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!
> What's gonna happen to the Republican party if Romney loses?, not "just" a theory
EuroBlack
post Sep 26 2012, 02:01 PM
Post #1


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 196
Member No.: 5,095
Joined: June-5-05

From: Europe
Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Right now, it doesn't look too good for our friendly Mitt, the man from Utah, (or was it Michigan? Massachusetts?)
Sure, rightwing leaning Gallup has them tied today, but battleground polls have Obama leading in all swing states but one, NC. And Missouri, which Romney heroically wrestled from Obama and Akin.

What does it mean when Romney loses?

Questions for debate:
1. Is the GOP lagging because of TOO much rightwingerism, or .... too little?

2. Is the GOP lagging in part because Obama is black, and African-Americans always get preferential treatment?

3. If the GOP lag is ascribed to Romneys incompetence, how come Repubs elected such an incompent to run for them? Was the field really that weak?

4. Most interesting follow-up question to that one: Would the GOP be leading now if a more MODERATE candidate had decided to run, like Jeb Bush, or Rubio, Christie or any of the other seemingly moderate Repubs? Are Jebs moderately seeming remarks an indication that he will run in 2016? Was it shrewd of Jeb/Rubi/Christy not going up against the popular incumbent?

5. Will this 'proof' to Teapartiers that they should have elected a 'real' conservative like Santorum? Are they to blame for the extremism as of late?

Bonus: Do all these polls even matter because Voter ID laws are now in place in Florida and Pennsylvania, which will give Repubs those states easily?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 31)
akaCG
post Sep 28 2012, 08:32 PM
Post #21


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

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 28 2012, 03:55 PM) *
It is interesting if you find the 'great poll skewing controversy of 2012' to be more than political theater. ...
...

Skewing polls (be they national or state-level) can influence elections. How and to what degree is indeed a very interesting and highly worthy of examination subject.

QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 28 2012, 03:55 PM) *
...
... Not only do I place more emphasis on state polls, due to the electoral college....
...

So do I, for exactly the same reason.

QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 28 2012, 03:55 PM) *
...
... but I don't generally put stock into any poll prior to 6 November.

This seems to be in some conflict with your immediately preceding statement. On the one hand, you place more emphasis on state polls, but on the other hand you think they're as worthless as the national-level ones. Generally. So, you made an exception in the case of the Gravis poll. Could the reason be that it shows Gary Johnson breaking into the double digits?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Sep 28 2012, 08:47 PM
Post #22


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



QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 28 2012, 04:32 PM) *
This seems to be in some conflict with your immediately preceding statement. On the one hand, you place more emphasis on state polls, but on the other hand you think they're as worthless as the national-level ones. Generally. So, you made an exception in the case of the Gravis poll. Could the reason be that it shows Gary Johnson breaking into the double digits?


I don't see the conflict. I stated that I generally don't put much stock into polls, but that state wide polls were more relevant at least than national because of the electoral framework.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EuroBlack
post Sep 28 2012, 09:51 PM
Post #23


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 196
Member No.: 5,095
Joined: June-5-05

From: Europe
Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 28 2012, 10:47 PM) *
I don't see the conflict. I stated that I generally don't put much stock into polls, but that state wide polls were more relevant at least than national because of the electoral framework.


Which electoral framework would that be then? Somehow, people tend to trust polls more if they tell them what they wanna hear ..... wink.gif


QUOTE
QUOTE(akaCG @ Sep 28 2012, 01:22 PM) *
Interesting analysis from the Cato Institute, the libertarian think-tank:


I saw that too; what I also found interesting [as it regards Libertarians and the GOP] was this:

QUOTE
On Wednesday, Gravis Marketing and Capitol Correspondent released results from Ohio from a poll conducted on September 21-22.


Wasn't Gravis the firm that had Michigan blacks voting Obama for only 80 percent? And the explanation given was something like: Blacks just won't show up to to vote, not like whites etc.
The underlying message by Gravis is clear: "African-Americans are too lazy to go vote, ain't that just like them?"

