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

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?

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

― Thanks WEBSITE!! (Z S), Saturday, 25 August 2012 17:11 (43 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

haha. mitt's one go-to comic impression being the profoundly blank teacher from ferris bueller is a fascinating insight tbh

Ha, so this story about him profiting off the 2002 Olympics is fun enough but frankly I'm all about the photo.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5038bac6/turbine/la-romney-20120825/600

"It's this big! Kevin Williamson, he's an insightful man."

I once caught a fish that was just the right size.

that's a nice color sweater, I want one

"I can't speak to Governor Romney's motivations," Obama said. "What I can say is that he has signed up for positions, extreme positions, that are very consistent with positions that a number of House Republicans have taken. And whether he actually believes in those or not, I have no doubt that he would carry forward some of the things that he's talked about."

Standard but still-pretty-good verbal judo there.

Mr. Obama tends to freak out about things alot, doesn't he? I remember all the times during his Presidency when he freaked out about stuff. All those times. Yes. So many of them.

"I can't speak to Governor Romney's motivations" is such deep game, just breathtaking - it's the exact same thing Romney did in the "my birth certificate" line, reflected back at him. Incredible

The idea that Obama would freak out if Romney manages to come up with a bit of cutting humor directed at him is very strange. Of course, some Republicans' idea of wit and humor is modeled on Rush Limbaugh's comparing Chelsea Clinton's looks to a dog's. When she was an adolescent.

Still, it's ridiculous.

they think it's important to keep the base worried about obama finally revealing his true color(s). the myth is that he's not the nice, smart, "presidential" gentleman he appears to be, but some crazy anti-christian radical bent on annihilating america.

the Ben Stein bit is the most overused by hacks since forever. I hope Romney keeps doing it.

Romney should do a routine about grocery carts with one bad wheel

"O has no humor because he thinks of himself as the messiah", so say the people that keep saying that. Also that AMERICA MUST BE SAVED!!

What's weird is yesterday's WSJ puff piece on Romney argued the opposite; that he should stay as impersonal as possible and maintain an air of "boring businessman who gets shit done"? And because he ends up inadvertently insulting his audience like every time he tries to make a joke.

the thing with the Yankee fan is amazing; it's like he can barely contain his contempt towards humanity.

peggy noonan writing RNC convention fan fiction is the craziest thing

"It is good that Joe Biden is going to the Republican National Convention to hold high the flag of his party. People make fun of his gaffes, of his embarrassing verbal forays, but he's no fool and he knows how to take it to the other guy. The speech he is working on, to be given in the heart of downtown, just across from the convention site, will be stirring and stentorian: "All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Tampa, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words, 'Ich bin ein Tampon.'"

I wish that were mine. It came in the mail from a Hollywood screenwriter, one of the gifted conservatives who quietly toil there."

a conservative in Hollywood? get outta hear no such thing

waaaaaaa if only we could make fun of Obama!

in a new AP interview obama reveals that his time-tested strategy of compromising with republicans without getting anything in return will be even more successful during his second term:

He said two changes — the facts that “the American people will have voted,” and that Republicans will no longer need to be focused on beating him — could lead to better conditions for deal-making.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/images/2006/10/19/dmu_head_in_hands_315x420.jpg

If Republicans are willing, Obama said, “I’m prepared to make a whole range of compromises” that could even rankle his own party.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/images/2006/10/19/dmu_head_in_hands_315x420.jpg

yes, republicans will no longer have an incentive to make his term unsuccessful, since the 2014 and 2016 elections will be cancelled