*who

There are a bunch of reasons why Romney lost, why Obama won, etc. But I think it's telling that Romney didn't win the state he grew up in, the state he was governor of, or the state where his running partner lives and is a representative from.

Raw Dawgin' it;1315042 wrote:I don't live off the government because I have the ability to work and drive to make something of myself. Being here illegally means you shouldn't get any benefits from tax payers. I don't care how hard they work, they're taking money under the table from unemployed people who need it and would pay taxes on it.

I have no respect for people who abuse the government handout system either.

RDI: I'm not picking on you, I swear. It is important to note the two sides of this. The first, obviously, is that if illegals weren't here, they couldn't take jobs that otherwise would be filled by American citizens.

Secondly, part of the ire should be directed at businesses who hire illegals. (And part of your point will end up in this category because if they are here, and are not hired, my guess is they end up in some sort of relief effort, which could be accepting funds from our government (ie, John Q. Taxpayer.) But I digress...)

Lastly, there is an amazing dynamic that occurs over time here in America. Workers want higher wages. The folks in Washington DC raise the minimum wage. Meanwhile, across the border, land is available for a new plant, and workers are too, at a much cheaper rate. The dynamic is that the selling markets are moving global, and thus, the market of competitve workers is as well. As it plays itself out, we are learning what the going rate is for factory workers. And much to the shagrin of Americans, it isn't $25/hour.

The 18-29 vote isn't going away as some predicted it seems. 18% in 2008 and 19% in 2012 is what it's looking like. I think it was a mix of Obama energizing younger people well in 2008 and also that people who grew up with the internet are now reaching voting age. The internet is a wonderful cultural tool and I think we'll see that the higher turnout continues. So the GOP needs to fix their problems in regards to the youth vote, women, and minorities.

Manhattan Buckeye;1315045 wrote:The interesting about this post (even if it is sarcastic) is how condescending it is towards women. Does anyone really think most women vote based on "free" contraceptives, abortion on demand (in my experience most women have trouble trying to get pregnant), and the general attitude that women care about nothing but their "lady parts."

It is condescension. So women don't care about foreign policy, about tax policy, about debt and spending policy, about policies that affect them, their children and their spouses? It is all about reproductive policy. Wow.

Actually, this is an edited version from a blog I read.

Unfortunately, I do not think it is sarcastic. There are extreme groups that actually think this way ( on both sides of the extreme)

People inject many types of viewpoints into thier political belies and vote acordingly. Some might find them reprehensible while others might think that they are voting an educated ticket.

For instance, some might think it is perfectly acceptable for them to vote soley on race, religion, or politicle idealogy.

The crazy thing about our freedom on the best Nation on the planet is that we all are free to vote for what ever reason we feel is in our own best interest. The price we have to pay may be in blood, money, or putting up with idiots that we do not agree with.

The nation will survive. The debate will not ever about the destination, but the path to get there.

I Wear Pants;1315099 wrote:There are a bunch of reasons why Romney lost, why Obama won, etc. But I think it's telling that Romney didn't win the state he grew up in, the state he was governor of, or the state where his running partner lives and is a representative from.

Mass has had a few Rep. governors but come presidential election time they always go blue.

Devils Advocate;1315111 wrote:...

The crazy thing about our freedom on the best Nation on the planet is that we all are free to vote for what ever reason we feel ...

I agree.

Devils Advocate;1315023 wrote:I think all you need to go into the kitchen and smack your wives. It was women that turned this election.

Some how they got the idea that they need to have control over your uterus and vagina.

Sure, they talk a good game and say all the right things about those nasty baby killing liberals. But give them 5 minutes of privacy and a voting booth and WHAM! The stupid little cunnies stab you in the back by voting for libs that have this idea of personal choice and control of thier girlie parts.

Then they come home and make you a sammich and say "of course I voted a straight Republican ticket honey, Can I get you another beer and fresh batteries for your remote. Hannity is going to be on in 5 minutes."

Well played sir. Very funny stuff. I'm a Republican still at heart and as such, don't like to part with my hard earned repping power. But I will make an exception here. Meggareppos to you.

Frankly, Romney did much better than I expected. I told people when he got the nomination that Obama would get another 4 years. I think Romney's failure came on a couple fronts. I think they held Ryan back. He was the budget guy, but he wasn't out there attacking Obama's policies hard enough, nor did he layout the specifics of his policies well enough. Secondly, and imo, most importantly, Romney let Obama skate on Benghazi. He should of hammered him on it, but I think Martha false fact-check in the 2nd debate scared him. Lastly, I think he spent the last couple weeks just making sure he didn't make a mistake.

MoldyDog;1315069 wrote:Not generally OK with shipping jobs offshore either. In fact, I think our tax policy should prohibit it in favor of creating jobs here.

Another thing that Republicans were wrong about.

Agreed. The GOP needs to re-evaluate their narcistic view that globalization is a net winner for Americans. Because history over the past 20 years or so has patently proven that idea as being dead wrong.

There are a few long standing GOPers that have delved into the numbers and have broken ranks with this economic Tokyorosist view. Paul Craig Roberts, Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs come to mind.

The crybabies here from the right regarding 8% unemployment need to look in the mirror when finding the cause of our economic demise.

Footwedge;1315139 wrote:Agreed. The GOP needs to re-evaluate their narcistic view that globalization is a net winner for Americans. Because history over the past 20 years or so has patently proven that idea as being dead wrong.

There are a few long standing GOPers that have delved into the numbers and have broken ranks with this economic Tokyorosist view. Paul Craig Roberts, Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs come to mind.

The crybabies here from the right regarding 8% unemployment need to look in the mirror when finding the cause of our economic demise.

Would you agree that the very second we stop crossing our borders for any host of reasons, someone will scream - pound the table - that we are exlusivists? And somehow, because we remain within our borders to build up America, we hate everyone else?

Romney's "47%" comment cemented his grave. Over 80% of "those people" that make up that 47% work as hard if not harder than Romney does and have no interest in suckling off a gov. tit. Lerana Helmsley would be very proud of Mitt.

se-alum;1315137 wrote:Frankly, Romney did much better than I expected. I told people when he got the nomination that Obama would get another 4 years. I think Romney's failure came on a couple fronts. I think they held Ryan back. He was the budget guy, but he wasn't out there attacking Obama's policies hard enough, nor did he layout the specifics of his policies well enough. Secondly, and imo, most importantly, Romney let Obama skate on Benghazi. He should of hammered him on it, but I think Martha false fact-check in the 2nd debate scared him. Lastly, I think he spent the last couple weeks just making sure he didn't make a mistake.

This sticks out in my mind as the game changer. Romney HAD Obama, he even made sure "the record showed" what he said...only to have Candy lie and save Obama...no one remembers her admitting her mistake, but everyone will remember the moment it happened and the smirk on Obamas face as he was let skate.

cruiser_96;1315142 wrote:Would you agree that the very second we stop crossing our borders for any host of reasons, someone will scream - pound the table - that we are exlusivists? And somehow, because we remain within our borders to build up America, we hate everyone else?

Number 1. Who said anything about stopping trade...or not crossing borders? Not me. And secondly, who said anything about "hating everyone else"? Again, not me.

Your extremist commentary regarding what I actually say here is typical. I love to debate the subject, but I get a little tired of listening to the rebuttals of people like Gut....who love to put words in my mouth.

Do yourself a favor and buy a book called War for Wealth written by a non partisan author, Gabor Steingart. I've debated the subject ad nauseum here.

My point was in regards to "The GOP needs to re-evaluate their narcistic view that globalization is a net winner for Americans." I do not believe it is.

It just seems to me that if we do the opposite - scale back the globalization train - the person leading the charge will be seen as a xenophobe with an axe to grind, as well as an American exclusivist.

I get that it can be hard to parse through the number of post-ers on here. But I don't remember discussing this with you. Maybe I have. Also, it was not my intention to put words in your mouth. M'bad. Just trying to figure it out. Thanks for the book suggestion.

Romney peaked too early, which also happened to John Kerry in 2004 when he won the first debate.

I guess the moral of the story is that nominating wealthy, out of touch, stiff, flip-flopping Massachusetts liberals to head your ticket is a recipe for defeat.

Willard/Ryan never sealed the deal because they were unwilling to ever get into any specifics about what their plans were. It was always "we'll tell you after the election", and when asking the electorate to hand the keys over to you there needs to be more certainty of what they are getting into.

Ultimately there was just not a trust level with Willard. The exit polling showed that overwhelmingly people believed his policies would favor the rich. In an environment where many people already believe the deck is stacked against them, that was a bridge too far.

Whether they liked BHO or not, the polling showed that the electorate at least believed he understood the struggles of people like them. That means alot to alot of people when electing a President.

The biggest issue for Republicans in general is the base is running the party into the ground. Anymore you have to run so far right just to get nominated (for the Senate or President) that you end up becoming toxic to a certain extent when the general comes around. It is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face and it is not a strategy that leads to governing majorities.

Manhattan Buckeye;1315045 wrote:The interesting about this post (even if it is sarcastic) is how condescending it is towards women. Does anyone really think most women vote based on "free" contraceptives, abortion on demand (in my experience most women have trouble trying to get pregnant), and the general attitude that women care about nothing but their "lady parts."

It is condescension. So women don't care about foreign policy, about tax policy, about debt and spending policy, about policies that affect them, their children and their spouses? It is all about reproductive policy. Wow.

I haven't seen the stats, but one of the news places last night said married women went for Romney, single women went for Obama.

Romney's problem was all these fabricated Repub wars prosecuted by the liberal media. I'd stop short of saying they won the election for Obama, but they did keep him from losing it.

cruiser_96;1315158 wrote:My point was in regards to "The GOP needs to re-evaluate their narcistic view that globalization is a net winner for Americans." I do not believe it is.

It just seems to me that if we do the opposite - scale back the globalization train - the person leading the charge will be seen as a xenophobe with an axe to grind, as well as an American exclusivist.

I get that it can be hard to parse through the number of post-ers on here. But I don't remember discussing this with you. Maybe I have. Also, it was not my intention to put words in your mouth. M'bad. Just trying to figure it out. Thanks for the book suggestion.

Yes order the book at Amazon. It's a great piece....with educational value beyond compare.
As for xenophobia, the issue has nothing to do with xenophobia at all.

Footwedge;1315151 wrote:but I get a little tired of listening to the rebuttals of people like Gut....who love to put words in my mouth.

Somebody has to in order for you to have something intelligent to say.

I kid, I kid. I know if Adam Smith didn't write it you didn't say it.

Romney was winning on most of the issues, particularly the economy. But people were voting Obama, because he "gets them". Aside from the shear stupidity of understanding you having little to do with being able to help you, it really shows how the Repubs are failing to connect with voters. Again, it goes back to the liberal media because Obama's divide & conquer strategy doesn't work without a media to validate it.

Exit polls yesterday showed more than 50% of Americans still blame Bush for the economic crisis we are in.

Romney's failure to demonstrate that what he was offering was any different than 4 more years of Bush turns otu to have been a major problem for an electorate that still hasn't gotten comfortable with the idea of going back to those policies. Even in the face of all the bad BHO has done to the economy, that should tell you how deeply the Bush years apparently scared this country.

Yeah it was the media. You can't make this stuff up folks!

rmolin73;1315188 wrote:Yeah it was the media. You can't make this stuff up folks!

You really think if Obama had been a Repub that he had any chance at all to be re-elected? He's been coddled and protected by the media at every turn.

Oddly enough, socialism's golden child might be its own worst enemy. 4 more years of this disaster might be what this country needs to see the error of its ways. Hopefully it's not too far gone by that point.

I think we are seeing the end of the Republican party. Demonize the evil rich and we all get poorer just so the "poor" can have their iphones and cable TV.

rmolin73;1315188 wrote:Yeah it was the media. You can't make this stuff up folks!

The media was definitely part of the reason Obama won. Liberal pundit Candy Crowley wrongly fact-checks something in the middle of a debate with millions of people watching. CBS finally comes forward and admits they held back an interview with Obama on the same subject. The MSM has covered and pushed the Democratic agenda for years. It's definitely no secret.