That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Two Republicans in separate states were taken into police custody during the past week for allegedly attempting to test how easy it would be to commit voter fraud.
I'm not sure I've ever been part of a horde before. I think I like it.growing voter hoards of socialists, communists, anti-Semites, anti-Christians, atheists, radical gays and lesbians, feminists, illegal immigrants, Muslims, anti-Anglo whites and others
No, damn it! I insist on being Hoarded in a massive cave, on the side of an active volcano, with a terrible fierce dragon guarding me!silverjon wrote:He clearly wrote "hoard". Now go get piled up in the basement with the others.
It's nice. We get cookies!Kraken wrote:I'm not sure I've ever been part of a horde before. I think I like it.growing voter hoards of socialists, communists, anti-Semites, anti-Christians, atheists, radical gays and lesbians, feminists, illegal immigrants, Muslims, anti-Anglo whites and others
To put it more simply, this election was list because less people voted for Republicans, everywhere it mattered.YellowKing wrote:This election was lost because Republicans didn't show up to the polls, plain and simple. The nation still leans conservative. If they had shown up, Romney would have won, despite the liberal "hoards."
Which makes me wonder anew why none of their "A" List ran. The primaries gave us a flock of crazies, Mitt Romney, and John Huntsman (who was the same thing without the brand recognition). The best they could do was Mitt fucking Romney? Really??RunningMn9 wrote: This was the easiest election for them to win since 1980, and they fuct it up.
Just goes to show that the country doesn't lean that far right, and the Romney campaign knew it. There's a reason his surge coincided with him pivoting sharply to the middle in the first debate. He receded so rapidly from his previous far right positions during the primary that by the third debate, he was agreeing with everything Obama said.Kraken wrote:RunningMn9 wrote:Come to think of it, since Moderate Mitt was the version that surged during the last few weeks
That's why I said Huntsman might have won it (had he miraculously been nominated without pandering to the wingnuts). Romney was a poseur; Huntsman was the real deal.Captain Caveman wrote:Just goes to show that the country doesn't lean that far right, and the Romney campaign knew it. There's a reason his surge coincided with him pivoting sharply to the middle in the first debate. He receded so rapidly from his previous far right positions during the primary that by the third debate, he was agreeing with everything Obama said.Kraken wrote:RunningMn9 wrote:Come to think of it, since Moderate Mitt was the version that surged during the last few weeks
You know, I keep seeing this claimed but I'm unclear on the evidence.YellowKing wrote:The nation still leans conservative.
Republicans:Conservative::Democrats:Opposite of Conservative?Exodor wrote:You know, I keep seeing this claimed but I'm unclear on the evidence.YellowKing wrote:The nation still leans conservative.
The Republican party is unpopular while the Democratic party has a net favorable rating
Hmm...
Solid majorities support amnesty for illegal immigrants
Code: Select all
Legal
residency Stopping flow,
deporting Unsure
% % %
9/28-30/12
56 39 5 Code: Select all
11/18-20/11 Adults
42 55 3Code: Select all
"As you may know, in 2010 the state of Arizona passed a law that requires police to verify the legal status of someone they have already stopped or arrested if they suspect that the person is in the country illegally. Do you approve or disapprove of Arizona's immigration law?"
2011: "As you may know, last year . . . ."
Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
7/1-8/12
64 32 4 You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.Majorities support abortion rights
Code: Select all
"Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" If "legal under only certain circumstances": "Do you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only a few circumstances?" Combined responses
Always
legal Legal in most
circumstances Legal in a few
circumstances Always
illegal Unsure
% % % % %
8/22-23/12
35 9 37 15 3
Which makes it conservative...?Defiant wrote: The country is about roughly split on these issues.
Well, he said "leans" conservative. I'm not convinced that the parties haven't moved more conservative compared to, say, the 60s/70s.Exodor wrote:Which makes it conservative...?Defiant wrote: The country is about roughly split on these issues.
Still waiting for evidence.
The anti-intellectualism (anti-elitism?) tenet of the Tea Party prevented Huntsman from ever being a serious contender. Too bad, IMO, I really liked the guy from the little I saw of him.Kraken wrote:That's why I said Huntsman might have won it (had he miraculously been nominated without pandering to the wingnuts). Romney was a poseur; Huntsman was the real deal.Captain Caveman wrote:Just goes to show that the country doesn't lean that far right, and the Romney campaign knew it. There's a reason his surge coincided with him pivoting sharply to the middle in the first debate. He receded so rapidly from his previous far right positions during the primary that by the third debate, he was agreeing with everything Obama said.Kraken wrote:RunningMn9 wrote:Come to think of it, since Moderate Mitt was the version that surged during the last few weeks
Depends on the issue. Gay rights have clearly moved leftward. I think abortion is pretty accepted.Defiant wrote:Well, he said "leans" conservative. I'm not convinced that the parties haven't moved more conservative compared to, say, the 60s/70s.
I continue to be shocked that this was not the election for a third party to really spread its wings, and take advantage of that very fact. Why the hell did this not happen again (not talking about winning, even...just showing up?) Think how many voters out there would eat that shit up? Or did the Tea Party try, and then ruined it for all the other contenders due to their generally batshit insanity on non-economic issues?Exodor wrote: neither party is really conservative economically at this point.
The problem is that you don't get to run for "President of the Economy." You have to have stances on every other issue, so support for a third party with an economic focus is already split in two by the fact that it must lean left or right on everything else.Carpet_pissr wrote: If a 3rd party, built primarily on fiscal conservatism, couldn't get a decent showing this time around, in these particular circumstances, I am thinking it will never happen...at least not in our lifetime.
Yes, of course.Exodor wrote: Depends on the issue.
Gay rights have clearly moved leftward.
Disagreed. Polls have tended to be fairly consistently split on the issue over the long term, occasionally being slightly more pro-choice and occasionally being slightly more pro-life.I think abortion is pretty accepted.
I'm not talking about cherry-picking a handful of issues. I'm talking simple polls. More Americans identify themselves as conservative than liberal.Still waiting for evidence.
Agree, and in fact I had included that very point in my original post, but in THIS particular climate, when the economy seems to be trumping every other issue on American minds, it seems logical that the timing was perfect. i.e. that many would have been able to hold their noses about the non-economic platforms they are not crazy about, in order to vote for the much preferred economic stance they want.Holman wrote:The problem is that you don't get to run for "President of the Economy." You have to have stances on every other issue, so support for a third party with an economic focus is already split in two by the fact that it must lean left or right on everything else.Carpet_pissr wrote: If a 3rd party, built primarily on fiscal conservatism, couldn't get a decent showing this time around, in these particular circumstances, I am thinking it will never happen...at least not in our lifetime.
I'd also point out a few more things:YellowKing wrote:I'm not talking about cherry-picking a handful of issues. I'm talking simple polls. More Americans identify themselves as conservative than liberal.Still waiting for evidence.
If you want to go by party affiliation, Democrats slightly outnumber Republicans until you start throwing Independents into the mix, which tend to lean Republican (as of the last couple of years). You also have to consider that groups like southern Democrats tend to be more conservative leaning than your average California Democrat.
Yes. IMO, they're moved further from "center right" than the Democratic party.Captain Caveman wrote:If indeed the country leans right, then the Republican party is doing something wrong with that built-in advantage.
Well, to be fair, in three of the last six elections, no one won a majority, and in another two, the elections were pretty close (possibly historically so).They've lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections.
I think most Americans are moderates. The Democratic party has moved rightwards in recent years on fiscal policy, but the Republican party has not moved leftward on social policy. It's no wonder that many Republicans have re-identified as Independents - they're trying to meet the Democratic party in the middle since the Republican party has shown no inclination of doing so.If indeed the country leans right, then the Republican party is doing something wrong with that built-in advantage. They've lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections.
"Right" and "left" are relative terms, of course, so it depends on what you're comparing a party or a country to. For example, the United States is definitely a right leaning country compared to most of Europe. But it's way left leaning compared to, say, the U.S. during the Gilded Age.Captain Caveman wrote:If indeed the country leans right, then the Republican party is doing something wrong with that built-in advantage. They've lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections.
HotAir, as well as others, are skeptical:In a conference call on Wednesday afternoon with his national finance committee, Mr. Romney said that the president had followed the “old playbook” of wooing specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people,” Mr. Romney explained — with targeted gifts and initiatives.
“In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said.
“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,” he said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”
There are three big reasons why Romney lost, I think, and none of them are about gifts. First, people just … didn’t like him that much. His favorable numbers improved towards the end after the Denver debate, but at best he was at rough parity with Obama. ...
...Second, he got out-organized — badly. ...
...Third, I’m echoing other conservative writers in saying this — Ramesh Ponnuru, Ross Douthat, and Reihan Salam, for starters — but the GOP needs a more dynamic pitch to working families, a.k.a. the middle class. That’s what Jindal’s rejection of Romney is all about. “Class” talk tends to make righties nervous for good reason; coming from the left, it’s almost always a prelude to calls for redistribution. But it’s a useful way to define people whose lives are consumed with familiar problems of everyday life — work, pay, debt, tuition, gas prices. Address those basic concerns and they’ll pay attention. Besides, if the GOP is doomed under normal demographic metrics like race and gender, then it urgently needs to try to reshape how voters define themselves. Emphasize the middle class and you can compete across demographics that might otherwise view you coolly.
I guess he has the perception that lobbyists are more powerful than elected officials. Can't say I have the evidence to prove him wrong.South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint (R) announced Thursday that he would resign from the Senate in January to become president of the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.
DeMint's unexpected resignation subtracts one of the Senate Republican conference's foremost immigration hawks just before Congress is expected to tackle a comprehensive immigration reform effort next year.
FTFYIsgrimnur wrote:He knows that lobbyists are more powerful than elected officials.
FTFTFYCarpet_pissr wrote:FTFYIsgrimnur wrote:He knows that lobbyists are paid a hell of a lot more money than elected officials.