Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-09-2012, 07:32 PM   #1
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 66
My top 10 reasons the GOP lost

1. Sandy allowed O to look presidential and it sucked the momentum out of R's last push.

2. My favorite alternative to the "Sandy" theory for Republican lose is the Fox News theory.

It goes like this. Fox news "analysts" so convinced themselves by "magical thinking" that Romney was going to win in a romp that their loyal listeners saw little reason to get out and vote.

3. Another factor and candidate for explaining the loss is that old white men are badly outnumbered in this nation at this time.

4. Another excuse is that the Dems cheated. How they did this in the most closely watched election in the history of the planet is yet to be determined.

5. Another "reason" alluded to by evangelicals is that we are in the beginning of the escaton and that God has unleashed the beast. Seriously, O has been judged by some to be the for-runner of the antichrist.

6. Or one could try the "evangelicals" have sold their souls for a mess of porridge by supporting a cultist for President.

7. Or one could say that the right has gone from reasoned conservatism to unreasonalble radicalism.

8. Or one could simply say that the Republican party is simply becoming irrelivant by its own choice in an act of collective suicide.

9. R flipped one to many times and forgot to issue a balancing flop.

10. The "We the People" spoke loudly and long. They stood in long lines created by GOP voter suppression movements.

All of the above is a summary of what I have read here or in the links provided by other posters on this board.

11-09-2012, 07:45 PM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,901
There's only one reason they lost. Their very "best" candidate was a rich, rather pompous arse with a clueless wife who's even worse. They were totally unlikable, and clearly out only to protect the interests of only "their kind" of people. The moment his wife uttered that "you people" comment his candidacy was pretty much doomed, I think, and his own verbal slip ups certainly didn't help his cause. I think it came right down to that though. Nobody liked Mitt Romney or his wife.
11-09-2012, 08:41 PM   #3
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
I think the reason the GOP lost was that Obama got more votes than Romney.
11-10-2012, 01:26 AM - 1 Like   #4
Veteran Member
Jasvox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,107
Here are my ten reasons why the GOP lost again...

1, Mitt Romney
2, Rick Perry
3, Michele Bachmann
4, Herman Cain
5, Newt Gingrich
6, John Huntsman
7, Rick Santorum
8, Tim Pawlenty
9, Paul Ryan
10, Randall Terry

If this is what you bring to the table as far as your pool and nominee, then you reap what you sow.

Jason

11-10-2012, 05:55 AM   #5
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,066
Whatever the reason, it wasn't election spending! For fun, a quick breakdown.

Pro Romney
Supporting Romney: $55,444,436
Opposing Obama: $288,582,007
Total: $344,026,443


Pro Obama:
Supporting Obama: $25,183,656
Opposing Romney: $87,188,919
Total: $112,372,575


Popular vote Romney: 58,488,199
Popular vote Obama: 61,681,462

Put another way, each Romney vote 'cost' $5.88, and each Obama vote 'cost' $1.82.
11-10-2012, 05:56 AM   #6
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
Honestly, if someone like Mitch Daniels out-going governor of Indiana had run, it might have been different. Romney wasn't going to beat anyone on a national stage.
11-10-2012, 07:13 AM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 773
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Honestly, if someone like Mitch Daniels out-going governor of Indiana had run, it might have been different. Romney wasn't going to beat anyone on a national stage.
Don't blame the messenger, blame the message!

11-10-2012, 07:16 AM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,275
QuoteOriginally posted by ihasa Quote
Pro Romney
Supporting Romney: $55,444,436
Opposing Obama: $288,582,007
Total: $344,026,443

Pro Obama:
Supporting Obama: $25,183,656
Opposing Romney: $87,188,919
Total: $112,372,575
I've always wondered how many people are actually swayed by political ads. I doubt it's a lot. To me, it would speak many more volumes about a candidate to take the hundreds of millions of dollars they get to bash the other guy, and spend it instead on actually helping people who need it. That would be the guy to get my vote. I know there are undoubtedly rules on the books that would prohibit such a thing... Even if it were allowed, I'm confident the power grab and bashing the other guy would be the bigger priority.
11-10-2012, 07:39 AM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
QuoteOriginally posted by stevewig Quote
Don't blame the messenger, blame the message!
Of course, but not all republicans are the same, just like not all democrats are the same. A more centrist candidate who was more in-touch with middle class voters would have made a difference. Romney comment like the 47 percent one just solidified him for who he was, an out of touch rich guy who would say anything to anyone to get elected. That just wouldn't fly once it was exposed. I didn't know anyone excited about his candidacy, although I knew plenty of people who voted for him because of how much they disliked Obama's policies.
11-10-2012, 08:05 AM   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,464
QuoteOriginally posted by GibbyTheMole Quote
I've always wondered how many people are actually swayed by political ads. I doubt it's a lot. To me, it would speak many more volumes about a candidate to take the hundreds of millions of dollars they get to bash the other guy, and spend it instead on actually helping people who need it. That would be the guy to get my vote. I know there are undoubtedly rules on the books that would prohibit such a thing... Even if it were allowed, I'm confident the power grab and bashing the other guy would be the bigger priority.
Studies show that people who live in swing states and are constantly bombarded by political ads, especially attack ads, are actually more informed voters. Attack ads tend to drive people to fact checking, so they can backfire if you lie as much as RMoney did.
11-10-2012, 08:20 AM   #11
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Of course, but not all republicans are the same, just like not all democrats are the same. A more centrist candidate who was more in-touch with middle class voters would have made a difference. Romney comment like the 47 percent one just solidified him for who he was, an out of touch rich guy who would say anything to anyone to get elected. That just wouldn't fly once it was exposed. I didn't know anyone excited about his candidacy, although I knew plenty of people who voted for him because of how much they disliked Obama's policies.
I actually NEED to see what is not "centrist" about Obama?? Obamacare, Romneycare, Heritage Foundation Care, Newtcare.. all the same...

