Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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

I have no doubt there are some aging white guys who relunctantly voted for Obama, and that if you add them all up, that might make a difference in some key states like Ohio or Florida (Florida was close enough so the wiccan vote can be seen as determinative).

But Obama didn't eke this out. He won by over 100 electoral votes - a landslide. And people weren't staying home because they were unenthusiastic - there was a big turnout.

The story of what made that happen is about a lot more blacks, hispanics, and young people voting, and a story about the gender gap widening.

Old white men and their naval gazing ain't the story here guys.

The story of the election is the country saying, "Hey, baldy - get your fat and lazy white ass offa the lawn, get in the ktichen, and wash up your own damn dishes." It's not about the fat white guys not being able to figure out if they want to barbeque chicken or burgers.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Those aren't swing voters. Those are fools. If you think the GOP is going to flip Roe, you're nuts. The party that does that destroys its future. Even the idiots running the GOP know that's suicide. Hence, the GOP always manages to avoid putting an anti-Roe vote on the Court when it would matter. Every time it's been able to do so, it's put a strange moderate on the Court, who upholds Roe's essential premise.

And the contraception thing is just nonsense. Nobody's barring anyone from getting contraception. That's a media crafted wedge issue.

And Akin? He's an idiot, but unless you live in his state, who cares?

Regarding gay marriage, perhaps Romney would have been problematic. But I don't think so. He was such a vote whore I can't seem him doing anything but punting on the issue by saying, "It's a states' rights thing." Which is, given the way states are leaning on the issue, shrugging at inevitable across-the-nation legalization, state by state.

Immigration was the only social issue I see with which a rational, shrewd voter could find concern with the GOP. Romney would have to take a harsh line on that to placate the SW GOP voters, and right wingers in TX. That one would be a problem.

But generally, save immigration, in times like these, social issues are for whiffle voters... easily manipulated, emotional minds. The most frivolous of unserious citizens. If you aren't putting jobs and the economy above everything else - by miles - you're a nerf intellect, and your guilelessness and pliability in the face of spin and media messaging is fucking this country up. And that goes for the Left and the Right.

You're an idiot. You have strong convictions, but almost all of them are ridiculous.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I have no doubt there are some aging white guys who relunctantly voted for Obama, and that if you add them all up, that might make a difference in some key states like Ohio or Florida (Florida was close enough so the wiccan vote can be seen as determinative).

But Obama didn't eke this out. He won by over 100 electoral votes - a landslide. And people weren't staying home because they were unenthusiastic - there was a big turnout.

The story of what made that happen is about a lot more blacks, hispanics, and young people voting, and a story about the gender gap widening.

Old white men and their naval gazing ain't the story here guys.

The story of the election is the country saying, "Hey, baldy - get your fat and lazy white ass offa the lawn, get in the ktichen, and wash up your own damn dishes." It's not about the fat white guys not being able to figure out if they want to barbeque chicken or burgers.

by "gender gap" do you mean all the women who were sickened by the bile they heard from the R's?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You're an idiot. You have strong convictions, but almost all of them are ridiculous.

TM

Come on, dude. You more than most realize how important the economic issues are right now. If you voted for Obama based on his economic policies (or even foreign policy), I have no issue with you. He has been centrist and, frankly, better for the economy than anyone on the right will ever admit. That he's kissed the asses of the banks, who've brutally turned on him, has shown he puts pragmatic economic goals above all else.

There are many great, rational, logical reasons to vote for Obama.

There is no logic in voting for him out of fear of Akins, or a national law against gay marriage, or the outlawing of contraception, or concern Roe will be rolled back. That is advertising extreme gullibility, lack of rational issue prioritization, and lack of sophistication in understanding how these things work.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

by "gender gap" do you mean all the women who were sickened by the bile they heard from the R's?

And heartened by the words they heard from the Dems. It's not a new phenemonena. One thing that happens when you start losing any consitutency is that you stop listening to them, since you see them as against you. Expect the Rs to keep digging this hole, while the Dems keep building.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Who do you think these idiots are, and how do they run the GOP? Boehner and McConnell look like they're just trying to hang onto their jobs.

