U.S. Politics

Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
I would like to suggest that we divorce specific US election discussion from the 'General politics' topic. US political issues already so dominate there that discussion of other (global) issues is becoming increasingly difficult.

Next year's US elections will be a possible watershed in the country's history, and are likely to attract increasing comment and debate. It seems reasonable to me to confine specific election-related discussion to a separate topic.

Thoughts?

(This can easily be locked or deleted should the powers that be think otherwise.)
 
Oct 8, 2011
199
0
0
As a total outsider who doesn't care who wins I am finding the battle for the Republican nomination to be very entertaining, the last debate especially.
Romney is still the favourite and seems to be the best at thinking quickly and putting his views forward well.
Perry seems to be very slow at getting answers at times and not suited to debates. He still could be a real threat if he can make up some ground in the next couple of weeks when there is no debates.
Cain has taken some blows but has stood up to them okay, not convinced he has the staying power to be up there in a couple of months but it is certainly possible.
I would be very surprised if any of the others win the nomination.
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
It's Romney's to lose. Cain is in it simply to promote himself. Surprisingly, probably even to himself, he is the front runner de jour, but won't stay there. Perry seems tanking even more after each debate. I wonder whether he can make up before the first primaries and caucuses. The rest is irrelevant.
 
I'd rather not have a plethora of threads. Actually, I'm going to insist on it. I'm already going to close the Fox News thread. But I will let this one run for at least a little while.

It would make more sense to me to split the political threads in two: American Politics, and European (or Global) Politics.
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I'd rather not have a plethora of threads. Actually, I'm going to insist on it. I'm already going to close the Fox News thread. But I will let this one run for at least a little while.

It would make more sense to me to split the political threads in two: American Politics, and European (or Global) Politics.
And that would separate how exactly? Just imagine talking about the Arab revolution. Discussing US involvement in Libya would go where? Discussing Palestine's bid for statehood would go where? Would it be moved once the US vetos it? I can't see a good separation either way. Where would we discuss cross country comparisons of tax systems, health care etc?
 
Well, what we don't need is a slew of politics threads in the forum. This has been discussed before, and the majority of people, and mods, did not want such a thing. Though the title would make one think it would be something to last for a year, I don't know that users can remain that focused on this topic, and we'll end up with two politics threads overlapping each other.

Thus I'm inclined to do with this thread what I did with the Fox thread. Let it run for a few days, and if/when it bleeds into other topics, close it, and re-direct people to the General thread.

For now, it stays.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Well, what we don't need is a slew of politics threads in the forum. This has been discussed before, and the majority of people, and mods, did not want such a thing. Though the title would make one think it would be something to last for a year, I don't know that users can remain that focused on this topic, and we'll end up with two politics threads overlapping each other.

Thus I'm inclined to do with this thread what I did with the Fox thread. Let it run for a few days, and if/when it bleeds into other topics, close it, and re-direct people to the General thread.

For now, it stays.
I understand perfectly that no one, least of all the mods, is served by a surfeit of overlapping topics. I also entirley understand and agree with your closing of the Fox topic, which had indeed run its natural course (though clips from FN could always be included in a comedy topic).

My reasoning for floating this topic was twofold. The General topic now includes everything under the sun, but is dominated by discussion of US politics and society. It is extremely difficult for any two posters, for example, to maintain a conversation about anything non-US related. By and large, US posters here show little interest in global issues. Fair enough, no one has to.

At the same time, we are going to see a steady increase in election related subjects and posts over the coming year, culminating in an election that may be of immense influence on the future of this country. It seemed like a good idea to put all the electioneering/polling/etc stuff in one place. By so doing, the General topic can evolve to become a little less US fixated and more 'general'. It seems to me that this would benefit all concerned.

I think that trying to split political discussion into 'world' and US will not work. As Cobblestones mentioned above, there are simply too many overlaps. I do, however, think that we could have a decent stab at divorcing specific US election related material. If it works, you can always change the title next year.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
0
0
I am voting for Gubnah Rick Perry because of his good hair dew.

SO happy we get to have a an election thread. Thanks amsterhammer for the thread, maybe we can get some real powliticken going on. Pubs for the win in 2012 down with President Obama the socialist.
 
Oct 8, 2011
199
0
0
Cobblestones said:
It's Romney's to lose. Cain is in it simply to promote himself. Surprisingly, probably even to himself, he is the front runner de jour, but won't stay there. Perry seems tanking even more after each debate. I wonder whether he can make up before the first primaries and caucuses. The rest is irrelevant.
Perry is going to launch his tax policy and if that works and he can steady things he could start doing okay. If Cain faulters badly and loses alot of support then I would think Perry would benefit more than Romney. Romney might benefit from Cain hanging around as a contender for a while provide Cain doesn't beat him as highly unlikely as it might be.
 
Okay, we'll try it for now. A few things to understand though:

This thread is ONLY for posts relating to the 2012 campaign. Anything else, and the post is likely to be deleted, and the poster given an (unofficial) warning.

• If the thread starts turning into a catch-all, it will be closed.

• I would encourage those posting in the General Politics thread to do their best to re-direct campaign 2012 discussions here.

• If backlash starts about the Café turning unfriendly because of too much politics, I may take the decision to close this thread, and stuff everyone into the General Politics thread.

• Understand that this is a cycling message board. Yes, this is the Café, but if people really want to discuss hard-core politics, there are plenty of websites out there for it.
 
Oct 8, 2011
199
0
0
Okay I will shut up and leave this thread alone, the message is quite clear.

EDIT: Changed my mind as this thread has not had the fate I was expecting.
 
Michelle Bachman's entire staff in New Hampshire resigned today. She was already a long passed flavor of the month, but this is a pretty strong nail in her presidential coffin if you ask me.

As I noted in the other thread, it's Romney's nomination to win or lose. He seems to be the only one who understands this is a marathon, not a sprint. Only Perry can upend him as I see it, and that is if Perry can sweep South Carolina and Florida, then several states on Super Tuesday and get momentum from that.
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
Luke Schmid said:
Perry is going to launch his tax policy and if that works and he can steady things he could start doing okay. If Cain faulters badly and loses alot of support then I would think Perry would benefit more than Romney. Romney might benefit from Cain hanging around as a contender for a while provide Cain doesn't beat him as highly unlikely as it might be.
Romney's strategy should be to prop up Cain until January such that the tea party vote is split between Cain, Romney, and Bachman and Paul. That's the only way how he can turn his ~25% support level into a nomination victory.
 
I dont like Romney, hated him in 2008, but hes the only one who would be able to do the job of President.

Glad moron Huckabee wasnt able to trick people with that campaign for 2nd in 2008, where he continued polling after Romney conceded, so that he could get enough delegates to claim the runners up spot and with become Dauphin to the nomination.

Still I would much rather Petraeus or Giulliani tried. Rudy's corrupt, but I like the guy. Handled defeat quite well in 2008, is a good speaker and has balls.

But GOP seems to be closed to sane people these days.

Romneys got no principles though, so on the off chance he became pres, he wouldnt give a **** about the so called "conservatives". Throw them a bone or 2 to aid his reelection prospects, but I doubt he even believes this Latter day saints stuff, let alone Social conservative gospel.

Hes more likely just fighting to be the next Walter mondale, Bob Dole, John Kerry, etc though.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
• Understand that this is a cycling message board. Yes, this is the Café, but if people really want to discuss hard-core politics, there are plenty of websites out there for it.
From my experience, every politics forum i have ever seen, lives on a level of brutality never seen on these boards.

The worst posts on this forum look like the Amish standing up to Genghis Khan when compared to the normal stuff you find on politics forums and newspaper comment sections every day.

This forum is a much better place to discuss the stuff, (so long as those accusing others of being "drunks" are curtailed ;) )
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
I have supported Romney as the Republican candidate since 08. It hasn't changed this year, and I don't see it changing. Cain is growing on me, but I have my reservations. He would be an excellent economic advisor or cabinet member. Perry has performed so poorly in debates (by poorly I mean he gets DESTORYED everytime) that he's lost nearly all hope. Regardless of his stance on issues and his tax plan, he doesn't debate them well enough that they even seem effective, so I don't see him climbing back into contention. Ron Paul is the most practical, but totally unelectable as President. Would love to see him selected as a cabinet member. Newt is the most fun. He's the party's enforcer; reminding everyone why they are there. I don't think he has any real interest in being president. He just wants to galvanize the party and throw some jabs at Obama. I like that. Bachman has such a heart but lacks intelligence (just being honest). She's not ready for this kind of undertaking. Funny this is, she still performs better than Perry in debates. Rick Santorum is an :eek:hole and Huntsman is a non issue, he'll drop out soon, followed by Santorum.
 
I hear what you're saying IK. One would think there is great opportunity here for Perry. But every time you hear him speak he just seems like he can't think on his feet, and every debate seems to cement that assertion.

The Hitch said:
From my experience, every politics forum i have ever seen, lives on a level of brutality never seen on these boards.
I understand. Our most "extreme" political members are probably Scott and Redtrivso. Both would be very tame on those sites. Red goes off the deep end now and then, but is easy to pass over. When speaking openly Scott's principles are quite moderate-conservative.

I also understand the appeal that people that partake in these conversations here are friends in a sense. I just don't want the Cafe overrun with political threads, or even filled with a couple dominant threads that it turns other people away.

The Hitch said:
I don't like Romney...He's more likely just fighting to be the next Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, John Kerry, etc though.
You left out Mike Dukakis. ;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The Hitch said:
Romneys got no principles though, so on the off chance he became pres, he wouldnt give a **** about the so called "conservatives". Throw them a bone or 2 to aid his reelection prospects, but I doubt he even believes this Latter day saints stuff, let alone Social conservative gospel.

Hes more likely just fighting to be the next Walter mondale, Bob Dole, John Kerry, etc though.
Everybody has an opinion and it's still early. Having said that I don'e see a path for Obama. He'll raise a ton of money but he can't run on his record.

Obama gets beat in the general somehwere between 3-5% on the popular vote, he will not win Florida or Ohio, probably loses Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Electroal numbers won't be close.

And if the Republicans had a good candidate it would be a landslide.
 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I hear what you're saying IK. One would think there is great opportunity here for Perry. But every time you hear him speak he just seems like he can't think on his feet, and every debate seems to cement that assertion.
It really does. I expected his first debate to be a little subar because his state was on fire and he was bit preoccupied, but they just get worse. And the one area you would think he's an expert, border patrol, he still gets crushed.
 
Scott SoCal said:
Everybody has an opinion and it's still early. Having said that I don'e see a path for Obama. He'll raise a ton of money but he can't run on his record.

Obama gets beat in the general somehwere between 3-5% on the popular vote, he will not win Florida or Ohio, probably loses Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Electroal numbers won't be close.

And if the Republicans had a good candidate it would be a landslide.
I dont like Obama. I think hes a good president but I dont like the guy, due to the way he behaved in the 2008 election, and so long as the Gop candidate is moderate (ie will be pretty much the same in office as Obama) I would enjoy Obama losing.

But the fact of the matter is, the election favours him strongly. He is the sitting candidate. He has a base of diehard fans that will be out in force big time. The Democrats have way more members. His skeletons are already well known and often ignored whereas those of the Gop candidate will come out and shock people.

Bush was able to get evangelical Christians out in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. In both cases the polls predicted a bigger victory for him in those states and it came down to the wire. These evangelical types wont go out for Romney.

Obama won Virginia and North Carolina for christ sake. His machine is like Amrstrong US postal.

I dont know what the human instinct is that causes you to think the Gop actually have a chance, but I see it a lot. I remember a lot of Republicans interviewed on election night refused to admit Mccain was going to lose even after Obama had Colorado.

This isnt an election for the GOP to win. 2016 maybe if they are lucky. 2012, the ball is in the Dems court.
 
Apr 29, 2010
1,036
0
0
Scott said:
Everybody has an opinion and it's still early. Having said that I don'e see a path for Obama. He'll raise a ton of money but he can't run on his record.
Obama gets beat in the general somewhere between 3-5% on the popular vote, he will not win Florida or Ohio, probably loses Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Electoral numbers won't be close.

And if the Republicans had a good candidate it would be a landslide.
meanwhile, the GOP track record of leadership for my entire lifetime has been exceptional.

 
Oct 29, 2009
1,095
0
0
The Hitch said:
But the fact of the matter is, the election favours him strongly. He is the sitting candidate. He has a base of diehard fans that will be out in force big time. The Democrats have way more members. His skeletons are already well known and often ignored whereas those of the Gop candidate will come out and shock people.

I dont know what the human instinct is that causes you to think the Gop actually have a chance, but I see it a lot. I remember a lot of Republicans interviewed on election night refused to admit Mccain was going to lose even after Obama had Colorado.
You do realize Obama's approval rating is at an all time low and the two Republican front runners already lead Obama in most polls?

Going into the 12 quarter, I'd say the GOP is in excellent position.
 
ImmaculateKadence said:
You do realize Obama's approval rating is at an all time low and the two Republican front runners already lead Obama in most polls?

Going into the 12 quarter, I'd say the GOP is in excellent position.
All presidents recover in their last year. The economy probably will improve and so will Obamas approval ratings. The reality of election is also different from approval ratings. Obama has most of the advantages.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts