2012 United States Presidential Elections

[6a]

And with my comments above, I'm out. I have a feeling this thread is gonna blow up like my Facebook feed does sometimes. 

_{I don't have facebook, but that's another thread entirely...}

[NE2]

And with my comments above, I'm out. I have a feeling this thread is gonna disagree with my dumb arse.

Creative editing from one of the trolls.

They see me trollin'...

[empirestate]

I just don't understand the "not being Obama" argument; it seems like one helluva weak platform to me. That's like a firefighter showing up at a burning building and saying "I'm gonna put out that fire, and I'm gonna do it by not, myself, being a fire."

[6a]

One tangential question- I'm just curious as to the thought process of Republicans here. I won't judge, I promise.

Assuming these are correct of the typical Republican:
1. The election is a referendum on Obama.
2. Romney is a fairly meh candidate.
3. The idea behind voting for Romney, as a meh candidate, is that he'll tide things over until we get somebody good in there.
4. I'll be voting for Romney.

Then what happens if Romney actually wins? A heavy-hitting Republican like McDonnell or Daniels or something isn't going to run in 2016 if Romney is up for re-election, so by voting for Romney you're basically saying that 8 years of Romney is better than 4 years of Obama and 4 years of a useful Republican (if Obama still hasn't made substantial progress on the economy in four years, you can bet your ass the Republicans will win 2016 and if he has then who cares?). Right?

I guess there's an off chance that Romney surprises and is amazing, but is that (slim, from what I gather, even from the Republicaniest of Republicans) chance worth forgoing the guarantee that a useful Republican will take office in 2016? If Romney wins and does a meh job, the 2016 election is going to be competitive. If Obama hasn't made very substantial progress and a high-quality Republican runs, I suspect that election will be a GOP shoo-in.

OK, I'll bite and be honest, Romney doesn't knock my socks off, and I'm not going to vote for Obama, so it's Romney with a uuuugh.

I'm going with the Ohio growing to love Kasich mantra.  Ohioans *hated* Kasich.  He was awful, he personally kills unions, negroes, queers, and bus occupants.  Except now he doesn't.  And Ohio is growing faster than the nation as a whole.  Even though Issue 2 (killing unions) got stuffed. which was supposed to put us back in the dark ages.

[Alps]

As long as we keep all the unnecessary politics in this thread and don't start personal attacks, I'm inclined to let it play out. Those of us who have made up our minds won't be swayed by anything said in here. Those of us who haven't, won't be using this thread to make that decision, but are smart enough to wait for debates and other actual political material instead of secondhand hearsay and emotional appeals. I'm in the latter camp. I'd rather not vote for either major candidate, but I haven't found anyone I actually do want to vote for. I'm hoping either major candidate sounds smart in the debates, but I get the feeling they're too politically entrenched, and that the outsiders (Johnson, Stein) are too far outside and thus playing on that instead of having sustainable positions. (Third parties tend to have very weak foreign policy, for example, and many social policies are based on idealism without considering practical implications of cases where they have already been implemented in other First World societies.) I'm considering writing in Tim Brown because he at least has the courage to tell it like it is.

[bugo]

Romney didn't "donate" 4 million dollars.  Being a Mormon, he is *required* to tithe.  That is not charity, that is club dues.

[US71]

One tangential question- I'm just curious as to the thought process of Republicans here. I won't judge, I promise.

Assuming these are correct of the typical Republican:
1. The election is a referendum on Obama.
2. Romney is a fairly meh candidate.
3. The idea behind voting for Romney, as a meh candidate, is that he'll tide things over until we get somebody good in there.
4. I'll be voting for Romney.

Then what happens if Romney actually wins? A heavy-hitting Republican like McDonnell or Daniels or something isn't going to run in 2016 if Romney is up for re-election, so by voting for Romney you're basically saying that 8 years of Romney is better than 4 years of Obama and 4 years of a useful Republican (if Obama still hasn't made substantial progress on the economy in four years, you can bet your ass the Republicans will win 2016 and if he has then who cares?). Right?

I guess there's an off chance that Romney surprises and is amazing, but is that (slim, from what I gather, even from the Republicaniest of Republicans) chance worth forgoing the guarantee that a useful Republican will take office in 2016? If Romney wins and does a meh job, the 2016 election is going to be competitive. If Obama hasn't made very substantial progress and a high-quality Republican runs, I suspect that election will be a GOP shoo-in.

OK, I'll bite and be honest, Romney doesn't knock my socks off, and I'm not going to vote for Obama, so it's Romney with a uuuugh.

I'm going with the Ohio growing to love Kasich mantra.  Ohioans *hated* Kasich.  He was awful, he personally kills unions, negroes, queers, and bus occupants.  Except now he doesn't.  And Ohio is growing faster than the nation as a whole.  Even though Issue 2 (killing unions) got stuffed. which was supposed to put us back in the dark ages.

One tangential question- I'm just curious as to the thought process of Republicans here. I won't judge, I promise.

Assuming these are correct of the typical Republican:
1. The election is a referendum on Obama.
2. Romney is a fairly meh candidate.
3. The idea behind voting for Romney, as a meh candidate, is that he'll tide things over until we get somebody good in there.
4. I'll be voting for Romney.

Then what happens if Romney actually wins? A heavy-hitting Republican like McDonnell or Daniels or something isn't going to run in 2016 if Romney is up for re-election, so by voting for Romney you're basically saying that 8 years of Romney is better than 4 years of Obama and 4 years of a useful Republican (if Obama still hasn't made substantial progress on the economy in four years, you can bet your ass the Republicans will win 2016 and if he has then who cares?). Right?

I guess there's an off chance that Romney surprises and is amazing, but is that (slim, from what I gather, even from the Republicaniest of Republicans) chance worth forgoing the guarantee that a useful Republican will take office in 2016? If Romney wins and does a meh job, the 2016 election is going to be competitive. If Obama hasn't made very substantial progress and a high-quality Republican runs, I suspect that election will be a GOP shoo-in.

OK, I'll bite and be honest, Romney doesn't knock my socks off, and I'm not going to vote for Obama, so it's Romney with a uuuugh.

I'm going with the Ohio growing to love Kasich mantra.  Ohioans *hated* Kasich.  He was awful, he personally kills unions, negroes, queers, and bus occupants.  Except now he doesn't.  And Ohio is growing faster than the nation as a whole.  Even though Issue 2 (killing unions) got stuffed. which was supposed to put us back in the dark ages.

Watch the language! No slurs.

[algorerhythms]

Obamney/Ridin 2012.

Are you insane!? Clearly the correct choice is Robama/Byan 2012.

[J N Winkler]

Then what happens if Romney actually wins? A heavy-hitting Republican like McDonnell or Daniels or something isn't going to run in 2016 if Romney is up for re-election, so by voting for Romney you're basically saying that 8 years of Romney is better than 4 years of Obama and 4 years of a useful Republican (if Obama still hasn't made substantial progress on the economy in four years, you can bet your ass the Republicans will win 2016 and if he has then who cares?). Right?

I have been thinking about the same thing, but less from the perspective of the White House changing hands in 2016 and more in terms of what Romney can actually do if he is elected.  (What he wants to do is a cipher but, from my perspective, his instincts are bad.)

Treating the presidential election and the various Senate races as a correlated system, I believe the likeliest scenario, assuming Romney wins, is that the Republicans will also take a very narrow majority in the Senate that is not filibuster-proof.  This scenario implies at minimum another two years of a do-nothing Congress, with the largest changes happening in the judicial branch depending on whether Romney gets to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.

I am not sure whether Romney would be able to get "repeal and replace" of Obamacare through a Senate filibuster even under this favorable scenario.  At minimum the "replace" part would have to be substantial.

I can see the Senate continuing to function as the primary obstacle to the Tea Party agenda, which, aside from Congressional vote-counting considerations, is only marginally more likely to get traction under Romney than under Obama because Romney is an establishment Republican.

Assuming an Obama victory, and also treating the Senate races and the presidential election as a connected system, the prospects for forward movement are somewhat better.  I would expect the Democrats to keep their majority in the Senate, but not for it to become filibuster-proof, while the Republicans keep a shaved majority in the House.  (Nancy Pelosi has been talking up the possibility of getting her old job back, but I tend to agree with Slate's analysis that this is improbable.)

The underlying point is that partisan acrimony breeds gridlock and it will be quite bad regardless of who wins the presidency.

Moving on to the narrow question of what happens in 2016, my personal view is that the election then will be the Republicans' to lose if Obama wins in 2012.  Obama has no clear heir apparent, and the reality that "Hope and change" was a sales pitch for incremental progressivism paints other Democrats into a corner in terms of developing a following among the base.  Hillary will be too old to run successfully.

On the Republican side, McConnell and Daniels share Hillary's disadvantage.  I think the likeliest eventual Republican candidate is a young Republican governor (say Bobby Jindal, but emphatically not Nikki Haley, and probably not Chris Christie) looking for promotion.  (The governor of my own state, Sam Brownback, is reputed to be grooming himself for another run at the presidency, but I don't think it will happen in light of the dismal results he got on his first go-around in 2008.)  I would also expect the ex-governor candidate to be fluent, genuinely popular, and from a bona fide red state, because after Rick Perry's flubs and an assumed Romney loss to Obama in the 2012 election cycle, the Republican kingmakers will be really leery of tongue-tied red-staters and blue-state Republicans who leave office with sub-40% approval ratings.  (Jindal, whom I think is the likeliest prospect, does have baggage--notably his endorsement of creationist textbooks in Louisiana public schools--but I think he is nimble-footed enough to throw the creationists under the bus the same way Obama had to throw Reverend "God damn America" Wright under the bus to prove he was not too black to be the rainbow president.)

I guess there's an off chance that Romney surprises and is amazing, but is that (slim, from what I gather, even from the Republicaniest of Republicans) chance worth forgoing the guarantee that a useful Republican will take office in 2016? If Romney wins and does a meh job, the 2016 election is going to be competitive. If Obama hasn't made very substantial progress and a high-quality Republican runs, I suspect that election will be a GOP shoo-in.

I'd say that 2016 will be a Republican shoo-in even if Obama wins now and makes very substantial progress.  I tend to agree with your analysis that the Republicans in 2012 find themselves in the same position that the Democrats did in 2004 when there was the possibility of a Kerry victory:  a mediocre candidate winning now ruining the prospects of a much better candidate four years later.  I believe there is absolutely no precedent (and certainly no recent one) of the White House remaining with the same party when the sitting president is deposed by a primary challenger (the last time this came close to happening was with Carter in 1980, and Carter still won the nomination but lost the election).  In the last thirty years one-term presidencies have become the exception.  It is now the norm to run for four with an option on eight, and the Republicans I know who don't have to make a huge public display of drinking the Kool-Aid acknowledge that Romney is just a little bit too sucky for a full eight years.  Obama, on the other hand, can accomplish much in terms of foreign policy (where he is much more sure-footed than Romney) even if Congress is gridlocked.

[Takumi]

Nobody really appeals to me.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

Other than the FDR & Truman years, the Democratic party has never held the presidency for more than two terms. So if Obama gets re-elected, the Republicans have history (for a change) going for them in 2016.

[US71]

Obamney/Ridin 2012.

Are you insane!? Clearly the correct choice is Robama/Byan 2012.

Vote Saxon

[6a]

Watch the language! No slurs.

Just when I thought the thickest of sarcasm would work here I am yet again amazed.  I'm not going to apologize, because that's what the candidates do, but I'll be glad to bow out of anything other than road discussions.

[corco]

Honestly, I thought the slurs emphasized the point you were trying to make and were therefore useful- if they were random I could see the complaint but they actually helped lend credibility to what you were saying in this case.

[Scott5114]

Everyone is mostly playing nice here so far, but with two months to the election we have ample opportunity for this to go down the gutter. I'd prefer to not let it get to that point.

Political content has always been against the rules for this reason, except to the extent that it's required to discuss roads.