Why Romney Lost the Election

Isn't it part of the first amendment that different opinions are allowed? That's why there will never will be a time when everyone is a Democrat; or everyone is a Republican. This has been going on since the founding of the country.


Every once in a while Rush has an interesting insight. Read one of the transcripts yesterday, and he posed: when Dems lose an election do they ever run around saying that they should change their position on this issue or that issue? When the Dems got whacked in the mid-terms, what was Obama's reaction? He said he had not "told the story right."

When certain voter groups will throw all their values to the wind to worship one individual, are those votes that any Republican can get? Many blacks and Latinos strongly disagree with gay marriage and abortion, yet they still supported Obama in the election ... even though it's on his record that he not only is in favor of abortion, but also voted in favor of 3rd trimester abortions and for allowing babies who survived late-term abortions die. I can't buy into the fact that those groups voted against R's because of of those two social issues, if they are willing to vote FOR someone who would stand there an watch a baby die. I simply do not believe that they are really aware of where Obama stood on that. Once those babies survive, they are protected by our Constitution; not according to Obama's voting record.

Surely immigration reform is needed, but if amnesty didn't work for Reagan ... it just resulted in even more illegal immigration later, then why should R's embrace amnesty just to please one minority group? (who will likely find another reason to vote Dem)

For every vote they might possibly gain, they will lose, I think, at least the same number. A third party might actually become a reality if the R's become indistinguishable from the D's. Maybe they already have? Maybe Libertarians will finally get their "fair shot"? Too many reasons why I could not vote for Ron Paul ... but I could vote for Rand :-)

Another perspective http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...d-file/264855/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murral stark

The reason Romney lost is because he couldn't make up his mind about where he stood on things, other than liking to fire people. He made that perfectly clear and never waivered. If he would've took a solid stance, and not flip flop around, he probably would've won. LOL!!!

---

Hey, Murral, in the last 4 years who has cost more businesses to close and cost more people their employment?

Bain or Obama????:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RailRoadRetrievers

The reason republicans lost is because 3,000,000 registered Republicans didn't vote, because Romney is too much of a Moderate. Look at the actual Republicans that took seats held by moderates. This nation desired something we didn't give them, now we have hopefully only two more years of this crap

---

I think that about hits the nail on the head.

These grapics are interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...=sunday-review

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by road kill

Hey, Murral, in the last 4 years who has cost more businesses to close and cost more people their employment?

Bain or Obama????:cool:

---

I doubt that he really cares. He thinks he's got his and is living for today.

Another possibility from the St Paul Pioneer Press of 11/15, letters to the editor :

SPOTLIGHT LETTER

Assumptions

"I am taking issue with the assumptions of the writer of “A ‘handout’ economy” (Nov. 11). Not all of us who voted for President Obama this time around are part of the “47 percent,” a number made famous by what I saw as an out-of-touch, arrogant candidate.

As a conservative, active, lifelong Republican, I voted this time around for what I considered the better of two bad choices. I saw the Republican candidate as an ethical chameleon with no firm agenda being given a free pass by the press on ethical and character issues.

The Republican Party has huge problems. Members were too tightly enmeshed with and hamstrung in negotiation ability with the allegiance to the Tea Party. The “Bush tax cuts” were passed to nudge a sluggish economy but they contributed to other long-term problems. The reduction in FICA taxes resulted in less money going into Social Security, which was already in trouble. In the last part of the Clinton Administration, Glass-Steagall was repealed, with the Republicans having a majority in both houses and, though it didn’t directly cause the ensuing financial crisis, this was a direct contributor to the scope of that debacle.

The Romney camp had no offices in Minnesota. These national high-profile offices serve to galvanize the state and local entities, and their absence hampered the efforts of state and other national candidates. And I don’t like the disdainful treatment of old party faithful at the national convention.

So much for assumptions. "




Many sides to an issue Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golddogs

Another possibility from the St Paul Pioneer Press of 11/15, letters to the editor :

SPOTLIGHT LETTER

Assumptions

"I am taking issue with the assumptions of the writer of “A ‘handout’ economy” (Nov. 11). Not all of us who voted for President Obama this time around are part of the “47 percent,” a number made famous by what I saw as an out-of-touch, arrogant candidate.

As a conservative, active, lifelong Republican, I voted this time around for what I considered the better of two bad choices. I saw the Republican candidate as an ethical chameleon with no firm agenda being given a free pass by the press on ethical and character issues.

The Republican Party has huge problems. Members were too tightly enmeshed with and hamstrung in negotiation ability with the allegiance to the Tea Party. The “Bush tax cuts” were passed to nudge a sluggish economy but they contributed to other long-term problems. The reduction in FICA taxes resulted in less money going into Social Security, which was already in trouble. In the last part of the Clinton Administration, Glass-Steagall was repealed, with the Republicans having a majority in both houses and, though it didn’t directly cause the ensuing financial crisis, this was a direct contributor to the scope of that debacle.

The Romney camp had no offices in Minnesota. These national high-profile offices serve to galvanize the state and local entities, and their absence hampered the efforts of state and other national candidates. And I don’t like the disdainful treatment of old party faithful at the national convention.

So much for assumptions. "




Many sides to an issue Regards

---

Good job covering the DNC letterhead:rolleyes:

I wish republican would quit saying they are conservative. They are only conservative on things they don't like or disagree with. They can out spend a democrat any day!

Bottomline - the so called conservatives do not see the big picture. They have convienced themselves that they pay taxes to support the lazy, so they don't want to pay any. They have convienced themselves that our debt problems can be solved by doing away with government, so someone who works in government is a leach to a conservative. When the truth is that little of the taxes collected go to the lazy and government provides folks with much that I'm sure conservatives don't want to do without.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by huntinman

Good job covering the DNC letterhead:rolleyes:

---

While it will reqiure you to read, the link for this opinion piece is below. Your grade school response is pretty predictable.

http://saintpaulpioneerpress.mn.news...aign=EmailPush

pg 19 A
Looking for a Goldwater Regards