Why Obama won

[Xan]

I think Bill O'Reilly said it best:

It's not a traditional America anymore.

Translation:  Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, purple people, orange people, etc are not "Americans" in the eyes of the GOP.  It's not about "wanting favors".  What favors do you think the Asians earning > $100K were looking for?

Maybe the best outcome is for the GOP to become the splinter group that gets kicked out of the debates, and the Libertarians to become the 2nd major party.  That would be great.

I think the correct translation is that a majority of Americans appear to no longer believe in pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, in working to achieve their goals, in making a life for themselves, in making their children's future brighter than their own.  Instead, they believe in voting for a living; in using the government's monopoly on the use of force to steal from their neighbors.  THAT is what is non-traditional about America today.

[MediumTex]

I think Bill O'Reilly said it best:

It's not a traditional America anymore.

Translation:  Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, purple people, orange people, etc are not "Americans" in the eyes of the GOP.  It's not about "wanting favors".  What favors do you think the Asians earning > $100K were looking for?

Maybe the best outcome is for the GOP to become the splinter group that gets kicked out of the debates, and the Libertarians to become the 2nd major party.  That would be great.

All the Republicans need to do is bring Hispanics in and they will be competitive again.

The all-white Republican party is over.  They've got to find some minority constituencies.  I don't know how they will pull it off, but I'm sure they will.

[melveyr]

I just think it is ridiculous to ignore the HUGE chasm between the democratic party and the republican one. If someone voted for Romney I have clear ideological reasons that could explain that. If someone voted for Obama I have clear ideological reasons that could explain that.

Conservative media outlets have been ignoring this chasm, acting like we were choosing between two widgets and we clearly made the wrong choice.

Does this make the American public incompetent? No.

Does it mean America has a different ideological make-up than you? Perhaps.

[MediumTex]

I think Bill O'Reilly said it best:

It's not a traditional America anymore.

Translation:  Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, purple people, orange people, etc are not "Americans" in the eyes of the GOP.  It's not about "wanting favors".  What favors do you think the Asians earning > $100K were looking for?

Maybe the best outcome is for the GOP to become the splinter group that gets kicked out of the debates, and the Libertarians to become the 2nd major party.  That would be great.

I think the correct translation is that a majority of Americans appear to no longer believe in pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, in working to achieve their goals, in making a life for themselves, in making their children's future brighter than their own.  Instead, they believe in voting for a living; in using the government's monopoly on the use of force to steal from their neighbors.  THAT is what is non-traditional about America today.

I don't think that this explanation adequately accounts for the Democratic support in the Asian and Jewish communities.  Those populations are some of the finest bootstrap pullers you will see anywhere, and for whatever reason they don't seen anything in the Republican party for them.

[Pointedstick]

I think the correct translation is that a majority of Americans appear to no longer believe in pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, in working to achieve their goals, in making a life for themselves, in making their children's future brighter than their own.  Instead, they believe in voting for a living; in using the government's monopoly on the use of force to steal from their neighbors.  THAT is what is non-traditional about America today.

That doesn't ring true to me. What kind of handout are the rich Asians looking for? And have you seen how hard Hispanics work? They work shit jobs for 10 hours a day! All the Hispanics I know are are more hardworking than I am. I agree with you that some people vote themselves other people's money, but it ain't the Hispanics and Asians. So who is it? If you want a hint, you can find them in Florida and Arizona, and they now vote for Republicans. 

[WiseOne]

I think Bill O'Reilly said it best:
Translation:  Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, purple people, orange people, etc are not "Americans" in the eyes of the GOP.  It's not about "wanting favors".  What favors do you think the Asians earning > $100K were looking for?

Maybe the best outcome is for the GOP to become the splinter group that gets kicked out of the debates, and the Libertarians to become the 2nd major party.  That would be great.

