Hard News: The Big 2012 US Election PAS Thread
389 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
with its historic shout-out to disabled citizens
I held my breath that little bit longer for "straight or gay".
In other news. turns out Nate Silver is probably a witch.
-
Maybe he is a witch , but he is a stat reader who got famous, in his own words.Did the maths.
Made Punditry look unscientific.
-
Hebe, in reply to
Great speech, great delivery, great setting in the way Obama was at the centre of his audience. He put down some interesting markers for his agenda for the next term. His promise to find a role for Romney was intriguing: a call for unity after that campaign seems the way to marginalise the far right.
I have loathed Mitt Romney all the way through, but his concession speech made me wonder if I had the measure of the man. It was extraordinarily heartfelt, and gracious with no trace of malice. I was impressed by him, which is confusing given the campaign awfulnesses. Was the campaign was more about the rabid Republican strategists' view of electability rather than Romney as a person and what he believes? Was the delay in conceding because he spat the dummy and refused to say anything other than words he wanted to say, not from the backers' spin machine? I hope so because that would be a good sign for the future. (On the other hand, I can be politically rather naive)
-
His promise to find a role for Romney was intriguing:
Very Roman. An excellent idea.
-
Jeremy Eade, in reply to
Hebe,
Romney is worthy of investigation.
-
Hebe, in reply to
Very Roman.
Obama's kick-arse talents will be interesting to watch this time around.
-
It would take a helleva lot more than one conceding speech to change my view of Romney et el. He didn’t even write a losing speech so the delay would have been rearranging his acceptance speech which is probably why he was pleasant. But who would spit the dummy in public anyway, you’d look like a right tosser including a poor loser.
Obama was one cool cat. He gave everyone something to relate to. He gave everyone something to believe in. -
Hebe, in reply to
Romney is worthy of investigation.
In what way?
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Alan West, however, has lost … .
So who will be Mayo of Quhog now?
-
Hebe, in reply to
But who would spit the dummy in public anyway, you’d look like a right tosser including a poor loser.
Obama was one cool cat. He gave everyone something to relate to. He gave everyone something they could believe in.Obama is damn good; he can Clinton with the best. As for who would spit the dummy in public: it's happened before. I think the Republican hierarchy may well consider Romney's speech a dummy-spit in their direction.
-
Those who do carry out their threat to move to NZ if Obama wins, bring to mind the ending of Spaceballs. There goes the neighbourhood...
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I was impressed by him, which is confusing given the campaign awfulnesses.
No it isn't confusing at all -- and that's been the problem with Romney all along the line. About the only thing you can say for Rick Santorum is that he's an in your face, unapologetic racist, homophobic misogynist war-monger who thinks there is no meaningful separation between church and state, and that any kind of social safety net is the work of Satan. And he will say so anywhere, any time to anyone.
Romney is a coldly cynical moral black hole. Either he didn't believe a fucking word he said to the far-right base during the primaries, or he did and just lied his arse off while trying to position himself as a "moderate" when - and only when - it was electorally useful. If you want to clear a couple of weeks, I'll enumerate every issue I have with Obama, his administration and his party. But at least I'm not disagreeing with a Panderer-in-Chief.
And there's a bigger picture problem here for the GOP. As I've often said, Richard Nixon and the Ronald Reagan who actually served as Governor of California would be ideologically unacceptable to the current debased Tea Bagger/theo-con Republican Party. And don't even delude yourself that Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt would have got past the New Hampshire primary.
And, sadly, I don't think Republicans lost big enough to puncture the denialist narrative that the only problem is that Romney wasn't extreme enough.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
And, sadly, I don't think Republicans lost big enough to puncture the denialist narrative that the only problem is that Romney wasn't extreme enough.
Keep me posted if you can find a bigger sore loser than Donald Trump. (HT Guardian)
-
What's going to happen in the next 4-8 years etc when the percentage of white population/voters drops further and the minorities vote increases? Republicans have got some serious decisions to make if they want to get their fair share of bums on the big seat in the oval office.
-
Matthew Littlewood, in reply to
It was extraordinary. There were a number of familiar motifs in there, but it seemed born of conviction. The climactic message of diversity and inclusion – with its historic shout-out to disabled citizens – was powerful and moving. I cried at that point.
What's so remarkable about Obama's speech is its sense of history- and the way he calls on so many great American orators before him- and how it's brought into the Now. It's in the way it just builds to this crescendo.
That said, the tone was distinctly different to his 2008 acceptance speech- how could it not be?- there wasn't the sense of grand expanse, more of a call for communality. As an aside, not only did he come onto "Signed, Sealed, Delivered (I'm Yours)", his speech also referenced Sly & the Family Stone's "You Can Make It If You Try". Small detail, but pretty cool
And to be fair to Romney, his concession speech was gracious, well-judged and succinct.
I do worry, given the fact it's essentially going to be electoral status quo ( solidly Democrat Senate, solidly Republican Congress, Democrat president) that the US is going to be locked in four more years of GOP legislative brinkmanship and filibustering. But that's for another debate.
On the other hand Ezra Klein's take is more optimistic- as he says, this victory for Obama (and increase for the Dems in the senate) essentially "locks in" his three major pieces of legislation- the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank Bill and the repealing of the Bush-era tax cuts.
I guess the US continues to live in interesting times.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
the Ronald Reagan who actually served as Governor of California
As distinct from the President version, who could never have had a Watergate because nothing so important ever landed on his desk?
-
Matthew Littlewood, in reply to
Web
What’s going to happen in the next 4-8 years etc when the percentage of white population/voters drops further and the minorities vote increases? Republicans have got some serious decisions to make if they want to get their fair share of bums on the big seat in the oval office.Yeah, James Carville talked about just that on CNN. He expects a massive internal struggle over the next 2-3 years for the Republicans, which (as he sees it) will have to lead to the severing of the Tea Party wing if they're ever going to be electable at a presidential level again.
-
Islander, in reply to
Keep me posted if you can find a bigger sore loser than Donald Trump
What a truly STUPID shithead is like eh?
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
What’s going to happen in the next 4-8 years etc when the percentage of white population/voters drops further and the minorities vote increases?
Who knows, but I don't think it would be a particularly smart long game for Democrats to assume African-Americans and Hispanics are theirs, electorally speaking.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
As distinct from the President version, who could never have had a Watergate because nothing so important ever landed on his desk?
No, I mean the man who was president of a union. One of whose first acts as Governor was to sign into law bills that liberalized access to abortion, introduced no-fault divorce and raised taxes. I’m not pretending Reagan was a closet liberal, but you really think the Tea Baggers or the theo-cons would have let him out of New Hampshire alive with a record like that?
-
Yamis, in reply to
Who knows, but I don't think it would be a particularly smart long game for Democrats to assume African-Americans and Hispanics are theirs, electorally speaking.
Nope, it never is in politics.
I did see (others did too I'm sure) some discussion about how the young vote (18-29)is heavily in favour of the Democrats and that age group has been clearly for the Democrats in the last 4 elections now, and that once somebody votes one way 3 times they are basically committed to them for life (obviously there are exceptions). This being something that both Democrat and Republican studies have both discovered.
So with the elderly voters who favour the Republicans going 'their way', and the youth vote becoming semi-entrenched in the Democratic camp, and the rise of minority voters it is likley that it's going to become more difficult for the Republicans to regularly gain power unless they concede some ground. Burning the Fox News building to the ground would be a start (everybody safely outside of course).
-
Matthew Littlewood, in reply to
And there's a bigger picture problem here for the GOP. As I've often said, Richard Nixon and the Ronald Reagan who actually served as Governor of California would be ideologically unacceptable to the current debased Tea Bagger/theo-con Republican Party. And don't even delude yourself that Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt would have got past the New Hampshire primary.
Just out of curiosity, Craig, have you read the Economist's rather terse endorsement for Obama, published last week? (Although it's not surprising the endorsement is terse, given the Economist's fiscal slant) It's an interesting piece, touching upon some of the concerns you raise above, while their US correspondent covers it in more detail here.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
for Democrats to assume African-Americans and Hispanics are theirs,
Well, recognition will go rewarded every time if you've been waiting patiently for like y'know foreva . The Dems can definitely work on getting their allegiance. I reckon
-
Democracy swaps voters every election.Younger for older.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
It’s an interesting piece, touching upon some of the concerns you raise above, while their US correspondent covers it in more detail here.
If you read The Economist regularly enough to take its fundamentally classical liberal editorial pulse, it’s hardly surprising that it has a lot of issues with the Obama Administration’s economic and trade policies. And even on “social issues” it’s often more to the left than Obama is. Don’t forget The Economist came out for marriage equality looong before it was trendy. :)
And, frankly, I find this a bizarre – and disturblingly persistent – meme:
Mr Obama spends regrettably little time buttering up people who disagree with him; of the 104 rounds of golf the president has played in office, only one was with a Republican congressman.
OK, this begs a question. How much time should you spend “buttering up” people who’ve made it perfectly clear from the start their default setting was “fuck off”?
Or to put it a tad more politely:
That’s the approach the congressional Republicans decided to take, and I guess you could argue it worked for them in the 2010 mid-terms, and at least didn’t cost them the House today. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to demand they OWN IT.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.