Political & Elections

catahoula · Guru

RE: Romney attributes loss to 'gifts' Obama gave minorities

busdriver11 · Guru

Though you didn't ask me, I don't think you are gloating at all, hayden. But I'm watching plenty of gloating going on with the Democratic party. It seems very familiar, just like four years ago. The thought that we have a mandate to do whatever we want, we won, and we can pretend as if we're trying to work with the Republicans, but we're really not. Actually, we're barely even pretending. We have you over a barrel, and we're joyously going to raise taxes so we can rub it in your face (no matter what it does to the economy, it's so we can show victory). And not only are we not going to do any substantive cuts, we're going to go on another spending binge. Yeah, take that!

I'm also watching the press excitedly talking about the end of the Republican party, how they have to change, saying that Republicans are frantic and in disarray, etc. But I don't see that from the Republicans. Of course they aren't happy about how some people have behaved and how the vote turned out. But this is a narrative pushed by the press and the Democrats, of what they are hoping is happening. And the reality is....48% or so of people did vote for Romney. That's a lot of people. He may have gotten 2 million votes less than McCain did, but Obama got 8 million less than he did last time. Not exactly the end of the Republican party.

hayden · Senior Member

winchester, I'm gloating? Where have I smeared or gloated? I tend to be pretty sympathetic to people who truly support Repubicans and I've previously owned up to being the spouse of committed Republican who works for one of the better known Republican governors. My H was disappointed in the election's outcome, and i understand how he felt. He never thought I gloated, because I didn't, any more than I gloated here. Your accusation is, quite frankly, just further evidence that your interpretation of things can at times be skewed.

For instance you think I'm believing my own mythology? That made me laugh. I thought Obama would win. You said Romney would win "handily". Obama got 51% and Romney 47%. Who believed the myth?

When the head of the Republican National Committee says he's going to do an "autopsy", you don't think he sees a problem? Did you not see McConnell's sweat when Akin shot himself in the foot, and Mourdach up and did the same? McConnell freaked out. You may not like the term, but when control of the Senate slipped through his fingers, you can bet your bottom dolllar he was not a happy camper. Republican congressmen garnered fewer votes in the aggregate than Democrats did. You don't think Boehner used a few swear words when congressmen with lots of visibility hurt his brand by spouting off that people who believe in evolution are tools of the devil, or the various candidates who said they were personally told by God to run for the presidency (then lost)?

Talk about "junk food"......

blankmind · Senior Member

IMO, PBO won because he was a better speaker, who spoke with more passion and better imagery.

So we're going with style over substance? Good plan.

longprime · Guru

blankmind, "So we're going with style over substance? Good plan."

Yep. Everytime.

MR prob had better substance (pains me to say) but he had that wooden delivery and hollow-eyed look in his applause pauses (reminiscing of W speech patterns).

Big Bro, says that his ex-fearless leaders at BigBank, definitely had more salesmanship than financial knowledge.

-- Edited by longprime on Friday 30th of November 2012 09:39:06 AM

winchester · Guru

And hayden, I don't know where you're getting your "freaking out" meme but it certainly isn't coming from Republicans. For a better take on the Republican response how about looking at what they're actually saying?

A Setback, Not a Catastrophe

Your "freaking out" line is just more of the same old liberal "junk food." You can go ahead and keep on believing in your own mythology, just remember it has little to do with what's happening in the real world

Post-election season is a time for healing, for putting aside the rancor of a long campaign and rediscovering what unites us. It has not been that way this year.

Prudence, one would think, if not generosity of spirit, should impel Democrats to be magnanimous in victory. Romney did receive about 48 percent of the vote. A little modesty among the winners would seem to be in order.

Instead, the gloating has been extravagant. Worse, liberals have gorged themselves on the same junk food they enjoyed during the campaign and cannot seem to resist under any circumstances — slandering their opponents. The smears are so casual and commonplace that we become weary of responding.

Sore Winners

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

So it's been consistently in the mid 80s-90s. That's pretty similar IMO. There's been a similar fluctuation in female and male voting patterns so I don't see that as anything unusual.

winchester · Guru

Romani and hayden the facts support my position and refute yours.

Neither Clinton, nor Gore, nor Kerry had black vote percentages "very similar" to Obama. Obama percentages were higher in a statistically significant way.

Further, besides just percentages, the sheer number of blacks who even voted in the Obama elections was much higher than in any of the previous.

Clinton got 83 percent of the black vote in 1992 and 84 percent in 1996; the third-party candidate Ross Perot probably sliced away some of Clinton’s black support. Al Gore got 90 percent in 2000; John Kerry got 88 percent in 2004. Obama captured 95 percent in 2008, and 2 million more black people voted than in the previous election. http://www.boston.com/2012/10/13/black-people-support-obama-because-black/ZYNJFaizsENMN7WmypvTKN/story.html

longprime · Guru

I think your on to something, Hayden.

IMO, PBO won because he was a better speaker, who spoke with more passion and better imagery.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

Win, the black vote was very similar to the vote Clinton got.

Clinton is white last I saw.

hayden · Senior Member

Winchester, Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 presidential popular votes. Obama won only two of them. Last I checked, Clinton and Gore were not black. Priebus says his party needs to conduct an "autopsy", you think he says that because he's been smoking something? You really think it's only because Obama is black? Go for it.

It's fine with me if Republicans say that Obama would have lost if he were white. Sure, keep on with that, no problem. But Republicans at the national level are freaking out, and they're doing that for a reason, and it's not because they're stupid. How do you explain that more people voted for Democrats for Congress than voted for Republicans? Republicans have a majority in the House only because of gerrymandering. They lost the plurality of votes across the country, and blackness had nothing to do with that. You can talk all you want about them voting for "gifts". (By the way, why is a multimillionaire voting for a candidate who supports a huge tax loophole any different from someone voting to maintain social security?)

You also said Romney would win, and win "handily". I told you all a long time ago that senior Republicans stayed out of the presidential race because they knew they wouldn't win, and not one of you believed me. If you choose not to examine why reality differs from your views, that's fine by me, but the leaders of your party are totally freaking out.

winchester · Guru

The point is, blacks voted for Obama because he is black.

If not for that then the GOP wins.

Cain did not try to run against a white man.

longprime · Guru

Cain tried. Got caught in the same issue of morality that plagues men of power and influence.

winchester · Guru

How the GOP can win:

Run against a white man.

According to ABC polling data, a quarter of the likely voters are nonwhite and they prefer Obama by 76-20 percent. That number rises dramatically to 96-3 for likely black voters.

john doe · Guru

So who's the leading Republican candidate for 2016 - Grover Norquist? Would he run or do you think he prefers to have the Republicans bow down to him and kiss his hand in private?

longprime · Guru

If you think 80 is bad, my aunt is 98 and shops everyday. climbing 3 flights of stairs.

and after the other day with my longtime doctor, I'm having second thoughts if I should maintain the longterm care insurance, may not make it to 90+, even though both parents and relatives have easily gone past 90 abet with some medical technology. - I may be dead sooner than I expect (doc is concerned with my triglyerides-cholesterols are OK).

I can't wait until the GOP splits into 2 or more pieces. I'm pretty sure most of us on this board would join a party similar to what Jindal invisions.

I don't have any particular problems with either party. However, I would like to see the next R candidate to be centralist and not a wooden, distant, unknowing, wishy-washy, bahama's tax evader. vindictive, bedroom, tupe of person. evileye . Mitt is to his credit a standup, squared-jaw, virile, white guy. biggrin

pima · Guru

I agree winchester.

Could you imagine the outcry from the media if 90+% of white voters voted for MR because he was white? I don't get how if you are white and voted for MR, you are a racist, but if you are black and say you did because he was black, you are not racist? While I am it, why is it that if you disagree on anything regarding PBO, you are either a racist or wealthy.

Bullet and I can't wait to see how people who said if you make over 250K as a married couple will be happy to share their wealth, especially in areas like CA, NY, DC, MD and No. VA. where the COL is so high, starting salaries are much higher. It is not uncommon for a 35 yo, to make 125K in NYC. Add in their spouse and you hit 250K. Same with DC, MD and NoVA.

I selected those areas because they went overwhelmingly for Obama. Let's see when this hits the fan if they will regret their decision, or will they be happy to hand over more money?

As far as the age groups you cited longprime, let's remember a couple of things.

18-24 is and has for decades had the lowest turn out rate.
~~~ A large majority of them believe their vote doesn't matter either way. If the state is going towards their candidate, than they rationalize that they don't need to vote. If the state is going to the other candidate, they feel the same way.
~~~ This yr group is typically in college, and do not think about requesting an absentee ballot. They could be IS or OOS, but the fact is if they are not in their district they can't vote.

Now for the 70+ age group, remember they are the baby boomers, and my generation, my kids generations are still smaller than that generation. Hence, even though they are dieing, their age groups vote at a much higher rate than the 18-24, or even the 24-34 yr groups.

That is before we add on life expectancy rate increasing. I recall when I was about 10, the rate for a man was 67, now it is well into their 70s, and with medical advances that rate will only increase in the yrs to come.

SS going bankrupt illustrates why your position is incorrect. The reason why is the pool paying in is smaller than those taking out. Our country is getting older.

I laughed at 80 and dead, because in my family, the youngest aunt/uncle died at 91. My grandmother died at 101. My MIL died last week, she was 73, and had cancer. My FIL is 80, all of Bullet's aunts and uncles are over 80...driving, playing golf, traveling, etc. I am sure they will start to die at a higher rate, but if they are like my Mom's family...they have a good decade to go. God willing.

winchester · Guru

What is it, ninety something percent of blacks voted for him?

A lot of them voted for the same reason this woman did. Because he's black.

But are they racist? No, of course not. They're liberal. Liberal racist is an oxymoron. Everybody knows that. If you're liberal your "safe" from accusations of racism.

longprime · Guru

Watching American President, 1995, with Michael Douglas and Annette Benning, Michael J Fox, Martin Sheen. Same cliches in 1995 as in 2012. evileye

It's a good family show and with politics.

I got a relative that says he's going to win the Nobel prize for curing cancer. I got another relative that develops heart fixes. I got relatives who know how to destroy the world as we know it. I'm covered. biggrin

-- Edited by longprime on Wednesday 21st of November 2012 12:42:24 PM

-- Edited by longprime on Wednesday 21st of November 2012 12:53:32 PM

TutuTaxi · Veteran Member

Well this woman supports Romney's assertion.

longprime · Guru

Let's understand that today's 16yo will be 18 in 2014.

14 ->18 in 2016

18 -> 20 in 2014

62yo -> 66 [Saw my doctor today, She gave me her 10 minute lecture after she saw that I gained 2lbs in 3 months-I offered her one of my apple pies she maybe weighs 100lbs. ] furious

72yo -> 76

80 -> deceased.

Either way, we need to get religion. evileye

winchester · Guru

OF COURSE the liberals pounce on this, and of course, as usual, they see what they want to see and not what actually happened.

What they want to see is conservatives are a bunch of backwards rubes who "cling to their guns and their religion" and deny science, or worse yet, don't believe in it alll. None of which is true, of course, but it doesn't fit the liberal meme about conservatives so, naturally, they play it up and manufacture a brouhaha about it.

It's childish, really, but there you go, that's who they are.

john doe · Guru

The Great GOP 2016 Hope??:

Rubio ignites debate with answer about creationism

By Dan Merica and Eric Marrapodi, CNN

Washington (CNN) – Florida Sen. Marco Rubio attempted to walk the line between science and faith-based creationism in remarks that that have provoked the ire of liberal blogs, leaving the door open to creationism in responding to a recent question about the age of the Earth.

When GQ’s Michal Hainey asked Rubio, in an interview released Monday, “How old do you think the Earth is,” the rising Republican star described the debate about the planet’s age as “one of the great mysteries.”

“I'm not a scientist, man,” Rubio told the interviewer. “I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.”

“Whether the Earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras,” Rubio continued, “I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.”

Most scientists agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe if 14.5 billion years old. Christian Young Earth Creationists, on the other hand, argue that the weeklong account of God creating the Earth and everything in it represents six 24-hour periods (plus one day of rest) and date the age of the Earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years.

Left-leaning blogs and sites like ThinkProgress and Huffington Post jumped on Rubio’s comments, with the Zack Beauchamp from ThingProgress writing, “To suggest we can’t know how old the Earth is, then, is to deny the validity of these scientific methods altogether — a maneuver familiar to Rubio, who also denies the reality of anthropogenic climate change.”

Rubio is regarded as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016, though the senator says his visit last week to Iowa, home of the first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, had “nothing to do with 2016.”

His response to GQ’s age of the Earth query has also provoked questions about his political aspirations. Dave Weigel of Slate writes, “How can you read that and not think ‘Iowa’? ” The state is the first to hold a presidential caucus in 2016.

Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup in June. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution.

The second most common view is that humans evolved with God's guidance - a view held by 32% of respondents. The view that humans evolved with no guidance from God was held by 15% of respondents.

The Gallup poll has not specifically asked about views on the age of the Earth.

Rubio attends a Baptist church in southern Florida but also considers himself “a practicing Catholic.”

He was born Catholic, but his family converted to Mormonism when Rubio was 8 years old, according to Rubio’s recent memoir. The family left its LDS faith behind when it moved from Nevada back to Florida and Rubio was confirmed in the Catholic Church.

Catholic teaching is that science and faith are not at odds with one another and it is possible to believe what scientists say about the Earth’s age and in God. But many evangelical churches, including Baptist ones, promote a version of creationism.

When CNN reached out to Rubio’s Baptist church in Florida on Monday, a person answering the phone would not comment on its teachings about the Earth’s age and said that a church representative was unlikely to be available in the near term.

During the GQ interview, Rubio argued that “there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all.”

For the past 30 years, the “equal-time argument” –- the idea that Creationism taught alongside evolution -– has been popular method for Creationists to advance their cause. In the late 1980s, some state legislatures passed bills that promoted the idea of a balanced treatment of both ideas in the classroom.

In 1987, the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a Louisiana "equal-time law" was struck down. The court ruled that teaching creationism in public school classrooms was a violation of the Establishment Cause in the Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state.

longprime · Guru

Reading Replies of blogs/opinion/news of Mitt Romeny.

The best reply is an anagram of Romney: R money.

-- Edited by longprime on Tuesday 20th of November 2012 11:42:50 AM

longprime · Guru

We lost on a 41 yard field goal kick that hit the goal post. Stanford has been a tough team the last couple of years.

Phil Knight won either way. confuse I bet he enjoyed the game as I did. biggrin

winchester · Guru

Losers need to figure out what they did Wrong.

Like, say, Oregon?

john doe · Guru

I wonder if those who agree with Romney's comments are going to bolt the Republican party. All the Republicans from Jindal to Newt Gingrich to Lindsey Graham have pointed out that this attitude is a problem with the party and is the wrong message. I think Romney is well on his way to being a pariah in the party. Perhaps, Obama should hire him to help create jobs since he "knows how to create jobs and has done it before."

longprime · Guru

watched Stanford beat Oregon by inches. Drowned my sorrows and watched just the opening SNL skit and parts of as I drifted in and out. Seems like Sex Innuendo beat out Mitt Romney.

blankmind · Senior Member

Suggest we watch Sunday morning TV, Meet the Press, etc

Who needs that when you can watch SNL and get all the current talking points in a more entertaining manner.

longprime · Guru

So what are you going to do?

Suggest we watch Sunday morning TV, Meet the Press, etc

busdriver11 · Guru

That's weak, longprime.

Methinks you're just trying to be a rabble rouser, with nothing to stand behind it.

longprime · Guru

Don't have to. biggrin

Losers need to figure out what they did Wrong. Winner's need to figure out what the Losers could do the next time around. evileye

busdriver11 · Guru

Way to not answer blankmind's question, longprime. You didn't even attempt it.

Very few are listening to MR right now. His words will not impact any election, whether 2 years from now or 4 years. And if they remember anything vaguely of what he said, it will annoy them, because it is the truth.

Yes, it is very probably that demographics will change elections for a long time. The demographics that want the giveaways from others will overpower the votes of those that don't. I can't imagine how that is a good thing.

longprime · Guru

A while ago, someone said that MR is the Last angry White man. I didn't understand this until last week when the R's started to "analyze" why they lost. But the R analyzers already knew they may lose this election and definitely may lose Congress the next election. They project that Texas will turn deep Blue by 2012 because of demographic trends. If the R's want to win, MR has got to shut up and not offer help to the opposition.

Just an amateur observer here. MR comments this week will go on for until at least Thanksgiving. And everytime that the Congressional R's balk at PBO's proposals on taxes, deficits, and entitlements; People will remember back to the 47% comment and Mitt's Nov 14 conference call. People don't even have to know what PBO wants or how his policy will help or hinder them, All that the people will hear are Mitt's words. Not pretty.

Mitt should go away like all losers have went away.

blankmind · Senior Member

longprime, now that you have spelled out all the bad for mitt, why don't you turn your magnifying glass over to barack, and tell us all the bad things there? Maybe this exercise will help you find the answer to your question about why Benghazi is a big deal. Of course, you'd have to be willing to venture outside of the msnbc snow globe.

busdriver11 · Guru

Try campaigning for several months at a time, every word recorded, even when you think it's not. I guarantee you something is going to come out wrong, or something you wanted to stay private will be revealed. It happens to everybody. Everybody. It did not happen in particular to Romney more than any other person.

The reason why he's speaking his mind now is because he has nothing to lose. He's not running again.

And no matter whether you like it or not, the truth is the truth is the truth.

When you have more people voting for the gimmes that they expect to get, than those who must pay for them, how do you think the vote is going to go?

As Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." And that problem is right around the corner.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

And if George W. Bush had come out and publicly campaigned for Mitt Romney, that would have helped the GOP...how?

I did have to laugh when Bill Clinton talked in a speech about how you shouldn't elect liars. That was pretty hysterical.

busdriver11 · Guru

Bizarre how intelligent people could fall for the caricature that the press made of Romney. Oh my God, he's rich! He only cares about the rich. He doesn't care about people like me. Obama could say anything, and those masses just hum in agreement, no matter how ridiculous it is.

But there's no point in talking about Romney anymore. Now we just get to worry about the ugliness of the next four years. Anyone feel hopeful? About their jobs, the market, the deficit, the economy? Sure it's great if you are counting on a depressed market, if you don't have to worry about a job, and really don't care about anyone else. But for the rest of the people. ....well, the people making a higher income and those who would be hiring are going to hold on even tighter to their wallets, because Obama and company are coming after their money. Who would expand and hire now, with upcoming health care costs and more taxes? If you don't have to pay health care fines because you have less than a certain number of employees, or people who work less than full time, you won't hire nor expand hours. The market may crash because of people trying to take profits now, before they get taxed to death. And any cutbacks to control the deficit? No way, we're just going to tax those five high income people left and have them pay for all of it. Of course, we aren't raising capital gains to match ordinary income, because then it would hit the really rich (who are our donors).

Oh, things are going to be great!

Be careful what you wish for. At least we didn't get that rich guy elected, whew!

longprime · Guru

I think, I don't know.

Politicians are sooo funny. Can't wait until tonight's SNL. They got two great story lines. Sooo much and sooo little air time. hmm

Maybe MReagan is trying to increase his readership???

-- Edited by longprime on Saturday 17th of November 2012 09:53:28 AM

longprime · Guru

mr said something very stupid.

he said something that was recorded.

at least one of his rich fat cats didnt like what MR was telling them.

And neither did some future 2016 candidates who happen to be of color or latino.

He lost. He is a bad loser assigning blame to everyone except himself. He is owning up to his 47% statement that he just spent the last 6 weeks trying to mitigate.

