[Official Thread] OBAMA WINS RE-ELECTION

[Gandalf]

The only people the GOP can field are all old white men (or women) and of the lot, Romney was the MOST SANE of the group. Just think about that, of everyone in the GOP, ROMNEY was the best pick.

Wasn't Huntsman a bit more sane than Romney, if only in a few areas?

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Wasn't Huntsman a bit more sane than Romney, if only in a few areas?

His politics were better, if that's what you're asking. I'm hoping he'll run again in 2016, since he's a Republican I'd actually vote for.

[General Zod]

Possibly, but Hillary would also be 68 in 2016 which is just about the oldest any person has been when inaugurated (only Reagan and Harrison were equivalent in age). She might be considered too old by that point.

Didn't stop McCain from running in 2008.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Personally I think this is indicative of a growing trend that may end with the GOP not being able to field a credible candidate for President for the next 20 years or more.

To a degree I rather doubt that. The Republican part could always get someone more credible to run for president. The problem for them is more demographics and the electoral college. If they don't change their tune it's going to become very difficult for them to win national elections.

That too is part of the problem. In the next decade as minorities become majorities, the simple hard fact of Math is going to make it all but impossible for the GOP to win a Presidential election.
My dad was talking about this last week when we met for dinner. The big things that the GOP runs for, have always been Guns, God and Fear. Well each new generation is increasingly LESS religious then the one before. More and more young people, many who call themselves conservative, none the less follow few of the traditional religious talking points. Many are more accepting of gays and other faiths and care more about jobs and economy then bible thumping, abortion and hate mongering.
Likewise the ethnic Demographics is changing to the point where the GOP getting mostly the White vote won't be enough. Within the next 10 years or so Texas, TEXAS could (could) go Blue purely by the number of Latino voters out numbering white voters.

The only people the GOP can field are all old white men (or women) and of the lot, Romney was the MOST SANE of the group. Just think about that, of everyone in the GOP, ROMNEY was the best pick.

Wasn't Huntsman a bit more sane than Romney, if only in a few areas?

Yes he was, and that is part of the problem.
In my current Predicted model of the GOP, anyone sane enough to be a contender in the general election, will have NO chance of winning the nomination process. I predicted it last time with McCain and again this time with Romney. Huntsmen indeed WAS a better choice, but he could not get any support behind him. It's why again, I predict the GOP is goign to be Fcked when it comes to Presidential races.

Possibly, but Hillary would also be 68 in 2016 which is just about the oldest any person has been when inaugurated (only Reagan and Harrison were equivalent in age). She might be considered too old by that point.

Didn't stop McCain from running in 2008.

Agreed, and the difference between him and Hillary is Hillary still "Looks" younger, she has a lot more spirit and energy.
More important, she has already had four years of "On the job experience" working for Obama. If/When Obama is re-elected, she will be getting another 4 years in the white house. And I am willing to bet she will move from her current role, to one that she can claim gives her even more experience as a President.
When 2016 rolls around, she can claim to have 8 full years of Job experience, and I am sure will have the full backing of Obama. All of which will be very, very strong items to offset concerns about her age in terms of electability.

[Hillary]

That too is part of the problem. In the next decade as minorities become majorities, the simple hard fact of Math is going to make it all but impossible for the GOP to win a Presidential election.
My dad was talking about this last week when we met for dinner. The big things that the GOP runs for, have always been Guns, God and Fear. Well each new generation is increasingly LESS religious then the one before. More and more young people, many who call themselves conservative, none the less follow few of the traditional religious talking points. Many are more accepting of gays and other faiths and care more about jobs and economy then bible thumping, abortion and hate mongering.

Yeah, much the same was said in the UK about the Conservative Party after the 1997 election debacle. It took them 13 years, but they're back now. Back in the 1980s, everyone was talking about the death of the Labour Party.

Pronouncing a political party dead or unelectable for the foreseeable future is extremely naive imo, especially when it's one with a long history of winning elections. It's a cliche to say that a week is a long time in politics, but the underlying point holds true. If the GOP sees that it cannot win elections by sticking to its current agenda, it will reform itself into a party that can win again.

[Slacker]

Agreed, and the difference between him and Hillary is Hillary still "Looks" younger, she has a lot more spirit and energy.
More important, she has already had four years of "On the job experience" working for Obama. If/When Obama is re-elected, she will be getting another 4 years in the white house. And I am willing to bet she will move from her current role, to one that she can claim gives her even more experience as a President.
When 2016 rolls around, she can claim to have 8 full years of Job experience, and I am sure will have the full backing of Obama. All of which will be very, very strong items to offset concerns about her age in terms of electability.

I thought Hillary was stepping down from SecState after the first term? I read a report at one point that said that, anyway.

To be fair, that gives her some time off and then the ability to start prepping the ground for a '16 run without taking away from her State Department responsibilities, nor the awkwardness of resigning mid-term to run.

[CaptJodan]

More from Mother Jones

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/1 ... d=webmail1

Mitt Romney argued that the Palestinian people ultimately don't want a peaceful settlement with Israelis and that pursuit of such a peace process would ultimately be feckless during a private fundraiser last May.

The video of his comments is the latest to emerge from a talk the Republican nominee made before a crowd of donors at the home of Marc Leder a wealthy private equity executive. The first to emerge had Romney accusing 47 percent of the country of being tax-avoiding, government-dependent, self-identified victims who would he could ignore because they would never support his candidacy. The latest, uncovered by Mother Jones, has Romney offering similarly blunt assessments with respect to foreign policy.

"I'm torn by two perspectives in this regard. One is the one which I've had for some time, which is that the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish," Romney said. He went on:

I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way." And so what you do is you say, "You move things along the best way you can." You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem. We live with that in China and Taiwan. All right, we have a potentially volatile situation but we sort of live with it, and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it. We don't go to war to try and resolve it imminently. On the other hand, I got a call from a former secretary of state. I won't mention which one it was, but this individual said to me, you know, I think there's a prospect for a settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis after the Palestinian elections. I said, "Really?" And, you know, his answer was, "Yes, I think there's some prospect." And I didn't delve into it.

An even fuller transcript is available at Mother Jones' website.

The comments aren't exactly that far removed from conservative talking point with respect to the Middle East peace process, though the cynicism and directness is not usually what you get from Romney on the stump. The candidate had gotten in trouble for declaring that "culture" was what made Israeli's more successful that Palestinians. This seems to affirm his dim view of the Palestinian people.

But, as Foreign Policy's Blake Hounshell noted, "Nobody ever lost a U.S. election by beating up on the Palestinians."

And in that regard, the biggest political ramifications from this newest set of comments may be that they show Romney giving different messages privately and publicly. As Mother Jones reports:

[T]he Republican Party platform [5] does state unequivocal backing for this outcome: "We envision two democratic states -- Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine -- living in peace and security." The platform adds, "The US seeks a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East, negotiated between the parties themselves with the assistance of the US."

I think what strikes me most about a lot of what was said in that fundraiser was the level of "not my problem" that seems to come out. He feels it's perfectly acceptable to ignore 47% of his electorate, finding flaws more in how he phrased what he said than in the error in what he said. Now he wants to "kick the ball down the field" on the IvP situation, or other national security issues that might come up.

It's not the kind of attitude I would want to see from a potential President. There's a perception of apathy or disregard from his campaign about anything he doesn't really find all that important. We don't need a president that will kick the hard problems down the field to the next guy.

[JME2]

Yeah, that level of sheer apathy makes me fearful of a Mittens Presidency in a way that I wasn't before.

[CaptHawkeye]

The attitude of the Romney campaign is like that because they've already lost. So all they have left is to immerse themselves in their fantasies revolving around how they wish things were. This is the party of people who have proudly announced and advertised their ignorance as of the last month. Even back in 2008 when Palin was consistently jamming her foot in her mouth their was a modicum of damage control performed. Now?

"Fuck it. Let's just hurry up and start planning for 2016."

Maybe if the Republicans weren't a party of dishonest bigots and ardent Randists they'd be able to connect with voters a little better.

[Lord MJ]

The Citizens United camp is going to be releasing a hour long TV movie showing disenchanted voters people that voted for Obama in 2008 from now until election day. How do you think that will impact the election if at all?

[D.Turtle]

It won't - to a noticeable or significant degree.

