Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

DirtyDeeds    246

This is based mostly on what I've seen myself at the poll just looking around, and I know that's a lot to do with the very localized part of town I'm in, but it sure would be nice if voting decisions weren't made almost exclusively by people who won't be alive for the next election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kasanova King    2,592

Regardless of whether you're Blue or Red, isn't the country better off if both parties are equally represented by all demographics?

Not that sure about the "demographics" part but for me personally, being a "Centrist" so to speak, I like it most when both the House and Senate are as close to a 50/50 split as possible. This usually gives the most power to the moderates/independants...usually forcing a decent amount of bi-partisanship.....and things get "done".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Padme    1,809

Downzy, you don´t understand Republicans/conservatives mentality. It´s not about age or gas prices. They don´t want bureaucracy. They believe it´s a waste of their tax money. They want to get rid of a lot of government programms and departments and officials. Why? Because you have to solve your own problems. They don´t want a government who is a nanny of the people. In their view the role of the goverment it´s just to protect property, moral values and individual freedom. They believe the free market gives you the opportunity to achive your personal goals. You have to figure things out by yourself. If you fail it´s your fault and you should be responssible. Try again doing things in a different way. But don´t ask the government for help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dazey    4,249

Downzy, you don´t understand Republicans/conservatives mentality. It´s not about age or gas prices. They don´t want bureaucracy. They believe it´s a waste of their tax money. They want to get rid of a lot of government programms and departments and officials. Why? Because you have to solve your own problems. They don´t want a government who is a nanny of the people. In their view the role of the goverment it´s just to protect property, moral values and individual freedom. They believe the free market gives you the opportunity to achive your personal goals. You have to figure things out by yourself. If you fail it´s your fault and you should be responssible. Try again doing things in a different way. But don´t ask the government for help.

Which makes perfect sense if everybody is born with the same access to opportunities.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kasanova King    2,592

Gas was $1.75 a gallon when Obama was first elected President.

Not where I live.

If you mean the state of Minnesota, you're right ... gas was $1.56 in Minnesota in November 2008.

http://www.minnesotagasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

Not sure why the right is so hung up on gas prices. It's about time the U.S. caught up with the rest of the world and started using more fuel efficient vehicles (which the higher gas prices are pretty much forcing many people to do.) $3.00 per gallon is still among the lowest gas prices among western nations.

Sorry you can't afford driving 8 mpg Hummers anymore. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dazey    4,249

Gas was $1.75 a gallon when Obama was first elected President.

Not where I live.

If you mean the state of Minnesota, you're right ... gas was $1.56 in Minnesota in November 2008.

http://www.minnesotagasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

Not sure why the right is so hung up on gas prices. It's about time the U.S. caught up with the rest of the world and started using more fuel efficient vehicles (which the higher gas prices are pretty much forcing many people to do.) $3.00 per gallon is still among the lowest gas prices among western nations.

Sorry you can't afford driving 8 mpg Hummers anymore. :P

$10 at least over here for a gallon.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kasanova King    2,592

Gas was $1.75 a gallon when Obama was first elected President.

Not where I live.

If you mean the state of Minnesota, you're right ... gas was $1.56 in Minnesota in November 2008.

http://www.minnesotagasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

Not sure why the right is so hung up on gas prices. It's about time the U.S. caught up with the rest of the world and started using more fuel efficient vehicles (which the higher gas prices are pretty much forcing many people to do.) $3.00 per gallon is still among the lowest gas prices among western nations.

Sorry you can't afford driving 8 mpg Hummers anymore. :P

$10 at least over here for a gallon.

Exactly my point. $1.50 per gallon gas is unrealistic in 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Padme    1,809

Downzy, you don´t understand Republicans/conservatives mentality. It´s not about age or gas prices. They don´t want bureaucracy. They believe it´s a waste of their tax money. They want to get rid of a lot of government programms and departments and officials. Why? Because you have to solve your own problems. They don´t want a government who is a nanny of the people. In their view the role of the goverment it´s just to protect property, moral values and individual freedom. They believe the free market gives you the opportunity to achive your personal goals. You have to figure things out by yourself. If you fail it´s your fault and you should be responssible. Try again doing things in a different way. But don´t ask the government for help.

Which makes perfect sense if everybody is born with the same access to opportunities.

Well for conservatives if you were born poor. You still have to figure out how to become rich without stealing a bank. Go to school, get your first job at the age of 15 and learn from experience. And use your money to pay tranning. Or join the army you get free education there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
arnold layne    1,398

Gas was $1.75 a gallon when Obama was first elected President.

Not where I live.

If you mean the state of Minnesota, you're right ... gas was $1.56 in Minnesota in November 2008.

http://www.minnesotagasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

Anomaly.

Ok, so for some reason or another gas prices were a buck fifty the day after Christmas, whereas only two months prior it was over three seventy five. :rolleyes:

You could also say gas prices are less than they were in 2008 too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kasanova King    2,592

I agree with you about fuel efficient vehicles, as Americans do love their big cars. It's a feeling of safety driving them, which I can kinda understand though.

So if the rest of the world has 20% unemployment, then Americans shouldn't mind if unemployment in the US goes up to 15%?

Dodge Dart, 41 MPG :P :P

Personally, I used to drive an SUV that averaged in the 15 mpg range. It would cost me about $50 to fill it up and I would get about 300 miles on a tank. I now drive a near luxury car that gets well over 20 mpg....it costs me about $50 to fill it up and I get about 300 miles on a full tank. And I feel just as safe driving it, with better technology and its dozen or so airbags.

Edited by Kasanova King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dazey    4,249

Well for conservatives if you were born poor. You still have to figure out how to become rich without stealing a bank. Go to school, get your first job at the age of 15 and learn from experience. And use your money to pay tranning. Or join the army you get free education there

Which pretty much is the only way to avoid being poor if you're not born into privilege in the US I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
downzy    4,703

Sorry, wasn't clear, was trying to get to the point that Clinton did not represent that much of a change by the time 2000 role around. He was still a continuation of Reagan's policy ideals (for the most part, though I'd still argue that his tax increase and '93 and '94 budgets played a bigger role for the 90's economic expansion). And let's not forget that more Americans voted for Gore than they did Bush.

But this is the point I cannot stress enough because the data proves it to be so: people's partisanship does not change as they get older. It's a myth that people start off liberal and end up being conservative. True, a younger person's allegiance to a political party is less than an older person's, but generally speaking, most young people who vote for one particular party will more than likely continue voting for that party as they get older. I wrote my master thesis on the effects of family and partisanship. Almost all of the subjects I studied gave me the same line as you're doing now: they vote the person, they don't vote the party. But a vast majority of them voted Republican when they were younger. Look, I know you're at a disadvantage as this isn't something I expect you to have studied thoroughly, but there is a strong correlation between partisan bias between who you start voting for and who you end up voting for most of your life. The data doesn't lie, as much as you might want it to.

I'm not going to give Bush credit for sub $2 gas because he did it by watching over a crashed economy. LOL. Seriously??? WTF?

Sorry, can you explain to me how Obama cause oil prices to spike during his Presidency? I can explain how Bush let oil prices rise (hint: the Iraq War), but I have a hard time understanding how Obama gets blamed for a short period spike?

I'm not surprised you don't want to talk about Reagan. I mean, he is considered one of the greatest modern presidents with respect to his economic record. Why would you want to contrast him with Obama, who's record on growth, employment, and investment has been even better :P

No, it's not a matter of being right or wrong as it relates to election results. It's about acknowledging historical patterns and not reading too much into them. It's about understanding when real partisan realignments happen (generally, every thirty to forty years). It's about accepting the fact that elections do not always illustrate general voter sentiment/preferences as they do about measuring the intensity of one voting block (to give you another example, 96 percent of American support universal background checks, but such a law won't be passed because 4 percent of Americans care way more on this issue than the 96 percent). It's about seeing the fault lines between generations and demographics and acknowledging that the playing field will be souring greatly for Republicans if previous documented voter phenomenons continue. That's what I'm discussing.

I never said younger people switch from Blue to Red as they get older, what I said (again) is that they have a better justification for their votes as they get older. I'll say it again, if older people are satisfied with an incumbent or a particular policy they will continue to vote for them, if they are not satisfied they will vote against them. How can you POSSIBLY argue that point? The vast majority of Americans are pissed at Obama's administration right now, they are pissed at the way he's handled things like Healthcare and ISIS and the economy, and many Democrats are paying the price. All those Dems that didn't even bother to read the entire ACA are paying the price.

But by all means, continue to ignore Obama's approval rating and the election results. They all mean nothing, right? Please continue to try and force Americans to believe we are happy with what's happened the past 6 years, and how life is so much better now in America, and how the ACA has helped us so much. Because you are in a better position to know if Americans are happier now and satisfied with the direction of the country than Americans are, right? :no:

"Better justification" for their votes? Really? Are older people justifying their vote because of the issues or because of tribal effects? I mean, why do such a small minority of people change their vote? Like I said, it does happen, and in situations where the economy craters and the apocolypse seems imminent, people will forgo their typical allegiances. But explain to me how Michael Grimm, a Republican House representative crushed his opponent last night when Grimm is facing a 20-count federal indictment? The same way we like sports teams is much how we like parties/politicians. That's the simple truth to the matter. It goes back to our tribal roots. It's why I keep stressing the point that once a person becomes affiliated with one party, very rarely do they switch sides (so long as the party itself doesn't realign, which, again, happened with African Americans and the Republican Party in the 1960s and 70s).

The vast majority of Americans aren't pissed with Obama because the vast majority of Americans didn't vote last night. Like I said, voter turnout is generally very low for mid-terms. Mandates are the product when most of the populace engages the political system, which happens most often during Presidential elections.

Obama's approval rating is at 44 percent, the same rate it was at in 2010. But when it came time to actually decide whether to throw the guy out or not in 2012, the American people by and large decided to stay with him.

I don't have to convince anyone of anything. The facts speak for themselves. Unemployment is down compared to when Obama initially took office and more people are obtaining health insurance as a result of the ACA. That's not disputable. I do agree that on a micro-economic level things aren't much better. Most Americans, as have Canadians and people from other countries, have not seen their wages increase. But that's been the case by and large since the early 80s. But I'm sure Republicans, with their positions against minimum wage increases, will surly help lift the tides and boost everyones wages. :rofl-lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dazey    4,249

Well for conservatives if you were born poor. You still have to figure out how to become rich without stealing a bank. Go to school, get your first job at the age of 15 and learn from experience. And use your money to pay tranning. Or join the army you get free education there

Which pretty much is the only way to avoid being poor if you're not born into privilege in the US I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kasanova King    2,592

.

As is a 70% increase over a 6-year period.

Sounds like you've become conditioned to overinflated gas prices ... exactly what the oil companies want. ;)

I've just adapted to it. And I started adapting to it when gas hit $4 per gallon for a while during the Bush Administration. Amazing how gas finally went back down to the sub $2 range during the election year, huh? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kasanova King    2,592

If you look at this chart, it clearly shows that the right doesn't have a leg to stand on when discussing gas pricing. Gas was already floating around the $3 per gallon mark during the final years of the Bush Administration and "magically" went down during the election year.

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

six-year-gas.gif

Edited by Kasanova King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kasanova King    2,592

.

As is a 70% increase over a 6-year period.

Sounds like you've become conditioned to overinflated gas prices ... exactly what the oil companies want. ;)

I've just adapted to it. And I started adapting to it when gas hit $4 per gallon for a while during the Bush Administration. Amazing how gas finally went back down to the sub $2 range during the election year, huh? ;)

But the election had nothing to do with the gas prices dropping so much over the past couple months, Obama is the one who made it happen! He deserves all the credit!

(you wrote sub $2 but I know you meant sub $3)

I was talking about 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
downzy    4,703

Always interested in reading some of the fallout and behind the scenes drama that relate to elections. Found this passage from a NY Times article interesting:

But Mr. Obama was focused on the odds against him. His staff researched it and told him that no president in more than a half-century had as many Senate seats open in states lost by the president. “This is probably the worst possible group of states for Democrats since Dwight Eisenhower,” Mr. Obama told WNPR radio in Connecticut on Tuesday.

In those red states, Mr. Obama was politically toxic and deferred to candidates who asked him to stay away. In the last days of the campaign, he visited just five states, compared with 10 states visited by Mr. Bush in similar circumstances in 2006. “The White House concluded that it should be the responsibility of those individuals who have their names at the top of the ballot to drive the strategy,” said Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary.

Mr. Obama understood in some cases but privately resented others. “We think that was a mistake,” one aide said. Mr. Obama’s irritation became clear when he said publicly that even if he was not on the ballot, his policies were, a comment that Republicans gleefully wrapped around the necks of their Democratic opponents. So Mr. Obama held his tongue, but privately kept quizzing his political director, David Simas, about the latest information on early voting.

He had long ago given up hope that he would be able to push through some of his favorite priorities before leaving office. He told a former aide several weeks ago that he knew he would never be able to expand pre-kindergarten as he once hoped, and regretted it. But he hopes for possible deals on corporate taxes, trade and infrastructure. And he will try to use the lame-duck session of the departing Democratic Senate to push through as many nominations as possible.

Whether Republicans are open to dealing with him in the new year remains uncertain. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and other conservatives will resist. But Speaker John A. Boehner will have one of the largest House Republican caucuses in modern times, giving him more room to maneuver because he can afford to lose some dissenters if he makes common cause with Mr. Obama.

Anita Dunn, a former White House adviser to Mr. Obama, noted that voters in polls on Tuesday were just as negative about Republican leaders as they were about Mr. Obama. In the end, she said, voters were eager not for more failure but for progress by both parties. “The message for anybody who’s in power is that voters are looking for a change in how they approach getting things done,” Ms. Dunn said."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kasanova King    2,592

This election is probably the worst thing that could happen for ISIS. Obama may be a lame-duck president, but he is still the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Military. He still has plenty of power in international affairs. Will be interesting to see if he focuses the final two years of his legacy on eliminating ISIS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
downzy    4,703

Yeah, I kind of think Obama blundered a bit by being less focused on foreign policy than he should have been. Attempts for domestic reforms has kind of been a waste of time while Congress was split.

I give the incoming Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell credit for realizing that the public wouldn't blame the GOP for its obstruction but the President. It's a shame that such a cynical approach worked, but it is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dan H.    1,069

Gas was $1.75 a gallon when Obama was first elected President.

Not where I live.

Yeah fuck no. It was 3 bucks since I've been able to drive (2006)

This year is the lowest I've ever paid for gas. Maybe MAYBE the summer of 2008 came pretty close when it dipped below 3 for a week or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ratbrain    136

Gas was $1.75 a gallon when Obama was first elected President.

Not where I live.

Yeah fuck no. It was 3 bucks since I've been able to drive (2006)

This year is the lowest I've ever paid for gas. Maybe MAYBE the summer of 2008 came pretty close when it dipped below 3 for a week or two.

ISIS are selling oil for 25-45 a barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×