Re: Why Romney Lost
posted at 11/9/2012 1:11 PM EST
In response to nhsteven's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to jmel's comment:
In response to nhsteven's comment:
Another reason Romney Lost: 70% of single women voted for Obama; anybody wonder why?
They count on the Govt to take care of them .....duh?
I think Steven's referring to the rape comments, the abortion agenda, the fair pay act, the 'binders of women', the uproar over contraception being covered by insurance companies.
They profiled the undecided voter about a week before the election, and it was the single woman in her 20's or early 30's who was not terribly interested in politics.
Thx slomag. Also, I took this from softy's rant, where I replied to his statements about Obama being impeached and our new "collectivist" society
While there is some validity to what you articulate; let me point out a few things.
1. I believe in the conservative model, but not the hypocritical gouging one espoused by the Republican party as currently constituted. IMO the great conservative thinkers of the past would be outraged at this self serving interpretation. Romney lost largely due to the out of touch and disastrous ideologues at the fringes that he felt compelled to obligate. After he won the nomination, he needed to dash to the center; this could have been done by choosing a more moderate running mate. McCain made the same mistake (but his running mate hurt him for different reasons). It's a good bet that Romney regrets not choosing Rubio or someone similar. As a result, the general populace (and the world for that matter) was not going to buy that hideous platform he was forced to advocate. I believe the GOP shall learn from this & reconsider their message, starting with a moderation of their ideology; until then, they won't win. (Admittedly, Obama had help from two pre-election events, the Financial Meltdown in '08 and Sandy in '12; but when aggregate policy & stances are bereft of pragmatism these events will pop up to bite you.)
2. Obama adopted the stimulus approach because he inherited a disastrous economy from his predecessor, and to this day the populace ( including international) hasn't forgotten it. Why did the economy get that way? The answer is in the item above. The stimulus approach is the one propagated by most of the world's leading economists, including many of the conservative ones. He also worked with many of the culprits; Wall Street bankers, the Auto industry, etc. While the result wasn't as robust as was hoped, it's remarkable it worked as well as it did, especially considering (understandably) the lack of cooperation he had to deal with.
3. If we are such a "collectivist" leaning society, then why is the tax code currently to the right of the Eisenhower era, which was at the height of the red scare? Do you need me to answer that? To get a partial answer, see the next item.
4. The concentration of wealth is getting worse by the day, year & decade. This has been boosted by public policy crafted via the well heeled PACs, lobbyists, morally bereft Wall Streeters, & other agents of the now heavily favored ruling class. Entrepeneurs deserve their rewards, but they shouldn't mind sharing a little with the less fortunate; this would be a symbol of gratitude; however, it's just the opposite; greed / ill gotten gains at all costs seems to be the dominating theme, including the raping of economies abroad. The wealthy bank their tax breaks & cheats, which becomes dead money. History has shown this is always a recipe for disaster (The Roman Empire, the Roaring 20s, etc). The wealthy, who manipulate the system beautifully, want more and more and more, masked by the phony conservatism preached by the right. The wealthy need to pay their fair share; period. If that can't be achieved, we need to at least attempt that they do so. Contrast the uber classes with the disastrous underclass that is growing by the day. Of course the liberal programs have their own fraudulent problems,and Clinton attempted to correct this some, but that's still an excuse.
5. This is the 21st century. Heretic old men with twisted ignorant concepts who ignore science have no business telling young women what to do with their bodies, within reason.
6. The transgressions during the Bush era were far worse than Obama; if he didn't get impeached, (starting with that profiteering sham of a war, Alberto Gonzalez, Valerie Plame, Gitmo, etc), I doubt Obama will
FOLLOWUP - I just watched on FOX News a vigorous debate between two prominent (female) talk show hosts on opposite ends of the aisle; the jawing was beyond belief. I then watched Boehner's press conference where he is laying down the ground work for his "start" game. (The Repubs needs to thank the unscrupulous gerrymandering of the House for him becoming Speaker; although he too takes heat from the fringes). Unfortunately, apparently little is going to change.
Nice post, Steven - it's nice to be somewhat ideologically aligned for a change, at least until spring training starts :)
I would add to the stimulus approach that Obama did not only inherit an economic mess, but he was left with very few tools to fix the problem - the federal funds rate (the single biggest factor in the Reagan recovery) was already at 0%, the national debt had skyrocketed, the federal budget had not included the cost of war in the past seven years, and he had a minority that would use the fillibuster as a first resort. Add to that the rise of a tea-party rallying against any form of spending at any level of government, and you really have a deck stacked against recovery. I think it's amazing we've done as well as we have.
I do have hope for the next term - the Independent elected in Maine is expected to caucus with the Dems, giving them effectively a 55-45 majority, and Harry Reid has indicated he is ready and willing to go nuclear (aka constitutional) to push through majority votes. We'll see - I've been called naive, but I am hopeful.