Why did Romney Lose?

[Sallow]

His face that day did speak volumes.

Priceless.

Why, Mr. Sallow. I'm surprised and your joy at the expense of another person's misery.

When it's a person that, himself, has caused so much misery?

I like it.

 

[freedombecki]

I'm not saying the conservative ticket will win at the moment. That is not what I said at all. But, what I did say was that Romney is a liberal who tried to trick conservatives into believing he was "one of the good ole boys". He failed... he lost.

Romney's only good month, October, happened when he finally and abruptly pivoted away from pandering to his rabid base and etch-a-sketched his way to moderation before our very eyes in the first debate (leaving many observers, the President apparently included, slack-jawed in amazement). Yet the softening of his positions and rhetoric didn't drive away the rightwing base, it actually consolidated it because they finally felt like they were backing a winner.

If you want to run candidates who can't even try to credibly make that pivot back to the mainstream, then you're not even going to get as close as Romney got.

Exactly.

It's funny that they called Obama an empty suit, then ran one.

Obama's idea of employing people is to charge overburdened taxpayers with paying the salaries, health benefits, and Union dues of a passel of government employees with tenure and union bosses who don't play nice with people who displease them, as in rumors of decapitation, dismemberment, cement submersions, and bodies never found.

Pity that crap will now abound in hospitals and the government thanks to loyalists like you.

 

[freedombecki]

Priceless.

Why, Mr. Sallow. I'm surprised and your joy at the expense of another person's misery.

When it's a person that, himself, has caused so much misery?

I like it.

Rescuing a bankrupt business, reorganizing, and hiring a passel of people at better wages is misery. Well, kiss my grits.

 

[JoeB131]

Why, Mr. Sallow. I'm surprised and your joy at the expense of another person's misery.

When it's a person that, himself, has caused so much misery?

I like it.

Rescuing a bankrupt business, reorganizing, and hiring a passel of people at better wages is misery. Well, kiss my grits.

Except he did nothing of the sort.

What Romney did at Bain was take struggling companies, loaded them down with debt to pay off his investors and partners, squeezed every bit of wage and benefit out of the employees, and then let the companies go bankrupt.

"I like to fire people!" = Mitt Romney.

"You're fired" - The American People!!!!

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Romney lost because he's a lying sociopath who had several gaffs throughout his campaign, no new or even workable ideas for the economy and was controlled by handlers that the majority of Americans do not like. Plus he was extremely easy to make fun of.

 

[Dr Grump]

It's nothing Romney did. Obama played a dirty campaign by bribing people to vote for him. We'd need another Reagan to have beaten Obama, and we will brew one in 2016 to beat whatever democrat is running. The fact of the matter is people like free stuff, and that's what Obama offered.

Yeah, you really are a 14-year-old...sure you are.....

 

[Greenbeard]

Why, Mr. Sallow. I'm surprised and your joy at the expense of another person's misery.

Shame that 30 million people gaining access to health insurance wasn't good for his political fortunes. I feel for the guy, I do.

 

[Gadawg73]

Why is acting like decent human being such a problem for you plutocrats?

Here's the thing. I got insurance through my job. And I paid my co-pays, a little extra to get the top-notch plan because I'm getting up there in years. And then I had to get a couple of operations. And lo and behold, my company was suddenly looking to get rid of me. Imagine that. And I wasn't the only person they did this to.

What has ruined American Health care is the greed. What had ruined America is greed.

If we did what Germany, the UK, Canada did, we wouldn't have an issue with this. Instead, we are all carrying Ed Hanaway and his 72 million dollar severance package at Cigna.

You are right, greed has ruined American health care.
Your greedy ass expecting someone else to pay for your health care bills.

No, my expectation was that if I pay for insurance, I should get insurance.

Remember, this is the Plutocrats plan. "Don't have universal coverage. Trust us. We'll give you insurance if you work for us. Honest. Would we lie?"

Never had one of these mother-fuckers who didn't lie to me.

I guess I did better than the guy whose 17 year old daughter died because Cigna wouldn't spring for her liver transplant.

No, business hates the insurance model. Unions love it. It started because of unions in WWII Joe. Wage controls banned them from paying more during the war so they offered free health insurance to lure workers to defense plants.
You union guys fucked it up. Before that everyone was responsible for their own health care.
Business, just like they did when they were smart and went away from pensions plans into contribution plans, want employees to be in charge of their own affairs and make their own decisions.
Group health care alone brought GM down. At one time their unfunded future health care costs for retirees was over $1K a car plus the over 1K a car for existing employees.

