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

Skip to comments.

Why Republicans should have won the election (and why they didnít)
The Washington Post ^ | November 27, 2012 | Chris Cillizza

Posted on 11/28/2012 4:57:47 PM PST by MinorityRepublican

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-80 last
To: MinorityRepublican

First off the Mourdock and Aikin loss.When it comes to defending a fundamental concept the godless ones have been pretty good at attacking an article of faith and reducing it to ridicule.Then so called conservatives talkers ans the camp followers in the white house press corpse, as well as whores in the media began piling it on and the stampede was on.
The question becomes could should they have handled it ?
Here is a suggested response...

“I happen to believe bla bla bla which will has nothing to do with any legislation that may cross my desk and never will....At least I believe in God ...as a political party God is someone they booed...use the convention clip ...and I don’t believe that an election to office is a license to steal...

ABOUT THE TOP OF THE TICKET LOSS
THE BLAME GOES TO THE PEOPLE WHO RAN THESE CAMPAIGNS
INCLUDING THE CANDIDATES

Expecting voters to know what’s going on and their reliance on MSM is just part of why our great loss. While there are examples of fraud which may close up the gap, the gap is too big to blame the loss on fraud ...Expecting GOP E’s to address media bias or Romney to call Obama a congenital liar or even point out that the fact and figures released by the white house were allways questionable is another Let alone call him a “socialist”..

But the fault lies really in the messaging the Republican campaign came up with. Choking on political correctness parameters or triping over past positions on global warming and Romneycare both of which were bread and butter issues. .Then busy responding to pseudo positions devised by the demo-com party and echoed by their hand maiden camp followers in the media allowing them to set the agenda ..

Romney ran a “Johnny One Note Campaign”. Used a poison dart blow gun when he should have used a cannon loaded with grape shot because he had pleanty of stuff he could fill that cannon barrel with..

They failed to hammer away on what will happen when Obama gets returned; The Obama past due 2013/14 Tax Increases.

Attacks on government policies which affect every “demographic” which I call bread and buttter issues affecting everybodys pocket book WERE NEVER MADE OR JUST MUTTERED ..Particularly this one
The impact of Obama’s gagging energy resources.(a socialist construct never branded as such) with policies requiring reliance on intermittent sources wind and solar and that resulting in massive corruption .,restricted allowance of of drilling, and banning use of coal ,freezes on fracking, and resulting prices doubling on everything.. This was a bread and butter issue which reached into every “demographics” pocketbook including accepting the demo-com definition of hyphenated African-Hispanic -Americans .

The impact of Supreme Court Appointments..Obamabcare taxes need to pay 18,000 new IRS agents and on and on. . Some were very briefly touched most weren’t and Benghazi/ foreign policy was left to languish.

Then there is Obama’s personal extravagance and behavior refusing to visit Nashville after its disaster showing up at New Orleans after Mitt visited it. Even after the Christi thing if that was brought up it would have blunted the impact.

Instead we got a sales pitch on executive ability but not the reason why one should toss the old model and buy his. That print and tv pitch , 20 million new jobs, was given a discrarded dose of skepticism .

In addition Rove who I understand was handling the Charter PAC senate campaign played games. His material never warned voters that IF OBAMA GETS RE-ELECTED AND SENATE CONTROL REMAINED . .. OBAMACARE AND ALL THE TAX INCREASES THAT GO WITH IT WILL NEVER GET REPEALED Let alone tie into or cover the formentioned grape shot which would have perhaps changed that body. I don’t recall any of that material directed toward that fact.

Finally they didn’t believe the polls which turned out were dead on. Even going as far as setting up focus groups which could have looked into what’s going on . Even to the point of going out to local eateries and bars and eavesdrop into conversations and pick up on topics being discussed.(chat rooms twitter too contrived) They would have learned their turnout projections were off and the sence of urgency to get out the vote was diminished by their glowing projections and disbelief never mind ORCA which should have been tested. COMPLACENCY WAS ENCOURAGED BY THE MEDIA AND NOT COUNTER ACTED UPON

Our local small population (-8000) rural blue county GOP had at the outset good and growing attendence at their meetings 50 plus. At the meeting the Thursday before the election only about a dozen people showed up and I knew we were in trouble .

Nuts...This loss is inexcuseable, while I trully don’t believe Mitt Romney would ever continence losing, I’m begining to believe that most GOPE’s really didn’t want to see AHCA, (affordable health care act) otherwise known as ZerO care go ..


51 posted on 11/28/2012 7:26:45 PM PST by mosesdapoet ("A voice crying in the wilderness make streight for the way of the Lord")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

” you need to come up with millions of votes ~ i’m seeing thousands ~ doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, but scale must be considered ~ over 160 million voters voted. “

You are WRONG there, of course - as you intended to be.

Check all that information available that I referred to and find that the number of additional votes Romney would need to win is very miniscule - something like 100,000 or so. Very carefully calculated by soros - or not since it seems to have gotten out of hand when they went with those 100% of votes for bronco, or even 140% wow !

Also very obvious Romney strangly *lost* a lot of votes - like those who voted for Romney but the machine *switched* the vote to bronco.

Note ALL THE LINES OF VOTERS on election day - around and around the block even. Great hoardes of voters came out. You can be sure they were not for bronco.


52 posted on 11/28/2012 7:31:21 PM PST by PraiseTheLord (economic civil war ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PraiseTheLord
smallest number i saw was that Romney would have needed over 300,000 in some specific states ~ he lost as many in Virginia last March when his agents screwed up our primary.

Unfortunately I"ve seen folks refer to the general election here as having been subject to a great deal of corruption ~ which it wasn't. But the primary was ~ but at a higher level than who got to vote ~ rather all about 'who got to run'

53 posted on 11/28/2012 7:53:37 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: PraiseTheLord
BTW, every 20 years, in the first Presidential election after a census and redistricting there are always lines. There are also places where there were no lines. Lines are news. No lines are not news.

In and of themselves lines don't mean anything other than the failure of the county to properly deploy facilities and staff to support the changes occuring in redistricting by the legislature.

54 posted on 11/28/2012 7:55:44 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican; LucyT
I respectfully disagree with that argument.

I believe Romney lost because approximately 10% of the voters almost all included in the core Republican Constituency stayed home because Romney was a Liberal who supported a number of policies with which they did not agree.

55 posted on 11/28/2012 8:00:47 PM PST by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
Going into election day 2012, Republicans were very confident that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney had a 50-50 chance of winning the presidency. It didn’t turn out that way.

Uh, it did? If he had a 50/50 chance of winning, he had a 50/50 chance of losing. It was just as likely that he would lose, as that he would win. He lost -- which was one of the possible outcomes. So it did "turn out that way".

56 posted on 11/28/2012 8:22:35 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

The only way the Republican Party has a chance is the DemonRATs will do what they are expected to do and take this country into ruin. Then, those who put their faith in the DemonRATs will hear the “We told you so!” and find a new faith.

Those who believe in the Progressive Communists will only learn from the school of hard knocks. They are that hard headed.


57 posted on 11/28/2012 8:40:00 PM PST by jonrick46 (The opium of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
The math, according to Bolger, is determinative. There are simply more Democrats than Republicans in the country...so how come people like Rasmussen were telling us that party identification now favored Republicans at a higher percentage than ever before??? - assuming today's "math" actually provides the true picture, which isn't obvious, but assuming it does, it was faulty info like that given by Rasmussen which made it seem Romney couldn't lose......
58 posted on 11/28/2012 9:10:35 PM PST by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

If journalists don’t investigate it, it didn’t happen right? Maybe they’re busy looking into the 0bama regime’s actions (or lack thereof) before, during and after Benghazi? No wait.. Those racist Republicans out to get a black female or maybe their unwillingness to ‘COMPROMISE’ on the Fiscal Cliff, yeah that’s it!! Who could imagine the next four years being worse than the last four? IT WILL BE. 0bama’s failure to announce ANY plans prior to the election were a warning of how bad it’s going to be.


59 posted on 11/28/2012 9:21:14 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Latinos are natural Democrats. They come from socialist countries. Not one in one hundred could tell you anything about free market economics. 65% of immigrants are on the dole.

The answer is to get them out of our country, not turn iut b over to them.


60 posted on 11/28/2012 10:17:19 PM PST by Jack Black ( Whatever is left of American patriotism is now identical with counter-revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Latinos are natural Democrats. They come from socialist countries. Not one in one hundred could tell you anything about free market economics. 65% of immigrants are on the dole.

The answer is to get them out of our country, not turn iut b over to them.


61 posted on 11/28/2012 10:17:33 PM PST by Jack Black ( Whatever is left of American patriotism is now identical with counter-revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Latinos are natural Democrats. They come from socialist countries. Not one in one hundred could tell you anything about free market economics. 65% of immigrants are on the dole.

The answer is to get them out of our country, not turn iut b over to them.


62 posted on 11/28/2012 10:17:48 PM PST by Jack Black ( Whatever is left of American patriotism is now identical with counter-revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Massachusetts liberals should never have taken over the GOP

Yea, that even failed 52 years ago with "Cabot" Lodge, but our little Republican primary voters are too uninformed to make a selection.

63 posted on 11/29/2012 4:25:37 AM PST by Theodore R. ("Hey, the American people must all be crazy out there!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: danielmryan

“When one group regularly gets way with murder and the other doesn’t, isn’t it most logical to look over the enforcers?”

It’s a good argument, but I don’t believe so. You have to have a long history of dealing with grossly defective psychologies to see this.

When I look at the relationship between ideologues, I see the relationship between a normal (naïve to defective psychologies) psychology, and a Narcissist. The Narcissist does insane evil. The normal psychology says something about it, the Narcissist freaks out beyond all measure, and the normal psychology (who is assuming the Narcissist is normal) backs down, and seeks to defuse what appears on the surface to be an uncontrollably escalating situation. This is how those relationships work, because the normal assumes the Narcissist wouldn’t freak out like that unless he was willing to escalate even further. In truth the Narcissist is freaking so much, so early in the interaction, because he is terrified of seeing it come to an escalated conclusion. The freak out is panic at the thought of the conclusion, not an aggressive willingness to embrace such a conclusion.

Then another time, the normal psychology does something normal, without expressly seeking to serve the interests of the Narcissist, the Narcissist freaks out, and again, the normal placates him, to avoid what seems to be an out-of control situation. Even worse, the normal comes to think that if he allowed the melee to erupt, it would be wrong of him, because he could see it coming, so it was up to him to avoid it.

Over time, this all results in a relationship where the normal thinks it is right to serve the Narcissist, to keep the peace, and avoid what the normal thinks would be an out of control melee if he just acted normal.

If you understand the Narcissist (and Liberal), and just how their brain works, you know that freak out is occurring as a defensive mechanism, seeking to try and shield them from a panic and suffering in the face of criticism that normals can barely imagine. If you press on, in the face of the freak out, you can inflict unimaginable suffering on the Narcissist, and lead them to not screw with you in the future. I crossed that barrier, and saw the collapse, and I have no doubt the Liberal is exactly the same. Press on, in the face of a freak-out, and you will rapidly see Liberalism collapse in shame.

The problem is not that the media freaks out when Republicans criticize Dems. The problem is that Republicans don’t circle the wagons when faced with a freak-out, dig in their heels, and calmly and rationally explain, again and again, why they are right about what selfish, stupid creatures Democrats are, and the damage they are doing.Over time, and with repetition, that will permeate the consciousness of the populace, and poison people against Liberalism. That is where the real battle is fought and won, but we never get there, because the Establishment Rino’s jump in immediately, and support the Libs, and placate them.

They move to placate at the first hint of conflict, which only produces a worse problem in the future. It is as if you have a prisoner strapped down to a table, you break out the electrodes to torture some piece of info out of him, but when he screams, you immediately apologize, unstrap him, and beg his forgiveness. That scream wasn’t a bad thing you needed to rectify with kindness, it was the first sign your strategy was working, and it should have led you to press on. Even worse, the next time you strap the prisoner down, what do you think he will do? Are you going to get your info?

The media has always been a bunch of pathetic progressive shills. Patton’s first sentence in his famous speech to his troops was something like, “Men, I want you to know, all this noise the media is spewing about Americans wanting to run away from this war, and not wanting to fight, is a load of Bullshit!” FDR was portrayed as an Olympic-level athlete. They propped him up on his ass, against a box on a dock, with his legs flopped in front of him, wearing a swim suit, so people would think he spent the day swimming and diving.

Reagan knew this, and went on the attack, relentlessly. What Reagan did was humiliate and ridicule them, and when they screamed in agony, he laughed, and did it again, even better. He treated the media as unimportant, and turned the word Liberal into an epithet.

Liberals are like dogs. When they whine, you can reward them for whining, by retracting your attacks and apologizing. If you do, they will whine even louder and faster the next time, and expect you to back down.

Alternatively, when they whine, you can humiliate them again, make them scream in the agony of being humiliated by what they are yet again, and train them with more Aversive Stimulus, to immediately back down when you criticize them, lest they get it worse next time.

The reason we are losing this nation is because our leaders are weak, afraid of making contact with the enemy, and afraid of striking rhetorically at them with aggression. If we began an aggressive campaign of negativism towards every facet of Liberalism, and demonized Liberals, ignoring their whining, we would poison a significant part of the populace against them and that would have profound effects on the next election. This is basic neurobiology (amygdala, aversive stimulus, etc).

But we should start now. This type of neurological conditioning takes time and repetition.


64 posted on 11/29/2012 2:35:26 PM PST by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

“However, it’s NOT going to happen through rhetoric and policies that make the average FR posters orgasmic with joy, and people have to grow up and accept that.”

You sound like the type of guy who denies dogs can be trained - there are just good ones and bad ones, so don’t bother trying to mold their minds or behavior. Even worse you want to appeal to the bad ones, and reward them.

A non-conservative is just a member of the base, who is uninformed, and hasn’t been turned into a Republican voter through the proper application of neurological conditioning. It can be done, and it isn’t done through the pansy RINO path, which just leads the whole country farther left, and destroys the right (by trying to eliminate all conflict and aversive stimulus, when that is exactly what is needed).

You’ve run these moderate, feel-good pansies in how many non-negative elections now, and lost everytime. Why not reevaluate your own grasp on reality?

Oh, that’s right, you can’t be wrong, so let’s nominate another “moderate,” because this one is just a sure thing. You say so. You know so, this time.

Which makes me wonder, why not question yourself, and where you are leading the party? I mean, you’ve blown how many elections now with your nice-guy moderate tools? You don’t seem to think Conservatism is right enough to win in a logical argument. You view the stalwarts of the idoelogy as obstacles to overcome.

So my big question is, why are you even in the movement? Do you like Conservatism, or do you just want to tell other people what to do, so you can acquire power, and the movement is just a tool to that end?

If you want to win in 2016, the answer is simple. Start running negative ads now, demonizing Liberals and Liberalism. Hide behind whatever entity you want, but start putting the seed in people’s heads that Liberals are disloyal, corrupt, cowardly, pathetic, weak, dishonest, untrustworthy, opposed to our nation winning, opposed to American greatness and power, opposed to the small businessmen who create jobs, etc. Link them to the economic collapse through Dodd and Frank. Link them to the dead Ambassador. Do what Liberals did to Bush and Katrina.

Out-group the Liberal, in the minds of the voters. Make them the enemy of real Americans in every ad. Highlight an aspect of a K-selected psychology, and show how the Liberal is opposed to it, and wants to violate it. Ridicule them and their positions.

The first week it would have no effect. A month, almost nothing. A year - and you’d start to see something. Over a full four years - as Liberals screamed, and the ads kept coming, you’d be amazed at how many Americans would see Liberalism associated with Aversive Stimulus in their amygdalae. These people would avoid associating with Liberalism, which is the first step to opening their mind to Conservatism. It would work.

Or Republicans can just wait for four years with their thumbs stuck up their asses, and then try to out-liberal the Liberal at the last minute, but really, that is the dumbest thing I can imagine.

There was a reason people hailed Lee Atwater as the greatest of all time. Fighting works, and negative advertising works, if you’ve got the stones for it. Unfortunately, the GOPe seems to not have the stones, of late.


65 posted on 11/29/2012 3:34:16 PM PST by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: stickywillie

Exactly. If we don’t fight, the public assumes it is because we are wrong. If we fight, we win.


66 posted on 11/29/2012 3:36:34 PM PST by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

You should start the RINO PAC. Amass a war chest, and then have everyone vote on who the biggest RINO is (or the biggest three, or five, etc.). Whoever wins, that war-chest goes to unseating them in the general.

Give the GOP the option of getting that person(s) out in the primary. If they do, then the plan could involve offering the Party the money, or offer it to some other Conservative cause.

There is no cost to stabbing the party or the movement in the back now. It’s seen as a freebie, which just get’s more independent voters to vote for you. Make every Rino worry about whether they will be the one to have $10 mil in negative advertising unleashed on them in the general - by their own side.


67 posted on 11/29/2012 3:43:11 PM PST by AnonymousConservative (Why did Liberals evolve within our species? www.anonymousconservative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AnonymousConservative

we can fight it on the streets, but the GOP-e won’t back up our efforts by standing behind us, and making the evidence photographic. and, it bothers me that the so-called Conservatives won’t jump on things such as the birth certificate with upteen layers, as published in the Whitehouse webpage, or the felonious socials security #’s. No one has our backs, but the democrats fall over themselves circling the wagons for their corrupt own.


68 posted on 11/30/2012 6:27:30 PM PST by stickywillie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: patriot08; PraiseTheLord; MinorityRepublican; Mortrey; Strategerist; muawiyah; ...
The Republicans actually DID win - it is just the >>VOTE FRAUD<< that makes it look like they didn’t. If you don’t SEE THE VOTE FRAUD - you ARE NOT LOOKING ! ( and people have spelled out how and where the VOTE FRAUD - lots of links —— it is there for the seeing. Soros calculated just how many and where was needed - picking the right swing states, the right districts like crooked black philadelphia etc etc

Not trying to start an argument (Patriot08 and PraisetheLord), but I have to ask - if there was such massive (and documented) fraud, then why didn't Romney say a word about it? What about the rest of the GOP - why did they also keep quiet? What about the few remaining conservative Supreme Court Justices? That silence makes the fraud argument seem Truther-esque.

As I said on another thread yesterday, I would fight in court for a parking ticket that was given to me unfairly. A parking ticket.

Yet I am to believe the most powerful country in the world just experienced massive poll rigging, and the only people who know about it are a few on internet fora and some radio shows? That the Dems steamrolled the electoral process, and the whole GOP couldn't find ONE person of national note to say something - anything? (Even Col. West would only say “I don’t want to see America become like Zimbabwe where people don’t trust their electoral process. If we cannot trust the integrity of the voting system then we are no longer a free republic.")

I am sorry Patriot08, but it doesn't look like Romney lost because there was fraud (not that fraud didn't exist, but that it was not the main, or even a major, reason why he lost). However, let's assume for a moment you are right. That the reason Romney lost was not because he ran a poor campaign, or the failures of his ORCA GOTV system, or the fact that he could not tap into part of the conservative base, or that he couldn't sway independents, or couldn't sway the minority vote that really came out in this election, or he couldn't sway the youth vote that went heavily into the Dem camp, or that he couldn't sway the unmarried female vote at all. Or, how he run as a moderate when that was read as being Obama-lite; or how the media hammered him; or how the Republican Primaries had all these GOP contestants hammering each other to death and doing Obama's work for him months before the elections; or how he refused to hammer Obama in the same manner he hammered Gingrich/Perry/etc (Romney really let some good opportunities to draw blood disappear, eg Benghazi).

