Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 59

Thread: Election fallout

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178

    Election fallout

    Ok, I did not bother watching the returns come in last night. I did some quick math about 7:00, saw that even if you assumed that Romney took ALL the "battleground states", Obama would still have over 270 electoral votes.

    The tea party got stomped. Not only did they lose some incumbent congressmen, there were 4 races where incumbent republicans were ousted in the primaries and replaced by tea baggers. Every one of those lost to the democratic challenger. IMO that sends a pretty strong signal to Republicans....let the tea baggers pick your candidates and you may as well vote for the democrat. The lesson there is clear. Republicans need to pay more attention to their primaries. Republican turnout for primaries has been abysmal over the last few decades. That has allowed the lunatic fringe of the party to take over. That has to change if we want to keep the republican party as a viable opposition party.

    Boehner seems to be breathing a sigh of relief when it comes to the tea baggers. He is saying the election provides a mandate from the voters to compromise to get things done. He was not really onboard with the whole "hold the world hostage with the debt ceiling" thing....he pretty much had to do it because of the tea baggers. Now it seems that he is willing to disregard the crazies and get on with business.

    Ryan could not even deliver his home state for Romney.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,021
    Romney couldn't carry his home state...
    Ryan Lost his home state....
    Obama won all but 1 of the 12 so called Battleground states... ( many of which were dubbed battlegrounds by the Right but in reality were not)...
    The Senate Democrats actually picked up a couple of seats...

    Overall It turned out pretty much as I have expected since they chose Romney as the Nominee for the Republican Party. I never could wrap my head around the Idea of this guy sitting in the White House. Now we know, The Majority of Americans have spoken and they sent a pretty clear message last night. They are sick of the Government doing nothing. They want Compromise . I only hope that people can now set aside their differences and work to find solutions for the economic woes we still face. I hope that The two major parties can come together as they have in the past to set this nation back on course to prosperity.

    and just a reminder... Most importantly, Ez if you are reading this you will know I'm fully expecting you to honor our bet. If I'm not mistaken that means you get a vacation from 4forums.... Have fun, send a post card .....
    "You're too stupid to be saved." -- EasyRider.


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
    Epicurus

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Exit polls showed the economy was the most important issue and that they trusted Romney over Obama but when asked who they voted for they voted for Obama. To me, this is the most telling statistic.

    In 2000 it was 80% White, 9% Black, 7% Latino. in 2012 it is 72% white, 13% Black, and 11% Latino. As we all know, White's vote for the republican about 55% of the time. Latinos have gone democrat 70% of the time (60% in 2000) and Blacks go democrat 95% of the time.

    It's a matter of demographics. Whites are shrinking as a % of the population. Their birth rate is down so this will only continue. Latino and Black voters tend to be extremely loyal to one party regardless of issues. This explains why they may feel one thing about who would do better on the economy and yet still vote for the other guy. It also explains why the house remains republican and senate, president stay democrat. House districts are extremely segregated so you end up with all the white folks in one area voting for their guy and minorities voting for their guy in another. Virginia is a great example. We have 2 minority districts with a huge concentration on Black or Latino voters. The other districts are rural white areas. So you get 2 democrat seats in the house and 9 republican seats. Now, when it comes to more federal elections you are going to get 2 districts basically voting 90% democrat and the others between 45-48% democrat. That gets you to just over 50% which is what we saw in Virginia.

    Now I'm suggesting white, black, or Latino voters are racist or just voting for a party because of their race but their are commonalities in how certain areas vote.

    It is unlikely that republicans will reverse this trend going forward over the next 4 years. Unless the democrats nominating Joe Biden, I'm calling 2016 for the democrats.

    As for my thoughts, I didn't really see a difference between the two. Well, not a substantive difference. Guess we will muddle along another 4 years.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Romney tried to be all things to all aspects of his party. He tried to appeal to moderates and swing voters while trying to be attractive to tea baggers, while still trying to look like a strong old-school Reagan conservative. Looking back on the all the different itterations of Mitt, it's like some kind of sad one man 3 stooges act.

    These three different sects of voters that Romney tried to appeal to tell us a great deal. The republican party is fractured, and it is in trouble. Everyone is fighting to be the new base of the party, which leaves nobody a the top. This should be a strong lesson to the republican party...when you let unstable extremists like the tea baggers try to fill in the base, they make the entire party unstable and threaten to take it down. Mitt Romney was a symptom of the disease within the party, not the cure. It's time for republicans to establish a clear and realistic message, and find someone at the top that can build the party on solid ground with a strong base and lead it into the future.

