I saw a few articles that point in that direction, including an interview with Ted Cruz. It's clear that they have to change if they intend to win.notsheigetz wrote:I'll lay you 100 to 1 odds that they didn't lean a damn thing. My $100 to your $1.foglifter wrote: Looks like GOP learned the lesson, so next election promises to be interesting.
Why Obama won
Moderator: Global Moderator
Re: Why Obama won
"Let every man divide his money into three parts, and invest a third in land, a third in business, and a third let him keep in reserve."
- Talmud
- Talmud
Re: Why Obama won
Maybe the republicans will shift towards a more ideological consistent platform: libertarian. I don't understand why the party of limited government in the economy is the same party that pushes for extreme regulation of our social lives. I guess I don't care either way because if they don't make the shift they won't win, and if they actually make the shift I might vote for a couple of them.
everything comes from somewhere and everything goes somewhere
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Why Obama won
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8if1pbQioCgMachineGhost wrote:Even those that want a OBAMA! Phone?moda0306 wrote: I think most people vote on some level of principal. Whether that's a good principal or not is the better question than simply asserting that they actually think by going to the polls they'll get more stuff.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: Why Obama won
It appears to me that the shift of Republicanism from an economic to social animal is all-but fully complete. As soon as a Democrat initiated Civil Rights legislation in the 60's, the Republicans have been slowly obtaining more and more Social Conservatives. Now the entire Bible Belt is solidly Republican. If they don't keep the dog whistles going in those areas, they'll lose their enthusiasm.melveyr wrote: Maybe the republicans will shift towards a more ideological consistent platform: libertarian. I don't understand why the party of limited government in the economy is the same party that pushes for extreme regulation of our social lives. I guess I don't care either way because if they don't make the shift they won't win, and if they actually make the shift I might vote for a couple of them.
MG,
One can disagree with the Obama phone and still see the vast hole in the social safety net that exists when someone is uninsurable and can't get it through work. That's a much more legitimate need than the Obama phone. Even if someone wanted a phone for free, driving to a voting location is probably the least efficient and least certain way to accomplish that goal, and even welfare queens are smart enough to realize that.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Paine
Re: Why Obama won
Just my crazy speculation: if more GOP supporters living in blue states vote libertarian we could break the dull 2-party election field. That's actually the only way to make your vote mean anything in a blue state.melveyr wrote: Maybe the republicans will shift towards a more ideological consistent platform: libertarian. I don't understand why the party of limited government in the economy is the same party that pushes for extreme regulation of our social lives. I guess I don't care either way because if they don't make the shift they won't win, and if they actually make the shift I might vote for a couple of them.
I found a good blog post on the topic:
http://www.rightcondition.com/2012/10/w ... actly.html
"According to the Federal Election Commission your vote DOES matter. In fact your vote matters far more if you vote third party, than if you vote major party while living in a State where the EC has determined the outcome. Why does it matter? If a third party candidate like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein obtains 5% of the total vote, two things happen. First, they become instantly eligible to be a candidate on all 50 ballots. As of now, neither GJ or JS have made it on all 50 and claim that they are being blocked by the major parties. Secondly, and probably more important than anything they become eligible for federal funding matches."
"Let every man divide his money into three parts, and invest a third in land, a third in business, and a third let him keep in reserve."
- Talmud
- Talmud
Re: Why Obama won
One theory as to the reason why conservatives are scratching their heads, wondering "why Obama won" is because they were all lied to about Romney's chances. He never had a chance, but for the republicans to admit that would have sunk their ability to fundraise.
So, it seems that the conservative pundits, the conservative pollsters, and the conservative media were all lying to their base and their billionaire donors in order to raise more money for Republican campaigns. Kind of sickening what money can do.
So, it seems that the conservative pundits, the conservative pollsters, and the conservative media were all lying to their base and their billionaire donors in order to raise more money for Republican campaigns. Kind of sickening what money can do.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Why Obama won
I think there's a simpler explanation than that: they all simply wanted him to win so badly that they fabricated an alternate reality in their heads where it was not only possible, but assured. Heck, Democrats did it less dramatically in 2004. Don't underestimate the power of the partisan mind to see what it wants to see without sinister shadowy moneyed interests even needing to play a part.Gumby wrote: One theory as to the reason why conservatives are scratching their heads, wondering "why Obama won" is because they were all lied to about Romney's chances. He never had a chance, but for the republicans to admit that would have sunk their ability to fundraise.