Define how Obama is NOT a centrist.. From my more liberal progressive perspective he is a Republican......Instead of just speaking words please describe his "leftist" policies?
No new taxes?? H.W. Bush.. Reagan...
QuoteQuote:
The typical tactic is to say Reagan raised taxes 11 or 12 times (the exact number depends on whom you ask.) But it’s unhelpful — in fact, it’s a bit misleading — to talk about how many times Reagan raised taxes. That’s because (as noted earlier) tax increases are not created equal. Some are much worse than others. And many of Reagan’s so-called “tax increases” were actually examples of ending deductions.
Read more: Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times? The real story | The Daily Caller

Odious.....Ending deductions vs tax increase .......... matter of semantics.. not reality...

as an example Mises Institute. calling Reagan a "socialist"..
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488

QuoteQuote:
Ronald Reagan's faithful followers claim he has used his skills as the Great Communicator to reverse the growth of Leviathan and inaugurate a new era of liberty and free markets. Reagan himself said, "It is time to check and reverse the growth of government."

Yet after nearly eight years of Reaganism, the clamor for more government intervention in the economy was so formidable that Reagan abandoned the free-market position and acquiesced in further crippling of the economy and our liberties. In fact, the number of free-market achievements by the administration are so few that they can be counted on one hand—with fingers left over.

Let's look at the record:
Ronald Reagan and "free markets".......
QuoteQuote:
Mark Shields, a columnist for the Washington Post, recently wrote of President Reagan's "blind devotion to the doctrine of free trade." If President Reagan has a devotion to free trade, it must be blind because he has been way off the mark. In fact, he has been the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover.

Admittedly, his rhetoric has been confusing. In 1986 Reagan said, "Our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets. I recognize. . . the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: the freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations."

But he advocated protectionism early in his 1980 campaign, saying to the U.S. auto industry: "Japan is part of the problem. This is where government can be legitimately involved. That is, to convince the Japanese in one way or another that, in their own interests, that deluge of cars must be slowed while our industry gets back on its feet..."
When he imposed a 100% tariff on selected Japanese electronic products for allegedly "dumping" computer memory chips, he said he did it "to enforce the principles of free and fair trade." And Treasury Secretary James A. Baker has boasted about the protectionist record: Reagan "has granted more import relief to U.S. industry than any of his predecessors in more than half a century."
It's true that the administration has fought with protectionists in Congress, but only over who should have the power to restrict trade. As Reagan put it, "It's better policy to allow for presidents—me or my successors—to have options for dealing with trade problems."

Defenders of the Reagan policies will say that he has engaged in protectionism to open foreign markets. But they cannot deny that one-quarter of all imports are today restricted, a 100% increase over 1980.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=489

Using an absolute scale (not a biased to modern thought scale) .. Obama is "at best" a right leaning centrist
A Reagan of color....
so to speak.

QuoteQuote:
UPDATE: Mr. Obama’s remarks around 1 p.m. likely cheered Republicans. Not once in his remarks did the president mention tax “rates” or the need to raise them. He did encourage the House to pass a Senate bill from last summer that would extend current tax rates for the middle class – a move that would deprive Republicans of leverage, and make scheduled rate increases on upper-income households much more likely to happen. The House already has rejected that measure. Otherwise, Mr. Obama said only that the “wealthiest Americans [should] pay a little more in taxes” as part of a bipartisan budget deal.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/09/boehner-obama-start-to-agree-limiting-tax-breaks/

Yep lefty Kenyan Euro-socialist at work.............
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-same-sex-marriage-business-20121110,0,6745730.story
QuoteQuote:
Same-sex marriage law good for business, employers say
Law expected to help attract, retain talent
QuoteQuote:
That's true for the state's largest private employer, said Ronald J. Daniels, president of the Johns Hopkins University, which ranks as the top employer when combined with Hopkins' health system. Daniels said he believes marriage equality will give Hopkins a competitive edge over other states when it comes to recruiting and retaining teachers, researchers and other faculty members.

"For me, this is a very simple civil rights issue," Daniels said. "For me, the economic argument adds further support to the case. In a setting where human capital is the most important commodity in so many different industries, and a key source of economic wealth, it's hard to imagine that having a workplace environment beset by discriminatory and arbitrary laws is an effective way to attract people to your jurisdiction."

He said there will be "a strong economic benefit for the state in having a progressive, humane and just legal environment so we can attract people, talent and creativity to Maryland and keep them within the state."

Daniels said he became convinced of this in 2005 when he served as provost of the University of Pennsylvania. At the time, lawmakers in Wisconsin denied the extension of health care benefits for same-sex domestic partners, then later, voters passed an amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage. The University of Pennsylvania, which he said had less restrictive personnel policies, was able to recruit faculty members who decided to leave Wisconsin because of those votes, he said.

"There was a lot of interest from academic and nonacademic staff at those institutions looking for jobs elsewhere, and people did move on the basis of that change," Daniels said.

The businesses that signed on to support Maryland's same-sex marriage campaign included several dozen small employers, but also large ones such as Nike, PayPal and Calvert Investments, said Kevin Nix, a spokesman for Marylanders for Marriage Equality.

They signed on because "it's good for business," Nix said. "It's all about hiring and recruiting and retaining the best and the brightest, and you can only do that by treating all your employees the same, fairly and equally."

Last edited by jeffkrol; 11-10-2012 at 09:08 AM.
11-10-2012, 09:04 AM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,275
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
Studies show that people who live in swing states and are constantly bombarded by political ads, especially attack ads, are actually more informed voters. Attack ads tend to drive people to fact checking, so they can backfire if you lie as much as RMoney did.
Yeah, maybe... I guess I'm atypical. I just assume political ads are all full of crap and so I ignore them.
11-10-2012, 09:06 AM   #13
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,464
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote
I actually NEED to see what is not "centrist" about Obama?? Obamacare, Romneycare, Heritage Foundation Care, Newtcare.. all the same...

Define how Obama is NOT a centrist.. From my more liberal progressive perspective he is a Republican......Instead of just speaking words please describe his "leftist" policies?
No new taxes?? H.W. Bush.. Reagan...
He appointed a hispanic woman to the Supreme Court. They're taking over you know. And none of them want to work. We'll have to buy two Cadillacs now. One for the blacks and one for the hispanics.

This is no country for old white men anymore.

Last edited by boriscleto; 11-11-2012 at 02:51 AM.
11-10-2012, 10:36 AM   #14
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,072
The main reason is they still don't get why Romney surged when he flipped to moderate Mitt mode and went against nearly everything he was for during the primaries. The same reason they don't get that their policies and rhetoric and legislation are what drives Latinos and women away screaming -- the thinking is that they don't have another Reagan to make all this palatable again.
11-10-2012, 11:12 AM   #15
Veteran Member
les3547's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sebastopol, California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,020
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Of course, but not all republicans are the same, just like not all democrats are the same. A more centrist candidate who was more in-touch with middle class voters would have made a difference. Romney comment like the 47 percent one just solidified him for who he was, an out of touch rich guy who would say anything to anyone to get elected. That just wouldn't fly once it was exposed. I didn't know anyone excited about his candidacy, although I knew plenty of people who voted for him because of how much they disliked Obama's policies.
Maybe all Republicans aren't the same, but radicals have been suppressing or driving out the moderates. The problem with your theory is that a moderate couldn't have won the primary. Only one moderate Republican stepped up to run for office (Huntsman), and he was virtually ignored by everyone, including the press. Huntsman was the most honest, sincere and thoughtful Republican I've seen in a long time running for President (and, compared to the rest of the candidates running—a virtual Einsteinian saint), so why is it he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being chosen? I say it's because the Republican party has been hijacked by extremists, and that is why they lost the election, or what I see as half the reason anyway.

What's the other half? Something too many on the Right refuse to acknowledge: Obama is a brilliant and competent leader with a good heart. To have the combination of such intelligence, education, sincerity and humility in the most powerful position on Earth has not gone unnoticed by a lot of us; then factor in how Obama's spirit created a rather dramatic contrast against the incredibly duplicitous mien of Romney and his incompetent team of thugs (offering another Bush-like Presidency) and well . . .

Last edited by les3547; 11-10-2012 at 06:08 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
fox, gop, theory
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Top 9 reasons Congress is broken jeffkrol General Talk 8 08-04-2012 11:41 AM
10 Things the GOP doesn't want you to know about taxes boriscleto General Talk 4 07-10-2012 05:13 AM
K-7 cracks the top 10 in sales imtheguy Pentax News and Rumors 39 09-15-2009 07:10 AM
Top 15 Reasons You Might Be Obsessed with Photography jgredline General Talk 29 02-15-2009 04:55 PM
top reasons not to go FF nostatic Photographic Technique 40 01-05-2009 06:23 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:01 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top