[News] 2012 Election Results Thread

[@Li3n]

Regardless, I don't personally believe that Rush and most other pundits and the tea party are the core of the republican party. They are extremists for some portions of typically republican principles, and they've latched onto the republican party as the only party with enough power and close enough to their desires as to be usable for their purposes, but they are not and do not define the party.

The democrats have done a fantastic job of showcasing them, however, and portraying them as the party faithful in order to dissuade independents and disaffected democrats.

Where you on this planet in 2008/2009 when the Tea Party appeared? Because really, they where just republicans trying to distance themselves from Bush's trolling while protesting Obama...[DOUBLEPOST=1352300844][/DOUBLEPOST]

The Tea Party is inherently populist, which is antithetical to them.

You mean it's what they're missing...

 

[DarkAudit]

You are entirely too optimistic, bless your heart.

Did I do that right?

I was always taught that "Bless your heart" was southern for "you're an idiot".

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Wait wait

did you just say they "lost it(the election)" when they ran Herman Cain out of the primaries?

did you go up to Colorado last night

 

[Gilgamesh]

I was always taught that "Bless your heart" was southern for "you're an idiot".

It usually is.

 

[Espy]

Wait wait

did you just say they "lost it(the election)" when they ran Herman Cain out of the primaries?

did you go up to Colorado last night

Yeah, I don't get that either. Someone thinks dumb as bricks Herman Cain was good candidate to run? Honestly, Romney was the only one worth running out of this bunch of yahoo's and even he was a terrible choice.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Laura Ingram is fantastic today. All she's done is congratulate Dems on a better run campaign and how she's been right all along about Romney being the wrong choice for the Republicans. Riiiiight Laura, you were always Anti-Romney.

 

[strawman]

It seems there are many who simply didn't want to run against Obama this cycle. I expect a number of interesting contenders will show up for the 2016 primaries who would love to run against Biden. I don't see Biden as a good choice for the democrats, but if they don't have someone better to offer 2016 is going to end badly for them.

 

[Gilgamesh]

I definitely don't see Biden as a real option in 2016. I'm going to watch the 2016 Elections really close and see what options are really presented. It should be very interesting.

I will definitely say that if the GoP candidate comes out clearly against Gay Rights/Women's Choice/Women's Pay Equality then I'm going to lean Dem again. If the GoP can field someone who has more open views while presenting a solid position, I'll give them a definite look and chance.

 

[AshburnerX]

I almost think Hillary would be a better option than Biden right now. She's got the name, foreign experience, and already knows where all the bodies are buried. Her winning would be a pretty smooth transition.

Chris Christie will probably be the 2016 Republican candidate and I could see him doing well.

 

[figmentPez]

If I hear one more person talk about leaving the country because of who was elected president, or that they were going to leave if the other guy did; if I hear one more person talk about how terrified they were about the results of this vote... I am going to... GAH!

Seriously, this country has checks and balances set up in the system for a reason. We have three branches of the government precisely to ensure that the President is not all-powerful. While the President does wield great power, and has tremendous influence, no matter what way any Presidential election goes, it is not the end of the world, or the sole deciding factor in the fate of the nation. Grow up and get involved with local politics if you want to have a real impact in the world around you, and stop acting like the "wrong" president terrifies you.

 

[GasBandit]

Yeah, I don't get that either. Someone thinks dumb as bricks Herman Cain was good candidate to run? Honestly, Romney was the only one worth running out of this bunch of yahoo's and even he was a terrible choice.

As if intelligence was prerequisite to winning the presidency...

 

[Tress]

Neither Biden nor Clinton will run in 2016. Biden isn't that stupid, he knows he doesn't have the confidence or popularity to win over Democrats (much less independents). Clinton won't run because she's fucking tired. I think she wants to be done with everything and start living the fun post-public office life President Clinton has been enjoying for the past decade.

I predict that 2016 will be a contest between two people who aren't even on the national radar right now. I'm sure whomever runs is already in office right now, but it won't be any of the people who just ran in the primary.

 

[@Li3n]

Chris Christie will probably be the 2016 Republican candidate and I could see him doing well.

Like he has a chance now that he's said something nice about Obama...

 

[strawman]

If the GoP can field someone who has more open views

They've been fighting against abortion for 40 years, and you think they'll give up on homosexuality after a mere 15 or so?

Democrats fought for segregation and slavery for over a hundred years before finally giving up on it, and even then had a hard time fully letting go.

In fact, your statement itself shows that social issues are far more important to you than economic, financial, military, education, health, etc. You will not give a single look to a party that does not also hold your social views. I daresay that if you got your perfect candidate in every other way, but they promised to fight against gay rights and abortion, you would look elsewhere, despite them meeting every other criteria you might have.

Now reverse that. There are huge swaths of the population that disagree with your social views AND hold them just as strongly as you do. They will not vote for the party that doesn't hold their social views, regardless of the rest of their platform.

You are just as strongly tied to your social views as they are. Don't expect them to let go of them any more easily than you will let them go.

Both parties use this to divide the country. It's easy to get someone to flip flop on a particular course of action for the economy by throwing experts and numbers at them. But attack their personally held beliefs and you can get them riled up enough that they are easier to move and predict according to your desires.

You are just as much a pawn of the democrats as your neighbors are of republicans, due to your strongly held personal beliefs. As your statement affirms, they know you'll consider other candidates if they don't keep telling you that republicans are against gay rights, abortion, and pay equality. They've got you down cold.

 

[MindDetective]

They've been fighting against abortion for 40 years, and you think they'll give up on homosexuality after a mere 15 or so?

Democrats fought for segregation and slavery for over a hundred years before finally giving up on it, and even then had a hard time fully letting go.

In fact, your statement itself shows that social issues are far more important to you than economic, financial, military, education, health, etc. You will not give a single look to a party that does not also hold your social views. I daresay that if you got your perfect candidate in every other way, but they promised to fight against gay rights and abortion, you would look elsewhere, despite them meeting every other criteria you might have.

Now reverse that. There are huge swaths of the population that disagree with your social views AND hold them just as strongly as you do. They will not vote for the party that doesn't hold their social views, regardless of the rest of their platform.

You are just as strongly tied to your social views as they are. Don't expect them to let go of them any more easily than you will let them go.

Both parties use this to divide the country. It's easy to get someone to flip flop on a particular course of action for the economy by throwing experts and numbers at them. But attack their personally held beliefs and you can get them riled up enough that they are easier to move and predict according to your desires.

You are just as much a pawn of the democrats as your neighbors are of republicans, due to your strongly held personal beliefs. As your statement affirms, they know you'll consider other candidates if they don't keep telling you that republicans are against gay rights, abortion, and pay equality. They've got you down cold.

I've been thinking recently that we almost have a four party system, at least in the abstract. Social conservative and fiscal/regulatory conservative, Social liberal and fiscal/regulatory conservative (AKA libertarians), Social Liberal and fiscal/regulatory liberal (Democrats, progressives, green, etc.), and Social conservative, fiscal/regulatory liberal (too much of the GOP, frankly). The problem is that we don't get to vote along those lines. We get to vote for people that are (sometimes loosely) lumped into Democrat or Republican. I wouldn't mind even pulling fiscal and regulatory apart as another dimension, but I don't really think many people can separate that many groups very distinctly.

 

[Gilgamesh]

They've been fighting against abortion for 40 years, and you think they'll give up on homosexuality after a mere 15 or so?

No, I don't, I simply hoped for people to open their eyes to their bigotry. You're right, it won't happen. I'm listening to Laura now and she's clearly making the case to keep fighting against Gay Equality and it's very obvious she's not alone.

Democrats fought for segregation and slavery for over a hundred years before finally giving up on it, and even then had a hard time fully letting go.

You're absolutely right. It's sad that our country was ever in that position.

In fact, your statement itself shows that social issues are far more important to you than economic, financial, military, education, health, etc. You will not give a single look to a party that does not also hold your social views. I daresay that if you got your perfect candidate in every other way, but they promised to fight against gay rights and abortion, you would look elsewhere, despite them meeting every other criteria you might have.

Economic IS financial so that's still one point. Military I'm 100% in favor of cutting it down and moving out of war. Education? Where did the GoP ever fight for education in a way that was greater than the Democratic party this election? It wasn't even close. Health? Really? I'm just going to let that go because the only point you make that I can back on the GoP was an economic/financial one.

Of course I won't give another look at a party that's basically fighting to keep segregation going, the only difference is that it's against the Gay community instead of the Black. I will never be able to look past that. I turned away from my entire family to support my sister when they turned their back on her. They in turn turned their back on me as well. I can't begin to tell you how hard my life has been because of the decision but I would NEVER go back on it. NEVER.

Now reverse that. There are huge swaths of the population that disagree with your social views AND hold them just as strongly as you do. They will not vote for the party that doesn't hold their social views, regardless of the rest of their platform.

You are just as strongly tied to your social views as they are. Don't expect them to let go of them any more easily than you will let them go.

Except my view is equality for all. Of course I expect them to let go of their view. It's a view of bigotry and hatred.

Both parties use this to divide the country. It's easy to get someone to flip flop on a particular course of action for the economy by throwing experts and numbers at them. But attack their personally held beliefs and you can get them riled up enough that they are easier to move and predict according to your desires.

You are just as much a pawn of the democrats as your neighbors are of republicans, due to your strongly held personal beliefs. As your statement affirms, they know you'll consider other candidates if they don't keep telling you that republicans are against gay rights, abortion, and pay equality. They've got you down cold.

They've got me down cold because they're right. Romney/Ryan flat out came with a plan to be against those views and made the decision for me WAY more than the Democratic party did. If anything, Romney convinced me to go Democratic this election more than Obama did.

 

[PatrThom]

If I hear one more person talk about leaving the country because of who was elected president, or that they were going to leave if the other guy did; if I hear one more person talk about how terrified they were about the results of this vote... I am going to... GAH!

Not only that. Sure, renouncing your citizenship and leaving the country is a form of protest. Unfortunately, since this is a democracy, leaving actually makes it less likely that your preferred platform will win, since you are by definition removing your vote from the next election.

--Patrick

 

[strawman]

Except my view is equality for all. Of course I expect them to let go of their view. It's a view of bigotry and hatred.

You believe you are on the side of the righteous (morally right or justifiable).

They believe they are on the side of the righteous.

They aren't going to let go of their belief any easier than you will let go of yours.

The only hope you have is that homosexuality becomes normalized enough in society that the electoral math demonstrates it's better to let it go.

 

[Gilgamesh]

The only hope you have is that homosexuality becomes normalized enough in society that the electoral math demonstrates it's better to let it go.

I never said it was my only stance, I said it was one of my most important because of the strong ties it has to my family.

Also are there two real sides to this issue? I mean I'm sure the Plantation owners felt they were on the side of the righteous. I know Mormons did a few years ago. Yet I think it's pretty universally agreed that both those groups were wrong. It wasn't an opinion, it was simply wrong.

Also I don't have to hope it's going to become -normalized-. The polls are already showing it.

 

[@Li3n]

As your statement affirms, they know you'll consider other candidates if they don't keep telling you that republicans are against gay rights, abortion, and pay equality. They've got you down cold.

So Rush is a deep cover liberal/democrat?

I've been thinking recently that we almost have a four party system, at least in the abstract. Social conservative and fiscal/regulatory conservative, Social liberal and fiscal/regulatory conservative (AKA libertarians), Social Liberal and fiscal/regulatory liberal (Democrats, progressives, green, etc.), and Social conservative, fiscal/regulatory liberal (too much of the GOP, frankly). The problem is that we don't get to vote along those lines. We get to vote for people that are (sometimes loosely) lumped into Democrat or Republican. I wouldn't mind even pulling fiscal and regulatory apart as another dimension, but I don't really think many people can separate that many groups very distinctly.

