Trayvon Martin Star Witness Caught in her own LIE!

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

It's hard to believe that this thread has been diverted into wild claims that conservative positions cost Romney the election.

Let's summarize why he lost, so we can avoid chasing down these rabbit holes.

First, he basically took the summer off and failed to attack Obama or try to establish a negative public persona for Obama, a proven tactic for republicans. In so doing, he followed McCain's disastrous strategy of the previous election. In both cases, I believe they were frightened off by PC fears of attacking a black man, particularly one so beloved by the media and other blacks.

Worse, Romney sat back and absorbed some of the most vicious character assaults I have ever seen in an election, including one claim that he caused the death of a man's wife by denying her medical coverage for cancer. Ultimately, Obama was quite successful in portraying Romney's business success as illegitimate and harmful, undermining Romney's biggest asset. Meanwhile, Romney never made a concerted effort to blame Obama for the poor economy.

Ironically, Obama, who is one of the outright weirdest figures ever to run for president, an aloof, arrogant faculty lounge radical with little in the way of American roots, was able to paint Romney as the odd guy out.

Second, Romney made a disastrous error in selecting Paul Ryan as his VP candidate. Ryan lacked stature and was basically humiliated in his debate with the idiot Biden. Moreover, his sole asset, his health care and budget plans, allowed Obama to shift the focus of the campaign from his failed policies to Ryan's plans. Ryan's plans, while no doubt good faith efforts, offended important republican constituencies and had zero chance of being enacted in any event.

Third, Romney came up short in the crucial third debate when he passed on an opportunity to attack Obama for the Benghazi disaster. This was a golden opportunity to connect with voters and accuse Obama of abandoning brave Americans who were outnumbered and under fire. More broadly, Romney and Ryan both seemed well out of their depth in discussing foreign affairs. Some of this was no odubt due to trying to straddle the fence between the eno-con and Paulite factions, but at the end of the day, his criticism of Obama seemed to lack coherence.

Finally, Romney lost because of the unfortunate timing of Hurricane Sandy, which gave Obama a golden opportunity, duly trumpeted by the obama media, to act presidential. He was aided immeasurably by backstabbing traitor Chris Christie.

Election stats showed that core republican voters, older whites, turned out in disappointing numbers compared to Obama's core, older black voters. Vote fraud no doubt accounts for some of this, but Romney's poor showing as a candidate has to get the lion's share of the blame.

None of that is in disagreement with what I was saying - which was only that conservatives showed up in disappointing numbers at the election. The idea that Romney was "catering" to them is preposterous.

I am curious, though, in regards to your post. You do not mention anywhere Romney being Mormon. Do you not think that had any effect?
 
"It's hard to believe that this thread has been diverted into wild claims that conservative positions cost Romney the election."

My argument is not that conservative positions cost him the election, it's that extreme positions cost him the election. To say that the country moving left makes the tea party only seem extreme is irrelevant, because we're a democracy. "The worst form of government there is, except for all the others.)
 
Quote from Ricter:

"It's hard to believe that this thread has been diverted into wild claims that conservative positions cost Romney the election."

My argument is not that conservative positions cost him the election, it's that extreme positions cost him the election. To say that the country moving left makes the tea party only seem extreme is irrelevant, because we're a democracy. "The worst form of government there is, except for all the others.)

It was bigarrow's comments that conservative positions cost him the election, and that's what I was answering. I was arguing quite the opposite.

But I've still yet to hear from you what values were "extreme" in Romney's platform.
 
Quote from Ricter:

"It's hard to believe that this thread has been diverted into wild claims that conservative positions cost Romney the election."

My argument is not that conservative positions cost him the election, it's that extreme positions cost him the election. To say that the country moving left makes the tea party only seem extreme is irrelevant, because we're a democracy. "The worst form of government there is, except for all the others.)

No, we aren't a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. Even if we were a democracy, we have a Constitution, and it is the Supreme law here even if the majority doesn't think so. It can however, be amended to address those issues where the majority of States and Congressional Representatives do in fact agree that the Constitution must be altered. Until then, the govt taking actions that it isn't permitted to, are illegal. Your opinion might be that my position is radical, but it just isn't, based on the law of the land.
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

No, we aren't a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.
You win on theory.

In practice...
66 million > 61 million.
332 > 206.
 
Quote from Ricter:

You win on theory.

In practice...
66 million > 61 million.
332 > 206.

Assuming you are referring to the Presidential election, that is part of the structure of our Republic. It doesn't make us a democracy, as we aren't crowning a king who can do whatever he wants, his authority is limited by the Constitution.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

None of that is in disagreement with what I was saying - which was only that conservatives showed up in disappointing numbers at the election. The idea that Romney was "catering" to them is preposterous.

