Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2014 Goal: $450.00 - To Date: $450.00 (100.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Miscellaneous > Locker Room


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers Fever Presents...

Steelers Panthers

GAMEDAY
Sunday, September 21, 8:30 PM
NBC
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-09-2012, 04:11 PM   #11
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 7,837
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 677
Thanked 5,213 Times in 2,564 Posts
My Mood: Mellow
Default Re: Does the GOP have to change?

__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 07:09 PM   #12
cubanstogie
Head Coach
 
cubanstogie's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,571
Member Number: 3082
Thanks: 25
Thanked 68 Times in 42 Posts
Default Re: Does the GOP have to change?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Arians View Post
I agree, not all of them are bad, but they need to get rid of those guys like o'reily, i honestly think he's only there for the 'wtf?' factor
I watch O'reilly 3 times a week or so. Must be doing something right he pretty much doubles the viewers of all other networks shows in the same time slot. I guess another option would be watch Chris Matthews slobber, lisp and blow Obama for an hour. I see things on Oreilly I would never hear on another show. I admit he can be a self righteous arse sometimes but he holds judges acountable. He is the only guy I know who stays on these idiot judges who give probation to pedophiles or lets 2 time offenders of for minimum sentences. Its all about perspective I think, If you believe in gay marriage, legalizing drugs, abortion, and socialism then Oreilly would probably not be enjoyable to watch.
cubanstogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 07:20 PM   #13
cubanstogie
Head Coach
 
cubanstogie's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,571
Member Number: 3082
Thanks: 25
Thanked 68 Times in 42 Posts
Default Re: Does the GOP have to change?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vis View Post
If so, how?
they do if they want to win future elections. Although people are so mesmerized by Obama I don't see a future candidate being as hard to beat. The problem is they are going to have to pick and choose their battles. I have no idea how to get the black vote probably not possible. Hispanic vote could be doable but Romney screwed that up with his comments about self policing or whatever he said. Woman vote could be had, married women actually vote republican , so if you had a republican who could bend on social issues like abortion the single woman might be swayed. I don't know how they compromise on taxes though, two total different philosophies. When taxing the rich doesn't touch the deficit even if they taxed them 100 percent yet they do it anyway there seems to be a problem. It appears more like a penalty for making a lot of money. The wealthy for the most part are job creators, you can't have jobs without the creators. I don't see the GOP changing their philosophy on that.
cubanstogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 06:06 AM   #14
SteelCityMom
MST3K Junkie
 
SteelCityMom's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In the land of The Crazies
Posts: 7,687
Gender: Female
Member Number: 16666
Thanks: 2,756
Thanked 2,399 Times in 1,123 Posts
Default Re: Does the GOP have to change?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cubanstogie View Post
they do if they want to win future elections. Although people are so mesmerized by Obama I don't see a future candidate being as hard to beat. The problem is they are going to have to pick and choose their battles. I have no idea how to get the black vote probably not possible. Hispanic vote could be doable but Romney screwed that up with his comments about self policing or whatever he said. Woman vote could be had, married women actually vote republican , so if you had a republican who could bend on social issues like abortion the single woman might be swayed. I don't know how they compromise on taxes though, two total different philosophies. When taxing the rich doesn't touch the deficit even if they taxed them 100 percent yet they do it anyway there seems to be a problem. It appears more like a penalty for making a lot of money. The wealthy for the most part are job creators, you can't have jobs without the creators. I don't see the GOP changing their philosophy on that.
What would probably work better would be for the GOP to quit grandstanding on social issues (on a national level), and leave those issues, such as abortion and drug legalization, to the states. They should stay out of gay marriage completely...in fact, the entire government should just stay out of marriage all together and leave it to the churches. All the government needs to do is honor contracts. Simple.

