Posted on 11/20/2012 11:30:54 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
I cringe every time I hear that McCain got more votes than Romney, but it's because actually, Romney got more votes than McCain.
In the 10 states that have completed vote counting, Romney had more votes than McCain in 9 of them - the only one where he didn't was Vermont.
Romney's vote total is now only 36,000 behind McCain nationwide, with millions of votes still to be counted.
Be that as it may, I know several personally who made that statement. I’m glad Christians turned out to vote, because it is our duty to God and country - win or lose.
Pure and simple...Romney lost because the majority of voters were ignorant of the issues at hand. Couple that with the RATS playing Santa Claus.........and you have the continuation of the Marxist/socialist state of the USA
One problem is anecdotal vs. statistical evidence, even on a broader scale - either personally or “someone I know” there were plenty of people on FR who claim they didn’t vote because Romney wasn’t conservative enough, or voted for Goode, but this probably adds up to only a few hundred people. And when you look at the actual statistics, it’s impossible to find any evidence this was widespread or had the slightest effect on the election - there certainly were not “millions” of such people.
Add that to the simple gross incompetence of comparing day-after 2012 vote totals to final completed 2008 tallies, and wishful thinking (people DESPERATELY want to believe that Romney lost because millions of true conservatives “stayed home”) and you get some really terrible analysis.
I disagree.
Romney lost for two reasons:
1) Obama has the black American population locked.
2) Romney does not have the white American population locked.
Fact is, many white Americans voted for Obama.
Yet very few black Americans voted for Romney.
Racism?
I would think it is apparent. But it is deeper. Romney turned away white Americans in significant numbers.
That was inexcusable.
The race is over, but let’s next time - run someone who Republicans genuinely like and support.
No more holding of our collective nose.
Let’s nominate someone next time, we LIKE.
That is all we need to know as to why the Democrats won and will continue to win.
Let’s nominate someone next time, we LIKE.
^ THIS ^, x1,000,000,000,000,000.
As I've repeatedly posted, hereabouts: "No political party or candidate in this country has ever won the office of the Presidency while (simultaneously) warring with/actively suppressing its own ideological voting base."
The GOP-e (and its willing CINO handmaidens) has attempted to disapprove this baseline, irrefutable electoral truth twice now, successively. Both times, the end result has been unalloyed disaster.
For the love of all that's holy, squishes: frickin' LEARN.
Yup.
What you said.
I just don't have the time... the patience... or even the baseline interest in dealing "courteously" with that sort of protracted online drooling any longer.
My suggestion, re: any other FReepers regarding said stance either an intolerable or insoluble dilemma: learn a good coping mechanism. ;)
Exactly
Just a bunch of blah-blah-blah pseudointellectual psychobabble. He lost because many in the Republican party didn’t want to vote for an extreme left-winger from Taxxachusetts and it’s tough to beat Santa Claus. The tide has been turning and we saw it take affect this election.
For 2016 Obama and the Democrats will see to it a few million get amnesty and vote Democrat, more will be on food stamps and other welfare and also vote Democrat. The Republicans will continue to upset working Americans and lose votes there. The margin was slim this year but it will be even larger in 2016.
Axiom of elections: People vote with their wallets, and this year there were more voters for Obama getting free money in their wallets. This election wasn’t about ideology. It was simply about Takers versus Makers, and there are slightly more Takers than Makers so they won.
The Democraps have worked for years at vote buying and now the tide has them with enough Takers to win elections. The economic situation only affects the Makers, not the Takers, so the idea that no President wins re-election with 8+% unemployment means nothing.
Bump.
Your post is spot on!
Romney lost to massive voter fraud—which Obama would do again & again if he could.
I am furious with the Republicans in general for putting their collective heads into the sand & refusing to bark loud & long & get to the bottom of this.
A district in Florida had 7 registered voters.....
900 votes were recorded there.
Someone needs to explain that to me.
“Newt and Cain were the only candidates in this cycle who showed any ability here.”
They would have done no such thing; they were allowed to be heard because the media saw them as no threat who could only weaken the real candidate in the end. Romney wasn’t a great candidate, but McCain/Palin were no better against the slings and arrows of the press.
ANY candidate will be attacked like this, and their response, even if brilliant, will only be seen by a small number of people (while their Dem opponent has praise showered on them). Just think about the state of the economy, and realize that Obama WON RE-ELECTION in this.
It is absolutely frightening how the campaign of mis-information can have such an impact on all of our lives...
The person at the top of the ticket needs this ability. We lacked this in 2008 and 2012. Reagan managed it.
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.