Romney's Unbusinesslike Campaign

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Yeah, that "crazy" Romney...

 

And a guy who was a Republican governor of a Dem state shouldn't have appealed to centrists and moderates?

crazy as in the amount of red meat that the candidate was willing to throw to the base during the primaries. Romney was right up there, depending on the issue. Later, he pivots towards the center, but didn't have enough in the message dep't to win over moderates.

[keepthefaith]

Suck it up... Romney was schooled...Plain and simple.

 

 

 

Is this gloating? You betcha it is! LoL..

 

First of all, look at who wrote the article you reference. Lots of credibility there, yeah right.

 

I say the American people, the electorate got schooled. What are Obama supporters gloating about and why do they support him in the first place? What did we elect? Did we elect a President who is committed to balancing the budget? No, Obama doesn't care about that. Look at his actions on that matter. He's absolutely headed for $20 trillion by the end of his next term. Is that good?

 

Will he do anything to help SS and Medicare remain solvent farther in the future? Sure doesn't look like it. He and his party are saying that these programs are "off limits". They are most certainly going to blow up in the not too distant future. Is that good? Are Obama supporters happy about that?

 

Does anyone really think that the full implementation of Obamacare is a well crafted solution to the challenges of health care that exist? Seriously? No way a thinking person can come to that conclusion. It has already accelerated cost increases in the form of larger than ever insurance premiums. What is there to gloat about here?

 

Does our illustrious President have any %(ing idea what policy changes would help to revive consumer and business confidence and promote more business activity and hiring? As President don't you think we deserve a more effective strategy than simply taxing and spending? Is this what Obama supporters really want, more of that? Really? That's the best we can expect from a President and we should have voted for that?

 

Quite seriously, all party loyalties and bias aside - the alternative Mitt Romney wasn't a better choice on these issues?

 

Our biggest problem is a selfish and uninformed electorate that puts gay marriage, amnesty for illegal immigrants, free condoms and abortion, race, a host of free stuff, union preference, blind party loyalty and a willingness to risk the entire future of our economy and country ahead of the big picture.

 

So what is it Obama supporters that is worth gloating about?

 

Congrats to the Democrats and the Media who have sold the public on their "plan" by treating every group special at the expense of others. I'll be retiring in 5-10 years. I won't be paying for any of these promises and special treatment or new citizens. Instead I'll be collecting a check and getting plenty of "free" medical attention. Those 30 and under, seriously, wake the F up. You are screwed. Very seriously, look at the darned numbers yourself and then use your votes wisely.

Edited November 21, 2012 by keepthefaith

[49er Fan]

I commend keepthefaith for not using the follwing words in his post: "Kenyan", "Muslim", "Communist", "Socialist", "Anti-Christ".

 

But in addition to the myriad social issues that Dems (and Obama) espouse, many of us also believe that supply-side ecomonics is inherently faulty.

Edited November 21, 2012 by 49er Fan

[meazza]

I commend keepthefaith for not using the follwing words in his post: "Kenyan", "Muslim", "Communist", "Socialist", "Anti-Christ".

 

But in addition to the myriad social issues that Dems (and Obama) espouse, many of us also believe that supply-side ecomonics is inherently faulty.

 

Well you'll have four years to see how right or wrong you are

[3rdnlng]

I commend keepthefaith for not using the follwing words in his post: "Kenyan", "Muslim", "Communist", "Socialist", "Anti-Christ".

 

But in addition to the myriad social issues that Dems (and Obama) espouse, many of us also believe that supply-side ecomonics is inherently faulty.

 

All over the board there, eh? So supply side doesn't work? What does? Middle Out? What are your solutions to getting our economy working? Do you have the balls to actually get into this discussion or are you going to run away again?

[OCinBuffalo]

It just looks bad. Funny how the Republican party also threw Mitt under the bus after he made comments that they would have appraised just weeks or months earlier.

You could say: it was a race-based vote(I don't think racist is the right word), purely. If Obama was a white guy, or gal for that matter, with his performance? Crushed. Yes, the affirmative action president got to stay on, even though his "test scores" were inferior. Why would that not be the case, when this is the expectation that has been set everywhere in government for the last 30 years?

 

You could even say: The Democrats can never run another white person again, because they will lose. They have chosen an odd course here. We'll see if it works, but, who's going to run in 2016? The mayor of Newark? No. Evan Bayh is almost certainly going to run, Rendell may as well. White guys. Are they gonna turn out the minority vote at the same level, and get 95% of the black vote?

 

The irony is: it's the Republicans who have a much larger and infinitely more competent bench of minority candidates. The Ds have? The Mayor of Newark?

I didn't really believe this myth of a conservative news bubble before but I'm starting to see it a little bit. You guys believe nothing except right wings news sites and radio.

Good, because it's a myth. It's originates from the same nonsense brokers that that said "we are all liberals now" in 2008...and then 2010 happened. What happened here is: Obama over-performed with people of color in an unprecedented way, Gallup was completely wrong about the demo model, and caught a whole lot of people in the lurch as a result, nothing more.

 

Be advised: There's a pretty good chance that these nonsense brokers are going to set up a lot of people for FAIL in 2014. It's up to you whether you want to buy in to this, again, and then spend 2014 election night doing the thing, again.

 

The real difference is: if you sampled 100 conservatives and 100 liberals, there's a good chance that most of the conservatives would know they are reading spin from the right wing media. The liberals are far more likely to take what the left wing media says at face value.

 

Case in point: EEI is making goofy comments based on an article from Mother Jones of all places.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Case in point: EEI is making goofy comments based on an article from Mother Jones of all places.

 

I saw where it was from... I knew you guys would attack the source. This isn't so much about the source.

 

People in glass house shouldn't throw stones. After the nice Nate Silver act you pulled Mother Jones is looking pretty reputable! You flat out talk out your azz. You are just not credible OC... And I am making goofy comments? Wow... Hello, pot calling kettle...

Edited November 21, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois

[IDBillzFan]

Man, with all the Romney threads and bashing, you'd think he won the election. I guess Romney Derangement Syndrome is in full swing sooner than I expected.

 

I'm sure it'll stop once Obama is successful with his Middle-Out Economic Growth Plan. Of course, that won't happen soon because we have to wait until the Northeast recovers from Sandy, and companies stop laying off employees, and unions stop striking during the prime buying season and another 410,000 people stop filing for unemployment.

 

Come to think of it, RDS looks to be here for a very long time.

 

Funniest part of this election was right after it was over, my liberal friends were all over social media saying how the election is over and we must now all pull together...right before they started bashing every greedy, evil, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, grandma-killing baby-starving rapist conservative they could find.

 

DEATH TO THE WAGON PULLERS!!!

[RkFast]

Its good to be pleased that "your guy" won, but is there anything as pathetic as "gloating" over the win of a politician, like you favorite football team won a game or something. People who "root" for politicans and see it as some kind of "sport" should be killed. Those who refer to their ideology as "we" should be killed twice.

Edited November 21, 2012 by RkFast

[Doc]

 

crazy as in the amount of red meat that the candidate was willing to throw to the base during the primaries. Romney was right up there, depending on the issue. Later, he pivots towards the center, but didn't have enough in the message dep't to win over moderates.

You're saying Portman wouldn't have thrown red meat to get the nomination? Would the "war on women, gays, minorities, poor" not been used? Would Portman's family's $11B business not been used to portray him as an evil 1%er? Would the media have started telling the ugly truth about Barry's admin and given Portman fair treatment? The answers are all "no."

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

You're saying Portman wouldn't have thrown red meat to get the nomination? Would the "war on women, gays, minorities, poor" not been used? Would Portman's family's $11B business not been used to portray him as an evil 1%er? Would the media have started telling the ugly truth about Barry's admin and given Portman fair treatment? The answers are all "no."

 

The discussion was about Huntsman, that he wasn't pandering to the republican base nearly enough to win or even stay competitive in the primaries, and you commented about "crazy Romney". So, now you rotate somehow to Portman? What does he have to do with this? Since he was never a candidate, I don't see how speculating over what might have happened has any relevance.

 

Maybe what we ought to have a dialog about is whether, if every GOP presidential candidate in the future has to espouse extreme right positions in the primary just to get the nomination, can they tack to the center in the general and win, ever?

[Doc]

The discussion was about Huntsman, that he wasn't pandering to the republican base nearly enough to win or even stay competitive in the primaries, and you commented about "crazy Romney". So, now you rotate somehow to Portman? What does he have to do with this? Since he was never a candidate, I don't see how speculating over what might have happened has any relevance.

 

Maybe what we ought to have a dialog about is whether, if every GOP presidential candidate in the future has to espouse extreme right positions in the primary just to get the nomination, can they tack to the center in the general and win, ever?

Sorry, had Portman's name on my mind, but was talking about Huntsman. Bottom line is that Huntsman is virtually a carbon copy of Romney, just younger. He would have had to do the same things Romney did and would have had the same tactics used against him.

 

As for what a Repub candidate needs to do, there's nothing they can do.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Sorry, had Portman's name on my mind, but was talking about Huntsman. Bottom line is that Huntsman is virtually a carbon copy of Romney, just younger. He would have had to do the same things Romney did and would have had the same tactics used against him.

 

As for what a Repub candidate needs to do, there's nothing they can do.

 

hehe, ok about Portman.

They're both rich, pro-life, Mormon republicans. On immigration, foreign policy, environment (esp cap-and-trade), gay rights, gov't spending to promote economic growth, financial reform, and others like oil subsidies, they're not even close. Huntsman is a true moderate, Romney not so much, but it was hard to tell sometimes. The point is he refused to do what Romney did, and it cost him dearly.

 

One of the things that most pundits and observers agree on is that Obama was able to define Romney as a vulture capitalist early on. Not that he was rich, but how he became rich. Huntsman's dad made his money by innovating food packaging and Junior is a career diplomat. Seems like a strategy that lionizes his wealth wouldn't have had nearly the same effect with Huntsman.

Edited November 21, 2012 by In-A-Gadda-Levitre

[Doc]

hehe, ok about Portman.

They're both rich, pro-life, Mormon republicans. On immigration, foreign policy, environment (esp cap-and-trade), gay rights, gov't spending to promote economic growth, financial reform, and others like oil subsidies, they're not even close. Huntsman is a true moderate, Romney not so much, but it was hard to tell sometimes. The point is he refused to do what Romney did, and it cost him dearly.

 

One of the things that most pundits and observers agree on is that Obama was able to define Romney as a vulture capitalist early on. Not that he was rich, but how he became rich. Huntsman's dad made his money by innovating food packaging and Junior is a career diplomat. Seems like a strategy that lionizes his wealth wouldn't have had nearly the same effect with Huntsman.

Romney is a moderate who said whatever he needed to say to get the nom. Huntsman would have had to do the same or not go anywhere. And rich is rich. Barry and his henchmen would have delved into Huntsman Corp. and found dirt, and portrayed Huntsman as a silver spooner.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Romney is a moderate who said whatever he needed to say to get the nom. Huntsman would have had to do the same or not go anywhere. And rich is rich. Barry and his henchmen would have delved into Huntsman Corp. and found dirt, and portrayed Huntsman as a silver spooner.

 

maybe, but a silver spooner isn't a corporate raider, and I'm not making judgements either way. Of course they would've gone after him and his family company, but they'd have to find a very different way to win against someone like JH Jr.

 

And his positions on issues like immigration and gov't stimulus (amongst others) take away quite a few arrows from their quiver. Just saying it would have been a very different campaign and perhaps a lot closer.

[IDBillzFan]

Romney is a moderate who said whatever he needed to say to get the nom. Huntsman would have had to do the same or not go anywhere. And rich is rich. Barry and his henchmen would have delved into Huntsman Corp. and found dirt, and portrayed Huntsman as a silver spooner.

 

The only people pushing Huntsman were liberals. That's all anyone needs to know.