2012 US Presidential Race Catch All

Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm still trying to pinpoint how and when the whole Sharia law thing became... a thing. This strikes me as one of those invented problems, like the War on Christmas - where people just repeat the same unfacts over and over with the attitude that it was an existing problem already, not one that is just now being made up. Except this is just way more insane.

The implementation of Sharia Law in the US is not a credible occurrence, let alone a credible threat. May as well campaign against putting high-yield lasers in doughnuts.

Jonman wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

I'm still trying to pinpoint how and when the whole Sharia law thing became... a thing. This strikes me as one of those invented problems, like the War on Christmas - where people just repeat the same unfacts over and over with the attitude that it was an existing problem already, not one that is just now being made up. Except this is just way more insane.

The implementation of Sharia Law in the US is not a credible occurrence, let alone a credible threat. May as well campaign against putting high-yield lasers in doughnuts.

Well, that's exactly my point. It's just amazing to me that people can claim such a ridiculous thing, and somehow it gets traction. I'm not surprised that it happened, because the tribal chest-thumping in America will pretty much allow for people to get behind anything someone in their tribe says. I'm just amazed that somewhere, someone started saying this. Like, you have to actually think it up first.

I for one am appalled that we've been ignoring the doughnut laser crisis for this long.

I Miss Republicans[/url]]If there were a rash of break-ins ... no scratch that. Say there's a violent murder in your neighborhood. A really brutal slayfest. Blood on the walls, body parts on the lawn.

Your neigbor decides to take precautions. He leaves his doors and windows unlocked. He sits on the roof, armed with a SpongeBob SquarePants air-rifle, just in case the killers return and attack the house by hang-glider this time. And the air rifle doesn't work. And he spent EVERY DIME HE HAD on the air rifle.

You would of course, say your neighbor was insane. Or supremely stupid.

You do the rest.

My original point was -- Republicans used to be the guys who put the brakes on this sh*t. A sad chuckle, a little head shake. "Who's going to pay for this?" they'd say, frowning over national budgets. "Where are the facts? The research?" They'd take out their little red pens and buzzkill our little dreams of nationalized health care or solar-powered windmills or maglev trains, and then go back to banning pornography while secretly screwing around on their wives. But you know what? A lot of times, they were right.

We needed those guys. They were a dull but crucial part of the national dialogue. (And they knew their scotches. ) Now ... a void. Simply put, if you are voting for these guys who call themselves Republicans, then you are voting for crazy air-rifle guy. You just walked up, nodded, and said: "Wow, I gotta get me a ladder."

It's an essay from 2004, but is arguably even more applicable today.

I would bet $100 that Roger Ailes is behind the Sharia Law thing.

So anyone want to handicap the outcome of the election at this point? Unemployment is very high and economic growth is anemic, at best. Maybe we're even heading back into recession. So grim news for the White House at the moment.

Conventional wisdom seems to be that a president can't win reelection with this level of unemployment. We don't know who the nomination, but I'm still giving Obama a 60% chance of winning reelection. Maybe even go to 70%.

Funkenpants wrote:

So anyone want to handicap the outcome of the election at this point?

The election is still over a year away, and we don't even know who Obama will be running against, but if things stay on basically the same course they are now here's my spread:

Obama vs. Bachman - Obama 90/10
Obama vs. Romney - Romney 60/40
Obama vs. Perry - 50/50

I'd put Obama vs Perry at 55-45. Perry's vulnerable outside the South, and the Republicans have lost a lot of independents with the rise of the Tea Party.

Robear wrote:

I'd put Obama vs Perry at 55-45. Perry's vulnerable outside the South, and the Republicans have lost a lot of independents with the rise of the Tea Party.

I don't know if I'd give Perry that much credit. He'll be crucified on lots of issues like ID, Texan secession, and "damn the federal government".

I don't see anyone who can beat Obama right now. But that could change. Certainly the GOP leadership believes he should be a one term president, and they are working hard towards that goal.

Nevin73 wrote:
Robear wrote:

I'd put Obama vs Perry at 55-45. Perry's vulnerable outside the South, and the Republicans have lost a lot of independents with the rise of the Tea Party.

I don't know if I'd give Perry that much credit. He'll be crucified on lots of issues like ID, Texan secession, and "damn the federal government".

The alleged late nights at Pease Park will probably have to go, too.

Nevin73 wrote:
Robear wrote:

I'd put Obama vs Perry at 55-45. Perry's vulnerable outside the South, and the Republicans have lost a lot of independents with the rise of the Tea Party.

I don't know if I'd give Perry that much credit. He'll be crucified on lots of issues like ID, Texan secession, and "damn the federal government".

Any republican nominee comes in with some very solid regional advantages against the first black muslim president. But he or she has to win more than those solid republican states. The thing I'd worry about as the republican nominee is the base seems intent on ramping up the rhetoric to the point that could turn off independent voters who will probably decide the election in places like Ohio and Florida and Pennsylvania. Those tea partiers are going to make the nominee say some crazy stuff. They don't care about winning or losing. We say that when they gave away the senate seat in Delaware to democrats by nominating an unelectable, right-wing, former witch.

Robear wrote:

I don't see anyone who can beat Obama right now. But that could change. Certainly the GOP leadership believes he should be a one term president, and they are working hard towards that goal.

Turns out the smartest thing he did in the last 3 years was bring Hillary into his cabinet. Were she to challenge him in a primary she would win, I think.

Perry's chances are much closer to Bachman's than Romney's. I think Obama would take race against Perry over Romney in a heartbeat. Perry is a disaster waiting to happen. As Robear pointed out, Perry will cost the Republicans the sane middle, just like Palin did. The middle runs away from scary, so candates like Bachman, Palin, and Perry work in Obama's favor.

Things may not be good. But Obama will be able to easily paint the Tea Party as dangerous, as it was their BS that ran the US close to defaulting and caused the US to lose its AAA rating. They don't have a leg to stand on, because Clinton balanced the budget, and Bush came in and ran up the credit card debt with his wars and insane tax cuts.

The undecided middle will never go with the candidates that openly try to cause upheaval. Period. Republicans tried to paint Obama as the upheaval guy in the last election, but Palin undid all of their work.

As it is, Romney is the Republicans best chance, as of now. And it will be awfully telling when the Tea Party refuses to support the more qualified Mormon. As much as the right has tried to tank the economy, the have utterly failed to rattle Obama. If Obama is anything, he is an expert campaigner. That might not make him the best candidate, but it does when the Tea Party has as much influence as they do.

DSGamer wrote:
Robear wrote:

I don't see anyone who can beat Obama right now. But that could change. Certainly the GOP leadership believes he should be a one term president, and they are working hard towards that goal.

Turns out the smartest thing he did in the last 3 years was bring Hillary into his cabinet. Were she to challenge him in a primary she would win, I think.

I really don't think so. She might have pulled a Ted Kennedy, and put a Republican in the White House. But Obama is not nearly as vulnerable as Carter was. I see Obama winning, the economy will slowly improve, and Hillary will have a nice shot in 2016. I think she will be more formidable than Al Gore.

So Obama puts her on the ticket in 2012?

DSGamer wrote:

So Obama puts her on the ticket in 2012?

No way. She will have to beat Biden for the 2016 nomination, which I think she would.

Biden seems to have turned into quite the behind-the-scenes operator. I say he stays, unless something happens between now and then.

Funkenpants wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
Robear wrote:

I'd put Obama vs Perry at 55-45. Perry's vulnerable outside the South, and the Republicans have lost a lot of independents with the rise of the Tea Party.

I don't know if I'd give Perry that much credit. He'll be crucified on lots of issues like ID, Texan secession, and "damn the federal government".

Any republican nominee comes in with some very solid regional advantages against the first black muslim president. But he or she has to win more than those solid republican states. The thing I'd worry about as the republican nominee is the base seems intent on ramping up the rhetoric to the point that could turn off independent voters who will probably decide the election in places like Ohio and Florida and Pennsylvania. Those tea partiers are going to make the nominee say some crazy stuff. They don't care about winning or losing. We say that when they gave away the senate seat in Delaware to democrats by nominating an unelectable, right-wing, former witch.

Having been part of said Delaware debacle, I can say that I mourn the loss of a moderate, sane Republican in Mike Castle, who had served Delaware well in the House. Though to be honest, I'm not sure about the record of the Democrat who won.

Pawlenty out.

New York Magazine[/url]]One of the weirdest moments of last night's Republican debate probably slipped completely under the radar for most viewers. This moment occurred in Herman Cain's closing statement, when the former pizza-chain CEO recited a favorite inspirational quote:

"A poet once said, 'life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, but it's never easy when there's so much on the line.'"

Nothing strange about that on the surface, until you Google the quote and you realize that these words of wisdom were uttered not by a poet, but by disco queen Donna Summer in her song "The Power of One." Even more bizarre, this isn't even one of Summer's classic hits — she recorded it just over a decade ago as the theme song for Pokémon: The Movie 2000.

Funkenpants wrote:

Pawlenty out.

Apparently he couldn't outcrazy Bachmann and company. That and he had the charisma of a dry piece of toast.

Next up Huntsman.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

New York Magazine[/url]]One of the weirdest moments of last night's Republican debate probably slipped completely under the radar for most viewers. This moment occurred in Herman Cain's closing statement, when the former pizza-chain CEO recited a favorite inspirational quote:

"A poet once said, 'life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, but it's never easy when there's so much on the line.'"

Nothing strange about that on the surface, until you Google the quote and you realize that these words of wisdom were uttered not by a poet, but by disco queen Donna Summer in her song "The Power of One." Even more bizarre, this isn't even one of Summer's classic hits — she recorded it just over a decade ago as the theme song for Pokémon: The Movie 2000.

Ahaha, you just can't make that sh*t up.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

New York Magazine[/url]]One of the weirdest moments of last night's Republican debate probably slipped completely under the radar for most viewers. This moment occurred in Herman Cain's closing statement, when the former pizza-chain CEO recited a favorite inspirational quote:

"A poet once said, 'life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, but it's never easy when there's so much on the line.'"

Nothing strange about that on the surface, until you Google the quote and you realize that these words of wisdom were uttered not by a poet, but by disco queen Donna Summer in her song "The Power of One." Even more bizarre, this isn't even one of Summer's classic hits — she recorded it just over a decade ago as the theme song for Pokémon: The Movie 2000.

Ahaha, you just can't make that sh*t up.

Alright, we need a Herman Cain "Gotta Catch Them All" Campaign poster now.

Dezlen wrote:

Apparently he couldn't outcrazy Bachmann and company. That and he had the charisma of a dry piece of toast.

Next up Huntsman.

I agree about Huntsman. Gingrich should be next, but he's still in the denial phase.

Haven't heard much about Ron Paul lately. Has he been quiet or does the media have better things to do?

Well, he placed second in the straw poll, but the mainstream media has never paid much attention to him that I recall. He's a right-winger that hates most of the right wing as presently constituted. They can't call him a liberal, so they just ignore him as much as they can.

I still find it hard to believe that the Republicans are holding straw polls and arguing over which crazy is extreme enough to satisfy the small percentage of the population that actually belongs to the Tea Party. They're going to *run* one of these nutbars? Good luck to them. Let Herman Cain or Michelle Bachman be nominated, the Dems could put up Barney Frank and he'd win in a landslide.

I refuse to believe the Party has gone this crazy. Someone who actually understands the economy and doesn't regard compromise as a traitorous indiscretion has to step up, or we are in for another few years of crippling gridlock. The Republican sailors of the Ship of State won't stop boring holes in the hull until someone locks them in the deepest hold and makes them understand exactly what drowning means...

Why did Romney perform so poorly. He was even beaten my Perry, who was not on the ballot. Had he just written this off, and the straw poll means nothing. Becasue Pawlenty bailed with 14% of the vote. Romney had 3% to Perry's 4%.

So far, I think Romney is the only guy that scares Obama in a campaign.

So Bachman is the choice of the Republicans in Iowa. I must admit as a liberal this makes me pretty happy. While Bachman energizes her fans she also energizes the left against her and she alienates the middle of the road pretty hard. Are "independents" really going to come out to vote for her? Not a chance, at worst they will sit out and at best they will vote for Obama just to make sure a religious zealot doesn't get into office.

Thanks you crazy Iowans!