Total Posts:246|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why "Conservatives" Lost 2012 POTUS Election

proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 11:22:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
OK, though I've lost this debate three times in a row, I'm nothing if not persistent. ("Obsessive" might be the word my wife would use.)

Furthermore, if something strange happens and some right wingers actually engage in a little self-criticism of their movement, all I'll be doing is helping people I (mostly) disagree with to improve their chances of winning next time.

Lastly, as evidenced by my lost debates, we can expect a fair number of literal-minded folks who will be more interested in defending the honor of their movement than in discussing the campaign. Feel free to surprise me, after all life is more interesting when it's full of surprises, right?

So let's get this troll fest going:

IMHO, crying wolf and extremism were key *parts* of the reasons "conservatives" blew a very winnable election.

http://debate.org...
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 11:42:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To get us started in the "right" direction,* how about a quote from a conservative?

'From her office near the Capitol, Kristen Soltis Anderson, a 28-year-old G.O.P. pollster, tried not to come unglued. "But you didn"t win the election," she told me she thought at the time. "I"m really glad you scored that touchdown in the third quarter, I am " but you lost the game!"'

http://www.nytimes.com...

If you're allergic to the "liberal MSM," please don't read the article titled "Can the Republicans Be Saved From Obsolescence?" In fact, you might as well stop reading now, because I will quote freely from media of left right and center if it seems to have interesting information.

Ms. Anderson asked two focus groups what came to mind when they heard the word "Republican."

'A self-identified anti-abortion, "very conservative" 27-year-old Obama voter named Gretchen replied: "Don"t be so right wing! You know, on abortion, they"re so out there. That all-or-nothing type of thing, that"s the way Romney came across. And you know, come up with ways to compromise."'
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 12:07:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I actually think in many ways conservatives WON the 2012 POTUS election. Both Obama and Romney fit my mold of a moderate conservative. I consider myself a moderate conservative (apparently libertarian in most aspects of domestic policy, a hawk in foreign policy), and found Obama to be the better candidate, although not enough to elicit a vote from me.

Obama's foreign policy is anything but non-interventionalist. If you perceive connections between the Arab Spring and US foreign policy, then IMHO there's no question that not only has US foreign policy been much more aggressive than most administrations, but that it was much more effective and much LESS EXPENSIVE than what was seen in the 8 years of Bush. Arguably it has been the most successful foreign policy since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR.

Obama's domestic policy was largely a continuation of Bush-era policies, to include stimulus packages, tax cuts for the wealthy, and forfeiture of 1st and 4th amendment rights. The only real "non-conservative" domestic policies unique to the Obama administration were projects like funding Solyndra, and the payroll tax holidays.

Health care is a bi-partisan issue.

LGBT marriage IMHO is an issue that affects a very small portion of the population, one that has an amazingly effective lobbying group, so I do not consider it to be something that would sway an election.

On women's rights, I'm no longer certain this is a liberal issue. When you get a GOP senatorial candidate saying something like how a woman can prevent a pregnancy from a rape because the "female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down", you begin to think that women's rights are no longer about libs vs cons, but rather reason vs insanity.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

---

What was the alternative? Mitt Romney, who largely agreed with nearly every aspect of Obama's foreign policy. On domestic policy, I think Romney would have been much more adept at economic reform, with the conservative mindset of cutting spending and cutting taxes (although his spending cuts did not seem at all substantial). Regardless, it is difficult to say that Obama's fiscal policies were not conservative, because so much of it originated from Bush.

In the end, IMHO, Obama had incumbent's advantage. I would have voted for a McCain/Romney ticket in 2008, thereby giving Romney a lot more credibility in future elections, but the GOP has continued on a path of absolute incompetence since Bush 2000 by destroying a credible ticket and birthing to the world a political Sarah Palin.

Also, that the GOP in 2008 found fault with Romney's religion to such an extent at to make him unelectable really turned me off to the GOP. To me this is not a libs vs cons issue, but a 1st amendment issue. The GOP is more and more resembling the beast in Yeat's poem, "slouching to Bethlehem".

"The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

To me, this sums up what the GOP is fast becoming. IMHO it's terrible, because I would like a conservative option to rival the popularity of politicians like Hillary and Obama. I would like a real choice in politics again.

http://www.potw.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 12:25:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 11:22:45 AM, proglib wrote:
OK, though I've lost this debate three times in a row, I'm nothing if not persistent.

http://debate.org...

Call me crazy, but do you think that conceding the debate before you made your first argument might have something to do with why you lost?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 12:31:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 12:07:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I actually think in many ways conservatives WON the 2012 POTUS election. Both Obama and Romney fit my mold of a moderate conservative. I consider myself a moderate conservative (apparently libertarian in most aspects of domestic policy, a hawk in foreign policy), and found Obama to be the better candidate, although not enough to elicit a vote from me.

Obama's foreign policy is anything but non-interventionalist. If you perceive connections between the Arab Spring and US foreign policy, then IMHO there's no question that not only has US foreign policy been much more aggressive than most administrations, but that it was much more effective and much LESS EXPENSIVE than what was seen in the 8 years of Bush. Arguably it has been the most successful foreign policy since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR.

Obama's domestic policy was largely a continuation of Bush-era policies, to include stimulus packages, tax cuts for the wealthy, and forfeiture of 1st and 4th amendment rights. The only real "non-conservative" domestic policies unique to the Obama administration were projects like funding Solyndra, and the payroll tax holidays.

Health care is a bi-partisan issue.

LGBT marriage IMHO is an issue that affects a very small portion of the population, one that has an amazingly effective lobbying group, so I do not consider it to be something that would sway an election.

On women's rights, I'm no longer certain this is a liberal issue. When you get a GOP senatorial candidate saying something like how a woman can prevent a pregnancy from a rape because the "female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down", you begin to think that women's rights are no longer about libs vs cons, but rather reason vs insanity.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

---

What was the alternative? Mitt Romney, who largely agreed with nearly every aspect of Obama's foreign policy. On domestic policy, I think Romney would have been much more adept at economic reform, with the conservative mindset of cutting spending and cutting taxes (although his spending cuts did not seem at all substantial). Regardless, it is difficult to say that Obama's fiscal policies were not conservative, because so much of it originated from Bush.

