Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   GOP candidates this year would like to take their traditional "national security" platform plank, give George W. Bush a few whacks with it for letting Obama get all the headlines   (cnn.com ) divider line 142
    More: Amusing, human beings, President Obama, GOP, President George W. Bush, Senator John Kerry, Adlai Stevenson, End of World War II in Europe, Jimmy Carter  
•       •       •

2681 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Mar 2012 at 9:50 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-14 10:37:37 AM  

wippit: Seriously... the US should just join Canada.

We have oil
We have banks that aren't dying
We have a (relatively) normal government
We have decriminalized marijuana
We have legalized gay marriage
You have warm places to go in winter.
You have more scantily-clad women per capita.

It's a win/win.


I think that as soon as you get Americans voting, most of those would change.
 
2012-03-14 10:37:42 AM  

qorkfiend: Party Boy: The GOP is overdue for a major ideological overhaul.

The problem is that the GOP's ideology has not shown itself to be a (severe) electoral liability, so they have no incentive to overhaul anything.

They won in 2000, 2002, and 2004.
Losses in 2006 and 2008 are almost solely attributable to George W. Bush and not their ideology as a whole.
2010 was a smashing success.
2012 doesn't look like it's shaping up to be the sort of crushinating that would be required - even if Obama wins the GOP will probably hold the House and take the Senate - and there's roughly a 50% chance they'll sweep and end up with both Houses of Congress and the White House for the second time in 10 years.

This last one is the dangerous scenario; all this nonsense going on at the state level - contraception, abortion, voter ID, union-busting, privatization, etc. - are trial balloons to test public response and judicial feasibility. If they can get most of the populations of large, purple, relatively diverse industrial states - Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Virginia - and the courts to accept these laws, I have no doubts that they'll try to enact them (plus a few more pet projects like the Ryan plan, SOPA/PIPA, repeal of PPACA, Keystone XL, military action against Iran, tax cuts, reinstatement of DOMA and DADT) on a federal level. This is why I don't think you'd see any great difference between a Santorum Administration and a Romney Administration; they'd both sign anything a GOP-dominated Congress sent them.


Lets take a look at this.

• They won in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

The failures of Neoconservative foreign policy and of supply side, deregulatory neoliberal economic policies had not exploded in anyones faces.

• Losses in 2006 and 2008 are almost solely attributable to George W. Bush and not their ideology as a whole.

Exactly how do you argue you can separate these two. I'm interested how you can make this argument, as it is going to be where your whole argument rests.

• 2010 was a smashing success.

No it wasn't. Plus, the obstructionist tactics are alienating voters.

The GOP has married itself to a frankenstein of neoconservative foreign policy and neoliberal economic policies. The Frankenstein is loose and, along with the rabble populist "sekret muslim" group, its choking the life out of the party.
 
2012-03-14 10:38:42 AM  

Headso: Curious why you would consider that poll "stout methodology" where Reuters is not.


Step one. Find the Reuters methodology.
 
2012-03-14 10:39:31 AM  

qorkfiend: wippit: Seriously... the US should just join Canada.

We have oil
We have banks that aren't dying
We have a (relatively) normal government
We have decriminalized marijuana
We have legalized gay marriage
You have warm places to go in winter.
You have more scantily-clad women per capita.

It's a win/win.

I think that as soon as you get Americans voting, most of those would change.


Yeah, how about you just let the northern half of the U.S. join?
 
2012-03-14 10:40:17 AM  

cc_rider: This whole operation could have been executed correctly in 2001, and we could have gotten the people who actually planned 9/11, and been in and out of there in under 2 years.


You think the people that greenlighted 9/11 were from Afghanistan? lol, Even the offical story is moronic, so these hijackers had a little training camp pow wow in Afghanistan for a week or two and then proceeded to...............move to the U.S. where they lived for years learning how to fly and all of this justifies continual occupation of......Afghanistan? Using that logic, the U.S. too should be invaded for harboring terrorist as well, for a hell of a lot longer.

The american people went collectively full retard on 9/11. Critical thinking must have been suspended for national security reasons.

Oh, and Usama Bin Laden didn't mastermind it nor did Obama kill him in May of 2011. You are all being lied to.
 
2012-03-14 10:40:27 AM  

lennavan: qorkfiend: wippit: Seriously... the US should just join Canada.

We have oil
We have banks that aren't dying
We have a (relatively) normal government
We have decriminalized marijuana
We have legalized gay marriage
You have warm places to go in winter.
You have more scantily-clad women per capita.

It's a win/win.

I think that as soon as you get Americans voting, most of those would change.

Yeah, how about you just let the northern half of the U.S. join?


yglesias.thinkprogress.org
 
2012-03-14 10:41:48 AM  

Death to New Rome: so these hijackers had a little training camp pow wow in Afghanistan for a week or two


bin Laden lived in Afghanistan for years. You idiot.
 
2012-03-14 10:42:40 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: bin Laden lived in Afghanistan for years. You idiot.


He didn't mastermind 9/11. You idiot.
 
2012-03-14 10:43:24 AM  
If it wasn't for Reagan giving Osama and the Taliban all those guns in the 80's, then there wouldn't be a Bin Laden for Obama to take out.

Put that in your bong and smoke it, libs
 
2012-03-14 10:43:37 AM  

Sock Ruh Tease:

Yeah, how about you just let the northern half of the U.S. join?

[yglesias.thinkprogress.org image 400x394]


memedepot.com
 
2012-03-14 10:44:00 AM  

Death to New Rome: cc_rider: This whole operation could have been executed correctly in 2001, and we could have gotten the people who actually planned 9/11, and been in and out of there in under 2 years.

You think the people that greenlighted 9/11 were from Afghanistan? lol, Even the offical story is moronic, so these hijackers had a little training camp pow wow in Afghanistan for a week or two and then proceeded to...............move to the U.S. where they lived for years learning how to fly and all of this justifies continual occupation of......Afghanistan? Using that logic, the U.S. too should be invaded for harboring terrorist as well, for a hell of a lot longer.

The american people went collectively full retard on 9/11. Critical thinking must have been suspended for national security reasons.

Oh, and Usama Bin Laden didn't mastermind it nor did Obama kill him in May of 2011. You are all being lied to.


Okay... but what does any of that have to do with the GOP's problems with national security?
 
2012-03-14 10:45:21 AM  
FTFA: "During the build up to Super Tuesday, Republican presidential candidates other than Ron Paul turned to another classic campaign theme - national security. Responding to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to the United States, the candidates castigated President Obama, saying he was being too timid about Iran and promising that if elected, they would be willing to use force against Iran.

The Republicans have also assured voters that they would never apologize for U.S. actions, as the president did to the Afghan government following the burning of a Koran by some U.S. soldiers. Mitt Romney warned that, "if Barack Obama gets re-elected, Iran will have a nuclear weapon" while Newt Gingrich said that, with Iran, the United States was 'being played for fools.'"


Because Americans haven't had enough cowboy politics and American military deaths. Stay the course, GOP, you know exactly what America needs.
 
2012-03-14 10:47:23 AM  

Sock Ruh Tease: lennavan: qorkfiend: wippit: Seriously... the US should just join Canada.

We have oil
We have banks that aren't dying
We have a (relatively) normal government
We have decriminalized marijuana
We have legalized gay marriage
You have warm places to go in winter.
You have more scantily-clad women per capita.

It's a win/win.

I think that as soon as you get Americans voting, most of those would change.

Yeah, how about you just let the northern half of the U.S. join?

[yglesias.thinkprogress.org image 400x394]


[okaywiththis]

/Wait, is New Jersey included? 0_o
//Meh, Stewarts from NJ, so the place gets a pass.
///See also: the Boss.
 
2012-03-14 10:47:34 AM  

James!: Okay... but what does any of that have to do with the GOP's problems with national security?


The GOP are perfectly happy with Obama's national security strategy. It's the same as Bush's. In fact the policies are a lot easier to implement now with Obama in office. That is why he will win again in 2012. That's all I'm saying.
 
2012-03-14 10:50:43 AM  

qorkfiend: wippit: Seriously... the US should just join Canada.

We have oil

true

We have banks that aren't dying

true

We have a (relatively) normal government

we effectively have a benevolent dictatorship. The US has a stronger representational government although dumber voters.

We have decriminalized marijuana

notsomuch anymore

We have legalized gay marriage

true

You have warm places to go in winter.
You have more scantily-clad women per capita.

You get Montreal which has the hottest women per capia in the world

It's a win/win.

I think that as soon as you get Americans voting, most of those would change.


I've been watching the legislation passing lately in Canada and the pattern developing and I like Canada about 20% less then I did last year. The US is only about 3 fundamental policy changes away from being cooler than Canada in my mind.
 
2012-03-14 10:53:39 AM  

Party Boy: Lets take a look at this.

• They won in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

The failures of Neoconservative foreign policy and of supply side, deregulatory neoliberal economic policies had not exploded in anyones faces.


Granted.

• Losses in 2006 and 2008 are almost solely attributable to George W. Bush and not their ideology as a whole.

Exactly how do you argue you can separate these two. I'm interested how you can make this argument, as it is going to be where your whole argument rests.


I think a driving factor in 2006 was not the war itself, but the utter incompetence with which it was waged. Many argue that the magnitude of the losses in '06 could have been offset by replacing Don Rumsfeld before the election, instead of after, suggesting that it was the questionable execution of the war that made the difference in many people's minds.

In 2008, the GOP repudiated George W. almost entirely, but ran on the same basic platform, and still pulled in almost 50% of the vote.

• 2010 was a smashing success.

No it wasn't. Plus, the obstructionist tactics are alienating voters.


It was, by most measures, extremely successful. The GOP swept into power in many state legislatures and governorships, in a key election that decides who gets to draw Congressional districts, and took the House back from the Democrats, while running on a platform entirely comprised of ideology and devoid of policy. It could have been slightly more successful in the Senate, but I'd argue that was a failing of individual candidates and not the platform; ideological but competent candidates like Rand Paul won, terrible candidates like Christine O'Donnell lost.

The obstructionist tactics aren't alienating their core voting blocs; if anything, it's energizing them, while making others apathetic.

The GOP has married itself to a frankenstein of neoconservative foreign policy and neoliberal economic policies. The Frankenstein is loose and, along with the rabble populist "sekret muslim" group, its choking the life out of the party.

I definitely agree with that, I just think it'll take a bit more time to develop.
 
2012-03-14 10:54:15 AM  

Death to New Rome: James!: Okay... but what does any of that have to do with the GOP's problems with national security?

The GOP are perfectly happy with Obama's national security strategy. It's the same as Bush's. In fact the policies are a lot easier to implement now with Obama in office. That is why he will win again in 2012. That's all I'm saying.


imgs.xkcd.com



Seemed appropriate to the discussion somehow.
 
2012-03-14 11:00:11 AM  

Aar1012: Oh please.l.everyone knows that Obama managed to get those national security headlines because of Bush's policies. Bush is owed the credit and the GOP should celebrate President Bush


Yes, and by this logic Clinton gets credit because Bush followed all his recommendations about Bin laden and for prevented 911...oh wait.
 
2012-03-14 11:01:29 AM  

Death to New Rome: cameroncrazy1984: bin Laden lived in Afghanistan for years. You idiot.

He didn't mastermind 9/11. You idiot.


Is this where you say we should have attacked Israel?
 
2012-03-14 11:01:53 AM  

Death to New Rome: James!: Okay... but what does any of that have to do with the GOP's problems with national security?

The GOP are perfectly happy with Obama's national security strategy. It's the same as Bush's. In fact the policies are a lot easier to implement now with Obama in office. That is why he will win again in 2012. That's all I'm saying.


If Obama's national security strategy was the same as Bush's, then why did Obama have to restart the bin Laden office, actually find bin Laden within 2 years (versus Bush not finding him in seven) and actually pull out of Iraq and increase troops in Afghanistan? Literally none of those things are the same as Bush.
 
2012-03-14 11:02:16 AM  

qorkfiend: I think a driving factor in 2006 was not the war itself, but the utter incompetence with which it was waged.


Lets see how you plan to separate the two.

qorkfiend: In 2008, the GOP repudiated George W. almost entirely, but ran on the same basic platform, and still pulled in almost 50% of the vote.


Its why they lost. They had to distance themselves from the policies, without doing so since the party was married to (in this case) neoconservative foreign policy. McCain was married to the neoconservatives earlier than Bush (even during the 1990's), but still kept him on while the polls showed how he needed to separate himself from Bush.
Cognitive dissonance from a party unable to jettison the Neocons. Loser strategy.

qorkfiend: It was, by most measures, extremely successful. The GOP swept into power in many state legislatures and governorships, in a key election that decides who gets to draw Congressional districts, and took the House back from the Democrats, while running on a platform entirely comprised of ideology and devoid of policy. It could have been slightly more successful in the Senate, but I'd argue that was a failing of individual candidates and not the platform; ideological but competent candidates like Rand Paul won, terrible candidates like Christine O'Donnell lost.


Stepping over a dollar to pick up a quarter.
See how well thats working out outside of a mid-term election. A similar fark up occurred in the mid 1990's with a certain sputnik sized cranium running as a GOP contender.
 
2012-03-14 11:02:59 AM  

Death to New Rome: James!: Okay... but what does any of that have to do with the GOP's problems with national security?

The GOP are perfectly happy with Obama's national security strategy. It's the same as Bush's. In fact the policies are a lot easier to implement now with Obama in office. That is why he will win again in 2012. That's all I'm saying.


Would you say that it's all a conspiracy? A great ruse that only you and a few like minded fellows can see?
 
2012-03-14 11:04:38 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: If Obama's national security strategy was the same as Bush's, then why did Obama have to restart the bin Laden office, actually find bin Laden within 2 years (versus Bush not finding him in seven) and actually pull out of Iraq and increase troops in Afghanistan? Literally none of those things are the same as Bush.


Well, you see, Obama remains as black as ever. So shut up, dim.
 
2012-03-14 11:06:24 AM  

qorkfiend: there's roughly a 50% chance they'll sweep and end up with both Houses of Congress and the White House for the second time in 10 years.


I'm having some trouble believing the arithmetic here. I think the likelihood of this scenario is more like 10%-15% - mostly because I think the likelihood of an Obama loss alone is somewhere around 20% at most.
 
2012-03-14 11:06:42 AM  

Death to New Rome: cameroncrazy1984: bin Laden lived in Afghanistan for years. You idiot.

He didn't mastermind 9/11. You idiot.


Based on what evidence? Do you know who did, in that case? If you can say definitively that he didn't do it, you must have proof, right?
 
2012-03-14 11:07:32 AM  

sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: If Obama's national security strategy was the same as Bush's, then why did Obama have to restart the bin Laden office, actually find bin Laden within 2 years (versus Bush not finding him in seven) and actually pull out of Iraq and increase troops in Afghanistan? Literally none of those things are the same as Bush.

Well, you see, Obama remains as black as ever. So shut up, dim.


Ah, yes. I had not considered that.
 
2012-03-14 11:08:38 AM  

Party Boy: Headso: Curious why you would consider that poll "stout methodology" where Reuters is not.

Step one. Find the Reuters methodology.


ok, let me ask you this, based on the actions of the US in the past and rueters being accurate in past polls regarding things like elections is there reason to doubt their accuracy here?
 
2012-03-14 11:08:59 AM  

Party Boy: kept him on while the polls


I edited that sentence into crap.

kept him on = Guys like Randy Scheunemann, etc..
 
2012-03-14 11:14:23 AM  

BMulligan: I think the likelihood of an Obama loss alone is somewhere around 20% at most.


Agreed. Romney is about as weak an opponent as Obama could have hoped for, and this primary has been brutal on him.

Obama could still lose, but it'd take either some sort of disaster (an economic collapse, say) or a scandal for that to happen. Essentially; as long as he doesn't fark up, he has it in the bag.
 
2012-03-14 11:15:26 AM  

Aar1012: Oh please.l.everyone knows that Obama managed to get those national security headlines because of Bush's policies.


It's so adorable when you pretend to know things.
 
2012-03-14 11:15:28 AM  

wippit: Seriously... the US should just join Canada.

We have oil
We have banks that aren't dying
We have a (relatively) normal government
We have decriminalized marijuana
We have legalized gay marriage
You have warm places to go in winter.
You have more scantily-clad women per capita.

It's a win/win.


hockey sucks. No deal.
 
2012-03-14 11:16:13 AM  

Party Boy: Lets see how you plan to separate the two.


We can see from the actions of the Obama administration - also fairly neoliberal in foreign policy - that competence can go a long ways. Most people don't care about Libya because it was handled competently.

Party Boy: Its why they lost. They had to distance themselves from the policies, without doing so since the party was married to (in this case) neoconservative foreign policy. McCain was married to the neoconservatives earlier than Bush (even during the 1990's), but still kept him on while the polls showed how he needed to separate himself from Bush.
Cognitive dissonance from a party unable to jettison the Neocons. Loser strategy.


Right. They couldn't - or wouldn't - jettison the neocons, and still weren't crushed to the point they'd have to rethink the basics.

Party Boy: Stepping over a dollar to pick up a quarter.
See how well thats working out outside of a mid-term election. A similar fark up occurred in the mid 1990's with a certain sputnik sized cranium running as a GOP contender.


Sure, it's not viable long-term, but their ideology has definitely translated into short-term electoral victories. As we can see from some of the legislative agendas in certain states, sometimes that's all that's needed.
 
2012-03-14 11:16:51 AM  
If you took a "generic", "average" (in the sense of "median", since there's no other real way to average out Fundies and Hippies) voter in the United States, and asked him his policy positions, they would be very close to Obama's. This goes with national security. I think the American public is okay with using the Air Force to support uprisings such as in Libya from the air, and they love killing terrorists like Osama. They don't like massive invasions like Iraq, and want Afghanistan wound down.

Now, Obama's not a "peacenik", but he's not a "neo con" as some have suggested above.

I also don't think his policy positions are that different from Romney's, especially once Romney takes office. People say shiat on the campaign trail all the time that, once they actually become President, they realize is impossible to do. For example, Obama wanted to close Gitmo. But, that is impossible in the real world (the only way to do that would be to release everybody there into the United States proper-yeah, that's going to happen). If Romney actually became President, he would realize the consequences of bombing Iran, for instance.

Now, if Santorum became President, he probably wouldn't care about the political realities because Jesus told him to bomb the Muslims...
 
2012-03-14 11:17:46 AM  
I should have said Romney's foreign policy positions aren' that different from Obama's. Lot's of differences in domestic policy.
 
2012-03-14 11:18:49 AM  

Headso: ok, let me ask you this, based on the actions of the US in the past and rueters being accurate in past polls regarding things like elections is there reason to doubt their accuracy here?


You have not accomplished step one.

Here is your second problem.

is there reason to doubt their accuracy here?

Lets see where you started with this. ok, let me ask you this, based on the actions of the US in the past and rueters being accurate in past polls regarding things like elections is there reason to doubt their accuracy here?

You made this assumption first here

Headso: Curious why you would consider that poll "stout methodology" where Reuters is not.

From a post where that assumption was not made.

Party Boy: Headso: you look at the polls the majority of Americans think it is a great idea to use military force against Iran.

I need to see the questions and methodology.

A quick google search:
The poll you mention (also) says: The Reuters/Ipsos poll also found that 62 percent of Americans would back Israel taking military action against Iran for the same reasons.

Another poll, with transparent and stout methodology:
An Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear program is opposed by three out of four Americans, according to a poll by the University of Maryland and the Program on International Policy Attitudes.



I will do a quick google search. I'm sure the first page of reuters poll poor methodology has a complaint of that. Ok. Here it is. shiatty link/source. Its also a shiatty argument. You have to analyse the poll itself on its own merits, rather than commit to a fallacious argument. I'm not keen on that. Here is the proper method.

Step 1. Find the Reuters methodology.
 
2012-03-14 11:19:27 AM  

Jake Havechek: Plus I was amused by the "Obama is doing nothing!" when Libya started up, then the teabagger asswipes changed their tune to "we're at war with Libya!" when he did do something.


Sorta like how it was "OMG where's the birth certificate?" turned to "OMG fake!" There's no point in trying to satisfy some people.
 
2012-03-14 11:20:41 AM  

Party Boy: qorkfiend: I think a driving factor in 2006 was not the war itself, but the utter incompetence with which it was waged.

Lets see how you plan to separate the two.

qorkfiend: In 2008, the GOP repudiated George W. almost entirely, but ran on the same basic platform, and still pulled in almost 50% of the vote.

Its why they lost. They had to distance themselves from the policies, without doing so since the party was married to (in this case) neoconservative foreign policy. McCain was married to the neoconservatives earlier than Bush (even during the 1990's), but still kept him on while the polls showed how he needed to separate himself from Bush.
Cognitive dissonance from a party unable to jettison the Neocons. Loser strategy.

qorkfiend: It was, by most measures, extremely successful. The GOP swept into power in many state legislatures and governorships, in a key election that decides who gets to draw Congressional districts, and took the House back from the Democrats, while running on a platform entirely comprised of ideology and devoid of policy. It could have been slightly more successful in the Senate, but I'd argue that was a failing of individual candidates and not the platform; ideological but competent candidates like Rand Paul won, terrible candidates like Christine O'Donnell lost.

Stepping over a dollar to pick up a quarter.
See how well thats working out outside of a mid-term election. A similar fark up occurred in the mid 1990's with a certain sputnik sized cranium running as a GOP contender.


McCain lost because he picked Palin and was seen as unprepared for the recession (he prefered foreign policy over domestic). The Republicans won in 2010 due to a bit of blowback from the health care bill plus the fact that a lot of Democratic voters don't tend to vote in midterms.
 
2012-03-14 11:22:00 AM  

sprawl15: Death to New Rome: cameroncrazy1984: bin Laden lived in Afghanistan for years. You idiot.

He didn't mastermind 9/11. You idiot.

Is this where you say we should have attacked Israel?


That's the only rational response to the Zionist/NeoLiberal Conspiracy. You see, the reverse vampires have falled out of power in the Illuminati, allowing the JAMS to gain headway, therefore splitting the Pentad with the Shadow Cabal, with the remaining vote going to the Glorious Descendents of Greater Atlantis.

If you really understood the truth, you'd fear the day between April 30th and May 1st much more than the end of the Mayan Calendar in December.

But seriously. It was the Jews.
 
2012-03-14 11:22:43 AM  

qorkfiend: We can see from the actions of the Obama administration - also fairly neoliberal in foreign policy


Party Boy: failures of Neoconservative foreign policy and of supply side, deregulatory neoliberal economic policies


You've swapped terms.

qorkfiend: still weren't crushed to the point they'd have to rethink the basics.


They Lost. They're really farking it now.

qorkfiend: Sure, it's not viable long-term, but their ideology has definitely translated into short-term electoral victories. As we can see from some of the legislative agendas in certain states, sometimes that's all that's needed.


Its devolved into "hurr, derp, obama," since neoconservative foreign policy and supply side economic policy has jumped the shark.

Party Boy: The GOP is overdue for a major ideological overhaul.

 
2012-03-14 11:22:44 AM  

Last Man on Earth: SlothB77: I have a primary question:

Romney - 489
Santorum - 234
Gingrich - 139

Can Gingrich turn around and endorse Santorum and ask that all his delegates be pledged to Santorum and ask that all his supporters vote for Santorum here on out? In return Santorum promises to make him his running mate or something. The upshot being that the current race would tighten up to:

Romeny - 489
Santorum/ Gingrich - 373

And the Santorum/ Gingrich merger would make future elections much closer with Santorum as the favorite over Romney in many.

Of course this assumes Gingrich would concede. Although, he doesn't really have a shot of winning this on his own.

It's possible to pledge his delegates, sure, but why would he at this juncture? There's no real question that Gingrich's voters would more likely go for Santorum than Romney, and his current backer isn't financing him to win, just to keep drawing votes away from Santorum so Romney can edge him out. Look at Hawaii and Ohio: Romney won, but not by anywhere near enough. If Gingrich hadn't been there to split the fringe vote, Santorum would have pulled ahead. In the Santorum-heavy areas like the south, it would be a landslide. Gingrich went in saying he'd drop out if he lost last night, but he's backing away from that now.

Ultimately, what Gingrich wants is not to win, but to have enough delegates by the primary that he can throw behind whichever candidate will give him a sweeter payday. Secretary of State is the traditional post for guys with his number of delegates, but if he gets enough, he might even be able to force his way into the VP slot, purely by promising enough delegates to break a close heat.


Eewwww.
 
2012-03-14 11:23:52 AM  

Geotpf: McCain lost because he picked Palin


McCain was down a bunch of points pre Palin.
 
2012-03-14 11:24:42 AM  

Party Boy: You have not accomplished step one.


I don't plan on it either, so lets move on and tell me if you believe that based on the actions of America in the past if your poll reflects the most likely outcome or the one I cited does. Keep in mind I am just asking your opinion here. To me it just doesn't seem intuitive that Americans would not want to rush into military conflict. When we have done so so.many.times.in.the.past.
 
2012-03-14 11:27:19 AM  

BMulligan: qorkfiend: there's roughly a 50% chance they'll sweep and end up with both Houses of Congress and the White House for the second time in 10 years.

I'm having some trouble believing the arithmetic here. I think the likelihood of this scenario is more like 10%-15% - mostly because I think the likelihood of an Obama loss alone is somewhere around 20% at most.


Chances are close to 100% for the GOP to hold the House and take the Senate, regardless of the presidential outcome, so I'm taking a GOP-controlled Congress as a given. I typically view the presidential contests as coin flips (Obama won with just over 50%, and the most recent polling numbers are depressing). It seems very unlikely that a GOP presidential victory would simultaneously result in Democratic control of at least one house of Congress.

The two most likely outcomes in my mind are 1) GOP Congress, Democrat President, and 2) GOP Congress, GOP President, and right now I see the chances as about evenly split.
 
2012-03-14 11:28:42 AM  

Headso: I don't plan on it either


Well, that sucks.

Headso: Keep in mind I am just asking your opinion here. To me it just doesn't seem intuitive that Americans would not want to rush into military conflict.


Opinions about national feelings tend to simply reflect the persons own biases. You need hard info on that. In this case, that means a properly designed poll. That brings us back to the original point.
 
2012-03-14 11:28:51 AM  

Party Boy: Geotpf: McCain lost because he picked Palin

McCain was down a bunch of points pre Palin.


And after Palin, he got a minor convention bump followed by a massive drop when she first opened her mouth outside of a scripted speech.

If you're insinuating she -helped- him, I think you may be wrong.
 
2012-03-14 11:31:30 AM  

Party Boy: Headso: I don't plan on it either

Well, that sucks.

Headso: Keep in mind I am just asking your opinion here. To me it just doesn't seem intuitive that Americans would not want to rush into military conflict.

Opinions about national feelings tend to simply reflect the persons own biases. You need hard info on that. In this case, that means a properly designed poll. That brings us back to the original point.


Exactly. Why doesn't Headso just understand, when asking for your individual opinion, you clearly need properly designed national polls. What a moran, amirite?
 
2012-03-14 11:31:47 AM  

Gunther: Obama could still lose, but it'd take either some sort of disaster (an economic collapse, say) or a scandal for that to happen. Essentially; as long as he doesn't fark up, he has it in the bag.


Dude. You didn't see the video? Obama HUGGED someone. HUGGED.
 
2012-03-14 11:31:55 AM  

qorkfiend: BMulligan: qorkfiend: there's roughly a 50% chance they'll sweep and end up with both Houses of Congress and the White House for the second time in 10 years.

I'm having some trouble believing the arithmetic here. I think the likelihood of this scenario is more like 10%-15% - mostly because I think the likelihood of an Obama loss alone is somewhere around 20% at most.

Chances are close to 100% for the GOP to hold the House and take the Senate, regardless of the presidential outcome, so I'm taking a GOP-controlled Congress as a given. I typically view the presidential contests as coin flips (Obama won with just over 50%, and the most recent polling numbers are depressing). It seems very unlikely that a GOP presidential victory would simultaneously result in Democratic control of at least one house of Congress.

The two most likely outcomes in my mind are 1) GOP Congress, Democrat President, and 2) GOP Congress, GOP President, and right now I see the chances as about evenly split.


I would agree that those are the two most likely outcomes, but I see 1 as far more likely than 2. Let's face it, the Republican candidates aren't done with their long knives just yet, and Obama has yet to even enter the race, and yet the best of the Republican candidates is lucky to poll even with Obama. This election is Obama's to lose, especially if the economy continues to improve at its current rate, and I think he's savvy enough to make it through.
 
2012-03-14 11:32:08 AM  
The GOP are perfectly happy with Obama's national security strategy. It's the same as Bush's

Then what was all that shiat about Obama "dithering"?

Must have farking imagined that, right? RIGHT?
 
2012-03-14 11:32:16 AM  

Party Boy: qorkfiend: We can see from the actions of the Obama administration - also fairly neoliberal in foreign policy

Party Boy: failures of Neoconservative foreign policy and of supply side, deregulatory neoliberal economic policies

You've swapped terms.


Yes, yes I have. Sorry about that.

Party Boy: qorkfiend: still weren't crushed to the point they'd have to rethink the basics.

They Lost. They're really farking it now.

qorkfiend: Sure, it's not viable long-term, but their ideology has definitely translated into short-term electoral victories. As we can see from some of the legislative agendas in certain states, sometimes that's all that's needed.

Its devolved into "hurr, derp, obama," since neoconservative foreign policy and supply side economic policy has jumped the shark.

Party Boy: The GOP is overdue for a major ideological overhaul.


They did lose, and it has devolved, but there's still very little pressure for the GOP to change anything. ~50% of the voters still support them despite their ideology.
 
Displayed 50 of 142 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report