Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Can someone explain to me in simple terms. USA elections

415 replies

ihatethecold · 31/08/2012 07:44

What are the main differences between Obama and romney?
Is Obama like labour and Romney like very right conservative?

Why does Romney say he will get rid of the healthcare bill that Obama brought in.

Did it not work?
why wouldn't you want people without insurance to access healthcare ?
Thanks

OP posts:
HmmThinkingAboutIt · 31/08/2012 20:46

Iowa even.

HmmThinkingAboutIt · 31/08/2012 20:42

George Bush actually had fewer votes than Al Gore in 2000. But because its done by seats in each state rather than a popular percentage vote across the nation, Bush got the Presidency!

The swing states for 2012 are supposed to be Florida (29 electoral votes), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9) Nevada (6), Iowo (6) & New Hampshire (4).

There aren't really any other parties in the US which have a real change of election. They do exist but they are minority parties - the three biggest are the Constitution Party, the Green Party & the Libertarian Party. I honestly know nothing about them other than what their names suggest. This is in part due to how much it costs to run for election and also because politics are even more tribal than in the UK.

They have to put up fees to run in each State, and since the only way to win the presidency is to win as many states as possible, this is a real hurdle. The few third party candidates that have stood in the last century, have often not put themselves up for election in every state as a result. Ross Perot did run in 1992 and got 18.9% of the popular vote, but carried no states - thats the best result in the last century.

nightlurker · 31/08/2012 20:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

midnightisaplace · 31/08/2012 20:24

Just a question which has been puzzling me. Obviously Obama and Romney are now the two candidates for President, but is it theoretically possible for someone who is neither a democrat or a republican to become president of the USA? I have never really heard anything about any other political parties in the States. Do they exist? Is there more choice in local politics?

FairPhyllis · 31/08/2012 20:17

I should have said - the best example of this was in 2000, when if 269 people in Florida had changed their vote, Al Gore would have won the presidency. This was the smallest ever vote difference needed to win an election in the US.

FairPhyllis · 31/08/2012 20:14

Yoko There is a saying here that Republicans want small government ... small enough to fit in a woman's uterus, that is.

It's also important to remember that most presidential elections are decided by a small number of swing voters in a handful of swing states like Florida. In 2008 if 450,000 voters in the seven swing states had changed their vote, McCain would have won. The margins are very small.

Neither candidate will bother to campaign in California or Texas, say, except perhaps to support congressional candidates, because they are solidly for one party or the other. The swing states otoh will be bombarded with adverts, telephone campaigning, and appearances from the candidates.

HmmThinkingAboutIt · 31/08/2012 20:11

President Romney frightens me. I found his remarks about Israel and Iran petrifying. Only this week he's said "President Obama has thrown allies like Israel under the bus" and has made remarks about allowing Iran to continue with its nuclear programme. Its chilling.

I wonder what happens to the US's ally the UK if it were to start a war with Iran? I can not see us having the appetite for it at all. That said I think talk like that has the potential to backfire domestically for exactly the same reason - domestic policy and the economy is THE issue - Americans don't really care abouts going on in the rest of the world right now and they certainly don't want to be embroiled in someone else's battle.

I asked an American friend just how close it was between Romney and Obama as I don't think we get an unbiased view of things here; the UK is too pro Obama. He said he thought it was too close to call. And I've just looked at an opinion poll of 'likely voters' - Romney is on 44% Obama on 42% but this week has been a Republican party conference and they were trailing Obama at the start of the week by 4%.

Really goes to show how getting the 'unlikely' voters out could be the really crucial bit.

ItsaTIARA · 31/08/2012 19:57

Massachusetts Romney seemed fine by Republican standards. Republican Presidential Candidate Romney is scary as hell. President Romney?????

The abortion thing is the one thing that does make sense to me actually. If I believed that hundreds of thousands of babies were being murdered in cold blood every year (and government money was being used to promote that happening, in this country and abroad) then of course I'd get out and vote for whoever promised to stop that - or at least maje it illegal (and I would not be convinced by the argument that illegality will drive it underground - not if we're talking about infanticide). In America a significant minority do believe exactly that, and they will vote for whoever is most likely to restrict abortion - hence they get to call the shots in the Republican party. It's not dissimilar to the maths that got fox hunting banned in the UK, except, thank heavens, that there are equally strong feelings on the other side, and some very bad consequences to prohibition which are visible to neutrals.

nightlurker · 31/08/2012 19:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Vagaceratops · 31/08/2012 19:06

Romney is definitely the pick of a bad bunch.

