Barbara Bush On Obama's Reelection: 'People Spoke. Move On, Get On With It'

[JayHawk]

Nope and the entire block will remain democratic but peeling off 30 instead of 20 percent with a different message is all i am talking about.

Cruz could have won in Texas off of name recognition alone and with some of those voters not being conversant with his positions... However that isnt the whole story... there are folks who voted for him with full knowledge of what he stands for in Texas.

 

[TX-Beau]

...Cruz could have won in Texas off of name recognition alone and with some of those voters not being conversant with his positions... However that isnt the whole story... there are folks who voted for him with full knowledge of what he stands for in Texas.

Are you asserting that Latinos in Texas would vote for anyone with a Latino sounding name? 'Cause that's really not the case.

 

[JayHawk]

Are you asserting that Latinos in Texas would vote for anyone with a Latino sounding name? 'Cause that's really not the case.

No I am asserting SOME of the votes came from name recognition. it happens down ticket a lot more often than ya'll think. Either straight ticket voters or picking the name the voter likes....


And GC again i suppose we will see after it is determined whether it is the moderates or the wingnuts that wrench control of the party to their side....

 

[TX-Beau]

PERHAPS there are a few who do that, but just assuming it's some kind of statistically significant trend with no data to back that up is maybe a little insulting.

People of all ethnicities I would suspect are far more likely to blindly vote (D) or (R) than Martinez, and if we are on the subject of "name recognition," would you also assume that white people - in absence of information - are likely to vote Johnson over say Gutierrez?

 

[JayHawk]

Yes I am of the assumption that racism exist in all people by a percentage.

I never said all Mexican Americans would vote republican based on name.

You two certainly like going for platitudes to characterize.

 

[JayHawk]

SO are you assuming NONE of that demographic votes republican? Because your statement was Mexican American are definitely NOT voting republican. That is a platitude. An over arching all encompassing dull and uninspired statement.

This is still a game of percentages.

Lets take your race out of it and ask if the republicans found a moderate black and the democrats were running a old white guy then would some of the black vote be cast for the republican?

 

[TX-Beau]

Platitude hmmmm

plat·i·tude (plt-td, -tyd)
n.
1. A trite or banal remark or statement, especially one expressed as if it were original or significant. See Synonyms at cliché.
2. Lack of originality; triteness.
[French, from plat, flat, from Old French; see plate.]
plati·tudi·nous (-tdn-s, -tyd-), plati·tudi·nal (-tdn-l, -tyd-) adj.
plati·tudi·nous·ly adv.

Neither of us lobbed a platitude at you. It looked like you were just assuming that Latinos would just vote for Latinos and that would have elected Cruz (who in fact is NOT supported by the Texas Latino Community - because the think he's a white Cuban Canadian) which sent out a whiff of prejudice.

you then amended your statement when it was brought to your attention. I don't know if you intended it to sound that way, but that's how it sounded.

 

[JayHawk]

Platitude hmmmm

plat·i·tude (plt-td, -tyd)
n.
1. A trite or banal remark or statement, especially one expressed as if it were original or significant. See Synonyms at cliché.
2. Lack of originality; triteness.
[French, from plat, flat, from Old French; see plate.]
plati·tudi·nous (-tdn-s, -tyd-), plati·tudi·nal (-tdn-l, -tyd-) adj.
plati·tudi·nous·ly adv.

Neither of us lobbed a platitude at you. It looked like you were just assuming that Latinos would just vote for Latinos and that would have elected Cruz (who in fact is NOT supported by the Texas Latino Community - because the think he's a white Cuban Canadian) which sent out a whiff of prejudice.

you then amended your statement when it was brought to your attention. I don't know if you intended it to sound that way, but that's how it sounded.

No it seems that people jump upon everything they can grasp around here to win and argument. If you read all of the discussion above that is where GC attempted to take it initially as well but it is not true and not a tactic to win a legitimate argument. Dull pointless political blather is what i meant by platitude... read your definition again...

The point is not every member of a demographic votes the same way and some no shit vote off of name or race recognition... note the key word SOME. Why would you say that Cruz did 6 to 9 percent better in Texas among Hispanics than Romney did? Their policies are the same. Their party is the same and their platform is the same. There is only once significant difference for the two men. One wishes he was Latino and one was Latino.

 

[JayHawk]

Whatever fellows talking to both of you gains nothing but inconsistent massaging of words to meet your needs. I should have known better than to think there was something on offer other than the attmept to paint me as something I am not to win an argument. Interesting tactic. Almost like racism but in reverse.

 

[TX-Beau]

Oh stop being so sensitive, if I was jumping on you I'd have been far less circumspect.

NO ONE DISAGREES that not every member of a demo voes the same way, my point is that Latinos in Texas are not likely to vote for "Esteban" simply because in any significant way.

And they certainly AREN'T going to vote for Cruz, who is ethnically Cuban and from Canada simply because his name is "Cruz."

 

[TX-Beau]

Cruz doing better than Romney has fuck all to do with Cruz's name and alot to do with what an asshat Romney is.

 

[TX-Beau]

you forgot San Antonio

- - - Updated - - -

Why do people always forget San Antonio - it's where the Alamo is.

 

[MisterB]

Kinda like how the American auto industry use to build their new model based on the imports' current model on the market.

So, let us not forget while the repubs are working to "re-engineer" their party, message, whatever...the Dems certainly won't be sitting idle.

 

[JayHawk]

Kinda like how the American auto industry use to build their new model based on the imports' current model on the market.

So, let us not forget while the repubs are working to "re-engineer" their party, message, whatever...the Dems certainly won't be sitting idle.

That is a key observation... yet most folks dont assume they have it all wrapped up and the other party will never gain votes... and then seek to change their message. But your right most actual candidates will not assume they have it wrapped up.

As far as cars i didnt know that had changed... first there was the Ute invasion started with the Jeep and then every other manufacturer made a ute and then there was the crossover tennis shoe looking carsa nd now all of them have one ... even the overpriced luxury cars like Porche or BMW.... I remember when i bought my first mazda 3 in 2004. it was the most unique thing out there with very European inspired style lines.... then that thing won car of the year for its class two years in a row and wah lah... every manufacturer on the planet has a sporty hatchback.... me thinks it is still very much the same.

The only reason GM and Ford are pushing high quality products anymore is because GM and Chrysler used the bankruptcy to shed many Union obligations and then in turn put the extra cash into better vehicles. Ford benefited by being able to mathc union agreements as given with the other two manufacturers. But I digress....

 

[Kulindahr]

On point one they are going to change their message and the Christian vote would much rather make concessions to have some relevance rather than have no voice at all (as perceived by them). On point two the Catholic vote went overwhelmingly for the Democratic ticket because of the budget talks and the ticket talking about cutting social programs which is part of the good the Catholic folks see in the government.

I see the message changing and the topic of the 2016 election will not be what do we cut. it will be reforming healthcare and strengthening a struggling economy....

You're talking about people who literally believe that if the nation accepts abortion and homosexuality, God will send an invader or plague to destroy the U.S. They believe that as long as they "stand fast", God will stay His hand. For them to vote for someone who supports either of those things would be for them to "participate in their sin", thus feeding God's wrath.

 

[JayHawk]

You're talking about people who literally believe that if the nation accepts abortion and homosexuality, God will send an invader or plague to destroy the U.S. They believe that as long as they "stand fast", God will stay His hand. For them to vote for someone who supports either of those things would be for them to "participate in their sin", thus feeding God's wrath.

Some of them but not all.... they have skin in other positions republicans hold... hell just to defend their tax status to continue pumping hate into America from the pulpit.

 

[TX-Beau]

Thing is, and this is really where we disagree - the moderates have already lost the party, you believe that fundie wing-nuts and their politics of religion are a minority of the Pub faithful, I don't.

The people that Kuli is talking about will never give up, and never give in, and the will try their damnedest to make sure Pub politicians never do either - and that group INCLUDES people like the COCK bros, and their ilk as well as the trailer trash down the road.

In order for "moderate," Republicans (Snowe? What happened to her?) to (I swore after a decade in WEHO I'd never ever ever ever use this word) "brand" (I can taste the trendiness rolling off me) themselves as something else, they have to completely marginalize the fundie religious right - which ISN'T a tiny minority at their party.

And that is exactly the fight we're seeing right now. If they (moderates) have a chance remains to be seen. In many ways it might be better to start over without all that baggage and the soul sucking compromises that are on the horizon for all pubs.

 

[JayHawk]

Exactly and now those moderates being run out of the party has provided a wake up call... losing the popular vote in five of the last six elections is proof to the pudding. They followed what the Limbaugh's were saying and went very hard core republican and it is a losing wager.

So i portend they will shift gears. I can see how you would find it hard for the National party to shift gears while in Texas and listening to Texas republicans... yeah I know Akin and Mourdock were up north but that doesn't change the over all perceptions... Akin was SELECTED by the democrat to lose the election in a red state that is swinging democratic. Chosen. If either of the other two candidates had won the pug primary then McCaskill would not be a sneator today... Same if Luger had run again in Indiana...

I think they will change... this steer hard right policy failed and that was the response to GWB and his failed offering of moderate republican.

 

[TX-Beau]

Contrary to popular belief Texas Pubs by and large are not the same Pubs you see on the TV, and the center of Pubdom and the Tea Party is not here.

Ours have their own special blend of crazy but are generally not the ones currently driving the short bus.

 

[TX-Beau]

The moderates need to go take over Kuli and do something Libertarians can't seem to manage - organize themselves into something useful.