Santourum knocks 3 primaries out of the park

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16938713


Santorum declared winner in Minnesota and Missouri votes

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58372000/jpg/_58372858_58372857.jpg Rick Santorum is staunchly opposed to abortion and gay marriage - key issues for conservative voters
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16938713#story_continues_1) US Presidential Election 2012 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15949569)



Where do they stand? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15949571)
How to run for president? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15824409)
Who's backing whom? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15919935)
Campaign calendar (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15919936)



Rick Santorum has been declared the winner in Minnesota and Missouri's Republican presidential nominating contests, thrashing Mitt Romney.
Mr Santorum, a social conservative, was even leading in Colorado, according to partial results.
Defeat in Colorado for Mr Romney would be a huge upset, as he was expected to win easily on the eve of the vote.
The eventual Republican nominee will go on to face Democratic President Barack Obama in November's election.
Newt Gingrich, still Mr Romney's main challenger, hardly campaigned in the three states that voted on Tuesday, and did not even appear on Missouri's ballot.
Speaking from Missouri, Mr Santorum told supporters: "Conservatism is alive and well in Missouri and Minnesota!"
Distrust of Romney In Missouri, with 99% of the vote counted, Mr Santorum was in the lead with more than 55%, well ahead of former Massachusetts Governor Romney at 25%, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul at 12%.
In Minnesota, with 68% of the vote counted, Mr Santorum was on more than 45%, while Mr Paul was on nearly 28% and Mr Romney third on 17%.
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16938713#story_continues_2) Minnesota caucuses results

Source: Minnesota Republican Party
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/world/us_and_canada/11/republican_primaries/state_election_tables/img/romney_40.jpg Romney
45%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/world/us_and_canada/11/republican_primaries/state_election_tables/img/gingrich_40.jpg Gingrich
27%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/world/us_and_canada/11/republican_primaries/state_election_tables/img/paul_40.jpg Paul
17%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/world/us_and_canada/11/republican_primaries/state_election_tables/img/santorum_40.jpg Santorum
11%


70% of precincts reporting



In Colorado, Mr Santorum was ahead with nearly 44% of the vote, with a quarter of votes counted.
Mr Romney, who was forecast by opinion polls to win Colorado, was second on 28%.
Pitching himself as the only true conservative in the presidential race, Mr Santorum campaigned hard ahead of the votes in Minnesota and Missouri - states with significant blocs of Tea Party and evangelical Christian voters respectively.
The former Pennsylvania senator, who had not won a contest since grinding out a narrow win in Iowa's caucuses back in January, has been viewed as a long-shot candidate.
Tuesday's victories will inject new momentum into Mr Santorum's campaign, as he hopes to displace Mr Gingrich as the conservative alternative to Mr Romney.
In Missouri, where Mr Gingrich did not appear on the ballot, Mr Santorum had the opportunity to marshal conservative voters behind his candidacy.
Mr Gingrich, who was campaigning in Ohio, told CNN: "I think the big story coming out tonight is going to be that it's very hard for the elite media to portray Governor Romney as the inevitable nominee after tonight's over."
Correspondents say the game plan of Mr Gingrich, a former House of Representatives Speaker, is to ride out February and hang on until March when Southern states where he stands a better chance of success come into play.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58370000/jpg/_58370950_58370941.jpg The Romney campaign has struggled to shake doubts about his candidacy among conservatives
Mr Romney tried to boost his credentials on being anti-abortion, pro-religious freedom and opposed to gay marriage, in a last-ditch effort to win over social conservatives ahead of Minnesota and Colorado's caucuses.
During his first run for the Republican presidential nomination back in 2008, Mr Romney was victorious in both Colorado and Minnesota.
But both states are perceived to have moved to the right since then, so doubts over his Mormon faith and political record as governor of a liberal state could have cost him votes.
Playing down the significance of Tuesday's contests, Romney campaign political director Rich Beeson said earlier in the day: "Mitt Romney is not going to win every contest. John McCain [the 2008 Republican nominee] lost 19 states in 2008, and we expect our opponents will notch a few wins, too."
In Minnesota, 37 delegates are at stake with 33 up for grabs in Colorado. The primary in Missouri is being dubbed a "beauty contest" since it will actually allocate its delegates next month.
Before Tuesday's votes, Mr Romney had 101 of the 1,144 delegates needed to clinch the nomination at the Republican Party convention in August, according to an Associated Press news agency tally.
In second place, Mr Gingrich was on 32 delegates, Mr Santorum 17 and Mr Paul nine.
Mr Romney has racked up the most victories in this year's election race, with resounding wins in New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada.
This GOP race is almost interesting to watch just for the never ending drama and utterly despicable participants. I suppose Mr Moonbase and the guy who didn't care about the poor were just too far out there ... so they went with the guy who thinks gays are the same as having sex with a horse. They would be fine with that old libertarian who apparently pals around with white nationalists and uses them for a vote bank if it wasn't for the fact that he doesn't like Israel, legalizing drugs and war in the middle east.

