Republicans Have Edge on Top Election Issue: the Economy.

#1 Edited by Master_Live (14024 posts) -
#2 Edited by MakeMeaSammitch (3752 posts) -

I feel like their solution is basically to continue to supplement the rich.

#3 Edited by 4myAmuzumament (1746 posts) -

Methinks gender equality is gonna be a hot button issue. Whoever is on the winning side of that will win.

#4 Posted by lamprey263 (22818 posts) -

They're also cutting early voting in some states, getting rid of absentee ballots, as well as cutting Sunday voting on top of cutting poll hours, and passing new voter ID laws that were targeted at minority voters, moving polling locations to remote hard to access areas, and making purges in the voter registrations, and they they gerrymandered districts in 2010. I'd say they mustered up quite a few advantages for any upcoming elections.

#5 Edited by Horgen (110016 posts) -

They're also cutting early voting in some states, getting rid of absentee ballots, as well as cutting Sunday voting on top of cutting poll hours, and passing new voter ID laws that were targeted at minority voters, moving polling locations to remote hard to access areas, and making purges in the voter registrations, and they they gerrymandered districts in 2010. I'd say they mustered up quite a few advantages for any upcoming elections.

So they are effectively stopping people from voting... People they assume are going to vote for the democrats based on studies from earlier?

#6 Edited by shellcase86 (1934 posts) -

I'd imagine the economy would be an advantage to both parties.

#7 Edited by Serraph105 (27747 posts) -

I realize that, when it comes to the economy, perception is more important than the reality of the situation, but I can't figure how the republicans have effected economy in a positive manner during their occupation of the house. Or even something they attempted that would be positive for that matter.

Any takers? What have the republicans attempted that has changed the economy for the better?

#8 Posted by Aljosa23 (24610 posts) -

They're also cutting early voting in some states, getting rid of absentee ballots, as well as cutting Sunday voting on top of cutting poll hours, and passing new voter ID laws that were targeted at minority voters, moving polling locations to remote hard to access areas, and making purges in the voter registrations, and they they gerrymandered districts in 2010. I'd say they mustered up quite a few advantages for any upcoming elections.

And they still got blown out in 2012 lol.

I'd say you would have to be delusional to fancy the GOP winning at this point in time. Unless they completely change their image they won't be winning Presidential elections.

#9 Posted by mattbbpl (10559 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@lamprey263 said:

They're also cutting early voting in some states, getting rid of absentee ballots, as well as cutting Sunday voting on top of cutting poll hours, and passing new voter ID laws that were targeted at minority voters, moving polling locations to remote hard to access areas, and making purges in the voter registrations, and they they gerrymandered districts in 2010. I'd say they mustered up quite a few advantages for any upcoming elections.

And they still got blown out in 2012 lol.

I'd say you would have to be delusional to fancy the GOP winning at this point in time. Unless they completely change their image they won't be winning Presidential elections.

They (Republicans) are more or less on easy street for 2014. 2016 may be a different matter, though.

#10 Posted by Aljosa23 (24610 posts) -

@mattbbpl said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@lamprey263 said:

They're also cutting early voting in some states, getting rid of absentee ballots, as well as cutting Sunday voting on top of cutting poll hours, and passing new voter ID laws that were targeted at minority voters, moving polling locations to remote hard to access areas, and making purges in the voter registrations, and they they gerrymandered districts in 2010. I'd say they mustered up quite a few advantages for any upcoming elections.

And they still got blown out in 2012 lol.

I'd say you would have to be delusional to fancy the GOP winning at this point in time. Unless they completely change their image they won't be winning Presidential elections.

They (Republicans) are more or less on easy street for 2014. 2016 may be a different matter, though.

Yeah but that has more to do with the fact that the GOP base is more hardcore than the Dems and actually vote in the mid-terms.

#11 Edited by mattbbpl (10559 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@mattbbpl said:

@Aljosa23 said:

@lamprey263 said:

They're also cutting early voting in some states, getting rid of absentee ballots, as well as cutting Sunday voting on top of cutting poll hours, and passing new voter ID laws that were targeted at minority voters, moving polling locations to remote hard to access areas, and making purges in the voter registrations, and they they gerrymandered districts in 2010. I'd say they mustered up quite a few advantages for any upcoming elections.

