Romney deliberately lost election

[whitehall]

Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care

the 2-party system is a fraud

This is pretty convoluted stuff even for a conspiracy theory. Let me get this straight, the allegations are that Romney could not protect "Romney-care" (Obama care) if he was elected?

 

[dcraelin]

Romney deliberately lost election to protect insurance companies and Romney/Obama care

the 2-party system is a fraud

This is pretty convoluted stuff even for a conspiracy theory. Let me get this straight, the allegations are that Romney could not protect "Romney-care" (Obama care) if he was elected?

Well, he could have,everyone thought he was lying on the subject anyway, but it would've been tougher.

But the real benefit of electing a rock-star cult-of-personality type like Obama is that you can get the dumb young saps that supported him to believe it is in their interests to sign up for Romneycare. The plan is heavily funded on the backs of these star struck fools.

 

[MisterBeale]

Actually, it was kind of hard for Romney to really attack Obama on gay marriage, given the first state to legalize it was on his watch as Governor.

But the real problem was, that wasn't a hill Romney wanted to fight on.

The kind of people who were against gay marriage were the kind of people who were never going to vote for Obama to start with.

those "kind of people" could just have stayed home...and appears they may have
Romney supposedly made other attempts to gain their support...why would he go out of his way to snub them on this??? He could have just made no comment

No, they really didn't.

Romney did not lose because Conservatives stayed home.

Romney lost because moderates didn't vote for him. Just like they didn't vote for McCain.

Here's the thing. Romney got slightly more votes- 60 million- than McCain did with 59 million, and only slightly less than the 62 million Bush-43 got in 2004. In short, the swing for the GOP base as only about 3 million either way.

And it's a lot easier to believe that Bush's 2 million margin were moderates who simply were not going to vote out an incumbant president in the middle of a war who weren't too keen on voting for more war 4 or 8 years later when everyone was sick of the whole thing.

Seems to make sense.

Or to look at it another way... let's look at race.

Bush got 58% of the White vote, McCain got 55%, Romney actually IMPROVED on both of them and got 59%. In short, if your profile of the "missing" voter is a white guy of conservative leanings, Romney was all over that shit.

But where he lost ground is with blacks- 11% for Bush compared to 6% for Romney, (McCain got 4%) With Asians, Bush got 44%, McCain dropped to 35% and Romney got 26%

And more importantly, with hispanics.

Bush got a repectable 44% of the Hispanic vote, something I give him credit for working VERY HARD to build bridges. McCain dropped that down to 31%. Probably because after being a reasonable guy on immigration, he went ahead and embraced the Tancrazies. Romny got all of 27% of the Hispanic vote.

Sorry, Romney did not lose because he was failing to suck up to the white religious crazies...

It was everyone else he managed to drive off in the process.

You're absolutely correct Joe. But you are looking at the individual brush strokes Joe, you are not looking at the painting.

You just aren't aware of how the power brokers in the elite circles operate. If they wanted to divide the parties and split the nation, if they wanted to make sure Obama stayed in office, who better to give their nod to helm the Republican nomination?

None of what you have written, at all, discredits in anyway dcraelin's theory. All it does, is perhaps give us a window into what and how the political elites were thinking when they were considering who they should chose to make sure they could ensure a sitting POTUS, with such dismal performance polls, could possibly be re-elected.

Thanks for such a insightful and incisive commentary.

 

[JoeB131]

In short, if your profile of the "missing" voter is a white guy of conservative leanings, Romney was all over that shit.

what percentage of the gay vote did Romney get?

again I say
Romney supposedly made other attempts to gain their support...why would he go out of his way to snub them on this??? He could have just made no comment

I dont trust your numbers anyway, there was much less exit polling done last time around than in years before as I understand it. The better to cloud the race with made-up numbers.

Now you are getting to the essential problem of Romney.

No, not that he belonged to an inbred cult of evil idiots, which is why I didn't vote for him.

The problem with Romney is that he HAD no core convictions. He was a moderate to liberal in MA because that was the of politician he had to be to get elected.

He was a right wing asshole who embraced homophobia in the GOP primaries because that's what you had to be to win that.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You're absolutely correct Joe. But you are looking at the individual brush strokes Joe, you are not looking at the painting.

