2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[a completely inoffensive name]

All this talk of "wasting" votes to me could be solved by a preferential voting system? Any Americans have any reason why a preferential voting system would be a bad thing?

Tradition. Those who pick the president are no longer the moderate swing voters but the extremists who vote for the Nazi, Communist, Green parties. If all their votes amounted to 1-3% of the voting population, then they would be effectively deciding the winner and thus would be catered to.

I don't necessarily agree with these arguments, but I have heard them be made before.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The only people I've heard complain about our system are those too extreme to find either party acceptable.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Orly? If you disagree, you're extreme? That's your stance?

No. That's just how it's turned out so far.

I should add, also those who are die-hard cynics.

[Papewaio]

Preferential voting means no dead votes and influences the mandates of the big parties in Australia.

Say for US it meant you directly preferential vote for your candidate.

You could vote
Independent 1
Romney 2
Cain 3
Obama 4

Votes are totaled up. If no one has a majority the lowest scoring candidate gets removed.

Your favourite indie fails. Your preferential vote goes to #2.

Say at this point Romney wins. A lot of votes he gained were from the indie. Here in Aus the candidates adapt and will generally bring in a few of the ideas from candidates they gained votes from... Mainly to shore up their votes in the next election cycle.

Probably have a bigger impact on congress as it would mean voters would be more Willing to vote for long shots they agree with, and have the insurance that their vote will still count against a disliked candidate.

[CountArach]

It's already closed. Santorum is sticking in so he can justify being next in line for 2016. The RNC is going to revert the primary rules back to the 2008 guidelines because this years proportional delegations have made the GOP candidates look like fools. Whoever makes the biggest name for themselves is guaranteed to win the next primary. Just as McCain did for 2008 when he campaigned against Bush in 2000.

Making a less (d/D)emocratic voting system. How fitting.

[rvg]

Making a less (d/D)emocratic voting system. How fitting.

Party primaries do not have to be democratic at all. Heck, they should forego the whole process and just put the nomination up for sale to the highest bidder. The guy with the most cash tends to get nominated anyway.

[Lemur]

A profile of the Santorum dead-enders. I do not think, however, that they will stay home or vote Obama. Didn't happen with the PUMAs, won't happen with the Santorum-or-busters.

[D]espite the best efforts of the Republican establishment, many on the religious right are far from ready to accept Romney’s inevitability, or to coalesce behind him. They remain distrustful of his record on abortion, and unsure they can believe his campaign promises. And the harder party elites push Romney on them, the more alienated they become. “The biggest story that everyone in the media has missed this cycle is how frustrated and fed up the Republican Party base is with the Republican Party,” says Deace. “It’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen.”

He’s not the only one seeing it. “I am a Republican, but I just see that this election is the final battle in a long struggle between social conservatives and what we call the establishment of the party for control,” says Jason Jones, an antiabortion activist and film producer who previously served as grassroots director for Sam Brownback’s presidential campaign. “This is the last time you will ever see someone like Mitt Romney even in contention for the nomination.”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the antiabortion Susan B. Anthony List, agrees that there is profound grassroots discontent with party elites. “There is a lot of anger,” she says. “There is an enormous and palpable disconnect between Washington Republicans and conservative and independent voters on the ground. It’s just a chasm, and it doesn’t seem to get any better until Washington Republicans feel the pain.”

-edit-

If anyone needed any evidence that the primary is well and truly over:

Mitt Romney's taken the lead in PPP's newest poll of Rick Santorum's home state of Pennsylvania. Romney has 42% to 37% for Santorum with Ron Paul at 9% and Newt Gingrich at 6%. The numbers represent a dramatic turnaround from when PPP polled the state a month ago. Romney's gained 17 points, going from 25% to 42%. Meanwhile Santorum's dropped 6 points from 43% to 37%, for an overall swing of 23 points in the last four weeks.

Pennsylvania Republicans are expressing major doubts about Santorum's viability both in the primary and the general election. Only 36% of GOP voters think Santorum has a realistic chance at the nomination to 54% who believe he does not. And when it comes to matching up against Barack Obama in the fall only 24% of Republicans think Santorum would provide their best chance for a victory while 49% think that designation belongs to Romney.

