Romney: Obama won with 'gifts' to certain voters

[irishpatrick]

You can always blame Orca, the software that showed Romney easily winning so that they shouldn’t bother coming out to vote. Maybe the GOP should start learning some math and science.

Oh stop with the insults. Republicans are intelligent people–millions simply chose not to vote at all, and the GOP needs to figure out why.

Romney should have won easily, nobody could have predicted such a ridiculously low turnout by the Republicans. Romney should have won by at least 6%, and he should have taken a minimum 100 electoral college victory…but millions of Republicans did not vote.

The only reason Obama was reelected was because Republicans in large numbers did NOT vote. We need to deal with what actually happened and that is what happened. Republicans have no-one to blame, but themselves…Democrats gave them an opening and they refused to take the opening. I have NO clue why, but that is the truth. Obama had more than 8-million fewer votes this time–it should have been an easy win by any Republican candidate.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Oh stop with the insults. Republicans are intelligent people–millions simply chose not to vote at all, and the GOP needs to figure out why.

Romney should have won easily, nobody could have predicted such a ridiculously low turnout by the Republicans. Romney should have won by at least 6%, and he should have taken a minimum 100 electoral college victory…but millions of Republicans did not vote.

The only reason Obama was reelected was because Republicans in large numbers did NOT vote. We need to deal with what actually happened and that is what happened. Republicans have no-one to blame, but themselves…Democrats gave them an opening and they refused to take the opening. I have NO clue why, but that is the truth.

You have no clue why? It’s very simple: history shows that a vote against something is not as enticing as a vote for something. The GOP counted on the anti-Obama vote, but Romney had little positive to offer pro-Romney – there was not much to vote for.

It shows in the exit poll numbers: Obama got an 80 % pro-Obama vote, Romney only a 60 % pro-Romney vote (which means 40 % was merely anti-Obama). And that is among those who did show up to vote. It is reasonable to assume that the ratio would have been even more dismal among those who decided not to show up for voting. No wonder they didn’t show up.

 

[ProVobis]

Romney should have won easily, nobody could have predicted such a ridiculously low turnout by the Republicans. Romney should have won by at least 6%, and he should have taken a minimum 100 electoral college victory…but millions of Republicans did not vote.

Like all would-be Democrat voters chose to stand in line for 5 hours?

The truth is overall percentage is lower than four years ago.

bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-08/didn-t-vote-don-t-worry-about-it-.html

 

[ishii]

I see…because some college student engage in hero-worship, the Progressives are all lumped into their group?

That no one died in Watergate is irrelevant to the Benghazi situation. Unfortunately, the death and injury of embassy personnel is not unheard of. If there was a lapse in proper security measures in this case, then the people responsible will have to take a few lumps. However, nothing that has been speculated so far in any way rise to the level of a crime. Except, of course, for those who have been dealing in classified documents.

If you believe else-wise, then it is not me who has a problem with ideological bent.

Oldcelt - Watergate was about the cover up, and so is Benghazi. You’ve been requesting facts so here are some: Obama knew it was a terrorist attack yet continued to push the false narrative of the video. He sent Rice out to the Sunday talk shows to perpetuate the myth of the attack as response to video. Someone gave the order to “stand down” - and not try to rescue those being attacked at the consulate. Who? and Why? There are too many things that don’t add up with Benghazi and if you can’t acknowlege that then you are letting your partisanship obscure your thinking. I think we should ask the Obama administration to explain things, don’t you? This thing stinks to high heavens and you are blowing it off - because its Obama’s scandal and you voted for him. You are letting your partisanship cloud your judgement.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Romney is in pain and he has it wrong. He lost because the GOP failed to get its vote out. It is as simple as that. All the theories and soul-searching and hand-wringing should stop. Millions of registered likely Republican voters decided NOT to vote. Had those voters casted ballots for Romney, he would be President-elect.

Do you have any figures on this? I understand that Obama didn’t get as many votes either, as in 2008. If you could provide some figures comparing turnout this year compared to 2008 that would be great.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Oh stop with the insults. Republicans are intelligent people–millions simply chose not to vote at all, and the GOP needs to figure out why.

Romney should have won easily, nobody could have predicted such a ridiculously low turnout by the Republicans. Romney should have won by at least 6%, and he should have taken a minimum 100 electoral college victory…but millions of Republicans did not vote.

The only reason Obama was reelected was because Republicans in large numbers did NOT vote. We need to deal with what actually happened and that is what happened. Republicans have no-one to blame, but themselves…Democrats gave them an opening and they refused to take the opening. I have NO clue why, but that is the truth. Obama had more than 8-million fewer votes this time–it should have been an easy win by any Republican candidate.

Coulda shoulda woulda. You are leaving out numerous factors, Irishpatrick: the role of individuals - Candy, Christie, Akin and Murdock. Bad timing: Sandy. The role of hispanicks (remember Romney took a hardline on immigration in the primaries). The entitlement society which seeks to vote in the guys who will protect the entitlements (rob Peter to pay Paul and get the vote of Paul). It is not one thing that did Romney in but a number of things.

Romney did give a positive agenda of economic growth, energy independence, fiscal sanity, etc. If the Republican voters couldn’t get excited about that then I wonder what they’ll get excited about in 2016? Those same issues will be at the forefront as I’m sure Obama won’t fix them.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Sounds like my area too. People are working 40-70 hours a week, but still cannot afford the basics like housing and food without assistance because wages aren’t high enough to sustain a family. It’s pretty hard to see yourself as a “taker” when you can barely get 8 hours of sleep between shifts. God help you if you get sick, because you may not qualify for medical benefits, or the cost of them is such a large portion of your paycheck that you can’t afford them-and Lord know you don’t dare take a day off because there’s someone else standing in line to take your job when they fire you for missing work.

All this while everyone watches profits and salaries for CEO’s leap to 300 and 400 times the rate of the worker that has a significant impact on the success of that business. It’s no secret to anyone who can Google that since the 1970’s income growth for the working and middle classes has significantly lagged behind that of the smaller percentage of the wealthy, that’s in years where it hasn’t declined or remained flat.

People aren’t blind, they see what’s going on around them and they’re not happy about it. Working hard is supposed to give you a better life, not trap you in a cycle of work, work and more work with no hope of improvement. Romney was the human embodiment of that “rich guys finish first” storyline, and it cost him the White House.

The best thing for all of those you and kindness mention is a growing, robust, dynamic economy. Romney set forth a plan to revive the economy and break out of this economic stagnation and high unemployment, but the press and Obama of course demogogued it - and played the politics of greed which you apparently have fallen for. Taxing the rich CEO’s might make you feel better, but it won’t help anyone - and certainly won’t help the economy.

Ishii

 

[fix]

Sounds like my area too. People are working 40-70 hours a week, but still cannot afford the basics like housing and food without assistance because wages aren’t high enough to sustain a family. It’s pretty hard to see yourself as a “taker” when you can barely get 8 hours of sleep between shifts. God help you if you get sick, because you may not qualify for medical benefits, or the cost of them is such a large portion of your paycheck that you can’t afford them-and Lord know you don’t dare take a day off because there’s someone else standing in line to take your job when they fire you for missing work.

All this while everyone watches profits and salaries for CEO’s leap to 300 and 400 times the rate of the worker that has a significant impact on the success of that business. It’s no secret to anyone who can Google that since the 1970’s income growth for the working and middle classes has significantly lagged behind that of the smaller percentage of the wealthy, that’s in years where it hasn’t declined or remained flat.

People aren’t blind, they see what’s going on around them and they’re not happy about it. Working hard is supposed to give you a better life, not trap you in a cycle of work, work and more work with no hope of improvement. Romney was the human embodiment of that “rich guys finish first” storyline, and it cost him the White House.

So those that complained about their economic problems voted for the guy that has done nothing to change things and is pro abortion and anti family. Makes sense.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Romney is in pain and he has it wrong. He lost because the GOP failed to get its vote out. It is as simple as that. All the theories and soul-searching and hand-wringing should stop. Millions of registered likely Republican voters decided NOT to vote. Had those voters casted ballots for Romney, he would be President-elect.

Millions of Republicans realize what a sham the primaries were and felt excluded from the process. They expressed their displeasure with their actions. Maybe the GOP will learn and actually try to let the people decide who they want representing them.

 

[Seeker1961]

The best thing for all of those you and kindness mention is a growing, robust, dynamic economy. Romney set forth a plan to revive the economy and break out of this economic stagnation and high unemployment, but the press and Obama of course demogogued it - and played the politics of greed which you apparently have fallen for. Taxing the rich CEO’s might make you feel better, but it won’t help anyone - and certainly won’t help the economy.

Ishii

We tried Romney’s plan…it didn’t work. The rich have had their temporary tax cuts that were supposed to spur the economy since the Bush Administration instituted them. The tax cuts made them richer, but did nothing for the rest of us. People complained about Obama not turning the economy around in 4 years…how about the Bush tax cuts not spurring the economy since they were instituted. The GOP thought everyone would ignore that, but I guess they didn’t.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Obama has never had an economic plan. He never had a budget approved during his four year term. Obama’s economic policies are non-existent. Empty, like his campaign slogan.

 

[ProVobis]

Obama has never had an economic plan. He never had a budget approved during his four year term. Obama’s economic policies are non-existent. Empty, like his campaign slogan.

I don’t consider this as earth shattering. First it is non-binding. Second a budget was mandated by Congress who themselves also have the power of voting any proposal down. Third, with very little revenue and many existing and known obligations, there is hardly any reason to spend too much time on a budget.

 

[ishii]

We tried Romney’s plan…it didn’t work. The rich have had their temporary tax cuts that were supposed to spur the economy since the Bush Administration instituted them. The tax cuts made them richer, but did nothing for the rest of us. People complained about Obama not turning the economy around in 4 years…how about the Bush tax cuts not spurring the economy since they were instituted. The GOP thought everyone would ignore that, but I guess they didn’t.

You are pushing a false narrative, Seeker. There was strong economic growth and low unemployment during the majority of Bush’s two terms - unemployment was around 4-5% for most of his terms Also, remember Bush inherited the Clinton dotcom bubble recession of 2000 and 9/11 happened in his 1st year. I don’t recall Bush blaming Clinton for all of his problems like Obama has blamed Bush for all of his problems - so that is a big difference between the two. The trouble began with the sub-prime mortgage crisis. We can argue about who/what caused that (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd) but the Bush record on the economy overall is in stark contrast to the Democrat talking points you are pushing.

And no, we didn’t try Romney’s plan. You need to go back and read my post. Romney’s plan was to make America energy independent. And our economy depends on the availability of cheap and plentiful energy. Romney’s plan was to curb spending to help balance the budget - this is in contrast to Bush who spent like a Democrat.

You can’t tax your way to prosperity, Seeker. And increasing taxes on the rich might make certain people feel better, but feelings won’t turn the economy around. Turning the economy around would take someone who actually knows something about how economies work. And America rejected him in favor of the community organizer who is in over his head.

Ishii

 

[Seeker1961]

You are pushing a false narrative, Seeker. There was strong economic growth and low unemployment during the majority of Bush’s two terms - unemployment was around 4-5% for most of his terms Also, remember Bush inherited the Clinton dotcom bubble recession of 2000 and 9/11 happened in his 1st year. I don’t recall Bush blaming Clinton for all of his problems like Obama has blamed Bush for all of his problems - so that is a big difference between the two. The trouble began with the sub-prime mortgage crisis. We can argue about who/what caused that (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd) but the Bush record on the economy overall is in stark contrast to the Democrat talking points you are pushing.

And no, we didn’t try Romney’s plan. You need to go back and read my post. Romney’s plan was to make America energy independent. And our economy depends on the availability of cheap and plentiful energy. Romney’s plan was to curb spending to help balance the budget - this is in contrast to Bush who spent like a Democrat.

You can’t tax your way to prosperity, Seeker. And increasing taxes on the rich might make certain people feel better, but feelings won’t turn the economy around. Turning the economy around would take someone who actually knows something about how economies work. And America rejected him in favor of the community organizer who is in over his head.

Ishii

I believed it once, but then I opened my eyes and saw the reality around me. Not buying it anymore no matter how anyone tries to package it.

You can keep right on believing it, but you’re not going to get me to get fooled again.

 

[ishii]

I believed it once, but then I opened my eyes and saw the reality around me. Not buying it anymore no matter how anyone tries to package it.

You can keep right on believing it, but you’re not going to get me to get fooled again.

Why don’t you speak to my individual points, Seeker, and refute them if what you’re saying is correct?

Ishii

 

[Seeker1961]

Why don’t you speak to my individual points, Seeker, and refute them if what you’re saying is correct?

Ishii

Because it would be a waste of both of our time. You will not convince me and I will not convince you. Why should we both get carpel tunnel?

 

[ishii]

Because it would be a waste of both of our time. You will not convince me and I will not convince you. Why should we both get carpel tunnel?

So unless we all agree, its a waste of time? Then why are you here? I really would like to hear your counter arguments. Do you have any?

Ishii

 

[Seeker1961]

So unless we all agree, its a waste of time? Then why are you here? I really would like to hear your counter arguments. Do you have any?

Ishii

Ever post on a thread and be immediately sorry you got involved?

This argument will go nowhere because we will not convince each other no matter how many arguments we type. There’s plenty of counter information out there, but it won’t convince you anymore than your information would convince me.

 

[ishii]

Ever post on a thread and be immediately sorry you got involved?

This argument will go nowhere because we will not convince each other no matter how many arguments we type. There’s plenty of counter information out there, but it won’t convince you anymore than your information would convince me.

I suppose you’re right, but if done in the spirit of honest discussion rather than partisan “tit for tat” then maybe we would give each other a perspective that we didn’t think about earlier. I try to approach things this way. Of course sometimes I resort to the tit for tat -

Ishii

 

[irishpatrick]

You have no clue why? It’s very simple: history shows that a vote against something is not as enticing as a vote for something. The GOP counted on the anti-Obama vote, but Romney had little positive to offer pro-Romney – there was not much to vote for.

It shows in the exit poll numbers: Obama got an 80 % pro-Obama vote, Romney only a 60 % pro-Romney vote (which means 40 % was merely anti-Obama). And that is among those who did show up to vote. It is reasonable to assume that the ratio would have been even more dismal among those who decided not to show up for voting. No wonder they didn’t show up.

Two major reasons have been cited: (1) Romney was not conservative enough and Republicans are sick of moderate candidates. (2) His faith scared some people.

I have no idea if those are truly the major reasons…yet, my point is the GOP needs to uncover why they failed to receive millions of votes. This should have been an easy victory.