The Politics Thread

[thebish]

Obama.

[Prufrock]

Obama, but it wont be today!

[bristol_Wanderer3]

Obama wins by either 332-206 or 303-235 in the Electoral college. I'd plump for 332-206.
The deep south states (the confederacy in the civil war) to vote Republican by at least 60-40. In other words Romney takes back North Carolina.
Democrats hold the Senate 53-47.
Republicans hold the House by a similar margin as they do now.
US politics still in gridlock, as the House and Senate will block each others proposals.
Republicans begin an internal civil war, where the Tea Party types, and remaining moderates clash on whether they need to go further to the right (if that is possible!) or jettison the radicals and split off into two parties. The other option of tacking back to the centre is of course the only viable one, but with their current base that looks difficult for them, at least in the short term.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

well as you are all going for Obama, I'm sticking my red neck out...
Romney 292-246.

I actually want Obama to win, but predicting Romney to take it.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Obama, but it wont be today!

I agree about the timing - its not over till the last law suit is settled.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I think Obama will take it - if he gets one of Ohio or Virginia that will be fatal for Romney.

I'd like Romney to win. He looked ridiculous in the primaries, but that system forces it on you. Once he's in, I see no reason why he couldn't do the same good job he did with Massachusetts and he's got far more chance of doing bipartisan deals than Obama has. He doesn't have to pander to the Tea Party because once he's in he's in and they're not really his people. A look at things like his judicial appointments record in MA confirms this for me.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I think Obama will take it - if he gets one of Ohio or Virginia that will be fatal for Romney.

I'd like Romney to win. He looked ridiculous in the primaries, but that system forces it on you. Once he's in, I see no reason why he couldn't do the same good job he did with Massachusetts and he's got far more chance of doing bipartisan deals than Obama has. He doesn't have to pander to the Tea Party because once he's in he's in and they're not really his people. A look at things like his judicial appointments record in MA confirms this for me.

I don't think you understand Romney, PB - or the Republican party. Doing bipartisan deals at the state level is quite different from the national level. His foreign policy could well put us nearer to another major conflict. He will still have to pander if he doesn't want to lose the House and if he has ambitions for re-election. He will make the rich richer and get the market up, no doubt, but at what cost? The first thing he will get rid of is Obamacare modeled on the Mass. program he put in, so he rejects the good things he did as governor. He also says stupid things - not to the level of G.W. Bush, but then who could?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I think Obama will take it - if he gets one of Ohio or Virginia that will be fatal for Romney.

I'd like Romney to win. He looked ridiculous in the primaries, but that system forces it on you. Once he's in, I see no reason why he couldn't do the same good job he did with Massachusetts and he's got far more chance of doing bipartisan deals than Obama has. He doesn't have to pander to the Tea Party because once he's in he's in and they're not really his people. A look at things like his judicial appointments record in MA confirms this for me.

I don't think you understand Romney, PB - or the Republican party. Doing bipartisan deals at the state level is quite different from the national level. His foreign policy could well put us nearer to another major conflict. He will still have to pander if he doesn't want to lose the House and if he has ambitions for re-election. He will make the rich richer and get the market up, no doubt, but at what cost? The first thing he will get rid of is Obamacare modeled on the Mass. program he put in, so he rejects the good things he did as governor. He also says stupid things - not to the level of G.W. Bush, but then who could?

Dan Quayle
Alex Salmond

[thebish]

Dan Quayle
Alex Salmond

oooh goodie! a bird and fish themed politicians free-fall-all!!

errrr....

Robin Cook

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Nicola Sturgeon

[thebish]

Nicola Sturgeon

Peter Pike

[Lost Leopard Spot]

bugger. I'm stumped.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I think Obama will take it - if he gets one of Ohio or Virginia that will be fatal for Romney.

I'd like Romney to win. He looked ridiculous in the primaries, but that system forces it on you. Once he's in, I see no reason why he couldn't do the same good job he did with Massachusetts and he's got far more chance of doing bipartisan deals than Obama has. He doesn't have to pander to the Tea Party because once he's in he's in and they're not really his people. A look at things like his judicial appointments record in MA confirms this for me.

I don't think you understand Romney, PB - or the Republican party. Doing bipartisan deals at the state level is quite different from the national level. His foreign policy could well put us nearer to another major conflict. He will still have to pander if he doesn't want to lose the House and if he has ambitions for re-election. He will make the rich richer and get the market up, no doubt, but at what cost? The first thing he will get rid of is Obamacare modeled on the Mass. program he put in, so he rejects the good things he did as governor. He also says stupid things - not to the level of G.W. Bush, but then who could?

As governor he thought it should be a state programme. Is this inconsistent?

Anyway, who could be less effective at bi-partisanship than Obama?

The fact is he is a divisive politician with little skill as a broker. His mere presence is a radicalising impact on the Republican party.

As for re-election - has a sitting president ever been successfully challenged in his party's primaries?

[Athers]

Given everything which has gone on in the last 4 years I'm just about for giving Obama another term but I still feel disappointed on the way he's acted regards a credible deficit reduction plan. Ignoring his own commissions' findings etc.

More depressing is the inability of many politicians over there to accept any compromise when it comes to getting a decent ratio of spending cuts to tax increases into a plan (something like 75:25 to 80:20). The deadlock and fiscal cliffs stuff is one giant game of chicken that I find distasteful when it's dictating economic policy.

I much prefer our system of democracy where the Chancellor can simply read out the budget and that's that*. Gets stuff done.. but there you go.


* except for sausage roll tax

[Montreal Wanderer]

I think Obama will take it - if he gets one of Ohio or Virginia that will be fatal for Romney.

I'd like Romney to win. He looked ridiculous in the primaries, but that system forces it on you. Once he's in, I see no reason why he couldn't do the same good job he did with Massachusetts and he's got far more chance of doing bipartisan deals than Obama has. He doesn't have to pander to the Tea Party because once he's in he's in and they're not really his people. A look at things like his judicial appointments record in MA confirms this for me.

I don't think you understand Romney, PB - or the Republican party. Doing bipartisan deals at the state level is quite different from the national level. His foreign policy could well put us nearer to another major conflict. He will still have to pander if he doesn't want to lose the House and if he has ambitions for re-election. He will make the rich richer and get the market up, no doubt, but at what cost? The first thing he will get rid of is Obamacare modeled on the Mass. program he put in, so he rejects the good things he did as governor. He also says stupid things - not to the level of G.W. Bush, but then who could?

As governor he thought it should be a state programme. Is this inconsistent?

Anyway, who could be less effective at bi-partisanship than Obama?

The fact is he is a divisive politician with little skill as a broker. His mere presence is a radicalising impact on the Republican party.

As for re-election - has a sitting president ever been successfully challenged in his party's primaries?

Not that I know of (I think Carter and Bush senior were the only defeated presidents after one term), but this is because they do pander to elements in the party in their first term.

As for health care - like disaster relief I think it has to be at the national level if there is to be any sort of level playing field. Massachusetts brought it in when there was no federal alternative. What would it be like if the National Health Service became the County Health Service? Would Kent and Merseyside offer the same quality of service or even the same service? Would they put the same amount in per person? I'm not sure you'd like that.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I think Obama will take it - if he gets one of Ohio or Virginia that will be fatal for Romney.

I'd like Romney to win. He looked ridiculous in the primaries, but that system forces it on you. Once he's in, I see no reason why he couldn't do the same good job he did with Massachusetts and he's got far more chance of doing bipartisan deals than Obama has. He doesn't have to pander to the Tea Party because once he's in he's in and they're not really his people. A look at things like his judicial appointments record in MA confirms this for me.

I don't think you understand Romney, PB - or the Republican party. Doing bipartisan deals at the state level is quite different from the national level. His foreign policy could well put us nearer to another major conflict. He will still have to pander if he doesn't want to lose the House and if he has ambitions for re-election. He will make the rich richer and get the market up, no doubt, but at what cost? The first thing he will get rid of is Obamacare modeled on the Mass. program he put in, so he rejects the good things he did as governor. He also says stupid things - not to the level of G.W. Bush, but then who could?

As governor he thought it should be a state programme. Is this inconsistent?

Anyway, who could be less effective at bi-partisanship than Obama?

The fact is he is a divisive politician with little skill as a broker. His mere presence is a radicalising impact on the Republican party.

As for re-election - has a sitting president ever been successfully challenged in his party's primaries?

Not that I know of (I think Carter and Bush senior were the only defeated presidents after one term), but this is because they do pander to elements in the party in their first term.

As for health care - like disaster relief I think it has to be at the national level if there is to be any sort of level playing field. Massachusetts brought it in when there was no federal alternative. What would it be like if the National Health Service became the County Health Service? Would Kent and Merseyside offer the same quality of service or even the same service? Would they put the same amount in per person? I'm not sure you'd like that.

We don't like it already - it's called postcode lottery. You can get some treatments and certain medicines in one health trust but not in another adjacent one, and it all depends on the luck of the draw as to where you live. For a National health service it is a ridiculous concept.

[bristol_Wanderer3]

I think the radicalizing effect of Obama is as much to do with who he is, rather than any judgement on his political skills. Only yesterday, Chris Christie, the Republican governor of New Jersey, was hailing Obama's skills as a politician. The presence of the Tea Party makes it close to impossible to have any element of bi-partianship, even moderate Republicans find it very difficult.

Whether Romney did a good job as governor of Massachusetts is debatable. He balanced the budget, and brought in universal healthcare, which he is now completely opposed to (given Obama has used the same model for Obamacare), but job creation was one of the worst in the US and the residents of that state seem to have a wholly negative view of his time there, and are voting Democrat by as big a margin as ever.

[as]

Given everything which has gone on in the last 4 years I'm just about for giving Obama another term but I still feel disappointed on the way he's acted regards a credible deficit reduction plan. Ignoring his own commissions' findings etc.

More depressing is the inability of many politicians over there to accept any compromise when it comes to getting a decent ratio of spending cuts to tax increases into a plan (something like 75:25 to 80:20). The deadlock and fiscal cliffs stuff is one giant game of chicken that I find distasteful when it's dictating economic policy.

I much prefer our system of democracy where the Chancellor can simply read out the budget and that's that*. Gets stuff done.. but there you go.


* except for sausage roll tax

Didn't Obama also employ the big-honcho's from the failed banks that his country had to bail out too?

[bristol_Wanderer3]

Given everything which has gone on in the last 4 years I'm just about for giving Obama another term but I still feel disappointed on the way he's acted regards a credible deficit reduction plan. Ignoring his own commissions' findings etc.

More depressing is the inability of many politicians over there to accept any compromise when it comes to getting a decent ratio of spending cuts to tax increases into a plan (something like 75:25 to 80:20). The deadlock and fiscal cliffs stuff is one giant game of chicken that I find distasteful when it's dictating economic policy.

I much prefer our system of democracy where the Chancellor can simply read out the budget and that's that*. Gets stuff done.. but there you go.


* except for sausage roll tax

The European system of electing governments with the power to govern does seem more logical, but its important to remember that the US is a democratic republic as opposed to a true democracy. The idea is that each of the states governs themselves, and the federal government only gets involved where there is common interest such as defence, foreign relations, major crime etc. Thus the system is wholly intended to make it as hard as possible for the federal government to make much of an impact, the system is in effect acting as limiting agent against overreach by the federal government, thus protecting states rights, and "freedom".

The concept of freedom, or loss of it, is one of the main ideals behind the TEA Party, who perceive Obamacare as wealth distribution, and thus the whole Obama agenda as marxist/communist. When you add in the natural hate towards Obama in the confederacy states, and the dominating influence of the TEA party in the GOP, then you have a completely polarized political scene that has so far only come together when the outcome of not doing so would mean the country would start to be unable to operate.

[thebish]

my eyes are still watering from the fact that (not including the primaries) these two candidates have between them spent something like $2billion on campaigning... and at the end of it all, the opinion polls are pretty much as they were at the start...