Most Telling Statistic Of The Election

[FaninAma]

Obama won 60% of those from households making less than $60K a year even though they are doing worse today than 4 years ago compared to other income groups.

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/exit-polls-2012-how-obama-won-reelection

Any thoughts as to why they would vote for the big-government candidate?

And if elections have consequences and if you understand who voted for Obama and the democrats and what their motivation was what does this tell us about the direction of the country? Also, what lies at the end of the road of this big progressive social experiment?

Points to ponder.

[badger]

I hope I'm not annoying you by responding to all the threads you've started because you do bring up interesting and valid points.

There is no one reason why voters said "nay" to Romney or "yea" to Obama, much like there is no one reason why the Civil War happened (even if people would immediately shout "SLAVERY!" if asked).

Here's a few reasons why I think the key states in this presidential election (because really, the Oklahomas and Californias didn't matter, they were going pro-Republican and pro-Democrat regardless):

- Rust Belt states favored the auto bailout. Romney was strategically painted as anti-auto industry. "Let Detroit go bankrupt," his NYTimes ed-op proclaimed (it was the headline, not him).

- Rust Belt states are still pro-union. Even if Wisconsin Gov. Walker wasn't recalled, states in that region still rely greatly on unions (read: manufacturing industry) for their economies.

- Republicans have had major verbal gaffes in this election. The 47 percent and "Corporations are people" comments just scratches the surface. The rape comments were a definitely turn-off for women voters, even if it wasn't Romney who made them.

- People still remember - and loathe - the W. years. Four years of Obama isn't enough to undo the hurt and mistrust of the Republican party at the national level. The Koch brothers, the high gas prices (and recent storm-caused shortages), the voter ID (suppression?) controversies are all reminders that many middle-class and lower-class income voters do not trust nor appreciate the upper class "I'm better than you" flaunting.

Also, on a national level, I'm not sure America was as ready for a Mormon president as they were for a black (shaddap, I know he's half-black guys!) president four years ago and now. I personally think that Mormons are hard working, family-first Christians, but many Christians and non-Christians alike probably still think back to the no-blacks, plural wives days of long ago. Jokes about magic underwear and calling him "Bishop Romney" probably didn't help.

So, much like the Civil War wasn't a slavery-only issue (far from it), Obama votes were not an income-level-only issue.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

People want big governement to save or protect them. The old American exceptionalism is dead as is self reliance...Be prepared for lots more taxes and intrusion into your life.

[Soonerjeepman]

agree with both Badg and THA..

To me there is a real shift in thinking. That for some reason people are felt they are owed something. I do think the Repub shot themselves in the foot big-time several places. Atkins in Missouri...most Missourians were ready for Clair to be gone, unfortunately Atkins won the primary (some say the dems put up ads for him in the primary because they knew he could be beat) and opened his mouth. End of story.

I do disagree with ya Badg on the Mormon thing. Everyone I talked to didn't even mention that at all, in fact most Christians (Billie Graham, Huckabee) supported him BECAUSE of his stance on gay marriage and abortion. The fact Ryan was Catholic as well should have helped.

I think obama got the poor, manual labor, illegal immigrant votes mobilized and kudos to them they knew that is where they needed to win.

[ouwasp]

here's an interesting stat: Only 39% of white voters cast their ballot for BHO...

[Soonerjeepman]

here's an interesting stat: Only 39% of white voters cast their ballot for BHO...

I would venture to say that of that 61% that didn't vote for him most was because of his policies not his skin color...where as 95% of the minorities that voted for him was because of his skin color not his policies. Like someone said, if ANY other white male dem was running with obama's record they would have lost.

[OULenexaman]

Kinda like Carter??

[cleller]

Obama and the media have been screaming at them that Romney only wants to help the rich, and they believe it.

Obama can say, Look I only want to go after the rich folks, and somehow people think that will be better for them. Most voters don't remember what its like to live with a liberal Supreme Court.

[JohnnyMack]

To me it's laughable that you think Romney was some sort of legitimate small government alternative. This guy isn't even a conservative. He's a Massachusetts moderate.

His big claim to fame is the turning around of the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. How did he do that? By going to Washington and asking for a handout. Well, a lot of handouts. $1.5 billion worth of them for infrastructure like highways and parking lots and a light rail system.

The Republican party has no interest in limiting or shrinking the size of the federal government, they just want to get control back. George W. Bush was the most expansionist POTUS since FDR. W makes LBJ look like Calvin ****ing Coolidge. The scary thing is Mitt Romney governed Massachusetts in a more liberal fashion that W did Texas. I can just imagine how Romney would have shrunk the size of government. Give me a ****ing break.

[yermom]

both are for big government, one just makes different people rich than the other

[KABOOKIE]

It's hard for any Republican to win an election when the media, hollywood and the comedians are firmly on Obama's dong. Every issue by Republicans, every obscure Republican's gaff, every single action by a Republican is labeled as hate, ignorance, rascism and rape. Well played democrats. Well ****ing played.

[KABOOKIE]

both are for big government, one just makes different people rich than the other

I don't see the democrats making anyone rich. The same poor broke *** people are still broke. Obama phone!

[rock on sooner]

It's hard for any Republican to win an election when the media, hollywood and the comedians are firmly on Obama's dong. Every issue by Republicans, every obscure Republican's gaff, every single action by a Republican is labeled as hate, ignorance, rascism and rape. Well played democrats. Well ****ing played.

Only problem with the obscure Republican's gaff is that they do the gaffing
in televised/broadcast debates.

[KABOOKIE]

Only problem with the obscure Republican's gaff is that they do the gaffing
in televised/broadcast debates.

We live in an age of media. Everything is captured. The meida decides what to play over and over and over to drive home the Obama agenda. Give me control of the media and I'll have all of the knuckle dragging idiots flocking to the Republican party with fear that Obama is the anti-christ and wants to eat your babies.

[BoomerJack]

Here's a article from Rolling Stone:

By Tim Dickinson November 7, 2012 8:21 AM ET

President Barack Obama has won re-election – his lease on the White House renewed by a multicultural, center-left coalition that ought to give GOP consultants nightmares, producing an electoral college landslide that surprised everyone not named Nate Silver. (The Five Thirty Eight guru's reputation is as golden this morning as SuperPAC kingpin Karl Rove's is tarnished.)

With four more years, Obama can now cement his historic legacy, fully implementing Obamacare, the most ambitious renegotiation of the American social contract since the 1960s. The president broke ground on his second term with an electrifying acceptance speech that recalled the best of 2008's candidate Obama, and 2004's convention Obama. He hit again on the touchstone of his presidency, his belief "that while each of us will pursue our own individual dreams, we are an American family and we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people."

This race wasn't close. Obama secured a convincing win of the popular vote. And from his 2008 state-by-state haul, he surrendered only Indiana (which was never truly in play) and North Carolina (a surprise squeaker) to Mitt Romney. Every other swing state – Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and New Hampshire – tipped again into Obama's victory column. When counting is complete, Florida, too, appears poised to go blue.
In the end, Obama's dedicated campaign volunteers proved themselves worth far more than anything the GOP's moneymen could buy. Voters rebuked the mendacious Romney and his villainous platform to lard the rich and destroy the social safety net.

How did team Obama defeat Romney? Here, the six keys to victory:

1) The Turnout Machine
I reported on Obama's re-vamped get-out-the-vote machine this spring, previewing the technology that would enable the campaign to network its GOTV operations far beyond campaign offices and into the garages and dorm rooms of its supporters.
At the time, campaign manager Jim Messina and field director Jeremy Bird were making an early, unprecedented investment in the ground game – and that bet paid off like gangbusters. In a contest that couldn't compare to 2008's electricity, the 2012 Obama campaign reproduced – through brute force, dedication and will – a turnout in the swing states that in some cases bested the campaign's remarkable performance of four years ago. Yes, Obama lost North Carolina. But his final tally there was actually 35,000 votes greater than when he won the state in 2008.

2) Younger Voters
Sorry, Boomer Nation: President Obama owes his second term to Generation Y. Voters under 30 turned out in greater numbers than senior citizens and broke for Obama over Romney 60-37. Gen X wasn't too shabby, either: Voters 30 to 44 gave Obama a 7 point edge. (Romney, on the other hand, won convincingly among voters 45 and older.) The numbers in Florida are particularly striking. According to exit polling, the Obama campaign not only improved turnout among the under-30 set there, it ran up the margin, too: Young Floridians broke 67-31 for Obama, better than the 61-37 margin over McCain in 2008.

3) The Latino Vote
With 4 million more registered voters in 2012 than in 2008, Latinos accounted for one in every ten voters in 2012, and these voters broke for Obama by an epic 71-27 split nationally. That is almost exactly the margin Bill Clinton hung on Bob Dole in 1996, when there were only half as many Hispanic votes. Messina told me earlier in the campaign that he was "obsessed" with the Latino vote, and that reproducing Clinton's numbers against Romney this year would mean Game Over for the Republican. He was absolutely right – particularly in Colorado, where the split was even more lopsided: 75-23, up from 61-38.

4) African-Americans
The historic turnout of African-Americans from 2008 held steady in 2012 at 13 percent of the electorate, nationwide. And the Obama campaign actually managed to increase black turnout in pivotal states like Virginia, where one in five voters was African American. Romney earned only 5 percent of that vote, compared to the 8 percent won by John McCain.

5) Ohio Working Stiffs
Call it the "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" factor. In Ohio, where the auto industry employs one in eight workers, Obama actually gained ground – 2 points – among high-school educated voters without college degrees, about a quarter of the state's electorate. Compare that to Wisconsin, where Obama lost 6 points among this cohort. Or North Carolina, where the dropoff was 11 points.

6) All the Single Ladies
Romney was haunted by a yawning gender gap, particularly among unmarried women, who accounted for 23 percent of voters (up three points from 2008). While Romney himself took awkward pains to reach out to female voters, he was yoked to his running mate's moves to redefine rape, and to the GOP's broader agenda to limit access to not only abortion but birth control. Obama took this voting bloc by a 67-31 margin, nationally, and by nearly identical tallies in Ohio and Paul Ryan's home state of Wisconsin. The intersection of race and gender was especially powerful for the president in states like North Carolina, where black women accounted for 14 percent of the electorate – and 99 out of 100 voted to defeat Mitt Romney.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-president-obama-beat-mitt-romney-20121107#ixzz2BZlVLrlS

[jkjsooner]

Obama won 60% of those from households making less than $60K a year even though they are doing worse today than 4 years ago compared to other income groups.

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/11/exit-polls-2012-how-obama-won-reelection

Any thoughts as to why they would vote for the big-government candidate?

And if elections have consequences and if you understand who voted for Obama and the democrats and what their motivation was what does this tell us about the direction of the country? Also, what lies at the end of the road of this big progressive social experiment?

Points to ponder.

Maybe I'm giving them too much credit but maybe they understood what the economists were telling us in 2007/2008. Listening to thought provoking interviews on BBC, NPR, Bloomberg, etc., it was pretty clear that most economists were saying that it would be half way into the next decade before we can recover from the disaster that Wall Street and the housing market was going through (or about to go through).

I said it to anyone would listen back in 2008. I'm a Democrat but I did not want Obama to win. If the experts were true, winning in 2008 would be a losing scenario.

I'm not making any of this up. This is what plenty of people were saying back then.

[StoopTroup]

Dude...Obammy voters don't read they stand in lines to see what the rich folks are giving away or throwing out.

Honestly I can see why The President would have just dropped out of the race just because he knew it was going to be four more years of the House stonewalling legislation that later they will pack full of crap to pay all the billionaires that gave Rove and Army money to serve Obama on a platter to them. What I think happened is Americans smelled a rich Mormom that designed the framework for our current Healthcare say he was going to repeal it and the emails that started four years ago that went on non-stop and are even going out today just inspired them to let the rich dumbasses try and buy the electin. What happened is that a bunch of their wealth got redistributed by default.

[TUSooner]

****Give me control of the media and I'll have all of the knuckle dragging idiots flocking to the Republican party with fear that Obama is the anti-christ and wants to eat your babies.
So YOU're Glen Beck!?

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

We live in an age of media. Everything is captured. The meida decides what to play over and over and over to drive home the Obama agenda. Give me control of the media and I'll have all of the knuckle dragging idiots flocking to the Republican party with fear that Obama is the anti-christ and wants to eat your babies.

EXACTELY. a good example is how the Libya Fiasco wasn't covered hardly at all by the MSM, but they were sure to show Obama walking in NJ after sandy over and over and over, making him out to look like the savior all over again.

[OU_Sooners75]

To me it's laughable that you think Romney was some sort of legitimate small government alternative. This guy isn't even a conservative. He's a Massachusetts moderate.

His big claim to fame is the turning around of the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. How did he do that? By going to Washington and asking for a handout. Well, a lot of handouts. $1.5 billion worth of them for infrastructure like highways and parking lots and a light rail system.

The Republican party has no interest in limiting or shrinking the size of the federal government, they just want to get control back. George W. Bush was the most expansionist POTUS since FDR. W makes LBJ look like Calvin ****ing Coolidge. The scary thing is Mitt Romney governed Massachusetts in a more liberal fashion that W did Texas. I can just imagine how Romney would have shrunk the size of government. Give me a ****ing break.

Same old liberal bull**** talking points that got quite a few people to believe it. It worked...you are an example of how it worked.

[JohnnyMack]

Same old liberal bull**** talking points that got quite a few people to believe it. It worked...you are an example of how it worked.

Did Mitt Romney take federal funds for the Olympics or not?

It's a "liberal bull**** talking point" to say that W wasn't a conservative POTUS?

[rock on sooner]

Did Mitt Romney take federal funds for the Olympics or not?

It's a "liberal bull**** talking point" to say that W wasn't a conservative POTUS?

