Comments on: The other demographic

By: stukinIL4now

stukinIL4now — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 16:57:44 +0000

What about the demographic of the silent 12 million? That’s how many fewer people voted in 2012 than voted in 2008. We know that 9 million of them may have wised up as they didn’t come out to vote for Obamuh this time. And then there are the 3 million fewer Republicans who didn’t turn out to vote for Romney. What do we make of them?

By: Blacksheep

Blacksheep — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 13:05:29 +0000

If you want to change this particular metric, it would seem to follow that you need to more effectively both communicate and demonstrate that you are implementing policies which will… (wait for it) .. produce fewer poor people.

True, but ... the Dems need the votes of "the little guy" or what is in their world "the middle class" (read: "the poor") in order to get their power. It follows, then, that the Dems need the poor to stay poor in order to keep their power, no? It therefore further follows that the policies of the Dems are intended to prevent what the author is suggesting. And empiric evidence seems to bear this out, as the richest people in the U.S. are not the church-going country club Republicans who make their money in business, but rather the Limousine Liberals feeding off the masses' tax dollars while laughing at their own downtrodden constituency. Dickens couldn't have constructed a more perverse social model.

By: Red Creek

Red Creek — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:10:53 +0000

Free Romneyphones, with constant stream of GOP text spamming.

By: simkeith

simkeith — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 04:05:22 +0000

Jazz, we just spent 5 trillion dollars that were supposed to help the poor people, and who did it help? Unions, government employees (I can’t say workers) and special interest groups, like Solyndra. Yet, the majority of the electorate voted for more free stuff. Communicating a conservative message no longer works on an electorate that has decided that “free stuff rules” and has no idea what the constitution stands for.

By: hawksruleva

hawksruleva — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 03:52:48 +0000

I think we should abandon the opposition to tax increases on the wealthy.

Sure, we’re RIGHT, but the rich don’t appreciate it, and it hurts us a lot.

We can always lower the taxes when we get back in power. The rich won’t be hurt that much, there are always tax shelters, foreign countries, etc. That battle isn’t worth fighting at this point. We need to start taking away 2016 ad messages.

By: tomas

tomas — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 03:07:03 +0000

We preach what we always have but we do it in every neighborhood. It might not work at first, but it is better than out of site out of mind. The message doesn’t need to change…just the show of effort and visibility.

By: deadite

deadite — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 02:54:23 +0000

I’ve decided that its time to follow up on the policies that produce fewer people. Give them all the abortions they want, all the birth control they want, and even give them sterilization if they want it. Lets make less poor people….

By: JEM

JEM — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 01:28:19 +0000

Well, wait…if you can convince the poor that you’re the right candidate for them, then isn’t it in your interest to make more poor people?

By: Mr. Prodigy

Mr. Prodigy — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 01:08:40 +0000

Agreed, Jazz. With all the layoffs happening, there are surely plenty of poor (or soon-to-be poor) people suffering as a direct result of That One’s policies. The argument is there–we just have to present it.

By: El_Terrible

El_Terrible — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 01:06:23 +0000

Make the 47% smaller, let the Bush tax rates expire.

By: Mimzey

Mimzey — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:52:21 +0000

OBAMAPHONE!!…

By: HoustonRight

HoustonRight — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:37:51 +0000

But if we just put billions more in education then everyone will be edumicated and understand dis stuff.

ya feel me?