• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. 2012 Election

On Nov 6 Who Will Win President Obama or Mitt Romney ?

  • President Obama

    Votes: 39 61.9%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 24 38.1%

  • Total voters
    63
  • Poll closed .
tomahawk6 said:
Last I looked there is no shortage of contraceptives and no laws banning their use. Women can still obtain an abortion

Unless Santorum gets his way...

tomahawk6 said:
they just wont have the tax payer paying for it. Its time people take personal responsibility.

How do tax payer's in the US pay for these exactly? My understanding is that the Federal government doesn't provide the health insurance, so it's not the Federal government paying for abortions/contraception. Employers and employees pay health insurance rates, which is part of the employees compensation package... which is none of the tax payer's business.
 
So.....once I get past all the rhetoric....

(and to perhaps deflect the talk back onto US elections in general)

Am I the only one who finds the nomination process a bit foreign?  Going on what little I know of US history, as I understand things, each state in the US is nominally a sovereign state, each with its own constitution, armed force, laws, etc.  As such, and as a group of united states, each decides their own method to nominate a candidate for the Presidency, no?

(When I say nominally sovereign, I understand that each state is forbidden from voluntarily seceding from the union, witness 1861 - 1865)


So, does this explain why, for example, certain states are 'winner take all' in the process, and others have other results applied?
 
Technoviking said:
So.....once I get past all the rhetoric....

(and to perhaps deflect the talk back onto US elections in general)

Am I the only one who finds the nomination process a bit foreign?  Going on what little I know of US history, as I understand things, each state in the US is nominally a sovereign state, each with its own constitution, armed force, laws, etc.  As such, and as a group of united states, each decides their own method to nominate a candidate for the Presidency, no?

(When I say nominally sovereign, I understand that each state is forbidden from voluntarily seceding from the union, witness 1861 - 1865)


So, does this explain why, for example, certain states are 'winner take all' in the process, and others have other results applied?

In basic terms, yes. But it's the parties, not the states, that make the rules as I understand it. Each state's party organization decides the format for how their primary process works, which determines how their delegations will vote overall in the convention which selects the nominee.
 
Redeye said:
In basic terms, yes. But it's the parties, not the states, that make the rules as I understand it. Each state's party organization decides the format for how their primary process works, which determines how their delegations will vote overall in the convention which selects the nominee.

That's pretty much correct based on my understanding. And to throw an additional kink into the works, the RNC stated that with the rush to move primary and caucus dates further ahead, any state that moved it's vote up earlier than March 15th(?) could not have a winner take all primary / caucus. As well, certain states which moved past super Tuesday would not have their delegates recognized.

Then you have Missouri which moved ahead, but when the RNC said the delegates would not be recognized tried to move it back to March 17th. However the change in dates violated state law, so they held a "beauty contest" primary, and will hold a caucus on March 17th to determine delegates.

ADD TO ALL THIS,

There have been several changes to the rules post vote which have created problems for the state organizations which change them. Maine nullified results from several counties before the count was final. One county had it's vote carried over to the next weekend, and with the results close enough between Romeny and Paul to have the winner overturned by a majority win by Paul that weekend, they decided to nullify the votes in the missing counties. The rules for distribution of delegates in Michigan changed when it was realized that Romney had the most votes, but Santorum took the most congressional districts which is how the delegates are split in Michigan.

It's almost like they don't want this to end.
 
This is one of the reasons there is an electoral college, to represent each sovereign State in These United States in electing the chief executive officer. The other reason is to ensure that the more populous states don't overwhelm the smaller, less populous states when choosing a chief executive. Political parties can chose whatever means they like to select their candidate (like our constitution, there is actually no mention of political parities or affiliations at all), so there will be variations in how things are done from State to State.

The drawn out selection process is a holdover of the past when travel across the United States was long and arduous, mass communication was primitive and there were very great differences between the various States. What was attractive to voters in New York might rub voters in Illinois the wrong way, so policies and positions needed to be argued in front of an audience of voters. Reading "A Team of Rivals" puts this into perspective, Lincoln had to orate before crowds numbering in thousands to build the infant Republican Party and secure the nomination. Today the process may still have utility:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-has-more-problems-than-gas-prices/2012/03/12/gIQAjz0U7R_blog.html

Obama has more problems than gas prices
By Jennifer Rubin

The new Post-ABC poll shows that “46 percent approve of the way Obama is handling his job; 50 percent disapprove. That’s a mirror image of his 50 to 46 positive split in early February. The downshift is particularly notable among independents — 57 percent of whom now disapprove — and among white people without college degrees, with disapproval among this group now topping approval by a ratio of more than 2 to 1, at 66 versus 28 percent.”

While some of this is certainly attributable to gas prices, his handling of the economy is also a sore point with voters. Thirty-eight percent approve of his handling of the economy while 59 percent disapprove. Moreover, President Obama’s “strongly disapprove” number (39 percent) leads the “strongly approve” number (28 percent), highlighting that anti-Obama voters are more intense and plentiful than pro-Obama voter.

Voters are split 49-49 percent on whether they think the economy is recovering. Of those who see improvement, a whopping 74 percent think it as a weak recovery. That is an electorate ripe for the argument that we can do better than the Obama economy.

Obama also has a substantial problem with independents. The Post’s pollster tells me that Obama trails Mitt Romney 42-50 among independents; against Rick Santorum he trails by a smaller margin, 45 to 48 percent. Overall, Romney leads Obama by a statistically insignificant point (47 to 46 percent), while Santorum trails 46-49 percent.

In a head-to-head match, Romney bests Santorum 33-29 percent among registered Republicans. And there is that gender gap again; Romney leads Santorum by one point among men and by five points among women.To a degree, Romney is expanding his appeal within the party. He ties Santorum among those who favor the Tea Party (although trails by 6 points among those who “strongly” support the Tea Party). Likewise, he leads Santorum among “somewhat conservative” Republicans (33 to 31 percent) but trails among “very conservative Republicans by double digits. As we are seeing in Alabama and Mississippi, Romney (27 percent) and Santorum (28 percent) are essentially deadlocked in the South. (A caution: The sample size is small for some of these comparisons.)

This does not mean, however, that Romney is unacceptable to a large chunk of voters who favor other candidates; To the contrary, Santorum, Gingrich and Romney each get just less than one-third of the “second choice” votes.

We should keep in mind that we are months before the election. But the notion of some that Obama has this election in the bag is belied by the data. And despite all the punditry and theatrics, it seems that GOP primary voters are in the process of selecting the candidate who matches up best against Obama and who has the most appeal among the critical independent voter.
 
Well, Gingrich's Souther Sweep appears to be in tatters ~ but Romney better hope he (Gingrich) hates him (Romney) enough to stay in the race because if the strong "conservative," religious and Tea Party vote doesn't split (as it's doing, right now, in Alabama and Mississippi, then Romney's road to the nomination is harder, not easier. Romney needs Gingrich to stay in for Louisiana (24 Mar) and Texas (29 May).
 
Yeah, Santoram just got a good 2nd breath....likely won't win, but he will be a contender.
 
Whoever wins (and unless something really unexpected happens, it probably will be Romney), we should also pay attention to the other side of the coin. Like the man says, a week is a long time in politics, but too many "weeks" like this may sink the administration regardless of the Republican nominee. Unless US political culture is very different from ours, voters probably are more inclined to "vote out" the old rascal rather than "vote in" the new guy. Even 2008 cold well be seen as a referendum of sorts against the Bush Administration. Since most Americans are no longer buying the false economic and employment figures the Administration and Legacy media provide, the "shock" of the media pundits wil only be amplified as the "narrative" collapses:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/pundits-gasp-economy-dents-obamas-poll-numbers/425931

Pundits gasp as economy dents Obama's poll numbers

byMichael Barone
posted16 hours ago at5:12pmwith24 Comments

You can almost hear the note of surprise in their voices when you read the Washington Post and New York Times reporters' stories on their papers' latest political polls.

Surprise! Just when they thought that Barack Obama was pulling ahead, with positive job ratings, and just after the mainstream media have been savaging Republicans for two words Rush Limbaugh uttered on his radio program, Obama's numbers seem to be tanking.

Actually, the numbers are not so striking or so surprising. The media narrative for the last four weeks has been that the president's job approval has been rising in response to good economic news.

But the economic news has not been all that striking. We had a quarter in which economic growth reached 2.8 percent. We've had two months with job growth of better than 200,000.

Peachy. But in 1983, the year before Ronald Reagan's re-election, the gross domestic product rose 8.9 percent not just for one quarter but over the whole year. There were two months when job growth was 729,000 and 660,000.

That's the kind of economic recovery that enables an incumbent president's campaign to run a credible "Morning in America" ad. If the Obama campaign ran one now, it would be fodder for "Saturday Night Live" and Jon Stewart.

Nor was the supposed spike in Obama's job rating so high. In the RealClearPolitics average of recent polls, it never got better than 49 percent approve, 47 percent disapprove.

Now the ABC/WaPo poll has it at 46-50 and the CBS/NYT poll at 41-47. Rasmussen Reports tracking has it at 47-52.

That downtick is not huge, though it seems to be offsetting the February uptick. Some basic factors are still working for Obama. Americans want to think well of their presidents; this helped Bill Clinton in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2004. Many voters do not want to be seen as rejecting the first black president.

On the other hand, Obama's major policies are unpopular. You can gauge that by the number of words devoted to the stimulus package in his last State of the Union: zero.

Or by the persistent unpopularity of Obamacare. Or by the fact that 50 percent in the ABC/WaPo poll strongly disapproved of his handling of the economy.

Or by the response to Democrats' claims that Republicans were waging a "war on women" by opposing the administration's mandate that religious affiliated organizations' insurance policies cover birth control.

The New York Times in its print article buried its own results, as blogger Mickey Kaus noted. Its poll showed women favored allowing religious organizations to opt out of such coverage by a 53 to 38 percent margin. The margin among men and women together was 57 to 36 percent.

Four-dollar gas prices surely took a toll on the president's numbers as well, despite his repeated boasts that domestic oil production is up.

Americans know the president cannot set the price at the pump. But they are also apparently aware that his administration shut down oil production in the Gulf of Mexico and has been slow-walking drilling permits, that it banned offshore drilling over other coasts, and that it denied a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Keystone denial remains astonishing for reasons that, I suspect, any Democratic pollster would tell you if you could promise absolute confidentiality.

A February Pew poll showed a 42 to 15 percent margin for building the pipeline. The fact that Obama was lobbying Senate Democrats last week to block the pipeline and that all but three voted to do so won't help the president or his party.

Last year I described the Keystone decision as a "no-brainer." It never occurred to me that Obama would decide to favor the rich environmentalists he encounters at fundraisers over the mass of the American people who want the Canadian oil and the construction jobs the pipeline would supply.

Obama's February uptick and March downtick in the polls will probably not be the last fluctuation we will see in his political standing.

Opinion about Mitt Romney, who at this writing seems virtually certain to be the Republican nominee, could fluctuate even more. Events could shift opinion too.

But some fundamentals are unlikely to change. Voters' focus is on economic issues, and on these most oppose the president's policies. His media cheerleaders who thought his February numbers meant the election was over were fooling themselves.

Michael Barone,The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.
 
The Dinner was the night after Obama took PM Cameron to Ohio for a basketball game. Good use of tax dollars - both events.

The US taxpayer could probably save a Trillion dollars a year by restricting Obama's travel by 50 %.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/03/15/obama-state-dinner-recalls-clinton-coffee-klatches/

Obama State Dinner Recalls Clinton Coffee Klatches

by Keith Koffler on March 15, 2012, 10:04 am

One out of nine guests expected at last night’s State Dinner for British Prime Minister David Cameron are helping finance President Obama’s reelection campaign, according to an analysis by ABC News. The event is reminiscent of the infamous Clinton White House “Coffee Klatches” at which previous or prospective Democratic donors were invited to meetings with Bill Clinton.

While technically Obama’s use of the White House to fete his donors may be legal, it certainly gives the appearance that he is using the White House grounds and a swank taxpayer-funded event to raise money.

Not only does this look like a reward for fundraising, but it seems like an enticement to continue doing so. This is because the fundraisers, who totaled 41 of the 364 expected attendees, are campaign “bundlers,” which means they generally not only give the legal maximum themselves but solicit others to contribute to Obama. So their work for the president may continue.

ABC found that the group is responsible for donating and collecting $10.7 million for the Obama campaign. The bundlers include some familiar and prominent names, according to ABC:

    They include Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour, media mogul Fred Eychaner, Pfizer executive Sally Susman, Stoneyfield Farms president and CEO Gary Hirschberg,  and Microsoft executives Suzi Levine and John Frank.  Several have each raised more than half a million dollars for 2012, according to estimates provided by Obama’s campaign and Democrats.

The Clinton operation brought in about $27 million for the Democratic National Committee from those invited to attend dozens of coffees with Clinton in 1995 and 1996. Many donors contributed during the month before or after the coffees.
 
Based on how much earlier the election cycle is getting each time, I think that we need to switch gears, and start throwing out discussion points for November 2016, as any further discussion for 2012 no longer matters. :nod:
 
Well this could make an effective TV ad for the campaign.


The Obama White House team has been claiming the latest budget will mean a huge reduction in the US national debt.

The independent CBO begs to differ.

"President Barack Obama’s budget proposal would add $6.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The nonpartisan agency, in an analysis today of the administration’s February budget request, said it would produce a deficit of almost $1 trillion in 2013.

The blockbuster report demolishes White House claims last month that the Obama budget would reduce deficits by $3.2 trillion over the next decade.
 The CBO arrived at the huge figure even after taking into account reduced war costs.'




Oopsie !  ;D



http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Obama-budget-deficit/2012/03/16/id/432800
 
cupper said:
Based on how much earlier the election cycle is getting each time, I think that we need to switch gears, and start throwing out discussion points for November 2016, as any further discussion for 2012 no longer matters. :nod:

Easy there; the Bush girls won't be ready until at least 2020.... ;)
 
From what I've seen the Republicans would be better off running Snooki for President and Paris Hilton as her VP.
 
Against President Obama any of the Republicans could do better.The President is without question our first Marxist President. Who in their right mind blocks oil exploration to advance green technologies that arent yet ready for primetime.The truck manufacturers are trotting out rigs that will run on natural gas and yet the infrastructure to support 100,000 big rigs doesnt exist. There is no shortage of crude oil in the US so why not get it to market which would free us from Arab oil.
 
First off, oil production has increased each year since the Obama Administration came in, where as oil production continually decreased during the Bush years.

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production

The US is currently a net exporter of petroleum distillates including gasoline.

http://www.politicususa.com/gop-gasoline-export/

Regardless of all of the above, drilling your way out of this problem is a pipe dream, as the production is already running at capacity.

As for the increase in gas prices, where was all the bitching at the Bush administration when we hit $4.05 / gallon in June of 2008. In September 2008, when the markets crashed, gas was at $3.70 / gallon. When Obama took office it had dropped to $1.79. What we are seeing now is the expected rebound of gas prices as demand comes back, (not withstanding the additional influences of speculation, mid-east unrest, etc) and resume the steady climb that was occurring during the Bush years.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/realprices/

(set the chart to monthly to get a detailed view of prices)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/gassy-rhetoric-on-gasoline-prices/2012/02/26/gIQAqPAXdR_blog.html

Long and short, the President, be it Obama, Gingrich, Romney, Bush, Clinton or anyone else has no ability to control the price of oil and gas. It is a global market, with prices set by the markets in New York, Copenhagen and elsewhere. Speculators, world wide demand, and unrest in the Middle East  all play larger parts in pricing than does domestic policy in the US.
 
Also, a little perspective on historical gas price data. Things aren't as bad as they have been in the past.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm

Gasoline Prices in Perspective

by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren (This article appeared in Investor's Business Daily, May 17, 2006)

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gasoline-prices-perspective

America appears to be in a state of wild-eyed panic about the rising price of gasoline. Talk radio hosts and T.V. populists apparently think that mass riots are imminent and that whole cities will burn unless politicians do something to save America from the long, dark economic night that is descending upon us.

In truth, gasoline prices today are taking less of a bite from our pocketbooks than has been the norm since World War II.

For instance, let's look at 1955, a year most of us associate with big cars, big engines, and cheap fuel – automotive glory days, as it were. Gasoline sold for 29 cents per gallon. But one dollar in 1955 was worth more than one dollar today. If we were using today's dollars, gasoline would have cost $1.76 per gallon in 1955.

Gasoline now costs around $3.00, so we are worse off than in 1955, right? No. Because we were poorer in 1955 than we are today, $1.76 then had a bigger impact on the pocketbook (that is, it represented a larger fraction of income) than $1.76 today. If we adjust gasoline prices not only for inflation but also changes in disposable per capita income (defined as income minus taxes), gasoline today would have to cost $5.17 per gallon to have the same impact as 29 cents in 1955.

Let's pick another year we associate with low gasoline prices – 1972, the year before the Arab oil embargo. Gasoline was selling at 36 cents per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, however, the price was actually $1.36 in today's currency. Adjust again for changes in disposable per capita income and the price would have to be $2.66 per gallon to have equivalent impact today.

Were we better off then when we rolled into the filling station in 1972 than we are today? No, because our cars get 60 to 70 percent better mileage today than in 1972 (22.4 miles per gallon versus 13.5 miles per gallon). That more than offsets the 10.5 percent increase in gas prices adjusted for change in inflation and income from then to now.

Now let's look at 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office. Gasoline sold for $1.38 that year, the equivalent of $2.74 in today's currency. Adjusting for the change in disposable per capita income, prices would have to be $4.30 today to have an equivalent impact.

There are probably three reasons that gasoline prices appear so high to us today. First, many don't fully appreciate the long run effect that inflation has on prices. Second, many don't appreciate how much our incomes have increased relative to prices. Finally, we still remember 1998 very well, the year in which we encountered the lowest gasoline prices since 1949. Gasoline in 1998 sold for $1.03 per gallon, the equivalent of $1.21 in today's currency. Adjusting for growth in per capita income yields a price of $1.35 per gallon in today's terms. Today's price is more than double that and people resent the increase over the last several years, in part, because they think that 1998 prices were normal. But they were not.

Now let's put the recent price increase in terms of real outlays. The average household is spending $136 more on gasoline every month than it was in 1998 and $114 per month more than it were spending in 2002. But, believe it or not, real (inflation-adjusted) disposable income per household has increased even faster than have pump prices; by $800 a month since 1998 and $279 a month since 2002.

Accordingly, Americans are still, on average, economically ahead of the game.

No one likes high gasoline prices. But they are not as bad as most people think. Keep that in mind the next time some politician or media populist starts handing out the pitchforks.
 
The increase in oil production is on private, not Fereral land (leases are still blocked there), and are almost entirely due to advances in exploration technology (to identify where the oil is) and drilling technologies like Fracking and horizontal drilling.

As for the historical price analogy, while it is true (and bottled water is still cheaper, another popular trope), this is not very comforting to people pulling up to the pump and paying more than $4.00/gal. Indeed, since incomes are either stagnant or declining while inflation erodes the food and fuel budget; people see their disposable incomes decline. Expect to see more "Thanks Barrack" stickers on gas pumps as the year unfolds.

Election fun: Rutherford B Hayes responds to Obama's whopper: http://www.quickmeme.com/hip-rutherford-b-hayes/popular/?upcoming

 
More election fun: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/gop-mocks-obama-movie.php
 
Back
Top