Electoral College: PREDICTIONS

[Rookies]

Originally Posted by newtothegame

On the first page, Rookies posted 303-235 Obama......as of this moment, without Florida called its 303-206.
If Romney were to take Florida, Rook would of been EXACT!

Like I said in PA's thread, I gotta swear off the horsies and tout myself out as the prognosticator of U.S. Prezzy elections.

2008 = Perfect
2012 = Pop Vote & all but FL (talked myself outta of) = Perfect

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Oh come on...I heard the same nonsense in 2008 on this board...100 years of total Dem rule...will take Repubs at least a decade or more to regroup...and then two years later the house falls to Repubs...

It's just nonsense...

No its fact at this point...

If you want to win at the national level you can't be perceived as anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-women, tough on immigration, etc etc...

That platform is dead.

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

No its fact at this point...

If you want to win at the national level you can't be perceived as anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-women, tough on immigration, etc etc...

That platform is dead.

You k now Elysian, sadly, you're right. Reality means nothing to people these days. It doesnt matter that Obama has carried many of the same Bush policies, Romney was percieved as being a war monger.
it doesnt matter that Obama's own WH was in the news for treating women badly, Romney was perceived as being against women.
Obama has not brought forth any legislation to pass the DREAM act, yet Romney is perceived to be totally against immigration.
Obama admits to eating dog, and romney is perceived bad for traveling with dog in car carrier on top of vehicle.
Most exits polls I saw had the economy as a TOP issue, yet Obama has not passed a budget in four years and Romney has run many successful businesses....
Romney balanced MA budget, Obama has added 5 trillion plus in debt.....
SMH
But, I agree you are right...its no longer about reality, its all about perception and what you're willing to tell the electorate.....
The list goes on and on as I am sure you know. But, point is...you're right....
Right of the aisle, take notice of how you got kicked around again......

[Native Texan III]

Originally Posted by bigmack

With the calling of OH for BO, I have NEVER been so COLD COCKED in my life.

After all my boasting, I am SEVERELY WRONG.

What a shame.

The empty vessel of self delusion rolls down the hill, like a tumbleweed, to oblivion. Oh the humanity.

Huge credit for now taking the very first crawling step upwards to enlightenment.

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

No its fact at this point...

If you want to win at the national level you can't be perceived as anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-women, tough on immigration, etc etc...

That platform is dead.

I think that's right. Brit Hume on FOX last evening noted that because of the changing demographics in the U.S. if the Republican candidate for president in 2020 wins the same percentage of votes as McCain did in 2008 among whites, blacks, Hispanics and women he (or she) would lose the election by 14 million votes. If Hume is correct, then it would appear that the party's viability depends on a dramatic shift to the center and a rejection of Tea Party extremism. But hey, what would be wrong with another Eisenhower who I, as a socialist, believe was the best president in my lifetime?

[PaceAdvantage]

What is so extreme about the Tea Party?

From WikiPedia:

"The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution,[1] reducing U.S. government spending and taxes,[2][3][3] and reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit.[2] The movement is generally considered to be partly conservative,[4][5] partly libertarian,[6][7] and partly populist.[8][9][10] The movement has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009."

It's a sad day indeed when strict adherence to the Constitution, reducing US GOv't spending and taxes, and reduction of the debt and deficit is considered extreme...

[Tom]

You guys assume there will be a USA in 2020.
China will foreclose long before that.
We will be Taiwan Part Duex by then.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

What is so extreme about the Tea Party?

From WikiPedia:

It's a sad day indeed when strict adherence to the Constitution, reducing US GOv't spending and taxes, and reduction of the debt and deficit is considered extreme...

The tea party, despite that definition, gladly embraced more extreme elements of social conservatives to increase their support. The throwing away of Senator Lugar's seat is the best example you could possibly ask for...

It doesn't really matter now anyway the Tea Party is dead... thank god...

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

The tea party, despite that definition, gladly embraced more extreme elements of social conservatives to increase their support.

Like what? Herding people into reeducation camps?

[lsbets]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Like what? Herding people into reeducation camps?

The tea party had started as a primarily libertarian small government movement. A reaction to the excesses not only of Obama, but bush too. It was soon coopted by the Republican Party and became a movement run by the social conservatives. After that happened, the tea party lost the support of people like me, the ones who actually believe in smaller government performing within the bounds of the constitution. While the tea party provided the momentum for taking the house in 2010, it also helped the dems keep the senate with candidates like angle, odonnel, and the two abortion rape nuts. They also helped Obama get reflected by destroying the Republican Party in Nevada and taking that state out of play in the presidential election.

If the Republican Party is going to have a national message they need to find a way to keep the religious nuts under control while appealing to more libertarian types.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by lsbets

If the Republican Party is going to have a national message they need to find a way to keep the religious nuts under control while appealing to more libertarian types.

And here I was under the impression that the religious "nuts" were "under control."

Seems I have a lot to learn.

[lsbets]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

And here I was under the impression that the religious "nuts" were "under control."

Seems I have a lot to learn.

Sharon angle, Christine odonnel, Todd akin, and the guy in Indiana.

If that's under control, I hate to think how things would be if they weren't.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by lsbets

The tea party had started as a primarily libertarian small government movement. A reaction to the excesses not only of Obama, but bush too. It was soon coopted by the Republican Party and became a movement run by the social conservatives. After that happened, the tea party lost the support of people like me, the ones who actually believe in smaller government performing within the bounds of the constitution. While the tea party provided the momentum for taking the house in 2010, it also helped the dems keep the senate with candidates like angle, odonnel, and the two abortion rape nuts. They also helped Obama get reflected by destroying the Republican Party in Nevada and taking that state out of play in the presidential election.

If the Republican Party is going to have a national message they need to find a way to keep the religious nuts under control while appealing to more libertarian types.

Exactly...

The door swings both ways and unlike some conservatives on here I have attacked the Tea Party mercilessly as being a hindrance instead of a help...

Today... the proof is in the pudding...

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by lsbets

Sharon angle, Christine odonnel, Todd akin, and the guy in Indiana.

If that's under control, I hate to think how things would be if they weren't.

Why does everyone seem to know the name of the nuts on the right, but not so much publicity for the nuts on the left?

Or are there no nuts on the left?

[lsbets]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Why does everyone seem to know the name of the nuts on the right, but not so much publicity for the nuts on the left?

Or are there no nuts on the left?

Everyone knows the names of the nuts on the left too, but the nuts on the left have the media trying to make them not look so nutty and the nuts don't usually get nominated. Take Sandra Fluke, who thinks that the Catholic school she voluntarily went too should be forced to provide her with birth control despite their religious beliefs. That's pretty nutty, but she is not seen as running the party and was not a candidate put forward. Then the media made her seem like some innocent victim who people felt sorry for.

The people I mentioned are all candidates who were nominated for office, who very publicly made fools of themselves and made the whole Republican Party seem nuts. As long as people like that are nominated, the Republicans will have a hard time appealing to voters 45 and under who like the message of economic liberty but are not sympathetic to intolerant nuts.

You know what my ballot looked like? I voted for every non Republican I could find, all the way down. When there was a libertarian, I voted that way. When it was a rep and a dem, I voted for the dem. When it was an unopposed Rep, I skipped. Why? The Republican Party leaves such a bad taste in my mouth. I don't want some loon on the state board of education who thinks the earth is 6000 years old getting to decide which textbooks to order for my kids. And that is the Republican Party in Texas.

Think about it Mike, there is no one on this board more in tune with the message of small government. I should happily be voting Republican. Instead, and not for the first time, I went out of my way to not vote for any Republicans. If the party has lost me, they have major problems.