I think the correct translation is that a majority of Americans appear to no longer believe in pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, in working to achieve their goals, in making a life for themselves, in making their children's future brighter than their own.  Instead, they believe in voting for a living; in using the government's monopoly on the use of force to steal from their neighbors.  THAT is what is non-traditional about America today.

I don't think that this explanation adequately accounts for the Democratic support in the Asian and Jewish communities.  Those populations are some of the finest bootstrap pullers you will see anywhere, and for whatever reason they don't seen anything in the Republican party for them.

Actually, you could make the same argument for large chunks of the Hispanic population.  It's easy to disparage illegal immigrants for breaking the law, but you have to admit that they put themselves through hell to get here, and most have a tremendous work ethic.  No, they don't vote - but their kids (born on US soil) do.  And let's not forget recent African and Middle Eastern immigrants.  In fact, consider this:  one of the Romney's main constituents, the over-65 group, are pretty happy with their Medicare and Social Security.

All the Republicans need to do is bring Hispanics in and they will be competitive again.

I suspect that will be both too much and not enough.  There is a LOT of baggage that the GOP has to get rid of before they can embrace a minority population, and I just don't see it happening.  And it won't be convincing if they continue to disparage other minority groups.

[foglifter]

I think Bill O'Reilly said it best:

It's not a traditional America anymore.

Translation:  Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, purple people, orange people, etc are not "Americans" in the eyes of the GOP.  It's not about "wanting favors".  What favors do you think the Asians earning > $100K were looking for?

Maybe the best outcome is for the GOP to become the splinter group that gets kicked out of the debates, and the Libertarians to become the 2nd major party.  That would be great.

Good point about Libertarians. Gary Johnson got 1% of the votes, which in my opinion way lower than he could get were the system not rigged by CPD and the two major parties.

"There are all sorts of reasons why an impressive candidate like Johnson wasn't treated as a serious contender by the media and the voting public, and while none of them reflect well on the United States and its denizens, they remain facts of life. Yes, the Democrats and Republicans have gamed the political system to exclude competitors; yes, the main media outlets have drunk the establishment Kool-Aid and largely do their best to marginalize anybody who doesn't have a D or R by their name; and yes, the public has allowed itself to be brow-beaten into treating two private organizations as permanent, institutional representations of legitimate political expression."
Source: http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/07/succe ... e-or-the-g

[foglifter]

I think Bill O'Reilly said it best:

It's not a traditional America anymore.

Translation:  Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, purple people, orange people, etc are not "Americans" in the eyes of the GOP.  It's not about "wanting favors".  What favors do you think the Asians earning > $100K were looking for?

Maybe the best outcome is for the GOP to become the splinter group that gets kicked out of the debates, and the Libertarians to become the 2nd major party.  That would be great.

All the Republicans need to do is bring Hispanics in and they will be competitive again.

The all-white Republican party is over.  They've got to find some minority constituencies.  I don't know how they will pull it off, but I'm sure they will.

That's true. And there are promising figures of Hispanic origin, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. It's just a matter of time for them and maybe some others whom we haven't heard of yet to amass experience and political capital.

[Pointedstick]

That's true. And there are promising figures of Hispanic origin, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. It's just a matter of time for them and maybe some others whom we haven't heard of yet to amass experience and political capital.

There are others as well. Susana Martinez is Hispanic too, and Bobby Jindall and Nikki Haley are Indian. I think it will take a while before people notice, though. Republicans have done a lot of damage to their reputation and it will take a while for people to stop seeing them as the party of rich old white people.

[RuralEngineer]

But they don't have to do that at all. Republicans' fiscal priorities are much more popular than their social ones. I think Hispanics would be fine with a guest-worker system with a path to citizenship, for example, coupled with amnesty for existing illegal immigrants. Is that an "open borders" policy? It doesn't sound like it to me, but then again, I'll admit that the issue doesn't really get me that worked up. If they did that, they could clinch Hispanics and not need to compromise on abortion or redistribution. Then they could double down on their much more popular fiscal priorities, many of which even elicit support from some moderate Democrats.

