I have listened to a lot of people today in my office building and on facebook plus listened to talk radio this morning. The reasons I have heard on why Romney lost are varied.
I have heard it was the liberal media, Hurricane sandy, black people won't vote for white people, Obama was Santa Claus, the guy wasn't a real Christian, and Americans are idiots. Other reasons found on the internets included that Romney wasn't conservative enough on abortion and same sex marriage, Paul Ryan couldn't win his home state, and Chris Christy hugged Obama a little too hard. I am sure there are many more.
I disagree with all these. Romney cost Romney the election. Obama was clearly beatable and Romney outspent all his primary rivals to win the nomination. He then talked about tax breaks while refusing to release his own taxes. He railed against ObamaCare while never discussing his almost identical RomneyCare. In the last debate, he simply agreed with everything Obama said.
I believe Rick Santorum would have energized the church-goers enough to contrast Obama. I believe that Gary Johnson would have been such a different candidate from the norm that Americans would have liked him enough to win. I even think a fired up Marco Rubio would have beaten Obama for the non-white votes.
This is all Romney. The republicans let him win the primaries full knowing that the big issues of the day he was of no real contrast to Obama.
Next time, nominate a better candidate when you want to win.
(http://beijingcream.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Durex-condom-ad.jpg)
^^^LOL^^^
I did
I blame the party as well.
"You're too crazy" v "You're not crazy enough"
I wanted Herman. Perhaps someday we will get a candidate focused on simplifying things instead of growing them. Perhaps it is too late for that. Almost half the country are now "wards of the state." It would probably take a miracle to change that.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8192/8141378399_941fae5a76.jpg)
Romney lost because of the Republican party. The Republican party is out of touch and lacks the instruments to survive. They are too bound by their religious elements that have infiltrated their ranks and made them unable to visualize the weakness that offers them in a modern world. Perhaps it is fitting that Wisconsin was one of the states that dealt the final blow. The roots of the party are believed to have been born there, liberal capitalists who bonded together to fight slavery. The party of Lincoln, the party of Reagan, and what used to be the party of freedom is no longer recognizable.
Party aside, I think Romney would have made a good president. I doubt he would spend 5 months of his presidency on the golf course, or kill over 1,100 people with non-military secret drone attacks. I doubt he would form endless committees and commissions to pacify the people then choose to never meet with them or discount their advice. I don't think he would need to appoint a "Secretary of Business" or a Pay Czar. I doubt he would attempt to force executive orders or legislation before presenting it to the public or letting congress read it.
He would have obstacles though. he would have taken office with a higher total number of unemployed than President Obama, and energy costs almost 150% higher, but I doubt he would spend 4 years blaming his predecessor.
A president like Romney would probably do horribly mean things like require work for welfare, and input for output in unemployment. He probably wouldn't give nearly as many speeches. Probably wouldn't push stimulus funds then invest tax payer money in ridiculous programs to reward his donors. He would not have much time for Jay-Z, Clooney, or Beyonce. Letterman, Ellen, and Jon Stewart would have a difficult time booking him. He'd probably be interested in finding out what happened in Benghazi. He'd meet with our closest allies and present a strong character to our enemies. He wouldn't give anyone a thrill up their leg. He would probably waste a bunch of time attending those stupid national security meetings. His boring wive Ann has probably always been proud of her country. He'd make Big Bird and Chris Wallas pay for their own lunch, and stop funding $100K electric sports cars made in Finland with tax payer money.
Who knows. Romney could have turned out to be a horrible president and done all of those things.
I blame the extremists within the Republican party who are utterly convinced that there's a silent majority behind them when in reality the crickets are chirping because there's nobody else around.
Quote from: nathanm on November 07, 2012, 03:45:18 PM
I blame the extremists within the Republican party who are utterly convinced that there's a silent majority behind them when in reality the crickets are chirping because there's nobody else around.
Oh man, me too.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 07, 2012, 03:42:34 PM
Romney could have turned out to be a horrible president.
Happily, we will not know.
Moments Leading Up To Romney's Concession Most Likely Hilarious(http://o.onionstatic.com/images/18/18693/16x9/635.jpg?3043)
http://tinyurl.com/9wzna4d (http://tinyurl.com/9wzna4d)
QuoteBOSTON—Sources are confirming that the moments leading up to Mitt Romney's concession speech last night—from the expression on his face the second he realized he was going to lose, to the brief sigh he probably let out before walking onstage—were all more than likely pretty hilarious. "I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but it's kind of funny to imagine a 65-year-old man watching television, desperately hoping for something to go his way, learning it's not going to happen, and then just sitting there face forward while the rest of the room goes silent around him," Ohio resident Bret Foss told reporters, adding that the thought of a campaign aide putting his hand on Romney's shoulder and solemnly telling the former governor that it was all over just makes him laugh for some reason. "Maybe it's because the stakes were so high, but something about Mitt Romney hurriedly cobbling together a concession speech with one of his writers and then standing backstage all by himself as he waits for his cue to go on really cracks me up." Foss added that while it may make him sick in the head, he chuckles every time he thinks about the intense private moment Romney and his wife probably shared before he officially called the president to concede.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 07, 2012, 03:42:34 PM
I wanted Herman. Perhaps someday we will get a candidate focused on simplifying things instead of growing them. Perhaps it is too late for that. Almost half the country are now "wards of the state." It would probably take a miracle to change that.
How is that you get so enamored of economic plans that fail basic math tests? But then your math on the election was pretty far off too.
And it is simply an ugly lie that half the country are wards of the state. The election is over, please stop with the political bullsh!t.
When you break it down by race and gender BamBam lost White Men and White Women who make up 4 times the electorate compared to Blacks and Latinos. But Blacks and Latinos came out MASSIVELY for Obama. Obama won Women by %11 but lost White Women by %14. Black and Latino Women did it for him MASSIVELY! Same with Age and Race. BAMBAM lost the White vote in all age groups who make up a majority part of the electorate. "Minority" voters turned out BIG for POTUS OBAMA in all age groups.
Hispanics produce an average of 5 children per family.... math again.
Yesterday was the last hurrah for white voters in America....new day dawning.
Has anyone gotten a fix on what independents were saying in the exit polls?
I suspect those who voted for Obama may have looked at how long it took FDR to turn the economy around (WWII helped immensely) looked at how much time Obama has had to turn it around and figured it was worth giving him four more years to work on it. I also believe many simply didn't identify with a wealthy oligarch or mis-trusted him.
One thing the Obama campaign did successfully is echoed in Obama's own words: "If you have no record to run on you make your opponent out as someone to run from."
They were very creative in this regard: A baseless whisper campaign that Romney was a felon and tax cheat, foreign bank accounts, disinformation on Mormonism, a supposed ethics violation by profiting from the auto bail-out (again a felon), misinformation on how PE and VC firms operate and Romney's role in Bain Capital, he was running for president to protect his tax rate and deductions, a supposed war on women, etc.
I also believe Democrat voters are better able to separate their political and religious views. Gay marriage and abortion don't seem to have affected votes from Hispanics, blacks, or Catholics who have more traditional views on those issues.
Well played.
QuoteBOSTON—Sources are confirming that the moments leading up to Mitt Romney's concession speech last night—from the expression on his face the second he realized he was going to lose, to the brief sigh he probably let out before walking onstage—were all more than likely pretty hilarious. "I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but it's kind of funny to imagine a 65-year-old man watching television, desperately hoping for something to go his way, learning it's not going to happen, and then just sitting there face forward while the rest of the room goes silent around him," Ohio resident Bret Foss told reporters, adding that the thought of a campaign aide putting his hand on Romney's shoulder and solemnly telling the former governor that it was all over just makes him laugh for some reason. "Maybe it's because the stakes were so high, but something about Mitt Romney hurriedly cobbling together a concession speech with one of his writers and then standing backstage all by himself as he waits for his cue to go on really cracks me up." Foss added that while it may make him sick in the head, he chuckles every time he thinks about the intense private moment Romney and his wife probably shared before he officially called the president to concede.
Wow, that's some really funny stuff right there. Just about pissed myself.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2012, 04:25:28 PM
A baseless whisper campaign that Romney was a felon and tax cheat, foreign bank accounts,
Baseless?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2012, 04:25:28 PM
how long it took FDR to turn the economy around (WWII helped immensely)
He was well into his third term by the time WWII started.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2012, 04:29:16 PM
Wow, that's some really funny stuff right there. Just about pissed myself.
Eh, maybe you have to be relieved the people pushing for him lost.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 07, 2012, 03:42:34 PM
I wanted Herman. Perhaps someday we will get a candidate focused on simplifying things instead of growing them. Perhaps it is too late for that. Almost half the country are now "wards of the state." It would probably take a miracle to change that.
Romney lost because of the Republican party. The Republican party is out of touch and lacks the instruments to survive. They are too bound by their religious elements that have infiltrated their ranks and made them unable to visualize the weakness that offers them in a modern world. Perhaps it is fitting that Wisconsin was one of the states that dealt the final blow. The roots of the party are believed to have been born there, liberal capitalists who bonded together to fight slavery. The party of Lincoln, the party of Reagan, and what used to be the party of freedom is no longer recognizable.
Party aside, I think Romney would have made a good president. I doubt he would spend 5 months of his presidency on the golf course, or kill over 1,100 people with non-military secret drone attacks. I doubt he would form endless committees and commissions to pacify the people then choose to never meet with them or discount their advice. I don't think he would need to appoint a "Secretary of Business" or a Pay Czar. I doubt he would attempt to force executive orders or legislation before presenting it to the public or letting congress read it.
He would have obstacles though. he would have taken office with a higher total number of unemployed than President Obama, and energy costs almost 150% higher, but I doubt he would spend 4 years blaming his predecessor.
A president like Romney would probably do horribly mean things like require work for welfare, and input for output in unemployment. He probably wouldn't give nearly as many speeches. Probably wouldn't push stimulus funds then invest tax payer money in ridiculous programs to reward his donors. He would not have much time for Jay-Z, Clooney, or Beyonce. Letterman, Ellen, and Jon Stewart would have a difficult time booking him. He'd probably be interested in finding out what happened in Benghazi. He'd meet with our closest allies and present a strong character to our enemies. He wouldn't give anyone a thrill up their leg. He would probably waste a bunch of time attending those stupid national security meetings. His boring wive Ann has probably always been proud of her country. He'd make Big Bird and Chris Wallas pay for their own lunch, and stop funding $100K electric sports cars made in Finland with tax payer money.
