2012 Presidential Election

[Cochonette]

My public speaking professor (who works for Biden, I think?) was telling us that there is slim chance that Obama will win, due to electoral shiftings. Some key states that Obama had in 2008 are now leaning very Republican. That's what this debt ceiling nonsense is all about. It's just a distraction/drama created to make Obama look bad, even though it has nothing to do with anything. We shouldn't even have a debt ceiling, and it's been raised 74 times before without any drama. There is only a drama now because the election is coming up.

What do you think?

[jellybeanpimp]

If Obama doesn't win, I'll fall out of my chair.

Incumbent presidents are notoriously hard to beat. I know the Republican candidate hasn't officially been named, but it's one horrible candidate after the other.

We are on the verge of making actual changes in a lot of areas. Gay marriage and health insurance will get thrown out of the window if any Republican wields power in the 2012 election.

Also, the swing voters have no one to vote for on the Republican side yet. I have no clue how polls are accurately gauging who people are going to vote for right now. They are pretty much voting for "against Obama or for Obama" or "blindly republican or blindly democrat".

I still think that Obama will win the 2012 election by a slight majority.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

My public speaking professor (who works for Biden, I think?) was telling us that there is slim chance that Obama will win, due to electoral shiftings. Some key states that Obama had in 2008 are now leaning very Republican. That's what this debt ceiling nonsense is all about. It's just a distraction/drama created to make Obama look bad, even though it has nothing to do with anything. We shouldn't even have a debt ceiling, and it's been raised 74 times before without any drama. There is only a drama now because the election is coming up.

What do you think?

The exact opposite. I feel like Obama almost can't lose. I feel like the American public was disappointed by him, but also realized that the disappointment mostly comes from the over-exaggeration and hype that falsely built him up before his Presidency (really all the hype was just that he was a black man, let's be honest).

I don't think any Republican really has a chance against him, even with the budget ceiling cannon fodder and the bad economy. A lot of the country is privy to the idea that the huge government deficit and economic crash were a result of bad policies put in place before Obama was elected, as well as the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by jellybeanpimp

Incumbent presidents are notoriously hard to beat.

This is another important factor.

A lot of the country supposedly hated George W. Bush for going to war, but he still got re-elected despite his huge number of critics.

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

A lot of the country supposedly hated George W. Bush for going to war, but he still got re-elected despite his huge number of critics.

But why did Bush win? Was it because he was an incumbent, or was it because of the war in Iraq and the inability of Kerry to take a stand on it? What does Obama have going for him that is similar to that?

Of course, I hope Obama wins. I am just worried now and think it would be stupid for everyone to assume he is going to win. My prof claims that if certain states are leaning Republican, it doesn't even matter who runs, that Republicans are likely to win.

But she could be wrong. I don't really understand it.

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by jellybeanpimp

Gay marriage and health insurance will get thrown out of the window if any Republican wields power in the 2012 election.

Gay marriage and health insurance? Huh? Gay marriage has been left to the states; Obama doesn't seem to care about it anyway. And we always have health insurance. Perhaps you're talking about healthcare, but we haven't really made any progress on that yet, nor do I think we would in Obama's next four years.

[Cado]

The republican side of things is a damn rodeo at this point. There's no way one of them is winning unless Obama does something really, really stupid between now and the election, or something terrible comes out of left field. Right now it looks like the right is just putting on a show so it looks like it's not throwing the election even though I'm sure the party leaders are thinking more in terms of 2016 than 2012.

[Rezzy7]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

It's just a distraction/drama created to make Obama look bad, even though it has nothing to do with anything.

I wouldn't say nothing, but I agree. Everything out of Beohner's mouth is expertly worded to convince people Obama is the one pulling all kinds of tactics for-re-election; and that only the Republicans know "the will of the American people"; and that the will of the American people is the opposite of everything Obama. It's annoying because I know people take him at face value and make presumptions that he's correct. Wish he'd stop acting like he's speaking for me.