[Lobotomy]

I decided that Romney and Gingrich are like the slimy, backstabbing liars, and Paul and Santorum are the really crazy guys that actually believe the shit they say. I'm not sure which is worse.

[Lucretia]

Yes, just what this forum needed. More horserace coverage of American electoral politics.

[workersadvocate]

Welcome to my Midwest backyard..argh!. I tried to tell y'all these folks are going nutso nativist holy warrior neo-fascist. That's the significance of this election result.
I've got to get outta here and to a large diverse US city with a sizable take-no-shit working class. It will probably take a revolutionary civil war before the red flag flies over much of the Midwest (the new Old South).

[Os Cangaceiros]

At least we might not see as much of Romney waging his campaign like the presidency is his inevitable birthright.

[workersadvocate]

At least we might not see as much of Romney waging his campaign like the presidency is his inevitable birthright.

Romney may still win the GOP nod and even the general election, because the financial sector of the capitalists are stuffing his super PAC with contributions and the bourgeois major media outlets had basically crowned him front-runner, most electable, inevitable nominee, etc.
But I think some other sections of bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie and middle class want right wing hell on earth unleashed, and they really don't like the fact that Romney & company are trying to outright buy the election despite them. Seems like they flirted with Gingrich for a minute, but he just didn't have enough right-wing bloody fangs for their liking. So now they look to Mr. God Squad Santorum...everyone knows God is great for unleashing reactionary chauvinist warmongering hell and appeasing middle class "white" Americans with status anxiety while imposing austerity on those "blacks who just want handouts" (paraphrasing what Santorum said in Iowa the day he won that first primary with the help of the evangelical churches and tea party).
Sad thing is that Ron Paul's vote in the GOP primaries would probably double if he said such things brazenly in front of major news networks' cameras.
Basically, this is the new American BNP developing within the GOP. Even if Romney wins, American neo-fascism is back and gearing for a fight.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I just want him to stop acting like he's the only dude in the race. He needs to get down in the mud like a real politician does.

[Veovis]

Personally, I don't think he has any staying power. He'll be sliding out at the rear end of this competition any day now.

[Prometeo liberado]

When this guy talks it's as if a drunken sailor has entered his body. He's got a sleezy foul look that serves as a warning bell to all. I've seen nuns run naked and babies cry at the mere sight of this guy. Santourum is the kind of guy that would order a plate of homeless people for breakfast and you'd kinda have to believe him. He doesn't believe the lie, he is the lie. Jim Jones on his best day couldn't out Koolade my boy Santy. He can tell a mother with a sick child that god probably hates them both for being poor and still have time to make confession before lunch. He operates at a different level than normal people. Lots of small children go in and never come out, and much lithium to boot. It's an ugly world out there on top tiers of the American political scene. Most will end up clinically insane, drunkards of the worse kind, caught up in a little boy photo scandal or dead like dogs on the side of the road. And for no good reason at all.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

What a collection of nutjobs and fascists.

[Sasha]

Personally, I don't think he has any staying power. He'll be sliding out at the rear end of this competition any day now.

Eewwww, i see what you did there...


Http://www.spreadingsantorum.com

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As I understand he two "victories" of Santorum are non-binding, that is the states that he won in do not send delegates so its basically a popularity contest. Romney has the money and will be the Republican nominee. Very few people actually vote in these elections anyway. There was saturation media coverage of the Iowa caucuses, but only 4% of the population participated. Romney won in Florida but only 8% of the population voted for him. The primaries are a stage managed media spectacle, nothing more.

It has been interesting to see two right wingers-Romney and Gingrich, openly debate the merits of capitalism.This is a result of the current crisis, where occasionally real issues are actually mentioned, however briefly.Gingrich got 15 million $ from a billionaire Zionist casino owner which will keep him the race for a few more weeks. Otherwise he's despised by just about everyone.

[Lobotomy]

I just want him to stop acting like he's the only dude in the race. He needs to get down in the mud like a real politician does.

To be fair, he has the benefit of being the only one who has a chance at beating Obama.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Santorum is even more extreme that Romney and Gingrich and his victories in the midwest are indicative of the power of the reactionary "tea party" movement among the American petit-bourgeoisie.

[Grenzer]

Romney's going to win the nomination, that has been pretty much a given for the last year. It really doesn't matter who gets the Republican nomination or even who wins the Presidential election. Historically, individual presidents have had little impact on policy. Their policies tend to simply reflect whatever Congress' composition is. It's just a farce anyway, they are all scum.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Unfortunately, some reactionary American presidents like Richard Nixon and even more so Ronal Reagan had quite a negative impact. Reagan in particular galvanized American reactionary sentiment and used his communication skills to get Congress to pass to rolled back social programs.

[Decolonize The Left]

Romney's going to win the nomination, that has been pretty much a given for the last year. It really doesn't matter who gets the Republican nomination or even who wins the Presidential election. Historically, individual presidents have had little impact on policy. Their policies tend to simply reflect whatever Congress' composition is. It's just a farce anyway, they are all scum.

I agree with this.

And no way Santorum wins the general election on such a divisive platform. It just won't happen. The crazies never get elected into Presidency, only the idiots and the slimiest.

- August

[Ocean Seal]

What I find strange is that incredibly polarizing right-wingers actually win primaries, but in the demcrats those candidates who are seen as "far-left" Kucinich, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson never seem to win anything at all? Am I imagining things or is this how they are?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Is indicative of the power of the far right in the USA today.

[Grenzer]

Unfortunately, some reactionary American presidents like Richard Nixon and even more so Ronal Reagan had quite a negative impact. Reagan in particular galvanized American reactionary sentiment and used his communication skills to get Congress to pass to rolled back social programs.

Well like I said, I think you're overestimating the impact of the individual. This is basic materialism remember? The policy of neo-liberalism would have occurred regardless of who was elected.


What I find strange is that incredibly polarizing right-wingers actually win primaries, but in the demcrats those candidates who are seen as "far-left" Kucinich, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson never seem to win anything at all? Am I imagining things or is this how they are?

No, you're not imagining things at all. I think a large part of this is that liberals do tend to be a bit spineless. I think a large part of this is due to the fact that they can really only engage in rhetorical attacks against the "excesses" of Capitalism, rather than actually do anything about it. They are part of the bourgeois establishment, just as the Republicans are and represent the same interests, just a different tactic.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The elections are stage managed to get the results the ruling class wants and (especially) to keep people demobilzed while at the same time believing that they are somehow participating in a democracy.

No "left" is allowed to develop. Cynthia McKinney was booted out of the Democratic Party. Kucinich was threatened with the destruction of his political career if he persisted in running for prez.

The two corporate parties have an opposing but complimentary dynamic.

The role of the Dems is to coopt and marginalize dissent.They are the "graveyard of social movements". Its not so much that they don't have a spine, its that their paymasters only allow them to go so far in appealing to the working class and progressive constituency.Hence they come off as wimpy, hand wringing liberals. "we'd like to be able to treat people like human beings, but we just don't have enough votes in Congress this year".

The Republicans don't have this constraint. They are free to give vent to their lunatic fringe, consisting mostly of petty bourgois layers who feel threatened and are hold deeply reactionary social values.

Neither party by now has much of a constinuency. Fewer and fewer people vote in elections. The media has to spend an enormous amount of time trying to drum up some excitement."Freedom defined is freedom denied" as Robert Anton Wilson used to say.

A good take on the "elections"

http://pink-scare.blogspot.com/2012/01/do-2012-elections-matter.html

The Republican candidate will be Romney. He has the money behind him. Traditionally with unemployment rates as high as they currently are and likely to remain, a sitting president is defeated. Obama will win, probably by a wide margin, partly because the Republicans are ultra extreme, with very little support or interest by the American population, and because Obama is still the choice of the ruling class to be able to both hold things together and put a break on further class struggle in the period aheade/

[Os Cangaceiros]

Although, to be fair, Cynthia McKinney is kind of a liability.

[Red Commissar]

I think it's interesting to look at the turn outs for these primaries. While they are usually low across the board, these three didn't hit the levels of the more media-swamped ones before them.

Minnesota Results (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/mn?hpt=hp_pc1)
Colorado Results (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/co?hpt=hp_pc1)
Missouri Results (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/mo?hpt=hp_pc1)

In all those, the turn outs were pretty low. Only Missouri probably posted some half-way 'respectable' numbers. I don't think there is much we can take away from this as a sign of people's mentality- really, all we're seeing is the confirmation of apathy in the whole political process, alienation and disgust with this whole process.

Considering all these guys talking about how they know the 'Real America' and that they should be supported by them, they're not really riling up people to come out and vote. As far as the Republicans are concerned, it's really only an indication that Romney didn't have effective media and political teams that people were crediting him with across the states. Santorum's Super PAC is going to get some 'donations' though.

Obama's probably hoping for some idiot to come out of this, or at least for them to sabotage themselves enough there. Going in Obama probably knows if he gets re-election it'll be because the other person opposing him is a dweeb that isn't able to rally support or confidence from the electorate and more importantly the big players in the economy.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Romney is just so, sooooooooooo crushingly unlikable. It's amazing how unlikable he is.

[Veovis]

Santorum is the most likely to beat Obama? I would have guessed Romney or Paul, since they're the least outwardly repulsive of the candidates. Gingrich and Santorum I would have pegged as simply too appalling for the American public.

Then again, I do live in Portland so maybe I'm out of touch with how reactionary the rest of the country is.

[Ostrinski]

Viva La Revolucion!!
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58372000/jpg/_58372858_58372857.jpg
Sorry, hadn't been done yet, had to be done.

[Ostrinski]

I don't understand the ideological trend on qualitating bourgeois candidates. Imo this is the pretext for reformist politics.

[Lucretia]

Does it really matter? All these candidates, including Obama, represent the capitalists when it gets down to it. Are you people actually buying into the cable news propaganda machine's hype that this "contest" in the republican party actually makes one iota of difference?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Does it really matter? All these candidates, including Obama, represent the capitalists when it gets down to it. Are you people actually buying into the cable news propaganda machine's hype that this "contest" in the republican party actually makes one iota of difference?

Nah, I think it's fun to observe as a spectator sport though. I especially like it when political campaigns get nasty and vitriolic and really personal. So far there's been way too much sickening faux-civility, but then again it's only a primary. Hopefully things will get worse by the time the general election rolls around and we'll hear about Romney's secret love child or how Obama is really a Manchurean candidate for Kenyan Islamic extremists.

[workersadvocate]

What's in the news? Planned Parenthood vs. Komen (abortion), Prop 8 court case (gay rights), birth control in healthcare options for church employees. Right-wing culture warriors and holy warriors are getting up in arms...and "Mittens" Romney ain't their man. Santorum is.

On the other hand, Wall Street has definitely been contributing to Romney rather then Obama. Obama's major contributions come from Hollywood and union bureaucracies.
Read into that what you will. I do not think most of the cappie classes want Obama for another four years, but I could be wrong on that.

Even though Santorum is still unlikely to win the Republican nomination, he is very likely to re-invigorate the Religious Right, fuse it with the Tea Party nativist movement, and expand its support and influence in the middle class especially. Then guess where most of the Ron Paul neo-confederate types will go (regardless of what Ron Paul does himself publicly, since that liberatarian jive only goes so far until you get to the middle class right-wing bigot priorities underneath it).
Whether this new American BNP/EDL+Moral Majority+Tea Party style middle class mass movement will continue operating mainly through the Republicans or become an actual fascistic party/ movement with relative independence, I don't know.
Either way, it's not looking good. To some degree, this is occurring due to the inability of the Occupy movement (thus the left) to expand widely, organizing and mobilizing and educating the working class.
The right thinks we're whooped, weak, disorganized, divided, and praying for Obama.

[Lobotomy]

I just really want to see Santorum in a gay sex scandal, that's all I want.

[eyeheartlenin]

... Basically, this is the new American BNP developing within the GOP. Even if Romney wins, American neo-fascism is back and gearing for a fight.

When I read the above, I remembered when I was in the WIL, a small social democratic group in the US, and we went to a big antiwar demonstration in New York (it was years ago, sometime in the mid 2000's, when the antiwar movement still had some size, and the GOP was in the White House, so liberals thought it was OK to demonstrate against the US wars in the Muslim world, unlike today, when liberals would never even contemplate demonstrating in criticism of Obama).

Anyway, while selling the WIL's magazine Socialist Appeal, I must have said something to the effect that both big bourgeois parties are pro-war, because some older lady detached herself from the crowd and started telling me that if we did not put a Democrat in the Oval Office next year, (GW) Bush would institute fascism.

And that is the line of Gus Hall's CPUSA, best builders of the Democratic Party, every four years: owing to a fierce threat from the right, we have to vote for whatever pro-war plutocrat the Democrats nominate for President.

Until bourgeois politicians call for suspending elections, nullifying the Bill of Rights, rounding up leftists in camps, etc., they are NOT fascists. Fascism means the atomization of the working class through state destruction of workers' organizations, and fascist measures are not needed to guarantee the survival of bourgeois rule in the US, since the Democrats already successfully control the workers and their unions. And the rhetoric about how bad the GOP is, which is a justified complaint, always omits the fact that, under the Democrats today, US poverty figures are the worst since 1993 (more poverty now than under GW Bush!), and unemployment hovers around roughly 9%, a genuine crisis for working people, a crisis that is largely ignored by the Democrats.

The whole inflated rhetoric that one sees on revleft, about the necessity and wonderfulness of voting and about how the GOP rightists are fascists, fits very smoothly into the purposes of the Democratic Party reelection campaign. When people on revleft talk positively about voting, that's a euphemism for supporting the pro-war Democratic Party, even at this late date, even after three years of the current administration's presiding over a jobless "recovery." It's amazing to hear leftists still backing the tirelessly pro-war Democrats.

[workersadvocate]

When I read the above, I remembered when I was in the WIL, a small social democratic group in the US, and we went to a big antiwar demonstration in New York (it was years ago, sometime in the mid 2000's, when the antiwar movement still had some size, and the GOP was in the White House, so liberals thought it was OK to demonstrate against the US wars in the Muslim world, unlike today, when liberals would never even contemplate demonstrating in criticism of Obama.

Anyway, while selling the WIL's magazine Socialist Appeal, I must have said something to the effect that both big bourgeois parties are pro-war, because some older lady detached herself from the crowd and started telling me that if we did not put a Democrat in the Oval Office next year, (GW) Bush would institute fascism.

And that is the line of Gus Hall's CPUSA, best builders of the Democratic Party, every four years: owing to a fierce threat from the right, we have to vote for whatever pro-war plutocrat the Democrats nominate for President.

Until bourgeois politicians call for suspending elections, nullifying the Bill of Rights, rounding up leftists in camps, etc., they are NOT fascists. Fascism means the atomization of the working class through state destruction of workers' organizations, and fascist measures are not needed to guarantee the survival of bourgeois rule in the US, since the Democrats already successfully control the workers and their unions. And the rhetoric about how bad the GOP is, which is a justified complaint, always omits the fact that, under the Democrats today, US poverty figures are the worst since 1993 (more poverty now than under GW Bush!), and unemployment hovers around roughly 9%, a genuine crisis for working people, a crisis that is largely ignored by the Democrats.

The whole inflated rhetoric that one sees on revleft, about the necessity and wonderfulness of voting and about how the GOP rightists are fascists, fits very smoothly into the purposes of the Democratic Party reelection campaign. When people on revleft talk positively about voting, that's a euphemism for supporting the pro-war Democratic Party, even at this late date, even after three years of the current administration's presiding over a jobless "recovery." It's amazing to hear leftists still backing the tirelessly pro-war Democrats.
Whoa there, comrade, you are adding points that I'm definitely not making.
I didn't say a fascist movement was coming to power...I said it is in the mass formation/ consolidation/mobilization stage, much more dynamic and no longer "fringe" but rather a serious enemy mass fighting force actively opposing workers and the oppressed.

Terrible idea to look to the Democrats, reformists, or the middle class left generally, especially since as I said above they been key to creating these current circumstances and leaving a gaping wide opening available to the far right precisely because they ain't done anything serious about organizing, educating, and mobilizing the international working class for struggle---no, that's understating it, because we need total class war against capitalism and we need classwide grassroots proletarian organizations that are the flesh and bone of the workers' republic we aim to birth. I realize you probably agree with the middle class left that today's unions are workers' organizations...and apparently also agree that its just fine for over 90% of private sector workers in the USA to be left unorganized by those same unions, not to mentioned the unemployed, specially oppressed working people (including "foreigners" and "immigrants" whether documented or not) and working class youth.
Nor has the Occupy movement generally pursued this as immediate priority number one.
Well, seeing as the right is gearing up, we won't have any choice left but to make that serious turn to the working class. How shitty is it that the only way to get any of the left to do what it should have been doing for decades with the working class is for a radical right fighting mass movement to develop and start attacking us?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

On the other hand, Wall Street has definitely been contributing to Romney rather then Obama. Obama's major contributions come from Hollywood and union bureaucracies.
Read into that what you will. I do not think most of the cappie classes want Obama for another four years, but I could be wrong on that.


Actually my understanding is that while Romney is the largest recipient of corporate money in the GOP, Obama has raised more money from Wall Street than all the other candidates combined. Obama is by far the cappie's choice. Even Bain Capital, the hedge fund co-founded by Mittens, has made a bigger contribution to Obama.




s especially. Then guess where most of the Ron Paul neo-confederate types will go (regardless of what Ron Paul does himself publicly, since that liberatarian jive only goes so far until you get to the middle class right-wing bigot priorities underneath it).
Whether this new American BNP/EDL+Moral Majority+Tea Party style middle class mass movement will continue operating mainly through the Republicans or become an actual fascistic party/ movement with relative independence, I don't know.
Either way, it's not looking good. To some degree, this is occurring due to the inability of the Occupy movement (thus the left) to expand widely, organizing and mobilizing and educating the working class.
The right thinks we're whooped, weak, disorganized, divided, and praying for Obama.



I really don't think any of the Republican candidates have much of a support from anyone.The support they do have isn't very deep but comes from a frustration with economic conditions and a search for whoever looks "presidential" and may be able to fix things. As others have said the turn outs for the primaries are low.

The Tea Party and far right has little popularity. A poll about six months ago or so said the Tea Party are less popular than Muslims or socialists.

The primary elections are superficial indicators. The whole show is a media spectacle, although a well made one. Beats watching Snooki getting drunk on the beach.

Ron Paul isn't really a libertarian. He supports delegating rights for same sex marriage, women's reproductive rights, etc, to the states, i e, abolishing them.The Ron Paul/Tea Party/far right isn't an embryonic American fascism. The ruling class doesn't want this right now and its not in the cards.

It will be Romney vs. Obama, Obama will win, we will loose.There is no difference between what Obama is doing and what Romney wants to do. Perhaps the only difference is that the Republicans will deflect anger from the crisis of capitalism into racism, homophobia, religious bigotry,and the "culture wars" better than Obama would be able to.

Above all the ruling is deeply worried about any mass mobilization of the population. A few months ago Obama began campaigning for his bogus "jobs program". It was clearly a campaign stunt. He started to organize "town meetings" to drum up support. This had to be quickly stopped. With the popularity of the Occupy movement this ran the risk of moving out of the control of the powers that be. Anyway w/the relection of Obama will come even greater discrediting of the Dems and the official "left".

[x359594]

...The primary elections are superficial indicators. The whole show is a media spectacle, although a well made one. Beats watching Snooki getting drunk on the beach...It will be Romney vs. Obama, Obama will win, we will loose.There is no difference between what Obama is doing and what Romney wants to do. Perhaps the only difference is that the Republicans will deflect anger from the crisis of capitalism into racism, homophobia, religious bigotry,and the "culture wars" better than Obama would be able to...w/the relection of Obama will come even greater discrediting of the Dems and the official "left".

That sums it up perfectly. The only people excited by the spectacle are the ideologically committed liberals and rightists; for them it's their quadrennial political games. Judging by steadily declining voter turn out, for the rest of the population the presidential election is a sham.

[Lucretia]

Except I would like to note that people here are being way over-confident about O's re-election chances. Let's remember that he barely got over 50% of the vote four years ago despite running against a really old man with a highly questionable VP choice, from a party that had exhausted the patience of even many conservatives and that was presiding over the onset of the worst economic catastrophe in over 70 years.

You think that in our current conditions O will have any chance of matching his performance four years ago, a performance that -- with a couple of swing states' difference -- would have resulted in defeat rather than victory?

I doubt he will, but as a number of people here have been correctly observing, it doesn't really matter. Romney will be O's second term if he wins. Or is it Bush's fourth term? Or is it Clinton's sixth? Ahh, this is becoming too complicated.

[commieathighnoon]

That's silly, in the US 3-4% lead is a major victory in Presidential races. Of course he only got somewhat over 50%; the media systems and donor groups are always too matched for you to get significantly outside that ballpark. The donors throw it slightly to one side v. another, the segment of the population most easily riled up, mobilized, and whipped up into a hysteria by political ads will throw the election.

So far, Obama definitely is capital's favorite, and that's historically a very good predictor of electoral outcomes.

[Lucretia]

You think O will win VA, NC, or IN again? Not a chance. All a Romney would have to do is pick off a Florida and a New Mexico, which wouldn't seem to be too difficult, and there's the ballgame. Again I think people here are bigtime overestimating O's chances.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If the unemployment rate continues to drop and the economy shows modest signs of recovery, I'd say he's just about guaranteed to win the re-election campaign. By smaller numbers than last time, but win none-the-less.

A few percentage points and a few select swing states are really what decide the presidency in every race in the USA.

[GoddessCleoLover]

To my mind Obama no longer commands the level of support among the bourgeoisie that he enjoyed in 2008. There is a faction that sees the possibility of eroding social programs such as Medicare and Social Security in the event of a GOP victory this year. A year from now things might look an awful lot like they did in 1981, when Reagan and Stockman and their ilk slashed a fair portion of the social safety net. The polls show that the elections could go either way, so we ought to be prepared for the possibility of an Eighties-style reaction under the banner of austerity.

[Lucretia]

If the unemployment rate continues to drop and the economy shows modest signs of recovery, I'd say he's just about guaranteed to win the re-election campaign. By smaller numbers than last time, but win none-the-less.

A few percentage points and a few select swing states are really what decide the presidency in every race in the USA.

There is absolutely no historical or empirical data to substantiate this claim. It's just amateur sooth-saying of the kind you'd find on cable news. Historically, including the most recent recession of 1990-1991 (which was already turning around by early 1992 but still was an albatross for Bush Sr. in November), candidates or political parties in power tend not to benefit from economic improvements that occur so close as to be in the same year as the election. If Obama is judged by his economic performance, it will be for the last three years, not what happens months before the election -- unless what we see is literally unprecedented, something like the most dramatic economic turnaround in history.