• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Romney is NOT electable

Peter Grimm

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Polls are one thing... here is why you can't go by robo-polls that are basically someone calling you at home asking for your opinion.

You don't win an election by winning independents and moderates. Those people don't vote anyway. They stay home.

You win an election by getting your base to turn out.

Only like 30% of Americans vote. The winner is the one that fires up his base.
 
You can offer some kind of documentation that independents and moderates don't vote?

You can document that either party has a large enough base to win without moderates and independents?

You can document that only 30 % of Americans vote?

Bet you cannot document any of those wild assed claims. Making a string of silly threads isn't going to make your point when you keep making all these basic factual errors.
 
two anti-Romney threads in the same section on the same day?

can we combine these please?
 
So about the documentation for those claims in the OP...
 
Man, if we are to believe the threads on this forum, you'd think we would have no leaders since no politician would be electable.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Wouldn't hold our breath there Redress.
Click to expand...

I looked them up, he was wrong in each count. I am giving him the chance before I dmeolish his claims.
 
When conservatives come on to this thread and offer their input, maybe we will dig more deeply into the numbers and I will take the time to do so.

There is no point for me to argue this with Liberals.



But to satisfy your curiosity... don't you think that a hard-liner is more likely to come out to vote than somebody waffling in the middle?

Most Americans do not vote, that's also common sense. The majority of Americans simply don't care about politics, don't follow it, and don't go out to vote.
 
Peter Grimm said:
...But to satisfy your curiosity... don't you think that a hard-liner is more likely to come out to vote than somebody waffling in the middle?....
Click to expand...

someone who cares about the state and direction of their country, will come out to vote.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Liberals need not respond.

We conservatives have a very important decision to make.
Click to expand...

So if you don't want anyone but your own kind to respond, shouldn't you be posting this stuff in the "US Partisan Politics and Political Platforms" forum?
 
And someone who cares typically has solidified an opinion, they don't usually fall under the "independent" or "moderate" banner.

Some do, but hard-liners typically care more than the middle-of-the-roaders.

Thunder said:
someone who cares about the state and direction of their country, will come out to vote.
Click to expand...
 
No, this belongs in the 2012 elections forum. We're talking about the Republican Primaries and specific candidates. We're not talking about policy, which is what I would think the "US Partisan Politics and Political Platforms" forum is to do with.

Maybe they ought to create a sub-forum for the primaries.

poweRob said:
So if you don't want anyone but your own kind to respond, shouldn't you be posting this stuff in the "US Partisan Politics and Political Platforms" forum?
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
When conservatives come on to this thread and offer their input, maybe we will dig more deeply into the numbers and I will take the time to do so.

There is no point for me to argue this with Liberals.



But to satisfy your curiosity... don't you think that a hard-liner is more likely to come out to vote than somebody waffling in the middle?

Most Americans do not vote, that's also common sense. The majority of Americans simply don't care about politics, don't follow it, and don't go out to vote.
Click to expand...

Your common sense is wrong: National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960

2008: 56.8 % of voting age population
2004: 55.3 %
2000: 52.3 %
1996: 49.1 %
1992: 55.1 %
and so on.
 
So even if half of Americans don't vote, that shows a lot of ambivalence.

And people who are ambivalent are more likely to define themselves as "moderate," rather than hard line.

You are getting caught up in details, and missing the very simple overarching point.

Redress said:
Your common sense is wrong: National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960

2008: 56.8 % of voting age population
2004: 55.3 %
2000: 52.3 %
1996: 49.1 %
1992: 55.1 %
and so on.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
Polls are one thing... here is why you can't go by robo-polls that are basically someone calling you at home asking for your opinion.

You don't win an election by winning independents and moderates. Those people don't vote anyway. They stay home.

You win an election by getting your base to turn out.

Only like 30% of Americans vote. The winner is the one that fires up his base.
Click to expand...

complete nonsense.
 
Look, if I'm going to debate a bunch of liberals... I'll put this in terms you can relate to.

Obama won the last election because he got the liberal base fired up to come out for him. Record turnouts of young people, blacks, etc.

On the other hand, McCain did not fire up the conservative base the same way.
 
Peter Grimm said:
So even if half of Americans don't vote, that shows a lot of ambivalence.

And people who are ambivalent are more likely to define themselves as "moderate," rather than hard line.

You are getting caught up in details, and missing the very simple overarching point.
Click to expand...

No it does not show any ambivalence. It shows that some people for whatever reason do not vote. It also shows that unlike your claim, over 1/3 of people do vote. In other words, it shows that you where factually wrong. Do you want me to show how your other assumptions in the OP where wrong? I can.
 
I will skip the presidential election if Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee. I believe there are many others who will do the same.

If Mitt Romney wants to be president, he should be running against Obama in the Democratic primaries.

He's way too liberal for me.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Look, if I'm going to debate a bunch of liberals... I'll put this in terms you can relate to.

Obama won the last election because he got the liberal base fired up to come out for him. Record turnouts of young people, blacks, etc.

On the other hand, McCain did not fire up the conservative base the same way.
Click to expand...

He won the last election because he caried most moderate and independent voters actually, and even a fair portion of conservatives(20 %).
 
I agree. I will do the same. This is the problem. Romney will not fire up the base, and that is a recipe for losing.

johnny_rebson said:
I will skip the presidential election if Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee. I believe there are many others who will do the same.

If Mitt Romney wants to be president, he should be running against Obama in the Democratic primaries.

He's way too liberal for me.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom