Obama and the 2012 Election

Skittlemeister.:

I tend to lean Republican on a few things, but the candidates are indeed a joke this year. I have no idea who to vote for, if I should even vote at all this year.

Those who didn't get on the Virginia ballot only have themselves to blame. In Virginia you have to get, I think, 10,000 signatures on a petition to get on the ballot. Only Romney and Paul did the work. The others started whining about how it's unconstitutional and wanted to get on the ballot without signatures. Basically saying "I didn't do my job, but I want to get paid anyways."

The unfortunate thing is none of the politicians really care about Virginia at all, because it's typically carried by Republicans. Unless you live in a swing state, no politician feels the need to campaign towards you or promote policy in favor of your states. It's all been a happy race to Florida, really. It will be even more sectarian once the general election starts.

I live in a bellwether state, so most candidates who are still in the race will visit my state, in fact all of them either have or plan to I believe. But, just go about 50 miles north of my hometown into Illinois, and there will be virtually no activity, because it's solidly Democrat. (That's actually a bad example, as President Obama is from Illinois so he'll obviously visit, but it won't be legitimate campaigning.)

I find it odd that Herman Cain went from his grandiose endorsement of "the American People" to endorsing Newt Gingrich Not quite the same message. And to think, this guy was a front runner at one point.

Romney said today that he's not concerned about the very poor, in the same sentence he said that he's not concerned about the very rich He said we have a "safety net" for the very poor. The goal of his entire campaign has been to overcome the image of an "rich and out of touch" white guy, and I'd say he just kicked himself in the teeth.

^Hey, I'm happy if Romney hangs himself. I fervently hope that he doesn't win the Republican primary, because he won't win against Obama in the election, and he won't be good for the US at all.

^At the moment Romney is losing to Obama in the polls, but Gingrich is trailing him to a greater degree. I think both of them need something 'big' to happen if they want to stand chance of beating him. Which is a little crazy, given that I'm not aware of Obama being all that popular.

I'm still amazed that Romney makes more in a day then the average annual salary for a family in the US, but has a lower tax rate. If his 13.7% doesn't hurt him against Obama's 25% and Newt's30%, I'd be amazed.

^So basically, America doesn't really have a favorable runner for these elections? People will basically be voting for whoever they hate less (aside from the ones who just stick with the party on permanent basis).

That's a crappy choice, I'd hate to be in that situation. Although I am locally, but that's irrelevant.

^That's pretty much every US election though.

I would honestly only support Ron Paul because he's so different and might actually make changes in Washington, rather than every other politician in this race who's happy with the status quo and content to let things stay the way they are (Aside from health care, of course.)

lovecraft:

^That's pretty much every US election though.

I would honestly only support Ron Paul because he's so different and might actually make changes in Washington, rather than every other politician in this race who's happy with the status quo and content to let things stay the way they are (Aside from health care, of course.)

The changes Ron Paul talks about he would have no authority to make as an executive rather than a legislature; and he certainly wouldn't have the cooperation of Congress. He's completely unrealistic (by God, the man wants to go back to a gold based economy) and would rather ramble on and on about his radical beliefs than work for practical change. Ron Paul is against almost every law passed to protect rights and prevent discrimination by the Federal government, and would essentially put people at the mercy of their state. Black in Alabama? Oh well, says Ron Paul, they don't have to honor the Civil Rights Act. Gay in Florida? Oh well, says Ron Paul, their constitutional amendment that discriminates against gay people can't be challenged by the Supreme Court, or appealed by any federal law.

I think Ron Paul has some of the most dangerous ideology I've ever seen. I'd shoot myself in the foot three times before voting for him. He' no different than any other Republican, in the respect that he promises things he has no shot in hell at making happen, and he's socially and economically oppressive.

Kurtni:

The changes Ron Paul talks about he would have no authority to make as an executive rather than a legislature; and he certainly wouldn't have the cooperation of Congress. He's completely unrealistic (by God, the man wants to go back to a gold based economy) and would rather ramble on and on about his radical beliefs than work for practical change. Ron Paul is against almost every law passed to protect rights and prevent discrimination by the Federal government, and would essentially put people at the mercy of their state. Black in Alabama? Oh well, says Ron Paul, they don't have to honor the Civil Rights Act. Gay in Florida? Oh well, says Ron Paul, their constitutional amendment that discriminates against gay people can't be challenged by the Supreme Court, or appealed by any federal law.

I think Ron Paul has some of the most dangerous ideology I've ever seen. I'd shoot myself in the foot three times before voting for him. He' no different than any other Republican, in the respect that he promises things he has no shot in hell at making happen, and he's socially and economically oppressive.

Wouldn't a gold-based economy damage the US's business outlooks?

I'm not sure if it's an elaborate hoax or not, but I'm seeing news reports of Roseanne Barr pursuing the Green Party nomination for President.

I really don't know what to think about this.

I do not agree with pretty much anything Obama has done, but I cannot find myself to support any of the GOP candidates.

While I can't imagine the GOP winning this election, I would also imagine that they might not want to, terribly, given how the economy is still something of a mess and isn't quite looking like it's about to improve any time soon. And by 2016, they won't have an incumbent to deal with- for all his lack of popularity, at least Obama is the devil the American people know, as opposed to the devils they know, but haven't seen with the President's power yet- so the Republicans might have a more decisive victory with two newcomers having to stand up to the plate.

I think Obama will probably get in by some small but perfectly-formed margin, but the more telling question is what the House and Senate will look like when he has to deal with them for four more years. If the Republicans manage to just maintain control of the House, it's tricky enough, but if by some force of nature they also get the Senate, things could get very sticky.

Sheepy:

While I can't imagine the GOP winning this election, I would also imagine that they might not want to, terribly, given how the economy is still something of a mess and isn't quite looking like it's about to improve any time soon. And by 2016, they won't have an incumbent to deal with- for all his lack of popularity, at least Obama is the devil the American people know, as opposed to the devils they know, but haven't seen with the President's power yet- so the Republicans might have a more decisive victory with two newcomers having to stand up to the plate.

I think Obama will probably get in by some small but perfectly-formed margin, but the more telling question is what the House and Senate will look like when he has to deal with them for four more years. If the Republicans manage to just maintain control of the House, it's tricky enough, but if by some force of nature they also get the Senate, things could get very sticky.

I wouldn't be too upset if Republicans slimly gained control of both houses honestly, because I think things would get done. Obama's second term would probably look a lot like the second term of Bill Clinton, in the sense that he isn't shooting for reelection, so he can compromise with more bipartisanship than an average democrat could and get things passed, and he would certainly still veto anything too radically conservative, which would force republicans to make an attempt to meet him half way.

Unless of course they won with a large margin, and could overrride his vetos, and life as I know it may end.

Kurtni:

I wouldn't be too upset if Republicans slimly gained control of both houses honestly, because I think things would get done. Obama's second term would probably look a lot like the second term of Bill Clinton, in the sense that he isn't shooting for reelection, so he can compromise with more bipartisanship than an average democrat could and get things passed, and he would certainly still veto anything too radically conservative, which would force republicans to make an attempt to meet him half way.

Unless of course they won with a large margin, and could overrride his vetos, and life as I know it may end.

This is why I don't understand American politics.

It just seems alien to me that if both houses are not Democrat-majority but still have a Democrat president and then they can override his decisions.

Christ, and I thought our coalition was complicated. Can someone help me?

Toby Turner:

This is why I don't understand American politics.

It just seems alien to me that if both houses are not Democrat-majority but still have a Democrat president and then they can override his decisions.

Christ, and I thought our coalition was complicated. Can someone help me?

Ok, so let's say a Republican majority congress passes a bill. The President vetos it. In order to pass the bill, Congress would have to vote with a 2/3s majority in each house to still pass the bill. Usually, no party has that large of a majority, so bipartisan votes are needed.

Kurtni:

Ok, so let's say a Republican majority congress passes a bill. The President vetos it. In order to pass the bill, Congress would have to vote with a 2/3s majority in each house to still pass the bill. Usually, no party has that large of a majority, so bipartisan votes are needed.

Right but I still don't understand how you can have a Republican majority Senate and House and yet still have a Democrat President. That's what I mean.

^...I think I've vaguely got the idea here, but I might still be a bit off XD.
Votes for the senators/house reps are separate to the votes for the President...the elections just all happen to occur on the same day. Probably for convenience, maybe just to confuse everyone.

You get a vote for your local House Representative, if your state has Senate seats up for election, you vote on them too, and then out of those votes, whichever party is left with the most seats in either place holds the control there.

The Presidential election is just for deciding who is gonna be Pres/Vice Pres; occurs the same time as the other elections, but isn't affected by those results. Whichever person gets the majority in the Pres election becomes the new leader of the USA, but might be faced with a Senate, House, or both that are controlled by the opposite party. So Obama might win the Presidential election, just due to the GOP guys being kinda eh, but the Democrats might do horribly in the Senate/House elections as a party.

If we had a kinda equivalent in the UK, it would be like if you could vote for a party MP in your local constituency (like we do right now), but also have an extra vote for which person you wanted to lead the country as a whole as PM. So the House of Commons will be full up of members of lots of different parties, but David Cameron could still end up Prime Minister, regardless of how the local elections pan out for the Conservatives as a party. Oh, wait...

Sheepy:

^...I think I've vaguely got the idea here, but I might still be a bit off XD.
Votes for the senators/house reps are separate to the votes for the President...the elections just all happen to occur on the same day. Probably for convenience, maybe just to confuse everyone.

You get a vote for your local House Representative, if your state has Senate seats up for election, you vote on them too, and then out of those votes, whichever party is left with the most seats in either place holds the control there.

The Presidential election is just for deciding who is gonna be Pres/Vice Pres; occurs the same time as the other elections, but isn't affected by those results. Whichever person gets the majority in the Pres election becomes the new leader of the USA, but might be faced with a Senate, House, or both that are controlled by the opposite party. So Obama might win the Presidential election, just due to the GOP guys being kinda eh, but the Democrats might do horribly in the Senate/House elections as a party.

If we had a kinda equivalent in the UK, it would be like if you could vote for a party MP in your local constituency (like we do right now), but also have an extra vote for which person you wanted to lead the country as a whole as PM. So the House of Commons will be full up of members of lots of different parties, but David Cameron could still end up Prime Minister, regardless of how the local elections pan out for the Conservatives as a party. Oh, wait...

Ah, I gotcha now.

That's depressing on so many levels

I feel as if many people are jumping on the "Anti-Obama" bandwagon as if its become the latest fashion. To be honest, I've been critical about Obama's standpoints since he was introduced to the public in 2008. But it would be ignorant to claim that each and every thing Obama has put through Congress and the Senate has negatively impacted out country.
As for the GOP race and its contenders, I've reached my breaking point. I can see how Ron Paul would appeal to people now a days; especially since both the Republicans and Democrats have failed make things better for the American people. But ,truthfully, Paul's policies are unreasonable and unrealistic. He talks about keeping the government so limited that they would cease to exist as a government. This country nor any country can be sustained on that sort of limited government. His foreign policies are ,too, impractical and will lead to greater turmoil between China and this country.

I don't know if Obama can handle Santorum's three way surge from behind.

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2012/02/25/photoh-santorum-comes-from-behind-in-alabama-three-way/