Paul Ryan

[Rich]

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.

Don't forget the Donald and Ted Nugent. I wonder if they are planning on moving to Canada. And I certainly hope Clint Eastwood has a chair or two around to rail at about all the lost opportunities. I think the most enduring image of this election, though, was the sight of Karl Rove stomping his feet and whining that "it's not over . . . it can't be over" long after it was over. That was the first time I have turned the channel to Fox News in years, and I did so just in time to see Rove's little temper tantrum. Priceless!!!

 

[timm]

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.



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 gu
y, 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.

I'm not sure what the final % total diff was. Based on my assumption of a 2% victory my point was that it would only take 1.01% of the people to switch their vote in order for the other party to win the popular vote. I just don't see this as 'the people have spoken clearly'.

You are talking 1 out of 100 switching their vote and you are looking at a president that wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote. I don't find that to be a very decisive win nor do I see it as an obvious trend leaning towards the democrats.

 

[jmschnur]

I think the final difference will be 2.5 % but Obama was running a electoral college campaign not one for popular vote and the vote in the north east was lower due to Sandy.

However point taken . Perhaps republicans win off year elections and democrats win presidential elections for a while.

Question will be if young people vote the same way over the next decade as they age

Also what happens to the Hispanic vote over time I due think this group might be more
Comfortable with a rational Republican Party if that evolves in the future.

Probably not likely for a while if the analys if this election is that it was a fluke.

j

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Timm,

If you accept the fact "whites" are no longer the controlling demographic and the trend that their influence (population percentage context) will become less as time moves on, here's some info on the "split" amongst various voting groups.

% Split Format in the 2012 election as follows BO / MR:

RACES / ETHNICITY

Whites 39 / 59

Blacks 93 / 6

Hispanic 71 / 27

Asian ,others 73 / 26

OTHER GROUPS / NON RACE - ETNICITY SPECIFIC

Age 18 - 29 60 / 37

Age 30 - 44 52 / 45

Females 54 / 46

Single females 67 / 31

These number indicate to me, at least, the limited appeal for MR in this election and a much more broad based demographic support for BO.

GG

PS: And I think the message is clear for Republicans. Their "traditional" ideal candidate that appeals to a limited demographic sector of our population (whites) is no longer viable if they want to win national elections and should give Republican strategists pause as they move forward.

 

[Rich]

Wait just a minute!!! Stop the presses!!! Apparently, we are all wrong with our factual analysis of why Romney lost this election. Turns out, it's all the fault of the "lamestream media"! Just ask Faux News: Five ways the mainstream media tipped the scales in favor of Obama Who could have predicted that one? And we wonder why these people seem to be living in a bubble.

 

[twich54]

Wait just a minute!!! Stop the presses!!! Apparently, we are all wrong with our factual analysis of why Romney lost this election.

Come on.......Romney beat 'Santa Claus'...no way that was gonna happen.....more free cell phones and Obama money for everybody !!

 

[Rich]

Come on.......Romney beat 'Santa Claus'...no way that was gonna happen.....more free cell phones and Obama money for everybody !!

Yeah, maybe Mitt should have been promising free money to the poor and middle class folks who actually vote, instead of just promising big tax breaks for the rich guys. Apparently, those guys don't get out and vote in large numbers.

 

[Rich]

Another well-reasoned take on the reason for the republican's losses this election: The Party that Doomed its Nominee

The article concludes with this:

"More to the point, the GOP seems willfully clueless. There’s a reason there are so few minorities in the party. There’s a reason women scrambled to the other side. There’s a reason Hispanics, including even Cuban Americans this time, went for Obama.

The way forward is about love, not war, baby. Women’s reproductive rights need to come off the table. As Haley Barbour suggested long ago, agree to disagree. Compassionate immigration reform, including a path to citizenship, should be the centerpiece of a conservative party’s agenda.

Marginalize or banish those who in any way make African Americans, gays, single women or any other human being feel unwelcome in a party that cherishes the values of limited government, low taxes and freedom. A large swath of conservative-minded Americans are Democrats and independents by default."

I think the point that many of the people in the GOP are willfully clueless about these demographic trends is an accurate one. I recently had a debate on facebook with some right-wing Christian conservatives, who were railing about the abortion issue, gay marriage, illegal immigration, etc. They were convinced that their views represented the "center" and that anyone who believed otherwise was far extreme left. They were also convinced that the way to win the Presidency was to run more socially conservative candidates that held true to these extreme social positions. They disagreed vehemently with the notion of taking the party closer to the center on social issues, saying that was just a fantasy of democrats trying to make the republican party more like the democratic party.

The simple fact of the matter is that when a huge chunk of your base strongly feels this way, and has the hubris to decide they are right on every social issue, no matter the facts or majority opinions, and that it is basically their way or the highway on these issues, then the party has no hope of reaching out to the broader demographic. Minorities, gays, women and nonreligious folks will avoid the republican party like the plague, even if they have conservative leanings on certain Constitutional and fiscal issues.

 

[timm]

Another well-reasoned take on the reason for the republican's losses this election: The Party that Doomed its Nominee

The article concludes with this:



I think the point that many of the people in the GOP are willfully clueless about these demographic trends is an accurate one. I recently had a debate on facebook with some right-wing Christian conservatives, who were railing about the abortion issue, gay marriage, illegal immigration, etc. They were convinced that their views represented the "center" and that anyone who believed otherwise was far extreme left. They were also convinced that the way to win the Presidency was to run more socially conservative candidates that held true to these extreme social positions. They disagreed vehemently with the notion of taking the party closer to the center on social issues, saying that was just a fantasy of democrats trying to make the republican party more like the democratic party.

The simple fact of the matter is that when a huge chunk of your base strongly feels this way, and has the hubris to decide they are right on every social issue, no matter the facts or majority opinions, and that it is basically their way or the highway on these issues, then the party has no hope of reaching out to the broader demographic. Minorities, gays, women and nonreligious folks will avoid the republican party like the plague, even if they have conservative leanings on certain Constitutional and fiscal issues.

Rich - I find this to be the case with the lunatic fringe in general.... You can't tell them anything...because they aren't listening....

I posted my issues with both paries awhile back...

Re: demographics... They matter...but... I think the Dems success or failure going forward is going to be based on the success or failure of President Obama's health care plan and the economy.
I hope everyone wins big!!- but if I were a betting man - I think I'd take the points!!

The republicans know the demographics (maybe not those idiots you were jousting with online...).... Mitt's mention of Mexican parents and the improvement it would make in his odds of winning (in poor taste but probably true?)...Pulling Sarah Palin (a woman I think??) into the last election... I think you will see some tweaks here because I believe Hillary is going to run in 2016 and I think if Biden goes up against her - he will lose. I mean she did get her face lift and she should be ready by 2016....

Bottom line - if Health care has some bumps...and the economy falters and it can be tied to health care (i.e Companies will have to fire X amount of workers because of the additional cost of health care)...Reps will jump on this.. Quite frankly, I see all of these things having a good possibility of happening... This health care change is not going to be easy to pull off... and since I believe it is probably the largest employer in the US - the expectaion of layoffs in the field I would believe is high as well.... Example: my wife works for a leading hospital in michigan which was just merged with another hospital... One of the reasons stated is because of the health care act and the difficulty of staying in the black under future conditions...

So - making this longer -- I think you will find less profit for health providers...meaning less jobs...in the largest industry in the United States... which will turn into less tax revenue....which will mean... 'We'll just raise taxes'.... Where have i heard that before?

You had mentioned something about how this was a big win for Obama because of the employment stats etc and the fact that he won made things very clear what people wanted for the direction of this country... That the 2% diff was largely significant because the economy was doing poorly - yet the voices were still heard....... To offset that, I would say - this is also a president that got BinLaden, and saved GM...and is moving us out of wars nobody wants to be in... You would think these last 3 items would be enough to win any election by big numbers..not 2%... So - I'm not sure this is the a$$ whuppin' everyone claims it to be....

 

[twich54]

I believe Hillary is going to run in 2016 and I think if Biden goes up against her - he will lose. ....

timm, I had to respond......Biden, no matter how much he hangs on "Santa's" coat tails wouldn't have a chance. As for Hillary, her initial carpet bagging ploy into NY State had me realing (she did spend most of her efforts in the 'populous' of the NYC area, whereas 'Chuckie' Schumer did try and help the 'Upstaters'). In recent times (sect'y state) I've garnished more respect for her. Her recent 'take one for the team' on the Embassy fiasco reminded me of Colin Powel and his doing the same for Bush and the boys @ the UN with WMD crap years back. Colin got his payback with his perfect timing just before the election, endorsing Obama.....albeit somewhat of a 'chicken shit' move, IMO.

