2012 Presidential Campaign

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Among the scientific community though, there isn't much debate.

Yeah, I imagine that's true.

They tend to find whatever will suit their personal agenda or the highest bidder, rendering debate rather meaningless.

In short, they're largely as human as everybody else.

[miked]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yeah, I imagine that's true.

They tend to find whatever will suit their personal agenda or the highest bidder, rendering debate rather meaningless.

In short, they're largely as human as everybody else.

Well look, you are partly correct, they are massively subject to human error and the influences of money. If you are constantly wrong, nobody will fund you. However, there are certainly very few things that are open to debate. If you throw something up, it will fall. If you take a statin, more likely than not your cholesterol will fall, etc. I think there are mechanisms that are open to interpretation, i.e. how things happen.

But the way certain drugs are designed, they can only have one function. If a woman takes a morning after pill (or similarly 5 doses of her regular birth control pill) when she is a few weeks along, more likely than not it will have no terminating effect on the growing embryo. They may differ in their opinion of the mechanism behind it's success, but sometimes conclusions that are statistically proven by hundreds of studies are the best things to base your views on.

I mean, if you want to believe that taking a stain lowers your cholesterol because it births thousands of small, plaque-fighting robots into your bloodstream because scientists have funded their labs studying this...well that's fine and all, but it doesn't make you less of an idiot. Statins most likely lower your cholesterol because they inhibit the enzyme involved in LDL synthesis. Facts are sometimes facts.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by miked

Facts are sometimes facts.

Not if you disagree.

[cartman]

Todd Akin Blames Drop Out Calls On "Liberal Elitist Media"

According to Akin, the following people are part of the 'liberal elitist media' that are calling him to drop out of his Senate race:

Mitt Romney
Paul Ryan
John Cornyn
National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee
Scott Walker
Ron Johnson
Tommy Thompson
John Ashcroft
Kit Bond
John Danforth
Jim Talent
Kay Bailey Hutchison

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Todd Akin Blames Drop Out Calls On "Liberal Elitist Media"

According to Akin, the following people are part of the 'liberal elitist media' that are calling him to drop out of his Senate race:

Mitt Romney
Paul Ryan
John Cornyn
National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee
Scott Walker
Ron Johnson
Tommy Thompson
John Ashcroft
Kit Bond
John Danforth
Jim Talent
Kay Bailey Hutchison

Don't stop him now. He's on a roll.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

According to Akin, the following people are part of the 'liberal elitist media' that are calling him to drop out of his Senate race:

Well, technically, it seems that they'd simply all have to be is compliant with them. They don't actually have to be part of them.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by cartman

Todd Akin Blames Drop Out Calls On "Liberal Elitist Media"

According to Akin, the following people are part of the 'liberal elitist media' that are calling him to drop out of his Senate race:

Mitt Romney
Paul Ryan
John Cornyn
National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee
Scott Walker
Ron Johnson
Tommy Thompson
John Ashcroft
Kit Bond
John Danforth
Jim Talent
Kay Bailey Hutchison

Nothing like moving the goal posts. He keeps that up, he'll start thinking he's the only member of the republican party.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

In short, I find their platform morally offensive, and I was considering voting for Scott Brown here in MA (At least he's been willing to buck the line on somethings, such as the abortion platform, and I've met the guy, he didn't seem phony at all). but I cannot in good conscience vote for anyone who would allow this.. pack of idiocy disguised loosely as a "platform" to go into effect.

I get that, but what's one to do if they don't like either party platform? This Akin thing being in this thread as a "2012 presidential campaign" issue is kind of depressing. It's one of my biggest complaints of Democrats, arguing for their correctness by trying to group together all opposition as nutjobs and they're getting just a little too euphoric about these Akin comments (I don't know how the comments make the Democrats more desirable candidates generally, but that's the message I guess), but if this is the actual Republican platform, what are the normals supposed to do? I just don't feel like voting anymore.

