Who do you think will win in November?
22 Apr 2012, 11:06 am
In our favour, African-Americans may once again be motivated to vote in large numbers, which may tip the balance in some states. However, Repugnicans have been doing their best to prevent minorities and poor people from voting. So, we shall see what pans out.
Moreover, if Romney continues harping on his plans to impoverish the nation
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-spending-g ... 15130.html
...then, more people who are not idiotic right-wing nut jobs may be inclined to get out and vote.
22 Apr 2012, 11:33 am
It depends on which Romney ends up running in the election. Are we getting the Republican primaries Romney where he's forced to cater to the right-wing evangelicals and extreme social conservatives or will we get the Romney who in many ways is a centrist and in some cases to the left of Obama?
It also depends on what happens with the House and the Senate since a democratic controlled congress seems to be more inclined to cooperation as opposed to opposition for the sake of opposition. Romney will be more effective if the current congress stays as it is if he runs a centrist line, whereas Obama is more likely to have to "wage war".
22 Apr 2012, 11:37 am
ArrantPariah wrote:
In our favour, African-Americans may once again be motivated to vote in large numbers, which may tip the balance in some states. However, Repugnicans have been doing their best to prevent minorities and poor people from voting. So, we shall see what pans out.
Moreover, if Romney continues harping on his plans to impoverish the nation
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-spending-g ... 15130.html
...then, more people who are not idiotic right-wing nut jobs may be inclined to get out and vote.
Moreover, if Romney continues harping on his plans to impoverish the nation
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-spending-g ... 15130.html
...then, more people who are not idiotic right-wing nut jobs may be inclined to get out and vote.
I say don't let Romney move back to the center. He needs to be held to his word in terms of supporting the Ryan "budget" plan. It needs to be pounded into peoples heads that the proposed tax cuts on the wealthy will have to be paid for through even deeper cuts to programs like medicare and medicaid, hurting the most vulnerable members of society.
22 Apr 2012, 4:09 pm
marshall wrote:
The problem is right-wingers are more likely "fall in line" and vote for the "lesser of two evils" while progressives become so depressed with the "options" available that they decide to stay home on election day. Thus 30% of the population who are right-wingers will keep pushing the country farther and farther to the right. When the repugs win with less than 30% eligible voters actually voting for them it's a fair sign that we don't have a functioning democracy.
I can't quite tell if you're admiring or detesting the greater party unity seen on the right; would you prefer that the left simply vote for whoever has the D after their name?
I would also contest you on the point, as the religious right is quite well known for sitting out elections entirely rather than voting for lesser evil candidates; it's the quality that's given them such power over the Republicans, as other areas of their base can be manipulated with the lesser evil play or manufactured umbrage into voting for them regardless. Part of Karl Rove's "genius" was putting things like anti-gay bills on the ballot at the same time as the presidential elections to draw the evangelical crowd out to vote, as W alone wasn't exciting enough to bring them to the polls, but while they were there voting against the gays anyway...
You see a similar dynamic on the left with with blue dogs, they wield outsized influence precisely because they're willing to walk rather than go for the lesser evil, which means they get what they want while the more "reliable" progressives and such suck hind tit.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
23 Apr 2012, 8:15 am
I'm inclined to believe Mitt Romney will win the close election. One of the key issues in this election concerns the state of the economy. The measures that the Obama administration have taken to spur job growth - increase government's size, large stimulus spending, and historic amounts of money printing are not working. There has been no economic boom from these measures. Many people remain with out work, with little hope of finding employment. In the end all we find is ourself in greater debt.
This is forcing the President to run on a weaker platform, class warfare. I'm sure Obama would prefer to promote on his campaign the idea of a greatly improved economy from his measures. That isn't possible though.
Mitt Romney has an advantage in that he can promote the idea of greater opportunity under his contrasting economic ideas from the President of less government involvement, and more private business growth.
Thought Martin Weiss had an interesting article this morning about the lack of results seen over money printing and government stimulus.
"The Deadliest Vicious Cycle We’ve Ever Seen"
http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/the-dead ... IELD9=RWRA
Quote:
...Fact #1. The world’s most powerful governments have printed more paper money in the last three years than in the prior half century!
Read that again and think about it carefully for a moment.
If just ONE government ran its money-printing presses 24/7, it would be dangerous enough.
But as I demonstrated here last week, we now have ALL FOUR of the most powerful central banks doing it all at once.
And this money printing is SO big — with the potential for such a dramatic impact on your financial life — I feel I MUST give you the details again:
It’s all summarized in this chart, showing you the size of each central bank’s balance sheet — a measure for the total money-printing operations to date.
And as you can plainly see, every major central bank in the world has joined the party …
The U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed) has nearly TRIPLED the size of its balance sheet — from about 6% of GDP just three years ago to almost 17% of GDP.
The Bank of England (BOE) has followed in lock step with the U.S.
The European Central Bank (ECB) has suddenly expanded its balance sheet from about 20% of GDP to close to 30% GDP. And …
The Bank of Japan (BOJ) has also run up the size of its balance sheet assets to about 30% of its economy!
Total Balance Sheets of the Four
Central Banks: More Than $10 Trillion!
That’s $10 trillion in paper money that’s been pumped into the global economy!
I cannot stress enough how unprecedented this is.
Even in the early 1930s, when the nation’s entire banking system shut down … and even in the early 1980s, when hundreds of U.S. banks were failing each year, the Fed and other central banks never went this far. (The sole exception: The central bank of Germany in the 1920s.)
But here’s the greatest irony of all: It’s not working.
Or, at best, it’s running into the law of diminishing returns — more money, less results.
Shock and Awe
Think how utterly disappointing — and shocking — that must be for the masterminds behind this giant global money operation!
They had hoped that, after dumping all these trillions into their economies, they would have created a respectable boom.
But we see nothing of the kind!...
Read that again and think about it carefully for a moment.
If just ONE government ran its money-printing presses 24/7, it would be dangerous enough.
But as I demonstrated here last week, we now have ALL FOUR of the most powerful central banks doing it all at once.
And this money printing is SO big — with the potential for such a dramatic impact on your financial life — I feel I MUST give you the details again:
It’s all summarized in this chart, showing you the size of each central bank’s balance sheet — a measure for the total money-printing operations to date.
And as you can plainly see, every major central bank in the world has joined the party …
The U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed) has nearly TRIPLED the size of its balance sheet — from about 6% of GDP just three years ago to almost 17% of GDP.
The Bank of England (BOE) has followed in lock step with the U.S.
The European Central Bank (ECB) has suddenly expanded its balance sheet from about 20% of GDP to close to 30% GDP. And …
The Bank of Japan (BOJ) has also run up the size of its balance sheet assets to about 30% of its economy!
Total Balance Sheets of the Four
Central Banks: More Than $10 Trillion!
That’s $10 trillion in paper money that’s been pumped into the global economy!
I cannot stress enough how unprecedented this is.
Even in the early 1930s, when the nation’s entire banking system shut down … and even in the early 1980s, when hundreds of U.S. banks were failing each year, the Fed and other central banks never went this far. (The sole exception: The central bank of Germany in the 1920s.)
But here’s the greatest irony of all: It’s not working.
Or, at best, it’s running into the law of diminishing returns — more money, less results.
Shock and Awe
Think how utterly disappointing — and shocking — that must be for the masterminds behind this giant global money operation!
They had hoped that, after dumping all these trillions into their economies, they would have created a respectable boom.
But we see nothing of the kind!...
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
23 Apr 2012, 10:56 am
Social and financial inequality aren't a concern? The wealthy aren't waging class warfare on the rest of us?
Romney recently said such matters should be discussed in "quiet rooms." But if the matter of civil rights for blacks had been left for discussion in quiet rooms, we'd still had segregation.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
23 Apr 2012, 11:33 am
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
The problem is right-wingers are more likely "fall in line" and vote for the "lesser of two evils" while progressives become so depressed with the "options" available that they decide to stay home on election day. Thus 30% of the population who are right-wingers will keep pushing the country farther and farther to the right. When the repugs win with less than 30% eligible voters actually voting for them it's a fair sign that we don't have a functioning democracy.
I can't quite tell if you're admiring or detesting the greater party unity seen on the right;
Neither. I'm merely pointing out a fact.
Quote:
would you prefer that the left simply vote for whoever has the D after their name?
In the past, no. Now, considering the direction the Republican Party wants to steer the country in, hell yes. And if the D's get pushed too far to the right maybe it's time for a political insurgency. The problem is a progressive insurgency will never get the big money astroturfing going behind it the way the Tea Party did, even if the raw numbers are there to support a movement. But in any case progressives need to be willing to get off their asses and start holding candidates feet to the fire during primaries the way the Republicans do. "protesting" by sitting out elections or voting for fringe third party candidates is not the winning way to go. Definitely not for progressives concerned about economic issues.
25 Apr 2012, 9:20 pm
marshall wrote:
In the past, no. Now, considering the direction the Republican Party wants to steer the country in, hell yes. And if the D's get pushed too far to the right maybe it's time for a political insurgency. The problem is a progressive insurgency will never get the big money astroturfing going behind it the way the Tea Party did, even if the raw numbers are there to support a movement. But in any case progressives need to be willing to get off their asses and start holding candidates feet to the fire during primaries the way the Republicans do. "protesting" by sitting out elections or voting for fringe third party candidates is not the winning way to go. Definitely not for progressives concerned about economic issues.
