Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2012 11:11:37 GMT -5
Not sure if posted yet, but Linda McMahon pretty much tried to set the bar in voter confusion yesterday {Spoiler} Tag team match, playa!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Nov 7, 2012 11:13:43 GMT -5
I think Linda may have a shot if she switches to being a Democrat. Though, as well, I'm not sure how much the Democrats would want Linda, in case she loses for them, again.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,366
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Nov 7, 2012 11:15:38 GMT -5
So... Obama's still president, the senate's still blue, the house is still red, and anyone who compromises/does anything the other team might like is still called a traitor. Now that the reset button has been hit, what's next? I would like to think that the GOP is going to realize that the obstructionist policies affected their results on the national level (losing presidential election and net losses in both the Senate and House) and that furthering those policies will further hurt them and might cost them both the House and the Senate in 2014 (and maybe even cost the Senate Minority Leader Mitch his Senate seat as he had a tight election in 2008).
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Nov 7, 2012 11:30:50 GMT -5
So... Obama's still president, the senate's still blue, the house is still red, and anyone who compromises/does anything the other team might like is still called a traitor. Now that the reset button has been hit, what's next? I would like to think that the GOP is going to realize that the obstructionist policies affected their results on the national level (losing presidential election and net losses in both the Senate and House) and that furthering those policies will further hurt them and might cost them both the House and the Senate in 2014 (and maybe even cost the Senate Minority Leader Mitch his Senate seat as he had a tight election in 2008). I don't expect 2014 to be anything like 2008. It's a midterm, which will see a huge dropoff from liberal demographics with a Democrat president, and I think we're gonna see some pretty sky high 2006 esque enthusiasm from far more motivated Republican voters. Even moreso than 2010. If this is like the Invasion, does that mean we'll get to have Herman Cain returning like Ric Flair? Because I'm all for that.
|
|
|
Post by Rolent Tex on Nov 7, 2012 11:53:21 GMT -5
I spent the entire night entertained by the amount of posts on FB declaring this the beginning of the end of the world. If the United States didn't spontaneously combust miraculously under eight years of Bush, it sure won't under eight years of Obama. Drama queens. (Some of the hardcore political nuts on my friends list were in hiding though, which I can't be sure if it's a good thing or they're going to go insane all at once.)
I do take some small satisfaction in the fact that Romney lost though even though I don't find either one of them appealing. The Republicans made it well known that they didn't really care for me or my vote for the second election cycle in a row...oh well.
|
|
|
Post by Orange on Nov 7, 2012 12:04:47 GMT -5
IMO, I think the main reason Romney lost, or at least one of the bigger reasons, is because of his stances on social issues. Especially with gay rights, if you run a campaign that threatens to add an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage in the year 2012 - you're not going to win.
