Romney vs. BO - Saddo's kids race mongering thread

[Youngblood]

I'm not sure what you mean by growing population areas that now only support dems but if you mean Hispanics I think that is counting eggs before they are hatched. W pulled something like 40% of their vote. Culturally Hispanics tend to be religious, family oriented and socially conservative. The GOP can probably make inroads with those communities with a good comprehensive immigration plan. If they are smart they get out in front of the Pres on this but they will probably fuck that all up. Their smaller gov't message should be more tailored towards a 10th amendment issue. If you want cradle to grave nanny state you can have it but at the state not federal level. On social issues they need to stop talking about gay people and go with the public union for all and leave marriage to religious institutes. On abortion they should state they do not see an overturn of Roe v Wade but are against tax dollars for abortion. While I don't see our debt/deficit as a revenue issue they have lost the war of messaging. It easy to play class warfare with the tax the rich mantra so they have to dump Norquist. Taxes come and go but real spending cuts are hard to come by. Give up the top marginal rate cuts but make the Dems pay through the nose in cuts. On foreign policy they probably can stay on message b/c the Dems are just as hawkish. The biggest thing that needs to happen is at the very least silence the religious right. They can still be effective as strong conservatives in the financial/govt size arena but on every thing else they need move center and better tailor the message.

I agree with pretty much all of that, from anything I've read and learned in the last few months of reading. My question, how possible is it all? Norquist, getting past that whole deal? I understand the act in principle and concept of taxation with it, but the unyielding pledge, sign it or else. How can they/is it possible to silence the religious right without them turning it into some kind of party war? I do think they need to start courting the black vote, and certainly the latinos, even if the black vote might not show strong yields right away, but surely they have to start looking at the long game soon? I mean, abortion obv if they want to keep their religious vote, but again, will they really just take it lying down...stay quiet or w/e or accept a rebranding of the message?

[VictorCharlie]

A lot of moving away from religious nuts is better recruitment of candidates. More than anything it is all about how you package the message. The gay marriage issue needs to be less about gays and more about how gov't shouldn't play a role in marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony and those institutions can choose who takes part but any two consenting adults can sign a contract to be viewed as a single entity in the eyes of the law. Let them know their religion isn't under attack and let the gays know they will have equal treatment. Now there just isn't a good way around abortion. I really don't feel like it is a make or break issue as long as dumb asses like akin and murdouch quit talking about rape and shit. A great move for the GOP would be to head off the Dems on contraception by moving to make it over the counter but that is probably a bridge too far. I'd personally love to see the party splinter but the power brokers know that once you get away from the two party system you are marginalized. The GOP is going to have to break with Norquist to a certain extent if any compromise on the "fiscal cliff" is going to happen.

[Kirkland Laing]

A lot of moving away from religious nuts is better recruitment of candidates. More than anything it is all about how you package the message. The gay marriage issue needs to be less about gays and more about how gov't shouldn't play a role in marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony and those institutions can choose who takes part but any two consenting adults can sign a contract to be viewed as a single entity in the eyes of the law. Let them know their religion isn't under attack and let the gays know they will have equal treatment. Now there just isn't a good way around abortion. I really don't feel like it is a make or break issue as long as dumb asses like akin and murdouch quit talking about rape and shit. A great move for the GOP would be to head off the Dems on contraception by moving to make it over the counter but that is probably a bridge too far. I'd personally love to see the party splinter but the power brokers know that once you get away from the two party system you are marginalized. The GOP is going to have to break with Norquist to a certain extent if any compromise on the "fiscal cliff" is going to happen.

Bush won a lot of Hispanic votes because he'd been fairly pro-Hispanic as a Texas governor and hadn't come out against amnesty -- he'd basically hinted in the 2000 election campaign that he'd provide a path to citizenship. When he tried to pass a path to citizenship bill after he got re-elected people like Rush Limbaugh led a revolt against it and the GOP base made so many calls to DC that the congressional phone system crashed. Every GOP rep/Senator was told they'd be primaried if they supported the bill and it died an instant death. If the GOP head honchos back a similar plan en masse and give the base no choice the base will revolt and a significant enough number to matter won't tuen out to vote in future.

They can't touch abortion/gay marriage either. If they lose evangelicals they're completely fucked. And they can't give up on tax cuts for the top1% /corporations or they lose the Enron wing of the party and almost all their funding and without serious funding you can't get elected.

[VictorCharlie]

Kirk,

Why do you feel it necessary to provide me a history lesson on my own country much less my own state? Do you really think I'm not well versed on these topics? Anyway all those issues can be on the table w/o a revolt if they are appropriately messaged. The base is about winning more than anything else. I think Obama's victory is evident of that considering how little difference he has shown from Bush. Give the platforms subtle changes to the dialogue and the base will still Rah Rah Sisk Boom Bah as usual. The GOP of 2012 is different than the GOP 2000 and the GOP of 2016 can be different as well if the power brokers have enough vision and nuts. It make little difference to me personally b/c the end result of Dem/GOP leadership is the same.

[Kirkland Laing]

Kirk,

Why do you feel it necessary to provide me a history lesson on my own country much less my own state? Do you really think I'm not well versed on these topics? Anyway all those issues can be on the table w/o a revolt if they are appropriately messaged. The base is about winning more than anything else. I think Obama's victory is evident of that considering how little difference he has shown from Bush. Give the platforms subtle changes to the dialogue and the base will still Rah Rah Sisk Boom Bah as usual. The GOP of 2012 is different than the GOP 2000 and the GOP of 2016 can be different as well if the power brokers have enough vision and nuts. It make little difference to me personally b/c the end result of Dem/GOP leadership is the same.

Last week you were saying that the GOP wasn't conservative enough and were saying that a guy like Ron Paul who has a hardline immigration policy could win a national election. Now you're saying that the GOP has to become more moderate to win and that people who last week weren't voting GOP because the GOP isn't conservative enough are now going to vote GOP en masse after they become even less conservative.

[Kirkland Laing]

Seeing as it'll become common knowledge in the next couple of weeks, I might as well pass on some actual insider information about how the fiscal cliff thing is going to go. Over the weekend various Obama Treasury people have gone to Wall Street and met with money industry people and filled them in on what's going to happen with the fiscal cliff. Apparently once negotiations with the GOP get under way Obama is going to announce that he's going to increase taxes for the top 1% only, keep current spending unchanged and add additional spending -- a new stimulus -- of about five hundred billion dollars a year for the next two years and up around a trillion dollars a year for the last two years of his presidency.

Some of this stimulus will be in the form of a tax cut but will go to low/middle income earners in the form of a payroll tax cut to get the GOP on board but the vast majority of the stimulus money will be spent to replace old bridges, roads, schools and similar infrastructure and also to build a national electric power grid fit for the twenty first century. Obama is going to tour the country to sell the plan to the American people, he's going to hold televised town hall meetings in most states, particularly the ones that just voted for Romney, and explain what he wants to do. All of these meetings will be televised statewide and some will be televised nationwide.

[Kirkland Laing]

Also




Jon Stewart on Fox's Election Coverage: There Was an Avalanche on Bulls**t Mountain | Video Cafe

[El Kabong]

Seeing as it'll become common knowledge in the next couple of weeks, I might as well pass on some actual insider information about how the fiscal cliff thing is going to go. Over the weekend various Obama Treasury people have gone to Wall Street and met with money industry people and filled them in on what's going to happen with the fiscal cliff. Apparently once negotiations with the GOP get under way Obama is going to announce that he's going to increase taxes for the top 1% only, keep current spending unchanged and add additional spending -- a new stimulus -- of about five hundred billion dollars a year for the next two years and up around a trillion dollars a year for the last two years of his presidency.

Some of this stimulus will be in the form of a tax cut but will go to low/middle income earners in the form of a payroll tax cut to get the GOP on board but the vast majority of the stimulus money will be spent to replace old bridges, roads, schools and similar infrastructure and also to build a national electric power grid fit for the twenty first century. Obama is going to tour the country to sell the plan to the American people, he's going to hold televised town hall meetings in most states, particularly the ones that just voted for Romney, and explain what he wants to do. All of these meetings will be televised statewide and some will be televised nationwide.

.....so like the FIRST stimulus, the one with the "shovel ready jobs" and what not but only this time WE'RE SERIOUS

[VictorCharlie]

Kirk,

Why do you feel it necessary to provide me a history lesson on my own country much less my own state? Do you really think I'm not well versed on these topics? Anyway all those issues can be on the table w/o a revolt if they are appropriately messaged. The base is about winning more than anything else. I think Obama's victory is evident of that considering how little difference he has shown from Bush. Give the platforms subtle changes to the dialogue and the base will still Rah Rah Sisk Boom Bah as usual. The GOP of 2012 is different than the GOP 2000 and the GOP of 2016 can be different as well if the power brokers have enough vision and nuts. It make little difference to me personally b/c the end result of Dem/GOP leadership is the same.

Last week you were saying that the GOP wasn't conservative enough and were saying that a guy like Ron Paul who has a hardline immigration policy could win a national election. Now you're saying that the GOP has to become more moderate to win and that people who last week weren't voting GOP because the GOP isn't conservative enough are now going to vote GOP en masse after they become even less conservative.

Sometimes your reading comprehension is appallingly bad. Surely you can differentiate between conservative and libertarian. The Libertarian stance on immigration is open borders which would be more liberal using current vernacular not more conservative. Our previous discussion was specific to spending/taxes/entitlements. On those issues I do believe a more libertarian GOP candidate would be beneficial on social issues the GOP isn't going to go full libertarian but needs to tone down the religious rhetoric and message them better. The GOP has not always been so draconian on immigration (Bush/Reagan examples already mentioned) and yes they need to change this. I believe this could change it w/o a full blown party revolt.

[VictorCharlie]

Looks like MSNBC has decided to quit the charade of being news and joined in with Fox to provided the best one sided agenda they can.

