• 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.

Some Thoughts on just why Romney lost

To quote Kanye West, "to many Urkels on your team that's why you're Winslow."
 
The Lefties can cojole, mislead and fraud steal an election, but they can't GOVERN, nor will taxing the rich pay the bills they've lined up.


It will collapse, but maybe that's what they're counting on.


Young America will eventually regret what happened in 2012. Not that the Republicans, when it comes to debt were much better...


At this point, collapse, civil war, and a long period of brutal authoritarian governance is pretty much inevetable.


Watch your back, guard your friends, and prepare. It will get very ugly.


-
 
justabubba said:
would have loved to have been there to witness that spectacle
if accurate, that tells us mitt and his campaign staff were even more out of touch with reality than some of us believed

Adam makes excellent points about Obama's team being very strategic, resulting in a well run campaign and ultimate victory
would be great if both sides had an equal amount of money and then we were able to see who used their's best to prevail. that person would be the one i would want atop the world's most dynamic economy
but what is disappointing is that Obama surrounds himself with great campaign talent, but then when it comes time to be professional with the wheels of government, he has chosen a batch of morons


the OP makes a solid point that romney realized two million fewer votes than did mccain, 57.8 million to mccain's 59.9. what was not disclosed is that Obama of 2012 garnered NINE million fewer votes than he did in 2008, 69.5 million then and 60.6 million this week. so while the republicans lost 4% of their previous support the loss of turnout for Obama was a massive 13%

tht must reveal what a huge lost opportunity this was for the GOP
if it had only selected someone as its standard bearer who was electable


will i be the only one surprised if within the next twelve months we see karl 'the brain' rove has died a premature death due to accident
those folks who gave him 300 million dollars to play with to elect them their very own president did not stick around for romney's concession speech. they have to be pissed. how pissed off are they?
Click to expand...

Thats why I propose getting rid of private money and replacing it with a mandatory $1 fee on all tax returns wiht the money being evenly split betwee all parties with registered memberships of say 250k or more. Then the people would see what each party is like and make a more informed choice. it would also require the parties to concentrate their money where it would do the most good and maybe that would result in more information and less attack ads
 
Awesome! said:
Romney lost because he was too honest about his conservative intentions. What he needed to do was to make big promises about union wages for all, abortions for all, contraceptives for all, 10 hour work weeks for all, free education and free everything for all and then he would have won becoming President.
Click to expand...


I must have not been paying attention over the past year, I don't remember ever hearing any such claims, but then I don't watch FauxNews or listen to Rush or Sean or Glenn. Could you provide some links that would support your words?
 
Kurmugeon said:
The Lefties can cojole, mislead and fraud steal an election, but they can't GOVERN, nor will taxing the rich pay the bills they've lined up.


It will collapse, but maybe that's what they're counting on.


Young America will eventually regret what happened in 2012. Not that the Republicans, when it comes to debt were much better...


At this point, collapse, civil war, and a long period of brutal authoritarian governance is pretty much inevetable.


Watch your back, guard your friends, and prepare. It will get very ugly.


-
Click to expand...


This above could be construed as a threat of violence by some ''good ol' boys", but I'll ignore it and not bother to report it to the proper authorities because I'm sure they already have their hands full with similar threats.

now since I don't consider Faux to be a reliable source but some people do, I thought I would post the following for the amusement of the lefties - righties have no sense of humour

History Shows Stocks, GDP Outperform Under Democrats

Thanks to their pro-business approach and the anemic recovery, Republicans would seem to have a clear path to grab the economic mantle heading into the 2012 race for the White House.

However, history actually shows that the U.S. economy, stock prices and corporate profits have generated stronger growth under Democratic administrations than Republican ones.

According to McGraw-Hill’s (MHP) S&P Capital IQ, the S&P 500 has rallied an average of 12.1% per year since 1901 when Democrats occupy the White House, compared with just 5.1% for the GOP.

Likewise, gross domestic product has increased 4.2% each year since 1949 when Democrats run the executive branch, versus 2.6% under Republicans.
Click to expand...


Damn those socialists, they never play fair! :2dance:

:gunner::elephantf
 
Awesome! said:
Romney lost because he was too honest about his conservative intentions.
Click to expand...


The first strike against Romney was he had a liberal track record from Massachusetts.
The second strike against Romney was he flip-flopped.

Republicans can win, it just requires candidates that are more conservative than Romney.
 
MaggieD said:
I find it very difficult to believe that Mitt Romney was "shell shocked" over his loss. And, it's not as if he didn't give it 100%, so whether or not he supposedly misread the polls certainly made no difference in the outcome.

Now. What he may have been "shell shocked" about is that he and other Republicans now realize that they're going to have to change their message. Change their approach. If they don't? 2016 will be no different, I'm thinking.

My support for the Republican Party centers around fiscal conservatism. All the other stuff? Stuff it. Gay marriage/gay rights/abortion/other social issues are immaterial. In my opinion, if the Republican Party intends to stay relevant, they're going to need to soften (or simply drop) their hard-assed stances on these issues. That's #1. And #2 is they're going to have to realize that social programs are not going away. The majority of American people don't want them to go away. So. Republicans are going to have to learn to apply their fiscal conservatism in other ways...targeting fraud, waste, etc., etc., instead of entire programs.

JMVHO.
Click to expand...


I'm glad to hear you say this Maggie. That is a Republican party that even I would consider voting for depending on the circumstances....but the Republican party has gone so far to the right wing on social issues, I'm not so sure that they can get their party back. The reality is....if the GOP kicked the evangelicals and hard-right social conservatives to the curb, they would probably be able to attract a lot more independent/moderates, which is what they will need in future elections.
 
johnny_rebson said:
The first strike against Romney was he had a liberal track record from Massachusetts.
The second strike against Romney was he flip-flopped.

Republicans can win, it just requires candidates that are more conservative than Romney.
Click to expand...


You couldn't be more wrong. Hard-right conservatives would attract about 30% of the vote...that is about all you would be able to get
 
disneydude said:
You couldn't be more wrong. Hard-right conservatives would attract about 30% of the vote...that is about all you would be able to get
Click to expand...


A candidate can't win if his party's base stays home on election day.
 
johnny_rebson said:
A candidate can't win if his party's base stays home on election day.
Click to expand...

really?
despite that Obama's popular vote this election was NINE million voters (13%)
less than last election
can't buy your conclusion; the facts prove otherwise
 
justabubba said:
really?
despite that Obama's popular vote this election was NINE million voters (13%)
less than last election
can't buy your conclusion; the facts prove otherwise
Click to expand...


Many Republicans doubted it would happen, but the Dem base got out on election day and voted for Obama.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Many Republicans doubted it would happen, but the Dem base got out on election day and voted for Obama.
Click to expand...

After just listening to Lindsay Graham On "Huckabee" saying the Republicans still believe in conservative values (extreme right) I think they'll lose again four years from now. The Media called it election night that the face of America is changing and if the GOP doesn't get that they'll struggle to win in the future. Rove, Rush and Morris are not going to project winning with their special mental powers of persuasion.
 
AdamT said:
Basically what it came down to is this: Republicans who accused Obama of being an amateur and who touted Romney as the pro's pro had it exactly reversed. Romney proved to be the amateur. His campaign was in disarray. They misallocated resources. They didn't have enough money when they needed it. They ran a bad convention. They had amateurish pollsters. They were constantly having to walk back and spin Romney's gaffes.

I was listening to John Dickerson, NBC's chief political correspondent, and he said that he was always blown away by the Obama campaigns professionalism. Nothing went out of there without being focus grouped. They had polls up, down and sideways, breaking down the country by ever conceivable demographic group and region. They targetted their advertising based on the numbers they crunched. In contrast, when he talked to the Romney people they were always spouting fluff about mojo and momentum. They didn't believe the numbers they were seeing.

Bottom line, Romney sold himself as the ultimate manager who you could plug in anywhere and he'd run the show like a champ, but he failed at running his own campaign. It was amateur hour.
Click to expand...

So what you are basically saying is that Obama told everyone (his followers anyway) what they wanted to hear in order to remain in the White House? Abortion, free and always legal? Heck Yeah!! Make those doggone rich pay "their fair share"? Of course! Free education at Universities for all (whether deserved or not)? Why sure kid! Viene uno vienen todos!! Quien se preocupa por las fronteras y las leyes de inmigracion?
 
BACotner said:
So what you are basically saying is that Obama told everyone (his followers anyway) what they wanted to hear in order to remain in the White House? Abortion, free and always legal? Heck Yeah!! Make those doggone rich pay "their fair share"? Of course! Free education at Universities for all (whether deserved or not)? Why sure kid! Viene uno vienen todos!! Quien se preocupa por las fronteras y las leyes de inmigracion?
Click to expand...

No, what I'm saying is that different groups have different priorities and Obama figured out what parts of his program would appeal most to each group and he used that information to target his advertizing and thus get the most bang for his buck.
 
disneydude said:
I'm glad to hear you say this Maggie. That is a Republican party that even I would consider voting for depending on the circumstances....but the Republican party has gone so far to the right wing on social issues, I'm not so sure that they can get their party back. The reality is....if the GOP kicked the evangelicals and hard-right social conservatives to the curb, they would probably be able to attract a lot more independent/moderates, which is what they will need in future elections.
Click to expand...

Interesting you mention independents and moderates, Disney. Just today, after giving it some thought, I changed my lean from Conservative to Moderate. I think that suits me a bit better. I agree with your post.
 
AdamT said:
No, what I'm saying is that different groups have different priorities and Obama figured out what parts of his program would appeal most to each group and he used that information to target his advertizing and thus get the most bang for his buck.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. "Targeted advertising" or "selling of an idea to a certain audience" versus actually articulating an idea of where and how to lead this country. Basically slight of hand, "Hey, don't pay any attention to the last 4 years, trust me, don't vote for him, he wants to take your Foodstamps/abortions/contraceptives/etc.... away from you!" Looks like it was a great idea and worked super well. 53% of the electorate bought the product. Too bad they can't return it when it breaks.
 
BACotner said:
Oh, I see. "Targeted advertising" or "selling of an idea to a certain audience" versus actually articulating an idea of where and how to lead this country. Basically slight of hand, "Hey, don't pay any attention to the last 4 years, trust me, don't vote for him, he wants to take your Foodstamps/abortions/contraceptives/etc.... away from you!" Looks like it was a great idea and worked super well. 53% of the electorate bought the product. Too bad they can't return it when it breaks.
Click to expand...

No, you're still cold. The point is that he ran a brilliant campaign and Romney ran a crap campaign. The hype about Romney being a better manager was just that: hype.
 
AdamT said:
No, you're still cold. The point is that he ran a brilliant campaign and Romney ran a crap campaign. The hype about Romney being a better manager was just that: hype.
Click to expand...

No. Its a hell of a lot harder to sell responsibility than it is to pander with free stuff.
 
AdamT said:
No, you're still cold. The point is that he ran a brilliant campaign and Romney ran a crap campaign. The hype about Romney being a better manager was just that: hype.
Click to expand...

A better manager? I don't think so. A better campaigner...yes.

During his first term, he only managed to get anything important (to him) done when he a control of the whole government. The rest of the time he appeared to be unable to manage his way out of a wet paper bag.

Since he won't have control of the whole government for at least the next two years, I don't expect to see him manage much.
 
OpportunityCost said:
No. Its a hell of a lot harder to sell responsibility than it is to pander with free stuff.
Click to expand...

children will almost always vote for the people who promise ice cream and candy over those who tell them to eat their peas and to lay off the soda pop
 
OpportunityCost said:
No. Its a hell of a lot harder to sell responsibility than it is to pander with free stuff.
Click to expand...

Hmm, so by claiming that he would cut taxes without cutting services Romney was selling responsibility? And here I thought he was selling snake oil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom