[nessies long lost ghost]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-16913174

Obama thinks he has done a good job.

[monkfish]

Surprised this thread is so quiet while the Santorum surge is underway! Hope he pips Romney as he's no chance at beating Obama.

[Davis Love III]

monkfish, on 11 February 2012 - 17:24, said:

Surprised this thread is so quiet while the Santorum surge is underway! Hope he pips Romney as he's no chance at beating Obama.

I'm not convinced he'll come close to. Especially if Gingrich's narcissism keeps him in the race for a while as they are both splitting the "anti Romney" vote. The longer that both Gingrich and Santorum remain in the race, the better it is for Mitt. However, if one drops out then he'll face a battle on his hands. A battle that I'd expect he'd still win, but at a greater cost both financially and politically.

Tonight we have the Maine Caucus. It looks like being a very tight content between Romney and Ron Paul. It's a small state with not very much up for grabs, but it would be a good way for Romney to bounce back following last weeks dissapointment.

[vikingTON]

nessies long lost ghost, on 07 February 2012 - 05:19, said:

Obama thinks he has done a good job.

US unemployment figures are now at the same level as the first month of Obama's Presidency: as much as many of the expectations have certainly been unfulfilled, he inherited a horrendous position from the Bush years and has been quite effective at limiting the damage.

Not that this will affect the batshit-crazy side of US politics, but Obama's ratings are improving and so long as a major shock doesn't happen in the economy or foreign affairs (ie Israel), then he should get a second term.

[Reynard]

vikingTON, on 11 February 2012 - 23:40, said:

US unemployment figures are now at the same level as the first month of Obama's Presidency: as much as many of the expectations have certainly been unfulfilled, he inherited a horrendous position from the Bush years and has been quite effective at limiting the damage.

Not that this will affect the batshit-crazy side of US politics, but Obama's ratings are improving and so long as a major shock doesn't happen in the economy or foreign affairs (ie Israel), then he should get a second term.

No. He has simply booted the can down the road.

I wrote this in another thread a few days ago but it relevant here.

Economic growth in the US was 1.6% for the year 2011, when measured quarter over quarter (i.e. Q4/2011 versus Q4/2010). In a roughly $15 trillion p.a. economy that means an extra $240 billion in goods and services were produced by US companies and US individuals in 2011 compared to 2010. That is the extra growth, the extra economic activity.Over the same time, the US government ran a budget deficit of $1,500 billion, and the Fed printed money to the tune ofsix hundred billion dollars a growth-rate in the monetary base of almost 30 percent.

The US government is running 10% of GDP deficits to 'stimulate' 1.6% of growth. This is not only absurd it is certainly not self-financing. Debt is accumulating much faster than the economy is growing.

Is this how the 'analysts' imagine a country "grows its way out of problems"? Is this what Italy, Spain and Greece should do? (As an aside, as a percent of GDP, the Greek deficit and the US deficit are almost identical.)

The reality is that the US government is piling ever more problems onto its economy with these policies. The U.S. government is a hindrance to wealth and prosperity.

And for those who still believe the old folklore that it was exactly this type of policy that got us out of the Great Depression, consider this quote from FDR's Treasury of the Secretary, Morgenthau, said in the early 1940s:

We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . After eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . and an enormous debt to boot!"


This is the economic idiocy of those on the left calling for the stimulus nonsense. It is fixing NOTHING and all it is doing is making the inevitable pain much much worse. Although maybe they are hoping for a world war to stimulate the economy..

This post has been edited by Reynard: 12 February 2012 - 09:48

[Swampy]

monkfish, on 11 February 2012 - 17:24, said:

Surprised this thread is so quiet while the Santorum surge is underway! Hope he pips Romney as he's no chance at beating Obama.

Davis Love III, on 11 February 2012 - 18:18, said:

I'm not convinced he'll come close to. Especially if Gingrich's narcissism keeps him in the race for a while as they are both splitting the "anti Romney" vote. The longer that both Gingrich and Santorum remain in the race, the better it is for Mitt. However, if one drops out then he'll face a battle on his hands. A battle that I'd expect he'd still win, but at a greater cost both financially and politically.

This is pretty much it. While it would be utterly hilarious if the Santorum won, he won't. Mittens is odds-on favourite for numerous reasons, not least of them the financial factor. I'd expect the Santorum's surge to last until mid-March before tailing off.

On that subject everyone will be dropping their monocle into their champagne flute if Mittens loses Michigan but really, who cares? It's not his "home state" in the way that it's been described: that's Massachusetts. He'll win Arizona easily enough and in any case MI will vote Obama again.

[Swampy]

On the Michigan thing I genuinely can't believe what I'm reading sometimes. Serious publications are saying that if Mittens loses Michigan the Republicans will replace him with Marco Rubio or Sarah Palin. That would be the greatest overreaction in the history of planet Earth.

[ICTChris]

Does Santorum not want to make blow jobs illegal? What a magnificent manifesto committment.

I think it was Andrew Sullivan who wrote an article I read a few weeks ago that I found quite interesting - he pointed out that Bush Jnr won some of his votes by securing votes through various un-Tea Party initiatives, such as increased prescription drug provision through medicare, No Child Left Behind etc. Now, I'm no expert on US domestic politics, certainly compared to someone like Swampy who livse there, so can't comment on the efficacy of these initatives and I'm certainly not support Bush Jnr, a disasterous President in many ways. However, it's interesting to note that he really wasn't a proto-Tea Party type and it seems that the Republican Party has embraced that world view whole-heartedly. Now, I'm no psephologist but I'm pretty sure that a political party who deliberately isolates a significant proportion of the people who have recently voted for it in favour of pleasing the batshit crazy people who are probably going to vote for it anyway isn't exactly on a course to certain victory. You can look at Labour in the 1980s and the Tories between 1997-2005 for further examples of this tendency. Basically, the GOP ar ekissing lots of middle-of-the-road voters who voted for Bush goodbye with their Palin-esque policies. Perhaps the effect of it is disguised by the rallies and fervant support of the minority of TP GOPers (I fucking love acroynms) but I'd imagine that, much like most other countries, this group isn't representative of the general public.

[Swampy]

ICTChris, on 22 February 2012 - 19:55, said:

Does Santorum not want to make blow jobs illegal? What a magnificent manifesto committment.

I think it was Andrew Sullivan who wrote an article I read a few weeks ago that I found quite interesting - he pointed out that Bush Jnr won some of his votes by securing votes through various un-Tea Party initiatives, such as increased prescription drug provision through medicare, No Child Left Behind etc. Now, I'm no expert on US domestic politics, certainly compared to someone like Swampy who livse there, so can't comment on the efficacy of these initatives and I'm certainly not support Bush Jnr, a disasterous President in many ways. However, it's interesting to note that he really wasn't a proto-Tea Party type and it seems that the Republican Party has embraced that world view whole-heartedly. Now, I'm no psephologist but I'm pretty sure that a political party who deliberately isolates a significant proportion of the people who have recently voted for it in favour of pleasing the batshit crazy people who are probably going to vote for it anyway isn't exactly on a course to certain victory. You can look at Labour in the 1980s and the Tories between 1997-2005 for further examples of this tendency. Basically, the GOP ar ekissing lots of middle-of-the-road voters who voted for Bush goodbye with their Palin-esque policies. Perhaps the effect of it is disguised by the rallies and fervant support of the minority of TP GOPers (I fucking love acroynms) but I'd imagine that, much like most other countries, this group isn't representative of the general public.

This is good analysis from Sullivan (and yourself) and it's pretty close to the truth. I once thought the 'baggers were harmless - vicious and nasty but harmless, like a caged, furious vole - but they've had significant successes at local and state level, and even some at federal level. For this reason they cannot be fully discounted. However, your overall thrust is correct: you can't win a federal election just be pleasing the crazies. Even the 'baggers who gnash and wail about big gummit taking away their money are, when polled, are found to be staunch supporters of Medicare and Social Security, two of the biggest social programs on the planet. For every 'bagger that wants to see these cut down to size - not closed, not dismantled, just partially cut - three hold the opposite view. (See here for source, Nov 2011 McClatchy-Marist poll.) There is only so much you can do by doing the crazy dance. The reason it's being danced so violently right now is that it's primary season, and the red-faced perma-ragers who vote in the primaries must be catered for. I think when Mittens gets the nomination we'll see things toned down...

... but not toned down too much. The Republican party has in large part sold its soul to the hysterical, screaming wing of the party who have made things like "let people die on the street" and "homosexuality is an abomination" and "corporations and embryos are people but women? Not so much" into positions that must at least be affected in order not to be shouted down by the 'baggers. Lots of conservative commentators have decried how intellectual conservatism and classical liberalism have been thrown overboard by these boorish brownshirts. f**k 'em. They actively courted people like this for short-term gains (and, in recent years, out of a completely disproprionate and unseemly hatred of Barack Obama) and now they're reaping the consequences.

Not quite a Tea Party issue but related is the Santorum's sexual preferences. He's on record as saying that what goes on in the bedroom absolutely is government's business. You would expect the freedom-lovin' baggers to gasp in horror at such statist interference but they really haven't done it in any great number. The idea that the social conservatives and fiscal conservatives are two distinct camps is antiquated - they really are, in electoral terms, now the exact same thing. And as you say, this is alienating centrists, independents, and the undecided. Most of all it is alienating women. Mittens - not exactly a free-love bohemian - is running away with Arizona in huge part because women, even in a conservative state like AZ, are abandoning the Santorum in droves. This is especially pronounced when it comes to polling on the Santorum's anti-contraceptive stance. The Catholic bishops of the USA, having failed completely in their quest to discourage birth control (Catholics, male and female alike, are found in polling to use contraception to virtually the same level as non-Catholics) via the pulpit are trying now to do it via government, and in Santorum they have an ally not just of convenience but of conviction. And it is this that ultimately makes him completely and utterly unelectable, because of the 50% of the country who are female these aren't scriptual hypotheticals but quite literally matters of life and death. And even in a country as religious as this one, people care more about the pill than the Lord.

[Granny Danger]

Couple of questions for Swampy. How prevalent are the "Rapture" believers amongst the Republican right? Are they just a small subset who share other views such as homophobia or is it more widespread and ingrained within the whole grouping?

If Santorum wins the Republican nomination what's the perceived chances of winning the presidential election, or is it too early to say?

[Swampy]

Granny Danger, on 23 February 2012 - 13:47, said:

Couple of questions for Swampy. How prevalent are the "Rapture" believers amongst the Republican right? Are they just a small subset who share other views such as homophobia or is it more widespread and ingrained within the whole grouping?

If Santorum wins the Republican nomination what's the perceived chances of winning the presidential election, or is it too early to say?

1. It's really difficult to say. Some polls say that 40% of Americans think that Jesus will return before 2050. Others say that even among evangelicals, belief in a literal devil and hell is for the minority. I don't think genuine belief in an upcoming rapture - a within-our-lifetime rapture - is particularly widespread, and I think that if the "will Jesus return" question was rephrased to "will the world begin to end" we'd see a lot smaller percentages. I don't think Republican policy is in any way coloured by any belief in the rapture. (There was an urban legend that the Secretary of the Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan advocated rapacious forestry policies because he thought the world was going to end soon. It wasn't true, of course.)

Homophobia is a key platform for the Republican party and it's not unique to evangelicals. Obama recently repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which was the policy stating that out gays cannot serve in the military. Mittens - the moderate, mainstream Republican candidate - wanted to keep it in place. Further down the spectrum you have the bafflingly vicious opposition to gay marriage. It would be literally impossible at this moment in time to be a Republican on the national stage and not to indulge in gay-baiting. It's a very easy vote-and-headline winner. Of course you'll find Republicans at the local level, and even a precious few at the congressional level, who won't toe the party line, but appeals to "traditional values" (read: if it's not white* and hetero it's scary) are far more than economics what ties the current party together. In fact the only driving force that's stronger than "traditional values" is the hatred of Barack Obama.

2. It's extremely unlikely that he'll win the nomination. His surge is a 15-minutes thing**, as was Newt's, Perry's, Bachman's... In the hypothetical case that he did carry the nomination it I'd price Obama at 1/10 or shorter to gain a second term. Barring a massive administrative disaster - such as the economy/energy/food prices spiralling out of control - Santorum's just too divisive and plain weird a figure to win a general election.

*This is an important point because the GOP are still struggling massively to pick up Hispanic voters. This is despite the fact that a great number of Hispanics are socially very conservative - homophobic, hetero family-oriented, etc. That's because there's a tension in the party between the desire to be strong on family values and the desire to be "tough on immigration" (i.e. to demonise brown people). It's little wonder that the conservative Hispanic voters who might otherwise find an ideological home with the Republicans often feel completely alienated by them.

**I didn't watch last night's debate but apparently he performed very badly, and was attacked on his voting record quite severely. What is happening with most of the GOP candidates is that they gain a lot of appeal as underdogs, but once the spotlight is on them they founder; and more importantly once Mittens' position is threatened he arrays the heavy artillery. Which is apparently what happened last night.

This post has been edited by Swampy: 23 February 2012 - 14:11

[Granny Danger]

Swampy, on 23 February 2012 - 14:09, said:

1. It's really difficult to say. Some polls say that 40% of Americans think that Jesus will return before 2050. Others say that even among evangelicals, belief in a literal devil and hell is for the minority. I don't think genuine belief in an upcoming rapture - a within-our-lifetime rapture - is particularly widespread, and I think that if the "will Jesus return" question was rephrased to "will the world begin to end" we'd see a lot smaller percentages. I don't think Republican policy is in any way coloured by any belief in the rapture. (There was an urban legend that the Secretary of the Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan advocated rapacious forestry policies because he thought the world was going to end soon. It wasn't true, of course.)

Homophobia is a key platform for the Republican party and it's not unique to evangelicals. Obama recently repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which was the policy stating that out gays cannot serve in the military. Mittens - the moderate, mainstream Republican candidate - wanted to keep it in place. Further down the spectrum you have the bafflingly vicious opposition to gay marriage. It would be literally impossible at this moment in time to be a Republican on the national stage and not to indulge in gay-baiting. It's a very easy vote-and-headline winner. Of course you'll find Republicans at the local level, and even a precious few at the congressional level, who won't toe the party line, but appeals to "traditional values" (read: if it's not white* and hetero it's scary) are far more than economics what ties the current party together. In fact the only driving force that's stronger than "traditional values" is the hatred of Barack Obama.

2. It's extremely unlikely that he'll win the nomination. His surge is a 15-minutes thing**, as was Newt's, Perry's, Bachman's... In the hypothetical case that he did carry the nomination it I'd price Obama at 1/10 or shorter to gain a second term. Barring a massive administrative disaster - such as the economy/energy/food prices spiralling out of control - Santorum's just too divisive and plain weird a figure to win a general election.

*This is an important point because the GOP are still struggling massively to pick up Hispanic voters. This is despite the fact that a great number of Hispanics are socially very conservative - homophobic, hetero family-oriented, etc. That's because there's a tension in the party between the desire to be strong on family values and the desire to be "tough on immigration" (i.e. to demonise brown people). It's little wonder that the conservative Hispanic voters who might otherwise find an ideological home with the Republicans often feel completely alienated by them.

**I didn't watch last night's debate but apparently he performed very badly, and was attacked on his voting record quite severely. What is happening with most of the GOP candidates is that they gain a lot of appeal as underdogs, but once the spotlight is on them they founder; and more importantly once Mittens' position is threatened he arrays the heavy artillery. Which is apparently what happened last night.

Thanks for that!

I worked beside a guy in 1975 who genuinely believed in this stuff. It didn't register with me until many years later when I realised that it was fairly widespread in the US.

I also recall a fairly chilling piece on TV within the last year (unfortunately I can't remember the source) suggesting that fairly influential politicians in the US would actually try to create an Armagedden type scenario complete with nuclear exchange as the forerunner to the rapture. Don't know what credance I would give this but I am one of the people who think the US is filled with religious nut jobs.

I would never claim to have any expertise on US politics but I find it sad that however lacking we are in any genuinely left of centre radical party in the UK the situation in the US seems far worse with the option of Right Wing or really Right wing; this from the country that calls itself a democracy. However i can see from your comments about the Hispanic vote, for example how difficult it may be for some politicians.

Finally I remember seeing clips of Obama's State of the Union (?) address on the Dailly Show a couple of weeks ago. OK they may have been selectively edited but I thought "if this is the liberal what the fucks the right wing alternative like?"

[Swampy]

Again, while there are people who believe it, I don't think it really does inform policy to any great degree. The two most religious candidates left right now are Paul and the Santorum, and I don't think either of those would try to spur an Armageddon. It's the wackier televangelists who come out with this kind of thing.

It's true, there is no centre-left party in the USA. There's a fairly simplistic but quite persuasive description of how this has happened since the Republicans' Southern Strategy: http://smithbowen.ne.../chapter02.html . Then there's the old joke. A British political scientist returns to Oxford from his field trip in the USA and starts his seminar. He says, "I'm just back from the USA, and they have two political parties there. The first one is the Republican party, and they're a lot like our Conservative party. The second one is the Democratic party, and they're a lot like our Conservative party."

Obama's moved progressively rightwards since taking office. Predictable but depressing nonetheless.

[Swampy]

Mittens is doing better in Michigan now. I think he'll win it after the Santorum's laughable performance in the 20th debate. I suppose it depends what the papers say on Monday.

One area where Mittens is having problems is in the glad-handing with the locals. Michigan is of course his home state - it's not the state he's most identified with (that's Mass.) but it's where he was brought up. So he's being instructed to give it the old "I grew up in this town" schtick. With hilarious results. See if you can watch this without cringing:



Now, that's just hilarious, I don't care who you are...

... but really, who cares? Who actually cares? I don't want a president who can sidle up to me in an IHOP and say "how 'bout 'dem Cowboys?" Any number of millions of Americans can do that. Relatively few can surround themselves with the best and brightest to take executive office in the biggest economy on earth, and fewer still can project themselves appropriately on the world stage. It doesn't matter to me the slightest bit if a president is able to conserve with the man on the street. As long as he has advisors who can keep him apprised of the man on the street's views, and has sufficient empathy to treat the population seriously, that's what matters. I could not care less if he knows what a car looks like.

This post has been edited by Swampy: 24 February 2012 - 18:41

[xbl]

http://firstread.msn...christian- ethic

Quote

Here, before a crowd of more than 600, Santorum said, “I love it because the left says, 'equality, equality.' Where does that concept come from? Does it come from Islam? Does it come from other cultures around the world? ... No, it comes it comes from our culture and tradition, from the Judeo-Christian ethic. "

The speech earned Santorum a warm reception and four standing ovations, prompting him to joke, “If a speaker’s smart, when he gets a standing ovation like that, you stop.”

Aha.

[SuperCaleyGoBallistic]

Superb.

[Swampy]

I'm surprised the Santorum has lasted this long. I expected Gingrich to do better in Mississippi and places like that, and for Santorum to do a lot worse in Hawaii. He still hasn't the faintest hope of the nomination proper but he's now in a solid position to garner some spoils. Also contrary to my expectation is that Noot's electoral road has ended before the Santorum's. Yes, Noot was not a serious candidate to start with but he enjoyed a really improbably surge... but rather than ride that wave he's crashed face-first off it. Some of his staff are still waiting for their January expenses, I read earlier.

So Mittens will stroll onwards to the nomination, he'll assemble some weird, Mighty Ducks-esque coalition team involving many conservatives of many stripes, and he'll be soundly thrashed in November. 2016 will be far more interesting a race.

This post has been edited by Swampy: 20 March 2012 - 18:31

[renton]

I feel like a Santorum win in the primaries -as long a shot as that is - would ultimately be a good thing for the republican party. If Romney gets it and subsequently loses the election, the hardline republicans will still be in control of the party - if not actually increase their control. A Santorum win forces the US to face up to the choice offered by the conservative wing of the republican party - to fully flesh out what a win for them would mean. It would surely shatter a lot of illusions.

And they'd be crushed- badly. A Santorum-Obama race would yield a democrat win big enough to reverse the McGovern disaster in '72. The right wing nuts would have no where to go and it might give the moderates in the republican party a chance to take back control.

This post has been edited by renton: 20 March 2012 - 20:12

[Ad Lib]

This post has been edited by Ad Lib: 22 March 2012 - 18:53

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

With Romney winning Puerto Rico and Illinois it looks like any doubt whether Mitt will win is over. Now who will be foolish enough to ride on the Romney ticket as VP. I suppose things worked out okay for Sarah Palin getting a large public profile and opportunities to rake in some money.

Personally I think they will try and get Marco Rubio. He fits the bill as senator from a swing state, hispanic and former speaker of the house gives him some good credentials.

[Ad Lib]

Jim McLean, on 22 March 2012 - 19:47, said:

With Romney winning Puerto Rico and Illinois it looks like any doubt whether Mitt will win is over. Now who will be foolish enough to ride on the Romney ticket as VP. I suppose things worked out okay for Sarah Palin getting a large public profile and opportunities to rake in some money.

Personally I think they will try and get Marco Rubio. He fits the bill as senator from a swing state, hispanic and former speaker of the house gives him some good credentials.

Given that Jeb Bush has now backed Romney, I guess he might be a contender for GOP VP nominee.

[SuperCaleyGoBallistic]

Jim McLean, on 22 March 2012 - 19:47, said:

Personally I think they will try and get Marco Rubio. He fits the bill as senator from a swing state, hispanic and former speaker of the house gives him some good credentials.

Might be a bit early for him I feel, although he'll certainly be a contender in the future.

[doulikefish]

Santorum drops out today,Romney will most likely be the republican candidate

[nessies long lost ghost]

Great news.

[Swampy]

Jim McLean, on 22 March 2012 - 19:47, said:

With Romney winning Puerto Rico and Illinois it looks like any doubt whether Mitt will win is over. Now who will be foolish enough to ride on the Romney ticket as VP. I suppose things worked out okay for Sarah Palin getting a large public profile and opportunities to rake in some money.

Personally I think they will try and get Marco Rubio. He fits the bill as senator from a swing state, hispanic and former speaker of the house gives him some good credentials.

That's why my dream ticket would be a Romney/Gingrich ticket. It'll never happen but my god, how funny would that be.

And yes, it could be Rubio. He'd also be crazy enough for the conservative wing.

This post has been edited by Swampy: 10 April 2012 - 22:26