**2012 Election Day thread**

[Reddy]

Interesting. The final stats show Romney actually got less votes than McCain and a lot less than Bush. Clearly, Mittens did not get the GOP base out, even though they are totally against Obama. But that's what happens when you nominate a far left wing Republican. Time to get back to basics and bribe the base with free stuff.

fewer

[mr_genius]

fewer

 

get outta here

[caulfield12]

get outta here

 

 

Peggy Noonan, wsjonline.com

 

Mr. Genius, I doubt you will read it, but I would like to see your reaction to this op-ed piece.

 

 

President Obama did not lose, he won. It was not all that close. There was enthusiasm on his side. Mitt Romney's assumed base did not fully emerge, or rather emerged as smaller than it used to be. He appears to have received fewer votes than John McCain. The last rallies of his campaign neither signaled nor reflected a Republican resurgence. Mr Romney's air of peaceful dynamism was the product of a false optimism that, in the closing days, buoyed some conservatives and swept some Republicans. While GOP voters were proud to assert their support with lawn signs, Democratic professionals were quietly organizing, data mining and turning out the vote. Their effort was a bit of a masterpiece; it will likely change national politics forever. Mr. Obama was perhaps not joyless but dogged, determined, and tired.

 

Apart from those points, everything in my blog post of Nov. 5 stands.

 

So what does it all mean?

 

It's hard to improve on the day-after summation of the longtime conservative activist Heather Higgins, of Independent Women's Voice: "A majority of the American people believe that the one good point about Republicans is they won't raise taxes. However they also believe Republicans caused the economic mess in the first place and might do it again, cannot be trusted to care about cutting spending in a way that is remotely concerned about who it hurts, and are retrograde to the point of caricature on everything else." She notes that in exit polls Republicans won the "Who shares your values?" question but lost on the more immediately important "Who cares about people like you?" "So it makes sense that many . . . are comfortable with the Republicans providing a fiscal brake in the House, while having the Democrats 'who care' own the Senate and the Presidency. And that is what we got."

 

Ms. Higgins wasn't happy with it but accurately reported it.

 

It is and has been a proud Republican assumption—a given, a faith—that we are a center-right country and, barring extraordinary circumstances, will tend to return to our natural equilibrium. That didn't happen this time, for reasons technical, demographic and I think attitudinal: The Democrats stayed hungry and keenly alive to the facts on the ground. The Republicans worked hard but were less clear-eyed in their survey of the field. America has changed and is changing, culturally, ethnically—we all know this. Republican candidates and professionals will have to put aside their pride, lose their assumptions, and in the future work harder, better, go broader and deeper. We are a center-right country, but the Republican Party over the next few years will have to ponder again what center-right means. It has been noted elsewhere that the Romney campaign's economic policies more or less reflected the concerns of its donor base. Are those the immediate concerns of the middle and working classes? Apparently the middle class didn't think so. The working class? In a day-after piece, Washington Post reporters Scott Wilson and Philip Rucker wrote: "As part of his role, [Paul] Ryan had wanted to talk about poverty, traveling to inner cities and giving speeches that laid out the Republican vision for individual empowerment. But Romney advisers refused his request to do so, until mid-October, when he gave a speech on civil society in Cleveland. As one adviser put it, 'The issues that we really test well on and win on are not the war on poverty.'"

 

That is the authentic sound of the Republican political operative class at work: in charge, supremely confident, essentially clueless.

 

It matters when you show people you care. It matters when you're there. It matters when you ask.

 

The outcome was not only a re-election but on some level and to some degree a rejection.

 

Some voted for Mr. Obama because he's a Democrat and they're Democrats, some because he is of the left and they are of the left. But some voters were saying: "See the guy we don't like that much, the one presiding over an economy we know is bad and spending policies we know are damaging? The one who pushed through the health-care law we don't like, and who can't handle Washington that well? Well, we like that guy better than you."

 

That's why this election is a worse psychic blow for Republicans than 2008, when a confluence of forces—the crash, dragged-out wars, his uniqueness as a political figure—came together to make Barack Obama inevitable.

 

But he was not inevitable after the past four years. This election was in part a rejection of Republicanism as it is perceived by a sizeable swath of the voting public.

 

Yes, Mitt Romney was a limited candidate from a limited field. Yes, his campaign was poor. It's also true that the president was the first in modern history to win a second term while not improving on his first outing. He won in 2008 by 9.5 million votes. He won Tuesday night, at last count, by less than three million.

 

Still.

 

Many things would have propelled Mr. Obama to victory, but one would be a simple bias toward stability, toward what already is. People are anxious, not as hopeful as they were. Two memories. One was a late-summer focus group of mothers who shop at Wal-Mart. One asked, paraphrasing, "If we pick Romney, does that mean we have to start over again?" Meaning, we've had all this drama since 2008, will that mean we're back at the beginning of the crash and have to dig out all over again? The other is a young working mother in Brooklyn, a member of an evangelical church, who told me 10 days ago her friends had just started going for Mr. Obama. Why? "People are afraid of change right now."

 

When America is in a terrible economic moment and the political opposition can't convince people that change might be improvement, then something's not working.

 

 

***

A big rethink is in order. The Republican Party has just been given four years to do it. They should get going. Now. For clarity they could start with essential, even existential, questions. Why does the party exist? What is its purpose? What is possible for it in the new America? How can it prosper politically while leading responsibly?

 

From there, the practical challenges. Some of these are referred to as "the woman problem" or "the Hispanic problem"—they presumably don't like the GOP. But maybe they think the GOP doesn't like them. What might be the reasons?

 

Those who say no change is needed, who suggest the American people just have to get with the program, are kidding themselves and talking in an echo chamber. What will they do if the same party comes forward in 2016 to the same result?

 

The great challenge for the Republican Party now is how to change its ways without changing its principles. Its principles are right and have long endured because they're right. But do all the party's problems come down to inadequate marketing, faulty messaging, poor candidates? Might some of it be policies, stands, attitudes?

 

That will be a subject here in the future. For now, in politics as in life, you have to play the hand you're dealt. You have to respect reality. Which is where conservatism actually starts, seeing what is real.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I'm not sure why Peggy Noonan wasn't fired immediately after Ohio was called for Obama. For as much as the pundits like to lecture America about "personal responsibility" and meritocracy, they sure seem to get away with doing nothing but feeding bulls*** to the public all day, every day.

Edited November 9, 2012 by StrangeSox

[mr_genius]

Peggy Noonan, wsjonline.com

 

Mr. Genius, I doubt you will read it, but I would like to see your reaction to this op-ed piece.

 

I read it. Basically, some of it is right. The GOP can't be the anti-America pro-outsourcing party, they lose their patriotic base. Romney is a terrible candidate in that area. Romney was also clueless when it comes to connecting with the middle class. He was fraud and everyone knew it. When he talked about patriotism, small government, freedoms, or the country it almost always seemed fake; because it was.

Edited November 9, 2012 by mr_genius

[farmteam]

RE: Huge Abortion Debate

 

I think Jake made a really good point that seemed to be overlooked. This is a pretty contentious issue, so the bottom lie to me is that when as a society we cannot decide on anything resembling a consensus way to handle the issue, we have to let people make their own choice. And in the general public debate that goes on concerning abortion, many seem to forget that "pro-choice" doesn't mean "KILL FETUSES" to a lot of people; it merely means that they can respect what they consider human life, while respecting the right of others to make their own decision about when abortion is acceptable. And I think it's in that sense that people like StrangeSox are saying this really is a moral, not scientific, issue.

