Can we stop saying Republicans lost because of social issues.

[Origanalist]

Semantics have no place in this debate. People choose to hate republicans when they make a big deal of social issues.

Well YES SIR!!!! (snaps a crisp salute)

[nasaal]

You keep thinking that buddy. If the GOP embraces abortion and gay marriage I promise you they will never win another election, ever.



Funny, I watched MSNBC and FOX news a week before the election just to test this theory, FOX spent about 10% of it's time talking about gays and abortion, MSNBC spent over 60% of it's time speaking about those issues, was just my own personal test, but try it yourself, see who brings it up more. Libs spend FAR more time talking about those issues than cons do.

Try radio shows. That's where you get the brunt of it. And yes many many listen to them. Keep believing that this country is split down the middle.

[compromise]

No, I do not believe social issues were the cause of the loss. There are more pro-lifers than pro-choicers in America. That being said, many of the pro-lifers are fiscally left wing blacks, Latinos or Irish/Italian Northeasterners who would not consider a Republican.

One of the main reasons was how terrible the campaign was. It was totally disorganized. Many county Republican parties, even those in swing states, got hardly any yard signs and bumper stickers.

The biggest reason was that Romney lacked the ability to draw up a large, passionate, dedicated supporter base. This is something that Reagan, Obama, Clinton and to a lesser extent even George W Bush successfully managed to do. A lot of people who voted Romney voted for him because he was not Obama. Romney is not the sort of candidate that gets anyone excited. Remember the Romney-Ryan rally where everyone just wanted to see Ryan and no one cared about Romney?

[Odin]

I think the social issues are a turnoff to voters.

Interestingly Hispanics and African Americans seem to be more conservative on social issues, but yet they still voted for Obama in mass numbers.

Personally I don't see how gay marriage is harmful to society and I see no reason why that shouldn't be allowed, unless someone can show me how it deprives the freedom of other people, or undermines the concept of family.

I think Republicans lose youth votes due to their stance on gay marriage and marijuana legalization. I know it sounds silly, but if we had a nominee in 2016 who was for pot legalization and the Democratic candidate was against it, then the Republican would get a more significant portion of the youth vote imo.

[Brian4Liberty]

Interestingly Hispanics and African Americans seem to be more conservative on social issues, but yet they still voted for Obama in mass numbers.

Not a surprise there. The Democrat propagandists also lied and told people that any non-Democrat is a racist.

[affa]

Well, the democrats demonized children conceived in rape. According to their rhetoric, all women should unilaterally despise any child conceived under such circumstances. I don't think the GOP even noticed. They could have played on that.

Personally, I don't see anything either liberal or conservative about sticking one's business in another's uterus.

They aren't demonizing the children. They're demonizing the act of rape, and saying women shouldn't be forced to have to go through the turmoil of having to first give birth to, and then raise, a living memory of that violence. If the Republicans tried to play that off as Dems 'demonizing' the actual children, they'd look absolutely ridiculous, because that's not even remotely what is being said and anyone who is remotely sympathetic to the victims of rape would see right through it.

[Origanalist]

They aren't demonizing the children. They're demonizing the act of rape, and saying women shouldn't be forced to have to go through the turmoil of having to first give birth to, and then raise, a living memory of that violence. If the Republicans tried to play that off as Dems 'demonizing' the actual children, they'd look absolutely ridiculous, because that's not even remotely what is being said and anyone who is remotely sympathetic to the victims of rape would see right through it.

Why doesn't someone ask the children of rape if they would have rather been aborted?

[Anti Federalist]

ETA - NVM, I see Gunny has already adroitly addressed this issue.

The bottom line is that President Obama won re-election because 50% of the American people approved of his job performance on election day. That's the percentage of the vote he received nation wide. 50% of the American people support adding 6 trillion dollars in debt, starting additional wars, locking up Americans without giving them a trial, increasing regulations on American businesses, and giving out free abortion and contraception to anyone who wants it. Like Ron Paul said, our country is far gone.

This is not quite true.

Half of the people that bothered to register their name with the state and stand in line and cast a ballot in this worthless charade were in favor of O-bomb-ya.

Half of those were opposed.

58 million people decided the fate of the rest of us.

[Butchie]

They aren't demonizing the children. They're demonizing the act of rape, and saying women shouldn't be forced to have to go through the turmoil of having to first give birth to, and then raise, a living memory of that violence. If the Republicans tried to play that off as Dems 'demonizing' the actual children, they'd look absolutely ridiculous, because that's not even remotely what is being said and anyone who is remotely sympathetic to the victims of rape would see right through it.

About as rediculous as the left constantly saying that Rep were claiming rape was god's will, which was not what the guy actually meant, certainly not what Republicans as a whole believe, but they ran with that football anyway.

