Obama tied with generic Republican candidate

[Tricky]

My primary problem with Romney is that he willingly and actively courts and panders to many of the extremist fringe elements and policies,...which is, in my opinion, as bad as promoting and supporting those perspectives and policies as his own.

I give Romney (and all politicians) a little bit of a break for the things they say while trying to win a nomination/election. If Romney wants the nomination, he has to make himself at least mildly acceptable to the extreme right. As I recall, Obama did similar things with the extreme left. He didn't exactly promise he'd cater to the far left, but he suggested that he was on their side ideologically. We now know that he is much closer to the middle, and indeed the right than he suggested during his primary run.

In order to be elected, you first have to be on the ballot.

 

[Trakar]

I give Romney (and all politicians) a little bit of a break for the things they say while trying to win a nomination/election. If Romney wants the nomination, he has to make himself at least mildly acceptable to the extreme right. As I recall, Obama did similar things with the extreme left. He didn't exactly promise he'd cater to the far left, but he suggested that he was on their side ideologically. We now know that he is much closer to the middle, and indeed the right than he suggested during his primary run.

In order to be elected, you first have to be on the ballot.

Actually Obama made his right-leaning positions clear (to me) before and during the Dem primaries in (seemed like'06-)'07-'08, which was the main reason that I never have supported him or his administration, even when they paid lip-service to policies and practices that I generally agree with. I have a very big problem with duplicity, which probably accounts for my low opinion of most politicians and politics in general.

 

[Tricky]

Actually Obama made his right-leaning positions clear (to me) before and during the Dem primaries in (seemed like'06-)'07-'08, which was the main reason that I never have supported him or his administration, even when they paid lip-service to policies and practices that I generally agree with. I have a very big problem with duplicity, which probably accounts for my low opinion of most politicians and politics in general.

That probably also indicates that no politician you support will ever be elected. That's a noble and idealistic stance, but not very pragmatic. I'm more interested in politicians that can achieve some of the agenda I care about, even if they have to "play the game" in order to do it.

 

[Trakar]

That probably also indicates that no politician you support will ever be elected. That's a noble and idealistic stance, but not very pragmatic. I'm more interested in politicians that can achieve some of the agenda I care about, even if they have to "play the game" in order to do it.

I guess, if there were ever a politician that placed my most important issues at the front of their agenda, I might be tempted to follow that path, but as they all seem to be debating minor differences from the same script, with no real intention of tackling the serious and necessary major issues, I will continue to view them as the problem rather than as potential solutions to the problems.

 

[Tricky]

I guess, if there were ever a politician that placed my most important issues at the front of their agenda, I might be tempted to follow that path, but as they all seem to be debating minor differences from the same script, with no real intention of tackling the serious and necessary major issues, I will continue to view them as the problem rather than as potential solutions to the problems.

Like you, I wish the political system were better. I wish we had elections where you could rank your votes (I think Australia and some other places have this.) There are many things I would change if I were in charge.

But since I'm not, I'm dedicated to doing the best job we can within the system we have. That doesn't mean I'm not trying to change the system, only that I recognize that I am unlikely to succeed. I think that saying "the system is screwed up, so I refuse to play along with it" is self defeating.

Once I was more idealistic. Now I'm more pragmatic. Call it a "sell-out" if you wish. I still think it is the best way to get things done with the tools we have.

 

[Trakar]

Like you, I wish the political system were better. I wish we had elections where you could rank your votes (I think Australia and some other places have this.) There are many things I would change if I were in charge.

But since I'm not, I'm dedicated to doing the best job we can within the system we have. That doesn't mean I'm not trying to change the system, only that I recognize that I am unlikely to succeed. I think that saying "the system is screwed up, so I refuse to play along with it" is self defeating.

Once I was more idealistic. Now I'm more pragmatic. Call it a "sell-out" if you wish. I still think it is the best way to get things done with the tools we have.

