December 04, 2012
— Ace On how the election might have gone differently.
Over the summer, however, once Romney had clinched the GOP nomination, he did not counter months of attack ads by the Obama campaign and an allied super PAC. Romney's aides said that was part tactical and part due to a cash shortage as the primary season drew to a close. “We spent all the money that we had,” Stevens said, and even borrowed some to stay on the air until the convention.Given limited options, Stevens said, the campaign went with a series of “day one, job one” ads about the first day of a Romney administration, rather than countering the Obama offensive. “We tested this extensively,” Stevens said. “What voters wanted to know most is what Mitt Romney would do as president.” One consequence: The largely unaddressed attacks on Romney as a heartless capitalist magnified the impact of the leaked video that showed Romney at a private fundraiser describing 47 percent of the country as irresponsible moochers. We’ll never know what course the race might have taken had Romney mounted a defense as relentless as the onslaught.
Steve Jobs famously didn't believe in focus grouping potential buyers and asking them what they wanted. His cutting, but wise, quote is something like: "It's not the public's idea to know what they want."
And that's true. The general possible buyer does not know the industry like those in the industry do. If you asked people what they wanted from their phones ten years ago, they probably wouldn't have said, "I want it to include a fairly powerful digital camera in it, and I want to tote all of my digital music collection on it. And, I'd like to use it as a portable tv screen, watching High Def movies which I purchase online."
No one would have thought of that. Few would have imagined that stuff was doable, and even if they had realized it was doable, they would have asked, "Why do I want all these completely unrelated tech gadgets in my phone?" (Actually, I still ask that, but I'm in the minority.)
And of course now if you offered a "smart phone" missing a single one of these unrelated bits of gadgetry the public would say, "But then that's not a smart phone!!!"
The idea of asking voters what they want and just taking their word for it is so naive I'm having trouble believing someone in politics said this.
Yes, the public will always say they want policy details and more policy details. Their statements to this effect are complete and utter lies. I can guarantee you that the Detailed Policy Bits parts of any political website are its least trafficked.
So these guys went in to a bunch of uninformed non-experts, and asked them "Do you think we should push back against the negative personal attacks which even now are having a powerful subconscious effect on how you view Romney, or do you want Romney to talk about his plans for the future?"
And surprise surprise, they said "Plans for the future." You know, the answer that makes them sound like highly intelligent scholars of civic policy, rather than the answer that makes them sound like dupes easily-swayed by repetitive and dishonest political attacks.
Of course they chose the former. Of course they chose the answer that offered them a more heroic self-conception of themselves. Of course they claimed to be the sort of people entirely unaffected by advertising. (If they were, why ask them what sorts of messaging they'd like to see in political ads?)
It's not the public's job to know what they want. This is ridiculous. I'm beginning to buy into this notion of Romney The Robot.
Human beings. They lie, especially to themselves. Have you met them?
Posted by: Ace at
03:51 PM
| Comments (392)
Post contains 646 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 03:54 PM (piMMO)
Meh. In a losing campaign, everything you did was wrong and everything you didn't do was right.
The only "countering" that could be done would have been attacks on Obama anyway. You don't fight negative attacks by countering them. "I'm not a meanie doo-doo head." isn't an effective commercial.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 04, 2012 03:54 PM (xSegX)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 03:55 PM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 04, 2012 03:57 PM (jucos)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 03:58 PM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: Olaf at December 04, 2012 03:58 PM (t1NLo)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 03:58 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: CarolT at December 04, 2012 03:59 PM (z4WKX)
Success has a million fathers, defeat is an orphan.
- somebody famous or anon, either way not looking it up. Probably Jefferson.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 04, 2012 03:59 PM (n/ubI)
Posted by: Dirty Old Man at December 04, 2012 03:59 PM (UUAFX)
Posted by: Daybrother at December 04, 2012 03:59 PM (+paCV)
Posted by: Hugh G. Rex at December 04, 2012 03:59 PM (q177U)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 04:01 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: L is saying where's the dang SMOD? at December 04, 2012 04:02 PM (0PiQ4)
"Do you think we should push back against the negative personal attacks which even now are having a powerful subconscious effect on how you view Romney have an adult in the White House, or do you want Romney to talk about his plans for the future Obama phones?"
*****
Fixed that.
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 04, 2012 04:03 PM (1OZSU)
Posted by: steevy at December 04, 2012 04:03 PM (9XBK2)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 04:03 PM (pSgLi)
Its all of these things and none of these things, its mainly the American people are a dumb downed lot of takers or people who just don't care.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 04, 2012 04:04 PM (n/ubI)
The voters that decide elections are really the dumbest of the dumb, so court them accordingly.
Romney should have asked Donald Trump for advice, I'm being serious. no one gives a shit about base line budgeting or a Medicare plan decades from now.
Also, Romney really should have released those tax records, it did far more damage than whatever was in there (which was absolutely nothing). And channeling Trump, when Obama asked for them, he should have demanded the academic transcripts.
I've yet to see a candidate lose because they punched too hard.
Posted by: Jeepers at December 04, 2012 04:05 PM (XDRsa)
worked so good for Bush, didn't it.
We need to take a page from progs this one time, and go for the throat.
Posted by: thunderb at December 04, 2012 04:05 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 04:06 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: off topic soothsayer at December 04, 2012 04:06 PM (ZgBZU)
Mitt is a Mormon, he believes in providing opportunity for the intellectually disabled
Mormons run law schools? /oblig.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 04, 2012 04:07 PM (xSegX)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 04:07 PM (pSgLi)
Posted by: eman at December 04, 2012 04:07 PM (57VGh)
Posted by: L is saying where's the dang SMOD? at December 04, 2012 04:08 PM (0PiQ4)
I'm sticking with weird and isolated dude who has no idea he's weird and isolated because he's been institutionalized (in the non-crazy-person sense) for his whole life.
You have to not know any actual people, any marginally self-determining beings existing outside their roles and functions, to believe shit like this.
Seriously, who does the guy know?
Yeah, Obama's like that too. That's kinda my point.
Posted by: oblig. at December 04, 2012 04:08 PM (cePv8)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 04:08 PM (piMMO)
That's an insult to actual robots.
So what you're saying Ace being a policy wonk is not an electability plus? My, how the times have changed...
Posted by: Radius at December 04, 2012 04:08 PM (nL5y5)
The GOP has a Large stable of profesional Political people, who staff Campaigns, and are Staff for Congressmen and such....
Yet this Stable of 'profesionals are constantly losing... both in public debate, and Elections....
Think about that.....
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 04, 2012 04:09 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 04, 2012 04:09 PM (jucos)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 04:09 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: 80sBaby at December 04, 2012 04:10 PM (YjDyJ)
Into the barrel, Fluffy!
The barrel doesn't stop much. You should have seen what Truman was able to accomplish.
Posted by: fluffy gets Medieval at December 04, 2012 04:10 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: eman at December 04, 2012 04:11 PM (57VGh)
Posted by: ace at December 04, 2012 04:12 PM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 04:12 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at December 04, 2012 04:13 PM (SkyIE)
Posted by: logprof at December 04, 2012 04:13 PM (gBuIk)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 04:13 PM (pSgLi)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 04:14 PM (1V6Pv)
it is. It is NOT the case, as you are implying, that if you're smart in one area you're dumb in another one. Usually intelligences are found together.
I always snigger at "different kinds of intelligences".
Yeah, genius, whatever makes you feel good about yourself.
Posted by: AmishDude at December 04, 2012 04:14 PM (xSegX)
He will publicly talk up the angels, while privately succumbing to the devils. Which is how the Democrats run their campaign.
And The Stupid Party will not heed the lesson.
Posted by: John P. Squibob at December 04, 2012 04:14 PM (kqqGm)
Posted by: fluffy at December 04, 2012 04:15 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: nip at December 04, 2012 04:15 PM (11Tdq)
Posted by: AmishDude at December 04, 2012 07:54 PM (xSegX)
___ ____ ____ ____ I agree. Campaigns are like wars and geopolitics. There are too many outcomes and variables, and the only time you aren't guessing is when it's over, and often you are still guessing then.
All these rehashes are a waste of time, and don't tell us anything about the next election.
Posted by: Meremortal at December 04, 2012 04:15 PM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at December 04, 2012 04:15 PM (pmsMR)
By the way, we're fooling around with an idea over in the comment section of Scoop's.
here---> http://tinyurl.com/a73uslq
I'd appreciate any 'roons comments on it, because on the one hand, it sounds like it came from Otter, in Animal House:
"We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional
weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I
think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely
requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!"
On the other hand, hey, nothing else seems to work.
Posted by: K~Bob at December 04, 2012 04:16 PM (WVShg)
Posted by: Todd Akin at December 04, 2012 04:16 PM (pSgLi)
"Give me more details!"
52% equivalent = "What kinda free shit you gonna give me?"
DNC equivalent = "Split rhetorical hairs while I spread propaganda about what an asshole you are!"
American equivalent = "Stand there like a martyr and babble about economics while criminals destroy the country!"
Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 04, 2012 04:16 PM (EZl54)
Posted by: Ghost of Eric Hoffer at December 04, 2012 04:17 PM (fDGF1)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 08:12 PM (piMMO)
When the Media allows BILL CLINTON... a Man Impeached for lieing under oath... to sit on Stage and say OTHER people are telling lies??? Without Laughing him off the stage, or pointing out Bill's veracity problems?
When a Dem Congressman can get reelected while both being investigated for felony charges, AND sitting in a 'rest home'?
If a Tree falls in the Forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound???? or... the corolary... If the Dem has dirty laundry, but the Media will not air it, does it exist?
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 04, 2012 04:17 PM (lZBBB)
All these rehashes are a waste of time, and don't tell us anything about the next election.
I disagree. The point of a post-mortem is to learn from your mistakes.
Posted by: fluffy at December 04, 2012 04:18 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: eman at December 04, 2012 04:20 PM (57VGh)
“We spent all the money that we had,” Stevens said"
Yeah, it's not like Romney had 100s of millions of dollars of his own money to spend.
Wait.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 04, 2012 04:20 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Picric at December 04, 2012 04:20 PM (Dbeo2)
The Dems win because cme hell or high water, they stick.
Whatever the platform, whomever the candidate, they rally. They keep most of their dirty laundry behind closed doors whereas our side believes it's principled to let the fucking sun shine on every damn screw-up and every single disagreement.
We are fractured and single issue voters are gonna be the death of us.
=====
This, and the fact that they own the media/Hollywood complex.
Posted by: zombie-Earnest Hemingway at December 04, 2012 04:20 PM (85EaA)
He trashed repunks but for some reason his advisors though being Mr Nice, mr respectful would get him the vote while the Lyin kING took out his little dick and pissed all over Roves Bald head, Gillipies big beak and Mittens 500 dolla shoes.
Twice now, nice has lost, we need a new party who will call a Lyin Rat, a Lyin FUCKIN Rat I shoulda hitched my wagon to Laup Nor
Posted by: ConcealedKerry forgit Mitt! at December 04, 2012 04:21 PM (z0ipP)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 04:21 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 04, 2012 04:21 PM (jucos)
Worst "rich text editor" ever. Bring back TECO!
Posted by: K~Bob at December 04, 2012 04:21 PM (WVShg)
of course, since the primary goal of the RNC and the Beltway RINOs is to maintain their personal power, positions and access, rather than win elections, what we see as a bug or failure is, to them, a feature. they got what they wanted.
i figured this was the likely goal and outcome as soon as the usual suspects told us early on, that, no matter what, Romney was going to be the candidate. all that was left after his nomination was to make it look like he wanted to win, and they sold that pretty well.
fuck the GOP, i'm done with them.
Let
It
Burn
Posted by: redc1c4 at December 04, 2012 04:22 PM (8MasJ)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 04:22 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: off topic soothsayer at December 04, 2012 04:22 PM (KwX0v)
Posted by: Dang at December 04, 2012 04:23 PM (R18D0)
Perhaps it is our principles which are killing us.
=====
They have all the teachers, we're stuck with the principles.
Posted by: USS Diversity at December 04, 2012 04:24 PM (85EaA)
Posted by: rickl at December 04, 2012 04:24 PM (sdi6R)
Posted by: Stephen Harper at December 04, 2012 04:24 PM (gBuIk)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 04:24 PM (piMMO)
I was wrong about know one really paying attention in July about the nasty ads. But those people glued to the TV watching those ads were most likely not to vote for Romney in the first place.
Posted by: Dlei LLama at December 04, 2012 04:24 PM (lGu1O)
I'm in the minority here, but would not mind seeing Rand run.
I like him and could definitely take a closer look, but not 2016.
Posted by: fluffy at December 04, 2012 04:25 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 04, 2012 08:21 PM (jucos)
He has to be an Elder stateman. That's because history begins yesterday for the left. Anything farther back than Clinton is like all them people buried under ash in Pompeii.
Posted by: K~Bob at December 04, 2012 04:26 PM (WVShg)
Crazy Uncle Shiny-Dimes would have stood up in the debates and agreed with Obama on how bad the Republicans had been in the past. And on November 6th he would have been slaughtered.
Posted by: John P. Squibob at December 04, 2012 04:26 PM (kqqGm)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 04:27 PM (piMMO)
I agree with you steevy. The Romney campaign made plenty of mistakes, but the non-voters made THE biggest mistake. They let the KIDS reelect BO. good grief
Posted by: carolina at December 04, 2012 04:27 PM (JebKA)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 04:27 PM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: CarolT at December 04, 2012 04:27 PM (z4WKX)
Posted by: USS Diversity at December 04, 2012 04:27 PM (85EaA)
endowed by their Creator.
stupid socons
Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 04, 2012 04:28 PM (EZl54)
Damn right. The republican focus groups wanted nice. Obama and Biden act like total ass holes in the debates and win the race. Part of that is the media but part of that is female voters not admitting that they like a strong guy. Especially the single females the republicans lost. They don't have a husband and are looking for a politician to fill that role to protect and support them. All facts. Look it up.
Posted by: Dang at December 04, 2012 04:28 PM (R18D0)
Posted by: eman at December 04, 2012 04:29 PM (57VGh)
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at December 04, 2012 08:15 PM (pmsMR)
Bull shit, obviously we do. Iowa won the vote for Mitt on election day and in my county for every R candidate, It was the earily and absentee ballots that won the game for the D's who almost ran the table. Free shit concerts and Big Name draws with the buses outside running telling the folks get on da bus grab a water we take ya to the polls and bring ya back, minimum effort WORKS. Get used to it, do it, or lose every fucking election in sight. Its an American Idol give me free and easy shit world.
Posted by: ConcealedKerry forgit Mitt! at December 04, 2012 04:29 PM (z0ipP)
Posted by: Dr. Gregory House at December 04, 2012 04:29 PM (HSe8O)
Posted by: Truman North at December 04, 2012 04:30 PM (flaox)
Posted by: DAve at December 04, 2012 04:30 PM (XDC0v)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 04:30 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Tickled Pink at December 04, 2012 04:31 PM (E1Vkf)
Posted by: Fred Thompson at December 04, 2012 04:31 PM (jucos)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 08:21 PM (piMMO)
I see two problems.... which if not addressed, are killers.
1. The Media. They are not even trying to hide their bias any longer. They outed themselves this election, yet there has been no consequence. Until there is an actual CONSERVATIVE competitor (Fox being moderate IMO), AND a concerted effort from the RIGHT to punish the Media for their Bias? Any election boils down to the Conservative/Libertarian being outnumbered two to one.
2. The GOPs reluctance to even try to FIGHT. The GOP is like the Condiatari (sp?) era of Italy... a time of stylized combat between profesional mercenary armies... where surrender was quite OK as long as you played honorably....
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 04, 2012 04:31 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 04, 2012 04:31 PM (1OZSU)
That is exactly how Mitt presented himself. Remember "Believe in America?" And his ads were mostly nice happy ads.
Only I don't think Reagan won because of being a sunny optimist. I think he won because he was FAMOUS, a celebrity, if you will. I remember the 1980 election quite well, because I switched to voting GOP due to loathing Carter. And I actually remembered Reagan from "Death Valley Days" when I was a kid, so he was familiar to me.
Reagan had a lot of pals like Jimmy Stewart, Frank Sinatra, etc. and that was also appealing. Some glamor in the White House after the dreary Carter years.
So I cannot fault Romney for not going negative. We have heard about Reagan's sunny optimism for 30 years, and how that all Americans want is "Morning in America."
NO. What they want is a celebrity. So we should have run Donald Trump. Seriously, I bet he could have won.
You guys better start figuring out how to win this in 2016 with the celebrity thing, because as God is my witness, I think they will run Michelle Obama.
Posted by: Miss Marple at December 04, 2012 04:31 PM (GoIUi)
Posted by: fluffy at December 04, 2012 08:18 PM (O6q63)
OK fluffy, I'll amend. Let the pros worry about it. Maybe you are one. I just donate and vote.
Posted by: Meremortal at December 04, 2012 04:33 PM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 04:33 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: stephie at December 04, 2012 04:34 PM (xG0vx)
Posted by: off topic soothsayer at December 04, 2012 04:35 PM (W0gfD)
It was Ann and Tagg who pushed Mitt into cleaning Obama's clock in the first debate. He didn't want to. And after the debate, Stevens convinced Romney to back off and be passive and "nice" again, even though the polls after the first debate showed Romney spiking five to seven points.
Romney also faced the same attacks on Bain and "vulture capitalism" every time he ran for office. The fact that he still couldn't defend himself effectively in 2012 is unforgivable.
Let's face it: We were sold a bill of goods. The Romney campaign was dysfunctional and incompetent on many levels. That's not to say that Romney isn't a smart, successful, good man. But he ran a shitty campaign that utterly lacked focus and was sloppy, lazy, and half-assed. They lied to us about their massive ground game. They lied to Romney himself about it.
They hired Paul Ryan and then muzzled him! That's exactly what McCain did with Palin. It proves that the Republican consultants have no idea what they're doing. The next GOP presidential candidate must have nothing to do with Rove, Stevens, Schmidt, and anyone else with a proven track record of failure.
Posted by: Llarry at December 04, 2012 04:36 PM (+QDEz)
Posted by: eman at December 04, 2012 04:36 PM (57VGh)
Posted by: John Von Neumann at December 04, 2012 04:36 PM (khZbv)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 04:36 PM (piMMO)
the woman who talked up Romneycare for example
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is she the one Ann Coulter demanded resign?
Posted by: USS Diversity at December 04, 2012 04:37 PM (85EaA)
Posted by: Deli LLama at December 04, 2012 04:37 PM (lGu1O)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Helping it burn. at December 04, 2012 04:37 PM (Gk3SS)
I have, and those boys always thank me afterwards. That's my story and I am sticking to it.
Posted by: Harry Reid, pederast at December 04, 2012 04:37 PM (wR+pz)
Posted by: Pentangle at December 04, 2012 04:37 PM (K7tQJ)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 08:33 PM (piMMO)
I prefer the outlook of the Historical American fighting man... where you did what you needed to do to kill the other guy.... where Doctrine was a SUGGESTION, not a straighjacket... and if you needed to fight dirty... you do so... You WIN, then you go home...
Shit... Sherman's march to the Sea? Washingtons attack at Christmas? Nukes over Japan?
But I don't see any 'Fight' at all in the GOP.... because I don't think they really see the consequences for US, when they fail...
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 04, 2012 04:38 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 04:39 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 04, 2012 04:40 PM (1OZSU)
I can.
Letting the kids run wild results in....wild kids.
You attack , correct and win with your rhetoric or you prepare to attack , correct and win with your bayonet (see History, Human).
Romney was a total dick to Repubs , but we have to acknowledge what a "good guy" he was?
History is full of good guys who overestimated themselves, pretended to be tough and got their asses kicked. Romney is now on that list.
Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 04, 2012 04:40 PM (EZl54)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 04:40 PM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: Billy Bob, the guy who drinks in SC at December 04, 2012 04:41 PM (wR+pz)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 04:41 PM (piMMO)
We don't have an FTC for political campaigns. If we did, all the candidates would all be walking around with sore genitals. Not that I'm advocating for another buncha bureaucrats in yet another agency, just pointing out that political lies are as common as dirt.
Over at WZ, they have a piece saying that OCare is still opposed 52% to 42%. Now how the fuck can the author of OCare win reelection when his crowning achievement is disliked that much?
I don't have an answer to that.
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 04, 2012 04:41 PM (ccXZP)
Person could get discouraged listening to the constant pissing and moaning.
Believe I will take a small hiatus and return some time in the future.
Stay safe, good people.
Posted by: irongrampa at December 04, 2012 04:42 PM (SAMxH)
Posted by: CarolT at December 04, 2012 04:43 PM (z4WKX)
Posted by: stephie at December 04, 2012 04:43 PM (xG0vx)
Actually, plenty thought that, they just didn't know how to do it.
Poor example.
Posted by: Actually at December 04, 2012 04:44 PM (Ys6PL)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 04:44 PM (piMMO)
Its strange that with all the top capitalists supporting Obama, with corporate profits at an all-time high, with the largest increase in the S&P 500 of any president ever that anyone believes this "socialist" nonsense.
Unless you live in a bubble.
Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at December 04, 2012 04:45 PM (7lRjS)
Posted by: Andy at December 04, 2012 04:45 PM (OZPoa)
But I don't see any 'Fight' at all in the GOP.... because I don't think they really see the consequences for US, when they fail...
T
======
hey don't. They have their piles, pensions and personal security. We're the ones that eat their collegiality.
Posted by: USS Diversity at December 04, 2012 04:46 PM (85EaA)
Shockingly, yes!
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Helping it burn. at December 04, 2012 04:47 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at December 04, 2012 08:45 PM (7lRjS)
Speaking of bubbles...
Posted by: Invictus at December 04, 2012 04:48 PM (OQpzc)
I don't know either. Unions? Trilateral commission? Mind control rays?
maybe just the loss of the Western world's capacity to feel shame...
Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 04, 2012 04:48 PM (EZl54)
That's simply not true. He went up in the polls when he mopped the earth with Obama in the first debate. Then he went back down, when he began agreeing with Obama too much and letting him get away with being an asshole.
When Obama said, "Everything the governor just said simply isn't true," Romney should've said, "Mr. President, that's the debating technique of a person who has no response. I'm addressing the specifics of your horrible, failed policies, while you're just issuing blanket statements that absolve you of the responsibility of defending your policies."
Romney should also have said over and over, "I hope you all noticed that the president didn't answer your question. He never does. The reason he doesn't is because he has no answer, and he relies on you to not call him out of it."
John Bolton is a master at it. He demolished John Kerry during Bolton's confirmation hearing as U.N ambassador.
I don't understand why people never call out rude, disrespectful behavior. When Boxer told that general to call her Senator, he should've told her that his use of the term "Ma'am" connotes no disrespect, and her problem with it is entirely her own. He wasn't going to change the way he speaks just because someone is posturing for the cameras.
Would the world end if everybody just started calmly, forcefully calling out the disgusting turds who walk among us?
Posted by: Llarry at December 04, 2012 04:48 PM (+QDEz)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at December 04, 2012 04:49 PM (3GtyG)
Posted by: Tickled Pink at December 04, 2012 04:49 PM (E1Vkf)
Hell, we now have a governor-elect (Mike Pence) in Indiana who specifically will NOT run a negative campaign, and talks about Reagan as his example.
Frankly, I don't think it matters one way or another if you have one candidate who is a celebrity icon and the other who is not. We laughed about Obama hanging with Jay-Z, The View, Beyonce, Springsteen, etc. etc. and being on TV doing brackets and giving his opinion on sports of all kinds.
Guess what. People identified with him like they did with Reagan, because we live in a celebrity worshipping culture. Mitt could have attacked, and it probably would have ended in a bigger win for Obama because no one likes to see their icon attacked. Look at how defensive people are about the Twilight stars.
Celebrity. Why did Al Franken win? Why is Ashley Judd considering running against Mitch McConnell? Why is there a revolving door for Hollywood people in the Obama White House?
Posted by: Miss Marple at December 04, 2012 04:49 PM (GoIUi)
Would the world end if everybody just started calmly, forcefully calling out the disgusting turds who walk among us?
I got thrown in a barrel for doing that earlier...
Posted by: fluffy at December 04, 2012 04:50 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 04, 2012 04:50 PM (EZl54)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 04:50 PM (GEICT)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 04:52 PM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 04, 2012 07:57 PM (jucos)
-----
I have neve met a normal guy named "Stuart".
Posted by: Elaine Benes at December 04, 2012 04:53 PM (C942P)
Gotta learn to not care when people throw you in a barrel.
It's amazing what you can accomplish when you're utterly indifferent to the opinions of strangers.
Posted by: Llarry at December 04, 2012 04:54 PM (+QDEz)
Posted by: K~Bob at December 04, 2012 04:54 PM (WVShg)
I really don't know. Your point about celebrity worship makes as much sense as anything else.
I just think that 52% of the American electorate convinced themselves that they are infallible and that they can't be wrong.
Somewhere along the way that must have become an appealing quality.
Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 04, 2012 04:54 PM (EZl54)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 04:55 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Eaton Cox at December 04, 2012 04:56 PM (q177U)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 04, 2012 04:58 PM (1OZSU)
Do not act like you don't deserve it.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Helping it burn. at December 04, 2012 04:58 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: fluffy at December 04, 2012 08:50 PM (O6q63)
There's a fine line between feeding trolls and hitting back at plain old stupidity. Actually it's a fat line, but nobody says that. A serious troll is just here to stir shit up. Most of the leftist cock-warbles are not smart enough to committed enough to be serious trolls.
Posted by: K~Bob at December 04, 2012 04:58 PM (WVShg)
Something happened between election eve and election day -- and it wasn't the negative ads over the summer nor the 47% tape released mid-September. But please, lets continue lying to ourselves about it, otherwise people will think your nuts.
Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 04:59 PM (w3JGl)
Playing the meek and
mild card may have been the only thing that kept it close.
Jeezus. Talk about "beaten wife syndrome." In addition to being earth-shatteringly wrong.
Posted by: rrpjr at December 04, 2012 04:59 PM (6j+mQ)
Its strange that with all the top capitalists supporting Obama, with corporate profits at an all-time high, with the largest increase in the SP 500 of any president ever that anyone believes this "socialist" nonsense.
Herbert is on to something here about capitalists supporting Obama.
What is that ugly little word for a version of socialism where corporations still retain ownership but the government has control?
Posted by: fluffy at December 04, 2012 05:00 PM (O6q63)
The country loathes him and blames him for most of our problems today - wars, deficits, job losses, corruption, and general ineptness.
The GOP won't even let him speak at either of the last two conventions.
Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at December 04, 2012 05:00 PM (7lRjS)
Yeah, baby. Just like a bundle of sticks...
Posted by: Ghost of Mussolini at December 04, 2012 05:00 PM (fDGF1)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:01 PM (LoWG+)
SHE brought it up, of course. And what she said was how ridiculous it was that Romney told people that the taxes shouldn't go up because of people not being able to hire people. She said EVERY rich person she knows, and those her friends know, only talked about how they didn't want taxes to go up. (She works commission sales in designer clothing at a high end department store. She doesn't really know rich people, they are her customers.)
She went on and on about how greedy they are and how she thought Romney was a fool for saying this about jobs. I finally told her that Obama won so I thought we should go ahead and taaax the rich and then we would know, once and for all, if it works, since so far everything else Obama has done has not worked at all.
My point is that you are right. In a secular culture which has not been taught that envy is a sin and to be avoided, envy has taken root and it is almost impossible to convince people that taking rich people's money will not make their lives better; in fact, they don't care as long as they get to stick it to them.
Celebrities, of course, are the exception.
Posted by: Miss Marple at December 04, 2012 05:03 PM (GoIUi)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 05:03 PM (GEICT)
wow ! being a lefty is EASY!
Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 04, 2012 05:04 PM (EZl54)
Smartest guys in the rooms tend to listen to other smart guys in the room, not realizing that this may not be the smartest thing to do.
All us hindsight types probably (would've) said that Romney should push back. Not just against the idiotic monopoly man stuff but against everything. Not that obama is a nice guy who accidentally done wrong but a bad person doing bad things who lies about everything (then again, this didn't work for Kerry against W).
Joeindc's path to sucess was cultural confidence. Don't accept premises, don't apologize for George W or Sara P. Push the vision and so on.
oh well, we seemed smart a week before election.
Posted by: joeindc44 part III the stutter cluster fuckering at December 04, 2012 05:04 PM (3zQJl)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:04 PM (LoWG+)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 05:05 PM (piMMO)
Oh it could be so many things! But whatever it was, I'm an innocent lamb. *gambols about*
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Helping it burn. at December 04, 2012 05:05 PM (Gk3SS)
There's a fine line between feeding trolls and hitting back at plain old stupidity.
He knows my question. I don't have to ask him; he has it memorized. He didn't stick around.
Posted by: fluffy at December 04, 2012 05:05 PM (O6q63)
"38Mittens sat on a huge pile of dough and didn't spend it until the final weeks of the campaign. I think we all thought him quite smart at the time."
Yes, we did. We thought EVERYTHING he did was smart at the time. Any attempt to question what he did was shouted down because we were so damned sure that we knew what was going to happen. "But what about medical--" "NO! The Economy is the issue!" "But immigr--" "NO! We have to talk about the Economy!" "But what about the border fen--" "NO! Can't you hear? The Economy! The Economy is what people care about! The Economy is the Answer!" Attempts to branch out into other areas *that we knew were hot topics for our side* were stamped out ruthlessly because we had convinced ourselves that we could win it all with just one egg in one basket.
I don't know just what my point is, except that we've discovered through this election that our campaign was being run in a country of our imagination, not America. That place we thought we understood and didn't. I think it's good that that realization has sobered up a lot of people on the Right. What they do with it, is an open question.
Posted by: Dr. Mabuse at December 04, 2012 05:06 PM (FkH4y)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 05:07 PM (GEICT)
Posted by: CarolT at December 04, 2012 05:08 PM (z4WKX)
Yip, you are right. The leftists pretty much destroyed Bush by calling him a rich white guy. Nonstop. For eight years. Because rich and white are un-cool.
Posted by: Lou Farrakhan at December 04, 2012 05:08 PM (fDGF1)
The fuck it was uncalled for. You totally deserve it.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Helping it burn. at December 04, 2012 05:08 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 05:08 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Not Ready to Unsock at December 04, 2012 05:09 PM (BgIBZ)
The country loathes him and blames him for most of our problems today - wars, deficits, job losses, corruption, and general ineptness.
Hi Herbie!
How is Obama handling the Middle East? Great to hear it.
Do you know when all of NYC will have electricity? No? Don't feel bad; neither does Obama.
Unemployment avg under Clinton: 5.21%
Unemployment avg under Bush: 5.29%
You know those awful Bush tax cuts? The ones Obama extended? Guess who wants to extend them again?
Say hi to the kids on the short bus.
Posted by: fluffy at December 04, 2012 05:10 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 05:10 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: eman at December 04, 2012 05:11 PM (57VGh)
@171--we've discovered through this election that our campaign was being run in a country of our imagination, not America.
*****
This thought has occurred to me since the election. While progressives dream of a future idealized perfect world that will never exist, I have to wonder if we conservatives pine for an idealized past.
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 04, 2012 05:11 PM (1OZSU)
Posted by: Ololaf at December 04, 2012 05:12 PM (0BPlb)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 04, 2012 05:13 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 05:13 PM (GEICT)
Did he ever make a statement of principles such as, I will not raise taxes - Period?
No he never did that.
Did he ever say he would unequivically repeal ObamaCare?
No he never did that.
On issues after issue he though the mere fact he was not Obama was enough, he could never articulate clear defining, conservative principles because at his core he has none.
He and Ryan also severely undercut their own message time after time by stipulating that Obama inherited a tough situation.
Combine that with allowing yourself to be a punching bag for 4 months and you have a recipe for a losing campaign.
Note to future GOP Presidential candidates, ABACP - ALWAYS BE ARTICULATING CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES!
Posted by: General Woundwort at December 04, 2012 05:14 PM (0fxcV)
It's not strange at all. Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a millionaire socialist who lives in a castle and stays only in five-star hotels. Lawrence O'Donnell self-identifies as a socialist and lives in a mall-sized house and wears $2000 shoes.
Senator Bernie Sanders is a socialist who benefits from his ability to engage in insider trading and pocketed a huge advance for his book.
Bill Ayers is a self-identified socialist who is an heir. Michael Moore is a self-identified socialist who lies about his investments, has a mansion and an apartment on Fifth Avenue in New York, and eats only in five-star restaurants.
Most socialists believe in imposing socialism on others while being allowed to amass as much wealth as they can for themselves. It's the nature of the beast.
Posted by: Llarry at December 04, 2012 05:14 PM (+QDEz)
I have to wonder if we conservatives pine for an idealized past.
I'm sure most of us do, to some extent or another.
Fuckin Chinese and their 'interesting times'
Posted by: fluffy at December 04, 2012 05:14 PM (O6q63)
Au contraire, mon ami.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Helping it burn. at December 04, 2012 05:15 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 09:13 PM (GEICT)
__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ ___ ___
That's a cold shot baby
Posted by: Stevie Ray Vaughan at December 04, 2012 05:15 PM (1Y+hH)
Why?
They are rolling in it. Even in Obamerica, average Americans are comparatively swimming in freedom.
No one can sell it to them. Until they aren't swimming in it any longer.
LiB
Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 04, 2012 05:16 PM (EZl54)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:16 PM (LoWG+)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 05:17 PM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: stephie at December 04, 2012 05:19 PM (xG0vx)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 05:19 PM (GEICT)
**************************************************
You didn't pay one bit of attention to the entire election -- Romney unequivically stated both that he wouldn't raise taxes and he would fully repeal Obamacare *several* times -- at every stump speech even --and certainly at the first debate. In fact, re: the tax thing, the MSM raked him over the coals when he said in an interview the he would not even accept raising taxes $1 for every $10 in spending cuts (or some ratio -- could have been raise taxes $1 for every $5 in cuts) -- oh, Romney was JUST CRAZY for not agreeing to raise taxes in that scenario the MSM said.
And yet here you come, having obviously only paid attention to out of context quotes reported on sites run by butt hurt ABRs and you think Romney *never once* unequivably stated either thing, proving there are just as many low information on the right as there are on the left.
Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 05:20 PM (w3JGl)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:20 PM (LoWG+)
What is past is prologue.
Don't plan for the past; use the past as a guide into the future. That is the fundamental nature of conservatism.
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 04, 2012 05:20 PM (1OZSU)
Posted by: Ken Royall at December 04, 2012 05:22 PM (x0g8a)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 05:22 PM (GEICT)
Had the conservative coalition that showed up from 2004 made it to the polls in 2012, it would have been an epic stomping, but they didn't. All they had to do was slightly outperform McCain and they would have won handily. If you asked any poll guru, even the supposedly infallible Nate Silver, that all Republicans would have to do is outperform McCain's turnout by one point and we'd win, they'd say that was a given.
Why didn't they show up? I don't think there's a clear answer. I do think the Mormonism thing played a bit of a role, I know through anecdotes a handful of idiots in my outer circle let it affect them. I also think our side was way too pessimistic, I would say 99% of my Republican friends were dead certain Romney was going to lose, that sort of pessimism takes a toll on a candidate.
Posted by: Jeepers at December 04, 2012 05:22 PM (XDRsa)
I just had a visual of you going all James T. Kirk.
Yaaaaaaaaannnnnnniiiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 09:16 PM (LoWG+)
Khan is actually on SciFi right now.
I never took you as a dark anD CRUEL QUEEN!!!!
Uh huh. Sure you didn't.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Helping it burn. at December 04, 2012 05:22 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: Y-not at December 04, 2012 05:23 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 05:23 PM (1V6Pv)
Seamus, there's quite a bit of truth in that. Conserve(ative), as in keep things the way they are. Progress(ive), as in move Forward. But still they trotted out Clinton, their own bit of nostalgia.
They see a door and want to go through it, with no idea what's on the other side or even why it is there. Sometimes disaster lies on the other side, but by golly we gotta do this. It might be cool on the other side.
We see a door and ask 'Who built it? Why is it here? Is it safe on the other side?' It's a more methodical approach, it's less disaster prone, but it does resist change somewhat.
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 04, 2012 05:24 PM (ccXZP)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 05:24 PM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:24 PM (LoWG+)
They are Obama leg humpers, and cryptoMarxist propaganda drones... much like Herbal Homohuffer.
Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 04, 2012 05:25 PM (EZl54)
Posted by: Y-not at December 04, 2012 05:25 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 05:25 PM (GEICT)
Posted by: Killerdog at December 04, 2012 05:26 PM (EcMtD)
Then you shouldn't have done that bad thing you did, should you?
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Helping it burn. at December 04, 2012 05:26 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: Terry Gain at December 04, 2012 05:27 PM (Xri0e)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:27 PM (LoWG+)
[i[Number197, incorrect use of Latin phrase, 10 yards, this will be enforced on the ensuing thread. [/i]
You missed a flag, Referee Bannion. After moving the goalposts, he claimed commenter had missed the upright when, in fact, he had made the goal cleanly.
Posted by: fluffy at December 04, 2012 05:27 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: Jeepers at December 04, 2012 09:22 PM (XDRsa)
********************************************
Which is why team Obama (and the MSM -- but I repeat myself) pounded so hard, every week that the race was OVER!! No way, no how could Romney win.
In fact, George Will, Ben Domenech and Bill Kristol (plus other commentators who are allegedly on our side) were saying as of January 2012 that there was NO WAY Obama could be beat, so GOP should just concentrate on Congressional races. (I bring this up to point out that these commentators are not, actually on our side, so jumping on the "blame Romney" bandwagon they're pushing now is not in our best interest).
Besides -- I know what I saw that from October 2, 2012 up to election eve.
Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 05:27 PM (w3JGl)
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 04, 2012 09:24 PM (ccXZP)
****
Yeah, I agree that conservatism is more grounded in reality and actual measurable outcomes than progressivism. To figure out how to get where you are going it helps to know how you got to where you are. (see my #201).
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 04, 2012 05:28 PM (1OZSU)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 05:28 PM (GEICT)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:29 PM (LoWG+)
And that is the only GOP popular vote victory since 1988.
Seriously - the GOP needs to dump the SoCons and go Libertarian. I suggest this out of pure self-interest for the USA.
Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at December 04, 2012 05:29 PM (7lRjS)
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 04, 2012 05:30 PM (ccXZP)
My personal hunch is that the Independents, for whom he designed his campaign, did not turn out for him.
Posted by: Y-not at December 04, 2012 09:25 PM (5H6zj)
*******************************************************
According to polls, Romney won Independents by +5 -- how much better people expected him to do I don't know.
What I do know is that people who stayed home TWICE now with Obama at the top of the Dem ticket are not part of the Republican "base" so I'm dropping that pretense.
Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 05:30 PM (w3JGl)
disagree. one more should have been eliminated.
Mitt the Squish
Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 04, 2012 05:31 PM (EZl54)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 05:31 PM (GEICT)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 04, 2012 05:32 PM (1OZSU)
Posted by: Y-not at December 04, 2012 05:32 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 05:32 PM (1V6Pv)
Since it was in the last 20 min before the ONT it is automatically reviewable upstairs.
Let's go to the replay:
None of those are elected Democrats, Llarry in response to...
Senator Bernie Sanders is a socialist who benefits from his ability to engage in insider trading and pocketed a huge advance for his book.
I think we may have a game misconduct situation here.
Posted by: fluffy at December 04, 2012 05:32 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: Y-not at December 04, 2012 09:23 PM (5H6zj)
*************************************************
First, that wasn't the assertion. The poster asserted that Romney never stated he would not raise taxes.
Second, that isn't what Romney said either -- he said he would lower rates 20% and eliminate deductions exclusive to the higher income people so that they would pay THE SAME AMOUNT OF TAXES.
"Same" doesn't mean "higher."
Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 05:33 PM (w3JGl)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 04, 2012 05:33 PM (uhAkr)
Romney talked about repeal and replace of ObamaCare which is completely unacceptable as it buys into the Progs premise that health care is somehow a right that the federal government must guarantee.
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IS THE MAIN PROBLEM WE FACE NOT TOO LITTLE GOVERNMENT
Romneys tax plan should have been the following - I will not raise taxes, I will not monkey with tax rates, I will not burden the business community and I will work tirelessly to lower taxes on - EVERYONE!
Instead we got crap about closing loopholes, tax credits, etc.
MITT ROMNEY, SHITTIER THAN MCCAIN, WHO KNEW!
Posted by: General Woundwort at December 04, 2012 05:34 PM (0fxcV)
*********************
A link to my personal opinion? Yeah -- here it is:
http://minx.cc/?post=335440
Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 05:34 PM (w3JGl)
turn out were conservatives? Because in terms of raw votes, Romney has
passed McCain (by 750K iirc).
My personal hunch is that the Independents, for whom he designed his campaign, did not turn out for him.
Posted by: Y-not at December 04, 2012 09:25 PM (5H6zj)
*******************************************************According to polls, Romney won Independents by +5 -- how much better people expected him to do I don't know.
What I do know is that people who stayed home TWICE now with Obama at the top of the Dem ticket are not part of the Republican "base" so I'm dropping that pretense.
Posted by: angienc
According to exit polls, Kerry won most independents, Bush's victory was almost purely because of Republican turnout.
Again, I would have thought that was a given, Romney enthusiasm in my area was MUCh higher tha Bush enthusiasm was in 2004.
Posted by: Jeepers at December 04, 2012 05:34 PM (XDRsa)
SPRINGFIELD, Illinois (Reuters) - Illinois took a major step on Tuesday toward granting drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, which would make it the most populous U.S. state to allow undocumented migrants to legally drive.
The Democratic-controlled state Senate voted 41-14 to approve licenses for illegal immigrants to raucous cheers from Hispanics in the legislative gallery.
And so it begins.
Posted by: Cicero Kid at December 04, 2012 05:34 PM (1IZ53)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:34 PM (LoWG+)
Booth Ref doesn't know what the fuck y'all are talking about. Ruling on the field stands.
I have a copy of 'Yanni at the Acropolis' and I'm not afraid to play it.
Posted by: fluffy at December 04, 2012 05:35 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: Y-not at December 04, 2012 05:35 PM (5H6zj)
Like I said: you're proof that not all the low information voters are on the left.
Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 05:36 PM (w3JGl)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 05:36 PM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 05:37 PM (GEICT)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:37 PM (LoWG+)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 05:38 PM (1V6Pv)
good thing the Dhimmis ran Barak "Moderate" Obama who totally ignored his base...
oh wait....
Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 04, 2012 05:39 PM (EZl54)
The under 40 vote would be won for a generation.
Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at December 04, 2012 05:40 PM (7lRjS)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:41 PM (LoWG+)
Posted by: logprof at December 04, 2012 05:41 PM (gBuIk)
Posted by: Eaton Cox at December 04, 2012 05:41 PM (q177U)
Posted by: DC in Towson at December 04, 2012 05:42 PM (Ai+tZ)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:43 PM (LoWG+)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 05:43 PM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: Y-not
There's not going to be a single, silver bullet answer. I think it was a combination of a lot of little factors.
