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 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
nighttimer
post Nov 7 2012, 07:35 PM
Post #21


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

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 7 2012, 01:33 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.


Well, actually the mainstream media didn't mischaracterize (Hey! we made up a new word! Yay!) Mittens. All you have to do is read his op-ed piece in the New York Times and his own words in the very first paragraph hung his butt out to dry:

QUOTE
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won't go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.


Didn't quite work out that way, did it? mrsparkle.gif

The bailout worked. Auto workers in Michigan (where Mittens was born) and Ohio may be blue collar, but they aren't stupid. They know it's better to go with the guy who helped them keep their jobs instead of the guy who wanted to put them out on the street.

QUOTE(Ted)
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.


There's so much denial and untruth in those remarks it's hard to pick on the worst one, but let's go to the second one. You just don't get it, Ted. Republicans have a Latino problem. A BIG one which is only going to get worse if they continue the course they have been on.

QUOTE
Pundits are quickly turning to immigration to explain the Republicans' Latino problem and to offer a possible cure, but the reality is that the rot cuts much deeper. The GOP doesn't have a problem with Latino voters per se. Rather, it has a problem with a broad spectrum of voters who simply don't feel that it's speaking to their economic concerns. The GOP has an economic agenda tilted strongly to the benefit of elites, and it has preserved support for that agenda—even though it disserves the majority of GOP voters—with implicit racial politics.

Consider the GOP's deeply racialized campaign against Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. What was so surprising about this—and I know I'm not the only fair-skinned English-dominant person with a Spanish surname who was genuinely shocked—was that conservatives could have easily opposed her purely on policy grounds. Sotamayor is a fairly conventional Democrat on constitutional issues, and that would have been ample reason for conservatives to criticize her. Indeed, Justice Elena Kagan was attacked on precisely those grounds. But rather than tempering opposition with at least some recognition that Sotomayor's life story might be a great example for immigrant parents trying to raise children in difficult circumstances, the country was treated to a mass racial panic in which Anglo America was about to be stomped by the boot of Sotomayor's ethnic prejudice. The graduate of Princeton and Yale Law, former prosecutor, and longtime federal judge was somehow not just too liberal for conservatives’ taste but a "lightweight" who’d been coasting her whole life on the enormous privilege of growing up poor in the South Bronx.

Polling suggests that the Latino problem for the GOP is deeper than immigration. John McCain got a scant 31 percent of the Latino vote despite a long record of pro-immigration policies. The best evidence available on Hispanic public opinion, a big election even poll from Latino Decisions and ImpreMedia, makes it clear that this is just a fairly liberal voting block. Just 12 percent of Latinos support a cuts-only approach to deficit reduction, and only 25 percent want to repeal Obamacare. Only 31 percent of Hispanics say they'd be more likely to vote for a Republican who supports the DREAM Act. This isn't to say Latinos aren’t eager to see immigration reform, it's just that the lion's share have bigger reasons for rejecting the GOP.


George and Jeb Bush were smart enough to make sincere efforts to reach out to Latinos, but the GOP's race-baiting policies have rejected that path and lined up with whack jobs like Sheriff Joe Arpaio. That was a choice made by Republicans and its come back to bite them. Hard.

QUOTE(Ted)
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…


You might be right about that. However, you forgot that Paul Ryan was on the Simpson-Bowles Commission and voted against their recommendations. You want bipartisan action, Ted? You'd better ask those right-wing idiots in the House to be willing to offer an open hand instead of a clenched fist if you expect to see any.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 7 2012, 07:39 PM
Post #22


*********
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



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

1. Obama's campaign strategy and tactics were good enough to prevent Obama from underperforming vis-a-vis '08 by more than 2.5% in terms of the popular vote and from losing more than 2 states (Indiana and North Carolina).

2. Romney's campaign strategy and tactics were not good enough to manage to outperform McCain by more than 2.4% in terms of the popular vote and by more than 2 states (Indiana and North Carolina).

Simple as that, pretty much.

Basically, we are back to being the 49.5/49.5 (with a 1 point "margin of error") nation that we have been increasingly "enjoying" being for the past 20 years. 2008 was the exception. At this point, I really have no idea what will break the pattern. But it will not last for much longer. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that it will break on the side that is detrimental to our nation's future (see below).

QUOTE
...
For 2009, the most recent year available, here are taxes less transfers as a percentage of market income (income that households earned from their work and savings):

Bottom quintile: -301 percent
Second quintile: -42 percent
Middle quintile: -5 percent
Fourth quintile: 10 percent
Highest quintile: 22 percent
Top one percent: 28 percent

The negative 301 percent means that a typical family in the bottom quintile receives about $3 in transfer payments for every dollar earned.
...
The most surprising fact to me was that the effective tax rate is negative for the middle quintile. According to the CBO data, this number was +14 percent in 1979 (when the data begin) and remained positive through 2007. It was negative 0.5 percent in 2008, and negative 5 percent in 2009. That is, the middle class, having long been a net contributor to the funding of government, is now a net recipient of government largess.
...

Link: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/07/pro...-transfers.html

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Nov 7 2012, 07:47 PM
Post #23


Group Icon

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

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

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



QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 7 2012, 01:35 PM) *
QUOTE
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won't go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.


Didn't quite work out that way, did it? mrsparkle.gif

The bailout worked. Auto workers in Michigan (where Mittens was born) and Ohio may be blue collar, but they aren't stupid. They know it's better to go with the guy who helped them keep their jobs instead of the guy who wanted to put them out on the street.


Actually, it did. It wasn't the bail-out that allowed Detroit to get competetive, it was the bankruptcy. Had the government simply given them the bailout, they wouldn't have done the restructuring necessary, and yes, they would have just continued to have the same problems that led them into that state to begin with.

But I'm not going to blame the media on that. Mittens didn't articulate his position very well himself. The few times he addressed it, he did an adequate job, but he didn't address it nearly often or emphatically enough. Which was about par for the course on his campaign.

Probably the take away from this is that both sides were right. GM and Chrysler needed to go through bankruptcy restructuring, and they needed help from the government to do it (maybe not, but let's say they did). A perfect example of where a solution involving both sides was probably the correct one, both sides win, as well as the economy. But we are so polarized now we never go about things that way anymore.


QUOTE
George and Jeb Bush were smart enough to make sincere efforts to reach out to Latinos, but the GOP's race-baiting policies have rejected that path and lined up with whack jobs like Sheriff Joe Arpaio. That was a choice made by Republicans and its come back to bite them. Hard.


The GOP problem in a nutshell. The need to make some big shifts in their policies, but their base won't let them. They need to do it anyway....or they will disappear as a political party. The demographics make that clear.

We had this same conversation on another site many many years ago, NT, if you recall. Clearly, not much has changed. The Republican Party needs to realize they are becoming the political version of a buggy manufacturer. They may make a fine buggy, but if that's not what the market wants anymore, you will still go out of business.

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

Too many issues in the Romney campaign (and other Republicans) to overcome, and he didn't hammer enough on various issues on Obama's side. Also, Romney had to veer far to the right to get through the primaries, and this made it very difficult to get back to the center, which is ironic, as one of the biggest criticisms Republicans had of him is that he was too moderate.

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?

Some of both. Obama is an awesome campaigner, and demographics do favor his party. Yet, with all the economic difficulties we have had the last four years, it is hard to say it wasn't Romney's (or any Republican's) to lose.

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

A little of both, but I think more of the latter. He had to go too far right to win the primaries.

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

I would like to see them become less polarized, and I expect to be highly disappointed.

Jerry Springer, of all people, opened my eyes to what is driving all this. Gerrymandered has permeated most states, creating strangely shaped districts designed to keep whichever party is in power...in power. So, in order to win their local elections, any candidate MUST cater to the extremes of their party, or they will lose their district. Moderates will go the way of the dinsaur. This is true at the national level as well. Moderates are being hounded out of Congress, castigated more from within their own party than from the other. It is all about 'winning' as opposed to 'doing a good job'. It isn't about doing the people's work, it is about doing your parties work. And it won't change until we start voting differently. I don't see that happening. No one from either party ever thinks their guy is too extreme.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Nov 7 2012, 08:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Nov 7 2012, 07:59 PM
Post #24


********
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
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?

Well, it's "maintained" only if you forget things like the past and how we got to the point where we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. It seems you are suffering from amnesia now.

QUOTE
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?

There's the amnesia again. The stock market has doubled since the bottom, GDP continues to grow (and growth is considered better than shrinkage), jobs continue to be created. You whine that "it's not good enough", when in fact for a recovery from a credit crisis, we've done VERY well for ourselves if you do an historical comparison to other credit crisis responses in our own and other countries.

QUOTE
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.

Absolutely economies ebb and flow, but a credit crisis is a black swan, not normal "ebb and flow". Last one of this magnitude was 1929 and there's a reason we didn't hit 25% unemployment like we did back then.

There's a lot of research out there to explain what a government is supposed to do in the face of a credit crisis where the credit markets are stopped dead. The big thing that was shown to work was "throw money at the problem until the markets see you're serious". See here and here. Hoover did nothing. Bush AND Obama threw money at the problem and it worked. Was it the most "optimal" solution? No, but only because there wasn't enough control over how the money was handled early on and too much of the money went to tax cuts instead of putting people back to work directly. But it worked. You're welcome. So it's not so difficult to point at things Obama, Congress, and the Fed have done to make this better. If only you knew where to look before you point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoneWisdom
post Nov 7 2012, 08:10 PM
Post #25


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(amf @ Nov 7 2012, 09:41 AM) *
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.


Reality... I've seen firsthand how immigrants et al don't abide by infrastructure rules. Violating zoning laws is a growth industry and we can't afford to ignore it. Our schools are required to take all children, yet the tax base is structured for two children per bedroom. If you want the system to survive, the rules either have to change or people need to honor them. Constantly turning this into 'plantation' mentality is not productive. We pay people not to pick crop as well as other service level jobs and it has nothing to do with being minorities. It's the progressive meme 'jobs Americans won't do.' No, it's jobs Americans are paid not to do. I don't have any problem with people not wanting to harvest crops etc for a living, but what we're given here is a false dichotomy. The choice shouldn't be service level jobs or welfare. Our immigration problem, migrant workers crossing borders for service level jobs, would be minimal if we could eliminate that false dichotomy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 7 2012, 08:12 PM
Post #26


*********
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



A follow up on my answer to the "What were the key factors that allowed Obama to win last night?" question, by way of an illustration:

http://cdn.ricochet.com/var/ezwebin_site/s...es_lightbox.png

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vanguard
post Nov 7 2012, 08:29 PM
Post #27


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 325
Member No.: 6,505
Joined: September-16-06

From: So Cal
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Julian @ Nov 7 2012, 11:11 AM) *
No preamble to speak of, just questions for debate:

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

Rush calls it the "Santa Claus" effect. There are far too many folks - though certainly not all - who would never consider one who denies them the entitlements they have gained over the past few years. If your message is one of "you can do this more for yourself without having to rely on the government" you increase your risk of losing almost by definition. This camel's nose is in the tent and it is never coming out no matter how dismal Obama's 2nd term may be. We have his 1st term to refer to as evidence. We have never in our history seen such a meteoric rise in our national debt, such a sustained high unemployment rate, as well as a doubling+ of much of the entitlement spending and yet the majority still vote him in. Why? I say it is not so much what Romney was or wasn't but rather the perception that those who receive those benefits - as a collective - are better guaranteed that gravy train will continue.

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?

Obama won on his (de-)merits. See above. The Republican Party should never pander to the constituency that Obama does (i.e., fear of the "welfare-robbing-callous-elitist-elderly-killing-racist-misogynistic-homophobes")

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

I didn't care too much for Romney's speaking style (Obama's was much better). Whether another Republican's style would have made the difference remains to be seen. Again, it is what a true conservative can never be that made the difference (see first question).

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

I would like to see the entitlement state take an almost 180 degree turn (or at leat a 90 degree one) away from the ever burgeoning entitlement mentality. This assault on what vestiges of capitalism remain will contribute significantly until it collapses and anarchy reigns (read: the trajectory of Greece). I do not think, however, that this course correct will happen. The entitlement state will continue virtually unabated until we implode and even then, those - again, collectively speaking - who no longer receive this support will still be teed off. The Democrat will promise to get us back on track and the constituency will back him/her over the opposing Republican.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Nov 7 2012, 08:36 PM
Post #28


********
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(akaCG @ Nov 7 2012, 03:12 PM) *
A follow up on my answer to the "What were the key factors that allowed Obama to win last night?" question, by way of an illustration:

http://cdn.ricochet.com/var/ezwebin_site/s...es_lightbox.png

And many of those swing state offices had been there since the 2008 election on skeletal staff doing things like registering new voters and gathering names to help with the next run.

The next candidate will do well to learn this lesson: GOTV can overcome $3 BILLION in ad spending.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 7 2012, 08:50 PM
Post #29


*********
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(Aquilla)
I'm proud of the campaign [Romney] 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.
Wow. I can empathize with you, Aquilla. I felt much the same way about John Kerry when the conservative Swift-Boaters went after him in 2004. The more things change, the more they stay the same?

And as far as the hippie scene goes: Usually they listen to guitar rather than harps at their love-ins, or so I've heard. Harps, especially if they are full-sized, are a little hard to lug around. thumbsup.gif Is somebody actually asking you personally to be more like liberals? It would take an ingenuously optimistic person to try.

How about the idea of trying a meeting of the minds, not a melding of ideologies? How about having a Senator Mitch McConnell whose objective is not to make the opposition President a one-termer, but who is actually willing to see where compromises can be made for the sake of the people? Well, he obviously has to change his priority now, considering that nobody becomes a three-term President any more.

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

Particularly in Ohio, Romney had fewer hit-the-pavement volunteers and more paid staff, but less campaign offices as a result. Obama's Get Out The Vote effort over the course of the campaign season was well-organized, aggressive and energetic, especially since he apparently has more appeal among younger political activists.

Obama had a balance of having deported more illegals in his 4 years than Bush did for 8 years, and yet he supports the Dream Act for illegal young people who were brought here as children, who are attending school and working jobs and behaving as well as any of our legal residents (and considerably better than some!), and who know this country to be their home. The GOP did not manage to be as inclusive in its campaign. And the "self-deportation" idea really sounds absurd. Who really wants to go back to Mexico where there are so many unknowns with the idea that they can MAYBE pursue legal channels to get back into the U.S. legally and become legal residents? It belies why they left Mexico (and other countries) in the first place.

