Originally Posted by pgviper
I've read a lot of crap in this thread about social issues and how one candidate targets a certain demographic while another does the opposite. Both are politicians, both have similar tactics. Romney did a great job at attracting those he was aiming at attracting but unfortunately he received a large slice of a continuous growing pie and it clearly was not enough.
This election was not about immigration and sure as hell not about social rights!!! This election was about economic policy. People voted based upon personal incentives such as what they on an individual basis have received. Welfare, food stamps, union payoffs etc...
I heard a story the other day about a professor that was teaching a class about socialism in a "liberal hive college" (great quote by the way). Those in his class were arguing that it is a personal duty to help those that are needy and not as successful as the rest. He decided to treat his class the same way. When the first exam came around, he told them that everybody will be getting the same grade. Some studied and some did not. Average grade was a B so therefore, everybody received a B. This infuriated those who worked hard and allowed those who did not study to enjoy the class without having to do their part. The second exam came around and less people studied hard and the average grade was a C+. At the conclusion of the semester, the whole class had an F.
If I were a student who studied hard in this class, I would demand for the professor to be replaced. If I was a student who did not care and still received an average grade, I would do what I could to keep the professor.
Same general trend is happening in America as we speak.
Welcome to the end of the first exam everyone, it's only going to get more interesting from here on out. I pray that this president can do what he can to turn this country around but I feel that his tactics are only going to be a band-aid on a broken bone and many are blind to this progression.
Nice little annecdote but it just doesn't apply. You can choose to ignore what's in front of your face if you like, but prepare yourself for continued misplaced anger and frustration. I understand your desire to characterize this election as being about those who want to work for stuff and those who just want free stuff. That is basically what your annecdote implies. It's yet another interpretation of Romney's 47 per cent speach which he didn't intend for public consumption. It's an easy and simplistic concept which makes it popular and infectious among those on the right. It's a very pessimistic view of this country's citizenry and it's completely wrong. The American dream is very much alive and well among all citizens of this country and well represented in all it's diversity.
I agree this electoin was not about immigration or social issues, per se. It was about demographics. Specifically it was about the changing demographics of the U.S and the ability and strategy of both campaigns to recognize and appeal to those changing demographics. The Obama campaign was better at it than the Romney campaign. In fact that's an understatement. Simply put the Obama campaign recognized and appealed to growing demographic groups such as minorities and women and the Romney campaign alienated them. Ultimately that's what cost them the election. The Republican party needs to recognize this change in demographics and adapt to it. Otherwise they will continue to shrink their base and will be doomed to irelevence as a political party and brand.