The 2012 election topic. Republican general in full swing

[quote name='KingBroly']I think if Romney doesn't win the Nomination it says more about him than it does Santorum. It says a lot by not being able to install faith in your base. On the flip side, Santorum is scaring the fuck out of a lot of people on the right, myself included, because of the shit he's saying. It doesn't sound like he's learned anything from his loss in 2006 in PA. He's a PR nightmare waiting to happen.[/QUOTE]
Did you read the Rolling Stone editorial that I linked? I'd like to get your perspective on it since it kinda addresses your misgivings.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah...I ended up just reading the transcript. I wasn't quite sure if you were saying that the guy on the blog was on point or Brzezinski, so I figured I'd ask first...ha! The comments on newsbusters are hilarious though.

Anywho, I don't think his stances are atypical of those on the left, but I read a couple articles about him being a hawkish Democrat. I'm going to read more about him though.[/QUOTE]

Yah, I think hawkish Democrat is kind of fair, but at the same time he was against the Gulf War, against the Iraq War. One of the things (in my VERRRRRY limited research) that I like, is he seems to look at the situation independently, rather than say, "I'm a Democrat so I need to have this thought" or "I'm a hawk so I need to have this view". He has agreed and disagreed with guys like Wolfawitz. Agreed with Bush 1, didn't agree with Clinton. Seems to have a man-crush on Obama, didn't like Bush II. On top of all of that, he lived in Canada for years, but chose to pursue American citizenship, not Canadian! You GOTTA love that! haa haa

He foresaw the Soviet collapse along ethnic lines, but at the same time, he was also the National Security Advisor under Carter, who many people think screwed the pooch a few times internationally. Instrumental in Camp David Accords, but also a player in funding and backing the predecessors to the Taliban.
 
I think the article you linked is ultimately misunderstanding (or intentionally avoiding) what the Conservative viewpoint is because we have no one to convey that message properly. That's ultimately been our problem since 2004, we've been looking for someone who could convey the Conservative message. In 2008, it was very hard for Republicans to convey that they weren't George W. Bush, when it should have been done very easily. I'm not saying it would have changed much, but it would've gotten that big point of out the way.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']If Obama hadn't won there wouldn't be any health care reform, no new consumer protection agency or new regulation, we'd still be in Iraq, don't ask don't tell wouldn't get repealed etc.[/QUOTE]

I wondered how much of this would actually end up being discussed. DD hit upon the health care "reform" issue and DADT... I'd like to touch upon the Iraq part of this.

We got out of Iraq ON SCHEDULE with Bush's timeline.

Obama /wanted/ to stay in Iraq longer. His administration was unable to negotiate the terms they needed (i.e.: immunity for our troops), thus he pulled out of Iraq at the time Bush told him to.

Would this have been different had McCain been elected in 2008? Would his administration been able to negotiate some kind of terms that would have kept our troops in Iraq until 2020? I don't know.

I'm thrilled we're fighting one less war overseas. Probably more than most of you on here. But don't pretend like this is some grand Obama/Democrat victory. We left on Bush's timetable because of Obama's inability to negotiate with foreign powers.

Obama was unable to get what he wanted accomplished, so he did what the Republicans wanted.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I think the article you linked is ultimately misunderstanding (or intentionally avoiding) what the Conservative viewpoint is because we have no one to convey that message properly. That's ultimately been our problem since 2004, we've been looking for someone who could convey the Conservative message. In 2008, it was very hard for Republicans to convey that they weren't George W. Bush, when it should have been done very easily. I'm not saying it would have changed much, but it would've gotten that big point of out the way.[/QUOTE]

KB,

Conservatism was tried. The message was conveyed.

W is and was the embodiment of Conservatism. Conservatism failed.

What you would like is to either find a message that is such utter lies that you can trick people into thinking this is not the case, or hope people forget.
 
[quote name='Msut77']KB,

Conservatism was tried. The message was conveyed.

W is and was the embodiment of Conservatism. Conservatism failed.
[/QUOTE]

lolwhut?

W was to conservatism as Obama is to Communism; that is to say a glowing symbol for radical talking heads, but in reality far from either.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I think the article you linked is ultimately misunderstanding (or intentionally avoiding) what the Conservative viewpoint is because we have no one to convey that message properly. That's ultimately been our problem since 2004, we've been looking for someone who could convey the Conservative message. In 2008, it was very hard for Republicans to convey that they weren't George W. Bush, when it should have been done very easily. I'm not saying it would have changed much, but it would've gotten that big point of out the way.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='thrustbucket']lolwhut?

W was to conservatism as Obama is to Communism; that is to say a glowing symbol for radical talking heads, but in reality far from either.[/QUOTE]
Looks like you guys are separating Conservatism(what's with the big c) and being a Republican. Why don't you compare and contrast the two for us, so we don't have to do any guess-work.
 
thrust doesn't understand something and is not even able to begin to understand.

I would feign surprise, but you know.
 
George W Bush was not a conservative. If you believe that, I will continue to laugh until you don't believe it anymore. So I assume I will be laughing until I die.
 
Cons started pushing that line of stupid when they realized W was political poison.

It is a politically expedient lie and nothing more.
 
Dubya fucked up and so he isn't a conservative. If say Romney one the next election and fucked up, he wouldn't be a conservative either.
 
He grew the debt and grew the size/powers of government. Ergo, not conservative.

If you recall the skull-crushing cognitive dissonance these people employ to deny that Reagan ever ever ever grew the debt, government size/outlays, or increased taxes, you'll understand why it's easy for them to exile Dubya from their camp, but not out lord and savior Ronnie.
 
But that's the new conservative, it doesn't make any sense from a definition standpoint, but there it is. When all these knuckleheads are calling themselves conservatives, maybe it's time we changed the definition to reflect reality.
 
I can't believe that, even after shitting on the auto industry, Romney still manged to win Michigan.
 
Yeah, you have to keep in mind that a lot of Santorum's extremist views aren't going to play well in a state like Michigan--or very many places outside of the south period.

So even with the auto industry comments aren't enough to get some to vote for Santorum--maybe they could have voted for Gingrich. I'm not sure what he's said about the autobailouts. Paul was opposed to any of the bailouts, so he wouldn't be an option.

And then you have the upper middle class and above conservatives that just don't give a fuck about working people and probably opposed the auto bailouts themselves.
 
Even if they did play well, you'd think that people in a place like Michigan are far more concerned about the economy and jobs than social issues.
 
You'd think. But there are plenty of places in the south with unemployment above the national average where moron's are still more swayed by social issues.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']You'd think. But there are plenty of places in the south with unemployment above the national average where moron's are still more swayed by social issues.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's amazing how well the Southern Strategy works.
 
I can never grasp how much money is wasted on these out wing runners. Seriously Ron Paul you could have purchased your own country and set up your own rules with all the money you wasted running for president.

I wonder what the total of money used for loosing candidates is. I bet you could make a good size dent in the national debt if we could convince the same people donating money for campaigns to donate the same amount to a million other causes.

I understand that this is the process so what I am saying clearly wouldnt work but its mind blowing the amount of money thrown down a hole when it could be better suited somewhere else. But then again its your American right to give your money to whoever you want. Sigh.
 
The Southern Strategy should be on its last legs. Even with redistricting and Republicans making it harder to register to vote and harder to vote, you can only fight the demographic shifts for so long.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']I can never grasp how much money is wasted on these out wing runners. Seriously Ron Paul you could have purchased your own country and set up your own rules with all the money you wasted running for president.

I wonder what the total of money used for loosing candidates is. I bet you could make a good size dent in the national debt if we could convince the same people donating money for campaigns to donate the same amount to a million other causes.

I understand that this is the process so what I am saying clearly wouldnt work but its mind blowing the amount of money thrown down a hole when it could be better suited somewhere else. But then again its your American right to give your money to whoever you want. Sigh.[/QUOTE]

I think Penn Gilette had a good point about this.

He pointed out that the money we spend on elections is less then the money we spend on yogurt. Can you honestly say that who you choose to lead this country, to create legislation, to enforce the law - can you honestly say that making an informed choice is less important then yogurt?

Don't get it twisted - I support campaign finance reform. I'm just saying that I don't think we spend an excess amount of money on elections - I just wished more people paid closer attention to the facts instead of the hype.
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']I can never grasp how much money is wasted on these out wing runners. Seriously Ron Paul you could have purchased your own country and set up your own rules with all the money you wasted running for president.

I wonder what the total of money used for loosing candidates is. I bet you could make a good size dent in the national debt if we could convince the same people donating money for campaigns to donate the same amount to a million other causes.

I understand that this is the process so what I am saying clearly wouldnt work but its mind blowing the amount of money thrown down a hole when it could be better suited somewhere else. But then again its your American right to give your money to whoever you want. Sigh.[/QUOTE]

I think they should implement spending caps on campaigns personally, but Santorum is probably an example of a candidate that everyone thought should've given up weeks ago, and now he's neck and neck with the front runner, so it's hard to say when someone should bow out, but for the most part, they aren't spending their money. They are spending some rich benefactor's, so why do they care?

Personally, I don't like either front runner, and I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but I'm trying to get in the habit of voting again, so I'll likely send a vote Obama's way, since I think Santorum is a fundamentalist, dangerous, imbecile and Romney is a terrible person.

Obama is vanilla...well...mocha, but he's vanilla.
 
If election spending was distributed among the populance like yogurt spending, then sure. But one person spending $40 million (Charles Koch) on either yogurt or electioneering is excessive.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']The Southern Strategy should be on its last legs. Even with redistricting and Republicans making it harder to register to vote and harder to vote, you can only fight the demographic shifts for so long.[/QUOTE]
I wish I could believe that. This round of gerrymandering and voter suppression will have ripple effects for decades with Citizens United mucking up the process even more. Don't get me wrong, I hope I'm wrong, but too bad I won't be alive in 60 years to see how it all works out.

[quote name='camoor']I think Penn Gilette had a good point about this.

He pointed out that the money we spend on elections is less then the money we spend on yogurt. Can you honestly say that who you choose to lead this country, to create legislation, to enforce the law - can you honestly say that making an informed choice is less important then yogurt?

Don't get it twisted - I support campaign finance reform. I'm just saying that I don't think we spend an excess amount of money on elections - I just wished more people paid closer attention to the facts instead of the hype.[/QUOTE]
I can't think of anyone here that doesn't support reform, but reform won't change the fact that most of the voting aged public doesn't really care enough to learn about candidates. Between ignorance, education, apathy, helplessness, or a combination of the above, those ads are the only exposure people have to candidates. Money is part of the problem and I agree that it's also a symptom of other problems that pretty much necessitates vast amounts of capital to campaign.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I can't think of anyone here that doesn't support reform, but reform won't change the fact that most of the voting aged public doesn't really care enough to learn about candidates. Between ignorance, education, apathy, helplessness, or a combination of the above, those ads are the only exposure people have to candidates. Money is part of the problem and I agree that it's also a symptom of other problems that pretty much necessitates vast amounts of capital to campaign.[/QUOTE]

Eh - I think people know enough about the candidates. They just get motivated by different issues.

Example: if you vote for Santorum, you know he's a religious nut. Some people just happen to like that...
 
[quote name='camoor']Eh - I think people know enough about the candidates. They just get motivated by different issues.

Example: if you vote for Santorum, you know he's a religious nut. Some people just happen to like that...[/QUOTE]
When it comes to primaries, I don't disagree, but in generals, I really don't think people really care enough to look beyond ads and the letter next to the candidates name.
 
First, I would like to see how running for president cost less than yogurt. That seems like you have to do some creative connections to get that to work but I am game to hear it.

Although I do not disagree DD I have to say this, I used to be a person who really could care less about politics, as I grew older I cared more and more and researched more and more. Do Americans need to research more about the candidates? Yes, but there is something to be said when politicans spend millions of dollars and 99% of their time intentional making the pursuit of knowledge as hypocritical, convoluted and sensationalized as possible.

Its like ripping your 18 year old son for not knowing out to get home from the next city over yet you have been shoving maps of Japan down his throat his entire life.

This also plays a lot into how our candidates even run they themselves do very little in terms of research and presenting logical sound debates on real issues. They spend most of their time sensationalizing everything which is pathetic and lazy. Both sides forever claim they want to fix America but when they present their case they seem to always wind up in the, "If you don't vote for me America will be invaded my commie space chimps that will rape our women and children."

I think a majority of people who consider themselves involved in politics still wind up tossing their hat in someones corner and going with whatever they say. The search for knowledge is so over the top intentionally cloudy its hard to lay all the blame at their feet when they give up...or dont start at all. You honstely expect a 20 year old kid to spend 5 hours trying to figure out what in the hell Ricky San is talking about?
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']First, I would like to see how running for president cost less than yogurt. That seems like you have to do some creative connections to get that to work but I am game to hear it.

Although I do not disagree DD I have to say this, I used to be a person who really could care less about politics, as I grew older I cared more and more and researched more and more. Do Americans need to research more about the candidates? Yes, but there is something to be said when politicans spend millions of dollars and 99% of their time intentional making the pursuit of knowledge as hypocritical, convoluted and sensationalized as possible.

Its like ripping your 18 year old son for not knowing out to get home from the next city over yet you have been shoving maps of Japan down his throat his entire life.

This also plays a lot into how our candidates even run they themselves do very little in terms of research and presenting logical sound debates on real issues. They spend most of their time sensationalizing everything which is pathetic and lazy. Both sides forever claim they want to fix America but when they present their case they seem to always wind up in the, "If you don't vote for me America will be invaded my commie space chimps that will rape our women and children."

I think a majority of people who consider themselves involved in politics still wind up tossing their hat in someones corner and going with whatever they say. The search for knowledge is so over the top intentionally cloudy its hard to lay all the blame at their feet when they give up...or dont start at all. You honstely expect a 20 year old kid to spend 5 hours trying to figure out what in the hell Ricky San is talking about?[/QUOTE]

To clarify - Penn was saying that as a nation we spend less on political campaigns then we do on yogurt. It was on his Bullshit show.

I don't expect 20 year-olds to vote, period (the young rarely do).

I was just saying that I think it's inaccurate to believe that voters don't understand what a particular politician generally stands for.

If you like Obama you like social programs. If you like Romney then you probably buy into Horatio Alger mythology. If you like Santorum then you are probably into conservative Christianity in a big way. If you like Ron Paul then you're a libertarian and proud of it.

If you think that politics and government is dysfunctional in the modern US, then the voters and their flawed political philsophies are at least partially to blame.
 
[quote name='dohdough']When it comes to primaries, I don't disagree, but in generals, I really don't think people really care enough to look beyond ads and the letter next to the candidates name.[/QUOTE]

I'd actually be interested to see data on that.

I'd think people may have more incentive to read up on candidates since your voting for people within your party.

In the general election, the candidates are usually so different that you're going to vote for your party's guy/gal anyway as the other guy is so opposite of your beliefs (unless you're a true centrist I guess).

That's my own habits anyway. I read up a lot for primaries, when it gets to the general election the republican candidate is always so far from my views on key issues that it's either vote for the democrat or not vote on that part of the ballot if I don't like the dem either.

There's not been a third party candidate that fit my views to date as they all tend to be too extreme.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'd actually be interested to see data on that.[/QUOTE]
I don't have any studies or polls, but I'm sure if you asked Lee Atwater or Karl Rove, they'd say that all you need to do is see who wins.
 
Am I wrong in thinking that people are downplaying the fact that Republicans, due to their wins in 2010 across the country, probably had a big hand in redistricting due to the new Census Data? That alone probably keeps them from losing the House, although my guess is they'll gain a few seats. And before you ask, no, I didn't think they'd win the Senate back, even with Snow staying.

Also, am I wrong in thinking we've started going back in time politically? 2012 feels like 2004 except the parties are switched, and I feel that 2016 might be 2000 if we're not careful.
 
You're a "gut feeling" guy, aren't you?

Like, you'd rather sit on your porch, bourbon in hand, and stare off into the sun setting on the western horizon and think about your political decisions than hunker down and look at a Pew Poll.
 
No, I'm not really a fan of alcohol. I do think about my political decisions, and I know how polls trend, and that the buildup is usually a little behind for states against national polls, usually by about 10-14 days.

This time around, there's nothing fresh or new about what Barack Obama is selling. Whether or not you agree with him is a different story. It's hard for people to get motivated enough to vote for "old hat," especially if they usually don't vote. And no, I'm not saying what the Republicans are selling is particularly fresh, either.

I mean, do you honestly think voter turnout is going to increase from 2008? Because I certainly do not.
 
Voter turnout will definitely be down from 2008. Obama won't excite the young voters as much as then.

If Santorum is the nominee a lot of Independents and center right folks won't be energized and will stay home.

If Romney is the nominee, a lot of the religious right and far right will not be energized and stay home.

Either way, I see Obama winning fairly easily unless something crazy happens. He'll get the usual democrat base turnout, and higher than usual turnout from minorities (still polls strong there) while either Romney or Santorum don't get the full Republican base turnout.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Voter turnout will definitely be down from 2008. Obama won't excite the young voters as much as then.

If Santorum is the nominee a lot of Independents and center right folks won't be energized and will stay home.

If Romney is the nominee, a lot of the religious right and far right will not be energized and stay home.

Either way, I see Obama winning fairly easily unless something crazy happens. He'll get the usual democrat base turnout, and higher than usual turnout from minorities (still polls strong there) while either Romney or Santorum don't get the full Republican base turnout.[/QUOTE]

Precisely. Even the Obama haters aren't going to like their GOP candidates enough to vote against Obama. I realize the polls show it close between Romney/Santorum and Obama, but I'll bet the Big O wins by 15-20pts. For better and worse, 4 more years.
 
Question that's partially on topic , what's a good resource for politics and politicians at a local and state level? One problem I've always had during election time is knowing enough about local politicians , judges etc to know who to vote for. I'm feeling a little more confident about that information for this year (at least so far as information about state representatives for the house and senate) but still would like to know more.

Granted a lot of the needed information may not really be necessary until it's known for sure what all is going to voted on during election time , but we have a local election coming up in about two weeks and have no idea of what I'm going to do about that (hopefully not relying on voting by party).
 
[quote name='StarKnightX']Question that's partially on topic , what's a good resource for politics and politicians at a local and state level?[/QUOTE]http://ballotpedia.org/ might help, but understand that it's a wiki at heart, so take the usual precautions. It's best for local referendums if you have them.

http://www.smartvoter.org/ could have basic facts for your county. You'll have to wait for 2012 information to be added. But for example, here's my county in 2010: http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/11/02/ca/or/

You get a rundown of who's who right down to the city council members. Usually you can do a quick Google search to get a rundown of positions and issues for the races you care about.

So here's district 38 in my state senate, http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/11/02/ca/state/race/casen38/, and you can see their occupations and email addresses and education. If I want to know more I'll just Google the name. In this case, the guy Wyland doesn't have a lot of information on him so I'll check it out briefly on Google.

I go through my voter information guide each election with a pencil and make notes. I mark my votes before I go into the booth and Google search the judges and shit and see what they stand for. I find it fun.

So just bookmark these.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Precisely. Even the Obama haters aren't going to like their GOP candidates enough to vote against Obama.[/QUOTE]

I disagree, and I disagree strongly. You do too, kinda. Look at how you frame it - what motivates these voters? It's not 'liking' someone, it's not even 'holding your nose and voting'. They're voting because they're motivated by their unbridled hatred of Obama. Since Obama's going to be running in November no matter what, they have all the motivation they need to get to the polls.

This election, for as poor as the GOP candidates are (and I mean *poooooooooooooooorrrrrrrr*), is not a done deal for Obama. And it won't be come November, either. A large enough portion of the public can be convinced any old dumb fuck can be smart enough to run for President (Bush, Palin - why are Santorum or Romney any different?). It's how you frame them and present them. Focus on attacking Obama so as to detract from the poor quality of your candidates and rile up those who are motivated by hating Obama. Hundreds of millions in SuperPAC money going to no particular candidate but making claims about Obama. Swift boat vets in 2004 will look like nice fellas compared to what we'll see this year.

It's much easier to disguise a terrible candidate that you think. This is entirely loseable for Democrats.
 
It's terribly disappointing to see boundless fools take politics from a one-way perspective. If they are dissatisfied with Obama – or entire parties, frankly – they assume the alternative will be better, rather than considering that despite Obama's shortcomings, things could become even worse under the leadership of our remaining electives.

I might find it depressing, were it not for this board and the abundance of political satire on Comedy Central and co. these days.
 
ID2006, could the same not be said for the opponents of Republican presidential incumbents? The two-party system plays us this way.

sfhah.jpg


There's little difference between the two parties in terms of pain inflicted on the American people and the world.
 
And your definitions of "pain" are?

I'd like one with regard for the "American people" and one for the "world", please.


edit: I'd also like you to give me your best guess on the state of our country if the past 50 years had been all leading Republican candidates or all leading Democrat candidates. If you really think it would have turned out more or less the same, then perhaps you can explain your reasoning.
 
[quote name='ID2006']And your definitions of "pain" are?

I'd like one with regard for the "American people" and one for the "world", please.


edit: I'd also like you to give me your best guess on the state of our country if the past 50 years had been all leading Republican candidates or all leading Democrat candidates. If you really think it would have turned out more or less the same, then perhaps you can explain your reasoning.[/QUOTE]
Hell, I'd like to get clarification of the context of how he's defining the parties, but I think we both know that we're not going to get a straight answer.
 
[quote name='ID2006']
edit: I'd also like you to give me your best guess on the state of our country if the past 50 years had been all leading Republican candidates or all leading Democrat candidates.[/QUOTE]I'm not advocating for this. I am advocating for a serious look at third-party candidates that split with Republicans and Democrats on the issues they tend to not differ much in. At minimum, I would like to see third-party candidates participate in the debates that would otherwise be between Obama and Romney. Put a Kucinich or Ron Paul in there.
[quote name='ID2006']And your definitions of "pain" are?

I'd like one with regard for the "American people" and one for the "world", please.
[/QUOTE]World: Military engagement, bombs and stuff.

American people: A poor economic climate that both parties had a hand in creating, the most pressing issue being unemployment and underemployment.

It is amazing to me that we continue to switch back and forth between the two when they have both proved themselves unable to govern.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I'm not advocating for this. I am advocating for a serious look at third-party candidates that split with Republicans and Democrats on the issues they tend to not differ much in. At minimum, I would like to see third-party candidates participate in the debates that would otherwise be between Obama and Romney. Put a Kucinich or Ron Paul in there.
World: Military engagement, bombs and stuff.

American people: A poor economic climate that both parties had a hand in creating, the most pressing issue being unemployment and underemployment.

It is amazing to me that we continue to switch back and forth between the two when they have both proved themselves unable to govern.[/QUOTE]


As I've seen pointed out to you before, you're ignoring the reality of our governance where most (positive) legislation can be obstructed by schismatic groups even when a certain party has the majority. Stop treating this issue as black and white. Not all electives believe the same things, either, regardless of the party; and to think that a third party candidate will come in and make sweeping changes on his/her own is absurd.


As for "serious look", I'm guessing you mean the "mainstream" media and the goofy debates that are currently filled with pandering and silly word blunders. Otherwise, you'll have to clarify. Nonetheless, I don't think putting the third party candidates under the spotlight will bring a revelation of their impeccable ideals to Americans. At best, perhaps they'd catch the other candidates off guard with actual questions or sideswiping responses, since that is what debates are. They aren't actual examinations of a person's eligibility or political intentions and repercussions. Under actual scrutiny, the ideals and desires of third party candidates would have to reveal their *gasp* flaws.


Anyway, this has gotten off track. My issue all along was the apparent lack of intelligence in the average American. Third parties in debates won't solve that. They might mesmerize their audience with the usual promises of change and a new way, but that doesn't mean their way is actually good, just different. It's a catch-22 because freedom is mutually exclusive from critical thinking and cognitive reasoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top