2012 Elections

tripcrow · Post by **tripcrow** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:57 pm

Ignoring him just doesn’t seem to be working this time around and in spite of the fact that it’ll reveal them even more for what they really are, the establishment is starting to feel the necessity to take it to step 2. At last we’ve found something the Dems and GOP can agree on. Expect the fear mongering BS to increase as Ron Paul moves up. Even though there are many issues Paul would come up short on, the established parties have failed so miserably in most everything that an honest discourse with Paul is out of the question. The GOP primary may come down to fear mongering to save war mongering.

After 41 years as a registered Democrat, I’ve re-registered as an Independent. If Paul is still in contention come the PA primary I’ll switch to Republican just to vote for the guy. At this point in time it is better to have somebody that is right about half of what he stands for, than all these for hires that are at best only part right about anything.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:38 pm

tripcrow wrote:as Ron Paul moves up.

Does what now? He's signaled pretty clearly that he's going to mount a third-party run.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:13 pm

Kraken wrote:
tripcrow wrote:as Ron Paul moves up.
Does what now? He's signaled pretty clearly that he's going to mount a third-party run.

Wow. Does he really love Obama that much?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:34 pm

Holman wrote:
Kraken wrote:
tripcrow wrote:as Ron Paul moves up.
Does what now? He's signaled pretty clearly that he's going to mount a third-party run.
Wow. Does he really love Obama that much?

More realistically, he holds that republican party with little sanctity. It's not like he hasn't been a republican running third party before.

Victoria Raverna · Post by **Victoria Raverna** » Mon Dec 26, 2011 6:34 pm

Newt Gingrich lied about first divorce?

Newt Gingrich claims that it was his first wife, not Gingrich himself, who wanted their divorce in 1980, but court documents obtained by CNN appear to show otherwise.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Mon Dec 26, 2011 7:30 pm

"He (Gingrich) said, 'You know and I know that she's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a president,' " Carter, who now lives in South Carolina, told CNN recently, relating the conversation he had with Gingrich the day Gingrich revealed he was filing for divorce. Carter served as treasurer of Gingrich's first congressional campaigns

Damn, that's cold.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:29 pm

Exodor wrote:
"He (Gingrich) said, 'You know and I know that she's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a president,'

Newcastle · Post by **Newcastle** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:20 pm

so this post is inspired by this article (i havent read it yet, since i dont want it affecting my predictions)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70867.html" target="_blank

so...am curious about people's predictions w/ the caucuses coming around the corner. 1 week to go to the caucses.

Paul- Once he experiences a string of defeats, which face it he will, he's unelectable....he will decide on a third party run, citing a higher calling to the country. Question is will he pull a Nader effect and spoil the eventual winner. Might have a decent showing in Iowa and NH, but i think the longer the contest goes, the further behind he will get.

Santorum - 4th place finish will doom him. If he is thirs...it better be close to first...ie 1st got 22%, 2nd got 19% and third bgot 17%. Anything more distant will cause him to fold. I am betting he is the first to fold. He needs a lights out top 1 finish to really have a chance in the race.

Bachman - Kind of in the same boat as Santorum. anything less than 2nd place will doom her. Realization will dawn on her when she gets spanked in NH & SC. She will outlast Santorum & Huntsman, but she folds after SC. I wouldnt be surprised if she pulls anywhere in the top 3 here. I doubt her long lasting ability though.

Huntsman - Will fold after New Hampshire or South Carolina.

Gingrich - Be interesting how he fares. I bet he stays in it into Florida. Once the Santorum, Bachman folks go out they will have a choice to make between a "true" conservative in Gingrich & Romney, whom they doubt his conservative credentials.

Romney - In it for the long, long haul. The horse to beat.

Perry - I think he folds early too, if he finishes 4th or lower in Iowa he needs to rethink his legacy. He needs to fold up shop and go back to Texas.

SO I am thinking in a months time the race will boil down to Gingrich & Romney as we head out of South Carolina.

New Hampshire will be the key state and really reduce the field.

Newcastle · Post by **Newcastle** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm

The cool thing is, if you are a staffer in Iowa right now and you are overseeing how the phone banking is going you are seeing how the state will break. I recall back in 04 & 08, at this time i saw some serious number shifts in Kerry & Obama's camp respectively. Right now the undecideds are starting to firm up behind a candidate.....what i'd give to see those numbers right now, be interesting to see how it turns out.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:30 pm

I predict that many candidates receive zero votes in the Virginia primary.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:00 pm

Newcastle wrote: Right now the undecideds are starting to firm up behind a candidate.....what i'd give to see those numbers right now, be interesting to see how it turns out.

