Election 2012- Post Mortem

[MattFancy]

If that is the case then why did the number of black voters suddenly explode right around the same time the first black candidate was nominated?

Umm they've been historically democrat for the past few decades. Where have you been?

[Larry]

I'll be straight forward and honest and preface my statements with this: I'm political stupid. I admit that. I'm willing to be told, by either side, that I'm a complete moron, as long as it's explained why.

Larry, I don't always agree with your political stances (and for that matter I don't always agree with Kilmer's, either ) but, I'd like to ask you guys a question. It's not sarcastic, it's not tongue in cheek, there is no hidden meaning. It's a real question:

Isn't the information you posted above the reason why this country has some struggles? I'm not interested in hearing anything about the Republicans or the Democrats being the devil, either. I think both parties are at fault for the state of our country, regardless of who's in office. They stand off to the point where it's childish and it hurts our country. It's embarassing that this system divides us so much. How do you (and kilmer) and anyone else for that matter actually feel about the party system? Do you think its best for us as a nation?

I'm going to respond, because you mentioned me by name. But I have to admit that I'm not sure what your question is, so my response may not get at whatever you're looking for.

Frankly? I think that part of the problem with our current political climate, is this "They're both the same" meme.

No, they aren't.

Yes, the financial deregulation that was probably the primary cause of the latest recession, was done by both D and R. But no, it wasn't equal.

Yes, both Parties want to win elections. But only one of them has been engaged in a deliberate, organized, professionally-managed program of suppressing the votes of people who don't vote for them.

Yes, both Parties play political games with legislation that's important to the nation. But one of them plays "I want a million or so of the money to be earmarked for my district" games. And one of them plays "My entire Party will filibuster this entire bill unless we get a Constitutional Amendment passed, first" games.

Yes, both parties spin the truth. But only one lives their lives in a completely separate, alternate, reality.

One side is willing to compromise, on the deficit. One side is not. In fact, one side has made it very clear that they fully intend to prevent any attempt to deal with the deficit, unless the other side does what they want.

Only one Party looks at the problems the nation is facing, and says "Y'know, if we block any attempt to deal with this problem, we can demand a lot".

I can tell you right now, that the Republican Party's position, for the next two years, is going to be "We're in a position where we can harm the country, and Obama will get the blame for it." (Because it's what they've been doing, for the last four years, and it worked for them, some, and they haven't been punished for it, at all.)

(And, if they don;t get punished for it, in 2014, they'll keep doing it for the next two years, too.)

----------

Years ago, my Mom asked me how long they were going to keep prosecuting Bill Clinton, without finding anything. My response was "Until the Republican Party looses a dozen seats in the House"

I was correct.

Well, they're going to keep blocking any attempt to make the country better, to reach across the aisle, to deal with the deficit, until blaming Obama for their actions stop working, and costs them some power.

[Larry]

LOL, I'm already getting the angry neo-con accusations that its my fault Romney lost. They just cant seem to get it that the GOP LOST my vote that they probably could have had! We warned them ad nauseum, they didnt listen and they rejected us.

I love the look on their face when I calmly explain how they f'ed up. No defense

After the last decade, I think it's pretty likely that I will never vote R again. Frankly, I think that they are a threat to the future of the country.

Decades ago, I thought the same thing of the Ds. (I've since come to the conclusion that my painting them as so evil was an exaggeration. But not completely untrue.)

There are things that the R's talk about, that I think are important. #1 on the list is the deficit. But frankly, I've come to the conclusion that the Ds are better on that issue than the Rs. I've decided that to the Rs, the deficit is something that they talk about, as part of their agenda to try to force the Ds to get rid of Medicare and SS. The Ds at least occasionally try to do something about it.

(Not necessarily because I think the Ds are more ethical or actually care more about the deficit. But simply in recognition that they're vulnerable on the issue, and they have to occasionally do something about it, or they'll get kicked out of office.)

[Burgold]

I can tell you right now, that the Republican Party's position, for the next two years, is going to be "We're in a position where we can harm the country, and Obama will get the blame for it." (Because it's what they've been doing, for the last four years, and it worked for them, some, and they haven't been punished for it, at all.)

In a way though, there's hope in this. There's just not a lot to be gained by trying to defeat Obama right now. He's not running anymore. The electorate and especially the battlegrounds declared they don't blame him. The Tea Party did get hit in the election, however. Right now, the Republicans have every reason in the world to push a reasonable agenda and make sure everyone knows it's theirs.

Honestly, I think if they do the next go around is theirs. After all, do you really see Biden as President next? I don't think Hilary wants to run.

[Larry]

...This I do not believe. How do you know healthcare preimiums would have rose more without obamacare? AND no way in hell will insurance premiums stop rising...come talk to me in four years and we will see how much your health insurance premium has rose, unless you don't pay for health insurance...

So, your first question is "How can you say insurance rates would have risen without Obama?"

(I will observe that the obvious answer is "100 years of history?")

And your second is "Insurance rates always go up"?

Is it really necessary for me to point out that you've answered your own question?

---------- Post added November-7th-2012 at 10:57 AM ----------

I will definitely not enjoy anything about our choices, but I knew how that was gonna work out many months before the convention.

just so you understand, I say this with bile in my throat and anger in my heart rather than glee. It was an opportunity lost for real true liberty and righting the ship. It makes me sick that the GOP threw it away out of nothing more than hubris and arrogance.

Thats what happens when you run a big government establishment big spender against another one.

Right.

The Republicans lost because they didn't go extreme right wing enough.

Please keep insisting on that.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Would a public option that is available to people in general that is not tied to employment/employers help you out? You'd be out of the business of providing health insurance policies for your employees, they could sign up for the public option.

Give it up.

The sad fact is - many otherwise reasonable and rational business owners are wingnuts. 30 years of far-right propaganda filtered through "business publications" like Forbes and such have convinced them they're John Galt. So no matter how much a government regulation or program might help them, the lizard brain response just sees "dang gubmint reguluasions killing muh buziness, they killing the jerb creators".

It's like how college educated people can believe in Creationism and such, it's just an ideological blind spot.

Also fun fact, deficits don't matter unless your economy is less productive. A lot of successful businesses run on credit lines, not on cash reserves, because the bank knows they'll be productive enough to continually adhere to their obligations. So really, it matters what kind of deficits you run. Running deficits for wars for oil and massive tax cuts that do NOT help the economy? Bad. Running deficits to rebuild infrastructure and invest in R&D? Good.

[SnyderShrugged]

So, your first question is "How can you say insurance rates would have risen without Obama?"

(I will observe that the obvious answer is "100 years of history?")

And your second is "Insurance rates always go up"?

Is it really necessary for me to point out that you've answered your own question?

---------- Post added November-7th-2012 at 10:57 AM ----------



Right.

The Republicans lost because they didn't go extreme right wing enough.

Please keep insisting on that.

I have no idea what orifice you pulled that from, but I didnt say that at all.

Simply put, if they had respected those of my ilk, even a little, they would have had many, many more votes. This would be true if zero of RP's ideas were adopted in full.

Please at least try to stay a little within the boundaries of what is actual said next time, it saves a great deal of time typing.

[Larry]

Republican strategy for the past four years has been simple: disenfranchisement. Is that really going to be their strategy going forward?

They lost the black vote 95-5.
They lost the Latino vote 7-3.
They lost the single woman vote 6-4.
They lost the under 30 vote 6-4.

So, instead of courting these voters....they are going to try to keep them from voting? How this a viable strategy?

Disenfranchising people has been part of their plan for over a decade. And every election they become more obvious about it.

And it hasn't cost them, yet. A good 45% of the country is perfectly willing to endorse it (when their side does it).

They're going to keep doing it, more and more, and more and more obviously, until they find out where the line is that, if they go past the line, it costs them.

(And this election very clearly says that they haven't got there, yet.)

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I have no idea what orifice you pulled that from, but I didnt say that at all.

Simply put, if they had respected those of my ilk, even a little, they would have had many, many more votes. This would be true if zero of RP's ideas were adopted in full.

Please at least try to stay a little within the boundaries of what is actual said next time, it saves a great deal of time typing.

Ron Paul would never have endorsed Romney, and Ron Paul voters would never have voted for Romney en mass, certainly not enough to take any swing states. Hell, I could see Ron Paul libertarians swing towards Obama, not Romney because of Romney's rigid hawkishness on Iran.

So, instead of courting these voters....they are going to try to keep them from voting? How this a viable strategy?

They can't win those voters. Those are the most fiscally liberal segments of the electorate, and reaching out to them would alienate the base.

Again, people are really underestimating how liberal blacks, Latinos, and ESPECIALLY Millenials are. Boomers fueled the Republican ascendancy from 1972-2008, Millenials are nearly as big, and every bit as liberal as the Boomers (the 20% of so of vocal hippies excepted) are conservative.

[afkidd]

30 years of far-right propaganda filtered through "business publications" like Forbes and such have convinced them they're John Galt. So no matter how much a government regulation or program might help them, the lizard brain response just sees "dang gubmint reguluasions killing muh buziness, they killing the jerb creators".

DEY TEWK OUR JERBS!!! pissing me off...

[John224]

That's not what I said and you know it.

The black vote was not as high during past democratic nominees as they are now for a black one.

[SnyderShrugged]

Ron Paul would never have endorsed Romney, and Ron Paul voters would never have voted for Romney en mass, certainly not enough to take any swing states. Hell, I could see Ron Paul libertarians swing towards Obama, not Romney because of Romney's rigid hawkishness on Iran.

The numerous delegates at the convention disagree. If only their rightful, and legally gained delegate spots were respected. Yes, many wouldnt have supported him regardless, but many would have supported as well under different circumstances

[Larry]

Likewiser, the Republican even failed to heed the messages of their own past when G. H. Bush failed to present "the vision thing."

Romney did not present a vision to the country. Sure, he said he wanted things better and wanted to create jobs, but there was no substance, no vision, nothing that the American public could glom onto other than ABO (anyone, but Obama). In fact, I would argue that Romney largely lost because he only wanted to make this about Obama.

I would disagree quite a bit.

Romney did present a pretty clear of what he wanted, at least as far as spending/taxation/economy.

His vision was "Double Down on Trickle Down":

• Pass a big tax cut. (Mostly on The Rich).
• Big increase in military spending. (With really no reason for it.)
• Repeal a bunch of rules that Big Business doesn't like.
• When the deficit goes up, act surprised, and insist that cutting taxes and increasing spending had nothing to do with it.
• Assume that the economy will grow. (After all, it almost always does).
• If [when] it does grow, claim that my tax cut caused 100% of it.

My feeling is that part of why he lost was the "We've been doing that for 30 years, and it doesn't work" effect.

(But then, I am often guilty of over-estimating the intelligence of the electorate.)

[zskins]

This is what I don't understand about Replublicans and Democrats? The both of you are so busy fighting with one another that you've simply lose sight of anything important. Work together and get this thing figured out, my god you both are so stubborn.

Have you ever watched two kids fight over the same toy but yet don't realize they can play together instead.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

The numerous delegates at the convention disagree. If only their rightful, and legally gained delegate spots were respected. Yes, many wouldnt have supported him regardless, but many would have supported as well under different circumstances

So wait, Ron Paul libertarians are going to vote for a warmongering neo-con who wants to bomb Iran, opposes drug legalization, is far right on most social issues, and is presumably pro-Fed? Just to beat Obama?

You'd be lucky to get 5-10% of Ron Paul voters into the fold unless Romney publicly ripped up the GOP platform and replaced it with Paul's.