patrick.net

You can pull their crusade from their dead fingers, which will be warmed by the glow of Christ.

IMO, the Fox / radio conservative news machine has enabled the republican party to get more and more off track and partisan. The democrats have been claiming the center, and no one on the right has noticed, b/c they have lost track of where the center is.

Melmakian says

We consider last night to be the suicide of the nation. Since it is already dead, why bother delaying the inevitable?

We?

Birchers, basically.

And, yeah, people not comfortable with the 20th century let alone the 21st just got whacked with reality last night.

Gay people have rights to be happy regardless of what "Judeo Christian" dogmas have "taught" us.

Women have a right -- of privacy -- to control their health.

The 19th century model of massively rich few, zero ecological protections, and huddled millions of bankrupt and penniless workers is not something we can return to.

We can't run a $6.5T government on a $5T tax base. If we can't cut spending -- and we can't, since nobody wants to cut defense ($800B+ per year) and reforms in health sector spending won't come fast enough to offset the millions of baby boomers needing more care each year -- we need to raise taxes.

A lot -- back to Clinton rates is just a start.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FGSDODNS

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/NETEXP

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDEFX

Next two years aren't going to be a picnic. Republicans still hold a blocking position in the House, of course, and Bircher-level conservatives still control the Republican party.

What I am hearing from Conservative outlets (Krauthammer, O'Reilly, Castellanos) is only a doubling down of more conservatism.

They are criticizing Romney for being a "New England moderate." They are talking about how good of a campaign that Obama ran and how poorly Romney ran.

As Carville (and others) were telling them they need to come to the center like the Democrats did under Clinton, they disagreed.

The are laying their hope on "new" Conservatives like Christie, Rubio, Paul Ryan, & Jindal. They even talked about how the new Senator from Texas was a budding star in the party.

Moderates have no voice in the party currently. Until they do, Republicans will never win another Presidency.

Bellingham Bill says

Birchers, basically.

Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues

I listened to NPR spouting off how the Republicans are all Old White people.
Like an evenly divided split line down this country are 50% White Old people.

I think the Liberals don't want to admit, or people to realize. The republican vote are all of the people that have to pay for the Liberals Bullshit.

In a way, it's kinda good having a Liberal base that are shiftless lazy loafers that would rather have Uncle Bronco Bama give them a dollah and a square, than go out and work.

That just means less pressure and competition for those of us that know what it's like to bust our Asses for a living. We get to have a house, go to college, have a car, raise our kids with a better standard of living.
And you don't get SQUAT.

Well the majority of Liberal voters don't anyway. But for the elitists that group, pigeonhole and cajole people into a demographic, then championing doing something about their plight. While lobbying and voting to actually improve conditions in their own neighborhoods, like better infrastructure, and schools, while giving their poor constituents more police and metal detectors at the schools.

People deserve the fool they elect.

CaptainShuddup says

I listened to NPR spouting off how the Republicans are all Old White people.
Like an evenly divided split line down this country are 50% White Old people.

I think the Liberals don't want to admit, or people to realize. The republican vote are all of the people that have to pay for the Liberals Bullshit.

Of course they're not ALL old white people, but when you look at the break down of how people voted...

Does anyone have a link to election results by income, sot that we can put an end to the line of bull that CS is selling?

Ain't gonna happen. Some people probably believe this is true.

curious2, Friedman agrees with you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/opinion/friedman-hope-and-change-part-two.html?hp

The people concerned with social legislation coming out of the federal government have unfounded concerns.

If you failed to notice, almost all the pat.net supporters of Romney are libertarian leaning Republicans. That is, they probably are even more socially liberal than even the staunchest Obama supporters here. That's certainly true of me.

Yet somehow, we have no problem voting for a socially conservative religious man. How can this be?

It's because most social issues cannot be legislated at the federal level. Most often, they are state and local issues(such as "liberal" LA County's proposition requiring condom use on porn shoots).

IOW, the social issues stuff as uttered by presidential candidates is a complete red herring designed to induce emotional voters to the polls.

CaptainShuddup says

I think the Liberals don't want to admit, or people to realize. The republican vote are all of the people that have to pay for the Liberals Bullshit.

That's not what that report was about. The report was basically summing up what the electoral vote clearly shows: The demographics of the country have changed. The GOP can't count on their base to win elections anymore. david1 says

They are criticizing Romney for being a "New England moderate." They are talking about how good of a campaign that Obama ran and how poorly Romney ran.

I simply find this amazing. Somehow they don't get it: The answer is not to become increasingly conservative because the only people who vote for those type of candidates are the ones who vote Republican no matter what- the base. As mentioned above the Republican base is no longer the majority. But that's fine by me. They want to find even more conservative candidates? Fine. They'll lose again.

curious2 says

Will the Republicans please now drop their theocratic crusade?

The Republican Party isn't worth saving. It's been taken over by religious retards and the evilest villains in capitalism. Why would you want to save either of those groups?

The best thing that could happen to America is for the Republican Party to flat out die taking the political coalition of dumb asses with them.

Then the Democratic Party can fragment into several smaller parties and we can finally be done with the stupid two-party system that has plagued our country for the past 100 years.

YesYNot says

Does anyone have a link to election results by income

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

curious2 says

YesYNot says

Does anyone have a link to election results by income

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls

I stand corrected. Higher income voters seem to go for Romney. I wonder if it would look different with more refined income brackets. Income seems to be almost as good of an indicator as religion.

On topic, when you remove religion (the none category of religion), Obama gets 70% of the votes. So, maybe religion is helping the republicans avoid an even bigger thumping.

dodgerfanjohn says

The people concerned with social legislation coming out of the federal government have unfounded concerns...because most social issues cannot be legislated at the federal level...IOW, the social issues stuff as uttered by presidential candidates is a complete red herring designed to induce emotional voters to the polls.

Republicans campaigned on amending the Constitution of the United States to require women who are raped, and become pregnant as a result, to carry the pregnancy to term because it is "God's plan." They campaigned on amending the Constitution of the United States to ban same-sex couples from getting married, because the party faithful declare America a "Christian country" and define Christianity like the Taliban defines Islam. They lost this time, but in the past they used the federal government to inflict serious harm, some of which remains ongoing. Remember McCarthyism? Don't Ask Don't Tell? I hesitate to invoke the memory of a much more tragic history, but Pastor Niemöller's famous words are always worth remembering:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

The Republicans waged a seriously frightening campaign, provoking a visceral electoral rejection. Looking at the economic numbers and public opinion of specific policies, Republicans might have won with a candidate like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. Instead they are behaving like the Branch Davidians at Waco.

YesYNot says

maybe religion is helping the republicans avoid an even bigger thumping.

It's "helping" them the same way it "helped" Jonestown buy Kool-Aid. Like most "magical thinking" strategies, it works until it fails, which is to say it doesn't really work and eventually reality re-asserts itself.

YesYNot says

I stand corrected. Higher income voters seem to go for Romney. I wonder if it would look different with more refined income brackets. Income seems to be almost as good of an indicator as religion.

While not income per se, if you look at the vote by education, you get a clearer picture of what you are expecting. Pretty even between high school, some college, and college graduate.

Then when you look at post-graduate....things skew towards Obama.

Given that post-graduates make more than bachelors on the average, one can infer that within that "over 100k" income demographic, those with higher incomes derided from production (and needing that education) probably leaned Obama.

And by the way, to answer the OP -

No, I see a doubling down.

david1 says

if you look at the vote by education

Interesting - I hadn't noticed it before, but the only education level where Obama lost was bachelor's degrees, 47%-51%. That's also the demographic that opposed ObamaCare by the widest margin, 60%-40%.

I wonder if the connection might relate to age, which was a very clear predictor. Obama won among voters under 40, and lost among voters over 40. The youngest voters haven't had time to get a BA/BS yet. Older college graduates got their degrees at a time when college was cheap or even free, and a bachelor's degree was plenty for a successful career. Since then, probably a larger share of college graduates have gone on to graduate degrees, especially during the recent recession, and may be more likely to be in debt. So, the bachelor's degree cohort may skew older, and possibly with more savings. Fed ZIRP & QE punish savers, but might possibly reward debtors, so that might explain the split too.

Actually, Romney lost because he represents the ultra-wealthy. Not because of a religous/atheistic battle.
No doubt repub's will run that horse again in 4 years. Against Hillary? Who knows. As economy will continue to tick downward, he still will not be able to represent the average American. So, will lose again. Really has very little to do with religion other than a lot of people voted him based on abortion since Mass makes it difficult to have an abortion after 24 mo.s (time at which majority born survive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability). Clearly that one issue was not enought to win - especially since its governed by the states at this time anyways.
Republican party will have challenges going forward. Democratic party just as many. As government comes closer and closer to point of no return on borrowing, the inflation will accelerate. Expect to see massive emigration of young adults as with Ireland et al. Time is ripe for a third party to take the scene. Not one who takes positions on the issues such as Libs and Constitution et al; but one that caters to dreams of the people like Demos and Repubs.

maxweber21 says

Mass makes it difficult to have an abortion after 24 mo.s

After 24 months, most babies have not only been born but also are learning to walk. So yes, I think aborting them would be difficult. They keep toddling away.

maxweber21 says

Romney lost because he represents the ultra-wealthy. Not because of a religous/atheistic battle.

Romnesia's current positions on social issues also lost everywhere they were on the ballot. It isn't a battle between religion and atheism per se, it's more about whether to have faith-based government or evidence-based government. Remember the days when people were tried for witchcraft, and innocence or guilt was determined by throwing them into a pool of water? (If they floated, it meant the water had rejected them, and so they must be guilty.) Romnesia's 47% comment hurt his chances too, but Republican social positions also cost them, and the same positions would cost them even more in 2016.

BTW, its worth reminding everyone that Bush was throwing free money to the big companies. I think Obama is credited with the free money to buy a house or trade in a clunker. So, in the world of voting favors from the Treasury, at least the Dem's consider the voters a little. I wonder how much more free education has been doled out too. Clearly the populous is voting for the favors to themselves. ultra-rich to repubs. lower-middle and middle to Demos. And professionals left with no representation. But they always work hard and take care of themselves anyways so nothing new.

maxweber21 says

makes it difficult to have an abortion after 24 mo.s (time at which majority born survive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability).

If it's on Wikipedia, it has to be true!

CaptainShuddup says

I think the Liberals don't want to admit, or people to realize. The republican vote are all of the people that have to pay for the Liberals Bullshit.

You mean the GREEDY people that don't want to pay to keep this country great.

Under Romney's tax plan I would have saved almost 40k a year in taxes (according to my CPA and what we know of Romney's plan) So I clearly voted against my own self-interest.

I have a small business with about 50 employees. I should be the poster child for the Republican's argument to lower taxes. But I understand that my business will be pretty much fucked if the middle class continues to shrink. And it is pretty clear to me that pure greed dressed up as "supply side economics" is the biggest reason - there are others - that our middle class has shrunk.

The trick, as I see it, is not to take away workers rights and lower their pay here in the US so we can stay competitive. It is to get international workers to start organizing so that perhaps someday we can have 50's and 60's style US capitalism all over the world. Then everyone wins.

It's a pipe dream, I know, so I will leave you with one final thought about this election.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

cheap Chinese AKs in bulk....

Don't those things overheat and jam? When cannibal anarchy takes over the North American continent, the forewarned PatNetters will have an Uzi for each arm to bring home dinner for the entire PatNet floating island.

MMM, Realtor®.