Presidential Election

[SnakeTom]

Any thoughts on how it will go. The polls give OB a lead in the electoral side but the popular vote numbers have been pretty consistent with OB having a very slim 49-48% lead. And this is with pretty much everything going OB's way of late. Likability is frequently a deciding factor but I'm not sure that either candidate is very likable. It may really come down to whether the religious right comes out to vote or not. Will their dislike of Romney's more moderate positions & his religion cause them to sit on their hands rather than vote for him? I note that neither Gingrich nor Santorum have endorsed Romney to date & Palin keeps taking shots at him. I do think Romney is the only Republican who could win the general election though & I expect that the vote will be very close. Alot more like Bush vs Gore and Kerry rather than the last Presidential election.

Tom K

 

[shu09]

I'll be surprised if Obama doesn't win.
This post was edited on 5/5 10:13 PM by shu09

 

[SPK145]

I think Obama wins but will be closer than 2008. Romney could win if he runs a really, really good campaign.

I think the Repubs will win back the Senate and hold the House though, rendering Obama pretty powerless. They won't get their holy grail of killing Obamacare though.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Section112]

The Repubs really blew it again by putting up a so-so candidate. Obama does not deserve to be a two-term president but I am afraid that he will be. I am not a fan of either guy.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by Section112:
The Repubs really blew it again by putting up a so-so candidate. Obama does not deserve to be a two-term president but I am afraid that he will be. I am not a fan of either guy.

Who would you have preferred as the GOP candidate?

Tom K

 

[Section112]

Pawlenty, Christie, and even Huntsman would not be bad. I really like Pawlenty. And Christie def had a shot although he needs more experience.

Ron Paul has some great domestic ideas but he is seen as too far out there and on foreign policy.

The candidates of Gingrich and Santorum and Bachman were all very weak. Romney was the best of the rest so to speak.

 

[Merge]

Pawlenty would have had a shot if he stayed in the race.

As we stand today though, Obama will win and it will not be close.
Closer than 2008, but not close.
This post was edited on 5/7 9:24 PM by Merge

 

[HALL85]

Voter apathy will take center stage, which will help Romney. Close race and I agree with Tom, in that neither has shown likability. A lot will depend on how unemployment is trending at time of election.

Being in the industry, it's becoming more apparent what a joke healthcare reform is. The medical device tax for example will begin 1/1/13 and they haven't even defined what qualifies for the tax. Mass confusion in the industry....another law that is impossible and costly to administer, but isn't that the Obama way? More govt jobs, more opportunity for fraud and a higher cost of healthcare. You don't think the tax will ultimately ge born by the consumer? Lol....jokes on you.

Race can go either way.

 

[SnakeTom]

Of the candidates in the two party's the one who exhibited the most intelligence and common sense seemed to be Huntsman in my opinion. Now he wasn't in the race long enough for me to know his position on all issues but to me competence is more important than philosophy. He is the one candidate on the GOP side that I might well have voted for. I don't know enough about Pawlenty & IMO Bachman or Santorum would have been disasters as Chief Executive. As to Christie there is both good and bad. I think he does things for shock value & to keep in the headlines rather than thinking things out first. For example the State Budget he proposed looks like something one would get from Corzine by basing expenditures on exaggerated prospective revenues. I'd prefer a President that thinks things out first & doesn't just shoot his mouth off with the first thing that comes to mind.

Tom K

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
I'd prefer a President that thinks things out first & doesn't just shoot his mouth off with the first thing that comes to mind.

Tom K

Isn't that the epitome of Obama?

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by SPK145:

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
I'd prefer a President that thinks things out first & doesn't just shoot his mouth off with the first thing that comes to mind.

Tom K

Isn't that the epitome of Obama?

No I don't think so. The closest person I compare to Christie is Cory Booker. Both are publicity hounds & love to grandstand.

TK

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by SPK145:

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
I'd prefer a President that thinks things out first & doesn't just shoot his mouth off with the first thing that comes to mind.

Tom K

Isn't that the epitome of Obama?

I guess Tom forgot Obama's "shoot his mouth off" reaction to the alleged police brutality of Professor Louis Gates.....

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Originally posted by SPK145:

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
I'd prefer a President that thinks things out first & doesn't just shoot his mouth off with the first thing that comes to mind.

Tom K

Isn't that the epitome of Obama?

I guess Tom forgot Obama's "shoot his mouth off" reaction to the alleged police brutality of Professor Louis Gates.....

OK that's one unfortunate incident, but our Governor does it almost on a daily basis.

TK

 

[Section112]

Yes Tom Christie could learn a little and stop with the antics I agree. But today's latest FDU poll puts him at a 55% approval rating which is extremely high for a minority party governor. So while I cannot disagree that he could watch his Ps and Qs some more, he is certainly trying to change things in a very corrupt and screwed up state.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by Section112:
Yes Tom Christie could learn a little and stop with the antics I agree. But today's latest FDU poll puts him at a 55% approval rating which is extremely high for a minority party governor. So while I cannot disagree that he could watch his Ps and Qs some more, he is certainly trying to change things in a very corrupt and screwed up state.

I can't disagree with that. As I said it's a mixed bag with our Governor. Not all good nor all bad. Certainly better than Corzine though but that's not a very high bar to surpass.

Tom K

 

[SPK145]

So we're left with a Massachusetts flip-flopping panderer against a Chicago thug-style pandering Marxist.

Probably best for America if the Republicants take the Senate and hold the House while a Democrap still rules the White House. Gridlock in Washington is best for the U.S. If you think Washington can really solve anything, you're hopefully naive and deserve the less than mediocrity you'll get.

 

[shu09]

I think both Obama and Romney are likable. But that's not how one should determine his or her vote.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by shu09:
I think both Obama and Romney are likable. But that's not how one should determine his or her vote.

You are right people should not base their vote on likability but many do. Not everyone studies issues. Many vote for a candidate because they find him likable. The George W. Bush - Al Gore race was a perfect example. W was the type you might want to go have a beer with while Gore was .... let's say pompus.

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:

Originally posted by shu09:
I think both Obama and Romney are likable. But that's not how one should determine his or her vote.

You are right people should not base their vote on likability but many do. Not everyone studies issues. Many vote for a candidate because they find him likable. The George W. Bush - Al Gore race was a perfect example. W was the type you might want to go have a beer with while Gore was .... let's say pompus.

Tom K

What's worse than that is blindly voting party lines....my sister-in-law (a teacher) was complaining about Christie and telling some fellow teachers that voted for him the "I told you so" line....I asked her if she would have preferred a criminal (Corzine) as Governor????

 

[shu09]

Agreed. I can't stand people who vote blindly with party on either side. Think for yourself!

 

[SnakeTom]

I agree. Those who vote straight party line in all elections have given up their right to think. Neither party has a monopoly of good ideas or good candidates. I disagree with Hall85 however regarding his comment about teachers (and his sister in law). I see nothing wrong with voting self interest for ones own & family's benefit. While I think Corzine was a disaster as Governor if I were a teacher I certainly would have voted against Christie as his policies negatively affect their financial well being. Regarding myself I would never vote for a candidate of either party who wants to restrict litigation rights as this would negatively affect my finances. Likewise I would think that Hall85's strong objections to Obamacare must in at least some degree be affected similarly as he has told us that he works in the healthcare industry. I do not think any of us are truely objective on every issue as we are all affected differently by different issues.

TK

 

[SHPIRATE]

Teachers opposing Christie's policies is really no different than wealthy people opposing the millionaire tax.

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
I do not think any of us are truely objective on every issue as we are all affected differently by different issues.

TK

I would phrase it ''I do not think any of us are truely objective on ANY issue as we are all affected differently by different issues.''

That said, IMHO Americans' votes in presidential elections are primarily AGAINST one candidate (Humphrey, Nixon, Carter, Gore) and not FOR the other (Nixon, Carter, Reagan, W).

Mitt is as liberal a GOP candidate as could be accepted by the Tea Party-ers, so he is more likely to garner the fence-sitters' votes in the unaligned middle.

I am definitely an ''ABO'' guy.

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
Those who vote straight party line in all elections have given up their right to think.

TK

Why must all ''thinking'' people choose at least one plank on which to disagree?

Better expressed as ''Those who vote straight party line in all elections simply BECAUSE it is the party line have given up their right to think.'' Don't you agree?

 

[SnakeTom]

I probably do not agree, but your sentence is not really clear as to what you are trying to say.

But let me say this we have been having this argument for years. To you political philosophy is everything and to me while it is important competence is more important. We will continue to disagree on this and there is no true correct answer as we all look at things differently.

Do you really think that things such as corruption are unique to one party and not the other?

TK

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
I probably do not agree, but your sentence is not really clear as to what you are trying to say.

Here's what I said:

Originally posted by Old_alum:

''Those who vote straight party line in all elections simply BECAUSE it is the party line have given up their right to think.''

I am trying only to say that an independent thinker can reach the same conclusions as his or her party does. That is not an indictment of one's 'independent thinking', UNLESS one supports it solely BECAUSE the party did first. I am not sure what part of that you think is not clear.

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
But let me say this we have been having this argument for years. To you political philosophy is everything and to me while it is important competence is more important. We will continue to disagree on this and there is no true correct answer as we all look at things differently.

I agree we have been having that debate for at least 12 years and that is why I did NOT bring it up this time, as much as your earlier stipulation tempted me to do so.

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
Do you really think that things such as corruption are unique to one party and not the other?

TKED: Emphasis added.

I am not sure why you say 'really' as I do not recall discussing this earlier in this thread. That said, I do not think now nor have I ever thought that any party or any system ---- outside of Eden and the Magisterium ---- is protected from error or corruption. Why do you ask?
This post was edited on 5/14 10:45 AM by Old_alum

 

[SnakeTom]

That being the case we agree. I was referring to those who treat the political party's as if they were sports teams and always vote for the same party as if they were rooting for a particular team regardless of issues, competence of the candidate or evidence iof corruption. It is inconcievable to me that one party or the other will always be on the correct side of every issue or put forth the best or most honest candidate.

Tom K

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
That being the case we agree.....It is inconcievable to me that one party or the other will always be on the correct side of every issue or put forth the best or most honest candidate.

Tom K

On the first point, thank you.

On the second, that is why ''principles'' matter so much to me and count as the primary measure of a candidate's ''competence''.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by Old_alum:

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
That being the case we agree.....It is inconcievable to me that one party or the other will always be on the correct side of every issue or put forth the best or most honest candidate.

Tom K

On the first point, thank you.

On the second, that is why ''principles'' matter so much to me and count as the primary measure of a candidate's ''competence''.

I disagree. Political philosophy and competence are not the same thing. Otherwise how do you explain Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. Diametrically different philosophy's yet both horrible Presidents.

TK

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:I disagree. Political philosophy and competence are not the same thing. Otherwise how do you explain Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. Diametrically different philosophy's yet both horrible Presidents.

TK

What was it about the presidencies of Carter and W that led you to copnclude each was ''horrible''?

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by Old_alum:

Originally posted by SnakeTom:I disagree. Political philosophy and competence are not the same thing. Otherwise how do you explain Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. Diametrically different philosophy's yet both horrible Presidents.

TK

What was it about the presidencies of Carter and W that led you to copnclude each was ''horrible''?

Well some things are just obvious to to anyone who objectively views them. You might as well ask "what makes you think that Keon Lawrence performance as a Pirate was a major disappointment. I don't know maybe you think Keon played just fine for the Pirates & Carter & W wewre great Presidents, but few others would agree with you.

Well for starters the ecomomy collapsed under both of them. In addition in Carter's case he let the US get embarrassed during the Iranian hostage crisis. As to Bush he got us involved in a war against Iraq that served no purpose. I could go on but I won't. It is self evident that these two did not represent the "finest" in US Presidential history.

TK

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:

Originally posted by Old_alum:

Originally posted by SnakeTom:I disagree. Political philosophy and competence are not the same thing. Otherwise how do you explain Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. Diametrically different philosophy's yet both horrible Presidents.

TK

What was it about the presidencies of Carter and W that led you to copnclude each was ''horrible''?

Well some things are just obvious to to anyone who objectively views them. You might as well ask "what makes you think that Keon Lawrence performance as a Pirate was a major disappointment. I don't know maybe you think Keon played just fine for the Pirates & Carter & W wewre great Presidents, but few others would agree with you.



Well for starters the ecomomy collapsed under both of them. In addition in Carter's case he let the US get embarrassed during the Iranian hostage crisis. As to Bush he got us involved in a war against Iraq that served no purpose. I could go on but I won't. It is self evident that these two did not represent the "finest" in US Presidential history.

TK

I believe it was you who introduced the ‘’horrible’’ Carter & W presidencies as evidence that ''philosophy'' had to be less relevant because the two were so ‘’diametrically different’’. I guess you assume that any bad decisions made were due to philosophy or ‘’principles’’ --- my word --- and not to what you have called competence or to circumstances or to violation of principles. IMHO the only rational way to examine the causes is to examine the choices. You listed:
1. the economy collapsing under each;
2. The Iranian crises for Carter; and
3. An Iraqi war with no purpose for W.

On the economy, I would agree that Carter’s principles actually caused the worst of hyperinflation (especially when combo’d with Volcker turning off the FRB spigot) and that this made Carter the worst president ever based on ‘’principles’’. He also made bad decisions on Iran but I am not sure those were done as a result of his principles, but they might have been.

For the W economy I would argue that it was a violation of conservative principles that caused the mortgage meltdown of 2008 and that this had been precipitated by (a) the market not doing its due diligence --- a risk of any market --- and (b) by the Democratic Congress’ eviscerating the ‘’principles’’ of credit in FannieMae and FreddyMac. So I see no indictment of principles there.

As for the Iraq War, the jury is still out. There no doubt has been a severe cost in lives and capital --- as in any war --- but IMHO the world is a better place without Saddam and there have been good collateral benefits in Libya and elsewhere. There were many conservative principles which W violated to our detriment (like nation building in Iraq and prescription drug subsidies) but these bolster my argument for the primacy of a president’s ‘’principles’’. IMHO W will ultimately be judged a better than average president --- especially on the recovery of the economy before the FannieMae stuff hit the fan.

Therefore, I see no facts that support a conclusion that principles are not important. Carter’s bad principles caused his horrible economy. W’s violation of conservative principles hurt the economy, and the bad Congressional credit principles were an abomination.

 

[SnakeTom]

Well we absolutely disagree. IMO it had nothing to do with either's political philospophy. It was about the capabilities of the person running the show.

Tom K

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
Well we absolutely disagree.

Didn't we both stipulate just this when you brought up the topic above.

Originally posted by SnakeTom:
IMO it had nothing to do with either's political philospophy. It was about the capabilities of the person running the show.

Tom K

So Carter's mishandling of the economy had nothing to do with price regulation as a principle or philosophy? His Energy Plan's removal of market risk had nothing to do with the oil price spiral of 1979?

And which 'capabilty' of W was lacking and caused the Iraq War?

And the Democratic congress evisceration of credit restraints in FNMA and FRDMA had no ties to any philosophy or principles?

I understand that this is just your opinion (''IMO'') but would you care to add facts or logic to substantiate it?

 

[Piratefan1]

It seems to me that President Bush did not stray from conservative principles at all be rather adheared to them too much by refusing to raise revenues to pay for the wars we were involved in. This is a big part of the debt problem we now have.

 

[SPK145]

Originally posted by Piratefan1:
It seems to me that President Bush did not stray from conservative principles at all be rather adheared to them too much by refusing to raise revenues to pay for the wars we were involved in. This is a big part of the debt problem we now have.

I'd absolutely disagree with this. His tax cuts RAISED revenues. His unconstitutional (and therefore non-conservative) measures like No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug plan, two wars, and other profligate spending raised spending to abhorrent levels (all dutifully approved by the same Republicants who now so disapprove of Obama's spending on steroids).

Did we forget all those Bush years of virtually full employment though?

 

[Old_alum]

Originally posted by Piratefan1:
It seems to me that President Bush did not stray from conservative principles at all be rather adheared to them too much by refusing to raise revenues to pay for the wars we were involved in. This is a big part of the debt problem we now have.

Two points:

First, on the question of 'principles', you seem to agree that they are important in candidate selection, although you disagree on which principles you prefer.

Second, pay-as-you-go is more of a 'conservative' principle but the stimulus impact of lowering taxes on investment income is overwhelmingly supported by statistics. Higher tax rates seem to have a much greater negative impact on GDP than a positive impact of revenues.

 

[Piratefan1]

It's a question degree. Tax cuts do stimulate the economy to some extent but they do not pay for the massive costs of war. No other President has ever cut taxes while involved in war and you saw the results of why this was not well thought out by President Bush.

 

[SPK145]

Bush never thought much out well.

 

[Vegas pj]

Originally posted by SPK145:
I think Obama wins but will be closer than 2008. Romney could win if he runs a really, really good campaign.

I think the Repubs will win back the Senate and hold the House though, rendering Obama pretty powerless. They won't get their holy grail of killing Obamacare though.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

The Supremes will take care of that for the Repubs.