73 replies to this topic

[ghdi]

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, 07 November 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[Daniel]

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.

[DevsMan84]

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.

[Daniel]

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.

[devilsfan26]

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, 07 November 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[squishyx]

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.

[squishyx]

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, 07 November 2012 - 09:02 PM.

[devilsfan26]

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

[DevsMan84]

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

[Daniel]

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.

[squishyx]

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

I said we would likely disagree, you asked for merit and I gave you my reasons.

As far as spending in Afghanistan, his surge there was going to be expensive, I don't really agree with it and would have preferred if he just brought the troops home now. But there is a deadline and given his track record I believe he will live up to his promise in that regard.

[devilsfan26]

I said we would likely disagree, you asked for merit and I gave you my reasons.

As far as spending in Afghanistan, his surge there was going to be expensive, I don't really agree with it and would have preferred if he just brought the troops home now. But there is a deadline and given his track record I believe he will live up to his promise in that regard.

That was Devils Pride 26 you were responding to before. I should have picked a less generic username lol.

[squishyx]

That was Devils Pride 26 you were responding to before. I should have picked a less generic username lol.

Gah! Even worse, I did a quick double check to make sure you were who I thought you were. apologies sir.

[devilsfan26]

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.

You're right, he didn't start the attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, but he has escalated them, and the amount of civilians being killed is just going to breed more terrorists.

[mouse]

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.

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.

No. He claimed that Obama had many successes, but didn't do enough, or work quickly enough. I'm mostly inclined to agree, though I voted 3rd party because I think the reason he didn't do enough is the dependence on corporations the 2 party system requires, which allows regular people to get screwed, and because I don't think he did enough to earn my vote. That said, I'm glad he won. Whether you agree with him or not, he's adding more to the discussion than you are at this point.

[mouse]

You're right, he didn't start the attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, but he has escalated them, and the amount of civilians being killed is just going to breed more terrorists.

This has always been my issue with the war on terror in general, but the flip side is, you have to do something to terrorists, and wars always lead to civilian casualties.

[Jerrydevil]

I was shocked that Obama won this election. I give a lot of credit to the boot-licking mainstream media, which has taken orders from the White House the last four years. It's a scandal.

Still, it's a humiliating loss for the Republican Party, which needs to communicate the greatness of conservatism to Latinos, women, blacks. The effort needs to be much better. Having a dynamic, conservative presidential candidate is a must. Romney was all over the place in this campaign, and his "move to the center" in the last couple weeks of the campaign was blatant pandering. It's not to be respected, and people see right through it. The solution is not to move to the center. Move to the right, especially on fiscal issues.
.
Boy, it's amazing that after billions of dollars spent in the campaign, we end up with exactly where we were before: Obama, Democrat Senate and Republican House. I don't envision a grand bargain ... maybe a patchwork deal just to avoid the "fiscal cliff." It doesn't even matter if they make a big deal ... the full implementation of Obamacare will sink us, and the debt will rise and rise. God help us if it all comes crashing down.

Obama and Harry Reid's olive branch after the election was such a crock after the dirty campaign that they ran. The Bain Capital ads that attacked Romney's character, Reid's unfounded accusation of Romney being a tax cheat ... those two can go fvck themselves. I have never seen anything like it. It made swiftboating look like a sea cruise.

[David Puddy]

Romney was all over the place in this campaign, and his "move to the center" in the last couple weeks of the campaign was blatant pandering. It's not to be respected, and people see right through it. The solution is not to move to the center. Move to the right, especially on fiscal issues.

No, his "move to the right" in the primaries was pandering. His "move to the center" in the last few weeks of the campaign was reversion to his actual views.

Do you really think a truly conservative candidate -- Santorum, say, since Gingrich is also a moderate who was forced to move right during the primaries -- would have been able to win this election?

[devilsfan26]

This has always been my issue with the war on terror in general, but the flip side is, you have to do something to terrorists, and wars always lead to civilian casualties.

When will it end though? By trying to kill the terrorists we are creating more of them. We are never going to just rid the Middle East of terrorists as long as we keep killing innocent civilians. At what point are the amount of lives lost and the trillions of dollars spent enough for us to finally decide we are just making things worse for ourselves?

Boy, it's amazing that after billions of dollars spent in the campaign, we end up with exactly where we were before: Obama, Democrat Senate and Republican House. I don't envision a grand bargain ... maybe a patchwork deal just to avoid the "fiscal cliff." It doesn't even matter if they make a big deal ... the full implementation of Obamacare will sink us, and the debt will rise and rise. God help us if it all comes crashing down.

If "it all comes crashing down" it would happen regardless of which major party won this election. Take your blinders off, both parties spend too much.

[Jerrydevil]

No, his "move to the right" in the primaries was pandering. His "move to the center" in the last few weeks of the campaign was reversion to his actual views.

Do you really think a truly conservative candidate -- Santorum, say, since Gingrich is also a moderate who was forced to move right during the primaries -- would have been able to win this election?

Point taken on Romney. The problem is that at least some of the time he has to pretend to be something he is not, and that's no good.

In answer to your second question on Santorum, no, he wouldn't have won IMO.