I am curious, though, in regards to your post. You do not mention anywhere Romney being Mormon. Do you not think that had any effect?

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I agree with you. Ultimately it was about turnout. If Romney had turned out typical republican voters, he would have won.

This brings up one issue I skipped, the failure of Romney's hightech get out the vote plan. This was an embarrassing failure for a management consultant, as they apparently had all kinds of tech issues. Almost makes you wonder if somone was trying to mess it up, doesn't it? If we have an IRS that worked to suppress conservative campaigning, it's certainly plausible that the NSA or CIA may have lent some talent to screwing up the computers.

The issue of Romney's religion is interesting, but I haven't seen any data on it. I know some Evangelicals who were VERY disturbed by it. It's certainly possible it contributed to his poor turnout, as these voters were not about to vote for Obama.
 
Quote from PiggyBank:

Assuming you are referring to the Presidential election, that is part of the structure of our Republic. It doesn't make us a democracy, as we aren't crowning a king who can do whatever he wants, his authority is limited by the Constitution.
"It doesn't make us a democracy, as we aren't crowning a king who can do whatever he wants..."
I didn't realize that was a necessary or even typical feature of a democracy.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

It's hard to believe that this thread has been diverted into wild claims that conservative positions cost Romney the election.

Let's summarize why he lost, so we can avoid chasing down these rabbit holes.

First, he basically took the summer off and failed to attack Obama or try to establish a negative public persona for Obama, a proven tactic for republicans. In so doing, he followed McCain's disastrous strategy of the previous election. In both cases, I believe they were frightened off by PC fears of attacking a black man, particularly one so beloved by the media and other blacks.

Worse, Romney sat back and absorbed some of the most vicious character assaults I have ever seen in an election, including one claim that he caused the death of a man's wife by denying her medical coverage for cancer. Ultimately, Obama was quite successful in portraying Romney's business success as illegitimate and harmful, undermining Romney's biggest asset. Meanwhile, Romney never made a concerted effort to blame Obama for the poor economy.

Ironically, Obama, who is one of the outright weirdest figures ever to run for president, an aloof, arrogant faculty lounge radical with little in the way of American roots, was able to paint Romney as the odd guy out.

Second, Romney made a disastrous error in selecting Paul Ryan as his VP candidate. Ryan lacked stature and was basically humiliated in his debate with the idiot Biden. Moreover, his sole asset, his health care and budget plans, allowed Obama to shift the focus of the campaign from his failed policies to Ryan's plans. Ryan's plans, while no doubt good faith efforts, offended important republican constituencies and had zero chance of being enacted in any event.

Third, Romney came up short in the crucial third debate when he passed on an opportunity to attack Obama for the Benghazi disaster. This was a golden opportunity to connect with voters and accuse Obama of abandoning brave Americans who were outnumbered and under fire. More broadly, Romney and Ryan both seemed well out of their depth in discussing foreign affairs. Some of this was no odubt due to trying to straddle the fence between the eno-con and Paulite factions, but at the end of the day, his criticism of Obama seemed to lack coherence.

Finally, Romney lost because of the unfortunate timing of Hurricane Sandy, which gave Obama a golden opportunity, duly trumpeted by the obama media, to act presidential. He was aided immeasurably by backstabbing traitor Chris Christie.

Election stats showed that core republican voters, older whites, turned out in disappointing numbers compared to Obama's core, older black voters. Vote fraud no doubt accounts for some of this, but Romney's poor showing as a candidate has to get the lion's share of the blame.

This is the post of the week! Why you aren't in politics perplexes me.
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I agree with you. Ultimately it was about turnout. If Romney had turned out typical republican voters, he would have won.

This brings up one issue I skipped, the failure of Romney's hightech get out the vote plan. This was an embarrassing failure for a management consultant, as they apparently had all kinds of tech issues. Almost makes you wonder if somone was trying to mess it up, doesn't it? If we have an IRS that worked to suppress conservative campaigning, it's certainly plausible that the NSA or CIA may have lent some talent to screwing up the computers.

The issue of Romney's religion is interesting, but I haven't seen any data on it. I know some Evangelicals who were VERY disturbed by it. It's certainly possible it contributed to his poor turnout, as these voters were not about to vote for Obama.

I'm Christian, and was disturbed by Romney's religion. HOWEVER, I voted for him as he was the lesser of the evils. Hell, he's not even close to the evil Onazi poses upon MY Country...

And again, you're wasting your talent. Run for office. America needs all the help she can get.
 
Back
Top