Originally Posted by The Rani

You don't have to be an asshole to let someone know that they're wrong.
Of course, some people go for that stuff. A lot of people go for that stuff.
Making politics personal has been the problem with ALL of this year's debates. The issues get glossed over, and instead people remember things like Big Bird, binders full of women, malarkey and horses/bayonets.
What a fine example of a Democracy we are.

Well, yeah, our democracy is more of an antique than a high-tech model. We're definitely not winning any awards for electoral innovation or diversity of opinion in the political debate.

Even with modifications, more modern democracies allow for a broader debate, but they still have limits. Mathematical modeling shows that elections consistently pick people who are above average, but elections very, very rarely select people who are the "best of the best." These hyper-experts talk in a language that is incomprehensible to the 90% of the population that isn't specialized in a particular issue, and they can't get their message out.

Anyway, they're all just figureheads. They have some power, but the real experts are standing back in advisory & bureaucratic positions. The individuals come out and represent their respective teams, so the choice isn't really between just the two individuals but also the type of experts they surround themselves with.

I wonder if any of us are guilty of coming across as assholes when we hear someone say something ridiculous That's one of the many, many reasons why intelligent people aren't all that popular in elections, even though it stems from some advanced capability in dealing with and understanding the issue at hand.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Cute, but as you know, cats are democrats, and dogs are republicans. I don' think each party nominated either though. As bad as Romney is, I'd still say he's human

I am a Democrat and a cat owner and lover, but I have to contradict you. Our local bakery is selling cat and dog cookies -- cat for "Mittens Romney" and dog for "Bark Obama". Last I checked, the cat cookies were outselling the dog cookies. However, I don't know if that says much; I'd probably buy the cat cookie because I own a cat and not a dog.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I agree, Rani. People, in general, apparently have lost the ability to do homework and think about issues on their own...IN MY OPINION!

Prince

Yes. Exhibit A, yourself! Sorry, couldn't resist....

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I am a Democrat and a cat owner and lover, but I have to contradict you. Our local bakery is selling cat and dog cookies -- cat for "Mittens Romney" and dog for "Bark Obama". Last I checked, the cat cookies were outselling the dog cookies. However, I don't know if that says much; I'd probably buy the cat cookie because I own a cat and not a dog.

That's cute.

But this is cute too, and more than a play on words:

Originally Posted by Weave

Romney has clearly pointed out his plans to fix the economy in much more detail than Obama has pointed out his own plans for a 2nd term. Obama's entire campaign has spent over 100 million dollars trying to paint Romney as an unnacceptable alternative which Romney's 1st debate and subsequent debate performances have demolished completely.

Obama has been fighting like a chicken with his head cut off flailing around for a coherent message, strategy and changing tactics by arguing small things and word plays like "Romnesia" ....Very much like the 92' Bush campaign. It has clearly failed.

If the media wasn's so compliant to Obama they would be correctly pointing out that NO President trailing in the Gallup poll by 6 points this late in October has EVER won.

For the record, Romney has a plan for the economy:



Don't forget to order yours on November 7th.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... Americans don't seem to care enough to choose carefully whom they put in the Oval Office.

When it affects them personally, they'll care plenty ... but not before. Even then, there will be a lot blame shifting until it literally can't be shifted away.

Originally Posted by Weave

Romney has clearly pointed out his plans to fix the economy in much more detail than Obama has pointed out his own plans for a 2nd term. Obama's entire campaign has spent over 100 million dollars trying to paint Romney as an unnacceptable alternative which Romney's 1st debate and subsequent debate performances have demolished completely.

Romney has no plan except to do nothing at all.

Obama has been fighting like a chicken with his head cut off flailing around for a coherent message, strategy and changing tactics by arguing small things and word plays like "Romnesia" ....Very much like the 92' Bush campaign. It has clearly failed.

At least Obama has a sense of humor. Romney only has sarcasm which reveals how out of touch he is.

If the media wasn's so compliant to Obama they would be correctly pointing out that NO President trailing in the Gallup poll by 6 points this late in October has EVER won.

Nate Silver points out that Gallup is frequently an outlier. The average Romney lead is still only 0.7%, according to Real Clear politics, which is the most Republican-leaning of the poll watchers. I still predict Obama will win. It is possible I could be wrong. But I have called this election right so far in every case, in every detail.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

When it affects them personally, they'll care plenty ... but not before. Even then, there will be a lot blame shifting until it literally can't be shifted away.

