2012 Presidential Election Run-Up

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

ZEB: I disagree when you say that it’s simply aspects of the individual candidates that convinces people to vote for them. I can say with 100% honesty that I (as an early 20’s voter) and a large number of those I know work actively to find the candidate who most closely aligns with our beliefs. From there it does become a question of which opinions we value over others, as it is truly rare to find a candidate who matches what you believe 100% of the time (especially in a two party system).

I would actually offer the opinion that due to the polarization of the media and lack of readily available truly non-partisan sources once somebody starts leaning one way…they get a heck of a push in that direction. For the record, while I lean heavily to the left in nearly all regards, I continue to work to get my news from a variety of sources to avoid this problem.

\tangent begin

I lament this trend and believe it is the bane of truly intelligent rational discussion. Compromise is not such a dirty word when you aren’t convinced that the “other guy” is a Marxist muslim hellbent on the destruction of America or a rich, soulless, birth control limiting, rape supporting sociopath. If more people would simply realize that: A) Both parties lie | B) There are legitimate pros and cons to all points of view | C) There are many debates where there truly is no right or wrong answer | D) The only way to make progress is to work together and give a little to get a little, we would be better off for the future…

In the meantime, back to: I heard that Obama’s hero is Stalin and Romney is going to force my grandmother to work overseas?

\tangent end

82

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
There are legitimate pros and cons to all points of view
[/quote]

Moral relativism.

Obama’s mentor by his own admission, mentioned 22 times by him in Dreams from My Father, is ‘Uncle Frank’ - Frank Marshall Davis, Communist Party number 47544. Davis was considered so dangerous he was placed on a list of people the government could arrest automatically in the event of a war with the Soviet Union. The FBI believed(with good reason) that Davis was the main asset of the Soviet Rezident in Washington. You want to dispute any of that or offer some kind of an explanation?

83

[quote]CornSprint wrote:
ZEB: I disagree when you say that it’s simply aspects of the individual candidates that convinces people to vote for them. I can say with 100% honesty that I (as an early 20’s voter) and a large number of those I know work actively to find the candidate who most closely aligns with our beliefs. From there it does become a question of which opinions we value over others, as it is truly rare to find a candidate who matches what you believe 100% of the time (especially in a two party system).[/quote]

You must have missed the following line in my post. I said "the Presidential race is no more than a beauty contest with the majority of Americans.

Good for you for going deeper, you are in a minority my friend.

As I also said if more Americans had gone deeper (and the MSLM had done its job) Obama never would have been elected to the Presidency as his beliefs and policies DO NOT represent the majority of Americans.

But, it’s not about policy when it comes to voting for Presdent WITH THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, it’s about presentation skills and charisma.

From Kennedy beating Nixon to Obama beating McCain!

History will continue to repeat itself.

84

Don’t have a lot of time as I am headed out but to quickly address the points brought up:

SexMachine: Personally, I can’t comment on this unless I read the context of the mentions in the book. With that being said, I really don’t put too much faith in a relationship that happened ~20-30 years ago as an indicator of Obama’s beliefs. I looked up some information on Davis and Obama but couldn’t find too much in terms of a timeframe of their relationship. I honestly don’t see 20+ year old relationships as any kind of reliable indicator of Obama’s beliefs. I was merely going for hyperbole with my statement-attempting to illustrate my point I find claims of Obama being a radical socialist laughable. I do not want to derail this thread into another Obama === socialist discussion, so if you would care to continue this discussion please message me personally.

ZEB: Again, I respectfully disagree. If people didn’t vote along strictly party lines or with an eye on the issues, we would not see the consistent string of victories for one party over the other in states that are known as “blue” or “red”. It merely would take 60% of each side to always vote Republican for their stances or Democrat for theirs for your assertion to be incorrect. If you are referring to independents or those who are willing to change their votes (a smaller subset of the population) then I would agree with your assertion: charisma and charm play a major role in deciding votes. However, assuming a consistent percentage of people who will always vote Republican or always vote Democrat due to some value or another lining up (barring a major philosophical shift in the platforms), it is truly the independents (along with voter turnout) that decide the election. Thus, I would argue your point is ultimately correct in that charisma and affability decide elections but the scope of the effect is limited than initially stated-while the “it factor” does decide elections, it does not sway the majority of the vote, only that which is up for grabs.

