the most important election of your lifetime: 2012 american general election thread

More like the convention.

well i mean, it's a commonplace now that candidates try to get in the other's brain...

I think the problem is we've all seen inside Romney's brain.

This strikes me as unhelpful.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rnc-on-romneys-birth-certificate-joke-he-was?ref=fpb

I'm now concerned about Gawker's chance at winning the nomination for.....wait, they aren't running for president?

max, Secretary of Things

So the position of Romney apologists is basically, if you meet the standards set by an internet gossip blog then you are eligible to try for most important position in world politics.

sounds good to me!

god, much as I do try to keep my head out of horse-race stuff i really can't help but kind of luxuriate in watching the GOP field such an utterly, horribly inept candidate. I mean, the birth certificate thing - - - all Obama has to do is completely ignore it, just let it hang in the news there as one more Super Awkward Uncomfortable Thing Mitt Romney Has Said.

Iatee bait from Bill James (part of a long explanation why there used to be a catcher bias in MVP voting):

Anyway, generations of sportswriters develop systems of belief, just as generations of political reporters do. Watching political news, I think if one more "analyst" tells me that this election is going to be decided by the economy, I'll scream. It's just something they all "know"; it's not necessarily true, but they all re-inforce one another's belief in this.

The belief of the time was that championship teams are strong up the middle. It's like all elections being decided by the economy; sometimes it's true, and sometimes we just decide to pretend it's true.

David Gergen gurgles/restates thread title with straight face

we need a gif of Gergen calmly and bipartisanly eating his own vomit.

“I’ve said throughout the campaign and before, there’s no question about where he was born. He was born in the U.S. This was fun about us, and coming home. And humor, you know — we’ve got to have a little humor in a campaign.”

This was fun about us, and coming home.

"“So it was great to be home, to be in a place where Ann and I had grown up, and the crowd loved it and got a good laugh.”

"And life is precious, and God, and the Bible."

“I’ve said throughout the campaign and before, there’s no question about where he was born. He was born in the U.S. This was fun about us, and coming home. And humor, you know — we’ve got to have a little humor in a campaign. Humor, you know. "Ha Ha Ha", ha ha. Ha. Love to laugh.”

"ha ha ha, ha ha. ha. love to laugh. he's black!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pshzb5_uSBc&feature=relmfu

Governor Romney’s decision to directly enlist himself in the birther movement

re: iatee bait

the bias is towards seeing a world where one thing 'decides the election' instead of seeing things as the result of lots of intertwined variables, the most important of which is 'do people have jobs / money + believe they will have jobs / money in the future'. 'the economy didn't decide this election' is like 'pitching didn't decide the baseball game'.

Money is a big underlying factor on a multiplicity of issues, but when people talk about 'the economy" deciding an election, they're specifically referring to current trends in unemployment and maybe wage growth. They're not talking about things like tax policy, administration of health care, education, etc.

(So, in that sense, I think James is correct.)

70 days is a long fucking time to wait for this shit to be over

I think this one, once all the distractions fade away, will be decided on the economy, although in view of the way Obama manages to stay afloat, I sometimes wonder--antipathy to Romney seems to be playing a role. (iatee will probably counter that that antipathy is rooted in Romney's economic policies.)

But I have seen many baseball games that most definitely weren't decided by pitching. Not unless the mere fact of there being a pitcher on the mound trumps all. (A real ugly one, as an example.)

i saw that game! i was nine.

Wildest baseball game I've ever seen. The thing I most remember is Stottlemyre trying to slide into third in the second inning, coming up about five feet short, and cutting up his chin something awful. My recollection was that that was it for him, but they managed to get another inning out of him.

"Distractions" like Ryan's budget?

again, we want the election - and the individual decisions of millions of people - to fit into a readable narrative, where one theme 'wins', but really its due to countless things, its just the economy is the biggest and most important chunk of the countless things and always will be. and that's true in a good economy, a fine economy, and a bad economy. its like if pitching is 50% of the game, the economy is 50% of the election, and maybe when you're telling the story of the game the next day the pitching doesn't seem like it was the exciting part, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

goodnight

*drops mic*

Not arguing with what you are saying there, just that saying "goodnight" is a little "dorks signing their posts like its an email"

Just to get annoyingly technical, pitching isn't 50% of baseball; preventing runs is 50%, of which some significant percent is attributable to defense...Anyway, I mostly agree with you, though you'll never get me to agree about '68. I say that election was is no way about the economy--the war, civil unrest (to put it mildly), and feelings of general breakdown were more important. We had this disagreement months ago, verbatim, which is why the James quote made me think of you.

ya I regretted not putting 40% after I wrote that. anyway 1968 being 'in no way about the economy' is like any game being in no way about pitching. it's always there, it's always a thing. 1968 might have been a game where there were 20 errors and fine pitching, so 'errors were more important', but just cause the pitching wasn't the distinctive element in that game doesn't mean that it wasn't something that was responsible for 40% of the result.

~ iatee
"Cars belong to a physical world of escalating waste and declining green space, a world of environmental degradation, an asphalt nation in which we live and breathe. Car culture is forever bound to the historical relations of modern capitalist production and consumption." - Amy Best

I thought about this some more, and isn't the biggest factor in how people vote simply party affiliation? Most people will vote either Democrat or Republican no matter who's running or what the economic climate is. Now, you could say that party affiliation is mostly decided by economic concerns, but thinking only about this election, of the whatever-percentage of people who are going to reliably vote Republican, how many haven't given a thought to the economy and simply despise the other guy? (Realizing that the state of the economy no doubt plays into whether or not some party faithfuls bother to vote at all.)

We're mostly just disagreeing about '68. I'd say the economy couldn't have been more that 25% in terms of what was on people's minds.

Summed up really well (and iconically cynically) by Nixon's plant of that "Bring Us Together" banner. He didn't plant an "I Need a Job" or "Bring Down the Deficit" or "Deregulate Industry" banner.

nixon did pound away on inflation issue though

Good point. Meanwhile:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbStYaQESuw

Assume this will never actually run anywhere but will generate the desired attention for the rest of today anyway. In Costanza parlance, I think they're just sticking it to the other side--can't see any other purpose.

I thought about this some more, and isn't the biggest factor in how people vote simply party affiliation? Most people will vote either Democrat or Republican no matter who's running or what the economic climate is. Now, you could say that party affiliation is mostly decided by economic concerns, but thinking only about this election, of the whatever-percentage of people who are going to reliably vote Republican, how many haven't given a thought to the economy and simply despise the other guy? (Realizing that the state of the economy no doubt plays into whether or not some party faithfuls bother to vote at all.)

party affiliation is more a long-term preference, but it's also factored into the numbers beforehand and why an acceptable-to-45%-of-america is at the head of each ticket and not ron paul or a child molester. there are really two elections, and the first one is why 90% of the country will vote dem/rep in the 2nd one 'no matter who's running' - (cause ron paul/child molester didn't win the first election). the process is getting a little weird on the gop side tho.

I find it weird when I hear interviews with professed independents who voted for Clinton twice, and voted for Obama last time, but this time just ... aren't so sure. They're pro choice, and they're not sure what the president can do to help with the economy, and they don't like Mitt personally, and they don't like being in Iraq and Afghanistan, but ... they're still not sure. That health care thing just sounds so ... horrible, you know? Because it would, like, insure people. And stuff. Which is, like, so not important, because it barely affects anyone, and besides, if you're not insured, you shouldn't get sick in the first place, not if you can't afford it. And if you can't afford it, just ask your church and neighbors, you know? And the Papa John guy claims it could add as much as 20 cents to the cost of a pizza. 20 cents! Just to insure a few thousand low-paid employees! That is not the American way.

Also, I think maybe Obama is black? But that's totally not why I wouldn't vote for him! If Mitt were black, I wouldn't hold it against him, either. I mean, he's not. But if he were, I wouldn't care. I'm not prejudiced. I'm just tired of Obama injecting his radical black politics into America.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444812704577607803214543924.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[Romney] must use humor, for three reasons. One is that wit breaks through and sharpens all points. Another is that it is natural to him. Before the voting in Iowa, he wryly told a friend that the caucuses were like the LaBrea Tar Pits: "No one comes out the way they went in." On a conference call recently, he asked a question of his staff. No one answered. Mr. Romney waited. "Bueller? Bueller?" he said, in a perfect imitation of Ben Stein.

Third, President Obama can't stand to be made fun of. His pride won't allow it, his amour propre cannot countenance a joke at his own expense. If Mr. Romney lands a few very funny lines about the president's leadership, Mr. Obama will freak out. That would be fun, wouldn't it?

yes, that dastardly, socialistic ACA -- drafted by a right wing think tank in the 80s (complete w/ mandate!!), supported by mainstream GOP in the 90s, implemented by Republican governor in 00s and then upheld as Constitutional by one of the most conservative Courts in U.S. history

I'd love to see Mitt and Obama in a zing-off.

(in response to professed independents)

xpost

http://www.economist.com/node/21560864?frsc=dg|a

the economist un-endorses mitt

the subhed his particularly 'cheeky'

why do they pronounce "birther" with a soft "-th" in that ad

On a conference call recently, he asked a question of his staff. No one answered. Mr. Romney waited. "Bueller? Bueller?" he said, in a perfect imitation of Ben Stein.

aaaaahahahahahahaha, brilliant! ahaha oh man! woo! WOO! hilarious! aaahahaha, BUELLER! BUELLER?! Where is he? hahahaha yes

Before the voting in Iowa, he wryly told a friend that the caucuses were like the LaBrea Tar Pits: "No one comes out the way they went in."

watch Mitt Romney humorously misunderstand the LaBrea Tar Pits

The concept that people would vote for Romney is pretty funny, it's his funniest bit in fact.

(Romney) must use humor, for three reasons. One is that wit breaks through and sharpens all points. Another is that it is natural to him. Before the voting in Iowa, he wryly told a friend that the caucuses were like the LaBrea Tar Pits: "No one comes out the way they went in." On a conference call recently, he asked a question of his staff. No one answered. Mr. Romney waited. "Bueller? Bueller?" he said, in a perfect imitation of Ben Stein.

Third, President Obama can't stand to be made fun of. His pride won't allow it, his amour propre cannot countenance a joke at his own expense. If Mr. Romney lands a few very funny lines about the president's leadership, Mr. Obama will freak out. That would be fun, wouldn't it?

is this like some real deep satire on the part of the wsj or what?