Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: This Was Closer Than It Looks--How Romney Could Have Won

Universal Peach





Posts: 6613
(6613 all sites)
Registered: 11/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/7/2012 at 10:44 PM
While I am an Obama supporter, and glad that he won, I think some people are misrepresenting this election as being more of a landslide than it actually was. Romney was actually pretty close to winning this, and I'll tell you how it could have happened.

Romney ended up with 206 electoral votes, 64 away from the 270 needed to win. He could have done that by winning just 4 more states. Here is one way that could have happened.

FLORIDA (29 Electoral Votes)--The last state to be called, only 46,000 votes separate Obama and Romney. Even a small improvement by Romney in any one of several categories would have gotten him a win. This was a state the Romney camp thought they had in the bag, so they were spending money in places like Pennsylvania when that money might have put them over the top in Florida. Bad move.

VIRGINIA (13 Electoral votes)--Romney had several large campaign events scheduled in Virginia that were cancelled because of Sandy, while Obama dominated the headlines. It was a tremendously unlucky break for Romney. I firmly believe that if Sandy had not happened, Romney would have won Virginia. As is, he only lost by 100,000 votes.

OHIO (18 Electoral votes)--If Romney had been able to handle the auto bailout topic better, it stands to reason he would have won this state. With the auto industry so big in Ohio, that one issue alone is surely worth 100,000 votes.

WISCONSIN (10 Electoral votes)--The fact that Romney couldn't win a nearly all-white state with a Republican governor when his Vice-President was FROM there is mind-boggling.

That would add up to 276 electoral votes. Replace Wisconsin with New Hampshire and you still get 270. Obama won New Hampshire by 30,000 votes, and Romney used to be governor of the state next door.

Again, Obama did win pretty convincingly, but it was not a landslide by any means, and it would have only taken a few things going slightly differently for Mitt Romney to be President-Elect today.

 
E-Mail User
Replies:

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/8/2012 at 10:49 PM
quote:
While I am an Obama supporter, and glad that he won, I think some people are misrepresenting this election as being more of a landslide than it actually was. Romney was actually pretty close to winning this, and I'll tell you how it could have happened.

Romney ended up with 206 electoral votes, 64 away from the 270 needed to win. He could have done that by winning just 4 more states. Here is one way that could have happened.

FLORIDA (29 Electoral Votes)--The last state to be called, only 46,000 votes separate Obama and Romney. Even a small improvement by Romney in any one of several categories would have gotten him a win. This was a state the Romney camp thought they had in the bag, so they were spending money in places like Pennsylvania when that money might have put them over the top in Florida. Bad move.

VIRGINIA (13 Electoral votes)--Romney had several large campaign events scheduled in Virginia that were cancelled because of Sandy, while Obama dominated the headlines. It was a tremendously unlucky break for Romney. I firmly believe that if Sandy had not happened, Romney would have won Virginia. As is, he only lost by 100,000 votes.

OHIO (18 Electoral votes)--If Romney had been able to handle the auto bailout topic better, it stands to reason he would have won this state. With the auto industry so big in Ohio, that one issue alone is surely worth 100,000 votes.

WISCONSIN (10 Electoral votes)--The fact that Romney couldn't win a nearly all-white state with a Republican governor when his Vice-President was FROM there is mind-boggling.

That would add up to 276 electoral votes. Replace Wisconsin with New Hampshire and you still get 270. Obama won New Hampshire by 30,000 votes, and Romney used to be governor of the state next door.

Again, Obama did win pretty convincingly, but it was not a landslide by any means, and it would have only taken a few things going slightly differently for Mitt Romney to be President-Elect today.


Probably the dumbest thing he did was going far right in the primary on immigration. If he could have won 45 percent of the Hispanic vote he could have won the election. The other thing that cost him is that he allowed Obama to slam him without answer for the entire summer and although he improved his standing, not enough in these key states. Some people I respect argue that he lost because Obama convinced enough Republicans who are middle class not to vote for him but to not vote at all because Romney is so wealthy. And the facts bear this out as 3 million less Republicans voted in 2012 than voted in 2008. THAT is where we were all wrong in our predictions. It seemed like the Republicans were fully energized behind Romney. We kept looking at the polls and saying Hey how can he be kicking ass with independents and still tied or losing? The polls must be wrong. Turns out Republicans weren't planning to vote in these key states and the polls somehow caught that and we missed it.

 

____________________

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8379
(8380 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/9/2012 at 02:06 AM
I think there's lot's of reasons he lost, all coming down to a boring campaign and an inadequate message. Up to and until the first debate, he was running neck-and-neck with MaCain for the snooze award.

-- He never laid out a case for free-market capitalism vs a govt-directed economy. He'd mouth canned rhetoric, but never sufficiently educated on this topic.

-- He never defended his own wealth, and therefore came off as if he was ashamed - or at least defensive - about it.

-- He never attacked big-govt waste. With an embarassment of riches to aim at - from the GSA to Medicare to the Stimulus - he mentioned the biggest targets in only cursory ways.

-- He never discussed the topic of sound money, and how the middle class should fear more from the actions of the Fed than even where the Federal govt is headed.

-- He never tried to educate on our budgetary woes, and kept Paul Ryan bottled up on the issue.

-- He let the Prez off the hook on Lybia.

-- He never attacked the concentration of power and wealth in DC. The fact that the only big metro area to grow in economic terms during the last 6 years is the seat of govt should be an embarassment to a country founded on limited govt.

There's many more examples I could list, but it comes down to him looking like just another big govt politician with nothing special to distinguish him. Why should he get the job when there's someone clearly more qualified for the role of big-govt sugar daddy already in place?

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6613
(6613 all sites)
Registered: 11/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/9/2012 at 08:34 AM
"Probably the dumbest thing he did was going far right in the primary on immigration."

I see why you say this Doug, but if Romney hadn't gone so far to the right in the primaries, would he even be the nominee?

The GOP primary electorate was in a VERY right-wing mood this year, and Romney had to spend a lot of time, money and effort convincing them he was conservative enough. The Republicans almost nominated Rick Santorum! That is how committed they were to nominating an extreme conservative, or in Romney's case, somebody who pretended to be one.

"It seemed like the Republicans were fully energized behind Romney."

They were fully energized AGAINST Obama, but that is not the same thing as being energized FOR Romney. Your fellow conservative Fujirich said this about Romney's campaign....

"I think there's lot's of reasons he lost, all coming down to a boring campaign and an inadequate message. Up to and until the first debate, he was running neck-and-neck with MaCain for the snooze award."

He doesn't sound energized to me.

I do think Fujirich is being unfair to Romney on a couple of things here.

--I feel like Romney vigorously defended his wealth and wasn't ashamed of it at all. The idea that Mitt Romney, of all people, is "ashamed" of being rich has got to be the craziest thing I've ever heard. Defensive maybe, but only because Obama's team kept hammering him on it to make him look out of touch with the average American, which worked.

--I feel like Romney tried his best to attack Obama on Libya every chance he got, but it backfired catastrophically on him in the second debate, so he dropped it. That issue was never going to decide the election anyway. The dream some conservatives had that Libya was going to be Obama's undoing was just that, a dream.

Fujirich does make some good points about Romney. It's hard to be the advocate of small government and shrinking the deficit when you are campaigning on increasing the military budget, as we discussed in another thread. And it's hard to convince the American people you are going to balance the budget when you refuse to talk specifics.

 
E-Mail User

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/10/2012 at 08:39 AM
WISCONSIN (10 Electoral votes)--The fact that Romney couldn't win a nearly all-white state with a Republican governor when his Vice-President was FROM there is mind-boggling.

Because in typical Fox News fashion they tried to paint Ryan as some sort of economic expert and rising star among the Teabilly's but other than a small concentrated area around Janesville the rest of the state only knows him as the do nothing congressman from Janesville with no accomplishments to his name in 12 years and looks like Eddie Munster.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1457
(1464 all sites)
Registered: 1/1/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/10/2012 at 09:09 AM
Must say I've enjoyed all the pre and post election debate on here. Obviously I am not really qualified to give much in the way of opinions, but I can't help thinking that Romney could have won but for what we call on this side of the pond his "Ratner Moment"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/18/mitt-romney-47-unsuitab le-president

Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe makes him 100% unsuitable to be president

It is Romney's only unerring quality that he constantly affirms his stereotype. And this could be the week that sinks his challenge




Michael Cohen
The Guardian, Tuesday 18 September 2012 17.20 BST

If the Republican primaries and presidential campaign have taught us anything, it is that Mitt Romney is not very good at politics. Incessant gaffes, strategic missteps, a paucity of policy prescriptions and a plethora of head-scratching tactical decisions have come to define his run for the White House. Quite simply, Mitt Romney is a bad politician.

But on Monday night, we learned something new and profoundly unsettling about him: he may very well also be a bad person.

I don't use those words lightly, but I'm not sure how else to interpret the comments he made at a closed-door fundraiser that were posted online by Mother Jones. They are devastating. They suggest a level of meanness and divisiveness in Romney's personal character that is disturbing even disqualifying for the nation's highest office.

Look at how Romney classifies the 47% of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes:

"[They] will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what These are people who pay no income tax

"[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

This is a breathtaking statement: a fundamental misunderstanding of the American social contract. Romney proposes here that the senior citizen living on a fixed income believes government has a responsibility to care for them rather than that government has a responsibility to fulfil its obligation to them after they spent years paying into social security and Medicare. He is saying that workers laid-off from their jobs, who rely on food stamps to feed their children and unemployment insurance to pay their rent, believe government owes them food and shelter, rather than getting some support at a time of dire financial need which their payroll taxes had paid for when they were in work.

Romney's message to these voters, these 47% of Americans, is not only "I am not going to seek your vote"; it's "I don't respect you."

Worse than the crudeness of Romney's argument is its remarkable lack of social empathy. The United States provides healthcare, food, housing and "you-name-it" to our fellow citizens not as a means of capturing their vote, but because this is fundamental to the basic social compact. That fact seems to elude Romney.

So what does this mean for Romney's presidential prospects? Some conservatives seem overjoyed by the revelations believing, it seems, that a "makers v takers" dividing line is a key to political success. Certainly, there is a cross-section of Americans who buy into Romney's Ayn Randian views. There is also plenty of evidence from the world of political science that gaffes might get everyone ginned up on Twitter, but they don't necessarily move voters.

This gaffe, though, has the potential to be different because it insults so many individual Americans. Romney's Republican presidential forebears had the shrewd good sense to demonise easily stereotyped minorities: Richard Nixon took on the "shouters" and "demonstrators" in the 1960s, while Ronald Reagan attacked "welfare queens" in the 1980s. In his clumsy caricature, Romney has savaged just under half the electorate.

But the damage, once again, is self-inflicted: Romney has succeeded in highlighting the very things voters already don't like about him: that he is not genuine, saying one thing in public and another behind closed doors; that he is so cosseted in wealth he does not understand and cannot relate to the challenges of ordinary Americans; that a callous streak runs through the private equity guy's empathy deficit the outsourcer who "likes firing people". The fact that these remarks were given at a private fundraiser to a group of fat cats only endorses these negative perceptions.

The biggest problem, though, may be the cumulative narrative: that it provides one more hit on Romney in a week in which he has done nothing right. First, there was his disastrous appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, in which he flip-flopped on repealing Obamacare and bizarrely attacked his own vice-presidential candidate for supporting defense cuts last summer. Then came his crass intervention in the political debate that followed the violence in Libya and Egypt, in which he falsely accused the president on 11 September, of all days of sympathizing with anti-American protesters. And even when that line of attack was comprehensively discredited, Romney doubled down on it the next morning. Finally, there was Sunday's night Politico report chronicling the in-fighting and mismanagement threatening to cripple his campaign.

It was a terrible week for Romney and the Republican party one that suggested his campaign had acquired the hard-to-shake odor of loserdom. When that sense takes hold, every mistake, even minor ones, are magnified feeding into the notion that the Romney team is the proverbial gang that can't shoot straight. We've seen this before, with George HW Bush in 1992; with Al Gore in 2000; with Sarah Palin in 2008. A meme of smelly failure develops around a candidate and every story is fitted to that emerging narrative. For Romney, the narrative now is that he is running, as David Brooks put it in the New York Times, a "depressingly inept presidential campaign".

It is hard to imagine how a presidential candidate could articulate such contempt towards virtually half the country that has not been as blessed with the advantages of being born into wealth and making more, as he has, and still hope to lead them. Whether or not Mitt Romney really is a bad person is perhaps irrelevant: he is clearly a bad politician and this last week has made it highly unlikely that he will get the chance to be a bad president.


"Doing A Ratner"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1573380/Doing-a-Ratner-and-other-fam ous-gaffes.html



Gerald Ratner based his philosophy of business on his experiences as a boy in Petticoat Lane Market. He observed that "the people who shouted the loudest and appeared to give the best offers sold the most."[1]

Ratner joined the family business in 1966, and on this basis, he built up an extremely successful chain of jewellers during the 1980s, of which he was chief executive. The shops shocked the formerly staid jewellery industry by displaying fluorescent orange posters advertising cut price bargains and by offering low price ranges.
[edit]
The speech

Although widely regarded as "tacky",[2] the shops and their wares were nevertheless extremely popular with the public, until Ratner made a speech at the Institute of Directors on April 23, 1991.[3] During the speech, he commented: We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, all for 4.95. People say, "How can you sell this for such a low price?", I say, "because it's total crap."[4]


He compounded this by going on to remark that some of the earrings were "cheaper than an M&S prawn sandwich but probably wouldn't last as long." Ratner's comments have become textbook examples of the folly of making fun of, and showing contempt to, customers. In the furore that ensued, customers exacted their revenge by staying away from Ratner shops. After the speech, the value of the Ratner group plummeted by around 500 million, which very nearly resulted in the firm's collapse.[5] Ratner resigned in November 1992 and the group changed its name to Signet Group in September 1993.

Today, Ratner's speech is still famous in the corporate world as an example of the value of branding and image over quality. Such gaffes are now sometimes called "Doing a Ratner",[6] and Ratner himself has acquired the sobriquet "The Sultan of Bling".[7] Ratner has said in his defence that it was a private function which he did not expect to be reported, and that his remarks were not meant to be taken seriously.




 

____________________
You get SOMETHING out of it every night!- Mike "Pickles" Hale

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18541
(19007 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/10/2012 at 04:26 PM
http://www.bing.com/elections

Obama got 61,129,389 votes
Romney got 58,840,095 votes

NOW why isn't anyone asking the most obvious question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_the_United_States

The population of the United States is 314,737,000 and you have ONLY 119,969,484 people come out to vote?

What happened to the other 194,766,516 PEOPLE (and if my math is off, I know you will fix it for me).

More than half the country just did not vote? Do you REALLY believe that?

Although in my case it is the first time I did not vote. The reasons were several. I do not like the idea of being forced to buy health care or face a tax penalty (under Obamacare), I do not like the idea of pre-emptive strikes on Iran (which Romney admitted he would do if necessary), and then there is Mullah Omar who directed his people not to vote in the last election because the people running for office did not embrace or implement principles and laws that God handed down.

Add that onto the situation we faced here with the gas lines, I came to the conclusion Omar's advice was the best, don't vote.

I don't think there were many others for whom that was a consideration, but there might have been a few who object to the drone strikes, NDAA, executive orders that have been passed under Republican (the Bush years) and Democratic officials during their administrations that violate our Constitution and Bill of Rights. If we had not had the hurricane plus the other storm that followed, I might have digressed and voted for some of the lower officials and found someone to write in for the top spot, but all things considered, I just opted out.



[Edited on 11/10/2012 by gina]

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18593
(18594 all sites)
Registered: 11/20/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/10/2012 at 06:22 PM
quote:
Obama got 61,129,389 votes
Romney got 58,840,095 votes

NOW why isn't anyone asking the most obvious question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_the_United_StatesThe population of the United States is 314,737,000 and you have ONLY 119,969,484 people come out to vote?

What happened to the other 194,766,516 PEOPLE (and if my math is off, I know you will fix it for me).

More than half the country just did not vote? Do you REALLY believe that?
You have to be 18 to vote. That alone would account for some of your 194,766,516 'missing in action'.

 

____________________
"Come on down to the Mermaid Cafe and I will buy you a bottle of wine, and we'll laugh and toast to nothing and smash our empty glasses down..."

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9154
(9153 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/10/2012 at 06:44 PM
If ya don't vote, don't biatch.

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14567
(14567 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/10/2012 at 06:53 PM
Florida was called today for Obama. Electorial College wise Romney got friggin' clobbered!!!! Even the Democrats couldn't have seen such a slaughter. Obama won all but one swing state when Romney was predicted to win at least a few. Obama also won the popular vote pretty handily so nobody can pull that card out.

 

____________________
Pete

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 67077
(67594 all sites)
Registered: 10/27/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/10/2012 at 09:54 PM
mullah omar told gina not to vote.


Outstanding.


 

____________________
Hittin' The Web::Hugh Duty Memorial Giveaway has begun!

RIP Hugh Duty

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3365
(3363 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Online

  posted on 11/10/2012 at 10:27 PM
It wasn't just Romney that was beat, it was Republicans in general. Even though the Republicans held the house, there were more total votes for Democrats in the house than for Republicans in the house.
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/10/2012 at 11:46 PM
quote:
I think there's lot's of reasons he lost, all coming down to a boring campaign and an inadequate message. Up to and until the first debate, he was running neck-and-neck with MaCain for the snooze award.

-- He never laid out a case for free-market capitalism vs a govt-directed economy. He'd mouth canned rhetoric, but never sufficiently educated on this topic.

-- He never defended his own wealth, and therefore came off as if he was ashamed - or at least defensive - about it.

-- He never attacked big-govt waste. With an embarassment of riches to aim at - from the GSA to Medicare to the Stimulus - he mentioned the biggest targets in only cursory ways.

-- He never discussed the topic of sound money, and how the middle class should fear more from the actions of the Fed than even where the Federal govt is headed.

-- He never tried to educate on our budgetary woes, and kept Paul Ryan bottled up on the issue.

-- He let the Prez off the hook on Lybia.

-- He never attacked the concentration of power and wealth in DC. The fact that the only big metro area to grow in economic terms during the last 6 years is the seat of govt should be an embarassment to a country founded on limited govt.

There's many more examples I could list, but it comes down to him looking like just another big govt politician with nothing special to distinguish him. Why should he get the job when there's someone clearly more qualified for the role of big-govt sugar daddy already in place?




It's somewhat hard to do that in the midst of a national campaign when everything is about sound bites and 30 second commercials. The case is slightly too sophisticated for that. Conservatives now have a full four years to lay out that case beyond the pages of Commentary and National Review and instead finding a way to get the message to the general public. Reagan spent like a decade touring the country giving speeches explaining his message long BEFORE he ran for president. One thing I think is true. I remember back when Clinton ran, he was the full blown conservative in the race back in 92. In fact I remember FULLY when he came to New York how HATED he was by NY liberals even though the alternative was Paul Tsongas. He stuck it out and in a race with no really strong liberal icons, he got the nomination so he didn't need to tack back to the center. He was already there. And it made it so much harder for Bush to tar him as a leftie though he tried.

I don't think the Republican candidates have to be centrists. But I do think they can't race to the right of each other in an attempt to get the social right or other far right voters in these all red states to support them. Because then the nomination is worthless.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/10/2012 at 11:48 PM
quote:
WISCONSIN (10 Electoral votes)--The fact that Romney couldn't win a nearly all-white state with a Republican governor when his Vice-President was FROM there is mind-boggling.

Because in typical Fox News fashion they tried to paint Ryan as some sort of economic expert and rising star among the Teabilly's but other than a small concentrated area around Janesville the rest of the state only knows him as the do nothing congressman from Janesville with no accomplishments to his name in 12 years and looks like Eddie Munster.


That's pretty nasty and also unfair. Do you note that despite being an "all white" state Wisconsin has not gone Republican since 1984? That changes things a bit in the equation no? In fact it's a little racist to assume that a Republican should be able to win a state just because it is mostly white.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/10/2012 at 11:49 PM
quote:
http://www.bing.com/elections

Obama got 61,129,389 votes
Romney got 58,840,095 votes

NOW why isn't anyone asking the most obvious question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_the_United_States

The population of the United States is 314,737,000 and you have ONLY 119,969,484 people come out to vote?

What happened to the other 194,766,516 PEOPLE (and if my math is off, I know you will fix it for me).

More than half the country just did not vote? Do you REALLY believe that?

Although in my case it is the first time I did not vote. The reasons were several. I do not like the idea of being forced to buy health care or face a tax penalty (under Obamacare), I do not like the idea of pre-emptive strikes on Iran (which Romney admitted he would do if necessary), and then there is Mullah Omar who directed his people not to vote in the last election because the people running for office did not embrace or implement principles and laws that God handed down.

Add that onto the situation we faced here with the gas lines, I came to the conclusion Omar's advice was the best, don't vote.

I don't think there were many others for whom that was a consideration, but there might have been a few who object to the drone strikes, NDAA, executive orders that have been passed under Republican (the Bush years) and Democratic officials during their administrations that violate our Constitution and Bill of Rights. If we had not had the hurricane plus the other storm that followed, I might have digressed and voted for some of the lower officials and found someone to write in for the top spot, but all things considered, I just opted out.



[Edited on 11/10/2012 by gina]


Well for one thing a significant amount are under 18. Let's at least use accurate numbers when we have this discussion.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/10/2012 at 11:52 PM
quote:
Florida was called today for Obama. Electorial College wise Romney got friggin' clobbered!!!! Even the Democrats couldn't have seen such a slaughter. Obama won all but one swing state when Romney was predicted to win at least a few. Obama also won the popular vote pretty handily so nobody can pull that card out.


Many of the swing states were very close. Florida was only 50,000 votes. I realize that doesn't seem close compared to 2,000 but considering 8 million people voted, that's pretty close. Virginia was also very close as was Ohio (though not quite as close) It was a substantial win for Obama no doubt about it. Stronger than Bush's win in 2004 though much weaker than Obama's 2008 win and much weaker than Clinton's 96 win. Two states that went to Obama in 2008 swung to Romney, North Carolina and Indiana.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15998
(15990 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/11/2012 at 12:20 AM
What did Romney lose Ohio by, one point?
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/11/2012 at 12:45 AM
Close only counts in horseshoes. Coulda, woulda, shoulda....doesn't matter now unless the party is going to learn from their mistakes.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6613
(6613 all sites)
Registered: 11/7/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/11/2012 at 10:48 AM
"In fact it's a little racist to assume that a Republican should be able to win a state just because it is mostly white."

Romney won 60% of the white vote nationally, and demographics have been a big topic of post-election discussion. I don't think that comment is out of line. Just pointing out some of the reasons it could have been in play for Romney.

Now if I said the only reason white people voted for Romney is because they are lazy parasites who are just looking for Romney to give them a bunch of handouts, THAT would be racist.

Apart from demographics, Wisconsin did recently elect a Repulican governor in Scott Walker, who survived an attempt to recall him. I realize Wisconsin has been a liberal bastion, but I was genuinely concerned about that state.

Turns out I shouldn't have been so worried

 
E-Mail User

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/11/2012 at 10:59 AM
quote:
Close only counts in horseshoes. Coulda, woulda, shoulda....doesn't matter now unless the party is going to learn from their mistakes.



That's true. But it does make a difference for those planning for the future. It is also important for the victorious candidate to not overestimate his support when he tries to implement policies he favors.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/11/2012 at 11:03 AM
quote:
"In fact it's a little racist to assume that a Republican should be able to win a state just because it is mostly white."

Romney won 60% of the white vote nationally, and demographics have been a big topic of post-election discussion. I don't think that comment is out of line. Just pointing out some of the reasons it could have been in play for Romney.

Now if I said the only reason white people voted for Romney is because they are lazy parasites who are just looking for Romney to give them a bunch of handouts, THAT would be racist.

Apart from demographics, Wisconsin did recently elect a Repulican governor in Scott Walker, who survived an attempt to recall him. I realize Wisconsin has been a liberal bastion, but I was genuinely concerned about that state.


As was everyone because polls showed it in play. New Jersey has a Republican governor. There was never a chance it would go for Romney. New York hasn't gone Republican since 1984 (like Wisconsin) We had a Republican governor for 12 years during that period. New York City has not elected a Democratic mayor since 1989. The City is highly Democratic and always goes Democratic during presidential races.

The point is that you cannot extrapolate that because a local race elected a GOP governor it means they should have elected a GOP president. You have to look at the history of the state in presidential contests.
Turns out I shouldn't have been so worried

 

____________________

 

Peach Master



Karma:
Posts: 572
(572 all sites)
Registered: 3/11/2012
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/11/2012 at 11:25 AM
no offense, but only primarily uneducated or mega-religious freaks vote for romney. trust me i live in kansas, a hot bed for these types........let's not over complicate this.........
 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6013
(6012 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/11/2012 at 12:47 PM
quote:
no offense, but only primarily uneducated or mega-religious freaks vote for romney. trust me i live in kansas, a hot bed for these types........let's not over complicate this.........


One could argue that your comments prove otherwise......no offense.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46278
(46279 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/11/2012 at 01:07 PM
Of course it was close. Black Panther turnout was down 50%.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 11/11/2012 at 02:03 PM
As of today here is the vote differential in the key swing states that turned the election:



Florida: 73,858

Ohio: 103,481

Virginia: 115,910

Colorado: 113,099

Had this small amount of votes (over 100 million cast overall) gone differently Romney would be president. Yes Obama won. But I don't think its sour grapes to point out that his margin of victory within each of the states he won and particularly these swing states was down DRAMATICALLY. Romney's basic strategy may not have been so incorrect. Perhaps if he had more money left over from the primary fight he could have fought back against the barrage of negative ads against him over the summer that probably defined him to enough people to cause his defeat. So Republicans should probably be looking at their nomination process. Now I have already said that I think this general strategy that worked for Bush in 2004 and Obama in 2012 and almost worked for Romney as well, conceding much of the country and fighting for a tiny narrow victory in 4 or 5 states, is not really good for the country. But at least this cycle it worked.

As I noted in another post, I read somewhere that Obama's real Ohio strategy was to do two things,turn out his base en mass which he accomplished and we didn't think he could. And second, two depress potential Romney voters so they would choose not to vote at all. He accomplished this as well polls show as Republican voters were down even from McCain in 2008. This is what surprised us. Yes you can say that a wealthy eastern financier was bound to turn off mid western Republicans and it has been noted by Republicans as well as, of course, Democrats. But Obama's really constant viciously negative advertising clearly took a toll. It was effective. By the time Romney seriously started countering it, it was too late.

 

____________________

 
<<  1    2    3  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com