So, it seems that the conservative pundits, the conservative pollsters, and the conservative media were all lying to their base and their billionaire donors in order to raise more money for Republican campaigns. Kind of sickening what money can do.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: Why Obama won
Simonjester wrote:I'm sorry. Did they hold the election yet? I've been away.foglifter wrote:Just my crazy speculation: if more GOP supporters living in blue states vote libertarian we could break the dull 2-party election field. That's actually the only way to make your vote mean anything in a blue state.melveyr wrote: Maybe the republicans will shift towards a more ideological consistent platform: libertarian. I don't understand why the party of limited government in the economy is the same party that pushes for extreme regulation of our social lives. I guess I don't care either way because if they don't make the shift they won't win, and if they actually make the shift I might vote for a couple of them.
I found a good blog post on the topic:
http://www.rightcondition.com/2012/10/w ... actly.html
"According to the Federal Election Commission your vote DOES matter. In fact your vote matters far more if you vote third party, than if you vote major party while living in a State where the EC has determined the outcome. Why does it matter? If a third party candidate like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein obtains 5% of the total vote, two things happen. First, they become instantly eligible to be a candidate on all 50 ballots. As of now, neither GJ or JS have made it on all 50 and claim that they are being blocked by the major parties. Secondly, and probably more important than anything they become eligible for federal funding matches."
Re: Why Obama won
Hah.Reub wrote: I'm sorry. Did they hold the election yet? I've been away.
We are so used to thinking that elections will change everything (I think the media feeds off of this). I think Reub's experience can help us remember that there are a lot more important things in our individual lives than the outcome of an election.
everything comes from somewhere and everything goes somewhere
- vnatale
- Executive Member
- Posts: 9423
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
- Contact:
Re: Why Obama won
Regarding your last paragraph...…..7+ years later how would you describe how it has been to live in California, i.e, what changes have you seen in the intervening years?foglifter wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:51 pmTalking about California: there were a few props to raise all kinds of taxes on various levels (state, county, city). Everybody I know voted against the tax raises. But all the tax measures were approved. I guess the message is "YES, I vote for raising taxes on someone else, but not me". On the other hand unions successfully blocked the Proposition 32 to prohibit the use of payroll-deducted union dues to fund political campaigns.MachineGhost wrote: Despite the doomsday scenarios outlined by people like Munisteri, the Texas G.O.P. is far ahead of the national Party in dealing with the future. Two strategies are being tested. One is the kind of Republican identity politics exemplified by Cruz: the Party can continue its ideological shift to the right, especially on immigration, and appeal to Hispanics with candidates who share their ethnicity and perhaps speak their language. The more difficult path would see the G.O.P. retreat from its current position on immigration and take the direction advocated by Martinez de Vara and the Bush family.
If neither of these strategies succeeds, the consequences are clear. California was once a competitive state, the place that launched Ronald Reagan, but the G.O.P. there has now been reduced to a rump party, ideologically extreme and preponderately white. Republicans hold no statewide offices. After Tuesday, the Democrats also have a super-majority in the legislature, making it easier to raise taxes and overcome parliamentary obstacles like filibusters. In most accounts, the beginning of the Republican decline in California is traced to former Governor Pete Wilson’s attacks on benefits for unauthorized immigrants, which sounded to many voters like attacks on Hispanics. Farther east, in 2000 and 2004, New Mexico was one of the closest states in Presidential politics. In 2008, Obama won it by fifteen points. By 2012, it was no longer contested. Similarly, Nevada, which was fought over by both candidates this year, and which Obama won by six points, seems to have gone the way of California and New Mexico and will likely be safe for Democrats in 2016. The states aren’t identical: for example, California is more culturally liberal than Texas. But they all have growing nonwhite populations that overwhelmingly reject Republicans.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... ntPage=all
There are several of us here from the Golden State, we'll see what it will be like to live in California now that the Dems and unions got unrestricted powers to do whatever they want.
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Why Obama won
I don't live in California, for which I am very grateful.vnatale wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:10 pmRegarding your last paragraph...…..7+ years later how would you describe how it has been to live in California, i.e, what changes have you seen in the intervening years?foglifter wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:51 pmTalking about California: there were a few props to raise all kinds of taxes on various levels (state, county, city). Everybody I know voted against the tax raises. But all the tax measures were approved. I guess the message is "YES, I vote for raising taxes on someone else, but not me". On the other hand unions successfully blocked the Proposition 32 to prohibit the use of payroll-deducted union dues to fund political campaigns.MachineGhost wrote: Despite the doomsday scenarios outlined by people like Munisteri, the Texas G.O.P. is far ahead of the national Party in dealing with the future. Two strategies are being tested. One is the kind of Republican identity politics exemplified by Cruz: the Party can continue its ideological shift to the right, especially on immigration, and appeal to Hispanics with candidates who share their ethnicity and perhaps speak their language. The more difficult path would see the G.O.P. retreat from its current position on immigration and take the direction advocated by Martinez de Vara and the Bush family.
If neither of these strategies succeeds, the consequences are clear. California was once a competitive state, the place that launched Ronald Reagan, but the G.O.P. there has now been reduced to a rump party, ideologically extreme and preponderately white. Republicans hold no statewide offices. After Tuesday, the Democrats also have a super-majority in the legislature, making it easier to raise taxes and overcome parliamentary obstacles like filibusters. In most accounts, the beginning of the Republican decline in California is traced to former Governor Pete Wilson’s attacks on benefits for unauthorized immigrants, which sounded to many voters like attacks on Hispanics. Farther east, in 2000 and 2004, New Mexico was one of the closest states in Presidential politics. In 2008, Obama won it by fifteen points. By 2012, it was no longer contested. Similarly, Nevada, which was fought over by both candidates this year, and which Obama won by six points, seems to have gone the way of California and New Mexico and will likely be safe for Democrats in 2016. The states aren’t identical: for example, California is more culturally liberal than Texas. But they all have growing nonwhite populations that overwhelmingly reject Republicans.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... ntPage=all
There are several of us here from the Golden State, we'll see what it will be like to live in California now that the Dems and unions got unrestricted powers to do whatever they want.
Vinny
I do have to go there next week, and I'm going to keep my exposure to the insanity of that state to a minimum. I'm staying at a hotel in the airport and will be traveling to and from the conference by Uber.
- vnatale
- Executive Member
- Posts: 9423
- Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
- Location: Massachusetts
- Contact:
Re: Why Obama won
I was going to ask this next question but then quickly realized I could get the answer on my own.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:22 pmI don't live in California, for which I am very grateful.vnatale wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:10 pmRegarding your last paragraph...…..7+ years later how would you describe how it has been to live in California, i.e, what changes have you seen in the intervening years?foglifter wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:51 pm
Talking about California: there were a few props to raise all kinds of taxes on various levels (state, county, city). Everybody I know voted against the tax raises. But all the tax measures were approved. I guess the message is "YES, I vote for raising taxes on someone else, but not me". On the other hand unions successfully blocked the Proposition 32 to prohibit the use of payroll-deducted union dues to fund political campaigns.
There are several of us here from the Golden State, we'll see what it will be like to live in California now that the Dems and unions got unrestricted powers to do whatever they want.
Vinny
I do have to go there next week, and I'm going to keep my exposure to the insanity of that state to a minimum. I'm staying at a hotel in the airport and will be traveling to and from the conference by Uber.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/206 ... alifornia/
For the last 14 years the population of California has increased every single year. Therefore, it is attracting certain type people but certainly NOT the person who regularly rides into our FORUM with the name of Libertarian666!
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Why Obama won
Yes, its population is still growing, but so slowly that they are probably going to lose a congressional seat after the 2020 census, for the first time since they have been a state. And 2010 was the first census where they didn't pick up a seat, so this is not a new phenomenon.vnatale wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:54 pmI was going to ask this next question but then quickly realized I could get the answer on my own.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:22 pmI don't live in California, for which I am very grateful.vnatale wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:10 pmRegarding your last paragraph...…..7+ years later how would you describe how it has been to live in California, i.e, what changes have you seen in the intervening years?foglifter wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:51 pm
Talking about California: there were a few props to raise all kinds of taxes on various levels (state, county, city). Everybody I know voted against the tax raises. But all the tax measures were approved. I guess the message is "YES, I vote for raising taxes on someone else, but not me". On the other hand unions successfully blocked the Proposition 32 to prohibit the use of payroll-deducted union dues to fund political campaigns.
There are several of us here from the Golden State, we'll see what it will be like to live in California now that the Dems and unions got unrestricted powers to do whatever they want.
Vinny
I do have to go there next week, and I'm going to keep my exposure to the insanity of that state to a minimum. I'm staying at a hotel in the airport and will be traveling to and from the conference by Uber.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/206 ... alifornia/
For the last 14 years the population of California has increased every single year. Therefore, it is attracting certain type people but certainly NOT the person who regularly rides into our FORUM with the name of Libertarian666!