Largely agreed! My pragmatism does not include voting for the least worst candidate merely because one of those two are bound to win the election. I believe that one of the only ways we can change the system is to advocate our beliefs and put our vote where our mouth is, even if it means the worse candidate gets elected. If major party candidates and strategists aren't required to pay a penalty for their failures, where is their incentive to change?

It would be a mistake to consider my perspective on the issues extremist. While I've not helped elect Bush or Obama, I did support and vote for every president we've had Nixon to Clinton. It has only been since both major parties seemed to take a hard right in the mid-nineties, that I have been been forced to focus much more on my progressive republican root values.

 

[cwalner]

My primary problem with Romney is that he willingly and actively courts and panders to many of the extremist fringe elements and policies,...which is, in my opinion, as bad as promoting and supporting those perspectives and policies as his own. IOW, for example, I don't care if Romney calls optional academic standards "Marxist" because he believes that to be true (whackadoodle land) or is merely doing so in an attempt to pander to the whackadoodles,...when those words leave his mouth he is being immature and irrational.

My biggest issue is that he is a member of LDS. I know I have criticized others for opposing on those grounds, but for me it is not about whether they are 'true christians' but the fact that the church spent millions of dollars to pass a law in California quashing equal rights for gays. It will take a big turn around from the church before I can ever support a politician who counts himself (or herself) as a member.

 

[Trakar]

My biggest issue is that he is a member of LDS. I know I have criticized others for opposing on those grounds, but for me it is not about whether they are 'true christians' but the fact that the church spent millions of dollars to pass a law in California quashing equal rights for gays. It will take a big turn around from the church before I can ever support a politician who counts himself (or herself) as a member.

A legitimate concern, IMO. However, I know of many politicians who can divorce thier religious beliefs from their politics, so it isn't as big an issue for me.

 

[cwalner]

A legitimate concern, IMO. However, I know of many politicians who can divorce thier religious beliefs from their politics, so it isn't as big an issue for me.

Yeah, well, when the Prop 8 thing was going on, I would get into huge arguments with a Mormon friend of mine over it.

It was weird. He was typically very supportive of gay rights. He knew I am gay and had no problem with it. He would have serious problems with job discrimination against gays. But when it came to marriage rights, because his church told him it was against God's will and that he needed to defend marriage, he opposed it.

Even with that, I would definitely prefer Romney over any of the other GOP candidates currently in the race. While I know he is no great supporter of gay rights, he does not seem all that opposed (yeah he makes to token rhetoric to appease the religious conservatives, but that's about it). Still on that issue, I would take Obama over any republican because he at least says the rhetoric I agree with (although with about as much apparent enthusiasm as Romney). Add to that Romney at least seems willing to reach across the aisle to get things done, unlike some of the other GOP candidates.

I guess my position is currently this. I would vote for Obama over any GOP candidate currently in the race, but I would not be as upset over a loss to Romney as I would if another GOP candidate got the nomination.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

My biggest issue is that he is a member of LDS. I know I have criticized others for opposing on those grounds, but for me it is not about whether they are 'true christians' but the fact that the church spent millions of dollars to pass a law in California quashing equal rights for gays. It will take a big turn around from the church before I can ever support a politician who counts himself (or herself) as a member.

As has been the case everywhere this issue has come up for a vote against the people, a solid majority of those in California who voted on Proposition Eight, did so to oppose forcing the public to accept a vulgar mockery of marriage as being the same thing as a genuine marriage. Your issue isn't with Mitt Romney, nor with the Mormon church, but with the majority of Americans who have had an opportunity to vote on this matter; and very likely with the majority of Americans who haven't been given the opportunity to vote on this matter as well.

 

[johnny karate]

Lesson for the day, kids: Bigotry is just fine so long as enough people subscribe to it!

 

[cwalner]

As has been the case everywhere this issue has come up for a vote against the people, a solid majority of those in California who voted on Proposition Eight, did so to oppose forcing the public to accept a vulgar mockery of marriage as being the same thing as a genuine marriage. Your issue isn't with Mitt Romney, nor with the Mormon church, but with the majority of Americans who have had an opportunity to vote on this matter; and very likely with the majority of Americans who haven't been given the opportunity to vote on this matter as well.

