View Full Version : Why O won and R lost?
Birchwood
11-7-12, 12:10pm
1. More women voted for O.
2. More young people voted for O.
3. Much more Hispanics voted for O. Remember R said "Self deportation" for Hisp.
4. Much more blacks, minorities, and recent immigrants voted for O.
5. People perceived O as more concerned for US industries.
6. R alienated folks with "47%" comments.
7. Democrats had better organization.
8. Republicans appeared monolithic, white only(big problem).
9. Folks are generally turned off by extreme Republican groups.
10. Anti abortion Reps. annoyed women in general.
11. Reps. failed to woo more Independents.
12. It wasn't just the economy!
try2bfrugal
11-7-12, 12:44pm
As one article put it, the Republican party is too male, too old and too white. Just look at the mix of supporters at the election eve rallies. Which one represented the future demographics of the U.S. better? In four years, there will be even less older white voters as they die off and more teenagers and especially Hispanic teenagers turn voting age.
On top of this, I'd add that Romney just didn't come off as a personable guy. In spite of his efforts, he was unable to overcome an apparent representation of the wealthy and big business. Indeed, in hind sight, it wasn't just about the economy. Romney was unable to connect very well across age, race, income and gender lines. I'm not so sure whether Obama won, or if Romney managed to defeat himself. Then again, it was pretty darned close.
When I went to our state-level Republican convention as a delegate, it was pretty clear to me the Republicans were toast.
There were a *lot* of younger folks there, of *all* genders, and a fair amount of racial and economic diversity. Among the Ron Paul supporters, which were a significant part of the delegate crowd.
The Old Guard used every dirty trick in the book to try to marginalize and expel this group of energetic motivated people. And they were pretty successful at it.
A telling comment at a dinner I was at during the convention, from a 20-something: "well, we'll just have to wait until they all die of old age...". She was probably quite right. At 49, I was pretty much the oldest person in their crowd, but near the younger end of the spectrum of The Old Guard faction.
The Republicans rudely threw away the next generation or two of supporters at that convention. People who basically were socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and fans of smallish government and local action.
flowerseverywhere
11-7-12, 1:14pm
as a resident of a swing state here is my opinion after talking to a lot of people these past few weeks and this morning
1. the hateful anti-Obama ads that were aired by private parties and not endorsed by Romney hurt him instead of helped him. People don't like lies and hatefulness from either side.
2. the "Religious Rightous wealthy old white man club" who are so anti-poverty, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-accesable health care etc. came off as being very selfish and hateful as opposed to Christian and loving
3. there are a lot of people who are desperately trying to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and were scared of what might happen if Obama lost.
bae, I hope you are right, it gives me great hope that this country will come out better in the end
2. the "Religious Rightous wealthy old white man club" who are so anti-poverty, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-accesable health care etc. came off as being very selfish and hateful as opposed to Christian and loving
My personal politics are a bit to the right of Genghis Khan.
But, I have a teenage daughter, a wife, a gay father, and a gay father-in-law.
How the heck do the Republicans expect me to support them when they want to oppress and control the people I love?
No thanks.
try2bfrugal
11-7-12, 1:31pm
2. the "Religious Rightous wealthy old white man club" who are so anti-poverty, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-accesable health care etc. came off as being very selfish and hateful
Duly earning the American Taliban label.
My favorite headline of the past few hours....
"Congratulations Conservatives! You are getting a moderate Republican for President: Barack Obama"
on Slate.com
We flipped back and forth between FoxNews coverage and NBC coverage last night.
There are at least 2-4 alternate universes that are currently existing in our country.
I am not a usual FoxNews watcher, so it made their coverage all the more surreal to me.
Watching Megan traipse through the hallways of FoxNews in ridiculous high heels was like being trapped in a strange (not so) fun house..... to steal a line from pre-storm Chris Christie re: Obama - watching Megan looking for the Fox Decision Desk to relay the contesting protestations of Karl Rove was like watching "Obama wandering around the white house looking for a clue"
Interesting to hear President Obama bring up the deficit several times last night in his speech -- if I were a Dems, I would fight like hell for the middle electorate over the next 4 years. The Republicans have walked away from that marketshare and so much more. And if Repub's are going to fight for it - then stand the H-E-double-hockey-sticks up and start smacking down the koo-koo's - stop cowtowing to Talk Radio and FauxNews.
Find your spine Republicans and tell your racist grandmother to go shove it in a very loving way (oh wait, that was a pep talk to myself).
The Free Market of Ideas was in full control last night and the current incarnation of the GOP lost big time - they if anyone should be familiar with market forces and see the handwriting on the wall.
We flipped back and forth between FoxNews coverage and NBC coverage last night. There are at least 2-4 alternate universes that are currently existing in our country.
LOL. We did the exact same thing and came to the exact same conclusion. It was weird.
LOL. We did the exact same thing and came to the exact same conclusion. It was weird.
I was flipping back and forth from ABC and Democracy Now - I expect I watched something very different.
I was flipping back and forth from ABC and Democracy Now - I expect I watched something very different. Was Diane Sawyer drunk?
The takeover of the GOP by religious conservatives took 30 years. I think it will take at least 20 years before the once GOP understands that they need to secularize and become much more inclusive.
The Old Guard is resisting change. Classic actions of those who cannot see that power sharing is better for us all. As a feminist, I see it as one more signal of the patriarchy ebbing away. As a progressive, I hope for a renewed GOP with a centrist message. As a citizen, I want more viable parties & am very appreciative of the incredible race, age, class, gender, and sexuality diversity in our amazing, pluralistic society. Even when it gets really really messy!
http://www.republicansforobama.org/
ApatheticNoMore
11-7-12, 2:50pm
"Congratulations Conservatives! You are getting a moderate Republican for President: Barack Obama"
He's on the right, the authoritarian right to be precise, but I'm not so sure he's a moderate. We'll see I guess.
I was flipping back and forth from ABC and Democracy Now - I expect I watched something very different.
Hehehe. ABC was so biased, they actually said things like "Nevada pulled through for Obama". Um how is that anything but naked bias worthy of Fox? Democracy Now may be biased but openly so, so if you don't know where Democracy Now is coming from, then really nothing can be done for you.
Was Diane Sawyer drunk?
Well supposedly she was just tired and not drunk.
My favorite headline of the past few hours....
"Congratulations Conservatives! You are getting a moderate Republican for President: Barack Obama"
on Slate.com
Sounds a little like Chris Rock's "Message for White Voters" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDxOSjgl5Z4) on the Jimmy Kimmel show last week.
We flipped back and forth between FoxNews coverage and NBC coverage last night. [snip]I am not a usual FoxNews watcher, so it made their coverage all the more surreal to me.
I saw tweets commenting on the Spin-O-Rama taking place on Fox last night, so we switched it on. By then even they had conceded the election to Obama. But watching this Sheperd (sp?) character dissembling on-air when clearly the race a) didn't go their way; and 2) was over way before they'd planned, was bizarre.
I hope the Republicans take this opportunity to do some soul-searching. Right now the loud and dangerous inmates are the ones running the asylum. Frankly, I'd like to see a functional G.O.P. facing off with Democrats*. Ideas get sharper when there's constructive pushback and argument (not public tantrums, Messrs. McConnell and Boehner). A different perspective is useful -- when it's not grounded in dogma and clearly in violation of reality (Messrs. Akin and Mourdock and Ms. Bachmann). And it wouldn't hurt for most of the Republican party leadership to learn what the word "credibility" means. They seem utterly oblivious to the hypocrisy of declaring government "the enemy" after serving seven Congressional terms -- or an entire career -- suckling at the public ---- (Messrs. Ryan and Boehner [again]), or professing to be for "family values" when the family they have in mind is Ward and June Cleaver and when their own behavior is just reprehensible (Messrs. Cain and Gingrich).
I would love to see more "Eisenhower Republicans" (and not "Sam's Club Republicans" like that poseur Tim Pawlenty). But others may be right -- the old guard may have to die off first before that kind of reform can happen.
* I'd like to see a true multi-party system, but right now I'll settle for two functional parties.
ApatheticNoMore
11-7-12, 3:22pm
Frankly, I'd like to see a functional G.O.P. facing off with Democrats*.
I'd like to have had some way to vote against Obama besides Jill Stein (and other 3rd party candidates). Stein is a good woman, but I also felt there's no way I could stomach the duopoly. Of course the Dems ALSO didn't primary Obama.
I would love to see more "Eisenhower Republicans" (and not "Sam's Club Republicans" like that poseur Tim Pawlenty). But others may be right -- the old guard may have to die off first before that kind of reform can happen.
I don't think I can take ever take it even slightly seriously until conservatism integrates conservation, until they integrate environmental information into their belief systems, until they really think hard and deep, and seriously about protecting our environment. Which I don't think is absolutely opposed to conservatism in ideology but in money it is, if the Koch brother's are funding your party ....
But hey, that may just be me, caring about maintaining ecosysems and stuff, nutty as a fruitpie.
* I'd like to see a true multi-party system, but right now I'll settle for two functional parties.
what I want as well of course
The republicans have the golden opportunity to gain back some credibility, and do the country a good turn to boot. Obama has demonstrated in the past that he is more than willing to bend over backwards to make a deal (sometimes too far in my opinion). Right now we are facing some very rough road just ahead. If all these people would just come together and hammer out a deal, real compromise, it would do congresses credibility a great deal of good. I don't think these 'no compromise' folks understand that the majority of their party will admire them for trying, and for compromising, even if they don't get everything they want. And that goes for both sides of the isle. Used to be we all understood that no one gets everything they want.
I too would like to see a stronger libertarian party with more well defined platforms/ideas. And maybe that is the future of the GOP. I think at this point we are all ready to listen, but I also think people are fed up with the BS and will call them on it.
DH describes Republicans as fat white guys--and he is a Republican who describes himself the same way. But I know DH is more than that. Too bad that the GOP has become a caricature of itself.
DH describes Republicans as fat white guys--and he is a Republican who describes himself the same way. But I know DH is more than that. Too bad that the GOP has become a caricature of itself.Who creates and promotes the caricature? How many times today on these very forums has someone typed "old white guys" as a representation of nearly half the population of the United States?
When I went to our state-level Republican convention as a delegate, it was pretty clear to me the Republicans were toast.
There were a *lot* of younger folks there, of *all* genders, and a fair amount of racial and economic diversity. Among the Ron Paul supporters, which were a significant part of the delegate crowd.
The Old Guard used every dirty trick in the book to try to marginalize and expel this group of energetic motivated people. And they were pretty successful at it.
A telling comment at a dinner I was at during the convention, from a 20-something: "well, we'll just have to wait until they all die of old age...". She was probably quite right. At 49, I was pretty much the oldest person in their crowd, but near the younger end of the spectrum of The Old Guard faction.
The Republicans rudely threw away the next generation or two of supporters at that convention. People who basically were socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and fans of smallish government and local action.
Bae,
Thank you for this evaluation and observation. I think that this is true of my own experience.
I did find that a lot of us who are as you describe "socially liberal, fiscally conservative and fans of smallish government and local actions" have been marginalized within the party. I would say that's a pretty good description of myself.
In law school, I started to head in that direction and got active in local republican actions. I was really frustrated with how it all went down. There were several of us under 30 (at the time) who were quite motivated by these great ideas and grass-roots effort and the whole concept of working locally (ie, "occupy style"), and the people over the age of 55 were really . . . well, nasty with us. Lots of yelling and freaking out if we disagreed with them. Marginalized is. . . well, it's a nice way of putting it. We were commonly patronized too.
So, then Dean comes into power over the DNC and they start talking about grass roots organizing and what not. My friends and I head across the street (as in literally) to those offices. I always thought it was funny how the offices were *across the street* from each other in my town. made me giggle to no end. I have an absurd sense of humor.
Anyway, I head across the street and at first they are all like "yay! Young people interested in our action! woohoo!" But they didn't like us much at all. The over 55 set treated us the exact same way - yelling at us when we brought up alternatives or new ideas, calling us names, really being patronizing (over-influenced by our parents/professors/media/someone else, not thinking for ourselves, being too young to really understand/know, etc).
As such, most of us rather "gave up" and started to meet with each other in a sort of loose political salon where we talked about ideas and basically wait for the other group to move out of power.
We also wonder if our parents were this frustrated when they were our age or what.
My sister and her husband have decided to become activists within the republican party, but they are a mix of thecon lite, neocon heavy, and a smattering of libertarian (or at least, he likes the A.Rand books). I think that their local office is happy to have ANYONE helping out, so my sister and her husband are practically celbrities. but they are also pretty square within the party, too -- not very many waves honestly -- so they haven't been marginalized. They also bring my parents to many of the events, so this perhaps legitimates them a bit or something. I don't really know.
Anyway, yeah.
Who creates and promotes the caricature? How many times today on these very forums has someone typed "old white guys" as a representation of nearly half the population of the United States?
I don't know. It's a great question. But people don't come up with these mental pictures out of nowhere--and as I said, even DH puts himself right smack in that cartoon imagery. And he is an absolute prism of different attributes. But that's what branding is all about.
In market research we try to identify the "brand personality" of products. The GOP needs to understand why the brand personality of the GOP is perceived to be the fat white guy--and change it.
I don't know. It's a great question. But people don't come up with these mental pictures out of nowhere--and as I said, even DH puts himself right smack in that cartoon imagery. And he is an absolute prism of different attributes. But that's what branding is all about.
In market research we try to identify the "brand personality" of products. The GOP needs to understand why the brand personality of the GOP is perceived to be the fat white guy--and change it.
"Romney surrogate" John Sununu didn't help.
Old, white, mean and obnoxious.
Why would they constantly put a guy like that out there?
Another article which agrees with the reasons cited by the OP:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/18757/who-won-the-popular-vote-9-takeaways-from-election-day-2012
On the Newshour (PBS) tonight they were saying what has been said above about the Republican Party has dug itself into the old white male population demographics. They fail to understand that the demographics in the US are changing. Latinos, Asians, and women are now a very large part of the elector. What was said about evangelical Christians controlling the party are also true. The nation has moved to the left on social issues like gay rights and women's rights. The Republican party with it's evangelical Christian base has not.
The US elector is basically in the middle not too much left or right. The Republicans have moved too far to the right.
flowerseverywhere
11-8-12, 12:04am
Who creates and promotes the caricature? How many times today on these very forums has someone typed "old white guys" as a representation of nearly half the population of the United States?
actually half the population of the US did not even vote. About 120 million votes were cast. The population is about 315 million so if 57 million people cast votes for Romney, that is less than 20% of the total population, not half.
That is my impression of the current republican party, as those were the types that I saw on all the many political ads that constantly ran on TV, the people who were the most vocal Republicans in my community (although there were some old white women too) and Donald Trump is not a big help either. The crowds that were shown on the news coverage when Ryan came to my area were not young, not of color, and largely male in an upper middle class community.
and from cnn
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/why-romney-lost/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
"Romney lost embarrassingly among young people, African-Americans and Hispanics, a brutal reminder for Republicans that their party is ideologically out of tune with fast-growing segments of the population.
Obama crushed Romney among Hispanic voters by a whopping 44 points, a margin of victory that likely propelled the president to victories in Nevada, Colorado and possibly Florida."
and there were a many women I knew who were really really upset about the anti abortion, no funding for planned parenthood line out of the mouths of the two rich white candidates Romney and Ryan and they feared instead of working towards the good of the country they would spend their time attempting to impose their "religious" morals and oppress women. I know you disagree with this but it is not a man's decision unless he is willing to raise the child.
Bet I know what the Romster is doing today.
He was going to buy himself " another Weimaraner" if he won. Since he lost ... he will probably console himself by filing an amended tax return for 2011, claimng tax deductions on the rest of his "chartiable contributions," i.e., his gifts to the Mormon church.
Time is money, my friend, time is money...
Alan, the term "old white guys" came from CBS news in which one of the guys quoted a REPUBLICAN saying our party cannot continue to win with just "old white guys"
try2bfrugal
11-8-12, 2:49am
Alan, the term "old white guys" came from CBS news in which one of the guys quoted a REPUBLICAN saying our party cannot continue to win with just "old white guys"
Here is one place of many references -
"Our party needs to realize that it’s too old and too white and too male and it needs to figure out how to catch up with the demographics of the country before it’s too late,” said Al Cardenas, the head of the American Conservative Union and a longtime GOP leader.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83472.html#ixzz2BbxhvI7J
ApatheticNoMore
11-8-12, 4:01am
Kinda so what? A lot of movements are kind of white, like the environmental movement is rather white (although probably pretty female). Are the consequences of heedless exploitation of the environment any less real? Thats not meant as a backhanded defense of the R party, far be it, more a be careful what corner you paint yourself in thing.
I think R lost because he was mostly an empty suit, there was little reason to vote for him, he wasn't much of an opposition to many of the worst policies of the O administration, and frankly you could never be entirely sure where the guy stood on anything. Isn't that enough?
Maybe marketing for Pepsi could be changed, but as for changing minds via marketing (by which I mean propaganda of course) why believe it's always hard? I've heard that polls generally showed people in general tended to show favorably for GMO labeling, but maybe this was a weak rather than a strong conviction, apparently it was nothing massively one sided marketing couldn't change. I dont' know. I don't care (although that particular is unfortunate). But I mean a populus that's a little better swayed by this or that marketing is so far from what I consider desirable or good in any way that ...
One analysis here, from an unabashedly liberal source: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/how-conservative-media-lost-to-the-msm-and-failed-the-rank-and-file
" So many on the right had predicted a Mitt Romney victory, or even a blowout -- Dick Morris, George Will, and Michael Barone all predicted the GOP would break 300 electoral votes. ......Conservatives were at a disadvantage because Romney supporters like Jennifer Rubin and Hugh Hewitt saw it as their duty to spin constantly for their favored candidate rather than being frank about his strengths and weaknesses.....Conservatives were at an information disadvantage because so many right-leaning outlets wasted time on stories the rest of America dismissed as nonsense....movement conservatives, who believe the [mainstream media] is more biased and less rigorous than their alternatives, have no way to explain how their trusted outlets got it wrong, while the New York Times got it right. Hint: The Times hired the most rigorous forecaster it could find."
I agree with Stevein MN - I'd like to see two functional parties, and then a system that truly respects third parties and allows them to participate. Maybe starting with third parties - really including them - would improve the two main parties.
actually half the population of the US did not even vote. About 120 million votes were cast. The population is about 315 million so if 57 million people cast votes for Romney, that is less than 20% of the total population, not half.
Not to be picky, but about 75 million of the remaining citizens aren't yet 18.
flowerseverywhere
11-8-12, 7:59am
Not to be picky, but about 75 million of the remaining citizens aren't yet 18.
thank you. so that makes about 240 million people who could vote. So if 57,000 voted for Romney a little under 25% of the total adult voting population. and of course only 25% voted for Obama. Not exactly a true representation of our whole population in either instance.
I tried to see a breakdown of the actual demographics of age, race, gender etc. but could not find it.
1/4 vote Dem, 1/4 vote Rep, 1/4 aren't old enough to vote and 1/4 are apathetic. Sounds about right.
Regarding demographics, all the talk about how 'white' the Republican party is kind of fascinates me. According to the 2010 census (http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-05.pdf) 72.4% of the US population IS white ("white alone" to be specific). To be sure minority populations are growing rapidly, but they have a long way to go before any of them, or even all the groups together, become the majority in the US. If almost 3/4 of the US is white and if the Democratic party does a better job of appealing to minorities then it only makes sense that the GOP is made up of mostly white folks because there's nobody else left! It just doesn't seem like rocket science to get that far. How to appeal to those minorities and still maintain the base OTOH...
Regarding demographics, all the talk about how 'white' the Republican party is kind of fascinates me.
Me too. Not to sound judgmental but it seems to me that one of our mainstream political parties specializes in identity politics in a big way, and it works for them. What I don't understand is why so many people simply accept the notion that their race or gender puts them into one particular political camp over another to the point that they can comfortably use race/gender characteristics as an identifying factor.
If it weren't so mainstream, I'd think it was racist, sexist and offensive.
What I don't understand is why so many people simply accept the notion that their race or gender puts them into one particular political camp over another to the point that they can comfortably use race/gender characteristics as an identifying factor.
It seems like a case of perception becoming reality. For whatever reason people perceive the Democratic party as a haven for minorities. That was obviously important in this election. IMO that perception is based almost purely on the social rather than the fiscal parts of the platform. It will be interesting to see if the GOP can find a way to appeal to a broader range of women and still maintain a conservative stand on abortion. Same with gay marriage and the GLBT vote. Immigration and Hispanics. Etc. No party can be everything to everyone and while its incredibly annoying to hear what a loaf of wonder bread the GOP is, I do think the pundits are correct about he need to appeal to a broader base going forward.
catherine
11-8-12, 10:28am
On CNN, Alex Castellanos characterized himself/his party as "uncool" as a way to explain, prior to the results coming in, that the polls were underreporting the Romney vote: in other words, he was saying that Republicans themselves don't like admitting they're Republican because of the "boy scout" image they have.
I do not believe the "uncool white boy scout" image is a conspiracy by any other party--If that's image that Republicans themselves have created, well, that's what it is and it's only up to the Republicans to change it.
Buick isn't sitting around pointing fingers at Toyota because everyone associates Buicks with old people. They're out there trying to redefine themselves.
It seems like a case of perception becoming reality. For whatever reason people perceive the Democratic party as a haven for minorities. That was obviously important in this election. IMO that perception is based almost purely on the social rather than the fiscal parts of the platform. It will be interesting to see if the GOP can find a way to appeal to a broader range of women and still maintain a conservative stand on abortion. Same with gay marriage and the GLBT vote. Immigration and Hispanics. Etc. No party can be everything to everyone and while its incredibly annoying to hear what a loaf of wonder bread the GOP is, I do think the pundits are correct about he need to appeal to a broader base going forward.
Perhaps GOP politicians should take a leaf from Elizabeth Warren's book and start claiming various interesting ethnic identities. In an environment where people claim to detect racism in evey word and gesture, that might be a form of immunization. It seems at the moment too much to ask that calling an organization "too white" be considered as offensive as calling it "too brown".
The Storyteller
11-8-12, 10:47am
Every election, people read way too much into a victory or defeat. The reason Obama won was because of his ground game. Our side registered more voters and got those people to the polls in the states that count. We got just enough people out to eek out victories in the swing states to create a sizable electoral win. Without that ground game, it would would have been a lot closer, and could have gone either way.
I think both parties should be more cautious about drawing lessons. The only way the Dems continue to win the way they did this time is to keep that ground game strong. The only way the GOP is going to come back is to build a network equally as strong.
The much derided community organizer won this election.
The Storyteller
11-8-12, 10:51am
Every election, people read way too much into a victory or defeat. This is a divided electorate, and this was a close election. The reason Obama won was because of his ground game. Our side registered more voters and got those people to the polls in the states that count. We got just enough people out to eek out victories in the swing states to create a sizable electoral win. Without that ground game, it would would have been a lot closer, and could have gone either way.
I think both parties should be more cautious about drawing lessons. The only way the Dems continue to win the way they did this time is to keep that ground game strong. The only way the GOP is going to come back is to build a network equally as strong.
The much derided community organizer won this election.
It seems at the moment too much to ask that calling an organization "too white" be considered as offensive as calling it "too brown".
I clearly remember an interview that was done in Chicago following the proclamation that Mr. Obama had won the 2008 election. The reporter asked a black woman who she had voted for and why. She matter of factly stated that she had voted for Obama because he was black. That drew a round of cheers in the background. I wonder how different it would have been if I had been there and confirmed my vote for McCain was because he was white. Anyone who thinks there isn't a double standard in the US is sorely mistaken.
1/4 vote Dem, 1/4 vote Rep, 1/4 aren't old enough to vote and 1/4 are apathetic. Sounds about right.
Regarding demographics, all the talk about how 'white' the Republican party is kind of fascinates me. According to the 2010 census (http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-05.pdf) 72.4% of the US population IS white ("white alone" to be specific). To be sure minority populations are growing rapidly, but they have a long way to go before any of them, or even all the groups together, become the majority in the US. If almost 3/4 of the US is white and if the Democratic party does a better job of appealing to minorities then it only makes sense that the GOP is made up of mostly white folks because there's nobody else left! It just doesn't seem like rocket science to get that far. How to appeal to those minorities and still maintain the base OTOH...
You're forgetting that the Democratic party also does a better job of attracting women than the Republicans do. And since the female population of the US is approximately 50%, that can be a game changer. There are a lot of women out there who might otherwise be willing to consider voting Republican, but women's health issues push them to pull the lever for the D's. That will likely remain the case for some time to come because the R's for whom abortion is a key issue seem to be pushing harder and harder to stop all abortions in all cases. Couple that with candidates like Aiken and the number of women your party appeals to goes down considerably.
The same for gay people. We're obviously not 1/2 the population, but we are 5 to 10% of it, depending on whose numbers you believe. A large majority of us will never pull the lever for an R, at least on the national level, because of the difference in attitude between the R's and the D's regarding gay rights.
When you look at the margin in several of the swing states this election, it's easy to see that the female and gay votes may well have made the difference in who carried the day.
I clearly remember an interview that was done in Chicago following the proclamation that Mr. Obama had won the 2008 election. The reporter asked a black woman who she had voted for and why. She matter of factly stated that she had voted for Obama because he was black. That drew a round of cheers in the background. I wonder how different it would have been if I had been there and confirmed my vote for McCain was because he was white. Anyone who thinks there isn't a double standard in the US is sorely mistaken.
Ahh, but Gregg, you would have been cheered if you happened to be standing in a crowd of tea partiers. You can't really expect us to believe there wasn't a sizable group who voted for Romney simply because he wasn't black. That double standard doesn't exist.
Birchwood
11-8-12, 11:37am
I'm independent and had no leanings. About 5 weeks before the election I started doing my own research on the polls.
I read a lot of articles, mag, internet info, etc, and i came to the conclusion that even as far as two weeks before, the trend is for O to win. I was surprised that the daily news said it was so close, or tie. The respectable poll number was not showing that. I'm sure Romney had his own polling org, and they know that their chances is slim, but they kept on hammering on it. Too much money invested? When the results came, it was exactly what my readings told me.
You're forgetting that the Democratic party also does a better job of attracting women than the Republicans do. And since the female population of the US is approximately 50%, that can be a game changer. There are a lot of women out there who might otherwise be willing to consider voting Republican, but women's health issues push them to pull the lever for the D's. That will likely remain the case for some time to come because the R's for whom abortion is a key issue seem to be pushing harder and harder to stop all abortions in all cases. Couple that with candidates like Aiken and the number of women your party appeals to goes down considerably.
The same for gay people. We're obviously not 1/2 the population, but we are 5 to 10% of it, depending on whose numbers you believe. A large majority of us will never pull the lever for an R, at least on the national level, because of the difference in attitude between the R's and the D's regarding gay rights.
When you look at the margin in several of the swing states this election, it's easy to see that the female and gay votes may well have made the difference in who carried the day.
Exactly! The GOP cannot appeal to a large segment of women and maintain their anti choice stance simply because anti choice, for any reason, says that a woman does not have the right of her body. No man is forced to give a blood transfusion, or donate a kidney, or serve, against his will, another being (group of cells really, until later in the game) for nine minutes, much less nine months. Hell, look at the uproar that came from the right when the government tried to add a simple vaccination to their daughters requirements. All of a sudden a persons body became a temple of rights to not be violated!
You have complete freedom of your body. Women demand the same freedom.
And gays also demand, rightfully, the same rights every other American has. As long as the republican party platform denies these two groups, they will never appeal.
Obama won simply because he was the choice of the people. We looked at the two candidates and decided he was the better choice.
I clearly remember an interview that was done in Chicago following the proclamation that Mr. Obama had won the 2008 election. The reporter asked a black woman who she had voted for and why. She matter of factly stated that she had voted for Obama because he was black. That drew a round of cheers in the background. I wonder how different it would have been if I had been there and confirmed my vote for McCain was because he was white. Anyone who thinks there isn't a double standard in the US is sorely mistaken.
The double standard is in fact a system of racial bias; "white" & "other".
Me too. Not to sound judgmental but it seems to me that one of our mainstream political parties specializes in identity politics in a big way, and it works for them. What I don't understand is why so many people simply accept the notion that their race or gender puts them into one particular political camp over another to the point that they can comfortably use race/gender characteristics as an identifying factor.
If it weren't so mainstream, I'd think it was racist, sexist and offensive.
Only one political party specializes in identity politics? Really! :laff::laff:
What I don't understand is why so many people simply accept the notion that their religious belief, or gun ownership, or educational level puts them in one particular political camp over another to the point that they can comfortably use religion/gun use/belief in science as an identifying factor.
Wow! it does work both ways!;)
(you know I luv ya Alan:~))
Square Peg
11-8-12, 4:36pm
My personal politics are a bit to the right of Genghis Khan.
But, I have a teenage daughter, a wife, a gay father, and a gay father-in-law.
How the heck do the Republicans expect me to support them when they want to oppress and control the people I love?
No thanks.
This is the best thing I have read forever. Bae, I am constantly fascinated by you and your beliefs.
The Storyteller
11-8-12, 6:20pm
I clearly remember an interview that was done in Chicago following the proclamation that Mr. Obama had won the 2008 election. The reporter asked a black woman who she had voted for and why. She matter of factly stated that she had voted for Obama because he was black. That drew a round of cheers in the background. I wonder how different it would have been if I had been there and confirmed my vote for McCain was because he was white. Anyone who thinks there isn't a double standard in the US is sorely mistaken.
I guess we'll have to nominate Cory Booker (http://www.corybooker.com/)so you guys will have an excuse next time.
:)
The Storyteller
11-8-12, 6:22pm
Only one political party specializes in identity politics? Really! :laff::laff:)
The double standard is in fact a system of racial bias; "white" & "other".
There is no question in my mind race was a factor in the overwhelming Republican margins in my state of Oklahoma. There are a lot of Republicans here, but not THAT many.
I guess we'll have to nominate Cory Booker (http://www.corybooker.com/)so you guys will have an excuse next time.
Don't know much about him, but know he's pretty outspoken and progressive (as in likes progress). I did catch an interview he gave earlier this week. He gave an excellent synopsis of what is happening in Newark, talking mostly about Sandy recovery this time. He also spoke quite passionately about the people there and how they have come together to overcome adversity. I thought it was an excellent interview. If first impressions are to be believed I like the guy.
catherine
11-9-12, 12:11am
Yeah, Cory Booker has a friendly rivalry with Chris Christie. Because of a couple of heroic actions Booker was involved in a few months back, Christie's people produced this very cute and bipartisan video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHN0ZeS5c-4). Stuff like this is why I really like both Christie and Booker. Why can't all politicians have a sense of humor?
Watching CNN and Tim Pawlenty admitted to Piers Morgan that the Republican party needs to figure out how to attract not just the country club but Sam's Club, and they need to find leaders that connect with most of America.
Exactly.
Watching CNN and Tim Pawlenty admitted to Piers Morgan that the Republican party needs to figure out how to attract not just the country club but Sam's Club, and they need to find leaders that connect with most of America.
Exactly.
Can't argue with that. And I kinda like that country club / Sam's Club line.
I came of age in the 60s when the hippie culture was alive and well. That experience very much shaped the ideals of my generation or so I thought. I keep wondering where all these older, conservative white males we keep referring to evolved from because they would have come from that generation too. I noted that at work a huge majority, 98% all of the grad students voted for Obama according to internal polls.