He is going to make fund raising more difficult for future R candidates.

He is giving, $$$$ a bad reputation.

Stop it.

He should have blamed GW as did Michael Reagan, " G.W. was MIA Nov 15, 2012 Democrats have been blaming George W. Bush for the last four years. Now I think it's time for Republicans to start blaming George W. for the next four years. For a week we've been pinning last week's debacle on everything from Mitt Romney's moderation to low Republican turnout. But the most important Republican who didn't turn out to support Romney this fall was George W. Bush. ...(more) " http://www.michaelereagan.com/g-w-was-mia/

-- Edited by longprime on Saturday 17th of November 2012 09:43:06 AM

geeps20 · Senior Member

I wish obama could just **** up and go away...wake me up in 4 years

john doe · Guru

He was and still is the most inept, tone deaf person I've ever heard.

longprime · Guru

For me, Romney, framed himself as a vacillating snob, in every way. He made easy for the D's. And the rest of the R party had to go along with him because he was the selected candidate won fair and $$.

Mitt, just shut up and go away,

You're giving money a bad name.

winchester · Guru

Do you see what's going on here? Well, not just here but also in editorials and punditry?

1) Mitt is "insensitive" and "out of touch" for saying that people vote for more stuff for themselves.
2) Republicans need to be more "in step" with the public. And to do that they must do what?
3) Frame their arguments in a way that shows how Republican policies will give the people more stuff.

What's wrong with this picture?

Anyone?

busdriver11 · Guru

"Mitt would better serve the Republican party by keeping his mouth shut."

Probably so. The truth spoken out loud isn't always beneficial to those who want to get votes. You have to phrase it in a way that won't offend people. If there is even a grain of truth in it, then that irritates people even more.

john doe · Guru

Mitt would better serve the Republican party by keeping his mouth shut.

longprime · Guru

The student loan forgiveness program:

120 ontime, scheduled payments,consecutive, is the Big Huddle to qualify for loan forgiveness.

DS student loans had a 0.5% discount to the loan rate after just 36 payments from the 1st scheduled payment. If I remember correctly, www.finaid.com, said that >50% will miss the first payment, 80% will miss a payment within the first 36 payments. DS average rate (2002-2006) was ~3.25% unsubsidized. I think the PLUS was probably ~4%. And this was with the US Government borrowing money at about what they are getting today: 6month =0.15%; 10 yr=1.%; 30yr=3.% . So the 0.5% discount to the rate was a very significant benefit. No fees, too.

Current Student Direct loan rate is 3.5% and PLUS 7.9%, plus 4% fees.

http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/DirectLoan/calc.html

The way I see it, PBO, Made money for the taxpayer, while making the borrower believe that they are getting a good deal.

If MR was a good money manager, He would have borrowed from Uncle Sam. But since he mostly blows smoke, he probably made donations to his sons' school, reaping the tax deduction over paying the interest.

winchester · Guru

they have a TON of policies that would appeal to different groups... they just haven't marketed themselves well

Must agree with that one.

If Republicans marketed themselves by representing all those policies in terms of the "care" they provide, and how those policies show that Republicans "feel your pain" they might be more successful. And what's more, the marketing would be true. It always has been true.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

Whether it's true or not, I won't comment on, but I think it was a really dumb thing of him to say. The GOP knows they need to go after the minority voters in the upcoming elections to gain popularity (and they have a TON of policies that would appeal to different groups... they just haven't marketed themselves well) and this was not a good way to start. The GOP needs to show that they're in touch with the new demographically diverse America, and this is not the way to do it.

Jindal's reply was spot on IMO.

Razorsharp · Guru

Obama gave free health care to people who did not have health care. That population is largely minority. He gave citizenship to young hispanics who are not citizens. He made welfare no longer a temporary program. That population is largely minority. Yep, Obama bought the election by giving free stuff to his voters. Many whites benefited from his gifts but not in the same proportion as a percentage of their race. Now obama is trying to screw rich people which are largely white population. Obama is really robin hood - take from the rich and give to the poor.