Sensationalism by defeated voters

Overheal

So apparently, people in as many as 20 states thus far have filed petitions to the White House, demanding to have their states secede from the Union, since the outcome of the election one week ago.

http://www.examiner.com/article/citizens-from-20-states-file-to-secede-from-the-united-states

And now,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056806620

Woman runs over her husband for not voting.

I've been listening to the conservative media. Morning talkshow hosts that were, literally, in tears over the outcome. Typical Glen Beck conspiracy type stuff too, regarding doom and gloom or some such nonsense. And Rush Limbaugh going on to state that everyone who voted for Obama clearly acts and feels in certain ways (eg. these % of Americans all want free cellphones, bla bla bla) without any recognition of the fact that maybe they just didn't want Romney in Office?

The conservative media always tries to label the "Lame Stream Media" as some big democratic conspiracy, that it's all propaganda, that their listeners [of conservatism] need beware of their country being sequestered away from them. I hear that crap all the time. "These liberals all think this way and that way and theyre bastardizing the country that God gave us", uh, yeah. And most ironically, they paint the media as a fear mongering organization.

Yet clearly, the ones spinning fear are these conservative outlets. Not me, mind you. I just listen and it pisses me off. But other people listen in and think "Oh my God, he's right, this is the end of society as we know it!" and they take this **** seriously. Next thing you know they're running over their husbands and demanding to secede from the Union. I didn't vote for Obama either but I'm not out there doomsday prepping and all that bull****.

Instead, can't we all just calm the hell down? This country is losing it's sanity in a damn hurry.

Brian?

Here here.

Although realistically Obama winning is great for Limbaugh etc.. Gives em something to holler and cause a fuss about.

Duck Soup

The problem is the hard-right media bubble itself. There is a sane and reasonable conservative commentariat, talking policy and perspective and then there are the rabid rabble rousers. Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly. The foam fairly flecks from their mouths when they talk about Democrats in general and Obama in particular.

Liberals like to use the term 'reality-based community', with something of a condescending sneer, to describe people outside of the bubble but listening to the píss and bile of right-wing ranting heads, it's hard not to think that they're onto something.

What they talk about has no basis in reality, from birtherism to death panels, from Obama-is-a-Muslim conspiracies to 'unskewed' polls. Yes, the left loathed Bush but that what because of what he did and said, not what people imagined, made up or pulled out of their árses about him.

So the secession petitions are the inevitable outcrop of this. The bilious big dogs themselves and the Beck and Limbaugh wannabes on local radio stations have made the prospect of Obama's re-election so apocalyptic that it almost demands a hysterical reaction. And this is it.

I'd also guess that 99.9% of the people signing these petitions are white. Make of that what you will.

Corkfeen

I've actually started paying more attention to the US conservative press. It acts as a sort of fascinating insight into a propaganda machine. On occasion, they may be discussing an actual news story yet they'll still somehow manage to blow it out of all proportion. I don't like labeling something as 'propaganda' as that title tends to be lobbed around a lot but it's entirely accurate in regards to this. I remember being astonished when I first saw Bill O' Reilly then I realised he was the more moderate individual on Fox. :pac: I'm assuming that a balanced conservative media must exist and i'm simply unaware of it because i'm in Ireland.....

Manach

Being a conservative myself and comment on some of their forums, I can empathise with some of their feelings of ire at how their candidate was steamrolled by a well-oil democratic attack machine that made it impossible to bring a balanced and reasonable debate. However, apart from a few fringe elements of the fringe elements, most of the Republician are of course accepting of the result and hoping that the next 4 years bring a turn around in that nation's fortunes.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it's almost like people weren't around for the bush years when everything was a conspiracy to enrich haliburton, the draft was coming back "any day now", Iran was minutes away from being nuked or bush was going to forcibly evict all the palestinians to the moon

Memnoch

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

it's almost like people weren't around for the bush years when everything was a conspiracy to enrich haliburton, the draft was coming back "any day now", Iran was minutes away from being nuked or bush was going to forcibly evict all the palestinians to the moon

So companies that funded republican campaigns didn't make an absolute fortunes from recontruction contracts in Iraq? Did Bush not start two pointless wars for greed and profit?

Obama has been a disappointment on foreign policy from a global perspective. But the stuff about Bush was at least reality based.

How obama can be a devoted member of the church of Jerimiah Wright for the last 20 years and still be a secret Muslim still eludes me.

jank

Memnoch wrote: »

So companies that funded republican campaigns didn't make an absolute fortunes from recontruction contracts in Iraq? Did Bush not start two pointless wars for greed and profit?

Obama has been a disappointment on foreign policy from a global perspective. But the stuff about Bush was at least reality based.

How obama can be a devoted member of the church of Jerimiah Wright for the last 20 years and still be a secret Muslim still eludes me.

Ah here we go again, Bush started two wars just to enrich some buddies of his.

Anytime we discuss fringe elemants of either right or left both sides thinks that they know the absolute truth when in fact its all crap.

Obama is a Muslim = Bush was paid off by Haliburton to start wars.

Brian?

jank wrote: »

Ah here we go again, Bush started two wars just to enrich some buddies of his.

Anytime we discuss fringe elemants of either right or left both sides thinks that they know the absolute truth when in fact its all crap.

Obama is a Muslim = Bush was paid off by Haliburton to start wars.

I think you're mixing up fringe elements with conspiracy theorists.

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

So apparently, people in as many as 20 states thus far have filed petitions to the White House, demanding to have their states secede from the Union, since the outcome of the election one week ago.

If I recall, there were similar petitions immediately after the 2008 presidential elections when Obama-Biden beat McCain-Palin.

On the flip side:

One asks the administration to permit the left-leaning city of Austin to secede from Texas but remain part of the United States.

Jonny7

In the US it's almost an even split down the middle. However in much of the rest of the world (viewing the situation externally), the vast majority of us, as reported in polls, the conservative candidates are pretty horrifying.

From Palin, to Bachmann, to Perry, to Rick Santorum, to Romney - would any of these people even make it on the ballot sheet in Europe with their policies? yet any could command at least a 45% vote in the US.

The religious conservative old guard are still there, and the more fringe elements are coming up with ridiculous petitions like the above - last time states seceded there was the civil war.

I blame a lot of the current rift on the shock-jocks (on both sides) whipping up a frenzy with over the top rhetoric - driving the divide further, however it's plain to see which side of the divide is quite clearly a step backwards.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jonny7

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think you missed my point, it's about popularity. Romney received some 48/49 per cent of the vote in the US.

In Europe most, if not all Republican candidates would be seen as very fringe and would be genuinely expected to perform as such. How would Palin do in the UK or France or Germany? she would possibly get a tiny fringe vote, few would take her seriously. Yet in the US she could potentially win.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jonny7

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Im not contesting these other points you are making. Getting onto the ballots was a figure of speech.

I am stating that Romney, Palin, Perry, Bachmann, etc would not get anything close to 45% in any major European country. Merkel, Cameron, Hollande would absolutely thrash if any of those candidates ran on that ticket.

I mean what does this say to you..





I remember it was even more skewed under Bush.

Memnoch

jank wrote: »

Ah here we go again, Bush started two wars just to enrich some buddies of his.

Anytime we discuss fringe elemants of either right or left both sides thinks that they know the absolute truth when in fact its all crap.

Obama is a Muslim = Bush was paid off by Haliburton to start wars.

Sorry... why did Bush start two wars again? It was to go and get Osama Bin Laden wasn't it? No, no wait... It was to stop Iraq deploying WMDs that could hit the UK within 45 minutes. No... no... sorry, I got it all wrong, it was to spread FREEDOM and democracy and stop the kind of torture that took place in Abu Gharib... and the kind of massacres that took place in Fallujah... wait sorry, I meant under Saddam's reign... okay... I forgot... so please remind me...

Why did Bush launch two wars again?

Overheal

Jonny7 wrote: »

I think you missed my point, it's about popularity. Romney received some 48/49 per cent of the vote in the US.

In Europe most, if not all Republican candidates would be seen as very fringe and would be genuinely expected to perform as such. How would Palin do in the UK or France or Germany? she would possibly get a tiny fringe vote, few would take her seriously. Yet in the US she could potentially win.

It's a two party system: you get people voting for candidate A because they want to neutralize votes from candidate B. This is also only 48% of those who went to the polls and voted, and of those who voted they largely had only two choices, A and B (and little c)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jonny7

Overheal wrote: »

It's a two party system: you get people voting for candidate A because they want to neutralize votes from candidate B. This is also only 48% of those who went to the polls and voted, and of those who voted they largely had only two choices, A and B (and little c)

I understand but it still doesn't explain the discrepency..

Poll most places in the world (between only the two candidates) - Obama fiercely popular
Poll in the US (between the two candidates) - very 50/50 between Obama and Romney

Now I understand we see through the "foreign" filter, not so much domestic, but like I was saying, a candidate like Romney with his background, policies, demeanor, etc, etc would not enjoy that proportion of the vote in many other "first world" countries.

Jonny7

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're veering a little off topic, I am very aware of Europe's failings, etc. Was just using European countries as examples of the pure sentiment.

I quoted world polls, which show nearly all countries have overwhelming support for the democratic candidate. This is something that has been consistent since I started following the elections in the US in 2000.

It suggests that only 2 percent of the French say they would vote for Mitt Romney — despite 18 percent of them turning out to vote for the National Front's Marine Le Pen back in April. Maybe Mitt just isn't hardline or anti-Islamic enough for the French electorate?

I am not comparing Romney with Le Pen, I am saying, that outside the US, Republican candidates seem deeply unpopular (since Bush)

I could go into the technicalities of the polls, perhaps the distorted views of American politics, the domestic factor, the "Bush factor", god knows what else - but there have been simply too many polls all reflecting the same results for over a decade now.




We do not like Republican candidates.

Overheal

Jonny7 wrote: »

You're veering a little off topic,

When did this become a conversation about Europe anyway?

Jonny7

Overheal wrote: »

When did this become a conversation about Europe anyway?

I think when I referenced Hollande.

Gandhi

On what planet would Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum get 50% of the vote? Santorum quit the republican primary before the Pennsylvania vote happened when it became clear he could not even win his home state. Palin did not even bother entering the primary after years of humming and hawing about it.

Duck Soup

Surely the comparison isn't with wingnuts 10,000 miles away, but wingnuts on the opposite side of the political spectrum in the same country.

In other words, was there a similar grassroots movement on the left when Bush was re-elected?

And if there wasn't, why is there such melodramatic mania only on the right? Where does it come from?

Jonny7

Gandhi wrote: »

On what planet would Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum get 50% of the vote? Santorum quit the republican primary before the Pennsylvania vote happened when it became clear he could not even win his home state. Palin did not even bother entering the primary after years of humming and hawing about it.

Hypothetically if Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin won the Republican ticket, what would you expect them to get in the national vote? I would say at least 45%.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gandhi

Jonny7 wrote: »

Hypothetically if Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin won the Republican ticket, what would you expect them to get in the national vote? I would say at least 45%.

Not that hypothetical really. Palin is such a joke that she did not even waste her time trying to officially get on the ticket. Santorum dropped out when it became clear that he would not even win his home state.

If they did get on the ticket in some bizarre parallel universe, would the tea-party nutcases vote for them? Probably. And probably a lot of other people who would vote for anyone except Obama. Some Republican party faithful too. Would they get 45%? I doubt it, but maybe.