That's because Duverger's law.

In any system under it's effect both the parties actually comprise of more then one viewpoint...that's why in some places Duverger's law doesn't apply when there's some sort of historical reason why a 3rd party that actually has a significant % of votes can't integrate with any of the other two.

 

[strawman]

I've been thinking recently that we almost have a four party system, at least in the abstract.

You are probably already aware of the political compass:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

It shows pretty much that we are truly living in a one party state. While we give lip service to at least two of the other quadrants, for all intents and purposes the US as a whole is authoritarian right.

 

[@Li3n]

Also are there two real sides to this issue? I mean I'm sure the Plantation owners felt they were on the side of the righteous. I know Mormons did a few years ago. Yet I think it's pretty universally agreed that both those groups were wrong. It wasn't an opinion, it was simply wrong.

WHY IN THE FUCKING HELL DO WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET THINK AN OPINION CAN'T BE WRONG.... most fucking opinions are.

Opinions about subjective stuff aren't the only ones, you can have an opinion about something that is objectively wrong, an opinion is not some unassailable personal preference.[DOUBLEPOST=1352312811][/DOUBLEPOST]

It shows pretty much that we are truly living in a one party state. While we give lip service to at least two of the other quadrants, for all intents and purposes the US as a whole is authoritarian right.

You guys don't even seem to know what the left is sometimes...

 

[Piotyr]

WHY IN THE FUCKING HELL DO WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET THINK AN OPINION CAN'T BE WRONG.... most fucking opinions are.

Opinions about subjective stuff aren't the only ones, you can have an opinion about something that is objectively wrong, an opinion is not some unassailable personal preference.

That's just your opinion, man.

 

[strawman]

It wasn't an opinion, it was simply wrong.

Now you're getting into the whole question of moral absolutism. You assert that you are a moral authority, and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Not just relatively wrong, but absolutely and universally wrong.

Guess what? They believe the same thing.

Your assertion that they will change because you are "right" only means one thing:

Politicians can grab you by your tail and swing you at their opponent simply by appealing to your moral righteousness.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Now you're getting into the whole question of moral absolutism. You assert that you are a moral authority, and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Not just relatively wrong, but absolutely and universally wrong.

Guess what? They believe the same thing.

Your assertion that they will change because you are "right" only means one thing:

Politicians can grab you by your tail and swing you at their opponent simply by appealing to your moral righteousness.

Ok sure. I'm not arguing they don't think they're right. I'm saying segregation is wrong. You can argue against that point all you like.

You can say I think of myself as some kind of moral authority. That's fine. If it's because of my stance against segregation then sure.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Obama is a Republican

 

[@Li3n]

That's just your opinion, man.

[DOUBLEPOST=1352313426][/DOUBLEPOST]

Obama is a Republican

Or you know, you don't have any actual leftist parties in the US... but that's like totally my opinion.[DOUBLEPOST=1352313594][/DOUBLEPOST]

Now you're getting into the whole question of moral absolutism. You assert that you are a moral authority, and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Not just relatively wrong, but absolutely and universally wrong.

Guess what? They believe the same thing.

The only problem with this is that none of the sides are offering any arguments for their stance...


I'm feeling frisky, so i'll offer one for fun: gay people invented democracy!

 

[Gilgamesh]

stienman - I get the point you're trying to make. If I rely 100% on my moral and social issues then a Politician can just say whatever he wants on those subjects and he'll sway my vote. Isn't that the same thing as voting Romney because he said whatever he wanted on economic issues?

I think a person should vote for their officials based on what's important the MOST to them. If it's social/moral issues then that's the best choice for them. If it's for Economic issues then they should vote based on that. It's impossible to know if a candidate truly feels what they do on a subject so we have to take them at their face value and their actions. If they appeal to you based on the issues most important to you, then you should vote based on that.

