Skip to comments.Time for ‘democrats for Romney’
Posted on 08/18/2012 6:29:13 AM PDT by GlockThe Vote
Almost all of my friends are Democrats; all of them voted for Barack Obama in 2008.
Ask them these days, as I have, if they plan to vote for Obama this November, and theyll give you an Oh shucks sad smile, look down, look back up with guilty eyes and say Im disappointed.
Then they play the party line and say. But Romney? But Ryan?
Im not talking about those African Americans, Latinos and lockstep Democrats wholl blindly vote for Obama no matter how high unemployment may be or what shape this country may be in.
Im talking about a good number of intelligent, caring, middle-class Democrats who are a soft nudge away from casting their vote for Romney.
All they need to know is that theyre not alone.
Democrats were disappointed in 1980. Theyd had, under President Jimmy Carter, four years of inflation, unemployment and gas rationing. Yet, when asked, they said, But Reagan?
At this point in 1980, Carter was nine points ahead of Ronald Reagan in the polls. Reagan had been slimed by the press and pro-Jimmy Carter forces as being dumb and bumbling. Sound familiar?
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
i have said for some time now that none in the media or inside the beltway see the slaughter coming in nov
I think we’re fixing to see a surge leftward from the GOP.
Should be easy for Democrats to vote for Willard. It’s not like he’s a Conservative (or a real Republican).
They are denial, just as they were in November 2010. Their dreams of 40 years of democrat party rule will be relegated to the ash heap of history.
Still, Romney/Ryan come into this convention 2 points ahead instead of the 9 points behind that Reagan/Bush were so maybe Romney does not have to pander quite so much to the liberals.
I'm thinking Romney/Ryan will be able to win easily on their conservative message as they should capture 98% of the conservative vote and at least 70% of the Independent vote. If we can get just 10% of the Democrats (those working class blue-collar types who are fed up with Obama), it will turn into a landslide similar to 1980.
Then why did they go for Reagan?
I know Mittens is not even 1/4 the conservative Reagan was, but people are really hurting out there.
Im talking about a good number of intelligent, caring, middle-class Democrats who are a soft nudge away from casting their vote for Romney.
Given the spittle-laced, psychotic rage most Demonrats possess and display on a daily basis, I’m not sure these people exist. About the closest I can imagine are the countless remaining 75+ FDR-loving Democrats who know what will happen to them under Obamacare, and their votes will only be out of self protection instead of any interest in saving the country.
Been around for a while.
Some are trying to lie Romney into being Reagan when the fact is, Reagan democrats voted for Reagan largely on the social issues Romney hides from.
My thoughts are these, probably very different then most of the Freeper posts on this site. IMHO, there should absolutely be a “Democrats For Romney/Ryan”!!!
Why? Because millions of registered Democrats will be voting for Romney/Ryan, come November, including about 15-20% of Black Americans.
The clear handwriting is on the wall for all objective folks to see. Fact is: Obama/Biden have failed the country, they have failed Democrats, they have really failed all of Black Americans, they have failed the entire USA population. No one is attending their rallies, No money is pouring in, no sane Democrat candidate runnig for office in November wants to be see near either Obama or Biden.
I say, give Democrats a soap box opportunity to help us all get rid of these un-American, incompetents, would be america destroyers!!!
32 years ago, this was a different country. There was still a large swath of Conservative Democrat voters. Most of those people are either dead or have since become Republicans.
mitt splits the liberal vote. I've been saying it ever since NPR was carrying his water during the primaries.
How will we know? ;-)
These dims take themselves so seriously. Now they are facing the prospect of voting for President Kardashian and Joe the Clown. I think it is sheer embarrassment on their part because they will never vote for the GOP and are stuck.
Every campaign, various campaign workers are urged to identify former members of the opposite party who are switching their allegiance. In 2004, for example, all they wanted were warm bodies who had voted Democrat at least once before, to join “Democrats for W”.
This is the same thing. It means little. Both parties do it, hoping to peel away voters with an example to follow and then publicizing the *defections*. SOP.
When Obama wins, I want to hear just how proud some of these FR’s are to have not voted at all or voted third party because they were conscientious objectors toward anything but their view of perfection... for want of perfection hope is lost...
Want some cheese to go with that whine ?
I have to assume these people are not feeling the effects of the Obama depression since they either not in the workforce, on retirement, get a govt check or something.
Someone would have to be bats%^ crazy to want 4 more years of this depression.
It’s easy not to see it...if you don’t open your eyes..
“including about 15-20% of Black Americans.”
You’re dreaming, my FRiend.
Obama will win “the black vote” by 91-93%. Maybe more.
“NPR was carrying his water during the primaries.”
That’s true. A lot of leftists were carrying Romney’s water during the primaries - including Bob Beckle - saying he would be the toughest for them to beat.
Now they’re saying he’s just a rich snoot who doesn’t care about the average guy and they’re gonna beat him with class warfare stick.
“32 years ago, this was a different country. There was still a large swath of Conservative Democrat voters. Most of those people are either dead or have since become Republicans.”
You’re someone who sees the reality of “the political drift” in America today.
This is why presidential elections are going to become more bitter, and more difficult for the Republicans to win — until someday in the future when they may no longer be able to win the presidency at all.
The older generations — who embraced “older” values and mores, regardless of party affiliation, are simply dying off. The young-uns who are replacing them do not share such values — as a result of ever-more-leaning-leftward educations. Thank someone named Gramsci for that.
And the major problem conservatives face is that the political drift is slowly, but constantly, towards the left. This is due more to changing demographics than anything else. The folks who are taking the place of the fading generations don’t and won’t believe in the same things, because they are literally “different people” who literally “come from different places” (the third world, etc., where conservative traditions of the “Scots-Irish” heritage don’t exist and have never existed).
There are folks here who whoop and holler about the “blowout” this election is going to be. I don’t believe that for a moment. It’s going to be relatively close. Romney may win, and he may win by, say, 5-6% of the popular vote, but it may still be a squeaker in the electoral college.
The reality that a 6-point spread may be the best a modest Republican can do against an all-but-self-declared socialist red-diaper baby is what’s most indicative of the direction the country is headed. It’s not going to get better in coming years.
Actually, since liberals don’t reproduce as much as conservatives, perhaps the long term trend is in favor of Conservatives.
And then I reply, "BUT AMERICA?"
What could possibly compel anyone to vote for Obama after his compromising of American intelligence and endangering the members and families of Seal Team six, or his betrayal of the Pakistani doctor who led us to Bin Laden?
How can anyone watch Obama use minorities as pawns in his attempt to destruct the constitution and view him as even slightly honorable?
How can anyone not be curious about who he really is and why the media is still hiding his past?
If they choose "none of the above" it will have the same effect.
maybe Romney does not have to pander quite so much to the liberals.
But he will anyway...
“Im talking about a good number of intelligent, caring, middle-class Democrats”
...there’s a guy in my office who voted Obama in ‘08 who has that “looking down shamefully” deal going on when asked if he was still happy with his vote. Little turd. You can’t change a liberals spots. Once a treasonist left wing lunatic, always a treasonist left wing lunatic.
Same in my business group - but at the end of the day these leftist fanatics will vote for him again.
All the dims have to do is flip Tejas and it is all over.
It would not surprise me to see the kenyan lose this year and run again in the future with a Hispanic VP on his ticket.
“All the dims have to do is flip Tejas and it is all over.”
You, too, see what’s coming down the line.
Tejas -is- going to “flip”, although it will take 20-30 years.. This is inevitable and nothing can prevent what’s going to happen. (Aside — something -could- prevent it, and I discuss at the end of this reply.)
A few months’ back, right here on FreeRepublic, there was an article posted about the current birth rates in Texas. In some locations, if I recall correctly, something like 60-70% of the births were to Hispanics. I’m sure many of these were births to illegals, if not most of them.
And the “gringo” birth rate there is in decline.
Of course, the illegal parents can’t vote. They may or may not get amnesty in the future (my guess is that they will, within 8-10 years, but it doesn’t matter).
But the reality is that every baby born to these Hispanic women is an American citizen, regardless of whether the parents are illegal or not. Every one. Of course, they can’t vote today. But time will change that — just wait eighteen years.
And, historically, Hispanics vote for the democrats. If the Pubbies get 30% of the Hispanic vote, they think they’re doing great. But that means the ‘rats get 70%. And as the total number of Hispanics in Tejas increases by leaps and bounds vis-a-vis the gringos, the state is slowly, but inevitably, going to tip leftward. It won’t be like California, but rather more like New Mexico (which is already a “Euro-minority” state, the second in the nation). NM is now a “leans blue” state, and will turn “reliably blue” within ten years.
There -might- be a way to prevent Texas from tipping, by having the state change the way it assigns electoral votes now (instead of waiting for the inevitable future). That is, Texas should change from the “winner take all” paradigm to the assignment of electors by congressional district. This could “dilute” the increasing power of the ‘rats/Hispanics in the future and keep the state competitive. But Republicans can’t “look forward” far enough to understand the implications for the future from what is happening today.
They don’t call ‘em “the stupid party” fer nuthin’ !!
We’ll know Obama is truly toast when a lot of high profile Democrats publicly state they are on Romney’s team.
There have been two black politicians in the past couple of weeks defect. Doug Wilder was one, but I can’t recall the other one. It would seem that they expect Obama to lose and are setting themselves up to be power brokers in a Romney administration.
“The problem this time around is the Romney/Ryan ticket is running more conservative than the Reagan/Bush ticket was in 1980.”
Nobody who voted for Reagan in 1980 thought he was liberal (or more liberal than Romney is today) - NOT EVEN CLOSE. They knew they were voting for a pro-life person that wanted to cut taxes and build up the military. Bush-41 may have helped to “balance” the ticket, but he was minor.
The bottom line was that Americans knew they had to jettison Carter and MANY held their noses to vote for Reagan (not us, but many others). It’s no different today, only that conservatives will have to hold their noses (a bit) as they vote for Romney.
Like picking Ryan?
Ryan isn’t at the top of the ticket and only a moron would believe Romney’s VP choice will have even the slightest bearing on how he would govern.
Romney isn't Reagan. That's the difference this time around. Sometimes, the non-incumbent party must field its best candidate in order to regain the White House. The GOP has not done that in 2012.
If Romney loses, it will be because he was an incredibly weak candidate, not because of petulant voters.
No voter asks for or expects perfection. They just require a sufficient lack of imperfection.
In this environment, I can't think of a worse choice than Romney. The guy practically invented 0bamacare, for Chrissake!
Romney may still manage to win against this incredibly damaging Marxist usurper, but to blame a potential Romney loss on anybody but Romney himself is disingenuous, and the epitome of absurdity.
Reagan attracted a lot of Democrats in 1980 because he spoke out in support of labor unions and on social issues such as special rights for women (a liberal cause back in those days that is similar to the special rights for homosexuals that liberals are pushing today).
In fact, here is a clip from Reagan's Labor Day speech in 1980 by the Statue of Liberty in which he spoke of the virtues of labor unions and collective bargaining. It was such a stance that brought millions of working-class Democrats into the fold. Romney is not going to bring those voters over this time because he is seen as an enemy of labor unions - the prototypical union-smashing big-business capitalist.
So that is what I mean by the fact that Romney/Ryan is running (up to this point) a more conservative campaign than Reagan/Bush did in 1980. Despite his (Romney) reputation as a social liberal, since securing his nomination earlier this year, Romney has made no sops at all to liberal social causes. He seems to be running as a button-down, no-nonsense conservative who is going to Washington to fix things and do some ass-kicking. His selection of Paul Ryan further reinforces what I just said.
Now granted, we haven't heard the convention speeches yet and we have yet to see the debates and the massive media ad blitz that will assault us once the Romney team can start freely spending their amassed campaign fortune once the convention is over with. So maybe Romney does lurch to the left as he did in the past when running for office in Massachusetts. So far, no signs of that though. We shall see.
Bottom line is that Romney we see running for the White House looks to be much different than the Romney we remember in Massachusetts when he was trying to govern a state that was 90% controlled by a far-left Democrat state legislature.
If Paul Ryan is an example of the people he is going to select for his team, there are a lot of Freepers that might be eating their words come a year or two from now.
I was talking about how he is running not how he will govern. Your moron comment is discourse I would expect from the left, however I will give you the benefit of the doubt and blame your upbringing.
Obama is counting on you and your type... I’m sure you won’t let him down...
You n00b Willardbot trolls and your absurdist talking points can hit the bricks. Just because you get a thrill up your leg at the thought of having a leftist RINO as President doesn’t mean others do. This is a Conservative website, pal. We support Conservatives here.
want some cheese to go with your whine?
Fair point - Reagan had his base nailed down so he could move to the center when campaigning (i.e., the base trusted him)...no one since that time, on the Republican side, has been in that situation - and no one has had the blowouts that Reagan had.
Based on his record, Romney is someone Democrats could feel comfortable voting for.
Selective memory is part of efforts to make sense of conflicting reality.
What has changed is American jobs have been sent overseas.
It is time for Republicans to demand an end to off-shoring.
Bring back US jobs. Because outsourcing them is destroying America.