Why Obama Won

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Maybe if republicans dropped the religious right and stopped being so socially conservative they might have a better chance. All the gay marriage stuff passed, 2 states legalized marijuana etc. There are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters than you may think. Worst economy since the Great Depression, my grandparents would disagree with you, they lived through it. [/quote]

Would you change your principles just because they aren’t currently popular? [/quote]

Telling others how to live their lives is a principal? You can have your beliefs, just don’t push them on me and I won’t push mine on you.
[/quote]

So you agree Catholics shouldn’t have to provide birth control?[/quote]

No…But I would agree that they shouldn’t be required to use it.

[quote]treco wrote:
As I told my wife last night, it is not a single election that worries me about this country - but the fact that the society showed its’ brokenness by sending this candidate back in for 4 more years.
[/quote]

As in logic demands that a thinking engaged populace does not reward failure or accept excuses, “it’s Bush’s fault”. Yet, that’s exactly what we did last night. Which speaks directly to the point of my thread.

It seems that most of the people who don’t want anything from government lost.

Those who are trying mightily to contribute to society lost.

When the question is asked, "why did you vote for Obama the answer is either shallow and simplistic, or “I want something from the government.”

When the question is asked “why did you vote for Romney” the answer is either “I want to be left along by government, or I want a smaller government”.

One of the last great democrats who wanted to raise defense spending and cut taxes, John F. Kennedy (who would not be a democrat if he were alive today)

Said this:

“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

Obama has turned that around, “Ask not what you can do on your own but what the government taking tax dollars from others can give to you.”

Obama’s failure has been rewarded by those whose failures have been rewarded by Obama!

From solyndra and Unions to Long-term recipients of government aid, to majority of the mindless 18-24 year olds…all takers. They won last night!

In the short term that is.

In the long-term we will all lose. It is now just a matter of time.

[quote]usmccds423 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]

That may be what the RNC say’s, but it is not what it does.

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Maybe if republicans dropped the religious right and stopped being so socially conservative they might have a better chance. All the gay marriage stuff passed, 2 states legalized marijuana etc. There are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters than you may think. Worst economy since the Great Depression, my grandparents would disagree with you, they lived through it. [/quote]

Would you change your principles just because they aren’t currently popular? [/quote]

Telling others how to live their lives is a principal? You can have your beliefs, just don’t push them on me and I won’t push mine on you.
[/quote]

THIS. I don’t know how much clearer to make this. People do not like having other people’s morals pushed on them. Have your beliefs and hold them dear, but quit trying to push them on other people. The government should not be legislating morality anyway. You believe in heterosexual marriage? Great! I do to, which is why I am marrying a great woman in 3 weeks. That does not mean that we should make it illegal for gay people to get married. Don’t like birth control? Great, I respect that view, but do not interfere with someone else’s access to birth control. Don’t like minorities? Okay, but don’t try to deny them rights based on your beliefs about them. It is that simple, and it is a very American way of thinking.
[/quote]

The problem is the government does legislate morality. For example, I believe abortion is wrong. I have to push my principles because I believe it is murder. The government has legalized it, so they (we as a nation) have taken a moral stand. Should I just give in and accept “the people have spoken” or better yet change my principles to fit in. I think we agree the answer is no.

When you fight for “gay right” or “immigration reform” aren’t you pushing your principles? I agree with you that the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage. The problem is they are. The question on MDs, for example, ballot should not have been to legalize gay marriage, but to absolve government marriage and replace it with a civil union/contract. That is what the government should be about, but they aren’t. The same thing goes for BC. The dems want BC paid for, I don’t. I pay for my own, so can everyone else. It shouldn’t be up to the gov, but guess what, it is.

The gov sets morality by regulating our lives. I have to push my principles or I have failed myself.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Maybe if republicans dropped the religious right and stopped being so socially conservative they might have a better chance. All the gay marriage stuff passed, 2 states legalized marijuana etc. There are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters than you may think. Worst economy since the Great Depression, my grandparents would disagree with you, they lived through it. [/quote]

Would you change your principles just because they aren’t currently popular? [/quote]

Telling others how to live their lives is a principal? You can have your beliefs, just don’t push them on me and I won’t push mine on you.
[/quote]

So you agree Catholics shouldn’t have to provide birth control?[/quote]

No…But I would agree that they shouldn’t be required to use it.
[/quote]

I just don’t understand this. Why should they have to provide birth control? As far as I know that is against their religion so you want them to set aside their principles for your own, yes?

Edit

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Show me a statistic that says those people are outliers. I don’t believe that they are. They may not make up the MAJORITY, but you’re not talking one out of every hundred families that is built like this. My family, and a lot of other ones that I know, are built like this.

And further, there are plenty of two-parent homes where each is bringing in 40-50k, meaning that they’re the definition of middle class, but their vote, according to that poll, still counts in the under 50k range.

Being as Romney only won the 50-100k by a 52-47 margin… well, that’s a lot of data that would have to be reevaluated before you could make the judgement that you’re making.

So again, show me household income proof and I’ll look at it, but you are ABSOLUTELY not accurately representing the numbers if you say that CNN’s exit poll means the middle class went for Romney.[/quote]

C’mon, man. Enough. If the middle class is typically about a $100k household (average), that means that the average income for each household income provider is $50k. That means, roughly speaking, you’re going to have people who are lower in income but are still middle class (like your $25k wife), but you will also have someone higher than $50k who is middle class (the husband to the $25k wife whose income makes the household middle class) - and we know how they voted, generally, based on the exit poll.

In other words, while we might not know exactly how the $25k wife voted for purposes of analyzing the middle class vote, but we do know how her other half - the $75k husband - voted, basically.

I am not looking for statistical precision, I’m using the exit polls as a rough guide - which they are.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Maybe if republicans dropped the religious right and stopped being so socially conservative they might have a better chance. All the gay marriage stuff passed, 2 states legalized marijuana etc. There are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters than you may think. Worst economy since the Great Depression, my grandparents would disagree with you, they lived through it. [/quote]

Would you change your principles just because they aren’t currently popular? [/quote]

This is part of what bothers a lot of people, usmc.

Moral people with principle are not found in only one party or the other.

I will assure you that there are plenty of gay, church-going, dope-smoking people on the Government dole who proudly consider themselves flag-waving/card-carrying Republicans.

Mufasa[/quote]

Oh yeah? Name one!

[/quote]

Who was that ‘Focus On The Family’ guy w/the gay travel companion that gave massages with happy endings from a couple of years ago? Wasn’t there a rebublican legislator caught reaching under the stall wall in airports a while back? We’ll I guess they weren’t really proud about it now were they.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Maybe if republicans dropped the religious right and stopped being so socially conservative they might have a better chance. All the gay marriage stuff passed, 2 states legalized marijuana etc. There are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters than you may think. Worst economy since the Great Depression, my grandparents would disagree with you, they lived through it. [/quote]

Would you change your principles just because they aren’t currently popular? [/quote]

This is part of what bothers a lot of people, usmc.

Moral people with principle are not found in only one party or the other.

I will assure you that there are plenty of gay, church-going, dope-smoking people on the Government dole who proudly consider themselves flag-waving/card-carrying Republicans.

Mufasa[/quote]

Oh yeah? Name one!

[/quote]

Who was that ‘Focus On The Family’ guy w/the gay travel companion that gave massages with happy endings from a couple of years ago? Wasn’t there a rebublican legislator caught reaching under the stall wall in airports a while back? We’ll I guess they weren’t really proud about now were they. [/quote]

I think to Mufasas point, you can have strong, but differnt morals.

I, for example, don’t care if gays marry as long as the church isn’t FORCED to marry because I don’t believe the gov should force anyone to do anything they don’t want (except tax to a degree). It has nothing to do with God, religion, or really even homosexuality.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Show me a statistic that says those people are outliers. I don’t believe that they are. They may not make up the MAJORITY, but you’re not talking one out of every hundred families that is built like this. My family, and a lot of other ones that I know, are built like this.

And further, there are plenty of two-parent homes where each is bringing in 40-50k, meaning that they’re the definition of middle class, but their vote, according to that poll, still counts in the under 50k range.

Being as Romney only won the 50-100k by a 52-47 margin… well, that’s a lot of data that would have to be reevaluated before you could make the judgement that you’re making.

