If Romney wins the GOP, I forsee bad things for....
- Thread starter Shegokigo
- Start date
- Status
GasBandit
Staff member
We'll see. If santorum gets the nomination, I'd be more prone to agree. But a landslide victory for Kerry was also prognosticated in early 2008. Of course, this time, the democrat is the incumbent, and those are really hard to get rid of, no matter how awful a job they're doing.
But if Romney were to get elected, he'll probably just end up enacting most of Obama's agenda anyway - they're practically mirror images.
I think it is time to split the two parties in half each. Four parties so we can limit the wing-nuts at each end of the political spectrum.
Liberal Democratic -> Moderate Democratic -> Moderate Republican -> American Jihadist Party.
Liberal Democratic -> Moderate Democratic -> Moderate Republican -> American Jihadist Party.
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't think that's actually an accurate representative of the current milieu of political thought. It's not a 1 dimensional spectrum anymore, anyway. A better plan would be to change the election process to use instant runoff balloting, and do away with primaries altogether. Of course, neither of our ideas will ever stand a chance of seeing implementation - the 2 party system entrenches power with false differences. It's like the coke-pepsi wars. Really, they're all just the same basic carbonated beverage. You never had the opportunity to support milk, tea, or juice.
Dude, I can't believe you left out root beer. The blatant bias really demonstrates how out of touch you are with reality and the state of our nation. I daresay people like you shouldn't be allowed to purchase beverages.
GasBandit
Staff member
Root beer is an archaic anachronism with no place in modern supermarkets. The Burkha of beverages, so to speak.
Added at: 15:06
No they're not.
They're both colas. If someone asks you what you want to drink with dinner: Coke, or Pepsi, and you jubilantly shout "Coke of course!" then congratulations, you just accepted that your only choice was cola. And only two kinds of cola, at that.
ElJuski
Staff member
Listening to a lot of people inside the system, albeit working under the current administration, there are several swing states that are very key. But, as a whole, it looks like people are pretty much done with the current GOP and Obama could potentially have a fairly easy time come fall.
GasBandit
Staff member
I said it before and I'll say it again: October is the only month that will matter in this election. But if the GOP's choices are Romney or Santorum, things don't look good for them. Santorum will chase away the middle, Romney will make the base stay home just like McCain. Obama's got incumbency, but will he manage to keep his approval rating over 49%? Last fall he was down around 40 (which is where Bush Sr. was when he lost re-election), but he's back barely over 50 again right now..
GasBandit
Staff member
The rub is, "unimpressed" doesn't necessarily translate in the voting booth. The whole "hold your nose and vote" thing often happens. The most reliable indicator I've found has been the incumbent's approval level. 49 or higher, incumbent wins. 48 or lower, incumbent loses. Abarring october surprises.
Yeah, because things could never change and there are never outliers. The stat you put down there with approval ratings only goes to 1957 (yes, I looked it up).
GasBandit
Staff member
"Only" back to 1957 is a pretty impressive trend as most things go if you ask me. It's probably more accurate than silly things like deliberately worded-with-bias opinion polls or subjective personal interviewing. It even beats exit polling. In fact, interviewing is notoriously inaccurate. What people say ahead of time and what they do in the voting booth are disparate as often as not. You can't trust what most people tell you they're going to do once they're staring at their ballot, especially not if they are "moderates" who pride themselves on their propensity for changing their minds.
I just think that as soon as the general public actually gets to know these candidates (because, really, the only people watching the current debates are hardcore Republicans and pundits) things will change drastically.
People tend toward the safe choice. As soon as they hear Santorum say he's against contraceptives of any kind or that he'd sign a law which would make personhood start at conception, the general populous will be instantly against him (98% of all women 15-44 who have had intercourse have used contraception in one form or another).
Edit: Fixed some glaring errors I unintentionally included.
People tend toward the safe choice. As soon as they hear Santorum say he's against contraceptives of any kind or that he'd sign a law which would make personhood start at conception, the general populous will be instantly against him (98% of all women 15-44 who have had intercourse have used contraception in one form or another).
Edit: Fixed some glaring errors I unintentionally included.
