2012 Election

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: 2012 Election

Post by KCMax »

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Instead of chosing Paul Ryan he should have have chosen a GOP governor. That way the debate would have been about how successful states are with a GOP plan as opposed to the Ryan budget plan.
I wonder what would have happened if he had chosen former Rep. Rob Portman of Ohio. But most likely it wouldn't have mattered much. People don't vote for the VP.

Besides, Ryan was considered a popular GOP congressman - shouldn't he have given Romney a boost? And what popular GOP Governor would we be talking about? Chris Christie and Bobby Jindal didn't seem interested. Rick Scott in FL is very unpopular. Tom Corbett in PA is fairly unpopular. Scott Walker in WI is pretty polarizing. John Kasich in OH has pretty mixed numbers after taking on unions as well. Mixed numbers for GOP Governors in IA and MI too. The most popular GOP Governor is probably Brian Sandoval of NV, but he's been on the job a short time and I don't think anyone would point to NV as some economic success story. The only governor that really fits your bill as being popular in a successful economic state is Rick Perry and he had already become a national joke.
kcjak
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:02 pm

Re: 2012 Election

Post by kcjak »

aknowledgeableperson wrote:Been reading some stuff about why Romney lost the election, as opposed to Obama winning the election. This is beyond the obvious reasons for the defeat but goes into the "what if" or "should've done this" departments. Of course this doesn't mean Romney would have won if he did the following but it would have made the race a different animal.

Run from the middle, or closer to it, in the primaries instead of trying to outflank the others to the right. He would have stayed truer to his past self, probably wouldn't have made the self deportation statement, and polled stronger with the middle.
Instead of chosing Paul Ryan he should have have chosen a GOP governor. That way the debate would have been about how successful states are with a GOP plan as opposed to the Ryan budget plan.
Make a stand with the right by saying what is more important. Getting Obama out of office or having someone who is a "true" conservative, win with me or lose with someone else.

Of course having Akin and Mourdock on your side can't help. Another item is many on the GOP side thought it was a race for Obama to lose and ours to win instead of it's Obama's race to win and ours to lose.
Romney wasn't even able to carry the state he governed, which many point to as successful when he was governor. There are just too many subsets of the population (women, gays, latinos, pro-gun control, pro choice, blacks, the 47%, etc.) that feel excluded by the Republican party. Why would I, as a gay man, vote for someone whose party members tell me I'm an abomination or that I don't deserve the same rights as a straight person? Likewise, why would my family, friends or coworkers vote for that? And why would someone who works for the auto industry vote for someone who was against the bailout? Seriously, the Republican party just found a way to alienate to much of the population.
bobbyhawks
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3890
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:19 pm

Re: 2012 Election

Post by bobbyhawks »

mean wrote:According to Romney, he lost because Obama gave a bunch of free money to minorities, so they came out in droves to vote for him.
Mitt Romney had the chance to walk off into the sunset as a respected guy who made a bold attempt at the White House and lost, not unlike Bob Dole (at least my youthful perception of Bob Dole). I think that most of the people who disagreed with him could still see he was passionate about helping our country. Instead, he takes an opportunity to cast a parting shot at Obama and at the demographic groups who, according to him, could not keep themselves away from the free "gifts" granted by the President. This comment is 100% worse than the 47% comment, and now Romney looks to be a sore loser, if not a delusional loser.
"It's a proven political strategy, which is give a bunch of money to a group and, guess what, they'll vote for you. ... Immigration we can solve, but the giving away free stuff is a hard thing to compete with."
If he knew this all along, and it was so proven, then why did he not find something better to offer these groups of people? Isn't the failure really in his inability to communicate his message to these groups if it was so much more powerful? His problem wasn't that his opponent was offering pie in the sky. His problem was that Obama has actually delivered real tangible pies. Mitt chose to say that the Obama customers were worthless and greedy, rather than describe how his pies would be better.

