What party will win in 2012?

[SmartyPants]

Republicans tend to agree on economic policy, so the primary election tends to focus on differences in social issues.  The general election is going to be mostly about jobs and the economy.  Since Romney is running on his expertise in business and the economy, he will be much more popular in the general election.  Based on what I have seen and read, Romney has a much better understanding then Obama on how certain laws and policies effect businesses.  The few times it seems Obama knew anything about how an economy works is when he was talking about the stimulus bill.  Of course, all of Obama's comments about the economy are debunked by him promising that the unemployment rate will stay bellow 8% if the stimulus bill was passed.  If there is a debate on the economy between Romney and Obama, then Romney should have an easy win.

[Gath]

I'd say Obama is going to be the winner, hands down. No really respectable republicans are running. (alliteration...whoo!) I don't think any of those candidates will be able to challenge Obama in the GE. I think the most interesting part about the caucus would be that almost 50% of people under 30 voted for Paul. That could mean a huge change in the Republican party will come soon, as the young are supporting libertarian views. It also seems that the Conservative base has grown more radical over the years, so...I think it's coming.

[SmartyPants]

I'd say Obama is going to be the winner, hands down. No really respectable republicans are running. (alliteration...whoo!) I don't think any of those candidates will be able to challenge Obama in the GE.

Polls show that Romeny is better liked then Obama when comes to the general population and when comes to independents.  Conservatives don't even have to like Romney to vote for him.  The conservatives voters hate Obama enough that they will vote in droves for anyone to replace Obama.

I think the most interesting part about the caucus would be that almost 50% of people under 30 voted for Paul. That could mean a huge change in the Republican party will come soon, as the young are supporting libertarian views. It also seems that the Conservative base has grown more radical over the years, so...I think it's coming.

First, many of the people who like Ron Paul don't like actually know what he believes.  People vote for him because they believe he represents the libertarian ideology.  I find it similar to many of the people who voted for Obama in 2008.  Many of the voters didn't know Obama's record or platform, yet they still voted for him because he represents "Hope" and "Change".  Fun fact: Ron Paul is the congressional representative of my district.

Second, the Democrats and the left are fear mongers.  They are propagating that the Republican party is now "radical", so people will support Democrats inorder to stop the "radical" republicans from destroying the world or whatever b.s. they come up with.  It only seems that the conservative base is farther to the right because the far-right has become more vocal then the silent majority.  The majority of people are not part of the tea party or occupy wall street, yet the media spend much thier focus on these more vocal demonstrations.

[SmartyPants]

That's a huge overgeneralization you made right there, calling the entire Democratic Party and the entire left fear-mongers.

Based on the rhetoric of Democratic leaders such Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, Democrats are acting like fear mongers by falsely impling that Republicans are "radical".

Democrats tend towards disliking the Republican candidates because some of them express highly socially conservative viewpoints, like standing against gay marriage, abortion, and contraceptives, arguing against providing basic government services to the poor and unemployed, and quoting from outdated literature during speeches.

I least when I generalize, I do it accurately.  There are many Democrats that are socially conservative who are against gay marriage and abortion.  These Blue Dog Democrats are the ones who nearly took down Obamacare, because it will use government money to pay for abortions.  Democrats and Republicans tend to disagree more on fiscal things then social things.  Plus, I don't get your point.  Democrats don't like Republicans because they have differing ideology.  What does that have to do with anything?

[SmartyPants]

Plus, I don't get your point.  Democrats don't like Republicans because they have differing ideology.  What does that have to do with anything?

I'm saying that Democrats speak out against Republicans not because they are "fear-mongers" as you suggest, but because they have differing opinions on important issues.

Democratic leaders such Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are not speaking about differences in opinion.  They have said on multiple occasions that radical republicans are so crazy that they are activly trying to destory the country inorder to get Obama out of office.  That sounds more like fear mongering then ideological debate.

[CraigStern]

There is a reason why Congressional Republicans (not all Republicans, mind you--just the ones representing the party in Congress) are widely looked upon as radicals. Mitch McConnell, head of the Republicans in the Senate, infamously remarked that, in the face of all our national problems, his number one priority was not to solve them, but rather to make Obama a one-term president. Congressional Republicans then followed this up by filibustering nearly every single attempt at fixing the economy, betting that voters would blame Obama when the economy failed to improve. And who could forget the debt ceiling disaster? John Boehner just kept walking away from good faith negotiations over and over again, dragging us to the brink of defaulting on our international obligations.

I know you identify with the Republicans, so maybe it's hard for you to see it, but for someone viewing this from outside the GOP tent, these things really make the current crop of Republicans in Congress look like cynical, power-hungry jackals willing to scuttle the US economy for a shot at reclaiming the White House. "Radical" is just a more succinct way of putting it.

[Gath]

Polls show that Romeny is better liked then Obama when comes to the general population and when comes to independents.  Conservatives don't even have to like Romney to vote for him.  The conservatives voters hate Obama enough that they will vote in droves for anyone to replace Obama.

I'm expecting a split republican vote between Romney as the candidate and Paul as a third party candidate. The only incumbent who hasn't won in the past twenty-five years was George Bush I, and that was only because Ross Peirot decided to run.

First, many of the people who like Ron Paul don't like actually know what he believes.  People vote for him because they believe he represents the libertarian ideology.  I find it similar to many of the people who voted for Obama in 2008.  Many of the voters didn't know Obama's record or platform, yet they still voted for him because he represents "Hope" and "Change".  Fun fact: Ron Paul is the congressional representative of my district.

Your point being? They voted for him because they believed he was a libertarian. Regardless of what Paul believes, that means the Republican party is shifting to more libertarian views.

Second, the Democrats and the left are fear mongers.  They are propagating that the Republican party is now "radical", so people will support Democrats inorder to stop the "radical" republicans from destroying the world or whatever b.s. they come up with.  It only seems that the conservative base is farther to the right because the far-right has become more vocal then the silent majority.  The majority of people are not part of the tea party or occupy wall street, yet the media spend much thier focus on these more vocal demonstrations.

Sorry, but this post seems a bit biased to me. It's hard to have a debate when someone accuses the entire other side of using b.s. I'm going to say the same thing that I say to everyone who thinks a certain party is 'lying': Get out of the competitive spirit, and consider the possibility that most politicians are genuinely working for the good of the nation. Both the party you support and the other party.

[SmartyPants]

There is a reason why Congressional Republicans (not all Republicans, mind you--just the ones representing the party in Congress) are widely looked upon as radicals. Mitch McConnell, head of the Republicans in the Senate, infamously remarked that, in the face of all our national problems, his number one priority was not to solve them, but rather to make Obama a one-term president. Congressional Republicans then followed this up by filibustering nearly every single attempt at fixing the economy, betting that voters would blame Obama when the economy failed to improve. And who could forget the debt ceiling disaster? John Boehner just kept walking away from good faith negotiations over and over again, dragging us to the brink of defaulting on our international obligations.

A) Democrats and the mainstream media always bring up the comment from Mitch McConnell (a Senator) about how he wants Obama out of office. Even when the Senate approves a bill and House Republicans don't,   the mainstream media implies that the Senator is obstructing in the House.
B) You linked "filibustering nearly every single attempt at fixing the economy" to article from a bias source.  This wouldn't be so bad if it didn't imply that every filibuster was Republicans trying to keep the economy broken.  Many of the filibusters were not related to the economy, while others were Republicans trying to save jobs.
C) Obama is the cause of the polarized political climate.  Obama refused to do anything bipartisan when Democrats controlled the Senate, the House, and the White House.  While earlier presidents such as Reagan, H. W. Bush, Clinton, and even W. Bush were respectful and willing to work with their rivals, Obama snubbed the rival party.  During the health care debate, Obama only had to make the health care bill bipartisan enough to win one Republican senator, but Obama refused to compromise with Republicans.  Obama only started talking about the parties working together after Democrats lost the House and the supermajority in the Senate.  Since Obama only wants to be bipartisan when he needs Republican votes, Republicans don't take him serious.
D) You failed to mention that the Republican controlled House has passed dozens of bills that would fix the economy.  Too bad Senate Democrats shoot the bills every time.
E) Republicans aren't voting for Democratic proposals because it usually involves more deficit spending or raising taxes during a recession.  Democrats prefer to spin things as Republicans are trying to prevent Obama from improving the economy

I know you identify with the Republicans, so maybe it's hard for you to see it, but for someone viewing this from outside the GOP tent, these things really make the current crop of Republicans in Congress look like cynical, power-hungry jackals willing to scuttle the US economy for a shot at reclaiming the White House. "Radical" is just a more succinct way of putting it.

My point exactly.  Because of the propaganda from the liberal fear mongers, people mistakenly believe that Republicans are trying to destroy the economy to get out Obama out office, while in reality they are trying to be fiscally conservative by trying to stop tax increases and deficit spending.  Like Glenn Beck, the Democratic leaders are taking a speck of truth and turning into a ridiculous conspiracy.

I'm expecting a split republican vote between Romney as the candidate and Paul as a third party candidate. The only incumbent who hasn't won in the past twenty-five years was George Bush I, and that was only because Ross Peirot decided to run.

I am assuming/hoping that Ron Paul is smart enough to not hand the election over to Obama by running as a third party canidate.

Your point being? They voted for him because they believed he was a libertarian. Regardless of what Paul believes, that means the Republican party is shifting to more libertarian views.

I don't think the Republicans are more libertarian then they were pre-Obama.  Libertarians have become more vocal and active in politics recently, because they have become so angry at Obama for trying to move the country towards socialism and by him trying to increase the deficit.

Sorry, but this post seems a bit biased to me. It's hard to have a debate when someone accuses the entire other side of using b.s. I'm going to say the same thing that I say to everyone who thinks a certain party is 'lying'

I have seen/read that Barack Obama, Debbie Shultz, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid make misleading, false comments with the obvious purpose of scoring political points.  It is possible that there are other Democrats who having accused the Republican party of being hijacked by radicals, but they don't tend to be heard as much in the news.

Get out of the competitive spirit, and consider the possibility that most politicians are genuinely working for the good of the nation. Both the party you support and the other party.

I have considered that "most politicians are genuinely working for the good of the nation", but I rejected that after years of reading political news.  Most politicians will work for the good of the country as long as it doesn't get in the way of their reelection chances.  There are a few politicians such as Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul who will risk not being reelected to do what they believe is right, but they are rare.  Let's take Obama's American Jobs Act as an example.  The president introduced the American Jobs Act in a joint session of Congress.  Many Republicans were cautiously optimistic after hearing the speech, because the speech preached partisan ideas such as infrastructure spending and said the plan would be fully paid for.  Even though Obama mentioned some exclusively Democratic ideas such as extending unemployment for a third time, Obama's speech said he was willing to compromise.  His speech conveniently left out that he wanted to fund the bill by raising taxes on the rich by not allowing them to get tax breaks for charitable contributions.  By wanting to permanently raise taxes, Obama clearly didn't expect Republicans to allow the bill to be passed and only wanted to use the bill for his reelection campaign.  Obama then left Washington D.C. (where he and Republican can negotiate on a compromise), so he use go to almost exclusively swing states and use bill as an excuse to start his reelection campaign. This is one of many examples of Obama playing politics instead of governing.

[Gath]

I don't think the Republicans are more libertarian then they were pre-Obama.  Libertarians have become more vocal and active in politics recently, because they have become so angry at Obama for trying to move the country towards socialism and by him trying to increase the deficit.

The votes in the Iowa Caucus determine my view. Yes, libertarians have gotten more vocal, but with a huge number of young republicans voting libertarian, it doesn't seem like a passing thing.

I have seen/read that Barack Obama, Debbie Shultz, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid make misleading, false comments with the obvious purpose of scoring political points.  It is possible that there are other Democrats who having accused the Republican party of being hijacked by radicals, but they don't tend to be heard as much in the news.

As do some republicans. Failure to acknowledge the good points and flaws of both sides will lead to bias. Some democrats make misleading comments, as do some republicans. Even Mitt Romney does it. So yes, your post implied that all democrats lie, which is certainly not true. It's a problem, but a problem that is shared equally by both sides.

[SmartyPants]

The votes in the Iowa Caucus determine my view. Yes, libertarians have gotten more vocal, but with a huge number of young republicans voting libertarian, it doesn't seem like a passing thing.

When Ron Paul drops out of the race, we probably won't see the libertaiians nearly as much.

As do some republicans. Failure to acknowledge the good points and flaws of both sides will lead to bias. Some democrats make misleading comments, as do some republicans. Even Mitt Romney does it. So yes, your post implied that all democrats lie, which is certainly not true. It's a problem, but a problem that is shared equally by both sides.

Your article claims that the Romney add has Obama saying "“If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose,” while Obama really said  “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”  I find it ironic, because I remember that the 2008 McCain campaign accused Obama of lying for putting those exact words in thier mouths.

I am a little more understanding of Romney because his job right now isn't to run the country.  When Romney is playing politics, it doesn't get in the way of running the government. When Obama and Boehner play politics, they aren't doing thier jobs.  When Obama refuses to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline until after the election in order to help reelection campaign, he is acting more like a politician then a president.  When Boehner has a bill that removes Obamacare passed in House while knowing it will either be shot down by the Senate or vetoed by the white house, he is acting more like a politician then a lawmaker.

I was okay with Campaign Obama of going on The View and SNL, but I find it tacky for a President to go on Letterman or The View.  As a President, Obama should be focusing on fixing the economy and winning the war on terror instead of campaigning on talk shows.

[Gath]

Your article claims that the Romney add has Obama saying ""If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose," while Obama really said  "Senator McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."  I find it ironic, because I remember that the 2008 McCain campaign accused Obama of lying for putting those exact words in thier mouths.

I am a little more understanding of Romney because his job right now isn't to run the country.  When Romney is playing politics, it doesn't get in the way of running the government. When Obama and Boehner play politics, they aren't doing thier jobs.  When Obama refuses to make a decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline until after the election in order to help reelection campaign, he is acting more like a politician then a president.  When Boehner has a bill that removes Obamacare passed in House while knowing it will either be shot down by the Senate or vetoed by the white house, he is acting more like a politician then a lawmaker.

I was okay with Campaign Obama of going on The View and SNL, but I find it tacky for a President to go on Letterman or The View.  As a President, Obama should be focusing on fixing the economy and winning the war on terror instead of campaigning on talk shows.

So it's fine to lie if you had nothing better to do? Are you mad because you think the left is full of 'fear mongers' or are you mad because said fear mongering is taking place when they have better things to do?

[SmartyPants]

Instead of debating on a compromise, the Democrat leaders are lying and naming calling.  Of course, Republicans don't want to work with the same people who are calling them "crazy" and "radical".  It shows that they find winning elections to be more important then running the government.

[Gath]

Instead of debating on a compromise, the Democrat leaders are lying and naming calling.  Of course, Republicans don't want to work with the same people who are calling them "crazy" and "radical".  It shows that they find winning elections to be more important then running the government.

So you saying the left is full of 'fear mongers' isn't name calling?

Both sides are doing it. Debate the issues, not your opponent.

[CraigStern]

B) You linked "filibustering nearly every single attempt at fixing the economy" to article from a bias source.

That table is a visualization of data from the Senate. See for yourself. Unless you think the Senate is doctoring its own numbers on procedural vote counts, I think you have to concede that filibustering is much more prevalent these past three years than it has been at any other time for which such numbers are available in our history.

Obama is the cause of the polarized political climate.  Obama refused to do anything bipartisan when Democrats controlled the Senate, the House, and the White House.  While earlier presidents such as Reagan, H. W. Bush, Clinton, and even W. Bush were respectful and willing to work with their rivals, Obama snubbed the rival party.  During the health care debate, Obama only had to make the health care bill bipartisan enough to win one Republican senator, but Obama refused to compromise with Republicans.

This is fantastically bizarre of you to say. Let's take a trip down memory lane! You may recall that, at the point that health care was on the table, Democrats controlled the White House as well as both houses of Congress. Even with that, Obama still decided to try to compromise with Republicans. And who could forget when Obama scuttled the public option over the vehement protests of his own base? The Republicans in Congress stuck to a strategy of non-negotiation, however. Republican strategists were quite vocal about this fact, with Senator Jim DeMint stating that he wanted health care to be Obama's "Waterloo." If you have some sort of source that suggests that Obama made no compromises and the Republicans were willing to negotiate, now would be a good time for you to cite one.

