Election 2012

[Super Dude]

I'm not talking about OWS. I'm talking about people in power who would publicly decry what he did. That was valuable. Instead of all the Bush Administration crap being an aberration, it's now just the way we do things.

Maybe I wasn't politically aware at the time, but I don't remember much of that either, tbh. And it certainly doesn't happen now.

[kirksnosehair]

Oh ofcourse, and I think unemployment will be 7.x by November, so it will be well off its highs.

Also: from an outsiders perspective, I can't see what Obama has done wrong.

1. He exists
2. He's not a Republican
3. He's.....um.......yeah, I went there

Lather, rinse, repeat.

You see the bumper stickers posted herein?

[antigoon]

There definitely was. Another piece discussing botched drone/cluster bomb attacks I posted about before mentions it as well.

Why We Should Care More About 'Blowback' From U.S. Foreign Policy

President Obama is likely to campaign in part on his repeated successes in killing various al-Qaeda members, Osama bin Laden foremost among them. It's perfectly legitimate for him to do so. But the various assessments of Obama's foreign policy record, whether offered by the mainstream media, the conservative press, or the Republican presidential candidates, almost invariably ignore the cost of waging undeclared, under-the-radar drone and missile wars in numerous Muslim countries. During the Bush Administration, the blowback critique was commonplace. It even persisted into the early days of current administration. Said Obama himself:

"Instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al-Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists than it ever detained."

But now that establishment Democrats have one of their own in office and are less inclined to advance the blowback critique, almost no one is doing it. Look at our sad loyal opposition: It's a political liability to be seen as overly apologetic to foreigners. A single press conference about American exceptionalism has generated critical mentions for years. But a bungled raid that kills dozens of innocents? Opinion polls positing that Obama is less popular in the Arab world than Bush? Aren't those major fails? Neither Republicans nor mainstream Democrats act like it. 

[Rathma]

I think that whoever becomes the Republican candidate will gain the majority support of whoever doesn't want Obama as president.  So I would think so.  If they're smart they'll vote for someone no matter who the candidate is.

Some Evangelicals really dislike "cults" though. And it's clear with the Obama-Muslim thing that religion is a pretty big deal to many. I'ts reasonable to doubt whether a Catholic could have ever won if running as a Republican.

[Super Dude]

The question then is if Evangelicals prefer a "Muslim" or a Mormon.

[Rathma]

Well both are far too deep in alliance with the devil, see. If Romney is chosen I predict that a good number of Evangelicals will either refrain from voting or vote for a third-party candidate.

P.S. I take back my comment on Catholics, I forgot that Santorum was a Catholic and that Evangelicals pretty much back him.

[the Catfishman]

I can't believe the Obama/Muslin thing is still a ...thing, I love US politics.

[King Postwhore]

I can't believe the Obama/Muslin thing is still a ...thing, I love US politics.

I haven't heard much of this nonsense in a long time but I do live in the north.

[Implode]

I can't believe the Obama/Muslin thing is still a ...thing, I love US politics.

I haven't heard much of this nonsense in a long time but I do live on a college campus.

fixed for me. We're so snooty.

[TL]

I can't believe the Obama/Muslin thing is still a ...thing, I love US politics.

To be fair, if the people harping on that gave it up, they'd just pick another blatantly false thing to complain about. It's a crowd that can't be won over by things like 'facts' or 'reality'.

Anyway, we have a couple of contests this weekend, sort of.
Today, we have 'Missouri: This time, for realzies'. You may recall that Missouri had a primary back in early February. Santorum won with 55% to Romney's 25%. However, because of the amazing consistency of this primary season, that primary actually never counted for anything, and they're going to have a closed, super secret caucus today, which the earlier primary will have no relation to. Like in the other caucuses, they're electing delegates to the state convention, where delegates will be chosen to go to the national convention in August. There will be no public vote, because technically that's what the primary was.

Tomorrow, we have Guam. Santorum has been campaigning there. During one campaign stop, he told them that if they want to be a state (which more than half of Guam residents don't), they have to speak english as their main language, because it's required by federal law. The two problems with that are of course that;
a) There is no such law. He actually mentioned that there should be in one of the GOP debates, so he's aware of this. Or he at least was, and forgot.
b) Typically, when you want people to vote for you, you don't walk into their home and tell them to stop speaking their non-english funny speak.

[Implode]

I'm back home for spring break, which means that I'm in a place where people watch TV often. God I forgot how much I hate political ads. There's a particular one against Santorum/for Romney that's trying to say that Romney is the best GOP candidate since Reagan. And everyone here is saying that Obama is basically Reagan. It's all stupid and confusing and blargh. Politics.

[rumborak]

TL, are you sure tomorrow is Guam? I'm pretty sure the schedule said Puerto Rico, and that whole statehood discussion was about PR, not Guam. I don't think Guam wants to be a state, do they? (I think it would be ludicrous. The place is north of Australia, and has 150k people)

rumborak

[TL]

TL, are you sure tomorrow is Guam? I'm pretty sure the schedule said Puerto Rico, and that whole statehood discussion was about PR, not Guam. I don't think Guam wants to be a state, do they? (I think it would be ludicrous. The place is north of Australia, and has 150k people)

rumborak

I was in fact wrong. It is Puerto Rico.
Take my post, but swap out Guam with Puerto Rico. Guam was back on the 10th.

[rumborak]

I personally reject PR statehood because I can't see where that additional star would go in the flag.

Regarding Santorum, I take it he's (probably correctly) writing off the Latino vote, and thus uses PR to score cheap points among the WASP constituency.

rumborak

[Rathma]

I personally reject PR statehood because I can't see where that additional star would go in the flag.

[ReaPsTA]

Rick Santorum has to be suffering from some kind of mental disorder, right?  Every time he opens his mouth, he destroys his ability to win a national election.

[rumborak]

You'd almost think he was paid by Obama, yeah.

rumborak

[ReaPsTA]

You'd almost think he was paid by Obama, yeah.

rumborak

Seriously.

Between the corporate welfare, ungraceful foreign policy, and general inability to lead, it's not like Obama's been a great president.  It's like all the Republican candidates are plants by Obama to say "hey guys, I'm not great, but look at my competition.  Vote Obama 2012.  Thank you, thank you."

Three interesting sub-plots of this election so far:

 - At the very start of the Republican primary season, all the big name and respected Republicans sat this election out.  They wanted more political experience and didn't want to go up against Obama, who was polling well at the time.  But for the last few months, Obama has not done particularly well.  There's a sense things are worse in the country and he's doing nothing to handle them.  For a few weeks, he was polling about even with Romney in particular.  At that point, I wonder if all the bigger Republicans were kicking themselves for not seeing this coming?  But then again...

 - We're essentially seeing the minor league of the Republican party right now.  Chris Christie (governor of New Jersey) is probably as well liked as Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich combined.  I'd gladly vote for him.  He can actually run a government.  Fundamentally, the three main Republicans are bad at politics.  It's virtually always bad to overtly play dirty.  People fundamentally believe you should be able to rise above dirty tactics, and instead the Republicans are chosing to make it worse.  If you're Chris Christie, one of the most respected politicians in the country, why do you want your name dragged through the mud by these three doofuses?

 - It's always been suggested, directly or indirectly, by the left that the Republican party and the right are anti-woman.  Now, the idea is quickly gaining mainstream acceptance.  When potentially half the voting population thinks you think of them as animals, isn't that potential death for your party?

[TL]

The GOP have more or less lost the Hispanic vote this time around.
George W. Bush got something like 48% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. McCain got about 42 or 43%.
Currently, the Republican candidate that would get the highest turnout among Hispanic voters is Romney... with 17%. Santorum does considerably worse.

This is why, as far fetched as it may seem, a Santorum candidacy puts Texas in play, with its rapidly increasing Hispanic population. It could even make Arizona of all places a non-sure thing for Republicans; Arizona is basically extremely Republican voters vs a growing Hispanic population. McCain won Arizona with about 1.2 million votes to Obama's 1 million, which is closer than most would have expected. That said, Romney would still have it more or less in the bag. It's more a sign of how badly Santorum does among certain demographics.

