Why Obama Won

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
It seems Obama’s campaign was flawlessly run with the material to hand, I believe the Fox analysts called it ‘ground game’?
I think the Republicans have very serious problems as regards the female vote. Their policies and general attitude portrayed towards half of the electorate seem not to be in touch or resonate with them ( whether true or not, perception is everything. The rape idiots hurt them. A lot). Demographic realities are also not in the R favour and sliding further away daily.

I think the party needs a serious rethink in order to make inroads.[/quote]

The popular vote was separated by 500,000 votes nationally. The Republicans retained the House. They do not have a problem with the female vote. The females who want abortion and free birth control need to stay democrats. If you make the Republican party like the democratic party then whats the point?
This idea that the republicans have some sort of huge problem is a farce. The vote was very close. If it were a complete blow out, I could see some sort of stance adjustment needed. Now, I don’t agree with all republican stances, but a major paradigm shift is not needed at all, just a better messenger.
Romney out performed in my opinion. He’s not a very compelling guy, so to accomplish what he did is pretty amazing. If there was a more dynamic operator in place as the candidate, I think they could have won this thing.

Incumbents are typically hard to unseat as a general rule. I look back at 2004 for example, Bush was already an unpopular president, he had a low approval rating, but he whooped the living hell out Kerry. That was a landslide. An unpopular president, getting slammed in the media all the time, absolutely wiped the floor with Kerry.
This vote was way closer than it should have been. Obama is a better orator, he had the incumbency factor, and he won by a few thousand votes over all, that’s actually not good for obama, he should have cleaned house and he didn’t. He damn near got beat. [/quote]

Hmmmmm, I don’t know…Obama presided over the most shocking economy in the US in decades,had that hugely divise healthcare bill passed and STILL won. Good luck if the economy starts recovering even in the slightest. Which it’s bound to do. Perhaps if you get a more charismatic candidate? What about the growing Hispanic vote? I’ll have a look at the stats just now.
[/quote]

You don’t have to convince me that obama sucks. I already know that. We’ve had shitty presidents before, we’ll have shitty presidents again. Bush won with a lousy approval rating and an unpopular war. He should have lost too, but he didn’t and he kicked Kerry’s ass thoroughly it wasn’t close like this one.
[/quote]

Of course, no doubt about that. Are you saying nothing’s broke so need for fixing as far as the R party and its platforms in the long term goes?
[/quote]

No, I am saying a major paradigm shift is not necessary. Adjustments need to be made for certain. You cannot, though, say that the democrats aren’t also way the hell out of touch in many ways as well. For instance, with regard to social issues of the republicans I would from a policy perspective, favor individual liberties over ‘family value’ mandates.
From the democrats, they need to understand that you cannot pipe public money in to divisive issues such as abortion. You can support it, but you cannot use the money of those who have a moral stance against it to fund it. That’s just plain wrong.

Neither side has a boon on being in touch. Both are way out of touch, really.

The libertarians somehow managed to emasculate themselves. I am very disappointed in them. They had a chance to make a real impact, but didn’t fund it and pursue their agenda aggressively enough and hence are basically a lame duck party now. Without teeth, they have become irrelevant and that’s a shame, because their emphasis on individual liberty is something badly needed in a country where there are more and more and more laws, while not repealing any old laws.

One amendment in the constitution I would like to see is a 10 - 20 year time limit on non-constitutional legislation. Some times the need for a law expires with the changing of time, so laws need to be revisited from time to time to see if they are still relevant.

282

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
It seems Obama’s campaign was flawlessly run with the material to hand, I believe the Fox analysts called it ‘ground game’?
I think the Republicans have very serious problems as regards the female vote. Their policies and general attitude portrayed towards half of the electorate seem not to be in touch or resonate with them ( whether true or not, perception is everything. The rape idiots hurt them. A lot). Demographic realities are also not in the R favour and sliding further away daily.

I think the party needs a serious rethink in order to make inroads.[/quote]

The popular vote was separated by 500,000 votes nationally. The Republicans retained the House. They do not have a problem with the female vote. The females who want abortion and free birth control need to stay democrats. If you make the Republican party like the democratic party then whats the point?
This idea that the republicans have some sort of huge problem is a farce. The vote was very close. If it were a complete blow out, I could see some sort of stance adjustment needed. Now, I don’t agree with all republican stances, but a major paradigm shift is not needed at all, just a better messenger.
Romney out performed in my opinion. He’s not a very compelling guy, so to accomplish what he did is pretty amazing. If there was a more dynamic operator in place as the candidate, I think they could have won this thing.

Incumbents are typically hard to unseat as a general rule. I look back at 2004 for example, Bush was already an unpopular president, he had a low approval rating, but he whooped the living hell out Kerry. That was a landslide. An unpopular president, getting slammed in the media all the time, absolutely wiped the floor with Kerry.
This vote was way closer than it should have been. Obama is a better orator, he had the incumbency factor, and he won by a few thousand votes over all, that’s actually not good for obama, he should have cleaned house and he didn’t. He damn near got beat. [/quote]

Hmmmmm, I don’t know…Obama presided over the most shocking economy in the US in decades,had that hugely divise healthcare bill passed and STILL won. Good luck if the economy starts recovering even in the slightest. Which it’s bound to do. Perhaps if you get a more charismatic candidate? What about the growing Hispanic vote? I’ll have a look at the stats just now.
[/quote]

You don’t have to convince me that obama sucks. I already know that. We’ve had shitty presidents before, we’ll have shitty presidents again. Bush won with a lousy approval rating and an unpopular war. He should have lost too, but he didn’t and he kicked Kerry’s ass thoroughly it wasn’t close like this one.
[/quote]

Of course, no doubt about that. Are you saying nothing’s broke so need for fixing as far as the R party and its platforms in the long term goes?
[/quote]

No, I am saying a major paradigm shift is not necessary. Adjustments need to be made for certain. You cannot, though, say that the democrats aren’t also way the hell out of touch in many ways as well. For instance, with regard to social issues of the republicans I would from a policy perspective, favor individual liberties over ‘family value’ mandates.
From the democrats, they need to understand that you cannot pipe public money in to divisive issues such as abortion. You can support it, but you cannot use the money of those who have a moral stance against it to fund it. That’s just plain wrong.

Neither side has a boon on being in touch. Both are way out of touch, really.

The libertarians somehow managed to emasculate themselves. I am very disappointed in them. They had a chance to make a real impact, but didn’t fund it and pursue their agenda aggressively enough and hence are basically a lame duck party now. Without teeth, they have become irrelevant and that’s a shame, because their emphasis on individual liberty is something badly needed in a country where there are more and more and more laws, while not repealing any old laws.

One amendment in the constitution I would like to see is a 10 - 20 year time limit on non-constitutional legislation. Some times the need for a law expires with the changing of time, so laws need to be revisited from time to time to see if they are still relevant.[/quote]

Good post Pat. One thing I’ve thought about is how legislatures get graded on “passing” legislation. I’ve often thought we needed a branch of government specifically responsible for looking at the books and seeing what needs to go, or at least a way to grade a legislature positively for “deleting” legislation. I’m also strongly in favor of “sunset” laws like you propose.

283

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I have to disagree with you and X on this. How can you just abandon your principles?
[/quote]

Wrong question. How can you hold principals that differ so much from the majority of the country yet still think everyone else is wrong?[/quote]Because those are the ones the country was founded on and what made it what it was? In this nation in 2012, the more people believe something the more likely it is to be wrong.
[/quote]

LOL. When this country was founded, cocaine was legal and likely in the pockets of most in the room during the signing of the Constitution. I don’t think they had anything against swisher sweets either.

Oh, and:

The age of consent was 12.

This country has decided to take away the very freedoms that those men fought for by coming here. Get a clue please.

284

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I have to disagree with you and X on this. How can you just abandon your principles?
[/quote]

Wrong question. How can you hold principals that differ so much from the majority of the country yet still think everyone else is wrong?[/quote]Because those are the ones the country was founded on and what made it what it was? In this nation in 2012, the more people believe something the more likely it is to be wrong.
[/quote]

LOL. When this country was founded, cocaine was legal and likely in the pockets of most in the room during the signing of the Constitution. I don’t think they had anything against swisher sweets either.[/quote]

When you have conviction sometimes your principles don’t line up with, “The majority.” It’s fine to not agree, that’s why we have elections in the first place. It doesn’t mean now I’m going to be okay with, for example, abortion because, “The majority,” is. It’s a moral stand that I personally won’t waver on.

I honestly think most people, left or right, are willing to compromise on most issues. We won’t reach a compromise; however, on certain issues. That’s just reality.

285

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I have to disagree with you and X on this. How can you just abandon your principles?
[/quote]

Wrong question. How can you hold principals that differ so much from the majority of the country yet still think everyone else is wrong?[/quote]Because those are the ones the country was founded on and what made it what it was? In this nation in 2012, the more people believe something the more likely it is to be wrong.
[/quote]

LOL. When this country was founded, cocaine was legal and likely in the pockets of most in the room during the signing of the Constitution. I don’t think they had anything against swisher sweets either.[/quote]

When you have conviction sometimes your principles don’t line up with, “The majority.” It’s fine to not agree, that’s why we have elections in the first place. It doesn’t mean now I’m going to be okay with, for example, abortion because, “The majority,” is. It’s a moral stand that I personally won’t waver on.

I honestly think most people, left or right, are willing to compromise on most issues. We won’t reach a compromise; however, on certain issues. That’s just reality. [/quote]

Of course, but laws rarely get rescinded. The more laws and restrictions get added, the less freedom there is.

This country was founded by radicals. It was founded by men who didn’t want someone breathing down their backs telling them what they could and could not do all day long.

It seems many have forgotten that as they cruise to control the morals of others.

This country was founded in much harsher times. The average person here would die or get really sick in the conditions they found comfort in. They didn’t give a shit if Honest Abe smoked his hash leaves.

286

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I have to disagree with you and X on this. How can you just abandon your principles?
[/quote]

Wrong question. How can you hold principals that differ so much from the majority of the country yet still think everyone else is wrong?[/quote]Because those are the ones the country was founded on and what made it what it was? In this nation in 2012, the more people believe something the more likely it is to be wrong.
[/quote]

LOL. When this country was founded, cocaine was legal and likely in the pockets of most in the room during the signing of the Constitution. I don’t think they had anything against swisher sweets either.[/quote]

When you have conviction sometimes your principles don’t line up with, “The majority.” It’s fine to not agree, that’s why we have elections in the first place. It doesn’t mean now I’m going to be okay with, for example, abortion because, “The majority,” is. It’s a moral stand that I personally won’t waver on.

I honestly think most people, left or right, are willing to compromise on most issues. We won’t reach a compromise; however, on certain issues. That’s just reality. [/quote]

Of course, but laws rarely get rescinded. The more laws and restrictions get added, the less freedom there is.

This country was founded by radicals. It was founded by men who didn’t want someone breathing down their backs telling them what they could and could not do all day long.

It seems many have forgotten that as they cruise to control the morals of others.

This country was founded in much harsher times. The average person here would die or get really sick in the conditions they found comfort in. They didn’t give a shit if Honest Abe smoked his hash leaves.[/quote]

Isn’t that the problem though X? We aren’t free like the founders intended us to be. That’s not a partisan problem, that’s an American problem.

287

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Isn’t that the problem though X? We aren’t free like the founders intended us to be. That’s not a partisan problem, that’s an American problem. [/quote]

It’s a stupidity problem…and that belongs to every human on the planet when clumped into huge groups, given a banner to wave overhead and told they are different than those other people doing the same thing over there.

Many conservatives have gained the stereotype of angry old men, disturbed by images of booties shaking on BET and hip hop lyrics, black guys in hoods, and lying awake at night by the door with a shotgun aimed at illegal immigrants who might make it past the barbed wire, river, guns, militia, dogs and coyotes and wander into suburbia.

People need to get back to basics…and since that won’t happen, we are doomed to stay on this path until the destruction of this country and the elimination of countries and the concept of a global system of community.

288

The whole, “telling people how to live their lives,” statement is overused and frankly absurd. “Most,” republicans want the government to get out of their lives, not get involved in other peoples.

You saying that is no differnt than when people say all democrats want free stuff and they don’t care how they get it. A small portion might think like that, but it’s a small portion. [/quote]

Explain how republicans want government out of their lives yet they still want to legislate laws that reduce the reproductive rights of women and prevent same sex marriage

289

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Isn’t that the problem though X? We aren’t free like the founders intended us to be. [/quote]

In X’s case, he is freer.

290

The founders technically did not intend women or minorities to be free. Those were amendments that were added in later.

291

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

We aren’t free like the founders intended us to be. [/quote]

I’d be remiss if I didn’t point the fiction that the Founders were a bunch of libertarian radicals that erected a country that ensured that people could do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, or that that was their goal.

At the time of the founding and after, in the architecture of state law there were public morality laws that dealt with and punished adultery, fornication, drunkenness and idleness, and “injurious lying”. Some states also required attendance at religious services, and, in certain states had laws prohibited nonconforming religious services. States also restricted use of tobacco, and collected taxes from the public to pay for the maintenance of state-approved churches.

When the Founding Fathers “founded” the US, they did exactly nothing to do away with any of that. If the Founders were these rootin’, tootin’ libertarians, they would have, because they could have (they could have constitutionally prohibited public morality laws).

That doesn’t mean they weren’t interested in a land of liberty - it’s just that they weren’t the libertines of libertarian fanstasy, and they don’t provide an authority from which to argue modern social libertarianism. They had stuffy ideas that liberty couldn’t exist without virtue.

This “libertarian” notion - the one that is championed here, not merely freedom, but a kind of license - doesn’t find its origins in the American Founding. Rather, it’s from the 1960s.

292

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Isn’t that the problem though X? We aren’t free like the founders intended us to be. [/quote]

In X’s case, he is freer. [/quote]

Oh Christ…here we go.

293

[quote]dsbearsfan wrote:

The whole, “telling people how to live their lives,” statement is overused and frankly absurd. “Most,” republicans want the government to get out of their lives, not get involved in other peoples.

You saying that is no differnt than when people say all democrats want free stuff and they don’t care how they get it. A small portion might think like that, but it’s a small portion. [/quote]

Explain how republicans want government out of their lives yet they still want to legislate laws that reduce the reproductive rights of women and prevent same sex marriage[/quote]

I’m a Rebublican, I’d like the government to get out of my right to keep and bear arms.

There’s an example for you.

Edit:

Laws against abortion are not legislation to reduce reproduction rights. You are free to have a babt anytime you want to. This isn’t China. I; however, don’t believe you should be free to kill a child. It’s a law about murder not reproduction.

294

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

We aren’t free like the founders intended us to be. [/quote]

I’d be remiss if I didn’t point the fiction that the Founders were a bunch of libertarian radicals that erected a country that ensured that people could do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, or that that was their goal.

At the time of the founding and after, in the architecture of state law there were public morality laws that dealt with and punished adultery, fornication, drunkenness and idleness, and “injurious lying”. Some states also required attendance at religious services, and, in certain states had laws prohibited nonconforming religious services. States also restricted use of tobacco, and collected taxes from the public to pay for the maintenance of state-approved churches.

When the Founding Fathers “founded” the US, they did exactly nothing to do away with any of that. If the Founders were these rootin’, tootin’ libertarians, they would have, because they could have (they could have constitutionally prohibited public morality laws).

That doesn’t mean they weren’t interested in a land of liberty - it’s just that they weren’t the libertines of libertarian fanstasy, and they don’t provide an authority from which to argue modern social libertarianism. They had stuffy ideas that liberty couldn’t exist without virtue.

This “libertarian” notion - the one that is championed here, not merely freedom, but a kind of license - doesn’t find its origins in the American Founding. Rather, it’s from the 1960s.[/quote]

The founders weren’t some infallible group. We have and can continue to make progress. We have and continue to make mistakes as well. That’s basically the point I was trying to make.

295

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

The founders weren’t some infallible group. We have and can continue to make progress. We have and continue to make mistakes as well. That’s basically the point I was trying to make.[/quote]

Fair enough, but we are far, far more “social libertarian” now than we were then, by a magnitude of difference.

Also, notice something: during the same time frame that we have become progressively “socially libertarian”, the so-called welfare state has grown in lockstep.

Curious.

296

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loss of fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith,
From spiritual faith to great courage,
From courage to liberty,
From liberty to abundance,
From abundance to selfishness,
From selfishness to complacency,
From complacency to apathy,
From apathy to dependency,
From dependency back again to bondage."

297

Think about how stupid the average person is an realize 1/2 the people are dumber than that.

Never underestimate the power of a large group of stupid people.

Mitt Romney was the single most qualified candidate since at least Ronald Reagan. He has no skeletons, is a good family man. Was highly successful as a businessman, as a governor (don’t be fooled him losing, MA is moonbat central, even more liberal than SF) and he ran the olympics.

He was in a no win situation. Being a Republican today is like trying to make a living in a casino. The game is completely rigged against you.

  1. The press
  2. Minorities and Immigrants
  3. Gen Y Everyone gets a trophy mentality has led to a complete generation of people who feel they are entitled without working. Instant gratification from the internet, phones, twitter, facebook, is killing this country. you don’t have to work for anything.
  4. Abortion Roe V Wade is NEVER going to get overturned, but the scare tactics are always there. Sandra Fluke was a 30 year old law student who CHOSE Georgetown and knew it was a Jesuit university. Catholic law doesn’t believe in contraception. She knew this and tried to make trouble. And Rush and the Republicans fell for it hook, line and sinker. Look at her, no guy would bang her.
  5. Independents. Most are left of center and were Democrats previously.
  6. Woman If Romney had done the right thing and called Obama a liar about benghazi like he should, he would have looked like a bully in the eyes of woman.
  7. Getting out the vote. The Republicans foolishly fell into the “everyone get out and vote.” wrong, wrong, wrong.
  8. Early voting. Look if you can’t get out and vote on election day, get an absentee ballot. Early voting leads to irregularities and shenanigans. Wheeling in bums off the street, etc
  9. No ID, I could walk into a poll give my Democratic neighbors address, and use up his vote, than go in 2 weeks later, give my address and vote again. You don’t think this happened? Think again.
    I’ve never been less proud of being an American than I was yesterday.
298

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

We aren’t free like the founders intended us to be. [/quote]

I’d be remiss if I didn’t point the fiction that the Founders were a bunch of libertarian radicals that erected a country that ensured that people could do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, or that that was their goal.

At the time of the founding and after, in the architecture of state law there were public morality laws that dealt with and punished adultery, fornication, drunkenness and idleness, and “injurious lying”. Some states also required attendance at religious services, and, in certain states had laws prohibited nonconforming religious services. States also restricted use of tobacco, and collected taxes from the public to pay for the maintenance of state-approved churches.

When the Founding Fathers “founded” the US, they did exactly nothing to do away with any of that. If the Founders were these rootin’, tootin’ libertarians, they would have, because they could have (they could have constitutionally prohibited public morality laws).

That doesn’t mean they weren’t interested in a land of liberty - it’s just that they weren’t the libertines of libertarian fanstasy, and they don’t provide an authority from which to argue modern social libertarianism. They had stuffy ideas that liberty couldn’t exist without virtue.

This “libertarian” notion - the one that is championed here, not merely freedom, but a kind of license - doesn’t find its origins in the American Founding. Rather, it’s from the 1960s.[/quote]

Excellent post and one which many of the Ron Paul followers just don’t get.

299

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
The founders technically did not intend women or minorities to be free. Those were amendments that were added in later.[/quote]

Slavery technically wasn’t defined as a kind of people, it was just allowed. No where in the Constitution does it say black people and minorities are to be considered slaves. It happened to be the case, but it wasn’t specifically defined.

300

[quote]BCFlynn wrote:
Think about how stupid the average person is an realize 1/2 the people are dumber than that.

Never underestimate the power of a large group of stupid people.

Mitt Romney was the single most qualified candidate since at least Ronald Reagan. He has no skeletons, is a good family man. Was highly successful as a businessman, as a governor (don’t be fooled him losing, MA is moonbat central, even more liberal than SF) and he ran the olympics.

He was in a no win situation. Being a Republican today is like trying to make a living in a casino. The game is completely rigged against you.

  1. The press
  2. Minorities and Immigrants
  3. Gen Y Everyone gets a trophy mentality has led to a complete generation of people who feel they are entitled without working. Instant gratification from the internet, phones, twitter, facebook, is killing this country. you don’t have to work for anything.
  4. Abortion Roe V Wade is NEVER going to get overturned, but the scare tactics are always there. Sandra Fluke was a 30 year old law student who CHOSE Georgetown and knew it was a Jesuit university. Catholic law doesn’t believe in contraception. She knew this and tried to make trouble. And Rush and the Republicans fell for it hook, line and sinker. Look at her, no guy would bang her.
  5. Independents. Most are left of center and were Democrats previously.
  6. Woman If Romney had done the right thing and called Obama a liar about benghazi like he should, he would have looked like a bully in the eyes of woman.
  7. Getting out the vote. The Republicans foolishly fell into the “everyone get out and vote.” wrong, wrong, wrong.
  8. Early voting. Look if you can’t get out and vote on election day, get an absentee ballot. Early voting leads to irregularities and shenanigans. Wheeling in bums off the street, etc
  9. No ID, I could walk into a poll give my Democratic neighbors address, and use up his vote, than go in 2 weeks later, give my address and vote again. You don’t think this happened? Think again.
    I’ve never been less proud of being an American than I was yesterday. [/quote]

You are spot on with this post. Keep in mind however that the electorate ultimately gets what it deserves.