- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 17,855
- Reaction score
- 8,334
- Location
- On an island. Not that one!
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
Most of this comes from a CBS.com post which basically provides yet one more example of the inability of far too many on the American right to accept reality, they prefer creating their own 'facts' and 'data' and 'reality'. Too bad for them - once again it seems reality has a 'librul bias'
One fine example, outside of the campaign was the clown who ran the "Unskewedpolls" website, just like the Romneyites, he refused to accept that numbers geeks like Nate Silver and Sam Wang just might have a better handle on the American electorate. The right 'knew' that most Americans supported those "good ol' American values" the Massachusetts flip-flopper supported - some of the time.
The inimitable Charles F Pierce has a few thoughts about the failure of the GOP in the 2012 Presidential election.
Romney "shellshocked by loss
they believed the public/media polls were skewed - they thought those polls oversampled Democrats and didn't reflect Republican enthusiasm.
One fine example, outside of the campaign was the clown who ran the "Unskewedpolls" website, just like the Romneyites, he refused to accept that numbers geeks like Nate Silver and Sam Wang just might have a better handle on the American electorate. The right 'knew' that most Americans supported those "good ol' American values" the Massachusetts flip-flopper supported - some of the time.
Something we see on this forum, hard righties calling themselves "Independent". Unfortunately for the GOP, more people calling themselves "Independents" does reduce that percentage still calling itself "Republican", just one more reason that complaints about "librul bias" in polling proved to be wrong.They made three key miscalculations, in part because this race bucked historical trends:
1. They misread turnout. . . . fewer Republicans (voted this time): Romney got just over 2 million fewer votes than John McCain.
2. Independents. State polls showed Romney winning big among independents. . . . state polls weren't oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans - there just weren't as many Republicans this time because they were calling themselves independents.
This I find rather interesting. Does the fact that a politician is well known to the public mean as much as actually holding office, in the public's perception of the pol? Apparently so, just one example of the way in which modern media has changed our world.3. Undecided voters. The perception is they always break for the challenger, since people know the incumbent and would have decided already if they were backing him. Romney was counting on that trend to continue. Instead, exit polls show Mr. Obama won among people who made up their minds on Election Day and in the few days before the election. So maybe Romney, after running for six years, was in the same position as the incumbent.
The inimitable Charles F Pierce has a few thoughts about the failure of the GOP in the 2012 Presidential election.
The Republicans, of course, are all in a hilarious tizzy about how it all went sour. Was Romney the wrong candidate? (Of course he was. Nominating G.I. Luvmoney four years after his best pals nearly burned down the world was almost as stupid as nominating one of the other clowns in the clown car would have been. Oops. Paradox! Alert! Alert! Arrrrrooooooooogaaaahhh!!) Was the "message" bad? (Of course it was. It's been bad for 30 years. The country's just been catching up to how godawful it is. Hint: You've lost the official popular vote in four of the last five presidential elections, and the one you "won" has an asterisk the size of Alpha Centauri hung on it.) Was the moon in the seventh house? In my capacity as Gracious Winner, let me suggest an alternative general theory.
You lost because your party has become demented.
Last edited: