The Goat Pen

Yes, I miss VolMIllion.

I get to say this sooooo infrequently, so I'll do it....


Tick Johnson is right!!lll

We are so fucked....

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-12-05.html

First Wife wrote:Any election analysis that doesn't deal with the implacable fact of America's changing demographics is bound to be wrong.

Perhaps the reason elections maven Michael Barone was so shockingly off in his election prediction this year was that, in the biggest mistake of his career, Barone has been assuring us for years that many of these Third World immigrants pouring into the country would go the way of Italian immigrants and become Republicans. They're hardworking! They have family values!

Maybe at first, but not after coming here, having illegitimate children and going on welfare.

Charles Murray recently pointed out that -- contrary to stereotype -- Hispanics are less likely to be married, less likely to go to church, more supportive of gay marriage and less likely to call themselves "conservative" than other Americans.

Rather than being more hardworking than Americans, Hispanics actually work about the same as others, or, in the case of Hispanic women, less.

It seems otherwise, Murray says, because the only Hispanics we see are the ones who are working -- in our homes, neighborhoods and businesses. "That's the way that almost all Anglos in the political chattering class come in contact with Latinos," he notes. "Of course they look like model Americans."

(Black males would apparently like to work more. Nearly 20 percent of black males under 30 voted for Romney, more than three times what McCain got.)

It wasn't Romney. It is Demographics. We are royal and truly fucked.

[youtube]J6_1Pw1xm9U[/youtube]

"We are royal and truly fucked."

That was true of you from the moment of conception...

When does IB actually get it?

When will the kid realize we are laughing at him?

It wasn't Romney. It is Demographics. We are royal and truly fucked.

In your passionate love affair with Romney, you and Coulter remain in a state of pitiful denial. At least Ann, the anorexic spinster, has an excuse for falling in love with a good looking rich guy, and therefore being blinded to his faults. You don't have the same biological excuse.

But here is the truth: Only a moderate plutocrat mannequin could lose an election to an incumbent with such horrible economic numbers.

IT WAS ROMNEY.

How many votes would a "true" conservative Republican have pulled from BHO? The answer, of course, is none

Nearly 20 percent of black males under 30 voted for Romney, more than three times what McCain got.

Possible, but I'm going to have to get some credible source before I believe this stat from Coulter.

Owlman wrote:

Nearly 20 percent of black males under 30 voted for Romney, more than three times what McCain got.

Possible, but I'm going to have to get some credible source before I believe this stat from Coulter.

Yeah....

...the thing is guys, she admitted in the first line of her column this week that she fucked up. She admitted that. She got all the numbers wrong on the voters below age 30. Romney lost the under 30s but he hung in with one subset. Ann had no idea that Romney did so well with "white" kids. She just assumed that Obama got the majority of every kid of every complexion. Wrong Ann. She also had no idea 20% of black males under 30 voted for Romney but I am guessing most of these are men who are (or soon will be) married.

Demographics has doomed the GOP. It has. It is not rich vs poor, just Demographics vs Demographics (married and widowed vs never married and divorced.) Less than half of this Demographics centers around skin complexion, the other, marriage. And really, this is mostly a marriage thing that crushes the GOP (far larger than half of the problem.) The more married you are, the more Republican you are regardless of skin complexion. The more married you are, the easier it is to escape poverty and to feel like you have the American Dream. And sadly, less and less of this country is married. If you are born into a solid nuclear family, albeit one that is just getting by, in all likelihood your dad and mom are going to have a much easier time instilling a sense of PRIDE (pride = do for yourself) in you than it would if you has JUST mom around and you running around the section-8 apartment saying "Where's Daddy?" That is the reason why so many minorities (who seem have much higher birthrates than whites, a frightenly high illegitimate birthrate) almost uniforming vote Democrat, they have sacrificed their pride for entitlement.

And divorce? Well I'll tell you many of the divorced people I've been counseling, much of their complaints on life center around "themselves" and how much it sucks to be them, that they weren't "lucky" enough to marry someone that could have given them the life that they thought THEY deserved. Again, with that sense of "entitlement." That is what drives people to vote the way they do.

As Rush said, it is almost impossible to outvote Santa Claus when the alternative is to be your own Santa Claus. There is more truth in that today then there has ever been. For people who have PRIDE it would be a false statement.

If our growing Hispanic population starts to get (and stay) married, (marry long before they start pushing out the puppies) then they will take the same pattern Italian Americans did, poverty in earlier generations to great wealth today. But I see absolutely no trend among Hispanics (none what-so-ever) that this will happen. In fact, I don't see marriage growing among ANY ethnic group, none. Marriage is fading away.... that is why the GOP is fading away....

....it is also why Romney got crushed.

Jungle Rat wrote:When does IB actually get it?

When will the kid realize we are laughing at him?

I am not sure you speak for everyone rat when you say "we." And if you did speak for everyone, please tell me you are not so foolish as to believe that I would ever give a damn that anyone laughs at me?

10ac wrote:How many votes would a "true" conservative Republican have pulled from BHO? The answer, of course, is none

Of course thats true.

I have to keep repeating this to the "...it is Romney's fault..." 5th columnists (you know who you are.) Who among the GOP hopefuls would have beaten President Obama in early November had it been them (and not Romney) with the nomination?

10ac wrote:How many votes would a "true" conservative Republican have pulled from BHO? The answer, of course, is none

A true conservative would have turned out the GOP conservative base, which Romney didn't. Romney drew no more than the same number of R voters than McCain did 2008, when the GOP was reeling from endless unpopular wars and general Bush fatigue. If the conservative base had turned out, like it did with enormous effect in the 2010 midterms, Willard would be president.

Did the "demographics" of America change so radically in between 2010 and 2012, like IB and Coulter would have us believe? I don't think so.

"
But here is the truth: Only a moderate plutocrat mannequin could lose an election to an incumbent with such horrible economic numbers."

Who do you think would've done better than Romney? Serial cheater Gingrich (who I do believe was the best politician and likely the most intelligent repub primary candidate, and for the record, I don't give a shit about his cheatin' heart, but it wasn't going to fly in the general election)? For the love of god, Rick Santorum, who is somewhere to the right of Goebbels? The guy who couldn't even remember what department of government he wanted to cut? Who? Ron Paul was the only real conservative the repubs had running (perhaps the only real one they've got, period), but you know he wasn't going to get major traction, even if people like me would've voted for him if he had been on the ballot. Seriously, what republican was going to beat Obama this year? Or more to the point, what repub was going to win Wisconsin and Ohio? Might've found one that would've won Virginia and Florida, but that still wouldn't have won the election without the other swing states in which Obama did very well. Seriously, who?

"she admitted in the first line of her column this week that she fucked up."

Has your mother admitted that she fucked up?

"just Demographics vs Demographics (married and widowed vs never married and divorced.)"

You're right, that massive "widowed" demographic is a killer...

"then they will take the same pattern Italian Americans did, poverty in earlier generations to great wealth today."

Wow, I guess you're getting pretty fired up for the 2112 election, eh?

hedge wrote:"
But here is the truth: Only a moderate plutocrat mannequin could lose an election to an incumbent with such horrible economic numbers."

Who do you think would've done better than Romney? Serial cheater Gingrich (who I do believe was the best politician and likely the most intelligent repub primary candidate, and for the record, I don't give a shit about his cheatin' heart, but it wasn't going to fly in the general election)? For the love of god, Rick Santorum, who is somewhere to the right of Goebbels? The guy who couldn't even remember what department of government he wanted to cut?

Texas Gov Rick Perry. Some would have said he was the GOP favorite before he actually opened his mouth.

hedge wrote:Who? Ron Paul was the only real conservative the repubs had running (perhaps the only real one they've got, period), but you know he wasn't going to get major traction, even if people like me would've voted for him if he had been on the ballot.

ROn Paul is not Presidential (neither is President Obama, but that is a whole different discussion.) A Ron Paul Presidential nomination from the GOP, and cut the 60,000,000+ votes Romney got about in half...

hedge wrote:Seriously, what republican was going to beat Obama this year? Or more to the point, what repub was going to win Wisconsin and Ohio? Might've found one that would've won Virginia and Florida, but that still wouldn't have won the election without the other swing states in which Obama did very well. Seriously, who?

That was my whole point to Tiger (and well everyone here.) On this point I agree with Hedge, if not Romney, then NO GOP candidate would have beaten President Obama. And it didn't matter how good or bad a job the President did in his first term, Demographics saw to his re-election.

hedge wrote:"just Demographics vs Demographics (married and widowed vs never married and divorced.)"

You're right, that massive "widowed" demographic is a killer...

Actually Hedge, widows and widowers almost (100%) vote GOP, the longer the marriage, the more certain they are to be Republican. They already have access to real wealth (all the wealth their spouses accumulated and earned in life, left to their widows/widowers.) They HAD access to the mainstream of society, HAD a wonderful marriage until death took their spouses. They have NO BITCH with government about that, that is just God calling you home when you number is up, simple as that. So of course, they aren't looking for entitlement granted by Democrats.

It is not that it is a killer Demographic. It is just that (Demographically) they are Republican because they are left money from the death of their spouses.

hedge wrote:"then they will take the same pattern Italian Americans did, poverty in earlier generations to great wealth today."

Wow, I guess you're getting pretty fired up for the 2112 election, eh?

No. No I'm not Hedge. Italians in this country were focused on marriage, hard work (working 2 or 3 jobs if they could) and large families with children born in marrital wedlock. That stability (strongly guided by the Catholic Church) put them on the course towards investing in the future of their children and grand-children such that they would have access to a more affluent lifestyle than their parents did. I see nothing in the Hispanic culture that resembles that, not with the Catholic Church refusing the "shame" Hispanics they way they did Italians just 100 years earlier and (worse) this horseshit American cultural belief in the "mosaic" being valued more than the original "melting pot."

I'm not fired up at all about the future prospects of this nation and this planet. For the most part, Great Britain was a civil, humane, world's policeman for the 400 years they had the job, the United States has been the same since WWII. I don't see ANY nation taking over when we abdicate that role and that will throw the planet into a nightmare far worse than what the world witnessed from 1931 to August of 1945.