It is a pointless hypothetical though. The election already happened and the reality is that Palin knew it wasn't worth her while to even show up at the starting blocks, and Santorum fell flat on his ass at the third hurdle.

Jonny7

Gandhi wrote: »

It is a pointless hypothetical though. The election already happened and the reality is that Palin knew it wasn't worth her while to even show up at the starting blocks, and Santorum fell flat on his ass at the third hurdle.

And a man like Romney got about 48% of the vote, and George Bush junior got in twice.. that's pretty bizarre already.

Spanish Johnny

Jonny7 wrote: »

From Palin, to Bachmann, to Perry, to Rick Santorum, to Romney - would any of these people even make it on the ballot sheet in Europe with their policies? yet any could command at least a 45% vote in the US.

Yes Romney very easily and would possibly be elected. Your knowledge of US politics appears very limited if you lump Romney in with in with the other 3. You may not like him because he carries the 'Republican' label and somehow think all candidates the same that are under this banner??

Hypothetical guesses at what percentage of the vote Santorum or Palin would get are laughable! The fact is one didn't run and the other pulled out because they knew they hadn't a chance of getting the nomination of the Republican Party. So it's a completely ridiculous and pointless argument.

Same for quoting a world poll for their favored leader?? What does this tell us? Anything of substance?? No it tells us that the world favors the rock star President of who they see/hear a couple of popular soundbites a year against the guy they are told comes from the same party as Bush. It has little or no impact on their lives. They are not looking into their pockets or worrying about the price of gas in the US or whose economic policies might make their lives in the US where they don't live any better??

If you are going to debate such topics at least use relevant arguments and points of which there are many to tackle Republicans, the right, etc.

Overheal

Jonny7 wrote: »

And a man like Romney got about 48% of the vote, and George Bush junior got in twice.. that's pretty bizarre already.

Again, it just sounds like you're oversimplifying the reality. It's a two party system. All that means is George Bush was a marginally better choice to the electorate in 2000 than Al Gore, a better choice than John Kerry in 2004, that Obama was a better choice in 2008 and that He was again the lesser of two bad choices in 2012.

It's like your mammy sat you down at the dinner table and told you that you had to eat broccoli or carrots. It doesn't matter that you like potatoes better, your only two choices are broccoli or carrots. You can starve (not vote), but ultimately you will end up with one of these vegetables sitting on your plate.

Kinski

Duck Soup wrote: »

Surely the comparison isn't with wingnuts 10,000 miles away, but wingnuts on the opposite side of the political spectrum in the same country.

In other words, was there a similar grassroots movement on the left when Bush was re-elected?

And if there wasn't, why is there such melodramatic mania only on the right? Where does it come from?

Probably because the US doesn't have a strong tradition of radical left-wing politics, unlike many European countries.

Jonny7

Spanish Johnny wrote: »

Same for quoting a world poll for their favored leader?? What does this tell us? Anything of substance?? No it tells us that the world favors the rock star President of who they see/hear a couple of popular soundbites a year against the guy they are told comes from the same party as Bush.

I disagree, I can't help but notice the trend, whether it's these polls, experienced political commentators, pundits, bloggers.. just about any external source on US politics seem to be universally much more critical of the candidates of the party of "angry old white men" than with their counterparts.. and I wouldn't put it down to a few soundbites and the "Bush effect"

What bearing does this view that have on domestic US politics? none.

What relevance? virtually nil, but the collective sigh of relief last week across almost anywhere outside the US was pretty tangible if you ask me.

jank

Memnoch wrote: »

Sorry... why did Bush start two wars again? It was to go and get Osama Bin Laden wasn't it? No, no wait... It was to stop Iraq deploying WMDs that could hit the UK within 45 minutes. No... no... sorry, I got it all wrong, it was to spread FREEDOM and democracy and stop the kind of torture that took place in Abu Gharib... and the kind of massacres that took place in Fallujah... wait sorry, I meant under Saddam's reign... okay... I forgot... so please remind me...

Why did Bush launch two wars again?

Clearly because he was in the pockets of the corporations and there is ample evidence to show that....... oh wait.....

joseph brand

Overheal wrote: »

So apparently, people in as many as 20 states thus far have filed petitions to the White House, demanding to have their states secede from the Union, since the outcome of the election one week ago.

http://www.examiner.com/article/citizens-from-20-states-file-to-secede-from-the-united-states

And now,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056806620

Woman runs over her husband for not voting.

"Oh my God, he's right, this is the end of society as we know it!" and they take this **** seriously. Next thing you know they're running over their husbands and demanding to secede from the Union. I didn't vote for Obama either but I'm not out there doomsday prepping and all that bull****.

Instead, can't we all just calm the hell down? This country is losing it's sanity in a damn hurry.

Megachurch Pastor: Obama Re-Election "Reign of the Antichrist"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSMDUB4jjW4

Robert Jeffress, being a megachurch business man pastor, has a large audience of susceptible minds. They're probably all on sleeping tablets, due to the increased anxiety and fear that comes with the realisation that you're being ruled by a gay, muslim, communist, Kenyan Anti-Christ!

I wouldn't be surprised if some conservative started a rumour that Obama had the power to turn gold bullion into coal, just by touching it. The religious right could quite easily believe a crazy story like this, because they already believe in magic.

joseph brand

Manach wrote: »

Being a conservative myself and comment on some of their forums, I can empathise with some of their feelings of ire at how their candidate was steamrolled by a well-oil democratic attack machine that made it impossible to bring a balanced and reasonable debate. However, apart from a few fringe elements of the fringe elements, most of the Republician are of course accepting of the result and hoping that the next 4 years bring a turn around in that nation's fortunes.

Ha. Typical 'inside the bubble' talk.

The media found it hard to keep up with all his lies and flip-flopping. Records were broken.

Willard avoided the media for 22 days and debated Obama with some new persona, which differed from the 'real' Mitt, what ever that is.

Yes yes, the socialist, liberal media 'attack machine' ground Romney up like a pound of beef, by unfairly exposing his lies and his contempt for the 47%. It was pretty biased of them to report on the Tea Party or Anne Romney's "You people" comment, or Paul Ryan's childish admiration of the promoter of selfishness, Ayn Rand.

Regardless, the media didn't have to do a lot in fairness. The internet lit up after the 'binders full of women' and 'horses and bayonets' comments. Nothing to do with the media. This affected the youth vote but would have bypassed the sexagenarian and septuagenarian voters, Romney had his sights on. Anyone remember him singing in Florida in an old folks home?

Alas, all was not lost. Faux news, that beacon of impartial news reporting, worked tirelessly to shield American eyes from the truth. They did it right up until the end with the 'insightful' Karl Rove belligerently denying the figures and stubbornly sticking to his guns.

And I'm not afraid to adMitt it, I drank their tears. Those delicious, sweet Fox tears.

Memnoch

jank wrote: »

Clearly because he was in the pockets of the corporations and there is ample evidence to show that....... oh wait.....

Well done for dodging the question. I still want to know why you think he started two wars.

A few people got very very rich because of those wars. I wouldn't be so quick to discount such obscene amounts of wealth as a powerful motivator.

jank

Memoch, by all means post the proof of this, gut feelings are just that, feelings.

Memnoch

jank wrote: »

Memoch, by all means post the proof of this, gut feelings are just that, feelings.

Proof of what? That people who made strong campaign contributions to the Bush admin were in receipt of major reconstruction contracts?

Did Cheney not in fact sit on the boards of one of these? Halliburton?

InTheTrees

Manach wrote: »

Being a conservative myself and comment on some of their forums, I can empathise with some of their feelings of ire at how their candidate was steamrolled by a well-oil democratic attack machine that made it impossible to bring a balanced and reasonable debate.

The Republican Cocoon;

Where the Rightwing SuperPAC's that out spent Democrats by about three to one were "steamrolled".

Poor republicans with their 24/7 anti-obama attack ads financed by billionaires got themselves "steamrolled" by Truth and plain old Common sense.

Hopefully their delusion will continue at least until 2014 and on to 2016.

InTheTrees

joseph brand wrote: »

And I'm not afraid to adMitt it, I drank their tears. Those delicious, sweet Fox tears.

Yup. Same here.

And remember the "legitimate rape" guy? Who refused to retract. The repubs cut him off at first and then when it looked like he wasnt going to quit, they continued financing his campaign.

You have to wonder what they were thinking.

Although it looks like what happened was Mitt, was upset by his falling poll numbers so he hired a polling company that told him he was in the lead.

Hysterical really. I remember in the last election republicans tried to encourage people to lie to pollsters who called them. I have no idea why but the reasons are probably connected to Mitts campaign blunder, some sort of tea Party inspired War On The Media perhaps.

:pac: :pac:

RATM

Jonny7 wrote: »

I understand but it still doesn't explain the discrepency..

Poll most places in the world (between only the two candidates) - Obama fiercely popular
Poll in the US (between the two candidates) - very 50/50 between Obama and Romney

Now I understand we see through the "foreign" filter, not so much domestic, but like I was saying, a candidate like Romney with his background, policies, demeanor, etc, etc would not enjoy that proportion of the vote in many other "first world" countries.

It is difficult to explain the discrepency but a large part of it might be to do with how America and its foreign policy is perceived by the European public at large. There was mass scale anger and protests all across Europe when the US were making their case for a war in Iraq. The protests were huge, over a million people marched in London and Paris, with 100k+ in Dublin. The numbers were repeated across every major European capital and town. The average joe in the street in Europe just didn't believe American contentions about the existance of WMD, or the alleged threat of Iraq being ready to strike in 45 minutes. Conversely in the US (at the time) the existance of WMD was never in doubt or even raised in the media, it was all about 'supporting our troops'. Europeans had a completely different perspective to Americans on the justification for war. Add to this the butchering at Fallujah, Abu Garib, torture at Guantamono, extraodrinary rendition, soldiers disrespecting dead bodies, the Wikileaks scandals and video of journalists being shot dead, drone strikes on civilians, death squads operating in Afghanistan, soldiers burning Korans etc, etc, the list of US war atrocities just goes on and on. To the average European on the street the US is a jingoistic war mongerer and the party most associated with starting wars is the Republican party.

Romney is extremely weak on foreign policy and came across as have little or no concept of all the different factions at play in the Middle East. During the debates he more or less declared nuclear war on Iran. On the one hand he was saying that the US should protect Israel at all costs and then in the same sentence he was advocating a policy that could lead to direct warfare from Arab states on Israel. The guy seems to have no clue about how attacking Iran would sit with the Saudis, Egyptians, Israelis, Jordanians, Lebanese, Turks or Syrians. Instead he just thought 'heh lets fire a nuclear weapon in there' and ask some questions later. For me at least it was like listening to George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld all over again.

Maybe that goes some way to explaining the discrepency betwwen Europe and the US. Europeans are not as willing to tolerate wars as the US public are, especially if the supposed enemy has more or less no ability to launch a military attack on European soil. There was huge anger at Bush and the unnecessary mess created in Iraq, to many Europeans Romney's jinjoism showed his intent to creating another unnecessary mess in Iran, therefore the calm of Obama was much more palatable.

Raphael

Jonny7 wrote: »

I understand but it still doesn't explain the discrepency..

Poll most places in the world (between only the two candidates) - Obama fiercely popular
Poll in the US (between the two candidates) - very 50/50 between Obama and Romney

Now I understand we see through the "foreign" filter, not so much domestic, but like I was saying, a candidate like Romney with his background, policies, demeanor, etc, etc would not enjoy that proportion of the vote in many other "first world" countries.

The Poll you posted the data from (presuming it's the BBC one, since the numbers look similar) isn't a perfect metric, though - on average, they only spoke to 1000 people per country, and so they put their margin of error at 2-3.7%, which is pretty damned high.

On top of that, there's huge "Meh"* vote in a lot of places - could be there's a correlation between caring a lot about what America is doing and democratic values, rather than the foreign filter

*by Meh vote I mean either, neither, no difference, other or dk/na (don;t know/no answer), since while all were accepted, none were prompted, so the distinctions are less valid.

joseph brand

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In short, Republicans would vote for Palin and Santorum because they're white.

G.K.

joseph brand wrote: »

In short, Republicans would vote for Palin and Santorum because they're white.

That's a ridiculous generalisation.

Nobody can deny that there are some (But nowhere near a significant portion) in the Repbulican voting bloc who voted on race, but the overwhelming majority of the 'ABO' group, as Permabear put it, voted on the grounds of policies that they wanted to do anything to avoid, such as Obama's economic policies, Obamacare or the extension of marriage.

Duck Soup

G.K. wrote: »

That's a ridiculous generalisation.

Nobody can deny that there are some (But nowhere near a significant portion) in the Repbulican voting bloc who voted on race, but the overwhelming majority of the 'ABO' group, as Permabear put it, voted on the grounds of policies that they wanted to do anything to avoid, such as Obama's economic policies, Obamacare or the extension of marriage.

I'd agree with you that the majority of voters for both candidates voted on policies, but there's a sizable chunk - maybe 20% - of voters who wouldn't vote for a black candidate if he was Jesus Christ returned to this earth. It's a highly regional issue - in 2008, Obama 'underperformed' amongst voters in the Deep South - Mississippi, Alabama etc. No real surprise there, I suppose.

And consider this. In 2011, 18% - pretty much 1 in 5 voters - said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon candidate. This rose to 25% amongst Democrat voters, which would suggest it was more a case of they wouldn't vote for that Mormon candidate.

The different cultural cross currents make it look complicated, but in a tight election, it's increasingly down to those mid-west battleground states. Race doesn't play such an important role there. Obama's success there was more due to (a) overperforming relative to the rest of the country amongst blue collar workers, thanks to his keeping the auto industry afloat, while Romney said they could go and shíte and (b) a persistent deficit amongst female voters.

If I were a Republican strategist, I'd be looking at the prospect of a Hillary candidacy and already be looking worried. She would carry the female vote; she'd do well in the South; she'd be remembered as part of the adminstration that kept the auto industry going in the mid-west.

And of course, Republicans do have a real problem with race. They lost African-American votes by the proverbial landslide, but also Latinos by 70-30 and Asian-Americans 75-25.

It was said that this was the last election you'd be able to win by consolidating the white vote. If it proved anything, it showed that moment has already passed.

What's going to kill the Republicans in the future is policies based on gender (cheerleading repealing Roe vs. Wade; personhood amendments; restricting access to birth control) and race (Papers, Please in Arizona; talk of 3,000 mile walls along the southern border). And even if they throw their hands up in the air and say innocently "What? Us?" about dogwhistle race ads, such as the Welfare/Workfare ads that Romney ran, minority voters know when they're being targetted.

What amazes me is that Republican strategists still run on Lee Atwater principles - you can do the race thing, you just gotta be more subtle about it. Minority voters these days can hear the dogwhistles even more clearly than the white voters they're aimed at. It's no use piling up white votes in the south where you were going to win anyway, when in 10 years Florida will be leaning distinctly Democrat, thanks to ethnic minority voters and in 20 years, even Texas might be doing the same.

Race is still a big part of this, but the issues are around policies and strategies not candidates. There's no use putting Marco Rubio forward if your party platform is still the same wish-list for a return to a white 1950s America you ran on the last time.