[rumborak]

Regarding Chris Christie, interestingly my sister was au pair for the guy, and she told me he was pretty despotic at home.
Which plays into your other comment about the anti-woman thing. There's a part of the GOP who want that stuff. And then there's the part that's socially progressive. And then there's the plain racists etc etc. I think the biggest problem of the GOP is that it tries to harbor a too-wide range of individuals at this point. Every time it shifts into one direction, it leaves people behind on the opposite end.

rumborak

[ReaPsTA]

I don't see why the GOP has such a hard time with the hispanic vote.  They want to be treated like human beings.  Saying that you want English to be the official language creates a conflict, yes.  But ultimately, you can argue your position.  Most countries have an official language.  Multiple languages create cultural divides.  Countries need a common culture to survive.  No rational person would disagree with this.

But when you say, explicitly or implicitly, that children of illegal immigrant parents who attend college, speak English, and want to be American citizens need to be labeled as outsiders and deported, you're going to lose everytime, because now you're saying they don't fully deserve to be treated as human beings.

[rumborak]

IMHO, the real solution to the problem would be to allow parties to form coalitions. In parliamentary governments a party like the GOP would long have split up into more ideologically coherent sub-units. Assuming the Democrats would undergo a similar split, the two center parties could form a coalition, not having to deal with the extreme shit on both sides. The smaller extreme fringe parties would realize they have to become more moderate in order to have any importance, leading to all parties having to focus on the important issues. As it is right now, the tail is wagging the dog with all those fringe views dominating the Republican party, because the GOP (probably rightly) believes it can't ignore those views.

rumborak

[ReaPsTA]

Regarding Chris Christie, interestingly my sister was au pair for the guy, and she told me he was pretty despotic at home.

Interesting.

Which plays into your other comment about the anti-woman thing. There's a part of the GOP who want that stuff. And then there's the part that's socially progressive. And then there's the plain racists etc etc.

Yeah... I know all too well.

The thing is, up until now it was about the idea of when life begins.  There's a real debate to be had about when a fetus becomes a person.  If a woman is carrying a person inside her, the issue isn't her body, it's killing another human being.  This debate can be had in good faith.

But two things seemed to have happened.  The tone of the pro-choice side has shifted to a place where they no longer even acknowledge the idea a zygote/fetus/whatever is a person.  By doing this, the possibility of having a debate about the issue that exists in reality doesn't exist.  Just as wrongly, the pro-life side has starting going after birth control, which is considered acceptable by something like 90% of the country.  Both sides have chosen to make the debate about ideology.  But, if this is the case, the left will win by default.  People want to have sex and avoid raising unwanted children.

I think the biggest problem of the GOP is that it tries to harbor a too-wide range of individuals at this point. Every time it shifts into one direction, it leaves people behind on the opposite end.

Maybe.  The issue has more to do with social conservatism.  Pot and gay marriage will almost certainly both be legalized nationally within the next 20 years.  Abstinence before marriage (straight or otherwise) is considered a joke by anyone without an ideological reason to to chose the belief.  The internet has caused porn to be a part of everyday life.  In twenty years, will even a significant minority identify with the beliefs that are traditionally considered socially conservative?

The GOP needs to be future-minded.  Social conservatism isn't as much about specific policies as it is about attitude.  Instead of saying "social conservatism meant this in the 1950's and that's what it should mean forever," the GOP should look at what socially conservative people think today and try to appeal to them.  This might come as a shock, but the evangelical voting bloc doesn't seem to be growing.  You have to cut ties with them eventually.

IMHO, the real solution to the problem would be to allow parties to form coalitions. In parliamentary governments a party like the GOP would long have split up into more ideologically coherent sub-units. Assuming the Democrats would undergo a similar split, the two center parties could form a coalition, not having to deal with the extreme shit on both sides. The smaller extreme fringe parties would realize they have to become more moderate in order to have any importance, leading to all parties having to focus on the important issues. As it is right now, the tail is wagging the dog with all those fringe views dominating the Republican party, because the GOP (probably rightly) believes it can't ignore those views.

rumborak

In a broad sense, I don't disagree.  In America, you'd need four parties to accurately represent how people think;  the social conservative party, the kinda libertarian party, the conservative democrat party, and the leftist party.

[TL]

What would be really interesting to see, and would never happen in a million years, is the US switching to a 538 seat parliamentary system. I think they would very quickly migrate away from the two party system in such a hypothetical.

