What the 2012 U.S. Election Implies

[IMPress Polly]

Part One:

I decided to wait on making this post mainly because I know what it is to deeply invest one's self in a presidential campaign you believed could win only to see the candidate you supported go down in defeat. For me, that was John Kerry's campaign in 2004. I know it can be a very disheartening experience, so I wanted to wait a little while to give people some time to accept the defeat and move on. But it's time to move on now and look at the implications of this election outcome.

Since most people here are rightists, let me start this off provocatively by pointing out the winner of the popular vote in each American presidential election cycle since the end of the Cold War:

1992: Bill Clinton (Democrat)
1996: Bill Clinton (Democrat)
2000: Al Gore (Democrat)
2004: George W. Bush (Republican)
2008: Barack Obama (Democrat)
2012: Barack Obama (Democrat)

Noticing a general pattern here?

Let me be even more provocative though by highlighting that George Bush Sr. lost his re-election bid in 1992 primarily as a result of the poor economic conditions that prevailed at the time...yet President Obama just won re-election this year under economic conditions that are substantially worse. Are you beginning to sense then that the Republican Party has a real problem here?

The question this raises is that of whether the Republican Party, for its own sake, needs to review the possibility of reforming its politics at this point. Over the last several days, we have seen the standard arguments come out: the Tea Party wing (the libertarians and the social conservatives) complain of Romney's ideological impurity and the adverse down-ballot effect that that may have had on the party in general (in their theory, low base turnout on election day), while the more establishment wing that backed Romney (the classical Reaganites) blames the party's general defeat this year (and yes it was a small but nonetheless general defeat) on the impact of nominating 'crazy people' (Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, etc.) for important offices and also on the party's increasing failure to connect with minorities and female voters. Let me resolve this dispute for you: the Reaganites are correct. Factually speaking, had Romney gotten the same percentage of the Latino vote this year that George W. Bush got in 2004, he would have won in Nevada, Colorado, Florida, and possibly Virginia. (The math here is that you have to win the presidency to deport all the Latinos and resolve this problem in your favor, but you can't win the presidency anymore if you pledge to do stuff like that because Latinos have a vote and compose an increasing percentage of both the general and voting populations.) Had he been able to narrow the gender gap to half the near-record size it wound up being, he would also have won Ohio and thus the presidency. The question that now arises is that of WHY there is such a mounting disconnect between the GOP and these important social groups. These important social groupings -- minorities and women -- voted in unusually large percentages for Obama and the Democrats this year because they felt threatened precisely by the extreme positions that Republicans are taking on social issues these days. Make no mistake, people principally vote on economic issues. Since minorities and women tend to be poorer than whites and men and therefore more likely in need of state assistance, one won't be surprised to find that they regularly vote for the Democratic Party. But not by these proportions. These proportions can only be explained by something else added on top of the normal reasons these groups would have to vote Democratic. In other words, yeah the Republicans probably wouldn't have been able to win over most Latinos or most women or what have you no matter what, given their anti-government economic platform. But they could have minimized the gaps in voting trends between men and women and between whites and minorities to the extent required to be victorious overall. The next question is: What then explains these especially large gaps in voting trends?

Let's start with women. This article I think helps explain why the gender was especially large this year. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/gender-gap-2012-election-obama_n_2086004.html) Allow me to briefly give you the bottom line: Republicans in general, including Mitt Romney, challenged women's reproductive rights and their right to equal pay in an unprecedented way. Additionally, more than one Republican man running for high-level office made headlines by implicitly trivializing rape. These things can seriously damage your image with women who would otherwise be inclined to vote for you. To give you an idea of how severe women believed the threat to their reproductive rights was this year, one survey of registered voters conducted shortly before the election found that abortion was the number one voting issue for women this year, even beating out jobs and the economy and broader health care. (http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/presidential-election-poll-abortion-important-for-most-women-men-say-jobs) (Though it didn't beat them out collectively.) That's NOT historically the norm, and especially not under economic conditions like these. That's the result of feeling that those rights were genuinely threatened on a basic level. Add that on top of the fact that the economic platforms that Romney and the Republicans were running on would have mostly hurt women (e.g. women compose large majorities of welfare dependents, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security recipients, minimum wage workers, etc.) and you can start to see why women voted to re-elect the president by a wide margin despite the current economic conditions.

Let's move on to minorities. ...No, that's just too obvious! Republicans: You know what your problems with minorities are beyond the obvious economic sphere issues! It's not-so-subtly racist stuff like birtherism and "self-deportation" schemes and so forth. ("Self-deportation" was Mr. Romney's allusion to the idea that the government should deliberately make life so miserable for immigrants that they'll want to leave.) Duh. I don't need to explain this stuff. You're not that stupid.

Anyhow, if Republicans could change those two things qualitatively, they would have more chance of winning the presidency in a modern, post-Cold-War context.

Now onto broader implications of the election...

Lots of Democrats are saying that this election outcome constitutes a mandate for left wing economics. Not really. A mandate means majority support in my book. Exit polls from election day indicated that 49% of voters preferred Romney's overall economic policy ideas, while 48% preferred Obama's. Therefore, nobody has a real mandate for their overall economic positions to prevail. Rightists, however, should duly note that "economics" in the exit polls to which I'm referring was considered separate from health care, education, taxes, and the main three entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security). That's important to note because Obama DOES have a mandate concerning all those latter areas. For example, at least 70% of the public believes that the main three entitlement programs should not be touched, period. Likewise the majority support the Affordable Care Act. And some 60% of voters indicated believing that taxes on at least the richest 2% of the population should be raised. So there IS a mandate for the Democratic Party positions on all that stuff. It's broader government regulations and the welfare system that the average American thinks could stand to be scaled back. (I happen to disagree with the average American there, but that's what they think.) A pertinent question here though is whether the public will get what it wants on economics. I'm actually fairly worried in view of the 'fiscal cliff' coming up and the corresponding budget debate in Washington that's going on. The president has not yet clearly stated that the three main entitlement programs won't be placed on the chopping block. He has simply committed not to privatize Medicare and Social Security. It's organized labor that's launching a campaign to defend the main entitlements, in addition to raising taxes on the rich. Make no mistake, we do need to reduce our budget deficits, but I'll be damned if I'm going to stand idly by and watch the deficit problem get resolved on the backs of the children, the elderly, the poor, the sick, and the disabled! I have a conscience! No, deficit reduction needs to come via scaling back (or ideally terminating) our ridiculous empire-building abroad and via new state revenues exacted from the people who caused the economic crisis we're enduring (who almost invariably supported Romney and the Republicans by the way).

[IMPress Polly]

Part Two:

Speaking of empire-building, that was the least contentious issue of this election cycle. Both candidates agreed, for example, that our role in the Afghanistan War must continue for another two years despite the fact that the continuance of the war effort is opposed by an enormous majority of Americans (nearly 70% according to the most recent polling) and despite the fact that the Afghan government (the one we're supporting anyway) has announced that it is already prepared to fully take over its own security responsibilities and that we can "leave early" if we want. (http://news.yahoo.com/karzai-nato-speed-handover-security-105023206.html) This begs the question of why.

The 2012 presidential election has secured the future of the Affordable Care Act, safeguarded the financial reforms that have put into place in view of the 2008 crash, and given the president a mandate on several issues. It has established that women care about their reproductive rights and other gender-related issues. Voter suppression efforts directed principally against minorities, the youth, and the elderly, motivated all those groups to turn out for this election and make sure they got a chance to have their votes counted. Same-sex marriage won legalization in three ballot initiatives: in Maine, Maryland, and Washington. No new bans on it succeeded this year. Together, these factoids indicate that the tide now favors marriage equality. Additionally, marijuana was legalized for recreational purposes in Colorado (though there will be a court challenge to that) and medical marijuana won an expansion in Massachusetts. I think that sums it up.

[Chris]

Noticing a general pattern here?

Yes, especially if you go back further, we keep flip flopping like fish out of water between duopolistic ruling class parties different mostly in name only. The country class needs to get back in the water and swim.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Sorry, Polly. I don't know if you heard or not, but Obama cheated to win. He had black panthers at polling places in PA, and then a couple places even had Obama propaganda inside the polling places within view of the machines. That's a direct violation of rules which state no propaganda within 100ft of polling places.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/06/judge-issuing-order-to-reinstate-booted-philadelphia-election-officials/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/6/problems-black-panthers-surface-pa-polling-places/

[Mister D]

Clinton never won the popular vote. He received 43% in 1992 and 49.2% in 1996. He would likely have lost by a wide margin had Ross Perot not run in 1992. Perot garnered 18.9% of the vote most of which would have gone to Bush.


Republicans in general, including Mitt Romney, challenged women's reproductive rights and their right to equal pay in an unprecedented way.

That's just delusional.

[truthmatters]

the election beggs to differ with you

[Mister D]

the election beggs to differ with you

What?

[IMPress Polly]

Mister D wrote:
Clinton never won the popular vote.

By "won the popular vote", I refer to acquiring a plurality of it. I think you knew that.


That's just delusional.

I give you evidence including a link and you call me delusional without substantiation. Yeah I believe that about sums up the level of dialogue here.


Grassy wrote:
Sorry, Polly. I don't know if you heard or not, but Obama cheated to win.

Please. I looked over your links and there is nothing even close to a concrete case there concerning allegations of systematic manipulation of the election results. A small collection of random alleged incidents do not a grand conspiracy make. Minor irregularities on both sides of the aisle happen every election cycle spontaneously. Face it, you lost. Get over it. Grow up. I say that for your own edification. I'm hoping the defeated party will learn something from this experience. You won't learn anything by falsely proclaiming victory.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Please. I looked over your links and there is nothing even close to a concrete case there concerning allegations of systematic manipulation of the election results. A small collection of random alleged incidents do not a grand conspiracy make. Minor irregularities on both sides of the aisle happen every election cycle spontaneously. Face it, you lost. Get over it. Grow up. I say that for your own edification. I'm hoping the defeated party will learn something from this experience. You won't learn anything by falsely proclaiming victory.
I never falsely proclaimed victory, that's what you did. We lost, I admit that, but it's a false loss, we should have won. We would have won if you hadn't cheated.

[IMPress Polly]

Okay I see how it is. You just can't face up to defeat and learn anything from it. You're that pathetic. You're that mindlessly belligerent. You live in your own little world. Either get a life or I'm just going to ignore your posts from now on.

[Mister D]

By "won the popular vote", I refer to acquiring a plurality of it. I think you knew that.

That certainly carries far different implications from what you were attempting to argue. Again, it's highly likely that Clinton would have lost in 1992 if Perot had not run. Possibly in 1996 as well. You analysis needs work.


I give you evidence including a link and you call me delusional without substantiation. Yeah I believe that about sums up the level of dialogue here.


An editorial is not evidence. Try again. :rollseyes: Secondly, I am calling all women who felt that their right to an abortion was being threatened delusional. If that's the case then they were easily swayed by propaganda and fear mongering. That says less about the GOP than it does the political acumen of female voters.

[Mainecoons]

Polly, you make a good effort here and I appreciate it. Unfortunately, I think you've been snookered on the "war on women."

To start with, the issue isn't and never was equal pay for women. The issue is having the government enforce their version of it, which is not only impossible but fatally flawed like virtually everything else they do. You cannot micromanage pay in the millions of companies out there, you cannot determine from D.C. whether people are really doing equivalent jobs or not. All you can and will do with this is create mountains of job killing paperwork and litigation that will put people of both sexes out of work.

Romney never suggested for a moment that abortion be banned, that birth control be banned, or any of that. What we have all suggested is that it is not the responsibility of the taxpayers, many millions of whom oppose abortion, to pay for these things. That is a major difference which I hope doesn't escape you.

The rest of it was a pure fraud. The Obama campaign created the "war on women" fiction, hung it around the neck of a moderate who showed no inclination to engage in it whatsoever, and sold it to a bunch of emotional women. They demagoged class warfare, they demagogued race and they won.

This election really was about the economy. The Democrats and their policies are simply wrong and destructive of the private sector, particularly small business. I am one of those and I know a whole lot more of them. To a person, they are playing defense or getting out. You simply aren't going to have growth under these conditions. You can't drive the energy costs of business and consumers sky high with wars on coals and domestic energy development, and have growth and new jobs. It just doesn't work that way in the real world.

I'll leave this for now. By December, it will be manifestly obvious that business is going on strike and playing full court defense against the cost and regulations of ObamaCare. I'll be here with the hard information to back that up at that time. For now, I can tell you what the conversation is among my circle of FORMER job creators and it isn't "forward."

And Polly, power at the ballot box won by lies and ignorance is not the same as the power of the purse. You all voted and "defeated" your employers but let me assure you they are going to have the final say here. Loving the employee and hating the employer may feel good to you lefities but it doesn't put bread on the table.

[Conley]

The comments about rape by several high profile Republicans gave the Democrats a lot of ammo to back up their claims of a War on Women. IMO it was a few clueless guys who said really stupid things - but you can't deny it painted the whole party in a very negative light.

[Mister D]

Polly, you make a good effort here and I appreciate it. Unfortunately, I think you've been snookered on the "war on women."

To start with, the issue isn't and never was equal pay for women. The issue is having the government enforce their version of it, which is not only impossible but fatally flawed like virtually everything else they do. You cannot micromanage pay in the millions of companies out there, you cannot determine from D.C. whether people are really doing equivalent jobs or not. All you can and will do with this is create mountains of job killing paperwork and litigation that will put people of both sexes out of work.

Romney never suggested for a moment that abortion be banned, that birth control be banned, or any of that. What we have all suggested is that it is not the responsibility of the taxpayers, many millions of whom oppose abortion, to pay for these things. That is a major difference which I hope doesn't escape you.

The rest of it was a pure fraud. The Obama campaign created the "war on women" fiction, hung it around the neck of a moderate who showed no inclination to engage in it whatsoever, and sold it to a bunch of emotional women. They demagoged class warfare, they demagogued race and they won.

This election really was about the economy. The Democrats and their policies are simply wrong and destructive of the private sector, particularly small business. I am one of those and I know a whole lot more of them. To a person, they are playing defense or getting out. You simply aren't going to have growth under these conditions. You can't drive the energy costs of business and consumers sky high with wars on coals and domestic energy development, and have growth and new jobs. It just doesn't work that way in the real world.

I'll leave this for now. By December, it will be manifestly obvious that business is going on strike and playing full court defense against the cost and regulations of ObamaCare. I'll be here with the hard information to back that up at that time. For now, I can tell you what the conversation is among my circle of FORMER job creators and it isn't "forward."

And Polly, power at the ballot box won by lies and ignorance is not the same as the power of the purse. You all voted and "defeated" your employers but let me assure you they are going to have the final say here. Loving the employee and hating the employer may feel good to you lefities but it doesn't put bread on the table.

You have the patience of a saint.

[Mister D]

The comments about rape by several high profile Republicans gave the Democrats a lot of ammo to back up their claims of a War on Women. IMO it was a few clueless guys who said really stupid things - but you can't deny it painted the whole party in a very negative light.

no doubt.

[Mainecoons]

The comments about rape by several high profile Republicans gave the Democrats a lot of ammo to back up their claims of a War on Women. IMO it was a few clueless guys who said really stupid things - but you can't deny it painted the whole party in a very negative light.

I certainly agree. The Republicans need to get rid of these fundamentalist fools and focus on one thing and one thing only, restoring prosperity to America.

[truthmatters]

how would they do that?

[Conley]

I certainly agree. The Republicans need to get rid of these fundamentalist fools and focus on one thing and one thing only, restoring prosperity to America.

We can hope.

[IMPress Polly]

Mister D wrote:
That certainly carries far different implications from what you were attempting to argue. Again, it's highly likely that Clinton would have lost in 1992 if Perot had not run. Possibly in 1996 as well. You analysis needs work.

Hmm. I've heard that case before, but have never been convinced by it. Here's why: Mr. Perot was a centrist. As such, he seemed able to attract quite a few people both on the right AND on the left. The evidence of his having a decisive spoiler effect in either cycle hence seems quite minimal, though I'll admit to not having all the evidence on that.


An editorial is not evidence.

Exit poll data is solid evidence. The linked editorial references that and several facts and seeks to make sense of them in a way that I agree with.


Mainecoons wrote:
Romney never suggested for a moment that abortion be banned, that birth control be banned, or any of that.

First off, I'd just like to thank you for your thoughtful reply! I enjoy reading posts like that even if I don't agree with all or even most that's said in them. Makes me feel like someone paid attention to what I had to say.

Okay that said, let me get to my response to the above quote:

Actually he signed onto a national Personhood Amendment earlier this year. Those define life as beginning at conception for all legal purposes. It allows the government to arrest doctors who perform abortions and perhaps even women who have them. Those (Personhood Amendments) don't even allow any exceptions for rape and can effectively outlaw hormonal forms of birth control. Of course he's also proclaimed himself pro-choice before (1994, 2002) and then later in the presidential campaign (this one) took a different position still on abortion, opposing it generally but allowing exceptions for cases of rape and the life of the mother, so...who really knows what Mr. Romney's actual position was on the subject?


To start with, the issue isn't and never was equal pay for women. The issue is having the government enforce their version of it, which is not only impossible but fatally flawed like virtually everything else they do.

So...we should have equal pay laws, but...they just shouldn't be enforced...? :huh:


The rest of it was a pure fraud. The Obama campaign created the "war on women" fiction, hung it around the neck of a moderate who showed no inclination to engage in it whatsoever, and sold it to a bunch of emotional women.

This is where people tend to go wrong: in blaming the masses. Messaging makes a difference for sure, but I find that people tend to know what's in their interests and what isn't pretty well. You can't just message your way around that. Ultimately people vote the way they do for real reasons, not just because they're gullible. Here you're implying that a solid majority of women don't know what their interests are. I find that hard to believe.

