US of A Presidential Elections 2012

US of A Presidential Elections 2012

What exactly prevents America from a big scale reform to make things fairer and plainer? Is it just the inertness?

The people we elect, they only really know how to keep the status quo, for 236 years...
 
An amendment to the constitution is a little complicated. It is not merely passing a law through congress, it has to be passed in a majority of the states too.
 
I was one of those who voted for Romney (Please don't pigeon hole me, I am an atheist who cares little for social issues. I voted for Romney primarily for his stance on foreign affairs and the military budget)

Ok I gotta ask and I will try not to insert my own opinion into the question.

Why did you like Romney's foreign affairs policy? Also in your opinion what was his foreign policy?

What specific in his military budget did you like? The overall goal of a 4% floor or targeted spending on specific programs?
 
As I understand it, the current election system was installed in a time with no telephone, no radio, no cars, no trains, no national newspapers and no other means for people to actually get to know the presidential candidate. So they installed this electoral college system, which is clearly outdated now, seems more than just strange today and frankly is downright undemocratic.

What exactly prevents America from a big scale reform to make things fairer and plainer? Is it just the inertness?

Pretty much inertness and nostalgia. Look at how often the founding fathers get (mis-)cited, for example. You could say that anything going against their (perceived) ideas is considered treason-esque.


A first small change would be to keep the electoral college, but get rid of the winner-takes-all rule. The problem with that is, no state wants to do it. For example, if you're a democratic state going from winner-takes-all to relative assignments according to votes gives the enemy "free electors". The same applies for republican states, going from "65% votes for my party results in 100% electors for my party" to "65% votes for my party results in 65% electors for my party" is a net loss for your party.
 
But, but... Jesus was with him. I mean JESUS. Almost every Romney supporter they caught on camera here, said something like: "God is with Romney" or "Jesus will make him president".

Well, I guess that can only mean Satan won again :p
 
4 years in advance? I think it's WAY too premature to tell
 
It is, but it's fun to start talking now. In 2008, I think I'd bet on Romney for the GOP nomination, while I did call among others Herman Cain, Newt and Rick Perry during the primary race because it was so damned unstable. Then again, I always maintained comedy candidates like Santorum, Trump and Bachmann wouldn't get close. Pity this wasn't a Bachmann/Santorum ticket. While the Tea party and the republican base would be out, the GOP would probably end up with a 35/65 gender margin and anyone not already a republican voting for a blue ticket. THat would've been a landslide to talk about, and would be an even clearer inditement of the Tea Party movement.

So this time round, I'll predict that the republican ticket will be Christie/Rubio (or reversed) and Clinton/Someone. What I'd really like to see would be Colin Powel becoming Clinton's replacement at the State department, and then joining her for the ticket in 2016. That would be an awsome ticket. But Hillary needs to get started on domestic policy and economic policy right now.
 
I'm not sure Hillary is sold on running. Earlier this past term, she was saying this was the end of politics for her. I think her favorable term has Secretary is what stirs the talking about her running. Biden would be the natural person to carry the flag, but I think even he'd have to put a lot of thought into it. Even amongst Democrats he gets a mixed reputation (I like him plenty, though), but if he continues in politics, he'd essentially have to run.

If they had to go at it, I think Biden would come ahead in the long run. He has vastly more experience in this than Hillary. She is definitely a heavy weight now, and might even be the front runner at first, but she'd have a hell of a time going against Vice President Biden. The combination of experience and position would give Biden an advantage no one else could have.

On the note of Hillary's replacement, I've heard rumors of John Kerry being picked. Think about it, and it makes a lot of sense. I don't think we'll see Colin Powell come back.

Rubio and Christie will definitely be leading the Republican pack in 2012, no questions asked. Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley will definitely being considering a run as well. Paul Ryan will likely run as well, I think.
 
Biden is too old to run in 2016. Especially if the GOP keeps pissing off women, the Democrats should run with one - I find the Clinton/Warren (or Warren/someone) ticket option interesting...
 
I'd believe the mail delivery failure without the shadow of a doubt.

I wouldn't believe, though, that they'd have changed the outcome of the election.
 
Last edited:
I'd believe the mail delivery failure without the shadow of a doubt.

I wouldn't believe, though, that they'd have changed the outcome of the election.

Looking around the site more (images and such), it appears as if it's "The Onion" only for military news. So I don't think it's true.
 
The Politics show was asking about the lessons for Ukania from the US elections and it was said that the Tories (Conservative) Party have maxed out with 37% of the vote and they need to get some policies that appeal to women and ethnic minorities not to mention that some of both should be considered seriously as candidates for the next election. So if the Tories do not want to go the way of the GOP they need to learn that lesson quickly and do something about it.

I am quite hopeful that Obama can start getting his policies and bills through congress now and he can show up the fillibusters for what and who they are.
 
Top