Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

The 2012 Presidential Election


Free to Read. Word-Count: 1,306

More Info
									                  The 2012 Presidential Election
Barack Obama and the Democrats won the Presidential Election 51% to 48%
for the Republicans. (1% other). The left has the upper-hand concerning power
in the U.S. This could not be said when Bill Clinton’s Democrats won two
elections running. Although (obviously the right didn’t have the upper hand
then either). Clinton won from the centre ground so the ‘Centre’ had the upper
hand. And while Clinton would argue that he did a lot for those struggling
financially (e.g. tax credits comes to mind) he nevertheless drew support from
traditional Republican Party voters in order to top up the (arguably taken for
granted) left liberal Democrat votes. Clinton termed himself a “New Democrat”
and Clinton/Blair worked closely together. Of course, in the UK Blair referred
to “New Labour”. But now in America it seems that the left can win
Presidential elections without taking a slice of Republican support. Obama’s
coalition of support is characteristically leftist. (e.g. the young, the working class
poor whether black or white, African Americans, Hispanics, women, gays). The
former Republican Party Committee Chairman Michael Steele said that for the
first time ever America elected a President thanks to the voting support of a
coalition of minorities… and that this has substantial implications for the future
of U.S. politics. (Steele, BBC Parliament, 11th November 2012). Thus, no longer
can we say that the left need to move to the right to win elections. At least that
can’t be said in the U.S. And now it is being said again and again that in the U.S.
the political right must change or die. This is interesting. My mind cannot help
thinking that this will surely lead to an almighty split in the Republican Party. I
admit that at time of writing this, the vast majority of what I have read and
heard from the Republican side of the political spectrum, accepts this fact
concerning change or die. However, I am also fully aware that many
Republicans are very attached to Christianity… indeed that is the heart of the
problem. Therefore they won’t just give up their morals issues such as abortion
(God in the womb!), the Christian belief that marriage is between man and a
woman (hence gay rights is anathema to them), and also some Republicans
(from what I have seen in the past) hate the Democrats to an extreme and
irrational extent. If I am correct that it is irrational hatred… then reason will not
have any impact on those emotional Republicans. Yes, some Republicans will
change. Others will not change. Interestingly again, if the Republicans who
change drop the social conservatism and become liberal on social issues… then
they will become like North-Eastern state Republicans… i.e., fiscal/economic
Conservatives and Social liberals. (This would make them akin to the sort of
Republican you would expect to see in the state of New Hampshire). Moreover
it would, in effect, disenfranchise the Southern Bible Belt on the national scene.
However, about half of Republican Texans already want secession from the
other 49 states. (See
port_secession.html. They hate Washington D.C. Incidentally Washington D.C.
really is the opposite of Texas… in the 2008 Presidential Election 92% of
Washington D.C. voted for Obama and the Democrats. See
obama-has-done-little-them/ And in the following 2012 Presidential Election
92% of Washington population again voted for Obama and the Democrats. See
010303456.html Maybe recent election history will push the Texan Republican
support for secession above 50%.
The various states are nations unto themselves. Of course, New York
understands Washington and the North-East is united… so there’s
understanding of neighbouring states and of other modern states (and there is
understanding between the traditional religious states from the Southern
perspective). But a moment’s glance at the political map of the U.S. clearly
shows huge blocks of support for one party over a vast geographical distance,
for example the Southern Bible Belt for the Republicans and the North-East for
the Democrats. Indeed, the entire North-East voted for the Democrats without
In the 1950s the Democrat and Republican leaders would campaign in every
one of the 50 states. Now they only campaign in about 9 or 10 swing states. The
states have hardened in their political allegiance, not softened. Hence, while
there is a demographic trend towards the Democrats (in terms of various
groups voting for them), the Southern Republicans will find it hard to change if
they come from the bible-belt. Just imagine it… how is the Southern bible-belt
Republican going to win nomination in the primaries? The bible-belt state in
question would be far more likely to elect a true fundamentalist Christian. They
aren’t going to elect someone who may as well be running as a Democrat in
New York City. All of this means that we should be contemplating the
following… The Republicans want to change due to demographics, but many in
the Southern bible-belt cannot change because the religious states cannot
change… how could you win a primary if you give up the social conservatism in
a Republican voting southern state? Hence, I expect some Republicans to
change and some to drift away to the Tea Party while others remain unchanged.
Thus (if I am correct in my prediction) the Republicans will need to gain more
centrist Democrats than they lose religious Republicans. However the
Republicans will find a way to change to some extent. This is because they have
lost five out of the last six popular votes. Thus, in order to save the U.S. from
becoming a one-party Democrat nation the Republicans will inevitably befriend
the Hispanic demographic (because one in three Americans will be Hispanic in
the not-too-distant future.
Nationally the Traditional Republicans are outnumbered. As I have just said,
Hispanics are going to make up one third of the nation’s population soon. Talk
show host Bill O’ Reilly says “It’s not a traditional America anymore” (Quoted
on BBC News Website, 7 Nov 2012: Republicans must Change or Die, article
written by Jonny Dymond: The writer
of that article, Jonny Dymond, sums it up when he says “The challenge for the
Republicans now is simple: change or die. Because with or without you,
America is changing fast.”
However both of the following statements are true:
1) America’s demographics demonstrate that the Republicans have to change.
2) The large states are nations within themselves. Hence those states won’t and
can’t change.
Imagine it the other way around, i.e., Imagine if the liberals thought they had to
change! This would definitely include California because it is arguably the most
liberal state on earth! But you can see that it wouldn’t change if it had to. Well
the same applies to those states like Texas. The assumption that the traditional
and the religious sign up to modernity in the end… is true… but the movement
can span many decades before it happens… and it cannot be forced. And isn’t it
more likely that Texas will desire secession all the more now? You see, YES the
demographics are changing in the Democrats favour, but YES, the states are
hardened in their political voting patterns more than ever before. And that is
why the political leaders campaign in only 9 or 10 of them, as opposed to in all
of them as they did in the 50’s. Hence, it is absurd to refer to the UNITED
States of America other than institutionally. It is absurd because culturally
America is the most split nation out of all the familiar modern western nations.
Miami is like a different nation to Mississippi and Utah. Mississippi and Utah
are like different nations to New Hampshire and Vermont. Washington D.C.
and Texas are also foreign to one-another. And so on. My point is that these are
‘un-resolvable’ splits. In conclusion demographics decides who has the power.
It does not resolve the splits.

To top