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 11-12-2012, 10:38 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,237 posts, read 72,664,130 times
Reputation: 47469

Advertisements

the gop is in trouble, im gop. we cant get the vote out like the dems. too many people voting their conscious in gop. we need to throw the worthless congress out on its ear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2012, 10:53 PM
 
10,546 posts, read 7,553,598 times
Reputation: 16229
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
My point is, the post I was replying to implied that red staters are poor, uneducated, hillbilly types, and I know that is definitely not the case here. But there does seem to be a correlation between affluent/educated/conservative and poor/uneducated/Obama, at least where I live.

And I don't mean that to say that all conservatives are affluent; they aren't. I certainly am not rich by any means. But conservatives aren't the hillbillies a poster tried to make them out to be by saying "have you ever driven through Tennessee, Mississippi, etc. etc."
Can we agree that education and income level can't be used to stereotype Obama and Romney voters? Poor and ignorant, rich and ignorant, poor and educated, rich and educated, etc: every demographic split its vote between the two.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 11:02 PM
 
12,653 posts, read 14,695,452 times
Reputation: 14243
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitmom View Post
Can we agree that education and income level can't be used to stereotype Obama and Romney voters? Poor and ignorant, rich and ignorant, poor and educated, rich and educated, etc: every demographic split its vote between the two.
Yes, we can agree on that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 11:03 PM
 
Location: New York City
4,036 posts, read 8,687,952 times
Reputation: 3699
Quote:
Originally Posted by xboxmas View Post
Yes, Obama was elected a 2nd term. But so was Bush. Did that mean the Democrat party was "in trouble" because a Republican was elected a 2nd term?

And I don't care that gay marriage and marijuana was passed in a few states. A few liberal states don't speak for the whole country.
It's a question of demographics and the Electoral map. The GOPs spent the entire election cycle defending red states and a dwindling number of true swing states. Republicans could find in June 2016 that number of votes in swing states is less that the number needed to win the Electoral College. The election would be over before it even begins.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 12:03 PM
 
2,486 posts, read 2,300,342 times
Reputation: 1752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenyo View Post
Republicans spent the last 2 years proclaiming Obama the worst President in history. GOP leaders made making Obama a 1 term President there STATED #1 goal. Unemployment was nearly 8%, Obamacare was evidently unpopular, fast and furios was the worlds biggest scandal, enthusiasm for the President was down, voters wouldn't turn out and ALL the conservative pundits and pollsters had Obama going down in flames before.......BOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 332 Electoral Votes!!!! 3 million + popular vote drubbing!!Pick ups in the House and Senate, nearly complete rejection of the tea-party.

If you can't beat Obama in the dire situation that YOU ALL laid out then you're in huge trouble. GOP has lost the popular vote 3 of the last 4 Presidential elections. Virignia is Blue, Colorado is Blue, Nevada is Blue, North Carolina is a tossup, Georgia and Arizona will be purple by 2016.

If you all keep living in that bubble and ignoring the trouble that you're actually in, expect many more years of BOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"BOOOM?" How old are you, 5? Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Colorado's margin of victory was VERY close.

The liberals in 2004 were all calling Bush the worst president ever and he still won. This was after the unpopular decision of Iraq.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 12:13 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,677 posts, read 16,520,462 times
Reputation: 7274
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitmom View Post
Can we agree that education and income level can't be used to stereotype Obama and Romney voters? Poor and ignorant, rich and ignorant, poor and educated, rich and educated, etc: every demographic split its vote between the two.
I'd agree in a heartbeat. The states with the highest levels of advanced education happen to be blue. So , though I am a fiscal conservative, I do chuckle when fellow conservs try to label those with opposing views as beneath them in levels of education.

Their are many things one can bring up to back their views, and to deflate the valdiity of others views.

But low educational attainment is not one of them. Mitt won the BA/BS level by a smaller margin than Obama won the Masters and Doctoral level by.

New England, a sea of blue, has several states with far higher than average levels of post secondary education. They also have disproportinately higher median earnings levels, and pay far in excess of what they receive, in FIT.

So yes, sorry to get worry, but to your question, I agree 110%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 12:53 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,408,878 times
Reputation: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by xboxmas View Post
Yes, Obama was elected a 2nd term. But so was Bush. Did that mean the Democrat party was "in trouble" because a Republican was elected a 2nd term?
It doesn't have anything to do with a 2nd term. It has to do with DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFTS. Bush's re-election was more about not changing presidents in the middle of a war than anything else.

Also, if you notice, Republicans have DISTANCED themselves from Bush- from his prescription drug plan and from practically everything about him except his tax rates. Bush TOTALLY stayed hidden during the Romney campaign while Clinton was going around everywhere on behalf of Obama. So Bush winning that election didn't have anything to do with Democrats on the short end of an ongoing demographic shift, and even with Bush being successful to win a 2nd time, he had a higher Latino vote than Romney because the Republicans have shifted AWAY from compassion on immigration. THAT, along with the women and other minorities demographic shift and Republican position on it, are why Republicans are in trouble.

If you'll notice, the advent of the Tea Party from which a lot of these right wing nutjobs come from happened AFTER the Bush presidency. The push further and further right to the extreme has happened since Bush. McCain got slammed by Repubs for being too moderate, now Romney has too. The party is steadily moving right, right away from the shift in American demographics. That's the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xboxmas View Post
And I don't care that gay marriage and marijuana was passed in a few states. A few liberal states don't speak for the whole country.
At one time a few states pushing Civil Rights for minorities didn't speak for the whole country, some states wanted to keep minorities out of their lily white restaurants and lily white schools but eventually equal rights would permeate throughout the country for minorities. It will be the same with equal rights for gays. Eventually the whole nation will recognize equal rights for gays as for heterosexuals. And it's just a matter of time with marijuana too. Especially when states are trying to find revenue. Why waste what little money there is on policing marijuana use? Too many more important issues to spend state money on. More states will realize that, and ultimately so will the federal government.

Amazing that so many Repubs can lie and claim to be for small government when they actually want BIG government, government telling people who they can and can't be with and what they can and can't smoke (can smoke cigarettes but not marijuana when marijuana is no more dangerous than cigarettes with all that nicotene). A government all up in the middle of people's personal choices IS BIG GOVERNMENT. Therefore despite their claims to the contrary, many Repubs are all for big intrusive government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 12:55 PM
 
10,006 posts, read 11,473,679 times
Reputation: 5803
The GOP is in trouble. This election was their's to have--on a silver platter, and they couldn't manage to win it. Everything was going against Obama--economy, the Middle East, etc. It was a flower for the picking. That they managed to lose it shows you what sorry shape they were in.

When Bush won his second term, this was not the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 12:56 PM
 
Location: USA - midwest
5,945 posts, read 4,734,798 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by xboxmas View Post
Yes, Obama was elected a 2nd term. But so was Bush. Did that mean the Democrat party was "in trouble" because a Republican was elected a 2nd term?

And I don't care that gay marriage and marijuana was passed in a few states. A few liberal states don't speak for the whole country.

So, how's that x-box working out for you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 01:03 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,408,878 times
Reputation: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by xboxmas View Post
The liberals in 2004 were all calling Bush the worst president ever and he still won. This was after the unpopular decision of Iraq.
But it's unpopularity was overcome by the fear that Bush/Cheney pushed- that if we changed administrations in the middle of a war, America was doomed. People bought it for the same reasons Democrats were afraid to stand up TO Bush WHEN he was going to war in Iraq (but Ron Paul was not)- fear.

Americans are sick of war now, so Americans aren't as primed to be manipulated by war mongering neo-cons now, and are more primed to let stances on the various issues make their decision as opposed to "OMG, things are so uncertain with this war and Bin Laden still on the loose, I don't to overturn the applecart in the middle of all that." Now people can actually hold the backwardness of the far right's platform against them. Now demographic clarity can shine a light on backwards, inequitable, and mean-spirited policy.
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