And they still got blown out in 2012 lol.

I'd say you would have to be delusional to fancy the GOP winning at this point in time. Unless they completely change their image they won't be winning Presidential elections.

They (Republicans) are more or less on easy street for 2014. 2016 may be a different matter, though.

Yeah but that has more to do with the fact that the GOP base is more hardcore than the Dems and actually vote in the mid-terms.

Yeah, both that and the open Senate seat distribution bodes well for them this cycle.

#12 Edited by EPICCOMMANDER (423 posts) -

Ugh, I have to say this....

I still think the top election issue is that a few notable house republicans orchestrated the shutdown of the government because they did not get what they want. I haven't forgotten that, and you can damn well bet I will be thinking of that come next election. Anyone who supported that I want out of there.

#13 Edited by one_plum (6331 posts) -

Economy is FUBAR.

#14 Edited by toast_burner (21338 posts) -

Ugh, I have to say this....

I still think the top election issue is that a few notable house republicans orchestrated the shutdown of the government because they did not get what they want. I haven't forgotten that, and you can damn well bet I will be thinking of that come next election. Anyone who supported that I want out of there.

Pretty much this. If you care about the economy why would you vote for people who tried to destroy it in order to get what they want?

#15 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

I don't understand why. Deficits are being reduced, jobs are being added and the stock market is through the roof. the GOP tried to destroy the economy by shutting it down. The economy seems to get worse every time a GOP President is in the White House.

The GOP acts conservative, but they just want the money spent in different place, not spending less of it.

#16 Edited by Serraph105 (27747 posts) -

I don't understand why. Deficits are being reduced, jobs are being added and the stock market is through the roof. the GOP tried to destroy the economy by shutting it down. The economy seems to get worse every time a GOP President is in the White House.

The GOP acts conservative, but they just want the money spent in different place, not spending less of it.

As I said above perception is more important than reality here, but I really do wish people would look at the reality of the situation.As you said the numbers are getting better, but it might take a few years for the perception to catch up.

#17 Posted by mattykovax (22693 posts) -

I think both parts suck and are leading the country to financal ruin, and spending is out of control. The repubs are not any more conservative with spending, they just put it into military spending and corporate interests. Doesnt anyone remember who got us into all this mess to begin with?

#18 Posted by Serraph105 (27747 posts) -

I think both parts suck and are leading the country to financal ruin, and spending is out of control. The repubs are not any more conservative with spending, they just put it into military spending and corporate interests. Doesnt anyone remember who got us into all this mess to begin with?

Obama?

#19 Posted by jasean79 (2338 posts) -

@mattykovax said:

I think both parts suck and are leading the country to financal ruin, and spending is out of control. The repubs are not any more conservative with spending, they just put it into military spending and corporate interests. Doesnt anyone remember who got us into all this mess to begin with?

Obama?

He didn't get us into the mess, he just kept us there.

#20 Posted by mattykovax (22693 posts) -
@jasean79 said:

@Serraph105 said:

@mattykovax said:

I think both parts suck and are leading the country to financal ruin, and spending is out of control. The repubs are not any more conservative with spending, they just put it into military spending and corporate interests. Doesnt anyone remember who got us into all this mess to begin with?

Obama?

He didn't get us into the mess, he just kept us there.

This. Bush and the repubs got us there, with a little help from a dem from my home state by the name of barney frank and his willingness to help Freddie mac and fannie may, repubs started all the bailouts. Obama just kept up their trends. Out with the old crap, in with the new crap. They are all just screwing us.

#21 Posted by Serraph105 (27747 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@Serraph105 said:

@mattykovax said:

I think both parts suck and are leading the country to financal ruin, and spending is out of control. The repubs are not any more conservative with spending, they just put it into military spending and corporate interests. Doesnt anyone remember who got us into all this mess to begin with?

Obama?

He didn't get us into the mess, he just kept us there.

I'm guessing you don't give the Obama administration credit for the current state of unemployment and the national deficit?

Don't get me wrong the continuation of the NSA is a bad thing as is the current state of the FCC along with many other things, but in terms of the economy we seem to be turning around.

#22 Posted by LittleMac19 (1638 posts) -

Oh yes, elections are here once again, so which shiny turd to choose from this time, choices.

#23 Posted by limpbizkit818 (15033 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@lamprey263 said:

They're also cutting early voting in some states, getting rid of absentee ballots, as well as cutting Sunday voting on top of cutting poll hours, and passing new voter ID laws that were targeted at minority voters, moving polling locations to remote hard to access areas, and making purges in the voter registrations, and they they gerrymandered districts in 2010. I'd say they mustered up quite a few advantages for any upcoming elections.

And they still got blown out in 2012 lol.

I'd say you would have to be delusional to fancy the GOP winning at this point in time. Unless they completely change their image they won't be winning Presidential elections.

American presidential elections are more personality centric. If a Republican comes along with the right message he could win the White House in 2016, especially if the Democrats run Hillary.

#24 Edited by sonicare (53448 posts) -

@jimkabrhel: The stock market is high, but that's mostly because the fed has been pumping so much money into it. Once that stops, we could see a huge retraction. Unfortunately, most of your average joes just dont have much money invested in the market to have benefitted from this boon.,

#25 Posted by mattbbpl (10559 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@lamprey263 said:

They're also cutting early voting in some states, getting rid of absentee ballots, as well as cutting Sunday voting on top of cutting poll hours, and passing new voter ID laws that were targeted at minority voters, moving polling locations to remote hard to access areas, and making purges in the voter registrations, and they they gerrymandered districts in 2010. I'd say they mustered up quite a few advantages for any upcoming elections.

And they still got blown out in 2012 lol.

I'd say you would have to be delusional to fancy the GOP winning at this point in time. Unless they completely change their image they won't be winning Presidential elections.

American presidential elections are more personality centric. If a Republican comes along with the right message he could win the White House in 2016, especially if the Democrats run Hillary.

As the polarization of the electorate electorate continues, that becomes less and less accurate.

#26 Posted by Master_Live (14024 posts) -

Lets have some intellectual integrity, look at the labor participation rate.

#27 Posted by Serraph105 (27747 posts) -

Lets have some intellectual integrity, look at the labor participation rate.

it's no secret that the numbers are down, it's also no secret that the private sector has become more efficient than ever due to increased technology. I'd argue that the government should put more people to work, but my guess is that the idea of the public sector hiring more people isn't going to fly with you.

#28 Edited by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

Lets have some intellectual integrity, look at the labor participation rate.

it's no secret that the numbers are down, it's also no secret that the private sector has become more efficient than ever due to increased technology. I'd argue that the government should put more people to work, but my guess is that the idea of the public sector hiring more people isn't going to fly with you.

It makes so much sense (at least to me), to start putting money into infrastructure projects, like roads, bridges, high-speed internet, etc., but few people in the government on either side really view that as a viable option.

#29 Edited by JimB (167 posts) -

@shellcase86: In most cases that would be true but with this administration they will have to hear about it on CNN before they become aware there is a problem with the economy.

#30 Posted by Master_Live (14024 posts) -

@JimB said:

@shellcase86: In most cases that would be true but with this administration they will have to hear about it on CNN before they become aware there is a problem with the economy.

Yep, Obama is just a bystander in his own administration.

#31 Edited by Serraph105 (27747 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:

@Master_Live said:

Lets have some intellectual integrity, look at the labor participation rate.

it's no secret that the numbers are down, it's also no secret that the private sector has become more efficient than ever due to increased technology. I'd argue that the government should put more people to work, but my guess is that the idea of the public sector hiring more people isn't going to fly with you.

It makes so much sense (at least to me), to start putting money into infrastructure projects, like roads, bridges, high-speed internet, etc., but few people in the government on either side really view that as a viable option.

It would likely increase the deficit, but it would increase the labor force participation rate. I guess the question is which is worse and can you really decry a low participation rate while arguing the government should not be hiring.

#32 Edited by rgsniper1 (9341 posts) -

@EPICCOMMANDER:

I thought the CR was to fund everything except Obamacare, and the Democrats used that to effectively shut down the government. All the while trying to make sure we felt the pain i.e. shutting down things that didn't even need to be shut down. I thought the whole thing was "fund it all" or we shut it down. Which in effect funded Obamacare, that which they currently can't get away from fast enough. Oh the joy when after the next elections the real price of Obamacare will hit.

#33 Posted by EPICCOMMANDER (423 posts) -

@EPICCOMMANDER:

I thought the CR was to fund everything except Obamacare, and the Democrats used that to effectively shut down the government. All the while trying to make sure we felt the pain i.e. shutting down things that didn't even need to be shut down. I thought the whole thing was "fund it all" or we shut it down. Which in effect funded Obamacare, that which they currently can't get away from fast enough. Oh the joy when after the next elections the real price of Obamacare will hit.

Ha ha. The Democrats wanted the government to shutdown? Ha ha ha ha. That's funny....Also untrue.

Quit watching Fox News (avoid MSNBC as well), and get your information from a more accurate source. I understand that there are two sides to every argument, but the fact is Tea Party republicans in the House of Reps. met a few weeks before the shutdown and agreed to block any resolution unless funding for the ACA was withdrawn. The Republicans started it, and it was the Republicans that finished it when they agreed to stop bullshitting around.

Am I the only one who cares about this shit enough to research it?? I mean good God, the government shutdown, and people can't be bothered to know why??? This is insane.

#34 Posted by BranKetra (47877 posts) -

Ugh, I have to say this....

I still think the top election issue is that a few notable house republicans orchestrated the shutdown of the government because they did not get what they want. I haven't forgotten that, and you can damn well bet I will be thinking of that come next election. Anyone who supported that I want out of there.

That was unacceptable.

#35 Posted by rgsniper1 (9341 posts) -

@EPICCOMMANDER:

Awesome that you just assume I get my news from Fox news. I could say the same for everything you just said right back at you, you do realize that right. I mean we could counter point for point all day. And at the end I doubt either of us was there so i'm not sure what makes you're opinion more credible. May I ask what sources you are referring to that I must not be seeing? Since you have already pigeon holed me into what you assume you know about me. I'll say, the problem with this country are the "know it alls" who don't know enough to know they actually know nothing. But I defer.

#36 Posted by EPICCOMMANDER (423 posts) -

@EPICCOMMANDER:

Awesome that you just assume I get my news from Fox news. I could say the same for everything you just said right back at you, you do realize that right. I mean we could counter point for point all day. And at the end I doubt either of us was there so i'm not sure what makes you're opinion more credible. May I ask what sources you are referring to that I must not be seeing? Since you have already pigeon holed me into what you assume you know about me. I'll say, the problem with this country are the "know it alls" who don't know enough to know they actually know nothing. But I defer.

Here be your proof. The video is really the best explanation, but you can also read the article itself.

#37 Edited by Barbariser (6717 posts) -

Right wing parties are almost always regarded by voters as more capitalistic, more pro-business and hence better for the economy, no matter what it's like in reality. That's mostly because the general population doesn't have a clue about macroeconomics and mostly thinks in terms of catchy soundbites and half-formed, loose links between different numbers.

In this thread alone you have somebody not understanding monetary stimulus, another dude not understanding fiscal stimulus, and a couple more dudes focusing on the labor participation rate, which is hardly a meaningful metric for measuring economic performance. Read more threads on economic issues and you'll see even more bullshit.

#38 Posted by mattbbpl (10559 posts) -

Right wing parties are almost always regarded by voters as more capitalistic, more pro-business and hence better for the economy, no matter what it's like in reality. That's mostly because the general population doesn't have a clue about macroeconomics and mostly thinks in terms of catchy soundbites and half-formed, loose links between different numbers.

In this thread alone you have somebody not understanding monetary stimulus, another dude not understanding fiscal stimulus, and a couple more dudes focusing on the labor participation rate, which is hardly a meaningful metric for measuring economic performance. Read more threads on economic issues and you'll see even more bullshit.

It's gotten so ridiculous that it's hard to even engage anymore. When you discuss GDP growth, someone claims that the government doesn't contribute to the economy. When you discuss competitive markets, it's claimed that the only reasons markets become noncompetitive are government intervention and unions. When attempting to discuss monetary policy, someone chimes in that the federal reserve only serves to devalue currency by printing more for the wealthy and that we need to return to the gold standard.

I mean, when someone's concept of economics is flawed to the very foundations of the field, how do you even proceed with a sound conversation on the subject? It's not that they don't understand the concepts yet - it's that they KNOW these are the truths behind the matter and are unable to learn anything else because of the mental conflicts it would cause.

#39 Posted by Serraph105 (27747 posts) -

@EPICCOMMANDER said:

Ugh, I have to say this....

I still think the top election issue is that a few notable house republicans orchestrated the shutdown of the government because they did not get what they want. I haven't forgotten that, and you can damn well bet I will be thinking of that come next election. Anyone who supported that I want out of there.

That was unacceptable.

It was fun though when nobody wanted to take credit for what they had done.

#40 Edited by BranKetra (47877 posts) -
@BranKetra said:

@EPICCOMMANDER said:

Ugh, I have to say this....

I still think the top election issue is that a few notable house republicans orchestrated the shutdown of the government because they did not get what they want. I haven't forgotten that, and you can damn well bet I will be thinking of that come next election. Anyone who supported that I want out of there.

That was unacceptable.

It was fun though when nobody wanted to take credit for what they had done.

"Fun" is not a word I have ever used to describe that event. I doubt I ever shall.

#41 Posted by wis3boi (31012 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:
@BranKetra said:

@EPICCOMMANDER said:

Ugh, I have to say this....

I still think the top election issue is that a few notable house republicans orchestrated the shutdown of the government because they did not get what they want. I haven't forgotten that, and you can damn well bet I will be thinking of that come next election. Anyone who supported that I want out of there.

That was unacceptable.

It was fun though when nobody wanted to take credit for what they had done.

"Fun" is not a word I have ever used to describe that event. I doubt I ever shall.

I almost peed when Ted Cruz started reading from Green Eggs and Ham. This is what the country has turned into.

#42 Edited by Serraph105 (27747 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:
@BranKetra said:

@EPICCOMMANDER said:

Ugh, I have to say this....

I still think the top election issue is that a few notable house republicans orchestrated the shutdown of the government because they did not get what they want. I haven't forgotten that, and you can damn well bet I will be thinking of that come next election. Anyone who supported that I want out of there.

That was unacceptable.

It was fun though when nobody wanted to take credit for what they had done.

"Fun" is not a word I have ever used to describe that event. I doubt I ever shall.

Fun is not really the right word, but it's clear that this group of republicans in Congress doesn't give a shit what the majority of Americans think and thus there is next to nothing we can do to change the majority of their minds. Unless your job got directly affected by the shutdown (in which case I totally understand sweating the shutdown) you might as well kick back, grab some popcorn, and watch as the politicians who initiated such a terrible idea come to freak out mode as they realize what they have done.


It's sort of darkly comical in a way even the best scripted television can't provide. The obvious bad part is that these are the same people who get to draw their own district lines basically ensuring themselves the continuation of their own jobs.

#43 Posted by BeardMaster (1580 posts) -

Well lots not forget, in the 2012 election a "generic republican candidate" was beating obama handedly in the polls. However actual republicans, always seem to poll worse than the idea of a republicans.

#44 Edited by BranKetra (47877 posts) -

@wis3boi I guess it could be worse.

@Serraph105 said:

@BranKetra said:
@Serraph105 said:
@BranKetra said:

@EPICCOMMANDER said:

Ugh, I have to say this....

I still think the top election issue is that a few notable house republicans orchestrated the shutdown of the government because they did not get what they want. I haven't forgotten that, and you can damn well bet I will be thinking of that come next election. Anyone who supported that I want out of there.

That was unacceptable.

It was fun though when nobody wanted to take credit for what they had done.

"Fun" is not a word I have ever used to describe that event. I doubt I ever shall.

Fun is not really the right word, but it's clear that this group of republicans in Congress doesn't give a shit what the majority of Americans think and thus there is next to nothing we can do to change the majority of their minds. Unless your job got directly affected by the shutdown (in which case I totally understand sweating the shutdown) you might as well kick back, grab some popcorn, and watch as the politicians who initiated such a terrible idea come to freak out mode as they realize what they have done.

It's sort of darkly comical in a way even the best scripted television can't provide. The obvious bad part is that these are the same people who get to draw their own district lines basically ensuring themselves the continuation of their own jobs.

Now that you have explained your perspective, I can say that is certainly a dark kind of humor.