[News] 2012 Election Results Thread
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
- Status
I'm with Gas. The Republican party has become such a twisted mess, it's nothing about what the Libertarian party wants.
I just wonder how much Fox News hurt the turn out. They have been preaching a landslide victory with no numbers for over a week. So how many not so fired up voters sat home because the election was "in the bag?"
Huh. How many people started spitting at Republicans when Dubya was elected?
I hardly think "quite a few". I'm sure there were a couple a-holes who delved into their most primal nature, but I will bet it will be similar to the number of a-holes who would do it now.
Like I said, people are stupid. I'd bet it's the same number as the other side doing the same damn thing right now though. At least with Bush you couldn't assume race had anything to do with it
Anyone want to make their brains feel dirty?
Racist teens tweet about Obama
And it probably goes without saying, the comments get pretty bad too.
Racist teens tweet about Obama
And it probably goes without saying, the comments get pretty bad too.
http://www.isidewith.com/
All of the red states practically sided with Gary Johnson and NOT Mitt Romney
Interesting...
Is anyone else getting a kick out of FoxNews for the last couple of days as much as I am? Bullshit Mountain!
That map doesn't really mean anything; it just aggregates data from the quiz meant to show how your beliefs line up with the various candidates. Obama would have won 523 to 15 according to that map. Johnson got 1% nationally.
GasBandit
Staff member
I took the little quiz out of curiosity. 90% Gary Johnson. Tell me something I didn't know, quiz.
Which is weird. Obama lost all the "Change" momentum, he's still black which would unfortunately influence a llot of people, he's "too left" for a LOT of moderates, and, though (I believe but YMMV) it's not his fault, the economy is still very weak. He was ripe for a good strong opponent to win. Hilary or whoever in 2016 would seem like a harder fight to me.
As for the Libertarian Republicans: They're the people who still hope or believe the Republican Party will once again become the party for minimal state, low taxes, high personal responsibility people, instead of the extreme-religious crackpot oligarchy bunch it's quickly becoming.
95% Democrat, 90% Green, but looks like I favor Jill Stein very slightly over Obama.
Not surprising, since my only main complaint about Obama has been he's not left enough.
That's in line with something Gas said early in the election (and again after its end) that if the Republicans could keep the spotlight on Obama, they would win. And maybe that's true.
But the GOP couldn't do that. They had "mobilize the right" or some shit like that and spray all this anti-gay, anti-women, anti-logic and reason bullshit that pushed the moderates away and scared the lazier liberals (i.e. my generation) into voting for Obama. I'm glad, because Romney's vision of America is terrifying.
Keep in mind, his being black also influences to not vote for him. What went on in the U.S. in reaction to even his candidacy in 2008 was pretty disgusting.[DOUBLEPOST=1352580271][/DOUBLEPOST](Quiz: 80% Obama, 79% Gary Johnson.)
I also think people underestimated the effect the last election had on people voting. People who vote tend to continue to vote in following elections. Efforts by certain politicians to discourage voting also caused record numbers to turn out.
We all know Americans don't like being told they shouldn't do something, and making it harder to vote only encouraged people to turn out.
We all know Americans don't like being told they shouldn't do something, and making it harder to vote only encouraged people to turn out.
Next Republican strategy: You should totally not not vote.
I heard a fantastic suggestion for improving debates and the horrible television commercials, though. First, remove the ability for outside groups to purchase ad time for political commercials. Second, in debates and tv commercials, you are only allowed to talk about yourself, not your opponent. This leaves candidates with nothing left to talk about but themselves.
Good points. And I'll be happy if the people who started voting in 2008 keep it up.
Sounds like a first amendment violation.
Really? I don't see it that way. They can lie all they want, they just can't advertise it. Since advertisements don't really fall under the first amendment (and we have tons of regulations regarding what is proper for advertising), I don't see it as being all that extreme.
They do.
Except they don't. The FTC is a prime example.
Until the 70's, political advertising was also expected to be honest to a certain degree until the Supreme Court ruled they didn't have to be.FTC Wikipedia Article said:
Also, it's not unheard of for television companies to pull political ads for false advertising.
GasBandit
Staff member
The law is, broadcasters have to air ALL comers for political ads, or none. It could be construed as a first amendment issue to simply change that to none, period, but the first amendment already has limitations on it (shouting fire in a crowded theater, slander and libel, etc).
But I'm not all that sure we stand any better chance of stomping out political advertising than we do installing my oft-repeated dream of instant-runoff elections with no primaries.
But I'm not all that sure we stand any better chance of stomping out political advertising than we do installing my oft-repeated dream of instant-runoff elections with no primaries.
I admit, it's tall order. There is just too much money in politics to ever get it changed (and why campaign finance reform was essentially killed by Citizens United). I just don't think the current trend of stupidity and demonizing of political opponents (and thus the fracturing of the country itself) will see any progress without it.
The FTC applies to any form of communication and other practices, not just to broadcast TV.
I can say whatever I want on TV if a TV station will air it. The TV station, if it has an FCC license to provide public broadcasts has to maintain certain standards of decency, but that's no different than the police telling you that you can't run around town naked.
Neither the FTC nor the FCC regulations inhibit first amendment speech.
If the government were to start telling TV stations that they could NOT broadcast commercials from a particular source, then that would be an attempt to silence public messages from that source.
This is one of the reasons we have PACs, because they cannot be silenced due to the first amendment. They are simply a group touting a message.
To take away one of their platforms for spreading that message would amount to censorship.
I'm not going to go through case law to prove this for you, if you decide to persist in your error, that's fine. Broadcast TV is subject to first amendment freedom just as much as the public square is, since broadcast TV is a shared/common good.[DOUBLEPOST=1352591936][/DOUBLEPOST]Ah well, here:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/will-court-create-different-standards-for-broadcast-tv-radio
The only things the government can "censor" for broadcast media are things pertaining to public decency.
Political messages would be about the last thing they'd be allowed to prevent, although they can enforce other political finance laws that, for instance, requires political advertisers mention their name.
So if you want your suggestion to come about, you'll have to craft po0litical advertising laws that prevent those organizations from advertising in any media - not just TV. This effectively prevent such organizations from forming, again a first amendment issue.
I don't see a way your vision could happen without essentially allowing for broad political government censorship, and if you give the government power to do that you might as well kill non-incumbent parties and live in a one party dictatorship.
Can you explain how you come to this conclusion? I admit I am befuddled how you reached it.
Disallow political groups from using broadcast media. Period.
Severely restrict the topics political candidates can discuss on broadcast media.
If you don't see the first amendment problem with those two suggestions, I have nothing that I can help you understand. I suggest you research the first amendment. They are in direct opposition to the first amendment.
In order to allow such laws to stand, one would have to severely restrict first amendment freedoms, and thus you might as well remove the ability for people to form political opposition to the controlling party.
- Status