Official 2012 Election Day Thread

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

To me, the Republican loss means 2 things:

1st - Republicans need to step away from the whole, "We're God's platform" mentality. Blue dog democrats in places like Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa would easily vote Republican if they weren't faced with religion thrown in their face every debate and having to deal with far-right social issues. If Republicans left social issues alone and tried their hardest to focus on fiscal issues, they'd get the right, moderates and independents. Statements like (and I'm paraphrasing), if a women gets pregnant due to a rape, it must've been God's will, is why people (or at least I can't) take Republicans seriously. When it comes to social issues, staying as close to the middle as possible, is key.

2nd: I don't know how long Republicans are going to continue ignoring minorities. Obama won 73% of Hispanics and 71% of Asians and 93% of African-Americans. Since I know someone will argue, African-Americans won't vote for a white guy if there's a black guy running, what about Hispanics and Asians? Obama got more Latinos this election than LAST election and in 2004 Bush practically had Hispanics all over his jock. (Granted there was a lower Hispanic turnout). Hell, Bush even got 10% of the black vote.

I could be totally wrong, but I feel like you can't ignore minorities, least you could do is humor them like you're after their vote.

Good post. I agree.
Serious stuff to think about.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

To me, the Republican loss means 2 things:

1st - Republicans need to step away from the whole, "We're God's platform" mentality. Blue dog democrats in places like Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa would easily vote Republican if they weren't faced with religion thrown in their face every debate and having to deal with far-right social issues. If Republicans left social issues alone and tried their hardest to focus on fiscal issues, they'd get the right, moderates and independents. Statements like (and I'm paraphrasing), if a women gets pregnant due to a rape, it must've been God's will, is why people (or at least I can't) take Republicans seriously. When it comes to social issues, staying as close to the middle as possible, is key.

2nd: I don't know how long Republicans are going to continue ignoring minorities. Obama won 73% of Hispanics and 71% of Asians and 93% of African-Americans. Since I know someone will argue, African-Americans won't vote for a white guy if there's a black guy running, what about Hispanics and Asians? Obama got more Latinos this election than LAST election and in 2004 Bush practically had Hispanics all over his jock. (Granted there was a lower Hispanic turnout). Hell, Bush even got 10% of the black vote.

I could be totally wrong, but I feel like you can't ignore minorities, least you could do is humor them like you're after their vote.

Good post.

Young voters and minorities, that's where Republicans went wrong. They have a lot of work to do.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

1st - Republicans need to step away from the whole, "We're God's platform" mentality. Blue dog democrats in places like Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa would easily vote Republican if they weren't faced with religion thrown in their face every debate and having to deal with far-right social issues. If Republicans left social issues alone and tried their hardest to focus on fiscal issues, they'd get the right, moderates and independents. Statements like (and I'm paraphrasing), if a women gets pregnant due to a rape, it must've been God's will, is why people (or at least I can't) take Republicans seriously. When it comes to social issues, staying as close to the middle as possible, is key.

Best approach on gay marriage and abortion in the short term is the John McCain approach "thats an issue best left to the states." Also saying you believe in traditional marriage and are pro life but don't want to impose your beliefs on other people would be a winner in the near future for the Republican party. Obviously they can't change overnight but they need to start moving toward the center.

Long term though they need to drop the positions on social issues. It's a looser. Fiscal conservatism is still alive and well but virtually everything else on the GOP platform is outdated.

Funny thing I learned recently about the Christian Right is that up until around the late 70's no one ever really talked or elaborated on religion in politics mainly because it was a huge risk to say you were a Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, etc. Back in the 60's there were people worried Kennedy would answer and decide policy based on advice from the pope. People even asked for assurances that he would observe separation of Church and State.

Somehow it evolved where everyone got united under the word "Christian" and now it doesn't really matter what sect you belong to so long as you declare yourself Christian. Back then Romney being a Mormon in a Presidential Primary would have most likely been a huge dealbreaker for many voters. Today it's more "well as long as he's Christian" on top of guys like Newt Gingrich blaming "secularism" for the nations problems.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Best approach on gay marriage and abortion in the short term is the John McCain approach "thats an issue best left to the states." Also saying you believe in traditional marriage and are pro life but don't want to impose your beliefs on other people would be a winner in the near future for the Republican party. Obviously they can't change overnight but they need to start moving toward the center.

Long term though they need to drop the positions on social issues. It's a looser. Fiscal conservatism is still alive and well but virtually everything else on the GOP platform is outdated.

Funny thing I learned recently about the Christian Right is that up until around the late 70's no one ever really talked or elaborated on religion in politics mainly because it was a huge risk to say you were a Baptist, Catholic, Evangelical, etc. Back in the 60's there were people worried Kennedy would answer and decide policy based on advice from the pope. People even asked for assurances that he would observe separation of Church and State.

Somehow it evolved where everyone got united under the word "Christian" and now it doesn't really matter what sect you belong to so long as you declare yourself Christian. Back then Romney being a Mormon in a Presidential Primary would have most likely been a huge dealbreaker for many voters. Today it's more "well as long as he's Christian" on top of guys like Newt Gingrich blaming "secularism" for the nations problems.

You do know that was what Romney said over and over again. Just shows that the Dem. advertising worked.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You do know that was what Romney said over and over again. Just shows that the Dem. advertising worked.

You mean the ads where Romney himself is saying and I quote"I will overturn Roe V Wade, and I will get rid of Planned Parenthood"end quote...you mean those ads?

[NC_Skins]

Nate Silver-Led Statistics Men Crush Pundits in Election - Businessweek

I think people need to pay more attention to this guy. At least he was willing to put his money where his mouth (and stats) was.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Nate Silver-Led Statistics Men Crush Pundits in Election - Businessweek

I think people need to pay more attention to this guy. At least he was willing to put his money where his mouth (and stats) was.

Those FOX news polls were all bullshit. surprise right?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Nate Silver-Led Statistics Men Crush Pundits in Election - Businessweek

I think people need to pay more attention to this guy. At least he was willing to put his money where his mouth (and stats) was.

He crushed it.

[saden1]

Linda McMahon...spent 97 million and got nothing but the loathing of both Dems and Republicans. Character matters and she has none.

[firstdown]

With 46 million people on food stamps Obama only needed another 20 million votes.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

With 46 million people on food stamps Obama only needed another 20 million votes.

The irony about welfare is that it's the GOP that constantly bitch about welfare, yet it's the RED states that actually consume the majority of it. Seems the liberals give out more yet aren't the ones bitching about it.

[mlmpetert]

I wanted to find out how brian banks the footballer was doing in the ufl. Ended up hearing about this dude:

Ex-convict Brian Banks wins Michigan state representative seat on Election Day | The Daily Caller

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The irony about welfare is that it's the GOP that constantly bitch about welfare, yet it's the RED states that actually consume the majority of it. Seems the liberals give out more yet aren't the ones bitching about it.

That chart is 1. From 2004 and 2. Is about all federal spending.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by firstdown

That chart is 1. From 2004 and 2. Is about all federal spending.

yeah its slanted. you gotta look up actual welfare case work to get who is actually receiving help. California is something like 4 times everybody else. New York and Texas i think round out the top 3.

[12thMan]

The irony about Welfare and First's post is that both parties secretly like it. It's stimulus by another name. Much better for the economy if people are spending money and looking for employment, than just looking for employment or sitting on their broke asses all day.