 

[strawman]

stienman - I get the point you're trying to make. If I rely 100% on my moral and social issues then a Politician can just say whatever he wants on those subjects and he'll sway my vote. Isn't that the same thing as voting Romney because he said whatever he wanted on economic issues?

When one invokes social issues many humans engage their emotions rather than their brain.

So, no, the economy is much more a logical issue for most people, while homosexuality is an emotional one, and thus one might flip more easily on economic issues than social issues.

Jobs can be an emotional issue for those who are struggling to get, keep, or be happy within their job.

It's hard for people to become emotional about the 16 trillion debt we have, though, so there are plenty of issues where it hardly matters where the president stands, since the emotional issues will more easily sway voters than those which are hard to grasp or see the immediate effects of. Some politicians try to make them emotional by triggering fears (most often) such as "being bought out by China", or "leaving our children holding the bag".

But social issues will almost always have much more immediate and actionable emotional response in humans than most other issues.

I'm not saying it's wrong to put social issues at the top of your list, but I am suggesting that for most people it's shortsighted. Emotional responses engender immediate, urgent action, whereas it's usually better to take the slow deliberate route to social change, and that change should come from the bottom up, rather than the top down.

However if we don't balance that with our economic issues, for instance, then we'll be trading social change today for economic security tomorrow.

 

[Gilgamesh]

So the point you're getting at is that we should vote based on Economic Issues only?

 

[strawman]

So the point you're getting at is that we should vote based on Economic Issues only?

I edited it further. The last line answers this question - we shouldn't be so quick to enact social change at the cost of economic recovery, though I'm sure many people believe that Obama has a good balance of both, I don't think blind trust in the person holding your social bag is a wise choice. You should look at all the issues carefully, and treat your social desires with appropriate caution, rather than letting them decide everything for you.

Also I'm using economy as a placeholder for many, many issues.

 

[Bowielee]

BTW, I'm proud of my state voting in the first openly gay senator.

 

[Gilgamesh]

I edited it further. The last line answers this question - we shouldn't be so quick to enact social change at the cost of economic recovery, though I'm sure many people believe that Obama has a good balance of both, I don't think blind trust in the person holding your social bag is a wise choice. You should look at all the issues carefully, and treat your social desires with appropriate caution, rather than letting them decide everything for you.

Also I'm using economy as a placeholder for many, many issues.

I did look at more than social issues.

Romney's stance on teachers/education was very important to me (My wife is a Middle School Math teacher).
Romney's lack of an economic plan against Obama's growing (albeit slower growing than some wanted).
Romney's stance against Obamacare which I fully support.
Romney's stance about bigger Military which I fully was against.
Romney's constant stance change on multiple issues, literally sometimes from month to month.
Romney's stance against Lily Ledbetter act and equal pay for women.

These were all factors. Again like I said early on, the Gay Equality issue was important to me, but not my only reason. So rest safe knowing that I had many reasons and wasn't -a politicians emotional pawn-

 

[Bowielee]

I did look at more than social issues.

Romney's stance on teachers/education was very important to me (My wife is a Middle School Math teacher).
Romney's lack of an economic plan against Obama's growing (albeit slower growing than some wanted).
Romney's stance against Obamacare which I fully support.
Romney's stance about bigger Military which I fully was against.
Romney's constant stance change on multiple issues, literally sometimes from month to month.
Romney's stance against Lily Ledbetter act and equal pay for women.

These were all factors. Again like I said early on, the Gay Equality issue was important to me, but not my only reason. So rest safe knowing that I had many reasons and wasn't -a politicians emotional pawn-

That pretty much sums up my reasons for voting for Obama in a nutshell.

 

[strawman]

So rest safe knowing that I had many reasons and wasn't -a politicians emotional pawn-

So you're saying that if Romney was for gay rights, and Obama was against them, you wouldn't have swapped your vote?