logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Well, that's that, Obama is still President, and Republicans can still block him
Julian
post Nov 7 2012, 11:11 AM
Post #1


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,940
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



No preamble to speak of, just questions for debate:

What were the key factors that allowed Obama to win last night?

Did Obama, in fact, win on his own merits, on the merits of his party in spite of his own problems, or was it Romney's to lose?

Did Romney lose because of his own failings, or because of the failings of his party?

Where would you like to see national politics go from here, and where do you think they will go from here?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
WillyPete
post Nov 7 2012, 11:39 AM
Post #2


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 233
Member No.: 5,465
Joined: September-14-05

From: SoCal
Gender: Male
Politics: Private
Party affiliation: None



What were the key factors that allowed Obama to win last night?

My core reason is that the American people have a keen sense of fairness, and recognized that having given the GOP 8 years that ended the way it ended, it wouldn't be fair to throw Obama over after 4 years without a much better option on the table. Romney was not the game changer he needed to be.


Did Obama, in fact, win on his own merits, on the merits of his party in spite of his own problems, or was it Romney's to lose?

Doom-criers aside, we're in a shallow recovery right now. There were a billion ways Obama could have messed that up, but he generally took pragmatic steps, and avoided unnecessary entanglements. Apart from the economy, what were his problems again?


Did Romney lose because of his own failings, or because of the failings of his party?

Romney would have been an OK President, though his frequent changes of position and regressive social views were troubling.

He can take heart in that he has followed in his father's footsteps, and the U.S. thanks them both for playing.


Where would you like to see national politics go from here, and where do you think they will go from here?

I'd like to see an honest effort by the federal government to become less wasteful, and to shape it's spending and policies towards the greater good. Since wasteful spending is one of the main ways Congress trades favors, I don't think it's in the cards in the short term.

As we have a divided Congress, they can resume the gridlock. Frustrating as it is, it beats getting either party's complete platform, and then switching back and forth every other election.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Nov 7 2012, 11:41 AM
Post #3


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



Did Romney lose because of his own failings, or because of the failings of his party?

I'm going to tackle this question, as a Conservative and a recovering Republican, this aspect of last nights thumping is most interesting to me.

The fundamental flaw in the campaign was a callous disregard for principle. It's nearly impossible to carry the banner of Conservatism, when your standard bearer isn't Conservative. Concepts of liberty were casually cast aside in favor of empty rhetoric and pandering favor to preferential demographics. I don't blame Romney....he's just a symptom of the greater disease.

I haven't said a eulogy for the GOP just yet....this could be just the low water mark that the party needed to rediscover long forgotten principles of limited government and individual liberty.

The question remains, does the party have enough collective intellectual integrity to leave behind the meme and myths that so obviously didn't work, and actually stand for principle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 7 2012, 12:00 PM
Post #4


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,358
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



What were the key factors that allowed Obama to win last night?

It seems that voter turnout was high this season, but that story won't be clear for a few more days. My suspicion is that the attempts to block voters ticked them off, and so it became a battle of wills.

Did Obama, in fact, win on his own merits, on the merits of his party in spite of his own problems, or was it Romney's to lose?

Consistency played a part. President Obama didn't have to go through a primary season, so he didn't have to change messages.

The obvious thing is that the Republicans threw away minority and women's votes in favor of aging white men. I agree with pundits who have said this was the last national election in which that strategy could have had a chance. Things will be different from here on out.

Did Romney lose because of his own failings, or because of the failings of his party?

Yes. It was bad strategy, but the strategy still had a glimmer of a chance to work. It did not, and so that question is laid to rest.

Where would you like to see national politics go from here, and where do you think they will go from here?

A greater sense of cooperation to tackle the tough problems of our times. Keep in mind that midterms will have an impact on Congress and state legislatures/governors. Note what swing states swung for Obama, and with the possibility (probability) of a greater sense of participation in our democratic republic, cooperation will edge out mindless confrontation in the long run. Note also that the efforts to make President Obama a single-term POTUS failed. I think they failed miserably, but 2014 midterms will confirm for sure.

*

Stevie Wonder is obviously way better than Meatloaf.

*

Michelle is way better than Ann.

*

Superstorm Sandy showed the way in a manner not easily ignored.

*

President Obama is not a wild-eyed socialist, and it became undeniable that attempts to paint him as such were pathetic. His acceptance speech showed him to be the face of our future. It's a multi-ethnic face, a strong face, and a courageous face. Romney does not have that face. The wimpy message about just believing in America and all will be well fell short.

So that's how I see it now. The election is over, and now the analysis of what actually happened begins.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Nov 7 2012, 01:06 PM
Post #5


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



What were the key factors that allowed Obama to win last night?

1. The Republicans. Really, it's that simple. Obama was a flawed candidate who everyone knew was flawed and yet the Republicans did everything they could to shrink their appeal, leaving people between a flawed choice and a hostile party.

2. Romney not having any defined set of principles other than "I want to win". A lot of people voted for him hoping that he would do what they wanted; a lot of people couldn't vote for him because they had no idea what he would do once in office. That's not a way to get people fired up for your side.

3. Minorities and GOTV. The Obama GOTV effort was left in place in the swing states since 2008. That "enthusiam gap" that Republicans were hoping would put them over the top turned out for Obama instead. Minorities turned out in even greater numbers than 2008, and will turn out in even greater numbers in 2016. Republican lost the workers they don't even see as people.

Did Obama, in fact, win on his own merits, on the merits of his party in spite of his own problems, or was it Romney's to lose?

Romney lost. The Republican Party lost. Obama did not make a case during the campaign for all the great thing's he's done.

Some people will think that the losing candidates "weren't conservative enough" when in fact they weren't moderate enough from the start. Politics is like chess: the player controlling the middle controls the game. Romney waited until October to try to win the middle and by then no one believed him. The Republican Senate candidates who went down in blazing style were mostly right wing nut jobs that won Republican primaries. That tells you that the adults have lost control of the Republican Party... and the Party will continue to lose big elections until the adults take back control.

Did Romney lose because of his own failings, or because of the failings of his party?

Yes. Romney was an uninspiring candidate, but his party is hostile to approximately 28% of the people who voted yesterday (exit polls indicated that "white" voters were 72%; minorities were 45% of Obama's total vote count). You can't just cede that huge number of voters to the other side and expect to win. "Hey, I have a great idea, let's cede 47% of the vote to the other side so that I only have to get at least 98% of the remaining vote to win the election! What a splendid idea!!" thumbsup.gif

Where would you like to see national politics go from here, and where do you think they will go from here?

I want the Senate to start having visible filibusters instead of quiet ones. I want to parade the idiots for the world to see for as long as they can take the heat. Senators already get enough free press, a little more won't hurt anyone, but as long as there's a mechanism in place to end the filibuster when public pressure gets the best of the rest of the Senate, then I'd rather the Senate deal with the filibuster than to just not try to get stuff passed.

I want to see Obama call out obstructionists on both sides who are keeping judges from being confirmed, and preventing deals from being made. I want compromise and I want to hurt every politician who wants to put their own agenda ahead of getting something done for the country.

This post has been edited by amf: Nov 7 2012, 01:07 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Nov 7 2012, 01:51 PM
Post #6


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



What were the key factors that allowed Obama to win last night?

I think the sheer negativeness of both the Republican primary and the Obama campaign doomed Romney. I thought after the first debate that Romney was able to shake this image of being a corporate raider who wants to screw workers and eat their children.

QUOTE(amf)
Republican lost the workers they don't even see as people.


I guess I was wrong. They don't even see them as people? Really? What a crass and deeply cynical statement.

Did Obama, in fact, win on his own merits, on the merits of his party in spite of his own problems, or was it Romney's to lose?

He won via the Obama machine. Let's face it: Obama turned out the vote. Amazingly, in an economy that is not doing well, he somehow got urban voters to come out for him in droves. I'm not sure why a person that might have been unemployed for years would vote for more of the same, but they did.

Did Romney lose because of his own failings, or because of the failings of his party?

Romney was beaten up by his own party, no doubt. However, he won older voters. He won male voters. He won white voters. These are big blocks of voters. He did have appeal.

The President, meanwhile, won younger voters (under 30), female voters, and minority voters (90+% of blacks, 70% of hispanics).

Romney should have made a direct appeal, based upon principles, to Latino voters. He failed to do that and failed to connect with them.

Did Obama win on his merits? No. He won because those that voted for him did not think he is responsible for this economy. Exit polls show that the main issue was the economy and that people favored Romney on that issue. However, those that voted for Obama didn't place any responsibility with the President, they are still blaming W. Sheer idiocy. No Republican policy led to the housing bubble bursting. President Bush was the one who got the TARP through a hostile GOP Congress. It was TARP that stabilized things, not any policy of the current President.

Not taking responsibility is absolutely killing this country. Blaming others for your circumstances is a sure way to failure and more of the same. The President will now turn his attention to the GOP House to place blame for whatever is to come. It makes me sad.

Where would you like to see national politics go from here, and where do you think they will go from here?

I'd like to see elected officials take responsibility for their actions and not blame others. I'd like to think that after four years, a President would finally admit that he's the one in charge, the most powerful man on the planet. The culture of this country is eroding, with "it's his fault" being the go-to statement. Sad... sad.gif

What will we get? We'll get a "my way or the highway" approach for Obama that will mimic the last four years. We'll get finger pointing.

We are heading for a fiscal cliff where taxes are going to go up dramatically (slowing economic growth) while government spending goes down. This President has proposed nothing to change our course.

On a positive note, I think the media will finally stop being lap dogs. I heard on CNN this morning that the President hasn't done a good job on the economy. Really? Where was that statement last week or last month? I think Benghazi is going to become a scandal that the media should have been investigating from day one.

It's going to be an interesting four years, and not in a good way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Nov 7 2012, 02:04 PM
Post #7


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
I thought after the first debate that Romney was able to shake this image of being a corporate raider who wants to screw workers and eat their children.


QUOTE
Republican lost the workers they don't even see as people.


I guess I was wrong. They don't even see them as people? Really? What a crass and deeply cynical statement.


Let me know when the Republican Party starts viewing Hispanics -- especially immigrants -- as people. "Come pick our watermelon, but we're going to keep you underground or toss you out if you get caught after the picking season is over." And don't try to "drive while brown" in places like Arizona and Alabama. Some of them are illegally here, but there's a huge voting bloc of them who are family to the ones here illegally.

The Republican Party doesn't see them as real people, just a caricature. But they're a growing part of the electorate, so the Republicans need a better plan.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Nov 7 2012, 02:09 PM
Post #8


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(amf @ Nov 7 2012, 10:04 AM) *
QUOTE
I thought after the first debate that Romney was able to shake this image of being a corporate raider who wants to screw workers and eat their children.


QUOTE
Republican lost the workers they don't even see as people.


I guess I was wrong. They don't even see them as people? Really? What a crass and deeply cynical statement.


Let me know when the Republican Party starts viewing Hispanics -- especially immigrants -- as people. "Come pick our watermelon, but we're going to keep you underground or toss you out if you get caught after the picking season is over." And don't try to "drive while brown" in places like Arizona and Alabama. Some of them are illegally here, but there's a huge voting bloc of them who are family to the ones here illegally.

The Republican Party doesn't see them as real people, just a caricature. But they're a growing part of the electorate, so the Republicans need a better plan.

You make up a quote, attribute it to some faceless Republican and call it the truth.

I agreed that the GOP needs a new message to Hispanics. But your characterization of Republicans is simply sour.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Nov 7 2012, 02:41 PM
Post #9


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 7 2012, 09:09 AM) *
You make up a quote, attribute it to some faceless Republican and call it the truth.

I agreed that the GOP needs a new message to Hispanics. But your characterization of Republicans is simply sour.gif


Yes, I'll admit that the quote is a composite of what I hear here from the Republicans who are very much in charge of the plantation here.

You don't live in the places where Hispanics are being demonized -- while still in high demand to pick the crops -- so you likely don't hear it as much as I do here in dark-red Georgia... where we also have some pretty Arizona-like laws concerning immigrants.

And the GOP doesn't need a new "message" on Hispanics. They need a whole new strategy on Hispanics, gays, blacks, women, and those who believe in facts and science and evidence... and part of that is going to require dumping the fringe that has taken over the primary process.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 7 2012, 02:42 PM
Post #10


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,358
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Amlord @ Nov 7 2012, 09:51 AM) *
He won via the Obama machine. Let's face it: Obama turned out the vote. Amazingly, in an economy that is not doing well, he somehow got urban voters to come out for him in droves. I'm not sure why a person that might have been unemployed for years would vote for more of the same, but they did.

On the other hand, the popular vote was pretty close, 3% for Obama from what I've seen so far. Maybe the long-term unemployed did vote for Romney, although why would they? His credibility as someone who can turn the economy around was never very good. He would have been a first-term POTUS dealing with a hostile Congress, so what could anyone expect out of that? Add to this that there's no correlation between tax cuts and job growth, and there you go. An empty argument.

But say the long-term unemployed did vote for Obama. Why? Well, positive job growth numbers coming out just before the election could have had something to do with it, despite the rather poor attempts at discrediting the numbers.

So basically, Romney brought nothing to the table other than his own assertions on his unproven abilities as a POTUS with the magic job growth touch. Then there was his opposition on what Obama did with GM, even though Romney tried to spin it so that he somehow advised a sitting president on what to do. That was pretty sad.

I've been through excruciating long-term unemployment. Not once did I think that any Republican could help that situation. However, Obama has a track record of job growth, so that's a good sign of things improving. For me, things have been improving steadily since around September. Perhaps the same has happened for others, and when reality contradicts talk, reality always wins.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Nov 7 2012, 03:54 PM
Post #11


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,313
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 7 2012, 08:42 AM) *
However, Obama has a track record of job growth, so that's a good sign of things improving.


And there is the issue---people believe what they want to believe despite any and all facts to the contrary .The unemployment rate is just where it was when Obama came into office, which is a pretty sorry testament considering that it was too high then. Proven high unemployment keeper is more the reality. That might change, but unemployment is just as high now as it was when Obama took office. That is his track record.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Nov 7 2012, 04:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Nov 7 2012, 04:36 PM
Post #12


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,372
Member No.: 1,540
Joined: October-23-03

From: Atlanta, GA
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 7 2012, 10:54 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 7 2012, 08:42 AM) *
However, Obama has a track record of job growth, so that's a good sign of things improving.


And there is the issue---people believe what they want to believe despite any and all facts to the contrary .The unemployment rate is just where it was when Obama came into office, which is a pretty sorry testament considering that it was too high then. Proven high unemployment keeper is more the reality. That might change, but unemployment is just as high now as it was when Obama took office. That is his track record.

Those who can't remember the past are condemned to vote for those who will repeat it.

In Jan 2009, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. GDP the previous quarter was finally measured as dropping nearly 9%. You ever drive a really huge boat or a semi? Try making a U-turn in it to see what changing the economic direction of a $10 trillion economy is like.

Now? Job gains in the past 30+ months and the GDP is on a nice run of staying positive. THAT is Obama's economic track record.

Plutocrats destroyed the economy through their gambling with taxpayer-backed money in 2005-2008. Republicans chose as their candidate in 2012 a plutocrat who couldn't even admit where he was hiding all his money. What could go wrong? thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 7 2012, 05:12 PM
Post #13


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,358
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(amf @ Nov 7 2012, 12:36 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 7 2012, 10:54 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 7 2012, 08:42 AM) *
However, Obama has a track record of job growth, so that's a good sign of things improving.


And there is the issue---people believe what they want to believe despite any and all facts to the contrary .The unemployment rate is just where it was when Obama came into office, which is a pretty sorry testament considering that it was too high then. Proven high unemployment keeper is more the reality. That might change, but unemployment is just as high now as it was when Obama took office. That is his track record.

Those who can't remember the past are condemned to vote for those who will repeat it.

In Jan 2009, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. GDP the previous quarter was finally measured as dropping nearly 9%. You ever drive a really huge boat or a semi? Try making a U-turn in it to see what changing the economic direction of a $10 trillion economy is like.

Now? Job gains in the past 30+ months and the GDP is on a nice run of staying positive. THAT is Obama's economic track record.

Plutocrats destroyed the economy through their gambling with taxpayer-backed money in 2005-2008. Republicans chose as their candidate in 2012 a plutocrat who couldn't even admit where he was hiding all his money. What could go wrong? thumbsup.gif


Yeah, what he said.

The time for arguing whether the economy is getting better is over, at least for campaigning. Apparently, the arguments against President Obama's performance in this area fell on deaf ears, or as I like to think about it, critical minds.

Besides, the unemployed do think about other things than getting the next gig. I don't think it was the economy (stupid) this time around. Well, I'll wait for the punditry to land on some ideas regarding what did actually go down before proclaiming that it really did have to do with women's rights.

The demographic shifts seem to be in play here too.

So what will the Republican Party come up with next? Will this end the strange reign of Rove? Will other stupid political tricks be tried, such as impeachment over bogus claims? Or will a new era of cooperation and moderation take over? Hope so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Nov 7 2012, 05:46 PM
Post #14


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,940
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Nov 7 2012, 11:41 AM) *
Did Romney lose because of his own failings, or because of the failings of his party?

I'm going to tackle this question, as a Conservative and a recovering Republican, this aspect of last nights thumping is most interesting to me.

The fundamental flaw in the campaign was a callous disregard for principle. It's nearly impossible to carry the banner of Conservatism, when your standard bearer isn't Conservative. Concepts of liberty were casually cast aside in favor of empty rhetoric and pandering favor to preferential demographics. I don't blame Romney....he's just a symptom of the greater disease.

I haven't said a eulogy for the GOP just yet....this could be just the low water mark that the party needed to rediscover long forgotten principles of limited government and individual liberty.

The question remains, does the party have enough collective intellectual integrity to leave behind the meme and myths that so obviously didn't work, and actually stand for principle.


Yep, I think that was the most interesting aspect as a foreign observer, too, and how the Republican party handle it over the next two to three years (until the next Congressional/Presidential elections have taken place) will determine their future as a political force.

From the outside, it strikes me that the Republican party stands at a crossroads. As you say, they could yet turn things around from this "low water mark", though for my money the mistake they've made is different to the one you identify. Your argument here would appear to be similar to those of the Tea Party wing of Republicanism - Romney lost because he wasn't attached firmly enough to principles they shared (I realised you don't share many of those same principles, but it's the principle I'm getting at. If you follow me. blink.gif )

From what I see from this distance, ordinary Americans outside of the "base" of either main party - the Americans who form the majority of voters - are heartily sick of the way the the legislature appears to be paralysed in oppositionism, which both sides justify in terms of their lofty principles.

Principles are, of course, crucially important in politics, but so are pragmatism and compromise, and while all sides of politics have become more polarised, the Tea Party faction of the Republicans appears to reject compromise altogether. No taxes can go up. No spending can go up (except on defence). No borrowing is good, even borrowing for investment in infrastructure that can show positive benefits. All arms of government (except defence and law enforcement) are inherently evil, on principle, and those working in them or funded by them are to be systematically demonised as parasites. And so on.

Romney could and would have won this election, I think, if he'd been able to run on his record as Governor of Massachusetts (a liberal state if ever there was one), because he would have come across as a principled pragmatist - someone who could pick and choose areas to cooperate and compromise with his political opponents, using his principles to inform him which areas to stand firm on, rather than clinging to principles at all costs and damn the consequences.

But the modern Republican party, so energised as it is by the Tea Party tendency, and - most especially - so financially beholden as it is to the big beasts of modern capitalism that bankrolled the campaign (and set up the Tea Party in the first place), wouldn't allow Romney to mention this.

Now, it may be that over a longer cycle - decades, perhaps - the arguments of the Tea Party (for a kind of muscular Christian morality coupled to Randian economics as far as I can see) might garner wider popular support, but as things stand at the moment they are most attractive to quite a small minority of the electorate, and one that current demographic trends is only likely to make smaller. So if Republicans in the shorter term want to get their candidate into the White House, they can't keep making the same mistakes and expecting a different outcome.

The principles themselves may be correct - who knows? - but if those principles can't get you elected into a position to govern by them, what use are they?

The Tea Party is not so in control of the Republicans as a whole that it could override the idea that a Presidential candidate needs to be able to appeal to the political centre ground to win. So the delegates selected Romney. The money men funding it all, on the other hand, are mostly ideological hardliners who see compromise and pragmatism as weaknesses not strengths, and so you ended up with an instinctively moderate and pragmatic politician running a hardline campaign that he didn't really believe in or even fully understand, in a media age when everything a candidate does or says during a campaign has to be treated as likely to be on tomorrow's front pages (hard enough for anyone to get to grips with, let alone someone like Romney, who had to face in two directions at once).

My hunch is that the Republican party is now mirroring some of the problems that the British Labour Party had in the 1980s with their extremist wing, the hard left Militant Tendency. The leadership of the day had to pick a fight with them and get rid of them to be able to make the party electable again, so they did. With hindsight, they may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and abandoned too many of their core principles to win power, and now they're in opposition they're fumbling to find an identity beyond sheer cynical pragmatism that can get them elected again, but win they did.

So I reckon the Republican party will have to pick a fight with the Tea Party-esque extremes of Republican opinion, be seen to do it, and be seen to win. But the USA isn't a parliamentary democracy with tightly-defined parties, but a republic with 'big tent' parties that are more like loose confederations of the like-minded, so that will be very difficult to do and I don't see it happening in time for 2016.

They'll stay an electoral force, because whatever electoral problems they have, they don't seem to have much trouble electing people to the House or Senate, but I struggle to see how they'll get a Republican president again without such a cathartic episode.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 7 2012, 06:33 PM
Post #15


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



What were the key factors that allowed Obama to win last night?

With the help of the mainstream media he successfully targeted Romney and mischaracterized his “let Detroit go bankrupt” statement. Its was debunked by fact checkers but the big media let it stand. Obama turned out everyone in some cases more than 08. He carried the auto workers in a big way.

He sold the “tax the rich” lie and again the media did little to point out that it was a 5% solution.

Obama did a great job convincing illegal aliens and their friends and family here that he was not going to go after them including unlawfully telling ICE to not deport them unless they were “criminals”.

Finally Obama managed to “blame Bush” one last time to save his butt. Polling suggests that many independents who voted for BO actually believed this lie.


Where would you like to see national politics go from here, and where do you think they will go from here?

It would be nice to see some bi-partisan action from BO and the Congress. If the Dem idiots demand the “tax the rich” path again they will get squat and deserve it.

Dick Durbin was asked this question today on CNN and his solution was Simpson – Bowles! Well of course Dick – and Ryan and others have been talking about it for almost 2 years while Obama has ignored it. There is no other way and Democrats have always known it. Now they need to work with Republicans to make it happen. I give it low probability…
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Nov 7 2012, 06:59 PM
Post #16


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



What were the key factors that allowed Obama to win last night?
The public's political intelligence pierced the 80 IQ barrier. hmmm.gif At 100 IQ Romney wouldn't get 5%.

Did Obama, in fact, win on his own merits, on the merits of his party in spite of his own problems, or was it Romney's to lose?
He's a dynamic guy and inspires and strays into reality from time to time. That apparently barely trumped being black.

Did Romney lose because of his own failings, or because of the failings of his party?
Apparently lying 80% of the time is fine. When you kick it up to 90% it becomes a little too obvious.

Where would you like to see national politics go from here, and where do you think they will go from here?
More reality based thinking. Apparently the only thing that keeps the public consciousness from almost completely becoming a bad sit-com is having something like Sandy kick us in the butt. It was eerie but refreshing to hear a few politicians actually start to mumble the words "climate change."

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Nov 7 2012, 07:18 PM
Post #17


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 7 2012, 12:33 PM) *
What were the key factors that allowed Obama to win last night?

With the help of the mainstream media he successfully targeted Romney and mischaracterized his “let Detroit go bankrupt” statement. Its was debunked by fact checkers but the big media let it stand. Obama turned out everyone in some cases more than 08. He carried the auto workers in a big way.

He sold the “tax the rich” lie and again the media did little to point out that it was a 5% solution.

Obama did a great job convincing illegal aliens and their friends and family here that he was not going to go after them including unlawfully telling ICE to not deport them unless they were “criminals”.

Finally Obama managed to “blame Bush” one last time to save his butt. Polling suggests that many independents who voted for BO actually believed this lie.


Where would you like to see national politics go from here, and where do you think they will go from here?

It would be nice to see some bi-partisan action from BO and the Congress. If the Dem idiots demand the “tax the rich” path again they will get squat and deserve it.

Dick Durbin was asked this question today on CNN and his solution was Simpson – Bowles! Well of course Dick – and Ryan and others have been talking about it for almost 2 years while Obama has ignored it. There is no other way and Democrats have always known it. Now they need to work with Republicans to make it happen. I give it low probability…

Slow down with the sour grapes, Ted. You need to save enough to last for four years. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Nov 7 2012, 07:20 PM
Post #18


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,148
Member No.: 421
Joined: February-3-03

From: Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



That's that indeed. The election is over and despite all the hoopla and money on pontificating, nothing has changed very much really. No real mandates there that I can tell, people voted to maintain the status quo. Gridlocked congress, disfunctional Presidency and four more years of nothing new. I am disappointed in that to be sure. I had hoped for better - a hope I shared with nearly half of those who voted, but nearly half doesn't work in a national election, so we fell a little short. It happens.

Of course to the left, this is an entirely different thing to hear them tell it. rolleyes.gif It usually is. "This is the death of the Republican Party", they proclaim. We are in ashes they announce and unless we change, we are doomed..... ermm.gif "Oh!" they wail in anguish, caring people that they are doncha know, "let us help you! Please, please let us help! We can tell you how to win a little more than half next time." dry.gif And their advice is of course simple. So easy, so obvious a blind man could see it. "Be more like us," they whisper as if it is such a secret. "Be more like us."

laugh.gif

If I wanted to be like them, my label thingy here would say I considered myself a Liberal Democrat instead of a Conservative Republican. And instead of elections we could hold group loveins where we all sit around and sing songs to the sound of a harp. Maybe a little humming and chanting going on among the old hippie set while the young ones rap and tweet.....

No, I don't think I'd like that very much.

I'll stay a Conservative Republican. Our party is far from death row and indeed has a bright and exciting future I think. Plenty of very good, young intelligent Conservative leaders out there ready to take over the reigns of the party and lead this country back to greatness. I'm an old Conservative, back to the days of Goldwater and Reagan and I don't understand the generation of tweets and texts and all that stuff any better than my parents understood my generation. But, I do share their ideas and goals for the future. They know better how to communicate those ideas than I do, so hey, here's the keys folks. Go out and do your tweets and hashtags (my generation just did hash, or so I'm told) and pass the word. My generation will be right there cheering you on. The ideals are good, and they'll work and we'll get more than half next time. thumbsup.gif

So no, the Republican Party isn't dead. We're very much alive and kicking and ready to pass the torch to our next generation. Mitt Romney is probably the GOP's last candidate for President from my generation, and he was a good one I think. I'm proud of the campaign he ran and the things he stood for. He is an honorable man, a good and decent person and he didn't deserve the kind of crap that got thrown at him by the left, including some here. Shame on you. mad.gif

That's another reason I don't want to be like you and why my almost half of the country will never be like you.

Aquilla

This post has been edited by Aquilla: Nov 7 2012, 07:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Nov 7 2012, 07:21 PM
Post #19


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



What were the key factors that allowed Obama to win last night?
The fact that his challenger was Mitt Romney. During the primaries, the Republican party had a primary race comprised primarily of extremists and the untrustworthy. Choosing flash over substance, the focus fell on the wrong people, I think, and, in the end the party chose the flashiest candidate with the least substance. Romney is and has always been a candidate who will say what he thinks people want to hear and then change that position when it's no longer convenient. Anybody who didn't see that from the start is blind - that was the big argument against him during the primaries by other Republicans. There was no way he could win and, in my opinion, the fact that it was so close is because of the failings of the Obama administration over the last 4 years.

Did Obama, in fact, win on his own merits, on the merits of his party in spite of his own problems, or was it Romney's to lose?

No. It was not Romney's to lose - he never could have won. It was the Republican Party's to lose and they lost it at the end of the primary race.

Did Romney lose because of his own failings, or because of the failings of his party?

Both. Romney has huge character flaws that make it impossible for me to take him seriously or even come close to trusting a word that comes out of his mouth; I mean, I don't trust most of what any politician says, but Romney... not a bit, least trustworthy of the bunch. I think more people were voting for Ryan in this election than for Romney. Socially, the Republican Party platform seems to me to be a huge step back toward the '50's - and a lot of women weren't going to go for that. It's true that the Republican Party is at a crossroads, the approach over the last four years of "do anything to get that guy out of office" backfired, in my opinion.

Where would you like to see national politics go from here, and where do you think they will go from here?

I'd like to see politics be more about the facts and substance and the harsh reality of what's actually going on in the world today... but, I think it will continue to be about personality, about finger-pointing, and about the parties themselves at the expense of the nation.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Nov 7 2012, 07:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Nov 7 2012, 07:33 PM
Post #20


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,313
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(amf @ Nov 7 2012, 10:36 AM) *
In Jan 2009, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. GDP the previous quarter was finally measured as dropping nearly 9%. You ever drive a really huge boat or a semi? Try making a U-turn in it to see what changing the economic direction of a $10 trillion economy is like.

Now? Job gains in the past 30+ months and the GDP is on a nice run of staying positive. THAT is Obama's economic track record.


Amazing how the standards change when one's choice is at the helm. Simply maintaining a positive GDP is your standard now? Maintining almost 8% unemployment? Would you have the same stance if it were the other side with that same record?

Yes, definitely, those who condone the past are likely to repeat it. Four years ago, if Obama would have championed 'In 2012, we will have anemic growth and the same unemployment", would you really have been happy about it?

Also, economies ebb and flow all on their own. It is difficult to point to anything that Obama has done that has created that growth, while there is lots of evidence that the debt his policies have built up have hindered it. THAT is also Obama's track record.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician)
The time for arguing whether the economy is getting better is over, at least for campaigning. Apparently, the arguments against President Obama's performance in this area fell on deaf ears, or as I like to think about it, critical minds.


Yes, that would be how each side would like to think about it. Keeps them from having to face reality, which is always much harsher.

QUOTE(AM)
The demographic shifts seem to be in play here too.


Yes, very much so. Everyone said the economy was their top issue, but that doesn't really seem to be how they voted, as Romney was the one most people said would handle it better. Demographics played a large role, and will continue to do so in an increasing amount. Which means Republicans have completely missed on their message. Were they to follow their principle (well, what used to be their principal) of less government intrusion and greater individual liberty, then there wouldn't be such a demographic divide. Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act, yet now 95% of blacks vote Demographic. They have gone very astray, and the road they are on has reached its end. Latinos are a better recent example. They are a very conservative group, generally, yet are leaning strongly Democratic. Most Latinos actually favor immigration reform (if you went through all the hoops and hurdles to get here legally, would you really like it that so many don't), yet Republicans have botched that issue too. Dole was first to say that the party had no room for all the bigotry and prejudice 20 years ago, yet the party still faces the same issue. It isn't about putting the right face forward--they need to change their message. Even among their now limited base, they are in danger of losing the fiscal conservatives, as witnessed by the Tea Party movement. The may have a big tent, but it is getting increasingly empty. Romney actually should have been a very good Republican candidate, but he had to run so far to the right during the primaries that he couldn't about face and get the center that he really stems from. Republican leaders need to look at that, and realize that what it says isn't good for their long term health.


QUOTE
So what will the Republican Party come up with next? Will this end the strange reign of Rove? Will other stupid political tricks be tried, such as impeachment over bogus claims?


Actually, they could probably benefit from a large dose of Rove. I know that name sends shivers up Democratic spines (that might be a really good point in his favor, much as Carville is for Republicans) but he was pretty good at figuring out what was needed to win an election, and guiding things that way, and that is clearly needed.

QUOTE
Or will a new era of cooperation and moderation take over? Hope so.


Me too...but that has to start with Obama. Republicans (or any minority party) aren't going to roll over and play dead. Obama has to work with them to put forward compromise legislation that Republicans can pass without getting voted out of office. Otherwise, saying No to everything is all they've got, and they will continue to do it.

FWIW, I think Obama gets that. But can he get Pelosi and Reid behind it? He couldn't before....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: September 24th, 2018 - 05:18 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.