In the end, IMHO, Obama had incumbent's advantage. I would have voted for a McCain/Romney ticket in 2008, thereby giving Romney a lot more credibility in future elections, but the GOP has continued on a path of absolute incompetence since Bush 2000 by destroying a credible ticket and birthing to the world a political Sarah Palin.

Also, that the GOP in 2008 found fault with Romney's religion to such an extent at to make him unelectable really turned me off to the GOP. To me this is not a libs vs cons issue, but a 1st amendment issue. The GOP is more and more resembling the beast in Yeat's poem, "slouching to Bethlehem".

"The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

To me, this sums up what the GOP is fast becoming. IMHO it's terrible, because I would like a conservative option to rival the popularity of politicians like Hillary and Obama. I would like a real choice in politics again.

http://www.potw.org...

I agree with this. Obama is a conservative. I dislike his policies immensely.
I can't see a non-conservative winning in the US for a long time.
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 12:33:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As oe fo the few openly liberal people on here, this election wasnt Obama's to win, it was the conservatives's to lose and from what I can see, heres what I think was why Romney didnt win (not ranked in any order):

1) The 47% remark and other such gaffes made people believe he wasnt in touch with their problems or what they were going through

2) His VP pick appealed mostly to people who Romney already had in his pocket (fiscal conservatives, who never would have voted for Obama). The point of the VP during an election is to appeal to a larger group of people. Biden helped get some of the old white vote im sure, but Ryan didnt appeal to people who already werent going to vote for Romney. (Had he gone with Marco Rubio instead, it might have changed everything

3) A lot of people still blame the bad economy on Bush while Romney campaigned almost entirely on the idea that it was Obama's fault.

4) Obama supported the Auto bailouts while Romney openly said once that the US should let them go bankrupt, this had a huge impact in voters up north in Michigan which carry some big electoral college weight with them.

5) Romney had to spend a significant amount of campaign money just to get past/win the primary elections, which early on in the main election left him strapped for cash while Obama already had a good amount to work with, giving him a slight advantage

6) Fact checkers went after Romney's tax plan and other statements quite a lot while Obama stayed mostly under the radar. I remember one incident where Romney flat out lied about something Chrysler was doing with jeeps and China that was shown to be false, and Romney still stuck with the lie.

7) Romney wasnt the ideal person conservatives would have liked to have run against Obama, he was simply the best they had to work with since the alternatives (Santorum, Bachmann, Perry) Were f*cking morons.

8) The GOP platform isnt exactly the most up to date, which cost them votes among minorities that they needed in order to beat Obama. (right now they are pushing for immigration reform, something that was unheard of even 1 or 2 years ago to them)

9) Obama already had big states like New York, California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in his pocket while Romney really was guaranteed to only have Texas. All the other big states were toss ups that ultimately ended up voting for Obama. This made Romney's path to victory much harder when you look at it from an electoral college point of view.

Thats all I can think of right now
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 12:36:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 12:33:15 PM, imabench wrote:
As oe fo the few openly liberal people on here, this election wasnt Obama's to win, it was the conservatives's to lose and from what I can see, heres what I think was why Romney didnt win (not ranked in any order):

1) The 47% remark and other such gaffes made people believe he wasnt in touch with their problems or what they were going through

2) His VP pick appealed mostly to people who Romney already had in his pocket (fiscal conservatives, who never would have voted for Obama). The point of the VP during an election is to appeal to a larger group of people. Biden helped get some of the old white vote im sure, but Ryan didnt appeal to people who already werent going to vote for Romney. (Had he gone with Marco Rubio instead, it might have changed everything

3) A lot of people still blame the bad economy on Bush while Romney campaigned almost entirely on the idea that it was Obama's fault.

4) Obama supported the Auto bailouts while Romney openly said once that the US should let them go bankrupt, this had a huge impact in voters up north in Michigan which carry some big electoral college weight with them.

5) Romney had to spend a significant amount of campaign money just to get past/win the primary elections, which early on in the main election left him strapped for cash while Obama already had a good amount to work with, giving him a slight advantage

6) Fact checkers went after Romney's tax plan and other statements quite a lot while Obama stayed mostly under the radar. I remember one incident where Romney flat out lied about something Chrysler was doing with jeeps and China that was shown to be false, and Romney still stuck with the lie.

7) Romney wasnt the ideal person conservatives would have liked to have run against Obama, he was simply the best they had to work with since the alternatives (Santorum, Bachmann, Perry) Were f*cking morons.

8) The GOP platform isnt exactly the most up to date, which cost them votes among minorities that they needed in order to beat Obama. (right now they are pushing for immigration reform, something that was unheard of even 1 or 2 years ago to them)

9) Obama already had big states like New York, California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in his pocket while Romney really was guaranteed to only have Texas. All the other big states were toss ups that ultimately ended up voting for Obama. This made Romney's path to victory much harder when you look at it from an electoral college point of view.

Thats all I can think of right now

If we are describing the "conservatives" as republicans, it is a testament to how poor a candidate Romney was that the GOP lost. They fielded a guy who agreed with Obama on nearly everything and lacked charm. It is a remarkable feat to pick someone who was worse than Obama.
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 12:38:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 12:36:48 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 2/17/2013 12:33:15 PM, imabench wrote:
As oe fo the few openly liberal people on here, this election wasnt Obama's to win, it was the conservatives's to lose and from what I can see, heres what I think was why Romney didnt win (not ranked in any order):

1) The 47% remark and other such gaffes made people believe he wasnt in touch with their problems or what they were going through

2) His VP pick appealed mostly to people who Romney already had in his pocket (fiscal conservatives, who never would have voted for Obama). The point of the VP during an election is to appeal to a larger group of people. Biden helped get some of the old white vote im sure, but Ryan didnt appeal to people who already werent going to vote for Romney. (Had he gone with Marco Rubio instead, it might have changed everything

3) A lot of people still blame the bad economy on Bush while Romney campaigned almost entirely on the idea that it was Obama's fault.

4) Obama supported the Auto bailouts while Romney openly said once that the US should let them go bankrupt, this had a huge impact in voters up north in Michigan which carry some big electoral college weight with them.

5) Romney had to spend a significant amount of campaign money just to get past/win the primary elections, which early on in the main election left him strapped for cash while Obama already had a good amount to work with, giving him a slight advantage

6) Fact checkers went after Romney's tax plan and other statements quite a lot while Obama stayed mostly under the radar. I remember one incident where Romney flat out lied about something Chrysler was doing with jeeps and China that was shown to be false, and Romney still stuck with the lie.

7) Romney wasnt the ideal person conservatives would have liked to have run against Obama, he was simply the best they had to work with since the alternatives (Santorum, Bachmann, Perry) Were f*cking morons.

8) The GOP platform isnt exactly the most up to date, which cost them votes among minorities that they needed in order to beat Obama. (right now they are pushing for immigration reform, something that was unheard of even 1 or 2 years ago to them)

9) Obama already had big states like New York, California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in his pocket while Romney really was guaranteed to only have Texas. All the other big states were toss ups that ultimately ended up voting for Obama. This made Romney's path to victory much harder when you look at it from an electoral college point of view.

Thats all I can think of right now

If we are describing the "conservatives" as republicans, it is a testament to how poor a candidate Romney was that the GOP lost. They fielded a guy who agreed with Obama on nearly everything and lacked charm. It is a remarkable feat to pick someone who was worse than Obama.

Agreed
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 12:54:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 12:33:15 PM, imabench wrote:
As oe fo the few openly liberal people on here, this election wasnt Obama's to win, it was the conservatives's to lose and from what I can see, heres what I think was why Romney didnt win (not ranked in any order):

1) The 47% remark and other such gaffes made people believe he wasnt in touch with their problems or what they were going through

There was also the "binders of women" comment. For some reason, he didn't just point to Carly Fiorina and say "look, I hand-picked this woman because she is one of the most capable women in American business and reflects the values of the Republican platform".

2) His VP pick appealed mostly to people who Romney already had in his pocket (fiscal conservatives, who never would have voted for Obama). The point of the VP during an election is to appeal to a larger group of people. Biden helped get some of the old white vote im sure, but Ryan didnt appeal to people who already werent going to vote for Romney. (Had he gone with Marco Rubio instead, it might have changed everything

I think Romney's VP pick had more to do with socially conservative issues, without the electability issues of someone like Huckabee or Gingrich.

3) A lot of people still blame the bad economy on Bush while Romney campaigned almost entirely on the idea that it was Obama's fault.

4) Obama supported the Auto bailouts while Romney openly said once that the US should let them go bankrupt, this had a huge impact in voters up north in Michigan which carry some big electoral college weight with them.

What's funny about this is that Obama did let them go bankrupt. :o

5) Romney had to spend a significant amount of campaign money just to get past/win the primary elections, which early on in the main election left him strapped for cash while Obama already had a good amount to work with, giving him a slight advantage

Agree the GOP was the problem, not Romney.

6) Fact checkers went after Romney's tax plan and other statements quite a lot while Obama stayed mostly under the radar. I remember one incident where Romney flat out lied about something Chrysler was doing with jeeps and China that was shown to be false, and Romney still stuck with the lie.

Obama didn't make statements about the economy. This is why the 1st debate was such a landslide for Romney - Obama really does not have a grasp on the economy, and it is somewhat frightening. We have to rely on Krugman, Sumners, Geithner, and Bernanke to guide the ship.

7) Romney wasnt the ideal person conservatives would have liked to have run against Obama, he was simply the best they had to work with since the alternatives (Santorum, Bachmann, Perry) Were f*cking morons.

I disagree. I consider Romney to be a great conservative candidate. Now, if you said he wasn't the ideal GOP candidate, I would agree with you.

8) The GOP platform isnt exactly the most up to date, which cost them votes among minorities that they needed in order to beat Obama. (right now they are pushing for immigration reform, something that was unheard of even 1 or 2 years ago to them)

9) Obama already had big states like New York, California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in his pocket while Romney really was guaranteed to only have Texas. All the other big states were toss ups that ultimately ended up voting for Obama. This made Romney's path to victory much harder when you look at it from an electoral college point of view.

Romney also had all the non-battleground states outside of what you cited. It paints most of America red.

Thats all I can think of right now
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 1:09:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 11:42:07 AM, proglib wrote:
To get us started in the "right" direction,* how about a quote from a conservative?

'From her office near the Capitol, Kristen Soltis Anderson, a 28-year-old G.O.P. pollster, tried not to come unglued. "But you didn"t win the election," she told me she thought at the time. "I"m really glad you scored that touchdown in the third quarter, I am " but you lost the game!"'

http://www.nytimes.com...

If you're allergic to the "liberal MSM," please don't read the article titled "Can the Republicans Be Saved From Obsolescence?" In fact, you might as well stop reading now, because I will quote freely from media of left right and center if it seems to have interesting information.

Ms. Anderson asked two focus groups what came to mind when they heard the word "Republican."

'A self-identified anti-abortion, "very conservative" 27-year-old Obama voter named Gretchen replied: "Don"t be so right wing! You know, on abortion, they"re so out there. That all-or-nothing type of thing, that"s the way Romney came across. And you know, come up with ways to compromise."'

This is where I stand with the question:
http://www.republicansforobama.org...

That is probably where Gretchen stands as well. I don't think Romney came across that way, but the GOP certainly comes across as a "all-or-nothing type of thing", and I find that to be extremely unelectable.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 1:27:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 12:54:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/17/2013 12:33:15 PM, imabench wrote:
As oe fo the few openly liberal people on here, this election wasnt Obama's to win, it was the conservatives's to lose and from what I can see, heres what I think was why Romney didnt win (not ranked in any order):

1) The 47% remark and other such gaffes made people believe he wasnt in touch with their problems or what they were going through

There was also the "binders of women" comment. For some reason, he didn't just point to Carly Fiorina and say "look, I hand-picked this woman because she is one of the most capable women in American business and reflects the values of the Republican platform".

I forgot about that one XD

2) His VP pick appealed mostly to people who Romney already had in his pocket (fiscal conservatives, who never would have voted for Obama). The point of the VP during an election is to appeal to a larger group of people. Biden helped get some of the old white vote im sure, but Ryan didnt appeal to people who already werent going to vote for Romney. (Had he gone with Marco Rubio instead, it might have changed everything

I think Romney's VP pick had more to do with socially conservative issues, without the electability issues of someone like Huckabee or Gingrich.

From what I saw in the media, Ryan was supposedly a 'numbers guy' not someone picked to rack up conservatives that Romney didnt have,

3) A lot of people still blame the bad economy on Bush while Romney campaigned almost entirely on the idea that it was Obama's fault.

4) Obama supported the Auto bailouts while Romney openly said once that the US should let them go bankrupt, this had a huge impact in voters up north in Michigan which carry some big electoral college weight with them.

What's funny about this is that Obama did let them go bankrupt. :o

True, I meant that Obama wished to give government help to the auto companies while Romney wanted the private sector to handle it even though at the time they couldnt.

5) Romney had to spend a significant amount of campaign money just to get past/win the primary elections, which early on in the main election left him strapped for cash while Obama already had a good amount to work with, giving him a slight advantage

Agree the GOP was the problem, not Romney.

Its not Romney's fault but its still a reason he lost.

6) Fact checkers went after Romney's tax plan and other statements quite a lot while Obama stayed mostly under the radar. I remember one incident where Romney flat out lied about something Chrysler was doing with jeeps and China that was shown to be false, and Romney still stuck with the lie.

Obama didn't make statements about the economy. This is why the 1st debate was such a landslide for Romney - Obama really does not have a grasp on the economy, and it is somewhat frightening. We have to rely on Krugman, Sumners, Geithner, and Bernanke to guide the ship.

The only economy remark i remember from Obama was when he said that the private sector was fine, which he retracted a few hours later.

7) Romney wasnt the ideal person conservatives would have liked to have run against Obama, he was simply the best they had to work with since the alternatives (Santorum, Bachmann, Perry) Were f*cking morons.

I disagree. I consider Romney to be a great conservative candidate. Now, if you said he wasn't the ideal GOP candidate, I would agree with you.

Candidate, f*ck thats what I meant to say

8) The GOP platform isnt exactly the most up to date, which cost them votes among minorities that they needed in order to beat Obama. (right now they are pushing for immigration reform, something that was unheard of even 1 or 2 years ago to them)

9) Obama already had big states like New York, California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in his pocket while Romney really was guaranteed to only have Texas. All the other big states were toss ups that ultimately ended up voting for Obama. This made Romney's path to victory much harder when you look at it from an electoral college point of view.

Romney also had all the non-battleground states outside of what you cited. It paints most of America red.

The entire Northeast and Pacific Coast was blue!

Thats all I can think of right now
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 1:42:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ya you're statement/question assumes that Romney was a conservative and Obama a liberal. Neither of which is really true, both are very moderate.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 1:51:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 1:27:22 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2013 12:54:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/17/2013 12:33:15 PM, imabench wrote:

2) His VP pick appealed mostly to people who Romney already had in his pocket (fiscal conservatives, who never would have voted for Obama). The point of the VP during an election is to appeal to a larger group of people. Biden helped get some of the old white vote im sure, but Ryan didnt appeal to people who already werent going to vote for Romney. (Had he gone with Marco Rubio instead, it might have changed everything

I think Romney's VP pick had more to do with socially conservative issues, without the electability issues of someone like Huckabee or Gingrich.

From what I saw in the media, Ryan was supposedly a 'numbers guy' not someone picked to rack up conservatives that Romney didnt have,

Yeah Ryan was definitely a numbers guy, no question, but he also hasn't equivocated on issues like abortion.

6) Fact checkers went after Romney's tax plan and other statements quite a lot while Obama stayed mostly under the radar. I remember one incident where Romney flat out lied about something Chrysler was doing with jeeps and China that was shown to be false, and Romney still stuck with the lie.

Obama didn't make statements about the economy. This is why the 1st debate was such a landslide for Romney - Obama really does not have a grasp on the economy, and it is somewhat frightening. We have to rely on Krugman, Sumners, Geithner, and Bernanke to guide the ship.

The only economy remark i remember from Obama was when he said that the private sector was fine, which he retracted a few hours later.

LOL, and people wonder why I didn't vote for Obama...:D

7) Romney wasnt the ideal person conservatives would have liked to have run against Obama, he was simply the best they had to work with since the alternatives (Santorum, Bachmann, Perry) Were f*cking morons.

I disagree. I consider Romney to be a great conservative candidate. Now, if you said he wasn't the ideal GOP candidate, I would agree with you.

Candidate, f*ck thats what I meant to say

It's ok, what you said was perfectly understandable, just that I don't think the GOP really represents all conservatives anymore.

9) Obama already had big states like New York, California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in his pocket while Romney really was guaranteed to only have Texas. All the other big states were toss ups that ultimately ended up voting for Obama. This made Romney's path to victory much harder when you look at it from an electoral college point of view.

Romney also had all the non-battleground states outside of what you cited. It paints most of America red.

The entire Northeast and Pacific Coast was blue!

They always are. However, most of America is not coastline. :D
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 1:51:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 12:33:15 PM, imabench wrote:
As oe fo the few openly liberal people on here, this election wasnt Obama's to win, it was the conservatives's to lose and from what I can see, heres what I think was why Romney didnt win (not ranked in any order):

1) The 47% remark and other such gaffes made people believe he wasnt in touch with their problems or what they were going through

2) His VP pick appealed mostly to people who Romney already had in his pocket (fiscal conservatives, who never would have voted for Obama). The point of the VP during an election is to appeal to a larger group of people. Biden helped get some of the old white vote im sure, but Ryan didnt appeal to people who already werent going to vote for Romney. (Had he gone with Marco Rubio instead, it might have changed everything

3) A lot of people still blame the bad economy on Bush while Romney campaigned almost entirely on the idea that it was Obama's fault.

