2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Xiahou]

I think things like the iPhone app and Polandgate illustrate how thin the campaign is right now. It truly is silly season. Will this whole thing get more substantive? Maybe. Possibly.

Obama has nothing to run on, and Romney's platform mainly consists of "I'm not Obama & I made alot of money in business". I'm not really expecting anything interesting in this campaign until the debates.


Since you brought it up, Polandgate is a little more noteworthy than a typo in an iPhone app that no one uses. This was an amateurish mistake by a speechwriter that has managed to offend an important ally. They'll get over it, but it was a gaffe.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Obama has plenty to run on, but like every Democratic candidate I have payed attention to in my life (see: all of them since 9/11) he won't capitalize on it because it provides fodder for attacks and it's better to be bland and slippery than spicy and mischaracterizable (not a word).

[Lemur]

Obama has nothing to run on, and Romney's platform mainly consists of "I'm not Obama & I made alot of money in business".

Yeah, as ACIN points out, Obama has plenty of record. And Romney has a record as governor; both men are perfectly capable of having a substantive debate.

However, we are in silly season, and the points being made and campaign videos are all yawners, or unintentionally hilarious.

For reasons I cannot explain, this seems more relevant than any campaign video so far.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Silly season gets longer each election. Eventually, if the trend continues (and if we aren't already there), substantive debates and hard numbers won't even enter into the equation.

I really don't think that substantive debates and hard numbers have even entered politics since 9/11. I have watched the youtube videos of the 2000 debates, and I would have voted for Bush Jr. if I could have back then, he made a lot of sense on the campaign trail. Then the 2004 debates which I watched first hand I remember being part of the decade long (and counting) blur of "FEAR! FEAR! 9/11! TERRORIST SLEEP CELLS! NEED MORE TSA! I'M MORE PATRIOTIC!"

Substantive debate don't involve closing your ears and shouting LALALALA when someone questions the war on drugs. Hard numbers don't involve McCarthy-lite accusations when someone brings up the fact that the billions spent on TSA security have resulted in zero terrorists being caught at the scanner stations.

9/11 extended the silly season to be all year long and now we are living in an alternate reality that people have been conforming to, not rejecting.

[Lemur]

This is why we can't have nice things.

Oh, look, a substantive economic debate between people who have valid points and data. Too bad I can't see this sort of thing here in the USA.

[Xiahou]

Obama has plenty to run on, but like every Democratic candidate I have payed attention to in my life (see: all of them since 9/11) he won't capitalize on it because it provides fodder for attacks and it's better to be bland and slippery than spicy and mischaracterizable (not a word).

What would he run on? Bin Laden was killed under his administration- but he can't beat that drum too hard without risking backlash. Obamacare is wildly unpopular, unemployment is still very high... what am I missing?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh, look, a substantive economic debate between people who have valid points and data. Too bad I can't see this sort of thing here in the USA.

I enjoyed it when the woman said that young people who just graduated with $30,000+ in student loan debt should be making their own jobs, forming their own businesses. Because it's so easy to create a start up when you have to be making $800 payments every month starting as soon as you get your piece of paper. But then again, it wasn't as if the previous generation were able to get cushy, lifelong, union jobs with only a high school diploma. I don't want to come across as generational bashing, because I don't think any generation is to blame, but something is amiss there.

What would he run on? Bin Laden was killed under his administration- but he can't beat that drum too hard without risking backlash. Obamacare is wildly unpopular, unemployment is still very high... what am I missing?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me.../promise-kept/

Obama could pull out any of those if he really wanted to, he has the money and the PR people to brute force an image of someone who has done a lot. Because he really has. But the point is that all of those achievements are just as provoking of the right as well of the left. If he wants to tout about closing the "donut hole" for medicare users, he knows that the dreaded death panels will be creeping into the vernacular again.

[Lemur]

Obamacare (such a stupid name btw)

In fairness, Obamacare is the slang term, not the proper name, just as Romneycare isn't really Romneycare. I think Obamacare is actually PPACA, or more often just ACA. Romneycare is "An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care" to its friends.

People call it "Romneycare" or "Obamacare" as a diminution, which I think should be embraced. Much like John Wheeler with the term "Black Hole," the insult becomes a rather catchy name.

[Xiahou]

Who is Obamacare unpopular with? You? People in red-state strongholds? Most people who vote democrat (roughly half the damned country, amirite?) want some kind of universal healthcare system, and would gladly prop up Obamacare (such a stupid name btw) as the first big step in the right direction.

A majority of Americans want it repealed. Many of his own supporters don't even like it- many do. But they don't really matter because they'll vote for him either way. Independents also favor repeal of the mandate (24%) or all of it (46%). That doesn't make for a good campaign platform.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me.../promise-kept/

Obama could pull out any of those if he really wanted to, he has the money and the PR people to brute force an image of someone who has done a lot. Because he really has. But the point is that all of those achievements are just as provoking of the right as well of the left. If he wants to tout about closing the "donut hole" for medicare users, he knows that the dreaded death panels will be creeping into the vernacular again.

I don't have the time or inclination to vet that entire list- but man are they being charitable towards Obama. Many of them read to the effect "well, he hasn't actually followed thru completely, but we'll call it a promise kept anyhow." Contrast that with this check of a promise by Boehner where all their evidence indicates he kept the promise, but it gets an "In Progress" rating.

Here's another gem I saw: Increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps

Meanwhile, there is a plan to shrink to 186,800 Marines at the end of Marine Corps operations in Afghanistan, Wolf said.

But Obama said nothing about keeping the higher levels indefinitely. We rate this a Promise Kept.

So he's actually going to cut the size of the military- but screw it, 'promise kept!'

[Xiahou]

Read what I wrote- it's widely disliked. He can't campaign on it. Because people dislike it for a host of different reasons doesn't make it any more marketable.

[a completely inoffensive name]

stuff

Ehh, you are being disingenuous here. The point wasn't the validity of politifact, the point was that he can make statements about following through on many promises, because whether they are substantiated or not, there are articles that would support said statements. Bold faced lies generally are exposed sooner or later in a general election and often trying to redefine the words/meaning of your original statement makes you look even worse "What is the definition of "is"?"

You are not really contesting my point that he could run on a lot of things, you are just expressing your dissatisfaction with everything that he did. Case in point the fact that just because left leaning and right leaning people don't like Obamacare, doesn't translate into "neither group will be voting for obama". Progressives will still vote Dem because the changes Obamacare made had some steps forwards as well as steps backward whereas they 'know' that under Romney it would all be steps backwards.

Read what I wrote- it's widely disliked. He can't campaign on it. Because people dislike it for a host of different reasons doesn't make it any more marketable.

This is also false. If Obama really wanted to he could achieve tentative support of Obamacare by using PR magic on the good portions of the law. Closing the donut hole which seniors love and extending parents coverage for children until 26 (I think it was 26) years old which young people love. The fact is just that it is easier to be slippery and not make such definitive statements over the bill and let the GOP use it as fodder.

[PanzerJaeger]

This is also false. If Obama really wanted to he could achieve tentative support of Obamacare by using PR magic on the good portions of the law. Closing the donut hole which seniors love and extending parents coverage for children until 26 (I think it was 26) years old which young people love. The fact is just that it is easier to be slippery and not make such definitive statements over the bill and let the GOP use it as fodder.

Could you explain your thinking a bit more on this? Obama has plenty of money, the bully pulpit, and unquestionably strong communication skills. If all it would take to turn the political loser that is Obamacare into a winner, why is it easier to continue to let the GOP bash him over the head with it? It will be, perhaps, one of the three major issues he will be judged on along with the economy and spending. Of those three, it is perhaps the easiest to put wrap a bow around. I'm actually quite impressed that the American people have seen through all the gimmicks and giveaways and disapproval has remained as high as it has.

It seems to me that in actuality the Dems have been spending a lot of time, effort, and money trying to sell Obamacare and it just isn't taking.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Could you explain your thinking a bit more on this? Obama has plenty of money, the bully pulpit, and unquestionably strong communication skills. If all it would take to turn the political loser that is Obamacare into a winner, why is it easier to continue to let the GOP bash him over the head with it? It will be, perhaps, one of the three major issues he will be judged on along with the economy and spending. Of those three, it is perhaps the easiest to put wrap a bow around. I'm actually quite impressed that the American people have seen through all the gimmicks and giveaways and disapproval has remained as high as it has.

It seems to me that in actuality the Dems have been spending a lot of time, effort, and money trying to sell Obamacare and it just isn't taking.

Sure. By trying to spin Obamacare into a winner (which in many ways I think it is), he is putting all his chips into one hand. By diversifying he can get together a strong coalition without agitating the GOP base. Obamacare was obviously the number 1 thing on the tip of every GOP candidates mouth during the debates. By spreading himself out over a bunch of different, perhaps small accomplishments and refusing to battle it out over Obamacare, the word then just becomes a talking point by the GOP and not something to fight over as long as Obama doesn't fight over it too much.

To put it in another way Obama is (or should be) trying to throw everything he can at the wall to see what sticks, a couple things will and he can run with those. The GOP it seems wants to rely on one or two things that look like sure things (Obamacare and the economy). But by restricting themselves to those two, it helps Obama dismantle their position and by Obama focusing on a plethora of other subjects he doesn't put himself at the same risk. If people somehow manage to get tired of Romney talking about Bain Capital and want something else out of him, it will be a lot harder for Romney to change gears because he has built nearly his entire persona around being a businessman.

I disagree that the Dems have been trying to spin Obamacare. It seems obvious to me that up until this month Obama has been more than happy to remain silent while the GOP candidates make themselves look like fools. Because the spotlight was solely on the GOP for the past 6 months, it's no surprise that 6 months of hearing the GOP saying "Repeal Obamacare." will have people echoing the sentiment. Once Obama goes into full swing over this coming month, we will actually see what spins the Democrats have in store.

[Lemur]

It's one thing to disrupt your opponent's events with paid hecklers. Admitting it, however, is insane.

Axelrod and others immediately accused the Mitt Romney campaign of organizing and orchestrating the disruption using paid Romney staffers.

That seemed unlikely. At least, it seemed unlikely until Romney admitted it:

“Most of the events I go to, or many of the events I go to, there are large groups of, if you will, Obama supporters there heckling me,” Romney told the press. “And at some point you say, ‘You know what, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.’ If they’re going to be heckling us, why we’re not going to sit back and play by very different rules. If the president is going to have his people coming to my rallies, and heckling, why, we’ll show them that, you know, we conservatives have the same kind of capacity he does.”

Asked for evidence that the Obama campaign is sending hecklers to Romney events, Romney staffers identified an incident at a New York City firehouse in which a press conference with former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani was interrupted by heckling.

That incident in New York was indeed regrettable.

However, the sole rude and vulgar heckler turned out to be an Occupy Wall Street activist who had heard about the event and hustled over to interrupt it. What she did was way out of line, but there is no evidence whatsoever tying her to the Obama campaign or organization.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So what? He's telling the truth, those people heckled axlerod. I'm sure they were Romney supporters who eat food, drink liquid and have friends and family. Axlerod was there to campaign for the admin. I'm sure that was planned.
What are you accusing them of? Effective organization of a counter rally which caused your opponent to stumble like an idiot?

[Xiahou]

Could "the private sector's doing fine" be the "read my lips" of this election cycle? The chessmaster (Obama) really stuck his foot in his mouth with that comment- expect to see it replayed often throughout the campaign....

[Centurion1]

The largest components of the private sector are doing just fine. Its small-businesses that are suffering, for the same reasons everyone else besides the largest components of the private sector are suffering.

On what basis would you suggest that? My portfolio cares to differ. Some companies are doing fine and others are wallowing in loss. Which creates a gran way for me to get rich and get my Foot in the door of a lot of Blue chips I have no right to own but is bad for the country as a whole

[Kadagar_AV]

On what basis would you suggest that? My portfolio cares to differ. Some companies are doing fine and others are wallowing in loss. Which creates a gran way for me to get rich and get my Foot in the door of a lot of Blue chips I have no right to own but is bad for the country as a whole

<- this / people like him.

When people ask me why I am against the economical system we have at large.

[Kralizec]

Could "the private sector's doing fine" be the "read my lips" of this election cycle? The chessmaster (Obama) really stuck his foot in his mouth with that comment- expect to see it replayed often throughout the campaign....

Sounds more like a "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" kind of statement.

[Centurion1]

<- this / people like him.

When people ask me why I am against the economical system we have at large.

ok bro. Sorry I'm a dirty capitalist pig using my own money to create a comfortable life for myself in the future. It's not hard to invest and it doesn't take as much money as people think. Nearly anyone can do it, it isn't my Fault people are too stupid to be able to do so. The issue with your little dream society and whatever flawed economic model you pine for is that simple fact. There are smart People and there are stupid people, neh.

But I digress I'm evil your a crusader of good. Oh and I'm also ignorant and misled, coolly wish I could quell my greedy Little heart by being happy as a ski instructor and children's teacher. Oh wait but I'm not.

Look across history and where you find success is where you find capitalism.

[a completely inoffensive name]

See you just come off as a pompous asshole when you call something you are good at as "easy" and then claim that people are just too stupid to do what you are doing. If they are too stupid then by definition it is hard for them to do it.

Also many people may not be suited for playing the stock market. Not everyone is good at one thing. You got a lot of growing up son.

[Major Robert Dump]

I would also beg to differ that it is really "your money" and more like "money that was given to you."

That, to me, is irrelvant, it's still money in your possession and you can do whatever you want with it. But please don't make it sound as if you have been slaving away for decades to build your investment capital when the real slaves were, in fact, your parents or grandparents.

I find it quite amusing that families with double earner incomes of 200k + lump themselves in the same "middle class" income bracket as a couple making a combined total of 80k. That is a huge discrepency. I actually lost friends in college over this, friends whose parents gave them everything and they didn't have to work, and then they insult me because I am a C student thanks to working 3 part time jobs to pay bills and tuition because of my parents lowly nurse+bakery owner income. The only reason I am bringing this up is because your statement that "it doesn't take as much money as you think" is totally subjective to your situation.

I also think Kadagars comments were a little harsh in singling you out, although at the heart of the matter US investment law is idiotic due to government employees being exempt from insider trading laws, and deep down inside I want it to collapse and ruin everyone involved..

[Major Robert Dump]

But back OT:

I see Obama's approval in the black community, particularly amongst evangelicals, has dipped significantly.

I never had any idea there were so many racist black people who hate black people. I mean, what other reason could there be?

[Lemur]

Anyone who thinks there's movement in the race is fooling themselves. The polling is still quite stable.

Despite what you might expect based on conventional wisdom, polling suggests that a tumultuous month has done little, if anything, to alter the contours of the race: Obama continues to hold a narrow but relatively consistent lead in polls of registered voters (RV), but Romney fares better in polls of likely voters (LV).

If you can see any clear trends, you should get your eyes checked. [...]

Why is the race so stable? For starters, the electorate is deeply polarized and there aren’t very many persuadable voters. Of course, many of those persuadable voters aren’t turned into the race. Most haven’t heard of Cory Booker, let alone care about his musings on Meet the Press. Obama’s comments about the state of the private sector may hurt him, but probably not until deployed aggressively by the Romney campaign.

The voters most likely to follow the intricacies of the race are also those most likely to have firmly made up their minds.

[Major Robert Dump]

Oh I don't think for a second that the opinion polls or anything else are accurate in portraying the election results. Just because his approval rating has dipped with one democraphic does not mean that demographic will not vote for him. I have absolutely no illusion that black evangelicals will vote for Romney, just like I have no illusions that white PaulBots will vote for Obama.

[Lemur]

Oh I don't think for a second that the opinion polls or anything else are accurate in portraying the election results.

They're on measure, no more, no less. The most interesting stuff happens when people with a deep understanding of statistical math combine the polls with other interesting things like voter turnout historical maps and regression analysis. You know, Nate Silver's bag.

But do I take any particular poll or aggregate of polls as predictive of an election months away? Of course not. What the stasis in the polls indicates to me is that the scandals and oopsies and storis of the day aren't getting any traction—right now. The vast majority of people just aren't paying attention yet.

[Strike For The South]

ok bro. Sorry I'm a dirty capitalist pig using my own money to create a comfortable life for myself in the future. It's not hard to invest and it doesn't take as much money as people think. Nearly anyone can do it, it isn't my Fault people are too stupid to be able to do so. The issue with your little dream society and whatever flawed economic model you pine for is that simple fact. There are smart People and there are stupid people, neh.

But I digress I'm evil your a crusader of good. Oh and I'm also ignorant and misled, coolly wish I could quell my greedy Little heart by being happy as a ski instructor and children's teacher. Oh wait but I'm not.
.

Some people are born on 3rd base and think they hit a triple.

Look across history and where you find success is where you find capitalism

This statement means nothing. No one is talking about getting rid of private owned, for profit buisness. No one really ever does.

[Major Robert Dump]

They're on measure, no more, no less. The most interesting stuff happens when people with a deep understanding of statistical math combine the polls with other interesting things like voter turnout historical maps and regression analysis. You know, Nate Silver's bag.

But do I take any particular poll or aggregate of polls as predictive of an election months away? Of course not. What the stasis in the polls indicates to me is that the scandals and oopsies and storis of the day aren't getting any traction—right now. The vast majority of people just aren't paying attention yet.

You miss understood me, and I wasn't all that clear.

I mentioned the lower approval rating amongst black voters. You mentioned the overall unchanging waters of the election polls. I thought perhaps you were suggesting that the lower approval ratings amongst blacks was irrelevant and not a good indication of eventual turnout, and I was agreeing with you.

Basically, don't mix opinion polls w/ issue polls with how-will-u-vote polls and think they are interchangable.

And aside from all this,
I was just wanting to make a funny
By pointing out that there were black voters who didn't approve of The Man
And henceforth were racist

I failed

[Lemur]

I was just wanting to make a funny
By pointing out that there were black voters who didn't approve of The Man
And henceforth were racist

Yeah, I deliberately ignored that part, since the issue of racists, race-baiters, and "You're racist for seeing racism" counter-baiters and so on and so forth is pretty damn dull to me, and tends to excite a lot of ALL CAPS OUTRAGE.

[Major Robert Dump]

I AM OUTRAGE U IGNORZ ME