obama goes 'backward' in 46 states

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ obama goes 'backward' in 46 states
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Nov 9, 2012 1:27 PM
And let me clarify. The main problem with R and D is not that they are all the same. That is gross and absurd oversimplification. The main problem is the agendas are controlled by career incumbents that voters refuse to fire because of some misguided sense of hopelessness. It's not that there aren't good choices, or that good choices aren't being elected, it's that they are ineffective swimming upstream against strong coalitions of incumbents.
Nov 9, 2012 1:27pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Nov 9, 2012 1:29 PM
Only in your opinion it is stuck in neutral. In 2008, 130 million of the 132 million voters voted for Obama or McCain. 13 million of those voters changed their tune this time. A six-fold increase. If anything close to that happens again over the next 4 years, you will see changes like you never dreamed you would see.
Nov 9, 2012 1:29pm
Heretic's avatar

Heretic

Son of the Sun

18,820 posts
Nov 9, 2012 1:53 PM
Cleveland Buck;1316641 wrote:Only in your opinion it is stuck in neutral. In 2008, 130 million of the 132 million voters voted for Obama or McCain. 13 million of those voters changed their tune this time. A six-fold increase. If anything close to that happens again over the next 4 years, you will see changes like you never dreamed you would see.
And I think this is very likely unless one or both parties really changes how they look for their candidate.

2008: Ds have a guy running on the mantra "hope and change"; Rs have a retread who wasn't good enough for them in 2000.
2012: Ds have same guy, now running on the mantra "uh, if I have four more years, then you'll see the hope and change, I guess"; Rs have another retread who wasn't good enough for them in 2008.

If that indicates a trend in the parties as to how they look for their guys, the national trend likely will be to erode those parties, as supporters of either side get frustrated by how stuck-in-the-mud they are. The longer it goes on, the more likely said erosion will gain more and more steam.
Nov 9, 2012 1:53pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Nov 9, 2012 1:55 PM
Cleveland Buck;1316641 wrote:Only in your opinion it is stuck in neutral. In 2008, 130 million of the 132 million voters voted for Obama or McCain. 13 million of those voters changed their tune this time. A six-fold increase. If anything close to that happens again over the next 4 years, you will see changes like you never dreamed you would see.
But turnout was way up in 2008 vs. 2004. So what, is it more accurate if I instead said two-steps forward, two-steps backward. You're still going nowhere.
Nov 9, 2012 1:55pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Nov 9, 2012 2:08 PM
gut;1316629 wrote: And I lean libertarian on many issues. But when I look at that party, I see it going nowhere because they refuse to move the needle in favor of futile attempts to move the mountain.
So they should be move the needle to get votes? You just described what Rs and Ds do. Just win the election baby!
Nov 9, 2012 2:08pm
T

Tiernan

Senior Member

13,021 posts
Nov 9, 2012 2:16 PM
QuakerOats;1316594 wrote:The focus of the Tea Party is on tax/spend issues; they have little to do with any social issues. That is where the liberal media has fooled you, and apparently many more.

Referring to regular Americans who appreciate individual liberty and desire fiscal sanity as "jihadists" is truly an indication of how sick and diseased this nation has become.
BS Mr. Spinmeister! The Tea Bag Jihadists would love to see every American sitting in a Fundamentalist Church of Christ every Sunday before they go out with their 8 kids bc they don't do abortion and shoot the neighbor's cow for dinner. Sick & diseased is exactly what the Far Right has become and they are currently a bigger threat to this nation than the Muslim Brotherhood.
Nov 9, 2012 2:16pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Nov 9, 2012 2:20 PM
gut;1316654 wrote:But turnout was way up in 2008 vs. 2004. So what, is it more accurate if I instead said two-steps forward, two-steps backward. You're still going nowhere.
Low turnout is a symptom of the growing disgust. And even if you look at 2004, 121 million out of 122 million voters voted for Bush or Kerry. Not since Perot ran big money campaigns has a lower percentage of voters voted R/D. And if you didn't notice, there was no big money third party campaign this time. The whole phony economy they have been propping up with smoke and mirrors for 40 years is coming down. More and more people will continue to be turned off by their rulers.
Nov 9, 2012 2:20pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Nov 9, 2012 3:26 PM
Cleveland Buck;1316678 wrote:Low turnout is a symptom of the growing disgust. And even if you look at 2004, 121 million out of 122 million voters voted for Bush or Kerry. Not since Perot ran big money campaigns has a lower percentage of voters voted R/D. And if you didn't notice, there was no big money third party campaign this time. The whole phony economy they have been propping up with smoke and mirrors for 40 years is coming down. More and more people will continue to be turned off by their rulers.
Turnout goes up and down. You're making the same tired argument the Libertarians have been making for 40 years. Take a cue from the Tea Party and maybe they might be able to actually accomplish something.

Of course, the inability or incompetence the Libertarians have demonstrated in building a coalition of voters doesn't bode well for their potential to build coalitions in Congress. But we don't really have to speculate on that, we could just look at the record of their poster child.
Nov 9, 2012 3:26pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Nov 9, 2012 3:32 PM
gut;1316734 wrote:Turnout goes up and down. You're making the same tired argument the Libertarians have been making for 40 years. Take a cue from the Tea Party and maybe they might be able to actually accomplish something.

Of course, the inability or incompetence the Libertarians have demonstrated in building a coalition of voters doesn't bode well for their potential to build coalitions in Congress. But we don't really have to speculate on that, we could just look at the record of their poster child.
The Tea Party accomplished the opposite of what we need. They accomplished being taken over by the Republicans and now they push for endless war and care nothing about deficits.
Nov 9, 2012 3:32pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Nov 9, 2012 3:35 PM
Cleveland Buck;1316741 wrote:The Tea Party accomplished the opposite of what we need. They accomplished being taken over by the Republicans and now they push for endless war and care nothing about deficits.
Maybe. But they at least managed to get a seat at the table.

Anyway, all, appreciate the views but this has been beaten to death. I'm done, agree to disagree.
Nov 9, 2012 3:35pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Nov 9, 2012 3:38 PM
gut;1316743 wrote:Maybe. But they at least managed to get a seat at the table.

Anyway, all, appreciate the views but this has been beaten to death. I'm done, agree to disagree.
What good is a seat at the table if once you sit down you are indistinguishable from the scumbags you replaced? I'm not on team Libertarian trying to get them a seat at the table. I want the country to get behind the principles upon which it was founded.
Nov 9, 2012 3:38pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Nov 9, 2012 3:40 PM
Cleveland Buck;1316745 wrote:What good is a seat at the table if once you sit down you are indistinguishable from the scumbags you replaced? I'm not on team Libertarian trying to get them a seat at the table. I want the country to get behind the principles upon which it was founded.
Exactly my point.
Nov 9, 2012 3:40pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Nov 9, 2012 3:46 PM
gut;1316053 wrote:I'm not sure they have to change all that much. The latinos did appear to vote pretty consistently on the immigration issue, but for the most part I think that bloc continues to otherwise be up for grabs.

Maybe things haven't changed all that much and we just underestimate how difficult it is to beat an incumbent. I'm not sure Repubs need to redefine their values, they maybe just need to be less outspoken on some of the hot button. Shame on them for letting this election be about small issues. That and they can't let the media use a few guys who put their foot in their mouth to demonize the entire party. Yeah, Joe Biden says dumb shit and he gets a pass, but that's the reality they have to deal with.

And I'm not sure how much the Tea Party has really been hijacked so much as that being the narrative the media wants to portray. They will attack and demonize any faction that could potentially be a threat to liberalism and their control. If the libertarians ever get any real traction it will be the same thing, other than perhaps Maher will get a little nostalgic.
No, the Tea Party is now a party of hateful, irrational zealots.
Nov 9, 2012 3:46pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Nov 9, 2012 3:46 PM
Cleveland Buck;1316745 wrote:What good is a seat at the table if once you sit down you are indistinguishable from the scumbags you replaced? I'm not on team Libertarian trying to get them a seat at the table. I want the country to get behind the principles upon which it was founded.
A) It goes back to my points that Congress just isn't going to roll over for them. You still have to build a coalition. You take a look at that and maybe you temper your expectations for what can be accomplished and find a more viable candidate to achieve that.

B) A seat at the table is infinitely better than no seat. Without a seat you don't even get to shape the discussion.

Good summary to end on.
Nov 9, 2012 3:46pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Nov 9, 2012 3:51 PM
I Wear Pants;1316757 wrote:No, the Tea Party is now a party of hateful, irrational zealots.
Yup. The whole thing. :rolleyes:
Nov 9, 2012 3:51pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Nov 12, 2012 1:44 PM
I Wear Pants;1316757 wrote:No, the Tea Party is now a party of hateful, irrational zealots.

We shall have unresolvable differences when the defenders of individual liberty and advocates for fiscal sanity are ridiculed and vilified by those whose vote counts as much as a sane man's.
Nov 12, 2012 1:44pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Nov 12, 2012 2:32 PM
the tea party is a bitter diminishing faction within American political system. All they can do is spew hatred and use primaries to take revenge on politicans that provide us with some hope.
Nov 12, 2012 2:32pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Nov 12, 2012 2:41 PM
"diminishing faction" --- it was obama who lost 15% of his support > 10 million votes. He only won because of the racist black vote.
Nov 12, 2012 2:41pm
rmolin73's avatar

rmolin73

Senior Member

4,278 posts
Nov 12, 2012 3:12 PM
It had nothing to do with the gain in the Hispanic vote, the Asian vote, the vote of those 18-29. Nor does it have anything to do with the Republican party staying home and assuming that they had it in the bag. Kind of like most of you. Keep telling yourself it was because of the racist black vote and lose again in 2016.
Nov 12, 2012 3:12pm
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Nov 12, 2012 3:33 PM
and in Ohio white workers aided by the auto bailout.
Nov 12, 2012 3:33pm
IggyPride00's avatar

IggyPride00

Senior Member

6,482 posts
Nov 13, 2012 3:56 PM
QuakerOats;1315867 wrote:So we have all the liberal media euphoria swooning over the guy who just lost nearly 10 million votes, and lost votes in 92% of the states, barely squeeking to re-election via approximately 150,000 votes among 3-4 states.
Rich Lowry today pointed out in his National Review article that we are approximately 120,500 votes in 2 states (120,000 in Ohio Kerry 2004, and 500 Gore Florida in 2000) from 24 years straight of Democrat Party Presidents having ruled this country.

His main point was to stop taking comfort in the close loss because we are on the wrong side of that trend.
Nov 13, 2012 3:56pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Nov 14, 2012 9:56 AM
And yet, 6 of the 10 states with the highest Hispanic populations, have republican governors, not to mention dominance in a majority of statehouses etc.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/11/13/republicans-election-future-gop/1702963/

It is not about abandoning core values and principles, it is about properly defending against viscious billion dollar negative ad campaigns and an uncanny, if not fraudulent in some cases, voter turnout machine.
Nov 14, 2012 9:56am
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Nov 14, 2012 10:11 AM
oh please keep supporting your core principles
please keep opposing the auto bailout.
keep protecting tax cuts for the rich.
keep opposing the Dream Act.
keep supporting the republican rape lobby and running candidates like Richard Murdock and Todd Akins.
Nov 14, 2012 10:11am
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Nov 14, 2012 10:22 AM
QuakerOats;1319945 wrote:
It is not about abandoning core values and principles, it is about properly defending against viscious billion dollar negative ad campaigns and an uncanny, if not fraudulent in some cases, voter turnout machine.
Give it a rest. Your boy lost and badly. Do not try and rationalize it with pie in the sky conspiracy theories. We all crushed D's in 2000 and 2004 for the same thing.
Nov 14, 2012 10:22am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Nov 14, 2012 10:34 AM
IggyPride00;1319483 wrote:Rich Lowry today pointed out in his National Review article that we are approximately 120,500 votes in 2 states (120,000 in Ohio Kerry 2004, and 500 Gore Florida in 2000) from 24 years straight of Democrat Party Presidents having ruled this country.

His main point was to stop taking comfort in the close loss because we are on the wrong side of that trend.


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."



Perhaps Mr. Lowry would like to surmise how close we are to (formal) dictatorship.
Nov 14, 2012 10:34am