Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall
So you were saying nothing. Got it.
Your point seemed to be that Obama won because of distaste of Romney as opposed to excitement about Obama. And you and Hank seem to think that the swing voters (people like you and Hank, apparently) are the reasons why Obama won. I think that's ridiculous. They (or you) are no more the reason why Obama won than gay voters or Latinos or women or hard-core Obama supporters.
You and Hank really just wanted to say Obama didn't win because of enthusiasm about him or the job he's doing--at least not in your very important swing voter eyes. I say that thought process is silly and devalues the impact of black voters who stood in line for 6 hours to cast their ballot or youth voters who voted for him for the first time, etc.
Whatever.
TM
|
No. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. You are arguing with whatever straw man you just created in your head (a common tactic of yours) - not me.
All I am saying is that it is likely (but I don't have the stats to back me up - sorry) that there were several thousand (million?) people who voted
against conservative social values*, and not for Obama. Is that right or wrong? I really don't care. I'm not sure it's that relevant since it also means they voted
for Obama because he
didn't have those values. Many of these people
may have voted for the GOP candidate if he/she made it clear that he/she was a social moderate. Again, this is only something I believe - I can't back it up with data. I suppose the underlying point is that I believe a socially liberal but fiscally conservative candidate could have beaten Obama (regardless of whether this is the outcome I desire). The reason I believe this is mainly due to something out of a president's control: the economy.
As for me, I at no point in time wavered over who I was going to vote for. I was not a swing voter. I happily voted for Obama without question both times (although I have voted for Republicans in non-presidential elections).
If I am saying nothing, then I'm not sure what you're saying relative to this "devaluing" nonsense. It's just something you seem to have made up. Your devaluing argument is devaluing the meaning of the word "devalue".
*many of these voters were likely youth voters. These are folks who are not thrilled with all the entitlements the boomers now get when it looks like they'll get so much less when they're that age.
Threaded Mode