Paul Ryan

[Gordon Gray]

Timm,

Agreed. See Post No. 168.

Gordon

 

[jmschnur]

Actually gerrymandering is the reason that Congress is republican. Not the total vote for congress.

The will of the country is not republican at the moment. Nerver the less due the non democratic process of state legislatures republicans are in a position to help ensure the downward trend of the country to their philosophy.

J

 

[Kevin]

jmschnur- Why is it that republicans hold 30 out 50 governorships? In the exit polls 51% to 43% said that government is doing too much of what should be left to the private sector. Not really an endorsement for big government.

 

[jmschnur]

Governors are mostly result of 2010 off year election . Everybody wants less government but most want the perks like roads, FEMA, bridges, clean drinking water etc. Too bad one has to pay for those.

2012 is now. 2010 was then. OB did in fact win the popular vote and the electoral college. In conservative states Democrats won in the senate. There was a gain of seven in the house despite the Gerrymandered districts.

Republicans have trouble adding. Thus their snide comments about Nate Silver's blog.
Nice it was proven to be 100% correct. If they had tried to understand the electorate instead of their fantasist of who the electorate was they would have done much better.

In a war one wants good data and analysis. Hard to trust the party that tries to outlaw evolution , climate warming, and that once tried to legislate that Pi was equal to 3.0000 I forgot most Republicans do not think the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter matters.

I do want to attack the deficit in a way that leads to a strong recovery and handles long term the questions of SS and Medicare . After this election and the show of ignorance of the numbers that Karl Rove and his ilk put on, I have no confidence in the Republican Party to add correctly . They seem to only want to add Right. The far left of the Democratic Party are just as bad, since they don't understand the consequences on uncontrolled spending .

Let the nerds get together and come up with a rational plan.


J

 

[runnin17]

I do want to attack the deficit in a way that leads to a strong recovery and handles long term the questions of SS and Medicare . After this election and the show of ignorance of the numbers that Karl Rove and his ilk put on, I have no confidence in the Republican Party to add correctly. They seem to only want to add Right. The far left of the Democratic Party are just as bad, since they don't understand the consequences on uncontrolled spending .

Let the nerds get together and come up with a rational plan.
J

I would argue that Obama is part of that far left of the Democratic party. Redistribution of wealth is fairly far left in the first place. Not to mention he doesn't understand the consequences of uncontrolled spending at all, made perfectly clear by his first term where he added $6 trillion to the national debt.

 

[jmschnur]

I disagree strongly.

Please note redistribution has been going on since at least Roosvelt.

The concept of a safety net has been bipartisan for a long time until very recently .
A progressive income tax rate scheme has been in place for longer than I am and I remember Roosvelt.

Obama is a pragmatist and a moderate.

However you guys are happy with your view of society . So be it

Use ORCA to calculate your best next moves . It will be interesting.

The way out of the Bush caused recession was a clearly defined stimulus.

Now that we are coming out of it, it will be time to increase revenue and decrease spending like when Clinton was president.

J

 

[Rich]

I would argue that Obama is part of that far left of the Democratic party. Redistribution of wealth is fairly far left in the first place. Not to mention he doesn't understand the consequences of uncontrolled spending at all, made perfectly clear by his first term where he added $6 trillion to the national debt.

You wanna talk about where all our debt has come from. Fine. Watch this video, and then let's talk . . . using actual facts and real math.

 

[Gordon Gray]

I would argue that Obama is part of that far left of the Democratic party. Redistribution of wealth is fairly far left in the first place. Not to mention he doesn't understand the consequences of uncontrolled spending at all, made perfectly clear by his first term where he added $6 trillion to the national debt.

Hi runnin,

Thanks for re-engaging.

It seems pretty obvious as to why Mitt, and his party, didn't win the national election and the Senate majority for that matter.

The simple answer is demographics. The traditional, core Rep. base has shrunk in comparison to the overall electorate. African Americans, latinos, folks under 35, etc. have simply over taken that base numerically and they voted, by a wide margin for the Dems. The Rep. party has an interesting challenge moving forward.