    It turns out that it's hard for someone to pull the party together when one of their multiple personalities is always poking the other ones in the eyes.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Romney tried to be all things to all aspects of his party. He tried to appeal to moderates and swing voters while trying to be attractive to tea baggers, while still trying to look like a strong old-school Reagan conservative. Looking back on the all the different itterations of Mitt, it's like some kind of sad one man 3 stooges act.

    These three different sects of voters that Romney tried to appeal to tell us a great deal. The republican party is fractured, and it is in trouble. Everyone is fighting to be the new base of the party, which leaves nobody a the top. This should be a strong lesson to the republican party...when you let unstable extremists like the tea baggers try to fill in the base, they make the entire party unstable and threaten to take it down. Mitt Romney was a symptom of the disease within the party, not the cure. It's time for republicans to establish a clear and realistic message, and find someone at the top that can build the party on solid ground with a strong base and lead it into the future.

    It turns out that it's hard for someone to pull the party together when one of their multiple personalities is always poking the other ones in the eyes.
    I keep hearing it was the tea party. Both you and Daewoo think this. I'm just not convinced they had much to do with it. The tea party didn't exist until 2009-2010. If the tea party offended people who did they offend? By race the numbers didn't change much from 2008. White males voted more for Romney than they did McCain. That's basically the only difference. Exit polls show that 2/3rd of people don't give a sh*t about the Tea Party.

    It seems to me you'd have to argue that certain groups were coming around to the republican side until the tea party came in and messed it all up. I just don't see that.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    I keep hearing it was the tea party. Both you and Daewoo think this. I'm just not convinced they had much to do with it. The tea party didn't exist until 2009-2010. If the tea party offended people who did they offend? By race the numbers didn't change much from 2008. White males voted more for Romney than they did McCain. That's basically the only difference. Exit polls show that 2/3rd of people don't give a sh*t about the Tea Party.
    The "tea party" may not have existed until 2009, but the people who identify with it did. Many of these same people in the 80's were called the "moral majority". And you're right, about 2/3 of people don't care about the tea party. My point was about the fracturing of the republican party and how that has made it difficult for them to be attractive to voters. The tea party is just one factor causing the republicans to lose the election, however they are one of the easiest examples to point to considering their rather bellicose approach. Look back at previous elections...what did Bush do that Romney couldn't. He won Florida (at least once, maybe twice), Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada. You need to look specifically at these "swing states" and figure out why the swing voters have shifted to the left. My theory is that it is the lack of a common vision and strategy within the republican party that turns people off. Too many people are trying to take the party in too many directions.

    It seems to me you'd have to argue that certain groups were coming around to the republican side until the tea party came in and messed it all up. I just don't see that.
    Did you know that Gary Johnson representing the Libertarian Party got 1.14 million votes in the election, the highest number ever? I have yet to find full statistics on all candidates, but I will keep looking. I know Ron Paul got my write in vote (and my wifes for that mattter, and she has never voted for anyone other than the republican nominee until now). Certain groups were voting for the republicans, they were the voters of Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada. Something caused these states to start voting for the democrats, which I believe to be the division within the republican party and lack of a singular stance and direction. To make myself perfectly clear, I view the tea party not as a constituent of the group, but as a group within the group. They are not the totality of the problem, but rather a component of the problem.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by daewoo View Post
    the election provides a mandate from the voters to compromise to get things done.
    No compromise is acceptable. I would rather see civil war than compromise, and if you think I'm alone you're a fool.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Now I'm suggesting white, black, or Latino voters are racist or just voting for a party because of their race but their are commonalities in how certain areas vote.
    I am, they are racist as hell; and just like the rest of the collectivist they reject reason and cannot be swayed by words towards peaceful coexistence.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    The "tea party" may not have existed until 2009, but the people who identify with it did. Many of these same people in the 80's were called the "moral majority". And you're right, about 2/3 of people don't care about the tea party. My point was about the fracturing of the republican party and how that has made it difficult for them to be attractive to voters. The tea party is just one factor causing the republicans to lose the election, however they are one of the easiest examples to point to considering their rather bellicose approach. Look back at previous elections...what did Bush do that Romney couldn't. He won Florida (at least once, maybe twice), Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada. You need to look specifically at these "swing states" and figure out why the swing voters have shifted to the left. My theory is that it is the lack of a common vision and strategy within the republican party that turns people off. Too many people are trying to take the party in too many directions.
    The moral majority is different from the Tea Party. The moral majority of the 80s still exists as the evangelical vote. It's just much smaller. Furthermore, if they existed at that point than the impact should have happened back in the 80s. This is not the case nor is this the claim I hear. People say THIS election is result of a fractured republican party caused by the Tea Party. This implies it just happened after 2008. The difference between Bush winning and McCain/Romney not winning in Florida was highlighted in my post about demographics. Here is the Florida breakdown:

    White 70%/66%; Bush got 57%; McCain 56%; Romney 61%
    Black 12%; Bush got 13%; McCain 4%; Romney 4%
    Latino 15%/17%; Bush got 56%; McCain 42%; Romney 40%

    **In 2012 the Latino % went up to 17% and whites went down to 66%

    I think it is clear that the Republicans were going downhill with minorities long before the Tea Party. Romney picked up white votes but lost with Latinos. This has almost everything to do with the types of Latinos in Florida. Romney did as well as Bush with Cubans but Cubans make up less of Florida's Latinos now so he lost with non-Cuban Hispanics which voted similar to 2004 and 2008.

    I'm telling you, it's more of a culture thing than you realize. It's almost like how people become fans of a specific sports team...because their friends are fans of that sports team and they've always been fans and always will be fans. There just aren't that many people who critically think about these things like you and I to really make an impact.

    Did you know that Gary Johnson representing the Libertarian Party got 1.14 million votes in the election, the highest number ever? I have yet to find full statistics on all candidates, but I will keep looking. I know Ron Paul got my write in vote (and my wifes for that mattter, and she has never voted for anyone other than the republican nominee until now).
    I did not know that because it is impossible to find full election results. I voted for Gary even if he wasn't as awesome as Paul.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Xcaliber View Post
    Romney couldn't carry his home state...
    Ryan Lost his home state....
    Obama won all but 1 of the 12 so called Battleground states... ( many of which were dubbed battlegrounds by the Right but in reality were not)...
    The Senate Democrats actually picked up a couple of seats...

    Overall It turned out pretty much as I have expected since they chose Romney as the Nominee for the Republican Party. I never could wrap my head around the Idea of this guy sitting in the White House. Now we know, The Majority of Americans have spoken and they sent a pretty clear message last night. They are sick of the Government doing nothing. They want Compromise . I only hope that people can now set aside their differences and work to find solutions for the economic woes we still face. I hope that The two major parties can come together as they have in the past to set this nation back on course to prosperity.

    and just a reminder... Most importantly, Ez if you are reading this you will know I'm fully expecting you to honor our bet. If I'm not mistaken that means you get a vacation from 4forums.... Have fun, send a post card .....
    Take a 30 day hike, Snicklefritz. You lost our bet. The Dems didn't sweep everything, they lost the House. Say goodbye!
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

    "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

    John Adams, Founding Father and the nation’s second President warned: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."


    America just committed suicide by reelecting Barack Obama. Nutbags... That's why liberals are dangerous.
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,893
    Good evening America. Welcome to the world of mediocrity.........

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    Good evening America. Welcome to the world of mediocrity.........
    I'd settle for mediocrity at this point if I could. But right now we've become the U.S.S. Titanic with big spender Barack Obama at the helm. Liberal imbeciles.
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    I'd settle for mediocrity at this point if I could. But right now we've become the U.S.S. Titanic with big spender Barack Obama at the helm. Liberal imbeciles.
    We reached mediocrity a couple decades ago. I truly believe that the united states cannot recover under the power of it's own institutions after reelecting Barrack Obama. My hope is private international organizations conspiring to effect change in countries more apt to appreciate liberty than the united states. Then perhaps given enough time such countries will become intellectual and economic centers capable of cleansing the USA and Europe of their conceited belief that liberty is a birth right which has no need of understanding or protection.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    The moral majority is different from the Tea Party. The moral majority of the 80s still exists as the evangelical vote. It's just much smaller. Furthermore, if they existed at that point than the impact should have happened back in the 80s.
    I didn't say the moral majority and the tea party were the same, I said the tea party contains many of the same people.

    This is not the case nor is this the claim I hear. People say THIS election is result of a fractured republican party caused by the Tea Party. This implies it just happened after 2008.
    My point was that the republican party is fractured and again, not totally the fault of the tea party. They share some of the blame, but certainly not all of it. Forget the tea party for now...my point still remains. Too many people and too many groups within the republican party wish to move the party in too many directions. I can't be more clear than that.


    I think it is clear that the Republicans were going downhill with minorities long before the Tea Party.
    I think so too.

    Romney picked up white votes but lost with Latinos. This has almost everything to do with the types of Latinos in Florida. Romney did as well as Bush with Cubans but Cubans make up less of Florida's Latinos now so he lost with non-Cuban Hispanics which voted similar to 2004 and 2008.
    Quite possibly because Cubans know that the US is not going to send them back to Cuba. The real question the party should be asking in respects to latinos is why latinos distance themselves so much from the republican party. These are people that share similar religious values and work ethic as the republicans...what makes the party so unattractive to latinos?

    I'm telling you, it's more of a culture thing than you realize. It's almost like how people become fans of a specific sports team...because their friends are fans of that sports team and they've always been fans and always will be fans. There just aren't that many people who critically think about these things like you and I to really make an impact.
    Sure, culture plays a part. But culture plays a part because those of a similar culture have a reason to vote for one party over another. Unless you wish to claim that entire cultures conspire together to vote against their wellbeing.

    I did not know that because it is impossible to find full election results. I voted for Gary even if he wasn't as awesome as Paul.
    They can usually be found, I know I found them after 2008, it just took a few days. And Gary was not a bad choice either...I would loved to have seen a Paul / Johnson ticket. I'll post them when I find them. I do expect third party voting to be up. Also interesting of note: Johnson's performance has gained ballot access in at least on statge where it had not had access before, thus paving the way for a stronger vote in 2016...if we can hang on that long.
    Last edited by snakespit; 11-08-2012 at 03:19 PM. Reason: format error
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    I keep hearing it was the tea party. Both you and Daewoo think this. I'm just not convinced they had much to do with it. The tea party didn't exist until 2009-2010. If the tea party offended people who did they offend? By race the numbers didn't change much from 2008. White males voted more for Romney than they did McCain. That's basically the only difference. Exit polls show that 2/3rd of people don't give a sh*t about the Tea Party.

    It seems to me you'd have to argue that certain groups were coming around to the republican side until the tea party came in and messed it all up. I just don't see that.
    White people males voted more for Romney than they did for McCain, but fewer white males voted....a lot fewer. Black, Latino, and Asian turnout was the same or higher than 2008, but overall voter turnout was over 2% lower than 2008, meaning whites did not show up to vote. Younger whites also favored Obama.

    I don't buy that black voters and Hispanic voters are voting strictly party because it is the popular thing to do, or because they are too dumb to understand what is going on. Most Hispanics and black people are lower middle class or lower class. Most lower class and lower middle class people vote democrat. If I was lower class, I would vote democrat. It is called "voting in your own best interest". It is something the middle class needs to try sometime.

    The reason I think the tea party (replace with far right wing-nuts if it helps) sunk for the republicans is that Obama is presiding over the worst economy in our lifetimes. It is unprecedented for a president to get re-elected with the economic numbers that we have today. It simply should not have happened. Traditionally economic numbers like this, and the severe impact on the middle class, would have middle class voters out in droves...that pretty much means white voters. Instead they stayed home. I know a LOT who stayed home, and every single one of them I know that stayed home did so because of the lunacy that has been coming from the Romney campaign. Recessions bring out white voters...apparently unless they don't feel like they have anybody to vote for.

    The problem as I see it is that the nation is slowly coming around, at least in some regard, to reality, and the republicans are letting their ticket be dictated by people like freedom and sleazy who have no connection to reality. Over 75% of Americans believe we should raise taxes on the wealthy. Nobody who says "we should raise taxes on the wealthy" could possibly win the republican nomination. The freedoms and sleazys would not allow it. Only 20% of Americans believe that tax cuts for the wealthy help the economy. A politician who does not get up there and promise to cut taxes for the wealthy in order to help the economy cannot get the republican nomination. The nut jobs and retards wont allow it.

    If you look at the numbers, the republican candidate pretty much got support from ignorant, old, white people...baby boomers. If more white people had showed up to vote, Romney would have won. If young white people had voted for Romney (and they DID show up) he would have won. It is not just the changing racial demographics that are a problem for Republicans. It is the changing age demographics as well. There are more young voters now. Those young voters have much greater access to information than the baby boomers. We understand how to use that interweb thing. We have the facebook. We can do that google. We know how to research quickly and effectively, and are much better than the older generation at assessing the reliability of sources. This has actually been studied extensively. As access to huge amounts of information has become a part of our daily lives, we have learned to differentiate the good (CBO numbers, etc...) from the worthless (Heritage...). We also assimilate raw data better than the boomers....because we see more of it.

    For people over 40 their primary source of news is TV, magazines, and newspapers. For people under 40, it is the internet. In 30 seconds you can find 2 dozen reputable studies online showing definitively that lowering taxes for the wealthy does not spur economic growth, yet we have republican candidates who are pretty much forced to run on that platform.

    As far as this last election, I am having trouble imagining anybody whose name is not Mitt Romney who would have been voting in their own best interests by voting for Romney. If I actually HAD to vote for a candidate this time around, I would have voted for Obama. Cutting infrastructure spending as Romney proposed is an absolute non starter for me. We may as well cut our own throats as cut infrastructure spending. Also, I absolutely WILL NOT vote for any candidate who plans to increase military spending. That is an absolutely retarded position to take. When our own military is saying "give us less money...the fiscal situation is a FAR greater threat than anything else out there" force feeding them money is an act of treason.
    If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. —Samuel Adams

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •