Official "What are you thinking about right now?" (Political Version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yomamaimontv

I hardly ever post on here, nobody does really. So why would I care if anyone got IP banned? To use your words: Thats just ****ing stupid. The whole idea of trying to propose a bet with strangers on an obsolete liberal baseball forum is ****ing stupid as well. I have already acknowledged that Obama is more likely to win, so why would I make any wager on Romney anyway? Once again. ****ing stupid. I just feel it will be alot closer than you and the rest of the liberal sheep think it is. Polls show a tight race.

---

If Obama wins, you and Pete have to kiss for two minutes.

With. Tongue.

I waited in line for 5 hours to vote early today. Most of it was straight democrat (no greens on the ballot, effing NC), but I held my nose and voted for one republican that I met in person....mainly because the democrat running against him seems to be a *****.

Thought really hard about McCrory, republican governor candidate too. Any other year maybe, but this year everyone on the right has backslid to 1948 and its too abhorrent to reward.

I really have a bad taste in my mouth from voting for the one, yuck.

Here's hoping Obama holds NC, as much of a longshot as that may be. I did my part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

I waited in line for 5 hours to vote early today. Most of it was straight democrat (no greens on the ballot, effing NC), but I held my nose and voted for one republican that I met in person....mainly because the democrat running against him seems to be a *****.

Thought really hard about McCrory, republican governor candidate too. Any other year maybe, but this year everyone on the right has backslid to 1948 and its too abhorrent to reward.

I really have a bad taste in my mouth from voting for the one, yuck.

Here's hoping Obama holds NC, as much of a longshot as that may be. I did my part.

---

LOL, actually leaving the house to vote. Mail in ballots for the win

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asianinvasion

LOL, actually leaving the house to vote. Mail in ballots for the win

---

:rolleyes:
"Hey girl, you voting for Obama?"
"Of course!!!"
"Me too. Wanna go stuff the ballot box later?"

I didn't wait at all to vote. My quest for democracy was unchallenged by lines of old people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete4256

lol ... there are gonna be a lot of broken hearts here at this form Wednesday. You are about to see the Greatest Blowout since Reagan vs Carter.

---

Care to make it interesting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete4256

The polling data ALWAYS gives Obama a +7 weight average in order to show him ahead.

---

This simply isn't true. You are making things up. Again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete4256

After Tuesday when Romney wins

---

Attachment 39067

So the Redskins lost today...

I will not vote this year, have to work, sorry Gary Johnson.

I am secretly hoping Romney wins (I don't think he will) just maybe, by the time 2016 rolls around people will wake up and realize how shitty Obama and Romney both are that way maybe some third party can lead the way to true change. This is the only way I believe a 3rd party can actually win Presidency in 2016. If Obama gets re-elected, that means people will forget and give the dick Republicans another ****ing chance they don't deserve. Neither party deserves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I will not vote this year, have to work, sorry Gary Johnson.

I am secretly hoping Romney wins (I don't think he will) just maybe, by the time 2016 rolls around people will wake up and realize how shitty Obama and Romney both are that way maybe some third party can lead the way to true change. This is the only way I believe a 3rd party can actually win Presidency in 2016. If Obama gets re-elected, that means people will forget and give the dick Republicans another ****ing chance they don't deserve. Neither party deserves.

---

Your believe that a 3rd party is ever going to win a presidency is cute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

Your believe that a 3rd party is ever going to win a presidency is cute.

---

I don't really believe it, I believe the odds would be better if it would play out the way I described.

There's just no mechanism that would connect what you're describing to your desired result. Apathy and disillusionment doesn't change anything, we already have that in spades. For either side to change anything they have to actually suffer losses on the scale that requires self-examination and re-organization. It's far more likely that a 2nd BHO term that is popular would create what you're looking for, because it would force at least one party to change its paradigm. The GOP was reeling after 2008, which is how the tea party movement grew to prominence. If BHO were reelected and gained popular momentum for liberal policies, it would be another defeat that would force the GOP into a shift. And since you're pro-libertarian, obviously the Republicans are more likely to make that shift than Democrats. Democrat losses won't ever bring libertarianism because Democrats aren't ever going to be libertarian.

I do hope this election goes Obama, and the Republicans have to face the fact that with growing minorities, and maturing views on gay rights, womens rights, and the environment, that they can't win with such a regressive agenda. And the Repubs would either fade and break apart, splintering into smaller parties, or correct their course where they are so behind.

I think their economic prowess would be helpful, if they would compromise and not focus on the lies and politicking so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

I do hope this election goes Obama, and the Republicans have to face the fact that with growing minorities, and maturing views on gay rights, womens rights, and the environment, that they can't win with such a regressive agenda. And the Repubs would either fade and break apart, splintering into smaller parties, or correct their course where they are so behind.

I think their economic prowess would be helpful, if they would compromise and not focus on the lies and politicking so much.

---

well said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

I do hope this election goes Obama, and the Republicans have to face the fact that with growing minorities, and maturing views on gay rights, womens rights, and the environment, that they can't win with such a regressive agenda. And the Repubs would either fade and break apart, splintering into smaller parties, or correct their course where they are so behind.

I think their economic prowess would be helpful, if they would compromise and not focus on the lies and politicking so much.

---

However, do you honestly think they will face that fact? The GOP leadership is already pre-packaging their excuses for why they're going to lose tomorrow:

1. The media has been in the tank for Obama since Day One.
2. The hurricane gave Obama a last-minute opportunity to appear presidential.
3. Nate Silver's analysis made Obama a heavy favorite and discouraged Republican voters.

And, of course, they can cry fraud. Now, none of these excuses are valid, mind you, but I guarantee you'll hear them. And then they'll double down on the crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I will not vote this year, have to work, sorry Gary Johnson.

I am secretly hoping Romney wins (I don't think he will) just maybe, by the time 2016 rolls around people will wake up and realize how shitty Obama and Romney both are that way maybe some third party can lead the way to true change. This is the only way I believe a 3rd party can actually win Presidency in 2016. If Obama gets re-elected, that means people will forget and give the dick Republicans another ****ing chance they don't deserve. Neither party deserves.

---

bush sucked, hopey changey got in there and sucked...partisan politics however keep the base hating the other side more despite their poor performance. romney coming in and sucking isn't going to all of a sudden get people to wake up. And to be fair, any president who gets in there is in a no-win as congress and the machine will quickly perverse him(her) and make it impossible to implement their agenda.

for a 3rd party to rise up the candidate will:

a) need alot of personal wealth and be willing to blow it all over multiple election cycles trying to gain popularity

b) be a centrist leading a tea party / occupy type groundswell movement which quickly and vocally calls out political leaders from both major parties.

c) stay active after losing an election. how often does a 3rd party candidate disappear after a presidential election? i think if this person would stand a better chance if they were someone already in congress who could run for presidency but have the congressional seat to fall back on. this way they can push their centrist agenda vocally during the non-election cycle and get more attention.

d) push the idea that people should change their party status from (r) or (d) to (i) or whatever party it is they are running under. personally, pushing people to register "independent" would stand a better chance of resonating with those against the current two party system. Make it "cool" to be "independent" and not tied to the machine.

just some quick thoughts on it.

i think there are many now who want to be coined as "independent". who want a true centrist to step in and push common sense policy that attacks nonsense from both major parties rather than have political ties that lead to them compromising beliefs for party. I think running as an independent stands a far better chance than running under libertarian or green party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

However, do you honestly think they will face that fact? The GOP leadership is already pre-packaging their excuses for why they're going to lose tomorrow:

1. The media has been in the tank for Obama since Day One.
2. The hurricane gave Obama a last-minute opportunity to appear presidential.
3. Nate Silver's analysis made Obama a heavy favorite and discouraged Republican voters.

And, of course, they can cry fraud. Now, none of these excuses are valid, mind you, but I guarantee you'll hear them. And then they'll double down on the crazy.

---

People don't know who the **** Nate Silver is.
Obama didn't look 'presidential', whatever the **** that means, by dropping in for a photo op then running away while people froze and gas went to 20 dollars a gallon if you could even find it.
Of course the media has been in the tank for BHO.


I'm not at all convinced Obama is going to win either. I'm thinking Romney wins with 281 electoral votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LQ1Z34

People don't know who the **** Nate Silver is.
Obama didn't look 'presidential', whatever the **** that means, by dropping in for a photo op then running away while people froze and gas went to 20 dollars a gallon if you could even find it.
Of course the media has been in the tank for BHO.


I'm not at all convinced Obama is going to win either. I'm thinking Romney wins with 281 electoral votes.

---

Attachment 39074

You guys aren't appreciating the reason why 3rd parties don't make impacts on the national scale. There's a reason why the descriptors are right and left: there's only two ends of the economic policy spectrum, and the primary motivation of almost all voters is going to be economic. Therefore, a third party is either going to occupy space in the right or left area (where, if they become influential enough, they will just replace the party on that side), or it will be off the spectrum entirely and be a single or few-ssue party.

The problem is, few-issue parties can't survive in American style government because on the national level there's just no room for it. You can't have any influence as a true third party (as opposed to a faction of a current party) because you won't ever get a majority of the country to just ignore economic issues. The reason few-issue parties exist in Europe is the parliamentary system. In parliamentary systems, seats in the legislature are handed out by % of the popular vote, so 10% or 20% actually means something for that party's interests.

The only thing that would allow a true and legitimate three party system in the US would be a conversion to parliamentary government, or for the central issue of American politics to shift to something that has more than 2 outcomes. The chances of either happening are infinitesimal.

And before anyone says "well what about a centrist party," any party that is concerned with economic policy is going to tip to one side or the other at one point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

You guys aren't appreciating the reason why 3rd parties don't make impacts on the national scale. There's a reason why the descriptors are right and left: there's only two ends of the economic policy spectrum, and the primary motivation of almost all voters is going to be economic. Therefore, a third party is either going to occupy space in the right or left area (where, if they become influential enough, they will just replace the party on that side), or it will be off the spectrum entirely and be a single or few-ssue party.

The problem is, few-issue parties can't survive in American style government because on the national level there's just no room for it. You can't have any influence as a true third party (as opposed to a faction of a current party) because you won't ever get a majority of the country to just ignore economic issues. The reason few-issue parties exist in Europe is the parliamentary system. In parliamentary systems, seats in the legislature are handed out by % of the popular vote, so 10% or 20% actually means something for that party's interests.

The only thing that would allow a true and legitimate three party system in the US would be a conversion to parliamentary government, or for the central issue of American politics to shift to something that has more than 2 outcomes. The chances of either happening are infinitesimal.

---

I disagree somewhat, Ross Perot was able to take part in TV debates and was polling around 20%. You get your voice heard on the main stage and things can happen, and compared to how those two debated, we could really use that, but of course they are strong armed out of the sham.

obama wins this thing handily. i dunno, maybe the popular vote iends up close. wouldn't that be interesting if romney takes the popular vote and gets beat convincingly by the EC? hmmmm...i'd love to see that one play out. hanging chad time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

obama wins this thing handily. i dunno, maybe the popular vote iends up close. wouldn't that be interesting if romney takes the popular vote and gets beat convincingly by the EC? hmmmm...i'd love to see that one play out. hanging chad time.

---

I wouldn't mind of Romney won the popular vote. Then maybe we'd eventually get on track to get rid of the electoral college. Although that might lead to the GOP winning both the house and senate in 2014 and the cockblocking of BHO continues

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LQ1Z34

I'm thinking Romney wins with 281 electoral votes.

---

Attachment 39075

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I disagree somewhat, Ross Perot was able to take part in TV debates and was polling around 20%. You get your voice heard on the main stage and things can happen, and compared to how those two debated, we could really use that, but of course they are strong armed out of the sham.

---

Ross Perot's Reform Party was just a faction of the GOP. He got to make more noise than most, but he didn't establish a legitimate 3rd party. All he did was force a reorganization of the GOP while the Democrats did the actual governing. Just like the Dixiecrats, and the Bull Moose Party, and the Green party, and every other faction since the Civil War.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

You guys aren't appreciating the reason why 3rd parties don't make impacts on the national scale. There's a reason why the descriptors are right and left: there's only two ends of the economic policy spectrum, and the primary motivation of almost all voters is going to be economic. Therefore, a third party is either going to occupy space in the right or left area (where, if they become influential enough, they will just replace the party on that side), or it will be off the spectrum entirely and be a single or few-ssue party.

The problem is, few-issue parties can't survive in American style government because on the national level there's just no room for it. You can't have any influence as a true third party (as opposed to a faction of a current party) because you won't ever get a majority of the country to just ignore economic issues. The reason few-issue parties exist in Europe is the parliamentary system. In parliamentary systems, seats in the legislature are handed out by % of the popular vote, so 10% or 20% actually means something for that party's interests.

The only thing that would allow a true and legitimate three party system in the US would be a conversion to parliamentary government, or for the central issue of American politics to shift to something that has more than 2 outcomes. The chances of either happening are infinitesimal.

And before anyone says "well what about a centrist party," any party that is concerned with economic policy is going to tip to one side or the other at one point.

---

i think it's pretty clear that the two party system is broken and there really isn't two spectrums to chose from anymore. The fact neither party will work together to improve the system is creates gridlock and we end up with the same thing regardless of candidate. This is reason enough to fall for an independent candidate who may stand a better chance of getting cooperation as they won't have a party affiliation to pander to.

I think you aren't appreciating the real reason 3rd parties don't make an impact on the national scale. It's because the two party system creates near insurmountable obstacles for them to overcome.

As for the economy, right now the two main "spectrums" being trumpeted are a) raise taxes on the rich and b) keep taxes the same and cut the size of govt. Certainly one can see where compromise can be had there and an in for an independent candidate can be had. I think people could easily fall in line with a candidate who says they will not tolerate the typical partisan politics and they will be more effective as an independent in pushing meaningful change as a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

Ross Perot's Reform Party was just a faction of the GOP. He got to make more noise than most, but he didn't establish a legitimate 3rd party. All he did was force a reorganization of the GOP while the Democrats did the actual governing. Just like the Dixiecrats, and the Bull Moose Party, and the Green party, and every other faction since the Civil War.

---

the machine gobbles them up. Same with the tea party and occupy movement. They may start off with noble intentions but one of the party latches on and they become a faction of the party. I'm not disagreeing there. I dont' think it has to be that way however....but it would require a very strong candidate to lead that movement.

In 1992, Ross Perot got about 20% of the vote with the Reform party. To be sure, a tremendous accomplishment given the political climate. It got him zero electoral votes, and accomplished zero Reform party goals in that cycle. Since the majority of Perot's supporters were Republicans, Clinton and the Dems had virtually no incentive to incorporate any Reform party ideas. And, Perot actually managed to be fairly centrist as well, gathering a fair amount of Democrat-leaning votes. Still didn't matter.

In 1996, Perot got about 8%, almost all of which were conservatives. 4 more years of slick Willie.

The last 3rd candidate to receive an electoral vote was Reagan in 1976. Reagan was the GOP runner-up, and it was just a protest vote from a DC elector that didn't like Ford (or maybe he didn't like Carter, I can't really tell who won the rest of DC).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

i think it's pretty clear that the two party system is broken and there really isn't two spectrums to chose from anymore. The fact neither party will work together to improve the system is creates gridlock and we end up with the same thing regardless of candidate. This is reason enough to fall for an independent candidate who may stand a better chance of getting cooperation as they won't have a party affiliation to pander to.

---

Even if the two spectrums aren't actually in play (I actually agree. I don't think there would be a noticable difference between Romney and Obama in economic policy), it's still the overwhelmingly prevailing narrative.

Quote:

---

I think you aren't appreciating the real reason 3rd parties don't make an impact on the national scale. It's because the two party system creates near insurmountable obstacles for them to overcome.

---

The two party system is simply the result of a structure of government that does not allow the formation of legitimate third parties. If it did, there wouldn't be a two party system, just like how there isn't a rock-solid two party system in European parliamentary democracies.

Quote:

---

As for the economy, right now the two main "spectrums" being trumpeted are a) raise taxes on the rich and b) keep taxes the same and cut the size of govt. Certainly one can see where compromise can be had there and an in for an independent candidate can be had. I think people could easily fall in line with a candidate who says they will not tolerate the typical partisan politics and they will be more effective as an independent in pushing meaningful change as a result.

---

"Compromise" is not a political platform. You can't have a compromise party. A centrist leader that had that much influence would simply replace the leadership he leaned towards more.

The build on the last point, if by some miracle Ross Perot had won the 1992 election, there wouldn't have been a three party system. Either Perot would have seized control of the Republican party, or Republicans would have all become Reform party members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

The build on the last point, if by some miracle Ross Perot had won the 1992 election, there wouldn't have been a three party system. Either Perot would have seized control of the Republican party, or Republicans would have all become Reform party members.

---

No but you don't understand.


THE SYSTEM WOULD BE BROKEN

****. Gonna have 4 more years of massive deficits and 8-10% unemployment because of this ****ing electoral college. This is brutal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LQ1Z34

****. Gonna have 4 more years of massive deficits and 8-10% unemployment because of this ****ing electoral college. This is brutal.

---

Yeah, if Romney was elected, we'd paid off all our debts by February 1st and everybody would have jobs by then too!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Yeah, if Romney was elected, we'd paid off all our debts by February 1st and everybody would have jobs by then too!!

---

Should have voted for Kony. Everyone gets jobs, even children!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Yeah, if Romney was elected, we'd paid off all our debts by February 1st and everybody would have jobs by then too!!

---

At least with Obama the forum will continue to get their government checks so they can buy Mogul. Silver linings in everything and all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LQ1Z34

At least with Obama the forum will continue to get their government checks so they can buy Mogul. Silver linings in everything and all that.

---

You have to be a caricature. This is not real.

You can't be real if you think Obama did anything other than a horrible job in his first term. The only saving grace to this election is the House is going to be able to block some of his insane spending for the next two years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LQ1Z34

You can't be real if you think Obama did anything other than a horrible job in his first term. The only saving grace to this election is the House is going to be able to block some of his insane spending for the next two years.

---

I said nothing about how Obama did in his first term, and if you actually read anything, you'd know that I don't approve of how Obama did in his first term, hence why I didn't vote for him.

I'm just not a ****ing whackjob.

I just want to hear more about how biased those polls were, and how much of a hack Nate Silver was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

I just want to hear more about how biased those polls were, and how much of a hack Nate Silver was.

---

Who the **** is Nate Silver?

Better yet, how many voters know who he is?