Objective review of the US 2012 Presidential and Congressional general campaign

[Karl Henning]

The "one-and-a-half party system" is a good line.  To be sure, I think the system (though far from perfect) is on the whole good, robust and dynamic;  by and large, I think the problem lies not in the stage, but in the players — so I am inclined to think that improvements need to be social and personal, rather than systemic.

Need there be more parties?  (That there are only two, is not hardwired into the US political process.)  Fairly regularly, there is an attempt to build a third-party alternative; it tends to fail as an effort to win office, but can at times succeed in altering the texture and content of the dialogue.

One might say that the T Party (T for tantrum) was a third-party drive which consumed one of the two chief parties as a sort of host.  (I should also entertain the idea that there were good impulses at the outset of the "party," but which themselves were taken hostage by . . . eccentric high-profile campaigners for office. Palin, Bachmann, Akin, e.g.)  The GOP needs to do something with that feelin'-mavericky element, because in the current elections, they've basically undermined many an opportunity for a Republican candidate to retain or take a seat in the Senate.

[Todd]

Need there be more parties?

It wouldn't make a large difference at the federal level.  Congress would still set its own rules, with the most powerful party controlling the legislative agenda and chairmanships of committees, and presidential elections would, if anything, become more complicated, rather like occurred with some frequency in the 19th Century.

[mahler10th]

I'm waiting for 01.00AM GMT to come along so I can tune in to the final debate.  Of the two, only Obama can command a respect that is Worldwide, not just party wide.

[Karl Henning]

I'm waiting for 01.00AM GMT to come along so I can tune in to the final debate.  Of the two, only Obama can command a respect that is Worldwide, not just party wide.

I don't know that Mitt commands even party-wide respect. Republicans are holding their noses because he was the best "anyone-but-Obama" candidate they could field.

[Mirror Image]

I don't know that Mitt commands even party-wide respect. Republicans are holding their noses because he was the best "anyone-but-Obama" candidate they could field.

Yeah, it's pitiful to think about...well almost as pitiful as the McCain/Palin ticket from 2008.

[Karl Henning]

Separately: What if the debates don't matter?

The following paragraph, apart from its own merits, makes me smile for an independent reason:

2. People don't like to admit debates sway them. Most people think of themselves as a) smart and b) free thinkers. And so, when asked a question about whether they had their mind changed by a 90-minute debate between the two candidates, the first reaction is to say that it didn't have that effect. (This phenomenon, by the by, is why so many people like to call themselves either independents or undecideds when they are, in fact, neither.)

[Karl Henning]

Can you even believe it? Election officials have trouble reading the calendar.

On Friday, officials in Ottawa County, Ohio discovered that about 2,200 notices had gone out announcing Election Day as Thursday, Nov. 8 (instead of Tuesday, Nov. 6).

[Todd]

Can you even believe it?

Yes.

[kishnevi]

Can you even believe it? Election officials have trouble reading the calendar.

Well, at least they had in the same week.

[Gurn Blanston]

I'm waiting for 01.00AM GMT to come along so I can tune in to the final debate.  Of the two, only Obama can command a respect that is Worldwide, not just party wide.

So John, what did you think? Of course, everyone I talk to about the debates feels that his candidate won hands down, no matter if he looked a fool. So I'm interested in your 'involved outsider' perspective.

[mahler10th]

Been watching the final Presidential debate.  Romney really is overtly paranoid about foreign powers, and that was with him toning it down.  He is a dangerous fellow, now matter how sincere he looks.  I think Obama won the debate overall, as he was on the offensive with every point.
"We go after the bad guys," is not a good precursor to World Peace I'm afraid, and not diplomatically astute either.

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, Romney IS the consummate politician; he has the 'Big Lie' thing down pat.   

[kishnevi]

Been watching the final Presidential debate.  Romney really is overtly paranoid about foreign powers, and that was with him toning it down.  He is a dangerous fellow, now matter how sincere he looks.  I think Obama won the debate overall, as he was on the offensive with every point.
"We go after the bad guys," is not a good precursor to World Peace I'm afraid, and not diplomatically astute either.

John, you're forgetting that Romney is the Republican candidate.  In Republican eyes, the only people who want World Peace are communists and '60s hippies, and after all There Are Bad People Out There Whom We Have To Fight.   There are not a few members of the GOP who think that Conan the Barbarian had the best foreign policy, especially the "Lamentations of their women" part.

[Brian]

"The 1980s called, they want their foreign policy back" is a great comedic line, and it's getting recognition even though Obama delivered it in maybe the least funny way possible.

[Mirror Image]

Well, Romney squirmed pretty good tonight. I especially love the exchanges about the auto industry in Ohio. Romney thinks a viable solution for a huge U.S. industry is for it go into bankruptcy. Just remember folks, Romney knows what's best for this country even if he changes his mind three or four times in the process.

[mc ukrneal]

Well, Romney squirmed pretty good tonight. I especially love the exchanges about the auto industry in Ohio. Romney thinks a viable solution for a huge U.S. industry is for it go into bankruptcy. Just remember folks, Romney knows what's best for this country even if he changes his mind three or four times in the process.

This really isn't that controversial (though it sure is political). Lots of companies go into bankrupcy protection. Many of them come out stronger, though some do not. Throwing money at the issue doesn't really solve the problem unless the strategy is also there. Where I disagree with him is that not all three were in dire shape for the same reasons. So where a loan was all that was needed for one company, much more work was needed for another.

[Rinaldo]

The horses & bayonets remark was priceless.

[Daverz]

I was coming back from the post office after dropping off my absentee ballot when I turned on the radio (KPBS): 

"Joe Blow undecided voter finally decided to vote for Romney because he thought Obama was too close to Israel." 

Oy.  I think it's time to switch the preset to the Jazz station.  (Of course, they are both very close to Israel, but Romney would dial it up to 11.)

It does remind me of this Chris Hayes piece from 2004:

http://www.chrishayes.org/articles/decision-makers/

Then there was the woman who called our office a few weeks before the election to tell us that though she had signed up to volunteer for Kerry she had now decided to back Bush. Why? Because the president supported stem cell research. The office became quiet as we all stopped what we were doing to listen to one of our fellow organizers try, nobly, to disabuse her of this notion. Despite having the facts on her side, the organizer didn't have much luck.

[Karl Henning]

Overall, I expected Obama to have a good night; but his performance exceeded expectations. Of course, he was helped by Romney's lackluster showing. The Governor did not help himself by opening himself up wide with two canards:  the 1916 Navy bit was discredited as an apples-to-oranges flim-flam practically the day that Mitt test-drove it;  and I think you'd have to be Rush Limbaugh to think that Mitt is really onto something with his "apology tour" rannygazoo. The latter, especially, was tone-deaf to what might seal the deal with the as-yet-undecideds.

[Todd]

Romney thinks a viable solution for a huge U.S. industry is for it go into bankruptcy.

GM and Chrysler both filed bankruptcy in 2009.

I missed the debate, but online chatter and headlines indicate that Obama won, as one would expect from a sitting President, who manages foreign policy.  However, the two pertinent questions are 1.) will it influence voting, and 2.) how many people turned off baseball and football to watch? 

I glanced at the transcript, and I see the only discussion on drones was basically Romney being questioned about it and agreeing that he would use drones.  (I liked this quote: "And it's widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes...")  Reassuring.  Our peace prize winning warrior in chief escalated a questionable practice, and no matter who wins, it will continue.