Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/16/2012 7:00:18 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Kaslin
I don't think there has ever been an election where the candidate mattered so little in the outcome.

1. The balance between those who believe government is the answer and those who think it is the problem has shifted heavily in favor of the pro government crowd.

2. There is no longer a difference between registered voter and likely voter. Computers and communication have created GOTV efforts that insure the party can target exactly where it needs to get out the vote and focus efforts there. Early voting and easy absentee voting makes it simple. In the battleground states, there is no longer the individual just to uninvolved to bother. The party does the work to register them and get their vote on record. This category of voter is so heavily Democrat it is tragic.

3. Voter fraud is rampant. Aided by easy absentee voting, electronic voting and electronic tabulation, computers model where and how to effectively alter the voting.

4. Systemic exlusion of the military, in violation of the law. Call for discipline of those involved.

In a traditional political sense, this was an election Romney couldn't lose. In a real world sense it was one he couldn't win.

There are only two ways for Republicans to get back in the game.

1. Identify groups that are pro government and why. The eliminate the why. An example is that Hispanics who are basically conservative vote pro government because the government is the only one that can make the illegals legal. Solve the immigration issue and gain 10% more of the Hispanic vote.

2. Go after voter fraud with a vengeance. There are voting precincts in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio that voted 100% Obama. Start there. Identify registered voters in those districts who would likely vote Romney. Start interviewing them. If any indication of foul play show up. get affidavits. Use computer modeling to identify any district where fraud was likely. Get the voter logs and start canvasing. Find the discrepancies. It's grunt work, but the grunts are the ones who fight and win wars.

2 posted on 11/16/2012 7:31:03 AM PST by CMAC51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Let’s say a rich person is someone who has more money than he needs. There’s a reason for not taking the “money he doesn’t need” away from him, namely, because it’s the money he’s willing to put at risk to start or support a business. Taking away that money will take away our economy.


3 posted on 11/16/2012 9:25:58 AM PST by cymbeline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Romney was the wrong candidate for the election. I think he would have made a fine President, and would have micromanaged our country to better days, but he wasn’t a good candidate, especially not in this match-up.

BTW, for all his flaws, I believe Rick Perry would have matched up much better against Obama than Romney. At least, it would have required Obama to take an entirely different tact, one that would have been less harmful to our down-ticket races.

Romney couldn’t fight Obamacare. Romney was really rich, so even when he DID talk about the middle class, it seems perfunctory. People didn’t see Romney as “one of us”, because the democrats have demonized really rich people for years. Romney had a “strange” religion, so he got no real gain there, except among a subclass of voters who would have voted for a republican in any case.

Perry would have won significantly more hispanic votes, because Obama painted Romney as the enemy of hispanics, and Perry’s record would have prevented that (it’s one of the things that made him so “unacceptable” to the conservatives here). Perry wasn’t a rich man, had less money than Obama in fact.

Perry also, while not nearly as “intelligent” speaking as Romney, did manage to speak more about conservative principles making america great, and about states rights, which was a major part of the Obamacare fight.

Romney had Bain capital for Obama to exploit to pretend Romney didn’t create jobs. Perry had nothing like that on him, only a record of job growth in his state.

Maybe Obama would have gotten all sorts of OTHER arguments to beat a Rick Perry. But they would have been more fun to fight about than having to defend Bain capital and rich people and a guy who was known to have changed all his positions to our side over the past 15 years.

I’m not saying Rick Perry was the best person to run. I did think that, of the people who actually CHOSE to run, he was our best shot at winning the election. Even though he was a disaster at a few debates, I think Romney proved that being really good at a debate isn’t much help, if your message doesn’t resonate.


4 posted on 11/16/2012 9:50:17 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Was Mitt Romney, as some suggested, "our best foot forward" -- a highly intelligent, photogenic, generous, public-spirited, articulate man of great integrity whose loss can only be chalked up to the poor judgment of 2012's voters and massive vote fraud?

Slight correction.

5 posted on 11/16/2012 10:24:35 AM PST by JimRed (Excise the cancer before it kills us; feed &water the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW & FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson