• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which Political Candidate Do You Think Would Be Most Bi-Partisan?

Which Political Candidate Do You Think Would Be Most Bi-Partisan?

  • I am Liberal: Romney would be more bi-partisan

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    29

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,627
Reaction score
14,970
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Just as the title implies which one of the 2 major presidential candidates do you think would be most bi-partisan. Is having a bi-partisan or a leader that actively reaches across the isle an important thing for you?
 
Both would probably be about equal in their lack.
 
Equal, if I had to guess.
 
I think they will both try to be bi-partisan. I think the better question is whether Republicans or Democrats in Congress will be open to bipartisanship. Very difficult to say, on that one.
 
If we were still in a time and place where the two parties were at least willing to sit down and talk about stuff regarding this country instead of doing one ups man ship and party politics I think both. But sadly we are in a bog of boisterous blowhards who could care less what we need and more about getting THIER way.

As long as this lasts we are all screwed.
 
Can we define "bipartisan"? Are we talking about "making a genuine effort to reach across the aisle and adopting good ideas that were proposed by the other party"? Or are we talking about "successfully getting some votes from the other party"? Because President Obama would be far better at the former, and Mitt Romney would be far better at the latter. Although in the latter case, this has less to do with the president's proclivities and more to do with the attitude of the congressional leadership in the two parties.
 
Can we define "bipartisan"? Are we talking about "making a genuine effort to reach across the aisle and adopting good ideas that were proposed by the other party"? Or are we talking about "successfully getting some votes from the other party"? Because President Obama would be far better at the former, and Mitt Romney would be far better at the latter.

I think if we could it would be the former
 
Romney amassed a solid string of successes working with an 85% Dem. State house in Mass.

Obama hasn't done it in 3+ years. What indcation is there that he'd start now?
 
I think if we could it would be the former
In that case, although I disagree with Obama on a lot of it, he has been more bipartisan in his efforts. He would have been successful too if he didn't have an obstructionist opposition party.

Romney was probably the same way when he was governor, but then again, he was quite moderate back then (or is he still?), so when he says he was able to work with a majority Democrat congress in Massachusetts, it's mostly because he aligned with them on major issues, which he doesn't now (or does he?)
 
Romney amassed a solid string of successes working with an 85% Dem. State house in Mass.

Obama hasn't done it in 3+ years. What indcation is there that he'd start now?

the reps stopped filabustering and pay attention to business.
 
Romney's debate victory was marked by a tack back to the Center. He will be moderate enough to infuriate me.
 
the reps stopped filabustering and pay attention to business.

If you're at a dinner party and your host offers you shellfish appetizers but you are deathly allergic to shellfish. How many times will you refuse her offers to try one?

Obama's offerings have been unsatisfactory, from what i understand, to the Conservative leaders...unacceptably so.

See, the thing is that whenever the cry goes up for greater bi-partisanship in Washington the expectation is ALWAYS that the Conservatives will make concessions, not the Liberals.

The onus should be on both sides, but let's have Democrats make some concessions for a change!
 
I voted 'other'. I will believe it when I see it. Let's see how congress shapes up, then we'll talk.
 
I'm more liberal than conservative. I think Romney would be more bi-partisan.

This is, simply put, because he's already demonstrated his ability to flip-flop based on audience; In the primaries, he was much further to the right than he is now.
 
Romney's debate victory was marked by a tack back to the Center. He will be moderate enough to infuriate me.

You HOPE he will be moderate enough to infuriate me. Only Mitt knows what Mitt believes.

Voting For Romney in 2012 is like voting for Obama in 2008. It's all Hope.
 
You HOPE he will be moderate enough to infuriate me. Only Mitt knows what Mitt believes.

Voting For Romney in 2012 is like voting for Obama in 2008. It's all Hope.

Nah. If I was voting for him instead of against the other guy, that might hold water.
 
hmmmm, I answered other

Obama has tried a lot to be partisan, even to the point of upsetting his own supporters.
Mitt in his past has done the same.

I think id easily give the lead to Obama BUT that doesnt mean Mitt wouldnt do it. I actually think they would BOTH be good at it, Obama just better because of certain issues. But the reality is I think Mitt would have more success doing it because at this point in time the Dems are more willing to do so then the Reps. So the issues is Mitt working with Dems and them accepting it VS Obama working with Reps and them accepting it.


What Im getting at is the real question, which party is currently more willing to be Bi-Partisan with a president with a different letter after thier name and currently I feel thats the Dems.
 
Frankly, I think Obama has been a pushover his first term. He gave up WAY too much ground to the Republicans. But then the Republicans weren't even the least bit secretive about their main priority being Obama's failure. That said, I don't think the Republicans will be as obstinate if Obama wins a second term. They will be wanting to paint themselves in a better light for 2016. So Obama will be just as much of a pushover but the Republicans in Congress will likely be more cooperative.

I have no doubt that Romney would be willing to work with both sides. And I doubt, hope, the Democrats would be willing to throw the nation under the bus in the same way the Republicans did just to make the President look bad. Another reason I think Romney would be cooperative is that I don't actually think he stands for anything. He can easily be swayed as long as it can be shown that it would be in his best interest.
 
Romney

He'd have the potential for a second term so would have more to lose by being clearly stonewalling and partisan

Obama doesn't have another term to worry about if he's elected, and so has no strong political reason to strive for bipartisanship
 
I would think a lame duck President who wanted to leave a legacy of having accomplished some legislating would be more inclined to work across the isle than not. It will take some compromising by both parties to reach some solutions for the coming fiscal cliff and automatic cuts.
 
First of all, I answered "other" in the poll because my opinion on this topic has nothing to do with my lean.

Now, to answer the poll, I would have to choose Romney. This choice is based on the record and public history of each man.
 
The Wall Street Journal had an interesting editorial today. More or less, they make the case that if Obama is re-elected, he will be a lame duck president due to the Benghazi scandal, and due to the fact that he has run the most negative campaign in history. Republicans in the House simply won't work with him, and he won't be able to get anything done for 4 years.
 
Personally, I think Romney would be more bi-partisan and willing to reach across the isle compared to Obama. Obama is extremely divisive and Romney not only had to be bi-partisan in MA but has also used his desire to work with Democrats in his campaign.
 
I think you are correct. I remain amazed that anyone could reasonably vote for Obama, given the last 4 years.
 
Back
Top Bottom