To keep this civil, I will simply state that this thread is not about the merits of Prop 8, but I used it as example where I had one opinion and the LDS had the opposite opinion. I cited that as a reason why I would not support a candidate who was a member of the LDS because of this difference of opinion.

 

[Trakar]

...and very likely with the majority of Americans who haven't been given the opportunity to vote on this matter as well.

Please provide support for this contention.

I don't believe this can even be compellingly stated among the populations of the regions that have voted on the issue.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Majority of Americans support gay marriage in poll
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-gay-marriage-poll-idUSTRE74K0B520110521

Poll: Majority now favors same-sex marriage
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51551.html

 

[Brainster]

Meanwhile, over at the Intrade prediction markets, President Obama is riding consistently at about 60-61% on getting re-elected.

Was 60-61%. Now at 57.7%.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Was 60-61%. Now at 57.7%.

Yeah, I noticed that as well. I wonder what happened over the last week or so which caused that. Hmmm...

Question: was there a subsequent increase in any particular GOP candidate's numbers over the same time interval?

ETA: Ah, it seems that Obama's loss has been at the expense of an uptick in Romney's numbers over the same time interval. Perhaps Romney's public statement about NOT signing the Susan B. Anthony anti-choice pledge had an effect? I know that when I heard this news, I thought better of Romney for it. What do you think, Brainster?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I guess my position is currently this. I would vote for Obama over any GOP candidate currently in the race, but I would not be as upset over a loss to Romney as I would if another GOP candidate got the nomination.

I'm of the same mind, to a point. If Romney were to go down the Tea Party, gay-bashing, religious right rabbit hole (like many of the other GOP candidates) in order to secure the nomination, I would become much more active in promoting Obama, methinks.

 

[cwalner]

I'm of the same mind, to a point. If Romney were to go down the Tea Party, gay-bashing, religious right rabbit hole (like many of the other GOP candidates) in order to secure the nomination, I would become much more active in promoting Obama, methinks.

Definitely. In 2008, I was still much more middle of the road, and was actually excited when McCain won the GOP nomination. Then he seemed to take a hard turn right during the general election, including the act that put it over the edge for me, the choice of Palin as running mate. After that I was solidly for Obama and have remained to this day a bit more left than I was in 2008.

 

[Brainster]

Yeah, I noticed that as well. I wonder what happened over the last week or so which caused that. Hmmm...

Question: was there a subsequent increase in any particular GOP candidate's numbers over the same time interval?

ETA: Ah, it seems that Obama's loss has been at the expense of an uptick in Romney's numbers over the same time interval. Perhaps Romney's public statement about NOT signing the Susan B. Anthony anti-choice pledge had an effect? I know that when I heard this news, I thought better of Romney for it. What do you think, Brainster?

Abortion is definitely not my hot button issue, so policy-wise I'm fine with the decision. Politically it makes sense provided Romney can lock up the nomination; the main concern I have is whether Mitt may be taking that too much for granted, much like Hillary in 2008. She positioned herself excellently to win the general election and pissed off the wingers in her own party too much. The GOP is safer in that regard; the "fall in line" tendency may help him.

The other concern is whether Mitt is opening himself up to the "opportunist" versus ideologue criticism. In 2008 he ran as "the real conservative" in the race and this time he seems to be positioning himself as "the real moderate".

On InTrade, I do think the market is starting to value Obama's shares less simply because his prospects look worse.

 

[MattusMaximus]

FYI, looks like Romney may be running into real trouble with the Tea Partiers. So Brainster may be correct in his concerns about Romney locking up the nomination.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Interesting... both Obama AND Romney have been taking a hit over at Intrade recently (each has lost 1-2% in the last five days or so). Weird.

Maybe people are turning on to Ron Paul?

ETA:

On InTrade, I do think the market is starting to value Obama's shares less simply because his prospects look worse.

Well, perhaps it is just the general mood regarding the economy. That's going to be the real deal maker/killer in the 2012 election, methinks.