Why Romney Lost

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    Another reason Romney Lost: 70% of single women voted for Obama; anybody wonder why?

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to nhsteven's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Romney lost because he ran against Santa Claus.

    Will be interesting in two years when things have gotten worst who he will blame, his predecessor for the last 4 years responsible for the mess. Look in the mirror.

    Wait until this spring when impeachment proceeding begin for Benghazi and all the lunatics here proclaim that he couldn't be removed in Nov. 2012 so they're trying to remove him now.

    He should have been fired for his first term, but the people have spoken.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree he was running against Santa Claus, but that doesn't excuse his typical position on every issue:  The fetal position. 

    Romney failed because he was convinced all he needed to do was be in the race, and Obama would lose.  I said it at the beginning, and it came true:  you can't beat something with nothing.

    Matters not what his positions actually might have been.

    [/QUOTE]


    Couldn't disagree more.

    Romney was a good candidate he was running against Santa Claus.

    Look at two of the states Obama carried Ohio and Michigan where he gave taxpayer stimulus money to auto workers union pension funds.

    What he does is take money from his opponents and give it to his followers.

    Taxes his opposition to give free health insurance, wellfare, food stamps and cell phones to his base.

    He implies amnesty for illegal aliens, free contraceptives for women, stimulus money for the unions the list goes on and on.

    Truth of the matter is people would rather not work to get ahead if the governement will give it to them.

    This is the new world the world we live in where everybody wants theirs, something for nothing.

    And the media. Corrupt media.

    Did they tell the story of the 14 year old dying of Leukemia Romney befriended before he went to politics?

    Visiting the boy every day in the hospital helping him write his will? No.

    Or did they tell of the President's culpability of the death of 4 Americans in benghazi?

    To go to a fundraiser in Vegas.

    Or fast and furious? No.

    Wait until the facts come out this spring when the entire country is torn apart once again when this president is being impeached and these people here on the left are blaming the Republicans instead of the media.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Romney was going to be Santa Claus for the rich, who don't need it, especially given the concentration of wealth issues in this country; and if Bush didn't get impeached for the nonsense he allowed (which was thousands of times worse), neither shall Obama, who 86% of the Canadiens preferred, and most of the rest of the world as well.

    [/QUOTE]


    How does your blame the rich solve anything?

    You do know that the rich pay most of the taxes already?  Or do you think the 1% paying 26% of the taxes is not a fair share?

    Your position, like most on the left, is simply economically ignorant.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to nhsteven's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another reason Romney Lost: 70% of single women voted for Obama; anybody wonder why?

    [/QUOTE]

    No

    They count on the Govt to take care of them .....duh?

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, in fairness, they depend upon government for  reason.  Liberal males won't stand up and behave like men, take care of their offspring, building families.  the values of the left are all aimed at treating women like animals, primarly fo the benefit of men.  Additionally, the left promotes everything BUT a stable family oriented lifestyle.

    This as a gut level makes young single women insecure about their futures as it applies to their future.

    As proof, I offer you that once they are married, these silly notions about abortion being for their benefit, dependence on government dissipate dramatically, as seen in the voting numbers.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to nhsteven's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another reason Romney Lost: 70% of single women voted for Obama; anybody wonder why?

    [/QUOTE]

    No

    They count on the Govt to take care of them .....duh?

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to nhsteven's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another reason Romney Lost: 70% of single women voted for Obama; anybody wonder why?

    [/QUOTE]

    No

    They count on the Govt to take care of them .....duh?

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    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 

     

    Softy,

    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.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to nhsteven's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another reason Romney Lost: 70% of single women voted for Obama; anybody wonder why?

    [/QUOTE]

    No

    They count on the Govt to take care of them .....duh?

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    The results showed that it was contraception and abortion that were of concern for single women.

    The rest of the points, not so much.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to NO MO O's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bush Bush Bush... let it go.

    [/QUOTE]


    He can't let it go.  for the rest of his life, ANYTHING that goes wrong will find its root in blaming Bush.

    I guess it is the left that can;t seem to move on (.org).

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to nhsteven's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to slomag's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jmel's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to nhsteven's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another reason Romney Lost: 70% of single women voted for Obama; anybody wonder why?

    [/QUOTE]

    No

    They count on the Govt to take care of them .....duh?

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

    [/QUOTE]


    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 

     

    Softy,

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

     

     

Share