Sounds Like Joke, It Isn't

[Kathianne]

Low informational voters:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/where_big_gop_bucks_could_matter_sud7apkPHDcFSVDDZ kFDEL


Where big GOP bucks could matter (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/where_big_gop_bucks_could_matter_sud7apkPHDcFSVDDZ kFDEL)

By GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS
Last Updated: 11:35 PM, December 12, 2012



Mitt Romney and the GOP lost, but it wasn’t for lack of money. They spent a lot; they just didn’t get enough bang for the buck.


Billionaire Sheldon Adelson alone donated $150 million. But Romney lost anyway, especially among unmarried women.


Which is why I think that rich people wanting to support the Republican Party might want to direct their money somewhere besides TV ads that copy, poorly, what Lee Atwater did decades ago.


My suggestion: Buy some women’s magazines. No, really. Or at least some women’s Web sites.


One of the groups with whom Romney did worst was female “low-information voters.” Those are women who don’t really follow politics, and vote based on a vague sense of who’s mean and who’s nice, who’s cool and who’s uncool.


<!-- context: middle -->
Since, by definition, they don’t pay much attention to political news, they get this sense from what they do read. And for many, that’s traditional women’s magazines — Redbook, Cosmopolitan, Glamour, the Ladies Home Journal, etc. — and the newer women’s sites like YourTango, The Frisky, Yahoo! Shine, and the like.


The thing is, those magazines and Web sites see themselves, pretty consciously, as a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. So while nine out of 10 articles may be the usual stuff on sex, diet and shopping, the 10th will always be either soft p.r. for the Democrats or soft — or sometimes not-so-soft — hits on Republicans.

...




I'm loathe to bring this up, but notice the length of the paragraphs. Nailed.

[Robert A Whit]

Low informational voters:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/where_big_gop_bucks_could_matter_sud7apkPHDcFSVDDZ kFDEL



I'm loathe to bring this up, but notice the length of the paragraphs. Nailed.

What caused Romney to lose, and mind you, this is just my humble opinion ... Obama the snake nailed him first. During the Republican primary, the *OBT targeted only Romney. And they lied like low down snakes. *(Obama team)

The next candidate won't run vs Obama as we know so the slate is clean for the next guy.

Just my opinion but I think the women's issue and illegals has to be defused. And for good.

[gabosaurus]

Just my opinion but I think the women's issue and illegals has to be defused. And for good.

You think we all should just go away and return solitary voting rights to white males?
I think you need to be defused. And for good.

[DragonStryk72]

You think we all should just go away and return solitary voting rights to white males?
I think you need to be defused. And for good.

That isn't what he said, or implied. But thank you for proving, once more, that you are incredibly prejudiced, as you have shown in so many other ways on here.

What he referred to was letting go of those arguments, of finding a middle of the road solution to them at the least, but way to go on slapping him in the face for it. But what am I saying? You don't have the spine to acknowledge your error and apologize to jumping on him wrongfully.


What caused Romney to lose, and mind you, this is just my humble opinion ... Obama the snake nailed him first. During the Republican primary, the *OBT targeted only Romney. And they lied like low down snakes. *(Obama team)

The next candidate won't run vs Obama as we know so the slate is clean for the next guy.

Just my opinion but I think the women's issue and illegals has to be defused. And for good.

Now, as for a more grown up debate of this, I'll handle them point-by point.

First, you can't lay Romney's defeat all at Obama's feet. It's spread out really, such as the Electoral College that is a broken system in good years. As well, Romney went to far too the party line, and that opened him up. He could have left his opinion on gay marriage out of the election and disarmed one of the repeated issue Obama slapped him with right off the top. That alone would have given him some better numbers, and could have bought him a couple of swing states.

The slate may be clean for right now, but the Republicans need to start updating their strategies if they are to win. They cannot continue to let the same arguments beat them down year after year.

Simple point on both is that we're gonna have to suck it up on both issues a bit. This doesn't mean just letting the Dems have their way, however.

On women's issues, I would put forth that we do need to establish men's rights as well. If a man is 50% of the baby DNA, then yes, he has say over the life of said baby, save in cases of rape or incest. You can't have it both ways on this subject. If a guy is responsible for half the kid's expenses because he was half of the creation team, then he is also responsible for the baby conception. If he is willing to put up the medical expenses, and raise the children on his own, I see no reason why he should be denied that ability.

On the women's front, I think we should be placing a limit on the number of abortions that can be had outside of rape,incest, or threat to the mother's life. There is a certain point where, basically, you just have no sense of responsibility and need to stop fucking around without birth control.

As for the illegals, we need to accept a path to citizenship. However, we need to ensure that this stops as much as we can manage in the future. We require stiffer penalties for illegal aliens, and to remove "sanctuary cities". On the other hand, we also need to make the system for legal immigration more streamlined. Our current system is a horribly overpriced mess, and must be made efficient to lower the impetus to skirt the immigration laws.

[Kathianne]

.

[fj1200]

You think we all should just go away and return solitary voting rights to white males?

Only the landed ones anyway. :slap: