Electoral Votes

[anygunanywhere]

If you think that going with the lefties is keeping fed.gov out of your bedroom you need to take the blinders off.

The nanny state you are advising us to accept is tantamount to your throwing back the covers and inviting the infected pustule in with you.

No thanks.

Anygunanywhere

[Purplehood]

So what you are essentially saying is that in order to get elected one must give up all principles and toe the social agenda line? Kill more babies, more elderly? We have to tolerate more social engineering when the enemy does not tolerate us or anything about us?

NIce.

Sell your soul for public office.

You can't defend your social liberty and maintain religious freedom. They are not mutually inclusive.

Anygunanywhere

Anygun, I totally disagree with your last statement. I totally agree with Roy's take on the whole situation.

In reality the ideology of the United States has broken down to the following:

1 - Big government, social equality and minimal restrictions on social issues
2 - Small government, fiscal responsibility and strong Judeo-Christian values
3 - Small government, fiscal responsibility and minimal restrictions on social issues

The first one is obviously the trend with the most momentum. Last night being good evidence.
The second one is the bedrock of the now defunct Republican party.
The third one is in my opinion the most representative of what many younger Republicans and Independents have evolved to, and will continue to do so.

I do not see why one cannot defend social liberty and religious freedom.
Social liberty and religious freedom by definition are one and the same.
A religious person may not like the fact that social liberties exist, but must accept that others may practice it.
A person believing in equal rights and the like may consider religious beliefs as outdated, outmoded and obsolete, but must allow others the freedom to practice them.

Simply put, stay out of my bedroom and I will stay out of yours. Government and politics should have nothing to do with it.

[talltex]

This election wasn't about religion or gay marriage it was about entitlements. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have Paul's vote. Religion, gay marriage, abortion, and all those other "social choices" were background noise for the majority of voters. The far right and the extreme left may have concerned themselves with those social choices, but the voters in the middle (the majority that determines elections) was focused on the economy, money, and entitlements.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Ben Franklin

I'm inclined to respond that the entitlement voters represent the far-left in similar (far less than a majority) numbers as "True Conservatives" represent the far right. The election was lost by not winning the majority of those in the middle. I'll call them Fiscally responsible, small government, stay out of my bedroom voters.

I know many people (including myself) who are fiscally conservative Republicans, yet libertarian socially. There are far too many "one issue" voters out there that may be alienated by the lack of tolerance on issues that have nothing to do with the actual running of the government. As for gay marriage, abortion and related religious issues, let individuals make their own choices. How does "social liberty" exclude religious freedom? No one is telling you that you have to be in favor of any of those issues...just don't try to force everyone else to agree with you...to me that seems like what individual freedom and liberty is about. I've been married to the same woman for 29 years, still belong to the same conservative church I was born and baptised in (which officially is against all those issues, although they demand that THEIR religious freedom not be compromised), but as far as I'm concerned, I'd prefer the government let individuals make those choices themselves. I'm FREE to choose what I believe and I'd allow others the same privilege...I don't expect everyone to feel the same as me. If you INSIST that the Republican party has to agree with your personal beliefs...and your's alone...then, they will indeed be unable to win, because we will not be able to get past that 49% mark and it's only going to get more difficult in the future. The way I see it, no one is asking you to abandon YOUR principles in moral and religious areas...just don't demand that everyone else has to agree with them.

[RoyGBiv]

Well if they did as you suggest and they say to the Conservative Christians go fly a kite....you are still not going to win. Because we WILL NOT vote for a person who thinks that killing children that are inconvenient is just fine and dandy.

I will not sell my soul to win an election. I fear God. End of Story.

MBC states, quite succinctly, the issue.

If, like me, you prefer to advocate your personal social agenda outside of government mandates, then it's possible to vote for a pro-choice candidate that checks all the boxes labeled "Government should be involved here" and still advocate against abortion privately.

The final analysis on abortion, for me, comes down to this.... Even if it was 100% illegal, people would still choose to do it. Societal pressure, creating options, changing hearts and minds... is more effective than changing laws. Better to focus government on the things that only government can do and let the Citizenry work out the rest without using laws to impose my standards on others....

I believe many people could come to this view for issues other than abortion.. that abortion is the impasse....

[RoyGBiv]

This election wasn't about religion or gay marriage it was about entitlements. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have Paul's vote. Religion, gay marriage, abortion, and all those other "social choices" were background noise for the majority of voters. The far right and the extreme left may have concerned themselves with those social choices, but the voters in the middle (the majority that determines elections) was focused on the economy, money, and entitlements.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Ben Franklin

I'm inclined to respond that the entitlement voters represent the far-left in similar (far less than a majority) numbers as "True Conservatives" represent the far right. The election was lost by not winning the majority of those in the middle. I'll call them Fiscally responsible, small government, stay out of my bedroom voters.

So all these fiscally responsible, small government voters decided to forget all about small government and responsibility and vote based off of their "stay out of my bedroom" values? That seems to go against what people said in the exit polls. 59% of voters said the economy was the most important issue. 81% of those who voted for Obama said that government should do more to solve problems. Look at states like Ohio and Michigan where more than 60% of voters approve of the Federal bail out to GM and Chrysler. Voters in blue states want to keep or even expand ObamaCare. Maybe some people refused to vote Republican because of the party's stance on gay marriage, but Romney lost the election because most voters want more government not less.

I think they got hoodwinked into thinking that Obama would be "good enough" on government and and fiscal issues and then Obama played the "far-right-extremist" card well enough to win the election. I do not believe that "most" voters want more government.

Is it not possible that 59% thought Obama would be "acceptable" on the economy?
You and I would certainly call them "unsmart" (forum friendly word).

Honestly, I'll admit that I believe a fat chunk of people are just too darn lazy and want the government to take care of them. Not "most", not 47% as Romney was accused, but a fat chunk.

So....... Do we stick to our principals and go down with the ship? Or admit that we're in the minority and change tactics to try and save at least some of the things we value? Note that "change tactics" is not "surrender"... Still, not a pleasant or easy choice...

Or... perhaps we should go further right... that Romney was not right-enough and that a further-right candidate like a Santorum would have had a better chance at beating Obama.? I don't believe that, but, I suppose it's not unreasonable to want to go down that path.

[mamabearCali]

So for the socially libertarian on this thread the answer is for those of us that feel strongly on social issues (abortion/traditional marriage/ parental rights) should violate our conciseness in matters that are of the highest importance to us to get the fiscal situation we want.


Others may feel differently, but I think this stinks like cow patties. I will not violate my conscience for a pay off.

Legalized murder is still murder, and that is what I consider abortion to be. You vote as you see fit. If a candidate wants my vote he must not be willing to say murder is hunky dory if a person is less than convenient.



I will add I don't think this election had one thing to do with abortion or gay marriage. I think it was that there are now more takers than makers. Mores the pity for us. No easy way to fix that.

[anygunanywhere]

I do not see why one cannot defend social liberty and religious freedom.
Social liberty and religious freedom by definition are one and the same.
A religious person may not like the fact that social liberties exist, but must accept that others may practice it.
A person believing in equal rights and the like may consider religious beliefs as outdated, outmoded and obsolete, but must allow others the freedom to practice them.

Simply put, stay out of my bedroom and I will stay out of yours. Government and politics should have nothing to do with it.

Purplehood, the government is forcing your social engineering down the throats of those who object because of their faith.

FORCED. THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE FOR US.

The HHS Mandate is mandatory, under penalty of law!

WHERE IS THE FREEDOM OF WHICH YOU SPEAK?

You say you want the government to stay out of your bedrooom. Tell your government to stay out of my freedom of religion.

I do not have to believe in gay marriage, abortion, or any other of the so called social freedoms you insist I embrace just to elect someone to represent me in an oppressive government of which I no longer recognize as a valid government.

Respectfully,
Anygunanywhere

[donkey]

This election wasn't about religion or gay marriage it was about entitlements. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have Paul's vote. Religion, gay marriage, abortion, and all those other "social choices" were background noise for the majority of voters. The far right and the extreme left may have concerned themselves with those social choices, but the voters in the middle (the majority that determines elections) was focused on the economy, money, and entitlements.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Ben Franklin

I'm inclined to respond that the entitlement voters represent the far-left in similar (far less than a majority) numbers as "True Conservatives" represent the far right. The election was lost by not winning the majority of those in the middle. I'll call them Fiscally responsible, small government, stay out of my bedroom voters.

