How will republicans explain themselves when Romney loses?

[Avorysuds]

I'm a liberal Obama supporter who, unfortunately, has to admit that things are looking pretty good for Romney right now.

Ultimately, I'm not too upset about it. Romney is a pretty middle of the road type guy - he's only been bullshitting all the conservatives so he could get the nomination. He's no Huckabee, Palin, Gengrich or like the other nut cases that the repugs have been running the past few years. He's got a lot more brains than Bush. He's a champion of healthcare reform (wiggle, wiggle wingnuts!)

He is however in Wall Street's pocket - hell he IS Wall Street.

I'd expect him to give a lot of lip service to conservative values, while instituting a slew of liberal programs - ones that the repugs won't fight because they'll come from a repug President.

I'm only worried about his economic policies. But there's a good chance that once the repugs have the Presidency, they'll end this war against America that they've been waging since Obama took office.

Of course I'll still vote for Obama - I agree more with his intentions - and I object strongly to the totally sleazy anti-American policies that the Reugs have been using just to get Obama out of office. I don't think that they should be rewarded for that.

Some good points in there. Mitt is mostly Obama, so either way you will get a Progressive liberal.

 

[percysunshine]

I dare you to not say stupid or moron for two days.

Ah, one of the known morons pipes in off topic, at that.

I AM fascinating, though, so I understand your lack of focus.

Why are basset hounds fascinating? They kind of look clumsy.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I'm a liberal Obama supporter who, unfortunately, has to admit that things are looking pretty good for Romney right now.

Ultimately, I'm not too upset about it. Romney is a pretty middle of the road type guy - he's only been bullshitting all the conservatives so he could get the nomination. He's no Huckabee, Palin, Gengrich or like the other nut cases that the repugs have been running the past few years. He's got a lot more brains than Bush. He's a champion of healthcare reform (wiggle, wiggle wingnuts!)

He is however in Wall Street's pocket - hell he IS Wall Street.

I'd expect him to give a lot of lip service to conservative values, while instituting a slew of liberal programs - ones that the repugs won't fight because they'll come from a repug President.

I'm only worried about his economic policies. But there's a good chance that once the repugs have the Presidency, they'll end this war against America that they've been waging since Obama took office.

Of course I'll still vote for Obama - I agree more with his intentions - and I object strongly to the totally sleazy anti-American policies that the Reugs have been using just to get Obama out of office. I don't think that they should be rewarded for that.

Some good points in there. Mitt is mostly Obama, so either way you will get a Progressive liberal.

I can guarantee you that Mitt is and will be quite different than Obama. But I do have to worry about Mitt cow towing to Democrats like Bush did. This country needs real fixes, real hope and change. We don't have time to screw around any longer.

 

[Luissa]

I dare you to not say stupid or moron for two days.

Ah, one of the known morons pipes in off topic, at that.

I AM fascinating, though, so I understand your lack of focus.

And calling someone moron out of the flame zone is on topic?

 

[Si modo]

I dare you to not say stupid or moron for two days.

Ah, one of the known morons pipes in off topic, at that.

I AM fascinating, though, so I understand your lack of focus.

And calling someone moron out of the flame zone is on topic?

Looky? The moron is STILL off topic!

Wow, you are a fab representative of USMB.

What a joke you are, and you have no idea.

What part of "It's an election" confuses you so very much?

 

[buckeye45_73]

How will republicans explain themselves when Romney loses?

They could always blame Bush.

nah that's the democrats excuse

 

[candycorn]

I'm a liberal Obama supporter who, unfortunately, has to admit that things are looking pretty good for Romney right now.

Ultimately, I'm not too upset about it. Romney is a pretty middle of the road type guy - he's only been bullshitting all the conservatives so he could get the nomination. He's no Huckabee, Palin, Gengrich or like the other nut cases that the repugs have been running the past few years. He's got a lot more brains than Bush. He's a champion of healthcare reform (wiggle, wiggle wingnuts!)

He is however in Wall Street's pocket - hell he IS Wall Street.

I'd expect him to give a lot of lip service to conservative values, while instituting a slew of liberal programs - ones that the repugs won't fight because they'll come from a repug President.

I'm only worried about his economic policies. But there's a good chance that once the repugs have the Presidency, they'll end this war against America that they've been waging since Obama took office.

Of course I'll still vote for Obama - I agree more with his intentions - and I object strongly to the totally sleazy anti-American policies that the Reugs have been using just to get Obama out of office. I don't think that they should be rewarded for that.

Some good points in there. Mitt is mostly Obama, so either way you will get a Progressive liberal.

And much to the shock of the GOP, in 2016, they'll elect another centrist Republican to be their standard bearer.

Sometime last week, someone asked one of the conservative posters why they are voting for Romney. His response was, "What choice do we have?" There is a choice...there always is.

However, when a prospective governor or congressman sees what is being nominated year after year from both parties; they skew in that direction. Just like if the CEO of a company is an MBA and all board members are MBA's, and their supervisors are MBA's, a middle manager in the Peterborough office probably makes the decision at that point that she needs to get her MBA to move up in the company. So in 2016, you'll see more Romney and more Obama types than not. Possibly not more Obama types if the fatigue factor sets in as it often does.

 

[Article 15]

How will republicans explain themselves when Romney loses?

I'm curious.......

Explain THEMSELVES?!



You really think Republicans will take responsibility for anything, let alone losing the presidential election?!

It will be a non stop conspiracy/blamefest ranging from the MSM carried Obama to reelection to the MSM picked Romney as the candidate because they knew a real conservative would have beaten Obama to ACORN stole election and everyone's first born son.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't expect Romney to lose. There is little doubt in my mind he will. But there's still almost 5 months til the election so we'll see what happens. I think this OP would makes more sense if Romney didn't have momentum and wasn't in the lead.

He isn't in the lead. Only Liarmussen has him in the lead, and that guy's a notorious liar who makes the whackadoo right feel better...

The MSM hasn't even gotten started on Romney yet. Remember in 2008 when they all thought McCain was a wonderful guy, until after he got the nomination, and then he was a crazy old person who was going to blow people up?

Same deal here, except in this case, the Weird Mormon Robot is going to have it coming.

When he loses, you will be back here saying "he wasn't conservative enough", though.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm a liberal Obama supporter who, unfortunately, has to admit that things are looking pretty good for Romney right now.

Ultimately, I'm not too upset about it. Romney is a pretty middle of the road type guy - he's only been bullshitting all the conservatives so he could get the nomination. He's no Huckabee, Palin, Gengrich or like the other nut cases that the repugs have been running the past few years. He's got a lot more brains than Bush. He's a champion of healthcare reform (wiggle, wiggle wingnuts!)

He is however in Wall Street's pocket - hell he IS Wall Street.

I'd expect him to give a lot of lip service to conservative values, while instituting a slew of liberal programs - ones that the repugs won't fight because they'll come from a repug President.

I'm only worried about his economic policies. But there's a good chance that once the repugs have the Presidency, they'll end this war against America that they've been waging since Obama took office.

Of course I'll still vote for Obama - I agree more with his intentions - and I object strongly to the totally sleazy anti-American policies that the Reugs have been using just to get Obama out of office. I don't think that they should be rewarded for that.

Some good points in there. Mitt is mostly Obama, so either way you will get a Progressive liberal.

And much to the shock of the GOP, in 2016, they'll elect another centrist Republican to be their standard bearer.

Sometime last week, someone asked one of the conservative posters why they are voting for Romney. His response was, "What choice do we have?" There is a choice...there always is.

However, when a prospective governor or congressman sees what is being nominated year after year from both parties; they skew in that direction. Just like if the CEO of a company is an MBA and all board members are MBA's, and their supervisors are MBA's, a middle manager in the Peterborough office probably makes the decision at that point that she needs to get her MBA to move up in the company. So in 2016, you'll see more Romney and more Obama types than not. Possibly not more Obama types if the fatigue factor sets in as it often does.

The left has no choices ether.

We've got this guy in the White House who says that hiring firefighters is more important than making sure that businesses can hire new employees. This guy tells everyone that less job-creators is good and yet he says he's on the middle-class's side. Well the only middle-class folks he supports are union members because their dues go to Democrats.

I remember during the Democratic debates before he was president they asked him what his response would be we were attacked like on 9/11 and he said he'd make sure we had good first responders. Even then all he was thinking about was union dues.......not national security.

 

[Stephanie]

what will be interesting to see is the Democrats if Obama loses..

Especially the little talking heads on PMSnbc

 

[candycorn]

Some good points in there. Mitt is mostly Obama, so either way you will get a Progressive liberal.

And much to the shock of the GOP, in 2016, they'll elect another centrist Republican to be their standard bearer.

Sometime last week, someone asked one of the conservative posters why they are voting for Romney. His response was, "What choice do we have?" There is a choice...there always is.

However, when a prospective governor or congressman sees what is being nominated year after year from both parties; they skew in that direction. Just like if the CEO of a company is an MBA and all board members are MBA's, and their supervisors are MBA's, a middle manager in the Peterborough office probably makes the decision at that point that she needs to get her MBA to move up in the company. So in 2016, you'll see more Romney and more Obama types than not. Possibly not more Obama types if the fatigue factor sets in as it often does.

The left has no choices ether.

We've got this guy in the White House who says that hiring firefighters is more important than making sure that businesses can hire new employees. This guy tells everyone that less job-creators is good and yet he says he's on the middle-class's side. Well the only middle-class folks he supports are union members because their dues go to Democrats.

I remember during the Democratic debates before he was president they asked him what his response would be we were attacked like on 9/11 and he said he'd make sure we had good first responders. Even then all he was thinking about was union dues.......not national security.

He was probably thinking about saving the lives of those who are attacked and making sure those who respond are not unnecessarily endangered by faulty planning, equipment, doctrine, etc... He's failed on that front from what I've seen by the way.

Union Dues? Gee, you woke up stupid this morning. Your streak is in tact.

 

[JoeB131]

We've got this guy in the White House who says that hiring firefighters is more important than making sure that businesses can hire new employees. This guy tells everyone that less job-creators is good and yet he says he's on the middle-class's side. Well the only middle-class folks he supports are union members because their dues go to Democrats.

I remember during the Democratic debates before he was president they asked him what his response would be we were attacked like on 9/11 and he said he'd make sure we had good first responders. Even then all he was thinking about was union dues.......not national security.

Well, the first problem with this is that you think that businesses are the "job creators", which is horseshit.

What creates jobs is consumer demand. What creates consumer demand is people getting good paychecks. When you have businesses deciding that the best way through this recession is to squeeze the last bit of productivity out of the employees until they have to they have stress related breakdowns, you aren't creating consumer demand.

The second problem is, you really don't see first responders as being our first line of defense against terror? Seriously?

(Of course, our best defense would be not getting involved in their part of the world and stop propping up the Zionists. Best way to not get stung by hornets is to stay away from the hornet's nest. )

 

[Stephanie]

How will republicans explain themselves when Romney loses?

I'm curious.......

Explain THEMSELVES?!



You really think Republicans will take responsibility for anything, let alone losing the presidential election?!

It will be a non stop conspiracy/blamefest ranging from the MSM carried Obama to reelection to the MSM picked Romney as the candidate because they knew a real conservative would have beaten Obama to ACORN stole election and everyone's first born son.

no different than what the left will be like if Obama loses
sheesh

 

[editec]

I'm not entirely sure of course, but teachers' unions and homosexuals will be likely candidates for blame and (of course) derision, too.

If OTOH, the GOP wins that those partisans will blame it all on racists and FOX news.

Oddly enough almost nobody will declare that the reason their candidate lost was because the majority of American people decided that they just like the other guy's message more.