Why Obama Won

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Maybe if republicans dropped the religious right and stopped being so socially conservative they might have a better chance. All the gay marriage stuff passed, 2 states legalized marijuana etc. There are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters than you may think. Worst economy since the Great Depression, my grandparents would disagree with you, they lived through it. [/quote]

Would you change your principles just because they aren’t currently popular? [/quote]

Telling others how to live their lives is a principal? You can have your beliefs, just don’t push them on me and I won’t push mine on you.
[/quote]

So you agree Catholics shouldn’t have to provide birth control?

22

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

No it won’t be because the truth sucks to hear. It hurts.[/quote]

Yep - take a look at the campaigns. Neither candidate would touch on the biggest political challenges we face in the next 4, 12, 20 years. It is just politically toxic because any solution is going to make everyone at least a little unhappy. And you don’t win elections making everyone a little unhappy - you win elections by promising to make everyone happy in the very short term.

Everything was (basically) small-ball in this campaign.

23

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Maybe if republicans dropped the religious right and stopped being so socially conservative they might have a better chance. All the gay marriage stuff passed, 2 states legalized marijuana etc. There are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters than you may think. Worst economy since the Great Depression, my grandparents would disagree with you, they lived through it. [/quote]

Would you change your principles just because they aren’t currently popular? [/quote]

Telling others how to live their lives is a principal? You can have your beliefs, just don’t push them on me and I won’t push mine on you.
[/quote]

The whole, “telling people how to live their lives,” statement is overused and frankly absurd. “Most,” republicans want the government to get out of their lives, not get involved in other peoples.

You saying that is no differnt than when people say all democrats want free stuff and they don’t care how they get it. A small portion might think like that, but it’s a small portion.

24

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I have to disagree with you and X on this. How can you just abandon your principles?
[/quote]

Wrong question. How can you hold principals that differ so much from the majority of the country yet still think everyone else is wrong?

25

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So, people who make individually $50k and household $100k (the $50k times 2) aren’t the typical middle class, by your lights?

[/quote]

They are, but because the numbers are per-voter income estimates, you can’t infer whether the household itself is middle class or not unless you’re drawing numbers from another source.

If you show me numbers that say “household income,” I’d look at it, but to say that from the CNN exit polls, the “middle class” did not get their guy, is an unsound argument.

[/quote]

Agreed. That is playing pretty generous with the info if you count a whole family of people making 100K as “middle class” no matter what.

26

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I have to disagree with you and X on this. How can you just abandon your principles?

The only solution I see is a multiple party system. Then people that are fiscally conservative, but socially progressive have a real shot at winning. [/quote]

Or, you will see things like last night where the lack of social consciousness loses the vote for the entire party.

27

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

They are, but because the numbers are per-voter income estimates, you can’t infer whether the household itself is middle class or not unless you’re drawing numbers from another source.

If you show me numbers that say “household income,” I’d look at it, but to say that from the CNN exit polls, the “middle class” did not get their guy, is an unsound argument.[/quote]

Uh, that makes no sense, sorry. Those incomes put them in the middle class, roughly speaking, or they don’t.

28

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

One thing the GOP hasn’t done well is reach out to ethnic minorities - you think taking on the banner of gay marriage is going to help that? No. There are much bigger fish to fry that the GOP needs to work on in the electoral sense.[/quote]

The GOP supporting gay marriage in the immediate future would be disastrous. Maybe 20-30 years from now, but not yet. They would lose more then they would gain in the religious conservative group. If they simply became neutral, not trying to ban it or better yet, taking the stance that the government should not be defining marriage at all and leave it up to individual religions to decide how to practice marriage and not give marriage rights at all, that would be much better. It would allow churches to marry only straight people if they wished, or both straight couples and homosexual couples if they wish. This satisfies the traditional conservative/Republican small government stance as well as preserves religious freedom for each religious group to decide how to practice the primarily religious institution of marriage. Taking similar stances on social issues popular with young people will go a long way to evening out the spread in votes.

29

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

They are, but because the numbers are per-voter income estimates, you can’t infer whether the household itself is middle class or not unless you’re drawing numbers from another source.

If you show me numbers that say “household income,” I’d look at it, but to say that from the CNN exit polls, the “middle class” did not get their guy, is an unsound argument.[/quote]

Uh, that makes no sense, sorry. Those incomes put them in the middle class, roughly speaking, or they don’t. [/quote]

Uh, it makes perfect sense. You have a woman who makes 25k a year, but is married to a man that makes 65k a year (or vice versa). That household is absolutely middle class, but that woman on her own is not.

So when you look at her vote, you see a woman that makes 25k a year that voted for Obama, and now you’re assuming that she’s not middle class, even though you’re not taking into account the other wage earner in the family.

The numbers, on their own, cannot tell you the information that you’re trying to draw for them.

So again, if you had a survey that had who voted for whom based on HOUSEHOLD income (which is a better predictor of “class”) than you would have more of a leg to stand on. But this argument, as it stands, is invalid.

30

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Maybe if republicans dropped the religious right and stopped being so socially conservative they might have a better chance. All the gay marriage stuff passed, 2 states legalized marijuana etc. There are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters than you may think. Worst economy since the Great Depression, my grandparents would disagree with you, they lived through it. [/quote]

Would you change your principles just because they aren’t currently popular? [/quote]

This is part of what bothers a lot of people, usmc.

Moral people with principle are not found in only one party or the other.

I will assure you that there are plenty of gay, church-going, dope-smoking people on the Government dole who proudly consider themselves flag-waving/card-carrying Republicans.

Mufasa

31

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Maybe if republicans dropped the religious right and stopped being so socially conservative they might have a better chance. All the gay marriage stuff passed, 2 states legalized marijuana etc. There are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters than you may think. Worst economy since the Great Depression, my grandparents would disagree with you, they lived through it. [/quote]

Would you change your principles just because they aren’t currently popular? [/quote]

Telling others how to live their lives is a principal? You can have your beliefs, just don’t push them on me and I won’t push mine on you.
[/quote]

THIS. I don’t know how much clearer to make this. People do not like having other people’s morals pushed on them. Have your beliefs and hold them dear, but quit trying to push them on other people. The government should not be legislating morality anyway. You believe in heterosexual marriage? Great! I do to, which is why I am marrying a great woman in 3 weeks. That does not mean that we should make it illegal for gay people to get married. Don’t like birth control? Great, I respect that view, but do not interfere with someone else’s access to birth control. Don’t like minorities? Okay, but don’t try to deny them rights based on your beliefs about them. It is that simple, and it is a very American way of thinking.

32

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Maybe if republicans dropped the religious right and stopped being so socially conservative they might have a better chance. All the gay marriage stuff passed, 2 states legalized marijuana etc. There are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters than you may think. Worst economy since the Great Depression, my grandparents would disagree with you, they lived through it. [/quote]

Would you change your principles just because they aren’t currently popular? [/quote]

Telling others how to live their lives is a principal? You can have your beliefs, just don’t push them on me and I won’t push mine on you.
[/quote]

My post isn’t showing up for some reason…

Anyway like I tried to say, most republicans wants the government out of their business, not want to be in other peopleâ??s business. That’s no different than me saying all dems want free stuff. It isn’t true and silly at that.

You are pushing you principles on the republican party though. You want them to give up what they believe in and move left (to align with other peoples principles). Isn’t that what you just said they shouldn’t do?

33

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Maybe if republicans dropped the religious right and stopped being so socially conservative they might have a better chance. All the gay marriage stuff passed, 2 states legalized marijuana etc. There are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters than you may think. Worst economy since the Great Depression, my grandparents would disagree with you, they lived through it. [/quote]

Would you change your principles just because they aren’t currently popular? [/quote]

Telling others how to live their lives is a principal? You can have your beliefs, just don’t push them on me and I won’t push mine on you.
[/quote]

THIS. I don’t know how much clearer to make this. People do not like having other people’s morals pushed on them. Have your beliefs and hold them dear, but quit trying to push them on other people. The government should not be legislating morality anyway. You believe in heterosexual marriage? Great! I do to, which is why I am marrying a great woman in 3 weeks. That does not mean that we should make it illegal for gay people to get married. Don’t like birth control? Great, I respect that view, but do not interfere with someone else’s access to birth control. Don’t like minorities? Okay, but don’t try to deny them rights based on your beliefs about them. It is that simple, and it is a very American way of thinking.
[/quote]

We seem to agree on quite a bit lately.

34

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Maybe if republicans dropped the religious right and stopped being so socially conservative they might have a better chance. All the gay marriage stuff passed, 2 states legalized marijuana etc. There are more fiscally conservative, socially liberal voters than you may think. Worst economy since the Great Depression, my grandparents would disagree with you, they lived through it. [/quote]

Would you change your principles just because they aren’t currently popular? [/quote]

This is part of what bothers a lot of people, usmc.

Moral people with principle are not found in only one party or the other.

I will assure you that there are plenty of gay, church-going, dope-smoking people on the Government dole who proudly consider themselves flag-waving/card-carrying Republicans.

Mufasa[/quote]

Oh yeah? Name one!

35

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Uh, it makes perfect sense. You have a woman who makes 25k a year, but is married to a man that makes 65k a year (or vice versa). That household is absolutely middle class, but that woman on her own is not.

So when you look at her vote, you see a woman that makes 25k a year that voted for Obama, and now you’re assuming that she’s not middle class, even though you’re not taking into account the other wage earner in the family.

The numbers, on their own, cannot tell you the information that you’re trying to draw for them.

So again, if you had a survey that had who voted for whom based on HOUSEHOLD income (which is a better predictor of “class”) than you would have more of a leg to stand on. But this argument, as it stands, is invalid.[/quote]

No, that’s fine, but people who have personal income in the $50-100k range are the typical middle class. There might be others who fall into that category who make less due to the household issue you raise, and that is fine, but the outliers don’t disprove the general category - that is, people who make money in this range are the typical middle class, and they voted for Romney moreso that for Obama.

36

If you believe that you are on Earth to serve god, you’re not going to turnaround and support things that you’d expect to anger him. It makes no logical sense to expect a religious person not to legislate their morality into law or prevent certain legislation from passing.

37

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

The GOP supporting gay marriage in the immediate future would be disastrous. Maybe 20-30 years from now, but not yet. They would lose more then they would gain in the religious conservative group. If they simply became neutral, not trying to ban it or better yet, taking the stance that the government should not be defining marriage at all and leave it up to individual religions to decide how to practice marriage and not give marriage rights at all, that would be much better.[/quote]

So it would be a wise electoral strategy for the GOP to endorse getting the government out of the marriage business?

How exactly would that play with the black and Hispanic communities, do you think, both of which the GOP needs to make electoral inroads to?

That’s no different a scenario than coming out and being pro-gay marriage, which you suggest would be a bad idea.

38

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I have to disagree with you and X on this. How can you just abandon your principles?

The only solution I see is a multiple party system. Then people that are fiscally conservative, but socially progressive have a real shot at winning. [/quote]

Or, you will see things like last night where the lack of social consciousness loses the vote for the entire party.[/quote]

That’s true, but I’d rather lose 10/10 times than compromise the principles I live my life by for the sake of a win.

39

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

THIS. I don’t know how much clearer to make this. People do not like having other people’s morals pushed on them. Have your beliefs and hold them dear, but quit trying to push them on other people. The government should not be legislating morality anyway. You believe in heterosexual marriage? Great! I do to, which is why I am marrying a great woman in 3 weeks. That does not mean that we should make it illegal for gay people to get married. Don’t like birth control? Great, I respect that view, but do not interfere with someone else’s access to birth control. Don’t like minorities? Okay, but don’t try to deny them rights based on your beliefs about them. It is that simple, and it is a very American way of thinking.
[/quote]

But you have a problem - some of your proposed “freedom from morality” plays are not value-neutral. Using the government to create access to birth control is choosing one “moral” over another. Any time you create some kind of postive right - as opposed to a negative one, to simple be free from some coercion to do something you don’t want to do - you are affirming some “moral” over another.

40

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Uh, it makes perfect sense. You have a woman who makes 25k a year, but is married to a man that makes 65k a year (or vice versa). That household is absolutely middle class, but that woman on her own is not.

So when you look at her vote, you see a woman that makes 25k a year that voted for Obama, and now you’re assuming that she’s not middle class, even though you’re not taking into account the other wage earner in the family.

The numbers, on their own, cannot tell you the information that you’re trying to draw for them.

So again, if you had a survey that had who voted for whom based on HOUSEHOLD income (which is a better predictor of “class”) than you would have more of a leg to stand on. But this argument, as it stands, is invalid.[/quote]

No, that’s fine, but people who have personal income in the $50-100k range are the typical middle class. There might be others who fall into that category who make less due to the household issue you raise, and that is fine, but the outliers don’t disprove the general category - that is, people who make money in this range are the typical middle class, and they voted for Romney moreso that for Obama.[/quote]

Show me a statistic that says those people are outliers. I don’t believe that they are. They may not make up the MAJORITY, but you’re not talking one out of every hundred families that is built like this. My family, and a lot of other ones that I know, are built like this.

And further, there are plenty of two-parent homes where each is bringing in 40-50k, meaning that they’re the definition of middle class, but their vote, according to that poll, still counts in the under 50k range.

Being as Romney only won the 50-100k by a 52-47 margin… well, that’s a lot of data that would have to be reevaluated before you could make the judgement that you’re making.

So again, show me household income proof and I’ll look at it, but you are ABSOLUTELY not accurately representing the numbers if you say that CNN’s exit poll means the middle class went for Romney.