Some Thoughts on just why Romney lost

[ttwtt78640]

A direct result of todays generation living in Mom & Dad's basement until they are in their mid 30's no doubt.

Perhaps, but certainly reenforced by liberal public education and the lack of dad (or any real community/extended family support). The gov't (Uncle Sugar) has been the only "provider" that many have ever known. The idea of private charity as a temporary helping hand has been replaced, in large part, by a new view of "rights". These "rights" now have shifted to equality of outcome, rather than the original equality of opportunity. If your McJob does not support the addition of dependents, then that now must be supplied by the rest of society, as it is a "right" to support all that you care to spawn, rather than a responsibility to first increase your output (economic worth) and then add dependents. There are now entire generations that have never been self sufficient, raised their entire lives on the dole, so that concept of personal responsibility is becoming obsolete to many.

 

[Andalublue]

Pete you are a European. You truly know about as much about America as a fish knows about fur. Your opinion means less than just about anyone else's about the subject because even when you are right you poison the argument with your America hating crapola.

It's so much easier to attack the poster than defeating the argument, don't you find?

 

[j-mac]

Fringe is the right-wing social agenda that alienates moderates/independents/people of color and women. If the GOP would dump the social agenda and focus on the fiscal conservative core of the party, they would be much more competitive. Dump the anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-immigrant, anti-civil rights focus of the right-wing social agenda. Also stop alientating non-Christians by stopping the evangelical agenda to infiltrate government with a pro-"Christian" focus.

I don't think that becoming more liberal is the key, I am sorry, I just don't. I do agree that we need to rethink our message to these groups you speak of, but in a conservative message, because I think that conservatism is the correct path for this country. But, to continue to label those that don't lean liberal as "fringe", or "extreme" is not going to do anything moving forward but divide the country further. What you are essentially saying is that those who disagree with a liberal/progressive point of view should be silent, that they don't deserve their opinion in the public square. I don't think that is America.

 

[j-mac]

It's so much easier to attack the poster than defeating the argument, don't you find?

What argument? Talking points, and platitudes that are rooted in false narratives are not arguments, they are inflammatory rhetoric.

 

[Andalublue]

Fringe is the right-wing social agenda that alienates moderates/independents/people of color and women. If the GOP would dump the social agenda and focus on the fiscal conservative core of the party, they would be much more competitive. Dump the anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-immigrant, anti-civil rights focus of the right-wing social agenda. Also stop alientating non-Christians by stopping the evangelical agenda to infiltrate government with a pro-"Christian" focus.

This is true. Many, if not most, conservative movements that are having any kind of electoral success worldwide are realising this. In fact I think that a lrage portion of the GOP recognise this too, it's just that they have an extreme fringe that are more interested in their ideological purity than in gaining the White House. You've kind of got to feel a little sorry for Romney that his fringe chased off his hoped-for swing voters. It is that fringe that is now trying to pin the blame on anyone and everyone but themselves. This thread is a case in point.

 

[disneydude]

I don't think that becoming more liberal is the key, I am sorry, I just don't. I do agree that we need to rethink our message to these groups you speak of, but in a conservative message, because I think that conservatism is the correct path for this country. But, to continue to label those that don't lean liberal as "fringe", or "extreme" is not going to do anything moving forward but divide the country further. What you are essentially saying is that those who disagree with a liberal/progressive point of view should be silent, that they don't deserve their opinion in the public square. I don't think that is America.

Its not becoming more liberal....its putting the party back into the Barry Goldwater vein. Focus on fiscal conservativism and dump the evangelical social agenda. The problem with the GOP is that this evangelical base isn't really all that interested in the true fiscal conservative core of the GOP. They are looking for anyone that will push their radical social agenda and that's about it. They have been playing the GOP as a pawn for the last two decades. Its time for the GOP to wake up and realize where its gotten them.

 

[j-mac]

This is true. Many, if not most, conservative movements that are having any kind of electoral success worldwide are realising this. In fact I think that a lrage portion of the GOP recognise this too, it's just that they have an extreme fringe that are more interested in their ideological purity than in gaining the White House. You've kind of got to feel a little sorry for Romney that his fringe chased off his hoped-for swing voters. It is that fringe that is now trying to pin the blame on anyone and everyone but themselves. This thread is a case in point.

Your argument here reminds me of the scene in Saving Private Ryan toward the end when the group was outnumbered by a Nazi Panzer company, and they set the battle in that small town in France. The battle rages, and the American group is valiant in their fight, when the scene shows a German soldier released earlier in the movie is searching the building where the Italian American is hold up fighting, and the two engage in a hand to hand fight, when the German soldier gets our American on the floor with his bayonet pointed into his chest as he struggles to hold off the stab, the German is saying "Shhhh, shhhh, shhhhh....It's ok, It's going to be ok,....Just let it happen.....Shhhhh" And he kills him.

 

[Andalublue]

What argument? Talking points, and platitudes that are rooted in false narratives are not arguments, they are inflammatory rhetoric.

I thought he made a clear argument:

1. That a patently unfair attitude that rewards the richest and squeezes the lower paid is generally unpopular, especially amongst the lower paid. It's not rocket science.
2. That claiming that 47% of the population are scroungers is likely to piss of at least 47% of the electorate.
3. That claiming that because someone receives any kind of benefit makes them a 'moocher' when 47% receive those benefits means you've probably got a very low opinion of your fellow Americans.

These excuses are really what qualify as inflammatory rhetoric. You're all hitting out because you're angry at having lost. That's not really a sensible way to address the reasons for why you lost. Until you do that you'll just keep on losing. Remember, the demographics are not in your favour. You need the votes of some of those 47% if you're ever going to win back the presidency. Blaming them and calling them silly names isn't going to do that.

 

[j-mac]

I thought he made a clear argument:

That a patently unfair attitude that rewards the richest and squeezes the lower paid is generally unpopular, especially amongst the lower paid. It's not rocket science.

Translation: Class warfare works. So the path to victory is to pander to those dependent on government handouts?

That claiming that 47% of the population are scroungers is likely to piss of at least 47% of the electorate.

And once again Romney says something that liberals don't like but in the end he was exactly right wasn't he? I mean, that 47% never was going to vote for him.

That claiming that because someone receives any kind of benefit makes them a 'moocher' when 47% receive those benefits means you've probably got a very low opinion of your fellow Americans.

No, a 'moocher' is a 'moocher'.... Those that actually need the hand up, we are a compassionate country, and provide that willingly. but these people?



Or these people?



Or this fine example...



Plenty of examples out there....

These excuses are really what qualify as inflammatory rhetoric. You're all hitting out because you're angry at having lost. That's not really a sensible way to address the reasons for why you lost. Until you do that you'll just keep on losing. Remember, the demographics are not in your favour. You need the votes of some of those 47% if you're ever going to win back the presidency. Blaming them and calling them silly names isn't going to do that.

I called no one a name...But I hope you're wrong, because if not we are screwed.

 

[PeteEU]

Pete you are a European. You truly know about as much about America as a fish knows about fur. Your opinion means less than just about anyone else's about the subject because even when you are right you poison the argument with your America hating crapola.

So you know I am right but cant admit it, so you attack me instead and use the typical right wing hack attack "you are not even American". Have a nice evening.

 

[PeteEU]

I thought he made a clear argument:

1. That a patently unfair attitude that rewards the richest and squeezes the lower paid is generally unpopular, especially amongst the lower paid. It's not rocket science.
2. That claiming that 47% of the population are scroungers is likely to piss of at least 47% of the electorate.
3. That claiming that because someone receives any kind of benefit makes them a 'moocher' when 47% receive those benefits means you've probably got a very low opinion of your fellow Americans.

These excuses are really what qualify as inflammatory rhetoric. You're all hitting out because you're angry at having lost. That's not really a sensible way to address the reasons for why you lost. Until you do that you'll just keep on losing. Remember, the demographics are not in your favour. You need the votes of some of those 47% if you're ever going to win back the presidency. Blaming them and calling them silly names isn't going to do that.

Forget it..

There are 5 stages of grief.

Stage 1 and 2 are denial and anger.... look familiar?

 

[Andalublue]

Translation: Class warfare works.

Class warfare was all he was offering.

 

[AdamT]

Translation: Class warfare works. So the path to victory is to pander to those dependent on government handouts


And once again Romney says something that liberals don't like but in the end he was exactly right wasn't he? I mean, that 47% never was going to vote for him.

No, a 'moocher' is a 'moocher'.... Those that actually need the hand up, we are a compassionate country, and provide that willingly. but these people?

Or these people?

Or this fine example...

Plenty of examples out there....

I called no one a name...But I hope you're wrong, because if not we are screwed.

What a pathetic argument. The fact is that most of the 47% who don't pay taxes are hard working, blue collar people, retirees, and students. Generally speaking most of those people aren't paying taxes because of Republican tax cuts and credits. Ironic, right?

The dog whistle racist videos represent, in reality, something closer to 1% of the population and they can easily be matched by videos of idiotic red neck Republicans.

 

[j-mac]

Class warfare was all he was offering.

Who Romney? Are you kidding? Did you watch the same process as I saw? Meh....I don't hold much hope for at least a couple of years with this mantra taking hold.

 

[j-mac]

What a pathetic argument. The fact is that most of the 47% who don't pay taxes are hard working, blue collar people, retirees, and students. Generally speaking most of those people aren't paying taxes because of Republican tax cuts and credits. Ironic, right?

The dog whistle racist videos represent, in reality, something closer to 1% of the population and they can easily be matched by videos of idiotic red neck Republicans.

What? "Dog whistle" racist videos? Ok there, Chris Matthews.....:roll: I suppose letting the welfare class people appear on video is now racist.....Right? God I am sick of this ****.

 

[Andalublue]

Who Romney? Are you kidding? Did you watch the same process as I saw? Meh....I don't hold much hope for at least a couple of years with this mantra taking hold.

What else do you call tax cuts for the rich and austerity for the middle- and working-classes?

 

[j-mac]

What else do you call tax cuts for the rich and austerity for the middle- and working-classes?

This so called "tax cuts for the rich" bull, was nothing more than a narrative smear by the Obama campaign. You should feel pretty easily duped that you bought it hook, line, and sinker....The fact was that Romney said that he wanted to keep the tax rates the same for the wealthiest Americans, while removing most of their deductions, and loopholes therefore tightening the ways that they lower their effective rates. At the same time what he wanted to do was to actually lower taxes on the middle, and lower income levels to broaden the base that pays taxes.

But you go right ahead and continue with the lie if it makes you feel better, but it is still a lie regardless.

 

[OpportunityCost]

So you know I am right but cant admit it, so you attack me instead and use the typical right wing hack attack "you are not even American". Have a nice evening.

No, Pete. You arent right. The arrogance of your belief that you understand something so complicated as the American electorate shuts your argument down wholesale. You can posit theories and ideas but to claim that you know it thoroughly from your viewpoint is the height of folly and hubris.

You the quintessential euro looking down your nose at American ideas and culture while sneering and envying its success. Go away and take your America hating bull**** with you straight out the door.

 

[Jerry]

Who's Mitt Romney?

 

[j-mac]

Who's Mitt Romney?

10-4 on that one....heh, heh.....Nail on the head.

 

[OpportunityCost]

What else do you call tax cuts for the rich and austerity for the middle- and working-classes?

So was it Austerity under Clinton? Because that is the spending we are talking about.

Just so we are clear on what level of spending you mean and what spending level you think you mean.

Somehow, liberals want to label spending percentages that were just hunky dory under Clinton as draconian and awful if Romney were leading. Lack of perspective? Or just easily duped?

 

[OpportunityCost]

It's so much easier to attack the poster than defeating the argument, don't you find?

When an argument is this ****ty:

I agree fully. However Romney did not earn a damn thing his whole life and you know it, especially if you compare it to Obama. Romney had a silver spoon in his mouth since day one and hence his push for "earn your way" is a hollow as hell view.

Its much easier to ignore since its not based in logic OR reality. Not to mention the lack of details on exactly how Obama did pay for his education. Since the MSM refuses to look into it. There isnt enough research to make a conclusive argument like this unless you are full of it. IT being the liberal kool aid.

 

[Somerville]

This so called "tax cuts for the rich" bull, was nothing more than a narrative smear by the Obama campaign. You should feel pretty easily duped that you bought it hook, line, and sinker....The fact was that Romney said that he wanted to keep the tax rates the same for the wealthiest Americans, while removing most of their deductions, and loopholes therefore tightening the ways that they lower their effective rates. At the same time what he wanted to do was to actually lower taxes on the middle, and lower income levels to broaden the base that pays taxes.

But you go right ahead and continue with the lie if it makes you feel better, but it is still a lie regardless.

Only after multiple pundits and talking heads had pointed out the sheer stupidity of his earlier proposal to cut taxes "across the board by 20 percent" did Romney once again "etch-a-sketch" and say he would keep tax rates the same for the wealthy.


FactCheck.org, Sept 14, 2012

Romney has proposed cutting tax rates by 20 percent across the board, among other reduction measures, and making up for the lost revenue by eliminating unspecified exemptions for upper-income taxpayers but, he says, not shifting more of the burden on middle-income Americans. But he has not revealed how exactly he would accomplish that.

The problem appears to have started in mid Sept, when Romney told "an Ohio crowd . . . that they shouldn’t “be expecting a huge cut in taxes, ’cause I’m also going to lower deductions and exemptions.”


Oct 1 2012, Washington Post

Paul Ryan: Cut taxes first, balance budget later

A number of folks are having fun with Paul Ryan’s Sunday interview on Fox News, in which he declined to explain how the Romney/Ryan tax cuts will be paid for: “I don’t have the time, it would take me too long to go through all the math.” Jon Chait sees this as the latest sign that Ryan will “emerge from the race with his legend punctured.”

But there’s another line from Ryan that is arguably just as revealing: Ryan explicitly admits that he and Romney would cut taxes even if they can’t make the math show that the tax cuts would be paid for.

As with so many statements he made over the past few years, Mitt Romney's tax 'plan' seems to have changed by the day

 

[j-mac]

Only after multiple pundits and talking heads had pointed out the sheer stupidity of his earlier proposal to cut taxes "across the board by 20 percent" did Romney once again "etch-a-sketch" and say he would keep tax rates the same for the wealthy.


FactCheck.org, Sept 14, 2012


The problem appears to have started in mid Sept, when Romney told "an Ohio crowd . . . that they shouldn’t “be expecting a huge cut in taxes, ’cause I’m also going to lower deductions and exemptions.”


Oct 1 2012, Washington Post




As with so many statements he made over the past few years, Mitt Romney's tax 'plan' seems to have changed by the day

Aw bull ****! Don't you get it? Let me lay it out for you, it is real simple.....All legislation that deals with spending/taxation must originate in the house. Now that means that no President, not one ever can do a damned thing on their own concerning taxes. They must negotiate it trough with congress, which is what Romney was saying, but the idiots in this country let themselves be led by the liars on the left that screamed the mantra you just went through here.

 

[Somerville]

You do know that this is a fine example of "moving the goalposts" - don't you?

Aw bull ****! Don't you get it? Let me lay it out for you, it is real simple.....All legislation that deals with spending/taxation must originate in the house. Now that means that no President, not one ever can do a damned thing on their own concerning taxes. They must negotiate it trough with congress, which is what Romney was saying, but the idiots in this country let themselves be led by the liars on the left that screamed the mantra you just went through here.

Why would I say that? Oh maybe because of your earlier post in which you stated:

This so called "tax cuts for the rich" bull, was nothing more than a narrative smear by the Obama campaign. You should feel pretty easily duped that you bought it hook, line, and sinker....The fact was that Romney said that he wanted to keep the tax rates the same for the wealthiest Americans,

Please explain how your post #99 is related to the earlier one in which you say "tax cuts for the rich . . . was nothing more than a narrative smear" when there are many examples of Romney and Ryan advocating such tax cuts until the last month of the campaign - when even their incredibly clueless pollsters began telling them such tax cuts were a losing proposal (60% of Americans favour increasing tax rates on incomes over $250,000)