Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
  1.  (10833.1)
    "A third party may *replace* one of the existing two parties, as happened to the Whigs..."

    It's important to note that this only happened after the Whig party self-destructed due to in-fighting over the question of slavery. The Republican party was formed by the faction of the Whigs who opposed it (e.g. Lincoln). Likewise, the Whig party formed only after the Federalists had disbanded, leaving the Democratic party (then called "Democratic-Republican") in charge of a one-party state. A third party has never developed to overtake one of the two dominant parties in the American system. If a Libertarian or Green party is ever going to become a major player in US politics, it will be over the dead body of the Republican or Democratic party.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.2)
    @Richard Pace - "elections aren't won with just your base, it really depends on how many of the swing voters you can get in battleground states"

    The thing is, I haven't heard that many voters who, while not aligned with a major party (such as myself), who haven't already made their minds up. With Mittens having already run a presidential campaign before, and Obama being the incumbent, I have the feeling that many people already had their minds made up and the number of people that are being swayed is a less than people would make it out to be.

    "The reason the pundits are saying Mitt's lost the election for this -- an aside, isn't this the second or third time they're saying it? -- is it reinforces the narrative of Mitt not caring about the middle class and poor Americans and having a rather simple-minded take on foreign policy."

    And, you see, that's where I point out that this has been the message on Romney since 2008. This isn't new news, it's so old it''s got dust and McCain's fingerprints on it. Anyone with a pulse, who's been paying attention, and isn't blinded by party ideology wouldn't be surprised by this and that's why I don't think this is as bad as the pundits are making it out to be. I think the current narrative of "OMG, ROMNEY IS TEH LOSS" has more to do with the last sentence where you said "if the election looks like a lost cause, Republicans will stay away in droves on voting day"; I think that's the narrative they're really trying to push.

    "we've seen Romney during the primaries struggling to get ahead of a complete pack of morons, we've seen him in past debates getting slammed by people like Ted Kennedy, and I don't imagine he'll transform into someone who can effectively and clearly beat Obama in any of the formats or topics set up. "

    Have to agree with you. Considering the amount of flip-flopping he's done, and his own record, he's going to need some majorly negative talking points on Obama to shore himself up. Obama's a more eloquent speaker in the moment and he's better in the debate.

    @old hat

    ".if Romney won will there be much change? By that I mean will it be, like Obama, another four years of cockblocking? It's been frustrating to see Obama's attempts at bridging the gap between the two parties in order to get some shit done shot down simply because he's a democrat and with Romney not really showing many signs of a desire to bridge that gap will it just be democrats stopping Romney for the hell of it?"

    I don't know if it would be "for the hell of it". I think that if there was some good legislation that was truly bipartisan it'd get through. At least I hope so. However, considering the people Romney's surrounded himself with, such as Robert Bork, and things could go a lot worse than they have with Obama's GOP obstructions.
    • CommentAuthorandycon
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.3)
    speaking as a democrat, democrats wouldnt know how to cockblock if they were handed a cock and a 'Do Not Enter' Sign
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.4)
    @Andycon

    True that. When it comes to the parties, no one is better at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory like the Democrats.
    • CommentAuthorFlabyo
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.5)
    From a UK perspective the fear is that Romney in the Whitehouse would have a far more hawkish foreign policy, and we really really don't want to get dragged along on another painful war in the middle east just because we always feel obliged to join in anything the US does...
  2.  (10833.6)
    @oldhat and renthing: the thing is, if the Romney takes the presidency, it would most likely be accompanied by the republicans taking a sizeable majority of both the House and Senate, so if the dems even had the will to cockblock the way the repubs have been for the past four years, they wouldn't be able to.

    Also take into account that whoever is elected will probably be making two appointments to the Supreme Court during their presidency, and if Romney makes those appointments we'd be looking at the most conservative Supreme Court in US history, for a very, very long time.

