• 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
tres borrachos said:
You just described Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...

nothing like Gary Johnson, even tho both were elected as republicans in blue states. don't think romney was very popular. Johnson certainly was
didn't trust romney so much - probably because i could not stand his wife

would smoke a joint with Johnson, couldn't even have a coca cola with romney
think there needs to be a human-ness in a successful candidate. the shrub had it. uncle jimmy doesn't and ford did ... only time i can recall when it did not determine a presidential election. reagan did. bill clinton has it in spades. hillary doesn't. romney doesn't either. gore doesn't. kerry is a drone. Obama has only a touch of it, like george the first. wonder if Condi and Elizabeth Warren have it - hope so
 
Henrin said:
Gary Johnson isn't anything like that. For example, he doesn't believe we should do away with public education, but is a supporter of vouchers thinking it will help increase school choice. A libertarian like myself is against school vouchers as it expands the domain of the state and furthers their hold on education. In fact, I would argue that it lowers school choice instead of expands it as it gives them an excuse to further control private schools.
Click to expand...

Just because he doesn't want to get rid of public education doesn't mean his fiscal plans aren't extreme. cutting the budget 43%, that means huge cuts to SS and Medicare which are hugely unpopular to moderates. Not to mention his insane tax plan which is completely incomprehensible and unworkable. Also it leaves the question if the budget of education is cut by 43% and the dept of education is gone there will be very little public education to speak of. So no Johnson doesn't want to get rid of public education he just want to create a system where public education can't exist... huge difference

Also Gary Johnson is an extreme social liberal, that doesn't play very well in the middle who can settle for things like gay marriage/civil unions but are pretty hard against drugs and prostitution.
 
justabubba said:
nothing like Gary Johnson, even tho both were elected as republicans in blue states. don't think romney was very popular. Johnson certainly was
didn't trust romney so much - probably because i could not stand his wife

would smoke a joint with Johnson, couldn't even have a coca cola with romney
think there needs to be a human-ness in a successful candidate. the shrub had it. uncle jimmy doesn't and ford did ... only time i can recall when it did not determine a presidential election. reagan did. bill clinton has it in spades. hillary doesn't. romney doesn't either. gore doesn't. kerry is a drone. Obama has only a touch of it, like george the first. wonder if Condi and Elizabeth Warren have it - hope so
Click to expand...

Gary Johnson's approval rating dropped down to 35% when he wouldn't shut up about legalizing pot.
 
justabubba said:
the question was properly answered
you responded to a different question, who would have been more electable
but any of the three mentioned would have been better candidates ... especially Johnson. Johnson could have defeated Obama
Click to expand...

I call BS on that. No way Johnson was going to beat Obama
 
justabubba said:
what was asked was not who was more electable but who would have been a better candidate
and those three names would all have been better candidates
Click to expand...

And they all would have gotten throttled in the GE.
 
Crovax said:
Good candidates have the ability to win elections. None of those 3 had that.
Click to expand...

Romney didn't have that quality either hence why he lost. Republicans were forced to hold their nose and vote for Romney as he was repeatedly lambasted as not being genuine. Gary Johnson especially could have beaten Obama. You and the establishment Republicans focus so much on "electability" that you keep nominating plastic nominees who are fake. Then complain when your candidates get accused of flip flopping.
 
reinoe said:
Romney didn't have that quality either hence why he lost. Republicans were forced to hold their nose and vote for Romney as he was repeatedly lambasted as not being genuine. Gary Johnson especially could have beaten Obama. You and the establishment Republicans focus so much on "electability" that you keep nominating plastic nominees who are fake. Then complain when your candidates get accused of flip flopping.
Click to expand...

Gary Johnson's chance of beating Obama was approximately zero point zero.
 
Kobie said:
Gary Johnson's chance of beating Obama was approximately zero point zero.
Click to expand...

There's no way to know for sure and I'm in no mood to engage in the mental masturbation of arguing the point. Can't we all agree that Mittens was an asshole and a loser?
 
reinoe said:
There's no way to know for sure and I'm in no mood to engage in the mental masturbation of arguing the point. Can't we all agree that Mittens was an asshole and a loser?
Click to expand...

Absolutely!
 
Clem said:
Fact. Last 6 POTUS Elections the GOP candidate got a slim majority of the votes in an election that should have been roll again / wide margin of victory for any sitting president (post 9/11 ... Oklahoma City saved Clinton's bacon ... 9/11 was on a whole other level.)

Obama got an EC landslide, then did zip to fix the economy and in fact had economic numbers that spelled 100% certain doom for POTUS re-election, and Obama got a near EC landslide, losing only two con-leaning states that went for him back when Bush left office with the economy in ruin and "Republican" was politically toxic.

In fact, funny thing about Bush 43. A mistake in the ballot design in Broward County FL got him and election he lost to Gore, by 1 EC vote. Then Osama bin Laden assured re-election, even if Jeff Dahmer was in the oval office, and with some brilliant Rove tactics, OH was won by a thread and an election that should have been and easy win barely eked by. In short, the White Libs/Minority assured win for Dems trend ain't new, it's been going on since Clinton, but some highly unusual anomalies clouded it with Bush appearing to win twice, when in reality he lost one and got a slim win on the second go in an election that should have been a whopper for any sitting pres thanks to ObL/9-11.

Spin it. Cherry pick. Go hog wild, but until the GOP attracts minorities they'll never elect a candidate for POTUS nor control the Senate. I think that support the maxim that Bigotry hurts bigots the most. What price will the GOP pay in support of pinheaded losers who now wear crosses instead of burning them, and are the opposite of "christian?" (verb)

And to think it's the party of Lincoln. Mind boggling.
Click to expand...

It is very true on the last 6 presidential elections, basically 4 Democratic huge wins and 2 squeakers for the GOP. But these things goes in cycles. The elections before those saw 1 Republican squeaker, 1968, 4 Republican huge wins, 72, 80, 84, 88 and one democratic squeaker, carter in 1976. Before that you had FDR and Truman winning 5 presidential elections in a row until Eisenhower broke that string.

I think the Republican problems has been more of candidates than party that is in decline. Actually both political have been in decline for quite a while. I think within the next 8-10 years independents will outnumber those who identify with both major parties. That means independents, non-affiliates will be over 50% of the electorate.

I think the Republicans realize two things, 1. they need to attract Hispanic voters since Hispanic's has become the largest minority voting block and is increasing in numbers/percentage of the electorate every year. 2. That no matter what they try, blacks will continue to be loyal to the Democratic Party, the party of FDR and will continue to cast 85-90% of their vote to the Democrats.

Blacks after the civil war were extremely loyal to the Republicans and gave that party roughly the same percentage they are now giving the Democrats. FDR and the Great Depression changed their loyalties. Personally I would like to see the demise of both major parties, they both owe their heart and soul to big money donors, to corporations, lobbyist, special interest. But that is another topic for another day.
 
1750Texan said:
Some of the 47% were military personnel and retirees...why would they have not have voted for Romney? Surely some did.
Click to expand...

The majority of that 47% are retired, military, or have a job. But people are readily able to convince themselves that Romney was talking about those other people.
 
I've already answered the op's question one way, I'll try it another: no the 47% comment did not deep six Romney's chances of winning. It was the Republican base not liking Romney that deep sixed his chances of winning. What the Right likes to forget is that the GOP spent a solid year finding anybody but Romney to run against Obama, and when each of them proved themselves in turn to be too crazy they finally landed on Romney in frustrated, resigned acceptance. If you can't fire up your base for your candidate, stick a fork in him, he's done.
 
Deuce said:
those other people.
Click to expand...

Was Romney addressing the KKK when he made that ignorant comment?

Some people like to divide the government into two parts. Part One includes AFDC checks and Food stamps for black people. Part Two includes everything else.

Part One is the government. Part Two is not the government. :confused:
 
Deuce said:
The majority of that 47% are retired, military, or have a job. But people are readily able to convince themselves that Romney was talking about those other people.
Click to expand...

No. Romney was quite clear what he meant and the Ameircan people understood the meaning. The American people did not mis repersent his meaning...in any way, shape, or form.

Why would Romney ever intimate that those that did not pay taxes would not vote for him anyway? For what reason did he make that claim in private...to wealthy donors?

Kid yourself...
 
pbrauer said:
I was listening to a liberal radio talk show host and he made a statement that I'm not sure I believe. He said President Obama was losing until the video surfaced. What do you say?
Click to expand...

It had a huge bearing on it.
 
reinoe said:
There's no way to know for sure and I'm in no mood to engage in the mental masturbation of arguing the point. Can't we all agree that Mittens was an asshole and a loser?
Click to expand...

why is he an asshole

everything suggests otherwise including going all out to help recover a lost child of an employee to sticking with his MS crippled wife

Loser-lets see

top of his class in college both at Stanford and then BYU
top in his Harvard MBA class and an honors degree from the law school as well
won as a GOP, the governorship of Mass.
incredibly successful olympic games management
extremely successful head of Bain capital

You have a resume that screams winner like that?
 
In the end, Romney lost for one main reason: enough of the American people properly perceived he was not on the side of the average American and his policies would favor the rich over them. And the amazing thing is that of all the GOP candidates who had any sort of chance at the nomination, he was indeed the most electable. Now put those two things together and it tells you in big bold capital letters why the Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections.
 
1750Texan said:
No. Romney was quite clear what he meant and the Ameircan people understood the meaning. The American people did not mis repersent his meaning...in any way, shape, or form.

Why would Romney ever intimate that those that did not pay taxes would not vote for him anyway? For what reason did he make that claim in private...to wealthy donors?

Kid yourself...
Click to expand...

Romney was saying all those Obama voters are leeches on society and probably literally didn't realize he was saying that deployed combat troops are leeches on society. He was spitting out numbers some moron fed him.
 
Deuce said:
Romney was saying all those Obama voters are leeches on society and probably literally didn't realize he was saying that deployed combat troops are leeches on society. He was spitting out numbers some moron fed him.
Click to expand...

Obama promised the children more candy and ice cream paid for by others than Romney did
 
I think all American elections are fixed, that's just my opinion.

Jeb Bush will be the next "elected" president.
 
TurtleDude said:
why is he an asshole

everything suggests otherwise including going all out to help recover a lost child of an employee to sticking with his MS crippled wife

Loser-lets see

top of his class in college both at Stanford and then BYU
top in his Harvard MBA class and an honors degree from the law school as well
won as a GOP, the governorship of Mass.
incredibly successful olympic games management
extremely successful head of Bain capital

You have a resume that screams winner like that?
Click to expand...


That's what happens when you have a daddy with a lot of money.
 
TurtleDude said:
Obama promised the children more candy and ice cream paid for by others than Romney did
Click to expand...

Yes yes poors are inferior creatures blah blah envy handouts class warfare etc etc.
 
99percenter said:
That's what happens when you have a daddy with a lot of money.
Click to expand...

yeah those phi beta kappa keys and olympic success were something his father must have bought him. I love watching people make excuses for why they aren't successful by pretending those who are must have merely bought it
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah those phi beta kappa keys and olympic success were something his father must have bought him. I love watching people make excuses for why they aren't successful by pretending those who are must have merely bought it
Click to expand...

:lol: Yo do the same thing with obama. Practice what you preach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom