2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Since the Repub primary appears to be over(ish), and the Dems are (naturally) running their sitting Prez, I guess it's time to start a general election thread. Only seven months to go!

Hmm. I'd better post something in here, or be accused of not really starting a thread. Okay, ladies and gents, I give you quantum physics election humor! No, don't thank me, it's all in a day's work.

A Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney

The basic concepts behind this model are:.

Complementarity. In much the same way that light is both a particle and a wave, Mitt Romney is both a moderate and a conservative, depending on the situation (Fig. 1). It is not that he is one or the other; it is not that he is one and then the other. He is both at the same time.

Probability. Mitt Romney’s political viewpoints can be expressed only in terms of likelihood, not certainty. While some views are obviously far less likely than others, no view can be thought of as absolutely impossible. Thus, for instance, there is at any given moment a nonzero chance that Mitt Romney supports child slavery.

Uncertainty. Frustrating as it may be, the rules of quantum campaigning dictate that no human being can ever simultaneously know both what Mitt Romney’s current position is and where that position will be at some future date. This is known as the “principle uncertainty principle.”

Entanglement. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a proton, neutron or Mormon: the act of observing cannot be separated from the outcome of the observation. By asking Mitt Romney how he feels about an issue, you unavoidably affect how he feels about it. More precisely, Mitt Romney will feel every possible way about an issue until the moment he is asked about it, at which point the many feelings decohere into the single answer most likely to please the asker.

Noncausality. The Romney campaign often violates, and even reverses, the law of cause and effect. For example, ordinarily the cause of getting the most votes leads to the effect of being considered the most electable candidate. But in the case of Mitt Romney, the cause of being considered the most electable candidate actually produces the effect of getting the most votes.

Duality. Many conservatives believe the existence of Mitt Romney allows for the possibility of the spontaneous creation of an “anti-Romney” (Fig. 2) that leaps into existence and annihilates Mitt Romney. (However, the science behind this is somewhat suspect, as it is financed by Rick Santorum, for whom science itself is suspect.)

What does all this bode for the general election? By this point it won’t surprise you to learn the answer is, “We don’t know.” Because according to the latest theories, the “Mitt Romney” who seems poised to be the Republican nominee is but one of countless Mitt Romneys, each occupying his own cosmos, each supporting a different platform, each being compared to a different beloved children’s toy but all of them equally real, all of them equally valid and all of them running for president at the same time, in their own alternative Romnealities, somewhere in the vast Romniverse

I hate Obama.
I really hate Romney.

Right now I'm debating whether to pull the lever for Obama or write in Mickey Mouse. Still undecided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Right now I'm debating whether to pull the lever for Obama or write in Mickey Mouse. Still undecided.

---

You have NO idea how seriously close I've been to doing just that the past 2 elections.

I really looking forward to seeing Dems vs Republicans head to head instead of the stuff we've been having.

I hope Romney isn't as dumb about foreign policy as he's seemed so far. I'm inclined to think that judging presidents by economy of social issues is silly when the biggest screw ups come from foreign policy...maybe I'm biased by recent history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Only seven months to go!

---

That thought is really depressing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I hate Obama.
I really hate Romney.

Right now I'm debating whether to pull the lever for Obama or write in Mickey Mouse. Still undecided.

---

The USA needs a leader who will balance the budget. Mickey Mouse is wrong for America.

Scrooge McDuck 2012!

Feel like this thread should be closed until the GOP convention is over. The subject matter isn't all that different than in the GOP thread and as long as Santorum and Gingrich want to stay in the game and be a distraction for Romney, not much is going to develop in the Romney v. Obama fight.

So I guess the cat is out of the bag on this one. :drummer:

So any chance that an independent could run for the POTUS?

I'm pretty sure there are independents running in every presidential election. Of course, they're all hopeless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I'm pretty sure there are independents running in every presidential election. Of course, they're all hopeless.

---

Yep. People tend not to throw away their votes on indies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Feel like this thread should be closed until the GOP convention is over. The subject matter isn't all that different than in the GOP thread and as long as Santorum and Gingrich want to stay in the game and be a distraction for Romney, not much is going to develop in the Romney v. Obama fight.

---

I think we can just amalgamate it all into this one thread, it is what we did last election from memory. Romney's campaign will probably swing into general election mode pretty soon anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Yep. People tend not to throw away their votes on indies.

---

Perot would disagree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Yep. People tend not to throw away their votes on indies.

---

This attitude is one of the core reasons the government and political situation in America is so broken. Very few things in this world are black or white, left or right, A or B.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

This attitude is one of the core reasons the government and political situation in America is so broken. Very few things in this world are black or white, left or right, A or B.

---

No, it's a very reasonable attitude. An indie party springs out, fields a presidential candidate and expects to win. Hell no. I say, they have to earn their right to compete with the big boys. Win a town. Win a city. Win a state. Win a region. Prove to the people that you're better than the competition, only then you'll be taken as a serious candidate. Indies want all the benefits without doing any work. It doesn't work like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

NI say, they have to earn their right to compete with the big boys. Win a town. Win a city. Win a state. Win a region.

---

Historically, doesn't this sort of thing usually happen as a result of a major party imploding, as with the Whigs and the Federalists and so forth? Seems like there's only enough oxygen in the system for two parties, and until one of them commits seppuku, nothing much changes ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Historically, doesn't this sort of thing usually happen as a result of a major party imploding, as with the Whigs and the Federalists and so forth? Seems like there's only enough oxygen in the system for two parties, and until one of them commits seppuku, nothing much changes ...

---

Historically, yes. Doesn't mean that there can't be room for a viable third party in today's climate. Independents such as myself have been yearning for a centrist party for the past eight years or so. Doesn't mean I'll back any schnuck who proclaims himself as a new centrist party candidate. First he has to prove his viability to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Historically, doesn't this sort of thing usually happen as a result of a major party imploding, as with the Whigs and the Federalists and so forth? Seems like there's only enough oxygen in the system for two parties, and until one of them commits seppuku, nothing much changes ...

---

Sometimes political parties fail/implode because people/society move on really suddenly and they have no time to adapt there positions.

The Irish parlimentary Party effectively dissolved overnight due to Britains FPTP system for elections and the emergence of a party that had a new empahsis.

The word empahsis is the key here as Sinn Fein before before that time were a party who supported freedom for Ireland under the concept of Dual Monarchy they sensed the mood and profited the rest is history as they say.

The IPP vote was still there though and it along with many members basically migrated to the new party that split from Sinn Fein over the Treaty. This party then became the first government of the new Free State.

Funnily enough it shows us that Sinn Fein hadnt learned there basic lesson that helped them before, of course looked at with the left or right eye I suppose you could say this doesnt disprove your idea though.

Also the crucialy Sinn Fein got help of a myraid of Socialist/Labour/Commie type parties who aggreed NOT to contest purely to help unseat the IPP an Unionist party members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Historically, doesn't this sort of thing usually happen as a result of a major party imploding, as with the Whigs and the Federalists and so forth? Seems like there's only enough oxygen in the system for two parties, and until one of them commits seppuku, nothing much changes ...

---

Well the two main parties do their best to hamstring any others with myriad election laws and regulations such that you practically have to hire a team of lawyers to run and finance a campaign.

But that's okay because they're doing it to reform campaign finance laws, honest!

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Well the two main parties do their best to hamstring any others with myriad election laws and regulations such that you practically have to hire a team of lawyers to run and finance a campaign.

But that's okay because they're doing it to reform campaign finance laws, honest!

CR

---

Clever indeed

One of the biggest problem with third parties is that most of them run either to the left of the democrats or to the right of the republicans, i.e. they're more extreme than the establishment. We do not need more polarization, we need more centrism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

One of the biggest problem with third parties is that most of them run either to the left of the democrats or to the right of the republicans, i.e. they're more extreme than the establishment. We do not need more polarization, we need more centrism.

---

OK, perhaps I mis-interpreted your original comment that I responded to. You mentioned "throwing away votes" on "indies". My understanding and apparently that of others I discuss this with view the Libertarians as "indies". Hence, voting Libertarian is a "waste" as per your statement, if one accepts the definition of "anything not republican or democrat is 'indie'". Libertarian is arguably a viable, growing alternative to the current major two parties. Do you feel voting for their candidate would be a waste? Also, why do you think that voting for a candidate who is most closely aligned with your personal belief structures is "throwing away" your vote, irrespective of political party?

Whats the situation at more local level though??

Do you have elected Green Party members for instance in state government?

I get the feeling people might vote Monster Raving Loony Party in there local council election or even at state level however when comes to selecting the new king you pick A or B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

OK, perhaps I mis-interpreted your original comment that I responded to. You mentioned "throwing away votes" on "indies". My understanding and apparently that of others I discuss this with view the Libertarians as "indies". Hence, voting Libertarian is a "waste" as per your statement, if one accepts the definition of "anything not republican or democrat is 'indie'". Libertarian is arguably a viable, growing alternative to the current major two parties. Do you feel voting for their candidate would be a waste? Also, why do you think that voting for a candidate who is most closely aligned with your personal belief structures is "throwing away" your vote, irrespective of political party?

---

Currently in a presidential election the most an indie candidate can do is swing the victory from one major party candidate to another. The indie candidate himself has zero chance of victory. Even if my views happen to align with those of an indie candidate, I have to consider the practical outcome of my vote: if there's a bad democrat and worse republican on the ballot, and the indie will be syphoning votes from a bad democrat, then no, I will not vote for the indie. In that case voting for my choice of candidate will bring about a worse candidate than if I were to vote for lesser evil.
The problem with libertarians (since you've mentioned them) is that they're too extreme in their quest to dismantle the central government. That imho seriously limits their appeal. If they moderate their views a bit they'll find far more support and with time maybe will even become viable presidential contestants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Whats the situation at more local level though??

Do you have elected Green Party members for instance in state government?

I get the feeling people might vote Monster Raving Loony Party in there local council election or even at state level however when comes to selecting the new king you pick A or B

---

On local and state level indies win quite often. States like Vermont for example even send socialist senators to Washington.

U.S President was always re-elected for a second "mandat" in the past (exception is rare : death or scandal ...) .
Who can think it could be different this year ?
Anyway , Obama wil be re-elected after the big circus of vote campaign .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antioch

U.S President was always re-elected for a second "mandat" in the past (exception is rare : death or scandal ...) .
Who can think it could be different this year ?
Anyway , Obama wil be re-elected after the big circus of vote campaign .

---

That's just not true. Bush 41 and Jimmy Carter are two recent examples of one term presidents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

That's just not true. Bush 41 and Jimmy Carter are two recent examples of one term presidents.

---

This is true, presidents are not safe from being one term, however it doesn't take much to secure that second term usually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

This is true, presidents are not safe from being one term, however it doesn't take much to secure that second term usually.

---

Incumbents generally have an easier time than challengers, nonetheless they are very much beatable, more so when things aren't going well with the economy.

Let's see if we can close this thing tonight. Santorum must win Wisconsin to stay in the race as a viable candidate. He's got a bunch of doozie States coming up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Let's see if we can close this thing tonight. Santorum must win Wisconsin to stay in the race as a viable candidate. He's got a bunch of doozie States coming up

---

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.

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?