Is it really necessary to portray the election of the opposing candidate as the end of humanity?

How about this: each candidate acknowledges that the other is a highly competent, successful individual, and is well-grounded morally and ethically. That while the candidates’ political philosophies may differ, each has the best interests of his country, and the world, at heart and truly desires to make America, and the world, better places and to solve the problems that beset them.

Then we could move on to discussions of the specific policies each candidate would implement if elected, without having to resort to character assassination.

:smack:Sorry, what was I thinking???

John McCain tried that. You saw how that worked out.

Look, you don’t turn out your base by portraying the next election as anything other than the most important, crucial, all-deciding election of your life or the nation’s life to date. Even when it’s, like, 2000, when nothing very important seems to hang in the balance at the moment. And, of course, demonization of the opponent follows logically and inevitably from that.

Could you really do that running against Bush’s second term, post Iraq/Blackwater/Plame etc?

Politicians figured out that demonizing the opponent gets more people out to vote* while just discussing policy only does not get as much. I’m surprised all you** EVIL, HUMAN-HATING, BABY-EATING, PLANET-DESTROYING losers on the other side of me haven’t figured that out.

*I don’t know if it actually does, (I haven’t seen an actual study), or not but I think if just policy discussion worked better they would be doing that.

**General you.

For me this is a big election because of the Affordable Care Act. I don’t know if Romney would actually overturn or be able to overturn it, but I have had lots of problems in my life because employers haven’t offered health insurance. The ACA offers options I couldn’t get elsewhere.

So this election does have some deeply important aspects to it. If the ACA stands, and goes into effect in 2014 it’ll be much harder to eliminate in 2017 and the US will be down the road to universal health care.

There are valid reasons to get worked up about politics.

I would like a reporter to ask each candidate this question: “What do you think are your opponent’s biggest successes?”.

What they may say:

Obama - “Governor Romney gave us the blueprint for sweeping change in the arena of healthcare, and while he continues to disown it, I would still give him credit for getting the ball in play, starting in MA.”

Romney - <queue the Beavis and Butthead laughter> “He said ball”.

Agreed. And health care will then become more expensive and worse. Very good reasons to get worked up indeed.

Despite that being the opposite of the result everywhere else it’s been put in place. :smiley:

Not all Presidential candidates enter a Presidential race qualified to lead, but even if a President isn’t qualified I agree that the end of the republic is not in the cards. But hyperbole is part of politics. Every election is the most important, every opponent the most evil, unreasonable, radical opponent ever.

One of the reasons many Republicans supported Romney was precisely because it was assumed such attacks wouldn’t stick due to his moderate, competent record. And I’m still pretty certain they won’t stick.

Actually about a billion in overcharge refunds just went out and not all insurance agencies are required to comply with the 80% yet. I’ve read many businesses that post that they are seeing NO increase in prices this year.

Many individuals are now getting 100% coverage (no co-pay) on routine preventative care and pregnancy stuff. Many early-20yos are now covered. Many with pre-existing conditions can now get coverage.

We are paying for that. It’s wonderful that ACA has made some positive changes, but don’t be under any illusions that these changes are borne by someone else.

I have to agree with the gist of the OP. Back during primary season, I just kept telling myself: so long as Mitt takes it, America will be fine, even if he beats Obama. (Any of those other clowns, and I’d probably have the hysterical reaction described in OP!) After 8 years of GWB, and the prospects of the other primary candidates… Mitt will be survivable. He’s so fucking BORING, how bad could it be? Being a Republican is a pretty low quality in a person, but he at least seems sane and half-competent, unlike the vast majority of them.

However … the thing that worries me these days is if the Rs get both houses, and Mitt. Then boring Mitt will become rubber stamp to the Tea Party, and all bets are off. “End of humanity” is in play. So now … so long as the Ds at least keep the Senate, America will still be here in 4-8 years.

If there’s one thing we can count on with Mitt Romney, it’s that he’ll do what’s best for Mitt Romney. If the Tea Party is popular he won’t resist them. If they aren’t, then he’ll triangulate like a mofo the way Clinton did. The Tea Party, like liberal interest groups, can be a useful foil once Mitt is elected.

Not to anyone but the most shameless of partisan hacks. It’s no secret that I’m not voting for Obama, but I don’t ever think I’ve posted that he’s a bad person, or that his supporters are evil, demonic, unpatriotic, or similar extreme rhetoric. Their political opinions differ from my own. Hell, the Druidess is probably going to cancel my ballot with her own this year. Not like we’re going to fight about it or anything.

There’s virtually zero chance, even if Romney wins, that the ACA will be repealed. It would take a far greater Republican majority in both houses than could happen in their wildest dreams.

Plus, I think that any attempt by Romney along those lines would create enough blowback that he would destroy any inital goodwill/“honeymoon” he might enjoy at the start of his presidency. I doubt he’d be that stupid. The majority of Americans want universal health care; if not necessarily in the form it’s being offered, they feel it’s better than nothing.

Another factor is that four years of the Republicans’ bleating that their primary, even sole goal is to undo everything the Obama administration has done will, by the time Romney assumes office, have gotten very, very, very tiresome.

The bill is not popular. repealing unpopular laws doesn’t come with a political price. Secondly, it only takes control of both chambers to repeal the ACA. It’s a lot easier than you think.

It’s not popular?

The premise of the article is wrong. The things listed are not “most of what it does”. There are 2000 pages of “doing things”, along with $1 trillion in costs that have to be paid for through Medicare “savings” and tax increases. Plus the risk that some will lose their current health insurance.

With 80% of Americans satisfied with their health insurance and the other 20% not likely to vote Republican anyway, this is not a losing issue for Republicans if they proceed with repeal.

“80% of Americans are satisfied with their health care” is not the same thing as “80% of Americans want to see the ACA repealed.” Hell, I’m happy with my health care. I still think we should have universal coverage in this country.