I think you're contradicting yourself a bit Marshall; on the one hand you want to hold candidates accountable, but on the other you say they should vote a party ticket if it hurts the GOP. How do you hold them accountable if they know you'll vote for them regardless because of fear of the GOP?
Now personally I think voting reform is the necessary first step, preferably something like STV/IRV that would let you vote 3rd party without fear of handing the election to the "greater evil", but that's a whole other thread.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
25 Apr 2012, 11:38 pm
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
In the past, no. Now, considering the direction the Republican Party wants to steer the country in, hell yes. And if the D's get pushed too far to the right maybe it's time for a political insurgency. The problem is a progressive insurgency will never get the big money astroturfing going behind it the way the Tea Party did, even if the raw numbers are there to support a movement. But in any case progressives need to be willing to get off their asses and start holding candidates feet to the fire during primaries the way the Republicans do. "protesting" by sitting out elections or voting for fringe third party candidates is not the winning way to go. Definitely not for progressives concerned about economic issues.
I think you're contradicting yourself a bit Marshall; on the one hand you want to hold candidates accountable, but on the other you say they should vote a party ticket if it hurts the GOP. How do you hold them accountable if they know you'll vote for them regardless because of fear of the GOP?
Now personally I think voting reform is the necessary first step, preferably something like STV/IRV that would let you vote 3rd party without fear of handing the election to the "greater evil", but that's a whole other thread.
No, I'm saying do what the Tea Party did to the Republican party. The Tea Party didn't secure their voice in congress by throwing seats of moderate/establishment Republicans away to Democrats. They secured their power through the primary process.
I'd support voting reform as well, but until that happens I don't see the point in giving away the entire government to the Republican Party.
26 Apr 2012, 12:14 am
marshall wrote:
No, I'm saying do what the Tea Party did to the Republican party. The Tea Party didn't secure their voice in congress by throwing seats of moderate/establishment Republicans away to Democrats. They secured their power through the primary process.
I'd support voting reform as well, but until that happens I don't see the point in giving away the entire government to the Republican Party.
I'd support voting reform as well, but until that happens I don't see the point in giving away the entire government to the Republican Party.
Actually, the Tea Party did just that, nominating "purer" conservatives like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell in races that likely would have been won by more moderate "RINO" candidates because they weren't about team GOP as much as team conservative. It was their willingness to do that, to take a defeat for the party over a win with a candidate they considered compromised, that scared the hell out of the GOP leadership and got them taken seriously. Do you think they'd be paying any attention to a bunch of guys in tricorn hats throwing tea bags if all they did was yell and hold posters?
If you were a politician, would you pay attention to someone who made a bunch of noise but then voted for you anyways because you were still the "lesser evil", or someone who said "my way or the highway" and then stuck to their guns? It's short game vs long game, moving the Democrats back to the left may very well mean losing some seats to the GOP in the beginning to let them know you're serious about these things, that they couldn't just pander anymore.
I'm voting 3rd party myself this year in the presidentials because neither candidate is deserving of my vote, and I'll be damned if I sign my name to either of their surely blighted administrations.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
26 Apr 2012, 12:27 am
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
No, I'm saying do what the Tea Party did to the Republican party. The Tea Party didn't secure their voice in congress by throwing seats of moderate/establishment Republicans away to Democrats. They secured their power through the primary process.
I'd support voting reform as well, but until that happens I don't see the point in giving away the entire government to the Republican Party.
I'd support voting reform as well, but until that happens I don't see the point in giving away the entire government to the Republican Party.
Actually, the Tea Party did just that, nominating "purer" conservatives like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell in races that likely would have been won by more moderate "RINO" candidates because they weren't about team GOP as much as team conservative. It was their willingness to do that, to take a defeat for the party over a win with a candidate they considered compromised, that scared the hell out of the GOP leadership and got them taken seriously. Do you think they'd be paying any attention to a bunch of guys in tricorn hats throwing tea bags if all they did was yell and hold posters?
If you were a politician, would you pay attention to someone who made a bunch of noise but then voted for you anyways because you were still the "lesser evil", or someone who said "my way or the highway" and then stuck to their guns? It's short game vs long game, moving the Democrats back to the left may very well mean losing some seats to the GOP in the beginning to let them know you're serious about these things, that they couldn't just pander anymore.
I'm voting 3rd party myself this year in the presidentials because neither candidate is deserving of my vote, and I'll be damned if I sign my name to either of their surely blighted administrations.
I think you're giving too much credit to the tea party in their support of Angle and "I'm not a witch." They supported those two simply because they were as small minded, heartless, and out of touch with reality as said tea partiers. Now, those idiots the tea party got into office, and who had highjacked the congress may very well have done in Boehner and the Republican establishment.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
