US Election 2012...the aftermath

[BruceVC]

But their social policies, evangelical ultra-religious and pro-anti-science stances they hold today leave too much of a bad taste for me to ever consider voting for

 

You have summarized succinctly the issues I have with the Republican party and what they need to do to change in order to win the necessary demographics, nice one

[alanschu]

Hahahhaha.

 

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-city-austin-texas-withdraw-state-texas-remain-part-united-states/TDD212hQ

[Gfted1]

I dont get it.

[Calax]

I dont get it.

Basically, Austin Texas wants to become it's own city, like DC, and no longer a part of Texas.

 

In the same way Texas is tossing out the petition to no longer be part of the union.

[Gfted1]

Well, I got that much out of it, I just didnt get what was so hilarios. Doesnt Quebec want to do the same thing?

[GuybrushWilco]

It is most like a satirical petition from liberal Texans in Austin, which from my understanding is a city with a mostly liberal minded population. They are saying, in response to the Texas secession petition, that they would rather not be part of an independent Texas, and would prefer to remain in the USA, so they are calling for Austin to be its own state. Anyway, it's just a handful of private citizens petitioning for Texas secession anyway, and it's not coming from the state Senate or other parts of the Texan government. In fact, the Texas governor, Rick Perry, recently stated that is opposed to the idea of secession.

[alanschu]

Well, I got that much out of it, I just didnt get what was so hilarios. Doesnt Quebec want to do the same thing?

 

I laughed because it is in response to those that wish to secede from the United States.

 

I don't know, to me it seemed like pretty blatant satire that pokes fun at those going and filling out those petitions.

 

 

 

EDIT: GuyBrushWilco explains it in more detail.

Edited November 15, 2012 by alanschu

[Wrath of Dagon]

But their social policies, evangelical ultra-religious and pro-anti-science stances they hold today leave too much of a bad taste for me to ever consider voting for

 

You have summarized succinctly the issues I have with the Republican party and what they need to do to change in order to win the necessary demographics, nice one

I read stuff like that all the time, but what you have to understand is that any party is a coalition. Take away one piece of a coalition, and all you have is a minority party. Evangelicals are 27% of the electorate, take them away and there's no Republican party, not that it matters as it's dead on the national level anyway.

 

Btw, the 80's may have some surface similarities to now, but that's all it is. For one thing the number of swing states is vastly smaller now, the country is pretty much locked in and moving in only one direction.

[Calax]

But their social policies, evangelical ultra-religious and pro-anti-science stances they hold today leave too much of a bad taste for me to ever consider voting for

 

You have summarized succinctly the issues I have with the Republican party and what they need to do to change in order to win the necessary demographics, nice one

I read stuff like that all the time, but what you have to understand is that any party is a coalition. Take away one piece of a coalition, and all you have is a minority party. Evangelicals are 27% of the electorate, take them away and there's no Republican party, not that it matters as it's dead on the national level anyway.

 

Btw, the 80's may have some surface similarities to now, but that's all it is. For one thing the number of swing states is vastly smaller now, the country is pretty much locked in and moving in only one direction.

And the number of religious folk in the US is rapidly shrinking. Yes, Political parties are coalitions, but the issue is that the coalition that the Republicans are playing Umbrella for is just NOT going to have as much power as they want... and their pandering to the extreme of their party hurts them significantly (given the majority of people wouldn't cheer for "LET EM DIE!" in relation to a poor person not having health care). If they want to have a better showing at the polls they need to get away from topics that alienate large demographics (rape, trans-vaginal ultrasounds, rape, "let em die") and start finding a way to get those votes back.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I wouldn't say rapidly, it's more that less religious people are becoming even more secular. Now the examples you give are mostly a few morons who aren't even smart enough to keep their trap shut, and care a lot more about themselves than how much they are hurting the entire party and all that it stands for. Nothing the Republicans can do about them anyway since they were selected by the voters, it's not like they're picked by the party establishment.

[alanschu]

You don't need to be religious in order to vote on the right.

 

I'm athiest-agnostic and tend to vote on the right as well. I'm pretty pragmatic in my voting, although if I were to pick an ideology that I identify with the closest with, it'd be libertarian.

 

Evangelicals are 27% of the electorate, take them away and there's no Republican party,

 

Are the Evangelicals are just going to vote Democrat if the Republicans are less hardliner for some of the religious concerns?

 

The issue here, IMO, is the primaries. In order to become the Republican candidate you need to win over the Republican voters, of which the Evangelicals will have a larger piece of the pie. This results in candidates trying to win those votes by catering to them, and then on the national level they have to rescind those hardline perspectives.

Edited November 15, 2012 by alanschu

[Calax]

I wouldn't say rapidly, it's more that less religious people are becoming even more secular. Now the examples you give are mostly a few morons who aren't even smart enough to keep their trap shut, and care a lot more about themselves than how much they are hurting the entire party and all that it stands for. Nothing the Republicans can do about them anyway since they were selected by the voters, it's not like they're picked by the party establishment.