Edit: Is that what people do, vote for the candidate who belongs to the party whose platform, or party belief as a whole offends them less? Is that why Akin is so relevant, to try to get more moderates to just feel too gross about voting for any Republican? I guess if that was my standard, I'd have to go Democratic these days, even though that party, as a whole, based on their campaign rhetoric, thinks I care about people less than they do because I have somewhat different opinions about how economies and finance work and how government is best organized.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

I get that, but what's one to do if they don't like either party platform? This Akin thing being in this thread as a "2012 presidential campaign" issue is kind of depressing. It's one of my biggest complaints of Democrats, arguing for their correctness by trying to group together all opposition as nutjobs and they're getting just a little too euphoric about these Akin comments, but if this is the actual Republican platform, what are the normals supposed to do? I just don't feel like voting anymore.

In the past, I think this is how new political parties started?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

In the past, I think this is how new political parties started?

I think you're right, and there's a lot of people who are feeling kind of left out of the whole thing, but one, there's so much money in the way of any political change, and two, America's very stable and works pretty well - as such, I'm going to choose to have a big lunch and then a nap now, instead of trying to get involved with a third party. I'm too well fed and entertained to take it much further than a message board, to actually sacrifice time and money and maybe my job. And I can skip voting day knowing my life won't be that different no matter what happens. Only when the parties really screw up America will we have change (and that could very well happen someday).

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

I think you're right, and there's a lot of people who are feeling kind of left out of the whole thing, but one, there's so much money in the way of any political change, and two, America's very stable and works pretty well - as such, I'm going to choose to have a big lunch and then a nap now, instead of trying to get involved with a third party. I'm too well fed and entertained to take it much further than a message board. And I can skip voting day knowing my life won't be that different no matter what happens.

One of my long time complaints about politics in America, is the money. It shouldn't be a profitable enterprise while holding office. If you want to profit after you are out of office or before you're in office, have at it. Sell your books, go on the talk circuit, all that stuff. I don't care.

In my make believe world if this were the case, I think it would cut out a lot of the people that are in it just to make a buck and would bring in more people that are there to actually do some good.

But you are correct. There's just too many people that are fine with the status quo as long as it doesn't upset their day to day comings and goings. Other than the hot heads on either side, I really don't hear much complaining. Well, there's the Libertarian party that seems to have gotten a bit more traction that last few years, but, even the party's platform is too wacky for me.

As a self exercise, I should go through the 3 parties platforms and pick out the stuff I like/agree with and see what I come up with. I'm really curious as to what it will reveal about my own beliefs and political leanings.

[RainMaker]

Any 3rd party would have to be one in the middle. A moderate one that could nab the purple states and purple parts of the country. The thing is that the two parties have an innate ability to adapt to this and become moderate when they need/want to.

I'm not as down on the two party system as others because I feel like each party has mini parties within them. A tea party candidate could never win a Senate race in Illinois. But a moderate from that party like Mark Kirk can. Basically Mark Kirk and Paul Ryan are practically in two different parties as is.

I think the key is less about 3rd parties which I just don't see finding a way to gain support, and more with people voting in their primaries. If you don't like the crazy person running on either side, get your ass out and vote in the primary.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the key is less about 3rd parties which I just don't see finding a way to gain support, and more with people voting in their primaries. If you don't like the crazy person running on either side, get your ass out and vote in the primary.

I got to vote in 2 Senate primaries this year. Went GOP both times. And picked the loser both times...

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you don't like the crazy person running on either side, get your ass out and vote in the primary.

That may not always work though. States will vary of course and a fairly settled state like Georgia isn't a great example I admit but here's what I mean

Congressional primaries this summer, races for the U.S. House, by district

#1 - 1 GOP incumbent, 2 D hopefuls
More than twice as many votes for the unopposed as the two challengers combined

#2 - 3 GOP hopefuls, 1 D incumbent

Decent 42-32-26 split in the primary, but seemingly little chance against in incumbent Sanford Bishop in November. Contested primary drew less than half the votes Bishop got unopposed

#3 - 1 GOP incumbent beats 2 challengers, 1 D challenger
This is a fun case. Not only did incumbent Lynn Westmoreland win with 72% of the vote, he would have won outright (50% +1) if you took both party challengers votes AND all the Dem votes combined

#4 - 3 GOP hopefuls, 1 D incumbent & 1 D challenger
same math as above, but in reverse, with D incumbent Hank Johnson having more votes than all the challengers in both primaries combined

#5 - 1 GOP hopeful, 1 D incumbent & 1 D challenger
Make it 3 in a row, incumbent John Lewis had nearly 70k votes to the 28k combined total of the other

#6 - 1 GOP Incumbent, 2 D hopefuls
contested race ended up 51-49, but drew less than 1/3rd the total votes as the unopposed incumbent

#7 - 1 GOP Incumbent & 1 R challenger, 1 D hopeful
45k for the incumbent, 29k for the others combined

#8 - 1 GOP Incumbent unopposed, no D qualified

#9 - 3 GOP Hopefuls with no incumbent, ended up 41.8 - 41.1 - 17.1, 1 D
"hopeful" managed 8k votes unopposed ... versus nearly 110k votes in the R primary.
nasty little race here, the two finalists tried to out-conservative one another, the establishment guy wins yesterday's run-off over the tea-party talk show host woman

#10 - 1 GOP incumbent & 1 hopeful, no D qualified
Broun rolls to re-election with just under 70% of the vote

#11 1 GOP incumbent & 2 challengers, 1 D hopeful
incumbent pulls 76k to 31k for all others combined

#12 4 GOP hopefuls, 1 D incumbent
Now here's an actual primary race, with a spread of 15% in last to 34% in first ... all vying for a shot at John Barrow in November

#13 1 GOP hopeful & 1 D incumbent

#14 1 GOP incumbent & 1 D hopeful


My point here is simply this: in virtually every case,the primaries weren't going to help much about "crazy candidates in November". In only one case out of 14 did both parties manage to have at least two candidates in the primary.

edit to add: By & large, these were not low turnout events, about 31% turnout overall. You could have doubled that and still not have changed the results substantially. The two "craziest" candidates in the state, as described by their critics would probably be Broun on the right and Lewis on the left.
Broun crushed his party rival & has no Dem opposition.
Lewis beat his party rival even worse (80-20) and has only token opposition in November.

The number & quality of candidates plays a bigger role, IMO, than turnout.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Don't stop him now. He's on a roll.

It wasn't over when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor, and it's not over now.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you don't like the crazy person running on either side, get your ass out and vote in the primary.

I wish! Idaho Republicans closed primaries this year, so I'd have to register as a Republican to vote in them. Democrats have open primaries, but they don't even field candidates for a lot of offices here. There are a few constitution party names that pop up, but that's not really an option.

There's a bunch of Republicans in Idaho who I respect a ton, who are truly public servants at heart, and I'm not sure how they even find their way into their jobs, because the whole thing seems rigged from the start, with little real option for voters. So I just try to generally support the ones I know to be honest and competent - like our AG, who's a Republican but a true independent thinker, who is unafraid to take on the fruit loops in the state - but who hasn't been opposed in elections anytime recently. I'm lucky enough to have a job where I'm kind of involved in state government generally and can contribute and support things that way, but from a voting perspective, I'm a total non-participant.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Judge in Texas says civil war will follow if Obama is re-elected.

Texas judge warns of possible ‘civil war’ if President Obama is re-elected | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

[sterlingice]

Well, I take seriously anyone who says we'll hand over our sovereignty to UN troops. You mean, our troops? Didn't Libya show us that we have about as much military might as the rest of the world combined?

They had the clip on NPR last night and it was funny: the interviewer was just like "yeah", "uh huh", "yeah", "uh huh", etc- it was just deadpan.

SI

[SirFozzie]

New Mizzou poll re-asserts reality, has Akin down double digits.

Rasmussen poll: Claire McCaskill up by 10 over Todd Akin - Mike Zapler - POLITICO.com

(expect the GOP to use this to continue to pressure Akin to step down)

[JonInMiddleGA]

If that's all it took to shift things 15 points, he wasn't going to win anyway, his support was too soft.

A bounce was predictable as respondents kneejerked, let's see what happens over the next month to assess the real situation.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Judge in Texas says civil war will follow if Obama is re-elected.

Texas judge warns of possible ‘civil war’ if President Obama is re-elected | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

What is so important about this story? It is the fact that there are always idiots saying things like this during election years, and the media finds it important enough to do stories on it.

[SirFozzie]

The fact that he's a judge and sitting in judgement of others?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

The fact that he's a judge and sitting in judgement of others?

FWIW, it looks as though his primary function is actual as county emergency management director & his judicial responsibilities are fairly minimal. That seems to have been the context he was speaking from, rather than anything judicially oriented.

Plus he's coming off a 2010 general election win that saw him crush both an (I) and an (L) with 79% of the vote. Won his primary by a solid 55-45 margin. And it's not as though he'd been a stranger to controversy prior to that election.

[Young Drachma]

[cartman]

Guess the news outlet:

[sabotai]

The Onion?

[cartman]

Sadly, no.

[sterlingice]

Failed baseball player Michael Jordan? Hell, besides the obvious (basketball player), I would think that's behind underwear pitchman and tied with obsessive gambler in terms of what he's known for

SI

[JPhillips]

Lovely. Mitt is now publicly dabbling in birtherism.

But a guy on a blog said something mean, so it all equals out.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by cartman

Guess the news outlet:

Judging by their fixation of black people...The KKK News or some white supremacist news site.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Judging by their fixation of black people...The KKK News or some white supremacist news site.

There's versions of the photo with a "Fox Nation" logo in the upper right - which makes it look like a parody. Unless Fox Nation is a Fox-news related thing I'm not aware of.

Edit: No, I think it came from http://freebeacon.com. Just an angry conservative blog.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

There's versions of the photo with a "Fox Nation" logo in the upper right - which makes it look like a parody. Unless Fox Nation is a Fox-news related thing I'm not aware of.

Edit: No, I think it came from http://freebeacon.com. Just an angry conservative blog.

Ah. They're so coy.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Lovely. Mitt is now publicly dabbling in birtherism.

But a guy on a blog said something mean, so it all equals out.

Oooooooooh. He better apologize since that will be so sincere. Who cares? I thought it was funny and I actually consider Mitt pretty bland and uninteresting. Obama makes jokes like this too and they are funny as well. What a country of pussies we have all become when no doubt the apology comes in the next day or two.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

There's versions of the photo with a "Fox Nation" logo in the upper right - which makes it look like a parody. Unless Fox Nation is a Fox-news related thing I'm not aware of.

Edit: No, I think it came from http://freebeacon.com. Just an angry conservative blog.

No, you were right. It was from Fox Nation, which is a part of the Fox News network.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Oooooooooh. He better apologize since that will be so sincere. Who cares? I thought it was funny and I actually consider Mitt pretty bland and uninteresting. Obama makes jokes like this too and they are funny as well. What a country of pussies we have all become when no doubt the apology comes in the next day or two.

Politics nowadays is just people pretending to be outraged by things the other side says. My favorite part is where they demand apologies. Like anyone gives a fuck.

[JPhillips]

I don't give a shit if he apologizes, but why shouldn't he be held responsible for making birther remarks? If Biden drops a magic underwear joke should we just move on from that too? This whole campaign is moving to a point where nothing said really matters. If it moves a poll it's good and if it doesn't it's bad, but content is of no importance.

[RainMaker]

Held responsible how? No laws preventing him from saying what he wants. Up to voters to decide if they care or not.

