2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[mr_pikachu]

There's been enough talk about candidates and such as of late that I figured it was about time we had a thread devoted to the election. So, which candidates are you supporting? Who has the best chance to win, and who's committing political suicide as we speak? For that matter, will our eventual president improve on the previous four years or make matters worse for our country?

Ladies and gentlemen, you may fire when ready.

[Roy Karrde]

I will be supporting Rick Perry, I believe he has the best chance of winning via the economic message he brings. Having been Governor of a state that brings in 40%+ of the entire employment growth of the nation helps. Right now Bachmann is in a slow burn of political suicide as well as allowing the story get ahead of her. Right now I can only see a new President as a improvement of the country. The last 3 years have been nightmarish.

[Gavin Luper]

I like Obama and I think he will still manage to get in for a second term.

[Heald]

Screw them all. Elect someone who realises America needs to stop shitting all over the rest of the world and gets your own house in order first.

[Katie]

perry can go eat a big bag of dicks. please donate your own money to me because my mansion burned down and I need to build a new mansion, poor poor me a bloo bloo :'(

[Roy Karrde]

perry can go eat a big bag of dicks. please donate your own money to me because my mansion burned down and I need to build a new mansion, poor poor me a bloo bloo :'(

Yeah the Gov's mansion did burn down, it was arson (suspects are link to a Anarchist terrorist group ), and the Governor's need a mansion to work out of, especially Texas which hosts foreign dignitaries all the time. If the White House were to burn down ( again ) we would expect the tax payers to fund a place for the President to work out of.

Edit: Also to note not any house will do also, it has to meet the specifications of the Texas Rangers as they protect the Governor.

[Gavin Luper]

Saw some stuff about Rick Perry on the news. Not so much impressed. Another Texan "social conservative"? Ugh.

[Roy Karrde]

Saw some stuff about Rick Perry on the news. Not so much impressed. Another Texan "social conservative"? Ugh.

Yeah except he absolutely hates George W Bush. Is not a "Compassionate Conservative" like Bush was, and is willing to allow states to have their own marriage laws if there is no Congressional action on Gay Marriage. And then there is his own relationship with the Muslim community. So no I wouldn't call him just "Another Social Conservative"

And then there is that whole thing about Texas creating nearly half the jobs in the entire nation...

[Blademaster]

I vote that we disband our Presidential system and replace it with a Grand Council of accountants so we can get this fucking multi-bajillion dollar deficit under control.

[Deadwood_Zen]

Or at replace every politician in office now with someone who has some common sense and will vote based off what needs to be done instead of what will get them elected another term?

[Becky]

I vote that we disband our Presidential system and replace it with a Grand Council of accountants so we can get this fucking multi-bajillion dollar deficit under control.

I love this response, Blade!

I don't have a preference for a candidate yet. It'll probably be a few more months before I figure out who I'm going to support.

Gavin, out of curiosity, what's your rationale for Obama?

[Gavin Luper]

I love this response, Blade!

I don't have a preference for a candidate yet. It'll probably be a few more months before I figure out who I'm going to support.

Gavin, out of curiosity, what's your rationale for Obama?

Mostly from a slightly selfish, social rights point-of-view, because he is likely the only one who would ever go for legislating for gay marriage and repealing DOMA, and to be honest, quite aside from being good for Americans, it would be a very big pressure on the Australian government to follow suit. He hasn't backed same-sex marriage but he's making noises on it, and I think if he gets in for a second term he will come around and legislate for it.

Also, I believe him as an orator. He's extremely eloquent, intelligent and skilled with his speech, and I think that is something seriously lacking in politics, so I really respect that. As a figure, I think he comes across as an amazing leader, too - he has a strong presence.

Now, as for whether he has the financial credentials to help America out of the mess it's in, I have absolutely no idea, and I'd even be inclined to say no at this stage. But hell, who knows? Desperation can make some amazing things happen, and I bet he's desperate as hell to get in for that second term.

[Roy Karrde]

Mostly from a slightly selfish, social rights point-of-view, because he is likely the only one who would ever go for legislating for gay marriage and repealing DOMA, and to be honest, quite aside from being good for Americans, it would be a very big pressure on the Australian government to follow suit. He hasn't backed same-sex marriage but he's making noises on it, and I think if he gets in for a second term he will come around and legislate for it.

He would need Congress to do something like that, something he will not have. Especially with the pretty much lame duck status he already has.

Also, I believe him as an orator. He's extremely eloquent, intelligent and skilled with his speech, and I think that is something seriously lacking in politics, so I really respect that. As a figure, I think he comes across as an amazing leader, too - he has a strong presence.

Yeah but with a approval rating at 40%, no one is following him, or listening to him.

[Heald]

Obama made the mistake of thinking the Republicans would give a shit about what he wanted to do. He should have fucked compromise and just got on with the job at hand. Regardless of his actual policies he seems to have completely hamstrung by his ridiculous belief that he needed the GOP's approval to get shit done. If this is to be his only term it will be defined by his sheer inaction and lack of the reform he touted.

[shazza]

Obama was elected based on idealistic hope that he will rectify all the wrong doings of the Bush Administration. The 2008 was a black and white election (no pun intended) in that if Bush is the man of “wrong”, then concurrently Obama is the man of “right” – and he capitalised on this consensus and promised change. To an extent he has made change for the better, and indeed far better than Bush, however his gift of charm and eloquence is now becoming his own blight: as the dire reality of the economic catastrophe is being truly realised – such a disaster is going to take years of rectification, quite beyond the Obama Administration (reegardless if it is one or two terms). People are realising that, once again, idealism is not the reality, so they are inevitably turning on him – specifically in the wake of the recent debt ceiling fiasco, confirming that idealism =/= reality.

To capitalise on people’s hopes is too big of enormous task to back up with, and will only result in a downhill slide for the incumbent. Further elections should not delude the voters and accept the reality of the situation. This, however, poses a problem that if both the Republicans and Democrats admit the sheer problem they have dug themselves in, then voters will lose faith in either major party. Damned if you do; damned if you don't.

God Bless America!

[Gavin Luper]

Yeah but with a approval rating at 40%, no one is following him, or listening to him.

Most of the recent polls seem to put him somewhere between 42-44%, which is not as bad as his low of 40%. And a year is a long time to recover from an approval rating of 42-44%, which is hardly disastrous - many other presidents have had much lower approval ratings at one point or another and still got in for a second term. So if he can use his skills to his advantage over the next year, I think he has a shot, especially if he can put forward some good policies and deliver some kind of rousing speeches, which I think he's capable of.

As for his gay rights stance, I'm not saying that legalising gay marriage would get through the parliamentary system necessarily; rather, I'm saying if he made it his position, it would serve as a beacon to other countries.

And I still like him immensely for getting rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell at last.

[Dark Sage]

Yeah but with a approval rating at 40%, no one is following him, or listening to him.

Roy, that claim is self-defeating. Apparently, at least 40% of people are listening to him.

Right now Bachmann is in a slow burn of political suicide as well as allowing the story get ahead of her.

And yet, she won the Iowa straw poll. That shows what a mess the GOP is in right now.

As for Perry, he's a bigot. I would never in a million years vote for him. His desire to push for a Constitutional Amendment that will outlaw gay marriage will guaruntee that he'll lose.

If you want my honest opinion, I think that if the GOP was smart, they would go with Romney. However, I do not think that the GOP is smart. I hear nothing but lunacy from any of them. Obama is the only politician who makes sense when I listen to him these days.

[Roy Karrde]

Edit: I originally said Obama has a 40% approval rating, as of today Gallup is reporting that his approval rating is at 39%. No President since Truman has won re election by having a rating this low this late into the Presidency.

Most of the recent polls seem to put him somewhere between 42-44%, which is not as bad as his low of 40%. And a year is a long time to recover from an approval rating of 42-44%, which is hardly disastrous - many other presidents have had much lower approval ratings at one point or another and still got in for a second term. So if he can use his skills to his advantage over the next year, I think he has a shot, especially if he can put forward some good policies and deliver some kind of rousing speeches, which I think he's capable of.

This week's Gallup poll had him at 40% and that was right after the crash and downgrade. Now could he raise it? Sure, but usually anything under 50% is defeating. As for giving policies, it is his policies which has driven him from a rating in the seventies, to defying political gravity at 40% ( In reality he should be in the thirties as that is his economic approval rating ).

As for his gay rights stance, I'm not saying that legalising gay marriage would get through the parliamentary system necessarily; rather, I'm saying if he made it his position, it would serve as a beacon to other countries.

There is no reason to do so, his position was quite clear in 2008, he is against Gay Marriage but for States passing it. Unless he gets a challenge from the left that has a chance of beating him, he wont change it.

Roy, that claim is self-defeating. Apparently, at least 40% of people are listening to him.

Yeah.. that basically means that those in the Democratic party are listening to him, for the rest of the country, including the crucial independents, nothing.

And yet, she won the Iowa straw poll. That shows what a mess the GOP is in right now.

No it shows what a mess the Iowa straw poll is. It was a poll in which two of the front runners right now ( Romney and Perry ) did not participate in. Leading to Bachmann and a squad of B Teamers. It is also a poll in which you have to purchase tickets to participate in, for candidates with alot of cash on hand, they can buy the tickets for their supporters and bus them in ( Bachmann bought 6,000 tickets ). For those who either do not have a fanatical following ( See Ron Paul ). Or do not have enough cash on hand to buy thousands of tickets and bus thousands of people in ( See everyone but Bachmann ) they are screwed.

As for Perry, he's a bigot. I would never in a million years vote for him. His desire to push for a Constitutional Amendment that will outlaw gay marriage will guaruntee that he'll lose.

He said he would be fine with a constitutional amendment, a view that was to playcate the social conservatives. It is also something that has no chance of happening. Because of that we should look at what he said before that ie: To allow states to have their own marriage laws. A centrist view I believe was also supported by Barack Obama in 2008

[Bear]

imo Rick Perry has the best name for a President. Just sayin'

Also unless Obama does something drastic his reputation is gonna be far too shot to get re-elected.

[Blademaster]

A discussion of topics concerning the future of the national polity? On our board of miscellanea?

[Gavin Luper]

Edit: I originally said Obama has a 40% approval rating, as of today Gallup is reporting that his approval rating is at 39%. No President since Truman has won re election by having a rating this low this late into the Presidency. This week's Gallup poll had him at 40% and that was right after the crash and downgrade. Now could he raise it? Sure, but usually anything under 50% is defeating. As for giving policies, it is his policies which has driven him from a rating in the seventies, to defying political gravity at 40% ( In reality he should be in the thirties as that is his economic approval rating ).

Maybe I'm more used to our domestic politics here, but that doesn't sound unrecoverable at all. It only takes a majority to win - that's 50%. Given that polls within a few days of the one I posted to the one you posted varied from 44% to 39% ... it's clear that it wouldn't take long for that rating to turn around enough to win 51%. I'm not saying it will happen and it may not, but I'm saying that for you to say it can't is a bit silly.

There is no reason to do so, his position was quite clear in 2008, he is against Gay Marriage but for States passing it. Unless he gets a challenge from the left that has a chance of beating him, he wont change it.

I think if you read between the lines on basically every speech/remark he's made about gay marriage over the past 12 months, it's pretty clear that he's privately in support of it, but unwilling to say that publicly for fear of the political losses that may occur. Even his public position has moved from being against gay marriage to repeatedly stating "my position on the issue is evolving" and refusing to defend DOMA. I think it's obvious where his personal beliefs are on this issue, and if he gets in for his second term, I think he'll come out in support of it because he doesn't have the pressure of a re-election to worry about.

And based on what DS is saying, plus what I've been hearing in the news, I don't like the sound of Perry at all. Now, preferable to Bachmann, I'm sure, but still ... ugh.

[Roy Karrde]

Maybe I'm more used to our domestic politics here, but that doesn't sound unrecoverable at all. It only takes a majority to win - that's 50%. Given that polls within a few days of the one I posted to the one you posted varied from 44% to 39% ... it's clear that it wouldn't take long for that rating to turn around enough to win 51%. I'm not saying it will happen and it may not, but I'm saying that for you to say it can't is a bit silly.

When you get down to the level of 39% the chance of recovering is very hard. It means you have alienated the other side, alienated independents, and are now alienating your own side. The last incumbent to reach this level this late into the term and not be voted out of office was Truman. That pretty much shows you the history now facing Obama.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, do you know what the approval rating of the GOP-controlled House is? 14%. At least it was the last time I checked. Call me crazy, but I'd say that Obama is doing a great deal better than the GOP right now.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, do you know what the approval rating of the GOP-controlled House is? 14%. At least it was the last time I checked. Call me crazy, but I'd say that Obama is doing a great deal better than the GOP right now.

Yeah umm no. Right now you only have two House members running for the Presidency out of 8. Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann. Neither of them has any real chance of winning. And even if they did, favorability of the ruling body of a House of Congress does not directly correlate with the favorability of a member. If it did then we would have President McCain right now.

Now Obama can run a Truman strategy, meaning that a unfavorable President tries to run against a even more unfavorable Congress instead of his own failed record. But that strategy is one that will lose him the Presidency for two reasons.

A: His most likely challenger will be a Governor or Ex Governor with no ties to the current Congress, and will be running on a record of job creation or business experience.

B: Truman won because of the farm vote and foreign policy, not his campaign against Congress. Neither of which Obama can campaign on successfully this time.

[mr_pikachu]

Yeah, it's looking increasingly likely that we're going to see radical shifts in both Congress and the presidency next election. Right now, the smart money is on most incumbents getting trounced, which is also part of why Obama probably won't face one of the candidates who looks especially weak in approval ratings. Then again, he could always try to make it a party vs. party game by blaming the Republican-controlled House, although a broad sweep like that is likely to lose against the direct attacks that his opponent is likely to lodge.

Granted, we're still 15 months away, and anything can happen during that time, but we're looking at some pretty historic numbers right now in terms of low approval ratings. I think Obama's also lost the element of the unknown -- a promise of change in 2008 worked wonders, but now that the public has seen that not all of his campaign promises were accomplished, the dream of "change" doesn't look so magical. Instead it feels a little more like overblown rhetoric. In any case, it's hard to get the same trick to work twice, so Obama will have to pull out something creative this time if he needs an epic turnaround when crunch time approaches.

With that said, I don't completely buy Roy's claim that the Republican nominee will be a governor or ex-governor. I, for one, support Herman Cain, Pokémaniac.

Argue with that.

[Dark Sage]

Herman Cain? The pizza company owner?

And to think, we thought "peanut farmer" was a stretch. And Carter at least was a governor.

[Roy Karrde]

Herman Cain? The pizza company owner?

And to think, we thought "peanut farmer" was a stretch. And Carter at least was a governor.

Hey it could work, in a year where people are incredibly turned off by politicians, they may actually want some one with no political experience.

[mr_pikachu]

So, what do you guys think about the growing rift among right-wingers? I'm talking, of course, about the so-called tea party. Romney's outright said he doesn't care about the tea party and is skipping a Labor Day presidential candidate forum hosted by South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, a tea party "kingmaker," even as Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, and Perry all accepted their invitations. What do you think that will do to the candidates' respective chances, as well as the odds of the eventual Republican nominee unseating the incumbent Obama?

I'm starting to wonder if the fragmentation will derail any chance that the right has of garnering enough support on election day, even as Obama's poll numbers flounder. My thought, at least, is that a moderate candidate will struggle to gain grassroots support, while a far-right candidate will alienate undecided voters... hrm.

[Dark Sage]

If Romney is rejecting the Tea Party, he may well be the only smart Republican in the bunch. But I've said many times, Romney is their best bet right now if they knew what was good for them (and I don't think they do).

[mr_pikachu]

So. I called Cain almost two months ago, when he was polling in the single digits among GOP candidates. Now he sits firmly in the top two for all recent polls. He's trailing only Romney in the Reuters, Bloomberg, and Gallup polls of voting-age adults, he's tied with Romney in Rasmussen's poll of likely voters, and he's winning among Public Policy Polling's and NBC News' registered voters.

Hey, if you can sell pizza, you can sell a message, too. It also doesn't hurt that Romney's been hammering Perry on illegal immigration, knocking him to deep third and fourth places in the above polls. Outside of the Gallup poll, in which Perry trails Romney by 5%, he's trailing by double digits in every poll since October 3, and a whopping 20% behind Romney and Cain in the Rasmussen poll. Even Gingrich -- Gingrich! -- is beating him in that poll.

[Gavin Luper]

When will they actually nominate their presidential candidate?

[mr_pikachu]

Well, the caucuses/primary elections for each party go state-by-state (in addition to the U.S. territories), and not all of them have yet been scheduled, so there's no set date for everything. It will start in December or January, though, and generally a fair number of candidates drop out of the race after the first few primaries once it becomes clear that they have no chance and would just be wasting their money if they continued. I imagine we'll be down to two or three halfway-legitimate candidates by the end of February, when a lot of the bellwether states will have already voted. The Republican candidate should be decided by the end of June at the absolute latest.

For a more comprehensive guide, Wikipedia is your friend.

[Gavin Luper]

Thank you, sir. So, a long way to go yet before we know.

[Jeff]

I'm surprised the primaries are starting that early. I remember thinking that the '08 primaries were early, and they were actually in 2008.

[mr_pikachu]

Gavin: Yes, although with primaries starting in around two months, anyone who doesn't get in the game very soon is going to be one of those early drops. At the rate things are going now, it will be a Romney-Cain battle halfway through February. I've seen radical swings in political races, but not when the momentum is against you -- with Perry's momentum carrying him downward and everyone else in a very deep hole against the two current front-runners, something has to happen in a hurry to prevent that two-man race from coming to pass.

If we hit December with the numbers looking anything like this, it'll take a miracle for Perry or anyone else to even survive against Romney and Cain. So, while there's some time to wait before the actual polls arrive, we can predict a lot before it becomes official.



Jeff: Well, Florida angered a lot of the other states by setting a primary date of January 31, violating party rules by trying to be first. Since then, the other states have been one-upping each another to have the earliest primary, so that's why the schedule is so ridiculous this year.

[Dark Sage]

Unfortunately, Brian, Cain's 9-9-9 plan will hurt him once everyone figures it out. When you look at it, it's downright ludicrous.

Edit: By the way, just so you know...

Romney and Perry have raised $30 million combined for their campaigns so far. Cain has raised less than $3 million, and has spent half of it.

Obama has raised more than $70 million.

If contributions are a sign of support, I think that Obama's chances are looking better.

[mr_pikachu]

How, exactly, is a flat tax ludicrous? Because it doesn't punish people for being successful and gives businesses the opportunity to hire more employees, thus ensuring that more people are able to find jobs rather than relying on welfare benefits for years on end? It sounds reasonable enough to me.

As for fundraising, I'd be shocked if Obama had raised less than any of the GOP candidates. He's the only Democratic candidate, while Republican money is divided across a slew of candidates. Once the GOP has its nominee, those numbers should even out a bit (even if they never become totally equal -- Obama has a head start on fundraising given the otherwise empty Democratic field, after all).

[Dark Sage]

Brian, 9-9-9 increases income tax and sales tax for both the middle class and the poor. It even taxes things that are not taxed now. It's another example of class warfare where the rich will spit on the lower class if it ever becomes a reality (which it won't).

[Dark Sage]

Sorry to double post, but let me put it in better terms.

My bi-weekly paycheck is, before taxes, about $500. If I were to pay a federal income tax of 9% before other other taxes, that would add up to $45, giving me a $455 before state and other taxes were taken out.

Now, compare this to a CEO who makes a six-figure income of $500 grand, also bi-weekly. If he also paid the same rate, his take-home before any other taxes were deducted would be $445,000.

Starting to see my point? When put into perspective, paying taxes would be far more of a burden for me than it would be for him. Giving everyone the same tax rate is definately a bad idea.

[mr_pikachu]

To a certain extent, you're right. I'm not going to deny that this would significantly shift tax brackets -- more precisely, it would pretty much erase the definition of a tax bracket altogether, based on the information available. To say anything else would be a bald-faced lie... it's a flat tax, after all.

In my view, though, the bigger issue is that we have an absolutely catastrophic unemployment rate. It should come as no surprise that close to half the population doesn't pay taxes when the unemployment rate is as high as it's been since the great depression, bordering on 10% of job seekers.

For those who still don't have jobs after a potential flat income tax goes into effect, well, they'll be paying 9% of $0 in income taxes. A 9% federal sales tax would, indeed, be a notable increase, as most economic commentators believe that would be levied in addition to local and state sales taxes; however, it's possible that some goods or services would be exempt (the current sales tax system, after all, features loads of exemptions, and those details haven't been completely documented considering that most analysts thought Cain was irrelevant a few weeks ago), and a small increase in sales taxes would be negligible if and only if worker revenue also increases -- see my argument to that effect in the next paragraph. Finally, while the 9% corporate tax is, on the surface, a massive reduction from the current figure of 40%, that doesn't take into account all the exceptions and credits that corporations get today. Right now, I believe the average business pays closer to 27%, with some drawing more benefit from all those credits than others.

With that said, lower income brackets will indeed pay a bit more than they do now, while higher income brackets will pay considerably less. But, in my opinion, this is counterbalanced by three factors. First, with the decline in the corporate tax, entrepreneurs will be freer to start businesses without the fear of getting hammered with roughly 27% in taxes (or up to 40%, depending on how well they're able to game the exemption system) from the outset. Second, businesses as a whole will have much more freedom to expand their activities and hire more employees, thus allowing those in lower income groups better odds of earning better jobs (since more jobs will presumably be available across a range of income levels, leaving more openings higher on the income ladder as well as lower), and giving the opportunity for those struggling in unemployment to find a job themselves. Third, with more people across all income levels earning wages, individuals and families will be more apt to start their own businesses (see part 1) or just to spend more on non-necessities, generating more corporate revenue that will allow them to expand and to create more jobs (part 2). In other words, the idea is to boost the economy as a whole, which ultimately benefits the spectrum of the populace.

With that said, I'm sure you're already familiar with these theories, DS, and I'm certain you probably have a rebuttal queued and ready. I don't mean to patronize you with my above comments, especially since you bring up valid points, too. We could go back and forth challenging each other with theoretical arguments that have never been tested against one another in full, and that would be fine. But that's not what I'm seeking here. My point isn't necessarily to prove that a flat tax is better -- I personally think so, but limited testing in this sort of economic system makes proof either way rather difficult -- but merely to claim that it is at least a legitimate proposal, not a ludicrous sham, as I believe you suggested.


EDIT: Corrected an error relating to the 9% federal sales tax.