One can discuss this election, and the results thereof, from many perspectives. However, the fact remains that the Reps have to become a more inclusionary party to win future national elections.

As an aside and consistent with my comment above, Mitt was really between a rock and a hard spot. Witness his statements / positions during the primaries and his considerable shift to the center once he won the nomination.

I would kindly suggest that Governor races have an entirely different dynamic. In Wyoming, a staunchly red state, I think we've had a Dem governor since I moved here in 1981. This is the first Rep governor (Matt Mead) in decades.

Best,

Gordon

PS: Regarding the debt, I believe that the cost of the Iraq, Afghanistan wars were not included in the overall "debt" calculations during the Bush presidency. The Iraq war cost around 3 trillion, plus or minus a few billion. I will always remember Donald Rumsfeld's initial prediction when we started the war. He said 50 billion.

The current deficit numbers reflect that "red" ink.

 

[Len44]

You wanna talk about where all our debt has come from. Fine. Watch this video, and then let's talk . . . using actual facts and real math.

Aw geez, Rich, I think I see where this is heading. This is going to frustrate you and annoy the hell out of -- well, you know...

 

[runnin17]

There is no use debating with anyone on this forum anymore. You continue to believe what you want. Spouting that conservatives aren't using real math and that liberals are is just ridiculous.

The bottom line is that an increasing number of Americans are demanding more government handouts and are refusing to actually work for a living. How other people that work very hard on a daily basis think that it is okay to let people continue getting away with this is beyond me.

I have never, ever, ever accepted handouts and honestly if I was forced into a situation where I required that safety net, I would work my ass off to get to a point where I didn't need the assistance. Unfortunately people no longer have the work ethic or self respect to work hard and accept the blessings that come with being an American citizen.

The mindset has now become, "What can my country do for me, not what can I do for my country". Sad day!

That is all I have to say and I will not be commenting in this thread again.

 

[jmschnur]

Any group that would choose ORCA to model it's path to electoral victory over Nate Siver's free analysis deserves the results it gets. A clear eyed look at Nate's numbers would have led to a better approach for Romney and perhaps a win. It also says something about that groups ability to think clearly instead of looking at world with tinted glasses.

Going forward , a clear analysis of the financial problems facing us is an imperative to deciding which path to take for the betterment of us all.


J

 

[timm]

Any group that would choose ORCA to model it's path to electoral victory over Nate Siver's free analysis deserves the results it gets. A clear eyed look at Nate's numbers would have led to a better approach for Romney and perhaps a win. It also says something about that groups ability to think clearly instead of looking at world with tinted glasses.

Going forward , a clear analysis of the financial problems facing us is an imperative to deciding which path to take for the betterment of us all.


J

I don't know who nate is nor do I know what orca is other than 'free willy'. What I do know is that everyone would be better served if these political machines focused more on their beliefs and the issues as opposed to 'strategy'. This discussion that leans toward 'the nation has spoken' baffles me. When you consider popular vote isn't it really only a 1.01% swing? Wow now thats a quorum. !

 

[jmschnur]

ORCA is the computer and model the campaign used to strategize their campaign. It is that model that said that Romney would win hands down The computer ORCA overloaded Election Day. The republican campaign invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to build and program it.

Nate Silver is best known for making millions predicting success of young MLB hopefuls. He then moved on to develop an unbiased statistical geopolitical model to predict elections. 8 months ago he said there was a structural bias in the electorate for Obama but that Romney could win if they paid attention to each state on its merits . the Romney camp scoffed and built ORCA.

Nate (538) predicted all 50 states correctly this time. In 2008 he got 49 right.

Good to use correct data to strategize.

Obama will win the national vote by 2.5-3.0 %.

Issues matter too bad all we heard was lies and hate from both campaigns. However the truth squads gave the Romney campaign twice as many 4 Pinnochios as the Obama campaign-like the ad that said Jeep was closing its operation and moving to China.

J

 

[Len44]

There is no use debating with anyone on this forum anymore. You continue to believe what you want. Spouting that conservatives aren't using real math and that liberals are is just ridiculous.

Well, it IS self-evident. Karl Rove and the Dick Morris on Fox "News" proved themselves totally ridiculous, they couldn't even bring themselves to admit that they had lost the election, even when confronted with MATH. I guess the truth hurts...

The bottom line is that an increasing number of Americans are demanding more government handouts and are refusing to actually work for a living. How other people that work very hard on a daily basis think that it is okay to let people continue getting away with this is beyond me.

I have never, ever, ever accepted handouts and honestly if I was forced into a situation where I required that safety net, I would work my ass off to get to a point where I didn't need the assistance.

You spout the hopelessly deluded views of Rush (and, I must say, from having lived there in my formative years) too many folks from Oklahoma. This is the same state that in 1960 had preachers screeching (from the pulpit, no less) not to vote for Kennedy because he was Catholic, and he would be taking orders from the Pope (!), but evidently voting for a Mormon is quite all right -- just so long as he is a republican...

In reality, folks from the "blue" states pay more taxes than folks in the "red" states, while the folks in the red states are actually the "moochers" about whom Mitt spoke, as they are a net consumer of federal $$$$$$$.

I should add here the wonderful stories making the news last night, about folks from Louisiana (and some other places) sending relief supplies and assistance to New Jersey and New York. Absolutely heartwarming. Their comments were that the New York folks were the first people who came to their aid after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Quite a contrast to the "every man for himself" mantra of Rush and his ilk. We really are, after all, in this together.

Unfortunately people no longer have the work ethic or self respect to work hard and accept the blessings that come with being an American citizen.

The mindset has now become, "What can my country do for me, not what can I do for my country". Sad day!

I guess this is what you see around you -- in Oklahoma. So, given your mindset, it seems to me that you (and other Oklahoma republicans) should first be working to clean up the "deadbeats" in your own state. How people can continue to vote against their own best interest is astounding.

That is all I have to say and I will not be commenting in this thread again.

Your choice, of course. But since you evidently are either confounded by facts or don't wish use them in this discussion, your decision probably works for most of us -- it certainly does for me.

 

[Rich]

Spouting that conservatives aren't using real math and that liberals are is just ridiculous.

I don't believe anybody spouted any such thing. Did you watch the video? Hard to have a discussion about something if you refuse to watch it. If you did watch the video, you would have learned (through basic math and proper attribution of policies to debt growth) that the majority of the debt we face today came from the policies of none other than GW Bush and the republicans. Obama's policies are responsible for about 14% of it. Chew on those numbers and tell me how republicans are in a position to bitch about the debt.

The bottom line is that an increasing number of Americans are demanding more government handouts and are refusing to actually work for a living.

Really? Please, provide some factual support for this ridiculous notion. This is about as factual and pompous an assertion as Mitt's 47% remark. Only about 4% of the population is on welfare, about 15% of the population receives assistance through food stamps, and only around 4% receive housing rental assistance or live in government subsidized housing. These numbers have not increased measurably in the past thirty years. Your contention is just wrong. Hence my suggestion you try to use actual math and real facts when you debate, rather than just throwing out prejudiced opinions.

By the way, spending on AFDC, the program normally referred to as welfare, totaled less than $500 billion from 1964 to 1994--less than 1.5 percent of federal outlays for that period, and about what the Pentagon spends in two years. Yeah, welfare is a real problem. Right. The real recipients of welfare in this nation are corporations. The government spends over 50% more on corporate welfare and farm subsidies than it does on traditional social welfare programs.

That is all I have to say and I will not be commenting in this thread again.

Wha? You gonna cut and run? Well, as my lawyer friends like to say: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." And I guess if that doesn't work, then just cut and run.

 

[Rich]

This discussion that leans toward 'the nation has spoken' baffles me. When you consider popular vote isn't it really only a 1.01% swing? Wow now thats a quorum. !

Actually, when you consider the circumstances, it is pretty significant. The republicans had the best economic environment to overturn an incumbent democrat possibly ever. It was the first time in something like more than fifty years that an incumbent has been re-elected with an unemployment rate over 7%. Romney had a much more respectable vice presidential candidate than John McCain four years ago, yet Romney received almost 3 million less votes than McCain did. I don't think he won a single swing state. The republicans lost not only the Presidency, but they lost seats in both the Senate and the House. While it may not have been an overwhelming victory according to the popular vote, make no mistake about it. This election was a serious political victory for the democrats and gives them a lot of clout heading into the next two years before the next Congressional elections.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Rich,

I think runnin's comments clearly underscore the state of the Republican party.

On one hand and given the inevitable demographic change, I hope this attitude will continue with the requisite benefit(s) in future national elections.

On the other, I'd love to have a viable choice of candidates who understand / articulate the real issues (and solutions thereof) that confront this country.

GG

 

[timm]

Actually, when you consider the circumstances, it is pretty significant. The republicans had the best economic environment to overturn an incumbent democrat possibly ever. It was the first time in something like more than fifty years that an incumbent has been re-elected with an unemployment rate over 7%. Romney had a much more respectable vice presidential candidate than John McCain four years ago, yet Romney received almost 3 million less votes than McCain did. I don't think he won a single swing state. The republicans lost not only the Presidency, but they lost seats in both the Senate and the House. While it may not have been an overwhelming victory according to the popular vote, make no mistake about it. This election was a serious political victory for the democrats and gives them a lot of clout heading into the next two years before the next Congressional elections.

Rich. I think what u just said was that things are currently so crappy in the country that 1% is in fact significant? Haha. Sorry. After the first debate I said Obama would win because he is so damn charismatic. I stand by that. The guy is unbelievable in my opinion when it comes to making people feel like he understands them and has a great way of communicating it. Romney in the other hand looks and feels like a CEO ready to cut jobs to make the company profitable. Obama says 'we'll just raise taxes' and people don't run.

 

[Rich]

Rich,

I think runnin's comments clearly underscore the state of the Republican party.

Yes, I think you are right on the money. Right down to the hubris he showed earlier in the thread, so sure that his candidate was going to win.

Rich. I think what u just said was that things are currently so crappy in the country that 1% is in fact significant?

Actually, I think the difference in vote totals was closer to 2.5%. And when those votes are spread across the important states the way they were, yes, a small percentage makes a big difference. Again, I think it is incredibly significant that Romney only carried one out of nine closely-contested swing states, and that the republicans lost seats in both the house and the senate, despite gerrymandered districts in many states with republican governors. Obama is a charismatic guy, but I disagree with your contention that this is what won him the election. I think it boiled down to people seeing through the Romney charade. When a guy as rich as Romney is completely non-transparent about his finances, puts forth no plan about what he will do once in office, flip-flops on most every major issue between the primaries and the general election, and then concocts obvious lies (such as the one about GM moving production to China), all the while just telling everyone to trust him because he knows what he is doing, then I think a lot of the American people see through that charade and vote the other way. Even though things aren't great economically right now, they are moving in a better direction than when Obama took office. So they gave him the benefit of the doubt. If Mitt had presented an honest persona and a solid plan to move forward in a better direction, I think the election could have easily turned the other way.

 

[Len44]

Good analysis, Rich -- as usual. Someone on Bill Maher stated that the loss was 30% Romney's fault an 70% the fault of the Republican Party's "Brand." The final electoral college vote is 332 for President Obama vs. 206 for Romney. The result is a very clear message from the voters that they want the intransigence to stop and quit putting cheap political partisanship above what is best for the Country.

Yet, we have Mitch still acting like he is in charge, and spoiling for a fight. He may just get one. It may be appropriate for President Obama to work with John Boehner and simply cut McConnell out of all negotiations.

Tough week for Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Sean Hannity, Rush, Mitch, and the tea-party radicals. Very good week for the United States of America, and the World.