• 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

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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?
 
I dont think Romney would have gotten elected no matter what, now. At the time I was watching Faux and thought sure he had won. I dont think that 47% would have voted for him anyway.
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?
 
I dont think Romney would have gotten elected no matter what, now. At the time I was watching Faux and thought sure he had won. I dont think that 47% would have voted for him anyway.

That was his point, that the 47% he was referring to. Was not going to vote for him anyway.
 
Oh? What did he really mean by it then?
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.
 
I will have to think about that. IS there really 47% of Americans that WON'T work that arent vets, children, etc? That sounds like a lot.
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.
 
I will have to think about that. IS there really 47% of Americans that WON'T work that arent vets, children, etc? That sounds like a lot.

I am in the workforce as we speak. I believe it.
 
I don't think it was THE nail in the coffin, but it was definitely one of them. Along with classics like, "I have binders full of women!"

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?
 
Maybe, but that alone did not likely have that much impact. The 47% comment was largely misunderstood, IMHO, since it was intended to mean that proposed federal income tax (FIT) cuts, which were not applicable to the 47% that pay no FIT, would not help to "buy" their votes. The Romney campaign had bigger screw-ups than that, for example his "simple" 59-point economic plan and explaining that while RomneyCare was good that its close cousin, ObamaCare, was bad.
 
It certainly played a role in the Romney loss. But I suspect he would have lost even if it had not surfaced.
 
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?

I always felt it was Obama's election to lose, but it did seem to be tightening up near the end. This gaff ended all that.

He didn't have time to recreate his image, and it's not clear he could or ever has.
 
I voted no. He actually covered a lot of things in that full quote Mother Jones released, and it all got jumbled together.

He said that 47% of Americans don't pay income tax. In a way that was right as the Tax Policy Center showed that over 46% of American households didn't pay federal taxes in 2011. But of those 46%+ more than half did pay payroll taxes. So that was right & wrong.

He said that people would vote for Obama because they play victims, and think they're entitled to healthcare, and food, and housing, and other stuff. He was right about that. I don't know if it's 47% of Americans, but there are a large number that feel that way and voted for Obama because of it.

So there was some truth in what he said, some gray matter, and a lot of opinion. Did it cost him the election? Absolutely not, in my opinion. He wasn't going to win anyway, for a number of reasons - the Electoral College is stacked against the Republicans (even if he won the popular vote), and he wasn't going to "get out the vote" anyway. Obama had minorities, women and young people who adored him so much they wept at his campaign stops. Romney couldn't compete with that.

But that said, I'm surprised he did as well as he did.
 
Since I wasn't planning on voting for Romney anyway, I viewed as just another case of stupidity made verbal.

Did it actually cost him the election? I don't think so, as other's have said, he likely wouldn't have gotten those votes anyway. Too many have been disenchanted with both parties for so long, it was being used as an excuse for some.
 
Last edited:
I always felt it was Obama's election to lose, but it did seem to be tightening up near the end. This gaff ended all that.

He didn't have time to recreate his image, and it's not clear he could or ever has.
I think his image was always as a cold hearted business man.
 
Oh? What did he really mean by it then?

He meant that there was no chance of garnering many of those votes and so the campaign should not pander to them.

He did not mean "screw them". It was just a talk about campaign strategy.

It's no different than Obama saying ~"we're not gonna get many conservative votes, so let's concentrate our efforts on the liberals".
 
It did change my mind about voting for him. His tone was dripping with contempt for half of the population. It was the last thing that drove me to vote Libertarian.
 
Maybe, but that alone did not likely have that much impact. The 47% comment was largely misunderstood, IMHO, since it was intended to mean that proposed federal income tax (FIT) cuts, which were not applicable to the 47% that pay no FIT, would not help to "buy" their votes. The Romney campaign had bigger screw-ups than that, for example his "simple" 59-point economic plan and explaining that while RomneyCare was good that its close cousin, ObamaCare, was bad.

"I was in favor of the individual mandate before I was against it." A stiff wind would blow him over, and the 47% comment was a pretty good breeze.
 
It did change my mind about voting for him. His tone was dripping with contempt for half of the population. It was the last thing that drove me to vote Libertarian.

Oh, please. It was not policy talk, it was CAMPAIGN talk. That's the context being removed to promote outrage among those blinded by partisanship and being taken advantage of with talking points.

Obama could say ~"we're not getting many Southern Baptist votes, so let's concentrate on liberals". Would you also find him "dripping with contempt".
 
He meant that there was no chance of garnering many of those votes and so the campaign should not pander to them.

He did not mean "screw them". It was just a talk about campaign strategy.

It's no different than Obama saying ~"we're not gonna get many conservative votes, so let's concentrate our efforts on the liberals".

Good to see someone has it right.

Romney butchered the point he was trying to make, but hell, it was in a private meeting among supporters.

Certainly the "O'Keefe" like release of the recording allowed the context to be turned into something it clearly wasn't, a call to focus election efforts in the right place.
 
Back
Top Bottom