U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:33 PM
 
14,752 posts, read 27,562,571 times
Reputation: 8732

Advertisements

Yes, without a doubt. Without a doubt.

Part of the reason is that it was an election about a) placing blame/finding fault, b) rage that there are deeply structural problems neither side will easily solve, c) rage that the underlying situation is so complex and some of these so-called college educated folks who partied and slept in school can't figure it out or discuss it intelligently, and d) packaged alignment with one's demographics in how people voted, with many pulpits effectively casting the vote for their congregations.

I don't have many friends on Facebook, and that's cool, especially after a purge within the last month. I had a douche bag friend who went from a cigarette-smoking indifferent Catholic during our teenage years to a rabid Republican Christian in the heartland once she moved there and had a couple of kids. This totally unremarkable b itch, with 550+ friends, has never even hit the like button on my FB account, most of which consists of travel photos, but went into paragraph long volleys with me about this election. I have some "friends" who seem awfully "quiet" on this venue (FB) these days. What I've also noticed is those with a graduate education in business are part of the "package deal" of their own making, having to support Republicans in concert with their strict Catholic/Protestant buy-in and their occupations as "suits." They, too, have been "quiet." I know I've lost a handful of friends over this election. So be it.

Any comments? Any stories?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:39 PM
 
Location: On the Group W bench
5,576 posts, read 3,463,137 times
Reputation: 2127
I think the answer is yes, and I think there are two reasons.

First, it's because of the nonstop, 24/7, frothing-at-the-mouth fear that's being peddled by the cynics on the right who know that it's the easiest way to fire up uneducated or lazy people. It used to be you had people who disagreed with someone's policies. Now you have hordes of people who truly and honestly believe that President Obama is coming for their guns with black helicopters manned with Kenyan socialists, who will put them all into FEMA death camps.

Seriously, if you believe all that, you'd be terrified and hateful, too.

Second, this is the first time ever we've re-elected a black president. First time around I don't think they really believed he'd be elected. This time, now that he's been there for four years, it flushed the racists out of the closet, and naturally they're more unpleasant and hateful than just about anyone else. Fortunately, we won't go through that particular painful process again ... until an openly gay person, woman or Latino/a runs. Then we'll have to go through it again. *sigh*
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
745 posts, read 876,424 times
Reputation: 871
Yes. And one person is responsible for that: Mitt Romney.

Since the GOP primary and into the general election, the Romney forces made thousands of ads. And 95% of them were negative attack ads. He plays very dirty, and it was pretty much evident the first time he ran for president four years ago in 2008. His M.O. is "tear down your opponent at all costs and spend millions of dollars doing it."

Obama had no choice but to go negative early to counter Romney's strategy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:50 PM
 
9,928 posts, read 12,999,084 times
Reputation: 5472
Most of the ads you were seeing were generated by Superpacs, not directly by the candidates. You can blame Karl Rove, mainly.

I do not talk about politics on Facebook or with family, especially those I know are on the other side fo the aisle, at gatherings. It's not a good idea. I have some people close to me who were ready to blow a gasket about this election. Such an incredible waste of time. I often felt like saying to my senior citzen relatives making less than 40K a year with no investment income "other than that Obama is brown and Glenn Beck told you he is the devil incarnate, why do you support Romney? What do you stand to gain?"

But, I held my tounge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:53 PM
 
Location: San Francisco
9,033 posts, read 8,386,264 times
Reputation: 5652
Quote:
Originally Posted by dman72 View Post
Most of the ads you were seeing were generated by Superpacs, not directly by the candidates. You can blame Karl Rove, mainly.
... and the Supreme Court.

As to whether this was the nastiest race, I'd say it was about the same as 2008. Sarah Palin was an extremely polarizing figure, and there was no shortage of nastiness on both sides.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
6,695 posts, read 7,367,821 times
Reputation: 5448
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen View Post
I think the answer is yes, and I think there are two reasons.

First, it's because of the nonstop, 24/7, frothing-at-the-mouth fear that's being peddled by the cynics on the right who know that it's the easiest way to fire up uneducated or lazy people. It used to be you had people who disagreed with someone's policies. Now you have hordes of people who truly and honestly believe that President Obama is coming for their guns with black helicopters manned with Kenyan socialists, who will put them all into FEMA death camps.

Seriously, if you believe all that, you'd be terrified and hateful, too.

Second, this is the first time ever we've re-elected a black president. First time around I don't think they really believed he'd be elected. This time, now that he's been there for four years, it flushed the racists out of the closet, and naturally they're more unpleasant and hateful than just about anyone else. Fortunately, we won't go through that particular painful process again ... until an openly gay person, woman or Latino/a runs. Then we'll have to go through it again. *sigh*
Quote:
Originally Posted by evan83 View Post
Yes. And one person is responsible for that: Mitt Romney.

Since the GOP primary and into the general election, the Romney forces made thousands of ads. And 95% of them were negative attack ads. He plays very dirty, and it was pretty much evident the first time he ran for president four years ago in 2008. His M.O. is "tear down your opponent at all costs and spend millions of dollars doing it."

Obama had no choice but to go negative early to counter Romney's strategy.
I love the fact that in a post talking about the negativity of this election, you both continue to spout the negativity.

Both sides were negative in this election process, with cries of racism on both sides, so blaming the Republicans for the negativity is just a simple case of covering your @**. Obama's supporters were throwing just as many negative ads as Romney's supporters were, and it wasn't in response to anything that Romney did. The reason for the negative ads is that this is the way things are done now. Our culture is all about sensationalism and tabloids, so the way to get people's attention is to construct ads that resemble something they would see on "Housewives" or the Kardashians.

Considering Obama's history of negative ads in the 2008 primaries, as well as his reputation from Chicago politics, trying to say that he's innocent of the negativity is a bit of a stretch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 12:59 PM
 
12,628 posts, read 14,638,128 times
Reputation: 14146
Yes, because Obama ran a campaign of REVENGE and instead of saying what HE planned to do. Since he had no record to run on, he instead talked down his opponent. But it was no different than the last four years when he has been blame Bush for everything instead of taking responsibility. Obama, to me, is a small man. He is negative and doesn't know how to appeal to people's sense of higher values/taking the high road, so instead runs on "revenge" and appeals to people who are inward focused instead of outward focused. He is the epitome of a small minded person. Instead of making people what to succeed and become the best they can be, he makes them want "revenge" - revenge for what, I don't know. How do you bring people together if you are telling to vote for "revenge"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
745 posts, read 876,424 times
Reputation: 871
At least half of Obama's ads were touting his accomplishments such as saving the auto industry, Obamacare, creating 5 million new private sector jobs, ending the Iraq war, and decimating Al Qaeda's leadership. Without even mentioning Flip-Flop Romney's name.

What positive ads did Romney run?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 01:02 PM
 
Location: One of the 13 original colonies.
9,971 posts, read 6,112,897 times
Reputation: 7837
Quote:
Originally Posted by evan83 View Post
Yes. And one person is responsible for that: Mitt Romney.

Since the GOP primary and into the general election, the Romney forces made thousands of ads. And 95% of them were negative attack ads. He plays very dirty, and it was pretty much evident the first time he ran for president four years ago in 2008. His M.O. is "tear down your opponent at all costs and spend millions of dollars doing it."

Obama had no choice but to go negative early to counter Romney's strategy.


Oh please. Obama was every bit as nasty as anyone else. And nobody caused him to be nasty. You can't see the forest for the trees. Politicians are nasty period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2012, 01:06 PM
 
14,752 posts, read 27,562,571 times
Reputation: 8732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotty011 View Post
Oh please. Obama was every bit as nasty as anyone else. And nobody caused him to be nasty. You can't see the forest for the trees. Politicians are nasty period.
Actually, let's bring this thread back to where the focus should be - on YOU, the members of CD, and the impact it has had on your interpersonal relationships.

This thread is NO longer about the candidates, but about how the person on the street, and on this forum, was impacted socially. Thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top