Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Nov 9, 2012.
topic is why romney lost and not why obama won
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
What does that mean?
good god google
Democratic supporters were hooting with laughter after Bill O'Reilly blasted the polls as being biased toward Democrats when the one that set him off that day was a FOX News poll. I think at the point that Republicans heard FOX News blasting its own polls as Democratically-skewed, they should have known something was wrong.
It is almost unimaginable. Think of it like American pro sports. That is, the number one college football team would get waxed by an NFL team. Heisman Trophy winners frequently have all sorts of trouble adjusting to life in the NFL. Tim "Godboy" Tebow, the Heisman Trophy winner, is by NFL standards a terrible quarterback. He's talented enough to play in the league, but not as a quarterback. Maybe a slot receiver. The Seattle Seahawks have a guy named Michael Robinson, who was fifth in Heisman voting in his senior year at Penn State. Robinson, formerly a quarterback, is now the 'Hawks fullback, the running back who blocks, occasionally carries the ball for two yards, and sometimes catches a swing pass.
I mention this because at the presidential level, the operatives surrounding a candidate are supposed to be the best in the world. David Plouffe, chief strategist for Obama's campaign, had this election pegged down to ZIP codes, and maybe even ZIP+4. That's kind of new; in the past it has been good enough to know what is happening at the county level. In some cases, they knew what was going on down to city blocks. Plouffe's campaign strategy will go down in history as one of the great ones.
Team Romney, on the other hand, pulled a Tebow. I wonder how much of that has to do with the idea of "Yes men", who surround a powerful executive and tell him what he wants to hear. We'll probably hear some about that when the books start coming out. One of the great questions remaining about this election is what actually happened inside the Romney camp. It's easy enough to say that they managed to deceive themselves, but at this level that is not supposed to happen.
If you ever want a strange experience, sit around and watch election results with your mother. Well, I don't know about your mother in particular, but this was the first time I surfed the networks on election night with mine. For the most part, we flipped between MSNBC, where they were cautiously optimistic up until Ohio, and then Ed Schultz had to put in a visible effort to not gloat; ABC, because my mother likes George Stephanopolous, who now hosts Good Morning America; and PBS, where everything was somberly analytical and nobody can explain to me what Judy Woodruff was wearing°.
But at one point, I flipped over to FOX News; it was before the Ohio call. After three minutes, my mother couldn't watch them anymore. I think it was when Megyn Kelly stopped to brush the dandruff of a guy's jacket.
Over on MSNBC, though, someone mentioned that a Republican operative from Florida had admitted that the state shouldn't have been so close; again, this was well before NBC called Ohio. The unnamed source said they completely underestimated the Obama campaign's ground game. Hearing later that Plouffe was working tighter than ZIP codes made the point for me; that's completely insane. It's more than a Heisman day. It is a mind-bogglingly cool notion. The Plouffe strategy will likely become the new model.
Still, though, if Team Romney was up to the task before them, someone should have known. Mitt Romney should not have been shellshocked. Paul Ryan should not have been genuinely shocked. I think of Captain Deladier° in Starship Troopers: "Someone made a mistake .... Someone made a big goddamn mistake!"
Perhaps this sort of thing was inevitable, and this was the year it all came together. A businessman and his yes-crew? Maybe. The height of FOX News living up to its original purpose as a conservative propaganda machine? Probably. I mean, sure, the idea of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly believing their own spew isn't so hard to comprehend. But the campaign team itself? That's not supposed to happen.
Everybody has an off night. President Obama showed that in the first debate. But you don't get to the championship game thinking the other team is a pushover.
The idea that they believed the hype? That they really were caught off guard by the results coming in? That should not happen. Like pro athletes, these are supposed to be the best political operatives in the game. And you don't get your ticket to the Show by not being able to know the difference between the pep talk and reality.
° what Judy Woodruff was wearing — It was a nice enough outfit, but nobody can explain the four-inch button at her throat. And before anyone knocks me for talking about a woman's fashion, I do the same thing to men and their godawful suits on football days; God help me, I even took to Twitter a couple weeks ago to mock Joel Klatt's necktie—it really was awful.
° Captain Deladier — Played by Brenda Strong, now of Desperate Housewives fame. I don't know, I never watched the show, but in double-checking the quote, I found out that there is a Desperate Housewives video game. Do I even want to know what the target market for that one is?
Turnout, Issues, and Excrement
Turnout, Issues, and Excrement
For now, the Bubble persists:
GOP vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) on Monday said he was "surprised" by the outcome of the election, but did not believe his defeat signaled the electorate's rejection of his budget plans.
"I think the surprise was some of the turnout, some of the turnout especially in urban areas, which gave President Obama the big margin to win this race," said Ryan to local station WISC-TV in his first post-election interview. "When we watched Virginia and Ohio coming in, and those ones coming in as tight as they were, and looking like we were going to lose them, that's when it became clear we weren't going to win."
Ryan, though, said that the election was not a referendum on his budget proposals and ideas on reforming entitlement programs.
"I don't think we lost it on those budget issues, especially on Medicare — we clearly didn't lose it on those issues," he said.
That may not be the correct analysis:
For all the talk about how Mitt Romney and the Republicans lost when it came to demographics, the turnout, and the tactics, the exit polls also show that they lost when it came to the issues.
For years, the GOP has branded itself as the party that supports low taxes (especially for the wealthy) and opposes abortion and gay marriage.
But according to the exit polls from last week's presidential election, a combined 60% said that tax rates should increase either for everyone or for those making more than $250,000. Just 35% said the tax rates shouldn't increase for anyone.
What's more, 59% said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
And by a 49%-to-46% margin, voters said that their states should legally recognize same-sex marriage.
Even on comprehensive immigration reform -- a subject that some Republicans (like George W. Bush) once supported, but most no longer do -- 65% said most illegal immigrants should be offered a chance to apply for legal status.
Still, though, Rep. Ryan's take on the election is better than Grover Norquist's:
Influential antitax lobbyist Grover Norquist said Monday that President Obama won reelection by painting GOP nominee Mitt Romney as a "poopy-head" and that Democrats should not interpret his victory as a mandate for higher taxes.
"We just had an election: The House of Representatives was elected, committed to keeping taxes low. The president was elected on the basis that he was not Romney and that Romney was a poopy-head and you should vote against Romney," Norquist said on CBS's "This Morning."
That might be the best analysis ever.
Mali, Meghashyam. "Rep. Ryan: GOP ticket didn't lose election on budget, Medicare". Blog Briefing. November 13, 2012. TheHill.com. November 13, 2012. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...didnt-lose-election-on-budget-issues-medicare
Murray, Mark. "Republicans got crushed on the issues, too". First Read. November 12, 2012. FirstRead.NBCNews.com. November 13, 2012. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/12/15115328-republicans-got-crushed-on-the-issues-too
Cohn, Alicia M. "Grover Norquist: Obama won by painting Romney as 'a poopy-head'". Hill Tube. November 12, 2012. TheHill.com. November 13, 2012. http://thehill.com/video/policy-are...ted-by-characterizing-romney-as-a-poopy-head-
The man at the top ultimately should take the blame. I think Romney was smart enough to see and understand the political and economic landscape. But he surrounded himself with his yes men. Be believed the conservative entertainment complex, and he should have been able to discern the truth. He believed his own lies (e.g. skewed polling). When you have to start ignoring fact, ignoring evidence and eschewing reason, who is at fault? And that is exactly what Romney and Ryan did.
Romney needed a Roman slave to follow him around and repeatedly whisper the words, Respice te, hominem te memento" (Look behind you, remember you are only a man). In truth, Romney couldn’t see that he was a just a man, perhaps in part because upon his death he becomes a deity per his religion's articles of faith. And equally important, Romney was content to follow the extreme and wacko views held by his party, never once exercising leadership over the “Republican entertainment complex”. If Romney couldn’t lead his party, and he couldn’t, then how could he ever hope to lead the country? In fact no Republican of any rank has ever been able to exercise reasonable control over the Republican entertainment complex or the extreme elements within the party.
I think Republican Governor Jindal summed it up quite nicely.
“Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal hurled harsh criticism at his own party after the GOP was blindsided in the 2012 elections, telling Republicans to end "dumbed-down conservatism" by putting a stop to "offensive, bizarre" comments.
“It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments -- enough of that,” Jindal told Politico. “It’s not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can’t be tolerated within our party. We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.”” – Huffington Post
Republicans have got to stop being the party of stupid. I think this comes as no secret to many Republicans in leadership positions. This defeat has given some of them enough courage to speak out – about bloody time. The question now is, will Republicans be able to end "dumbed down conservatism"? I have my doubts. Dumbed Down Conservatism is the life blood of the Republican entertainment complex.
From Jon Mixon @ Quora (https://www.quora.com/2012-U-S-Pres...tt-Romney-lose-the-2012-Presidential-election)
I think this guy's analysis pretty much sums it up.
Well we have the tea b****rs on the right saying the need to go further right to succeed and then we have the "establishment" which is clearly going toward the left in issues they feel they can wavier on in order to get more votes, such as immigration to try to get that ever growing latino vote. Clearly a rift is forming or has now become visible, we will see if they can cover it up or if one side or the other wins.
People were just thawing to him when Sandy hit, and stalled everything.
He in turn began to relax.
Democrats did a great job painting him as a personal disaster area,
but he may not have been that bad as President.
Over the election, I grew to admire the man.
The Republicans were outmanoeuvred.
The variety of factions a candidate has to please to get the nomination, makes the party ungainly.
Republicans need to return to the centre.
They know that, but can they do it?
Well Romney has the explanation for his defeat. He claims President Obama bribed people with gifts, notably people of color, African-Americans, Hispanics, and students.
Talk about bitter. So, when the Republicans win, it's by virtue of the American electorate's sagaciousness and the GOP's wonderful message. But when the Democrats win, it's because of the American electorate's selfishness and the Democrat's scheming. Talk about sour grapes.
What gifts are these?
Oh. Right. The "gifts" of
Not being kicked out of the military
A party that passionately represents minorities
Not being rounded up and kicked out of the country
The right to marry
The freedom to not have trans-vaginal something-or-other shoved in her body
Access to medical treatment
The freedom from idiotic hurdles to voting
The interesting thing about the election is that 93 million eligible citizens did not vote...indicating a dissatisfaction with the available candidates.
Additionally, I doubt that even half of those who did vote would be able to write down three distinct differences between their choice and the opposing choice in terms of policy.
So far, the only media figure pointing this out is Howard Stern.
I wonder how many people saw "The Ideas of March" and how it affected them.
Very daring of Clooney to make that film, and still more daring for Obama to accept his support.
Oh well. Romney may have lost the election.
But in day-to-day matters, in the usual conflicts among people, what kind of person is more likely to win?
No, the GOP is the real winner, as usual.
Why would it be interesting? The turnout is always around 60%, the last election had a record turnout because people were so fed up with the W kind of idiots. But when we go back to business, the average goes back too.
The bottom line is, you just can not know, why the other 40% didn't vote. The choice has been limited in the last 200 years, nothing new....
Or, if you're my boyfriend, a complete and absolute lack of any interest in politics. Most of the people I know fall into my boyfriend's group. Pretty solidly, in fact. He hates politics, doesn't discuss it and certainly doesn't care about it (this was the first year in his life that he . . . . we, voted for him by way of absentee ballot which I "assisted" him in filling out). He's exercising his right to vote, not vote, "ask for help" with voting. Either way, some people just really don't give a shit.
The one who is not the extremist.
The one who has an opinion that doesn't change from day to day.
The one who is willing to help people out rather than "let the market decide."
The one who doesn't care what you do in your bedroom.
The one who isn't going to try to convert you to their religion or make you pray in school.
The one who is willing to compromise rather than take a "if you don't agree with us, we'll make sure we both fail" approach.
Really? The US historical average voting rate is about 48%. So the 60% voting rate is much better than the average, indicating more voter interest, not less. So your premise is deeply flawed.
As previously mentioned it appears the most misinformed voters are Republican voters.
I was listening to Neal Boortz this morning; he was busy blaming “dumb voters” for Romney’s failure at the ballot box. Not surprisingly he was misleading people about unemployment and the economy and predicting no job growth because the belly of the mythical job creator had not been sufficiently scratched in this election cycle.
It will be interesting to see how the Republican Party adjusts to this shellacking at the polls. Will the newly emerging Jindal wing of the party succeed or will the conservative media wing win the fight for the soul of the American conservative movement. I am hopeful for the newly emerging Jindal wing of the party. But I remain very skeptical. The controlling conservative media wing of the Republican Party is extremely powerful. If I had to bet, I would be betting on the conservative media and not Jindal. Limbaugh, Boortz, Fox News and company, have been leading and controlling the Republican Party for decades now. And they have no intentions of going quietly into the night. After all it is their livelihood.
Hate to interfere in all this tear licking, but this election was not a big win for democrats, no gains were made in the house (though that might be due to gerrymandering) only gain two seats in the senate (bring it to 53+2 liberal independents) still 5-7 seats from super majority. And Obama was re-elected against the most flip-floppy moderate republican the GOP could muster, a wholly uninspiring person against the first black presidents whose public speaking abilities challenge that of Reagan. 2014 will likely see far less tear licking from democrats, and far less tears shed by republicans, without the attention of a presidential race the minority turnout needed for democrats will not happen.
Separate names with a comma.