As for the 47% thing: I really liked this graph:

Yes, fuck those young adults and seniors who don't pay federal income taxes! Especially those seniors (with whom Romney has a 10 point lead...).

[Dalton]

The Citizens United camp is going to be releasing a hour long TV movie showing disenchanted voters people that voted for Obama in 2008 from now until election day. How do you think that will impact the election if at all?

Probably about as much as Dinesh D'Souza's circle-jerk propaganda piece.

[SirNitram]

D. Turtle, you have to understand: This is part of the mythology of the Right Wing. The 47 percent is recent, but it got woven into their anti-Occupy hate, trying to cast themselves as 'makers v takers'. This myth allows them to live with the idea they are persecuted, victims, and misused, which is vital to their perpetual outrage.

[D.Turtle]

Oh, I understand that. However, I still find it amazing again and again how that mythology is not only blatantly wrong, but often the exact opposite of the reality. In this case: The age group most voting Republican (seniors) are the same group making up a large part of the group they disdain (no federal income tax payers). Hell, you can probably find lots of seniors not paying income tax blasting lazy people not paying income tax.

Reminds me of the whole "Keep the government away from my Medicare" thing.

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opini ... _LO_MST_FB

Op-Ed Columnist
Thurston Howell Romney
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: September 17, 2012 1033 Comments


In 1980, about 30 percent of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today, as Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, about 49 percent do.

In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.

There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.

But these are not the sensible arguments that Mitt Romney made at a fund-raiser earlier this year. Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people “who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?

It suggests that Romney doesn’t know much about the culture of America. Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but America remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else. Americans believe in work more than almost any other people. Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey.

It says that Romney doesn’t know much about the political culture. Americans haven’t become childlike worshipers of big government. On the contrary, trust in government has declined. The number of people who think government spending promotes social mobility has fallen.

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.

Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.

The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view — from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.

The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.

But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don’t deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play travel sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.

People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear.

Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.

Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?

Frank Bruni is off today.

[Dalton]

John Sununu was blustering and bloviating about that article today on Andrea Mitchell. It's all becoming quite surreal.

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/32 ... han-salam#

Makers, Takers, Taxpayers, Etc.
By Reihan Salam
September 18, 2012 12:25 A.M.
Comments
61

A great deal of ink has already been spilled over Mitt Romney’s remarks at a fundraiser concerning the 47% of Americans who are dependent on government and who do not pay federal income taxes. A few thoughts immediately come to mind:

Last July, Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center broke down why 46% of tax units had no income tax liability, drawing on the findings of a TPC report he co-authored with Rachel Johnson, James Nunns, Jeffrey Rohaly, and Eric Toder. The story is complicated, and it doesn’t line up well with the dependency story Romney seemed to have in mind.

(It is worth noting, incidentally, that “tax units” aren’t a perfect proxy for individuals or even households. Rather, it refers, as you’ve probably guessed, to individuals or to married couples who’ve decided to file a joint tax return, along with their dependents. A multigenerational household might include several tax units, for example.)

Part of the story is that many tax units — roughly half of the 46% — report very low incomes:

For example, a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 will pay no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero. The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax.

So what about the other half?

What about the rest of the untaxed households, the 23 percent of households who don’t pay income tax because of particular tax breaks? We divided tax expenditures (special provisions in the tax code that benefit particular taxpayers or activities) into eight categories and asked which ones made the most people nontaxable. The conclusion: Three-fourths of those households pay no income tax because of provisions that benefit senior citizens and low-income working families with children. Those provisions include the exclusion of some Social Security benefits from taxable income, the tax credit and extra standard deduction for the elderly, and the child, earned income, and childcare tax credits that primarily help low-income workers with children (see graph). Extending the example offered above, the couple could earn an additional $19,375 without paying income tax because their pre-credit tax liability of $2,056 would be wiped out by a $2,000 child tax credit and $57 of EITC.

Republicans have championed the EITC as an anti-poverty tool that emphasizes the importance of labor force participation, and the program is rightly regarded as a success, though of course there is a case for improving the program in various ways or indeed for shifting to wage subsidies that would also benefit low-wage workers who aren’t custodial parents. The idea behind the EITC, as I understand it, is that subsidies aimed at increasing labor force participation and other work supports are preferable to a negative income tax or unconditional cash assistance because they encourage people get on the first rungs of the jobs ladder, and to become less dependent over time. (See our discussion of the EITC vs. the NIT.)

Tax credits for parents are arguably an extremely low-cost way to recognize the fact that raising the next generation constitutes an expensive investment in human capital that will yield dividends for society as a whole. Tax breaks for Social Security payments, meanwhile, can be defended on the grounds that they are not likely to create significant work disincentives.

Over the years, I’ve advocated wage subsidies because I am very concerned about declining labor force participation, particularly for less-skilled men, and I tend to think that the social benefits outweigh the cost. Along with Ross Douthat, Ramesh Ponnuru, Robert Stein, and Yuval Levin, among others, I’ve also advocated dramatically expanding the child tax credit, and allowing it to offset not just income taxes but payroll taxes as well. More recently, I have embraced Andrew Biggs’ suggestion that we abolish the Social Security payroll tax for workers over the age of 62 on the grounds that it would increase labor supply, improve health outcomes, and increase tax revenues by enough to make the proposal a fiscal wash.

What is the basic idea that ties these threads together? I think it is important to keep in mind that taxes impact people differently across the life cycle. Many low-income households are headed by young people. Many high-income households, in contrast, are headed by prime-age individuals. Some prime-age individuals have children, and they are thus obligated to make substantial human capital investments in their children that generate significant spillover benefits. Other prime-age individuals do not have children. This is, in my view, a difference in circumstances that should be reflected in tax policy. As we’ve discussed in this space, the elasticity of taxable income varies across individuals and broad demographic groups, e.g., very young and workers close to retirement appear to be more tax-sensitive than prime-age workers, and secondary earners are more tax-sensitive than primary earners. None of this should be shocking. Indeed, to some extent the increase in the number of tax units that do not pay federal income taxes is an artifact of the changing demographic composition of the workforce, as well as the expansion of the EITC, etc.

The version of conservative tax policy I favor might actually further reduce the share of tax units that pay federal income taxes, yet it would strengthen the work ethic, increase labor force participation, and discourage the kind of dependency that concerns Mitt Romney.

There is much more to say. The Democratic coalition does indeed include many low-income voters, yet it also includes large numbers of upper-middle-income and high-income voters as well. Public employees tend to back Democratic candidates, and one assumes that most pay federal income taxes. The same is true of most college-educated social liberals. In contrast, many older voters and middle-income parents back Republican candidates. And so on.

So I associate myself with the views Ramesh Ponnuru expresses in his latest Bloomberg View column, and I am sympathetic to David Brooks’ latest as well.

One thing that frustrates me is that many Republicans who’ve embraced the “takers” interpretation of the fact that 46% of tax units didn’t pay federal income taxes forget why Republican policymakers of the past created policies like the EITC and the child tax credit in the first place. This lends credence to the analysis of center-left critics like Ezra Klein of Wonkbook:

Part of the reason so many Americans don’t pay federal income taxes is that Republicans have passed a series of very large tax cuts that wiped out the income-tax liability for many Americans. That’s why, when you look at graphs of the percent of Americans who don’t pay income taxes, you see huge jumps after Ronald Reagan’s 1986 tax reform and George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. So whenever you hear that half of Americans don’t pay federal income taxes, remember: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush helped build that. (You also see a jump after the financial crisis begins in 2008, but we can expect that to be mostly temporary.)

Some of those tax cuts for the poor were there to make the tax cuts for the rich more politically palatable. “Do you think we wanted to include a welfare payment to people who don’t pay taxes and call it a tax cut?” A top Bush administration official once asked me. “No. But that’s what we needed to do to get it done.”

Having spoken to other Bush administration officials, I can attest to the fact that there were others who genuinely supported the expanded child tax credit and EITC on the grounds that these were sound conservative policy measures.

Ezra concludes that the narrowing of the tax base is part of a larger effort:

So notice what happened here: Republicans have become outraged over the predictable effect of tax cuts they passed and are using that outrage as the justification for an agenda that further cuts taxes on the rich and pays for it by cutting social services for the non-rich.

