Wazzup parasite? Didn't have enough beer this morning?
EBT has become an essential part of the unemployed and underemployed surviving
Loser. Get a job and stop sucking the wallets of your fellow americans
Posted on 11/08/2012 5:43:21 AM PST by NKP_Vet
Conservatives are tired of being shoved to the back of the GOP bus!
“Nonsense! How is it that the two states those two represented both went for Romney? And by a very significant margin.”
Sorry but apparently the statements by those two goobers affected the vote as far away as Texas. I am sure that it had that effect in other areas.
“They’re Democrate.....But we through out Sarah, Rick Perry early on and there was no one left who could really turn on the charm.”
If they’re democrats, they love obama regardless of the evil he exudes - so it wouldn’t have mattered.
As for Sarah, I don’t think she wanted to put herself through it again, and unfortunately, Rick Perry couldn’t get through the primary debates.
At any rate, I believe there’s always a measure of fraud on the dem side (although I think they were sweating it this time around). All it takes is just enough in select areas, and they have it. The outcry of voter suppression helped. I’m not convinced electronic machines are safe - and there is absolutely too much mail-in and early voting. But try to limit it, there’s the suppression issue again.
That word, "rape", is a radioactive red flag for women voters. It cost us two Senate seats this year because our candidates weren't ready or smart enough to handle a "gotcha" question that they had to know was coming. There was that idiot candidate for Governor in Texas back in the '80s who basically handed the election to Ann Richards because he made a (stupid) "joke" about how if you know you're going to be raped "just relax and enjoy it".
Look at the polls. Prior to these stupid gaffes our candidates were up by double digits. Afterward and in the final tally they were clobbered by 10 to 20 points. There is only one answer for that kind of swing.
Romney lost Texas??? Wow, color me shocked.
Your assertion is that Romney's loss is connected to the statements of Akin and Mourdoch, yet Romney won in those states despite them losing their individual races.
As a conservative woman I'm a bit insulted by your intimation that we have such shallow fact assessment skills.
It would be impossible for even the most articulate candidate to not offend the stupid, lazy voter who bases their decision on whatever the latest sound bite is without a thoughtful analysis.
As usual, it's always the conservatives that are supposed to hold their nose and blindly support the RINO without question while the "moderates" are free to support the Dem when their panties get into a wad.
At least the conservatives who hold to their principles just don't vote. The moderates will willingly and gleefully give their vote to the other side.
Just a simple question for you: if you lived in Indiana or Missouri (and perhaps you do live in one of those states), would you or did you vote for either of these two? Or would you have voted against them or not vote in the race at all?
Wazzup parasite? Didn't have enough beer this morning?
EBT has become an essential part of the unemployed and underemployed surviving
Loser. Get a job and stop sucking the wallets of your fellow americans
First of all, apples to oranges...this thread is about the Romney loss, not about the loss of the Senate.
Second, let's analyze your assertion. Who put these two candidates ahead by double digits before they made their "gaffe"? Was it Dems? Was it aging ERA women. Was it voters who were totally clueless as to their conservative social stances?
Of course not. So, who then dropped their support after their statements. It would have to be a segment of the Republican party, no? Hmmmmm...now let's see, who would that be? Oh, that's right - the vaunted "moderates" - who are quick to insist that the conservatives must always hold their noses for the good of the party, but never seem to reciprocate.
So, I ask you also - if you were able to vote for either Akin or Mourdoch for Senate, would you or did you?
Interesting perspective.
Here’s the problem: Gov. Romney received the same percentage of the white vote as Ronald Reagan did in 1980.
Would then-Gov. Reagan’s candidacy have received more minority votes in 2012 than did Gov. Romney’s? It’s a “what if” we can’t answer.
But the problem is that Hispanics and blacks prefer bigger, more robust government. Without conversion, not sure the Reagan message will win votes.
Is it possible to persuade large numbers of minorities to our perspective? I don’t know. There are real, historical reasons, why blacks and Hispanics favor big government. The reasons that persuade us to embrace the ideal of smaller government, low taxes, fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, etc. may not be persuasive to others with different historical experiences.
I don’t live in either place so I didn’t vote for either of them. If I did, I would. But that doesn’t change the fact that they made a comment that left them vulnerable to attack, and that is a mistake from a political strategy viewpoint. It cost us the chance to put two pro-life Senators in office and that is the real tragedy of these gaffes.
I like scott walker and would vote for him in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, the GOPe will pretend to support him until it is too late to get any traction elsewhere and then turn their attention elsewhere, leaving the conservatives in the cold again.
After attending the caucus in Missouri, it was apparant that the GOP in this state doesn’t care what their base thinks, only WHAT WS BEST FOR THEM.
The GOP has a year to show me that things will be different in 2016. They will not be able to tell me, they have to show me with taking decisive action against the destruction of our freedoms. They have no credibility left.
No, Romney won Texas.
These are low information Demo women, not high information conservative women. They see infanticide as being in their economic and social interest and they did not react well to the statements of Mourdoch and Akin.
I must add here that these women are 1099 employees and they just voted against the companies for which they work. Go figure.
