Political trends

[WAKWIB]

Moosetracker sez "I think now I only have one Republican who says it is wrong WAKWIB although it seems to be said sarcastically and not seriously"

 

Seriously said, Moose.

[JoeBob]

Moose,

You purport that I am misbehaving.

What you really mean is that I Don't agree with you.

[moosetracker]

WAKWIB - Thank-you for having the courage to state there are some Republicans who still are honorable, and believe in a fair Democracy. I know that there are still a few of you still hanging on.

 

To be fair, although packsaddle never stated he didn't feel cheating to win an election was not right. And did start out with an excuse about Democrats did it in the '50's.. He did change to decide to vote for the Libertarian candidate, which I should count as finding something in the Republican party (don't know if it was the election cheating or the choice of Republicans not to be stewards of our environment.) Anyway I will take that as not being comfortable with the Republicans position anymore.

 

I heard we are also winning over alot of hunters who normally would vote Republican for their guns (President promotes more checking and limitint purchase of assault weapons).. But, equal and with some a priorty concern is good wetlands, forest, lakes etc. for hunting in.

 

JoeBob I just count you as in league with Callooh! Callay!.. Would you like to save us the time and effort of the go around, and just double down on agreeing with his remarks?

 

 

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[packsaddle]

Moosetracker, I just read through this thread and I'm scratching my head trying to find what it was I wrote about the 1950s. Could you remind me of where I wrote that?

Plus, I think you misunderstand me. I like Gary Johnson. But I still support Romney. I recognize the symbolic power of a Johnson vote. But I also recognize the importance of a vote that means the wrong person IS elected.

Now I share some sympathy with you regarding the Republican party. I consider the Republican party to be much of what is wrong with (and for) Romney. The guy has the impossible task of projecting his correct and honorable views and persona with a background of the expected Democratic opposition AS WELL AS a foreground of Republican opposition (the Tea Party drogue).

I've thought about this for quite a while and my thoughts keep moving back through history to Lee Atwater in the days of Reagan, and then before that with tricky Dicky (for whom, sadly, I also voted). But this kind of dishonest dialogue in politics, I think, can be laid at the feet of Lyndon Johnson. What he did, dishonestly, during that campaign with Barry Goldwater, had the seeds of the dishonorable and despicable things the Neocon Republicans did to McCain in 2000, and what their bastard child, the Tea Party, has done more recently.

I think Barry Goldwater (by the way, I did notice that quote from him Callooh! Callay!, thanks. He was a good and honorable man who deserved better from the American people. We are probably still paying the price) would be ashamed of the Republican party and its current ideology and mode of operation.

 

Moosetracker, I also have to express my concern, that before or maybe shortly after election day, you're going to pop a vein or have a heart attack! I encourage you to try to become less emotionally caught up in all this. I'd hate to see a notice come through the forums that after Romney wins, you croaked while screaming at the TV or something. I worry about you.

 

[moosetracker]

 

Sorry Packsaddle, mistaken identity.. You didn't say it, it was OldGrayEagle..

 

I don't know what the statue of limitations is on voter fraud but if you want to talk voter fraud you must start with the place where the phrase "Vote early and often" was coined, as in Chicago, a Democratic stronghold since, well, forever

 

It was often said Mayot Richard J Daley, the original "Hizzoner" and not the pale imitation his son became, was responsible for JFK's election in 1960 as the vaults and graves everywhere in Chicago opened and the dead all voted straight Democratic tickets.

 

 

The advise you give about when Romney wins.. Possibly, but I think it would mean so much cheating in order to fix a 7 to 10% lead, it will be easy to discover.. For example a state with a population of 10,000,000, who has 11,000,000 votes cast.

 

Imagine the teaparty's reaction when Obama wins? There already is a Texas Judge promoting raising taxes in preperation for his one army. He is preparing for if Obama wins and there is a civil war..

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/texas-judge-we-need-to-raise-taxes-to-prepare-for-civil-war-if-obama-is-re-elected/

 

 

 

 

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

Packsaddle, No. Thank you... for confirming that some who argue these matters are literate.

 

"Neocon" has lost specific definition in the public imagination. One guesses your usage of the term is sound commentary on foreign policy activism to reform other nations. But the term gets bandied about much the way the term "fascist" is deployed by leftists, who might look it up after seeing it pointed out here that their usage reveals that they have only the vaguest idea what it used to mean before leftists started using it because they thought they'd sound more erudite and credible if they said "fascist" instead of "poo-poo-head."

 

"Tea Party" may be headed in the same direction. A vague pejorative term for folks who don't agree with me. There is much ideological diversity among Republicans and Conservatives. Where else can diversity thrive? Certainly not in the leftist ideological monoculture of today's Democrat Party.

 

Good call on the utility over symbolism vote... Romney vice Johnson.

 

 

(This message has been edited by Callooh! Callay!)

[packsaddle]

Yeah, I agree with regard to the use and misuse of labels like those. I used the term 'neocon' in the loose context of what I've been reading in these threads...largely because I can't think of a better way to define the term, lol. But that is in the sense that I've read it used by Beavah many times...at least how I 'understood' him to use the term. Yes, that and 'Tea Party' are both poorly-defined and just as likely to increase ambiguity. So I'll avoid them in the future.

I am ashamed of the strategy that the Atwaters and Roves (and Nixons and Johnsons) have injected into the process. It is deceitful and destructive. I really liked Barry Goldwater. And Eisenhower before him.

Perhaps it's just the way old memories seem to be so much better, but I think that, agree with them or not, the political process was more honest back then.

[WAKWIB]

I'm going to still contend that the race is very close.

Consider this article FWIW.

 

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/23/electoral-college-model-predicts-big-romney-win/

 

I know that the article is over a month old and there has been a bit of erosion, perhaps,

in Romney support, but I still found it interesting.

I think many Romney voters are playing it close-to-the-vest and not shouting their intentions

from the rooftops.

 

 

[AZMike]

There are so many political balls up in the air that it's hard to predict an outcome.

 

The polls are pretty good at predicting how people who answer calls from polltakers (only about 9% of the population who are called by polltakers agree to take the poll, per Pew), less effective at predicting who will go to vote. We've seen examples before where presidents have come from behind to win with a similar polling result at this stage.

 

Many of the groups who are statistically most likely to exercise their franchise - such as seniors, those who are weekly church-goers, and veterans - poll extremely high for Romney. It's unlikely that Democrats as a whole have the same level of enthusiasm as 2008, and the young, who are probably not looking forward to living with their parents for another 4 years under Obama, have greatly diminished enthusiasm. (And Halo 4 will be released on election day, so Obama probably lost half the young adult vote right there...)

 

You also have the whole problem of polling those households who now only use cell phones instead of a land line - those tend to be younger voters, and pollsters try to include a certain number (you can't auto-dial them, they have to be called by hand-dialling in most places), but it's a crap shoot whether you have included enough or too many.

 

I know the mere mention of the Tea Party will make Moosetracker begin to spit on her computer's monitor screen, but like them or not, they quietly are doing the kind of grass-roots neighborhood campaign organization that worked for Obama in 2008 but which he can't seem to pull together now, and are doing it with minimal support from the Romney organization. They weren't around in 2008, but there was a lot of research in the aftermath of that election by the local tea parties in how Obama effectively used social networking and neighborhood organization. One of the books that pooped up on most Tea Party committee's reading lists (along with Saul Alinsky's "Rule for Radicals" and Robert A. Heinlein's "Take Back the Government," a classic on neighborhood-level political organization) was "The Starfish and the Spider," on leaderless revolution. They seemed to have learned those lessons: http://washingtonexaminer.com/sunday-reflection-the-importance-of-showing-up/article/2509323#.UGjJV47iZMK

 

It'll be interesting, one way or another. I plan to take the day off and watch the election day coverage.

[AZMike]

There are so many political balls up in the air that it's hard to predict an outcome.

 

The polls are pretty good at predicting how people who answer calls from polltakers (only about 9% of the population who are called by polltakers agree to take the poll, per Pew), less effective at predicting who will go to vote. We've seen examples before where presidents have come from behind to win with a similar polling result at this stage. See http://washingtonexaminer.com/barone-when-it-comes-to-polls-readers-beware/article/2509360#.UGjRR47iZMK

 

Many of the groups who are statistically most likely to exercise their franchise - such as seniors, those who are weekly church-goers, and veterans - poll extremely high for Romney. It's unlikely that Democrats as a whole have the same level of enthusiasm as 2008, and the young, who are probably not looking forward to living with their parents for another 4 years under Obama, have greatly diminished enthusiasm. (And Halo 4 will be released on election day, so Obama probably lost half the young adult vote right there...). Romney is doing well among independents in many polls.

 

You also have the whole problem of polling those households who now only use cell phones instead of a land line - those tend to be younger voters, and pollsters try to include a certain number (you can't auto-dial them, they have to be called by hand-dialling in most places), but it's a crap shoot whether you have included enough or too many.

 

I know the mere mention of the Tea Party will make Moosetracker begin to spit on her computer's monitor screen, but like them or not, they quietly are doing the kind of grass-roots neighborhood campaign organization that worked for Obama in 2008 but which he can't seem to pull together now, and are doing it with minimal support from the Romney organization. They weren't around in 2008, but there was a lot of research in the aftermath of that election by the local tea parties in how Obama effectively used social networking and neighborhood organization. One of the books that pooped up on most Tea Party committee's reading lists (along with Saul Alinsky's "Rule for Radicals" and Robert A. Heinlein's "Take Back the Government," a classic on neighborhood-level political organization) was "The Starfish and the Spider," on leaderless revolution. They seemed to have learned those lessons: http://washingtonexaminer.com/sunday-reflection-the-importance-of-showing-up/article/2509323#.UGjJV47iZMK

 

It'll be interesting, one way or another. I plan to take the day off and watch the election day coverage.

[BSA24]

AZ,

 

That's not how the national election for the president works. It is determined by an electoral college. Each state gets their votes based on their own determination within their own process.

 

The national polls are irrelevant and only tell us a national polling response. That response is no better than the cover story on the National Enquirer.

 

Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and some others are the battle ground states. Those determine the next president. The other states have already virtually voted and are unlikely to swing significantly.

 

What do the polls say in the battleground states?

 

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator#?battleground

 

You might want to check out that map before you call the race for Romney. The biggest factors seem to be the Economy, Christian Right vs. Everyone Else, and Romney is a mormon.

 

I've been predicting for a year that the right cannot get themselves to the polls to elect Romney. He's just not what they want and does not motivate the base. Plus, he is already infamous for saying stupid things that end up on video which are, frankly, embarrassing.

 

I think once the debates start, we'll see a jittery, stuttering Romney vs. the Chicagoland's highly polished spinmeister, and from there it will be over for Romney.

 

 

 

[AZMike]

Yeaaaahhhh, I'm familiar with the electoral process and the polls on the battleground states. Same problems with polling there.

 

I doubt the debates will have much effect either way, beyond a mental breakdown on camera. Obama could probably get away with even that in the eyes of the media commentators.

 

I'll watch anyway, at least the Biden/Ryan debates should be enjoyable.

[moosetracker]

AZMike - I know the mere mention of the Tea Party will make Moosetracker begin to spit on her computer's monitor screen, but like them or not, they quietly are doing the kind of grass-roots neighborhood campaign organization that worked for Obama in 2008 but which he can't seem to pull together now..

 

 

TeaParty Pooh, spit -- Seriously, my problem with this statement is the idea the Republicans have more boots on the ground. Strange when even the Republicans on the discussion shows I watch state Obama has really trumped them on this one (At least in the swing states). That they are hoping to get better with it in the next month. Obama has more tons more offices, and also more paid employees. Sounds though like republicans are better for an employee with salary, because the two party seems to spend approx. the same thing.

 

I know personally, I was treated to the Obama boots on the ground. I live out in the country. I am lucky to get my neighbors kids to come to our house for Halloween Trick or treat, even though I offer full size candy bars, which is easy as a purchase of 6 still promises leftovers.. You can walk to neighbors, but for door-to-door you don't park your car on the street and hit the neighborhood and go door to door. You need your car to go from house to house. I have never been visited by an election team in the 23 years of living here.. Yet, I had one this weekend.. I think though it was people volunteering, at least one woman of the two lives in this big house in town your drool over, and stated she is someone who will have her taxes increased under Obama, but sees him as the only choice.

 

I also wouldn't discount the Democrats turning out. Democrats were the group not sitting around seething under an Obama administration, and counting down to election day. But, about two weeks back it was reported that the polls are different this year in that there are very few undecided (4%) 2 wks back. Majority are enthused, and few say they would change their views given new information.

 

Although some of this may be because of the fear of the voter suppression, the other two things showing Obama enthusiasm is that requests for absentee ballots are up this year 2 to 3 times over last year, requestors are significantly higher for those listed as Democrats.. Also those states who have started early voting have seen tons more turn out then past years. Voting is 5 to 1 for Obama.. (The early voting Democrat votes though, may not only be voter suppression fears, but also Obama is pushing people to early vote, and Romney is not.)

 

Democrats also have some comedians and actors who I don't know, but run in the world of our youth, who have put out some terrific videos that have gone viral. These have not only woken up the youth but pumped them up. Come back and see me when you have a story that equals the one of a youth that broke their wrist the day before the President showed up to the campus and he refuse to have it set until after he took part in the event. (Dont know why he couldnt have set it the day before and come the next day with a cast on.)

Republicans are motivated by only a hate for Obama, while few really like Romney.. Democrat turn out may be for Obama, but equally many of their turnout will be against something (some a hate of Romney, some a hate of the republican tactics.)..

 

 

Now for the debates..

 

BSA24 - I think once the debates start, we'll see a jittery, stuttering Romney vs. the Chicagoland's highly polished spinmeister, and from there it will be over for Romney

 

In my mind I am with you, Obama is just great a great Orator. Romney is robotic and stiff and clunky at everything. BUT- Obamas worst is in debates and Romneys best is in debates. I would also be surprised if Romney does not roll in some new idea, kept under wraps just to offset the President from being knowledgeable enough about it to rip it to shreds. The ripping to shreds will have to come after the debates, once analysis is done and once again the math doesnt add up. Romney needs a game changer to survive Problem is whatever is rolled out will be from a candidate that has flip-flopped so many times he has lost credibility. Also those who have made up their minds rarely change it by watching the debates.. Its like the super bowl. You just come out rooting for your guy, but you dont change loyalties when the other team wins.

[scoutingagain]

I'm not a big Romney fan, at least not the current version of the man and his party. But I don't totally put much stock in the polls. If Democrats think the race is won they are in big trouble. They need people to believe Obama could lose unless they get out and vote for him. We also have 3 debates to get through. Romney may be down by a touchdown or two in the fourth quarter, but there's plenty of time left to come back.

 

Then there's this. " Its like the super bowl. You just come out rooting for your guy, but you dont change loyalties when the other team wins. " That's the problem with today's politics. People see their "team", "tribe", "guy". Not the country. Most have mindlessly sided with one team or the other. Only a small fraction of the electorate seems to try and analyze the policies and views of each candidate and make an informed decision. The rest are watching FOX, listening to talk radio, NPR and MSNBC to hear stuff they agree with and not challenging their own assumptions. Gary Johnson is looking better & better.

 

SA

 

[Tampa Turtle]

We had some Obama boots come through this weekend and we are a (heavily)Republican precinct. The folks were so fresh, scrubbed, and polite they could have been....Mormon missionaries! They just went door to door asking if folks were going to vote, if they needed help going to the polls, if they wanted to join the campaign and mostly doing the big "Ask". They were pretty tactful when they were engaged in some pretty hot arguments.

 

Some of my neighbors were quite impressed and I heard they picked up 3-5 votes out of (I guess 60-80 eligible folks).