So again, show me household income proof and I’ll look at it, but you are ABSOLUTELY not accurately representing the numbers if you say that CNN’s exit poll means the middle class went for Romney.[/quote]

C’mon, man. Enough. If the middle class is typically about a $100k household (average), that means that the average income for each household income provider is $50k. That means, roughly speaking, you’re going to have people who are lower in income but are still middle class (like your $25k wife), but you will also have someone higher than $50k who is middle class (the husband to the $25k wife whose income makes the household middle class) - and we know how they voted, generally, based on the exit poll.

In other words, while we might not know exactly how the $25k wife voted for purposes of analyzing the middle class vote, but we do know how her other half - the $75k husband - voted, basically.

I am not looking for statistical precision, I’m using the exit polls as a rough guide - which they are.[/quote]

Fuck, that. You CANNOT draw the conclusions that you’re drawing from that poll, not specifically and not roughly.

And that comment about not knowing how the 25k wife voted doesn’t make any sense. Her vote does not count as “less middle class” because she made the 25k end instead of the 75k end. And you do know how she voted - and you’re trying to prove that it means something it doesn’t.

Either present a household income estimate as to votes, or give up the “Romney won the middle class” argument, because you CAN’T SUPPORT IT with the evidence that YOU presented.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Maybe if republicans dropped the religious right and stopped being so socially conservative they might have a better chance. All the gay marriage stuff passed, 2 states legalized marijuana etc. There are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters than you may think. Worst economy since the Great Depression, my grandparents would disagree with you, they lived through it. [/quote]

Would you change your principles just because they aren’t currently popular? [/quote]

Telling others how to live their lives is a principal? You can have your beliefs, just don’t push them on me and I won’t push mine on you.
[/quote]

So you agree Catholics shouldn’t have to provide birth control?[/quote]

No…But I would agree that they shouldn’t be required to use it.
[/quote]

So it is okay for the government to force a Catholic college to provide BC, which is against their belief?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
First of all congratualtions to all of the liberals on the thread. It was your night last night.

The following is what I believe to be the reasons why Obama was reelected last evening.

It should be very obvious to everyone (as it is to those of us who have lived through many Presidential elections) that Brack Obama has not been treated the same as any other President, or candidate for the office of the Presidency. This is the single worst economy that we have seen since the great depression yet how many serious questions were asked of obama regarding the economy by the press?

Furthermore, how many tough questions were asked of Obama regarding his various foreign policy blunders including Benghazi? I submit to you that if any republican were to have a sitting Ambassador raped, tortured and murdered on his watch it would have been front page news in every newspaper and the lead story on every single broadcast outlet, as it should be.

Now follow that horrendous act with a half hearted cover up “it was a video that caused this” and the media would have been screaming for impeachment. Yet, it was not even an issue for old Barack. So the number one reason for Obama’s reelection is that his friends in the media ran exceptional cover for him and it worked out quite well!

Along with the media “cover-up” Nanny statedom is upon us. We no longer get to look ahead and think, “gee if this keeps going we’re going to be in trouble.” We are in trouble! It is very difficult to defeat someone who wants to hand you free things at someone else’s expense. You neither feel guilt for taking it, or understand that it’s coming from another hard working American soul.

Just like the screaming woman on the video. “I want some of that Obama money.” Interviewer: “Where does Obama get the money?” Screaming woman: “I don’t know he has a stash somewhere…” Oh my! Who voted for Obama in larger numbers than for Romney? Women! Why? Because there is something inside of almost every woman that secretly wants to be taken care of. The democratic party has risen to that “challenge” and has taken upon itself the title of “great distributor.” Just the other day I was talking to one of my employees about the election. She said unequivocally that she was voting for Obama.

I naturally asked why and she told me that she wanted free health insurance. Currently, I have a plan where I (the company) pays 75% and the employee pays 25%. But that’s not quite good enough for her. I then informed her that nothing is free in life and that in order for the government to give you something for “free” they must first take it from someone else. Her answer, “I don’t care as long as I get my medical bills paid.” And so it goes, the taste of “free stuff” can be intoxicating to those uninformed of where such a road will eventually take us.

Fnally, Obama tapped into a large number of 18-34 year olds who don’t know what their doing but are not at all afraid to do it. Recently a conservative interviewer was on a typical college campus asking people who they were going to vote for. Most, not surprisingly said Obama. But not one could give a single good reason why or name any accomplishment from his first four years as the reason. When asked why they would choose him, the typical answer, “Um…I dunno I just think he’s better.” But, they do know that obama was on Jon Stewart and “um…like Jon Stewart is really cool.”

And that is why Obama never addressed any of the serious issues, he never had to and he knew it all along! All he had to do was continue to run behind the media cover and make the left wing talk show circut and look, “really cool” while he was doing it. He didn’t have to run a “large” campaign because he knew his backers were largely small minded kids, nanny state recipients and powerful unions who would continue to reap big bucks should he be reelected. Therefore, voting for him regardless of his many failures. And of course, he was right!

Love him or hate him Mitt Romney was a serious candidate with both business and government success to his credit in turning bad situations into good ones. Moreover, he picked a very serious Vice Presidential candidate in Paul Ryan. A man who helped create a budget that could eventually lead us to economic freedom. The only problem is they were running for office during the wrong time period. Many people don’t want to be serious as that takes thinking, sacrifice and acting like an adult.

And none of those things are what this country is about any longer. We are about video games, texting our every worthless thought, facebook and a number of other silly past times that allow men to act like kids until they are well into their 30’s. Well, last night while the “kids” were voting for the cool candidate, “the chickens came home to roooooost!”

So, while I do congratulate the left for its great win last night I can’t help recalling an old proverb, “Be careful what you wish for as it might come true!”

Zeb
[/quote]

Given your absolute failure to predict how the states would vote (as I recall you had Romney getting Fla, VA, NC, NH, Iowa, Col, and OH) and your misunderstanding of the polling data (particularly how accurate Silver was), I would be really hesitant to try and explain this one.

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but it had to be said.

jnd

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So, people who make individually $50k and household $100k (the $50k times 2) aren’t the typical middle class, by your lights?

[/quote]

They are, but because the numbers are per-voter income estimates, you can’t infer whether the household itself is middle class or not unless you’re drawing numbers from another source.

If you show me numbers that say “household income,” I’d look at it, but to say that from the CNN exit polls, the “middle class” did not get their guy, is an unsound argument.

[/quote]

Agreed. That is playing pretty generous with the info if you count a whole family of people making 100K as “middle class” no matter what.[/quote]

A family making 100K isn’t middle class? Seems pretty solidly middle class to me depending on where you live. Decently comfortable but certainly not rich for my area. Unless I am reading this wrong. And yes some of the middle class did get their guy.

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So, people who make individually $50k and household $100k (the $50k times 2) aren’t the typical middle class, by your lights?

[/quote]

They are, but because the numbers are per-voter income estimates, you can’t infer whether the household itself is middle class or not unless you’re drawing numbers from another source.

If you show me numbers that say “household income,” I’d look at it, but to say that from the CNN exit polls, the “middle class” did not get their guy, is an unsound argument.

[/quote]

Agreed. That is playing pretty generous with the info if you count a whole family of people making 100K as “middle class” no matter what.[/quote]

A family making 100K isn’t middle class? Seems pretty solidly middle class to me depending on where you live. Decently comfortable but certainly not rich for my area. Unless I am reading this wrong. And yes some of the middle class did get their guy.
[/quote]

It is, but I think he was saying that if both husband and wife make 100k, they don’t count as middle class anymore.

Or, of course, a family of four making 25k each. There’s too many variables in that limited data to make any conclusion about how the middle class voted.

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So, people who make individually $50k and household $100k (the $50k times 2) aren’t the typical middle class, by your lights?

[/quote]

They are, but because the numbers are per-voter income estimates, you can’t infer whether the household itself is middle class or not unless you’re drawing numbers from another source.

If you show me numbers that say “household income,” I’d look at it, but to say that from the CNN exit polls, the “middle class” did not get their guy, is an unsound argument.

[/quote]

Agreed. That is playing pretty generous with the info if you count a whole family of people making 100K as “middle class” no matter what.[/quote]

A family making 100K isn’t middle class? Seems pretty solidly middle class to me depending on where you live. Decently comfortable but certainly not rich for my area. Unless I am reading this wrong. And yes some of the middle class did get their guy.
[/quote]

On a narrow view, a middle class family is said to have a mean average household income of $46,829 on a yearly basis. The numbers reflected on the 2010 Census showed that middle class average yearly income range from $36,000 â?? $57,657.

I was speaking strictly in terms of individuals not being represented as a “household”. I truly don’t care to argue this further.

Birth Control…will be even more expensive because of the government involvement. Add a middle man to any scenario, and you have increased costs. Period. Then they can say how birth control is so expensive and must be provided for “FREE” by the government. A non rational self fulfilling prophecy. BC is not the same as cancer drugs and could be readily and cost effectively supplied at the retail level. In short, an issue that shouldnt even BE an issue.

to USMC: I would say the “republicans want to stay out of your life” argument is no applicable to the current times. If thats the case, many of these social issues would not be pushed, nor would the patriot act and other things.

to ZEB: There is no doubt that the trend of “free shit” influencing voter decisions will continue, unabated. It is a tried and true tactic that has become even more widespread with the current economy. The Dems are firmly in support of income inequality as a method to their vote getting. Its really LBJ on steroids. We are a society of net makers and takers due to regulations and the tax code etc. There is a definitive political reasoning for having that.

Would you say rather than the people being wrong, that the RNC needs to revamp its marketing and target audience? For example, Romney proposed comparatively more substantial economic ideas to Obama, but I feel a lot of those were lost on the populace. How does one convey that message better. Women and minorities are going to continue to have a huge impact, and it is obvious that the strategy of the RNC is not working with regards to those demographics.

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]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Fuck, that. You CANNOT draw the conclusions that you’re drawing from that poll, not specifically and not roughly.

And that comment about not knowing how the 25k wife voted doesn’t make any sense. Her vote does not count as “less middle class” because she made the 25k end instead of the 75k end. And you do know how she voted - and you’re trying to prove that it means something it doesn’t.

Either present a household income estimate as to votes, or give up the “Romney won the middle class” argument, because you CAN’T SUPPORT IT with the evidence that YOU presented.
[/quote]

Ok, so when the voters in the middle grouping of $50k-$100k go for Romney over Obama, what can be inferred from that? Anything? Are people in this category poor? Are they rich? What’s it tell us, Irish?

One republican here (Zeb) wanted to make sure no one was screwing dogs in their house near him in his neighborhood. I made the statement that I do not care what someone else does in their own house unless it negatively affects me personally or my family.

It would seem that this is representative of many in that party lately.

they think their “morals” count as law for everyone else.

I don’t have to “agree” with gay marriage to not stand and shout against it. Neither does being tolerable of it mean my own morals are compromised.

[quote]666Rich wrote:
to USMC: I would say the “republicans want to stay out of your life” argument is no applicable to the current times. If thats the case, many of these social issues would not be pushed, nor would the patriot act and other things.

Would you say rather than the people being wrong, that the RNC needs to revamp its marketing and target audience? For example, Romney proposed comparatively more substantial economic ideas to Obama, but I feel a lot of those were lost on the populace. How does one convey that message better. Women and minorities are going to continue to have a huge impact, and it is obvious that the strategy of the RNC is not working with regards to those demographics. [/quote]

I think you have to remember that “currently” we a center or even left leaning nation so if you lean right at all you have to push your principles. Not in the sense that the other posters have said, but in the sense that a balance needs to be struck between left and right. As far as the Patriot Act goes, I think it made sense at the time, but needs to be scaled back or completely removed. I think the moderates of both parties agree. As far as social issues go I just don’t see most republicans pushing their principles. I live in the only republican part of MD and we didn’t have rallies against gay rights or rallies against illegal immigrants. We just voted (in vain) against them.

A perfect example actually is the Dream Act in MD. Illegal immigrants now have the right to get in state tuition in MD, I just don’t understand this. Obama talks about fair for all, how is that fair for all. We’ve made an exception for some, the exact opposite in fact.

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

A family making 100K isn’t middle class? Seems pretty solidly middle class to me depending on where you live.[/quote]

Yes, it is. That basically means the two adults make $50k apiece. That is middle class, and is on the low end of middle class in the more urban areas.

“Middle class” is not “working class”.