MSNBC Beats Fox News By Following Its Example - Yahoo! News

[Kirkland Laing]

Kirk,

Why do you feel it necessary to provide me a history lesson on my own country much less my own state? Do you really think I'm not well versed on these topics? Anyway all those issues can be on the table w/o a revolt if they are appropriately messaged. The base is about winning more than anything else. I think Obama's victory is evident of that considering how little difference he has shown from Bush. Give the platforms subtle changes to the dialogue and the base will still Rah Rah Sisk Boom Bah as usual. The GOP of 2012 is different than the GOP 2000 and the GOP of 2016 can be different as well if the power brokers have enough vision and nuts. It make little difference to me personally b/c the end result of Dem/GOP leadership is the same.

Last week you were saying that the GOP wasn't conservative enough and were saying that a guy like Ron Paul who has a hardline immigration policy could win a national election. Now you're saying that the GOP has to become more moderate to win and that people who last week weren't voting GOP because the GOP isn't conservative enough are now going to vote GOP en masse after they become even less conservative.

Sometimes your reading comprehension is appallingly bad. Surely you can differentiate between conservative and libertarian. The Libertarian stance on immigration is open borders which would be more liberal using current vernacular not more conservative. Our previous discussion was specific to spending/taxes/entitlements. On those issues I do believe a more libertarian GOP candidate would be beneficial on social issues the GOP isn't going to go full libertarian but needs to tone down the religious rhetoric and message them better. The GOP has not always been so draconian on immigration (Bush/Reagan examples already mentioned) and yes they need to change this. I believe this could change it w/o a full blown party revolt.

Ron Paul's immigration policy is to seal the border and not have any amnesty. And last week you were saying that Romney looked like he was going to lose because he wasn't conservative enough. Now you're saying that the next candidate can win more votes by being even more moderate than Romney was.

[El Kabong]

Bush won a lot of Hispanic votes because he'd been fairly pro-Hispanic as a Texas governor and hadn't come out against amnesty -- he'd basically hinted in the 2000 election campaign that he'd provide a path to citizenship. When he tried to pass a path to citizenship bill after he got re-elected people like Rush Limbaugh led a revolt against it and the GOP base made so many calls to DC that the congressional phone system crashed. Every GOP rep/Senator was told they'd be primaried if they supported the bill and it died an instant death. If the GOP head honchos back a similar plan en masse and give the base no choice the base will revolt and a significant enough number to matter won't tuen out to vote in future.

They can't touch abortion/gay marriage either. If they lose evangelicals they're completely fucked. And they can't give up on tax cuts for the top1% /corporations or they lose the Enron wing of the party and almost all their funding and without serious funding you can't get elected.

Kirkland, Ronald Reagan did the whole Amnesty for Illegals thing and did he win over any hispanic voters for Reagan or the Republicans No it didn't.


Why do people like the Democrats? Because they aren't very tight when it comes to spending other people's money that is hands down the main reason. You can't tell me the Democrats have been all that helpful to the minorities they CLAIM to want to help. LBJ absolutely demolished the 2 parent household for African-Americans.

[Youngblood]

Here is a pretty good article from Nate Silver breaking down the polling for the 2012 Election. It is important to recognized that 538 is not a polling firm, but an aggregate. It uses all of the available polling information to get to what the election results will look like. This isn't some kind of testament or InYerFace.gif post, but a good look at where things are going with the types of bias in the numbers and a scratch at the surface as to why.

Which Polls Fared Best (and Worst) in the 2012 Presidential Race - NYTimes.com

[Kirkland Laing]

Bush won a lot of Hispanic votes because he'd been fairly pro-Hispanic as a Texas governor and hadn't come out against amnesty -- he'd basically hinted in the 2000 election campaign that he'd provide a path to citizenship. When he tried to pass a path to citizenship bill after he got re-elected people like Rush Limbaugh led a revolt against it and the GOP base made so many calls to DC that the congressional phone system crashed. Every GOP rep/Senator was told they'd be primaried if they supported the bill and it died an instant death. If the GOP head honchos back a similar plan en masse and give the base no choice the base will revolt and a significant enough number to matter won't tuen out to vote in future.

They can't touch abortion/gay marriage either. If they lose evangelicals they're completely fucked. And they can't give up on tax cuts for the top1% /corporations or they lose the Enron wing of the party and almost all their funding and without serious funding you can't get elected.

Kirkland, Ronald Reagan did the whole Amnesty for Illegals thing and did he win over any hispanic voters for Reagan or the Republicans No it didn't.


Why do people like the Democrats? Because they aren't very tight when it comes to spending other people's money that is hands down the main reason. You can't tell me the Democrats have been all that helpful to the minorities they CLAIM to want to help. LBJ absolutely demolished the 2 parent household for African-Americans.

Maybe Hispanics and African-Americans like the Democrats because the Democrats don't call them useless/illegal/lazy moochers/welfare cases etc etc and attack and denigrate them to get votes. Maybe that's it.

[El Kabong]

Maybe Hispanics and African-Americans like the Democrats because the Democrats don't call them useless/illegal/lazy moochers/welfare cases etc etc and attack and denigrate them to get votes. Maybe that's it.

Democrats only call on them to keep them in power and in thanks they keep those minorities poor and dumb and dependent on the government.