A New America

[HashiriyaS14]

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES



INDIANA

VIRGINIA

FLORIDA

OHIO

COLORADO

NEW MEXICO

NEVADA

IOWA

Maybe NC and MO also, we'll see. These are all states that Barack Obama "took back" from the 2004 electoral map.

52% to 46% popular vote win, so a pretty healthy margin.

This utterly squashes the viability of any claims that Obama was elected due to fraudulent activities, as it would take an unrealistic amount of fraud to produce such a landslide victory. This is the choice of America.

The majority of the popular vote is also important because it establishes certain things that we can now say the majority of Americans believe.

The MAJORITY of Americans don't care about William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, or Tony Rezko.

The MAJORITY of Americans no longer believe that trickle-down economics is a viable "fix" for deficit spending.

The MAJORITY of Americans believe that a multilateralist foreign policy is the way to go

The MAJORITY of Americans believe that the Supreme Court has become too conservative

The MAJORITY of Americans think that Sarah Palin and the "traditionalist" set shouldn't be in charge of America.

The Reagan coalition no longer exists and "The Obama Coalition" has now replaced it. The Reagan coalition was doomed by it's improbably alliances, captains of industry allied with poor rural social conservatives. One side had to lie to the other to keep them interested.

We'll see if the Obama coalition has more staying power. It is again an improbable alliance of groups that may have little in common, and it's ability to stay together hinges solely on the ability of the Democrats to govern from the center and achieve compromise.

Regardless, America fundamentally changed last night. The next big question is whether or not the GOP can reinvent itself to remain viable in this new nation.

[Cold_Zero]

A few things that will be key when looking back from 2010, 2012 and 2016. We obviously won't have the evidence now as none of this will transpire yet.1. Like Carter and Democrats, Obama and the Democrats have been given the White House and bigger majorities in both the House and the Senate. The question will be, will they be able to retain this control past 2010 with the off year election or 2012 in the next Presidential Election. History from the past 32 years tells us that it is highly improvable. But if Obama can pull that off it would be genius.2. In 2012, can Obama rally the same minority (specifically Black and Latino) and young white college educated voters to the polls? These groups helped Obama win big by chipping away at the Republican strong hold counties. He didn't need to win these counties, just keep his urban counties and chip away at the Republican margins in the Rural Counties. 3. In 2016, can democrats put up another candidate that is not Obama and produce the same results? If they can keep capitalizing on these two demographics, they may be unstoppable.

It was interesting to see that Obama's win was much bigger than Clinton's win in 1996 and 1992 and Bush's win in 2004. He still didn't blow out McCain like Reagan did in 1984, but he didn't need to.

Oh and Hash, keep telling yourself that the NeoCons and the Religious Right of the Republican Party are dead/mute. Just saying it doesn't make it so! It was only four years ago where we helped secure Bush's second term. They are not going away, bro.

[HashiriyaS14]

Oh and Hash, keep telling yourself that the NeoCons and the Religious Right of the Republican Party are dead/mute. Just saying it doesn't make it so! It was only four years ago where we helped secure Bush's second term. They are not going away, bro.

Oh, I know they're not "going away", but they aren't going to be calling the shots in the GOP anymore.

In this election, the GOP made a choice. They went towards the right instead of towards the center, believing that there was enough tolerance of far-right viewpoints in the mainstream for them to remain electable.

This has been proven indisputably false. Palin was an awful choice, McCain's concessions to the right were awful choices, et cetera.

In the future, the GOP can abandon the socially conservative agenda and refocus on lower spending and smaller government or they can lose, and lose forever.

I mean, they can do whatever they want, I'm just saying what they're going to have to do if they ever want to WIN again. If they can't ever win again, what's the point?

[Vista Sucks!]

Wow, Obama took all those red states away from the GOP. I was especially surprised he took Indiana. Any thoughts?

EDIT by Hash: I merged this into my own thread, as the topic is largely the same. I don't want to have fifty million "ZOMG OBAMA VICTORY" threads.

[HashiriyaS14]

I was especially surprised he took Indiana. Any thoughts?

I was very surprised, I expected McCain to win Indiana rather handily, as I mentioned in Bud's thread on that subject.

[Cold_Zero]

INDIANA

Incidently, Obama won by a narrow margin in Indiana.

Precincts Reporting: 5221 of 5230 ( 100.0%) Candidate Total Barack Obama D 1,352,356 50% John McCain R 1,329,370 49% Bob Barr L 28,980 1% Last Updated at: 11/5/2008 10:14:48 AM

What is interesting is that 1/3 of the people who voted for Obama in Indiana voted for (i)Mitch Daniels (R) who incidently was......