Who knows. Romney could have turned out to be a horrible president and done all of those things.
Herman couldn't cut it either. Only more so. Is that 'half the country -wards of the state' the ones on Social Security after spending long careers supporting this country and economy and paying for that annuity? Or the military ones who are out there defending us? Or maybe it's the people at Walmart working for sub-par wages and no benefits to let you buy Chinese goods - since Romney was so good as to ship all those jobs to them - at low prices?
The party is out of touch - it was hijacked decades ago. And Romney was the latest 'sellout' to that whacko nonsense - he chose Ryan, presumably voluntarily. Like McCain chose whoever that quitter ex-governor of Alaska was. The real Republican party was the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower. Reagan hoped to be the "great hijacker", but he really didn't think big enough along those lines, so we have the Ryan types. And the party of Lincoln let slavery remain intact everywhere outside the rebellious states for another two years, so that enlightened action may not actually have been their highest priority after all. Can you spell political expediency? If they were really focused on elimination of slavery as the highest goal, why not make it across the entire country instead of leaving that abomination for two more years?
Hard to say if he would kill 1,100 with drones. But we do know for a fact that Bush's adventure killed over 600,000 civilians in Iraq. But you have expressed equal indignation to that haven't you? But there is no reason to think that innocent men, women and children would die by the tens or hundreds of thousands pursuing a little imperialistic voyeurism in Iran....
Or he could have had the record of all time (here) gas prices like existed in 2008 - coming back to still higher than today's levels just in time for that election.
He would not have had to dig his way out of a hole that was putting 800,000 per month out of work, since there has been a 1 million per month swing in the positive direction since then. He was claiming 12 million new jobs over 4 years - which sounds great until you look at the reality - then it becomes just modest growth. Just modestly larger than what we have now. And as housing continues to grow, like it has for the last 18 months or so, that 12 million will probably look like not much of a promise at all. Exactly what we have come to expect from the Murdochians.
A president like Romney would probably do horribly mean things like require work for welfare, and input for output in unemployment - or at least give his richest buddies ANOTHER $5 trillion in corporate and personal welfare through his tax reduction plan. But wait - he couldn't require work for welfare - that would alienate his base, even with all the tax cuts.
Probably wouldn't push stimulus funds then invest tax payer money in ridiculous programs to reward his donors - unless of course, Halliburton asked him REALLY nice to give them $60 billion in no-bid contracts.
He'd probably be interested in finding out what happened in Benghazi - by looking at the CIA reports and videos showing how they actually responded in 25 minutes. And then wait until he had a reasonably reliable idea of what actually happened rather than jumping out 15 minutes after the first news reports and blasting the activities with no real clue about what he was talking about. Oh, wait....
He'd meet with our closest allies and present a strong character to our enemies - and would NEVER insult our single best ally in the world with cheesy snarky BS about their Olympics event. No, he wouldn't do that....
He wouldn't give anyone a thrill up their leg - and under NO circumstances would he ever give a back rub to the head of state of one of our other biggest allies.
He would probably waste a bunch of time attending those stupid national security meetings. His boring wive Ann has probably always been proud of her country - and only buys and supports all those companies to send jobs to China, because she and he believe in compassion for needy people and feel that work for welfare wage levels is the best incarnation of that philosophy they can think of. And it didn't hurt that they can get a couple hundred million dollars in the process.
He'd make Big Bird and Chris
Wallas Wallace pay for their own lunch, and stop funding $100K electric sports cars made in Finland with tax payer money - not when there are trillions to spend on unfunded wars, next stop Iran!! Not to mention all the nukes that need many billions of funding with tax payer money, for an industry that is supposed to be the poster child of a great energy solution. One that cannot stand on its own without massive injections of billions of corporate welfare.
Who knows. Romney could have turned out to be a horrible president and done all of those things. Probably would have...since that is what he said he would do, or has actually done in the past.
Those Pesky Urban Votershttp://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/11/13/those_pesky_urban_voters.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/11/13/those_pesky_urban_voters.html)
QuotePaul Ryan's "how I screwed this up" tour begins with the ol' "too many liberal urbanites voted" chestnut.
"I think the surprise was some of the turnout, some of the turnout especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race," said Ryan to local station WISC-TV in his first post-election interview. "When we watched Virginia and Ohio coming in, and those ones coming in as tight as they were, and looking like we were going to lose them, that's when it became clear we weren't going to win."
This has engendered the expected shock-and-sputter over Ryan's dismissiveness. The highlight of the genre, clearly, is a New York Times story that cites "one person on Twitter" and "another" to show that Ryanrage is growing.
I'd argue that Ryan's position is fairly savvy, given what else is out there. A rumor du jour on the right (which I plan to get into as soon as our national Petraeus nightmare winds down) is that the lack of Romney votes in some Philadelphia and Cleveland precincts suggest that there was ELECTION FRAUD. There is, however, plenty of precedent for inner-city precincts voting heavily Democratic. Most of the precincts in question gave a similarly non-existent number of votes to John McCain in 2008. McCain didn't really campaign in those cities, ceding the black vote to Barack Obama.
No, I think Ryan's next statement is more revealing.
"I don't think we lost it on those budget issues, especially on Medicare — we clearly didn't lose it on those issues," he said.
Ryan spent weeks promising to "win this debate" over Medicare, so he can't say he lost it. But what he's implying here is that voters, for other reasons, simply didn't consider the wisdom of the big arguments. And that's sort of the argument Republicans make about urban voters -- they vote so reflexively Democratic, they're hardly responsive to policy debates.
Ryan's solution to this problem seems to be backing Tom Price over Cathy McMorris-Rodgers for the fourth-ranking role in the GOP conference, which would make it an all-white male leadership team again.
Top Republicans say Romney didn't offer specificshttp://news.yahoo.com/top-republicans-romney-didnt-offer-specifics-080833236--election.html (http://news.yahoo.com/top-republicans-romney-didnt-offer-specifics-080833236--election.html)
QuoteLAS VEGAS (AP) — Top Republicans meeting for the first time since Election Day say the party lost its bid to unseat President Barack Obama because nominee Mitt Romney did not respond to criticism strongly enough or outline a specific agenda with a broad appeal.
In conversations at the Republican Governors Association confab in Las Vegas, a half dozen party leaders predicted the GOP will lose again if it keeps running the same playbook based on platitudes in place of detailed policies. Instead, they asserted, the party needs to learn the lessons from its loss, respect voters' savvy and put forward an agenda that appeals beyond the while, male voters who are its base.
"We need to acknowledge the fact that we got beat," Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said in an interview. "We clearly got beat and we need to recognize that."
Little more than a week after Romney came up short in his presidential bid, the party elders were looking at his errors and peering ahead to 2016's race. Some of the contenders eying a White House run of their own were on hand and quietly considering their chances. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie scheduled a private meeting on the sidelines with Haley Barbour, the former Mississippi governor who is widely seen as one of the GOP's sharpest political operatives.
"We need to have a brutal, brutally honest assessment of everything we did," Barbour said. "We need to take everything apart ... and determine what we did that worked and what we did that didn't work."
Other potential White House contenders such as Jindal, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker were outlining a vision for the party in coming elections.
"We need to figure out what we did right and what we did wrong, how we can improve our tone, our message, our technology, our turnout — all the things that are required to win elections," McDonnell said. "We are disappointed, but we are not discouraged."
With polls in hand and shifting demographic trends in mind, these Republicans are looking at how best to position the party to make inroads with growing numbers of Hispanic, black and young voters who overwhelmingly voted Democratic last week. The Republicans were still smarting over constant criticism of Romney from Obama and Vice President Joe Biden — and what they saw as Romney's often ineffective response.
"They spent all their time making Mitt Romney unacceptable and making him out to be someone who was untrustworthy and unacceptable to enough of the American people — and it worked," Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad said in an interview.
In the hallways at the conference, the governors and their top advisers uniformly blamed Romney's loss on an uneven communications strategy. They said Romney allowed himself to be branded a corporate raider who put the interests of the wealthy above those of middle-income voters.
"We didn't have effective means by which to counter the attacks the Obama-Biden campaign took against Mitt Romney and his team," Walker said. "I just don't think you can let that go unanswered."
Time and again, the governors pointed to Obama attacks that settled into voters' minds.
"His whole campaign was a fear-and-smear attack to make Romney unacceptable and to blame George Bush for anything that happened while Obama was president," Barbour said. "This was all personal: that Romney is a vulture capitalist who doesn't care about people like you, ships jobs overseas, is a quintessential plutocrat and is married to a known equestrian."
Barbour added, "An attack unanswered is an attack admitted to."
Had the criticism been shown to be false or unfair, the results might have been better, said Bill Bennett, an education secretary in the Reagan administration and an informal adviser to governors.
"We were in a big fight. We came with a knife; they came with a gun," Bennett said. "If Mitt Romney had responded and had we responded on his behalf — and had his campaign pushed back more forcefully — I think it would have been a different result."
Jindal, however, attributed Romney's loss to a lack of "a specific vision that connected with the American people."
"His campaign was largely about his biography and his experience," Jindal said. "But time and time again, biography and experience is not enough to win an election. You have to have a vision, you have to connect your policies to the aspirations of the American people. I don't think the campaign did that and as a result, this became a contest between personalities and — you know what? — Chicago won that."
Romney cast his loss in a different light, at least in a phone call with top donors Wednesday. He asserted that Obama won re-election because of the "gifts" the president had already provided to blacks, Hispanics and young voters and because of the president's effort to paint Romney as anti-immigrant.
"The president's campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift," Romney said, citing immigration proposals aimed at Hispanics and free contraception coverage that appealed to young women. "He made a big effort on small things."
Romney said his campaign, in contrast, had been about "big issues for the whole country." He said he faced problems as a candidate because he was "getting beat up" by the Obama campaign and said the debates allowed him to come back.
The Republican nominee didn't acknowledge any major missteps and said his team had run a superb campaign.
So there you go. They've got it all figured out.
I remember him counting his 5 fingers and having a point that corelated to each one.
NObamaCare day one
bad China, bad!
Repeal R-v-W
something
something
Quote from: Townsend on November 15, 2012, 09:23:43 AM
Top Republicans say Romney didn't offer specifics
http://news.yahoo.com/top-republicans-romney-didnt-offer-specifics-080833236--election.html (http://news.yahoo.com/top-republicans-romney-didnt-offer-specifics-080833236--election.html)
So there you go. They've got it all figured out.
Hindsight. It's a grumble.
The Real RomneyAnother secret recording shows what Romney really thinks about minorities, birth control, and public assistance.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/11/romney_gifts_and_the_47_percent_what_he_really_thinks_about_blacks_hispanics.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/11/romney_gifts_and_the_47_percent_what_he_really_thinks_about_blacks_hispanics.html)
QuoteSix months ago at a high-dollar fundraising dinner, Mitt Romney was secretly recorded as he criticized the "47 percent" of Americans "who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it." Romney told his donors: "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
When the recording surfaced, Romney insisted he hadn't meant what he said. "Over the last several years, you've seen greater and greater divisiveness in this country," he told Latinos at a Univision forum on Sept. 19. "My campaign is about the 100 percent in America. ... More people have fallen into poverty. More people, we just learned, have had to go onto food stamps. ... This campaign is about helping people who need help, and right now, the people who are poor in this country need help getting out of poverty."
On Oct. 4, fresh from his makeover in the first debate, Romney went on Sean Hannity's Fox News show and assured viewers that the 47 percent video was just a moment of clumsiness:
In a campaign with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you're going to say something that doesn't come out right. In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong. And I absolutely believe, however, that my life has shown that I care about the 100 percent ... The rich in this country are actually doing better under President Obama. The gap between the rich and the poor has gotten larger. ... I want the poor to get into the middle class.
For the rest of the campaign, that was Romney's story. The candidate in the video, telling his donors that half of all Americans were unsalvageable freeloaders, was an artificial blip. The real Romney was the nice man on TV who yearned to help his countrymen.
But now we have a second recording. It documents another conversation between Romney and his wealthiest contributors. This conversation isn't six months, six weeks, or even six days old. It happened yesterday, on a conference call with Romney's finance committee. The recording bears an uncanny resemblance to the 47 percent video. It strongly suggests that the Romney in the video is the real thing, and the Romney on TV is a fraud.
According to transcriptions, notes, and partial audio of the call, Romney told his contributors that Obama's strategy was to "focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government, and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote." These gifts, Romney lamented, "add up to trillions of dollars" and were delivered to "targeted groups," "especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people":
With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift. Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because, as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents' plan, and that was a big gift to young people.
In comments reportedly related to blacks and other minorities, Romney observed:
You can imagine, for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you're now going to get free health care, particularly if you don't have it—getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity—I mean, this is huge. Likewise, with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition, with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.
When you read these quotes and listen to the audio, three patterns sink in. First, everything Romney says on the conference call is the opposite of what he said in the debates. In the debates, Romney pledged to "make it easier for kids to afford college" and bragged that as governor, he had given students "four years tuition free to the college of your choice." On the call, he depicts college loan assistance as a bribe. In the debates, Romney labeled Obamacare a big-government mandate that would force everyone to buy a product, would cost 20 million people their health insurance, and would raise every family's premiums by $2,500 a year. On the call, he describes Obamacare as "free health care" worth $10,000 per family. In the debates, Romney claimed that "under my plan ... young people are able to stay on their family plan." On the call, he brushes off this idea as a "gift" used by Obama to buy votes. In the debates, Romney said "every woman in America should have access to contraceptives." On the call, he caricatures Obama's policy—that insurance plans must cover birth control for the premium payer—as "free contraceptives" for young women.
Second, the Romney on the call matches the Romney in the 47 percent video. In the same resigned tone, he speaks of scores of millions of Americans hooked on free health care and other benefits. But this time, he itemizes the constituencies and reports that they've paid back their benefactor with their votes, just as he predicted.
Third, the call belies everything Romney said in his attempts to clean up the 47 percent video. At the Sept. 19 Univision forum, Romney said the country was too divided, and he proclaimed his commitment to the poor. On the call, he depicts blacks, Latinos, and young women as interest groups bought off by handouts and amnesty. At the Univision forum, Romney framed food stamps as something unemployed people "had to go onto." On the call, he casts public assistance as "extraordinary financial gifts" eagerly seized in exchange for votes. In the Oct. 4 Hannity interview, Romney excused his 47 percent riff as a one-time verbal flub "in a campaign with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions." On the call, at length, he repeats it.
Don't bother trying to explain yourself, Mitt. The 47 percent of us who gave you a pass the first time won't make that mistake again. We can tell you're being candid. Just not with us.
Heh. The ones who Obama gave the biggest financial gifts to donated an awful lot of money to his opponent. Strange, that.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2012, 04:25:28 PM
I suspect those who voted for Obama may have looked at how long it took FDR to turn the economy around (WWII helped immensely) looked at how much time Obama has had to turn it around and figured it was worth giving him four more years to work on it. I also believe many simply didn't identify with a wealthy oligarch or mis-trusted him.
The second graph here on unemployment is interesting. These are in great part estimates, but based on models of economic activity, may well be pretty close. The important thing here is how during Hoover's last 2 years - as with Bush's last 2 years, the trend was straight up. Only after someone who at least gave lip service to caring, if not the actual feeling, did anything start to change. Both of these events - 30's and 2007 - were both pretty much world wide phenomenon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
Now Republicans are starting to distance themselves from Romney.
Maybe they should vet the candidate a little more next time.
"How much video of you is there?"
I read a piece last night or this morning saying that Romney actually won those coveted independents, but what truly cost him in demographics were women, youth, and minorities. Besides that, his campaign didn't believe that the Obama campaign could get out the vote in similar numbers to 2008. That was a fatal error. They thought the neighborhood offices in Ohio were a wasted effort, yet the personal contacts formed by those offices were essential in getting voters to the polls. Finally, the Romney people had a much-touted computer app that was supposed to identify potential voters so that campaign workers could contact them on election day. It was never tested prior to that Tuesday and failed miserably.
So the Romney campaign made a series of bad assumptions, any one of which may have been recoverable, but in aggregate were insurmountable. The technology problems can be readily fixed, but the Republican's problems with women and minorities require policy changes. Without those changes, the party will be a regional force at best, unable to regain the presidency.
Quote from: Ed W on November 15, 2012, 08:42:47 PM
I read a piece last night or this morning saying that Romney actually won those coveted independents, but what truly cost him in demographics were women, youth, and minorities. Besides that, his campaign didn't believe that the Obama campaign could get out the vote in similar numbers to 2008. That was a fatal error. They thought the neighborhood offices in Ohio were a wasted effort, yet the personal contacts formed by those offices were essential in getting voters to the polls. Finally, the Romney people had a much-touted computer app that was supposed to identify potential voters so that campaign workers could contact them on election day. It was never tested prior to that Tuesday and failed miserably.
So the Romney campaign made a series of bad assumptions, any one of which may have been recoverable, but in aggregate were insurmountable. The technology problems can be readily fixed, but the Republican's problems with women and minorities require policy changes. Without those changes, the party will be a regional force at best, unable to regain the presidency.
Bobby Jindal seems to be taking the offense on that issue.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bobby-jindal-takes-on-gop-on-cnn-we-dont-win-elections-by-insulting-voters/
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal spoke out about Mitt Romney's "gifts" remarks recently, calling them "absolutely wrong." Later this afternoon, he paid a visit to CNN's Wolf Blitzer to further discuss his criticism — and offer his insight on the direction the GOP should be taking. The party's approach should be an inclusive one, he said, not about "insulting" people.
"This is completely unhelpful," Jindal said. "This is not where the Republican Party needs to go."
He went on to offer some basic advice: "If you want voters to like you, the first thing you've got to do is to like them first. And it's certainly not helpful to tell voters that you think their votes were bought. That's certainly not a way to show them you respect them, you like them."
"We need to stop talking down to voters," Jindal said. "As a Republican party, we need to fight for 100 percent of the electorate. Not 53 percent, not 52 percent, but 100 percent. We've got to stop trying to divide people into different groups by race, by gender, by class. Instead, we've got to show them that our conservative principles will help them pursue the American dream."
Simply put: "We don't win elections by insulting voters."
Nope, not a policy problem at all, just undisciplined messaging.
This reminds me of many in the media....and many on here. ;D
Been gone for a while but I guess here's my take on the whole election:
Romney lost in a nutshell because he wasn't as "cool" as Obama. I'm sure there are dozens of other reasons, but none more significant in my opinion than the cool factor. Like it or not Hollywood has a stranglehold on a huge swath of the population in America and Tinseltown was decidedly in Obama's camp.
Watching the news in the days following was surreal. Pundit after pundit claiming that the Republican party needs to be more like the Democrat party. Well, I can tell you what the outcome of that strategy would be and it would not involve Republicans ever winning another election. The criticism of Romney for being too right wing was laughable considering his history. The only thing about Romney that was too "right wing" was that he worked for a PE firm and was really rich (just kidding, but I can't think of anything else).
Team Obama was able to dictate the conversation by always attacking Romney. A strategy that I wish Romney might have employed more of. I can't believe how congenial the last two Republican presidential candidates have been, and what has it got them? All this rhetoric about campaign's needing to be above board is just that, rhetoric. I'm ready to concede that it doesn't work.
And within minutes of the loss, I was already hearing Bush (Jeb) and Christy for 2016. Seriously? Personally, while he doesn't have the resources or notoriety, the Democrats worst nightmare in 2016 would be our someone like our vary own Senator Coburn. I am always amazed at how mutually respected the guy is in this state, even by the hard lefties. The guy means what he says, and says what he means. And he doesn't give a rat's arse about all this other insignificant crap.
Just my two cents.
Quote from: erfalf on November 19, 2012, 02:58:15 PM
Been gone for a while but I guess here's my take on the whole election:
Romney lost in a nutshell because he wasn't as "cool" as Obama. I'm sure there are dozens of other reasons, but none more significant in my opinion than the cool factor. Like it or not Hollywood has a stranglehold on a huge swath of the population in America and Tinseltown was decidedly in Obama's camp.
Watching the news in the days following was surreal. Pundit after pundit claiming that the Republican party needs to be more like the Democrat party. Well, I can tell you what the outcome of that strategy would be and it would not involve Republicans ever winning another election. The criticism of Romney for being too right wing was laughable considering his history. The only thing about Romney that was too "right wing" was that he worked for a PE firm and was really rich (just kidding, but I can't think of anything else).
Team Obama was able to dictate the conversation by always attacking Romney. A strategy that I wish Romney might have employed more of. I can't believe how congenial the last two Republican presidential candidates have been, and what has it got them? All this rhetoric about campaign's needing to be above board is just that, rhetoric. I'm ready to concede that it doesn't work.
