I have a hard time holding the President directly accountable for the state of the economy, because, speaking as someone who is entirely not an expert watching the people who are supposedly experts try, try and fail, it doesn't seem like there's much he can do about it. I choose to hold the President accountable for the things he does to help those dealing with a bad economy. When I was unemployed in 2009 and on the government dole for 8 months, I got an extra $25 a week thanks to a Federal initiative to kick states some extra cash and I was eligible for a subsidized premium (65%, I think) of my health insurance premium, which was the only way I was able to afford it for as long as I could. Things like that are good.

Beyond the economy, I was glad President Obama tried to tackle health care; didn't see all the change I wanted but some positive changes were definitely made, and I was glad that DADT was repealed, so I would say I'm relatively satisfied. I think the changes I would lean the other way were already low, so I think President Obama can feel secure in the knowledge that he has my vote in November.

I'm in favour of continuing on the european course and withstanding the onslaught of populist anti-EU sentiment and - anti fiscal responsibility.
I view the Netherlands as a European, social-capitalist country. And we need to make wise, sometimes not very popular, choices to maintain the capitalist viability and socialist compassion and socialist upward mobility. And to make the EU work again. We need to strike the right balance given the current challenges.
(I know you were talking about the US. But we're having elections as well. And these are interesting times in the EU obviously)

Left, as always. Now I just need a candidate (US).

I'm leaning away from the relentless stupid of the US horse race that I've actually fallen over and landed in the UK. It's lovely, really, to be that far away from it. On the other hand, I should probably think about an address that allows me to exercise the franchise.

I find I care much more (which is still not very much) about the elections here in Maine rather than the national election, because that has much more of an immediate effect on me due to my job. That said, if I'm anything it's likely to be a Democrat.

D- US/WA all the way and working for a local reform campaign to blast loose some corporate regulatory capture.

I support Barack Obama, just as I did in 2008. His stimulus program immediately after his election made sense and was effective -- it just needed to be bigger. After the 2010 midterms, I don't know what more he could have done against determined Republican opposition and the Big Lie that budget cuts were needed in the midst of a fragile recovery from recession. I do trust him to do the right thing 90% of the time. My major disapointments from him have been the cancellation of the shuttle program and his failure to act to stop the invasions of civil rights domestically. (I wish Guantanamo were closed, but he was also checkmated by the Rs on that front.)

I do not support the Democrats, who were remarkably inept when they controlled both houses of the Congress and the Presidency, and haven't done much with their control of the Senate and Presidency since 2010. What a bunch of stumblebums. Though I suspect my votes will be mostly D in November.

Romney doesn't scare me nearly as much as McCain did. I still like Obama but I dislike the D's in general more than I did before. But I'd rather clean up the D's messes than the R's messes.

I'm in favour of continuing on the european course and withstanding the onslaught of populist anti-EU sentiment and - anti fiscal responsibility.

This is my biggest worry. I have a hard time imaging a solution that avoids serious political unrest.

Sanders/Warren. I'm not afraid to write-in.

Yeah. Kucinich. Always Kucinich.

Yeah, mullacc, it will be interesting to see.

My biggest peeve with the Democrats is that strong leadership is antithetical to their dogma, so instead, we get milksops like Obama whose biggest appeal is that his competency is barely adequate. What I find most stunning about his term as President is that his staff let his biggest solid accomplishments linger with such underwhelming publicity. While kicking out Obama would be no great loss, installing Romney (with the baggage he has collected over the past few years) would not be any great win.

Overall, Bush shoved the entire world into a state of stagnation (and decline for some quarters) that very few individuals (like Hillary) could undo with two 4-year terms. Electing Romney now holds the possibility of beginning a new phase globally but it would be tainted with fundamentalist morality. Re-electing Obama is a virtual guarantee that nothing of substantial good has a chance to happen for another four years.

With that, I think the more important decision will be who controls the next Senate. While the Democrats are vulnerable, I do not think their losing control is as probable as many lefties speculate, but this is a rare case where liberal pessimism is actually spurring them on to react positively. The SuperPAC concept is forcing the left to seek out Big Money, and if in the long term this reverses the left's recent swing of antagonism toward capitalism then the US will once again move forward. I strongly support the concept of SuperPACs; they will force the current Democrat base to engage in financial responsibility or usher in a new generation of social realists.

SuperPACs

Yeah, if you can't lick 'em, fuck everybody.

force the current Democrat base to engage in financial responsibility or usher in a new generation of social realists

≡ Click to see image ≡

Forward.

Local elections: Probably Frerichs, Wolk, and Souza. I'd love to vote for Greenwald but she sort of doesn't get an A+ on "plays well with others" and that's kind of an important trait if you want to get things done on city council. And Lee is all about more enforcement as the solution to everything, which just won't do.

Obama isn't far enough left to suit me. Health care reform was what I expected, not what I hoped, and it's in jeopardy. The bank bailout wasn't accomplished well, but it was accomplished, which helped keep the economy, so devastated by the Bush government, more stable. We're still at war in Afghanistan, we still have prisoners in Guantanamo, civil liberties are still encroached on by the government, global climate change still looms, and lots of things we wanted from Obama haven't materialized.

But he chose a fantastic Secretary of State in Clinton, and 2 great Supreme Court justices in Kagan and Sotomayor, which we sorely need, given the current conservative court. Obama got the best health care program he could negotiate, he (mostly) closed out the war in Iraq, the economy is slowly, steadily and maybe prudently improving. The stimulus program was hugely successful for the economy, and my state has repaired roads and bridges, a cleared-out list for people needing assistance from Vocational Rehab, and many other fine improvements. Not sexy, but safer bridges are a real benefit, plus the jobs that they created. Don't Ask, Don't Tell - gone. My son in the Army says "No big deal."

Some reasons I'll cheerfully vote for Obama. Plus. The symbolic value of an African-American president to people of color all over the world is hard to overstate. I believe in him, something I have rarely said about a politician.

And Romney? We so don't need another rich kid making the US safer for rich kids.

Nuke the lobbyists from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

~ ~ ~

Back during the medical care reform discussions, I had a UK friend ask me why we didn't all go to our representatives and get them to listen to us. I did some numbers. The UK has 60+millionish people and their Parliament has 1436 representatives in both houses, 650 of them elected.

The US has a population of 300+millionish and 535 representatives total in both houses of Congress.

I suppose I can see why my UK friends would feel like they have access to their representatives. And why they'd be baffled that we're not approaching ours and making a difference that way. (Not that we don't try.) They have more elected representatives in the House of Commons than we have *at all*, and they have 1/5 the population. Perhaps their reps really do listen when they show up, call, or email.

But we? In the US? We have people who serve the corporations, because there are just too many people and too many conflicting opinions for them to really represent any of us, unless we're giving them enough money to make them sit up and notice.

That's an interesting point, galadriel. Our system (UK) has lots of problems, but the MP-constituency link is a positive part of it. I know my MP's name, I know where his office is (a 15 minute walk from my house) and I know when he holds his "constituency surgeries" so I can make an appointment to go see him if I want. I've also written to him in the past, and received a reply.

I live in a city of about 300,000 people and we have 3 MPs (the city is divided into 3 constituencies). The Lords don't represent constituencies, even though most have geographical titles.

Hmm, galadriel, I think you just made a great case for a constitutional amendment expanding the size of the House. I'd favor that one.

Anyone but ________. I'm filling in the blank with Romney this time.