“There are real, historical reasons, why blacks and Hispanics favor big government”
Before LBJ’s social welfare giveaway programs, most blacks worked for a living. Medicaid, expansion of the welfare state, etc, were all gimmicks from the the democrats to get negroes (what blacks were called until race baiter Jesse Jackson said it was racist to call them that), into their big tent. when LBJ first came to Washington from Texas he was called aside by an influential Southern democrat and basically told to change his ways and if he wanted to get anywhere in the new, changing democratic party he has to embrace blacks and start pandering to them. This was foreign to LBJ. He was a old time Southerner who thought it was crazy to have to pander to anyone, much less blacks. Well LBJ, reluctantly went along with the program. As House Majority Leader he started pushing for welfare giveaway programs for blacks and doing anything in his power to get their vote. Along came the voting rights act for blacks, and their marriage to the democratic slave master was complete. Democrats are trying to do the same thing now with hispanics, giving them anything they want, free handouts, amnesty for illegals, all in a blatant attempt to control them, which means controlling American politics forever. That’s why democrats want to tear down the borders to this country. That’s why anti-American stooges like Obama (financed by leftists like Soros), will not allow states to control invasion from south of the border. Leftists side with illegals. They never side with working Americans. Democrats are the lowest of the low.
“Blacks are only a symptom of white liberal policies”
Agree 100% and I also think vote fraud was prevalent all over the country, especially Ohio, PA, Florida, and VA. Romney was leading in all the polls, especially Florida in the last days before the election, but still ended up losing Florida by a couple of hundred thousand votes. He even lost the Cuban-American vote, which always votes republican. Big time FRAUD.
I don’t think it was the evangelicals and Tea Party activists who didn’t show up. It was people who had been motivated by the message of the Tea Party in 2010. You have to understand that in any political movement there are only about 10% of the people who are actively involved, in terms of donating money, going to rallies, working at the campaign office, etc.. The rest of the population are outside observers. Some are more politically astute and dedicated voters, while a much larger group are very apathetic. On the Democratic side they are motivated by either the desire to get more goodies or the fear of losing their existing goodies. On the Republican side, they’re usually motivated by anger over reckless spending or anti-American policies of the Democrats, or the fear of the other side doing more harm. If they don’t have sufficient fear or anger, they’re not going to get off their couch to vote.
In this election Romney lost at least 2 million of the 59 million who voted for McCain (perhaps more if some of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 switched to Romney this year). That means that over 95% of the people who voted for McCain in 2008 still voted for Romney in 2012. And in my opinion that would include most of the evangelical and Tea Party activists, even though those people were shunned by Romney. Don’t blame the Tea Party for failing to get out all the voters who were so angry in 2010.
There's a lot more to it than just expanding the goodies, although the goodies, regrettably, are now a part of it.
Remember that it was the federal government, in the prosecution of the Civil War and in the passing of the 13th through 15th Amendments, that freed the slaves. It was ultimately the federal government that vindicated the rights of blacks. It was the federal government that sent troops to the south to enforce desegregation. It was the federal government that forced southern jurisdictions to respect the voting rights and the housing rights of southern blacks. It was the federal government that provided job opportunities in the federal government, especially for an aspiring black middle class.
Do you notice a theme, here?
Do you see why maybe some black folks might not be enamored when we conservatives talk about principles of federalism and an originalist interpretation of the Constitution?
I'm not saying that I think federalism is a bad idea. I think it's a GREAT idea. But I never had the governor of my state stand in the schoolhouse door barring entry to students of my skin color.
sitetest
It was democrats that stood in the door of University of Miss and wouldn’t allow a black man named James Meredith to enter.
It was a democrat sheriff name Bull Conner who put German Sheppards and fire hoses on blacks when they were rioting in the streets.
It was democrat George Wallace that said “segregation now, segregation forever”.
It was democrats that controlled Southern politics after the 2nd American Revolution, right through the 1960s. During the Jim Crow years it was democrats that held the back man back.
So I stand by my statement that it was democrats that put them back on the plantation by social welfare giveaway programs to make them beholden to the uncle sugar.
Before the 1960s the majority of blacks supported republicans. But back then, they actually worked for a living and most black families had a mother and father.
You're absolutely right that the Democrats are the party of slavery, of segregation, of Jim Crow, of the KKK, of lynching.
But the Democrats then also fought under the banner of states’ rights, a smaller and less powerful, more limited federal government (at least until the 20th century, and for southern Democrats, far into the 20th century), and against federal intervention in their states.
Which party today makes the argument for these things, today?
“So I stand by my statement that it was democrats that put them back on the plantation by social welfare giveaway programs to make them beholden to the uncle sugar.”
I haven't said that isn't an aspect of it. And it isn't just social welfare dollars. It's also racial preferences (affirmative action). It's also that the social welfare dollars support the current degraded state of black culture. 70+% illegitimacy, 25% young black male incarceration, fewer black men in college than in prison. This is all expensive stuff. From the perspective of someone buried deep in the corrupted black culture, it may seem extremely unreasonable, even genocidal, that someone (we evil conservatives) might want to take away their welfare, their racial preferences, their free or reduced-cost daycare, their Medicaid.
As well, even though blacks appear to be church-going and claim to hold some conservative social views (pro-life, anti-homosexual agenda, pro-capital punishment, to name a few), a 40% abortion rate and 70+% illegitimacy rate suggest that perhaps it's more talk than walk.
Nonetheless, their attachment to big government is real, it is based in their history, there are reasons OTHER than goodies why they're so attached, and thus, as the party that is ostensibly for a smaller federal government, we can't assume that black folks and also Hispanics are going to flock to our banner, even if our ideas are better and the Democrats are intellectually, morally, and fiscally bankrupt. For blacks, especially, when they hear limited federal government, states’ rights, etc., they believe they're hearing Jim Crow. That's just the reality of it.
sitetest
You know not of what you speak. The real TEA Party showed up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.