Election 2012

[rumborak]

Look at MA where Ted Kennedy's seat was taken by a Republican.  No one ever thought that was possible.....

A mistake we intend to rectify this year

rumborak

[kirksnosehair]

Look at MA where Ted Kennedy's seat was taken by a Republican.  No one ever thought that was possible.....

A mistake we intend to rectify this year

rumborak

I'm with ya.  I'll be voting for Liz Warren.

[Scheavo]

Bachmann has never won a statewide election though (though I don't know that she's ever tried). She's popular in her district and that's about it. That's all that matters for a representative. If she were to run for Senate or Governor she would likely lose. At least among those I knew when I lived in Minnesota, she was seen as a joke and a bit of an embarrassment (I did not live in her district).

I guess Minnesota has enough conservative evangelical types to boost a guy like Santorum. For the most part it's a relatively liberal state (at least for the midwest).

They appear to "lean Obama" statewide, but the 2004 presidential election was very close there.....you just never know in politics.  Look at MA where Ted Kennedy's seat was taken by a Republican.  No one ever thought that was possible.....

Against an apparently rather weak Democrat. I'm not sure that fits Obama.

[kirksnosehair]

Bachmann has never won a statewide election though (though I don't know that she's ever tried). She's popular in her district and that's about it. That's all that matters for a representative. If she were to run for Senate or Governor she would likely lose. At least among those I knew when I lived in Minnesota, she was seen as a joke and a bit of an embarrassment (I did not live in her district).

I guess Minnesota has enough conservative evangelical types to boost a guy like Santorum. For the most part it's a relatively liberal state (at least for the midwest).

They appear to "lean Obama" statewide, but the 2004 presidential election was very close there.....you just never know in politics.  Look at MA where Ted Kennedy's seat was taken by a Republican.  No one ever thought that was possible.....

Against an apparently rather weak Democrat. I'm not sure that fits Obama.

Right, Obama's more of a weak Republican 

[unklejman]

Strong Corporitist.

[Super Dude]

Because none of his Republican predecessors were strong corporatists.

[unklejman]

Because none of his Republican predecessors were strong corporatists.

Because?

[Scheavo]

Or that Romney isn't way more corporatist than Obama.

Strong Corporitist.

What makes him a strong corporatist? I'll agree that governmental policy while he has been President has been Corporatist, but it seems like decreasingly less so, and Obama isn't the King.  He was also against Citizens United pretty quickly and publicly.

[kirksnosehair]

Obama is the best presidential candidate that isn't Mitt Romney that I can think of in the coming election. 

 

[unklejman]

Obama is a corporatist because his policies favor certain corporations, whether it be corporate bailouts, the health care bill, cap and trade, or continued endless war in the middle east.


I don't know why you guys keep bringing up other people who are corporatists. They don't have any bearing on Obama being a corporatist. 

[Super Dude]

Obama is a corporatist because his policies favor certain corporations, whether it be corporate bailouts, the health care bill, cap and trade, or continued endless war in the middle east.

>Implying that no Republican would ever dare do such a thing.

[unklejman]

I've yet to make any such implications.

[MasterShakezula]

I'm pretty sure both parties have their share of guilt.

[Super Dude]

I would also like to point out that some of the corporate bailouts were actually not his doing but Bush's (although your speaking about them like they were a bad thing befuddles me), people have been proposing that health care legislation at least since the 90s and the person just before Obama was actually Mitt Romney, cap and trade doesn't belong to him as far as I can tell (I thought it was a Gore idea anyway), and the endless wars are Bush's and Obama actually managed to end one of them.

[Scheavo]

Obama is a corporatist because his policies favor certain corporations, whether it be corporate bailouts, the health care bill, cap and trade, or continued endless war in the middle east.

Obama didn't do much bailing out, that's historically inaccurate. The health care bill was written by Congress, it wasn't written by Obama, and Obama has voiced support in the past for a single-payer system, and was somewhat of an advocate for at least a public option. Cap and trade isn't motivated by some corporate desire, it's motivated by something else, so it's hard to say he's a corporatist for that. And I think it's equally as weird to claim that corporatism is responsible for why Obama is involved in the Middle East, which is to let the fact go that Obama has reduced our military involvement in the Middle East in a lot of ways (Iraq war is over, Afghanistan War is drawing down).

[rumborak]

3 GOP primaries tomorrow. It's weird to see how Romney now has to battle with Santorum, and Gingrich is back to being a side figure. I'm assuming Paul will trail in most if not all of them.

rumborak

[Riceball]

Obama is a corporatist because his policies favor certain corporations, whether it be corporate bailouts, the health care bill, cap and trade, or continued endless war in the middle east.

I'm impartial when it comes to US politics, but this is an insane conclusion to make. Any decision made by any politician will "favor" certain corporations, as it is these corporations who provide the markets and services that said policy is designed to target.

Or am I missing something?

[lordxizor]

3 GOP primaries tomorrow. It's weird to see how Romney now has to battle with Santorum, and Gingrich is back to being a side figure.

It's almost like the country can't agree on who the "not Romney" candidate should be. If everyone would just rally around one or the other, they might actually have a shot.

[rumborak]

Well, they *will* rally once they're against a common enemy (read: Obama). But yeah, without that enemy it's remarkable to see how internally torn the GOP is.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

Well, we'll see. If Obama can continue to milk this recent economic upturn, I'm hoping he has a shot.

[antigoon]

I really think he's going to crush Romney unless something terrible and unexpected happens.

[kirksnosehair]

There won't be any "crushing" of anything.  Romney is a formidable candidate with a nearly flawless personal history (i.e. no skeletons in his closet to speak of) and he's also well funded.  Obama has a decent shot at reelection with the economy clearly heading in the right direction, but this is nowhere near a done deal.

[antigoon]

Eh, I disagree (about the formidable candidate part). Really don't think he has much of a chance.

[Super Dude]

Also I'd say the corporate raiding thing kinda counts as a skeleton in the closet, even if most probably don't see that as a big deal.

[rumborak]

I'm not certain about Obama's reelection either. One thing that might nip Romney in the bud however is the Romneycare thing. Unless the Democrats are stupid they will roll out the hypocrisy of his stance change, and the fact that even the Republican candidate saw it as a good thing to implement.

rumborak

[lordxizor]

Assuming the economic recovery continues and unemployment goes down, I think Obama will win. Not by a huge margin, but at least a few percentage points. Anyone who either of the major parties nominates is a formidable candidate. There's so much money tied up in these elections, both the Reps and Dems could nominate a potato and it would get 40 percent of the vote.

[rumborak]

I don't think it's necessarily a question about the money. There's "base voters" who will not even consider voting for another party, and every country has those. My parents have been voting conservative for a long time, and now they just do it out of habit.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

I'm not certain about Obama's reelection either. One thing that might nip Romney in the bud however is the Romneycare thing. Unless the Democrats are stupid they will roll out the hypocrisy of his stance change, and the fact that even the Republican candidate saw it as a good thing to implement.

rumborak

Yeah, that will be important, but another thing I think would help Obama's cause is the fact that he recently went to Congress seeking to downsize the federal government.

By the way, does anyone know what happened to that?

Fake edit: Also, young people who voted for Obama in the last election who are now turning to Paul will probably not vote for Romney.

[lordxizor]

young people who voted for Obama in the last election who are now turning to Paul

Not sure if it's the same group of young people changing to Paul or if it's a new set of young voters, but this is kind of interesting. To me it says that young people see the need for radical change to the way things work. Obama was supposed to be a change, but he's basically more of the same in most cases. Paul (though at the opposite end of the spectrum politically) is a radical change from the status quo. It's almost like young people don't really care what the change is, they just realize there needs to be a change.

[Super Dude]

From my own personal experience, I know there are at least *some* 2008 voters who are making the switch, although there is certainly a constituency of Obama faithfuls (myself included). Although I hadn't thought of that, you could be right.

As to the remark about Paul being a radical change, there was an interesting op-ed about him in New York Times today, one that explains his political background. Based on what I saw, I'm not sure whether I'd call it a radical change (or at least one that moves forward rather than backward), and it disturbs me a little what the basis of his political philosophy is.

For those who are interested: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/us/politics/for-ron-paul-a-distinctive-worldview-of-long-standing.html?src=me&ref=general

[rumborak]

It's almost like young people don't really care what the change is, they just realize there needs to be a change.

I made that point a while ago. In Germany the same kind of young people turn Communist and try to effect the "rEVOLution" that way. And I think it also shows that there is essentially a hard limit to the support RP can really get nation-wide. RP suggests very drastic measures, and he currently benefits from the recession. Every time things aren't good, people (especially the young) look towards extreme solutions (my home country having been a prime example). I think if the economy is steadily coming up this year, his support will immediately go back to the small levels it used to be.

rumborak

[jsem]

Minnesota could be a Paul win. He has enough support to win it, but the campaign has for some reason had trouble getting out the young vote. It could actually go any way though, any of the four candidates could win there.

[rumborak]

Well, it's young people. As willing as they are to look for extreme measures, as quickly does their attention fade to something else. That isn't a problem of the RP campaign, that's a plain function of age Voter turnout amongst the young is low across the world.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

And lowest in the U.S., I think.

Anyway, I'm guessing there hasn't been any news on the Obama six-agency merger proposal?

[TL]

Apparently Santorum is expected to do well in Minnesota. Yeah, I have no idea why either.

Also, I love how Missouri has both a Primary and a Caucus, with all of the delegates determined by the caucus, basically rendering tonight's primary there pointless.