I think few people who are complaining about the debt ceiling even know what it's about, or more importantly, what may come if the US defaults on certain obligations by not raising it. (Not that I understand it very well, either, that is! ) I think excess debt is a problem that needs to be addressed somehow, but missing payments could be worse.

Originally Posted by jellybeanpimp

If Obama doesn't win, I'll fall out of my chair.

lol!

Incumbent presidents are notoriously hard to beat. I know the Republican candidate hasn't officially been named, but it's one horrible candidate after the other.

I wonder if there's still time for anyone to come out of nowhere. I wouldn't vote for any of their offerings as it stands.

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

I feel like the American public was disappointed by him, but also realized that the disappointment mostly comes from the over-exaggeration and hype that falsely built him up before his Presidency (really all the hype was just that he was a black man, let's be honest).

I think many who are disappointed have a poor comprehension of just how big of a mess was left to clean up. No president would have been able to deliver the miraculous, rapid turn-around many were assuming.

A lot of the country is privy to the idea that the huge government deficit and economic crash were a result of bad policies put in place before Obama was elected, as well as the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I don't want to underestimate the ignorance of some people who vote, though. A lot of people have really short-term memories when it comes to blaming whomever happens to be in office at that moment.

A lot of the country supposedly hated George W. Bush for going to war, but he still got re-elected despite his huge number of critics.

That was annoying, too! What I observed is that Bush campaigned with a lot of emphasis on his "faith", and "morals". And Christians everywhere came out in droves, along with a lot of short-sighted people, and re-elected him, despite what he and his staff had lead the country into. After the election faith and morals went back to being a non-topic.

Originally Posted by Cado

The republican side of things is a damn rodeo at this point. There's no way one of them is winning unless Obama does something really, really stupid between now and the election, or something terrible comes out of left field.

I think I agree with you on this. Still I wouldn't underestimate the Republican's ability to convince a ton of people that Obama did do something really, really stupid, even if he didn't.

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by Cado

The republican side of things is a damn rodeo at this point. There's no way one of them is winning unless Obama does something really, really stupid between now and the election, or something terrible comes out of left field. Right now it looks like the right is just putting on a show so it looks like it's not throwing the election even though I'm sure the party leaders are thinking more in terms of 2016 than 2012.

The Republican side is always a rodeo, so not sure what your point is. Fear-mongering has been their job for a long, long time, and this year is business-as-usual for them.

[SatvikBeri]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

The Republican side is always a rodeo, so not sure what your point is. Fear-mongering has been their job for a long, long time, and this year is business-as-usual for them.

It's not about fear-mongering, it's about charisma. Bush had charisma, but it doesn't seem like any of the major republican candidates this time do.

On the other hand Obama rocks the persuasion game. Once his reelection campaign really starts up, I don't think there's anyone in the Republican party who can beat him.

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by SatvikBeri

It's not about fear-mongering, it's about charisma. Bush had charisma, but it doesn't seem like any of the major republican candidates this time do.

On the other hand Obama rocks the persuasion game. Once his reelection campaign really starts up, I don't think there's anyone in the Republican party who can beat him.

I hope so. Good point about charisma, not that I ever felt Bush's charisma.

So no one here believes in this electoral thing my professor mentioned? No one has responded to that point.

[garentee]

To me it is almost (not quite) irrelevant who is in the white house...The beneficiaries of the government policies are usually the wealthy and the corporations.. mostly because they are the government...The reason we are still in a mess is not necessarily due to Obama and his administration but due to the enormous amount of destruction 8 years of GW Bush had on this country..the people who benefited from his eight years are the wealthy and the corporate elite... Not Joe Six Pack.. essentially it was a money grab...

[Le Roi]

It's interesting a professor would say something like that. There have being republicans and democrats president elected on a regular interchangeable basis through the years, so I can't really agree with her. Professors have being known to be wrong. .