If the GOP, and its loudest, most evangelical voting bloc, would just realize that this isn't the 1950's anymore, and somehow get it through their heads that not everyone who voted Democrat is a welfare baby, then maybe they can make some progress. At this moment, they are archaic and broken. And I'm pretty sure they pick mainstream candidates by getting drunk and playing pin the tail on the douchebag.
__________________
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause and effect, but actually from a non-linear non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey...stuff.


http://forums.steelersfever.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=16666&dateline=129531  3365
SteelCityMom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 06:27 AM   #15
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 7,837
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 677
Thanked 5,213 Times in 2,564 Posts
My Mood: Mellow
Default Re: Does the GOP have to change?

Exit Polls Show Republicans Hurt By Things That Make Them Look Like Dickheads
November 9, 2012
By Eric Hetvile



2012 Presidential exit polls across the United States convincingly show that the country overwhelmingly rejected the Republican party in large part due to their vocal positions which make them look like dickheads.

From unbending positions on abortions for rape and incest, to forced trans-vaginal sonograms, generally insensitive talk about rape, blatant denial of rights for gay citizens, denigration of the poor and needy, complete disregard for science, marginalization of women, thinly veiled racist talk, and their constant stream of lies about pretty much everything – Americans cited these as a pretty good reasons to vote against Republicans.




“Yeah, I kind of don’t like when people are dickheads. I don’t really like dickheads representing me. I like people who are not dickheads,” said Richard Crane, N.M.

“These have usually been good issues for us. People used to like this crazy shit we’d say, ” said Todd Akin. “I mean, ‘legitimate rape’ was my nickname in college, for God’s sake. What has gotten into people?”

“Trans-vaginal sonograms? I thought this was gold! I used to bring them on dates” added a Virginia Republican operative who chose to remain anonymous.

“Rapes by God’s will has pretty much been my go-to thing, ” interjected Richard Mourdock. “People are very sensitive all of a sudden. I think this must have started since we started letting women vote. Boy, that was a mistake.”

This reporter abruptly halted the interviews for the Republicans’ own good.
__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 08:21 AM   #16
ricardisimo
Administrator
 
ricardisimo's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Lalaland
Posts: 5,434
Gender: Male
Member Number: 15369
Thanks: 321
Thanked 879 Times in 425 Posts
Default Re: Does the GOP have to change?

http://www.theonion.com/video/after-...re-of-p,30284/
__________________
Why does God hate amputees?
ricardisimo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ricardisimo For This Useful Post:
Buddha Bus (11-10-2012)
Old 11-10-2012, 11:06 AM   #17
Vincent
Team President
Supporter
 
Vincent's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: People's Republic of North Carolina
Posts: 2,485
Member Number: 10927
Thanks: 13
Thanked 11 Times in 9 Posts
Default Re: Does the GOP have to change?

In my lifetime, when the GOP fielded a conservative they won. When they fielded a moderate they lost. It isn't a mystery. The possible exception would be Nixon, and it can be argued whether he was or wasn't a conservative, and to what degree. Dutch was the template. Bush II, albeit a "compassionate conservative" whatever that means, was a lesser example. Ford, Bush I (he was elected on Dutch's legacy and wasn't reelected because he is really a liberal), Bobdole, Crazy John, and now Romney are the template for the GOP to avoid.

The left, intoxicated by their recent win, are predictably "counseling" the GOP to move in their direction if they want to continue to be a party. History counsels otherwise. When the GOP moves right they win because the white conservatives show up. When they move to the center, white conservatives tend to stay home. Thats a nice way of reaffirming that we are a center right country.

What this election just showed us is that 7 million fewer white people showed up than in 08. Had those 7 million voted, we'd be discussing the demise of the pos as we were the day after the 04 election.

For the Republicans to win an election, any election, they need to energize conservatives, many of whom happen to be white people. When they have done so, they have won. When they have not, they have lost. They nominated moderates in the last two cycles and got dey asses, (am I allowed to say that?) handed to them. The last thing they should do now, and that's why the pos and their shills are admonishing them to do so, it pander to the pos' clients.

There will be a little war within the Republican party now, and despite all the acrimony toward conservatism, the conservatives will wrest control or go elsewhere. If they succeed, you'll see both houses solidly in GOP control in 14, and a GOP president to boot in 16. If they fail, you will see the demise of the Republic and the reality of what your support of the pos has bought you.

08 was because white people didn't show up. They did in 10. They didn't in 12. They will in 14 and 16.

If I were counseling the GOP, I would tell them to build around Romney's "47%" comment, which was a correct observation - 53% are productive. 47% are not for reasons that include youth, old age, infirmity, and indolence. That which makes the 53% who they are needs to be cultivated. Put forth policies favorable to job growth and reduce tax pressure on business and the productive. Manage costs committed to the 47%. Simple strategery. Easy to build messages to support it. It resonates with the 53%.

Romney's problem was that he couldn't follow through on that message because he is moderate. Oh well.

Find the ticket that can carry that message and the roles of winner / loser will be reversed until the next cycle of weak mindedness.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._116106-2.html
The Case of the Missing White Voters
By Sean Trende - November 8, 2012

One of the more intriguing narratives for election 2012 was proposed by political scientist Brendan Nyhan fairly early on: that it was "Bizarro 2004." The parallels to that year certainly were eerie: An incumbent adored by his base but with middling approval ratings nationally faces off against an uncharismatic, wishy-washy official from Massachusetts. The race is tight during the summer until the president breaks open a significant lead after his convention. Then, after a tepid first debate for the incumbent, the contest tightens, bringing the opposition tantalizingly close to a win, but not quite close enough.

The Election Day returns actually continued the similarities. George W. Bush won by 2.4 percent of the popular vote, which is probably about what Obama’s victory margin will be once all the ballots are counted. Republicans in 2004 won some surprising Senate seats, and picked up a handful of House seats as well. The GOP was cheered, claiming a broad mandate as a result of voters’ decision to ratify clear, unified Republican control of Congress and the presidency for the first time since 1928. As Bush famously put it, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.”

Democrats, like Republicans today, were despondent. Aside from having a president they loathed in the White House for four more years, they were terrified by what seemed to be an emerging Republican majority. John Kerry had, after all, hit all of his turnout targets, only to be swamped by the Republican re-election effort. “Values voters” was the catchphrase, and an inordinate number of keystrokes were expended trying to figure out how, as Howard Dean had memorably put it before the election, Democrats could reconnect with “guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.”

For Republicans, that despair now comes from an electorate that seems to have undergone a sea change. In the 2008 final exit polls (unavailable online), the electorate was 75 percent white, 12.2 percent African-American, 8.4 percent Latino, with 4.5 percent distributed to other ethnicities. We’ll have to wait for this year’s absolute final exit polls to come in to know the exact estimate of the composition this time, but right now it appears to be pegged at about 72 percent white, 13 percent black, 10 percent Latino and 5 percent “other.”

Obviously, this surge in the non-white vote is troubling to Republicans, who are increasingly almost as reliant upon the white vote to win as Democrats are on the non-white vote. With the white vote decreasing as a share of the electorate over time, it becomes harder and harder for Republicans to prevail.

This supposed surge in minority voting has sparked discussions about the GOP’s renewed need to draw in minority voters, especially Latinos, usually by agreeing to comprehensive immigration reform. Continuing the “Bizarro 2004” theme, Democrats are encouraging the GOP to move leftward, just as the 2004 GOP insisted that Democrats needed to abandon their opposition to the Iraq War, adopt less liberal economics, and shift more to the right on social issues in order to win.

Setting aside completely the sometimes-considerable merits of various immigration reform measures, I think these analyses are off base. First, there are real questions about the degree to which immigration policies -- rather than deeper issues such as income and ideology -- drive the rift between the GOP and Latinos. Remember, passage of Simpson-Mazzoli in 1986 was actually followed two years later by one of the worst GOP showings among Latinos in recent history.