Yup, Romney held out his hand for $400-$600 million from the gov't PLUS
$1.2 BILLION for infrastructure improvements from the same taxpayer
wallet. Now, we all know that if you throw enough money at any project
you can fix it. These issues had never been discussed in the Romney rescue
of the Olympics. Just sayin'

[FaninAma]

To me it's laughable that you think Romney was some sort of legitimate small government alternative. This guy isn't even a conservative. He's a Massachusetts moderate.

His big claim to fame is the turning around of the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. How did he do that? By going to Washington and asking for a handout. Well, a lot of handouts. $1.5 billion worth of them for infrastructure like highways and parking lots and a light rail system.

The Republican party has no interest in limiting or shrinking the size of the federal government, they just want to get control back. George W. Bush was the most expansionist POTUS since FDR. W makes LBJ look like Calvin ****ing Coolidge. The scary thing is Mitt Romney governed Massachusetts in a more liberal fashion that W did Texas. I can just imagine how Romney would have shrunk the size of government. Give me a ****ing break.

It's not really the fact that Romney lost that frustrates me. It is the fact that the candidate he lost to ran a small-minded capmpaign trying to appeal to the most base impulses of his supporters....and he won. I assume your underlying message is that elections have consequences. If so then I agree and those who support a big government, deficit spending philosophy will have to face up to the consequences relatively soon..... but so will those of us who don't support it.

[FaninAma]

Yup, Romney held out his hand for $400-$600 million from the gov't PLUS
$1.2 BILLION for infrastructure improvements from the same taxpayer
wallet. Now, we all know that if you throw enough money at any project
you can fix it. These issues had never been discussed in the Romney rescue
of the Olympics. Just sayin'

I can handle subsidies for construction and enterprise related endeavors. I would be right with you if Romney was in favor of increasing subsidies for poor personal choices.

[rock on sooner]

I can handle subsidies for construction and enterprise realted endeavors. I would be right with you if Romney was in favor of increasing subsidies for poor personal choices.

Only thing about the Olympics thing is that Romney NEVER acknowledged,
at least that I can find, the help that he got from the taxpayers. Has always
presented it as though he waved a wand or something. Certainly, he gotta
lot of help "building that."

[Breadburner]

How much do you think Atlanta received.....

[kevpks]

How much do you think Atlanta received.....

I don't know. Did the director those Olympics just try to run for president as a fiscal conservative?

[hawaii 5-0]

The most telling statistic of the Election?


47%


Told by Romney behind closed doors (he thought). He admitted he was writing off half of America.

5-0

[Seamus]

Any thoughts as to why they would vote for the big-government candidate?


We voted "big-government" candidate because big government isn't trying to tell my wife what she can do with her body, even if she-- God forbid -- gets raped. Big government isn't trying to tell some of our friends who they can or cannot love.

For being the "less government" party, the GOP sure does like to try to govern people's civil liberties and freedoms.

I don't want these dildoes trying to control me anymore than I want Obama trying to restrict my rights to my Colt SP6920 AR-15 rifle. Which, by the way, I don't really believe he will do.

[FaninAma]

The most telling statistic of the Election?


47%


Told by Romney behind closed doors (he thought). He admitted he was writing off half of America.

5-0

And he was right on the mark.

[FaninAma]

We voted "big-government" candidate because big government isn't trying to tell my wife what she can do with her body, even if she-- God forbid -- gets raped. Big government isn't trying to tell some of our friends who they can or cannot love.

For being the "less government" party, the GOP sure does like to try to govern people's civil liberties and freedoms.

I don't want these dildoes trying to control me anymore than I want Obama trying to restrict my rights to my Colt SP6920 AR-15 rifle. Which, by the way, I don't really believe he will do.
OK. But if we don't get the fiscal time bombs defused civil liberties will be a thing of the past.

[Seamus]

OK. But if we don't get the fiscal time bombs defused civil liberties will be a thing of the past.

Granted. So let's try some real honest-to-goodness bipartisan collaboration instead of more McConnell-Boehner "phuck that guy, our No. 1 priority is getting Obama out of office."

No, phuck you -- do your job and work with the president to get us out of the hole (primarily dug by Bush, btw) we're in.

I almost didn't vote for Obama because of a few environmental policies I opposed. So I admit he isn't the perfect solution. There is no such thing. Politics needs to stop being a bunch of intransigent children and get back to what politics IS: the art of compromise. Both sides are to blame here, Democrats too. But the GOP's unwillingness to even work with the man is motherphucking unacceptable.

[JohnnyMack]

It's not really the fact that Romney lost that frustrates me. It is the fact that the candidate he lost to ran a small-minded capmpaign trying to appeal to the most base impulses of his supporters....and he won. I assume your underlying message is that elections have consequences. If so then I agree and those who support a big government, deficit spending philosophy will have to face up to the consequences relatively soon..... but so will those of us who don't support it.

My point is that to me at least, Obama and Romney are two sides of the same coin.

I love this article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/hurricane-sandy-and-the-myth-of-the-big-government-vs-small-government-debate-20121101

As long as my choices come down to a progressive liberal who's going to spend my money versus a GOP candidate beholden to right-wing ideologues who don't jive with my opinions on social issues but is still going to spend my money anyway, I'll pick the lib.

[hawaii 5-0]

And he was right on the mark.


Of the 10 states with the highest percentage of people who pay no income tax, nine are red states.


5-0

[diverdog]

Of the 10 states with the highest percentage of people who pay no income tax, nine are red states.


5-0

Yep.

[KABOOKIE]

Granted. So let's try some real honest-to-goodness bipartisan collaboration instead of more McConnell-Boehner "phuck that guy, our No. 1 priority is getting Obama out of office."

No, phuck you -- do your job and work with the president to get us out of the hole (primarily dug by Bush, btw) we're in.

I almost didn't vote for Obama because of a few environmental policies I opposed. So I admit he isn't the perfect solution. There is no such thing. Politics needs to stop being a bunch of intransigent children and get back to what politics IS: the art of compromise. Both sides are to blame here, Democrats too. But the GOP's unwillingness to even work with the man is motherphucking unacceptable.

Yeah phuck that guy. Republicans have tried and tried to work with democrats on the budget. Democrats want tax increases NOW and "promise" cuts decades later. Yeah do your job Obama and act presidential instead of being a giant DICK.

[Seamus]

Thank you for weighing in, Senator McConnell ...

[XingTheRubicon]

Of the 10 states with the highest percentage of people who pay no income tax, nine are red states.


5-0


and how many in those red states that paid no income tax were republicans...



yeah.

[Soonerjeepman]

Both sides are to blame here, Democrats too. But the GOP's unwillingness to even work with the man is motherphucking unacceptable.

lol...really? wasn't it obammy who SHOVED obamacare down the American's throats WITHOUT even listening to the republicans, didn't even get HIS frickin side to agree to HIS budget...guess what happened AMERICA said screw you and changed congress...good Gawd some of you guys are so blind with YOUR hatred that you can't see sh!t.

AND again, it's the republican's fault because they won't work with the dems...when it's been dems not working with repub it's ok. what a joke.

[FaninAma]

Granted. So let's try some real honest-to-goodness bipartisan collaboration instead of more McConnell-Boehner "phuck that guy, our No. 1 priority is getting Obama out of office."

No, phuck you -- do your job and work with the president to get us out of the hole (primarily dug by Bush, btw) we're in.

I almost didn't vote for Obama because of a few environmental policies I opposed. So I admit he isn't the perfect solution. There is no such thing. Politics needs to
stop being a bunch of intransigent children and get back to what politics IS: the art of compromise.
Both sides are to blame here, Democrats too. But the GOP's unwillingness to even work with the man is motherphucking unacceptable.

All right, lets do it the way your progressive president wants to do it. Lets raise taxes on all the top income earners and cut only military spending. Unless the tax increase are broad enough to hit the top 50% of earners the deficit won't come down. Then watch the effect of the tax increase on a slowing economy.

Elections have consequences and I think it's time you progressives face the consequences of your policies. BTW bipartisanship is a 2 way street and I could have predicted that you think the GOP is showing bipartisanship only when they cave on all the disputed issues. I suspect when the economy is in the ****ter in 4 years people like you are still going to be blaming Bush,
Boehner and McConnel. You will never blame the free-spending politicians you voted for.

[FaninAma]

lol...really? wasn't it obammy who SHOVED obamacare down the American's throats WITHOUT even listening to the republicans, didn't even get HIS frickin side to agree to HIS budget...guess what happened AMERICA said screw you and changed congress...good Gawd some of you guys are so blind with YOUR hatred that you can't see sh!t.

AND again, it's the republican's fault because they won't work with the dems...when it's been dems not working with repub it's ok. what a joke.

How dare you dispute the the progressive premise that bipartisanship means that you agree with them on 100% of the issues.

[Midtowner]

lol...really? wasn't it obammy who SHOVED obamacare down the American's throats WITHOUT even listening to the republicans,

Oh? What constructive criticism of ObamaCare did Republicans offer besides "no"?

That said, what we ended up with was a Republican plan (called RomneyCare) to begin with.

[FaninAma]

Of the 10 states with the highest percentage of people who pay no income tax, nine are red states.


5-0
For chrissakes, look at the demographics of the exit poll and tell me more people who paid no taxes voted for Romney. You've got to have at least a semblance of honesty if we're going to have a conversation on the subject.

