![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
dwer.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSo, I know, I know. It's Glenn Beck. We expect the whacko from him. And, of course, he's got every right to speak his mind; I certainly don't think he should be censored.
But at what point does he become responsible for the actions of people who follow his advice?
Buy farmland. Move to places where everyone is like you. Buy guns. Buy ammunition. And then... what? It's not like enclaving really works long term. Eventually, one of two things will happen.
1) After Obama's term ends without the world doing the same, maybe some of these people will pull their heads out and say "why did we listen to that guy?"
2) Someone provokes an incident.
The message sent by the American people this election was quite clear. The President won a resounding electoral victory and beat his opponent by more votes than Bush beat Kerry. Every competitive senate race save for one was taken by the democrats, and these aren't blue-dogs we're talking about; these are real progressive liberals like Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin. And while the GOP retained the House, they did lose seats, and more people voted for Democratic Congresspeople than Republicans.
It was a fundamental rejection of GOP ideology. It was a rejection of the rape brigade, a rejection of the Ryan budget plan, a rejection of the concepts of the Makers and Takers, a rejection of the concept of the 47%, a rejection of conservative definitions of marriage, women, LGBTQ, race, immigration and drug law.
But the GOP doesn't seem to want to believe it. The constant refrain of "Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed" continues to sing in their ears, drowning out anything resembling the truth, which is that they lost and they lost big, and then they turn to people like Glenn Beck, and he tells them to buy farms, move to where everyone is like you, and get more guns.
Or this guy, who advocates cutting EVERY democrat in your life out of that life, to the point where he doesn't know if he'd rescue a democrat who was drowning, and thinks that he can get better brain surgery in Mexico than from a US brain surgeon who happened to vote differently than he did.
Or these people who think that losing an election is a national emergency so they, who so often rail about how burning the flag is treasonous, fly their flags upside down to indicate distress.
At their McDonalds.
And why do they do this?
Because they've been lied to, by the guy at the top of this post. By Rush. By Karl Rove. By http://www.unskewedpolls.com By every pundit who insisted that Nate Silver was cheating. Hell, GOP donors are angry because they were assured, ASSURED, I TELL YOU, that Romney was going to win based on bad data using bad algorithms, and a campaign that wasn't going to be dictated to by facts.
So what responsibility to these people have to tell the truth, I wonder? Of course, I think they should tell the truth. There are reasonable arguments to be made on policy. There are reasonable disagreements to have. I just wish we could see more of that, and less insistence that Obama is a kenyan radical christian muslim nazi communist.
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 04:58 (UTC)What makes you think the base showed up in 2008?
Hmm? We have more gay marriage and even some weed legislation. Seems pretty progressive to me. Citizens only vote on state issues, not Congressional ones.
Seems more libertarian to me, but to each their own.
Anyhow, your point about the Republicans needing to run a 'true' conservative to win has no basis since you don't believe they've actually run one in the past 50 years
Your words, certainly not mine.
The Republican party needs to appeal to new demographics, not listen to you.
The Republican Party simply needs to appeal to its own core demographics. It ain't hard.
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 05:56 (UTC)Well if they didn't show up in 2008, then they have never showed up. I think the Republicans should plan for actual voters, not mythical creatures.
Seems more libertarian to me, but to each their own.
Socially, libertarians and progressives are not very different. When it comes to the economy, they differ. But this is a moot point, since libertarians will never hold any real power in this country.
Your words, certainly not mine.
Okay, who was the last conservative President?
The Republican Party simply needs to appeal to its own core demographics. It ain't hard.
Its increasingly-shrinking core demographics. Since Obama isn't running in 2016, I don't think their 'not Obama' strategy is going to work. Well good luck to them, I actually don't want to give them anymore advice so they can continue their death spiral.
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 13:01 (UTC)This does not answer the question.
Okay, who was the last conservative President?
Probably Clinton.
Its increasingly-shrinking core demographics.
That's the left wing spin on it, sure.
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 16:03 (UTC)Yes it does. Maybe you can clear up this mystery and answer me yourself, then.
Probably Clinton.
Hillary 2016!
That's the left wing spin on it, sure.
88% of Romney's voters were white. 54% of Obama's voters were white. More people voted for Obama in the 18-45 age bracket.
Where is the spin? Republicans can't just rely on the old white vote anymore.
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 17:01 (UTC)I'm not sure where the idea that the base showed up in 2008 is. The numbers don't seem to bear it out (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/173444/mccain-base-and-turnout/byron-york).
Where is the spin? Republicans can't just rely on the old white vote anymore.
They can, they just need to get them to the polls.
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 19:06 (UTC)McCain got 60 million. Bush got 62 million. Assuming the base showed in 2004 (If they didn't, then the gap of voters doesn't exist since the numbers get smaller and smaller 2000 and back), then McCain got 96% of Bush's votes. Considering how minorities and independents broke for Obama in 2008, you might even say McCain got more of the base than Bush did.
They can, they just need to get them to the polls.
Like I said before, I don't think there's anyone left to go to the polls. The amount of 45+ white voters aren't going to increase significantly by 2016. You vastly over-estimate the 'true conservative' sleeping beast.
But by all means, I encourage the GOP to stay the course for another 4 years. I'm sure saying that minorities and women voted for Obama because they wanted 'free stuff' is a fantastic rallying cry to get them to your side.
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 19:10 (UTC)So your position is "the base showed up because the base showed up." Okay.
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 19:38 (UTC)Also, your point about the House is effectively null and void, because the only reason so few seats switched is because of gerrymandering, because Democrats actually won the popular vote for the House. So tell me more about this right-ward shift.
Source: http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/09/the-new-house-with-less-democracy/
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 19:49 (UTC)Also, your point about the House is effectively null and void, because the only reason so few seats switched is because of gerrymandering, because Democrats actually won the popular vote for the House. So tell me more about this right-ward shift.
That, of course, is not how the House works. But good on you for misunderstanding even the most basic points of our government to continue to advocate for a nonsensical point, I suppose.
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 00:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 01:48 (UTC)It can't be discounted, but if there's truly a leftward shift, it would actually show in the data. Vote shares don't show it, and Obama having longer coattails doesn't show it, either.
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 01:39 (UTC)So we're just ignoring your own point about independents and minorities that I'm using to bridge the 2 million gap between McCain and Bush.
That, of course, is not how the House works. But good on you for misunderstanding even the most basic points of our government to continue to advocate for a nonsensical point, I suppose.
I don't know if you've ever had a real discussion before with physical human beings, but generally if you're planning to contradict them in a meaningful fashion, you should actually provide evidence for your assertions. We're not getting anywhere if all your responses are just "no ur wrong k thx".
The Dems won the popular vote for the House in 2012. This is a fact.
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 01:52 (UTC)Where did I use that point?
The Dems won the popular vote for the House in 2012. This is a fact.
And the House isn't won via popular vote, so it's not how it works, and by hanging your hat on that, you misunderstand a basic point of our government.
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 16:01 (UTC)Alright, I'm done. If you can't remember what you said 5 comments ago, I'm not dredging it up for you. You're clearly not interested in having a discussion.
And the House isn't won via popular vote, so it's not how it works, and by hanging your hat on that, you misunderstand a basic point of our government.
It is a counter-argument against your point that the nation has shifted 'right-ward' because so few seats flipped. I was not making a comment about the process of the House.
You're not paying any attention to what I'm saying. As much as I would love another 200-comment trainwreck with you, I'm done. I don't think I'll ever get anywhere with you. You're convinced this election is somehow a GOP victory. The denial is ridiculous. Luckily, the GOP shares your view, so I can't wait until they fall flat on their face in 2016.
I'm no longer interested in talking with conspiracy theorists.
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 17:28 (UTC)If you're struggling to follow the conversation, that's not my problem.
You're convinced this election is somehow a GOP victory.
Never said that, either. Perhaps you should spend less time whining about "conspiracy theorists" and more time formulating coherent arguments.
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 16:18 (UTC)I mean - I've seen it said sometimes that the Republican Party isn't "doomed" by the growth of the Hispanic population or its inability to attract more of the women or youth votes, because the Republican Party will at some point shift to capture enough of that population to survive. Like it's a kind of self-correcting equilibrium. That might well happen, but you have to acknowledge it's not going to happen by becoming more "conservative," like you recommend.
Or maybe you think it's "spin" because you believe the Republicans can win indefinitely by just appealing to the white men who consistently break for them. Become more conservative, get more of them to turn out. Though you'd denied that was the underlying rationale behind your more-conservative recommendation, elsewhere.
Well, I dunno. I think you're making it up as you go along.
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 17:08 (UTC)The demographic breakdown tells us a) who the Obama campaign targeted and b) who the Romney campaign failed to turn out. It is not some microcosm of a new normal - if it is, there's certainly not enough data to support it as of yet.
Well, I dunno. I think you're making it up as you go along.
Right, because you've utterly ignored all the data presented up to this point so you can say that. The demographic "bomb," as it's put, is a nothingburger. If it were truly the problem you're saying, the Republicans wouldn't hold the House right now and would be way, way outnumbered in the Senate and in the gubernatorial races. That's simply not the case.
Every Senate seat has been through an election since the 2006 Democratic takeover. This theory isn't holding water, and for good reason. We can try and figure out why the Republicans struggle with Hispanics (I don't believe immigration reform tells the whole story), we can try and figure out whether blacks will come out for a Democratic candidate who does not specifically target them, we can figure out if the Asian immigrant vote is swingier or not, and all of those points may have some impact, but if the GOP isn't even close to grabbing its own base, none of those questions matter.
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 19:08 (UTC)The irony, it so good.
(no subject)
Date: 10/11/12 23:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 00:06 (UTC)No, it doesn't. The demographic breakdown just shows us how the members of certain demographics voted. That they happened to break more for Obama doesn't show that Obama targeted them - that's getting the inference backward.
If you wanted to understand who Obama targeted and whether that targeting does or doesn't point to a demographic problem for the GOP, you'd have to look at the respective percentages of eligible voters vs. actual voters of each demographic and how they actually voted - historically, and relative to one another. Do you have any relevant data to that end?
Right, because you've utterly ignored all the data presented up to this point so you can say that.
I don't think I'm ignoring anything; if I were, you'd be able to present some data that I am ignoring. I am just looking at the same data you're looking at, in this thread, and saying that an alternative explanation exists to the one you favor, which is that there is some "rightward shift" going on; my proposed explanation being that voters might have been just generally less enthusiastic about Obama in 2012 than they were in 2008. What data excludes this possibility? Particularly given that we know that they were less enthusiastic?
You keep citing Obama's legendary GOTV machine, but this remains nothing but a lazy hand-wave until you cite some evidence.
If it were truly the problem you're saying, the Republicans wouldn't hold the House right now and would be way, way outnumbered in the Senate and in the gubernatorial races. That's simply not the case.
And if there were truly a "rightward shift" going on, the Republicans would hold the White House and safe majorities in Congress. See how easy this is?
There are problems with your assertion here, but the most fundamental one is that no one is claiming that the demographics have already doomed the Republican party; this is a forecast for the future, based on current trends. Does the Republican party still have enough support among white men and seniors to keep a hold on power? Apparently so. Will that be enough in the future? What are you looking at that suggests that it will be?
The people who are saying that the Republicans have a demographic issue are just looking at how the numbers among the demographics are splitting. Your response to this is to say: "Numbers be damned, I know the truth, and the numbers wouldn't be what they are if Obama hadn't mounted a Herculean GOTV effort." No evidence at all for this, but hey. These demographics didn't break for McCain in 2008, they didn't break for Romney in 2012. Will they break for whomever the Republicans select in 2016? Your answer seems to be: "Maybe, if the Republicans adopt a more conservative position and target those demographics," despite the fact that none of the demographics that have broken against the Republican for the past two presidential elections seem to be won over or particularly inspired by the Republican's more conservative ideology. Only white men.
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 01:41 (UTC)I really doubt there's an actual interest for discussion.
(no subject)
Date: 11/11/12 01:45 (UTC)If you wanted to understand who Obama targeted and whether that targeting does or doesn't point to a demographic problem for the GOP, you'd have to look at the respective percentages of eligible voters vs. actual voters of each demographic and how they actually voted - historically, and relative to one another. Do you have any relevant data to that end?
We know that these groups came out more for Obama than they have historically. Whether that's the new normal, again, we can't know for a while.
You keep citing Obama's legendary GOTV machine, but this remains nothing but a lazy hand-wave until you cite some evidence.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/tech/web/obama-campaign-tech-team/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/11/07/turnout-and-organization-were-key-to-obama-victory/1688537/
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/blogs/death-race/2012/10/president-obama-appears-under-the.html
http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/07/inside-the-secret-world-of-quants-and-data-crunchers-who-helped-obama-win/
And if there were truly a "rightward shift" going on, the Republicans would hold the White House and safe majorities in Congress. See how easy this is?
Not really. Moving to the right does not mean we've moved far enough to overcome, say, a good GOTV effort! Romney failed to exploit what was achieved in 2010, failed to achieve what was achieved in Wisconsin in 2012.
The people who are saying that the Republicans have a demographic issue are just looking at how the numbers among the demographics are splitting.
Yes. It assumes they'll never come on board, that the demographics are automatically an issue, and have no data other than simply "there are X number of Y group that doesn't support Republicans growing at Z." Bush got 40% of the Latino vote in 2004. There's no demographic bomb, it's a turnout bomb.