Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama wins!

Obama wins! (Page 2)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 06:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Excellent analysis by ebuddy, but let me comment on a few things:
Evangelicals did come out for Romney - that just didn't help. He lost too much in the center.
Independents voted Romney by a decent margin, but there was enough +Dem that it didn't matter. Given that 2004 was much further towards the GOP in many states, the way I read this is that many economic conservatives no longer identify with the party of evangelicals and Tea Party activists. They still vote for someone like Romney, but some of the shenanigans scare them, and they would not vote for a Santorum or Palin. This only deepens the problem for the GOP if they stay the course far to the right on those issues. I would imagine that such voters were less than amused by the idea that one can play games with the debt ceiling.
The GOP's current gameplan is basically to find a slice of voters that they know are likely to vote and rely on the apathy of the rest of the electorate to make that slice count for enough to get a slim plurality. The only problem is that the slice was cut some time in the early 2000s, and two things have happened since: the demographics have changed enough to make the math change, and the actions taken to build loyalty in the base have alienated the rest enough to raise the enthusiasm in other layers of the population. The GOP needs to rein in the extremists and it needs to focus on a wider slice of the electorate. The question now is if it will realize that in time to be an alternative in 2016. Chances are that they hold out, have a decent election in 2014 when enthusiasm is lower, and keep trying with the same tired old methods.
Honestly, a secular GOP would be a bear to deal with. They also might want to remove the word abortion from their vocabulary. Akin and Murdoch got tossed.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 06:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post

I see the Stock market is voting to day.
lol shocker!
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 07:59 AM
 
A very good analysis by ebuddy.

I would modify a few points:
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There's a problem with the Republican brand they're absolutely going to have to fix if they ever hope to win the Presidency. You can't gaffe your way through indictments of racism, sexism, and being out of touch with the little guy. You have to be infinitely more skilled than your counterpart in this regard and Republicans simply cannot produce the right candidates. It's not about what you're against, it needs to remain what you're for.
While a large part of the Republican problem was due to framing, it's not as simple as this implies. In other words, it's not that the Republicans presented themselves poorly (although they did in many cases), it's that their frames were spot on for the base. But when your base is 1) a minority, 2) shrinking relative to everyone else, and 3) bound to an inflexible ideology, you've attached your cart to the wrong horse.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Conservatism has to be fashionable and fun, not square and cold.
Conservatism has a very important place in any representational government, and, in my opinion, we are lessened as a people and as a nation if we abandon conservative principles. The problem is not that conservatism is unfashionable, but that the current brand of conservatism represented by the Tea Parties is repulsive to most people. Republicans need to learn that you can still be a staunch conservative without being a cartoonish ideologue.
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Short of abandoning conservatism in the interest of popularity, conservatives need to learn how to more effectively and unashamedly express conservative values, not vacillate back and forth as the wind blows causing confusion and hampering enthusiasm.
While this is probably true for Romney himself, consider that the "pure" conservatives were the clear losers last night: Tea Party candidates lost senate races and (otherwise safe Republican) house seats- just look at how close Michelle Bachmann's race is, even if she wins. Romney was in the impossible position of 1) having to appeal to the Tea Party base in the primaries, and then 2) having to appeal to everyone else in the general election.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 08:06 AM
 
I think the tide has officially turned. I don't think anyone with integrity can continue to claim the US is a 'center-right' country as defined by the republican party any more. The voting block that comes out in support of traditional marriage, pro-life, trickle-down economics is shrinking- the other side is growing and growing fast. Obama may not have won with a 'mandate' but the majority of the country backed his social policy, his economic policy and even obamacare.

Romney was a terrible candidate and a waste of what very well may have been the last-gasp of the Republican Party in its current form. The economy is going to improve over the next four years- regardless of who is president, and unless the dems throw up someone as bad as Romney (or Dukakis) they will be in control in 2016. By 2020 the older white folks of today- the only reliable voting block of the GOP, will have been over taken by the young, and minorities.

Marriage equality is coming. Choice isn't going anywhere. Your medical care is going to shift towards a more European model. The free tax ride for the super wealthy is coming to an end. I'm pretty confident in 20 years time we will look back on this election as the tipping point. The Democrats are not going to form a 'permanent majority', there will eventually be a strong second party, but it's not going to look any thing like the GOP of today.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 08:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I think the tide has officially turned. I don't think anyone with integrity can continue to claim the US is a 'center-right' country as defined by the republican party any more. The voting block that comes out in support of traditional marriage, pro-life, trickle-down economics is shrinking- the other side is growing and growing fast. Obama may not have won with a 'mandate' but the majority of the country backed his social policy, his economic policy and even obamacare.
Romney was a terrible candidate and a waste of what very well may have been the last-gasp of the Republican Party in its current form. The economy is going to improve over the next four years- regardless of who is president, and unless the dems throw up someone as bad as Romney (or Dukakis) they will be in control in 2016. By 2020 the older white folks of today- the only reliable voting block of the GOP, will have been over taken by the young, and minorities.
Marriage equality is coming. Choice isn't going anywhere. Your medical care is going to shift towards a more European model. The free tax ride for the super wealthy is coming to an end. I'm pretty confident in 20 years time we will look back on this election as the tipping point. The Democrats are not going to form a 'permanent majority', there will eventually be a strong second party, but it's not going to look any thing like the GOP of today.
Bold words.

Also:



(Can't vouch for its veracity, lifted from another forum)
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 08:19 AM
 
I bet if you broke down the white vote by age- under 30s would look a lot like the Hispanic vote.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 08:32 AM
 


Like I said, the Republican party needs to shut up about abortion.
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 08:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I think the tide has officially turned. I don't think anyone with integrity can continue to claim the US is a 'center-right' country as defined by the republican party any more. ... The Democrats are not going to form a 'permanent majority', there will eventually be a strong second party, but it's not going to look any thing like the GOP of today.
I wouldn't go so far... yet. But I do think that the U.S. is in the middle of one of those generational changes- the demographics are shifting once again, and the Democrats were smart enough to take advantage of it. Or, if you prefer, the Republicans were tied to the wrong 'base', who could easily be characterized as resentful and fearful of those growing demographics.

I don't think that the Republican party is going away- let's not forget that the general numbers were pretty close. I expect that they'll retain the House for a few years (although this might be due more to structural issues), and could easily retake the Senate by 2016. A stronger candidate could have defeated Obama- and by 'stronger' I mean more consistent, who didn't have to pander to an unreasonable base, or have to defend all those statements about rape, immigrants, women, and so on. Similarly, if the Republicans had operated on a stronger platform than "We hate Obama," I think they would have made gains last night instead of losses.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 09:02 AM
 
For the first time in history, the House Dem caucus will not be majority white male.

daveweigel ‏@daveweigel
Obama will be the first Democrat to be re-elected with a majority of the popular vote since FDR.

Wow at the second one. (As close to a mandate as you'll get in this political environment)
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 09:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
While this is probably true for Romney himself, consider that the "pure" conservatives were the clear losers last night: Tea Party candidates lost senate races and (otherwise safe Republican) house seats- just look at how close Michelle Bachmann's race is, even if she wins. Romney was in the impossible position of 1) having to appeal to the Tea Party base in the primaries, and then 2) having to appeal to everyone else in the general election.
Tea Party isn't "pure" conservatism. It's batshit insanely reactionary.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 10:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by raleur View Post
A stronger candidate could have defeated Obama- and by 'stronger' I mean more consistent, who didn't have to pander to an unreasonable base, or have to defend all those statemefntfsf about rape, immigrants, women, and so on. Similarly, if the Republicans had operated on a stronger platform than "We hate Obama," I think they would have made gains last night instead of losses.
I agree- even a crap candidate could have won given the state of the economy/the world. Mitt was a special kind of terrible. The point is that I think a credible candidate would have a hard time winning in 2016 and an amazing candidate running on the same platform the GOP is running with now would not stand a chance in 2020.

My point was this was the last shot. If they had put someone other than Romney up they could have won, and with my prediction that the economy will improve no matter who is in the White House by 2016, the republicans could have had eight years. But anti-gay, anti-choice, pro 1% is simply not a political philosophy that will be viable in eight-years time given the demographic shift.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 10:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post

Like I said, the Republican party needs to shut up about abortion.
How did I miss "they rape so easy"?
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Tea Party isn't "pure" conservatism. It's batshit insanely reactionary.
I agree, which is why "pure" was in scarequotes- but my point is that at the moment, it's what counts as "real" or "pure" conservatism.

Interestingly, there is a precedent for this: Barry Goldwater likewise represented an ideologically pure conservatism, and was handed a crushing defeat that almost ruined the Republican party. It took a re-envisioning of conservatism, led by the likes of William Buckley and Ronald Reagan, to make it viable again. I think that the Republicans could sweep all three in 2016 if they were able to do something similar.
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 10:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
The point is that I think a credible candidate would have a hard time winning in 2016 and an amazing candidate running on the same platform the GOP is running with now would not stand a chance in 2020.
I'm not so certain about this: I think that Obama's coalition is strong, but I also try to keep in mind that it is a coalition, which means that it can be split if you find the right points to which you can apply leverage. Gay marriage is one example- it doesn't play so well among Latinos or women, both of whom were alienated by the far-right.
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
But anti-gay, anti-choice, pro 1% is simply not a political philosophy that will be viable in eight-years time given the demographic shift.
I absolutely agree- actually, I doubt it will be viable in four.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 10:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Very fair request besson.
If only the people who do this professionally could be as well measured.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 10:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How did I miss "they rape so easy"?
I didn't post it in the batshit thread because it's apparently a misspeak of something someone once said to him.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 10:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If only the people who do this professionally could be as well measured.
Or would respond at all.


Props to ebuddy for being the only conservative on here not ashamed to show his face.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How does adding 29 EC votes put him close to the 365?

The difference between this year and 2008 will be minus Indiana and North Carolina (I was wrong about Missouri). I guess this is relatively close, but not super close.
That part in bold is my point exactly. To get 332 electoral votes in this economic and political climate is one helluva accomplishment any way you slice it.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 12:27 PM
 
I'm not seeing it.

This all boiled down to winning one state, which he did by one or two points.

Winning New York or California wasn't an accomplishment. My coffee table could have beaten Romney in those states.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This all boiled down to winning one state, which he did by one or two points.
???
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 12:40 PM
 
This came down to who won Ohio.

Obama basically threw everything he had at that state.

After all that effort, he beats Romney there by 2%.

That's pretty damn close in my book.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So, gay marriage passed in two states, marijuana was legalized to some degree in a few others... this really was the reverse 2004.
Four states: Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington. Pot in Colorado, Washington, Mass.

This is an interesting side story that I think we are underestimating - it shows that modern ideas are slowly winning out.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
For the first time in history, the House Dem caucus will not be majority white male.
daveweigel ‏@daveweigel
Obama will be the first Democrat to be re-elected with a majority of the popular vote since FDR.
Wow at the second one. (As close to a mandate as you'll get in this political environment)
Am I misunderstanding something? Clinton was re-elected with a majority of the popular vote. Do you mean racially?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not seeing it.
This all boiled down to winning one state, which he did by one or two points.
Winning New York or California wasn't an accomplishment. My coffee table could have beaten Romney in those states.
Obama won without Ohio.

As far as the latter sentiment, it hasn't always been the case that your coffee table could beat Romney in those states. What has changed to make it this way?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Four states: Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington. Pot in Colorado, Washington, Mass.

This is an interesting side story that I think we are underestimating - it shows that modern ideas are slowly winning out.
About friggin time.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This came down to who won Ohio.
Obama basically threw everything he had at that state.
After all that effort, he beats Romney there by 2%.
That's pretty damn close in my book.
This is some strange thinking. Obama didn't need Ohio to win in the long run (Or Florida). And Republicans equally threw everything they had at it, including the voter suppression shit from the inside. It's like you're trying to find the shit-lining in the victory.


Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Four states: Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington. Pot in Colorado, Washington, Mass.
Minnesota denied defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It was not an affirmative for equal marriage rights.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This is an interesting side story that I think we are underestimating - it shows that modern ideas are slowly winning out.
Easy there, tiger. Just eight years ago we had the anti-gay marriage election.

Still, between the more areligious identifying and this, it could indicate we're heading in a socially more liberal direction.


Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Am I misunderstanding something? Clinton was re-elected with a majority of the popular vote. Do you mean racially?
Clinton won with a plurality.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 12:59 PM
 
ebuddy, I appreciate your analysis and concession to being wrong. I was thinking that you were slowly becoming just another partisan like most of us, but posts like this certainly make me rethink this! Well done, sir!

I would like your take on the whole social, modernity premise here... Do you remember an election with all of the silly positions like all of the rape positions, as quoted above, in modern times? Do you think part of this was a standoff between modern vs. old social ideas, or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Also, I think that Obama made the case effectively that nobody can outdo the damage done by the Bush economic collapse in just 4 years. Do you agree, and do you think this was an important aspect to his victory too?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
This is some strange thinking. Obama didn't need Ohio to win in the long run (Or Florida). And Republicans equally threw everything they had at it, including the voter suppression shit from the inside. It's like you're trying to find the shit-lining in the victory.
You're right. I wasn't paying as close attention to the EC count as I should have, and was working off different numbers.

OTOH, I'm happy Romney lost, but am not exactly happy Obama won (if you take my meaning). I'm no doubt predisposed to looking for the shit lining.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 01:23 PM
 
I understand and agree with many of your objections to Obama's performance. Much as you agree that Romney wouldn't have been in an improvement in those very same departments.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 01:36 PM
 
It seems to me that the only issue where Romney had any lead over Obama in the polls was on the economy. Tasking Romney to fix the economy would IMO have ultimately made it worse. I think others must have come to this same conclusion.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post

Like I said, the Republican party needs to shut up about abortion.
That's true, and there were some massively stupid comments showing their ignorance on the subject. But the picture is misleading. It only has three incumbents (two from state legislatures), who lost because there were other major issues with their administrations. The rest were challengers who had little chance of winning anyway, and Ryan was re-elected, to the Senate.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How did I miss "they rape so easy"?
Yeah, to me, that sounds like the voice of experience.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post

That's true, and there were some massively stupid comments showing their ignorance on the subject. But the picture is misleading. It only has three incumbents (two from state legislatures), who lost because there were other major issues with their administrations. The rest were challengers who had little chance of winning anyway, and Ryan was re-elected, to the Senate.
I'm pretty sure Murdouck was ahead in the polls and favored to win before his major rape gaffe, actually.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You're right. I wasn't paying as close attention to the EC count as I should have, and was working off different numbers.
OTOH, I'm happy Romney lost, but am not exactly happy Obama won (if you take my meaning). I'm no doubt predisposed to looking for the shit lining.
As I said a while back, at least Obama is the "Devil that you know", and in many ways is more of a Goldwater Republican. My problem is with his stance on individual rights, otherwise he and I have a lot in common, in an ideological sense. I'll admit, though, the renewal and indefinite extension of the Patriot Act completely turned me against him. As I said before, if the Dems won't defend your civil rights, who will?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 02:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I understand and agree with many of your objections to Obama's performance. Much as you agree that Romney wouldn't have been in an improvement in those very same departments.
I honestly don't know.

I think there was a chance he'd be better on the privacy end of civil liberties.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm pretty sure Murdouck was ahead in the polls and favored to win before his major rape gaffe, actually.
Yeah, that's one, they were tied in the polls until he said that, but his opponent Donnelly (D) is also anti-abortion. Their stances weren't the issue, as much as it was Murdouck sticking his foot in his mouth and getting negative national attention for it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 02:20 PM
 
Excellent analysis by ebuddy. IMO this article pretty much sums everything up .....

President Barack Obama’s thrashing of Mitt Romney exposed glaring structural weaknesses in the GOP that will shut the Republicans out of the White House until they find a way to appeal to a rapidly changing America.

Battling a wheezing economy and a deeply motivated opposition, Obama still managed to retain much of his 2008 map because of the GOP’s deficiencies with the voters who are changing the political face of once conservative-leaning Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Nevada.

Republicans face a crisis: The country is growing less white, and their coalition has become more white in recent years.
In 2004, George W. Bush won 44 percent of Hispanics. Four years later, John McCain, the author of an immigration reform bill, took 31 percent of Hispanics. And this year, Romney captured only 27 percent of Hispanics.

“The conservative movement should have particular appeal to people in minority and immigrant communities who are trying to make it, and Republicans need to work harder than ever to communicate our beliefs to them,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who will immediately be looked to as a potential 2016 presidential candidate.

But the GOP’s problem is more fundamental than one bloc of voters. For the second consecutive presidential election, the Republican got thumped among women and young voters in the states that decided the election.

“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. “Our party needs a lot of work to do if we expect to be competitive in the near future.”

Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), a prospective 2014 statewide candidate in a state moving sharply to the middle, was just as blunt: “After tonight, the GOP had better figure out that a big tent sounds good, but if there aren’t any seats in it, what good is it.”


The desperate straits Republicans find themselves in are structural. But Romney should not be completely absolved of responsibility for his party’s ebb. He galloped to the right on immigration and reproductive issues in the GOP primary and only awkwardly attempted to move to the middle on those issues in the fall. His 50s-era persona was almost comically far removed from Americans who are in their 20s and 30s. And he never attempted to distance himself from or truly challenge a Republican Party that still bears bruises left from the Bush years.

But the rapidly growing population of minorities is something that looms larger than one flawed candidate.
Election aftermath: GOP soul-searching: 'Too old, too white, too male'? | Politico.com

Sen. Rubio, Mr. Cardenas, and Rep. Gardner have all hit the nail right on the head. But I'll be blunt and take it a step further. What we are witnessing here is the demise of the GOP's Southern Strategy. From a purely political standpoint ... what was once effective is now antiquated and in decline due to shifting demographics. It's powered the GOP to the White House four times since 1972 and resulted in the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush administrations. However, after two terms of the Clinton Administration a new governing coalition was formed. G. W. Bush and his political team wisely saw the writing on the wall and adopted a Compassionate Conservatism instead. But coalitions can be split as raleur aptly noted. So there was a concerted effort to win the Latino vote by pushing for comprehensive immigration reform ... and to peel off a notable portion of the African-American vote by aligning with prominent black pastors over opposition to gay marriage. And it worked. Barely ... as the hotly contested 2000 election shows. The problem is that GOP base wasn't having it. The base scuttled immigration reform to the point that its 2008 nominee Sen. McCain ... another longtime proponent .... was forced to throw it under the bus in order to win the primary. Admirably the McCain Campaign abjectly refused to "go there" with the dog-whistle politics. The problem is that Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the rest of right-wing media didn't get the memo. Obama gets elected. Primarily as a result of "Bush fatigue" and a tanking economy. But let's make no mistake about it ... a majority of the electorate was fascinated with the history making prospect of electing the first African-American President. Which ought to have been Clue #1 to the right-wing base of the GOP that times were changing. The demographics of the country were shifting to the point where the old playbook wasn't going to work anymore. The GOP is an overwhelmingly white party. And the majority of whites vote GOP. But the white vote is split approximately 60-40 between the GOP and Dems. Additionally, the GOP skews older whereas the Dems trend younger. And on top of that the GOP base is shrinking as a percentage of the overall electorate while the Dem base is rapidly increasing. But in an abject display of pure political stupidity ... the GOP in general and the Romney Campaign in particular decided to double down on the Southern Strategy. It banked on low turnout among African-Americans, Latinos, and whites who previously voted for Obama because of the struggling economy. Figuring they could then win by running up the score with white voters overall by at best tolerating the more racist and xenophobic elements in its ranks ... and at worst by stoking such fames directly. Like seriously ... what political purpose was served by Romney aligning himself so publicly with Donald Trump other than riling up the "birther" crowd? A PRIME EXAMPLE of "cutting off your nose to spite your face". But you see here's the problem. Minority turnout held and in some cases exceeded the historic 2008 levels. Fueled in no small measure by the constant disrespect directed towards President Obama by GOP officials and right-wing media ... along with the repeated efforts to delegitimize his presidency. Nationwide attempts at voter suppression in GOP controlled states. All on top of the fact that the GOP nominee was the epitome of an "out-of-touch" plutocrat as evidenced by his 47% comments. Let's just say that was a great way to make minority voters highly motivated to stand in lines for HOURS on end to cast their ballot. And it's also a great way to turn off the sizable and growing segment of white voters who are just as tired of such foolishness.

Now to a certain extent I can understand why this happened. When you "feed the beast" so long you can find yourself forced into continuing to do so ... otherwise the "beast" turns on you. The rise of the Tea Party in GOP politics knocked off a notable number of established elected officials in 2010. So Romney was forced to appease the Tea Party crowd in order to win the nomination. The problem is that there is an element of irrationality in that wing of the GOP. From a rejection of science to a disbelief of all facts coming from outside the right-wing echo chamber. Basic arithmetic said that the GOP would need to make major inroads with Latinos to pull off a win in 2012. That they would need to bring a dramatically larger portion of the Latino vote into a GOP coalition LONG-TERM if they were to have any prospect of remaining competitive nationally. Especially since they had already burned their bridges with African-Americans decades ago ... and then decided to douse them with gasoline and light them on fire anew after the election of President Obama in 2008. But instead the "beast" fueled in no small measure by the underlying xenophobia amongst its ranks adopted its most anti-immigrant stance in decades. The bottom line here is that the day is fast approaching when America will be a "majority minority" country. So it can either keep going back to the well and try to win future elections by not so subtly appealing to anti-minority sentiment among white voters ... and thereby commit political suicide. Or it can recognize the futility of "Take our country back!" approaches in the face of demographic reality and just stick to promoting conservative ideas on economic and tax policy.

Case in point, this right here .....

Originally Posted by Bill O'Reilly
The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama's way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things? The demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore.
... is indicative of the mentality that permeates the GOP. Those within the party who reject such nonsense have been cowed into submission and silence by those who subscribe to it. Unless and until this fundamentally changes the GOP will remain estranged with minority voters. Re-establishing itself as the "Party of Lincoln" will be an impossibility. And it's national election prospects will continue to decline.

OAW
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Yeah, that's one, they were tied in the polls until he said that, but his opponent Donnelly (D) is also anti-abortion. Their stances weren't the issue, as much as it was Murdouck sticking his foot in his mouth and getting negative national attention for it.
This is an excellent point- I wish people would see it for what it is, i.e. that conservative points of view are hardly a thing of the past. If anything, this race in particular, and several of those listed above, show only that the radical positions of the 'base' that led to Mr. Mourdock's nomination are untenable.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It's hardly a mandate from the People, but he did win. *squeeeeeeak*
It's a mandate from everybody except old white people.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 02:25 PM
 
That sounds sort of excluded middle to me.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 02:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This came down to who won Ohio.
Obama basically threw everything he had at that state.
After all that effort, he beats Romney there by 2%.
That's pretty damn close in my book.
Most definitely not the case. Obama won because he ran the table in ALL the battleground states. Let's not even count Florida which will likely be called for Obama eventually. At the 303 electoral votes he has in the bag ... take away the 18 from Ohio and he's still at 285. More than enough to clinch the election.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 02:28 PM
 
See my response to Dakar.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Yeah, that's one, they were tied in the polls until he said that, but his opponent Donnelly (D) is also anti-abortion. Their stances weren't the issue, as much as it was Murdouck sticking his foot in his mouth and getting negative national attention for it.
That was what sealed the deal on Mourdock, but his slide began before that. Here in Indiana, it seemed like every time Mourdock spoke anywhere, he just kept getting more and more batshittier. Donnelly was already making good headway in ads that simply repeated Mourdock's proclamations of partisanship and arrogance. The rape quote, during a state-wide televised debate no less, was really just the final self-inflicted bullet.

A very good friend of ours, a lifelong Republican with bags of money, actually called the state Republican headquarters and asked to talk with someone who could clearly explain Mourdock's position to her. She listened carefully and politely, asked more questions, then thanked them for their time. She voted for Donnelly.

Mourdock caught a lot of grief from traditional Republicans from the start, based on teh campaign he waged against Lugar (though, to be fair, Dick made a mess of things with that house registration thing) While he was expected to win the seat, it wasn't going to be as sure a thing as it would have been had Lugar been the candidate.

Watching the returns through the night, it was also pretty obvious that the Libertarian candidate was siphoning-off just enough of the vote to hurt Mourdock. Somewhere around the 5-6% range. Had it been a two-man race, Mourdock might have been able to squeak out a win.

Anyway, it's not entirely like Indiana elected a Democrat to the Senate. It's more like we elected an old-school, traditional Republican...Which probably makes him a liberal in the eyes of today's GOP.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Very fair request besson.
I was wrong. I couldn't have been more wrong on this one. I underestimated the youth turnout, overestimated the evangelical turnout, misinterpreted the roles Independents would play, and how folks would vote what they claimed was their primary concern in the ancillary polling. The results were as I expected them locally, but certainly didn't carry the trend throughout the swings.
  • There's a problem with the Republican brand they're absolutely going to have to fix if they ever hope to win the Presidency. You can't gaffe your way through indictments of racism, sexism, and being out of touch with the little guy. You have to be infinitely more skilled than your counterpart in this regard and Republicans simply cannot produce the right candidates. It's not about what you're against, it needs to remain what you're for.
  • Conservatism has to be fashionable and fun, not square and cold. Neither is an easy hill for them to climb.
  • Short of abandoning conservatism in the interest of popularity, conservatives need to learn how to more effectively and unashamedly express conservative values, not vacillate back and forth as the wind blows causing confusion and hampering enthusiasm.
  • Romney left far too much on the table including Fast and Furious and Benghazi of course, but he also assumed the electorate understood more of his economic philosophy. They don't. They needed to be taught. They needed more details. He left too much up to his surrogates and they couldn't produce for him.
None of this is to be taken from our President of course. Obama has amassed a ground-game like no other and successfully made the appeal to the American people that while things are bad today, they could've been much worse and he's taking care of them personally. I may not agree with his appeal, but I'm solidly in the minority today and my will was not to be.
So... yes, I'm eating my crow today, but this is much less important than where we go from here. Now that we know our setup for the next four years, hopefully the engine of our economy begins to release its liquidity and we begin to move through our challenges in a less divisive and more healthy manner over all.
Very impressive; I may have to give some respect back to you.

You can add to that list;

Most of Romney's voters were white.
Most of the voters have never lived through as serious a recession as this, as most who lived through the Great Depression are no longer with us. This, combined with :Romney's vacillating and lack of focus, led people to believe that hope still was in the air to give Obama another chance, versus trusting someone who changed his views as frequently as I change my underwear (which is at least daily).
Obama had the gay, women, latinos, and blacks in his pocket. They are a large part of the future of America. The Tea Party is not.
There are still a large number of people in America who believe that America prospers when all Americans prosper, not just a few per cent.
The Republican party of George Romney is not the Republican Party of Mitt Romney (George is no doubt turning over in his grave to see what his son has become)!
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 02:37 PM
 
@subego ....

Gotcha. I tend to read the posts in order and reply as I get to something. I hadn't seen your subsequent post when I wrote that!

OAW
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
He won by 0.5%, that's not a mandate. Period.
Currently, Obama has a 2.x % lead in popular vote, a difference of almost 3 million votes. In the Electoral College, though, Obama has a ~50 % advantage (~300 vs. ~200 votes).

I don't get it: why do you try to warp reality into something it isn't, just because you'd like to have seen Romney win?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 03:33 PM
 
I think the Republicans have a serious issue on its hands. And they need to find a way to correct it or they might not see another win for a long time. You can not deny the power of the gay vote, the woman vote and the ethnic vote. And the USofA is getting gayer, and more ethnic every day. The abortion comments really put off the woman vote and Latino's clearly afraid of Obama where terrified of Romney. Obama didn't because he is well liked. I would only attribute half of his votes for that. The rest are strategic because they dislike or are scared of the republicans more. Romney made some bone head comments that didn't help him either such as letting the Auto industry die.

Honestly during the race I didn't like Romney, seems a lot of half truths, and BS came out of his mouth and it was a very attack heavy mode. But when he gave his last speech last night on the way out, had he been more like that during the race I bet he would have won. Last night was clearly from the heart, honest, all good intent. I honestly think he could be a serious contender in the next election. Its enough time for people to forget he would have let the Auto industry fail. Enough time for the party to really stfu about abortion and pro life. They need to make themselves look more friendly to Latinos and Blacks.

No matter who wins the US is not going to small government with State majority power like before the "New Deal" a 100 years ago. You are stuck with this kind of government for a long time and it does not matter if its Romney or Obama. What really needs to occur, those on the right that want to see small federal government is a rising of State governments to wrestle the control out of the Feds. The passing of Pot laws could be the stepping stone to starting the real debates about Who has what power.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 03:47 PM
 
Can someone tell me what the hell Romney was trying to accomplish in Pennsylvania in the final days of the campaign? There were several other swing states that were much closer contests than that.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 03:54 PM
 
Ha!

6558/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2012, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Can someone tell me what the hell Romney was trying to accomplish in Pennsylvania in the final days of the campaign? There were several other swing states that were much closer contests than that.
It's in keeping with the general thread of discussion: his people obviously preferred to believe their own numbers rather than those provided by everyone else, so he made a play to tip what he thought was a close race. As we saw in these forums, people generally prefer to believe the numbers that tell them what they want to hear.

This is also why Romney was so late in conceding the race- he (or, more likely, his advisors) was so absolutely certain of victory that even after all the news outlets had called it for Obama, they were meeting in order to discuss which results they should contest.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:56 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,