View Poll Results: Did the 47% video save President Obama from losing?

Voters
61. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    16 26.23%
  • No

    37 60.66%
  • Other

    8 13.11%
Page 18 of 37 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 370

Thread: Did The 47% Video of Mitt Romney Kill His Chances of Winning?

  1. #171
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    09-14-16 @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,415
    Free Trade Doesn't Work: What Should Replace It and Why,
    Ian Fletcher

    https://www.numbersusa.org/

  2. #172
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,914
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Did The 47% Video of Mitt Romney Kill His Chances of Winning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Clem View Post
    Then most Conservatives and Independents are fringe loons. It's a con-loaded court, with a 5 to 4 advantage.

    Meanwhile Reps are the House, albeit hanging on by a fraying thread to a majority House control buttriced by careful gerrymandering which will not last, once again, because America is no longer a country of white European immigrants. We're comprised of folks from everywhere, with whites and Hispanics most common but diminishing in percentage white. Lindsay Graham and I are polar opposites in our political belief but a brilliant man and politician Graham is, in my opinion and in fact. And he nailed it: there are no longer enough angry whites to sustain the current GOP strategy. They must change or die, politically. Not all will like it, and seemingly you won't since you seem willing to accept obscurity in support of an enduring anti minority position by the GOP.

    That'd be great for Dems but bad for Americans who are not white, so I hope, and trust, that sounder thinking prevails in the GOP and America gets back to a country which embraces acceptance of all which we once lead the world in doing and have now fallen far behind most countries I've visited for extended periods.

    Fingers crossed.
    I really find it hard to accept that it is a con's court as you put it. Obama has appointed two justices already, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Those appointments swung the court a bit further to the left. The court has been basically liberal since at least the 70's.

    As for the house, in 2010 when the republicans took control of the house they received 6 million more votes than the democratic candidates, winning 52-45% of the total votes. Even in 2012, a year in which President Obama won by 6 million votes, the Democratic congressional vote was a scant million more than the Republicans, winning 48-47% and picking up 8 seats which is normal when a party only wins by one point. It is true gerrymandering had some to do with the Republicans retaining their majority, but not as much as you think.

    The Democrats gerrymandered Illinois and New York to the max while the GOP did the same to Texas and a couple of other states. Gerrymandering was probably close to a wash when all was said and done. Then working in the Republicans favor is the majority minority districts which packs democratic voters into one district in which the Democratic candidate wins along the lines of 80-20 or 75-25. There are approximately 31 of these districts which guarantees a democratic win, but it dilutes the other 404 districts of potential democratic voters. Republicans were winning their districts by a 55-45 or 60-40 margin. There is a lot more that goes into why the GOP continued with their control in 2012 although they were out voted.

    Now there are 35 majority Hispanic districts in the house, but Republicans have won 8 of them, the democrats 27. These too dilutes the democratic vote in the other districts since Hispanics usually vote democratic by a 2-1 margin.

    Just some food for thought.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  3. #173
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Did The 47% Video of Mitt Romney Kill His Chances of Winning?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Everyone has read the transcript.

    He was talking about CAMPAIGNING.

    Obama says lots of things about his political enemies. He could be painted the same. Enough with the demonizing rhetoric.
    I'm not sure what you mean by talking about campaigning. I was unsure what you meant about context, so I follow you back to this post. If Romney had said 47% will agree with Obama no matter what, and stop there, I'd agree with you. But in context, he defines that 47%. They, the 47%, are dependent on the government. He continues to list and define the 47% as takers. That's the context. The stuff you mention Obama saying are in no way equal to this type of thing.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #174
    Sage
    Crovax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,514

    Re: Did The 47% Video of Mitt Romney Kill His Chances of Winning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Clem View Post
    See where the voter demographics are going to be in 2020 based on current trends in Texas.
    The math of Texas over the next dozen years is rather simple. Latinos might not even be 35% of the voting-eligible population by 2024,
    Davis for governor of Texas? Don't mess with it, Wendy | Harry J Enten | Comment is free | theguardian.com

    Maybe by 2050 it might have a shot at being purple.

  5. #175
    User Clem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    22

    Re: Did The 47% Video of Mitt Romney Kill His Chances of Winning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    I really find it hard to accept that it is a con's court as you put it. Obama has appointed two justices already, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Those appointments swung the court a bit further to the left. The court has been basically liberal since at least the 70's.

    As for the house, in 2010 when the republicans took control of the house they received 6 million more votes than the democratic candidates, winning 52-45% of the total votes. Even in 2012, a year in which President Obama won by 6 million votes, the Democratic congressional vote was a scant million more than the Republicans, winning 48-47% and picking up 8 seats which is normal when a party only wins by one point. It is true gerrymandering had some to do with the Republicans retaining their majority, but not as much as you think.

    The Democrats gerrymandered Illinois and New York to the max while the GOP did the same to Texas and a couple of other states. Gerrymandering was probably close to a wash when all was said and done. Then working in the Republicans favor is the majority minority districts which packs democratic voters into one district in which the Democratic candidate wins along the lines of 80-20 or 75-25. There are approximately 31 of these districts which guarantees a democratic win, but it dilutes the other 404 districts of potential democratic voters. Republicans were winning their districts by a 55-45 or 60-40 margin. There is a lot more that goes into why the GOP continued with their control in 2012 although they were out voted.

    Now there are 35 majority Hispanic districts in the house, but Republicans have won 8 of them, the democrats 27. These too dilutes the democratic vote in the other districts since Hispanics usually vote democratic by a 2-1 margin.

    Just some food for thought.
    from wikianswers ...

    Ruth Bader Ginsberg: very liberal, consistently votes against the conservatives

    Sonia Sotomayor: consistently votes with the progressive bloc

    Elena Kagan: has consistently voted with the liberal bloc since joining the bench, but still fairly unproven

    Stephen G. Breyer: usually votes with the liberal bloc, but has proven centrist in the past

    Anthony Kennedy: the swing vote; considered a conservative; sometimes votes with the liberal faction

    Samuel A. Alito: consistently conservative

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts: consistently conservative

    Antonin Scalia: extremely conservative

    Clarence Thomas: extremely conservative

  6. #176
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,914
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Did The 47% Video of Mitt Romney Kill His Chances of Winning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Clem View Post
    from wikianswers ...

    Ruth Bader Ginsberg: very liberal, consistently votes against the conservatives

    Sonia Sotomayor: consistently votes with the progressive bloc

    Elena Kagan: has consistently voted with the liberal bloc since joining the bench, but still fairly unproven

    Stephen G. Breyer: usually votes with the liberal bloc, but has proven centrist in the past

    Anthony Kennedy: the swing vote; considered a conservative; sometimes votes with the liberal faction

    Samuel A. Alito: consistently conservative

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts: consistently conservative

    Antonin Scalia: extremely conservative

    Clarence Thomas: extremely conservative
    Alright, still if original intent was taken a the prime motivation in any decision it wouldn't really matter what political view any of the judges had. I think and I do not know this, that you are more in favor of the an activist court which takes today's political views and agenda into consideration. Not was originally intended in the original document.

    What I do not like is when the court reads something that is not there into the constitution. I am old school, it something is not defined in the constitution it is not there, period. That pretty much leaves that issue up to the states and or local government or the people.The powers of the federal government is pretty well defined in Article I Section 8, Section 9 of the same article list a bunch of no, no's for the federal government and section 10 lists the no no's for the states. Throw in the Bill of rights and a couple of other amendments, the powers of each, state, federal and the people are pretty clear to me. At least as to what the constitution says in plain English, but not lawyerese talk that is used to decide most cases today. Things like shall not means you will in lawyerese quite a lot of times.

    When it doubt go back to original intent, there are tons of records, journals, books, writtings of all sorts. Find out what was intended and stick to it. As for changing the constitution, do it by amendment, the only legal way. Not by judicial fiat as is done today. But this is just my opinion which means little to nothing, But it is one vote in the scheme of things.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  7. #177
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,708

    Re: Did The 47% Video of Mitt Romney Kill His Chances of Winning?

    I think it's foolish to blame his loss on just one thing.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #178
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,124

    Re: Did The 47% Video of Mitt Romney Kill His Chances of Winning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I think it's foolish to blame his loss on just one thing.
    that video Jimmy Carter's nephew was able to disseminate may have been the silver spike in the romney campaign's heart. it seemed to confirm that romney, while smart, was also quite aloof, and disconnected from the average American's experience
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  9. #179
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

    Re: Did The 47% Video of Mitt Romney Kill His Chances of Winning?

    Quote Originally Posted by CRUE CAB View Post
    That was his point, that the 47% he was referring to. Was not going to vote for him anyway.
    Some of the 47% were military personnel and retirees...why would they have not have voted for Romney? Surely some did.


  10. #180
    User Clem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 03:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    22

    Re: Did The 47% Video of Mitt Romney Kill His Chances of Winning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    Alright, still if original intent was taken a the prime motivation in any decision it wouldn't really matter what political view any of the judges had. I think and I do not know this, that you are more in favor of the an activist court which takes today's political views and agenda into consideration. Not was originally intended in the original document.

    What I do not like is when the court reads something that is not there into the constitution. I am old school, it something is not defined in the constitution it is not there, period. That pretty much leaves that issue up to the states and or local government or the people.The powers of the federal government is pretty well defined in Article I Section 8, Section 9 of the same article list a bunch of no, no's for the federal government and section 10 lists the no no's for the states. Throw in the Bill of rights and a couple of other amendments, the powers of each, state, federal and the people are pretty clear to me. At least as to what the constitution says in plain English, but not lawyerese talk that is used to decide most cases today. Things like shall not means you will in lawyerese quite a lot of times.

    When it doubt go back to original intent, there are tons of records, journals, books, writtings of all sorts. Find out what was intended and stick to it. As for changing the constitution, do it by amendment, the only legal way. Not by judicial fiat as is done today. But this is just my opinion which means little to nothing, But it is one vote in the scheme of things.
    What you or I think the Con is or should be is moot, until one or both of us are appointed to the high court and confirmed by the Senate. Two things are both unambiguous and proven in centuries of practice: the Con is a living (flexible) document with a mechanism to amend; the high court is supreme in interpreting it within the context of the time (cases reaching them). Thus, and since they do not introduce legislation nor the cases before them, how they rule is governed only by their own conscious -- as is their duty. Call it activist, constructionist or whatever you wish. But it's their role to rule on matters before the court, without regard for whether you or I like it. They were specifically placed above politics (pleasing the society at large is of no consequence).

    Thus, back to the point. If you think the court is Liberal now, you ain't gonna like it after a decade or two of Republicans merely playing a spoiler roll in the House in service of continued pandering to pinheaded bigots.

Page 18 of 37 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •