At 7/8/12 10:47 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Not so sure about this. Last election there were tons of people saying the Bradley Effect would come in and throw a huge swing in McCain's favor. Yet, it didn't show up (or it turned the biggest landslide ever into just a solid victory.)

If it was the case that the Bradley Effect didn't occur last go around, how will it come around now? Especially with the white choice being part of a heretical cult? (not my views on Mormonism, just trying to reflect many people's view of the church)

At 7/8/12 01:46 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: People said this back in 08 and I didn't believe them then either. It makes no sense at this point: Obama done enough in office where if you quasi-didn't like him in 08 and still voted for him you have a fairly good reason not to vote for him this year. Besides, I could say the same thing about Romney's Mormonism if I wanted to, but that wouldn't be fair politics, would it?

The Mormon Bradley Effect
Brian, I don't think the social stigma about expressing negative feelings about Mormonism is as strong as expressing racial bias. So no, I don't think you could say the same thing about Romney's Mormonism. As for fair politics...I'm not talking about ideology but rather trends observed by political scientists so most questions are fair.

Camaro brings up a good point though that Romney's Mormonism may cause people on the radical right to stay home thereby either negating or masking the Bradley Effect if it is indeed in play.

It wasn't a factor in '08
Throughout the late '90s and first 8 years of '00 we were seeing the effect shrinking. So while most of the punditry was chattering about this, most political scientists I know where saying that it probably wouldn't be an issue. In '08 Obama was saying all the right things and was seen as a uniter. So none of my peers thought it would be in play.

Now 2012 is a different election. I think elements of Obama's administration (ie: Eric Holder), his proxies (ie: House Dems, media pundits) and even on occasion himself have polarized the country along racial lines. I don't think Obama has moved us forward in this regard but instead (sadly) regressed us. Thus I think it is entirely possible that Obama may have brought Bradley back into play after (ironically) killing it in '08. I mean if I can't have a conversation with an Obama supporter expressing my reasons for not voting for him that doesn't devolve into: "you don't like him because he's black!" There is something wrong and I think that will cause people to just quietly support the challenger.

The biggest sign I see indicating it may be a factor is Obama's campaign tactic of building a coalition of minority demographics. His campaign as totally written off the white working class as winning.

@ Brian
This is a re-election for Obama and as such the nature of the beast means Obama has a higher bar to clear than Romney in terms of how strong a candidate they both are. So I don't think Romney is so weak a candidate that he has no chance against Obama. Afterall, McCain in the final weeks of '08 was starting to pick-up enough momentum that had it not been for the financial collapse he could've won in a year when the weakest Democratic candidate had a shot.

At 7/9/12 10:09 AM, TheMason wrote: Camaro brings up a good point though that Romney's Mormonism may cause people on the radical right to stay home thereby either negating or masking the Bradley Effect if it is indeed in play.

Though my father (or I think it was him) noticed how the Baptists have kinda forgetten about Romney's Mormonism, when they otherwise would be leading the charge against it.

Now 2012 is a different election. I think elements of Obama's administration (ie: Eric Holder), his proxies (ie: House Dems, media pundits) and even on occasion himself have polarized the country along racial lines.

That was inevitable. Have an administration whose identity is that of a minority and a society still mired in racism (on both sides) and you're going to have some conflicts. It was only a matter of time where the white perspective and the black perspective conflicted, and unlike a white President who could easily get away with going for thw white perspective without much pause from anyone (who matters) Obama, being black, couldn't. If he picks a black perspective many whites will say he's being racist. If he picks a white perspective, many blacks will say he's being racist. The white group is so immense that it has to be catered to a bit, but Obama relies so much on the black vote that he has to pay attention to them as well.

I don't think Obama has moved us forward in this regard but instead (sadly) regressed us.

While I won't say Obama moved us forward, I starkly disagree that he's moved backward. If anything, Obama has broiught racism, its attendant tensions, and its conflicts to the forefront in an office that never had it. Racism and racial tension is still very prevalent in the United States, but the Obama Administration can't ignore it or treat it as something else like prior administrations could.

Think of it like moving from Portland Oregon to Charlotte North Carolina. In Portlnad there aren't that many minorities so you don't see racism very often. many people see such little racial interaction they mistakenly believe that Portland doesn't have racism. Go to Charlotte and you see racial interaction on a very routine basis. This inevitably leads to more visible racist events, and a belief that Charlote is just inherently more racist. Not true. Portland has very deep seeds of racism. I grew up in it and can spot it almost daily. Charlotte may have some vocal racists, but the average resident has more interaction and a better perspective of minorities than any Portlander does.

In short, don't let the recent visibility of race fool you into thinking racial issues weren't present before.

Thus I think it is entirely possible that Obama may have brought Bradley back into play after (ironically) killing it in '08. I mean if I can't have a conversation with an Obama supporter expressing my reasons for not voting for him that doesn't devolve into: "you don't like him because he's black!" There is something wrong and I think that will cause people to just quietly support the challenger.

I think the Bradley effect was muted a bit last election because there wasn't anywhere to really hide it. McCain was hardly the McCain that garnered a ton of respect. Because of that, the only noticeable quality McCain had that was superios was experience, and in the wake of the fake economy of the 2000s beginning to crash, more of the same wasn't strong to hold all who wanted to legitimize their tension.

Now, two things are different. First, Obama has a record through which people can place legitimacy in their dislike of him. Second, the tea party and the conservative uprising that occurred in 2009 gave rise to numerous surrogate racist beliefs that can hade a purely racially motivated vote, even if the beliefs are just as assinine.

With Obama's record, those who felt racial tension before and had a difficult time finding a place to hide it, or just didn't like the dud candidate the GOP put forward, now have something to latch on to. They can legitimately say their dislike of Obama comes from his economic policies, or healthcare, or foreign policy and so on.

Also, the rise of the birther movement, the emphasizing of his middle name, and the Obama is a Muslim claims pioneered by the Tea Party and popularized by pundits, the racists have a place to go with their racism that doesn't even require justification (in their minds).

I hope he loses, but if Romney doesn't expose of Obama and his lies and doesn't grow any balls, then I'm afraid that Obama might win again. It doesn't matter because America is going to impeach him and Biden if he wins re-election (that, or assassinate him). Take your pick.

At 7/9/12 07:50 PM, hateyou1 wrote: It doesn't matter because America is going to impeach him and Biden if he wins re-election (that, or assassinate him). Take your pick.

Are you fucking Stupid? Don't use the A word you moron we dont need the fucking Secret Service bothering the NG office. plus its not realistic you would have to fuck up royally to be impeached like Nixon or Clinton to get that.

At 7/10/12 12:43 AM, Mfan wrote: hang his hammer and sickle all over the nation , with him sporting a Stalin like mustache , maybe then the liberals in this nation will see his true intentions,

Wow... Just, wow.

At 7/10/12 01:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/10/12 12:43 AM, Mfan wrote: hang his hammer and sickle all over the nation , with him sporting a Stalin like mustache , maybe then the liberals in this nation will see his true intentions,

Wow... Just, wow.

The guy is obviously trolling you knw. Have you seen the communist thing in his sig?

I think Obama will mostly likely win. I think it's partly because he seems to appeal to the people of the country that are looking for freedom, especially same sex marriage. I think Mitt Romney opposes it, so that's going to be a major disadvantage in his case. I think the best way to appeal to people is to allow more freedom. Of course, Ron Paul was like that and he didn't do too well.

At 7/10/12 10:10 AM, Ericho wrote: I think Obama will mostly likely win. I think it's partly because he seems to appeal to the people of the country that are looking for freedom, especially same sex marriage. I think Mitt Romney opposes it, so that's going to be a major disadvantage in his case. I think the best way to appeal to people is to allow more freedom. Of course, Ron Paul was like that and he didn't do too well.

Don't overestimate American priories. As far as priorities go, freedom for others is very low on the list. In fact, there is a large (very dumb) group of people where the restriction of others' freedoms is very high on their list. However, usually the #1 priority is $. It's still wash as to where that will land in this election. The economy has been a mess, but Romney has done little to show he can fix it, and has done nothing to show he has any loyalty to the middle class.

At 7/10/12 10:10 AM, Ericho wrote: I think Obama will mostly likely win. I think it's partly because he seems to appeal to the people of the country that are looking for freedom, especially same sex marriage. I think Mitt Romney opposes it, so that's going to be a major disadvantage in his case. I think the best way to appeal to people is to allow more freedom. Of course, Ron Paul was like that and he didn't do too well.

I think the economy and our debt are more I important then that. Plus those are broken promises in my opinion. Has Obama legalized gay marriage? Did he say he was going to?

I am surprised that so many people believe that Obama win win the election. Hopefully, the are wrong and he loses.

At 7/11/12 02:13 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: I am surprised that so many people believe that Obama win win the election. Hopefully, the are wrong and he loses.

Yeah, there's these funny things called polls where you ask people who they would vote for, and in them, more people say they'd vote for Obama than people who say they'd vote for the other guy, which is kinda why so many people believe Obama will win the election.

At 7/10/12 06:03 PM, TheKlown wrote: I think the economy and our debt are more I important then that. Plus those are broken promises in my opinion. Has Obama legalized gay marriage? Did he say he was going to?

Well, like four or five states have legalized same sex marriage since he took office, so it's easily been better than any other President, although that could just be more of the fact that we, as a society, are becoming more used to it then his direct involvement.

I'll be surprised if Obama doesn't enact Martial Law by November, and delay the election. Even the Liberals are starting to turn on the Socialist pig..

At 7/14/12 11:22 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 7/10/12 06:03 PM, TheKlown wrote: I think the economy and our debt are more I important then that. Plus those are broken promises in my opinion. Has Obama legalized gay marriage? Did he say he was going to?

Well, like four or five states have legalized same sex marriage since he took office, so it's easily been better than any other President, although that could just be more of the fact that we, as a society, are becoming more used to it then his direct involvement.

Also, don't forget that Obama NEVER prmosied to legalize gay marriage. In fact, his first support of gay marriage was the announcement a couple months ago.

At 6/26/12 06:06 PM, TheKlown wrote: Make your prediction. I think Romney wins a close one over Obama.

Probably Obama, because he is so gonna beat Romney. However, he will just think nostalgic-like on the 2008 debate and the election when he won.

I will be so impressed if he wins.

I'm guessing Obama will win his attacks ads are pretty devastating and will take their toll right until election day, whatever the case though whoever wins we all lose.

Is Obama running on his record as president or is he just throwing attack ads at Romney because Obama doesn't have a positive record to run on?

At 7/31/12 12:59 PM, TheKlown wrote: Is Romney running on his record as president or is he just throwing attack ads at Obama because Romney doesn't have a positive record to run on?

There, fixed it.

They're both at best just okay, so I don't think the country will have all it's problems fixed or made significantly worse either way.

Obama is terrible, I really hope he does not win. We can not take four more years of high unemployment ,and a President going on talk shows.

At 7/31/12 04:20 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Obama is terrible, I really hope he does not win. We can not take four more years of high unemployment ,and a President going on talk shows.

If you're dumb enough to believe this... well... I'll take a medium orange soda and some fries with that.

At 7/23/12 02:14 PM, thedo12 wrote: I'm guessing Obama will win his attacks ads are pretty devastating and will take their toll right until election day, whatever the case though whoever wins we all lose.

Romney's campaign is better funded though, so while we haven't seen much yet we might in the weeks following up the election day.

At 7/31/12 12:59 PM, TheKlown wrote: Is Obama running on his record as president or is he just throwing attack ads at Romney because Obama doesn't have a positive record to run on?

I don't know, maybe you can take the effort to find out.

I personally do not believe Obama has retained the status of change and hope that he initially provided the people of America when he ran for president in 2008. With such a status back in that election, he was able to bring out a large group of voters and fire up his base. With that being said, Barack Obama simply has not been able to reach the less politically savvy voters that rely on upbeat presentation and celebratory figure.

Also, Obama is going to have to make the case that he can fulfill all of his goals in the second 4 years if he is reelected. As of now, unemployment is still over the 8% mark, and the closest we have gotten to 8% in 2012 is 8.1% (source: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/us/). Naturally, he has to show to the people that he can both fire up his base AND provide realistic solutions than can improve his first year track record. Because after another 4 years passes, the democratic party will have a much harder time trying to use both a new candidate and a way to show how they can improve.

Overall, it's going to come down to the swing states and the electoral votes. If Obama wins though, he will HAVE to show improvement, as the "4 years is not enough" argument will fail to hold up.

At 7/31/12 05:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/31/12 04:20 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Obama is terrible, I really hope he does not win. We can not take four more years of high unemployment ,and a President going on talk shows.

If you're dumb enough to believe this... well... I'll take a medium orange soda and some fries with that.

Believe what? That Obama went on talk shows and there has been high unemployment? I'm sorry, but that is the truth. He passed the stimulus and had a democratic congress, and yet here we are still over 8% unemployment.

If he couldn't do it with those advantages, how is going to manage without the fired up base, majority in Congress, and a completed first term with a failure to dip below the 8% unemployment rate?

Romney wins and the election will be found as rigged or America truly is the dumbest fucking place known to mankind.

What's the choices again ?

Sam Johnson ........ or John Sampson ?

2 sides of the same corrupt Big Business, Bankster supporting coin !

You are fucked either way !

Either way, we all lose.. Abolish centralized government!

I'm betting that Obama will definitely lose, unfortunately.

At 8/12/12 12:07 AM, Travis wrote: I will be voting for Obama...

If I was financially stable and out of college and Romney won, I would seriously consider moving to Canada.

the world wouldn't end if romney got elected

to think that it would be necessary to move to another country because a presidential candidate you didn't like got elected is asinine, especially since the president is more limited in what he can do than what most americans realize

At 8/12/12 08:16 AM, Travis wrote:

At 8/12/12 12:34 AM, psychopathy wrote:

At 8/12/12 12:07 AM, Travis wrote: I will be voting for Obama...

If I was financially stable and out of college and Romney won, I would seriously consider moving to Canada.

the world wouldn't end if romney got elected

to think that it would be necessary to move to another country because a presidential candidate you didn't like got elected is asinine, especially since the president is more limited in what he can do than what most americans realize

I never said the world would end.

then stop acting like it will if romney gets elected

Also I know that whoever holds majority in the senate and house matters more.

sometimes a strong president(think of FDR, abraham lincoln, reagan, or lyndon johnson) can basically manhandle congress and make it his bitch

i don't think romney can pull that off though

I still think Romney is an absolute joke...

who doesn't