**2012 Election Day thread**

[RockRaines]

No way, because he would never get on the ballot. That's the problem with the GOP right now. The vast majority of the party doesn't care (or care enough) about those social issues, but a very strong minority does. And that minority has a good hold on the primary elections. So you have to come off as extreme and then get back towards the middle come election time. But at that point you've already got quotes and video clips saying those extreme things, so it doesn't play with independents and moderate voters.

 

Romney is closer to Obama than people think, especially on social issues. But like McCain he was forced to look much more extreme than he really is.

Thats whats unfortunate about these elections is that the person you are voting for is essentially lying because they are puppets of their party. In the GOP's case, they have decided that the extreme right was their base for victory so you have basically an Obamacare supporter telling everyone how evil it is. Behind the curtains for both parties are special interest groups who are paying for their opinions to be expressed.

 

s*** locally you had money being poured into advertising that would have helped our state and city dig themselves out of debt, instead we have Walsh being a deadbeat dad aired every 20 min.

[Soxbadger]

The Republican model is fundamentally flawed and is currently playing a losing game. This is nothing more than an extension of agrarian v urban models that were first seen in the Hamilton/Jefferson era.

 

Generally the US should get more diverse and become more urban. As long as the Republican party of the South wants to flip the bird to the urban population, they are always going to be starting from behind. Even Mitt Romney, a businessman former Governor of a northern state, had to completely disavow every plan that would have made him dangerous to Obama, just so that he could solidify the Republican core.

 

On Fox news last night, they had some people who got it. But there were others who just seemed to think that it was a bad campaign and that if Romney had been more tactical he could have won.

 

And its true Romney could have won, but his path would have been a hell of a lot easier if he could actually threaten in a state like California or New York. And its not like Republicans dont win there, its just Southern Republicans dont.

 

The model clearly shows you can punt the Confederacy and still win more times than not. What should be even more telling for the Republicans is that they havent even nominated a Presidential candidate who was born in a confederate state (at least not post WWII and I was to lazy to go back further.) The closest (to actually being a southerner) was GWB, but hes a pretty big exception as he is a legacy of pretty influential northern Republicans.

 

They really they just need to stop with the big govt social ideas, otherwise Id expect a bigger defeat in 2016, as the economy will likely be better and the country will be more diverse.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Soxbadger

[RockRaines]

Not you - you're fine - you live in Illinois. I wish I'd mentioned that earlier cuz it would have saved us all this headache, but primarily i'm talking about people who live in contested states. In THOSE states a third party vote risks moving backwards (ie: the "other guy" of the two viable candidates winning). the solid red or blues can do whatever they want.

 

it's NOT as big a deal in Illinois, and your point about the popular vote is well taken.

There's the real issue for me if I was forced to choose for one or the other the idea of "greater good" would mean either voting with my family who are mainly teachers, friends who are openly gay and support freedom of choice, or myself who financially should side with the GOP. I firmly believe governement shouldnt make our moral decisions for us and that women have rights to control their bodies, but at the same time that tax issue for people who make over 250k is attractive to me.

 

 

Glad that wasnt really a situation I was put in.

[RockRaines]

The Republican model is fundamentally flawed and is currently playing a losing game. This is nothing more than an extension of agrarian v urban models that were first seen in the Hamilton/Jefferson era.

 

Generally the US should get more diverse and become more urban. As long as the Republican party of the South wants to flip the bird to the urban population, they are always going to be starting from behind. Even Mitt Romney, a businessman former Governor of a northern state, had to completely disavow every plan that would have made him dangerous to Obama, just so that he could solidify the Republican core.

 

On Fox news last night, they had some people who got it. But there were others who just seemed to think that it was a bad campaign and that if Romney had been more tactical he could have won.

 

And its true Romney could have won, but his path would have been a hell of a lot easier if he could actually threaten in a state like California or New York. And its not like Republicans dont win there, its just Southern Republicans dont.

 

The model clearly shows you can punt the Confederacy and still win more times than not. What should be even more telling for the Republicans is that they havent even nominated a Presidential candidate who was born in a confederate state (at least not post WWII and I was to lazy to go back further.) The closest (to actually being a southerner) was GWB, but hes a pretty big exception as he is a legacy of pretty influential northern Republicans.

 

They really they just need to stop with the big govt social ideas, otherwise Id expect a bigger defeat in 2016, as the economy will likely be better and the country will be more diverse.

I was telling my fiance this lat night and she couldnt believe that I already counted states like Cal in Obama's favor before it even started. Republicans COULD take a state like that but far right politics will never help that cause.

[Reddy]

There's the real issue for me if I was forced to choose for one or the other the idea of "greater good" would mean either voting with my family who are mainly teachers, friends who are openly gay and support freedom of choice, or myself who financially should side with the GOP. I firmly believe governement shouldnt make our moral decisions for us and that women have rights to control their bodies, but at the same time that tax issue for people who make over 250k is attractive to me.

 

 

Glad that wasnt really a situation I was put in.

 

Personally that's not even tough. I'll vote for civil rights over my own financial self-interest every single time.

 

But you're right, that IS the choice people had to make.

[Soxbadger]

But even that choice is for those who make over $250k which is not 50% of America. And then of the people making $250k, some of them are going to pick social interests over money (I personally would burn money than vote against my social interests).

 

Economics isnt great for a party to hang their hat on because its too fickle, and often is related to the times, not to the actual policy.

 

In my opinion its a simple fix, really be about small govt. That means less govt in marriage, less govt in drugs, less govt in sex, less govt in immigration, less govt in the workplace, less govt period.

 

If the Republicans could run a candidate like that, 2016 could be really interesting.

[MexSoxFan#1]

if he gets a perfect 332 prediction I'll send him an email apologizing on behalf of all you disgraceful doubters here at Soxtalk

this made me lol

[StrangeSox]

But even that choice is for those who make over $250k which is not 50% of America. And then of the people making $250k, some of them are going to pick social interests over money (I personally would burn money than vote against my social interests).

 

Economics isnt great for a party to hang their hat on because its too fickle, and often is related to the times, not to the actual policy.

 

In my opinion its a simple fix, really be about small govt. That means less govt in marriage, less govt in drugs, less govt in sex, less govt in immigration, less govt in the workplace, less govt period.

 

If the Republicans could run a candidate like that, 2016 could be really interesting.

 

FWIW there was also a recent study that showed higher taxes on the top bracket aren't an economic drag, anyway, so it could mean higher taxes but with more robust growth and therefore more net income.

[Brian]

It's funny that after all the Trump tweets, Obama probably will end up with popular vote.

[MexSoxFan#1]

and colorado legalized marijuana for recreational use

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/a..._n_2079899.html

The Mexican drug cartels don't approve of this...

[NorthSideSox72]

The Republican model is fundamentally flawed and is currently playing a losing game. This is nothing more than an extension of agrarian v urban models that were first seen in the Hamilton/Jefferson era.

 

Generally the US should get more diverse and become more urban. As long as the Republican party of the South wants to flip the bird to the urban population, they are always going to be starting from behind. Even Mitt Romney, a businessman former Governor of a northern state, had to completely disavow every plan that would have made him dangerous to Obama, just so that he could solidify the Republican core.

 

On Fox news last night, they had some people who got it. But there were others who just seemed to think that it was a bad campaign and that if Romney had been more tactical he could have won.

 

And its true Romney could have won, but his path would have been a hell of a lot easier if he could actually threaten in a state like California or New York. And its not like Republicans dont win there, its just Southern Republicans dont.

 

The model clearly shows you can punt the Confederacy and still win more times than not. What should be even more telling for the Republicans is that they havent even nominated a Presidential candidate who was born in a confederate state (at least not post WWII and I was to lazy to go back further.) The closest (to actually being a southerner) was GWB, but hes a pretty big exception as he is a legacy of pretty influential northern Republicans.

 

They really they just need to stop with the big govt social ideas, otherwise Id expect a bigger defeat in 2016, as the economy will likely be better and the country will be more diverse.

 

I think by looking at this as urban vs rural, you are missing the key element that has risen dramatically since the 60's and 70's: suburbia and exurbia. That is where the battle is in the future, if you you are thinking in terms of geography.

 

Racial demographics of course are an obvious and large factor, as are age demographics, both of which are working against the Republicans. Minorities keep picking up a couple % points of the total electorate each 4 year cycle, and younger people are overwhelmingly bringing more liberal social views into the majority.

 

But income disparity is also HUGE, and Romney's 47% remarks were a huge blow for him.

 

[StrangeSox]

[Jake]

[southsider2k5]

You guys agree with Donald Trump on the Electoral College.

[NorthSideSox72]

You guys agree with Donald Trump on the Electoral College.

I certainly do. Doesn't change the fact that he is an ignoramus.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I think by looking at this as urban vs rural, you are missing the key element that has risen dramatically since the 60's and 70's: suburbia and exurbia. That is where the battle is in the future, if you you are thinking in terms of geography.

 

Racial demographics of course are an obvious and large factor, as are age demographics, both of which are working against the Republicans. Minorities keep picking up a couple % points of the total electorate each 4 year cycle, and younger people are overwhelmingly bringing more liberal social views into the majority.

 

But income disparity is also HUGE, and Romney's 47% remarks were a huge blow for him.

 

I think that got overblown and people didn't really buy it. He was still viewed as the better person to get us going economically. Race played a factor, though, for sure. 93% of blacks voted for Obama (racists!) and 71% of hispanics. I think Bush got like 44%, so that's a huge drop. And unmarried women really liked Obama more than Romney too. [i'll leave the easy joke about entitlements alone]

 

That to me is why the GOP has to give up on the social issues. Even if you're apathetic to gay marriage or abortion, don't make that an important part of your platform. Keep it about the economy (the conservative/capitalist philosophy is always favored over the liberal/socialist one) and the government getting too big.

[MexSoxFan#1]

Marriage equality won on the ballot in three states. Progressive champion Warren is in the Senate. Tammy Baldwin, the first openly gay Senator, was elected. Obama won with a strong electoral vote margin. This was a pretty solid night for liberals.

[Reddy]

I certainly do. Doesn't change the fact that he is an ignoramus.

remind me what your better alternative is?

[StrangeSox]

You guys agree with Donald Trump on the Electoral College.

 

Sure, and I agree with Hitler on national highway systems as well. That's why it's an ad hominem.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think that got overblown and people didn't really buy it. He was still viewed as the better person to get us going economically. Race played a factor, though, for sure. 93% of blacks voted for Obama (racists!) and 71% of hispanics. I think Bush got like 44%, so that's a huge drop. And unmarried women really liked Obama more than Romney too. [i'll leave the easy joke about entitlements alone]

 

That to me is why the GOP has to give up on the social issues. Even if you're apathetic to gay marriage or abortion, don't make that an important part of your platform. Keep it about the economy (the conservative/capitalist philosophy is always favored over the liberal/socialist one) and the government getting too big.

I disagree about the income thing being overblown... but I agree about the social issues. If you want to look at it in really general terms, the fiscal conservatism probably can win out, as long as it has some degree of reason (like being willing to put the taxes for high incomes only back to pre-Bush levels). But on the social issues, they are on the wrong side of history and all the relevant trends. They can't stay so far-right on those and expect to compete going forward.

 

And they probably will indeed become more moderate on some of those social issues. Parties change when their backs are against the wall. They may not come right out and SAY they are changing, but they will help and promote more moderate GOP candidates in the next cycles, effectively making that shift.

 

[southsider2k5]

Sure, and I agree with Hitler on national highway systems as well. That's why it's an ad hominem.

 

I just find it pretty humorous when Twitter would have looked very similar for liberals if it had been around in November 2000. I remember reading some of the same sorts of things on message boards back in the day. Especially on issues you agree with him on anyway.

[Jake]

You guys agree with Donald Trump on the Electoral College.

 

Reminds me of Nate Silver responding subtly to people clinging to Rasmussen Reports..."a broken clock is right twice a day"

 

I bet Donald Trump and I agree on lots of things...we're probably anti-murder, pro-breathing...I'm sure there are other things

[NorthSideSox72]

remind me what your better alternative is?

Alternative to Donald Trump? Being slowly consumed by pirahnas.

 

Alternative to the Electoral College? I don't want to hijack the thread again with that, but I made clear earlier, a popular national vote for the Presidency/VP (and only that office) is the only equitable and logical solution, in my view. You can go peruse the predictions thread for the detailed debate about that.

 

[StrangeSox]

I just find it pretty humorous when Twitter would have looked very similar for liberals if it had been around in November 2000. I remember reading some of the same sorts of things on message boards back in the day. Especially on issues you agree with him on anyway.

 

2000 should have resulted in armed revolution.

 

Trump's posts aren't funny because of the bitter, bitter tears but because Obama didn't lose the popular vote.

[southsider2k5]

2000 should have resulted in armed revolution.

 

Trump's posts aren't funny because of the bitter, bitter tears but because Obama didn't lose the popular vote.

 

Welcome back Mitt.