And yet I'm pretty sure far too many women are voting for this guy, which still makes me throw up in my mouth. (And by far too many I mean any).
My favorite was his stance on women in combat, in which he managed to insult not just women, but men too.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-in-combat-rick-santorum-insults-military-men
My favorite was his stance on women in combat, in which he managed to insult not just women, but men too.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...-in-combat-rick-santorum-insults-military-men
You're talking about what, 12, 13 elections? And you call that a good sample?
Ok, now how many re-elections is it? That changes things, doesn't it?
GasBandit
Staff member
This many:
An important caveat to it however, is it is the approval rating in november. The year before the election, GHW Bush's approval rating was 58%.
And what was the state of the other party's primary during that time? Was the race tied up yet or was there a nominee already decided? Will Citizen's United hurt or help the Republican primary and what effect will it have on the general election?
I think there are a lot of things different about this campaign cycle than ever has been before. It feels like we're comparing two very different sets of beasts here.
I think there are a lot of things different about this campaign cycle than ever has been before. It feels like we're comparing two very different sets of beasts here.
Poor Republican party.
ElJuski
Staff member
sends a shiver down my spine seeing "poor" and "republican" so close together.
Necronic
Staff member
That's an interesting indicator, what's it's hit/miss ratio?
Also, as to it's veracity I'm going to give Krisken a hand here because he has a point (although not with the first comment). Even if every previous election had been decided by that indicator it's tricky to infer if it will for this one, because the historical elections were unique events that are distinctly separate from this event. They aren't part of the same population. So, technically it's innapropriate to use historical data to predict the future. Or at least, it's not sacresaint.
Because you CAN use historical data to predict the future, even though all variables are not controlled. It's just....you can get a real whammy every now and then.
Also, as to it's veracity I'm going to give Krisken a hand here because he has a point (although not with the first comment). Even if every previous election had been decided by that indicator it's tricky to infer if it will for this one, because the historical elections were unique events that are distinctly separate from this event. They aren't part of the same population. So, technically it's innapropriate to use historical data to predict the future. Or at least, it's not sacresaint.
Because you CAN use historical data to predict the future, even though all variables are not controlled. It's just....you can get a real whammy every now and then.
GasBandit
Staff member
I think it's an indication of what everybody's known about the (re)election process all along... the first thing anybody thinks of when they go in to vote and there's an incumbent is, "does this guy deserve to keep his job?" It's viewed not as him running for office again, but rather more like voting on whether or not to fire him. That consideration generally comes before one even starts to weigh other options.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, it may be a chicken-egg moment. If Santorum wins the nomination, maybe people on the fence will start to think Obama isn't doing such a bad job, in an effort to convince themselves to hold their nose vote for him. Thus, his approval rating goes up, and the prophecy becomes self-fulfilling.
Or maybe people will suddenly remember through actual campaigning what this administration has done that is better than the stupid stuff that everyone remembers? You'd have to admit this administration has been kinda piss-poor at touting their successes (to the point of allowing the Republicans to frame the death of Bin Laden as not being a victory for this campaign).
Are you asserting that it was specifically President Obama's leadership that led to his death, and that it would not have occurred had any other president been in office?
My understanding is that the president essentially let the military perform the intelligence gathering that ultimately led to his capture, and that the success rightfully belongs to the military leaders who have been working on the case long before Obama even campaigned for presidency.
Not that it matters, when the economy goes well the president (regardless of who is in office) takes credit, and when it goes poorly they blame it on the previous administration or external events. The reality is that the president has such little effect on the economy as a whole, and what effect they do have is delayed by years.
So I wouldn't blame him for taking credit, but I'm surprised to see you thinking that he was key to this particular mission in a way any other president would not be.
He would still have had to have final authorization on the raid to capture, considering the political consequences of a raid on a sovereign nations territory. As well as making the (correct) decision not to notify Pakistan ahead of time. Just as if the whole thing had gone tits up, he would have been held responsible for it, he gets his credit for carrying it out.
That kind of straight talk had results. And Obama is not a straight talker under any circumstance.
Versus
- Status