So all these fiscally responsible, small government voters decided to forget all about small government and responsibility and vote based off of their "stay out of my bedroom" values? That seems to go against what people said in the exit polls. 59% of voters said the economy was the most important issue. 81% of those who voted for Obama said that government should do more to solve problems. Look at states like Ohio and Michigan where more than 60% of voters approve of the Federal bail out to GM and Chrysler. Voters in blue states want to keep or even expand ObamaCare. Maybe some people refused to vote Republican because of the party's stance on gay marriage, but Romney lost the election because most voters want more government not less.

I think they got hoodwinked into thinking that Obama would be "good enough" on government and and fiscal issues and then Obama played the "far-right-extremist" card well enough to win the election. I do not believe that "most" voters want more government.

Is it not possible that 59% thought Obama would be "acceptable" on the economy?
You and I would certainly call them "unsmart" (forum friendly word).

Honestly, I'll admit that I believe a fat chunk of people are just too darn lazy and want the government to take care of them. Not "most", not 47% as Romney was accused, but a fat chunk.

So....... Do we stick to our principals and go down with the ship? Or admit that we're in the minority and change tactics to try and save at least some of the things we value? Note that "change tactics" is not "surrender"... Still, not a pleasant or easy choice...

"Good enough" on the economy is different from "small government, fiscally responsible". If voters wanted a smaller government then we would have more candidates like Ron Paul and not Romney and Obama. Over the past 100 years the federal government has done nothing but grow and the voters haven't had a problem with it. Look at the growth of the government as tell me that you honestly believe that most Americans want less of it. 81% of Obama voters want the government more involved in solving problems. "Fiscally responsible, small government, stay out of my bedroom voters" are a minority. Americans are actively inviting the government into their bedrooms.

[The Annoyed Man]

Well said and a fair analysis!

Also this has some fair points: http://news.msn.com/politics/why-mitt-romney-lost" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The old saying about being all things to all people surely applies to the Romney trail.

I call bull corn. From your article:

Slate OPINION: Mitt Romney lost the election because he couldn't separate himself from the Republican Party’s growing extremism.

Sonnyboy, that "growing extremism" was MAINSTREAM THINKING just 10-12 years ago. It has been mainstream thinking for all of my 60 years. When a party does NOT change its values to fit the fad du jour, that's not "growing extremism." That's "standing your ground for something." The "growing extremism" is entirely on the part of the left. We have been dragged leftward kicking and screaming, and now the right is finally putting its foot down and refusing to cooperate with getting dragged any further......and that's extremism? Please. The left calls anyone an "extremist" who refuses to submit to their extremist tyranny.

Ronald Reagan famously said that he did not leave the democrat party; it left him. In other words, his values did not change, while his former party slid into extremism.

THAT is the true version.

Personally, I've about had it. Big Brother is going to do what it does—no matter how I vote—because Big Brother is what a majority of Americans want. End of story. From now on, I'll concern myself with local matters and turn my back on the rest of it. And by the way, abortion—or, as I like to call it what it really IS, "killing babies"—doesn't happen in the bedroom. It happens in purpose-built abattoirs funded by the radical left through extorting taxes from the rest of us. A MORAL person doesn't even need to appeal to religion to understand that particular evil. The sooner alleged "americans" face that truth, the sooner we can come to an HONEST appraisal of whether or not we DESERVE to continue as a nation, or to be scraped off the planet like a fungus by a vengeful God.

[SQLGeek]

Sonnyboy, that "growing extremism" was MAINSTREAM THINKING just 10-12 years ago.

Precisely. It is the nexus of my theory that I posted earlier. Like it or not, that is the way the country has been shifting and it isn't going to change any time soon. It may slow down for a while in places but it won't change course.

[Oldgringo]

We retired last evening about 2230 hours when the election was over. Thank goodness, there's not another POTUS contest for four (4) more years.

There is one thing for certain, the current POTUS won't have an all expenses paid four years to campaign for re-election. All future contenders will have equal time to get their {stuff} together and address the needs and expectations of the majority of voters....maybe.

