The 2012 Election Thread

[tucker]

It all depends on how you frame the discussion. I think it is a winner when you are talking about Obama forcing religious organizations to pay for things that they morally object to, freedom of religion.

Actually I think that is just more big government infringement on the constitution and the 1st amendment. It just a part of the unconstitutionality of Obamacare that affects all of us.

It is more than just a social and religious issue.

[Keven]

Politco has an interesting story.

They're claiming that a lot of GOP insiders are unhappy with the current crop of candidates, and they're plotting to see how a late-arriving "hail mary candidate" could be dropped into the race.

I figured it would be too late for that, but Politco says that a candidate entering today could still get enough signatures to be on the ballots in the GOP primary in a handful of states like California, New Jersey and others. They're assuming this home run candidate would swoop in, win a bunch of states, then force a contested/brokered convention in Tampa.

Obviously it would have to be a big name that would get conservatives excited, like a Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, etc.

[bk94si]

I'm not sure any of those names are going to get anyone that excited...

[Keven]

I'm not sure any of those names are going to get anyone that excited...

Well, if those names don't excite you and you aren't excited by Romney/Gingrich/Paul/Santorum then you might as well get ready for another 4 years of Barack Obama.

[bk94si]

Well, none of them excite me much but I will vote for ANYONE (almost) running against Obama.

[AMDScooter]

Well, if those names don't excite you and you aren't excited by Romney/Gingrich/Paul/Santorum then you might as well get ready for another 4 years of Barack Obama.

Honestly.. I'm just not seeing how any of the above would lose the general election to the SCOAMF. The libs (and centrists) here will voted for the SCOAMF no matter who the GOP candidate is. It's the independents who will decide the election. And they've been leaving bammaland in droves for over a year now. Some idea of what the SCOAMF is up against:

Survey USA poll in Washington demonstrates Obama weakness in general election

Republicans have engaged in quite a bit of handwringing over the primary fight this year. They worry that a passionate debate over principles, plus the perceived weakness of each remaining candidate, will make Barack Obama stronger in the national election. Those worries might well translate into reality, but my perception is that this is no different than any other cycle with an open primary — no different than, say, 1980 — when Democrats had a weak incumbent and the GOP had several candidates with all sorts of perceived weaknesses in the running, including Ronald Reagan, who was considered early in the cycle to be too conservative (and too old) to appeal to a broad enough swath of voters to prevent a second Jimmy Carter term.

Barack Obama may look strong in contrast to the primary battle taking place, but that won’t last too long. And as a Survey USA poll of registered voters in one key Democratic state shows, Obama is far from strong at all:

9 months from Election Day, Barack Obama has a net approval rating of Minus 5 in Washington State, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for KING-TV Seattle. 42% today approve of the job he is doing as president, 47% disapprove. But: the number of Washington voters who say Obama has been a worse president than they expected is 2.5 times greater than the number who say Obama has been better than they expected. On specific aspects of his administration, Obama is:

* Plus 14 on his handling of Iraq.
* Minus 1 on his handling of Afghanistan.
* Minus 19 on his handling of the economy.
* Minus 20 on his handling of health care.
* Minus 26 on his handling of the federal deficit.

Obama’s job approval among Democrats and Republicans are perfect mirror images — 85/11 and 11/85, respectively. Among independents, though, he gets only a 37/47. Among Hispanics (8% of respondents), Obama gets a 40/24 — a very weak rating — and among Asians and other ethnicities (excluding whites, blacks, and Hispanics) comprising 11% of the respondents, it’s 42/49. Obama’s approval sinks badly among the age demos most likely to vote: among 50-64YOs, it’s 38/58, and only a little better among seniors, 44/52. Even among younger voters, Obama’s job approval is only 43/36 for 18-34YOs and 47/42 for 35-49YOs, indicating a significant lack of enthusiasm. Obama gets a weakly positive 46/41 among those earning below $40K, but a 37/52 from those earning above $40K.

Why is this important? Obama won the state of Washington by seventeen points in 2008, and it is a bastion of Democratic strength and enthusiasm. Let’s take a look at these same demos in the 2008 exit polls, to the extent they match up:

30-44YOs: Obama won 56/41 (too few 81/29YOs in 2008 to publish results)
50-64YOs: Obama won 60/38
Voters who say economy was biggest issue (60% in 2008): Obama won 58/40
Independents: Obama won 55/39
Earn below $50K (35% of vote): Obama won 64/33
Earn above $50K (65% of vote): Obama won 55/43

Those numbers indicated a much higher degree of enthusiasm, perhaps because Obama provided a blank slate instead of a record. Now that he has a record on which to run, the enthusiasm even in a Democratic bastion like Washington has entirely dissipated. That doesn’t mean Obama will necessarily lose the state in the fall, as that depends on the Republican candidate and the economy, and Washington will be a difficult state for Republicans to win anyway. But if Obama is at a -19 on the economy, a -20 on health care, and a -26 on the deficit in such a safe Democratic state like Washington, how well do people think he’s playing in swing states in the Rust Belt and the Midwest, where Republicans are more competitive?

It’s far too early for pessimism, as I told Dave Weigel yesterday, and Republicans need to have more faith in their agenda.

No amount of Bamma's patented "I inherited "x"" bullsh*t is going to be able to cover the fact things have gotten considerably worse on every front under his stewardship. What's the flaming douche going to run on? Blame Bush expired 2+ years ago. He's done.

[Keven]

Well, none of them excite me much but I will vote for ANYONE (almost) running against Obama.

I think if Sarah Palin announced she was running, it would excite the Tea Party crowd but I think it would be washed out by the left and moderates turning up their noses.

At this point, I think any "home run candidate" trying to jump in at this point would have trouble fundraising. Even a name like Sarah Palin would have trouble matching the funds of Romney or Obama at this point.

[Keven]

Honestly.. I'm just not seeing how any of the above would lose the general election to the SCOAMF. The libs (and centrists) here will voted for the SCOAMF no matter who the GOP candidate is. It's the independents who will decide the election. And they've been leaving bammaland in droves for over a year now. Some idea of what the SCOAMF is up against:

No amount of Bamma's patented "I inherited "x"" bullsh*t is going to be able to cover the fact things have gotten considerably worse on every front under his stewardship. What's the flaming douche going to run on? Blame Bush expired 2+ years ago. He's done.

You're right, but I think Obama is going to change the subject. Regardless of who the GOP candidate is, he's going to run against the Republican Party as a whole.

"Republicans took away your unions in Wisconsin and Indiana."
"Republicans want to take away your Medicare and Social Security."
"Republicans want to take away birth control pills from women."
"Republicans want to raise taxes on the middle class!"

Obama's rhetoric is interesting. He's talking about the 1% and establishment when he's the establishment. In his speeches, he talks like he's a challenger facing an incumbent president. The Democrats controlled everything from 2008-2010 and nothing got better. Even now, the Republicans only control the House of Representatives but if you look at some of the rhetoric in his speeches, he's acting like we have a Republican president and we've had a Republican congress for 20 years.

It's the "hope & change" strategy, except he's not saying those words this time around. How can he purport change when he's been behind the wheel for the past two years?

[Dutchcedar]

I was reading the other day that Ronald Reagan was trailing Jimmy Carter by more than 20 points at about this time in the race. Even Ron Paul looks better than that right now.

These things have to be kept in perspective.

How many times in this cycle has the media tried to paint this candidate or that one as "in" or "out" already? People want to know way ahead of time and think they do. That's part of why so many Patriot fans are disappointed. They KNEW it was gonna be different. Oops.

As an aside... NASCAR starts TODAY!!! Booyah!!!

[AMDScooter]

You're right, but I think Obama is going to change the subject. Regardless of who the GOP candidate is, he's going to run against the Republican Party as a whole.

"Republicans took away your unions in Wisconsin and Indiana."
"Republicans want to take away your Medicare and Social Security."
"Republicans want to take away birth control pills from women."
"Republicans want to raise taxes on the middle class!"

Obama's rhetoric is interesting. He's talking about the 1% and establishment when he's the establishment. In his speeches, he talks like he's a challenger facing an incumbent president. The Democrats controlled everything from 2008-2010 and nothing got better. Even now, the Republicans only control the House of Representatives but if you look at some of the rhetoric in his speeches, he's acting like we have a Republican president and we've had a Republican congress for 20 years.

It's the "hope & change" strategy, except he's not saying those words this time around. How can he purport change when he's been behind the wheel for the past two years?

^^^ It's amusing to say the least. He's essentially running against himself. Added amusement is watching the forum liberals and "centrists" lap it up. So many slogans come to mind:

Hopenchange against hopenchange....
We are the change we've been waiting to change...

sooo many possibilities.

[Meridian]

^^^ It's amusing to say the least.

It's also hardly unique to Obama. The Republicans may like business, but they tone it down when they are trying to get elected. Wasn't Romney trying to play the "I'm one of you" card a little while ago? You do remember that Ron Paul is a millionaire, right? And has been in politics for decades? He's hardly an outsider either. In most Western countries, but especially the US, politics at that level is a game for the rich, as much of the campaign funding will have to come out of your own pockets at times. And the only way to succeed in politics, as in most jobs, is to have a lot of friends in the same game - which is why the only serious contenders are politicians. On these grounds there's nothing to separate the parties, either by background or approach. Just Confirmation Bias amongst the commentators.


M

[Keven]

It's also hardly unique to Obama. The Republicans may like business, but they tone it down when they are trying to get elected. Wasn't Romney trying to play the "I'm one of you" card a little while ago? You do remember that Ron Paul is a millionaire, right? And has been in politics for decades? He's hardly an outsider either. In most Western countries, but especially the US, politics at that level is a game for the rich, as much of the campaign funding will have to come out of your own pockets at times. And the only way to succeed in politics, as in most jobs, is to have a lot of friends in the same game - which is why the only serious contenders are politicians. On these grounds there's nothing to separate the parties, either by background or approach. Just Confirmation Bias amongst the commentators.

Since when is being rich a crime?

[Mountain Mania]

Anybody that doesn't vote Ron Paul will be escalating an Iran/ Israel conflict:


Conservatives = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGPD0ZBiMs0

[BlackDragon24]

Anybody that doesn't vote Ron Paul will be escalating an Iran/ Israel conflict:


Conservatives = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGPD0ZBiMs0

That's rich.

Gandhi could be the President and Iran and Israel will still hate each other.

[Keven]

Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who can stop the world from ending on Dec 21 2012.

Vote Ron Paul to stop the Mayan apocalypse.