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 11-13-2012, 12:54 PM
 
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,367 posts, read 8,275,203 times
Reputation: 5906

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
This column below suggests that the results of the election were based on the electorate not being ready to face the hard choices involved in addressing the debt.

The American electorate, on the other hand, took a conscious decision last week to avoid a confrontation with economic reality. The debt crisis, however, cannot just be brushed under the carpet.

As several European countries will testify, the more a nation borrows, the more expensive its debt will become to service.
While the public may have put the economy at the top of the list, it doesn't mean they didn't wanna deal with it, just because they didn't pick your guy. Maybe the majority of voters just didn't like him or what he was selling, ever think of that?! And BTW, two thirds of that deficit happened under Dubya, and I don't recall RWNJ's being so "responsible" then!

But amazing how the excuses just keep on coming... "the electorate was too stoopid", "minorities want Santa Claus", "blame it on the MSM", etc.... and now it's because "the public just wasn’t ready to face reality" (yeah... right)!!

Well actually I can think of quite a few folks right now who match that description, and they sure as hell ain't on the winning side of the aisle...!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-13-2012, 01:00 PM
 
10,543 posts, read 11,686,362 times
Reputation: 2797
Quote:
Originally Posted by mateo45 View Post
While the public may have put the economy at the top of the list, it doesn't mean they didn't wanna deal with it, just because they didn't pick your guy. Maybe the majority of voters just didn't like him or what he was selling, ever think of that?!
Since you said the public put the economy on top of the list, I'll respond as though you accept what the polls suggests as generally reflecting the public sentiment. With that in mind, your last point about them not liking what he was selling doesn't answer it because the same poll said they like what he was selling over what Mr. Obama was selling on the issue of the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,015,901 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
The collective referred to had nothing to do with me. Iwasn't polled. Okay, so your explanation is that the poll wasn't accurate. Why not just say that?
Neither was I nor did I care. But you did, and obviously stick with it, no matter what. As I said, I didn't think Romney was better for the economy. Now perhaps you should take THAT as a new perspective?

Quote:
Didn't see any mention of idiots so I don't know why you took it that way.
Of course you didn't. That was by design.

Quote:
As for me, I posed a question and didn't attack Mr. Obama. Again, not sure why you took it that way either.
If my take on Romney being a different cover than McCain being a different cover than Bush is an attack, I guess anything can be construed to be. But then, I don't mind attacking people who assume that I'm just another idiot. So, there goes your choice, and now you know better.

What question did you pose? That Obama's supporters bought into racial tones and voted for him? You people need to stop assuming that people reading your ideas are idiots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
It's much more interesting and provides for a better discussion than the typical partisan rage.
Now take a look at the OP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 01:16 PM
 
10,543 posts, read 11,686,362 times
Reputation: 2797
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
What question did you pose? That Obama's supporters bought into racial tones and voted for him? You people need to stop assuming that people reading your ideas are idiots.
Not even close to the question I posed. There are some very good points made by other posters in response to the OP, so I don't assume that of everyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 01:16 PM
pvs
 
1,845 posts, read 2,869,576 times
Reputation: 1525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
The new perspective was not a stance. It was a different take on why the election results turned out the way they did. Have you heard anyone suggest that it was because the populace wasn't ready to face the economic challenges? Maybe you have, I haven't. I've heard talk about the vaious demographics, religion etc., but hadn't heard this. I found it interesting given the poll results on the economy.
OK, as stated, I stopped reading once I got to that line. I have been doing so since before the election, as I'm tired of the obvious partisan rhetoric, no longer want to be involved with the useless and rude name-calling on either side of the aisle.

But to answer you, no, I still don't think this is a new perspective. I think MANY understand that we are in a very tight spot, economically, as is the entire world. Once we have India, and China, and other huge populations that all "want" the past American lifestyle, we, on this Earth, are going to need to re-balance the limited resources we have, while still trying to keep the planet inhabitable. Neither candidate, as President, even of the most powerful country, can possibly do that, nor be held accountable.

While President Obama might not have a 100% solution (or even half that), I believe a lot of the election's outcome had to do with the sketchiness and ambiguity of the plans hinted at by Romney/Ryan.

I don't think the next 8-10 years are going to be good, no matter who won. I think we are ALL in for a tough ride. But I think the R/R ticket scared many people away, because their solution seemed to be saying "Trust me", while it seemed obvious that their approach was to further protect the most successful, and to expect the masses to be able to live off the remaining ort.

I don't really think people are oblivious to the fact that the economy is in shambles, but I think many believe that if we raise income tax rates (I, personally believe they should ALL go up), we might have a better chance at making our own ends meet as a collective.

I think we have a chance, as long as our "leaders" can find a way to do the seeming impossible ... "compromise".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 01:23 PM
 
10,115 posts, read 6,733,681 times
Reputation: 3408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
Your argument doesn't hold water and here is why.

Regardless of the all of those points and of the left's complaints and arguments against Romney's plan (or rhetoric), according to Gallup, he was seen as the best for handling the economy and the economy was the number one issue.

Your attacks on him or his plan do not negate the fact that the electorate did not vote for the person they saw as the most qualified to handle their number one issue. Whether he actually has the better plan in the long run is immaterial to the question- the electorate saw him as most competent on their number one issue and did not vote for him. Why? That's the question, not whether or not you think his plan is worthwhile.
I hate to say this, because Gallup is based here in Nebraska, and I like to support local businesses, but Gallup was one of the least accurate polling firms this election, and I don't think their data means squat at this point.

I also think that the economy WAS a bit influence on the way people voted--some of you seem to assume that Romney would do a better job, but most didn't make that assumption. His plans were vague at best, and crazy at worst. Raising military spending at the same time that you give tax breaks to millionaires for personal income makes zero sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 01:32 PM
 
10,543 posts, read 11,686,362 times
Reputation: 2797
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvs View Post
OK, as stated, I stopped reading once I got to that line. I have been doing so since before the election, as I'm tired of the obvious partisan rhetoric, no longer want to be involved with the useless and rude name-calling on either side of the aisle."
Very wise. I try to avoid that as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvs View Post
While President Obama might not have a 100% solution (or even half that), I believe a lot of the election's outcome had to do with the sketchiness and ambiguity of the plans hinted at by Romney/Ryan."

I don't think the next 8-10 years are going to be good, no matter who won. I think we are ALL in for a tough ride. But I think the R/R ticket scared many people away, because their solution seemed to be saying "Trust me", while it seemed obvious that their approach was to further protect the most successful, and to expect the masses to be able to live off the remaining ort.
I agree, we are in for a tough ride. I think you may have a good point here. I thought Mr. Obama's plan was sketchy as well (talk of reasonable cuts or cutting where we can) but perhaps as a known quantity, he wasn't seen as scary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvs View Post
I don't really think people are oblivious to the fact that the economy is in shambles, but I think many believe that if we raise income tax rates (I, personally believe they should ALL go up), we might have a better chance at making our own ends meet as a collective.

I think we have a chance, as long as our "leaders" can find a way to do the seeming impossible ... "compromise".
Fair point. I do worry about the chances of comprimise. People are saying they're in favor of it, but Boehner, Reid and Mr. Obama seem to me to be saying the same things they said a couple of years ago. Essentially, I'll believe it when I see it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 01:36 PM
 
10,543 posts, read 11,686,362 times
Reputation: 2797
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547 View Post
I hate to say this, because Gallup is based here in Nebraska, and I like to support local businesses, but Gallup was one of the least accurate polling firms this election, and I don't think their data means squat at this point.

I also think that the economy WAS a bit influence on the way people voted--some of you seem to assume that Romney would do a better job, but most didn't make that assumption. His plans were vague at best, and crazy at worst. Raising military spending at the same time that you give tax breaks to millionaires for personal income makes zero sense.
As far as most making the assumption, it was Gallup that was reporting that. You do raise a valid point that the polls are suspect. I think that it's dangerous to draw a real conclusion when there is a difference of 1% or 2% with a margin of error of 3%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,015,901 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
Not even close to the question I posed. There are some very good points made by other posters in response to the OP, so I don't assume that of everyone.
I don't have to assume about you though, nor do I need to make any assumptions about the partisan-hack ideas involved in the "new perspective" presented... which is actually old and tired arguments from the expected people.

Now, what was the question again? (If you care for it to be addressed)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
I think that it's dangerous to draw a real conclusion when there is a difference of 1% or 2% with a margin of error of 3%.
But a premise for the not so new perspective, presented as "new".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2012, 02:05 PM
 
10,543 posts, read 11,686,362 times
Reputation: 2797
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post

Now, what was the question again? (If you care for it to be addressed)
Many others manged to address it, and I responded to their points. Since you asked for it again, I'll present it in a simple form that may not spark such outrage.

1. According to Gallup polls, the electorate identified the economy as the number one priority.
2. Also according to Gallup polls, the electorate viewed Romney as the better candidate regarding the economy.
3. Romney did not win the election.
4. The column quoted in the OP concludes that people voted as they did because they were not ready to make the hard choices required to deal with the economy.
5. Question posed by Rggr (note: the rest of the points were not made by Rggr thus no need to attack him for them): In light of the polling data in points 1 and 2, does the author's claim in point 4 have merit? (again, no argument presented by Rggr to warrant an attack - just a political topic for discussion about factors at play in the election results)
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