Clearly Obama won because more people voted for him.
How did this happen? The GOP would have you believe that:
A) Obama Voters are stupid
B) Obama Voters hate America
C) Obama Voters want free stuff
D) All of the above
The reality might just be that Obama was a better candidate and that Romney more or less appeared to be a guy that wanted to be President because it was on his bucket list.
While I believe Chris Christie has the appropriate mass to be considered a “tipping point” in a canoe I think it is absurd to think that him strolling on a beach with Obama made Obama-haters suddenly tear up and decide to vote for a socialist, Muslim from Kenya.
Obama won, and if the GOP takes anything from that they should realize that Obama was a weak incumbent and he still beat a guy that looked like he was a president direct from central casting. The GOP is so far out of touch with the new voters that the next national vote a Republican wins will be on American Idol (maybe). The repubs should see this election as a demand to reboot the party, kick out the one issue voters (abortion, guns, gay marriage) and try to build a party that embraces rational economic policies without preaching to people about who they fuck or who they marry, but all I hear from party folk is how they need to be more conservative and go further right, honestly as a lefty liberal I love hearing this. SO keep blaming Christie, keep blaming hurricanes, keep working on suppressing voter rights, building walls and rounding up and deporting 14 million long time (often productive) residents of our fair land, continue solidifying the base and lose again in 2016.
If someone had propositioned me with the following on the eve of the election: “if Romney gets more of the Mormon vote than Bush in '04, you win; and if not, I win;” I would have taken the bet and wagered everything I own.
False. Obama won because of his superior ground game, and negative campaign.
Obama has a better margin with every demographic outside of white voters, and if Romney could have gotten McCain size turnout, we’d be talking about President Elect Romney right now.
So, all the party has to do is run a better ground game and have a candidate with some charisma…
What would be smart of them, but they should only do because it is the right thing: is soften the rhetoric around immigration and come up with a solution that won’t bankrupt the state/country. Also, bring the libertarians on board, those couple hundred thousand votes can tip a state. (This will be tough). Improve branding and communication, and keep the checkbook closed less they have a Bush 43 spending spree again.
The whole “party is dead” stuff is false.
Gay Marriage will take care of itself soon enough, and younger women are more pro-life than older women, so it isn’t a position they have to change on.
I actually came around on this this morning while I was playing with my daughter.
I figured I should start her early so I was talking about individual responsibility instead of reading “Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See” for the 897th time. (She only likes to slide the little windows open anyway, has no plot.) And it all kinda of dawned on me…
The ideals of conservatism appeal to people in a way that you don’t have to sell them, they sell themselves.
Branding with latino’s and young people, allow the Tea Party to mature politically (the are pretty good at media, and getting better), and don’t mess up and give anyone an open check book like Bush, and they will be fine.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
keep working on suppressing voter rights, [/quote]
when did this happen?[/quote]
I guess you weren’t paying attention as they attempted to change the rules regarding ID’s for voters leading up to the election in several contested states. Voter suppression is pretty accurate.
False. Obama won because of his superior ground game, and negative campaign.
Obama has a better margin with every demographic outside of white voters, and if Romney could have gotten McCain size turnout, we’d be talking about President Elect Romney right now.
So, all the party has to do is run a better ground game and have a candidate with some charisma…
What would be smart of them, but they should only do because it is the right thing: is soften the rhetoric around immigration and come up with a solution that won’t bankrupt the state/country. Also, bring the libertarians on board, those couple hundred thousand votes can tip a state. (This will be tough). Improve branding and communication, and keep the checkbook closed less they have a Bush 43 spending spree again.
The whole “party is dead” stuff is false.
Gay Marriage will take care of itself soon enough, and younger women are more pro-life than older women, so it isn’t a position they have to change on.[/quote]
So you’re saying that Obama did everything related to campaigning correctly and won, but that doesn’t make him smarter? Riiiiiight. Obama won for some other reason, clearly that must be it, he wasn’t better, or smarter, he was just…something…luckier maybe? Charisma won’t matter for the GOP if they do not adapt to the changing voter demographics of this country, I have a feeling that this is a reality they will refuse to accept.
I am unsure what do you mean by smarter? Obama is intelligent as is Romney. Both did undergraduate degrees at good schools and both have law degrees. Romney also has an MBA.
Now if you mean intelligence as it relates to Obama’s ability to be more aware of the power of branding, communications, grass roots mobilization, usage of technology, and ability to control a narrative then I think he is more aware but intelligence levels is harder to determine.
I mean smarter as in able to put together a team, plan, narrative and system that allowed him to get elected then re-tool, build a new narrative and overcome numerous obstacles (economy, Benghazi, RW Radio etc), all the while appearing as if all of the shit flying around him was confetti and flower petals
The voter ID thing is done to prevent fraudulent behaviour. I understand the argument that it discriminates or creates an obstacle for those who have never sought out a license. But there is non-drive IDs people can get. The democratic process is not perfect but it is better to prevent fraud to keep a sense of integrity in the system because in a country of 300 million there will be those who seek to ruin it for everybody else.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
I mean smarter as in able to put together a team, plan, narrative and system that allowed him to get elected then re-tool, build a new narrative and overcome numerous obstacles (economy, Benghazi, RW Radio etc), all the while appearing as if all of the shit flying around him was confetti and flower petals[/quote]
I completely agree with you. He did what was necessary to be elected. He is quite a master at this. From this perspective he’s a genius. However, is that the most important quality in a president? An entertainer of the masses?
Besides this I find it very interesting that you consider the economy as an obstacle, while Obama’s demagogue skills make him a smarter man for you. I’m inclined to consider the economy as a priority, especially these days instead of an “obstacle”.
The image is more important than the content right?
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
keep working on suppressing voter rights, [/quote]
when did this happen?[/quote]
I guess you weren’t paying attention as they attempted to change the rules regarding ID’s for voters leading up to the election in several contested states. Voter suppression is pretty accurate.[/quote]
How is requiring an ID voter suppression?
And they have been trying to get this rule in place for many a year.
I’m still trying to figure out why anyone is celebrating Obama’s victory. Why? He’s a fucking turd who knows about as much about leadership and accomplishment as does an actual turd.
So you’re saying that Obama did everything related to campaigning correctly and won, but that doesn’t make him smarter? Riiiiiight. Obama won for some other reason, clearly that must be it, he wasn’t better, or smarter, he was just…something…luckier maybe?[/quote]
Obama won because he and his team performed better. That is it. Someone doesn’t have to be more intelligent than another to do a good job at something.
You have no idea what charisma means do you?
This is utter bullshit projection created by liberal narrative.
Mia Love
Allen West
Rubio
Condi Rice
Hermain Cain
Your statement holds zero water in reality, only in the liberal mind does what you say make any sense.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
keep working on suppressing voter rights, [/quote]
when did this happen?[/quote]
I guess you weren’t paying attention as they attempted to change the rules regarding ID’s for voters leading up to the election in several contested states. Voter suppression is pretty accurate.[/quote]
Brian, I usually try to ignore your liberal drool since most of it has come from the 90’s and you’ve not had an original thought since then. But I can’t resist this gem.
If someone who may look young attempts to purchase alcohol he is asked for ID, same thing if they want to purchase a gun. If someone even attempts to go into an adult movie they might be asked for an ID. It’s not out of the question to ask someone for an ID before they vote. We can avoid fraud this way. But…that’s not what the democrats want because they like fraud at the voting booth is that it?
What’s wrong Briaaaaan…afraid there will be less dead people voting for democrats if we have some reasonable rules.
I figured I should start her early so I was talking about individual responsibility instead of reading “Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See” for the 897th time. (She only likes to slide the little windows open anyway, has no plot.) [/quote]
I can’t believe that you quoted yourself.
And go read to your daughter. That’s far, far more important than arguing here.
I’ve read my son that book almost every night for the past few years and he never gets tired of it even though he’s 4 - almost 4.5.
I figured I should start her early so I was talking about individual responsibility instead of reading “Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See” for the 897th time. (She only likes to slide the little windows open anyway, has no plot.) [/quote]
I can’t believe that you quoted yourself.
And go read to your daughter. That’s far, far more important than arguing here.
I’ve read my son that book almost every night for the past few years and he never gets tired of it even though he’s 4 - almost 4.5.
james
[/quote]
I’m only on here when she is sleeping or I’m at work.
EDIT: and what I was doing was reading words that weren’t on the page so to speak… We were still flipping through the book, just explaining PR rather than “blue bird looking at me”.
I guess you weren’t paying attention as they attempted to change the rules regarding ID’s for voters leading up to the election in several contested states. Voter suppression is pretty accurate.[/quote]
Voter ID laws were supported on a bi-partisan basis - who is this “they”?
I mean smarter as in able to put together a team, plan, narrative and system that allowed him to get elected then re-tool, build a new narrative and overcome numerous obstacles (economy, Benghazi, RW Radio etc), all the while appearing as if all of the shit flying around him was confetti and flower petals[/quote]
He did none of these things. The campaign was, by any metric, terrible: clumsy, tin-eared, defensive and without intellectual vigor to propose any vision for 2012 forward.
The credit - and there is much to give - is with the state Democratic machines that turned out voters for Democratic candidates. Democratic voters turned out not because of but rather in spite of the terrible Obama campaign.
The Democratic Party knows how to play the game of electoral politics, even when there is an unimpressive candidate on the top of the ticket. They had no business in picking up Senate seats, and they did. Independents voted for Romney - Obama won without them.
The lesson of the 2012 remains - Obama-bots still can’t help projecting. This victory was not the result of Obama’s incredible awesomeness that won the broad swath of the American electorate - it was a base/party-identifier turnout win, and the national Democratic Party knows how to do this, and do it very well.
That isn’t a back-handed compliment either - they did exactly what they needed to do, given both candidates’ weaknesses.