Who will win the USA election?

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

Having said that, only someone crazy would suggest the complete abolition of government and all regulation, which is the pure libertarian ideal.

TBH it's only the likes of Ayn Rand that believe that twaddle.

Hayek and many others felt that Government was necessary and desirable to do things like ensure orderly markets, maintain property rights and so on.

The point of Libertarianism IMHO is that all Government intervention will create an undesirable loss of liberty somewhere for some or many people. As a result, any Government intervention has to be carefully weighed against that loss: it isn't enough to say that 'most people are better off as a result of xxxx' as if 'most is 60% then potentially 25,000,000 Britons are worse off and perhaps quite substantially.

For example, what about if the Government spends half of my income on some forms of healthcare but doesn't provide the healthcare that I want and as a result of the tax I can no longer afford my choice as I'm too busy paying for everyone else's? Is that reasonable? I don't think so but the Government will put me in prison if I try to keep my money and spend it as I see fit. If I am denied a drug that is deemed 'too expensive' for my taxes to pay then the price might be my life.

jackieb

Has anyone been watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart lately? He's been brilliant.

sabretoothtigger

Yea he is always good, I appreciate it when he points out obvious common sense rather trying to back a side. Dylan Ratigan is another host who spans both ends of the spectrum as best that can be


It'd be surprising if Obama didnt win. I thought 4 years ago the odds of him being a 1 term president were unusually high but the opposition from the Rep party is awful.

I dont see Rep will be able to represent any great argument to counter Obama's voodoo economics or any other policy. Rom seems a bit of a copy with populism politics no great leadership or principle beyond a thin cover of rightish theoretic

Any right turn now more relys on Obama to mess up somehow, forthcoming points of interest from now till Nov rates as zero on the political radar I think.

The only interest is the creaking from incredibly stretched bond pricing (vs reality), deficit spending and failed budgets. will it hold, probably

wymondham

Mitt Romney reminds me of the president in the film 'Dead Zone' .... so I hope he does not get in!

Generali

The latest polls (admittedly after the GOP convention but before the Democratic one) had a very narrow lead for Obama: just 0.7%. That's enough that getting results in the right states would be enough for a Romney win.

There was an interesting piece on Bloomberg about how a Obama win would mean at least another 2 years of political paralysis. Obama's own statements have hardly been encouraging as he has said that Republicans in Congress will have to view his re-election as a mandate for him to tell them what to do which I hardly conciliatory!

Given that the next Presidential term will likely see sovereign defaults across Europe and a slowing economy in Asia, the last thing the world needs is another 2 years, and more likely 4 years given the usual midterm results, of political paralysis.

As much as the anti-Republican European press try to paint things differently, the fact is that both sides are equally to blame for the impasse.

michaels

Any polls on the senate and congress? Is there no chance of the democrats winning congress back?

Presumably there is also little chance of the republicans taking the senate?

Edit: I take the last bit back as apparently of the 33 seats up this time 23 are democratic so obviously were last contested at a dem high tide point so could be obama vs both houses - not good for the US credit rating as it was the lack of political traction that resulted in the last downgrade.

Anton123

Obama without a doubt. Something seriously bad needs to go wrong between now and elections for Romney to win. Conservative policies of the Republican party are increasingly out of touch with modern America. Their only strong support base is among older white constituencies. They appeal to the ideals of white America of the past, but the younger generations have become alienated. Also, the large Hispanic and black communities almost always vote the Democrats. So, unless they become more a centre party, they will have less and less chance of winning in the future. However, when all is said and done, the economy still plays a the biggest role in determining who wins. And with the economy not in great shape there is a very small possibility Romney may get in.

However, I think more and more Americans have come to realise Obama has done as well as he can with limited powers to mend the economy the last administration left it. Also, the American economy is now ever increasingly tied to the prospects of the global economy so mending an economy that is more and more subject to global economic cycles is not easy to do unless situation as a whole improves.

But still, it will all come down to the marginal swing states. Florida is one of them. There is a large black and Hispanic population there and I really cannot see how Romney will take it. George Bush won for the Republicans there in 2004 because his brother, Jeb, the governor of the state at the time, played a key role.

A._Badger

Anton123 wrote: »

Also, the large Hispanic and black communities almost always vote the Democrats. .

Wow! Have you ever ventured further West than Bristol?

That is one of the most ill-informed assessments of US politics I've read in a long while.

FYI, the Hispanic vote very frequently veers to the quite extreme side of social conservatism.

Still, don't let that put you off. I'm sure the Guardian or the BBC could use another analyst.

Anton123

A._Badger wrote: »

Wow! Have you ever ventured further West than Bristol?

That is one of the most ill-informed assessments of US politics I've read in a long while.

FYI, the Hispanic vote very frequently veers to the quite extreme side of social conservatism.

Still, don't let that put you off. I'm sure the Guardian or the BBC could use another analyst.

Maybe I was going over the top in saying nearly all the Hispanics vote Democrats, but more do vote the Democrats than they do Republicans. Obama received 67% of their votes in 2008 while Kerry received around 53% in 2004. However, their community is increasingly marginalized because of the anti-Hispanic rhetoric of the Republicans. They paint all Hispanics with the same brush i.e. illegal, welfare-sponging, no do-gooders.

Another thing is Romney is a Mormon, and given that Hispanics tend to be fervent Catholics, will really work against him. In theory, I can see how the Republicans might appeal to Hispanics whose communities generally tend to be religiously conservative, but they see the disadvantages in voting for them outweigh the benefits.

vivatifosi

Anton123 wrote: »

Maybe I was going over the top in saying nearly all the Hispanics vote Democrats, but more do vote the Democrats than they do Republicans. Obama received 67% of their votes in 2008 while Kerry received around 53% in 2004. However, their community is increasingly marginalized because of the anti-Hispanic rhetoric of the Republicans. They paint all Hispanics with the same brush i.e. illegal, welfare-sponging, no do-gooders.

Another thing is Romney is a Mormon, and given that Hispanics tend to be fervent Catholics, will really work against him. In theory, I can see how the Republicans might appeal to Hispanics whose communities generally tend to be religiously conservative, but they see the disadvantages in voting for them outweigh the benefits.

I don't think you can talk about Hispanics as a homogeneous group. The big issue with illegals is largely from central America and in particular Mexico. The same cannot be said of Puerto Rico, which is almost a 51st state in terms of rights for its citizens, or Cubans, who have a complex relationship with their country of origin and a great number vote Republican.