[anygunanywhere]

We retired last evening about 2230 hours when the election was over. Thank goodness, there's not another POTUS contest for four (4) more years.

There is one thing for certain, the current POTUS won't have an all expenses paid four years to campaign for re-election. All future contenders will have equal time to get their {stuff} together and address the needs and expectations of the majority of voters....maybe.

The thought of an honest election with the possibility of multiple party participation with a chance of success by any candidate just swirled around and around the toilet bowl and joined the sewage system.

Any further elections will be a one party process - the socialist leeches sucking the life blood out of a once great constitutional republic.

Angyunanywhere

[Purplehood]

I do not see why one cannot defend social liberty and religious freedom.
Social liberty and religious freedom by definition are one and the same.
A religious person may not like the fact that social liberties exist, but must accept that others may practice it.
A person believing in equal rights and the like may consider religious beliefs as outdated, outmoded and obsolete, but must allow others the freedom to practice them.

Simply put, stay out of my bedroom and I will stay out of yours. Government and politics should have nothing to do with it.

Purplehood, the government is forcing your social engineering down the throats of those who object because of their faith.

FORCED. THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE FOR US.

The HHS Mandate is mandatory, under penalty of law!

WHERE IS THE FREEDOM OF WHICH YOU SPEAK?

You say you want the government to stay out of your bedrooom. Tell your government to stay out of my freedom of religion.

I do not have to believe in gay marriage, abortion, or any other of the so called social freedoms you insist I embrace just to elect someone to represent me in an oppressive government of which I no longer recognize as a valid government.

Respectfully,
Anygunanywhere

MY GOVERNMENT NO LONGER EXISTS.

I don't want you to believe in gay marriage, abortion or any of the social freedoms and you may or may not note, I do not ask you to embrace any of them.

As far as I am concerned, the government should not be legislating any of that stuff. Just as I believe that the government should not be restricting it.

Anyone reading those few posts of mine that actually talk about government and politics will realize that I have been totally unhappy with the GWB and BHO governments. As I see it, they both represent repressive big-government as in 'Big Brother is watching you'.

I believe in religious freedom.

I believe in a womans right to determine what she does with her body.

I believe in equal rights.

I believe in small government.

I believe in limited foreign entanglements.

I am not sure why anyone thinks I believe otherwise.

[C-dub]

IBTL

[anygunanywhere]

I do not see why one cannot defend social liberty and religious freedom.
Social liberty and religious freedom by definition are one and the same.
A religious person may not like the fact that social liberties exist, but must accept that others may practice it.
A person believing in equal rights and the like may consider religious beliefs as outdated, outmoded and obsolete, but must allow others the freedom to practice them.

Simply put, stay out of my bedroom and I will stay out of yours. Government and politics should have nothing to do with it.

Purplehood, the government is forcing your social engineering down the throats of those who object because of their faith.

FORCED. THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF CHOICE FOR US.

The HHS Mandate is mandatory, under penalty of law!

WHERE IS THE FREEDOM OF WHICH YOU SPEAK?

You say you want the government to stay out of your bedrooom. Tell your government to stay out of my freedom of religion.

I do not have to believe in gay marriage, abortion, or any other of the so called social freedoms you insist I embrace just to elect someone to represent me in an oppressive government of which I no longer recognize as a valid government.

Respectfully,
Anygunanywhere

MY GOVERNMENT NO LONGER EXISTS.

I don't want you to believe in gay marriage, abortion or any of the social freedoms and you may or may not note, I do not ask you to embrace any of them.

As far as I am concerned, the government should not be legislating any of that stuff. Just as I believe that the government should not be restricting it.

Anyone reading those few posts of mine that actually talk about government and politics will realize that I have been totally unhappy with the GWB and BHO governments. As I see it, they both represent repressive big-government as in 'Big Brother is watching you'.

I believe in religious freedom.

I believe in a womans right to determine what she does with her body.

I believe in equal rights.

I believe in small government.

I believe in limited foreign entanglements.

I am not sure why anyone thinks I believe otherwise.

Her body, not the unborn child's.

Equal rights and protection under the law, even for the unborn.



Anygunanywhere