At 11/9/12 11:27 AM, adrshepard wrote: Why, because the Democrats will never be able to make a more attractive proposal to Hispanics than the Dream Act?
Moving to the center on immigration isn't going to win you Hispanics at such a level that you're going to win elections again. I have no doubt that the GOP is going to continue to double down on their stance on immigration, so I think you're wrong; the Democratic party is going to be the party with the biggest chunk of the minority vote on virtue on not being Republicans. To Hispanics, supporting a party which doesn't view them as parasitic immigrants is, I'd say, on the same level of appeal as the Dream Act. 88% of Romney voters were white. There is a reason why.
Or for basic contraception coverage? Or some definition of gay marraige? Democrats will always be able to go further to the left than the GOP on immigration and women's issues, and there simply aren't enough gays in the US to compensate for the disillusionment some conservatives would experience after an outright republican endorsement of gay marraige.
It's not the gays in this country that tipped the election to Obama. It's ludicrous to make that assumption. Granted, my evidence is anecdotal, but I've talked to many conservatives who either a) didn't vote this year or b) actually voted for Obama because of not just the GOP's stance on gay marriage, but their collective "traditional values" stance on social issues, which they've find regressive. The Democrats don't even have to worry about going "further to the left." They just not have to be the GOP, and that isn't a challenge.
Yeah right. People said the same thing about the Democratic party in 2004 and look what happened. This was a turnout election in which the GOP base stayed home.
Right, and look who turned out and for whom. Who does the GOP have right now that will be appealing to establishment Republicans, Independents, centrists and minorities in 2016? Jeb Bush? Chris Christie?
Not the lower class, in most polls Romney had a significant advantage among the working class and those lacking an higher education.
If this was true, why didn't Romney win Michigan and/or Ohio? Maybe he said something that offended the working class, but I can't seem to think what it could have been...
The only people who were upset about so-called voting "suppression" were minorities and the very poor who somehow live without IDs. He was never going to win those votes anyway.
Well, for what it's worth, I'm not very poor nor am I minority and I was pretty upset about it. It turned out to be a sort of blessing in disguise, since those very voter suppression laws actually helped Obama more than Romney.
And saying Atkin represents the entire republican party? Really? Why not say they're all closet homosexuals because of Larry Craig? Meanwhile I'll brand all democratic party members in terms applicable to Gary Condit.
Well, tell me, which party tries to make a distinction between "rape" and "forcible rape"? And which party tries to make the distinction in legislation?Here's one! Granted, the language was dropped to due to public outrage. The views Atkins holds is not fringe among Republican officials (but I will say he certainly doesn't represent Republican voters, since he disgusted so many of them). Atkins' problem is that isn't very good at being a GOP politician and doesn't know how to translate his reprehensible opinions into vague meaningless soundbites that includes the words "family" or "values" or "tradition" or whatever.
The poor and those who like to think of themselves as "middle class" but can't feed themselves or their families without government assistance.
Hmm, sounds like they want to be able to feed themselves and/or their families. I'm totally against that.
Those like Sandra Fluke who think other people should pay for their birth control.
Oh boy! Sandra Fluke! Hey, this is a perfect example of the GOP reaching out to women voters! Remember when Limbaugh said that asking for health insurance to cover contraceptives is equal to asking for money to have sex? And when Limbaugh said that Sandra Fluke wanting health insurance to cover contraceptives is the same exact thing as Sandra Fluke requesting payment for sex? And when Limbaugh then said that if taxpayers were paying for Sandra Fluke to have sex, (which through his superior logic they were) then the taxpayers should get something in return? And the return payment which Limbaugh suggested should be sex tapes of Fluke?
And remember when Fluke's testimony was actually for a friend? Who is a lesbian? Who uses birth control for things that have nothing to do with pregnancy?
Don't let that discourage you from touting Sandra Fluke as a talking point though, it really helps your case.
Those who think that they are entitled to mortgage relief because they were too stupid to understand what an adjustable rate mortgage could entail.
You're forgetting to mention the well known and highly prevalent practices of:
a) Telling people they were getting an fixed rate loan when it was actually an ARM, and
2) Lying to the customer about their ability to afford the rate when it reset.
Lying about the terms of the mortgages, the borrowers income in records, appraisal prices, and whether the borrower qualified for a fixed or ARM was systematic and institutionalized. With respect to foreclosures, fraud in terms of keeping track of who owed what was so bad that every single state in the country sued the mortgage industry as a whole.
But you can keep blaming it on the homeowners and not the nice honest businessmen.
Those who think they have an inalienable right to recieve subsidized medical care despite the fact that they make far too much and have too many assets to be eligibile for Medicaid.
Funny you talk about subsidies, when companies like Wal-Mart intentionally pay their employees at such a low wage they qualify for food stamps and medicaid in order to get the federal government to subsidize their profits. The lesson here is that social programs don't just help the poor, they also help the rich, or rather job creators if you like calling them that.
And while they aren't asking for handouts directly, I'd include the group of people who either resent the wealthy for their money or can't recognize the fundamental iniquity of demanding more of people's money that they earned themselves to fund a massively bloated and inefficient government.
I can't speak for others, but I love the rich and welcome them greatly! Their taxable income is invaluable.
