One reason Romney did poorly with Asian voters is all of his talk of China “cheating”. I thought it was overdone by Romney. In fact if a foreign nation wants to “cheat” by making its goods cheaper for us I could care less. The only cheating I don’t like is disrespect of Intellectual Property.
ATTENTION DIM BULBS AT THE RNC, BUY A CLUE
I felt all along during the campaign that Obuma was running a campaign of arrogant complacence, if you will, i.e., he knew the election was in the bag thus the initial debate performance. After being panned for the initial debate, he at least changed his debate demeanor, but the arrogant complacence was still there. I wondered why he would be complacent with the dreams from his father on the line. Point is, like Benghazi, there is more to the “machine” than we’ll ever know now.
Margins of victory:
We win those 5 states, and Mitt has 281 EVs
Mandate, my a**!!!
Then they demonized Romney in the swing states, and by the time he responded his image was set with too many voters especially blue-collar whites.
That's what I found in Ohio. Reagan-Democrats did not vote in large numbers for Romney, while some remained undecided about the national, President ticket as they voted for local and state.
In other words, there was low enthusiasm for Romney on the shop floor.
Some people viewed Romney as a bankster, but most who did not vote for him, viewed him with suspicion reinforced by the ads which painted him as a boss for whom you would not want to work.
They did not want to vote for Obama, but they just could not vote for Romney. The ads were very effective.
In addition to Obama-brownshirt election fraud as reported.
By the way, Benghazi? Didn't happen; it's not on any RADAR.
In Ohio, there is among voters whom you would have expected to vote for Romney, mostly a sense of loss re bad economic times. Romney did not *explain* how his ideas would work.
For the most part, re the economy, Obama and Romney appeared as two executives bickering over "management execution." The "measured responses" contestants who would thrill a board of directors with "the intensity of all the excitement found in micromanagement," received a "Oh, that ..." from the shop floor.
Leaving for Romney, a large vacuum where he needed to express well, principles and why we have them, and love of country.
You may think, that Romney *did* express love of country, and you'd be right; but seeing that on ads and especially hearing it on the radio, in Ohio, you had to be alert for it.
What Reagan had in abundance, and for which thousands showed up to see Reagan when he would travel thru Ohio in the years 1975 - 1979 well before the 1980 election.
When Reagan espoused *conservative* principles which happen to be our country's principles of freedom, for liberty and justice for all --- the building blocks and tools that we employ to restrain government and release governments' historical controls over opportunity *and over the spirit of opportunity.*
These are things which The Manager / aka "the suits" do not wish to speak about, because at work, these things elevate the natural sovereignty of people, which the management have to respect ... but have not been respecting as they shoved jobs out the door *because they lost their courage to instead, challenge government oppression that restrains their economic opportunities here in the U.S.A.*
"Management" still have trouble with not hiring *good managers* --- people who know how to lead on principle, people who are smart and good teachers. Instead in the U.S.A., we have too many managers who are hired to be inoffensive and non-threatening ... and I'm not talking about such middle-managers relations to the shop floor - I'm talking about how upper management is obsessed with defending its positions of power.
That would be, the problems that people have with managment, which causes people to vulnerable to the lies of Obama-brownshirts.
Romney, and the GOPe, have had one solution for that problem: illegal aliens by the hoards, while campaigning for legal aliens.
When what people/workers want, is a "good man" a "just man." Somebody who knows why we have principles, who can explain why we have them and need them, and who lives by them.
People want somebody in whom they can believe, that when there is a fight for what is right, then leader in question will not simply use them up (our people and our principles) for his own gains and then abandon our principles.
Instead, we find the GOPe trotting out yet another variation of --- this time, really good packaging (unlike McCain) --- and enough of the people reacting with, "I'm not buying it." What looks good on the outside, was repeatedly consumer-reviewed by Obama's ads and found wanting.