Why Obama Won

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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]

What about the dogs X? What if they were kids?

62

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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]

I can see both sides of difficult issues like these, and I sympathize with your position. When one side has to yield, with rare exception I side with access over restriction, direct impact over implied impact. Idealogy is always easier than discretion.

63

[quote]Professor X wrote:

We seem to agree on quite a bit lately.[/quote]

I think we always agreed on more things then we disagreed on, we just kept going on about the stuff we didn’t agree on so much it seems like we never agreed on anything.

64

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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]

I can see both sides of difficult issues like these, and I sympathize with your position. When one side has to yield, with rare exception I side with access over restriction, direct impact over implied impact. Idealogy is always easier than discretion. [/quote]

Catholics will not yield, I guarantee you that. It’s flat not going to be provided.

65

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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]

I can see both sides of difficult issues like these, and I sympathize with your position. When one side has to yield, with rare exception I side with access over restriction, direct impact over implied impact. Idealogy is always easier than discretion. [/quote]

There’s not going to be access. We are planning for civil disobedience. You will have to jail us and our clergy. Let’s do this.

66

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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]

I can see both sides of difficult issues like these, and I sympathize with your position. When one side has to yield, with rare exception I side with access over restriction, direct impact over implied impact. Idealogy is always easier than discretion. [/quote]

Where is the restriction at though? Anyone can walk into Rite-Aid and get birth control. I have to pay for mine. When my wife was on the pill we still paid for it and it wasn’t cheap.

So you can either:

  1. Require the church to provide BC against their principles or,
  2. Let the church decide and if people don’t like it they can work or worship someone where else, but still get BC.
67

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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]

I can see both sides of difficult issues like these, and I sympathize with your position. When one side has to yield, with rare exception I side with access over restriction, direct impact over implied impact. Idealogy is always easier than discretion. [/quote]

Catholics will not yield, I guarantee you that. It’s flat not going to be provided. [/quote]

Like I said…difficult issues. It will be interesting.

68

[quote]Professor X wrote:

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]

Correct. Difference between a conservative and a republican/rino/RNC.

But not all social issue are like that either. Some are, some are harder to let go.

69

My biggest issue with BC is that it’s a want (talking medication here not condoms) more than a need. You can buy condoms whenever you want practically everywhere, but you can also pay for the pill yourself out of pocket. It’s a WANT not a need.

To ties this into the thread, Obama won because he’s convinced people, on this issue and others, that their wants are really needs. Remember the woman Rush called a slut because of BC, she has access to BC anytime she wants it. She just has to pay for it.

Is that so hard to ask? Is it unfair for me to ask for her to pay for her own stuff? I pay for mine and I’m square in the middle class.

I really think Romney would have been better at discerning between wants vs. needs. He’s done it his whole career. That’s not what the people WANT though, it’s what they NEED, and they aren’t going to get it with Obama.

70

Quick question:

How do you know the exit poll wasn’t household income? I mean it just said income. It didn’t specify whether it was individual or household. My first assumption was that it WAS household income, because 9 times out of 10 that’s how they format the income questions on exit polls.

71

[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.

72

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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]

I can see both sides of difficult issues like these, and I sympathize with your position. When one side has to yield, with rare exception I side with access over restriction, direct impact over implied impact. Idealogy is always easier than discretion. [/quote]

Where is the restriction at though? Anyone can walk into Rite-Aid and get birth control. I have to pay for mine. When my wife was on the pill we still paid for it and it wasn’t cheap.

So you can either:

  1. Require the church to provide BC against their principles or,
  2. Let the church decide and if people don’t like it they can work or worship someone where else, but still get BC. [/quote]

They know their reasoning is utter manure. Just means more contracepted women to screw. Child support is a pain. And women? Apparently a lot of them see themselves as walking vaginas, or as a birth defect, whose illness must be treated, and that treatment subsidized by everyone. My body, my choice? What tripe. Yeah, your damn body until you want something provided to you by other bodies over their long recognized religious liberties. The law suits have already started. Whichever way that goes, we won’t comply.

73

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But not all social issue are like that either. Some are, some are harder to let go.[/quote]

Good point. I would urge Republicans to slowly evolve on gay marriage and a few other social issues if they’re going to saty competitive with moderates, but no one should be willing to compromise their views on abortion. If you believe it’s murder, you believe it’s murder, and to stand tall on an issue of that depth and gravity is commendable.

74

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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]

I can see both sides of difficult issues like these, and I sympathize with your position. When one side has to yield, with rare exception I side with access over restriction, direct impact over implied impact. Idealogy is always easier than discretion. [/quote]

Where is the restriction at though? Anyone can walk into Rite-Aid and get birth control. I have to pay for mine. When my wife was on the pill we still paid for it and it wasn’t cheap.

So you can either:

  1. Require the church to provide BC against their principles or,
  2. Let the church decide and if people don’t like it they can work or worship someone where else, but still get BC. [/quote]

It’s not a democracy. And if people don’t like it they can take a hike. I call it addition by subtraction.

