2012 Presidential Campaign

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by cody8200

It's too damn bad my man Mitch didn't run. He would have killed these clowns...

Yeah, his decision to not run was a big disappointment. I'm still kind of holding out hope he gets a look as VP.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I'd imagine Santorum is likely even worse than that among indies, too.

Wouldn't surprise me if he was single-digits (or very very low double-digits) among indies.

[cody8200]

That wife of his killed our chances. Too much drama I guess. She left him with the girls when they were teenagers, ran off to California for several years with some guy. Divorced him. Then she came back and they got back together. I think that is the main reason, he didn't want to dredge that up.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by cody8200

That wife of his killed our chances. Too much drama I guess. She left him with the girls when they were teenagers, ran off to California for several years with some guy. Divorced him. Then she came back and they got back together. I think that is the main reason, he didn't want to dredge that up.

Heh, given Newt's marital escapades, that makes Mitch look downright saintly.

[spleen1015]

From what was said in the news around here, it was a family decision that Daniels didn't run. His wife and daughters didn't want to live the life of the First Family.

[SirFozzie]

Latest Rasmussen National Poll:

Gingrich 35%,
Romney 28%
Santorum 16%
Paul 10%...

Election 2012: Republican Presidential Primary - Rasmussen Reports™

Wow. For a group that spent time last night at the debate decrying what happened to Terry Schiavo, the GOP is sure into committing assisted electoral suicide

[Autumn]

Newt Gingrich, the Man of Tomorrow.

[JPhillips]

Is it my TV or is Obama's makeup way too yellow? His face doesn't match his hands at all.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Is it my TV or is Obama's makeup way too yellow? His face doesn't match his hands at all.

Think it's your tv. He looks fine to me

[JPhillips]

And Ginsburg's hands are as red as the devil's.

edit: Giffords is a fucking medical miracle. I know she's a long way from 100%, but her level of recovery is astounding.

dola edit: Odierno is a big guy.

triple dola edit: Does John Kerry have a huge black eye?

[Coffee Warlord]

Speaking of Daniels, I didn't realize he was giving the GOP's response.

[JPhillips]

dola

I meh speech AFAIC. I would prefer big and simple as opposed to all these small complicated bits, but big and simple are also a lot easier to attack.

[JPhillips]

OMG!!! Giggly pages!

[Young Drachma]

Going to see the FOX response, because the MSNBC lovefest will be too much and CNN's middle of the road fakeness annoys me.

[Crapshoot]

Mitch Daniels is impressive.

[RainMaker]

The responses have always been weird to me. Wouldn't it make more sense for the opposing party to do it the next day and at least pretend it's in response to the actual speech?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Wouldn't surprise me if he was single-digits (or very very low double-digits) among indies.

Well, let me just Google Santorum and find ou-- wait, a second, you almost had me there!

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Going to see the FOX response, because the MSNBC lovefest will be too much and CNN's middle of the road fakeness annoys me.

That's what I tend to do. I hate Fox News and am not a watcher at all, but my few minutes a year I watch them is after the President speak. I'm curious what a pure and completely biased critic sees. Then I weed out the 95% crap and I have some legit criticisms.

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Mitch Daniels is impressive.

His speech started at 10:27 and 10:29 he was impressive?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

His speech started at 10:27 and 10:29 he was impressive?

Think for a minute how low the bar is man.

[Coffee Warlord]

Mitch seemed...awfully more wooden than I expected.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That's what I tend to do. I hate Fox News and am not a watcher at all, but my few minutes a year I watch them is after the President speak. I'm curious what a pure and completely biased critic sees. Then I weed out the 95% crap and I have some legit criticisms.

SI

I do something similar on election nights. 2008 I watched FOX because the Democrats were winning most things and 2010 I watched MSNBC because the Republicans were rolling. The bitterness and mockery of the other side amuses me.

[cody8200]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Mitch seemed...awfully more wooden than I expected.

His message was downright depressing but much more realistic than the Obama speech. Just remember, he didn't have anyone in the room where he was speaking. No jokes to tell, no applause to attain. He was simply speaking to a camera. He can usually be pretty funny and quick on his feet in stuff I have seen him in. He is not as charismastic as Obama though.

[JPhillips]

I don't think the America is in the shitter message of the GOP plays well. It's the same problem the Dems had in the eighties. Diagnosing a problem is normal for the opposition, but the GOP lacks a hopeful message of recovery right now.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The responses have always been weird to me. Wouldn't it make more sense for the opposing party to do it the next day and at least pretend it's in response to the actual speech?

They usually have the SOTU text a few hours before the actual speech. They prepare the talking points in advance, then cater the response to the text in those few hours before the SOTU is delivered.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think the America is in the shitter message of the GOP plays well. It's the same problem the Dems had in the eighties. Diagnosing a problem is normal for the opposition, but the GOP lacks a hopeful message of recovery right now.

It's hard to campaign on a promise that "we could have cleaned up the disaster that we made better than the other guy, and if you give us a chance we promise we won't fuck it up again. But you have to get rid of all this stuff he put in place to make sure we don't do it again. Just trust us."

Have people really forgotten that all this bullshit started before Bush left office? And have they forgotten what the best case timeline for recovery was? Have they forgotten how much worse it could have been?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Have people really forgotten that all this bullshit started before Bush left office? And have they forgotten what the best case timeline for recovery was? Have they forgotten how much worse it could have been?

Assigning blame to either party is honestly ridiculous at this point. Both of them had their hands in various policies that caused the economic meltdown. Neither is without fault. You could choose a senator or house member with more than 6-8 years in office and find at least a couple policies in their votes that lead to the implosion.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Have people really forgotten that all this bullshit started before Bush left office? And have they forgotten what the best case timeline for recovery was? Have they forgotten how much worse it could have been?

How long do Obama supporters get to play the "It's still Bush's fault" card? They're both to blame. Congress is to blame. Lot of banks are to blame. Everyone has had a hand in this fiasco.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Libertarian Response

Shameless, Free Infomercials for Two Guilty Parties: Obama’s State of the Union and the Republican Response
“Sponsors of even the most embarrassing, inane and fraudulent infomercials have to pay for their own air time. They can’t force TV stations to run their ads for free by threatening to shut them down.

“Through the Federal Communications Commission and other government coercion, Democratic and Republican politicians run their shameless infomercials on prime time TV free of charge. Tonight’s infomercial hand-outs were the State of the Union address and the ‘opposition’ response.

“But wait, there’s more!

“Unlike Ginsu knives, hair spray for men, and ripped abs in 30 days, the Republican and Democratic infomercials have no redeeming social value.

WASHINGTON, DC – Mark Hinkle, Chair of Libertarian Party, continues with:

“Honest taxpayers realize you can’t spend more money than you earn. They know that the #1 problem in America today is Government Overspending.

“The SOTU and Republican Response infomercials are a grand dog-and-pony show aimed at distracting attention from the fact that Democratic and Republican politicians are equally guilty of driving government spending into the stratosphere.

•“Both Democratic and Republican politicians initiated and supported bailouts.
•“Both Democratic and Republican politicians initiated and supported mandates to buy medical insurance imposed on individuals and small businesses.
•“Both Democratic and Republican politicians have voted for a laundry list of new and expanded government programs – keeping taxes high and driving our national debt to staggering sums that defy comprehension.
“President Barrack Obama blamed the administration of former President George W. Bush for driving up debt and high unemployment.

“In response, Republican Governor Mitch Daniels threw blame back on the president and on the Democrat-controlled Senate.

“Both are correct. Both Democratic and Republican politicians in Washington D.C. are responsible for causing today’s economic woes.

“Both Democratic and Republican politicians claim their policies ‘create jobs.’ But they do the opposite: they expand Big Government and thereby destroy private sector jobs. Democratic and Republican policies are crippling small businesses that create jobs.

“Democratic and Republicans politicians deliver the same policies: High government spending, high taxes, burdensome regulations, endless foreign military intervention and violations of our personal liberty.

“Both Democratic and Republican politicians cater to Special Interest greed while dismissing the wants and needs of ordinary Americans.

“Today more voters than ever realize that Democratic and Republican politicians are players in the same game of Big Government. They differ only in the color of their red and blue jerseys.

“More voters than ever realize that Democratic and Republican politicians are equally responsible for destroying jobs, violating individual rights, and lowering the standard of living for Americans.

“The Libertarian Party offers voters a desperately-needed alternative. Since its founding 40 years ago, the Libertarian Party remains unwavering in its pursuit of liberty, free trade and small government.

“Whether Libertarians are running for U.S. House, the Senate or the White House, they reject the self-serving interests of Big Government Profiteers. Libertarians represent the silent majority of Americans who want a choice for much less government:

•Huge and immediate reductions in taxes and government spending
•Repeal of laws that violate individual freedom
•An end to gunboat diplomacy and foreign political entanglements
•Dismantling of government bureaucracies and red tape.
“Every vote cast for a Libertarian is a vote for much less government, personal freedom, and peace.

.

[JPhillips]

I don't think overspending is the #1 problem, so I guess I'm dishonest?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

How long do Obama supporters get to play the "It's still Bush's fault" card? They're both to blame. Congress is to blame. Lot of banks are to blame. Everyone has had a hand in this fiasco.

Shhh... don't tell anyone. Then if Romney/Gincrich is elected he can blame the continued out of control spending on Obama's administration. And if Obama is reelected he can blame it on a Republican Congress. That doesn't work if people don't keep ignoring the false paradigm.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think overspending is the #1 problem, so I guess I'm dishonest?

If I am not mistaken you also would support higher taxes and less foreign adventures to pay for it? Give me a break that Congress is the only reason Obama doesn't raise taxes or end the wars. If Obama made some drastic changes in foreign policy I think he would get reelected in a landslide. Shifting troops from Iraq to Afganistan and probably Iran isn't exactly Nobel Peace prize worthy.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The responses have always been weird to me. Wouldn't it make more sense for the opposing party to do it the next day and at least pretend it's in response to the actual speech?

Would anybody watch the speech if it were a day later?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Would anybody watch the speech if it were a day later?

Why did anybody watch last night? Talk is cheap, when they start actually DOING something, wake me up.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Why did anybody watch last night? Talk is cheap, when they start actually DOING something, wake me up.

I can't even remember the last time I actually watched one of these. Back when there were actual decent shows to watch on the major networks, I'd get pissed that one of these was preempting my show.

These things should be renamed: "State of the Union since the last time we told you how much we're fucking it up".

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

If I am not mistaken you also would support higher taxes and less foreign adventures to pay for it? Give me a break that Congress is the only reason Obama doesn't raise taxes or end the wars. If Obama made some drastic changes in foreign policy I think he would get reelected in a landslide. Shifting troops from Iraq to Afganistan and probably Iran isn't exactly Nobel Peace prize worthy.

On the latter point, I don't think anyone has ever argued that Congress is stopping Obama from ending wars. As for the former point, Obama has attempted several times to raise taxes but does not have the votes to do so. If you don't think he'd raise taxes on the rich if he had no opposition in Congress, then you're crazy.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

On the latter point, I don't think anyone has ever argued that Congress is stopping Obama from ending wars. As for the former point, Obama has attempted several times to raise taxes but does not have the votes to do so. If you don't think he'd raise taxes on the rich if he had no opposition in Congress, then you're crazy.

Well first off I will admit its a game from both sides and if the Libertarians ever got a seat at the table they would probably play the same games also. But as far as taxes go I call bullshit. He chose with his super majority to ram health care through instead of raising taxes. Now I don't disagree with the Republican view that taxing the rich isn't going to solve the problems but if Obama wanted to he could have easily raised taxes from '08-'10. Now he chooses the political theather approach of "Whoa is me I can't do anything". (Like I said Romney/Gingrich will choose the same path but lets not act like its not a game)

[JPhillips]

ram = A year of campaigning, months of debate in Congress, 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House

And to be accurate he had less than a year of a sixty vote supermajority and he wasn't the President in '08.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Thought today's Rasmussen h2h polls were interesting

Obama 46-43 Romney
Obama 48-41 Newt
Obama 48-40 Santorum
Obama 47-37 Paul

Margin of error +/- 3%

What struck me interesting is how it puts the whole "electability" issue that's been played for Romney (and now to some extent being attempted for Newt) into a different light. While I'm sure his backers will point to being within the margin of error, there's also scant difference in what the top 3 pull for themselves, they're all likely to lose regardless of the nominee, so why not back a candidate on the basis of his positions rather than the dubious notion of "electability".

The other interesting detail - and the one that really ties to the problem - is buried toward the bottom of the polls news release.

Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) at least somewhat disapprove.

As long as he's got that 48% and they show up to vote Obama isn't going to lose this election.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, in contrast to that, 3% is far easier to make up than 7 or 8%. Esp since with Romney, Obama is at 46% instead of 48%, meaning more undecideds. That's the argument, anyway, and I think it's a relatively decent one.

But I don't think Obama is losing regardless. I think it more matters down ballot.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Assigning blame to either party is honestly ridiculous at this point. Both of them had their hands in various policies that caused the economic meltdown. Neither is without fault. You could choose a senator or house member with more than 6-8 years in office and find at least a couple policies in their votes that lead to the implosion.

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

How long do Obama supporters get to play the "It's still Bush's fault" card? They're both to blame. Congress is to blame. Lot of banks are to blame. Everyone has had a hand in this fiasco.

My point being that it's ridiculous for the Republicans to point the stimulus as spending and the lack of a speedy recovery and say that they would have done things in a completely different and much better way. I was a Bush supporter before I was an Obama supporter. Both parties have done stupid things, but I'm tired of hearing how this all goes back 4 years. I think maybe I have too many friends who are Obama haters for no reason other than to be a hater, and a lot of that is where I live.

If the whole presidential campaign is going to be based off of "are you better off now than you were 4 years ago", they can go suck it. When McConnell (my state Senator) says that his #1 goal is to make sure that the Republicans win back the Executive branch in the next election, he can suck it. Talk about not doing your job.

Where is the realistic dialogue about what really happened? Where is the pragmatic discussion about how we can keep it from happening again? Where are the people who accept responsibility? All I have ever seen is finger pointing. Why won't anyone stand up and say we did it. We're sorry, we are going to make sure it doesn't happen again. How can anyone look around and say that a country can operate without a strong central government to provide for citizens where they cannot provide for themselves?

It's all still a money grab. It's only ever going to be a money grab. We spend millions upon millions of dollars on this stupid presidential race, and there are homeless shelters, housing, healthcare that could take that money and make a better life for our citizens. It's all a waste.

I wholly reject the idea that what's mine is mine, and the rest of you can fuck off, which is what I hear so much anymore (again, where live). I've lived off of govt assistance, I pay very little taxes, but I'm willing to pay my extra few hundred dollars if it'll make the ultra rich feel better so the percentages are closer. The fact is money has to come from somewhere and my rock is just about done dripping blood.

[JPhillips]

MARS BITCHES!!!

“By the end of my second term we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American,” he said. According to Newt, the base would be used for “science, tourism, and manufacturing” and create a “robust industry” modeled on the airline business in the 20th century.

From there, Gingrich suggested moving towards a Mars mission by the end of the next decade. He proposed setting aside 10% of NASA’s budget in prize money for private research into interplanetary exploration.

“I accept the charge that I am grandiose,” he said. “Because Americans are instinctively grandiose.”

[molson]

Kind of amusing to hear some in the media obsessing over Flake being nice to Giffords EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE IN DIFFERENT PARTIES. I disagree with a lot of people here about politics but I'd still be pretty sad if any of you got shot in the head - does that make me an amazing person or something? Sweet!

[panerd]

.

[DaddyTorgo]

LMAO

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by molson

Kind of amusing to hear some in the media obsessing over Flake being nice to Giffords EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE IN DIFFERENT PARTIES. I disagree with a lot of people here about politics but I'd still be pretty sad if any of you got shot in the head - does that make me an amazing person or something? Sweet!

Molson for President!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

LOL...nope no need for voter ID verification.
Wouldnt want to piss of the zombies.

South Carolina's Attorney General detects voter fraud during pri - WTOC, Savannah, Georgia, news, weather and sports |

As expected:

The reliability of that data, however, came into question today during another hearing on the issue where State Election Commission director Marci Andino testified that some of the voters the DMV data said were dead are very much alive – and were eligible to cast a ballot.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

While I'm sure his backers will point to being within the margin of error, there's also scant difference in what the top 3 pull for themselves, they're all likely to lose regardless of the nominee, so why not back a candidate on the basis of his positions rather than the dubious notion of "electability".

Not sure if rhetorical.

That said...

Realistically, what it comes down to is this: "electability" isn't just about "can this candidate earn 270 electoral votes in November?" That's part of the argument, of course, but that's not all of it.

Part of it, especially if you approach the election from an ideological point of view, is the downballot effect.

The electability of a candidate is probably best measured in his ability to motivate the electorate to vote for him, which sounds obvious in a "duh" sort of way, but it's not just about getting the "swing voters" to pull the lever with the little elephant on it rather than the one with the little donkey.

Sometimes, it's about being able to motivate particular segments of the electorate to vote when they otherwise might not. Like, figure that the hardcore base - the ones for whom party control is as important, or more important, than the specific man/woman in the suit - is going to turn out for either side in every election, generally. You don't have to worry about them, as a candidate.

You DO have to worry about your fringe registered voters. They may be registered Republicans or registered Democrats, but they don't necessarily go vote unless something in particular has them exercised. It might be support of a gay marriage ban, it might be abhorrence at the idea of war profiteering, whatever. Something bit them on the ass and got them to go pull the lever.

If you're electable, you're probably able to appeal not just to the "swing voters," but to those fringe registered D's/R's also. And if you've got those people voting for you, they're probably also going to vote for the House, the Senate (when applicable), etc while they're at it.

And, if you're a candidate, you hope the representatives they're voting to elect line up with you politically as well.

That's what the difference between electability and ideological purity can mean at the nomination level. An electable candidate can allow other members of his party to draft behind them, enabling the party to gain additional power if the national candidate wins, or at least to keep from losing too much if the candidate loses.

An unelectable candidate is going to have his or her electorate sitting at home in a depressed funk while the other side sweeps all the chips off the table.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

An unelectable candidate is going to have his or her electorate sitting at home in a depressed funk while the other side sweeps all the chips off the table.

Sounds similar to what you'd expect with uninspired voters, which is what seems to be the result of going with a lukewarm "electability" candidate who is also getting his ass handed to him down the stretch run.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sounds similar to what you'd expect with uninspired voters, which is what seems to be the result of going with a lukewarm "electability" candidate who is also getting his ass handed to him down the stretch run.

Fair point.

But what you're really arguing at that point isn't going with ideology over electability but an ideological horse's ass over the garden variety.