On November 09 2012 06:02 Leporello wrote: Someone made an interesting point about Mr. Adelson in particular (the biggest GOP money contributor by a wide margin, having spent at least $70 million total throughout this election).
Almost half of that money was spent campaigning for Newt Gingrich in the primary, which was largely spent on ads attacking Mitt Romney -- calling him a say-anything political-hack and a Wall Street insider. Mitt Romney won in spite of those ads.
But then Mr. Adelson throws his support in the general election, giving at least $30 million in SuperPAC money to..... Mitt Romney, the guy he just spent several million dollars funding attack ads against. So now he's paying copious money to combat the rhetoric against Mitt Romney that Mr. Adelson himself had just helped perpetuate in the primary election.
What an idiot, and what a waste of $70 million. It also kind of sums up the schizophrenia of the GOP right now.
That's really more about the problems of a 2-party system when there aren't really two parties. There are two factions with many sub-parties within them. Gingrich has his supporters, Romney has his. But all of their supporters must be against the Democrats no matter what.
That is, you fight against each other during the primaries to see which sub-party wins, but then you all decide to work together to take out your real enemy.
The same thing happened with Hillary and Obama, when the fighting got really viscous in 08. Their supporters attacked the other candidates, but in the end rallied around Obama. McCain even used some of Hillary's own attacks against Obama.
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.
But republicans willingly took that baggage from the democrats and it served them well for past few decades. Where will the fundies go if even republicans kick them off to the curb lol.
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.
But republicans willingly took that baggage from the democrats and it served them well for past few decades. Where will the fundies go if even republicans kick them off to the curb lol.
probably still going to vote reps wouldn't they? If you can't get what you want in voting people usually vote for what's closest to what you want and I don't see those people voting dems :p
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."
Are you sure it was Romney who entitled that editorial and not the NY Times ? I'm pretty sure it wasn't Romney.
it's not an inaccurate portrayal of his piece though, especially considering his preferred method of dealing with these companies.
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.
But republicans willingly took that baggage from the democrats and it served them well for past few decades. Where will the fundies go if even republicans kick them off to the curb lol.
probably still going to vote reps wouldn't they? If you can't get what you want in voting people usually vote for what's closest to what you want and I don't see those people voting dems :p
Yet another excellent reason to cut them loose. The worst case scenario is those people decide they are too fed up with our country to vote at all, but they definitely won't be voting for Democratic candidates. The more likely scenario is they will continue to vote Republican because it is the closest thing to what they want, but you don't have to address their funky religious issues.
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.
But republicans willingly took that baggage from the democrats and it served them well for past few decades. Where will the fundies go if even republicans kick them off to the curb lol.
probably still going to vote reps wouldn't they? If you can't get what you want in voting people usually vote for what's closest to what you want and I don't see those people voting dems :p
Yet another excellent reason to cut them loose. The worst case scenario is those people decide they are too fed up with our country to vote at all, but they definitely won't be voting for Democratic candidates. The more likely scenario is they will continue to vote Republican because it is the closest thing to what they want, but you don't have to address their funky religious issues.
exactly what I thought, though I made it a question because people in this thread kept saying it was a willingly decision to support those guys to get their votes in the first place, which implies they didn't vote reps before that happened?
On November 09 2012 06:49 AUGcodon wrote: It's a question of turnout. Sure the fundies are not gonna vote democrat, but they may just decide to stay home instead.
Ehh, I'm not so sure about that. Fundamentalists, and the demographics they come from, are generally the best about doing their civic duty and getting out to vote, even if they aren't riled up about the election. It took a very enthusiastic, young, and fresh candidate in Obama to elicit the same reaction out of the Democratic base, largely because it consists of young people and minorities.
I'm not convinced they would stay home, but you're right that is the worst case scenario. Even if they do, I'm fairly convinced that the votes the Republicans would bring in from the moderates and democrats/republicans closer to the middle by excommunicating the far right would more than make up for it. Then our two party system would actually be fighting over the people in the middle, which is really how it should be.
On November 09 2012 06:49 AUGcodon wrote: It's a question of turnout. Sure the fundies are not gonna vote democrat, but they may just decide to stay home instead.
I'd think that was still better than being associated with them. Especially if the goal is to appeal to a broader spectrum of the US demographic than the traditional "white male"
the united states is a completely different country demographically now. Republicans got smashed in the asian, latino, women, black categories, and unless they drastically change their views by not only thinking about old white men, they are not going to exist in the future.
Well, lets take a look at the battleground states in play for the 2012 election and 2008 election.
Ohio Virginia Florida Iowa Colorado Indiana(2008) North Carolina(2008)
Someone who knows US better than me, which of these states have a significant social conservative base? So the real question is which state will open up for republican if they disfranchise the social conservative base. And through disfranchisement, which states will have lower social conservative turnout. These are all rather abstract questions and would require some research to answer. I suspect the republican party is going to research this balancing act. They will see if they could adopt a moderate positioning and not suffer too much from the social conservatism enthusiasm gap.
time to humanize the government a bit for some people. this is a speech from a guy who worked all his life to improve patient care in the hospital system but had to resign because of republican partisan opposition in 2011.
On November 09 2012 02:59 KwarK wrote: This made me surprisingly happy.
Is that for real? O_o
Yes. He went on a massive meltdown.
ROFL! Wow. :D
Yeh, that made me surprisingly happy as well.
Well, he's right, America is not a direct democracy. It's a republic. Being a member of the republican party, one would think he'd be proud of this system working as intended.
On November 09 2012 07:11 AUGcodon wrote: Well, lets take a look at the battleground states in play for the 2012 election and 2008 election.
Ohio Virginia Florida Iowa Colorado Indiana(2008) North Carolina(2008)
Someone who knows US better than me, which of these states have a significant social conservative base? So the real question is which state will open up for republican if they disfranchise the social conservative base. And through disfranchisement, which states will have lower social conservative turnout. These are all rather abstract questions and would require some research to answer. I suspect the republican party is going to research this balancing act. They will see if they could adopt a moderate positioning and not suffer too much from the social conservatism enthusiasm gap.
Without a doubt out on that list, it's either Florida and/or Iowa. The I-4 corridor which is basically Central Florida is a HUGE area with evangelicals. That's where you find a lot of "mega-churches". I don't know too much about Iowa but considering Republicans start their primaries there speaks volumes. Republicans desperately need Florida in the future simply due to the huge amount of Electoral votes. They could do without Iowa though.
EPT![[image loading]](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/11/2/1351884534566/006e1307-2725-4550-9e21-4174eeef091b-460.jpeg)
![[image loading]](http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/donald-trump-2.jpg)
