of admiration for the likes of the likes of Kucinich and Sanders, but their support is overwhelmingly minimal from what I understand.

The article makes a good point - is Obama being relatively right wing (or US centrist) for a democrat responsible for the Republicans shifting more to the right, and hence more towards insanity?

I think the country is slowly but surely moving left.

why? changing demographics. it is not unrealistic to believe the Presidency will remain in the Democratic party for the foreseeable future.

the current state of the GOP is a reflection of the last gasp desperation of a minority of the population.
 
The article makes a good point - is Obama being relatively right wing (or US centrist) for a democrat responsible for the Republicans shifting more to the right, and hence more towards insanity?

I don't think so, they committed themselves 100% to obstructionism as soon as he got in. The election result allowed the religious right to declare moderation a strategic failure and nativist rage at a black 'elitist' President motivated the base to threaten to primary anyone who didn't toe the wingnut line.

I'd say it's the other way round - the Republicans positioning themselves a millimetre to the left of Atilla the Hun, combined with an economic collapse they bequeathed him, forced him right. I don't doubt that if he could be honest about his personal positions on religion, health care, detention without trial etc. he'd be leftish, but he's a cautious and it seems quite uncourageous politician.
 
I agree with that, the urbanisation of the south is having a big effect on American voting patterns - no matter how popular Obama might have been twenty years ago, the demographics simply would not have allowed Virginia and South Carolina to go Democratic.

Republicans should have noted this with Florida which is far ahead of the curve, and with the likes of Arizona, Texas, Georgia and the Carolinas all following the same path their loyalist states are not so much anymore.
 
I think the country is slowly but surely moving left.

why? changing demographics. it is not unrealistic to believe the Presidency will remain in the Democratic party for the foreseeable future.

the current state of the GOP is a reflection of the last gasp desperation of a minority of the population.

I agree with that, the urbanisation of the south is having a big effect on American voting patterns - no matter how popular Obama might have been twenty years ago, the demographics simply would not have allowed Virginia and South Carolina to go Democratic.

Republicans should have noted this with Florida which is far ahead of the curve, and with the likes of Arizona, Texas, Georgia and the Carolinas all following the same path their loyalist states are not so much anymore.

The GOP will get with the program eventually, like the Dems they're ultimately interested in power.

If the Republicans sort out their immigration mania, there's no particular reason Hispanics should remain Democrats as they're generally quite conservative on social issues.

They will need to move a bit on things like gay rights and marijuana eventually. Abortion, though, seems to be going the other way... the general public's becoming a bit less pro-choice.
 
I don't think so, they committed themselves 100% to obstructionism as soon as he got in. The election result allowed the religious right to declare moderation a strategic failure and nativist rage at a black 'elitist' President motivated the base to threaten to primary anyone who didn't toe the wingnut line.

I'd say it's the other way round - the Republicans positioning themselves a millimetre to the left of Atilla the Hun, combined with an economic collapse they bequeathed him, forced him right. I don't doubt that if he could be honest about his personal positions on religion, health care, detention without trial etc. he'd be leftish, but he's a cautious and it seems quite uncourageous politician.

if by being uncourageous you mean he has not gone full left, he just cannot get anything done that way. The President cannot just unilaterally pass laws. He pushed Health Care and despite the bad publicity it has done a heck of a lot for ordinary people. It is a start.

Single Payer will eventually happen. Change takes time...and will depend on demographics as I mentioned.
 
The GOP will get with the program eventually, like the Dems they're ultimately interested in power.

If the Republicans sort out their immigration mania, there's no particular reason Hispanics should remain Democrats as they're generally quite conservative on social issues.

They will need to move a bit on things like gay rights and marijuana eventually. Abortion, though, seems to be going the other way... the general public's becoming a bit less pro-choice.

If you mean the parties will move closer together, I agree. The comment about Hispanics is only valid for older populations. The latest polls indicate, in spite of little action by Obama, Hispanics support him by almost 70%. That is the key. It is the biggest growing voting block and they are almost as solid democrat as black. Texas will become solid Democrat in about 15 to 20 years.
 
The GOP will get with the program eventually, like the Dems they're ultimately interested in power.

