U.S. 2012 Election

[Otto-matic]

The fundies were unlikely to support him anyway. He has however likely taken a large chunk of gay republican voting. Whichever republican he's up against can't do the same or they'll lose the fundies.

Down side - he may have lost the catholics.

[skitzor]

I'm more and more inclined to think that country is going to be ruled by the religious nutbag come the election, the fundies won't stand for supporting gay marriage.

the people that would vote based on this decision would have never voted for obama. I have trouble seeing Romney win. from what I read/hear, the Republican party knows this, so all the serious candidates aren't bothering running because it would do more harm than good. for proof of this just look at the Republican nominee race between Romney, Gingrich and Santorum. the amount of **** they threw at each other was amazing. none of them have a chance of winning another nominee race.

I think if the Republicans concentrate too much on the gay marriage thing, the Democrats will just concentrate on the real issues, whilst telling everyone they are concentrating on the real issues, and the Republicans are wasting everyone's time.

[Nekosan]

I think if the Republicans concentrate too much on the gay marriage thing, the Democrats will just concentrate on the real issues, whilst telling everyone they are concentrating on the real issues, and the Republicans are wasting everyone's time.

That's what amazes me about US politics, the republicans have just flung **** in all directions for the last 6 months and yet they still have voters, I can't comprehend how a political party can just be that nutball and people still vote for them because "I'm a republican"... like it even means the same thing as it did in the 60's.

I've long thought that I can't see Obama losing, if the republicans seemed even remotely interested in winning they could do it but they just don't seem to care. It makes no sense considering how many more people WON'T vote for Obama because of race this time.

[Sathias]

I think if the Republicans concentrate too much on the gay marriage thing, the Democrats will just concentrate on the real issues, whilst telling everyone they are concentrating on the real issues, and the Republicans are wasting everyone's time.

That's what amazes me about US politics, the republicans have just flung **** in all directions for the last 6 months and yet they still have voters, I can't comprehend how a political party can just be that nutball and people still vote for them because "I'm a republican"... like it even means the same thing as it did in the 60's.

So like the Liberals here then?

[Datafunk]

So like the Liberals here then?

not just liberals, people will always vote labour as well... my gran and pa ect.

[Nekosan]

So like the Liberals here then?

not just liberals, people will always vote labour as well... my gran and pa ect.

At least the libs/labour always touch on reality in some way though, the US parties are just hate mongering half the time.

[Jez]

At least the libs/labour always touch on reality in some way though, the US parties are just hate mongering half the time.

I think it's because in the US they have to spend so much of their time "getting out the vote", so they have to create this huge gulf (or at least a perceived gulf) in their policies in order to excite the extreme/dedicated political groups that a lot of grassroots activism is based around.

[Kremmen]

At least the libs/labour always touch on reality in some way though, the US parties are just hate mongering half the time.

I think it's because in the US they have to spend so much of their time "getting out the vote", so they have to create this huge gulf (or at least a perceived gulf) in their policies in order to excite the extreme/dedicated political groups that a lot of grassroots activism is based around.

Opposed to Australia where it is just a popularity contest because 90% of the population have no clue about policy from either party.

I am sure this will be disputed, but my memory has not gone yet and do recall a statement made in these forums (poorly paraphrased) politics is a bit too hard for the average Australian to understand.

[Jeatalong]

Democracy is just a race to the bottom when voters are allowed to vote without understanding what they are voting for.

I would actually like to see some restrictions on who can vote, whether it be done by test or what not, just so people can demonstrate that they can be objective and have the ability to reason weak arguments from strong ones.

[Nekosan]

Democracy is just a race to the bottom when voters are allowed to vote without understanding what they are voting for.

I would actually like to see some restrictions on who can vote, whether it be done by test or what not, just so people can demonstrate that they can be objective and have the ability to reason weak arguments from strong ones.

That can't work, who decides who is fit to vote? Once you start restricting a citizens right to vote things just spiral downward. Besides, it's not like politics has ever NOT been a popularity race.


Politics isn't innately too hard for the average Australian to understand, the problem is that the nature of the game means that the majority of pollies don't WANT people to understand.

[skitzor]

so the first debate has just been which is a fairly large milestone in the race.

I only managed to catch the last half hour of it, and was surprised at how different Romney was. he was not only a better talker than in the past, but it seems like he has changed a large deal of his political ideologies as well.

a good article that concentrates on this point is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opini ... .html?_r=0

I'm not surprised a lot of USA are calling this a Romney win. he spouted myth after lie after myth, and Obama didn't call him on anything.

maybe the Obama camp wasn't prepared for this line of attack from Romney. I do hope the second debate Obama is more aggressive.

[SaNE]

Romney also had to have the last word on everything, he just ignored the spokesperson and continued until he stopped talking so he could have the last word on nearly every subject.

Obama through the whole debate just let him continue to do it and acted like he was above it, giving a bit of a disagreeing smirk on a few occasions. It seemed he was unphased by the debate and went with the flow, instead of being on the attack like they had previously implied there were going to do.

[Kremmen]

Prior to the debate

[Ralph Wiggum]

I was watching Lateline Thursday night where a U.S. political expert was recalling how historically, the incumbent President has never come out best during the first debate. So basically George W. Bush, Clinton and Reagan didn't do so well, but they ended up winning a second term. I guess it's always easier to attack the guy who's doing the job, rather than criticising someone who isn't actually doing it. Nonetheless I think Romney has shot himself in the foot enough times that even a good first performance won't save him.

[Mearehear]

I think you hit the nail on the head there. It's far easier to try and make a case against the Presidents previous term than it is to point out the flaws in someone yet to hold that position.

Personally I dread the thought of a Romney America, to me it seems like handing over control to the kind of people that messed it up in the first place.