Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
NJDevs4978

Election Night Coverage (radio)

74 posts in this topic

Four more wars! Four more wars!

The only progress made today was via ballot questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lost a little faith in the country tonight. People will vote for whoever gives them the most stuff.

It's this kind of simplistic rhetoric that makes me ignore politics all but one day a year. As if people couldn't have more than one reason for voting or the rich weren't voting for Romney because of what he'd give 'them'.

Maybe they're staunch Dems who believe in the platform and vote party line more than candidate. Maybe they don't like Romney because he's a chameleon who will say and do anything to get elected. Or perhaps they know how bad the economy has been under the Repubs the last 30 years and voted on that basis.

Saying someone wants Obama to win because they're freeloaders is just repeating the inane Rush/Hannity etc talking point and not giving other people any credit for thinking at all. As if the same nation didn't elect Bush for two terms. So we weren't freeloaders then but we are now? What bs. As if middle class families aren't entitled to make the best choice for them at the ballot box but the rich are.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush was a rino in a lot of ways. But for Obama to get re-elected after doing nothing just about nothing positive over four years? Terrible. America fell for it again. He's a talker. We need a doer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush was a rino in a lot of ways. But for Obama to get re-elected after doing nothing just about nothing positive over four years? Terrible. America fell for it again. He's a talker. We need a doer.

This is ridiculous and goes right to what 4978 said. Typical bloviated right wing BS from the same person who suggested that fallacy of a smear piece "documentary" earlier in the campaign. Jerrydevil and his political viewpoint admittedly derived from a radio personality. Do any of you think for yourselves or just what Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc. say?

Your party got smacked in the mouth AGAIN nationally and is going to continue to get smacked nationally. You guys haven't won with a mandate in a presidential election in 24 years. The GOP and your beloved "conservatism" is dying because you guys are constantly buying into the politics of fear and the politics of the past. Bush won in 04 based on fear. Romney's entire campaign was based on fear. This country is turning around, largely because of Obama's decisions and not in spite of. It's absolutely not fast enough, but considering what Bush and the GOP-led Congress did from 1994 to 2006 (with help from Clinton and the backbone-less Democrats in Congress at the time), there's quite a bit of a mess to clean up and it IS getting better. The stock market, the auto industry, and unemployment (look at the #s behind the percentages) are all on an up-tick since Bush's 2nd term. That sort of sh!t you just spewed is exactly why so many people are so disgusted with politics and the Republican party in general. The party of Lincoln, my ass. Its the party of Hannity, Coulter, and Rush now, that proudly brings us backwards lunatics like Todd Akin, Allen West, and morons like Bachmann into national prominence. Romney's a smart guy and I wasn't afraid of him being elected other than his potential supreme court appointments, but the campaign he ran was terrible.

Mitch McConnell admitted that before Obama was even inaugurated they weren't going to work with him. Obama had virtually no help from the other side, yet they attack him for not crossing the aisle enough? Pfft. The majority of this country didn't buy that. The entire Republican party got smacked down and the GOP will continually get smacked down until they get out of the 1950s and stop trying to scare people into voting for them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is ridiculous and goes right to what 4978 said. Typical bloviated right wing BS from the same person who suggested that fallacy of a smear piece "documentary" earlier in the campaign. Jerrydevil and his political viewpoint admittedly derived from a radio personality. Do any of you think for yourselves or just what Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc. say?

Your party got smacked in the mouth AGAIN nationally and is going to continue to get smacked nationally. You guys haven't won with a mandate in a presidential election in 24 years. The GOP and your beloved "conservatism" is dying because you guys are constantly buying into the politics of fear and the politics of the past. Bush won in 04 based on fear. Romney's entire campaign was based on fear. This country is turning around, largely because of Obama's decisions and not in spite of. It's absolutely not fast enough, but considering what Bush and the GOP-led Congress did from 1994 to 2006 (with help from Clinton and the backbone-less Democrats in Congress at the time), there's quite a bit of a mess to clean up and it IS getting better. The stock market, the auto industry, and unemployment (look at the #s behind the percentages) are all on an up-tick since Bush's 2nd term. That sort of sh!t you just spewed is exactly why so many people are so disgusted with politics and the Republican party in general. The party of Lincoln, my ass. Its the party of Hannity, Coulter, and Rush now, that proudly brings us backwards lunatics like Todd Akin, Allen West, and morons like Bachmann into national prominence. Romney's a smart guy and I wasn't afraid of him being elected other than his potential supreme court appointments, but the campaign he ran was terrible.

Mitch McConnell admitted that before Obama was even inaugurated they weren't going to work with him. Obama had virtually no help from the other side, yet they attack him for not crossing the aisle enough? Pfft. The majority of this country didn't buy that. The entire Republican party got smacked down and the GOP will continually get smacked down until they get out of the 1950s and stop trying to scare people into voting for them.

You first paragraph blasts republicans for just arguing along right-wing talking points from radio personalities and pundits.

And then you go into your second long-winded paragraph doing just that but with left-wing talking points from liberal personalities and pundits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is ridiculous and goes right to what 4978 said. Typical bloviated right wing BS from the same person who suggested that fallacy of a smear piece "documentary" earlier in the campaign. Jerrydevil and his political viewpoint admittedly derived from a radio personality. Do any of you think for yourselves or just what Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc. say?

Your party got smacked in the mouth AGAIN nationally and is going to continue to get smacked nationally. You guys haven't won with a mandate in a presidential election in 24 years. The GOP and your beloved "conservatism" is dying because you guys are constantly buying into the politics of fear and the politics of the past. Bush won in 04 based on fear. Romney's entire campaign was based on fear. This country is turning around, largely because of Obama's decisions and not in spite of. It's absolutely not fast enough, but considering what Bush and the GOP-led Congress did from 1994 to 2006 (with help from Clinton and the backbone-less Democrats in Congress at the time), there's quite a bit of a mess to clean up and it IS getting better. The stock market, the auto industry, and unemployment (look at the #s behind the percentages) are all on an up-tick since Bush's 2nd term. That sort of sh!t you just spewed is exactly why so many people are so disgusted with politics and the Republican party in general. The party of Lincoln, my ass. Its the party of Hannity, Coulter, and Rush now, that proudly brings us backwards lunatics like Todd Akin, Allen West, and morons like Bachmann into national prominence. Romney's a smart guy and I wasn't afraid of him being elected other than his potential supreme court appointments, but the campaign he ran was terrible.

Mitch McConnell admitted that before Obama was even inaugurated they weren't going to work with him. Obama had virtually no help from the other side, yet they attack him for not crossing the aisle enough? Pfft. The majority of this country didn't buy that. The entire Republican party got smacked down and the GOP will continually get smacked down until they get out of the 1950s and stop trying to scare people into voting for them.

What do you think was terrible about Romney's campaign?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is ridiculous and goes right to what 4978 said. Typical bloviated right wing BS from the same person who suggested that fallacy of a smear piece "documentary" earlier in the campaign. Jerrydevil and his political viewpoint admittedly derived from a radio personality. Do any of you think for yourselves or just what Rush, Hannity, Beck, etc. say?

Your party got smacked in the mouth AGAIN nationally and is going to continue to get smacked nationally. You guys haven't won with a mandate in a presidential election in 24 years. The GOP and your beloved "conservatism" is dying because you guys are constantly buying into the politics of fear and the politics of the past. Bush won in 04 based on fear. Romney's entire campaign was based on fear. This country is turning around, largely because of Obama's decisions and not in spite of. It's absolutely not fast enough, but considering what Bush and the GOP-led Congress did from 1994 to 2006 (with help from Clinton and the backbone-less Democrats in Congress at the time), there's quite a bit of a mess to clean up and it IS getting better. The stock market, the auto industry, and unemployment (look at the #s behind the percentages) are all on an up-tick since Bush's 2nd term. That sort of sh!t you just spewed is exactly why so many people are so disgusted with politics and the Republican party in general. The party of Lincoln, my ass. Its the party of Hannity, Coulter, and Rush now, that proudly brings us backwards lunatics like Todd Akin, Allen West, and morons like Bachmann into national prominence. Romney's a smart guy and I wasn't afraid of him being elected other than his potential supreme court appointments, but the campaign he ran was terrible.

Mitch McConnell admitted that before Obama was even inaugurated they weren't going to work with him. Obama had virtually no help from the other side, yet they attack him for not crossing the aisle enough? Pfft. The majority of this country didn't buy that. The entire Republican party got smacked down and the GOP will continually get smacked down until they get out of the 1950s and stop trying to scare people into voting for them.

Lol, typical liberal bias foaming at the mouth. My point was simple that Obama has done nothing to merit a re-election the last four years and you pull out this crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think was terrible about Romney's campaign?

Mostly everything. From the completely negative tone (Obama is totally guilty of this as well), to the choice of Ryan, to NEVER sharing his plan, to the flip-flops, to hollow promises (He'd have no power at all to repeal Obamacare), to his inability to stick to any manner of conviction whatsoever. That's one thing I can respect about someone like Rick Santorum. The man would never get my vote, but at the very least he has never changed his views in an effort to win support. Rick's been Rick since the day he first ran for Senate. He believes what he believes and sticks to that. There were about 14 different versions of Romney. Romney's message was based on where he was and whoever was listening at that particular moment. He provided nothing positive at all and provided nothing to me, who does not fear or dislike Obama or think Obama has been awful. I think Obama could and can be a lot better, but I don't think Romney provided that alternative.

I will say that had the Romney that delivered arguably the best concession speech I've heard in about 20 years been the Romney that the campaign presented (I dont blame Romney alone for the campaign) throughout the entire campaign, he may have fared a lot better in some places.

You first paragraph blasts republicans for just arguing along right-wing talking points from radio personalities and pundits.

And then you go into your second long-winded paragraph doing just that but with left-wing talking points from liberal personalities and pundits.

lol, my second paragraph are my thoughts that yes, I do realize some liberal personalities agree with, but its absolutely true that the Republicans' entire mantra this cycle was "Vote for Us Or Else". Just as Bush ran in 04 and was barely successful running like that and McCain in 08. And Obama's accomplishments are truth.

Lol, typical liberal bias foaming at the mouth. My point was simple that Obama has done nothing to merit a re-election the last four years and you pull out this crap.

LOL Typical I-have-no-argument right wing retort. Your point means nothing and is hollow. He obviously has done something to merit re-election that you can't see because of the right wing blinders you have on. I'm sure Dinesh D'Souza has something new by now to fuel your irrational fear and hatred of Barack Obama. The re-elected Barack Obama that just smashed your side in an election that was handed to the Republicans on a plate. Fail.

Edited by ghdi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I poo-poohed Nate Silver's prediction. Boy was I wrong.

The only quibble I still have with his type of analysis is that he put a percentage chance on a one time event. I mean, I could put a 99 percent chance that aliens will land on earth tomorrow. If I'm wrong, I could just say that the one percent scenario is what played out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL Typical I-have-no-argument right wing retort. Your point means nothing and is hollow. He obviously has done something to merit re-election that you can't see because of the right wing blinders you have on. I'm sure Dinesh D'Souza has something new by now to fuel your irrational fear and hatred of Barack Obama. The re-elected Barack Obama that just smashed your side in an election that was handed to the Republicans on a plate. Fail.

Argument was simple. What has he done to deserve re-election? And then you come out with your hate monger speech towards anything right wing. You are nuts.

My side? I don't have a side. I want what's best for the country. If anything, this is a step in the right direction for the republicans. Maybe they will change their stance on social issues. I couldn't care less about gay marriage as long as it is not shoved down my throat. They want to do their own thing, that's fine.

So you admit that the Obama presidency has been an utter failure thus far, otherwise you wouldn't claim this was handed to republicans on a plate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush was a rino in a lot of ways. But for Obama to get re-elected after doing nothing just about nothing positive over four years? Terrible. America fell for it again. He's a talker. We need a doer.

Just shows what a bad choice Romney was. I really think Ron Paul would have won the election if he were the Republican nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just shows what a bad choice Romney was. I really think Ron Paul would have won the election if he were the Republican nominee.

I hope you are kidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday was a big day for Republicans (I consider myself an independent, I support both sides). It is time for them to get in touch with reality. If you looked at the early exit polls the majority said the economy was the biggest issue and that Romney would be better suited to fix the economy. But the people have spoken and showed that the social problems are more personal. The conservatives need to get more sensitive about immigration, abortion, religion, and gay rights. If not they will never regain the Senate or Presidency in a long time.

I wanted Romney to win, but I support the President and I hope he leads this country in the right direction.

Edited by Zubie#8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argument was simple. What has he done to deserve re-election? And then you come out with your hate monger speech towards anything right wing. You are nuts.

It's never that simple. Maybe Obama didn't "deserve re-election", but most people, even those that believe that's a true statement, also consider the person they would otherwise be voting for. I didn't think that W deserved re-election in 2004. I voted for him though because I thought John Kerry would be an awful president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just shows what a bad choice Romney was. I really think Ron Paul would have won the election if he were the Republican nominee.

No candidate that wants to repeal Roe vs Wade and makes it a point will win a national election. It will not happen. This country does not respond well to taking away any sort of civil liberty regardless of how "hot button" the issue. His past with the alleged racism/racist ties would also have doomed him completely with minorities.

Dont get me wrong, I like Ron Paul and I respect him, and while I think he has a bunch of very smart, tangible, and realistic ideas, I don't think his politics would've been accepted by this country on whole. For all his good ideas, he has a silly one here and there.

Conversely, had Gary Johnson been able to compete on the same level as Romney and Obama in terms of money and debate access, I think this race would've been closer and he'd have likely done better than Ross Perot. I don't think he'd have won though.

Edited by ghdi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No candidate that wants to repeal Roe vs Wade and makes it a point will win a national election. It will not happen. This country does not respond well to taking away any sort of civil liberty regardless of how "hot button" the issue. His past with the alleged racism/racist ties would also have doomed him completely with minorities.

It's more of a shame that most people couldn't tell you exactly what the holding of Roe v. Wade actually was (hint it did not "legalize" abortion, and, if you've read it, was actually a really bad decision, and that's coming from someone who is pro-choice). Regardless, hot button social issues are really a product of having primaries and why an incumbent has an advantage. Notice that Romney did everything he could to avoid social issues once he had the nomination wrapped up and that social issues didn't get too much play in the 2004 election.

Romney's, or more specifcally, the Mormon Church's past racism had nothing to do with his defeat. Blacks were going to vote for Obama no matter who the Republican nominee was. I haven't seen any polling on it, but my guess is that Hispanics didn't care about the Mormonism issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday was a big day for Republicans (I consider myself an independent, I support both sides). It is time for them to get in touch with reality. If you looked at the early exit polls the majority said the economy was the biggest issue and that Romney would be better suited to fix the economy. But the people have spoken and showed that the social problems are more personal. The conservatives need to get more sensitive about immigration, abortion, religion, and gay rights. If not they will never regain the Senate or Presidency in a long time.

I wanted Romney to win, but I support the President and I hope he leads this country in the right direction.

Exit polls in Ohio showed that the economy was by far the biggest concern in that battleground state.

Polls also showed that a good majority in Ohio supported Obama's bailout of the auto industry.

I really do think most people went into the polls with the economy the biggest thing on their minds, but when it comes to thinking about the economy as a whole or if they are getting paid themselves, people tend to think about themselves. These people had their jobs saved by Obama's bailout so why not vote for him?

It's more of a shame that most people couldn't tell you exactly what the holding of Roe v. Wade actually was (hint it did not "legalize" abortion, and, if you've read it, was actually a really bad decision, and that's coming from someone who is pro-choice). Regardless, hot button social issues are really a product of having primaries and why an incumbent has an advantage. Notice that Romney did everything he could to avoid social issues once he had the nomination wrapped up and that social issues didn't get too much play in the 2004 election.

Romney's, or more specifcally, the Mormon Church's past racism had nothing to do with his defeat. Blacks were going to vote for Obama no matter who the Republican nominee was. I haven't seen any polling on it, but my guess is that Hispanics didn't care about the Mormonism issue.

I would love to see how that affected their view on Romney. I would say it had a small part of it, but not a whole lot. Romney's (and the Republican party for the most part) immigration policies are what really turns off many Hispanic voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney's (and the Republican party for the most part) immigration policies are what really turns off many Hispanic voters.

What will be very interesting is whether Hispanic voters will become more anti-immigration down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you are kidding.

I don't think it's that outlandish of a prediction (or since it's over is it now called a postdiction?) Republicans were going to vote for their candidate regardless of who it was and he would also pick up votes from the drug legalization and antiwar crowds.

No candidate that wants to repeal Roe vs Wade and makes it a point will win a national election. It will not happen. This country does not respond well to taking away any sort of civil liberty regardless of how "hot button" the issue. His past with the alleged racism/racist ties would also have doomed him completely with minorities.

Dont get me wrong, I like Ron Paul and I respect him, and while I think he has a bunch of very smart, tangible, and realistic ideas, I don't think his politics would've been accepted by this country on whole. For all his good ideas, he has a silly one here and there.

Conversely, had Gary Johnson been able to compete on the same level as Romney and Obama in terms of money and debate access, I think this race would've been closer and he'd have likely done better than Ross Perot. I don't think he'd have won though.

That Ron Paul racism stuff is such baloney. It was written by one of his supporters, it wasn't even him. Plus if you look at what he has actually done in office you could see he is obviously not racist, but people care more about perceptions the media instills in them rather than actually looking at facts.

I disagree with Ron Paul on abortion too, but the re-election of all those senators and congressmen that signed the SOPA/PIPA bill as well as the president that signed the recent NDAA into law and has been vigorously defending it in court after judges ruled it unconstitutional shows that people really don't care about civil liberties. There would be a bigger uproar about abortion because unlike the NDAA and SOPA/PIPA, the Democrats and Republicans actually disagree on that issue, but I don't think it would be a dealbreaker, there are enough pro-life people out there.

Edited by devilsfan26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I poo-poohed Nate Silver's prediction. Boy was I wrong.

The only quibble I still have with his type of analysis is that he put a percentage chance on a one time event. I mean, I could put a 99 percent chance that aliens will land on earth tomorrow. If I'm wrong, I could just say that the one percent scenario is what played out.

Yes but that's focusing on one aspect on his analysis. The fact is while we can't know if his "odds of Obama winning" was correct, we can look at how he preforms on swing states and start to look at the trend. He went 9/9 last night, and I think 7/8 in 2008 (the other calls were fairly trivial). He also called the popular vote, and did fairly well at the state levels too (although I haven't examined them all). It's not just about the odds he had Obama winning, it's about his overall accuracy and that his model has merit, a lot more then the supposed pundits who go off their gut.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, typical liberal bias foaming at the mouth. My point was simple that Obama has done nothing to merit a re-election the last four years and you pull out this crap.

He saw us out of a recession, ended 1 war, winded down another, refocused our special forces attention that eventually killed bin laden, cut taxes for working families, passed a universal healthcare law, I liked the auto bailout and I understand the reasoning behind continuing TARP, he ended don't ask don't tell, showed that we can support democracy abroad without committing troops on the ground and kept this nation relatively safe

I don't agree with everything he did, I don't agree with some aspects of what he accomplished, and I certainly don't think he did any of that by himself. Obviously you probably don't like most of the things on that list, or down play how much he had a roll in. But there's your "merit" from my point of view, overall I like the way the country has been moving the last 4 years and that's why I voted for him for another term.

Edited by squishyx
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He saw us out of a recession, ended 1 war, winded down another, refocused our special forces attention that eventually killed bin laden, cut taxes for working families, passed a universal healthcare law, I liked the auto bailout and I understand the reasoning behind continuing TARP, he ended don't ask don't tell, showed that we can support democracy abroad without committing troops on the ground and kept this nation relatively safe

I don't agree with everything he did, I don't agree with some aspects of what he accomplished, and I certainly don't think he did any of that by himself. Obviously you probably don't like most of the things on that list, or down play how much he had a roll in. But there's your "merit" from my point of view, overall I like the way the country has been moving the last 4 years and that's why I voted for him for another term.

He didn't end any wars. He tried to extend the war in Iraq but wasn't able to so the troops came home at the deadline that was set by Bush. He has tripled the amount spent on the war in Afghanistan, I wouldn't really call that winding it down. He also started wars in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan.

http://mises.org/daily/5231

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the numbers started to really come back showing Obama was winning, I kept wondering how this guy was feeling about it:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't end any wars. He tried to extend the war in Iraq but wasn't able to so the troops came home at the deadline that was set by Bush. He has tripled the amount spent on the war in Afghanistan, I wouldn't really call that winding it down. He also started wars in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan.

http://mises.org/daily/5231

When documents are declassified, it'll be interesting to see whether the Obama administration used the failure to reach an agreement on immunity with the Iraqi government was an orchestrated pretext to get the troops out, so as to not make it look like forces were leaving tail between legs. I suspect that is probably the case. Of course if you're a purist, this probably doesn't matter.

I am not aware of what wars Obama started in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. I suppose you mean drone strikes, assisting certain combatants in a civil war, and the operation to kill Bin Laden. This stuff was also going on during the Bush administration. I have no problem with that, but a pacifist or doctrinaire isolationist probably would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0