demagogue on 4/11/2012 at 06:29
On SubjEff's test I got 61% Obama / 50% Romney.
On deth's I got 91% Obama / 36% Romney, and 83% Dem / 30% Rep.
I personally think of my self just right-of-center and a touch libertarian (economically rational & not a freak on social issues or anti-science), and I grew up Republican. But that's what I think of the US Democratic party more & more. I might prefer the Republicans if they shifted back to the center, but as it is now they've just derailed from reality on a lot of things.
Kaleid on 4/11/2012 at 06:44
I side with Jill Stein, but between these two the choice is quite easy, as Romney is a total fraud who doesn't have the backbone to stand up for anything. It's all too easy to go on youtube and watch up to 20 minute long videos in which he contradicts himself constantly. If he has any consistency then it is that he is constantly inconsistent. And on secular values Romney of course is worse, because he has to pander to the lunatic religious right.
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgYLBk_0t6w) Romney in 2002: "I am big believer in getting money where the money is. The money is in Washington."
(
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/usa-taxes-romney-idUSL2E8J19MZ20120801) Romney tax plan helps rich, hurts middle class-study
CBO states that up to 12 million jobs will be created in the next years, so the economy will improve, and (
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08/private-jobs-increase-more-with-democrats-in-white-house.html) historically the dems are better at this whole job thing. More? Well, the military doesn't need more money and cutting taxes 20% for everyone is a fiscal suicide.
Vasquez on 4/11/2012 at 07:47
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
We're all a little baffled at how it can be this close when one guy is so out there on so many topics.
That's the problem of democracy.
Sounds like the test was rigged.
Nuth on 4/11/2012 at 20:33
This late in the game, I've been able to pick the winner of every Presidential election since 1968. I think Romney wins this one.
june gloom on 4/11/2012 at 22:32
Jesus Christ I hope you're wrong. There's a lot to argue against voting Obama but the Republican party -- not merely Romney -- is completely off the deep end.
heywood on 4/11/2012 at 23:27
Obama has it wrapped up. But the Congressional elections have the potential to shake up the status quo. If the Democrats can get close to 50/50 in the House, it will break the gridlock.
Jason Moyer on 5/11/2012 at 00:11
Gridlock is a good thing. When one party controls every branch of government it effectively breaks the system of checks and balances.
Anyway, Obama is a horrible president, but Romney would make George W Bush look like Abraham Lincoln, so there's not much question on whom to vote for unless you want to throw your vote away.
Nicker on 5/11/2012 at 06:33
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Gridlock is a good thing. When one party controls every branch of government it effectively breaks the system of checks and balances.
Gridlock is a great idea... when it's blocking an administration you disapprove of...
This is why I do not want an elected Senate in Canada. If the governing party controls both houses, there is no effective opposition. If they control only one, the business of running the country grinds to a halt.
We need to find a more consensus focused model for both our countries. These false dichotomies are tearing us apart.
PS: I loved (
http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/Q/Excerpts/ID/2299067690/) Fran Lebowitz's interview on CBC. I especially agree that elections should take five weeks, campaigns should be entirely run on the public airwaves, with no private money, just a simple allotment of time for each party.
Really, the US elections go on forever. (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjrthOPLAKM) It's ridiculous.
heywood on 5/11/2012 at 07:01
Jason - Gridlock is not the natural outcome of a divided government. It's the natural outcome of a divided government with ideologues in control. When pragmatists are in control, divided government produces compromise solutions rather than gridlock. At least it did most of the time through the 1980s and 1990s. The Democrats don't need to win the House and have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in order to break the gridlock (not going to happen anyway). They only need to get it close enough so that the moderates and independents have some decision-making power again and it only takes a few people crossing isle to get something passed. Not that it's a perfect situation, since opportunistic members can abuse it and extract concessions for their vote, e.g. Ben Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback". But the status quo is pretty shit right now. Unless you're a Grover Norquist devotee and your goal is to drown government in the bathtub, it's hard to see gridlock as a strategy that will improve the country.
