Voter turnout was 87 percent (unofficial so far) in Milwaukee.

[URL]http://fox6now.com/2012/11/07/2012-voter-turnout-70-of-voters-in-wi-87-of-voters-in-milwaukee/[/URL]

A little late, but here is a cool way to illustrate the path to victory or defeat:

[url]http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/scenarios[/url]

If the GOP had just been able to suppress its members' racist expressions (i.e., the "voter fraud" billboards in black neighborhoods, the disrespect of Obama during the State of the Union speech and when the Arizona governor jabbed her finger at Obama's face) instead of trying to suppress minority voting, Romney just might've had a chance of winning by not riling blacks so much.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/black-electorate-responds-mightily-to-perceived-voter-intimidation-efforts/2012/11/07/d7596304-2900-11e2-b4e0-346287b7e56c_story.html[/url]

[url]http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/11/aclu-files-lawsuit-over-proposition-35s-sex-offender-provisions.html[/url]
[QUOTE]Proposition 35, which passed with 81 percent of the vote Tuesday, enacts harsher penalties for persons convicted of crimes related to human trafficking....
But a less-noticed provision in the measure requires registered sex offenders to disclose to authorities aliases and service providers they use online.

American Civil Liberties Union.... and Electronic Frontier Foundation believe that unconstitutionally restricts the First Amendment rights of registered sex offenders in the states.[/QUOTE]
Discuss

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;317523][url]http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/11/aclu-files-lawsuit-over-proposition-35s-sex-offender-provisions.html[/url]

Discuss[/QUOTE]The California initiative process has long had structural problems. It is easily gamed by business interests, much as they did the time they put roughly seven competing auto insurance initiatives on the ballot. Initiatives are often poorly written and require court intervention for interpretation and limitation to legal or constitutional scope.

I like the concept of the initiative and strongly approve of its use. I just wish it was more resilient against abuses and did not create hazards beyond easy vox populi discussion.

This has been bothering me today:
[URL="http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_21932215/fppc-releases-names-donors-who-made-secret-11"]California political watchdog names secret $11 million campaign contributors, claims they were 'money laundering'[/URL]

I think it is fair to say that this election [I]did[/I] turn out to be about race.

The post-election Republican debate is is it "Too old, too white, too male?

According to CNN, Obama's share of the white vote dropped from 43% in 2008 to 39% in 2012. But, over the same period, the white vote percentage dropped from 74% to 72%.

Then you have the youth vote. The young, being much more libertarian, tend to not really see color (as it should be), and voted through a lens where skin color mattered about as much as hair color.

Then you have the women vote. Women, I have found (the hard way), don't like being told what to do. Especially with their bodies. Having a GOP Senate candidate Mourdock say that pregnancy from rape [is] "a gift from God", for example, definitely didn't play well.

Lastly, religion. The US of A is becoming much more secular as it matures and becomes more educated. It's fine to have one's own personal beliefs, but don't you dare try to make policy based upon things which cannot be argued.

The United States of America is a great nation, and a great people. I will agree with that.

But it is also a changing nation -- a changing people.

The Republican needs to figure this out.

Or they are going to be in the minority for quite some time.

I would agree that the Republicans need to move to the center. For a long time they were hijacked by Christian conservatives, then the Republicans hijacked the Tea Party. When the Tea Party was started I thought it was all about responsible spending as a way to reduce tax, but after a while it became "no new taxes under any circumstances".

[QUOTE=rogue;317582]When the Tea Party was started I thought it was all about responsible spending as a way to reduce tax, but after a while it became "no new taxes under any circumstances".[/QUOTE]

The word is intransigent: "Unwilling or refusing to change one's views or to agree about something."

Also often known as a "scorched earth" policy.

Hold your breaths everyone -- the gods are fighting....

[QUOTE=chalsall;317586]The word is intransigent: "Unwilling or refusing to change one's views or to agree about something."

Also often known as a "scorched earth" policy.

Hold your breaths everyone -- the gods are fighting....[/QUOTE]

I've heard that the Democrats are unwilling to close loopholes that business uses to lower their taxes, yet are very willing to raise the tax rate of those with incomes over $250K. Why won't they take on business?

[QUOTE=rogue;317587]I've heard that the Democrats are unwilling to close loopholes that business uses to lower their taxes, yet are very willing to raise the tax rate of those with incomes over $250K. Why won't they take on business?[/QUOTE]

Rather than "I've heard", do you have any hard evidence?

The thing I like about the MersenneForum is we tend to be a little more empirically oriented.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;317425]
The people we know want the party to become more conservative.
[/QUOTE]Perhaps you could ask those people to review Barry "Mr. Conservative" Goldwater's success against Lyndon Johnson in November 1964.