 

[Gadawg73]

Now we also have them claiming that Romney NOT being a right wing religious was a bad thing.
Amazing.

Romney lost because he put Plutocracy on the ballot.

Christianity would probalby win an election pretty easily.

I agree as communists and socialists can not stand free enterprise.
They look down on those of us that save our money and invest it.
Stalin would be proud.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm not saying the conservative ticket will win at the moment. That is not what I said at all. But, what I did say was that Romney is a liberal who tried to trick conservatives into believing he was "one of the good ole boys". He failed... he lost.

Romney's only good month, October, happened when he finally and abruptly pivoted away from pandering to his rabid base and etch-a-sketched his way to moderation before our very eyes in the first debate (leaving many observers, the President apparently included, slack-jawed in amazement). Yet the softening of his positions and rhetoric didn't drive away the rightwing base, it actually consolidated it because they finally felt like they were backing a winner.

If you want to run candidates who can't even try to credibly make that pivot back to the mainstream, then you're not even going to get as close as Romney got.

That is all well and good if all you care about is winning and the hell with your principles.

However, you and Gadawg73, make it sound like you actually believed Romney is a conservative. That is laughable at best. He's not even a moderate for crying out loud.

The "rightwing base" as you put it had to support Romney because they had been screaming "Anybody but Obama" for 2 frigging years. If Ted Kennedy were still alive and happened to switch parties (yes, I know that is not at all likely, but just go with this) and claimed he had seen the light, they would have supported Kennedy over Obama.

The rightwing base sold out its principles to beat Obama. Those who felt their principles were more valuable than the White House said "Screw that, I'm not voting for him just because he has an (R) behind his name". By the way, I won't be voting for the next (R) just because he has an (R) after his or her name in four years either.

I consider myself middle right. I would not have supported Rick Santorum either. I have almost as much disdain for the far right as I do the far left. Basically, I am not represented by either of the two Democratic Parties.

Immie

 

[Gadawg73]

I'm not saying the conservative ticket will win at the moment. That is not what I said at all. But, what I did say was that Romney is a liberal who tried to trick conservatives into believing he was "one of the good ole boys". He failed... he lost.

Romney's only good month, October, happened when he finally and abruptly pivoted away from pandering to his rabid base and etch-a-sketched his way to moderation before our very eyes in the first debate (leaving many observers, the President apparently included, slack-jawed in amazement). Yet the softening of his positions and rhetoric didn't drive away the rightwing base, it actually consolidated it because they finally felt like they were backing a winner.

If you want to run candidates who can't even try to credibly make that pivot back to the mainstream, then you're not even going to get as close as Romney got.

That is all well and good if all you care about is winning and the hell with your principles.

However, you and Gadawg73, make it sound like you actually believed Romney is a conservative. That is laughable at best. He's not even a moderate for crying out loud.

The "rightwing base" as you put it had to support Romney because they had been screaming "Anybody but Obama" for 2 frigging years. If Ted Kennedy were still alive and happened to switch parties (yes, I know that is not at all likely, but just go with this) and claimed he had seen the light, they would have supported Kennedy over Obama.

The rightwing base sold out its principles to beat Obama. Those who felt their principles were more valuable than the White House said "Screw that, I'm not voting for him just because he has an (R) behind his name".

Immie

Tell me how Romney is NOT a fiscal conservative?
His fiscal conservatism has made many companies profitable and it turned around the Olympics he took over.
Social conservatism is not true Republican conservatism. Social conservatism is based on religious beliefs and they have no place in politics.
Goldwater predicted this 40 years with his opposition to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell spreading their negative influences in the party.
You may like losing with your social conservatism but we don't.
Fact is Romney towed the line with the Republican platform with it's anti abortion and anti gay marriage nonsense. That alone got our ass kicked again.
Romney has a long history of fiscal conservatism and the time was NOW for that in this country.
Focusing on fiscal conservatism only is what solves our budget crisis and debt.

 

[Immanuel]

Romney's only good month, October, happened when he finally and abruptly pivoted away from pandering to his rabid base and etch-a-sketched his way to moderation before our very eyes in the first debate (leaving many observers, the President apparently included, slack-jawed in amazement). Yet the softening of his positions and rhetoric didn't drive away the rightwing base, it actually consolidated it because they finally felt like they were backing a winner.

