• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Romney is NOT electable

LuckyDan said:
I've not seen that stat before. Where did you read that?
Click to expand...

Ummm..****, some page I was using for other stats. Let me see if I can find it again.
 
LuckyDan said:
I've not seen that stat before. Where did you read that?
Click to expand...

Found it. Damn I view too many pages in a day...

Local Exit Polls - Election Center 2008 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

Obama got 89 % of the liberal vote(self identified) with the liberal vote making up 22 % of the vote.

Obama got 60 % of the moderate vote, which made up 44 % of the total vote(so much for moderates not voting)

Obama got 20 % of the conservative vote, with conservatives making up 34 % of the vote.
 
Redress said:
Kinda blows out of the water that moderates don't vote and that they don't determine elections.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but that 20 per cent of self-identified cons voted for the most liberal man in Washington is what struck me. Good freaking God.
 
LuckyDan said:
Agreed, but that 20 per cent of self-identified cons voted for the most liberal man in Washington is what struck me. Good freaking God.
Click to expand...

It was the Bush legacy. Not even conservatives wanted more republicans at the time. I bet you would find something similar but reversed in the Carter/Reagan election.
 
Redress said:
It was the Bush legacy. Not even conservatives wanted more republicans at the time. I bet you would find something similar but reversed in the Carter/Reagan election.
Click to expand...

I don't know if that's true, but there certainly wasn't much excitement for McCain. I just have to wonder how "conservative" an Obama voter can truly be.

Edit - You are certainly correct that dems crossed over for Reagan.
 
Last edited:
LuckyDan said:
I don't know if that's true, but there certainly wasn't much excitement for McCain. I just have to wonder how "conservative" an Obama voter can truly be.
Click to expand...

To vote against Maverick McCain?
 
LuckyDan said:
I don't know if that's true, but there certainly wasn't much excitement for McCain. I just have to wonder how "conservative" an Obama voter can truly be.
Click to expand...

You're doing the point I was making ealier about accusing each other of being RINO's.

Not as dramatically as I was putting it but there is a hint of it in your comment.
 
Redress said:
He only got 10 % of the liberal vote though.
Click to expand...

By '08 he wasn't as darling to them, for some reason I've never understood. He was the same old guy.

Disaffected Hillary people may have been his 10 per cent. (I wonder how that match-up would play out now.)

Romney may get better than 10 per cent crossover. Obama getting 20 percent again? Probably not.
 
winston53660 said:
You're doing the point I was making ealier about accusing each other of being RINO's.

Not as dramatically as I was putting it but there is a hint of it in your comment.
Click to expand...

I take your point, Winston, I just don't see cons sitting home moping when Obama is there to vote against.

McCain wasn't in my top three, either, but I voted for him. Even in Texas. I went to the polls and voted for him. All this whining you're hearing right now against Romney will pass when it truly comes down to it.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Polls are one thing... here is why you can't go by robo-polls that are basically someone calling you at home asking for your opinion.

You don't win an election by winning independents and moderates. Those people don't vote anyway. They stay home.

You win an election by getting your base to turn out.

Only like 30% of Americans vote. The winner is the one that fires up his base.
Click to expand...

An interesting point, though I recommend being certain of your assumptions before you draw conclusions or make assertions thereupon. For example, 63% of eligible voters voted in the 2008 presidential election....

United States Elections Project
 
Peter Grimm said:
You don't win an election by winning independents and moderates. Those people don't vote anyway. They stay home.

You win an election by getting your base to turn out.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's half correect.

You don't win an electoin by winning independents and moderates. You also don't win an election by getting your base to turn out.

You win elections by getting a good turnout from your base and combining that with a fair to good turnout of moderates and independents in your favor.

If we're talking about the "base", IE those that are firmly entrenched in one ideology or another and not "moderates" as you say, you're only really seeing about 30% or so of the population on either side give or take a few percent. Now, polls show a large amount of people who view themselves as conservative than liberal...but that includes many "moderates" you have such disdain for. And even with those moderate's that lean conservative, it still doesn't put you over 50%.

No Presidential election is ever won or will ever be one singularly by "The base".
 
Peter Grimm said:
Polls are one thing... here is why you can't go by robo-polls that are basically someone calling you at home asking for your opinion.

You don't win an election by winning independents and moderates. Those people don't vote anyway. They stay home.

You win an election by getting your base to turn out.

Only like 30% of Americans vote. The winner is the one that fires up his base.
Click to expand...

What Zeph said.

Being a moderate myself - I find your view offensive . . . you think I sit at home and never vote? You think I'm some sort of a stupid ****ing idiot because I don't pigeon my views into a box? I find myself to be quite liberated - I vote based on what I feel is proper and right at that time - it might change depending on the direction our country is going in/should be going in.

I've never felt like I've sold myself out or I'm trying to contorl the country's moral compas - last election I voted for who I felt could address the issues that we were HAVING at that time.

Heaven's forbid anyone try to vote based on who they think would bring hte most to the table in light of trouble.

This whole faithfulness to the party platform is worn out sometimes because it centers around things that just don't matter when no one can find employment . . . does that concern you at all? Do you care at all about actually being able to address and maybe fix or respond to our ACTUAL issues?
 
Do I care about unemployment? Do I care about the actual issues? Is that a serious question?

Of course I do. And the conservative platform is the right answer to those questions.

I call it being decisive. There are three types of people in the world. Those who are right, those who are wrong, and those who waffle in the middle.

You are free to have whatever political persuasion you want.
Aunt Spiker said:
What Zeph said.

Being a moderate myself - I find your view offensive . . . you think I sit at home and never vote? You think I'm some sort of a stupid ****ing idiot because I don't pigeon my views into a box? I find myself to be quite liberated - I vote based on what I feel is proper and right at that time - it might change depending on the direction our country is going in/should be going in.

I've never felt like I've sold myself out or I'm trying to contorl the country's moral compas - last election I voted for who I felt could address the issues that we were HAVING at that time.

Heaven's forbid anyone try to vote based on who they think would bring hte most to the table in light of trouble.

This whole faithfulness to the party platform is worn out sometimes because it centers around things that just don't matter when no one can find employment . . . does that concern you at all? Do you care at all about actually being able to address and maybe fix or respond to our ACTUAL issues?
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
Do I care about unemployment? Do I care about the actual issues? Is that a serious question?

Of course I do. And the conservative platform is the right answer to those questions.

I call it being decisive. There are three types of people in the world. Those who are right, those who are wrong, and those who waffle in the middle.

You are free to have whatever political persuasion you want.
Click to expand...

So if you are not an extremist, you are wrong. Well, that is an interesting opinion...
 
Romney is not electable for several reasons:

1. He is a republican. Too many people blame the GOP, and rightfully so, for the mess we are in and their congressional obstruction in correcting the situation. They have made their positions clear in regards to supporting the "haves" vs. the "have nots." There are more "have-nots" these days. They are mad at the GOP for preventing the president from doing what he was elected to do.

2. His own base has mixed feelings about him. I do not think he will get the record number of voters to the polls that he will need to win. Surely, there are no shortage of "Anybody but that black muslim Obama" voters out there but not enough to get anyone elected.



3. He's running against Obama. Obama is picked over Romney to win and Obama hasn't even put his campaign into high gear yet. Obama is a powerful speaker and leader of people (well, the majority of people I should say) who connects with the middle and lower classes and free thinking types of voters.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama
 
Last edited:
Peter Grimm said:
Polls are one thing... here is why you can't go by robo-polls that are basically someone calling you at home asking for your opinion.

You don't win an election by winning independents and moderates. Those people don't vote anyway. They stay home.

You win an election by getting your base to turn out.

Only like 30% of Americans vote. The winner is the one that fires up his base.
Click to expand...

That is false. The "base" is important in the sense of obtaining campaign workers.

Elections are not decided by partisans. They are decided by the least knowledgeable of all voters deciding on emotional senses and ill-defined impressions. That's why both sides always end up arguing over essentially legislatively irrelevant social issues and personality attacks. If you want to find which voters will decide the election, find those voters who WILL vote, but CAN'T name one of their state's US Senators.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Conservatives are extremists?

I might consider that an "extreme" viewpoint...
Click to expand...

That is not what I said. You implied that moderates are wrong. I illustraetd the flaw with tha reasoning. Moderates and independents are not people who don't take positions on issues, they are people who don't take extreme positions.
 
Redress said:
That is not what I said. You implied that moderates are wrong. I illustraetd the flaw with tha reasoning. Moderates and independents are not people who don't take positions on issues, they are people who don't take extreme positions.
Click to expand...

They are also the people who tip the scales and decide elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom