# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  2012 Presidential Election

## rbaker

American voters will be going to the polls before we know it for the next Presidential election. Recent polls have shown that if the election were to be held today Obama and any as yet unnamed candidate would just about split the vote.

What do you think about a Republican slate of Scott Brown and Sarah Palin in 2012?

----------


## FVCCHRIS

I'd like to hold Washington D.C. under water for a couple weeks. Then dispose of all the debris(natural and human). Then I'd like to have some elections.  :Confused:

----------


## braheem24

I'm assuming the the poll taken assumed Obama would roll over and play dead, maybe they forgot how he changed the rules of campaigning in America a few months ago.

----------


## shanbaum

I saw that poll, and what it actually showed was Obama _beating_ a “generic Republican”, which probably translates to “the best imaginable Republican.” My reaction was that all things considered, it wasn’t too bad. For all the noise that the radical right is making, Obama still enjoys a slim majority (51%) approval, according to the latest Gallup daily poll (42% disapprove). Contrary to what the radical right would like us to believe, I think that most of the diminution in Obama’s approval rating comes first from the politically-active left, and then from the less-politically-active center and left. Conservatives didn’t support him in the first place. Leftists and centrists expected some substantial action on health care, and got a muddle instead. The left, especially, expected a more dramatic change with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan, and while some rightists have supported his decisions on the wars, I don’t think they’re going to register a favorable opinion with a pollster. And the radicals have succeeded in evoking fear amongst people whose understanding of macroeconomics approaches nil, raising the twin specters of crushing debt and communism. 

The Brown victory in Massachusetts might actually support my assertion. I don’t believe that the people who elected Ted Kennedy all those years suddenly became conservatives. I think that a lot of those people just stayed home. Around 3.1 million people voted in the 2008 election in Massachusetts, and Obama won, 1.9 million to 1.1 million. In the recent Senate race, the vote was Brown 1.2 million to Coakley’s 1.1 million. I think the real difference might have been about 800,000 liberals not showing up. A lot of traditionally Democratic voters didn’t much care for Coakley and were despondent over what they saw as the failure of the Democrats in Washington to produce immediate, substantive results of the kind they anticipated after the 2008 election. Why not vote for Brown? After all, it’s not like he mentioned being a Republican during his campaign. The rightists, and those who have succumbed to their message of fear, on the other hand, have clearly been prodded out of their Bush-induced somnolence though the aforementioned fear tactics which we’ve endured since the spring. A few more of them (less than 10%) showed up who didn’t show up in 2008. That would explain it, and I submit that that explanation is more plausible than the idea that Teddy Kennedy’s supporters changed their minds about waterboarding.

And really, either explanation is a caricature; the motivations of millions can’t be reduced to a few declarative sentences. I’m sure that there were voters in Massachusetts who believed that Scott Brown was really somehow a lot like Teddy. I shudder to think what the percentage might be of voters in any American election who base their choices on demonstrably wrong information (and I mean voters for any side).

A modicum of thought has to be applied to any poll; at the very least, one should consider the question asked closely. The right track/wrong track poll, for instance – one can believe that the best possible policies are in place and yet still find it difficult to say that we’re on the “right track.” We’re hopefully at the bottom of an economic trough, where things have stopped getting worse (and I believe that they could have gotten _much_ worse in the absence of some of the actions the government has taken), but it’s not going to feel like the “right track” to most people until it’s very obvious that things are getting better. 

A Brown/Palin ticket? I think I would like that. I’m guessing that even the ADD-plagued American electorate will recall what happens when you elect an affable guy of average intellect bereft of intellectual curiosity (though I have to admit, from what I know, that is probably charitable towards Palin and a little harsh on Brown). Recall those approval numbers? Brown/Palin could count on that much; they would have a really solid base in about 25% of the voters (i.e., Dick’s cohort).

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

Do you not think Palin is a miserable quitter? Who can't take ANY heat without running away?
And the Conservatives just love her. Ergo - Conservatives love quitters. Case closed.

Anyway, I know you're just doing this to offend people, so off you go to my Ignore list.

----------


## For-Life

I have been looking at elections and have noticed something that I think is interesting.

- In 2004, Democrats voted for a very weak John Kerry to go against incumbent George Bush
- in 1996, Republicans voted for a very weak Bob Dole to go against incumbent Bill Clinton
- in 1984, Democrats voted for a very weak Walter Mondale to go against incumbent Ronald Reagan
- in 1972, Democrats voted for a very weak George McGovern to go against incumbent Richard Nixon

It seems, and maybe this is just paranoia, but when there is a strong incumbent, the opposition votes in a weak candidate to go against him.  Usually this is to prepare for the vote where there is no incumbent, so that they have a better chance of winning them.  So they do not want to harm their star candidates at 4 years.  

So yeah, if this hypothesis is true, Palin has a good chance at winning the Republican nomination in 2012.

----------


## Jacqui

Do you think the Republicans are dumb enough to run Palin again??

----------


## obxeyeguy

> Do you think the Republicans are dumb enough to run Palin again??


That's rhetorical, right?






Yes, I was Republican, now an Independant.

----------


## shanbaum

> Do you not think Palin is a miserable quitter? Who can't take ANY heat without running away?
> And the Conservatives just love her. Ergo - Conservatives love quitters. Case closed.
> 
> Anyway, I know you're just doing this to offend people, so off you go to my Ignore list.


 
I don't think that's fair. Palin didn't quit because she couldn't take the heat (what "heat"?); she quit because she couldn't pass up the deals. Let's see - governor of Alaska ($125,000); or book promoter, speaker, Fox news talking head ($millions)? Besides, you don't need to know anything to measure up as a whatever-you-call-what-she-is-now; you just keep on lookin' good and talkin' that talk. She was never going to exceed anyone's expectations as an executive; why highlight one's weaknesses rather than one's strengths?

----------


## For-Life

> Do you think the Republicans are dumb enough to run Palin again??


Why put one of their all-stars out against the strong incumbent?  I think they could use her as the fall person, to set up a strong 2016

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> I don't think that's fair. Palin didn't quit because she couldn't take the heat (what "heat"?); she quit because she couldn't pass up the deals. Let's see - governor of Alaska ($125,000); or book promoter, speaker, Fox news talking head ($millions)? Besides, you don't need to know anything to measure up as a whatever-you-call-what-she-is-now; you just keep on lookin' good and talkin' that talk. She was never going to exceed anyone's expectations as an executive; why highlight one's weaknesses rather than one's strengths?



OK I get it - she's a sellout, not a quitter?

----------


## shanbaum

> OK I get it - she's a sellout, not a quitter?


Yes.  That would be fair.

----------


## obxeyeguy

> OK I get it - she's a sellout, not a quitter?





> Yes. That would be fair.


Isn't that the way of most politicians? It's all about the money.

----------


## shanbaum

> Isn't that the way of most politicians? It's all about the money.


I know a few politicians, and none of them are venal. On the contrary, being a politician is not necessarily a good way to become rich. Being rich, on the other hand, is a good way to become a politician; the political system we have is essentially constructed of money. We could change that, but we'd have to get beyond some ideological hurdles to do so (for example, the postulates that money equals speech, and that commercial rights equal individual rights).

----------


## Bill West

> Do you not think Palin is a miserable quitter? Who can't take ANY heat without running away?
> And the Conservatives just love her. Ergo - Conservatives love quitters. Case closed.
> 
> Anyway, I know you're just doing this to offend people, so off you go to my Ignore list.


What is disgusting is sending the same SOB to Washington year after year, ie. Bird or is that the bird,[finger] or Byrd. What the hell was wrong with you people? Mass. was just as bad with the Kennedys. Damn, I'm glad they are finally all gone. The American voter is,for the most part, just plain STUPID, easy sell. I mean they gather around the tv and watch fat people lose weight how stupid can you get? Guess who the biggest losers really are.They are getting exactly what they deserve, So suck it up and wait for help to arrive. The real Republicians are on the way. John Mccain sucks. The best Democrat is good ole John Edwards,Tar Heel, as good a womanizer as the Kennedy boys.

----------


## For-Life

> What is disgusting is sending the same SOB to Washington year after year, ie. Bird or is that the bird,[finger] or Byrd. What the hell was wrong with you people? Mass. was just as bad with the Kennedys. Damn, I'm glad they are finally all gone. The American voter is,for the most part, just plain STUPID, easy sell. I mean they gather around the tv and watch fat people lose weight how stupid can you get? Guess who the biggest losers really are.They are getting exactly what they deserve, So suck it up and wait for help to arrive. The real Republicians are on the way. John Mccain sucks. The best Democrat is good ole John Edwards,Tar Heel, as good a womanizer as the Kennedy boys.


How many of the same SOBs did you put into Washington year after year?  You are just as partisan as the people that you complain about.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> What is disgusting is sending the same SOB to Washington year after year, ie. Bird or is that the bird,[finger] or Byrd. What the hell was wrong with you people? Mass. was just as bad with the Kennedys. Damn, I'm glad they are finally all gone. The American voter is,for the most part, just plain STUPID, easy sell. I mean they gather around the tv and watch fat people lose weight how stupid can you get? Guess who the biggest losers really are.They are getting exactly what they deserve, So suck it up and wait for help to arrive. The real Republicians are on the way. John Mccain sucks. The best Democrat is good ole John Edwards,Tar Heel, as good a womanizer as the Kennedy boys.



Gee, Bill, I figured you would have liked Byrd since he used to be a Klansman.

----------


## braheem24

:drop:

----------


## kat

I think SNL has it right, a Glenn Beck Sarah Palin ticket!! Lets keep Tina Fey working!! Here we just keep voting in the same blowhards as always, even if McCain doesn't win, if his republican counter part gets in he's even worse, (JD Hayworth). It's fun to be one of the lone liberals in the world of Repulsiveans oops, that's suppose to be Republicans.

----------


## Uncle Fester

Brown had better run for President because he will not be reelected as he now has started to vote in the Senate and it won't be long before his record will prove him to be no friend of most Massachusetts Independents political philosophy. 

Look for congressman Mike Capuano to win the dem's primary and then to run an aggressive campaign even going so far as to take on our right wing radio host Howie Carr who was I believe very effective railing against the abysmal "campaign" of Martha Coakly.

----------


## For-Life

Honestly, after watching the politics over the last few years, I think people should be more concerned about who is getting into Congress and the Senate, and maybe voting for a party that is not Democrat or Republican.

----------


## k12311997

What's with all the name calling sniping and generally rude remarks?

Hasn't anyone ever heard of being the bigger man/woman?  Yes rbaker started the thread with the sole intent of annoying the liberals, so ignore him or show him you won't stoop to his level. I would like to believe that even though I disagree with your politics you're intellegent individuals.


To rbaker and bill west,

I know what great fun you have poking liberals, but really to what point?  We can agree to disagree and leave the name calling (Repulsiveans:finger:) to the other side.

----------


## Mr. Finney

> What's with all the name calling sniping and generally rude remarks?
> 
> Hasn't anyone ever heard of being the bigger man/woman?  Yes rbaker started the thread with the sole intent of annoying the liberals, so ignore him or show him you won't stoop to his level. I would like to believe that even though I disagree with your politics you're intellegent individuals.
> 
> 
> To rbaker and bill west,
> 
> I know what great fun you have poking liberals, but really to what point?  We can agree to disagree and leave the name calling (Repulsiveans:finger:) to the other side.


Actually, that was kat......



> I think SNL has it right, a Glenn Beck Sarah Palin ticket!! Lets keep Tina Fey working!! Here we just keep voting in the same blowhards as always, even if McCain doesn't win, if his republican counter part gets in he's even worse, (JD Hayworth). It's fun to be one of the lone liberals in the world of Repulsiveans oops, that's suppose to be Republicans.


.....and DragonLensmanWV



> Gee, Bill, I figured you would have liked Byrd since he used to be a Klansman.





> I'd like to hold Washington D.C. under water for a couple weeks. Then dispose of all the debris(natural and human). Then I'd like to have some elections.


:cheers: Here here!



> Honestly, after watching the politics over the last few years, I think people should be more concerned about who is getting into Congress and the Senate, and maybe voting for a party that is not Democrat or Republican.


Exactly!  I don't know why people think that a two party system would actually work in today's world.

----------


## cocoisland58

I voted no and I would bet it won't happen anyway.  That being said I'm looking forward to a mighty wind blowing through Washington come January 2013.

----------


## Johns

I voted no also.  I'm tired of the pathetic, worn out choices we've been given.

Is that really the best we have to offer?  Sure, it maybe better than anything the other side has to offer, but I still think it's a pathetic offering...

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

I know! Let's start a Drew Carey for President movement!

----------


## k12311997

> I know! Let's start a Drew Carey for President movement!


 
I miss Bob Barker.

----------


## hcjilson

> I know! Let's start a Drew Carey for President movement!


Anyone here remember Pat Paulsen?

If you do, you may wan't to go here:  http://www.paulsen.com/pat/

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> I miss Bob Barker.



Me too, but Drew does a great job. And he doesn't have to run away from some overexcited contestants.

----------


## Uncle Fester

I'm just not seeing the love for this ticket.

Maybe if Scott adopts a Haitian orphan? :Rolleyes: :idea:

----------


## Spexvet

In 2004, the repubican argument was "you don't change horses midstream" because we had unfinished business in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we're still there in 2012, will the repubicans be hypocritical?

----------


## finefocus

> In 2004, the repubican argument was "you don't change horses midstream" because we had unfinished business in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we're still there in 2012, will the repubicans be hypocritical?


Will the Republicans be hypocritical? Hypocritical? Demand certain things, then filibuster them the moment the President endorses them? Change their positions for the purposes of obstructionism? ***** and moan about the lack of movement on issues, pretty much all issues? Agitate for changes in the filibuster rules, then resist any such changes? Out-Janus Janus? Well, let's hope not.

----------


## FVCCHRIS

> In 2004, the repubican argument was "you don't change horses midstream"


 
There's no problem with shooting the SOB and walking is there?  :Rolleyes:

----------