At least he isnt part of the Tea-Party!

ihatethecold · 31/08/2012 18:59

Well thanks everyone. I now have a bit more of an understanding. Wink

OP posts:
HmmThinkingAboutIt · 31/08/2012 18:11

In all honesty Romney was definitely one of the better, if not the best, option for the Republican party given the candidates.

TheCunningStunt · 31/08/2012 18:00

Forrest gump would be a better candidate than Romney

FishfingersAreOK · 31/08/2012 17:57

Wow. Thank you for this. Feel more informed now.

YokoUhOh · 31/08/2012 17:55

I studied US politics at A-level so I have some understanding of the system of checks and balances and the way in which elections work (despite their suspicion of government, Americans have elections for every imaginable post in every stratum of society).

What has always puzzled me is the Republicans' insistence on tiny government juxtaposed with their obsessional interest in preventing women from having access to abortions; it's totally contradictory.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 31/08/2012 17:20

@Aldertree... isn't 'In God We Trust' the official motto? :) Unlike a government who might force you to pay tax towards schools or welfare cheques (bad), dear old god will only ever gently encourage you to give your money, on an entirely voluntary basis, as an insurance policy against hell-fire & damnation, to a shiny-suited homophobic, evolution-denying evangelist. No contest

HmmThinkingAboutIt · 31/08/2012 16:53

I think its REALLY important to note there are TWO Americas.
Obamacare is perhaps the issue that shows this divide the most and that provokes a very emotional debate from both sides of the coin. They are so different its hard to really understand how they can possibly work together and compromise.

And its been proven in this term that this is an issue and they are becoming even more different and there is a greater and greater unwilling to compromise. When they had to get agreement to extend national debt or they wouldn't have been able to pay the bills, the Crazy Right really did hold a gun to the heads of the Democrats and Obama AND their own party.

It alarmed people that the nutters are getting too much power; even those in the Republican party as they weren't willing to budge an inch with their own party's position for the benefit of the nation. A lot of people regard it as brinkmanship too far.

Some people suggested at the time this was the height of the Tea Party's power and they wouldn't be able to do it again as a result; but that does remain to be seen. If Romney does get into power could he keep them in line and not be dictated to?

Its a question that is liable to come up a few times in the course of the Election I feel.

AlderTree · 31/08/2012 16:29

That should say no no nonsense explanations. Sorry.

AlderTree · 31/08/2012 16:25

Thanks, I like this. Nonsense explanations. However do you not think it strange that a good proportion of a country that does not like its government to interfere with its daily life on healthcare etc is quite happy to do whatever, god or should I say, whatever the church interprets that god wants them to do. A bit worrying really.

GetOrfAKAMrsUsainBolt · 31/08/2012 15:54

This is really interesting reading, thanks everyone.

HmmThinkingAboutIt · 31/08/2012 15:34

First bit to understand; the US is split between the coasts and the bit in the middle. The bit in the middle is massive generalisation coming up religious and unexposed to the rest of the world and the coasts are a lot more used to immigration and diversity. Its a huge divide. The coasts are traditionally vote Democrat, the centre votes Republican.

Second bit; every election generally is either characterised by a focus on foreign or domestic policy. Foreign policy focus generally comes at times of prosperity and war. Domestic policy generally comes in times of economic hardship. At the moment the issue is the economy so America is very inward looking. The rest of the world tends to become a lot less important. It might not be something they can afford to do in 2012 though as technology and world economics mean its more difficult for the US to be isolationist - not that it stops some politicians trying.

The Democrats are nothing like Labour. Labour and socialism is looked upon suspiciously by Americans as being authoritative and controlling. Unions are regarded as communist. Its worth pointing out that during the height of the Cold War, talk about unions could have got you arrested in the US as they had a witch hunt against anyone expressing views to give workers rights due to their paranoia about the Soviet Union. I wouldn't say that the Democrats were like the Coalition - the Coalition is still too liberal leaning - it is still a big deal for Obama to make pro-gay comments, whereas even though some MPs can be backward on that issue, they would be expected to be more PC. The Democrats probably sit slight to the right of the Tories on their own.

As for the Republicans; well they are suffering from something of a crises of identity at the moment and are being pulled by one half of the party who were generally more interested in economics and one half of the party being crazy lunacy religious fundamentalists who want to blow the rest of the world up for not obeying them (And frankly I'm not exaggerating when I say that).

Romney is also a bit of an outsider due to his religion. He's a mormon. Ignorance does make some voters suspicious of him. But he probably sits in the more to the middle of the Republican Godsquad compared to a lot of other party members and voters. He was Governor of Massachusetts so he is a Republican with appeal to the more liberal elements of US society. Republicans generally want less government involvement in every day affairs than the Democrats - which is why they are often supported by big business. This is where Romney really fits in. His father was a business man and politician and he followed this.

As a whole its definitely correct to say the Republicans are to the right of the BNP; how far to the right generally is proportionate to how much you believe in creationism - some members of the party would have a lot to talk about with a member of the Taliban at a dinner party.

But this split in the party is also their big weakness. There are some traditional Republicans who are alarmed by the extreme right of the party. Romney's comments about the Olympics were telling and have troubled Americans about his lack of diplomacy and inability to deal abroad - something thats really important especially at the moment when the economy is the big issue. His appeal to the more liberal areas of America will be down to how he is trusted with business and how scared they are of the Looney Tunes; if they think he's too much of a diplomatic liability or they think the Looney Tunes have too much power/influence it could be Romney's downfall.

With regard to economics, amount of government intervention is the key point. The idea of the American Dream that is reward through hard work is the underlying principle. Therefore if you don't deserve reward if you don't put in the effort. Having benefits undermines this work ethic according to Americans and it makes you dependant on the state rather than self sufficient. Its a fine mentality to have if you have status and money, not so much if you don't. The hard work ethic is reflected in attitudes to employment law and legislation - workers have far fewer rights than in the EU. The US argue that this makes their labour market more flexible as they can hire and fire at will and not have to go through due process like here. Its actually proved to be fairly true; although the US suffered a lot more unemployment, they've been able to recover from that a lot more as its not so much of a commitment for an employer to recruit someone new. This is an issue that has been high on the agenda; a couple of the Republican candidates for the presidency took a very strong line on this and have track records of eroding the already poor rights of workers even more in the States they represent. Its popular with employers and business.

Those at the bottom of the pile, don't have much say in politics though. Historically blacks and the working class were far less likely to vote at all than the middle classes; in part because the candidates don't even campaign on issues that benefit them and instead pander to the middle classes. Its a little bit different with Obama; his colour was a big issue as it represented a break from this - he'll be judged this time on whether he has actually delivered. Obama's problem is more likely to be getting black voters to just turn out to vote this time especially in the swing states of the South like Florida if there has been some disillusionment over this term - particularly since it has been a period of weakness economically.

So Obamacare is a HUGE issue.

Then the parties have a few issues which are particularly important and we don't understand at all here; gun law and abortion being the two that spring most to mind. Here, all reason is very often lost in a sea of bollocks and hysteria. damn straight I don't get these issues!

And finally, in this rather crap summary of US politics there is presentation over substance. The slick media campaign over anything actually vaguely political. Romney is 65. Obama is 51. Since JFK, the candidate who was younger and looked better on TV has won.

Romney needs to invest in some JustForMen.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 31/08/2012 15:23

There is probably a survey showing that a sizeable percentage of US citizens think Gump actually was president but that the information has been suppressed along with the truth about the moon landings and the aliens in Area 51....

niceguy2 · 31/08/2012 14:16

so how did George w bush get elected

Because in the US there are only really two parties. And the split is pretty even. Most elections are decided on a swing of a few percent.

Most of the electorate (like ours) will vote for their party regardless of whom is in charge. Chuck in hundreds of millions of dollars of PR, spin etc and even Forrest Gump could look a good presidential candidate.

violathing · 31/08/2012 13:43

George bush was a total idiot how on earth he got to be president I will never know!

monsterchild · 31/08/2012 13:30

Violating, trusts a whole different thread! But people liked him more than Kerry is the short answer. I'm not touching the whole voter fraud madness