2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Lemur]

YOU'RE THE OUTRAGER FOR SEEING OUTRAGE YOU OUTRAGIST!

[a completely inoffensive name]

Call me when the GOP puts up someone who isn't a career politician that is so blatant with the evasions and patting himself on the back.

McCain I had respect for, if I could have voted in 2000 I would have ridden the Republican ticket on either him or Bush. 2008, Palin was the nail on the coffin but the man himself is still respectable in my eyes. Romney is a used car salesman.


BRING GOLDWATER BACK FROM THE DEAD.

[Major Robert Dump]

Obama is also a career politician, he is just younger and disguised his career well as a "community organizer", which the GOP used to try to discredit him as inexperienced (as if Palin was any better), but in the end both backfired on the GOP and made Obama look like an outsider, which he clearly is not. He is just different. A different group of careeer politicians in the white house.

I still fail to understand the Romney phenomenon. I find it incredible that through the entire ranks of the political party a guy as polarizing as he got the nomination, which to me just re-enforces my theory that primaries and delegates are all a sham and are all rigged. Just like GWB in 2000, when the GOP suddenly pulled support from McCain 75% through the primary. It's as if they had Romeny picked from the start. Everyone who ran against him was seriously a fringer or a moron with baggage of some sort. His VP candidate is going to be his saving grace, and when he does pick a VP, everyone is going to be like "so yeah why didnt he run for prez??" and I'll be all like "so yeah becoz Romney was teh chosen one"


Also, I think Bill Clinton secretly wants Obama to lose.

First off, they got screwed in the south with the BS race baiting claims, which hurt Hilary. 2nd, if Obama wins and Hilary runs she will be facing the George H Bush situation where it will be incredibly difficult for her to get a 2nd term because 12 years into a party rule she will be blamed for virtually everything even if she is actually doing a decent job, re GHB.

I think Hilary would have been a much better president than Obama, although I hate to see nepotism in government. As I recall, she basically did what Santorum did to Romney after he lost, Obama went from being Loser #1 to being our best hope in america. Giving her the SOS job was an olive branch for all the angries, may end up biting him in the butt. I think hilary has held back. Were she president, the mood in afghanistan would at least be different.

I'm rambling

[ICantSpellDawg]

Call me when the GOP puts up someone who isn't a career politician that is so blatant with the evasions and patting himself on the back.

Romney is a "Career Politician"? You've gotta be kidding me. Used car salesman I can see, the United States being the used car. Mitt Romney has been successful beyond your wildest dreams, is a brilliant man and has more energy than all of my friends put together who are more than half his age. He is a family man who, in 65 years of living on planet earth, has never been accused of a serious legal/ethical breach. He has and has raised an enormous, multi-generational, and seemingly decent family that supports him wholeheartedly. This could all be an evil ruse to lull us into accepting him, but I think this guy is a formidable force and much more than his critics would make him out to be. I've never thought that Barack Obama was an un-impressive man, I simply disagree with the intentions of his presidency and want him out of office. You may disagree with Mitt Romney in a similar way, but don't diminish in your own mind what the man is. You'd be lying to yourself and that usually doesn't benefit anyone except the mortally ill.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Romney is a "Career Politician"? You've gotta be kidding me. Used car salesman I can see, the United States being the used car. Mitt Romney has been successful beyond your wildest dreams, is a brilliant man and has more energy than all of my friends put together who are more than half his age. He is a family man who, in 65 years of living on planet earth has never been accused of breaking the law or cheating on his wife. He has and has raised an enormous and seemingly decent family that supports him wholeheartedly. This could all be an evil ruse to lull us into accepting him, but I think this guy is a formidable force and much more than his critics would make him out to be. I've never thought that Barack Obama was an un-impressive man, I simply disagree with the intentions of his presidency and want him out of office. You may disagree with Mitt Romney in a similar way, but don't diminish in your own mind what the man is. You'd be lying to yourself and that usually doesn't help anyone except the mortally ill.

The Cult of Romney personified. Where is that Goldwater quote about the religious killing the GOP by refusing to admit weakness or compromise.....

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm definitely a Romney pusher. No problems with that label on my end. You're the one arguing for the resurrection of political figures whom you have nothing more than anecdotal knowledge of.

[Major Robert Dump]

The term "Career politician" is thrown around in political arguments just like "flip flopper" etc. It means nothing, and the people who say it are just filling space. Pretty much anyone in washington DC or in a governor/lt governor position is, by definition, a career politician because the system is built to benefit people in the circle.

[Major Robert Dump]

Romney is a "Career Politician"? You've gotta be kidding me. Used car salesman I can see, the United States being the used car. Mitt Romney has been successful beyond your wildest dreams, is a brilliant man and has more energy than all of my friends put together who are more than half his age. He is a family man who, in 65 years of living on planet earth, has never been accused of a serious legal/ethical breach. He has and has raised an enormous, multi-generational, and seemingly decent family that supports him wholeheartedly. This could all be an evil ruse to lull us into accepting him, but I think this guy is a formidable force and much more than his critics would make him out to be. I've never thought that Barack Obama was an un-impressive man, I simply disagree with the intentions of his presidency and want him out of office. You may disagree with Mitt Romney in a similar way, but don't diminish in your own mind what the man is. You'd be lying to yourself and that usually doesn't benefit anyone except the mortally ill.

Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism, like pretty much all religions, is ridonkulous, more so than the others.

I find it rich that the right tried to label Obama a "muslim" and now they are pushing a candidate who, were he a democrat, would get eaten alive by the evangelicals and catholic right.

I don't think anyone necessarily deserves to be ridiculed, no matter what silly cult they belong to, but in terms of OMG-this-is-whack factor, Mormonism is up there with the spaghetti monster.

[Lemur]

Mormonism is up there with the spaghetti monster.

Unlike most other major religions, Mormonism has a hit musical dedicated to it right now. This factor alone means Romney will win.

[PanzerJaeger]

BRING GOLDWATER BACK FROM THE DEAD.

...who was utterly crushed by a career politician who would say or do anything to be president. He may have even had his predecessor killed for the chance.

I cannot remember a presidential candidate since Goldwater who did not pander. Reagan got close, but even he appeased his core constituencies when necessary - specifically the faux-militarism toward the Soviet Union all while signing away our nuclear stockpile. Courage of conviction has its place in the House, but not in a race to lead a pluralistic democracy. It just does not come with the job. You have to take too many positions on too many issues you simply do not care about. Most presidents come into office with two or three main objectives, the rest is just a combination of checking partisan boxes to maintain the support of the base and putting ones finger in the wind to gauge public opinion.

Romney is really no different than Bush or Obama in that respect, only he is attempting to win over two very different constituencies. Obviously, a Massachusetts Republican has to position him or herself much differently than those of other regions. Bush governed in Texas, so there was no break in continuity from conservative governor to conservative president. Obama hails from Chicago, so again, no continuity break from a liberal city/state to a liberal presidency. However, neither of the two believe half the crap they sold to their bases to get the nomination.

I kind of like Romney's blatant flip-flopping on the meaningless wedge issues only the extremists truly care about. It's like he's signaling to the rest of us that he's still the pragmatic technocrat he's always been.

I don't think anyone necessarily deserves to be ridiculed, no matter what silly cult they belong to, but in terms of OMG-this-is-whack factor, Mormonism is up there with the spaghetti monster.

Mormonism is no more asinine than mainstream Christianity, just less widely adopted.

There's nothing 'brilliant' about Romney. He hasn't an original thought in years.

Name a president, any president, who has ever had an original idea. A president turns other people's ideas into reality. The job is a management position, and by all accounts, Romney is a pretty brilliant manager of large, overburdened, and flailing organizations (sound familiar?). Skilled management requires a certain brilliance all its own.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I should put a /joke next to my ALL CAPS statements from now on.

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't get it. You like all the flip-flopping because it means they can marginalize part of their electorate?

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. I do not like the flip-flopping, but it is pretty standard fare for presidential politics. Does anyone really believe that Obama's position on gay marriage really evolved?

Romney gets called on it more often because there are all those videos circulating the web from his runs in Massachusetts. However, I do not believe he is any more disingenuous than your average politician. He has just had the misfortune of running in two very different political climates.

You seem to be attributing secret motivations to Romney and Obama that are outlandish at best. I find it much easier to believe that Romney's constant flip-flopping has more to do with him having a distinct lack of political convictions than your idea that its all part of a secret plan.

What? There is no secret plan, just the usual pandering. These guys simply do not have strong feelings on every position they are expected to take, so they often take the most expedient one available. People do not get into politics to push a 'Conservative Agenda' or a 'Liberal Agenda' - as those agendas are simply amalgamations of very different policy positions. At best, people get into politics to reverse the national debt, rebuild the middle class, or achieve a national healthcare system - the rest is just a checklist with boxes they are expected to check.

More often than not, politicians are in the field due to personal ambition, which is not always a bad thing. I have done a lot of reading on Romney, and if you could describe one central motivating force behind his actions it is success - success in everything he does. The mechanics of how he gets there are of much less importance than the outcome. If his success is defined by the success of the nation, that is all the motivation he needs to do a good job.

Politics has always been messy, but all the greats took a stand at some point. Firm political convictions are necesarry. The manager needs to have a vision, and he has to sell that vision to electorate and to the people he delegates to. Unfortunately, its been awhile since we had a president who has felt a need to explain himself in any way, shape, or form.

Firm convictions are necessary. A firm ideological tilt is not, and ideologues rarely make good presidents (and rarely make it to the presidency to begin with). Romney is a man of strong convictions, if not a core political ideology.

Why do you find it so hard to believe that Romney is just an opportunistic yes-man?

Research. He has successfully led several large organizations, private, public, and a hybrid of the two. You can make it pretty far in this world as an opportunistic yes-man, but you cannot make it that far. Why are you so firm in your belief that he is such a man - because you cannot nail down his position on abortion?

His firm from back in the good old days had nothing to do with him being some coprorate wizard--it was just opportunistic sharking.

I am starting to question your understanding of private equity.

Your unshakable faith in this man seems completely unfounded from any logical point of view. He has shown no political convictions at all.

Don't misinterpret my defense of the man as unshakable faith. From my research, he seems like a man with a skill set that this country currently needs and I believe he will make a far better president than the current occupant of the White House. I do not expect him to perform miracles if he is elected.

If he's elected it will be like Bush never left. I promise. And by that I mean a generally unaccountable big-government GOP administration. Nothing new to see here.

There is little reason to believe he will govern as Bush did. The two men have completely different management styles. In any event, unfortunately, we are not voting for our first choice. We are choosing between two options, and, imo, one of those has completely failed while the other appears to be an acceptable alternative. Easy.

[Major Robert Dump]

Romney will probably steal the election because all those illegal Mormon voters will vote for him, and a bunch of them will come into the USA from Utah and Illinois and after they vote they will leave again on their stupid little Mormon rafts.

Then once he is president, he will make America a publicly traded company after secretly turning all of America's assets into liquid assets (except NASA). Right before the IPO, he will sell America's liquid assets in an 11th hour deal, probably to Bahrain, pocketing the money and then telling the public he is going to use it to create more jobs. Then he will use the NASA equipment to send Robo Romneys to find his planet and prep it for his arrival after he dies.

He will resign as President and leave on his stupid little Mormon raft, too, sticking us with his VP as President, Chris Christie, who will immediatey eat everything, including minority children.

Romney 2012 will doom America. Obama 2012 will decriminalize marijuana, and ban automobiles, and the country will be much better with people getting high and riding bicycles everywhere. Which would you rather have??

[Moros]

I don't think people who smoke pot will have the energy to ride bikes though...

[Lemur]

For your amusement, I present predictions from before the 2008 election. Not gonna name names, but it's worthwhile to remember how overwrought we can all get in election season.

[Obama] will hammer his agenda through, and people like me will be the anvil. He knows better than anybody there's no tax laws written that the rich can't get around. It's middle class mucks like you and me that are going to pay for bringing up the standard of living for the welfare class.

It will begin with my 401k and my income tax (I'm not going to give him or you the enjoyment of thinking I'm dumb enough to believe that "wealthiest 5%" business. If you work for a living, your wallet is opening up). Here's my predictions of the next 4 years:

-Income tax brackets set at 31%, 33%, 37%, 41% an 50%. You'll hit the middle bracket, 37% at a household income of about $100K. You won't actually hit the first bracket until your houshold income exceeds $60k.

-Tax deferred contributions on 401k and 403b plans will be halted. You will be forced to contribute 5% of your gross income, in taxable income, to the government's new 3% benefit plan. Less likely, but still plausible: Congress will transfer you current 401k savings into these government managed accounts, and you'll have to pay taxes on it (since you contributed it in pre-tax dollars).

-Interest on mortgages will no longer be tax deductible.

-You will see a federal law making gay marriage the law of the land. (Funny, since for the past 8 years, Democrats have claimed it should be decided by the individual states).

-A universal health care system that will prohibit any for-pay care. If America's version of NICE doesn't deem a treatment necessary, it will be illegal to attempt to buy it for yourself.

-And an end to 529 plans. All monies currently stored within will be taxed.

-We will no longer attempt to control traffic across our borders (we'll drop the pretense and just let anyone in).

And that's just what I consider likely. If I really want to indulge in scary stories, I have a whole bunch of other ideas I've heard that Democrats are considering.

[Strike For The South]

...who was utterly crushed by a career politician who would say or do anything to be president. He may have even had his predecessor killed for the chance.
.

This is completely unsubstantiable

[Lemur]

I am starting to question your understanding of private equity.

Oh I dunno, "sharking" isn't inaccurate, just incomplete. I believe the correct mafia term is bust out.

Warning, video contains Martin Scorcese f-bombs.

[PanzerJaeger]

So, he's ambitious, good at buearocracy, and very successful at making money. Okay. Those aren't political convictions. Putting someone in office is an investment. Every vote you cast is an investment.

Political convictions (ie, unyielding ideology) limit options. Instead of asking "What is the best solution?", men with deep political convictions ask "What is the best solution within my narrowly defined belief system?" The House has traditionally been the place for ideology, the presidency is the place for pragmatism.

The GOP as a whole does not have any kind of clear mission statement, and Romney in particular is as vague as they come. He answers all questions with absurdly vague say-something-while-saying-nothings or he rattles off buzzwords. The entire campaign is based on Obama-hate.

Is this your first time following a US election? Was 'Hope and Change' any less vacuous than 'America the Great'?

Why are you content to choose between the lesser of two evils? Why are you content to invest your vote in a party that is totally self-contradictory with nothing but vague statements and a successful businessman to point to? What is the GOP's mission statement? What is Romney's platform? What will he do? You have no idea, and you're comfortable with that for some reason. What do you want out of the administration? Why are you willing to settle for something vague?

This is an example of why our system is utterly broken. Both sides can campaign on buzzwords while demonizing the other side and not putting anything meaninful forth. Accountability is a joke, and instead of demanding a candidate with convictions you can bank on you just put the first schmuck on a pedastal who tells you a happy-sounding story.

Unfortunately I do not have the luxury of retreating to a safe, inoffensive 'the system is broken' position. Between my job and the classes I'm taking, I simply do not have the time to whine about our two party system and muse about how wonderful it would be to vote for someone who holds my exact position on every issue that is important to me. I have to try to wade through the pandering, the demonizing, and general campaign crapstorm in an effort to take a measure of both men - to make my best judgment as to how their presidencies would effect my future and the future of the country.

You're free to take the easy way out. Don't vote. Revel in the purity of your position. Hell, get out in the streets and advocate for proportional representation. See where that gets you. If your movement takes off, I might even write you a check. But please do not condescend, as some of us have too much invested in this country to be apathetic.

But its the GOP who expands government every time they get the office. Its the GOP who keeps breaking the debt ceilling. Its the GOP that actually does take away peoples' rights. Its the GOP that calls people unpatriotic when they get asked a hard question. I do not understand how anyone can still vote for that party without demanding far more specific information from your candidates.

Open your eyes. Obama has done each of those things in the last four years.

Give the dems a few more years in office and I'm sure they'll be just as bad. Both parties need to be scrapped, before the standard for presidential candidates drops even lower.

After a while, this whining starts to sound cheap and hollow. Abdicating civic responsibility to pout in the corner is intellectual weakness, not strength. The system is not going to be scrapped by November, so we have to try to make the best decision possible within the current framework.

If you start now, maybe you can build a movement for proportional representation by 2016 - there's nothing in the law that says we have to have two parties.

[Major Robert Dump]

I stopped voting as soon as I realized Idol was rigged.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. I do not like the flip-flopping, but it is pretty standard fare for presidential politics. Does anyone really believe that Obama's position on gay marriage really evolved?

Romney gets called on it more often because there are all those videos circulating the web from his runs in Massachusetts. However, I do not believe he is any more disingenuous than your average politician. He has just had the misfortune of running in two very different political climates.



What? There is no secret plan, just the usual pandering. These guys simply do not have strong feelings on every position they are expected to take, so they often take the most expedient one available. People do not get into politics to push a 'Conservative Agenda' or a 'Liberal Agenda' - as those agendas are simply amalgamations of very different policy positions. At best, people get into politics to reverse the national debt, rebuild the middle class, or achieve a national healthcare system - the rest is just a checklist with boxes they are expected to check.

More often than not, politicians are in the field due to personal ambition, which is not always a bad thing. I have done a lot of reading on Romney, and if you could describe one central motivating force behind his actions it is success - success in everything he does. The mechanics of how he gets there are of much less importance than the outcome. If his success is defined by the success of the nation, that is all the motivation he needs to do a good job.



Firm convictions are necessary. A firm ideological tilt is not, and ideologues rarely make good presidents (and rarely make it to the presidency to begin with). Romney is a man of strong convictions, if not a core political ideology.



Research. He has successfully led several large organizations, private, public, and a hybrid of the two. You can make it pretty far in this world as an opportunistic yes-man, but you cannot make it that far. Why are you so firm in your belief that he is such a man - because you cannot nail down his position on abortion?



I am starting to question your understanding of private equity.



Don't misinterpret my defense of the man as unshakable faith. From my research, he seems like a man with a skill set that this country currently needs and I believe he will make a far better president than the current occupant of the White House. I do not expect him to perform miracles if he is elected.



There is little reason to believe he will govern as Bush did. The two men have completely different management styles. In any event, unfortunately, we are not voting for our first choice. We are choosing between two options, and, imo, one of those has completely failed while the other appears to be an acceptable alternative. Easy.

I agree with this post and,fortunately, I will be voting for my very first choice in this election. Probably for the 1st and only time in my life. Unless Christie runs in 4 or 8 years and then maybe I'll have 2 in a row.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So, he's ambitious, good at buearocracy, and very successful at making money. Okay. Those aren't political convictions. Putting someone in office is an investment. Every vote you cast is an investment. The GOP as a whole does not have any kind of clear mission statement, and Romney in particular is as vague as they come. He answers all questions with absurdly vague say-something-while-saying-nothings or he rattles off buzzwords. The entire campaign is based on Obama-hate.

What is a political conviction? You have convictions. You don't have too many of them and you acceptably modify the ones you do have. You do this and then empathize with the convictions of others when they can help you get into office and actualize your core convictions. Not everyone believes in every plank of a hodgepodge party - why would they and who could honestly do that? People who talk about conviction and politics in the same sentence have no idea what they are talking about. We have things that are important to us, things that are core, things that we like, things that we dislike but can deal with especially when being paid (work) and things that we hate and can't tolerate. We keep these in balance and sometimes things merge from category to category because of some stimulus that isn't too clear until we have the benefit of hindsight... and even then are not always so clear.

[Lemur]

If you guys actually cared about my feelings you would get me one of these.

[Lemur]

Interesting tidbit: Whether you worship The One or hate the Obamination, President 44 is really, really good for web traffic. Mr. Romney, not so much. I don't think this is predictive or indicative of the election; I just think it's interesting.

No one wants to read about Mitt Romney.

The well-starched Republican's traffic poison has been felt this year at websites across the political spectrum — including at BuzzFeed — and it's left many editors, publishers, and bloggers yearning for the days of the unpredictable Sarah Palin, the maverick John McCain, and the Obama-Clinton blood feud. [...]

[T]he relatively small readership interested in Romney is painfully apparent, and has editors reminiscing about the 2008 race. Franke-Ruta said, from a purely demographic standpoint, that election pulled in readers who had tuned out politics in the past.

For example, she said, "We know women are more likely to read about female politicians, so to the extent that the cast of characters in 2008 was more demographically diverse, there were more potential readers for the stories."

In the absence of the potential for a First Woman President or a First Black President, is there any saving grace that could salvage the next four months for politics websites?

"This is perhaps one of the reasons we should all be rooting for Romney to pick someone like Marco Rubio for veep," said Lewis.

[Kralizec]

Does anyone really believe that Obama's position on gay marriage really evolved?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85_6t6q4lco

[a completely inoffensive name]

The more people mistake the cynical position as the moderate or the "reasonable" position, the US will only continue to stagnate.

[Major Robert Dump]

Yes because optimism has worked so well for us. This country is full of thieves

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes because optimism has worked so well for us. This country is full of thieves

I am sorry, I didn't realize the american spirit that gave us a country spanning from Atlantic to Pacific has not worked out so well for us. We should have listened to the cynics when we bought Alaska from the Russians....

[ICantSpellDawg]

I am sorry, I didn't realize the american spirit that gave us a country spanning from Atlantic to Pacific has not worked out so well for us. We should have listened to the cynics when we bought Alaska from the Russians....

Right, because waging war with Mexico for nearly the entirety of the American West was hope/change.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Right, because waging war with Mexico for nearly the entirety of the American West was hope/change.

Manifest Destiny sure as hell wasn't cynicism.

[Major Robert Dump]

I am sorry, I didn't realize the american spirit that gave us a country spanning from Atlantic to Pacific has not worked out so well for us. We should have listened to the cynics when we bought Alaska from the Russians....

Not the same country, dude.