CelticsStrong

Other Discussions => Off Topic => Current Events / Political Discussion => Topic started by: JSD on November 07, 2012, 08:10:57 PM

Title: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: JSD on November 07, 2012, 08:10:57 PM
Quote
Romney lost today to a guy who is overseeing a horrible economy, prosecuting unpopular wars, and who can barely string 5 words together without a teleprompter. This was the best the Republican Party can do. Not only are the Republicans evil, they're evil and contemptible losers, which is far worse.

The biggest losers tonight are of course people who value peace and freedom, but we would have also lost if Romney won. The GOP is right up there in the loser category, however. The GOP lost seats in the Senate, and did little to improve its position in the House. It has served up two ridiculously bad nominees in a row, claiming "electability" and then going down in flames.

Rand Paul certainly came out of this looking very bad as well. He fell in line behind the party masters, banking on some advantage to be gained through an endorsement of Romney. He ended up just looking politically unsavvy and unprincipled. There is little to be gained either, from playing ball with a Party that as inept as the GOP at this point.

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the GOP may actually show sign of disintegration in the next several years. The GOP has ceased to present any sort of actual alternative, and worse yet, it can't run a winning candidate. Once that happens, the coalition that makes up your political party will begin to fall apart.

The Ron Paul movement is a big winner here. The GOP told the libertarians in the party to get lost, and the GOP paid for it. Interestingly, both Iowa and Nevada, where Ron Paul supporters gained control of the state party, both went to Obama after the Romney campaign actively fought to disenfranchise Ron Paul supporters. I guess the GOP got what it wanted there.

There is exactly one movement that offers any real opposition to the status quo, and it ain't the conservative movement, which is on life support and entering a permanent vegetative state. Ron Paul's libertarian movement, brimming with well-educated young people, is the only thing left standing. The GOP operatives who predicted a big victory tonight just look pathetic.

On foreign policy, if it proves to be true that Obama is truly reluctant to engage in the mass murder of Iranians, that may be a victory there all by itself. Time well tell on that one.

And finally, when the economy enters a deep recession in a couple of years (or sooner), it will be good that Obama will be in office. You all know how it would have gone otherwise: After a couple of years of Romney misrule, the media will decide that Romney was the candidate of "free markets." Then, mired in a depression, our wise overlords will declare that "we tried that free market thing, and look what happened."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/125562.html

We will nopw start to see a shift towards libertarianism in the Republican party. Ron Paul galvenized so many people on a state  and local level that liberty leaning canditates are going to spring up, run and win a lot of Republican primaries gonig forward.

To me, the GOP losing so big like they did last night was a major step in getting a party together that can actually compete with the liberal, socially accepting message.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: D Dub on November 07, 2012, 08:17:33 PM
as a life-long DEM, have to admit that I kind of like the Ron Paul movement. 

If the GOP would adopt his foriegn policy & social views I'd consider switching.

That said, I'm not down with a 3 party system.  Having 34% of our population become 'majority opinion' is sketchy; left or right...
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: JSD on November 07, 2012, 08:36:28 PM
By the way, 9 "Ron Paul Republicans" elected to Congress yesterday: Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, David Schweikert, Walter Jones, Kerry Bentivolio, Steve Stockman, Randy Weber, Ted Yoho, and Ted Cruz
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: KGs Knee on November 07, 2012, 09:07:18 PM
Libertarians have a real opportunity here.

I truly believe a majority of the people want fiscal conservatism.  If the Libertarian party would just be true (as a whole) to its "individual liberty" core, thus embracing more supposed "liberal" social ideals, it would quickly oust the GOP.

The time for a new direction is upon us.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: slamtheking on November 07, 2012, 09:33:25 PM
Republicans need to get away from their fringe and religious wings of the party and stick to fiscally conservative policies. 

when their nominees embrace the extremism of their religious wing as well as their intrusion into personal issues (abortion, contraception, sexual identity, etc..) they lose much of any appeal they may have had with voters that might agree with their financial views.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 07, 2012, 10:26:57 PM
The GOP needs to change for sure but I doubt libertarianism is the answer. At least not wholesale shifts towards it.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: KGs Knee on November 08, 2012, 12:19:59 AM
The GOP needs to change for sure but I doubt libertarianism is the answer. At least not wholesale shifts towards it.

Do either the Democrats or Republicans have wholesale monopolies of the agenda?
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 12:38:05 AM
The GOP needs to change for sure but I doubt libertarianism is the answer. At least not wholesale shifts towards it.

Do either the Democrats or Republicans have wholesale monopolies of the agenda?

No, and a good point. But the general laisee faire philosophy of the libertarian party is closer to the republican platform than the democratic one. 'Do what you will, but you're responsible for the outcome' isn't really in line with the social, economic, or foreign policy doctorine of the democrats or republicans, but the economic policy is closer to that of republicans, as are general viewpoints on entitlement programs.

Not that this is anything but the broadest of brushes. It is far more nuanced. Fundementally both parties have stances on most issues that are not in line with pure libertarianism.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Bahku on November 08, 2012, 12:44:41 AM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: KGs Knee on November 08, 2012, 01:06:23 AM
The GOP needs to change for sure but I doubt libertarianism is the answer. At least not wholesale shifts towards it.

Do either the Democrats or Republicans have wholesale monopolies of the agenda?

No, and a good point. But the general laisee faire philosophy of the libertarian party is closer to the republican platform than the democratic one. 'Do what you will, but you're responsible for the outcome' isn't really in line with the social, economic, or foreign policy doctorine of the democrats or republicans, but the economic policy is closer to that of republicans, as are general viewpoints on entitlement programs.

Not that this is anything but the broadest of brushes. It is far more nuanced. Fundementally both parties have stances on most issues that are not in line with pure libertarianism.

I'll agree there.

For instance, just a few of the social beliefs I hold:

Pro life
Pro gay marriage
Pro legalization
Strict(fairly) interpretation of constitution
Limited entitlement programs
Limited government
Pro equal rights/pay for women
Anti-death penalty (except in acts of war or terror)
In favor of a return of power to states

Try to fit that into either party
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Change on November 08, 2012, 01:08:21 AM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on November 08, 2012, 01:14:17 AM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

That's like winning by 20 points, and saying it wasn't a blowout because they only grabbed 1 more rebound.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 08, 2012, 01:49:32 AM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

Obama is also up +2.3% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Results) in the popular vote.  Not sure where .5% comes from.

JSD may also be referring to the Republicans losing seats in the Senate, which they'd expected to take control of.  Not a good night for them any way it's sliced.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: D Dub on November 08, 2012, 02:20:14 AM
Saw this over at surfermag figured JSD would like:




(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/545545_298783426893365_963749110_n.png)
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 08, 2012, 06:10:20 AM
I don't think they are in that bad of trouble.   They still have a lot of capital and finance behind them and spending power.

Where the GOP fails is in it's inability to be more inclusive.   It has sadly become a party of angry white men and value (albeit selective) voters.  They have to get rid of some of their medieval thoughts on women and take a long hard look at how they treat minorities that are rapidly becoming the minority.  Try to appeal more to the middle class where the majority of people live in.  Roughly 12-18% of people identify as secular.   A lot of Americans believe in legalization of Marijuana and Gay Rights.   The Grand Old Party is going to have to adapt or die.

Now I have heard some folk suggest they lost because Romney was not conservative enough.   He didn't rise in the national polls until he self moderated in the debates.   Thinking like this will lead to a generational loss of power for them in the White House.  Now they control the HOUSE and truth be told 51 of the 55 Tea Party freshmen won re-election.  But some notable tea party guys with out there ideology went down like Allen West (FLA) and Joe Walsh (ILL).   Take this with a grain of salt too as gerrymandering protected a lot of these folk.  Others like Bachman barely won, so if folks believe they can simply maintain the status quo they are in for a rude awakening as the electorate continues to change.

Personally, I think they can fix things.   I am an independent and I don't care for either party.   The GOP would appeal to more if they didn't have the religious right dominating them.  Guys like Murdoch and Akins did them no favors.  I think fiscal conservatism is something many care about.  A lot think the government is wasteful in it's spending but a lot of the rest of the platform is dated.   This isn't the 1950's anymore Wally....
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: BballTim on November 08, 2012, 08:08:44 AM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

  I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 08, 2012, 08:23:45 AM
John Adam's said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I don't particularly care about the religous part, but after what I saw happen in Massachusetts, its clear that we here are a people lacking morals. 

If the GOP is in trouble its because we as a people are in trouble.


EDIT: and im not saying every GOP member is a pillar of morals, but im just saying the choice was clear here in MA and two of the most dispacble people to run for public office were elected.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Donoghus on November 08, 2012, 08:53:22 AM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

  I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office.  They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics.  That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing.  Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

Republican Party just needs to look itself in the mirror and see where to make changes to broaden appeal.  If they can get their act together there, they should be fine. Certainly, the reports of kicking the dirt in the GOP are greatly exaggerated so I'm not buying that. 

They just need to figure things out. 
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Moranis on November 08, 2012, 08:56:01 AM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

  I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.
Obama had 365 electoral votes in 2008, so he clearly lost some of them this time.  That said it wasn't really a close race, it was just closer than last time.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: kozlodoev on November 08, 2012, 09:16:25 AM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.
Yeah.

First, the popular vote margin is one of the smallest in recent history (third smallest in the last 10 elections, sixth smallest in the last 20).

Second, Obama lost in excess of 6 million people in the popular vote tally as compared to the last elections.

Third, Ron Paul would have stood much better chance if half of his ideas weren't completely off the rocker.

And lastly, the GOP _is_ in trouble. They have to let go of the social policy from the medieval ages, and shed the weirdos that are making them look bad.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 08, 2012, 09:17:23 AM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.
Yeah.

First, the popular vote margin is one of the smallest in recent history (third smallest in the last 10 elections, sixth smallest in the last 20).

Second, Obama lost in excess of 6 million people in the popular vote tally as compared to the last elections.

Third, Ron Paul would have stood much better chance if half of his ideas weren't completely off the rocker.

I agree with all 3!
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: kozlodoev on November 08, 2012, 09:19:52 AM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.
Yeah.

First, the popular vote margin is one of the smallest in recent history (third smallest in the last 10 elections, sixth smallest in the last 20).

Second, Obama lost in excess of 6 million people in the popular vote tally as compared to the last elections.

Third, Ron Paul would have stood much better chance if half of his ideas weren't completely off the rocker.

I agree with all 3!
Stop the presses, Rondo2287 and I agree on something :)

I added a fourth, btw. I'm sorry, but as long as guys like Akin and Mourdok are up front and center, it's hard to take GOP ideas on social policy seriously.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 08, 2012, 09:24:02 AM
John Adam's said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I don't particularly care about the religous part, but after what I saw happen in Massachusetts, its clear that we here are a people lacking morals. 

If the GOP is in trouble its because we as a people are in trouble.

Not that you're personally responsible or anything, but "vote for us or you're bad people" is a good example of the kind of rhetoric that turns off independent voters.

I've said this before, but it's probably going to take at least one more election loss before a lot of the GOP base stops pointing fingers outward and starts considering that many of their positions (gay marriage, tax cuts for the wealthy, reproductive issues, etc) are unpopular, and their demographics are shrinking.  The strategists and wonks see the writing on the wall, but they're got an uphill climb to drag the base with them. 
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: guava_wrench on November 08, 2012, 09:42:35 AM
John Adam's said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I don't particularly care about the religous part, but after what I saw happen in Massachusetts, its clear that we here are a people lacking morals. 

If the GOP is in trouble its because we as a people are in trouble.


EDIT: and im not saying every GOP member is a pillar of morals, but im just saying the choice was clear here in MA and two of the most dispacble people to run for public office were elected.
Sounds like you are overwhelmed by partisanship. MA did a great job, and we had no David Dukes here. All our major candidates for both parties were good choices, despite negative ads on both sides. Unfortunately, some people buy the negative ads hook, line and sinker.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 08, 2012, 10:02:16 AM
John Adam's said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I don't particularly care about the religous part, but after what I saw happen in Massachusetts, its clear that we here are a people lacking morals. 

If the GOP is in trouble its because we as a people are in trouble.


EDIT: and im not saying every GOP member is a pillar of morals, but im just saying the choice was clear here in MA and two of the most dispacble people to run for public office were elected.
Sounds like you are overwhelmed by partisanship. MA did a great job, and we had no David Dukes here. All our major candidates for both parties were good choices, despite negative ads on both sides. Unfortunately, some people buy the negative ads hook, line and sinker.

I don't think so, somebody who lies about knowledge of his family running an offshore gambling rings and laundering millions of dollars through his personal bank account should not be re-elected.  Especially after his wife and brothers and law have said that he knew about the whole thing an that he threw his family under the bus.

And second, somebody that uses and entire race of people's suffering for her own personal gain is really the lowest of the low. 

I personally believe that voting for either of those people means that a person has lost their moral compass or never had one. 


Edit: its also very possible that people just don't care about the morality and character of those representing them. 
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: nickagneta on November 08, 2012, 10:26:46 AM
This election has taught the Republican Party that they can not win with just the "white" vote. A majority of their platform is dedicated to the principles of the religious white middle and upper class. That vote will never again in this country win a Presidential election all by itself.

That is why the Republican Party is in trouble. The Latino populous is growing at such a rate that it could be possible that both Texas and Arizona become swing states in 2016 but most certainly by 2020 if those Latino voters continue to vote Democratic at a 75%-25% rate or larger.

Obama was a incumbent that should not have been re-elected based on his record. The fact that the Electoral College vote was not even close showcases the problems that are deep within the Republican Party.

1. They need to stop with the class warfare and embrace the fact that the poor, elderly, and sick need assistance and that a small percentage of fraud exists in the system but is tolerable because of the millions of other housing, food stamps, Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid help. There best bet would be to embrace the programs but look at eliminate fraud in the system with stricter oversight.

2. Their stances on social some social issue have to change.

    a. Consent to civil unions for Gays and that the word marriage will be
stricken for all laws in the US and replaced with the words civil unions. Only churches can provide a marriage.
    b. Time to let women make their own decisions regarding their bodies. Let the law stand.
    c. Stop with the super hard line stance on immigration. Do what Reagan did. Grant amnesty for all undocumented workers, go after the companies employing these workers, then strength the borders with returning soldiers from Afghanistan and create a hard line immigration policy going forward that rids "safe zones" for illegals in the US and allows for local police departments to share information on illegals with the national Immigration Department.
   d. Before the Dems do it go for a national Amendment legalize a known grown product and then set up laws that tax the heck out of it, like tobacco and booze.

3. Return hard time to the roots of fiscal conservatism. No more pork allowed in laws to get votes. Return to your roots and attempt to start sending more rights back to the states.

4. Be at the forefront of campaign and voter reform. Nationalize all election laws and make things standardized. Show that you want no more dirty politics in election. Make America see that you are the party that is stepping away from the influence of the big money corporations  and that you want all elections to be run fairly and have all Americans to have access to have your vote count.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on November 08, 2012, 10:29:56 AM
John Adam's said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I don't particularly care about the religous part, but after what I saw happen in Massachusetts, its clear that we here are a people lacking morals. 

If the GOP is in trouble its because we as a people are in trouble.


EDIT: and im not saying every GOP member is a pillar of morals, but im just saying the choice was clear here in MA and two of the most dispacble people to run for public office were elected.
Sounds like you are overwhelmed by partisanship. MA did a great job, and we had no David Dukes here. All our major candidates for both parties were good choices, despite negative ads on both sides. Unfortunately, some people buy the negative ads hook, line and sinker.

I don't think so, somebody who lies about knowledge of his family running an offshore gambling rings and laundering millions of dollars through his personal bank account should not be re-elected.  Especially after his wife and brothers and law have said that he knew about the whole thing an that he threw his family under the bus.

And second, somebody that uses and entire race of people's suffering for her own personal gain is really the lowest of the low. 

I personally believe that voting for either of those people means that a person has lost their moral compass or never had one. 


Edit: its also very possible that people just don't care about the morality and character of those representing them.

Clearly. See: Clinton, Bill.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 10:53:44 AM
John Adam's said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I don't particularly care about the religous part, but after what I saw happen in Massachusetts, its clear that we here are a people lacking morals. 

If the GOP is in trouble its because we as a people are in trouble.


EDIT: and im not saying every GOP member is a pillar of morals, but im just saying the choice was clear here in MA and two of the most dispacble people to run for public office were elected.
Sounds like you are overwhelmed by partisanship. MA did a great job, and we had no David Dukes here. All our major candidates for both parties were good choices, despite negative ads on both sides. Unfortunately, some people buy the negative ads hook, line and sinker.

I don't think so, somebody who lies about knowledge of his family running an offshore gambling rings and laundering millions of dollars through his personal bank account should not be re-elected.  Especially after his wife and brothers and law have said that he knew about the whole thing an that he threw his family under the bus.

And second, somebody that uses and entire race of people's suffering for her own personal gain is really the lowest of the low. 

I personally believe that voting for either of those people means that a person has lost their moral compass or never had one. 


Edit: its also very possible that people just don't care about the morality and character of those representing them.

Clearly. See: Clinton, Bill.

Disagree with both of you about the alleged loss of a moral compass. Republicans got all up in arms about Warren. Democrats didn't seem to have much of a problem with the accusations brought against her. Is that because republicans are just coincidentally more moral in general?

Of course not. Republicans were running a hotly contested race against a challenger. People were inundated with attack ads daily in MA. It skews your opinion over time. To me, it seems like Elizabeth Warren did some ill-advised but trivial garbage. My biggest problem is her possible plagiarism of a recipe from a NYT piece.

Again, my biggest problem with a US Senator is that she might have potentially plagiarized a recipe from an old NYT piece. Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.

I think the campaigns on both sides did a great job ramping up the feelings from both sides and demonizing the opponents, and their supporters. There isn't a 'moral bankruptcy' problem in the US. There is a 'political radicalization' problem.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 10:55:32 AM
www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/11/08/164671665/texas-judge-who-beat-his-daughter-is-reinstated-to-bench

This is moral bankruptcy.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: angryguy77 on November 08, 2012, 11:03:43 AM
I don't think they are in that bad of trouble.   They still have a lot of capital and finance behind them and spending power.

Where the GOP fails is in it's inability to be more inclusive.   It has sadly become a party of angry white men and value (albeit selective) voters.  They have to get rid of some of their medieval thoughts on women and take a long hard look at how they treat minorities that are rapidly becoming the minority.  Try to appeal more to the middle class where the majority of people live in.  Roughly 12-18% of people identify as secular.   A lot of Americans believe in legalization of Marijuana and Gay Rights.   The Grand Old Party is going to have to adapt or die.

Now I have heard some folk suggest they lost because Romney was not conservative enough.   He didn't rise in the national polls until he self moderated in the debates.   Thinking like this will lead to a generational loss of power for them in the White House.  Now they control the HOUSE and truth be told 51 of the 55 Tea Party freshmen won re-election.  But some notable tea party guys with out there ideology went down like Allen West (FLA) and Joe Walsh (ILL).   Take this with a grain of salt too as gerrymandering protected a lot of these folk.  Others like Bachman barely won, so if folks believe they can simply maintain the status quo they are in for a rude awakening as the electorate continues to change.

Personally, I think they can fix things.   I am an independent and I don't care for either party.   The GOP would appeal to more if they didn't have the religious right dominating them.  Guys like Murdoch and Akins did them no favors.  I think fiscal conservatism is something many care about.  A lot think the government is wasteful in it's spending but a lot of the rest of the platform is dated.   This isn't the 1950's anymore Wally....
\


Did you even watch their convention? They had numerous people up there that were not "angry" or "white" and it didn't matter, the left still spouted the same misinformation and characterizations that are in your post. The party you speak of, only exists in the minds of liberals and the media. It is not based in reality.



I'm also a little taken back by all this talk about how the party should throw it's religious base under the bus. How the religious values that the party holds are somehow not popular with America. If that was the case would the DNC have steamrolled the opposition within its own party to put God back into its platform? It was only after they realized that it wasn't a popular move with the country that they put Him back in. I found that whole thing quite funny to see, the party that preaches "Don't force your values on me" forced God back into its platform over the objections of the majority at it convention.

The party of not pushing values on others had no problem forcing its values on the Catholic church through Obamacare. The same party that was telling us the evil GOP was going to take away birth control has a man, who doesn't believe in the use of any birth control, give the closing prayer at its convention. Does the left really not believe people should have another person's values pushed on them, or is it ok as long as the values align with their agenda? I'd have to say it's the latter.

Christians still make up a large voting block, if the GOP tells them to take a hike, they will insure themselves losses in election after election. It would have the same effect as the DNC telling the people on gov programs to get bent.


I wonder when people are going to see through the crap and stop buying the lies that the DNC and MSM puts out about conservatives and republicans. The GOP was and is not going to take away birth control, they were not going to force women to work for slave labor, our nominee held a more moderate view on abortion than that of the party, yet we were fed lies that he was going to ham on the pro choice movement(note: this is not a discussion on abortion, just an example of a misconception). 

Our candidate was not some far right extremist by any stretch. It wasn't the far right ideas of the party that lost this election. How could it, when the nominee didn't champion those values?

The democrats accuse the republicans of being sexists and bigots every single election. But it was they who created the Life of Julia where if you really look at what its saying, told women they cannot make it in life without big brother's help. That should have insulted women and anyone who saw what message that story was trying to convey. According to the DNC, women are not strong enough or resilient enough to lead a successful life without the government. The hypocrisy of the left makes me want to blow chunks.


The disgust that many show for religion in this country is in itself disgusting. Do we want forced religion on people? No. But when religious values were embraced in this country, we were better off. Before the social cleansing of religion from the public view took place, we lived in a country where families were stronger, metal detectors were not needed at schools, teenage pregnancy was a shock, not the norm, parents could let their kids play outside without much worry, and their minds were not corrupted with the garbage that is on TV. Kids have no innocence anymore because of the secularism forced on us by the left. The tossing out of the values that helped build this country have contributed greatly to the societal ills we have today.







Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: thirstyboots18 on November 08, 2012, 11:19:21 AM
Now I am going to get into labeling and name-calling.  You are all nuts and a little close minded!   ;)  The Democratic Party has been manhandled and looked pretty sad before, and they came back.  The Republican party was not dismissed on nearly the same scale, and you are calling for their death?  Not likely.  They will also come back.  These things seem to go in cycles...and no matter how hard one party may try to reign supreme or claim to "have a mandate"...neither has been able to accomplish that yet.  That is the brilliance of our founders, and their vision of a representative democracy.

Even when the Democrats held the Presidency and both House and Senate, checks and balances worked. And...despite the misgivings of many, on both sides, we have survived every President and Party change so far....

I know there are many things the parties are too pig headed, locked in and stubborn to work together on.  Instead of concentrating on those things and blaming each other for stalemate, I hope they will find things they CAN work together on and get something done, together.

If not, they can all hold their heads up proudly(?) as highly ineffective people who have only their own self-proclamation as to their leadership quality.

Long live the United States of America.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 08, 2012, 11:21:09 AM
John Adam's said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I don't particularly care about the religous part, but after what I saw happen in Massachusetts, its clear that we here are a people lacking morals. 

If the GOP is in trouble its because we as a people are in trouble.


EDIT: and im not saying every GOP member is a pillar of morals, but im just saying the choice was clear here in MA and two of the most dispacble people to run for public office were elected.
Sounds like you are overwhelmed by partisanship. MA did a great job, and we had no David Dukes here. All our major candidates for both parties were good choices, despite negative ads on both sides. Unfortunately, some people buy the negative ads hook, line and sinker.

I don't think so, somebody who lies about knowledge of his family running an offshore gambling rings and laundering millions of dollars through his personal bank account should not be re-elected.  Especially after his wife and brothers and law have said that he knew about the whole thing an that he threw his family under the bus.

And second, somebody that uses and entire race of people's suffering for her own personal gain is really the lowest of the low. 

I personally believe that voting for either of those people means that a person has lost their moral compass or never had one. 


Edit: its also very possible that people just don't care about the morality and character of those representing them.

Clearly. See: Clinton, Bill.

Disagree with both of you about the alleged loss of a moral compass. Republicans got all up in arms about Warren. Democrats didn't seem to have much of a problem with the accusations brought against her. Is that because republicans are just coincidentally more moral in general?

Of course not. Republicans were running a hotly contested race against a challenger. People were inundated with attack ads daily in MA. It skews your opinion over time. To me, it seems like Elizabeth Warren did some ill-advised but trivial garbage. My biggest problem is her possible plagiarism of a recipe from a NYT piece.

Again, my biggest problem with a US Senator is that she might have potentially plagiarized a recipe from an old NYT piece. Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.

I think the campaigns on both sides did a great job ramping up the feelings from both sides and demonizing the opponents, and their supporters. There isn't a 'moral bankruptcy' problem in the US. There is a 'political radicalization' problem.

And then her and her husband blamed the plagiarism on a dead relative to cover their tracks.  Classy folks over there. 
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: BballTim on November 08, 2012, 11:42:15 AM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

  I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office.  They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics.  That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing.  Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

  It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: nickagneta on November 08, 2012, 11:49:28 AM
Now I am going to get into labeling and name-calling.  You are all nuts and a little close minded!   ;)  The Democratic Party has been manhandled and looked pretty sad before, and they came back.  The Republican party was not dismissed on nearly the same scale, and you are calling for their death?  Not likely.  They will also come back.  These things seem to go in cycles...and no matter how hard one party may try to reign supreme or claim to "have a mandate"...neither has been able to accomplish that yet.  That is the brilliance of our founders, and their vision of a representative democracy.

Even when the Democrats held the Presidency and both House and Senate, checks and balances worked. And...despite the misgivings of many, on both sides, we have survived every President and Party change so far....

I know there are many things the parties are too pig headed, locked in and stubborn to work together on.  Instead of concentrating on those things and blaming each other for stalemate, I hope they will find things they CAN work together on and get something done, together.

If not, they can all hold their heads up proudly(?) as highly ineffective people who have only their own self-proclamation as to their leadership quality.

Long live the United States of America.
I believe the Republican Party is in trouble because of demographics.

They are losing the woman vote.
They are losing the black vote.
They are losing the Latin vote.
They are losing the youth vote.
They are losing the Asian vote.

Women make up 53% of the voters and Obama won 55% of that group
Blacks make up 13% of the electorate and Obama won 93% of that group
Latins make up 10% of the electorate and Obama won 71% of that group
18-29 year olds make up 19% of the electorate and Obama won 60% of that group
Asians make up 3% of the electorate and Obama won 73% of that group

This is the second Presidential election where these numbers appear this way and by the next election, white voters are expected to drop 2-3 percentage points more.

Romney got 89% of his vote from white people.

The republican Party has to attract a more diverse core and the only way they will do that is by changing their platform to attract that diversity. If they don't do it. They will become an outdated party and die. And believe it or not political parties die in America. Just ask the Federalist, or Whig, or War Union, or Democratic Republican parties.

The Republican Party is at a cross roads. I don't think they have to, as angryguy put it "throw the religious right under the bus". They just need to redirect that section to tone down the religion and stress values and to soften their stances on social issues that alienate the groups they are not attracting. If it sends the religious right out of the party, that's their decision, but without a diversification of their base, the Republican Party will die within the next 20-24 years.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Donoghus on November 08, 2012, 11:54:19 AM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

  I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office.  They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics.  That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing.  Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

  It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.

That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Interceptor on November 08, 2012, 11:57:35 AM
That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.
Never mind that Reagan would have never made it through the primary process in the first place. GOP has moved so far to the right, that he might be a 21st century Blue Dog.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: angryguy77 on November 08, 2012, 11:59:53 AM
That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.
Never mind that Reagan would have never made it through the primary process in the first place. GOP has moved so far to the right, that he might be a 21st century Blue Dog.

Mitt is farther left than Reagan was, it seemed to work out well for him.

Reagan would wrote the book on inspiring people, he would have destroyed Obama.

I hear the left spout this nonsense often, it's not based in reality like many other things they say about the GOP.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: chicagoceltic on November 08, 2012, 12:03:57 PM
Now I am going to get into labeling and name-calling.  You are all nuts and a little close minded!   ;)  The Democratic Party has been manhandled and looked pretty sad before, and they came back.  The Republican party was not dismissed on nearly the same scale, and you are calling for their death?  Not likely.  They will also come back.  These things seem to go in cycles...and no matter how hard one party may try to reign supreme or claim to "have a mandate"...neither has been able to accomplish that yet.  That is the brilliance of our founders, and their vision of a representative democracy.

Even when the Democrats held the Presidency and both House and Senate, checks and balances worked. And...despite the misgivings of many, on both sides, we have survived every President and Party change so far....

I know there are many things the parties are too pig headed, locked in and stubborn to work together on.  Instead of concentrating on those things and blaming each other for stalemate, I hope they will find things they CAN work together on and get something done, together.

If not, they can all hold their heads up proudly(?) as highly ineffective people who have only their own self-proclamation as to their leadership quality.

Long live the United States of America.
I believe the Republican Party is in trouble because of demographics.

They are losing the woman vote.
They are losing the black vote.
They are losing the Latin vote.
They are losing the youth vote.
They are losing the Asian vote.

Women make up 53% of the voters and Obama won 55% of that group
Blacks make up 13% of the electorate and Obama won 93% of that group
Latins make up 10% of the electorate and Obama won 71% of that group
18-29 year olds make up 19% of the electorate and Obama won 60% of that group
Asians make up 3% of the electorate and Obama won 73% of that group

This is the second Presidential election where these numbers appear this way and by the next election, white voters are expected to drop 2-3 percentage points more.

Romney got 89% of his vote from white people.

The republican Party has to attract a more diverse core and the only way they will do that is by changing their platform to attract that diversity. If they don't do it. They will become an outdated party and die. And believe it or not political parties die in America. Just ask the Federalist, or Whig, or War Union, or Democratic Republican parties.

The Republican Party is at a cross roads. I don't think they have to, as angryguy put it "throw the religious right under the bus". They just need to redirect that section to tone down the religion and stress values and to soften their stances on social issues that alienate the groups they are not attracting. If it sends the religious right out of the party, that's their decision, but without a diversification of their base, the Republican Party will die within the next 20-24 years.
Nick, TP and well said.

To all that you said I would add a question to angryguy, Bballtim and any others from the right, how many votes would the Republicans lose if they were to amend their stance on most of the social issues?  Where would these voters go?  I cannot see them voting democrat.  Meanwhile, I think that there are a fair amount of moderate Democrats, like myself, who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative who would consider voting republican if the GOP amended their stance on these social issues.

Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Interceptor on November 08, 2012, 12:04:05 PM
Mitt is farther left than Reagan was, it seemed to work out well for him.
Mitt is nowhere, his position varied depending on who he was talking to. He was a socially moderate Republican in Massachusetts, a hard right-winger in the primaries, a caviar-eating fat cat in private donor dinners, and a super-centrist in the 2012 Presidential debates.

I find the idea that Mitt lost because he wasn't right-wing enough, to be hilarious. Mitt lost because people didn't buy what he was selling, if I may take a GOP ACA talking point and gleefully flip it around.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: BballTim on November 08, 2012, 12:06:32 PM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

  I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office.  They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics.  That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing.  Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

  It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.

That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.

  Neither side can. But I'd say that either Bush, running the campaigns that they ran before they won their first terms, would have won the election. That's not an overly high bar.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 12:09:40 PM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

  I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office.  They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics.  That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing.  Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

  It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.

That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.

  Neither side can. But I'd say that either Bush, running the campaigns that they ran before they won their first terms, would have won the election. That's not an overly high bar.

Doubt it. President Bush ran against two weaker candidates than Obama or Romney in both his elections, and he needed Ralph Nader just to win the first one. And by win the first one I mean "win" the first one.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Interceptor on November 08, 2012, 12:15:25 PM
Neither side can. But I'd say that either Bush, running the campaigns that they ran before they won their first terms, would have won the election. That's not an overly high bar.
This is a little unfair to Obama's campaign, which did a phenomenal job this cycle of limiting the bleeding from the main part of the 2008 coalition by expanding elsewhere (minorities).
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Donoghus on November 08, 2012, 12:16:24 PM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

  I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office.  They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics.  That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing.  Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

  It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.

That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.

  Neither side can. But I'd say that either Bush, running the campaigns that they ran before they won their first terms, would have won the election. That's not an overly high bar.

Maybe, maybe not.

And you could argue that Obama '08 is beating either of those.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: BballTim on November 08, 2012, 12:17:38 PM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

  I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office.  They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics.  That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing.  Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

  It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.

That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.

  Neither side can. But I'd say that either Bush, running the campaigns that they ran before they won their first terms, would have won the election. That's not an overly high bar.

Doubt it. President Bush ran against two weaker candidates than Obama or Romney in both his elections, and he needed Ralph Nader just to win the first one. And by win the first one I mean "win" the first one.

  Running against the sitting vice president who's party just oversaw two terms of peace and prosperity is quite a bit harder than you make it out to be IMO.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: BballTim on November 08, 2012, 12:18:49 PM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

  I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office.  They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics.  That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing.  Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

  It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.

That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.

  Neither side can. But I'd say that either Bush, running the campaigns that they ran before they won their first terms, would have won the election. That's not an overly high bar.

Maybe, maybe not.

And you could argue that Obama '08 is beating either of those.

  Sure, assuming there's an ongoing economic meltdown that the other party's getting blamed for.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 12:20:19 PM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

  I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office.  They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics.  That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing.  Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

  It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.

That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.

  Neither side can. But I'd say that either Bush, running the campaigns that they ran before they won their first terms, would have won the election. That's not an overly high bar.

Doubt it. President Bush ran against two weaker candidates than Obama or Romney in both his elections, and he needed Ralph Nader just to win the first one. And by win the first one I mean "win" the first one.

  Running against the sitting vice president who's party just oversaw two terms of peace and prosperity is quite a bit harder than you make it out to be IMO.

Yes, I may have undershot that there. Gore, its easy to remember the bad stuff, the robotic mannerisms, monotone voice, 'the black box' etc..

But he did win the popular vote. Like Barack Obama.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Donoghus on November 08, 2012, 12:21:03 PM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

  I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office.  They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics.  That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing.  Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

  It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.

That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.

  Neither side can. But I'd say that either Bush, running the campaigns that they ran before they won their first terms, would have won the election. That's not an overly high bar.

Maybe, maybe not.

And you could argue that Obama '08 is beating either of those.

  Sure, assuming there's an ongoing economic meltdown that the other party's getting blamed for.

Oh, I thought we were just playing hypotheticals.  Didn't realize we're playing with actual parameters now too.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: BballTim on November 08, 2012, 12:28:42 PM
Losing "big"?!?

One half of one percent of the popular vote ... a long, long way from a resounding victory.

Wow ... talk about spin.

Obama 332 to Romney 206. It's a rout. The 5th time in last 6 Presidential elections Republicans lost the popular vote. President Obama overwhelmingly won female vote, youth vote, Hispanic vote, the Black vote, Asian vote, etc.... all minority groups 8 to 2. And the ways things are shaping up 2016 isn't looking too good for Republican either.

  I haven't checked this, but I heard that Obama did worse in every state except for two of them, and in those both of the increases were by less than 1%. Hardly a rout, especially for an incumbent. Obama's the first president since FDR to win re-election with less of the popular vote than he got in his first election. Nixon and Reagan both got over 500 electoral votes in their second elections, That's a rout. Obama won a closely contested race.

Whatever the semantics of it are, the Republicans faced an incumbent president on the ropes who was primed to be picked off and they couldn't get the job done. In a recession with high unemployment numbers and they still couldn't get the guy out of office.  They got their butts kicked with the Latino vote (only the fastest growing demographic in the country) and trialled in several other demographics.  That's troublesome going forward if you consider the way the dynamics of the US population makeup are changing.  Maybe it wasn't a rout but I wouldn't consider it a moral victory or something to hang a hat on given the conditions of the country going into the election.

  It's true that Romney lost a very winnable race. But it's also true that the republican basically held there nose and nominated him, to the point that they spent the primaries embracing every candidate in the race as a possible alternative to Mitt. It's not like the republicans ran another Reagan against Obama and lost.

That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.

  Neither side can. But I'd say that either Bush, running the campaigns that they ran before they won their first terms, would have won the election. That's not an overly high bar.

Maybe, maybe not.

And you could argue that Obama '08 is beating either of those.

  Sure, assuming there's an ongoing economic meltdown that the other party's getting blamed for.

Oh, I thought we were just playing hypotheticals.  Didn't realize we're playing with actual parameters now too.

  Hypothetically thinking, I think that's what it would take for Obama to beat one of them. Just my opinion, obviously.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 12:29:56 PM
(http://static.happyplace.com/assets/images/2012/11/509be51feded8.jpeg)

Got this graph from a humor website that trends liberal (happyplace.com), so maybe its a joke. Allegedly the data is from Fox Business.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Interceptor on November 08, 2012, 12:33:16 PM
What's up with Nevada?
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: nickagneta on November 08, 2012, 12:35:55 PM
What's up with Nevada?
The people in Vegas know a winner when they see one, regardless of how uneducated they may be. :D
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Interceptor on November 08, 2012, 12:55:42 PM
Listened to this episode of Fresh Air on my commute this morning:

http://www.npr.org/2012/11/07/164609577/ornstein-could-a-second-term-mean-more-gridlock

It was pretty good. Guest was Norm Ornstein from the American Enterprise Institute. Covered polarization of Congress, the Tea Party, filibuster, and voting system.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 08, 2012, 01:03:35 PM
BTW Obama's popular vote margin now stands at 2.5%.  That's bigger than Bush's margin over Kerry in 04.  Which means no Republican has had a popular or electoral vote margin bigger than either of Obama's since 1988.

Relatedly, I don't really care for the "mandate" vs "no mandate" talk, but it is funny to see the compare-and-contrast of conservative pundits who claimed Bush's smaller 04 win was a mandate but are now saying Obama's larger win is not.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 08, 2012, 01:05:57 PM
(http://static.happyplace.com/assets/images/2012/11/509be51feded8.jpeg)

Got this graph from a humor website that trends liberal (happyplace.com), so maybe its a joke. Allegedly the data is from Fox Business.

So how does this same chart relate to Gay Marriage laws?  Anybody know off the top of your head? 

Im going to check it out
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Timdawgg on November 08, 2012, 01:08:31 PM
What's up with Nevada?

A lot of California transplants...and our education is skewed here as valets and strippers can easily make $100K+ a year as opposed to going for that degree...LOL.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 08, 2012, 01:44:28 PM
There are already rumblings of a split among Republicans, from both the moderate and far wings of the party:

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/07/gop_civil_war_herman_cain_calls_for_3rd_party/ (http://www.salon.com/2012/11/07/gop_civil_war_herman_cain_calls_for_3rd_party/)

Quote from: Steve Schmidt
“When I talk about a civil war in the Republican Party, what I mean is, it’s time for Republican elected leaders to stand up and to repudiate this nonsense [of the extreme right wing], and to repudiate it directly,”

Quote from: Herman Cain
I never thought that I would say this, and this is the first time publicly that I’ve said it: We need a third party to save this country. Not Ron Paul and the Ron Paulites. No. We need a legitimate third party to challenge the current system that we have, because I don’t believe that the Republican Party … has the ability to rebrand itself,

Schmidt was McCain's campaign manager in 08.  Cain of course became kind of a punchline in the primaries, but is still well-liked among the base.  Expect to hear more of this kind of talk moving forward. 
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on November 08, 2012, 02:06:04 PM
To all that you said I would add a question to angryguy, Bballtim and any others from the right, how many votes would the Republicans lose if they were to amend their stance on most of the social issues?  Where would these voters go?  I cannot see them voting democrat.  Meanwhile, I think that there are a fair amount of moderate Democrats, like myself, who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative who would consider voting republican if the GOP amended their stance on these social issues.

As a righty, I feel that the right already lost at least a few votes in the last two elections because McCain and Romney are viewed as not conservative enough, and I think there's a lot of validity to that view. If the standard GOP presidential candidate became pro-choice, pro-same-sex marriage, pro-amnesty, etc., I think the GOP would lose a lot of its base, including me. The GOP would then be nearly identical to the Dems, thus not offering a real choice between the two, and you might see the rise of a legitimate third party, which would probably lead to Democratic dominance. In such a scenario, I could even see the GOP eventually dying, since it would be virtually identical to the Dems, and the third party becoming the true conservative option, in which case the Dems would still dominate because this country is now center-left and true conservatives, if not already, will soon be in the minority.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Interceptor on November 08, 2012, 02:16:12 PM
I find it a little hard to believe that when the chips are down, the religious right will throw their votes away to a third party. It's as good as voting for a Democrat.

The last time that we had a legit third party (Perot), the major parties just adopted its positions... so it would probably be a one-cycle event at any rate.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: angryguy77 on November 08, 2012, 02:16:42 PM
Quote
“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. … Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’” –Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Cman on November 08, 2012, 02:16:57 PM
BTW Obama's popular vote margin now stands at 2.5%.  That's bigger than Bush's margin over Kerry in 04.  Which means no Republican has had a popular or electoral vote margin bigger than either of Obama's since 1988.

Relatedly, I don't really care for the "mandate" vs "no mandate" talk, but it is funny to see the compare-and-contrast of conservative pundits who claimed Bush's smaller 04 win was a mandate but are now saying Obama's larger win is not.

I remember Cheney/Bush/Rove claiming a "mandate" in 2004 and it ticked me off then, the same way it would tick me off now if Obama claimed the same.

(I think Cheney actually used the words mandate, and Bush said something like "I earned political capital and I intend to spend it").
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 08, 2012, 02:17:20 PM
To all that you said I would add a question to angryguy, Bballtim and any others from the right, how many votes would the Republicans lose if they were to amend their stance on most of the social issues?  Where would these voters go?  I cannot see them voting democrat.  Meanwhile, I think that there are a fair amount of moderate Democrats, like myself, who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative who would consider voting republican if the GOP amended their stance on these social issues.

As a righty, I feel that the right already lost at least a few votes in the last two elections because McCain and Romney are viewed as not conservative enough, and I think there's a lot of validity to that view. If the standard GOP presidential candidate became pro-choice, pro-same-sex marriage, pro-amnesty, etc., I think the GOP would lose a lot of its base, including me. The GOP would then be nearly identical to the Dems, thus not offering a real choice between the two, and you might see the rise of a legitimate third party, which would probably lead to Democratic dominance. In such a scenario, I could even see the GOP eventually dying, since it would be virtually identical to the Dems, and the third party becoming the true conservative option, in which case the Dems would still dominate because this country is now center-left and true conservatives, if not already, will soon be in the minority.

They would lose me if they went more conservative than Mccain and Romney.  Right now im voting based on a balance of social issues that I disagree with and Fiscal issues that I agree with.  This election Fiscal issues came out on top but if they pushed social issues further against my views I would have voted for the Obama.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 08, 2012, 02:19:11 PM
Quote
“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. … Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’” –Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Chilling right there
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 08, 2012, 02:25:55 PM
Quote
“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. … Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’” –Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Does the Tea Party just have a wiki of phony historical quotes or something?  Earliest recorded instance of that quote is 1965 in a speech criticizing LBJ's Great Society, and there's no indication Cicero ever said any such thing.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: chicagoceltic on November 08, 2012, 02:29:24 PM
To all that you said I would add a question to angryguy, Bballtim and any others from the right, how many votes would the Republicans lose if they were to amend their stance on most of the social issues?  Where would these voters go?  I cannot see them voting democrat.  Meanwhile, I think that there are a fair amount of moderate Democrats, like myself, who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative who would consider voting republican if the GOP amended their stance on these social issues.

As a righty, I feel that the right already lost at least a few votes in the last two elections because McCain and Romney are viewed as not conservative enough, and I think there's a lot of validity to that view. If the standard GOP presidential candidate became pro-choice, pro-same-sex marriage, pro-amnesty, etc., I think the GOP would lose a lot of its base, including me. The GOP would then be nearly identical to the Dems, thus not offering a real choice between the two, and you might see the rise of a legitimate third party, which would probably lead to Democratic dominance. In such a scenario, I could even see the GOP eventually dying, since it would be virtually identical to the Dems, and the third party becoming the true conservative option, in which case the Dems would still dominate because this country is now center-left and true conservatives, if not already, will soon be in the minority.
Thank you for your reply.  I wonder how many voters like yourself the GOP would lose compared to how many voters like myself they would gain.  Would the losses be mitigated if the GOP candidate said something similar to what Biden did during the VP debate (something along the lines of "My religion means a lot to me and while I do not personally agree with this I believe the decision is too personal to take away from the indivual...").  I am not going to look at if it was in this thread or the other but I recall a few people who said that either they or somebody they know were long time Republicans who have recently voted Democrat because of these social issues. 
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 08, 2012, 02:30:35 PM
Quote
“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. … Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’” –Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Does the Tea Party just have a wiki of phony historical quotes or something?  Earliest recorded instance of that quote is 1965 in a speech criticizing LBJ's Great Society, and there's no indication Cicero ever said any such thing.

Just because you found a guy on a message board saying thats the first time he saw it referenced doesnt mean its fake. 
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: angryguy77 on November 08, 2012, 02:32:51 PM
Quote
“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. … Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’” –Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Does the Tea Party just have a wiki of phony historical quotes or something?  Earliest recorded instance of that quote is 1965 in a speech criticizing LBJ's Great Society, and there's no indication Cicero ever said any such thing.

Don't care who said it, it's exactly what's been going in this country for decades. Welcome to Rome 2.0.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 02:33:25 PM
Nate Silver is just such a nerd. Just classic nerd.

Its like someone wrote a one-dimensional character for a minor role in a romantic comedy starring Josh Hartnett or something, described it as 'Nerdy under-confident quirky best friend' was thinking how they'd be and realized, 'successful, nerdy, not very charismatic, and doing something professionally that involves computers, but isn't like a dot-com billionaire, cuz that's played out'.

But he's right here (http://www.hulu.com/watch/422956#i1,p0,d1). Cubans should scare the GOP. Immigration reform is the most easily moved goalpost for the republican party and it looks like they'll need to start pushin. 
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on November 08, 2012, 02:36:20 PM
I find it a little hard to believe that when the chips are down, the religious right will throw their votes away to a third party. It's as good as voting for a Democrat.

The last time that we had a legit third party (Perot), the major parties just adopted its positions... so it would probably be a one-cycle event at any rate.

I wholeheartedly agree that those of us on the religious right will not want to throw away our votes, but if the GOP changes its stance on those hot-button social issues, then voting Republican will essentially be the same as voting Democrat anyway; there will be little, if any, real difference between the two parties, and many of us have already felt that way the last two elections.

Because of the country's shift to center-left, the only real hope the GOP has of maintaining relevance is to emphasize conservatism (socially and economically). If it becomes more moderate/liberal (that is to say, if it becomes like the Democratic Party), it will be redundant and thus, if not dead, then irrelevant. If the GOP became more socially liberal but remained fiscally conservative, I could see a few Dems switching parties, but I see most Dems these days as being liberal on both social and economic issues, so there would be no motivation for them to switch. A GOP switch to social liberalism would spur a loss of membership among its base that would far outweigh any gains it made in Democrat converts.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on November 08, 2012, 02:38:14 PM
To all that you said I would add a question to angryguy, Bballtim and any others from the right, how many votes would the Republicans lose if they were to amend their stance on most of the social issues?  Where would these voters go?  I cannot see them voting democrat.  Meanwhile, I think that there are a fair amount of moderate Democrats, like myself, who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative who would consider voting republican if the GOP amended their stance on these social issues.

As a righty, I feel that the right already lost at least a few votes in the last two elections because McCain and Romney are viewed as not conservative enough, and I think there's a lot of validity to that view. If the standard GOP presidential candidate became pro-choice, pro-same-sex marriage, pro-amnesty, etc., I think the GOP would lose a lot of its base, including me. The GOP would then be nearly identical to the Dems, thus not offering a real choice between the two, and you might see the rise of a legitimate third party, which would probably lead to Democratic dominance. In such a scenario, I could even see the GOP eventually dying, since it would be virtually identical to the Dems, and the third party becoming the true conservative option, in which case the Dems would still dominate because this country is now center-left and true conservatives, if not already, will soon be in the minority.
Thank you for your reply.  I wonder how many voters like yourself the GOP would lose compared to how many voters like myself they would gain.  Would the losses be mitigated if the GOP candidate said something similar to what Biden did during the VP debate (something along the lines of "My religion means a lot to me and while I do not personally agree with this I believe the decision is too personal to take away from the indivual...").  I am not going to look at if it was in this thread or the other but I recall a few people who said that either they or somebody they know were long time Republicans who have recently voted Democrat because of these social issues.

See my most recent post above this one.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 08, 2012, 02:39:26 PM
Quote
“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. … Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’” –Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Does the Tea Party just have a wiki of phony historical quotes or something?  Earliest recorded instance of that quote is 1965 in a speech criticizing LBJ's Great Society, and there's no indication Cicero ever said any such thing.

Don't care who said it, it's exactly what's been going in this country for decades. Welcome to Rome 2.0.

Eh, that's a whole nother argument, suffice to say I disagree and leave it at that. 

But I do like the symmetry of a 1960s conservative making up a quote to call 1960s America Rome, and 50 years later conservatives copy-pasting the same fake quote to say 2010s America is the REAL Rome, super cereal this time.  Hope I live long enough to watch 2060s conservatives doing exactly the same thing.  Circle of life, and all that.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 02:40:27 PM
Quote
“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. … Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’” –Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Does the Tea Party just have a wiki of phony historical quotes or something?  Earliest recorded instance of that quote is 1965 in a speech criticizing LBJ's Great Society, and there's no indication Cicero ever said any such thing.

Just because you found a guy on a message board saying thats the first time he saw it referenced doesnt mean its fake.

That's technically true, but I'm not seeing anything that says it isn't fake (or better yet, that its legitimate).
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Brendan on November 08, 2012, 02:43:38 PM
I'd say Obama has no mandate, because he lost support from 2008 to 2012.

Even the Senate and House where the Republicans took tactical defeats in 2012, they also held filibuster sustaining minority in the Senate and a majority in the House. Had neither in 08.

Bush won huge gains in 2002 and manage to mostly defend them in 2004. The country might have ebbed a bit from 2002->2004, but it was certainly more supportive of Bush in 2004 than 2000.

I also find it laughable that the obviously liberal and Democratic posters want to offer their advice on what republicans should do.

Yes Republicans do lose women, but they win married women. Built in support for Obama from minorities is probably stronger than almost any future candidate would see, because of his "first black president" status.

Here's my take on what went wrong:
1. Romney was an easy target for Obama's negative ads
2. Obama is exceptionally good at turning out the base
3. Romney ran an average campaign
4. Romney's bio made it hard to hit Obama - lack of foreign policy experience, obamacare, and flip flops.

That's it.

Amnesty would be a mistake. It didn't work last time and won't now. Instead Republicans need to make it clear we are for a reformed immigration system, that includes secure borders. Only after that is done can we negotiate an amnesty.

I think republicans should remove marriage from the govt all together. doesn't matter anyways, all being married (civilly) got me was more taxes. if you want to build atomic families then encourage them. I think changing marriage to a straight contractual setup would level playing field for men and encourage more family stability. Economically being married and not divorced is already a huge win. If you are against homosexual relationships, then go preach and or let God judge. By taking the state out of it, we have equality from the gov't.

I think we need an eloquent politician to deal with pro-life issues (broadly, IM not talking about the forbidden topic specifically). I just think we're gonna have to explain things in a way that doesn't p--- off the other side. Pro life people vote for dems all the time because they have a good story behind their position.

I think we also need to get serious about fiscal sanity and economic liberty. Romney's defense was soft and unspecific. Ryan polled much better than would have been expected with senior citizens, entitlements arent the third rail anymore, because EVERYONE knows they are going bankrupt. (Actually the forbidden topic is the third rail these days.)

Under no circumstances should the Republican party embrace the "slightly less big, but more efficient" government philosophy. That has been tried - GWB (NCLB, Part D, attempted amnesty) did these things. Liberals and Dems still hate them. You have to offer an alternative to dems and make a compelling case to the electorate, including big chunks of the minorities. Specifically you need to make your case with hispanics. (Dont worry about single women so much - they either die without reproducing and spreading their ideas, or get married, have kids and become republicans.)

Its funny to hear dems say if the repubs were more dem I'd vote for them. Of course 2000 and 2008 illustrate that this is a lie. Dems in 2000 were saying why couldn't you have nominate McCain I'd have voted for him.

But of course when they got their chance they supported a far more liberal Obama. You can never win over a progressive vote by being slightly less progressive than the other guy. You have to mobilize the people who believe in limited gov't and economic liberty and convince the fence sitters. (Its like offering someone tomato juice instead of catchup - you need to offer mustard.)
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: angryguy77 on November 08, 2012, 02:45:47 PM
Quote
“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. … Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’” –Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Does the Tea Party just have a wiki of phony historical quotes or something?  Earliest recorded instance of that quote is 1965 in a speech criticizing LBJ's Great Society, and there's no indication Cicero ever said any such thing.

Don't care who said it, it's exactly what's been going in this country for decades. Welcome to Rome 2.0.

Eh, that's a whole nother argument, suffice to say I disagree and leave it at that. 

But I do like the symmetry of a 1960s conservative making up a quote to call 1960s America Rome, and 50 years later conservatives copy-pasting the same fake quote to say 2010s America is the REAL Rome, super cereal this time.  Hope I live long enough to watch 2060s conservatives doing exactly the same thing.  Circle of life, and all that.

Rome fell over the span of a number of generations. The 60's were not that long ago. They also thought they were too big and powerful to fall as well....
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Brendan on November 08, 2012, 02:57:26 PM
Quote
...

Eh, that's a whole nother argument, suffice to say I disagree and leave it at that. 

But I do like the symmetry of a 1960s conservative making up a quote to call 1960s America Rome, and 50 years later conservatives copy-pasting the same fake quote to say 2010s America is the REAL Rome, super cereal this time.  Hope I live long enough to watch 2060s conservatives doing exactly the same thing.  Circle of life, and all that.

Rome fell over the span of a number of generations. The 60's were not that long ago. They also thought they were too big and powerful to fall as well....

And it's not like the macro trend from the 1960s ever stopped.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Donoghus on November 08, 2012, 02:58:00 PM
Quote
“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. … Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’” –Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Does the Tea Party just have a wiki of phony historical quotes or something?  Earliest recorded instance of that quote is 1965 in a speech criticizing LBJ's Great Society, and there's no indication Cicero ever said any such thing.

Don't care who said it, it's exactly what's been going in this country for decades. Welcome to Rome 2.0.

Eh, that's a whole nother argument, suffice to say I disagree and leave it at that. 

But I do like the symmetry of a 1960s conservative making up a quote to call 1960s America Rome, and 50 years later conservatives copy-pasting the same fake quote to say 2010s America is the REAL Rome, super cereal this time.  Hope I live long enough to watch 2060s conservatives doing exactly the same thing.  Circle of life, and all that.

Rome fell over the span of a number of generations. The 60's were not that long ago. They also thought they were too big and powerful to fall as well....

And why did Rome fall?
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 08, 2012, 02:58:21 PM
Quote
“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. … Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’” –Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Does the Tea Party just have a wiki of phony historical quotes or something?  Earliest recorded instance of that quote is 1965 in a speech criticizing LBJ's Great Society, and there's no indication Cicero ever said any such thing.

Just because you found a guy on a message board saying thats the first time he saw it referenced doesnt mean its fake.

That's technically true, but I'm not seeing anything that says it isn't fake (or better yet, that its legitimate).

I did a search to try to find a funny picture for being correct on a technicality.  This is the best thing that came up....

Enjoy.

(http://static4.fjcdn.com/comments/see+these+too+are+by+technicality+casual+gamers+a+real+_bb908e136b85043900aa5ff9d154b955.jpg)
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 03:01:29 PM
Quote
“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. … Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’” –Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Does the Tea Party just have a wiki of phony historical quotes or something?  Earliest recorded instance of that quote is 1965 in a speech criticizing LBJ's Great Society, and there's no indication Cicero ever said any such thing.

Don't care who said it, it's exactly what's been going in this country for decades. Welcome to Rome 2.0.

Eh, that's a whole nother argument, suffice to say I disagree and leave it at that. 

But I do like the symmetry of a 1960s conservative making up a quote to call 1960s America Rome, and 50 years later conservatives copy-pasting the same fake quote to say 2010s America is the REAL Rome, super cereal this time.  Hope I live long enough to watch 2060s conservatives doing exactly the same thing.  Circle of life, and all that.

Rome fell over the span of a number of generations. The 60's were not that long ago. They also thought they were too big and powerful to fall as well....

And why did Rome fall?

EDIT: Too snarky.

But, I am getting tired of the Rome comparisons. Lot more to it than 'big bureaucratically gifted empire -----> fail'
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 03:03:07 PM
Quote
“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. … Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’” –Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Does the Tea Party just have a wiki of phony historical quotes or something?  Earliest recorded instance of that quote is 1965 in a speech criticizing LBJ's Great Society, and there's no indication Cicero ever said any such thing.

Just because you found a guy on a message board saying thats the first time he saw it referenced doesnt mean its fake.

That's technically true, but I'm not seeing anything that says it isn't fake (or better yet, that its legitimate).

I did a search to try to find a funny picture for being correct on a technicality.  This is the best thing that came up....

Enjoy.

(http://static4.fjcdn.com/comments/see+these+too+are+by+technicality+casual+gamers+a+real+_bb908e136b85043900aa5ff9d154b955.jpg)

(http://i.qkme.me/3qlwel.jpg)
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: angryguy77 on November 08, 2012, 03:04:35 PM
Quote
“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. … Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’” –Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Does the Tea Party just have a wiki of phony historical quotes or something?  Earliest recorded instance of that quote is 1965 in a speech criticizing LBJ's Great Society, and there's no indication Cicero ever said any such thing.

Don't care who said it, it's exactly what's been going in this country for decades. Welcome to Rome 2.0.

Eh, that's a whole nother argument, suffice to say I disagree and leave it at that. 

But I do like the symmetry of a 1960s conservative making up a quote to call 1960s America Rome, and 50 years later conservatives copy-pasting the same fake quote to say 2010s America is the REAL Rome, super cereal this time.  Hope I live long enough to watch 2060s conservatives doing exactly the same thing.  Circle of life, and all that.

Rome fell over the span of a number of generations. The 60's were not that long ago. They also thought they were too big and powerful to fall as well....

And why did Rome fall?

Many factors, but the main reason is the people feel asleep and became fat and lazy. In essence, they turned away from what made them great. It's a condition that many past empires fell victim too. There is a reason why the Emperors gave bread and circuses, it was to keep the people pacified while they consolidated more power and wealth. 

They were also broke.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Roy H. on November 08, 2012, 03:06:31 PM
EDIT: Too snarky.

But, I am getting tired of the Rome comparisons. Lot more to it than 'big bureaucratically gifted empire -----> fail'

I do think that the impending collapse of America will somehow involve Joe Biden playing the fiddle, however.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Section301 on November 08, 2012, 03:06:57 PM


The disgust that many show for religion in this country is in itself disgusting. Do we want forced religion on people? No. But when religious values were embraced in this country, we were better off. Before the social cleansing of religion from the public view took place, we lived in a country where families were stronger, metal detectors were not needed at schools, teenage pregnancy was a shock, not the norm, parents could let their kids play outside without much worry, and their minds were not corrupted with the garbage that is on TV. Kids have no innocence anymore because of the secularism forced on us by the left. The tossing out of the values that helped build this country have contributed greatly to the societal ills we have today.

I don't wish to reduce your entire argument to this one statement - you said much more than this, and it's not my intent to mis-represent you.  But I have to take exception with this mis-characterization of American history.  I am a Christian, and happily so, but unless your "we" doesn't include folks like me, I don't believe that "when religious beliefs were embraced in this country, we were better off."   

I'm not sure what era you're referring to, but you don't have to go back very far to a time of racism and intolerance.  And once you get there, it goes all the way back to the founding.  As far as families being stronger, if by stronger you mean "more oppressive to women, who could be routinely abused, and were seldom allowed control of their own money, body, or vote," then I would agree with you. 

As far as the secularities forced on our children by the left (I have four children of my own), and the garbage that is on TV, I would say that the source of both those things is more often big business trying to sell us something.  Crap stays on TV because crap sells, and if it sells then the purveyors of it will keep pumping it out.  It has something to do with free market economy, I think (which seems a favorite of the right, not the left).  You could get rid of it if you regulated the industry, I'm sure (but hey, regulation is for socialists, right?)
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Brendan on November 08, 2012, 03:15:20 PM
This is a good read and on topic:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334779.php
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on November 08, 2012, 03:16:32 PM
Quote
...

Eh, that's a whole nother argument, suffice to say I disagree and leave it at that. 

But I do like the symmetry of a 1960s conservative making up a quote to call 1960s America Rome, and 50 years later conservatives copy-pasting the same fake quote to say 2010s America is the REAL Rome, super cereal this time.  Hope I live long enough to watch 2060s conservatives doing exactly the same thing.  Circle of life, and all that.

Rome fell over the span of a number of generations. The 60's were not that long ago. They also thought they were too big and powerful to fall as well....

And it's not like the macro trend from the 1960s ever stopped.

The major social issues and changes of our time are the direct result of the 1960s. One of my former bosses, who came of age in the '60s (and is not a Christian, as far as I know), said his generation ruined it for mine, and I believe him.

Of course, I'm sure, the upheaval of the '60s didn't happen on its own, without prior, more subtle developments contributing to it.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Donoghus on November 08, 2012, 03:22:19 PM
Quote
...

Eh, that's a whole nother argument, suffice to say I disagree and leave it at that. 

But I do like the symmetry of a 1960s conservative making up a quote to call 1960s America Rome, and 50 years later conservatives copy-pasting the same fake quote to say 2010s America is the REAL Rome, super cereal this time.  Hope I live long enough to watch 2060s conservatives doing exactly the same thing.  Circle of life, and all that.

Rome fell over the span of a number of generations. The 60's were not that long ago. They also thought they were too big and powerful to fall as well....

And it's not like the macro trend from the 1960s ever stopped.

The major social issues and changes of our time are the direct result of the 1960s. One of my former bosses, who came of age in the '60s (and is not a Christian, as far as I know), said his generation ruined it for mine, and I believe him.

Of course, I'm sure, the upheaval of the '60s didn't happen on its own, without prior, more subtle developments contributing to it.

That Civil Rights Act in '64 was a real mistake, I tell ya.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 08, 2012, 03:22:50 PM
In <2000 year-old news, Politico has an excellent post-mortem breakdown of the election by Republican politicians and party officials:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83537.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83537.html)

Note the repeated mentions of immigration reform as the first step to realigning with the current electorate.  I strongly believe that's the first place we'll see the party start shifting away from the current base.


EDIT:  Quote that I liked but others may not -

“The conservative media bubble is totally self-defeating for us. It denies us any realistic view of the real world of the general election, assuming instead that all politics is simply an extension of the Republican primary. It blindly drives us off one cliff after another,” said Republican presidential strategist Mike Murphy. “We will not win the real world of big-turnout, presidential-year politics until our bubble realizes that a big world exists outside the precincts of the Republican primary...Much of the conservative media bubble, with its isolation, denial and semi-paranoia, only incentivized us to lose general elections.”
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 03:26:28 PM
This is a good read and on topic:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334779.php

Its a valid point (that this all happened before to Democrats in 2004, and they rebounded). In the mid 2000's democrats were demoralized by a Bush 2nd term. It seemed unfathomable after the way many at the time (and still do) felt like Bush was a president appointed, not elected. And the swift boat stuff which I still think is the most despicable ad campaign in my lifetime politically...it was bad. it doesn't match the disbelief of 2000-2001, but it was bad. Bad time to be a democrat and young and idealist.

Judging from some of the posts here, I imagine there are conservative posters who feel similarly disparaged and lost.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Interceptor on November 08, 2012, 03:28:23 PM
I wholeheartedly agree that those of us on the religious right will not want to throw away our votes, but if the GOP changes its stance on those hot-button social issues, then voting Republican will essentially be the same as voting Democrat anyway; there will be little, if any, real difference between the two parties, and many of us have already felt that way the last two elections.
This isn't true. Democrats aren't ever going to be the party of deficit/budget/war hawks, because of the liberal base of the party. The only way to see no difference between the parties in this particular case is to only focus on social issues, and a party based around social issues is going nowhere.

Quote
A GOP switch to social liberalism would spur a loss of membership among its base that would far outweigh any gains it made in Democrat converts.
A loss of membership to whom? An irrelevant third party? Certainly they aren't going to switch to D themselves.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Interceptor on November 08, 2012, 03:30:55 PM
EDIT:  Quote that I liked but others may not -

“The conservative media bubble is totally self-defeating for us. It denies us any realistic view of the real world of the general election, assuming instead that all politics is simply an extension of the Republican primary. It blindly drives us off one cliff after another,” said Republican presidential strategist Mike Murphy. “We will not win the real world of big-turnout, presidential-year politics until our bubble realizes that a big world exists outside the precincts of the Republican primary...Much of the conservative media bubble, with its isolation, denial and semi-paranoia, only incentivized us to lose general elections.”
Mike Murphy is a cool guy. I miss the days when he was advising the McCain campaign, back in the heady days when McCain wasn't out of his mind.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on November 08, 2012, 03:53:36 PM
Quote
...

Eh, that's a whole nother argument, suffice to say I disagree and leave it at that. 

But I do like the symmetry of a 1960s conservative making up a quote to call 1960s America Rome, and 50 years later conservatives copy-pasting the same fake quote to say 2010s America is the REAL Rome, super cereal this time.  Hope I live long enough to watch 2060s conservatives doing exactly the same thing.  Circle of life, and all that.

Rome fell over the span of a number of generations. The 60's were not that long ago. They also thought they were too big and powerful to fall as well....

And it's not like the macro trend from the 1960s ever stopped.

The major social issues and changes of our time are the direct result of the 1960s. One of my former bosses, who came of age in the '60s (and is not a Christian, as far as I know), said his generation ruined it for mine, and I believe him.

Of course, I'm sure, the upheaval of the '60s didn't happen on its own, without prior, more subtle developments contributing to it.

That Civil Rights Act in '64 was a real mistake, I tell ya.

Yes, Mr. Sarcasm, that's precisely what I was trying to say.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: rocknrollforyoursoul on November 08, 2012, 03:59:16 PM
I wholeheartedly agree that those of us on the religious right will not want to throw away our votes, but if the GOP changes its stance on those hot-button social issues, then voting Republican will essentially be the same as voting Democrat anyway; there will be little, if any, real difference between the two parties, and many of us have already felt that way the last two elections.
This isn't true. Democrats aren't ever going to be the party of deficit/budget/war hawks, because of the liberal base of the party. The only way to see no difference between the parties in this particular case is to only focus on social issues, and a party based around social issues is going nowhere.

Quote
A GOP switch to social liberalism would spur a loss of membership among its base that would far outweigh any gains it made in Democrat converts.
A loss of membership to whom? An irrelevant third party? Certainly they aren't going to switch to D themselves.

Ok, I can see the difference regarding deficit/budget/war. But for many conservatives, social issues get top billing, and I can't see us voting for any party that's down with abortion and same-sex marriage, regardless of the party's stance on deficit/budget/war. Maybe there won't be a relevant third party, I don't know. I'm not much for political predictions. All I know is that I'll never vote for a Barack Obama or Joe Biden, and I'll never be excited to vote for a John McCain or Mitt Romney, so who knows, maybe I just won't vote for president anymore.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Fan from VT on November 08, 2012, 04:11:49 PM
I have a slightly off topic question. I read an interesting article showing that year to year immigration/emigration does not change in presidential election years, so the whole "if x wins i'm moving to y" thing is pretty much confirmed as an empty threat.

So, we all hear of (usually liberals) saying "if Bush wins, I'm seriously moving to [Canada, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, UK, Japan]!"

My question is, is there a conservative equivalent?

Were there a lot of "if Obama wins, I swear I'm moving to xxx?"
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 08, 2012, 04:16:35 PM
I have a slightly off topic question. I read an interesting article showing that year to year immigration/emigration does not change in presidential election years, so the whole "if x wins i'm moving to y" thing is pretty much confirmed as an empty threat.

So, we all hear of (usually liberals) saying "if Bush wins, I'm seriously moving to [Canada, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, UK, Japan]!"

My question is, is there a conservative equivalent?

Were there a lot of "if Obama wins, I swear I'm moving to xxx?"

I think it's tougher for conservatives because just about any industrialized nation out there is farther left than we are.

The conservative equivalent I've heard most often is "if Obama wins I'll just quit working and collect free stuff for the rest of my life instead of people mooching off me".  Much like liberals moving none of them ever actually do it.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Cman on November 08, 2012, 04:17:05 PM
I have a slightly off topic question. I read an interesting article showing that year to year immigration/emigration does not change in presidential election years, so the whole "if x wins i'm moving to y" thing is pretty much confirmed as an empty threat.

So, we all hear of (usually liberals) saying "if Bush wins, I'm seriously moving to [Canada, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, UK, Japan]!"

My question is, is there a conservative equivalent?

Were there a lot of "if Obama wins, I swear I'm moving to xxx?"

Cayman Islands?
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Interceptor on November 08, 2012, 04:30:24 PM
All I know is that I'll never vote for a Barack Obama or Joe Biden, and I'll never be excited to vote for a John McCain or Mitt Romney, so who knows, maybe I just won't vote for president anymore.
This of course, is the nightmare scenario for political parties in the US, because we don't have mandatory poll attendance. People have the option to stay home, which means a lot of effort gets expended on "firing up the base". I'd like a federal holiday, a Nevada-style "none of the above" option, and a mandate.

There's nothing odd about voting against parties, though. I vote D, but it's not because I love Democrats, it's because the GOP's platform strikes me as insane. Putting up with liberalism's various warts is the price that I have to pay to see that we never have a Vice President Paul Ryan.

You can bet the same thing happens with the fat cat Wall Street types (deregulation is another difference between D and R that I failed to mention), who surely don't like being labeled as bigots, but Democrats are less in line with their interests than Republicans are.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: angryguy77 on November 08, 2012, 05:25:55 PM


The disgust that many show for religion in this country is in itself disgusting. Do we want forced religion on people? No. But when religious values were embraced in this country, we were better off. Before the social cleansing of religion from the public view took place, we lived in a country where families were stronger, metal detectors were not needed at schools, teenage pregnancy was a shock, not the norm, parents could let their kids play outside without much worry, and their minds were not corrupted with the garbage that is on TV. Kids have no innocence anymore because of the secularism forced on us by the left. The tossing out of the values that helped build this country have contributed greatly to the societal ills we have today.

I don't wish to reduce your entire argument to this one statement - you said much more than this, and it's not my intent to mis-represent you.  But I have to take exception with this mis-characterization of American history.  I am a Christian, and happily so, but unless your "we" doesn't include folks like me, I don't believe that "when religious beliefs were embraced in this country, we were better off."   

I'm not sure what era you're referring to, but you don't have to go back very far to a time of racism and intolerance.  And once you get there, it goes all the way back to the founding.  As far as families being stronger, if by stronger you mean "more oppressive to women, who could be routinely abused, and were seldom allowed control of their own money, body, or vote," then I would agree with you. 

As far as the secularities forced on our children by the left (I have four children of my own), and the garbage that is on TV, I would say that the source of both those things is more often big business trying to sell us something.  Crap stays on TV because crap sells, and if it sells then the purveyors of it will keep pumping it out.  It has something to do with free market economy, I think (which seems a favorite of the right, not the left).  You could get rid of it if you regulated the industry, I'm sure (but hey, regulation is for socialists, right?)

I said "values", not "beliefs" for that reason. You can hold a value of a faith without abiding by the religion. For example-don't murder, steal or beat your wife.

I'm not for a moral police when it comes to entertainment. I brought those things up because it's an indication of how far we've come from. Our families are not as strong as they once were and the results are clear.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Bombastic Jones on November 08, 2012, 06:21:12 PM
That's because they can't muster up a Reagan type these days.
Never mind that Reagan would have never made it through the primary process in the first place. GOP has moved so far to the right, that he might be a 21st century Blue Dog.

Mitt is farther left than Reagan was, it seemed to work out well for him.

Reagan would wrote the book on inspiring people, he would have destroyed Obama.

I hear the left spout this nonsense often, it's not based in reality like many other things they say about the GOP.

I am not sure how you measure who is better at inspiring people, but public opinion polls indicate a mixed bag.

Obama started his term with a higher public approval rating than Reagan (63% to 60%).

Both sunk significantly (47% for BO, 35% for RR)

And both rebounded (52% for BO, 58% for RR)

I dont think approval polls are that great in general, but I like that my favorite post war president (Ike) had an average of 70%.

The only other way I could think to measure it would be voter turnout.  Obama did generate a higher percentage of voter turnout in 2008 (58%) than Reagan did in either election (52,53).  I would imagine that 2012 is lower though.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: BballTim on November 08, 2012, 06:28:16 PM
All I know is that I'll never vote for a Barack Obama or Joe Biden, and I'll never be excited to vote for a John McCain or Mitt Romney, so who knows, maybe I just won't vote for president anymore.
This of course, is the nightmare scenario for political parties in the US, because we don't have mandatory poll attendance. People have the option to stay home, which means a lot of effort gets expended on "firing up the base". I'd like a federal holiday, a Nevada-style "none of the above" option, and a mandate.

  The government forces people to do (at least) enough things already. People have the right to not vote.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: JSD on November 08, 2012, 06:31:03 PM
Right on cue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgQAI70slYo

This video, around the table, mentions a lot of the points that were talked about here.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: nickagneta on November 08, 2012, 06:32:23 PM
I think most people would consider me a firm Democrat and an atheist, though in truth I am more of a deist. That said, my family values are strong and my family unit is strong and it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Today's family is as strong and moral as you make it and it has nothing to due with religion but good parenting and a dedication to husband and wife as a unit, loving, compromising, sacrificing and working hard to be together and the best husband, wife, father and mother that you can be.

Religion is one way to attain those morals but increasingly, religion is not growing with the times or dealing with the intricacies of technology and new knowledge that can put into question some of the teachings of religion.

All that said, I think family values are what you make them, regardless of religious belief and more and more religion will dissipate as a function within the American family. I don't think a lack of religion has caused the breakdown of the American family. I think it is the breakdown of commitment to a life long partner that is killing the American family. Not sure a lack of religion has anything to do with that. I think it has more to do with a selfish, greedy, "me" first attitude that in a lot of ways is promoted through the American business culture.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Interceptor on November 08, 2012, 06:49:53 PM
The government forces people to do (at least) enough things already. People have the right to not vote.
So don't vote. You just have to show up, once every 730.5 days.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 08, 2012, 07:56:35 PM
Just saw Nate silver on the daily show.  I apologize to all the I have offended accusing him of being partisan.  He is just a straight up nerd, I think he probably gets excited the closer the polls are. 
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Interceptor on November 08, 2012, 08:15:53 PM
Just saw Nate silver on the daily show.  I apologize to all the I have offended accusing him of being partisan.  He is just a straight up nerd, I think he probably gets excited the closer the polls are.
Still think he's only as good as he is because the Obama campaign spoon-feeds him their magic polling data?
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 08, 2012, 08:18:10 PM
Just saw Nate silver on the daily show.  I apologize to all the I have offended accusing him of being partisan.  He is just a straight up nerd, I think he probably gets excited the closer the polls are.
Still think he's only as good as he is because the Obama campaign spoon-feeds him their magic polling data?

Yes but I don't think he's partisan.  It's still an algorithm, good in good out.  That's a basic concept....
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: InfiniteMH on November 08, 2012, 08:29:14 PM
Stop setting the country back with your "back in the days" and "we want our country back" please. You guys are embarrassing us to the rest of the world.

Murder rate per capita was higher in the 60s. Civil rights movement. Women's right are getting better. Scientific advancement. To say that the country is falling apart from lack of religion is saying religion was the only good thing holding this country together. No wonder you feel persecuted, sillies. That's crazy. You don't need religion to practice kindness, tolerance, and love for another. What you need is common sense.  Are you surprised a growing population of people are skeptical of religion?

Quote
All the world’s major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether.

Dalai Lama

The leading country the world doesn't have the luxury to reminisce about the "good old days" as if all the answers have been around since jesus. You can do that, but don't set the country back. We need to move forward.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: nickagneta on November 08, 2012, 08:36:41 PM
Just saw Nate silver on the daily show.  I apologize to all the I have offended accusing him of being partisan.  He is just a straight up nerd, I think he probably gets excited the closer the polls are.
Still think he's only as good as he is because the Obama campaign spoon-feeds him their magic polling data?
And what about the Romney magic polling data that had him gaining momentum and winning even though most polls showed otherwise?

Was listening to Obama's campaign polling data cheating or was it just verifying what his own numbers told him?  Because he could have gone to the Romney campaign and asked for their numbers to see why they were making the claims they were. Heck, maybe he did go to the Romney campaign and ask how they were getting their numbers. We don't know. Maybe after reviewing those numbers he got, Silver just said, "I'm glad Obama is using real mathematicians to run their numbers and not partisan doofs" and decided to stick with what he was predicting.

Personally, I don't care. But studying math, I know you have to look at all possible numbers and recheck your formulations and deductions and then present your methodology to back up your numbers. Silver has done that. getting Obama's numbers only means he was doing his job.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Fan from VT on November 08, 2012, 08:38:27 PM
I think most people would consider me a firm Democrat and an atheist, though in truth I am more of a deist. That said, my family values are strong and my family unit is strong and it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Today's family is as strong and moral as you make it and it has nothing to due with religion but good parenting and a dedication to husband and wife as a unit, loving, compromising, sacrificing and working hard to be together and the best husband, wife, father and mother that you can be.

Religion is one way to attain those morals but increasingly, religion is not growing with the times or dealing with the intricacies of technology and new knowledge that can put into question some of the teachings of religion.

All that said, I think family values are what you make them, regardless of religious belief and more and more religion will dissipate as a function within the American family. I don't think a lack of religion has caused the breakdown of the American family. I think it is the breakdown of commitment to a life long partner that is killing the American family. Not sure a lack of religion has anything to do with that. I think it has more to do with a selfish, greedy, "me" first attitude that in a lot of ways is promoted through the American business culture.

Very interesting thoughts, Nick (as usual).

While I personally don't even necessarily think that the breakdown of life long partner is in and of itself contributory to some sort of decline of america, that issue will have to wait.

I think a lot of people see divorce and equate it with a general decline of values, and they get angry about it. I think it's fascinating to consider how increased access to divorce, especially increased ability of women to initiate divorce, led to increased divorce...and a lot of times this gets twisted into woman-hate, because it seems to be a causal deviation from some mythic "good old days," but to me it's more amazing that clearly this increased freedom of women leading to increased divorce is a screaming indicator of just how incredibly awful the status quo of "the good old days" was for a tremendous number of women.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 08, 2012, 08:40:50 PM
They had to lie about the momentum otherwise, it would have been worse.  I think he got a small bounce after the first debate but after that Romney didn't win any.

Of course, peeps will thing nothing is wrong and blame this on a hurricane, not realizing that the country's electorate has changed.   This mentality will cause issues but it's better to cast blame than take responsibility.  How about Rove who had a meltdown on FOX.   Some people live in a seperate reality.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: nickagneta on November 08, 2012, 08:51:43 PM
I think most people would consider me a firm Democrat and an atheist, though in truth I am more of a deist. That said, my family values are strong and my family unit is strong and it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Today's family is as strong and moral as you make it and it has nothing to due with religion but good parenting and a dedication to husband and wife as a unit, loving, compromising, sacrificing and working hard to be together and the best husband, wife, father and mother that you can be.

Religion is one way to attain those morals but increasingly, religion is not growing with the times or dealing with the intricacies of technology and new knowledge that can put into question some of the teachings of religion.

All that said, I think family values are what you make them, regardless of religious belief and more and more religion will dissipate as a function within the American family. I don't think a lack of religion has caused the breakdown of the American family. I think it is the breakdown of commitment to a life long partner that is killing the American family. Not sure a lack of religion has anything to do with that. I think it has more to do with a selfish, greedy, "me" first attitude that in a lot of ways is promoted through the American business culture.

Very interesting thoughts, Nick (as usual).

While I personally don't even necessarily think that the breakdown of life long partner is in and of itself contributory to some sort of decline of america, that issue will have to wait.

I think a lot of people see divorce and equate it with a general decline of values, and they get angry about it. I think it's fascinating to consider how increased access to divorce, especially increased ability of women to initiate divorce, led to increased divorce...and a lot of times this gets twisted into woman-hate, because it seems to be a causal deviation from some mythic "good old days," but to me it's more amazing that clearly this increased freedom of women leading to increased divorce is a screaming indicator of just how incredibly awful the status quo of "the good old days" was for a tremendous number of women.
Excellent sir, as usual. excellent.

I will say though the breakdown of lifelong partnership is also involved in the sexual revolution which broke down sexual inhibitions and the need for abstinence. Suddenly, playing the field and not creating relationships before sex became the rule not the exception. And when pregnancy happened the responsibility got hoisted, more often than not, on one member of that pairing not two.

I don't think that has anything to do with religion but more to do with poor parenting. My kids are 25, 23, and 18. All boys. But they have been taught about sex, responsibility, consequences, the family unit and the importance of relationships their entire life without the help of religion. They all have gone or are going to college. They have all had girlfriends. They have been taught safe sex since 10 years old. They all want the same thing: a career, a partner and then kids. There's no baby mama drama happening at the Agneta house and no grandkids yet out of wedlock.

I'm not saying that having kids out of wedlock is bad or can't be successful. It just makes life harder and is tougher on the children and my kids believe that. Nothing I have seen from religion has caused children to adhere to the values I taught my children every day. Time and again, religious people get other religious people pregnant out of wedlock, or get divorced or abandon their kids. Its parenting that needs to improve the American relationships and eventually the family unit. Not religion.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Fan from VT on November 08, 2012, 08:57:39 PM
I think most people would consider me a firm Democrat and an atheist, though in truth I am more of a deist. That said, my family values are strong and my family unit is strong and it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Today's family is as strong and moral as you make it and it has nothing to due with religion but good parenting and a dedication to husband and wife as a unit, loving, compromising, sacrificing and working hard to be together and the best husband, wife, father and mother that you can be.