Snapshot of independent voters in NH

Undeclared voters - who are commonly called independents, and who account for more than 40 percent of New Hampshire’s registered voters - don’t appear poised to derail Romney’s longtime lead over his rivals in New Hampshire. With 39 percent of the overall vote in the UNH Survey Center/Boston Globe poll released Sunday, he had a comfortable margin, and significant support among the independents. Among those independents who have declared their allegiance, 32 percent say they back Romney.

But the 51 percent of independents who remain undecided in the poll still have the ability to shape the race. If they were to splinter among the other candidates, they could erode Romney’s margin, and thus his momentum, and determine the winners of second, third, and fourth places.

...

Paul fares better with independents in New Hampshire than with registered Republicans. According to the UNH Survey Center/Boston Globe poll, 25 percent of independents favor Paul, placing him in second place for them behind Romney.

By contrast, Newt Gingrich and Paul are tied for second among all voters at 17 percent.

Independents also favor Jon Huntsman, with 16 percent saying they would vote for him, compared with 6 percent among registered Republicans and 11 percent overall, the poll showed. The poll’s overall margin of error was plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.

I don't pay any attention to IA; it defines the right-wing fringe but nothing else.

I agree that Paul is likely to mount a spoiler candidacy based on multiple strong 2nd and 3rd place finishes. I also think that Americans Elect may still come up with a surprise (Bloomberg?).

I thought Perry and Bachman had already dropped out.

Their 15 minutes are over.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:36 pm

I didn't know this, but here are the details on the NH primary (wikipedia):

It is not a closed primary, in which votes can be cast in a party primary only by people registered with that party. Undeclared voters — those not registered with any party — can vote in either party primary. However, it does not meet a common definition of an open primary, because people registered as Republican or Democrat on voting day cannot cast ballots in the primary of the other party.[1]

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:59 pm

Kraken wrote:
Exodor wrote:
"He (Gingrich) said, 'You know and I know that she's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a president,'

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 9:07 pm

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) is out.

Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, said Tuesday that he wouldn't seek re-election in November, a potential boost to Republican prospects for gaining control of the Senate.

Mr. Nelson, 70 years old, a centrist Democrat representing a conservative state, faced a difficult re-election campaign. With his retirement, Democrats could have an even tougher time holding onto the seat.
...
Democrats hold a 53-47 advantage in the Senate, but 23 Democrats face re-election or plan to retire in 2012, compared with 10 Republicans. That presents a challenge for Democrats as they try to hold onto their majority.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:17 am

Didn't think Perry could move more to the fringes? Guess again:

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry on Tuesday said he had strengthened his opposition to abortion and now opposes the procedure even in the case of rape, incest or when the woman's life would be at risk.

"You're seeing a transformation," Perry said while describing his views.

Perry said the change followed a meeting with a woman whose mother was raped and whose story was part of an abortion documentary screened by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. The encounter "started giving some thought to the issue of rape and incest," Perry said.

What's the line about anecdotal evidence? One woman took the route to have the child, which of course, the resultant offspring is eternally grateful, so now we must mandate that every woman go through the same thing.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:20 am

Isgrimnur wrote: What's the line about anecdotal evidence? One woman took the route to have the child, which of course, the resultant offspring is eternally grateful, so now we must mandate that every woman go through the same thing.

That's a weird thing to say. Do you really think that in all but a few cases "the offspring," as you euphamise it, would rather never have existed?

I mean, I get the trade off, but let's not pretend we're doing the child a favor.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:30 am

No, I think that in most cases (barring the normal mental health issues and/or abuse scenarios) that asking a child of rape or incest whether or not they'd rather have been aborted is feeding into confirmation bias.

My issue comes from the idea that one person's choice of outcome is being used to justify denying the rights of others to make the choice at all.

I believe that rape or incest are terrible, horrible things that have a scarring impact on the victims, and that this leads to impacts on any children born of them. Even children born of normal circumstances can suffer under a parent that has decided that the child ruined their life or a wish that they'd never been born. I believe that the odds of a child being born in these circumstances, especially if forced, is not likely to have the most loving, supporting family situation.

Of course there are always outliers. There will always be happy outcomes. But I take issue with that when anecdotal evidence is being used to justify the passage of restrictive laws.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:34 am

So until you see a scientific study that says children of rape/incest would rather be alive than dead, you think it's irrelevant?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:43 am

noxiousdog wrote:So until you see a scientific study that says children of rape/incest would rather be alive than dead, you think it's irrelevant?

Yeah, because that would be easy to double blind, wouldn't it? And until you find a way to survey those that were aborted, it would be pointless. And I think you're deliberately ignoring my point.

I'm saying that the outcome 20-40 years down the road is not as relevant as the impacts to the woman that has been violated and then forced to carry her assailant's child to term. You seem to be suggesting that the rights of a potential person are more important than the real person that is a victim today.

Perry has always advocated that, under normal circumstances, women be denied the choice of abortion. Now he's stating that he wants it denied even to women that have been abused and/or assaulted.

He'd be a perfect corporate shill for Weyland-Yutani Corporation: "Life begins at implantation!"

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:57 am

No, I think you're missing my point.

I'm ok with your decision. I come to the same conclusions. But I don't have to pretend like I need data to know the offspring would likely be happier alive than dead.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 12:00 pm

I'm not pretending that I need data. I'm saying that if you're going to try and use data, it needs to be more than one freaking data point, and not something that's going to come off completely biased.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 12:00 pm

Rip wrote:
Kraken wrote:
Exodor wrote:
"He (Gingrich) said, 'You know and I know that she's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a president,'

Don Knotts was never married to a US President.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 12:15 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:I'm not pretending that I need data. I'm saying that if you're going to try and use data, it needs to be more than one freaking data point, and not something that's going to come off completely biased.

Ah. Well, that's pretty standard Perry: do what you want and attempt to justify it however you can.

edit: changed punctuation for clarity.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:05 pm

Gary Johnson declaring as a Libertarian.

I think that decides my vote this year.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:07 pm

Ron Paul supporters get Clean for Gene.

And they say they are under strict orders: To look, dress, shave, sound and behave in a way that will not jeopardize Mr. Paul’s chances. Even before flying here on their own nickel, some students said they had been instructed to cover up tattoos and told that their faces should be fresh-shaved or beards neatly trimmed, wearing only nice clothes that one described as “business casual.”

“No tats,” another volunteer, Rocco Lucente, said as he ticked off the rules after arriving at the airport Tuesday night. No liquor, no drugs and, he said, no “fraternizing in the dorms, nothing like that.”

He said the standard expected of volunteers was: “What would Ron Paul do?”

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:42 pm

Well, it is Iowa... non-conformists need not apply (even if the campaign foundation is about individual freedoms
vs the collective).
Epic 4g/Tapatalk

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:54 pm

Pyperkub wrote:Well, it is Iowa... non-conformists need not apply (even if the campaign foundation is about individual freedoms
vs the collective).
Epic 4g/Tapatalk

Typical coastal elitist dismissing flyover country.

FWIW, I attended a two-day music fest in Des Moines a few years back, and there was plenty of ink and general non-conformity on display.

tripcrow · Post by **tripcrow** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:20 am

Ironic thing is Paul is the only one running on either side that isn’t a conformist to the establishment.

I’m hearing, and it makes sense, that if Mitt is going to get the nod Hilary will be the VP. Which makes for the other irony in that against an Obama Hilary team, Paul, the guy that before seemed so unelectable, would offer the only outside chance at beating Obama.

The media went so obviously over the top in attacking Paul once he became a real threat in Iowa that even the non-politicals were noticing it and they’ve had to tune it down some. But then just when you thought all the attacks were un-orchestrated and they were because they just couldn’t help themselves, they all together at once sort of calmed back down and went back to pretty much trying to ignore him with their “Mitt is now leading the polls” headlines. They barely mention, or don’t, that Paul is within the margin of error. It is as if they all, GOP and Dem, take their marching orders from one place. Sort of like the way Fox passes on the marching orders for the GOP. Makes me wonder if big money now realizes that Paul, the only one running that can’t be bought, is the only possible way they can really lose.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:35 am

ImLawBoy wrote:
Pyperkub wrote:Well, it is Iowa... non-conformists need not apply (even if the campaign foundation is about individual freedoms
vs the collective).
Epic 4g/Tapatalk
Typical coastal elitist dismissing flyover country.

FWIW, I attended a two-day music fest in Des Moines a few years back, and there was plenty of ink and general non-conformity on display.

And the percentage of Republican caucus voters at the music fest?

.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:23 am

tripcrow wrote:I’m hearing, and it makes sense, that if Mitt is going to get the nod Hilary will be the VP. Which makes for the other irony in that against an Obama Hilary team, Paul, the guy that before seemed so unelectable, would offer the only outside chance at beating Obama.

This analysis assumes that Hillary would be an asset rather than a liability to the Obama ticket. While it's true that she comes across as a more mature and sophisticated politician than Obama, she's vulnerable on both history and foreign policy.

As long as Romney selects a running mate obviously capable of the job it seems unlikely that Hillary, already a known commodity factored into the equation, could make much difference.

From a theatrical standpoint, the upside to replacing Biden with Hillary is that it would be a supremely humiliating concession on the part of the guy who bested her. If it then turned out to be futile anyhow, the whole scenario would approach sublimity.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 10:34 am

I don't see any substantive difference between Biden and Hillary as VP. I know they each have their own strengths and weaknesses but over all they are about even on the scale of asset vs liability. The only real advantage I could see is the first female vice president angle. That way all the people who voted for Obama to prove they weren't racist can now prove they aren't sexist too. Those few percentage points of people could be enough to swing what I'm sure will be a close election.

As Cain said "Stupid people are ruining this country". The electorate needs to stop worrying about image and look for the person who they think will make the best leader of the country.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:44 am

Obama didn't get elected because he was black. He won by a large margin because a majority of American voters thought he would be a better president than John McCain. And they were right. He also is a better president than any of the Republicans running would be. There's only one Republican candidate who is even remotely a credible candidate for the position, and he polls around 1% in most surveys.

As for a Biden-Hillary swap, the reasoning behind that would be to light a fire under the Democratic base. If that proves necessary, then the notion of a VP switch shouldn't be discarded out of hand. However, if Democrats seem energized behind Obama come mid-summer, then Biden will be running for a second term.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:02 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:Obama didn't get elected because he was black. He won by a large margin because a majority of American voters thought he would be a better president than John McCain. And they were right. He also is a better president than any of the Republicans running would be. There's only one Republican candidate who is even remotely a credible candidate for the position, and he polls around 1% in most surveys.

As for a Biden-Hillary swap, the reasoning behind that would be to light a fire under the Democratic base. If that proves necessary, then the notion of a VP switch shouldn't be discarded out of hand. However, if Democrats seem energized behind Obama come mid-summer, then Biden will be running for a second term.

He said a small number of voters. We had a poster here, in fact, say he was voting for Obama because he was black. If you assume that there were people that voted against him because he was black, you have to assume there were some that voted for him as well.

Arcanis · Post by **Arcanis** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:07 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:Obama didn't get elected because he was black. He won by a large margin because a majority of American voters thought he would be a better president than John McCain. And they were right. He also is a better president than any of the Republicans running would be. There's only one Republican candidate who is even remotely a credible candidate for the position, and he polls around 1% in most surveys.

As for a Biden-Hillary swap, the reasoning behind that would be to light a fire under the Democratic base. If that proves necessary, then the notion of a VP switch shouldn't be discarded out of hand. However, if Democrats seem energized behind Obama come mid-summer, then Biden will be running for a second term.

I didn't say that is why he won I just said that some people voted for him for that reason. Those same people who voted for him for that reason could be the swing needed in what I think will be a much closer election.

I think you are looking at him through rose colored glasses if you think he has been all that good of a president. I don't like most of what I hear out of some of these candidates, but at least I hear some things I can agree with. The few things I thought I would agree with Obama on he either ignored or has done the opposite of what I expected.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:25 pm

Funny how Democratic activists think I'm a hopeless cynic, and people like you think I'm wearing rose-colored glasses.

My appraisal of Obama's performance is based upon the hand of cards he was dealt by the outgoing Administration. In my opinion, he's done as well as could be expected: he stopped the collapse of the economy into a potential depression in 2009; he passed a health reform bill that is already making life better for millions of Americans; he took the steps he promised to take in Afghanistan, and has brought our troops home from Iraq; DADT is history, the Federal government has stood up against DOMA and he repealed anti-gay immigration rules, making him the most GLBT-friendly president in history; he signed into law banking reforms; he signed into law solid reforms to address the crushing weight of student debt; he's appointed two good people to the Supreme Court; he's done, in my opinion, the right thing in almost every international crisis he's faced.

Are there things he's not done that he was supposed to do? Of course. Guantanamo should be closed, but he can't do that unilaterally and Congress refuses to act on it.

Are there steps he's taken that I've disagreed with? Of course. I'd have preferred to have all the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of last year than to have them all renewed for two years. Those tax cuts are the root cause of our budgetary woes and *must* be repealed.

Are there times he's not been "tough" enough? Way too many. I'm disappointed in that. But he's facing Congressional opposition the likes of which no President has ever faced (since maybe Andrew Johnson). The Republicans keep taking the American economy hostage, and clearly the President believes that they'd be willing to shoot the hostage if need be. I can't say that he's wrong in that presumption.

Am I frustrated by the pace of change? Very much so. But I believe that the main roadblock here isn't the President or his agenda, but the very broken nature of the United States Senate.

McCain would have been far worse. He would have done *none* of the good things Obama has done. The Republicans running for President today all proudly proclaim their intention to undo many, or all, of the good things the President has done, while doubling down on the terrible things that led to our current crisis (such as deep and pointless tax cuts for highest income Americans).

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:31 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:My appraisal of Obama's performance is based upon the hand of cards he was dealt by the outgoing Administration. In my opinion, he's done as well as could be expected

The soft bigotry of low expectations.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:58 pm

Grundbegriff wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:My appraisal of Obama's performance is based upon the hand of cards he was dealt by the outgoing Administration. In my opinion, he's done as well as could be expected
The soft bigotry of low expectations.

Realistic expectations would be a better way to phrase it I think.

You don't expect a new world record when it's snowing, the track is mud up to the knee and you start the runner a kilometer behind the starting line.

That being said, Obama doesn't have much to show for his first term. He definitely fell below my moderate expectations for him. Which really doesn't change anything. McCain would have been far worse, and the current crop of republicans seem to have graduated from clown school. Newt is so clearly opportunistic and vile that I can't see him making it all the way to the white house.

I don't see how Americans have much choice but to let Obama take another turn and hope he does better.

It doesn't help that Republicans have stuck their fingers in their ears while shouting "NO" at the top of their lungs for the last 4 straight years. They have definitely succeeded in keeping Obama's performance down while contributing not at all to the governing of the nation. So...bully for them I guess.

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:09 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Grundbegriff wrote:
Fireball1244 wrote:My appraisal of Obama's performance is based upon the hand of cards he was dealt by the outgoing Administration. In my opinion, he's done as well as could be expected
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
Realistic expectations would be a better way to phrase it I think. You don't expect a new world record when it's snowing, the track is mud up to the knee and you start the runner a kilometer behind the starting line.

And you don't hire an inexperienced junior senator to lead the world just because he reads aloud gracefully.

That being said, Obama doesn't have much to show for his first term. He definitely fell below my moderate expectations for him.

Many who defend him will nevertheless vote elsewhom this November.

I don't see how Americans have much choice but to let Obama take another turn and hope he does better.

Watch and learn.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:16 pm

GreenGoo wrote:That being said, Obama doesn't have much to show for his first term.

I disagree with this.

To paraphrase from above: He stopped the collapse of the economy into a potential depression in 2009, new jobs are being created, unemployment is at a 3-year low; he passed a health reform bill that is already making life better for millions of Americans; he took the steps he promised to take in Afghanistan, and has brought our troops home from Iraq; DADT is history, the Federal government has stood up against DOMA and he repealed anti-gay immigration rules, making him the most GLBT-friendly president in history; he signed into law banking reforms; he signed into law solid reforms to address the crushing weight of student debt; he's appointed two good people to the Supreme Court; he's done, in my opinion, the right thing in almost every international crisis he's faced.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:20 pm

Fireball1244 wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:That being said, Obama doesn't have much to show for his first term.
I disagree with this.

To paraphrase from above: He stopped the collapse of the economy into a potential depression in 2009, new jobs are being created, unemployment is at a 3-year low; he passed a health reform bill that is already making life better for millions of Americans; he took the steps he promised to take in Afghanistan, and has brought our troops home from Iraq; DADT is history, the Federal government has stood up against DOMA and he repealed anti-gay immigration rules, making him the most GLBT-friendly president in history; he signed into law banking reforms; he signed into law solid reforms to address the crushing weight of student debt; he's appointed two good people to the Supreme Court; he's done, in my opinion, the right thing in almost every international crisis he's faced.

While I don't disagree with your list, there's no way you'd give a Republican president with the same metrics (GDP growth, unemployment, Iraq, banking reforms) a passing grade.