Why is GOP panicking over november election losses?

[AceRothstein]

Well I would say they are over reacting a bit, but not much. Fact is Obama should have been easy to beat. His record sucked. The Fact he not only won, but won easily is bound to make his opponents worried.

Obama didn't win easily.

He just has a better organization doing what needed to be done to get him re-elected. The states tried for fair election laws and the DoJ tied them up in court. Thousands of GIs never got to vote, same-day registration made it possible for Democrats to vote numerous times, vote-farming got out the vote for Obama even though they broke the law doing it. The election would have swung in Romney's favor with 500k more votes. It is believed that 3 mllion GOP votes didn't show. That's more than enough to change the outcome, but assholes on the right decided instead to shoot themselves in the foot. 8 million less Democrats voted yet Obama was still able to squeeze out enough to win. He needed 150% participation in battleground states to do it.

Do you have any links to back up any of these claims?

The only one I know that is accurate is that Romney getting 500k more votes in key states would have won him the election. That is still a lot of votes strategically placed though and mostly wishful thinking.

Nothing to back up any of this? That's what I thought.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Well I would say they are over reacting a bit, but not much. Fact is Obama should have been easy to beat. His record sucked. The Fact he not only won, but won easily is bound to make his opponents worried.

Obama didn't win easily.

He just has a better organization doing what needed to be done to get him re-elected. The states tried for fair election laws and the DoJ tied them up in court. Thousands of GIs never got to vote, same-day registration made it possible for Democrats to vote numerous times, vote-farming got out the vote for Obama even though they broke the law doing it. The election would have swung in Romney's favor with 500k more votes. It is believed that 3 mllion GOP votes didn't show. That's more than enough to change the outcome, but assholes on the right decided instead to shoot themselves in the foot. 8 million less Democrats voted yet Obama was still able to squeeze out enough to win. He needed 150% participation in battleground states to do it.

obama won because the media has been in his corner from the beginning. most american voters are not involved enoough to know what is really going on, so they rely on the biased media and hollyloonies to tell them how to vote.

If we had an unbiased media obama would still be a do-nothing senator from Ill.

LOL The "liberal media"..... such a tired old line.

Stop making excuses.

Obama won because flip-flop Romney was the best candidate the Republican party could put forward and he turned out to be an awful candidate. And that's aside from the fact that Obama has a following carrying over from his first term.

 

[boilermaker55]

So, if your statistics are correct and I don't know that, the republican BS about Acorn is such a moot subject.
Now though, the Republicans want to suppress voting in so called swing states so they and assure an election.
Not win one but assure winning by changing the rules.
Unbelievable in a Republic like the USA.

Republicans pulled in 900,000 more votes than they did in 2008. Democrats were down 3,800,000 million votes from 2008. The Democrat party better be worried, seeing Mitt was a horrible candidate and they best Dems can do next election is get a woman to run and play the "it's about time" card like they did with Obama's skin color.

 

[boilermaker55]

Probably what really made the election go the way it did, with the progressives supporting Obama and the 47% comment by Romney.
Plus the platform of the republican party that alienated many minority voters and the women vote.
Put them all together and you have a failed election.

 

[Seawytch]

[. Working blacks and hispanics are already becoming frustrated with the dem policies of high taxes and half the country on welfare.

2014 and 2016 will be anti-democrat years no matter who opposes the leftists.

Negros and hispos don't want to work. Their goal is to go on welfare and live off the white man.

Most conservatives and libertarians do not share your views on this----if you are serious in this post ^^^.

Comments like that do not help us remove the marxists from power.

Calling Democrats or liberals "Marxist" doesn't help your "side" either.

 

[Rinata]

what is "humane" about wanting all citizens to become slaves to the government? That is the obama/liberal/democrat goal, to have everyone dependent on the wonderful efficient caring government----------- are you ******* kidding?

Yep. Just keep up that kind of nonsense, and lose big in 2016, and 2020. Then see a third party supplant the present GOP, and the Republican Party goes the way of the Whigs. The present policies and ideology of the GOP is totally out of line with the demographics of this nation. Change or die.

I really don't care if the GOP dies and is replaced by some other party, as long as there is a counter to the left wing marxism of the democrats. Working blacks and hispanics are already becoming frustrated with the dem policies of high taxes and half the country on welfare.
2014 and 2016 will be anti-democrat years no matter who opposes the leftists.

That is not true. Are you talking about, "The Death Spiral States"? If so, you should read FactCheck.

On Nov. 25, 2012, Forbes.com published an article by William Baldwin, an investment strategies contributing writer, that asked, “Do You Live In A Death Spiral State?” Baldwin’s advice to readers was to avoid putting capital in financially troubled states where people “dependent on government” outnumber those working in the private sector.

“If your career takes you to Los Angeles or Chicago, don’t buy a house. Rent,” he wrote. “If you have money in municipal bonds, clean up the portfolio. Sell holdings from the sick states and reinvest where you’re less likely to get clipped.”

That list of “fiscal hellholes,” as Baldwin labeled them, included Ohio, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, South Carolina, New York, Maine, Alabama, California, Mississippi and New Mexico. And they are all highlighted in the graphic above, which was taken from segments of the Fox Business television program Varney & Co., where Baldwin’s reporting was later discussed.

But Baldwin’s definition of individuals “dependent on government” is stated incorrectly in the viral email as simply those on “welfare.” Baldwin wrote that, among the dependents, he included current state and local government employees, as well as former workers receiving government pensions. And he only counted Medicaid recipients as those on “welfare.”

And none of the 11 states on his list has more Medicaid recipients than workers. Also, none of the states has more recipients of other kinds of “welfare,” such as TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) or food stamps (officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

Baldwin told us in an interview that what he reported and what the email says “are not the same thing at all.”

‘Dependent on Government’

In determining the states on the “death spiral” list, Baldwin took two things into consideration: a state’s credit-worthiness ranking according to an analysis done by money management firm Conning & Co., and a state’s “taker/maker ratio,” which Baldwin himself calculated using figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other sources. That ratio has been misrepresented in the viral message above.

Even when using Baldwin’s definition of “welfare” — those enrolled in Medicaid — none of the states on the list has more enrollees than workers, whether in the private sector or overall.

FactCheck.org : ?Death Spiral? States?

 

[EriktheRed]

Republicans pulled in 900,000 more votes than they did in 2008. Democrats were down 3,800,000 million votes from 2008. The Democrat party better be worried, seeing Mitt was a horrible candidate and they best Dems can do next election is get a woman to run and play the "it's about time" card like they did with Obama's skin color.

You never have backed up that "white guilt" theory.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right, most responsible for the Romney defeat, flail wildly for any other scapegoats.

Poorly.

 

[candycorn]

Romney was a very weak candidate but still just barely lost the prez election and the repubs lost 2 senate seats and 8 house seats. In 2004 when bush won his second term over kerry, the dems lost 4 senate seats and 3 house seats.

Only reason repubs lost anything is because fatboy Chris Christie betrayed his own party and helped obozo. The GOP message of small govt and rule of law is still sound and they need to stop this nonsense about becoming dem-lite and giving more welfare and affirmative action to the negros and hispos.

Gee, I hope they take your advice. Perry in 2016!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Romney was a very weak candidate but still just barely lost the prez election and the repubs lost 2 senate seats and 8 house seats. In 2004 when bush won his second term over kerry, the dems lost 4 senate seats and 3 house seats.

Only reason repubs lost anything is because fatboy Chris Christie betrayed his own party and helped obozo. The GOP message of small govt and rule of law is still sound and they need to stop this nonsense about becoming dem-lite and giving more welfare and affirmative action to the negros and hispos.

Gee, I hope they take your advice. Perry in 2016!

Perry can't get more than 43% of the vote.

 

[candycorn]

Well I would say they are over reacting a bit, but not much. Fact is Obama should have been easy to beat. His record sucked. The Fact he not only won, but won easily is bound to make his opponents worried.

Obama didn't win easily.

He just has a better organization doing what needed to be done to get him re-elected. The states tried for fair election laws and the DoJ tied them up in court. Thousands of GIs never got to vote, same-day registration made it possible for Democrats to vote numerous times, vote-farming got out the vote for Obama even though they broke the law doing it. The election would have swung in Romney's favor with 500k more votes. It is believed that 3 mllion GOP votes didn't show. That's more than enough to change the outcome, but assholes on the right decided instead to shoot themselves in the foot. 8 million less Democrats voted yet Obama was still able to squeeze out enough to win. He needed 150% participation in battleground states to do it.

332-206 beeotch.

 

[candycorn]

Romney was a very weak candidate but still just barely lost the prez election and the repubs lost 2 senate seats and 8 house seats. In 2004 when bush won his second term over kerry, the dems lost 4 senate seats and 3 house seats.

Only reason repubs lost anything is because fatboy Chris Christie betrayed his own party and helped obozo. The GOP message of small govt and rule of law is still sound and they need to stop this nonsense about becoming dem-lite and giving more welfare and affirmative action to the negros and hispos.

Gee, I hope they take your advice. Perry in 2016!

Perry can't get more than 43% of the vote.

Yeah I know but who doesn't want a President that shoots wildlife while he walks his dog, wants to force 9 year old girls to get a deadly injection, re-invade Iraq and can't name 3 cabinet level departments of the government that he targeted for deletion?

 

[Dot Com]

Well I would say they are over reacting a bit, but not much. Fact is Obama should have been easy to beat. His record sucked. The Fact he not only won, but won easily is bound to make his opponents worried.

Obama didn't win easily.

He just has a better organization doing what needed to be done to get him re-elected. The states tried for fair election laws and the DoJ tied them up in court. Thousands of GIs never got to vote, same-day registration made it possible for Democrats to vote numerous times, vote-farming got out the vote for Obama even though they broke the law doing it. The election would have swung in Romney's favor with 500k more votes. It is believed that 3 mllion GOP votes didn't show. That's more than enough to change the outcome, but assholes on the right decided instead to shoot themselves in the foot. 8 million less Democrats voted yet Obama was still able to squeeze out enough to win. He needed 150% participation in battleground states to do it.

link/s?

[. Working blacks and hispanics are already becoming frustrated with the dem policies of high taxes and half the country on welfare.

2014 and 2016 will be anti-democrat years no matter who opposes the leftists.

Negros and hispos don't want to work. Their goal is to go on welfare and live off the white man.

^ why the Repubs keep losing

 

[JoeB131]

what is "humane" about wanting all citizens to become slaves to the government? That is the obama/liberal/democrat goal, to have everyone dependent on the wonderful efficient caring government----------- are you ******* kidding?

Yawn, whenever I hear a wingnut whine about "slavey" because someone asks him to pay a fair share for the stuff he uses, I just have to laugh.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Yawn, whenever I hear a wingnut whine about "slavey" because someone asks him to pay a fair share for the stuff he uses, I just have to laugh.

Is the percentage of my income making up my "fair share" more than your "fair share" ?

 

[JoeB131]

The far right, most responsible for the Romney defeat, flail wildly for any other scapegoats.

Poorly.

The person more responsible for the Romney defeat was Romney.

The second group were people like you who said Republicans needed to support ROmney because he was "electable".

 

[George Costanza]

Obama didn't win easily.

He just has a better organization doing what needed to be done to get him re-elected. The states tried for fair election laws and the DoJ tied them up in court. Thousands of GIs never got to vote, same-day registration made it possible for Democrats to vote numerous times, vote-farming got out the vote for Obama even though they broke the law doing it. The election would have swung in Romney's favor with 500k more votes. It is believed that 3 mllion GOP votes didn't show. That's more than enough to change the outcome, but assholes on the right decided instead to shoot themselves in the foot. 8 million less Democrats voted yet Obama was still able to squeeze out enough to win. He needed 150% participation in battleground states to do it.

obama won because the media has been in his corner from the beginning. most american voters are not involved enoough to know what is really going on, so they rely on the biased media and hollyloonies to tell them how to vote.

If we had an unbiased media obama would still be a do-nothing senator from Ill.

LOL The "liberal media"..... such a tired old line.

Stop making excuses.

Obama won because flip-flop Romney was the best candidate the Republican party could put forward and he turned out to be an awful candidate. And that's aside from the fact that Obama has a following carrying over from his first term.

I disagree. Obama won because current, Republican ideology is not acceptable to the majority of voters. The Republicans don't need new candidates - they need new IDEAS and new approaches to social issues. So much of the Republican presentation these days is just mean spirited diatribe, favorable only to a very small, wealthy, white portion of our society. As long as they keep that up, no sensible electorate is going to give them the time of day.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I disagree. Obama won because current, Republican ideology is not acceptable to the majority of voters. The Republicans don't need new candidates - they need new IDEAS and new approaches to social issues.

He won by less than 4% because he was the "cool black guy".

Nothing more.

 

[George Costanza]

I disagree. Obama won because current, Republican ideology is not acceptable to the majority of voters. The Republicans don't need new candidates - they need new IDEAS and new approaches to social issues.

He won by less than 4% because he was the "cool black guy".

Nothing more.

Keep telling yourself that. And keep right on espousing current, Republican ideology. And keep right on losing elections.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I disagree. Obama won because current, Republican ideology is not acceptable to the majority of voters. The Republicans don't need new candidates - they need new IDEAS and new approaches to social issues.

He won by less than 4% because he was the "cool black guy".

Nothing more.

Keep telling yourself that. And keep right on espousing current, Republican ideology. And keep right on losing elections.

What specific Republican ideology do you find the most damaging to their brand ?