    The amount of damage that could be done with a Republican Tea Party congress, the most in the bag for corporations President ever, and an overwhelmingly conservative Supreme Court is massive.
    • CommentAuthorArgos
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.7)
    And now David Lejeune has officially made me worry even more about this election. I had not considered the Supreme Court appointments before, and that is frightening for me.
    •  
      CommentAuthoroldhat
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.8)
    @David, thanks for answering that. I'm now definitely scared for you guys.
  3.  (10833.9)
    Page 2 of the old election thread. Si asks us to call it and we speculate. So far I'm feeling far better about my call than the last several months would have led me to expect. Romney can't get out of the way of his own mouth, and keeps insulting the people he needs to mobilize to support him.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.10)
    @Flabyo

    "far more hawkish foreign policy"

    Those in the US are worried about it as well. With Israel saying the only way to stop Iran is to go at them, and Romney talking about how we're SUCH good friends with them, I'm not sure you're too far off. Also, considering how much Romney doesn't know about foreign affairs, and doesn't seem to want to learn, I'd be worried about it too.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.11)
    @Argos

    Look up the name I listed above, Robert Bork. Then be very, very afraid because Romney says he wants to put him on the SCotUS.

    @James Cunningham

    Well, my prediction wasn't worth much. That being said, I wouldn't say this is in the bag for Obama. Enough shennanigans are going on outside of the campaigns (various voter supression efforts) to make this a slam dunk.
    •  
      CommentAuthoroldhat
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.12)
    On Robert Bork, oh dear...

    One year before President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned whites-only lunch counters and other forms of discrimination, Bork criticized the Act as a moral abomination. “The principle of such legislation is that if I find your behavior ugly by my standards, moral or aesthetic, and if you prove stubborn about adopting my view of the situation, I am justified in having the state coerce you into more righteous paths. That is itself a principle of unsurpassed ugliness.”
    • CommentAuthorArgos
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.13)
    So Bork is basically one of my mortal enemies, and not because I hate him, but because of the ways in which he wants to infringe upon my freedoms. Having him as a SCotUS candidate is reason enough not to have Mittens as president.
    • CommentAuthorandycon
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.14)
    He is 85 though and with Romney vowing to dismantle Obama Care, he could die at any given moment
    • CommentAuthorArgos
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.15)
    Weird that Romney is only a decade younger, isn't it? Romney looks like he's in his 50s.
    • CommentAuthorStefanJ
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.16)
    @Argos: He looks young because he's lived the pure, carefree, and virtuous life of a filthy rich clueless knob.
    •  
      CommentAuthorFinagle
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.17)
    @Jason A Quest:

    ...are we not looking at that happening right now to the Republican party? It really is amazing how they manage to still wind up falling in line behind their candidate, but. Really, they're done. This is their last election as a cohesive party, if the Southern Strategy fails them.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.18)
    @Finagle

    But will that lead to them fracturing into two distinct parties? My vote is on the "highly unlikely" outcome.
    •  
      CommentAuthorFinagle
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.19)
    @RenThing -

    No, I don't think it *will*, given the problem we have with the winner-take-all situation and the state-by-state nature of the parties. I think the practical result will be that the Republican party simply shrinks, and the pool of people who claim to be "Independent" (which means they *mostly* vote Democrat) grows.
    •  
      CommentAuthormister hex
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2012
     (10833.20)
    @ Finagle - I think you're right and I certainly fucking hope so. Unfortunately, the Southern Strategy that has worked and worked well at both a state and federal level long ago morphed into the Military Industrial Pork Barrel Sweatshop.

    I still think it's gonna be Obama. Romney's best moments are yet to come. (That dog on the roof is gonna haunt him bad, among other things.) And I also think that the Democrats like to portray themselves as mostly armless and thick as two short planks but make no mistake - they know dirty tricks that are dirty indeed. (They don't call him Slick Willy fer nuthin'!) SNAKES are mostly armless and the correct snake can kill you just by looking at you, nevermind actually biting you.

    Point - Obama's got it all over him, foreign policy-wise. The Man Who Shot the Man Who Shot America. Also, he's got a willingness to use those drones and use them often.

    Israel scares the fuck out of me. Question - why DOES America give Israel so much aid? Like, really. Wouldn't that money be better spent elsewhere? I get it, they're allies and they're important - but, as their most important ally, does ANY president have enough clout to tell them what to do? (I am not a fan of the actions of Israel in many cases but they have legitimate security concerns, to be sure. There MAY be some criticism of Israel, which can be always touchy, sometimes.)

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.