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?

I think that Obama deserves a whole lot of the credit for winning. A well-organized campaign was also vital to his victory. I think that maybe Romney could have won the election. I was worried enough about it that I didn't start watching TV until pretty late into the night.

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

I think that Romney is probably a pretty good man, but the contortions that he had to go through in order to win the primaries only to have to tack toward the middle from the fringe people damaged the appearance of his integrity. The "Etch-A-Sketch" comment from his campaign manager was telling. The GOP shouldn't have had to pander to so many factions in order to get a nominee. So I don't blame Romney entirely by any means. And he was a stand-up guy when he made his concession speech.

That "47% comment" really hurt him. What hurt him even more, however, was how his supporters were so willing to characterize the alleged 47% as lazy and overly-dependent on government, somehow deficient in character and therefore to blame for lousy circumstances. People, whether they are workaholics, they are disabled and no longer able to work, they are pounding the pavement to get another job because they don't make enough money or whether they are still living in their parents' basements playing video games, don't like to be characterized as being lazy. The Republicans did not make any friends while defending Romney's unfortunate comments in that manner, and especially since many of those people typically vote Republican.

And then there was Paul Ryan with his extreme stances on women's reproduction and willingness to change systems upon which seniors depend for their very lives. Even if the Roman Catholic bishops liked his stance against abortion, period, they indicated their disapproval of his plan that stood to harm the poor, elderly and infirm.

I think the responsibility largely rests with the party that nominated Romney.

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 Citizens United overturned.

I would like to see campaigns run where nobody alleges that his opponent was born outside the country when the Federal Election Commission should have been able to dispel any doubts about the candidate's eligibility to run.

I'd like to see the cessation of efforts undertaken in states to disenfrancise people who have been legally voting for years under the guise of getting rid of voter fraud. As if I would want to stand in line several hours in order to cast one fraudulent vote...

I'd like to see candidates make their arguments based on the truth, not obfuscation and downright lies (e.g., Jeep Corporation and jobs in China). Just a straight-up argument: This is why I think I'd make a better leader, this is my record, and this is the record of my opponent sort of thing. A little wonkier with less emotional pushing-of-buttons.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 7 2012, 09:28 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoneWisdom
post Nov 7 2012, 09:26 PM
Post #30


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 7 2012, 03:50 PM) *
I'd like to see candidates make their arguments based on the truth, not obfuscation and downright lies (e.g., Jeep Corporation and jobs in China). Just a straight-up argument: This is why I think I'd make a better leader, this is my record, and this is the record of my opponent sort of thing. A little wonkier with less emotional pushing-of-buttons.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...xhxtvCvlRbCf84Q

"Last year, 136,222 American-made vehicles were exported to China, ..."

So, when do Americans start buying imported Jeeps from China?

This post has been edited by LoneWisdom: Nov 7 2012, 09:28 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 7 2012, 09:30 PM
Post #31


Group Icon

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

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,329
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(entspeak @ Nov 7 2012, 02:21 PM) *
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.


That's basically my take on it as well. That, and he seems to have an uncanny knack for saying things the wrong way. This is something his supporters don't seem to understand. Everything is relative, so from where a strong supporter sits Romney is simply speaking 'truths', but the undecided voter hears it entirely differently. He doesn't come across well, and he has been in politics long enough to know better. He looks good, I truly believe if he had laryngitis for a couple of weeks there he'd have done far better.

Two nights ago I was talking to a friend of ours (wing commander) who gave Romney a ride in the backseat of his fighter (F16 i think), back when he was in Utah for the olympics. He said he seemed to be a really nice person. That was not coming across during this campaign. Statements like "he might have said that but he won't do it" aren't very persuasive....it's kind of along the lines of.... "the devil you don't know couldn't possibly be worse than the devil you do" a logic I find odd as a basis for choosing a leader (though I guess it's better than hair or clothing).

Per the Republican party...In June of 1992 a candidate who had established a new third party did something unfathomable. He actually led the polls, beating both the Democratic and Republican contenders. The next month he went into temporary obscurity, some of his lunacy came to light, and the rest is history. But if a third party candidate can do that the American public isn't quite as divided into the duopolistic entity (with only a tiny fraction in between) that we now seem to take for granted as fact. Perot was a fiscal conservative. What the party needs is a truly charismatic person with a background that would offer people trust in his leadership (some military experience, too, would be optimal, or the coast guard/fire fighting....something). And then pick a running mate like Paul Ryan, not Palin.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 7 2012, 09:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 7 2012, 09:32 PM
Post #32


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

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,353
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

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



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 7 2012, 03:33 PM) *
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....


Sounds like you've either become a Libertarian or are thinking about it. That's not a bad way to go and might open your eyes to how many people think they are the smartest in the room at a Libertarian gathering. It's breathtaking. It's also an interesting romp through true extremist thinking, or as I like to call it, jumping down the rabbit hole and through the looking glass at the same time.

Obama is without a doubt a moderate Democrat. Reid and Pelosi refuse to capitulate, and that is what Republicans think is compromise, or at least the did. They might be changing their tunes soon, as there is a budget crisis in the works. OMG, automatic defense budget cuts! Well, yeah, and you guys (in Congress) agreed to it. Now it's time to pay the piper for being obstructionists and demanding full capitulation. The election is over, and those tactics failed to bump President Obama out of office.

A lot of you will be seeking reelection in 2014. Are you going to blow your chances by being stubborn dorks? I don't think they will. There's nothing to be gained any longer, as of last night. The whole game has changed.

Give it a week or two for settling down from the tragic sense of utter failure and despair. Then will come the realization that they have gained zero allies among the Democrats and have nurtured a deep disregard for their political futures. In the common vernacular, they bet the farm and lost.

Bummer, but there was no getting through to them. They deserve the results of their foolish gambit.

On the positive side, there'll be plenty more political entertainment coming up. Comedians will be grateful.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 7 2012, 09:33 PM
Post #33


*********
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(LoneWisdom @ Nov 7 2012, 04:26 PM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 7 2012, 03:50 PM) *
I'd like to see candidates make their arguments based on the truth, not obfuscation and downright lies (e.g., Jeep Corporation and jobs in China). Just a straight-up argument: This is why I think I'd make a better leader, this is my record, and this is the record of my opponent sort of thing. A little wonkier with less emotional pushing-of-buttons.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...xhxtvCvlRbCf84Q

"Last year, 136,222 American-made vehicles were exported to China, ..."

So, when do Americans start buying imported Jeeps from China?

You mean you don't know the specifics of that Republican ruse? Jeep has been exporting cars to China. No jobs are being shipped to China from the United States. The Chinese have somewhat of a protectionist, "Buy Chinese" stance, and so there is a plant being built in China to sell Chinese-built cars to Chinese people.

Nobody in this country is being laid off because of this plan.

Now are you going to (try to) tell me that Romney, if he were part of this venture, wouldn't do the same thing? And if he would, isn't it just a tad bit hypocritical (and dishonest) to be a former(?) venture capitalist and yet condemn Jeep for doing something that isn't going to close their American operations?

I can understand why you might not believe me, but how about Jeep's CEO (Google it)?

Did you really need to ask that question?

Can we get back to the thread topic questions?



This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 7 2012, 09:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Nov 7 2012, 09:56 PM
Post #34


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 7 2012, 06:00 AM) *
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.

I think one of the best lines I heard last night (and unfortunately I can't remember who to give credit to) was along the lines of 'Republicans are the Mad Men party in a Family Guy society' and it just doesn't work any more. (paraphrasing, of course)

I don't think I could agree more.

QUOTE(amf @ Nov 7 2012, 07:06 AM) *
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.

I couldn't agree more. I don't think the Republican Party can look in a mirror and identify itself anymore. Their positions are so contrary to their principles in too many ways.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Nov 7 2012, 09:57 PM
Post #35


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

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Nov 7 2012, 02:20 PM) *
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



What half would that be, Aquilla? The losing half? giveup.gif down.gif

Poor Mittens. After all that time and money spent and all he has now is a loving wife, a huge, supportive family, multiple homes and millions of dollars. It must really suck to be him today. rolleyes.gif

Mitt Romney was a lousy candidate for President. Uninspiring. Inept. Unprincipled. He's been running for the office for nearly eight years and nobody knows what his core beliefs are or if he even has any. He's the quintessential empty suit. When he was the governor of Massachusetts he was a moderate Republican who favored a woman's right to choose and gay rights. Then he decided rather than chill in the Cayman Islands counting his money, he wanted to run for the presidency and all those previously held beliefs swirled down the toilet.

How could anyone say they are "proud" of the campaign Romney ran and the things he stood for? The man was the Etch-A-Sketch Candidate. Mitt believed in nothing except money and his divine right to rule.

Romney had no interest in making life better for his fellow Americans. The only thing Romney's has ever been good at is making money for stockholders and putting people out of work as their companies go bankrupt or relocate overseas. Mitt's overriding concern is protecting the interests of the One Percent he's so happy to be a part of and if that means shafting students of loans or Granny of her Medicare, that's just hard cheese.

Any man caught saying he doesn't give a damn about half of the people he would propose to lead is totally unfit for the job. Mitt Romney lost the election the day the American people heard what he really thought about them.

Romney said corporations were people and proceeded to act like one. He's a cold, bloodless automaton mouthing phrases he could barely say with a straight face and his own party could barely muster much tolerance for him. Enthusiasm was almost nil as anyone who witnessed that sad little wiener roast in Tampa the Republicans called a convention and the only storyline anyone will remember from it is an old actor babbling to a chair.

In the end, Romney was such a shockingly unaccomplished challenger he couldn't beat a weakened incumbent whose party had been curb stomped in 2010 with a stalled economy and unemployment near eight percent. The turnaround specialist lost to an empty chair.

The Republicans are in terrible shape. Their core demographic is too old, too far to the Right and looks too much like cocktail hour at a country club. They've alienated young voters, Black voters, Latino voters and even Asian voters. There is a limit to how much can be gained by allowing the extremists of a party dominate the message. As presently constituted the Republican Party doesn't look much like America. It looks like Happy Days.

To quote that great philosopher Tony Stark, "Not a great plan."

Someone on Twitter remarked, "Most Republicans I know are high-integrity, thoughtful, patriotic, moderate Americans. I hope they get to take their party back."[//i]

Damn straight. Instead of allowing the Tea Party types to scream, [i]"We want our country back"
the rank and file, REAL Republicans should be screaming, "We want our party back!"

They won't get it as long as they think everything is fine and it's the fault of those nasty liberals demonizing that nice Mr. Romney. That's just delusional self-denial talking. The Republican brand was rejected yesterday. Look at the results and prove otherwise.

When Team Romney refused to hang it up after Ohio was announced for Obama I posted on Facebook, "Romney doesn't have to concede Ohio. Screw him. You don't have to believe in gravity when you jump off a building. Not until you hit the ground."

Yesterday the GOP went SPLAT! When Obama finishes his term Democrats will have occupied the White House 16 of the last 24 years. Explain to me how that bodes well for the Republicans? They are increasingly becoming isolated to the South and a few Western states? California? Off the board. Virginia? Looking kind of purple these days. The Midwest? Be happy for Indiana even if they just elected a Democrat to the Senate instead of the Tea Party whackjob who was yet another right-winger with weird views about rape.

Go ahead and be proud of your Incredibly Shrinking Party, Aquilla. I don't want you to be like me either. On the side of history and victory.

Forward. thumbsup.gif

This post has been edited by nighttimer: Nov 7 2012, 10:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scubatim
post Nov 7 2012, 10:37 PM
Post #36


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,409
Member No.: 8,004
Joined: September-30-07

From: Iowa
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(amf @ Nov 7 2012, 08:04 AM) *
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.

It's quotes like these that are repeated over and over again until more and more people believe it that I credit to the divisiveness in this country and do nothing productive at all. On the other side of the coin, Republicans have done a very poor job countering statements like these to illustrate their position on immigration.

QUOTE(amf @ Nov 7 2012, 10:36 AM) *
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.

This is almost true...if you don't take into account the continuing influx of people into the workforce at a rate nearly twice the rate of job growth. At best, we are treading water and in this situation, it doesn't take much to sink again. With the forthcoming fiscal cliff fiasco that will amazingly be resolved last minute, our economic outlook is very poor.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 7 2012, 11:12 AM) *
The time for arguing whether the economy is getting better is over, at least for campaigning.

Ahh, but this is the best time to argue over the economy. Now we know who is in which seat and who is responsible for what actions. Now is the time to flood your elected official's office with emails, faxes and phone calls. We have just over six weeks before the biggest economic measure in our nation has to be resolved.

QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 7 2012, 12:59 PM) *
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."

...another example of what is wrong with politics today. You call for 'reality based thinking' but can't help but write tasteless, cynical and false descriptions of someone you disagree with. Classy.

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

Being the incumbent didn't hurt; but I think more importantly he was effective at getting his message out. I found his message to be more about attacking his opponent than touting his record, but I think that is a dead horse at this point.

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?

Obviously a combination of both. For Obama supporters, he has done very little if anything wrong. All they had to do is get the vote out, which Democrats are much better at than Republicans. I also think Romney would have had a real chance if he was better at correcting the attacks (lies) that were directed at him. I can't tell you how many times I heard the same false accusations over and over even after they had been debunked by fact checkers.

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

I think the party has more responsibility to bear than Romney himself. From my point of view, the party has done all it can to close the door on anyone that isn't a white male over the age of 50. I say this tongue in cheek, but in today's environment, the younger conservative voters don't seem to like running on a platform of governmental controlling the private lives of individuals. Naturally you would think to flock to a party that supposedly is for limited government and the protection of individual liberties, but when they look inside, they aren't finding what they are looking for. The party also needs to better articulate their position on immigration. I don't believe that the party supports illegal workers, but opposes illegal immigrants. I believe the party supports immigration and the GOP would greatly benefit by finding a way to promote that position. By focusing on how to improve the opportunity for those that do immigrate legally, and helping those that want to come here legally, they might swing immigrant voters their direction.

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

It think we all would like to see more compromise and cooperation, but since we as a nation essentially reelected the same make-up of government that we have had for the past two years, I am not holding my breath.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoneWisdom
post Nov 7 2012, 10:45 PM
Post #37


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 7 2012, 04:33 PM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Nov 7 2012, 04:26 PM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 7 2012, 03:50 PM) *
I'd like to see candidates make their arguments based on the truth, not obfuscation and downright lies (e.g., Jeep Corporation and jobs in China). Just a straight-up argument: This is why I think I'd make a better leader, this is my record, and this is the record of my opponent sort of thing. A little wonkier with less emotional pushing-of-buttons.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...xhxtvCvlRbCf84Q

"Last year, 136,222 American-made vehicles were exported to China, ..."

So, when do Americans start buying imported Jeeps from China?

You mean you don't know the specifics of that Republican ruse? Jeep has been exporting cars to China. No jobs are being shipped to China from the United States. The Chinese have somewhat of a protectionist, "Buy Chinese" stance, and so there is a plant being built in China to sell Chinese-built cars to Chinese people.

Nobody in this country is being laid off because of this plan.

Now are you going to (try to) tell me that Romney, if he were part of this venture, wouldn't do the same thing? And if he would, isn't it just a tad bit hypocritical (and dishonest) to be a former(?) venture capitalist and yet condemn Jeep for doing something that isn't going to close their American operations?

I can understand why you might not believe me, but how about Jeep's CEO (Google it)?

Did you really need to ask that question?

Can we get back to the thread topic questions?



How does losing exports to China not cost Americans? Starting production of Jeeps in China is shipping jobs to China. If Fiat doesn't increase its market for American made Jeeps to cover the loss of exported Jeeps, American made Jeep production must be reduced. It's only logical to assume more losses of exports from American plants...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...RnVmc4n1ANVgjvg
QUOTE
Though Jeep is one of the few 100% global brands of Fiat-Chrysler alliance, its dependence on North America's car market is still its major problem. At the same time Jeep is highly well-recognized world-wide, which means the off-road company has a big potential. It is why Sergio Marchionne, Fiat and Chrysler CEO, wants more from Jeep. Recently he confirmed Fiat's intentions to establish a new factory in Russia
...
Indian specialized press has said that Jeep will arrive in late 2013


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...BT41oc_2zHWpqqg
QUOTE
China exports 1 million vehicles a year, but they are sold in other emerging markets


Whether Romney would see the merits of doing the same thing is irrelevant. I thought the topic was about key factors that allowed Obama to win.

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

Successfully building a false narrative was a key factor.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 7 2012, 10:48 PM
Post #38


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

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



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

Obama was incredibly vulnerable, but three factors allowed him to prevail -- neither of which would have pushed him over the top alone:

One, he did an effective and convincing job of defending his record. The alternate-reality conservasphere portrays his presidency as an unmitigated disaster, but a job creation rate of minus 800,000/month on Jan 20, 2009 vs. positive ~170Kish today is the opposite of disaster (Hobbes's dismay over the similar unemployment rates on those two days notwithstanding). Couple that with foreign policy successes, reining in Wall Street, saving GM and Chrysler and bringing health insurance reform, and Obama has much to crow about -- though the die hard on the right will never afford him credit for that.

Two, the GOP, who have created a bubble of alternate reality in their broadcast and social media that is not the reality experienced by those outside the bubble, forced a situation where the only candidate with a whisker's chance of winning would have to veer hard to the right in the primaries -- too hard right to be a candidate with general election appeal -- and then swing back to the center for the general. The "Etch-A-Sketch" is the only path a GOP candidate can take to victory -- which leaves him justifiably vulnerable to accusations of flip-floppery.

And three, Mitt Romney was a feckless candidate, who could not credibly perform that zig-zag without looking utterly unprincipled. The Mitt of the general election was very similar to the Mitt before he began running for the nomination, but the Mitt in between was something very different. It left many people unsure if Mitt stood for anything at all. As I said - "A man who believes nothing can say anything." He was gaffe-prone and often appeared completely out of touch.

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?

It was not Romney's to lose, but he did have several advantages in the fundamentals upon which he completely failed to capitalize. Both Obama and his party did much to finally defend his record -- a task that they should have been doing from day one, but didn't bother to try until campaign season -- and that helped seal the deal.

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

Both, see above.

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

I would like to see the GOP realize that its extremist wing is a path to national irrelevance and their reversion to a regional party, and present a principled, but reality-based, alternative to the Democrats going forward.

I think they'll only radicalize further and continue to push their moderates (people like dtom) away.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Nov 7 2012, 10:51 PM
Post #39


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

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,193
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

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



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

As we spent the past several months entering data gathered by other campaign volunteers into computers, I was noticing that:

Fifty Three percent of registered voters are women, and older women are as likely to sit in a restaurant swapping views, talking about their grandchildren, and discussing politics as older men are.

I will go out wearing a campaign button, and I have a four year old vote for Obama baseball cap. (They sold out the first day they were on sale. The Vote for McCain caps were for sale at half price the day after the election in 2008.) The woman I was talking to in the hospital waiting room yesterday was wearing a larger than life picture of Obama on her tee-shirt, and an Obama/Biden bumper sticker on the back of her coat.

