Author Topic: Election 2012 (Read 233558 times)

jsem · « **Reply #735 on:** January 07, 2012, 03:45:59 PM »

Scheavo, I heard you talking about RP @ corporate personhood some while back:

"The corporation itself isn't a person, only we as individuals are"
- RP @ University of New Hampshire Town Hall

But substantively, Paul doesn't favor campaign finance reform. I think he'd be in favor of full transparency of who's donating, but can't tell for sure.

It's a sad thing. Public finance isn't perfect, but might actually be better than the current system in the US. Sweden's system of elections totally protects the status quo, the unions have a stranglehold over the political situation, and the only possible changes are really minor in the steps toward freedom. The corruption in terms of corporate influence is MUCH less though, you don't have lobbyists flocking Stockholm. Public finance would be a net benefit to the US election system.

Scheavo · « **Reply #736 on:** January 07, 2012, 04:46:21 PM »

RP's quote doesn't really answer the question.

If there was a small donation limit to campaign contribution, and require that such contributions come from a single person, and not a corporation, I'd be fine. You're going to have to build somewhat of a base to campaign, you can't go to a few people, get money, and get famous by running a few TV ads.

Also,

Buddy Roehmer.

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

4th video down.

rumborak · « **Reply #737 on:** January 07, 2012, 05:27:36 PM »

If you want to reform something, I would say limit the time of campaigning. I mean, seriously, campaigning for 7 months, to nominate the candidate?! And then another 4 months of campaigning for the actual election?!! Candidates need inordinate amounts of money to do that.

rumborak

Scheavo · « **Reply #738 on:** January 07, 2012, 06:27:25 PM »

Quote from: rumborak on January 07, 2012, 05:27:36 PM

If you want to reform something, I would say limit the time of campaigning. I mean, seriously, campaigning for 7 months, to nominate the candidate?! And then another 4 months of campaigning for the actual election?!! Candidates need inordinate amounts of money to do that.

rumborak

Why not just limit the money, and then let that dictate the amount of time they can run? Trying to set the amount of time seems weird to me, especially considering it still wouldn't deal with corruption in the political system.

King Postwhore · « **Reply #739 on:** January 08, 2012, 07:07:39 PM »

Quote from: Scheavo on January 07, 2012, 06:27:25 PM

Quote from: rumborak on January 07, 2012, 05:27:36 PM
If you want to reform something, I would say limit the time of campaigning. I mean, seriously, campaigning for 7 months, to nominate the candidate?! And then another 4 months of campaigning for the actual election?!! Candidates need inordinate amounts of money to do that.

rumborak

Why not just limit the money, and then let that dictate the amount of time they can run? Trying to set the amount of time seems weird to me, especially considering it still wouldn't deal with corruption in the political system.

This is the right call. In the end we lessen the payola the candidates take in.

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #740 on:** January 09, 2012, 08:54:32 AM »

I'll take it one step further and say that limiting the TIME to campaign could even encourage more corruption because then you've got an even more intense race to come up with as much money as possible to outspend your opponents. Cut the head off the beast. The money is the head, not the time.

rumborak · « **Reply #741 on:** January 09, 2012, 09:10:28 AM »

The problem with making it money-based is, the value of money changes, the value of time doesn't. So, you'd be in a constant battle over how much money is an appropriate amount, over and over again, just like Congress salary increases. When going by time, that wouldn't be an issue.

rumborak

rumborak · « **Reply #742 on:** January 09, 2012, 11:49:03 AM »

So, what's everybody's guess at who quits next? Santorum seems a likely candidate is NH turns out bad for him; apparently he has almost no money left. Huntsman sadly seems another likely candidate, which is a bummer because he's the only reasonable in the bunch.

rumborak

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #743 on:** January 09, 2012, 12:20:06 PM »

Quote from: rumborak on January 09, 2012, 09:10:28 AM

The problem with making it money-based is, the value of money changes, the value of time doesn't. So, you'd be in a constant battle over how much money is an appropriate amount, over and over again, just like Congress salary increases. When going by time, that wouldn't be an issue.

rumborak

Nah, just weight it on the inflation rate like they do with welfare.

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #744 on:** January 09, 2012, 12:26:15 PM »

Quote from: rumborak on January 09, 2012, 11:49:03 AM

So, what's everybody's guess at who quits next? Santorum seems a likely candidate is NH turns out bad for him; apparently he has almost no money left. Huntsman sadly seems another likely candidate, which is a bummer because he's the only reasonable in the bunch.

rumborak

My best guess based on the most current polling trends is Gingrich and Perry will be out, probably after Florida. Romney will lock up the nomination on Super Tuesday, most likely.

rumborak · « **Reply #745 on:** January 09, 2012, 12:33:26 PM »

Wow, hadn't seen the Gingrich dip in SC yet in the polls. Yeah, that was it for him. No candidate has managed to recover from a dip so far.
It's interesting how Paul just trudges on with his 10-20% in the various states, despite the massive fluctuations of the other candidates. He really polarizes people; either pople stand to him no matter what, or they consider him patently unelectable. Unless he manages to generate major momentum soon, I think Florida and SC will break his back though. In both states he's not exceeding 10%.

rumborak

Scheavo · « **Reply #746 on:** January 09, 2012, 12:37:49 PM »

Quote from: rumborak on January 09, 2012, 11:49:03 AM

So, what's everybody's guess at who quits next? Santorum seems a likely candidate is NH turns out bad for him; apparently he has almost no money left. Huntsman sadly seems another likely candidate, which is a bummer because he's the only reasonable in the bunch.

rumborak

Actually, Huntsman's getting more coverage and attention lately - even negative ads against him.

rumborak · « **Reply #747 on:** January 09, 2012, 12:40:14 PM »

Seriously, I would LOVE to see a Huntsman vs. Obama race. Because that would force the two to discuss REAL issues, not bullshit like wars on religion and who has experienced more trauma in some war (what a dick-waving contest that was in the debate!)

rumborak

Scheavo · « **Reply #748 on:** January 09, 2012, 12:50:11 PM »

I think their history would probably make it more of a topic of real issues than anything else. Obama never really went off on McCain like he could have last time, he tried to keep it on more real issues, and Huntsman seems like someone who has the same desire. I think they have a good relationship, which would also go a long ways too.

antigoon · « **Reply #749 on:** January 09, 2012, 01:02:54 PM »

They seem pretty similar to me, actually.

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #750 on:** January 09, 2012, 01:06:27 PM »

Quote from: rumborak on January 09, 2012, 12:33:26 PM

Wow, hadn't seen the Gingrich dip in SC yet in the polls. Yeah, that was it for him. No candidate has managed to recover from a dip so far.
It's interesting how Paul just trudges on with his 10-20% in the various states, despite the massive fluctuations of the other candidates. He really polarizes people; either pople stand to him no matter what, or they consider him patently unelectable. Unless he manages to generate major momentum soon, I think Florida and SC will break his back though. In both states he's not exceeding 10%.

rumborak

I never really thought Gingrich would get as much steam as he did. Way too much personal baggage. Remember, this is a guy who paid a $300k fine and resigned as Speaker of the House under a fairly substantial ethics violation cloud. A guy like that just isn't going to get too far in an election. He did OK for a while in Iowa, I think, on his name recognition and early debate performances, but once the attack ads were rolled out by the pro-Romney PACs and people started either remembering (or being told about) how corrupt he actually was when he held office, his numbers took a nose dive and they've never recovered, and I don't think they will. His days are numbered. Huntsman never had a chance. Perry self-destructed with his "oops moment" combined with 3 consecutive terrible debate performances and Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul. He's unelectable at this level, he always has been. He IS a *slight* wild card because I think with this being his final realistic shot at higher office, he could (25% chance I'd say) launch an independent bid for the White House as a way of saying "Fuck You" to the Republican establishment for never giving him his shot. If he does that, he ensures an Obama victory and I just don't know if he's quite that bitter and vindictive.....possible, bot not probable.

Mitt Romney's the nominee and if the DNC or Obama fumbles, even just a little bit, Romney's the next president.

jsem · « **Reply #751 on:** January 09, 2012, 01:27:22 PM »

They're just setting this up for an Obama win in 2012.. oh boy.

Super Dude · « **Reply #752 on:** January 09, 2012, 01:47:42 PM »

There are only three things that prevent me from supporting Huntsman. These are his stances on abortion, support for the Keystone XL pipeline, and his bid to reduce corporate taxes. Otherwise I might have even chosen him over Obama.

lordxizor · « **Reply #753 on:** January 09, 2012, 01:49:36 PM »

Quote from: jsem on January 09, 2012, 01:27:22 PM

They're just setting this up for an Obama win in 2012.. oh boy.

Yep, this is going to be just like 2004. A president ready for defeat, but the other party couldn't come up with a good candidate. For the record, I don't think Romney is too bad, but is anyone out there really all that excited about him? I like that he's moderate, but beyond that there's not much to get excited about.

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #754 on:** January 09, 2012, 01:50:05 PM »

Quote from: jsem on January 09, 2012, 01:27:22 PM

They're just setting this up for an Obama win in 2012.. oh boy.

They? Who is "They?"

Romney is a formidable opponent. And Obama hasn't exactly been the rock star as President Obama as he was as Candidate Obama. Voter apathy on the Democrat side is going to hurt him and his support among independents as well as progressives has slid.

If it comes down to Obama or Romney I definitely want Obama to win but it's certainly not going to be the cakewalk on easy street that some people are making it out to be. Not against Romney.

Here's the current polling in a General Election match-up. Well within the margin of error. It's basically a tie at this point.

rumborak · « **Reply #755 on:** January 09, 2012, 01:58:27 PM »

I think whatever goes down this year will easily decide the election. If for example the economy continues to pick up (and not just the occasional slight updrift), Obama will look good. If Iran goes apeshit, Romney will be favored.

rumborak

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #756 on:** January 09, 2012, 02:10:15 PM »

Quote from: rumborak on January 09, 2012, 01:58:27 PM

I think whatever goes down this year will easily decide the election. If for example the economy continues to pick up (and not just the occasional slight updrift), Obama will look good. If Iran goes apeshit, Romney will be favored.

rumborak

I agree with that. In fact, I think the economy is one place where Obama may have an edge now, because it appears to have bottomed out and things are picking up again. I also think the "Iran threat" has been massively overblown and overhyped by the neocon wing of the Republican party. I'd say at this point the election may even be Obama's to lose, but he hasn't shown me anything in the last 4 years that make me very confident, with a couple of rare exceptions like the auto-industry bail out. I also think the he's done "OK" on foreign policy.

rumborak · « **Reply #757 on:** January 09, 2012, 02:36:29 PM »

Holy crap, what a bad wording. Romney says he "like being able to fire people":

https://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/01/mitt-romney-says-like-being-able-fire-people-new-hampshire-event/DSLNx9xGGR7KhEiyXEHVJI/index.html?p1=News_links

Obama definitely had his DVR running on that one.

rumborak

jsem · « **Reply #758 on:** January 09, 2012, 03:02:53 PM »

Quote from: kirksnosehair on January 09, 2012, 01:50:05 PM

Quote from: jsem on January 09, 2012, 01:27:22 PM
They're just setting this up for an Obama win in 2012.. oh boy.

They? Who is "They?"

Romney is a formidable opponent. And Obama hasn't exactly been the rock star as President Obama as he was as Candidate Obama. Voter apathy on the Democrat side is going to hurt him and his support among independents as well as progressives has slid.

If it comes down to Obama or Romney I definitely want Obama to win but it's certainly not going to be the cakewalk on easy street that some people are making it out to be. Not against Romney.

Here's the current polling in a General Election match-up. Well within the margin of error. It's basically a tie at this point.

The republicans. They can't rally enthusiastically between anyone. The only reason Romney is leading is because of his supposed "electability".

Obama would DESTROY Romney, and quite frankly, all other candidates but Huntsman. Or perhaps Roemer.
Paul is a different story, there's no telling what would happen - but the GOP cannot go on without his base, they're here to stay.

rumborak · « **Reply #759 on:** January 09, 2012, 03:19:23 PM »

jsem, if you think Obama would destroy Romney, he would OBLITERATE Paul. Paul looks good against the backdrop of obscenely bizarre GOP candidates. When compared to a moderate candidate like Obama, he would come across as that "crazy neighbor", as somebody referred to him today in a video of NH residents' reactions.

rumborak

jsem · « **Reply #760 on:** January 09, 2012, 03:21:47 PM »

I do think Obama would win against Paul, pretty significantly. But the revolution WILL go on, and will attract even more people. The campaign is not only working for Ron Paul, this is a long term revolution of the minds.

Eventually, Rand Paul will become POTUS.

pogoowner · « **Reply #761 on:** January 09, 2012, 03:26:08 PM »

Quote from: jsem on January 09, 2012, 03:21:47 PM

I do think Obama would win against Paul, pretty significantly. But the revolution WILL go on, and will attract even more people. The campaign is not only working for Ron Paul, this is a long term revolution of the minds.

Eventually, Rand Paul will become POTUS.

Look, I'm as big a supporter of the Ron Paul movement as anyone, but I don't see that happening.

chknptpie · « **Reply #762 on:** January 09, 2012, 03:26:39 PM »

Quote from: rumborak on January 09, 2012, 02:36:29 PM

Holy crap, what a bad wording. Romney says he "like being able to fire people":

https://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/01/mitt-romney-says-like-being-able-fire-people-new-hampshire-event/DSLNx9xGGR7KhEiyXEHVJI/index.html?p1=News_links

Obama definitely had his DVR running on that one.

rumborak

In terms of context, he likes to be able to choose his services, but yes very bad wording indeed!

Also this:

Quote

When Kushner held an impromptu news conference after the event had finished, the Romney campaign instructed the individual operating the music to increase the volume to a decibel so loud, nobody could hear the woman speak.

https://news.yahoo.com/romney-likes-being-able-fire-people-174752665--abc-news.html

jsem · « **Reply #763 on:** January 09, 2012, 04:39:03 PM »

Quote from: pogoowner on January 09, 2012, 03:26:08 PM

Quote from: jsem on January 09, 2012, 03:21:47 PM
I do think Obama would win against Paul, pretty significantly. But the revolution WILL go on, and will attract even more people. The campaign is not only working for Ron Paul, this is a long term revolution of the minds.

Eventually, Rand Paul will become POTUS.
Look, I'm as big a supporter of the Ron Paul movement as anyone, but I don't see that happening.

It will happen, mark my words.

Implode · « **Reply #764 on:** January 09, 2012, 04:58:52 PM »

What's POTUS?

rumborak · « **Reply #765 on:** January 09, 2012, 04:59:37 PM »

President of the US

Implode · « **Reply #766 on:** January 09, 2012, 10:45:31 PM »

Wow, I'm bad with acronyms.

Gorille85 · « **Reply #767 on:** January 10, 2012, 12:52:36 AM »

The end is near.

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #768 on:** January 10, 2012, 09:27:20 AM »

Quote from: jsem on January 09, 2012, 04:39:03 PM

Quote from: pogoowner on January 09, 2012, 03:26:08 PM
Quote from: jsem on January 09, 2012, 03:21:47 PM
I do think Obama would win against Paul, pretty significantly. But the revolution WILL go on, and will attract even more people. The campaign is not only working for Ron Paul, this is a long term revolution of the minds.

Eventually, Rand Paul will become POTUS.
Look, I'm as big a supporter of the Ron Paul movement as anyone, but I don't see that happening.
It will happen, mark my words.

jsem · « **Reply #769 on:** January 10, 2012, 11:01:16 AM »

Yeah. Laugh all you want.

News: Welcome back, Mike Portnoy!

Author Topic: Election 2012 (Read 233558 times)