Who should (not will) win this election: Obama or Romney?

[BrainGlutton]

This is not a prediction-thread, we already have half a dozen of those running in the Elections forum. This is an argument-thread. Who will be better for America as POTUS in the 2013-2017 term, Obama (Dem) or Romney (Pub)? Pick your man/party/side and state your case. (If you want to argue for an independent or a third-party nominee, please do it elsewhere, we're having a serious discussion here, and this is not an election like 1992 or 2000 where any independent bid will be a game-changer.)

[Typo Knig]

Obama ought to win. (Is anyone who knows me on the SDMB surprised I'd say that?) He has had major acomplishments in his first term, against furious opposition. The Republicans crashed the economy once while in the White House, threatened to crash it again with the debt ceiling idiocy, and have essentially promised to repeat at least one of those bone-headed actions. Among many other bone-headed actions. Romney could be a saint and the R next to his name would keep me from voting for him. And he's no saint. Obama is not perfect, and has fallen short in many ways, but he is megaparsecs better than the alternative.

[kaylasdad99]

There isn't even an argument to be had. America must never again have a Republican in the presidency.

President Obama should win another term.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

This is not a prediction-thread, we already have half a dozen of those running in the Elections forum. This is an argument-thread. Who will be better for America as POTUS in the 2013-2017 term, Obama (Dem) or Romney (Pub)? Pick your man/party/side and state your case. (If you want to argue for an independent or a third-party nominee, please do it elsewhere, we're having a serious discussion here, and this is not an election like 1992 or 2000 where any independent bid will be a game-changer.)

It depends. If Republicans take the Senate and keep the House, I would prefer Obama presidency. If Republicans do not manage to get control of the Senate, then I would prefer Romney as president.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Terr

It depends. If Republicans take the Senate and keep the House, I would prefer Obama presidency. If Republicans do not manage to get control of the Senate, then I would prefer Romney as president.

Please add an actual argument for the value of division of partisan control between the branches.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Please add an actual argument for the value of division of partisan control between the branches.

Gridlock. I consider it a positive for the country. Nothing and no one is safe while the Congress is in session and can actually pass laws.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Terr

Gridlock. I consider it a positive for the country. Nothing and no one is safe while the Congress is in session and can actually pass laws.

Now please add an argument for that; I hope you do not think it is self-evident.

[snowthx]

Rongney should have an easier time defeating Obama. With the right-wing spin machine in overdrive since 2008, pubbies united against Obama on everything, republican obstructionism and intent on making things worse so they can pin bad news on him - they have been moderately successful at demonizing the president.

Fortunately, there is a large reservoir of people who remember the 8 years of republican ineptitude and failed policies that got us into much of this mess. We just need to keep pointing to republican failure and to Obama's successes (limted as they are by the political climate), and hopefully enuf people will continue to vote for progress.

Obama should win.

[Little Nemo]

Obama. Even if he does nothing in his second term, he's still preferable to Romney letting the conservatives back in to make things worse.

Worst case scenario: Romney gets elected and puts a fifth hard-core conservative on the Supreme Court. Might as well not bother holding elections for the next twenty years because the conservatives will just run the country from the court.

[Gangster Octopus]

Obama, while he has not been ideal in some ways, he has accomplished a lot and we are on the right track with him.

[Gagundathar]

I voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 and will do so this autumn.
Therefore, it should be apparent that I think Mr. Obama should win the election.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar

I voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 and will do so this autumn.
Therefore, it should be apparent that I think Mr. Obama should win the election.

Good, good, but that's only a statement -- please add an argument. This forum ain't IMHO, it's a GD spinoff.

[Gukumatz]

Obama. He has shown that he is at worst competent and diplomatic enough to do right by the office. He might be slow, but he's going in the right direction and will get there eventually. I view replacing him, no matter the candidate, as a substantial risk for only at best a very minor reward.

The US spent 9 1/2 years falling down the stairs a step at a time. (I'm including the last year and a half of the Clinton administration in that figure.) As a non-American it doesn't matter to me if the candidate is the speediest, flashiest, smoothest talker, biggest believer or that he never experiences setbacks. The only thing that matters is that he keeps climbing and doesn't get turned around.

[RickG]

Obama (I'm a Democrat).

My three top reasons:

1) PPACA (oh, fine, Obamacare) is already having positive effects, and it needs to proceed to full implementation. That might not happen under Romney.
2) SCOTUS. Another hard right Justice would be a disaster for civil rights (especially voting rights), environmental regulation, regulation in general, and probably half a dozen other things I can't think of at the moment.
3) Foreign policy and defense. I'm not sure whether Romney is just pandering, but his foreign policy and defense statements so far smack of someone who has lived through the last 25 years without reading a newspaper. Russia is our biggest threat? We need to have the world's most powerful military? As if we don't already spend as much as the rest of the world combined? I'm deeply disturbed by Obama's judge-jury-and-executioner shtick with al Qaeda suspects and UAVs, but he does seem to have raised our standing in the world through mostly sane diplomatic efforts (plus the wisdom to pick HRC as Sec of State). I don't want our foreign policy handed back over to the neocons (John Bolton at State? *shudder*)

Plus, I'm still feeling like Romney's reported behavior as a teenager, coupled with his apparent incapacity to seem as if he learned any lessons from it, indicates a lack of human empathy that is a little too far to the sociopathic end of the spectrum than I am quite comfortable with. (I assume all politicians are somewhat sociopathic, just because they can lie/dissemble so shamelessly.)

[Jophiel]

Obama.

Romney will be a rubber stamp presidency for a Congress increasingly controlled by its most extreme factions. Boehner has been one of the weakest Speakers in my memory for actually controlling the House and I wouldn't trust him to stop the flow of insanity so at least with Obama I know it'll have a check.

Admittedly, this will depend on the Senate make-up but I wouldn't vote for Romney and just hope the Senate doesn't flip.

[Chronos]

Quoth Terr:

Gridlock. I consider it a positive for the country. Nothing and no one is safe while the Congress is in session and can actually pass laws.

A country will have a government. If a country does not have a government, one will emerge. And the one that emerges will probably be far worse than the one we have right now. We could end up with the country being run by the Mafia, or by brutal, petty warlords, or by a plutocracy of big businesses. By crippling the government we have, you're asking for one of these other systems to take its place.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Chronos

A country will have a government. If a country does not have a government, one will emerge. And the one that emerges will probably be far worse than the one we have right now. We could end up with the country being run by the Mafia, or by brutal, petty warlords, or by a plutocracy of big businesses. By crippling the government we have, you're asking for one of these other systems to take its place.

Terr stated his reasons. You may not agree with his reasons but this isn't the place to debate them. Start another thread if you want to do that.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Terr stated his reasons. You may not agree with his reasons but this isn't the place to debate them. Start another thread if you want to do that.

No, this is the place to debate them. Anything relevant to the Obama-vs.-Romney choice is open for debate here.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Chronos

A country will have a government. If a country does not have a government, one will emerge. And the one that emerges will probably be far worse than the one we have right now. We could end up with the country being run by the Mafia, or by brutal, petty warlords, or by a plutocracy of big businesses. By crippling the government we have, you're asking for one of these other systems to take its place.

I do not consider it horrible for the federal overlords to not be able to pass any laws for a while. If that results in a power vacuum, I will be happy to see local governments fill it.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Terr

I do not consider it horrible for the federal overlords to not be able to pass any laws for a while. If that results in a power vacuum, I will be happy to see local governments fill it.

"States' Rights" is a phrase/concept with a history in this country that is neither happy nor admirable.

[Buck Godot]

I am definitely in favor of Obama and will vote for him in the fall, but there is a tiny voice that says that the country might be better under Romney for just the opposite reason as that expressed by Terr. With another Obama term, the Republicans will continue to put party ahead of country and oppose everything he does with the result of nothing getting done. With Romney in charge, I don't think the Democrats will be as blindly partisan and so it might be possible to move the country forward on some of the less controversial legislation, such as raising the debt ceiling.

The flaws in this reasoning is first that the Republicans may have irrevocably gone over to the crazy side, and are actually serious about destroying the government, rather than just using it as an attack against Obama, and Romney would let that legislation pass. Also there is the possibility that the Democrats wanting revenge for four years of obstructionism will put on their own 24/7 filibuster, meaning that we will have unending gridlock for the foreseeable future. For these reasons I have to go with Obama. Also one more pro business justice on the supreme court and we might as well just give up and restart as a plutocracy.

Originally Posted by Terr

I do not consider it horrible for the federal overlords to not be able to pass any laws for a while. If that results in a power vacuum, I will be happy to see local governments fill it.

Have you seen some of the legislation put out by local governments? It makes Sarah Palin look like Solomon the wise. As bad as the pettiness and corruption is as the Federal level it's nothing compared to the local level.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

Have you seen some of the legislation put out by local governments? It makes Sarah Palin look like Solomon the wise. As bad as the pettiness and corruption is as the Federal level it's nothing compared to the local level.

If you don't like your local government, it's fairly easy to escape it. Much harder to do so with the federal government.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by Terr

If you don't like your local government, it's fairly easy to escape it. Much harder to do so with the federal government.

The force field surrounding the U.S. is strong, but can be breached. PM me and I'll recommend some weak points where you're most likely to escape.

[DrumBum]

Originally Posted by Terr

If you don't like your local government, it's fairly easy to escape it.

Might I inquire as to how this is done ? Given the weakness in the job and housing market in much of the US, I do not see much mobility amongst the population.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

Have you seen some of the legislation put out by local governments? It makes Sarah Palin look like Solomon the wise. As bad as the pettiness and corruption is as the Federal level it's nothing compared to the local level.

Indeed.

[hogarth]

Obama. He's the incumbent and he hasn't done anything specifically horrible and the economy hasn't tanked much further during his term.

[Rand Rover]

Brainglutton, I commend you to trying to get people to make arguments, but you need to realize that your chances of success are pretty low. Hardly anyone around here knows how to construct an actual argument.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Brainglutton, I commend you to trying to get people to make arguments, but you need to realize that your chances of success are pretty low. Hardly anyone around here knows how to construct an actual argument.

That has not been my experience in GD, nor in Elections, nor even in CS or the Pit. If it has been yours, the problem lies in your own ability to perceive/appreciate arguments.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

That has not been my experience in GD, nor in Elections, nor even in CS or the Pit. If it has been yours, the problem lies in your own ability to perceive/appreciate arguments.

Or in yours.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Or in yours.

I'm a lawyer. I know what argument is and is not. And a Doper of many years' standing, and no intelligent and fair-minded Doper who knows my username will fail to associate it with well-constructed (most of the time) arguments.

[otternell]

Obama. I didn't vote for him before, but I'm pretty disgusted with the state of the republican party lately.

I believe that smaller gov't is better for the people, but I disagree with the concept of small gov't that the republicans hold. It seems that they believe personal lives should be regulated and not businesses, and I am the opposite.

Plus all that nonsense during the primary about abolish the EPA really bothered me. This is what they really truly want, and I don't think corporations can be trusted to do anything that doesn't immediately improve their bottom line.

And lately, all the contraception furor really ticks me off. The republicans at both state and federal levels have decided that if an employer's religious sensibilities are offended, they can decide not to include insurance coverage a perfectly legitimate BC prescription. I disagree with that, and see it as allowing my employer to dictate terms to me that are not of my religion. Again, they side with corporations over people.

[IceQube]

Originally Posted by otternell

Again, they side with corporations over people.

Oxymoron: corporations are people.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by IceQube

Oxymoron: corporations are people.

No, they aren't. Reality trumps law.

[IceQube]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

No, they aren't. Reality trumps law.

Whoosh

[Wesley Clark]

The only situation I can think of where a Romney win would be a good idea is if he turns out to be what the cynics claim he is, a competent technocrat who just panders to the tea party base but once in power will govern the country competently and completely disavow the rhetoric he is currently pandering with.

I have no idea if that is true (I have no idea what his track record was in MA).

But evenso, I don't think his policies are good for the country. Corporations and the wealthy are rolling in money, but Romney seems to think tax cuts for them will spur economic growth. His economic opinions seem to be based on political ideology rather than pragmatism.

If Romney turns out to be a pragmatist, it wouldn't be to bad if he won. But I still think Obama is the more pragmatic political leader of the two.

However overturning the ACA will not be good for the country because that was an attempt by Obama to bend the cost curve since long term medical costs are what are bankrupting the government. Also Obama has a very competent foreign policy. We are out of Iraq, winding down Afghanistan, Bin laden is dead, our reputation is better, etc.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

I have no idea if that is true (I have no idea what his track record was in MA).

Kinda "liberal," actually. That's why the Tea Parties hate him so much. (Well, that and his religion.) But they hate Obama more.

[DrumBum]

While I am still listening to what Gov Romney has to say I believe Pres. Obama should be elected
for another term. Some of my reasons echo comments already posted but I suspect the OP will not let me
get away with that so...

Admittedly, the bar is set pretty low for rating any president but overall I think he has done a good job,
especially in foreign affairs and helping revive segments of the economy. He has had to backtrack on a
few promises he made in 2008 but I see that as a necessary part of leading.

The GOP has been taken over by the crazies, many of whom do not seem to want to govern at all, so these
members of Congress are merely there to collect a pretty sizable paycheck and await the call from a Fox
News producer. Sadly, this is consequence of an inattentive electorate in the interim elections so this may
stick around for a while until more voters start to pay attention. Assuming the GOP retains a majority in the
House, having a Democratic President should help to mitigate some of the more egregious actions they will
almost certainly attempt.

On a purely selfish level, Pres. Obama getting re-elected would probably be good for my investments since Wall
Street hates change. Assuming, the GOP bosses can reign in the children in the Tea Party wing and not
have a repeat of the debt ceiling fiasco - that cost me a few bucks - things should be fairly stable.

[BobLibDem]

I believe an Obama win is absolutely essential. Not so much because he has done a decent job of governing despite having the Republicans being all too eager to sabotage the nation in order to hurt him politically. Not so much as he has shown what can be done with small scale military action (bin Laden, Libya) as opposed to large scale disasters (Iraq). Not so much because the economy is slowly turning around.

It is essential because Mitt Romney must be defeated. Not merely because Romney has no convictions other than that Mitt Romney should be president. Not merely because Romney will sign whatever the GOP plops on his desk. It is essential that Republicans not be able to fill Supreme Court vacancies. It is essential that embracing the right wing agenda be seen as a fatal decision. It is essential that the Bush tax cuts NOT be made permanent. It is essential that attacks on women's rights not gain any traction. It is essential that government spending not be cut irresponsibly. I don't trust Mitt Romney to do the right thing in ANY situation. At the very least, Obama has good instincts about most things. Not that I agree with everything he says, but holy shit the alternative is utter disaster.

[otternell]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

I believe an Obama win is absolutely essential. Not so much because he has done a decent job of governing despite having the Republicans being all too eager to sabotage the nation in order to hurt him politically. Not so much as he has shown what can be done with small scale military action (bin Laden, Libya) as opposed to large scale disasters (Iraq). Not so much because the economy is slowly turning around.

It is essential because Mitt Romney must be defeated. Not merely because Romney has no convictions other than that Mitt Romney should be president. Not merely because Romney will sign whatever the GOP plops on his desk. It is essential that Republicans not be able to fill Supreme Court vacancies. It is essential that embracing the right wing agenda be seen as a fatal decision. It is essential that the Bush tax cuts NOT be made permanent. It is essential that attacks on women's rights not gain any traction. It is essential that government spending not be cut irresponsibly. I don't trust Mitt Romney to do the right thing in ANY situation. At the very least, Obama has good instincts about most things. Not that I agree with everything he says, but holy shit the alternative is utter disaster.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter!

[Prelude to Fascination]

Obama without a doubt. He's turning the economy around. Sure it's slow, but given the depth of this recession (Krugman calls it a depression - cite: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...think-20120502), it shouldn't be surprising it's taking years to recover. But we are recovering, in large part due to the stimulus.

On the other hand, when Romney says something as stupid as "I'm not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was," (0:14 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ6wF7PTyEY), I believe he'll say anything to get the vote. Add the other garbage said on his behalf (the "Etch-a-Sketch" moment), as well as other quotes, his kowtowing to the extreme elements, like Trump and the birthers, it all adds up to me that Romeny's a coward, a liar, and virtually a puppet of the right.

No good would come from a Romeny presidency. While Obama certainly has had his faults (I believe in compromise, but he took it too far and should've been more forceful when it was clear the GOP would barely acknowledge his presence in the room), I believe Obama is clearly the better choice. Not perfect, but I give him a passing grade.

[BlinkingDuck]

As someone who has frequently voted (R) in the past...

Obama.

After the last Republican performance in the debt ceiling crisis of last year, I found the Republican performance bordering on if not actually crossing into treason. It was certainly clear they did not care about the United States of America.

Until they apologise for this abhorent behavior/change their ways so that I can be assurred that they actually care about the United States of Amercia/are not treasonous scum...I will NEVER vote Republican again.

In short, Republicans cannot be trusted with the Office of President...and should not have it for the good of the United States.

[foolsguinea]

Is Romney going to inexplicably nominate Dennis Kucinich as his running mate? No? How about Jerry Brown? Bernie Sanders?

So long as Mitt Rmoney continues to be the incarnation of economic elitism, then Obama is clearly the lesser evil in the near term. I'm not convinced either of them is good, but what use is there to me in voting for a greater evil?

[Revtim]

Obama, because I agree with him on about 60 percent of the issues, as opposed to 25 percent or so with Romney.

[Ravenman]

As John McLaughlin would say: "Wrong! The real answer is: there should be no favorite in this race."

Obama has a lot of things going for him: incumbency, a proven campaigner, economy that's slowly rebounding. Obama versus generic Republican should be a comfortable win for Obama.

Romney is not a generic Republican. He's his own candidate. He defeated a weak field and still has some challenges ahead of him, but as of this moment, he has been doing well on closing the gap on the popular vote. I think his biggest challenge to come is how to deal with the eat-their-young Tea Party types who would rather nominate losers like "I am not a witch" and hand elections over to Dems on a silver platter, rather than swallow a bit of pride and unite in favor of a Republican candidate who can win but might not be 110% Tea Party approved. If Romney can balance the short-sightedness of these extremists while appealing to moderates, that's an impressive feat and he may deserve the win.

However, I'm not convinced Romney will be able to do that.

[2ManyTacos]

Obama

Everything that needs to be said about why Obama should win reelection has already been echoed in this thread. The bottom line is that this country can never again have another Republican in the Oval Office, period.

The two biggest reasons, for me personally, that I want another four years for Obama are that (1) I'm a huge supporter of the ACA and I want to see it fully implemented, and (2) the SCOTUS needs to be shaken up. Seriously, that's probably the most far-reaching dilemma in another GOP presidency; somebody said it earlier, but if we get another conservative on the SCOTUS bench, we might as well hang up our country right now. An unrestrained far-right agenda from the Court would absolutely decimate the nation.

[WillFarnaby]

Since neither will stem the growing debt or end the war on foreign brown people they would both be disastrous for the country.

The only positive I can think of is if Obama is elected is there will be opposition to the all-powerful executive. The role of the executive branch has far outgrown its constitutional bounds and must be put in its place. Only the Republicans have a constituency that is opposed to the growth of executive power, especially in the hands of a Democrat. It is in the Democrat's DNA to either grow the office or sit idly as power is wrenched from the people. We saw that party flopping around like a fish for 8 years under GWB.

If Romney is elected the conservative Republicans will go back to sleep and the Democrats will reassume their role of feckless lackeys.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Only the Republicans have a constituency that is opposed to the growth of executive power, especially in the hands of a Democrat. It is in the Democrat's DNA to either grow the office or sit idly as power is wrenched from the people. We saw that party flopping around like a fish for 8 years under GWB.

We also saw executive power grow during those 8 years while the Republican constituency did nothing to stop it. The question of the proper division of power between the legislative and executive branches (as distinct from the division of power between federal and state governments, or between government as such and the private sector as such, etc.) is one that cuts across both party lines and ideological lines, it always has. Generally the party that holds the WH at the moment wants a strong executive now and changes position when it's out.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

We also saw executive power grow during those 8 years while the Republican constituency did nothing to stop it. The question of the proper division of power between the legislative and executive branches (as distinct from the division of power between federal and state governments, or between government as such and the private sector as such, etc.) is one that cuts across both party lines and ideological lines, it always has. Generally the party that holds the WH at the moment wants a strong executive now and changes position when it's out.

No. The democrats do nothing to stop the growth of executive power no matter who is president. They seek to strengthen the executive branch when in power and do nothing when a president like GWB grabs power. This is because they idolize Wilson and TR. They believe in a strong executive on ideological grounds while conservative Republicans oppose a strong executive on ideological grounds. The neocons are wilsonians (who like tax breaks) in moderate Republican clothing. The Republicans of today are not the Republicans of the GWB era.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

No. The democrats do nothing to stop the growth of executive power no matter who is president. They seek to strengthen the executive branch when in power and do nothing when a president like GWB grabs power. This is because they idolize Wilson and TR. They believe in a strong executive on ideological grounds while conservative Republicans oppose a strong executive on ideological grounds. The neocons are wilsonians (who like tax breaks) in moderate Republican clothing. The Republicans of today are not the Republicans of the GWB era.

Wait, what? The Republicans of the GWB era were neocons, or predominated/led by such. How are the Pubs of today any different from those of just four years ago?! Not because of the Tea Party, if that's what you're thinking; the question of executive vs. legislature as such appears nowhere on their signs, nowhere in their rhetoric, and appears to be largely beyond their comprehension anyway.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Wait, what? The Republicans of the GWB era were neocons, or predominated/led by such. How are the Pubs of today any different from those of just four years ago?! Not because of the Tea Party, if that's what you're thinking; the question of executive vs. legislature as such appears nowhere on their signs, nowhere in their rhetoric, and appears to be largely beyond their comprehension anyway.

You aren't listening closely enough then