In the ghetto I was raised in, everyone knew that, "If momma ain't happy - ain't nobody happy!" The Republicans seem to still be campaigning against a woman's right to vote rather than making any effort to appeal to the young women voters who were born decades after the 19th Amendment was ratified. I used to know women who were raised to believe that voting was going to be their husband's responsibility, but I have not heard that conversation in decades.

The women from the Women's Liberation Movement are my age and older. The Republicans however, haven't quit challenging just Roe v. Wade; they threw the right to birth control into the equation. They need to watch The History of Sex on the history channel where they will learn that the Roman Empire had available methods of birth control before the birth of Christ.

The white male voter is officially a minority group, but white male Republicans seem to still be arguing to that "base."

Barack Obama five or six years ago began building a strong coalition of offices, professionals, volunteers to do one thing: Identify likely Democratic voters and then remind them to vote. He won the Election, and kept the "machine" running.

Republicans "took advantage of" the Citizens United Deccision, and raised money which could have been spent intelligently. At 7:53 PM last night, I got a phone call. A recorded message reminded me that, "as a 66 year old male, there are issues on the ballot that might affect you. Please remember to go to the polls tomorrow and vote."

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?

Obama had quite a lot on his plate, but he also had a well organized "ground game" that was running on Cruise Control rather than autopilot.

The Republican Party knew for four years that they were going to be challenging Barack Obama; but instead of looking for a strong challenger, they structured their selection process to allow anyone with a loud angry mouth to enter their primaries. Last night, I heard Republican analysts stating that their likely opponents in four years would be Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. I could not for the life of me understand why a Republican analyst would start an analysis of the weaknesses of our potential candidates. They should be looking for a better vetting process for a Republican candidate than saying Boehner, Bush, Palen...

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

The Republican Monopoly is still paying the likes of Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich because they won battles that were fought when???

I believe that it must have been John From Cleveland who said in an earlier thread that he had never volunteered in a campaign office. I felt it was only fair to refer hime to the address of the Romney Headquarters in Cleveland. At the time, there were fourteen Romney campaign offices in Ohio that I was able to find in the online yellow pages; none of them were in Cleveland. It has been 47 years since I was last in Cleveland, but I do recall it as being a large city... Every commentator on the talking machine behind me has stated repeatedly that a Republican who was elected President always had to win Ohio to do it. Romney seemed to be more focused on keeping money in his war chest than spending it on getting elected.

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

I would like to see a simple rule limiting the total cost of a political campaign to a factor based on the salary of the elected office times the number of years in office. The potential candidate would have to file cerification that they were eligible, and an account would be set up with funds to run the campaign. That fund would be audited! If we were forced to elect people who could effectively manage campaign funds, we might end up electing people who could manage local, state, and national budgets. Such elected officials might even ask about the cost/benefit ratio of going to war before we spent the nation into bankruptcy trying to force other nations to accept Democracy. We aren't even certain at times that Democracy has worked well for us...but I don't see us asking the Queen of England to take over our nation again.

I suspect that the Republicans will try to implement four more years of blocking progress in an effort to regain power. Rush to Limbo will continue to blather, and a certain relative will continue to forward his "words of wisdom" and MSNBC will continue to provide him with free advertising for his television program. I will not be surprised if it is learned that Mitt Romney raised far more money for his campaign than he spent and Donald Trump will offer Sheriff Arpaio a cash bonus if he can arrest Mitt Romney and return him to The United States for prosecution of election fraud.

Yes professor, I understand that neither of the above two paragraphs are realistic, but you asked for personal opinions here, not unbiased well researched provable positions. I remain adamant that on Election Night, it is the votes on the ballots that elect a person to office, not the billboards, yard signs, or television advertisements...but I went to Grand Rapids' South High School, where Gerry Ford spoke at my High School graduation in 1964 on his hopes to end his political career as President of the United States...

Conversations with other people who voted by absentee ballot over the past month found us all in agreement, that in the privacy of our homes we have the time to research and vote intelligently. There has really been no strong evidence of voter fraud, but politicians have been using that meme to challenge our right to vote. The constant mantra I am hearing is. "It should be easier to vote and more people should learn to do it."

I will renew my efforts to get Congress to pass a law that states that if a Voter ID is required to vote, the Voter Registration Card should be provided with a photo at no cost to the voter!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amf
post Nov 7 2012, 10:51 PM
Post #40


********
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
This is almost true...if you don't take into account the continuing influx of people into the workforce at a rate nearly twice the rate of job growth.


This part of what you said is not true. Because of higher retirement rates vs. lower birth rates, the latest number of "new jobs needed" per month is below 125K now. We've been doing better than that for a while (average I saw for this year is somewhere around 160K). People will flow in and out of the job market over time when they get to retirement age, depending on whether jobs are available. They might work for a few months to supplement their income, then leave again to to their house in Florida for the winter. Same with students. Your are misinterpreting the stats.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: August 16th, 2018 - 12:30 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.