They care for a little while, then they completely forget. Exhibit A: November 2010.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But Obama was right in saying Romney had not started the other programs he mentioned before that. Romney cut spending for education. The point? All Romney wants to do is cut funding for education, infrastructure, energy, health care; all the things we need. This is according to his philosophy that government can't do anything. Romney is running for office so that he can do nothing. That is his prescription for the economy. I just hope the people know what their getting if they vote for the douchebag.

Doing nothing is relatively benign. I don't see the Romney plan as benign in the least. If anything, he is more of an activist than Bush, just not in a constructuve way.

He really believes The Story of the Golden Turd^TM.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Doing nothing is relatively benign. I don't see the Romney plan as benign in the least. If anything, he is more of an activist than Bush, just not in a constructive way.

He really believes The Story of the Golden Turd^TM.

Yes. I think the ostrich in the sand image works as well.

Doing nothing is not benign when action is required. Do nothing, as in, allow the greedy to do whatever they want and escape their responsibilities. Since he thinks government cannot create jobs, why is he running for president of the government? Just so he can "get it out of the way" (aka trickle-down economics, laissez faire, Social Darwinism, etc.). Lower taxes, less regulation, no government investments or stimulus, explode the debt while claiming to balance the budget. We've heard it all before. Retread alert! Retread alert!

But when it comes to acting to support the greedy, as in starting more wars for oil and money, then yes, he's all in for "activism." But we're talking economics here generally. That's what "counts" in this election, or at least so people say.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They care for a little while, then they completely forget. Exhibit A: November 2010.

No, it has to be nearly if not totally devastating. If you support a guy who makes helathcare totally unaffordable for you, you only care if you really need the care. If someone close dies because she can't get care, it finally sinks-in.

Not that there was any question that President Obama kicked Mitt Romney's ass tonight, but here it is in numbers:

BREAKING: CBS NEWS INSTANT POLL Who won the #Debate? OBAMA: 53%; ROMNEY: 23%, TIE: 24% (Margin of Error: 4%; Sample Size: 521)
— @CBSNews via TweetDeck


Here's our post-debate swing states poll, which found Barack Obama as the winner by a 53/42 margin: http://t.co/...
— @ppppolls via web


CNN insta-poll: Obama 48, Romney 40
— @ZekeJMiller via TweetDeck

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...y?detail=email

There is one thing that is clear at this point: if Obama wins re-election, he will be the first president in history (without a third party candidate) to do so with a smaller share of the popular vote and a smaller share of the electoral college than his first victory.

Despite a plurality in "mainstream media" snap polls after the debate saying Obama "won", nobody said it changed their vote. All of the polls have been moving in Romney's direction. The momentum is on his side, the enthusiasm is on his side, and undecideds historically break for the challenger. Throughout this election year, the polls that have been most favorable to Obama have had one thing in common: they all show Obama winning by increasing Democrat ID and turnout, enough to win the election despite losing independents to Romney by a wide margin. That has no basis in reality. The idea that the Democrats have seen an increase in popularity over the last four years, and that they will turn out at a higher rate this year than they did in 2008, is absurd. Almost all of the increase in independent ID over the last four years has come from people who formerly called themselves Democrats.

That said, you can't totally ignore the polls, and I stand by the same thing I've been saying for months. If Obama wins, it will be by a 2000-like margin. If Romney wins, it could be by as much as 5 points. And that's how it's shaping up. With the economy in the toilet after four years, and Obama's two main "accomplishments" (stimulus and Obamacare) being massively unpopular, the latter is much more likely than the former. Gallup and Rasmussen (boo, hiss)* have Romney ahead by 5 and 4 points today, respectively.

*Despite all of the Democrat spew against Rasmussen, they have actually been extremely consistent all year, showing a very tight race while Democrat-leaning polls showed Obama with absurd margins. The other polls have adjusted towards Rasmussen, not the other way around. Strange, that's not how I was told it would be. If there's any criticism to be made of Rasmussen, it's that their methods present a picture that's too static and doesn't reflect changes in the race very well. Gallup, on the other hand, routinely has big swings. Polling methodology in general should receive a huge amount of scrutiny after this election. What has become clear is that the polls reflect the assumptions of the people doing them, and it all comes down to how they weight their samples after the fact.

The ABC/Washington Post poll has just been released. Last week: Obama +3. Today: Romney +1.

Show me these boats that carry flying machines! Show me these boats that doeth sail the undersea realm of King Neptune!

Show me these abominations from the blighted future and I will take them out with mighty steed and steady bayonet!



And I will single-handedly severe Florida’s route to the sea through Arizona!

I’m am the mighty empty suit known as Sir Romney!

The moronicness of the posters here is obvious when republicans claim that only certain issues matter and when democrats claim that romney is some kind of fanatical hawk. In reality, what both groups need to understand is this: First bush was incompetent not because he got us into war but because he was not forceful enough, he should have razed Iraq, Iran, Syria, libya and afghanistan to the ground in order to win the war on terror. Secondly obama is clearly the better candidate where on the aggregate, this is something Iran-loving republicans refuse to understand. Mitt if elected would be a weak isolationist and would pursue policies that would exacerbate class, religious and racial divides in our nation. Most likely obama would go to war with iran if gets a second term and that is one of the main reasons I am voting for him in november. Obama would also strengthen the economy of the nation as well. Republicans are openly betraying the victims of 9/11 by adopting neo-isolationist nonsense and accepting the likes of clint eastwood just because they agree on social issues. Unlike Romney, millions of americans want to win the war on terror.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Show me these boats that carry flying machines! Show me these boats that doeth sail the undersea realm of King Neptune!

The Lord of the Oceans is indeed pissed at these piddling things called "ships" sailing across his Great Oceans.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The moronicness of the posters here is obvious when republicans claim that only certain issues matter and when democrats claim that romney is some kind of fanatical hawk. In reality, what both groups need to understand is this: First bush was incompetent not because he got us into war but because he was not forceful enough, he should have razed Iraq, Iran, Syria, libya and afghanistan to the ground in order to win the war on terror. Secondly obama is clearly the better candidate where on the aggregate, this is something Iran-loving republicans refuse to understand. Mitt if elected would be a weak isolationist and would pursue policies that would exacerbate class, religious and racial divides in our nation. Most likely obama would go to war with iran if gets a second term and that is one of the main reasons I am voting for him in november. Obama would also strengthen the economy of the nation as well. Republicans are openly betraying the victims of 9/11 by adopting neo-isolationist nonsense and accepting the likes of clint eastwood just because they agree on social issues. Unlike Romney, millions of americans want to win the war on terror.

Uh...what? That may actually win the award for most bizarre political statement I've read online this whole year.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

There is one thing that is clear at this point: if Obama wins re-election, he will be the first president in history (without a third party candidate) to do so with a smaller share of the popular vote and a smaller share of the electoral college than his first victory.

Strictly speaking, it can happen.

1932 Franklin Roosevelt John Garner Democratic 22,821,277 57.41% 472 88.9%
Herbert Hoover Charles Curtis Republican 15,761,254 39.65% 59 11.1%

1940 Franklin Roosevelt Henry Wallace Democratic 27,313,945 54.74% 449 84.6%
Wendell Willkie Charles McNary Republican 22,347,744 44.78% 82 15.4%



And if he wins 270 or more electoral votes, he still wins re-election. What you said about President Obama having no chance to win with fewer electoral votes and a smaller percentage of the popular vote is like saying that should the Texas Rangers make the World Series next year they have no chance of winning because no Texas baseball team has ever won the World Series. Note that something is very different from 2008, namely the Citizens United ruling that allows plutocrats to throw huge amounts of money into political campaigns, often through front groups responsible to none but those who supply the funds. Note well that the Citizens United ruling made possible the Tea Party Congress which better serves lobbyists than constituents.

Government representing economic interests instead of the people is fascism. Government by lobbyist, the dream of a couple million plutocrats, executives, and big landowners, is a new form of dictatorship -- one that will $crew you badly unless you are one of them. If you resist it you could end up in jail at best, in the morgue, or even worse -- a torture chamber. That is how fascism works -- the little man licks the boot, and is expected to praise the person whose boot he had just licked for not kicking him in the teeth.

This is a 4T, and strange things can happen in a 4T. President Obama could lose a significant chunk of votes from 2008 and still win.

Despite a plurality in "mainstream media" snap polls after the debate saying Obama "won", nobody said it changed their vote. All of the polls have been moving in Romney's direction. The momentum is on his side, the enthusiasm is on his side, and undecideds historically break for the challenger. Throughout this election year, the polls that have been most favorable to Obama have had one thing in common: they all show Obama winning by increasing Democrat ID and turnout, enough to win the election despite losing independents to Romney by a wide margin. That has no basis in reality. The idea that the Democrats have seen an increase in popularity over the last four years, and that they will turn out at a higher rate this year than they did in 2008, is absurd. Almost all of the increase in independent ID over the last four years has come from people who formerly called themselves Democrats.

The undecided did break for the challenger in 1972 - because Nixon was at the historical ceiling for popular vote and it is abundantly clear that most of the undecided were Democrats. The undecided on the opposite side of the political spectrum from the eventual winner should reasonably go to the loser. In 1976 they went for Gerald Ford, which reflects that Carter came close to losing what first seemed a sure thing. Ford campaigned incompetently until too late. 1980? I will give you that one, although the hostage situation in Iran probably had more to do with the failure of Jimmy carter to get re-elected than your 'natural law'. 1984? See 1972. That time the undecided were liberals and Democrats while Reagan was at or near the historical ceiling for popular votes. 1988? If you interpret George H W Bush as the successor and Mike Dukakis as the challenger, then Dukakis collapsed, probably refuting the idea that the undecided break toward the challenger. 1992 and 1996 involved a Third Party or Independent candidate, so talking about those years is muck. 2000? The division was right town the middle, and so far as I can tell Gore and G W Disaster split the undivided down the middle.

That said, you can't totally ignore the polls, and I stand by the same thing I've been saying for months. If Obama wins, it will be by a 2000-like margin. If Romney wins, it could be by as much as 5 points. And that's how it's shaping up. With the economy in the toilet after four years, and Obama's two main "accomplishments" (stimulus and Obamacare) being massively unpopular, the latter is much more likely than the former. Gallup and Rasmussen (boo, hiss)* have Romney ahead by 5 and 4 points today, respectively.

One can pick and choose polls to fit any prediction between a bare Obama win and a bare Romney win. Maybe you know nothing about the differences in methodology; maybe you don't realize that some of the polls are bought by special interests, and the ones that go a certain way have been appearing much more.

If I were younger and I saw the direction in which America is going in the event of a Hard Right win, I would contemplate emigration. Democracy can die after 200 years when an ideology that perfectly fits the culture of a country but requires dictatorial or oligarchic government meets hard times. I have met people who left a countries (Argentina, Chile) where democracy died because of a right-wing takeover and the story is much as it was in Cuba. People found that if they were working for a comparatively benign part of the government they had to become enforcers for the ruling elite. Schoolteachers who had praised Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, and Bolivar were compelled to praise the military dictatorship as the ideal and not simply as a temporary and unavoidable nuisance. Police were told to beat up people who showed the 'wrong' sort of art or the 'wrong' sort of music because such were expressions of Marxist tendencies. Playing folk music instead of snappy marches could be tantamount to Orwellian 'crimethink' and similarly punished.

If as after the two elections of our worst President (Dubya) I play the Requiem Mass of Giuseppe Verdi after the election of Mitt Romney am I a traitor when I could instead of upbeat, patriotic tunes am I a traitor?

Something that you need to know -- under a dictatorial regime it is not enough to be a democrat on the same side of the political spectrum of the regime. Social democrats might fall for the promises of Commies only to complain when the Commies break their promises, and when the Commies break their promises the social democrats complain -- and get carted off to the local Gulag.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Government representing economic interests instead of the people is fascism. Government by lobbyist, the dream of a couple million plutocrats, executives, and big landowners, is a new form of dictatorship -- one that will $crew you badly unless you are one of them. If you resist it you could end up in jail at best, in the morgue, or even worse -- a torture chamber. That is how fascism works -- the little man licks the boot, and is expected to praise the person whose boot he had just licked for not kicking him in the teeth.

Well, no. The bad guys in the last crisis were worse than the bad guys in this one. Government of the rich, for the rich, by the rich still won't be gassing and burning Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals. Nor with they return to the values of the crisis before that, with minorities in chains serving as out and out slaves.

This doesn't mean government of the rich, for the rich, by the rich isn't a problem. I'd suggest that government of the rich, for the rich, by the rich has been part of many crises. It's a base problem of humankind. Humans strive for territory, resources and dominance. In most any era, the problem might be seen as some individual or group being too successful in fulfilling these drives. Marx might have seen that problem in terms of class struggles. The Enlightenment philosophers might have seen that problem as a lack of equal rights. Religious people might have seen it as the selfish and greedy drifting too far away from God's will.

But the core problem is that humans are too human. For long millennia, greed was cost effective. The individuals and groups who out competed the others in the pursuit of territory, resources, wealth, political power and similar prizes simply had more babies than the downtrodden. It was and remains a darwinistic survival of the most vile.

And such is apt to continue to be unless cultures and values systems build in an imperative that there has to be a check on the powerful, that there must be a significant element of the culture that prevents the few from lording over the many.

Democracy was supposed to do this. It has the potential to do this. Still, while money can buy advertising time and media focus, government can be bought. One might not be able to fool all of the people all of the time, but one can fool over half of the people most of the time.

That's one key values shift that's got to be pushed.

But no, this crises's bad guys aren't fascist. They are a distinctly different flavor of ugly.

Really, let's grow past the Republicans = Fascists while Democrats = Communists meme. It's bad and it's wrong. Talk real.

The most ironic thing in recent years is the way the left constantly spews hate for rich people, corporations, and Wall Street, but they were the ones fully on board with TARP. As soon as you bring it up and point out that the Democrats and Obama were all for it, while House Republicans opposed it, they start coming up with a million excuses for why it was great.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Uh...what? That may actually win the award for most bizarre political statement I've read online this whole year.

For once, I can't argue with you.

The one bad thing for me in a Romney victory this year is that I'm going to have to help an awful lot of people pack luggage for their trip to wherever it is they go next. I guess that's not necessarily completely negative, exercise does the body good. I just hate that it'll be so damn time consuming to help these folks pack while waving at them as they leave. I might even be nice in holding the door open for them so it doesn't hit them on the ass on the way out.

Hey, with all the folks migrating from Hollywood, we might actually get a resurgence of good film-making again and break away from all these horrible remakes and turn your mind off "blow shit up" explosion Michael Bay travesties. Nah, that's probably being too wishful there.

j.p.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Uh...what? That may actually win the award for most bizarre political statement I've read online this whole year.

Sorry this makes you think, JPT. Kudos, CH for a provocative statement. I may not agree wholeheartedly, but there is some truth in it wrt Obama's foreign policy.

Originally Posted by JDFP

The one bad thing for me in a Romney victory this year is that I'm going to have to help an awful lot of people pack luggage for their trip to wherever it is they go next. I guess that's not necessarily completely negative, exercise does the body good. I just hate that it'll be so damn time consuming to help these folks pack while waving at them as they leave. I might even be nice in holding the door open for them so it doesn't hit them on the ass on the way out.

Hey, with all the folks migrating from Hollywood, we might actually get a resurgence of good film-making again and break away from all these horrible remakes and turn your mind off "blow shit up" explosion Michael Bay travesties. Nah, that's probably being too wishful there.

j.p.

Who wants to live under a political order similar to those that many of our ancestors left -- a system in which personal success depends largely upon being born into the right family or kissing up to brutes so that one can sell out others to people even more rapacious? Who wants to live in a militaristic plutocracy so that one's children can be cannon fodder in aggressive wars when they aren't cheap labor in the dark satanic mills?

They call it Republican -- but it is republican only in the sense that there is no reigning monarch. Stalin's Soviet Union was a republic in that sense. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a republic in that sense. Chile under the Pinochet regime was a republic in that sense. Apartheid-era South Africa was a republic in that sense. Iran and Syria are republics in that sense.

I'd rather say "Long live the King" than "Hail the Party!"

... as for Hollywood... if I never see a car roll down an embankment and explode, if I never hear another f@rt joke, if I never see an angry war veteran going amok, if I never see another rape scene, and if I never see some superhero rescue a falling damsel by reaching her with a speed higher than the usual terminal velocity of a falling object in a movie I will miss nothing for such. All of those demonstrate a lack of writing skill and a lack of taste of the people involved. But let us remember that the most glorious time for Hollywood movies occurred at the same time that many of the finest writers, directors, cameramen, sound crews, and actors could no longer work in Germany when someone with an eerie resemblance to Charlie Chaplin ruled. You may find it hard to believe, but India is now a bigger film market than the US. The German film industry put out much $#!+ as Hollywood had its best years... and as it turns out, Casablanca is the best piece of cinematic propaganda ever made. Don't laugh about what the German film industry could have become; Metropolis (1927) and M (1931) are on par with Hollywood movies of the time.

If there is good American talent for film-making because all that is permitted in America is plutocrat-praising epics, militaristic hectoring, and epics extolling Christian Protestant fundamentalism... maybe Salonika will be a good location for such talent that for reasons of politics or conscience can't film in Hollywood. Movie people are quite adept in verbal skills, and they learn languages quickly.