Religion is one way to attain those morals but increasingly, religion is not growing with the times or dealing with the intricacies of technology and new knowledge that can put into question some of the teachings of religion.

All that said, I think family values are what you make them, regardless of religious belief and more and more religion will dissipate as a function within the American family. I don't think a lack of religion has caused the breakdown of the American family. I think it is the breakdown of commitment to a life long partner that is killing the American family. Not sure a lack of religion has anything to do with that. I think it has more to do with a selfish, greedy, "me" first attitude that in a lot of ways is promoted through the American business culture.

Very interesting thoughts, Nick (as usual).

While I personally don't even necessarily think that the breakdown of life long partner is in and of itself contributory to some sort of decline of america, that issue will have to wait.

I think a lot of people see divorce and equate it with a general decline of values, and they get angry about it. I think it's fascinating to consider how increased access to divorce, especially increased ability of women to initiate divorce, led to increased divorce...and a lot of times this gets twisted into woman-hate, because it seems to be a causal deviation from some mythic "good old days," but to me it's more amazing that clearly this increased freedom of women leading to increased divorce is a screaming indicator of just how incredibly awful the status quo of "the good old days" was for a tremendous number of women.
Excellent sir, as usual. excellent.

I will say though the breakdown of lifelong partnership is also involved in the sexual revolution which broke down sexual inhibitions and the need for abstinence. Suddenly, playing the field and not creating relationships before sex became the rule not the exception. And when pregnancy happened the responsibility got hoisted, more often than not, on one member of that pairing not two.

I don't think that has anything to do with religion but more to do with poor parenting. My kids are 25, 23, and 18. All boys. But they have been taught about sex, responsibility, consequences, the family unit and the importance of relationships their entire life without the help of religion. They all have gone or are going to college. They have all had girlfriends. They have been taught safe sex since 10 years old. They all want the same thing: a career, a partner and then kids. There's no baby mama drama happening at the Agneta house and no grandkids yet out of wedlock.

I'm not saying that having kids out of wedlock is bad or can't be successful. It just makes life harder and is tougher on the children and my kids believe that. Nothing I have seen from religion has caused children to adhere to the values I taught my children every day. Time and again, religious people get other religious people pregnant out of wedlock, or get divorced or abandon their kids. Its parenting that needs to improve the American relationships and eventually the family unit. Not religion.

For some reason i had tunnel vision in thinking "marriage - kids - divorce" as what was being addressed and completely forgot to think about the very unequal burden of accidental pregnancies (monetarily, morally-perceived, socially, educationally, professionally, etc) of non-relationshiped (however you define it). Generally speaking, the sexual playing field is still incredibly unequal, and I agree with what you pointed out how the general selfishness and lack of accountability/immediate rewards thinking is so troublesome.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: KGs Knee on November 08, 2012, 08:59:15 PM
The erosion of Judeo-Christian values in our society is 100% the main contributing cause for the slow, but certain demise of our country (and the world for that matter).

Folks can deny it, rationalize it, or what have you, this is just the devil at work.  Ignore this at your own peril.

All of us will one day be held accountable before God, there will be no do-overs.  I pray those who don't believe this to be true find salvation.  I truly mean this in the sincerest manner.

All of this being said, I am just one man, no better than anyone else.  I have come to accept the world I live in.  I others wish to choose the wrong path, I must let it go.   It is not my place to judge others.  So long as the actions of others do not infringe upon my rights and freedoms, have at it.

I do not need worldy laws to guide me down the path to righteousness.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: InfiniteMH on November 08, 2012, 09:06:03 PM

Folks can deny it, rationalize it, or what have you, this is just the devil at work.  Ignore this at your own peril.


Nice summary of the Republican campaign's message. TP
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Fan from VT on November 08, 2012, 09:07:25 PM
The erosion of Judeo-Christian values in our society is 100% the main contributing cause for the slow, but certain demise of our country (and the world for that matter).

Folks can deny it, rationalize it, or what have you, this is just the devil at work.  Ignore this at your own peril.

All of us will one day be held accountable before God, there will be no do-overs.  I pray those who don't believe this to be true find salvation.  I truly mean this in the sincerest manner.

All of this being said, I am just one man, no better than anyone else.  I have come to accept the world I live in.  I others wish to choose the wrong path, I must let it go.   It is not my place to judge others.  So long as the actions of others do not infringe upon my rights and freedoms, have at it.

I do not need worldy laws to guide me down the path to righteousness.

Obviously I'm not going to change your mind, but I'm curious: when was the peak of society from which we are now declining? Is it a steady decline? Have there been small improvements but a general decline? What have teh improvements been?
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 08, 2012, 09:10:58 PM
Just saw Nate silver on the daily show.  I apologize to all the I have offended accusing him of being partisan.  He is just a straight up nerd, I think he probably gets excited the closer the polls are.
Still think he's only as good as he is because the Obama campaign spoon-feeds him their magic polling data?
And what about the Romney magic polling data that had him gaining momentum and winning even though most polls showed otherwise?

Was listening to Obama's campaign polling data cheating or was it just verifying what his own numbers told him?  Because he could have gone to the Romney campaign and asked for their numbers to see why they were making the claims they were. Heck, maybe he did go to the Romney campaign and ask how they were getting their numbers. We don't know. Maybe after reviewing those numbers he got, Silver just said, "I'm glad Obama is using real mathematicians to run their numbers and not partisan doofs" and decided to stick with what he was predicting.

Personally, I don't care. But studying math, I know you have to look at all possible numbers and recheck your formulations and deductions and then present your methodology to back up your numbers. Silver has done that. getting Obama's numbers only means he was doing his job.

But silver isn't a pollster he doesn't contribute any data he just compiles.  If he is compiling better inside date in key swing states he surely will have better results.  Also I think republican pollsters had Romney up in key stars but I'm not sure that Romney believed he was up
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: nickagneta on November 08, 2012, 09:12:28 PM
The erosion of Judeo-Christian values in our society is 100% the main contributing cause for the slow, but certain demise of our country (and the world for that matter).

Folks can deny it, rationalize it, or what have you, this is just the devil at work.  Ignore this at your own peril.

All of us will one day be held accountable before God, there will be no do-overs.  I pray those who don't believe this to be true find salvation.  I truly mean this in the sincerest manner.

All of this being said, I am just one man, no better than anyone else.  I have come to accept the world I live in.  I others wish to choose the wrong path, I must let it go.   It is not my place to judge others.  So long as the actions of others do not infringe upon my rights and freedoms, have at it.

I do not need worldy laws to guide me down the path to righteousness.
Makes me wonder how you account for societies that have been around for hundreds and thousands of years that are not Judeo-Christian. How have they thrived?
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: nickagneta on November 08, 2012, 09:34:31 PM
Just saw Nate silver on the daily show.  I apologize to all the I have offended accusing him of being partisan.  He is just a straight up nerd, I think he probably gets excited the closer the polls are.
Still think he's only as good as he is because the Obama campaign spoon-feeds him their magic polling data?
And what about the Romney magic polling data that had him gaining momentum and winning even though most polls showed otherwise?

Was listening to Obama's campaign polling data cheating or was it just verifying what his own numbers told him?  Because he could have gone to the Romney campaign and asked for their numbers to see why they were making the claims they were. Heck, maybe he did go to the Romney campaign and ask how they were getting their numbers. We don't know. Maybe after reviewing those numbers he got, Silver just said, "I'm glad Obama is using real mathematicians to run their numbers and not partisan doofs" and decided to stick with what he was predicting.

Personally, I don't care. But studying math, I know you have to look at all possible numbers and recheck your formulations and deductions and then present your methodology to back up your numbers. Silver has done that. getting Obama's numbers only means he was doing his job.

But silver isn't a pollster he doesn't contribute any data he just compiles.  If he is compiling better inside date in key swing states he surely will have better results.  Also I think republican pollsters had Romney up in key stars but I'm not sure that Romney believed he was up
So what you are saying is if Silver also got Romney's numbers, Obama had better pollsters and when Silver was given the info, he agreed with the numbers Obama provided him and decided to publish his findings?

Not sure how that makes Silver partisan, though I know you are now not claiming that. My guess is he got numbers from a whole mess of places. Based on formulas and methodology, a statistician has to decide what are outliers and what fall into the pattern. he decided the numbers he got showed a fairly easy Obama victory and he was correct.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Cman on November 08, 2012, 09:38:57 PM
This is a fascinating thread. It is basically an anything goes, post election thread. I like it.

On Silver, he is one of several poll aggregators, not the only one. He is dimply (simply ! dang u iPhone  ) the most visible.

The thing I find interesting is he basically believed pollsters were doing their job correctly and for the most part took their results at face value. Though he does weight them differently. Republicans by and large didn't take majority of polls at face value believing instead that the polls were systematically overestimating things like party affiliation and turn out. Turns out, they weren't. Again, math wins gut loses.

On that last point, Dan Rather is a goat for his "my gut tells me Romney has a good night " comment.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 08, 2012, 09:43:57 PM
Just saw Nate silver on the daily show.  I apologize to all the I have offended accusing him of being partisan.  He is just a straight up nerd, I think he probably gets excited the closer the polls are.
Still think he's only as good as he is because the Obama campaign spoon-feeds him their magic polling data?
And what about the Romney magic polling data that had him gaining momentum and winning even though most polls showed otherwise?

Was listening to Obama's campaign polling data cheating or was it just verifying what his own numbers told him?  Because he could have gone to the Romney campaign and asked for their numbers to see why they were making the claims they were. Heck, maybe he did go to the Romney campaign and ask how they were getting their numbers. We don't know. Maybe after reviewing those numbers he got, Silver just said, "I'm glad Obama is using real mathematicians to run their numbers and not partisan doofs" and decided to stick with what he was predicting.

Personally, I don't care. But studying math, I know you have to look at all possible numbers and recheck your formulations and deductions and then present your methodology to back up your numbers. Silver has done that. getting Obama's numbers only means he was doing his job.

But silver isn't a pollster he doesn't contribute any data he just compiles.  If he is compiling better inside date in key swing states he surely will have better results.  Also I think republican pollsters had Romney up in key stars but I'm not sure that Romney believed he was up
So what you are saying is if Silver also got Romney's numbers, Obama had better pollsters and when Silver was given the info, he agreed with the numbers Obama provided him and decided to publish his findings?

Not sure how that makes Silver partisan, though I know you are now not claiming that. My guess is he got numbers from a whole mess of places. Based on formulas and methodology, a statistician has to decide what are outliers and what fall into the pattern. he decided the numbers he got showed a fairly easy Obama victory and he was correct.

In the last electon silver was given Obama campaigns numbers and didnt disclose that fact due to an NDA.  I doubt we will here for a while where all his data came from.  But models are only as good as their inputs.  I'm agreeing now that he isn't partisan. I think the more challenging the election is to predict the mor excited he would be.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 09:47:13 PM
Just saw Nate silver on the daily show.  I apologize to all the I have offended accusing him of being partisan.  He is just a straight up nerd, I think he probably gets excited the closer the polls are.
Still think he's only as good as he is because the Obama campaign spoon-feeds him their magic polling data?
And what about the Romney magic polling data that had him gaining momentum and winning even though most polls showed otherwise?

Was listening to Obama's campaign polling data cheating or was it just verifying what his own numbers told him?  Because he could have gone to the Romney campaign and asked for their numbers to see why they were making the claims they were. Heck, maybe he did go to the Romney campaign and ask how they were getting their numbers. We don't know. Maybe after reviewing those numbers he got, Silver just said, "I'm glad Obama is using real mathematicians to run their numbers and not partisan doofs" and decided to stick with what he was predicting.

Personally, I don't care. But studying math, I know you have to look at all possible numbers and recheck your formulations and deductions and then present your methodology to back up your numbers. Silver has done that. getting Obama's numbers only means he was doing his job.

But silver isn't a pollster he doesn't contribute any data he just compiles.  If he is compiling better inside date in key swing states he surely will have better results.  Also I think republican pollsters had Romney up in key stars but I'm not sure that Romney believed he was up

I think you're over and under estimating Silver. Other statisticians had their own formulas and came to similar results. They just didn't work for the NYT and for whatever reason, didn't get the same lightening rod treatment Silver did. In that regard you're overestimating Silver, because he isn't unique. He is one of..maybe not many, but at least others.

You're underestimating him by throwing the Obama numbers in there. I see three reasons why it's not relevant. 1) others reached the same or similar conclusions, 2) there isn't a solid piece of proof that he had the President's 'secret' polling numbers (if I'm wrong here or missed the proof, apologies), and 3) if he did have them, and did use them, he made the leap of faith of trusting them. Mitt Romney had his own polling numbers that were clearly slanted and doctored, why wouldn't he assume there was a good chance the President's numbers weren't also slanted?

And finally, I think you're underestimating him because he is really really good at what he does, which is use existing data to project possible outcomes. He did it with baseball before, he did it here.

Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 08, 2012, 10:01:33 PM
Just saw Nate silver on the daily show.  I apologize to all the I have offended accusing him of being partisan.  He is just a straight up nerd, I think he probably gets excited the closer the polls are.
Still think he's only as good as he is because the Obama campaign spoon-feeds him their magic polling data?
And what about the Romney magic polling data that had him gaining momentum and winning even though most polls showed otherwise?

Was listening to Obama's campaign polling data cheating or was it just verifying what his own numbers told him?  Because he could have gone to the Romney campaign and asked for their numbers to see why they were making the claims they were. Heck, maybe he did go to the Romney campaign and ask how they were getting their numbers. We don't know. Maybe after reviewing those numbers he got, Silver just said, "I'm glad Obama is using real mathematicians to run their numbers and not partisan doofs" and decided to stick with what he was predicting.

Personally, I don't care. But studying math, I know you have to look at all possible numbers and recheck your formulations and deductions and then present your methodology to back up your numbers. Silver has done that. getting Obama's numbers only means he was doing his job.

But silver isn't a pollster he doesn't contribute any data he just compiles.  If he is compiling better inside date in key swing states he surely will have better results.  Also I think republican pollsters had Romney up in key stars but I'm not sure that Romney believed he was up

I think you're over and under estimating Silver. Other statisticians had their own formulas and came to similar results. They just didn't work for the NYT and for whatever reason, didn't get the same lightening rod treatment Silver did. In that regard you're overestimating Silver, because he isn't unique. He is one of..maybe not many, but at least others.

You're underestimating him by throwing the Obama numbers in there. I see three reasons why it's not relevant. 1) others reached the same or similar conclusions, 2) there isn't a solid piece of proof that he had the President's 'secret' polling numbers (if I'm wrong here or missed the proof, apologies), and 3) if he did have them, and did use them, he made the leap of faith of trusting them. Mitt Romney had his own polling numbers that were clearly slanted and doctored, why wouldn't he assume there was a good chance the President's numbers weren't also slanted?

And finally, I think you're underestimating him because he is really really good at what he does, which is use existing data to project possible outcomes. He did it with baseball before, he did it here.

Aft 2008, when silver made his name, an Obama campaign worker released the info that silver received all the Obama polling information under an NDA
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: LooseCannon on November 08, 2012, 10:02:21 PM
The thing I find interesting is he basically believed pollsters were doing their job correctly and for the most part took their results at face value. Though he does weight them differently. Republicans by and large didn't take majority of polls at face value believing instead that the polls were systematically overestimating things like party affiliation and turn out. Turns out, they weren't. Again, math wins gut loses.

Conservatives seem to have this weird form of Platonic realism when dealing with political facts.  They believe they have derived the ideal forms of reality through logic and reason.  Anything deviating from those forms must be imperfect and flawed.  Thus, any poll that doesn't conform to the obvious fact that Romney should be ahead must be flawed.  Global warming can't possibly be happening, or at least not happening due to controllable man-made factors, because that would conflict with the ideal form of dirty hippies always being wrong. 

Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 10:14:11 PM
Just saw Nate silver on the daily show.  I apologize to all the I have offended accusing him of being partisan.  He is just a straight up nerd, I think he probably gets excited the closer the polls are.
Still think he's only as good as he is because the Obama campaign spoon-feeds him their magic polling data?
And what about the Romney magic polling data that had him gaining momentum and winning even though most polls showed otherwise?

Was listening to Obama's campaign polling data cheating or was it just verifying what his own numbers told him?  Because he could have gone to the Romney campaign and asked for their numbers to see why they were making the claims they were. Heck, maybe he did go to the Romney campaign and ask how they were getting their numbers. We don't know. Maybe after reviewing those numbers he got, Silver just said, "I'm glad Obama is using real mathematicians to run their numbers and not partisan doofs" and decided to stick with what he was predicting.

Personally, I don't care. But studying math, I know you have to look at all possible numbers and recheck your formulations and deductions and then present your methodology to back up your numbers. Silver has done that. getting Obama's numbers only means he was doing his job.

But silver isn't a pollster he doesn't contribute any data he just compiles.  If he is compiling better inside date in key swing states he surely will have better results.  Also I think republican pollsters had Romney up in key stars but I'm not sure that Romney believed he was up

I think you're over and under estimating Silver. Other statisticians had their own formulas and came to similar results. They just didn't work for the NYT and for whatever reason, didn't get the same lightening rod treatment Silver did. In that regard you're overestimating Silver, because he isn't unique. He is one of..maybe not many, but at least others.

You're underestimating him by throwing the Obama numbers in there. I see three reasons why it's not relevant. 1) others reached the same or similar conclusions, 2) there isn't a solid piece of proof that he had the President's 'secret' polling numbers (if I'm wrong here or missed the proof, apologies), and 3) if he did have them, and did use them, he made the leap of faith of trusting them. Mitt Romney had his own polling numbers that were clearly slanted and doctored, why wouldn't he assume there was a good chance the President's numbers weren't also slanted?

And finally, I think you're underestimating him because he is really really good at what he does, which is use existing data to project possible outcomes. He did it with baseball before, he did it here.

Aft 2008, when silver made his name, an Obama campaign worker released the info that silver received all the Obama polling information under an NDA

Was this ever corroborated by Silver? It seems to be potentially in direct contrast with his own methodology.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/methodology/
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 10:15:13 PM
Also has he ever said he used the polling numbers in his predictive models?
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 08, 2012, 10:22:58 PM
Also has he ever said he used the polling numbers in his predictive models?

He couldn't cause of the NDA
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 08, 2012, 10:23:03 PM
Conservatives seem to have this weird form of Platonic realism when dealing with political facts.  They believe they have derived the ideal forms of reality through logic and reason.  Anything deviating from those forms must be imperfect and flawed.  Thus, any poll that doesn't conform to the obvious fact that Romney should be ahead must be flawed.  Global warming can't possibly be happening, or at least not happening due to controllable man-made factors, because that would conflict with the ideal form of dirty hippies always being wrong.

I won't touch the broader argument with a ten-foot pole, but the parallels between the 538 backlash and climate change denial were always pretty striking. 


BTW I just read that Sean Hannity has suddenly come out in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants.  Not that there's any reason to care about Hannity's opinions for their own sake, but he's by all accounts very dialed-in to the current GOP strategies.  This seems to just about seal it - the pivot is coming, and it's coming fast.  It sounds like they'll try and tie it in with a major border overhaul, but it looks likely the Republicans will be pushing an amnesty bill soon.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 10:30:04 PM
Also has he ever said he used the polling numbers in his predictive models?

He couldn't cause of the NDA

So has any major news outlet ever even verified this happened, or that it affected his predictive models at all in 2008 or 2012?
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: JSD on November 08, 2012, 10:51:23 PM
Fellow Republicans, we should not succumb to the pressures of viewing people in groups going forward. I hear a lot of talk about needing to cater to the "latino vote" or "gay rights" ect. It's a collectivist mindset that will only lead to problems. Instead, going forward, we should emphasize individual rights. That is the message that will resonate with folks.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: JSD on November 08, 2012, 11:03:19 PM
Rights do not come to us in groups they come to us as individuals.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Celtics18 on November 08, 2012, 11:05:25 PM
An ironic twist for those from the Christian right is that many of the people who helped Barack Obama to win the Presidency and get re-elected were those from the Christian left.

I thought everyone ought to know that whether we profess ourselves as Christians or not, those of us one the left are not anti-Christian or anti-Christian values.   
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Brendan on November 08, 2012, 11:11:02 PM
Also has he ever said he used the polling numbers in his predictive models?

He couldn't cause of the NDA

So has any major news outlet ever even verified this happened, or that it affected his predictive models at all in 2008 or 2012?
Pretty sure this was confirmed.

FWIW - real clear politics running average of polls predicted electoral college 49/50.

Nate Silver is good, his work in baseball is very good. But 538 hasn't yet shown to be much better than the RCP avg. And it was worse and late to the game for the 2010 upset.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 11:19:24 PM
From what others have said, he actually did pretty well in 2010, aside from some very bad speculation early in the season.

If it was confirmed, I can't find it aside from places like redstate.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Brendan on November 08, 2012, 11:22:56 PM
From what others have said, he actually did pretty well in 2010, aside from some very bad speculation early in the season.

If it was confirmed, I can't find it aside from places like redstate.

MoeLane is pretty reliable. When it first broke it was widely agreed to, never saw it challenged. He didn't do well in 2010. First early on missed the wave, later he had republicans winning everything, even Harry Reid being knocked off.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 11:24:31 PM
Fellow Republicans, we should not succumb to the pressures of viewing people in groups going forward. I hear a lot of talk about needing to cater to the "latino vote" or "gay rights" ect. It's a collectivist mindset that will only lead to problems. Instead, going forward, we should emphasize individual rights. That is the message that will resonate with folks.

Rights do not come to us in groups they come to us as individuals.

Sounds like a stump speech. You got something you need to announce, JSD?
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 08, 2012, 11:29:49 PM
From what others have said, he actually did pretty well in 2010, aside from some very bad speculation early in the season.

If it was confirmed, I can't find it aside from places like redstate.

MoeLane is pretty reliable. When it first broke it was widely agreed to, never saw it challenged. He didn't do well in 2010. First early on missed the wave, later he had republicans winning everything, even Harry Reid being knocked off.

But no major news outlet even broke the news? I have a hard time imagining CNN or any of the other multitude of competitors for 'most trusted analysis' letting that tidbit float by without comment at least.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 08, 2012, 11:32:49 PM
From what others have said, he actually did pretty well in 2010, aside from some very bad speculation early in the season.

If it was confirmed, I can't find it aside from places like redstate.

He had access to the polls, but they weren't part of the model - all of the polls used were listed on the site.

If he was lying and used unlisted material, it didn't do much, because it's not hard to mock-up a model that makes very similar (though not identical) predictions.  There are some unique wrinkles, but the model isn't reinventing the wheel, its biggest principles are very simple.  Which is why all the sound and fury around it was so silly to begin with.

Good read: Boston.com stats blogger looks at the margin of error on 538's predictions (http://www.boston.com/sports/blogs/statsdriven/2012/11/nobodys_perfect_nate_silver_an.html).  It's a smart way to assess the model, but after publishing his findings that the model was actually weaker than expected, he realizes he did the analysis wrong and the model was pretty much exactly as accurate as the MOE would predict.  Funny stuff.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Brendan on November 08, 2012, 11:38:09 PM
I believe he was working on model in 08. He was using the Obama stuff to calibrate the model. That's just what I recall. Bottom line is over three elections he hasn't out performed the RCP average.

Also a different numbers guy on the GOP's problem: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106.html

Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 09, 2012, 12:04:42 AM
I believe he was working on model in 08. He was using the Obama stuff to calibrate the model. That's just what I recall.

Interesting - I thought the idea was that Silver had more data to plug into the model, which made the polling predictions more accurate.  This is a take I haven't seen before.

In terms of setting parameters, access to internal polls wouldn't help with factors like historical accuracy or house effect, but it could aid with things like state demographics.  That is possible, although Silver's never said so - if so I'd say that's kind of an unfair advantage relative to other models, but not really a critique of the model's validity, since the data were clearly beneficial to its accuracy.

Bottom line is over three elections he hasn't out performed the RCP average.

On a yes/no states and races prediction basis Silver has been only slightly better - which makes perfect sense, it would be a very rare case where the polls pointed one way and an aggregation model the other.   

But on the vote margin predictions he's head and shoulders better.  His overall error is lower, and 96% of this cycle's state margins were within Silver's 95% confidence interval.  Another fairly major example - RCP has the popular vote at O +.7, 538 has O +2.5.  Actual margin is O +2.5.  The bulk of what 538 does is poll aggregation for sure, but there is substantial added value there.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: KGs Knee on November 09, 2012, 01:03:24 AM
Fellow Republicans, we should not succumb to the pressures of viewing people in groups going forward. I hear a lot of talk about needing to cater to the "latino vote" or "gay rights" ect. It's a collectivist mindset that will only lead to problems. Instead, going forward, we should emphasize individual rights. That is the message that will resonate with folks.

Rights do not come to us in groups they come to us as individuals.

Sounds like a stump speech. You got something you need to announce, JSD?

You got my vote 8)
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Cman on November 09, 2012, 07:12:22 AM
I believe he was working on model in 08. He was using the Obama stuff to calibrate the model. That's just what I recall. Bottom line is over three elections he hasn't out performed the RCP average.



Sure he has. This year he correctly predicted FL where RCP did not.

Edit fwf replied w much more detail.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Brendan on November 09, 2012, 08:18:27 AM
I believe he was working on model in 08. He was using the Obama stuff to calibrate the model. That's just what I recall. Bottom line is over three elections he hasn't out performed the RCP average.



Sure he has. This year he correctly predicted FL where RCP did not.

Edit fwf replied w much more detail.
I'm actually a fan of his, so I'm not going down the path of arguing that he's bad. IMO given 2008, 2010, and 2012 - the RCP averages (which cost basically 0 to do) are pretty close to outcomes as his is. Silver is more of a side show in analytics. The real big data operation is behind the scenes of the campaigns.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 09, 2012, 08:23:08 AM
Nate Silver nailed it, I actually thought one side was lying or wrong about their data.  No one wants to appear losing as it cut cause peeps not to vote.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Rondo2287 on November 09, 2012, 08:29:21 AM
From what others have said, he actually did pretty well in 2010, aside from some very bad speculation early in the season.

If it was confirmed, I can't find it aside from places like redstate.

MoeLane is pretty reliable. When it first broke it was widely agreed to, never saw it challenged. He didn't do well in 2010. First early on missed the wave, later he had republicans winning everything, even Harry Reid being knocked off.

But no major news outlet even broke the news? I have a hard time imagining CNN or any of the other multitude of competitors for 'most trusted analysis' letting that tidbit float by without comment at least.

With all the stuff that gets ignored by the mainstream media this doesn't surprise me at all. Especially one of their own in the print media which needs all the help it can get.  His work has made the NYT significantly more relevant, they would do everything they can to protect him.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Cman on November 09, 2012, 09:25:14 AM
I believe he was working on model in 08. He was using the Obama stuff to calibrate the model. That's just what I recall. Bottom line is over three elections he hasn't out performed the RCP average.



Sure he has. This year he correctly predicted FL where RCP did not.

Edit fwf replied w much more detail.
I'm actually a fan of his, so I'm not going down the path of arguing that he's bad. IMO given 2008, 2010, and 2012 - the RCP averages (which cost basically 0 to do) are pretty close to outcomes as his is. Silver is more of a side show in analytics. The real big data operation is behind the scenes of the campaigns.

Got it.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 09, 2012, 09:47:59 AM
I believe he was working on model in 08. He was using the Obama stuff to calibrate the model. That's just what I recall. Bottom line is over three elections he hasn't out performed the RCP average.



Sure he has. This year he correctly predicted FL where RCP did not.

Edit fwf replied w much more detail.
I'm actually a fan of his, so I'm not going down the path of arguing that he's bad. IMO given 2008, 2010, and 2012 - the RCP averages (which cost basically 0 to do) are pretty close to outcomes as his is. Silver is more of a side show in analytics. The real big data operation is behind the scenes of the campaigns.

Totally agree with this.  One of my favorite things about election night is the campaign people speaking frankly about all the behind-the-scenes analysis that's going on.  It's staggeringly detailed and dense.  Pundits may not believe in data but campaign managers sure do.

On the other hand, it's being reported that Romney's people fell into the trap of weighting his internal polls by the party representation and turnout they thought (hoped?) he'd get, instead of trusting their samples to be accurate.  So systemic mistakes still do happen at that level.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: nickagneta on November 09, 2012, 10:34:14 AM

On the other hand, it's being reported that Romney's people fell into the trap of weighting his internal polls by the party representation and turnout they thought (hoped?) he'd get, instead of trusting their samples to be accurate.  So systemic mistakes still do happen at that level.
Or as a very cute Fox announcer asked Karl Rove on election night: Is that just math they do as Republicans to make themselves feel better?
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Donoghus on November 09, 2012, 10:55:22 AM

On the other hand, it's being reported that Romney's people fell into the trap of weighting his internal polls by the party representation and turnout they thought (hoped?) he'd get, instead of trusting their samples to be accurate.  So systemic mistakes still do happen at that level.
Or as a very cute Fox announcer asked Karl Rove on election night: Is that just math they do as Republicans to make themselves feel better?

Watching Rove late on Tuesday night was priceless.  Entertaining stuff.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 09, 2012, 11:29:16 AM

On the other hand, it's being reported that Romney's people fell into the trap of weighting his internal polls by the party representation and turnout they thought (hoped?) he'd get, instead of trusting their samples to be accurate.  So systemic mistakes still do happen at that level.
Or as a very cute Fox announcer asked Karl Rove on election night: Is that just math they do as Republicans to make themselves feel better?

At the individual level, absolutely.  Always easier to declare the data phony than to question why your positions aren't as popular as you'd thought.

But the fact that the guys being paid to get it right were making the same foolish mistake is stunning.  They were so sure the random sample polls must be skewed that they went ahead and skewed their own polls in response, and it appears it led to the campaign completely misunderstanding their position and chances of victory.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: BballTim on November 09, 2012, 11:59:01 AM

On the other hand, it's being reported that Romney's people fell into the trap of weighting his internal polls by the party representation and turnout they thought (hoped?) he'd get, instead of trusting their samples to be accurate.  So systemic mistakes still do happen at that level.
Or as a very cute Fox announcer asked Karl Rove on election night: Is that just math they do as Republicans to make themselves feel better?

  The democrats are obviously no different when they lose. I still remember Lloyd Bentson saying that they still had a chance in Texas (a state they lost by double digits) because the polls were still open in the western edge of the state.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 12:02:33 PM
The democrats are obviously no different when they lose. I still remember Lloyd Bentson saying that they still had a chance in Texas (a state they lost by double digits) because the polls were still open in the western edge of the state.
I guess that word means different things to different people. It's much less defensible to be so wrong these days, when it's so easy to be right because of the accuracy of the available data. While Rove was foaming at the mouth, I remember Chuck Todd very patiently explaining why NBC called Ohio when they did.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: angryguy77 on November 09, 2012, 12:16:45 PM
The GOP should let the Democrats do whatever they want and sign off on all of Obama's economic propositions.

When we collapse, conservatism won't be to blame. 
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: nickagneta on November 09, 2012, 12:17:31 PM

On the other hand, it's being reported that Romney's people fell into the trap of weighting his internal polls by the party representation and turnout they thought (hoped?) he'd get, instead of trusting their samples to be accurate.  So systemic mistakes still do happen at that level.
Or as a very cute Fox announcer asked Karl Rove on election night: Is that just math they do as Republicans to make themselves feel better?

  The democrats are obviously no different when they lose. I still remember Lloyd Bentson saying that they still had a chance in Texas (a state they lost by double digits) because the polls were still open in the western edge of the state.
Hey, I'm not the one that said that to Karl Rove, it was a Fox News anchor. Your problem is with her.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 09, 2012, 12:56:17 PM
I think the GOP does need to change to broaden the party.   In that sense, they are in trouble and in denial.  Blaming this election on a storm makes no sense.  If that were the case the storm was an act of God and he wanted Obama elected with that logic.  I don't think many would endorse that thought with that in mind.  GOP lost because they alienated a lot of people in their primary process and some of their candidates declared a war on woman with stupid comments on rape.

However, it is a pattern of US history that once a party gets in power that they overstep that power and pay the next cycle.  Nancy Pelosi was really guilty of this prior to the 2010 election and it cost them the house.

Their are some people clearly in denial over this election.   It wasn't a crushing victory in terms of popular vote but electorally it certainly was a big win.   The House was safe from the beginning but ask Michelle Bachmann if she now feels safe, she won but only barely with a heavily gerrymandered district.   The Senate was up for grabs but some nutjobs with medieval views on rape killed any chances of that happening.  Now we have people stating that Obama suppressed the vote with negative adds.   Both sides did that as I see it and they did it to Kerry in 2004.  They also blame this on an act of God.

I think Karl Rove is going nuts because he depends on big donors and he didn't get results.   He took their money, lied saying he could deliver the goods and didn't.   He was guilty of lot of attack adds and poll manipulation.   He really had a meltdown.  Is it just me or does he look like Porky Pig...
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: BballTim on November 09, 2012, 02:42:45 PM
The democrats are obviously no different when they lose. I still remember Lloyd Bentson saying that they still had a chance in Texas (a state they lost by double digits) because the polls were still open in the western edge of the state.
I guess that word means different things to different people. It's much less defensible to be so wrong these days, when it's so easy to be right because of the accuracy of the available data. While Rove was foaming at the mouth, I remember Chuck Todd very patiently explaining why NBC called Ohio when they did.

  Rove wasn't foaming at the mouth. All he was saying was that, while he didn't have access to the amount of data that the guys making the call had, he thought that it was still possible for Romney to win.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Cman on November 09, 2012, 02:57:46 PM
The democrats are obviously no different when they lose. I still remember Lloyd Bentson saying that they still had a chance in Texas (a state they lost by double digits) because the polls were still open in the western edge of the state.
I guess that word means different things to different people. It's much less defensible to be so wrong these days, when it's so easy to be right because of the accuracy of the available data. While Rove was foaming at the mouth, I remember Chuck Todd very patiently explaining why NBC called Ohio when they did.

  Rove wasn't foaming at the mouth. All he was saying was that, while he didn't have access to the amount of data that the guys making the call had, he thought that it was still possible for Romney to win.

I agree, he didn't have quite the meltdown that people are making it out to be.

But Fox gave him too much airtime to spin, spin, spin. What they should have done was what NBC did -- explain why they were making the call (which they eventually did).
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Cman on November 09, 2012, 03:01:46 PM
While we're on Karl Rove, let's hear from the realDonaldTrump:

Quote

Congrats to @KarlRove on blowing $400 million this cycle. Every race @CrossroadsGPS ran ads in, the Republicans lost. What a waste of money.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266283107014025216
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 09, 2012, 03:04:30 PM
The democrats are obviously no different when they lose. I still remember Lloyd Bentson saying that they still had a chance in Texas (a state they lost by double digits) because the polls were still open in the western edge of the state.
I guess that word means different things to different people. It's much less defensible to be so wrong these days, when it's so easy to be right because of the accuracy of the available data. While Rove was foaming at the mouth, I remember Chuck Todd very patiently explaining why NBC called Ohio when they did.

  Rove wasn't foaming at the mouth. All he was saying was that, while he didn't have access to the amount of data that the guys making the call had, he thought that it was still possible for Romney to win.

I agree, he didn't have quite the meltdown that people are making it out to be.

But Fox gave him too much airtime to spin, spin, spin. What they should have done was what NBC did -- explain why they were making the call (which they eventually did).

Yeah, I didn't get that either.  Rove was in full "campaign manager" mode, and probably sweating quite a bit over the failures of his SuperPAC, but the gist of his argument was "it doesn't seem impossible for Romney to win, so it's too soon to call". 

His point wasn't very strong since several states had already been called for the candidate who was actually behind in the certified votes, but it wasn't some ludicrous unhinged rant or anything. I think a lot of people just wanted to laugh at him so it's been made into something it wasn't.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Donoghus on November 09, 2012, 03:09:00 PM
The democrats are obviously no different when they lose. I still remember Lloyd Bentson saying that they still had a chance in Texas (a state they lost by double digits) because the polls were still open in the western edge of the state.
I guess that word means different things to different people. It's much less defensible to be so wrong these days, when it's so easy to be right because of the accuracy of the available data. While Rove was foaming at the mouth, I remember Chuck Todd very patiently explaining why NBC called Ohio when they did.

  Rove wasn't foaming at the mouth. All he was saying was that, while he didn't have access to the amount of data that the guys making the call had, he thought that it was still possible for Romney to win.

I agree, he didn't have quite the meltdown that people are making it out to be.

But Fox gave him too much airtime to spin, spin, spin. What they should have done was what NBC did -- explain why they were making the call (which they eventually did).

Yeah, I didn't get that either.  Rove was in full "campaign manager" mode, and probably sweating quite a bit over the failures of his SuperPAC, but the gist of his argument was "it doesn't seem impossible for Romney to win, so it's too soon to call". 

His point wasn't very strong since several states had already been called for the candidate who was actually behind in the certified votes, but it wasn't some ludicrous unhinged rant or anything. I think a lot of people just wanted to laugh at him so it's been made into something it wasn't.

It was more due to FOX exploiting the situation and attempt to create some compelling television by creating the drama there.  It really wasn't a meltdown by Rove but still some great television to watch.  Sucked me in.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: nickagneta on November 09, 2012, 03:12:01 PM
The democrats are obviously no different when they lose. I still remember Lloyd Bentson saying that they still had a chance in Texas (a state they lost by double digits) because the polls were still open in the western edge of the state.
I guess that word means different things to different people. It's much less defensible to be so wrong these days, when it's so easy to be right because of the accuracy of the available data. While Rove was foaming at the mouth, I remember Chuck Todd very patiently explaining why NBC called Ohio when they did.

  Rove wasn't foaming at the mouth. All he was saying was that, while he didn't have access to the amount of data that the guys making the call had, he thought that it was still possible for Romney to win.

I agree, he didn't have quite the meltdown that people are making it out to be.

But Fox gave him too much airtime to spin, spin, spin. What they should have done was what NBC did -- explain why they were making the call (which they eventually did).

Yeah, I didn't get that either.  Rove was in full "campaign manager" mode, and probably sweating quite a bit over the failures of his SuperPAC, but the gist of his argument was "it doesn't seem impossible for Romney to win, so it's too soon to call". 

His point wasn't very strong since several states had already been called for the candidate who was actually behind in the certified votes, but it wasn't some ludicrous unhinged rant or anything. I think a lot of people just wanted to laugh at him so it's been made into something it wasn't.
Jon Stewart was sill able to twist it into one of the more hilarious Daily Shows in a long time without to much help though. The mathematics that Republicans do to make themselves feel better line was priceless.

Yeah, but I agree, he didn't blow a gasket. But he wasn't being a good, dignified loser either.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Interceptor on November 09, 2012, 03:13:23 PM
Rove wasn't foaming at the mouth. All he was saying was that, while he didn't have access to the amount of data that the guys making the call had, he thought that it was still possible for Romney to win.
That was overstating it a bit, but the man was still flustered, and he was fighting against better analysis by the seat of his pants. He seemed to have plenty of data. It's less defensible these days than it used to be.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Cman on November 09, 2012, 03:19:17 PM
Rove wasn't foaming at the mouth. All he was saying was that, while he didn't have access to the amount of data that the guys making the call had, he thought that it was still possible for Romney to win.
That was overstating it a bit, but the man was still flustered, and he was fighting against better analysis by the seat of his pants. He seemed to have plenty of data. It's less defensible these days than it used to be.

I guess the lesson is, it is tough when your data is telling you that you just wasted $400M...
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 09, 2012, 03:21:01 PM
Yeah, I didn't get that either.  Rove was in full "campaign manager" mode, and probably sweating quite a bit over the failures of his SuperPAC, but the gist of his argument was "it doesn't seem impossible for Romney to win, so it's too soon to call". 

His point wasn't very strong since several states had already been called for the candidate who was actually behind in the certified votes, but it wasn't some ludicrous unhinged rant or anything. I think a lot of people just wanted to laugh at him so it's been made into something it wasn't.

It was more due to FOX exploiting the situation and attempt to create some compelling television by creating the drama there.  It really wasn't a meltdown by Rove but still some great television to watch.  Sucked me in.

Full disclosure: I was watching it live as it happened (blame schadenfreunde and alcohol) with a voting returns map of Ohio on my iPad.  Even I could quickly check his county-by-county numbers and see they didn't add up - way too many Cuyahoga votes outstanding.  He was grasping at straws more than coming unglued, but it certainly gave them something to talk about for awhile.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Brendan on November 09, 2012, 08:30:25 PM
Back on topic...

Why Hispanic vote might not be the GOP salvation:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332916/why-hispanics-dont-vote-republicans-heather-mac-donald#
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Celtics18 on November 09, 2012, 10:29:28 PM
Back on topic...

Why Hispanic vote might not be the GOP salvation:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332916/why-hispanics-dont-vote-republicans-heather-mac-donald#

People thought the Hispanic vote was going to be the GOP salvation?
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: LB3533 on November 10, 2012, 11:34:31 AM
We need a brand new federal govn't. The only way to do this is to not vote ever again.

Abolish all the branches of the federal gov't....it's the only way.

 
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: InfiniteMH on November 10, 2012, 11:39:24 AM
We need a brand new federal govn't. The only way to do this is to not vote ever again.

Abolish all the branches of the federal gov't....it's the only way.

(http://i.imgur.com/zrqWf.gif)
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: indeedproceed on November 10, 2012, 10:14:57 PM
Tweeter isn't gonna touch that with a 10 ft pole.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Moranis on November 13, 2012, 03:14:20 PM
I wonder if Portman had been selected as the VP candidate if it would have made a difference.  Portman is a fairly moderate Republican and it might have painted Romney more in the middle and away from the Religious right.  Thus making him more likeable by the independents in the middle of the country.  Portman is also very popular in Ohio and would have appealed a lot more in Florida and Virginia than Ryan did.  Heck even Wisconsin might have been a closer race with Portman. 
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Interceptor on November 13, 2012, 04:31:58 PM
I wonder if Portman had been selected as the VP candidate if it would have made a difference.  Portman is a fairly moderate Republican and it might have painted Romney more in the middle and away from the Religious right.  Thus making him more likeable by the independents in the middle of the country.  Portman is also very popular in Ohio and would have appealed a lot more in Florida and Virginia than Ryan did.  Heck even Wisconsin might have been a closer race with Portman.
Not much room there. Romney already won independents, and I don't think that any running mate short of JHC would have flipped that election for him. Even ignoring the possibility that a moderate Republican veep doesn't have any effect on keeping conservatives home.

Now that the dust has settled, it's becoming more and more apparent that one of the biggest contributing factors to the result, was the strength of Obama's campaign. The edge in D turnout, which everyone expected to fall short of the 2008 coalition... pretty much stayed where it used to be, which made him almost unbeatable. Only two states flipped.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Moranis on November 13, 2012, 04:43:21 PM
I wonder if Portman had been selected as the VP candidate if it would have made a difference.  Portman is a fairly moderate Republican and it might have painted Romney more in the middle and away from the Religious right.  Thus making him more likeable by the independents in the middle of the country.  Portman is also very popular in Ohio and would have appealed a lot more in Florida and Virginia than Ryan did.  Heck even Wisconsin might have been a closer race with Portman.
Not much room there. Romney already won independents, and I don't think that any running mate short of JHC would have flipped that election for him. Even ignoring the possibility that a moderate Republican veep doesn't have any effect on keeping conservatives home.

Now that the dust has settled, it's becoming more and more apparent that one of the biggest contributing factors to the result, was the strength of Obama's campaign. The edge in D turnout, which everyone expected to fall short of the 2008 coalition... pretty much stayed where it used to be, which made him almost unbeatable. Only two states flipped.
Romney held a very slim lead in independents and while only two states flipped, most of the key swing states got a lot closer then they were in the last election. 

I just think with Portman as his running mate, Romney would have gone to the middle a lot quicker and would have generally had a better more winnable platform to run on i.e. he wouldn't have come off so insincere because he wouldn't have gone to things he didn't believe.  With Ryan there Romney stayed on the right too long and it cost him big time (because that is not who Romney he is, he is a moderate, just like McCain who also ran way more to the right than his beliefs dictated he should have).
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: nickagneta on November 13, 2012, 06:11:42 PM
Honestly the biggest problem with the Republican ticket was Romney. He is a man who will flip flop on a whim to get voters, say whatever he has to to get votes, and omit saying whatever he has to to get votes. His stands on issues are everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

He went conservative in the primaries to win and painted himself as an ultra conservative, allowing his Republican running mates to bash him and when he tried to move moderate in the general election everything his Republican running mates came out with, Obama used against him.

He was a horrible candidate for this Republican Party to run out there and ultimately picking him to represent Republicans, lost this race before it got started.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: LooseCannon on November 13, 2012, 06:48:33 PM
People do know that while Romney won independents, Obama won moderates (although not as heavily as in 2008), right?
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: fairweatherfan on November 13, 2012, 06:50:54 PM
I wonder if Portman had been selected as the VP candidate if it would have made a difference.  Portman is a fairly moderate Republican and it might have painted Romney more in the middle and away from the Religious right.  Thus making him more likeable by the independents in the middle of the country.  Portman is also very popular in Ohio and would have appealed a lot more in Florida and Virginia than Ryan did.  Heck even Wisconsin might have been a closer race with Portman.
Not much room there. Romney already won independents, and I don't think that any running mate short of JHC would have flipped that election for him. Even ignoring the possibility that a moderate Republican veep doesn't have any effect on keeping conservatives home.

Now that the dust has settled, it's becoming more and more apparent that one of the biggest contributing factors to the result, was the strength of Obama's campaign. The edge in D turnout, which everyone expected to fall short of the 2008 coalition... pretty much stayed where it used to be, which made him almost unbeatable. Only two states flipped.

Those two points are actually pretty closely linked.  The reason why so many people thought the polls were skewed toward Democrats is the same reason why Romney had a decent lead among independents - a lot of conservatives no longer consider themselves Republicans.  Which is another cause for alarm in the GOP power structure.

Obama's ground game did pretty much run circles around Romney's though, just like McCain in 08.  That also contributed to the turnout differential.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 13, 2012, 07:07:50 PM
I think guys like Akins and Murdoch didn't help matters either.   Women favored Obama by a margin.   I still think the biggest reason the GOP lost was their primaries and the comments made during the primaries.  Anyone who thinks conservatism by itself can win without bringing more people simply doesn't understand the electorate anymore.   

I lived in Ohio for 42 years.  Portman is not popular there, I knew Obama had it once Kasich endorsed Romney.   Kasich is despised as governor.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: D.o.s. on November 14, 2012, 12:50:42 PM
I think guys like Akins and Murdoch didn't help matters either.   Women favored Obama by a margin.   I still think the biggest reason the GOP lost was their primaries and the comments made during the primaries.  Anyone who thinks conservatism by itself can win without bringing more people simply doesn't understand the electorate anymore.   

I lived in Ohio for 42 years.  Portman is not popular there, I knew Obama had it once Kasich endorsed Romney.   Kasich is despised as governor.

But isn't the point of conservatism to always be looking backward? If they try to understand this new electorate, they're acting, dare I say, progressive!

 ;D
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: BballTim on November 14, 2012, 09:32:35 PM
I think guys like Akins and Murdoch didn't help matters either.   Women favored Obama by a margin.   I still think the biggest reason the GOP lost was their primaries and the comments made during the primaries.  Anyone who thinks conservatism by itself can win without bringing more people simply doesn't understand the electorate anymore.   

I lived in Ohio for 42 years.  Portman is not popular there, I knew Obama had it once Kasich endorsed Romney.   Kasich is despised as governor.

But isn't the point of conservatism to always be looking backward? If they try to understand this new electorate, they're acting, dare I say, progressive!

 ;D

  There's two meanings for "progressive", right? There's "moving forward" and "I'm embarrassed to call myself a liberal". Clearly the republicans would be the former.
Title: Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
Post by: LB3533 on November 14, 2012, 11:13:53 PM
We need a brand new federal govn't. The only way to do this is to not vote ever again.

Abolish all the branches of the federal gov't....it's the only way.

(http://i.imgur.com/zrqWf.gif)

First, love the Five-0 reboot, my parents loved the original series.

2nd: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTf6OXlVbi4 ----- http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/21/cbs-news-affiliate-calls-2012-presidential-race-for-barack-obama-weeks-ahead-of-election/#ixzz2A2c5qV41

3rd: Don't call me naive or a fanatic or a conspiracy theorist. There is too much evidence out there that shows the fix is in.

The majority of the population ARE in fact naive and feel they are actually playing their proper part in helping this country, helping their own society their own world.

The reality is that it is all just a mirage, a fairytale masquerade.

The real naivity are the people who go out there and vote or who think that they are "doing their part" or a political officianato/expert.....WAKE UP!

You (the people) don't mean didly squat. Our gov't (if that's what you want to call it) doesn't mean didly squat. Maybe our gov't used to work for us, you know back in the day, but they don't work for us anymore. Heck, they don't even work for themselves anymore!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q