Vinny
If they drive the top 1% of taxpayers out, their fiscal situation will totally collapse. Maybe that will finally make them reform.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Why Obama won
Yes, they vote very liberal but the Silicon Valley ones at least can leave if they want to. I can’t imagine that they really want to pay a 50% state income tax rate.MangoMan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:40 amSince the wealthiest people in CA are Hollywood elites and Silicon Valley millionaires, all of whom vote very Liberal, the collapse may drag on a lot longer than you think. There will be no middle class left, and a further increase in homelessness, but that's another topic.Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:02 am
If they drive the top 1% of taxpayers out, their fiscal situation will totally collapse. Maybe that will finally make them reform.
Re: Why Obama won
Vinny, I'm a bit envious as you have all the fun of reading all those old threads!vnatale wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:10 pmRegarding your last paragraph...…..7+ years later how would you describe how it has been to live in California, i.e, what changes have you seen in the intervening years?foglifter wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:51 pmTalking about California: there were a few props to raise all kinds of taxes on various levels (state, county, city). Everybody I know voted against the tax raises. But all the tax measures were approved. I guess the message is "YES, I vote for raising taxes on someone else, but not me". On the other hand unions successfully blocked the Proposition 32 to prohibit the use of payroll-deducted union dues to fund political campaigns.MachineGhost wrote: Despite the doomsday scenarios outlined by people like Munisteri, the Texas G.O.P. is far ahead of the national Party in dealing with the future. Two strategies are being tested. One is the kind of Republican identity politics exemplified by Cruz: the Party can continue its ideological shift to the right, especially on immigration, and appeal to Hispanics with candidates who share their ethnicity and perhaps speak their language. The more difficult path would see the G.O.P. retreat from its current position on immigration and take the direction advocated by Martinez de Vara and the Bush family.
If neither of these strategies succeeds, the consequences are clear. California was once a competitive state, the place that launched Ronald Reagan, but the G.O.P. there has now been reduced to a rump party, ideologically extreme and preponderately white. Republicans hold no statewide offices. After Tuesday, the Democrats also have a super-majority in the legislature, making it easier to raise taxes and overcome parliamentary obstacles like filibusters. In most accounts, the beginning of the Republican decline in California is traced to former Governor Pete Wilson’s attacks on benefits for unauthorized immigrants, which sounded to many voters like attacks on Hispanics. Farther east, in 2000 and 2004, New Mexico was one of the closest states in Presidential politics. In 2008, Obama won it by fifteen points. By 2012, it was no longer contested. Similarly, Nevada, which was fought over by both candidates this year, and which Obama won by six points, seems to have gone the way of California and New Mexico and will likely be safe for Democrats in 2016. The states aren’t identical: for example, California is more culturally liberal than Texas. But they all have growing nonwhite populations that overwhelmingly reject Republicans.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... ntPage=all
There are several of us here from the Golden State, we'll see what it will be like to live in California now that the Dems and unions got unrestricted powers to do whatever they want.
Vinny
As to the changes here in CA: I live in Bay Area so my experience is very location-specific. As most jobs are in hi-tech and the tech industry is doing well the traffic is becoming worse, housing market is tight, homelessness is on the rise. However great outdoors and excellent climate seem to outweigh the cons.
The migration patterns are interesting here in Bay Area: many techies and tech-related folks move to Texas and Washington as Austin and Seattle are growing as tech hubs and still are less expensive to live. Moving in are mostly foreigners - tech workers and students. So the outflows are domestic, while inflows are international. The problem is for any family to be able to buy even a modest home or condo here you have to rely on two professional incomes so it's very hard for people outside of tech to live here. Local authorities push for reforms in zoning laws to allow building multi-unit housing near the transport hubs, which many residents oppose.
I'm glad I don't live in San Francisco. When several major conferences move to other cities because of dirty streets this is telling... But that would be a topic for a separate thread.
"Let every man divide his money into three parts, and invest a third in land, a third in business, and a third let him keep in reserve."
- Talmud
- Talmud
Re: Why Obama won
Which just brings more of those problems to Seattle (and I presume Austin). Granted, we already had issues, and yes, tech continues to grow here.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Why Obama won
Austin has some of the worst traffic in the country.
And of course they now have a bad and rapidly worsening homeless problem because they are "homeless-welcoming".
I'm so glad we never moved there. Our current plan is to move about 40 miles north of there, so we should be clear of the worst problems.