George W Bush's Director of Office of Management and Budget. They (Dems) tried to paint Mitch as the same as GW Bush. It obviously didn't work with 1/3 of Obama voters voting for him.

bud

[Vista Sucks!]

Oh ok, I didn't know you had already made this thread otherwise I would've posted in here.

[Cold_Zero]

Wow, Obama took all those red states away from the GOP. I was especially surprised he took Indiana. Any thoughts?

I think everyone here in Indiana is in shock. I went to bed last night with the images from DC of Obama supporters chanting at the White House, opened my door to hear.... nothing. The whole taking Indiana and Virginia was a big shock for the GOP. Last time a Dem took Indiana was LBJ. But as I stated in my post above, the Obama camp came into Indiana and made it a state that was 'In Play.' Incidentally, with very little Democrat Offices in the state. Some Indiana counties do not have a Democrat Office, period.

Looking back from 2004 to 2008 (compare and contrast) the Republicans thought, just as Hash did that they would take Indiana. In 2004 I received so many mailers from the RNC that I had to put them in a copier box. I recieved 3 this year from the RNC, that were anti Obama. I honest think the RNC underestimated the Obama Campaign.

[heliochrome85]

for the most part, allen county is like that. we dont usually have a full time democratic party office. urgh.

[Cold_Zero]

for the most part, allen county is like that. we dont usually have a full time democratic party office. urgh.

Allen County, which last time I checked went for McCain, last night.

[heliochrome85]

it did.big surprise

[Cold_Zero]

INDIANA

VIRGINIA

And last time I checked 1am last night, Indiana and Virginia were almost the same. A sea of red counties with a few blue counties in the urban areas. My dad pointed out that Obama took the University counties, of Purdue, Ball State, Indiana and Notre Dame, which probably had a lot to do with him winning overall.

[Cold_Zero]

INDIANA

VIRGINIA

And last time I checked 1am last night, Indiana and Virginia were almost the same. A sea of red counties with a few blue counties in the urban areas. My dad pointed out that Obama took the University counties, of IUPUI, Purdue, Ball State, Indiana and Notre Dame, which probably had a lot to do with him winning overall.

[HashiriyaS14]

Why does your location say "Columbia MD" now?

Did you move?

[telcoman]

Oh and Hash, keep telling yourself that the NeoCons and the Religious Right of the Republican Party are dead/mute. Just saying it doesn't make it so! It was only four years ago where we helped secure Bush's second term. They are not going away, bro.

Oh yes they are. Their numbers are declining. By 2012 the south that has been punishing democrats for passage of the voting rights act will begin to turn democratic once again. All the old racists will be dead by then. Look at the new demographics.

Telcoman

[heliochrome85]

unfortunately telco, i think you are wrong on this one. as long as there is a left wing nut, there will be an equiv right wing nut. for all the kucinichs and michael moores in our country who think we can win over countries with money, there are those who think that we can win them by figthing wars against terrorism, and bringing democracy. both sides are wrong, and both sides will be with us til the end of days.

[telcoman]

I I honest think the RNC underestimated the Obama Campaign.

He started as a community organizer.

He learned his lessons well and is now an expert.

Telcoman

[Urabus GodofTraction]

The MAJORITY of Americans don't care about William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, or Tony Rezko.

The MAJORITY of Americans no longer believe that trickle-down economics is a viable "fix" for deficit spending.

The MAJORITY of Americans believe that a multilateralist foreign policy is the way to go

The MAJORITY of Americans believe that the Supreme Court has become too conservative

The MAJORITY of Americans think that Sarah Palin and the "traditionalist" set shouldn't be in charge of America.

The majority of Americans were purchased with slick words and the political equivilent of a door prize. It's like that every single time. The American public don't vote rationally. Why else would the majority of the nation want lower taxes for themselves but more services?

"We" voted for change, but we've got just another politician headed to the White House, and a basically incumbent Congress. Congress's approval rating is below 20%, but the return rate is around 90%. Is that the work of a politically cognizant voting public? Nothing has changed but the president's color, both of skin and of political alignment.

Do note, I would have said the same things had McCain gotten elected and Congress remained basically the same. I'm disgusted with you, America. And myself, for selling out.

[telcoman]

My dad pointed out that Obama took the University counties, of IUPUI, Purdue, Ball State, Indiana and Notre Dame, which probably had a lot to do with him winning overall.

Ask your dad how the Viet Nam issue took down a previous republican government.It began slowly on college campuses and after the Kent State shootings really got rolling. Ask him if he remembers Chicago in 1968.Abbie Hoffman is looking down today and smiling.

telcoman

[HashiriyaS14]

both sides are wrong, and both sides will be with us til the end of days.

I knew I liked you for a reason.

Anyway, helio speaks the truth. I didn't mean to imply that these people would simply disappear.

Instead, my point is that the results of the last two elections (2006 and 2008) have driven home the point that many traditional GOP positions have become unpopular.

In particular, party often seems to have to "pick and choose" between candidates who are fiscally conservative and candidates who are socially conservative. They appear to tolerate the latter without the former, but not the other way around. This does NOT mesh with the idea of appealing to mainstream America, as I believe that we are a "center right" nation on fiscal issues but a "center left" nation on social ones (i.e. majority pro-choice, et cetera).

They need to become comfortable with socially moderate Republicans, pro-choice Republicans in particular. Many Republicans are pro-life for "image" purposes only for this reason, which is a damned shame.

They can't keep prioritizing this way and winning elections, it doesn't reflect the majority and a winning party needs to reflect the majority.

Get some socially moderate spending-cutters in office and let the religious right pound sand. This will force the "moral majority", given that they don't constitute a real majority of American society capable of running on their own, to choose between TWO socially moderate candidates, one fiscally conservative and one fiscally liberal. It will change the American political dynamic.

Or they can keep playing to the social conservatives and get fewer and fewer votes every time.

[smockers83]

Ask your dad how the Viet Nam issue took down a previous republican government.It began slowly on college campuses and after the Kent State shootings really got rolling. Ask him if he remembers Chicago in 1968.Abbie Hoffman is looking down today and smiling.

telcoman

You do realize that it was your party that got us into Vietnam (which is one word by the way), right? Democrats have long been attributed for that mess. When CDA and its students across the US on campuses took the position against Vietnam, LBJ was outraged that these people turned against him and he removed their funding from the DNC.

It was your party that got us in there, the party that really started this whole distrust thing of government, the distrust you have, yet you embrace this party and voted them in to take control of 2/3 of the government? Tell me why.

[Cold_Zero]

Ask your dad how the Viet Nam issue took down a previous republican government.It began slowly on college campuses and after the Kent State shootings really got rolling. Ask him if he remembers Chicago in 1968.Abbie Hoffman is looking down today and smiling.

telcoman

im sorry Howie my father wasn't in country from 1968- because he was in Europe and Southeast Asia fighting the socialists in the form of communism.

You do realize that it was your party that got us into Vietnam (which is one word by the way)

And what party ordered the withdraw of forces from Vietnam?

[HashiriyaS14]

It was your party that got us in there, the party that really started this whole distrust thing of government, the distrust you have, yet you embrace this party and voted them in to take control of 2/3 of the government? Tell me why.

I will agree that Vietnam is more attributable to the Democrats than to the Republicans.

It also, however, occurred in an era when the parties had almost completely different identities.

The South was still solidly Democratic, and in the pre-Civil Rights era the Democrats were still "the segregation party".

Furthermore, the legacy of an interventionist trigger-happy foreign policy has without dispute passed to the GOP, thanks in large part to d!ck Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.

Telco's example most certainly sucked, you'll get no argument from me there, but comparing the current incarnation of EITHER party to how they existed in the early 1960's isn't really going to work.

[heliochrome85]

I will agree that Vietnam is more attributable to the Democrats than to the Republicans.

It also, however, occurred in an era when the parties had almost completely different identities.

The South was still solidly Democratic, and in the pre-Civil Rights era the Democrats were still "the segregation party".

Furthermore, the legacy of an interventionist trigger-happy foreign policy has without dispute passed to the GOP, thanks in large part to d!ck Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.

Telco's example most certainly sucked, you'll get no argument from me there, but comparing the current incarnation of EITHER party to how they existed in the early 1960's isn't really going to work.

Agreed. Im pretty sure Barry Goldwater would be rolling over in his grave if he saw any of the things "his" party stands for these days.

Also, I believe they were called Dixiecrats back then. Not exactly the highpoint of the democratic party's history...

[HashiriyaS14]

Also, I believe they were called Dixiecrats back then. Not exactly the highpoint of the democratic party's history...

Yeah, it's funny how much the party identities have changed over time.

The GOP constantly invokes Abraham Lincoln, but if Lincoln were running today he would almost certainly be a Clintonian Democrat (Economic Liberalism in the Adam Smith vein, passion for civil liberty, generally secular, etc).

[Urabus GodofTraction]

I knew I liked you for a reason.

Anyway, helio speaks the truth. I didn't mean to imply that these people would simply disappear.

Instead, my point is that the results of the last two elections (2006 and 2008) have driven home the point that many traditional GOP positions have become unpopular.

In particular, party often seems to have to "pick and choose" between candidates who are fiscally conservative and candidates who are socially conservative. They appear to tolerate the latter without the former, but not the other way around. This does NOT mesh with the idea of appealing to mainstream America, as I believe that we are a "center right" nation on fiscal issues but a "center left" nation on social ones (i.e. majority pro-choice, et cetera).

They need to become comfortable with socially moderate Republicans, pro-choice Republicans in particular. Many Republicans are pro-life for "image" purposes only for this reason, which is a damned shame.

They can't keep prioritizing this way and winning elections, it doesn't reflect the majority and a winning party needs to reflect the majority.

Get some socially moderate spending-cutters in office and let the religious right pound sand. This will force the "moral majority", given that they don't constitute a real majority of American society capable of running on their own, to choose between TWO socially moderate candidates, one fiscally conservative and one fiscally liberal. It will change the American political dynamic.

Or they can keep playing to the social conservatives and get fewer and fewer votes every time.

Extremely sensible.

Sensible has nothing to do with it, however. The "moral majority" would never choose between two socially moderate candidates. They'ed form their own party. They'ed even have a ticket lined up: Huckabee/Roberts anyone?

Now we've got a fractured Republican Party vs. a finally united Democratic Party. The real problem is the Democrats have had fantastic sucess picking and choosing the issues they'll be "socially moderate" on, then painting all other issues as negative. For your new fiscally responsible party not to simply elect another Democrat into office, you'd have to find someone capable of calling a spade a spade and the Democratic party out.

Coupled with a charismatic firebrand of a leader, a small government, hands-off fiscally convservative, supply-side (it WORKS, but that's for a different thread so you won't delete my goddamn post) party could be a raging sucess, IF the Democrats can be splintered. If they can't, and the moral majority forms their own party, you'll see the least moderate Democratic president we've ever seen.

[HashiriyaS14]

Sensible has nothing to do with it, however. The "moral majority" would never choose between two socially moderate candidates. They'ed form their own party. They'ed even have a ticket lined up: Huckabee/Roberts anyone?

And they might well be inclined to do this, although I don't see how such a ticket would be electable. Huckabee lost the primaries because the GOP saw him as not being electable.

They can band together all they want, but in the end they are a minority in American society and thus, on their own, they'll never put someone in national office.

They have to compromise.

Now we've got a fractured Republican Party vs. a finally united Democratic Party. The real problem is the Democrats have had fantastic sucess picking and choosing the issues they'll be "socially moderate" on, then painting all other issues as negative. For your new fiscally responsible party not to simply elect another Democrat into office, you'd have to find someone capable of calling a spade a spade and the Democratic party out.

I didn't mean to somehow exonerate the Democrats on social issues, both parties are hypocritical in how they address these issues.

The Democrats, for example, are for the individual liberties of abortion and gay marriage but against the individual liberty to own and carry a firearm (by and large).

Both parties need to get their ducks in a row in this regard, although I'm not optimistic of that happening.

Coupled with a charismatic firebrand of a leader, a small government, hands-off fiscally convservative, supply-side (it WORKS, but that's for a different thread so you won't delete my goddamn post) party could be a raging sucess, IF the Democrats can be splintered.

If you want to make a supply-side economics thread, I'll be in there in a jiffy. I think it works in certain ways, but the problem is how the GOP has applied it.

IMO, the "perfect storm" candidate would be a socially moderate (i.e. pro choice) fiscally conservative (i.e. stop deficit spending) candidate with a pro-gun voting record. EITHER party could, if they chose, field a person like this, and I don't see how such a person could be defeated so long as they pass muster on character. Such a person would best represent the majority view in America, IMO.

The Dems can't seem to field this candidate because they won't make compromises on guns, which is a hugely important issue to many Americans.

The GOP can't do it because they can't bring themselves to let a pro-choice Republican win the primaries.

First party to figure this conundrum out will win in a big way, I promise.

[Jesda]

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESThe MAJORITY of Americans don't care about William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, or Tony Rezko.

The MAJORITY of Americans no longer believe that trickle-down economics is a viable "fix" for deficit spending.

The MAJORITY of Americans believe that a multilateralist foreign policy is the way to go

The MAJORITY of Americans believe that the Supreme Court has become too conservative

The MAJORITY of Americans think that Sarah and the "traditionalist" set shouldn't be in charge of America.

The Reagan coalition no longer exists and "The Obama Coalition" has now replaced it. The Reagan coalition was doomed by it's improbably alliances, captains of industry allied with poor rural social conservatives. One side had to lie to the other to keep them interested.

Most Americans dont know what the focking hell most of that is. Like the GOP in 2004, you're exaggerating what was actually confirmed by this election.

Carville can sum it up best, that the issue is the economy, and anyone but whomever was in power was poised to win.

[Cold_Zero]

Howie,Thank you for coming here into Hash's post and taking a huge steaming dump on the floor. I thought the conversation was going pretty well, until you showed up.bud

[wingFeather]

a landslide victory

How is 52% a landslide?