4) Obama supported the Auto bailouts while Romney openly said once that the US should let them go bankrupt, this had a huge impact in voters up north in Michigan which carry some big electoral college weight with them.

5) Romney had to spend a significant amount of campaign money just to get past/win the primary elections, which early on in the main election left him strapped for cash while Obama already had a good amount to work with, giving him a slight advantage

6) Fact checkers went after Romney's tax plan and other statements quite a lot while Obama stayed mostly under the radar. I remember one incident where Romney flat out lied about something Chrysler was doing with jeeps and China that was shown to be false, and Romney still stuck with the lie.

7) Romney wasnt the ideal person conservatives would have liked to have run against Obama, he was simply the best they had to work with since the alternatives (Santorum, Bachmann, Perry) Were f*cking morons.

8) The GOP platform isnt exactly the most up to date, which cost them votes among minorities that they needed in order to beat Obama. (right now they are pushing for immigration reform, something that was unheard of even 1 or 2 years ago to them)

9) Obama already had big states like New York, California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in his pocket while Romney really was guaranteed to only have Texas. All the other big states were toss ups that ultimately ended up voting for Obama. This made Romney's path to victory much harder when you look at it from an electoral college point of view.

Thats all I can think of right now

this is a pretty good analysis. One of the blogs I'm following, which is pretty good at making predictions on current events states that the next president will likely be a Democrat. He states that one of the main problems is that demographic trends are making it impossible for Republicans to win. Also Republicans just have a lot of problems itself. Their positions on evolution and global warming makes anybody that's educated think they're the party of idiots. Their positions on abortions give women a bad vibe, who pretty much exclusively on abortion rights. They also have the problem of appearing as the party "for the rich" when in reality the rich support Democrats equally if not more then Republicans.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 2:15:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 1:51:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:

this is a pretty good analysis. One of the blogs I'm following, which is pretty good at making predictions on current events states that the next president will likely be a Democrat.

Holy sh*t, for real??? Did the blog give a percentage on that one or are they just guessing?

He states that one of the main problems is that demographic trends are making it impossible for Republicans to win. Also Republicans just have a lot of problems itself. Their positions on evolution and global warming makes anybody that's educated think they're the party of idiots. Their positions on abortions give women a bad vibe, who pretty much exclusively on abortion rights. They also have the problem of appearing as the party "for the rich" when in reality the rich support Democrats equally if not more then Republicans.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 2:26:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 2:15:54 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2013 1:51:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:

this is a pretty good analysis. One of the blogs I'm following, which is pretty good at making predictions on current events states that the next president will likely be a Democrat.

Holy sh*t, for real??? Did the blog give a percentage on that one or are they just guessing?

You mean, percent change of being right. No. But I've read a few things that he's written a few years back and he's been right on quite a bit. He predicted oil prices going up, Bush winning the election his second term, a democratic candidate winning after Bush since people would blame Bush for causing the housing crisis. He gives good analysis as well.

Although, he's probably made some predictions that have been wrong, so its not a guarantee.


He states that one of the main problems is that demographic trends are making it impossible for Republicans to win. Also Republicans just have a lot of problems itself. Their positions on evolution and global warming makes anybody that's educated think they're the party of idiots. Their positions on abortions give women a bad vibe, who pretty much exclusively on abortion rights. They also have the problem of appearing as the party "for the rich" when in reality the rich support Democrats equally if not more then Republicans.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 2:38:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 2:26:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/17/2013 2:15:54 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2013 1:51:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:

this is a pretty good analysis. One of the blogs I'm following, which is pretty good at making predictions on current events states that the next president will likely be a Democrat.

Holy sh*t, for real??? Did the blog give a percentage on that one or are they just guessing?

You mean, percent change of being right. No. But I've read a few things that he's written a few years back and he's been right on quite a bit. He predicted oil prices going up, Bush winning the election his second term, a democratic candidate winning after Bush since people would blame Bush for causing the housing crisis. He gives good analysis as well.

Although, he's probably made some predictions that have been wrong, so its not a guarantee.

Whats the name of this blog?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 2:45:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 2:38:15 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2013 2:26:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/17/2013 2:15:54 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/17/2013 1:51:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:

this is a pretty good analysis. One of the blogs I'm following, which is pretty good at making predictions on current events states that the next president will likely be a Democrat.

Holy sh*t, for real??? Did the blog give a percentage on that one or are they just guessing?

You mean, percent change of being right. No. But I've read a few things that he's written a few years back and he's been right on quite a bit. He predicted oil prices going up, Bush winning the election his second term, a democratic candidate winning after Bush since people would blame Bush for causing the housing crisis. He gives good analysis as well.

Although, he's probably made some predictions that have been wrong, so its not a guarantee.

Whats the name of this blog?

Three different blogs, all the same author

http://www.calicocat.com...
http://www.halfsigma.com...
http://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.com...

Not sure if you'd like him though. He's sort of center-right. He's also a race realist. He really doesn't follow a strict path because his ideas are unique to his own. He did vote for Mitt Romney and he does a fair bashing on liberals.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 2:54:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I live in a swing town in a swing county in a swing state, and I can tell you that the primary reason that the Republicans are losing is their stance on social issues. Ever since the moderates started fleeing the party in droves the primary system has been controlled by dyed-in-the-wool theocrats who turn people who aren't borderline insane way from the party. Everyone here wanted to vote for Romney, but we're sick to death of being ignored in order to appease the insane people who turn up to vote in the primaries. Drop abortion. Drop gay marriage. Focus on the economy. The religious right are going to vote for you regardless, and making them the bedrock of your platform turns everyone else off. You wouldn't believe how many people in my town voted libertarian this year out of sheer disgust.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 2:57:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 2:54:33 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I live in a swing town in a swing county in a swing state, and I can tell you that the primary reason that the Republicans are losing is their stance on social issues. Ever since the moderates started fleeing the party in droves the primary system has been controlled by dyed-in-the-wool theocrats who turn people who aren't borderline insane way from the party. Everyone here wanted to vote for Romney, but we're sick to death of being ignored in order to appease the insane people who turn up to vote in the primaries. Drop abortion. Drop gay marriage. Focus on the economy. The religious right are going to vote for you regardless, and making them the bedrock of your platform turns everyone else off. You wouldn't believe how many people in my town voted libertarian this year out of sheer disgust.

I don't necessarily think the religious right would vote for the no matter what, but the religious right are becoming a greater minority and need to stop being pampered to.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 3:05:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think everyone can agree that an instant-run-off voting system would be much more preferable to the current system. That way, third parties wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 3:33:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The right should have the ultimate out for a losing position, that is states rights. If gay rights, drug legalization and other social issues are losing issues, default to states rights and don't push it in a national election. State that this is my position but I don't think it's the federal government job to be involved and ill fight to put he issue back to the states. Of course the flip side to that is that to be ideologically consistent they'd have to take unpopular positions on things like education and infrastructure. While those two should be handled by the states, proponents of that idea are generally being attacked for being anti-education and the likes.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 6:21:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 12:25:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/17/2013 11:22:45 AM, proglib wrote:
OK, though I've lost this debate three times in a row, I'm nothing if not persistent.

http://debate.org...

Call me crazy, but do you think that conceding the debate before you made your first argument might have something to do with why you lost?

Wouldn't dream of calling you crazy.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 6:42:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The GOP lost the election because Hurricane Sandy's handling by FEMA was decent, and this brought images of Katrina and the bungling thereof into the news the week of the election.

Also, Romney, for all his good and bad qualities, was a political retard, and awkward in front of people, and as much as people wanted to vote against the president, they didn't want to vote against him enough to vote for Romney.

And, of course, no one believes in voting for a 3rd party candidate, because they don't think 3rd party candidates have real chance of victory, which of course they don't, but only because no one believes they do.

The minute someone takes the time to listen to the 3rd party candidates out there, they will realize that most are infinitely preferable to the 2 losers they believe are their only choices.

I voted for 7 DNP candidates, 3 GOP, 1 Green Party and 1 Socialist candidate in the last election.

I know for a fact that mine was the only ballot split like that. No one pays attention to the candidates anymore, so things like Romney's awkward nature in front of a camera are what decides elections.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 6:43:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 1:51:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/17/2013 12:33:15 PM, imabench wrote:
As oe fo the few openly liberal people on here, this election wasnt Obama's to win, it was the conservatives's to lose and from what I can see, heres what I think was why Romney didnt win (not ranked in any order):

1) The 47% remark and other such gaffes made people believe he wasnt in touch with their problems or what they were going through

2) His VP pick appealed mostly to people who Romney already had in his pocket (fiscal conservatives, who never would have voted for Obama). The point of the VP during an election is to appeal to a larger group of people. Biden helped get some of the old white vote im sure, but Ryan didnt appeal to people who already werent going to vote for Romney. (Had he gone with Marco Rubio instead, it might have changed everything

3) A lot of people still blame the bad economy on Bush while Romney campaigned almost entirely on the idea that it was Obama's fault.

4) Obama supported the Auto bailouts while Romney openly said once that the US should let them go bankrupt, this had a huge impact in voters up north in Michigan which carry some big electoral college weight with them.

5) Romney had to spend a significant amount of campaign money just to get past/win the primary elections, which early on in the main election left him strapped for cash while Obama already had a good amount to work with, giving him a slight advantage

6) Fact checkers went after Romney's tax plan and other statements quite a lot while Obama stayed mostly under the radar. I remember one incident where Romney flat out lied about something Chrysler was doing with jeeps and China that was shown to be false, and Romney still stuck with the lie.

7) Romney wasnt the ideal person conservatives would have liked to have run against Obama, he was simply the best they had to work with since the alternatives (Santorum, Bachmann, Perry) Were f*cking morons.

8) The GOP platform isnt exactly the most up to date, which cost them votes among minorities that they needed in order to beat Obama. (right now they are pushing for immigration reform, something that was unheard of even 1 or 2 years ago to them)

9) Obama already had big states like New York, California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in his pocket while Romney really was guaranteed to only have Texas. All the other big states were toss ups that ultimately ended up voting for Obama. This made Romney's path to victory much harder when you look at it from an electoral college point of view.

Thats all I can think of right now

this is a pretty good analysis. One of the blogs I'm following, which is pretty good at making predictions on current events states that the next president will likely be a Democrat. He states that one of the main problems is that demographic trends are making it impossible for Republicans to win. Also Republicans just have a lot of problems itself. Their positions on evolution and global warming makes anybody that's educated think they're the party of idiots. Their positions on abortions give women a bad vibe, who pretty much exclusively on abortion rights. They also have the problem of appearing as the party "for the rich" when in reality the rich support Democrats equally if not more then Republicans.

Good analyses.

My main point was that since 2008 the right has been tacking so extreme that they made it almost impossible for anyone from the Republican side to win what should have been almost a "kick out Jimmy Carter the 2nd" type of election.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 6:55:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 6:43:51 PM, proglib wrote:
At 2/17/2013 1:51:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/17/2013 12:33:15 PM, imabench wrote:
As oe fo the few openly liberal people on here, this election wasnt Obama's to win, it was the conservatives's to lose and from what I can see, heres what I think was why Romney didnt win (not ranked in any order):

1) The 47% remark and other such gaffes made people believe he wasnt in touch with their problems or what they were going through

2) His VP pick appealed mostly to people who Romney already had in his pocket (fiscal conservatives, who never would have voted for Obama). The point of the VP during an election is to appeal to a larger group of people. Biden helped get some of the old white vote im sure, but Ryan didnt appeal to people who already werent going to vote for Romney. (Had he gone with Marco Rubio instead, it might have changed everything

3) A lot of people still blame the bad economy on Bush while Romney campaigned almost entirely on the idea that it was Obama's fault.

4) Obama supported the Auto bailouts while Romney openly said once that the US should let them go bankrupt, this had a huge impact in voters up north in Michigan which carry some big electoral college weight with them.

5) Romney had to spend a significant amount of campaign money just to get past/win the primary elections, which early on in the main election left him strapped for cash while Obama already had a good amount to work with, giving him a slight advantage

6) Fact checkers went after Romney's tax plan and other statements quite a lot while Obama stayed mostly under the radar. I remember one incident where Romney flat out lied about something Chrysler was doing with jeeps and China that was shown to be false, and Romney still stuck with the lie.

7) Romney wasnt the ideal person conservatives would have liked to have run against Obama, he was simply the best they had to work with since the alternatives (Santorum, Bachmann, Perry) Were f*cking morons.

8) The GOP platform isnt exactly the most up to date, which cost them votes among minorities that they needed in order to beat Obama. (right now they are pushing for immigration reform, something that was unheard of even 1 or 2 years ago to them)

9) Obama already had big states like New York, California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in his pocket while Romney really was guaranteed to only have Texas. All the other big states were toss ups that ultimately ended up voting for Obama. This made Romney's path to victory much harder when you look at it from an electoral college point of view.

Thats all I can think of right now

this is a pretty good analysis. One of the blogs I'm following, which is pretty good at making predictions on current events states that the next president will likely be a Democrat. He states that one of the main problems is that demographic trends are making it impossible for Republicans to win. Also Republicans just have a lot of problems itself. Their positions on evolution and global warming makes anybody that's educated think they're the party of idiots. Their positions on abortions give women a bad vibe, who pretty much exclusively on abortion rights. They also have the problem of appearing as the party "for the rich" when in reality the rich support Democrats equally if not more then Republicans.

Good analyses.

My main point was that since 2008 the right has been tacking so extreme that they made it almost impossible for anyone from the Republican side to win what should have been almost a "kick out Jimmy Carter the 2nd" type of election.

that's utter BS. I don't get the whole idea that the right is acting too extreme when the left do that exact same thing. Ever watch MSNBC or Daily Show and Colbert, which engages in these tactics. Or what about how badly Bush was treated in his term. What about the left's treatment of the tea party (calling them tabaggers, racist and such).
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 6:57:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 6:42:28 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
The GOP lost the election because Hurricane Sandy's handling by FEMA was decent, and this brought images of Katrina and the bungling thereof into the news the week of the election.

Also, Romney, for all his good and bad qualities, was a political retard, and awkward in front of people, and as much as people wanted to vote against the president, they didn't want to vote against him enough to vote for Romney.

And, of course, no one believes in voting for a 3rd party candidate, because they don't think 3rd party candidates have real chance of victory, which of course they don't, but only because no one believes they do.

The minute someone takes the time to listen to the 3rd party candidates out there, they will realize that most are infinitely preferable to the 2 losers they believe are their only choices.

I voted for 7 DNP candidates, 3 GOP, 1 Green Party and 1 Socialist candidate in the last election.

I know for a fact that mine was the only ballot split like that. No one pays attention to the candidates anymore, so things like Romney's awkward nature in front of a camera are what decides elections.

IMHO, the GOP lost the election in the primaries, and by being unable to have a disciplined and focused campaign on the economy. There was no one willing to stand up to the far right and say, "The economy, stupid." If the GOP in 2000 had looked like 2012, we would have been saying "President Al."
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 7:02:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 6:43:51 PM, proglib wrote:
At 2/17/2013 1:51:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/17/2013 12:33:15 PM, imabench wrote:
As oe fo the few openly liberal people on here, this election wasnt Obama's to win, it was the conservatives's to lose and from what I can see, heres what I think was why Romney didnt win (not ranked in any order):

1) The 47% remark and other such gaffes made people believe he wasnt in touch with their problems or what they were going through

2) His VP pick appealed mostly to people who Romney already had in his pocket (fiscal conservatives, who never would have voted for Obama). The point of the VP during an election is to appeal to a larger group of people. Biden helped get some of the old white vote im sure, but Ryan didnt appeal to people who already werent going to vote for Romney. (Had he gone with Marco Rubio instead, it might have changed everything

3) A lot of people still blame the bad economy on Bush while Romney campaigned almost entirely on the idea that it was Obama's fault.

4) Obama supported the Auto bailouts while Romney openly said once that the US should let them go bankrupt, this had a huge impact in voters up north in Michigan which carry some big electoral college weight with them.

5) Romney had to spend a significant amount of campaign money just to get past/win the primary elections, which early on in the main election left him strapped for cash while Obama already had a good amount to work with, giving him a slight advantage

6) Fact checkers went after Romney's tax plan and other statements quite a lot while Obama stayed mostly under the radar. I remember one incident where Romney flat out lied about something Chrysler was doing with jeeps and China that was shown to be false, and Romney still stuck with the lie.

7) Romney wasnt the ideal person conservatives would have liked to have run against Obama, he was simply the best they had to work with since the alternatives (Santorum, Bachmann, Perry) Were f*cking morons.

8) The GOP platform isnt exactly the most up to date, which cost them votes among minorities that they needed in order to beat Obama. (right now they are pushing for immigration reform, something that was unheard of even 1 or 2 years ago to them)

9) Obama already had big states like New York, California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in his pocket while Romney really was guaranteed to only have Texas. All the other big states were toss ups that ultimately ended up voting for Obama. This made Romney's path to victory much harder when you look at it from an electoral college point of view.

Thats all I can think of right now

this is a pretty good analysis. One of the blogs I'm following, which is pretty good at making predictions on current events states that the next president will likely be a Democrat. He states that one of the main problems is that demographic trends are making it impossible for Republicans to win. Also Republicans just have a lot of problems itself. Their positions on evolution and global warming makes anybody that's educated think they're the party of idiots. Their positions on abortions give women a bad vibe, who pretty much exclusively on abortion rights. They also have the problem of appearing as the party "for the rich" when in reality the rich support Democrats equally if not more then Republicans.

Good analyses.


No it's not.

1. Big Bird was the gaffe that people remember.

2. That point was good...especially Rubio as the VP choice...I couldn't believe he didn't pick Rubio at the time.

3. HURRICANE SANDY

4. Romney's f*ck up here was that he didn't stick to his guns. Instead of sticking to his position, he then said that he'd have done the same thing the president did, but that he would have done it "better"...whatever that means.]

5. Romney's money situation, because of unconnected PACs, was just fine.

6. Romney's tax plan wasn't the issue. People's beliefs around Bain Capital were.

7. Romney was the perfect candidate to beat Obama, and he was surging into the lead before Hurricane Sandy. He'd be the president right now if Mother Nature hadn't decided to vote for Obama.

8. What was the GOP platform this last election? I still have no idea. I don't know what the DNP platform was either. All I know is they both hate each other.

9. GOP Candidates ALWAYS lose New York and California. They, in turn, get the entire south and midwest, sans Colorado and Minnesota in return for giving up our two most populous states. That doesn't matter.

That whole thing was like EVERYTHING that is wrong with "conventional wisdom" and none of what it gets right (except the VP thing...that was good)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 7:05:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 12:07:11 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I actually think in many ways conservatives WON the 2012 POTUS election. Both Obama and Romney fit my mold of a moderate conservative. I consider myself a moderate conservative (apparently libertarian in most aspects of domestic policy, a hawk in foreign policy), and found Obama to be the better candidate, although not enough to elicit a vote from me.

Absolutely. Smart conservatives would realize how far the country has been pushed to the right on economic issues. I saw a discussion about Bush's tax cuts that pointed out that the only disagreement seems to be how much of them to keep, not whether they should be kept at all.


Obama's foreign policy is anything but non-interventionalist. If you perceive connections between the Arab Spring and US foreign policy, then IMHO there's no question that not only has US foreign policy been much more aggressive than most administrations, but that it was much more effective and much LESS EXPENSIVE than what was seen in the 8 years of Bush. Arguably it has been the most successful foreign policy since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR.

Again, agreed.


Obama's domestic policy was largely a continuation of Bush-era policies, to include stimulus packages, tax cuts for the wealthy, and forfeiture of 1st and 4th amendment rights. The only real "non-conservative" domestic policies unique to the Obama administration were projects like funding Solyndra, and the payroll tax holidays.

Health care is a bi-partisan issue.

LGBT marriage IMHO is an issue that affects a very small portion of the population, one that has an amazingly effective lobbying group, so I do not consider it to be something that would sway an election.

On women's rights, I'm no longer certain this is a liberal issue. When you get a GOP senatorial candidate saying something like how a woman can prevent a pregnancy from a rape because the "female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down", you begin to think that women's rights are no longer about libs vs cons, but rather reason vs insanity.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

---

What was the alternative? Mitt Romney, who largely agreed with nearly every aspect of Obama's foreign policy. On domestic policy, I think Romney would have been much more adept at economic reform, with the conservative mindset of cutting spending and cutting taxes (although his spending cuts did not seem at all substantial). Regardless, it is difficult to say that Obama's fiscal policies were not conservative, because so much of it originated from Bush.

In the end, IMHO, Obama had incumbent's advantage. I would have voted for a McCain/Romney ticket in 2008, thereby giving Romney a lot more credibility in future elections, but the GOP has continued on a path of absolute incompetence since Bush 2000 by destroying a credible ticket and birthing to the world a political Sarah Palin.

Also, that the GOP in 2008 found fault with Romney's religion to such an extent at to make him unelectable really turned me off to the GOP. To me this is not a libs vs cons issue, but a 1st amendment issue. The GOP is more and more resembling the beast in Yeat's poem, "slouching to Bethlehem".

"The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

To me, this sums up what the GOP is fast becoming. IMHO it's terrible, because I would like a conservative option to rival the popularity of politicians like Hillary and Obama. I would like a real choice in politics again.

http://www.potw.org...

Thanks for your analysis. I still think conservatives shot themselves in the foot--starting in 2008 by trying to brand him a commie or terrorist sympathizer, all the way through the birther controversies. Want to beat a liberal/moderate on the economy, talk about the economy in the real world. You are up against Keynes, NOT Marx.

Most of all, thanks for the poem. I like to be educated. :)
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 7:05:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 6:57:11 PM, proglib wrote:
At 2/17/2013 6:42:28 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
The GOP lost the election because Hurricane Sandy's handling by FEMA was decent, and this brought images of Katrina and the bungling thereof into the news the week of the election.

Also, Romney, for all his good and bad qualities, was a political retard, and awkward in front of people, and as much as people wanted to vote against the president, they didn't want to vote against him enough to vote for Romney.

And, of course, no one believes in voting for a 3rd party candidate, because they don't think 3rd party candidates have real chance of victory, which of course they don't, but only because no one believes they do.

The minute someone takes the time to listen to the 3rd party candidates out there, they will realize that most are infinitely preferable to the 2 losers they believe are their only choices.

I voted for 7 DNP candidates, 3 GOP, 1 Green Party and 1 Socialist candidate in the last election.

I know for a fact that mine was the only ballot split like that. No one pays attention to the candidates anymore, so things like Romney's awkward nature in front of a camera are what decides elections.

IMHO, the GOP lost the election in the primaries, and by being unable to have a disciplined and focused campaign on the economy. There was no one willing to stand up to the far right and say, "The economy, stupid." If the GOP in 2000 had looked like 2012, we would have been saying "President Al."

A. Your opinion is wrong

B. This is what was said about the DNP in '08...until they won.

C. This election was about brand image. Obama's is stronger.

D. If the GOP hadn't illegally rigged the Florida election recounts in '00, Al Gore would have been president, and we'd be a hell of a lot better off than with Bush having been in the White House.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...