Election demographics. Can we learn anything?

[Guest]

Okay, well, to be fair, the Democratic party has a president who is black, not just a candidate.

Lol.

But nobody is calling them racists...

WAIT... I'm going to start a new trend... people who think Republicans are old, white males are racists! Let's see how much mileage I get out of that...

[Windseeker]

(Putting on my pseudo mod hat) Alright guys. Simmer. We don't want this thread closed, too.

Sorry, the ”Dude!” was meant to soften the whole thing. Kind of like that fool of a took Joe Bidens ”My friend”

Heres a smilie for ya

[carlimac]

Sorry, the ”Dude!” was meant to soften the whole thing. Kind of like that fool of a took Joe Bidens ”My friend”

Heres a smilie for ya

Speaking of old angry rich white guys...Biden and Reid.

[MarginOfError]

Everyone has to make their own choices and at least you seemed to make an educated choice, (unlike many Obama supporters).

The problem with this statement is that there are probably an equal proportion of uninformed Romney supporters as there are uninformed Obama supporters. In fact, I openly question the ability of a large percentage of the electorate to evaluate complex problems and extrapolate the potential consequences of proposed solutions.

For instance, 46% of Americans believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. They insist on this belief in spite of the mountain of evidence to indicate that it is much older than 10,000 years. When people do this, I question their ability to evaluate real world information and apply that toward problems facing our society. (for the record, that 46% number breaks out at 58% of Republicans, 39% of Democrats, and 41% of Independents).

But I worry that our country is supporting social change that ultimately won't be in our best interest. Not "our interest" as in us- Conservatives vs. them-Liberals, but us as in everyone.

I completely agree with you here. I was recently disowned by my sister-in-law because I voted for Obama. She stated that, as a military family, my voting or Obama was spitting in her face because Obama was cutting their health care benefits. The impact the election had on her family was the only thing she could see in the election, and the fact that she was losing health care benefits and I was not made my vote wrong. What she doesn't really comprehend is that, while my health care benefits remain the same, my health care premiums have gone up 40% over the past three years.

So yes, there are plenty of people on all sides of the political debate that are voting their own interests, not the interests of the country.

Is legalizing late term abortion really in the best interest of the women that undergo them (not forgetting the baby who's life is being taken) while the world stands by heartbroken? It's a lose/lose/lose situation. I would argue that they were able to use their free agency when they had sex. If they are really unable to raise the child, there are plenty of people who would adopt a baby.

While I appreciate the appeal to this topic is emotional, the fact remains that the group of people advocating unrestricted access to abortion in the late term is relatively small. Especially given that the Supreme Court has ruled that the state has a right to limit abortion once the fetus has passed the point of viability.

What's more concerning to those who care about abortion rights are the persistent attempts at banning all forms of abortion. This, I believe, would be against the best interests of society at large as I do not believe we could possibly adopt out all of the children who would have otherwise been aborted, resulting in a huge increase in poverty, crime, prison sentences, and welfare payments in the next 30 - 40 years. I'm actually working on developing a statistical projection of these consequences, so keep your eye out for that in the coming months.

Is gay marriage really in the best eternal interest of those who choose to give in to their attractions and who also drag children into a confused and unnatural situation?

According to LDS theology, no, gay marriage isn't in the best eternal interests of those who give in to their attractions. According to Episcopalian theology, it's no different than traditional marriage. So which theology should the government adopt? For liberals, the answer is neither; the government shouldn't be in the business of protecting the eternal interests of society, but in protecting the temporal interests of society.

Is legalizing drugs really in the best interest of drug users? My son served his mission in Colorado where many were using marijuana leagally for medicinal purposes. (Ha! That's a laugh. They no more needed it for their health than they needed vodka for a headache.) And he saw firsthand the abuses, even then.

An argument can be made that this is a good thing in the long run. Keep in mind that marijuana is a substance that in many ways is less harmful to the body that currently legal substances. Its use is widespread and rampant among youth, even though it is illegal, and popular among adults--much like cigarettes were 30 years ago. Legalizing the drug is a good first step to a long campaign against abuse of it. This new campaign will likely be more successful than previous campaigns because decriminalization will help remove the aura of illegitimacy that helps attract people to it now. While such a campaign may not be on the mind of those who sought decriminalization, it's a campaign I expect will be taken up before too long.

Is expanding our country's welfare system really and truly in the best interest of everyone? Is being legally forced to give and even bigger portion of what we honestly earn through hard work really going to help the poor? All the poor? There are definitely some who we as a society need to take care of...better than we do right now. And I believe in the compassion of Americans to watch out for them. No one begrudges donating for a quadripelegic vet or those who are mentally retarded and can't earn a living. But to have our money legally stripped away from us takes away our agency. That's not good for the takers, the tax payers or the receivers.

A continuously expanding welfare system is certainly not in the best interests of society. This is something that certainly needs to change. But keep in mind that recent expansion of the welfare program has been related to the recession. I suspect concerns over its recent growth are overstated.

Still, it is in need of reform, and the best kind of reform will be the kind where people have a clear incentive to not be on welfare. I can't speak for all liberals, but my belief is that we can't really fix the welfare problem without simultaneously addressing the income growth disparity problem. And the best vehicle for that is, in my opinion, comprehensive tax reform. This, however, wasn't an issue that I considered strongly when voting; I felt that the executive branch had very limited power to accomplish the kind of tax reform I think we need, and I don't think Congress will ever allow any kind of tax reform that fixes income growth disparity--congressmen benefit from that disparity too much.

My fear is that in championing some of these social issues that liberals are all for, we're missing the bigger and more eternal principles that are at stake.

And again, I don't think that eternal principles are the ones on which we should govern in a pluralistic and secular government.

Edited November 14, 2012 by MarginOfError

[carlimac]

When social issues directly affect individuals and their family, that plays a big role in how they cast their ballots. I wouldn't be so quick to judge these people with a blanket statement that boils down to: Obama supporters are uneducated with their votes.

That's all I'll add. I shared where my husband and I fit into the election demographics, and why but I'm not interested in going back and forth debating politics at this point. And I'll leave with all my comments being mud free :)

I don't see it as mud slinging. I see it as asking the hard questions that seem to go unanswered.

[Bini]

I don't see it as mud slinging. I see it as asking the hard questions that seem to go unanswered.

They are answered but fall on deaf ears.

[Windseeker]

Up until two months ago my household for the last two years consisted of Haitian, Mexican, Native American, SE Asian backgrounds (now it's just Native American and SE Asian). It's almost impossible to convey the disdain I have for the Democrat party on this issue (Guess I'm an angry white dude too hehe). Without the wedge they drive between people the party collapses in on itself. The way they view other races and the way they view women is reprehensable.

The phrase is Soft bigotry of low expectations

"For an hour, I forgot that Obama was black," said Chris Mathews, the host of MS-NBC's "Hardball," after he finished watching President Obama's State of the Union address. Did Mathews mean that he's not used to hearing from articulate blacks who sound just like educated whites?

Recently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was quoted in the book Game Change as saying privately that Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks in part to his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Did he mean that Obama wouldn't have reached the White House if he was darker-skinned or spoke with the African-American vernacular English known as Ebonics?

In the same book, it was reported that Bill Clinton, when he was trying to persuade Ted Kennedy not to support Obama, remarked to the senator, "A few years ago, this guy [Obama] would have been getting us coffee." Did he mean that Obama's race qualified him only for menial jobs? During the 2008 campaign for president, Senator Joe Biden, referring to Senator Barack Obama, said, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Evidently, these folks haven't spent much time around black people. Hence, they're shocked when they come across blacks who are physically attractive, well-spoken, well-dressed, and who bathe regularly.

It may be true that a white supremacist might find the Republican Party more comfortable, but it’s due to their ignorance and the truth is they are completely impotent. How they can be comfortable with a Sikh or Indian or Hispanic Governor is interesting. But I digress; I find the number of potent racist in the Democrat party far out number those in the Republican party.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Windseeker

[carlimac]

They are answered but fall on deaf ears.

Ear. I only have one deaf ear. My other ear works perfectly fine. And no, you didn't answer any of the questions. You ran from them accusing me of mudslingng along the way.

As LDS we have the responsibility to dig deeper into these questions and not just brush them off with "Jesus loves everyone." Yes he does but we know that answer doesn't justify sin.

[Guest]

While I appreciate the appeal to this topic is emotional, the fact remains that the group of people advocating unrestricted access to abortion in the late term is relatively small. Especially given that the Supreme Court has ruled that the state has a right to limit abortion once the fetus has passed the point of viability.

What's more concerning to those who care about abortion rights are the persistent attempts at banning all forms of abortion. This, I believe, would be against the best interests of society at large as I do not believe we could possibly adopt out all of the children who would have otherwise been aborted, resulting in a huge increase in poverty, crime, prison sentences, and welfare payments in the next 30 - 40 years. I'm actually working on developing a statistical projection of these consequences, so keep your eye out for that in the coming months.

The number of politicians advocating for complete banning of all forms of abortion is about the same number for those advocating complete unfeterred abortions.

But, even with that aside... your reasoning - you can't possibly adopt out every one of them resulting in poverty, etc. etc... so we should just abort them - that's crockpot. How about this - let's sterilize every poor person so we will have a lesser statistic of poor children...

In any case, when you propose a campaign platform that prevents any limitations on abortion, you're not doing it because only a small percentage will ever think of late-term abortions or fetus-farming for stem cell research. You're making a statement that it is okay to do it.

Regardless of the extremists in the Republican party - their campaign platform was clear that exceptions for rape, incest, and threat to mother's life is provided for.

According to LDS theology, no, gay marriage isn't in the best eternal interests of those who give in to their attractions. According to Episcopalian theology, it's no different than traditional marriage. So which theology should the government adopt? For liberals, the answer is neither; the government shouldn't be in the business of protecting the eternal interests of society, but in protecting the temporal interests of society.

I'm not interested in religious differences. Gay marriage is not just a religious theory - it's a societal one. Gay marriage is not in the interest of society... regardless of your religious beliefs.

Divorce is not in the interest of society... regardless of your religious beliefs. Note: There's divorce and there's legal separation.

Having children outside of the protection of two-gender family is not in the interest of society... regardless of your religious beliefs.

Now, how to legislate any of that... we know divorce and single parenthood is statistically contributing to a large portion of poverty and crime. How about banning them, since you seem to like that idea? Yes, it's a legislative nightmare now that the US okay'd it long time ago not knowing the societal consequences of such decision. Gay marriage though - easy. It's the status quo right now, might as well keep it instead of having to figure out a way to soften the consequences later.

I mean, for an LDS, this is a bit clearer - there is a reason why God says No to it - it's not just a "religious thing". I mean, are the Thou Shalt Nots just a religious thing? No. It's a template for a successful society. You don't need to be LDS to confirm the truth of those things. Is the Law of Chastity just a religious thing? No. You don't need to be LDS to confirm the advantages of chaste living in society. Think about it - if you ban sex outside of marriage - you'll have drastically fewer abortions, drastically fewer STDs, drastically fewer broken homes from infidelity, etc. etc. Of course, the LDS law of chastity doesn't have a mandate... but if you want to vote your belief on how to improve society, then say NO to things you know are bad for society and see if you can get a mandate. There's a limit to it, of course... you don't want to ban any religion besides the LDS faith because you believe it's the only path to happiness... You kinda still have to use your brain on it to see if some social issue is better off this way or that when you're talking legislation. And forcing everyone to be LDS is not going to make things better.

An argument can be made that this is a good thing in the long run. Keep in mind that marijuana is a substance that in many ways is less harmful to the body that currently legal substances. Its use is widespread and rampant among youth, even though it is illegal, and popular among adults--much like cigarettes were 30 years ago. Legalizing the drug is a good first step to a long campaign against abuse of it. This new campaign will likely be more successful than previous campaigns because decriminalization will help remove the aura of illegitimacy that helps attract people to it now. While such a campaign may not be on the mind of those who sought decriminalization, it's a campaign I expect will be taken up before too long.

Statistics show marijuana as the gateway drug to harder substances. Mind-altering substances always trends to more alteration. Unless you're prepared to legalize all drugs, removing marijuana off the list is not going to help.

A continuously expanding welfare system is certainly not in the best interests of society. This is something that certainly needs to change. But keep in mind that recent expansion of the welfare program has been related to the recession. I suspect concerns over its recent growth are overstated.

Incorrect. The number of food stamps recipients increased as the jobless rate went down this year. So, you either accept that the lower jobless rate is inaccurate, or you wipe out the idea that expansion to welfare is due to a recession.

If you propose that the jobless rate is inaccurate, then you'll have to deal with the fact that the recession has not improved over 4 years of Obama's term... so it cannot be Bush's fault anymore. In the Philippines, the recession impacted the country for ONE YEAR only. The GDP Growth in 2008 was 6%. The DGP Growth in 2009 was 1.1%. The GDP Growth in 2010 was 7%.

Still, it is in need of reform, and the best kind of reform will be the kind where people have a clear incentive to not be on welfare. I can't speak for all liberals, but my belief is that we can't really fix the welfare problem without simultaneously addressing the income growth disparity problem. And the best vehicle for that is, in my opinion, comprehensive tax reform. This, however, wasn't an issue that I considered strongly when voting; I felt that the executive branch had very limited power to accomplish the kind of tax reform I think we need, and I don't think Congress will ever allow any kind of tax reform that fixes income growth disparity--congressmen benefit from that disparity too much.

Income growth disparity is the least of your worries. Income growth only applies to people with income. You have 20+ Million people without income or very reduced incomes from temporary jobs. Your problem today is not just welfare reform. Your problem today is reducing the number of welfare recipients by changing your environment to be more job-creation-friendly... so you'll have more people who won't qualify for welfare.

Fact remains that Senate is majority Dems - the elections caused it to be more so. House is Rep. If you wanted comprehensive tax reform to reflect the Dem platform, you vote a Dem President. If you wanted a comprehensive tax reform to reflect the Rep platform, you vote a Rep President. Not in 4 years... Now. Because Tax Reform HAS to happen before the expiration of the current tax law. There is something to be said about the President's Bully Pulpit. He can always say, I will not sign any tax law that doesn't include paying 50% tax rate on capital gains... or some such.

And again, I don't think that eternal principles are the ones on which we should govern in a pluralistic and secular government.

No, but you can vote your conscience in - including eternal principles and see if you get a mandate.

Edited November 14, 2012 by anatess

[volgadon]

As LDS we have the responsibility to dig deeper into these questions and not just brush them off with "Jesus loves everyone." Yes he does but we know that answer doesn't justify sin.

I really don't know how to respond to this, err, (looking for a term that won't get me banned), silliness.

[MarginOfError]

Anatess, when you can learn to discuss with people what they believe rather than tell them what they believe, maybe then we can talk about these things.

[volgadon]

Anatess, when you can learn to discuss with people what they believe rather than tell them what they believe, maybe then we can talk about these things.

Amen.

[Guest]

Anatess, when you can learn to discuss with people what they believe rather than tell them what they believe, maybe then we can talk about these things.

Amen.

Sure. But, I'm not telling them what to believe. I'm merely voting in what I believe is good for society as a whole. (Well, okay, I can't vote... but you know what I mean).

[Bini]

Ear. I only have one deaf ear. My other ear works perfectly fine. And no, you didn't answer any of the questions. You ran from them accusing me of mudslingng along the way.

As LDS we have the responsibility to dig deeper into these questions and not just brush them off with "Jesus loves everyone." Yes he does but we know that answer doesn't justify sin.

I was referring to the OVERALL tone of this thread and not you specifically in regards to mudslinging. Obviously the break in paragraph wasn't sufficient enough in starting on a new breath.

Obama and his campaign was/is clear on their stance surrounding certain issues. I don't believe you need ME to bullet point each and every one of them. That said, a Romney supporter is never going to be satisfied with any of Obama's solutions or approaches. We don't agree on all issues. Simple.

[Backroads]

That said, a Romney supporter is never going to be satisfied with any of Obama's solutions or approaches. We don't agree on all issues. Simple.

This is why I try not to get too offended in political debates. I've long ago realized it boils down to different personal philosophies that often trump what may seem to be clear-cut facts.

[Just_A_Guy]

They are answered but fall on deaf ears.

I'm sorry; did you say something?

[Bini]

This is why I try not to get too offended in political debates. I've long ago realized it boils down to different personal philosophies that often trump what may seem to be clear-cut facts.

DH's and my family's are Republican. We typically steer clear of political discussion. I really don't think that hashing out and re-hashing this stuff over and over again is productive. Both sides feel passionate about their beliefs and neither side is budging. The Republican Party has sent a clear message, the Democrat Party has sent a clear message. Both sides know where each other stands. We agree, or we don't. That's where the line is drawn, and where individuals decide for themselves what they subscribe to.

[Bini]

I'm sorry; did you say something?

No! You're imagining things.

[prisonchaplain]

The Republican Party has sent a clear message, the Democrat Party has sent a clear message. Both sides know where each other stands. We agree, or we don't. That's where the line is drawn, and where individuals decide for themselves what they subscribe to.

I bolded the clear message phrase because I see a huge shift in this election from previous ones. When I came of age, and throughout the 90s, the messages I would have gotten are:

Democrats: We are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, for looser drug laws, for higher taxes on higher incomes, for a more reserved military posture (i.e. less spending and global engagement), and we are for continuing to skew hiring and immigration laws to favor the disadvantaged (poor, females, and minorities).

Republicans: We are pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, for strong drug law enforcement, for less taxes across the board, for a strong and confident military (more spending and more global engagement), for ending race preferences, for strong border control, and for a minimal safety net.

This election saw little changes in the positions of each party. However, the messaging was different. The Democrats appealed more to our relational side than to our ideology. They said, "We are for the middle class, the poor, the minority, the LGBT, the young, the unemployed, and certainly for the sick. VP Biden often asked in his speeches, "Who do you trust?" The criticism of Bain Capital, and of Romney's supposed off-shoring of jobs was meant to communicate that he could only relate to the wealthy, and had little understanding of "us."

My sense is that the strategy worked. Republicans tried to sell the message that they were smarter and could fix things. However, independents and undecideds seemed to drift towards those they thought empathesized with them more.

None of this suggests that Obama voters were uninformed or illogical. In an age when information is over-abundant, and post-modern relativism reigns, more and more people seem to go with those they feel right about. They do not ignore issues or positions, but they rely more heavily on their gut reaction.

I'm I on to something here, or am I just psycho-analyzing the results to death?

[MarginOfError]

I'm I on to something here, or am I just psycho-analyzing the results to death?

Yes.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm sure you're wrong, PC. Everyone keeps telling me that the GOP has lurched towards the right in recent years.

[MarginOfError]

I'm sure you're wrong, PC. Everyone keeps telling me that the GOP has lurched towards the right in recent years.

That claim isn't entirely without merit.

The distribution of ideology in the U.S. House (with plyr)

xkcd: Congress

[prisonchaplain]

Ah for the days of moderate to progressive Republicanism...weren't we recently told what a middle-of-the-road guy Reagan was?

Michael Reagan: My dad might be too moderate for today’s GOP | The Daily Caller

Helen Thomas: Today, Reagan a Moderate

Edited November 14, 2012 by prisonchaplain

[Wingnut]

I'm I on to something here, or am I just psycho-analyzing the results to death?

You're spot on. It's called "the mommy problem" -- Democrats project warmth (mommy), while Republicans project strength (daddy).

[carlimac]

I really don't know how to respond to this, err, (looking for a term that won't get me banned), silliness.

Tell me what you see as silliness in this statement.