[worry]

Yah, I just mean it takes him 60 seconds to make a 30 second point, so the timed nature of these debates has been a relative detriment to him now like they wouldn't have been if he was still swift.

[worry]

But here's a good article on why, at least right now before the general election gets underway, you maybe shouldn't be even that confident (it's a long-ish article but the first section is a good summary):

www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/the_incomplete_greatness_of_ba035754.php

In mid-January, pollsters for the Washington Post and ABC News asked a representative sampling of Americans the following question: “Obama has been president for about three years. Would you say he has accomplished a great deal during that time, a good amount, not very much, or little or nothing?”

When the poll’s results were released on January 18, even the most seasoned White House staffers, who know the president faces a tough battle for reelection, must have spit up their coffee: more than half the respondents—52 percent—said the president has accomplished “not very much” or “little or nothing.”

It is often said that there are no right or wrong answers in opinion polling, but in this case, there is an empirically right answer—one chosen by only 12 percent of the poll’s respondents. The answer is that Obama has accomplished “a great deal.”

Measured in sheer legislative tonnage, what Obama got done in his first two years is stunning. Health care reform. The takeover and turnaround of the auto industry. The biggest economic stimulus in history. Sweeping new regulations of Wall Street. A tough new set of consumer protections on the credit card industry. A vast expansion of national service. Net neutrality. The greatest increase in wilderness protection in fifteen years. A revolutionary reform to student aid. Signing the New START treaty with Russia. The ending of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Even over the past year, when he was bogged down in budget fights with the Tea Party-controlled GOP House, Obama still managed to squeeze out a few domestic policy victories, including a $1.2 trillion deficit reduction deal and the most sweeping overhaul of food safety laws in more than seventy years. More impressively, on the foreign policy front he ended the war in Iraq, began the drawdown in Afghanistan, helped to oust Gaddafi in Libya and usher out Mubarak in Egypt, orchestrated new military and commercial alliances as a hedge against China, and tightened sanctions against Iran over its nukes.

Oh, and he shifted counterterrorism strategies to target Osama bin Laden and then ordered the risky raid that killed him.

That Obama has done all this while also steering the country out of what might have been a second Great Depression would seem to have made him already, just three years into his first term, a serious candidate for greatness. (See Obama’s Top 50 Accomplishments.)

And yet a solid majority of Americans nevertheless thinks the president has not accomplished much. Why? There are plenty of possible explanations. The most obvious is the economy. People are measuring Obama’s actions against the actual conditions of their lives and livelihoods, which, over the past three years, have not gotten materially better. He failed miserably at his grandiose promise to change the culture of Washington (see “Clinton’s Third Term”). His highest-profile legislative accomplishments were object lessons in the ugly side of compromise. In negotiations, he came off to Democrats as naïvely trusting, and to Republicans as obstinately partisan, leaving the impression that he could have achieved more if only he had been less conciliatory—or more so, depending on your point of view. And for such an obviously gifted orator, he has been surprisingly inept at explaining to average Americans what he’s fighting for or trumpeting what he’s achieved.

In short, when judging Obama’s record so far, conservatives measure him against their fears, liberals against their hopes, and the rest of us against our pocketbooks. But if you measure Obama against other presidents—arguably the more relevant yardstick—a couple of things come to light. Speaking again in terms of sheer tonnage, Obama has gotten more done than any president since LBJ. But the effects of some of those achievements have yet to be felt by most Americans, often by design. Here, too, Obama is in good historical company.

(and then there's plenty more if you click the link).

[Terez]

There are a lot of people who will vote for him even though they don't think he's accomplished much. Obama's potential lies in his charisma. It's not that he's not intelligent and doesn't know how to make good decisions. It's just that no one can get anything done in Washington. It's a vast sinkhole of whatever, and mere brothas do not stand a chance. We figured maybe Obama would be different because he's a rock star, but apparently we're ultimately uncomfortable with any one person having that much power over us, so he never really had the necessary mandate to get his actual goals accomplished. So there are a lot of people who are meh on Obama, but they'll still go out and vote for him because [insert candidate here] is worse. That's the way of elections. Yes, it matters whether or not you can energize your base. But these things are relative.

