2012 Presidential Campaign

[SirFozzie]

Mourdock, Akin, Angle, etcetera all agree with you Jon.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We haven't seen it tried in November for at least 8 years.

2 worthless lightweights have accomplished nothing except to insure 8 years of the (currently) second worst president in history.

If you're gonna lose anyway then why not at least do so with a chance of actually gaining something?

We have seen it tried in a large number of swing states and those candidates lose consistently.

It can be tried, but it'll just end up in a landslide. These people can't even get the votes of their own party, they aren't going to get the votes of the people in the middle required to win a general election.

If people in the party want to put out a super conservative and lose by double digits, go for it. But I think the smart people of the party realize that it's not a sound strategy.

[stevew]

Just looking at some results and it's amazing how shitty the democrats are in the ground game right now. PA goes solidly Obama, yet has a 5/13 split of it's house members. Ohio is 4/12. Florida 10/17. Virginia 3/8. If you even get those numbers to 50/50, you are pretty close to having a house majority.

[CrimsonFox]

[Neon_Chaos]

Hooooray for legalized marijuana!

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

She should camp the guy and make him take rez sickness..

(kidding)

WoW contigency hahaha! I'm sure there will be a city named after her soon with a probable holiday quest event coming.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Hooooray for legalized marijuana!

My hands are HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE (and can now marry each other!)

[mckerney]

Hooooray for the weeks of counting that may ensue in Florida being nothing more than an amusing and fairly meaningless sideshow.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

I don't see legalization causing a bunch of new smokers to emerge. Knowing that it is legal, I would much rather drive somewhere first and then smoke there. I can understand the not wanting to smell it sentiment, although I have never really found the odor to be off putting really.. But I just don't think driving while high is going to become much more common just because its legal now. If it is done the same way as alcohol, then driving stoned could get you a DUI anyway, so why risk it when you don't have to anymore?

I know we're talking about potheads, but I must view them in a more favorable light because I didn't know many stupid ones. Most of them were intelligent and thoughtful enough to be respectful of their fellow citizens. The ones that tended to be more thoughtless were also popping pills and drinking and other dumb shit. I think this will be a net positive for Colorado, especially with regard to their economy and crime rates. Drug dealers are going to have a much smaller base to deal to if it becomes widely available like alcohol.

Wait are you guys saying now that pot is legal that you will have to smell it everywhere you go? NOW that it is legal? You perhaps have never been to Seattle. or any rock concert for that matter.

[CrimsonFox]

Did you notice that if you look at all the red states, they resemble a high-heel shoe with a bow on it. And it's squishing Florida. So the bible belt is now a bible high-heel.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

Did you notice that if you look at all the red states, they resemble a high-heel shoe with a bow on it. And it's squishing Florida. So the bible belt is now a bible high-heel.

Could Democrats, Republicans Unite; Vote In Way That Draws Penis On Electoral Map?

[CrimsonFox]

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Mourdock, Akin, Angle, etcetera all agree with you Jon.

Thankfully they are no longer referred to as SENATOR Mourdock and Akin.
Wondering if the republican party is done dealing with the tea party yet.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Could Democrats, Republicans Unite; Vote In Way That Draws Penis On Electoral Map?

The best part of that is the tag about "A confused John McCain who is preparing to give a concession speech."

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by stevew

Just looking at some results and it's amazing how shitty the democrats are in the ground game right now. PA goes solidly Obama, yet has a 5/13 split of it's house members. Ohio is 4/12. Florida 10/17. Virginia 3/8. If you even get those numbers to 50/50, you are pretty close to having a house majority.

That's more about redistricting so that the Dems are hobbled.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We haven't seen it tried in November for at least 8 years.

2 worthless lightweights have accomplished nothing except to insure 8 years of the (currently) second worst president in history.

If you're gonna lose anyway then why not at least do so with a chance of actually gaining something?

This is what I'm talking about. If it was just the top of the ticket, fine, but nominating hard-right candidates definitely cost the Republicans at least 2 Senate seats (MO, IN), and led to the 3rd straight Senate cycle where Republicans barely held on to their ability to Filibuster. Next election is primed for a huge Republican pickup with 6 Democratic senators up for re-election in states that voted decisively for Romney (Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia) and 5 of the 7 up for re-election from swing states (Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Maine, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia) also Democratic. With a mid-term election on a lame-duck President you could potentially see a huge Republican wave that brings the Senate back close to 50-50, but you (likely) won't because the Republicans will nominate 2 or 3 idiots that lose states that should be gift-wrapped for their party.

[RendeR]

When the GoP gets their head out of the FAR right-wing's ass they might start wining those battles again. Instead they keep pandering to the minority of their party and its killing them.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by RendeR

When the GoP gets their head out of the FAR right-wing's ass they might start wining those battles again. Instead they keep pandering to the minority of their party and its killing them.

The problem is that's where their money is. They can't win elections without money from people like the Koch brothers and they can't win elections without the hardcore Fundie support and money.

The GOP is going to have a hard time holding on to that core and reaching out to the other groups they need to move forward. They've spend decades playing "us versus them" politics - making their base so afraid of anything different that they have to vote for the GOP - that it's going to be quite difficult. How do you add groups to your tent that you've spend decades making your base fear and hate?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

The problem is that's where their money is. They can't win elections without money from people like the Koch brothers and they can't win elections without the hardcore Fundie support and money.

The GOP is going to have a hard time holding on to that core and reaching out to the other groups they need to move forward. They've spend decades playing "us versus them" politics - making their base so afraid of anything different that they have to vote for the GOP - that it's going to be quite difficult. How do you add groups to your tent that you've spend decades making your base fear and hate?

You don't, you simply continue pointing at everyone else and telling your followers "its all THEY'RE fault".

Since we can see how well that works for them I expect nothing more from them and will sit back and smile as they go down in flames for years to come.

[sterlingice]

They're not dummies. There are dumb people in every group, sure, but the powers that be in the GOP aren't complete morons. There is a reason they are in charge and it's not because they are the big into martyrdom and suicide runs. If you can find a way to sweep the Hispanic vote into your tent with a conservative Christian message, don't their problems go away? They will alienate some of their white base but they have nowhere to go so the gambit will be to keep them because the Democrats "are even worse for them".

SI

[RendeR]

To do that they have to do a radical 180 degree turn on immigration, something the GoP will never do. Until that happens no christian message is going to matter as long as you keep waving the "its not your country, go HOME" flags around.

[RendeR]

I do agree with a number of commentators that this loss forces the GoP to go into an internal fight for control and to adjust their platform in some useful way.

Thats a fight I'd love to watch live because some of the nuttier ideas in American politics will surface and actually gain followers =)

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

They're not dummies. There are dumb people in every group, sure, but the powers that be in the GOP aren't complete morons. There is a reason they are in charge and it's not because they are the big into martyrdom and suicide runs. If you can find a way to sweep the Hispanic vote into your tent with a conservative Christian message, don't their problems go away? They will alienate some of their white base but they have nowhere to go so the gambit will be to keep them because the Democrats "are even worse for them".

SI

That's going to be difficult. CA prop 187 was seen as the start of a war on Hispanics. The constant rhetoric since then, including right-wing border patrols, immigration "reform", Arizona's recent "driving while brown" law, and the voter ID legislation in many states are all seen as further attacks on Hispanic voters. You just can't appeal to Hispanics from a religious standpoint and expect them to come into the fold after 20 years of attacking them.

As Render says above, the GOP has been allowing (encouraging?) elements of their base to directly attack Hispanics while indirectly attacking them in many ways. It's not just a matter of saying "come on over here and vote for us". Romney tried that and failed miserably. And if the GOP does start making serious overtures to Hispanic voters, how much of their diehard supporters feel alienated by that "betrayal"? The whole GOP election strategy as been "us vs then" since the Republican Revolution in 1994. The Democrats learned how to counter that by just making their tent more inclusive. That's not going to be something easily flipped.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

That's going to be difficult. CA prop 187 was seen as the start of a war on Hispanics. The constant rhetoric since then, including right-wing border patrols, immigration "reform", Arizona's recent "driving while brown" law, and the voter ID legislation in many states are all seen as further attacks on Hispanic voters. You just can't appeal to Hispanics from a religious standpoint and expect them to come into the fold after 20 years of attacking them.

DING!

[Peregrine]

I have to say this is a great concession speech - Romney looks like a thousand pound weight is off his shoulders.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

That's going to be difficult. CA prop 187 was seen as the start of a war on Hispanics. The constant rhetoric since then, including right-wing border patrols, immigration "reform", Arizona's recent "driving while brown" law, and the voter ID legislation in many states are all seen as further attacks on Hispanic voters. You just can't appeal to Hispanics from a religious standpoint and expect them to come into the fold after 20 years of attacking them.

As Render says above, the GOP has been allowing (encouraging?) elements of their base to directly attack Hispanics while indirectly attacking them in many ways. It's not just a matter of saying "come on over here and vote for us". Romney tried that and failed miserably. And if the GOP does start making serious overtures to Hispanic voters, how much of their diehard supporters feel alienated by that "betrayal"? The whole GOP election strategy as been "us vs then" since the Republican Revolution in 1994. The Democrats learned how to counter that by just making their tent more inclusive. That's not going to be something easily flipped.

No, you can't. But you can soften your image if you start up the echo chamber with orders from the top to do a 180. For instance, Rush will turn on a dime if he sees that he will eventually be on the losing side. He knows the part he plays.

SI

[bronconick]

The irony is that they don't have to do anything right away. 2014 will be a replay of 2010. People aren't going to wait in line for 4 hours in a midterm election, so the electorate will be much whiter and older again.

I expect their first move to be throwing Rubio or someone like that in 2016 at the top of the ticket to give the appearance of changing without having to do anything.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

They can't win elections without money from people like the Koch brothers and they can't win elections without the hardcore Fundie support and money.

Apparently, they also can't win elections with this money as well.

It is interesting to see the voting results despite the reports of vast sums of money coming from super pacs. It goes against the general belief that election results correlate with money raised. How are these hundreds of milllions of dollars spent? Ultimately, was is the ROI on this money? Is it still effective in some subtle way?

[sterlingice]

One could argue that with the changing demographics, it could have been a much worse night without all the money spent.

SI

[Sun Tzu]

The fact that same-sex marriage is illegal anywhere in this country is sickening, and IMO, anyone who opposes it is no better a person than those who supported slavery.

[lighthousekeeper]

well we know one thing about Sun Tzu: he must not be married, or else he's know it's not all that it's cracked up to be.

[Sun Tzu]

Hahaha

I will be celebrating my 5 year wedding anniversary next August...with my Wife. Though I do have gay in-laws that took advantage of the small window to get married in San Francisco a few years back.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Hahaha

I will be celebrating my 5 year wedding anniversary next August...with my Wife. Though I do have gay in-laws that took advantage of the small window to get married in San Francisco a few years back.

IIRC from Facebook who you are too - your wife is very pretty. So there's that for you to trumpet also.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

IIRC from Facebook who you are too - your wife is very pretty. So there's that for you to trumpet also.

Yes, my friend, you do RC.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by bronconick

The irony is that they don't have to do anything right away. 2014 will be a replay of 2010. People aren't going to wait in line for 4 hours in a midterm election, so the electorate will be much whiter and older again.

I expect their first move to be throwing Rubio or someone like that in 2016 at the top of the ticket to give the appearance of changing without having to do anything.

I think this election is an indicator of what you will see in 2014 IF the GoP doesn't appear to work with the President and get things done in the government. If they stonewall and filibuster and go the "anything but Obama's *insert project*" then you'll see a swing back to the left in 2014 as strong or stronger than we saw to the right in 2010.

I told Telle the day Romney announced Ryan as his running mate "This is the single biggest mistake he can make. With Ryan he loses, with Rubio he can win."

[Arles]

At this point, elections have now become 75% on how likeable the candidate is and how people relate to them/want to support them. Reagan, Clinton, W and Obama have each won in situations where the deck was stacked against them. Clinton in 1992 over HW, W over Gore in 2000 (despite a strong economy under Clinton), W over Kerry in 2004 (bad economy/war) and Obama in 2012 (bad economy).

All the republicans need to do is grab a handful of independents and women in 2016 to pull the same margin Obama had. Assuming the democrats don't nominate another candidate like Obama, it's doubtful the young vote and hispanic/black turnout is close to 08/12. That plus having a more likeable candidate could easily swing the election back to republicans in 2016. I would say that they do need to be more selective with their candidates for senate in swing states and not go with people who openly say they favor outlawing abortion even in cases of rape. But, outside of that, I don't see any changes needed for the republican platform to win in 2016.

Both sides should be looking for the most likeable candidates possible and not worry as much about individual platforms/issues. At the end of the day, the base is voting on the letter and the independents are voting on who they like more. The rest (ie, meat of the campaigns) is just filler.

[DanGarion]

Thread closed, campaign over.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by stevew

Just looking at some results and it's amazing how shitty the democrats are in the ground game right now. PA goes solidly Obama, yet has a 5/13 split of it's house members. Ohio is 4/12. Florida 10/17. Virginia 3/8. If you even get those numbers to 50/50, you are pretty close to having a house majority.

There's a definite disconnect in a lot of states, but the Dems trouble at that level is that the GOP was winning the ground game from about 1994-2006 and it's going to take decades for the Dems to overcome those redistributing woes.

Look at Missouri ... Generally perceived as a swing state turned red. Romney wins in a landslide, Congressional delegation and statehouse GOP dominated. But Dems win 6 of 7 statewide offices last night.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

At this point, elections have now become 75% on how likeable the candidate is and how people relate to them/want to support them. Reagan, Clinton, W and Obama have each won in situations where the deck was stacked against them. Clinton in 1992 over HW, W over Gore in 2000 (despite a strong economy under Clinton), W over Kerry in 2004 (bad economy/war) and Obama in 2012 (bad economy).

All the republicans need to do is grab a handful of independents and women in 2016 to pull the same margin Obama had. Assuming the democrats don't nominate another candidate like Obama, it's doubtful the young vote and hispanic/black turnout is close to 08/12. That plus having a more likeable candidate could easily swing the election back to republicans in 2016. I would say that they do need to be more selective with their candidates for senate in swing states and not go with people who openly say they favor outlawing abortion even in cases of rape. But, outside of that, I don't see any changes needed for the republican platform to win in 2016.

Both sides should be looking for the most likeable candidates possible and not worry as much about individual platforms/issues. At the end of the day, the base is voting on the letter and the independents are voting on who they like more. The rest (ie, meat of the campaigns) is just filler.

*sigh*

Please go read my retort to this in the other thread. This is just wrong.

[Arles]

Blackadar, tell me the last "less likeable" candidate who won a presidential election?

Just look back:

Clinton/HW - Clinton more likeable
Clinton/Dole - Clinton more likeable
W/Gore - W more likeable
W/Kerry - W more likeable
Obama/McCain - Obama more likeable
Obama/Romney - Obama more likeable

If issues are the reasons that a candidate wins - why did W win in 2008 and Obama win in 2016?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

Blackadar, tell me the last "less likeable" candidate who won a presidential election?

Just look back:

Clinton/HW - Clinton more likeable
Clinton/Dole - Clinton more likeable
W/Gore - W more likeable
W/Kerry - W more likeable
Obama/McCain - Obama more likeable
Obama/Romney - Obama more likeable

If issues are the reasons that a candidate wins - why did W win in 2008 and Obama win in 2016?

And how do you define likeability, Arles? By the guy that wins? Exactly where are your facts that the majority of people found Clinton to be more likeable than Bush and that it motivated them to vote that way? Many people thought Bush was pretty likeable in 1990 - his 89% approval rating was the best rating ever recorded. So how did he lose? Did he suddenly become unlikeable? Or is it far more likely that the economic downturn of 1991-1992 cost Bush the election?

What you're projecting is that YOU *think* one is more likeable than the other *and* that was the overriding reason that individual won the election. In good times that very well may be the case. But these aren't good times.

[sterlingice]

There's a bit of a caveat of that being a sample size of 6 with the problem of correlation not causation.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

And how do you define likeability, Arles? By the guy that wins? Exactly where are your facts that the majority of people found Clinton to be more likeable than Bush and that it motivated them to vote that way? Many people thought Bush was pretty likeable in 1990 - his 89% approval rating was the best rating ever recorded. So how did he lose? Did he suddenly become unlikeable? Or is it far more likely that the economic downturn of 1991-1992 cost Bush the election?

What you're projecting is that YOU *think* one is more likeable than the other *and* that was the overriding reason that individual won the election. In good times that very well may be the case. But these aren't good times.

I'm sure he could go into likeability ratings, but c'mon. Are you quibbling with any of the "who is more likeable" things he's said? Furthermore, approval ratings and personal likeability ratings are slightly different, IIRC. Go for the small sample size argument instead .

I do think that is undeniable that the "I'd like to have a drink with him" test is pretty big for a lot of folks. It's the main reason I think that George W. Bush beat John Kerry in 2004 for example.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Apparently, they also can't win elections with this money as well.

It is interesting to see the voting results despite the reports of vast sums of money coming from super pacs. It goes against the general belief that election results correlate with money raised. How are these hundreds of milllions of dollars spent? Ultimately, was is the ROI on this money? Is it still effective in some subtle way?

If you've read "Freakonomics", it shows that spending money on elections past a certain point is rather irrelevant.

[Galaxy]

BTW, the stock market is off around 350 points. Not a positive outlook on the election.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

BTW, the stock market is off around 350 points. Not a positive outlook on the election.

And the ECB President's warning that the European economy will continue to be sluggish has nothing to do with it...



If someone thinks the market didn't already anticipate an Obama re-election and price itself accordingly, they really don't understand politics or economics.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

And the ECB President's warning that the European economy will continue to be sluggish has nothing to do with it...



If someone thinks the market didn't already anticipate an Obama re-election and price itself accordingly, they really don't understand politics or economics.

So how many electoral votes does Fantasyland carry since you're from that area?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm sure he could go into likeability ratings, but c'mon. Are you quibbling with any of the "who is more likeable" things he's said? Furthermore, approval ratings and personal likeability ratings are slightly different, IIRC. Go for the small sample size argument instead .

I do think that is undeniable that the "I'd like to have a drink with him" test is pretty big for a lot of folks. It's the main reason I think that George W. Bush beat John Kerry in 2004 for example.

I joked the other day that all the Dems have to do to keep winning elections is to make sure they nominate someone "cool." Basically, energize that youth vote that is more prone to a liberal mindset. Clinton? Saxaphone on Arsenio. Obama? Well, any number of reasons. Gore and Kerry were...well, just largely boring (could be argued that Gore became much cooler post-election).

So, nominate the young and/or hip. Don't nominate the boring white guys.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

There's a definite disconnect in a lot of states, but the Dems trouble at that level is that the GOP was winning the ground game from about 1994-2006 and it's going to take decades for the Dems to overcome those redistributing woes.

Look at Missouri ... Generally perceived as a swing state turned red. Romney wins in a landslide, Congressional delegation and statehouse GOP dominated. But Dems win 6 of 7 statewide offices last night.

It'll be interesting to see if Missouri opts-out of ObamaCare after the results.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

BTW, the stock market is off around 350 points. Not a positive outlook on the election.

2 words for you: fiscal cliff.