Good point. I don't know who's in charge in that asylum. But from past experience, almost 80% of all GOP voters I know are pro-choice. And almost all of those I know who've worked in GOP campaigns and for the party, several at high levels, admit they're bald-face lying to the Southern Evangelicals about wanting to flip Roe. It's been an awful necessary fib to keep a fat swath of useful idiots pulling your lever.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

And heartened by the words they heard from the Dems.

What words? "We won't let the nuts take away what you already have?" That's still voting against the nuts. Saying "we won't do that," is not the same as saying "we'll do this!" but maybe you're right and the r's are simply dead as a party. just a lil blast from the past, i was basically posting that about the d's in 2004.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

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".

Got it. You and others like you voted the way you did because Obama shares certain values that Romney and the republicans reject or because Obama doesn't reject certain values you embrace. Why you choose to phrase this as "Obama won because people voted against Romney" is beyond me.

I think you're too focused on the word "devalue." The point I'm making with it isn't that votes are actually being devalued. I'm wondering why your and Hank's perspective allows you to think your votes were in the class of votes that won this election for Obama when there are so many others who voted the same way for other reasons.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Not voting for Clinton in '92 is understandable. He was an unknown, up from nowhere. Voting for Dole in '96 can only be attributed to an absurd amount of whisky, or temporary loss of all cognitive faculties.

It is, but less so if you voted for Dukakis.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

My bad.

Bullshit on your other point. A liberal Democrat would've used the internet money to start some utopian basket of programs called "The Ultimate War on Poverty, Inequity, and General Meanness." This new breed of idiot we call "Republicans" would've pissed it away on some pre-emptive, mismanaged war in God only knows where. Clinton did nothing but balance the budget. No insane regulation, no curbs on free trade, no efforts to "put the wealth to good use," and no unaffordable tax cuts. He did what government should do - leave a humming economy alone and interfere only when absolutely needed.*
_______
* That he learned this the hard way, after getting his ass handed to him on HCReform, is not a rebuttal.

Hank just said he wanted that war.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Devaluing a vote as TM described it is not a thing. Votes have no value in our two party system. People are compelled to compromise between candidates neither of whom represent over 60% of what most voters want. A candidate that bridges the gap between the warring factions risks making the warring factions obsolete.

What the majority of people quietly want is a candidate who is socially liberal, fiscally conservative. We came close with Clinton, which is why the GOP loathed him so much, and the Lefties in the Democratic Party hate him.

And, oddly, we found another one in Obama.* Shocking.


* in the real world, not Sebbyland or Hankland.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

And, oddly, we found another one in Obama.* Shocking.


* in the real world, not Sebbyland or Hankland.

HCR is not fiscally conservative. It may be necessary, it may be right, but it is in no way conservative.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

that those nuts jobs could say the stuff they said about abortion and gays and so many other things, made it clear they are fatally sick in the head. I tend to agree with you that the sane R's will never reverse Roe, but 1) there is a lot of shit they could do day to day against women, and their positions were so anti-women (and anti-gay) that you have to assume they'd slip a lot of shit in, or at least not consider the impact of laws, and 2) lots of these yokels are clearly not sane.

Yeah, thank god for those sane Rs. They are really doing a good job protecting us from their crazy brethren.

There are what, like, 2 of them left?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Those aren't swing voters. Those are fools. If you think the GOP is going to flip Roe, you're nuts. The party that does that destroys its future. Even the idiots running the GOP know that's suicide. Hence, the GOP always manages to avoid putting an anti-Roe vote on the Court when it would matter. Every time it's been able to do so, it's put a strange moderate on the Court, who upholds Roe's essential premise.

Yeah, that Alito is definitely a strange moderate.

They haven't had the chance to appoint the fifth vote because justices don't retire while the other party is in the White House and no one has died unexpectedly recently.

When the chance comes, there will be a great rending in the GOP as the savvy take your view and the base cries for victory.

And the contraception thing is just nonsense. Nobody's barring anyone from getting contraception. That's a media crafted wedge issue.

No, the White House did, shrewdly.