Let's assume those real reasons are hogwash, and the only reason he lost is because there was massive rigging. Better yet, let's even go a step further and say that Romney did not even lose ...he won, and it is the Dems that 'made it look like he did not.'

Alright - then how come the GOP/Romney/Gingrich/Perry/Supreme Court (at least the portion that is conservative)/etc are not saying a thing? If I would fight tooth and nail over a parking ticket why are they keeping quiet over the loss of a free republic? Yes, I've read about that supposedly 'secret agreement' between the Dems and the GOP to 'never contest a stolen election,' but that's tripe!

If (and it is a mighty big if) you are correct, and the reason Romney lost was not due to his failures in strategy (which were a number) and solely due to massive rigging, then it really doesn't matter! Why? Because, if the whole Republican Party is willing to look the other way while the election is stolen, and once it is stolen say nothing, then it is too late and the republic has been usurped. It's that simple! If you are correct, then that makes the Democrat party vote riggers, and it makes the Republican party spineless traitors. The Republican party would be worse than the Democrats, in the same way an armed police man standing next to a criminal raping a young girl, and doing nothing, would be worse than the criminal. Yes, the perp is committing the actual offense, but the cop is not only allowing it to happen (compliance with the act), but he is also abandoning his duties and obligations.

I believe there was voting fraud, but that it was not the reason Romney lost. Even without fraud he would still have lost. However, if there was fraud to the level you claim, and if it is what cost Romney the election, then my question is simple. Why did the GOP decide to keep quiet?

Without a good answer to that the fraud theory simply looks like one of those alien abduction/radio-controlled-WTC-planes/blurred-bigfoot-picture stories.

Why did the GOP keep quiet? Because of some secret boys-club-in-a-tree-house agreement? I am not trying to mock anyone, but as long as people focus on fairy-tale stories why Romney lost (and he did lose) then they will do nothing to ensure that in 2016 the Conservatives have taken a strong role in the Republican party (step 1), and (step 2) that the Republican party nominee is a Conservative. The last several election cycles have not had a real Conservative - one would probably need to go back to Reagan to find a conservative (i.e. both FISCAL and social). The Conservatives have to take over (or at least take a strong role) within the GOP, and then they have to ensure that they run a person who has conservative principles and who is able to COMMUNICATE to the people.

Or we can simply say 'The Republicans actually DID win - it is just the >>VOTE FRAUD<< that makes it look like they didn’t.' In which case we should probably steer clear of Area 51 since I hear there are flying pyramids or something of the sort there, with lil' green men that have a penchant for probing areas that really don't need any probing!

69 posted on 12/01/2012 12:28:32 AM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

There was massive voter fraud.

How the hell do we know why Romney didn’t fight it. Maybe he is too nice a guy. Maybe he has no spine.. who knows.

And please don’t lump us into a wacko group like “truthers”.

The fraud was obvious. I’m not going to redocument it here for you. It is out there for anyone who cares.

The sad fact is we are now exactly like those pathetic countries who hold mock elections.

West out in Florida didn’t go on with his fight because he simply didn’t have the money to take it to the courts. And of course the GOP wasn’t going to pony up the money.

We live in a time where our so-called elected officials have no back bones. They are high on the power and money and don’t give a rats ass about our Constitution.

But of course it is much easier to believe we lost because our candidate wasn’t perfect. Or we didn’t pander to the correct demographic in the right way.

It is my opinion the Republicans could have ran Ronald Reagan himself and we still would have lost.

No.. Voter fraud. Plain and simple.


