Fox News Selects the Next GOP Candidate

[_Kevin Graham]

We've already gone through this cinepro and it became abundantly clear you do not understand the debt and how it affects our economy. You and your naysayers have been predicting these doomsday scenarios ever since the debt breached the $2 trillion mark. The rhetoric was ramped up when it reached $9 trillion, then again when it broke $10 trillion. Each time we were told hyperinflation would ensue.

Nothing even close to that is happening.

So at what point is the debt "too much" debt? At this point it is over $16 trillion, so you have to admit you no idea how much is too much. Recent history has proved you wrong, so you're just going to keep regurgitating the same fear-mongering rhetoric on the assumption that "some day" it will all turn out to be a really bad thing.... in some way... that you cannot really describe.... you just know it has to be bad because these idiots on the Right keep comparing the Federal budget to a household budget.

As far as the Republican ideology on teh debt is concerned, this only became an issue of focus for them in recent years. Indeed, the classic Conservative icons were the ones who were responsible for showing the government how to create massive deficits and live with outrageous debt. Tripled it and Bush doubled it. Unlike Obama, they cannot blame it on mandatory spending that had nothing to do with their policies. All the while we were told "deficits don't matter" and that we needed more tax cuts. Republicans are some of the laziest people I know, wanting everything, but never wanting to pay for it. They want all these government services and benefits provided by taxes, but they don't want to pay for them. This is the Republican ideology that is gradually being rejected by more and more people today. The gig is up. The rhetoric has been shown to be a big scam.

[_moksha]

As the media wing of the Republican Party, it is the Fox Advocacy Group's right to push for the next candidate but not actually choose that person before the convention. Otherwise, it makes the whole election business seem like a sham. If they have found a person whom they can count on and who does not need to be hosed down at night to remove excess slime, then more power to Fox.

[_Brackite]

Obama won by more than five million votes, becoming the first President to win the majority vote of at least 51% back to back since 1956.

Close, but not quite. President Obama won by 4,975,446 million votes Nationwide.


All States:

Obama -- 65,907,213 - 51.07%
Romney - 60,931,767 - 47.21%
Others --- 2,235,893 - 3.85%



President Obama won by 1,157,973 million votes in the battleground States of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.


Battleground States:

Obama -- 18,873,515 - 50.85%
Romney - 17,715,542 - 47.73%
Others --- 525,518 - 1.42%

You're also ignoring the fact that the only reason there are a majority of Republicans in Congress is due to the deceptive tactics of redistricting. In fact Democrats got more votes.

Yet Republicans got more votes in the State of Arizona, but the Democrats hold five out of the nine Congregational seats from Arizona. Mitt Romney won the State of Arizona by 9.05%. The National Popular vote doesn't determine who wins each individual Congressional seat. Not even the Presidential election is determined by who wins the National Popular vote.

[_Kevin Graham]

Yet Republicans got more votes in the State of Arizona, but the Democrats hold five out of the nine Congregational seats from Arizona. Mitt Romney won the State of Arizona by 9.05%.

Which only goes to further my point. Do you even understand what we're talking about? Subgenius is trying to use gubernatorial/congressional election numbers to determine what the majority of Americans believe along political lines. He completely ignores the nationwide Presidential election because it doesn't support his bubble doctrine.

The National Popular vote doesn't determine who wins each individual Congressional seat. Not even the Presidential election is determined by who wins the National Popular vote.

Well, no crap. What is your point?

The fact is you can't take the "majority" of Republican governors as evidence that Republican ideology resonates with those state's majority. This is what subgenius is trying to do, rather hilariously, because he cannot support his boneheaded claim that the majority of Americans support Republican ideology.

In fact if you take a closer look at these Blue states with GOP governors, you'll see that these were states that held elections outside of the Presidential cycle. Meaning, fewer people voted during those elections.

There are eleven states that voted for Barack Obama and have Republican governors.

So that's some solid evidence suggesting Republicans can be successful in blue states. But here's the big caveat to that.

Every single one of those eleven Republican governors was elected in a non-presidential cycle.

Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie were elected in 2009 special elections, while the rest on the list were elected in 2010.

That weakens the argument that their success in those states proves the GOP can win those states back at the presidential level.

Now, of course Virginia and Florida are on that list, and will be competitive in the years going forward, but the fact is that Republicans' biggest, most recent successes in those states were in off-years.

Which, once again, tells a bad turnout story for the GOP -- that when turnout inevitably jumps in presidential years, Republicans do worse, and that for all their successes in blue states, it will be very difficult to transfer that to a successful presidential bid in those states.