[FaninAma]

Oh? What constructive criticism of ObamaCare did Republicans offer besides "no"?

That said, what we ended up with was a Republican plan (called RomneyCare) to begin with.
The GOP leadership asked to meet with the President. He never even had a phone conference with them. Thanks to his actions the GOP swept state elections all over the country and because it was an election that coincided with the census and reapportionment they were able to redraw Congressional districts to favor their party.

And get back to me in a couple of years and tell me how well you like ObamaCare. I don't think you have a clue of its consequences.

[Soonerjeepman]

Oh? What constructive criticism of ObamaCare did Republicans offer besides "no"?

That said, what we ended up with was a Republican plan (called RomneyCare) to begin with.

lol...they weren't even given a chance...pelosi herself said we need to pass this to see what's in it...I beg to differ the plans to be just a bit different.

[Soonerjeepman]

for the record I PRAY y'all are right and things get turned around...we shall see.

[FaninAma]

for the record I PRAY y'all are right and things get turned around...we shall see.

No, they won't until those who voted for 50 years of progressive politicians finally have to face the consequences of their votes.

[TitoMorelli]

The GOP leadership asked to meet with the President. He never even had a phone conference with them. Thanks to his actions the GOP swept state elections all over the country and because it was an election that coincided with the census and reapportionment they were able to redraw Congressional districts to favor their party.

And get back to me in a couple of years and tell me how well you like ObamaCare. I don't think you have a clue of its consequences.

This. The first time GOP lawmakers tried to discuss or debate policy or direction with Obama, he simply told them "I won." Then he and Pelosi and Reid ramrodded through pretty much everything they wanted, regardless of what opposing legislators (not to mention the majority of voters) felt should be top priorities. And when they received a spanking in Nov. 2010, they were suddenly wailing about how the other side was obstructing. Boo-freaking-hoo.

[FaninAma]

This. The first time GOP lawmakers tried to discuss or debate policy or direction with Obama, he simply told them "I won." Then he and Pelosi and Reid ramrodded through pretty much everything they wanted, regardless of what opposing legislators (not to mention the majority of voters) felt should be top priorities. And when they received a spanking in Nov. 2010, they were suddenly wailing about how the other side was obstructing. Boo-freaking-hoo.

I called my local Congressman's office and the leadership
in Congress and reminded them that elections have consequences. It is time we allow the electorate to understand the consequences of their actions. Allow Obama and the Democrats to make all the proposals and then vote on them. Don't try to fill the leadership void left by Harry Reid and Obama.....that's not the GOP's job.

[hawaii 5-0]

For chrissakes, look at the demographics of the exit poll and tell me more people who paid no taxes voted for Romney. You've got to have at least a semblance of honesty if we're going to have a conversation on the subject.



Lots of retirees voted for Romney as well as Military.

Just cause you're in the 47% doesn't make one automatically vote for Obama.

5-0

[SoonerorLater]

Oh? What constructive criticism of ObamaCare did Republicans offer besides "no"?

That said, what we ended up with was a Republican plan (called RomneyCare) to begin with.

Is it a given that we have to have a governmental plan at all?

[Midtowner]

To me it's laughable that you think Romney was some sort of legitimate small government alternative. This guy isn't even a conservative. He's a Massachusetts moderate.

His big claim to fame is the turning around of the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. How did he do that? By going to Washington and asking for a handout. Well, a lot of handouts. $1.5 billion worth of them for infrastructure like highways and parking lots and a light rail system.

The Republican party has no interest in limiting or shrinking the size of the federal government, they just want to get control back. George W. Bush was the most expansionist POTUS since FDR. W makes LBJ look like Calvin ****ing Coolidge. The scary thing is Mitt Romney governed Massachusetts in a more liberal fashion that W did Texas. I can just imagine how Romney would have shrunk the size of government. Give me a ****ing break.

Sounds like you regret your decision not to vote for Obama. As W showed us, having a liberal at the helm of the Republican party is great if you want the Republicans to force through a bunch of entitlement programs.

[SoonerFrog]

Is it a given that we have to have a governmental plan at all?

Yes.

Because if the free market was working, everyone who needed health care would have it.

They don't, so it isn't.

[SoonerorLater]

Yes.

Because if the free market was working, everyone who needed health care would have it.

They don't, so it isn't.

The free market doesn't guarantee health care any more than it guarantees you a new automobile. That being said we don't have anything like a free market in health care. That is the problem. A government plan won't change that.

[SoonerFrog]

This is why the "free market" never works. Your definition of work is "yields a profit" and mine is "provides needed goods and services". That duality of definition is why it is always doomed to fail.

Agree that we have nothing of the sort that resembles either definition - but we'll be closer to both with government intervention. There are some good things that governments can do that private enterprise just cannot.

[TitoMorelli]

This is why the "free market" never works. Your definition of work is "yields a profit" and mine is "provides needed goods and services". That duality of definition is why it is always doomed to fail.

Agree that we have nothing of the sort that resembles either definition - but we'll be closer to both with government intervention. There are some good things that governments can do that private enterprise just cannot.

Valid point, S-F - where people differ is where the line should be drawn.

[SoonerorLater]

This is why the "free market" never works. Your definition of work is "yields a profit" and mine is "provides needed goods and services". That duality of definition is why it is always doomed to fail.

Agree that we have nothing of the sort that resembles either definition - but we'll be closer to both with government intervention. There are some good things that governments can do that private enterprise just cannot.

Free market always works. It just may not work in the way any given individual sees fit. Yes "yields a profit" is the vital component since there wouldn't be much point otherwise from a providers perspective. Even non-profit hospitals will charge you an arm and leg for care. The government simply can not expand health care. It can re-allocate the resources that are there. All you will have is greater claims against what is sure to be a shrinking pie if profit incentive is reduced. Best example is Medicare. Many physicians are now refusing to take any new Medicare patients. They are money losers for these doctors.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

This is why the "free market" never works. Your definition of work is "yields a profit" and mine is "provides needed goods and services". That duality of definition is why it is always doomed to fail.

Agree that we have nothing of the sort that resembles either definition - but we'll be closer to both with government intervention. There are some good things that governments can do that private enterprise just cannot.

I thought the only marxists left were in Latin America. Good to see it's making a comeback.

[jkjsooner]

This. The first time GOP lawmakers tried to discuss or debate policy or direction with Obama, he simply told them "I won." Then he and Pelosi and Reid ramrodded through pretty much everything they wanted.

That's BS. They wanted a single payer system. Going to the Republican backed plan was their attempt to compromise.

[FaninAma]

This is why the "free market" never works. Your definition of work is "yields a profit" and mine is "provides needed goods and services". That duality of definition is why it is always doomed to fail.

Agree that we have nothing of the sort that resembles either definition - but we'll be closer to both with government intervention. There are some good things that governments can do in a mediocre fashion that private citizens refuse to do for themselves.

FIFY

[FaninAma]

Lots of retirees voted for Romney as well as Military.

Just cause you're in the 47% doesn't make one automatically vote for Obama.

5-0
Take away the non-retirees who make less than $50K and the Democrats do not have a base.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

This. The first time GOP lawmakers tried to discuss or debate policy or direction with Obama, he simply told them "I won." Then he and Pelosi and Reid ramrodded through pretty much everything they wanted.

That's BS. They wanted a single payer system. Going to the Republican backed plan was their attempt to compromise.

Wrong. Obama never proposed a single payer system. He learned from the mistakes of Clinton. He did have a public option but dropped it did to public backlash.

[DrZaius]

We live in an age of media. Everything is captured. The meida decides what to play over and over and over to drive home the Obama agenda. Give me control of the media and I'll have all of the knuckle dragging idiots flocking to the Republican party with fear that Obama is the anti-christ and wants to eat your babies.

Nothing new here! Fox News already does this.

[yermom]

Take away the non-retirees who make less than $50K and the Democrats do not have a base.

well, the pubs like to grow that demographic, so they made their bed ;)

[DrZaius]

Take away the non-retirees who make less than $50K and the Democrats do not have a base.

or

We could actually stop denigrating minorities and women and make our base stronger....

I am tired of all of this...

I am tired of the religious kooks...

I am tired of the uneducated circus-like running mates...

I am tired of the rapers...

I am tired of the Kochs...

I am tired of the Roves...

I am tired of everything this party has in its corner.

Our party is in shambles and completely ****ed right now.

and the foreseeable future...

[FaninAma]

well, the pubs like to grow that demographic, so they made their bed ;)

I am not a staunch GOP supporter. I would have much preferred Ron Paul but unlike SicEm I am not willing to take a pass on the election if I think one candidate offers even a slight advantage over the other in terms of getting this economic trainwreck under control. You know that I prdicted the meltdown of 2008 way before it happened. You were on the boards back then. Understanding that please believe me when I say that the economic trainwreck headed our way in the next 4 to 6 years will make that look like a walk in the park, especially if Europe implodes as badly as I think they will and if we haven't gotten our budgetary problems in order. The difference this time around is that the debt collapse will take place in horrific fashion until it is completed because this time the government and the world's central banks(including the Fed) can't stop it because their only mechanism for stopping it(infusing massive monetary stimulus into the system) has already been used and has proven futile. But consider the fact that the world's debt has increased significantly since 2008 so its collapse will be harder for average citizens to cope with.

There is not an easy way out. If there was then the Greece, Spain and Southern Europe problems would have been fixed already. But they are unfixable. The world's central banks and western governments have poured trillions and trillions of dollars into the sytem and we are just barely treading water in unemployment, stock market prices, housing and GDP. That should scare the crap out of anybody who understands macro economics. But what are we doing about it? Are we getting our debt in order and trying to control spending? No. we are demonizing and belittling those who have the audacity to speak up and suggest that we need to take a serious look at cutting entitlement and other government spending or control the destructive policies of the Federal Reserve.

Raise taxes you say? What do you think is going to happen when the resulting decrease in economic activity ripples across this country and the rest of the world? And increasing the debt by spending more solves nothing because servicing the debt will become more and more costly especailly when the Fed and central banks lose control of interest rates.

I am sorry that there are poor people in this country but continuing the same failed economic policies that got us to this point is not the answer . And again, if the system collapses who is going to be hurt the most....the poor or those who have lots of assets?

[FaninAma]

or

We could actually stop denigrating minorities and women and make our base stronger....

I am tired of all of this...

I am tired of the religious kooks...

I am tired of the uneducated circus-like running mates...

I am tired of the rapers...

I am tired of the Kochs...

I am tired of the Roves...

I am tired of everything this party has in its corner.

Our party is in shambles and completely ****ed right now.

and the foreseeable future...

All of that is just noise used by certain political parties to distract from the real issue. The fact that the democratic party was successful in diverting attention away from the economy speaks volumes about the ability of the electorate to understand the real issues. What are the real issues? See my previous post. More civil liberties are lost in times of economic turmoil than at any other time in the world's history.

[yermom]

what was Romney going to do to help any of that?

cut taxes? how does that just not kick the problem down the curb like we have been since the tax cuts started?

SicEm, and JM are outliers, like you said, but really, who was excited about what Mitt Romney was selling? all the pubs did was spew hate about Obama, apparently it wasn't enough to get enough angry old white guys off the couch to put him out of office.

[FirstandGoal]

I am not a staunch GOP supporter. I would have much preferred Ron Paul but unlike SicEm I am not willing to take a pass on the election if I think one candidate offers even a slight advantage over the other in terms of getting this economic trainwreck under control. You know that I prdicted the meltdown of 2008 way before it happened. You were on the boards back then. Understanding that please believe me when I say that the economic trainwreck headed our way in the next 4 to 6 years will make that look like a walk in the park, especially if Europe implodes as badly as I think they will and if we haven't gotten our budgetary problems in order. The difference this time around is that the debt collapse will take place in horrific fashion until it is completed because this time the government and the world's central banks(including the Fed) can't stop it because their only mechanism for stopping it(infusing massive monetary stimulus into the system) has already been used and has proven futile. But consider the fact that the world's debt has increased significantly since 2008 so its collapse will be harder for average citizens to cope with.

There is not an easy way out. If there was then the Greece, Spain and Southern Europe problems would have been fixed already. But they are unfixable. The world's central banks and western governments have poured trillions and trillions of dollars into the sytem and we are just barely treading water in unemployment, stock market prices, housing and GDP. That should scare the crap out of anybody who understands macro economics. But what are we doing about it? Are we getting our debt in order and trying to control spending? No. we are demonizing and belittling those who have the audacity to speak up and suggest that we need to take a serious look at cutting entitlement and other government spending or control the destructive policies of the Federal Reserve.

Raise taxes you say? What do you think is going to happen when the resulting decrease in economic activity ripples across this country and the rest of the world? And increasing the debt by spending more solves nothing because servicing the debt will become more and more costly especailly when the Fed and central banks lose control of interest rates.

I am sorry that there are poor people in this country but continuing the same failed economic policies that got us to this point is not the answer . And again, if the system collapses who is going to be hurt the most....the poor or those who have lots of assets?


You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

[FaninAma]

what was Romney going to do to help any of that?

cut taxes? how does that just not kick the problem down the curb like we have been since the tax cuts started?

SicEm, and JM are outliers, like you said, but really, who was excited about what Mitt

Romney was selling? all the pubs did was spew hate about Obama, apparently it wasn't enough to get enough angry old white guys off the couch to put him out of
office.

How about what every other person, corporation and state(except California) does when they are broke.....cut
spending. Look, either we do that ourselves in a logical
way without crisis or we do it the way Europe is doing it. Your choice.

I do appreciate your honesty about Romney. He was a
mediocre candidate in a mediocre field yet it took a sitting President spending over a billion dollars, a lot in negative ads, to defeat him. What does that say about Obama?