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 (1 - 19)
Gray Seal
post Sep 26 2012, 02:56 PM
Post #2


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,405
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



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

It is lagging because many who supported the party in the past see it has a shame to what they thought they were supporting.

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

Being black is a factor. Those who see government has a delivery system of advantage believe it is black's turn to receive more advantage. It is only fair that various disadvantage minorities groups get a turn as they are all good people.

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?

There are plenty of people who support the idea of the United States being the super power and running the world. They like the Republican language version of this better than the benevolent language version of the Democrats. Of those who support big government, the Republican concept of disadvantage to those who are not moral appeals to another chunk of voters. These groups still dominate in the Republican primaries. There were several good choices in the Republican primaries who championed Republican ideas of small government and respect for a limiting Constitution but they were drown out by the above groups who are supported by big money crony capitalists (who have their own self serving agenda).

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?

You are kidding? Moderates? Neocons. All of them. It would have made no difference as they are all so similar.

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?

There is the faction who wants more religion in politics. This is not going to sell in the United States. Too many recognize the evil with the loss of religious freedom when religion is mixed with politics.

-------

What does it mean when Romney loses?

If voter turn out is as bad as I am expecting: As Obama has been piling on top of failed Bush policies, rejecting Romney is a rejection of the two party system. It will be a demonstration that choosing the better of two evils has been a failure recognized by an ever growing minority. Typically, Presidential races are all about the economy. Obama should lose big. But he will not because Romney is no solution at all but more of the same. Enough voters see that now. Not enough of them participated in the primary process to change either party via that process. Further, many of these new independents know current policies are bad but they have not figured out what the solution is. The new independents do not know who to support.

Obama and Romney represent the similar bad policy of big centralized government giving advantage and using force to make people better. That more people are cognitive about this gives hope for the future. Recognizing the problem is a good step. Knowing what would be good policy and who to support towards good policy is the next step.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Sep 26 2012, 03:23 PM
Post #3


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

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



I can't disagree too much with what Grey Seal has said in general- but I do have this to say-

this debate was held sometime back in the 2005-ish timeline, and then it was "what can save the party of the democrat?" or something very similar.

Basically, at some point, Republicans will win again, and this subject will become moot, again. New faces, old money, better strategists etc etc- Democrats will have thier time, then the Republicans will have thier time.

Nothing is going to happen to the Republican party, except new leaders with better strategy for winning elections will come along, Democrats will get complacent, and they will lose an election or three. 2000-2008 was a good example of the Democrats having to come back lean and mean- when they should have never lost in the first place. Who doesn't long for Bill Clinton years/era now? thumbsup.gif rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lo rez
post Sep 26 2012, 03:36 PM
Post #4


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 388
Member No.: 10,616
Joined: August-8-09

From: Minneapolis, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
What does it mean when Romney loses?


"When the chips are down, these civilized people..they'll eat each other."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EuroBlack
post Sep 26 2012, 05:28 PM
Post #5


*****
Century Mark

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

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



QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 26 2012, 05:23 PM) *
at some point, Republicans will win again, and this subject will become moot, again. New faces, old money, better strategists etc etc- Democrats will have thier time, then the Republicans will have thier time.
Nothing is going to happen to the Republican party, except new leaders with better strategy for winning elections will come along, Democrats will get complacent, and they will lose an election or three.


minor beef: I've always thought it was spelled their and not thier, but I bow my head to the native speaker, of course. Unless it's a religious thing? wink.gif

"Nothing is going to happen to the Republican party, except new leaders with better strategy for winning elections will come along, "
This doesn't really answer my question whether their present sorry state is due to too much conservatism or too little.
What you're saying seems quite cynical, cos it comes down to:
message doesn't matter, it was simply an incompetent campaign.

I do agree it's incompetent, but the main and structural incompetence lays in the picking of the platform. Romney didn't choose to run as the anti-obama, he runs as Bush jr, doubled down, an extremer rightwing version of Dubya.

I'm seeing Jeb Bush making moderate moves out there and i guess that will be much more popular than all this hateful racist teabagger crap the party stands for today.
Also, ron paul polled much better against Obama than Romeny ever did.
And RP is very extreme in some ways, but also quite liberal in others. Romny never was that, also cos he lies and flip flops a lot.

I really think this thing is over, even if Obama tanks at the debates.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/...rts-negatively/
QUOTE
Still Obama's rating is 17 points better than Romney’s even in the $50,000-$100,000 range; only among $100,000-plus earners does Romney’s campaign rival Obama’s. Among whites, Obama’s 45-51 percent rating, favorable-unfavorable, is not positive – but beats Romney’s 39-56 percent.


Of course, some might claim that all the poll samples contain too much Democrats, but that is assuming that:
1. All pollsters do some corrections on their samples. this is not a fact. Some pollster might just 1,000 people, whom they will vote for and then count how many say Obama.
2. Even if they applied corrections with the 2008 model instead of the 2010 model, why is that wrong? it's not. turn out will resemble 2008, not 2010. and Gop enthusiasm gap is shrinking, might even be negative.

Who gets their knickers all twisted over romney? Nobody. It was shameful to see many speakers at the RNC touting their own horn instead of endorsing romney. Christy stands out, but others did it as well.

Debates? Romney will pull a Palin, simply repeat talking points and lies while grinning in the camera.

This post has been edited by EuroBlack: Sep 26 2012, 04:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Sep 26 2012, 07:59 PM
Post #6


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



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

Too much, I think. Republican candidates had to be far to the right to have a shot in the primaries, but they need a moderate to win the general election.

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

The GOP never gets the black vote. Blacks were going to vote Democrat no matter what, the only question being how many new black voters Obama would generate. He ran against a woman in the primary, so I don't know how many primary votes he netted just by being black - I imagine plenty of black women were torn, as were all women. Both choices were historic.

I do know quite a few people, though, who would never vote for a black candidate (and quite a few who would never vote for a woman, either), so race had a galvanizing effect for the other team as well. It would have been interesting to see how a white male Democratic candidate would have fared, considering the tremendous desire among voters (of all stripes) to get away from the Bush Years. I was amazed that the race was as close as it was, and I suspect that Obama's race lost more votes than it won.

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 Daily Show called Obama the luckiest man alive because of Romney's incompetent campaign. Then they called Romney the second luckiest man alive because of the incompetence of Perry, Santorum, Cain, Bachmann, and Gingrich. The Republican field had one very competent, moderate candidate - Jon Huntsman - who got almost zero support. Same story for Pawlenty. Quiet competence doesn't seem to play well in Republican primaries anymore.

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?

I think Huntsman would be doing very well now, had he survived the primary, just by being quiet and competent. I think he would grow on most people. Bush, Rubio, and Christie all have their faults (especially Christie, who no doubt would have grated on Americans by now).

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?

Teapartiers are largely to blame for the primary's failure to select a candidate with a chance. They have a solid but small base than most people cannot stand.

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?

Republicans will not win those states easily, voter ID laws or not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EuroBlack
post Sep 26 2012, 11:47 PM
Post #7


*****
Century Mark

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

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



QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Sep 26 2012, 09:59 PM) *
2. Is the GOP lagging in part because Obama is black, and African-Americans always get preferential treatment?

The GOP never gets the black vote. Blacks were going to vote Democrat no matter what, the only question being how many new black voters Obama would generate.

Ah .... perhaps the tongue-in-cheaek aspect didn't get through. I was referring to the fact that Repubs always whine and stomp their feet and cry: Boohoo! No Fair! He just won cos he's blah-ha-ha-ha-hack" after which they start explaining how completely logical it is for a black man to become the next Hitler, even if the actual Hitler gassed tens of thousands of blacks.
This always strenghtens my convictions about black intellectiual superiority, because for 95+ percent, THEY HAVE correctly identified the ones who screws their lifes and actively tries to kill them: Republicans. Whereas for whites that figure is much lower. Among them poor whites are doing the best on this metric: about 60 percent also correctly identified the Repubs as the culprits
QUOTE
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?

Republicans will not win those states easily, voter ID laws or not.

from your mouth to Gods lightning bolts he'll hopefully use to smite the evildoers.


PS
nullus pinguis feminae? really?
you don't like fat women?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Sep 27 2012, 12:21 AM
Post #8


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(EuroBlack @ Sep 26 2012, 07:47 PM) *
QUOTE(JohnfrmCleveland @ Sep 26 2012, 09:59 PM) *
2. Is the GOP lagging in part because Obama is black, and African-Americans always get preferential treatment?

The GOP never gets the black vote. Blacks were going to vote Democrat no matter what, the only question being how many new black voters Obama would generate.

