2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Which politician is better geared toward the space program?

Right now under Obama NASA is getting less than half a penny of every dollar in the federal budget, and only a portion of that goes to their space division. It should be 1-2%, and 3-4% if you want to go beyond Earth orbit.

As a Canadian I find it hard to believe that we are funding NASA's space division more than the US as a percentage.

You want kids to get a good job? NASA will inspire them to think big and create the economy of tomorrow. That's what Apollo did... look at all the space-age stuff from that era we take for granted today!

I think Romney would either privatize or shut down NASA's space program. There are corporations in the US that want to carry that can. I think they should be allowed to do it.

Under the last several administrations the space program has been allowed to rot. So maybe a new paradigm is needed.

[Jasoncw 12,060]

1) if you do not do a good job at your job you get fired. obama hasnt done anything that special in terms of the economy

All in all, respectable economists mostly agree that the stimulus had a positive effect. The main criticism from economists is that it wasn't big enough.

As Romney pointed out, unemployment numbers are higher than projected, but that's not because the stimulus was ineffective, it's because the information available at the time led them to believe that the recession wasn't as bad is it actually was.

2) half the country wants him out, romney is anywhere between 45%-52% in polls. if obama was soooooo good more than half the country would want him reelected like in the 60s or 70s % wise

http://en.wikipedia....lar_vote_margin Right now Obama is at around 50.5% (averaging and weighting based on historical accuracy. Everybody knows that Rasmussen is consistently off a few points). That would give him a higher popular vote than all the winners in the last few decades, excluding his 2008 percent (which if you remember correctly was considered a landslide victory (at 52.87%)), and close to one of George Bush's victories. The most crushing victories of history barely broke 60% but those happened a long time ago. Expecting 70% is absurd.

3) obama has no record and it has shown. thats like having someone inexperienced being the CEO of Apple or something. Obama is that 20 year old who has no idea what hes doing whereas romney has tons of experience in this field

4) romney is not perfect but regardless he is much better qualified

Romney's only experience in politics was as the Governor of Massachusetts, and he left office with an approval rating of 39% and a disapproval of 59% (Obama's is currently 50% and 45% according to Gallup). He was a one-termer. Obama was a state senator for several terms before becoming a US senator. Being a congressman is certainly relevant to dealing with congress as president.

Romney's other experience in politics has been continously running for president since failing in Mass. He didn't make it past the primaries the first time around. The second time around he beat people like Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain, and Rick Santorum to become the Republican nominee. Since then his campaign has been making a lot of unnecessary gaffes which have collectively defined him, like the etch-a-sketch comment, offending all of the countries he visited during his foreign trip, the 47% video, the unncountable number of wealth related statements (NASCAR team owner friend, olympic horses, etc.). All completely unnecessary. His op ed piece about the auto rescue is a great example. It was anticipated it was going to come up in the 2012 election, and it was known that Ohio would be a key battleground state, and it's known that Ohio is a big car manufacturing state. There was absolutely no reason to write that op ed, and it's revealing of his political skills that he chose to.

His business experience is with Bain Capital. They take failing companies and slice them up into something profitable, and then Bain gets to keep some of the profits. It's sort of cliche to say it, but this was done by outsourcing, reducing pay and benefits, and altogether closing stores/plants/etc. This stuff doesn't really translate into the presidency. "Mississippi is receiving far more federal tax money than it contributes. We should shut down that part of the company/country, it's just not working out", or "We'd make a lot more money if we didn't pay unemployment benefits." Obviously that's absurd sounding, but those are the types of changes that they made to companies and obviously those kind of decisions don't make sense in the context of government. His expertise isn't particularly relevant to federal policy.

In Chicago Obama was successfully involved in a number of community organizations and non profits. In order to get hundreds of volunteers to do something, you need to use your political skills to convince random, generally uninterested people that what you're doing is worthwhile and important and worth their time. Then you need to use your management skills to make sure that their efforts are aligned and productive, and that limited funds are being used effectively. In other words, you have to get people to do stuff that they weren't planning on doing and have no obligation to do, just like politics. It also means identifying and balancing different interests. Different people might want to volunteer but they're motivated by different and sometimes conflicting reasons, and you need to maintain your coalition or else you loose volunteers, just like in politics. In business, people under you do what you tell them to because you're their boss. You don't need to balance coalitions, or convince people who aren't obligated to do anything to do things for you. You send down orders and they're followed or else they get fired. That's not how government works. Obama was also an attorney and taught constitutional law for over a decade, which is also relevant and beneficial to the presidency.

Both candidates have been very successful in their life's endeavors, but Obama's professional background is more relevent than Romney's.

The other big part of Obama's qualifications is that he's already had 4 years of experience being president. And frankly, he's mostly been successful. Politicians have campaigned on healthcare reform for decades and he was the one who got it done. That is a historic accomplishment. His economic policies have stabilized and improved the economy, and his improvements to financial regulations have helped ensure the same thing doesn't happen again. He's successfully ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You might not like him because he's a Democrat, but he has not been an ineffective president.

5) in my opinion you have to run this country like its a company. USA takes in money, gives money to other companies (countries) and pays its workers. romney has done this time and time again in the world of business

The primary role of government is to provide services to its citizens. The primary role of business is to make money. Like I said before, if the US were run like a business the first thing to do would be to deannex the deep south, which is a failing part of the "company" and to "fire" (deport) all poor people, criminals, uneducated people, and all other "underperformers". Then you'd drop nukes on China to permanently remove the "competition". If you did these things the federal government would be profitable. But its job is not to be profitable it's to provide services.

6) obama keeps blaming bush which means he is desperate to get votes. on obamas watch the deficit has gone to 16 trillion (obama has contributed 6 T)romney and bush are in no way the same

Romney and Bush are both Republicans, and both have normal Republican positions on various issues. Just like Obama and Clinton are both Democrats. It's natural for people of the same party to share similar positions.

They both campaigned on energy independence. They both say they'd favor non-renewables, but include renewables as well, but at the same time both have heavily criticised government renewable energy initiatives and the Republican party in general doesn't think renewables are worthwhile. So they're the same.

They both campaigned on tax cuts and balancing the budget. If anything Bush's tax cuts were more reasonable than Romney's considering the circumstances. Bush saw a surplus, and the economy was in good times, so cutting taxes there makes more sense (even if it still wasn't a good idea). Bush did not end up balancing the budget as we all know. Romney's budget plan has been anaylised and the math doesn't work out. Aside from that, the deductions he is hypothetically going to eliminate are very popular, and their removal isn't politically feasible (which is the reason he won't name specific deductions). It's very easy to see how that would play out. The tax cuts go through, and the deduction eliminations don't.

Bush campaigned on "compassionate conservatism", and had No Child Left Behind, and strengthening faith based community organizations, etc. Romney is not campaigning on anything like that.

Bush and Romney both have campaigned on "getting tough on China."

They both campaigned on "small business."

Bush campaigned on immigration reform. Romney responds when asked about it and has a small page about it on his website, but he has simply said that immigration policy needs reform. Bush emphasised it in his campaign and proposed actual policy.

And you can keep on going down the list of Romney's positions. They're all pretty much standard Republican positions. If you replay clips from Bush's campaigns, most Republcains would like what they hear, because it's all standard mainstream Republican stuff.

Romney's campaign advisers are mostly from the Bush administration (even on foreign policy). But why wouldn't they be? The Bush administration was composed of veteran top Republicans. Why wouldn't a Republican presidential campaign also use top veteran Republicans? Bush wasn't some kind of rogue agent. Him and his administration lead Republicans in congress to enact Republican policies. It's not like the entire Republican party has changed in the last 4 years.

7) obama promised hope and change and that has not happened. the jobs report is 7.8 which is not great

http://data.bls.gov/...ies/LNS14000000 Obama became president in the beginning of 2009, and took action, and within a few months the steep upward spike leveled off and started lowering. Unemployment is about where it was when he took office, and even that's misleading because policies aren't immediately enacted and don't immediately produce results, so I don't think that Obama (or any other president) is responsible for the numbers of day one of their administration.

8 ) lastly you have to bring up the race card. personally i am not a racist by any means but 90% of black ppl are voting for obama based on the fact that he is black. that makes no political sense whatsoever. im glad that we have gotten a black president but he has failed. racism against blacks hasnt gotten better since obama has been in office. i really wanted obama to suceed but in the end of the day true experience is what really matters.

Obama's race didn't change black people's minds about who to vote for. Blacks are a reliably Democratic demographic. Their support for Obama is about the same as it is for Clinton, Johnson, etc.. Do you really think that if Obama wasn't black, they'd be voting for Romney or McCain instead? The difference is that Obama excited black people more than a usual democrat, which increased black voter turnout, which is usually not as high as other demographic groups.

On the flip side, there are plenty of racists out there who might have voted for him if he was white. A lot of studies have been done on the topic, and while they don't all agree on how much of an impact race had in 2008, there's agreement that it hurt Obama.

9) ROMNEY!

10) ROMNEY!!!

prediction: a close election with romney winning by a close margin. romney will deff get the popular vote but the electoral colege is what scares me....

nov 6 is almost here...please god let romney win!

Obama is the favorite to win both the poplar vote and the electoral college. He's been ahead in the popular vote for the entire campaign except for a few weeks ago where it was about even, and since then he's pulled ahead again. It doesn't mean that it's impossible for Romney to win, so you shouldn't give up hope on your candidate, but he's just not the favorite to win. You'd have to cherry pick republican leaning polls (and different polls lean different ways. They use slightly different methodologies. Some pollsters only call home phones which skews the sample against young people who only use cell phones for example. And different pollsters have different "likely voter" screens which also change the composition of their responses) to think that Romney was the favorite. You are right though that Obama is a heavier favorite for the electoral college, because he has a reasonably comfortable lead in the states that Romney needs to get 270 EC votes. But he's the favorite to win both.

[Duke87 1,070]

The space exploration craze in the US was a product of the cold war. Now that that's over, most people have lost interest. No more commies to race against, y'know?

Re: stimulus - it's a sound idea for a country to take on some temporary debt to boost its economy when things go south, but that only really works when a country is in good financial standing going into the recession. There comes a point where you create problems when you keep taking on more debt, and as the credit rating agencies have been indicating, we are getting there. I would absolutely be supporting lots of stimulus if our gross debt was at 10% of GDP. But it's not, it's at 100% of GDP, and growing. The US government does not have the financial fortitude to provide good stimulus, and we need to fix our debt situation before we end up like Greece.

[Jasoncw 12,060]

Which politician is better geared toward the space program?

Right now under Obama NASA is getting less than half a penny of every dollar in the federal budget, and only a portion of that goes to their space division. It should be 1-2%, and 3-4% if you want to go beyond Earth orbit.

As a Canadian I find it hard to believe that we are funding NASA's space division more than the US as a percentage.

You want kids to get a good job? NASA will inspire them to think big and create the economy of tomorrow. That's what Apollo did... look at all the space-age stuff from that era we take for granted today!

I personally think it's really sad. Humans have been looking to the stars for as long as we've existed. And we finally got there. Then there's the space shuttle, which is one of mankind's greatest engineering achievements. Then there are the space stations, a great collaboration between nations who otherwise don't like to work together. Definitely one of the high points of humankind.

Unfortunately it's also incredibly expensive, and there's not much public support for it, especially nowadays. In the past there was public support because of the space race. So the US and Russia both spent the money and got people into space and on the moon. And since then budgets have been getting reduced.

If NASA is revived by anyone it will be by democrats. Republicans don't like the idea of the government spending large amounts of money on scientific research that is directly related to our problems here on earth (clean energy, medicine, etc.). I can't imagine them spending even larger amounts of money on scientific research that's not directly related to earth problems. And they don't believe large government initiatives like NASA to be the role of the federal government.

Either way, both parties are constrained by the will of the American public. When the public is willing to spend money on it, the government will.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Just remember, voters, if you don't vote you will get the government you deserve. Non-voters also have no right to complain about the government.

[Meg 368]

The Redskins lost today which indicates that Romney will be elected.

or so goes the Redskins Rule

As Duke is fond of saying: correlation does not imply causation.

It is, however, statistically weird.

[hym 358]

You want kids to get a good job? NASA will inspire them to think big and create the economy of tomorrow. That's what Apollo did... look at all the space-age stuff from that era we take for granted today!

The problem is that this isn't necessarily true. The students that NASA has the biggest impact on are often the ones interested in pursuing technical degrees. NASA administrators have admitted that there is currently little support among these students for pursuing space related objectives. Perhaps the most illuminating comments are coming from corporate recruiters, who are reporting that among the college age students pursuing technical degrees, there is intense interest in performing work on renewable/alternative energy projects. (While that may be a good thing in itself, the economy of tomorrow still revolves around petroleum.)

There is no question that NASA's positive impact reaches far beyond the work it does, but NASA does not have the attention of the current generation of students. Until NASA has their attention, providing more funding to NASA will not inspire these kids to go out and achieve big things.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

I wouldn't call reducing petroleum to manufacturing uses and not an energy source is a small impact thing. Unfortunately, for all the research that has been done on sources of power other than nukes, which have their own waste problems, are not very efficient and therefore unable to replace petroleum as a fuel, especially for aircraft.

Our society has overrun long-term energy sustainability.

[hym 358]

I wouldn't call reducing petroleum to manufacturing uses and not an energy source is a small impact thing.

The problem is that we aren't going to get there any time soon. ExxonMobil's predictions for energy consumption over the next 30 years suggest that over 50% of the US transportation fleet will still run solely on fossil fuels. A Royal Dutch Shell executive, when asked why he wasn't worried about alternative energy driving the company out of business, pointed out that no other energy source currently in existence or on the horizon had the necessary characteristics to pose a serious threat to oil as the world's dominate fuel source. Perhaps most damaging to idea that we will get off oil any time soon, the most aggressive projection of electric vehicle sales over the next 30 years projects less than 10% adoption rates, and the authors of that report recently admitted that there projection was wildly optimistic. They have recently lowered their projection to less than 5% adoption and that rate is still considered optimistic.

[GreekMan 246]

we will see tomorrow

[Haljackey 17,441]

Some election humour:

Halo 4 comes out tomorrow? Looks like hardcore gamers won't be voting in the US election.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Which politician is better geared toward the space program?

Right now under Obama NASA is getting less than half a penny of every dollar in the federal budget, and only a portion of that goes to their space division. It should be 1-2%, and 3-4% if you want to go beyond Earth orbit.

As a Canadian I find it hard to believe that we are funding NASA's space division more than the US as a percentage.

You want kids to get a good job? NASA will inspire them to think big and create the economy of tomorrow. That's what Apollo did... look at all the space-age stuff from that era we take for granted today!

Canada pays for NASA? Hmm, I didnt know that.

Anyways, yeah, they should have voted Newt Gingrich then, with his silly moon colony idea. Dont get me wrong, Id love a moon colony, but what he said was just...impossible. Though I think youre right. Investing in Nasa is investing in the future. And if you dont, the Chinese or some private corporation will, which means that vital technologies either fall in the hands of another country, or worse, in the hands of people who will use it only to benefit themselves, and not humanity as a whole.

I have a problem with statements such as "no one in their right mind should vote for ____". You are basically saying that half of America is not in their right mind.

I agree, its a little blunt, but what else do you call someone who votes for someone who will not act on your best behalf? I mean, if he would be doing something in the best interest of the country, alright, but Romney is unlikely to do that as well.

Also ewww, libertarians *shudder*

[Linoa06 1,374]

Just remember, voters, if you don't vote you will get the government you deserve. Non-voters also have no right to complain about the government.

This. Voting is something you're lucky to have, so excerce this to the fullest. Even if the electoral college is a masquerade that makes the UK's first past the post system look like the fairest system in the world.

And the problem in my opinion is that Romney tends to be, let's say... flipping on many things. It's exactly what the people want to hear, but I hardly think someone like that is steady enough to lead a country like the US. Then there's the issues brought up by Romney and especially Ryan and his little friends about how abortion is wrong and such. Welcome to 17th century. (And, ironically, it is under Governor Mitt Romney's drive that the first gay marriage licences in the US were approved)

I like how people who are against Obama claim that he hasn't changed much. I especially like the part where republicans create the stall themselves then blame others for it. I'm not the smartest girl in the world but - this looks like a good way to deceive the public and also like a rather blatant lack of honesty. But Romney has that capacity to appeal to the very dimwitted people (for lack of a better word) who would take the worst backlash from his policies. I find Obama more honest.

Also, on the subject of not letting the government interfere. Yes, I believe that government should have few control or influence. But we are a society, even if you are a follower of the Tory and Thatcher's doctrines, not just isolated people. I also believe that people should learn to fend for themselves. But I find appaling the "success stories" of a few, indeed, successful people who try to impose such will on the whole nation. It's great, some people never had to need any government influence. This is a typically Republican attitude, too. But it's wrong. Education and healthcare are duties that the state must provide, and so is infrastructure. The idea that government should have no influence at all on people's lives is completely invalid. Besides, a government without power on its subjects? Few people would be interested. Having said that, I believe that people shouldn't rely completely on the state either - Germany, in this regard, has a strict system that really works fine, but that (sadly) most American would already brand socialism. I do know that it's a typically US attitude, what with worshipping money and the likes, but a society can't be solely run by profit-driven corporations. Neolibertalism is doomed to fail or degrade into your worst cyberpunk nightmares. But, granted, nanny states also encourage people to stay lazy and give them few incentive to work their earnest. But when both fail, the people lose.

This is what brings me to the fact I deplore the most in the US elections. There are a lot of extremes. Obama is pretty moderate, but even then, they are already no compromises anymore. Romney is also pretty extreme (and not only that, but he does hold the honor of being both a staunch pro-choice and pro-life activist. Choose one, please.) There are only extremes, and nobody seems to realize that a bit of everything is needed to make the whole thing work. You can't solely run your society on greedy corporations and let your citizens fend for themselves, but you surely can't give them everything and lul them while you take all of their money. I wish there were liberal candidates that still had hints of socialism, at least enough to provide a last-ditch help to the most unfortunate people, but still based their main economic principles on moderate liberalism.

Coupled with appalling and outdated debates (I do not believe that there is anything to debate upon matters such as homosexuality, contraception; I also cannot understand that people brand college grants and healthcare subsidies 'immoral'; and also, I believe religion has too much a spot in US politics), as well as with a voting system that would barely qualify as a democracy in my books (electoral college, multiple voter frauds and state-varying voter registration laws, and this extreme-driven two-party system that does not allow anything except views from the most absolute sites), I think this US election is still a gross masquerade. But reforms would not benefit the Republicans nor the Democrats; perhaps movements like 19th century English reforms would be needed.

And, lastly. To those people who only vote for Romney (or anyone else, but it's not like anyone had any chance) in hopes to change the president. The idea of simply voting the president out and hope someone else does the job is flawed. The idea of "when someone does their job poorly, they're fired" is flawed. You're missing the big picture, like the complicated situations of the country as Obama inherited it, and his efforts; also, do you really think that just hoping for better times will work? It could; but if your Windows XP copy started running cranky, would you downgrade it to Windows 98 on the mere grounds that "it will be different"? You're missing the big picture, which I think is needed to vote properly; but maybe that is what Romney, and to a lesser extent Obama do NOT want. Indeed, if voters could vote independently, suddenly other parties would sprout and the GOP and Dems would have a much harder time keeping up.

Additional musings, they hold mature content so please be advised. Don't click it if you're not sure or if you might be shocked --- I wouldn't want to hurt anyone.

Oh, and to you Romney voters; keep in mind that your vote technically endorses Todd Akin's ideas of "legitimate rape" or "blessed rape", to quote some of his more extremes views. Because those goons will be put in power, and even if Romney doesn't care much about whatever he's preaching, these guys sure do. So do think whether you agree about double-blaming rape victims before stating your opinion. I honestly have no clue how can people live with a clean conscience after acknowledging and agreeing with such atrocities.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

10 .. 9 .. 8 .. and counting.

[Duke87 1,070]

The Redskins lost today which indicates that Romney will be elected.

or so goes the Redskins Rule

As Duke is fond of saying: correlation does not imply causation.

It is, however, statistically weird.

If you go back to 1908 (the first year there was a world series before an election) rather than just to 1940, the world series only predicts the outcome 16 out of 26 times. The expected value is 13. The probability of the number in 26 trials falling within 13+/-3, assuming it's completely random, is... 83.1%. Forget causation, that one's crap even on correlation.

[hym 358]

Halo 4 comes out tomorrow? Looks like hardcore gamers won't be voting in the US election.

Some might not, but then others might heed the voting campaign 343 Industries created for this event.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Hardcore gamers are more likely to vote democrat so the release of Halo 4 might help with a Republican victory.

--Ocram

[Easy Bakes 253]

Hardcore gamers are more likely to vote democrat so the release of Halo 4 might help with a Republican victory.

--Ocram

they can go vote while the updates are downloading

[Duke87 1,070]

Hardcore gamers are more likely to vote democrat

This may simply be that gamers tend to be younger and younger people tend to be more liberal. I don't know that gaming is really less of a thing among young conservatives. People in the armed forces tend to be big into video games, for instance (particularly the bang bang shoot 'em up type).

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

The only problem we see from here are the people in New York and New Jersey who may not vote because they are too busy with figuring out where to sleep tonight. Going to be blustery tomorrow.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Its on !

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Voters defy Sandy problems to get to polls.

Someone said that the ballot is a major, multi-page document. If so, how do they expect people to wade though it in a polling place?

[Barbarossa 51]

I have a problem with statements such as "no one in their right mind should vote for ____". You are basically saying that half of America is not in their right mind.

I agree, its a little blunt, but what else do you call someone who votes for someone who will not act on your best behalf? I mean, if he would be doing something in the best interest of the country, alright, but Romney is unlikely to do that as well.

Also ewww, libertarians *shudder*

What can I say? I have a habit of being blunt.

When folks in the States vote today, just don't fall prey to the god of Mammon. Vote to improve your life, to respect the lives of others and their freedom to live as they please, and to encourage more open-mindedness in the country we live in. I know I have failed at this miserably for over a decade and I won't do it again.

Barbarossa

[GreekMan 246]

its going to be a long night.....obama even knows it....jay z singing 99 problems, obama sad at his final speech, hes telling ppl to vote out of revenge....what kind of president is that??? how can you want someone like that? I like 99 problems but it has no place in an election....

[SimCoug 5,977]

Happy voting day.

[Haljackey 17,441]

US Vote System Simplified

 

 

[Linoa06 1,374]

its going to be a long night.....obama even knows it....jay z singing 99 problems, obama sad at his final speech, hes telling ppl to vote out of revenge....what kind of president is that??? how can you want someone like that? I like 99 problems but it has no place in an election....

I don't think Todd Akin's remarks have much to do in that election either! Vote about the policies, not whomever sings at meetings, it should at the very least make your voice express an opinion, not a preference.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I voted for several republicans a few democrats and some progressive referendums (including Ref74).

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

And in Washington State what was proposition 74? They are different in different places.

My understanding is that all kinds of squeaky wheels find themselves on the ballot. Isn't this rather silly when the Presidency is up for grabs? Why not put these things on the State elections (I suppose they do that too).

When we have a hot enough issue, we hold a separate referendum, and the squeaky wheels have a hard time getting anything on a ballot.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I was disappointing in my voting experience. 1/2 my choices were running unopposed.