Jump to content

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

Recommended Posts

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]All,[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]The election season is over (finally) and most of us who were hoping for a GOP win wound up disappointed. Lots will be written about how the election was lost given President's performance on what was touted as the key issue: the economy.[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]What I am about to say may be off the beaten path a little, but in my tiny mind I'm convinced that it is largely true. These are my thoughts, and I can't really blame/credit anyone else for them, though they may parallel the thoughts of others. [/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]I think the GOP was beaten because Democrats realized that what most of us (myself included) think of as conventional wisdom was proven incorrect. Conventional wisdom says that an Administration's performance on the economy, domestic policy, and in foreign policy are key factors in deciding an election's outcome. The GOP lost because Democrats realized conventional wisdom was wrong and adjusted their strategy accordingly, and the GOP didn't.[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]Had this been a traditional campaign, the President would have had to run on his record, and indeed, the GOP's strategy was to compel him to do this. Democrats realized quickly that a traditional campaign would surely result in defeat, and history clearly supports this conclusion (i.e. no President has ever won a second term with unemployment higher than 7.2 percent... until now). So, what do you do when your record, conventional wisdom, and history aren't on your side? Simple: you change the game. To their credit, the Democrats did this brilliantly.[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]To understand why the Democrats' strategy was so effective, you have to take a look at the factors that, using conventional wisdom, would be massive liabilities to any reelection campaign.[/font][/size][/color]
[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive] - High unemployment[/font][/size][/color]
[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive] - Massive swelling of numbers of folks on disability, food stamps, welfare rolls, student loans, medicare, and other government entitlement programs too numerous to mention here.[/font][/size][/color]
[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive] - Soaring energy costs (gasoline alone nearly doubled in cost during Obama's first term, and heating oil along with it)[/font][/size][/color]
[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive] - Massive regulation of small business (and large business as well)[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]The list goes on and on, but you get the picture. You would think that, using conventional wisdom, it should be relatively straightforward too beat a guy with this record. Every relevant trend line on the economy depicts either stagnation or feeble growth. So what went wrong?[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]The answer is stunningly simple when you stop and think about it. The Democrats successfully messaged to more people that they would be the ones who would keep the entitlement checks rolling in for folks RIGHT NOW, and that they would keep them coming in the future... Medicare as we know it will remain intact, etc. At the same time, the Democrats' core message painted the GOP as the party that, if empowered, would be the folks who would strip those benefits away completely or at least decrease them to the point where those dependent (or those anticipating they will be dependent) on government would find themselves in financial distress. The GOP had no effective counter to this message, and all they seemed to offer was blood, sweat, and tears and an uncertain future where [i]maybe[/i] there will be more and better jobs and [i]maybe[/i] things would get better. The crucial element that the GOP's message lacked was [i]certainty[/i]. I'm here to tell you that, all things being equal, people will bet on what they think is a sure thing every time if given the choice, even if that sure thing is not the best thing. And this time, enough of them did. Enough folks were concerned with how they were going to support themselves and their families [i]today, [/i]and they clearly cared less about an uncertain future.[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]Where does this leave the GOP? Honestly, I don't know, but they will have an uphill fight if the old saw, "He who borrows from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." is any guide. Fact is, a tremendous number of people and families are barely scraping by in this economy and most of them receive some sort of Federal assistance. Simply put, the election question for many of them wasn't about the economy, foreign policy, Benghazi, Obamacare, or any of those things... it was about [i]survival [/i]and an utter dependence of many people on Federal aid to make ends meet. Survival will trump just about any other message every single time.[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]Therein lies the key to Democratic victory and their brilliance in realizing this in time and in driving this message to the extent that they were able to convince a majority of Americans, at least indirectly, that their very survival depends upon the Federal government to keep entitlement monies rolling. Any other President at any other time in history would have surely been defeated (and has been) with a record like this President's. It has been said, "It's the economy, stupid!" Clearly, issues like the economy can't hope compete with something as essential as survival. If the GOP is to have any relevance in the future, they had better take note:[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]- The game has changed[/font][/size][/color]
[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]- It's [u]survival[/u], stupid![/font][/size][/color]
[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]- Fear [b][i][u]works[/u][/i][/b][/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]war[/font][/size][/color] Edited by =ADK= warspite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='frekillz' timestamp='1352309331' post='52846']
sooooooo basically ur saying he bought his 2nd term from the ppl on teh govt dole lol
[/quote]


[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]Not exactly. I'm not saying the Dems are buying people, because that would be unfair. Many entitlement programs are necessary and enjoy broad support (obviously). Speaking for myself, I've paid into both Medicare and Social Security nonstop my entire adult life (I've never been unemployed)... I want what's coming to me just like everyone else. Both parties have added to and cut back these programs over the years.[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]What I'm saying is that the Dems' message managed to convince a majority of people either dependent upon Federal government support or those anticipating that they will be (either by retiring or other life circumstances) that voting for GOP candidates would jeopardize the support ($) that they now receive and will receive in the future (Soc. Security and/or Medicare). Keep in mind that our economy is on its ass with high unemployment and that 49% of households rely on some sort of Federal assistance to make ends meet. The fear instilled by the Dems' message dominated traditionally important issues like the economy, foreign policy, domestic policy, etc. I also think that the GOP, because they were running a traditional campaigned focused on attacking their opponent's performance, underestimated the effectiveness of the Democrats' message, which at its core was centered on painting the GOP as the folks who "are going to take your money and put you on the street".[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]I think the Democrats did a brilliant job of out-messaging the GOP by instilling fear and by creating enough uncertainty in the GOP's ability to change things for the better. I don't think anyone can dispute that. They (GOP) thought people cared more about fixing the economy than in receiving the Federal entitlement money that puts bread on their table... they were flat out wrong. The GOP was completely outmaneuvered and even the best among them, I think, were surprised by the election's results. I don't think they saw it coming and for them, it was a "Pearl Harbor" experience.[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]Clearly, when your message can make your own performance irrelevant while at the same time painting your opponent as dangerous, you are probably going to win, because folks tend to choose an outcome they feel is certain (the checks keep coming) over an outcome that is less certain (maybe things will be better with the GOP in charge). Very few of us are willing to gamble with our (or our family's) lives.[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]That's what I'm saying.[/font][/size][/color]

[size=4][color=#FFA500]war[/color]

[color=#FFA500]P.S. I'm not passing judgement on the Dems' strategy, I will leave that to others. I'm just trying to explain what I think the core of it was and that it was effective and caught the GOP off-guard.[/color][/size] Edited by =ADK= warspite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice, didn't pay that close attention because I looked at it as they both are a horrible option, while our founding fathers were arguably wealthy people and arguably those who preceded them the fact that 90% of politicians can't and most cases won't empathize with at least the middle class much less others that are more financially less stable and those programs you mentioned along with others that are similar were developed from the depression time frame or after wartime back when arguably the wealthier Americans were just beginning to be wealthy or surrounded themselves with average Americans. Granted college and education was at a minimum so most wealthy families MIGHT of graduated high school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@[member='Bromance']

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font='comic sans ms', cursive]I don't know if you saw my response to the comment above b/c I was editing it. LoL You may want to give it a look.[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font='comic sans ms', cursive]war[/font][/size][/color]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh yeah, this is well known that the Dem's started their campaign back in Feb with a huge fear based slambastic (if that is a word. simile to diatribe.) gamble basically. If it worked (which it did) it would work brilliantly and if it failed it would have failed miserably. The GOP failed and lost the election back in july/ august when they failed to counter spin what the Democratic party was slinging at them on their smear campaign. "They are going to take your money and your programs and tax the hell out of you" sounds like a damn good political campaign to me if you want to win scared minds. This is why this election scares me and to be honest...makes me mad as hell. No one should have voted for POTUS to have a second term. I'm sorry if you disagree but it is true. As you said above War, the unemployment rate went up, the housing market is doing shitty, he has spent more than ANY president in the past with no end in sight and has effectively turned the pool known as government fiscal aid programs into a GIANT ponzi scheme. My generation and anyone under the age of 50 will not see any of the money they are putting into social security...it's just a matter of fact considering how fast that pool is drying out.

I'm going to give him a chance though, a chance to pull us out and kick this lame duck congress in the ass to get SOMETHING that isn't detrimental in the long run to our great country. BUT if things go downhill fast...well I'll just leave this quote open to interpretation "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[color=#ffa500][size=4][font='comic sans ms', cursive]@ Hoole[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font='comic sans ms', cursive]Thanks for you constructive and thoughtful comments. I'm a conservative myself and I voted for Romney/Ryan (best option I had). I don't disagree with you in any way, I was just laying out what I thought was the Dems' core strategy and how they executed it to win. At times, victory isn't pretty, and there are ways to win that are tough to be proud of, but for some people the ends do justify the means. At any other point in history, this President would not have won. Doom on the GOP for getting out-played so well and for not seeing a way to victory in time for it to make a difference.[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font='comic sans ms', cursive]One thing the GOP will have to get over is the notion that they can soft-pedal their way to victory. McCain tried it in 2008 and lost, and Romney (who should have been able to beat Obama on his record) lost as well. Clearly, when someone comes at you with everything they have, and they pull out all the stops to beat you; you can't fight them with one hand tied behind your back and expect to win. If the GOP fails to do some tough, objective analysis of how they lost and find a way to put those lessons learned into practice, they will continue their string of failures. Also, if the GOP doesn't get at least as tough as the Dems on the campaign trail, the future looks grim for them indeed. If the GOP can't get it together, the U.S. will become a [i]de-facto [/i]one-party nation... in other words, Chicago writ large.[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font='comic sans ms', cursive]Again, thanks for you comments Hoole! The sun will rise, we'll go to work, and try to have some fun no matter who is in the big chair. Carry on my friend.[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font='comic sans ms', cursive]war[/font][/size][/color]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='=ADK= warspite' timestamp='1352381295' post='52993']
[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]The sun will rise, we'll go to work, and try to have some fun no matter who is in the big chair. Carry on my friend.[/font][/size][/color]
[/quote]

yeah just depends on if said sun is on my firing or non firing shoulder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
America was doomed either way. Neither was a good choice, and in the end, the corporations, china, and the poor people win.

The middle class will continue into poverty, job growth won't be there...

but hey! if you're in section 8 housing, your kid's gunshot wound from the streets will be covered!

Assault weapons ban? who cares, I have enough rifles....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='s0ck37' timestamp='1352426926' post='53103']
America was doomed either way. Neither was a good choice, and in the end, the corporations, china, and the poor people win.

The middle class will continue into poverty, job growth won't be there...

but hey! if you're in section 8 housing, your kid's gunshot wound from the streets will be covered!

Assault weapons ban? who cares, I have enough rifles....
[/quote]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]What I think you're saying is the dilemma of moderates as they rarely have a mandate and thus lack the political capital to effect major changes... unless you devise or are handed the situation that Obama had in 2008 with a Dem super-majority that effectively enabled him create out of thin air his own mandate (in his case, universal health care).[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]Had a strong conservative run, and won, on a focused platform then there would indeed have been a mandate and an opportunity to effect the changes needed to turn things around. Even if Romney had won, he would have won as a moderate, and thus would not have had the political capital needed to effect any major changes (his intent to roll back Obamacare likely would have died in the Senate, and it's unlikely his executive/administrative "waivers" would have survived for long after his term(s)).[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font=comic sans ms', cursive]war[/font][/size][/color] Edited by =ADK= warspite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hoole' timestamp='1352522237' post='53252']
Anyone else think that it is odd that 3 major military leaders, the head of the CIA, and Hillary Clinton resigned in the same week after the elections?
[/quote]

It is odd. The interesting part is, Obama really didn't do anything his entire term. He didn't finish anything the dems wanted, and didn't do anything "against" the right. It cracks me up, we all bent over and thought we were going to take it.

All he did was the title of this thread, soldier on with the sinking ship. Oh yea, he also spent a SHIT TON of money, but it doesn't matter to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Hoole' timestamp='1352522237' post='53252']
Anyone else think that it is odd that 3 major military leaders, the head of the CIA, and Hillary Clinton resigned in the same week after the elections?
[/quote]

It's very odd especially when GP was supposed to testify next week about Benghazi.

Although with Clinton it was talked about before the election that she was going to leave because she will most likely be running for Pres in 2016 and doesn't want to be caught with her pants down saying something that will be used against her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[color=#ffa500][size=4][font='comic sans ms', cursive]Pretty normal for a major cabinet shuffle after an election, regardless if 2nd term or no. For most, four years in the hot seat is enough. After they leave an administration, most of these guys either retire, go to a think tank, join a lobbying firm (or return to it :) ), or fleet up to a higher job (like UN AMB Susan Rice is trying to do.[/font][/size][/color]

[color=#ffa500][size=4][font='comic sans ms', cursive]war[/font][/size][/color]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

This website uses cookies to provide the best experience possible. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use