The General American Politics Thread

[turbojet]

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but you just spoke as if these were mildly similar political views.

You are mistaken. Neo-Liberals are Keynesian Capitalists.

The Socialist here is me.

[Dr. Homem]

About damn time this election ended. I was getting full of constantly hearing about it all over the internet.

[Patticus]

About damn time this election ended. I was getting full of constantly hearing about it all over the internet.

It's not over quite yet - now we have to hear all the conservatives on Facebook et al sounding off about how "America is doomed," how "Obama's going to ruin everything," and so on, for the next few weeks, and then again around inauguration day (is there one for re-elected incumbents?).

An awful lot of self-proclaimed Christians aren't turning the other cheek, although after such a hard fought and bitter campaign season, perhaps that is to be expected right now.

[Nepenthe]

I actually turned to talk radio this morning to see how the hosts were taking it. Got a laugh when this guy called into Medved's show screaming that "This is a glorious day for America!!!" He was completely inarticulate, but it didn't matter; the trolling was what made it worth it.

[turbojet]

Okay, this will probably be my last post in this thread.

Republicans need to open up to more ethnic/racial groups. I'd like to point something out. In order for Romney to win, as predicted by someone on CNN, he'd have to gain 72% of the white male vote which was 2% less than the last presidential election. He got 67%. The Republican party is becoming the Grand White Party as it has little to no diversity. I mean 93% of African Americans voted for Obama this time which is 3 percent more than the last election. 71% of Hispanics voted for Obama which is 2 percent up from last election. Maybe they should appeal to their base and the things they care or at least stop outright opposing them. When you have Republicans screaming that they will repeal the DREAM act, that will turn off the hispanic vote. When you have an agenda to do everything you can to mitigate Civil Rights, you will never get the Black vote, and no, getting a black candidate won't change that.

Obama, your weaknesses were exposed this election. Hopefully, you learned that maybe you shouldn't be so glad handedly appeasing the Russians as,what Romney said was true, they are our geopolitical foe. They keep blocking any attempt of sanctions. They constantly want to oppose. And they are becoming fascist. Also, in regards of Libya, there was no reason on Earth for your administration to be duplicitous about that yet you were. You misled the public in to thinking that there was protest prior to the attack when there clearly wasn't and it was caused by a video when the video was inconsequential. You and Hilary should have said that there were investigations being done to make sure it was a terrorist attack and that it was Al Quada. Also, you are leading a country that is divided and a Congress that seems hellbent on obstructing you again. Have fun.

[Emmett L. Brown]

Edit: what is Norway? Finished, that's what.

Uh, yeah. Our overwhelmingly high Quality of Life, universal wellfare, free health care, record low poverty rates, high employment, and still going strong from being one of the few countries that got through the 2008 economic crisis relatively unscathed, clearly prove that we're finished.

Spikysprinter, READ A BOOK.

[Mr. Taxi]

I'll be honest and likely to attract much hate with this post, but I'm more concerned about proto-fascism in Greece and in the US than in Russia.

EDIT: Of course, the non-presidential votations are pretty much proving me wrong here, but I can't help but feel concerned.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Palas

[Patticus]

Obama, your weaknesses were exposed this election. Hopefully, you learned that maybe you shouldn't be so glad handedly appeasing the Russians as,what Romney said was true, they are our geopolitical foe. They keep blocking any attempt of sanctions. They constantly want to oppose. And they are becoming fascist. Also, in regards of Libya, there was no reason on Earth for your administration to be duplicitous about that yet you were. You misled the public in to thinking that there was protest prior to the attack when there clearly wasn't and it was caused by a video when the video was inconsequential. You and Hilary should have said that there were investigations being done to make sure it was a terrorist attack and that it was Al Quada. Also, you are leading a country that is divided and a Congress that seems hellbent on obstructing you again. Have fun.

