2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Hooahguy]

Roger.

[Montmorency]

What is it with you and impregnation, MRD?

[Major Robert Dump]

What is it with you and impregnation, MRD?

I am 37 and have no children, and I am an only child on my fathers entire side of the family, as one uncle is sterile and the other is gay. I got baby fever in Afghanistan.

I am going to impregnate everything

[rvg]

Good man. It's the best thing you can do for yourself, provided you're there to see/support the end product.

[Lemur]

Read this at lunchtime, seems a like a coherent and accurate point. Thoughts?

-------------

The Simpson-Bowles plan would have simplified the tax code and lowered rates. It would have capped the size of government. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, it would have brought the federal debt down from 73 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product today, to 67 percent of G.D.P. in 2022.

Ryan voted no for intellectually coherent reasons. He argued that the single biggest contributing factor to public debt is the unsustainable growth of Medicare. Yet the Simpson-Bowles plan did nothing to restructure Medicare, and it sidestepped health care issues generally. Ryan said that it was silly to come up with a debt-reduction proposal that didn’t fix the single biggest driver of the nation’s debt.

This is the sort of argument that makes a lot of sense in a think-tank auditorium. The problem was there were almost no Democrats who endorsed Ryan’s Medicare reform ideas. If Ryan was going to pinion debt reduction to Medicare reform, that meant there would be no debt reduction.

But Ryan had another way forward, noting: We’re going to have an election in 2012; the country will choose between two different visions; if we Republicans win, we’ll be able to reform Medicare our way and reduce the debt our way.

In other words, Ryan was willing to sacrifice the good for the sake of the ultimate.

In order to get this ultimate solution, though, Ryan was betting that three things would happen. First, he was betting that Republicans would beat President Obama. Second, he was betting that Republicans would win such overwhelming Congressional majorities that they would be able to push through measures Democrats hate. Third, he was betting that a group of Republican politicians would unilaterally slash one of the country’s most popular programs and that they would be able to sustain these cuts through the ensuing elections, in the face of ferocious and highly popular Democratic opposition.

To put it another way, Ryan was giving up significant debt progress for a political fantasy.

Ryan’s fantasy happens to be the No. 1 political fantasy in America today, which has inebriated both parties. It is the fantasy that the other party will not exist.

[rvg]

Read this at lunchtime, seems a like a coherent and accurate point. Thoughts?

Seems like in order to move forwards we need to hand over the congress and the presidency to one party. The question is, should it be stupid donkeys or evil elephants.

[Lemur]

Disagree. Our system is designed for compromise. Traditions such as the filibuster make it possible for a minority to bring the process to standstill. This does, however, require that everyone at least try to find some common ground.

I see plenty of evidence that the Dems have tried. I see none for the Repubs, who have, by their own admission, the single overriding priority of making Obama a one-term president.

So here's a question: Let's hypothesize that Obama wins in November. Let's also imagine that the power structure in the House and Senate remains more or less unchanged. Will there be any impetus for Republican to bargain on anything? Or will they continue to stand firm on ideological purity? Sample of Republican thinking: "What I've said about compromise and bipartisanship, I hope to build a conservative majority in the United States Senate so bipartisanship becomes Democrats joining Republicans [...] We are at that point where one side or the other has to win this argument. One side or the other will dominate. [...] The fact is, you never compromise on principles. If people on the far left, they have a principle to standby, they should never compromise; those of us on the right should not either."

I don't know how anyone can be expected to work with that.

[rvg]

I don't know how anyone can be expected to work with that.

True, but then again, Obama had a full year with a Dem-controlled House and a filibuster-proof Senate. He pissed it away on Obamacare.

[Lemur]

True, but then again, Obama had a full year with a Dem-controlled House and a filibuster-proof Senate. He pissed it away on Obamacare.

Strange assertion.

Point 1: Presidents have been trying to pass something resembling universal healthcare since Nixon.

Point 2: That filibuster-proof majority was not in place for a year (or two, as Governor Romney claims). Best estimate is seven weeks. Even when they had that, it had to encompass and satisfy some pretty out-there people, such as Joe Lieberman.

Point 3: Our system, as I said, is not designed for one-party rule. This should not be our aspiration or our goal.

[rvg]

Point 1: Presidents have been trying to pass something resembling universal healthcare since Nixon.

And he happened to pick the worst possible time for that. He had a chance to raise revenue, cut the military budget, etc, i.e. do all things that normally a Dem President can only see in his dreams.

Point 2: That filibuster-proof majority was not in place for a year (or two, as Governor Romney claims). Best estimate is seven weeks. Even when they had that, it had to encompass and satisfy some pretty out-there people, such as Joe Lieberman.

Long enough to make a difference.

Point 3: Our system, as I said, is not designed for one-party rule. This should not be our aspiration or our goal.

Five years ago I would have completely agreed with you. Today, not so much.

[Lemur]

Five years ago I would have completely agreed with you. Today, not so much.

Really? You're having a Carthago delenda est kinda moment? I'd be curious to hear what brought you to that point ...

[rvg]

Really? You're having a Carthago delenda est kinda moment? I'd be curious to hear what brought you to that point ...

Like you said, once Obama got elected the Republicans in congress went into the sabotage mode. The era of bipartisanship and compromise is likely over. Sad, but has been true for a while now.

[Montmorency]

TOAW III ME shipped with a US Civil War 2008 scenario back in 06.

Too bad it didn't prove prescient, you mean?

[Major Robert Dump]

The best thing to come out of this election so far (for me at least) is that while browsing Gawker.com I discovered a hilarios writer named Caity Weaver.

[Xiahou]

To put it another way, Ryan was giving up significant debt progress for a political fantasy.

Yes, a fantasy of a White House and both houses of congress under one party. Such a fantastical thing we have not seen the likes of since 2008!

[Ironside]

Yes, a fantasy of a White House and both houses of congress under one party. Such a fantastical thing we have not seen the likes of since 2008!

Filibuster? I suspect that a mere majority is not enough. And it will only last 2 years, tops. Than the massive whipplash comes.

Anybody got any idea how to bring both parties (but in particular the Republicans) back to actually consider real comprimises?

[Shaka_Khan]

I'm more interested in this presidential election more than ever before because all the Americans I know are heavily divided politically. Here's one example. I'm friends with my former high school teacher on facebook. He posts angry political pictures everyday. The angry remarks by his fb friends who disagree with him make my facebook look like a political debate forum. Most of my American friends would go ballistic if the candidate who they'd vote for didn't win. And both candidates are being brutally criticized more than the earlier ones did as far as I know.

[Fisherking]

Filibuster? I suspect that a mere majority is not enough. And it will only last 2 years, tops. Than the massive whipplash comes.

Anybody got any idea how to bring both parties (but in particular the Republicans) back to actually consider real comprimises?

Actually the Democrats were just as bad when they were out of power.

It is not all together a bad thing though. It kind of puts a limit on the amount of garbage they can pass into law.

When you read the bills/laws, you wonder if anyone ever bothered to read them before and what kind of people would inflict such on the public at large. But that is bipartisan at least.

[Lemur]

Actually the Democrats were just as bad when they were out of power.

Demonstrably, provably untrue. Dems worked with Bush 43 on NCLB, TARP, off-the-books-war funding, appointee and judge approval. They were spineless wimps cooperative, within bounds. To compare their behavior under 43 the Republican behavior under 44 is epic false equivalence.

Take any metric you like. Filibusters, anyone?



As you can see, it starts to spike under Nixon, but really gets going under Clinton, and shoots up into uncharted territory under President 44.

Appointee nominees, anyone?



And so on and so forth. Our system is designed to allow a minority to bring things to a halt, and the Repubs have done so with gusto. This may help explain why congress polls lower than Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro.

[Noncommunist]

Though at least for the amount of judges successfully nominated, Obama has only had half the time to nominate judges as opposed to Bush or Clinton who have about twice as many.

[ajaxfetish]

Though at least for the amount of judges successfully nominated, Obama has only had half the time to nominate judges as opposed to Bush or Clinton who have about twice as many.

Caption reading fail?

Number of confirmed judges under presidents Obama, Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, and Carter at this point in their presidencies

Ajax

[Centurion1]

I am 37 and have no children, and I am an only child on my fathers entire side of the family, as one uncle is sterile and the other is gay. I got baby fever in Afghanistan.

I am going to impregnate everything

same only male heir to my name. I don't use condoms i just cromartie the living hell out of everything

[Fisherking]

Dose anyone have figures for number of Judges nominated vs. just approved?

Besides each of those congresses were different. It has always been the cry of any administration with a divided or opposition congress. It is not a straight apples vs. oranges comparison.

How dose that go about Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Like you said, once Obama got elected the Republicans in congress went into the sabotage mode. The era of bipartisanship and compromise is likely over. Sad, but has been true for a while now.

The era of bipartisanship and compromise is not over. A republic cannot survive without it. If we are going to talk about bipartisanship being a thing of the past then we should open up a thread on how best to dismantle these pesky checks and balances that are hindering America from progressing under a new strong one party leadership (of our choosing of course​).

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's kind of the point. We live in an age of almost unlimited information and political conscience--if Democracy was going to work, this should be the era where it works best. Instead, when faced with nearly unlimited access to information, people have chosen to take sides and become combative, as if they could fight off the information they didn't want to hear by banding together with like-minded sheeple.

You think twenty years of "unlimited" information is going to bring about democratic utopia? What's that saying about getting the horse to drink?

You have a baby boomer generation that grew up for the first 30-40 years of their life before they even owned a computer. An entire generation of older people still hanging around due to modern medicine that has likely never even used a computer beyond sending emails to their relatives. Christ I have helped three elderly people myself who don't understand that when a man calls you on the phone asking to remote control your computer he probably isn't calling to make sure you are receiving your relatives emails just fine.

As with any massive revolution in lifestyle, the transition is rough and society has to go through growing pains before we collectively learn the pros and cons of our new responsibilities. We realized that while we love having more goods for a price cheap enough for the masses, it is not acceptable that we should suffer degrading work environments or send children into the machines (hypocrisy over china notwithstanding). Over time society will learn to be smarter about the information we present and receive online through social media and utilize our access to information a lot better. You have to be blind to not see the difference between how a twenty year old uses the internet and how a 60 year old does.

Instead of taking the information we have and processing it into something that fits a bigger picture, people get lost in the individuals. They see murder or robbery or kidnapping everyday on KTLA5 and believe they are living in an age of violence when the FBI shows overall violent crime on the decline for two decades now.

You don't get to be cynical around here GC there are too many of those in the backroom already.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That ship sailed a long time ago, but the mark of a good cynic is that they hope they're wrong.

You're right though, its not as simple as 'Hey everyone, its the information age, stop being stupid.' These things take time, if they 'take' at all.

My point, though, was that even the older among us--people in their 60s or 70s--are still massively more informed (or should be) than previous generations of Americans, and yet our government is less transparent and more corrupt than ever (relatively speaking, of course--its hard to speak of early administrations in these terms, since poor people, black people, and women weren't even allowed to vote; but for those who had the franchise, my point stands) something that is strictly on the shoulders of the voters at the end of the day, regardless of what politicians are doing. As alien as the train of thought might be to me, it has occured to me more than once that our system may simply not be able to cope with human stupidity--in which case I can't think of anything else to advocate besides moving to the woods and arming oneself.

This is where history majors come in and provide context. But if I remember my history classes correctly the Presidential Election of 1876 was decided in backrooms by party leaders. Elections in general had a lot of taint in the early 1900s on the federal and state levels (Boss Tweed's and party leaders shaking hands). Nixon could never had pulled off what he did in today's political environment precisely because presidents are crucified for everything and anything they do due to the new ability of massive information distribution quickly. We prosecute presidents for blowjobs now, let alone Watergate level things.

As I have said, people are able to hear about every incident of injustice the government commits nowadays, but in a system that governs 300+ million people, of course there will be something everyday to get riled up over. But whether or not this represents a larger decay overall from previous generations, when we wouldn't know about what food New York schools are forcing kids to eat in school, is to be examined closer.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Good post, it's making me think. Only thing I can come up with is that our Federalist structure enables government to take initiative with smaller, more homogeneous groups.

[Lemur]

I can never bring myself to watch political convention coverage, and honestly, I don't see why they are still held. So it's interesting to read a full-throated defense of the institution. I don't agree, but the guy makes some good points. (Still not gonna watch 'em.)

So should the parties just give up the ghost and let these institutions die a dignified death?

No way.

First of all, while they’re not busy being extras, the delegates (and the alternates, and the rest of the crowd) use the party conventions in the same way that every organization uses their national meetings: to network, to spend time with old friends, to scare up a little business, to work rooms on behalf of themselves or their causes. That’s a useful function [...]

The second reason that the conventions are worth saving is that they still seem to do a good job of transmitting information from the parties to the relatively less attentive rank-and-file voters. Conventions almost certainly do very little persuading. Most often, partisans watch their own convention and tune out the other one. [...]

But really, the reason I think that the conventions are worth saving is because both a democracy and its political parties need rituals, and we really don’t have that many left. [...] I’m all for hanging on to what we have – and so I’m very glad that the conventions have survived 40 years after their original political function was stripped from them.

-edit-

I suppose there are other reasons to preserve the seemingly outdated tradition. The Onion, as per usual, nails it.

[Strike For The South]

Lemur has gone further to the left since the actual leftists left.

It's good to have company, it's better when the company posts coherent and sober as opposed to my drivel

[Major Robert Dump]

Conventions would be far more appealing were they not paid for by taxpayers.

I cannot say the same about hookers