Ah .... perhaps the tongue-in-cheaek aspect didn't get through. I was referring to the fact that Repubs always whine and stomp their feet and cry: Boohoo! No Fair! He just won cos he's blah-ha-ha-ha-hack" after which they start explaining how completely logical it is for a black man to become the next Hitler, even if the actual Hitler gassed tens of thousands of blacks.


No, I got it, but I answered the question I wanted to answer. But honestly, I haven't noticed much "he won because he's black" stuff over here, because I think most people understand that being black was still probably going to mean a net loss of votes, not a net gain. There was a bit of that talk right after the election, some sour grapes over the fact that blacks voted Democrat not only in greater numbers, but in higher percentages than usual. But it didn't last long, because white males still voted mostly Republican.

QUOTE(EuroBlack @ Sep 26 2012, 07:47 PM) *
PS
nullus pinguis feminae? really?
you don't like fat women?


I have no problem with fat women. Some ADers like to put smart little Latin phrases into their signature lines to show everybody how deep they are. The fraternity motto "no fat chicks" was about the least intelligent phrase I could think of to translate into Latin.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Sep 27 2012, 06:05 AM
Post #9


*********
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(EuroBlack @ Sep 26 2012, 10:01 AM) *
Questions for debate:


Well, the first thing that's going to happen to the Republican Party is not a darn thing because I have no idea who "Ronmey" is. ermm.gif

Matt Ronmey? Mike Robney? Mars Blackmon? Bueller? Bueller? whistling.gif

You might want to ask a kindly Moderator to pretty-please-with-sugar-on-top to change that title to "Romney." Not sayin'. Just sayin.

To the questions:

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

The United States is a moderate/right country and the Republican Party is a right-wing party leaving its moderate roots behind. It may yet prove successful if the GOP holds the House, takes the Senate and wins the White House. If they can't win the trifecta, the consolation prize is still control of the House (where all spending originates) and possibly the Senate (where a president's appointments go to wither and die).

I've heard a lot of talk of a civil war in the GOP if Romney loses (and the Dems hold the Senate and take the House back). There will be some bloodletting if that occurs, but there will be no widespread repudiation of "too much right-wingerism" because the Republicans believe there's no such animal. All that will happen is the Far Right will say of a Romney loss is it was the messenger that was flawed, not the message. They would have been just as happy to see Paul Ryan at the top of the ticket and Mittens as his running mate as a bone thrown to what's left of the GOP's moderate wing.

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

What? This question is too nonsensical to deserve a serious response. Next! dry.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?

Romney isn't incompetent. He's just not well-liked. Not by his party. Not by the American people. Not even by the conservative wing of ad.gif who prefer threads ripping Obama than threads praising Mittens. Republicans can't stand the president, but they would have liked another choice besides Mitt.

This was the weakest field of Republicans I've seen in ages. It was a motley crew of nuts, dingbats, airheads, hustlers, con men, retreads and losers. Michelle Bachmann. Tim Pawlenty. Herman Cain. Rick "Foamy" Santorum, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman. SERIOUSLY? The collective star power of these D-listers couldn't juice up a 40-watt bulb in a refrigerator.

Mitt was simply the leper with the most fingers. He should be on Survivor, not in the White House.

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?

Jeb Bush is the only moderate there. Marco Rubio is a Tea Party favorite and Crumbs Christie is a pragmatic, but solidly conservative. There was a moderate in the race for the Republicans. Jon Huntsman was called by TIME magazine as the candidate Obama feared most. Yeah, sure. He never nudged double-digits in popularity and wasn't even an afterthought in the primaries. Dude was a total zero.

If I were a Republican who wasn't on the wrong side of 60, I would have taken 2012 off and come back harder, faster, better, stronger in 2016 when there was no incumbent to compete against. Jeb will probably take a long look at running The real problem for Jeb is does America really want a third Bush in the White House?

Survey says: "Nope." dry.gif

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?

I doubt the Tea Party believes they have any blame coming their way. They probably see themselves as the catalyst within the GOP that breathed life back into it after it got crushed by the 2008 Obama tsunami. The ouster of the Dems from control of the House two years later and capturing a clear majority of governor offices and statehouses was fueled by the energy and enthusiasm of the Tea Party.

Now maybe they've overplayed their hand by forcing the GOP into absolute purity on issues such as taxes, treating "negotiation" like a dirty word, and they aren't popular with a lot of other Americans, but the Tea Party revitalized the Republicans. Unfortunately for the party bosses they can't control the Tea Party and the threat they pose to Republicans who don't swear loyalty to their principles has resorted in the exile of several of their most effective and respected politicians like Richard Lugar and Olympia Snowe.

Rick Santorum would be doing better with the base and worse than Romney with independents and moderates.

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?

Voter ID laws will not give Florida and Pennsylvania to the Republicans easily. These laws are being challenged and several have been overturned. The majority of these laws are not about protecting the vote, but suppressing it. Some of these pernicious and unnecessary laws will stand, but others will fall by the wayside as well they should.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Sep 27 2012, 07:42 AM
Post #10


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

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

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



1. Is the GOP lagging because of TOO much rightwingerism, or .... too little?
As far as I know they will probably win the house of representatives again. They have managed to bring the legislative process pretty much to a stop in the Senate. Will things seriously change or is the present just a little bump in the road? Know-Nothingism seems to be working.

2. Is the GOP lagging in part because Obama is black, and African-Americans always get preferential treatment?
I'm sure it is because he is a Muslim Kenyan Communist and folks are looking for a change. ph34r.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?
It was definitely weak but his chameleon act had the broadest appeal for obvious reasons and let's face it - money talks, b.......... walks.

4. 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? It's hard to say. I know his 47% are leaches remark energized a lot of republicans.

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? I'm not sure what the differences were between the Tea Party and Santorum other than the TP folks were a little more reality based. Santorum did have a quality of forgiveness that may have placed him a bit outside the Tea Party mode. Marrying a woman who had for 5 years been the mistress of an abortion performing doctor showed a heart as wide as Texas.

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?
The movement to suppress the vote definitely makes the elections nail biters. More impressive to me is how an entire party can chuck reality and still make it a contest no matter how crooked . I do think the idea that global warming is going to cost us trillions of extra dollars might eventually score with them given the money angle, however I imagine by then half of Florida will be underwater.

Just a little note, if Romney wins I think it will usher in full fledged reality free campaigning. Just tell people what they want to hear, look good, look commanding, stumble around a little to give yourself some humanity and leave the facts to media folks that few people believe anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Sep 27 2012, 12:18 PM
Post #11


**********
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



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

It's falling behind due to people finding out exactly who Mitt Romney is, and probably to a lesser extent, who Paul Ryan really is.

Radical far-right policies have a little to do with it, but the major problem is when the philosophies hit the pavement and try to run. They have no legs. For example, take women's reproductive health issues. The far-right idea is that women have no rights regarding whether or not they are going to have children. The attitude is that since women have the means to gestate and give birth, they have the sacred duty to do so.

For quite a while the defense of the fetus tactic worked. However, when it went to extremes, women and some men started seeing the real cause behind the argument. In its most cynical form, women are on earth to become and produce good consumers who will create wealth for companies and individuals. If you look at it in a spreadsheet, the reality is masked. When you look at it from the perspective of women, the craziness becomes clear.

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

They do, always? I'm afraid you're not seeing the reality of the situation. Imagine if President Obama were to look white. Would he be treated like he has been before and while in office? He's highly articulate and thoughtful, perhaps a hundred times more than Romney. He has a keen sense of appropriate actions to take. He is highly educated and experienced in law and community issues.

President Obama meets the minimum requirements for a black man to become President. Mitt Romney barely meets the minimum requirements for being human.

Now, you were saying about the blacks in the US always getting preferred treatment?

Who of the two has been rewarded with more money? Who of the two put out more effort?

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?

Yes, the field was full of inappropriate candidates to lead this country, and as is often said, the free world. Romney had consistent numbers, so the bet was on his ability to string coherent sentences together and maybe not contradict himself.

That was a poor wager, but the others weren't exactly shining beacons in the night.

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?

Jeb Bush has the problem of being closely related to GWB. Rubio has the problem of holding office while being brown. Christie exudes lack of self-discipline, and not just because of his physical bulk. He has too much New Jersey attitude.

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?

Yes to the latter question. Santorum is very transparent, and nominating him would have been more of a disaster. Romney has benefited with people giving him the benefit of the doubt. Now that he has come clean about how he intends to treat the middle class when it comes to taxes, there's no longer any reason to vote the guy in.

For the record, he intends to cut the tax rates but also eliminate unnamed deductions (mortgage and dependent most likely), so the net effect will be to increase the tax burden on the middle class. I also think he's on board with taxing the poor, judging from his expressed feelings about 47% of the population not making enough to pay federal income tax.

