2012 Presidential Election - The Ups and Downs

[astralis]

gunnut,

What if the culture is against capitalism?

re-read the last paragraph of zakaria's article. both are true. the issue is not culture, but the politics. history tends to show us that if the folks in power clearly benefit from a certain move (and this, whether dictator or democrat), the culture changes rapidly thereafter.

[TopHatter]

Romney won't fix anything, especially the systemic fiscal problems in this country from the federal government down to local government.

No, he won't. He's no better prepared or able than Obama is. They're both men, nothing more, trying to make a broken system work in the face of fanatical opposition.

In fact, the only difference is that Romney isn't being put forward as a Messiah promising Hope and Change.

The scary thing will be if it comes crashing down and the republicans are in office, then the public will REALLY blame the conservatives. They will demand a fix that pushes this country ever deeper into socialism.

That's the biggest reason I can think of to applaud a 2nd Obama term: After 8 years of his inept bungling, the Left will...still blame the Republicans. And the "Blue Dog Democrats". ANYBODY but their Savior.

Socialists have always had a good propaganda machine. They can turn night into day, black into white, wrong into right...etc. The difference between socialists and Nazis is that the socialists can make people walk into an oven at their own free will.

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Couldn't have said any better.

[Wooglin]

Actually it just might. I for one, and many others who are all but extinct marginalized moderate republicans I know feel the same way, will never vote for a multimillionaire Wall Street insider. Bad enough that corporations have heavily weighted things in their favor much less give them the top seat.

????

He was the CEO of a private equity firm in Boston. Prior to that he was working in management consulting in Massachusetts. So, what the fuck are you talking about?

[TopHatter]

So, what the fuck are you talking about?

Take it easy there ;)

[dalem]

I would hardly call someone who is undecided as to who to vote for as being uninterested in politics.
And you didn't have to watch anything, the media provided all the coverage one could swill so even glancing at the headlines was enough. Speaking of which....

Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, Cain, Bachman...I'm hardly a GOP-hating Democrat and I found that merely glancing at the headlines made me feel disgusting (and disgusted)

Well, I guess we'll see in November. I've certainly been uberWrong before.

-dale

[tbm3fan]

????

He was the CEO of a private equity firm in Boston. Prior to that he was working in management consulting in Massachusetts. So, what the fuck are you talking about?

Mighty testy there aren't we. Must have hit a nerve. Nevertheless, it is a fine line you are drawing there. Oh, you were head of a company in Boston. Well that is a different story as I thought you were head of one on Wall Street and no doubt never dealt with Wall Street. My bad. Two sides of the same coin from my view.

[JAD_333]

All the predictions here that Romney will lose have nothing to back them up other than the narrative put out by the Obama campaign. Romney is too rich; he's a vulture capitalist; he's out of touch with ordinary Americans; he changes his positions too often; he is aloof...etc. That's not campaign analysis. It's Pavlovian conditioning.

Real analysis in advance of the conventions and before the polls begin to mean something (around September and October) is based on economic metrics and other factors, like number of war dead, and idiosyncratic issues, like gay marriage and immigration policy.

One economic metric that has stood out as a predictor of election outcomes is growth of personal income, which has barely grown in the last 4 years. In fact, it's slowing. If reports come out in the next few months that the rate of growth is expected to contract even more, Obama will be lucky to get 45% of the vote, according to one analyst. The model this analyst uses has a good track record, but it's not 100% right every time. Election model watch: Is Obama quietly losing?

Anyway, I just bring this up because all the reasons I'm reading here that Romney will lose are lame. The real complexion of the race will not show itself until after the conventions. Today Romney's strengths are still relatively unknown. His incredible work ethic, his method of solving problems, his compassion for people, his decency, his strong family life, and his unshakable belief in American exceptionalism, will become better known.

When people enter the voting booth this fall, the economy will be on their mind. By that time Obama's failures will be out in the open. Which candidate will people choose to get the economy going again?

[dalem]

Agreed. Barring some sort of "EVENT", this is all the RomneyBot's to lose. Obama's been steward of the economy for a term and he's accomplished nothing.

Nothing.

Primaries (primaries? really?), populism, class warfare, all of it, will mean nothing come November. Even if not asked by Romney (and they will be - he'll quote Reagan at a good moment for sure), people will ask themselves "am I better off?" and answer "no". And relatively fewer of those people will be Democrats this time around - the enthusiasm and turnout trends are all pro-Republican, anti-Democrat this time around.

Poor dog bed.

