Was the 2012 Election a Watershed Moment in U.S. History?

[jwoodie]

No flames, please. I am just wondering how you see this election from an historical perspective. Does it signal a fundamental change in the relationship between our government and people and if so, in what direction are we headed? Will we remain the world's economic superpower? Will our debt become an albatross around our necks? Will religion still play an important role in our national identity? Where do you see us in 50 years?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Was the 2012 Election a Watershed Moment in U.S. History?

Not for those crazy.....

....Teabaggers!!!

 

[Mac1958]

.

My guess is that it was a turning point election. While the GOP evidently wants to deny it, there is a permanent and irreversible demographic shift taking place, and the Democrats have clearly beaten the Republicans to the punch. The GOP has made no discernible effort to reach out to minorities and women, while the Dems have made it a top priority. And now, any effort the GOP makes may very well have the stink of desperation and insincerity.

The GOP has its work cut out for it. It has to change its messaging, marginalize its loons and find some decent leadership. And all that, before it even decides whether it wants to dial back on the issues.

No doubt we're headed towards significantly more dependence on government. If the GOP doesn't like that, they'd better start looking in the mirror before it's too late. Less effort worrying about birth certificates, turkeys and pledges, and more effort getting their shit together and gathering voters.

.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yes, it was: the takers have won. There are now more takers than makers, more pigs feeding at the trough than filling the trough. We're screwed.

 

[Mr. H.]

It reflects a pronouced dumbing-down of American voters and our start on the path to cradle-to-grave government entitlement.

 

[tyroneweaver]

be interesting when the takers want more and the dems say no

 

[bucs90]

I dont know.

2010 seemed like people were rushing towards a frenzy of govt slashing, smaller govt, etc.

2012 seems to have reversed that.

Not sure yet.

 

[rightwinger]

Not watershed

Just another run of the mill butt kicking by the Dems

 

[Missourian]

"Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your government can do for you!"

New Democrat Motto

 

[Missourian]

"Give me free healthcare, or give a 1%er death!"

 

[Wiseacre]

I wouldn't say watershed, in the sense that the usual supporters on each side pretty much stuck with the status quo. The repub candidate provided an easy target to demagogue and the democrats spent gobs of money to do exactly that. And of course they had a helpful media to further their chances.

I remember back in the 80s when people were saying the liberal progressives were a vanishing breed; but a 3rd party candidate (Perot) gave Clinton a pathway to victory, and the Iraq war lead to the rise of Barack Obama. So far, his policies have not been terribly successful, so even though he was re-elected it might prove difficult for the dems to keep the WH in 2016 if the GOP runs a better nominee.

 

[Big Black Dog]

No flames, please. I am just wondering how you see this election from an historical perspective. Does it signal a fundamental change in the relationship between our government and people and if so, in what direction are we headed? Will we remain the world's economic superpower? Will our debt become an albatross around our necks? Will religion still play an important role in our national identity? Where do you see us in 50 years?

I view it as the beginning of the end... Four more years of Owe Bama and we will be a 3rd world country.

 

[candycorn]

No flames, please. I am just wondering how you see this election from an historical perspective. Does it signal a fundamental change in the relationship between our government and people and if so, in what direction are we headed? Will we remain the world's economic superpower? Will our debt become an albatross around our necks? Will religion still play an important role in our national identity? Where do you see us in 50 years?

No watershed moment. The GOP ran a hopeless candidate for 2012. Currently the rank and file are mis-diagnosing the reasons for their loss which may lead to a wider fissure in the party.

 

[candycorn]

Yes, it was: the takers have won. There are now more takers than makers, more pigs feeding at the trough than filling the trough. We're screwed.

Are you packing up your family and leaving the country?

 

[Dreamy]

It reflects a pronouced dumbing-down of American voters and our start on the path to cradle-to-grave government entitlement.

For such a poorly performing President to win re-election spotlights this truth.

I am not sure I would call this election a watershed moment but I do think the GOP should make it one and start doing some serious introspection as to why this weak President was not beaten.

 

[Old Rocks]

I wouldn't say watershed, in the sense that the usual supporters on each side pretty much stuck with the status quo. The repub candidate provided an easy target to demagogue and the democrats spent gobs of money to do exactly that. And of course they had a helpful media to further their chances.

I remember back in the 80s when people were saying the liberal progressives were a vanishing breed; but a 3rd party candidate (Perot) gave Clinton a pathway to victory, and the Iraq war lead to the rise of Barack Obama. So far, his policies have not been terribly successful, so even though he was re-elected it might prove difficult for the dems to keep the WH in 2016 if the GOP runs a better nominee.

Really, gobs of money? $1.83 per voter by the Obama campaign. $6.35 per voter by the Romney campaign.

 

[Wiseacre]

I wouldn't say watershed, in the sense that the usual supporters on each side pretty much stuck with the status quo. The repub candidate provided an easy target to demagogue and the democrats spent gobs of money to do exactly that. And of course they had a helpful media to further their chances.

I remember back in the 80s when people were saying the liberal progressives were a vanishing breed; but a 3rd party candidate (Perot) gave Clinton a pathway to victory, and the Iraq war lead to the rise of Barack Obama. So far, his policies have not been terribly successful, so even though he was re-elected it might prove difficult for the dems to keep the WH in 2016 if the GOP runs a better nominee.

Really, gobs of money? $1.83 per voter by the Obama campaign. $6.35 per voter by the Romney campaign.

I heard the Obama campaign spent just over a billion dollars, and the Romney campaign just under. Estimates exceed 6 billion in total. Sounds like gobs of money to me. I think your numbers are totally bogus.

 

[rightwinger]

2012 was watershed in that it saved Obamacare and prevented the Conservatives from stacking the Supreme Court

 

[francoHFW]

Saved O-care, ending 30 years of Voodoo giveaway to the rich, ruin of the nonrich and the country-. 2014 will prove it so, then maybe the victorious Dems can bring back the Fairness Doctrine and end BS propaganda that's ruining the dupes and political discourse.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's amusing to me is the notion by progressives that their agenda would make things better.

The truth is...the only reason that the economy has recovered as much as it has is that the GOP took back the House from the Democrats and put the kabosh on Obama's plan to implement Cap & Trade legislation.

The first year and a half of Barry's "reign" showed that progressives by nature are incapable of staying within a budget or in running any type of an organization that's functional. Another four years of the most unqualified President we've had in generations will simply highlight his ineptitude.