But if we're going by Exit Polls, Romney won independents by 5 points and Bush lost independents to Kerry by around 1 point. I don't think it's a leap of logic to say had Romney turned out Bush 2004 coalition and won independents by 5 points, it would have been a landslide.
Posted by: Jeepers at December 04, 2012 05:44 PM (XDRsa)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 05:45 PM (GEICT)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:45 PM (LoWG+)
Posted by: Ken Royall at December 04, 2012 05:46 PM (x0g8a)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 05:47 PM (GEICT)
Or, in other words, he totally deserved it.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Helping it burn. at December 04, 2012 05:47 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 05:47 PM (1V6Pv)
Just as Jordan as greeted with "Is the Texas legislature in session?", whe should greet Herbert with "Who appointed Bernie Sanders to the Senate?"
Olaf/Jon/Dog Blower should be queried about his share of the national debt.
Posted by: fluffy at December 04, 2012 05:48 PM (O6q63)
Maybe I should state this another way:
The Republican base came out, IMO. I can cut people slack for 2008 - even though it was apparent to me that Obama was an America-hating commie, other people didn't really know who he was and having been burned by GWB's excess spending on the wars they stayed home out of disgust. But *after* 4 years of Obama? No -- they aren't the GOP base. They are whiny prima donnas waiting for their 100% pure ideal candidate before they can be bothered to get their asses to the polls and until he shows up they will cause division among the ranks to the best of their ability.
Most importantly, the "base" shows up to vote.
Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 05:48 PM (w3JGl)
Posted by: DC in Towson at December 04, 2012 05:48 PM (Ai+tZ)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 05:49 PM (GEICT)
Posted by: Y-not at December 04, 2012 05:49 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:49 PM (LoWG+)
Posted by: Eaton Cox at December 04, 2012 05:50 PM (q177U)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 05:51 PM (GEICT)
Romney got a greater ratio of independents, but from what I understand fewer independents voted. They looked at the candidates and didn't see a reason to vote - Mitt was a Wall Street raider and Obama is a fucktard who lied to them.
They didn't think it really mattered. Minorities however retained their very high turnout rates. The result was a shellacking for the northeastern moderate (a very common fate for them).
And fraud, of course. But then if a Democrat commits fraud and no Republican raises a stink, did fraud exist?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 04, 2012 05:52 PM (uhAkr)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:53 PM (LoWG+)
I have enough sentience to express a sentiment in a sentence that makes sense, since a seance is not science.
Oh Lord...stop me before I post again!
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 04, 2012 05:54 PM (1OZSU)
Posted by: Y-not at December 04, 2012 05:54 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: El Kabong, RINOINO at December 04, 2012 05:54 PM (0BPlb)
Posted by: Infidel at December 04, 2012 05:55 PM (xfRvq)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 05:55 PM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:55 PM (LoWG+)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 05:55 PM (GEICT)
Libs communicate through projection.
"My vote dint count!"
"Bush stole the election!"
14.8 million union members in the U.S .
When you let the kids run wild, you get wild kids.
The fix was in.
Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 04, 2012 05:55 PM (EZl54)
Posted by: George Orwell what knows þr0n is your constitutionally guaranteed entitlement at December 04, 2012 05:55 PM (Lxw+T)
I have enough sentience to express a sentiment in a sentence that makes sense, since a seance is not science.
Statements like this are what get people to hop on the 'know nothing' band wagon.
Posted by: fluffy at December 04, 2012 05:56 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: Walter Sobchak at December 04, 2012 05:56 PM (uis79)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 05:57 PM (GEICT)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:57 PM (LoWG+)
Posted by: Eaton Cox at December 04, 2012 05:58 PM (q177U)
Posted by: 80sBaby at December 04, 2012 05:58 PM (YjDyJ)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 05:58 PM (VIp6V)
Actually, I'm just about to go to bed because I'm just that hard core.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Helping it burn. at December 04, 2012 06:00 PM (Gk3SS)
Let me try this a different way.
Obama should not even have been in the running. He is pathetic. A disaster of an American President. But he won. Because he cobbled all the dis-affected, all the Low Information Humans and the left together and made it a mass movement. Halo's, Greek columns ad nauseum. But it worked. Twice.
Maybe we should look to running someone who is a) actually conservative, b) interesting and c) has a flaw. Or a tattoo. On his Face.
And Thorvald is correct. I remember vividly watching Cronkite bleating out what was obvious propaganda even to a 5th grader. Who lives on the right side of the bell curve.
Posted by: Artruen at December 04, 2012 06:01 PM (fDGF1)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 09:57 PM (GEICT)
****
I'm detecting sort of an anti-Irish pro-Viking racist thingy, but I may be reading it wrong. Since I'm neither Irish nor Viking, I cannot really say fer sure.
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 04, 2012 06:01 PM (1OZSU)
Posted by: Y-not at December 04, 2012 09:54 PM (5H6zj)
***************************************
BWAHAHAHAHA! I like how you didn't bother to ask for a link for that one -- something that happened to match your preconceived notion.
There are way more registered Independents now then there were in 2008 and definitely more than in 2004 so bevel has NO WAY to prove what s/he is asserting. But you just stick with that -- because that's what you wanted to hear.
Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 06:01 PM (w3JGl)
Posted by: unknown jane at December 04, 2012 06:01 PM (DBkD3)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 06:01 PM (GEICT)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 04, 2012 06:02 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: unknown jane at December 04, 2012 06:02 PM (DBkD3)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 06:03 PM (GEICT)
Posted by: Thorvald Now at December 04, 2012 06:03 PM (VIp6V)
Posted by: Thorvald Now at December 04, 2012 06:04 PM (VIp6V)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 06:04 PM (GEICT)
Posted by: Y-not at December 04, 2012 06:05 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 04, 2012 06:06 PM (1OZSU)
Posted by: Thorvald Now at December 04, 2012 06:06 PM (VIp6V)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 06:07 PM (GEICT)
I voted for Romney but Romney was a shitty candidate, end of story.
He used Ryan poorly and ineffectively.
It also did not help that his running mate allowed himself to be bested by a drooling idiot in their only debate.
Couple that with Romney not pressing the attack in the last two debates and specifically conceding point after point in the last debate, I will not even go into the ORCA initiative.
And this is how good the Progressives are and how inept the Republicans are, google "Romney Tax Plan" the very top hit is a site called Romney Tax Plan, it's a democrat sponsored site that savages Romney tax plan other hits lead you to other dem sponsored sites that do the same, it was like this during the election as well, now google Obama tax plan, top hits are sites that extol the virtues of the Obama tax plan, even after the election.
There should be site after site savaging Obama's tax plan but there aren't any, Why?
Because Romney sucked, his team sucked and the GOP establishment blows donkey dick.
Like someone else said, The GOP cranks out weak shit and the Democrats mow it down.
Posted by: General Woundwort at December 04, 2012 06:07 PM (0fxcV)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 04, 2012 06:09 PM (1OZSU)
Posted by: In Cognito at December 04, 2012 06:09 PM (+8t8s)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 06:09 PM (1V6Pv)
I am proud not to be the GOP base. A worse bunch of self-deluded fools I haven't seen this side of a "Discovery Institute" museum, which museum actually *might* represent the GOP base.
As for the non-voters, you are talking about "the 50% of the electorate that didn't even bother to vote", according to steevy above. 50% is a lot of prima donnas. That "none of the above" candidate would have got a vast plurality of the popular vote and a majority of the Electoral College excepting DC.
That 50% - that plurality - ought to be considered a referendum against DC rule. It should have been 80%.
Just walk away. Don't hold back the tide of the River of Meat.
Posted by: zimriel at December 04, 2012 06:09 PM (QTHTd)
Posted by: Daybrother at December 04, 2012 06:10 PM (+paCV)
Posted by: DC in Towson at December 04, 2012 06:10 PM (Ai+tZ)
Posted by: Artruen at December 04, 2012 10:01 PM (fDGF1)
*****************************************************
Except -- and this is big, so pay attention: Romney ran better than the GOP senate candidates in every state but the deep blue ones (like MA -- where he ran even). He handily won MO and IN while GOP candidates lost those. Romney even got about 100,000 more votes than the new "conservative" darling Ted Cruz did in Texas. 800,000. Even in the swing states he lost, Romney got more votes tan the senate candidates -- about 800,000 more in FL than Mack; 100,000 more in VA than Allen; and about 100,000 more in WI than Tommy Thompson did.
If Romney was the *problem* and not the GOP brand, then the opposite should have happened (i.e., Romney should have run even or gotten less votes than GOP senate candidates in red states and swing states). But that did not happen -- and yet people keep wanting to pretend the problem was Romney. {shrug} Like Ace writes: humans like to lie to themselves.
Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 06:11 PM (w3JGl)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 06:11 PM (VIp6V)
Posted by: Eaton Cox at December 04, 2012 06:12 PM (q177U)
Posted by: Daybrother at December 04, 2012 06:12 PM (+paCV)
lets get someone who isn't crazy and yet still not afraid to brawl
Alan West
truly can't think of any other
Posted by: thunderb at December 04, 2012 06:13 PM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 06:13 PM (VIp6V)
Posted by: Infidel at December 04, 2012 06:14 PM (xfRvq)
Posted by: Eaton Cox at December 04, 2012 06:14 PM (q177U)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 06:14 PM (GEICT)
Oh you asked for a link from me other than the one re: my personal opinion, which you quoted and asked for a link for which I took as snark on your part (and I hope for your sake it was snark)?
The only other links I saw you ask for were from a commenter named Jeepers re: Romney winning Independents by +5.
Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 06:15 PM (w3JGl)
Romney did not run as a SoCon while Mourdock and Todd Akin did - and they both got plastered in RED states Romney won.
Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at December 04, 2012 06:15 PM (7lRjS)
And, I understand this ellipsis will infuriate everyone from Massatwoshits, you can still be a woodstove/outhouse criminal nearly everywhere. You just can't be a "dust criminal", yet.
Wrong. WRONG!
I'm just confused.
Posted by: fluffy, Masshole at December 04, 2012 06:15 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 06:16 PM (GEICT)
Posted by: unknown jane at December 04, 2012 06:16 PM (DBkD3)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 06:16 PM (VIp6V)
My point exactly. I think. Maybe. Romney was a good candidate. He ran against an empty, soulless, golfing, sack of shit. And Lost.
Forward!
Posted by: Artruen at December 04, 2012 06:16 PM (fDGF1)
Posted by: In Cognito at December 04, 2012 06:18 PM (+8t8s)
People left the polls blaming Bush for the economy.
We've got candidates running for Senate who have to explain that they are against *rape.*
And a fair amount of people on the right think the problem is we should have run Santorum.
Yes, we've missed the exit.
Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 06:19 PM (w3JGl)
Posted by: Artruen at December 04, 2012 06:19 PM (fDGF1)
Posted by: unknown jane at December 04, 2012 06:19 PM (DBkD3)
The Republican base came out, IMO. I can cut people slack for 2008 - even though it was apparent to me that Obama was an America-hating commie, other people didn't really know who he was and having been burned by GWB's excess spending on the wars they stayed home out of disgust. But *after* 4 years of Obama? No -- they aren't the GOP base. They are whiny prima donnas waiting for their 100% pure ideal candidate before they can be bothered to get their asses to the polls and until he shows up they will cause division among the ranks to the best of their ability.
Most importantly, the "base" shows up to vote.
Posted by: angienc
I agree, chasing after a voter that sat out over Romney being insufficiently conservative is completely stupid. I'd honestly rather go after a voter that's a moderate Democrat that actually made it to the polls.
I would wager half of Democrat voters vote the way they do purely because of the Culture War. Mitch Daniels was right, we should call a truce on this nonsense, especially since who's in the White House plays absolutely no role in where our nation is morally. Does anyone think the nation was better off morally with pro-life Jimmy Carter over pro-choice Gerald Ford?
Posted by: Jeepers at December 04, 2012 06:19 PM (XDRsa)
Posted by: Charon at December 04, 2012 06:21 PM (bCaTl)
Exactly.
Unfortunately , history says that Mitt's failure to fight in the election will cause a great deal of real fighting in the near future.
But hey! He tried real hard...or something.
Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 04, 2012 06:21 PM (EZl54)
Posted by: SurferDoc at December 04, 2012 06:21 PM (6H6FZ)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 06:21 PM (1V6Pv)
Paul Ryan proposed the Human Life Amendment which states the same thing.
Injecting God's will into everything (including rape) is in-line with the SoCon philosophy too.
Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at December 04, 2012 06:25 PM (7lRjS)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 04, 2012 10:11 PM (VIp6V)
http://tinyurl.com/an385mm
NSFW
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 04, 2012 06:26 PM (GsoHv)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 06:26 PM (GEICT)
Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at December 04, 2012 10:15 PM (7lRjS)
Well, which is it? Did Mitt lose because of Mourdock and Akin or was he so awesome he still lost on his own merits?
Moderates need to huddle together and get their story straight.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 04, 2012 06:27 PM (uhAkr)
Posted by: stephie at December 04, 2012 06:27 PM (xG0vx)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 04, 2012 06:27 PM (jucos)
Please don't misconstrue what I wrote -- I didn't mention the entire 50% of those eligible who didn't vote-- IMO those are for the most part simply apathetic.
I'm talking about the actual people the GOP can depend on to come out and vote come hell or high water -- that's what "base" means. Yet I see a lot of people claiming to be "the base" who don't come out to vote. They aren't the base -- they may be candidate specific voters (who voted faithfully for GWB twice) but they aren't "the GOP base."
By the same token, all the panic over the Dem base who came out this last time (+7 Dem 2 elections in a row) -- they may be Obama's base, not the Dem base. We will not know that thought until 2016.
Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 06:27 PM (w3JGl)
Obama's team accuses Romney of causing a women's cancer and eventual death.
Romney say's Obama's a good man who inherited a bad situation.
That Mitt Romney was wicked smart I'll tell ya!
Posted by: General Woundwort at December 04, 2012 06:28 PM (0fxcV)
Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 04, 2012 06:29 PM (EZl54)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 04, 2012 10:27 PM (jucos)
Just when I thought I could not possibly love you more, you go and post something like that. mwah!
Posted by: Peaches at December 04, 2012 06:29 PM (kpCLl)
Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 04, 2012 06:29 PM (GEICT)
Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 10:27 PM (w3JGl)
This is an interesting thought.
How much of the Democrat win was as a result of the magic negro's oversample of Blacks, guilty White people and apathetic voters who loved his pseudo-hip bluster?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 04, 2012 06:30 PM (GsoHv)
Posted by: Truman North at December 04, 2012 06:31 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Hefty Herpeshole at December 04, 2012 06:34 PM (EZl54)
Posted by: Lt. Resentment at December 04, 2012 06:35 PM (LttFA)
Why did GOP governors in Virginia and Florida help Obama win? GOP Secretary of States there?
More GOP bubble living.
Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at December 04, 2012 06:35 PM (7lRjS)
That would put some fucking fire in their bellies.
Posted by: Danby at December 04, 2012 06:37 PM (tYxYT)
Posted by: Thorvald at December 04, 2012 06:38 PM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: Lt. Resentment at December 04, 2012 06:40 PM (LttFA)
2) Failure to court/reassure conservative base.
3) Failure to mend fences with primary losers.
Those are probably enough to lose it right there.
Posted by: SurferDoc at December 04, 2012 06:41 PM (6H6FZ)
Posted by: T.Hunter - let it burn at December 04, 2012 06:44 PM (EZl54)
*************************************************************
What's up with this new Obot talking point that Republicans live in bubbles? I know it's supposed to insult us or something, but I find it pretty laughable and just more Obot projection.
I understand they don't "get" the concept of "2 wrongs don't make a right" (hence every time they want to justify some horrendous thing Obama has done, say -- kill US citizens with drones, they justify it with "Bush did it too!") but now they also fail at the whole "glass houses" thing?
I mean, these are people who haven't noticed that all Obama has given us is cheap money and no jobs, yet somehow want 4 more years of it and we're the ones living in a bubble?
Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 06:49 PM (w3JGl)
Exact Rove quote:
"That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at December 04, 2012 06:55 PM (7lRjS)
Posted by: Ken Royall
I sort of agree, although I certainly don't vote on a "winning by losing" basis.
Had Romney squeaked through (or any Republican) they wouldn't have been able to cut so much as a penny from federal spending. Not one penny.
It wouldn't have been as bad as Obama though, Romney would have bought us time.
But the problem is, rarely do people get less government from an economic collapse. I think the US though is unique in that if we have some sort of collapse, I see us breaking apart, especially if out dollar becomes worthless, which is inevitable with $60 trillion in unfunded obligations.
Posted by: Jeepers at December 04, 2012 07:00 PM (XDRsa)
Posted by: Herbert Hymenhopper at December 04, 2012 10:35 PM (7lRjS)
When Obama gets 100% of the vote in some precincts, I don't think it is idiocy.
When the son of a prominent Democrat congressman is forced to resign because he is caught brainstorming about voter fraud, it isn't idiocy.
When a national party bellyaches about voter ID laws that the even the dictator-friendly UN is horrified we don't have, it isn't idiocy.
The Democrats engage in widespread fraud and have been doing so since Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 04, 2012 07:10 PM (uhAkr)
Ha, ha! Y'all can't even get insults right then.
Posted by: angienc at December 04, 2012 07:49 PM (w3JGl)
Those who persist in dissecting the loser's campaign tactics in an election presenting this stark a choice to the electorate simply aren't serious about our situation.
Romney's campaign (vs. the incumbent's bizarre, gaffe-gorged, bumbling non-campaign) was 100 times what was needed to win - in a country remotely resembling the America many of us have lived in for decades.
How quickly some forget. Even some of the idiot lib columnists were tut-tutting about Bambi's coming loss in the weeks before the election. They were lamenting how small and unseemly his campaign had become. They, like most everyone else, expected a Romney win, and a substantial one.
When even the braid-dead Beltway chattering lib idiots are both pessimistic and embarrased about their guy's campaign, it's sort of a big clue. Romeny should have won. That he didn't wasn't an artifact of campaign strategy. It was, 100%, a clear, stunning, and immutable reflection of the national decline (and yes, the "moochers'" destructive voting was no more so than that of high-disinformation NPR listeners, or the mysterious missing millions in the Midwest, or the cretins who claim to believe there's no difference between Romney and the absurd non-entity in the WH).
And Ace - Clinton, intelligent? Wow. I'd sort of assumed you were brighter than to stipulate the ridiculous Beltway conventional wisdom about one of the most disastrously incompetent - not to mention psychologically unfit - presidents of all time. Clinton was "intelligent" and a "wonk" in the same way that the idiotic, miniature Beltway types are intelligent. That is, he wasn't. Glib adherence to the conventional wisdom - which gets dumbed down almost every day - is not a sign of intelligence.
And having had personal exposure to both Clinton and the current absurd non-entity in the WH, it's easy for me to report that neither one, for an instant, comes across as intelligent in any meaningful or useful way. Warped, grasping, arrogant, clueless - all this and more, yes. Intelligent? Ha!
Posted by: non-purist at December 04, 2012 07:53 PM (afQnV)
Posted by: notsothoreau at December 04, 2012 07:58 PM (uPhCY)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 04, 2012 08:19 PM (i0vBR)
Here's the real reason Obama won: Democrats own the culture, and its not coming back.
We all acknowledge that Liberals have owned the MSM, Academy, Hollywood and Music industries for 30 years, but have never contemplated when such control might lead to a tipping point.
But now take a step back...big picture:
-when the "War on Women" began, we laughed. Partly because it was so fantastical a lie and so bereft of evidence that we assumed no one would seriously consider this as a factor in their vote. They believed it. In fact, Malkin, has a collection of tweets from women hoarding tampons ahead of a possible Republican win that would deny them all "women's reproductive rights!"
-when a town hall speaker at an Obama event asked him to provide her with a house, we laughed. Because no normal person is so shameless as to ask, in front of millions of viewers, that the President, himself, provide shelter and not policy, personal entitlement and not direction for the country. By the way, could you imagine your grandmother asking Truman for a house? or this line, "Mr. Nixon, can you give me a house?"
-when voters talked about getting free "Obamaphones" or cash that came from "Obama's stash" we laughed. Because we thought they were marginal, low-information voters that in no way represented the Republic.
-when a nearly 30-year old law student insisted that her birth control be made a portion of the Federal Budget, we laughed. Because no responsible, adult woman would not figure out how to get her own birth control.
-when a town hall McDonald's employee gushed in Obama's presence, when songs were sung by elementary students, when late-night hosts beamed at his appearance and SNL ignored his record.
-when American voters make decisions on their leaders based on whether "he cares about people like me" (Can you imagine your grandparents saying, 'Ya know, I just don't think Eisenhower cares about me!")
Thus, the tipping point. It couldn't go on forever. No one can hold the levers of culture so long and not reach political power so long desired.
It was not the candidate, it was the culture--we just never noticed it.
It was a fine Republic while she lasted.
Posted by: LexisTexas at December 04, 2012 08:24 PM (kPFAg)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 04, 2012 08:34 PM (i0vBR)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 04, 2012 08:45 PM (i0vBR)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 04, 2012 08:49 PM (i0vBR)
Did he also have a 50 foot War Cock(tm)
Posted by: Ian S. at December 04, 2012 09:02 PM (OevbG)
You, wisely, noted this previously. It's nothing new, we need to - collectively - stop with the bullshit excuses and rationalizing of why we lost. Your site, god-love it, runs way too much ridiculous crap which amounts to nothing but a conservative id self-defense mechanism, a kill switch which bitches insistently about Orca, or Romney as RINO, etc.
Lets be honest, Romney gave us the big positive election we as conservatives wanted. He gave us, as Americans, a choice between statism and free-market economics presented quite clearly. He gave us Paul Ryan and reached out and not only touched the 3rd rail, he rammed that shit up Obama's ass and won the issue among seniors. He recapitulated Reagan '80 percentages among the non-minority demos in 2012.
He did his part, we -- as a country -- have changed and said no. It's that fucking simple.
The only thing he didn't do was unleash the kraken, but that's a post hoc point as the only play was to the middle. Would it have worked, maybe -- but few who were informed were advocating that when our only arithmetic hope was to ride the centerist wave. The left would have turned out for their Obama-phone regardless. Apparently, the soft center and right just doesn't give a fuck.
Posted by: Uriah Heep at December 04, 2012 09:26 PM (jhI6f)
Right, because discussing which rapper most influenced the '90s is important. That's the surest way to balance the budget, reduce the trade imbalance, reduce unemployment or get the inner-cities educated.
Fuck Pimp-with-a-limp.
I think Marco Rubio is a stud, but there's no reason a statesmen should be discussing what rapper's lyrics are most moving. That's not their job, they're not fucking American Idol judges. This whole reduction of the political system into a transactional votes-for-bread-and-circuses thing is ridiculous.
As citizens, we should be sick of just standing there and watching it burn. Because we don't like the way it hurts.
How do you like those rhymes?
Posted by: Uriah Heep at December 04, 2012 09:35 PM (jhI6f)
Fine, let the fucker burn.
Posted by: Uriah Heep at December 04, 2012 09:42 PM (jhI6f)
That's why they win.
-
That's right.
Only those who care enough to act can get what they want. The interests of those who don't care are ignored.
What's a racial issue in the 21st Century? Everything that relates to who gets what and why, in other words everything political.
"Only Democrats care about race / skin color" is the same as "Democrats will get their way on every political issue, and they might as well since only they care."
Posted by: The Lightworker at December 04, 2012 10:23 PM (2Wolb)
In reality, the "anti-racist" side, which is the anti-White side, has the same sort of advantage over whipped conservatives when they define issues as really being about race and when they accuse conservatives of racism. As long as conservatives stay whipped, liberals can get their way on any issue by saying, "this is a race thing, and those opposing us are racist".
Posted by: The Lightworker at December 04, 2012 10:41 PM (2Wolb)
-
Ann Coulter basically has the right attitude: walk in the room punching. People will say you are hateful, and that they would never be influenced by someone so negative, but you'll win the argument.
It works for real politicians too. On terrorism and security, Dick Cheney conceded Obama nothing. Eveyrbody said that former Vice-President Dick Cheney was being hateful and undignified. (The right thing to do would have been to let himself be slandered by Obama and his agents without reply.) As a result of this confrontation, Dick Cheney became less popular than ever. But he won the policy argument.
Republicans generally prefer for somebody else to fight for the cause and get their reputation mauled, while they the smart ones duck the fight and stay popular. It's a coward's strategy, and an army of cowards will lose.
Posted by: The Lightworker at December 04, 2012 11:34 PM (2Wolb)
Posted by: Sexypig at December 04, 2012 11:43 PM (dZQh7)
We had our asses handed to us and it might be a nice idea if we could figure out exactly what happened.
My immediate reaction after the election was that I had deluded myself as to what kind of country I lived in. The more I read, the more I am coming to the conclusion that the Democrats used new technology effectively and the results were like the British machine guns at Omdurman which inspired the poem, "Whatever happens we have got
The Maxim Gun and they have not."
A few years later, everybody had the same technology and the battle of Passchendaele did not go as smoothly for the British as Omdurman.
The big data mining and microtargeting operations that the Democrats used was not a technology that the Republican campaign consultants were not familiar with. They have been using that technology to target campaign contributors. The money they collected from campaign contributors is the reason that all the Romney campaign consultants are millionaires today. They get paid just as well if their candidate wins or loses. The Washington Generals make a pretty comfortable living.
Posted by: Obnoxious A-hole at December 05, 2012 05:31 AM (dGtaD)
Posted by: jukin at December 05, 2012 07:42 AM (WGm5T)
Posted by: howardfrombroward at December 05, 2012 10:30 AM (dCFT1)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.8308 seconds, 520 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: steevy at December 04, 2012 03:53 PM (9XBK2)