[Sundayjack]

Originally Posted by milo

All I can do is speak for my little corner of the Earth in South Florida, but I totally agree with you Jack, for whatever reason the ground game was horrendous for Romney.

I live about a mile from the Romney campaign local headquarters, and every day I passed it for six months it was fully staffed and buzzing. I think they even had Guliani at the place the Saturday before.

Now at my house? Total 180...I had 7 people knock on my door in 10 days asking if I was voting for Obama, and on election day saw three different carloads in my neighborhood alone.

Romney? Not a damn thing. Somebody seriously dropped the ball when it comes to boots on the ground execution over there.

There was a reluctance to draw on the GWB field operators, who in their day were, frankly, better than the Obama campaign. Not everyone. But you saw a guy like Ralph Reed, who has masses and masses of data points that weren't connected back into the campaign. Knocks on the door are nice, but if you're selling rotten meat, it doesn't really matter. The GWB people were solid on making connections.

I think the other flaw in Romney's campaign is his own inability to speak of his own charity. He had some great great stories to tell, and didn't. Never has. Their closing ads were so good, but the month of August was wasted. Some of that is due to campaign finances and his inability to spend freely until after the nomination. But for about a month, his campaign was adrift and let the media write his story for him. All the while, Barack was carrying on a lousy campaign himself. So it was opportunity lost.

[Biggs]

Originally Posted by akibud

I think that whatever happens the next 4 years, the best thing that could happen from the election is that Old white male politicians stop thinking that America is a white man's country, ..... STILL. And they start respecting the diversity of America and treat everyone equally. I hope that happens.

And WTF does that even mean. The entire point of having power and maintaining it is your ability to treat your constituents much better than your opponents constituents. Treat everyone equally is not the goal of either political party and it shouldn't be. Redistribution by taxing the rich is no more about equality then not taxing them is.

[akibud]

Originally Posted by Sundayjack

I hear your point. I've heard it before. I don't agree with it, but I still hear it.

If I were a minority in the Democrat party and I were at all self-aware, I would be asking: what has this Party done for the advancement of minorities out of poverty or otherwise? 1970's housing programs served only to lock a whole class of underprivileged in decrepit, substandard, horrible housing, with the hope of nothing better. Teachers unions and centralized education planning does everything possible to see that underprivileged minorities are stuck in lousy schools. Cries of "racism!" at EVERY turn only diminish genuine claims of civil rights infringement.

The Republican position is, and should always be, that people should always be judged on the content of their character, and that a government program is not the solution to all that ills society. More often than not, it's the cause itself. I hope there's no compromise on that point.

that edict is honest and true. BUT!! what has been missing to support it, is the opportunities that the establishment received were not the same on an equal scale. Mitt Romney proudly talks about not keeping any money from his father to make it in life. What he overlooked was the fact that he had the Mormon churches money to play with as well as his dads name to open doors for him. Sure he had good ideas and took risks, but it was EASY!! and he would never have suffered in life had his early risks failed. That is what Democrats dream of for all Americans. Now, if you argue that realistically, that is unrealistic, and cannot happen, you would be right. But the mantle of privilege was solely with one race, thereby ensuring that races continued success. So what if one group has an easier path to success you might ask? Everyone still has a shot at making it with hard work. It just seems disingenuous.

[akibud]

Originally Posted by Biggs

And WTF does that even mean. The entire point of having power and maintaining it is your ability to treat your constituents much better than your opponents constituents. Treat everyone equally is not the goal of either political party and it shouldn't be. Redistribution by taxing the rich is no more about equality then not taxing them is.

...I thought the role of the political party was to enact and adopt principles that would advance the ENTIRE COUNTRY, not just the people who supported their party. The goal is to make America great.. and ultimately, greater. I could be wrong

[JetBlue]

Originally Posted by akibud

...I thought the role of the political party was to enact and adopt principles that would advance the ENTIRE COUNTRY, not just the people who supported their party. The goal is to make America great.. and ultimately, greater. I could be wrong

that is certainly the ideal goal, but to get into the power to do so you have to appeal to people who will elect you, and thus you have to appeal to their interests. and, as you know, we all don't have the same interests, thus you start appealing to the ideals that large groups are interested in to receive the votes.

[Sundayjack]

Originally Posted by akibud

that edict is honest and true. BUT!! what has been missing to support it, is the opportunities that the establishment received were not the same on an equal scale. Mitt Romney proudly talks about not keeping any money from his father to make it in life. What he overlooked was the fact that he had the Mormon churches money to play with as well as his dads name to open doors for him. Sure he had good ideas and took risks, but it was EASY!! and he would never have suffered in life had his early risks failed. That is what Democrats dream of for all Americans. Now, if you argue that realistically, that is unrealistic, and cannot happen, you would be right. But the mantle of privilege was solely with one race, thereby ensuring that races continued success. So what if one group has an easier path to success you might ask? Everyone still has a shot at making it with hard work. It just seems disingenuous.

Question: Stealing a line from perhaps the dumbest Harvard professor on the planet, who kept telling us all how "the system is rigged!" Let's assume that's true. Well, who rigged it? The Republican Party? That'd be a tough position to support. Over these last four years, we've appropriated well over a trillion dollars in discretionary spending. How much of that was targeted for minorities. I'd have much preferred we took all of that money and used it for slave reparations than for the billions of wasteful spending programs that feathered all the wrong nests. And I'm serious about that. And then we have QE, QE2 and QEternity - all wonderful monetary stimulus programs intended solely to keep stocks prices inflated and keep banks moving money - inevitably to other banks and bankers. This is the Republican Party assisting it's "rich friends"? I doubt that.

In what other country is upward mobility more possible? Everyone in this country CAN make a decent living and CAN move upward in class through hardwork. And a bit of luck. There are stories everywhere that prove the point. The problem is that there is always a hovering government apparatus that has ZERO interest in releasing people under its care to fend for themselves. It's interest isn't in upward mobility; it's in a steady supply of wards.

[akibud]

Originally Posted by JetBlue

that is certainly the ideal goal, but to get into the power to do so you have to appeal to people who will elect you, and thus you have to appeal to their interests. and, as you know, we all don't have the same interests, thus you start appealing to the ideals that large groups are interested in to receive the votes.

agreed! That is exactly why I said that I am hopeful that elections going forward will not be dominated so much with the racist rhetoric used by the predominantly old white male GOP party of past elections. Recognize that the electorate is changing, and respect it instead of trying to (this word has been so wrongly used on Fox News in the past week) SUPPRESS it. By respect, I mean, do exactly what you stated, find something that that group relates to and champion that issue, instead of trying to force the other groups to adapt to your issues and thinking.

[Sundayjack]

Last point, and then I have to go.

The minority political community in this country isn't interested in results. If it were, they would be rioting in the streets, dissatisfied over the last fifty years of nonprogress. What they are interest in is window dressing. The appearance of equality, which they hope someday evolves. Think: Rooney Rule; where the NFL's goal is in compelling teams to interview minority candidates is simply to broaden the pool of minority candidates, with the hope that, eventually, it will lead to more minority coaches. Window dressing that somehow leads to progress. And maybe it does. In certain cases, I think it probably has. Although, when teams have a white guy they really want, the process becomes insulting and embarrassing for the token minority interviewee.

But this is why I think Condoleeza Rice is the person the Republican Party needs to promote more. She's smarter than just about anyone on the planet AND she's that wonderful mish-mash of minority/woman window dressing that political people love.

[akibud]

Originally Posted by Sundayjack

Question: Stealing a line from perhaps the dumbest Harvard professor on the planet, who kept telling us all how "the system is rigged!" Let's assume that's true. Well, who rigged it? The Republican Party? That'd be a tough position to support. Over these last four years, we've appropriated well over a trillion dollars in discretionary spending. How much of that was targeted for minorities. I'd have much preferred we took all of that money and used it for slave reparations than for the billions of wasteful spending programs that feathered all the wrong nests. And I'm serious about that. And then we have QE, QE2 and QEternity - all wonderful monetary stimulus programs intended solely to keep stocks prices inflated and keep banks moving money - inevitably to other banks and bankers. This is the Republican Party assisting it's "rich friends"? I doubt that.

In what other country is upward mobility more possible? Everyone in this country CAN make a decent living and CAN move upward in class through hardwork. And a bit of luck. There are stories everywhere that prove the point. The problem is that there is always a hovering government apparatus that has ZERO interest in releasing people under its care to fend for themselves. It's interest isn't in upward mobility; it's in a steady supply of wards.

the system is rigged just the way I mentioned above. The privilege banner. It is not rigged by the republican party, the republican party just recognizes that they are primarily a mostly white base, and they get their money from mostly white people who feel threatened by a growing mostly non white population. That is exactly why they focused less on getting people out to vote, but focused more on preventing a large voter turnout. The republican party will get the majority of the white vote. But they just expect that the non white vote should come to them, because their polices are more American. It used to be enough to say that Americans don't envy the wealthy, they want to be wealthy also. Therefore, the wealthy just needed to give the rest of us pep talks on how our hard work will pay off. But the truth is, a great portion of the wealthy, got that way because of who they knew, and the private contacts opening doors and creating opportunities for them. But what happens if the non white vote is not steeped in white American entitlement? They feel like they have no place in the republican party. Add on top of that, the denial that there is a WAR AGAINST WOMEN and their control of their own reproductive rights, and people get to feel like the old white men are not looking out for them, but just looking out for themselves. Just my take.

[Br4dw4y5ux]

Originally Posted by Sundayjack

But this is why I think Condoleeza Rice is the person the Republican Party needs to promote more. She's smarter than just about anyone on the planet AND she's that wonderful mish-mash of minority/woman window dressing that political people love.

She's not conservative enough. She'd never win the primary.

Hell, Jeb Bush isn't conservative enough. When he runs again the Republicans are going to cripple him before he ever gets to the general election.

[21stAmendment]

Originally Posted by Sundayjack

All my leftward friends are happy with the election results, I assume? I wish I had the time to go through all of the banter on and around Election Day. Sorry I missed all the larfs. I was working for the Romney campaign, as some here know. Spent time down in Coral Gables, which appears to have been wasted, but for the warm weather.

Onward and upward....

I had no idea you worked for Romney's campaign, though now it makes more sense why you attacked the polling so aggressively. You guys were horribly wrong.

[Sundayjack]

Originally Posted by akibud

the system is rigged just the way I mentioned above. The privilege banner. It is not rigged by the republican party, the republican party just recognizes that they are primarily a mostly white base, and they get their money from mostly white people who feel threatened by a growing mostly non white population. That is exactly why they focused less on getting people out to vote, but focused more on preventing a large voter turnout. The republican party will get the majority of the white vote. But they just expect that the non white vote should come to them, because their polices are more American. It used to be enough to say that Americans don't envy the wealthy, they want to be wealthy also. Therefore, the wealthy just needed to give the rest of us pep talks on how our hard work will pay off. But the truth is, a great portion of the wealthy, got that way because of who they knew, and the private contacts opening doors and creating opportunities for them. But what happens if the non white vote is not steeped in white American entitlement? They feel like they have no place in the republican party. Add on top of that, the denial that there is a WAR AGAINST WOMEN and their control of their own reproductive rights, and people get to feel like the old white men are not looking out for them, but just looking out for themselves. Just my take.

People with a market-backed interest look for achievement first and foremost. They're properly greedy, and most would eat their young if it meant a larger bottom line. I would hire a purple, gay, transvestite gimp, if the freak could increase my profits.

The War on Women was another one of the many nonsensical, false-fronts that I'm talking about. Assuming that women vote with their vaginas, and scaring people about backrooms and coat hangers. Pure nonsense. It's the Democrat position that has changed. Dramatically. We used to treat it as something to discourage and not promote. It's now the other way around.

[21stAmendment]

Originally Posted by Sundayjack

I think he ran a rock solid campaign down the stretch, but a lousy Election Day operation. And, ultimately, I think he lost because the gods decided to give a Barack an opportunity to look presidential after he had long since abandoned that strategy. Stuff happens. (Note the limp post, caused by a fiance who asked that I give up swearing for good. Gone - a whole inventory of really useful words. It's been a tough few weeks.)

and as usual, you would be wrong. The momentum Romney got after the Denver debate died about a week and half before the Hurricane hit land. That's if you believe the polling.

[JetBlue]

Originally Posted by akibud

agreed! That is exactly why I said that I am hopeful that elections going forward will not be dominated so much with the racist rhetoric used by the predominantly old white male GOP party of past elections. Recognize that the electorate is changing, and respect it instead of trying to (this word has been so wrongly used on Fox News in the past week) SUPPRESS it. By respect, I mean, do exactly what you stated, find something that that group relates to and champion that issue, instead of trying to force the other groups to adapt to your issues and thinking.

I think the flipside is true as well. the Democrat party needs to stop vilifying conservatives and depending on class warfare, racist rhetoric and emotionally framed positions, because all it has done is fueled irrational hatred for anyone not a liberal.

let's look at the responses to the Tea Party video a page back. not one single rational response to it. just the typical biased vile that missed the actual point because they were so consumed with pointing out how stupid she is not based on the merits of her argument but that they do not agree with her. that isn't a rational dispute of her position, and that is a repercussion of the irrational hatred liberals try to paint anyone that is not liberal with.

the reporter did not "own" that lady, because she happily conceded every point he tried to catch her on. by conceding those issues she actually owned him. he had no counter to her positions that she did not dismiss with not being the party's concern. granted, it revealed the ridiculousness of her position but the Tea Party is apparently happy with that flawed position and not caring about social issues, only financial issues. if they only cater to a very narrow segment of voters that agree with them their success will be limited, and they are content with that. that is the flaw of the Tea Party, but nobody was saying the Tea Party's position is flawed in response to that video.

so the change has to occur on both sides, not just old white Republicans who need to join the year 2012 in regards to social interests. dishonest liberals need to appeal to those interested in honest discourse of the issues, because by simply insulting the opposing position doesn't do so, and that is the result of how liberals have spread their desire to vilify anyone that is not liberal.

[Sundayjack]

Originally Posted by 21stAmendment

I had no idea you worked for Romney's campaign, though now it makes more sense why you attacked the polling so aggressively. You guys were horribly wrong.

No. The polling was right.

[jilozzo]

Originally Posted by Sundayjack

All my leftward friends are happy with the election results, I assume? I wish I had the time to go through all of the banter on and around Election Day. Sorry I missed all the larfs. I was working for the Romney campaign, as some here know. Spent time down in Coral Gables, which appears to have been wasted, but for the warm weather.

Onward and upward....

and u forgot forward.....

[akibud]

Originally Posted by JetBlue

I think the flipside is true as well. the Democrat party needs to stop vilifying conservatives and depending on class warfare, racist rhetoric and emotionally framed positions, because all it has done is fueled irrational hatred for anyone not a liberal.

let's look at the responses to the Tea Party video a page back. not one single rational response to it. just the typical biased vile that missed the actual point because they were so consumed with pointing out how stupid she is not based on the merits of her argument but that they do not agree with her. that isn't a rational dispute of her position, and that is a repercussion of the irrational hatred liberals try to paint anyone that is not liberal with.

the reporter did not "own" that lady, because she happily conceded every point he tried to catch her on. by conceding those issues she actually owned him. he had no counter to her positions that she did not dismiss with not being the party's concern. granted, it revealed the ridiculousness of her position but the Tea Party is apparently happy with that flawed position and not caring about social issues, only financial issues. if they only cater to a very narrow segment of voters that agree with them their success will be limited, and they are content with that. that is the flaw of the Tea Party, but nobody was saying the Tea Party's position is flawed in response to that video.

so the change has to occur on both sides, not just old white Republicans who need to join the year 2012 in regards to social interests. dishonest liberals need to appeal to those interested in honest discourse of the issues, because by simply insulting the opposing position doesn't do so, and that is the result of how liberals have spread their desire to vilify anyone that is not liberal.

WWWEEEELLLL!!!!! ........ I agree with you, mostly. There is enough vilification going across from both sides. Newt Gingrich and Donald Chump to name a couple, get liberals keyed up. AND!! the Fox news talk radio bunch, does the conservatives/Republicans a huge disservice because they actually mislead their audiences intentionally. So, that said, I think liberals are angry towards conservatives because there has been SO MUCH NON FACT BASED rhetoric coming from the far right. It incenses us a great deal. I for one know that I am not always right, and even when I agree with conservatives. It is difficult, because they just don't seem to appreciate facts as much as we do. And as far as the T Party lady on the previous page goes, the same thing applies, the T party might be about fiscal conservativeness to HER, but the rest of us only see bitter, racist white people who, when you point out the facts about our spending, and their lack of action under the previous white led republican administration, they deflect and dismiss it. We have no way of knowing if they would be as outraged if the current President was white and doing the same things, but, their actions on a whole suggest that they would not be as engaged.

[Br4dw4y5ux]

Originally Posted by Sundayjack

No. The polling was right.

Explain? I get that the national polling was largely right and predicted election day pretty accurately however I'm not sure that's what you mean.

[typeOnegative13NY]

Originally Posted by akibud

...I thought the role of the political party was to enact and adopt principles that would advance the ENTIRE COUNTRY, not just the people who supported their party. The goal is to make America great.. and ultimately, greater. I could be wrong

Thats what i always thought,but i am learning that accdording to the right its not the case

[tcrock]

Originally Posted by typeOnegative13NY

Thats what i always thought,but i am learning that accdording to the right its not the case

way to take the discussion out of context. Point here is, as other already made, different philosophies, with each believing their way is in the best interest of the nation as a whole. If we all thought the same we wouldn't need the party sytem or elections at all for that matter would we?

Whether 2 parties are enough to represent everyone is a different story but that's not likely to change, at least in my lifetime.