Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

[Ghent12]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

That is certainly a very interesting piece on Palin. Maybe a few people will stop dismissing her outright because of it.

[c1ue]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Let me first say that I am not a Palin fan.

However, whenever you see anyone as intensely attacked as Palin has been (and Ron Paul is), it does make you wonder what the substance is vs. the spin.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

thanks for post that, jb. i never thought i'd be in agreement with much that palin could say, but there it is. can't help but wonder how it happened. and it's hard to believe that it's her independent analysis, in spite of the newspapers that she reads ["all of them"].

It caught me by surprise also!

[jk]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

thanks for post that, jb. i never thought i'd be in agreement with much that palin could say, but there it is. can't help but wonder how it happened. and it's hard to believe that it's her independent analysis, in spite of the newspapers that she reads ["all of them"].

[jiimbergin]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

I know that Sarah Palin is not even officially in the race, but this is an interesting opinion piece in the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us...&smid=fb-share
Some of Sarah Palin's Ideas Cross the Political Divide

By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS

Published: September 9, 2011



CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS — Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it.
That is not how we’re primed to see Ms. Palin. A pugnacious Tea Partyer? Sure. A woman of the people? Yup. A Mama Grizzly? You betcha.
But something curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa. Along with her familiar and predictable swipes at President Barack Obama and the “far left,” she delivered a devastating indictment of the entire U.S. political establishment — left, right and center — and pointed toward a way of transcending the presently unbridgeable political divide.
The next day, the “lamestream” media, as she calls it, played into her fantasy of it by ignoring the ideas she unfurled and dwelling almost entirely on the will-she-won’t-she question of her presidential ambitions.
So here is something I never thought I would write: a column about Sarah Palin’s ideas.
There was plenty of the usual Palin schtick — words that make clear that she is not speaking to everyone but to a particular strain of American: “The working men and women of this country, you got up off your couch, you came down from the deer stand, you came out of the duck blind, you got off the John Deere, and we took to the streets, and we took to the town halls, and we ended up at the ballot box.”
But when her throat was cleared at last, Ms. Palin had something considerably more substantive to say.
She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).
In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.
Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.
“Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?” she said, referring to politicians. “It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.”
Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.
Ms. Palin’s third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs.
Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin’s having said them.
“This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”
Is there a hint of a political breakthrough hiding in there?
The political conversation in the United States is paralyzed by a simplistic division of labor. Democrats protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big money and enhanced by government action. Republicans protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big government and enhanced by the free market.
What is seldom said is that human flourishing is a complex and delicate thing, and that we needn’t choose whether government or the market jeopardizes it more, because both can threaten it at the same time.
Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism.
On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world better. On the other side would be people who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and more anonymous it becomes; they would press to live in self-contained, self-governing enclaves that bear the burden of their own prosperity.
No one knows yet whether Ms. Palin will actually run for president. But she did just get more interesting.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Obama's speech last night was a good one from a political stand point. He'll get a bump in the polls because of it, and if he takes it on the road it could be a long term boost. Perry calling Social Security a ponzi scam will most certainly hurt him in the general.

If the Republicans are smart, they'll just except Obama's proposal, with reservations, and show that they are not obstructionists. The proposal itself is pretty weak and will have little impact on unemployment. If the Republicans fight against the proposal, the 2012 election could morph into a debate of Republican proposals to cut Medicare and Social Security against the Democrats jobs program. Of course, you can always count on Obama capitulating for something even worse than he proposed, and then getting blamed for the failure.

Last night's speech was important to next years election, we'll have to see how the chess game plays out.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

For someone that didn't go on to say anything that hasn't already been said before or should be completely obvious to anyone posting on this forum, that's quite an opening line.

[Sutter Cane]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Having read the whole thread, I have to say that I am surprised at the charming naïveté of my fellow itulipers. Why, it's almost like you think the electorate has a say in this matter or something!

I simply view the election through the lens of "What's best for the Plutocracy?" Obviously, Obama and all of the Republican candidates would be fine for the plutocrats (yes, even Ron Paul. Hell, especially Ron Paul, as far as his brand of libertarianism is concerned, though his views on the Fed might hurt the banksters...but I digress, and he doesn't have a shot anyway).

Obama has proven to be a perfect president for FIRE - not only has he done everything the plutocrats might have wanted, even better, he has effectively neutralized any resistance on the left. Somehow you get somebody who does everything FIRE asks, governs as Bush's third term, and yet still gets labeled a "socialist" by the right. Anybody who complains from the left is labeled as just to the left of Trotsky and is ignored or dismissed as a pinko commie. Pretty amazing that they could pull this off, when you think about it.

Unfortunately (for FIRE), the unemployment numbers mean the electorate is pissed and Obama might not get to go back and continue to give them everything they want. So, we have to look at the Republican field. Between Romney and Perry, it's a tough call.

Romney, I think, would for all practical purposes end up governing the same as Obama. So, Bush's fourth term, no big change there. Only danger is that a Republican victory might actually wake some semblance of resistance in the now dormant left, as happened in Wisconsin, and the more radical the Republican the stronger that danger. A Bachmann VP slot, for example, might energize the left, which could help Obama in the election but might be more dangerous for the plutocracy should a Perry/Bachmann ticket actually get elected.

Perry, from his record Texas record, would kick the looting up several notches, and inaugurate an era of cronyism and corruption as yet unseen in American politics. From his remarks at last night's debate, he'd even let FIRE at Social Security, which has been a longtime dream for Wall Street. They've got to be licking their chops at that.

Unfortunately (for the plutocrats), Perry comes with the added Tea Party/bible-thumper baggage. Romney, being a Mormon, can't play that aspect up as much. I don't believe for a second that Perry is sincere in any religious beliefs, but I think the Christian right makes the oligarchs uncomfortable. They merely want to use the Christian right to further their agenda without the risk of actually having to act on anything this group wants. Perry might end up too heavily indebted to the evangelicals and they might expect to actually see some progress toward their agenda, which could make things dicey. It might also serve to energize the left's resistance.

Safest course for the banksters/plutocrats/oligarchs/FIRE is a race between an Obama/Biden ticket vs. Romney/some boring Republican ticket. They win either way. A Romney victory would probably cause the Tea Party to shrivel up and blow away, while if Obama wins they will still be active. An Obama victory keeps the left quiet, but if the alternative is boring enough (Romney/Huntsman rather than Perry/Bachmann) they won't bother to show up for the election due to how dissatisfied they are with Obama. A Perry administration might be radical enough that it generates some popular resistance, making it a dangerous choice (especially if it leads to the emergence of a "game changer" candidate on the left for 2016). But it will be hard for FIRE to resist because of the chance for additional pillage.

Should be interesting.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

this isn't a poll about the republican candidates. this is a poll about who's on the internet

Correct. Ron Paul has won every internet poll that his name has ever appeared in. <----------Hyperbole so please don't quote me on that number, but it's damn close to the truth.

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Looks like they fixed it ...

[ATTACH]4055[/ATTACH]

Yes, that's better, but it still isn't in proportion to how far out ahead he is. Second place on down are roughly in proportion, but compared to second place, first place should be waaaaaaaay out there.

[jk]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Online poll after the MSNBC debate here: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...reagan-library

"Who do you think won the Republican debate at the Reagan Library?"

Total of 32,793 votes -

Ron Paul 40.5% (13,288 votes)

Mitt Romney 22.9% (7,498 votes)

Rick Perry 17.3% (5,664 votes)

Jon Huntsman 8.6% (2,817 votes)

Newt Gingrich 3.7% (1,222 votes)

Michele Bachmann 2.9% (942 votes)

Herman Cain 2.8% (915 votes)

Rick Santorum 1.4% (447 votes)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The numbers have changed since I copied and pasted this, but Ron Paul is still winning at 41.9%.

Added observation: Note how the poll says Paul is ahead of Romney by 20%, yet the bar graph shows them in a virtual tie.

this isn't a poll about the republican candidates. this is a poll about who's on the internet

[Fiat Currency]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Added observation: Note how the poll says Paul is ahead of Romney by 20%, yet the bar graph shows them in a virtual tie.

Looks like they fixed it ...

Ron Paul vote.png

[shiny!]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Online poll after the MSNBC debate here: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...reagan-library

"Who do you think won the Republican debate at the Reagan Library?"

Total of 32,793 votes -

Ron Paul 40.5% (13,288 votes)

Mitt Romney 22.9% (7,498 votes)

Rick Perry 17.3% (5,664 votes)

Jon Huntsman 8.6% (2,817 votes)

Newt Gingrich 3.7% (1,222 votes)

Michele Bachmann 2.9% (942 votes)

Herman Cain 2.8% (915 votes)

Rick Santorum 1.4% (447 votes)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The numbers have changed since I copied and pasted this, but Ron Paul is still winning at 41.9%.

Added observation: Note how the poll says Paul is ahead of Romney by 20%, yet the bar graph shows them in a virtual tie.

[metalman]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Perry is not looking good in this debate. Now it's going to be interesting to see the poll number over the next week.

the vote's gonna go like this...

perry...
romney...
bachmann...

win goes to the candidate w/only 1 puke & no loon points.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Election 2012 - predictions, discussion?

Perry is not looking good in this debate. Now it's going to be interesting to see the poll number over the next week.