It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What This Election Revealed To Me

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Yes the Democrats won the Presidency, and they also won firm control over the House and Senate; but was it really that big of a win for them?

This year should have been an absolute runaway for every Democrat running for every single office nationwide. They had the benefits of an extremely unpopular Republican President, a terrible economy, an out of date opposing candidate with an unqualified VP. These were the absolute ideal conditions for the Democrats, and yet they didn't run away with anything.

So what does this tell me about not only this election but this country in general? It tells me that even under perfect conditions in which everything was perfectly aligned for the Democrats, that they still cannot get more than 55% of the vote. It tells me even when most of the country is in disagreement with the President and everything the Republican party currently stands for, that the Democrats still cannot run away with an election.

Why is that? Are we not told that this is no longer a center-right country? Are we not told that Conservatism is dead and liberalism is the shining beacon of hope?

What this election has shown me is that if the Republican party can get back to it's Conservative roots, and find some real Conservative voices, that this country will vote for them in landslide fashion like we've never seen.

Now we just have to figure out where to find those voices.




posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Actually it says to me a new collation is forming that is is composed of African Americans/Latinos and other ethnic minorities, Women and a disgruntled blue color middle class. In it neither party may dominate. Much depends on not promises but preformance. If Obama does not come through and preform as he promised they could abandon him. It may currently be liberally inclined nationally but vote locally depending on the candidate regardless of leaning.

For example... I voted for Obama and Mark Warner but in the house race I voted for Goodlette, the Republican. Why because while I had some issues with him over many of his national votes... he has done a lot of good for this area... so I voted for him.

And if this collation holds it will become harder and harder to run as either a strict Republican/conservative or Democrat/Liberal... in short its going to be a hard time for both parties and may actually lead to the formation of a new viable third party if the current parties do not pay attention.

Part of the reason the Republican party failed so badly this time around (besides bush minor) is that he and they have talked up the middle class but failed to deliver anything to anybody except to the corporate classes.



[edit on 7-11-2008 by grover]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
You know . . . I would run for office if I knew where to start



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I've only done a bit of looking into this, but it would appear from a cursory view that much of Obama's support came from urban areas whereas the rural areas of many states seemed to swing toward McCain.

If you look at the map of North Carolina, you can see McCain red all over the place with Obama blue only in the areas where the state's largest three cities are located.

Anyone find anything on this . . . a breakdown by urban vs. rural.

If it does end up being rural vs urban, it would be interesting to disect the hows and whys this happened.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
may actually lead to the formation of a new viable third party if the current parties do not pay attention.


I tend to agree with this line of thinking. What I'd like to see is a real Conservative party formed on it's own. The Republicans have become corrupt and the "geniuses" within the party for some reason still think they are on the right path by pushing conservatives away.

I still believe that if we found a candidate who displayed "true" conservative values and really stood for what most of America does, that it would be no contest. It's just a matter of finding someone who fits that bill.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I would prefer to see the emergence of a third party from this that puts the whole conservative/liberal duality aside for a more common ground approach... indeed I think that is the only way a real third party can form and have an actual chance at power.

It is the war between conservatives and liberals that have so alienated voters to begin with.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I don’t fully agree here grover.

I believe that this country wants a strong Conservative leader. That's what my initial post described. That even in these "perfect" conditions, the liberal ideals of Obama couldn't run away with an election.

Granted we didn't even have a conservative running in this election, so it's hard to draw the comparisons. These are just my thoughts and speculations



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


HOWEVER... one of the reasons Obama fired up so many people and won is he promised to move beyond all of that. It remains to see if he will but that was the key to his winning.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Well Compared to 4 years ago, actually democrats won in a very big way. if you look at this map elections.nytimes.com... . And go to voting shifts it's pretty dramatic honestly. If the democrats can keep up the 50 state strategy and get a hold of this economy you're gonna see a map more like say 1980 in 2012. Not only that republicans don't have a great control or lead as you think www.jedreport.com... .

Wait wait... who was it 4 years ago who clamed mandate with a 51 48.7 difference? And only a 35 electoral vote margin, and 3 million popular vote difference. Hmm Obama has a almost 8 million popular vote margin, and a 190 electoral vote lead.

Yet you say this wasn't some kind of landslide and republicans can come back... when Bush couldn't even break 300 electoral votes. Hate to break it to you, But yes this is a left of center country now. you have 32% of the electorate, down 5% from 2004, and Democrats now have 40% of the electorate, up 3%.

You know who also won by 8 million votes? Reagan over Jimmy Carter. Stop being delusional or your precious conservative ideals will never be fully realized(not like they have been since the 60's or 70's anyway). I hope you now see the fallacy in your argument. If not lets debate, I'm sure I can crush you.


[edit on 7-11-2008 by djpaec]



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:03 AM
link   
If Obama had in essence promised more of the same he may still have won but it would have been another hairline fracture election and the very fact that it wasn't speaks volumes that both parties need to listen to.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoalPoster


If it does end up being rural vs urban, it would be interesting to disect the hows and whys this happened.


Easy . . . race.

There are more blacks that live in urban areas. More whites live in rural areas.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:10 AM
link   
That is kind of my point grover.

Obama stood up for something. He had principles that he stuck with the entire time and fought for.

The problem with the Republican party for last two decades is that they have not been doing that. They have been trying to appear more and more like Democrats themselves. They don't stand for anything and just try to shift with popular opinion, and people can see right through that.

Honestly, I could care less if the Republican party ever comes back. I'm not a Republican first, I'm an American first, and a Conservative after that.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by xxpigxx
 


Did you even bother to go here elections.nytimes.com... and look at the voting shift? That's not all urban areas my friend. In fact Obama was the first Democrat in a long time to bump up numbers with everyone besides 65+, Gays and lesbians and 'other religions'. Heck even people that made 200k+ went from 30 some percentage points for kerry and 49% for Obama. Wish I could find where I saw this, but trust me soon as I find it I will post it.

reply to post by nyk537
 

Are you gonna ignore me or take on a real argument.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I really don't mean to be insulting when I say this... conservatism is not an inspiring philosophy and the way it is so often expressed is little more than reactionary in nature.

People want to believe in something that moves them... a striving for something better... more noble.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoalPoster
I've only done a bit of looking into this, but it would appear from a cursory view that much of Obama's support came from urban areas whereas the rural areas of many states seemed to swing toward McCain.

If you look at the map of North Carolina, you can see McCain red all over the place with Obama blue only in the areas where the state's largest three cities are located.

Anyone find anything on this . . . a breakdown by urban vs. rural.

If it does end up being rural vs urban, it would be interesting to disect the hows and whys this happened.

i'm glad someone else noticed that. i live in alabama, the tennessee valley, very rural here, and although i support Obama, many more folks i talked to (that don't surf the web all day like i do) couldn't believe he won...they were amazed. i knew he would win, i wanted him to win, but these folks were dumbfounded. I think as big as an issue the economy is, if the economy had been better at the time, he would have lost. Because if i had any faith whatsover that Mccain wouldn't further degenerate the dollar and make the rich richer, i would have supported him instead. As it is, i have had to compromise my beliefs, i do not support a gun ban, or same sex marriges, hey that's my right to opinion right? but i've had to make those issues take a backseat to who i thought would be best for the economy, and Obama gets that one hands down. Well, i bet the reason for that rural difference is simple: he's black, strike one for a lot of rural folks, Biden wrote the origional gun ban, big strike two, and if Mccain had pressed the issue about religion and what have you i think it would have been strike three, hell maybe if he had picked a decent VP he would have won. it would have been closer anyway. i felt almost like picking Palin was a way to throw the election. oh well, as a rural living person i thought i'd chime in on the thoughts of those around me. I would appreciate it if people just accepted my honesty instead of saying things like: "the fact that he's black should have nothing to do with it!" and getting all upset at me. because you are right, in an ideal world it shouldn't have any bearing on the outcome, however this is the reality, many people voted for Mccain because he wasn't the black guy, and an issue could be made for those who voted for Obama BECAUSE HE WAS the black guy. this election will be a good thing to study for many years to come, much to learn.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I really don't mean to be insulting when I say this... conservatism is not an inspiring philosophy and the way it is so often expressed is little more than reactionary in nature.


Problem is, we haven't really seen it expressed in it's true form. And what's not inspiring about limited government, strong national defense, controlled spending and individual liberty?


People want to believe in something that moves them... a striving for something better... more noble.


The things I listed above do move me. I see big government, increased spending, and a lowered national defense as a step backward. Less noble.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by djpaec
Well Compared to 4 years ago, actually democrats won in a very big way. if you look at this map elections.nytimes.com... . And go to voting shifts it's pretty dramatic honestly. If the democrats can keep up the 50 state strategy and get a hold of this economy you're gonna see a map more like say 1980 in 2012. Not only that republicans don't have a great control or lead as you think www.jedreport.com... .

Wait wait... who was it 4 years ago who clamed mandate with a 51 48.7 difference? And only a 35 electoral vote margin, and 3 million popular vote difference. Hmm Obama has a almost 8 million popular vote margin, and a 190 electoral vote lead.

Yet you say this wasn't some kind of landslide and republicans can come back... when Bush couldn't even break 300 electoral votes. Hate to break it to you, But yes this is a left of center country now. you have 32% of the electorate, down 5% from 2004, and Democrats now have 40% of the electorate, up 3%.

You know who also won by 8 million votes? Reagan over Jimmy Carter. Stop being delusional or your precious conservative ideals will never be fully realized(not like they have been since the 60's or 70's anyway). I hope you now see the fallacy in your argument. If not lets debate, I'm sure I can crush you.


[edit on 7-11-2008 by djpaec]

i don't think you can assume the country is now officially left of center. i know most of my friends have the same views as me...we tend to be mostly conservative, about gun laws and gay rights and what have you, while at the same time we support a womans right to abortion, and we are definately not in the range og 200 thousand a year plus..heck most of us are not in the 50 thousand range, but we do tend towards the conservative side, wishing to protect the constitution and make very little changes to it, but this time around, we knew it would be disasterous for the economy to have another conservative big spender get elected. And i suppose if i truly believe in the constitution, then i would have to compromise how i feel about same sex marriges also, since i can't have one without the other. i believe the shift we are seing is not from conservative to liberal, but a shift towards the middle from both sides.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Those are political goals... not social or moral or even spiritual goals.

I am not saying that Obama is any of those things... he's a politician and I have no illusions about that... but he touched on every one of those things in his rhetoric...

... small government doesn't mean squat to most people because no one believes that anyone running for a place in government means it.

Again people want to feel like they are part of something bigger than themselves.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enigma Publius
we knew it would be disasterous for the economy to have another conservative big spender get elected.


That's the misconception most people have.

We haven't had a Conservative in office for the last 8 years. We've had a new age neo-con Republican.

Big difference. Real Conservatism believes in smaller government and limited spending. We haven't had anyone step forward and stand by those beliefs though.



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Again people want to feel like they are part of something bigger than themselves.


But I don't think they want that something to be bigger government.

You can't blame people for not believing someone who says limited government, because they don't have any reason to.

That's my point. We need someone who actually stands for those things, not just says them.

I never said it would be an easy thing to do, or that it would happen in 2012 or sooner. I just said it's what I believe needs to happen.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join