If you want to run candidates who can't even try to credibly make that pivot back to the mainstream, then you're not even going to get as close as Romney got.

That is all well and good if all you care about is winning and the hell with your principles.

However, you and Gadawg73, make it sound like you actually believed Romney is a conservative. That is laughable at best. He's not even a moderate for crying out loud.

The "rightwing base" as you put it had to support Romney because they had been screaming "Anybody but Obama" for 2 frigging years. If Ted Kennedy were still alive and happened to switch parties (yes, I know that is not at all likely, but just go with this) and claimed he had seen the light, they would have supported Kennedy over Obama.

The rightwing base sold out its principles to beat Obama. Those who felt their principles were more valuable than the White House said "Screw that, I'm not voting for him just because he has an (R) behind his name".

Immie

Tell me how Romney is NOT a fiscal conservative?
His fiscal conservatism has made many companies profitable and it turned around the Olympics he took over.
Social conservatism is not true Republican conservatism. Social conservatism is based on religious beliefs and they have no place in politics.
Goldwater predicted this 40 years with his opposition to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell spreading their negative influences in the party.
You may like losing with your social conservatism but we don't.
Fact is Romney towed the line with the Republican platform with it's anti abortion and anti gay marriage nonsense. That alone got our ass kicked again.
Romney has a long history of fiscal conservatism and the time was NOW for that in this country.
Focusing on fiscal conservatism only is what solves our budget crisis and debt.

Fiscal conservatism (more accurately fiscal responsibility) is the only thing the will solve the budget crisis, but there is not a damned bit of evidence to prove that Romney is fiscally conservative when it comes to government.

Remember, he brought Mass the precurser to Obamacare and despite his rhetoric he would not have overturned it. He is no more "anti-Obamacare" than Obama. He is no more "anti-abortion" than Obama nor is he anymore "anti-gay" than Obama not that either one of those last two ideas is the answer to their respective problems. Over turning Roe is not going to end abortions and quite frankly is not the answer to ending or even reducing abortions.

Romney is no different than Bush or Obama. He would have given us four to eight years of reduced taxes on the rich and more spending because that is what his owners want. What we need is someone that is willing to increase tax revenue even if that means increasing tax rates among the rich AND cut spending. Neither Romney nor Obama would or will do that. Both parties are poised to send us over the "fiscal cliff". We are a runaway train headed for a bridge that collapsed years ago.

And the diehards in both parties are the coal that powers that train.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Oh and by the way, Gadawg73, I didn't say "social conservatism" is the answer to winning elections, but I will say this, I'll be damned if I am going to support a party that jumps from so-called "social conservatism" to down right social progressivism just to win a frigging election, which is exactly what the Republican Party is doing.

Screw that... from one extreme to the other. No, frigging way!

Immie

 

[freedombecki]

That is all well and good if all you care about is winning and the hell with your principles.

However, you and Gadawg73, make it sound like you actually believed Romney is a conservative. That is laughable at best. He's not even a moderate for crying out loud.

The "rightwing base" as you put it had to support Romney because they had been screaming "Anybody but Obama" for 2 frigging years. If Ted Kennedy were still alive and happened to switch parties (yes, I know that is not at all likely, but just go with this) and claimed he had seen the light, they would have supported Kennedy over Obama.

The rightwing base sold out its principles to beat Obama. Those who felt their principles were more valuable than the White House said "Screw that, I'm not voting for him just because he has an (R) behind his name".

Immie

Tell me how Romney is NOT a fiscal conservative?
His fiscal conservatism has made many companies profitable and it turned around the Olympics he took over.
Social conservatism is not true Republican conservatism. Social conservatism is based on religious beliefs and they have no place in politics.
Goldwater predicted this 40 years with his opposition to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell spreading their negative influences in the party.
You may like losing with your social conservatism but we don't.
Fact is Romney towed the line with the Republican platform with it's anti abortion and anti gay marriage nonsense. That alone got our ass kicked again.
Romney has a long history of fiscal conservatism and the time was NOW for that in this country.
Focusing on fiscal conservatism only is what solves our budget crisis and debt.

Fiscal conservatism (more accurately fiscal responsibility) is the only thing the will solve the budget crisis, but there is not a damned bit of evidence to prove that Romney is fiscally conservative when it comes to government.

Remember, he brought Mass the precurser to Obamacare and despite his rhetoric he would not have overturned it. He is no more "anti-Obamacare" than Obama. He is no more "anti-abortion" than Obama nor is he anymore "anti-gay" than Obama not that either one of those last two ideas is the answer to their respective problems. Over turning Roe is not going to end abortions and quite frankly is not the answer to ending or even reducing abortions.

Romney is no different than Bush or Obama. He would have given us four to eight years of reduced taxes on the rich and more spending because that is what his owners want. What we need is someone that is willing to increase tax revenue even if that means increasing tax rates among the rich AND cut spending. Neither Romney nor Obama would or will do that. Both parties are poised to send us over the "fiscal cliff". We are a runaway train headed for a bridge that collapsed years ago.

And the diehards in both parties are the coal that powers that train.

Immie

Immanuel "there is not a damned bit of evidence to prove that Romney is fiscally conservative when it comes to government."

The people of the State of Massachusetts, who generally vote Democrat, voted for Romney for their governor to avoid the bankruptcy overspending drove them to. He did just that. He also saved the Olympics in Utah so they could host the winter games a few years back. Romney's heart is for the good of the American people, to help them as best he can. For that reason, he is a winner, and he always will be in my heart.

I'm not persuaded by calumny and union bullying the nation to its knees with its ambitions to make sure nobody gets the American dream in a future of threatening people and forcing them to do unthinkable things to attain a desired goal.

 

[Gadawg73]

That is all well and good if all you care about is winning and the hell with your principles.

However, you and Gadawg73, make it sound like you actually believed Romney is a conservative. That is laughable at best. He's not even a moderate for crying out loud.

The "rightwing base" as you put it had to support Romney because they had been screaming "Anybody but Obama" for 2 frigging years. If Ted Kennedy were still alive and happened to switch parties (yes, I know that is not at all likely, but just go with this) and claimed he had seen the light, they would have supported Kennedy over Obama.

The rightwing base sold out its principles to beat Obama. Those who felt their principles were more valuable than the White House said "Screw that, I'm not voting for him just because he has an (R) behind his name".

Immie

Tell me how Romney is NOT a fiscal conservative?
His fiscal conservatism has made many companies profitable and it turned around the Olympics he took over.
Social conservatism is not true Republican conservatism. Social conservatism is based on religious beliefs and they have no place in politics.
Goldwater predicted this 40 years with his opposition to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell spreading their negative influences in the party.
You may like losing with your social conservatism but we don't.
Fact is Romney towed the line with the Republican platform with it's anti abortion and anti gay marriage nonsense. That alone got our ass kicked again.
Romney has a long history of fiscal conservatism and the time was NOW for that in this country.
Focusing on fiscal conservatism only is what solves our budget crisis and debt.

Fiscal conservatism (more accurately fiscal responsibility) is the only thing the will solve the budget crisis, but there is not a damned bit of evidence to prove that Romney is fiscally conservative when it comes to government.

Remember, he brought Mass the precurser to Obamacare and despite his rhetoric he would not have overturned it. He is no more "anti-Obamacare" than Obama. He is no more "anti-abortion" than Obama nor is he anymore "anti-gay" than Obama not that either one of those last two ideas is the answer to their respective problems. Over turning Roe is not going to end abortions and quite frankly is not the answer to ending or even reducing abortions.

Romney is no different than Bush or Obama. He would have given us four to eight years of reduced taxes on the rich and more spending because that is what his owners want. What we need is someone that is willing to increase tax revenue even if that means increasing tax rates among the rich AND cut spending. Neither Romney nor Obama would or will do that. Both parties are poised to send us over the "fiscal cliff". We are a runaway train headed for a bridge that collapsed years ago.

And the diehards in both parties are the coal that powers that train.

Immie

If anything YOU are not conservative enough.
You never tax yourself out of deficits.
Econ 101: decrease taxes and revenue increases. The pie grows.
When you increase taxes on the wealthy what do they do? Put their $$ into tax free municipal bonds and other tax free investments.
Now changing the tax code is another matter and Romney was for that.
3 largest out of control spending programs:
1.Medicare: TRAIN WRECK but seniors want no change. Needed: massive cuts NOW, no excuses. Why we pay blank check medical care for the wealthy is absurd and criminal. End that now.
2. Social Security: end early age 62 retirement NOW. Mandatory retesting of everyone on social security disability and get those off of it that can walk and are sane.
3. Defense: end both wars and close obsolete military bases. Additionally, if a service members disability is not in war time and they can still work we need to restructure the current disability program they have that now has over 50% of retiring and enlistment up soldiers receiving some form of permanent disability pay.

Work on those 3 and there is 500 billion a year there.

 

[JoeB131]

No, business hates the insurance model. Unions love it. It started because of unions in WWII Joe. Wage controls banned them from paying more during the war so they offered free health insurance to lure workers to defense plants.
You union guys fucked it up. Before that everyone was responsible for their own health care.
Business, just like they did when they were smart and went away from pensions plans into contribution plans, want employees to be in charge of their own affairs and make their own decisions.
Group health care alone brought GM down. At one time their unfunded future health care costs for retirees was over $1K a car plus the over 1K a car for existing employees.

Guy, you are starting to sound more and more like a shrilll dittohead... seriously.

Business hates the insurance model now because it costs too much. 20 years ago, they had a hissy when Hillary tried to transition us to single payer.

And the 401K is the biggest scam on the planet, really. Another excuse for Wall Street to play games with the rest of our money.

Now, you do almost have a non-retarded point about retirees... yes, GM Has a lot of retirees, and it's unfunded because instead of putting money aside for that, GM was buying big office buildings and paying huge salaries for executives and other bullshit like that.

Simple enough solution. Single payer, government pays for everything, rich pay their fair share of taxes to pay for it all.

Just like every other industrialized country does.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Econ 101: decrease taxes and revenue increases. The pie grows.
When you increase taxes on the wealthy what do they do? Put their $$ into tax free municipal bonds and other tax free investments.
.

Wow, it's someone who believes in the Supply Side Fairy. Wow.

 

[JoeB131]

Now we also have them claiming that Romney NOT being a right wing religious was a bad thing.
Amazing.

Romney lost because he put Plutocracy on the ballot.

Christianity would probalby win an election pretty easily.

I agree as communists and socialists can not stand free enterprise.
They look down on those of us that save our money and invest it.
Stalin would be proud.

We look down on rich people who act like douchebags.

As well we should.

 

[Gadawg73]

No, business hates the insurance model. Unions love it. It started because of unions in WWII Joe. Wage controls banned them from paying more during the war so they offered free health insurance to lure workers to defense plants.
You union guys fucked it up. Before that everyone was responsible for their own health care.
Business, just like they did when they were smart and went away from pensions plans into contribution plans, want employees to be in charge of their own affairs and make their own decisions.
Group health care alone brought GM down. At one time their unfunded future health care costs for retirees was over $1K a car plus the over 1K a car for existing employees.

Guy, you are starting to sound more and more like a shrilll dittohead... seriously.

Business hates the insurance model now because it costs too much. 20 years ago, they had a hissy when Hillary tried to transition us to single payer.

And the 401K is the biggest scam on the planet, really. Another excuse for Wall Street to play games with the rest of our money.

Now, you do almost have a non-retarded point about retirees... yes, GM Has a lot of retirees, and it's unfunded because instead of putting money aside for that, GM was buying big office buildings and paying huge salaries for executives and other bullshit like that.

Simple enough solution. Single payer, government pays for everything, rich pay their fair share of taxes to pay for it all.

Just like every other industrialized country does.

401K a scam? How so? My son at age 26 already has 20K in his. Tell him that is a scam.
How does GM put "money aside" WHEN IT HAS NO MONEY TO PUT ASIDE?
Love you honey but you need just a bit of economics taught to you to understand that the car industry has been so competitive for 50 years that THEY have to model their benefit packages along with the competition OR THEY GO BROKE just like GM did.
GM salary structure for management was one of the lowest in the industry.
The rich pay their fair share now and more.
I am open to single payer.

 

[Gadawg73]

[
Econ 101: decrease taxes and revenue increases. The pie grows.
When you increase taxes on the wealthy what do they do? Put their $$ into tax free municipal bonds and other tax free investments.
.

Wow, it's someone who believes in the Supply Side Fairy. Wow.

You do not have a clue what "supply side" is.
What I am speaking is GROWING ECONOMY.
Now Joe, what was the population in 1900 in America?
Are you claiming that in 1900 WE HAD THE SAME AMOUNT OF ASSETTS AND MONEY in the economy as now? That everytime more workers come into the workforce there is the same amount of money in the money supply? That assets never increase and investments always stay the same.

You are lost dude! You have zero sense in economics. The economy is ALWAYS growing, always faster when government keeps it's hands out of it.
You believe the pie always stays the same and you folks have a small piece. FALSE. The pie is ALWAYS growing, as long as government stays the hell out of it.
Stick to the hammers.