1. Russia is a resurgent power, its economy has been retooled around the oil industry and its influence its growing, expanding back out into its former sphere of influence, and undoubtedly this is a worry for America - especially given how contrarian they are regarding sanctions and such. And I would also argue that it is more of a Mafia State than a Fascist one; the oligarchs are very much in control now. However, its birth rate is declining, and its population is expected to contract significantly this side of 2040 (by, what, 40 million? 30?). What this means is that the size of its military will necessarily have to decline with its population, meaning that Russia's ability to pose the same kind of threat it did in the Cold War era will become a thing of the past before too long. Its ability to project its power will diminish markedly over time, and while it might get a bit scary and Cold War-y for a short time in the coming years, I can't help but see Russia as more of a transient threat; it's very much a power on the wane thanks to its chronic demography problems. It would be wise to keep a close eye on it, perhaps bolstering states like Poland with resources and expertise to build a 'firewall' to keep it at bay, but we're not heading back to the 1960s by any means.

2. The administration wasn't duplicitous regarding Libya, and I don't understand why you'd think it was. Around the time of the attack, there were dozens, even hundreds of eyewitness reports about what exactly took place, and many of those were contradictory and highly confusing. The administration relayed to the public what it knew, what it was being told by the intelligence community, as it was learned (which is what a good administration does), and given the fluid and constantly changing nature of the story emanating from the mass confusion surrounding the attack, that story was always going to change every so often to reflect the ongoing investigations into the event. There being a general election campaign ongoing at the same time meant that everyone wanted all the answers immediately, and that wasn't possible.

3. The country is sharply divided, that is true, and congress is at risk of becoming more partisan and gridlocked than ever before, but, I think there are a lot of GOP and Democratic congressmen and women who recognize that everyone just wants them to pull their fingers out now that their schemes for unseating Obama have failed comprehensively, put their differences aside and work together. Speaker Boehner seemed to say something like that last night; his statement was conciliatory and hopefully he won't be the roadblock he was before. The hope is that enough see it this way for the cogs of congress to begin turning again, despite the Tea Party presence.

[tenchibr]

The Republican party is becoming the Grand White Party as it has little to no diversity.

Let's play a game called "Guess Whose Audience This is":

Edit: And on that note, if you were to take all American flags off, would you be able to tell both audiences come from the same country? I honestly thought we were gonna go through a new Civil War.

Edited November 7, 2012 by tenchibr

[Johnny Boy]

Edit: And on that note, if you were to take all American flags off, would you be able to tell both audiences come from the same country? I honestly thought we were gonna go through a new Civil War.

Speaking of civil war, a lot of the people on CNN last night predicted that there will be a lot of turmoil in the Republican Party for the next four years and that it has a chance of imploding.

[tenchibr]

Speaking of civil war, a lot of the people on CNN last night predicted that there will be a lot of turmoil in the Republican Party for the next four years and that it has a chance of imploding.

I watched both speeches live, and I couldn't help but notice the audiences. There was so much contrast that even if I were Republican, I don't think I would have wanted to be in that room; I would feel like I didn't belong there. Oh, wait. That's right, I don't.

And it's not just the race thing; it's everything: the way Republicans dress and Democrats dress, the way they even socialize with one another. Look at that first pic again: it might as well be a screenshot of Wall St.; now look at the second and you would think it's Super Bowl.

[Patticus]

The GOP will be better off in the coming years if it gets rid of the fringe extremists to whom it has for entirely too long pandered. It needs to undergo a radical policy overhaul, moving away from homophobia (even if it doesn't embrace same-sex marriages, it can still adopt a position of neutrality), away from being the Angry White Guy's Party or the party of the privileged, embracing the social and demographic changes of the new century, re-positioning itself as the champion of the minorities and of the poor. Child poverty is rising, and that's an issue it can deal with in GOP-controlled legislatures, by extending sensible pro-life policies beyond the womb to protect poor or abused children as they grow up. Christian charity, loving, caring for life before and after birth and whatnot. It's a natural fit for them, if you think about it.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Patticus

[Covskin]

With regards to demographics, they might be starting to get it:

"The demographics race we're losing badly," Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told The Washington Post this summer, in a moment of candour. "We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long-term," he said.

From the BBC.

Generating angry white guys is such a horrible way to try to win an election regardless.

Not surprisingly, the U.K. in general is pretty satisfied with this result (a lot of people haven't forgiven Mitt for his remarks on the Olympics). Me too, though it all depends on how the Republicans respond. If they just keep doing what they have for the past two years, then realistically I can only imagine small improvements (e.g. the gradual recovery, but not particularly fast).

If, however, the Republicans soften even just a little bit, I'm optimistic for some surprisingly big changes. Maybe nothing massive, but something to be proud of.

[Badnik Mechanic]

Donald Trump appears to have had a breakdown.

He is now wildly attacking news reporters who commented on his twitter rage last night, calling them "dummy" and slagging off the news stations they work for.

Otherwise he has tweeted about how amazing he is for sending trucks full of food to areas of Queens.

Telegraph article about it.

Brian Williams news report on it (currently the main focus of Trumps tantrum.)

[Dark Qiviut]

I've been watching CNN since the election tallies last night, and as the votes come in, the more we're seeing the demographics come up and the more we're seeing in regards to the strengths of the Obama campaign and weaknesses of both the Romney campaign and the GOP entirely.

First, the weaknesses of the Romney campaign:

1. Its hard-line stance on immigration reform. There is a huge concentration of Latinos located in the southwest and Colorado. About 65 percent of the people said that the illegal immigrants should get some kind of amnesty. And there's Romney's proposition of self-deportating didn't sit well with the Latinos, especially in the cities and states where they have large populations. Of the 10% of the Latino vote (the first time we've had a vote turnaround in the double digits), Obama won 71% of the Latino vote, and that number is only going to grow.

2. Romney's concentration on the rural areas. Looking at the county map only from last night, Romney won about 80 to 82 percent of the counties. Most of them are rural areas where there isn't a lot of population growth. Take a look at Florida, for example. Romney, at this point, won about 85 percent of the counties. But where he wasn't winning at all were the densely populated counties. Obama won about 75 percent of the dense counties, and that's where the majority of the votes come. In Ohio, for instance, most of the population is in the northern area, and they leaned very Democratic. This leads me to this next piece.

3. The auto bailout in Ohio. No Republican has ever won the White House and not win Ohio, 2000 being the closest to end it. Northern Ohio is highly industrialized where there are a lot of automobile manufacturing, especially in places like Toledo. Romney was very against it, while Obama pushed it forward. The fact that Obama kept reminding Ohio of the auto bailout and that Obama outperformed in some of the counties there pushed him to the projected win in that state. The same with Virginia. Romney won almost every county in western Virginia, but most of the votes are in Fairfax and its suburbs, and the population is still growing. Obama won decisively there.

4. The 47% comment that leaked on national television. Romney bashed one of our biggest hearts. The 47% consists of retirees, military, working-class, disabled, and/or conservative. Biden reminded the public of Romney's comment in the middle of the Vice Presidential debate, and Obama countered Romney with the same number to conclude the second Presidential debate. Romney's comment all but killed him in this election.

5. Romney's performance in the third debate. Romney did great in the first debate and held his own in the second. In the third debate, he looked completely unprepared and nervous. It's not how you start. It's how you finish. Romney came out like a lion in the first debate and finished like a lamb in the third. The third debate was hosted in Florida, one of our biggest swing states, and people watched closely.

6. Romney's stance on abortion. Take a look at the voting lines between men and women. More men leaned to Romney, but more women leaned to Obama, and women are mostly pro-choice or pro-life with special circumstances. Ryan is pro-life on ALL circumstances, and I wouldn't be shocked if that played some role.

7. The inconsistency in the Romney campaign. Obama, whether you love him or hate him, never wavered in his stances. On the other hand, Romney jumped. Romney had no firm line on several provisions economically and socially.

And now for Obama. He played to his strengths, which are:

1. The auto bailout in Ohio. As previously written, northern Ohio is extremely industrialized, and he's overwhelmingly winning the vote in the mainly democratically counties there. When Bush won Ohio in 2004, he was able to win some of the votes there and capture the election. In 2012, Obama is winning there by a 2-1 margin.

2. He captured his audiences better, namely Latinos, Black-Americans, working/middle-class, women, youth, and the LGBT. Latinos and Blacks were overwhelmingly for Obama, Latinos backing Obama 71% of the time and blacks by about 93%. Obama is also the first president to formally support same-sex marriage, which is likely why we saw Maine and Maryland legalize it and why Minnesota voters rejected the firm ban. Women also backed Obama about 53 percent in the 2012 elections. And don't forget the youth, which is the 18-29-year-old range. It crept up by one percent, and most of them voted for Obama. We're now in a new generation where younger, more liberal voters are going to get heavily involved in voting and playing a role. According to Politico, there was a HUGE turnout of Black-American voters in Ohio, even bigger than in 2008.