And within minutes of the loss, I was already hearing Bush (Jeb) and Christy for 2016. Seriously? Personally, while he doesn't have the resources or notoriety, the Democrats worst nightmare in 2016 would be our someone like our vary own Senator Coburn. I am always amazed at how mutually respected the guy is in this state, even by the hard lefties. The guy means what he says, and says what he means. And he doesn't give a rat's arse about all this other insignificant crap.
Just my two cents.
It was also the whole thing about immigration, women's rights, medical care, education, his running mate, his switching positions many times a day according to whom he's speaking, embarrassment to him and the USA when he did his world tour, the 47%, his inability to control his fellow Republicans and many many more things.
I don't think anyone said Romney was "too right wing". It was most likely the right wing nut bombs who wouldn't shut their mouths and just get elected.
Romney was never close. Ever. Fox's headline the other day of You F'd up. You trusted us." said it all.
I think you're only hearing one side about Coburn. Your "hard lefties" are mis-identifying themselves to you.
There's your change.
Quote from: Townsend on November 19, 2012, 03:12:47 PM
It was also the whole thing about immigration, women's rights, medical care, education, his running mate, his switching positions many times a day according to whom he's speaking, embarrassment to him and the USA when he did his world tour, the 47%, his inability to control his fellow Republicans and many many more things.
I don't think anyone said Romney was "too right wing". It was most likely the right wing nut bombs who wouldn't shut their mouths and just get elected.
Romney was never close. Ever. Fox's headline the other day of You F'd up. You trusted us." said it all.
I think you're only hearing one side about Coburn. Your "hard lefties" are mis-identifying themselves to you.
There's your change.
If Romney wasn't "too right" then why all the "recommendations" to more farther left (not just Romney, but they entire party)?
Who on this board hate Coburn with the veracity that they hate, say Inhofe or Fallin? Personally I think he reveres that type of respect because it is difficult to criticize his positions. They are loaded with facts and hardly anyone would oppose them. Name one politician who is more widely agreed with.
Quote from: erfalf on November 19, 2012, 03:21:07 PM
Who on this board hate Coburn with the veracity that they hate, say Inhofe or Fallin? Personally I think he reveres that type of respect because it is difficult to criticize his positions. They are loaded with facts and hardly anyone would oppose them. Name one politician who is more widely agreed with.
I disagree with almost everything he says and find that most of his positions are indeed divorced from reality. What he does have that Inhofe, for example, lacks, is the willingness to actually follow through. Inhofe claims to be against big government but votes for pork every chance he gets. Coburn gets kudos for not being a total hypocrite, not because people agree with him.
Quote from: nathanm on November 19, 2012, 03:26:51 PM
I disagree with almost everything he says and find that most of his positions are indeed divorced from reality. What he does have that Inhofe, for example, lacks, is the willingness to actually follow through. Inhofe claims to be against big government but votes for pork every chance he gets. Coburn gets kudos for not being a total hypocrite, not because people agree with him.
What do you disagree with?
From that right wing bastion Mother Jones:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/07/tom-coburn-defense-cuts
I guess I need to be more specific. Left leaning American's generally don't have a problem with most of Coburn's proposals. Left leaning politicians however...
Quote from: erfalf on November 19, 2012, 03:21:07 PM
If Romney wasn't "too right" then why all the "recommendations" to more farther left (not just Romney, but they entire party)?
The recommendations you speak of. They came from the super conservatives. "Ignore reason and join us over here."
QuoteWho on this board hate Coburn with the veracity that they hate, say Inhofe or Fallin? Personally I think he reveres that type of respect because it is difficult to criticize his positions. They are loaded with facts and hardly anyone would oppose them. Name one politician who is more widely agreed with.
You want to compare him to Inhofe and Fallin? That's like saying "This dark Gray card is way brighter than these two black cards."
Quote from: erfalf on November 19, 2012, 03:42:53 PM
I guess I need to be more specific. Left leaning American's generally don't have a problem with most of Coburn's proposals. Left leaning politicians however...
I don't think you actually know any left leaning Americans. Let's do keep in mind we're talking about a guy who once said that doctors who perform abortions should be put to death.
Quote from: erfalf on November 19, 2012, 03:42:53 PM
I guess I need to be more specific. Left leaning American's generally don't have a problem with most of Coburn's proposals.
Most left leaning Americans concern themselves with their own problem right wingers. Most Americans don't know who Tom Coburn is.
If an acquaintance came up to you and said "Say, what's the name of a congressman from the state of ____?" Would you normally be able to answer them?
Most Americans can't correctly ID the states on the East coast. They wouldn't know a congressman from a flyover.
Technology. Dims data ability crushed the Rhinosaurs. Simple math....
micromanaging!
Quote from: nathanm on November 19, 2012, 03:51:43 PM
I don't think you actually know any left leaning Americans. Let's do keep in mind we're talking about a guy who once said that doctors who perform abortions should be put to death.
Try to find something that he actually has anything to do with.
"I think people ought to have their driver's licenses suspended for not signalling" Me.
Does this really mean anything? no. But continue to focus on the mundane to try to discredit everyone who doesn't agree with you.
And by the way, here is the actual quote
"while abortion is not against the law now, if it were, states could use death penalty laws to punish the taking of innocent life."
Context is a grumble.
Quote from: Townsend on November 19, 2012, 03:53:01 PM
Most left leaning Americans concern themselves with their own problem right wingers. Most Americans don't know who Tom Coburn is.
If an acquaintance came up to you and said "Say, what's the name of a congressman from the state of ____?" Would you normally be able to answer them?
Most Americans can't correctly ID the states on the East coast. They wouldn't know a congressman from a flyover.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think he should run. Just someone like him, that actually does "speak truth to power". He has the amazing talent of being able to piss off those on both sides of the aisle.
When he was running for Senate the first time, I knew a girl whose father was heavy in the state Republican party. She said and I quote "we will support him, even though we can't stand him." Figured he had to be a keeper if they didn't like him (two faced political hacks they were).
Quote from: Townsend on November 19, 2012, 03:53:01 PM
If an acquaintance came up to you and said "Say, what's the name of a congressman from the state of ____?" Would you normally be able to answer them?
Some names are recognizable but not always which state they come from.
QuoteMost Americans can't correctly ID the states on the East coast. They wouldn't know a congressman from a flyover.
Most Americans probably cannot correctly ID much of any states outside their region with the exceptions of Alaska, Hawaii, Texas, California, and Florida. Maybe for a few more months they could locate Ohio.
Quote from: erfalf on November 19, 2012, 04:27:27 PM
And by the way, here is the actual quote
"while abortion is not against the law now, if it were, states could use death penalty laws to punish the taking of innocent life."
Context is a grumble.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/tom_coburn.html (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/tom_coburn.html)
QuoteLesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us?
Tom Coburn
Dammit dude, he's talking about rampant lesbianism.
RAMPANT
Romney lost another fair weather:
Quote"I'm very disappointed with Governor Romney's analysis, which I believe is insulting and profoundly wrong," he said.
Newt Gingrich
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/gingrich-calls-romneys-gift-comments-insulting/story?id=17760399#.UKq14oc0V8E (http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/gingrich-calls-romneys-gift-comments-insulting/story?id=17760399#.UKq14oc0V8E)
Quote from: erfalf on November 19, 2012, 04:27:27 PM
Context is a grumble.
Not really? He was still saying he thinks doctors who perform abortions should be put to death, just with an added "we can't do this yet, though".
Filthy Mitt Romney Delivers Campaign Speech To Audience Of Confused Shoppers In Ohio Safeway(http://o.onionstatic.com/images/18/18863/16x9/635.jpg?7638)
http://tinyurl.com/crutwvs (http://tinyurl.com/crutwvs)
QuoteCANTON, OH—According to eyewitnesses at the scene, an unkempt and thoroughly disheveled Mitt Romney gave an impassioned campaign speech Monday to a group of bewildered shoppers inside a local Safeway.
Sources confirmed the filth-covered former presidential candidate walked into the store unannounced early yesterday evening, went to the store's cereal aisle, and started to play Kid Rock's "Born Free" on a portable boom box, enthusiastically waving and pointing to no one in particular.
As customers began to recognize the 2012 GOP nominee through his scraggly beard and uncombed hair, Romney reportedly picked up a can of Pringles from a nearby shelf, held it near his mouth, and began loudly addressing the growing crowd of confused onlookers.
"How are we feeling out there, friends?" said Romney, who paused briefly as though waiting for applause from the baffled and completely silent supermarket shoppers. "First and foremost, thank you so much for coming out here today and for your continued support throughout the campaign. We're making our voices heard across the country—that's for sure!"
"Together, we're going to bring some real change to Washington!" added Romney, who staggered slightly as he spoke but maintained his balance.
Witnesses told reporters that Romney walked around the store barefoot as he gave his speech, wearing only a pair of dirt-caked jeans and a wrinkled dress shirt covered in food stains.
Safeway patrons also said the former Massachusetts governor gave off an incredibly strong odor and appeared to have gone "days, possibly weeks" without bathing.
"President Obama is trying to distract everyone from his record, because he knows his policies have done nothing to rebuild our economy," said Romney, eating from a large box of croutons he had taken from the salad dressing aisle. "My five-point plan will scale back the job-killing policies of the current administration, promote small business, cut tax burdens, and put Americans back to work again."
Sources said a weeping Ann Romney at one point attempted to pull her husband out of the store by his arm but was angrily rebuffed, with the 65-year-old retired businessman yelling that he was "trying to do [his] job here."
Romney then reportedly climbed atop a checkout counter, rolled up the torn sleeves of his shirt, and started calling on different customers for questions about his tax policy.
"And now, I'd like to welcome on stage the best decision I ever made aside from marrying Ann—the next vice president of the United States, Paul Ryan!" Romney exclaimed as he grabbed the hand of a nearby cashier and attempted to pull her onto the counter to stand alongside him. "From the moment we take office, Paul and I are going to fight for each and every one of you and restore the promise of this great nation."
According to reports, Safeway employees finally called local authorities when Romney attempted to grab an infant from the arms of her mother "for a quick photo op."
After three police officers managed, with some effort, to subdue Romney in the produce section, he could be heard shrieking incoherently at the top of his lungs for several moments before he finally trailed off, muttering about a plan to "create 12 million jobs by the end of [his] first term."
"We're going all the way to the White House!" Romney loudly proclaimed in the parking lot as he was gently guided into the back of a police car. "Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America!"