Objective review of the US 2012 Presidential and Congressional general campaign

[Wendell_E]

And of course, these were the Democratic primaries where Democrats were voting.  I guess one can surmise that the 42% of Democrats who did not vote for Obama in Kentucky were all racists.

But were they all Democrats?  If I'd wanted to vote in the Alabama Republican Primary, all I'd have to do is answer "Republican" when that nice 120-year-old lady asked me which primary I was voting in.  It was certainly tempting.  In the Democratic Primary, the Presidential race was the only one available, while Republicans also got to choose candidates for State Supreme Court Chief Justice and Associate Justice, Public Service Commisioner, U.S. Representative, etc.,  more than ten offices in total.  I imagine a lot of "real" Democrats didn't even bother to show up, given that Obama's going to get the state's delegates anyway, and there was nothing else on the ballot to vote on.  I wouldn't be surprised if the situation was similar in Kentucky.

Fewer than 14% of Kentucky voters voted in the primary.  Surely less than half of those voted Democrat (whether or not they actually were Democrats), so we're talking 41% of a small number.  I imagine there are enough racists in Kentucky to provide many of those votes, though there are certainly other reasons to vote against the President. 

[Todd]

But were they all Democrats?

I don't know, and neither do you.  You are very clearly trying to imply that evil Republicans, or at least evil racists of whatever stripe, may have voted in the Democratic primaries to, what, skew the numbers, but then you offer no evidence.  It's a convenient, and intellectually dishonest, way to create any fiction you want.  Small turnouts in primaries are not at all rare, even for the Republicans this year.  If you combine small turnout and imagined shenanigans, you can create a nice, comfy theory to fit your political desires. 

[Wendell_E]

I don't know, and neither do you.  You are very clearly trying to imply that evil Republicans, or at least evil racists of whatever stripe, may have voted in the Democratic primaries to, what, skew the numbers, but then you offer no evidence.  It's a convenient, and intellectually dishonest, way to create any fiction you want.  Small turnouts in primaries are not at all rare, even for the Republicans this year.  If you combine small turnout and imagined shenanigans, you can create a nice, comfy theory to fit your political desires.

You're trying to make a big point of the fact that the President is doing badly in states he has 0% chance of carrying in any case.  You are correct, sir!  And I'm sure that all those West Virginians who chose a convict over Obama are really card-carrying members of the NAACP, and have nary a racist bone in their body.  Happy now?

I won't continue this discussion (I will look at any reply you make), but will point out that in 1986 the results of the Alabama Democratic Primary were overturned in federal court due to just such "shenanigans".  But no doubt the court was only imagining them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Graddick#1986_gubernatorial_race

[Todd]

You're trying to make a big point of the fact that the President is doing badly in states he has 0% chance of carrying in any case.

Not a "big" point - just the point that it is amusing.  Here he is, the sitting Democratic President, and people in his own party would rather vote for a convict.  Yes, racism plays a part, and certain types of Democrats believe strongly that is the only thing that does.  And if it's not, well, it's because someone else must be infilitrating the elections to do bad things.  I mean, it happened in Alabama in 1986, so it must be happening today, or at least is as likely to happen today, just because.  No evidence is needed.  Everybody just knows these things.

Seriously, this whole "I'm done with this discussion" type post is rather silly.  Why not just write "You don't agree with me, you obdurate fool, so I'm going to go interact only with people who write and say things I agree with!"  Or write nothing at all.

[Karl Henning]

Why is Romney associating himself with a man who is the public face of the debunked idea that President Obama wasn't born in the United States and, perhaps more importantly, a man whose sole principle in life is self promotion?

[Todd]

It's a bad idea to associate with The Donald.  That written, I'm giving $3.  Seeing Trump's hair in person is on my bucket list.

[Karl Henning]

Seeing Trump's hair in person is on my bucket list.

De bucket listibus non disputandum est.

[Karl Henning]

To us Massachusetts residents, no surprise here:

Romney wants to be president at all costs

[Todd]

Romney wants to be president at all costs

This differentiates him from highly principled and ethical candidates who usually run.

[kishnevi]

De bucket listibus non disputandum est.

Well, in true Trump fashion, Todd is doing it in the cheapest way possible. 
That said, I'm not sure the negative benefits are worth it.  One negative is only potential: being in the same room as The Donald.  The other negative is certain: getting your name in the list of Romney donors eligible for future GOP mailings.

Personally, the very idea of Trump being anywhere near the Oval Office is enough reason to vote for Obama.

[Karl Henning]

This differentiates him from highly principled and ethical candidates who usually run.

Differing in degree rather than in kind, I suppose.

[Todd]

Differing in degree rather than in kind, I suppose.

You know what galls me most is how he is advocating no longer using Guantanamo Bay to hold suspected terrorists and other undesireables, but you just know that when he gets into office he's going to do nothing about it.  Hey, wait a minute . . .

[Todd]

That said, I'm not sure the negative benefits are worth it.

I like the phrase "negative benefits."  Perhaps a government agency can adopt it.  I'm thinking HHS.

[Todd]

I'm terribly confused.  Congressman Jim McGovern apparently introduced the People's Rights Amendment in April (see below), specifically written to curb the effect of Citizens United.  Okay, I got that.  A good number of Democrats don't like the decision and want to roll back that decision.  One might be able to surmise that they want to roll back other decisions.  (Maybe even going back to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company?)  But then today, Planned Parenthood announced it is putting over $1 million into anti-Romney ads.  I think it is probably safe to say that PP is on the "liberal" end of the spectrum. 

So, are "liberals" principled and opposed to non-human entities pouring money into campaigns, or are they opportunistic and cynical, with crafty elected politicians submitting proposed amendments that will go nowhere while various sympathetic organizations put money into attack ads? 

(I'm all for attack ads, mind you.)




The proposed amendment:

Section 1.  We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2.  People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3.  Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.

[eyeresist]

"Natural persons" sounds like it excludes TVs and gays, and third item which is funny.

I like the phrase "negative benefits."  Perhaps a government agency can adopt it.  I'm thinking HHS.

The word "malefits" has yet to be accepted into general use.

[Karl Henning]

The T Party: poised to hurl!

[Karl Henning]

"Natural persons" sounds like it excludes . . .

. . . replicants?

[Todd]

Wow, the US is engaged in cyber attacks on Iran.  I'm shocked, shocked!  So, let's see, Obama not only accelerated the program - I assume that means he put more money into it - but he has taken to personally selecting targets for assassination by drone.  Didn't this man win the Nobel Peace Prize?  These do not seem like peaceful actions to me.  Setting aside the Orwellian element to this whole thing ("War is Peace"), these are rather flagrant election year, tough-guy tactics, one of them released at roughly the same time as a flimsy jobs report.  Cynical calculation?  Nah.  Obama is a principled man.  He is an honest man.  He is trustworthy. 

Will he have enough similar revelations to release in the future if there are more bad jobs reports?  And it is wise to brazenly parade one's online capabilities? 

[Karl Henning]

. . . replicants?

What's a girl?

Describe in single words only the good things that come into your mind about... your mother.

[coffee]

The GOP primaries were a lot of fun because of the chance that someone like Santorum could win. But between Romney and Obama I don't see much to worry about. Both are mediocre options, with not much difference between them. Though Romney is probably better for billionaires, banks, and big corporations, it's not like Obama's been bad for them; Obama might be a little better for the working class, but it's not like he's been good for them. In terms of foreign policy (both trade and war), I'd guess they're very nearly identical. One significant difference is that if Obama wins, the government will be likely gridlocked for four more years, with Republicans unable to compromise on anything at all.

Most interesting to me is what happens if Romney wins. I don't have time to type out my thoughts on this just now, but it could be interesting.