Time to start this: discussion of who should win the presidency in 2012

[Fern]

-snip-
We rarely vote "for" anyone.

True, but if you base your vote on policies, about the only time you can vote "for" someone is in the primaries.

However, I'm in a late voting state so I don't even get that chance. The primary contest has always been over before I can even cast a vote.

Fern

 

[Ausm]

"Listen up America, instead of electing someone who will piss half of us off, let's reach, down, unite and elect someone we can all hate!"

Bush can't run again.

 

[Darwin333]

Agree, Krugman thinks we need to fake an alien attack to get the economy jump started. Craig is a fucking moron for having this buffoon as his hero.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/15/paul-krugman-fake-alien-invasion_n_926995.html

Come on.... I think Krugman is either an idiot or a liar based on the few dozen articles I have read of his and if you want to attack him on that, great, go for it. IMO there is absolutely no reason or need to take something he said completely out of context and use it to try and make him look bad.

Thats bullshit regardless of who its pulled on. This has got to be the first time I have ever taken up for Krugman but that is a flat out bullshit statement and its about time that ALL of us start removing that crap from debate.

 

[Darwin333]

For someone who is always "wrong" I predict fairly well don't I? Yes I do.

I've stated my point before. You will always be an ineffectual minority if the parties can profit best by using you and gaining monetary support from those whom you say you don't like. Again you aren't unique but the current visible example. You could have been someone voting for Bush and the Republicans who hoped to ban abortion. All we need would be more of you in that party. What you don't seem to understand is that you aren't wanted. "More Progressives" is like more body lice to the people in charge who can and will defeat you at every turn. In the mean time while you are waiting for the day that never comes you vote for those people. Why? Like I said, you are saying that the Republicans are worse and since you hate them more than the people who use you, you will support them at all costs, even your soul. They don't even need to throw you a bone since you are stumping for them now.

The problem is that the system we use to give people the opportunity to run for office prevents "more Progressives". One might point out the theoretical possibility, but your party (and the Republicans to be fair) ARE a corporation for practical purposes. All you have to do is work hard enough and you'll be "promoted", and by the way there is an old bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

The consequences are that you will spend the rest of your life just where you are, arguing for those who are happy to get your vote, but don't bother them. They have funds to raise.

I agree completely except for the "not wanted" part. The left, exactly like the right, LOVES these people. As long as they stay just small enough to have any real influence they are guaranteed votes, support, money, etc... We are talking the far corners of both parties here, when push comes to shove and the chips are on the table they will vote exactly the way their puppeteers tell them to.

I surely don't blame Craig for trying though, hard to blame a man for standing up for what he truly believes regardless if you think its wrong or not. But at the end of the day we all know that he is going to hold his nose and pull the lever for Obama. Those on the right that dislike the candidate chosen for them will do the same and nothing will change. Frankly I think the "Tea Party" should give him a bit of hope, it shows that a relatively small element within a party can in fact have some influence. Unfortunately I doubt the two big clubs will ever allow even one of their own elements to gain much more.....

 

[Craig234]

Perhaps the best Republican in the country to run for President: Michael Bloomberg.

 

[ProfJohn]

Remember folks, GHW Bush had a 90% approval rating 18 months before the 92 election and we saw what happened. Trying to predict the election at this stage is a useless pursuit.

Not true.

Bush went down because the economy went down.
Carter also lost due to a poor economy.
McCain lost due to the poor economy as well.

Based on that it is clear that the party in power losses the Presidency when the economy is poor. Every election held during a recession has resulted in a change of power.

Therefore you could conclude that if the economy is poor then Obama will lose.

And you can further extend that by looking at the current shape of the economy and what is expected to happen in the next year and surmise that the economy will still be in bad shape next year and therefore Obama will probably lose.

In order to win Obama will need the economy to turn around some what or for the GOP to nominate someone so awful that independents run to Obama just to keep them from office.

BTW I don't think a foreign policy issue (aka 9-11 part 2) would save Obama because Republicans are usually considered better in that field.

 

[ProfJohn]

Elections in which we got to vote for someone instead of voting against the other guy...

1984 Reagan
1988 Bush 41
1996 Clinton
2004 Bush, maybe? Did he win because people disliked Kerry THAT much or were they nominally happy with Bush and stuck with him. I would say the latter. He was still close to 50% approval on election day. Delay the election by 6 months and Kerry wins.


BTW the only people who get to vote 'for' someone are the independents. Those of us on the right or left are stuck voting for our parties choice whether we like them or not.

A lousy Bush term was still better for the right than a good Kerry term. (most likely)

 

[nick1985]

Perhaps the best Republican in the country to run for President: Michael Bloomberg.

lol. Mr. I hate the 2nd amendment?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Not true.

Which part? The part about Bush's approval rating? It is very true. His approval rating was 89% at the beginning of March, 1991. That is 90% within the error of the survey.

Bush went down because the economy went down.

No kidding. Where did I say that wasn't the case? You're completely and utterly missing the point of my post, which is that things can change so quickly that you can't accurately predict an election 18 months in the future. I mean, you have a 50/50 chance of guessing but that isn't an educated guess and saying things like "Well Obama will lose if the economy is still tanking" doesn't qualify you as the next Nostradamus.

Therefore you could conclude that if the economy is poor then Obama will lose.

IF being the operative word. Eighteen months is enough time to move enough in the right direction to win the election. Eighteen months is an eternity in politics.

In order to win Obama will need the economy to turn around some what or for the GOP to nominate someone so awful that independents run to Obama just to keep them from office.

This looks to be the case so far.

 

[Craig234]

This looks to be the case so far.

The problem is, when people are displeased with the economy, marketing can make a monster look good for 'change'.

Remember how good Bush was made to look in 2000 - the 'compassionate conservative' who thought the US should be 'more humble' in foreign policy, and would increase the surplus? They're very good at selling those things. They even did good enough at marketing to make people prefer Bush to Kerry in 2004 - the year after starting the Iraq war, 'we can't change horses midstream, we need Bush to successfully finish the wars'.

They can make whatever promises for 'change' - like Bachmann's under $2 gas.

 

[IGBT]

let the obama win so he can tank the economy to the point ALL you's guys loose your job. At that point you will realize liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[Craig234]

let the obama win so he can tank the economy to the point ALL you's guys loose your job. At that point you will realize liberalism is a mental disorder.

Actually, you're the one delusional not to understand the Republicans support policies directly supporting this and other financial crisis.

For you to say 'Liberalism' - which hasn't been in power since Carter if not LBJ - is the problem with the economy, is like saying WWII was caused by the French attack on Germany. For you to prance arround attacking the French as warmongers demanding the Nazis be put in charge of restoring the peace makes you an irony of the week finalist.

 

[schneiderguy]

Ron Paul 2012 :thumbsup:

 

[BoberFett]

The problem is, when people are displeased with the economy, marketing can make a monster look good for 'change'.

I wonder if Craig realizes who he just described.

 

[Craig234]

Ron Paul 2012 :thumbsup:

It's like a virus. "Make the American people poor, please! We want Ron Paul!"

 

[IGBT]

Actually, you're the one delusional not to understand the Republicans support policies directly supporting this and other financial crisis.

For you to say 'Liberalism' - which hasn't been in power since Carter if not LBJ - is the problem with the economy, is like saying WWII was caused by the French attack on Germany. For you to prance arround attacking the French as warmongers demanding the Nazis be put in charge of restoring the peace makes you an irony of the week finalist.

..you can chew on those words when your out of work and scraping cold beans out of a can.

 

[BoberFett]

It's like a virus. "Make the American people poor, please! We want Ron Paul!"

Yeah, because your progressivism is such a better option.

We're seeing how that turns out in England.

No thanks.

 

[zanejohnson]

Ron Paul's gonna win.. he's a democrat in disguise... lol it's so beautiful

 

[ProfJohn]

IF being the operative word. Eighteen months is enough time to move enough in the right direction to win the election. Eighteen months is an eternity in politics.

There is a chance that the economy will improve enough in the next 18 months to save Obama.

But that is very unlikely based on all the economic news we are seeing.

The economist who created the "if we pass the stimulus employment will be" chart says that at best we are looking at 8.5% employment on election day.

And what I am trying to get at is that in theory the economy could improve, but all the signs are pointing to things being the same or even getting worse. The unemployment rate has been floating around 9% for the last 7 months and there are really no signs that it is going to start going down.

GDP is also very weak and again no signs that we are going to see improvements.

Based on all the evidence we have and past history it is very unlikely that we will see enough improvement over the next year to save Obama. It could improve enough to make it a non-issue, but that is very unlikely as well.

 

[nonlnear]

Ron Paul's gonna win.. he's a democrat in disguise... lol it's so beautiful

He's like a zombie Grover Cleveland. Time to resurrect the Bourbon Democrats!

 

[cubby1223]

How about Craig runs for president?

 

[zinfamous]

I think President Obama is going to have to come out with a big/inventive program in Sept that will put Americans back to work and dare the Repuglican's to vote it down showing their true colors.

basically.

this is all about jobs, and not the economy.


both parties have been obfuscating about jobs = economy, while only truly focusing on economy = corporate bankrolls. I know it's not that simple, but this is what every one sees; and what is simple--is that jobs haven't been the result. period.

no party has an answer, none have even tried, really. I believe the repubs have been the worst--most recently turning the debt ceiling into an issue that never existed, never should have existed, playing political capital while tap-dancing on the heads of those that simply need to work--Obama simply wanted to pass it with no to-do (like 74 times previous)--but Obama has to answer, in a way, for the current ~$1 trillion sitting in the coffers of the 3 remaining banks, money that they were given, and tell them to FUCKING SPEND IT ON LOANS AND JOB CREATION because that is what they were given this fucking money to do.

fucking banks, and still--no one is taking them to task for their utter failure over the previous 3 decades, and current desire to maintain the status quo of greed. The admin gave them this blanket to keep things rolling, and they are pouting in their dark little cave. They need a bitch-slap, and Obama has no balls.

That, and he's been far too willing to cow-tow to the irrelevant teabaggers. that shit pisses off the educated voters.

 

[boomerang]

[URL="http://hillbuzz.org/2011/08/19/obama-is-a-deadbeat-dad-skipping-out/"]Obama is like a deadbeat dad who’ll skip out on the Democrat Party (and this country) in 2012[/URL]

 

[Tab]

Obama, because he's busy cleaning up after the worst president in modern history and the fact there isn't a single individual who's sane enough to remotely challenge his terrible ass.

 

[Ausm]

[URL="http://hillbuzz.org/2011/08/19/obama-is-a-deadbeat-dad-skipping-out/"]Obama is like a deadbeat dad who’ll skip out on the Democrat Party (and this country) in 2012[/URL]

That woman, however, will not be Hillary Clinton saving Democrats…but Governor Sarah Palin stepping into the presidential race to save the country.

HAHA Thx for the laugh on a Monday!