Politics Who's Gonna Win?

There seems to be growing conflict between the two factions of the GOP, which was probably inevitable. Moderate and/or traditional conservatives are criticizing Romney for not even running a conservative campaign. Um, what? The Republican presidential candidate isn't a conservative?

I've also read commentary about how a spectacular loss by Romney and his ilk will be the undoing of the ideological elements that have hijacked the GOP. In other words, the marked shift right (brought on mostly by the Tea Party and other ideologues) will shift back to a more traditional stance.

One could only hope.

Many Republican voters are still wondering what happened to their party. A devastating loss may be just what they need. Romney may even become a scapegoat and an example.

And a new thought on my part: Maybe Obama's positioning to the centre-right was on purpose. He stands to gain a lot in a GOP meltdown.

 

But this is the problem with Romney since the get-go, especially with your current GOP'ers.
They don't feel warm & fuzzy with them, they aren't especially excited about him, they don't think he truly represents them.

Problem is...he likely got the nomination by default, since the rest of the pack were insane, corrupt or incompetent,
he was the only valid candidate left...

For GOP voters...
First it's was anyone but Romney...initially in the primary.
Now it's anyone but Obama...but meh.

Voting against someone, instead of voting for someone is never the way to go to win.

 

and the current polling...at least the one I'm reading at this second.

 

McCain wasn't a bad choice; he simply wasn't optimal. Though Obama was an untested first-term senator, Lincoln was an untested first-term congressman (of a two-year term).

It's not so much as the rhetoric winning the day; it's looking at what you have to go on in terms of both politics and everything else beyond politics. One's political history can pale in comparison to one's personal history.

Many can argue that both McCain and Obama were standup folks even before they entered politics.

As always, rhetoric needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not sure the process if flawed, though I'm interested to know how you'd like it to be changed.

 

I still don't fully understand how voting works in the U.S. I think Canada's is more streamlined. Though in a nation where third and fourth parties are viable options, the first-past-the-post system is particularly aggravating. You can have parties in parliament with power disproportionate to how much of the popular vote they garner.

So you can get an inverse where the leading party has too many seats as a proportion to the popular vote and the third party has too few.

 

Actually, if you get rid of the electorial college...the GOP will hate that...and the vote will be decided by 5 states.

Right now, the GOP is leveraging their popularity in the red states...because even small states get a minimum of 3 elects. (other than South Dakota, which allows being devided)
Then it would be pure popular vote...and if you think you don't like California's influence now...then just get rid of the college.

Dems have the current advantage of volume of people...GOP has the advantage of more likely voters.

The vote would be decided by Texas, Florida, California, Illinois and New York
and most of the money and pork would flow there too...afterwards.

There's a reason that the Founding Fathers chose the Electorial College...and if you think our politics are partisan now
you should have encountered it back THEN...
Each state considered itself a nation unto itself...like the European Union....different moneys...no traditions. Each out for their own.

Now at least we mostly think of ourselves as the US and Americans...one nation.

And if you think your cynicism view people as stupid now...
At least they are educated if unwise...back then they didn't trust the tide of the masses...the population at large.

The electorial college allows the electors to have some discretion...they mostly just vote the way the state was won by tradition,
but there is a legal safety valve in case of tyranny.

The Founding Fathers didn't trust anyone, including themselves...

 

Speaking of presidential campaigns...I liked this article from George Will (NOT a liberal)

As with the Golden Rule, which states "Do unto others as you would have them do onto you"
Why don't candidates simply treat the public as they would any other associate they respect and are trying to convince?? (unless they're an asshole)

 

Well...this thread seems be one to kick back up to the top.

Amazing how one debate and 3 weeks can change the whole dynamic.

So, is this what it's basically come down to? A personality contest?
One does a bit better than another in image & energy not facts or substance...and the whole friggin' pace changes?

Then we're waiting on the next debates...with is a town hall...and that will allow a more "personable" interaction...again with charisma.
(Even the VP debate will likely be a strength for Biden, because he's a "real guy", casual)

This thing is worse than a damn daytime Soap Opera.
Don't worry about the plot and background or what's gone on before...just look at the pretty faces on the screen.

 

Yeah...even though I don't go that way...if I did, it would be Obama.
Wow, it IS that easy! Who knew??

But can he still have a beer with me first?? I still like that criteria too.

 

OK...for all the hallaballoo and "controversy" and horse race hype in the news,
it seems that it's pretty much where we were two weeks ago before the FIRST debate.

 

Another leaked media for Romney...

Leaked Audio Captures Romney Asking Employers To Tell Their Employees How To Vote

Say Anything, Do Anything.

 

It's not really a good comparison. These are two very different groups.

First, unions represent less than 7% of private sector workers. The private sector employs over 90% of American workers. This means the actual population of unionized private sector workers among all American workers is pretty low.

Next, unions support the rights and integrity of workers (their members), while business owners/managers answer to shareholders and profit margins.

Third, unions have historically promoted political matters in campaigning, lobbying, and financial support. They do this for the benefit of the workers they represent. Businesses do these things too, but it's for the benefit of the business (usually thinking, again, about shareholders and profit margins).

When a union says to vote a particular way, perhaps it's because they feel it's in the best interests of their members. When a company does it, who are they thinking about? If Romney gets in, does everyone get raises? That sort of thing?

 

Well the unions if anything are perceived as peer pressure. (but you won't lose your job over it)
Your company doing it, is perceived as a threat.