The Politics Thread

[quartermainefan]

The electoral college is the worst way to elect people, and completely unfair. 1/8 of the country lives in California and yet no one asks them for their vote. 4 people and a cow live in Iowa and every candidate and a trillion reporters descend on that state to chronicle their every whim in the caucus. It's ridiculous. If 99% of the people live in one place, then 99% of the vote should come from that place. in the 1700s the country had more farms, there were not many people living in the cities, dueling states had to manipulate the constitution to make sure they had a voice (why Rhode Island gets 3 votes still to this day I will never know. It's like a vote for every person in that state). It's all so undemocratic, but it is time to go to the most fair voting measure of, that being one man/one vote.

All the pundits on TV seem to be predicting Obama. Well, all the pundits not on FOX I guess. Sandy was good to Obama, I don't think there is any way to see it otherwise. It will be interesting to see how the press will react if Nate Silver proves on the money again. His estimation is so wildly different than the entirely of the press and media, that if he is right and everyone else is wrong, why do we need anyone else?

Edited November 5, 2012 by quartermainefan

[DRW50]

There's a theory that some of the hate spread around by 527 groups was done for this reason - to run up the vote in places where Romney was already going to win, but now to make it even larger, so that the media and the GOP can say Obama lost the popular vote and has no mandate (never mind that Bush said he had a mandate in 2004).

If Obama wins I don't think it's because of Sandy. It's important to look Presidential, yes, but people expect a President to do a competent job. Only Obama being a failure would have made a difference.

[Ann_SS]

There is going to be all sorts of spinning, but Sandy had nothing to do with the President winning the election. Despite months of the pundits and Republican spin machine, this has always been the President's election to lose. He has led in the state polls in most of key swing states since June 2012 and has never has less than ~65% chance of winning this election according to Nate Silver's model. Even the President's first bad debate performance which tightened the polls was unable to shake his lead in most of the swing states. Romney lost this election in way back in August,

[Vee]

The Republicans - particularly Karl Rove - have already begun spinning, claiming it was only Sandy that won it for Obama. In reality, Obama was well up at least two weeks before.

[marceline]

Indeed. The weakness of the Democratic Party is remarkably frustrating and it's the reason the Democrats are constantly in a position of starting from scratch. They never finish the job. Already I'm seeing Democrats say that if Obama wins then the Republicans will be more cooperative this time around. That's complete and total fuckery. The Republicans will double down on their obstruction and corruption with their eyes on 2016. There will be no cooperation. There will be no bipartisanship. The only hope is that the GOP manages to tear itself apart from the inside.

[DRW50]

This is a byproduct of many of the leading media voices being Republicans, or closet Republicans - they are in the papers and the TV being "sensible" and "reasonable".

There is a nostalgia for old friends like Jacob Javits, Lowell Wicker, Howard Baker, and the days when the elites actually had control of anything beyond their country club.

It's mostly a joke at this point. If Obama does win then presumably he won't fall into that trap again, or the "building a legacy" trap. Whether he ever says it out loud or not, his decision to go for the throat, regardless of what the media said, is likely the reason he will be reelected.

[Vee]

I think most of the Obama machine is far more aggressive than many of the defeatist pols and pundits (and voters) we saw in the last twelve years. They got called arrogant by everyone, but in truth they won it and continue to win it.

Too many baby boomer liberals live and thrive from a position of weakness and downtrodden trauma - it's a mindset that works for them, breeds populist fire. But it doesn't work in practice, and it's dying out.

Morning Joe is digging up any obscure poll he can to claim this race is still tied, as are people I believe on main line NBC. Hilarious. They're even entertaining the possibility that Mitt will take Pennsylvania. If Mitt Romney wins Pennsylvania I will go out Wednesday, pick up a woman (any woman - I'm not picky) and have boisterous, Christian heterosexual sex.

And Carl is right - this comes out of, IMO, far too many of the Beltway elite coming up in the Reagan dream. They have a preexisting mindset (like a lot of older liberals) through which they see the world - liberals wusses, Republicans awesome. Obama has fucked with that in a major way.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Vee

[DRW50]

I think Obama did try to be conciliatory in his first few years in office - he had been a consensus politician and had only changed that up in the 2007/8 primary. But he was burned, badly, and hopefully he knows that. I think a lot of the people who voted for him are probably disappointed in what he has done or hasn't done or his image or what his image hasn't been. I had no real illusions so I have little hesitation about his reelection.

I know that GoldenDogs sees me as one of the biggest liberals here. I don't have a problem with that, but I don't even really see myself as any political label. But at this point there are no other options, there aren't two choices. For me, it's a choice between deeply flawed with potential, and driving off a cliff.

Edited November 5, 2012 by CarlD2

[Ann_SS]

I completely agree. I noticed that the NY Times endorsement said that the President would be prepared this time for the partisan opposition. I hope that it was right. I want to see he and the Democratic Congress going to the match. No more of this compromising BS.

[Vee]

Obama will always try to work with both sides of the aisle. That's who he is, that is his brand and that is what he believes. He is not often overtly aggressive and emotionally fulfilling in the way a lot of angry liberals (of which I can certainly be counted at times) feel they require after the trauma of the Bush years. But he also acts when he feels it is necessary, just often without a lot of fanfare or chest-thumping. Remember, this is the man who smiled at Donald Trump's nonsense at a press dinner the day before he oversaw his risky (and pooh-poohed by much of his cabinet) operation to kill Osama bin Laden. And he pushed back for health care when others wanted to walk away. He's a quiet operator. I expect he'll become more aggressive in that arena in his second term, but we won't always see it coming upfront.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Vee

[Ann_SS]

Nate Silver firmly rebuts the Sandy argument for the President's impending reelection: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/nov-4-did-hurricane-sandy-blow-romney-off-course/

[Wales2004]

I've just seen the same Super-PAC ad for Mitt Romney on CNN and MSNBC run within seconds of each other. They used an excerpt from Mitt Romney's rally speech saying that Barack Obama can take that divisiveness back to Chicago.

That kind of ad is wasted in Los Angeles County but it could work with some elements in Orange County and other pockets in California. It seems like a waste of their money though.

Yes, it is amazing that I live in a state with 55 electoral votes and the voters in Ohio get all the attention.

The Republicans will double down if Barack Obama wins because they'll be brimming with even more hatred, anger and animosity. But some of them will likely be up for re-election in a couple of years and the stranglehold of the Tea Party may have to be shaken on some of them..

[GoldenDogs]

I wish everyone here a Happy Election Day... Check in and visit with you all tomorrow morning but I'm out of gas debating. :-) Will be interesting and will be interested in hearing everyone's thoughts Wednesday morning!

In the meantime, I'll be in your neck of the woods today, Wales! I'll be thinking of you as work brings me there

Best to everyone... even Ann and Carl... LOL! We don't always agree but I respect your opinions and enjoy our exchanges!

[Money]

Obama wanted to appear as a "good guy" during his presidency. The man who reached across the aisle and finally found compromise. His idealism was his weakness .The Republicans tried to define him and to an extent it worked. He came across weak and ineffective. This time around he doesn't have to worry about re-election so has the freedom to pursue the "change" he referred to in 2008. If he really thinks the 'pubs are going to be more receptive to bipartisanship now then he didn't learn a damn thing.

[Mr. Vixen]

It's so weird to me reading so many things about my hometown Cleveland, and Ohio in general. No matter how old I get, I can never get over the fact that my home state is so important in these elections.