[albionmoonlight]

The Democratic National Campaign Committee released an ad showing how the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few mega-rich individuals does NOT trickle down to the working class (despite what they would have you believe) but instead operates to SUPPRESS working-class wages. Further, it shows vividly how these very few ultra-elite manage to funnel their wealth (which they obtain at the expense of the working class) into the electoral process in order to effectively buy votes and keep the whole corrupt system running--against the obvious interest and will of the people.

It is a great example of the problems with concentrating wealth in the hands of the 1% and a political system dominated by a few large fat-cat donors.

If this manages to go viral, William Howard Taft won't know what hit him.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The Democratic National Campaign Committee released an ad showing how the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few mega-rich individuals does NOT trickle down to the working class (despite what they would have you believe) but instead operates to SUPPRESS working-class wages. Further, it shows vividly how these very few ultra-elite manage to funnel their wealth (which they obtain at the expense of the working class) into the electoral process in order to effectively buy votes and keep the whole corrupt system running--against the obvious interest and will of the people.

It is a great example of the problems with concentrating wealth in the hands of the 1% and a political system dominated by a few large fat-cat donors.

If this manages to go viral, William Howard Taft won't know what hit him.

Was George Soros in the ad? Or is it just the ultra-rich who contribute to the GOP. Don't get me wrong both parties and equally destroying this country but I find it funny that it is the GOP big donors who have an agenda while the Democrats are looking out for the common man.

[JPhillips]

Uhhhhhh.

Click the link. It may be different than you imagine.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Uhhhhhh.

Click the link. It may be different than you imagine.

Can't get on it at work. Would seem to be counterproductive for them if it called out all of their donors but kudos to them for exposing corruption in the two party system if it does.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

Can't get on it at work. Would seem to be counterproductive for them if it called out all of their donors but kudos to them for exposing corruption in the two party system if it does.

Originally Posted by article

"The Oldway and the New" is a 1912 campaign film put out by the Democratic National Committee on behalf of candidate Woodrow Wilson. Housed at the Library of Congress, it is the earliest known example of a political party or candidate using the medium of motion picture to communicate with voters...

This film portrays Republican William Howard Taft as a mouthpiece for special interest groups and Woodrow Wilson as a champion of working class citizens aspiring to the ranks of business owners.

I want to make some windmill tilting joke but just don't have the heart

SI

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by panerd

Can't get on it at work. Would seem to be counterproductive for them if it called out all of their donors but kudos to them for exposing corruption in the two party system if it does.

That does ruin the joke/point.

The ad is from 1919. It is believed to be the first moving picture political ad.

And if you added sound, the words "Super PAC," and "Bain Capital," it could have been made today.

It gives me some level of comfort to realize that the sky has been falling for a long time and has yet to actually reach the ground.

EDIT: And, while I have my own opinions on the election, this post wasn't designed to make them. I took on a more partisan tone as part of the (now I realize not worth making) joke. Further, my point is that we have been arguing about this stuff in elections since forever, not that the Republicans have been "wrong" since forever.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Was George Soros in the ad? Or is it just the ultra-rich who contribute to the GOP. Don't get me wrong both parties and equally destroying this country but I find it funny that it is the GOP big donors who have an agenda while the Democrats are looking out for the common man.

I don't get this. Do people really think the country is being destroyed?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't get this. Do people really think the country is being destroyed?

Yes, by the same people that say that Obama is a muslim, commie, socialist, facist, anti-christ.

Of course there are people on the left that think that the corporations are also destroying the country.

One side seems to have a louder voice though.

[flounder]

Whichever party is out of power is convinced that the end of the republic is nigh.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

One side seems to have a louder voice though.

The other side?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by flounder

Whichever party is out of power is convinced that the end of the republic is nigh.

Yup. I heard plenty of people saying that they'd move to Canada or europe if Bush got re-elected, but, to this day, I can't count on a single finger anyone that I know of that moved.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The other side?

Yes.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Yes.

Pretty natural, I suppose.