2012 US Presidential Election

[Ixarku]

I've read several articles today on why the election turned out the way it did, and as far as demographics go, the prevailing thought seems to be that the majority of white male voters went for Romney while the majority of other demographic groups more or less went with Obama, and it was the latter groups that brought enough votes to Obama for him to win it.  CNN in particular seemed to take great glee at pointing out that the aforementioned 'other demographic groups' are projected to continue to grow, rendering the current target demographic of the Republicans less and less relevant over time.
 
In other words, the Democrats appear to be appealing more and more to women, minorities, and young folks, while the Republicans base isn't growing significantly.  I think that CNN is probably exaggerating to some degree, but if the Republicans learn the lesson from this election and start shifting more towards center, to appeal to a broader base, I hope it will actually benefit the country in the long run.  I don't think extremism in either direction is good for a population the size & diversity of that in the U.S.

[Monkeyfinger]

I've read several articles today on why the election turned out the way it did, and as far as demographics go, the prevailing thought seems to be that the majority of white male voters went for Romney while the majority of other demographic groups more or less went with Obama, and it was the latter groups that brought enough votes to Obama for him to win it.  CNN in particular seemed to take great glee at pointing out that the aforementioned 'other demographic groups' are projected to continue to grow, rendering the current target demographic of the Republicans less and less relevant over time.
 
In other words, the Democrats appear to be appealing more and more to women, minorities, and young folks, while the Republicans base isn't growing significantly.  I think that CNN is probably exaggerating to some degree, but if the Republicans learn the lesson from this election and start shifting more towards center, to appeal to a broader base, I hope it will actually benefit the country in the long run.  I don't think extremism in either direction is good for a population the size & diversity of that in the U.S.

Reagan crushed the opposition running on conservative principles and did considerably better than Romney in every single demographic. Romney lost running as a milquetoast moderate. Can anyone actually articulate 3 issues that Romney ran on, that he would do to attract voters? No, all we got was watered down tax cuts. I believe that if a candidate ran on truly conservative principles, in the classical liberalism sense of the word, they would win.

[AceHigh]

I don't think extremism in either direction is good for a population the size & diversity of that in the U.S.

Too late, your "left" is actually right, and your right are fundamental religious zealots.

No, seriously though what is not good is for a "population of that size and diversity" (your words btw) to be represented by only two parties which are close in the political spectrum.

You know what, that logic of yours has some merit, because it explains why China only has one party. After all it's not good for the most populous country in the world with hundreds of ethnic groups to have any "extremism". So only one party right there in the middle (from their point of view at least) is exactly what they need.

This is ridiculous, I'm going to bed...

[Ixarku]

Too late, your "left" is actually right, and your right are fundamental religious zealots.

No, seriously though what is not good is for a "population of that size and diversity" (your words btw) to be represented by only two parties which are close in the political spectrum.

You know what, that logic of yours has some merit, because it explains why China only has one party. After all it's not good for the most populous country in the world with hundreds of ethnic groups to have any "extremism". So only one party right there in the middle (from their point of view at least) is exactly what they need.

This is ridiculous, I'm going to bed...

How in the hell did you get that I advocated one party from what I wrote?  Jesus fucking Christ, leap to conclusions much?  All I'm in favor of is a little god damned political compromise so that maybe our politicians could actually try to solve some problems instead of just argue about ideology.

[Nikkoru]

This and this pretty much explains all you need to know about the American political system.

[Burkingam]

Basically, if you really want your opinion to be taken into account more than "I vote center" or "I vote right", you have to become a member of a party and to participate to its internal discourse.

[Ixarku]

This and this pretty much explains all you need to know about the American political system.

ROFL, two of my favorite Simpsons clips.  I'd completely forgotten about those.

[megido-rev.M]

Basically, if you really want your opinion to be taken into account more than "I vote center" or "I vote right", you have to become a member of a party and to participate to its internal discourse.

The poll also has to finish .

[Lillymon]

I believe that if a candidate ran on truly conservative principles, in the classical liberalism sense of the word, they would win.

What, like Barry Goldwater? The only (serious) candidate of recent years to actually try that? Even Reagan had to water down his rhetoric and talk about how great he was at working with the Democrats to score such huge victories. Believing your candidate lost because they weren't ideologically 'pure' enough is a sure ticket to further defeats. It's a conclusion people usually get to by confusing 'moderate' with 'uncharismatic'. There is such a thing as a charismatic moderate, and they tend to be big election winners when you can find them.

[zherok]

Romney lost running as a milquetoast moderate.

No, he lost trying to pretend he was and always had been a moderate only weeks before the election. But he wasn't, and never has.

Romney ran as a neo-con up until then, and that's what he is.

Whether a more ideologically pure conservative that doesn't drag regressive social policies along the ticket would do better remains to be seen, given how difficult a time he or she would have in the primaries.

[Tiffanys]

The thing with Romney was, from the point of view of most Americans (that I've personally talked to):

• He'd just flip-flop to whatever was popular on any given day... that didn't inspire a lot of American trust.
• He had no real plan, or rather if he did, he refused to give any details. A sharp contrast to his opponent who at least ran on facts, even if not everyone particularly agreed with his plans, at least it was apparent they were tangible.
• He lied compulsively. It was almost insulting...
• He was never able to break the impression that he just wanted to help the rich (which I'm frankly not too sure wasn't just an impression).

And well... the few I've found that supported Romney were either bible thumpers or thought Obama was a terrorist (or just didn't want him because he was Black, or combinations thereof). You may think I'm kidding here, but in the rural deep south... well, let's just say that not all opinions have changed all that much since the Civil War.

The pure red states aren't just full of conservatives... they're mostly religious fundamentalists, and that's what makes them dangerous. If they were just conservative, then there would be some hope for these people. But since conservatism is heavily tied to religious fundamentalism, I'm afraid we won't be seeing the red states go anything but red any time soon.

And the Republicans running aren't any better. We don't have any real Republicans anymore. Conservatism has transitioned into a full blown god damn religious party. Motto: "If you aren't Christian, fuck you."

I mean if these Republicans really want a clue..? You didn't lose because you weren't fucking hardass enough. If Republicans ran with a traditional conservatism go-slow approach to governing that stressed the importance of continuity and social stability then chances are it'd have a really good chance of winning. But nowadays, it's just Tea Party extremists who call Democrats "Socialists," and at this point the reason for the public backlash is because it has become a soapbox for religious faith rather than political ideology.

Hell, there's an article that after googling it I feel like I'm nearly plagiarizing it...

By the way there is a true democratic progress within a US territory right now. Apparently Puerto Rico is holding a referendum where people vote if they want to become the 51st state, keep the status quo, or become completely independent. So far it looks like it swings towards it becoming a state, so if the US congress approves it, USA just might have to change their flag design again.

They've been on the verge of doing that for what seems like forever now... I doubt it'll actually happen any time soon. That is, unless something really bad happens that practically forces their hand.

[jaybug]

A lot of talk about demographics here. Did anyone consider that Obama lost something like 20% of registered Democrats while he won? So it's like Romney got all the GOP votes, some independents, and the rest were Democrats?

So...are the Democrats going to purify their party as the GOP has been doing for the past decade and a 1/2? Maybe we'll get a viable third party yet!

Okay, so it shakes  down to Obama can't do a scorched earth agenda as he did in his first two years. And it may be that Boehner got someone to sit on Grover Norquist to even talk about raising taxes and cutting loopholes. That or Boehner can do math, as well as rhetoric, to know that if you remove a tax "expenditure" that means that someone didn't have to spend a bunch of money chasing after a tax break.

For those who don't get it. I have a mortgage. I get the mortgage deduction. If I pay off the mortgage deduction, my taxes go up. BUT...I am not spending any money on a mortgage. So it obils down to I am paying a few hundred dollars more in taxes, but saving over $1,000 per month by not having a mortgage.

This applies to ALL tax loopholes aka tax expenditures.

[Burkingam]

Yeah I'm all for taxing the churches. Talk about tax loopholes this one may very well be the biggest but the right would always defend it.

Also legalize and tax pot. BTW I know it didn't pass at the end but did you vote for marijuana legalization in your state, jaybug? That would also be a ton of money but once again something rednecks will oppose with all their might.

And cut the fucking military budget, once again the right are the biggest opponents.

And yes, raise the tax for the riches which..  Damn it's almost like republicans don't care about balancing the budget whatsoever as long as the state doesn't spend a penny to help the poors.

[jaybug]

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/stimulus/2012/nov/7/republicans-trade-conservatism-shibboleths/

I can't believe the Washington Times printed this bitch slap to the GOP. But the religious nuts still think they need to go and do EVEN MORE OF THE SAME! Hello? anyone home?

I'm not as much for taxing the churches, as I am in favor of doing something about how anybody and his dog can start one, and then get on tax free status. REGULATION!!!!! lol sigh

I voted for........ what was the question dude? lmao Hell I voted for legalizing Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica! Even if I don't smoke it, maybe I would. But it's such a better fiber, and less chemically dependent plant to grow than cotton. That and we grow it here just fine, unlike cotton. Gee, maybe they'd even allow field burning again. Wouldn't that be a sight to see?

I don't know about raising taxes on the rich as much as we need to redefine our social contract, so that the disparity of incomes is not as insane as it currently stands. And I do not have a solution.

[Nikkoru]

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/stimulus/2012/nov/7/republicans-trade-conservatism-shibboleths/

I can't believe the Washington Times printed this bitch slap to the GOP. But the religious nuts still think they need to go and do EVEN MORE OF THE SAME! Hello? anyone home?

You see that as a bitch slap? It was yet another No True Scotsman Conservative apology for why Obama doesn't really represent America, and that he was simply the beneficiary of Republican tone deafness. Ultimately the argument goes that there's some pure ideology which if they'd adhered to everything would be hunky dory.

[AceHigh]

They've been on the verge of doing that for what seems like forever now... I doubt it'll actually happen any time soon. That is, unless something really bad happens that practically forces their hand.

Has it been as serious as a referendum though? Because from what I read in the article Obama promised that he would assist if an overwhelming majority wished to become a state.

[zherok]

Wikipedia says they've had referendums before. The last was in 1998 apparently. This is the first time they've voted in favor of statehood, though.

I'm rather curious how Congress will handle it.

[Nikkoru]

Wikipedia says they've had referendums before. The last was in 1998 apparently. This is the first time they've voted in favor of statehood, though.

I'm rather curious how Congress will handle it.

Another solidly Democratic state? How that work out for D.C?

[Tiffanys]

They've had several... this is like their 4th one or something I think.

Also... Churches are pretty ridiculous to be honest... You see multi-million dollar churches usually every couple blocks. Usually 3 or 4 of them at a time... I mean, they have no need for such extravagance. They could use that money to help their communities instead.

If not taxes, maybe some kind of regulations on charitable foundations. Because if people take donations and use it to build palaces... should it really even be considered a charity? It's certainly not in line with proper charities. Maybe some kind of charitable organization regulations need to be put in place, if nothing else.

[AceHigh]

So here is the conclusion from OSCE:

50 millions out of 237 could not vote because they were not registered (whatever the hell that means)
In some states former convicts were not allowed to vote, something that breaks the international election norms.
Some criticism towards ID process, which is not standardized and variates from location to location. Some legit citizens were not allowed to vote because of that.
Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio and Pennsylvania did not allow the international observers to do their job in those states while Texas outright threatened to prosecute the observers with criminal charges if they even got close to an election hall.
Republicans in Philadelphia complained that their own observers got very limited access with 3/4 of them got banned from observing the election process in that city.
Many complaints from Ohio that electronic voting machines were manipulated.


In conclusion OSCE is "not impressed" with the election as they very diplomatically put it.