Which Direction?

[JohnStOnge]

You have to be the most out-of-touch person in these United States, John. Let uncle houndawg explain the facts of life for you: Candidates don't matter much anymore. The country is divided in half, one half is about hope and the other half is about fear and we each know which half we stand with.

The country is close to evenly divided with some people on each side who are going to vote Republican no matter what or Democrat no matter what. But there are people who flip back and forth for various reasons.

If image doesn't matter, why do you think little things that happen in debates are thought to matter so much? A lot of people, for instance, think that Richard Nixon won his debate with John Kennedy in terms of substance but lost in terms of public perception because he didn't wear makeup. And I guarantee you you're not going to see a candidate show up for a televised debate in today's world without makeup and whatever else is needed to cast as good an image as they can on television.

There's one reference to the Nixon/Kennedy debate at http://www.wafb.com/story/19723992/ther ... te-moments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

In the first televised presidential debate, Nixon refused makeup and was seen as nervous and tense compared to Kennedy, who did use makeup. However, many who listened on the radio 50 years ago believed Nixon won the debate, ushering in the requirement that candidates be telegenic.

Image matters. And I think you really know that it does.

It doesn't take much to change the outcome. Image changes things one way or another by a few percentage points. When one side has a highly charismatic candidate who knows how to play the camera that side wins.

And it's not about one side being about "hope" and the other being about "fear." Please. Both sides are largely about trying to make people fear and/or dislike the other side during campaigns. Both sides spend a lot of time trying to convince the people that bad things are going to happen if the other side wins. Also try to cultivate a negative impression of the opposing candidate. It's obvious. Can't miss it.

[JohnStOnge]

Give us a republican who opens his arms to Hispanics, and distances himself from the homophobia of the right ( and I don't think he actually has to openly advocate for gays, just turn his back on the open hostility of the current party platform, and he'd beat anyone. Not gonna happen, but its true.

I think you underestimate the extent to which Republicans need what you call "the right" to be competitive. I don't think they'd gain as much from doing what you suggest as they'd lose. Republicans alienating White Born Again Christians, for instance, would be as bad for them as the Democratic Party somehow alienating Blacks. Maybe worse. Romney beat Obama by 78% to 21% among White Born Again Christians and they were 26% of the vote. That translates to a net edge of about 19.3 million votes for Romney. 93% of the Black vote went to Obama vs. 6% to Romney. Blacks were 13% of the vote. That translates to a net edge of about 13.6 million votes for Obama.

I think people who think the Republicans can improve their chances in national elections by "dissing" the "Religious Right" aren't being realistic. And, as I said earlier, I think one of their biggest problems this last time is that for whatever reason the Religious Right had what, from the Republican standpoint, was a disappointing turnout. I, for one, would have thought you were crazy if you'd have told me before the election that about 7 million fewer White Protestants would turn out for this election than turned out for the last election with John McCain as the Republican candidate because I thought they'd be really anxious to get Obama out.

[kalm]

Give us a republican who opens his arms to Hispanics, and distances himself from the homophobia of the right ( and I don't think he actually has to openly advocate for gays, just turn his back on the open hostility of the current party platform, and he'd beat anyone. Not gonna happen, but its true.

I think you underestimate the extent to which Republicans need what you call "the right" to be competitive. I don't think they'd gain as much from doing what you suggest as they'd lose. Republicans alienating White Born Again Christians, for instance, would be as bad for them as the Democratic Party somehow alienating Blacks. Maybe worse. Romney beat Obama by 78% to 21% among White Born Again Christians and they were 26% of the vote. That translates to a net edge of about 19.3 million votes for Romney. 93% of the Black vote went to Obama vs. 6% to Romney. Blacks were 13% of the vote. That translates to a net edge of about 13.6 million votes for Obama.

I think people who think the Republicans can improve their chances in national elections by "dissing" the "Religious Right" aren't being realistic. And, as I said earlier, I think one of their biggest problems this last time is that for whatever reason the Religious Right had what, from the Republican standpoint, was a disappointing turnout. I, for one, would have thought you were crazy if you'd have told me before the election that about 7 million fewer White Protestants would turn out for this election than turned out for the last election with John McCain as the Republican candidate because I thought they'd be really anxious to get Obama out.

Yeah, the Republican Party should put their eggs back in that basket.

[AZGrizFan]

Give us a republican who opens his arms to Hispanics, and distances himself from the homophobia of the right ( and I don't think he actually has to openly advocate for gays, just turn his back on the open hostility of the current party platform, and he'd beat anyone. Not gonna happen, but its true.

I think you underestimate the extent to which Republicans need what you call "the right" to be competitive. I don't think they'd gain as much from doing what you suggest as they'd lose. Republicans alienating White Born Again Christians, for instance, would be as bad for them as the Democratic Party somehow alienating Blacks. Maybe worse. Romney beat Obama by 78% to 21% among White Born Again Christians and they were 26% of the vote. That translates to a net edge of about 19.3 million votes for Romney. 93% of the Black vote went to Obama vs. 6% to Romney. Blacks were 13% of the vote. That translates to a net edge of about 13.6 million votes for Obama.

I think people who think the Republicans can improve their chances in national elections by "dissing" the "Religious Right" aren't being realistic. And, as I said earlier, I think one of their biggest problems this last time is that for whatever reason the Religious Right had what, from the Republican standpoint, was a disappointing turnout. I, for one, would have thought you were crazy if you'd have told me before the election that about 7 million fewer White Protestants would turn out for this election than turned out for the last election with John McCain as the Republican candidate because I thought they'd be really anxious to get Obama out.

Who are the born agains going to vote for then?

[CID1990]

Face it
Republicans will never get out of peoples bedrooms
or remove themselves from standing in between us and our doctors
The Republican party will never stop believing that Evolution is some elaborate hippie plot
to control the minds of our children and Creationism is Real Science
The Republican party will never stop telling us we're a Christian Nation under Gods control
And that we need to be in the middle of every other country's military business

What you're talking about are called Libertarians / not / Republicans

Bullcrap.

I'm a Republican, and all I care about is fiscal and defensive strength.

I don't care who you fvck or what hole you put it in.

I don't know if Heysoose is the Son of the Big Guy or not.

I oppose selective abortion but I don't think it should be illegal.

I don't care what chemicals you put in your body, but I don't want to pay for your fvcking liver transplant and I don't want you to pay for mine, either.

The problem is, if I go to some faggoty cocktail party full of liberals that Chizzstain like to frequent looking for hairy hippy chicks, nobody there is going to agree with me on any point. But if I go to a cookout where they serve partially cooked but completely killed red meat full of conservatives, they are only going to disagree with me on a few points.

So unfortunately, the Republican Party is still where the majority of the people share SOME of my beliefs. I have absolutely nothing in common with liberals or the Democratic Party.

Just because I don't thump bibles or want make everybody else conform to my own moral compass doesn't mean I'm not a Republican.

[houndawg]

Face it
Republicans will never get out of peoples bedrooms
or remove themselves from standing in between us and our doctors
The Republican party will never stop believing that Evolution is some elaborate hippie plot
to control the minds of our children and Creationism is Real Science
The Republican party will never stop telling us we're a Christian Nation under Gods control
And that we need to be in the middle of every other country's military business

What you're talking about are called Libertarians / not / Republicans

Bullcrap.

I'm a Republican, and all I care about is fiscal and defensive strength.

I don't care who you fvck or what hole you put it in.

I don't know if Heysoose is the Son of the Big Guy or not.

I oppose selective abortion but I don't think it should be illegal.

I don't care what chemicals you put in your body, but I don't want to pay for your fvcking liver transplant and I don't want you to pay for mine, either.

The problem is, if I go to some faggoty cocktail party full of liberals that Chizzstain like to frequent looking for hairy hippy chicks, nobody there is going to agree with me on any point. But if I go to a cookout where they serve partially cooked but completely killed red meat full of conservatives, they are only going to disagree with me on a few points.

So unfortunately, the Republican Party is still where the majority of the people share SOME of my beliefs. I have absolutely nothing in common with liberals or the Democratic Party.

Just because I don't thump bibles or want make everybody else conform to my own moral compass doesn't mean I'm not a Republican.

It means exactly that to those who hold power in the party. You would be dismissed as a RINO.



And around here its wealthy Republicans who have faggoty cocktail parties and working class folk who BBQ, drink beer around a bonfire, voted for Obama, and pick bluegrass until the wee hours....

[houndawg]

You have to be the most out-of-touch person in these United States, John. Let uncle houndawg explain the facts of life for you: Candidates don't matter much anymore. The country is divided in half, one half is about hope and the other half is about fear and we each know which half we stand with.

The country is close to evenly divided with some people on each side who are going to vote Republican no matter what or Democrat no matter what. But there are people who flip back and forth for various reasons.

If image doesn't matter, why do you think little things that happen in debates are thought to matter so much? A lot of people, for instance, think that Richard Nixon won his debate with John Kennedy in terms of substance but lost in terms of public perception because he didn't wear makeup. And I guarantee you you're not going to see a candidate show up for a televised debate in today's world without makeup and whatever else is needed to cast as good an image as they can on television.

There's one reference to the Nixon/Kennedy debate at http://www.wafb.com/story/19723992/ther ... te-moments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

In the first televised presidential debate, Nixon refused makeup and was seen as nervous and tense compared to Kennedy, who did use makeup. However, many who listened on the radio 50 years ago believed Nixon won the debate, ushering in the requirement that candidates be telegenic.

Image matters. And I think you really know that it does.

It doesn't take much to change the outcome. Image changes things one way or another by a few percentage points. When one side has a highly charismatic candidate who knows how to play the camera that side wins.

And it's not about one side being about "hope" and the other being about "fear." Please. Both sides are largely about trying to make people fear and/or dislike the other side during campaigns. Both sides spend a lot of time trying to convince the people that bad things are going to happen if the other side wins. Also try to cultivate a negative impression of the opposing candidate. It's obvious. Can't miss it.

Sure it matters, some. But if it were all as important as you think, how come Romney lost the election after Obama stunk up the debates? In that case, according to your theory, the election was much closer than it should have been...

[kalm]

Bullcrap.

I'm a Republican, and all I care about is fiscal and defensive strength.

I don't care who you fvck or what hole you put it in.

I don't know if Heysoose is the Son of the Big Guy or not.

I oppose selective abortion but I don't think it should be illegal.

I don't care what chemicals you put in your body, but I don't want to pay for your fvcking liver transplant and I don't want you to pay for mine, either.

The problem is, if I go to some faggoty cocktail party full of liberals that Chizzstain like to frequent looking for hairy hippy chicks, nobody there is going to agree with me on any point. But if I go to a cookout where they serve partially cooked but completely killed red meat full of conservatives, they are only going to disagree with me on a few points.

So unfortunately, the Republican Party is still where the majority of the people share SOME of my beliefs. I have absolutely nothing in common with liberals or the Democratic Party.

Just because I don't thump bibles or want make everybody else conform to my own moral compass doesn't mean I'm not a Republican.

It means exactly that to those who hold power in the party. You would be dismissed as a RINO.



And around here its wealthy Republicans who have faggoty cocktail parties and working class folk who BBQ, drink beer around a bonfire, voted for Obama, and pick bluegrass until the wee hours....

I thought southerners tended to overcook their meat.

CID, you're social liberalism makes you have much in common with many Dems. Stereotype fail.

I like red meat.

[houndawg]

It means exactly that to those who hold power in the party. You would be dismissed as a RINO.



And around here its wealthy Republicans who have faggoty cocktail parties and working class folk who BBQ, drink beer around a bonfire, voted for Obama, and pick bluegrass until the wee hours....

I thought southerners tended to overcook their meat.

CID, you're social liberalism makes you have much in common with many Dems. Stereotype fail.

I like red meat.

You need to try some of the country's best BBQ, it's right here in Southern Illinois.

[kalm]

I thought southerners tended to overcook their meat.

CID, you're social liberalism makes you have much in common with many Dems. Stereotype fail.

I like red meat.

You need to try some of the country's best BBQ, it's right here in Southern Illinois.

I would like that.

[houndawg]

You need to try some of the country's best BBQ, it's right here in Southern Illinois.

I would like that.

Bring your Banjo...

[JohnStOnge]

Sure it matters, some. But if it were all as important as you think, how come Romney lost the election after Obama stunk up the debates? In that case, according to your theory, the election was much closer than it should have been...

Because there is more to the overall image situation than the debates. I just used the debates, and particularly the Kennedy/Nixon debate, to illustrate the general principle. Obama clearly had a substantial overall image advantage. He is more photogenic and telegenic. He looks more relaxed. He has a radio announcer's voice. He speaks well.

Surely you agree that Obama had the overall image advantage. Imagine if you knew nothing about the politics of the two at all and ask yourself which one comes off better just in terms of the way in which he looks and sounds on television. It's not even close. Just like it wasn't close between Reagan and Carter, wasn't close between Reagan and Mondale, wasn't close between Clinton and Bush the Elder, and wasn't close between Clinton and Bob Dole.

[JohnStOnge]

Yeah, the Republican Party should put their eggs back in that basket.

If they take actions that reduce then number of eggs in that basket in order to put eggs in the baskets you guys are talking about they're going to end up with fewer eggs. It's not going to get them notably more of the Black and Hispanic vote. Those groups already tend to be more "anti gay" and anti abortion than Whites are. They're not voting for Democrats and against Republicans for reasons related to those things. Frankly, I don't think it'd help them get many White voters who don't already vote for them either. I don't think there are a whole lot of people who voted against them this past week who would've voted for them if ONLY they didn't have a plank supporting traditional marriage in their platform or fielded a "pro choice" candidate. If you're talking pure political calculation, I think doing what you guys suggest would be a net negative for them. On balance, they'd get fewer rather than more votes.

Of course I don't think people should be basing their positions on political calculations anyway. If all you're doing is taking your position so as to maximize the number of votes you get...scientifically modeling what will get you the most votes regardless of what the positions that do that are...what is the point other than just to have power? We'd be better off if political parties and candidates state their positions then engage in making arguments for why their positions are correct. Then people can decide who to vote for. Why would people want "tell us what we want to hear then do what they want to do anyway" leaders. Heck even calling such people "leaders" is suspect.

[houndawg]

Sure it matters, some. But if it were all as important as you think, how come Romney lost the election after Obama stunk up the debates? In that case, according to your theory, the election was much closer than it should have been...

Because there is more to the overall image situation than the debates. I just used the debates, and particularly the Kennedy/Nixon debate, to illustrate the general principle. Obama clearly had a substantial overall image advantage. He is more photogenic and telegenic. He looks more relaxed. He has a radio announcer's voice. He speaks well.

Surely you agree that Obama had the overall image advantage. Imagine if you knew nothing about the politics of the two at all and ask yourself which one comes off better just in terms of the way in which he looks and sounds on television. It's not even close. Just like it wasn't close between Reagan and Carter, wasn't close between Reagan and Mondale, wasn't close between Clinton and Bush the Elder, and wasn't close between Clinton and Bob Dole.

I disagree that Obama is more photogenic than Romney, I don't think there is much difference in that way at all. Romney's problem was what he said, not how he said it. Which goes to the Republican Party being out of touch. These people were certain that they were going to win the Presidency and the Senate.

[JohnStOnge]

And around here its wealthy Republicans who have faggoty cocktail parties and working class folk who BBQ, drink beer around a bonfire, voted for Obama, and pick bluegrass until the wee hours...

That may be true where you live and I can't tell because they don't have State by State exit polls up. But if "working class" essentially means "middle class" the middle class overall tends to vote Republican in national elections. Not always. But most of the time. However; Democrats tend to get overwhelming support among the lower class (economically) and that gets them over the top.

They don't break it down enough this year to really be able to see it but what they do report is consistent with that. Households making less than $50,000 per year voted for Obama by 60% to 38%. Households making more than $50,000 per year voted for Romney 53% to 45%. To really see it they would need to break it down into more categories as they have in the past. Another reason why I'm disappointed in this year's exit poll display that's available.

[kalm]

And around here its wealthy Republicans who have faggoty cocktail parties and working class folk who BBQ, drink beer around a bonfire, voted for Obama, and pick bluegrass until the wee hours...

That may be true where you live and I can't tell because they don't have State by State exit polls up. But if "working class" essentially means "middle class" the middle class overall tends to vote Republican in national elections. Not always. But most of the time. However; Democrats tend to get overwhelming support among the lower class (economically) and that gets them over the top.

They don't break it down enough this year to really be able to see it but what they do report is consistent with that. Households making less than $50,000 per year voted for Obama by 60% to 38%. Households making more than $50,000 per year voted for Romney 53% to 45%. To really see it they would need to break it down into more categories as they have in the past. Another reason why I'm disappointed in this year's exit poll display that's available.

A majority of Americans support entitlement programs, gay marriage, pot legalization, increasing taxes on the wealthy to cut the deficit etc. America is a progressive nation that is given the choice to between a party that is "in action, center right (Democrats) and a party that is further right (Republicans).

[Chizzang]

Face it
Republicans will never get out of peoples bedrooms
or remove themselves from standing in between us and our doctors
The Republican party will never stop believing that Evolution is some elaborate hippie plot
to control the minds of our children and Creationism is Real Science
The Republican party will never stop telling us we're a Christian Nation under Gods control
And that we need to be in the middle of every other country's military business

What you're talking about are called Libertarians / not / Republicans

Bullcrap.

I'm a Republican, and all I care about is fiscal and defensive strength.

I don't care who you fvck or what hole you put it in.

I don't know if Heysoose is the Son of the Big Guy or not.

I oppose selective abortion but I don't think it should be illegal.

I don't care what chemicals you put in your body, but I don't want to pay for your fvcking liver transplant and I don't want you to pay for mine, either.

The problem is, if I go to some faggoty cocktail party full of liberals that Chizzstain like to frequent looking for hairy hippy chicks, nobody there is going to agree with me on any point. But if I go to a cookout where they serve partially cooked but completely killed red meat full of conservatives, they are only going to disagree with me on a few points.

So unfortunately, the Republican Party is still where the majority of the people share SOME of my beliefs. I have absolutely nothing in common with liberals or the Democratic Party.

Just because I don't thump bibles or want make everybody else conform to my own moral compass doesn't mean I'm not a Republican.

Yeah... that's all nice but
I'm talking about those running the Republican party...
not the 20% who are The Goldwaters like you (Thanks)
I'm talking about the ones who admit (Like Jeb Bush) That Reagan couldn't get through the primaries today

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

That may be true where you live and I can't tell because they don't have State by State exit polls up. But if "working class" essentially means "middle class" the middle class overall tends to vote Republican in national elections. Not always. But most of the time. However; Democrats tend to get overwhelming support among the lower class (economically) and that gets them over the top.

They don't break it down enough this year to really be able to see it but what they do report is consistent with that. Households making less than $50,000 per year voted for Obama by 60% to 38%. Households making more than $50,000 per year voted for Romney 53% to 45%. To really see it they would need to break it down into more categories as they have in the past. Another reason why I'm disappointed in this year's exit poll display that's available.

A majority of Americans support entitlement programs, gay marriage, pot legalization, increasing taxes on the wealthy to cut the deficit etc. America is a progressive nation that is given the choice to between a party that is "in action, center right (Democrats) and a party that is further right (Republicans).

Depends on were you live.

Everyone supports entitlements to some degree....how much support is the debate.

If your threshold for 'majority' is 50.1 % then maybe in some of your examples.

Hopefully with our increased tax burden coming Jan 1, 2013 that the gov will also cut gov spending....including entitlements.

[JohnStOnge]

I disagree that Obama is more photogenic than Romney, I don't think there is much difference in that way at all.

Well if you think that it astounds me but if you do we're just at the point where we have to agree to disagree. I am confident that if we could test it through polling I'd be shown to be correct in terms of the perceptions of a strong majority of the people but I doubt such polling is out there.

[JohnStOnge]

A majority of Americans support entitlement programs, gay marriage, pot legalization, increasing taxes on the wealthy to cut the deficit etc. America is a progressive nation that is given the choice to between a party that is "in action, center right (Democrats) and a party that is further right (Republicans).

I don't know if a majority of Americans are "progressive" on balance if "progressive" is defined as "liberal." I think polling suggests otherwise. Not that majorities don't support some positions that may be viewed as "progressive." Just on balance.

However, all I was pointing out in the post to which you responded is that the majority of the "middle class" or "working class" typically votes Republican. Not always. 2008 was an example of an exception. But most of the time. To avoid making this post even longer I won't type a bunch all of the numbers I could from past elections but if you look at exit polling results when more specific breakdowns than are available right now for this year you will see that those in the $30,000 - $100,000 household income group...which usually accounts for somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of voters, vote majority Republican.

As I said the breakdowns available in the exit polling results I have access to this time aren't detailed enough to get to the answer directly. But the breakdowns that ARE available are consistent with the typical pattern (middle 50 to 60 percent voted majority for the Republican).

And if you break it down further to "white middle class" I think it likely the Republican won among that group...probably by a substantial margin...even in 2008. That's because it was closer among that group than among the general population (52% to 48% for middle 54% income group vs. 53% to 46% overall) and McCain won among every group breakdown with a label starting with "White" except for White 18 to 29 year olds and White Democrats. That includes Whites overall (55% to 43%), White men (53% to 46%), White college grads (51% to 47%), Whites who didn't graduate from college (58% to 40%), and so on.

Basically, the idea that the Democrats are the party of Joe Middle Class Six Pack is a myth.

Instead, when it comes to income, the Democratic model for winning is consistent with its overall model for winning. It collects overwhelming support among minority groups that are perceived to be disadvantaged. In 2008, for example, Obama won by 66% to 34% among the 18% of voters who reported incomes of $30,000 or less per year. 2008 was atypical in that Obama also won among the middle 54% income wise. Most of the time they win among the lowest 20% or so in terms of income and lose among everybody else. But they get such a strong majority among that lowest 20% group that it either puts them over the top or gets them close because the majority the Republican gets among everybody else is far more modest. Just like Republicans always win among Whites in Presidential elections but Democrats win such strong majorities among minority groups that they either win or get close.

[JohnStOnge]

Another thing. This one will be relatively short. People are sitting around acting like this is some big catastrophe for Republicans. Like they need to do something dramatically different and throw their principles to the wind. But the reality is that every national election is close in objective terms pertaining to the popular vote. Obama won the Presidential election by 53% to 46% in 2008. In 2010, the national popular votes breakdown for House races was 51% Republican, 45% Democrat. This past week we had a Presidential election where the Democrat won by 51% to 48%. It's not like there's evidence of some big sea change either way.

Now, it's true that Republicans have a problem for the long term because of trends in ethnic demographics. Republicans win among Whites and Democrats win by overwhelming majorities among minority ethnic groups and the proportion of the population accounted for by what we call minority ethnic groups is increasing. But moderating on issues like homosexual marriage and abortion isn't going to help the Republicans there. If they want to find a way to stay competitive in the face of ethnic demographic trends they're going to have to find some other way to do it.

[death dealer]

You need to try some of the country's best BBQ, it's right here in Southern Illinois.

The hell you say!?! that can't be right, because its right up the street from my house, and I sure as hell ain't in Southern Illinothing!

[death dealer]

You need to try some of the country's best BBQ, it's right here in Southern Illinois.

I would like that.

Nah, come on down here to South Kakilaki and get some real BBQ. Whole hog and the sauce is vinegar based with a little mustard. Ketchup is for hamburgers.

[death dealer]

I would like that.

Bring your Banjo...

That must be universal to all BBQ. What we ought a do is have a cs.com BBQ contest! We could hold it on neutral territory where they don't have any BBQ, like western NC.

[Grizalltheway]

I would like that.

Nah, come on down here to South Kakilaki and get some real BBQ. Whole hog and the sauce is vinegar based with a little mustard. Ketchup is for hamburgers.

Hot damn. Is that invitation open to fans of all Big Sky schools?