I wonder if he would say the same thing about the way the Super PACs were used to try to buy votes.
earthling
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8519
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm
Location: milky way, orion arm

Re: 2012 Election

Post by earthling »

Image
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2832
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: 2012 Election

Post by phuqueue »

Color intensity adjusted for population density:

Image
brewcrew1000
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3108
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:10 am
Location: Broadway/Gilham according to google maps

Re: 2012 Election

Post by brewcrew1000 »

Wonder why Eastern Iowa,Northwestern Illinois Southwestern Wisconsin and Northern Minnesota are so blue
User avatar
chrizow
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 17161
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:43 am

Re: 2012 Election

Post by chrizow »

brewcrew1000 wrote:Wonder why Eastern Iowa,Northwestern Illinois Southwestern Wisconsin and Northern Minnesota are so blue
the upper midwest is much less evangelical and more straightforward, mostly white, blue-collar Democrat (like MO used to be). i think the Scandinavian lineage of MN kind of contributes to that as well, more secular (or at least lutheran) vs. baptist.
chingon
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3546
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:47 pm
Location: South Plaza

Re: 2012 Election

Post by chingon »

bobbyhawks wrote:
"It's a proven political strategy, which is give a bunch of money to a group and, guess what, they'll vote for you. ... Immigration we can solve, but the giving away free stuff is a hard thing to compete with."
Then he said, "Trust me, I know. Me and all the other exceptionally wealthy people in this country have been getting a bunch of money given to us from the government forever basically. In fact, we are the number one beneficiaries of state power in this country. Really, no one has benefited more from the existence of the state and capitalism than the wealthy. And we not only vote for the party that promises us "way fucking more" free stuff (because the other part just promises us "a lot" more), we use a whole host of undemocratic tactics to ensure that some other people vote for them as well, because there not really enough of us to vote anyone into office by ourselves, and as most of you know, there are fewer and fewer of us all the time, just with more and more money to hoard, my friend. But don't worry, we will probably just get it so that actually votes are weighted by money...

Anyways, you think the 47% of Americans who don't pay taxes are bad? Shit, you should see all the stuff the top 5% get. Police to protect our wealth from poor people, a military (staffed by that very 47%) to advance our business interests in abroad, a state department to establish and build "free trade zones" (paid for by tax money!) where there are no rules and your don't have to pay taxes!, infrastructure to ship our capital (so much state-sponsored infrastructure that it allows us to invest literally anywhere, including places we don't have to pay the "wealth creators" very much money), airports, harbors, shipping channels, highways, power grids, fire departments, telecommunications networks, literally anything we need to make our wealth possible is pretty much built for us by governments and paid for by "the 53%", of whom about 52% aren't us. So yeah, the Cursed People voted for the Welfare Pres. Who can blame 'em?"
chingon
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3546
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:47 pm
Location: South Plaza

Re: 2012 Election

Post by chingon »

bobbyhawks wrote:
mean wrote:According to Romney, he lost because Obama gave a bunch of free money to minorities, so they came out in droves to vote for him.
Mitt Romney had the chance to walk off into the sunset as a respected guy who made a bold attempt at the White House and lost, not unlike Bob Dole (at least my youthful perception of Bob Dole). I think that most of the people who disagreed with him could still see he was passionate about helping our country. Instead, he takes an opportunity to cast a parting shot at Obama and at the demographic groups who, according to him, could not keep themselves away from the free "gifts" granted by the President. This comment is 100% worse than the 47% comment, and now Romney looks to be a sore loser, if not a delusional loser.
"It's a proven political strategy, which is give a bunch of money to a group and, guess what, they'll vote for you. ... Immigration we can solve, but the giving away free stuff is a hard thing to compete with."
If he knew this all along, and it was so proven, then why did he not find something better to offer these groups of people? Isn't the failure really in his inability to communicate his message to these groups if it was so much more powerful? His problem wasn't that his opponent was offering pie in the sky. His problem was that Obama has actually delivered real tangible pies. Mitt chose to say that the Obama customers were worthless and greedy, rather than describe how his pies would be better.

I wonder if he would say the same thing about the way the Super PACs were used to try to buy votes.
Delusional is probably the right word. No one gets more return on investment from their political activities than corporate capital and the ultra-wealthy.
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: 2012 Election

Post by KCMax »

Just talk for now, but good talk

At White House, Top Lawmakers Say They Expect Budget Deal

Mr. Boehner said he outlined a framework for overhauling the tax code and spending programs that is “consistent with the president’s call for a fair and balanced approach.”

“To show our seriousness,” he added, “we put revenue on the table as long as it’s accompanied by significant spending cuts.”
Ms. Pelosi, whose House Democratic colleagues include many liberals who resist significant changes to entitlement spending, said: “We understand our responsibility here. We understand that it has to be about cuts, it has to be about revenue, it has to be about growth, it has to be about the future.”
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: 2012 Election

Post by KCMax »

KCMax wrote:
aknowledgeableperson wrote: Instead of chosing Paul Ryan he should have have chosen a GOP governor. That way the debate would have been about how successful states are with a GOP plan as opposed to the Ryan budget plan.
I wonder what would have happened if he had chosen former Rep. Rob Portman of Ohio. But most likely it wouldn't have mattered much. People don't vote for the VP.

Besides, Ryan was considered a popular GOP congressman - shouldn't he have given Romney a boost? And what popular GOP Governor would we be talking about? Chris Christie and Bobby Jindal didn't seem interested. Rick Scott in FL is very unpopular. Tom Corbett in PA is fairly unpopular. Scott Walker in WI is pretty polarizing. John Kasich in OH has pretty mixed numbers after taking on unions as well. Mixed numbers for GOP Governors in IA and MI too. The most popular GOP Governor is probably Brian Sandoval of NV, but he's been on the job a short time and I don't think anyone would point to NV as some economic success story. The only governor that really fits your bill as being popular in a successful economic state is Rick Perry and he had already become a national joke.
To answer my own question, Susana Martinez of NM and Bob McDonnell of VA are both pretty popular GOP Governors, and both are in swing states, and Martinez has the advantage of being Hispanic and a woman. Again, I don't think either would have been game-changers though.
User avatar
Highlander
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 10208
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: 2012 Election

Post by Highlander »

Not to deviate to much from the topic at hand but has anyone here seen "Lincoln"?

I think those that do will find politics today (and probably other points in our history) are eerily similar to what they were back in 1865.
User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 18205
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: 2012 Election

Post by FangKC »

I'm reading a new book called Citizen Soldier: A Life of Harry Truman. The politics Truman faced from the Republican Congress are very similar to today. Complete refusal to pass his programs and legislation (including national health care insurance); Truman refused to cut taxes on the very wealthy; had to deal with formation of alternative parties (but on the Democratic side): The Dixiecrats (conservative splinter from the Democratic Party of Southern States opposed to civil rights legislation), and the Progressive Party (a liberal splinter from the Democrats); and ran against an opponent that was perceived as "out of touch"--Thomas E. Dewey. The Dixiecrats thought Truman too liberal, and the Progressives thought Truman too conservative. Several states in the South were mostly against him

Truman campaigned in 1948 in a similar way to Obama in 2012. Going into the election, many thought Truman couldn't win. His favorability rating was around 36 percent. Most of the press reported that Dewey was ahead in the polls. That Truman would be easy to beat. Truman ran a campaign advocating support for the "common man" and not the rich. He pointed out a "do-nothing Congress." He put together a coalition of lower income working people, blacks, jews, Catholics, labor unions, and farmers. In 1948, much of America was still agrarian and rural, so the farm vote was essential to Truman.
The large, mostly spontaneous gatherings at Truman's railcar events were an important sign of a change in momentum in the campaign, but this shift went virtually unnoticed by the national press corps, which continued reporting Republican Thomas Dewey's apparent impending victory as a certainty. One reason for the press' inaccurate projection was polls conducted primarily by telephone in a time when many people, including much of Truman's populist base, did not own a telephone.[108] This skewed the data to indicate a stronger support base for Dewey than existed, resulting in an unintended and undetected projection error that may have contributed to the perception of Truman's bleak chances.
Dewey campaigned in a similar way to Mitt Romney--and faced perception problems.
Dewey had seemed unstoppable. Republicans figured that all they had to do to win was to avoid making any major mistakes, and as such Dewey did not take any risks. He spoke in platitudes, trying to transcend politics. Speech after speech was filled with empty statements of the obvious, such as the famous quote: "You know that your future is still ahead of you."

An editorial in the Louisville Courier-Journal summed it up:

"No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead."[17]
...
All his presidential campaigns were hampered by Dewey's habit of making overly vague statements, defining his strategy as not being "prematurely specific"[27] on controversial issues. Truman joked that Republican Party (GOP) actually stood for "grand old platitudes".[29] Walter Lippman, in 1940, regarded him as basically an opportunist, who "changes his views from hour to hour... always more concerned with taking the popular position than he is in dealing with the real issues".[30] Adding to that, he had a tendency towards pomposity[31] and was considered stiff and inapproachable, with even his own aide Ruth McCormick Simms once describing him as "cold, cold as a February iceberg".[32]
...
Part of the reason Dewey ran such a cautious, vague campaign was his experience as a presidential candidate in 1944. In that election Dewey felt that he had allowed Roosevelt to draw him into a partisan, verbal "mudslinging" match, and he believed that this had cost him votes. As such, Dewey was convinced in 1948 to appear as non-partisan as possible, and to emphasize the positive aspects of his campaign while ignoring his opponent. This strategy proved to be a major mistake, as it allowed Truman to repeatedly criticize and ridicule Dewey, while Dewey never answered any of Truman's criticisms.[18] Perhaps alone among all of Dewey's advisers, his 1944 campaign chairman, Edwin Jaeckle, admonished him to be aggressive on the campaign trail, advice Dewey rejected.
http://www.amazon.com/Citizen-Soldier-L ... rry+truman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_E._Dewey
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: 2012 Election

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

What I find interesting right now is how both sides are using the word 'mandate' with regards to the fiscal cliff. One one side Obama had fewer total votes, a lower percentage of voters, and fewer EC votes than in 2008. On the GOP House side they have fewer seats now than before. The only mandate I see from the voters is "get to an agreement".

It appears that many on the liberal Dem side in both the House and Senate will not vote for fiscal cliff legislation unless it includes income tax 'rate' increases for the rich. Although I fear the Tea Party types with regards to getting an agreement my bigger fear is that liberal wing of the Dem party.

I think those that do will find politics today (and probably other points in our history) are eerily similar to what they were back in 1865.

I am looking forward to seeing the movie, for the action as well as how Lincoln handled his problems and his use of political skills to get what he wanted. Have read quite a bit about it, maybe something Obama needs to see as well as read the book used as a source material.
User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: 2012 Election

Post by KCMax »

aknowledgeableperson wrote:
It appears that many on the liberal Dem side in both the House and Senate will not vote for fiscal cliff legislation unless it includes income tax 'rate' increases for the rich. .
An interesting point I have seen made is that Obama could call the GOP bluff on not increasing the rates and say "okay, well tell me specifically what deductions you are willing to eliminate to make it unnecessary to raise rates." I am guessing any answer House Republicans give will be far more unpopular among voters than an increase in tax rates on those making over $250k.

I don't know why you'd fear the liberal wing more than the Tea Party. There are 66 Tea Party caucus members in the House, and those that aren't Tea Party members are fearing a primary challenge, whereas I don't there are going to be as many primary challenges from the left for Dems. There is not much incentive for House Republicans to move to the center.
bobbyhawks
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3890
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:19 pm

Re: 2012 Election

Post by bobbyhawks »

KCMax wrote:
aknowledgeableperson wrote:
It appears that many on the liberal Dem side in both the House and Senate will not vote for fiscal cliff legislation unless it includes income tax 'rate' increases for the rich. .
An interesting point I have seen made is that Obama could call the GOP bluff on not increasing the rates and say "okay, well tell me specifically what deductions you are willing to eliminate to make it unnecessary to raise rates." I am guessing any answer House Republicans give will be far more unpopular among voters than an increase in tax rates on those making over $250k.

I don't know why you'd fear the liberal wing more than the Tea Party. There are 66 Tea Party caucus members in the House, and those that aren't Tea Party members are fearing a primary challenge, whereas I don't there are going to be as many primary challenges from the left for Dems. There is not much incentive for House Republicans to move to the center.
I haven't really been following the liberal Dems, but have any of them signed a pledge that says they will never, under any circumstances, even consider one of the few ways available to pay for the things we provide? I know that almost everyone on both sides is saying that it would be a bad idea to raise taxes on the middle class, but I don't know of a faction of the Democratic party that has completely ruled out things like cuts to "entitlements," raising of taxes, closing of loopholes, or modifications to existing programs to find cost savings. Maybe I am wrong, but I'm more worried about the guy with a hammer, wrench, and saw in his tool belt who is not willing to consider using his wrench, no matter what he is fixing.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: 2012 Election

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

Many in the GOP have said they will vote for a "tax" increase on the rich if it is in the form of tax reform, mainly by limiting deductions/credits (some have said limiting these to $25,000 to $50,000) - an increase in taxes collected but not a rate increase. Even Norquist has said this was OK. On the liberal Dem side the only solution is a "tax" increase via raising the rates.

Also those many of those liberal Dems do not see a need for entitlement reforms, unless there is an increase in the rates paid, whereas the GOP including the Tea Party sees entitlement reform part of the solution to our problems.

There is not much incentive for the left to move to the center also.
phuqueue
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2832
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: 2012 Election

Post by phuqueue »

There's a difference between reforming entitlement programs to ensure their long-term solvency and gutting them because you oppose their very existence (at least to the extent that they help other people besides you, ie Tea Partiers who are simultaneously for "entitlement reform" and against the government interfering with Social Security or Medicare benefits that they receive). Liberal Dems won't go along with Ryan-esque "reform" because the word as he uses it is essentially a wolf in sheep's clothing. If tax increases and military cuts are off the table, so should be spending that actually goes to help people -- the problem with this position, of course, is that if everybody's sacred cow is off limits then we aren't going anywhere. ACA included some legitimate reform: cost savings in Medicare to the tune of $700 billion, without cutting benefits. But of course, Romney tried to spin this as a "Medicare cut," because Republicans only think in terms of absolute dollar amounts: if we're spending $700 billion less, we must have lost $700 billion worth of benefits. The same mindset guides their thinking on defense, where they refuse to cut spending even when the Pentagon asks for less money. I don't know if they're so stupid they actually don't understand diminishing marginal returns; more likely I suspect they're just disingenuously attempting to feed voters the line Republicans think they want to hear. It's no wonder the GOP is so distrustful of government when their own blueprint is to govern by deception to the greatest extent possible. Their opposition to wasteful spending is a little odd, though -- where does "waste" exist if benefit simply scales linearly with every dollar spent or withheld? This is why their solution isn't really "reform," it's wholesale junking entire programs. In their estimation there is no "waste" within Medicare, Medicare itself is waste.

The Dems shouldn't play that game. There's no reason the poor, the disabled, and the elderly (the future elderly, that is, since not even small government diehards would dare challenge the status quo for existing recipients) should be the first in line to "sacrifice," particularly when the GOP's plan is just to use those savings to finance further tax cuts for the upper income brackets. The GOP has been allowed to drive the conversation until now, but the Dems have to take a stand somewhere. Austerity is terrible policy in a weak economy (see: Europe's experience over the past three years), but if we're tripping over ourselves to pass it anyway, our priorities in so doing should make sense. Programs that people depend on shouldn't be the first ones under the knife when taxes are at historic lows, military spending is at historic highs, and the income gap continues to grow into a yawning abyss.
bobbyhawks
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3890
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:19 pm

Re: 2012 Election

Post by bobbyhawks »

aknowledgeableperson wrote:Many in the GOP have said they will vote for a "tax" increase on the rich if it is in the form of tax reform, mainly by limiting deductions/credits (some have said limiting these to $25,000 to $50,000) - an increase in taxes collected but not a rate increase. Even Norquist has said this was OK. On the liberal Dem side the only solution is a "tax" increase via raising the rates.
I think that both sides are willing to look at tax reform, but we will run into the same problems we have in other areas when Dems want to cut deductions/credits for big business and wealthy individuals, and Republicans try to cut out deductions that help everyone else. If I'm riding on 14% capital gains income, then loopholes aren't really going to make a big difference to me. In that instance, it would be easy to say "cut away!" It's the "please don't throw me in that briar patch" method to government. I heard a lot of speak from Romney on tax reform, but I have not heard of one plan that identifies and finds specific loopholes that will cover what we still need to cover. The tax on the wealthy doesn't even cover it alone. There are still a lot of things that need to come together, but I haven't seen a reform plan yet that compensates for the revenue generated through the tax increase on the wealthy. I think that Dems are willing to find loopholes that do this in other ways, but it is really difficult to find deductions of significance to close down without hurting the middle class and effectively raising taxes on a portion of them.
aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12644
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: 2012 Election

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

but it is really difficult to find deductions of significance to close down without hurting the middle class and effectively raising taxes on a portion of them
Hate to disappoint you but raising taxes on the rich plus expenditure cuts plus growing the economy still, in the long run, will not be enough to get the job done. Sooner or later the middle class will be hit with tax rate increases and loss of deductions/credits. That is if anyone truly wants a balanced budget.
Post Reply