Moreover, the simple fact is that the Democrats aren’t going to readily let Republicans get to their left on the issue in an attempt to poach an increasing portion of the Democratic base. If the GOP embraces things such as the DREAM Act, the Democrats can always up the ante. There are plenty of other issues on which Latinos agree with the GOP, but at a bare minimum the party will have to learn to sharply change its rhetoric on immigration before it can credibly make the case for these policies.

But most importantly, the 2012 elections actually weren’t about a demographic explosion with non-white voters. Instead, they were about a large group of white voters not showing up.

As of this writing, Barack Obama has received a bit more than 60 million votes. Mitt Romney has received 57 million votes. Although the gap between Republicans and Democrats has closed considerably since 2008, Romney is still running about 2.5 million votes behind John McCain; the gap has closed simply because Obama is running about 9 million votes behind his 2008 totals.

Of course, there are an unknown number of ballots outstanding. If we guesstimate the total at 7 million (3 million in California, 1.5 million or so in Oregon and Washington, and another 2.5 million or so spread throughout the country), that would bring the total number of votes cast in 2012 to about 125 million: 5 million votes shy of the number cast four years ago.

With this base line, and armed with the exit-poll data, we can get a pretty good estimate of how many whites, blacks, and Latinos cast ballots in both 2008 and 2012. Assuming the 72/13/10/5 percentage split described above for 2012, that would equate to about 91.6 million votes cast by whites, 16.6 million by blacks, 12.7 million by Latinos, with the balance of 6.3 million votes spread among other groups.

Compare this with 2008, when the numbers were 98.6 million whites, 16.3 million blacks, 11 million Latinos, and 5.9 million from other groups.

In other words, if our underlying assumption -- that there are 7 million votes outstanding -- is correct, then the African-American vote only increased by about 300,000 votes, or 0.2 percent, from 2008 to 2012. The Latino vote increased by a healthier 1.7 million votes, while the “other” category increased by about 470,000 votes.

This is nothing to sneeze at, but in terms of the effect on the electorate, it is dwarfed by the decline in the number of whites. Again, if our assumption about the total number of votes cast is correct, almost 7 million fewer whites voted in 2012 than in 2008. This isn’t readily explainable by demographic shifts either; although whites are declining as a share of the voting-age population, their raw numbers are not.



Moreover, we should have expected these populations to increase on their own, as a result of overall population growth. If we build in an estimate for the growth of the various voting-age populations over the past four years and assume 55 percent voter turnout, we find ourselves with about 8 million fewer white voters than we would expect given turnout in the 2008 elections and population growth.

Had the same number of white voters cast ballots in 2012 as did in 2008, the 2012 electorate would have been about 74 percent white, 12 percent black, and 9 percent Latino (the same result occurs if you build in expectations for population growth among all these groups). In other words, the reason this electorate looked so different from the 2008 electorate is almost entirely attributable to white voters staying home. The other groups increased their vote, but by less than we would have expected simply from population growth.

Put another way: The increased share of the minority vote as a percent of the total vote is not the result of a large increase in minorities in the numerator, it is a function of many fewer whites in the denominator.

So who were these whites and why did they stay home? My first instinct was that they might be conservative evangelicals turned off by Romney’s Mormonism or moderate past. But the decline didn’t seem to be concentrated in Southern states with high evangelical populations.

So instead, I looked at my current home state of Ohio, which has counted almost all of its votes (absentees are counted first here). The following map shows how turnout presently stands relative to 2008. The brightest red counties met or exceeded 2008 turnout. Each gradation of lighter red represents a 1 percent drop in the percentage of votes cast from 2008. Blue counties are at less than 90 percent of the 2008 vote.



We can see that the counties clustered around Columbus in the center of the state turned out in full force, as did the suburban counties near Cincinnati in the southwest. These heavily Republican counties are the growing areas of the state, filled with white-collar workers.

Where things drop off are in the rural portions of Ohio, especially in the southeast. These represent areas still hard-hit by the recession. Unemployment is high there, and the area has seen almost no growth in recent years.

My sense is these voters were unhappy with Obama. But his negative ad campaign relentlessly emphasizing Romney’s wealth and tenure at Bain Capital may have turned them off to the Republican nominee as well. The Romney campaign exacerbated this through the challenger’s failure to articulate a clear, positive agenda to address these voters’ fears, and self-inflicted wounds like the “47 percent” gaffe. Given a choice between two unpalatable options, these voters simply stayed home.

We’ll have a better sense of how this holds up when the final exit-poll data is released, and we can generate some very detailed crosstabs. And it may be that my estimate of the number of votes outstanding is low, though I think it is more likely to be high.

Of course, none of this is intended to place any sort of asterisk on Obama’s win: Some of these missing voters might well have voted for him had they opted to participate in the election. Moreover, there are still huge reservoirs of African-Americans and Latinos who don’t register and vote every election.

Elections are decided on who shows up, not on who might have shown up.

But in terms of interpreting elections, and analyzing the future, the substantial drop-off in the white vote is a significant data point. Had Latino and African-American voters turned out in massive numbers, we might really be talking about a realignment of sorts, although we would have to see if the Democrats could sustain it with someone other than Obama atop the ticket (they could not do so in 2010). As it stands, the bigger puzzle for figuring out the path of American politics is who these non-voters are, why they stayed home, and whether they might be reactivated in 2016 (by either party).
__________________

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution,
but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

Abraham Lincoln
Vincent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 11:15 AM   #18
Fire Arians
Anti-Spammer Mod
 
Fire Arians's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 10,271
Member Number: 16570
Thanks: 1,733
Thanked 6,490 Times in 2,757 Posts
My Mood: Yeehaw
Default Re: Does the GOP have to change?

if people are too lazy to go out and vote, they shouldn't complain about how things go. they have a right to, and abuse it by not doing it.
Fire Arians is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 11:50 AM   #19
Vincent
Team President
Supporter
 
Vincent's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: People's Republic of North Carolina
Posts: 2,485
Member Number: 10927
Thanks: 13
Thanked 11 Times in 9 Posts
Default Re: Does the GOP have to change?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Arians View Post
if people are too lazy to go out and vote, they shouldn't complain about how things go. they have a right to, and abuse it by not doing it.
That is one of the take aways from the election.
__________________

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution,
but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

Abraham Lincoln
Vincent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 01:01 PM   #20
MasterOfPuppets
Living Legend
Supporter
 
MasterOfPuppets's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 14,154
Gender: Male
Member Number: 1990
Thanks: 880
Thanked 3,668 Times in 1,583 Posts
Default Re: Does the GOP have to change?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire Arians View Post
if people are too lazy to go out and vote, they shouldn't complain about how things go. they have a right to, and abuse it by not doing it.
blame that on the out dated 2 party system. the entire election process is so tainted its no wonder people don't bother to vote.
"every vote counts".... really ? i seem to recall guys winning the majority and still losing...... whats the point in a a person like me , who lives in maryland , going out to vote ? i already know maryland is voting democrat , so why play the game when i know the cards are already stacked ?
why go out and vote when you have a loathing for both candidates and don't feel one will be any better than the other ?
i did go out and vote , but i didn't go out to vote for either one of those scumbags , i went out to vote hoping to put an end to this two party bullshit.
your right , people shouldn't complain who don't exercise their right to vote...
the ones who DID vote shouldn't complain either. the only ones who have a right to complain are the few who tried to put an end to the repub / demo stranglehold on this country.
__________________
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” ― James Madison

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -Thomas Jefferson

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." - Thomas Jefferson

MasterOfPuppets is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts