What the US needs is Bill Clinton.

[pErvinalia]

Face it, conservatives like you put Bush into the White House TWICE. If that hasn't shamed you, I fucking give up.

Yeah

There's no arguing with people like that.

[Ian]

Face it, conservatives like you put Bush into the White House TWICE. If that hasn't shamed you, I fucking give up.

Yeah

There's no arguing with people like that.

Republicans seem to be immune to shame. I've tried shaming them by pointing out just who it is that votes for their candidates. In particular, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to vote Democratic, and the less educated you are, the more likely you are to vote Republican (Obama holds a 15-20% advantage (read: landslide) over Romney among voters with postgraduate degrees). More fun stats: Among voters calling themselves nonreligious, Obama whups Romney 60-32, but among voters calling themselves highly religious, they prefer Romney over Obama 57-36.

But there are always excuses and a whatever-it-takes-to-win-attitude: "Massachusets and Maryland may be out of reach, but Kentucky and Oklahoma are solidly on our side!" Nevermind why that always seems to be the case...

[pErvinalia]

Not that i'm partaking in this "debate", but I coincidentally came across an interesting figure today and thought it would fit in here quite well.


from:
Maybe the private sector is doing fine? Growth in post-recession ‘private GDP’ (3%) is above average

[JimC]

As long as the supply of young female interns is kept up...

[Coito ergo sum]

Face it, conservatives like you put Bush into the White House TWICE. If that hasn't shamed you, I fucking give up.

Yeah

There's no arguing with people like that.

Republicans seem to be immune to shame. I've tried shaming them by pointing out just who it is that votes for their candidates. In particular, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to vote Democratic, and the less educated you are, the more likely you are to vote Republican (Obama holds a 15-20% advantage (read: landslide) over Romney among voters with postgraduate degrees). More fun stats: Among voters calling themselves nonreligious, Obama whups Romney 60-32, but among voters calling themselves highly religious, they prefer Romney over Obama 57-36.

But there are always excuses and a whatever-it-takes-to-win-attitude: "Massachusets and Maryland may be out of reach, but Kentucky and Oklahoma are solidly on our side!" Nevermind why that always seems to be the case...

Reagan won the college and postgraduate vote against Mondale by a landslide 63% to 32%. Ask yourself if you think that would be the split today, or if you think there would have been a change. Clearly, the answer would be no. Why do you think that would be? Why the difference?

Or, do you think that college and postgraduates would vote for Reagan today, despite the fact that they are overwhelmingly Democrat?

But, you do bring up a good point, and it is an important question. I believe part of the reason is the rise of the religious right in the Republican party -- which Reagan and GHWBush were NOT a part of. The Moral Majority of the 80s, and the influence of the Pat Robertsons and the Christian Coalition coopted the Republican Party. I see Romney, Christie, Giuliani, and several others in the Republican Party as heartening signs of the retreat of religious right influence. The fact that Perry and Bachmann were pretty quickly dispatched in the primaries was heartening. I would have liked it more if Jon Huntsman had made a better showing, but I think the tide is turning.

[Coito ergo sum]

Even Paul Krugman disagreed with the idea that the private sector was doing fine. He said it's doing better than the public sector, but that it still wasn't doing good.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Who says it's doing fine? There are millions of people needing jobs. Nice strawman.

[Coito ergo sum]

Who says it's doing fine? There are millions of people needing jobs. Nice strawman.

Obama said it, and revolutionist attempted to support the statement. I pointed out that the cheerleader for the Administration, economist Paul Krugman, disagreed with the idea that the private sector was doing fine.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

I've never understood US politics but can remember quite liking the cut of Clinton's jib for some reason - not sure why. I think he just looked less mad than most of the others.
Same with Mikhail Gorbachev.

[Ian]

Who says it's doing fine? There are millions of people needing jobs. Nice strawman.

Obama said it, and revolutionist attempted to support the statement. I pointed out that the cheerleader for the Administration, economist Paul Krugman, disagreed with the idea that the private sector was doing fine.

In no way whatsoever is Krugman a "cheerleader for the administration". Sheesh.

I don't want to even consider how Reagan would play today, and using the 1984 election is a lousy measure for anything. The politics of the 1980s are long gone, and I think that's a sad thing - things weren't nearly as partisan back then. One thing I have little doubt of though - Reagan almost certainly wouldn't have survived the recent Republican primaries. He wasn't conservative enough.

I hope you're right about the tide turning on the Republican Party. I'm skeptical though - Santorum hung in there quite a while and could very well have come away with the nomination if only Romney wasn't able to throw so much money into negative ads against him (and Gingrich). Would Romney still be the nominee if his financial reserves were as low as Santorum and some of the others? I don't think so. And enthusiasm for him, I'm sure you'll admit, is low. Few are energized at the thought of seeing a Romney administration; most Republicans just like the idea of voting Obama out.

As for me, I don't like the idea of a Romney administration not just because I do like Obama, but because I don't know what the hell to expect from Romney. Maybe he'll be pragmatic, maybe he's the Democrat-in-disguise that many diehard conservatives fear he is, or maybe he'll govern as the "seriously conservative" guy he now claims to be. He's taken contradictory (if not multiple) opinions on any subject one cares to think of, and I have no earthly idea what he stands for other than that he wants to be President. For all the griping business-oriented Republicans do about uncertainty towards the economic landscape of the next few years under Obama, what can they really count on from Romney?

[Coito ergo sum]

Who says it's doing fine? There are millions of people needing jobs. Nice strawman.

Obama said it, and revolutionist attempted to support the statement. I pointed out that the cheerleader for the Administration, economist Paul Krugman, disagreed with the idea that the private sector was doing fine.

In no way whatsoever is Krugman a "cheerleader for the administration". Sheesh.

I don't want to even consider how Reagan would play today, and using the 1984 election is a lousy measure for anything. The politics of the 1980s are long gone, and I think that's a sad thing - things weren't nearly as partisan back then. One thing I have little doubt of though - Reagan almost certainly wouldn't have survived the recent Republican primaries. He wasn't conservative enough.

That is a nice trope and talking point, but that's all that it is.

I wasn't comparing the politics of today with 1984. I was asking you to think about why postgraduates would support Obama today, but were 2/3 in favor of Reagan then. Is it that the postgraduates are different? There is something that changed to account for that monumental shift.

I hope you're right about the tide turning on the Republican Party. I'm skeptical though - Santorum hung in there quite a while and could very well have come away with the nomination if only Romney wasn't able to throw so much money into negative ads against him (and Gingrich). Would Romney still be the nominee if his financial reserves were as low as Santorum and some of the others? I don't think so. And enthusiasm for him, I'm sure you'll admit, is low. Few are energized at the thought of seeing a Romney administration; most Republicans just like the idea of voting Obama out.

Santorum only hung in there among the religious right, and those who glom onto the religious right. There are many folks who aren't at all religious but support the religious right because they think that religion is in general good for the other people.

People can get whipped up by the abortion thing here too. 1/2 the population identifies as prolife, and the other half pro choice. And, that is an emotion-driven argument, and people think their religions require them to believe a certain way about it, even if they resist that belief intellectually.

As for me, I don't like the idea of a Romney administration not just because I do like Obama, but because I don't know what the hell to expect from Romney. Maybe he'll be pragmatic, maybe he's the Democrat-in-disguise that many diehard conservatives fear he is, or maybe he'll govern as the "seriously conservative" guy he now claims to be. He's taken contradictory (if not multiple) opinions on any subject one cares to think of, and I have no earthly idea what he stands for other than that he wants to be President. For all the griping business-oriented Republicans do about uncertainty towards the economic landscape of the next few years under Obama, what can they really count on from Romney?

I think it's pretty clear he will be pragmatic. He is a successful businessman and of a management mindset. He's going to want to get the job done, marshal resources, delegate duties and enforce accountability.

If he's a Democrat in disguise, then he'll be in favor of increasing wasteful spending and redundant programs. I hope he is not that. My "hope" for Romney is that he will look for efficiency in government, massive reductions in spending, and streamlining government regulation such that sensible regulation is maintained and red tape is cut. I hope he ends cronyism, like dumping money into Solyndra and other such entities, and I hope he ends most subsidies, especially subsidies for corn ethanol which succeeded in raising our food prices and very little else.

What can they count on from Romney? Probable a tax overhaul and elimination of loopholes. I like the idea of eliminating taxes on capital gains, investment income, etc. for those making less than $200,000 per year. That would be a HUGE incentive for people to open up private accounts on Etrade and TDAmeritrade, etc., and try to make some money - it would be tax free, if that idea came to be. Cutting spending and a 20% across the board decrease in marginal tax rates sounds ambitious, but if it was even 10%, it would help. On corporate taxes, reducing the rate to 25% would be a great thing, and attract foreign businesses to the US, and switching to a territorial tax system would be a good idea too. His energy policy is focused on increasing production of all sorts of energy sources, so if that could be pushed through, it would help.

Romney wants to reinstate the President's Trade Promotion Authority, and we need to get the Trans-Pacific Partnership done, and to open more free trade arrangements in our hemisphere. Those would be good things.

[pErvinalia]

Who says it's doing fine? There are millions of people needing jobs. Nice strawman.

Obama said it, and revolutionist attempted to support the statement. I pointed out that the cheerleader for the Administration, economist Paul Krugman, disagreed with the idea that the private sector was doing fine.

The main point of that graph was to show that Obama isn't the black Stalin or whatever you republicans think he is. (I see Seth in another thread suggesting he's a Nazi ).

[pErvinalia]

Here's another chart:

[pErvinalia]

And another:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... ack-obama/

[Coito ergo sum]

Who says it's doing fine? There are millions of people needing jobs. Nice strawman.

Obama said it, and revolutionist attempted to support the statement. I pointed out that the cheerleader for the Administration, economist Paul Krugman, disagreed with the idea that the private sector was doing fine.

The main point of that graph was to show that Obama isn't the black Stalin or whatever you republicans think he is. (I see Seth in another thread suggesting he's a Nazi ).

I never called him either one. I just disagree with his economic policies. Why can't you discuss an issue without attributing the hyperbole of others onto those not making those hyperbolic statements?

FFS -- i started this thread with an OP complimenting Bill Clinton, who, as I recall, was a Democrat. And, yet you can't flippin' discuss any of the points in the OP because you get your panties in a twist over shit other people say. It's as if any opposition to Obama is, to you, itself an accusation that he is Stalin or Hitler.