If the Republicans sort out their immigration mania, there's no particular reason Hispanics should remain Democrats as they're generally quite conservative on social issues.

They will need to move a bit on things like gay rights and marijuana eventually. Abortion, though, seems to be going the other way... the general public's becoming a bit less pro-choice.


Which is why Romney is being wise staying away from all of the other republican challengers trying to outdo each other on how republican they are.

Obama won in a significant landslide but even the states he didn't win the numbers are interesting - McCain won his home state of Arizona by just 8%, Georgia by 5% and even Texas was 'relatively narrow' at 12%. The Republicans cannot win presidential elections if they don't hold the south absolutely yet they don't seem to fathom that cities in the south are booming and are democratic strongholds.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the immigration issue following Gingrich going out on a tangent on it.
 
Social issues count for shit when the economy is in the tank. They matter more in primaries, but in a presidential election everybody cares about who will get the economy going and give them a better life.
 
if by being uncourageous you mean he has not gone full left, he just cannot get anything done that way. The President cannot just unilaterally pass laws. He pushed Health Care and despite the bad publicity it has done a heck of a lot for ordinary people. It is a start.

Single Payer will eventually happen. Change takes time...and will depend on demographics as I mentioned.

Well, take health care then. If you want a public option, surely the obvious strategy is to push for single payer and compromise at a public option. But no, he gives up single payer, not to mention price controls, months before negotiations start, then pushes a public option and compromises at a half-arsed mandate that will insure a lot more people but is basically a massive giveaway to the insurance industry (who understandably love it). Then the Republicans crucify him for it anyway, even though it's essentially quite conservative and based on Romney's plan.

Or take the stimulus. A massive stimulus would have saved millions of working-class people from unemployment and got the economy going. But he goes for a mild one, because he's scared of Republicans and ratings agencies and right-wing economists scaremongering about inflation and borrowing costs. A couple of years on, inflation's low and investors are paying the US to borrow from them, and yet they get downgraded anyway and the Republicans, of course, slaughter him for profligacy anyway.

And all that was with a majority in both Houses.

If - and it's a big if, especially if the Euro tanks the world economy again - he gets a second term, hopefully he'll have learnt that all moving to the right to accomodate the Republicans achieves is centre-right policies.

Or maybe those are the policies he wants.
 
You would have thought that Huntsman would have put at least some effort into Iowa, you could see a couple of months ago that the leader in the polls was rotating between candidates quite regularly and at the beginning of December Santorum was polling where Huntsman is.
 
You would have thought that Huntsman would have put at least some effort into Iowa, you could see a couple of months ago that the leader in the polls was rotating between candidates quite regularly and at the beginning of December Santorum was polling where Huntsman is.

look at the state of the GOP now. He does not have any chance whatsoever. He could be a democrat as far as they are concerned.

Santorum is pretty conservative. He was bound to do well in Iowa if he got his message out...and it is a caucus state.

He is currently equal with Romney and Paul. He could well win Iowa. and if he gets backing South Carolina could be his...then who knows?
 
What I am finding most interesting right now is whether Gingrich can hold of Rick Perry - Bachmann probably won't last another week this rate and Gingrich himself is struggling and will be hanging on if Perry beats him tonight. If they both fall then it will be very interesting to see where their support flows to.
 
look at the state of the GOP now. He does not have any chance whatsoever. He could be a democrat as far as they are concerned.

Santorum is pretty conservative. He was bound to do well in Iowa if he got his message out...and it is a caucus state.

He is currently equal with Romney and Paul. He could well win Iowa. and if he gets backing South Carolina could be his...then who knows?


I wouldn't say so, Santorum got the bounce that Perry, Cain and Gingrich all got except that his happened to coincide with polling day. If any of those three didn't do everything they could to look like a prat when they were leading then Santorum wouldn't have seen such enormous growth in support in less than fourteen days.

Huntsman does not have much of a chance because of the way he designed his campaign, if Giuliani couldn't avoid Iowa last time round when he had such an enormous lead in support and fundraising then Huntsman most certainly cannot when he is trailing everybody else. You don't just campaign state to state to win their support, you do it to fundraise and seek media exposure and as a consequence as this race rolls into New Hampshire he'll be getting too little of it despite practically moving there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.