Republicans' unfavorable demographics?

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Yep, leave it to some to suggest Republicans need to change their strategy because, according to them, the demographics aren't in Republicans' favor. But, only one problem. According to the chart below, it appears almost all demographics are trending Republican. The only demographics trending Democrat are the "30-44" demographic, of course the "Democrat" demographic, the "Hispanic" and "Asian" demographics, "No high school diploma" demographic, the "Under $50K" demographic, the "something else" religious demographic, the "Foreign policy" demographic and "Health care" demographic and, lastly, the "Cares about people like me" demographic, which is code for the *I think he will give me stuff* demographic, such as cell phones, forgiven college debt, etc., etc., etc. All other demographics are trending Republican so we can clearly see why some would suggest Republicans need to change their strategy.

 

[idb]

Yep, leave it to some to suggest Republicans need to change their strategy because, according to them, the demographics aren't in Republicans' favor. But, only one problem. According to the chart below, it appears almost all demographics are trending Republican. The only demographics trending Democrat are the "30-44" demographic, of course the "Democrat" demographic, the "Hispanic" and "Asian" demographics, "No high school diploma" demographic, the "Under $50K" demographic, the "something else" religious demographic, the "Foreign policy" demographic and "Health care" demographic and, lastly, the "Cares about people like me" demographic, which is code for the *I think he will give me stuff* demographic, such as cell phones, forgiven college debt, etc., etc., etc. All other demographics are trending Republican so we can clearly see why some would suggest Republicans need to change their strategy.

But the poll showed otherwise.
How do you explain that?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Further, I find these two demographics so absolutely hysterical, it's beyond description.

How this moron was able to actually con folks into believing they were actually better off or about the same as four years ago and, to believe the national economic situation was excellent or good is beyond me.
What kind of pure and simple fantasy land are these buffoons living in?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Yep, leave it to some to suggest Republicans need to change their strategy because, according to them, the demographics aren't in Republicans' favor. But, only one problem. According to the chart below, it appears almost all demographics are trending Republican. The only demographics trending Democrat are the "30-44" demographic, of course the "Democrat" demographic, the "Hispanic" and "Asian" demographics, "No high school diploma" demographic, the "Under $50K" demographic, the "something else" religious demographic, the "Foreign policy" demographic and "Health care" demographic and, lastly, the "Cares about people like me" demographic, which is code for the *I think he will give me stuff* demographic, such as cell phones, forgiven college debt, etc., etc., etc. All other demographics are trending Republican so we can clearly see why some would suggest Republicans need to change their strategy.

But the poll showed otherwise.
How do you explain that?

What poll showed otherwise? This is an exit poll for the 2012 election. I don't particularly know what poll it is you're referring to.

 

[idb]

Yep, leave it to some to suggest Republicans need to change their strategy because, according to them, the demographics aren't in Republicans' favor. But, only one problem. According to the chart below, it appears almost all demographics are trending Republican. The only demographics trending Democrat are the "30-44" demographic, of course the "Democrat" demographic, the "Hispanic" and "Asian" demographics, "No high school diploma" demographic, the "Under $50K" demographic, the "something else" religious demographic, the "Foreign policy" demographic and "Health care" demographic and, lastly, the "Cares about people like me" demographic, which is code for the *I think he will give me stuff* demographic, such as cell phones, forgiven college debt, etc., etc., etc. All other demographics are trending Republican so we can clearly see why some would suggest Republicans need to change their strategy.

But the poll showed otherwise.
How do you explain that?

What poll showed otherwise? This is an exit poll for the 2012 election. I don't particularly know what poll it is you're referring to.

I was referring to the November 6, 2012 poll.
The one between the entrance and the exit polls I suppose.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Geezer doesn't yet realize the scope of the GOP loss. This election was more than just the Dems retaining the Executive. They also gained in the House and the Senate. And their gains were primarily based on what the GOP candidates were saying, rather than what the Dem candidates were stating.

 

[Mac1958]

Ol' Geezer doesn't yet realize the scope of the GOP loss. This election was more than just the Dems retaining the Executive. They also gained in the House and the Senate. And their gains were primarily based on what the GOP candidates were saying, rather than what the Dem candidates were stating.

There does seem to be some indication that at least parts of the party are waking up, like the comments by Jeb and Jindal, the pushback against Norquist, etc. All that stuff happened pretty much right away, much faster than I was expecting.

There was no excuse for the Dems to keep the White House and make gains in both houses of Congress with unemployment at 8%, at least that's what conventional wisdom would say. The hardliners in the GOP can stay in denial, but there may be enough momentum brewing for the more pragmatic Republicans to pull the party's ass out of the fire.

If that happens, those wallowing in denial will just have to deal with it.

.

 

[editec]

Doesn't much matter where the demographics are headed if the electorial system and the government is bent.


And if you think the system isn't bent?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Ol' Geezer doesn't yet realize the scope of the GOP loss. This election was more than just the Dems retaining the Executive. They also gained in the House and the Senate. And their gains were primarily based on what the GOP candidates were saying, rather than what the Dem candidates were stating.

Doesn't matter whether they also gained in the House and the Senate. It still doesn't change the exit polls and the reasons for which they gained in the House and Senate are the same reasons why Obama won the presidency. And, I demonstrated those reasons in the OP.

 

[squinch]

Further, I find these two demographics so absolutely hysterical, it's beyond description.

How this moron was able to actually con folks into believing they were actually better off or about the same as four years ago and, to believe the national economic situation was excellent or good is beyond me.
What kind of pure and simple fantasy land are these buffoons living in?

Here's your problem. You think Barack Obama is a moron. You made the same mistake with Clinton.
Barack Obama is an extremely intelligent individual who nationalized his community organizing skills to become a two term president. He's not just another 3 on 3 hoopster from Chicago.
Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, not just another trailer park yahoo from Arkansas.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Ol' Geezer doesn't yet realize the scope of the GOP loss. This election was more than just the Dems retaining the Executive. They also gained in the House and the Senate. And their gains were primarily based on what the GOP candidates were saying, rather than what the Dem candidates were stating.

There does seem to be some indication that at least parts of the party are waking up, like the comments by Jeb and Jindal, the pushback against Norquist, etc. All that stuff happened pretty much right away, much faster than I was expecting.

There was no excuse for the Dems to keep the White House and make gains in both houses of Congress with unemployment at 8%, at least that's what conventional wisdom would say. The hardliners in the GOP can stay in denial, but there may be enough momentum brewing for the more pragmatic Republicans to pull the party's ass out of the fire.

If that happens, those wallowing in denial will just have to deal with it.

.

Republicans acting like Democrats won't be elected. If we want Democrats, we'll elect Democrats. And, if Republicans act like Democrats to try and get elected, Republicans won't vote for them. And, Democrats aren't going to vote for them when they can elect a Democrat. And, although I'm unaware of what you're talking about with respect to Jeb? From the comments I've heard of Jindal, he's a dick and he might just as well go stuff his nose up Democrats' asses and change his party affiliation appropriately.

 

[JoeB131]

Yep, leave it to some to suggest Republicans need to change their strategy because, according to them, the demographics aren't in Republicans' favor. But, only one problem. According to the chart below, it appears almost all demographics are trending Republican. The only demographics trending Democrat are the "30-44" demographic, of course the "Democrat" demographic, the "Hispanic" and "Asian" demographics, "No high school diploma" demographic, the "Under $50K" demographic, the "something else" religious demographic, the "Foreign policy" demographic and "Health care" demographic and, lastly, the "Cares about people like me" demographic, which is code for the *I think he will give me stuff* demographic, such as cell phones, forgiven college debt, etc., etc., etc. All other demographics are trending Republican so we can clearly see why some would suggest Republicans need to change their strategy.

Not really. I know you need to try to find a silver lining, but the fact is, Romney lost most of the important demographics except rich white males.

And this is under the best circumstances a Republican could have, really. If you can't beat an incumbant president with 7.9% unemployment, after dumping 2 BILLION dollars trying to get Republicans elected, I'm having a hard time seeing what circumstances you could get someone elected.

Quick, let's recycle another Bush. That will work.

 

[midcan5]

Interesting comment on the election. The Contemporary Condition: Digital Killed the Video Candidate

 

[Mac1958]

Ol' Geezer doesn't yet realize the scope of the GOP loss. This election was more than just the Dems retaining the Executive. They also gained in the House and the Senate. And their gains were primarily based on what the GOP candidates were saying, rather than what the Dem candidates were stating.

There does seem to be some indication that at least parts of the party are waking up, like the comments by Jeb and Jindal, the pushback against Norquist, etc. All that stuff happened pretty much right away, much faster than I was expecting.

There was no excuse for the Dems to keep the White House and make gains in both houses of Congress with unemployment at 8%, at least that's what conventional wisdom would say. The hardliners in the GOP can stay in denial, but there may be enough momentum brewing for the more pragmatic Republicans to pull the party's ass out of the fire.

If that happens, those wallowing in denial will just have to deal with it.

.

Republicans acting like Democrats won't be elected. If we want Democrats, we'll elect Democrats. And, if Republicans act like Democrats to try and get elected, Republicans won't vote for them. And, Democrats aren't going to vote for them when they can elect a Democrat. And, although I'm unaware of what you're talking about with respect to Jeb? From the comments I've heard of Jindal, he's a dick and he might just as well go stuff his nose up Democrats' asses and change his party affiliation appropriately.

I know the standard meme is "if our candidates are not hardcore conservatives, then they're democrats." But let me float a crazy idea by you, and see what you think:

Let's assume the hardliners are completely confident with their stance on the issues. That seems pretty clear. So how about this: What if you worked backwards - instead of trying to win elections from the hard right, instead of talking about "legitimate rape" and "deport the illegals" and "no abortion ever" and all that, you tried the following strategy:

1. Politely marginalize the absolutist hardliners who have pretty clearly turned off a significant portion of the electorate, keep them busy with only the base

2. Get elected with a pragmatic and respectful approach that leans to the right but keeps the absolutism out of the picture

3. Govern with the same pragmatic and respectful approach that leans to the right but keeps the absolutism out of the picture

4. Lead by example, demonstrate that your generally conservative approach has the country moving in the right direction (assuming it does, of course)

5. Change the hearts and minds of those in middle who previously were put off by you, by pointing at your successes and suggesting more of the same

6. Continue your general movement in the direction you want, with a current track record that shows how women, minorities and moderates probably should have been with you all along

Just a thought there.

Or, you can continue the my-way-or-the-highway, black & white, all or nothing, shove it straight down your throat approach that served you so well in 2012, as you stunningly lost the White House and seats in Congress to a party that was in control during 8% unemployment.

Is this a crazy idea? And if so, why?

.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Further, I find these two demographics so absolutely hysterical, it's beyond description.

How this moron was able to actually con folks into believing they were actually better off or about the same as four years ago and, to believe the national economic situation was excellent or good is beyond me.
What kind of pure and simple fantasy land are these buffoons living in?

Here's your problem. You think Barack Obama is a moron.

I know Obama is a moron. And, it's no "problem" at all.

You made the same mistake with Clinton.

Really? Who told you that?

Barack Obama is an extremely intelligent individual who nationalized his community organizing skills to become a two term president.

George W. Bush was a two-term president too. So was Nixon. So was Reagan. So were a lot of other presidents.

He's not just another 3 on 3 hoopster from Chicago.

He's an arrogant condescending punkish thug.

Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, not just another trailer park yahoo from Arkansas.

Clinton was an impeached liar. Hardly, anything to be proud of.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Yep, leave it to some to suggest Republicans need to change their strategy because, according to them, the demographics aren't in Republicans' favor. But, only one problem. According to the chart below, it appears almost all demographics are trending Republican. The only demographics trending Democrat are the "30-44" demographic, of course the "Democrat" demographic, the "Hispanic" and "Asian" demographics, "No high school diploma" demographic, the "Under $50K" demographic, the "something else" religious demographic, the "Foreign policy" demographic and "Health care" demographic and, lastly, the "Cares about people like me" demographic, which is code for the *I think he will give me stuff* demographic, such as cell phones, forgiven college debt, etc., etc., etc. All other demographics are trending Republican so we can clearly see why some would suggest Republicans need to change their strategy.

Not really. I know you need to try to find a silver lining, but the fact is, Romney lost most of the important demographics except rich white males. And this is under the best circumstances a Republican could have, really.

No he didn't. And, no one asked you what you THINK are "most of the important demographics".

If you can't beat an incumbant president with 7.9% unemployment, after dumping 2 BILLION dollars trying to get Republicans elected, I'm having a hard time seeing what circumstances you could get someone elected.

Waking stupid people up is how we get someone elected. Among other things, of course, which go toward stopping shenanigans going on.

Quick, let's recycle another Bush. That will work.

Sounds much better than the prick that's in the White House now.

 

[squinch]

Further, I find these two demographics so absolutely hysterical, it's beyond description.

How this moron was able to actually con folks into believing they were actually better off or about the same as four years ago and, to believe the national economic situation was excellent or good is beyond me.
What kind of pure and simple fantasy land are these buffoons living in?

Here's your problem. You think Barack Obama is a moron.

I know Obama is a moron. And, it's no "problem" at all.



Really? Who told you that?



George W. Bush was a two-term president too. So was Nixon. So was Reagan. So were a lot of other presidents.

He's not just another 3 on 3 hoopster from Chicago.

He's an arrogant condescending punkish thug.

Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, not just another trailer park yahoo from Arkansas.

Clinton was an impeached liar. Hardly, anything to be proud of.

But of course. You're much more comfortable in denial. Clinton and Obama have brilliant minds but you'll have none of that.
I love it when you righties wax on and on about your guns; how you have to RESPECT the weapon. Yet while "respecting" an inanimate object you totally disrespect and openly mock the most lethal weapon in the human arsenal; brains.
I can't wait for 2016. My guess is the Dems will nominate a woman who distinguished hereself as a First Lady, senator and Secratary of State. But to you, she'll be nothing more than a shrill, pants wearing, closet dyke.
You make it so easy.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Quick, let's recycle another Bush. That will work.

Sounds much better than the prick that's in the White House now.

The last Bush found a country with 3.9% unemployment, 400 billion Surpluses, at peace and turned it into a country with 10% unemployment, Trillion dollar deficits, and two wars.

I'm not sure I'm that keen on another Bush. And personally, I have nothing against Jeb. Compared to whacks like Rubio, he's a grown-up.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Here's your problem. You think Barack Obama is a moron.

I know Obama is a moron. And, it's no "problem" at all.



Really? Who told you that?



George W. Bush was a two-term president too. So was Nixon. So was Reagan. So were a lot of other presidents.



He's an arrogant condescending punkish thug.

Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, not just another trailer park yahoo from Arkansas.

Clinton was an impeached liar. Hardly, anything to be proud of.

But of course. You're much more comfortable in denial. Clinton and Obama have brilliant minds but you'll have none of that.

LOL@Clinton and Obama have brilliant minds. Well now, that just all depends on what your definition of "brilliant minds" is.

I love it when you righties wax on and on about your guns; how you have to RESPECT the weapon. Yet while "respecting" an inanimate object you totally disrespect and openly mock the most lethal weapon in the human arsenal; brains.

Too bad you and your collective aren't armed with that "lethal weapon"...eh? Leftists' "brains" are about as "lethal" as a BB gun. Watch it kid, you're going to put your eye out with that thing!

I can't wait for 2016. My guess is the Dems will nominate a woman who distinguished hereself as a First Lady, senator and Secratary of State. But to you, she'll be nothing more than a shrill, pants wearing, closet dyke.
You make it so easy.

No, I'll call her a stinking leftist who's just as big of liar as her pants dropping husband is. But, she is a shrill and I've deemed her a shrill since long before 2016. And, as far as a closet dyke...well, not so much so as that cow Obama is married to.

 

[Old Rocks]

I know Obama is a moron. And, it's no "problem" at all.



Really? Who told you that?



George W. Bush was a two-term president too. So was Nixon. So was Reagan. So were a lot of other presidents.



He's an arrogant condescending punkish thug.



Clinton was an impeached liar. Hardly, anything to be proud of.

But of course. You're much more comfortable in denial. Clinton and Obama have brilliant minds but you'll have none of that.

LOL@Clinton and Obama have brilliant minds. Well now, that just all depends on what your definition of "brilliant minds" is.

I love it when you righties wax on and on about your guns; how you have to RESPECT the weapon. Yet while "respecting" an inanimate object you totally disrespect and openly mock the most lethal weapon in the human arsenal; brains.

Too bad you and your collective aren't armed with that "lethal weapon"...eh? Leftists' "brains" are about as "lethal" as a BB gun. Watch it kid, you're going to put your eye out with that thing!

I can't wait for 2016. My guess is the Dems will nominate a woman who distinguished hereself as a First Lady, senator and Secratary of State. But to you, she'll be nothing more than a shrill, pants wearing, closet dyke.
You make it so easy.

No, I'll call her a stinking leftist who's just as big of liar as her pants dropping husband is. But, she is a shrill and I've deemed her a shrill since long before 2016. And, as far as a closet dyke...well, not so much so as that cow Obama is married to.

Well, Geezer, we had the brains to kick the asses of people like you in this election cycle.