The Day After
A wise person once told me that if you can’t say anything nice, then don’t say anything at all. Now that I’ve exercised my extensive X-rated vocabulary in private, it’s time to move on.
Obviously, I’m disappointed by the presidential results. What surprises me the most is the turnout. It seems clear now that Romney never closed the deal with the Republican base. But this election offered a pretty clear choice and America has chosen. I agree with Rachel Lucas:
But whatever happens, I’m not going Galt.
I understand, on some level, why some people want to do that right now. It seems completely fucking pointless to work hard and produce anything if more than half your countrymen want to confiscate the fruits of your effort for their own lazy and even destructive aims, and they have the armed backing of the federal government to do that.
But I’ve spent too many years living in Europe, experiencing firsthand the end result of what happens when too many good people “check out” and give up and don’t say or do anything to defeat the shithead selfish “majority” because they feel overwhelmed by forces they believe are beyond their control. Goddammit, I refuse to remove myself from an ideological or political or existential battle because of election results or social pressure.
In Wisconsin the picture is a bit rosier. Republicans retook the state Senate. Grothman won easily. The school referendum passed, and while I didn’t support it, I think that the process worked as it should. The citizens of the district want to spend the money and it’s our choice. The election that baffles me the most is that of Senator-elect Baldwin. How can our state elect Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin? Wisconsinites are strange sometimes.
The real truths remain. God is great. Beer is good. And people are crazy.
So you are agreeing with her in saying that I’m lazy, destructive, a shithead, and selfish, all because of the presidential candidate I supported? That seems beyond childish.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1307 hrs
After wasting more time on the phone over this absurd Obamacare 1099 requirement with my merchant processors….I’m contemplating “going Galt”.
I’m tired of my time being absorbed for ridiculous, and needless, government regs like this.
Don’t fight the liberal mooch. Just join in.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1350 hrs
Are you sure he never closed the deal with his base… or that the Republican “base” as it stands is smaller, and continues to shrink?
The Latino population in this nation is growing faster than any group, and Republicans, who should be able to court them because of their conservative family values and religion, instead decide to spit in their face with their immigration stance.
As long as Republicans continue to have an active dislike for brown people, they will continue to have a hard time at the ballot box.
Posted by Nick on November 07, 2012 at 1356 hrs
nick,
As long as Republicans continue to have an active dislike for brown people, they will continue to have a hard time at the ballot box.
Unlike the liberal religion, the Republicans that I know view people as individuals and do not dissect and divide them by skin color (or gender)...or view them as a social demographic to be conquered.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1400 hrs
That’s all very diplomatic. Being a good loser is hard (we’ve all been there) and you’re certainly faring better than many today (although I’d be curious to hear what your walls would say if they could talk.)
Tagging onto Nick’s comment, the one premise that I will question is that about Romney sealing the deal with the base. Once again, we see that the D percentage in exit polls is consistent with what it’s been the last ten years or so (absent 2010, which represented more a temporary collapse in D participation than any great shift with R’s or I’s). In 2008 it was 39/29/32 (D/I/R). This year’s turnout was 38/29/32 (D/I/R) in a year when I think everyone will stipulate that Republicans were more motivated than in ‘08 and Democrats were less motivated. And yet in the end, the numbers didn’t move.
The real collapse in 2010 was with moderate voters, who tend to identify as Democrat or independent in equal parts. But it’s not that they voted Republican. They just didn’t vote.
When those soft moderates show up at the polls (as they tend to do in presidential years), Democrats almost always do well - in no small part because the GOP seems steadfastly opposed to changing course in order to address its demographic time bomb. When those soft moderates stay home, the GOP (for now) has the potential to rack up gains.
I think Romney did fine with the base. Conservative participation is comparable to historical levels. Republican participation is comparable to historical levels. They may not have been as enthused as if they had their optimal candidate, but there just aren’t that many votes left to wring out there.
The bigger question is how a party that seems to think its future is in 50-year-old white evangelicals maintains a broad enough appeal to play a relevant role in governance going forward. America is changing, both ethnically and in terms of its growing social liberalism. And yet true to their name, conservatives seem more inclined to fight this change rather than adapt to it.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on November 07, 2012 at 1401 hrs
America is changing, both ethnically and in terms of its growing social liberalism.
I think that’s obviously true, like it or not. This election certainly proved it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1407 hrs
I have been listening to conservative radio all morning hoping to hear the spinmeisters eat some crow and admit to their listeners that they got it wrong and didn’t understand the electorate. All I have been hearing is them bloviating about what the election means to the people who voted for Obama. They don’t get it, they will never get it. Uncompromising ideologues will never be able to implement working solutions in our democracy.
Those of us in the reality based world have known for a long time that the make believe the GOP propaganda industry peddles would never be able to sustain itself. We saw the curtain pulled back last night during Rove’s meltdown. Megyn Kelly patrolling the halls of FoxNews looking for the answer for why the world doesn’t fit their narrative was one of the most fascinating moments ever broadcast on live television. There will have to be a few more moments like that before the GOP reforms itself. I just hope GOP obstruction doesn’t do too much damage to this country before they accept the reality that America doesn’t share their vision.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1409 hrs
I am white, but I am neither 50 years old nor evangelical. I know I’m a bit Pollyannaish about this, but I continue to reject the racist identity politics which you espouse. I have a fundamental confidence in the individual and the supremacy of ideas. Perhaps it is my faith in the individual that makes me suck at election predictions
Posted by Owen on November 07, 2012 at 1411 hrs
Yes VA that is what I am saying I can’t and won’t speak for Owen or Jed but what has obama actually run on? He has a history of saying and doing the taking from one group and redistributing it thing. A vote for him is a vote for less transparency in govt, more civil rights violations, a takeover of private industry, and a increasing disregard of the constitution. In 6 months when the economy is still in the tank or getting worse will this now be deemed a result of an inherited economy? Inherited from whom? Himself? If this term is a failure who will be blamed? How far down the rabbit hole do we need to go before he actually take the blame? Benghazi didn’t do it, when the other obamacare shoe drops I suspect it will be blamed away…I want to know where it ends or if it ends.
Posted by fishaddict on November 07, 2012 at 1424 hrs
A look at the demographics shows there’s a lot more than race and ethnicity going on here.
The younger you were, the less education you had (except post-grad), the less income you had, the more likely you were to vote for Obama.
Which is to say, much of it may simply come down to Sandra Flukes looking for/expecting more free stuff? If so, this is could be a very significant shift indeed- one that could put the USA on a path toward Greek-like insolvency.
Aside from that, I think the Obama campaign was somewhat successful in defining Romney as a rich, arrogant snob. And politics 101 is never letting your opposition define who you are.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/177597801.html
The one difficult-to-understand part is, how could Wisconsin elect Baldwin?? Did voters truly know who/what they were voting for?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1429 hrs
I didn’t vote for Romney and I don’t feel any lament for his election loss. The GOP lost me during the Bush years and the Karl Rove that TMKF refers to is very much the face of that alienation. The GOP establishment burned a lot of bridges, and it did so intentionally and cheerfully. It has bridge building to do and it is diffcult to imagine the current GOP establishment doing so. The silver lining for the GOP is that the Obama administration has no more idea of how to solve any of the nations’ problems than it did yesterday. The subsequent failure will be diffcult to pin on the GOP.
