|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Nov 7, 2012 0:43:08 GMT -6
Borat Obama appears to have won re-election. Why? * Unemployment is worse than when he took office. * Public dept is FAR worse than when he took office. (like more than double) * Our national reputation around the world is plummeting. * Our dependence on foreign oil is skyrocketing. * Gas prices have doubled since he took office. So WHY OH WHY did this pinhead get re-elected? There is only one explanation, but nobody will dare to say it. Nobody except me, that is. It is RACISM, pure and simple. Blacks won't vote for a white candidate if there is a black candidate on the ballot. BAM, there are 10% of the votes. White liberals won't vote for a white candidate if there is a black candidate, because they hate themselves for being white, and they have to show how progressive they are. BAM, there are another 30% of the votes. That leaves far too slim of a margin of intelligent voters to vote for someone who might actually do the country some good. Ergo..... Four more years of Borat. Am I wrong?  ? |
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Nov 7, 2012 0:54:09 GMT -6
No you are not wrong.
There was also a strong Latino vote in the country and they went 75/25 for Obama. Obama was elected by a minority of Americans. The minorities voted for him since he is liberal and he will not take their freebie's away from them. Romney would have taken their freebie's away so they did not vote for him. Pure and simple.
Also will someone please tell me why when they showed a map of say Ohio on the TV 90%, of the state was red and 10% was blue? WTF. The heavily populated areas of the country are putting the POTUS in office. If the state was won by county or parish Obama would have lost 45 of the 50 states. Maybe they should rethink how a state is won?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Nov 7, 2012 1:01:24 GMT -6
Well, the map view is basically a lie. You show a map of the country (or a state or a county or whatever), and it LOOKS like it is majorly red. But that is because rural, thinly-spread areas tend to be conservative, and urban, tightly-packed areas tend to be liberal. So to the eye, maps give an artificially skewed view of the electorate. I hate that conservative media like to use this dishonest trick. I'd rather think that conservative media are more honest than that. But obviously they aren't.
But then again, you could argue, why should they be? The liberal media is very much dishonest, so maybe the conservative media are justified in being just as dishonest, just to keep up. I don't like it, but maybe it is necessary, just to keep things fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Nov 7, 2012 1:08:36 GMT -6
I watched MSNBC all night. The panel all Liberal. Several time they took shots at FOX News over the Ohio call.
I guess you are right on the maps, but it still doesn't look right. However it was a liberal network showing those maps.
The Republican party need to meet in a room and all of them need to pull their heads out of their asses at the same time ,or we are going to see repeats of tonight over and over and over again for years to come.
By the way Ryan should not evnen think of running in 2016.
Edited to add: I didn't have a horse in the race so I shouldn't bitch, but Obama is done looking for votes and he can do whatever the hell he wants for the next 4 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 7, 2012 6:23:13 GMT -6
Joe, if you were watching MSNBC, did you note one key demographic they reported?
Jake is right, in a way. A bit more harshly than I would phrase it. The key demographic MSNBC had last night is that in 1980 Reagan won a landslide by winning 61% of the white male vote.
Last night Romney got about 60% of the white male vote, with vastly different results.
The Republican conundrum is this. If they want to win erections in the future, they NEED TO UNDERSTAND the part of the electorate that they are not now getting.
W, for all of his faults, understood this and made great progress down that path. He understood the Latinos, he spoke to them, and he got their votes. Since then the Republican Party, ESPECIALLY the Teabilly Taliban faction has turned its back on those who dont have white skin.
