U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Wells]

I don't see any reason to suspect the man will stand up to his more rabid party block.

[Willeonge]

The Republican party is a lot of things, but you can hardly claim they are willing to eat their own (even when the probably should.) Todd Aiken still stands a chance of getting a job FFS.

The party structure maybe, but the conservative movement that is a key part of the base? If we had a "liberal" Romney as President, why wouldn't someone else come along and challenge him, when the base (again, not party structure) would not want Romney. The thing Romney would have in his advantage would be money if a primary challenge like that happened. It would just be safer to pander to these people.

[KingHorse]

The party structure maybe, but the conservative movement that is a key part of the base? If we had a "liberal" Romney as President, why wouldn't someone else come along and challenge him, when the base (again, not party structure) would not want Romney. The thing Romney would have in his advantage would be money if a primary challenge like that happened. It would just be safer to pander to these people.

You underestimate the depth of party line tribalism. The base will vote for him simply because he calls himself a Republican. There would be absolutely no challenge to his reelection from within the party if he was the incumbent.

I don't see any reason to suspect the man will stand up to his more rabid party block.

Of course you don't. But I do: because he did so in his time as an elected official. He was bordering on flat out liberal as a Governor. Which is perfectly fine.

[Wells]

Of course you don't.

This tired drivel again?

But I do: because he did so in his time as an elected official. He was bordering on flat out liberal as a Governor. Which is perfectly fine.

And then when he found it to be politically expedient he took a hard sharp turn to the far right. It seems to me the most logical conclusion is that he fits his political positions to what is most expedient, given all the information we have about him.

[smelltheglove]

You underestimate the depth of party line tribalism. The base will vote for him simply because he calls himself a Republican. There would be absolutely no challenge to his reelection from within the party if he was the incumbent.

they can and have eaten their own. they still wont return michael steele's calls. not that im a fan of steele

[KingHorse]

This tired drivel again?

I'll tire of calling you blind to the flaws in your party when you notice the flaws in your party. You can be as tired of it as you like, I don't much care.

And then when he found it to be politically expedient he took a hard sharp turn to the far right. It seems to me the most logical conclusion is that he fits his political positions to what is most expedient, given all the information we have about him.

Given that he has governed solidly in the center, and only talked right wing, how is it logical at all, much less most logical, that he would govern any differently? As I see it, his record of governing hard center leads me to believe that he would (stay with me here) govern as hard center.

I could give a fuck what he says. His history is as a center right governor. He has not attempted to appease the crazies with anything more than words.

[Mnevis]

The Republican party is a lot of things, but you can hardly claim they are willing to eat their own (even when the probably should.) Todd Aiken still stands a chance of getting a job FFS.

Tell that to Dick Lugar, Mike Castle, Lisa Murkowski, Sue Lowden, and the rest of the moderate sitting Republicans who've gotten ousted by Tea Party candidates like your Richard Mourdocks and Christine O'Donnells. How dare they cooperate in Washington, that's not what Real Americans want.

It would be wild if Romney actually tries to govern as a sensible moderate (e.g., once he's in office he reverts to the position the Obamacare really is based on a Republican model and therefore not deserving of hate or repeals, and increasing top marginal tax rates is fine as it obviously worked to control the deficit and not destroy the economy in the past, and women's family planning rights should be protected), and then gets a serious primary challenger, say Rubio, in 2016.

In that case, I'd probably vote for Romney. I think both of those things are quite unlikely, however. The Republicans reluctantly accepted Romney because the rest of the candidates weren't electable, and Romney proved willing to assent to whatever he had to prove he was a "severe conservative." I think the best way to figure out what would happen at the national level is to look at what the GOPT has been doing at the state level, and in my eyes, it's not pretty.

Even your example doesn't really support your point. The GOP establishment tried like hell to get Aiken to step down, until their deadline for replacing him as candidate was passed. Their backing him now only supports the idea that principle can be subordinated to the desire for power.

[Wells]

I'll tire of calling you blind to the flaws in your party when you notice the flaws in your party. You can be as tired of it as you like, I don't much care.

When your response to seemingly every other thing I say is to mention I am in fact a liberal I don't think its my bias that is the issue.

Given that he has governed solidly in the center, and only talked right wing, how is it logical at all, much less most logical, that he would govern any differently? As I see it, his record of governing hard center leads me to believe that he would (stay with me here) govern as hard center.

I don't see how its valid to make predictions on his future behavior based solely on a small window of time. He's been politically active for years since he left the Governorship. You have to take those positions into account.

[smelltheglove]

I could give a fuck what he says. His history is as a center right governor. He has not attempted to appease the crazies with anything more than words.

he did make paul ryan his running mate

[KingHorse]

Even your example doesn't really support your point. The GOP establishment tried like hell to get Aiken to step down, until their deadline for replacing him as candidate was passed. Their backing him now only supports the idea that principle can be subordinated to the desire for power.

I'll clarify a bit, since it seems the Bud Light is filtering my meaning before it makes it to the page. I'm talking about the party base, the voters. Not the people they elect. I can understand how that may have been misunderstood from what I wrote, but please, take this as my correction to that post. The party base will vote for the guy with the [R] if the other person is anything else. In cases of a primary for any post, all bets are off, as the crazy base of both parties is more likely to give a shit about a primary than the rest of the world, and thus has a terribly imbalanced impact on primaries.

---------- Post added 2012-10-27 at 10:56 PM ----------

When your response to seemingly every other thing I say is to mention I am in fact a liberal I don't think its my bias that is the issue.

"Seemingly" being the operative word. Victim complex at work.
I do, indeed, point out absurdity when I have time to do so, but I point it out in both directions. You don't get butthurt when I call Oblivion on his BS, but when you get pointed out, oh lawdy, now there's an "issue" of some kind.

I don't see how its valid to make predictions on his future behavior based solely on a small window of time. He's been politically active for years since he left the Governorship. You have to take those positions into account.

So words count for more than actions now?

Because fuck reality!

[Mnevis]

Well, in that case (discount the establishment, discount the primary voters), maybe you'd have a good point, if Todd Akin were winning.

But his legitimate rape comments swung the race pretty heavily, like twelve points. He still has a chance, I suppose, and twelve points isn't every Missouri Republican, only about a quarter of them.

[KingHorse]

Well, in that case (discount the establishment, discount the primary voters), maybe you'd have a good point, if Todd Akin were winning.

But his legitimate rape comments swung the race pretty heavily, like twelve points. He still has a chance, I suppose, and twelve points isn't every Missouri Republican, only about a quarter of them.

FWIW I hope he loses hard enough to reconsider his beliefs. Not likely, but hope springs eternal and all that.

[Wells]

"Seemingly" being the operative word. Victim complex at work.
I do, indeed, point out absurdity when I have time to do so, but I point it out in both directions. You don't get butthurt when I call Oblivion on his BS, but when you get pointed out, oh lawdy, now there's an "issue" of some kind.

You know I manage, by the grace of god, to avoid bringing up your bias like its some kind of rational counter argument. I don't care what people say to Oblivion because since the mods have not done with him as I think they should I ignore him. It would be lovely if you managed to stick to the points of fact on an issue rather than dragging the people you disagree with personally into the issue. "You're biased" is not a fact. Its not a testable theory in this context. Its nothing. At best its a nonsequiter and at worst its just an ad hominem in disguise. And in either case its pure intellectual masturbatory self indulgence.

So words count for more than actions now?

I didn't say that. But I think its pretty foolish to ignore everything he's said for years because back when he was moderate. The man has taken contradictory positions on almost every issue for years now. To me that shows a politician who will hold the position that is convenient.

[KingHorse]

You know I manage, by the grace of god, to avoid bringing up your bias like its some kind of rational counter argument. I don't care what people say to Oblivion because since the mods have not done with him as I think they should I ignore him. It would be lovely if you managed to stick to the points of fact on an issue rather than dragging the people you disagree with personally into the issue. "You're biased" is not a fact. Its not a testable theory in this context. Its nothing. At best its a nonsequiter and at worst its just an ad hominem in disguise.

When I see completely irrational arguments that the presenter can't back up with anything factual, I tend to attribute it to bias. If I'm wrong, feel free to tell me from whence the irrationality comes.

Edit: 10 beers in, so you'll have to excuse my lack of speed on the uptake of your meaning here. I don't treat your bias as a counter argument. I point out your bias, then provide a counter argument. You then read the post, can't get past me bagging on your for your bias, and react to that, ignoring any other argument.

I didn't say that. But I think its pretty foolish to ignore everything he's said for years because back when he was moderate. The man has taken contradictory positions on almost every issue for years now. To me that shows a politician who will hold the position that is convenient.

So %100 of his actions and %50 of his words have been moderate, and to you that means that he will be a foaming at the mouth, cliffs edge right wing rubber stamp for a rabid Congress. It's time for one of those detailed explanations of why I'm wrong for seeing bias. Tell me why you think all of his actions and half of his rhetoric will suddenly shift direction.

[Wells]

I didn't say foaming at the mouth either. My position is pretty clear on this. I don't think he'll stand against the more rabid members of his party that are actively purging moderates because it will be politically damaging to do so. He needs their support. He won't get it from dems and if he stands against the far right he risks losing it from the GOP.

[therayeffect]

Based on the small amount of reading I've done you guys seem to be vastly over-estimating the amount of actual power the President has to make the laws. Even if Mittens wins the election (hard to see with those Ohio numbers, guess the Republicans shouldn't have shit on so many of their voters with all of their terrible antivote laws) there's almost no chance that the republicans are going to gain control of the senate (even if they did they wouldn't get the super majority) and we'll get exactly the same thing we've had this last two years but in reverse. A Democrat senate blocking a Republican house and President. Nothing is going to get done with our current politics no matter the results.

What I really don't understand though is what happened to all of the moderate Republicans? Where the fuck did they go? If they still exist, why the hell are they so quiet and why are they letting their party be run by nutcases? It feels like 2/3rds of the Right just went and up disappeared or all snapped and went crazy on us.

[KingHorse]

Based on the small amount of reading I've done you guys seem to be vastly over-estimating the amount of actual power the President has to make the laws. Even if Mittens wins the election (hard to see with those Ohio numbers, guess the Republicans shouldn't have shit on so many of their voters with all of their terrible antivote laws) there's almost no chance that the republicans are going to gain control of the senate (even if they did they wouldn't get the super majority) and we'll get exactly the same thing we've had this last two years but in reverse. A Democrat senate blocking a Republican house and President. Nothing is going to get done with our current politics no matter the results.

History has indicated that Democrats are more willing to compromise than Republicans. A Romney presidency would lead to much work actually getting done. Arguments can be made about what good said work would do, but bills would be passed either way.

---------- Post added 2012-10-27 at 11:37 PM ----------

I didn't say foaming at the mouth either. My position is pretty clear on this. I don't think he'll stand against the more rabid members of his party that are actively purging moderates because it will be politically damaging to do so. He needs their support. He won't get it from dems and if he stands against the far right he risks losing it from the GOP.

So your proof that he won't do what he's always done, and what he usually says he will do, is that you don't think he will.

OK then.

[Wells]

So your proof that he won't do what he's always done, and what he usually says he will do, is that you don't think he will.

I've been perfectly clear. He's going to want to do things. To do anything he's going to need his party's support. That means not cockblocking social conservative efforts. What is so much of a stretch there?

[KingHorse]

To do anything he's going to need his party's support.

Yep!

What is so much of a stretch there?

This part:

That means not cockblocking social conservative efforts.

Wrong. As you've stated yourself, Republicans stick together above all other causes, even those that should be well ahead of party lines. So by your own logic, the party leader (President Romney) would lead his own party to the middle.

[therayeffect]

History has indicated that Democrats are more willing to compromise than Republicans. A Romney presidency would lead to much work actually getting done. Arguments can be made about what good said work would do, but bills would be passed either way.

---------- Post added 2012-10-27 at 11:37 PM ----------



So your proof that he won't do what he's always done, and what he usually says he will do, is that you don't think he will.

OK then.

I don't recall any time in history when both sides have been so opposed to work with each other on such a broad scale though. On top of that the amount of NO that the Republicans have been screaming and by just how insanely far right they've gone (See the 1800s), Democrats risk their own jobs if they work with people who've signed the Grover Norquist pledge, who think rape can be "illegitimate" or a "gift from God", think that Colin Powel can't see passed his own skin color, and don't have any qualms about lying to everyone's faces and then laughing about it later. Democrats are no saints but damn the Republican party is scaring the shit out of me. "American Taliban" is sort of a nickname that comes to mind. They aren't violent but they feel like they have the same ideals. I just don't understand what happened to the moderates and reasonable people. This is negatively affecting the Left now too, because we're starting to see the 'kickback' from the right's extremism and developing extremism of our own and I really don't want to see that. The moment our politics turns into a true "Us Vs. Them" is the moment I see dire consequences for our country and subsequently the world.