The US Presidential Elections.

[21st Century Fox]

I remember hearing an American comedian (I think it was David Cross/Tobias Funke) say that there isn't actually any news in the U.S. anymore, it's all tainted and the only way he can ever get any actual facts or information about his own country is to read the online version of British newspapers or news channels.

[Jordan]

Have you ever watched Fox?

You'd have to be seriously thick to believe some of the crap spouted on there.

American elections seem to be a beauty contest.

You quoted my post, but I don't see what this has to do with what I wrote.

And if, by beauty contest, you mean two old guys engaged in a constant character assassination battle, where truth is often a collateral casualty, then yes, our elections are beauty contests. Our races are downright nasty.

The problem in the US is they don't have an independent channel like the BBC, which is not free from political bias, but has a duty to remain neutral and is not influenced by political pressure.

In the US the news channel you watch is like the papers here, a Tory reads the Telegraph, and Lefty reads the Guardian, a bigot reads the Mail, and the disinterested look at the pictures in the red tops.

We all to an extent choose our news outlet based on political leanings, but we also by default go to the BBC, which tends to keep things in perspective a bit more.

Fox news can exist because most of it is opinion pieces, the bits I see on The Daily Show are shocking, but obviously the worst examples, and you can say what you want if it is your opinion, in the UK we don't have the 5th amendment, there is no actual constitutional right to freedom of speech, we can't say what we want because we have quite strict laws on defamation, libel and slander.

It doesn't seem to be the case in the US, because, like the right to bear arms, it is constitutional, and anybody denying that right, is therefore denying the constitution and therefore a terrorist.

Not all speech is protected under the 1st Amendment. And we have public television (PBS) and radio (NPR), too, but few watch it. Those networks are more popular with the left, and the right swears that such neutral media has a "liberal bias"--go figure. Sometimes, I wonder if everything that's true is seen by the right as having a "liberal bias," including anything ever confirmed using the scientific method.

[Captain...]

You quoted my post, but I don't see what this has to do with what I wrote.

And if, by beauty contest, you mean two old guys engaged in a constant character assassination battle, where truth is often a collateral casualty, then yes, our elections are beauty contests. Our races are downright nasty.

Not all speech is protected under the 1st Amendment. And we have public television (PBS) and radio (NPR), too, but few watch it. Those networks are more popular with the left, and the right swears that such neutral media has a "liberal bias"--go figure. Sometimes, I wonder if everything that's true is seen by the right as having a "liberal bias," including anything ever confirmed using the scientific method.

But is that because you suffer from a liberal bias, so what appears true to you is only so because it conforms to your pre-determined ideology.

We are all guilty of it to some extent.

[Jordan]

But is that because you suffer from a liberal bias, so what appears true to you is only so because it conforms to your pre-determined ideology.

We are all guilty of it to some extent.

Of course. But this is an actual post from RedState.com's front page today:

http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/11/quote-a-factchecker-earn-a-ban/

[Mack]

And if, by beauty contest, you mean two old guys engaged in a constant character assassination battle, where truth is often a collateral casualty, then yes, our elections are beauty contests. Our races are downright nasty.

Very much so mate.

And it seems the one who gets elected has little or nothing to do with a list of concrete pledges or policies written into a public manifesto.

What they will actually do once in charge becomes irrelevant to whether on not their PR machine / smear campaign becomes the most effective.

I really rated Obama and to a degree I still do, but even he seems to have been dragged into the rotten Washington system.

Mind you, having slagged off the US and it's current democracy let me put some balance into that, the UK political system is currently just as rotten.

In fact I'd go as far as to say that given recent events most western democracies are not fit for purpose.

[Alexikokopops]

Very much so mate.

And it seems the one who gets elected has little or nothing to do with a list of concrete pledges or policies written into a public manifesto.

What they will actually do once in charge becomes irrelevant to whether on not their PR machine / smear campaign becomes the most effective.

I really rated Obama and to a degree I still do, but even he seems to have been dragged into the rotten Washington system.

Mind you, having slagged off the US and it's current democracy let me put some balance into that, the UK political system is currently just as rotten.

In fact I'd go as far as to say that given recent events most western democracies are not fit for purpose.

An interesting thing I read this morning was that in the past three UK general elections the winning party had less than a quarter of the votes of the total electorate. Turn out has been around 60-65% with the winners getting anywhere between 30% and 40%.

[Reynard Bleu]

An interesting thing I read this morning was that in the past three UK general elections the winning party had less than a quarter of the votes of the total electorate. Turn out has been around 60-65% with the winners getting anywhere between 30% and 40%.

Democracy at its best. It also seems that the ones that really moan about an election result go on to tell you they didnt bother voting because "they are all the same"..

[ADK]

Democracy is pretty stupid really.

It would be nice to have a system that elected capable leaders.

[Captain...]

Democracy is pretty stupid really.

It would be nice to have a system that elected capable leaders.

Any ideas?

[ADK]

I can't think of any really good ones, the issues are too many and too great.

[Jordan]

Last week, Mitt Romney was bashed for his inappropriate and insulting statements made in the wake of the attacks on U.S. Embassies in Benghazi and Cairo, in which four Americans were killed.

This week, though, the dominant story on the political news cycle was a secretly-recorded video released of Romney speaking at a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser in Boca Raton, FL in May--or, more specifically, this particular exchange:

Audience member: For the last three years, all everybody's been told is, "Don't worry, we'll take care of you." How are you going to do it, in two months before the elections, to convince everybody you've got to take care of yourself?

Romney: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

Romney is such a pr|ck.

[Guest MattP]

Last week, Mitt Romney was bashed for his inappropriate and insulting statements made in the wake of the attacks on U.S. Embassies in Benghazi and Cairo, in which four Americans were killed.

This week, though, the dominant story on the political news cycle was a secretly-recorded video released of Romney speaking at a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser in Boca Raton, FL in May--or, more specifically, this particular exchange:

[/size][/font][/color]

Romney is such a pr|ck.

He is, really is.

You know it's a bad election mind when the Democrats are having to try and win it on the back of how bad the other guy is rather than what they have done themselves mind......

Obama looks quite solid now, shortened right up in the betting here so I can wave goodbye to my £300.

[Jordan]

He is, really is.

You know it's a bad election mind when the Democrats are having to try and win it on the back of how bad the other guy is rather than what they have done themselves mind......

Obama looks quite solid now, shortened right up in the betting here so I can wave goodbye to my £300.

I'd say your comment is fair, and that this has been a mediocre campaign.

While I think our President has done a good job, all things considered, presidents and parties have historically lost elections when economic figures (particularly the employment rate) have been like they are now (with the notable exceptions of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan). Statistical trends indicating a slow yet steady recovery, however, provide little comfort to communities that are struggling due to low employment. A lot of Americans simply cannot afford anything but a full and instant economic recovery.

History tells me that, good job or not, Barack Obama is quite vulnerable to losing this election. However, Republicans negated every advantage they had in a political climate that favors the challenger over the incumbent by nominating such a shitty candidate in Mitt Romney.

Republicans, riding the wave of 2010, saw this election as a great chance to retake The White House. They believed they couldn't lose. Yet as good as their chances would have been this November, they rolled out perhaps the worst slate of candidates I'd seen a party produce in my life. Romney, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, and Ron Paul's libertarian cult--a veritable rogue's gallery--spent the primaries doing everything they could to convince voters that he or she was the most bat-shit crazy right winger in the race... and yet people still picked Mitt Romney, who has taken every conceivable position on every issue possible in his vain attempts to win elections.

In a race that will be decided by struggling workers and the unemployed, how could the Republicans nominate a privileged, super-wealthy private equity investor? How can the unemployed, working poor and middle class ever create an emotional connection with this guy? When it's impossible to win a presidential election without your base support, how could the Republicans nominate a candidate that only recently took the opposite position on every social issue than he has now? When Republicans are running on a dedicated effort to stoke American's distrust of "Obamacare," how can they nominate the man that created the blueprint for Obamacare while governor of Massachusetts? Who can trust Mitt Romney?

I'm not concern-trolling Republicans here. I honestly wonder how they could have gotten this entire thing wrong. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the Republicans' "number one political priority was to make Barack Obama a one-term president." It appears they have done everything possible to achieve that goal except the most important thing necessary--run a presidential campaign that can actually beat Obama's.

There are a lot of echoes of the Democrats in 2004 in this election. America knew that George W. Bush was a terrible president and Democrats--still hurt by that horseshit 2000 election--were licking their chops at a chance to take out W. However, the Democratic nomination was contested by an unpopular field of candidates, and it was almost like the safe pick, Sen. John Kerry, won by default. In the end, Kerry never inspired the electorate, and voters decided it was better to go with the devil they knew, albeit by a small margin.

Edit: Yeah, it looks like you've made a losing bet... Intrade's odds today put an Obama win at 70.8% (he was somewhere in the high-40s this time last year), and statistician extraordinaire Nate Silver gives Obama a 77.5% chance of winning on November 6. Obama has the certain edge, but if there's anything good about mediocre campaigns, it's that they generally produce closer and more exciting elections.

[Guest MattP]

Good read that and some very good points made.

Obama has to win it to be honest for his legacy, no one-term president has ever been looked on well that I can remember in US history.

[Jordan]

Good read that and some very good points made.

Obama has to win it to be honest for his legacy, no one-term president has ever been looked on well that I can remember in US history.

You're right that history looks unkindly upon one-term presidents.

George H. W. Bush is widely regarded as an ineffective president, but most Americans loved it when he kicked Iraq's ass.

Lyndon B. Johnson is the most recent one-termer who can be considered to have a positive legacy. LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act into law and his "Great Society" programs are among the greatest achievements any president has accomplished. However, he did serve the rest of JFK's term before winning in 1964, and his elected term ended with the country fiercely opposed to the ongoing Vietnam War (a war that remains unpopular in America even today).

You'd probably have to go all the way back to Chester A. Arthur (who was VP when James Garfield was assassinated in 1881) to find a one-term president that left the White House with good grace (I should note that he never ran in an election for president and left in ill health).

Edit to add that if Romney can come back and beat Obama, Obama will still be young and popular enough to run again in the future.

[Guest MattP]

Just learn't something new, never knew Lyndon B. Johnson was a one term president.

[Alexikokopops]

Mitt Romney really is the gift that keeps on giving for the Democrats. I await in anticipation for his next blunder.

[Zingari]

Just learn't something new, never knew Lyndon B. Johnson was a one term president.

Yes, but he served as president after the assassination of JFK and then a full term afterwards

I think this "wink" picture of LBJ being sworn in on Air-force 1 looks very suspicious

[21st Century Fox]

[Bellend Sebastian]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/this-presidential-race-should-never-have-been-this-close-20120925

[21st Century Fox]

[Jordan]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/this-presidential-race-should-never-have-been-this-close-20120925

What Matt Taibbi conveniently omits from his analysis is that presidential elections are almost always close affairs. Barack Obama won the 2008 election by what is considered by most experts to be a relatively wide margin, yet he received less than 54% of the popular vote.

I agree with some of Taibbi's sentiments there, but fvck me if he didn't sound like a pompous douchebag in that piece.

[sphericalfox]

[Nick]

[Guest MattP]

Whilst I wouldn't endorse an idiot like Romney, the media in America make the BBC look impartial.

Even made a quote about backing Obama during the live NFL broadcast last night, couldn't believe it.