70 posted on 12/01/2012 12:47:14 AM PST by Aurorales (I will not be ridiculed into silence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
I don't completely agree.
I believe there WAS ENOUGH Voter Fraud to throw the 80 Electoral College Votes from Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida.
I also believe that had Romney SAVAGED Obama, like he SAVAGED the Conservatives that ran against him in the Primary, Romney would have gotten more votes in the General election.
So yes, it's Romney's fault, but there WAS ENOUGH VOTER FRAUD to steal the election for Obama.
Romney might have won, but with Obama's Criminals running the "Justice Department", they'll never admit Romney won.

Black States = States Obama won by Voter Fraud. Click the state for more information.

Dean Chambers of UnskewedPolls.com Creates Obama Voter Fraud Map

Photo Credit: Barackofraudo.com

http://www.barackofraudo.com/
71 posted on 12/01/2012 12:48:22 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest

Agree with this.


72 posted on 12/01/2012 12:54:48 AM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Aurorales
Aurorales - I did not mean the comparison to the Truthers in bad light, but I still have to ask. Why is the GOP silent? Yes, one might say Romney wants to be a nice guy (true), or he is spineless (also true), but he is not the entire GOP. What about Gingrich? What about Sarah Palin? What about the entire GOP? The few supreme court Justices who can actually say anything and get away with it? Is there no one in the entire Republican/Conservative milieu who would stand up and be counted? No one willing to be a patriot?

And if there is no one then that is a far worse picture than vote rigging (basically the analogy I gave of the armed police man standing next to a perp assaulting a child).

If, as you say, 'we live in a time where our so-called elected officials have no back bones. They are high on the power and money and don’t give a rats ass about our Constitution', then I'd say that the points I gave in the tail-end of my post apply even more than ever. The two-point plan about ensuring Conservatives have a strong voice in the GOP, and that the presidential candidate next time is a conservative (who can communicate - and by communicate I mean able to format a proper narrative that espouses conservative precepts and doesn't let the media define him/her). If the Republicans are so bad that they would let someone steal an election because all they care about is power and money, then that would mean the problem is far worse than stolen votes. Again, the analogy of the cop and the perp.

73 posted on 12/01/2012 12:59:58 AM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

The elected repubs have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the election fraud. In the same way they have turned away from investigating Barry’s fraudulent past.

Do I know why ? No. I actually at this point don’t care.

This incredible situation we are living in right now is unfathomable for most to comprehend.
I am deeply saddened that now I see it for what it is.

I have no idea how to fix it. But I do know that the communists who have taken over our government want us to continue to talk about running a better candidate, how to pander to women and minorities, and who to blame for the loss. Anything but the massive neon colored elephant in the room. Stolen elections and the complicit complacent politicians who keep the charade going.


74 posted on 12/01/2012 2:29:36 AM PST by Aurorales (I will not be ridiculed into silence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

Nixon knew there was vote fraud in 1960 but he didn’t want to put the country through was Al Gore Junior put this nation through in 2000 and Kerry tried to pull in 2004.

Al Franken stole a seat in the Senate after such hassle (and he was one of the 60 that pushed Obamacare through).


75 posted on 12/01/2012 10:45:47 AM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

Maybe it’s just a “fluke” to have 104-140% voter turnout in some precincts. But it stinks and would appear to highlight some level of ballot stuffing.

The dimpled chads in 2000 were also mass produced ballots.


76 posted on 12/01/2012 10:52:10 AM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: gotribe

The Republicans has to give up on the Black Vote, period. Let’s focus on Hispanics. Notice that Dubya pulled 44% of their vote. That’s why Jeb would make a fantastic candidate for 2016.


77 posted on 12/01/2012 6:17:23 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
That’s why Jeb would make a fantastic candidate for 2016.

Jeb? Jeb Bush?

He who favors unqualified amnesty and refers to those of us who disagree as "racists" and "bigots"?

That Jeb Bush?

78 posted on 12/01/2012 6:24:59 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA; Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: okie01

bump


79 posted on 12/01/2012 6:33:21 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

We live in the age of the death of fair play. Morality is gone and Satan grows stronger.


80 posted on 12/02/2012 7:35:46 AM PST by bmwcyle (Women reelected Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-80 last

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.

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