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.
I think this election is shaping up to be like 2004 in that it will be entirely focused on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, and religion in government. The religious right is the angriest they have ever been right now and with the national economy improving, I see the GOP running a "values voter" campaign. Since 2004 however demographics have changed as well as the country's overall acceptance of gay marriage so I don't see them being successful. Swing states like Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia will probably go blue handing the election to Hillary or whoever the Dems nominate. I think the Republican Party would have chance in 2016 if they would ditch social issues but I don't see them doing that, especially as angry as the religious right is over gay marriage right now.
Do you think social issues will dominate the 2016 campaign?
We have bigger fish to fry, over the issues you have stated. But these are non issues since many states are (and the court) are over riding the will of the people over Gay Marriage.
You say the angry religious right?
You firmly miss understand and confuse the Teachings of God Vs the Law of man. People of faith will always oppose SS Marriage.
But will respect (Mans) the law as it is written.
Plus most people don't even know these days who is straight or Gay. We live in a confusing world. Most people will not put their dirty laundry on the street. So the Gay marriage is a non issue now.
Abortion should never be paid for by the tax payers (Planned Parent hood) and the fundamental question still is in front of us.
When does a Life Begin.?
We do have Security, energy and Economic issues that the GOP this time around is better suited to handle. The courts have taken this off the ballet with their decisions on Gay Marriage and Rove vs Wade is still on the books.
Why do people keep inferring that the executive branch is entirely responsible for the economy?"
It is not inferring anything. In a good economy, you cannot win running on a 180 degree change. People do not change who runs the joint when the economy is performing well. Bill Clinton's slogan "It's the Economy, Stupid", well short of POTUS elections only happening 9/12/2001, that slogan is always true.
And good luck selling change in what will likely be 5%ish U3. And that U6 between 10-11% is consistent with a 5% or so U3. Both signs of a very good economy.
We have bigger fish to fry, over the issues you have stated. But these are non issues since many states are (and the court) are over riding the will of the people over Gay Marriage.
You say the angry religious right?
You firmly miss understand and confuse the Teachings of God Vs the Law of man. People of faith will always oppose SS Marriage.
But will respect (Mans) the law as it is written.
Plus most people don't even know these days who is straight or Gay. We live in a confusing world. Most people will not put their dirty laundry on the street. So the Gay marriage is a non issue now.
Abortion should never be paid for by the tax payers (Planned Parent hood) and the fundamental question still is in front of us.
When does a Life Begin.?
We do have Security, energy and Economic issues that the GOP this time around is better suited to handle. The courts have taken this off the ballet with their decisions on Gay Marriage and Rove vs Wade is still on the books.
I don't think gay marriage will be off the ballot. You are going to still have Aikens, Mordochs, and even Carsons who are against one or both of the issues to rile up the Christian right as well as the Christian right who think those are immoral and unforgivable sins. With an evangelical like candidate like Ted Cruz being the first in, it could open up being on the social issues, if even to just rile up a base.
The economy will be an issue iff the economy don't continue to create good paying jobs. It's about the family table. If you, your SO and kids have jobs and they aren't part-time and offer good wages, you aren't going to think the economy is that bad.
Energy is virtually the same other than Republicans removing the coal restrictions under Obama. Other than that, we'll likely see similar energy laws to now though maybe not the green energy (solar, wind, etc.)
Security, do we really need more war even when we aren't even done rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan?
Whatever drives the 2016 election will probably be some opportunisitc absurdity in the tune of the "war on women"...you know, like, say, "the war on immigrants", or "the war on children", or "the war on healthcare", or "the war on faith". Who knows, but I can definitely wait to find out.
Whatever drives the 2016 election will probably be some opportunisitc absurdity in the tune of the "war on women"...you know, like, say, "the war on immigrants", or "the war on children", or "the war on healthcare", or "the war on faith". Who knows, but I can definitely wait to find out.
Perhaps, but that is the spin that people put on it. IMO it is just the spin Dems put on it with the reactions of a few Republicans. The same as conservatives claiming victory when they won the Senate during a six-year itch midterm.
Hilary has insulted the intelligence of women nationwide. Assuming the crown is hers for the taking, just because she is entitled to it, as a woman in the sexist nation we live.
I'm amazed at how crazy the GOP has become in their anger over gay marriage. The comments I've read at other sites have gone from snark to outright fury in a relatively short time. The GOP is fueling something they may deeply regret.
When it comes to elections, I agree. If 2016 is all about social issues - they can't win because the majority of people disagreed with Indiana.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
It's true that every election hinges on the economy, but with the world in such unrest, some international crisis may arise and de-rail the election. Reagan was elected in part due to the nation's frustration with Iran in 1980, so there's always a chance it can happen again. The terrorist groups are savvy now, and could be planning some major disruption during next year's campaign or the election itself.
With all the global warming going on, weather could be a big factor by next year. California is headed into even deeper drought, along with several other southwest states, while hard winters with big snow can bring on massive flooding. Romney blew his small lead when hurricane Sandy struck, and floods and hurricanes could also cause an election to become unpredictable.
By next year, the gay issues are going to lose all their steam. The battle was already fought in 2013, and lost in 2014. By 2016, it's going to be a dead issue. Abortion and religion are always going to be around, but those fights haven't gained or lost any ground forever. If they were important to the voters, we would have already seen some big changes, but none have occurred.
It's a perpetual stalemate. The religious right is perpetually disappointed, but they just can't give up the red elephant, and the GOP leadership understands that. As long as they're given some passing lip service, they won't ever leave. And with the margin of non-religious voters steadily growing, all those 30+ year old social issues won't ever get very far.
The 'gay issue' had already lost some steam until Pence opened his big mouth. I can only hope that another Republican does it again - but just closer to election time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
I think yes but when I say that, the Republicans will have to change. To have any chance to win, Republicans have to get away from the anti-gay issues. In light of the Indiana law, possible Republican candidates including Ben Carson, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush support the law that allows businesses in Indiana to be discriminatory towards gays and those that do not share their beliefs. This wont help them if they have to win the general election on this issue. We all know Ted Cruz will likely support the law too (the only who is in the mix to not be entirely for the law are Rand Paul and Scott Walker.) If the Republicans lose, they will lose because they aren't moving to what a majority of the people want. If the majority want gay marriage or no ability for storeowners to refuse people's business just because they "look gay" or are gay.
They won't be able to stay away from it; nor should the Democrats let them. Jeb is already backpedaling all over the place on his position. Typical. That was Romney's problem too; he couldn't both appease base AND appeal to the majority so he constantly flip flopped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
Now we will have to listen to the Repub Pols say they never supported the Ind and Ark Pro-discrimination laws. Jeb has already started his reversal process.
So TRUE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
Bull, I would love to know what other sites? Of course there are some who are opposed to same sex marriage. Don't you remember what our Pres said back in 2008? But for the most part people are not going to vote based on things like same sex marriage or abortion. Our safety as a nation will be a big part of the campaigning, so will illegals living here, the economy to some degree and lastly, but there will be some issues addressed will be social issues. Could I ask you one more question; why does sexual orientation have to enter almost every posting anymore and if not that, the race card? It is more the dems that keep talking about this, then the Republicans.
Well, I mean you posted about it. And the Republicans are busy passing laws about it and certainly Rush is talking about it so . . yes, Republicans are definitely talking about it. Unfortunately for them, every time they open their mouth on a social issue - they alienate yet another voter. While this election doesn't have to be about same sex marriage specifically, social conservatism no longer wins elections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam
The Republicans really don't speak out about social issues, at least that's been the case in recent presidential elections.
It certainly appears that the GOP is less popular on them, but one really can't conclude that if the party is standing defenseless on them and refuses to contest the Democrats' attacks.
In 2012, the Dems talked constantly about the war on women, Mr. Romney only talked about economic type issues.
Nope. They are 'less popular' on social issues because they are out of step with the majority of America. IF they didn't learn that in Indiana, then there truly is no hope for them.
And Mr. Romney did have his binders full of women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Actually, I think it's the other way around, especially since the Left's attack on an innocent Pizzeria owner, which has sparked real outrage from Americans who see this as an attack on Christians and Christianity, and it is.
The majority of Americans despise what the left has been doing, ginning up these "controversies," and the "gay" activists creating these phony responses.
It has been reported that there are only about 15 people involved, but they have learned how use social media, making it look like there are thousands if individual people posting on twitter and Facebook. It isn't the case.
One person who has been the victim of such attacks has said they have done the investigations and they know who the people are, and not only who they are, but where they live. They also know how they are doing it. The public is being duped into thinking that the majority of Americans support their agenda. They don't. This can be seen from the thousands who have donated to Memories Pizzeria through "Go Fund Me" in support of that business and what they believe. Last I checked, it was over $800,000 so far.
Ummm. Have you seen any polls on the Indiana law? Did you hear their business leaders speaking out? If your candidate continues to be tone deaf - he will lose. I say 'he' only because I'm unaware of a female Republican candidate at this juncture but I would love to be enlightened if you have one.
The majority of America wants to see everyone treated fairly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
It won't be about "income inequality." That is a phony issue, because if the economy were roaring along as it should be, no languishing as it has for the past 6 years, there would be plentiful opportunity for people of all walks of life to improve their lives.
There is no such thing as "income inequality." It is a made up term by socialists to gin up support to promote their socialist agenda.
Here again, we disagree. Whoever either candidate is - the middle class wants some LOVE. We'll talk about income equality all day long
When it comes to elections, I agree. If 2016 is all about social issues - they can't win because the majority of people disagreed with Indiana.
The 'gay issue' had already lost some steam until Pence opened his big mouth. I can only hope that another Republican does it again - but just closer to election time.
They won't be able to stay away from it; nor should the Democrats let them. Jeb is already backpedaling all over the place on his position. Typical. That was Romney's problem too; he couldn't both appease base AND appeal to the majority so he constantly flip flopped.
So TRUE.
Well, I mean you posted about it. And the Republicans are busy passing laws about it and certainly Rush is talking about it so . . yes, Republicans are definitely talking about it. Unfortunately for them, every time they open their mouth on a social issue - they alienate yet another voter. While this election doesn't have to be about same sex marriage specifically, social conservatism no longer wins elections.
Nope. They are 'less popular' on social issues because they are out of step with the majority of America. IF they didn't learn that in Indiana, then there truly is no hope for them.
And Mr. Romney did have his binders full of women.
Ummm. Have you seen any polls on the Indiana law? Did you hear their business leaders speaking out? If your candidate continues to be tone deaf - he will lose. I say 'he' only because I'm unaware of a female Republican candidate at this juncture but I would love to be enlightened if you have one.
The majority of America wants to see everyone treated fairly.
Here again, we disagree. Whoever either candidate is - the middle class wants some LOVE. We'll talk about income equality all day long
BBM~~ Well there is this very popular female stirring the pot and does a good job throwing red meat to her audience ...Carly Fiorina
Her claim to fame is the Former Hewlett-Packard CEO ..LOL If anyone actually looks at her as a viable leader..they best stay away from her run as HP's CEO!
Snippet~ But “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace brought up questions surrounding Fiorina’s own tenure at the helm of Hewlett-Packard from 1995 to 2005, which ended with her being forced out as the company’s stock plummeted and tens of thousands of workers lost their jobs.
I think this election is shaping up to be like 2004 in that it will be entirely focused on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, and religion in government. The religious right is the angriest they have ever been right now and with the national economy improving, I see the GOP running a "values voter" campaign. Since 2004 however demographics have changed as well as the country's overall acceptance of gay marriage so I don't see them being successful. Swing states like Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia will probably go blue handing the election to Hillary or whoever the Dems nominate. I think the Republican Party would have chance in 2016 if they would ditch social issues but I don't see them doing that, especially as angry as the religious right is over gay marriage right now.
Do you think social issues will dominate the 2016 campaign?
Yes, they will be very important. I disagree that this favors the dems. Like you said, many religious people are fired up. Backing off of social issues is a surefire way to lose easy votes. The key is to remain committed and consistent with your message.
BBM~~ Well there is this very popular female stirring the pot and does a good job throwing red meat to her audience ...Carly Fiorina
Her claim to fame is the Former Hewlett-Packard CEO ..LOL If anyone actually looks at her as a viable leader..they best stay away from her run as HP's CEO!
Snippet~ But “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace brought up questions surrounding Fiorina’s own tenure at the helm of Hewlett-Packard from 1995 to 2005, which ended with her being forced out as the company’s stock plummeted and tens of thousands of workers lost their jobs.
Interesting; I must spend more time watching Fox. Looks like her resume might not get her the nomination but we'll see! It's anyone's game.
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.
