Why do people care so much about the Presidential election?

[CriticalThought]

I would think the bigger election would be the Congressional one, given that a third of the Senate is up for grabs and the entire House if up for grabs.

Presidential politics don't seem to matter much in this day and age. Just look at how the Republicans managed to limit Obama's agenda when they were a minority in both houses of Congress and how they have firmly stopped it when they took over the House. Does anyone really think the Democrats won't turn around and become the new party of "No" if the tables turn and Romney is elected? The fact is that we are now playing endzone politics, which means that moderates have to check themselves at the door.

You have to be extremely liberal or extremely conservative to win nowadays. Whether Obama wins or Romney wins is irrelevant since neither side will let them pass any legislation that could make them look good or that is really good for the country. You think after 4 years of Republicans making it their number 1 priority that Obama is not reelected that the Democrats will not return the favor if Romney wins and curtail any possibly good legislation that might make him appear good?

The politics are not going to change. They are going to get worse. It doesn't matter who wins the presidency because neither candidate can unify the government.

 

[StillBallin75]

Local and state politics almost universally impact individuals more than who is President.

The reason people care so much about the presidential race is because it is the most visible in the media, and I concur with you about Congress.

 

[johnny_rebson]

I would think the bigger election would be the Congressional one, given that a third of the Senate is up for grabs and the entire House if up for grabs.

Presidential politics don't seem to matter much in this day and age. Just look at how the Republicans managed to limit Obama's agenda when they were a minority in both houses of Congress and how they have firmly stopped it when they took over the House. Does anyone really think the Democrats won't turn around and become the new party of "No" if the tables turn and Romney is elected? The fact is that we are now playing endzone politics, which means that moderates have to check themselves at the door.

You have to be extremely liberal or extremely conservative to win nowadays. Whether Obama wins or Romney wins is irrelevant since neither side will let them pass any legislation that could make them look good or that is really good for the country. You think after 4 years of Republicans making it their number 1 priority that Obama is not reelected that the Democrats will not return the favor if Romney wins and curtail any possibly good legislation that might make him appear good?

The politics are not going to change. They are going to get worse. It doesn't matter who wins the presidency because neither candidate can unify the government.

You make a good point. That's why I think conservatives should abandon Mitt Romney now.

If Obama leads Romney by 10 percent in October, independents who want gridlock will be more likely to vote GOP in congressional races.

If Obama is in the White House in 2014, the GOP will be big winners in the midterm elections.

Then in 2016, a true conservative Republican can be voted into the White House.

 

[StillBallin75]

You make a good point. That's why I think conservatives should abandon Mitt Romney now.

If Obama leads Romney by 10 percent in October, independents who want gridlock will be more likely to vote GOP in congressional races.

If Obama is in the White House in 2014, the GOP will be big winners in the midterm elections.

Then in 2016, a true conservative Republican can be voted into the White House.

"Independents who want gridlock" lol that's a good one.

 

[soccerboy22]

"Independents who want gridlock" lol that's a good one.

I actually like gridlock.

 

[StillBallin75]

I actually like gridlock.

You're a partisan sports fan.

 

[Mycroft]

I would think the bigger election would be the Congressional one, given that a third of the Senate is up for grabs and the entire House if up for grabs.

Presidential politics don't seem to matter much in this day and age. Just look at how the Republicans managed to limit Obama's agenda when they were a minority in both houses of Congress and how they have firmly stopped it when they took over the House. Does anyone really think the Democrats won't turn around and become the new party of "No" if the tables turn and Romney is elected? The fact is that we are now playing endzone politics, which means that moderates have to check themselves at the door.

You have to be extremely liberal or extremely conservative to win nowadays. Whether Obama wins or Romney wins is irrelevant since neither side will let them pass any legislation that could make them look good or that is really good for the country. You think after 4 years of Republicans making it their number 1 priority that Obama is not reelected that the Democrats will not return the favor if Romney wins and curtail any possibly good legislation that might make him appear good?

The politics are not going to change. They are going to get worse. It doesn't matter who wins the presidency because neither candidate can unify the government.

1. I don't agree with you that Republicans managed to limit Obama's agenda when they were a minority in both Houses. I think they were pretty much shut out during that period. I would say that certain DEMOCRATS were the bigger limiting factor during that period. I do agree that the Republicans have effectively stopped Obama's agenda in the period after the 2010 election, though.

2. Your use of the phrase "good legislation" is quite subjective. Given that I support limited government action in most cases, I'd say that gridlock is the best condition we can hope for...no matter which Party has the Executive Branch.

3. To answer the question in your thread title...I care so much about the Presidential election because, in my mind, the Congressional Democrats are pretty much leaderless. If it wasn't for Obama driving their agenda since 2010, they would have nothing. (not that Obama has been very effective as a leader during that time, of course) In respect to the desire to undo some of the damage the Democrats have done, I agree that the Congressional races are quite important...but they are only a part of what is required. The Republicans need a majority in both Houses AND the Presidency.

 

[wbcoleman]

I would think the bigger election would be the Congressional one, given that a third of the Senate is up for grabs and the entire House if up for grabs.

Presidential politics don't seem to matter much in this day and age. Just look at how the Republicans managed to limit Obama's agenda when they were a minority in both houses of Congress and how they have firmly stopped it when they took over the House. Does anyone really think the Democrats won't turn around and become the new party of "No" if the tables turn and Romney is elected? The fact is that we are now playing endzone politics, which means that moderates have to check themselves at the door.

You have to be extremely liberal or extremely conservative to win nowadays. Whether Obama wins or Romney wins is irrelevant since neither side will let them pass any legislation that could make them look good or that is really good for the country. You think after 4 years of Republicans making it their number 1 priority that Obama is not reelected that the Democrats will not return the favor if Romney wins and curtail any possibly good legislation that might make him appear good?

The politics are not going to change. They are going to get worse. It doesn't matter who wins the presidency because neither candidate can unify the government.

SCOTUS. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79 years old.

 

[solletica]

I would think the bigger election would be the Congressional one, given that a third of the Senate is up for grabs and the entire House if up for grabs.

Presidential politics don't seem to matter much in this day and age. Just look at how the Republicans managed to limit Obama's agenda when they were a minority in both houses of Congress and how they have firmly stopped it when they took over the House. Does anyone really think the Democrats won't turn around and become the new party of "No" if the tables turn and Romney is elected? The fact is that we are now playing endzone politics, which means that moderates have to check themselves at the door.

You have to be extremely liberal or extremely conservative to win nowadays. Whether Obama wins or Romney wins is irrelevant since neither side will let them pass any legislation that could make them look good or that is really good for the country. You think after 4 years of Republicans making it their number 1 priority that Obama is not reelected that the Democrats will not return the favor if Romney wins and curtail any possibly good legislation that might make him appear good?

The politics are not going to change. They are going to get worse. It doesn't matter who wins the presidency because neither candidate can unify the government.

The Presidential election matters a little because the outcome determines which corporations will be responsible for approving laws and shaping US foreign policy.

A romney win means banks will rule the country, while an obama win means banks and computer firms will jointly rule the country.

 

[solletica]

Local and state politics almost universally impact individuals more than who is President.

The reason people care so much about the presidential race is because it is the most visible in the media, and I concur with you about Congress.

For local politics, one has to consider Solletica's Law--the more conservative a state is, the less democratic (and more plutocratic) it is. Hence, voting only matters in liberal, educated states like MA or VT.

In conservative states like AZ or KT, however, voting is totally irrelevant since the voters there are simply too stupid to grasp any issue and just vote for whoever makes comments that appeal to their childish bigotries, and corporations (mostly outside the state) exploit this ignorance to their advantage by simply fashioning candidates that say the right buzzwords to match those bigotries. In AZ, an anti-Mexican state, for instance, any White person can win a seat on the legislature by campaigning to ban tacos.

In a liberal (educated) state, this isn't possible since voters there are savvy enough to detect charlatans and will actually research candidates' voting records and outside influences, regardless of what the candidates say. It's impossible to win in MA, for example, by just chanting the right soundbites, as Martha Coakley very quickly discovered.

 

[nota bene]

For local politics, one has to consider Solletica's Law--the more conservative a state is, the less democratic (and more plutocratic) it is. Hence, voting only matters in liberal, educated states like MA or VT.

In conservative states like AZ or KT, however, voting is totally irrelevant since the voters there are simply too stupid to grasp any issue and just vote for whoever makes comments that appeal to their childish bigotries, and corporations (mostly outside the state) exploit this ignorance to their advantage by simply fashioning candidates that say the right buzzwords to match those bigotries. In AZ, an anti-Mexican state, for instance, any White person can win a seat on the legislature by campaigning to ban tacos.

In a liberal (educated) state, this isn't possible since voters there are savvy enough to detect charlatans and will actually research candidates' voting records and outside influences, regardless of what the candidates say. It's impossible to win in MA, for example, by just chanting the right soundbites, as Martha Coakley very quickly discovered.

I guess we'll just have to see which states matter in November.

But in the meantime, why don't you list the "liberal"/"educated" states? That should be almost as entertaining as reading that voting in more conservative states is "irrelevant" and that sound bytes won't sway voters in "savvy" states.

 

[Mycroft]

For local politics, one has to consider Solletica's Law--the more conservative a state is, the less democratic (and more plutocratic) it is. Hence, voting only matters in liberal, educated states like MA or VT.

In conservative states like AZ or KT, however, voting is totally irrelevant since the voters there are simply too stupid to grasp any issue and just vote for whoever makes comments that appeal to their childish bigotries, and corporations (mostly outside the state) exploit this ignorance to their advantage by simply fashioning candidates that say the right buzzwords to match those bigotries. In AZ, an anti-Mexican state, for instance, any White person can win a seat on the legislature by campaigning to ban tacos.

In a liberal (educated) state, this isn't possible since voters there are savvy enough to detect charlatans and will actually research candidates' voting records and outside influences, regardless of what the candidates say. It's impossible to win in MA, for example, by just chanting the right soundbites, as Martha Coakley very quickly discovered.

Please excuse my language, but I think your post is a load of crap.

 

[solletica]

Please excuse my language, but I think your post is a load of crap.

Which part of the post is crap? I reread it and can't find a single inaccuracy.

 

[nota bene]

Which part of the post is crap? I reread it and can't find a single inaccuracy.

Well, of course, you can't. That's because opinions aren't described as "accurate" or "inaccurate." We use these terms to describe facts. Your post doesn't offer any, only extreme generalizations for which there aren't going to be any pesky facts.

 

[Mycroft]

Which part of the post is crap? I reread it and can't find a single inaccuracy.

Oh...you were citing facts??

Would you care to substantiate any of your stereotypical, liberal-biased "facts"?

 

[solletica]

Well, of course, you can't. That's because opinions aren't described as "accurate" or "inaccurate." We use these terms to describe facts.

I read it again and couldn't find any opinions. Only facts. Please cite which of the items in my posts were opinions, and I'll refute it in, well, less than 1.74 sec with actual citations.

 

[nota bene]

I read it again and couldn't find any opinions. Only facts. Please cite which of the items in my posts were opinions, and I'll refute it in, well, less than 1.74 sec with actual citations.

If you truly don't understand the difference between opinion and fact, you're to be pitied as well as scorned. I don't believe this. Please do produce citations for all of these claims:

For local politics, one has to consider Solletica's Law--the more conservative a state is, the less democratic (and more plutocratic) it is. Hence, voting only matters in liberal, educated states like MA or VT.

There is no "Solletica's Law": Fact.

Voting matters only in liberal, educated states: Not a fact.

In conservative states like AZ or KT, however, voting is totally irrelevant since the voters there are simply too stupid to grasp any issue and just vote for whoever makes comments that appeal to their childish bigotries, and corporations (mostly outside the state) exploit this ignorance to their advantage by simply fashioning candidates that say the right buzzwords to match those bigotries. In AZ, an anti-Mexican state, for instance, any White person can win a seat on the legislature by campaigning to ban tacos.

Voting in conservative states such as AZ or KT is totally irrelevant: Not a fact.

Voters in those states are simply too stupid to grasp any issue and just vote for whomever makes comments that appeal to their childish bigotries: Not a fact.

Any white person can win a seat in the legislature by campaigning to ban tacos: Not a fact.

In a liberal (educated) state, this isn't possible since voters there are savvy enough to detect charlatans and will actually research candidates' voting records and outside influences, regardless of what the candidates say. It's impossible to win in MA, for example, by just chanting the right soundbites, as Martha Coakley very quickly discovered.

Voters in liberal, “educated” states can’t get away with this because they’re savvy enough to detect all charlatans: Not a fact.

Voters research candidates’ voting records and outside influences: Not a fact.

Chanting sound bytes will not produce votes: Not a fact.

 

[lpast]

Where the presidency matters is the veto pen, rarely does congress have a veto proof majority, actually cant remember them ever having one.
Im trying not to pick on a particular party. Take for example the last congress with a full democrat majority and democrat president...some would say the ramming of obamacare down everyones throat was a pure abuse of power, wouldnt have happened with a GOP President....take the teaparty far right house right now..and imagine them having the senate and white house too

 

[johnny_rebson]

The Republicans need a majority in both Houses AND the Presidency.

Correction: The CONSERVATIVES need to control both houses and the presidency. Romney is not a conservative.

Let's get a true conservative in the White House four years from now.

 

[rocket88]

I actually like gridlock.

Actually it promotes smaller government than Conservatives running the entire government. Right now, Congress and the President can't agree on what color the grass is, much less ways to screw the American people. Say what you want about Clinton's surplus being a myth, the fact is the budget was closer to being balanced then than it has been since. Coincedence that it was a split government? I don't think so.

 

[soccerboy22]

Actually it promotes smaller government than Conservatives running the entire government. Right now, Congress and the President can't agree on what color the grass is, much less ways to screw the American people. Say what you want about Clinton's surplus being a myth, the fact is the budget was closer to being balanced then than it has been since. Coincedence that it was a split government? I don't think so.

Yep. When one party holds both Houses and the WH then it tends to lead to not great things. With gridlock less things get done because apparently the two sides cannot get along. And then when something is passed it tends to be more moderate. I will say though, that gridlock does have a rather large disadvantage at times when good bills are not passed because of it.

 

[solletica]

I guess we'll just have to see which states matter in November.

But in the meantime, why don't you list the "liberal"/"educated" states? That should be almost as entertaining as reading that voting in more conservative states is "irrelevant" and that sound bytes won't sway voters in "savvy" states.

Not as entertaining as the fact that it's actually true :lol: If it isn't already brutally obvious, the fact that politicians in states like AZ, KT, etc. know they can improve their election chances by making childish, retarded bigoted comments like "where is obama birth certificate. is he muslum?" is bona fide proof that voters there cannot entirely differentiate between their craniums and anuses.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Admits Using Taxpayer Funds To Pursue Birther Conspiracy Probe: ‘So What?’ - Blogrunner

 

[nota bene]

Not as entertaining as the fact that it's actually true :lol: If it isn't already brutally obvious, the fact that politicians in states like AZ, KT, etc. know they can improve their election chances by making childish, retarded bigoted comments like "where is obama birth certificate. is he muslum?" is bona fide proof that voters there cannot entirely differentiate between their craniums and anuses.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Admits Using Taxpayer Funds To Pursue Birther Conspiracy Probe: ‘So What?’ - Blogrunner

Careful how you criticize others when you yourself can't distinguish between an opinion and a fact. Not that I think you're on the level here; I don't.

 

[solletica]

Not as entertaining as the fact that it's actually true :lol: If it isn't already brutally obvious, the fact that politicians in states like AZ, KT, etc. know they can improve their election chances by making childish, retarded bigoted comments like "where is obama birth certificate. is he muslum?" is bona fide proof that voters there cannot entirely differentiate between their craniums and anuses.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Admits Using Taxpayer Funds To Pursue Birther Conspiracy Probe: ‘So What?’ - Blogrunner

Careful how you criticize others when you yourself can't distinguish between an opinion and a fact.

Where have I failed to that?

I claimed in my OP that conservatives stupidly vote for people that give them soundbites that appeal to their childish bigotries,

and in the above I proved it with a factual citation of how voting conservatives in AZ are swayed by bigoted "obama not born in the US" soundbites.

 

[vendur]

I think the clock is running out on a few supreme court justices, so for that reason alone this is a pretty important election.