Obama Vs Romney

mikemac1

positron wrote: »

Arnold Schwarzenegger, and with his biography out and all recently, I have a feeling that he's going to give it a go. Also he will claim to be able to relate to the immigrants being an immigrant himself, with a complete rags to riches / american dream story to sell.

They were trying to change the consitution a few years back but nothing much happened

He can't run

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec1.html

petersburg2002

You can be guaranteed that Republicans will have a Latino on the 2016 ticket. Another Bush is a lost cause. If the economy and deficit problems are resolved they will find it very tough to win. But that's a big ask. Hilary clinton will be nearly 70 then.

Capt'n Midnight

latenia wrote: »

Interestingly, this election was the first since 1976 in which neither a Bush or Clinton was involved

Bush Senior was a war hero.

A lot of Americans blame junior for much of today's economic problems.
Florida means Jeb can't exactly relax on his laurels

Killer Wench

Succinct explanation as to why the Republican Party is a dying party:

http://www.ericgarland.co/2012/11/09/letter-to-a-future-republican-strategist-regarding-white-people/

petersburg2002

Obama should give this guy a job. Something every Republican should read.

Overheal

Killer Wench wrote: »

Succinct explanation as to why the Republican Party is a dying party:

http://www.ericgarland.co/2012/11/09/letter-to-a-future-republican-strategist-regarding-white-people/

he's not wrong.

"Deficits and debt - Whenever the GOP is out of power, it immediately appeals to the imagination of voters who remember the Lyndon Baines Johnson (!) administration and claim that the Republican alternative is the party of “cutting spending” and “reducing the deficit.” The only problem with your claim is that Republican governments throughout my entire 38 year life (Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) have failed to cut spending and deficit and debt EVEN ONCE. I hope you understand that your credibility suffers every time you promise one thing for three decades and do the EXACT OPPOSITE. Egads – if you actually were the party of fiscal responsibility – you might win our votes despite your 13th century view of science!"

Boom. Headshot.

Nodin

Killer Wench wrote: »

Succinct explanation as to why the Republican Party is a dying party:

http://www.ericgarland.co/2012/11/09/letter-to-a-future-republican-strategist-regarding-white-people/

If they pay money for research on why women didn't vote for them, there really is no hope.

MadsL

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I can't see Rice wining against Hillary.

My money is on Suzanna Martinez (R) getting the nomination.

seligehgit

Killer Wench wrote: »

Succinct explanation as to why the Republican Party is a dying party:

http://www.ericgarland.co/2012/11/09/letter-to-a-future-republican-strategist-regarding-white-people/

Does anybody really think the GOP will reform in any meaningful fashion?Otherwise it is doomed to lose all future Presidential contests.I am not convinced it will,or really believes it needs to change.

Killer Wench

seligehgit wrote: »

Does anybody really think the GOP will reform in any meaningful fashion?Otherwise it is doomed to lose all future Presidential contests.I am not convinced it will,or really believes it needs to change.

It has to change. It really, truly is a dying party.

They won the votes of older Americans and the majority of Whites, specifically White, uneducated males in the Midwestern and Southern States. The Republican Party attempted to win this election by talking directly to those White, uneducated males; they used language such as "Taking back America" or "non-traditional Americans" to paint an us versus them mentality. Their goal was to create a fear in this group of Americans that the America as they know, where White men were the dominant group who led our country and fought our wars, were being overtaken by liberal, government dependent minorities who wanted to take from America instead of building America. Oddly enough, they were targeting a demographic that would have been Democrats (Blue Dog) in past elections but who have left the Democratic Party because it has become the party for minorities.

In four years, many more of those older Americans will have died and that group of White, uneducated men will have gotten smaller. The demographics are shifting. At one time, White people were 80% of the population; but they are now only 63% of the population. The rate of interracial marriages has increased, Asians are immigrating to the US at rapid rates, the birth rate of White Americans is declining while the birth rate of Latinos has rapidly accelerated.

They wish to remain a viable party, they will have to reach out to these demographics and that means altering some of their platform. It isn't like the Republican Party has stood for conservatism its entire existence; this was the party of Abe, Civil Rights, and other progressive agendas.

jill_valentine

Nodin wrote: »

If they pay money for research on why women didn't vote for them, there really is no hope.

Indeed.

Women made up 53% of this vote, and I'd wager the dream team of Ryan, Mourdock, Smith, Rivard and Akin did a lot to generate some of those percentage points. A lot of women I've spoken to wanted to vote against the Republican party rather than for Barack Obama, or even against Mitt "If you're going to have women in the workplace" Romney, specifically. While the GOP might like to think that all they need is a sexy new candidate to fix the problem, for women voters, the party as a whole is seen as the problem - there's a rot set in, to the extent that finding a place to start fixing it might prove beyond them.

To paraphrase a commenter somewhere, it's not just those various insanely misogynistic statements in themselves that were the problem, but that they felt comfortable enough within the culture of the party to make them in the first place. The implication is that they're the tip of the iceberg, and that's how they're perceived.

What's also interesting is the sense that the party has gone backwards. I genuinely can't imagine hearing statements like those out of the Republican party of ten or fifteen years ago - certainly not with that regularity, or grim sense of familiarity.


I'll tell you what though. When the book or movie or whatever else of Romney's campaign hits the shelves, it's going to be a barnstormer.

chieftain180

i think either 1 of these guys will end up having the exact same policies... just like here in good old ireland.... fianna fail and fianna gale.. spelled wrong on purpose....

robp

Nodin wrote: »

If they pay money for research on why women didn't vote for them, there really is no hope.

Killer Wench wrote: »

It has to change. It really, truly is a dying party.

They won the votes of older Americans and the majority of Whites, specifically White, uneducated males in the Midwestern and Southern States. The Republican Party attempted to win this election by talking directly to those White, uneducated males; they used language such as "Taking back America" or "non-traditional Americans" to paint an us versus them mentality. Their goal was to create a fear in this group of Americans that the America as they know, where White men were the dominant group who led our country and fought our wars, were being overtaken by liberal, government dependent minorities who wanted to take from America instead of building America. Oddly enough, they were targeting a demographic that would have been Democrats (Blue Dog) in past elections but who have left the Democratic Party because it has become the party for minorities.

In four years, many more of those older Americans will have died and that group of White, uneducated men will have gotten smaller. The demographics are shifting. At one time, White people were 80% of the population; but they are now only 63% of the population. The rate of interracial marriages has increased, Asians are immigrating to the US at rapid rates, the birth rate of White Americans is declining while the birth rate of Latinos has rapidly accelerated.

They wish to remain a viable party, they will have to reach out to these demographics and that means altering some of their platform. It isn't like the Republican Party has stood for conservatism its entire existence; this was the party of Abe, Civil Rights, and other progressive agendas.

Well as I already posted. Romney won on the popular vote amongst white women by 17%. Hispanics made Obama by a long shot, that is Hispanic men and women.

US politics works in cycles. The chances are Republicans will be saying the same rhetoric about democrats in 10 odd years. That could easily happen if hispanics move towards the party in numbers.

Killer Wench

robp wrote: »

Well as I already posted. Romney won on the popular vote amongst white women by 17%. Hispanics made Obama by a long shot, that is Hispanic men and women.

US politics works in cycles. The chances are Republicans will be saying the same rhetoric about democrats in 10 odd years. That could easily happen if hispanics move towards the party in numbers.

You still don't understand. You are looking at present day numbers and thinking, "hey, they did okay", but you have to understand that the demographics are changing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/youth-vote-gap-republican_n_2100155.html

"Instead, voters ages 18 to 29 -- who made up 19 percent of the electorate, a greater share than in 2008, and half of whom cast a ballot, for the third presidential election in a row -- went for Obama by 60 percent to 36 percent for Romney.

Now Republicans are faced with a grim premise as they look toward the future, with a much more racially diverse and socially liberal young voter base that supports Democrats by a large margin.

"It's something Republicans need to worry about in the future, because they could lose that entire generation," said Paul Beck, a professor at The Ohio State University.

It is true Obama's support among young voters dropped by 6 points from 2008, but it was still a 24 point margin over Romney. Yes, young people tend to be more liberal, but both George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were able to win the youth vote. Obama's youth vote victories this year and in 2008 were the biggest wins among this demographic of any presidential candidate in recent history."

robp

Killer Wench wrote: »

You still don't understand. You are looking at present day numbers and thinking, "hey, they did okay", but you have to understand that the demographics are changing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/youth-vote-gap-republican_n_2100155.html

"Instead, voters ages 18 to 29 -- who made up 19 percent of the electorate, a greater share than in 2008, and half of whom cast a ballot, for the third presidential election in a row -- went for Obama by 60 percent to 36 percent for Romney.

Now Republicans are faced with a grim premise as they look toward the future, with a much more racially diverse and socially liberal young voter base that supports Democrats by a large margin.

"It's something Republicans need to worry about in the future, because they could lose that entire generation," said Paul Beck, a professor at The Ohio State University.

It is true Obama's support among young voters dropped by 6 points from 2008, but it was still a 24 point margin over Romney. Yes, young people tend to be more liberal, but both George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan were able to win the youth vote. Obama's youth vote victories this year and in 2008 were the biggest wins among this demographic of any presidential candidate in recent history."

Its a bit much to predict the future on two elections and one candidate. Bill Clinton was another champion of the youth vote. Yet this voting block happily switched to George W Bush in 2001. Its as much about the candidate as the polices and the party. In last 50 years democrat candidates have tended to be younger in age themselves. Its no wonder they often garner support from younger people. An older business man (Romney) is inherently less likely to reach out to the youth base compared to a fairly young legal candidate like Obama who has the image of a underdog even though he is fully part of the establishment. Just look at Ron Paul, a republican (though not young) with a huge young support base despite conservative social views. Its due to Paul's reform-orientated outsider image. Obama lost younger supporters in this election as he was gradually is absorbed into the popular image of the status quo.

Capt'n Midnight

robp wrote: »

Its a bit much to predict the future on two elections and one candidate. Bill Clinton was another champion of the youth vote.

Guess who will be campaigning for Hillary in three years time ?

robp

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Guess who will be campaigning for Hillary in three years time ?

Sure. The democrats have every possibility to win next time around. Anything could happen. that doesn't mean the republican party is dead.

rossie1977

Killer Wench wrote: »

They won the votes of older Americans and the majority of Whites, specifically White, uneducated males in the Midwestern and Southern States. The Republican Party attempted to win this election by talking directly to those White, uneducated males; they used language such as "Taking back America" or "non-traditional Americans" to paint an us versus them mentality. Their goal was to create a fear in this group of Americans that the America as they know, where White men were the dominant group who led our country and fought our wars, were being overtaken by liberal, government dependent minorities who wanted to take from America instead of building America.

as bill maher put it, the right are totally living in their own bubble and are clueless as to what is happening in the real world, when you have one of the main right wing talking heads actually thinking like this the party is in trouble, fact is all the poorer states voted romney and the 10 richest counties in the us all voted obama......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZt3jPDvNQ

robp

rossie1977 wrote: »

as bill maher put it, the right are totally living in their own bubble and are clueless as to what is happening in the real world, when you have one of the main right wing talking heads actually thinking like this the party is in trouble, fact is all the poorer states voted romney and the 10 richest counties in the us all voted obama......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZt3jPDvNQ

Its not often that Bill O'Reilly is quoted on boards, not even by Republican sympathizers!

TwoShedsJackson

rossie1977 wrote: »

as bill maher put it, the right are totally living in their own bubble and are clueless as to what is happening in the real world, when you have one of the main right wing talking heads actually thinking like this the party is in trouble, fact is all the poorer states voted romney and the 10 richest counties in the us all voted obama......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZZt3jPDvNQ

DEFTLEFTHAND

seligehgit wrote: »

Does anybody really think the GOP will reform in any meaningful fashion?Otherwise it is doomed to lose all future Presidential contests.I am not convinced it will,or really believes it needs to change.

People generally become more conservative as they get older. If Obama has another unremarkable 4 years a lot of the young voters may feel that they let their emotion blind their logic and this could negatively impact on the next Democrat candidate.

Also I've an inkling that many of the uneducated sections of the minorities may not exercise their right to vote next time with no hype and hysteria surrounding the more than likely white Dem candidate.

The Republicans will be back make no doubt about that, and I also do believe that they will reform and encourage more members of the minorities (who are fast becoming the majorities :pac:) to become involved with them. It's the only way forward now.

Spread

Kirby wrote: »

Palin. She wont go away.

Put your wonga on Hillary .......... a mouth watering 9/2 on Skybet

mikemac1

Spread wrote: »

Put your wonga on Hillary .......... a mouth watering 9/2 on Skybet

Brian Schweitzer 25/1