US election 2012
- Thread starter savoloysam
- Start date
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
I don't know how anyone can watch US debates, I mean the UK ones a few years back were bad enough, (I agree with nick etc) but the US ones are just pure gash
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Apparently Obama is likely to win the five richest states and Romney the five poorest states
weltweit
Well-Known Member
The second debate is available in video here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133291n&tag=strip
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50133291n&tag=strip
I watched the second half of the debate live on BBC World News. Obama did a better job this time. Romney tried hard to give himself a softer image but it didn't work, Obama managed to end the debate by talking about Romney's 47% gaff that was leaked a few weeks back.
My conclusion is that Obama is no great shakes but a Romney presidency would be an absolute nightmare for anyone who isn't a millionaire.
My conclusion is that Obama is no great shakes but a Romney presidency would be an absolute nightmare for anyone who isn't a millionaire.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Fox are crying foul because the moderator caught Romney in a lie - about the Benghazi attack. She apparently should have let Romney lie. 
The best thing to come out of the debate is the binders full of women comment. Pure gold.
The best thing to come out of the debate is the binders full of women comment. Pure gold.
You have to remember that both the Democrats and Republicans are Tory parties. The poor are not represented in American politics.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
The middle class rhetoric is all over here too. It gets interspersed with 'hard working families' as well, of course - can't forget the worthy poor 
But it's all part of the American Dream over there: anyone can become a millionaire, or, at the very least, middle class.
It's a terrible indictment of the whole system that they are able to bang on and on about helping the middle class, and aiming to help more people make it into the middle class, without it drawing attention to the fact that in order to have a middle class you need the poor. Everyone is so enamoured with the idea of aspiring to the middle class (the definition of which changes over time, it seems), the presence of a vast swathe of the working class is perfectly acceptable.
But it's all part of the American Dream over there: anyone can become a millionaire, or, at the very least, middle class.It's a terrible indictment of the whole system that they are able to bang on and on about helping the middle class, and aiming to help more people make it into the middle class, without it drawing attention to the fact that in order to have a middle class you need the poor. Everyone is so enamoured with the idea of aspiring to the middle class (the definition of which changes over time, it seems), the presence of a vast swathe of the working class is perfectly acceptable.
petee
no gods, no malarkey
Low income people are less likely to vote. They don't make campaign contributions. And most Americans consider themselves middle class even if they're fairly rich or poor. So the pitch is always to the middle class & the poor are ignored.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Also, anyone on the left it now referred as "liberal" by the Tory press. I'm not a fucking liberal!The middle class rhetoric is all over here too. It gets interspersed with 'hard working families' as well, of course - can't forget the worthy poor
It's a terrible indictment of the whole system that they are able to bang on and on about helping the middle class, and aiming to help more people make it into the middle class, without it drawing attention to the fact that in order to have a middle class you need the poor. Everyone is so enamoured with the idea of aspiring to the middle class (the definition of which changes over time, it seems), the presence of a vast swathe of the working class is perfectly acceptable.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
"Middle class" seems to have simply morphed into "people who pay tax" in this campaign, though I think it's been happening for a while. There are "the poor" who "we" have to provide with Medicare, or not, or give tough love or something but they're not "us". There are the "working class" who are also not us and seems to be basically people who used to work in factories but have lost their jobs due to the terrible economic policies of the other candidate. But the point of the "middle class" in election rhetoric seems to be how terribly crushed it is by taxes, as opposed to the previous two, and this is portrayed as just as much an injustice as being outsourced out of a car plant etc. This hasn't been the definition forever.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
I was talking to a real life American 
yesterday about this, and I asked them how they would define what middle class is, and whether they believe themselves to be middle class. Over here, they'd be working class, but over there they are lower-middle class. He said that as he understands it, it's mostly just an economic bracketing, throwing in some more traditional markers into the mix like living in suburbs and so on (although that is a flexible definition because of geographic differences, richer cities having more middle class living in the centre, and so on).
It's important for the candidates to keep pushing the idea of the middle class, because it allows for the existence of the upper class elites and the working class and poor, without too much dissent. If you're middle class, well you might not be really, really rich, and you might not agree with those at the top being so powerful and untouchable, but at least you're comfortable, and at least you're not poor. For the poor, the national psyche is tuned into the myth that America gives you the opportunity to rise up from the bottom and make it into the middle class, and one day, if luck is on your side, you might just make it there. All this continued rhetoric about shoring up the middle class helps maintain that, hopefully with a view to stifling some of the middle class murmurings and discontent that has come out through things like the OWS movement. They can get away with ignoring the working class and poor, because the myth of America has it that they could become middle class anyway, and in fact some of them probably see themselves as middle class already.
yesterday about this, and I asked them how they would define what middle class is, and whether they believe themselves to be middle class. Over here, they'd be working class, but over there they are lower-middle class. He said that as he understands it, it's mostly just an economic bracketing, throwing in some more traditional markers into the mix like living in suburbs and so on (although that is a flexible definition because of geographic differences, richer cities having more middle class living in the centre, and so on).It's important for the candidates to keep pushing the idea of the middle class, because it allows for the existence of the upper class elites and the working class and poor, without too much dissent. If you're middle class, well you might not be really, really rich, and you might not agree with those at the top being so powerful and untouchable, but at least you're comfortable, and at least you're not poor. For the poor, the national psyche is tuned into the myth that America gives you the opportunity to rise up from the bottom and make it into the middle class, and one day, if luck is on your side, you might just make it there. All this continued rhetoric about shoring up the middle class helps maintain that, hopefully with a view to stifling some of the middle class murmurings and discontent that has come out through things like the OWS movement. They can get away with ignoring the working class and poor, because the myth of America has it that they could become middle class anyway, and in fact some of them probably see themselves as middle class already.
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
Binders of women !!
Reading about this today - Romney claimed that he actively asked his staff to find more women for senior posts - what actually happened was that he was given a binder with details of suitably qualified women after he was elected and basically ignored it - the research was not by him or his staff
petee
no gods, no malarkey
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Mitt says in his little speech to them that it's not, so it mustn't be, and we all know he wouldn't lie
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Saw on twitter just, that Gallop have Mitt increasing his lead by (or to, can't remember) 7 points. There was no link though, so it could have been someone blowing smoke out their arse (as they are wont to do). Still...
Saw on twitter just, that Gallop have Mitt increasing his lead by (or to, can't remember) 7 points. There was no link though, so it could have been someone blowing smoke out their arse (as they are wont to do). Still...
Balbi
Hey, Dean Yager!
Yup, the whole Citizens United judgement has pretty much blown all funding and lobbying to fuckery in the states.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx
7% Romney lead on unregistered "likely" voters.
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
mentioned this before, but Romney doesn't seem to be getting much stick about dodging the Vietnam war by moving to France and being a Mormon missionary - seen a bit of chat on Twitter about it - democrats could attack him on this easily as Obama is too young to have served in Vietnam
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx
7% Romney lead on unregistered "likely" voters.
Just seen this on twitter:
No link included (again), but I'd be interested to see what (who?) that refers to.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Perhaps it's because it's a dodgy path to go down, considering he was doing the standard Mormon 2 years overseas missionary thing. It's one thing to attack someone for dodging military service, but then it means having a go at their religious adherence? I'm not sure they would want to go there.
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
true, but Mormons aren't real Christians (so most American Christians think) but it could get messy if they start accusing Obama of being a Muslim
Similar threads