The party can choose to distance themselves from those candidates, which they didn't seem to (but they didn't draw them closer at the same time). King is still in office, but all of the others were rejected.

[Hurlshort]

That's why I don't get why you cater to the evangelicals at all. Where else they gonna go? That ridiculous American Family Values party? They certainly aren't going to go vote democrat.

[alanschu]

See, part of the problem here that doesn't help is the inability to accept that maybe his party/policies are part of the problem. Instead it's just "well he bought off people in his first term" as though those groups would have been shoo-ins for voting Republican otherwise.

[Enoch]

That's why I don't get why you cater to the evangelicals at all. Where else they gonna go? That ridiculous American Family Values party? They certainly aren't going to go vote democrat.

 

Well, a lot of them used to. Before religious issues were really pushed all that heavily in national politics, there was a creature in Washington known as the "Southern Democrat." They caucused with the Dems because no true son of Dixie was going to join the party of Lincoln and Grant, but they functioned essentially as a centrist 3rd party, mostly positioned between the Democrats from the rest of the country (like the Kennedys) and the GOP. The Republicans managed to pry these folks away from the party of their granddaddies by emphasizing social issues-- first Civil Rights, then religious issues like school prayer and abortion.

 

But, more likely, they'll just vote less. The mobilization of evangelicals as a political force is a fairly recent phenomenon. Before the GOP started working hard to reach that audience, they didn't vote at particularly high rates. If someone has a staunch "I'll never vote for a candidate who allows abortions to happen in this country" position, and if neither of the major parties put forth a candidate that speaks to their particular concerns, that kind of voter might prefer to disengage from national politics.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Enoch

[Calax]

That's why I don't get why you cater to the evangelicals at all. Where else they gonna go? That ridiculous American Family Values party? They certainly aren't going to go vote democrat.

 

Well, a lot of them used to. Before religious issues were really pushed all that heavily in national politics, there was a creature in Washington known as the "Southern Democrat." They caucused with the Dems because no true son of Dixie was going to join the party of Lincoln and Grant, but they functioned essentially as a centrist 3rd party, mostly positioned between the Democrats from the rest of the country (like the Kennedys) and the GOP. The Republicans managed to pry these folks away from the party of their granddaddies by emphasizing social issues-- first Civil Rights, then religious issues like school prayer and abortion.

 

But, more likely, they'll just vote less. The mobilization of evangelicals as a political force is a fairly recent phenomenon. Before the GOP started working hard to reach that audience, they didn't vote at particularly high rates. If someone has a staunch "I'll never vote for a candidate who allows abortions to happen in this country" position, and if neither of the major parties put forth a candidate that speaks to their particular concerns, that kind of voter might prefer to disengage from national politics.

However the issue that turned up in this most recent election is that their particular concerns and this strategy have started to harm the party and it's public image.

[Wrath of Dagon]

You don't need to be religious in order to vote on the right.

 

I'm athiest-agnostic and tend to vote on the right as well. I'm pretty pragmatic in my voting, although if I were to pick an ideology that I identify with the closest with, it'd be libertarian.

 

Evangelicals are 27% of the electorate, take them away and there's no Republican party,

 

Are the Evangelicals are just going to vote Democrat if the Republicans are less hardliner for some of the religious concerns?

 

The issue here, IMO, is the primaries. In order to become the Republican candidate you need to win over the Republican voters, of which the Evangelicals will have a larger piece of the pie. This results in candidates trying to win those votes by catering to them, and then on the national level they have to rescind those hardline perspectives.

If Republicans don't support their isues, they'll simply stay home and not vote. "The problem is the primaries" is like saying "the problem is democracy". These people are the Republican party.

 

I wouldn't say rapidly, it's more that less religious people are becoming even more secular. Now the examples you give are mostly a few morons who aren't even smart enough to keep their trap shut, and care a lot more about themselves than how much they are hurting the entire party and all that it stands for. Nothing the Republicans can do about them anyway since they were selected by the voters, it's not like they're picked by the party establishment.

The party can choose to distance themselves from those candidates, which they didn't seem to (but they didn't draw them closer at the same time). King is still in office, but all of the others were rejected.

With Atkins they actually asked him to step down so someone viable could be substituted, but he just didn't care.

 

That's why I don't get why you cater to the evangelicals at all. Where else they gonna go? That ridiculous American Family Values party? They certainly aren't going to go vote democrat.

 

Well, a lot of them used to. Before religious issues were really pushed all that heavily in national politics, there was a creature in Washington known as the "Southern Democrat." They caucused with the Dems because no true son of Dixie was going to join the party of Lincoln and Grant, but they functioned essentially as a centrist 3rd party, mostly positioned between the Democrats from the rest of the country (like the Kennedys) and the GOP. The Republicans managed to pry these folks away from the party of their granddaddies by emphasizing social issues-- first Civil Rights, then religious issues like school prayer and abortion.

 

But, more likely, they'll just vote less. The mobilization of evangelicals as a political force is a fairly recent phenomenon. Before the GOP started working hard to reach that audience, they didn't vote at particularly high rates. If someone has a staunch "I'll never vote for a candidate who allows abortions to happen in this country" position, and if neither of the major parties put forth a candidate that speaks to their particular concerns, that kind of voter might prefer to disengage from national politics.

Actually Southern Democrats were often very conservative and very religious. Historically they hated Republicans so much they were called "Yellow Dog Democrats", because the saying went they'd vote for a yellow dog if it was on the Democratic ticket. Back then there were also Eastern Establishment Republicans who were quite liberal. Over time the parties re-aligned into their current liberal/conservative molds, which is why the country is so polarized and ideologically locked in now.

[Humodour]

You don't need to be religious in order to vote on the right.

 

I'm athiest-agnostic and tend to vote on the right as well. I'm pretty pragmatic in my voting, although if I were to pick an ideology that I identify with the closest with, it'd be libertarian.

 

Evangelicals are 27% of the electorate, take them away and there's no Republican party,

 

Are the Evangelicals are just going to vote Democrat if the Republicans are less hardliner for some of the religious concerns?

 

The issue here, IMO, is the primaries. In order to become the Republican candidate you need to win over the Republican voters, of which the Evangelicals will have a larger piece of the pie. This results in candidates trying to win those votes by catering to them, and then on the national level they have to rescind those hardline perspectives.

If Republicans don't support their isues, they'll simply stay home and not vote. "The problem is the primaries" is like saying "the problem is democracy". These people are the Republican party.

 

No. About 40% of US Americans do not vote. It's highly likely that if the evangelicals didn't vote, you'd have other people who would suddenly be willing to vote doing so instead, because politics has become less extreme and insane. For instance, the socially and economically libertarian group would probably return to the Republican party if the prudes left.

 

Certainly, your democracy isn't properly representative anyway because it consistently skips about 40% of its members.

[alanschu]

If Republicans don't support their isues, they'll simply stay home and not vote. "The problem is the primaries" is like saying "the problem is democracy". These people are the Republican party.

 

Democracy shouldn't require politicians to go "Hey yeah I'm pro life and boo all abortion!" and then in the Federal election have them pander "Well I'm not really that extreme." Unfortunately in order to win the primaries, Romney had to hardcore appeal to that group, which ultimately undermines him because unlike in the past, the level of visibility into the things he says and does in the Primaries sticks with him. Same with his history at Governor. All that information is more accessible now.

[Guest The Architect]

The US elections would be a hell of a lot better if the Republicans changed their comedic attitudes towards global warming, evolution, abortion and homosexuality.

 

"Secular serenity now" should be the slogan for the Republicans leading into the future.

[Calax]

If Republicans don't support their isues, they'll simply stay home and not vote. "The problem is the primaries" is like saying "the problem is democracy". These people are the Republican party.

 

Actually, primaries are the antethesis of a proper democracy. You're supposed to be able to choose whomever you desire, not "this person is part of my party/the party I like the most". The point I made in one of my poly sci classes that froze up the PHD was that in the chinese one party system, you get more of a choice between viewpoints than in the current two party election scheme. Why? Becuase when you get right down to it, there's ultimately very little difference overall between the parties, while under a single party, the different candidates (more than 2) each can take a more varied approach to their political agenda.

[Zoraptor]

Certainly, your democracy isn't properly representative anyway because it consistently skips about 40% of its members.

That's pretty typical of western democracies though. Our government got elected by 26% of the population due to a low turn out and we don't have most of the US specific issues, ie minor party votes usually will count and have a point.

 

Wikipedia (heh, it gives our historical turn out as 89% and it was way less last election) gives Australia's historical turn out as 81% despite it being illegal not to vote, for example.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

No. About 40% of US Americans do not vote. It's highly likely that if the evangelicals didn't vote, you'd have other people who would suddenly be willing to vote doing so instead, because politics has become less extreme and insane. For instance, the socially and economically libertarian group would probably return to the Republican party if the prudes left.

 

Certainly, your democracy isn't properly representative anyway because it consistently skips about 40% of its members.

People don't vote because they don't know anything about politics or don't care. If there were all these latent libertarians that you imagine then libertarians would actually be viable instead of getting 1% or less. If they can actually replace the evagelicals, why don't they vote in the primaries and take over the Republican party? I mean Ron Paul tried, but obviously his support is no where near the conservatives. I know you read a lot, but you don't really understand Americans politics or the American population.

 

Btw, having to pander to the extreme in the primaries and then move to the center is not unique to the Republicans, Democrats do that too (hence Hillary lost). The party activists who are the most influential are normally more extreme than the party.

[GuybrushWilco]

That 40% wasn't 'skipped' these are people who, for whatever reason, willingly choose not to vote, and it is of course within their rights, to not vote.

[alanschu]

Btw, having to pander to the extreme in the primaries and then move to the center is not unique to the Republicans, Democrats do that too (hence Hillary lost). The party activists who are the most influential are normally more extreme than the party.

 

But as the incumbent Obama doesn't have to deal with the sudden about face as Romney had to.