[parocks]

Romney won white women and white men.

Obama did ridiculously well with black women.

Blacks are 12.4% of the populations.

Black women were 8% of the voters and Obama got 96% of the black women.

Since we're playing "guess the future" or "what should be done", it's worth noting that the historic first black president will not be running next time, and the Democrats
will not get 96% of 8%.

The Democrats also won't get 100% of the vote in many many precincts in OH and PA, or over 100% in parts of FL.

So, factor that in as well.

I haven't posted this analysis yet, so, here goes.

****************************************

************************************

White men (34%) 35% 62% 3%
120 M X 34% = 40.8 MILLION VOTED
40.8 M X 35% = 14.28
40.8 M X 62% = 25.296
11.016 MORE ROMNEY

White women (38%) 42% 56% 2%
120 M X 38% = 45.6 MILLION VOTED
45.6 M X 42% = 19.152
45.6 M X 56% = 25.536
6.384 MORE ROMNEY

17.4 MORE ROMNEY

****************************************

Black men (5%) 87% 11% 2%
120 M X 5% = 6 MILLION VOTED
6 M X 87% = 5.22
6 M X 11% = .66
4.56 MORE OBAMA

Black women (8%) 96% 3% 1%
120 M X 8% = 9.6 MILLION VOTED
9.6 M X 96% = 8.64 MILLION VOTED FOR OBAMA
9.6 M X 3% = .288 MILLION VOTED FOR ROMNEY
8.352 M = MORE BLACK WOMEN VOTED FOR OBAMA

Latino men (5%) 65% 33% 2%
120 M X 5% = 6 MILLION VOTED
6 M X 65% = 3.9
6 M X 33% = 1.98
1.92 M MORE OBAMA

Latino women (6%) 76% 23% 1%
120 M X 6% = 7.2 MILLION VOTED
7.2 M X 76% = 5.472
7.2 M X 23% = 1.656
3.816 M MORE OBAMA

All other races (5%) 66% 31% 3%
120 M X 5% = 6 MILLION VOTED
6 M X 66% = 3.96
6 M X 31% = 1.86
2.1 M MORE OBAMA

20.748 M MORE OBAMA

***********************************

3.348 MARGIN OF VICTORY.

************************************

[jmdrake]

There's a big difference between social conservatism and having the government dictate social conservatism. The first is real conservatism, the second is progressivism for a different cause.

Well the small federal government position on abortion and gay marriage is leave it up to the states. I haven't seen many democrats grab hold of that argument. Have you?

Back to the OP, Mitt Romney got less votes overall than did McCain and Mitt Romney is more socially liberal than McCain. That should tell you something. Romney sucked as a candidate, period. Does anyone here honestly think John Huntsman could have beat Obama? Huntsman certainly wouldn't have gotten any Ron Paul votes. And I bet even more conservatives would have stayed home.

[jmdrake]

They aren't demonizing the children. They're demonizing the act of rape, and saying women shouldn't be forced to have to go through the turmoil of having to first give birth to, and then raise, a living memory of that violence. If the Republicans tried to play that off as Dems 'demonizing' the actual children, they'd look absolutely ridiculous, because that's not even remotely what is being said and anyone who is remotely sympathetic to the victims of rape would see right through it.

I bet any republican who answered the question about abortion for rape victims by saying "I'm conflicted about this. But I don't think a child conceived of rape deserves the death penalty." it would be hard for dems to demonize them. Certainly that wouldn't play well for them dems to use that as a soundbite.

[affa]

Why doesn't someone ask the children of rape if they would have rather been aborted?

Unfortunately, that isn't really part of the equation since it doesn't address the belief divide between factions. Some think it's life from conception. Some don't. And that divide makes communication between most people on either side impossible since they're talking different languages.

[jmdrake]

Unfortunately, that isn't really part of the equation since it doesn't address the belief divide between factions. Some think it's life from conception. Some don't. And that divide makes communication between most people on either side impossible since they're talking different languages.

You're missing the point. It's not about "bridging the divide". It's about controlling the debate. If you're pro choice you want the debate focused solely on the mother. Those who are pro life can only engage meaningfully in the debate if they shift the focus to the child. The people that need to be communicated to are those in the middle. Those on the extremes aren't going to listen anyway.

[angelatc]

They aren't demonizing the children. They're demonizing the act of rape, and saying women shouldn't be forced to have to go through the turmoil of having to first give birth to, and then raise, a living memory of that violence. If the Republicans tried to play that off as Dems 'demonizing' the actual children, they'd look absolutely ridiculous, because that's not even remotely what is being said and anyone who is remotely sympathetic to the victims of rape would see right through it.

Rape is evil, so is abortion. So are liberals, for that matter. Using rape for political gain - shameless.

[angelatc]

Well the small federal government position on abortion and gay marriage is leave it up to the states. I haven't seen many democrats grab hold of that argument. Have you?

I would never have said this during the campaign, but there was a time when I would have voted for Romney. There's a clip of him out there getting angry, andefending his religion and position on abortion. He said that while he personally was pro-life, the position of the church was that they don't exist to force other people into behaving to their standards.

ANd that's exactly the role of religion in politics, IMHO. If ir guides him as a leader, but he believes that God gives us free will and therefore our morality is our responsibility, I can live with that.

[Origanalist]

Unfortunately, that isn't really part of the equation since it doesn't address the belief divide between factions. Some think it's life from conception. Some don't. And that divide makes communication between most people on either side impossible since they're talking different languages.

I'm sure said person is happy to know they aren't part of the equation.

[tod evans]

In all of these discussions it's "mother/child" ....Well what about the father?

I get so sick of the subject of abortion being discussed without any consideration given to the father, like he's a non-entity who's rights/opinions and legal standing have already been discounted.

Not all fathers are "Sperm Donors" as both sides would lead one to believe with their rhetoric..

Sad!

You're missing the point. It's not about "bridging the divide". It's about controlling the debate. If you're pro choice you want the debate focused solely on the mother. Those who are pro life can only engage meaningfully in the debate if they shift the focus to the child. The people that need to be communicated to are those in the middle. Those on the extremes aren't going to listen anyway.

[affa]

I'm sure said person is happy to know they aren't part of the equation.

Well, they aren't. Nor are adopted children. Nobody is arguing that they would, if asked, want to be aborted. It's missing the crux of the debate.

[affa]

You're missing the point. It's not about "bridging the divide". It's about controlling the debate. If you're pro choice you want the debate focused solely on the mother. Those who are pro life can only engage meaningfully in the debate if they shift the focus to the child. The people that need to be communicated to are those in the middle. Those on the extremes aren't going to listen anyway.

While I don't totally disagree, I think you're missing one key point -- most people pro-choice don't "want the debate focused solely on the mother" for three reasons.
1) they don't consider the 'mother' a 'mother' yet.
2) they don't consider the 'child' a 'child' yet.
3) they view the unborn as a non-entity in the discussion.

My point is that you're framing it in language most here already agree with. But someone pro-choice isn't thinking about the 'mother', they're thinking about the 'woman' that just went through a traumatic rape and now is stuck with an unwanted non-life they're going to have to feel grow in their body for nine months before giving birth to a living symbol of that rape.

It's an impossible situation and ultimately, it's why the rape topic will always be a hot topic, because it brings the conversation to an absolute boil where too many button issues touch to have sane, rational discussion with most people (unless you already agree with them, of course).

[Origanalist]

Well, they aren't. Nor are adopted children. Nobody is arguing that they would, if asked, want to be aborted. It's missing the crux of the debate.

Well that just $#@!ing hilarious. Do youwant to be aborted today?

[Cabal]

Republicans didn't lose for any one single reason. That being said, social issues is surely among those reasons. Of course, this type of inconsistency within the GOP and 'conservatives' is nothing new. Stay out of our wallets, but you're welcome in our bedroom! Freedom is good, but we don't mind sacrificing it for the 'war on terrorism' or the 'war on drugs'! Stop interfering in the 'free market', but lets subsidize the military-industrial complex! We don't like the welfare state, but by all means proceed with the warfare state! And so on and so forth... This is not to say the Democrats don't have their own abundance of inconsistencies as well.

[libertariantexas]

I think the "social issues" are a big part of why the GOP is having trouble. You can say it wasn't a "disaster," but you'd have to be one hell of a spin-meister to say the Republicans did well.

In a lot of ways, the GOP should have done really well this year. Polls show that Americans are becoming concerned about the size of the government and the deficit, so it should have been a good year for fiscal conservatives (a small number of Republicans) and those pretending to be fiscal conservatives (most Republicans).

Plus, they were running against a weak President in a bad economy.

But the GOP keeps hammering what I like to call their "anti" message. They are anti-gay, anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-drug, anti-Hispanic, anti-Jew (or any other religion other than Christianity, and preferably only Protestant Christianity), anti-atheist, anti-science, etc. Frankly, their message comes across as something more appropriate to 1950 than 2012.

That's a problem. Because minority numbers are rising rapidly in this country. Gays are becoming accepted by mainstream America. Even the anti-drug stuff is failing, with more and more states legalizing drugs to one degree or another (yeah, I know, Dems are mostly for the insane "War on Drugs" too, but Republicans have the reputation of being hard asses about it).

Yes, there are a lot of other reasons Romney lost, but the "anti" message was certainly a part of it.

[Butchie]

Republicans didn't lose for any one single reason. That being said, social issues is surely among those reasons. Of course, this type of inconsistency within the GOP and 'conservatives' is nothing new. Stay out of our wallets, but you're welcome in our bedroom! Freedom is good, but we don't mind sacrificing it for the 'war on terrorism' or the 'war on drugs'! Stop interfering in the 'free market', but lets subsidize the military-industrial complex! We don't like the welfare state, but by all means proceed with the warfare state! And so on and so forth... This is not to say the Democrats don't have their own abundance of inconsistencies as well.

You honestly buy that? So, if I'm to understand you correctly if Romney and all the GOP Senators who lost had embraced gay marriage they would have won? Too funny.

As to your second quote, I don't know anyone in the GOP who is wanting to go in anyone's bedroom. The issue is marriage, which is far from being relegated to the bedroom. Suprised how many RP supporters/libertarians resort to liberal demagoguery when it comes to this issue and abortion.

[parocks]

I think the "social issues" are a big part of why the GOP is having trouble. You can say it wasn't a "disaster," but you'd have to be one hell of a spin-meister to say the Republicans did well.

In a lot of ways, the GOP should have done really well this year. Polls show that Americans are becoming concerned about the size of the government and the deficit, so it should have been a good year for fiscal conservatives (a small number of Republicans) and those pretending to be fiscal conservatives (most Republicans).

Plus, they were running against a weak President in a bad economy.

But the GOP keeps hammering what I like to call their "anti" message. They are anti-gay, anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-drug, anti-Hispanic, anti-Jew (or any other religion other than Christianity, and preferably only Protestant Christianity), anti-atheist, anti-science, etc. Frankly, their message comes across as something more appropriate to 1950 than 2012.

That's a problem. Because minority numbers are rising rapidly in this country. Gays are becoming accepted by mainstream America. Even the anti-drug stuff is failing, with more and more states legalizing drugs to one degree or another (yeah, I know, Dems are mostly for the insane "War on Drugs" too, but Republicans have the reputation of being hard asses about it).

Yes, there are a lot of other reasons Romney lost, but the "anti" message was certainly a part of it.

Pro-drug is more popular than Pro-Gay.

And the Republicans have social issues they can run on against the Democrats. Gay might be a little less than 50/50 - still against, but something like transsexuals is something that the Democrats embrace, but Americans don't.

[Butchie]

But the GOP keeps hammering what I like to call their "anti" message. They are anti-gay, anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-drug, anti-Hispanic, anti-Jew (or any other religion other than Christianity, and preferably only Protestant Christianity), anti-atheist, anti-science, etc. Frankly, their message comes across as something more appropriate to 1950 than 2012.

Really, what do Republicans do that is "anti-gay, anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, anti-Jew anti-atheist, anti-science" - I'll give you anti-drug, but did I see correctly you said "Anti-Jew"?!?!?!? I guess you miss where Rep are kissing Israels butt every chance they get.

I could just as easily say that Democrats are "anti-white, anti-hetero, anti-male, anti-Israel, anti-business, anti-Christian, anti-military, anti-America......", see, it's easy.

[Occam's Banana]

Republicans didn't lose for any one single reason. That being said, social issues is surely among those reasons. Of course, this type of inconsistency within the GOP and 'conservatives' is nothing new. Stay out of our wallets, but you're welcome in our bedroom! Freedom is good, but we don't mind sacrificing it for the 'war on terrorism' or the 'war on drugs'! Stop interfering in the 'free market', but lets subsidize the military-industrial complex! We don't like the welfare state, but by all means proceed with the warfare state! And so on and so forth... This is not to say the Democrats don't have their own abundance of inconsistencies as well.

You honestly buy that? So, if I'm to understand you correctly if Romney and all the GOP Senators who lost had embraced gay marriage they would have won? Too funny.

Actually, if you're to understand Cabal correctly, you probably need to read ALL of what he said, not just cherry-picked bits & pieces. Let's try again:

Republicans didn't lose for any one single reason. That being said, social issues is surely among those reasons. [...]

[Brett85]

As to your second quote, I don't know anyone in the GOP who is wanting to go in anyone's bedroom.

I don't either. Where does all this "bedroom" talk come from? I've never heard a politician talk about regulating what people do in their bedrooms.

[pochy1776]

Gay Marriage is like foot ball when you are invested in it, one side seems to be MUCH MORE AWESOME and ORGASMIC than the other. Then when you pan out, both sides look like total $#@!ing idiots. Even the Mercatus center doesn't even give a $#@! about Gay Marriage.

[Cabal]

Connotations include, but not limited to: sex, marriage, household privacy, drug use, medical decisions, and so on.