President Obama

[alanschu]

Demographics have changed, and will keep changing against Republicans. Virginia and Colorado were Republican leaning states, and now lean Democrat. Ohio might still be a toss up, but Florida will probably be leaning Democrat next election. So Republicans have no path to victory.

 

Things change. In 1984 America was an ocean of Red with a couple blips of blue. Despite the democrats still getting 40% of the popular vote. I wouldn't at all be surprised for Republicans to do well if people feel the situation warrants it. The ocean of red carried on into Bush Sr. but things went blue in the 90s (with a recession to boot).

[ravenshrike]

Yes, existing laws have over-promised things, and the exponential rise in healthcare costs has made promises that looked reasonable in the past far too costly. Nearly everybody acknowledges this, and both sides have ideas about how to address these issues. It's an easy issue to put on the "maybe next year" pile, but some manner of either solution (either via compromise or via full-on elective victory) will happen at some point.

Um. You do realize there will be SERIOUS economic effects if the debt is not serviced and entitlements are not distributed correct? Refusing to pay the interest on the debt would certainly make for an interesting game of chicken with our debtors, unless we wanted to default entirely I suppose. Or we could just inflate our way out of debt, but that NEVER ends well. As for entitlements well, I suppose old people rioting are amusing. Edited November 9, 2012 by ravenshrike

[alanschu]

Except you gloss over the rest of his post.

 

You're closer to the all time historic low than you are to the historic average of tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, and assume that the entitlements cannot be restructured. It's what's going to have to be done, Democratic or republican.

[Hurlshort]

Don't know if it's already been discussed, but it looks to me like Republicans are no longer viable in a presidential election. Which means half the country has no representation at the national level.

 

I'm guessing, and really hoping, that the Republican party will be making some big changes to become more relevant in the next election. A good first step would be to jettison some of the crazier elements.

They've already run two cadidates who are much more moderate than the party itself in 2 consecutive elections, how much more can they concede?

 

 

If Romney had actually stuck to the policies he pushed as governor, he might have had a shot at some swing voters and moderates. As is, he never really established a strong identity.

[Humodour]

Regarding where the Republicans are going horribly, horribly, wrong, a huge chunk of their "wrongness" can be found in their collective attitude to science and maths: an attitude of disdain.

 

Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than their approach to the science of evolution or global warming (it's the same approach for both), but if we don't want to go down that path, then let's just look at how they handled Nate Silver's electoral predictions (his blog is linked to in the very first post of this thread):

 

http://blog.chron.co...om-nate-silver/

 

What must go on in their minds to sustain their crazy in the face of insurmountable evidence that they are crazy? You know who the GOP remind me of? Iranian politicians.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Krezack

[Calax]

The republican party, as we know it, is dying.

 

They can't pick up the womens vote with their overly anti-female stance.

They have no minority votes because of their reliance/enjoyment of the rich white demographic and it's particular issues.

Their scientific side isn't much better, with their pandering for the hyper conservative stuff.

 

Basically they HAVE no electorate because of the fact that White Male voters, as a whole, aren't going to be NEARLY as dominant as they were in previous decades/elections. The Plurality of African and Latin voters with democratic whites, and other minorities, means that the democractic party has a fairly solid (and growing) base. The Womens issues that have come up over the election cycle just sealed the coffin.

 

Right now I'd suggest we'll end up seeing the Republican party break in half, and the Democratic party will either go far more liberal, and have the Moderates break off and make a third party with the others of their kind, or vis-versa, with moderate republicans joining the democratic party, and the radical democrats getting peeved and breaking into their own group.

[Volourn]

I remember when it was the Democrats who were the 'dying' party. This kind of thing goes in cycles. 10 years (heck 4 eyars from now) the opposite might true.

 

If the Demos are so dominate and unbeatable why did the repubs win nearly 50% of the vote and have control of one of the major political power bases?

 

R00fles!

 

P.S. Grats to Obama.

 

P.S.S. Can this put to rest the stupid 'Amerikans are racist against blacks' bullcrap. How many other non Black dominated countries have actully voted a black person into power? I doubt very many.

[HoonDing]

Many were (thank goodness)

 

 

 

All undone by Bachman being re-elected.

[Monte Carlo]

Regarding where the Republicans are going horribly, horribly, wrong, a huge chunk of their "wrongness" can be found in their collective attitude to science and maths: an attitude of disdain. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than their approach to the science of evolution or global warming (it's the same approach for both)

 

Krezzie, this is why you are bonkers and sitting in your strange ivory tower, constructed completely out of astro-turf.

 

Because if you honestly think that Joe Soap in Ohio didn't vote for Romney because of his position on AGW then you are nuts.

[Humodour]

I remember when it was the Democrats who were the 'dying' party. This kind of thing goes in cycles.

 

It doesn't go in cycles at all, Volourn.

 

People don't vote in cycles. They don't go "oh, the Dems have been in power for 8 years, now I'll vote Republican".

 

People vote according to issues relevant to them. The Republicans are not relevant to women, Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians, or educated people. Take a look at the demographic analyses of the election. Take a look at how the Hispanic and black vote-share has changed over the past, say, 4 elections.

 

The only way the Republicans can start winning again is by either a) relying on a huge Democratic screw up, or b) being less racist, more tolerant, more willing to compromise, and less stupid (c.f. evolution, rape, global warming).

Edited November 9, 2012 by Tigranes
*cough*

[alanschu]

Have you looked at the maths at all or just spurted unsubstantiated verbal diarrhoea on these forums again? You can obviously tell what my personal intuition on your level of research is.

 

People don't vote in cycles. They don't go "oh, the Dems have been in power for 8 years, now I'll vote Republican".

 

Voting results has seen an ebb and flow, however.

 

In the 30s, Democrats were crushing with 500+ electoral votes. Then Ike was in as a Rep for a couple terms, then it went back to Dems with some big wins, then Reps dominated for a decent chunk of time, with Clinton ruling the school, the Dubya, followed by Obama now.

 

Yes people vote according to issues that are relevant to them. The issues that are in play at any given election are not static, however.

[Humodour]

Regarding where the Republicans are going horribly, horribly, wrong, a huge chunk of their "wrongness" can be found in their collective attitude to science and maths: an attitude of disdain. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than their approach to the science of evolution or global warming (it's the same approach for both)

 

Krezzie, this is why you are bonkers and sitting in your strange ivory tower, constructed completely out of astro-turf.

 

Because if you honestly think that Joe Soap in Ohio didn't vote for Romney because of his position on AGW then you are nuts.

 

Calm it down you hothead.

 

Some Ohioans won't vote against a Republican candidate because of his lies on global warming by itself. Other Ohoians will vote against him because of this.

 

But yet more Ohians will definitely vote against a candidate with a twisted anti-abortion stance who denies evolution is real and believes global warming is a conspiracy theory or is natural. Maybe if the Republican party moderates on all the other areas where it lies and screams about science, he could get away with lying his pants off about global warming.

 

Just as the economy alone won't win a candidate election, and nor will claims of tax cuts or tax hikes, or even his stance on gay marriage... how a candidate stands on all of issues combined WILL win or lose him the election. Global warming is, very rightly, one of these issues for a LOT of people. A candidate which stands on the right side of history (i.e. acting on the findings of science) on global warming is going to be more and more likely to be elected as time goes by.

 

And we saw that in the response of the people living in New York and New Jersey. Ohioans might not care - but the coastal states sure do.

 

Oh and by the way - Obama would have won re-election even if he had of lost both Ohio and Florida because of how strongly he carried Colorado.

[Humodour]

Have you looked at the maths at all or just spurted unsubstantiated verbal diarrhoea on these forums again? You can obviously tell what my personal intuition on your level of research is.

 

People don't vote in cycles. They don't go "oh, the Dems have been in power for 8 years, now I'll vote Republican".

 

Voting results has seen an ebb and flow, however.

 

Oh, definitely. It's essentially sinusoidal (with occasional 3 terms of the same party or a single term of one party here and there). Actually, I suppose it's more a step function. But Volourn was basically acting like it's sinusoidal/step-like by nature, rather than because of internal dynamics. No way Jose. If the alternative party is consistently ****, people will never vote for them. Japan, for all its cultural differences, is perhaps a good example of that.

 

In the 30s, Democrats were crushing with 500+ electoral votes. Then Ike was in as a Rep for a couple terms, then it went back to Dems with some big wins, then Reps dominated for a decent chunk of time, with Clinton ruling the school, the Dubya, followed by Obama now.

 

Yes people vote according to issues that are relevant to them. The issues that are in play at any given election are not static, however.

 

The Republicans can easily win again. People would just LOVE to vote for a socially progressive (or at least centrist) and fiscally conservative party (in the German way, not the stupid Tea Party way).

 

But the Republicans won't win again until they change.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Krezack

[Farbautisonn]

For the republicans to win they will need to can a significant portion of their electorate. The ultra religious portion mainly. I wont discount republicans. They have many good and skilled politicians and despite the "obvious win", when you look at the demographic percentile of voters for each party, less than 7 pct make the difference between success and failiure.

 

But if I were a political advisor for the republicans Id distance myself from the teaparty sufficiantly to be called "my own man", go poaching for votes in traditionally democratic topics such as a pro choise, pro intellectual, pro gays rights, and maintain a sharp fiscal conservatism. I actually think a candidate with those views a bit of money and some good rhetoric could win by a landslide.

 

However that would almost certainly require a splintering of the bipartisan system and the way that the american election system is cobbled togetther (winner takes all) it wont happen. People allready in power have too much to loose and they wont vote for changes to the bureaucracy that puts themselves at risk.

[Enoch]

Yes, existing laws have over-promised things, and the exponential rise in healthcare costs has made promises that looked reasonable in the past far too costly. Nearly everybody acknowledges this, and both sides have ideas about how to address these issues. It's an easy issue to put on the "maybe next year" pile, but some manner of either solution (either via compromise or via full-on elective victory) will happen at some point.

Um. You do realize there will be SERIOUS economic effects if the debt is not serviced and entitlements are not distributed correct? Refusing to pay the interest on the debt would certainly make for an interesting game of chicken with our debtors, unless we wanted to default entirely I suppose. Or we could just inflate our way out of debt, but that NEVER ends well. As for entitlements well, I suppose old people rioting are amusing.

 

I never said that the government should default on its obligations. It should alter what it has promised so that the projected growth in entitlement costs (which is primarily Medicare) doesn't continue on the trend it is currently on.

 

In the interim, no person or institution in the world can borrow money as cheaply as the government of the United States can. That will probably be true for as long as there are no serious rivals to the USD as the preferred 'safe' currency across the planet. (And the likelihood of that changing in the foreseeable future is pretty small.) Sure, you can't borrow forever, but to stop doing so while the economy is in its current state would be folly.

[Hurlshort]

Fixing the broken medical and insurance industry might help a bit, too.

[LadyCrimson]

Can there be existence without ending? asked the forum to the thread.

To exist is to end, replied the thread.

 

Post limit.