Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Currently the main difference seems to be that one got elected and the other did not.
In fact there are differences between political parties.
The sameness comes mainly from the fact that the administration (the gnomes and worker bees pedaling away in the darkness of the departments) can only run the country (any country) one way.
All political parties do is spend money in different ways.
Trust me, it ain't just in the USA that this stuff happens.
True.... and I was addressing the original question about what the GOP needs to do to get more votes.
Not really interested in debating what government looks like when the curtain is pulled back.
Currently the main difference seems to be that one got elected and the other did not.
There are ~312,000,000 people in the USA according to the US Census. The difference in votes between Obama and Romney was 3,381,832. Or to make it easier, a difference of 1.08%.
By any sort of scale, a 1.08% difference suggests there is essentially nothing significant differentiating them. It's hardly the mandate that Ronald Reagan got in 1984 when he won 525 electoral votes vs 13 for Mondale. i.e. Reagan won all states except for Mondale's home state.
As of yesterday, 20 States wanted to secede. It isn't moronic, it is sending a message.
Yes - a message that a minority of morons want to secede from the country because their candidate lost the Presidential elections.
I see Louisiana on the list of states with such a petition. Let them secede - I bet they will come running back as fast as they can next time a hurricane nails their state and they need federal aid.
This has been going on for years and theres a HUGE chunk of voters the GOP will never get back.
Also, one must realize states like California, Illinois, New York, and other large electoral vote states will never go back Red.
All these factors mean doom at a national level for the GOP.
I honestly don't have a clear enough crystal ball to forsee what it will take for things to change....a good chunk of people in this country like Santa Claus..(aka Govco) to take care of them....
I think they can but they have to sit these old guys down and tell them to shut up.
If you want to talk about latino issues here's a hint. Let Rubio or other Latinos in the GOP talk for them. If you want to talk about women's issues... let the women in the GOP talk about them.
The election was pretty close when you look at battleground states and the voting differences. They don't have to change who they are... but they need to change how they say things.
Right now it sounds like the GOP hates everyone they need to win and that isn't a winning formula.
I think it is more of a reflection of how much people resent the ever increasing intrusion of the government into the daily lives of people.
No, it's a reflection or poorly informed, immature people. It's childish.
Additionally, Romney didn't offer smaller gov't. I know that is the GOP brand, but no GOP President of Congress has brought us smaller gov't in any recent decade.
There are ~312,000,000 people in the USA according to the US Census. The difference in votes between Obama and Romney was 3,381,832. Or to make it easier, a difference of 1.08%.
By any sort of scale, a 1.08% difference suggests there is essentially nothing significant differentiating them. It's hardly the mandate that Ronald Reagan got in 1984 when he won 525 electoral votes vs 13 for Mondale. i.e. Reagan won all states except for Mondale's home state.
I believe you. I believe you. I really do.
Looking at your numbers it really does seem that the difference between the numbers of people who actually voted was very similar (1.08%). I had not previously seen that statistic.
Where Mr. Obama won was in the number of electoral college votes he won and that was 332 to 206. A resounding victory.
Why is this? Is there something in the population dispersion that skews figures this way? I am very puzzled by this.
Like I said, I really do not understand the American political system in its entirety. Once I come and live in Charlotte, I am sure that I shall soon comprehend it in nauseating detail. This happened when I moved back to the UK where the government is an endless source of amusement to me on the nightly news.
Meanwhile please accept the fact that I am a neophyte when dealing with US politics .
I only think 3 of the folks who have posted on this thread are actually native Southerners.
As I said earlier, secession is not the answer, but I can see why folks talk about it. That article did not list what the real reasons are as to why folks talk about secession.
It has to do with federal taxes and federal laws. It has nothing to do with diversity, for heaven's sake, which several of you have alluded to.
The discussions, which have gone on for years, were never about a Republican President being elected. Bill Clinton is from the South, may I remind you.
It has to do with such things as energy policy, trade agreements, education mandates, etc etc etc.
It is a go-nowhere discussion. We are a republic made up of 50 states and several territories. However, the states are less and less distinct governmental entities, which is at the core of the issue.
Again, please do not misread that I think it is a worthy movement to pursue. But I do think it illustrates how many freedoms some Southerners feel have been lost (i.e. Patriot Act) and many are concerned.
The election was pretty close when you look at battleground states and the voting differences. They don't have to change who they are... but they need to change how they say things.
I disagree 100%. How they say things won't make a difference because the MSM will shape what they say anyway they want...plus, you are not going to get a huge chunk of Latinos who vote GOP because they'd have to cave and grant amnesty...never going to happen.
The GOP carted out many minorities/women out for their convention. It didn't make 1 bit of difference...
Look at Europe for example. Its an aging population. The middle east and other 3rd world areas are growing so much faster than the industrialized world.
Changing demographics are already a HUGE part of whats going on and it can't be stopped.....
Where Mr. Obama won was in the number of electoral college votes he won and that was 332 to 206. A resounding victory....
This is because electoral votes are not awarded proportionally. it's winner take all. i.e. Romney got all of NC's 15 electoral votes even though Obama won close to 1/2 the votes in the state.
Furthermore some electoral votes are more valuable than others because the Constitution specifies that a state receive at least 3 electoral votes. Therefore low population states have an advantage over those with high populations. i.e. Unless the constitution is changed, the total number of electoral votes never changes.
There are many complaints against it similar to the same complaints against the "first past the post" system used to select members of the House of Commons. (I'm a fan of observing the UK's elections)
There are ~312,000,000 people in the USA according to the US Census. The difference in votes between Obama and Romney was 3,381,832. Or to make it easier, a difference of 1.08%.
By any sort of scale, a 1.08% difference suggests there is essentially nothing significant differentiating them. It's hardly the mandate that Ronald Reagan got in 1984 when he won 525 electoral votes vs 13 for Mondale. i.e. Reagan won all states except for Mondale's home state.
Fuzzy math... taking 100,000 "morons" signing a petition out of all these numbers and considering that as significant is a joke.
The approx. 3% difference of voters is what matters. Using total population makes it seem closer than it was. From an election standpoint Romney got smoked - a simple plain ole fashioned ass slappin' beat down... the electoral counts support this. Let's not forget W actually LOST the popular vote in his re-election - talk mandates in relation to that clown, not Reagan. Even beyond that, the elections were such pre-school level... Obama didn't run on much except to tax the rich and Romney kept changing his mind right to the end, so nobody knew what he would have done in office.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
