It's funny how he's getting no credit for what he achieved last night in defeat. Not even from his own party. Everyone is focusing on the simple win/loss but they are overlooking the state by state results. The man won over 200 electoral votes! Let me put this in perspective: He got more electoral votes as a Republican loser than John McCain, Bob Dole and George Bush, Sr (who was an incumbent). This is from a man who was neither likeable nor relatable and he was a Mormon!

He reinforced their electoral base (heartland and the south) and caused Obama to drop percentage wise in states that he also won in 2008. Almost every swing state was close to 50/50 or a few percentage points off. Imagine if they actually had a candidate that could connect with real people.

When the Republicans finally wise up and run a candidate that has crossover appeal and who outright rejects the far right-wing, they will have a chance again. If Christie gets a second term in Jersey, I expect him to be a frontrunner in '16. Christie is the kind of guy that can sit in a diner with auto workers in Ohio and Michigan and look like he was the auto worker, not the politician. The man is also downright Machiavellian. The way he embraced Obama after the storm and left Romney out to dry was no mistake. Remember his name.

JerNYC: Well said!

JerNYC: I agree about Christie. My first thought with how he handled everything after Sandy was that it was with the intention of setting up 2016. I kind of like him. There's a few that sort of interest me for 4 years from now. Rubio is one. I still also like Ryan.

rod03801: I'm totally with you on that!

Artful Dodger: um, it was well said, and Christie is a Republican moderate, but you are the " far right-wing" he must reject from reading your views

The Col: Christie must reject from reading AD's views?

The Col: What about my views? Is it okay for Christie to log onto brainking and read my views?

By the way, have you informed Christie whose views he may view and whose views he may not view? If he doesn't hear from you soon he might just go ahead and read any 'ol darn thing he wants to, whether you approve of it or not.

So anywho, how's the view up there on your high horsey thingy there... can you see all of us from up there okay, eh?

[]_ [[]] []_

The Col: The Conservatives here blamed Labour for the expenses scandal, Labour blamed the Conservatives. The Conservative started the system allowing MP's to abuse what they can claim as expenses... but Labour, in power for over a decade did sod all to reverse such abuse until it hit the papers.

No party can really stand on a pedestal. I'm sure some democrats probably have cheated, just as some republicans have.

.. there all human

JerNYC: I hope so, from the little I've seen he looks like a guy who'll work more readily with the other side rather than against it all the time.

Iamon lyme: ... Likewise he might read something he wants you don't approve of... which seems to be a lot.

Iamon lyme: shouldda been a comma after "reject"

(V): I was thinking of asking you to translate if for me, seeing as how you both speak the same "language", but that would be like hauling coals to Newcatstle. I was also thinking maybe I could get it translated from English into... English? But it was actually the message itself (not the garbled language) I found amusing. The idea that Christie must not read what AD says (at this board?) was hilarious. But who knows, in the near future there could actually be laws to regulated what people may or may not read. There are laws in existence now that people 40 years ago would have scoffed at you for even suggesting could be become law.

The Col: [ shouldda been a comma after "reject" ]

Doh!! Of course... that was it! It was missing a comma. How could I have missed that?

Iamon lyme: Like in Texas?

"The idea that Christie must not read what AD says (at this board?) was hilarious."

If Christie goes by you or AD politics wise.. The GOP won't ever get elected. That is what was said.. don't you get it? Former Republican congressmen get it, Jon Stewart gets it and so does an increasing number of your fellow countrymen.

"There are laws in existence now that people 40 years ago would have scoffed at you for even suggesting could be become law."

Of course there are. Some for good reason.. but just saying there are laws is kinda another sound bite that means nothing unless I give it gravity.

.. I see no gravitational effect. Words need weight from example, rather than bogey men.

This has more weight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chqi8m4CEEY

JerNYC:

> When the Republicans finally wise up and run a candidate that has crossover appeal and who outright rejects the far right-wing, they will have a chance again.

