kimmy Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 As I posted in another thread, one group that did vote in record numbers was "white evangelicals", making up 27% of all votes. And they went overwhelmingly for Romney, 78% to 21%. And that has really troubling implications for the Republicans because it means that the "if we just get our base to the polls we'll win!" premise just doesn't hold water. The Republicans have built much of their platform around appealing to this group of voters, and those voters showed up in record numbers in a year when overall voting was down... and they still didn't win. That base just isn't big enough. Over and over since the election we've heard Republican pollsters and analysts and strategists say that they expected a big drop-off in ethnic and youth vote from 2008, a drop-off that didn't materialize. You know what? You can't go to Afghanistan and Iraq and China and North Korea and tell them that "Democracy is freakin' awesome!!!" then return home and say "god damn it, if we can't find a way to get the kids and the swarthy-people to stay home on election day, we're in serious trouble." It's not gonna fly. Right, a policy of "reaching across the aisle" probably cost him a few million votes. But really the election was won by pandering and the vote buying of special interests aided by a biased mainstream media. Ok, I'm sure this will be good. Please explain what "reaching across the aisle" Willard did that probably cost him "a few million votes". -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Or having a base that consists only of rich white folks and dumb white folks, thats shrinking every election. There's plenty of "white folks" that didn't vote for Romney, including both the rich kind and the dumb kind, as well as those neither rich nor dumb. The vast majority of atheists, agnostics, and other people suspicious of religious law (and thus repulsed by the Republicans theocratic tendencies) are also white. The reality is it's not "rich white folks" and "dumb white folks" that vote for the Republicans, it's religious nutjob folks. And that, thankfully, is a dying demographic, as more and more of the world's (and America's) population leaves the evils of organized religion far behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) From what I've heard, Obama got a lot less votes than in 2008, but I don't think that this means the Dems should soul search about their base. And it was only 2 short years ago when a tide of conservative discontent gave the House to Republicans, so in two short years it's all over for them? It doesn't seem qutie that bad. I will say that Obama was very effective in characterizing Romney as a rich out of touch rightwinger who wanted to protect the wealthy while making abortion illegal again. The Evangelical, while firmly in the Rep camp, is not what their base consists of, it's the right of center conservative whether church goer or not, which would make up a fair bit more than just 27% of the Rep voters. Maybe I heard a different slant, but the conservative talking heads I watch were talking about the enthusiasm that would push their base to out vote the Dems who they thought didn't have as much at stake, and they were sure wrong on that one. Obama has proven himself to be a savvy campaigner, but has yet to prove himself in the realm of horse trading, and he's gonna need a lot of horses to get past the fiscal cliff. He's beat the right, but has yet to beat the economy. Edited November 15, 2012 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 .... Obama has proven himself to be a savvy campaigner, but has yet to prove himself in the realm of horse trading, and he's gonna need a lot of horses to get past the fiscal cliff. True...President Obama has not been able to forge a working relationship with opposition members in Congress like some of his predecessors in the White House. On the specific issue of budgets and taxes, Reagan and Clinton were far better. Obama never defeated an incumbent president either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 As I posted in another thread, one group that did vote in record numbers was "white evangelicals", making up 27% of all votes. And they went overwhelmingly for Romney, 78% to 21%. And that has really troubling implications for the Republicans because it means that the "if we just get our base to the polls we'll win!" premise just doesn't hold water. The Republicans have built much of their platform around appealing to this group of voters, and those voters showed up in record numbers in a year when overall voting was down... and they still didn't win. That base just isn't big enough. Over and over since the election we've heard Republican pollsters and analysts and strategists say that they expected a big drop-off in ethnic and youth vote from 2008, a drop-off that didn't materialize. You know what? You can't go to Afghanistan and Iraq and China and North Korea and tell them that "Democracy is freakin' awesome!!!" then return home and say "god damn it, if we can't find a way to get the kids and the swarthy-people to stay home on election day, we're in serious trouble." It's not gonna fly. Ok, I'm sure this will be good. Please explain what "reaching across the aisle" Willard did that probably cost him "a few million votes". -k This is nonsense. What exactly did Romney offer to "white evnagelicals" to garner their support? Nothing. Romney preached to Americans only. Romney told Americans a simple message: I will cut taxes and reduce spending, this will stimulate the economy and eventually balance the budget. It's the Dems that focus on specific subcategories of Americans. They have a different message for each American. Women: "we'll tear down the glass ceiling!" Poor: "we'll make the bankers pay their fair share so you can keep getting your entitlements!" Students: "we'll make sure higher education is affordable because you guys are our future!" Seniors: "healthcare healthcare healthcare!" Blacks: "hey guys I'm black too!" Romney had one prescription to cure the ails of all Americans. Obama divided the people and promised them that he would be Robin Hood and steal from the evil Rich to give them what they most desired. The republicans are going to need to better tailor their one prescription to each class of people if they want to compete with the divisive Democrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Frum sums things up well. http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/opinion/frum-conservatives-despair/index.html?iref=allsearch Romney lost because trying to convince people to make do with less for long term prosperity is a harder sell than convincing people that we are going to pillage the bank accounts of people who contribute the most to society. Why Americans want to copy the failed policies of Chavez I won't ever know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 This is nonsense. What exactly did Romney offer to "white evnagelicals" to garner their support? Nothing. Romney offered being a member of the Republican party and following the party line on issues like abortion, gay marriage, the perversion of science education and medical research, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Why Americans want to copy the failed policies of Chavez I won't ever know. Because President Obama can exploit class warfare and the entitlement expectations of those getting more without paying for it. He is not offended by the title of "Robin Hood" or "Food Stamp President". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 There's plenty of "white folks" that didn't vote for Romney, including both the rich kind and the dumb kind, as well as those neither rich nor dumb. The vast majority of atheists, agnostics, and other people suspicious of religious law (and thus repulsed by the Republicans theocratic tendencies) are also white. The reality is it's not "rich white folks" and "dumb white folks" that vote for the Republicans, it's religious nutjob folks. And that, thankfully, is a dying demographic, as more and more of the world's (and America's) population leaves the evils of organized religion far behind. I never said all white folks voted for Romney, I said thats his base. The dumb white folks include the people that you mentioned... religious social conservatives from the sticks. And the rich white folks DID vote for Romney by about 10 points. This used to be enough to win republicans votes but its not anymore. The democrats have a bigger tent, and are able to win among a whole bunch of different constituencies (Asian, Women, Young People, Hispanics, Gays, Blacks, Jews, etc etc). Republican Govenor Bobby Jindal put it nicely, when he said Republicans need to stop being the "party of stupid", and embrace a larger constituency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Because President Obama can exploit class warfare and the entitlement expectations of those getting more without paying for it. He is not offended by the title of "Robin Hood" or "Food Stamp President". No the reason why people are rejecting the type of capitalism we see today is because it concentrates wealth only benefits a few people at the top of the food chain. Nobody had a problem with capitalism between 1940 and 1975 when wealth was de-concentrating, wages were rising, and a large middle class was emerging. If the US does turn towards socialism the economic elites will have nobody to blame but themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) I really don't think the election was won and lost on the economy. Given the same economic message they had, if the Republicans weren't also the party of religious crazies, they would have had the votes they needed to win. Edited November 15, 2012 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 I highly doubt if religion is what lost them the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 I highly doubt if religion is what lost them the election. It was close in a lot of states. If it wasn't for crazy republican comments about rape they may well have had more support in key states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) I really don't think the election was won and lost on the economy. Given the same economic message they had, if the Republicans weren't also the party of religious crazies, they would have had the votes they needed to win. The republican got a huge percentage of their votes from those evangelicals. Without those votes they would lose in a land slide. They need to embrace new contituencies not just ditch the ones they have, and to do that they need to change their stance on all kinds of things. They arent going to win with women when their platform is stripping them of reproductive rights. They arent going to win with hispanices when their platform is deporting half of them. They arent going to win with gays by campaigning against civil rights. This isnt just about religious crazies, its that the demographic that just generally finds the whole republican platform to be distasteful is growing, and next election it will be even bigger. This was an election they SHOULD have won in a landslide.. unemployment above 8%... crappy economy, and slow recovery... stagnant wages and inflation. What the hell are they gonna do if the economy looks GREAT next election? Edited November 15, 2012 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 I really don't think the election was won and lost on the economy. Given the same economic message they