2012 U.S. Elections - President Obama Re-elected

[Skull]

I'm on the fence about whether Obama's support of gay marriage will help him or not. It's probably going to re-energize some voters who may have been starting to lose faith in Obama actually delivering on the social change he promises. However, it's probably going to also bring a lot more people to the polls to vote against him who may have otherwise stayed home. In fact, I think there are more people who are strongly opposed to gay marriage (meaning they would be driven to vote just to prevent any pro-gay legislation from passing) than there are people strongly in support.

 

That being said, I think the deciding factor on how this decision affects Obama's campaign is the effect it has on young voters. Since not many people between the ages of 18 to say 24 know enough to have an opinion on foreign policy, economic issues, etc, I think that the social issues are going to be what gets the younger generation's vote. I'd like to think that a larger percentage of people my age are pro-gay than anti-gay, so maybe that would actually make this decision work in Obama's favor.

 

Or not. I know pretty much jack shit at this point.

[enfield]

his 'evolution' of expressed opinion of gay marriage will likely help him - his campaign wouldn't advise him to say such a thing publicly if they didn't think that.

 

this graph says it all i think - http://qph.cf.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f85199b2c4ba9012cd04544d1e4b4c38

[sees_all1]

I voted for Ron Paul in Indiana's primary, by the way. He's the last non-Romney standing in the Republican Primary. The more votes he gets, the bigger speaking platform he'll have at the convention. I like his domestic policy, and given a speaking opportunity I'm almost sure he'll speak on that.

 

I also voted against Lugar. 36 years in the U.S. Senate is about 24 years too long. It also says something when more Democrats are sad to see him go than Republicans.

[enfield]

aww good job! i just got my voting id thing. i'll be voting for him in the Ca primary :).

[RpgGamer]

Obama because he's not [bleep]ing nuts, and he's done a decent job the past 4 years.

[Crocefisso]

I also voted against Lugar. 36 years in the U.S. Senate is about 24 years too long. It also says something when more Democrats are sad to see him go than Republicans.

Am I right in thinking the Democrats are sad because Lugar's replacement is in effect a Tea Partier (and by extension both highly partisan and politically mad)?

[jasignhagj]

I voted for Ron Paul in Indiana's primary, by the way. He's the last non-Romney standing in the Republican Primary. The more votes he gets, the bigger speaking platform he'll have at the convention. I like his domestic policy, and given a speaking opportunity I'm almost sure he'll speak on that.

 

I also voted against Lugar. 36 years in the U.S. Senate is about 24 years too long. It also says something when more Democrats are sad to see him go than Republicans.

I'm not sad to see him go. Now that he's been replaced by a far right candidate, the seat is much more likely to go to the Dems.

[The Dark Lord]

 

Obamacare lives. Umad, Republicans?

[Range_This11]

Well that's no way to start a conversation...

 

I'm glad the law was upheld, but I sure as hell did not expect it to be. Good sign for Obama in the fall, very good sign.

[obfuscator]

It's funny how a lot of conservative Americans are threatening to move to Canada...I don't suppose they know our healthcare system is socialist compared to the states'...

[Riku3220]

I don't see the big deal about needing to have health insurance. Here in Texas it's mandatory to have auto insurance and the only ones who complain about it are those who are having trouble affording it, but I'm hearing more hate about Obamacare from people who think their rights are being broken than people who can't afford another mandatory charge.

[demby123]

Is it bad that I don't want to vote because I fear my vote won't mean anything in the sea of American's choices anyways?

[champion]

understandable if you're just considering your own vote, but if a group of people thought like that, that could make a big difference in the end.

[sees_all1]

I don't see the big deal about needing to have health insurance. Here in Texas it's mandatory to have auto insurance and the only ones who complain about it are those who are having trouble affording it, but I'm hearing more hate about Obamacare from people who think their rights are being broken than people who can't afford another mandatory charge.

I'm going to post a bit of a civics lesson, because I don't feel like arguing.

 

Pretty much the first statement you'll find in any driver's education book is that "Driving is a privilege, not a right." In order to gain the privilege to drive a car in a state, you must insure others from the damage you might cause them. Hopefully you can understand why auto insurance is different than health insurance negotiated group plans.

 

Also, a principal of Federalism is that states are allowed to legislate as they see fit; the point being if you don't like a state's law, you should move to another one. You can't do that with a country. If you don't like being American, tough shit. You can't just say, screw you guys, I'm going to be French now. Other countries aren't that nice. Federalism also means that the government can do only what's listed in the Constitution, no more. Their powers are enumerated and finite.

 

What the Obama administration argued was that the individual mandate was not a tax, and that the commerce clause allowed them to mandate that people buy health insurance or pay a fine. What the Supreme Court ruled was that the commerce clause did not allow the government to force citizens into purchasing healthcare. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that the health care law is a tax, and that the government is allowed to tax its citizens.

 

The surprise vote in all this was Chief Justice Roberts, who voted in favor of letting Obamacare stand. I believe he did this so that he could write the majority opinion, which changed the meaning of the law. It also prevented the liberals from writing a dissent and creating precedent for future courts.

 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say this is bad news for Obama. Nothing lights a fire under a tea-partier's ass like knowing the only way to repeal Obamacare is by voting out the progressives and liberals in congress, and voting out Obama. Also, something like 58% of all Americans want Obamacare to be thrown out completely, this put another millstone around Obama's neck. It also makes him a liar-liar pants on fire for his campaign promises in 2008 and later touting his plan (I will not have an individual mandate, reduce costs of healthcare, this is not a tax, this will not raise the deficit, strengthen medicare/aid).

[champion]

 

Unrelated to stuff above me, but boy, this Supreme Court decision sure brought out some interesting posts on my Facebook homepage today.

 

These people just seem like parodies of themselves sometimes.

[Sir_Squab]

Is it bad that I don't want to vote because I fear my vote won't mean anything in the sea of American's choices anyways?

 

Actually, you seem to have a very common problem that, imo, is a huge one because it is so common. A lot of people don't vote because they don't like ANY of the politicians running.

 

Also, I've heard it suggested that a big problem with modern politics (from cracked mind you, possibly not the best source lol) is that politics becomes more focused on petty party rivalry then intelligent discussion and debate. People will disagree with the party they don't support on the grounds that they don't support it, and agree with the party they support because it's the party they support.

 

Problem is, politicians seems to care more about winning the election then about the country.

[Giordano]

Problem is, politicians seems to care more about winning the election then about the country.

Politicans care about their interests; always have, always will. Over the recent "advancements" of "democracy" have they've gotten friendly and spurred an image of good community, character, and patriot to voting.

 

Either way, laws will be passed and shit will happen with or without our vote. All our vote does is benefit one party's personal gain or the other. Looking it at that, I don't blame people for not voting.

 

I blame people for not understanding this. I don't expect a grand change to sweep the nation because people understand, but it'll make them look a lot less ignorant.

[Donnie]

 

Obamacare lives. Umad, Republicans?

 

Enjoy your month long waits for hospital visits :P

[Will H]

Obamacare lives. Umad, Republicans?

 

Enjoy your month long waits for hospital visits :P

 

Socialised healthcare may not be as speedy and efficient as privatised, but it's not that far behind and crucially it's fairer and more respectful to human rights. After all, it works in other developed countries.

[lordkafei]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say this is bad news for Obama. Nothing lights a fire under a tea-partier's ass like knowing the only way to repeal Obamacare is by voting out the progressives and liberals in congress, and voting out Obama. Also, something like 58% of all Americans want Obamacare to be thrown out completely, this put another millstone around Obama's neck. It also makes him a liar-liar pants on fire for his campaign promises in 2008 and later touting his plan (I will not have an individual mandate, reduce costs of healthcare, this is not a tax, this will not raise the deficit, strengthen medicare/aid).

 

Depending on which poll you look at, anywhere from 46% to 67% of Americans want Obamacare repealed.

 

The SCOTUS basically threw the decision back to the electorate.

 

It’s unlikely the Republicans can secure enough Senate seats this fall to completely repeal the act; that would require a supermajority of 67 votes of 100. The Republicans would have to pick up 20 or so senate seats.

 

BUT...

 

The Republicans will only need to gain 3 seats to reach 50 Senate seats. Provided they reach 50 seats, win the White House and hold onto the House, they will be able to use the budget reconciliation process to deny funding (the Republican VP would be the tiebreaker vote).

 

FWIW, in the 2010 elections (the first after Obamacare), the Republicans gained 6 Senate seats. I’d bet they can pick up 5 or 6 more in 2012.

 

The sweet irony is that this is the same back door process the Democrats used to get around a filibuster and push Obamacare through in the first place. :grin:

 

There are 33 Senate seats up for re-election this fall. Twenty-three of those seats caucus with the Democrats.

 

The 2012 election will be a referendum on Obamacare, and it is going to be fun to watch.

 

ref: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/could-republicans-really-repeal-obamacare-091546012.html

[sees_all1]

Its unlikely the Republicans can secure enough Senate seats this fall to completely repeal the act; that would require a supermajority of 67 votes of 100. The Republicans would have to pick up 20 or so senate seats.

 

BUT...

 

The Republicans will only need to gain 3 seats to reach 50 Senate seats. Provided they reach 50 seats, win the White House and hold onto the House, they will be able to use the budget reconciliation process to deny funding (the Republican VP would be the tiebreaker vote).

 

FWIW, in the 2010 elections (the first after Obamacare), the Republicans gained 6 Senate seats. Id bet they can pick up 5 or 6 more in 2012.

 

The sweet irony is that this is the same back door process the Democrats used to get around a filibuster and push Obamacare through in the first place. :grin:

 

There are 33 Senate seats up for re-election this fall. Twenty-three of those seats caucus with the Democrats.

60 votes is enough for cloture, which breaks a filibuster. Mitt Romney also raised something like $4.2 million in the 24 hours after the Supreme Court Ruling. Right now it's looking like the Republicans will have 45 seats versus Dem's 48 seats, with 8 seats "up for grabs". Depending on the economy, campaign fundraising and voter turnout, the Republicans could very well have the majority.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/2012_elections_senate_map.html

[Ginger_Warrior]

I find it very strange that a party which actively advocates denying people fair access to decent quality healthcare would become more popular for sticking vehemently to that policy. I mean, even if you oppose socialised healthcare, which is a perfectly rationale stance to take and not necessarily congruous with the Republican Party, can somebody at least admit that low income families are inherently disadvantaged by Republican Party policy?

 

Some non-Americans might retort "Only in America", but I think no country does more to reinforce that myth than the US itself, as if it were somehow more exceptional to the common laws of socioeconomics than any other country on Earth.

[champion]

Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. - John Steinbeck

[dusqi]

Here is my experience of politics on the Internet: I sit around, debate a few issues, and feel like 90% of the people around me, including my friends, all have the same views. Then an election happens and the party that doesn't share my views gets voted in.

 

Moral of the story? Non-Internet users are idiots, and don't waste your time preaching to the converted.

[sees_all1]

Here is my experience of politics on the Internet: I sit around, debate a few issues, and feel like 90% of the people around me, including my friends, all have the same views except for the militant Ron Paul supporters, they tend to post their opinion wherever they can. Then an election happens and I don't vote, and the party that doesn't share my views gets voted in so I gripe about how politics suck on an internet forum.

 

Moral of the story? Non-Internet users are idiots have jobs, pay taxes, and care enough about their money to vote, and don't waste your time preaching to the converted teenagers in their parent's basements, because once they're kicked out of the house and forced to get jobs they'll become conservative and then they'll stop going online and they'll start voting for the other party.

Fixed it for you. My only question is have you even considered the rationale behind a differing opinion.

If only we could get the rest of your friends and the internet users jobs...