US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus
 

Now that the first official Republican debate has been held (technically, the May 5th debate was the first official Republican debate, but besides using the parties money it was a mostly inconsequential debate); 12 or so candidates have put forth their Presidential bid for nomination (and a few on both sides of the aisles have put forth their Gubernatorial or Congressional bids); and the first true straw poll is being counted, this seems like the opportune time to start the new United States Elections 2012 thread.

This thread is dedicated to discussion of the upcoming US Presidential, Gubernatorial and Congressional election in November 2012. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the various candidates, their positions, and the various other positions being voted on across the country. All news and discussion of the upcoming election will be placed in this thread, and once the results are in a possible new thread dedicated to the 113th Congress could be made.

The usual forum rules apply (be considerate of others and their opinions, no flaming or cyclical posting, try and provide sources when possible, etc), and try not to get too caught up in the News coverage of the elections (i.e., we all know the mainstream media is inherently biased (toward the right and the left), so try not to create too much discussion based on how bad you perceive the individual networks are skewing the various elections). To clarify further, you can post any clips or excerpts you feel will add to this thread (as so long as they are actual news clips and not simply talking heads), but do not get too focused on the source of the information (which is partially irrelevant to the discussion topic)...

I will update this OP with recent information as it is presented (e.g., Presidential Candidiates; various primary results; and then finally Obama vs...?; etc)

This is the "sequel" to the US Election 2008 thread. Please visit that thread if you wish to learn how this discussion is held (or visit to read your old posts, and reminisce on happier times :).)

---

Current Presidential Candidates:
Democratic Bids: Barack Obama (barring accident or resignation, Obama is the unofficial Candidate for the Democratic party.), Randall Terry.

Republican Bids: Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, James "Rick" Perry, Jon Huntsman, Buddy Roemer, Fred Karger, Andy Martin, Roy Moore, Jimmy McMillan, Jonathon Sharkey...so far.

3rd Party/Independent: Kent Mesplay (Green Party), R. Lee Wrights (Libertarian Party), Jack Fellure (Prohibition Party), Roseanne Barr (Independent...though I am not sure she is serious), Robert John Burck (Tea Party/Independent), Joe Schriner (Independent)...so far.

And here are the non-Presidential listings for the 2012 elections (as they currently stand by region, specifics will be added later):

2012 Judicial elections
2012 House of Representatives elections
2012 Senate elections
and
2012 Gubernatorial elections

Obama's new slogan - Yes, Maybe we can.

It is good thing i stop watching tv a decade ago. now i can miss all those wonderful political ads.

As I've said in the 2008 election: No matter who wins, we lose.

I didnt see anybody in the debate last night that I will vote for. I had hopes for Cain when he first entered, but that hope ended as soon as it was born. Unless someone comes out of nowhere, I will be handwriting someone in. This country is screwed whether it is Obama, or any of these candidates feom last night.

Cool. Anyone care to give a link to a streaming version of the republican debate, particularly one that streams to outside the USA?

EDIT: there seems to be a number of uploaded versions on youtube, including this one

Aug. 11, 2011 Republican Debate



edit: DonQuigleone found the video in the meantime :).

And now begins my depraved entertainment in our public circus :D.

Begin? did it ever stop?

Bachmann and 'that black guy' are robots in disguise.

Well, I live in California, so my vote doesn't count for presidential elections. California's going to the Democrats anyways, thanks to the electoral college. Much like frequently in ISML, I abstained for president in 2008. Same here.

Actually I was gonna handwrite myself in...

Doesn't matter since it's just about which business interests win,.

Now to look up the propositions, so we can waste more money on making people's lives miserable!

You aren't old enough to run for president (even as a write-in) Minimum age is 35.
(Mean I could run since I'd be 35 before the election.)

Ugh, these jaded attitudes are exactly why the 2010 elections went the way they did. And now look what we've got. Assaults on women, the middle class, the poor, even education now - essentially everyone and everything not part of the top 1%. And the people who are for this destruction, got bloody voted into the House! And considering the general spinelessness of the Dems, they might as well have both houses of Congress!

Yeah, things sucked in 08 too, and before and after Obama was elected. Politicians were, are, and continue to be corporate whores, no matter who's in charge. But I'd rather that be all we have to deal with, instead of adding a repressive, borderline-sociopathic social agenda into the mix. Letting the tea folks take control of half of Congress did nothing except let in people who want to see government, which in theory is people's one defense against trans/national business interests and their abuses, torn down (while displaying a remarkable lack of self-awareness for people who most likely use Medicare, SS, and other government services themselves). I don't see this as beneficial in any sense.

So yes, things suck. But apathy is a very quick road to the destruction of democracy. One party has shown themselves, ultimately by their actions and their beliefs, to be worse than other. And the 2010 elections only confirmed that, shifting the narrative further away from the people and towards the Kochs and their empires. And I, for one, would rather choose a lesser of two evils. No matter how weak an incentive that is, I'd rather not see the Scott Walkers of the world elected into office, as it means things will only get worse.

Curses; I forgot. :heh: Well, actually my county only lets you do them if they are registered so I didn't even bother trolling. ;)

I'll vote for you if you register!

Thank you. I do not know if I agree that the Republicans are the worse evil (I know plenty of upstanding Republicans, and I know of plenty of good Republican politicians (albeit mostly on a state level)), but this general apathy that has already reared its head after only a dozen posts is simply not the way to go. Giving up or not even trying is far worse than failing.

I very much disliked what Ron Paul said on Iranian foreign policy. To support his opposition on the nuclear sanctions on Iran, he argues that the Soviets had a very large amount of nukes while being the greatest threat to America in history, but he fails to realize that they were a conventional threat and had many reasons not to nuke America or Europe, like getting their nation retaliated against. The Iranians (or North Korea and other aggressive small countries) don't have much to lose in that sense, so whats to stop Iran from using a nuclear weapon on America or Israel just for the sake of Islamic extremism jihad? I really do hope that Dr. Paul comes to grasp that war isn't conventional when fighting insurgents anymore (not that I support the Iraqi war).

This article is biased toward Paul but provides oversight of what he said:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...nn-on-iran-war

i agree paul's view on iran is naive but how in the world does Santorum defend the coup of legit government and putting in a cia puppet and calling that a good thing.

Let me just say, that it will be a snow blizzard day in hell before I ever vote for a Democrat pf today's kind. Their and your ideals are in complete conflict with my beliefs and ideals.

The Republican Party isnt much better, but there are at least a half dozen of their politicians in the House that I can support. Which is something at least.

This country is as divided now, as it was during its creation. During the Revolutionary War you had 1/3 who.supported the Revolutionaries, 1/3 the British, and 1/3 who didnt have a side. Today, 230 years later, you have 1/3 who are Conservative, 1/3 who are Liberal(of the leftist variety), and 1/3 eho dont side with either party or group. So not much has changed in the past two centuries.

To believe that the Tea Party and the Republican Party is the party of the rich, is ignoring the tens of millions of middle class and families who side with them(at least more so than the Democrats) and is just plain ignorant. It is the same stupid argument as those on the right who say that he Democratic Party is the Party of the welfare group. Neither is true.

Mutually Assured Destruction.

Whatever nation is hit first by a nuclear weapon will have the full sympathy of the rest of the world. Nuclear power is that terrifying. The nation who launched a first strike without the support of the world community would likely be invaded and ripped apart before it could do it again.

Either that, or WW3. Pick the size of your ashtray.

Iran's government is terrible, don't get me wrong, but even if they acquire nuclear weapons they wouldn't be dumb enough to use them unless they were positive it could keep them in power. They're already a regional power, and they're already up against Russia, Europe, Israel, Pakistan, India, and China, all of whom have better, more powerful armies and weapons. This isn't including the US who can wipe any nation on the planet out instantly if it wanted to (speaking in terms of conventional war here).

Iran is nothing more than a wedge issue to make Americans afraid of another boogeyman. Ron Paul is correct, there are more important things to worry about.

Mutually Assured Destruction would stop a country from using nuclear weapons, yes. But I'm talking more along the lines of Islamic violence, we already see suicide attacks from extremists around the Middle East. So in that case, what would stop Iran from selling or giving the weapons to terrorists to use against Israel (yes, I know that this happened already from Soviet fallout, but why give them more opportunities to aquire them?) or if an even more extreme government took over and used the nuke as a (figurative?) suicide weapon?

I think it's absurd the way they all ideologically said that under no circumstances would they raise taxes. Taxes aren't an idealogical thing, they're a practical thing, they're a matter of policy. There's a right level at tax, and it shifts depending on the circumstances. Taxes still have to be paid one way or another, sometimes you need higher taxes to fund important programs, sometimes it's better to shift down (on a whole it's better to err on the side of lower taxes). Sometimes taxes can have positive effect, namely inheritance tax. Encourages people to spend their money while their alive, rather then give it to trust fund puppies.

I watched the debate, I'm going to give my impressions:

Michelle Bachmann: Palin 2.0, she's a little smarter then Palin, but I don't really think she has any proper awareness. I think she'll get votes from the radicals, but she'll ultimately flounder. Frankly, I found her all over the place, and unable to really form a sound logical argument.

Herman Cain: Bit better spoken then Bachmann, but I also think he failed to make much of an impression.

Newt Gingrich: Very well spoken, I thought he was able to clearly make his points, and he seemed pretty reasonable (as republicans go). However his popularity has been low for a while, and seems to have fallen from his previous heights. I think he can still be a contender.

Ron Paul: I disagree with him fundamentally, but I give him a lot of credit for consistency, and a willingness to stick to his guns and defend unpopular positions. But I'd say his campaign isn't going to do any better then his previous efforts. I also give him credit for being well read, he has more perspective then most of the other candidates.

Tim Pawlenty: Dull.

Mitt Romney: Smooth, made his points, I'd put him as the front runner. But what does he really believe? I feel like he's not being entirely honest about his views.

Rick Santorum: Failed to make an impression. Bit better then Pawlenty

Jon Huntsman: I like his record, but I think he failed to really make much of an impression here. I think he's compromising his views too much, he should speak more honestly and forcefully, otherwise he's just going to be lost in the crowd.

I think the front runners here were Romney and perhaps Gingrich. Bachman, Cain and Paul will appeal to their base, but not probably branch out further. Pawlenty, Santorum and Huntsman haven't really differentiated themselves.

I'd say victory: Romney. But there's another 6 months of this at least, a lot could change.

EDIT: @ Iran, I'm in favour of upholding non-proliferation through peaceful pressures, and also dealing with Iran with subtlety. Trade with them, but not get too friendly. If the opportunity comes, sponsor the nascent democratic movement there.

However I think Ron Paul is right that this is a diversion. This election isn't going to be won or lost on Iran. It's an issue, but I doubt there's going to be much difference between any of the candidates on it.

Terrorists don't need Iran to get nuclear material. It would make it easier, yes, but we can't truly do anything to prevent this from happening besides direct intervention. That's why I feel that nuclear sanctions are useless, because if a guy (Iranian president) is insane, and wants nuclear weapons, sanctions aren't going to stop him.

If the 2008 was an important election... this 2012 is critical.

If nothing else we will find out what the American people deserve.

That's the thing about democracies; people will vote for what thy think they want. What they vote for might not be what they actually need, but it would be what they asked for.

If an extremist gets in the Whitehouse, it is for no other reason than because the public voted that way. As a foreigner I watch with disinterest knowing either way it would not help the rest of the world much.

Aye. But, this quote from ol' Winston gives me hope:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

That doesn't change what I said, which is that the type of leader you get in a Democracy is determined by what kind of people elected him/her.

And since most of America don't actually vote, they deserve what's coming by not choosing.

What, so it's, these people side with them = the party actually looking out for their interests? One doesn't necessarily follow the other. I am trying to think of anything these Repubs have done that benefit those tens of millions who (mistakenly, I believe) support them. I wouldn't call a refusal to let the Bush tax cuts end even for the wealthiest, or even to close tax loopholes, something that helps these everyday folks. Nor would I call their drive to dismantle people's safety nets in a financial crisis something that makes them anything other than the party of the rich, something they've been wanting to do at least since the days of Goldwater. And how does a majority of a party opposing more financial regulations, ones that could've helped prevent the 08 recession if Bush hadn't gone on his deregulation binge, and even opposing a Consumer Protection Agency, say that they care anything about...well, consumers? ie most people?

The only populist slant I can see in today's GOP is their social ideology, which of course appeals to the tens of millions of social conservatives in the party. I'm sure they all love a Texan governor who prays to god to solve his state's problems. But financially? You're going to have to scrounge up some pretty strong evidence to convince me our national GOP doesn't work for the wealthiest elite.

The vast majority of Republicans are not wealthy. That is a fact that you cannot deny. Republicans also arent out to punish the rich and raise their taxes to make thinga 'fair' for everyone else. Republican voters want equal opportunity, but not equal outcome. There is a big difference between the two. They dont care about class warfare. They are not voting Republican because they are looking for government help. They want less government not more. And what government they do want, is that of a.strong military. I am speaking of the voters mond you. Not the politicians. the Democratic Party platform is not what Republican voters want or support.

It is your choice to understand reality or to ignore it. Just because you believe that you know better on what the 50 million Republican voters should want is very arrogant on your part. What you want and believe and advocate, is not what they want, believe, or advocate. Both sides view things very differently.

As I have stated many times in the past, between the two parties, the Republican Party is the closest to what I believe. Though that isnt saying much, considering how badly both parties are tied up with special interests. I do not believe in the Democratic Platform. It goes against everything I have ever believed and I cannot support positions that I am completely against.

In terms of Social Policy or Economic Policy? No, you can't choose both - unless y'really mean it. ;)

When it comes to social polices -- I've come to realize -- after being a member of a church body with heavy compliance to the Bible. Things like - anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, and other such "emotional" issues can be dealt with by churches on their own. Surely, societies around the churches can "evolve" to accept social policies not in compliance with the church. But at least, the government cannot force a church to accept unwanted policies, under protection of the First Amendment.

I'd have to say. Ever since Roe v Wade, that concept faded away with heavy emotional strife and attachment.

I really like this statement, and I would like to add that it's impossible to create equal outcome with equal opportunity, it's going to be engineered one way or another.

Hopefully I can save up enough to trade NASDAQ and NYSE before the elections officially begin. There will be plenty of short positions to call, no matter which politician says what. :heh:

Honestly speaking, the US elections are starting to look like a farce, after the Congress's makeover. It doesn't matter who runs the country, they are heading for a Roman plutocracy in the next decade.

If we last that long ;)

Don't worry you will. In the next decade of artificial organ transplantation giving Big Corp cats infinite lifespan, they will think of ways to keep you "consumer units" alive. :p

I dont believe in the Democratic Party's social policies either. I believe the majority of social issues should be handled by the states. Take gay marriage for example. I would not vote for a federal gay marriage ban. However i would support a state bill saying that marriage would be between a man and a woman, while allowing civil unions for gay couples. Infact i did just that by voting for prop 8 here in California several years ago.

I also hope to see roe v wade changed in the future, and again left the decisions to the states.

I do not support 99% of Democratic Policies and am very consistent on my beliefs.

I tend to agree with your *assertions* of what many "republican voters" are and want (though there's a much bigger range in the GOP than you seem to want to admit, some of whom would contradict those definitions). However, if such is the case - you're not getting candidate choices from the GOP that reflect those desires. Its not serving *your* interests to vote for plutocrat pawns or religious theocrats.

Do you see anyone in the current candidate field for the GOP that reflects your interests? One that doesn't make fundamental errors in their assertions (basic math, misrepresentation of facts, making things up) or one that isn't a plutocrat minion (*cough* Romney)?

I mean, in my case .... Huntsman and Pawlenty have some potential, I spent most of the 70s, 80s and early 90s in or near Ron Paul's district. He's about as clear as it gets in doing what he believes in. It just depends on whether one thinks it is realistic or not. Personally, I think every Congress needs at least one Ron Paul just to remind "Caesar he is but mortal". However, from my view over the last 40+ years, the last 15 years has been a spiraling decay of mediocrity and incompetence of the GOP from the perspective of Main Street. Not that I can't rip the Dems apart as well (ala that Dylan Ratigan video rant that is making the Internet rounds).

You made it sound like the US voting process is making a choice for the lesser of the evils.

Ok, that is stating something obvious. :heh:

Oh? Are these the same people who say "get your government hands of my medicare?" Sorry to break it to you, but of course they want government help. Look at someone like Megyn Kelly even. Tirading against "liberal entitlement programs" and "welfare" and "handouts" for who knows how long...until she has a kid of her own, and suddenly greatly values maternal leave. That's the problem with the whole ideology: "if it doesn't affect me, it's the nanny state interfering. But if it does, it's vital for our civilization." Same with the politicians who bitch about earmarks and whatnot, then gladly accept federal funds (I believe Michelle Bachmann's husband's "business" takes Medicaid funds for god's sake).

And of course Repub politicians don't care about class warfare. They're winning it.

Multiple polls show Fox News viewers are the most consistently misinformed. Plus, the culture of today's GOP seems to be convincing people that what's good for corporations is good for everybody (see Mitt Romney's recent "corporations are people my friend"), which is just factually a load of horsecrap.

Let me tell you where we'd be without all those social policies you claim to hate. The 1950, 1900s, or the 1890s. There.

This is going to suck bad all it going to be is tired parties attack ads that just going to drive you insane

i have been very consistent on my beliefs. Just because you can point out a few names or instances, does not make my points less valid. With all the negative things you can bring up about the Gop, I can do the exact same on the Democrats. Hypocrites are hypocrites regardless of what party they claim to belong to.

Why dont you tell me what the Democrats do, that Republican voters would agree on, vs the Republica. platform?

For the last time. Why I have voted Republican in the past, is either because I believed in what they said and did, or it was to keep the democrat who i viewed as a worst option, out of office. Lesser of two evils if you will. I will not.vote for a Democrat. They do not want the same America that I want. We are polar opposites.

Vexx: perhaps you missed one of my earlier posts. I stated that at this point, I will not be voting for any of the Republicans who were in the debate last night. I also will not vote for Rick perry. My dad met him years ago in Dallas and said he was a cocky little man, and not the kind of person we need in the White House. Of course he also said Obama was a cold sort of guy who looked down on people when my dad met him as a senator years ago. The vast majority of these politicians.arent.worth a crap.

I find it really hard to understand the Republicans, and American conservatism generally. I find European political parties pretty easy. Heck the Democratic party is pretty conventional too. But the republican party is all kinds of crazy. The closest I can think of is the UK conservative party, but the conservatives are pretty aristocratic, so it makes sense. The republicans are... I don't know.

I think the weirdest part is the way there's such an unholy Alliance between the religious right and business interests. Usually pro-business parties don't give a damn about religion, in fact they're often as not liberal.

I suppose it may be down to the fact that there's a vacuum in the US that socialists usually occupy. The US is perhaps the only country I know of without a popular socialist party.

The weirdest thing is the anti-tax thing. I mean no country likes taxes, but I can't think of any group that is so hard set against taxes. We're not talking demon worship here. Taxes are taxes. Suck it up and move on. Sometimes taxes have to be hiked. I'll take good roads, police, schools and hospitals over low taxes any day.

Yep, same here. I was shocked when I heard a Republican told me in so many words that taxes is the Anti-Christ. Did not understand what he meant then, and still don't. Taxes pay for government services, that's why it is for. Anti-tax is a position I can't comprehend.