2014 Midterm Elections Results

[hippie_hunter]

I can't see any Republicans breaking 40% of latino voters in the first term(second term is possible if they do well in the first term). I do think mid to late 30s is possible with Jeb, Very low 30s/high 20s for any other Republican

Agreed.

1. I think Hillary will increase the 65+ vote for the Dems

I don't think that will happen. It's been a losing share for the Democrats even back when Clinton was President. And from personal experience, old people don't really care for Hillary. Unlike her husband, she was always a rather polarizing figure as First Lady thanks to her rather cold demeanor and antagonistic relationship with the press. It wasn't until she became Senator did her image vastly improve.

2. Republicans already are winning Married white females(it's those single ones that flock to the Democrats)

Found this, looked pretty funny

You know for some reason I thought that Obama won married women by a slight margin.

 

[SV Fan]

You know for some reason I thought that Obama won married women by a slight margin.

I was sort of wrong it's not even Married White Females, it's married females period

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/07/married-voters-favored-romney-by-14-percentage-points/

According to national exit polls, the president won the women vote by ten percentage points, 55 percent to Romney’s 44 percent. Obama, however, lost married women by 7 percentage points, 46 percent to Romney’s 53 percent.

If nothing else Republicans should be for Gay Marriage because married people are more likely to vote Republicans(Dems actually won single males by 16%, Republican won married males by 22% with a 60-40 split in favor of married males). lol

 

[Tech]

Hard to run on Bush fatigue when the other candidate is a Clinton. Sort of funny if both of them make it one of the best striking points against the other is off the table. lol

I can't see any Republicans breaking 40% of latino voters in the first term(second term is possible if they do well in the first term). I do think mid to late 30s is possible with Jeb, Very low 30s/high 20s for any other Republican



1. I think Hillary will increase the 65+ vote for the Dems

2. Republicans already are winning Married females(it's those single ones that flock to the Democrats)

Found this, looked pretty funny

This is one of those things that gets lost in the "War ON women", it's not really a "war on women" as it is on single ones.

Seems like Democrats benefit greatly from declining marriage rate and rising divorce rate in this country.

 

[SV Fan]

Seems like Democrats benefit greatly from declining marriage rate and rising divorce rate in this country.

Doesn't help that the Republicans do everything in there power to not welcome single people to their party but constantly shoving "family values" in our faces.

 

[summerteeth]

Doesn't help that the Republicans do everything in there power to not welcome single people to their party but constantly shoving "family values" in our faces.

Do you think families are a bad thing?

 

[SV Fan]

Do you think families are a bad thing?

No, but constantly shoving the term "family values" in my face is indirectly telling me they don't care about the single person(among other groups that term is ment to ostracize). If they want a term that will instantly make me tune them out, use that. There is ways they could be pro-family without using terms that seems they don't care about people not in (their definition of) families as well(but my guess is the term "family values" poll tests good with their target audience, damned be everybody else who doesn't fit in that group)

I also have no problem with the government enacting policies that are pro family(say like tax breaks, maternity leave, etc) trying to help out families of all kinds, but call me funny I think their bigger issues when it comes to "family values" then 2 gay people getting married or abortion.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The other problem with preaching "family values" is that every family is completely different. What is acceptable in one family, may not be in another. You can't just push a set of standard values on to everyone when everyone is different.

 

[summerteeth]

No, but constantly shoving the term "family values" in my face is indirectly telling me they don't care about the single person(among other groups that term is ment to ostracize). If they want a term that will instantly make me tune them out, use that. There is ways they could be pro-family without using terms that seems they don't care about people not in (their definition of) families as well(but my guess is the term "family values" poll tests good with their target audience, damned be everybody else who doesn't fit in that group)

I also have no problem with the government enacting policies that are pro family(say like tax breaks, maternity leave, etc) trying to help out families of all kinds, but call me funny I think their bigger issues when it comes to "family values" then 2 gay people getting married or abortion.

Do you not believe that the government should use taxes to incentivize or disencentivize certain behavior? I think encouraging families and marriage is a good thing, attacking gay marriage is a bad thing obviously that the Republican Party needs to move on form.

 

[SV Fan]

Do you not believe that the government should use taxes to incentivize or disencentivize certain behavior?

I guess it depends what they incentivizing or disincentivizing. The war on drugs has cost hundreds of billions and I think we can call that a complete failure. I guess I probably am more on the incentivizing side

In terms of family friendly policies I would be for

1. maternity leave
2. better wages for people when it comes to minimum wage(hard for people who have to work 2 jobs or more jobs to have a good family life)

 

[Tech]

The other problem with preaching "family values" is that every family is completely different. What is acceptable in one family, may not be in another. You can't just push a set of standard values on to everyone when everyone is different.

"Family values" I think just means promoting and stabilizing traditional two parent opposite gender household...everyone's family is different, yes (although lots of families seem to be going into one parent household territory) . It's comes across as a buzz word often, but I think it has value in our country.

 

[SV Fan]

"Family values" I think just means promoting and stabilizing traditional two parent opposite gender household...everyone's family is different, yes (although lots of families seem to be going into one parent household territory) . It's comes across as a buzz word often, but I think it has value in our country.

To me family values means I don't want to talk about actual issues so I will use this buzzword that says I am against everything you social conservatives are against in regards to how other people choose to live.

It's sort of up their with

-We need to get rid of Big Government
-We need to get rid of Regulations
-We love Job Creators
-Hope and Change

All these are basically buzzwords that have 0 meaning and go all out to avoid actual issues(because the listener can fill in what they perceive to be the issue for that buzzword).

 

[Thundercrack85]

Family values to me is the most insidious political term currently in use. It's out of the Joseph Goebbels handbook. You know any politician who uses it is either appealing to extremists, or a fascist himself.

Every time there is a scandal with the right wing, you hear that damn term. Hey, Josh Duggar.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Looks like Kevin McCarthy just took his name out of the running for Speaker.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425255/report-mccarthy-out-leadership-race-eliana-johnson

 

[Frodo]

I don't blame him. McCarthy looked happy as hell to drop out and Paul Ryan looks very pale about the prospect of becoming the next Speaker.

 

[Taarna]

The sad fact is the Democratic voting base is full of people who vote for a living, thinking the party will " take care " of them.

What happens when those who vote for a living outweigh those who work and pax taxes in their living?

You get a system collapse.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The sad fact is the Democratic voting base is full of people who vote for a living, thinking the party will " take care " of them.

Oh, so that's why Democratic turnout is terrible on non-Presidential years and as a result, asides from the White House, the GOP absolutely dominates in all other areas of government. The reality is that the Democratic voting base are people who are terrible voters.

What happens when those who vote for a living outweigh those who work and pax taxes in their living?

You get a system collapse.

God your logic is just so bad. So really, really, really bad. It is literally some of the worst I have ever come across in these boards.