I have a feeling that Obama will be reelected. The Republican field is in dissarray, and even the Republicans think that they don't exactly have a star to take on Obama and are wishing that some other strong candidates (like W. Bush was back in 2000) would jump in. Their current candidates all have a good bit of electoral weaknesses so that will play into Obama's advantages. When you have two weaklings running for president, I'd say the incumbent will win.

I remember when Clinton was very unpopular in his first term. It took him 3 years before he actually was looking and acting presidential, and he started looking presidential only when he started to announce that he was running for election a few months before the primaries. He spent his last year being presidential, faced a weak Republican and won re-election despite the belief that he wouldn't be able to be re-elected just two years earlier.

We also saw Bush #1 being hugely popular two years before running for re-election, and yet he lost.

So, what people are feeling toward Obama right now doesn't mean much yet, and I feel he will be reelected.

[SnerpGoodWord]

I think two things make it very unlikely Obama will win:

1) Unemployment
2) Gas prices

If he has Bernanke keep buying up bonds to prop up the economy, all the money turns up in crude and gas goes to $4.00. If he cuts off the Fed spending spree, unemployment goes up. He can't win.

And frankly that's perfectly OK by me. The best thing that can happen to this country is to have medicare and social security radically cut back to balance the budget.

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by Le Roi

It's interesting a professor would say something like that. There have being republicans and democrats president elected on a regular interchangeable basis through the years, so I can't really agree with him. Professors have being known to be wrong. .

I have a feeling that Obama will be reelected. The Republican field is in dissarray, and even the Republicans think that they don't exactly have a star to take on Obama and are wishing that some other strong candidates (like W. Bush was back in 2000) would jump in. Their current candidates all have a good bit of electoral weaknesses so that will play into Obama's advantages. When you have two weaklings running for president, I'd say the incumbent will win.

I remember when Clinton was very unpopular in his first term. It took him 3 years before he actually looking and acting presidential, and he started looking presidential only when he started to announce that he was running for election a few months before the primaries. He spent his last year being presidential, faced a weak Republican and won re-election despite the belief that he wouldn't be able to be re-elected just two years earlier.

We also saw Bush #1 being hugely popular two years before running for re-election, and yet he lost.

So, what people are feeling toward Obama right now doesn't mean much yet, and I feel he will be reelected.

Yeah. Well, she's not a political science professor, lol. But she does work for the government.

Good post, though. You make good points.

[Criseyde]

If the Republicans could come up with a star -- a right-wing Obama -- I'd be worried.

As it is, no, I think it's very unlikely that a Republican is going to win.

And umm... what do you mean, we haven't made any progress on health care? Maybe less progress than some would like, but Obama and the Democrats passed a reform bill a couple years ago, which is more than anybody else has ever done.

[JSB]

My prediction is that it's too early to predict the 2012 election.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

I think two things make it very unlikely Obama will win:

1) Unemployment
2) Gas prices

If he has Bernanke keep buying up bonds to prop up the economy, all the money turns up in crude and gas goes to $4.00. If he cuts off the Fed spending spree, unemployment goes up. He can't win.

And frankly that's perfectly OK by me. The best thing that can happen to this country is to have medicare and social security radically cut back to balance the budget.

Not really. Cuts need to happen but they can easily come from somewhere else, like the extremely bloated defense budget. Take away people's Social Security and healthcare and the current economic climate is just going to get worse. It's a bad move and it's one of the reasons a Republican is going to have a hard time winning.

We also need tax hikes. This is not a matter of negotiation. Particularly the top 1% need to contribute more as they're not paying near what they should considering what they have and what they have failed to give us in return for the breaks they've gotten. Trickle down economics didn't work during the Reagan era, they haven't worked in the decade after and they're not going to work now. Every time they get another break or the regulations loosen their profits go up and more Americans get laid off.

The wealthy shouldn't be punished for being wealthy but enough is enough. They'd barely feel it if their burden increased, it's just plain greed at this point.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

The Republican side is always a rodeo, so not sure what your point is. Fear-mongering has been their job for a long, long time, and this year is business-as-usual for them.

I'm saying it's way more ridiculous than it has been. Bush was bad but he was no Palin. At least if you asked him a question on policy he'd actually know what you were referring to. Palin is practically a parody of herself and she's one of the strongest candidates they've got. Like I say, they don't have a shot in hell unless they can engineer some kind of disaster between now and the election because there's no way they're getting swing voters like this.

[Barcs]

Elections are usually easy to predict, just based on how the media reports on them. I knew Obama was winning before the democratic primary was even decided for 2008. The notion that we even have a say in the matter is an illusion regardless. Whoever the higher ups want to win, will win. By higher ups, I'm referring to the billionaire CEOs, international bankers, and the people who control the media.

With that said, Obama's going to win. Not because I want him to or because of what he's done (or hasn't done) while in office. He is winning, because he's pandered to the right people in the right places. Corporate bailouts, escalating the war and bombing additional countries, which makes billions for the war contractors, plus blind allegiance to Israel... Plus there's the fact that the GOP looks like a 3 ring circus this year. The only one of them talking any kind of sense is Ron Paul, but I don't even see him beating Obama.

The point about GW Bush is a good one. Nobody expected him to win the election, and I haven't seen that much hate for a president in a long time, but still he somehow did. I can see 2 major reasons why he won (besides vote rigging). 1st, the democratic candidate was supposed to be Howard Dean. He had the majority of support from the base and from the people. The media however decided to single him out because he let out an emotional yell because he was excited about the support he had. This was unfairly exploited and since most people are sheep, they went along for the ride and Kerry got the nod. Dean would have mopped the floor with Bush. Even though Kerry wasn't great, he was still better than Bush and pretty much beat him all 3 debates. Everything was looking good for him, he was winning in the poll and all that other jazz, but then the media did it again. They posted some bs video of him supposedly supporting the anti war Vietnam movement and speaking out against inhumane practices that the military was doing over there and such. The video had vietnam vets in it talking about how they were tortured endlessly because of John Kerry and his anti war movement (which is a load of crap). That pretty much ended any hope left for him, even though Bush was an alcoholic and abuser of cocaine in the past and one of the worst presidents in decades, but alas you didn't see the media putting out documentaries about Bush's shady past.

IMO, there's just too many people in America who blindly trust what the media says, and therefor whatever agenda they decide to promote is one they will agree with and being persuaded by. It seems they can't think for themselves and this is the main reason why the media and higher ups have more control over the election process than we think.

[Cado]

Excellent points, Barcs. It's actually amusing to see, based on my initial response to this thread, that I unconsciously hold the belief that voting still matters. Both parties are corporate owned, basically-corporations determine who gets elected, what our politicians do, and who benefits. Until the democratic process is wrested away from them and the media there is no process. This is a show, not a fight, not a competition between varying ideologies, but a wrestling match where it's already decided who will take the fall.

If we want real change we've got to exploit the other aspects of democracy for all they're worth because voting doesn't mean squat in a world where the major parties all do the same thing.

[Criseyde]

Maybe I'm young enough to be really naive, but I still think that if we decide that we care enough to educate ourselves, we can make a difference (through voting, no less). Yes, the electoral college ultimately determines who wins, but the electors generally go with the popular vote in their state.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

My public speaking professor (who works for Biden, I think?) was telling us that there is slim chance that Obama will win, due to electoral shiftings. Some key states that Obama had in 2008 are now leaning very Republican. That's what this debt ceiling nonsense is all about. It's just a distraction/drama created to make Obama look bad, even though it has nothing to do with anything. We shouldn't even have a debt ceiling, and it's been raised 74 times before without any drama. There is only a drama now because the election is coming up.

What do you think?

Sounds to me as though your public speaking professor is speaking about a conspiracy theory.

The so-called Debt Ceiling is not unlike a credit line on a credit card. If I have a credit limit of $5000 on a credit card, that's my "debt ceiling" for that card. The difference, in the case of the government's credit line is that it's not set by it's creditor (the Federal Reserve Board), but by Congress. In that sense, the government determines how much they want to borrow in order to pay their bills.

Note that they don't have the money to pay their bills, but rather, they must borrow it. This is the way it works, now, since the dollar became a fiat currency (i.e., not backed by a tangible asset like gold), back in 1972.

Yes, the debt cieling has continuously been raised, and quite often in the last 30 years, as it can be seen with this chart. The problem is that it's become parabolic, and that it's gotten to the point where now, the government must borrow ever more money, just to pay the interest on the principle it already owes. This is in the nature of all fiat currencies, which is why no paper currency in the history of the world has ever withstood the test of time.

Now, since raising the debt ceiling is not unlike increasing your own credit line, it is certainly an option for the government to do so, in order to pay the bills. What's even better, is that the Fed (read: Ben Bernanke) will more than gladly print up all the dollars the government needs to borrow (read: Quantative Easing). What this will ultimately cause (as it did in the German Weimar Republic between WWI and WWII) is hyperinflation, where it will take a wheelbarrow full of dollars to buy a loaf of bread. Fundamentally, it means that the dollar becomes worth less than the paper it's printed on.

Anyone (including conservative Republicans, as well as our President) who studied economics knows this, but only recently has anyone (like Ron Paul and the "Tea Party" Republicans) stood up and said, "uh, hey. Hold the phone." The fact is, that most, if not all of the politicians in the federal government have known all this for some time, but, given the nature of politics, no one wants to see the inevitable happen on their watch. No one wants to be held responsible for defaulting on the debt.

This is the core of what's going on in Washington, right now. A few in the House of Representatives are saying, "hold the phone", while the President is saying, "if we hold the phone, we're scrood, so let's not hold the phone."

But, politicians being what they are, everyone in the federal government, save but a few, are maneuvering to make those in the opposing party be the fall guy, so that they can get re-elected in 2012 (and yes, this includes Obama).

I hope this sheds some light on the subject.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Maybe I'm young enough to be really naive, but I still think that if we decide that we care enough to educate ourselves, we can make a difference (through voting, no less). Yes, the electoral college ultimately determines who wins, but the electors generally go with the popular vote in their state.

I don't think it's naive to say we can make a difference. In fact all the power lies with us if we're willing to use it. As is clear from my last post, I just think voting is absolutely worthless as things are right now.

It's not about the electoral college or the media or the like, it's the fact that corporate interests run the government. It doesn't matter who you put in office as long as that remains the case. The problem is that we expect politicians to fight for us when they've made it clear we've got to fight for ourselves.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Cado

It's not about the electoral college or the media or the like, it's the fact that corporate interests run the government. It doesn't matter who you put in office as long as that remains the case.

Nail on the head. (Sorry, I just had to bold that).

[JDuff]

As a foreigner, I personally think that the Republican ticket and narrative is so weak that they stand very little chance. Firstly, they have no big names, no credible choices that appeal across the board. The best is Romney, is who is a 3rd or 4th place finisher on a strong ticket.

Secondly, all this rubbish about Obama being a foreign socialist terrorist muslim, along with the birther sham, including the rise of the hateful right and various joke candidates such as Palin and Buchannan, really highlight the weaknesses and splits in the extreme-right. If people do put their money where their hysterical mouths are, that is only going to siphon votes away from the more 'moderate' right wing candidates.

Furthermore, everybody knows that the debt ceiling has to be raised. Does America want to bring the dollar and the world financial system down!? It's all hysterical nonsense, and to be honest the Republicans are obviously holding America hostage to their elitist agenda. They don't care about the public finances as long as the rich don't get their temporary tax cuts removed.

I see nothing other than an Obama victory, especially if he manages (one of the most intelligent and articulate presidents in American history) to get into live debates with most of the inarticulate, bumbling and less intellectually gifted Republicans.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by Cado

Not really. Cuts need to happen but they can easily come from somewhere else, like the extremely bloated defense budget.

No they can't. The deficit and the discretionary budget (which includes all military spending) are roughly the same size. Entitlement programs simply must be cut.

[Brutha]

I see nothing other than an Obama victory, especially if he manages (one of the most intelligent and articulate presidents in American history) to get into live debates with most of the inarticulate, bumbling and less intellectually gifted Republicans.

I think Obama might have a problem if he gets real question in a live debate.
Answering question such as:
"Do you think that a war stops being a war if you instead call it oversees contingency operation (Iraq) or kinetic military action (Libya)."
Obama just takes a few positions that are really hard to defend.

Defending his various broken promise will be challenging. Especially if he has to defend those position publically against a primary challenge. Even if the primary challenge isn't successful Obama will be weakened.

No they can't. The deficit and the discretionary budget (which includes all military spending) are roughly the same size. Entitlement programs simply must be cut.

How about Joseph E. Stiglitz's proposal?
A five-part plan to cut the deficit, narrow inequality, and strengthen the economy—and why special interests would block it. - By Joseph E. Stiglitz - Slate Magazine

[Cochonette]

Now we are getting some really interesting responses. This is helpful. Thanks.

[JDuff]

I do agree that the Republicans have some angles that they can try to exploit, for example what you mentioned above. But in my opinion Obama was left with Iraq from the Bush administration, and has had to deal with it, as well as the operation in Afghanistan. By the media's official narrative at least, he has done far better than his predecessors in these areas, as well as catching Bin Laden and loosening the hatred of America in Muslim countries to an extent. The overall story is a success in terms of war and terrorism and I think he can exploit this if the topic turns to it.

Sure, America is in Libya but no boots are on the ground, and America seems to love war, so I can't see a limited conflict (with the arsenal they have at their disposal), being such a big deal with the least pacifist country on earth.

[ZephyrusX]

In Canada, there is largely a two party system insofar as it is always the Conversatives and the Liberals who win Federal and most provincial elections. But there are other minor parties who win seats in our houses, such as the NDP and Green Party. Usually, the trend is that the conversatives and the liberals will more or less come out with the same economic policies (not so much social policies like gay marriage) until some 'crisis' happens in one of the leading parties. Then all of the sudden you have a party like the Liberal party coming up with socialist policies that the NDP normally would promote in order to win over the electorate. This was how universal health care was passed in Canada, actually. In our last election, the Liberal party lost so many votes to the conversatives and NDP that I suspect that they will be coming up with socialist policies in the future, which according to Environic statistics, Canadians actually want.

I have to ask: are there any other contending parties in the US besides... er is it conversatives and liberals? It just seems easier to pressure government bodies to listen to the electorate when there are more than two parties. I've heard that European states that use a proportional electoral system have way higher voter turn out rates and they are more inclined to pass socialist policies as they are wanted by the electorate.

Whats my point? Yes, you can blame the electorate for not understanding the democratic process and taking advantage of it. You can blame them for not voting half the time (this is the case in Canada too, admittedly). You can blame them for absent mindedly listening to the media. But to get a complete picture, you have to look at the problems in the electoral system it self as well.

Originally Posted by Cado

Excellent points, Barcs. It's actually amusing to see, based on my initial response to this thread, that I unconsciously hold the belief that voting still matters. Both parties are corporate owned, basically-corporations determine who gets elected, what our politicians do, and who benefits. Until the democratic process is wrested away from them and the media there is no process. This is a show, not a fight, not a competition between varying ideologies, but a wrestling match where it's already decided who will take the fall.

If we want real change we've got to exploit the other aspects of democracy for all they're worth because voting doesn't mean squat in a world where the major parties all do the same thing.