Just some thoughts.

[Mainecoons]

No Polly, we shouldn't have equal pay laws because they don't work.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the intelligence of the great mass of the voters. For every one of you and me or our peers, I believe there are thousands of people who don't understand economics and politics at a very fundamental level. Many of them can't even spell correctly or write complete and inteligible sentences.

[Chris]

how would they do that?

Why do ask that when his post told you how?


The Republicans need to get rid of these fundamentalist fools and focus on one thing and one thing only, restoring prosperity to America.

[IMPress Polly]

Mainecoons wrote:
No Polly, we shouldn't have equal pay laws because they don't work.

They don't solve everything, but they certainly help. I'm strongly supportive of legislation like the Paycheck Fairness Act in particular because the sex-based segregation of work is a huge part of the remaining pay gap. Requiring that people be paid the same for equivalent work (work that contributes equally to a company's bottom line) rather than just for identical work would certainly help remedy that situation.


We'll have to agree to disagree on the intelligence of the great mass of the voters. For every one of you and me or our peers, I believe there are thousands of people who don't understand economics and politics at a very fundamental level. Many of them can't even spell correctly or write complete and inteligible sentences.

That's the thing of it though: you don't have to be an economics expert or a political scientist to know that getting paid less than a man for equivalent work isn't good for you or that having more life options is better than having fewer. Do you see what I mean? You don't generally have to be an expert to know your interests.

[Calypso Jones]

The comments about rape by several high profile Republicans gave the Democrats a lot of ammo to back up their claims of a War on Women. IMO it was a few clueless guys who said really stupid things - but you can't deny it painted the whole party in a very negative light.

yes it did pain the whole party and the media saw to that. Do you recognize any stupid Leftist remarks or even blatantly truthful remarks they make when they slip up and tell the truth, get no play in the media? Like the muslims they slip up on occasion and tell us their agenda. Pretty soon the left will catch up with the muslims and be able to just say it and get a pass. We're almost there.

[Peter1469]

They don't solve everything, but they certainly help. I'm strongly supportive of legislation like the Paycheck Fairness Act in particular because the sex-based segregation of work is a huge part of the remaining pay gap. Requiring that people be paid the same for equivalent work (work that contributes equally to a company's bottom line) rather than just for identical work would certainly help remedy that situation.



That's the thing of it though: you don't have to be an economics expert or a political scientist to know that getting paid less than a man for equivalent work isn't good for you or that having more life options is better than having fewer. Do you see what I mean? You don't generally have to be an expert to know your interests.

The only thing this law will do is provide work for lawyers. Here is the legal standard:


Under the Equal Pay Act, the law that makes it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform substantially equal work, an individual subject to wage discrimination must establish that “(1) the employer pays different wages to employees of the opposite sex; (2) the employees perform equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility; and (3) the jobs are performed under similar working conditions.”

Even if the individual makes each of these showings, the defendant employer may avoid liability by proving that the wage disparity is justified by one of four affirmative defenses—that is, that the employer has set the challenged wages pursuant to “(1) a seniority system; (2) a merit system; (3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (4) a differential based on any other factor other than sex."

From Wiki.

The law will be impossible to enforce.

[IMPress Polly]

A (female) George W. Bush adviser's recommendations to her party concerning its future course vis-a-vis minorities and women. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/11/karen-hughes-ill-cut-out-the-tongue-of-gopers-talking-149146.html) This partially echoes my advice from the OP.

(Bush people have credibility here in that they fared better among minorities and women in their elections than their party's successors have.)

[Carygrant]

Sorry, Polly. I don't know if you heard or not, but Obama cheated to win. He had black panthers at polling places in PA, and then a couple places even had Obama propaganda inside the polling places within view of the machines. That's a direct violation of rules which state no propaganda within 100ft of polling places.





More balderdash founded on paranoia .

[patrickt]

When I got to the first lie I skipped the rest of your two part fantasy. But, as far as I got, Ross Perot elected Bill Clinton who didn't get a majority of the vote and Ralph Nader probably was responsible for Al Gore losing to George Bush. Rewriting history is big for liberals but they need to learn to wait till those who lived it have died, or been killed in the purges.

[GrassrootsConservative]

More balderdash founded on paranoia .

Oh look. Unfounded accusations without links or anything of substance.

[Calypso Jones]

Part Two:

Speaking of empire-building, that was the least contentious issue of this election cycle. Both candidates agreed, for example, that our role in the Afghanistan War must continue for another two years despite the fact that the continuance of the war effort is opposed by an enormous majority of Americans (nearly 70% according to the most recent polling) and despite the fact that the Afghan government (the one we're supporting anyway) has announced that it is already prepared to fully take over its own security responsibilities and that we can "leave early" if we want. (http://news.yahoo.com/karzai-nato-speed-handover-security-105023206.html) This begs the question of why.

The 2012 presidential election has secured the future of the Affordable Care Act, safeguarded the financial reforms that have put into place in view of the 2008 crash, and given the president a mandate on several issues. It has established that women care about their reproductive rights and other gender-related issues. Voter suppression efforts directed principally against minorities, the youth, and the elderly, motivated all those groups to turn out for this election and make sure they got a chance to have their votes counted. Same-sex marriage won legalization in three ballot initiatives: in Maine, Maryland, and Washington. No new bans on it succeeded this year. Together, these factoids indicate that the tide now favors marriage equality. Additionally, marijuana was legalized for recreational purposes in Colorado (though there will be a court challenge to that) and medical marijuana won an expansion in Massachusetts. I think that sums it up.

and blawdy blawdy blawdy blaw. Democrats won because they are santa claus to minorities and minoritioes are really angry at whitey which is encouraged by democrats. That's all it is...it's simple. These are not americans in the sense of what Americans ARE. I never, NEVER expected to see this happen in my lifetime...i thought it would happen, this war on poverty thing that successfully makes blacks poorer and poorer and more dependent and now....they're ruined. period.

[Mainecoons]

Polly, ObamaCare is neither affordable nor will it provide better care. You seem to live in this fantasy land where you think a government than can't deliver mail without losing billions, can't handle a natural disaster and can't balance a budget or, hell, even write one, can handle the health care of 320 million people.

You're a nice and well meaning person like my brother who has also spent his entire life learning things the hard way. So will you. Don't take this as a slam, you have a lot of company in America who have the same problem, hence this election and what is happening to the economy.

[Cedric]

IMPress Polly (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/399-IMPress-Polly) despite what you may think, this isn't rocket science. Obama received 10 million fewer votes this time than he got in 2008 . . . and so people were not pleased with his first term performance. Romney received 3 million fewer votes than McCain received in 2008, and so in the eyes of low information voters he was not enough different from Obama for them to vote for him instead.

Low information voters put Obama into office in 2008 because they believed all the over the top press hype about Obama. Low information voters returned Obama to office in 2012 because they were not intelligent enough to understand the real differences between Obama and Romney.

Now you know.

[Cedric]

Polly, ObamaCare is neither affordable nor will it provide better care. You seem to live in this fantasy land where you think a government than can't deliver mail without losing billions, can't handle a natural disaster and can't balance a budget or, hell, even write one, can handle the health care of 320 million people.

You're a nice and well meaning person like my brother who has also spent his entire life learning things the hard way. So will you. Don't take this as a slam, you have a lot of company in America who have the same problem, hence this election and what is happening to the economy.

Absolutely. Too many voters confuse the pie-in-the-sky Star Trek universe style utopianism as something that can be created in the United States with just a wave of Obama's Wish-Wand. But first one has got to have on hand both a nearly one hundred percent convertible energy source that is inexhaustible and that is also so cheap that it's essentially given away. We not only do not have anything like that we are a minimum of a century to a century and a half from having the technological base to invent something like it.

There are practical reasons why Obama's pie-in-the-sky stuff won't work here and now. The Left has some serious growing up to do.

[Peter1469]

A (female) George W. Bush adviser's recommendations to her party concerning its future course vis-a-vis minorities and women. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/11/karen-hughes-ill-cut-out-the-tongue-of-gopers-talking-149146.html) This partially echoes my advice from the OP.

(Bush people have credibility here in that they fared better among minorities and women in their elections than their party's successors have.)

One issue voters really kill America's future. Yes, the GOP has its loons. So does the left. One day economics is going to smack American women in the face; and in a crash women will do much worse than men. Get ready to fight for clean food and water.

[Cali]

Sorry for my bad English, for those who reading this, please bare with me, Thank you.

Many people thinks that poor voted for Obama is not true. I am poor and I voted for Romney. I am really sad for this nation, the only thing I can say now is please "God Bless America", I love this country so much, but the fate of this country in the next 4 years is not good, I feel that unemloyment will increase and economy will be even worst.
I live in a blue state, California, I'm poor, I work as a waitress, and I only have a high school degree. Most people would assume someone like myself would vote for Obama, but Nope, I voted for Romney because I feel "Economically" he can at least bring this country up a bit.
What's done is done, we all can only hope president Obama will do his best in the next 4 years for the good of America.

Why, I don't vote for Obama because I feel that his policies won't help much to the economy. Look at Obamacare, people will begin to see that many people will be unemloyed or will be working part time once this Obamacare hits in.
Now that all business required to buy healthcare for their employees, guess what! If they don't have enough money, they will begin to lay off workers, or will let workers work less than full time to avoid the Obamacare laws.

Obamacare required everyone to have healthcare including covering for pre-existing condition (which I can understand, I'm OK with it since it is fairness and we should not discriminate against those who have pre-existing condition to buy healthcare just like anyone else). But here the thing, who going to be paying for all this? Tax! Tax! Tax! Obama will tax the rich and the middle class. Actually, I think the middle class going to suffer the most. The top rich people got alot of money (way enough money even if they have to pay higher taxes), if raise the tax, I can assure the middle class will be hurt the most.

Obama have so many things he wants to do and to give to everyone, for equality or fairness or what ever, but "money" is limited. Where is he going to find the money for all of this? The middle class workers Americans will be paying for this.

I pray we not going to get a massive immigrants flooding into USA, I hope there are laws and not just give them citizenship so easy. Again, who will be paying for all those massive immigrants welfare, healthcare and other benefits Obama promise to give them? Again, middle class and private and small business are going to suffer the most in these coming years.
I don't want to talk about Gay/Les issue or abortion issue. I just think is not fair that the tax payer now have to pay for free contraception. This goes against the freedom of those who do not support this issue.

You know why USA was once the top economy in the world because of Capitalism. Seem like the next 4 years, economy of USA will go downhill. Economy cannot go up if everyone keep having this Socialist idea. Instead of economy going up, we all here be letting the government control us, and spread the wealth out to everyone until everybody is equal. Bullshit! I can tell you Socialism don't work!! Eventually the rich will run out of money, actually the whole country will run out of money!

I hate socialism, my family risk our lives getting out of one. I grown up in a Socialist Communist country. I do not EVER, DO NOT ever want to go back there or live that lifestyle again, EVER! Those who love Socialist-Communist so much, maybe go to RED China live for couple months, and see how much freedom you have.

I love America, wish this country all the best, especially in the next 4 years, God bless USA and bless us.
And what make me unhappy is how selfish people can get to be now. They only think of themselves and their benefits only. Seriously, this is not the America I know 30 years ago. The USA now have change, but anyways if the Constitution stay the same, this is the last 4 years of Obama. I heard there some guy who keep propose the law to give unlimited terms of presidency. GOD, I hope not, or else I will live in a Communist China again where the dictatorship one party ,Chinese Communist Party have control for 70+ years! NO!!!!

As for Obama won, to me don't matter, I'm the low class people so I always be poor doesn't matter who won. But I just feel sad for the middle class and the private business that will be effected in the next 4 years.

[Carygrant]

Communism was not and is not Socialism .
No sane person wants so called Socialism in the way that extremists imagined it working even a few decades ago .
Modern day Socialism expresses itself as working from and within a Capitalist system but with more care and humanity than old style Republicanism , for example .
As for Romney ? We will never know , and regardless , he had no defined policies and had a reputation as a political loser and flip flopper and someone economic with the truth .
Republicans deluded themselves that they had a candidate who had a realistic chance of reaching the White House .

[Chris]

Communism was not and is not Socialism .
No sane person wants so called Socialism in the way that extremists imagined it working even a few decades ago .
Modern day Socialism expresses itself as working from and within a Capitalist system but with more care and humanity than old style Republicanism , for example .
As for Romney ? We will never know , and regardless , he had no defined policies and had a reputation as a political loser and flip flopper and someone economic with the truth .
Republicans deluded themselves that they had a candidate who had a realistic chance of reaching the White House .

Communism is a failed branch of socialism, just as fascism and nazism were.

You're right, the socialists (liberals, progressives, like you) have abandoned "classical" socialism as the pipe dream it was, for a new modern version call social democracy that hopes to manage capitalism like a parasite, and, as you say, do so with the same emotionalism as the past, for there is no rational or moral justification for it. Man cannot design or manage economies, they are too complex and dynamic to control top down but only work bottom up. And the basic means of your central planning, redistribution, entails theft from some (not your pockets) to give to others.

Romney? The race ended a week ago, wake up.

[Carygrant]

Romney? The race ended a week ago, wake up.


The race ended at the Republican convention .Are you trying desperately to forget?
Ann was just embarrassing .
Clunt was monumentallly teeth juddering .
And we saw that Mutt the Misfit would never win anything big politically .

No wonder you get so muddled .
The race ended a week ago . Good one , Chris . Do you still switch on believing that the Olympics are still running ?And jumping etc

[patrickt]

When you live in a fantasy world, you can see whatever "implications" you choose. Perhaps it shows that Americans are communists at heart or perhaps it shows record-breaking amount of fraud or maybe it shows that extraterrestrial brain leeches attacked millions of Americans. Perhaps it implies that the rigged voting machines worked.

What it means is we're saddled with the nitwit for another four years. Now, just imagine the implications of that. Destruction of the economy, racial violence ushered in by our racist administration, class war ushered in by the leftist administration, the destruction of business by the anti-business administration, even more people on the dole as even those who want to work can't get jobs, taxes and prices rising due to Obamacare and tax-and-spend politicians in the administration. Oh, my, the implications are horrible, aren't they?

But, it's not all bad. President Obama and his family have some really great vacations on tap and President Obama is looking for a country club that doesn't admit Republicans or Americans.

[Mainecoons]

Here's the good side: It will take that kind of harsh lesson to wise up a lot of folks and electing Romney would have simply delayed, not avoided that lesson. Romney was a big government guy too and on top of that, a foreign military misadventurist.

What the Republicans need to be saying over and over, while giving Obama and the left anything they want in the way of taxes, is that we aren't going to stand in the way of this lesson and when it is learned, we'll be here to clean up the mess. But it really is time to give them what they think they voted for. All of it.

[Cali]

Thank you mr. Moderator Chris, I agree with you.

The thing with Socialism, I see it as the "begining" of Communism. I feel that we in America now are being feed little by little of socialism ideas into our brain, and many people are not even realized this. All they care is about their "individual" rights and benefits only. 1st term of president Obama, I can understand, but people are putting president Obama back into office 2nd term, seem like the "society" "thinking" now in America has change alot compared to 20 years ago. Seem like the younger generations now are getting more and more "very open" with certain issues.

I don't believe in such thing as socialism - distribution of wealth to everyone, bullshit! Excuse my language. Rich people don't wake up one day and become multi-millionairs. Rich people work hard for the position that they are in society today, they probably even more stressful than poor people. Heck, middle class people have to work hard to be middle class today, those workers, wake up everyday to go to work, feeding families just like the poor do. Now those people hard earn money have to go feed the whole country population, is simple not fair! If going at this ways, one day the middle class won't have anything left for the government to milk.

I believe you should deserve what you work hard for. Example like Bill Gates, if you jealous of him being more rich than you, you can design your own Microsoft then you can rich like him. Just like people in stock market, wall street, if you jealous of them richer than you. Then you can go study stock, and go competition with them. I believe in free and fair competition.
I do not believe in sitting at home and muching on those people tax money. (OK, I might be little extreme on this comment, but for sure I don't want to see those who are not American citizenship to munch on my tax money), hey working low class jobs does pay tax too.

Sometimes I feel that president Obama doesn't love Capitalism very much, also sometimes I feel he doesn't love the rich very much, but I'm sure he does loves his union though, LOL! I'm sure president Obama is a good man, I do agree with some of the things he say like " equality", "fairness", but people don't really understand what true fairness is. Taking something from those who work hard all their life for, and give to someone who never work for, is just simple unfair.

I write all this out of what my heart think. I am not side with any sides. I registered as Republican and voted for Republican is because their policies and viewpoints, I agree with. Heck, I'm sure the rich Republicans don't care about someone who poor like myself. But I like to keep my brain clear, I don't vote just because I'm poor so I must voted for Democrats, Oh, and I believe that is the biggest Myth "stereotype" that "only" the Democrats care for poor people. To be honest, they don't care about you or me, they care for their party benefits and their unions.

[Bane]

Here's the good side: It will take that kind of harsh lesson to wise up a lot of folks and electing Romney would have simply delayed, not avoided that lesson. Romney was a big government guy too and on top of that, a foreign military misadventurist.

What the Republicans need to be saying over and over, while giving Obama and the left anything they want in the way of taxes, is that we aren't going to stand in the way of this lesson and when it is learned, we'll be here to clean up the mess. But it really is time to give them what they think they voted for. All of it.

I totally 100% agree.

We are collapsing anyways. Might as well give them the keys to the car and let them drive us all off the cliff that is inevitable anyways.

Hard times lie ahead. The "progressive" voter will be hardest hit b/c they will finally take their own beer googles off and see what they have brought forth.

Of course, they will still blame us for it all, but that is what teenagers do, they blame everyone and everything else for their lot in life.