Author Topic: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good  (Read 26585 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
« Reply #45 on: November 08, 2012, 12:20:19 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41548
  • Tommy Points: 2317
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
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.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
« Reply #46 on: November 08, 2012, 12:21:03 PM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23522
  • Tommy Points: 1007
  • What a Pub Should Be
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.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
« Reply #47 on: November 08, 2012, 12:28:42 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
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.

Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
« Reply #48 on: November 08, 2012, 12:29:56 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41548
  • Tommy Points: 2317
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.


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

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
« Reply #49 on: November 08, 2012, 12:33:16 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1970
  • Tommy Points: 224
What's up with Nevada?

Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
« Reply #50 on: November 08, 2012, 12:35:55 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31672
  • Tommy Points: 5235
What's up with Nevada?
The people in Vegas know a winner when they see one, regardless of how uneducated they may be. :D

Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
« Reply #51 on: November 08, 2012, 12:55:42 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1970
  • Tommy Points: 224
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.

Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
« Reply #52 on: November 08, 2012, 01:03:35 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18043
  • Tommy Points: 2430
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
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.

Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
« Reply #53 on: November 08, 2012, 01:05:57 PM »

Offline Rondo2287

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12994
  • Tommy Points: 815


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
CB Draft LA Lakers: Lamarcus Aldridge, Carmelo Anthony,Jrue Holiday, Wes Matthews  6.11, 7.16, 8.14, 8.15, 9.16, 11.5, 11.16

Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
« Reply #54 on: November 08, 2012, 01:08:31 PM »

Offline Timdawgg

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1183
  • Tommy Points: 565
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.
"If I had to choose a player to take a shot to save a game I'd choose Michael Jordan; If I had to choose a player to take a shot to save my life...I'd take Larry Bird." - Pat Riley

Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
« Reply #55 on: November 08, 2012, 01:44:28 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18043
  • Tommy Points: 2430
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
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/

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. 

Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
« Reply #56 on: November 08, 2012, 02:06:04 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5342
  • Tommy Points: 898
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.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
« Reply #57 on: November 08, 2012, 02:16:12 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1970
  • Tommy Points: 224
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.

Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
« Reply #58 on: November 08, 2012, 02:16:42 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4146
  • Tommy Points: 360
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.)

Re: GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good
« Reply #59 on: November 08, 2012, 02:16:57 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12306
  • Tommy Points: 353
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").
Celtics fan for life.