• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Did the 47% video save President Obama from losing?


  • Total voters
    54
Remember Obamas comment about clinging to the bible and guns?

Why didn't that hurt him?

It didn't. Just like Romney's didn't hurt him. Out of context talking points do not decide elections, they just feed partisan flaming.
 
Romney lost because he ran on the Republican ticket which is unelectable until the GOP finds a way to purge bigots from their leadership and reverse course on the Southern Strategy which played out decades ago. The GOP simply cannot reach 270 EC votes. They'll be lucky to get 170 in 2016.

Romney was just 429,527 votes away from winning the election. Hardly "unelectable", Romney was a weak candidate running vs an incumbent with over 50% approval rating. Obama was only the 2nd president to lose electoral votes in getting re-elected.
 
If 'Other' means 'I could not care much less'...then I vote other.

Obama or Romney..both incredibly useless reps from two incredibly useless parties.

It does not matter who wins in 2016...they will leave office having done more harm then good...just like Obama and G.W. Bush and....


When will Americans wake up...it's not the candidates who are to blame...it's the voters that put them in office who are destroying America, a little bit at a time.

The voters could demand greatness fom their leaders...instead they get mired in partisan politics and become obsessed about 'us vs. them'. So they accept mediocrity just so their guy/gal can win.

Crap in, crap out.
 
Last edited:
Republicans fail to understand/see that the majority or poor folks who pay the least or no taxes are in predominantly in Red states not Blue states

Good luck explaining that. Rush Limbaugh's comments trumps all.
 
That was not the only qualification he listed.

He bulked all poor people together like an arrogant rich prick that nobody wants to vote for. He called us takers and beggars. He also said he didn't care about them and doesn't expect them to vote for him.

What did I miss? There was plenty reason given by Romney for a Romney fan to sit the election out in 2012. Would you disagree?
 
Romney lost because he ran on the Republican ticket which is unelectable until the GOP finds a way to purge bigots from their leadership and reverse course on the Southern Strategy which played out decades ago. The GOP simply cannot reach 270 EC votes. They'll be lucky to get 170 in 2016.

The Republican Party is taking the next 20 years off. This is good news for elected Republicans in solid red districts. They can keep their high paying jobs without ever taking any action. Established politicians love to be in the minority party. It's a very safe place to be.
 
Romney was just 429,527 votes away from winning the election. Hardly "unelectable", Romney was a weak candidate running vs an incumbent with over 50% approval rating. Obama was only the 2nd president to lose electoral votes in getting re-elected.

Actually, he was 100 or so votes from being elected in a race to 270. So how does the GOP get to 270? They get Texas, till maybe 2020, when it goes Blue. That's a biggy in the class of say CA and NY. FL, godwilling, despite Jews not being keen on minorities being picked on since they're thus, not to mention get that one nation under God ain't talking about theirs, might with some trickery and the hand of God overcome the fact that even the former stauchly-GOP-locked Anti Castro Cubans are voting Dem with all the anti-brown folks rhetoric coming from the GOP to lock up them voters in Mississippi and other low EC vote backwaters. A long shot, on a good day, wrapped in serendipity might create a shocker upset ... oh; and it's vital. Gopniks lose without it. Meanwhile them Johnny lunchbuckets hugging guns in rural OH might create an upset ... and it's vital. Then the locked in Red state, and only 80 percent of the could go other way states, and by golly, it's 2K all over again. EC win by 1.

Bad nights can happen. Dewey should have never called Truman's train outreach "whistlestops" right when it was coming into Chicago, where folks didn't like being called a whistlestop. And others start thinking Dewey's a disconnected elite. Or maybe a candidate seeks divine counsel and gets caught smoking crack with Jimmy Swaggart and some young ladies of questionable employ. Ergo the October of Dreams in which Gopniks get skinned knees praying for an October Surprise as Fox scrambles to create one through repetition bordering on autistic. Without miracles in a couple big states and an even more miraculous skew on tossups, they do not get to 270 or anywhere near. Meanwhile if Dems get either of two they stand to win (OH, FL) they win. No need to stay up waiting for polls to close in HI, nor CA, AZ ...

Victory speech time.
 
Romney was just 429,527 votes away from winning the election. Hardly "unelectable", Romney was a weak candidate running vs an incumbent with over 50% approval rating. Obama was only the 2nd president to lose electoral votes in getting re-elected.

I tend to agree that Romney was a weak candidate. But out of the field that vied for the nomination, he perhaps was the best of the weakest bunch we have seen run for the nomination since 1996. Obama was a vulnerable incumbent president and could have been beat with the right candidate. But choosing the right candidate, that is the rub isn't it. The right candidate probably was in the field that was actively seeking the nomination. Which of the other candidate could have done better than Romney, looking at each one individually, probably none.
 
You would have to ask him, he wasn't talking about taking money from vets, children, needed social programs. He was talking about the people who WONT work vs people that will not work.

Wrong again. He classified anyone who does not have a federal income tax burden as being a freeloader, which simply isn't true.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the 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 -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Everyone who has no federal income tax burden is wholly dependent on government? Everyone who has no federal income tax burden believes they are entitled? Everyone who has no federal income tax burden voted for Obama? Everyone who has no federal income tax burden doesn't take personal responsibility and care for their lives?

These are Romney's words. They are ridiculously ****ing stupid.
 
Actually, he was 100 or so votes from being elected in a race to 270. So how does the GOP get to 270? They get Texas, till maybe 2020, when it goes Blue. That's a biggy in the class of say CA and NY. FL, godwilling, despite Jews not being keen on minorities being picked on since they're thus, not to mention get that one nation under God ain't talking about theirs, might with some trickery and the hand of God overcome the fact that even the former stauchly-GOP-locked Anti Castro Cubans are voting Dem with all the anti-brown folks rhetoric coming from the GOP to lock up them voters in Mississippi and other low EC vote backwaters. A long shot, on a good day, wrapped in serendipity might create a shocker upset ... oh; and it's vital. Gopniks lose without it. Meanwhile them Johnny lunchbuckets hugging guns in rural OH might create an upset ... and it's vital. Then the locked in Red state, and only 80 percent of the could go other way states, and by golly, it's 2K all over again. EC win by 1.

Bad nights can happen. Dewey should have never called Truman's train outreach "whistlestops" right when it was coming into Chicago, where folks didn't like being called a whistlestop. And others start thinking Dewey's a disconnected elite. Or maybe a candidate seeks divine counsel and gets caught smoking crack with Jimmy Swaggart and some young ladies of questionable employ. Ergo the October of Dreams in which Gopniks get skinned knees praying for an October Surprise as Fox scrambles to create one through repetition bordering on autistic. Without miracles in a couple big states and an even more miraculous skew on tossups, they do not get to 270 or anywhere near. Meanwhile if Dems get either of two they stand to win (OH, FL) they win. No need to stay up waiting for polls to close in HI, nor CA, AZ ...

Victory speech time.

Getting from 206 to 266 would have been accomplished by Romney pulling out wins in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Add New Hampshire and viola, he would have been at 270. Romney came within 74,000 of winning Florida and its 29 EV, within 166,000 of winning Ohio's 18 and within 148,000 of winning Virginia and its 13 EV. Add 40,000 more votes in New Hampshire and you would have had a different president. 4 states, 4 swing states out of the 7 swing states available. Nevada, Iowa and North Carolina round out the swing states. Romney lost all except North Carolina.
 
Actually, he was 100 or so votes from being elected in a race to 270. So how does the GOP get to 270? They get Texas, till maybe 2020, when it goes Blue. That's a biggy in the class of say CA and NY. FL, godwilling, despite Jews not being keen on minorities being picked on since they're thus, not to mention get that one nation under God ain't talking about theirs, might with some trickery and the hand of God overcome the fact that even the former stauchly-GOP-locked Anti Castro Cubans are voting Dem with all the anti-brown folks rhetoric coming from the GOP to lock up them voters in Mississippi and other low EC vote backwaters. A long shot, on a good day, wrapped in serendipity might create a shocker upset ... oh; and it's vital. Gopniks lose without it. Meanwhile them Johnny lunchbuckets hugging guns in rural OH might create an upset ... and it's vital. Then the locked in Red state, and only 80 percent of the could go other way states, and by golly, it's 2K all over again. EC win by 1.

Bad nights can happen. Dewey should have never called Truman's train outreach "whistlestops" right when it was coming into Chicago, where folks didn't like being called a whistlestop. And others start thinking Dewey's a disconnected elite. Or maybe a candidate seeks divine counsel and gets caught smoking crack with Jimmy Swaggart and some young ladies of questionable employ. Ergo the October of Dreams in which Gopniks get skinned knees praying for an October Surprise as Fox scrambles to create one through repetition bordering on autistic. Without miracles in a couple big states and an even more miraculous skew on tossups, they do not get to 270 or anywhere near. Meanwhile if Dems get either of two they stand to win (OH, FL) they win. No need to stay up waiting for polls to close in HI, nor CA, AZ ...

Victory speech time.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

no offense, but its hard to take you seriously when you say things like that
 
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

no offense, but its hard to take you seriously when you say things like that

No offense taken. It's hard to challenge nothing. So I'll query, why? What got your goat or is most egregiously in error?
 
Getting from 206 to 266 would have been accomplished by Romney pulling out wins in Florida, Ohio and Virginia. Add New Hampshire and viola, he would have been at 270. Romney came within 74,000 of winning Florida and its 29 EV, within 166,000 of winning Ohio's 18 and within 148,000 of winning Virginia and its 13 EV. Add 40,000 more votes in New Hampshire and you would have had a different president. 4 states, 4 swing states out of the 7 swing states available. Nevada, Iowa and North Carolina round out the swing states. Romney lost all except North Carolina.

Sure. Winning all 50 states and DC would have been even better. Meanwhile with Jews and Cubans sufficiently frightened of the extremist TeaRep crap seemingly endorsed at party level, how's it looking? Fertility rates likely to trump or get worse? (tip: worse)

That's the point. Gopniks need to sideline the bigots and not merely support minority issues but lead on them. Or go with solid seats in pinhead districts and be the perennial opposition party. The country is diverse and become more so every day in maternity wards all across ... uh ... up and down the uber populous coasts. But the tumbleweed / tornado alley is Gopnik owned until the 2nd coming, or 3rd coming when campaigning in Utah.

It's up to ya'll. But I like folks and want all to be well treated by our elected representatives and would like that more than easy Dem wins for POTUS ... which has another impact what with loading the court now preferred to the great legal minds track that once fulfilled Adams' idea that the greatest among us should be on the high court, without regard for political matters. Food for thought since the court gets to say what the Con means, and is thus very, very supreme.
 
Sure. Winning all 50 states and DC would have been even better. Meanwhile with Jews and Cubans sufficiently frightened of the extremist TeaRep crap seemingly endorsed at party level, how's it looking? Fertility rates likely to trump or get worse? (tip: worse)

That's the point. Gopniks need to sideline the bigots and not merely support minority issues but lead on them. Or go with solid seats in pinhead districts and be the perennial opposition party. The country is diverse and become more so every day in maternity wards all across ... uh ... up and down the uber populous coasts. But the tumbleweed / tornado alley is Gopnik owned until the 2nd coming, or 3rd coming when campaigning in Utah.

It's up to ya'll. But I like folks and want all to be well treated by our elected representatives and would like that more than easy Dem wins for POTUS ... which has another impact what with loading the court now preferred to the great legal minds track that once fulfilled Adams' idea that the greatest among us should be on the high court, without regard for political matters. Food for thought since the court gets to say what the Con means, and is thus very, very supreme.

Actually most conservatives and independents consider this SCOTUS to be a very activist court which curry favors to the Democrats/liberals. That this SCOTUS does not take enough orginal intent into consideration and political agenda of the present over rides original intent.

As for the Republicans, I can see they have a chance of becoming just a congressional party without much hope of electing one of their own president. But I have seen this all happen before. After 1964's Goldwater's debacle there was a lot written on how the Republicans had ceased being a national party, only they came back 4 years later and won. Again after Watergate in 1974, once again the demise of the Republican party was extensively written about. But once again they came back to win in 1980.

The the other shoe dropped, the Republican electoral lock of the 80's, it was feared the Democrats would never win another presidential race. Many books were written on that subject. But low and behold, come 1992 the Democrats won. Politics is dynamic and party strengths ebb and flows. Unlike most of our history, the time period from roughly 1994-2006 show the nation relative divided between the parties. That is highly unusual. It is normal for one party or the other to hold the upper hand, sometimes by a lot. From 1932 to 1975 roughly 50% of the electorate identified with the Democratic Party, a time period when only around 30% and sometimes less associated themselves with the Republican Party. By 1985 only 40% identified with the Democrats, today that percentage is down to 29% per Gallup, but the Republicans hold only 25% so the Democrats still have a larger base. Independents have grown from 28% in 1975 to 45% today.

I wouldn't write either party off. Politics is just too dynamic. All it take is one major even, one happening to change the political landscape. But history shows that each major party have been written off more than once.
 
Actually most conservatives and independents consider this SCOTUS to be a very activist court which curry favors to the Democrats/liberals. That this SCOTUS does not take enough orginal intent into consideration and political agenda of the present over rides original intent.

As for the Republicans, I can see they have a chance of becoming just a congressional party without much hope of electing one of their own president. But I have seen this all happen before. After 1964's Goldwater's debacle there was a lot written on how the Republicans had ceased being a national party, only they came back 4 years later and won. Again after Watergate in 1974, once again the demise of the Republican party was extensively written about. But once again they came back to win in 1980.

The the other shoe dropped, the Republican electoral lock of the 80's, it was feared the Democrats would never win another presidential race. Many books were written on that subject. But low and behold, come 1992 the Democrats won. Politics is dynamic and party strengths ebb and flows. Unlike most of our history, the time period from roughly 1994-2006 show the nation relative divided between the parties. That is highly unusual. It is normal for one party or the other to hold the upper hand, sometimes by a lot. From 1932 to 1975 roughly 50% of the electorate identified with the Democratic Party, a time period when only around 30% and sometimes less associated themselves with the Republican Party. By 1985 only 40% identified with the Democrats, today that percentage is down to 29% per Gallup, but the Republicans hold only 25% so the Democrats still have a larger base. Independents have grown from 28% in 1975 to 45% today.

I wouldn't write either party off. Politics is just too dynamic. All it take is one major even, one happening to change the political landscape. But history shows that each major party have been written off more than once.

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.
 
No offense taken. It's hard to challenge nothing. So I'll query, why? What got your goat or is most egregiously in error?

Well I did bold it. If you really think Texas is going blue then you are clearly to biased to make rational argument.

Mitt Romney got 57% in Texas that's 2% just shy of the 59% Bush got in 2000. If a north easterner who was weak on social issues can get that close to a popular governor that is a strong social conservative its going to be a very long time before Texas becomes competitive let alone "goes blue". Yes the demographics are changing but latinos, who are much more conservative than their national counterparts anyways, simply don't vote. Take a look at San Antonio, 7th biggest city in the US and has the most latinos of any latino majority city, who has democrat poster boy Julián Castro as mayor. Castro got re-election 2011 with 82% of the vote seems impressive until you realize the turn out was just 6% and in a city of 1.4 million people he got just 34,000 votes. Then you look at the 2012 election and Obama barely eked out a 51% win in Bexar County. The demographics would have to undergo a massive shift to even make Texas close.

Not to mention there is no evidence that a voting shift is happening.

2008 McCain won by 11.77%
2010 Perry won by 12.9%
2012 Romney won by 15.79%

and the latest polls have Abbott at about +14 over Davis.
 
Well I did bold it. If you really think Texas is going blue then you are clearly to biased to make rational argument.

Mitt Romney got 57% in Texas that's 2% just shy of the 59% Bush got in 2000. If a north easterner who was weak on social issues can get that close to a popular governor that is a strong social conservative its going to be a very long time before Texas becomes competitive let alone "goes blue". Yes the demographics are changing but latinos, who are much more conservative than their national counterparts anyways, simply don't vote. Take a look at San Antonio, 7th biggest city in the US and has the most latinos of any latino majority city, who has democrat poster boy Julián Castro as mayor. Castro got re-election 2011 with 82% of the vote seems impressive until you realize the turn out was just 6% and in a city of 1.4 million people he got just 34,000 votes. Then you look at the 2012 election and Obama barely eked out a 51% win in Bexar County. The demographics would have to undergo a massive shift to even make Texas close.

Not to mention there is no evidence that a voting shift is happening.

2008 McCain won by 11.77%
2010 Perry won by 12.9%
2012 Romney won by 15.79%

and the latest polls have Abbott at about +14 over Davis.

See where the voter demographics are going to be in 2020 based on current trends in Texas. Plus it's not going send its EC votes to the winning candidate in the meantime. But the upside is, hopefully, that some authentic Mexican cuisine is in its future and not that TexMex crap smothered in melted Velveta.

It won't be all bad.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Back
Top Bottom