75

I don’t know what the one for 2012 looked like technically, but here’s what the CNN exit poll looked like in the past:

http://cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/

Looks identical to this year’s to be honest. So I’m fairly certain the data does represent household income, and it is pretty okay to say things about who the middle class tended to vote for.

76

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But not all social issue are like that either. Some are, some are harder to let go.[/quote]

Good point. I would urge Republicans to slowly evolve on gay marriage and a few other social issues if they’re going to saty competitive with moderates, but no one should be willing to compromise their views on abortion. If you believe it’s murder, you believe it’s murder, and to stand tall on an issue of that depth and gravity is commendable.[/quote]

But see I don’t get the point of basically saying ‘if you make the republicans more like democrats, then they will fare better’. There is a party that supports gay marriage, it’s the democratic party. If you believe in that, then vote democrat. What’s the point of having the two parties if they hold the same opinions?

77

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
My biggest issue with BC is that it’s a want (talking medication here not condoms) more than a need. You can buy condoms whenever you want practically everywhere, but you can also pay for the pill yourself out of pocket. It’s a WANT not a need.

To ties this into the thread, Obama won because he’s convinced people, on this issue and others, that their wants are really needs. Remember the woman Rush called a slut because of BC, she has access to BC anytime she wants it. She just has to pay for it.
[/quote]

I agree completely with this, although Rush Limbaugh (characteristically) acted like an asshole and continues to be a fat boorish piece of shit. His idiotic “slut” charade did more harm to the conservative argument than anything Fluke or Obama said.

78

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

So it would be a wise electoral strategy for the GOP to endorse getting the government out of the marriage business? [/quote]

Yes. Enough places have had gay marriage for long enough with none of the social collapse that conservatives have predicted, and as such the arguments against it hold less weight each day. Support for gay marriage is increasing. All 4 votes on it yesterday were in favor of gay marriage, and that is probably going to continue. It is not a good idea to hold the position of wanting to ban it given the current state of the issue. The best conservatives could hope for is to try and maintain things the way they are, which is not likely, or trying to get the government out of marriage.

I would also like to point out that I am not trying to, or interested in, getting into a gay marriage debate. I have read several threads on gay marriage here and do not consider it worth it. I am using gay marriage as an example of a social issue that hurting the Republican party. There are plenty of other social issues that Republicans should back off a bit on that I mentioned.

[quote]
How exactly would that play with the black and Hispanic communities, do you think, both of which the GOP needs to make electoral inroads to? [/quote]

Considering that Obama won both of those demographics by a wide margin and is pro gay-marriage, I am going to say that it will not hurt at all, but it might not hep either. I said twice that I think easing up on social issue will help a lot with the youth vote. I didn’t say it will help with any other demographic. Other strategies may be needed to win black and Hispanic votes. My guess, and I said this in another thread, that Hispanics probably voted Dem because of concerns about immigration policy.

I would bet that blacks do not tend to vote Republican because Republican programs do not address a major concern of the black population, namely that there is a disproportionate number of black people living in poverty, are undereducated, and on welfare. This needs to stop. One problem is it is a cycle: poor areas have poor schools, which leads to a poor education, which leads to fewer college graduates, which means fewer opportunities for financial advancement. If a Republican candidate came up with a plan to fix this problem, I think that candidate would get more then a few more votes from the black population

79

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
My biggest issue with BC is that it’s a want (talking medication here not condoms) more than a need. You can buy condoms whenever you want practically everywhere, but you can also pay for the pill yourself out of pocket. It’s a WANT not a need.

To ties this into the thread, Obama won because he’s convinced people, on this issue and others, that their wants are really needs. Remember the woman Rush called a slut because of BC, she has access to BC anytime she wants it. She just has to pay for it.
[/quote]

I agree completely with this, although Rush Limbaugh (characteristically) acted like an asshole and continues to be a fat boorish piece of shit. His idiotic “slut” charade did more harm to the conservative argument than anything Fluke or Obama said.[/quote]

I think what’s sad is that conservatism has been tied to Rush like liberalism has been tied to Stewart. They’re both sensationalist out to make money. They are not the core of the party. That really irks me.

People have been turned away from the republican party because of Rush and how Rush is portrayed in the media. If you don’t agree with conservatism or the republican party, that’s all well and good. That why America is so great. You have choice, but choose based off the actual facts and the actual situation, not off some asshole on TV trying to make a buck.

80

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

But not all social issue are like that either. Some are, some are harder to let go.[/quote]

Good point. I would urge Republicans to slowly evolve on gay marriage and a few other social issues if they’re going to saty competitive with moderates, but no one should be willing to compromise their views on abortion. If you believe it’s murder, you believe it’s murder, and to stand tall on an issue of that depth and gravity is commendable.[/quote]

But see I don’t get the point of basically saying ‘if you make the republicans more like democrats, then they will fare better’. There is a party that supports gay marriage, it’s the democratic party. If you believe in that, then vote democrat. What’s the point of having the two parties if they hold the same opinions?[/quote]

Well, I’m talking about the politics of a campaign here, not what is best for country. In this game, you have to pick your battles. If gay marriage is important enough, then that’s fine, but it looks like it’s going to be an uphill battle in the future.