• 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
I guess you could say the truth hurts right!

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 think his image was always as a cold hearted business man.

I disagree. I think people tried to make him appear cold hearted, especially with ads. He isn't cold hearted. He's a very smart businessman. You can be a great businessman and still have a heart.
 
Naaaa. He lost because he was a center right candidate who didnt have the support of the far right.

Besides that he made a fool out of himself at frequent occasions, at least when he visited Europe, where he told Londerners that they were to incompetent to hold Olympic games, told the German press that he likes Germany because his wife buys really expensive horses there, and pissed of the nobel peace prize winner and Solidarity union leader Lech Walesa by telling him how bad unions are.

mitttwit.jpg


But maybe Europeans "dont really understand" republicans....... or dont want to.
 
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.

His tone is exactly a reflection of mine. I knew what he was talking about. I also have no use for people that wont work.
 
Naaaa. He lost because he was a center right candidate who didnt have the support of the far right.

Besides that he made a fool out of himself at frequent occasions, at least when he visited Europe, where he told Londerners that they were to incompetent to hold Olympic games, told the German press that he likes Germany because his wife buys really expensive horses there, and pissed of the nobel peace prize winner and Solidarity union leader Lech Walesa by telling him how bad unions are.

mitttwit.jpg


But maybe Europeans "dont really understand" republicans....... or dont want to.


There's nothing wrong with anything he said in your post.

Spare us the tabloid smears.
 
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?

Romney was in the lead, at the time, although marginally, and many questioned a lot of the polls in the battleground states that had him ahead.

Politics is a very funny game and the electorate isn't stable. We just had a provincial election here in Quebec, where the party in government was well in front when the election was called and seemed to be coasting to a big victory. Then, a high profile candidate was picked in one of their ridings and he brought up the issue of separation and everything else was forgotten - the rest of the campaign was driven by media and the other parties claiming there was a secret agenda to have another referendum on separation. All the federal parties kept quiet and the Quebec government ended up on their own and they got slaughtered in the polls. It's highly unlikely that separation would have been an issue for the government after the election, but those brief statements allowed the opposition and the media to play it as if armaggedon was about to return.

The political graveyard is littered with the bodies of highly competent, intelligent individuals who've been buried by their own words, usually words simply uttered in passing.
 
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's what I was going to say. Got ninja'd by mak2.
 
What really lost Romney the election was the poor performance in the 3rd debate.

The 47% remark was a gaffe combined with extreme rhetoric. The 47% was really meant to be the support that anyone with a D would get in a general election contest. Then he described those people as those who support a system where a large part pay no federal income taxes. He was just basically saying that his message was for the undecided voters and did it in the most inarticulate way possible
 
His tone is exactly a reflection of mine. I knew what he was talking about. I also have no use for people that wont work.

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".

Depends on how he said it, doesn't it? If he said "Those stupid Baptist sons-of-bitches aren't going to vote for us anyway," that would be. Of course I didn't vote for him either, so....

Mitt started with this:

"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"

OK. That makes sense. But he didn't stop did he?

"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."

So, he basically said that half of the country are "dependent victims" and he wouldn't "worry about those people." His words, not mine.
.


I would call that dripping with contempt.
 
Rocket, he was referring to campaigning and not policy. That's the context being dropped. Stop being a sucker for context drops.
 
It hurt, because it was taken totally out of context.

The only time I recall Romney with a real lead in the polls was after the first debate.

I do not recall him leading when the video was released; nor do I believe that it 'cost' him the election; it did however help insure the Democrat vote got to the polls as it, out of context or not, confirmed the demonizing; the Democrats have always been very good at using fear to motivate.
 
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.

How in the world could you possible claim to know such a thing?
 
It hurt, because it was taken totally out of context.

It wasn't taken out of context at all. What are you talking about? What it did, however, was give the American people a glimpse of the man at his core. And American's didn't like what they saw. Romney was and still is a man who does not have a clue what average every day Americans have to deal with on a daily basis. It was his complete out of touch with the people of this country that cost Romney the election.
 
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".

I'm sorry but I think you are referring to the revised version of what he said. This is what he claims he "meant". But if you check the transcript

“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 that 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...


Not so much
 
The other thing that killed Romney was his etch-a-sketch flip flopping on every major issue in order to appease the far right of his party. If Romney had stuck to his principles, he may have won despite the 47% comment. It was a combination of both.
 
Oh yea, I was wondering why I thought he sounded like and elitiest pig back then but it did not sound like it now. Now I remember. But i still dont think it cost him the election.
I'm sorry but I think you are referring to the revised version of what he said. This is what he claims he "meant". But if you check the transcript

“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 that 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...


Not so much
 
Oh yea, I was wondering why I thought he sounded like and elitiest pig back then but it did not sound like it now. Now I remember. But i still dont think it cost him the election.

I think, like most loses, it rarely boils down to one thing. Right? I think it definitely contributed though. He was trying to fight that image of being an out of touch snob and then this comes out. Perfect timing.
 
It wasn't taken out of context at all. What are you talking about? What it did, however, was give the American people a glimpse of the man at his core. And American's didn't like what they saw. Romney was and still is a man who does not have a clue what average every day Americans have to deal with on a daily basis. It was his complete out of touch with the people of this country that cost Romney the election.
Excuse me while I cry over the non workers.
 
Did The 47% Video of Mitt Romney Kill His Chances of Winning?

there were a number of factors, but yeah, it definitely hurt his campaign. basically, he was fighting an image of being a fake, out of touch plutocrat. then a video surfaces of him telling a group of rich guys exactly what they want to hear, and it's nearly impossible to shake that image.

after watching the documentary on him, he looks a lot more likable as a person. they probably would have done better had they presented that version of Romney. i don't think he truly felt the contempt for half of the country, but the donors certainly do, so he was telling them what he thought they believed in order to get money and support.

also, a long and brutal primary when the other guy didn't have to go through that was also a major disadvantage.
 
I'm sorry but I think you are referring to the revised version of what he said. This is what he claims he "meant". But if you check the transcript

“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 that 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...


Not so much

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.
 
Excuse me while I cry over the non workers.

Oh puh-lease......so you bought into Romney's belief that 47% of the people in this country don't work and scrounge off the government? You really should educate yourself if you really believe that.
 
there were a number of factors, but yeah, it definitely hurt his campaign. basically, he was fighting an image of being a fake, out of touch plutocrat. then a video surfaces of him telling a group of rich guys exactly what they want to hear, and it's nearly impossible to shake that image.

after watching the documentary on him, he looks a lot more likable as a person. they probably would have done better had they presented that version of Romney. i don't think he truly felt the contempt for half of the country, but the donors certainly do, so he was telling them what he thought they believed in order to get money and support.

also, a long and brutal primary when the other guy didn't have to go through that was also a major disadvantage.

Just another example of Mitt attempting to use the etch-a-sketch to reinvent himself to a group in order to appease them.....THAT was one of his biggest flaws.
 
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.

Nobody read the transcripts apparently besides you and a few others on here (including me).

You are exactly correct in what you're saying. He was talking in a room of donors and he was talking about the campaign. I would venture to guess that most on here have no idea what else he said that day to that group of people in that room.

He was talking about his campaign for the job of POTUS, and nothing more.
 
The only time I recall Romney with a real lead in the polls was after the first debate.

I do not recall him leading when the video was released; nor do I believe that it 'cost' him the election; it did however help insure the Democrat vote got to the polls as it, out of context or not, confirmed the demonizing; the Democrats have always been very good at using fear to motivate.
It was pretty close back and forth until Romney played a "gentleman's race" after the storm. Then Christy buried him.
 
Back
Top Bottom