On November 09 2012 02:39 Zergneedsfood wrote: I think the main problem is that there's this conception of Republicans as homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, racist people. A lot of is untrue but it's perpetuated by a select few people whose inability to control what they say on air is really hurting the party's perception. :/
I'd agree except the Republicans picked one of these people who say stupid things on air as their candidate. 47% of the population (including pensioners, veterans, children) are not leeches who can't take responsibility for their own lives.
In my opinion, this is the result of the Republican party taking their core ideal of fiscal conservatism and broadening it to attract virtually everyone on the right-leaning side of the political spectrum. During the campaign, they portrayed Romney as being everything from a financial moderate with weak social stances (as in the debates), to being a Randian objectivist's 1%-loving dream candidate with hardline stances on civil rights.
The idea of fiscal conservatism has some merit on its own, but the Republican party has completely warped and transformed it in an attempt to net as many voters as possible. Romney was the perfect candidate for this: his mindset may be extremely far-right, but he has the ability to present himself wherever on the political spectrum his audience expects him to be.
I still think, even after all that has come out with the elections, that this is a topic up for some debate. I mean, if we are to go off of Romney's actual record as opposed to election rhetoric, his mindset does not seem far-right at all.
Romney from governor to electoral are two different people so it's hard to compare. When he was governor he was pretty much a liberal from cars/coal/women/religion/healthcare but when he came to contend office he threw away all that track record for shit ideologies supported by crazy Republican base. If Romney had of supported Women's rights/Healthcare and stood behind his fiscal policy over Obama's stimulus ideology he would have won with a landslide but it's pretty hard to get a winning vote then 50% are women and a solid portion are non-white. Especially when you annihilate 47% of the vote.
I think if Romney, who was pro-choice and rather socialist at heart ran for President, he would/could have been a very good president.
On November 09 2012 03:16 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I think if Romney, who was pro-choice and rather socialist at heart ran for President, he would/could have been a very good president.
We call this man Barack Obama.
Seriously, Romney's base dug him into a hole during the primaries. It's an actual problem.
On November 09 2012 01:37 jdseemoreglass wrote: A law is only a law if it can be enforced. Otherwise it's just a request.
Define "enforced." I would say that a law is enforced if breaking it means that you suffer negative consequences as a result.
Are you saying that the US didn't suffer negative consequences? The US's foreign policy has been tainted by the Iraq war. Every decision now looks like we're just looking for brown people to bomb for oil. It's hurt our standing among nations, and that's not a minor thing. It makes it much harder for us to do things that might be necessary like stopping Iran from getting nukes with direct military action.
In short, the US has been punished and is continuing to be punished. "Enforced" doesn't always mean "stopped the crime from happening" after all.
Not too surprising, these sorts of data mining are used a lot by businesses from modelling traffic to ranking recommendations on Amazon.
Nerds use math to beat Romney. Again. Feels good.
I don't think you can actually delude yourself into thinking that Republicans are anti-intellectual. And you certainly don't believe Romney didn't have something in the same vein working for him. The real story of that news article, imo, is that they consolidated databases and that allowed them to wield the data to a much a greater extent in helping the Obama campaign.
Of course, denying reality and science is an intrinsic component of the conservative worldview, so denying unfavorable polling is just an natural extension as I've argued before the election.
Just no dude, I think you are finding reasons to bash the republican party. Of course in a nearly 50-50 race republicans will predict themselves to win through whatever means possible. Yes, politicians in both parties say stupid things. Denying science and reality? Seriously, no. They are against spending craptons of money because global warming may be occurring at a maybe earth destroying rate.
My entire family is republican. I am not old enough to vote, so I don't pick a side but I obviously lean right. But the one thing that I chastise both sides for is presenting very slanted views of republicans or democrats. I was arguing with someone the day before the election because they though that Obama's campaign was anti-woman. How the hell could either campaign be that?
A nearly 50-50 race is what you Republicans deluded yourself into thinking. And one of the reasons why you were dead wrong. Obama had a small, but consistent lead in the battleground states. Obama had the momentum, and eventually a 90% chance of winning.
