Why the Repulicans lost the election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Henry V

The federal budget could be balanced by just restricting the spending of federal dollars in these states that get more than they pay in (after adjusting for military spending in some way). A fair and balanced approach that would empower the states to help balance the federal budget.

---

Sort of the Minuteman Missile approach, locate the cans where there are few people (red states) so none of them get nuked :). It does raise the spending in a less populated community.

BTW - Cato now has a book out - Silent Spring revisited after 50 years - Have you read it yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JS

That is funny! The Democrats did no such thing. Mitt Romney defined himself throughout the Republican primary. Then reinforced it in the first presidential debate when he ran roughshod over a sleeping Obama.

The next day, while you guys were cheering and counting your votes, the undecided, middle-of-the-road voters were saying, "WTF :shock: ... either this guy is a Romney imposter or he's lying through his teeth". Get over it.

JS

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HPL

I love revisionist history. That is not actually what either the polls or the focus groups showed.

---

Polls, exit polls, focus groups ... what they give you is raw data. Drawing accurate conclusions from that data is another story.

The mistake the party and the candidate made, and are still making, is putting too much emphasis on demographics and minority groups. Mistrust cuts across all lines. There were PLENTY of middle-of-the-road white males over 50 that Romney lost. Some of them voted for Obama; some of them stayed home. Probably enough to make the difference.

The party counted votes and thought they had them. Can't fool all the people all the time.

JS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Henry V

More facts for consideration.
http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/maste...18_brodwin.jpg

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...x340-18041.gif

and confirming stories at:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/1...edblue-paradox
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...h-their-taxes-
http://visualeconomics.creditloan.co...l-tax-dollars/

---

But Henry, these are facts and statistics. You expect too much from some on the board.

( nice to see you back, missed your fact based debates )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JS

Polls, exit polls, focus groups ... what they give you is raw data. Drawing accurate conclusions from that data is another story.

The mistake the party and the candidate made, and are still making, is putting too much emphasis on demographics and minority groups. Mistrust cuts across all lines. There were PLENTY of middle-of-the-road white males over 50 that Romney lost. Some of them voted for Obama; some of them stayed home. Probably enough to make the difference.

The party counted votes and thought they had them. Can't fool all the people all the time.

JS

---

I seriously doubt that any middle of the road white males that voted for Obama because Romney was the other choice could have been attracted to the Republican party by anyone that would have been acceptable to ANY republican.

Somehow their guy got more votes than our guy. :confused::???::cry::sad::shock:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/..._election.html

Interesting analysis of the voting patterns. NY'ers may actually have thought that the photo-op was meaningful (as NJ), though it really didn't turn out to be so in viewing the results. California is in deep trouble financially, and voted for increased taxes. Maybe they just want to see the rest of the country share in their pain?

As for Henry V's chart, I think that in spite of the overall tax-production, all those states are heavily influenced by large cities. I noted that there were 59 wards in Philadelphia that had ZERO votes for Romney ... even in a heavily Dem area that seems pretty remarkable. The article did not state which wards they were; or how many votes were involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/..._election.html

Interesting analysis of the voting patterns. NY'ers may actually have thought that the photo-op was meaningful (as NJ), though it really didn't turn out to be so in viewing the results. California is in deep trouble financially, and voted for increased taxes. Maybe they just want to see the rest of the country share in their pain?

As for Henry V's chart, I think that in spite of the overall tax-production, all those states are heavily influenced by large cities. I noted that there were 59 wards in Philadelphia that had ZERO votes for Romney ... even in a heavily Dem area that seems pretty remarkable. The article did not state which wards they were; or how many votes were involved.

---

Gerry - good article, & probably makes more sense than anything from MSM or POTUS punditry :-P.