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?

The lame attempts of Republicans to stuff the election boxes via this tactic will fail. It goes against the very strong American value of fair play. Fight like the dickens when necessary, but if you're caught cheating, oh boy. I'd hate to be you.

Republicans are actually losing those states, but that's just in the polls. The real test will be when the votes are tallied shortly after Election Day, and a reliable call is made as to who won the race.

The Republicans might get Florida, but I don't think that state will be the deciding factor. I kinda hope it will be Colorado with our measly 9 Electoral College votes, but realistically, it'll be states like Ohio with lots more EC votes.

I think it would be hilarious if President Obama wins the EC vote but has a minority of the popular vote. The head explosions that happened in 2008 will look like a firecracker in comparison.

And what if the SCOTUS gets involved as it did in 2000?

Well, nothing like that is going to happen, but it could. It has. History rhymes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EuroBlack
post Sep 27 2012, 04:05 PM
Post #12


*****
Century Mark

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

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



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 27 2012, 02:18 PM) *
2. Is the GOP lagging in part because Obama is black, and African-Americans always get preferential treatment?
They do, always? I'm afraid you're not seeing the reality of the situation. Imagine if President Obama were to look white. Would he be treated like he has been before and while in office? He's highly articulate and thoughtful, perhaps a hundred times more than Romney. He has a keen sense of appropriate actions to take. He is highly educated and experienced in law and community issues.

Some of my friends say that calling Obama articulate is outright racism, but I'm not that strict or rigid, I'm much inclined to see it as some sort of backhanded compliment, sometimes even with the best intentions.

It's like the saying ''she's black ... BUT she's pretty'' http://www.aimmagazine.org/news_white.htm
To use the words articulate, and Obama in one sentence has become to imply that blacks aren't naturally articulate (kind of odd after all the black poets, writers and rappers, but hey) and it's a remarkable thing that he is articulate. Joe Biden can tell you stories .... wink.gif Good ol' Joe. smile.gif

This wouldn't all be so, if .... Obama was indeed articulate like, let's say his wife was. Back in 2008 it was more clear, but even now, it's obvious he's not a natural speaker, but she really is.
He's also a shoddy dancer, (yes, it totally takes one to know one - I was easy to spot in large dancing crowds.) youtube for Obama and Ellen Degeneres, it's cringeworthy. He's an okay singer though, but clearly much better at presidenting. than with anything else.

But this whole brilliant speaker thing .... WEIRD!! He's not! He always swallow his ''You know's, so they sound like ''Yo!'
Well, he's become a sort of okay speaker, but a natural ... no, no, no.

//end rant//

This post has been edited by EuroBlack: Sep 27 2012, 04:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Sep 27 2012, 05:06 PM
Post #13


**********
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(EuroBlack @ Sep 27 2012, 12:05 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 27 2012, 02:18 PM) *
2. Is the GOP lagging in part because Obama is black, and African-Americans always get preferential treatment?
They do, always? I'm afraid you're not seeing the reality of the situation. Imagine if President Obama were to look white. Would he be treated like he has been before and while in office? He's highly articulate and thoughtful, perhaps a hundred times more than Romney. He has a keen sense of appropriate actions to take. He is highly educated and experienced in law and community issues.

Some of my friends say that calling Obama articulate is outright racism, but I'm not that strict or rigid, I'm much inclined to see it as some sort of backhanded compliment, sometimes even with the best intentions.

It's like the saying ''she's black ... BUT she's pretty'' http://www.aimmagazine.org/news_white.htm
To use the words articulate, and Obama in one sentence has become to imply that blacks aren't naturally articulate (kind of odd after all the black poets, writers and rappers, but hey) and it's a remarkable thing that he is articulate. Joe Biden can tell you stories .... wink.gif Good ol' Joe. smile.gif

This wouldn't all be so, if .... Obama was indeed articulate like, let's say his wife was. Back in 2008 it was more clear, but even now, it's obvious he's not a natural speaker, but she really is.
He's also a shoddy dancer, (yes, it totally takes one to know one - I was easy to spot in large dancing crowds.) youtube for Obama and Ellen Degeneres, it's cringeworthy. He's an okay singer though, but clearly much better at presidenting. than with anything else.

But this whole brilliant speaker thing .... WEIRD!! He's not! He always swallow his ''You know's, so they sound like ''Yo!'
Well, he's become a sort of okay speaker, but a natural ... no, no, no.

//end rant//


A rant indeed. You didn't include the modifier, highly, in your critique of my probable racism. Due to this, I get to say that you're wetter than a shipwrecked sailor.

I disagree with you on President Obama's speaking abilities. He has been criticized for using a teleprompter, which I suppose makes sense to anyone not familiar with public speaking. I'm also not sure if natural public speakers actually exist, just as I doubt that anyone has perfect pitch other than perfect relative pitch. My doubts are well-founded, since I minored in speech during college and performed music professionally in the 1980s. I've presented to classes and taken on impromptu business public speaking when a VP tried to embarrass me.

He was equally unsuccessful. Guess he forgot the parts of my resume that would have given him a clue that maybe I'm a well-practiced public speaker and performer. The key here is practice, which can make perfect but often leads to a bag of tricks to make it through the speech or performance. Actually, there's not much difference between the two. A while back a study was done on what people most fear. Public speaking beat out death.

Anyway, I still think President Obama is highly articulate and thoughtful. Maybe if I use the modifier, exceptionally, you'd like it better, but then I'd be taking a rant as serious literary criticism.

It sort of reminds me when I used a term of endearment common in Colorado for a black boy, maybe five years old, in Memphis, TN. The term is Bucko, which is a shortened form of Buckaroo, but the boy's mother laid into me for calling her son a buck.

No amount of explanation could quiet her down and ensure her that I wasn't being derogatory, just in a way ethnic. I honestly didn't know that black males in the American South were called bucks by racists. She honestly didn't know that Coloradans call little boys of any race Buckos or Buckaroos. It was like we came from different planets.

Also, it's impossible to honestly apologize for an unintended insult. If it was unintended, then there's nothing to apologize for. You can, however, read my stuff through and not ignore selected words. That responsibility is on you.

Oh, and ONE MORE THING (heh): Remember how GWB mangled the language? Obama was a breath of fresh English major air injected into national politics. Romney is articulate but still doesn't make sense. It's as if he doesn't hear what he's saying, or maybe has no short-term memory for what he says.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EuroBlack
post Sep 27 2012, 07:25 PM
Post #14


*****
Century Mark

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

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



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Sep 26 2012, 04:56 PM) *
1. Is the GOP lagging because of TOO much rightwingerism, or .... too little?

It is lagging because many who supported the party in the past see it has a shame to what they thought they were supporting.

That sounds almost like my definition of libertarian: A republican who's smart enough to be ashamed about being one, these days. Almost Peggy Noonanish, who moved from Romney is incompetent to "he's a rolling disaster"....

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Sep 27 2012, 08:32 PM
Post #15


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 27 2012, 03:25 PM) *
That sounds almost like my definition of libertarian: A republican who's smart enough to be ashamed about being one, these days.


I'd say your definition is far off the mark. Libertarians do come in a wide spectrum of Liberal to Conservative, but there's a lot of daylight between Conservative Libertarians and the modern GOP.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Sep 28 2012, 02:20 PM
Post #16


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,405
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



A definition of libertarian which seems simple enough is that libertarians do not think force should be used to make people act.

That is not what I was referring to when I stated those who have supported the Republican Party in the past are now seeing current party leadership as a sham. The disillusionment comes from various factions of the Republican Party. Republicans are just like Democrats in seeking and making government bigger, especially at the federal level. Republicans trash the Constitution. Republicans do not instill conservative religious morality into government to the degree they declare. Republicans do not look out for all business but more for business which funnels them money. Republicans do not reform taxes to be simple and fair. These are all issues which run strong within those segments who vote Republican and it is just not happening. Republican leadership has there own agenda and these listed ideas are not being followed through. The only factions which seems to be rewarded in the Republican Party are those who want their clique to get advantage and those who want the United States to be the bully of the world. With the rest of the Republican issues the party could just as well be Democrat.

People will still vote in great numbers for lip service and hope but these numbers are dwindling. There is much dwindling to do before we will see good ideas in Washington DC.

---------------

Much of the process I attribute to the Republican Party will be happening to the Democrat Party. Democrat leadership is a sham. They do not follow through on controlling big money from big business. They do not make taxes simple. They do not keep the US out of unnecessary war. They do not make rules to be fair. They do not improve the standard of living. They do not put language into the Constitution to protect privacy. They do not look out for the little guy.

Support for Democrats will wane as supporters wake up and see they are supporting an organization which does not do what they say but has its own agenda.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Sep 28 2012, 05:22 PM
Post #17


*********
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



Interesting analysis from the Cato Institute, the libertarian think-tank:
QUOTE
...
The Reason-Rupe September 2012 poll includes our favorite ideological questions to differentiate libertarians from liberals and conservatives. Using three questions, we can define libertarians as respondents who believe “the less government the better,” who prefer the “free market” to handle problems, and who want government to “favor no particular set of values.” These fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters represent 20% of the public in the Reason-Rupe poll, in line with previous estimates.

Among these likely libertarian voters, the presidential horserace currently stands:
...
Romney’s share of the libertarian vote represents a high water mark for Republican presidential candidates in recent elections.

As the chart below shows, George W. Bush won 72 percent of libertarians in 2000, but lost many libertarians by 2004, as the wars, spending, and growth of government weighed on many libertarians. John McCain matched Bush’s 2000 vote share, winning 71 percent. Many libertarians seem to have preferred McCain’s independent streak to Obama’s soaring promises. But if the election were held today, the Romney/Ryan ticket would get more libertarian votes than any candidate since 1980.
...
One other interesting data point from the Reason-Rupe poll. We’ve previously noted libertarians’ penchant to support third party candidates. For instance, 17 percent of libertarians supported John Anderson in 1980 and 33 percent supported Perot in 1996. What happens if you ask libertarians their vote preference and include Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson among the choices?
...
... When Johnson is listed, he pulls votes equally from Romney and Obama, drawing 7 percentage points from each. Adding Johnson to the mix is a wash for Romney, at least among libertarian voters nationally.
...

Link: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/poll-shows-...bertarian-vote/

This post has been edited by akaCG: Sep 28 2012, 05:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Sep 28 2012, 05:34 PM
Post #18


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, 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. The poll included 594 likely voters and covered the presidential race and senate elections, among others. The margin of error of the poll is 4.3%.

When only President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney are included, Obama leads by 45.2% to 44.3%, with 10.4% either undecided or supporting a third party candidate.

When Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson is also included, Obama leads Romney by 44.5% to 37.8%, with Johnson winning 10.6% of the vote. 7.1% are either undecided or supporting another third party candidate.

This is the first poll in Ohio to show Johnson reaching double-digit support, and his presence appears to affect Romney far more than it affects Obama. Ohio is considered to be a must-win for Romney, as no Republican has ever won the Presidency while losing in Ohio.


Examiner
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Sep 28 2012, 06:53 PM
Post #19


*********
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, 01:34 PM) *
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:

Yes, that is interesting.

Taking a look at the internals of the Gravis poll, which shows Obama up by 0.9%, ...

Sampling: Dem + 10.3

Gallup party ID for Ohio, however: Dem + 3.6

Adjusted for the oversampling: Obama + 0.9 - (10.3 - 3.6) = Obama + 0.9 - 6.7 = Obama - 5.8 ---> i.e. Romney by 5.8%.

---> i.e. Obama: 47.1% vs Romney 52.9%

Now let's account for the Gary Johnson effect on each of them:

Obama: 47.1% - 0.7% = 46.4%

Romney: 52.9% - 6.5% = 46.4%

And that's assuming that Gary Johnson will manage to maintain his current numbers through Election Day.

Let's see what happens if he doesn't. Say he gets only the same percentage of the vote that John Anderson did (i.e. 6.6% instead of 10.6%) on Election Day, while drawing the same comparative proportions of voters away from Obama and Romney. Results in that case:

Obama: 47.1% - 0.7% * (6.6% / 10.6%) = 47.1% - 0.4% = 46.7%

Romney: 52.9% - 6.5% * (6.6% / 10.6%) = 52.9% - 4.0% = 48.9%

Interesting, indeed.

ps:
The Reason/Rupe poll is national. Gravis's is just for Ohio. Given that the former found Gary Johnson drawing votes away from Obama and Romney equally, it seems that in states other than Ohio he draws more votes from Obama. I wonder what those states are.

This post has been edited by akaCG: Sep 28 2012, 06:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Sep 28 2012, 07:55 PM
Post #20


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



It is interesting if you find the 'great poll skewing controversy of 2012' to be more than political theater. Not only do I place more emphasis on state polls, due to the electoral college....but I don't generally put stock into any poll prior to 6 November.
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: August 19th, 2018 - 10:47 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.