3. Obama's stance on abortion. Compared to Romney, Obama is firmly pro-choice. Abortion is a very key issue for women, and that and family matters (and how he was able to connect them better) helped Obama.

4. Consistency, consistency, consistency. Obama may have changed his strategy at times, especially after the first debate, but his strategy alteration was by being more confident and assertive. He was absolutely consistent in what he said and proposed. Like I said with Romney, Romney changed his strategy by not having a decisive proposal and/or goal. Obama, on the other hand, did. Obama had a fantastic team that made sure he kept his head out of the sand, develop himself, and always strive to do better. Obama is known as a very good orator, and he showed that.

5. The fact that Obama was able to capture his audiences in exactly the right places. Romney won the rural areas, but they don't have a lot of population growth. The majority of the urban areas and suburbs sided with Obama overwhelmingly. Take a look at Ohio and Florida, for instance. Obama didn't win many of the smaller counties, but he won the areas where there was a huge growth in population. The same with Virginia — he won in the big cities, suburbs, and big towns that lean to the left. That's how you win elections: If you can really connect to those big cities, then you will win the election. If you don't, no matter how many counties you win, you may still lose the election.

Now, how can the GOP recover?

One simple answer: quit leaning far to the fight fiscally and socially.

Over the past decade-plus, the Republican Party was becoming less moderate, and we saw that in 2004, 2005, and the 2006 midterm elections. The American public was generally getting extremely sick of the far-right. And although the GOP won back the House in 2010, it was still leaning far-right thanks to some of the Tea Party politicians. In the Senate elections, Akin and Murdouch each said something incredibly stupid and it cost the election for both. Wisconsin will also have a Democrat, and she will be our first openly gay Senator.

Socially, the GOP can no longer rely on extremely conservative views, especially with regards for abortion, immigration, and same-sex rights. The election made it obvious that those policies are broken and no longer work. Women were turned off by Romney's and Ryan's pro-life views, The LGBT backed Obama extremely, and (if the Exit Polls are reliable), the general Americans desire to ease the pathway to citizenship for illegal and legal immigrants. The U.S. is a world leader, and the election dissections show how much the public wants some of the archaic policies to change.

Fiscally, the same can be said. Republicans have a reputation of favoring the wealthy more over the lower-class and middle-class. The middle-class is likely what will decide our future, because most of our youth is in that fiscal range. The gap between the rich and middle-class is widening, and we need to shrink that in order to hopefully get our economy going. This is why Obama proposed taxes on the super wealthy and why he wants companies who outsource to be responsible, so the middle-class can have a better opportunity to prosper. Trickle-down economics from decades ago (and the 2000s) no longer work because we need to build two huge suspension bridges to close it.

Following the midterm elections in 2010, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's goal, on behalf of the GOP, was to make Obama a one-term president. That opportunity is now gone. The GOP and Democrats now have to cooperate in order to put this country back on track, and it starts by putting aside the archaic far-right policies of the brazen Republicans and Tea Party and opening up to the now growing youth and minority audiences.

[Patticus]

Is Mitch McConnell going to continue to advance the cause of blind partisanship and obstructionism, or is he going to start talking bipartisanship like Boehner?

[Nepenthe]

He said the President needs to move to the center for the Republicans to meet him halfway, so no, he's not actually interested in changing a thing.

[Patticus]

He said the President needs to move to the center for the Republicans to meet him halfway, so no, he's not actually interested in changing a thing.

[Space☆Tomoki]

Late to the party, but I'm glad Obama won! *Does a Griffith Unleashed style 'WOOOO!'*

[Linkabel]

The only thing I'm not happy about this election is that Sheriff Arpaio won another term here in Maricopa County. Oh well, I guess old age will take care of that *shrugs*

[-Robin-]

Michelle Bachmann barely squeaked by for another term as well. Paul Ryan too kept his seat

I think those two were the only major Republican/Tea Party figure heads that won their terms though. And by major, I mean those who made national headlines in some fashion recently.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Joshua

[Nepenthe]

Then the President needs to go around him, if that's even an option. Have other presidents been faced with similar intransigence from the House? How did they deal with it?

I'm very sure both Clinton and Bush had some notable examples of pure backlash from the opposing parties in question, but I think the amount of obstructionism Obama has faced is unprecedented in some ways; for example, the highest number of filibusters in our country's history happened during his presidency. Obama also tends to make exceeding efforts to reach across the aisle, both as idealistic if naive view of his opposition's willingness to work with him and because he carries the baggage of exceedingly negative stereotypes of being a black man and thus leaves his passion at the door most of the time, neither of which Clinton and Bush had to deal with.

I'm sure Tornado and turbojet can elaborate on these things better and be more thorough, but that's the general gist of the situation I've come to understand.

Michelle Bachmann barely squeaked by for another term as well.

I'm still amazed by this because that bitch is crazy.

[Patticus]

People all over the US yesterday rallied behind anti-Citizens United measures all across the country:

Move to Amend Wins Big at the Ballot Box: Americans Fed Up with Big Money and Undue Corporate Influence

From Massachusetts to Oregon, Colorado to Illinois and Wisconsin, and Ohio to California, citizens throughout the country voted overwhelmingly yesterday for their legislators to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling and declare that only human beings – not corporations – are entitled to constitutional rights and that money is not speech and campaign spending can be regulated.

Residents in over 100 cities had the opportunity to vote on measures calling for an end to the doctrines of corporate constitutional rights and money as free speech, and in every single town the vote was supportive. Often by an overwhelming margin.

In Eau Claire, WI the vote was 71% in favor of a measure stating, "Should the US Constitution be amended to establish that regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting freedom of speech, by stating that only human beings, not corporations, unions, or PACs, are entitled to constitutional rights?"

In largely conservative Pueblo, Colorado, where the city newspaper came out against the measure, residents still voted 65% in favor of Move to Amend's resolution, placed on the ballot by County Commissioners. Move to Amend volunteers in Massachusetts collected signatures to place the constitutional amendment question before one third of the population of their state. The "MA Democracy Amendment Question" passed by 79%.

Voters in Mendocino County, CA where volunteers collected signatures to become the first California county to place a Move to Amend citizen's initiative on the ballot, explicitly voted to "stand with the Move to Amend campaign" by a 73% margin. Move to Amend resolutions also passed in several towns in Illinois and Ohio and Oregon, all by similar landslide margins.

Montana voters approved a state-wide resolution by 75%.

Another organization -- Common Cause -- put forward several measures calling for simply overturning Citizens United and granting Congress authority to regulate campaign spending. These measures also passed by a wide margin. In the state of Colorado, the Common Cause measure passed by 64% and in San Francisco approval was 80% and 72% in Richmond, CA. The group's measure in Chicago passed by 74%. Common Cause was also an active member of the MA Democracy Amendment Coalition.

Move to Amend's position is that the Constitutional amendment must go beyond simply overturning Citizens United, "There is no reason for us to shy away from a true and lasting solution, rather than just band-aids," stated Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, a member of the Move to Amend National Leadership Team. "In every single community where Americans have had the opportunity to call for a Constitutional amendment to outlaw corporate personhood, they have seized it and voted yes overwhelmingly. Tuesday's results show that the Movement to Amend has nearly universal approval. Americans are fed up with large corporations wielding undue influence over our elections and our legal system. Citizens United is not the cause, it is a symptom and Americans want to see that case overturned not by simply going back to the politics of 2009 before the case, but rather by removing big money and special interests from the process entirely."

Move to Amend is a national coalition of hundreds of organizations and nearly 250,000 people. The organization also boasts over 150 local affiliates across the country. The Resolve to Amend Campaign goal was to have 50 cities vote on the group's resolution.

https://movetoamend.org/

Does this universal approval of anti-CU measures give the president a mandate to overturn it, or at least more influence regarding it?

[Nepenthe]

I had no idea that such a measure was even on the ballot (<<+ wasn't on mine), much less that it was voted overwhelmingly in favor for. This election just keeps on giving.

[Tornado]

Then the President needs to go around him, if that's even an option. Have other presidents been faced with similar intransigence from the House?

Republicans tried to impeach Clinton for the heinous crime of getting a piece of 'dat ass, so you be the judge.

Serious answer to come when I get home from school. Unless turbojet beats me to it.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Tornado