And let's not forget the debt ceiling fiasco, and Boehner threatening to shut down the government, and so on and so on. Simply, Republicans in Congress have set a new historical bar for obstructionism during Obama's presidency. That is not a matter of debate: the numbers are right here. I suppose you could argue that they did so with good intentions, but we're talking about whether it's okay for Democrats to call them radical. My point is simply this: if you're a Democrat trying to fix the economy and your Republican colleagues filibuster nearly every attempt you make to do so, engaging in a consistent strategy of non-negotiation, it is going to look to you like they're playing a cynical political game rather than trying to work with you. Because they are, objectively, not trying to work with you. That is all I'm saying.

[SmartyPants]

So I could see where both sides were coming from, right up until the part where SmartyPants was saying that presidents shouldn't behave like politicians. That's silly, from my point of view.

The president is suppose to act like a leader and be above the partisan bickering.  Unlike his predecessors, Obama participates in the partisan bickering instead of trying to bring the parties together.

Let's take a trip down memory lane! You may recall that, at the point that health care was on the table, Democrats controlled the White House as well as both houses of Congress. Even with that, Obama still decided to try to compromise with Republicans. And who could forget when Obama scuttled the public option over the vehement protests of his own base?

Obama didn't compromise with Republicans.  Obama original health care plan was so far to the left that he couldn't get many members of his own party to vote for it.  Obama had to compromise with other Democrats (not with any Republicans) to get Democrats to vote for it.

B) You linked "filibustering nearly every single attempt at fixing the economy" to article from a bias source.

That table is a visualization of data from the Senate. See for yourself. Unless you think the Senate is doctoring its own numbers on procedural vote counts, I think you have to concede that filibustering is much more prevalent these past three years than it has been at any other time for which such numbers are available in our history.

Maybe next time you should have pick the non-bais source first.  Also, the increase in fillibusters is because of the increase in partisan bills.  Previous presidents usually bring bipartisan bills to the floor, but times have changed.  Bill Clinton was willing to work with Newt Gingrich because they are both moderates. On the other hand, Obama isn't willing to work with Republicans because his beliefs are too far to the left to compromise with the right.

Republican strategists were quite vocal about this fact, with Senator Jim DeMint stating that he wanted health care to be Obama's "Waterloo." If you have some sort of source that suggests that Obama made no compromises and the Republicans were willing to negotiate, now would be a good time for you to cite one.

I never even heard of Jim Demint before.  How does he represent all of the congressional Republicans?  I once read that a congresswomen (I can't remember her name) who once said that she wants to make drunk driving legal after 4am because she believes everyone is drunk at that time already.  Even though she is a Democrat, I don't believe her stance is shared by the colleagues in her party.

And let's not forget the debt ceiling fiasco, and Boehner threatening to shut down the government, and so on and so on.

I know some Republicans threatened to shut down the government, but I don't remember Boehner saying that himself.  I do remember Obama threatening to veto anything that didn't increase taxes.  Republicans were willing to increase the debt ceiling if there were spending cuts.  How big the spending cut would be and where they would take place was up for negotiations.  The brinkmanship problem came when Obama said he would shut down the government if there weren't tax increases, while many congressional Republicans refused to increases taxes.  In the end Obama backed down on increasing taxes, while Republicans agreed to cut only a small amount (the cuts weren't even big enough to cover the interest we pay on the national debt).

Simply, Republicans in Congress have set a new historical bar for obstructionism during Obama's presidency. That is not a matter of debate: the numbers are right here.  I suppose you could argue that they did so with good intentions, but we're talking about whether it's okay for Democrats to call them radical.

That is more politcal b.s.  While Republicans disagree on a bill because they don't think it is best for the country, the Democrats spin that as them being "obstuctionist".  Before even trying to offer a concession to Republicans, Obama starts making speaches on how Republicans are obstuctionist.  The one time that I remember that Obama did things correctly was with extending the bush tax cuts.  At first, Obama told Republicans that he was willing to extend tax cuts for the middle class, if Republicans would allow him to extend unemployment benefits.  Republicans told him "no" because Obama couldn't even get moderate Democrats to agee to letting the tax cuts expire.  Then, Obama finally gave Republicans an offer that can be taken seriously.  Republicans agreed that they would extend unemployment benifts for the third time in exchange for Democrats agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone.  Of course, extending tax cuts for everyone alienated Obama's strong support from the far left.  To appease his far left supporters, Obama has refused to conceded anything ever since.