The Face of the Republican Party

[SuperHornet]

Romney was elitist?!?

Romney wasn't the one fulminating at the mouth about Whole Foods as if EVERYONE went there....

[Grizalltheway]

Romney was elitist?!?

Romney wasn't the one fulminating at the mouth about Whole Foods as if EVERYONE went there....

Yeah, he was too busy trying to make $10,000 dollar bets.

[kalm]

Romney was elitist?!?

Romney wasn't the one fulminating at the mouth about Whole Foods as if EVERYONE went there....

I have no clue what you're talking about here so that probably makes two of us...

[JohnStOnge]

My opinion is the same as it's been since I started looking at the exit polling data. Romney's problem is that turnout among groups that typically vote majority opinion was down while turnout among groups that typically vote Democrat was up. I wrote about it once but I've looked at it more since then.

Starting off at the broadest level, the number of votes cast by Whites was about 5% lower (about 89 million vs. about 94 million) than it was in 2008 while the number of votes cast by non Whites was about 5% higher (about 34 million vs. about 33 million...doesn't look like about 5% but that's because I'm sticking to 2 significant figures in rounding).

Religion among Whites is next. About 9 percent fewer White Christians voted this time than last time (about 70 million vs. about 77 million). Meanwhile 12% MORE White non Christians, who consistently vote heavily Democrat, voted (18 million vs. 16 million).

People are over complicating things. Yes, in the long terms Republicans have to find a way to appeal to Hispanics and Asians because of changing demographics without compromising their core principles. But for this time the explanation is simple: Turnout was down among groups that typically vote Republican. Apparently, there were people who normally vote Republican who weren't that enthused about Romney.

If you're wondering why it was closer for Obama the explanation for that is pretty simple too. The Whites that did vote voted in greater proportion for the Republican this time. Last time it was Obama 43%, McCain 55% among Whites. This time it was Obama 39% Romney 59%.

One last thing on the youth vote: There's a White/non White thing there too. The majority of Whites 18 to 29 voted for Romney this time. At least the ones that voted. So as is the case with most of the stuff about "women" voting Democrat and "young people" voting Democrat it's not really as straightforward as that. As is the case with the electorate overall, it's White young people and White women voting Republican but not in great enough proportions to overcome the overwhelming majorities voting Democrat among non White young people and non White women.

[BlueHen86]

My opinion is the same as it's been since I started looking at the exit polling data. Romney's problem is that turnout among groups that typically vote majority opinion was down while turnout among groups that typically vote Democrat was up. I wrote about it once but I've looked at it more since then.

Starting off at the broadest level, the number of votes cast by Whites was about 5% lower (about 89 million vs. about 94 million) than it was in 2008 while the number of votes cast by non Whites was about 5% higher (about 34 million vs. about 33 million...doesn't look like about 5% but that's because I'm sticking to 2 significant figures in rounding).

Religion among Whites is next. About 9 percent fewer White Christians voted this time than last time (about 70 million vs. about 77 million). Meanwhile 12% MORE White non Christians, who consistently vote heavily Democrat, voted (18 million vs. 16 million).

People are over complicating things. Yes, in the long terms Republicans have to find a way to appeal to Hispanics and Asians because of changing demographics without compromising their core principles. But for this time the explanation is simple: Turnout was down among groups that typically vote Republican. Apparently, there were people who normally vote Republican who weren't that enthused about Romney.

If you're wondering why it was closer for Obama the explanation for that is pretty simple too. The Whites that did vote voted in greater proportion for the Republican this time. Last time it was Obama 43%, McCain 55% among Whites. This time it was Obama 39% Romney 59%.

One last thing on the youth vote: There's a White/non White thing there too. The majority of Whites 18 to 29 voted for Romney this time. At least the ones that voted. So as is the case with most of the stuff about "women" voting Democrat and "young people" voting Democrat it's not really as straightforward as that. As is the case with the electorate overall, it's White young people and White women voting Republican but not in great enough proportions to overcome the overwhelming majorities voting Democrat among non White young people and non White women.

That's all you needed to say.

[houndawg]

My opinion is the same as it's been since I started looking at the exit polling data. Romney's problem is that turnout among groups that typically vote majority opinion was down while turnout among groups that typically vote Democrat was up. I wrote about it once but I've looked at it more since then.

Starting off at the broadest level, the number of votes cast by Whites was about 5% lower (about 89 million vs. about 94 million) than it was in 2008 while the number of votes cast by non Whites was about 5% higher (about 34 million vs. about 33 million...doesn't look like about 5% but that's because I'm sticking to 2 significant figures in rounding).

Religion among Whites is next. About 9 percent fewer White Christians voted this time than last time (about 70 million vs. about 77 million). Meanwhile 12% MORE White non Christians, who consistently vote heavily Democrat, voted (18 million vs. 16 million).

People are over complicating things. Yes, in the long terms Republicans have to find a way to appeal to Hispanics and Asians because of changing demographics without compromising their core principles. But for this time the explanation is simple: Turnout was down among groups that typically vote Republican. Apparently, there were people who normally vote Republican who weren't that enthused about Romney.

If you're wondering why it was closer for Obama the explanation for that is pretty simple too. The Whites that did vote voted in greater proportion for the Republican this time. Last time it was Obama 43%, McCain 55% among Whites. This time it was Obama 39% Romney 59%.

One last thing on the youth vote: There's a White/non White thing there too. The majority of Whites 18 to 29 voted for Romney this time. At least the ones that voted. So as is the case with most of the stuff about "women" voting Democrat and "young people" voting Democrat it's not really as straightforward as that. As is the case with the electorate overall, it's White young people and White women voting Republican but not in great enough proportions to overcome the overwhelming majorities voting Democrat among non White young people and non White women.

"....without compromising their core principles"


translation: No Darkies


Have you tried your act over at Stormfront yet, John? I think you'll find receptive audience.

[JohnStOnge]

translation: No Darkies.

No. They should welcome "Darkies" but only if they convince those "Darkies" to agree with them on core principles. Majorities of "Darkies" already do agree with them on some of the flashpoint issues. Abortion is an example. But there are core principles.

Like they shouldn't abandon defense of the right of the unborn to live. They shouldn't change their position on illegal immigration. They should not adopt the "hitch the wagon to 'the rich' and let them pull it" mentality of the Democratic Party. They should not succumb to irrational environmentalism (as in destroying the coal industry because of the climate change thing). So on and so forth.

I think that one problem is, in spite of the protestations of the author of the linked article, overwhelming majorities of Blacks and HIspanics really do want handouts. I think they want handouts both in monetary terms as well as in policy terms through application of policies such as affirmative action. With respect to Hispanics it's not that they don't work hard. They do. But on average they don't make a lot of money doing it so, I think, they do want government assistance programs, government health care, and so on. I think they also want preferential treatment with respect to things like getting into college. And they support things that help illegal immigrant members of their ethnic group such as some States allowing illegal immigrants to pay in-State tuition at State universities.

Something like opposing allowing children of illegal immigrants to attend college in the United States at all, much less do it while paying in-State tuition, is the right thing to do. But it will hack Hispanics off.

The Democratic Party is the Candy Man. That gives it the advantage among disadvantaged groups. And the Republican Party should not do the wrong things....try to be Candy Man 2...in order to win those votes. If that means the Republican Party loses ground so be it. If it's going to be a Candy Man like the Democratic Party is there is really no reason for it to be in power anyway.

[JohnStOnge]

Have you tried your act over at Stormfront

Right now I don't know what Stormfront is but at some point I will look it up.

OK I did. Look, the post to which you responded in that comment was simply an analysis of how groups that have historically voted in majorities of the two parties turned out this time. I did not make it so that there is an obvious dichotomy whereby the majority of Whites vote for the Republicans and the majority of non Whites vote Democrat. And when I tell you it's more race than things like gender and age group that's just the truth.

As I've written in previous posts: No Democratic candidate for President has won the majority of the White vote for at least as far back as Nixon vs. McGovern in 1972. With respect to the gender vote, I don't think any Democrat has won the majority of the vote among White women during that period either. I think Clinton got somewhat more than Bush the elder and Dole but not the majority because Perot siphoned off a lot of the White vote in general as well as the White female vote in particular. White young people aren't quite as conistent. They did vote majority Obama last time. But not this time and not usually.

On the other side, while I'd have to get on my own computer to get to the link I have to historical exit poll results to be absolutely sure, I don't think any Republican has won the majority of the non White vote in all that time either. I do recall looking at the Black vote and it has always been OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of the Democratic candidate. Usually somewhere around 90% plus or minus a few points.

It's just the obvious truth. That's why the Democratic Party was breathlessly watching the exit polls to see if they indicated that no more than 72% of the vote would be White. I heard that Kristen Powers talking about that in the afternoon of the election day. She's a Democrat and she predicted early on that Obama won because of exit polling data showing that the White vote was limited to within the range the Obama team hoped it would be.

[kalm]

translation: No Darkies.

But there are core principles.

They should not adopt the "hitch the wagon to 'the rich' and let them pull it" mentality of the Democratic Party.

I think that one problem is, in spite of the protestations of the author of the linked article, overwhelming majorities of Blacks and HIspanics really do want handouts.

The Democratic Party is the Candy Man. That gives it the advantage among disadvantaged groups. And the Republican Party should not do the wrong things....try to be Candy Man 2...in order to win those votes. If that means the Republican Party loses ground so be it. If it's going to be a Candy Man like the Democratic Party is there is really no reason for it to be in power anyway.

I think this has been brought up before but average annual spending under Obama has increased at a lower rate than Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan. Yet taxes on the rich have remained low. It's a virtual conk wet dream. Slow spending, cut taxes, hop in the wagon and it's "gitty up" time for the rich! Now where are all those jobs and where's that debt reduction?

No one wants a handout John. Even the parasites on welfare dream of getting out of it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -lowest-s/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnStOnge]

I think this has been brought up before but average annual spending under Obama has increased at a lower rate than Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan.

I just scanned that quickly but I think that's a classic example of "lying with statistics." First of all, it used "percent increase" rather than just increase.

Let's say that I go from 0 to 60 in 20 seconds (I'm a cautious driver). I have accelerated at a rate of 3 mph per second. Then let's say I get cocky and go from 60 to 80 in another 4 seconds. I have increased my rate of acceleration to 5 mph per second. I accelerated faster over the last 4 seconds than I did over the first 20. No doubt about it.

But if I use the "percent increase" trick and can try to claim that I didn't. Well, I have to get rid of the zero because i can't divide by that. So I'll say I went from 1 to 61 over the first 20 seconds. My speed increased by 6000 percent. So my average rate of acceleration in percent terms was 300 percent per second! Then I say I went from 61 to 81 over the next 4 seconds. My speed increased by only 33 percent. So my average rate was only about 8 percent per second. Voila! I have shown that I accelerated at MUCH faster rate over the first 20 seconds than I did over the last 4!

Only I know I didn't. I definitely accelerated at a higher rate over the final 4 seconds. I tried to lie about that with statistics. And that will work as long as nobody actually takes a close look at what I did and understands the effect of it.

The other thing...and this one I'm not as sure about...is it looks like they start by not assigning the first year of a presidency to a given President. And that's fair in a sense. But what it does is raise the baseline. Let's say you have an operation and someone, over four consecutive weeks, spends $100, $110, $120, and $130 on a certain cost item. Then he decides to give notice, says "what the heck" and fixes it so the next guy will have to spend $1000 during the fifth week.

It's correct to say the next guy shouldn't be judged on the basis of the $1,000 week We should assign that to the guy before him. But suppose the next guy spends $2,100 the next week after that then $3,500 the week after that then $6000 the week after that?

The next guy accelerated spending to a greater extent than the first guy ever did because the highest increase created by the first guy was $870 while the second guy increased spending by $1,100 , $1,400, then $2,500. No question he accelerated spending to a greater extent.

But here's comes the percent change trick again combined with using a higher baseline. So we say that the first guy accelerated spending at an average rate of 1083% per week while our hero who took over after him only accelerated it at on 1.8% per week! That's because, in addition to the benefit of using the "percent increase" trick, he gets the benefit of starting off at a much higher starting point ($1,000) so that the numerator in all subsequent percent change calculations is large.

What you have here is Democrat partisans coming up with a way to create a false impression. Very false.

[kalm]

I think this has been brought up before but average annual spending under Obama has increased at a lower rate than Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan.

I just scanned that quickly but I think that's a classic example of "lying with statistics." First of all, it used "percent increase" rather than just increase.

Let's say that I go from 0 to 60 in 20 seconds (I'm a cautious driver). I have accelerated at a rate of 3 mph per second. Then let's say I get cocky and go from 60 to 80 in another 4 seconds. I have increased my rate of acceleration to 5 mph per second. I accelerated faster over the last 4 seconds than I did over the first 20. No doubt about it.

But if I use the "percent increase" trick and can try to claim that I didn't. Well, I have to get rid of the zero because i can't divide by that. So I'll say I went from 1 to 61 over the first 20 seconds. My speed increased by 6000 percent. So my average rate of acceleration in percent terms was 300 percent per second! Then I say I went from 61 to 81 over the next 4 seconds. My speed increased by only 33 percent. So my average rate was only about 8 percent per second. Voila! I have shown that I accelerated at MUCH faster rate over the first 20 seconds than I did over the last 4!

Only I know I didn't. I definitely accelerated at a higher rate over the final 4 seconds. I tried to lie about that with statistics. And that will work as long as nobody actually takes a close look at what I did and understands the effect of it.

The other thing...and this one I'm not as sure about...is it looks like they start by not assigning the first year of a presidency to a given President. And that's fair in a sense. But what it does is raise the baseline. Let's say you have an operation and someone, over four consecutive weeks, spends $100, $110, $120, and $130 on a certain cost item. Then he decides to give notice, says "what the heck" and fixes it so the next guy will have to spend $1000 during the fifth week.

It's correct to say the next guy shouldn't be judged on the basis of the $1,000 week We should assign that to the guy before him. But suppose the next guy spends $2,100 the next week after that then $3,500 the week after that then $6000 the week after that?

The next guy accelerated spending to a greater extent than the first guy ever did because the highest increase created by the first guy was $870 while the second guy increased spending by $1,100 , $1,400, then $2,500. No question he accelerated spending to a greater extent.

But here's comes the percent change trick again combined with using a higher baseline. So we say that the first guy accelerated spending at an average rate of 1083% per week while our hero who took over after him only accelerated it at on 1.8% per week! That's because, in addition to the benefit of using the "percent increase" trick, he gets the benefit of starting off at a much higher starting point ($1,000) so that the numerator in all subsequent percent change calculations is large.

What you have here is Democrat partisans coming up with a way to create a false impression. Very false.

Politifact is pretty damn not partisan. I honestly didn't read the rest of your post.

[JohnStOnge]

No one wants a handout John. Even the parasites on welfare dream of getting out of it.

Yes they dream of getting out of being low income. But there are a lot of people who feel that they are entitled to handouts while they're there. We theoretically could do an experiment. Not in reality but make it a mental exercise. Suppose we cut the spigot off instantaneously tomorrow. Issuance of all assistance checks to low income individuals ceases immediately. No more food stamps (or food stamp debit cards). No more Aid to Families with Dependent Children. No more Medicaid. No more welfare.

How do you think the majority of the people now receiving those things would react? Do you think we might see some indication that they think they are entitled to such things? Think maybe it might not only be the majority but the overwhelming majority who react that way?

Think we might see social unrest?

[JohnStOnge]

Politifact is pretty damn not partisan. I honestly didn't read the rest of your post.

You really should read at least the paragraphs I'm going to quote below so you can see how the "percent change" trick works in a situation like this. That article was my first exposure to Politifact. But I assumed partisanship because the "percent change" trick is commonly used so I'd think someone would pick up on it. I would've thought an objective commentator would write something along the lines of what I'm going to quote below because it really is very obvious to me. But perhaps it was an honest mistake.

Let's say that I go from 0 to 60 in 20 seconds (I'm a cautious driver). I have accelerated at a rate of 3 mph per second. Then let's say I get cocky and go from 60 to 80 in another 4 seconds. I have increased my rate of acceleration to 5 mph per second. I accelerated faster over the last 4 seconds than I did over the first 20. No doubt about it.

But if I use the "percent increase" trick and can try to claim that I didn't. Well, I have to get rid of the zero because i can't divide by that. So I'll say I went from 1 to 61 over the first 20 seconds. My speed increased by 6000 percent. So my average rate of acceleration in percent terms was 300 percent per second! Then I say I went from 61 to 81 over the next 4 seconds. My speed increased by only 33 percent. So my average rate was only about 8 percent per second. Voila! I have shown that I accelerated at MUCH faster rate over the first 20 seconds than I did over the last 4!

Only I know I didn't. I definitely accelerated at a higher rate over the final 4 seconds. I tried to lie about that with statistics. And that will work as long as nobody actually takes a close look at what I did and understands the effect of it.

[Ibanez]

Face it, the Republican Party will increasingly lose influence and power unless they learn to accept the fact that women should have control over thier bodies, it is cheaper and better to give illegal immigrants a safe path to citizenship aka get them out of hiding and on a path, realize that tax increases are sometimes necessary, gays are not evil and that they (the GOP) has no right to be involved in anyones love life. The GOP has to stand up to the American Taliban (Tea Party) and squash thier hate fueled, no comprimising hold on the party.

If they don't, we might see the Libertarian Party actually rise.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Face it, the Republican Party will increasingly lose influence and power unless they learn to accept the fact that women should have control over thier bodies, it is cheaper and better to give illegal immigrants a safe path to citizenship aka get them out of hiding and on a path, realize that tax increases are sometimes necessary, gays are not evil and that they (the GOP) has no right to be involved in anyones love life. The GOP has to stand up to the American Taliban (Tea Party) and squash thier hate fueled, no comprimising hold on the party.

If they don't, we might see the Libertarian Party actually rise.

Not every woman is pro-choice in this country....probably not even 50%

Not every American wants millions of illegals to keep coming to this country "looking" for work then living off taxpayer's pocketbook.

Not everyone in America or the GOP for that matter, thinks gays are evil.

American Taliban...good one. Just like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace or any other lefty group.

People will vote Rep again when they get tired of working so others do not have to.

[Ibanez]

Face it, the Republican Party will increasingly lose influence and power unless they learn to accept the fact that women should have control over thier bodies, it is cheaper and better to give illegal immigrants a safe path to citizenship aka get them out of hiding and on a path, realize that tax increases are sometimes necessary, gays are not evil and that they (the GOP) has no right to be involved in anyones love life. The GOP has to stand up to the American Taliban (Tea Party) and squash thier hate fueled, no comprimising hold on the party.

If they don't, we might see the Libertarian Party actually rise.

Not every woman is pro-choice in this country....probably not even 50%

Not every American wants millions of illegals to keep coming to this country "looking" for work then living off taxpayer's pocketbook.

Not everyone in America or the GOP for that matter, thinks gays are evil.

American Taliban...good one. Just like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace or any other lefty group.

People will vote Rep again when they get tired of working so others do not have to.

The GOPs message is anti women, anti-gay. I didn't say let illegals come in. Halt all immigration and let it be known that if you are illegally in the country, you can come to a certain station, get registered so that you can A) not live inthe shadows B) be legal in the country, therefore you can get a higher wage and yes pay taxes C) put you on a path to citizenship. They are here, so let's collect the info, make them feel safe and all that money they take..lets tax it. The GOP is out of touch.

"Ideological purity, compromise as weakness, a fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism, denying science, unmoved by facts, undeterred by new information, a hostile fear of progress, a demonization of education, a need to control women’s bodies, severe xenophobia, tribal mentality, intolerance of dissent and a pathological hatred of the U.S. government" Who does this sound like?

Spoiler: show

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY[/youtube] I know it's a TV Show, but it is pretty spot on.

You did nothing to defend the statements. The Tea Party has booted out Republicans who comprimise. They refuse to comprimise. They hold dearly to scripture in a secular government and ignore facts that go against thier sun god. They hate gays and don't want women to have control over thier bodies.

[dbackjon]

[quote=JohnStOnge]My opinion is the same as it's been since I started looking at the exit polling data. Romney's problem is that turnout among groups that typically vote majority opinion was down while turnout among groups that typically vote Democrat was up. I wrote about it once but I've looked at it more since then.[/quote]


That is your problem - the Republican issues are NOT majority opinions anymore.

Most Americans don't want abortion illegal.
A Majority of Americans now support Gay Marriage
A Majority of Americans want a pathway to citizenship.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Not every woman is pro-choice in this country....probably not even 50%

Not every American wants millions of illegals to keep coming to this country "looking" for work then living off taxpayer's pocketbook.

Not everyone in America or the GOP for that matter, thinks gays are evil.

American Taliban...good one. Just like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace or any other lefty group.

People will vote Rep again when they get tired of working so others do not have to.

The GOPs message is anti women, anti-gay. I didn't say let illegals come in. Halt all immigration and let it be known that if you are illegally in the country, you can come to a certain station, get registered so that you can A) not live inthe shadows B) be legal in the country, therefore you can get a higher wage and yes pay taxes C) put you on a path to citizenship. They are here, so let's collect the info, make them feel safe and all that money they take..lets tax it. The GOP is out of touch.

"Ideological purity, compromise as weakness, a fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism, denying science, unmoved by facts, undeterred by new information, a hostile fear of progress…" Who does this sound like?

Spoiler: show

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY[/youtube] I know it's a TV Show, but it is pretty spot on.

You did nothing to defend it the statements.

Pro-choice is anti-woman? That is news to me. Are you referencing birth control and being anti-woman?

I agree with the anti-gay part as a party nation-wide. I do not agree with this lifestyle but it is not the 'boogie-man' IMO. Let them marry or have 'civil unions' or whatever they want to call it. I doesn't hurt me in any way.

Immigration.....damn right halt it. I agree with the point on the ones here already but we cannot afford to have millions keep coming in.

[Ibanez]

The GOPs message is anti women, anti-gay. I didn't say let illegals come in. Halt all immigration and let it be known that if you are illegally in the country, you can come to a certain station, get registered so that you can A) not live inthe shadows B) be legal in the country, therefore you can get a higher wage and yes pay taxes C) put you on a path to citizenship. They are here, so let's collect the info, make them feel safe and all that money they take..lets tax it. The GOP is out of touch.

"Ideological purity, compromise as weakness, a fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism, denying science, unmoved by facts, undeterred by new information, a hostile fear of progress…" Who does this sound like?

Spoiler: show

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY[/youtube] I know it's a TV Show, but it is pretty spot on.

You did nothing to defend it the statements.

Pro-choice is anti-woman? That is news to me. Are you referencing birth control and being anti-woman?

I agree with the anti-gay part as a party nation-wide. I do not agree with this lifestyle but it is not the 'boogie-man' IMO. Let them marry or have 'civil unions' or whatever they want to call it. I doesn't hurt me in any way.

Immigration.....damn right halt it. I agree with the point on the ones here already but we cannot afford to have millions keep coming in.

Repulicans are not Pro-Choice. They are Pro-Life. They want to dictate womens health and in same cases it's lethal. Take for example what has happened in Ireland, where abortion is illegal. A woman was found to be going through a miscarriage. The doctors knew it yet she wasn't allowed to abort the baby. She died three days later. What if this was your daughter? Or sister? Or wife? You aren't aborting the child b/c it's unwanted...you're aborting because it's dead. But, Republicans don't want this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/no ... on-refusal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree with you on Gays. They don't impact my life or my marriage. They don't harm the sanctity of marriage. Celebs being married ofr 48 hours, adulterers (sp.), teens marrying b/c they are pregnant only to divorce later, people on their 4th marriage ruin the sanctity of marriage.

Immigration- halt it for a year. Lets the illegals currently in country come out of hiding, get registered. They are here for money. So, let them know that by being citizens they will be allowed to have more pay. Stop working in the fields or hiding behind Lowes waiting for a contractor. Get registered and a special SSN, then you can go to any business and apply. Since you are a documented worker you can get minimum wage and purchase health insurance. IF you are a felon, well we deport you. On top of that, set a penalty that can be drawn out for say a decade and is garnished from thier taxes. The Special SSN will trigger the IRS system who they are and thier status. Once they've become citizens, they are assigned a new number. It's an idea but hey, what's the alternative?

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I meant pro-life....my fault.

Your immigration example is a start, IMO.

The abortion issue.....I don't not believe in it as a form of birth control. But it needs to be an option for the woman in cases of rape, incest, or her life is in danger. 54 million have been done since Rowe v Wade....most have been birth control mistakes not rape-incest or the woman's life was in danger. I have 2 daughters and if they were raped or their life was in danger, I would want that available to them. But I would not want them to abort a life just because they made a 'bad choice' out at a party one night. IMO, abortion should be available to women but being more restrictive.

[Ibanez]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I meant pro-life....my fault.

Your immigration example is a start, IMO.

The abortion issue.....I don't not believe in it as a form of birth control. But it needs to be an option for the woman in cases of rape, incest, or her life is in danger. 54 million have been done since Rowe v Wade....most have been birth control mistakes not rape-incest or the woman's life was in danger. I have 2 daughters and if they were raped or their life was in danger, I would want that available to them. But I would not want them to abort a life just because they made a 'bad choice' out at a party one night. IMO, abortion should be available to women but being more restrictive.

No worries. I agree with abortion however, if my teenage daughter got knocked up i would want her to abort. 17yr olds shouldn't be raising babies. They lack the maturity and that baby will be at a disadvantage. If she wanted to keep it, I'd support her(she my little girl, why wouldn't I) but I'd make sure she knew it won't be easy. My wife and I would be willing to help and make sure she continues her education but how many pregnant teens have that luxury?

[JohnStOnge]

Face it, the Republican Party will increasingly lose influence and power unless they learn to accept the fact that women should have control over thier bodies, it is cheaper and better to give illegal immigrants a safe path to citizenship aka get them out of hiding and on a path, realize that tax increases are sometimes necessary, gays are not evil and that they (the GOP) has no right to be involved in anyones love life. The GOP has to stand up to the American Taliban (Tea Party) and squash thier hate fueled, no comprimising hold on the party.

If they don't, we might see the Libertarian Party actually rise.

What you're saying is they should compromise their core principles.

On homosexuals: I don't know how to get it across to you people that nobody wants to be involved in anybody's love life. Defining marriage as being between one man and one woman isn't interfering with any homosexual's love life just like it's not interfering with the love life of someone who wants to live in a ménage à trois relationship. It's not saying anybody can't DO whatever they want to do in their love life.

It's just saying the society has set up a definition for a particular institution. And if the society does that at all some relationships will be excluded from the recognition. I know I have written that a lot because it just seems to go in one ear and out the other. And I'm sure it'll happen again this time. But good GRIEF defining marriage in a particular way is NOT interfering in anybody's love live, denying anybody liberty, or denying anybody any rights.

[kalm]

My opinion is the same as it's been since I started looking at the exit polling data. Romney's problem is that turnout among groups that typically vote majority opinion was down while turnout among groups that typically vote Democrat was up. I wrote about it once but I've looked at it more since then.

That is your problem - the Republican issues are NOT majority opinions anymore.

Most Americans don't want abortion illegal.
A Majority of Americans now support Gay Marriage
A Majority of Americans want a pathway to citizenship.

...pro entitlement programs
Anti-war
anti-patriot act
pro weed

The list goes on and on. The country as a whole is clearly to the left of the Republcian Party...and it ain't just about race.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I meant pro-life....my fault.

Your immigration example is a start, IMO.

The abortion issue.....I don't not believe in it as a form of birth control. But it needs to be an option for the woman in cases of rape, incest, or her life is in danger. 54 million have been done since Rowe v Wade....most have been birth control mistakes not rape-incest or the woman's life was in danger. I have 2 daughters and if they were raped or their life was in danger, I would want that available to them. But I would not want them to abort a life just because they made a 'bad choice' out at a party one night. IMO, abortion should be available to women but being more restrictive.

No worries. I agree with abortion however, if my teenage daughter got knocked up i would want her to abort. 17yr olds shouldn't be raising babies. They lack the maturity and that baby will be at a disadvantage. If she wanted to keep it, I'd support her(she my little girl, why wouldn't I) but I'd make sure she knew it won't be easy. My wife and I would be willing to help and make sure she continues her education but how many pregnant teens have that luxury?

I agree with that. Teenagers are not mature enough to have babies. But there is also adoption.

I would do the same with supporting her if she decided to keep it. Education is the path out of poverty.

Ya, most teens do not have that support system.

[Ibanez]

Face it, the Republican Party will increasingly lose influence and power unless they learn to accept the fact that women should have control over thier bodies, it is cheaper and better to give illegal immigrants a safe path to citizenship aka get them out of hiding and on a path, realize that tax increases are sometimes necessary, gays are not evil and that they (the GOP) has no right to be involved in anyones love life. The GOP has to stand up to the American Taliban (Tea Party) and squash thier hate fueled, no comprimising hold on the party.

If they don't, we might see the Libertarian Party actually rise.

What you're saying is they should compromise their core principles.

On homosexuals: I don't know how to get it across to you people that nobody wants to be involved in anybody's love life. Defining marriage as being between one man and one woman isn't interfering with any homosexual's love life just like it's not interfering with the love life of someone who wants to live in a ménage à trois relationship. It's not saying anybody can't DO whatever they want to do in their love life.

It's just saying the society has set up a definition for a particular institution. And if the society does that at all some relationships will be excluded from the recognition. I know I have written that a lot because it just seems to go in one ear and out the other. And I'm sure it'll happen again this time. But good GRIEF defining marriage in a particular way is NOT interfering in anybody's love live, denying anybody liberty, or denying anybody any rights.

You're so fucking ignornant. Telling Gay People they can't marry IS telling them what they can't do. Admit it John, you hate gay people. If you Republicans weren't so hateful, then you wouldhave no problem giving gay couples the same rights as straight couples. However, you believe it is wrong and therefore you are against it. You are dictating someones life. Goverment, good or bad, dictates people lives.