[cabiness42]

RE: Huge Abortion Debate

 

I think Jake made a really good point that seemed to be overlooked. This is a pretty contentious issue, so the bottom lie to me is that when as a society we cannot decide on anything resembling a consensus way to handle the issue, we have to let people make their own choice. And in the general public debate that goes on concerning abortion, many seem to forget that "pro-choice" doesn't mean "KILL FETUSES" to a lot of people; it merely means that they can respect what they consider human life, while respecting the right of others to make their own decision about when abortion is acceptable. And I think it's in that sense that people like StrangeSox are saying this really is a moral, not scientific, issue.

 

No, you can't both respect human life and at the same time allow others to decide when abortion is acceptable. We don't allow that at any other stage of life. That's an inconsistent position.

 

Now, people here are arguing that an unborn baby is not actually a human life, which I believe is proven wrong but at least does not make supporting abortion rights an inconsistent position. Believing that the unborn baby is a human life and also believing that abortion should be legal is a slippery slope into all kinds of awful stuff.

 

[farmteam]

No, you can't both respect human life and at the same time allow others to decide when abortion is acceptable. We don't allow that at any other stage of life. That's an inconsistent position.

 

Now, people here are arguing that an unborn baby is not actually a human life, which I believe is proven wrong but at least does not make supporting abortion rights an inconsistent position. Believing that the unborn baby is a human life and also believing that abortion should be legal is a slippery slope into all kinds of awful stuff.

No, it's not an inconsistent position. It would only be inconsistent if the premise were that "protecting human life" is the absolutely top priority, but it's not. Sure, that could be the top priority if you were talking abortion as if it were in a vacuum, but we're not discussing it in a vacuum. We're talking about it in the context of what our society should and should not allow. Abortion rights are then just a subset of THAT entire discussion (what society should and should not allow), which places the priority for abortion ("protecting human life") in a subordinate position to the priority for what society should and should not allow. In my view, the top priority in considering what society should or should not allow is that when the society cannot approach anything resembling a consensus, we let people make their own choice.

 

Now, we can certainly disagree about what the top priorities really are -- I'm just saying it's important to remember the framework we're working under when talking about things like abortion.

 

I don't think ever written the word "priority" so many times in a single post.

[cabiness42]

No, it's not an inconsistent position. It would only be inconsistent if the premise were that "protecting human life" is the absolutely top priority, but it's not. Sure, that could be the top priority if you were talking abortion as if it were in a vacuum, but we're not discussing it in a vacuum. We're talking about it in the context of what our society should and should not allow. Abortion rights are then just a subset of THAT entire discussion (what society should and should not allow), which places the priority for abortion ("protecting human life") in a subordinate position to the priority for what society should and should not allow. In my view, the top priority in considering what society should or should not allow is that when the society cannot approach anything resembling a consensus, we let people make their own choice.

 

Now, we can certainly disagree about what the top priorities really are -- I'm just saying it's important to remember the framework we're working under when talking about things like abortion.

 

I don't think ever written the word "priority" so many times in a single post.

 

And I'm saying that living in a society where protecting human life is not the top priority is very dangerous.

[StrangeSox]

Living in a society where women can't choose what to do with their own bodies is very dangerous as well.

[cabiness42]

Living in a society where women can't choose what to do with their own bodies is very dangerous as well.

 

They can do what they want with their own bodies, just not the body of the other human being living inside of them.

 

Again, that argument fails if you recognize the fetus as a human being.

[farmteam]

And I'm saying that living in a society where protecting human life is not the top priority is very dangerous.

And that's a perfectly acceptable position. The problem arises when everyone starts talking about "well, let's protect a fetus when it's life!" and people say "Well, a 10 week old fetus is life!" The thing is, a lot of the people who say the former really aren't talking about any sort of scientific standard, and are really just conflating it with when they think that fetus should be deserving of protection -- which speaks to issues larger than just abortion (the not-working-within-a-vacuum-thing I was talking about). Essentially, people end up arguing about different things without realizing it, and no progress gets made either way.

[StrangeSox]

They can do what they want with their own bodies, just not the body of the other human being living inside of them.

 

Again, that argument fails if you recognize the fetus as a human being.

My point was a rhetorical one. I obviously disagree with you on when a fetus should be considered a human being and thus deprive the woman of the right to decide what to do with her body.

[cabiness42]

My point was a rhetorical one. I obviously disagree with you on when a fetus should be considered a human being and thus deprive the woman of the right to decide what to do with her body.

 

Right, but my point is that when the fetus is a human being really trumps any other arguments about abortion. If a fetus is considered a human being, then women's rights and all that other stuff is secondary.

[StrangeSox]

But I don't consider it a human being. So I see people wanting to take away an actual woman's right to decide over her own body in a similar light to how you see people wanting to allow abortion.

Edited November 9, 2012 by StrangeSox

[farmteam]

And that's a perfectly acceptable position. The problem arises when everyone starts talking about "well, let's protect a fetus when it's life!" and people say "Well, a 10 week old fetus is life!" The thing is, a lot of the people who say the former really aren't talking about any sort of scientific standard, and are really just conflating it with when they think that fetus should be deserving of protection -- which speaks to issues larger than just abortion (the not-working-within-a-vacuum-thing I was talking about). Essentially, people end up arguing about different things without realizing it, and no progress gets made either way.

Ok, I thought the thread would bear this out again, but I didn't expect it to take three posts.

[southsider2k5]

But I don't consider it a human being. So I see people wanting to take away an actual woman's right to decide over her own body in a similar light to how you see people wanting to allow abortion.

 

I've always felt that if the parties were reversed on this issue, it would be called genocide with how much more abortion is used by minorities.

[NorthSideSox72]

I've always felt that if the parties were reversed on this issue, it would be called genocide with how much more abortion is used by minorities.

what? I can't figure out the connections you are trying to make here.

 

[iamshack]

But I don't consider it a human being. So I see people wanting to take away an actual woman's right to decide over her own body in a similar light to how you see people wanting to allow abortion.

This almost seems as though the woman participated in no act to create the baby...as if she woke up one day and, just by chance, she had been chosen to have a baby...

[StrangeSox]

I'm gonna guess the trope about the founder of Planned Parenthood in the 20's being pro-eugenics.

 

It's nonsense because allowing women to choose what to do isn't a genocide. It's this kind of obliviousness on minority and women's issues that is hurting the GOP so badly right now.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm gonna guess the trope about the founder of Planned Parenthood in the 20's being pro-eugenics.

 

It's nonsense because allowing women to choose what to do isn't a genocide. It's this kind of obliviousness on minority and women's issues that is hurting the GOP so badly right now.

 

And similarly, the complete lack of morals/ethics about life that cause said right wingers to be literally fearful of the direction of this country.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[southsider2k5]

I'm gonna guess the trope about the founder of Planned Parenthood in the 20's being pro-eugenics.

 

It's nonsense because allowing women to choose what to do isn't a genocide. It's this kind of obliviousness on minority and women's issues that is hurting the GOP so badly right now.

 

The census agency estimates that 50 out of 1000 black women ends up having abortions, or about three and a half times the rate of white kids. If the parties stances were reversed in this case, it would be presented very differently.

[Jake]

The census agency estimates that 50 out of 1000 black women ends up having abortions, or about three and a half times the rate of white kids. If the parties stances were reversed in this case, it would be presented very differently.

 

Do you think if the pro-life party would make contraception more available and encourage more sexual education, this might change?

[StrangeSox]

The census agency estimates that 50 out of 1000 black women ends up having abortions, or about three and a half times the rate of white kids. If the parties stances were reversed in this case, it would be presented very differently.

 

It's nonsense because allowing women to choose what to do isn't a genocide. It's this kind of obliviousness on minority and women's issues that is hurting the GOP so badly right now.

[StrangeSox]

And similarly, the complete lack of morals/ethics about life that cause said right wingers to be literally fearful of the direction of this country.

 

Yes, liberals have no morals, no ethics and hate life. Right-wingers fears' for the direction of this country are legitimate and rational, especially over the past three days.