Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Republicans really have a problem with When All You Have Is a Hammer…
Their constant moving to the right loses them elections, so their solution? Move farther to the right!
edited 7th Nov '12 9:57:45 AM by Thorn14
Florida is still counting absentee ballots and the narrow margin (less than 1 percent) will trigger an automatic recount. Of course, the matter is academic at this point. It won't be the Lawyerpalooza of 2000.
edited 7th Nov '12 10:01:20 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Speaking of moving farther to the right, Oklahoma went solid red again this year, with absolutely no blue districts.
Aaaand they're also disbanding their DHS commission, voted to prohibit affirmative action, and voted to exempt intangible personal property from the added value property tax.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianI'm not sure precisely what you mean by "corporatist" in this context, but you have touched on something, Fighteer. You're actually echoing some of the same objections that many Republican primary voters had to Romney: the man's a technocrat whose appeal stood or fell by the voters' willingness to hear out a business-school lecture. Unless one approaches all issues of politics and life in wholly fiscal terms—as homo economicus—Romney's concerns tended to look like the When All You Have Is a Hammer… viewpoint (with apologies to Thorn 14).
Ironically enough, Romney's determination to see the world through an economic prism was virtually Marxian (!), and was bound to come off as parochial to those huge swathes of the American right and left gauche enough to believe that Man does not live by bread alone. Hence my suspicion that the GOP's libertarian/social-conservative pendulum is due to start swinging back.
Jhimm's prediction is likely right. The hard social right only begrudgingly swallowed their pill this year and backed Romney*, so there's no reason to believe that they'll be willing to do that again. *(Unless those claims that Romney stole the nomination from Santorum with voting machine skullduggery were actually true. But if they were, even more reason for Jhimm's prediction to be on the money.)
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Well, there's also the horrible things he said about homosexuals in the past. And his general terrible social record. He's a very deep social conservative and his running mate was even worse. Their campaigns tried not to emphasize this, but it doesn't change the facts.
Add in that Romney had previously proven his brand of fiscal conservatism didn't work by having the third highest unemployment rate in the country and one of the worst economies when he was governor and I can't in any way see him as a libertarian.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick"Stellar"? Well I suppose Ambassador Stevens is among the stars, if you believe in that whole "heavenly afterlife" thing...
Less facetiously, I'm trying to figure out what's "stellar" about Obama's foreign policy, and I'm drawing a blank. Is it the mislabeled "reset button" given to Russia? The pissing off of long-time allies (f'rex, the UK, Poland, and Israel) to suck up to autocrats in Iran and Russia only to have it pretty much ignored? Holding EU's hands over Libya with logistical support so Aerospatiale and the like can put on a live-fire sales pitch/show for their new toys on the US taxpayer's dime?
Where's the "stellar"?
All your safe space are belong to Trump![]()
And creating an Obamacare facsimile.
Reducing the US's reputation for being rather egoistical in the foreign policy. You know, the 'States got some reputation during the Bush years for stepping over others' interests.
edited 7th Nov '12 10:44:24 AM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman@Obama's foreign policy record:
Obama has been able to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while continuing to hunt al-Qaida and other terrorist organisations. Libya was a huge success: with relatively few resources committed and no forces on the ground, a dictatorship was brought down and hundreds of thousands of lives saved in Libya. After the ambassador was slain, there were huge demonstrations of support for the US in Libya - exactly the opposite of what you got used to seeing during the Bush years.
Most of the world loves Obama. In a BBC poll with countries ranging from South Korea and the UK to Indonesia and Kenya, the only country that wanted Romney to win was Pakistan.
edited 7th Nov '12 11:10:24 AM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.I'm astounded that anyone could believe Romney lost because he didn't cater to the social conservatives enough, and not because of his utter lack of personability/his overall piss-poor candidacy. It could easily be argued that Romney wasn't been convincing to fundamentalists because of how capricious he was, and I wouldn't disagree with that. But that speaks far more about his character than it does the tenability of social conservatism.
Sure, the GOP will still move the right, but I think it will be more of an angry, emotional response rather than some planned strategy to increase their chances of winning in the years ahead.
@Jhim: The GOP is in a major pickle right now. Vast swathes of the country are completely turned off by the anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-gay rhetoric of the hardcore social conservatives, yet those are considered the standards that any candidate must espouse to get nominated for national office. They would sell their fiscal conservative policy much better if it weren't shackled to the social cons.
Now, I happen to think, along with many on the liberal side, that fiscal conservatism — that is, small-government, free-market, Austrian economics policies — is dangerously wrong. The problem is that making rational arguments for fiscal liberalism requires that the audience be educated enough to understand the math behind it, and that is a nearly impossible challenge when you have to rely on 30 second sound bites.
The point is, however, that the GOP faces a hard choice: appeal to its extreme elements to keep them from deserting and therefore lose all appeal to the rest of the country, or try to claw its way back to the middle and thereby alienate the extremes. If they continue their march to the extreme right, I think they will not win the Senate or the White House in the foreseeable future, and the country will see the schism between red and blue continue to widen.
It really is up to the GOP to mend this, if they wish to even try.
@Thorn: This goes back to the GOP's demographic problem. They barely tried to appeal to Hispanics and didn't even bother to appeal to blacks. Romney went in front of the NAACP and got booed for suggesting they need to stop being "dependent on government". As long as that's the core rhetoric, what black person in their right mind would ever vote Republican? If the GOP relies exclusively on the white vote, they will find themselves increasingly marginalized as the country's racial makeup changes.
edited 7th Nov '12 11:30:24 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Unsurprisingly, talking heads like Limbaugh are already insiosting the Republicans only lost because most of america is selfish, lazy brats who dont want to work for a living and get everything free because moral decay of amerrricuh.
Also likened Barack Obama to Santa Claus. So I guess now Saint Nicholas is an evil socialist.
edited 7th Nov '12 11:45:50 AM by Midgetsnowman
Indeed. They can keep talking that way; it's not going to make those lazy "47 percenters" start voting Republican any time soon.
Another possible reason Romney lost: record-breaking turnout and Democratic support among Latino voters.
Exit polling shows that Obama's 75-23 margin among this demographic generated 5.3% of the national vote split for Obama, meaning that if the GOP had been willing to budge on immigration issues, they might well have won.
War on Christmas! War on Christmas! Barry O is Santa Clau... wha? Insane Troll Logic, thy name is Limbaugh.
edited 7th Nov '12 11:47:11 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Poor Huntsman...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/why-romney-lost/index.html?hpt=po_c1
Pretty good article summing over the lead up to last night. Romney had little chance in this environment without a huge foul near the end by Obama.
@Tomu; Florida hasn't been called yet. Probably looking at an automatic recount anyway.
edited 7th Nov '12 9:57:00 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.