Post by feilong80 on Nov 8, 2012 13:20:28 GMT -5
responding here so we don't gum up the game threads with political talk.
As is always the case with political things, my answer to that is going to be overly simplistic and flawed to some degree, but it is what I got:
I'm tempted to compare and contrast Scott Walker's success versus Romney's failure- even more so since Wisconsin disappointingly went full blue right after giving Walker a healthy 7 point victory in the recall.
The thing that made Walker's recall success unique is that Walker, I think, did a great job leading with a specific agenda and more importantly *explaining it* to voters. Of course, it also helps that he was already in office, so the effects of Act 10 here could be seen clearly by all: schools were not getting wiped out, teachers weren't being mistreated (lol), and property taxes were staying the same or plumetting for the first time ever.
Whereas Romney's agenda was simply Obama sucks- which is good enough for most of us on this board- but for the asshole, effete moron in the suburbs this was not enough- that type of voter needs concrete ideas spoon fed to them, which is hard to do when the media is against you, but Walker did it here.
Obviously, again, there are lots of flaws with this argument but it is the best I can come up with, and I do think it does have some truth to it. Our man in 2016 (Rubio, I hope- or something else young, positioned to attract minority votes and most importantly politically talented) is going to have to lead with a postive agenda that has details- think Newt Gingrich minus all the other awful things about Newt (Newt was the best of our sad sack lot in terms of ideas and agendas).
On the plus side, some of the more dire things I saw when I made the mistake of even taking a peek at the political blogs and so forth (don't do it: DO NOT LOOK AT THAT STUFF NOW. IT IS MEGA DEPRESSING AND WILL MAKE YOU WANT TO BUY HARD LIQUOR AND DRUGS) don't, in my mind, quite pan out: that is the argument of "welp, I guess the demographic shift happened, we're a mostly liberal country now."
That's easy to think right now, but I think the true answer is that there were lots of people who are still pretty sympathetic to fiscal conservatism (and no, I am not blaming social cons- only idiots like Akin who said dumb things, but soCons aren't why Romney lost), but they just didn't believe the GOP was serious enough. This is Bush era brand damage that is still hurting us, and looking back you really had to expect that damage to, unfortunately, last beyond just one election cycle. Obviously lots and lots and lots of people are more than willing to vote in republican governors and state legislatures but just don't buy into the GOP national ticket. It's really hard to understand, but of course people are stupid, especially the effete, suburban crowd who is the bane of my existance right now (becase those assholes are the reason why we are in the spot we are in).
anyway my two cents. I don't really wanna go on much longer about it, to be honest :/
As is always the case with political things, my answer to that is going to be overly simplistic and flawed to some degree, but it is what I got:
I'm tempted to compare and contrast Scott Walker's success versus Romney's failure- even more so since Wisconsin disappointingly went full blue right after giving Walker a healthy 7 point victory in the recall.
The thing that made Walker's recall success unique is that Walker, I think, did a great job leading with a specific agenda and more importantly *explaining it* to voters. Of course, it also helps that he was already in office, so the effects of Act 10 here could be seen clearly by all: schools were not getting wiped out, teachers weren't being mistreated (lol), and property taxes were staying the same or plumetting for the first time ever.
Whereas Romney's agenda was simply Obama sucks- which is good enough for most of us on this board- but for the asshole, effete moron in the suburbs this was not enough- that type of voter needs concrete ideas spoon fed to them, which is hard to do when the media is against you, but Walker did it here.
Obviously, again, there are lots of flaws with this argument but it is the best I can come up with, and I do think it does have some truth to it. Our man in 2016 (Rubio, I hope- or something else young, positioned to attract minority votes and most importantly politically talented) is going to have to lead with a postive agenda that has details- think Newt Gingrich minus all the other awful things about Newt (Newt was the best of our sad sack lot in terms of ideas and agendas).
On the plus side, some of the more dire things I saw when I made the mistake of even taking a peek at the political blogs and so forth (don't do it: DO NOT LOOK AT THAT STUFF NOW. IT IS MEGA DEPRESSING AND WILL MAKE YOU WANT TO BUY HARD LIQUOR AND DRUGS) don't, in my mind, quite pan out: that is the argument of "welp, I guess the demographic shift happened, we're a mostly liberal country now."
That's easy to think right now, but I think the true answer is that there were lots of people who are still pretty sympathetic to fiscal conservatism (and no, I am not blaming social cons- only idiots like Akin who said dumb things, but soCons aren't why Romney lost), but they just didn't believe the GOP was serious enough. This is Bush era brand damage that is still hurting us, and looking back you really had to expect that damage to, unfortunately, last beyond just one election cycle. Obviously lots and lots and lots of people are more than willing to vote in republican governors and state legislatures but just don't buy into the GOP national ticket. It's really hard to understand, but of course people are stupid, especially the effete, suburban crowd who is the bane of my existance right now (becase those assholes are the reason why we are in the spot we are in).
anyway my two cents. I don't really wanna go on much longer about it, to be honest :/
