Thread: So...President Obama
4/26/2012 11:27am, #61
4/26/2012 11:37am, #62
4/26/2012 11:37am, #63
Carter is a special case, as he had a significant primary challenge from Ted Kennedy. This wasn't a major factor in Reagan's landslide of course, but it did demonstrate more or less the same problem Romney has already—the people taking organizational responsibility for the party on the ground didn't like their actual choice all that much.
And so you are left with one, and even Bush 41 was a special case as you note, as 1992 had a strong third-party candidate in Ross Perot, who generally leeched votes from right-tending independents and independent-minded Republicans.
So scratch one historically unique circumstance that cannot even remotely be counted as re-election, and two special cases, what do you have? Incumbents winning. Bush 43's second election was a tight one, but his performance improved from 2000.
So yes, when there are major disasters like an unelected VP taking office, and major interventions by mercurial billionaires, things can happen. So, which billionaire is going to run and siphon votes from Obama's left flank?
4/26/2012 11:38am, #64
4/26/2012 12:08pm, #65
4/26/2012 12:15pm, #66
4/26/2012 12:27pm, #67
4/26/2012 12:30pm, #68
4/26/2012 12:33pm, #69
Very well—from now on, I will assume that you are a moron and integrate that into my remarks to you.
Does not liking a peace candidate (a term used by Paul supporters incidentally) necessarily mean liking a war candidate? Of course not, you drooling simpleton. If you'd paid attention at any point since, oh, 1988, this would be obvious to you, in the same way it is obvious to institutionalized retards who live all day in their own ****.
One can decide to like a "peace through strength" candidate—Bush 41, for example. Which means an emphasis on a willingness to intervene, and to build up a military capable of multiple interventions, without actually saying the w-word. Bush 41 was very keen on the UN-backed coalition as a figleaf for his interventions as well. "We're all doing it!" Just a bunch of nerds teaming up against the neighborhood bully.
One can decide to like a "humanitarian intervention" candidate—Clinton, for example. To the folks having their apartment buildings bombed to pieces and homes shot up, there is little difference between a "humanitarian intervention" and a "war" of course, but for the Democrats, this was a soothing balm. They could pretend to be cowboys in a world full of hostile Indians again. Plus, it was surely all NATO's doing—we have to be nice to NATO, right? (A chimpanzee can see a certain number of similarities between Bush 41 and Clinton, btw. Can you?)
One can also like a "war on terror" candidate, like Bush 43 in 2004. Wars on terror aren't real wars, of course, as nobody will feel a thing. Have a tax rebate! Go shopping! We're just engaging in self-defense, after all! Pre-emptive self-defense, sure, but...and plus there's a coalition again! Of the willing! Did you forget about Poland? Don't forget about Poland!
One can be a "You break it, you bought it" candidate, a la Kerry. Surely we can bomb all those hospitals back into good repair, yes? Who could possibly see Iraq as an occupied country? Iraqis! Pfft, those people don't even vote in the US. So the war was a terrible, wasteful, bloody, bad thing and the only way to get out of this hole is to keep digging so we don't look like fags! Hop into my swiftboat of dreams and let us sail to victory! Uhm, I mean feeling very sorry for continuing to shoot you.
One can be the "Not that war, this one!" candidate, a la Dean and Obama among the Democrats. Both were "against" Iraq when it turned out to be rough sledding, but were happy to continue along in Afghanistan. Dean even rattled a saber at Saudi Arabia, because Michael Moore gave him permission to.
The opposite of being a peace candidate isn't being a war candidate, it's being a media-friendly soundbite candidate who certainly won't close military bases or cut spending too much or cancel some pork-laden R&D projects, and who certainly sees the world like one big game of Risk. And that's what people want. That's why the Republicans didn't vote for Paul.
4/26/2012 12:34pm, #70