If the GOP ever wants to hold the White House again, they have to change their stances on social issues FAST. One of the main reasons I voted for Obama is because I want to keep social issues moving forward - gay rights, women's rights, fair pay, etc. - the GOP has to find some kind of middle ground if they want to succeed. At this point, with the country changing its views on gays and other social issues so fast - I don't think it's hyperbole to say that unless they change, the GOP may never hold the White House ever again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2012 12:09:07 GMT -5
Obama heel turn? What's more heelish than drone strikes and wiretapping? As a lefty who voted for him, I really can't argue with the drone thing. I'd have a lot more respect for my fellow liberals if we had challenged him on killing American citizens without trial, murdering indiscriminately with robots. No way would Bush have been able to get away with such things without criticism. I hope this becomes a big issue in the Democratic primaries next time. I agree, except I have absolutely zero faith that this will be contested by the Democrats. This whole election thing wouldn't bug me if more liberals were willing to talk about the negative parts of Obama's administration, which in my opinion are pretty freaking bad.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Nov 7, 2012 12:15:22 GMT -5
IMO, I think the main reason Romney lost, or at least one of the bigger reasons, is because of his stances on social issues. Especially with gay rights, if you run a campaign that threatens to add an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage in the year 2012 - you're not going to win. If the GOP ever wants to hold the White House again, they have to change their stances on social issues FAST. One of the main reasons I voted for Obama is because I want to keep social issues moving forward - gay rights, women's rights, fair pay, etc. - the GOP has to find some kind of middle ground if they want to succeed. At this point, with the country changing its views on gays and other social issues so fast - I don't think it's hyperbole to say that unless they change, the GOP may never hold the White House ever again. The GOP base will fight tooth and nail to keep those social positions, if not extend them further. They have had success with them on the state level. In many ways and places abortion is more restricted now than it has been since Roe was instituted. What we will be likely to see is a reconsideration of how they talk about these things. The people who got in trouble this election over them came to the surface not because of the policies they advocated but rather for how they spoke about them. Although I have a hard time seeing them winning too many presidential elections if they don't expand such that they'd appeal to nonwhite people. But how do you do that without alienating nationalists?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2012 12:16:16 GMT -5
Vince: We're going to need another Timmy 50 million
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 22,862
|
Post by Legion on Nov 7, 2012 12:18:42 GMT -5
I think Linda may have a shot if she switches to being a Democrat. Though, as well, I'm not sure how much the Democrats would want Linda, in case she loses for them, again. I think I've read she actually plans to try for a third time, so maybe that would be the key to her victory? I doubt it. I think with the WWE connections she is simply unelectable. The Attitude era and the objectification of women, among other extreme story lines, during it made sure of that.
|
|
Marvelously Mediocre
Fry's dog Seymour
Beggin' for a little SWAGGAH!
Haha. What a story Mark.
Posts: 21,224
|
Post by Marvelously Mediocre on Nov 7, 2012 12:21:24 GMT -5
IMO, I think the main reason Romney lost, or at least one of the bigger reasons, is because of his stances on social issues. Especially with gay rights, if you run a campaign that threatens to add an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage in the year 2012 - you're not going to win. If the GOP ever wants to hold the White House again, they have to change their stances on social issues FAST. One of the main reasons I voted for Obama is because I want to keep social issues moving forward - gay rights, women's rights, fair pay, etc. - the GOP has to find some kind of middle ground if they want to succeed. At this point, with the country changing its views on gays and other social issues so fast - I don't think it's hyperbole to say that unless they change, the GOP may never hold the White House ever again. I think you may be right. In the UK the conservative government have had to do that and they got into power in 2010 for the first time in 13 years. Need to change with the times because IMO the Republican's social issues stances are very old fashioned and it's killing their young voter support. So happy Obama won, his speech was fantastic. I just didn't want to think about Romney being in charge so well done America.
|
|
Jonathan Michaels
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Archduke of Levity
Here since TNA was still kinda okay
Posts: 18,183
|
Post by Jonathan Michaels on Nov 7, 2012 12:25:37 GMT -5
How weird was it last night that the Fox News anchors were actually reasonable last night and did everything they could to shut Karl Rove up about Ohio.
Even they knew there was no point in disagreeing, so they were mature about it.
Progress?
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 22,862
|
Post by Legion on Nov 7, 2012 12:29:09 GMT -5
IMO, I think the main reason Romney lost, or at least one of the bigger reasons, is because of his stances on social issues. Especially with gay rights, if you run a campaign that threatens to add an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage in the year 2012 - you're not going to win. If the GOP ever wants to hold the White House again, they have to change their stances on social issues FAST. One of the main reasons I voted for Obama is because I want to keep social issues moving forward - gay rights, women's rights, fair pay, etc. - the GOP has to find some kind of middle ground if they want to succeed. At this point, with the country changing its views on gays and other social issues so fast - I don't think it's hyperbole to say that unless they change, the GOP may never hold the White House ever again. I think it's funny how conservative and backwards thinking some of their policies can be when their original inception was actually the opposite, as the part of anti-slavery, modernisation and in some cases, for the time, radicalism.
|
|
Yami Daimao
Patti Mayonnaise
Really, really wants to zigazig ah!
Posts: 31,784
|
Post by Yami Daimao on Nov 7, 2012 12:32:46 GMT -5
Don't know if this has already been posted:
|
|
|
Post by Urfarkendarf on Nov 7, 2012 12:34:41 GMT -5
I think Linda may have a shot if she switches to being a Democrat. Though, as well, I'm not sure how much the Democrats would want Linda, in case she loses for them, again. I think I've read she actually plans to try for a third time, so maybe that would be the key to her victory? I doubt it. I think with the WWE connections she is simply unelectable. The Attitude era and the objectification of women, among other extreme story lines, during it made sure of that. I think its more that she was running as a Republican in one of the bluest states in the country. I think its more that she never held a public office prior and essentially tried to buy her way in with a never-ending cascade of negative ads that did her in. Republicans can win in CT and have in the past, but she had more than just the tawdry WWE going against her. I don't think it helped, but I don't think a large enough swath of people would hold that against her. I think had she set the bar lower i.e. a House seat, or even something like a mayor to start and then try for the Senate a few years down the line, she'd have had a better shot.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 22,862
|
Post by Legion on Nov 7, 2012 12:34:42 GMT -5
Don't know if this has already been posted: I actually feel sorry for her. I really hated the way her opponent ran his campaign, from what I saw in media and such (prior to her switching to the same tactics), and the way she was attacked by outside media constantly. But on the other hand, she spent $100 million and still has a good double of that and then some, so I dont feel too bad for her. As the poster above says though, she probably set herself too high a target with little experience and should have started smaller.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Nov 7, 2012 12:43:01 GMT -5
IMO, I think the main reason Romney lost, or at least one of the bigger reasons, is because of his stances on social issues. Especially with gay rights, if you run a campaign that threatens to add an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage in the year 2012 - you're not going to win. If the GOP ever wants to hold the White House again, they have to change their stances on social issues FAST. One of the main reasons I voted for Obama is because I want to keep social issues moving forward - gay rights, women's rights, fair pay, etc. - the GOP has to find some kind of middle ground if they want to succeed. At this point, with the country changing its views on gays and other social issues so fast - I don't think it's hyperbole to say that unless they change, the GOP may never hold the White House ever again. The GOP base will fight tooth and nail to keep those social positions, if not extend them further. They have had success with them on the state level. In many ways and places abortion is more restricted now than it has been since Roe was instituted. What we will be likely to see is a reconsideration of how they talk about these things. The people who got in trouble this election over them came to the surface not because of the policies they advocated but rather for how they spoke about them. Although I have a hard time seeing them winning too many presidential elections if they don't expand such that they'd appeal to nonwhite people. But how do you do that without alienating nationalists? They can have them, but they also have to be able to seem like a viable option to Pro-Choice women, minorities, and Log Cabin Republicans. Obama won Virginia, he won Ohio, he won Wisconsin, he won Colorado, he won Nevada. He looks like he'll win Florida. He won almost every swing state because the GOP is off putting to so many women, minorities, and homosexuals. People need to understand that those red states in the South were for years democrat states. They're typically the poorest in the nation, and you would think that would mean Democrat. Well it was George Wallace, and later Richard Nixon, that began to run on social conservatism, in those days it was civil rights. Until Obama, the only two Dems to win office were Southerners who could cut into that stranglehold somewhat. But what has happened, because of changing demographics, and because of the ineptness of the party, that strategy, which now focuses more on things like Abortion, Immigration, and Gay Rights, has off put a lot of moderate conservatives. It seems that because of the fear of losing this base, even more moderate candidates don't make it out of primaries, or if they do, have to move with the far right. The Tea Party tenor might have excited 20% of your party, but it also killed off a lot of moderates. And until the party comes to grips with the new reality, the will not win
|
|