Jake, EVERYONE knows that racism is a part of the election, and the Teabilly Taliban hurt their own cause BADLY with the phrase "Lets take back our country" which was perceived in MANY circles as shorthand for "Lets take back our country from the black guy in the White House"... rightly or wrongly
The Republican Party MUST relook at itself if it wants to win in the future and relook at the Tea Party. That group's candidates downballot did very poorly. If the Tea Party model is what the Republican Party wants, they must expect to be on the sidelines in the near future, and a declining influence into the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Nov 7, 2012 6:36:34 GMT -6
So WHY OH WHY did this pinhead get re-elected? There is only one explanation, but nobody will dare to say it. Nobody except me, that is. It is RACISM, pure and simple Jake, looking at it from an outside perspective, if I may be so bold, I cannot agree with you. The Republican party fielded a candidate who was unelectable, plain and simple. The fact that the race was so close in the run up to the big day IMHO shows how much Americans wanted ch-ch-change, but when it came to it they wouldn't elected Romney. How can a misogynistic, homophobic cultist, who is totally disconnected from the lives of ordinary people during a period when those very same people are enduring the effects of the global economic meltdown and ensuing recession, be considered a viable alternative? 'Better the devil you know' never rang more true than the result last night. In the UK Margaret Thatcher, and her successor John Major, clung onto the power they had become drunk on because the left did not field a candidate that the British public were willing to elect, until Blair came along, reinvented the Labour Party and and moved it to the right in order to make them a credible alternative in the 1997 election. And again, years later, Blair then Brown clung on against unelectable Tories William Hague then Ian Duncan Smith before David Cameron became leader. I believe the right opponent would have kicked Obama's arse yesterday, but Romney could never be that man even if his life depended on it. If it's any consolation though I think Obama has been a dreadful president... but the alternative was unfortunately far worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 7, 2012 7:04:19 GMT -6
Conservatives need to decide if they are going to continue forward by looking back to the past, or repackage themselves for the future. The "Reagan" model is over 30 years old now... I "think" the Romney model was over 60 years old. To use an analogy, conservatives have been trying to use one of these  to do the job of one of these  |
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 7, 2012 7:07:01 GMT -6
Borat Obama appears to have won re-election. Why? * Unemployment is worse than when he took office. * Public dept is FAR worse than when he took office. (like more than double) * Our national reputation around the world is plummeting. * Our dependence on foreign oil is skyrocketing. * Gas prices have doubled since he took office. So WHY OH WHY did this pinhead get re-elected? There is only one explanation, but nobody will dare to say it. Nobody except me, that is. It is RACISM, pure and simple. Blacks won't vote for a white candidate if there is a black candidate on the ballot. BAM, there are 10% of the votes. White liberals won't vote for a white candidate if there is a black candidate, because they hate themselves for being white, and they have to show how progressive they are. BAM, there are another 30% of the votes. That leaves far too slim of a margin of intelligent voters to vote for someone who might actually do the country some good. Ergo..... Four more years of Borat. Am I wrong? ? Glad to see that you are not falling back into the bad habit of ad homonyms |
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Nov 7, 2012 8:16:15 GMT -6
If there's any racial polarization occurring in this e-lection, it's by the reactionary right and in particular The Tea Party, as Gordon said. I also watched MSNBC last night (surprise!) and they made what I thought was a good point (not a direct quote): the divide comes because the GOP is moving farther to the right, so their perspective is skewed and they immediately brand anyone not matching their values as Socialists because they are extremists.
FWIW, I also agree with Simon re: Obama; my personal satisfaction in Romney losing has to do more with a repudiation of the values of the reactionaries on the right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 7, 2012 8:29:37 GMT -6
If there's any racial polarization occurring in this e-lection, it's by the reactionary right and in particular The Tea Party, as Gordon said. I also watched MSNBC last night (surprise!) and they made what I thought was a good point (not a direct quote): the divide comes because the GOP is moving farther to the right, so their perspective is skewed and they immediately brand anyone not matching their values as Socialists because they are extremists. FWIW, I also agree with Simon re: Obama; my personal satisfaction in Romney losing has to do more with a repudiation of the values of the reactionaries on the right.If we only had a Karma button right now, Id throw some your way. |
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Nov 7, 2012 8:31:14 GMT -6
Get back to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 7, 2012 8:32:01 GMT -6
If Romney had stuck to his positions that he held as gov of Massachusetts, he would probably be President e-lect today, his attempt to satisfy the far right doomed him.
|
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Nov 7, 2012 8:45:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Nov 7, 2012 8:52:26 GMT -6
If there's any racial polarization occurring in this e-lection, it's by the reactionary right and in particular The Tea Party, as Gordon said. I also watched MSNBC last night (surprise!) and they made what I thought was a good point (not a direct quote): the divide comes because the GOP is moving farther to the right, so their perspective is skewed and they immediately brand anyone not matching their values as Socialists because they are extremists. FWIW, I also agree with Simon re: Obama; my personal satisfaction in Romney losing has to do more with a repudiation of the values of the reactionaries on the right.If my calculations are correct, that would've rocketed me all the way up to a -20,000 by now. I was hoping to get my post count to be the absolute value of my Karma. |
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 7, 2012 9:07:48 GMT -6
Sounds like vote nullification to me
|
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Nov 7, 2012 9:27:44 GMT -6
While a political racial division is undeniable I don’t think it is responsible for the election outcome. After all the black population is not a majority at around 13%.
I think two factors ruled the outcome. The first being the very effective character assassination of Romney by the left while ignoring Obama’s own record, notwithstanding that many of the claims against Romney were proven wrong or at best highly suspect. This no longer matters but should be instructive to the right next time. Negative ads work! No more high road in the USA. I expect future political races to get even uglier.
I have said it before; the reason Obama won is because too many people receive a government check. Whether it’s and government/public sector job, social security, grants, welfare, food stamps, housing, free phone or free medical care. The Obama campaign convinced the voters that their future checks were in jeopardy if they vote for Romney. Never mind the man behind the curtain who’s policies created seven more trillion in debt, a downgrade of US credit, higher energy prices, no gains in employment, a reduction in average annual income and higher taxes.
I expect 4 more years of gridlock. I feel sorry for us all.
|
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Nov 7, 2012 9:41:08 GMT -6
Interesting perspective. Sociopathic, but interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 7, 2012 10:17:43 GMT -6
Anita, the nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this we can't risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people's work, and we citizens also have to rise to occasion.
|
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Nov 7, 2012 10:38:35 GMT -6
Anita, the nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this we can't risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people's work, and we citizens also have to rise to occasion. I couldn't agree more! That is what Obama said he would do 4 years ago. Do you believe he will do it now? |
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Nov 7, 2012 10:54:31 GMT -6
Interesting perspective. Sociopathic, but interesting. Hmmm, sociopathic. It may be time for a name ch-ch-change. |
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 7, 2012 10:59:57 GMT -6
Anita, the nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this we can't risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people's work, and we citizens also have to rise to occasion. I couldn't agree more! That is what Obama said he would do 4 years ago. Do you believe he will do it now? He tried... fool Obama once, shame on you .. he wont get fooled again. REAL reaching out from the right, I am sure that Obama will. If "reaching out" means it's the "right's way or the highway" forget it. Wont happen. The right needs to read the dictionary to remind themselves what "compromise" means WHAT is the right willing to give up in return for Obama's cooperation? |
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Nov 7, 2012 11:26:04 GMT -6
WHAT is the right willing to give up in return for Obama's cooperation? I would recommend Mitch McConnell. He vowed to make Obama a 1-termer and failed. He must be made a sacrificial lamb. |
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Nov 7, 2012 11:31:54 GMT -6
I'm reminded that an Obama controlled House and Senate passed ObamaCare without one vote from the right. That was a poor demonstration of his effort to reach across the isle and set the tone for his administration.
Obama and Republican leaders only meet twice this year. No one really knows whose fault that is but the President should lead in this regard. I would love it if both parties would meet regularly, including the President...like weekly...even monthly to work out some answers. I'm just not very hopeful.
I actually wish the left would have taken control of Congress with the President's win so SOMETHING would be done. Even if I don't agree with the actions we will have an agenda that will work or fail as opposed to gridlock and no progress at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 7, 2012 11:42:56 GMT -6
Fine Anita. I agree that both sides should meet on a regular and frequent basis... but what would the right be willing to give up.
The coming budget deadline is a perfect example. How will these two sides come together to avoid an obvious bad result if they do not? Where will the compromise come there? Keep in mind that at one time Obama offered $10 in budget cuts for every $1 of tax increases and was rebuffed by the right.
|
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Nov 7, 2012 11:58:31 GMT -6
I can't help but wonder if the undecided voters have made up their mind yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Nov 7, 2012 11:59:29 GMT -6
Fine Anita. I agree that both sides should meet on a regular and frequent basis... but what would the right be willing to give up. The coming budget deadline is a perfect example. How will these two sides come together to avoid an obvious bad result if they do not? Where will the compromise come there? Keep in mind that at one time Obama offered $10 in budget cuts for every $1 of tax increases and was rebuffed by the right. The deal you mention was never confirmed. Both Boehner and Obama have different answers for what went wrong with their deal. No one really knows what happened in those negotiations. Believe me I've read a lot about it. As far as I'm concerned the right should give Obama what he wants now. Then we will see how it works....kind of like ObamaCare. If it doesn't work we will have another election to vote our displeasure in 2016. |
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Nov 7, 2012 12:19:45 GMT -6
I can't help but wonder if the undecided voters have made up their mind yet. They are still working on it. Maybe late this week or sometime next week |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Nov 7, 2012 12:53:43 GMT -6
Anita, the nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this we can't risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people's work, and we citizens also have to rise to occasion. HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Good one, Gordon!! |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Nov 7, 2012 12:54:56 GMT -6
... ....I have said it before; the reason Obama won is because too many people receive a government check. Whether it’s and government/public sector job, social security, grants, welfare, food stamps, housing, free phone or free medical care. The Obama campaign convinced the voters that their future checks were in jeopardy if they vote for Romney....... Or as Rush put it this morning: It's tough to run against Santa Claus. edited to add: This is a perfect place to repeat my suggestion that if you receive ANY kind of government largesse, you DO NOT GET TO VOTE. |
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Nov 7, 2012 13:16:04 GMT -6
Joe, if you were watching MSNBC, did you note one key demographic they reported? Jake is right, in a way. A bit more harshly than I would phrase it. The key demographic MSNBC had last night is that in 1980 Reagan won a landslide by winning 61% of the white male vote. Last night Romney got about 60% of the white male vote, with vastly different results. Yes I did Gordon and I remember that point very well. Ronnie did not have to fight the Latino vote that has become much larger over the past 32 years. Obama carried it 80/20. Like I said last night. Obama was not going to take any of the freebie's away and Romney was. Pure and simple. |
|