[_subgenius]

Obama won by more than five million votes, becoming the first President to win the majority vote of at least 51% back to back since 1956.

Close, but not quite. President Obama won by 4,975,446 million votes Nationwide.


All States:

Obama -- 65,907,213 - 51.07%
Romney - 60,931,767 - 47.21%
Others --- 2,235,893 - 3.85% ..(snip)

these numbers show that Obama beat Romney by close to 5 million but when viewed as those who voted for him and those who voted "not" for him...we see that margin cut in half to about 2.74 million.
which when adding your percentages above we see that Obama in-favor 51.07% and against 51.06%...which adds up to 102.13%...in a more accurate reality it is 51% vs 49%

[_Brackite]

these numbers show that Obama beat Romney by close to 5 million but when viewed as those who voted for him and those who voted "not" for him...we see that margin cut in half to about 2.74 million.
which when adding your percentages above we see that Obama in-favor 51.07% and against 51.06%...which adds up to 102.13%...in a more accurate reality it is 51% vs 49%

Yes, 3.85% is how many Percentage Points that Obama beat Romney by, Not how much Percentage Points the other Candidates got. I misread that from that Wikipedia. Wikipedia slightly erred when they rounded Obama's total to 51.07% when it should be rounded out to 51.06%.

All States:

Obama -- 65,907,213 - 51.06%
Romney - 60,931,767 - 47.21%
Others ---- 2,235,893 -- 1.73%
Total --- 129,074,873

Which only goes to further my point. Do you even understand what we're talking about? Subgenius is trying to use gubernatorial/congressional election numbers to determine what the majority of Americans believe along political lines. He completely ignores the nationwide Presidential election because it doesn't support his bubble doctrine.

Subgenius is probably correct in stating that 'the Republican "ideology" certainly resonates with most Americans' if he is not including Californians with most Americans. However, Subgenius is truly wrong when he states that 'the Republican "ideology" certainly resonates with most Americans' if Californians are included with most Americans.
In California, President Obama beat Romney 60.24% to 37.12%. The Democrats hold 38 out of the 53 Congressional seats from California, which is more than two-thirds of the Congressional seats there. And the Democrats now have a super-majority in both the State Senate and the State Assembly there. And while unions continue to decline in the United States, unions continue to grow in California.

[_subgenius]

these numbers show that Obama beat Romney by close to 5 million but when viewed as those who voted for him and those who voted "not" for him...we see that margin cut in half to about 2.74 million.
which when adding your percentages above we see that Obama in-favor 51.07% and against 51.06%...which adds up to 102.13%...in a more accurate reality it is 51% vs 49%

Yes, 3.85% is how many Percentage Points that Obama beat Romney by, Not how much Percentage Points the other Candidates got. I misread that from that Wikipedia. Wikipedia slightly erred when they rounded Obama's total to 51.07% when it should be rounded out to 51.06%.

All States:

Obama -- 65,907,213 - 51.06%
Romney - 60,931,767 - 47.21%
Others ---- 2,235,893 -- 1.73%
Total --- 129,074,873

Which only goes to further my point. Do you even understand what we're talking about? Subgenius is trying to use gubernatorial/congressional election numbers to determine what the majority of Americans believe along political lines. He completely ignores the nationwide Presidential election because it doesn't support his bubble doctrine.

Subgenius is probably correct in stating that 'the Republican "ideology" certainly resonates with most Americans' if he is not including Californians with most Americans. However, Subgenius is truly wrong when he states that 'the Republican "ideology" certainly resonates with most Americans' if Californians are included with most Americans.
In California, President Obama beat Romney 60.24% to 37.12%. The Democrats hold 38 out of the 53 Congressional seats from California, which is more than two-thirds of the Congressional seats there. And the Democrats now have a super-majority in both the State Senate and the State Assembly there. And while unions continue to decline in the United States, unions continue to grow in California.

my example of the other elections...both the Obama mid-term and his re-election prove that Republican "ideology" is acceptable to Americans...and that the point made by the poster about "most" is not accurate, at best arguable.
The Presidential election is a far cry from an endorsement for or against any party. This is best exemplified by the state level governments...both governor and legislature. To suggest that Republican or Democratic "ideology" has somehow changed in 2 years is just absurd and juvenile.
KG has a distinct lack of sense, knowledge, and understanding on this (and many other) topics.
The original, and still the actual, point is that KG is wrong by asserting that the re-election of Obama merits the conclusion that the Republican ideology is not resonating with most Americans. The idea of "most" in that context is an immature and politically sophomoric characterization.