I think that this election will force many Republicans to do some soul searching and to see why it was that President Obama won in spite of problems with the economy, unpopular domestic policies and unpopular foreign policies. I agree that Mitt Romney did very well, in fact, better than I expected him to do. His political career (at least as presidential candiadte) is over. However, the loss is due to Romney's inability to clearly define his political stance. He won the nomination by portraying himself as somebody who could defend conservative values. Yet as the campaign wore on he became more "liberal" and that disenchanted many voters. The true picture is given more clearly by some statistics that were released by CNN. O stands for Obama's share of the vote. R stand for Romney.

Voting by Age

18-24: 60% O, 36% R
25-29: 60% O, 36% R
30-39: 55% O, 42% R
40-49: 48% O, 50% R
50-64: 47% O, 51% R
> 65: 44% O, 55% R

This clearly shows that the Democrats are much more popular among young people (under 40). This demographic should really worry Republicans because these young people will age and as they grow older support for the Democrats among the older age groups will increase. If Republicans are to win (and indeed survive) then they must find a way to appeal to young voters and then retain that support as those young voters age.

Vote by Gender and Race:

White men: 36% O, 61% R
White women: 43% O, 55% R
Black men: 88% O, 11% R
Black women: 96% O, 3% R
Latino men: 63% O, 35% R
Latino women: 75% O, 24% R
All others: 67% O, 31% R

Minorities (Hispanics, African Americans, Asians, etc) made up 28% of the electorate.

Looking at that distribution we see that the Democrats really attracted women voters. Undoubtedly some of the positions of Republican candidates hurt Romney's chances to attract women voters. Romney tried to distance himself from some of the controversial candidates in his party but women voters in the end did not ignore those elementary mistakes.

The issue of minorities is a serious one too. At 28% of the voting population (and growing) minorities can now swing an election. The Republicans were hurt by some of their policies on immigration, civil rights, women's rights, etc.

From these demographics it seems that the Republicans are becoming a party for "older white males". Such a perception has to change if the Republicans are to continue into the future. Republicans have to find a candidate that appeals to women and minorities. The current Tea Party stance is likely to fail unless it can be modified to address the issues that affect that 28% of the population that can now swing an election.

Taking into account these observations, did any of the candidates that ran for the Republican nomination (Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, etc.) possess the qualities that would swing the minority and female vote? The answer is no. They all represented an old, established elite within the Republican Party. The Tea Party might be offering some new faces, but with values that will never be acceptable to that 28% of the vote. It will be interesting to see how Republicans adapt to these challenges.

(V): [ "More people are out of work, and have stopped drinking the koolaid because now they'd rather know (instead of being told) how our economy actually works."

....??? a tasteless reference to the Jones town massacre?? ]


That response of yours was such a good example of what we "right wing extremists" have been trying to tell people, that I've been waiting for the right time to respond to it.

It's only "...a tasteless reference to the Jones town massacre" if you learn nothing from it. The trend in US politics from the liberal side has been to promote a "cult (or culture) of personality"... taking the focus off policies and placing it squarely on the personality of a leader. In the Jones town example, the reason so many people followed a cult leader and were willing to do anything he said is precisely because he was able to influence them through manipulating their emotions... and by discouraging any rational or independent thinking of their own.

Obama has successfully tapped into our national obsession with personality. As a nation we have gradually lost the ability to resist the cult like loyalty and devotion to persons (or political parties) rather than to an ideology. And by "ideology" I mean core beliefs that enable people to resist what cults do best, appealing primarily to our emotions and making us "feel good". I like feeling good too, I don't know who doesn't, but not at the expense of what can happen if I only follow my feelings.

I've made huge mistakes believing people who don't really say anything substantive, and falling for their pitches. But that was a long time ago, and I no longer worry about resisting questionable sales pitches. If I hear a message that appears tailored only to making me feel good, then I immediately become suspicious. This has worked very well for me... the last time I got conned it only cost me a dollar or two, but I can live with that. But even when you become "cult proofed" or "con proofed" it doesn't stop them from trying... I'm always amused when someone works hard to talk me into something, but doesn't realize he is actually talking me out of it.

