Who will it be Romney or Obama?

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

Interesting FT article on why the Republicans lost. Some good (as well as some plain stupid) comments at the bottom too.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f626b54a-2895-11e2-a335-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2BTPUoOkc

Great article. It makes many of the same points I have, albeit it far more deeply and eloquently.

On a side note, covered by the article, it is very much to the credit of Americans that they refused to elect either Richard Mourdock ("if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen") or Todd "legitimate rape" Aiken. Most constituencies in Britain will vote for any b@stard as long as it's a b@stard wearing the right coloured rosette.

It'll be an interesting couple of years. Obama doesn't have the House so he'll still struggle to get legislation through and have to wield the veto. Hopefully he'll be a bit more conciliatory in this session although it seems unlikely as he specifically said he would be less so!

The Republicans are most likely to have to come to the party on the deficit as the cuts fall hardest on the areas that they wouldn't want to see cut and the tax rises fall hardest on who would be considered to be their natural support base. I'm not sure but I don't think that there are any significant cuts at all to Medicare or welfare as a result of the automatic cuts and tax rises that come in should agreement not be made.

PS The names and amounts contributed to each candidate have been released:



I can't imagine Wall Street will get much of a break from Obama in the next 4 years!

vivatifosi

Interesting chart gen, thanks. Is it standard that the US government part funds the president's campaign?

I see that debate has now shifted to the 54(?) days remaining to stop the US going over the fiscal cliff. Now we'll just have to see whether concilliation is possible, or whether the lemmings will go over together.

Another article, this time from the WSJ here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323894704578105260044138592.html

And chart from article (bigger and clearer) showing extent of fiscal cliff:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323894704578105260044138592.html#project%3DCLIFF1108%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

The fiscal cliff is interesting. Canadian commentators are already saying that their country is so dependent on the US economy that anything that tips the US back into recession will pull theirs down too.

Finally an article from the Guardian, which is a Q&A on the fiscal cliff:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/07/us-fiscal-cliff-q-and-a

wymondham

Generali wrote: »

Interesting figures. I presume they contribute as they have a vested interest and will benefit directly from the candidate being elected, in which case is this right?

I'm torn hear as in the worlds biggest democracy where 'anyone can be president' it's not strictly true, you first need to be a millionaire! - we are simililar i suppose as prime ministers all seem to come from the same jelly mould of Eaton etc and privileged upper class background.

In a way, however distasteful the American way is when it comes to elections, at least theres hope if they are millionaires they have done someting in their previous role to earn it and hence bring experience, which must be better than our career politicians??

Spending billions on elections can't be right, surely an equal budget for all would be fairer, otherwise the richest have the advantage....?

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

Interesting chart gen, thanks. Is it standard that the US government part funds the president's campaign?

If you are running for President (and anyone can get on the ballot if they get about 700,000 signatures nationwide) you can get Federal funding for your campaign if you agree to spending limits. I think that your own funds (including fundraising) are matched dollar for dollar up to the limit whatever that is.

Obama foreswore Federal funding in 2008 and 2012: he is a very good fundraiser and so the limit disadvantages him. In 2008 that played well with his 'outsider' credentials too. As a result I have no idea what that line item is for. Possibly it's for stuff like using Air Force One or holding press conferences in The White House. I'm only guessing though,

Generali

wymondham wrote: »

Spending billions on elections can't be right, surely an equal budget for all would be fairer, otherwise the richest have the advantage....?

The general US line on that sort of thing is best expressed by Hayek. He basically said that people aren't the same, in fact they're all different so in seeking to make outcomes the same we have to have a system where people are treated unequally by the Government and by the Law.

The Americans by dint of their history and culture find equality of treatment to be important, much more so than equality of outcome. That is expressed in many ways.

wageslave

I think it was a telegraph journalist who commented on Obamas victory speech. He said he was surprised how American he was.

I work for an American company and I am surprised he was surprised. They really do imagine they are living in the greatest nation on earth and are blessed by a benevolent ( and yankee) god.

I am glad Obama won, a republican president a la George bush doesn't bear thinking about at the moment. I doubt the world could survive that level of stupidity so soon after the last one

Linda_D_2

Romney will win, but only by a small margin.

Thrugelmir

wageslave wrote: »

I am glad Obama won, a republican president a la George bush doesn't bear thinking about at the moment. I doubt the world could survive that level of stupidity so soon after the last one

Given that Romney is a mormon. I'm sure that swayed voters. A very clandestine bunch of people. That may explain in part Romney's backing for funding.

wageslave

There is something stupendously, and fundamentally wrong, in America. I don't know if it was always there or if it is something new.

We need to to put mickey mouse, star wars and burgers to the one side and take a long hard look at what is going on at the other side of the pond.

In my mothers lifetime America has attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments.

It worrys me that no one seems worried

GeorgeHowell

wageslave wrote: »

There is something stupendously, and fundamentally wrong, in America. I don't know if it was always there or if it is something new.

What because Obama won ?