Is the GOP still haunted by the 1992 Convention?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2024, 05:25:52 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Is the GOP still haunted by the 1992 Convention?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Is the GOP still haunted by the 1992 Convention?  (Read 7733 times)
sg0508
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,058
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: October 18, 2015, 10:45:01 AM »

Yep. It's the 22-35 year olds that essentially won it for Obama...twice. 

1) Most 22-35 year olds identify "Clinton" as their president growing up, the last truly successful economic president.  Then, they contrasted eight years with GWB.  Yikes.

2) The real young voters didn't really know the Clinton years, but many have gotten poorer under Obama. 
Yeah but in my opinion Obama is nowhere near the President that Clinton was. Obama might even be a tad worse than Bush W. was.
The problem now is that it's going to be very hard for any President to be economically successful. 

1) There is way too much of a gap between the rich and poor
2) The bottom 5% of society became the bottom 30% almost overnight with the Great Recession.
3) The top 1% will not give up anything and threatens middle classers with their jobs every time they won't take it up the a.s.
4) Globalization's negative impact on the U.S. has hit.  The is way too much of a supply of labor vs. the demand for it.  Most people don't have skills that are going to garnish decent lifestyles any longer.  Corporations have gone off-shore. The American worker's days of the "company's best resource" has been replaced by nothing more than "expensive pains in the a.ses".

In 2004, Karl Rove had a big problem.  The economy was still shaky from the dot.com boom ending and we were stuck in Iraq.  He needed a way to get George Bush re-elected.  He led a fiery attack from the right, including getting anti-gay marriage rhetoric involved and on the ballot to draw conservatives to the polls.  John Kerry was also not a very good candidate, but he did VERY well with young voters.  Rove's rhetoric and Kerry's ineptitude was enough to get Bush over the top, but damage with young voters was long done and that carried over.

The "baby" voters, however, were promised a nonsense bill of goods in the '08 campaign by Obama and many are realizing that what he said he would deliver was undeliverable. American culture has put us a disadvantage globally.

The bottom line is, Karl Rove ran a fierce, socially conservative campaign in '04, consistent with the '92 Culture Wars speech. It worked short-time, but given how Bush's second term went, it's really hurt the Republicans with moderate voters and young voters.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: October 18, 2015, 12:38:31 PM »

Yep. It's the 22-35 year olds that essentially won it for Obama...twice. 

1) Most 22-35 year olds identify "Clinton" as their president growing up, the last truly successful economic president.  Then, they contrasted eight years with GWB.  Yikes.

2) The real young voters didn't really know the Clinton years, but many have gotten poorer under Obama. 
Yeah but in my opinion Obama is nowhere near the President that Clinton was. Obama might even be a tad worse than Bush W. was.

You're dismissed.

LOL, you're such a d^ckhead.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,497
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: October 18, 2015, 01:35:12 PM »

Yep. It's the 22-35 year olds that essentially won it for Obama...twice.  

1) Most 22-35 year olds identify "Clinton" as their president growing up, the last truly successful economic president.  Then, they contrasted eight years with GWB.  Yikes.

2) The real young voters didn't really know the Clinton years, but many have gotten poorer under Obama.  
Yeah but in my opinion Obama is nowhere near the President that Clinton was. Obama might even be a tad worse than Bush W. was.

You're dismissed.

LOL, you're such a d^ckhead.

Oh please. The post he responded to was absurd.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: October 18, 2015, 03:21:12 PM »

Yep. It's the 22-35 year olds that essentially won it for Obama...twice.  

1) Most 22-35 year olds identify "Clinton" as their president growing up, the last truly successful economic president.  Then, they contrasted eight years with GWB.  Yikes.

2) The real young voters didn't really know the Clinton years, but many have gotten poorer under Obama.  
Yeah but in my opinion Obama is nowhere near the President that Clinton was. Obama might even be a tad worse than Bush W. was.

You're dismissed.

LOL, you're such a d^ckhead.

Oh please. The post he responded to was absurd.

Maybe so, but he regularly responds to everyone as if he's the smartest guy on the planet and everyone else here is moron.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: October 18, 2015, 03:45:34 PM »

Saying Obama is worse than W should be a crime punishable through time travel to September of 2008.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,734


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: October 18, 2015, 03:54:48 PM »

Saying Obama is worse than W should be a crime punishable through time travel to September of 2008.

Doc Brown is going to be very busy on Wednesday.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: October 19, 2015, 01:01:47 AM »
« Edited: October 19, 2015, 01:37:04 AM by hopper »


I do wonder if Obama would have won in 2012 even with Black and Hispanic Men voting. Romney did win the male vote too. Without Latino and Black Women Obama might have lost since Obama did lose with White Women although he did really good with White Women under 30 basically breaking even with Romney.

Practically all adults can vote for the President (aliens and in most states convicted felons). President Obama won a majority of the popular vote in 2012 and got enough electoral votes. He won fair and square, so nobody has a complaint on that ground.  

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

They had no problem with for-profit educational institutions like Corinthian Colleges which offered overpriced vocational schooling for which students got huge student loans and very poor job prospects. Vouchers exist largely to promote fundamentalist Protestant schools that push educational nonsense like young-earth creationism  and the pseudohistory of David Bartlett (that America was founded on religious principles identical with Christian fundamentalist teachings).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Arkansas blacks voted heavily for the liberal Republican Winthrop Rockefeller in 1966.

ww.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=122

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans used to win heavily among some Asian groups with anticommunist appeals. That is over. China and Vietnam have abandoned Marxism. Koreans would likely be satisfied with North Korea becoming a puppet state of the People's Republic of China.  

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because of so many Mexican-Americans in Texas who are more conservative on social issues and economics than Mexican-Americans elsewhere, and any group of Hispanics other than Cuban-Americans. Two differences between Mexican-Americans in Texas and Mexican-Americans elsewhere are (1) that Mexican-Americans in Texas are more likely to own homes, and (2) they avoided becoming victims of the subprime lending scandal that financed the Dubya-era housing bubble that hit Hispanics hard. Texas had major reforms of its financial sector after a smaller-scale scam in the 1980s and precluded an analogous scam in the Double-Zero decade in Texas .

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The language emanating from Donald Trump about 'illegal aliens' is particularly ugly.

Most know enough to avoid using the word that rhymes with the name of Roy Rogers horse. Using the racial n-word in public is about as uncouth as using the f-word in public, and either indicates a lack of impulse control more than anything else.    I think we all know how the white population in the Mountain and Deep South vote... blacks basically have the Democratic Party and whites have the Republican Party in some states, and the results are ugly.  

I didn't question Obama's victory in 2012 I was just speculating without the Latina and Black Women Vote wether he would have won the election.

School Vouchers-I think they are good thing if a poor child is in a failing school.

The Black Vote-Yeah but that in 1966 I was talking about 2012.

As far as Asian Voting goes yes "The Chinese" and Koreans do vote Dem true but not "The Vietnamese". On a side talking about "The Chinese Government" their Prime Minister(Ping) is affiliated with "The Communist Party" though. I took a look at the site "Asian Decisions" which is a sister polling firm to the "Latino Decisions" and more Foreign Born Asians voted GOP in 2014 than Native Born Asians did.

The Latino Vote-Well Romney did his best with Florida Latinos where he received 39% of the Latino Vote . Yes some of that  is the  result "Cuban Vote". Texas-Romney received 28% of the Latino Vote there so there wasn't a big GOP Latino Vote Share for Romney. You may be right about Latino's not losing their houses in Texas because of state government reforms made awhile back.

Racial Bloc Voting-Yes I agree the results are ugly.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: October 19, 2015, 01:15:10 AM »

Saying Obama is worse than W should be a crime punishable through time travel to September of 2008.
I have been working for 17 years and "The Obama Years" have been my worst. No I didn't like Bush W. but I don't like Obama either.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,143
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: October 19, 2015, 01:24:20 AM »
« Edited: October 19, 2015, 01:30:59 AM by DS0816 »

Saying Obama is worse than W should be a crime punishable through time travel to September of 2008.
I have been working for 17 years and "The Obama Years" have been my worst. No I didn't like Bush W. but I don't like Obama either.

You should have been fighting as a soldier in Iraq while George W. Bush was president.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: October 19, 2015, 01:39:08 AM »

Saying Obama is worse than W should be a crime punishable through time travel to September of 2008.
I have been working for 17 years and "The Obama Years" have been my worst. No I didn't like Bush W. but I don't like Obama either.

You should have been fighting as a soldier in Iraq while George W. Bush was president.
Your acting like I liked Bush W.'s Presidency. I didn't his second term was horrible.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: October 19, 2015, 01:48:44 AM »

Yep. It's the 22-35 year olds that essentially won it for Obama...twice. 

1) Most 22-35 year olds identify "Clinton" as their president growing up, the last truly successful economic president.  Then, they contrasted eight years with GWB.  Yikes.

2) The real young voters didn't really know the Clinton years, but many have gotten poorer under Obama. 
Yeah but in my opinion Obama is nowhere near the President that Clinton was. Obama might even be a tad worse than Bush W. was.
The problem now is that it's going to be very hard for any President to be economically successful. 

1) There is way too much of a gap between the rich and poor
2) The bottom 5% of society became the bottom 30% almost overnight with the Great Recession.
3) The top 1% will not give up anything and threatens middle classers with their jobs every time they won't take it up the a.s.
4) Globalization's negative impact on the U.S. has hit.  The is way too much of a supply of labor vs. the demand for it.  Most people don't have skills that are going to garnish decent lifestyles any longer.  Corporations have gone off-shore. The American worker's days of the "company's best resource" has been replaced by nothing more than "expensive pains in the a.ses".

In 2004, Karl Rove had a big problem.  The economy was still shaky from the dot.com boom ending and we were stuck in Iraq.  He needed a way to get George Bush re-elected.  He led a fiery attack from the right, including getting anti-gay marriage rhetoric involved and on the ballot to draw conservatives to the polls.  John Kerry was also not a very good candidate, but he did VERY well with young voters.  Rove's rhetoric and Kerry's ineptitude was enough to get Bush over the top, but damage with young voters was long done and that carried over.

The "baby" voters, however, were promised a nonsense bill of goods in the '08 campaign by Obama and many are realizing that what he said he would deliver was undeliverable. American culture has put us a disadvantage globally.

The bottom line is, Karl Rove ran a fierce, socially conservative campaign in '04, consistent with the '92 Culture Wars speech. It worked short-time, but given how Bush's second term went, it's really hurt the Republicans with moderate voters and young voters.
Well Globalization I agree with and the off-shoring of jobs. Its not a question of US Workers being in the pain the butt its just cheaper for companies to off-shore jobs.

Going back to the 2004 election sure Kerry did well with young voters but nowhere near as spectacular as Obama did with voters under 30 in both 2008 and 2012.

Yeah true given how Bush W's. second term went it hurt the party with young voters.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,030
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: October 19, 2015, 12:21:48 PM »

Romney won college graduates and won White post-graduates, too.

I find that hard to believe, but I'd be interested in seeing the exit polls that show such. They'd be more interesting to look over than the same 4 categories you see everywhere else.

I'm having trouble finding ANY 2012 exit polls that aren't just simple tables (i.e., I can't find any of the ones that ask things like "Most Important Issue," "When you decided whom to vote for," etc.), but in 2014, Republicans won 57% of White College graduates and only 28% of non-White college graduates.

Also interesting to note that Republicans won 54% of Whites aged 18-29 but only won 42% of Whites aged 30-44.  (Before you say this section looks unbelievable, I believe they mixed up the percentages for Black and Latino.)

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2014/US/house/exitpoll
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 11 queries.