Obama WINS!!

[ljimd]

It is closed minded people arguing a cause that in the end, will hurt all if something as simple as a compromised is not met.

Toughest part is actually weighing what is best for "the country" and making an informed decision regardless of which "tribe" (liberal/conservative) you feel drawn to. Always keep your bullshyt detector on 10.

[socket]

At 48 years of age I am now getting into politics, found it boring as hell till roughly a year ago. Talking to DBX on the phone and this site here has brought me closer to politics.

So now I am doing research, watching the debates, educating myself on the electoral votes vs popular votes etc etc.

What I see from a very high level is that people pick and choose a party that favors what they believe in and are not open in anyway to interpret (or give chance) to the other party.


It is closed minded people arguing a cause that in the end, will hurt all if something as simple as a compromised is not met.

Stop it! You're making too much sense. And this is The U.S. We don't like your frame of thought. We like to hate each other and call names.
If everyone thought like you............. things would actually get done and we would all prosper! Only a fool would want that!

/sarcasm.

I like the way you are thinking

[cowboybiker]

Here in Texas, they trade out their Lone Star card for beer, money and cigarettes at 10 cents on the dollar more or less.

Damn.
Even the drug dealers out here give you 50 cents on the dollar

[Phattso]

Despite the election outcome, I had a great leg workout this morning.

[drudixon]

The actual irony of the blame game here is that it's primarily two fold. Began with Reagan era deregulation of the Mortgage industry, and with the Clinton era evolution of credit default swaps as well as securitizing of private label mortgages. Enter popularity of non-prime mortgages and mixed term securities, voila. Meltdown..... The only thing Bush Jr didn't do was have the SEC tamp down. However, that really goes for Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr.

For all the O lovers... wondering why you can't sell your house? O's kneejerk over regulation killed the mortgage securities market, all of it, not just mixed term and non-prime securities. Consequently, there's nobody to buy loans any more.

[TheRock08]

I apologize to all of you experiencing election fatigue. I also apologize for contributing more to said fatigue. But know this: I am not gloating on the outcome of the election.

And I am a Democrat.

But I have been openly critical of the president, and I do believe he is out of touch with many facets of American life. With my vote, I helped President Obama keep his job. But he has disappointed me, raising campaign funds in the billions while so many live paycheck to paycheck, campaigning days after a hurricane that crippled the east coast.

Yet, I have supported him because of my political science background I know that you cannot repair an economy in four years. Probably not even 8. But I support his plans.

But I'm also going to challenge him, in these next four years, to get to know the country he truly represents.

For those of you who jump on your sociopolitical soapboxes and speak of the "lazy" and those "on welfare". Well, they voted too. If you check the numbers, a lot of them voted Romney. Here's what else you'll find...

A lot of the wealthy voted for Obama, too.

So you can't simply say that the lazy, the Blacks, the Hispanics all voted for Obama and the rich, white, affluent voted Romney because it didn't work that way.

[mslman71]

The idea that "takers" gave Obama the victory is a nonsensical myth. Look at the blue states and the red states. The solidly conservative Republican states are the ones that receive more money per capita from the federal government than they pay in taxes. Most of the blue states pay more than they receive back. Blue states subsidize the red states.

Bad or at least dubious calculus my friend.

The coastal states have a much higher cost of living and a higher income that goes along with it. Federal income tax rates don't have a cost of living adjustment. So, for the same lifestyle in SoCal, at least in terms of land, home, taxes, that you would have in a place like Huntsville, Al requires a 2-3x increase in income. The tax is graduated so it's especially painful for them. Blue states shot themselves in the foot for that. No sympathy. Considering the total amount of money that has to move in the heavy blue states it's surprising they don't contribute much much more than they relative to what they take per capita. In addition, the return on low population density, either by virtue of population or total area, skews the result since the fed has its hands in maintaining throughways, as an example. Furthermore, for the same program, infrastructure requirements per capita do not scale linearly from zero. Finally, in my state, a huge chunk of the federal money that goes to a "red state" goes to economically depressed blue regions in the urban areas. The whole state is not homogenous and this is especially true in the south. The whole "red states are takers" is a red herring perpetuated by those who don't want to take a time to take a hard look at how the numbers are calculated, why they are what they are, and what they mean. In short, it seems like a lovely anecdote they like to pass back and forth between themselves to hold on to their air of superiority, making them no better than those they criticize.

That being said, I would gladly give up my 2% overage to keep money from the state in the state rather than having to go through federal overhead and extortion practices just to get that money back. Hell, I'd even be willing, no, thrilled, to pay 2% more in taxes to call it even and be free of their ways entirely.

[cowboybiker]

You all blew it.
You had a chance to vote for the best man for the job and just disregarded him.

[drudixon]

I apologize to all of you experiencing election fatigue. I also apologize for contributing more to said fatigue. But know this: I am not gloating on the outcome of the election.

And I am a Democrat.

But I have been openly critical of the president, and I do believe he is out of touch with many facets of American life. With my vote, I helped President Obama keep his job. But he has disappointed me, raising campaign funds in the billions while so many live paycheck to paycheck, campaigning days after a hurricane that crippled the east coast.

Yet, I have supported him because of my political science background I know that you cannot repair an economy in four years. Probably not even 8. But I support his plans.

But I'm also going to challenge him, in these next four years, to get to know the country he truly represents.

For those of you who jump on your sociopolitical soapboxes and speak of the "lazy" and those "on welfare". Well, they voted too. If you check the numbers, a lot of them voted Romney. Here's what else you'll find...

A lot of the wealthy voted for Obama, too.

So you can't simply say that the lazy, the Blacks, the Hispanics all voted for Obama and the rich, white, affluent voted Romney because it didn't work that way.

Very well said. Reps on recharge. (note: I succumb to election stereotypes too)


Damn, I feel smuckish....


O still sux. Gary Johnson in 2016! Gary Johnson in 2020! Gary Johnson in 2024! Gary Johnson in 2028! (Damn, is he going to win one of these....?)

[Phattso]

So you can't simply say that the lazy, the Blacks, the Hispanics all voted for Obama and the rich, white, affluent voted Romney because it didn't work that way.

I for one would never say or think that. If, and that is a major if - If Obama can compromise like Clinton did in his second term by being more friendly to small businesses by reducing taxes, not increase taxes and support job growth in both non-green but safe industries, such as oil and gas and green industries, give people more incentive to look for work, more incentive to be an entrepreneur, build our defense to name a few, I would be ok with it.

[nixter]

Watching the election unfold last night I found the blue/red maps to be interesting. Basically the vast majority of rural physical map space was red while the majority of large populated cities was blue. This demographic seems to contradict right wing rhetoric about who votes for who and why.

[mslman71]

Watching the election unfold last night I found the blue/red maps to be interesting. Basically the vast majority of rural physical map space was red while the majority of large populated cities was blue. This demographic seems to contradict right wing rhetoric about who votes for who and why.

<sigh> @ right-wing.

Okay, I'll bite. What's the rhetoric?

[nixter]

<sigh> @ right-wing.

Okay, I'll bite. What's the rhetoric?

Basically the contents of all the "sour grapes" threads since last night.

[Garage Rat]

I didnt vote for Obama care,oh wait we didnt get to vote as free Americans should have.

[mslman71]

Basically the contents of all the "sour grapes" threads since last night.

That's not an answer.

[drudixon]

Watching the election unfold last night I found the blue/red maps to be interesting. Basically the vast majority of rural physical map space was red while the majority of large populated cities was blue. This demographic seems to contradict right wing rhetoric about who votes for who and why.

This map disagrees with you show's that you're partly right, and partly wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oodstamps.html

Might want to note that NYC and the 5 boroughs have 632,000 people living in section 8. That's 1 in 8 living with Government assistance... Who pays the 70% of their rent that they don't? Not saying section 8 isn't needed everywhere, but the rust belt isn't exactly the picture of opulence...

[tobymax123]

Bad or at least dubious calculus my friend.

The coastal states have a much higher cost of living and a higher income that goes along with it. Federal income tax rates don't have a cost of living adjustment. So, for the same lifestyle in SoCal, at least in terms of land, home, taxes, that you would have in a place like Huntsville, Al requires a 2-3x increase in income. The tax is graduated so it's especially painful for them. Blue states shot themselves in the foot for that. No sympathy. Considering the total amount of money that has to move in the heavy blue states it's surprising they don't contribute much much more than they relative to what they take per capita. In addition, the return on low population density, either by virtue of population or total area, skews the result since the fed has its hands in maintaining throughways, as an example. Furthermore, for the same program, infrastructure requirements per capita do not scale linearly from zero. Finally, in my state, a huge chunk of the federal money that goes to a "red state" goes to economically depressed blue regions in the urban areas. The whole state is not homogenous and this is especially true in the south. The whole "red states are takers" is a red herring perpetuated by those who don't want to take a time to take a hard look at how the numbers are calculated, why they are what they are, and what they mean. In short, it seems like a lovely anecdote they like to pass back and forth between themselves to hold on to their air of superiority, making them no better than those they criticize.

That being said, I would gladly give up my 2% overage to keep money from the state in the state rather than having to go through federal overhead and extortion practices just to get that money back. Hell, I'd even be willing, no, thrilled, to pay 2% more in taxes to call it even and be free of their ways entirely.

Points well taken, and I should have known better than to regurgitate something I'd read elsewhere without delving into it further. But your point about the coastal states having higher incomes and that they shot themselves in the foot just demonstrates that the "takers" aren't necessarily the ones who voted Obama another term.

And just as a point of note, I did look into the state statistics further. The rankings vary from year to year, but blue states consistently make up the top 13 to 15 "givers". There are a few blue states on the "taking" end, but the majority of the top 15 "takers" are consistently red states. Perhaps partially or largely for the reasons you describe. Rather that federal spending per state as a whole, which would include infrastructure, it would be more meaningful to research how much in paid back in payments/welfare/subsidies/entitlements to individuals. But I'm not invested enough in the argument to do that.

[mslman71]

Points well taken, and I should have known better than to regurgitate something I'd read elsewhere without delving into it further. But your point about the coastal states having higher incomes and that they shot themselves in the foot just demonstrates that the "takers" aren't necessarily the ones who voted Obama another term.

And just as a point of note, I did look into the state statistics further. The rankings vary from year to year, but blue states consistently make up the top 13 to 15 "givers". There are a few blue states on the "taking" end, but the majority of the top 15 "takers" are consistently red states. Perhaps partially or largely for the reasons you describe. Rather that federal spending per state as a whole, which would include infrastructure, it would be more meaningful to research how much in paid back in payments/welfare/subsidies/entitlements to individuals. But I'm not invested enough in the argument to do that.

Like I said, the margins are pretty thin when you start to look at the details. Whatever they are, whatever magnitude, I would happily forgo the "benefit" of being a taker by being allowed to unravel myself from the fed's clutches and to pay out the difference in the form of state rather than federal taxes. Obviously the feds have a large role to play in our union but that does not mean they have to involve themselves in every aspect of our daily lives, all the way down to the daily goings on in my children's school curricula.

[JOHN GARGANI]

John I like you man, but seriously what the f'ck is this bitch move? Reporting people, seriously?

apparently, the mods agreed with me, amigo...

but anyway, just something I would have to do at my own site, also, as there are certain things that you just can't allow up here in print, as it leads to various troubles....just the MOD in me talking here....

[bodyhard]

apparently, the mods agreed with me, amigo...

but anyway, just something I would have to do at my own site, also, as there are certain things that you just can't allow up here in print, as it leads to various troubles....just the MOD in me talking here....

Not to say that what he did was right or wrong doesn't make a difference to me, but let me ask you, what if we were in face to face conversation? How would you have handled being upset at his comment?

IMO, and please don't take this the wrong way, reporting someone is just like snitching, a bitch move if you will.

Why not just speak your mind to what he said directly to him, or simply ignore it and keep it moving?

Again not trying to argue here John, I respect you and how you always handle yourself on the boards, but this reporting stuff just seems beneath you man.

[SP1966]

Honestly, if Mitt Romney couldn't beat Obama in these horrible economic conditions, that does not bode well for the republican party. Let's face it. The vote is strongly racially divided, with the voting numbers of racial minorities increasing, while the white vote decreases. Unless the republicans become a lot like democrats, my guess is that the chance of them EVER winning another national election is pretty slim. What does this mean? A whole slough of Republican/Democrat candidates who are virtually indistinguishable.

There is really only one other choice, and that would be to engage the minority communities directly which the Republican party has been ignoring for far to long. Thats not to say they need to moderate their positions, but they do need to reach out to the many very conservative people in those communities that do not currently see them as an option. Of course one of the obvious ways to do this would be to nominate a minority, but then we got a good glimpse of what the left does when faced with that possibility when Herman Cain was leading the primaries, they destroyed him for offenses that were far less offensive then those which they dismissed for Clinton.

I've said for a very long time that the biggest problem facing this country is our media and I don't see that changing, why would it, its working for them.

[SP1966]

The idea that "takers" gave Obama the victory is a nonsensical myth. Look at the blue states and the red states. The solidly conservative Republican states are the ones that receive more money per capita from the federal government than they pay in taxes. Most of the blue states pay more than they receive back. Blue states subsidize the red states.

That sounds really good, unfortunately what you need to do to truly tell that story is to break it down by county, those that are red vs. blue. Your theory goes up in smoke real quick when you take a closer look.

[SP1966]

What I see from a very high level is that people pick and choose a party that favors what they believe in and are not open in anyway to interpret (or give chance) to the other party .

The biggest problem is that the distance between the two parties philosophically is so great that compromise becomes almost impossible. I'm sure you'll find both parties are willing to compromise to a point, but because of the gulf between them those two point are no where near meeting. There comes a point where if you compromise to much you may just as well endorse the other parties position in full. IMO this is in very large part to our modern society and the ability to market to people, in this case that ability is being used to divide us into many subgroups and play those differences against each other. The fact that these election are so close tells you that one side isn't winning the majority of the minds, but the media is doing an exceptional job of dividing us against each other and of course passing the blame.

[cowboybiker]

[taf1968]

So you can't simply say that the lazy, the Blacks, the Hispanics all voted for Obama and the rich, white, affluent voted Romney because it didn't work that way.

I'll start off by saying congratulations. While I admire your apparent hesitations and a desire to hold your party of choice's feet to the fire . . . I think there is little chance that they will act accordingly. Nothing in Obama's 1st term makes me confident that he'll be a different or better leader.

On the subject of demographics, it's true . . . not all blacks voted for Obama. It was apparently only around 9 out of 10.

You are correct that there are no absolutes here. All whites did not vote for Romney (a majority did--about 6:4 apparently). All blacks (9:1) and hispanics (7:3) did not vote for Obama. However--wouldn't you say that 90%+ of the black vote going to Obama (for the second time in a row) is about as close to "all" as one gets in politics? Just curious how the minority community would view the election if Romney had gotten 90%+ of the white vote? If you have different figures by all means, please post them. But I would think you would have to agree that the black vote is enormously disproportionate on Obama's side.


http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...olls-show?lite

"Latinos and blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama, according to the exit polls. Latinos, an important part of Obama’s winning coalition in 2008, were even stronger in their support of Obama than they were four years ago. Latinos, who accounted for about a tenth of the national electorate, favored Obama by about 70-30. Black voters continued to be exceptionally loyal to Obama – he was getting more than nine in 10 of their votes Tuesday night, just as he did four years ago."

"Among white voters -– who accounted for nearly three quarters of the electorate -- Romney was leading Obama by 58 to 40 percent, making Romney’s performance among white voters three points better than McCain’s in 2008."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2BZOIfsWe

"Non-whites made up 28 percent of the electorate, up a bit from 27 percent in 2008. This group largely backed Obama: 71 percent of Hispanics (it was 67 percent last time), and 93 percent of blacks (down a touch from 95 percent)."

"Republican challenger Mitt Romney won among white voters by 20 percentage points. That’s up from John McCain’s edge of +12 points in 2008. In addition, the share of votes cast by whites was lower (72 percent) than it has been going back to at least 1992."

[m314]

Was that their real reaction from last night? Lol. I was switching back and forth between a few different news shows, but I had it on CNN when they made the projection for Obama to win. The news anchors seemed much happier on CNN.

[mslman71]

What's funny is that they were dead-on with their predictions and were well before CNN, even to Karl Rove's dismay.

[bodyhard]

The biggest problem is that the distance between the two parties philosophically is so great that compromise becomes almost impossible. I'm sure you'll find both parties are willing to compromise to a point, but because of the gulf between them those two point are no where near meeting. There comes a point where if you compromise to much you may just as well endorse the other parties position in full. IMO this is in very large part to our modern society and the ability to market to people, in this case that ability is being used to divide us into many subgroups and play those differences against each other. The fact that these election are so close tells you that one side isn't winning the majority of the minds, but the media is doing an exceptional job of dividing us against each other and of course passing the blame.

Common sense will tell you they have to meet somewhere in the middle, the problem is, it appears each party is prejudice to the other based on plain ole stupidity and stubbornness.

The more I read into it, the more I am convinced.

[mslman71]

Common sense will tell you they have to meet somewhere in the middle, the problem is, it appears each party is prejudice to the other based on plain ole stupidity and stubbornness.

The more I read into it, the more I am convinced.

I view it differently. Necessity should dictate that they meet in the middle when they must and the rest of the time they can bicker all they want and get nothing through. The stalemates are a double edged sword. They protect us from needless legislative pet bullsh*t but at the same time when things get too petty it prevents necessary actions. Where true common sense fits into the equation I can't say but I don't ever rely on common sense at that (or most any) level as its definition seems to depend on the prejudices of the individual.

[SP1966]

Common sense will tell you they have to meet somewhere in the middle, the problem is, it appears each party is prejudice to the other based on plain ole stupidity and stubbornness.

The more I read into the more I am convinced.

The parties used to be like this: A_|_B

In that case yes the parties were able to meet in the middle like you say and it was generally good for the country.

Today it is more along these lines: A___|_B

In this case if party B agrees to meet in the middle then they are in effect allowing the country to be moved in the direction of party A and not simply to the middle. Compromise only works when the two parties attempting to compromise are in close proximity to each other.

As to which party is A vs. which is B you will get very different opinions on that!