On another note, I'm thinking of putting together a group projection when we get a bit closer to the general, and have the nominees selected. Basically, going state by state, with people having a quick debate over who they think will win the vote there, and why, and then casting votes, with the projection going to the majority (again, based on who you think will win, not who you want to win). It could be interesting to see how accurately we as a group could predict the results.
I'll see if I can work out a good system for that.

Edit: It would be 438 seats if they just used the current congressional districts, since a state's electoral votes are literally "number of congressional districts, plus 2".

[rumborak]

What would be really interesting to see, and would never happen in a million years, is the US switching to a 538 seat parliamentary system. I think they would very quickly migrate away from the two party system in such a hypothetical.

What's really troublesome to me is the utter lack of public discourse about the shortcomings of whatever system the US is in. Look at the electoral system which really has nothing to do with fair elections, fair in the sense that every citizen has equal say in the future of the country.

rumborak

[ReaPsTA]

What's really troublesome to me is the utter lack of public discourse about the shortcomings of whatever system the US is in. Look at the electoral system which really has nothing to do with fair elections, fair in the sense that every citizen has equal say in the future of the country.

rumborak

This was done purposefully.  The intent was to make sure heavy population centers didn't have the political ability to chose a president that would impose their political will on less populated areas.  If we had a simple popular vote, why would you even campaign in, say, the Dakotas?

The winner-take-all system is maddening though.  And congress is clearly a broken institution.

[Scheavo]

What's really troublesome to me is the utter lack of public discourse about the shortcomings of whatever system the US is in. Look at the electoral system which really has nothing to do with fair elections, fair in the sense that every citizen has equal say in the future of the country.

rumborak

This was done purposefully.  The intent was to make sure heavy population centers didn't have the political ability to chose a president that would impose their political will on less populated areas.  If we had a simple popular vote, why would you even campaign in, say, the Dakotas?

The winner-take-all system is maddening though.  And congress is clearly a broken institution.

Why would you even campaign in the Dakotas now?

[Super Dude]

Y'know as a high schooler I never thought it would happen but I'm fully pro-pot legalization now. We'll empty the jails, fill in the national labor market, and end Mexican drug wars if we can just legalize and regulate the damn thing.

[jsem]

Lol. End the Mexican drug wars with just pot legalization? Wishful thinking if you'd ask me. If you want to solve the real problem you have to decriminalize HARD drugs.

[rumborak]

And you don't mind paying the inevitable human price?
With your statement there and RP's I'm arriving at the conclusion that being Libertarian means being apathetic.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

Not to mention how the FP statements and a bunch of things he's said about free markets where failures are involved betray the reckless oversimplification of everything inherent in said ideology.

[j]

Lol. End the Mexican drug wars with just pot legalization? Wishful thinking if you'd ask me. If you want to solve the real problem you have to decriminalize HARD drugs.

Weed makes up like 60% of their product.  It would be a significant blow.

-J

[jsem]

And you don't mind paying the inevitable human price?
With your statement there and RP's I'm arriving at the conclusion that being Libertarian means being apathetic.

rumborak

The inevitable human price? Elaborate.

And apathetic? Just because I don't want to use violence to solve a certain social problem, that of drug abuse, makes me apathetic. Yeah, I can definitely see the reasoning behind that. If a guy next door likes to do cocaine, I'm not going to go in there and hold a gun to his head, kidnap him and put him in a cage.

[rumborak]

Ugh. What's the point.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

And apathetic? Just because I don't want to use violence to solve a certain social problem, that of drug abuse, makes me apathetic. Yeah, I can definitely see the reasoning behind that. If a guy next door likes to do cocaine, I'm not going to go in there and hold a gun to his head, kidnap him and put him in a cage.

That's funny since that's pretty much what we've been doing up until now. Legalizing pot (and I never said hard drugs, only pot) would go really far in allowing us to stop such nonsense.

But seriously, a legal but regulated pot market could do so much for our economy right now. Remember that ailing economy with its labor shortage?

Oh, and before the accusations start rolling in, I have never and I will never unless under dire duress (i.e. requiring the medical variety) try pot, and I've never and will never under any circumstances whatsoever try any form of hard drugs. It's a personal choice, and it's only my politics regarding the matter that have changed.