The 2012 United States Presidential Election

[Dan]

Let's start over.

The 2012 United States Presidential Election: Who you got? Go

[ImNoAngel]

The Bankers. Again.

[OlivetNaz]

Originally Posted by Dan

Let's start over.

The 2012 United States Presidential Election: Who you got? Go

Eh. Too soon to know for sure.

Will consider voting for (in no order): Pawlenty, Romney
MIGHT consider voting for (in no order): Bachmann, Perry, Obama
WILL NOT vote for (in no order): Palin, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum

Bachmann got upgraded a level after a strong showing in the Republican debate last week, and bears watching. She may be slick enough politically to sneak away with the GOP nomination. Obama got downgraded a level due to his repeated fumbling of the economy - the guy is no better than G.W.Bush on that front.

Gotta have someone who can work with the moderates on both sides of the aisle, improve the economy, AND reduce the national debt whilst we still have a chance at escaping a Greek-style tragedy (literally). I'm honestly not sure that any ONE candidate has the ability or skills to do that, but I am becoming more and more convinced that Obama is NOT the person who can do that (and I voted for the guy).

[ill07]

Originally Posted by OlivetNaz

Eh. Too soon to know for sure.

Will consider voting for (in no order): Pawlenty, Romney
MIGHT consider voting for (in no order): Bachmann, Perry, Obama
WILL NOT vote for (in no order): Palin, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum

Bachmann got upgraded a level after a strong showing in the Republican debate last week, and bears watching. She may be slick enough politically to sneak away with the GOP nomination. Obama got downgraded a level due to his repeated fumbling of the economy - the guy is no better than G.W.Bush on that front.

Gotta have someone who can work with the moderates on both sides of the aisle, improve the economy, AND reduce the national debt whilst we still have a chance at escaping a Greek-style tragedy (literally). I'm honestly not sure that any ONE candidate has the ability or skills to do that, but I am becoming more and more convinced that Obama is NOT the person who can do that (and I voted for the guy).

Bachmann may have done well with the debate (I actually agree, I thought she handled herself better than I expected), but I don't think she's a good pick for working on both sides of the aisle.

For me, the two I'd love to see pick up steam are Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman Jr. I'd also give Chris Christie a look if he chose to run.

Nobody on the D side has even come close to getting on my radar for a possible vote.

[ill07]

Also intriguing is (R) Fred Karger, though he needs to stop being just the "gay marriage" candidate and expand his platform a bit...

He has some good positions on fiscal policy, education, and drug reform, but from what I've seen they take a backseat, which would need to change if he even wants a whiff at being viable.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by ill07

For me, the two I'd love to see pick up steam are Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman Jr. I'd also give Chris Christie a look if he chose to run.

How prescient and timely:

Jon Huntsman announces 2012 run for president

[KBLEE]

Originally Posted by ill07

How prescient and timely:

Jon Huntsman announces 2012 run for president

He's already got a mini-scandal brewing, as he's going to have to answer questions about campaigning while he was Ambassador to China.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by KBLEE

He's already got a mini-scandal brewing, as he's going to have to answer questions about campaigning while he was Ambassador to China.

From what I've seen, I'm not terribly concerned that it's going to be anything major. I think he submitted his resignation a while before actually leaving the post to kind of "hint" that he was going to run and that someone on the other side should do some of the organizing in the meantime while he couldn't. But as long as he doesn't actually do it himself, I don't think it's a problem.

On a related note, here's a brilliant (sarcasm) piece by a self proclaimed tea partier:

Why I Will Not Support Jon Huntsman. Ever.

The reason I will never, ever support Jon Huntman is simple: While serving as the United States Ambassador to China, our greatest strategic adversary, Jon Huntsman began plotting to run against the President of the United States. This calls into question his loyalty not just to the President of the United States, but also his loyalty to his country over his own naked ambition.

It does not matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat. Party is beside the point here. When the President of the United States sends you off to be Ambassador to our greatest strategic adversary in the world, you don’t sit around contemplating running against the very same President you serve. It begs the question of did you fully carry out your duties as Ambassador or let a few things slip along the way hoping to damage the President? Likewise, it begs the question of whether our relations with China have suffered because the President felt like he could not trust his own Ambassador?

According to this guy, having ambitions at higher office (not even campaigning, apparently even thinking about it) while serving the US government makes you disloyal and unpatriotic...

[illinirazorback]

Huntsman is in big trouble with the base. Said in his announcement that he was going to be civil and not attack his opponents or Obama. He actually said he respects Obama. Great audio clip for the left. He's not going to win any points with the base on this one. They demand a candidate who is on the attack at all levels, and they would be correct.

[illinirazorback]

Gingrich Finance Team Abandons Campaign

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...dons-campaign/

Pretty sure he's done.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

Huntsman is in big trouble with the base. Said in his announcement that he was going to be civil and not attack his opponents or Obama. He actually said he respects Obama. Great audio clip for the left. He's not going to win any points with the base on this one. They demand a candidate who is on the attack at all levels, and they would be correct.

I, for one, would appreciate a candidate who has the capability of disagreeing with his opponents without "attacking." I don't want someone who has to resort to being nasty and throwing childish insults because their ideas aren't good enough by themselves to beat their opponents.

My ideal candidate will have that quality, and hopefully the ability to pull the independents, libertarians, and moderates from each party together, and leave the extreme wings of both other parties to call each other names and be otherwise irrelevant.

[danielb927]

Originally Posted by ill07

I, for one, would appreciate a candidate who has the capability of disagreeing with his opponents without "attacking." I don't want someone who has to resort to being nasty and throwing childish insults because their ideas aren't good enough by themselves to beat their opponents.

My ideal candidate will have that quality, and hopefully the ability to pull the independents, libertarians, and moderates from each party together, and leave the extreme wings of both other parties to call each other names and be otherwise irrelevant.

Ditto, but I have doubts that such a candidate would be able to win a Republican primary.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by danielb927

Ditto, but I have doubts that such a candidate would be able to win a Republican primary.

No question that would be a huge hurdle to overcome

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by ill07

I, for one, would appreciate a candidate who has the capability of disagreeing with his opponents without "attacking." I don't want someone who has to resort to being nasty and throwing childish insults because their ideas aren't good enough by themselves to beat their opponents.

My ideal candidate will have that quality, and hopefully the ability to pull the independents, libertarians, and moderates from each party together, and leave the extreme wings of both other parties to call each other names and be otherwise irrelevant.

I agree that would be nice, but remember that MOST of the electorate is relatively ignorant to the issues and somewhat uninformed, on both sides. The drive-by media only plays sound bites, and that's how they get their news. The sound bites therefore must be pointed to get people's attention. I think a candidate can be civil, yet forceful. You don't have to attack him personally to destroy him politically. Huntsman was plenty of the former, but little of the latter IMO. TALKING about civility and respect makes you look weak, even if you're not. Actually being civil yet forceful is another thing.

[Illest]

Bachmann did well keeping on message during the debate, but she continues to make nonsensical statements. The other day she accused Obama of secretly wanting to get rid of Medicare so that he can replace it with Obamacare for seniors. Translating that into a policy statement, she's accusing Obama of wanting to replace the current single-payer Medicare system with a system of subsidies to purchase private insurance... also known as the Paul Ryan plan. Which, of course, she is in favor of and Obama is opposed to.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by Illest

Bachmann did well keeping on message during the debate, but she continues to make nonsensical statements. The other day she accused Obama of secretly wanting to get rid of Medicare so that he can replace it with Obamacare for seniors. Translating that into a policy statement, she's accusing Obama of wanting to replace the current single-payer Medicare system with a system of subsidies to purchase private insurance... also known as the Paul Ryan plan. Which, of course, she is in favor of and Obama is opposed to.

Medicare is not really a single payer system. It is vastly more complicated than that.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by danielb927

Ditto, but I have doubts that such a candidate would be able to win a Republican primary.

Said candidate will not win a primary for either party on the national level. Never. It's not possible. Hate drives people to donate their money. That is why people like me have such a negative view of our government and the direction in which it is headed. Moderate, civil people still have a chance in many local elections, but I fear those days are past us on the national stage. As such, I think the best we can do is keep the powers of the House, Senate, and White House divided as best we can.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

Said candidate will not win a primary for either party on the national level. Never. It's not possible. Hate drives people to donate their money. That is why people like me have such a negative view of our government and the direction in which it is headed. Moderate, civil people still have a chance in many local elections, but I fear those days are past us on the national stage. As such, I think the best we can do is keep the powers of the House, Senate, and White House divided as best we can.

I agree with you though I think hate is too strong. If people don't see a contrast between one side and the other, the incumbent will almost always win.

In order to define a contrast, you have to say why the guy you want to not elect sucks.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

I agree with you though I think hate is too strong. If people don't see a contrast between one side and the other, the incumbent will almost always win.

In order to define a contrast, you have to say why the guy you want to not elect sucks.

Agree, I just think that there are ways of saying "hey, my ideas are way better than my opponent's" without resorting to "attacking" qua the petty childish politics we've seen lately.

[Illest]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

Said candidate will not win a primary for either party on the national level. Never. It's not possible. Hate drives people to donate their money.

Not just that, but hate drives people to watch your TV show or listen to your radio show. The media breathlessly reports on inconsequential differences of opinion and encourages relentless identity politics because that's what gets viewers. Almost nobody is willing to watch news reports which make them feel uncertain about their beliefs, because uncertainty in uncomfortable. So instead we get reports where everything is made to sound stupidly simply (so that we don't get the bad feeling of not understanding), where we're told how others with our ideological or political preferences think (so we don't experience the discomfort of figuring it out for ourselves), and where everybody's opinion is expressed as absolute.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

I agree with you though I think hate is too strong. If people don't see a contrast between one side and the other, the incumbent will almost always win.

In order to define a contrast, you have to say why the guy you want to not elect sucks.

Stronger emotions = more contributions. Therefore hate > than dislike, but yes I may have been a bit hyperbolic. It doesn't change the fact that on a national level we are too disparate to be unified to vote for someone so the approach is to unify people to vote against someone.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by Illest

Not just that, but hate drives people to watch your TV show or listen to your radio show. The media breathlessly reports on inconsequential differences of opinion and encourages relentless identity politics because that's what gets viewers. Almost nobody is willing to watch news reports which make them feel uncertain about their beliefs, because uncertainty in uncomfortable. So instead we get reports where everything is made to sound stupidly simply (so that we don't get the bad feeling of not understanding), where we're told how others with our ideological or political preferences think (so we don't experience the discomfort of figuring it out for ourselves), and where everybody's opinion is expressed as absolute.

Yes, you are 100% right. Of course I view "journalism" (used quite loosely) and the media as politicians themselves during elections.

[Illest]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

Stronger emotions = more contributions. Therefore hate > than dislike, but yes I may have been a bit hyperbolic. It doesn't change the fact that on a national level we are too disparate to be unified to vote for someone so the approach is to unify people to vote against someone.

I don't know that hate is really all that hyperbolic, though. A huge fraction of voters nowadays are really motivated by hate. It didn't used to be that way 20 years ago, but now it is, and I'm not sure how it would be able to go back.

[ill07]

Interesting story about how Bachmann's expenditures on her anti-Obamacare rally may have violated House rules:

Bachmann Playing With House Money

The money came from the Members' taxpayer-funded office accounts, despite House rules prohibiting the use of these funds for political activities. Bachmann's office insists the expense was a proper use of official funds.

Bachmann billed the event as a "press conference," which can be funded from official accounts. But no questions were taken from the press and, unlike most press conferences, it opened with a prayer, the national anthem and a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

[KBLEE]

^Sounds like a campaign rally to me. But, what do I know?

In the end, I can see her potentially being #2 on a ticket. But, she's not ready for the nomination yet.