A more parsimonious explanation is that cohort replacement and a lack of a sense of history is doing all of the work: many of today’s Republicans are unacquainted with the case for the EITC and the child tax credit and the exclusion of Social Security benefits, or they fail to connect these initiatives to the narrowing of the tax base. This isn’t a sinister plot. But it needs to be addressed. We need conservative politicians who are willing to explain why low-income and middle-income parents should be removed from the tax rolls during the years they are making the biggest investments in their children, and who are willing to make the case for the EITC program as an alternative to worklessness and lifelong dependency.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Yeah, much the same was said in the UK about the Conservative Party after the 1997 election debacle. It took them 13 years, but they're back now. Back in the 1980s, everyone was talking about the death of the Labour Party.

Pronouncing a political party dead or unelectable for the foreseeable future is extremely naive imo, especially when it's one with a long history of winning elections. It's a cliche to say that a week is a long time in politics, but the underlying point holds true. If the GOP sees that it cannot win elections by sticking to its current agenda, it will reform itself into a party that can win again.

I would never be so presumptuous as to say the GOP will be "dead". In truth, in the next decade we may sadly see it become even more powerful in state by state elections. But as far as the Presidential election goes, That is something they will not have a chance at till they change their views or or their older generation simply dies off and more progressive conservatives step up. But both of those are things I do not see happening any time soon.

Basically my core hypothesis is that given the crazed and rabid state of the GOP far right, any candidate who is moderate enough to win the General election, will never be able to become the nominee in the Nomination process.

I thought Hillary was stepping down from SecState after the first term? I read a report at one point that said that, anyway.

To be fair, that gives her some time off and then the ability to start prepping the ground for a '16 run without taking away from her State Department responsibilities, nor the awkwardness of resigning mid-term to run.

Actually that is true, I had forgot about that and it makes more sense. Hillary may work one or two more years at some job, but she will need at the least two years to prepare and start fundraising for 2016.


Also, the whole situation with him speaking at this fundraiser and the "47%" number IS going to be one of the defining moments of the election. It is not going away, other news organizations are reporting on it now. Within the last three days Romney went from saying that he "Worded it poorly" but stood by his comments, ( IE 47% of America he doesn't care about) to now saying that it was a mistake saying what he said.

Really there is SO MUCH going on in this video I half wish we did have a thread just for dissecting it.
Romney didn't just say one Gaff, he said a half dozen things that make people sit up and question his judgement. Not just voters, but other GOP bigwigs and pundits. Nominees running for elections in races are distancing themselves from Romney very quickly.
If/When Obama wins the election, I am better there will be a lot of pundits who look back to THIS Moment and say "That is where Romney lost the election"

[Lord MJ]

The Romney campaign is now planning on trying to turn the video to an advantage in using it in combination with Obama comments from 1998 where he said "He believes in redistribution" to launch a new attack on Obama.

[Flagg]

A video from 14 years ago that's totally discredited by Obama's 8 years of public service vs a video from last week where a guy clearly states what he wants to do and how he views anyone who won't vote for him? Yeah Mitt, that's gonna work.

[D.Turtle]

The Romney campaign is now planning on trying to turn the video to an advantage in using it in combination with Obama comments from 1998 where he said "He believes in redistribution" to launch a new attack on Obama.

Obama is DOOMED! DOOMED, I say.

[Flagg]

The Romney campaign is now planning on trying to turn the video to an advantage in using it in combination with Obama comments from 1998 where he said "He believes in redistribution" to launch a new attack on Obama.

Obama is DOOMED! DOOMED, I say.

Can we make a feature that changes everything MJ says into that?

[Lord MJ]

I wont apologize for my lack of faith in the American electorate. I mean we got the Tea Party into Congress in 2010 after all.

But it really comes down to margins in distinct set of states. Ohio, Florida being the main ones. The good news is that Obama only really needs to win one of those two states and Obama leads in Ohio, but it's not a large number "undecideds" that need to swayed.

[Flagg]

Oh yeah, I'm just as pessimistic about shit as you are, I just would rather make fun of Romney and his supporters than dwell on all the ways they could really fuck everyone over.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I was the same way last election, shoot around this time last year I started the infamous thread "Has McCain already Won"
Ah how silly I was...

But yeah we all don't have much faith in American elections, but better to laugh then to worry