85

[quote]CornSprint wrote:

ZEB: Again, I respectfully disagree. If people didn’t vote along strictly party lines or with an eye on the issues, we would not see the consistent string of victories for one party over the other in states that are known as “blue” or “red”.[/quote]

You are going to have to pay better attention. I am addressing the Presidential election ONLY. I thought that was clear from all of my references to the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ONLY!

If you disagree with that you can write back to me and give me the reason why. Since the dawn of the media age, (1960) the Presidential candidate with the most charisma and best presentation skills has won.

86

[quote]CornSprint wrote:

SexMachine: Personally, I can’t comment on this unless I read the context of the mentions in the book. With that being said, I really don’t put too much faith in a relationship that happened ~20-30 years ago as an indicator of Obama’s beliefs. I looked up some information on Davis and Obama but couldn’t find too much in terms of a timeframe of their relationship. I honestly don’t see 20+ year old relationships as any kind of reliable indicator of Obama’s beliefs. I was merely going for hyperbole with my statement-attempting to illustrate my point I find claims of Obama being a radical socialist laughable. I do not want to derail this thread into another Obama === socialist discussion, so if you would care to continue this discussion please message me personally.
[/quote]

I would’ve thought it was within the scope of this thread. However, just to address your point - it’s not just Frank Marshall Davis. In fact, everyone Obama has ever associated with is some kind of hard-left radical. 20 years sitting and listening to Jeremiah Wright’s conspiratorial ravings, PLO friends, domestic terrorist friends(SDS,) black racialist friends etc. Also, Obama came through ACORN - a radical, hard-left organisation and was elected to the Illinois state Senate on a split socialist party ticket. Honestly, I don’t know of any Obama friend/associate who isn’t a radical nutjob. If you can point me to a friend/associate of his who hasn’t been a member of a Communist front group, Islamic or black supremacist organisation I’d be interested.

87

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Ohio is the biggest thing for Romney to worry about right now. His own strategists told Politico last week that without Ohio, his road to the white house is extremely difficult. And it’s not looking great right now.[/quote]

That is one of the smartest things said on this thread!

This is an electoral battle not a popular vote battle.

And as you say Romney must win Ohio or he loses the Presidency.

He also must win Florida or he loses. But I think he has a very good chance to win Florida, Ohio is not looking good. And that’s why I questioned his pick of Paul Ryan. While I love Ryan I think politically he should have gone with someone, anyone who could have delivered Ohio. Perhaps Portman would have been a better pick.

[/quote]

I agree completely, I’d have gone with Portman. I actually like the guy too. We’ll see if Ryan’s popularity with the base is enough to justify his pick–it may well be.

If I had to bet from looking at the numbers right now, I’d say Ohio goes blue and Florida red. I do think that turnout will give Romney enough of an edge to overcome a one or two point deficit in the polls, but he should be worried about anything over 4.

Of course, these things change. And I’m sure Ohio is going to see one hell of an ad blitz from Romney. Anyone saying that the race is over is wrong and is setting themselves up to look like a fool. This in particular caught my eye: Why Barack Obama Will Win the Election Easily | The Fiscal Times

[/quote]

Smh, who are you voting for, if you don’t mind telling us? [/quote]

I wouldn’t mind at all if I knew yet, lol.

I am one of those rare people who actually waits until after the debates to make a final decision. Though most people on here know that I lean to the left, especially on certain but not all social issues, I’m actually pretty centrist all in all, and certainly enough to appreciate (or, more cynically, dislike lol) things about both candidates.

In this case I must admit that I don’t see much to like from either side. I’m actually a bit disgusted with both campaigns–the mudslinging is largely unwarranted (that Mitt Romney is rich or that he worked in private equity are not negative attributes; Obama has never apologized for America and I think that phrase in and of itself is mind-numbingly stupid) and the rest is nebulous drivel–we need more jobs, we need to get people back to work, we need this and that. Neither candidate has actually laid out a vision or set many significant, concrete, and positive goals–you can’t set a goal and then refuse to explicitly tell us which cuts or loophole-closes will pay for it.

Obama has been fumbling for a while and the economy has suffered for it. He shouldn’t have pushed for health care before bringing unemployment down, and he shouldn’t let any tax cuts expire during a time of economic malaise. House obstructionism deserves some of the blame for economy, though, and the debt ceiling crisis was a disgraceful display of political brinkmanship on the part of Republicans. They used American ignorance to try and fulfill McConnell’s promise of making the president a one-term pony, and in the process they hurt the nation without reason. Only a tiny, tiny sliver of the population realizes that the debt ceiling does not have an impact on the amount of debt the United States incurs–it simply affects our ability to pay down obligations that have already been incurred. I’ve been tempted to vote Dem just to punish the right for that one. I also approve strongly of his handling of national security and foreign policy.

On the other hand, Romney has said that he wouldn’t have bailed out GM and Chrysler, which I think is monumentally stupid. And I disagree with him pretty strongly with regard to a lot of foreign policy (this has been exacerbated in recent days). But I like the idea of having a pragmatic businessman in the White House at this time of sluggish recovery, and this may well be enough to trump the cons.

Someone will convince me during one of the debates. I think the debates are underrated by voters, who historically don’t care enough to change many minds. Whoever can better argue intelligently, communicate effectively, and think quickly is probably going to do a better job in Washington. [/quote]

Hey thanks for the in depth answer. For the record, I think you are one of the more honest and sincere posters here. There is a lot you and I do not agree with, but I don’t feel like you are ideologically blinkered or ignorant. I will always read what you have to say because I feel like you are one of the few posters from the “left” (left of most of us on the right, at least) whose reasons and defences are actually worth consideration.

88

[quote]ZEB wrote:
But what happened when Bush faced a young charismatic Southern Governor named Bill Clinton?

[/quote]

Ross Perot.

Sorry, I had to. I had to…

(^_^)v

89

[quote]CornSprint wrote:

ZEB: Again, I respectfully disagree. If people didn’t vote along strictly party lines or with an eye on the issues, we would not see the consistent string of victories for one party over the other in states that are known as “blue” or “red”. It merely would take 60% of each side to always vote Republican for their stances or Democrat for theirs for your assertion to be incorrect. If you are referring to independents or those who are willing to change their votes (a smaller subset of the population) then I would agree with your assertion: charisma and charm play a major role in deciding votes. However, assuming a consistent percentage of people who will always vote Republican or always vote Democrat due to some value or another lining up (barring a major philosophical shift in the platforms), it is truly the independents (along with voter turnout) that decide the election. Thus, I would argue your point is ultimately correct in that charisma and affability decide elections but the scope of the effect is limited than initially stated-while the “it factor” does decide elections, it does not sway the majority of the vote, only that which is up for grabs.[/quote]

I think Zeb is referring to the undecideds that finally determine the Presidential election. The hard lefts and rights will vote for Quasimodo so long as they believe he will toe their party line.

*edit: typo

90

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
But what happened when Bush faced a young charismatic Southern Governor named Bill Clinton?

[/quote]

Ross Perot.

Sorry, I had to. I had to…

(^_^)v[/quote]

Perot received 19% of the vote in 1992. If he had not run would all, or most of his support gone to Bush, or would it have gone to the challenger? Usually people satisfied with the incumbent do not vote for a third party challenger. Perot was also very liberal on social issues. Not many realize he was pro abortion. We will never know if he denied Bush a victory or prevented Bill Clinton from getting that coveted 50.01% of the vote that he never achieved, even when beating Dole in 1996.

91

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]CornSprint wrote:

ZEB: Again, I respectfully disagree. If people didn’t vote along strictly party lines or with an eye on the issues, we would not see the consistent string of victories for one party over the other in states that are known as “blue” or “red”. It merely would take 60% of each side to always vote Republican for their stances or Democrat for theirs for your assertion to be incorrect. If you are referring to independents or those who are willing to change their votes (a smaller subset of the population) then I would agree with your assertion: charisma and charm play a major role in deciding votes. However, assuming a consistent percentage of people who will always vote Republican or always vote Democrat due to some value or another lining up (barring a major philosophical shift in the platforms), it is truly the independents (along with voter turnout) that decide the election. Thus, I would argue your point is ultimately correct in that charisma and affability decide elections but the scope of the effect is limited than initially stated-while the “it factor” does decide elections, it does not sway the majority of the vote, only that which is up for grabs.[/quote]

I think Zeb is referring to the undecideds that finally determine the Presidential election. The hard lefts and rights will vote for Quasimodo so long as they believe he will toe their party line.

*edit: typo
[/quote]

There are about 20%-25% on either side that will stick to the party line regardless. But everyone else attached to a party or not are susceptible.

92

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Hey thanks for the in depth answer. For the record, I think you are one of the more honest and sincere posters here. There is a lot you and I do not agree with, but I don’t feel like you are ideologically blinkered or ignorant. I will always read what you have to say because I feel like you are one of the few posters from the “left” (left of most of us on the right, at least) whose reasons and defences are actually worth consideration. [/quote]

Much appreciated man. And let me say that I feel the same way–I disagree with a lot of the opinions offered around here, but there is a sizable group (you are certainly a member) with whom I can almost always find common ground. I find better challenges to my ideas around here than almost anywhere else. And I have to admit, sometimes one of you guys actually manages to tug me to the right a bit.

I think the proverbial aisle is a lot narrower than most people believe. And not everybody on the other side drives a prius/is short on teeth.

93

possibly an example of the “polls don’t decide elections” point being made often in this thread:

Things seem to be coming to a head between Iran and Israel. There’s no way to predict what might happen, but we can bet that, if something does, it will have an influence on the election in one way or another.

94

Something else too that has an appearance of influencing the future election, more unions are looking to strike. Currently there is the teachers strike in Chicago with national news. On the private sector side, unions at port cities are looking to strike in a week or so. That will hurt the economy.

“Port strike update: Talks resume, Occupy roots for chaos”

95

It looks like, as many of us predicted in this thread, Obama’s post-convention bounce has evaporated and the race has returned to a nailbiter.

Two things: swing States are still the things to watch. Romney needs to be worried about Ohio.

And, will the 47 percent remarks show up in the polls? My guess is that they will have a short-term effect but they won’t be on many people’s mind a month from now. Obama’s guns and religion comment was just as condescending and politically unadvisable and it obviously didn’t do much to slow him down.

96

[quote]smh23 wrote:
And, will the 47 percent remarks show up in the polls? My guess is that they will have a short-term effect but they won’t be on many people’s mind a month from now. Obama’s guns and religion comment was just as condescending and politically unadvisable and it obviously didn’t do much to slow him down.[/quote]

I agree with this, even if the press does keep it in the conversation, like the tax returns.

It will come up at the debates, and if Romeny plays his cards right, he can turn an ill said gaffe into a homerun.

97

I don’t think that Romney’s remarks (while mostly true but crudely stated) will any more of an effect on the election than the recently revealed Obama remarks about wanting to redistribute wealth.

98

I think this is so close, it will come down to turnout.

Who will rally their base more.

The 47% comment (while true) will be forgotten by the end of the week.

The debates will be more telling, as we will see if Romney can make the boy-wonder jump. Clint Eastwood sure did.

99

[quote]…MaximusB wrote:
I think this is so close, it will come down to turnout.

Who will rally their base more… [/quote]

I agree (to a point), Max…and I don’t think that this is emphasized enough (and the reason why I feel 1) a close race is in Romney’s favor and 2) I feel that Romney ultimately wins).

Where I depart a little from your observation is that Romney is NOT rallying the Conservative Base, probably never will, and most likely really doesn’t have to.

The PRESIDENT is who is rallying the Conservative Base; and in many ways, Romney is going to be the beneficiary of the “Not Obama” vote.

I will go so far to say that we will see record numbers coming out to Vote, with this election ending up not being as close as people think (in favor of Romney).

Mufasa

100

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]…MaximusB wrote:
I think this is so close, it will come down to turnout.

Who will rally their base more… [/quote]

I agree (to a point), Max…and I don’t think that this is emphasized enough (and the reason why I feel 1) a close race is in Romney’s favor and 2) I feel that Romney ultimately wins).

Where I depart a little from your observation is that Romney is NOT rallying the Conservative Base, probably never will, and most likely really doesn’t have to.

The PRESIDENT is who is rallying the Conservative Base; and in many ways, Romney is going to be the beneficiary of the “Not Obama” vote.

I will go so far to say that we will see record numbers coming out to Vote, with this election ending up not being as close as people think (in favor of Romney).

Mufasa

[/quote]

Mufasa you are nothing if not consistent. But I do disagree with your read, as you know. This race will NOT have a record turnout. The turnout will be lower than in 2008 when the far left thought they were voting for God.

But I do agree with you that the conservative base is highly motivated to oust Obama. Romney needs to do nothing more to pump them up. But he does need to attract more independents and single white females in order to win this race.

It is, as I have said all along, Obama’s race to lose.

In a few weeks we’ll see who is right my friend.