-dale

[Wooglin]

Mighty testy there aren't we. Must have hit a nerve. Nevertheless, it is a fine line you are drawing there. Oh, you were head of a company in Boston. Well that is a different story as I thought you were head of one on Wall Street and no doubt never dealt with Wall Street. My bad. Two sides of the same coin from my view.

Yes, you hit a nerve. I can't stand that the willfully ignorant get to vote.

[astralis]

TH,

After 8 years of his inept bungling, the Left will...still blame the Republicans. And the "Blue Dog Democrats". ANYBODY but their Savior.

not quite, if reading PuffPo or the latest krugman piece means anything.

the funny thing is that the more left you are the more likely you WILL blame obama. more than a few lefty folks-- the types whom mock the term 'progressive' as weak, limp-wristed abandonment of the term 'liberal'-- like to insult obama supporters as "everyone's fault but obama's."

[JAD_333]

TH,



not quite, if reading PuffPo or the latest krugman piece means anything.

Once again Krugman blames the Republicans for Obama's failings. What did they do? They blocked every measure Obama and the Democrats proposed to improve the economic climate.

There has been plenty to criticize about President Obama’s handling of the economy. Yet the overriding story of the past few years is not Mr. Obama’s mistakes but the scorched-earth opposition of Republicans, who have done everything they can to get in his way — and who now, having blocked the president’s policies, hope to win the White House by claiming that his policies have failed.

The superficiality of this statement is breathtaking. What were those measures they blocked and why did they block them? Or, do we just take Krugman's word for it that they were all good. The truth is that Republicans frequently offered compromises that the Democrats rejected. And on a number of measures, the Republicans did go along--extending unemployment benefits, etc.

Krugman seems to live in an alternative universe where political compromise is evil, where the party in power proposes and the other party meekly approves. The NY Times ought to label his op ed pieces advertizing. He's obviously pimping for Obama.

[USSWisconsin]

Yes, you hit a nerve. I can't stand that the willfully ignorant get to vote.

I agree - both sides (calling themselves democrats and republicans - when they are really neither) are spinning like crazy - the truth has been lost in translation (with "helpful" bloggers who have no journalistic integrity constraints to impede their stories) - history = about 3 yrs, mostly fantasy even then.... One thing I find particularly disgusting is the idea of sabotaging the economy because your team didn't win last time (attacking your country for higher political standing - should be called treason IMO). But this pointing at how bad the other side is is going strong from both sides - with little attempt at addressing the economy at all - both sides hoping to scare the voters... Sham issues like the US should be a theocracy (like the founding fathers intended???) - gay marriage rights- gun control - birthers, truthers and conspiracy theorists all claiming equal time with factual info- all fiddling while the country sinks deeper... I wish there was a centralist party with a chance to win.

[dalem]

TH,

not quite, if reading PuffPo or the latest krugman piece means anything.

Wow. Krugman and Zakaria within ten posts of each other. I can feel my brain ensmallening already. :)

-dale

[Red Team]

I agree - both sides (calling themselves democrats and republicans - when they are really neither) are spinning like crazy - the truth has been lost in translation (with "helpful" bloggers who have no journalistic integrity constraints to impede their stories) - history = about 3 yrs, mostly fantasy even then.... One thing I find particularly disgusting is the idea of sabotaging the economy because your team didn't win last time (attacking your country for higher political standing - should be called treason IMO). But this pointing at how bad the other side is is going strong from both sides - with little attempt at addressing the economy at all - both sides hoping to scare the voters... Sham issues like the US should be a theocracy (like the founding fathers intended???) - gay marriage rights- gun control - birthers, truthers and conspiracy theorists all claiming equal time with factual info- all fiddling while the country sinks deeper... I wish there was a centralist party with a chance to win.

And this is why the words "integrity" and "politics" have always failed to exist in a coherent sentence.

[astralis]

JAD,

Once again Krugman blames the Republicans for Obama's failings.

1. are you surprised, 2. the point of me including that was to point out that the Left DOES, to some extent, blame obama.

it may definitely be a minority share of the blame but it's there.

Krugman seems to live in an alternative universe where political compromise is evil, where the party in power proposes and the other party meekly approves.

yes, he's not a fan of compromise; that's why he bashes centrists every bit as hard as the republicans (if not more).

but no, i don't think he's 'pimping for obama' when he notes that obama has had major failings (and was snubbed by officials in the WH a while back for continually sniping at the administration for not doing stimulus right, etc). it's not hard to see why a person with a blog named 'conscience of a liberal' would back obama over romney or the republicans. after all, he makes no bones about his liberal bias, nor does he pretend to be impartial ("reality has a liberal bias".)