Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Ruble Noon, Nov 7, 2012.
Quoted for truth.
Not a big fan of the Constitution or -- ya know -- math or history, are you Cajun? See below for an illustration to try to understand why the EC FAVORS conservative candidates who typically do better in smaller-population states and away from urban centers.
This is NOT theoretical -- the red states here voted for Romney, Washington for Obama. Yet Romney got nearly twice as many EVs for virtually the same number of citizens.
And -- by the way -- Romney LOST the popular vote, too. Last time the EC meant the difference over the popular vote was when W lost to Gore by half a million votes, but won in the EC and became president.
Romney lost because he was a tepid candidate who inspired millions in his own party to stay at home rather than vote for him. If your response to this loss is "the fix was in," then -- frankly -- that's no big deal. But if the GOP and, much more importantly, real conservatives think like that, instead of trying figure out how this loss REALLY happened, there is going to be one D and after another in the White House.
yes i am a supporter of the Constitution.. unlike the kenyan negro reigning as president now... isn't he trying to negate the 2nd admendment, and does not believe in the 1st either.. and at least i am an AMERICAN.. and I did vote for Romney..
the real reason Romney lost is simply because the parasites outnumber the hosts... what do you think is going to happen when there are no more hosts ??????
George Armstrong Custer thought he could use the same tactics, the same technology that had served him well in the war of Northern Aggression against a vastly different opponent.
That pic is of Comanche, the lone survivor of the massacre.
Change your tactics, win enough elections and then you can deal with the issue of the left's morality.
Romney was nothing but a spoiled rich brat with a silver spoon stuck up his ...! He didn;t fool anyone! The GOP lost because they want to believe this is the same America as in 1930. Most of the people who voted for him would have been crushed when he let wall st and the banks run wild. A lot of people got their facts and "values" from Rush and other hacks paid to decieve them. He would have let GMotors fail, well tell that to Ohio and Michigan, Wisc and Minn. Future Dems will move to center and embrace the 2nd Amend. They will keep winning while the GOP will elect another clown named Bush! The GOP killed themselves!
Obama has moved to the center by shutting down more land to oil production.
Oh and speaking of running wild, who was it that forced the banks to give wild sub-prime loans? Yes we need more Government in the private sector.
Oh my. a company who couldn't make a profit with union demands, like GM, would have had to reorganize under bankruptcy. Well we couldn't have that, the government ( "we the people" in case you didn't know) just have to bail them out because the private sector can only dream of the day when they can run their businesses as efficiently as government runs.
Really interesting dialogue in the wake of this election. Not much reflection. Seems we are destined to repeat. Over and over. We are not strong when it comes to pattern recognition.
Oh well. It happened in Europe. It happened in China. It happened in SE Asia. I suppose it'll happen here as well. I give it another two generations. Then the monsters will run amok. They are among us now. We just fail to recognize them, and the political dynamics that unleash them.
They'll need heavy earth movers for the mass graves. That's bullish for Caterpillar stock.
Say what now? Romney lost because he couldn't excite his base, yet he was the tea party candidate? Ease up on the morphine while posting. You'll understand your own rants better. Or at least the rest of us will.
If the GOP moves any further left, they'll be democrats.
Bullspit. You wouldn't vote for a Republican because you think this class warfare nonsense makes sense.
Which part was easiest to swallow - hook, line, or sinker?
Romney lost for a variety of reasons. The greatest of which is that it isn't "fair" that some people have more than others, regardless of the time, sacrifice and effort disparity between you. Handing out trophies for last place has finally caught up with us.
Listen to this from Mark Levin hits the hole Mexican thing perfectly on the head. And the people pushing that Idea that amnesty to illegal immigration in order to entice Hispanics to vote Republican. Well a worth few minutes of your time.
Anyone remember the primaries? Romney was simply the last man standing, he didn't win. Every time someone new came into the race, they were the instant front runner. "Thank GOD we don't have to have Romney anymore!". How many saviors did you go through before they flamed out? Cain? Gingrich? The list was nearly endless.
Romney was simply the guy that didn't screw up. He wasn't very popular even with Republicans
I also find the argument that he wasn't conservative enough unpersuasive. People that wanted a more conservative candidate did not vote for Obama. People that wanted a more conservative candidate loathed Obama, and did not sit home in droves ceding the election to Obama. They held their nose and voted for the more conservative candidate Romney, even if he was not conservative enough. If you think conservatives stayed home and let Obama win because Romney wasn't conservative enough, they were stupid, and have no business calling anyone else stupid for supporting Obama. Cause they supported him by not showing up for Romney.
People that thought Romney was too conservative could have voted for Obama instead.
The internet, this board, is a great tool for people of like mind to come together. This however, while it can affirm peoples beliefs and reinforce the fact that they are not alone in their beliefs, it can also mislead people into thinking they are more of a majority than they are.
The people that win Presidential elections are the ones who convince the "sensible center" to vote their way. That's where the real majority lies. The more extreme to one edge or the other, left or right, the candidate, the harder time they have getting a plurality. The center is where the votes are.
It depends on what your definition of conservative is. Mine would be described as constitutional conservative. We had one of these in the primaries, one that got standing ovations when he talked about reigning in the FED and economic liberty. This person also appealed to another group that none of the others appealed to, the OWS crowd or the 99% as they are called. This person had one problem appealing to the base and that was in the area of foreign policy.
Herman Cain got a lot of enthusiastic support for sticking to economic issues. I believe Cain could have pulled in some of the minority vote also.
Gingrich really excited no one. Even the talking heads couldn't get excited about Gingrich.
Bachman had some support but her pray the gay away husband killed her chances.
Santorum excited the base while alienating other groups with comments on banning contraception.
Romney walked a fine line and avoided most of the pitfalls of social issues but people like Santorum, Aiken and Murdoch kept the stigma of the republicans want in my womb alive. Women do not like this but men on the right keep pushing the issue.
Ever notice that it is the men that are the most vocal about abortion?
Republicans harping on abortion alienate women in the same way that democrats harping on gun control alienate gun owners.
I used to believe that. But this election, even moreso than 2008, showed this to be incorrect. Obama won because his base showed up in droves. Romney couldn't even garner the popular vote that McCain got. And that's just pathetic.
Romney didn't lose because he failed to win over centrist votes. Romney lost because he couldn't get conservatives to show up.
Curious if you believe the "He's the most liberal guy in history" rhetoric? If he's ultra liberal, and his base got him elected, there's a huge part of the country that is awfully liberal. I don't buy that. His base surely did turn out. But they aren't enough, I still say the center is where the mass is, not on the fringes. Its a bell curve, and the further to the fringe you get, the fewer votes you have in your vicinity.
I haven't seen the numbers, are you going by raw numbers, or %? If raw numbers, you should compare to total voters too, I'd say its real likely Obama got less votes this time too.
If that's the case, then this part of my post applies:
Oh, the other thing, I much prefer McCain over Romney. Maybe that's just more true in general, not just me, and why Romney couldn't get the pop vote McCain did?
Obama got FAR fewer votes than he did in 2008. But that's understandable, I think, given that the "newness" had worn off, that Bush was no longer in the forefront of many minds, and that we'd had four years to see that "hope and change" isn't a plan; it's a slogan.
However, Romney failing to capture as many votes (in numbers, not percentages) speaks volumes.
We're not as far off as it may seem, as I'm not talking illuminating "the fringe", but the core; the "base". The FISCAL CONSERVATIVES in this country (or even the fiscal moderates).
The fringes on either side will always vote, and their votes are assured to be for the parties of their respective sides. The ones inside the fringe, but not quite "centrist" are truly important, IMHO. Without them, all the centrist voters in the country won't win you squat.
Exactly right. No anti-Bush backlash to boost his votes, no empty book of vague slogans for people to fill in with their pet causes like "hope and change". People saw what they wanted to see. (Kind of like Romney this time to some degree, although he's not very good at that).
If the economy had been going like gangbusters, he might have matched the # from last time. With the economy floundering around, bound to lose a bunch of votes.
As much, maybe more about Romney than the GOP, from my perspective. Hard to separate them based on election results. Its a lot of tea leaf reading, people thinking their position was a winning one, and if Romney had been more like them, he would have won.
Yeah, we may be off more on semantics. The problem is there isn't one axis, there's fiscal conservative/liberal, social conservative/liberals, and they don't correspond. A lot of the fiscal conservatives are socially liberal, were turned off by the religious right for instance.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI"]Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!! - YouTube[/ame]
When you have people like this there is no way you can outspend Obama to win.