I don't need to "find" reasons to bash the Republican party, I have heaps. Republicans are against spending craptons of money? Are you serious? Republicans have been blowing up the budget for decades. Bush turned a deficit into a surplus. Romney wanted to spend $5T on tax rate cuts, which was mathematically impossible to make revenue neutral, and then an additional $2T on defense.
Yes, the debt has increased under Obama, but that's because of the global financial crisis, falling tax revenue, the wars, and continuation of Bush tax cuts, which Republicans refuse to let end. If we look at spending growth Obama hasn't increase it but much. The stimulus wasn't large in comparison. This might partly be due to Bush blowing up the deficit so large that the $800 billion stimulus wasn't too relatively large as a percentage, and what amounts to "austerity" as stimulus money fades. Spending more money on more stimulus would have helped the economy.
Yes, there is a war on women. Romney wants to appoint judges to overturn Woe v Wade, but he use to say that he was pro-choice, but then he's pro-life. He's flip-flopped so much on this issue.
I suggest you get the facts, and not whatever nonsense your totally Republican family says before you vote, because that's the sort of anti-intellectualism and denial that led to conservatives to be so sure that Obama was gone, and then utterly shocked when they realized that they were dead wrong.
To be fair the US also had a crisis in the 80's and 90's, Clinton came back in power when it was going towards its end.
The only real exception in this regard is Bush jr.
Meh, the savings and loan crisis pales in comparison to the financial difficulties of 2007-2012 by a few orders of magnitude, and revolved around creating a financial sector less apt for control fraud. 'Twas altogether a different sort of affair.
On November 09 2012 03:04 Sanctimonius wrote: It's easy saying they need to have a more moderate party and candidates but these guys do have to fight through a Republican nominee process before they get to take on the Democrat candidate, and to win that they have to appeal to as much of the party's base as possible. While those votes are still up for grabs the Republican nominee will have to appeal to the right-wing, the Baptist, the xenophobic or racist votes, then swing more to the centre for the main election. Right now it's hurting the Republicans for having those elements in their base but if they don't try and pander to them, they run the risk of losing the nomination before the election.
Personally I want to see a new party in the US, the far-right. Have the Republicans move centre-right, the Dems can stay centre left and the nut-jobs can move off for their Tea Party and libertarianism.
edit: and Donald Trump can lead them, apparently. Correct me if I'm wrong but Obama won the popular vote, no?
Trump (and a big chunk of the people covering the election) apparently thought that California, Washington, and Oregon were going to fall into the ocean before their votes were counted. That's why they started babbling about the EC giving a separate result and Obama losing the popular vote-until we reached the West Coast he was indeed down in the popular vote.
On November 09 2012 02:39 Zergneedsfood wrote: I think the main problem is that there's this conception of Republicans as homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, racist people. A lot of is untrue but it's perpetuated by a select few people whose inability to control what they say on air is really hurting the party's perception. :/
I'd agree except the Republicans picked one of these people who say stupid things on air as their candidate. 47% of the population (including pensioners, veterans, children) are not leeches who can't take responsibility for their own lives.
In my opinion, this is the result of the Republican party taking their core ideal of fiscal conservatism and broadening it to attract virtually everyone on the right-leaning side of the political spectrum. During the campaign, they portrayed Romney as being everything from a financial moderate with weak social stances (as in the debates), to being a Randian objectivist's 1%-loving dream candidate with hardline stances on civil rights.
The idea of fiscal conservatism has some merit on its own, but the Republican party has completely warped and transformed it in an attempt to net as many voters as possible. Romney was the perfect candidate for this: his mindset may be extremely far-right, but he has the ability to present himself wherever on the political spectrum his audience expects him to be.
I still think, even after all that has come out with the elections, that this is a topic up for some debate. I mean, if we are to go off of Romney's actual record as opposed to election rhetoric, his mindset does not seem far-right at all.
Romney from governor to electoral are two different people so it's hard to compare. When he was governor he was pretty much a liberal from cars/coal/women/religion/healthcare but when he came to contend office he threw away all that track record for shit ideologies supported by crazy Republican base. If Romney had of supported Women's rights/Healthcare and stood behind his fiscal policy over Obama's stimulus ideology he would have won with a landslide but it's pretty hard to get a winning vote then 50% are women and a solid portion are non-white. Especially when you annihilate 47% of the vote.
I think if Romney, who was pro-choice and rather socialist at heart ran for President, he would/could have been a very good president.
The Romney you speak of would've never won the Republican Primary to even have a shot at the Presidency. Would've been Santorum if Romney even hinted at still being Pro-Choice. Republican base will take a lot of shit when candidates try to appeal to the center, the one thing they won't is Abortion. I'm talking nationally of course.
On November 09 2012 03:04 Sanctimonius wrote: It's easy saying they need to have a more moderate party and candidates but these guys do have to fight through a Republican nominee process before they get to take on the Democrat candidate, and to win that they have to appeal to as much of the party's base as possible. While those votes are still up for grabs the Republican nominee will have to appeal to the right-wing, the Baptist, the xenophobic or racist votes, then swing more to the centre for the main election. Right now it's hurting the Republicans for having those elements in their base but if they don't try and pander to them, they run the risk of losing the nomination before the election.
Personally I want to see a new party in the US, the far-right. Have the Republicans move centre-right, the Dems can stay centre left and the nut-jobs can move off for their Tea Party and libertarianism.
edit: and Donald Trump can lead them, apparently. Correct me if I'm wrong but Obama won the popular vote, no?
Trump (and a big chunk of the people covering the election) apparently thought that California, Washington, and Oregon were going to fall into the ocean before their votes were counted. That's when they started babbling about the EC giving a separate result and Obama losing the popular vote-until we reached the West Coast he was indeed down in the popular vote.
In fairness there is no way they could have known that an extremely populous state voting strongly in favour of one candidate would have influenced the popular vote.
On November 09 2012 02:02 Bippzy wrote: Just no dude, I think you are finding reasons to bash the republican party. Of course in a nearly 50-50 race republicans will predict themselves to win through whatever means possible. Yes, politicians in both parties say stupid things. Denying science and reality? Seriously, no.
Without citing poll results it's difficult for people to argue either way that the members of a party are or are not anti-intellectual, or any other apparently negative quality. However, the most outspoken conservatives and conservative media definitely give this and many other negative impressions. This isn't necessary much of a reflection of the party itself, of course.
They are against spending craptons of money because global warming may be occurring at a maybe earth destroying rate.
If the republican party does not deserve these types of criticisms, and the conservative media does (as I've already mentioned), then you seem to be in the minority along with the conservative media rather than the republican party, based on this qualifying statement you made.
My entire family is republican. I am not old enough to vote, so I don't pick a side but I obviously lean right. But the one thing that I chastise both sides for is presenting very slanted views of republicans or democrats. I was arguing with someone the day before the election because they though that Obama's campaign was anti-woman. How the hell could either campaign be that?
Yes, both sides definitely do a poor job of characterizing the other party. It's pretty childish.
Its not only childish, but its extreme bordering on dangerous. To the rest of the world, and election in America looks like a civil cold war. The amount of hatred and anger that both sides place on each other, as if forgetting that you are all humans, and that you are all americans.
You've obviously never been to America when the Lakers play the Celtics, someone tries to argue that the SEC is not the best college football conference, or the New York Yankees win the World Series.
Or to any Oakland Raiders game.
Bad comparison. If that was the case any team with a competitive Soccer team would be looked at horrendously. He was making the point that the American political process is looked at as a joke because of how they alienize and act on stage and off which then presents to the world that America is a popularity contest and realy issues are cast aside.
Whether I agree or not is another story, politics is just a big popularity contest, but comparing sports with politics to make a statement about global view imo is very off.
Have you been paying attention to the campaign? It was nearly all about the issues. Even the personal attacks are about the issues, e.g. portraying Romney like he doesn't care about poor people.
It was not a popularity contest. It was a campaign fought on the issues. There were lots of attacks, but that's how politics works, when you get attacked, you have to attack back.
It was a popularity contest, voters were looking by far at who looked more "presidential", and who scored the most "points" politically. Why do you think Romney was so close to coming back into the game after the first debate? His demeanor, his tone, and his aggressiveness totally shit on Obama, even though he completely lied through his teeth about a number of things he supported during his campaign up until that point. Even moving past that, many of the salient issues facing the United States weren't discussed in any serious manner during the debates, or even during any of the campaign rallies. The campaigns were only fought on issues when it enabled one candidate to attack another, and nothing was discussed constructively that hadn't already been mentioned before the campaigns even started. Obama won because he and his campaign did an incredible job defining Mittens as "not one of us", a vulture, an elitist, and overall, not someone you could sit down and have a beer with in the swing states. Especially Ohio, where the sentiment that Romney would have pulled Bain Capital-esque moves and gutted the auto industry was perpetuated by an incredible amount of negative ads.
Okay just back from assignment overseas and finally have internet access once again, my response:
No surprise. I think this shows the, literally, bubble that the Republican party has been forced into due to the neoconservative influence. The fact that every time a poll showing a Obama gain was considered a conspiracy or just biased polling, and the fact that Karl Rove's reaction to Ohio going to Obama(then again if I lobbied for $300 million dollars on promising a Romney win I would be nervous/anxious as well)
As well as the fact that it was reported Romney only wrote a victory speech is very telling. Either his campaign staff was lying to him or they were that delusional, as for Rasmussen, Dick Morris, Frank Luntz who really took them seriously in the first place?
Big win for progressives, and the moderate Republicans have got to make their voices heard in their own party now, or never.
On November 09 2012 02:39 Zergneedsfood wrote: I think the main problem is that there's this conception of Republicans as homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, racist people. A lot of is untrue but it's perpetuated by a select few people whose inability to control what they say on air is really hurting the party's perception. :/
I'd agree except the Republicans picked one of these people who say stupid things on air as their candidate. 47% of the population (including pensioners, veterans, children) are not leeches who can't take responsibility for their own lives.
In my opinion, this is the result of the Republican party taking their core ideal of fiscal conservatism and broadening it to attract virtually everyone on the right-leaning side of the political spectrum. During the campaign, they portrayed Romney as being everything from a financial moderate with weak social stances (as in the debates), to being a Randian objectivist's 1%-loving dream candidate with hardline stances on civil rights.
The idea of fiscal conservatism has some merit on its own, but the Republican party has completely warped and transformed it in an attempt to net as many voters as possible. Romney was the perfect candidate for this: his mindset may be extremely far-right, but he has the ability to present himself wherever on the political spectrum his audience expects him to be.
I still think, even after all that has come out with the elections, that this is a topic up for some debate. I mean, if we are to go off of Romney's actual record as opposed to election rhetoric, his mindset does not seem far-right at all.
Romney from governor to electoral are two different people so it's hard to compare. When he was governor he was pretty much a liberal from cars/coal/women/religion/healthcare but when he came to contend office he threw away all that track record for shit ideologies supported by crazy Republican base. If Romney had of supported Women's rights/Healthcare and stood behind his fiscal policy over Obama's stimulus ideology he would have won with a landslide but it's pretty hard to get a winning vote then 50% are women and a solid portion are non-white. Especially when you annihilate 47% of the vote.
I think if Romney, who was pro-choice and rather socialist at heart ran for President, he would/could have been a very good president.
The Romney you speak of would've never won the Republican Primary to even have a shot at the Presidency. Would've been Santorum if Romney even hinted at still being Pro-Choice. Republican base will take a lot of shit when candidates try to appeal to the center, the one thing they won't is Abortion. I'm talking nationally of course.
In a sense this is a good thing, it means that the entire Republican party will alwayts be looked at as Ryans and Sarah Palins leaving the only vote left a socialist one because you can only vote republican if you support the abuse of women's rights along witih the rest of the right wing lists.
Not too surprising, these sorts of data mining are used a lot by businesses from modelling traffic to ranking recommendations on Amazon.
Nerds use math to beat Romney. Again. Feels good.
I don't think you can actually delude yourself into thinking that Republicans are anti-intellectual. And you certainly don't believe Romney didn't have something in the same vein working for him. The real story of that news article, imo, is that they consolidated databases and that allowed them to wield the data to a much a greater extent in helping the Obama campaign.
Of course, denying reality and science is an intrinsic component of the conservative worldview, so denying unfavorable polling is just an natural extension as I've argued before the election.
Just no dude, I think you are finding reasons to bash the republican party. Of course in a nearly 50-50 race republicans will predict themselves to win through whatever means possible. Yes, politicians in both parties say stupid things. Denying science and reality? Seriously, no. They are against spending craptons of money because global warming may be occurring at a maybe earth destroying rate.
My entire family is republican. I am not old enough to vote, so I don't pick a side but I obviously lean right. But the one thing that I chastise both sides for is presenting very slanted views of republicans or democrats. I was arguing with someone the day before the election because they though that Obama's campaign was anti-woman. How the hell could either campaign be that?
A nearly 50-50 race is what you Republicans deluded yourself into thinking. And one of the reasons why you were dead wrong. Obama had a small, but consistent lead in the battleground states. Obama had the momentum, and eventually a 90% chance of winning.
I don't need to "find" reasons to bash the Republican party, I have heaps. Republicans are against spending craptons of money? Are you serious? Republicans have been blowing up the budget for decades. Bush turned a deficit into a surplus. Romney wanted to spend $5T on tax rate cuts, which was mathematically impossible to make revenue neutral, and then an additional $2T on defense.
Yes, the debt has increased under Obama, but that's because of the global financial crisis, falling tax revenue, the wars, and continuation of Bush tax cuts, which Republicans refuse to let end. If we look at spending growth Obama hasn't increase it but much. The stimulus wasn't large in comparison. This might partly be due to Bush blowing up the deficit so large that the $800 billion stimulus wasn't too relatively large as a percentage, and what amounts to "austerity" as stimulus money fades. Spending more money on more stimulus would have helped the economy.
Yes, there is a war on women. Romney wants to appoint judges to overturn Woe v Wade, but he use to say that he was pro-choice, but then he's pro-life. He's flip-flopped so much on this issue.
I suggest you get the facts, and not whatever nonsense your totally Republican family says before you vote, because that's the sort of anti-intellectualism and denial that led to conservatives to be so sure that Obama was gone, and then utterly shocked when they realized that they were dead wrong.
To be fair the US also had a crisis in the 80's and 90's, Clinton came back in power when it was going towards its end.
The only real exception in this regard is Bush jr.
Meh, the savings and loan crisis pales in comparison to the financial difficulties of 2007-2012 by a few orders of magnitude, and revolved around creating a financial sector less apt for control fraud. 'Twas altogether a different sort of affair.
Yes I am just giving the numbers a different perspective. It's pretty strange if you explain Obama's deficit partly because of the crisis but don't account for an economic crisis when there was a Republican president.
On November 09 2012 03:20 BlueLanterna wrote: Especially Ohio, where the sentiment that Romney would have pulled Bain Capital-esque moves and gutted the auto industry was perpetuated by an incredible amount of negative ads.
Not an unjustified one, as Romney wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in 2008 advocating for managed bankruptcies of said industries so aptly titled "let Detroit go bankrupt".
On November 09 2012 03:22 RvB wrote: Yes I am just giving the numbers a different perspective. It's pretty strange if you explain Obama's deficit partly because of the crisis but don't account for an economic crisis when there was a Republican president.
We had two wars and the Bush tax cuts because of the S&L crisis? The S&L crisis is a ridiculously tiny portion of the total accrued debt from 2000-2008.
On November 09 2012 02:39 Zergneedsfood wrote: I think the main problem is that there's this conception of Republicans as homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, racist people. A lot of is untrue but it's perpetuated by a select few people whose inability to control what they say on air is really hurting the party's perception. :/
I'd agree except the Republicans picked one of these people who say stupid things on air as their candidate. 47% of the population (including pensioners, veterans, children) are not leeches who can't take responsibility for their own lives.
In my opinion, this is the result of the Republican party taking their core ideal of fiscal conservatism and broadening it to attract virtually everyone on the right-leaning side of the political spectrum. During the campaign, they portrayed Romney as being everything from a financial moderate with weak social stances (as in the debates), to being a Randian objectivist's 1%-loving dream candidate with hardline stances on civil rights.
The idea of fiscal conservatism has some merit on its own, but the Republican party has completely warped and transformed it in an attempt to net as many voters as possible. Romney was the perfect candidate for this: his mindset may be extremely far-right, but he has the ability to present himself wherever on the political spectrum his audience expects him to be.
I still think, even after all that has come out with the elections, that this is a topic up for some debate. I mean, if we are to go off of Romney's actual record as opposed to election rhetoric, his mindset does not seem far-right at all.
Romney from governor to electoral are two different people so it's hard to compare. When he was governor he was pretty much a liberal from cars/coal/women/religion/healthcare but when he came to contend office he threw away all that track record for shit ideologies supported by crazy Republican base. If Romney had of supported Women's rights/Healthcare and stood behind his fiscal policy over Obama's stimulus ideology he would have won with a landslide but it's pretty hard to get a winning vote then 50% are women and a solid portion are non-white. Especially when you annihilate 47% of the vote.
I think if Romney, who was pro-choice and rather socialist at heart ran for President, he would/could have been a very good president.
The Romney you speak of would've never won the Republican Primary to even have a shot at the Presidency. Would've been Santorum if Romney even hinted at still being Pro-Choice. Republican base will take a lot of shit when candidates try to appeal to the center, the one thing they won't is Abortion. I'm talking nationally of course.
But that's what people are saying...it's time for the Republican Party to distance itself from the people that would be outraged if a Republican candidate was pro-choice. The party needs to realign itself with fiscal conservatism and personal liberties, and distance itself from religious fundamentalism, if they want any shot at capturing some of the women and minority votes that at this point go to the Democrats by default.
On November 09 2012 03:20 BlueLanterna wrote: Especially Ohio, where the sentiment that Romney would have pulled Bain Capital-esque moves and gutted the auto industry was perpetuated by an incredible amount of negative ads.
Not an unjustified one, as Romney wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in 2008 advocating for managed bankruptcies of said industries so aptly titled "let Detroit go bankrupt".
The lesson learned here is not to give your editorials really, really stupid titles if you plan for running for office. I still can't believe he was that shortsighted. It's hard to twist your way out of "Let ______ go bankrupt."
On November 09 2012 02:39 Zergneedsfood wrote: I think the main problem is that there's this conception of Republicans as homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, racist people. A lot of is untrue but it's perpetuated by a select few people whose inability to control what they say on air is really hurting the party's perception. :/
I think you underestimate just how many of the white middle-class people that make up the majority of the Republican Party are homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, and racist. Not a majority, mind you, but many more than just the small minority who have a platform to speak from.
I'm speaking from the point of view of being in Denver, Colorado, and even though our state has gone blue in the past two elections, it is startling what you hear from the conservative religious base, mainly coming from Colorado Springs but also from suburbs of Denver. In the very Christian parts of this country, the south and the mid-west, homophobia and racism are still alive and well. You have to go deep into the bible belt to find people who will come out and say it, for the most part, but there are plenty of people in suburban Colorado (my ex-girlfriend and her entire family and church being some of them) who still think Obama is a Muslim bent on destroying America from the inside. These people are for the most part uneducated, obviously, but they are currently a part of the Republican constituency.
It's time for the Republican Party to trim the fat and let these people go. There are enough educated, fiscal conservatives that have progressive views on social liberties to go forward without the religious fundamentalists and fear-mongers. Not to mention that if you drop the religious lunatics, you bring over many more Democrats and Independents who are terrified of the current Republican Party. The Republicans are essentially giving these elections away by continuing to cater to the far right, which appeals to no one but a very small percentage of the voter base. The democrats are able to claim everything to the left of "slightly conservative" instead of "neutral," which is enough to claim victory.
I totally agree, but there's no way that the GOP will get rid of them though. The GOP like tradition, the right-wingers like tradition. It's a perfect marriage...for them.
On November 09 2012 03:20 BlueLanterna wrote: Especially Ohio, where the sentiment that Romney would have pulled Bain Capital-esque moves and gutted the auto industry was perpetuated by an incredible amount of negative ads.
Not an unjustified one, as Romney wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in 2008 advocating for managed bankruptcies of said industries so aptly titled "let Detroit go bankrupt".
basically, after these companies go through bankrupcy, he can move to kill the auto unions and their pensions/deferred pay by using their lower priority on the list of guys having a grab at the bankrupt company's assets.
so his op ed title is totally honest and might be one of the few things he said honestly
On November 09 2012 03:20 BlueLanterna wrote: Especially Ohio, where the sentiment that Romney would have pulled Bain Capital-esque moves and gutted the auto industry was perpetuated by an incredible amount of negative ads.
Not an unjustified one, as Romney wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in 2008 advocating for managed bankruptcies of said industries so aptly titled "let Detroit go bankrupt".
He also wrote a article that had a similar tone except printed in the Detroit Metro Times with a less inflammatory title, which needless to say pissed off the entire state. (I was born/raised in downtown Detroit, and Romney has been extremely unpopular there since his position on that issue.)
Not too surprising, these sorts of data mining are used a lot by businesses from modelling traffic to ranking recommendations on Amazon.
Nerds use math to beat Romney. Again. Feels good.
I don't think you can actually delude yourself into thinking that Republicans are anti-intellectual. And you certainly don't believe Romney didn't have something in the same vein working for him. The real story of that news article, imo, is that they consolidated databases and that allowed them to wield the data to a much a greater extent in helping the Obama campaign.
Of course, denying reality and science is an intrinsic component of the conservative worldview, so denying unfavorable polling is just an natural extension as I've argued before the election.
Just no dude, I think you are finding reasons to bash the republican party. Of course in a nearly 50-50 race republicans will predict themselves to win through whatever means possible. Yes, politicians in both parties say stupid things. Denying science and reality? Seriously, no. They are against spending craptons of money because global warming may be occurring at a maybe earth destroying rate.
My entire family is republican. I am not old enough to vote, so I don't pick a side but I obviously lean right. But the one thing that I chastise both sides for is presenting very slanted views of republicans or democrats. I was arguing with someone the day before the election because they though that Obama's campaign was anti-woman. How the hell could either campaign be that?
A nearly 50-50 race is what you Republicans deluded yourself into thinking. And one of the reasons why you were dead wrong. Obama had a small, but consistent lead in the battleground states. Obama had the momentum, and eventually a 90% chance of winning.
I don't need to "find" reasons to bash the Republican party, I have heaps. Republicans are against spending craptons of money? Are you serious? Republicans have been blowing up the budget for decades. Bush turned a deficit into a surplus. Romney wanted to spend $5T on tax rate cuts, which was mathematically impossible to make revenue neutral, and then an additional $2T on defense.
Yes, the debt has increased under Obama, but that's because of the global financial crisis, falling tax revenue, the wars, and continuation of Bush tax cuts, which Republicans refuse to let end. If we look at spending growth Obama hasn't increase it but much. The stimulus wasn't large in comparison. This might partly be due to Bush blowing up the deficit so large that the $800 billion stimulus wasn't too relatively large as a percentage, and what amounts to "austerity" as stimulus money fades. Spending more money on more stimulus would have helped the economy.
Yes, there is a war on women. Romney wants to appoint judges to overturn Woe v Wade, but he use to say that he was pro-choice, but then he's pro-life. He's flip-flopped so much on this issue.
I suggest you get the facts, and not whatever nonsense your totally Republican family says before you vote, because that's the sort of anti-intellectualism and denial that led to conservatives to be so sure that Obama was gone, and then utterly shocked when they realized that they were dead wrong.
To be fair the US also had a crisis in the 80's and 90's, Clinton came back in power when it was going towards its end.
On November 09 2012 03:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Okay just back from assignment overseas and finally have internet access once again, my response:
No surprise. I think this shows the, literally, bubble that the Republican party has been forced into due to the neoconservative influence. The fact that every time a poll showing a Obama gain was considered a conspiracy or just biased polling, and the fact that Karl Rove's reaction to Ohio going to Obama(then again if I lobbied for $300 million dollars on promising a Romney win I would be nervous/anxious as well) + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=vJg3z5c93zU
as well as the fact that it was reported Romney only wrote a victory speech is very telling. Either his campaign staff was lying to him or they were that delusional, as for Rasmussen, Dick Morris, Frank Luntz who really took them seriously in the first place?
Big win for progressives, and the moderate Republicans have got to make their voices heard in their own party now, or never.
The false sense of security portrayed by the Romney campaign in the few days before the election is looking to have some serious ramifications for Romney staffers; Ed Gillespie and Rich Beeson might very well find their careers over after Republican donors air out their frustrations in regards to not being given a straight answer.
On November 09 2012 02:39 Zergneedsfood wrote: I think the main problem is that there's this conception of Republicans as homophobic, xenophobic, zealous, racist people. A lot of is untrue but it's perpetuated by a select few people whose inability to control what they say on air is really hurting the party's perception. :/
I'd agree except the Republicans picked one of these people who say stupid things on air as their candidate. 47% of the population (including pensioners, veterans, children) are not leeches who can't take responsibility for their own lives.
In my opinion, this is the result of the Republican party taking their core ideal of fiscal conservatism and broadening it to attract virtually everyone on the right-leaning side of the political spectrum. During the campaign, they portrayed Romney as being everything from a financial moderate with weak social stances (as in the debates), to being a Randian objectivist's 1%-loving dream candidate with hardline stances on civil rights.
The idea of fiscal conservatism has some merit on its own, but the Republican party has completely warped and transformed it in an attempt to net as many voters as possible. Romney was the perfect candidate for this: his mindset may be extremely far-right, but he has the ability to present himself wherever on the political spectrum his audience expects him to be.
I still think, even after all that has come out with the elections, that this is a topic up for some debate. I mean, if we are to go off of Romney's actual record as opposed to election rhetoric, his mindset does not seem far-right at all.
Romney from governor to electoral are two different people so it's hard to compare. When he was governor he was pretty much a liberal from cars/coal/women/religion/healthcare but when he came to contend office he threw away all that track record for shit ideologies supported by crazy Republican base. If Romney had of supported Women's rights/Healthcare and stood behind his fiscal policy over Obama's stimulus ideology he would have won with a landslide but it's pretty hard to get a winning vote then 50% are women and a solid portion are non-white. Especially when you annihilate 47% of the vote.
I think if Romney, who was pro-choice and rather socialist at heart ran for President, he would/could have been a very good president.
The Romney you speak of would've never won the Republican Primary to even have a shot at the Presidency. Would've been Santorum if Romney even hinted at still being Pro-Choice. Republican base will take a lot of shit when candidates try to appeal to the center, the one thing they won't is Abortion. I'm talking nationally of course.
In a sense this is a good thing, it means that the entire Republican party will alwayts be looked at as Ryans and Sarah Palins leaving the only vote left a socialist one because you can only vote republican if you support the abuse of women's rights along witih the rest of the right wing lists.
Speaking as someone who doesn't exactly agree with fiscal conservatives, no, it's not a good thing. Fiscal conservatives have important things to say and need to be involved in the debate. They shouldn't be frozen out because their party has so many wackos and nutjobs in it that being the candidate for the party requires acting like a nutjob yourself.
The Republicans are not the enemy; the crazy and ignorant Repbulicans are. Purging them from the ranks of the Republicans would allow some Democrats that are socially liberal yet fiscally conservative to leave the Democratic party and join them (not to mention socially liberal independents). Then we could have a genuine two party system of people who want to actually solve problems and have a respect for the political process.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.olymanifesto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/republicans-increase-debt.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FiW5I95R5xg/0.jpg)
