Wow...Quote:
Originally Posted by cheguevara
How do you manage to survive with so few brain cells?
Printable View
Wow...Quote:
Originally Posted by cheguevara
How do you manage to survive with so few brain cells?
But but Obama was suppose to represent hope and change, not nope and the same.
13 Monkeys?
He did represent hope and change, change away from the murderous war criminals of 2001-2008. I think that was the huge enthusiasm, for Barry, or ANYBODY, who wasn't dubya/dickhead and their wars and system gaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob1983
Changing DC for the better (essentially impossible) and any changing in the momentum of Fed govt is extremely difficult, esp when the 1% and UCA own and operate Fed govt, and $1T+ operations like the MIC and NatSec are out of rich of the civilian govt.
Even badly damaged by the health industry, and public option excluded, ACA is damn near miraculous. Even Gecko had to climb down on his condemnation of ACA and say HIS replacemtn ACA would actually keep a lot of Barry's ACA, but while screwing sick people with no insurance.
In this election, 90% of self-identified Republicans will vote Romney, 90% of self-identified Democrats will vote Obama, and 55-60% of self-identified independents will vote Romney.
95% of blacks and 66% of Hispanics will vote Obama. Somwhere between 58% and 63% of whites will vote Romney.
It's not really possible for either candidate to exceed 52% of the popular vote. The outcome of the election depends on minority turnout and whether Romney's white support is on the high or low end.
In 2008, the voter demographic was 74% white, 13% black, 9% Hispanic, and 4% other. In 2010, it was 78% white, 10% black, 8% Hispanic, and 4% other. Much of the discrepancy in the polls comes from disagreement on whether the 2012 electorate will look A) like the 2008 electorate, or B) like something in between the 2008 and 2010 electorates.
If the electorate looks like 2008 and Romney's white support is closer to 58%, then Obama wins handily. If the electorate is halfway between 2008 and 2010 and Romney's white support is closer to 63%, then Romney wins.
Those white 5% in question are moderates in swing states who voted Obama in 2008. Romney's soft-sell "yeah he's a nice guy, but aren't you disappointed he didn't get the job done" schtick is aimed at them. The risk on the Romney side is that in making eyes at those voters he alienates the conservative base, whose turnout he needs.
Obama's strategy continues to be to drive for a low-turnout election where independents disenchanted with him sit it out and he rides his base to re-election. So far this is working. Maybe Romney can thread the needle and keep his base engaged while motivating the moderate independents to vote, but those groups are basically from different countries and I think to keep them together he would need to draw from a well of charisma he just doesn't have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hater
Those keys would apply if we had 1980 demographics in the U.S. If we had 1980 demographics, Romney would win in a landslide akin to Reagan vs. Carter.
But white people only make up 74-76% of the electorate, not 88%. And after decades of tribal sorting, the white vote is stratified by region; there is absolutely no way a Republican could ever win New York like Reagan did.
Black voters turn out in historically high numbers for Obama because he is black. Their vote is about identity; there is literally nothing Obama could do to lose their vote except kill them. If somehow he got the 13th Amendment overturned and re-instituted slavery, blacks would still vote for him 20 to 1 before the shackles went on.
Hispanics vote 2 to 1 for Democrats and have for decades. George W. Bush started to change that, narrowing the gap inside 3 to 2, but then when immigration reform blew up in 2006, and Hispanics realized anew that a quarter to a third of the Republican base hates them for being Hispanic, they went back to historical norms. Their vote is also about identity. The only caveat with Hispanics is that they are comparatively apolitical and have low turnout.
Add blacks and Hispanics together, and you have 18-22% of the electorate that is locked in at 83% Democratic. The only difference any of those above factors make is whether they comprise 18%, 22% or somewhere in between. Then you have the 4% other who vote usually 60% for Democats. What that means is that Republicans have to draw 60% or more of the white vote to break 50% total.
Given the size of the liberal base, if every single white independent in the country voted Republican, you're looking at 66%, which is what Reagan got among whites in 1984. If Romney does that well, and Republicans get their best-case scenario in terms of turnout demographics, Romney tops out at 55%. That is the maximum Republican vote possible with 100% of white independents voting Republican in 2012.
Republicans will never, ever get more than a sliver of the black vote because blacks quite frankly aren't on board with traditional American values. Hispanics will be tough because if the Republicans do anything to appeal to those voters, the nativists and racists in their base will go apeshit.
Unless the GOP figures out how to thread the needle and draw Hispanic voters without making the racists stay home on Election Day, their margin for error for winning elections is going to shrink to zero by 2020. With the GOP's southern white base then frustrated electorally, and a likely financial meltdown happening contemporaneously, they're going to look for other means besides elections to get their way, such as secession, domestic terrorism, etc.
whoever said it will be close is right. The strings have been pulling by the "minority" Neocon party(former Republican) to even the stakes. Voting suppression + Unlimited Corporation Campaign Contributions + Party cleansing + Voting Machines will make this a very, very close election.
But as usual, it's all smoke and mirrors, regardless who wins the american public will lose
How many innocent people have been killed because of drone attacks under Obama? Hasn't Obama used more drones on innocent people than evil dummy Bush ever did?
I'm sorry but I simply laugh at people that act like and defend their fantasy of Obama being a complete opposite of Bush. Obama and Bush are extremely similar on foreign policy and fighting the so-called war on terror. Just man up and admit that. I for one will at least respect you a little more because you showed some humility by admitting the truth.