U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
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 11-13-2012, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,412 posts, read 3,768,831 times
Reputation: 1354

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
I see you don't have an argument either, just spewing name calling. I haven't seen any alternate explanations for the drop in vote totals. Obama got 7 million less votes, and Romney got less votes than McCain, despite the fact that R's were considerably more enthused about Romney than McCain.

But Pres. Obama found the one path to victory: supress the conservative leaning indy/swing voters, the kind who "vote the person, not the party." How else do we explain the 85% negative ad number mentioned by Medved? Why did Mr. 'Audacity of Hope' turn so negative this time around?

Medved's theory fits together quite well. It was a smart strategy by Team Obama, and it worked. Congrats. Any alternate theories out there? Or just semantics & name-calling.....?????
What evidence is there that the "R's were considerably more enthused about Romney than McCain?"

Perhaps the combination of Romney and his allies running an extremely negative campaign and the continued economic sluggishness, convinced many people that results of the Presidential race was not an answer to their situations.

The use of the word suppression is an obvious attempt to turn lemons into lemonade. Clearly if you only have lemons, individuals like Rove, will try and strike back with whatever they have even if it is a negative attack and the election is over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2012, 08:04 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,683,413 times
Reputation: 7921
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
Real simple. In the South (I know for a fact) a lot of people stayed home because they couldn't hold their noses tightly enough to vote for a heathen (Romney) or a ni**er (Obama).

You get a better candidate, you get a better turnout. Obviously from the election results, President Obama was the better candidate and created more interest, therefore more turnout.

As far as the negative ad rate, the last four years have been one long negative ad by the republicans against the Kenyan/Muslim/Socialist, ad nauseum. Sweep around your own door.
Link/quote from just one ad from Romney that said anything about Obama being Kenyan or Muslim. Really it was only a small handful of people who pushed the birther stuff or the Obama-Muslm stuff. In fact it happens that Michael Medved has been one of the loudest voices all along denouncing birtherism. And other than anonymous postings on the internet, I haven't heard anyone pushing the Muslim nonsense. Straw men. As for "socialist," if the shoe fits, wear it. Many lefties these days are deciding to return to openly and proudly label themselves as "socialist." Why not? The more honesty in political discourse, the better.


The Socialist Are Coming Out of the Closet! - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 08:04 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,099,433 times
Reputation: 5600
Oh, listen to the whining. "Mean old Obama said bad things about Romney, and that made conservatives stay home." (As if Romney didn't call Obama every name in the book.)

Harry Truman said, "if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,683,413 times
Reputation: 7921
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
What evidence is there that the "R's were considerably more enthused about Romney than McCain?"
Gallup polling. They found GOP enthusiasm at 35% in 2008, 51% in 2012.
Gallup Poll: Democratic Enthusiasm Down Sharply From 2008 | Mediaite

Personally though, I wouldn't have even needed the polling. Most of the conservatives I know were much more enthused about voting for Romney than McCain. Romney ran to the right in the primaries and continued running to the right even after he locked up the nomination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Montgomery Village
4,120 posts, read 3,717,057 times
Reputation: 1694
From Merrimam - Webster:

1: to put down by authority or force : subdue <suppress a riot>
2: to keep from public knowledge: as
a : to keep secret
b : to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of <suppress the test results>

3 a : to exclude from consciousness
b : to keep from giving vent to : check <suppressed her anger>

4 obsolete : to press down

5 a : to restrain from a usual course or action <suppress a cough>
b : to inhibit the growth or development of

6: to inhibit the genetic expression of <suppress a mutation>


Wikipedia's very first paragraph on voter suppression:
Voter suppression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Voter suppression is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising their right to vote. It is distinguished from political campaigning in that campaigning attempts to change likely voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters through persuasion and organization. Voter suppression instead attempts to reduce the number of voters who might vote against the candidate or proposition advocated by the suppressors.


Now what you are saying: Obama's "negative" ads led to voter suppression.
The answer is no, it did not. In order for it to be considered any sort of suppression, it is going to need to actually inhibit someone from actually voting. That is a fact. Now, I know you missed this but Obama's campaign was just as nasty as Romney's. So, knowing that, how is Obama's campaign considered voter suppression but Romney's isn't. This basically amounts to nothing more that trying to justify a loss.

The reasons why the republicans lost because:
1). Their voter model and data mining techniques were inferior AND wrong compared to the Democrats.
2). The image that the republicans themselves projected did not help them win any demographic outside of older white male.
3). Their message was wrong.
4). They had an inferior candidate compared to the Democratic candidate.
5). The campaign team created a bubble in which they tried to convince themselves they would win and siphoned money off of the campaign contributors only to have it all come crashing down.
6.) This was the turning point in history that the Republican voter base will not be able to win the election if it continues this course.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,683,413 times
Reputation: 7921
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Oh, listen to the whining. "Mean old Obama said bad things about Romney, and that made conservatives stay home." (As if Romney didn't call Obama every name in the book.)

Do you have a link to that quote? I look thru the thread, and I don't see where anyone said that. You do understand the use of quotation marks??--it means you're repeating something actually said by someone...

And please provide a a link to where Romney engaged in name-calling against Obama.

Better yet, provide an actual counter-argument to Medved's thesis. How many posts will this thread go before one is even attempted. I'm still seeing nothing but name-calling (e.g. whiner) and semantics. Still no actual counter-argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 08:38 AM
 
413 posts, read 556,092 times
Reputation: 669
I'm surprised Medved has the intelligence to tie his own shoelaces.

Or maybe he wears slip-ons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 08:50 AM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,722 posts, read 4,289,472 times
Reputation: 1376
Even the ppl at deadfart say mittens suppressed his own turnout.

Exclusive - Inside Orca: How the Romney Campaign Suppressed Its Own Vote

This portion of the instruction packet highlights the flaws in orca. Where is the instructions to bring your poll watcher credentials? Why did they need two chairs?


Last edited by buzzards27; 11-13-2012 at 09:00 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,794 posts, read 13,683,413 times
Reputation: 7921
[btsilver]Now what you are saying: Obama's "negative" ads led to voter suppression.
The answer is no, it did not. In order for it to be considered any sort of suppression, it is going to need to actually inhibit someone from actually voting. That is a fact. [/quote]

Read definition 5a and 5b of "suppression" that you yourself posted. And as long as we're quoting Wikipedia, look at this:
Negative campaigning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
A subsequent study done by Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar in 1995[4] corrected some of the previous study's flaws. This study concluded that negative advertising suppressed voter turnout, particularly for Independent voters. They speculated that campaigns tend to go negative only if the Independent vote is leaning toward the opponent.
Which in fact was the case in the 2012 election. Poll after poll showed Romney winning among indys. Nonetheless I do give you props for being the first to actually present some counterarguments, some of which I agree with (especially that R's did not do enough to win the non-white vote). But again, the semantics angle is a fail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 09:00 AM
 
3,764 posts, read 7,234,786 times
Reputation: 4005
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post
Gallup polling. They found GOP enthusiasm at 35% in 2008, 51% in 2012.
Gallup Poll: Democratic Enthusiasm Down Sharply From 2008 | Mediaite

Personally though, I wouldn't have even needed the polling. Most of the conservatives I know were much more enthused about voting for Romney than McCain. Romney ran to the right in the primaries and continued running to the right even after he locked up the nomination.
OK.

So all these enthusiastic GOP voters buckled due to the Obama campaign's relentless negative ads that discouraged the Republican voters Romney needed.

This thesis just shows what fools these GOP enthusiasts were.
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