Do you think they would be fine with what you mentioned coupled with a revision to the 14th amendment to ensure that children born of people here illegally are no longer granted automatic citizenship?  Do you think they'll be fine with mandatory E-verify use by all employers to ensure that only those with legal status of some kind are able to work and draw pay.  Do you think they'll be fine with legal status being required before social programs can be tapped, excluding necessary life-saving medical care?

Because without these changes, giving amnesty to the existing population coupled with a guest worker program and a path to citizenship will not eliminate illegal immigration.  That deal is one that I believe a majority of Republicans could get behind (excluding the outright racists, obviously).

I'm very much pro-immigration.  I think it's necessary for us to remain a vibrant and competitive country.  However, I view immigration as a tool to service the U.S. economy.  We deny H1b visas to an enormous number of foreigners each year that we educate in this country, only to send back home to make their country of origin more productive rather than our own.  We put arbitrary caps on how many people from each country has access to these visas in an attempt to be "fair" without accounting for population so that Luxemberg and India have the same number of visas available (the House passed a measure to fix this, I think it's still hung up in the senate).  And balanced against this is a huge influx of immigration, legal and illegal, from a single country (I saw 24% from Mexico, but I think that was only legal immigration).

We need unskilled labor in this country and I fully understand how hard working many Hispanics are, don't get me wrong.  We certainly can't get the American unemployed to do it (as Georgia found out).  However, in an entitlement heavy society like ours, it has to be managed to ensure that immigration is a net gain across the board.  America should be skimming the best and brightest from the entire world in order to increase our competitiveness.  Instead our leaders use immigration as a political bludgeon to try secure reelection.

[Pointedstick]

Do you think they'll be fine with mandatory E-verify use by all employers to ensure that only those with legal status of some kind are able to work and draw pay.

What amazes me is that Republicans support this! All the talk of freedom from intrusive, heavy-handed government bureaucracy seems to go out the window whenever it's convenient.

Republicans started to make the argument during the primaries that our generous free social programs act as a magnet for illegal immigrants... why couldn't they take it farther and make the logical argument against those programs, which hardworking immigrants have no need of?

What Republicans really need is to be able to talk about immigration and its sub-issues without making Hispanics feel like they're not wanted. Which, let's face it, is pretty much true. They need to dispel this before they'll be given any trust on the issue.

[foglifter]

[url=http://[/url]

I think Bill O'Reilly said it best:

It's not a traditional America anymore.

Translation:  Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, women, purple people, orange people, etc are not "Americans" in the eyes of the GOP.  It's not about "wanting favors".  What favors do you think the Asians earning > $100K were looking for?

Maybe the best outcome is for the GOP to become the splinter group that gets kicked out of the debates, and the Libertarians to become the 2nd major party.  That would be great.

I think the correct translation is that a majority of Americans appear to no longer believe in pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, in working to achieve their goals, in making a life for themselves, in making their children's future brighter than their own.  Instead, they believe in voting for a living; in using the government's monopoly on the use of force to steal from their neighbors.  THAT is what is non-traditional about America today.

Amen to that. When Pilgrims arrived there were no welfare of Medicare or Social Security and they had to rely on themselves. For decades after that people came to America in search of freedom and ability to build better life for themselves and their children. But nowadays there is a growing group of population that want to be freeloaders and let someone else to work hard. 

And excuse me for a bit of preaching, but America was built on biblical principles. Now that we threw out God and prayer from schools and turned them into a liberal brain-washing machine, when truth is no longer absolute but everyone has his/her own truth, when any disagreement with propaganda of all kinds of immoral behavior is labeled "hate speech" and under the banner of "tolerance" the freedom of speech is suppressed, when in schools it's OK to celebrate Halloween (evil), but not the national holiday called Christmas we should not be surprised with the the direction our country is heading.

I strongly recommend to watch Kirk Kameron's documentary Monumental - it tells it all. Everyone knows about the Statue of Liberty, but how many heard of the National Monument to the Forefathers? It's not on the tour guides, perhaps because it's "too religious". In reality the monument simply shows too clearly the real foundations of America that were cornerstones of liberty.

[KevinW]

And excuse me for a bit of preaching, but America was built on biblical principles.

Nope.

[foglifter]

And excuse me for a bit of preaching, but America was built on biblical principles.

Nope.

I understand what you mean and I heard that more than once. Here's a couple of links to support my words:

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0 ... istia.html

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesar ... p?id=23909

[Gumby]

Isn't that the beauty of America? We get to vote and decide — as a majority — what direction the nation should head.

The majority of America doesn't want to be "traditional" anymore — whatever that means. The nation defines itself, not Fox News or the Church.

[Pointedstick]

I think the correct translation is that a majority of Americans appear to no longer believe in pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, in working to achieve their goals, in making a life for themselves, in making their children's future brighter than their own.  Instead, they believe in voting for a living; in using the government's monopoly on the use of force to steal from their neighbors.  THAT is what is non-traditional about America today.

Amen to that. When Pilgrims arrived there were no welfare of Medicare or Social Security and they had to rely on themselves. For decades after that people came to America in search of freedom and ability to build better life for themselves and their children. But nowadays there is a growing group of population that want to be freeloaders and let someone else to work hard. 

How do either of you explain the fact that Asians voted for Obama by 73-26 margin?

And Jews, and Hispanics...

Honestly, this narrative of moochers voting themselves other peoples' money points uncomfortably toward the elderly, who are squarely in the Republican camp nowadays! 

[Xan]

Isn't that the beauty of America? We get to vote and decide — as a majority — what direction the nation should head.

The majority of America doesn't want to be "traditional" anymore — whatever that means. The nation defines itself, not Fox News or the Church.

But, see, certainly at the federal level, government (aka majority, if you like) is only supposed to be able to control certain limited functions.  The federal government was set up specifically to NOT allow the majority to just do whatever it wanted.  But that's where we are now.

So are you saying that whatever the majority wants goes, no matter what?  Suppose the majority decides that you can't sit at a lunch counter?  Suppose "majority" means the majority of the human race, and the Chinese have just voted to make state-run atheism or Buddhism or something the only religious option?

Majority may decide culture, but it shouldn't decide law, and that's the beautiful setup that this country started out with, and has now completely forgotten about.

[MediumTex]

Honestly, this narrative of moochers voting themselves other peoples' money points uncomfortably toward the elderly, who are squarely in the Republican camp nowadays! 

Maybe it's because it's too obvious, but it's surprising how no one points out that the biggest moochers of all on a dollar basis are the wealthiest elements in society--our financial institutions that would all be under new ownership and management now if it weren't for government handouts in recent years. 

While a poor family might ask the government for $400 a month for groceries and school lunches, the big banks ask for billions of dollars in various forms of aid during their time of need.

There are just as many moochers in the Republican party as the Democratic party, and there are also just as many believers in big government in both parties.  See George W. Bush's entire administration for many great examples of Republican big government (Medicare Part D, two wars, PATRIOT Act, etc.).

[MediumTex]

“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’”?

– Marcus Tullius Cicero**

i think the moochers are only part of a far larger equation.
i personally lost what little respect i had left (and changed my registration) when the GOP locked out the grass roots during the convention, but there are many reasons out there for a wide variety of people to have lost faith in the establishment.

the republicans appeal to intellect becomes an Achilles heel, when you actually apply intellect to understanding what they are really doing VS what they say they want




** i cant verify this quote is Cicero (it could be false attribution)

It's a shame that the media can't deliver more insight than the ringside announcers at a wrestling match.

There are so many good stories to tell about all of this political dysfunction, but very few of them ever seem to get told in any of the media channels I see.  Maybe they figure that people just don't care that much.

[Gumby]

But, see, certainly at the federal level, government (aka majority, if you like) is only supposed to be able to control certain limited functions.  The federal government was set up specifically to NOT allow the majority to just do whatever it wanted.  But that's where we are now.

So are you saying that whatever the majority wants goes, no matter what?  Suppose the majority decides that you can't sit at a lunch counter?  Suppose "majority" means the majority of the human race, and the Chinese have just voted to make state-run atheism or Buddhism or something the only religious option?

Majority may decide culture, but it shouldn't decide law, and that's the beautiful setup that this country started out with, and has now completely forgotten about.

Forgotten about? I'm pretty sure the laws of Congress are still intact. Republicans have control of the House. Democrats have control of the Senate. Laws pass or die because they get voted on by all members of Congress. Though, if one watches Fox News regularly, I could see how they might be convinced otherwise.

[Gumby]

It's a shame that the media can't deliver more insight than the ringside announcers at a wrestling match.

There are so many good stories to tell about all of this political dysfunction, but very few of them ever seem to get told in any of the media channels I see.  Maybe they figure that people just don't care that much.

60 Minutes: Is the U.S. Senate broken?

[Pointedstick]

But, see, certainly at the federal level, government (aka majority, if you like) is only supposed to be able to control certain limited functions.  The federal government was set up specifically to NOT allow the majority to just do whatever it wanted.  But that's where we are now.

So are you saying that whatever the majority wants goes, no matter what?  Suppose the majority decides that you can't sit at a lunch counter?  Suppose "majority" means the majority of the human race, and the Chinese have just voted to make state-run atheism or Buddhism or something the only religious option?

Majority may decide culture, but it shouldn't decide law, and that's the beautiful setup that this country started out with, and has now completely forgotten about.

Forgotten about? I'm pretty sure the laws of Congress are still intact. Republicans have control of the House. Democrats have control of the Senate. Laws pass or die because they get voted on by all members of Congress. Though, if one watches Fox News regularly, I could see how they might be convinced otherwise.

I think what Xan was talking about is the idea that most subjects should be off-limits for federal legislation, with only a small number of functions delegated specifically to the federal government. All those other subjects are thus inherently removed from the democratic process, even if a strong national majority wanted to toy with it.

In practice, the constitution is a worthless piece of paper that means what a majority of people think it means are are willing to fight for. Nowadays, if a national majority wants to do something, it gets done, because the number of people who object to the notion of that happening is quite small.

A constitution is thus like the gold standard: a set of promises that the government can break any time it wants so long as there aren't enough people to fight it. If you look at most countries' constitutions, they guarantee protection for a whole raft of human rights that are in practice systematically suppressed. China technically has religious freedom enshrined in its constitution, but tell that to a Tibetan Buddhist or a Falun Gong member!

[Gumby]

I think what Xan was talking about is the idea that most subjects should be off-limits for federal legislation, with only a small number of functions delegated specifically to the federal government. All those other subjects are thus inherently removed from the democratic process, even if a strong national majority wanted to toy with it.

How on Earth does a country stay true to that rule if it is not written into its own Constitution?

You know, something like:

[align=center]Amendment #1: The Federal government shall not impose blah blah blah....[/align]

If the rule is only in the spirit of the founding fathers, then I suspect it doesn't do much good and is purposefully forgotten by those who have the ability to pass laws.

[Pointedstick]

Might wanna look ahead a few amendments to number 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But again, it doesn't really mean anything in practice because people have mostly forgotten about it. Even you just did!

[Gumby]

Might wanna look ahead a few amendments to number 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But again, it doesn't really mean anything in practice because people have mostly forgotten about it. Even you just did!

Ah, right. The 10th! Yeah, but even from the beginning it didn't limit implied powers, so I guess it didn't do much good.