Why Obama Won

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[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]

I won’t have to, Zeb.

Give it time…every year there is some Preacher caught having some trist with young boys.

Mufasa

82

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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.

[/quote]

If BC positively affects the health of women, it should be covered under health insurance. I do not know enough about it to make that call though.

As for the rest, it goes back to my first post on this topic: if conservative social issues are more important to you then conservative economic and other policies, continue to put up candidates that support those views. But remember that American voters are becoming more socially liberal. Just look at the outcome of the 4 gay marriage votes. If you consider the opposite true, then backing down even just a bit on social issues is going to go a long way toward getting votes that the Republican party needs.

83

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Jon Stewart is a partisan, you won’t get any argument from me on that front. But he is also by all accounts a decent guy and he’s not entirely unwilling to call bullshit on his fellow liberals. And he’s pretty funny sometimes.

Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, is repulsive on a personal level (much like Ann Coulter). He repeatedly fails to conduct himself in accordance with basic rules of decency and propriety–don’t call someone a slut in public, don’t made odd quasi-racist comments about blacks, etc. He could take a page out of O’Reilly’s book if he finds it so difficult to figure out how a conservative can be boisterous without being revolting.

A comparison with Bill Maher, though, would be pretty fair in my view.

84

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Exactly. That is what I have been trying to get across. Republicans and conservatives are losing votes, particularly among younger people, because of their views on social issues. If not backing down on those issues means that much to Republicans, then they can and should continue to vote that way. But look at how that went for them this election. Republicans had a solid candidate with reasonably good plans and credentials who lost to Obama, who is not going to rank very high on any “best presidents in US history” chart. After a first term like he had, Obama should have lost but he didn’t.

85

The GOP needs to run on transparent fiscal responsibility. They need to stop trying to govern morality and instead focus on governing the nations obvious debt crisis. Socially Neutral Fiscally Conservative = Wins.

86

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

Exactly. That is what I have been trying to get across. Republicans and conservatives are losing votes, particularly among younger people, because of their views on social issues. If not backing down on those issues means that much to Republicans, then they can and should continue to vote that way. But look at how that went for them this election. Republicans had a solid candidate with reasonably good plans and credentials who lost to Obama, who is not going to rank very high on any “best presidents in US history” chart. After a first term like he had, Obama should have lost but he didn’t.
[/quote]

Agreed.

I do hope, for the sake of this country, that Obama does end up ranking high on the chart when all’s said and done, simply because we need some good leadership and we can’t wait until 2016.

87

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Jon Stewart is a partisan, you won’t get any argument from me on that front. But he is also by all accounts a decent guy and he’s not entirely unwilling to call bullshit on his fellow liberals. And he’s pretty funny sometimes.

Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, is repulsive on a personal level (much like Ann Coulter). He repeatedly fails to conduct himself in accordance with basic rules of decency and propriety–don’t call someone a slut in public, don’t made odd quasi-racist comments about blacks, etc. He could take a page out of O’Reilly’s book if he finds it so difficult to figure out how a conservative can be boisterous without being revolting.

A comparison with Bill Maher, though, would be pretty fair in my view.[/quote]

I think Stewart gets a free pass, a lot of the time, because he’s funny. He has called Bush names in the past, what’s the difference?

For me, I’m all about free speech, so let them say whatever they want. I’ll voice my opinion by viewing or not viewing their programs. I won’t watch Rush or Stewart. I just wish people would wake up and realize they are not what the rest of us are, politically.

88

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
The GOP needs to run on transparent fiscal responsibility. They need to stop trying to govern morality and instead focus on governing the nations obvious debt crisis. Socially Neutral Fiscally Conservative = Wins.[/quote]

Yes, but if the responses I have received today on the topic are anything to go by, conservatives/Republicans do not want to. The social issues are just too important to them. It will continue to show at the polls.

89

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s a WANT not a need.

[/quote]

Not necessarily. Many women take it for Hormone regulation. My wife would love to get off it due to the increased health risks of long term use, but has poly cystic ovarian syndrome and has had to take it for the last twenty five years.

90

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Exactly. That is what I have been trying to get across. Republicans and conservatives are losing votes, particularly among younger people, because of their views on social issues. If not backing down on those issues means that much to Republicans, then they can and should continue to vote that way. But look at how that went for them this election. Republicans had a solid candidate with reasonably good plans and credentials who lost to Obama, who is not going to rank very high on any “best presidents in US history” chart. After a first term like he had, Obama should have lost but he didn’t.
[/quote]

It worked pretty well when they took the house didn’t it? Let’s not forget a republican did live in the white house for 8 years just 4 years ago. I don’t think it’s as dire as some make it out to be. Bush did win right after Clinton (the dems favorite sun) left office.

91

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
The GOP needs to run on transparent fiscal responsibility. They need to stop trying to govern morality and instead focus on governing the nations obvious debt crisis. Socially Neutral Fiscally Conservative = Wins.[/quote]

Like how Obama ran on transparency in 08’?

92

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

This. We are talking about getting elected here.

93

Why do Republicans think Democrats are the party of the free loaders?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-05/republican-heavy-counties-eat-up-most-food-stamp-growth.html

Both parties are the land of the free loaders and big government. Medicare Part D and the stimulus here is free money checks came directly from the Republicans. Yet all the righty tighties on here act as if only Democrats enjoy and benefit from big government.

94

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think Stewart gets a free pass, a lot of the time, because he’s funny. He has called Bush names in the past, what’s the difference?

For me, I’m all about free speech, so let them say whatever they want. I’ll voice my opinion by viewing or not viewing their programs. I won’t watch Rush or Stewart. I just wish people would wake up and realize they are not what the rest of us are, politically. [/quote]

Well, calling a sitting President a name on a comedy show and calling a young woman not seeking public office a “slut” as part of political commentary meant to be taken seriously are two different things.

But yes, he says a lot of silly shit in the first two thirds of his show, when he is basically doing topical stand-up comedy. But when he’s speaking extemporaneously during the interview portion or outside of the Daily Show, I think you’d find it really, REALLY hard to argue that he’s anything like the dick that Rush Limbaugh is.

Other than that, I agree, Limbaugh doesn’t speak for conservatism and to conflate the two is a mistake.

95

[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 it now were they. [/quote]

That was a joke you knuckle head.

:slight_smile:

96

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s a WANT not a need.

[/quote]

Not necessarily. Many women take it for Hormone regulation. My wife would love to get off it due to the increased health risks of long term use, but has poly cystic ovarian syndrome and has had to take it for the last twenty five years.
[/quote]

That is one very specific example. What % of the the female population has what your wife has? Is there no other medication she can take or just BC?

In her case, yes her insurance should cover it.

If you are talking about my comments about the Catholic church than, if she workes for them, no they should not have to pay for it. She can find another job, you can use your insurance if it’s avaible through your work, or you can pay out of pocket.

It sucks she has that, but the entire Catholic church shouldn’t have to change their principles because your wife has an issue.

97

[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.

98

[quote]H factor wrote:
Why do Republicans think Democrats are the party of the free loaders?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-05/republican-heavy-counties-eat-up-most-food-stamp-growth.html

Both parties are the land of the free loaders and big government. Medicare Part D and the stimulus here is free money checks came directly from the Republicans. Yet all the righty tighties on here act as if only Democrats enjoy and benefit from big government. [/quote]

I whole-heartedly agree. Its just a matter of whose pet programs are deemed the bugaboo of “socialism”. Corporate welfare and subsidies, medicare (part d especially), welfare etc.

99

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

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]

You and me both. I only highlight it to show that becoming more liberal on certain social issues works at cross-purposes with other electoral needs at the moment.

Well, and that is my point - Obama has a unique advantage here where blacks are going to give him a pass on gay marriage. I think that an appeal to young, hip voters comes at a price with the black community, and is no panacea.

I agree, and I think this is more important than social matters - the GOP has to earn itself the confidence of these communities, and it begins with doing more about pocketbook and quality of life topics and less about social issues.

100

Zeb:

Since you give me so much grief about this; I wanted to post it here.

(It seems appropriate).

I have now “called” the last two elections wrong…VERY wrong…and I think I know why. It’s my mis-judgment of enthusiasm…and what it does (or does not) mean.

First…2008:

I COMPLETELY underestimated the enthusiasm out there for the then candidate Obama…and over-estimated McCain’s, especially leading out of the GOP convention. Even now, whether one chooses to like him or not…the President “connects” with a lot of people.

One GOP Pundit put it well last night:

“…Romney told people he could solve their problems…the President went furthur and said I [i]understand[/i] your problems…”

That obviously resonated with a lot of people.

And 2012:

While I didn’t over-estimate the scope and degree of disdain and absolute hate out there that exist for the President…I did over-estimate how that would translate into the Voting box.

I’m sure all of you have heard it…hate is a terrible motivator…and it is. And while there is no question that there is a portion of the electorate that truly were “for” Romney…I would guess (but cannot prove) there was a much larger % of what I called “Not Obama” voting; while on the flip-side, the President had a much larger % of voters whom were “for” him. (This was proven in poll after poll of likeability going back to when the President was first running).

I also underestimated this thing I kept hearing about concerning “boots-on-the-ground” or the “ground game” of the President. In many ways, despite all of our technology…elections STILL depend a lot on phone calls and knocking on doors.

Mufasa