Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Phryxis wrote:

IMO, Clinton would still be POTUS in the absence of term limits. He'd have mopped the floor with anyone and everyone since 2000.

It certainly does seem like he was a different generation than the current lightweights. I wonder if that isn't somewhat due to the new news cycle, and the new level of partisan blathering, where we're constantly deluged with vitriolic back and forth between talking heads.

University of Pennsylvania professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson has written a lot of this topic. I could say a lot here (one of my grad school profs studied under Jamieson) but basically she's highly critical of the media and how they frame political races. It's interesting stuff, and actually fairly infuriating when you start paying attention to how the media more or less ignores all substantive content in favor of the "horse race."

A betting man would put Obama in for two terms.

1) He's an incumbant - Carter and Bush1 notwithstanding, incumbants generally hold onto their seats.

2) He really hasn't screwed up badly yet, despite what the right has indicated.

3) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be stable. Iraq is maybe trending good, Afghan is maybe trending bad, but for the most part they're not occupying the forefront of American thoughts and worries.

4) The economy really isn't getting better, but it's more or less stable at the moment. Folks want him to fix it, but they're not blaming it on him either. He still has the option of doing a *real* infrastructure overhaul instead of the half-assed stimulus, but I'm guessing he's waiting until closer to election season to use that card.

5) The health care thing made a lot of noise but you've got pretty much as many people for it as against it so it'll be more or less neutral for him.

6) The only real catastrophe that's come across his desk so far is the BP spill, and BP is getting more blame than BO.

So while I have a hard time saying he's making things better, he's not really making it worse. If the economy starts to genuinely rebound in the next year or two (And I'm inclined to think that it will), he should have no problems taking credit and then breezing through the election in a walk. If the economy stagnates, he'll have a fight on his hands but I think he'll still probably squeak by. If the economy tanks and the Republicans field somebody competent, he would still have a fighting chance.

The Dems will probably lose at least one house (The Senate most likely), but that's the normal state of American politics - we don't like one party having conrol over the White House, Senate, and House because it gives them too much power.

The biggest problem Republicans have is their bench is so slim. There's a definite feeling that the right has been obstructionist. In a way, that's helped the president. "Things aren't getting better because I can't get the Republicans to cooperate." It's mostly nonsense of course, but it gives him a pretty good screen. It also severely hampers accomplishments that future republican candidates can put on their resume.

The current big names for 2012 are Mitt Romney (Mass Gov.) and and Sarah Palin (Whom I'm sure you know about). Both are long shots at best.

Mitt Romney is moderate enough that he'd actually stand a chance, but he's a Mormon, and that's a huge problem. We've had a whopping ONE Catholic president (JFK) and mormons are generally viewed as being...how can I put this without stepping on toes...even more different. Every couple of years we get a polygamy story or secret society extremist bit and that refreshes folks' memories about how different the mormon church is from other protestant sects. I know that's NOT the majority and I don't mean offense at all, but the mormon faith is still relatively new and I just don't think it's quite there yet with main-stream acceptance. I'm not positive the US would elect a Jewish or Jehova's Witness president either (Yes, I know Leiberman was nearly a VP), but that's my own pessimism about how open-minded the majority of Americans are. Religion unfortunately does play a very significant role in American elections, to the point where you pretty much have to pay some sort of lip-service to it to hope to be elected.

Palin is playing rockstar at the moment but I don't think anybody seriously considers her a viable candidate any more (ever?), ESPECIALLY since she called it quits 1/2 through her term as gov of Alaska.

Newt Gingrich's name has been thrown around, and I think he's actually plausible, but I suspect there's too much baggage from the Clinton years. I seem to remember he was tied up in some pretty good scandals, although the details escape me. He's getting pretty old though and that's a liability. I'd consider him a long shot, but he might be put up as a sacrificial candidate if things start breaking Baraks way (Similar to the way Dole was put against Clinton).

Bobby Jindahll (sp?) stuck his neck out into the national spotlight shortly after Obama's election and got smacked down pretty good if I recall. I think he's spending a bit of time regrouping, resume building, and maturing, but he'll probably be a good shot for 2016. I hope he kept things on the up-and-up for all the Katrina money/relief that poured in though (I can't help but think there are some serious skeletons in closets after that fiasco).

General Petreaus has a lot of good-will if he ever decides he wants to try to become president and will probably be unbeatable if Iraq and Afghanistan straighten out. Right now though national security isn't as important as the economy and neither war will be finished by 2012. We might see him 2016 or 2020 though.

Condi Rice isn't dead yet, but she still needs to let the Bush stink wear off. Again, if the wars in the Middle East straighten out her future gets brighter. Give it another 10 years and people will forget (See: Newt Gingrich).

It's very difficult to say anything because so much is going to depend on how things turn out and develop in the next year and a half. If the economy recovers and unemployment goes down even to 8% or so, Barack will probably be unbeatable. If the course is maintained he'll have a fight but still probably win out given that the Republicans don't seem to have a really strong candidate at the moment. If unemployment is 12% and Iraq enters a civil war while US troops are still over there, BO still has a fighting chance, although it will be uphill if there's a strong Republican found.

My prediction? BO wins comfortably against Mitt Romney and a yet to be named Hispanic VP.

I think it's certainly possible that BO could lose in a landslide if things go badly enough. Carter lost in a landslide to Reagan, for instance, thanks to a heap of domestic and foreign issues that really weren't his fault.

Then again -- supporting your point -- Reagan was a better-than-average candidate and that race was very close until things broke majorly for Reagan after the second debate just *one week* before the election.

Incumbents have huge power in presidential races just because people take them more seriously and are theremore more likely to err on the side of picking "the devil they know."

I know i dont know that much about US politics, although, more than most Europeans after spending so long over there! But, to me, well.. Mitt is a Mormon. Up until very recently a racist organisation, and still a fruity little club. I have disdain for all religious groups, but surely even 'other' American Christians have disdain for Mormons? I mean, they made a stink about Kennedy not being Christian enough! You really think People will vote for a mormon? Id have thought in America that would be like being an atheist. I.e Political suicide.

mattyrm wrote:I know i dont know that much about US politics, although, more than most Europeans after spending so long over there! But, to me, well.. Mitt is a Mormon. Up until very recently a racist organisation, and still a fruity little club. I have disdain for all religious groups, but surely even 'other' American Christians have disdain for Mormons? I mean, they made a stink about Kennedy not being Christian enough! You really think People will vote for a mormon? Id have thought in America that would be like being an atheist. I.e Political suicide.

More of "too Christian," IIRC. Most of the stink about Kennedy involved the problem of whether he'd do his duty as an American first, or put his obligation to obey the Pope first. He answered it pretty well in his "American first" speech, although it lost him a lot of Catholic votes.

The idea that catholics feel compelled to follow orders from the pope completely baffles me as someone raised as an irish catholic. We always figured he was just a funny ould fella with a silly hat and a magic chair. It's not like the parish priest has a remote control in the vestry he can use to take over parishoners when he needs to. I think american catholics might identify more strongly than irish catholics though, due to being something other than the mainstream. Things always get more intense when they're not mainstream.

IMO, being Mormon would cost him some votes but wouldn't be a major issue.

But that's not to say that there wouldn't be Dem-affiliated groups whispering nasty things to *try* to make it one. Obama's campaign would obviously publicly stay clear of it, but I'm sure there'd be PACs producing web sites and ads listing "10 Weird Facts about Mormons" and such.

See "Kerry, John" and "Swift Boat."

gorgon wrote:

Phryxis wrote:

IMO, Clinton would still be POTUS in the absence of term limits. He'd have mopped the floor with anyone and everyone since 2000.

It certainly does seem like he was a different generation than the current lightweights. I wonder if that isn't somewhat due to the new news cycle, and the new level of partisan blathering, where we're constantly deluged with vitriolic back and forth between talking heads.

University of Pennsylvania professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson has written a lot of this topic. I could say a lot here (one of my grad school profs studied under Jamieson) but basically she's highly critical of the media and how they frame political races. It's interesting stuff, and actually fairly infuriating when you start paying attention to how the media more or less ignores all substantive content in favor of the "horse race."

To paraphrase de Tocqueville, "In a democracy, people get the kind of media they deserve."

The news cycle is determined by what the electorate want to watch.

What type of media are we talking about here?

Sounds like cable news, which is not a great source of information, and is usually no less than infotainment.

I try to read at least 3-4 stories from 2-3 sources per day, and I will watch some crapformation once or twice a day. To be honest, I am not entirely sure why I watch clips from cable news, other than to get some idea about how stories are being spun. There are a great deal of sources from which you can get your news, unfortunately cable news is easy to digest while being relatively uninformative. This leads to people that just want to relax and watch the news, getting much of their info from talking heads on cable news.

Crosstalk is actually a pretty decent show, you can catch it on RTs Youtube channel. Sometimes it is stupid (half an hour of people talking over each other... wow), but it doesn't compare to much of the stuff you can find on the leading American networks.

n0t_u wrote:So like Rudd?
I didn't read through it all but it just seemed like that from what I did read.

thats exactly what i was about to say, the exact same thing happened to K-rudd (being an australian living in england) im not surprised, they both promised the same things, both promising change especialy around economics and the wars in the middle east and both failing to deliver when the time came, i must say though that america is in ALOT more trouble than australia is and changing a president mid term isnt gonna help them in ANY way.

Phryxis wrote:There has been talk of applying metrics to the communities serviced by a given hospital, and using that as a basis for payment, etc.

I'm a huge fan of the application of metrics. I think we should require it of all politicians, require them to make material promises and admit it when they fail. The problem is that I'm sure they'd just screw those up as well, and end up doing ridiuclous crap just to hit numbers.

Yeah, I believe one element of the bill is to trial patient treatment paid for on the basis of metrics, instead of paying based on specific procedures performed. Like you say, it will depend on execution and the accuracy of those metrics.

I'm also unclear on how unpaid care is accounted for in the US, vs. other countries.

If they determine that, say, childbirth costs twice as much in the US as in England, is that actually the cost? Or is it the cost for one American that paid, and one that just skipped on the bill?

The big measure is the total cost of healthcare as a portion of GDP. In the US its around 16% of the total, in other developed countries it’s between 6 and 10%. And remember, your GDP per capita is higher than most other places, so as a dollar cost per citizen you’re looking at a crazy expensive system.

The exact cause driving that cost is hard to quantify exactly. In part it’s overheads, legal costs from denial of treatment strategies and also straight up paperwork – you have a whole lot of insurers and a whole lot of hospitals all running their own admin systems, all running bills and recoveries through the patient. In part it’s the cost of doctors (who have to be paid more to recover the much higher cost of medical schooling). In large part it’s the over-treatment.

And they don’t skip out on the bill as much as go bankrupt and lose their house.

gorgon wrote:Then again -- supporting your point -- Reagan was a better-than-average candidate and that race was very close until things broke majorly for Reagan after the second debate just *one week* before the election.

Yeah, there doesn’t appear to be anyone like Reagan among the current crop of Republicans. They’re all basically running on the playsheet that Reagan wrote, and it is an increasingly tired message.

And there was also the issue of Teddy Kennedy’s run against Carter causing fracture within the Democrats. While the poor economic circumstances are similar to Carter’s, the other factors aren’t there. Not at this point, anyway, two years is a long time.

mattyrm wrote:I know i dont know that much about US politics, although, more than most Europeans after spending so long over there! But, to me, well.. Mitt is a Mormon. Up until very recently a racist organisation, and still a fruity little club. I have disdain for all religious groups, but surely even 'other' American Christians have disdain for Mormons? I mean, they made a stink about Kennedy not being Christian enough! You really think People will vote for a mormon? Id have thought in America that would be like being an atheist. I.e Political suicide.

Kennedy still won. Obama was black (and a secret muslim!). The Mormon thing will cost him some votes among core Republican groups, but I don’t think it’d be a significant problem.

Romney’s problem is going to be his ability to attract votes outside of the core of Republicans. There would have to be a major protest movement for him to start picking up enough votes in swing states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:There has been talk of applying metrics to the communities serviced by a given hospital, and using that as a basis for payment, etc.

I'm a huge fan of the application of metrics. I think we should require it of all politicians, require them to make material promises and admit it when they fail. The problem is that I'm sure they'd just screw those up as well, and end up doing ridiuclous crap just to hit numbers.

Yeah, I believe one element of the bill is to trial patient treatment paid for on the basis of metrics, instead of paying based on specific procedures performed. Like you say, it will depend on execution and the accuracy of those metrics.

I'm also unclear on how unpaid care is accounted for in the US, vs. other countries.

If they determine that, say, childbirth costs twice as much in the US as in England, is that actually the cost? Or is it the cost for one American that paid, and one that just skipped on the bill?

The big measure is the total cost of healthcare as a portion of GDP. In the US its around 16% of the total, in other developed countries it’s between 6 and 10%. And remember, your GDP per capita is higher than most other places, so as a dollar cost per citizen you’re looking at a crazy expensive system.

The exact cause driving that cost is hard to quantify exactly. In part it’s overheads, legal costs from denial of treatment strategies and also straight up paperwork – you have a whole lot of insurers and a whole lot of hospitals all running their own admin systems, all running bills and recoveries through the patient. In part it’s the cost of doctors (who have to be paid more to recover the much higher cost of medical schooling). In large part it’s the over-treatment.

And they don’t skip out on the bill as much as go bankrupt and lose their house.

gorgon wrote:Then again -- supporting your point -- Reagan was a better-than-average candidate and that race was very close until things broke majorly for Reagan after the second debate just *one week* before the election.

Yeah, there doesn’t appear to be anyone like Reagan among the current crop of Republicans. They’re all basically running on the playsheet that Reagan wrote, and it is an increasingly tired message.

And there was also the issue of Teddy Kennedy’s run against Carter causing fracture within the Democrats. While the poor economic circumstances are similar to Carter’s, the other factors aren’t there. Not at this point, anyway, two years is a long time.

mattyrm wrote:I know i dont know that much about US politics, although, more than most Europeans after spending so long over there! But, to me, well.. Mitt is a Mormon. Up until very recently a racist organisation, and still a fruity little club. I have disdain for all religious groups, but surely even 'other' American Christians have disdain for Mormons? I mean, they made a stink about Kennedy not being Christian enough! You really think People will vote for a mormon? Id have thought in America that would be like being an atheist. I.e Political suicide.

Kennedy still won. Obama was black (and a secret muslim!). The Mormon thing will cost him some votes among core Republican groups, but I don’t think it’d be a significant problem.

Romney’s problem is going to be his ability to attract votes outside of the core of Republicans. There would have to be a major protest movement for him to start picking up enough votes in swing states.

sebster wrote:
Kennedy still won. Obama was black (and a secret muslim!). The Mormon thing will cost him some votes among core Republican groups, but I don’t think it’d be a significant problem.

Romney’s problem is going to be his ability to attract votes outside of the core of Republicans. There would have to be a major protest movement for him to start picking up enough votes in swing states.

Kennedy had a tremendous amount of charisma and charm, Romney doesn't. Oh he's got some, but there's a difference between "CEO" charisma and "World Leader" charisma. Romney has the former, Kennedy had the latter, with BO being somewhere inbetween.

BO's mixed race heritage was a tremendous benefit to him. While there are elements in the country that under NO circumstance want to see any minority in power (Interestingly, some white supremecist groups game out in favor of BO, assuming that a black man as president would whip their followers into the frenzy required to start some sort of revolution), the majority felt it was time to have somebody other than a white male in charge. This means pretty much EVERY minority group lined up behind BO and gave them their support. Addionally, Barack was "White" enough not to scare away many potential voters who would have balked at putting somebody TOO different in power. Unfortunately for him, I suspect this was a one-time alignment, but his incumbancy will probably cancel out the voter apathy that will arise now that a bi-racial man in the White House isn't a new thing.

Romney being a Mormon is completely different. Nobody feels the Mormons are owed anything so he won't pick up votes on that front. Additionally, Mormons in this country are *not* viewed with complete acceptance, partially because of their own secrecy. Folks in Utah think they're the norm and that's fine. Utah is a very small state vote-wise. Folks in the midwest think they're on the weird side, and they don't vote for weird. I don't think it will necessarily drive folks to vote Democrat in droves, but I do think it will hamper fund-raising and enthusiasm for the Republicans. When folks aren't enthusiastic about their candidate and the incumbant isn't screwing things up royally, they stay home.

Romney's biggest problem though is he's basically John Kerry - a generic candidate who's main draw for votes is the D or R next to his name. He's got a *little* bit of juice because he's a businessman in a time period where the economy is the #1 worry, but he hasn't exactly turned things around in his own neck of the woods so there's no real reason to believe he can do so for the entire country. Oh, and he can mention he was involved in a successful Olympics.

Republicans need to field somebody with real accomplishments next to their name. Guilliani gets a nod because of 9/11. He's also doomed because he's got more skeletons in his closet than a serial killer with OCD due to NY politics. Which is a shame, because I actually think he'd do a pretty good job. Bobby Jindahll gets a nod because he's helped rebuild after Katrina and gets bonus points for being a minority. He's just not quite ripe yet and the republicans would be smart to grow him a little bit more and put some grey in his hair. 2016 I think really will be a sweet-spot for him (again, assuming he did everything on the up-and-up with the Katrina reconstruction money that poured in). General Petreaus gets the nod (IF the wars turn out ok) because the U.S. has tremendous respect for its troops at the moment and are sick of all the pseudo-military service that keeps being flouted.

You want a real darkhorse presidential candidate? Steven Chu, the secretary of energy (although he'll probably go Democrat so don't expect him until 2016 and even then only if he gets a taste for politics). He's a technocrat in what can arguably be considered the most important concern of our time. He has ties to Korea and China, the most important diplomatic region in world atm (Middle East is a black hole for diplomacy - a "diplomatic solution" is fine and dandy, but it'll be on their timetable and not ours). If he picks a *strong* military-oriented VP (I actually liked General Clark quite a bit - I don't understand why he didn't do better in the primaries) he could be a contender (IF he choses to do so, he very well may want to stay in the academic world), but that's more for Democrat I'm guessing than th OP's original question about Republicans.

1-UP wrote:

sebster wrote:
Kennedy still won. Obama was black (and a secret muslim!). The Mormon thing will cost him some votes among core Republican groups, but I don’t think it’d be a significant problem.

Romney’s problem is going to be his ability to attract votes outside of the core of Republicans. There would have to be a major protest movement for him to start picking up enough votes in swing states.

Kennedy had a tremendous amount of charisma and charm, Romney doesn't. Oh he's got some, but there's a difference between "CEO" charisma and "World Leader" charisma. Romney has the former, Kennedy had the latter, with BO being somewhere inbetween.

BO's mixed race heritage was a tremendous benefit to him. While there are elements in the country that under NO circumstance want to see any minority in power (Interestingly, some white supremecist groups game out in favor of BO, assuming that a black man as president would whip their followers into the frenzy required to start some sort of revolution), the majority felt it was time to have somebody other than a white male in charge. This means pretty much EVERY minority group lined up behind BO and gave them their support. Addionally, Barack was "White" enough not to scare away many potential voters who would have balked at putting somebody TOO different in power. Unfortunately for him, I suspect this was a one-time alignment, but his incumbancy will probably cancel out the voter apathy that will arise now that a bi-racial man in the White House isn't a new thing.

Romney being a Mormon is completely different. Nobody feels the Mormons are owed anything so he won't pick up votes on that front. Additionally, Mormons in this country are *not* viewed with complete acceptance, partially because of their own secrecy. Folks in Utah think they're the norm and that's fine. Utah is a very small state vote-wise. Folks in the midwest think they're on the weird side, and they don't vote for weird. I don't think it will necessarily drive folks to vote Democrat in droves, but I do think it will hamper fund-raising and enthusiasm for the Republicans. When folks aren't enthusiastic about their candidate and the incumbant isn't screwing things up royally, they stay home.

Romney's biggest problem though is he's basically John Kerry - a generic candidate who's main draw for votes is the D or R next to his name. He's got a *little* bit of juice because he's a businessman in a time period where the economy is the #1 worry, but he hasn't exactly turned things around in his own neck of the woods so there's no real reason to believe he can do so for the entire country. Oh, and he can mention he was involved in a successful Olympics.

Republicans need to field somebody with real accomplishments next to their name. Guilliani gets a nod because of 9/11. He's also doomed because he's got more skeletons in his closet than a serial killer with OCD due to NY politics. Which is a shame, because I actually think he'd do a pretty good job. Bobby Jindahll gets a nod because he's helped rebuild after Katrina and gets bonus points for being a minority. He's just not quite ripe yet and the republicans would be smart to grow him a little bit more and put some grey in his hair. 2016 I think really will be a sweet-spot for him (again, assuming he did everything on the up-and-up with the Katrina reconstruction money that poured in). General Petreaus gets the nod (IF the wars turn out ok) because the U.S. has tremendous respect for its troops at the moment and are sick of all the pseudo-military service that keeps being flouted.

You want a real darkhorse presidential candidate? Steven Chu, the secretary of energy (although he'll probably go Democrat so don't expect him until 2016 and even then only if he gets a taste for politics). He's a technocrat in what can arguably be considered the most important concern of our time. He has ties to Korea and China, the most important diplomatic region in world atm (Middle East is a black hole for diplomacy - a "diplomatic solution" is fine and dandy, but it'll be on their timetable and not ours). If he picks a *strong* military-oriented VP (I actually liked General Clark quite a bit - I don't understand why he didn't do better in the primaries) he could be a contender (IF he choses to do so, he very well may want to stay in the academic world), but that's more for Democrat I'm guessing than th OP's original question about Republicans.

Chu sucks balls. H's knowledegeable about physics but has sucked royally with the BP crisis.

Frazzled wrote:
Chu sucks balls. H's knowledegeable about physics but has sucked royally with the BP crisis.

You might be right, but he's got plenty of time to make decisions to put things right so I wouldn't count him out yet. He COULD still screw up FEMA/Katrina style, but he's not nailed yet.

The BP spill is mostly an indication of the currently borked status we're at regarding off-shore drilling, but really energy exploitation in general. Nobody is going to blame Chu for the Deepwater's problems because it's looking like BP took shortcuts and Chu's only been around a year and a half or so. Most of the trouble Chu is going to have is the decidely ineffective response and reliance on BP itself to fix the problem. Chu could use this as an opporunity to put mechanisms/agencies/equipement into place that would greatly increase the amount of clout the U.S. gov has over oil companies (aside from the option to lease or not to lease, which is pretty political). I'm not saying something like that is right or wrong, but he IS in a position to make a power play IF he wants to. If he starts bemoaning the lack of infrastructure in place and how he's lacking to tools to do what needs to be done, he'll have the opportunity to have massive influence. Look at Homeland Security as a prototype.

Again, this assumes he WANTS the power and he's competent enough to put together something that will be (or at least appear) effective. It's a long shot, but it's a fun exercise in speculation.

1-UP wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Chu sucks balls. H's knowledegeable about physics but has sucked royally with the BP crisis.

You might be right, but he's got plenty of time to make decisions to put things right so I wouldn't count him out yet. He COULD still screw up FEMA/Katrina style, but he's not nailed yet.

He's already screwed up. Anyone at all related to the government response will get 0 votes from the Gulf Coast states. He's dead man walking if he tries. And thats BEFORE the horror show of what is called Cap and Trade.