Why O won and R lost?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

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:~))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

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 so you guys will have an excuse next time.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Only one political party specializes in identity politics? Really! :laff::laff:)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redfox

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Storyteller

I guess we'll have to nominate Cory Booker 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.

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. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

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-...ocked-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

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.

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/...or-exodus-2012

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

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.

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.

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 :)

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

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.

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/...?smid=tw-share

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...-of-romneyland

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/45630

http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/09/c...ltant-con-job/

I think that this link explains things nicely: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/

President Obama's very moving victory speech...

http://youtu.be/eX8tL3PMj7o

[QUOTE=The Storyteller;111731]President Obama's very moving victory speech...

That was funny. Thanks for the link.

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...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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoebird

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoebird

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, 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, 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoebird

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.