[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I don’t think many of you appreciate how fucking crazy Maryland flipping was [/quote]
Lol, ya…
There have now been 2 Republican MD governors in my life time, 3 In my dad’s, 5 in my grand mothers, and 6 in the history of the Party. MD is pretty blue. [/quote]
I heard that he was a business guy, a non-political type and his message was simple: “I’m going to tax you less than the other guy.”
Lol
Look at Baltimore & PG Country. That’s the issue.
Edit: Romney carried 18 out of 22 counties, but got destroyed in MD.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I don’t think many of you appreciate how fucking crazy Maryland flipping was [/quote]
Lol, ya…
There have now been 2 Republican MD governors in my life time, 3 In my dad’s, 5 in my grand mothers, and 6 in the history of the Party. MD is pretty blue. [/quote]
I heard that he was a business guy, a non-political type and his message was simple: “I’m going to tax you less than the other guy.”
Lol
[/quote]
Lol, we’ll see. If the TV Ads were accurate he hates women and “common sense” sense gun laws, whatever that means.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So with the (reported) reduced turnout, what does that say about the Dems?? [/quote]
Who knows, but it prompts a bunch of questions:
Anyway you crack it, this was a bad election for the Dems. Shit, Al fucking Frankin & Ed Markey was the highlight of their night.
The Republican almost won in Virginia, lmao
This was a clear rejection of both Obama AND his policies, which are in essence traditional big gov’t Nanny State ideology. If the dems are smart, they will frame this as a rejection of Obama and his PERSONAL policies, not the democratic principals. They will just “rebrand” those principals into another “War on Women” or “occupy” sentiment to build a coalition around.
If they are smart, they will blame the SCANDALS. This distances themselves from true policy and principals.
I fear Elizabeth Warren could be that person for the dems who can effectively rebuild the coalition.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This is spot on, and as of today, I agree that any Republican faces an uphill battle for POTUS. (I’d rather pass on the lack of freedom, people should be free to vote or not vote as they please.)
Couple points:
[/quote]
Those two issues will never be “settled” because for the hard left it’s a never ending war against “reactionaries” such as myself. As an example, there’s a thread here from a new poster who mentions marijuana and then says now we need to legalise LSD and “mushrooms”. Same with gay “rights”. It never ends. They’re in schools now encouraging children to explore their “gender identity” and demanding access to women’s bathrooms and on and on. I don’t believe in just accepting this stuff as a fait accompli. For me it’s a never ending battle as well. And we(authentic conservatives) need to wage cultural warfare and defeat the left on the cultural front before electoral success is possible.
That’s why so many of them are trying to distance themselves from the King.
One thing about Rand is he’s been somewhat successful in transcending the left/right spectrum. Unfortunately such attempts to transcend the political spectrum are indistinguishable from just accommodating and appeasing the left. But Rand can never win the general because he’s on record for some stuff that the Democrats will use to scare away most the potential support he might get from Dems and independents - eg, that he once stated he’s opposed to abortion even in cases of rape. They can cherry pick his record and target their attacks towards scaring away minorities - women, blacks, Hispanics etc. and he’ll also have some trouble getting support from big business because of his views on crony capitalism, central banking etc. Then there are all the civil servants - federal civil servants particularly - who will be afraid of losing their jobs and entitlements under his policies. This is the bureaucratic left and it’s deeply entrenched.
The Republican establishment has done as much to undermine tea party conservatives as the left. They can’t get together because the tea party is fundamentally opposed to everything big government Republicans stand for. The establishment will just try to force Jeb Bush or Romney down everyone’s throats. Authentic conservatives need to work towards retaking the party and waging ideological war on the cultural front.
I can’t stress enough the importance of culture. The left controls the media - not just news but the entertainment media. Every movie or sitcom contains a hidden narrative - whether it’s the kid with two dads on Sesame Street or the anti-humanist messages in Finding Nemo - this is how the left controls and dominates the cultural sphere. Our best weapon here is the internet and alternative and reactionary pop culture and subgroups. An interesting example is the “Dark Enlightenment” which grew out of people disillusioned with libertarianism. Right now it’s just the fringe of the fringe but as the civil society continues to crumble the next generation will turn on the new left and then we can begin to usurp their cultural hegemony.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I can’t stress enough the importance of culture. The left controls the media - not just news but the entertainment media. Every movie or sitcom contains a hidden narrative - whether it’s the kid with two dads on Sesame Street or the anti-humanist messages in Finding Nemo - this is how the left controls and dominates the cultural sphere. Our best weapon here is the internet and alternative and reactionary pop culture and subgroups. An interesting example is the “Dark Enlightenment” which grew out of people disillusioned with libertarianism. Right now it’s just the fringe of the fringe but as the civil society continues to crumble the next generation will turn on the new left and then we can begin to usurp their cultural hegemony.
[/quote]
Good luck beating Hollywood and Madison Avenue. Hollywood and Madison Avenue are the best of the best; they take all comers and crush all opponents. Also, you might not like the left-leaning ideology, but Hollywood and Madison Avenue are also the reason why radical islam will never take hold in this country, unless radical islam converts to worshipping Apple and Coca-Cola products as its main god.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I can’t stress enough the importance of culture. The left controls the media - not just news but the entertainment media. Every movie or sitcom contains a hidden narrative - whether it’s the kid with two dads on Sesame Street or the anti-humanist messages in Finding Nemo - this is how the left controls and dominates the cultural sphere. Our best weapon here is the internet and alternative and reactionary pop culture and subgroups. An interesting example is the “Dark Enlightenment” which grew out of people disillusioned with libertarianism. Right now it’s just the fringe of the fringe but as the civil society continues to crumble the next generation will turn on the new left and then we can begin to usurp their cultural hegemony.
[/quote]
Good luck beating Hollywood and Madison Avenue. Hollywood and Madison Avenue are the best of the best; they take all comers and crush all opponents. Also, you might not like the left-leaning ideology, but Hollywood and Madison Avenue are also the reason why radical islam will never take hold in this country, unless radical islam converts to worshipping Apple and Coca-Cola products as its main god.
[/quote]
SM is right about the culture. However we don’t need to (at least in any sort of shorter term) reverse the culture as much as just even it out.
If Hollywood could be a-political it’s a win for America.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Good luck beating Hollywood and Madison Avenue. Hollywood and Madison Avenue are the best of the best; they take all comers and crush all opponents.
[/quote]
Yes I know. Start small; independent film making; force a small sphere in the cultural landscape; create a subculture then expand it. This is how all movements begin.
Radical Islam doesn’t need to “take hold”. It merely needs to force concessions and evince appeasement. All it has to do is force the US to back down and it’s already achieving this on the foreign policy front. Once the US withdraws within itself and turns to isolationism then radical Islam will become a major force and eventually the conflicts it creates will be of such magnitude that the US will be drawn in against them. It’s the same process that occurred leading up to WWII. No, Nazism was never going to “take hold” in the US however it succeeded in becoming a threat of such magnitude that the US was eventually drawn in to the conflict. The isolationism of the old right in the 30’s and the appeasement in Britain is mirrored today in US politics. The Ron Paul crowd are the literal descendants of the old right isolationists. And Obama ran in 08 on a Neville Chamberlain style appeasement platform. However, upon coming to power he was faced with real world security conundrums and his peace bubble was burst.
Good read. Plouff, while a cocksucker, is dead on here. Graham, while also a cocksucker, is also dead on.
I like Paul more than dislike him so far, so he, while not at cocksucker status just yet, is also dead on.
This is an amazing time to be a political junkie.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I don’t think many of you appreciate how fucking crazy Maryland flipping was [/quote]
Lol, ya…
There have now been 2 Republican MD governors in my life time, 3 In my dad’s, 5 in my grand mothers, and 6 in the history of the Party. MD is pretty blue because of population density.
[/quote]
Just to reiterate how crazy this is, check the image out. MD is actually a very red state, but 3 or so areas are so blue the state almost always ends up with a Democrat Governor.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I don’t think many of you appreciate how fucking crazy Maryland flipping was [/quote]
Lol, ya…
There have now been 2 Republican MD governors in my life time, 3 In my dad’s, 5 in my grand mothers, and 6 in the history of the Party. MD is pretty blue because of population density.
[/quote]
Just to reiterate how crazy this is, check the image out. MD is actually a very red state, but 3 or so areas are so blue the state almost always ends up with a Democrat Governor.
[/quote]
Washington State would be a redder state than Texas if you dropped a bomb on Seattle/King County and a little fallout drifted down to Olympia.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I don’t think many of you appreciate how fucking crazy Maryland flipping was [/quote]
Lol, ya…
There have now been 2 Republican MD governors in my life time, 3 In my dad’s, 5 in my grand mothers, and 6 in the history of the Party. MD is pretty blue because of population density.
[/quote]
Just to reiterate how crazy this is, check the image out. MD is actually a very red state, but 3 or so areas are so blue the state almost always ends up with a Democrat Governor.
[/quote]
These maps are always shit because they assume that the number of people are equally distributed across the state. Does it matter that many more people live in one area versus another? Of course it does. Carving a state into red or blue is foolish- it does not account for different sized voting populations in each area.
These red/blue/purple maps would only be useful if grass, trees and asphalt voted.
jnd
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[/quote]
My gut tells me it is and has been for Obama. He is probably the most rockstar celebrity president we have had. Hillary is… Bill Clintons wife (Not discrediting her but that’s still how a lot of people know her). I don’t thini Hillary can come close to exciting people the way Obama did.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I don’t think many of you appreciate how fucking crazy Maryland flipping was [/quote]
Lol, ya…
There have now been 2 Republican MD governors in my life time, 3 In my dad’s, 5 in my grand mothers, and 6 in the history of the Party. MD is pretty blue because of population density.
[/quote]
Just to reiterate how crazy this is, check the image out. MD is actually a very red state, but 3 or so areas are so blue the state almost always ends up with a Democrat Governor.
[/quote]
These maps are always shit because they assume that the number of people are equally distributed across the state. Does it matter that many more people live in one area versus another? Of course it does. Carving a state into red or blue is foolish- it does not account for different sized voting populations in each area.
These red/blue/purple maps would only be useful if grass, trees and asphalt voted.
jnd
[/quote]
I doubt anyone misunderstood that. The map STILL shows the locations of the electorate and that still is informative and enlightening.[/quote]
Do tell. Please explain how this is informative and enlightening… I’ve said it is BS for the reasons I described, you say no. How are these graphs informative and enlightening?
jnd
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I don’t think many of you appreciate how fucking crazy Maryland flipping was [/quote]
Lol, ya…
There have now been 2 Republican MD governors in my life time, 3 In my dad’s, 5 in my grand mothers, and 6 in the history of the Party. MD is pretty blue because of population density.
[/quote]
Just to reiterate how crazy this is, check the image out. MD is actually a very red state, but 3 or so areas are so blue the state almost always ends up with a Democrat Governor.
[/quote]
These maps are always shit because they assume that the number of people are equally distributed across the state. Does it matter that many more people live in one area versus another? Of course it does. Carving a state into red or blue is foolish- it does not account for different sized voting populations in each area.
These red/blue/purple maps would only be useful if grass, trees and asphalt voted.
jnd
[/quote]
I doubt anyone misunderstood that. The map STILL shows the locations of the electorate and that still is informative and enlightening.[/quote]
Do tell. Please explain how this is informative and enlightening… I’ve said it is BS for the reasons I described, you say no. How are these graphs informative and enlightening?
jnd
[/quote]
The pros use maps just like these to gerrymander. You can use science and demographics to carve a state up into gerrymandered voting districts that dramatically swing the state’s representation from one party to another, at least with respect to house races.
Maps like that are also useful to help target voter-supression or, alternatively, get-out-the vote strategies and assist with targeted advertising and canvassing. Elections are not won or lost by accident or the general wants and needs of the electorate.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]jnd wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I don’t think many of you appreciate how fucking crazy Maryland flipping was [/quote]
Lol, ya…
There have now been 2 Republican MD governors in my life time, 3 In my dad’s, 5 in my grand mothers, and 6 in the history of the Party. MD is pretty blue because of population density.
[/quote]
Just to reiterate how crazy this is, check the image out. MD is actually a very red state, but 3 or so areas are so blue the state almost always ends up with a Democrat Governor.
[/quote]
These maps are always shit because they assume that the number of people are equally distributed across the state. Does it matter that many more people live in one area versus another? Of course it does. Carving a state into red or blue is foolish- it does not account for different sized voting populations in each area.
These red/blue/purple maps would only be useful if grass, trees and asphalt voted.
jnd
[/quote]
I doubt anyone misunderstood that. The map STILL shows the locations of the electorate and that still is informative and enlightening.[/quote]
Do tell. Please explain how this is informative and enlightening… I’ve said it is BS for the reasons I described, you say no. How are these graphs informative and enlightening?
jnd
[/quote]
The pros use maps just like these to gerrymander. You can use science and demographics to carve a state up into gerrymandered voting districts that dramatically swing the state’s representation from one party to another, at least with respect to house races. [/quote]
But these maps use neither science or demographics. They simply assign red or blue to entire region. There is no indication of the number of potential voters that reside in a particular county, just a splash of color. I suspect that the “pros” look at a very different graphics to make their decisions.
Pennsylvania is a great example of this. If you look at the red/blue map it appears that that entire state is red with only a small amount of blue. However, those blue areas account for a HUGE percentage of the people that actually can vote.
http://www.us-places.com/Pennsylvania/population-by-County.htm
jnd
