The New American Politics thread

[troutman]

Romney was on Letterman last night in a cameo. He is so running.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The Republicans have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections, but sooner or later the pendulum will swing back their way.

There is a line of thought that as the Latino population grows in Red States like Texas and Arizona, those states will become Blue States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...n-turn-purple/

"I think Republicans are ignoring what are very very clear long term problems," said Jeremy Robbins, the executive director of the PNAE. "Really red states are going to be purple states really soon if the Republican party doesn't work to win over Hispanics and Asians."

[Muta]

God help the US if Mittens becomes US President.

For a country that size, the public really is presented with very few options for modern, forward-thinking candidates.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The Republicans have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections, but sooner or later the pendulum will swing back their way.

It's always possible to push the thing the pendulum is hanging from, too.

[Senator Clay Davis]

If ever there was a time for a 3rd party breakthrough, this seems like the election. Pretty much all potential candidates are awful, insane, retreads, or Clinton/Bush. It's gonna be a really dreadful election cycle though if we get Clinton versus Bush/Romney.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Muta

God help the US if Mittens becomes US President.

For a country that size, the public really is presented with very few options for modern, forward-thinking candidates.

Should we really care though? from a Canadian perspective perhaps a business guy like Romney will be good. Obama brought in the "Buy American" policy that has killed some Canadian Businesses. Now that the CAD$ is low, this becomes much more significant. Then there is the Keystone approval, like it or not, it is better for us if the US is more cooperative on these matters.

Bush's bad decisons cost the US a lot in blood and treasure, but generally he was not protectionist and probably good for Canada.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

If ever there was a time for a 3rd party breakthrough, this seems like the election. Pretty much all potential candidates are awful, insane, retreads, or Clinton/Bush. It's gonna be a really dreadful election cycle though if we get Clinton versus Bush/Romney.

The country is so divided between Red and Blue that people will be much too afraid to not vote according to party lines. "If We fail to vote for Ours, They will vote for Theirs, and then They will win. And They Are The Evil."

Also, Clinton and Bush are proven brands. Average voting decision has no rational basis anyway, so they should work just fine.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Should we really care though? from a Canadian perspective perhaps a business guy like Romney will be good. Obama brought in the "Buy American" policy that has killed some Canadian Businesses. Now that the CAD$ is low, this becomes much more significant. Then there is the Keystone approval, like it or not, it is better for us if the US is more cooperative on these matters.

Bush's bad decisons cost the US a lot in blood and treasure, but generally he was not protectionist and probably good for Canada.

such as?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Should we really care though? from a Canadian perspective perhaps a business guy like Romney will be good. Obama brought in the "Buy American" policy that has killed some Canadian Businesses. Now that the CAD$ is low, this becomes much more significant. Then there is the Keystone approval, like it or not, it is better for us if the US is more cooperative on these matters.

Bush's bad decisons cost the US a lot in blood and treasure, but generally he was not protectionist and probably good for Canada.

Yes we should care.

Romney only cares about himself and the other 1%ers.

[burn_this_city]

Republicans are probably better for Canada than Democrats. On issues like trade they appear to be less protectionist. The Obama administration has been one of the worst for Canadian interests in a long time. There appears to be animosity between our leadership and theirs. Harper hasn't helped the situation by trying to force the US administration on a few high profile items.

[nik-]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/194889...hange-her-mind

Warren "isn't running" but people are trying to convince her anyway. It would be fascinating and depressing if she did run. To see a politician who speaks directly to the interests of working class and middle class Americans be completely chewed up and spit out by the political campaign machine.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

If ever there was a time for a 3rd party breakthrough, this seems like the election. Pretty much all potential candidates are awful, insane, retreads, or Clinton/Bush. It's gonna be a really dreadful election cycle though if we get Clinton versus Bush/Romney.

3rd party breakthrough will have to happen in the House first. Even if a 3rd party candidate gets 20% of the popular vote in the Presidential election, the candidate is still effectively useless.

In order to promote change, the US needs good people in the House and Senate.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Should we really care though? from a Canadian perspective perhaps a business guy like Romney will be good. Obama brought in the "Buy American" policy that has killed some Canadian Businesses. Now that the CAD$ is low, this becomes much more significant. Then there is the Keystone approval, like it or not, it is better for us if the US is more cooperative on these matters.

Bush's bad decisons cost the US a lot in blood and treasure, but generally he was not protectionist and probably good for Canada.

A strong middle class is a lot better for Canada economically than tax breaks for the rich are.

Especially if we want to keep selling the US more oil.

[Matata]

Is it time to change the window dressing for the military industrial complex again? Here's some daring predictions for the next presidency: national debt increases, perpetual war continues and the bankers make off like bandits.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Matata

Is it time to change the window dressing for the military industrial complex again? Here's some daring predictions for the next presidency: national debt increases, perpetual war continues and the bankers make off like bandits.

When the Pentagon itself is trying to stop getting new equipment and is forced to take them, you know it's out of control. The effectiveness of contractors spreading the workforce for weapons into multiple congressional districts to secure the votes has been a spectacular victory for them.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

#DraftMitt


CNN Poll: Romney tops Obama but loses to Clinton

I'm not totally up to date on this, but assuming Obama's approval numbers are still pitiful, those numbers should discourage Romney from thinking he has a prayer of winning. In a head to head matchup against an unpopular incumbent, amid a political shift to the right, he still barely manages to eke out a victory. Meanwhile, matched up against Clinton, he is behind--despite the fact that she is polarizing and personally unpopular among voters on the right.

My own view (and one can always be wrong about these things) is that Romney is unelectable. The comparisons to Reagan are frankly silly; Reagan had tons of charisma; Romney has none. The more he talks, the less people like him.

Republicans should be very wary about nominating someone like him. This should be a very winnable election for them, and they really can only lose by nominating a charisma vacuum like Romney.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm not totally up to date on this, but assuming Obama's approval numbers are still pitiful, those numbers should discourage Romney from thinking he has a prayer of winning. In a head to head matchup against an unpopular incumbent, amid a political shift to the right, he still barely manages to eke out a victory. Meanwhile, matched up against Clinton, he is behind--despite the fact that she is polarizing and personally unpopular among voters on the right.

My own view (and one can always be wrong about these things) is that Romney is unelectable. The comparisons to Reagan are frankly silly; Reagan had tons of charisma; Romney has none. The more he talks, the less people like him.

Republicans should be very wary about nominating someone like him. This should be a very winnable election for them, and they really can only lose by nominating a charisma vacuum like Romney.

Totally agree with your analysis.

Romney is unelectable and he won't be enough to energize the fervent right to his cause, even with appeals to no new taxation etc.

The only way he is elected is if the democrats implode a weak candidate with infighting and/or scandal. Depending on the candidate, attack ads from the right could be seriously damaging.

Romney is only electable in my mind if the other candidate loses. That's the scenario he was presented with in the last election and Obama as the incumbent simply wouldn't lose the election.

Barring something like that, he could be effective at syphoning votes from more extreme Candidates, or, he could serve as a king maker, potentially as someone else's VP.

[nik-]

Voters should avoid charisma if charisma begets a Reagan.

Obviously they won't, because "I could sit down and have a beer with him" somehow still rates as a checkbox for who you elect to run a country.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by nik-

Voters should avoid charisma if charisma begets a Reagan.

Obviously they won't, because "I could sit down and have a beer with him" somehow still rates as a checkbox for who you elect to run a country.

Charisma begot Clinton as well.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The only way he is elected is if the democrats implode a weak candidate with infighting and/or scandal.

This seems really unlikely. The Clinton camp is too experienced to lose to a weak candidate, so it will either be Clinton or some other strong candidate on the Democrat side.

Also, the Obama campaigns brought up a whole new crop of democrat leaning people with experience from a two succesful campaigns. A lot of those same people will line up behind the idea of a first female president, just like they lined up behind the idea of a first black president.

Oh, and assuming the Republicans control both House and Senate at the time of the election, many in the middle will be prone to vote Democrat just to prevent one party rule. That alone I think makes this an almost unwinnable election for the GOP.

I think in fact Clinton will be a really good candidate for the Democrats. Just look at the current pictures.



That's a pretty good Iron Lady she's doing there. (I suspect all those dark jackets and pearls are not a coincidence.) As a Clinton she's credible as someone talking about the economy, and she's got the foreign experience now.

I expect many Democrats will just hate her for appearing too right wing (and they already do), but in the end they'll vote for her because First Female President, and Not GOP.