Gravis is a severely rightwing pollster, just like Purple Strategies, Gallup, Rasmussen.
They all do corrections on their findings.
QUOTE
"The problem with Rasmussen is most likely its model of the electorate. Very briefly, if a pollster believes that in a certain state, say, 40% of the voters are Republicans and the actual survey just happens to turn up 35% Republicans, each Republican interviewed will be given a weight of 40/35 to correct for the under-sampling of Republicans. All pollsters do this to correct for under- or oversampling by party, gender, age, race, income, and other factors. This is not only legitimate, but necessary with the small samples all the pollsters use. The issue here is whether Rasmussen's model of the electorate has more Republicans in it than in reality there are (not to mention whether this is accidental or deliberate)."



The problem with this should be obvious, but let me try to explain. You could correct for under-sampling women, blacks, youth, seniors, because those are immutable factors. If you get a sample of 60 percent women, its wise and usual to adjust your findings towards 51% women. Gender is not changeable. But party affiliation IS TOO pretty changeable. So, if you find 35% Repubs instead of 40% that might be because fewer people wanna be known as Repubs.

This is were labels like Libertarian kick in nicely, because some of those who are unwilling to admit they're Repubs, will readily admit to being a libertarian. But if you word the question as "Are you a libertarian like Ron Paul" I suspect the number of libertarians would decrease.

This post has been edited by EuroBlack: Sep 28 2012, 11:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Sep 29 2012, 12:47 AM
Post #24


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



QUOTE(EuroBlack @ Sep 28 2012, 05:51 PM) *
Which electoral framework would that be then?


That would be the Electoral College of course.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Sep 29 2012, 02:13 AM
Post #25


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

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(EuroBlack @ Sep 28 2012, 05:51 PM) *
...
Wasn't Gravis the firm that had Michigan blacks voting Obama for only 80 percent? And the explanation given was something like: Blacks just won't show up to to vote, not like whites etc.
...

Not quite. They were the ones who said that cat owners are X% likelier to vote than dog owners, the explanation given being something like: Cat owners have more time available on Election Day because they don't need to spend time taking out their pet(s) for "poop walks". /

QUOTE(EuroBlack @ Sep 28 2012, 05:51 PM) *
...
The problem with this should be obvious, but let me try to explain. You could correct for under-sampling women, blacks, youth, seniors, because those are immutable factors. If you get a sample of 60 percent women, its wise and usual to adjust your findings towards 51% women. Gender is not changeable. But party affiliation IS TOO pretty changeable. So, if you find 35% Repubs instead of 40% that might be because fewer people wanna be known as Repubs.
...

Interesting.

So, Hypothetical Pollster "EuroBlack", ...

Say you've got your proper proportions of women/men, whites/non-whites, young/old and stuff all nicely lined up, but then ... you end up with 65% people who self-identify as Dems, 20% who self-identify as Reps, and 15% who self-identify as Inds.

Pop quiz:

What do you do, Hypothetical Pollster "EuroBlack"? Do you simply assume that "fewer people wanna be known as Repubs"? Or do you ...?

Eh?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Sep 29 2012, 11:24 AM
Post #26


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,191
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

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



What does it mean when Romney loses?

Perhaps it means that the system is working properly.

(I was passing on this thread because I presumed that it was in the Republican Debate Forum.)

Questions for debate:
1. Is the GOP lagging because of TOO much rightwingerism, or .... too little?


They have apparently been listening to Rush Limbaugh, Grover Nordquist, Karl Rove, the various tea parties, and themselves...

2. Is the GOP lagging in part because Obama is black, and African-Americans always get preferential treatment?

"Inflammatory or hateful comments related to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or age." are on the Prohibited Items list in the Rules.

3. If the GOP lag is ascribed to Romneys incompetence, how come Repubs elected such an incompent to run for them? Was the field really that weak?

I have my own strange explanation:

QUOTE(Ann Coulter)
If we don't run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee and we'll lose. ( link )

What if the "Smart Money" looked at the stock market and decided to quietly back Obama by throwing their support behind a losing candidate? There are a few days left before the first of two presidential debates. Voting has already begun in many states. Are they allowing Mr. Romney to speak directly to the voters? Are they allowing Mr. Romney time to study issues and prepare for the debates? No... Mr. Romney is still being asked to be the regular after dinner speaker for rich supporters.

If President Obama wins re-election, the smart money can hope that the stock market continues to rally. These are people who are professional gamblers who will have no real concern for whether or not there are actual jobs for Americans until they find there are no open restaurants, no food in the grocery stores, no mechanics to keep their cars running, etc.

In future elections, these same people will collect on their investment in Mitt Romney by asking him to large fund raisers for future candidates, and reminding him how generous they were when he was running...

4a. Most interesting follow-up question to that one: Would the GOP be leading now if a more MODERATE candidate had decided to run, like Jeb Bush, or Rubio, Christie or any of the other seemingly moderate Repubs?

No. Standing on a ladder and pushing the pendulum farther to the right is merely demonstrating that the extremists on the Right never looked up the definition of a pendulum. We don't need to be reminded on a daily basis that we are waging senseless expensive wars on multiple fronts because of the policies of George W. Bush, but we are being reminded on a daily basis that we are still waging senseless expensive wars on multiple fronts because that is what Republicans feel is in the nation's best interest. After all, when we export weapons and soldiers, it returns so much profit and good will to our shores...

4b. Are Jebs moderately seeming remarks an indication that he will run in 2016? Was it shrewd of Jeb/Rubi/Christy not going up against the popular incumbent?

Sane would be my choice of words to describe their decisions. What competent politician would really have wanted to put on face paint and a rubber nose and throw a hat into the ring with this years "wring out the clowns" Republican Primary? Businessmen stepped forward to campaign to "run the company" and the politicians stepped aside to let them know that politics is a profession that requires that you serve an apprenticeship and lwarn what you are doing.

Ask Herman Cain if he wants to try again? He will likely say, "Nein! Nein! Nein!"

5. Will this 'proof' (sic) to Teapartiers that they should have elected a 'real' conservative like Santorum? Are they to blame for the extremism as of late?

Who cares? If the Republican Party wants to survive, they need to question what the "Tea Parties" are contributing to their image and their party. I mean seriously... did an unemployed plumber who wanted to be known as "Joe" really help the McCain/Palin ticket?

Bonus: Do all these polls even matter because Voter ID laws are now in place in Florida and Pennsylvania, which will give Repubs those states easily?

ALEC has been shoving their laws down the throats of several State Legislators and then giving them syrup of Ipecac. What Voter ID laws are doing is causing those of us being challenged at the polls to vote absentee, vote early, and encourage others to do the same. Voter ID requirements are a voter suppression effort that Republicans are very open about:
QUOTE(Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai)

Democrats are working hard to get voters registered and to the polls. Republicans, it has been reported, concentrated on raising record amounts of money, to purchase ads at expensive rates because they didn't shop early. They call it being fiscally conservative...

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Sep 29 2012, 11:27 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Sep 30 2012, 04:17 PM
Post #27


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,323
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



1. Is the GOP lagging because of TOO much rightwingerism, or .... too little?

Honestly, I have no idea what "rightwingerism" is anymore. I used to think that I was relatively "rightwing", now I often feel almost like a socialist. Yet my basic beliefs haven't changed very much at all.

2. Is the GOP lagging in part because Obama is black, and African-Americans always get preferential treatment?

He, he, he. Well, men (of all hues) still get preferential treatment over women. It's fine. We work with it and use it to our advantage. smoke.gif

3. If the GOP lag is ascribed to Romneys incompetence, how come Repubs elected such an incompent to run for them? Was the field really that weak?

The trouble with Romney is, he isn't smart (particularly with social intelligence, the most important kind). His defenders maintain that he is simply speaking "realities" a great portion of the time. They might be right...but there are so many ways to say virtually the same thing, and he always picks the worst way. His running mate isn't that bad, far better than the candidate proper, so I have a hard time believing pickins are so small. I have no idea what the problem is.

But honestly, this topic seems a bit premature. We've experienced one term of a president from the Democrat party so far. Would another term really be such a 'death knell'? I think not. My knee jerk (admittedly slightly flippant) response is, after three terms a viable third party will emerge with some affluent leprechaun speaking in tongues about his daughter's wedding being ruined by black ops units, who will receive a large percentage (around 20) of the vote and then we'll see a Republican victory with a minority vote, to a candidate with such a questionable history he/she couldn't even qualify for a top secret clearance.

Have I managed to annoy everyone now? Excellent. zipped.gif innocent.gif whistling.gif

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Sep 30 2012, 04:25 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Sep 30 2012, 08:31 PM
Post #28


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,191
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

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



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 30 2012, 12:17 PM) *
<snip> My knee jerk (admittedly slightly flippant) response is, after three terms a viable third party will emerge with some affluent leprechaun speaking in tongues about his daughter's wedding being ruined by black ops units, who will receive a large percentage (around 20) of the vote and then we'll see a Republican victory with a minority vote, to a candidate with such a questionable history he/she couldn't even qualify for a top secret clearance.

Have I managed to annoy everyone now?

Actually, I read that description several times and thought, she really needs to try to sell that character to Conan O'Brien... flowers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Oct 1 2012, 03:36 AM
Post #29


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

Group: Members
Posts: 2,829
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Questions for debate:
1. Is the GOP lagging because of TOO much rightwingerism, or .... too little? Are they lagging?

2. Is the GOP lagging in part because Obama is black, and African-Americans always get preferential treatment?
Yes. Obama's mulatto heritage IS a factor in his success. It is partially responsible for the media being even more in the tank for him than they were for John Kerry. As to the second part of the question, no. African-Americans do not always get preferential treatment. Consider the treatment that liberals give conservative African-Americans.

In some instances African-Americans do get preferential treatment (D.C.'s Metropolitan Transit Authority is one such example), and in others they don't. With the exception of gov't, academic, and corporate affirmative action, it's pretty much a wash.

3. If the GOP lag is ascribed to Romneys incompetence, how come Repubs elected such an incompent to run for them? Was the field really that weak? G'head, tell us how you really feel.

4. Most interesting follow-up question to that one: Would the GOP be leading now if a more MODERATE candidate had decided to run, like Jeb Bush, or Rubio, Christie or any of the other seemingly moderate Repubs? Are Jebs moderately seeming remarks an indication that he will run in 2016? Was it shrewd of Jeb/Rubi/Christy not going up against the popular incumbent? As soon as a Republican is running against a Democrat for President, he instantly becomes a "right winger", "extremist", "hard-core conservative", etc. Or, more accurately, that's the way the Democrats and their cronies in the media frame it, regardless of the reality.

QUOTE
5. Will this 'proof' to Teapartiers that they should have elected a 'real' conservative like Santorum? Are they to blame for the extremism as of late?
Don't know. and "no". The one to blame for extremism is your guy, President Barack Hussein Obama, they guy who said "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." The guy who voted against the Born Alive Act. The guy whose Administration has gone after a filmaker for slandering the prophet of Islam, but can't find anything illegal in the collapse of MF Global, where more than a billion dollars in segregated funds were looted under the watchful eye of former Governor and Senator Jon Corzine (D). The extremists are "The Man".

So, if Romney loses, the GOP will engage in some serious blamestorming. And then they'll pick themselves up, hash out "what's next" and continue on. Or maybe the Universe will decide that it's had enough of the GOP, and it will be sucked into a black hole, never to be seen from again. Which will confuse the heck out of the Dems. It would be amusing to see the Dems tear themselves apart, with the more lefty extremist elements calling their former comrades "right wingers", "far right conservatives" and all the disparaging characterizations they currently hurl at Republicans. Such an outcome is as inexorable as the sun rising in the morning. Leftists cannot exist without demonizing and subsequently dehumanizing their opponents.

Just ask the original "right winger", Leon Trotsky. whistling.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 1 2012, 11:08 AM
Post #30


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

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,346
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

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



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 30 2012, 11:36 PM) *
So, if Romney loses, the GOP will engage in some serious blamestorming. And then they'll pick themselves up, hash out "what's next" and continue on. Or maybe the Universe will decide that it's had enough of the GOP, and it will be sucked into a black hole, never to be seen from again. Which will confuse the heck out of the Dems. It would be amusing to see the Dems tear themselves apart, with the more lefty extremist elements calling their former comrades "right wingers", "far right conservatives" and all the disparaging characterizations they currently hurl at Republicans. Such an outcome is as inexorable as the sun rising in the morning. Leftists cannot exist without demonizing and subsequently dehumanizing their opponents.

Just ask the original "right winger", Leon Trotsky. whistling.gif


I tried channeling Trotsky, and all I got was to avoid Mexico.

However, I did get a solid impression that the leaders of Rome during its conquering phase are on board with neo-conservatives. War is good for the empire.

We of the devil-spawned liberal (dirty L word) variety can get bad with using terms such as wingnut, batcrap crazy and others. But when people call themselves conservative and are against the government messing with their Medicare, it kinda fits. When businesses fail and the Republicans come running to their aid, no strings attached, it certainly makes one wonder. Showing up at political rallies with guns causes an amount of butt pucker in law enforcement. Doesn't bother me because I make it a habit to avoid political rallies, especially those of the wingnut, batcrap crazy types. The last one I went to was in protest of the war in Iraq before it was started.

The big problem with the Romney campaign looks to be its inability to refocus after the primaries. Shaking the Etch-a-Sketch didn't work, whereas the Obama campaign has not had this problem at all due to not going through a primary season. On Thursday things might be clearer after the Wednesday debate at the University of Colorado (yay).

Or they may not.

I do think you're right about the GOP needing a period of navel pondering to figure out some sort of logical basis for their policies, such as going against contraception and abortion in all circumstances at the same time. It would also help to look at how people actually live rather than making up stuff, such as the middle class having incomes in excess of $250 grand taxable. The problem seems to be that they've been sincerely believing their own lines of bull.

Democrats went through this in the 1980s and 90s, which drew the party across the middle and into the mild right-wing side. The biggest spin-off is the Green Party, focused on environmental issues. It'll be interesting if something spins off the Republican Party or if other conservative parties gain membership.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 1 2012, 07:01 PM
Post #31


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 1 2012, 07:08 AM) *
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 30 2012, 11:36 PM) *
So, if Romney loses, the GOP will engage in some serious blamestorming. And then they'll pick themselves up, hash out "what's next" and continue on. Or maybe the Universe will decide that it's had enough of the GOP, and it will be sucked into a black hole, never to be seen from again. Which will confuse the heck out of the Dems. It would be amusing to see the Dems tear themselves apart, with the more lefty extremist elements calling their former comrades "right wingers", "far right conservatives" and all the disparaging characterizations they currently hurl at Republicans. Such an outcome is as inexorable as the sun rising in the morning. Leftists cannot exist without demonizing and subsequently dehumanizing their opponents.

Just ask the original "right winger", Leon Trotsky. whistling.gif


I tried channeling Trotsky, and all I got was to avoid Mexico.

However, I did get a solid impression that the leaders of Rome during its conquering phase are on board with neo-conservatives. War is good for the empire.

We of the devil-spawned liberal (dirty L word) variety can get bad with using terms such as wingnut, batcrap crazy and others. But when people call themselves conservative and are against the government messing with their Medicare, it kinda fits. When businesses fail and the Republicans come running to their aid, no strings attached, it certainly makes one wonder. Showing up at political rallies with guns causes an amount of butt pucker in law enforcement. Doesn't bother me because I make it a habit to avoid political rallies, especially those of the wingnut, batcrap crazy types. The last one I went to was in protest of the war in Iraq before it was started.

The big problem with the Romney campaign looks to be its inability to refocus after the primaries. Shaking the Etch-a-Sketch didn't work, whereas the Obama campaign has not had this problem at all due to not going through a primary season. On Thursday things might be clearer after the Wednesday debate at the University of Colorado (yay).

Or they may not.

I do think you're right about the GOP needing a period of navel pondering to figure out some sort of logical basis for their policies, such as going against contraception and abortion in all circumstances at the same time. It would also help to look at how people actually live rather than making up stuff, such as the middle class having incomes in excess of $250 grand taxable. The problem seems to be that they've been sincerely believing their own lines of bull.

Democrats went through this in the 1980s and 90s, which drew the party across the middle and into the mild right-wing side. The biggest spin-off is the Green Party, focused on environmental issues. It'll be interesting if something spins off the Republican Party or if other conservative parties gain membership.

It is remarkable that one side acts so thin-skinned when they get back what they give. Their name has essentially stayed the same, while "Democratic" has been changed to "DemoCRAT" Party by way of insult and seems to have taken hold among a number of people, including those who would consider themselves well-educated. Whatever. The President is presently a Democrat, a member of the Democratic Party. And that galls them no end.

The cable news folks are saying that Romney is being coached to memorize "zingers" to use in the debate. Good luck with that. It's probably safer than actually trying to delineate what his plan is to rescue the economy and create jobs, especially since I'm not all that sure he has a plan beyond draconian cuts to seniors, handicapped, students, etc., and maintaining those tax cuts for the folks who need it the very least (a continuing bribe that isn't working). "Ayn Randians For Helping the Poor"--yeah, right. But the format is different this time with time limits not being imposed on each answer, but 15-minute segments. It might get awfully quiet after Romney delivers his "zinger" and then has time to say something more. That might sink him in the debate. At one point there has to be some substance.

Republicans pandering to the sanctimonious and very rich and tradition of letting the candidate who lost in the last election have his turn at the Presidency as some kind of entitlement (yes, I used that word) is not working well for them. Regardless of the outcome of this election, there is some internal work that obviously needs to be done.

There is a fledgling Constitution Party that will welcome former Republicans, I am sure, should the GOP crumble. In any case, I think that people who are prone to join political parties will actively seek one out and start out again. I would not lose any sleep over the demise of the GOP. I'm not rooting for it, either. The reform and reemergence of their party to one that isn't all twisted into religious meddling, xenophobia, and licking the boots of the very wealthy, is their problem, not mine.



This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Oct 1 2012, 07:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Oct 2 2012, 03:05 AM
Post #32


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,227
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



EuroBlack

QUOTE
What does it mean when Romney loses?


I don't think it will mean much apart from politics needing to shift in the opposite direction for eight years.

QUOTE
1. Is the GOP lagging because of TOO much rightwingerism, or .... too little?


Well conservatism is still here and will find a strong voice and place in the future, although candidates more to the center are often easier to vote for from anyone in the center. I'm playing captain obvious on that question.

QUOTE
2. Is the GOP lagging in part because Obama is black, and African-Americans always get preferential treatment?


Im going to bring my serious debate side out and hit this one hard because this question deserves an answer absolutely. IMO the answer lies more in a number of race related explanations than any single one. How right wing and left wing politicians bait minorities is where I'll start. In many cases liberal politicians legitimately support ideas that African Americans like , in other cases they just know how to kiss but.

That's blunt and it's my personal opinion, your welcome to take that one and consider it hogwash if you want, but I'm going to extend on this a lot.

The fact that Barack Obama is part African American has also boosted African American support amongst voters, in some cases despite the politics. I did a lengthy and very through debate on this a few years back that pulled up stats and voting trends from all over, including from prior local and national elections. African American Voting Trends was the debate I started. Nighttimer replied to this in 2008, don't know if he remembers the debate much though.

That debate of mine demonstrated that despite the Democratic candidates available just prior to the last presidential election, it was Obama who got the overwhelming support of African Americans. In part I pulled up the numbers for that because I knew the explanation for African Americans voting for Obama would be answered by people claiming that African Americans voted for him simply because he's liberal and Democrat. Simple explanation in their eyes would be it was shared politics. I believe in large part it was indeed shared politics but he also got a boost by a large number of African Americans based on his skin color. I pulled up other local elections where this pattern was very similar. Take a look if you want, it's an older debate of mine but still relevant.

The response that I hear for those kind of numbers is that whites vote on skin color too, but as our culture has progressed so have the dynamics. A fraction of that race based voting amongst whites actually went to Obama because he was black as well. Probably not too large of a number, but there were people in all races interested in breaking that glass ceiling, some of whom didn't care about the politics or the person near as much. IMO that's a dumb reason to vote period but what do I know.

To switch focus here a bit the way many liberals view conservative Republicans also explains why they have been lagging. Conservatives and Republicans are viewed in large part as being close minded, intolerant, ignorant, or a combination of the three. The thing that is rarely acknowledged is that these types of people can easily be liberal or Democrat as well, but there are always great exceptions on both sides. A set of political ideals or a party affiliation doesn't always reflect someones level of maturity or personality.

As an example look at the differences in the way some people debate at AD, and in this very forum. I always take into consideration the person I'm debating with, and they're usually liberals. I see some notable differences in levels of maturity and racial tendencies of our liberal members. And yes liberals can be racist and so can African Americans. To not stir the pot too much though, I'll keep my mouth shut with my stronger opinions of some of the members here but I can say I actually enjoy debating with some of our liberal members who are either down to earth or keep me on my toes from time to time.

This site is a microcosm of our country too when you think about it, and what's true about this site isn't far from what's happening on a larger scale.

Since your asking about race and an election with Obama, these are some of the things Ive learned and Ive spent many many hours researching so I've thought about it for a while. I did jump around in this response a bit but I believe that question needed some additional info. For some of the actual numbers look at my debate from before that I linked. If you have an open mind you wont be disappointed and maybe a dialogue can be started.

This post has been edited by net2007: Oct 2 2012, 03:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this 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: June 25th, 2018 - 11:50 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.