Romney lost because he picked the wrong running mate. If he had picked Marco Rubio he would have picked millions of hispanic voters.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Romney lost because he picked the wrong running mate. If he had picked Marco Rubio he would have picked millions of hispanic voters.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Because the VP doesn't matter, flat out. Who really ever remembers a VP? Until they do something truly stupid like shoot someone or spell a word wrong, or become a laughing stock for claiming to invent the internet. The VP doesn't mean anything, they really don't.Originally Posted by 5280 shooter II
According to most of my co-workers, all but one being hispanic they would have voted the other side if Mr. Rubio was on the ticket.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Or say they can see Russia from their house......Ryan/Palin 2016!!!! "Brains and Busts....the winning ticket".......LMAO!
Romney was defeated by a numerically unbeatable (and unholy) coalition of blacks, hispanics, women, and multi-generational welfare recipients. Politics does indeed make for strange bedfellows. Those two politicos who spoke out against abortion in the case of rape and incest killed any slim chance Romney could have carried the vote from women; killed it deader than a doornail. The fact that he's Mormon caused distrust in women too. As for the others, they'll represent a solid voting block for the rest of time, or at least for the rest of the life of the Republic. As I see it, there's little to be done.
I also suspect that the results of this election will trigger a massive shift to the left by the Republican party. Repub legislators want to be re-elected too, and they can read the handwriting on the wall better than most of us. I'll wager that in 8 years or less, most of us won't recognize the Republican party as then constituted; nor would most of us [I]want[I] to recognize it. Face it, guys, we're being maginalized and otherwise put out to pasture, politically.
Member formerly known as "vlafrank."
Pretty much. A VP pick will never win someone the election, but they certainly can loose it for them.
“Not everyone is willing to embrace liberty; liberty requires not just effort, but risk. Some people choose to delude themselves and see their chains as protective armor.”
Demographics have changed in America and the REPs need to address that. Fox news was saying that our old buddy Teddy Kennedy (the drunken woman killer) helped open the flood gates to third world countries way back in the 60s. America is not the same as it was when I was growing up. What we once knew as America may be a thing of the past, gone forever.
I know we as a country are a "Melting Pot" and that helped make us a great nation, but a society can only absorb so many foreigners/cultures before it has a diverse effect , especially those with vastly different beliefs and societal mores . In other words, you can tint a gallon of paint with a small amount for a slight shade change that won't completely alter it where it can't be recognized, but if you keep adding tint the whole gallon will change.
That may not be the best analogy to use, but hey it's a Big Chief original........ and you may quote me
Last edited by Big Chief; 11-08-2012 at 11:31 AM.
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
9 Sillymeters are good fer shootin Skeeters
Ya know, this whole idea that a 'rich white guy' is a choice to avoid, might be a bit dangerous. I understand the appeal to minorities and all that, I get it. But to exclude a guy because he's white, is successful, has some business experience along with whatever other experience...might not be all that smart. Put another way...if Romney had won (and remember, this was close) perhaps 4 years from now we'd have seen improvement in areas that everyone agrees needs improvement and, voila...in the eyes of the next class of young/hispanic/women, whatever....a white guy isn't always a bad thing.
If we choose a guy because he isn't white, has no experience running anything, appeals to the youngsters, single women and minorities, well....we might just end up with what we have.
While I voted for Romney, I did have my suspicions about his wealth and how well he could relate to the common man. Not because he was so wealthy, but because of how he got his wealth. Don't forget, Romney came from money. A bunch of it. So it's not like he was born into a lower or middle class family and worked his way up. He started with some money and kept increasing it. That shows success, but it also is a different set of circumstances than if someone works their way from a much lower tax bracket into his.
I think Romney's problem was not just that he was wealthy, but that he came off as a wealthy guy who couldn't relate to people and who seemed utterly clueless in his attempts to appeal to folks. Remember him talking about "cheesy grits"? It's a minor thing, but it shows he doesn't eat that sort of stuff and doesn't know the regular term. So he comes off as patronizing. And he's rich. So he's a patronizing rich guy.
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord:
40. I will be neither chivalrous nor sporting. If I have an unstoppable superweapon, I will use it as early and as often as possible instead of keeping it in reserve.
Like it or not (mostly not on here with a couple exceptions) Obammy won both the Electorate and Popular vote. So he has been duely re- elected by the American people. Now we have to deal with it and hope to keep the House and gain some Senate seats in 2014. I tremble to think what he may appoint to the highest court in the land...1 and maybe 2
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
9 Sillymeters are good fer shootin Skeeters
I think part of the problem is that the Republicans haven't run a candidate who can communicate and relate well. People, by and large, don't vote by logic in my experience. At least since I can remember. Here's the runup since 1980, with my thoughts. I've bolded the winners.
Reagan vs. Carter... Reagan was a better communicater and related to folks better.
Reagan vs. Mondale... same thing
Bush vs. Dukakis... neither related well, but Bush had a decent economy and folks didn't want change
Bush vs. Clinton... Clinton related well. Extremely well
Dole vs. Clinton... Dole seemed stiff and distant. Clinton was, well, Clinton
Bush vs. Gore... Bush was a bit of a screw-up, but folks thought he was much more relatable than Gore, who had the personality of a desk
Bush vs. Kerry... The Democrats ran Mitt Romney
McCain vs. Obama... Obama generated excitement. McCain? Folks commented more on his VP choice.
Romney vs. Obama... and the Republicans ran John Kerry...
Last edited by breamfisher; 11-08-2012 at 01:49 PM.
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord:
40. I will be neither chivalrous nor sporting. If I have an unstoppable superweapon, I will use it as early and as often as possible instead of keeping it in reserve.
Romney lost because the bottom of the gene pool is being fed by the welfare state, illegal immigration and corruption while the top of the gene pool is shrinking. That and the fact that more than 50% of this country votes on "feelings" and not logic.
"Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
You know that never happened right?
Tina Fey on SNL said that, Palin NEVER did, however the lying media hyped it and here you are believing it. Why do you think we lose if people who are at least partly politicly aware are fed lies and don't put forth an effort to learn the truth?
For the answer to this, see the thread, "Why the left is winning!"
I'm Just a Radical Right Wing Nutt Job, Trying to Help Save My Country!
I fully agree with some of this, but disagree with some.
Reagan V. Carter- Agree that Reagan was the better communicator, but also he had a mind for it. Reagan was proactive, Carter was reactive.
Reagan V. Mondale-Agree but Mondale had a stigma left over from Carter
Bush V. Dukakis- Agree
Bush v. Clinton- After the dems in congress made him sell his soul to the devil and sign a tax increase after his "Read My LIPS" statement, all to get congress to allow him to rescue Kuwait, that was his coup de grace. Also, Slick Willie had a line of Pooh from here to Cincinnatti (However you spell that).
Dole v. Clinton, although I always admired Dole, I have to agree. He was just over his head trying to compete with Slick Willy.
Bush V.Gore I don't think Bush was a screw up as much as he was not the best of communicators. I think he said what he was going to do and did what he said he was going to do. What's to want past that?
Bush V. Kerry-Kerry wrote the book on BS and after the Swift boat folks finish with him, the whole world knew.
McCain V. Obama-Obama is the King of BS and also read my post on Why the left is winning.
Obama v. Romney- I still believe Romney lost the election in his last two debates, I don't care what the polls showed. Romney should have been much more aggressive on Libya and the Economy. It seemed like Obama's BS even took Romney aback.
Last edited by snake284-1; 11-08-2012 at 06:35 PM.
I'm Just a Radical Right Wing Nutt Job, Trying to Help Save My Country!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote