Is America moving to the left?

[Ugg]

Originally Posted by Thomas Veil

James Carville, no political dummy, made the same case in one of his most recent books. The demographics are obviously one reason. As Lindsey Graham put it back in August, “The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.” And that is not going to change anytime soon.

The part I bolded is very telling. The Repubs are all about fear and anger. Everyone else just wants a decent job and good schools for their kids.


I think there are a number of reasons for the shift back to the center.

Urbanization.

Richard Florida's "Creative Class" (consisting of mostly young adults who grew up as onese or twosie kid families in the burbs, now they want a life. In a city. City dwellers overwhelmingly vote left of center.)

The slow demise of the jingoistic "Great Generation".

Social Media.


I'm sure there are more.

[MadeTheSwitch]

Originally Posted by Coleman2010

Impossible! Have you seen the polling results? Republicans lost 90% of the African American vote, 70% of the Latino vote, 60% of woman 60% of the Jewish Vote and 70% of Asians.

And over 75% of the gay, lesbian and bisexual vote as well according to CNN.

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

They haven't been working with the democrats at all for 4 years and gained seats in the house and now continue to have a majority. Not sure what that says besides "keep doing the same thing". Democrats are acting as if the election was some pivotal change, in reality you are just back to where you were before the elections.

Gaining seats is not back to where Dems were. It's a small improvement. Also a lot more women being elected pointing again to changing demographics. This is what happens when women, gays, blacks and latinos feel marginalized by one party. They vote for the other.

Originally Posted by Anuba

Those of us who follow US politics from the other side of the pond are often amazed by how superficial and phony American politics are. Silly nonsense with parading the candidate's spouse and children around (who cares?!) and discussing "family values", making trivial observations about "looking presidential"... and of course the candidate absolutely must be straight and married. Electing the most powerful politician in the world and dealing with it like it was a pageant.

Married no. Straight...for the time being, yes. But if across the pond is such a beacon, can you point to some countries that have an openly gay or lesbian President and their partner winning elections? Cause I don't see any. Did I miss some? If not, then your criticism on this point is baseless.

[marksman]

America has not moved the political spectrum has. Reagan would be a moderate liberal.

----------

Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn

Obama only won popular vote by 2 million, I wouldn't exactly call that a landslide, even though the electoral college system makes it seem that way.

I think you are going to see Republicans hunker down for the next four years and come back to win the presidency under the same platform in 2016. Im not sure Romney is going to be leading the ticket though.

Democrats weren't given a majority in the senate and they are still down in the house. With billions spent on mud slinging from both sides it's going to be an awkward day at the office. I doubt there is going to be much working together over the next 4 years.

Popular vote is not relevant. Obama did win by a landslide.

[Thomas Veil]

Originally Posted by marksman

America has not moved the political spectrum has. Reagan would be a moderate liberal.

And Reagan was considered on the extreme right in his day. What's that say about the current bunch?

[marksman]

Originally Posted by barkomatic

It seems that with each election, the Republican party becomes more detached from the mainstream. Gay people and gay marriage is increasingly accepted, abortion rights have been decided decades ago, and people want fairness in tax policy.

I would love to see a Republican presidential candidate who didn't pander to religious extremists and the "no compromise" Tea Party crowd. I honestly believe that at certain points, a business oriented, Republican president might be the best leader for the country. Self reliance and opportunity are good things and its too bad its always drowned out.

However, I'm happy that Obama has been re-elected and look forward to 4 more years with his administration. After that, we'll see.

I agree with this but the Republican Party is controlled by a conspiracy like group of puppetmaeters who are ultra conservative. Romney had to sell out to get the nom but his movement then made him unellectable. This bad influence continues to ruin the party and until a candidate is strong enough to go his own way and get the nom nothing will change. Rubio and Ryan and others seem like horrible early contenders for 2016. The only early name that interests me at all is Christie and I don't see him cowtowing so I don't see him being the GOP candidate.

[vega07]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Wow.

Instead of ranting and raving and insulting all of the people who voted last night, you should be looking at what those voters are telling you. You are a great example of the GOP's unwillingness to accept that this world, and our country, is evolving. They have chosen NOT to evolve, and it has cost them the Presidency.

Alienating women, latinos (who voted in record numbers), and homosexuals cost them this race - and numerous Senatorial races. It's time to recognize that we are in 2012. Wanting civil rights is not being selfish. This country was founded on the premise that ALL MEN are created equal. Isn't about time we live up to it?

For the first time, EVER, our fellow Americans voted for and passed ballot measure making gay marriage legal. Millions of heterosexuals voted for rights for homosexuals. How is that me me me?? Yesterday was a historic day for our country. It shows that there is hope. Without freedom and equality we are nothing.

For the first time in a long time, I'm proud of America. It's time to stop acting like everyone else is wrong and look in the mirror.

dime21 cannot be helped. It's time you guys add him to your ignore list.

[Mac'nCheese]

Originally Posted by vega07

dime21 cannot be helped. It's time you guys add him to your ignore list.

Are you saying someone who keeps writing factually incorrect, insulting posts, stays in the thread long enough to give himself one up vote and then leaves, never once to return to answer anyone's response should be ignored? Where's the fun in that?

[marksman]

Originally Posted by dime21

Are you drunk? This was an exceptionally tight race. Obama won reelection due to one or two key battleground states, where the voting was 49% vs. 50%. Even the overall popular vote was only 1% or so from a tie. What landslide are you referring to? Go put some more air in your inflatable Obama love doll, it's getting low from last night.

To answer the broader question, no America has not been turning left, but the voter turnout has been, at least over the past 15 years or so. This election should be a case study in how pop-culture and the media is used to sway public opinion, particularly in the under-25 demographic. This age group is so inexperienced, uneducated, and easily coerced, and prior to the 90's, didn't have much of an interest in politics. Anyone who works in Marketing can learn a lot from this election.

Another trend one can gather from this new twitter facebook pop-culture atheist homosexual welfare entitlement voting generation, is the decline of America as a whole on the world stage. It is only as this new group of selfish me-me-me voters is getting involved in politics, that we now have to ask the question "Is America really the greatest country on earth still?". Coincidence? I think not.

It was not close. Obama could have lost Ohio, Florida and Virginia and still one.

[LizKat]

Originally Posted by rdowns

Before you all go off the left hand side fo the cliff, let's take a look at the facts. Yes, we re-elected Obama (by a smaller margin than 2008), picked up a few Senate seats and won the social issue ballot measures but the Reds maintained their control of the state houses and governorships (29>30). Republicans have 24 states where they control the governorship and both houses vs. 13 for the Democrats.

Good points. However, the breakdown of House seats lost and seats gained by party in 2012 was interesting to me. I'm using figures from Politico's summary which may have called races on unofficial counts. The net figures disguise a fair bit of churn.

Dems lost 17, gained 24, net 7 up.

GOP lost 20, gained 18, net 2 down.

There are reasons for turnover, district by district, but whatever they are, the parts of the whole don't seem a vote for status quo.

Aside from that I'd generally agree with you, no need to think the country's moving left. We might be getting pretty tired of the ranting though. Much of the ranting seems to come from the right, probably because the right tend to be less politically correct in their speech patterns, and some of what they're politically incorrect about is also just plain ignorant. The combination is, well, loud. And annoying.

Just getting tired of the ranting may have translated into some votes against Republicans in 2012, particularly by women. The "war on women" was not a figment of our imagination, either. Whatever else the GOP needs to think about, I'd say remembering that half the population is female would be good for openers. We got the right to vote in 1920. We got the right to equal employment opportunity in 1965. We gained rights to legal contraception and abortion in the 1970s. Those things are not going away. They were maybe taken for granted for awhile by the generations born since the 70s but those women are wide awake now, and as for us old women (some of us ladylike, some not, Mr. Akin), we ain't dead yet either. Women can be quick to remind a Congressional representative that the job is to represent the constituency, not just a member's party of registration.

I feel badly for moderate women trying to help the GOP move back to the center. It's a tough slog because the party is a disparate mix right now of male-centric fiscal conservatives and repressive social extremists. The GOP does not necessarily welcome the input of well-educated young women, and yet that's the demographic the party can really use right now if it wants to grow. There are exceptions here and there in the GOP's future leadership (Nikki Haley for example) but most are quite conservative. Until moderate women are not seen as exceptions, the GOP will not be able to draw into its base a healthy infusion of younger, moderate voters. When the GOP can attract more politically active females of color, it will have found its way back into mainstream politics. Whatever else it is right now, that party is not mainstream. I am hoping that more minority women who have served in the military will continue to step up for more public service and run for elective office. For some of them to be Republicans would be that party's lucky break. First, they need to see the welcome mats out there.

The Senate also holds out hope for me. It would have been a stretch in 1980 to imagine the Senate seating 20 women. This can only be a good thing for the country, a moderating influence that favors bipartisan interaction.

[vega07]

-----

[fox10078]

Originally Posted by topgunn

This is why you would never see a Ron Paul receive the GOP nomination although he was probably much more "electable" that Romney.

Removing child labor laws, minmum wage and the department of education is what you consider electable? Mother of god.

[Zombie Acorn]

Originally Posted by marksman

America has not moved the political spectrum has. Reagan would be a moderate liberal.

----------


Popular vote is not relevant. Obama did win by a landslide.

Democrats from 2000 would like a word. You should be careful not to overstate your gains. When you can't get **** done still its going to make the excuses look even more feeble

[vega07]

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

Are you saying someone who keeps writing factually incorrect, insulting posts, stays in the thread long enough to give himself one up vote and then leaves, never once to return to answer anyone's response should be ignored? Where's the fun in that?

You have a very good point.

[Macky-Mac]

no, not to the left.......a minor bounce back towards the center from 2010 doesn't mean the country is suddenly moving left

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by Thomas Veil

And Reagan was considered on the extreme right in his day. What's that say about the current bunch?

How young are you, lad? James Earl Carter was considered conservative 36 years ago.

[Happybunny]

What you in America count as left wing issues, would be seen as Basic Human Rights here in Old Europe.
Market forces are not the answer to every thing, neither is a Drone attack.

But the election of Obama shows that America is not lost to the forces of darkness.

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

What you in America count as left wing issues, would be seen as Basic Human Rights here in Old Europe.
Market forces are not the answer to every thing, neither is a Drone attack.

But the election of Obama shows that America is not lost to the forces of darkness.

The weird part from a European POV is really how they've lumped together economic and social policies in very odd and contradictory package deals.
This is the imaginary scenario of me moving to the US and voting for the first time.

Me: OK, so what do you guys offer?
DEM: Well, we're progressive social liberals, we believe in those freedoms, the right to abortion, gay marriage and so on.
Me: Alright, sounds good, I'm in.
DEM: ...on the other hand we're not economic liberals, we believe in regulation, redistribution of wealth, high taxes, big government, that whole deal.
Me: Oh. Well that's not really my cup of tea, but thanks.

Me: OK, so how about you, what's your deal?
GOP: Well sir, we're staunch advocates of economic liberalism -- low taxes, less regulation, small government and so forth. Freedom!
Me: Ah, now we're talking, where do I sign up?
GOP: Having said that, we hate many other freedoms -- we want to ban abortion and gay marriage. We also want to teach creationism in schools because we believe that the world is 4000 years old, that men rode around on dinosaurs, that the sun revolves around the earth, and that if it's 'legitimate rape', the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down! We also wouldn't mind nuking the entire world into oblivion except Israel, because that's our portal to heaven where Jesus will beam us up on the day of reckoning!"
Me: Woah. No. Just... no. Hell naw. That's just wrong on so many levels. I'll go with the other guys.
GOP: So you want higher taxes?
Me: Dude, I'd rather pay 100% income tax than get behind the other bat **** crazy stuff you just said.

This is why you should never mix religion and politics... or put together weird frankensteined combinations of economic liberalism and social conservatism.

[leenak]

Originally Posted by Anuba

The weird part from a European POV is really how they've lumped together economic and social policies in very odd and contradictory package deals.
This is the imaginary scenario of me moving to the US and voting for the first time.

Me: OK, so what do you guys offer?
DEM: Well, we're progressive social liberals, we believe in those freedoms, the right to abortion, gay marriage and so on.
Me: Alright, sounds good, I'm in.
DEM: ...on the other hand we're not economic liberals, we believe in regulation, redistribution of wealth, high taxes, big government, that whole deal.
Me: Oh. Well that's not really my cup of tea, but thanks.

Me: OK, so how about you, what's your deal?
GOP: Well sir, we're staunch advocates of economic liberalism -- low taxes, less regulation, small government and so forth. Freedom!
Me: Ah, now we're talking, where do I sign up?
GOP: Having said that, we hate many other freedoms -- we want to ban abortion and gay marriage. We also want to teach creationism in schools because we believe that the world is 4000 years old, that men rode around on dinosaurs, that the sun revolves around the earth, and that if it's 'legitimate rape', the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down! We also wouldn't mind nuking the entire world into oblivion except Israel, because that's our portal to heaven where Jesus will beam us up on the day of reckoning!"
Me: Woah. No. Just... no. Hell naw. That's just wrong on so many levels. I'll go with the other guys.
GOP: So you want higher taxes?
Me: Dude, I'd rather pay 100% income tax than get behind the other bat **** crazy stuff you just said.

This is why you should never mix religion and politics... or put together weird frankensteined combinations of economic liberalism and social conservatism.

Redistribution of wealth to the GOP means providing healthcare and other basic needs to the sick, disabled, poor, etc. The system in place msy not be ideal but it seems a necessity for any advanced country. Also I think our high taxes are lower than any EU country. We've also created a tax system such that someone who is barely getting by financially can pay a higher percentage of taxes than someone who is wealthy.

[AhmedFaisal]

Originally Posted by leenak

Redistribution of wealth to the GOP means providing healthcare and other basic needs to the sick, disabled, poor, etc. The system in place msy not be ideal but it seems a necessity for any advanced country. Also I think our high taxes are lower than any EU country. We've also created a tax system such that someone who is barely getting by financially can pay a higher percentage of taxes than someone who is wealthy.

The latter is the nature of all tax codes the moment you treat income differently and allow for deductions. Its the same in germany, france, uk etc.. I would argue that while your taxes are lower, your dysfunctional infrastructurr, healthcare system, educational system etc. out of pockets are significantly higher so disposable income at the end of the day is lower than in the eu where most services are handled through the tax code in a much more cost efficient way.

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by leenak

Redistribution of wealth to the GOP means providing healthcare and other basic needs to the sick, disabled, poor, etc. The system in place msy not be ideal but it seems a necessity for any advanced country. Also I think our high taxes are lower than any EU country. We've also created a tax system such that someone who is barely getting by financially can pay a higher percentage of taxes than someone who is wealthy.

The DEM package actually suits me just fine, I live in the EU so if I had issues with taxes I would've moved long ago. I was just making a case for a rather common kind of voter from the EU. I'd imagine that there are quite a few independents in the US who face the same dilemma. But the GOP is so blind to this problem that they haven't even considered the possibility that their social conservatism scares potential voters away. In their post-election analysis they only talk about the economic aspects, arguing that people voted for Obama "because they want free stuff".

[leenak]

Originally Posted by Anuba

The DEM package actually suits me just fine, I live in the EU so if I had issues with taxes I would've moved long ago. I was just making a case for a rather common kind of voter from the EU. I'd imagine that there are quite a few independents in the US who face the same dilemma. But the GOP is so blind to this problem that they haven't even considered the possibility that their social conservatism scares potential voters away. In their post-election analysis they only talk about the economic aspects, arguing that people voted for Obama "because they want free stuff".

Yeah, I'm an independent myself and the reason I've been voting dem for major elections is because of the ******* crazy GOP platform. It is a good story for the GOP to sell to people that the 'adversary' is full of people that don't work for a living and want to take your money away. They also act like providing healthcare means we are one step away from Marxism. The truth being that preventative care is cheaper and if we provided care to people, our health costs would go down.

[soco]

Originally Posted by barkomatic

I would love to see a Republican presidential candidate who didn't pander to religious extremists and the "no compromise" Tea Party crowd. I honestly believe that at certain points, a business oriented, Republican president might be the best leader for the country. Self reliance and opportunity are good things and its too bad its always drowned out.

Sounds like what you'd like to see is what I wish for in the future: A Republican president who is governmentally convservative, socially hands-off.

I often agree with many Republican points of view with regard to government, but I vote Democrat constantly because they keep their noses out of social issues for the most part.

I subscribe to the theory that in ~20 years we'll see this last generation of radical Republicans die off and the Republican party of that age will be more sensible and government-minded instead of getting themselves so hung up on social issues.

One can only hope.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by soco

Sounds like what you'd like to see is what I wish for in the future: A Republican president who is governmentally convservative ...

I'm curious what this means to you. What is your definition of "governmentally convservative" when it comes to ...

• Defense spending, national security and our role around the world
• Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare
• Climate Change and environmental issues
• Energy
• The poor

How would your future Republican Party handle these issues in a way that would appeal to you ... and maybe even me?

[Mord]

Originally Posted by likemyorbs

Lol....Romney lost.
Sorry just had to rub it in.

Oh you, saying what everyone is thinking.

[mcrain]

Originally Posted by Mord

Oh you, saying what everyone is thinking.

I remember when GWB was re-elected. I was incredibly disappointed that people were unable to see the damage being done, but I do recall how those on the right didn't gloat about their win. They didn't take the opportunity to rub it in, and were quick to point out how much they wanted to work with democrats after the election.