[McLovin]

No question the election will be close, no matter who the Rs nominate. That's the nature of the beast nowadays.

Romney has the best chance with independents, but his biggest obstacle is himself. He has to rebut his own record (Romneycare), his own remarks (let Detroit go under), and his own privilege (making $10K bets, Bain Capital, etc). None of that will play well in swing states like Ohio.

I think Romney's best strategy will be in his VP choice. If I were him, I'd tap Condoleezza Rice - highly accomplished, foreign policy and national security experience, former oil executive, female, black, humble background. If she goes on the ticket, watch out.

[Terez]

So, I almost forgot to vote. And then when I was reminded, I realized that I hadn't showed up for jury duty since the last time I voted (I don't think anyone actually wants me on a jury, so I feel pretty good about avoiding it). So I went to vote anyway, figuring if there's a problem with me voting, better to find out now than in November. I show up, and the D table is three black ladies, and the R table is a white man and woman that went to the church I grew up in, and they were so happy to see me. I felt really bad all of a sudden, and I wanted to go whisper in the D table's ear that I was voting for Obama in November, but that would have been weird, so I didn't. The lady at the door asked me, "Are you a Republican?" and I said "I'm a registered Republican, yes." So I went to vote, and the people at the table confused me with my mother, blah blah. The husband of my high school math teacher (all three years of it; I blame her for my deficiencies in that subject) was looking through the rolls for my name. He finally found it...and he hesitated. The silence was deafening. The lady gave him a questioning look, and he said, "No....no, go ahead and let her sign." So I signed, and I voted. Maybe I'm just paranoid? Dunno. But if they really do have a record of stuff like that, then I wonder how often that happens. Probably not very often. Just thought it was interesting.

Voted for Ron Paul, and challengers to the incumbents in the Senate and the House.

[Illuyankas]

[Dolorous Menhir]

Terez, on 13 March 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:

So, I almost forgot to vote. And then when I was reminded, I realized that I hadn't showed up for jury duty since the last time I voted (I don't think anyone actually wants me on a jury, so I feel pretty good about avoiding it). So I went to vote anyway, figuring if there's a problem with me voting, better to find out now than in November. I show up, and the D table is three black ladies, and the R table is a white man and woman that went to the church I grew up in, and they were so happy to see me. I felt really bad all of a sudden, and I wanted to go whisper in the D table's ear that I was voting for Obama in November, but that would have been weird, so I didn't. The lady at the door asked me, "Are you a Republican?" and I said "I'm a registered Republican, yes." So I went to vote, and the people at the table confused me with my mother, blah blah. The husband of my high school math teacher (all three years of it; I blame her for my deficiencies in that subject) was looking through the rolls for my name. He finally found it...and he hesitated. The silence was deafening. The lady gave him a questioning look, and he said, "No....no, go ahead and let her sign." So I signed, and I voted. Maybe I'm just paranoid? Dunno. But if they really do have a record of stuff like that, then I wonder how often that happens. Probably not very often. Just thought it was interesting.

Voted for Ron Paul, and challengers to the incumbents in the Senate and the House.

A little confused there Terez - what was the problem with you voting?

[Terez]

Jury duty is the voter's responsibility by law, so if you avoid jury duty, then technically you shouldn't be able to vote. As I said, I'm not sure how strictly they are supposed to keep records on that. HD would probably know.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on 14 March 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Jury duty is the voter's responsibility by law, so if you avoid jury duty, then technically you shouldn't be able to vote. As I said, I'm not sure how strictly they are supposed to keep records on that. HD would probably know.

It's not mutually exclusive. Voting rolls are only one way a jury can be empaneled. If enough jurors aren't found, a judge can empower a deputy to just go round up people.

Secondly, I assume you voted in the 2008 Democratic Primary and that Mississippi is a closed primary. Thus, in voting in the D primary in 2008 you de facto declared yourself a D,despite anything you have registered. You re-registered Republican when you went and voted in this election. The most they can do is challenge you to openly declare yourself a Republican. They can't stop you from voting unless you aren't registered or are committing fraud, which you aren't. They keep track of which you've voted in. The guy probably saw you have voted in the D primary at some earlier point.

If this isn't the case then I'm not sure what's going on.

[Terez]

I've never voted in a D primary before. They're pretty meaningless in MS.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on 15 March 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

I've never voted in a D primary before. They're pretty meaningless in MS.

Not sure what they were giving you the stink-eye for then. Unless it was church stuff.

Secondly, primaries are how you keep the truly coo-coo for cocoa puff nutballs out of your official party. Just as the R's how much they wish they would have stopped that nonsense train earlier.

[worry]

No doubt he saw your math grades from his wife on your PERMANENT RECORD! Tsk tsk.

[Terez]

My grades were pretty good. Doesn't mean I learned anything.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez, on 14 March 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Jury duty is the voter's responsibility by law, so if you avoid jury duty, then technically you shouldn't be able to vote. As I said, I'm not sure how strictly they are supposed to keep records on that. HD would probably know.

I forgot to answer some of this. Not appearing for jury duty can result in an arrest warrant and fine. However, it won't impact your ability to vote. It's not a felony. And, that's a state by state thing anyway.

[Dolorous Menhir]

It seems strange that you have to choose a party registration for your state records. Membership of a party should be distinct from your place in the voter rolls, no?

[HoosierDaddy]

Dolorous Menhir, on 15 March 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

It seems strange that you have to choose a party registration for your state records. Membership of a party should be distinct from your place in the voter rolls, no?

First, not all states have closed primaries. Some do, some don't.

Secondly, you don't have to vote in primaries to vote in actual elections. Mostly they are party organized and ran, despite being state-funded. So, they like to know if shenanigans are taking place with their inner-party workings.

[worry]

Yah, some of them aren't even binding. It's all intra-party stuff, state by state. Even more tedious than the actual election.

[LinearPhilosopher]

H.D., on 15 March 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

Terez, on 14 March 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Jury duty is the voter's responsibility by law, so if you avoid jury duty, then technically you shouldn't be able to vote. As I said, I'm not sure how strictly they are supposed to keep records on that. HD would probably know.

I forgot to answer some of this. Not appearing for jury duty can result in an arrest warrant and fine. However, it won't impact your ability to vote. It's not a felony. And, that's a state by state thing anyway.

in canada its possible to get excuses from jury duty, not sure about the states. My dad's gotten out of jury duty a few times already, since he owns his own business and can't afford appearing in jury. Espcially since they usually call during his busy season.

[HoosierDaddy]

BalrogLord, on 16 March 2012 - 02:09 AM, said:

H.D., on 15 March 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

Terez, on 14 March 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Jury duty is the voter's responsibility by law, so if you avoid jury duty, then technically you shouldn't be able to vote. As I said, I'm not sure how strictly they are supposed to keep records on that. HD would probably know.

I forgot to answer some of this. Not appearing for jury duty can result in an arrest warrant and fine. However, it won't impact your ability to vote. It's not a felony. And, that's a state by state thing anyway.

in canada its possible to get excuses from jury duty, not sure about the states. My dad's gotten out of jury duty a few times already, since he owns his own business and can't afford appearing in jury. Espcially since they usually call during his busy season.

Yeah, you can apply for a waiver, but if you don't get granted one you have to show up. Generally they don't ever do anything to those who don't though. In Indianapolis 80% of people don't show up when summoned.

[worry]

It's like money and competence don't necessarily go hand in hand:

In an appearance on CNN Wednesday morning, Mitt Romney's top adviser Eric Fehrnstrom made this Kinsley gaffe, saying that the positions taken by the former Massachusetts governor during the GOP primary campaign were as erasable as a drawing on an Etch a Sketch.

From the transcript:

JOHN FUGELSANG, POLITICAL COMEDIAN: Good morning, sir. It's fair to say that John McCain was considerably a more moderate candidate than the ones that Governor Romney faces now. Is there a concern that the pressure from Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to attach so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election? FEHRNSTROM: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch a Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.