[drone]

Santorum has cheezed off a lot of the Pennsylvania Republicans. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he loses there.

And if the religious right leaves the GOP, I'm fine with that.

[rvg]

Santorum has cheezed off a lot of the Pennsylvania Republicans. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he loses there.

And if the religious right leaves the GOP, I'm fine with that.

Except that they'll be back after Obama gets re-elected.

[drone]

Except that they'll be back after Obama gets re-elected.

And they will complain again in 2016 when the "establishment" pushes a more electable candidate over the nutcases they want.

[rvg]

And they will complain again in 2016 when the "establishment" pushes a more electable candidate over the nutcases they want.

Makes me think that Romney will probably repeat McCain's mistake pick some darling of the far right as a veep. That's not his only problem of course, but it sure won't help him.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I have a feeling that Romney's defeat (if he loses) will bring about the end of the current GOP structure unless some brand new charismatic leader takes control after 2012. The strong conservative base is itching for a "real" conservative to be put out there, with their flames being fanned by talk radio and Fox News.

There are many possible leaders to arise for 2016 like Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio. But by that point we might see a large rebellion by the more extremists in the party against all somewhat moderate candidates seemingly hand picked by the leadership. The last thing they would want after Obama's second term is someone like Hillary in charge and they would go nuts if someone like Romney came about again as the establishment candidate.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Makes me think that Romney will probably repeat McCain's mistake pick some darling of the far right as a veep. That's not his only problem of course, but it sure won't help him.

Catch 22. If Romney doesn't pick such a veep nom, he loses grass roots workers and a sizeable slice of the GOP right wing stay home rather than vote.

As to the one-term/two-term We have had 15 presidents re-elected, 8 who failed to be re-elected, 1 who both failed and then succeeded, 1 un-elected incumbent who lost, 3 incumbents who withdrew from re-election for a second term or for their own second term, 3 who sought nomination while filling the term of a deceased predecessor but were not nominated, and 5 who died during their first terms. A two-term president is NOT an automatic option.

[PanzerJaeger]

And if the religious right leaves the GOP, I'm fine with that.

Yes. Reagan was a great communicator of (largely Goldwater's) conservative ideology, but the religious element he ushered into the party that used to be content to vote for candidates who were outspoken in their personal religious beliefs are now increasingly and actively supporting candidates that seek to translate their personal religious beliefs into policy. It is eroding the support base for the party. We need to get back to Nixon.

There is no reason California should be off the table. There is nothing in the water in California that predisposes people to high taxes and big and dysfunctional government. The reason such places are no-go zones for the GOP now is because of cultural attitudes. The GOP is now the Christian party with some other tax positions in many people's minds instead of the small government party with a healthy respect for religion. That works well in places where religiosity is still strong, but it is a losing proposition in the long term. Nixon had no problem winning all across the country.

[ICantSpellDawg]

We need to get back to Nixon.
.

What? Nixon was Mr Big government. I get the basic idea. I think it's less of a big deal. We need to find the issues that play to a winning demographic that nets us the majority. If our numbers are dwindling, we can find voters with issues that are compatible with the basic message. Anything currently in the platform that shouldn't be we ditch. The GOP is just a party, it has no ideology but the ideology of its supporters and it just wants between 51 and 60 % of the vote. There are enough people that are dissafected by the current administration that tacking toward some of these issues in the general election and 4/8 years from now shouldn't be a problem.

Gay marriage. We don't have to embrace it, we just have to stop talking about it in the short term. Let it be a wash issue between the parties. Barack Obama is stuck in the muck on that one, too

We need to talk about our economy and scope of government, full stop. That's all this election should be about in the short term. GOP and Democrats are practically identical on foreign policy. The Republican abortion stance needs to stay strong, it is a winning argument and the demographics are for us. Drop the contraception nonsense and don't play the democrats game with that one. We got lucky with their creepiness about the conscience clause, but any further and it loses us votes. Push harder against government overt intrusion into our lives. Tear down the current DHS hydra but up intelligence gathering. Distance yourself from the drug war at the rate in which the voting codgers are dying off. That war is lost, immoral and a waste of taxpayers money. Cut spending, re-invest in technological advancement rather than salaries across the board (ie education, warfare, postal work)

Cut regulations in most areas and up it in boardroom representation. Push state level varied policy solutions and create a Federal mechanism that supports them. The list goes on and on, none of it includes new taxes or keeping the current tax status quo the same.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What? Nixon was Mr Big government. I get the basic idea. I think it's less of a big deal. We need to find the issues that play to a winning demographic that nets us the majority. If our numbers are dwindling, we can find voters with issues that are compatible with the basic message. Anything currently in the platform that shouldn't be we ditch. The GOP is just a party and it just wants between 50 and 60 % of the vote. There are enough people that are dissafected by the current administration that tacking toward some of these issues in the general election and 4/8 years from now shouldn't be a problem.

You are part of the religious base that is killing the GOP, so your opinion is really invalid here.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You are part of the religious base that is killing the GOP, so your opinion is really invalid here.

On no planet are my interests part of a "Religious base". I'm a Catholic, Steven Colbert is a Catholic, My mom is a Catholic, Andy Warhol was a Catholic. I'm fine with birth control and I don't want any theocracy creeping into government. My opposition to abortion is religious just like my opposition to murder and theft is Religious. It is also secular and civic, hence my secular and civic opposition to them. They just happen to match up on those issues.

You aren't even a Republican. Why don't you become part of the voting base and then actually have your say in the party?

[a completely inoffensive name]

On no planet are my interests part of a "Religious base". I'm a Catholic, Steven Colbert is a Catholic, My mom is a Catholic, Andy Warhol was a Catholic. I'm fine with birth control and I don't want any theocracy creeping into government. My opposition to abortion is religious just like my opposition to murder and theft is Religious. It is also secular and civic, hence my secular and civic opposition to them. They just happen to match up on those issues.

You aren't even a Republican. Why don't you become part of the voting base and then actually have your say in the party?

You mad bro? Cuz I would if I reallized my stances are laughable to middle america and are losing in the primaries.

You aren't even a Republican.

15 years from now, you won't be either.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You mad bro? Cuz I would if I reallized my stances are laughable to middle america and are losing in the primaries.


15 years from now, you won't be either.

Yes, I am mad because my candidate is winning the primary season and will carry most of the states that he lost recently in the fall. The Democrats and GOP go with the issues. The party itself is ever changing. These arn't interest based parties, they are empty suits, waiting to be filled with coalitions of interest groups and agendas. It is possible that one party or the other will cease to be like the Whigs, or Democratic-Republicans, the Bull-Moose, or the American Tories, but I find it more likely that they will stay around a while, altering their issues as needed. They will do their best never to fall below 40% of the vote in the general election without a third part independent involved. If this happens, they will scramble to redefine themselves in new ways. I remember after the 2008 elections, Lemur was hypothesizing the same thing, declaring the GOP dead and never to return, mistaking the party for the interests it currently represents and mistaking the American people's dislike for the policies of GWB with anything resembling an attention span or basic grasp of recent history. Then, the 2010 tea party stuff exploded, re-energizing the party. The party rode the wave like a bucking bronco, but the bronco is largely tamed at this point. The conservatives that are pissing and moaning about Romney are not the "tea party" republicans - they are the 1990's culture warrior Republicans. We've already taken the best parts of their movement and are leaving the worst parts behind.

There isn't anybody out there who thinks that Santorum will be the nominee in 2016 or 2020. They did, however, think that Romney would be the front-runner this time around back in 2008.

[a completely inoffensive name]

[Large rant, with some Lemur bashing for no apparent reason.]... The conservatives that are pissing and moaning about Romney are not the "tea party" republicans - they are the 1990's culture warrior Republicans. We've already taken the best parts of their movement and are leaving the worst parts behind.

Which is why everyone is so excited about Romney right? oh....

[PanzerJaeger]

What? Nixon was Mr Big government.

New Federalism is the antithesis of big government. I know he gets dinged for the EPA, but the early EPA was a good thing and definitely within the federal purview (pollution from states upstream effects states downstream, etc.). The Clean Air Act was a demonstrably good use of federal power. Some would argue that he should have had more foresight, but I do not think he can be blamed for the way the agency has been used and abused by successive administrations. His healthcare plan was actually a more conservative response to Teddy Kennedy's proposal for universal coverage. If it had been implemented, we probably wouldn't be experiencing the healthcare issues we are today. Considering that we will most likely end up with some kind of government run healthcare, if only to remain competitive with the rest of the developed world, I consider his stance to be prescient. IMO, Nixon was a great Republican president. He fought to devolve power that should be held by the states to the states and when he did exercise federal power it was in very beneficial and justified ways. He was fiscally conservative, socially disinterested, and pragmatic on foreign policy - always focused on strengthening America's position in the world.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you completely.

[a completely inoffensive name]

socially disinterested,

You know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. Neither in a public way. You know what happened to the popes? They were layin' the nuns; that's been goin' on for years, centuries. But the Catholic Church went to hell three or four centuries ago. It was homosexual, and it had to be cleaned out. That's what's happened to Britain. It happened earlier to France.
Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They're trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, [Attorney General John] Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this.

Yep. Great man.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yep. Great man.

'I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.'


Guess who.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm not sure what you guys think is so poisonous about the religious right.

Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another.

Anyone know a good book around the Nixon era (or a biography)? One that doesn't waste time frothing at the mouth about quotes like this or about watergate.

[a completely inoffensive name]

'I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.'


Guess who.

An overly glorified man.

I'm not sure what you guys think is so poisonous about the religious right.

Anyone know a good book around the Nixon era (or a biography)? One that doesn't waste time frothing at the mouth about quotes like this or about watergate.

Lol at frothing at the mouth. Your arguments are more persuasive when you don't assign the feelings of others for them.

I'm just having fun here. Someone says something and I will post a reply. At the beginning of the GOP nominee thread I liked Romney. Then the circus opened up and I started whoring myself out to see people's reactions.

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm not sure what you guys think is so poisonous about the religious right.

Mostly their policy proposals... and their ideas.

An overly glorified man.

Wow, and I thought I was the only one not sold on Abe's greatness. In any event, I do not believe in judging historical figures by the standards of our time. He may not have liked gay people (or he may have been engaging in gay anti-gay pathology) but he did not try to push those beliefs on the nation through legislation. His management of the nation was largely socially disinterested.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Lol at frothing at the mouth. Your arguments are more persuasive when you don't assign the feelings of others for them.

I'm just having fun here.

I didn't mean you were frothing at the mouth :(

Mostly their policy proposals... and their ideas.

Lot's of people have bad policy proposals and ideas. I think ron paul is out there but don't think he's poisonous. I don't look at him and say "the GOP would be better off without this libertarian element..."

[PanzerJaeger]

Lot's of people have bad policy proposals and ideas. I think ron paul is out there but don't think he's poisonous. I don't look at him and say "the GOP would be better off without this libertarian element..."

I would prefer not to have bad policy proposals and ideas in the party I support. In my opinion (and it is just my opinion), the Moral Majority types have brought nothing good into the party but their votes, and they are preventing it from becoming the kind of party I would ideally like to support, which is much more libertarian. Furthermore, the policies they have pursued are damaging to lots of people and personally offensive to my sensibilities. I do not relate to or like bible thumpers. Obviously a lot of Republicans probably like the religious element, and that is fine.

One of the reasons I was initially drawn to the GOP and conservatism was because the party seemed to have a healthy respect for religious people and traditionalism as opposed to the other side which is more often dismissive toward the religious. However, there is a big difference between respecting the fact that most Americans are religious and the religious traditions of the nation and letting a bunch of fanatics write legislation that, say, protects bullies who hide behind religious belief. I would love for the GOP to be the party of religious freedom and respect, but not the party of religion.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It would surprise me if the trend wasn't in that direction. I'm pretty sure gay marriage support has increased quite dramatically over the last few years.

Ideally the libertarians and religious groups would have a moderating effect on each other...

[Lemur]

Actually, the Republicans are THE Big Government party.

That's been true my entire life, and I'm over 40. The Dems have plenty of problems as well, but the cognitive dissonance of hearing from Repubs about how government must be smaller, then bigger (when they are in power), has been a constant throughout my four-plus decades. Recent illustration from the CBO (and note that the $1.4 trillion price tag on the two wars is prolly low):