Hillary just might be the most qualified female(at the present) to lead this country, God knows even with her carpet bagging I'd respect her more that her husband 'Bubba' !

 

[Len44]

Well, I call him President Clinton. But I do confess to referring to that other guy as "Shrub."

 

[Len44]

I would also add regarding that "mandate" thing:

Republicans were chortling (before the votes were counted) how Romney would achieve a smashing victory beyond all imagination, with Romney winning just over 300 electoral votes. That being the case, then WTF does 332 electoral votes constitute, if not a mandate? Or is it only a mandate if achieved by a Republican?

Further, one party won the Presidency, one party lost. One party was supposed to have an easy track to "taking back control of the Senate" -- instead they actually lost seats.

In the House of Representatives, Republicans boasted openly about how they were going pick up seats an expand their majority -- only it didn't happen quite that way. Republicans actually lost seats, at the least a partial repudiation of their approach at governance.

Finally, in the hotly contested "battleground" states, where President Obama and Governor Romney battled it out toe to toe, President Obama and the Democrats won. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, and Colorado all voted for the Democrat for President -- not the Republican.

It sure looks to me like there's a whole bunch of republicans out there -- and some in Congress -- that don't seem to recognize that we just had an election. And the people have spoken. Damn, but some people act like they're deaf!

 

[Rich]

Geez, is it really so difficult to understand how so many of these people can be living in a bubble? Not just a bubble, but a complete fantasy land of their own making. Check out this link: Conservapedia

I honestly believe this website represents the views of a sizeable portion of the republican base (maybe 15% to 20%? Maybe more?). With that type of mentality driving the platform of your party over the edge of reason, how would you ever hope to capture the swing voter in the middle?

 

[Gordon Gray]

Remember Rich,

Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

I say, keep them coming.

 

[slowGEEZR]

What a scary, sad site that is, Rich. The "Dr." twists scientific fact to his own desires, shows no critical thinking, displays a total lack of understanding of scientific methods, and totally ignores logic and reason. That people can read his nonsense and not have the mental capacity to see through it is scary, indeed. They must be blinded by their beliefs.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Steve,

After the debacle with Aikin, abortion, et al, I do find it scary but not surprising.

Fact is it puts some more meat on the bones as to why the extreme wing has hijacked the party.

Gordon

 

[twich54]

Geez, is it really so difficult to understand how so many of these people can be living in a bubble? Not just a bubble, but a complete fantasy land of their own making. Check out this link: Conservapedia

absolute 'wackos', I agree Rich

I honestly believe this website represents the views of a sizeable portion of the republican base (maybe 15% to 20%? Maybe more?).

and while I won't waste my time looking I suspect there is an equal number of wack jobs out to the left as well, again, reinforcing my belief that if the world were flat we could get rid of both factions and have a better place to live ! .........damn that Christopher Columbus !

With that type of mentality driving the platform of your party over the edge of reason, how would you ever hope to capture the swing voter in the middle?

no doubt, the good 'ole Country Club / Boys club mentality won't cut it anymore, while I hope for sensible moderation I sure hope we don't head into a Country of 'Nannys and Nerds' !!

 

[timm]

Well, I call him President Clinton. But I do confess to referring to that other guy as "Shrub."

Hahaha!! That one got me.... Good one Len....

 

[Len44]

Speaking of Paul Ryan...Today I understand he says that the reason he and Romney lost was that turn-out in urban areas was too high.

Say what??? You guys lost because too many people voted??? Well, Damn!

I know Republicans did their best to suppress the vote, but in most instances were overruled by the courts. I guess they were right (of course they were right -- far right) to be concerned.

If only the Supremes had allowed all the votes to have been counted in Florida in 2000...

 

[twich54]

Speaking of Paul Ryan...Today I understand he says that the reason he and Romney lost was that turn-out in urban areas was too high.

Len, as I said, Santa Claus is mighty popular in 'Center City' !

If only the Supremes had allowed all the votes to have been counted in Florida in 2000...

OMG.............'Ozone Al' and 'Tipper', what a cute couple.....well, used to be anyways. All kidding aside, given the Bush debacle, we might have been better off !