Having said that, there is also no place for me in the Democratic party. Their interest in me and my desires extnds no further than what they might wish to take from me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1434 hrs
So it is now fact 51 % of the country are naive dreamers that will buy into a shit sandwich provided it’s pleasantly wrapped and presented well with a marketing plan.
Don’t be mad exploit the weakness these people will buy anything. A huge consumer group out there that is clueless,go forth and reap some profits.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1435 hrs
Meanwhile, at the state level, Democrats continue to suffer big losses and will effectively get rolled by all these “white, Christian, brown-people hating” Republicans.
Enjoy the congressional gridlock, chumps!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1437 hrs
Very gracious Owen, but the reason you aren’t any good at election predictions is you don’t look at the data. Here’s a story of what I learned from you.
In 2006, after reading your writings on this blog, I thought for sure Doyle would lose. Something had to be wrong with the polls. Just couldn’t be true. Afterwards, I told my friend, who is more conservative than I, that I thought Doyle was going down. He said, “Why on earth would you think Doyle would lose when all the polling averages had him up?” And he was right.
In 2006, the polling averages told us Doyle would win. He did.
In 2008, the polling averages and election models told us Obama would win. He did.
In 2010, the polling averages and election models told us Walker would win and the GOP would gain about 50+ House seats. They both did.
In 2011, the polls and election models told us Walker would win the recall. He did.
So why in 2012 when the polling averages and election models told us Obama and Tammy were going to win would you think differently?
Polling, when averaged and aggregated, is a science. It is reliable. The next time Real Clear Politics or Nate Silver at 538 tells you what is going to happen….believe them! That is all!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1438 hrs
To follow up on my earlier comments, taking into account people’s responses…
When I say that Republicans show an active dislike for brown people, and that they need to think about immigration because of the increase in Latino population… I don’t mean pander.
You can court the Latino vote without pandering. What Republicans tend to do is to show an active dislike for them. Republicans claim that this is a great country… a beacon of hope… and yet when hard working individuals try to come here… Republicans say go away.
You have laws being pushed like in Arizona that promote racial profiling of anyone who looks Mexican. This does not just affect illegal immigrants, but legal ones too. How would you feel if you got stopped and had to present paperwork just because of your skin color?
Not encouraging things like racial profiling is NOT pandering… it’s simply not spitting on someone. And honestly, I think it wouldn’t take much to attract Latino voters, because as I said before, they tend to be very Christian, very family oriented people, who would normally fit into the Republican fold. All you have to do is stop spitting in their faces.
Frankly, I don’t think most Republican politicians have it in them to stop.
Posted by Nick on November 07, 2012 at 1446 hrs
Now, that Obama has won, I would like the liberals to finally explain how they are going to tax and spend the country into prosperity.
The Messiah’s in, you’ve nothing to lose…explain away….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1447 hrs
Well stated. I’ve always approached this blog as the thoughts of a regular guy. I don’t pretend to have any insight. It’s just what I think. And while I love stats and the science behind it, I tend to ignore political polls. Perhaps to my detriment…
Posted by Owen on November 07, 2012 at 1448 hrs
America is changing, both ethnically and in terms of its growing social liberalism. And yet true to their name, conservatives seem more inclined to fight this change rather than adapt to it.
We’ll need to learn that taking what doesn’t belong to you is soooooo last century!
Yea, I guess some of us were raised not to take other peoples shit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1451 hrs
...and yet when hard working individuals try to come here illegally… Republicans say go away.
There…fixed it for ya’.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1455 hrs
This year’s turnout was 38/29/32 (D/I/R) in a year when I think everyone will stipulate that Republicans were more motivated than in ‘08 and Democrats were less motivated. And yet in the end, the numbers didn’t move.
RS - you’re better at the numbers, so I won’t argue with you on that. But it sure didn’t seem to me like the Republicans were more motivated. Sure there was a strong anti-Obama sentiment. But I don’t know that it was any more than in ‘08. It sure seemed like Romney was not a very well-liked candidate among a significant portion of his own party & he got the nomination as much because it was “his turn” as anything. The fact that he lost to McCain in the primary last year speaks volumes to me about his strength as a Republican candidate.
I don’t know - I don’t really think I can speak for either party members - but a lot of the posters around here & elsewhere seemed to go with Romney by default because none of the “good” candidates decided to run. That doesn’t spell motivation to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1502 hrs
@Pelican Pants - Hey, you can bury your head in the sand all you want. The reality is that immigration laws in this country are a mess. Low skilled people have almost no chance to come here legally, unless they have a kid here, or marry a citizen.
If there is no reasonable legal path, then yes, people will come here illegally. Once again… Republicans say this is a great country, and then put up super high barriers to entry for anyone to come here legally.
Then when some folks decide to come here illegally because the draw is just that great, you blame them, and make life hard for those who made it here legally too.
This is just like prohibition, which Republicans seem to forget about. When you have a highly desired product, that people want enough (alcohol, or freedom and opportunity), and then you make it illegal… there are many people who will try to get it anyway.
Posted by Nick on November 07, 2012 at 1508 hrs
the less education you had ...the more likely you were to vote for Obama.
I am always really curious to see who the more educated crowd goes for. I don’t think you can really determine it from the exit poll you linked to (their percentages don’t add up real well). I took a look at their numbers and tried to extrapolate who the more educated voters went for. According to my calculations if you tried to interpret their numbers as a sample of 100 people (8 of which apparently provide any information about their education) you would have 68 that had some higher education. 35 of them would have voted for Obama and 33 for Romney. The only portion of the “educated” demographic Obama loses is those holding a bachelors degree, if you include all degree holders Obama leads by one.
I applied the same strategy to the CNN exit poll below and found a similar result. O and R evenly split the “educated” demographic, Romney wins slightly among Bachelors holders, but loses slightly when you include all advanced degree holders.
Claiming that Republicans win the “educated” vote doesn’t appear to be true. It is true that the uneducated vote for Dems, but among those that have an education more vote Democratic than Republican.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/WI/president#exit-polls
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1526 hrs
Other than African Americans, I believe the biggest demographic gap here was the marriage gap. 41% difference with marrieds going for Romney and singles/divorced for Obama.
We’ve effectively replaced the family unit with government. So a lot of single folks jumped in to make sure more benefits keep coming. I don’t see that as a positive development, but it is what it is.
We’ve seen what the government as parent figure looks like in the inner city of Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, etc. The problems in those places are worse now than when Johnson’s war on poverty started.
I’m still perplexed though as to where the 10+ million voters from 2008 went to. If someone had said Obama will top out at 59-60 million in total votes and still win, I don’t think even Nate Silver would have taken those odds. Millions of 2008 Obama voters sat this out as did 2 million (and likely a lot more) 2008 McCain voters not showing up for Romney.
Most of us felt Obama “owned” it as to the economy and fiscal mess, but the electorate disagreed. I’m not quite as down though as some are because at the end of the day, Romney was 400,000 combined votes in VA, FL, OH and CO from winning this thing. This wasn’t like 2008 where McCain was trounced.
The four year campaign is over Barack. Time to lead. You own it now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1550 hrs
Ok, now my second post to discuss Tommy Thompson (unless Owen does a separate thread on that race).
I apologize to all my fellow conservatives for voting for TGT in the Senate primary back on August 14th. I wrongly assumed that TGT would understand that many of us supported him because he would be able to fund a campaign against Baldwin from day one unlike the poorer unknown Fitz and because Hovde was not coming across as friendly enough for the broader electorate.
We did not realize that Tommy was too cheap to spend his own money and too ineffective to bother to fund raise for anything.
We also did not realize that Tommy’s campaign advisors were all born before 1950 and did not have any clue what these cell phone and internet thingy’s were. Or talk radio. Or how to run a campaign against a female (you can’t go negative all day long-it doesn’t work)
Tommy made so many mistakes but here are the two that bothered me the most.
1) There were almost ZERO positive themed Tommy ads to introduce him to a new generation of voters who had no clue who he was. Tommy could have run dozens of ads showing him ribbon cutting at factories, Miller Park, school choice, tax cutting bills, etc. Positive, upbeat, smiling. Show the margins he won in statewide races to new young voters to show how he cut across party lines.
2) All we got were poorly done negative ads. When TGT finally got web ads up, all I saw was this grainy photo of Baldwin with a line “Stop the gridlock” or something like that. The ad made no F__ing sense. It didn’t even say who Tommy was or who Tammy was. You just clicked it to a you tube link of an even dumber video.
The lesson I take from this is that GOP here has to skew young. Nominate no one over the age of 50. The younger generation communicates differently and Tommy and his advisors tried to run a 1986 campaign in a 2012 world. It failed on so many levels.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1602 hrs
It’s simple, really. But you’d never expect the JS media conglom with its vested interests in Brewers revenue, or the fans right here of steroid infected adolescents swinging pieces of wood at round objects: ‘STICK IT TO ‘EM”.
There’s still a great deal of anger of Miller Park and the TAXING AUTHORITY (SELIG FAMILY TRUST FUND). Deal with that honestly - any baseball fan in Wi. has traded no representation and new taxes and constitutional integrity for a silly game. Shame on all of you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1603 hrs
“How can our state elect Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin?”
Agree with Steve Austin…Tommy was too cheap to dig deep. Yeah, he could do 50 pushups, but that proved to be a woefully inadequate qualification. Baldwin had the benefit of Obama’s substantial coat tails and no primary fight to deplete he massive campaign coffers funded by special interests. All she had to run on was identity politics…she has zero record to speak of.
Posted by Roland Melnick on November 07, 2012 at 1749 hrs
@Steve….“The four year campaign is over Barack. Time to lead. You own it now.”
I’d prefer he campaign for 4 more years. The last thing this country needs is him to start doing Presidential stuff without the fear of not being re-elected.
Posted by Roland Melnick on November 07, 2012 at 1752 hrs
I’m still perplexed though as to where the 10+ million voters from 2008 went to. If someone had said Obama will top out at 59-60 million in total votes and still win, I don’t think even Nate Silver would have taken those odds. Millions of 2008 Obama voters sat this out as did 2 million (and likely a lot more) 2008 McCain voters not showing up for Romney.
Maybe there is really something to stories like this
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 1814 hrs
“How can our state elect Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin?”
I pulled the county-by-county results, and compared them to 2008 and 2010. The answer is quite simple. RJ in a non-pres. election year, TB in a pres. election year. Republicans turn out for every election, but Dems do not. In 2010, 1/3 of the people in Milwaukee county that voted for Obama in ‘08 stayed home. Only 10% of the people that voted for McCain did the same. All in all, the Dem totals dropped from 1.65 mil to 1 mil. Republicans turned out, and Johnson and Walker won. In 2012, those dems turned out again. Note this - Obama got about 10k more votes in Milwaukee County, but so did Romeny (vs. McCain ‘08). Invirtually every other county (except Dane), Obama lost votes compared to ‘08 and Romeny gained. Unfortunately, the deficit was too much to overcome. Obama beat McCain by 400k. He lost about 50k, and Romney gained about 150k - but that only made up half of the difference, and Romney lost by 200k. Fellow WI conservatives/Republicans, hold your heads high. We turned out as well as we possibly can. But that just is not enough when the Obama GOTV machine is in high gear. After all that we’ve been through, it turn out that we are still a blue state when everyone turns out. Unfortunately.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 2030 hrs
Republicans say this is a great country, and then put up super high barriers to entry for anyone to come here legally.
Apparently, not high enough.
And nice try with the Prohibition analogy, but you’re comparing apples to hand grenades.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 2150 hrs
TerryN—“Maybe there is really something to stories like this”
Um, no. Go back to bed. From Red State…
“The Obama campaign ran a very good campaign. The Republicans did not. There was no fraud. There was no stealing the election. There was just a really good ground game from Barack Obama and a lot of smoke and mirrors from Team Romney and outside charlatans, many of whom will now go work for Republican Super PACs making six figure salaries, further draining the pockets of rich Republicans when not on television explaining how awesome and expert they are.”
http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/07/status-quo-ante/#
Roland Melnick—“All she had to run on was identity politics…she has zero record to speak of.”Steve Austin—“We did not realize that Tommy was too cheap to spend his own money and too ineffective to bother to fund raise for anything. We also did not realize that Tommy’s campaign advisors were all born before 1950 and did not have any clue what these cell phone and internet thingy’s were.”
I call bullshit. You and everyone else simply assumed that his name would be enough, and that Baldwin’s track record was “too extreme” for Wisconsin’s “adult” voters. If there was the concern that his advisors were running a shoddy campaign from a social media perspective, then where was the conservative blogosphere and their reliable commentators such as yourself rallying behind TT to pick up the slack?
Crusher—“So it is now fact 51 % of the country are naive dreamers that will buy into a shit sandwich provided it’s pleasantly wrapped and presented well with a marketing plan.”Thanks for the sweeping generalization. Now go smash a Pabst can on your forehead.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 2210 hrs
You and everyone else simply assumed that his name would be enough, and that Baldwin’s track record was “too extreme” for Wisconsin’s “adult” voters.
Everyone? Thanks for the sweeping generalization.
Try again, Junior. Tommy didn’t even get a majority of the vote in the primary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 2236 hrs
First ticket to lose both home states since McGovern in ‘72? Yikes. There’s not enough lipstick to put on this Hindenburg.
With another Hispanic turning 18 every minute of the day, soon Texas will be a swing state. The GOP either performs an exorcism on the tea potty or risks running behind Roseanne Barr and Ralph Nader.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 2241 hrs
Locke, to respond to your comment in #20, my point wasn’t absolute, but relative. The “enthusiasm” gap, to the extent it’s relevant was surely greater for Democrats in 2008 than in 2012. The rationale is simple: Republican voters went to the polls in 2008 knowing they were going to lose. There’s no greater disincentive to voting than knowing it’s not going to matter.
Baldwin/Thompson: If Baldwin won on identity politics, Wisconsin’s come a long way since 2006 when it passed a gay marriage ban with 59% of the vote.
Steve hit on some of Tommy’s problems in #24. More broadly, if your biggest asset is legacy and inevitability, and you go through a primary where a bunch of millionaires point out that the emperor is naked, all the mystique is gone. Plus, Tommy had to do something he never had to do previously: run from behind. An old, tired looking white dude throwing desperate 9/11 claims at a young-ish looking woman isn’t a winner.
And Steve’s dead-on about the age thing. Seeing pictures of these Tommy events was hilarious; a bunch of stone-age white guys getting together and trying to relive their glory years. It looked less like a 2012 Senate campaign and more like a 1962 class reunion.
I also agree with JV in #29. The guy who needs to be concerned with Baldwin’s numbers, first and foremost, is Ron Johnson. Johnson won an off-year election in a cycle with lower D participation than any federal election in decades. What we saw last night is that 2010 was an aberration, not the new normal.
Demographics, demographics, demographics:
Latinos: Since ‘04, we’ve watched two successive GOP candidates work in tandem to cut GOP support here by nearly a third. And those Latino numbers aren’t getting smaller. Give it three or four cycles - Florida will be completely gone and Texas will be a toss-up. Have fun with that electoral map.
Evangelicals: Obama did worse with evangelicals, but guess what? They’re disappearing anyway. The flip side is that Romney’s moralistic panders to them cost him among…
Single ladies: Put your hands up! Single ladies, another growing part of the electorate, handed Romney a beat-down of 40+ points. Why? Because conservatives couldn’t stop talking about their right to choose and their birth control, in order to please the…
Catholics! But what’d that get Romney? Obama won Catholics in 2008 and won then AGAIN by a smaller but statistically insignificant margin. Lots of us said months ago that this huge pander to the Catholics on the contraception mandate was stupid, stupid politics. Why? Because Catholics haven’t paid attention to their leaders in ages anyway.
Young voters: They basically hate the GOP right now. In the middle of a terrible economy, Obama gave them the ability to stay on their parents’ health plan. The GOP wanted to take that way. The GOP tells them that their gay friends are second-class citizens. That pisses them off. We’ve already covered the contraception issue. And to top it off, the old white guys in GOP leadership actually think that if you just sell the fiscal message the right way, they’ll overlook all that stuff and climb into bed with the evangelicals. Ha! Fat chance!
So here’s the problem. The GOP keeps pissing away opportunities to improve its standing with growing parts of the electorate in order to cleave itself even more to its rapidly dwindling base.
TMKF was dead on in #7. That Karl Rove meltdown, forcing Megyn Kelly to troll through the harshly-lit bowels of FOX studios to find the people who reviewed the polling data, was morbidly fascinating. But what was great is that it wasn’t Rove being upset about Romney. It was that Rove was watching his entire theory of electoral politics get destroyed; this notion that if the GOP just keeps whipping its existing base harder, it can keep finding the votes to win. But times have changed. Demographics have changed. There are more Latinos in the electorate. Nearly a sixth of the 2004 electorate has died and been replaced with a much different crowd at the younger end of the spectrum. Gay marriage isn’t a bogeyman anymore. There are more singles; fewer married voters.
The answer to the GOP’s problems aren’t hard to figure out. I’ve blogged about them for years. Stick to the fiscal issues, present them reasonably, stop letting evangelicals drive the social agenda, and for pete’s sake, stop letting the Tea Party foist crappy, ill-prepared candidates through primaries and into general elections. Otherwise you’re dooming your party to only win in low-turnout years, and even that’s going to be a harder and harder bar to clear as the electorate shifts away from GOP-friendly demographics.
It’s not rocket science. Problem is, just like with the polls, Republicans don’t want to believe that it’s right.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on November 07, 2012 at 2316 hrs
303 electoral votes (and up to 332 ) means:
-Nate Silver is a wizard and Dick Morris isn’t
-Karl Rove is no longer accepting Sheldon Adelson’s phone messages
-I have a dinner in my future with a new friend.
-Badger got something jammed into HIS orifice .
-Rush , George Will and Owen are smart guys who do, in fact, suck at electoral and Even referendum predictions.—————————
Pot in Colorado, gay marriage almost everywhere ,the West Bend Schools passed their second recent referendum , dogs and cats living together,Mass hysteria .
Sorry Mary, a big night for the left leaning, but stable .
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 2320 hrs
RS,
Brilliant analysis I hope the other side never takes to heartPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 07, 2012 at 2328 hrs
It’s a simple matter of people like free stuff. Obama offers free stuff while R and R offered pain. Republicans are going to be in the dog house until the economy collapses, which will be soon. US cannot withstand a nationalized health care system on top of all the other entitlements. We, as a people and as business, do not accept reduced standards with increased taxation. I just pulled all funds from investment in my 401k. I will wait for the fall.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 0020 hrs
Greeencarman - Those winkie smiley faces mean something. Next time I am sarcastic I’ll make it more simple to understand
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 0057 hrs
Re: #37
That is simply the best summary of the campaign I’ve seen yet.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 0957 hrs
When will the HELP WANTED ad be posted that the United States of America is looking for more rich people?.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 1020 hrs
Recess and JoeMamma got it right! There have been a number of times in my life that I have voted Republican…and might again but not with the doctrinaire crowd in charge of the party now. If the party doesn’t change itself the changing demographics will help it join the Whig party. I saw a statistic that 50,000 Hispanics are born in this country either every day or every hour…don’t remember. In any event a party that has as a platform hostile to dark skinned voters will ultimately join Archie Bunker on the ash heap of history despite Kevin’s pontifications in #4.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 1038 hrs
I’m contemplating “going Galt”.
Great - cya.
Perhaps some of that Rocky Mountain High will improve your mood.
But let’s face it - you are no Hank Reardon.Posted by Charlie Hillman on November 08, 2012 at 1205 hrs
Dave, forgwet all the race-baiting. You still have not explained how the liberals can tax and spend their way to prosperity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 1209 hrs
Dave,
In any event a party that has as a platform hostile to dark skinned voters will ultimately join Archie Bunker on the ash heap of history despite Kevin’s pontifications in #4.
I challenge you to name 3 things in Republican platform, “hostile to dark skinned voters”?
There is nothing in Republican platform that dissects and divides people by race like the Democrats do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 1223 hrs
And I challenge Kevin Scheunemann to speak to a dark-skinned voter and find out why they feel that way. As a privileged white guy, are you really in any position to defend the Republican stance on this?
Obama rate of deportation is higher than another other President. Yet, on immigration policy, those most affected still choose Obama over the Republicans. Why do you think that is?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 1436 hrs
Anon,
Does this mean you cannot name 3 things in the Republican platform?
Your comment is racist. It assumes an entire ethnic group is liberal. That is far from the case.
If I talked to the nearest PERSON, as your suggest, based purely on skin color, that person would be teaching my child right now at a Christian elementary school. They are Evangelical like myself.
We have Christ as our guide and do not covet the money, time, and efforts of others. She is a great teacher by the way, and I would not, ever, consider treating her any less than what Christ demands of me. In Christ’s kingdom, skin color is not an issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 1514 hrs
Kevin,
Please, keep speaking. You really show the narrow mindedness and the complete blindness of the GOP with everything you say.
Kevin says:
I challenge you to name 3 things in Republican platform, “hostile to dark skinned voters”?There is nothing in Republican platform that dissects and divides people by race like the Democrats do.
Ok, now I got my laugh for the day, thanks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 1547 hrs
This is from a different forum and exactly the issue I see:
“The GOP is too busy deflecting issues\problems within their own group by constantly seeing what’s wrong with everyone else except themselves, to even address those issues….we know that the Democrats have issues as well, but I also don’t know of any mainstream Democrats who blatantly and often proudly offends women, gay people, black people or hispanics….and then stubbornly refuses to see the error in their ways.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 1550 hrs
Rdub,
Then humor me…name 3 issues in the Republican platform “hostile” to the interests of the voters you cite?
I don’t think you can do it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 1551 hrs
-Self Deportation
-Making English the official language
-During this year’s Republican presidential primaries, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain told voters that American Muslims want to impose Islamic law in America
-The insistence that most poor people are lazy and moochers
-The cutting of programs for the poor while giving breaks to corporations
-Cutting funding for schools a lot of which, are minority dominated
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 1605 hrs
@Kevin - The GOP= Not Racists, just #1 with racists !!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 1618 hrs
name 3 things in Republican platform, “hostile to dark skinned voters”?
I don’t know why 3 is the magic number, wouldn’t a single issue be one too many? Here are two:
-self deportation (this one issue alone was probably powerful enough to doom the GOP among latino voters in this cycle and was understandably viewed as disrespectful by many non-white Americans)
-voter id (as applied by the GOP it is hard for any non-partisan to view it as anything other than voter suppression)There are a ton of other things the GOP does and has done to repel minorities, but these two are blatant and are part of the party platform.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 1620 hrs
If we’re going to engage in racial politics, as a white guy I’m a bit miffed that nobody is making an effort to reach out to me.
Posted by Owen on November 08, 2012 at 1640 hrs
I found this pretty hilarious.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 1643 hrs
Rdub
Republican Party platform (Dave used term platform)
Here is link:
http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf
1.) The word deportation is not anywhere in platform. I did a search. NOT IN PLATFORM.
2.) The platform does support English as official language. Personally, if you took this out of platform, it would not change 1 vote among the group you claim.
3.) Not in platform.
4.) Not in platform
5.) If this is in platform. please point out platform language that is at issue. Until then, not in platform.
6.) Not in platform. There is a lot of plans to take school resources and reallocate them to make education better so we don’t have to tolerate failing school systems like MPS that only graduate 42% of its students from high school. The Democratic platform sentences these kids to more of the same.
Could you please try and find something IN the platform like Dave claimed.
Personally, I was inspired to re-read the platform when Dave bore false witness against the Republican platform.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 1819 hrs
TMKF
Platform:
http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf
1.) Again, the word “deportation” is not in the platform. Please read platform and tell me whee term “self-deportation” appears.
2.) Voter ID is mentioned once and it indicates that states have the right to decide the issue. It does not express a position on Voter ID, only criticizing the President for preventing states from implementing the will of the people that voted for Voter ID in those states!
Are you against people deciding with their state government on the issue?
Please read the platform before bearing false witness against it.
Appreciate it. Thank you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 1824 hrs
“Are you against people deciding with their state government on the issue?”
Mr. Schuenemann, the state government does NOT decide the issue, the representatives through majority vote say yes or no. Their decision represents the will of the people who put them in power. Now, recall that you stated in a previous post that “the majority does not rule. Thanks to liberalism, we are all divided into small, protected, or unprotected, victim groups.”
More importantly, if you are saying YES that the people can make their own choice on this particular matter—Voter ID—then they certainly are able to collectively decide that they prefer that a particular religion NOT be part of or dominate their school district, that they want the teaching of evolution in their schools, that they want their taxes to fund secular institutions, etc.
If you say NO, then you are being hypocritical—yet again—as a supposed defender of freedom.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 2041 hrs
greencarman,
Now, recall that you stated in a previous post that “the majority does not rule. Thanks to liberalism, we are all divided into small, protected, or unprotected, victim groups.”
This is a clear issue where majority DOES NOT RULE! WI voted it in—-through their representatives—-and Dane County judges, unilaterally, throw out the majority. Obama is also assaulting the rights of other states to decide this issue as well.
Obama is assaulting states rights in the name of alleged victim groups that allegedly can’t get an ID to vote. If one is not smart enough to procure a free ID from the DMV in WI…should that person even be voting?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 2113 hrs
Please read platform and tell me whee term “self-deportation” appears.
From the platform:
We will create humane procedures to encourage illegal
aliens to return home voluntarily, while enforcing
the law against those who overstay their visas.
State efforts to reduce illegal immigration must
be encouraged, not attacked. The pending Department
of Justice lawsuits against Arizona, Alabama,
South Carolina, and Utah must
be dismissed immediately.This is commonly referred to, and labeled by the GOP presidential candidate multiple times, as “self-deportation”. I’m sorry if you don’t understand your party’s platform, but the people affected by it and voting against it sure do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 2120 hrs
Now, if the (R)‘s want to win the presidency in the future, they are going to have to realize that moderates, independents, and the disaffected generally focus on personal issues when voting for a candidate. Because it certainly seems that the economy and fiscal responsibility are issues that are of secondary importance to these groups. As Recess Supervisor pointed out, it’s about demographics!
True, there was sentiment among these three groups of people against the power of unions in Wisconsin. That is why Walker and his cohorts were able to pass Act 10. So, in this specific case, economics mattered because of a personal dislike for labor groups.
BUT, these same groups of people who supported Walker appears to have voted for Obama despite their reservations regarding his handling of the economy for various reasons—some groups supported his immigration stance, some groups support his position on gay marriage, etc. The economy will right itself, they think, because it always has in the past regardless if a (D) or (R) president has been in charge.
So it appears that the personal feelings of these groups toward social issues trumps their feelings about the economy, even though they may lean to the right financially. And when the Republicans do “allow” hard righters to be their candidates for Senate, they get trounced because their “traditional values” meme fails to resonate with these groups.
One can also argue that evangelicals, while claiming to vote for Romney among their circle of friends, quietly cast their ballot for races other than the presidency. Why? They smelled a rat when it came to his stance on key social issues, especially when they examined his record.
Spock—“It’s a simple matter of people like free stuff…I just pulled all funds from investment in my 401k. I will wait for the fall.”The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Exactly the reason why speculators, investors, and business owners should NOT react like Pavlov’s dogs to their insistence that Obamacare is the death knell of the economy, and therefore they must sell, sell, sell or downsize, downsize, downsize. Their behavior is typical of the self-fulfilling prophecy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 2122 hrs
Mr. Schuenemann—“WI voted it in—-through their representatives—-and Dane County judges, unilaterally, throw out the majority.”
And what happens when WI voted something in you oppose and a Waukesha judge, unilaterally, throw out the majority? Would you be upset in this case?
Regardless, the fact remains that the majority of people voted for something they believed in—no one took away this freedom!—and through our checks and balances system, a judge rendered that decision as unconstitutional. His/her discretion to make that decision based on their reading of the law. Don’t like the judge? Vote them out of office!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 2130 hrs
TMKF,
Congrats you read the platform.
We will create humane procedures to encourage illegal
aliens to return home voluntarily,Creating incentive, or “procedures”, to encourage someone who is staying illegally in the country to go home = “self deportation”?
I call it a “choice” by that person taking advantage of the policy, or procedure.
I find this section of platform refreshing.
One of those “procedures” could possibly be joining the military to get on fast track to citizenship.
“Self-deportation”, as it is represented, and misconstrued, by the media is not in the platform.
What is alternative to this statement?
Encourage illegal immigrants to continue to keep breaking the law?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 2143 hrs
greencarman,
And what happens when WI voted something in you oppose and a Waukesha judge, unilaterally, throw out the majority? Would you be upset in this case?
Example?
I don’t ever recall this happening.
I can’t vote for Dane County judges, even though they make decisions for me in Washington county to allow someone to steal my vote.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 2145 hrs
“If we’re going to engage in racial politics, as a white guy I’m a bit miffed that nobody is making an effort to reach out to me.”
Read the GOP platform Owen and then get back to me. You’ll find all kinds of goodies for white guys who own stuff.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on November 08, 2012 at 2216 hrs
“And what happens when WI voted something in you oppose and a Waukesha judge, unilaterally, throw out the majority? Would you be upset in this case?”
Mr. Schuenemann, this is a hypothetical. I’m simply pointing out yet another one of your inconsistencies. You say you oppose judges overturning laws—even though it is in their job description to make that determination and it is part of the democratic process. Does that mean in ALL cases you find fault in judges setting aside legislation, or only in those circumstances in which you personally oppose the law?
That is, if Judge A overturns a law that you find reprehensible, even though the majority of people agreed to it, are you upset that the will of the citizens was usurped?
“I can’t vote for Dane County judges, even though they make decisions for me in Washington county to allow someone to steal my vote.”Stamp your feet and cry foul all you want, Mr. Schuenemann, but it’s called the democratic process. Judges are allowed to determine for himself/herself that a law is unconstitutional.
Besides, Wisconsin law enables certain lawsuits to be brought forth in the jurisdiction of their choice by the plaintiff.
Hmmm, that meant the will of the people has been recognized. Majority rules, right? That is, the legislators made that decision based on what citizens wanted.So, do you have a problem when a similar situation arises in which the plaintiffs are afforded the same right according to Wisconsin statute to have the case heard in say, for example, Waukesha County?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 08, 2012 at 2332 hrs
The Republican party would have won the election if they would have chosen someone like John Huntsman. But their are too many extreme fringe groups trying to control the party. It’s time for Republicans to take their party back.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 0652 hrs
Still waiting fior Dave to explain how liberals plan to tax and spend the way to prospertity. Dave? Dave? Dave’s not here!
And per Kevin:
““Self-deportation”, as it is represented, and misconstrued, by the media is not in the platform.
What is alternative to this statement?
Encourage illegal immigrants to continue to keep breaking the law?”
Dave? Dave? Dave’s not here!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 0733 hrs
Everyone is worried about the “Fiscal Cliff” that’s coming. I’m assuming that will be the result of H.R. 2693 Budget Control Act 2011. If memory serves this is the bill that was sponsored by Republican David Dreier, and voted on by the majority of the Republicans. I believe the vote was 174 for and 95 against.
So, I’m wondering why all the worry now? Shouldn’t we just let what’s in the BCA just run it’s course?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 0820 hrs
Pat,
Really? Why did Tommy Thompson not win. Other than Dale Schultz and Mary Panzer, Tommy is the most liberal Republican in this state.
So Republicans need to be Democrats to win?
We’ve done that with Bob Dole, John McCain, and now Mitt Romney.
Republicans need to get a clear conservative to offer a clear alternative. Romney was clear on repealing the liberal oppression of Obamacare, but had no cred on issue (or as much as he should have) because he passed a similar system in his state.
So what you want is: 2 choices between socialism and socialism light?
That is no choice at all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 0843 hrs
bajaskier,
I don’t expect Dave to answer. He made his statement before he read the Republican platform.
The Republican platform wants ALL citizens to thrive.
The Democratic platform is the racist platform—-it only wants certain groups to thrive, while excluding and segmenting people by race…. and when asked to put God back in, Democrats roundly “boo”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 0846 hrs
So Republicans need to be Democrats to win?
No. But they need to start going back to being more libertarian.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 0850 hrs
Pat,
More libertarian on what?
Clearly, being Libertarian on fiscal issues, like Paul Ryan, send the Left into fits of rage.
I don’t have a problem with Republicans being more Libertarian (with possible exception of foreign policy), but what is the issue you think Romney needs to be more Libertarian on?
Free speech in the public square? I’d buy that. Liberals continue to assault speech in public square to this day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 0901 hrs
Pulling money out of the 401K is probably the right thing to do, greencarman. If you think demographics are against the GOP, take a look at the demographics against 401s.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 0906 hrs
More libertarian on what?
Social issues
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 0911 hrs
Pat,
Which social issues?
(Let’s exclude abortion, since Libertarians are split on that issue.)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 0917 hrs
Which social issues?
Per libertarian platform:
1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.
1.1 Expression and Communication
We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.
1.2 Personal Privacy
Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 0938 hrs
Pat,
And those issues were talked about in campaign? When?
Abortion was discussed mostly in context of: should government be paying for them and should government force birth control coverage on private employers…especially Catholic church
Romney had a Libertarian position on it and he got crucified by lefties that believe they have a divine right to have their birth control, and abortions, paid for by others.
Also, I’m sure you know i support 1.1…however leftist America does not. THE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION WANTS TO STAMP OUT ALL RELIGION IN PUBLIC SQUARE. Based on Democrats “booing” God at platform debate, its clear the Democratic Party supports that position. You think Romney will pick up Democratic votes from that crowd in protecting religious speech?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 0946 hrs
And those issues were talked about in campaign?
Some were. And most should have been. It’s more the should have been that would help sway younger voters. They feel more like the Republican Party is a bunch of Evangelical nut jobs and Tea Party idiots than common sense individuals. Now you won’t agree with that statement, and I don’t expect you to, but that’s what the party is coming off as.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 0953 hrs
Pat,
I hate to break this to you, but nearly all the Tea Party supports personal choice in the context of which we speak. (With exception of life at conception…but nearly all Tea Partiers are against government funding of abortion and government birth control mandates. Nearly all Evangelicals support latter position as well.)
BTW…just who were the “evangelical nutjobs” of which you speak? The Evangelical community was very quiet this campaign (probably because of the Mormon issue) and did not even say much. Many Evangelical leaders did not even get on Romney bandwagon until last month or two. I think you may just be regurgitating the hate from the liberal religion on that.
When it comes to the liberal religion, we are dealing with a distortion of reality on many things, and the firm belief that free stuff just falls from the sky. Libertarian ideals are “satan incarnate” next to those beliefs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 1001 hrs
Ok Kevin, you’ve persuaded me. The Republican Party doesn’t have a problem with how the vast majority of American perceives it. I don’t know how on earth Romney lost.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 1020 hrs
Kevin, people pay for their contraception coverage. They earn the benefits with their labor, and they also generally pay a monthly premium. The ACA simply stated that insurance companies had to cover contraception instead of charging women exorbitant fees on top of the rising premiums they were already paying.
You might disagree on whether or not the government can regulate insurance companies, but nobody is getting anything for free here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 1114 hrs
Orcinus,
One can get birth control a local store.
Why do we need to force ins. companies to provide it? Let ins. companies have a choice.
Birth control is abhorrent to the Roman Catholic church…why will you not let them practice their religion?
Pat,
In my experience, Libertarians are even MORE detested by the left than conservatives because Libertarians are rigidly against their free stuff. (Some conservative give into the free stuff.) I just don’t see how getting more Libertarian convinces the leftist moocher culture to vote Republican.
Sure, legalization (and taxation) recreational pot could be an issue…but is there enough stoners out there that can color in the right choice on the ballot, if Republicans picked it up as an issue?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 1129 hrs
Nobody is forcing Roman Catholics to buy contraception. And contraception for women was quite expensive, even with insurance coverage, before the ACA.
Why do you want to make sure employers’ beliefs decide what sort of health care coverage you have?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 1139 hrs
Orincius,
Employer’s beliefs don’t matter?
So if Roman Catholic church self-insured, they will not be forced by Obama to provide birth control?
As an employer, I’m shocked by your anti-choice stance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 1143 hrs
I just don’t see how getting more Libertarian convinces the leftist moocher culture to vote Republican.
Of course you don’t. And you never will. That’s why you never will be part of the solution.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 1147 hrs
I liked most of RS back in #34, but I do want to know, who did the tea party put up that got thrashed? I am not saying RS is wrong, but it certainly does not apply to the thread to that point as very few tea partiers agreed with either TT or Romney as a candidate. TT was definitely the successful white man’s candidate, but I still don’t know what Romney represented. Between all of things he was accused of flipping on and all of the things he really did flop on, the only message that really came across was ‘we won’t tax rich people’. Sorry, but that is definitely part of what we do need. Not a higher percent than they are ‘supposed’ to pay right now, just no loopholes out of paying what you are supposed to be paying now. Both sides talk about it, but both sides want to get re-elected…
I also did not buy the perspective you gave from single ladies. The war on women was 100% one sided. It was created by the Obama campaign, juiced by MSM and in my opinion was so effective precisely because it came from so far out of the blue that Romney had no answer. There was no proposed legislation abortion in the offing if Romney was elected or any other anti-women laws. That was fine, slimey, disgusting campaigning, no more. That single women bought what should have been an insult to their intelligence is too bad.
I also say to GCM, of course there was election fraud, it is just unrealistic to believe that there was enough from either side to sway the election this year. There is election fraud in every election. It is historical fact, though of course that data is not available from arrest records.
After that Kevin takes over and I did not really read much more.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 1151 hrs
After that Kevin takes over and I did not really read much more.
Maybe he and greencar should go have dinner and argue elsewhere. They sure litter this blog with crap.
I think the issue of Republican identity is very interesting. Some want them to move to the left and some to the right. Honestly, I don’t think it would have made any difference in this election - enough of the electorate was satisfied with how things are, and the incumbent had a tremendous advantage.
I do agree with RS to a point - moving forward, I hope Republicans stick with fiscal issues and leave the social ones alone.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 1556 hrs
Tuerqas—“I also say to GCM, of course there was election fraud, it is just unrealistic to believe that there was enough from either side to sway the election this year. There is election fraud in every election. It is historical fact, though of course that data is not available from arrest records.”
I don’t disagree with this point, I am simply questioning the extent of voter fraud or voter suppression as offered by political parties.
cynical—“Maybe he and greencar should go have dinner and argue elsewhere. They sure litter this blog with crap.”It’s called debate. Try it sometime, you’ll learn a thing or two.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 09, 2012 at 2024 hrs
GCM
I do believe I agree with the last part of your post.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2012 at 0055 hrs
The war on women was 100% one sided. It was created by the Obama campaign, juiced by MSM and in my opinion was so effective precisely because it came from so far out of the blue that Romney had no answer. There was no proposed legislation abortion in the offing
You’re smarter than that, so I can only assume you’re woefully misinformed. And with today’s right wing media, who can be surprised.
Do you know how many anti-choice laws were put forth—let alone passed—by Republican state legislatures when they swept the 2010 elections? Un. Precedented. And what about the whole contraception thing? Republicans really think its more important that my employer have the freedom to omit coverage for contraception from its insurance offerings than it is to insure that family planning services are available to all Americans? Perhaps they do—but the women of America disagree. Democrats didn’t put you in that spot, you did it yourself. Plus, Democrats didn’t invent Todd Aikin or the other members of Rape Club. Furthermore, its common knowledge that this president will almost certainly pick the next supreme court justice….while Roe hangs by a thread there. Also, Romney picked Ryan—no exceptions for any reason—to be his running mate. Also also, Romney is on record as saying he’d be “delighted” to sign a law banning all abortion.
All of that stuff? Completely real and completely not invented by Democrats.
“It just came so far out of the blue…” As if.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 10, 2012 at 1451 hrs
Enjoyed the discussion here so much that felt compelled to leave a word. From an outsider (not part of the country or electorate), it does come through as a conflict of cultures, regardless of the age, location and ethnicity factors. There appears to be a section of people who are ready to forgive the Democrats for having to fight battles that are not their own. And this forgiving is just the other side of anger at the Republicans for their policies. One has to give credit where it is due. Obama inherited a mess, and he has not made it worse. To a large extent, this mindset is the result of people’s movements like Occupy.
Posted by Subhorup Dasgupta on November 10, 2012 at 2201 hrs
“Republicans really think its more important that my employer have the freedom to omit coverage for contraception from its insurance offerings than it is to insure that family planning services are available to all Americans?”
Read: You evil Republicans have to pay for Sandra Fluke’s birth control so she can continue to hop from bed-to-bed with the frequency of a cheap transistor radio. Hat-tip SNL.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 11, 2012 at 0738 hrs
PS - STILL waiting fior Dave to explain how liberals plan to tax and spend the way to prosperity. And STILL waiting for Dave to explain why we should encourage illegal immigrants to continue to keep breaking the law?
Dave? Dave? Dave’s not here!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 11, 2012 at 0741 hrs
It’s called debate. Try it sometime, you’ll learn a thing or two.
It’s not debate when neither one of you actually read or comprehend what the other is saying.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 11, 2012 at 0743 hrs
bajaskier, as much as I enjoy Cheech and Chong I find a great deal of irony in your use of their shtick to taunt me since you represent a mind set closer to Archie Bunker than Cheech and Chong.
Returning to prosperity will involve a combination of increased taxes, spending cuts and prioritization of policy that supports maintaining and growing the middle class and strategically looking at tax legislation that clearly causes businesses who move their workforce abroad to pay a significant penalty for doing so. That’s some of what I think needs to be done and that I am confident you will have some trouble embracing. OK with me. I have more confidence now in the ultimate direction we will take thanks to the changing expectations of the younger generations. Thank God the evangelists are losing their clout too!
Personally, I was inspired to re-read the platform when Dave bore false witness against the Republican platform.
You know what Kevin, whether topics that torpedoed the relevance of the Republicans to a majority of the emerging election demographic are actually in the platform or not matters little since the areas that the Repubs have taken stands on are viewed as hostile to that emerging electorate. Rdub gave a good sampling in #50. You can argue nuances with me and cry “false witness” all you want. Doesn’t change the fact that without action by the Republicans to recognize the emerging electorate, they (you) are all sitting on the deck of the Titanic ignoring the icebergs asking the orchestra to play Nearer My God to Thee one more time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 11, 2012 at 1753 hrs
cynical—“It’s not debate when neither one of you actually read or comprehend what the other is saying.”
Then how come Mr. Schuenemann and I refute each other’s quotations with sources? Then how come Mr. Schuenemann and I specifically address each other’s points with our own interpretations?
Just…stop…now, cynical.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 11, 2012 at 2023 hrs
“I find a great deal of irony in your use of their shtick to taunt me since you represent a mind set closer to Archie Bunker than Cheech and Chong.”
You tell ‘em, Meathead.
And STILL waiting for Dave to explain why we should encourage illegal immigrants to continue to keep breaking the law?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 12, 2012 at 0728 hrs
Do you know how many anti-choice laws were put forth—let alone passed—by Republican state legislatures when they swept the 2010 elections? Un. Precedented.
Please, educate me. How many? What did they do?
And what about the whole contraception thing?
See, I’m a Libertarian, not a Republican. Said it many times. I fully believe in the use of contraceptions by man, woman, and Lolita. Like most other social programs, I just don’t believe that everyone should pay for it, you do. It has nothing whatsoever to do with man or woman.
Plus, Democrats didn’t invent Todd Aikin or the other members of Rape Club.
No, you just publicized the hell out of the first part of it and made it sound like Akin waas mainstream rather than a loony. As far as that race went, he deserved to lose and did, didn’t he? Was he a mainstream poster boy for Reps? Apparently you like the flavor of that kool-aid. Are you sure Dems didn’t coign the phrase Rape Club there chum?
...also, Romney is on record as saying he’d be “delighted” to sign a law banning all abortion.
Now send me the link where once, even when lib mikes were hidden that Romney said his administration would be sponsoring any anti-abortion legislation. When asked a question, he answered honestly: Would he sign such a bill. Obama is just politician enough to always lie about it first and apologize/deny later. Look at his stance on homosexuality, his words on deficit, his promises on war. the administration stance on the Bengazi incident. I mean, you can’t have the death of 4 US citizens influence an election, can you? Of course not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 12, 2012 at 1034 hrs
Read: You evil Republicans have to pay for Sandra Fluke’s birth control so she can continue to hop from bed-to-bed with the frequency of a cheap transistor radio.
Annnnd, boom. Straight to the slut shaming. Who can possibly understand why Republicans lost the women’s vote!
Besides, I’m talking about people who work for a living, who pay real health insurance premiums and copays—and who want family planning services covered. It’s not about making you pay for something.
Please, educate me. How many? What did they do?
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-06-1Aabortion06_ST_N.htm
Like most other social programs, I just don’t believe that everyone should pay for it, you do.
What is it with you guys? I’m not talking about charity here. I’m talking about people who work and pay insurance premiums who want family planning services to be covered. And what you hear is “I have to pay for a sluts condoms!”
made it sound like Akin waas mainstream rather than a loony
It could be that his views on “shutting that whole thing down” was pretty kooky and not widely shared even by other Republicans. But you know what is widely shared by other prominent Republicans? His belief that rape victims who become pregnant shouldn’t be allowed to have abortions. (Payl Ryan, as an example.) And, really, that’s what got the attention of American women—hey, these guys are extreme.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 12, 2012 at 1448 hrs
If I wanted my health insurance to cover a pony would this also not be about making you pay for something?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 12, 2012 at 1503 hrs
And what you hear is “I have to pay for a sluts condoms!”
And that WAS the case with Fluke.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 13, 2012 at 1158 hrs
“And that WAS the case with Fluke.”
No, it wasn’t.
“These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. [...] Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. [...] Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 13, 2012 at 1309 hrs
Fluke, a Georgetown law student, stepped into the national spotlight when Rush Limbaugh attacked her as a “slut” and a “prostitute” for advocating employer-covered contraception. On Thursday, it was announced that Fluke is engaged to her long-time boyfriend.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 13, 2012 at 1910 hrs
Using the Fluke logic cited above, every man who uses Viagra is a tramp?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 13, 2012 at 1935 hrs
I read your links Scott, and I have a reality check question for you. Do you believe that these bills would still be steamrolling through State legislatures before new rules for healthcare go in to effect if Obamacare never existed? I will fully grant you that it may to a lesser or greater extent be an excuse, but since insurance rates will be going up for every single thing that will be covered it does not surprise me in the least that fights are going on everywhere about exactly what gets covered. Libs still act like Obamacare will be same price affordable surgeries of every sort for everyone and the more we cover the more affordable it will be. Neither of those things will ever come true, Scott.
(Payl Ryan, as an example.) And, really, that’s what got the attention of American women—hey, these guys are extreme.
And yet, he has never sponsored or co-sponsored a bill concerning abortion in his entire career…What one believes and what one represents in Congress really should not fully coincide. Wouldn’t you like your representative to vote for what the majority of his district wants? He was never asked that question was he? But hey, that is surely not media bias, asking the question that makes a person look extreme and bad rather than look reasonable and good.(But only if you answer honestly. If you instead blame the answer on some video in CA the same media says SQUIRREL!)
What is it with you guys? I’m not talking about charity here. I’m talking about people who work and pay insurance premiums who want family planning services to be covered. And what you hear is “I have to pay for a sluts condoms!”
I won’t speak for Republicans, but I am contending the definition of family planning. Aborting a child because it is a girl instead of a boy is wrong, pure and simple.
What do you think of this, Scott? Buying insurance for family planning should be treated like smokers. It should be weighted by actions, just like smoking. If you are paying for your actions instead of me, that would be a fair resolution in my opinion.
Scott, your problem is that you think you are always the common sense middle. You aren’t. If you were, I can see how a lot of things you write would then make sense.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 14, 2012 at 1618 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 42
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/23/2013 03:43 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).