What The Republican Party Needs To Do

[Rob's House]

I attribute most of the racial divide to a combination of Democrats pandering to minority groups combined with a concerted effort by the left, picked up and amplified by the media, to push the stereotypes of conservatives as Klansman who want to "put yall in chains". And I don't think becoming more moderate is the answer. I think moving beyond the sound bites and attacking the issues straight on with logical arguments is the best strategy. That and keeping an eye on the ball. That means teaching the electorate how the economy works, and why interventionist and redistributionist policies that they've been sold are detrimental to their long-term success, rather than getting distracted by side issues that really don't make that much difference but feed the stereotypes.

[3rdnlng]

From the article:

 

"In retrospect, the Romney team is in awe and full of praise of the Obama operation. 'They spent four years working block by block, person by person to build their coalition,” says a top aide. They now recognize that those offices were created to build personal contacts, the most durable and useful way to gain voters.'"

 

"'We just didn’t expect the African-American vote to be so high.' African-American participation in Ohio jumped from 11 percent of the electorate to 15 percent between the 2008 and 2012 elections. 'We could never see that coming. We thought they'd gotten a lot last time.' But that wasn’t the only problem. Romney underperformed George Bush’s results from 2004 in the vast majority of Ohio’s counties, not just the ones with big African-American populations."

 

 

I'm still wondering how it got this (19605 to 0) lopsided:

 

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20121112_In_59_Philadelphia_voting_wards__Mitt_Romney_got_zero_votes.html

 

 

 

"These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst, but such results may not be so startling after all.

 

"We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic," said Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University. "It's kind of an urban fact, and you are looking at the extreme end of it in Philadelphia."

 

Most big cities are politically homogeneous, with 75 percent to 80 percent of voters identifying as Democrats.

 

Cities are not only bursting with Democrats: They are easier to organize than rural areas where people live far apart from one another, said Sasha Issenberg, author of The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns.

 

"One reason Democrats can maximize votes in Philadelphia is that it's very easy to knock on every door," Issenberg said.

 

Still, was there not one contrarian voter in those 59 divisions, where unofficial vote tallies have President Obama outscoring Romney by a combined 19,605 to 0?

 

The unanimous support for Obama in these Philadelphia neighborhoods - clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia - fertilizes fears of fraud, despite little hard evidence.

 

Upon hearing the numbers, Steve Miskin, a spokesman for Republicans in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, brought up his party's voter-identification initiative - which was held off for this election - and said, "We believe we need to continue ensuring the integrity of the ballot."

 

 

[Juror#8]

I attribute most of the racial divide to a combination of Democrats pandering to minority groups combined with a concerted effort by the left, picked up and amplified by the media, to push the stereotypes of conservatives as Klansman who want to "put yall in chains". And I don't think becoming more moderate is the answer.

 

There really are republicans and people on the fringe right fanning the flames of xenophobia and ethnic skepticism. Things don't happen in a vaccuum and there are articulable reasons why the environment within which pandering can be successful, exists.

 

 

I think moving beyond the sound bites and attacking the issues straight on with logical arguments is the best strategy. That and keeping an eye on the ball. That means teaching the electorate how the economy works, and why interventionist and redistributionist policies that they've been sold are detrimental to their long-term success, rather than getting distracted by side issues that really don't make that much difference but feed the stereotypes.

 

I've been saying since day 1 here that the electorate are dolts. They don't want to know how the economy works. They just want it to work. They will tune out mid-way through your explanation.

 

Side issues matter to them. Social issues are not merely side issues. That said, social issues matter to them too. And if the economy was dispositive, Romney would have won by a landslide.

 

You're on the wrong side of the trustee vs. delegate debate. It's laudable; but wrong. The American people want to be led. They want a trustee. They don't want to put too much thought in the decisions; they just want to know that they are choosing an ingenuous decision-maker who will sincerely and decisively use their best judgment on a national level.

 

The electorate doesn't want a delegate. They don't want to be taught and then choose someone to represent their now comprehensive understanding of how things should work on a national level.

 

70 million people tuned into the debates. I'll guarantee that the vast majority of those folks tuned in to determine who they felt was the more trustworthy candidate - not the most knowledgeable. They want to believe in someone. They want to believe that their leader possess the intelligence and knowledge that they don't care to ascertain, but care enough to know that it matters that the one leading the country ought to have ascertained it. And they want to believe that their leader is wise, understanding, faithful, and deliberative.

 

And that comes down to trust, believeability and sincerity.

 

The person who represents those qualities will win election after election against the automaton databot who understands the economic impact of anything (and can explain it conscisely).

Edited November 12, 2012 by Juror#8

[meazza]

 

 

I've been saying since day 1 here that the electorate are dolts. They don't want to know how the economy works. They just want it to work. They will tune out mid-way through your explanation.

 

Side issues matter to them. Social issues are not merely side issues. That said, social issues matter to them too. And if the economy was dispositive, Romney would have won by a landslide.

 

You're on the wrong side of the trustee vs. delegate debate. It's laudable; but wrong. The American people want to be led. They want a trustee. They don't want to put too much thought in the decisions; they just want to know that they are choosing an ingenuous decision-maker who will sincerely and decisively use their best judgment on a national level.

 

The electorate doesn't want a delegate. They don't want to be taught and then choose someone to represent their now comprehensive understanding of how things should work on a national level.

 

70 million people tuned into the debates. I'll guarantee that the vast majority of those folks tuned in to determine who they felt was the more trustworthy candidate - not the most knowledgeable. They want to believe in someone. They want to believe that their leader possess the intelligence and knowledge that they don't care to ascertain, but care enough to know that it matters that the one leading the country ought to have ascertained it. And they want to believe that their leader is wise, understanding, faithful, and deliberative.

 

And that comes down to trust, believeability and sincerity.

 

The person who represents those qualities will win election after election against the automaton databot who understands the economic impact of anything (and can explain it conscisely).

 

And this is why I think western society is heading for an epic fail. An important issue like the economy or foreign policy shouldn't be handed to a figure to be taken care.

 

 

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

I attribute most of the racial divide to a combination of Democrats pandering to minority groups combined with a concerted effort by the left, picked up and amplified by the media, to push the stereotypes of conservatives as Klansman who want to "put yall in chains". And I don't think becoming more moderate is the answer. I think moving beyond the sound bites and attacking the issues straight on with logical arguments is the best strategy. That and keeping an eye on the ball. That means teaching the electorate how the economy works, and why interventionist and redistributionist policies that they've been sold are detrimental to their long-term success, rather than getting distracted by side issues that really don't make that much difference but feed the stereotypes.

did the conservative media, the campaign, and the candidate influence those minorities, and in some cases reflect those stereotypes a wee bit?

[Rob's House]

There really are republicans and people on the fringe right fanning the flames of xenophobia and ethnic skepticism. Things don't happen in a vaccuum and there are articulable reasons why the environment within which pandering can be successful, exists.

 

 

 

 

I've been saying since day 1 here that the electorate are dolts. They don't want to know how the economy works. They just want it to work. They will tune out mid-way through your explanation.

 

Side issues matter to them. Social issues are not merely side issues. That said, social issues matter to them too. And if the economy was dispositive, Romney would have won by a landslide.

 

You're on the wrong side of the trustee vs. delegate debate. It's laudable; but wrong. The American people want to be led. They want a trustee. They don't want to put too much thought in the decisions; they just want to know that they are choosing an ingenuous decision-maker who will sincerely and decisively use their best judgment on a national level.

 

The electorate doesn't want a delegate. They don't want to be taught and then choose someone to represent their now comprehensive understanding of how things should work on a national level.

 

70 million people tuned into the debates. I'll guarantee that the vast majority of those folks tuned in to determine who they felt was the more trustworthy candidate - not the most knowledgeable. They want to believe in someone. They want to believe that their leader possess the intelligence and knowledge that they don't care to ascertain, but care enough to know that it matters that the one leading the country ought to have ascertained it. And they want to believe that their leader is wise, understanding, faithful, and deliberative.

 

And that comes down to trust, believeability and sincerity.

 

The person who represents those qualities will win election after election against the automaton databot who understands the economic impact of anything (and can explain it conscisely).

While I don't think this is wrong (people wanting to be led), I do think there are enough people that could be swayed with reason and, with the divide being as tight as it is, that could be enough. There are a lot of people who just don't get the debt crisis we're racing up on and no one is explaining the issues for them. And I know a lot of people who do understand, but vote D because of bogus issues like gay marriage and abortion. I'm not saying Rep's need to sell out their values on those issues, just prioritize correctly, and take realistic steps rather than idealistic ones. Another example is immigartion. Hispanics, in particular, tend to be conservative people, but they vote Dem b/c Republicans haven't been able to articulate a logical immigration policy.

 

I do think the biggest problem is that they need a candidate who can break the stereotypes. And I don't mean someone who's black or Hispanic, although I'd vote for Walter Williams, but I mean someone who's down to earth, likeable, and has a cool demeanor, and who the average Joe can relate to. Like me.

 

did the conservative media, the campaign, and the candidate influence those minorities, and in some cases reflect those stereotypes a wee bit?

Examples?

[outsidethebox]

 

While I don't think this is wrong (people wanting to be led), I do think there are enough people that could be swayed with reason and, with the divide being as tight as it is, that could be enough. There are a lot of people who just don't get the debt crisis we're racing up on and no one is explaining the issues for them. And I know a lot of people who do understand, but vote D because of bogus issues like gay marriage and abortion. I'm not saying Rep's need to sell out their values on those issues, just prioritize correctly, and take realistic steps rather than idealistic ones. Another example is immigartion. Hispanics, in particular, tend to be conservative people, but they vote Dem b/c Republicans haven't been able to articulate a logical immigration policy.

 

I do think the biggest problem is that they need a candidate who can break the stereotypes. And I don't mean someone who's black or Hispanic, although I'd vote for Walter Williams, but I mean someone who's down to earth, likeable, and has a cool demeanor, and who the average Joe can relate to. Like me.

 

 

Examples?

Can you explain exactly what Romneys plan was to reduce the deficite and stimulate the economy?

[meazza]

 

Can you explain exactly what Romneys plan was to reduce the deficite and stimulate the economy?

 

Lower taxes across the board. Capping deductions to 50k. Lowering or removing taxes on investments/capital gains/ dividends to those.under.250k

 

Effectively if the models were correct, this would generate roughly 3% growth and increase tax revenues.

[outsidethebox]

 

 

Lower taxes across the board. Capping deductions to 50k. Lowering or removing taxes on investments/capital gains/ dividends to those.under.250k

 

Effectively if the models were correct, this would generate roughly 3% growth and increase tax revenues.

What spending would be cut under his plan to compensate for loss of tax revenue?

[meazza]

 

What spending would be cut under his plan to compensate for loss of tax revenue?

 

Medicare reform and social security reform. Also was going to slash the federal budget through means testing. That's from memory though.

 

 

[outsidethebox]

 

 

Medicare reform and social security reform. Also was going to slash the federal budget through means testing. That's from memory though.

That sounds pretty vague to me. But to be fair, I have yet to hear a feasible plan to reduce the deficite besides raising taxes on the rich from Obama. I really don't think either man has the ability to reduce the deficite.

Edited November 13, 2012 by westside

[3rdnlng]

 

Can you explain exactly what Romneys plan was to reduce the deficite and stimulate the economy?

 

 

Can you explain exactly what Obama's plan was to reduce the deficits and stimulate the economy? This should be really easy since you've had 4 years to study it.

 

 

What spending would be cut under his plan to compensate for loss of tax revenue?

 

There wouldn't be a loss of tax revenue. There would be a gain, as it has been proven in the past.

[outsidethebox]

 

 

 

Can you explain exactly what Obama's plan was to reduce the deficits and stimulate the economy? This should be really easy since you've had 4 years to study it.

I believe I some what answered that in my last post. Besides raising taxes on the rich, I really don't know. Both candidates lean left. I don't believe either one of them has the ability to reduce the deficite.

 

 

 

 

Can you explain exactly what Obama's plan was to reduce the deficits and stimulate the economy? This should be really easy since you've had 4 years to study it.

 

 

 

There wouldn't be a loss of tax revenue. There would be a gain, as it has been proven in the past.

Proven how?

[3rdnlng]

 

That sounds pretty vague to me. But to be fair, I have yet to hear a feasible plan to reduce the deficite besides raising taxes on the rich from Obama. I really don't think either man has the ability to reduce the deficite.

 

Taxing the "rich" at 100% would not cover the deficit. Growing the economy and reducing the entitlements is the only way. Now, naturally if the economy grows there would be less need for such things as food stamps and Medicaid, so not only do you reduce the entitlements but you gain taxpayers. This is what numerous people were trying to get across to you by asking you to explain "trickle down" and "middle out".

[outsidethebox]

 

 

Taxing the "rich" at 100% would not cover the deficit. Growing the economy and reducing the entitlements is the only way. Now, naturally if the economy grows there would be less need for such things as food stamps and Medicaid, so not only do you reduce the entitlements but you gain taxpayers. This is what numerous people were trying to get across to you by asking you to explain "trickle down" and "middle out".

Our differences (besides the obvious) are,you actually believe companies will take the tax savings and hire more people. Why would they want to increase the pay roll if they can get just as much product out with a smaller budget? Put the pressure on the worker to produce more while making the same amount of money.

Thirty years ago that might of happened, but not in todays greedy corporate world.

[Rob's House]

Can you explain exactly what Romneys plan was to reduce the deficite and stimulate the economy?

In addition to what's already been mentioned, reducing the corporate tax rate would help because we live in a global economy regardless of whether or not we choose to accept that reality. Repealing some of the aspects of ACA that are going to be hard on businesses over the next few years would have helped too. SS and Medicare reform would help in the long term, but we seem to be content to kick the can down the road. Freeing up energy resources, and regulatory reform would help to get the gum out of the economic gears as well.

 

But even if he did absolutely nothing, that would be preferable to the Obama plan of continuing to squeeze business and hope that will magically lead to growth. And the idea that adding a few % pts to the top marginal income tax rates will have a significant impact on revenue is beyond absurd, and I'm being nice here. That's like trying to break our dependence on foreign oil by checking our tire pressure more frequently.

 

Our differences (besides the obvious) are,you actually believe companies will take the tax savings and hire more people. Why would they want to increase the pay roll if they can get just as much product out with a smaller budget? Put the pressure on the worker to produce more while making the same amount of money.

Thirty years ago that might of happened, but not in todays greedy corporate world.

All you just told us is that you really don't understand basic economics.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Rob's House

[3rdnlng]

Here are some useful charts for anybody wanting to get an idea of what a real problem we are facing:

 

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

 

 

http://mevnusa.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/gross-domestic-product-at-current-dollars-and-annual-real-growth-rate-usa-1929-present/

[outsidethebox]

 

In addition to what's already been mentioned, reducing the corporate tax rate would help because we live in a global economy regardless of whether or not we choose to accept that reality. Repealing some of the aspects of ACA that are going to be hard on businesses over the next few years would have helped too. SS and Medicare reform would help in the long term, but we seem to be content to kick the can down the road. Freeing up energy resources, and regulatory reform would help to get the gum out of the economic gears as well.

 

But even if he did absolutely nothing, that would be preferable to the Obama plan of continuing to squeeze business and hope that will magically lead to growth. And the idea that adding a few % pts to the top marginal income tax rates will have a significant impact on revenue is beyond absurd, and I'm being nice here. That's like trying to break our dependence on foreign oil by checking our tire pressure more frequently.

 

 

All you just told us is that you really don't understand basic economics.

Wow. Republicans just can't resist the temptation to insult people. Do you not have the ability to talk with out insulting? You wonder why the republicans can't win the whitehouse.

As far as your answer goes, why didn't the economy thrive under Bush? Shouldn't the Bush tax cuts spark the economy? Wasn't he a business friendly president?

 

[3rdnlng]

Wow. Republicans just can't resist the temptation to insult people. Do you not have the ability to talk with out insulting? You wonder why the republicans can't win the whitehouse.

As far as your answer goes, why didn't the economy thrive under Bush? Shouldn't the Bush tax cuts spark the economy? Wasn't he a business friendly president?

 

Several people here started out discussing things with you in a cordial way and your obstinence and obtuseness have appeared to make people throw up their hands and say "f" it. I know yesterday that's what I ended up doing. Maybe your insult to TYTT, Meazza and myself claiming that we were against working people was what did it for me.

 

The economy did thrive under Bush right up until 2008 when the housing bubble burst. Do you know why that happened?

[Rob's House]

Wow. Republicans just can't resist the temptation to insult people. Do you not have the ability to talk with out insulting? You wonder why the republicans can't win the whitehouse.

As far as your answer goes, why didn't the economy thrive under Bush? Shouldn't the Bush tax cuts spark the economy? Wasn't he a business friendly president?

How did I insult you?

 

Pointing out that your post demonstrates a lack of understanding of economics isn't an insult, it's a constructive criticism. You currently don't understand how markets function. It doesn't mean you can't learn. Personally, I think you come off as very close minded. You've created this paradigm in your head where the greedy rich people and corporations have all the power and are holding our economy hostage, and you accept it as unquestioned reality. You can continue to believe that if it gives you some sort of satisfaction, or you can choose to open your mind and learn to understand that which up to now you've rejected out of hand. It's up to you.