President Obama

[Humodour]

Wins the election. Thank glob.

 

http://electoral-vote.com/

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

http://pollyvote.forecastingprinciples.com/index.php/pollyvote-2012.html

[kirottu]

Wins the election. Thank glob.

 

1000 years of darkness!!1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg14hRntRpg

[Hurlshort]

There are conservative columnists railing against Mitt Romney right now after his 47% comments.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-gets-blasted-by-conservatives-in-two-must-read-columns-2012-9

 

It doesn't look good. Romney really just seems to have no idea what his voter base is. I was concerned about him as a candidate all along, and he just continues to make baffling statements. Basically Obama just needs to avoid a major controversy to win.

 

It's sad, really. This is why I wish Newt Gingrich would have got the candidacy. I know he never would have been able to win, but he is a very smart politician and he would have challenged the Obama administration with tough questions and introduced new ideas. Gingrich is an SOB, but he is an SOB with a track record of getting the job done.

[Humodour]

The more intricate detail is that the Democrats also win the Senate.

 

And while I have no information on the House (I presume it is up for re-election?), one would surmise the Democrats will keep their majority there.

 

That's 2 years of absolute power for the Democrats, guys. Awesome, in my books. They can actually get their job done without extremist Ayn Randian Republicans blocking their every move. And Obama won't be up for re-election, so he'll probably go hard for the history books.

[Morgoth]

Why do people even care who gets elected? It's not changing anything, the whole system is rigged and rotten to the core.

[Humodour]

Why do people even care who gets elected? It's not changing anything, the whole system is rigged and rotten to the core.

 

America's system is rotten. Heck, every country's system is a bit rotten (though America's more deeply so than many Western countries). But collectively, they all move forwards given enough time. That's one of the good things about globalisation.

 

I do believe that the Democrats are a right-wing, capitalism-centred party (fairly closely akin to the Conservative party in the UK). However, I disagree that they're outright owned and run by corporations, as the Republican party is. The Democrats also don't harbour the crazy religious wing of the Republicans, and thus can fairly freely propel forward social change, if not economic change.

 

And this election, it will matter especially for the reason I stated above: the Democrats (the party with a fair bit of social freedom) will have control of ALL houses for at least 2 years (likely only 2 years, since voters are historically fickle). This is fairly rare in most political systems I know of. It happens, but because it means one party gets unchecked power until the next election, people don't tend to give it to a single party for very long.

 

 

So I strongly disagree. It does matter. I guess I am assuming that with control of both houses and the executive, the Dems can pull off some decent policy. Well, if they can do anything about greenhouse gas emissions in the US combined with a continued push for wind+solar adoption (even if it's just a ****ing measly 5% to start with, like Australia's), then that's change I can believe in. For the record: Obama pushed hard on building loads and loads of new solar power stations towards the end of his 1st term. So there is history to back up my hope.

[Gorgon]

There are conservative columnists railing against Mitt Romney right now after his 47% comments.

 

http://www.businessi...-columns-2012-9

 

It doesn't look good. Romney really just seems to have no idea what his voter base is. I was concerned about him as a candidate all along, and he just continues to make baffling statements. Basically Obama just needs to avoid a major controversy to win.

 

It's sad, really. This is why I wish Newt Gingrich would have got the candidacy. I know he never would have been able to win, but he is a very smart politician and he would have challenged the Obama administration with tough questions and introduced new ideas. Gingrich is an SOB, but he is an SOB with a track record of getting the job done.

 

Whatever game he had he seemed to have lost it all based on his performance in the primaries. Getting yourself noticed while you are leading the opposition is the easiest thing in the world.

[HoonDing]

Why do people even care who gets elected? It's not changing anything, the whole system is rigged and rotten to the core.

[Raithe]

From the outside observer, most the press has seemed to cover Romney and Obama are basically them making claims about how crap the other is, more then actually talking about specifics of what they want to do...

 

It tends to make it very easy not to take either candidate that seriously.

[ShadySands]

Unfortunately, it's that way from the inside too

[Morgoth]

Unfortunately, it's that way from the inside too

 

Exactly.

[Morgoth]

Why do people even care who gets elected? It's not changing anything, the whole system is rigged and rotten to the core.

 

America's system is rotten. Heck, every country's system is a bit rotten (though America's more deeply so than many Western countries). But collectively, they all move forwards given enough time. That's one of the good things about globalisation.

 

I do believe that the Democrats are a right-wing, capitalism-centred party (fairly closely akin to the Conservative party in the UK). However, I disagree that they're outright owned and run by corporations, as the Republican party is. The Democrats also don't harbour the crazy religious wing of the Republicans, and thus can fairly freely propel forward social change, if not economic change.

 

And this election, it will matter especially for the reason I stated above: the Democrats (the party with a fair bit of social freedom) will have control of ALL houses for at least 2 years (likely only 2 years, since voters are historically fickle). This is fairly rare in most political systems I know of. It happens, but because it means one party gets unchecked power until the next election, people don't tend to give it to a single party for very long.

 

 

So I strongly disagree. It does matter. I guess I am assuming that with control of both houses and the executive, the Dems can pull off some decent policy. Well, if they can do anything about greenhouse gas emissions in the US combined with a continued push for wind+solar adoption (even if it's just a ****ing measly 5% to start with, like Australia's), then that's change I can believe in. For the record: Obama pushed hard on building loads and loads of new solar power stations towards the end of his 1st term. So there is history to back up my hope.

 

That's really sweet and all, but right now Congress is infestated with thugs and old grumpy Vietnam "veterans" who don't understand the modern world paradigms anymore. Psychopatic misanthropist like Paul Ryan or even Mitt Romney who never interacted with ordinary people in his life (except from TV and briefing videos maybe) are being cherished for having a "hardliner" bigot-right wing agenda, and the numbers of their followers is quite a significant chunk of the US population. Now *this* is really what's worrying me, that they, the people and all the institutions and media allow these underachievers to even talk in such an arrogant way. Nobody keeps them in check, that certainly cannot be true democracy.

 

Whether Obama or Romney gets elected will not change much, the agenda is already set. It's up to the Americans to wake up and claim their rights and freedom back from this feudalistic ****.

 

And Europeans by the way don't just need to wake up, they need to get SHOCKED UP with a murderous defibrillator.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Morgoth

[PsychoYoshi]

And while I have no information on the House (I presume it is up for re-election?), one would surmise the Democrats will keep their majority there.

Republicans have the majority in the House.

 

That's 2 years of absolute power for the Democrats, guys.

They already had two years of filibuster-proof majorities from 2008-2010 and majorities for the last two years of Bush's tenure. Please enlighten us how they performed any better than the GOP other than using the the litigation momentum that the Log Cabins started against DA-DT to repeal it.

 

They can actually get their job done without extremist Ayn Randian Republicans blocking their every move.

 

I'm not sure what's worse, wrongfully mischaracterizing GOP members as a homogenous block or the argument that they pay more than lip service to Rand, regardless of whether or not her philosophies were good.

 

I do believe that the Democrats are a right-wing, capitalism-centred party (fairly closely akin to the Conservative party in the UK).

Crony capitalism != capitalism. This is systemic among the establishment of both parties.

 

However, I disagree that they're outright owned and run by corporations, as the Republican party is.

Right then.

 

The Democrats also don't harbour the crazy religious wing of the Republicans,

OK.

 

 

For the record: Obama pushed hard on building loads and loads of new solar power stations towards the end of his 1st term.

You do realize Solyndra et. al. are symptomatic of the same crony capitalism that you profess to hate? Or does it suddenly become acceptable when it doesn't conflict with your goals?

 

In short? Stop drinking the partisan kool-aid. Neither the GOP nor the Democrats care for voters at all. Quick edit: just in case I come off the wrong way, this is not meant to be a personal attack against Krez; he's entitled to his views. It's meant to be a deconstruction of the argument that the Dems are considerably better than the GOP.

Edited September 20, 2012 by PsychoYoshi

[obyknven]

Americans are so naive.

[Malcador]

That's a pretty good cartoon, heh.

[Hurlshort]

The problems with both parties stem more from ignorance than maliciousness. Solyndra and the 47% comments are excellent examples of this.

 

Also Oby, have you ever lived in the US, or spent a significant amount of time there? Because it would be pretty naive to speak on the domestic policies of a country that you have no real world experience with.

[Zoraptor]

I said it when he was looking at being confirmed, but Romney (named after a breed of sheep, always a bad sign) reminds me of a Republican version of John Kerry- the least offensive candidate of a not very inspiring bunch, and one that pretty much nobody is actually enthusiastic about in any way except for "not being the other guy". He's certainly not got the charisma of a Reagan or Clinton necessary to unseat a sitting President.

[Hurlshort]

Yep, Romney is a lot like Kerry, minus the 3 purple hearts.

[HoonDing]

We might be in for a surprise, though.

 

[Sargallath Abraxium]

...only good thing 'bout Canadian politics be fool-arse religion not usually an issue...thank Jebus...

 

 

...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!...

[Calax]

Yep, Romney is a lot like Kerry, minus the 3 purple hearts.

Except that Kerry was ironically villified for being in the military because there were supposedly photos of him skiing behind a PT boat or something? While G.W. Hisself never entered the military.

[Humodour]

And while I have no information on the House (I presume it is up for re-election?), one would surmise the Democrats will keep their majority there.

Republicans have the majority in the House.

 

That's 2 years of absolute power for the Democrats, guys.

They already had two years of filibuster-proof majorities from 2008-2010 and majorities for the last two years of Bush's tenure. Please enlighten us how they performed any better than the GOP other than using the the litigation momentum that the Log Cabins started against DA-DT to repeal it.

 

They can actually get their job done without extremist Ayn Randian Republicans blocking their every move.

 

I'm not sure what's worse, wrongfully mischaracterizing GOP members as a homogenous block or the argument that they pay more than lip service to Rand, regardless of whether or not her philosophies were good.

 

I do believe that the Democrats are a right-wing, capitalism-centred party (fairly closely akin to the Conservative party in the UK).

Crony capitalism != capitalism. This is systemic among the establishment of both parties.

 

However, I disagree that they're outright owned and run by corporations, as the Republican party is.

Right then.

 

The Democrats also don't harbour the crazy religious wing of the Republicans,

OK.

 

 

For the record: Obama pushed hard on building loads and loads of new solar power stations towards the end of his 1st term.

You do realize Solyndra et. al. are symptomatic of the same crony capitalism that you profess to hate? Or does it suddenly become acceptable when it doesn't conflict with your goals?

 

In short? Stop drinking the partisan kool-aid. Neither the GOP nor the Democrats care for voters at all. Quick edit: just in case I come off the wrong way, this is not meant to be a personal attack against Krez; he's entitled to his views. It's meant to be a deconstruction of the argument that the Dems are considerably better than the GOP.

 

I don't disagree with you enough to argue with you (aside from that ill-informed Solyndra comment). Both parties are extremely broken and corrupt, yes. But anybody willing to claim that the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans (which is EXACTLY what you're doing when you say "it doesn't matter who you vote for") is woefully short-sighted in my books, and this line of thinking benefits only the corporate lobbyists and shadow figures you profess to despise.

 

Sure, be deeply cynical about the American electoral system - agitate for reform of that! Agitate for whatever other ways you think the US citizens can make a difference. But vote, too, god dammit. And vote for the lesser of two evils. Or you can hardly blame anybody if idiot candidates get in and then cherish and reward stupidity in government, as the Bush administration did.

 

I forgot that the Republicans control the House. It's up for re-election, no? And given Obama's wide lead, it's feasible to see a Democrat majority via Obama's coattails, no? I haven't tracked the House at all.

[Leferd]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

 

As of today, Obama is projected to win 308 to 230 with the voting breakdown as 51.1% to 47.7%

 

For what it's worth, the blogger, Nate Silver, has some serious street cred within baseball's "Moneyball" community.

[Humodour]

http://fivethirtyeig...gs.nytimes.com/

 

As of today, Obama is projected to win 308 to 230 with the voting breakdown as 51.1% to 47.7%

 

For what it's worth, the blogger, Nate Silver, has some serious street cred within baseball's "Moneyball" community.

 

Nate's highly accurate probabalistic algorithms for predicting the outcomes of baseball are not why I pay attention to him.

 

I pay attention to him because he successfully transferred these algorithms over to predicting the last (2008) presidential election to a very fine degree of accuracy.

 

Although both he and Andrew S. Tanenbaum (guy who runs Electoral Vote and computer science professor of Linus Trovalds flamewar fame) give sports-like commentation of politics, as if it's just "a game", way too much.

 

Check out Tanenbaum's track record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_S._Tanenbaum#Electoral-vote.com

[PsychoYoshi]

I don't disagree with you enough to argue with you (aside from that ill-informed Solyndra comment). Both parties are extremely broken and corrupt, yes. But anybody willing to claim that the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans (which is EXACTLY what you're doing when you say "it doesn't matter who you vote for") is woefully short-sighted in my books, and this line of thinking benefits only the corporate lobbyists and shadow figures you profess to despise.

 

I forgot that the Republicans control the House. It's up for re-election, no? And given Obama's wide lead, it's feasible to see a Democrat majority via Obama's coattails, no? I haven't tracked the House at all.

 

I jumped the gun with the assumption that you supported the loans for Sol; I concluded that from your earlier "spur economic change" argument. If that's what you mean by "ill-informed", I apologize, that was a bad move. The underlying point that I was trying to make, though, that governmental subsidy is a perverse incentive regardless of whether one side views it as a necessary/desirable project, still stands, and I would have made the same point re: Solyndra regardless of whether or not it had been approved on its first go-around during Bush's tenure.

 

Also, even if one believes in the very shaky assumption that the Democrats are measurably better than the GOP, voting for the lesser evil is, as Oby posted, not going to solve anything when the two parties are bought out part and parcel by the banks and military-industrial complex (both sides), Big Oil (GOP), and Big Media/Tech (Democrats). As both Occupy and the Tea Party/Ron Paul and Gary Johnson wing of the GOP demonstrated, both parties are simply too controlled by the establishmentarians to be redeemable. The only thing that could potentially make US elections interesting going forward would be either the rise of a viable third party or a party fracture. That might actually happen to the GOP pretty soon, seeing the growing rift between the party's socon and fiscal con elements.

 

My cynicism re: the system doesn't mean that I don't vote or advocate for potential changes. As a libertarian, tilting against windmills is one of my favorite hobbies.

 

I forgot that the Republicans control the House. It's up for re-election, no? And given Obama's wide lead, it's feasible to see a Democrat majority via Obama's coattails, no? I haven't tracked the House at all.

Not necessarily. GOP is likely to maintain its majority, although slightly more narrowly than before. Unless there's widespread, systemic discontent towards just one party, massive gerrymandering, or something along those lines, district seats don't switch up too much in the House in terms of party lines. In 2012, there's widespread discontent towards both parties, and most Americans are responding by attempting to vote gridlock.