Interesting article about why the R's were surprised by outcome.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57547239/adviser-romney-shellshocked-by-loss/
I think the Romney campaign will be required reading for every campaign manager for many years to come. The assumptions that their strategy was based on were obviously flawed. How they got there is, or at least could be, a valuable lesson for future candidates.
In the spirit of what our nation has become I do think we should stop calling Mr. Romney the loser. He was simply victory impaired. I wish someone would give him his participation certificate so he can feel better about himself.
SteveinMN
11-9-12, 10:55am
Watching CNN and Tim Pawlenty admitted to Piers Morgan that the Republican party needs to figure out how to attract not just the country club but Sam's Club, and they need to find leaders that connect with most of America.
Can't argue with that. And I kinda like that country club / Sam's Club line.
Pawlenty (former MN Governor) has used that line for years; it was part of his Presidential campaign, too.
Me, I'm not swayed, largely because "Sam's Club" to me is not a positive. Sam's Club is an entity that sells huge amounts of stuff that most people don't need (and stuff they do need in quantity rather than quality), produced by companies which have (at Walmart's command and through their acquiescence) driven out the quality and humanity that made the product useful or attractive in the first place, sold by part-time employees who are earning minimum wage and minimal benefits. Costco is not hugely different except that they actually give a damn about their employees. I just don't see warehouse clubs as the answer for what ails this country.
catherine
11-9-12, 11:20am
Steve, I think Pawlenty was using the Sam's Club line to illustrate the common, middle-class guy spending money on bulk purchases to economize as opposed to the elite with tens of thousands to spend on country club memberships. Again--just a metaphor for class distinctions--not to be taken literally to promote the store itself.
Good news:
buying elections didn't work for the D's, either!
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/sheldon-adelson-republican-donor-exodus-2012
catherine
11-9-12, 11:40am
I usually deplore the comments made on news articles, but this one, after a webpage cover story by CNN on an analysis of what went wrong for the Republicans, gave me a chuckle. Maybe this is stereotyping, but .. funny. BTW, CNN postulates that it's Republican ideology that must take the fall for this defeat
Inside the Mind of the New Republican.
CNN= Liberal Media
Reuters=Liberal Media
NY Times= Liberal Media
FOX= Good Journalism
CBC=Liberal Media
BBC=Liberal Media
MSNBC=Liberal Media
Seperation of Church and State=Christian Haters
Gay=Predator
Equal Rights for Women=Bible says no
G.W. Bush=Don't Remember.
Science=Liberal Satanic Lies
Bush's Mess=Obamas Fault
Protect Workers=Socialist
Muslim=Terrorist
Agnostic=Atheist
Not Republican=Libturd
Not my flavor of Christianity=Cult
Broken Economy= can be fixed in a day.
Millions of tax payer money to the rich =responsible.
Food for the poor =irresponsible
Change=Communism
I think the Romney campaign will be required reading for every campaign manager for many years to come. The assumptions that their strategy was based on were obviously flawed. How they got there is, or at least could be, a valuable lesson for future candidates.
This statement, Gregg, seems to imply that Mr. Romney did not become president because there was something wrong with his marketing. It assumes that the majority of Americans would've voted for him if his handlers had just done X, Y, or Z.
I'm fascinated by the need to spin this. Everyone (on both sides) seems to be doing this.
I might be extremely naive, mind you, but it appears to me that the reason he did not become president is because a majority of Americans looked at the platforms & positions of both candidates, and chose the one they thought would best represent their own interests in Washington. The same reason George W. Bush won two elections, even though he has the IQ of a bucket of hair....people wanted desperately to believe his message, and trusted him more than the other side. I'm an English major, but I can do arithmetic.
Romney definitely would've won if he wasn't a product of the current incarnation of the Republican party, whose positions on social issues are simply frightening to many people, and whose contempt for all those who are different (poor, non-white, etc.) is so painfully obvious. All Romney did was tell his truth, and his truth (about social issues) is scary for many people.
Will the grand old party swing back into sanity some day? As a fiscal conservative but a social progressive, I'd love to see it happen.
try2bfrugal
11-9-12, 12:25pm
I think in the analysis of what went wrong for Romney the journalists and political strategists are being rather closed minded and just looking at the traditional news outlets and advertising forms like radio ads and commercials. They aren't mentioning all of the relentless skewering on Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, The Onion, Steven Colbert, Reddit, the Mr. Burns for Romney commercial, Reddit posts, online forum discussions, etc. The Obama campaign staff had him go on Reddit. The older political strategists for either candidate didn't know what that was.
Our kids probably go for weeks without even seeing a TV commercial or seeing a Network news show but they are on Reddit every day. It is the top 134th of site on the Internet! That is a huge audience and it doesn't cost anything to post there.
The Huffington Post had a really funny article on who said it Romney or Mr. Burns. Then of course there were all of the videos of stuff Romney said himself, the 47% comment, some of my friends own Nascar teams, making life so miserable here for illegals they will just self deport. With the Internet, the days of just being able to "etch a sketch" away stuff like that, as one Romney adviser put it, are over and they are never coming back.
ApatheticNoMore
11-9-12, 12:47pm
He barely won the popular vote. Now I think it is true if the east coast had not been halfway down and out, he would have gotten more popular vote, but as it stands he barely won the popular vote. So much to do about nothing and the R's ran a WEAK candidate I think.
The only thing I support about Sam's club/Walmart/etc. is the striking workers :)
Reddit posts, online forum discussions, etc. The Obama campaign staff had him go on Reddit. The older political strategists for either candidate didn't know what that was.
yea I'm not sure that demographic makes sense for Obama though, seem way too civil libertarian if you ask me.
Inside my Mind:
CNN= brainwashing because it omits the whole truth to serve it's corporate masters (it is possible there is government involvement to suppress things like NDAA as well when I say this, but it's harder to prove)
Reuters=I don't know
NY Times= is decent
FOX= nakedly biased
CBC=brainwashing because it omits the whole truth to serve it's corporate masters
BBC= ok
MSNBC=brainwashing because it omits the whole truth to serve it's corporate masters
Wikileaks: now that's what I call news!
G.W. Bush= Obama's first 2 terms
Muslim= inside the Obama mind: must be droned!
Not my flavor of Christianity=Cult (if Republicans believed that they wouldn't have voted Romney, think about that one)
Broken Economy= how do we build a sustainable economy if the economic system requires endless growth?
Change=business as usual
Will the grand old party swing back into sanity some day? As a fiscal conservative but a social progressive, I'd love to see it happen.
I'd like to see them swing back into sanity because while two party government is quite abhorently aweful, one party government is worse. But I really don't see the need to discribe myself as fiscally conservative and socially progressive. I'm perfectly comfortable being somewhat fiscally liberal.
Steve, I think Pawlenty was using the Sam's Club line to illustrate the common, middle-class guy spending money on bulk purchases to economize as opposed to the elite with tens of thousands to spend on country club memberships. Again--just a metaphor for class distinctions--not to be taken literally to promote the store itself.
catherine, I know Pawlenty was not advertising for Sam's Club. It's just that what Sam's Club represents doesn't sit well with me.
There is plenty to be had at Sam's Club for low low low prices, but the packaging and sheer volume support an unhealthy "some is good/more is better/too much is enough" mentality. The prices have been driven down in part by the warehouse surroundings, but largely by pushing suppliers to lower margins, to find low-cost labor in countries which generally have abysmal records for human rights and the environment, and to take quality out of the product so it can be sold at Sam's Club's price.
Purchasing without regard to the long-term costs of the product in environmental and human terms is, to my mind, unethical. But Sam's Club supports it in spades. And much of that attitude seems reflected in the thinking of the Republican Party leadership -- the race to the bottom in most people's wages, the big guy crowding out the little guy because customers don't know (or think about) the true cost of what they're buying ("Who cares? We're saving money!!" "Whaddaya mean, you lost your job at the plant?"), and the belief that nothing humans can do has any effect at all on the earth. Ick.
The Storyteller
11-9-12, 7:45pm
I love Sams. It isn't Walmart, where cheap prices are achieved through inferior products.
But that is just a bit off topic, I think.
Some online stories from a political hack friend:
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/the-republican-bubble/?smid=tw-share
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/08/15024793-the-last-days-of-romneyland
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/45630
http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/09/campaign-sources-the-romney-campaign-was-a-consultant-con-job/
I think that this link explains things nicely: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/
The Storyteller
11-10-12, 2:27pm
President Obama's very moving victory speech...
http://youtu.be/eX8tL3PMj7o
try2bfrugal
11-10-12, 3:10pm
[QUOTE=The Storyteller;111731]President Obama's very moving victory speech...
That was funny. Thanks for the link.
The Storyteller
11-10-12, 4:34pm
And Karl Rove's election night meltdown when Fox called the election for Obama...
http://youtu.be/9TwuR0jCavk
I don't really consider that a meltdown.
This link is the one I find offensive from Fox News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kFcAzIWOHpU#!
It's bill o'reilly claiming that people who vote for obama want "stuff" and will vote for "stuff." Hispanics "want stuff" and so do blacks and women apparently.
It couldn't possibly be because we don't agree with the theocon and neocon agendas (white male establishment?!), or that we don't think that the current process that the republicans have been utilizing in congress to stymie any forward progress could be part of the problem, or that we simply think that this man would make a better president for our nation?
No, we're ignorant gits who want "stuff." And if we were smart, and were willing to work for our own "stuff" then of course we would vote mitt romney!
No, we're ignorant gits who want "stuff."
Just as those who oppose Obama's policies are cast as angry fat racist white guys.
It's so wonderful the way we can all avoid working together, isn't it?
If republicans want to know why they are messing up, they need to look at people like Bill O'Reilly there.
I can't believe he just categorized my reproductive freedom (a natural right that is inherently protected by the constitution) as "wanting stuff."
Yeah, i ****ing want "stuff." The "stuff" that I want is my natural rights protected.
Bae, please post a statement from one of the liberal media outlets where a major news anchor/opinion show person is calling anyone voting for romney as a person who is a racist white guy, and we'll have a discussion.
I am not including what I call "pure" entertainers such as comedians like Jeanine Garofolo. I think that Stewart and COlbert do some decent skewering, but I'm not sure if they've ever used those statements per se. I would even put someone like Rush into this category, honestly, because his claims are so outlandish these days (in my opinion anyway). I also don't consider 700 club-related folk to be real news either, so I cast that as religious entertainment.
But this statement from a prominent fox news person cannot be denied as being very ugly.
Or, should O'Reilly be put into the same category as Rush, et al? Just. . . he's there to be entertaining?
Bae, please post a statement from ...
No thanks, Zoebird. I don't participate in the circus that is modern media. Nor in my statement that you are taking issue with did I point a finger at any particular source.
So I guess you and I won't be having any discussions.
I'm looking for the demographic break down of election returns, but I recall it noting that the majority of Romney supporters were white, males over 30 who were more likely to live rurally. This does not indicate, though, that they are racist. Only that they are white guys who live rurally (i don't assume them to be racist).
According to this article from Slate (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/11/mitt_romney_white_voters_the_gop_candidate_s_race_ based_monochromatic_campaign.html), 59% of white voters (men and women) voted for Romney, which made up 88% of the people who voted for him.
It doesn't say whether or not they are racist, either -- and I don't make that assumption.
But, I would say that characterizing republicans as "white guys" isn't that far off, really. I mean, it's fair, since 88% of the people who voted republican (or for this republican candidate) where white (men and women).
According to this forbes article (http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/11/07/why-did-mitt-romney-lose-the-2012-presidential-election/), 72% of voters were white, with 61% of white males voting romney and 55% white females voting for him. Which means that, overwhelmingly, republicans are white people.
So, other than the accusation of racism, it's really not that far off. Republicans are overwhelmingly white people.
The Storyteller
11-10-12, 6:28pm
I don't really consider that a meltdown.
I would. The guy was in complete denial. To the point where he was dissing Fox's own numbers people, as if he knew more about what was going on than they did. And refused to even except it, even though the polls had pointed to this result for weeks and weeks. To the point the anchor woman had to do this long trek to another part of the building to get the skinny from the numbers guys before he would accept it.
It was like he started to believe his own spin. "So is this arithmetic you do to make yourself feel better as a Republican?" Freaking hilarious.
I watched this bit live, by the way. I never watch Fox, but once PBS called it for Obama, I switched to MSNBC to see the happy people, then to Fox just in time to watch this masterpiece of self deception. I was on the floor. Really.
The Storyteller
11-10-12, 6:32pm
Just as those who oppose Obama's policies are cast as angry fat racist white guys.
Actually, they are cast as older white guys, but it isn't just the Dems and the mainstream media doing it. It's the numbers themselves.
But then, I think certain conservatives here have cast the Republican party in the same light.
Bae,
Up to you, really. I did a google search and could really only find entertainers making the claim in order to be inflammatory and/or entertaining -- which is why I caveated, as well as then asked whether or not O'Reilly should be categorized that way. If he should (as I do Rush), then all good, I don't care about his statement. :)
But if he's considered a legitimate dude in the community, like I think Rove is (which is also why I stated that it didn't look like a "meltdown" to me, I definitely saw his point and what would be the problem of waiting another 10 minutes to call the state or whatever?), then any association with the party would go severely down hill because his statement *is* racist and sexist, imo.
Also, I think it's entirely possible for us to work together, and I've seen politicians (particularly younger ones in general) doing a good job of bridging the gap and being less interested in their party's pushing and far more interested in their constituent's interests. But, to be sure, I suggest that the "older" ones probably are as well, but they don't go on the Daily Show (as an example) as often and chat with their other-party counterparts about this issue openly and intelligently.
What I find really humorous right now is my sister and BIL. The last 4 years, they spent complaning about obama, how terrible he is, this, that and the other. They talked about how they supported republican efforts to NOT cross the divide (a lot of language around holding to your values, no compromise, only working together if their terms are met, etc), and then as soon as obama wins this time, my sister publishes (on fb) this big statement congratulating obama, how we need to cross party lines and work together to solve these common problems, and everyone needs to compromise, etc. And I pointed out: that's what obama ran on 4 years ago (and put a link to him saying those statements).
I'm glad that many people in the party have come to this idea (particularly, as well, since so many republicans lost their seats in congress this time around -- I think many of them were surprised about that too). . . because I do believe it is possible.
I read the articles from redfox about the deception (self deception?) around the numbers, and the claims that the consultants were scamming the campaign (interesting one!).
And, yes, I do see it as an attempt to stay in denial, but honestly. . . I could see his point and it wasn't as if he was being aggressive or weird. I suppose I see meltdowns as more dramatic. for me, this was sort of "more of the same Rove."
whom, btw, I do not watch much, but people talk about him so much that when I was in labor (with my son), it's the only mantra my brain latched too. literally, my brain repeated "karl rove" over and over and over again. Weird, right? Painless labor, other than that.
ApatheticNoMore
11-10-12, 7:06pm
So what if one wants stuff? Personally I'd give up quite a lot of stuff (including pay more taxes) for a platform of environmental responsibiilty and investment in *that* future, plus civil liberties, but since that's nowhere to be found ...
This economy is so screwed up anyway. They set interest rates at zero and then blame old people if they absolutely rely on social security. If we don't want stuff, reasonable stuff like a good state college system, they throw us into the hands of corrupt cartels and banksters who will provide us with that stuff only in the most exploitive fashion possible (for profit colleges and 100k college loans, and no I'm not even touching the medical system). Meh.
The Storyteller
11-10-12, 7:07pm
I read the articles from redfox about the deception (self deception?) around the numbers, and the claims that the consultants were scamming the campaign (interesting one!).
I agree. I found it ironic that a guy who made his money from a company whose sole purpose was to make money rather than create things, was scammed by guys whose sole motivation was to make money.
And this guy was supposed to be this super business manager who was going to save our country.
Zoebird - my experience is not defined by Google, or media personalities. I was referring to members of my own community, who have spoken such words, directly to my face. It is quite divisive and hateful. My wife has been shunned by two ladies in one orchestra she plays in, simply because she voted for a Republican candidate, and was accused of being racist for criticising Obama. Since I was "outed" as a Republican because of my educational effort to participate in the caucus process here, people who have been nice to me for over a decade won't give me the time of day.
It's sickening.
I had a somewhat different take on Rove's reaction to Fox calling the election. Zoebird is right in a sense -- there is no reason they couldn't have waited to make the call. EXCEPT that the presidential election is kind of like the Olympics for American political media. Everyone wants to be the first to make the (correct) call. So they are weighing all kinds of factors, including how much weight to give to the early returns as well as how likely they are to be first.
I think part of Rove's reaction was that he seriously felt (legitimately, perhaps) that Fox was "his" network. He was there for a celebration, not a defeat. When they called it so early, it wasn't just the possibility of defeat that freaked him out. It was discovering that Fox's loyalty to the cause was not as steadfast as he thought. It was kind of like the captain of a sinking ship standing on the bridge trying to issue orders to stand fast and wait for rescue while the crew was all frantically running for the lifeboats.
I do think they call the elections too early, especially what happened in Florida a few years back. As someone who has no choice but to vote by absentee ballot, this bothers me -- does make you wonder sometimes whether your vote really counts. But we got marriage equality, legal pot (not so much for that as against silly drug laws), charter schools, and a Democratic governor in WA all in fairly close races, so I do feel my vote was significant this time. And it was fun to help DH vote for the first time since he naturalized.
lhamo
If republicans want to know why they are messing up, they need to look at people like Bill O'Reilly there.
I can't believe he just categorized my reproductive freedom (a natural right that is inherently protected by the constitution) as "wanting stuff."
Yeah, i ****ing want "stuff." The "stuff" that I want is my natural rights protected.
Woot! Woot! You go girl!!
The Storyteller
11-10-12, 7:35pm
I do think they call the elections too early, especially what happened in Florida a few years back.
Here is the difference... Florida was called on exit polls. Ohio was called on actual votes counted, and considering what votes were left outstanding. There was absolutely no doubt. As the Dunder-Miflin nerds at Fox explained, there just weren't enough votes outstanding in Republican areas for Romney to make up the numbers. I understood that just watching it live, without the explanation. Rove doesn't know nearly as much about vote counting as those guys in that room. It is a given they are going to bend over backwards for the Republican cause, but they aren't idiots. They CAN count.
I knew how much Fox and the Republicans were in denial for weeks. All you had to do was look at the numbers. Instead, the campaign and their allies explained them away. Instead they lied to each other, and they lied to themselves. What you saw with Rove was an on-air, real-time manifestation of their deep, deep denial of reality. Rove couldn't believe those numbers were real. They didn't jive with his alternate reality. THAT is what makes it a melt-down, and so damn fun to watch. Even The Architect was taken completely by surprise.
You can't spin everything. There IS an objective reality.
I had a somewhat different take on Rove's reaction to Fox calling the election. Zoebird is right in a sense -- there is no reason they couldn't have waited to make the call. EXCEPT that the presidential election is kind of like the Olympics for American political media. Everyone wants to be the first to make the (correct) call. So they are weighing all kinds of factors, including how much weight to give to the early returns as well as how likely they are to be first.
I think part of Rove's reaction was that he seriously felt (legitimately, perhaps) that Fox was "his" network. He was there for a celebration, not a defeat. When they called it so early, it wasn't just the possibility of defeat that freaked him out. It was discovering that Fox's loyalty to the cause was not as steadfast as he thought. It was kind of like the captain of a sinking ship standing on the bridge trying to issue orders to stand fast and wait for rescue while the crew was all frantically running for the lifeboats.
I do think they call the elections too early, especially what happened in Florida a few years back. As someone who has no choice but to vote by absentee ballot, this bothers me -- does make you wonder sometimes whether your vote really counts. But we got marriage equality, legal pot (not so much for that as against silly drug laws), charter schools, and a Democratic governor in WA all in fairly close races, so I do feel my vote was significant this time. And it was fun to help DH vote for the first time since he naturalized.
lhamo
I find the whole pot thing fascinating. I didn't even know it was on any ballot, certainly not as recreational legalization.
So I guess folks will start being open about growing a few plants in their garden. But, just as most folks don't grow their own tomatoes, I suppose most won't grow their own pot after a while. This opens up a whole new revenue stream for the state government in taxes (sin tax like booze and cigarettes) and growers. And even tourist, as I can see pot tours to the state like some go to Nevada for prostitution and gambling.
I wonder how long it will take other states to see the added bonus of legalization and put it on their ballots.
I assume the laws of pot usage will be the same as drinking, i.e. no smoking and driving, no smoking under a certain age, not on campus, etc...
.
You can't spin everything. There IS an objective reality.
No there isn't. Reality is a liberal lie!
You can't spin everything. There IS an objective reality.
Well. maybe not....
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6/8/e68d148926aa65efc4aac092c4c9d88f.png
AmeliaJane
11-10-12, 8:23pm
I find the whole pot thing fascinating. I didn't even know it was on any ballot, certainly not as recreational legalization.
So I guess folks will start being open about growing a few plants in their garden. But, just as most folks don't grow their own tomatoes, I suppose most won't grow their own pot after a while. This opens up a whole new revenue stream for the state government in taxes (sin tax like booze and cigarettes) and growers. And even tourist, as I can see pot tours to the state like some go to Nevada for prostitution and gambling.
I wonder how long it will take other states to see the added bonus of legalization and put it on their ballots.
I assume the laws of pot usage will be the same as drinking, i.e. no smoking and driving, no smoking under a certain age, not on campus, etc...
From what I understand from friends in the area, the legislature actually has a full year to get the legal structure set up to manage pot usage, which is only for over-21s. So it will be a while. Also, (not sure if this is speculation or definitive) but I have heard pot will fall under no-smoking ordinances existing for tobacco...which eliminates an awful lot of territory outside people's homes and private property. Seattle especially has very strict no-smoking laws.
Per the way people treat Republicans (and I am not surprised to hear that in the Pacific Northwest, frankly), I think the party has become associated in many people's minds with those few who speak hatefully--and with our increasingly self-segregated society (culturally speaking) people know fewer and fewer folks who are different from them to correct a media impression of Republicans being monolithic in their thinking. So liberals think they are striking a blow for righteousness by practicing social shunning, etc. It makes me feel sad--I don't think this is good for the country. Interestingly, I am in a slightly majority Republican area and people are much politer about political differences face to face. I happened to go to a social event on Election day and it was hilarious to watch an entire tableful of people cheerfully discuss the election without ever admitting who they had actually voted for...
ApatheticNoMore
11-10-12, 9:01pm
If you were a politician who was going to lose an election, would it help your chances more to know you were going to lose or to pretend to yourself and others that there was still a chance you would win? Just faking it until ... they didn't make it. But you're not a politician and don't live in the bubble where image is everything - good for you.
SteveinMN
11-10-12, 9:15pm
Instead they lied to each other, and they lied to themselves. What you saw with Rove was an on-air, real-time manifestation of their deep, deep denial of reality. Rove couldn't believe those numbers were real. They didn't jive with his alternate reality. THAT is what makes it a melt-down, and so damn fun to watch. Even The Architect was taken completely by surprise.
We turned to Fox's coverage after a couple of tweets I saw mentioned the ensuing hilarity. We got there after Rove did his thing, but while that Shepherd (sp?) guy was still clearly disbelieving that it was over. Why, candidate Romney supposedly never even wrote a concession speech on the 50/50 chance that he'd need it. Betcha he does carry an umbrella on days with a 50% chance of rain (more likely, he's hired someone to hold it for him).
On Election Night, Karl Rove looked like the Iraqi Information Minister insisting that Baghdad was safe even though the background of the camera shot he was in showed Allied tanks rolling by. Jon Stewart did a funny bit on his show about the whole dissembling mess (http://front.moveon.org/jon-stewart-has-the-best-slogan-for-fox-news-and-you-need-to-hear-it/?rc=fb.fan). Good times.
We turned to Fox's coverage after a couple of tweets I saw mentioned the ensuing hilarity. We got there after Rove did his thing, but while that Shepherd (sp?) guy was still clearly disbelieving that it was over.
I think sometimes people see what they want to see regardless. Shepard Smith is a pretty non-partisan guy. The truth in that is pretty easy to see because he has the highest rated primetime news show on cable and most people on the left don't know his name. I sometimes lurk at Democratic Underground and all the really far left folks over there love him because they think he's gay. You should check out his 7pm nightly newscast sometimes. You might be surprised.
flowerseverywhere
11-10-12, 10:52pm
Zoebird - my experience is not defined by Google, or media personalities. I was referring to members of my own community, who have spoken such words, directly to my face. It is quite divisive and hateful. My wife has been shunned by two ladies in one orchestra she plays in, simply because she voted for a Republican candidate, and was accused of being racist for criticising Obama. Since I was "outed" as a Republican because of my educational effort to participate in the caucus process here, people who have been nice to me for over a decade won't give me the time of day.
It's sickening.
that is a shame, as through the years it seems like you have tried to do a lot for your community. But it seems to me like that was the problem with the whole election. Intolerance. Trying to impose views on others and promoting interpretation of religious views.
I am an athiest living in a country that is largely intolerant of those who are not Christian- it is amazing how it changes some peoples view of me if they find out. I can't imagine what it is like to be Jewish or Black.
Life_is_Simple
11-10-12, 11:02pm
I think in the analysis of what went wrong for Romney the journalists and political strategists are being rather closed minded and just looking at the traditional news outlets and advertising forms like radio ads and commercials. They aren't mentioning all of the relentless skewering on Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, The Onion, Steven Colbert, Reddit, the Mr. Burns for Romney commercial, Reddit posts, online forum discussions, etc. The Obama campaign staff had him go on Reddit. The older political strategists for either candidate didn't know what that was.
Our kids probably go for weeks without even seeing a TV commercial or seeing a Network news show but they are on Reddit every day. It is the top 134th of site on the Internet! That is a huge audience and it doesn't cost anything to post there.
....
I agree with you on Reddit. It is huge, and kudos to whoever on the Obama campaign pointed him there. Part of Obama's appeal to younger voters is, he (or someone close to him) knows where they hang out.
Zoebird - my experience is not defined by Google, or media personalities. I was referring to members of my own community, who have spoken such words, directly to my face. It is quite divisive and hateful. My wife has been shunned by two ladies in one orchestra she plays in, simply because she voted for a Republican candidate, and was accused of being racist for criticising Obama. Since I was "outed" as a Republican because of my educational effort to participate in the caucus process here, people who have been nice to me for over a decade won't give me the time of day.
It's sickening.
That IS sickening... And I expericed some similar stuff in SJC. Rural communities can be very harsh. I was on the Lopez Comp Plan committee, and got a death threat... Seriously. Stoopid. I'm sorry y'all have been castigated. I hope the GOP comes back and re-occupies the center. I miss being on the ultra left wing!
iris lily
11-11-12, 12:24am
I missed seeing live Karl Rove's challenge* to Fox since I stopped watching the election an hour earlier. So, I watched it the next day on Youtube. And I have to say, I want geeky Karl on my side when I run for Queen. I kept hearing about Rove's "meltdown" yet when I watched the episode in question he was just arguing numbers. It's what all of the election geeks do, but he's the geekiest of the geeks. He didn't get crazy about it. He thought Ohio was coming in extremely close and Romney still might pull it off, and that's ok.
He seemed reasonable to me. An hour earlier, just before I left my friend's house, Jonah Goldberg was tweeting chastisements about Fox New calling other states early, and earlier than other mainstream news organizations. And, Jonah is one of their own.
I just wonder if any of you saw Fox News call states for Obama BEFORE the other networks? It happened, I saw it.
*"meltdown" is what mainstream leftie media called it,and glad to see that Stoyteller mimicked the adjective
Zoebird - my experience is not defined by Google, or media personalities. I was referring to members of my own community, who have spoken such words, directly to my face. It is quite divisive and hateful. My wife has been shunned by two ladies in one orchestra she plays in, simply because she voted for a Republican candidate, and was accused of being racist for criticising Obama. Since I was "outed" as a Republican because of my educational effort to participate in the caucus process here, people who have been nice to me for over a decade won't give me the time of day.
It's sickening.
Yeah, that's not cool. I've had the same outcome with family members (reverse direction -- republicans refusing to talk to me, look at things from different angles, including alternative republican angles beyond fox news, etc; name calling, etc). You've heard me tell of it before.
But, I think we are talking about two different things.
Since this thread is talking about the overall perception of the republican party, we are talking about something that is cultural -- not necessarily individuated (though it plays out there too).
Looking at O'Reilly's statements, is it false to assume that republicans are racist, sexist white people? Because O'Reilly's statement is sexist and racist. We also know that the majority of republican voters were white.
Flip side, Republicans can disavow O'Reilly (and I think they should), and/or we can simply consider O'Reilly an entertainer not to be taken seriously (assuming republicans do not take him seriously), then I'm happy to bypass the statement the same way I blow off Jeanine Garofolo's statements (wherein she called Republicans "tools" and racist white guys and lots of other things. But I don't consider here a voice of liberalism or liberal news or what have you).
That being said, I think people have ridiculous lack of manners around these things -- no civility or decency. I'm sorry that you guys went through it. And, I'm sorry that I go through it too.
But I don't understand why people wouldn't be upset (republican or democrat) about what O'Reilly stated if he is considered a legitimate voice.
I'm not upset with whatever O'Reilly said, because I don't ever watch whatever show he has, and don't view him as representing anyone but himself and his own views.
And I don't like people wanting me to play the game of "repudiate So-and-So, or you must be with him!".
iris lily
11-11-12, 1:37am
This link is the one I find offensive from Fox News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kFcAzIWOHpU#!
It's bill o'reilly claiming that people who vote for obama want "stuff" and will vote for "stuff." Hispanics "want stuff" and so do blacks and women apparently.
It couldn't possibly be because we don't agree with the theocon and neocon agendas (white male establishment?!), or that we don't think that the current process that the republicans have been utilizing in congress to stymie any forward progress could be part of the problem, or that we simply think that this man would make a better president for our nation?
No, we're ignorant gits who want "stuff." And if we were smart, and were willing to work for our own "stuff" then of course we would vote mitt romney!
I was watching O'Reilly live when he said that. I can see how it would be offensive to the other side. It is incredibly simplistic. But sorry, I also think there's a ton of truth in it for many Obama supporters, certainly not all. Perhaps not even a majority of Obama voters--yet. It's not yet a majority who expect the "stuff." But it will be, the tide has turned and the tipping point is past, I think.
If you don't think stuff is important, just look here on this website at the first posts celebrating his reelection where there is reference to the stuff he's bringing with his administration.There were many reasons to reelect the President and his gift basket, bigger than Mitt Romney's, was one of them.
I liked what O'Reilly said that the overriding POV is: what can my government give to me? Not John Kennedy's idea of what can we do for our country? I don't know if that part played on the O'Reilly clip above.
I generally like what Bill O'Reilly says, he makes sense to me, but keep in mind that I probably see him only 2 -3 times a year so I don't see him often enough to get sick and tired of hearing him.
I voted for Obama and don't expect stuff. That is a typical non-informed conservative statement. Hispanics are some of the hardest working people in this country. They also start many small businesses. Remember the majority of people receiving government benefits are mostly poor and white. They are also conservative and vote republican. I can not figure that out.
I'm not upset with whatever O'Reilly said, because I don't ever watch whatever show he has, and don't view him as representing anyone but himself and his own views.
And I don't like people wanting me to play the game of "repudiate So-and-So, or you must be with him!".
Understandable. For my own part, I think that we do need to hold each other accountable for our statements. We do it on here all the time, so I don't know why public figures would necessarily get a "bye" on these things.
I don't watch his show either. It just popped up after the Rove video. I was shocked. I never thought that he would assert something so ridiculous!
I suppose that I live in a bubble where I think most people are pretty intelligent, pretty open-minded, and pretty informed. They might disagree on things -- in fact, I expect that -- but I didn't expect such a highly respected public figure (I assume) to have stated something so blatantly egregious.
I also don't assume that you stand "with" someone if you don't repudiate them, but I do think that if we do not stand up against these statements, it's a permissive stance toward those ideas.
I was watching O'Reilly live when he said that. I can see how it would be offensive to the other side. It is incredibly simplistic. But sorry, I also think there's a ton of truth in it for many Obama supporters, certainly not all. Perhaps not even a majority of Obama voters--yet. It's not yet a majority who expect the "stuff." But it will be, the tide has turned and the tipping point is past, I think.
Can you provide some evidence to support this idea? That many people who support Obama -- and eventually will be a majority -- want "stuff?"
If you don't think stuff is important, just look here on this website at the first posts celebrating his reelection where there is reference to the stuff he's bringing with his administration.There were many reasons to reelect the President and his gift basket, bigger than Mitt Romney's, was one of them.
Such as the protection of the civil rights of homosexual individuals in terms of marriage? protecting women's reproductive rights? slowing down the military interventionism ideology in favor of diplomacy? Providing a tax plan that used real numbers? Putting forward Obamacare wherein individuals will be able to buy insurance plans independent of employer group plans (as such driving the market into providing better service at better prices)?
I liked what O'Reilly said that the overriding POV is: what can my government give to me? Not John Kennedy's idea of what can we do for our country? I don't know if that part played on the O'Reilly clip above.
You are effectively asserting that non-republicans are selfish, unwilling to work, and basically want government handouts.
This is not the case. It is an over-simplified cartoonish sense of how democrats work.
It's basically the difference between two different points of view in terms of autonomy (rep) vs equality (dem).
I want to point out that I'm using "equality" in a specific way here. I believe that in the big concept of civil equality, both Rep and Dems hold the same position. but to the idea of "everyone gets the same" is the idea for the dems.
I'll use an example from education that requires some background leg work.
First, one we are familiar with because it's happening in the US: republicans would choose a voucher system (which utilizes tax parity and free market values) to facilitate increased educational standards. The research on the matter tells us that, in fact, this idea works. Public schools near private schools that accept vouchers are of higher quality and cost less per student to run than schools in non-voucher areas (this is according to the Manhattan Institute of Policy regarding test cases in Florida).
In the alternative, democrats would probably go for what we have here, which are education reforms that were brought in by the labour party and then altered a bit when the nationals came in after. Happened in the 1990s.
what labour did was really interesting. the essentially got rid of the dept of education and created a smaller, ministry of education which basically verified a curriculum. Curriculum development and school management went entirely local. Parents, teachers, and a board of trustees (locally determined) manages each school.
With the nationals, funding for schools moved to a per-student basis (as I understand it, labor just gave each school the same amount of money). since this proved to be an inadequate amount of funding early on (1990s), the schools also began to work on fund-raising efforts, and by 2000, 74% of schools were asking for a tax-deducatable "fee" (donation) per child to cover other costs. Over time, taxes have been adjusted to pay a better per-child rate, but still schools require both fees and fund raising in most instances.
To many people, this looks rather "republican-y" because it's about local ownership (with a national curriculum standard though individual methods are determined at the local school level), but where it gets really "democrat-y" is with the national (or what would be federal in the US) government providing a dollar amount per child enrolled in that school.
According to policy research here in NZ, this system is quite effective in terms of creating competitive schools. Nationals also did away with districts -- so any child can go to any school in a given locality -- which functions under the same market ideology as "voting with their feet" so to speak, and keeping schools more competitive. The more students they attract, the more money they attract, and the less they may need to fund-raise.
Special character -- or private schools -- are included in this scheme, and are the most likely to ask for the fees. These are donations, and so they cannot reject you once they have accepted you as all public schooling in NZ is free. And since they accept gov't money per student, even a private school therefore qualifies as public! Thus, it created open competition between all schools -- as all get funded per child.
The desire of these programs is the same: high quality education for all children by creating competitive schools.
But their methods of going about it were very different. One provides the voucher (tax credit) for families who are choosing to opt-out of public schooling, which in turn makes public schools more competitive because they are trying to attract students. The other provides a per-student national funding (every student gets funded if they go to school -- homeschoolers are SOL unlike in the voucher system), and then schools make up the difference with donation fees (tax deductible) and also fund raising activities.
The first one increases/decreases the tax amount based on the actual requirements of the competitive school (but is not determined per child, but per budget), while the second one increases/decreases/maintains the tax amount based on the actual requirement of the competitive school's number of students.
They both create competitive schools that spend less money and provide higher quality education for the children. Both are more locally driven, too, with some modest national oversight (curriculum). They both work.
And how does this fit in with autonomy vs "equality?"
In the first instance, the family is autonomous and chooses the school, and the school is autonomous of the students as well -- getting funding based on it's necessary, competitive budget (which determines the tax amount). Parents pay into the tax to pay for public schooling if their child utilizes that school, keeping the family autonomous from public schooling.
In the second instance, each child is provided with an equal amount of money for their education, which can be utilized at any school in NZ (but not homeschooling).
As you can see, neither of these approaches is about gift baskets or being ignorant or even wanting hand-outs. It's simply a different way of solving the problem of needless/excessive education spending (as we know, spending more money per child doesn't necessarily increase educational results), while also providing education to our citizens.
The real difficulty of the voucher system is the issue of income levels of families within a tax base. Can a poorer tax base support public schools if the wealthier individuals in that tax base are opting out (with the educaitonal tax credit), thereby decreasing tax revenue to support those schools?
We know that when the tax base is broad enough (populous enough) that the system can create a dynamic free market where some wealthy families will choose (and in particular, middle class families will mostly choose) -- these being the tax base -- to send their children to good, public schools, thus continuing to adequately fund those schools. Because, ostensibly, if everyone in a given tax base is opting out, then there won't be enough revenue for public schools, which would leave the poor (who are technically not paying income taxes, etc. . . or not at the rates of middle class and wealthier people) without educational opportunities with the exception of private schools (which they may or may not be able to afford).
And that's the concern of the liberal party. They would much rather that taxes go into a pot and that if you opt-out of the system (like a homeschooler in NZ) then that's what you choose freely, but that the poorest will have an opportunity for education provided by the tax base. Everyone is provided with this basic education -- public school -- and if you want to home school or send to another school, you are free to opt-out and do so.
And they do this as an aspect of equality.
I don't see this as an ignorant, hand-out desiring process. I see it as a process of simply trying to solve the same problem using two different methods -- both of which have evidence to support that they work in creating competitive schools.
For most things, it's really not that we disagree on the idea (education) or the result (competitive schools), but the methods of achieving these outcomes.
And I think if we all just acknowledged that, we'd be less likely to call each other names over it.
I forgot to include some criticism of the NZ system that is relevant.
The hope of these reforms was that Maori and poorer students would have more opportunity because the schools would be more competitive. Enrollments were generaly up in schools, but Maori received fewer places at their top-choice schools, and ended up in their second or their choices.
Likewise, the schools rely heavily on local resources -- both in fund raising and in terms of educational opportunities. Some schools, while able to receive funding from the government were in areas that there wasn't a broad enough base of wealth for adequate fund raising, and likewise, communities may also be too small to have other educational resources available to them.
For example, here in wealthy seatoun, our local school was donated a new roof by a local family's business. They also were gifted a new science center/wing/thing from another single-family business. They have weekly visits from all kinds of experts and specialists in many fields -- most of whom live in the community (whether or not their children attend the school).
In a smaller, more rural town, the resources may not be as diverse -- both financially and. . . in terms of the diversity of expertise. And this is a down-fall of this particular system, according to the research conducted.
Changes to the curriculum did create some positive innovations for these communities, but there are still schools that struggle with providing the education that they want for their students.
On the "stuff" argument.
Sending kids to die for oil and profits, that is STUFF.
Tax cuts for wealthy, that is STUFF.
Bailouts for wealthy, that is STUFF.
If the 1 percent never got any "stuff" from governemnt, I doubt they'd be spending billions in elections.
sweetana3
11-11-12, 8:32am
I voted for Obama and I dont need any stuff. However, I HOPE that there is slightly more compassion for those with less and more freedom for choice in reproductive issues and marriage issues. I wanted some balance between the parties to make them work together to come up with some balanced ideas. I was totally frightened by some of the far right speeches by some of the Republicans trying to get elected.
There are a couple of Republicans I would have voted for. If our govenor, Mitch Daniels, had run and maybe even if vice president, I would have voted for him.
iris lily
11-11-12, 11:19am
Can you provide some evidence to support this idea? That many people who support Obama -- and eventually will be a majority -- want "stuff?"
On this board on thread about Obama's victory posters here are expressing happiness about the "stuff" that comes with Obamacare including Free's free physical (I couldn't resist that phrase "Free's free...). Before the election there was lots of tweeting and Facebooking amount my acquaintances about the free mammograms that come with Obamacare.
Anecdotal for sure, but all of these people directly link the free stuff to the guy in the White House.
Make no mistake, I too am now waiting to see what shakes out for private health insurance. It's the manna that came with the election. I'll be watching that to see if it's something I want to take advantage of, this "stuff."
I have been completely confused by this whole "stuff" thing. What I am hearing is that those who are struggling very much want the Federal government to enact policies that help get our economic, justice, and social services systems up & functional again. That to me is the proper role of government.
If "stuff" means a reasonable path to citizenship, I say yes. If "stuff" means marriage equality, I say yes. If "stuff" means affordable and accessible health care, I say yes. If "stuff" means a fair tax rates and ending the tax cuts for the wealthy, I say yes.
Since most of the country has plenty of "stuff", I suspect that this entire meme is rooted in the meanness of some R's who see the world through the lens of class bias, and judge poor people as lazy & underserving.
iris lily
11-11-12, 11:28am
...
Since most of the country has plenty of "stuff", I suspect that this entire meme is rooted in the meanness of some R's who see the world through the lens of class bias, and judge poor people as lazy & underserving.
I agree to a basic level of social support. The "stuff" that is being handed out goes way beyond that. Why in God's name are me and DH now exempt from having to pay a co-pay (a modest, what, $25) for a physical. WHY?????
I'll tell you why: to get votes. This is one of the many pieces of stuff contained in the Obamacare bill.
JaneV2.0
11-11-12, 11:59am
Here's an interesting map showing the election without women's suffrage. As always, I'm proud to live in the beautiful Pacific Northwest:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2230850/How-election-results-looked-universal-suffrage.html
I agree to a basic level of social support. The "stuff" that is being handed out goes way beyond that. Why in God's name are me and DH now exempt from having to pay a co-pay (a modest, what, $25) for a physical. WHY????? I'll tell you why: to get votes. This is one of the many pieces of stuff contained in the Obamacare bill.
To get votes? Or perhaps because the President believes in the concept of affordable health care? By all means, if you think you exemption from paying a co-pay is odd, donate that amount each time you see your PCP to a low-income clinic.
freein05
11-11-12, 12:22pm
I agree to a basic level of social support. The "stuff" that is being handed out goes way beyond that. Why in God's name are me and DH now exempt from having to pay a co-pay (a modest, what, $25) for a physical. WHY?????
I'll tell you why: to get votes. This is one of the many pieces of stuff contained in the Obamacare bill.
The free physical was not put in to get votes. As most doctors would tell you a annual physical can catch problems at an early stage and prevent far more costly treatments at a later date. It was put in to reduce health care costs and not for votes.
A side not on my physical. My doc is a pretty and young women so the physical got the old heart pumping.:cool:
And the part about 'free' stuff in Obamacare? That's a crock.
Everyone who can, will pay for health care. So, it isn't really free is it, if it is included in your health care insurance coverage. What some keep denying is the fact that Obamacare is largely a set of regulations for the insurance industry. Obscene profits while denying coverage to folks who have been paying in good faith all along is over. Denying coverage to people who were born with a condition, which may or may not affect their long term health, is over. Being tied to a job in order to find affordable health care coverage is over. This last, by the way, opens the door for entrepreneurs who up to now hesitated to go it alone because they could not afford coverage for them and their family as an independent business person. If that's the kind of 'stuff' they re talking about then, yeah, bring on that stuff. It is exactly why he was re-elected.
We are the government and the government is us. WE said we want our government to work this way. Obama is simply doing the will of the majority of the people, which is why he was hired, overwhelmingly. O'REilly believes that his position is the only right position, whether the majority agrees with it or not. He is wrong.
I forgot to include some criticism of the NZ system that is relevant.
The hope of these reforms was that Maori and poorer students would have more opportunity because the schools would be more competitive. Enrollments were generaly up in schools, but Maori received fewer places at their top-choice schools, and ended up in their second or their choices.
Likewise, the schools rely heavily on local resources -- both in fund raising and in terms of educational opportunities. Some schools, while able to receive funding from the government were in areas that there wasn't a broad enough base of wealth for adequate fund raising, and likewise, communities may also be too small to have other educational resources available to them.
For example, here in wealthy seatoun, our local school was donated a new roof by a local family's business. They also were gifted a new science center/wing/thing from another single-family business. They have weekly visits from all kinds of experts and specialists in many fields -- most of whom live in the community (whether or not their children attend the school).
In a smaller, more rural town, the resources may not be as diverse -- both financially and. . . in terms of the diversity of expertise. And this is a down-fall of this particular system, according to the research conducted.
Changes to the curriculum did create some positive innovations for these communities, but there are still schools that struggle with providing the education that they want for their students.
So, in the objective opinion of the leaders there, political, educational, etc...how is this working? Have the educational levels/standards/successes been raised?
SteveinMN
11-11-12, 2:25pm
But sorry, I also think there's a ton of truth in it for many Obama supporters, certainly not all. Perhaps not even a majority of Obama voters--yet. It's not yet a majority who expect the "stuff." But it will be, the tide has turned and the tipping point is past, I think.
The "I want stuff" ship sailed long ago. You're on it. I'm on it. Bill O'Reilly is on it. Romney is on it. Obama is on it. Every American we know is on that ship and it left harbor a long time ago.
The discussion these days is what "stuff" we want for our tax dollars. There are direct costs for military preparedness, for maintaining highways, for addressing financial malfeasance and pollution, for offering Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Once those expenses are out of the government purse, there is less to spend on other things.
But Mitt Romney loves his 14% tax rate, and that is a government benefit, too, in that capital gains are not taxed at the same rate as earned income of similar size, so the government takes in less than it ordinarily would. The Bush tax cuts are a government benefit even if they don't show up in poor neighborhoods in major American cities. Donald Trump dangles his big office buildings in front of governments expecting some sort of break or special treatment for plopping that building in a particular jurisdiction. A farmer accepting payment from the government for not growing crops one year on some acreage is receiving a government benefit.
All of those benefits cost money just as much as directly paying a doctor to perform a "free" preventive-care physical. Unless one is Henry David Thoreau, living on one's own outside of some pond somewhere, you, too, are receiving government "stuff". It's just that some of us recognize that it's not a rich-person vs. poor-person thing.
iris lily
11-11-12, 2:44pm
To get votes? Or perhaps because the President believes in the concept of affordable health care? By all means, if you think you exemption from paying a co-pay is odd, donate that amount each time you see your PCP to a low-income clinic.
Think? No. I KNOW is it odd and inappropriate as well as pandering to me, training me to expect goody handouts (i.e. "stuff") from Nanny G but the ridiculous thing is that I'm not remotely in need of it. Even though our household income is way way WAY below $250,000 I don't need that handout. I hate being treated as though I can't take care of myself. Hey Mr. Prez & your cronies in Congress, stop treating me in the one-size-fits-all under $250,000 group.
I for sure won't donate anything to a human health clinic, but maybe I'll make that donation to the neuter-spay clinic in my neighborhood. It serves the entire metro area. When we start neutering and spaying humans, THAT's when I've be making donation, large donations.
iris lily
11-11-12, 2:50pm
The "I want stuff" ship sailed long ago. You're on it. I'm on it. Bill O'Reilly is on it. Romney is on it. Obama is on it. Every American we know is on that ship and it left harbor a long time ago....
Steve, I know. I can't even name all of the Federal gooberment handout programs that are insidious to my life. But the country is bankrupt. We have no more money. Stop it handing it out is what I'm saying. Just stop it.
Today DH and I pretty much decided to move over to the Libertarian side. We've been Ron Paul friendly for a long time. I think we'll be voting Libertarian in the future although probably not for local candidates, I've seen too many oddballs at the local or state level.
ApatheticNoMore
11-11-12, 3:04pm
Most of the government "stuff" I would qualify for are 30 years down the road. It's not that I don't care if Social Security will be there for me someday, clearly I do. It's just that .... a lot can happen in 30 years. In a 3 decade timespan there's a heck of a lot of things I should be worried about, and only some of them having anything to do with "stuff". That seems plainly obvious to me.
So, in the objective opinion of the leaders there, political, educational, etc...how is this working? Have the educational levels/standards/successes been raised?
According to the OECD rankings, NZ has the 4th best educational system in the world (link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading)). The US comes in beyond the 34th in this article. So the standard of education here is high overall.
Most people are happy with the system overall, but as ever, concerned about the needs of Maori and poor populations (poor populations being diverse in ethnicity and background).
Iris Lily,
In terms of the "free" physicals and mammograms, I think that this is people not understanding some basics of how insurance works and why we utilize it as a system. I think there is definite ignorance.
It's not 'free' -- it's simply that it's going to be covered under the insurance without a co-pay. This is effectively "getting what you pay for" and the insurance company can move funds into different directions. It won't necessarily increase costs.
In our case, our original insurance through DH's work was a normal plan with a small deductable and then a lot of co-pays for everything. Ok, fine. It's what we had (no choice in the matter). Then, the insurance changed to another company, wherein there weren't copays for preventative care, and there was a long list around that. The insurance costs didn't go up, it was literally just switching plans.
the next year, we had an option between a high deductable or the full coverage plan. We would still get "free" preventative coverage, and catastrophic coverage after the deductible, which was no greater than $10k for the both of us (which was about what we had in savings at the time). So, being young and healthy, we went with this option. It cost the same as the prior plan, and anyone choosing "full coverage" would pay slightly more. At the time, we were told that if we wanted to go back to full coverage at any time, we could. When I got pregnant, I wanted that insurance in case anything was wrong with DS (since the high deductable meant that NICU stays would not be 100% covered and we'd have our up-to $15k deductable because the kid adds a $5k to it), and when we went to switch at the normal time of year when they go over this, they said that we couldn't -- that you could only go form full to high deductable, but not the other way around.
So, we were on the high deductible plan, and htank goodness DS was healthy as could be!
What we were getting in those "free" physicals, well babies, etc was what we were paying for -- under that insurance plan.
All this Obamacare statement says (similar to the birth control one) is that this will be covered under your health care insurance plan without a co-pay. It doesn't necessarily mean that the cost of the health care goes up per se.
Yes, ours went up every second year anyway (I believe due to inflation, etc -- not to mention, in my observation, the nation getting sicker and sicker and sicker, and since insurance is meant to cover us all or off set the sick and the well so to speak -- more people were needing insurance and therefore the overall burden on everyone was greater).
The real problem that I have with these mandates is that they mandate and dictate choice/options for people. I don't believe in having a gyn exam every year (there are studies that pap smears cause cervical damage that can lead to unusual cell growth), and believe that everyth 5th year for low-risk women is more appropriate. I act accordingly, but because I get a 'free' gyn exam each year (or did), I'm effectively "throwing away that money."
If insurance companies could offer a range of products that an individual can choose and, the programs and options would be more financially competitive, then peopel would understand that none of this is "free" -- that you are getting what you pay for.
For low income people, the opportunity to have good health care, particularly good preventative care, is important, too. To have an option where a single-payer, low income person can get "free" physicals are part of their care would take off a huge emotional load. For a poor person, a $25 copay could mean the difference between seeing the doctor or feeding their kids for the rest of the week. ANd most will choose to feed their kids, and this means that things "sneak by." They know they need to visit the doctor, but honestly can't find the co-pay to do it.
For them, "free" (or rahter, it's already covered in the insurance that you pay which you receive through your employment) makes a huge difference in terms of being able -- emotionally and financially -- to take care of their health early without worrying if they are going to "blow" their budget.
To be sure, when DH and I first started out, he was earning $35k (take home). This was 1999. His parents would chastize us for "not saving enough" and comparing DH's $35k in 1999 to FIL's $35k in 1968 (when he started teaching). It was actually a lot less money in 1999 than 1968, is it not?
After our housing, transportation, power, student loans and groceries -- and trust me, we were frugal! -- we didn't have any money to bank. This is why -- against my parents wishes -- I worked during law school. It was part time, but it brought in a little extra money to help defray educational costs on my end, as well as fill in the gaps of our food budget.
We did go for our physicals and dental cleanings every year because we were paying for it in our insurance premiums. They didn't have a co-pay. If they had, we may nto have been able to afford it. Or, we would have had to borrow from friends/family or credit to do so. And that's not a really nice road, to be honest.
It's not for people who want to be financially independent of their family ("silver has strings" -- a line from the film Looper) and not get into credit card/consumer debt.
5 years later, we were doing *much* better, to be honest. . . able to bank a lot, pay off a lot of debt, etc. Paying a copay at that point would not have been a big issue. But at that time, in 1999, the copay meant the difference between staying afloat and independence or debt.
And that's just an average, two-person middle class family.
ANM:
As far as I can tell, internationally, economists are asserting that there's really no way to save these programs. They'll likely all be gone in 30 years (bankrupt), and we'll have to discover along the way another method of reaching to the philosophical underpinnings (social need) of these programs.
And, as you say, a lot can happen in 30 years.
ApatheticNoMore
11-11-12, 5:25pm
The Social Security administration itself says payouts can continue more than 30 years into the future, just they will be 75% of what they were promised to be. That sounds ok to me.
... maybe I'll make that donation to the neuter-spay clinic in my neighborhood. It serves the entire metro area. When we start neutering and spaying humans, THAT's when I've be making donation, large donations.
Sounds good to me! I have often thought the same thing, IL...
By the way, I don't believe I've thanked everyone here, recently, for your passion, insights, willingness to jump in with an opinion, and for keeping it civil and respectful. I know we can flare with each other every so often, but by & large, we don't. I really appreciate everyone's contributions. So, thank you!
ANM:
I am probably reading far more doomsday predictions than I should. A recent criticism of the Australian system was realy interesting. :) My friend (south african immigrant to Oz) says she isn't counting on it at all. Both of us work like crazy. LOL And complain about other yoga teachers who refuse to. Anyway. . . it's al ong story. LOL
Letter to a future Republican strategist...
http://www.ericgarland.co/2012/11/09/letter-to-a-future-republican-strategist-regarding-white-people/
Republicans and Corporate American GET A TON OF STUFF!!!!!!!!
They get a highly educated work force for one!
We all do better when we all do better. Why a us versus them all the time?
They get an infastructure allowing them to move goods and services.
They get a country protected by a huge military.
Tax breaks and incentives. Don't they get corporate jets deducted as well as SUVs for pete sake.
We are all in this together. Obama wants a "balanced" approach that includes government cuts and tax increases for the very wealthy.
The republicans only want themselves to benefit. Democrats want EVERYONE to benefit and EVERYONE to lose something. We all need to make adjustments - but not just some of us (like the republicans want).
The republicans only want themselves to benefit.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you don't spend much time with any actual people who are republicans. Do you really believe half the population of the US is that caricature who is short sighted, greedy and unconcerned with anything in life beyond their own bank balance? I don't. I also don't think promoting stereotypes is particularly helpful, but YMMV.
Gregg,
In my personal experience knowing a lot of republicans, I think that a lot of them got caught in the bread and circus.
I think that as human beings, most of them are truly intelligent and honestly want what they feel is best for the nation, and they have good ideas. The problem is that these ideas then get muddled with other, bad ideas that come out of that conservative media or just really bad statements that some folks made in the party, including Romney himself (particularly in the infamous 47% speech), or even worse, just bizarro conspiracy theories and claims.
I had one particularly mind-numbing conversation with an old jr highschool friend and her mother on FB. Romney said some zinger,a and she replied "lets hear the kenyan respond to that!" and I said "please tell me that you are not one of those birthers!? I'm shocked that you would feel at all comfortable aligning with such an idea!'
She then asserted that I should look at incredibly biased web site X. I posted citizenship and naturalization law for the US, Kenya, and Indonesia, all of which clearly spell out how one acquires citizenship. That was it. Not even a position paper -- quite literally just the laws themselves. I then asked: was Obama's mother a natural citizen of the US?
She answered yes. Then said "but he was also a natural citizen of Kenya through his father." And I said, "true, but according to kenyan law (link), he has to claim that at age 18 to maintain dual citizenship, and there's no evidence that he claimed it. And the same is also true for indonesia (link)." Therefore, is Obama -- by dint of his mother's natural citizenship as well as his active rejection of either two other dual citizenships he could have had -- a natural american citizen who then qualifies for the presidency?
And she said "yes, but I read his book, and he seems so interested in his kenyan heritage as to be. . . well, not very american in my book." And I said "didn't you spend a lot of time studying your german heritage, taking german language lessons (along with french, like me), as well as studying up on your family history and culture both in Germany as well as their journey of immigration? Does studying your history as a German make you less american? Or does it just make you interested in the culture of your heritage, a normal study for a person of that age? It is ok to study European heritage, but not african or central american or asian?"
I also pointed out that she travelled internationally a lot, and yet hadn't visited all 50 states, and that she also loved to study all kinds of languages and cultures -- does that make her less american?
At this point, her mother pipes in some nonsense about how smart my friend is and how I'm completely "swayed by liberal professors" and "unable to think clearly" because of it. I tell her to not be so patronizing. I'm 15 years post college and those "liberal professors" and managed to get through a relatively conservative law school (since coproprate law tends to the conservative) well enough to ascertain whether or not this "birther argument" has any validity, TYVM.
She then gives me the "when you're my age, you'll understand" argument, and I said "I would hope that when i age I continue to grow in enough wisdom to continue to respect people regardless of their perceived political leanings. I have no issue with Friend being republican, but I feel that this particular argument is a waste of her time, effort, and thought-energy. I'm simply asserting my own shock at her participation in this ideology, because she's the last person that I would consider a racist, or who would entertain such a ridiculous idea.
At whihc point my friend suggests separating us, and I assert that I doubt such is necessary, but would she answer the question? She concedes that Obama -- as the laws of all three countries are written, just facts, no partisan or biased websites, but literally the straight up laws as they are written -- is in fact a natural american citizen. She also then admits that studying a person's heritage doesn't make them less american, and therefore, it stands to reason that just because obama happened to think about kenya and she happened to think about germany (and I interjected, and I think about the british isles and scandinavia) does not make any of us less American.
I even asserted that, living in a foreign country by choice also makes one no less american, and it is -- in my experience -- the experience with other cultures that helps us discover just how American we truly are!
I told her that I would expect no less from her, and was really, truly shocked by the idea that she would hold tightly to this (racist in origin) idea.
To me, she's a smart girl who got caught in some bread and circus.
If we can dialogue about it (as we did), then we usually discover that she doesn't actually stand by that ridiculous idea when provided with *facts*. And I think most people are like this.
For me, the Romney 47% speech was really no big deal. I think that it was an idiotic communication of a standard idea of business: go for the new market, rather than trying to draw the current market away from your competitors. It's the reason my business is growing. I focus on getting people who work a lot and are busy and in this particular area of town and brand new to yoga into yoga classes. Brand new to yoga is 96% of the population! Yoga population is 4%. Do I want to fight over 4% with other yoga studios/teachers, or do I want to expand into a new market (draw in some of the 96%)?
I got what he ws saying, which is why I didn't rail against it too much. I think he said it stupidly (not as stupidly as O'Reilly, btu still), but I think sometimes we all do that anyway. And, I suppose he figured he was among friends, where our stupid stuff is sort of glossed over because we all get the general idea and know that the other one isn't really a dumbass (i'm not saying Romney is a dumbass, just that sometimes I say things not-gracefully, but my husband knows I'm not mean, you know? that i'm not a dumbass.).
So, I don't really cotton to anyone on either side getting all circus-y. It's why I asked about O'Reilly. If he is a voice for the party, then all they have to blame is themselves (and read that last blog that Red Fox posted, because it does sum it up nicely). But, if he's just an idiot, and most people view him as that, then no harm done, he's bread and circus.
And there's no need for me -- or anyone else -- to get too caught in bread and circus.
The Storyteller
11-12-12, 9:53am
On stuff...
Most people want and expect stuff from the government. Most of us want free public education, libraries, roads, police protection, etc. If their kids are in public schools, they very much expect text books to be free. We are all just so used to these things that we take them so for granted that they do not seem like stuff, but they very much are. And there are many one the dole who voted and supported the Republican ticket in this last election. Corporate farms want their subsidies, and corporations want their corporate welfare.
That was the first thing that struck me when O'Reilly made his really stupid comment. That Republicans benefit from and want stuff no less than Democrats do.
And Zoe, I think the 47% comment WAS a big deal. It really is how many of the people on the right think. They think that Democrats are users and takers. That thinking has been expressed numerous times since the video was leaked, even by people in this forum. It is sad, condescending, and just plain wrong.
I also don't think promoting such stereotypes is particularly helpful, but YMMV.
The Storyteller
11-12-12, 10:16am
I missed seeing live Karl Rove's challenge* to Fox since I stopped watching the election an hour earlier. So, I watched it the next day on Youtube. And I have to say, I want geeky Karl on my side when I run for Queen. I kept hearing about Rove's "meltdown" yet when I watched the episode in question he was just arguing numbers. It's what all of the election geeks do, but he's the geekiest of the geeks. He didn't get crazy about it. He thought Ohio was coming in extremely close and Romney still might pull it off, and that's ok.
He seemed reasonable to me. An hour earlier, just before I left my friend's house, Jonah Goldberg was tweeting chastisements about Fox New calling other states early, and earlier than other mainstream news organizations. And, Jonah is one of their own.
I just wonder if any of you saw Fox News call states for Obama BEFORE the other networks? It happened, I saw it.
*"meltdown" is what mainstream leftie media called it,and glad to see that Stoyteller mimicked the adjective
Well, I wasn't mimicking anyone. It is what I called it while I was watching it live, only it was more like a meltdown of the entire Fox news fabrication machine. But in retrospect, collapse or unraveling are probably better adjectives. They lied to their viewers for weeks, but first they lied to themselves. They just did not believe it could be happening, just as it is obvious the Romney campaign and indeed the candidate himself could not believe it was happening. It turns out the polls were right all along, and all of the rationalizing of the right wing infotainment establishment couldn't make that fact go away.
I will admit I am gloating just a bit, not at your loss (I remember how I felt after 2004), but at truth's gain. And I really enjoyed watching Rove's fantasy world go down in flames. To see it play out live on international television was just too beautiful to describe.
Here is Jon Stewart's take on it...
http://youtu.be/e1chQEFIPtk
iris lily
11-12-12, 10:38am
...They lied to their viewers for weeks, but first they lied to themselves. They just did not believe it could be happening, just as it is obvious the Romney campaign and indeed the candidate himself could not believe it was happening. It turns out the polls were right all along, and all of the rationalizing of the right wing infotainment establishment couldn't make that fact go away...
Fox News called two states for Obama before other stations did. Did anyone see that? I did. I got that from a tweet from Jonah Goldberg who chastised Fox for calling them so early. Point being: analysts for each station are going to call them the way they see them, and in this case having a Right viewpoint didn't change their call.
As far a "lies" in conjunction with polls: when polls deliver the same results as the elections, let me know. Then I won't bother to watch election returns, we will already know.
Look, no one I know including Jonah Goldberg who I saw a week before the election was very optimistic for our side about the Presidential election. More so with the Senate, but not the Presidential election. In the last three weeks of the election Romney's numbers came up and "cautiously optimistic" was the phrase people I know used.
I will admit I am gloating just a bit, not at your loss (I remember how I felt after 2004), but at truth's gain. And I really enjoyed watching Rove's fantasy world go down in flames. To see it play out live on international television was just too beautiful to describe.
Here is Jon Stewart's take on it...
http://youtu.be/e1chQEFIPtk[/QUOTE]
I appreciate your story Zoebird, but it does relate an encounter with a single individual rather than a whole group. I freely admit it is not hard to find people like that if you want to, but they are not in the majority. Anything can happen locally, but in national elections the GOP has never put a birther or any other kind of fanatic out front. The moderates keep rising to the top and its precisely because there is not a broad enough base within the party to support the more radical factions. People focus on the Tea Party or the birthers or the abortion clinic bombers or whatever and somehow decide that is who the party is. I'm not a republican, but from what I see those folks are a very small part of a very large party. I think Mitt Romney is a pretty good example. He basically created Obamacare for heavens sake. How moderate can a GOP candidate be? Ideologically I think Mr. Romney and the President were fighting over a lot of the same ground to stand on.
iris lily
11-12-12, 11:26am
My view of the Tea Partiers is that they are for fiscal conservatism. Ergo--I am a Tea Party sympathizer if not entirely a Tea Partier.
My view of the Tea Partiers is that they are for fiscal conservatism. Ergo--I am a Tea Party sympathizer is not entirely a Tea Partier.
Exactly. And if that was all that was involved in the Tea Party platform I would probably be a Tea Partier myself.
The Storyteller
11-12-12, 12:07pm
As far a "lies" in conjunction with polls: when polls deliver the same results as the elections, let me know. Then I won't bother to watch election returns, we will already know.
The poll aggregators (prognosticators in another thread (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/showthread.php?6391-Election-prognostication)) used the polls and predicted the presidential election dead on. In fact, Sam Wang (http://election.princeton.edu/) not only got the presidential race exactly right state by state, he called 10 out of 10 close senate races correctly, including North Dakota and Montana, which Nate Silver (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/)got wrong. Nate added weighting and layers to his models. Wang used only the polls. When take together, the polls were dead on, with an error rate of less than 1%.
I knew exactly who was going to win election day. I merely tuned in to see who was most right and to (yes, I will confess) gloat.
But everyone else on the media right, your Goldberg friend aside perhaps, was certain of a Romney win. All you have to do to know the right wing spin machine's position is to read Alan's posts, which regurgitated the nonsense of polls being weighted "Dems +10".
Edited to add...
But to be fair, it wasn't just the right who was wrong. Seems most of the mainstream media were bad predictors, with most of them calling it a razor thin tossup. It was close, but it was never a tossup.
iris lily
11-12-12, 12:26pm
Exactly. And if that was all that was involved in the Tea Party platform I would probably be a Tea Partier myself.
Was there actually a posted, credible, Tea Party platform? By who? The Tea Partiers were only loosely organized. Anyone who claimed that they had The platform I would look upon with skepticism.
For instance, one of our acquaintances who is conservative is a Tea Partier and kept DH updated on Tea Partier doings around here. But when time came to caucus, he went for Rick Santorum. Ummm, who decided that Santorum was the Tea Party candidate? In my mind it would have been Ron Paul.
All you have to do to know the right wing spin machine's position is to read Alan's posts, which regurgitated the nonsense of polls being weighted "Dems +10".
Polls weighted D+10 is nonsense?
http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-lead-denied-skewed-washington-post-abc-news-poll?cid=db_articles
Most of the previous Washington Post/ABC News polls analyzed earlier this year have been skewed and showed a small lead for Obama. The July 10 Washington Post/ABC News poll (http://www.examiner.com/article/is-the-latest-washington-post-abc-poll-skewed-for-obama) was skewed by 11 percent and showed the race tied at 47 percent. The August 27 Washington Post/ABC News poll (http://www.examiner.com/article/washington-post-abc-news-poll-unskewed-would-show-large-mitt-romney-lead) was skewed by 10 percent and showed Obama leading 47 percent to 46 percent. The September 11 Washington Post/ABC News poll (http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-leads-seven-percent-by-unskewed-data-from-wash-post-abc-news-poll) was skewed by 10 percent and showed Obama leading 49 percent to 48 percent. The October 1 Washington Post/ABC News poll (http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-and-barack-obama-tied-unskewed-data-from-abc-news-washington-post) was skewed by three percent and showed Obama leading 49 percent to 47 percent.
Edited to add...
But to be fair, it wasn't just the right who was wrong. Seems most of the mainstream media were bad predictors, with most of them calling it a razor thin tossup. It was close, but it was never a tossup.
I've said before media doesn't want accuracy, they are a business, they want to make money. And a close race, regardless of whether it's actually close or not works best for them.
The Storyteller
11-12-12, 12:57pm
Polls weighted D+10 is nonsense?
http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-lead-denied-skewed-washington-post-abc-news-poll?cid=db_articles
And it also says...
"Unskewed, the data indicates that Mitt Romney would lead 52 percent to 46 percent using more balanced weighting of the sample."
So based on the results, was it skewed? Or not?
And here is the page for the author of that article...
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-arlington/dean-chambers
You really shouldn't let yourself be taken in by these people, Alan.
And it also says...
"Unskewed, the data indicates that Mitt Romney would lead 52 percent to 46 percent using more balanced weighting of the sample."
So based on the results, was it skewed? Or not?
And here is the page for the author of that article...
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-arlington/dean-chambers
You really shouldn't let yourself be taken in by these people, Alan.
I'll admit that the oversampling involved seems to achieve the desired result, without being at all accurate. In retrospect, I'm not sure how anyone could conduct a poll with weighting several points over actual turnout in 2008 and be considered accurate. Actual voter turnout proves that they weren't.
The thing I'm at a loss to explain is voter enthusiasm levels. It surprises me to see that Republican turnout was lower than expected and that Democratic turnout was higher. These are not facts which could have been anticipated in the months leading up to the election.
Regardless, enjoy your gloat while you can. Remember a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
The Storyteller
11-12-12, 1:34pm
Alan, a poll here or there was definitely wrong (Rsmussin and Gallup, for example), but overall and taken as an aggregate, they were right, all the way through. Especially on the state level. As I mentioned, the polls when taken together were wrong by less than 1%.
So, the whole weighting and oversampling thing was a myth, cooked up by those who did not want to believe what they were hearing and seeing. It is what brought us a shocked campaign and a stunned right wing media.
And a very self satisfied Oklahoma Democrat.
iris lily
11-12-12, 1:42pm
...
The thing I'm at a loss to explain is voter enthusiasm levels. It surprises me to see that Republican turnout was lower than expected ...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gary-johnson-ran-most-successful-libertarian-campaign-party-193500973--politics.html
Some of them saw Repubs the same as Dems. We shouldn't be surprised.
So, the whole weighting and oversampling thing was a myth, cooked up by those who did not want to believe what they were hearing and seeing. It is what brought us a shocked campaign and a stunned right wing media.
And a very self satisfied Oklahoma Democrat.
No, oversampling was a fact. A win does not change that.
The thing I'm at a loss to explain is voter enthusiasm levels. It surprises me to see that Republican turnout was lower than expected and that Democratic turnout was higher. These are not facts which could have been anticipated in the months leading up to the election.
If you discount the power of the etch-a-sketch, the Republican candidates really slammed each other during the primaries - and there seemed to be a fairly large "anyone but Romney" contingent early on. Add to that how far to the left Romney slid toward the end going for the moderate vote and I could see how they could have been less energized to get out and vote.
Was there actually a posted, credible, Tea Party platform?
No. Not that I know of. I just had to call it something.
The Storyteller
11-12-12, 1:57pm
No, oversampling was a fact. A win does not change that.
It wasn't just a win. Once again, the polls were state by state within less than one percentage point of perfect. That means there WAS no oversampling. The sampling was dead on balls accurate.
Sheesh, Alan. No wonder you believe everything those people at Fox tell you.
;)
It wasn't just a win. Once again, the polls were state by state within less than one percentage point of perfect. That means there WAS no oversampling. The sampling was dead on balls accurate.
Sheesh, Alan. No wonder you believe everything those people at Fox tell you.
;)
I can see that whatever gas you're using to inflate yourself is having a predictable effect. :~)
iris lily
11-12-12, 2:40pm
No. Not that I know of. I just had to call it something.
Tea Partiers were about taxation and small government. I think it dilutes their message to ascribe other positions to them. Gregg, come 'n join us in the Tea Party world, don't let Univision define who the Tea Partiers are! haha. Labels I don't mind, but I won't let the dominent mainstream liberal media define the political platform of the Tea Party.
I found this website with may or may not capture the ideas of most Tea Partiers. It's hard for me to believe that you wouldn't agree with these:
This is long so I'll just list the main points:
http://www.teaparty-platform.com/
Ten Core Beliefs of the Modern-Day Tea Party Movement
“Be sure you put your feet in the right place, then stand firm.”
Abraham Lincoln
Preamble: The Tea Party Movement is an all-inclusive American grassroots movement with the belief that everyone is created equal and deserves an equal opportunity to thrive in these United States where they may “pursue life, liberty and happiness” as stated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
No one is excluded from participation in the Tea Party Movement. Everyone is welcomed to join in seeking to achieve the Tea Party Movement goals, which are as follows:
1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes
2. Eliminate the National Debt
3. Eliminate Deficit Spending
4. Protect Free Markets
5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States
6. Promote Civic Responsibility
7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government
8. Believe in the People
9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics
10. Maintain Local Independence
The Storyteller
11-12-12, 2:40pm
I can see that whatever gas you're using to inflate yourself is having a predictable effect. :~)
Guess this guy is, too...
http://www.examiner.com/article/do-you-still-think-the-polls-were-skewed
"Likewise, the polling numbers they produced going on that assumption turned out to be right and my “unskewed” numbers were off the mark."
flowerseverywhere
11-12-12, 3:52pm
interesting article about Newt Gingrich
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gingrich-dumbfounded-obama-win-163256034--election.html
"Gingrich admitted, "I was wrong last week, as was virtually every major Republican analyst. And so, you have to stop and say to yourself, 'If I was that far off, what do I need to learn to better understand America.'"
The Tea Party originated in the socially progressive libertarian movement, was then co-opted by theocons (which is why it gets confused that direction). Here's a paper on it by the Cato Institute (link (http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/libertarian-roots-tea-party)). *hammer meet nail*
THe only problem is that while they do push libertarian interests in the party, they are both A. not traditional republicanism (so one wonders how long it will last), and 2. it has been largely picked up by socially conservative (theocon) people in the party (I cannot consider Palin a "moderate" no matter how hard she's cast that way).
Most libertarians whom I know who were involved in the pre-GOP tea-party movement are no longer aligned because of it's new alignment with the theocon agenda. They cannot abide by that ideology, so as far as they are concerned, their activity is dead, even though the basic ideas from libertarian were carried over. Once you then divorce it from the socially progressive (liberal) stance, it's no longer fully libertarian.
In terms of republicans in person, my example is not an isolated incident.
You see, the discussion here is about why Republicans have a bad wrap. They have it for a lot of reasons. One is the problem of their media. Guys like Rush and O'Reilly do not help their image of hateful, wealthy white guys.
Another problem is many of the leaders whom they put forward. Palin is not a moderate. She is a theocon who now also adopts libertarian fiscal ideology. Many of the senators and representatives own statements were not "moderate" -- they are very clear that they want to inhibit access to birth control, abortion, and other elements that affect women (such as equal pay for equal work legislation). They are also very clear at their very un-moderate stances on civil rights for all citizens, particularly homosexual ones.
Finally, a lot of problem are people my friend. I cannot extrapolate her out to the whole party, no. But, my family is republican (including my extended family), and most of my friends from highschool and below and their families are republican, while my friends from university and beyond are mostly liberal (some are libertarians). Like bae desccribed (around here somewhere), i got involved in the local party in PA, and was systematically marginalized through really bad behavior (same happened over at the dems, btw).
Nearly all of them pick up on one or more theocon or neocon agenda and mix it with a (very basic) tea party approach. I notice, for example, that none of them even know of the tea party's libertarian roots, that they reject Ron/Rand Paul (who are clearly libertarian), and they even reject (in the case of my sister and BIL, who say that they are "squarely in the tea party") the papers of the Cato instistute as "too extreme" when they hold to the very ideas of the tea party!
Likewise, to a one of them, they picked up on and held to positions of extremists -- theocon agendas in terms of rape/abortion and birth control; neocon agendas around military interventionism, and of course, extreme positions on Obamacare, not to mention the whole "ruining America" memes that were out there.
Then, when you quite literally just post facts -- i'm not talking opinion papers from liberal organizations but *facts* such as relevant laws, the original research papers providing the statistics that they are using (and often misconstruing), then you get attacked as "ultra liberal" and "ruining America" and so on.
In my experience, the party is in a state of crisis. This added layer now of "delusional math" or whatever you might want to call it (or how they got snookered by consultants?) certainly shows a further disregard for reality, which is not a moderate position.
I truly believe that in order for the republican party to have any forward momentum, they're going to have to jettison the theocons, identify what i the libertarian movement actually speaks to them, re-adopt traditional republicanism, and -- if they are truly smart and want to rescue this country from the financial cliff -- let go of military interventionism as a policy.
They need to step back into their (relatively) socially progressive ideologies of traditional republicanism, return to isolationist and fiscal responsibility values and actions, and return to the dialogue about what the federal government should be and what also the state governments should be.
Unfortunately, you bring up that the party should return to being it's normal, moderate self, and people say that you don't understand what a republican is.
Oh, i'm sorry, I was just reading about the history and origins of the party, the various social movements involved, and how it all fits together. my bad.
by the by, traditional republicanism really is truly moderate, with just a different POV of how governance should run. likewise, traditional democrats are moderate with a different POV than republicans of how governance should be run.
libertarianism is -- while liberal -- a relatively extreme position, which is why i'm surprised it has any voice within the republican party. back in 2000 and 2008 when Paul was running, I remember telling my dad "Paul's ideas are interesting." My dad, a solid neocon (every once in a while getting caught in theocon flap), looked at me straight and said "Paul is an extemist, right-wing nut."
Now, my dad, like my BIL and sister, are all "tea party supporting republicans" but they still tell me that Paul is an extremist nut. I point out the origins of the tea party is libertarianism (and thereby most closely aligned with Paul's politics, and if they were truly into those ideas, then they would support Paul).
I don't really understand how this shakes out in practice. My family *adores* palin (and also mccain, who is a moderate), is so-so on romney (felt he was better than the others, but liked santorum), and hates paul.
Yet, paul is the most consistent politician for his constituency, consistently voting exactly as he says he is, direct and honest about his positions on these matters, and clearly aligns with libertarianism without apology or hiding it in any way, shape or form.
So why is he this bad guy that so many tea-party folks consider a "nut?" It makes no sense to me.
I think you either like these ideas or you don't. I feel that most of the GOP just gives lip service to these ideas, or they would have nominated Paul.
The Storyteller
11-12-12, 4:45pm
interesting article about Newt Gingrich
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gingrich-dumbfounded-obama-win-163256034--election.html
"Gingrich admitted, "I was wrong last week, as was virtually every major Republican analyst. And so, you have to stop and say to yourself, 'If I was that far off, what do I need to learn to better understand America.'"
Well at least the leaders see it. Perhaps the followers will follow in due time.
Here's a great article (http://www.wbur.org/npr/164756302/who-gets-the-blame-for-the-romney-loss-the-tea-party-has-a-theory). Tea Partiers believe Romney lost because he was "too moderate."
These tea partiers are the theocon kind, not the libertarian kind.
These tea partiers are the theocon kind, not the libertarian kind.
Yea, that's kind of what I've run across, too. If they would stick to Iris' list I'd bring cookies to their bake sale.
iris lily
11-12-12, 6:27pm
...
I truly believe that in order for the republican party to have any forward momentum, they're going to have to jettison the theocons, identify what i the libertarian movement actually speaks to them, re-adopt traditional republicanism, and -- if they are truly smart and want to rescue this country from the financial cliff -- let go of military interventionism as a policy.
I would completely agree with all of that in general and probably in most supportive details.
As an aside I certainly don't consider Sarah Palin moderate and am not sure who you think is pushing that label on her. It's news to me that Sarah Palin now wants to be considered moderate, I would think she'd find that a negative label. But then, I have a hard time speaking for other people although most of those who participate on this politics board do not.
They need to step back into their (relatively) socially progressive ideologies of traditional republicanism, return to isolationist and fiscal responsibility values and actions, and return to the dialogue about what the federal government should be and what also the state governments should be.
Oh yay, I like that too!
I was responding to Gregg's statement that it is moderate candidates who come to the fore in the party, but there are several candidates (most of whom were removed in this current congressional election) who were actually not at all moderate. So, just asserting that several -- even if not a majority -- of high-profile republicans are not moderates. And, i don't think they want to be considered moderates either. :)
loosechickens
11-12-12, 9:46pm
Hard for me to understand that I find myself completely in agreement with conservative David Boaz, of the Cato Institute, but Republicans in general really need to listen more to folks like this, and less to Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and the rightwing blogosphere. Hard words, but with a ring of truth:
David BoazExecutive VP, Cato Institute (on Politico)
"The first thing Republicans should do is stop reading only the conservative media.
The conservative echo chamber apparently convinced them that Romney was winning the election. Romney himself is reported to have been "shell-shocked" by his loss. I wasn't, because I'd been reading the polls, including the swing-state polls. If the conservative media are going to tell Republicans what they want to hear, then smart Republicans had better start looking at a broader range of media.
My colleague Roger Pilon can't think of much the Republican Party should change. I'll try to think more creatively. Let's see . . . the Republican Party might have avoided running up federal spending by a trillion dollars during the Bush administration, alienating libertarian and tea-party type voters in the past few elections. It might have avoided miring the country in two endless wars, undermining its advantage on national security issues. And it might come to grips with its decades-long alienation of black, female, Hispanic, and gay voters.
During the civil rights era, conservatives - including party-switching Democrats such as Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms - adamantly resisted the push for equal rights and equal dignity for African Americans. When women began to demand an equal place in society, politics, and the economy, conservatives said that a woman's place was in the home. After those positions were no longer tenable, conservatives and Republicans came to accept race and gender equality, and they don't understand why they still face a gender gap and overwhelming opposition from black voters. In our own time Republicans have sent hostile messages to Hispanics on the immigration issue and to gay voters on marriage and other issues. And they are in the process of permanently alienating those voters, too. As former Reason magazine editor Virginia Postrel says, "Policy aside, people rarely vote for pols they think despise them."
Conor Friedersdorf blames Rush Limbaugh for Republicans' image problems among minority voters. Maybe so. But it's a problem that began before Limbaugh, and certainly can't be blamed entirely on him or other pundits. The idealized Republican/conservative message of individual liberty, limited government, and economic growth ought to appeal to most voters. But Republicans have to accept, as even Dick Cheney saw, that "freedom means freedom for everyone," and then they have to be consistent in delivering and applying that message. The hole they've dug with voters outside their straight white male base will take time to climb out of. They'd better get started."
loosechickens
11-12-12, 9:58pm
But on a lighter note....James Carville said a mouthful on Bill Maher, after the election:
“Sometimes in the south people will say, ‘In order to get that boy’s attention sometimes you’ve gotta hit him upside the head with a 2×4.’
The sound you heard on election night was pine on skull.”
We shall just have to see if the lesson has sunk in.....I've spent several days since the election, lurking on a number of rightwing websites, blogs, etc., reading the pieces, AND the comments beneath them, and from my "research", I'm not so sure.
A few, certainly, such as the Cato Institute VP I quoted above, certainly "get it", but I've really seen a whole lot that gives me comfort that the Dems will probably have a lock on their coalition for quite a while, if not a lifetime. The 2 x 4 doesn't seem to have made much of an impression on many.
This is why Romney lost. This!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/11/15/romney-obama-won-with-gifts-to-certain-voters/1706223/
And he just. doesn't. get it!
try2bfrugal
11-15-12, 12:10pm
This is why Romney lost. This!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/11/15/romney-obama-won-with-gifts-to-certain-voters/1706223/
And he just. doesn't. get it!
What many other industrialized countries consider government fulfilling basic human needs he calls gifts. He is complaining that families making 20 - 30K a year are getting subsidized health care worth 10K! If they paid for health care they would have to live on 10 - 20K a year or significantly below poverty level for a family with kids. Yet his base of senior citizen voters get highly subsidized Medicare and have for decades. His red state supporters are mostly from taker states (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-the-confederacy-of-takers/2012/11/13/d8adc7ee-2dd4-11e2-beb2-4b4cf5087636_story.html) in terms of federal expenditures versus tax dollars.
He doesn't get it, yet blames the Obama campaign for maligning his image. They didn't malign his image - they just shined a light on it. His biggest campaign problem was the words coming out of his own mouth.
SteveinMN
11-15-12, 12:13pm
This is why Romney lost.
The "gifts" meme is a GOP talking point, no more. O'Reilly and others were bloviating about it on Faux News right after the election. Like plutocrats don't get "gifts" from the government....
Romney is clueless. But he's also pretty much out of the picture at this point. He won't run in 2016. Ryan might, but he's going to have to tack toward the center if he has any hope at all. Then again, that's sort of true for the entire Republican party. The party that is risks increasing marginalization in a changing America. If they want to be leading influences, they're going to have to step back from the abyss of ignorance. I think they will do that. It may not happen for another decade, but a Republican party that does not take serious stock of itself after this election eventually will be named along with Whigs and the America First Party as a failed political idea.
...but a Republican party that does not take serious stock of itself after this election eventually will be named along with Whigs and the America First Party as a failed political idea.
I think the real 'failed political idea' is this nation's founding as a Republic. It seems that Mr Franklin's admonition of "If you can keep it" when asked what kind of government they had formed, along with his later belief that "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" were prescient warnings of the early 21st century.
ApatheticNoMore
11-15-12, 1:11pm
But "gifts" and "the people can vote themselves money" couldn't possibly be why we have a neocon Republican party rather than the moderate to libertarian Republican party Zoebird is pining for (which frankly I don't believe is ever going to happen, parties change, but man that would be a 180, a seismic shift, like the reallignment of the South or something). I mean isnt' there MASSIVE amounts of money being doled out in the military industrial complex? How many people are employed in defense companies? Do all those people really want less government? To what extent is that the Republican party base a bunch of people seeking military industrial complex gifts? Then there's homeland security, NSA (millionaires are being made there I read, some new silicon valley, disgusting), massive security state apparatus being built (like the data center in utah) etc.. They'll be very entrenched interests there that will vote for continuation of that forever, still gonna blame grandma and her Social Security check? There's profit to be made off government debt as well, which is neither here nor there, except this debt sometimes increases under Democrats (the recession might have something to do with it) and always increases massively under Republican rule.
I frankly find this Republic entirely broken. When people are only voting for candidates because they are the "lesser of two evils", even if they have to hold their nose from the immense stench in the voting booth (they'd vote for David Duke over Hitler afterall - and it would be entirely 100% consistent with "lesser of two evils" reasoning), um excuse me but then the choices and the policies we get in NO WAY, NO WAY AT ALL, reflect the people's genuine policy preferences. Their preferences themselves may be desirable or not, but the system is so rigged currently (also see jerrymandered congressional districts, congress has a 10% approval rating and yet the bums are continually voted back in) to not allow these preferences to ever have any representation in government.
I think the real 'failed political idea' is this nation's founding as a Republic. It seems that Mr Franklin's admonition of "If you can keep it" when asked what kind of government they had formed, along with his later belief that "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" were prescient warnings of the early 21st century.
There is a chicken / egg element to this (not that it really matters). I'm not sure if the bribery from Congress came first or if the members were simply responding to the demands of the people. A quote from Alexis de Tocqueville seems to work pretty well in conjunction with Mr. Franklin's idea.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
"The first thing Republicans should do is stop reading only the conservative media."
So very true. When you boil it down I think everyone should listen to a broader range of inputs, but people in general like to hear things that align with their personal beliefs and so will seek that out. It's not just conservatives. But to be on point, I completely agree that a wave of GOP apathy was partially generated because the voters were spoon fed from the spin cycle.
The Storyteller
11-15-12, 1:40pm
Having seen so many fakes, I never trust quotes on the internet attributed to famous people unless they are sourced.
"Man can never be free until the last king is hung with the entrails of the last priest."
Louisa Mae Alcott
(Hint: sometimes what is said is more important than who said it.)
There is a chicken / egg element to this (not that it really matters). I'm not sure if the bribery from Congress came first or if the members were simply responding to the demands of the people. A quote from Alexis de Tocqueville seems to work pretty well in conjunction with Mr. Franklin's idea.
Oh I"m not trying to lay blame to one over the other, just to point out that the long decline into a pure democracy has probably been attained. The tyranny of the majority is in full bloom.
The tyranny of the majority is in full bloom.
Agreed. +1
ApatheticNoMore
11-15-12, 2:24pm
I only wish it was the case, I think it might be less viscious and have better outcomes, though there are no guarantees. Direct democracy shows some degree of self-correction, can you say the same about the politicos? Like 3 strikes law, a bad law implemented by direct democracy, not before much damage was done, but it was just corrected by the people of California.
But beyond state level direct democracy, in no way do I see government policy reflecting what most people would directly vote for. Trade agreements that outsource their jobs much less secret trade agreements? War with Libya? Yea I know there was a great people's movement just busting down the barricades of the white house lawn for war with Libya. Vast data centers to spy on their emails? Help for the banksters? It takes no idealization of mass opinion at all (which is often easily enough swayed by propaganda, by which I mean advertising), to say that this machine is a viscious system that twists the people's will in it's gears, into unrecognizable policy.
As one of the majority this time I take offence. Bush 2 did not even win with the popular vote and he was my president. We have the electoral college to protect minorities. By the way how does it feel to be a minority? Next thing we will have is Republican only toilets and drinking fountains.
The Storyteller
11-15-12, 2:48pm
The tyranny of the majority is in full bloom.
http://joshpease.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/inconceivable.jpg
http://joshpease.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/inconceivable.jpg
An oldie but a goodie for sure, although I'm not sure how you can judge what I think it means without first having a discussion on the subject.
I do realize that no meaningful discussions are necessary in today's political environment in order to establish and promote a meme, however enlightening it might be. C'est la vie
ApatheticNoMore
11-15-12, 3:10pm
It seems implausible on the face of it that elections in which billions of dollars are spent, in which the money is hard to even trace, in which candidates HAVE TO pander to this money, somehow represent majority will rather than being at least somewhat influenced by the will of well ... the money. But I suppose one could argue, sure those with millions to give (mostly corporations) give millions of dollars to our politicians, but still the politicians REALLY seek only to serve the people and what the majority want them to. But that seems a hard case to make.
So here's one way to go about it: you could try to show strong correlation between what polls show people want and the policies we actually get to show strong alignment (yep people are getting exactly what they want ... mob rule gone made). ONLY, I've heard of many polls showing the opposite, the American people are more isolationist (don't want world military involvement), the American people would happily have marijuana legalization (but can only get it at state levels when they have DIRECT DEMOCRACY and the Feds will fight this legalization). Might the American people want true socialized medicine (not Obamacare) as well? I've heard so, I don't know.
The Storyteller
11-15-12, 5:32pm
An oldie but a goodie for sure, although I'm not sure how you can judge what I think it means without first having a discussion on the subject.
Oh, so now you are expecting a discussion on a subject. I thought we were now at the point of dismissing one another using amusing quips, clips, and pics.
The Storyteller
11-15-12, 5:33pm
"Man can never be free until the last king is hung with the entrails of the last priest."
Louisa Mae Alcott
(Hint: sometimes what is said is more important than who said it.)
Then what is the point of attribution if not to lend weight?
Oh, so now you are expecting a discussion on a subject. I thought we were now at the point of dismissing one another using amusing quips, clips, and pics. I've noticed your doing that since the election but it was a solo pursuit.
Here is an interesting article about Romney's message to his donors about why he lost:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/15/opinion/waldman-romney-comments/index.html
Agreed. +1
Maybe the the ones with a majority of dollars - and lobbyists.
Here is an interesting article about Romney's message to his donors about why he lost:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/15/opinion/waldman-romney-comments/index.html
That's a good article redfox. Well worth reading. But republicans won't cause they still don't get it.
I agree that the analysis is interesting, redfox.
Here is Horsey's cartoon editorial about the topic:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-tot-cartoons-pg,0,1019230.photogallery
Letter to a future Republican strategist...
http://www.ericgarland.co/2012/11/09/letter-to-a-future-republican-strategist-regarding-white-people/
This resonated particularly well with me:
"Deficits and debt - Whenever the GOP is out of power, it immediately appeals to the imagination of voters who remember the Lyndon Baines Johnson (!) administration and claim that the Republican alternative is the party of “cutting spending” and “reducing the deficit.” The only problem with your claim is that Republican governments throughout my entire 38 year life (Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) have failed to cut spending and deficit and debt EVEN ONCE. I hope you understand that your credibility suffers every time you promise one thing for three decades and do the EXACT OPPOSITE. Egads – if you actually were the party of fiscal responsibility – you might win our votes despite your 13th century view of science!"
It doesn't matter how many charts and graphs and analyses you drag out to show how profligate latter-day Republicans are with other people's money, people will still use "fiscal responsibility" and the GOP in the same sentence.
That was an excellent essay; summed it up perfectly, I thought.
catherine
11-18-12, 6:57pm
This resonated particularly well with me:
"Deficits and debt - Whenever the GOP is out of power, it immediately appeals to the imagination of voters who remember the Lyndon Baines Johnson (!) administration and claim that the Republican alternative is the party of “cutting spending” and “reducing the deficit.” The only problem with your claim is that Republican governments throughout my entire 38 year life (Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) have failed to cut spending and deficit and debt EVEN ONCE. I hope you understand that your credibility suffers every time you promise one thing for three decades and do the EXACT OPPOSITE. Egads – if you actually were the party of fiscal responsibility – you might win our votes despite your 13th century view of science!"
It doesn't matter how many charts and graphs and analyses you drag out to show how profligate latter-day Republicans are with other people's money, people will still use "fiscal responsibility" and the GOP in the same sentence.
That was an excellent essay; summed it up perfectly, I thought.
Didn't follow where this post started (I know it was redfox--thank you, redfox), but this blog post is awesome. As someone who wavers around in the center of politics, this made a LOT of sense.
In a sense politics has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The players, regardless of party, have made so many promises to get elected that they simply can't cut spending if they want to keep their jobs. Little promises like bridges to nowhere and big ones like healthcare for everyone all cost money. The few people willing to stand up and tell everyone how all this really works don't get enough traction to even get invited to debates, much less challenge for office. Successful candidates have become masters of telling us exactly what we want to hear. Truth has nothing to do with it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.