[Archived] US Presidential Election 2012

[speeeeeeedie]

In light of Steve Moss's comments on the Ryder Cup thread I thought I'd start a separate topic on the upcoming US Presidential election.

Depending on who you believe Obama is the devil incarnate ready to turn America into a Communist nation, and Romney is a slick corporate raider who will do nothing but ship jobs overseas whilst enabling the rich to get richer.

They have both been out touting for votes for months. The first of 3 debates between the 2 is tomorrow night. I am looking forward to them as it gives both a chance to speak.

Who do think will win?

Do you care?

[ABBEY]

British elections are bad enough.

[Amo]

Does it matter?

All puppets for the NWO.

[wilyrover]

I think we get so much coverage of this over here because it makes cheap TV and radio. It annoys me when they come from some backwoods state and these are just for nominations to the two main parties. Then we get the whole circus for another year. Yet hardly anyone is interested over here - not many in the USA either - going off their voting turnout. I think the BBC planners sit in their ofices and think they can use it for covering the late night spots, when nobody's taking much notice.

[Steve Moss]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/obama-romney-tied-among-likely-voters-20121002

Based on this poll, Romney and Obama are tied at 47% each.

But as I said before, certain segments of the media have a habit of oversampling Democrats or under sampling Republicans, at least until the last week before the election. For example, in this poll, only 29% of those polled were Republicans, compared to 36% Democrats.

This under-sampling is evident in that the poll documents 2008 turnout as being 32% of Republicans as compared to 36% Democrats. Not only is the poll taking 3% of the vote from the Republicans as compared to last election (which ignores that Republican identification has been increasing, not decreasing), it also ignores that Obama has lost a lot of support. He's no longer all things to all people.

By itself that factor should give Romney the edge. But a bigger threat to Obama is Romney's 8 point lead amongst Independents. That more than anything points to a Romney victory in 2012.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

I'm not really bothered who wins because I'm a firm believer that, beyond a certain point, changes come from the people, not from governments.

However, in the coverage that I've seen I just wish Fox would stop calling themselves a news organisation, or at least drop the "fair and balanced" line. Celebrity speaks at Democrat convention and it's "unnecessary and patronising", Clint Eastwood shouts at a chair in the Republican convention and they swoon. I'm not going to make an itemised list of these incidents, but if we're honest that channel is closer to propaganda than news.

[jim mk2]

The US has two political parties, one on the right wing and the other on the extreme right wing. Fox represents the latter. If Cameron has his way we could soon see the equivalent of Fox in Britain, in which case everyone would be very pleased.

[Rovermatt]

http://www.nationalj...voters-20121002

Based on this poll, Romney and Obama are tied at 47% each.

But as I said before, certain segments of the media have a habit of oversampling Democrats or under sampling Republicans, at least until the last week before the election. For example, in this poll, only 29% of those polled were Republicans, compared to 36% Democrats.

This under-sampling is evident in that the poll documents 2008 turnout as being 32% of Republicans as compared to 36% Democrats. Not only is the poll taking 3% of the vote from the Republicans as compared to last election (which ignores that Republican identification has been increasing, not decreasing), it also ignores that Obama has lost a lot of support. He's no longer all things to all people.

By itself that factor should give Romney the edge. But a bigger threat to Obama is Romney's 8 point lead amongst Independents. That more than anything points to a Romney victory in 2012.

Every major poll I've seen shows Obama leading quite handily in the likes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Colorado, all swing states. Even polls considered conservative show him up in Ohio, a state that the GOP simply cannot lose if it hopes to go to the White House. He also has a lead in the likes of Florida, Virginia and Iowa, though by much narrower margins. The electoral college will obviously decide the outcome which means that, as ever, only a few states really matter. All these polls are subject to change of course.

[meerkat]

If "magic Mormon underwear" win's this election, then I give up. Was playing guildwars 2 last night, and was told Obama was a socialist ( I wish he was) and a Muslim (Yea right) all in one sentence.

Ignore ensued.

Follow this site :

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Been correct the last 4 US elections.

[Steve Moss]

By all accounts (including ultra-Democrat Chris Matthews), Romney crushed Obama.

Which gives the polling companies some cover (Rasmussen excepted). Most are designed as propaganda tools (demoralize the opposition, motivate your base) until closer to election day. As we get closer, Romney will creep into the lead and they'll use the debates as an excuse.

Every major poll I've seen shows Obama leading quite handily in the likes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Colorado, all swing states. Even polls considered conservative show him up in Ohio, a state that the GOP simply cannot lose if it hopes to go to the White House. He also has a lead in the likes of Florida, Virginia and Iowa, though by much narrower margins. The electoral college will obviously decide the outcome which means that, as ever, only a few states really matter. All these polls are subject to change of course.

Have you checked the demographics of those polled? I think you'll find that most oversample Democrats. It isn't anything new, its been the trend the last several election cycles.

[Steve Moss]

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Been correct the last 4 US elections.

Romney now leads by 2%. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/18/romney-edge-expands-post-debate-in-rasmussen-tracking-poll/

I suspect his lead will "unexpectedly" increase between now and election day, as most pollsters transfer from trying to influence the election (motivate the base, demoralize the opposition) to accurately predicting the result.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

I still haven't seen a great deal of the election coverage, but what exactly is Romney's platform?

So far all I've been able to gather is that he wants to start a trade war with China, he's pledged himself to a pro-active defence of Israel, and he wants to make the economy a central issue without actually telling anyone the details of his magic budget.

Romney wants to make North America (not the USA) energy independent, but importing from Canada and Mexico isn't really cheaper than buying from Saudi Arabia, and the net import will remain the same because American oil companies can't or won't meet the increased demand for fear of undermining their price. Capping the federal budget can't cut the deficit without seriously hampering economic growth, and promises like "Give every family access to a great school and quality teachers" are financially implausible, practically impossible and struggle to sound like anything more than hollow rhetoric to anyone with a functioning braincell.

He proposes to increase spending on defence while reducing federal government spending by almost a fifth and cutting taxes virtually across the board, and his planned cuts to spending, as far as I can see on his campaign website, total, by his own biased estimates, less than $300bn. That falls a long way short of the figure he needs to drop from a federal budget of c.$18tr. So his spending cuts don't balance the budget, his tax cuts certainly aren't going to balance the budget in the short-term, so what is his masterplan?

I'd genuinely like to hear what the secret is, because as far as I can see, easy as it is to poke holes in Obama's record, America already elected one president based on vague, undeliverable promises just four years ago, so I'd be a little wary of another candidate whose message seems to be "trust me, I'll figure it out once I get the job."

Also, I guess it's asking too much that the next administration will give honesty a chance and stop counting all "combat-age males" killed in drone strikes as enemy combatants.

[jim mk2]

All you need to know about Romney is that his fix for the US economy is cutting takes for the rich while ignoring the poor. Sound familiar ?

[Paul]

Don't forget Romney has promised to create 12 million jobs in four years - 3 million a year.

With this knowledge and ability If Romney doesn't get elected Cameron should employ him on a one year contract and significant bonus. Would solve our unemployment issues and cut the benefits bill at a stroke.

Where does America find these people?

[Steve Moss]

Where does America find these people?

The same place you find yours.

Romney wants to make North America (not the USA) energy independent, but importing from Canada and Mexico isn't really cheaper than buying from Saudi Arabia, and the net import will remain the same because American oil companies can't or won't meet the increased demand for fear of undermining their price. Capping the federal budget can't cut the deficit without seriously hampering economic growth, and promises like "Give every family access to a great school and quality teachers" are financially implausible, practically impossible and struggle to sound like anything more than hollow rhetoric to anyone with a functioning braincell.

. . .

I'd genuinely like to hear what the secret is, because as far as I can see, easy as it is to poke holes in Obama's record, America already elected one president based on vague, undeliverable promises just four years ago, so I'd be a little wary of another candidate whose message seems to be "trust me, I'll figure it out once I get the job."

If the choice is between Mexican and Canadian oil or Saudi oil, I choose Mexico and Canada.

And as vague as Romney may be Obama failed to come through so Romney it is.

[philipl]

Romney is a systematic liar. Ryan's economic plans are economically illiterate.

We don't want a war mongering ignoramus like Romney in the White House.

If he gets elected, let's get out of NATO immediately as I don't want to be part of Bibi running the global war agenda.

[speeeeeeedie]

Debate 2 happened a few nights ago. After looking incompetent in the first one Obama was much more lively and more than held his own.

Romney is not a raving right winger, but has to play like he is half the time to appease the flock. Ryan just doesn't look right. They are running on Obama's failed economic policies. Unfortuantely, nobody has any idea what would have transpired if it would have been done differently. Nor does anoyne know the when the effects of the 2008 meltdown will be nullified.

[Steve Moss]

One inevitability is that Condi Rice will become president at some point. What's your take on her, Steve?

Condi Rice is a very intelligent, highly respected lady. She'll never be president (and don't think she'll ever run), though I think she'd be a good one.

Her gender and the color of her skin has nothing to do with it, and probably helps her with the Republican base. The more than few reasons against her being president someday include having a reputation for being somewhat socially liberal and never having been married. I think both factors are unfairly considered, but then that's the reality so she (and her supporters) have to deal with it.

I do think she'll be invited into Romney's cabinet, perhaps as Secretary of State.

We don't want a war mongering ignoramus like Romney in the White House.

The kicker is that you don't have a say and Romney will most likely be in the White House come January 2012.

And using the phrase "ignoramus" in relation to Romney demonstrates that you are posting under some emotional impulse. Romney is very far from an ignoramus.

As to "war mongering" I do think an Iran strike is likely under a President Romney. He (or any serious Republican candidate) won't allow a nuclear Iran.

[broadsword]

Why should the stop a nuclear Iran, when we have a nuclear Israel? Hasn't Israel broken more UN resolutiuons than Iran?

I have no idea on the economic policies of Romney, but I think after 4 (or was it 8?) years of the older Bush, and then another 8 from his dipshit offspring, the world deserves a break from the Republicans.

[jim mk2]

I have no idea on the economic policies of Romney,

Bill Clinton explains Romneyomics (link below). In simple terms Romney will make the rich even richer paid for by higher taxes for those in the middle and below. Presumably Romney got his ideas from George Osborne.

[broadsword]

Is Bill Clinton really the right fella to be slagging off other people's economic policies?

I mean this is the guy who started the sub-prime crisis. He's also the one who came up with triangulation, so I'm wary of his opinions on economics and political conviction.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

There's really no point bringing Israel's nuclear arsenal into the debate. I'm a pretty staunch critic of Israel, but the fact is that they have nuclear weapons and there's nothing that can be done about that now. Their attempt to help the Apartheid regime in South Africa develop nukes should have brought about sterner action from the international community, but again it is consigned to the history books.

A nuclear Iran wouldn't really be such a big deal because they know that to use a nuclear missile would be to sign their own death warrants. Tehran would be levelled within the hour. But it's hardly a nice thought that a nation with links to some rather unstable groups could have that kind of destructive power. Israel, on the other hand, might be rather brutal in dealing with their enemies, but they couldn't use nuclear weapons to deal with their biggest problem because it would turn their own country into a nuclear wasteland, and they won't use them against the likes of Iran because it's more convenient to let their big brother deal with it.

Apart from any of that, though, Iran is years away from developing a nuclear weapon, according to intelligence from the US and Israel. Netanyahu's Wile E. Coyote style bomb at the UN was nothing more than scaremongering, and everyone knows that. What should be more worrying is that Pakistan is in meltdown, and they have a nuclear arsenal. North Korea has nuclear capability, but they're working on the ballistic missile delivery system. China could well stand behind Iran since they are pretty dependent on Gulf oil, and their nuclear arsenal is estimated to be fast catching up with America's. So there's plenty of nuclear worry to go around without panicking about something that is probably a decade away from happening in Iran.

However, if we are going to attack Iran, could we just bomb them and have it over with? The sanctions that we've imposed are so much more destructive than any bombing campaign. Even if we went all out and turned Tehran into another Dresden it would kill less innocent Iranians than a few years of economic sanctions. We've seen time and again that sanctions aren't politically effective, they just lay the groundwork for a war. Sanctions weaken the infrastructure, the military takes advantage (then UK and US companies cream off the profits from reconstruction contracts).

Anyone care to remember Madeleine Albright claiming that half a million Iraqi children was a price worth paying for the pressure that sanctions put on Saddam Hussein? That'd be the Saddam that lasted 13 years of sanctions and was only finally removed by a military campaign, but of course, the price is always worth paying when you're not picking up the bill.

Compare Iran and the US. America had a financial wobble and everyone threw their toys out of the pram. The Iranian currency lost almost half its value in one week and nobody seems to care. Americans got evicted from their homes, Iranians now can't afford food. Now consider that the crisis in the US was self-inflicted because the banks were allowed to write their own industry regulations, but the problems that ordinary Iranians are facing is being inflicted by us. And all of this to put pressure on a government that most Iranians didn't vote for, but they can't publicly oppose without risking their lives, and even if they remove Ahmadinejad they're still stuck with Ayatollah Khameini. Who are these people supposed to turn to for support? Their government doesn't really look after their interests, and our governments think that starving them will change Tehran's nuclear policy.

Long story short, the biggest threat to America is America. If you want to talk about promoting democracy then how about taking a stand against Assad and washing your hands of the al-Saud family, or maybe recognising Chavez's right to govern in Venezuela. But that's not the point is it? It's only democracy if people vote for someone Washington likes, and if the alternative is doing business with dictators then they'll happily see atrocities in Burma, they'll stand by the likes of Suharto and they'll sell weapons to whoever happens to be on their side right now. We'll deal with tomorrow when it comes.

Frankly, American foreign policy is just a matter of coercing everyone else into doing what's good for the US, regardless of who suffers as a result. That won't change, no matter who gets elected. I also couldn't really care about how US presidents deal with American social issues. The important aspect of this election as far as we are concerned is how the next administration fares in reviving the American economy, because a weak America is bad for business for the rest of us.

[thenodrog]

Bill Clinton explains Romneyomics (link below). In simple terms Romney will make the rich even richer paid for by higher taxes for those in the middle and below. Presumably Romney got his ideas from George Osborne.

Well if he himself becomes a multi multi millionaire from the process of leadership then it's quite clear that he's got his ideas from Tony Bliar.

[thenodrog]

A nuclear Iran wouldn't really be such a big deal because they know that to use a nuclear missile would be to sign their own death warrants. Tehran would be levelled within the hour. But it's hardly a nice thought that a nation with links to some rather unstable groups could have that kind of destructive power.

Am I alone in thinking that the military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is less to do with some vague war on terror as much as to do with establishing bases on both sides of Iran and preparing the forces for desert warfare?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Condi Rice is a very intelligent, highly respected lady. She'll never be president (and don't think she'll ever run), though I think she'd be a good one.

Her gender and the color of her skin has nothing to do with it, and probably helps her with the Republican base. The more than few reasons against her being president someday include having a reputation for being somewhat socially liberal and never having been married. I think both factors are unfairly considered, but then that's the reality so she (and her supporters) have to deal with it.

I do think she'll be invited into Romney's cabinet, perhaps as Secretary of State.

The kicker is that you don't have a say and Romney will most likely be in the White House come January 2012.

And using the phrase "ignoramus" in relation to Romney demonstrates that you are posting under some emotional impulse. Romney is very far from an ignoramus.

As to "war mongering" I do think an Iran strike is likely under a President Romney. He (or any serious Republican candidate) won't allow a nuclear Iran.

How can you regard an attack on Iran as a sensible, logical move ? There's one or two really scarey people on this site, I'm just glad most of them don't actually live in this country. They say you get the leaders you deserve but does the U.S. really deserve the likes of Romney ? Maybe you do !