If Iraq doesn't become an issue again in 2012 then what will become an issue?

[Kozmik]

The economy? If not the economy then what?

[lieu]

I'd say Iran is a pretty good possibility.

European debt crisis, unemployment recovery, western states uranium mining, Russian and Cuban environmental concerns from increased drilling activity, domestic pollution concerns from fracking, Arab Spring struggles with democracy, there's plenty of viable candidates.

[Kozmik]

Paradoxically, that was what the 2008 election was about.

[elfkin477]

How could it not be the economy? At this point I don't think it's even possible for a turn around that would have the issue off the table in November.

[BrainGlutton]

This is going to be a domestic-policy election year, not a foreign-policy election year.

[Kozmik]

The future never happened.

[dorsk188]

Citizen's United means this election cycle will be about lies propagated by mystery money.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by dorsk188

Citizen's United means this election cycle will be about lies propagated by mystery money.

That's every election everywhere.

[not what you'd expect]

I'm concerned about Iran. Worried about that recent sentence of death to the American from Arizona, among other things.

[Lantern]

Clearly the economy is going to be the biggest issue. After that it's hard to say. There are a whole set of national security issues of which Iran is probably the most important.

[John Mace]

It's going to be mainly about the economy. But if there is some major foreign policy issue that comes up, then that could easy take second place. If Iraq falls back into civil war, that could be a problem for Obama, even if there isn't really a good solution. Voters don't have to be rational.

[Chronos]

How could it not be the economy? At this point I don't think it's even possible for a turn around that would have the issue off the table in November.

Certainly not, because if there were such a turnaround, then the turnaround would become the major issue, and whoever was able to claim credit for it (almost certainly Obama) would coast to an easy landslide.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by John Mace

It's going to be mainly about the economy. But if there is some major foreign policy issue that comes up, then that could easy take second place. If Iraq falls back into civil war, that could be a problem for Obama, even if there isn't really a good solution. Voters don't have to be rational.

Of course, if we still had the troops there like before, enduring all the same shit as before at the same expense, that could be a problem for Obama in November too. Either way. Like you said, voters don't have to be rational. And sometimes, a president is faced with a problem that has no solution that does not present another problem.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Certainly not, because if there were such a turnaround, then the turnaround would become the major issue, and whoever was able to claim credit for it (almost certainly Obama) would coast to an easy landslide.

. . . And that makes an economic turnaround impossible why?

[Chronos]

I didn't say that an economic turnaround was impossible; I said that it was impossible for an economic turnaround to take the economy off the table as the major issue. Either we'll have a turnaround or we won't, and either way, the economy will still be the major issue.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by not what you'd expect

I'm concerned about Iran. Worried about that recent sentence of death to the American from Arizona, among other things.

If only either Obama or Romney has enough courage like Teddy Roosevelt and say "Hakmati alive or the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad dead!".

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

And sometimes, a president is faced with a problem that has no solution that does not present another problem.

Great presidents are faced with problems and then find solutions; presidents that are beyond greatness find problems and then find solutions.

[Kozmik]

"The issue in this race is not the economy."

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

The economy? If not the economy then what?

If the economy stays on it's current trajectory, then it's Iran closing in on Israel's timeline to take out their nukes. This has major global implications.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

If only either Obama or Romney has enough courage like Teddy Roosevelt and say "Hakmati alive or the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad dead!".

Which was followed up by Roosevelt paying Perdicaris's ransom. And it turned out Perdicaris wasn't even a US citizen. I prefer Obama stick to not making blustering chest-thumping statements for domestic political consumption and then giving the Iranians money.

[2ManyTacos]

Umm, Iran. I don't think there's any other option, really.

[XT]

Naw, the main issues will be the economy and unemployment. The election will hinge on these things. There will be plenty of political rhetoric and plenty of side issues (the price of gas, for instance), but really it hinges on how the economy is doing and what the unemployment rate is...and whether people think that we are going in the right direction right now, or whether they believe that we need a change to get us on the right track.

Everything else is just part of the circus, including Iran.

-XT

[Finagle]

Well, Romney is trying desperately to make it all about the price of gasoline. Based on my not having switched the TV channel fast enough last night, Fox News is going to be banging on that nail all summer ("Blonde female anchor breathlessly opining "And some analysts are saying gas will hit $4.20 by summer." ).

Even by election year standards, Romney's "Everything is Obama's fault" schtick is getting old.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos

Umm, Iran. I don't think there's any other option, really.

Afghanistan?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

I prefer Obama stick to not making blustering chest-thumping statements for domestic political consumption and then giving the Iranians money.

What, you can think of a better way to handle it?

[Kozmik]

Looks like I'm right about Afghanistan.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Looks like I'm right about Afghanistan.

We might have to declare victory and pull out . . .

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos

Umm, Iran. I don't think there's any other option, really.

. . . No option but for Iran to be an issue? Or what?

[Chronos]

Naw, the main issues will be the economy and unemployment. The election will hinge on these things. There will be plenty of political rhetoric and plenty of side issues (the price of gas, for instance)

Aren't unemployment and the cost of gas aspects of the economy? That's like saying that the decisive states will be the Midwest and Michigan.

[XT]

It would be helpful if, when you quote you'd actually attribute it to whoever posted what you are quoting, if you have a question about what they were saying.

Originally Posted by Chronos

Aren't unemployment and the cost of gas aspects of the economy?

It depends. Technically, I suppose they are all related, and that 'the economy' can be broken down into several aspects, including unemployment and the price of gas. But in people minds and perceptions they can be discrete issues (i.e. they can think of 'unemployment' as being a key issue while ALSO thinking of 'the economy' as being a key issue, even if in reality they are related). The price of gas, while also related, seems to be another thing that people think of separately, and seems to be a political football in THIS election so far, which is why I mentioned it.

So, I don't seem to be getting your objection here. Could you expand on it? Are you merely picking nits, or do you disagree with my overall statement that it's not going to be about foreign policy (Iraq or anything else) that the election will hinge on, but instead on domestic issues such as unemployment and the economy, with side shows focusing on stuff like the price of gas?

-XT

[Chronos]

Oh, I agree that those things are going to be most significant. I just thought it odd the way you were breaking it down like that.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Aren't unemployment and the cost of gas aspects of the economy? That's like saying that the decisive states will be the Midwest and Michigan.

I think the issue people are going to vote on is the issue of how the country is doing. That, and the economy.

[Tom Scud]

I think the issue people will vote on is which candidate they would rather have as president.

[Really Not All That Bright]

So, it turned out the correct answer was contraception. Who saw that coming?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

So, it turned out the correct answer was contraception. Who saw that coming?

Everyone who brought contraception. [rimshot]

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

So, it turned out the correct answer was contraception. Who saw that coming?

Well, the economy is improving, Obama kicked the Republicans all over the map on the national security issue, the number of people who get the heebie-jeebies about gay people is falling slowly but significantly, flag-burning is a non-issue, and personal scandals aren't sticking. So the usual GOP hot-button points aren't working.

When in doubt, talk about sex.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Well, the economy is improving, Obama kicked the Republicans all over the map on the national security issue, the number of people who get the heebie-jeebies about gay people is falling slowly but significantly, flag-burning is a non-issue, and personal scandals aren't sticking. So the usual GOP hot-button points aren't working.

When in doubt, talk about sex.

What ever happened to federal-deficit scaremongering!?

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What ever happened to federal-deficit scaremongering!?

They decided that they'd rather focus on cutting taxes than dealing with the deficit, plus people are more worried about their own debts than the national one.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

When in doubt, talk about sex.

Although scandal was never far from the White House, Clinton was handily reelected in 1996, buoyed by a recovering and increasingly strong economy.

"Bill Clinton"
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2007

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

So, it turned out the correct answer was contraception.

And same-sex marriage.

[Kozmik]

Obama: "This is not a distraction. This is what this campaign is going to be about." That's what the President said at the NATO press conference in Chicago in response to Mayor Cory A. Booker of Newark criticizing the Obama campaign going after Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital.

Romney: "What this election is about is the 23 million Americans who are still struggling to find work and the millions who have lost their homes and have fallen into poverty." That's what Mitt Romney said in response to the President. (Mitt Romney fails to mention that this happened before 2009.)

[Ravenman]

They are both wrong. They one key issue in this election is perception. Whichever candidate wins the perception issue will win the White House.

Mark my words.

[John Mace]

Perception of what?

[Chronos]

Right, if one candidate wins because he's perceived as being better for the economy, that means the economy was the key issue. If he wins because he's perceived as being better on national security, that means that national security was the key issue, etc.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Right, if one candidate wins because he's perceived as being better for the economy, that means the economy was the key issue. If he wins because he's perceived as being better on national security, that means that national security was the key issue, etc.

Well, this ain't gonna be a national-security election. Economy all the way.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Perception of what?

Just "perception." We're settling the presidential election by which candidate can better read an eye chart.

[Ethilrist]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

So, it turned out the correct answer was contraception.

Originally Posted by Kozmik

And same-sex marriage.

And the fanatical devotion to the pope. Everybody forgets that part.

The Birthers haven't shut up yet, so they WANT that to be an issue...

[BrainGlutton]

It ain't gonna be a social-issues election either. Economy all the way.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

They are both wrong. They one key issue in this election is perception. Whichever candidate wins the perception issue will win the White House.

Mark my words.

Yes.

Originally Posted by John Mace

Perception of what?

Perception.

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Well, this ain't gonna be a national-security election. Economy all the way.

Yes, economy all the way. Which is why Barack Obama, in his political genius, held the NATO summit in Chicago where he said, "This is not a distraction. This is what this campaign is going to be about." That is something Mitt Romney could never do. Because Mitt Romney is not President, because Mitt Romney is not hosting a NATO summit in his home town (does he even have one?). Because only the President - Barack Obama - could frame the issue of the economy at a national security setting during an election year.

In other words, the President, at a national security setting, said what 2012 is going to be about.

[New Deal Democrat]

If Republicans do not have an issue they will manufacture one. Some are beginning to grumble about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright again. Expect to hear about Bill Ayers, and the President's presumed birth place in Kenya. Haters gotta hate.