had, if the Republicans weren't also the party of religious crazies, they would have had the votes they needed to win. When are the Democrats going to purge their party of their religious crazies, You know the Black Baptists, the Catholic Hispanics, the Jews and I think there might even be some white Christians. The Republican party will welcome them, I'm sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 I highly doubt if religion is what lost them the election. What about Todd Akin? Do you think religion lost him his seat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 It was close in a lot of states. If it wasn't for crazy republican comments about rape they may well have had more support in key states. This, imo, is why he didn't have that support: Top Republicans say Romney didn't offer specifics http://news.yahoo.com/top-republicans-romney-didnt-offer-specifics-080833236--election.html Top Republicans meeting for the first time since Election Day say the party lost its bid to unseat President Barack Obama because nominee Mitt Romney did not respond to criticism strongly enough or outline a specific agenda with a broad appeal. (emphasis mine) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 When are the Democrats going to purge their party of their religious crazies, You know the Black Baptists, the Catholic Hispanics, the Jews and I think there might even be some white Christians. The Republican party will welcome them, I'm sure. No doubt there are some religious crazies who vote Democrat. But they're not running for office. Get back to me when the Democrats have assholes like Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry campaigning for the presidential nomination, or when fruitcakes like Todd Akin or Paul Broun or Joe Walsh (to pick 3) running for office. Thanks largely to Tea Party involvement, some real kooks have been able to secure nominations to run for Congress and Senate in the Republican party. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) This is nonsense. What exactly did Romney offer to "white evnagelicals" to garner their support? Nothing. Romney preached to Americans only. Romney told Americans a simple message: I will cut taxes and reduce spending, this will stimulate the economy and eventually balance the budget. It's the Dems that focus on specific subcategories of Americans. They have a different message for each American. Women: "we'll tear down the glass ceiling!" Poor: "we'll make the bankers pay their fair share so you can keep getting your entitlements!" Students: "we'll make sure higher education is affordable because you guys are our future!" Seniors: "healthcare healthcare healthcare!" Blacks: "hey guys I'm black too!" Romney had one prescription to cure the ails of all Americans. Obama divided the people and promised them that he would be Robin Hood and steal from the evil Rich to give them what they most desired. The republicans are going to need to better tailor their one prescription to each class of people if they want to compete with the divisive Democrats. I find it odd that you find it odd that different groups might have different interests. Perhaps you are conditioned to believing that whatever is important to white males is the only thing that should matter, but that's not the reality as your man Willard found out. But by all means: keep ignoring and marginalizing the very people upon whom your electoral success depends. I heartily encourage it. Edited November 15, 2012 by Black Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Yes, the idea that there is 'one prescription to cure what ails America' is a delusional right wing fantasy. A country isn't that simple, and if that's what Romney and his supporters really thing, it's a good thing that they lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 ... Thanks largely to Tea Party involvement, some real kooks have been able to secure nominations to run for Congress and Senate in the Republican party. "Real kooks" have always been able to run for office. Ross Perot was labeled a "kook" in the 1992 election but he still got 18% of the vote. Gov. George Wallace actually got electoral votes. Rep. Michele Bachmann was -re-elected by her district. Nothing new about the "Tea Party" in this respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Yes, the idea that there is 'one prescription to cure what ails America' is a delusional right wing fantasy. A country isn't that simple, and if that's what Romney and his supporters really thing, it's a good thing that they lost. The problem with that is Obama's worse. But I know, I know, Romney's rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 The problem with that is Obama's worse. Is he? Really? He's not worse than that kind of delusional thinking. Obviously the American people agreed, and gave Obama a victory margin ovf 3M votes. But I know, I know, Romney's rich. Some of us can make an argument above this level. Obviously you can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 Is he? Really? He's not worse than that kind of delusional thinking. Obviously the American people agreed, and gave Obama a victory margin ovf 3M votes. Some of us can make an argument above this level. Obviously you can't. He's worse than Bush, and in only 4 years. God help us all in another 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 15, 2012 Report Share Posted November 15, 2012 (edited) He's worse than Bush, and in only 4 years. The economy has only improved under Obama, so you may want to revise that. God help us all in another 4. I doubt praying to the sky fairy will help anything....and as if you're hoping for the economy to do well under Obama. Edited November 15, 2012 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.