Übergeek 바둑이: Very interesting stats. I am in the 50-64 year old group, but I actually belonged to that group when I was in the 30-39 year range.

So here's an interesting question... In light of those stats (I believe they are accurate) how popular do you believe Reagan would be today compared to how popular he was with voters during his tenure? It seems to me he would have been no more popular among voters today than Romney was.

The Col: actually you're wrong. You're just so far left that I look far right. When I take the tests to determine my overall political leanings, I end up moderate conservative to libertarian.

Iamon lyme: The Gov called me and said he likes my views. He said that he views my views as easily viewable. At least that was the view he shared of his view of my views.

BTW, - my dogs just ate their poop. They are liberals. They always want a handout. And even if it's crap, but free, they want it.

(V): Nah, name some policies I favor that Christie wouldn't like.

Iamon lyme: Hmmmm, V doesn't know that it's not actually tasteless to say "drink the koolaid." Koolaid comes in many flavors and it's anything but tasteless. Unless it's the lemon koolaid. That stuff is crap.

Artful Dodger: All right, so maybe the lemon flavored stuff isn't so great... have you tried the lemon lime?

They say once you've had the lemon lime there is no going back... and by "they" I mean me.

Iamon lyme: I'll have to try that. Maybe I'll change my view about the lemon if they add the lime. I knew that you could put the lime in the coconut and drink them both up. Once I put the lime in the coconut, and called my doctor, woke him up and askd, " 'Doctor, ain't there nothing I can take,
I say, Doctor, to relieve this belly ache?
I say, Doctor, doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take,
I say, Doctor, dooooctor, to relieve this belly ache?'
Put the lime in the coconut, drink them both together,
Put the lime in the coconut, then you feel better,
Put the lime in the coconut, drink them both up,"

He told me to, "Put the lime in the coconut, and call me in the morning"

Under Obamacare he'd tell me to call him in a month.

Artful Dodger: can i see the test? I don't think anyone who reads this board could possibly miss your "political leanings" so it should be pretty easy to fill in the boxes

The Col: Political leanings doesn't make me far right. I'm a fiscal conservative. So are those on the far right. So are the moderates. I'm libertarian on some social issues. On matters of immigration policy I actually favor Regan's amnesty plan. However, liberals never have been serious about curbing the actual flow of illegals. Still, I don't hold to the radical idea of sending illegals back to Mexico etc. Especially if they have families here in the US. And I'm not alone. Many conservatives recognize that we have to do something to stop illegals from crossing our borders unchecked while still dealing with the illegals that we allowed (through our lax policies) to work and live in the US. That's hardly a far right position.

I am totally against abortion except for the life of the mother. That is a far right position but I have better arguments for my position than anyone on the left. Moderates who make exceptions for rape and incest are hypocrites. I do not make those exceptions.

I believe in small government. This is a far right position as it is a moderate view as well. Libertarians also want smaller government.

I want to see a decrease in spending across the board. I want unnecessary government departments closed for good. The EPA is a good place to start. I'd let each state take care of their own environmental concerns. I'd repeal healthcare because it's too costly and none of the Federal Govt business.

Even moderates want to see spending cuts. For that matter, so do some center leaning liberals. Most Americans agree with me that the healthcare bill needs to go. It was shoved down our throats with ZERO Republican support.

When you look at all my views, only an uninformed idiot could conclude I fit into the far right camp.

ps....bite me.

You Are 65% Conservative, 35% Liberal
Social Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Many of the "tests" have limited answers for their questions.

Artful Dodger: I asked for the test you supposedly took, not your spin

The Col: I said bite me

The Col: Oddly enough, Walter says your name a lot in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I226Sfgs0s

Artful Dodger: For 70 % you are: Liberal!
44.0917 % of 1701 Quiz participants had this profile!

Artful Dodger: btw, I have only heard women say "bite me" is that your liberal side?

First off, I just want to thank all of you for your gracious comments. I'm so used to knee-jerk insults on other web sites when I try to discuss politics.

A very clear message was sent to the Republicans in this election if they are smart enough to take their hands off their ears. "Get the crazies out of your party"

This message didn't come from the liberal establishment in the Northeast. It came right out of the heartland. Todd Akin was soundly defeated in Missouri and Richard Mourdock was plainly rejected by the good folks in Indiana. These are very conservative states if you've ever visited them. For them to choose Democrats over Republicans is a big deal. Though Democrats in those states tend to be far less liberal, but that's besides the point.

Republicans mistakenly thought in 2008 that they didn't cater enough to the far right. They thought Palin's popularity meant people wanted more radical ignoramuses. Wrong. Palin was only popular in a 'reality show' sense. People enjoy watching trainwrecks. It doesn't mean they want to vote for them. Palin scared people as a VP and that really hurt McCain.

Romney never had the guts to throw Akin and Mourdock under the bus during the campaign. If he had, he would have won the votes of many people in those swing states that might have tipped the 50/48 in his favor.

Just like Obama was smart enough to never associate himself with the lunatics of OWS, so should the Republicans turn their backs on their own lunatics.

Iamon lyme: Leader.. ideology.. religious persuasion, there is no difference... pot calling kettle black. Every major group plays on some 'herd' instinct.. No moral high ground for you there.

"appealing primarily to our emotions and making us "feel good". I like feeling good too, I don't know who doesn't, but not at the expense of what can happen if I only follow my feelings."

... again a pot n' kettle case.

"and I no longer worry about resisting questionable sales pitches. If I hear a message that appears tailored only to making me feel good, then I immediately become suspicious."

Just the ones that try and make you feel good? What about the ones designed to make you feel insecure or afraid... seems you've got some listening to learn

Artful Dodger: Saying Obama was crap in helping his state.

"V doesn't know that it's not actually tasteless to say "drink the koolaid." Koolaid comes in many flavors and it's anything but tasteless."

Didn't say it was tasteless... but it's not sold in the UK except maybe in 'USA' goods stores. We've got our own weird ones, n' some of the varieties that we get from the Nepalese shops is...

(V): [ pot calling kettle black ]

Are you aware of the origins of that expression? Most people are aware of what it means, but not the racist overtones it once meant to convey. I'll give you a hint, it's like saying "A person of color calling another person of color a person of color."

Iamon lyme: it's about hypocrisy, not racist bud, look it up, everywhere you look it will dismiss it as being racist

Iamon lyme: So you do understand I find you moaning about what you call "liberals" is hypocritical considering elements within the GOP camp have used such tactics.

... fyi most politically concious people in the UK consider the democrats as being conservative, republicans as being very conservative... and the tea party being so right, that like Derek Zoolander (see film).... they cannot turn left.

.. the likes of the BNP being the exception. The party that was taken to court over only allowing white members.. preferably with a family tree dating back to the last ice age.

The Col: He knows.. he just didn't like my reply.

(V): re "he just didn't like my reply"

shocking

The Col: You can please some of the people... etc.

(V): [ Just the ones that try and make you feel good? What about the ones designed to make you feel insecure or afraid... seems you've got some listening to learn ]

Good point. I'm surprised you caught that one, but not so surprised you miss the connection between fear mongering and phony warnings over things like global warming or "Oh, no... the earth is running out of resources so we need to stop drilling for oil!" Or, we need to get as many contraceptives for women as we can, because... uh, because we men respect them and, and... because we don't want to have to spend the rest of our lives paying for some brat just because we can't keep our pants zipped up... because we respect them!

My favorite attempt at fear mongering is when someone claims we are "hurting the earth". But maybe they too have a point, and should encourage everyone to have a pet rock to care for, so they may learn the value of caring for inanimate objects. And just to make it clear so there is no hint of inconsistency with this liberal line of thinking, babies in the womb are NOT inanimate objects... so caring for them, let alone caring anything about them, is simply not an issue.

I wanted to be a liberal at one time, but I never could follow the herd all the way down the path to Insanity Meadows. By the way, that would be a good name for a nursing home for elderly hippies and radicals from the 60's... only one problem with that though, they are not inanimate objects either.
Well, not yet.

Iamon lyme: It's called having a basic knowledge of chemistry, physics and geography.

Plus several years of reporting on various news channels here in the UK showing the effects of acid rain on forests.

"Or, we need to get as many contraceptives for women as we can, because... uh, because we men respect them and, and... because we don't want to have to spend the rest of our lives paying for some brat just because we can't keep our pants zipped up... because we respect them!"

You'll find a comparable text in the Bible... in the OT.

"so they may learn the value of caring for inanimate objects."

But the Earth moves, it is animated.

"babies in the womb are NOT inanimate objects... so caring for them, let alone caring anything about them, is simply not an issue."

If that's what you think people that are not thinking like you think.. then your thinking need rethinking.

"Well, not yet."

You have a real grudge??

The Col: You missed the point, but then go on to explain the point I was making... to me?

I'll have to mull that one over, because I'm not really sure what kind of turn around you are trying to pull here. Or maybe you're not trying to do anything like that, maybe you really don't get it.

The meaning of pot calling the kettle black is to illustrate hypocrisy. I didn't say the meaning of the statement is racist, I was merely pointing out how an original subtext of that statement no longer applies or is even relevant anymore. And I'm not surprised by your knee jerk reaction, I've come to expect it... in fact I have yet to see either you or V understand or respond to anything I've actually been saying. But maybe that's been my fault, because unless I spell everything out for you guys you just don't seem to get it.

Anyway, here's another one of those kind of statements, and you are free to disagree with me about this as well... "one got in over the fence." The literal meaning is, a dog gets in over the fence and impregnates someone elses dog. But one of the originally underlying (flies below the radar) meanings of that has also been been nulified by time and changes in attitudes.

I grew up in a small community where racist attitudes were the norm. I learned what some of those sayings actually meant back then from listening to the old timers. I didn't understand until I was older that these guy were actually transplants from a different time and a different place. They were kind of like the aging hippies we have today, who still get off on "free sex" and drugs and rock and roll and spouting off that all Republicans are warmongers. But don't tell the old hippies that, because they still think this is the 60's and you shouldn't trust anyone over 30...

Maybe it's time grandpa hippy pants should take a long look in the mirror at himself, and realise he passed the age of 30 about 40 years ago.

Iamon lyme: Frankly, life is too short to weed through your often rambling statements, and I usually nod off by the first paragraph.I did research your insinuation that pot calling kettle black" is(or was) a racist statement.It dates back to the 1600's apparently, and it NEVER did, not then, not now. NO original subtext, nadda,zich.If you would like more info regarding the origons of "pot calling kettle black" I will send you the links

The Col: And I'm sure you took a quick flight down the map to look up the old timers from my home town, to ask them about it as well. I probably should have told you they are all dead now, and saved you the trip. I was a boy at the time and they were old enough to be my grandparents. But I am having fun reading your insightful comments, so please... do continue.

The Col: FYI I generally like to keep my messages limited to one two posts per idea. Three if needed.

I COULD make very short and concise statements for your benefit, so you are able to digest it all without too much trouble. But frankly, if I need to walk you through every little detail with one short message after another this could easliy take up an entire page doing nothing more than that. I can do this, and have done this for my children when they were young because of their limited knowledge and attention spans, but I will not be doing this for you.

The Col: [ btw, I have only heard women say "bite me" ]

I've heard women say all sorts of things, but never that. Why would they say that to you?

Iamon lyme: Maybe they think he's hungry?