Obviously, there are some well-known political leanings amongst the authors tapped, but what do you think?
Me, all I can conclude is that this is gonna be a LONG nine months, and that I should probably stop reading stories like this. 
You?
(Note: could not decide if this was Elections or GD material. Move if need be.)
Especially worthy of note: Campaign Promises: What they say is how they’ll govern.
Presidents won’t always pursue all their goals with equal vigor. And some will be reversed in entirety, for example Bush Jr’s 2000 stance on global warming. But studies show that campaign promises are generally not broken, with a few infamous exceptions including Bush Sr’s fiscally responsible reversal of his no-tax pledge: Political scientists, however, have been studying this question for some time, and what they’ve found is that out-and-out high-profile broken pledges like George H. W. Bush’s are the exception, not the rule. That’s what two book-length studies from the 1980s found. Michael Krukones in Promises and Performance: Presidential Campaigns as Policy Predictors (1984) established that about 75 percent of the promises made by presidents from Woodrow Wilson through Jimmy Carter were kept. In Presidents and Promises: From Campaign Pledge to Presidential Performance (1985), Jeff Fishel looked at campaigns from John F. Kennedy through Ronald Reagan. What he found was that presidents invariably attempt to carry out their promises; the main reason some pledges are not redeemed is congressional opposition, not presidential flip-flopping. Similarly, Gerald Pomper studied party platforms, and discovered that the promises parties made were consistent with their postelection agendas. More recent and smaller-scale papers have confirmed the main point: presidents’ agendas are clearly telegraphed in their campaigns. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january_february_2012/features/campaign_promises034471.php
So forget about “Character”: the press does a terrible job of evaluating that anyway. Focus on their policies. If you want to keep the carried interest loophole so that hedge fund managers pay a 15% rate on their income, including social security taxes, go with Romney or Gingrich. And take them at their word when they say they want to destroy the Affordable Choice Act: if you loved the fact that insurance companies could yank away coverage as soon as you came down with cancer, go with Romney/Gingrich.
The articles seem pretty reasonable for the most part, although they seem to suggest that there will be more radical change that I do. I agree that healthcare will be smothered in the crib before it can takes its first breath, and I am concerned about the lasting effect of young conservatives nominations to the Supreme court, but the most part I think it will be pretty much like the Bush years mark 2, with a bit more of the shaft being directed at union workers, government workers and the lower classes.
The biggest problem that I’ve always had with the health care reform bill is that it takes far too long for it to be completely rolled out. Even if the Supreme Court rules that the law is constitutional, its full implementation will STILL be reliant upon Obama getting a second term. The fact of the matter is - and as one of those articles points out - the ACA will be gutted before it even takes effect if a GOP contender takes up the presidency. The parts of the law that are already happening (such as the ban on insurers’ denying coverage to sick kids or the ban on annual or lifetime limits on new health policies) will be left alone, yes, but the actual meat of the bill (containing the parts of the law that most people seem to like) will be tossed out entirely. And then what the fuck are we left with? Answer: The same shit we’ve got now.
Ugh…At least if the law were allowed to have been implemented during Obama’s first term it would’ve been given the best possible chance to succeed. As it stands now, the upcoming presidential race presents far too many “what-ifs” for me to be comfortable with.
Other than blocking Obamacare, stopping the military budget cuts (:(), and Supreme Court nominations I don’t see much difference in a Romney presidency. Most unfortunately probably no tax reform.
Well, Romney will also sign whatever a Republican congress sends him. And half of their caucus is nuts and the other half is frightened of being primaried by nuts.
There are definitely significant differences in foreign policy between Mr. Obama’s desire for international cooperation and the GOP’s continued striving for an American Hegemony.
The Bush-era policies with regard to foreign nations would probably be renewed. Remember, Gov. Romney doesn’t believe we should leave Afghanistan, and Mr. Obama does. That, in and of itself, gives a clear difference between the two choices.
Many folks accuse the two parties of being merely differnt names for the same power groups. In this election cycle, I really don’t agree. It is somewhat refreshing to have a clear choice between two quite different candidates. I only wish we has a viable third or even fourth party to bring real ideas to the public view.
But, you can’t have everything. After all, where we you put it?
heh heh heh
I missed the edit window and apologize for my grammatical errors.
The article on Foreign Policy does not even mention the words “Ron” or “Paul”. The closest they come to acknowledging that not all the candidates are war-hungry zealots is the opening line: “All of the Republican candidates for president believe that Barack Obama’s foreign policy has failed the United States; most of them believe he has failed in the same way.”
A lot depends on where you live. I live in Minnesota, and there is a very good chance that I could get across the border before Canada closes it.
Don’t forget to write!
If the Republicans win the WH, that means they have a good chance of taking the Senate, too, and keeping the House. Being a fan of split government, I don’t like that prospect at all.
Can someone outline how a President Romney could gut the HCRB? I could see him reversing some the policy decisions (like the recent one about birth control and religious affiliated employers), but gut the bill? How?
Very good question actually. Kevin Drum discusses. Parts passed under reconciliation can be overturned with 51 votes, but the remainder will have to overcome a filibuster, which probably won’t happen. That means insurers will have to issue to anybody who wants it (guaranteed issue) regardless of pre-existing conditions and community rating says they have to charge everyone the same price. Strip out the mandate at that point and insurance companies will find themselves in an adverse selection death spiral.
Or not. Maybe a foot dragging executive can carve out some exceptions. Maybe the individual market is small enough so that insurance companies won’t care. “What’s more, with the help of a friendly administration, friendly state regulations, and friendly court rulings, insurance companies can probably find ways to turn down people for coverage despite the law, and they’ll also find stealthy ways to squeeze more money out of certain patients via the use of surcharges or rebates or non-cash benefits or somesuch.” Can Mitt Romney Really Repeal Obamacare? – Mother Jones
Michael Moore nailed it at the time, when he said that Obama should recognize that in any development or negotiation of a new health-care policy, “The health-insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a place at the table.”
I see a continuing and deepening of the radicalization of America’s young people if Romney or, Og forbid, Gingrich wins the White House. People already feel they have no voice in government, the streets are going to look more and more like their best option for political expression.
Would you have made that comment in 2008 replacing Romney with Obama? Obama’s failures as an executive have already caused a stir in the demographic you are referring to. Hopefully with a Republican president the Democrats would get their act together and stand up against some of the civil rights abuses. As it is they are pretty much useless. Would a Mitt Romney get away with the assassination of citizens for example?
Show me an American citizen on American soil that Obama “assassinated” and maybe we can talk.
I think one of the reasons young people and progressives like me are becoming so radicalized is the fact that Obama is essentially a Reagan Republican and is governing like one. Wall Street owns BOTH political parties right now. Our only choices seem to be between the Republican-lites of the Democratic Party and the freaking insane nutbags of the actual Republican Party. Having a freaking insane Republican nutbag elected will only further that feeling.
Citizens aren’t entitled to due process abroad?
Depends. Was said citizen engaging in acts of war against US soldiers in the employ of a foreign power or group?
For bonus points, was said citizen “assassinated” or were they killed in combat?
Were the 260,000 Confederate soldiers killed in the Civil War entitled to due process?