Never, but [i]never[/i] underestimate the capacity of just sufficiently large a proportion of the US electorate to vote against its own best interests simply because a candidate who in all other contexts is bats to the point of being a clear and present danger is, a) superficially plausible, b) in possession of a good-looking family and c) visibly religious.

Add to that the fact that a large proportion of progressive voters will justifiably feel so teed off at Obama’s betrayal of what they thought that he stood for that they might not even bother to vote at all in November, plus the GOP’s pursuit of discriminatory voter registration laws in state after state, and a Romney presidency is still a distinct possibility.

In short, I think you may be whistling in the dark, Sunny.

It’s always a mistake to present yourself as extremist, whether for the left of right. Romney was already having difficulty occupying the centre ground. It’s as if he knows he’s losing and chooses to go for Republican glory in defeat.

If this is the case, that Romney is affectively giving up, then it is foolish, as there is plenty of time for Obama to mess up.

Let’s hope he carries on wanting to be the heroic loser. I’ll give him the love he needs, if he gets that right.

What the Judge says really. I still remember Medicare and medicaid users being vocal participants against ‘socialised medicine’ in all those rallies and meetings. Course mention that they were already benefitting from a form of ‘socilalised medicine’ and that given their current stance, did they agree they ought to be divested of it? They tended to lose their shit in spittle-flecked rants at the camera, telling the guy they better not touch their Medicare.

No one ever went hungry by underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

@3.
This is a feature of what Gramsci described as “contradictory consciousness”. People are pumped so full of plausible-sounding rhetoric that they’re convinced that it’s in their best interests to slit their throats. This is also known as “turkeys voting for Xmas”. Love your oppressor as he puts his foot on your neck. it’s for your own good.

It seems a bit 2008 – moderate republican picking a very conservative VP candidate to appeal to the base. Remember though – McCain’s team were happy with the boost Palin gave to attracting right wingers – her right wing views were seen as helpful. The problem was that she didn’t seem clever or plausible as a potential commander in chief (if the elderly McCain didn’t make it).

Romney has gone with the same tactic, but with someone who is seen as credible, competent and intelligent amongst Republicans. If Ryan can look the part, he might get away with it.

Have the Republicans and their Tea Party allies thought through the political implications in the event of the welcome news that President Obama is re-elected?

Recap: the centre-right parties of Europe aren’t exactly rootin’ and tootin’ for the election of Romney who made a notable fool of himself when he passed through London to parade his foreign affairs stuff.

I got my hands on a secret Romney memo which lists the reasons behind picking Paul Ryan: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/why-did-romney-pick-paul-ryan/

These are Paul Ryan’s 15 minutes, that’s all. Why are the usual suspects so keen on someone who has never worked outside politics? After his father had died, Ryan could not have afforded college without government assistance. He now proposes to abolish the self-same scheme. Nice.

Can you name every unsuccessful running mate since the War? Or even every successful one? Forget about him. If this pick proves anything, it is that, like McCain last time, Romney is beyond despair when it comes to getting out his party’s base. Or what claims to be its base, even though it seems to have little or no impact on the eventual outcome of the Presidential nomination process.

When the Republican Convention nominates Ryan for Vice-President, then it will declare the writings of Ayn Rand to be the ideology of the party. Of what, exactly, is Ryan’s and the Republicans’ Randianism conservative? In what politically meaningful sense is Ryan a Catholic, rather than a Randian who merely happens to go to Mass for show and notionally to oppose abortions that he imagines occur in some economic, social, cultural and political vacuum?

Not that he himself really does imagine any such thing, of course. The question is now whether or not conservatives and Catholics are as stupid as Randian Ryan and the Randian Republicans think that they are. Beating a man who openly wants to abolish the whole of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and who has done so since long before the 2008 crash, is, in itself, candy from a baby stuff. But it is no less important to strip him and his of any claim to represent conservative or Catholic opinion. That, too, ought not to be overly difficult to do.

Sunny,

Romney on his own stood a good chance of losing but with Paul Ryan they will bang home the “It’s the Economy stupid” message.

When you’ve finished with the dumb conservatives angle you could always play the crazy Mormon card. Then start thinking about how to write many articles on how Obama had it all but threw it all away.

Cyluz and others are going down the smug Eurpean Liberal path of writing Americans off as dumb. The Americans arent the only working class in the world who end up voting for parties that dont represent their interests. That would be true of most bourgois Liberal Democracies including ours.

American General Elections have one of the lowest turn outs of any General election in the western world. The 63% turnout in 2008 was the highest since the 60s. This is because vast numbers of Americans think rightly that both parties are just competing parties of Millionaires. Clinton snd Obama did not exactly rule in the interest of the poor.

The Democrats as well as been plainly a party for the rich do not help themselves by being more patronising and sneery then the Republicans.

The task of the american left now is the same as it is ever been to build a party of and acoountable to the Labor movement.

@10 To be honest I think the same applies over here too, and quite probably to the people of any nation, it was just closer to the original H. L. Mencken quote to say American people.
It’d have been even closer if I’d also said ‘broke’ rather than ‘hungry’.

@ 10

Wot Cylux says. Also, I’m personally under the impression that America suffers from a higher ratio of backwaters where ignorance abounds than most first-world nations. That’s *ignorance*, not stupidity, it has to do with growing up in an insular culture.

The fact remains that Sarah Palin was enormously popular in some parts of the US despite her huge flaws (and I’m excluding political opinions as potential flaws here). While “It’s cos they’re dumb!” is not an explanation, the trend does need explaining. Frankly the very fact that she was selected needs explaining.

Maybe you’re right. Maybe smarter and more informed people are more likely to realise that both parties are in the pocket of the rich, leading them not to vote, meaning that stupid and ignorant people make up a larger part of the active electorate.

@12. Chaise Guevara: “Frankly the very fact that she was selected needs explaining.”

I’m thinking out loud at this time, so don’t shoot me down too hard. But I think it’s about the American Dream. The American Dream is everywhere: everyone can get rich with a bit of effort, anyone (born in the USA) can become President, and if you don’t get there it’s your fault. In the nation of liberty, society is controlled by the fake concept of American Dream.

Sarah Palin is an ordinary woman of unexceptional talent. By having massive self confidence, she rose through local political ranks. Republican Party strategists identified her as a VP candidate because, by nomination, she was approaching the American Dream. This unremarkable woman had a chance to get into the White House on the basis that she was living the American Dream. She was a flagship for a fakeship.

—
To me as a UK citizen, American racism has always seemed a similar form of social control. Poor white people were treated disgracefully but were made to feel grateful by treating black people even worse. I’m far from the first person to make that observation.

In the UK, racism is different, aspiration is different. But I bet there are people waving fingers at the British asking, “why are they so stupid”.

In the news: “US President Barack Obama telephoned David Cameron to offer his congratulations for a ‘brilliant’ London Olympics, Downing Street said.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19236754

There are no reports of a call from Mitt Romney.

@ 13 Charlieman

“I’m thinking out loud at this time, so don’t shoot me down too hard. But I think it’s about the American Dream. ”

Hmm. Interesting. (And don’t worry: it’s a good point and I’m still waiting to be shot down for the “high level of ignorance in the US” comment.) I think there’s more to it than that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a factor. The American Dream is the best example I can think of of turning something beautiful into a poisonous lie. It could well be that people are understandably encouraged by something that creates the illusion of the dream being true.

“To me as a UK citizen, American racism has always seemed a similar form of social control. Poor white people were treated disgracefully but were made to feel grateful by treating black people even worse. I’m far from the first person to make that observation.”

Maybe in terms of effect, but I’m wary of calling that a deliberate strategy. That’s just how things turn out. “Keeping up with the Joneses” works both ways.

“In the UK, racism is different, aspiration is different. But I bet there are people waving fingers at the British asking, “why are they so stupid”.”

Undoubtably. And I should point out that I don’t think Americans are any stupider than anyone else. It would be pretty bloody weird if that were the case, short of lead in the water.

“Sarah Palin is an ordinary woman of unexceptional talent.”

That’s quite untrue. Unfortunately or otherwise, few women can do this with quite as much panache:
http://en.zappinternet.com/video/FoTcFukYog/Candidata-Sarah-Palin-en-Banador

“They have to be framed in a way that says something about their character as well as their policies.”

I’ll be honest with you – I prefer Obama’s approach here;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19240192

“As they toured, Mr Obama made his first public comments on the selection of Mr Ryan, telling a campaign fundraiser in Chicago on Sunday that Mr Ryan was “a decent man, he is a family man, he is an articulate spokesman for Gov Romney’s vision but it is a vision that I fundamentally disagree with”.”

What Obama is doing is “framing” himself as a decent man and making the ludicrous personal attacks on him less effective. Turning the campaign into a mud wrestling contest would be bad for Obama, which is why he’s right not to try to attack his opponents’ character and to set the tone politically.

Most here are in for a serious shock in November. Ryan is immensely able as both a thinker and as a persuasive orator. He matches Obama’s rhetoric with a massive advantage. He has a grasp of maths, the budget and the simple fact that even on Obama’s own plans, the welfare budget hits crisis in 12 years. like Labour here, they run out of money and at the end of that road, welfare ceases.

Middle America is smart enough to hear that and realise that Ryan is not the destroyer, but the one to reform to preserve.

He cleverly shifts the debate from only calling on ( producer appeasing ) more input of resources, to asking a simple question ” Are the outcomes good enough for all that sacrifice”.

Two important points; Obama didn’t get a single vote ( even from his own side) for his last budget. Ryan’s budget proposals to return to balanced budgets did secure bi-partisan support. Think about it!

Both Ryan and Romney have proven ability to get elected in liberal States; there must be a reason for that. It is that they are intellectually astute and convincing: they may have opponents but not enemies. This is what USA needs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/08/economists-to-romney-campaign-thats-not-what-our-research-says/

Have Romney or Ryan made any comment on this piece in the NYT by Warren Buffett a year ago?

“Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1

Warren Buffett is usually described as the third richest man in the world, personal wealth generated mostly through shrewd investment decisions in managing a portfolio of stocks and shares. He was quoted saying this in 2003:

“The rapidly growing trade in derivatives poses a ‘mega-catastrophic risk’ for the economy and most shares are still ‘too expensive’, legendary investor Warren Buffett has warned.” [BBC website]

The American Church, especially, is riven between “conservatives”, such as those drawn to Paul Ryan (Ryan’s own Randianism puts him in a wholly different category, essentially outside the Faith altogether), who accept the Church’s Teaching on bioethical and sexual matters while pretending not to know that the economic and foreign policies that they excoriate are in fact the Church’s Teaching on justice and peace, and “liberals”, such as Joe Biden, who accept the Church’s Teaching on justice and peace while excoriating that on most bioethical and most or all sexual matters.

Neither is any more orthodox than the other, and both echo the Americanist heresy. Since there are no new heresies, that was a manifestation of the same error that has presented itself at Byzantium in the eleventh century, in England in the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, in France and the Netherlands in the seventeenth century, in German-speaking Europe and the Hapsburg lands in the eighteenth century, and among the Croats of Croatia and of Bosnia-Herzegovina from the 1990s onwards.

The influence of each of these can still be felt, while there were and are several further examples. Both sides of neo-Americanism belong in that category.

Still, on one side, a man steeped in the radically Biblical Civil Rights movement, and a member of the denomination among the fully functioning congregations of which is the church founded at Plymouth Rock by the Pilgrim Fathers. His spear is borne by a man in whom the Irish and German lines of American Catholicism meet.

On the other side, a polytheist and anthropomorphist who believes that God was once a man, that men can become gods, that Jesus was the natural son of Mary and of the God-Man Adam, and that both Father and Son were and are polygamously married, just like the widowers who continue to be “sealed for all eternity” to new wives in Mormon temples right down to the present day. A man who, unlike his opponent, has brought about the public funding of abortion and continues to profit personally from it.

And if a President sworn in on the Book of Mormon were to die, then who would succeed him? Why, none other than a Vice-President sworn in on a copy of Atlas Shrugged. See into what the Republican Party has been turned by neoconservatism. The old school of American mainline Protestantism has been removed as its frame of reference and replaced with the witterings of Ludwig von Mises, Leo Strauss, Max Shachtman and Ayn Rand.

Creating the space for every fruitcake from sea to shining sea: Nile Gardiner and the rest of the Washington Times Moonies, Romney and the Mormons (lining up Gardiner for National Security Advisor – then do we finally get to strip him of his British citizenship?), Sharron Angle and the Scientologists, Christine O’Donnell and the dabblers in witchcraft, Rand Paul and the worshippers of whatever Aqua Buddha might be, the Dominionists, the “Christian Zionists”, and all the rest of them.

Let the battle for Christian America now be joined.

Can we really describe Nate Silver as neutral? He offers good analysis based on polling figures, but as a person I think it is clear he is a liberal, no?

@8. David Lindsay

You are looking at the result of high university tuition costs and not the cause. The state subsidy of tertiary education in the states is what has pushed the prices so high. A similar effect is beginning to be felt here in the UK.

@21 David Lindsay

Exactly. Let’s hope they don’t get a sniff of the White House.

Sunny’s bile is showing rather badly. Most Hedge Funds are based in ultra-liberal States like Massachusetts and the polls have been showing Romney ahead of or equal to Obama based on Obama’s disappointing economic record and Romney’s record of successful entrepreneurship, mildly offset by Obama’s claim to military success by assassinating Osama Bin Laden. Based on his senate voting record Obama was (one of?) the most left-wing senators but won the 2008 election by outspending John McCain by roughly 2:1. Sunny thinks this will be a repeat of 2008 but he is wrong because too many Republicans have noticed that the Democrats found a loophole in campaign finance rules then and have acted to provide a better balance this year.
Now the real point is this: Obama has spent a lot of time attacking Romney’s, perfectly legal, tax position to distract attention from his bloody awful record – he could have got health insurance through Congress in six months if he had picked up the McCain plan, tweaked it and proposed it as a bilateral bill but he let the left-wing of the Democrats propose a bill that was unacceptable to the moderates in his own party and he has presided over the highest unemployment numbers since the ’30s – and his team has used the choice of Ryan to expand this by attacking what Ryan has NOT SAID on Medicare.
Since I have been saying for ten years or so that “carried interest” should be taxed at marginal income tax rates, am in favour of the NHS (although it would be nice if it had some competent management or, failing that, handed the job back to matrons, who did it far better than their desk-bound successors because they actually understood what was needed), it is sad that I have to point out how wrong Sunny is..