Electoral College: PREDICTIONS

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

We talked about this in the "it's over" thread. Demographically speaking, the religious vote is now useless...

I see a lot of absolutes in the aftermath of this election. Way too knee jerk if you ask me...which you didn't...

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I see a lot of absolutes in the aftermath of this election. Way too knee jerk if you ask me...which you didn't...

You have to understand where I am coming from here. The Republican campaign did a fantastic job getting their block out to vote this cycle... that can't really be argued. That still wasn't enough to get them over the top. When you cater to a block like the religious right at the expense of young voter and women you used to be able to still win elections. Now because the demographics have changed you simply can't win that way. It sounds weird to say but the religious vote simply isn't that powerful anymore.

Locally it can still be tremendously powerful but nationally it's a hindrance because the demographics have shifted.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

You have to understand where I am coming from here. The Republican campaign did a fantastic job getting their block out to vote this cycle... that can't really be argued. That still wasn't enough to get them over the top. When you cater to a block like the religious right at the expense of young voter and women you used to be able to still win elections. Now because the demographics have changed you simply can't win that way. It sounds weird to say but the religious vote simply isn't that powerful anymore.

Locally it can still be tremendously powerful but nationally it's a hindrance because the demographics have shifted.

I didn't see any such "cater to a block like the religious right" by Romney/Ryan in this campaign.

Maybe you can reveal to me this catering you speak of. I guess when they were directly asked about abortion during the debate (at least with Ryan), the answer itself counted as catering?

Did Romney pick an evangelical preacher as his running mate? Or maybe some guy who blew up abortion clinics or beat up homosexuals in a prior life? I don't understand what you're talking about when you say they catered to the religious right.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You can link basically whatever you'd like to them....alliances come in all different shapes and sizes...shall we pick out groups aligned with the various socialist movements around the world and check them for extremism?

That might be fun.

Problem is you can run into issues of definition and whether or not the alliance is based on politics or ideology. For example, Venezuela supports Iran and many believe Iran is extremist while others, like myself, believe the extremist in this situation is Israel. I doubt whether Catholic Venezuela has an ideological affiliation with Muslim Iran. The association is essentially geopolitical, like the U.S. far religious right supporting Israel. Without Israel those crazies can't fulfill their insane prophecies. Or maybe you think the Falwells and Robertsons of this world have a heartfelt love for Jews. After all, who throughout history hasn't loved the Jews? Venezuela, on the other hand, supports Iran both as a co-member of OPEC and as a buffer against perceived American hegemony. Political, not ideological. OTOH, the Tea Party is filled with creationists, Randian sociopaths, homophobes, birthers and all the other nut cases populating the far right wing. There is a reason moderate Republicans are becoming extinct. The Tea Party has worked for their extinction. The Tea Party is driven primarily by ideology. If the Democrats were the far right wingers I believe the Tea Party would support the Democrats, not the Republicans. Ask yourself who the Tea Party would back in a mythical contest between Zell Miller and Nelson Rockefeller?

Anyway, doing what you suggest would only be of interest if you could determine whether the alliance is driven by politics or ideology. I seem to recall the the U.S. was in bed with the USSR during WWII and that some anti-Semitic American celebrities and leading businessmen were among the most ardent supporters of the Nazis in the 1930s and even into the war years. Certainly the former was politically driven and it is equally certain the latter was driven by ideology. Break it out that way and I would love to see the result vis-a-vis socialist movements.

[PaceAdvantage]

There is no winner in these types of arguments, especially when you say with a straight face that the extremist in your example is Israel.

That would be like me saying the extremist in the case of the neo-Nazi is the Jew, or in the case of the homophobe is the homosexual...

If you can't even accurately identify who the extremist is in your case, how can we have a functional discussion?

[rastajenk]

This one kind of knocked me off stride: "After all, who throughout history hasn't loved the Jews?"

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I didn't see any such "cater to a block like the religious right" by Romney/Ryan in this campaign.

Maybe you can reveal to me this catering you speak of. I guess when they were directly asked about abortion during the debate (at least with Ryan), the answer itself counted as catering?

Did Romney pick an evangelical preacher as his running mate? Or maybe some guy who blew up abortion clinics or beat up homosexuals in a prior life? I don't understand what you're talking about when you say they catered to the religious right.

Did you watch the GOP primary?...

It boiled down to a pro-choice guy being forced into a pro-life stance to defeat another "rape baby" nut.

Either way the point I am to make has very little to do with the individual candidates but the party platform selecting them. Unless the powers that be can swing the party more libertarian the GOP is doomed.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Did you watch the GOP primary?...

It boiled down to a pro-choice guy being forced into a pro-life stance to defeat another "rape baby" nut.

Either way the point I am to make has very little to do with the individual candidates but the party platform selecting them. Unless the powers that be can swing the party more libertarian the GOP is doomed.

Do you really think a lot of people had the GOP primaries in mind when casting their ballots yesterday?

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Do you really think a lot of people had the GOP primaries in mind when casting their ballots yesterday?

I think you are oversimplifying it. The GOP primary did nothing to help them and everything to bolster the Democrats narrative with the War On Women, Immigration, as well as paint Mitt Romney as a real life stand in for Don Draper.

I'm not sure why we are really even discussing this. Do you think the evangelical/social conservative vote can win the presidency anymore? Especially at the expense of youth and women's votes? if not we agree.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

There is no winner in these types of arguments, especially when you say with a straight face that the extremist in your example is Israel.

That would be like me saying the extremist in the case of the neo-Nazi is the Jew, or in the case of the homophobe is the homosexual...

If you can't even accurately identify who the extremist is in your case, how can we have a functional discussion?

I see you've bought into he demonization of Iran just like the good little boy your government wants you to be. Sure, Iran is like every other reasonably developed country trying to establish political power in its region. But Iran has not initiated a war in living memory and no one in their government has been accused of war crimes. Israel has initiated plenty and its government has been filled with war criminals and admitted terrorists. The illegal and criminal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is unprecedented in modern history. Iran occupies no country. Israel has violated hundreds of U.N. resolutions since its creation. Iran, a handful. As an original signer of the NPT Iran is legally entitled to develop nuclear technology for energy generation and has no nuclear weapons that anyone can identify. Israel refuses to sign the NPT and keeps their illegal nuclear arsenal secret. So maybe instead of threatening to attack Iran in case they try to develop a bomb, maybe the US should order Israel to get rid of theirs. And as far as I know, Iran never murdered 34 American sailors and wounded another 171 in an air force attack on an American military vessel. Your analogies are ridiculous, but apparently your method of evaluating international relations is: American government like - GOOD; American government no like - BAD. Yet for some reason Americans are surprised when they learn that most of the world considers the U.S. and Israel the greatest threats to world peace.

[badcompany]

Looking back at this thread from a year ago, most of those, here, on the right, excluding Big Mack, had it spot on. Do you think those on the Left could've been this objective had the situation been reversed?

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...highlight=Year
11-06-2011

Originally Posted by JustRalph

I work with the public every day. I am convinced Obama is 9/5 to win again.

Originally Posted by lsbets

I said a long time ago I think Obama wins reelection. There is no intelligence test for voting.

Originally Posted by boxcar

We're practically on the same page again. We've got to stop meeting like this!

But I do agree with you that an Obama loss is far from certain. He's the incumbent which gives him a huge advantage. His war chest is bigger than the great outdoors -- somewhere around 250 million big ones!

Then we come to the Republican nominee factor. If a RINO wins the nomination, this would seriously deenergize the base, I believe. I think a lot of people would simply stay home.

Boxcar

Originally Posted by badcompany

Sadly, I have to agree with your first point, but for a different reason. A rotten jobs market favors the Dems, not because they have a clue on how to get the economy back on track, but because they're more likely favor Government handouts like extended unemployment bennys.

Regarding the Republican candidates, while they all are certainly an improvement over Obama, I'm not confident that the likely nominee Romney will get it done. IMO, the person who had the best shot of beating Obama, Sarah Palin, isn't in the race.

Bottom line, I think Ralph's Morning Line is on the money.

The poster Box and I are agreeing with is Mostpost.

[ceejay]

Romney was a truly horrible candidate. That is obvious by the fact that he could not beat an extremely vulnerable incumbent. Frankly, I blame the dysfunction of the Republican Party. To win the nomination he had to pander to the right. The Republican that was elected Gov. of Massachusetts would probably have won the general election. He started rallying in the polls when he made his tack to the center at 1st debate.

Not to mention the intangibles. The negative (for lack of a better word) tone of his voice and the smirk that he always seemed to have made him just unlikable. Not to mention the number 47. And, like it or not, likability matters. Ask John Kerry. Ask Al Gore.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by ceejay

Romney was a truly horrible candidate. That is obvious by the fact that he could not beat an extremely vulnerable incumbent. Frankly, I blame the dysfunction of the Republican Party. To win the nomination he had to pander to the right. The Republican that was elected Gov. of Massachusetts would probably have won the general election. He started rallying in the polls when he made his tack to the center at 1st debate.

Not to mention the intangibles. The negative (for lack of a better word) tone of his voice and the smirk that he always seemed to have made him just unlikable. Not to mention the number 47. And, like it or not, likability matters. Ask John Kerry. Ask Al Gore.

Romney's ratings when he left the governorship of Massachusetts were pretty bad. So I doubt "The Republican that was elected Gov. of Mass" would have been much different.

I disagree that he was a truly horrible candidate, other than he let himself be defined by the opposition, instead of defining himself to the American people. Of course, a biased media plays a big role in that debacle, but I'm not supposed to talk about that...

[ceejay]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I disagree that he was a truly horrible candidate, other than he let himself be defined by the opposition, instead of defining himself to the American people.

So you are saying he was a good candidate who could not beat an incumbent who did not fulfill most of his promises. The one promise he did fulfill was effectively stolen from Romney and renamed.

Allowing the opposition or the media to define you is a politically fatal mistake and not a sign of a good candidate.

[mountainman]

In my opinion, Romney is an uncommonly decent and classy guy who simply lacked the stomach and inclination to fight really rough or assert himself sufficiently to unseat the incumbent.

I suspect there are clear and self-defined limits on how far Mitt Romney will go to attain ANYTHING. And I much admire that.

The president, on the other hand, brought a win-at-all-costs approach to his campaign.