Why Obama won

[James]

Originally Posted by Lefty

The only solution to the problem is to annex Mexico.

We could just move all of our jobs to Mexico and then we can do to them what they do to us.

[Fred1369]

Originally Posted by thrasher

Its very plausible that Texas will be a highly contested state in 2016, mostly because of the continued influx of Mexican immigrants, the large majority of whom vote Democratic. I predict that Texas will become a huge battleground state with its (currently) 38 electoral votes.
The popular vote numbers for this 2012 election in Texas were:
4,555,799 (Romney) to 3,294,440 (Obama).

Influx of Mexican immigrants. How many of them vote? Do you think they line up at the polls snickering because they don't have to show ID? Are the ballots in Espanol?

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by Fred1369

Influx of Mexican immigrants. How many of them vote? Do you think they line up at the polls snickering because they don't have to show ID? Are the ballots in Espanol?

Both the recent census data showing steadily increasing Mexican population, and 2012 voting data showing steadily increasing Democrat voting clearly shows a relationship between the two.

I don't recall there being an option for Espanol on my ballot. Further, I had to show my ID and produce my signature before I was given assigned to a voting booth. I'm pleased that Texas supports the enforcement of having to show ID and requires a signature matching the one on the ID card.

[Uncle Salty]

Originally Posted by Casey0211

He is a Tea Party extremist who opposed raising the debt ceiling. That's one.

Just using that would qualify most of the democrats in congress during 2006 as a politician you don't like. Or is it only republicans that oppose raising the debt ceiling on your sh!t list?

[Casey0211]

Originally Posted by Uncle Salty

Just using that would qualify most of the democrats in congress during 2006 as a politician you don't like. Or is it only republicans that oppose raising the debt ceiling on your sh!t list?

Any comment about the other two? I thought I made it clear that I'm not a one-issue voter.

But go ahead and cluck all you want about the Democratic Party in 2006. The rest of us will focus on 2013 and beyond

[Casey0211]

Originally Posted by Fred1369

Influx of Mexican immigrants. How many of them vote? Do you think they line up at the polls snickering because they don't have to show ID? Are the ballots in Espanol?

C'mon Fred -- I'm part of an influx if Irish immigrants. No doubt you're part of an influx of immigrants, too. An influx if immigrants doesn't mean illegal immigrants. There is a large Latino population in California that is just as American as you and me.

And yes -- here in California we do have ballots in Spanish. And Vietnamese, I might add.

[Uncle Salty]

Originally Posted by Casey0211

Any comment about the other two? I thought I made it clear that I'm not a one-issue voter.

But go ahead and cluck all you want about the Democratic Party in 2006. The rest of us will focus on 2013 and beyond

So in a few years you'll be OK with those that recently opposed raising the debt ceiling?

As for the other two issues. I believe that abortion is murder so I agree with Rand's opinion although if the current abortion law remains as is, I'm not going to lose sleep.

After reading about the civil rights issue it seems that Rand took a typical libertarian view. Many believe, myself included, that government should limit their authority whenever possible. If an owner of a gas station decide not to sell gas to a caucasian, I'm fine with that. If he decides to not sell gas to an asian, that's cool with me. The owner of the business should be able to choose who he does business with. He's probably hurting himself but if that's what he wants, fine with me. Same with smoking, if an owner of a restaurant wants to allow smoking in his establishment, the government should not restrict him from it. I won't go there though.

Rand clarified his position with several statements including this.

"Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws." "I think that there was an overriding problem in the South so big that it did require federal intervention in the '60s. And it stems from things that I said, you know, had been going on, really, 120 years too long. And the Southern states weren't correcting it. And I think there was a need for federal intervention."

[Casey0211]

Originally Posted by Uncle Salty

So in a few years you'll be OK with those that recently opposed raising the debt ceiling?

As for the other two issues. I believe that abortion is murder so I agree with Rand's opinion although if the current abortion law remains as is, I'm not going to lose sleep.

After reading about the civil rights issue it seems that Rand took a typical libertarian view. Many believe, myself included, that government should limit their authority whenever possible. If an owner of a gas station decide not to sell gas to a caucasian, I'm fine with that. If he decides to not sell gas to an asian, that's cool with me. The owner of the business should be able to choose who he does business with. He's probably hurting himself but if that's what he wants, fine with me. Same with smoking, if an owner of a restaurant wants to allow smoking in his establishment, the government should not restrict him from it. I won't go there though.

Rand clarified his position with several statements including this.

Then Rand Paul is obviously your guy.

But when racial discrimination becomes a manifestation of "freedom," we have entered an evil, Orwellian world, in my opinion. I don't speak Newspeak and I don't like Rand Paul. Moreover, I have a feeling that your defense of the indefensible is the result of never having had to face that kind of discrimination yourself.

[hondo2doc]

Why Obama won??? Well in short marketing, marketing, marketing!

To Casey, MP, Thrasher and any other supporters of Obama I say congrats. You have earned your victory lap, spiking the football, endzone dance etc... To the victor go the spoils.

I would caution any one into reading to much in to Obama's re-election though based on the closeness of the final popular vote.

Imho most folks are not engaged in watching and keeping track of day to day politics, debt, deficit etc... They do vote but are very subject to suggestive marketing. And is this sense Obama and his team did a great job of convincing the average casual voter that he was better suited to be re-elected than try a new guy.

Considering Obamas track record of failure and blame. Americans can be and have been very swayed many times. Remeber pet rocks.....need I say more.

Imho it is not a right or left issue at all. It merely reflects that a majority of voters (be it a small majority) bought, liked and wanted the Obama maketing message. The reason I say this is because both sides lie so much that all reality is blurred. Fact is when folks are unsure of what is good or true or the best path they will usually chose what is familiar. As was done in this case it appears.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Motorcycle.com Free App

[James]

Originally Posted by hondo2doc

Why Obama won??? Well in short marketing, marketing, marketing!

I think the opposite is true. We had 4 years of Obama. Even the slow people could figure him out. All we heard from Romney was he had a plan...but he wouldn't tell anybody what it was. Romney didn't even know. Also Romney supposedly cared about our country and wouldn't even tell Obama what it was. Romney didn't care or he would have given advice a long time ago. All he cared about was getting elected and he thought just being on the other team would be enough.

Romney the almighty successful businessman couldn't even market himself. He lost and is out of business.

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by hondo2doc

Why Obama won??? Well in short marketing, marketing, marketing!

To Casey, MP, Thrasher and any other supporters of Obama I say congrats. You have earned your victory lap, spiking the football, endzone dance etc... To the victor go the spoils.

I would caution any one into reading to much in to Obama's re-election though based on the closeness of the final popular vote.

Imho most folks are not engaged in watching and keeping track of day to day politics, debt, deficit etc... They do vote but are very subject to suggestive marketing. And is this sense Obama and his team did a great job of convincing the average casual voter that he was better suited to be re-elected than try a new guy.

Considering Obamas track record of failure and blame. Americans can be and have been very swayed many times. Remeber pet rocks.....need I say more.

Imho it is not a right or left issue at all. It merely reflects that a majority of voters (be it a small majority) bought, liked and wanted the Obama maketing message. The reason I say this is because both sides lie so much that all reality is blurred. Fact is when folks are unsure of what is good or true or the best path they will usually chose what is familiar. As was done in this case it appears.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Motorcycle.com Free App

Your assessment is really a how Obama won as opposed to a why Obama won, but it is a pretty fair and accurate assessment of how nonetheless. At the end of the day, though, it boils down to a matter of trust, and I think America trusts Obama more which is why he got elected.

[hondo2doc]

Originally Posted by James

I think the opposite is true. We had 4 years of Obama. Even the slow people could figure him out. All we heard from Romney was he had a plan...but he wouldn't tell anybody what it was. Romney didn't even know. Also Romney supposedly cared about our country and wouldn't even tell Obama what it was. Romney didn't care or he would have given advice a long time ago. All he cared about was getting elected and he thought just being on the other team would be enough.

Romney the almighty successful businessman couldn't even market himself. He lost and is out of business.

You could be 100% correct James that it was Romney's weaknesses more than Obama's strengths.


Sent from my SPH-D710 using Motorcycle.com Free App

[hondo2doc]

Originally Posted by thrasher

Your assessment is really a how Obama won as opposed to a why Obama won, but it is a pretty fair and accurate assessment of how nonetheless. At the end of the day, though, it boils down to a matter of trust, and I think America trusts Obama more which is why he got elected.

You are correct...it is how he got there. And I think you point about trust falls in line with American voters being at a crossroads and chosing what they knew, or as you put it what they trusted. As apposed to an unknown (Romney).

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Motorcycle.com Free App

[Uncle Salty]

Originally Posted by thrasher

Your assessment is really a how Obama won as opposed to a why Obama won, but it is a pretty fair and accurate assessment of how nonetheless. At the end of the day, though, it boils down to a matter of trust, and I think America trusts Obama more which is why he got elected.

Trust was a big issue but I think it was a vote of the lesser of two evils. I don't think a majority of the registered voters actually trust Obama to be an effective leader or believe in most of his agenda. I think the majority just trusted Romney less. All of Romney's opponents (republican primary candidates, democrats and third party candidates) used his past to effectively paint him as someone to fear and be wary of. He didn't have the charisma to gain the attention or trust of the younger crowd or the middle and lower income group. His forte is with upper income, higher educated people. Someone like Rubio would have done better than Romney to get votes. Had he run, Obama wouldn't be president next term. It would not even have been close.

edit: but I don't believe he would be eligible to run for president.

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by Uncle Salty

Trust was a big issue but I think it was a vote of the lesser of two evils. I don't think a majority of the registered voters actually trust Obama to be an effective leader or believe in most of his agenda. I think the majority just trusted Romney less. All of Romney's opponents (republican primary candidates, democrats and third party candidates) used his past to effectively paint him as someone to fear and be wary of. He didn't have the charisma to gain the attention or trust of the younger crowd or the middle and lower income group. His forte is with upper income, higher educated people. Someone like Rubio would have done better than Romney to get votes. Had he run, Obama wouldn't be president next term. It would not even have been close.

edit: but I don't believe he would be eligible to run for president.

Pretty level headed and thoughtful response.

I am a swing voter, and the part of your above assessment I bold'd pretty much hits the nail on the head for me. To me, "the lesser of two evils", as you put it, is still an element of trust.