1. "1) One of the biggest reason I can think of for Obama's reelection is what I'd like to call the John Kerry Theory.The nomination of Mitt Romney reminds me a lot of Mr. Kerry in one big way.
John Kerry got the nomination, but he never really gained any real support to back him. No one believed in John Kerry or thought he was the greatest candidate to be president, they just wanted George W. Bush out."
very true, no one was super siked about Mitt Romney.
" With the nomination in hand, the only real advantage he had was simply the fact he was NOT Obama." Anybody but X movements fail more times than not.
"The democrats do speak out to the African Americans, the Latinos in america, the gays and lesbian groups in the United States. The Republican party has often viewed these groups of people as the problem, and that kind of mentality has put them at a disadvantage, and it will continue to cripple them if they don't change their viewpoints on the issues of race and life style."
yes and no. Things like this do change in a heartbeat. Remember, Reagan won the latino vote in the 80s over the Cuban issue.
I also think your talking about "social conservatives", as the term has changed of what they actually stand for. On social issues a good chunk of the GOP is left of mainstream democrats of the 1990s. Politicians change their views like they change their socks. You'd be a real fool to think that any politician is in office is going to stick to views that won't either
1) win him more corporate sponsorships 2) win him more votes
And this "republican losses", is definitely not as pronounced as you think it is. the democrats picked up two senators, one of which is an independent centrist who will caucus with the dems, but will avoid partisanism, and line towing. slight democrat gains were also had in the house, but the republicans still control the house
#1) I am well aware how a lot of republicans are more adapt on social issues, it's especially true up here where I live in WA state.
But the fact that many of the "social conservatives" that ran for congress and conservative talking heads that stand with them have certainly gained far more notoriety and publicity than the chunk of socially mainstream ones, and the GOP got viewed as such overall, whether they liked it or not.
#2)I know positions and outreach change in a heartbeat. I do remember when the GOP didn't give two craps about deficit reduction, and it was actually more of a democrat talking point. It wasn't until November 4th 2008 on the dot the GOP took a hard stance on fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction!
#3) Small Republican losses are still losses none the less!
" #2)I know positions and outreach change in a heartbeat. I do remember when the GOP didn't give two craps about deficit reduction, and it was actually more of a democrat talking point. It wasn't until November 4th 2008 on the dot the GOP took a hard stance on fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction!" thats awesome, you know sometimes out here, I feel like everyone things we've always been allied with eurasia against east asia.
"#3) Small Republican losses are still losses none the less!" I think my point is "stop getting cocky over small losses that could easily be reversed in two years"
my real question for the Dems is what is your stance, and what are you going to do about it. THis is about SOPA/PIPA. a good chunck of leftist bloggers, and other leftist grass roots activists and orgs took a hard stance against this nation's INSANE intellectual property laws and how we are starting to play world police with them.
The democrat party balked, and it looks like the republican party might take it up.
Now its still really really early, and if the dems don't want to loose everything they've worked really hard.(and they have), it'd be in their best intrest to get out and front and take this issue back before it sinks them. The republicans have really yet to hark on it, so its not a republican issue yet, but if they make it one, its not going to be good for the democrats.
Defending Intellectual property as it stands now is a loosing proposition that will split the democrats George McGovern Style.
Some free advice, is that the republicans, even libertarians don't like the concept of the public internet, or net neutrality, preserving the rights of networks to censor content as they see fit.
If the dems or anyone else, not the republicans want the high ground on internet matters, they have in my predictions about 6 months to take it.
The Tea Party in particular has actually crippled the GOP, demanding a succession of partisan and unelectable nominees. Worse, it turned Romney's [disingenuous] attempts to appear moderate into a hardline conservative platform, that he was trying to distance himself from. When the Presidential candidate has to distance himself habitually from his own party members he's not getting anywhere near the White House.
I don't see how this is so shocking to anyone. As a Canadian barely caring for American politics, I saw this coming a mile away. Aside from fucking himself royally, Mitt hardly stood a chance. Most presidents serve two terms. The real nail-biter will be in four more years.
Yup! He started with a fighting chance and dunked it right in a gas station toilet, by doing really stupid shit, like kbadmouthing the poor. I guess he forgot that the poor, and those who know and care about poor people, do in fact vote. He also stepped in line with a fringe group dedicated to "proving" Obama is an illegal alien, even allowing human face race/conspiracy king, Jerome Corsi to ride shotgun on the last leg of his campaign. You average voter is repulsed by conspiracy theorists, and you are judged by the company you keep.
Not to mention he insulted pretty much every country he visited. May not be a major thing but it would have helped his already bad image. Hell even Fox news said he was a complete idiot when he came over to Britain during the olympics and started knocking them. I guess he wanted to stroke his ego by convincing himself his games were better...
Ultimately the Republican party is going to wipe itself out if they don't start appealing to minorities more. The white male population is making up a smaller portion of the US electorate and the Republicans have refused consistantly to accept that. Also the Republicans are losing lots of people with their social conservatism. Much as they'd like to pretend only economic things matter, people care about the social things as well and it showed in 2012 when those 2 senators who made the stupid comments about women lost their otherwise secure places.
"Republican party is going to wipe itself out if they don't start appealing to minorities more."
It will happen in a heartbeat, just as did it did last time.
the "Party of Lincoln" had a stranglehold on the black vote for a century. It wasn't until the "southern strategy", of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign, after the democrats passed civil rights legislation.
Everyone knows about Romney's 47% comment. I personally don't find it to be any worse than Obama's comments in 2008 stating that Rural blue collar conservatives "....get bitter, and they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them.."
The sum total of all reality. The fact that he thinks that not even the bottom 10 or 15%, but the entire bottom 50% of earners in the country are lazy shits who have no responsibility makes it a little obvious where his head is.
Are you referring to his "47%" comment? He isn't that far off. There are ~45% of R and D who vote strictly party lines. Makes sense to campaign towards the ones who actually thinks about the candidate instead of wasting energy on folk who wouldn't vote for him anyway.
His message carries far more bite than the rather tame "Most of the country is partisan, and I won't try to appeal to strongly partisan Democrats":
"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And that the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what
And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49, 4- he starts off with a huge number. Theses are people who pay no income tax. 47% of Americans pay no income tax." - Mitt Romney.
"The problem I have with this, not being a Democrat, is that he left a large number of his own supporters out to dry. The elderly, between-jobs-republicans and the religious poor make up a significant part of the percentage of people who pay no federal income taxes, and they were all painted as 'The Enemy.'"
Don't bother, I made a thread pointing that out and everyone told me I was just making shit up and blowing hot air.
Okay... I know how politics work. He was implying that anyone who is strictly democrat is automatically a leech to society. That's a far cry from pointing out that there are certain people who won't be voting for him in general.
He didn't limit his comment to just that though, he went on to attack their character and everything about them. Essentially if you voted Obama it could only be because you lacked responsibility and were some lazy scrounger. He was too small minded to accept that people who were perfectly well off, intelligent, rich etc could possible vote for someone other than him.