You just aren't aware of how the power brokers in the elite circles operate. If they wanted to divide the parties and split the nation, if they wanted to make sure Obama stayed in office, who better to give their nod to helm the Republican nomination?

None of what you have written, at all, discredits in anyway dcraelin's theory. All it does, is perhaps give us a window into what and how the political elites were thinking when they were considering who they should chose to make sure they could ensure a sitting POTUS, with such dismal performance polls, could possibly be re-elected.

Thanks for such a insightful and incisive commentary.

Here's the problem with your whole theory.

It would assume that there was a "Real Conservative" ready to take up the mantle.

Who was that, exactly?

 

[dcraelin]

also on those numbers, u assume it is white conservatives who may have been turned off. I remember after prop 8 it was said that a higher turnout of blacks was why Prop 8 became law. Blacks were on average more socially conservative. So the people Romney may have turned off were socially conservative blacks in swing states. They may have seen Romneys statement and determined there was really no difference between the two on that issue,..so it may have freed them up to vote for Obama or perhaps they.....and also conservative Hispanics....stayed home.

And I do remember seeing that Obama got some 5 million fewer votes his second time around.

 

[JoeB131]

also on those numbers, u assume it is white conservatives who may have been turned off. I remember after prop 8 it was said that a higher turnout of blacks was why Prop 8 became law. Blacks were on average more socially conservative. So the people Romney may have turned off were socially conservative blacks in swing states. They may have seen Romneys statement and determined there was really no difference between the two on that issue,..so it may have freed them up to vote for Obama or perhaps they.....and also conservative Hispanics....stayed home.

And I do remember seeing that Obama got some 5 million fewer votes his second time around.

Yes, he got less votes, although it was closer to 3 million less than 5 million.

But when you look at the state by state number, turnout was UP in the 10 swing states while it was DOWN in the 40 states where there really wasn't a contest. In short, meh, if you knew california was going to go blue, no point knocking yourself out to get to the polling place.

Bottom line, Romney's stance on gay marriage isn't what killed him. It was his inability to connect with average folks because he's never had to worry about paying a bill on time.

 

[MisterBeale]

[

You're absolutely correct Joe. But you are looking at the individual brush strokes Joe, you are not looking at the painting.

You just aren't aware of how the power brokers in the elite circles operate. If they wanted to divide the parties and split the nation, if they wanted to make sure Obama stayed in office, who better to give their nod to helm the Republican nomination?

None of what you have written, at all, discredits in anyway dcraelin's theory. All it does, is perhaps give us a window into what and how the political elites were thinking when they were considering who they should chose to make sure they could ensure a sitting POTUS, with such dismal performance polls, could possibly be re-elected.

Thanks for such a insightful and incisive commentary.

Here's the problem with your whole theory.

It would assume that there was a "Real Conservative" ready to take up the mantle.

Who was that, exactly?

God Damn you can be so coy some times.

Are you trying to pull teeth, are you obtuse, or are you purposely employing the Socratic method?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruSqkSAdWUw]Rockefeller scared of Ron Paul - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plo-1rLZ3Jo&list=FLqAeF3zEY5mcCaq3ysBo3rw&index=5]Ron Paul talks about the Bilderberg Group - YouTube[/ame]

 

[dcraelin]

Bottom line, Romney's stance on gay marriage isn't what killed him. It was his inability to connect with average folks because he's never had to worry about paying a bill on time.

Yes he was the perfect foil for Obama.

well it wasnt gay marriage anyway, (his campaign was officially against gay marriage.) Didnt say it was single thing that killed him, just perhaps another factor, a needless statement on his part.

Again I say the real benefit of electing a rock-star cult-of-personality type like Obama is that you can get the dumb young saps that supported him to believe it is in their interests to sign up for Romneycare. The plan is heavily funded on the backs of these star struck fools

 

[JoeB131]

Bottom line, Romney's stance on gay marriage isn't what killed him. It was his inability to connect with average folks because he's never had to worry about paying a bill on time.

Yes he was the perfect foil for Obama.

well it wasnt gay marriage anyway, (his campaign was officially against gay marriage.) Didnt say it was single thing that killed him, just perhaps another factor, a needless statement on his part.

Again I say the real benefit of electing a rock-star cult-of-personality type like Obama is that you can get the dumb young saps that supported him to believe it is in their interests to sign up for Romneycare. The plan is heavily funded on the backs of these star struck fools

Actually it was one single thing that killed him.

The minute he blurted out his "47%" comments, he was done. He outed himself as a heartless plutocrat. He was done at that point.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You're absolutely correct Joe. But you are looking at the individual brush strokes Joe, you are not looking at the painting.

You just aren't aware of how the power brokers in the elite circles operate. If they wanted to divide the parties and split the nation, if they wanted to make sure Obama stayed in office, who better to give their nod to helm the Republican nomination?

None of what you have written, at all, discredits in anyway dcraelin's theory. All it does, is perhaps give us a window into what and how the political elites were thinking when they were considering who they should chose to make sure they could ensure a sitting POTUS, with such dismal performance polls, could possibly be re-elected.

Thanks for such a insightful and incisive commentary.

Here's the problem with your whole theory.

It would assume that there was a "Real Conservative" ready to take up the mantle.

Who was that, exactly?

God Damn you can be so coy some times.

Are you trying to pull teeth, are you obtuse, or are you purposely employing the Socratic method?

]

Ron Paul is batshit crazy.

People who support Ron Paul are Batshit crazy.

 

[mudwhistle]

I think McCain threw the election, but Romney may have seen the hand writing on the wall.

After he clobbered Obama in the first debate and witnessed media malpractice by a moderator during the second debate, Romney must have felt that the whole electoral system was already rigged to re-elect that stuttering clusterfuck.

 

[JoeB131]

I think McCain threw the election, but Romney may have seen the hand writing on the wall.

After he clobbered Obama in the first debate and witnessed media malpractice by a moderator during the second debate, Romney must have felt that the whole electoral system was already rigged to re-elect that stuttering clusterfuck.

Yes, it was media malpractice for Romney to insist that Obama hadn't called Benghazi an act of terrorism when he actually had.

Guy, has it ever occurred to you that people just voted for Obama because they like him and they didn't like your guys?

 

[mudwhistle]

I think McCain threw the election, but Romney may have seen the hand writing on the wall.

After he clobbered Obama in the first debate and witnessed media malpractice by a moderator during the second debate, Romney must have felt that the whole electoral system was already rigged to re-elect that stuttering clusterfuck.

Yes, it was media malpractice for Romney to insist that Obama hadn't called Benghazi an act of terrorism when he actually had.

Guy, has it ever occurred to you that people just voted for Obama because they like him and they didn't like your guys?

Nope.


Next stupid question.

BTW, Obama didn't call it an act of terrorism. He was speaking generically about all acts of terrorism. It's impossible for any rational person to claim he was calling it terrorism at the same moment he was blaming Benghazi on a video and was the result of protests. I guess we're getting used to the constant parsing of words from the left. It's basically a failure to admit when they were wrong, nothing else.

 

[JoeB131]

I think McCain threw the election, but Romney may have seen the hand writing on the wall.

After he clobbered Obama in the first debate and witnessed media malpractice by a moderator during the second debate, Romney must have felt that the whole electoral system was already rigged to re-elect that stuttering clusterfuck.

Yes, it was media malpractice for Romney to insist that Obama hadn't called Benghazi an act of terrorism when he actually had.

Guy, has it ever occurred to you that people just voted for Obama because they like him and they didn't like your guys?

Nope.


Next stupid question.

BTW, Obama didn't call it an act of terrorism. He was speaking generically about all acts of terrorism. It's impossible for any rational person to claim he was calling it terrorism at the same moment he was blaming Benghazi on a video and was the result of protests. I guess we're getting used to the constant parsing of words from the left. It's basically a failure to admit when they were wrong, nothing else.

Of course it would never occur to you.

Here's a clue. People don't vote AGAINST someone. They vote FOR someone.

Romney did not give people a good reason to vote FOR him.

That's why he lost.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes, it was media malpractice for Romney to insist that Obama hadn't called Benghazi an act of terrorism when he actually had.

Guy, has it ever occurred to you that people just voted for Obama because they like him and they didn't like your guys?

Nope.


Next stupid question.

BTW, Obama didn't call it an act of terrorism. He was speaking generically about all acts of terrorism. It's impossible for any rational person to claim he was calling it terrorism at the same moment he was blaming Benghazi on a video and was the result of protests. I guess we're getting used to the constant parsing of words from the left. It's basically a failure to admit when they were wrong, nothing else.

Of course it would never occur to you.

Here's a clue. People don't vote AGAINST someone. They vote FOR someone.

Romney did not give people a good reason to vote FOR him.

That's why he lost.

You are so wrong. People do vote against someone.

Ask just about any non-black Obama supporter. They can't really say what they like about Obama's policies but they know that Romney is a rich bastard that hates poor folks, homosexuals, and blacks.

When it comes to black voters they really don't care what Obama stands for. He's black and that's all that matters. Their deep-seated racism overrules their common-sense.


Another factor you didn't consider, many GOP voters were turned off by the negativity of the campaign so they simple didn't show up in great enough numbers to counter the Democrat ballot-box stuffing going on in swing states.

 

[JoeB131]

You are so wrong. People do vote against someone.

Ask just about any non-black Obama supporter. They can't really say what they like about Obama's policies but they know that Romney is a rich bastard that hates poor folks, homosexuals, and blacks.

When it comes to black voters they really don't care what Obama stands for. He's black and that's all that matters. Their deep-seated racism overrules their common-sense.


Another factor you didn't consider, many GOP voters were turned off by the negativity of the campaign so they simple didn't show up in great enough numbers to counter the Democrat ballot-box stuffing going on in swing states.

Guy, Black folks have been voting for White People for president ever since they got the vote.

Fact is, Obama did as well with blacks as Kerry or Gore did.

I did some very good analysis of GOP voters, but the reality is, the difference between Dubya Bush in 2004 and McCain in 2008 (romney came in between them) was all of 2.5 million votes. the notion that GOP voters stayed home or were turned off or any of the other nonsense you guys spew is just silly.

McCain and Romney lost because the GOP has not shown itself as capable of governing. People don't trust it anymore, and for good reason.

Romney made the decision early on that he was going to just appeal to White People. And to his credit, he got the white vote- 59% of it. He kissed Donald Trumps ring and did a shout out to the Birfers...

But Blacks, Hispanic and Asians voted against him overwealmingly and he lost.

This is the problem the GOP needs to fix. Well, one of many. Getting on the right side of working folks and women would probably help, too.

 

[mudwhistle]

You are so wrong. People do vote against someone.

Ask just about any non-black Obama supporter. They can't really say what they like about Obama's policies but they know that Romney is a rich bastard that hates poor folks, homosexuals, and blacks.

When it comes to black voters they really don't care what Obama stands for. He's black and that's all that matters. Their deep-seated racism overrules their common-sense.


Another factor you didn't consider, many GOP voters were turned off by the negativity of the campaign so they simple didn't show up in great enough numbers to counter the Democrat ballot-box stuffing going on in swing states.

Guy, Black folks have been voting for White People for president ever since they got the vote.

Fact is, Obama did as well with blacks as Kerry or Gore did.

I did some very good analysis of GOP voters, but the reality is, the difference between Dubya Bush in 2004 and McCain in 2008 (romney came in between them) was all of 2.5 million votes. the notion that GOP voters stayed home or were turned off or any of the other nonsense you guys spew is just silly.

McCain and Romney lost because the GOP has not shown itself as capable of governing. People don't trust it anymore, and for good reason.

Romney made the decision early on that he was going to just appeal to White People. And to his credit, he got the white vote- 59% of it. He kissed Donald Trumps ring and did a shout out to the Birfers...

But Blacks, Hispanic and Asians voted against him overwealmingly and he lost.

This is the problem the GOP needs to fix. Well, one of many. Getting on the right side of working folks and women would probably help, too.

Why don't you give me a quote showing that Romney only wanted the support of whites.

And don't bring up the 47% comment because that has nothing to do with race.

I mean, do you honestly want to claim that the character assassination that was going on, claiming that Romney murdered a steelworker's wife, wasn't simply a tried and tested exercise in demonizing the opponent when you know that your candidate sucks to high Heaven.

Blacks and Hispanics make up a grand total of maybe 20% of the total Democrat base. Fact is Obama had to fudge the numbers to get over the top. He had fewer votes than Gore or Bush yet he still won.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Why don't you give me a quote showing that Romney only wanted the support of whites.

How about, "No one has ever had to ask Ann and I where we were born!"That's a direct slap in the face of all people of color. Not to mention embracing Trump and Limbaugh and all the other insane crap they said.

[

I mean, do you honestly want to claim that the character assassination that was going on, claiming that Romney murdered a steelworker's wife, wasn't simply a tried and tested exercise in demonizing the opponent when you know that your candidate sucks to high Heaven.

No, it was addressing Romney's rationale for running. He was not running on what a great governor he was. He was running on how he was an awesome businessman and how he would run government like a business.

That Steelworker was a victim of Romney's business practices. His plant was looted for every ounce of equity and he and his co-workers were thrown out on the street without health insurance or pensions. As a result, his wife didn't have coverage when she got cancer. It's a valid discussion.

Blacks and Hispanics make up a grand total of maybe 20% of the total Democrat base. Fact is Obama had to fudge the numbers to get over the top. He had fewer votes than Gore or Bush yet he still won.

That's not true, either.

Obama got 65,446,032 in 2012
He got 69,297,997 in 2008

Bush got 62,039,073 in 2004 and only 50,456,062 in 2000.

Al Gore got 50,996,582 in 2000.

Now, if saying there was ballot box stuffing or whatever helps you sleep better at night, that's fine.

The simpler explanation is that the GOP has alienated minorities, women, working folks and people who want their government to work right, and nothing you are doing now is fixing THOSE problems.

 

[MisterBeale]

[

You're absolutely correct Joe. But you are looking at the individual brush strokes Joe, you are not looking at the painting.

You just aren't aware of how the power brokers in the elite circles operate. If they wanted to divide the parties and split the nation, if they wanted to make sure Obama stayed in office, who better to give their nod to helm the Republican nomination?

None of what you have written, at all, discredits in anyway dcraelin's theory. All it does, is perhaps give us a window into what and how the political elites were thinking when they were considering who they should chose to make sure they could ensure a sitting POTUS, with such dismal performance polls, could possibly be re-elected.

Thanks for such a insightful and incisive commentary.

Here's the problem with your whole theory.

It would assume that there was a "Real Conservative" ready to take up the mantle.

Who was that, exactly?

Ron Paul is batshit crazy.

People who support Ron Paul are Batshit crazy.

Okay. . . so I'm just going to ignore your unsubstantiated vitriol, that is, largely made up of media propaganda. Because, let's face it, when you don't have an argument, invective will have to do, right?

So now you are pushing the whole notion that a "'Real Conservative' ready to take up the mantle," is what? Clinically insane? Has he been diagnosed as such?


And basically, let's face it, any person that is a "Real Conservative," our corporatist controlled media is going to smear and make the less intelligent among us that do not know how to think for themselves feel that the person is "batshit crazy."

You believe all of the policy positions that Ron Paul was for, the very things that made him a "Real Conservative," are the things that made him, "batshit crazy." Isn't that right?

States rights? Sound money, Austrian economic theory rather than Keynesian economic theory? A non-interventionist foreign policy? Allowing States to determine their own culture and social policies rather than the federal government? A tiny federal government strictly limited to what is enumerated and defined by the constitution? Yeah, that would be too simple. To people indoctrinated in State education, all that does probably sound, "batshit crazy."

You know, does this ring a bell?

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

It doesn't say anything about handing the power of handling finance, coin, and interest rates, liquidity injections, etc. all over to a private banking cartel (i.e. the "Federal Reserve"), to an international monetary fund or to a global trade union. If you read in there it does, maybe you're the one that needs to see the psychiatrist.

When the dollar is destroyed, it will be due to your support of your globalist politicians we can blame. Then we'll know who was really the crazy one. . . .