View previous topic | View next topic

The Really, Really Long Race To The White House 2012

Page 36 of 87
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 35, 36, 37 ... 85, 86, 87  Next

exnihilo
915569.  Sat Jun 09, 2012 2:11 pm Reply with quote

Now that's a fun toy. Thank you!

 
exnihilo
917629.  Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:55 am Reply with quote

Rand Paul has endorsed Mitt Romney. Naturally any thinking person will see this as a sensible move by an ambitious Republican but Ron Paul supporters (who still delude themselves he could steal the nomination) are seeing it as a terrible betrayal. It's if people like Rand (and his dad) get behind Romney that he has a slight chance of beating Obama, if they all vote Libertarian instead he's utterly stuffed.

 
suze
917725.  Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:19 am Reply with quote

Given his age and his father's political positions, it occurred to me to wonder whether Rand Paul was named after Ayn Rand.

Fortunately though, he wasn't. His proper name is Randal, and he used to go by Randy as Americans with that name are wont to do. But his wife knew that people in Britain find the name "Randy" amusing, and persuaded him to switch to Rand.

 
Jenny
917764.  Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:00 pm Reply with quote

Well here's one potential VP candidate who may have shot himself in the foot.

 
tetsabb
917778.  Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:00 pm Reply with quote

He said something unbelievably stupid.
Damn, there was me hoping for a Dick Cheney style firearm malfunction. Give it time....

 
Jenny
917946.  Tue Jun 19, 2012 9:33 am Reply with quote

Chris Christie is being heavily talked up by many in the GOP as a potential VP, but so far he has said he doesn't want to be considered (still, it's been known for people to say that before). He would certainly be a very valuable addition to the ticket - a lot of people like him, and he has more blue-collar cred than Romney (not hard, that).

I am seriously worried that Obama may lose in November - the prospect of a Romney presidency isn't quite as appalling as the prospect of a Santorum or Gingrich presidency, but it's still pretty appalling, and I think would increase the likelihood that the drain we are currently circling will get wider.

 
clack
918049.  Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:28 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:

I am seriously worried that Obama may lose in November - the prospect of a Romney presidency isn't quite as appalling as the prospect of a Santorum or Gingrich presidency, but it's still pretty appalling, and I think would increase the likelihood that the drain we are currently circling will get wider.
Possibly. But is this to be Obama's selling point? "Under my presidency the nation is going down the drain -- but the other guy is even worse."

 
Jenny
918278.  Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:44 am Reply with quote

Given that our current democratic systems only allow a choice between two, then the lesser of two evils might seem the better choice. Unless you are a revolutionary of course - which would seem to me to be the worst choice all round.

 
clack
918281.  Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:59 am Reply with quote

It's a question of epistemology.

If you know the current president is doing a lousy job, and you suspect that his rival would do an even worse one -- which is the correct choice of who to vote for?

 
Neotenic
918287.  Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:31 pm Reply with quote

I think that if the Republicans weren't in a strong position right now, something would have to have gone seriously wrong.

The entire Primary process has been all about them - so, irrespective of the various shades of batshit spouted by the candidates that have now fallen by the wayside after their moment in the sun, the broad platform from which all of them have been speaking has been the Republican one - and this platform has been given almost exclusive space in the media up to now.

I think Obama is fundamentally a victim of his own success in 2008 - he wasn't just elected, he was anointed. So, anything short of working miracles can easily be framed as a failure. Has he actually failed, though? Is he really doing a terrible job? I'm not sure that conclusion can be reached without prefacing them with terribly over-inflated expectations of what could possibly be achieved in four years with what was inherited, and the thoroughly bananas legislative process he has to work with.

Sure, he made some dumb mistakes - signing the Gitmo closure thing with a stupid timetable and then spending almost all of his political capital on some hopelessly watered down healthcare proposal, but I don't think this can be counted as failure, can it?

 
suze
918318.  Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:06 pm Reply with quote

Well, they are failures - he said he would do things, and then didn't do them. It's difficult to see that as anything other than failure. (Unless he never had any intention of doing the things he said he would do, in which case it's dishonesty. But I don't believe that to be the case.)

However, I don't think they are particularly important failures with respect to the upcoming election. The people who really wanted him to do those things that he didn't do are hardly likely to vote Republican in any case. (Although we should note in passing that McCain too had pledged to close the Cuban concentration camp. One could advance all sorts of reasons why McCain didn't win the election, but that isn't one of them.)

Comparably, the people who really really didn't want those things to happen don't vote Democrat anyways and aren't going to start now.


Now, a question. If Romney is to win the election, he absolutely has to sweep the south. Is there any real feeling about the extent to which Romney's being non-Christian is going to be a problem with the voters in the south?

 
exnihilo
918323.  Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:40 pm Reply with quote

Ooh, controversial. The LDS do not like being called non-Christian.

 
suze
918328.  Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:01 pm Reply with quote

They do not, although this has not always been the case. Brigham Young did not consider the Mormons to be Christians, and neither do the (several, all tiny) splinter Fundamentalist LDS churches. I don't especially want to start a major theological debate on a minor point, but most of the Christian churches - including mine - disagree.


Not that it actually matters. Mr Romney belongs to a church which is very alien to most in the south, and some in the south will choose not to vote for him for that reason. What I don't really know is whether that some is large enough to affect any outcomes.

In the (yes, rather unlikely) event that the Democrat candidate were a Mormon and the Republican candidate were not, who would win Utah?

 
clack
918340.  Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:47 pm Reply with quote

The people most likely to object to Romney's Mormonism are the same people who look askance at Obama's race and his "godless" policies (gay marriage, for instance).

Romney's religion might effect voter turnout among the Southern rightwing, but those people aren't switching allegiances to vote for Obama.
Quote:
n the (yes, rather unlikely) event that the Democrat candidate were a Mormon and the Republican candidate were not, who would win Utah?
Mo Udall, a Mormon, got very close to winning the 1976 Democratic primaries -- running to the left of Carter.

My guess : ideology trumps religion. Utah would vote for a conservative non-Mormon over a liberal Mormon for president.

 
Jenny
918485.  Thu Jun 21, 2012 10:20 am Reply with quote

clack wrote:
It's a question of epistemology.

If you know the current president is doing a lousy job, and you suspect that his rival would do an even worse one -- which is the correct choice of who to vote for?


Ah well, from my point of view, you're starting from the wrong premise. I don't think the current president is doing a lousy job. I think he's doing the best job he can do given the circumstances in which he was elected, events in the world since, and the total obstructionism of his political opponents, who themselves have said openly that they set out from day 1 to make him a one-term president.

President Obama, in his recent speech in Ohio, framed this as a choice between two paths. The way I would put it is that as far as I can tell, the policies Romney and his party advocates are those that would put us from a very difficult situation into an even worse one in many areas of life, and therefore I will not vote for him. Some Americans at least appear to agree with me.

 

Page 36 of 87
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 35, 36, 37 ... 85, 86, 87  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group