Obama Won Because He Called Romney A 'Poopy Head': Grover Norquist

[techs]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/grover-norquist_n_2116219.html

Grover Norquist: Obama Won Because He Called Romney A 'Poopy Head'

Grover Norquist, founder and president of Americans For Tax Reform, has a new theory about why President Barack Obama won -- he portrayed Mitt Romney as a "poopy head."

"The president was committed; elected on the basis that he was not Romney and Romney was a poopy head and you should vote against Romney and he won by two points," Norquist said on CBS' "This Morning" Monday. "But he didn't make the case that we should have higher taxes and higher spending, he kind of sounded like the opposite."

Host Norah O'Donnell pushed back. "Well, I'm not sure that's what the president called Mitt Romney, Grover," she said. "That's not the debate that was had ... he said very clearly throughout the debate that the wealthiest Americans should pay more and he won eight of the nine battleground states and Republicans failed to reclaim the White House or the Senate."

"What about the exit polls that show a broad support for raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. Are you wrong?" she asked.

Norquist pointed to negative advertising against former GOP nominee Mitt Romney.




This is the man who controls the Republican Parties tax policy

At what point can we say the Republicans are having a meltdown?

 

[dullard]

Obama won because he had more votes than any Republican in history. Case closed.

 

[nageov3t]

Obama won because he had more votes than any Republican in history. Case closed.

so, no point in discussing why/how anyone won any election ever?

 

[diesbudt]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/grover-norquist_n_2116219.html

Grover Norquist: Obama Won Because He Called Romney A 'Poopy Head'

Grover Norquist, founder and president of Americans For Tax Reform, has a new theory about why President Barack Obama won -- he portrayed Mitt Romney as a "poopy head."

"The president was committed; elected on the basis that he was not Romney and Romney was a poopy head and you should vote against Romney and he won by two points," Norquist said on CBS' "This Morning" Monday. "But he didn't make the case that we should have higher taxes and higher spending, he kind of sounded like the opposite."

Host Norah O'Donnell pushed back. "Well, I'm not sure that's what the president called Mitt Romney, Grover," she said. "That's not the debate that was had ... he said very clearly throughout the debate that the wealthiest Americans should pay more and he won eight of the nine battleground states and Republicans failed to reclaim the White House or the Senate."

"What about the exit polls that show a broad support for raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. Are you wrong?" she asked.

Norquist pointed to negative advertising against former GOP nominee Mitt Romney.




This is the man who controls the Republican Parties tax policy

At what point can we say the Republicans are having a meltdown?

If any candidate, called the other a "poopy head" (Those exact words) in an interview or public, I would immediately vote for them. Because that would be amazing.

 

[blackangst1]

Obama won because he had more votes than any Republican in history. Case closed.

Electoral votes, yes. But thats all that matters

 

[zinfamous]

so, no point in discussing why/how anyone won any election ever?

should such a discussion begin from arguing the legitimacy of why or why not one candidate called the other a "poopy head"?

 

[nageov3t]

should such a discussion begin from arguing the legitimacy of why or why not one candidate called the other a "poopy head"?

certainly felt like the most negative campaign ever to me (regardless of whatever retarded language Norquist wants to use).

 

[dullard]

so, no point in discussing why/how anyone won any election ever?

There is a point, but techs has already started multiple threads discussing that point. Time to move on.

 

[zinfamous]

If any candidate, called the other a "poopy head" (Those exact words) in an interview or public, I would immediately vote for them. Because that would be amazing.

What if an entertainer calls a candidate a Lyin' Ass Bitch?

Questlove for President!

 

[dullard]

Electoral votes, yes. But thats all that matters

Not sure what you meant. Republicans have had more electoral votes than Obama just got. But none have had as many actual votes.

 

[zinfamous]

certainly felt like the most negative campaign ever to me (regardless of whatever retarded language Norquist wants to use).

Clearly, you're referring to the GOP primary campaign, right?

Oh, maybe you mean the GOP primary in 2000, where Rove robo-called South Carolinians with the blatant lie that McCain sired an illegitimate black Haitian child?

spare me the lack of perspective...

 

[ElFenix]

if i'd have known we weren't going to have a spidey meltdown and instead were only going to get all these techs threads i would have prayed that romney won.

 

[blackangst1]

Not sure what you meant. Republicans have had more electoral votes than Obama just got. But none have had as many actual votes.

You mean popular votes? Bush had 62 million in 2004, Obama had 61 million in 2012. But Bush only had 286 electoral, Obama had 332.

 

[nageov3t]

Clearly, you're referring to the GOP primary campaign, right?

Oh, maybe you mean the GOP primary in 2000, where Rove robo-called South Carolinians with the blatant lie that McCain sired an illegitimate black Haitian child?

spare me the lack of perspective...

in terms of pervasiveness? I feel pretty fine with my perspective.

talking with both liberals and conservatives, I always walked away with a total understanding of why they hated/feared the other guy, but not much for why they actually loved their candidate. I didn't feel that way in 2000, 2004, or 2008.

 

[Incorruptible]

if i'd have known we weren't going to have a spidey meltdown and instead were only going to get all these techs threads i would have prayed that romney won.

Same, these threads are all the same thing, "I hate romney and republicans"

It would make sense to just merge all his threads together

 

[dullard]

You mean popular votes? Bush had 62 million in 2004, Obama had 61 million in 2012. But Bush only had 286 electoral, Obama had 332.

Your numbers are wrong. Bush in 2004: 62,040.610. Obama in 2012: 62,151,820 and still counting.

 

[Blackjack200]

certainly felt like the most negative campaign ever to me (regardless of whatever retarded language Norquist wants to use).

Actually, I heard several interviews on the radio with historical experts who said that while the campaigns were certainly negative, they were probably far from the most negative. They all hedged their opinions though, because campaign negativity is somewhat difficult to quantify.

Clearly, you're referring to the GOP primary campaign, right?

Oh, maybe you mean the GOP primary in 2000, where Rove robo-called South Carolinians with the blatant lie that McCain sired an illegitimate black Haitian child?

spare me the lack of perspective...

Exactly, there have been some pretty brutal campaigns, and fairly recently too.

 

[bignateyk]

There aren't many people I hate more than Karl Rove and Grover Norquist. Their tears of sorrow bring me tears of joy.

If those two think they have it all figured out then why don't they run for president/vice president. That would probably be the biggest democrat landslide in history.

 

[techs]

There is a point, but techs has already started multiple threads discussing that point. Time to move on.

Since when is the first statement by arguably the most important person to the Republican Congress not news worthy?

We're days away from a fiscal cliff. The main issue of which is to increase taxes on the wealthiest or not.

Norgquist is the promoter of the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", which was signed by 95% of all Republican Congressmen and all but one of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates,[5] to oppose increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses, as well as net reductions or eliminations of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate

What this guy has to say is big, big news. The fact he is doubling down and looks like he won't release any of his 95 percent of signees from the pledge is the kind of news that affects stock markets and potentates.

 

[First]

Your numbers are wrong. Bush in 2004: 62,040.610. Obama in 2012: 62,151,820 and still counting.

^ And at least four major blue states haven't even reported all their precincts: CA's reported 71%, WA only 55%, Oregon 75% and NY 86%. That's another few hundred thousand, maybe half a million more votes, depending on whether the remaining counties are more conservative or not.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Republicans are such children. "Poopy head"? WTF...who talks like that outside of immature babies?

 

[techs]

Republicans are such children. "Poopy head"? WTF...who talks like that outside of immature babies?

Pretty far out there!

 

[dullard]

Since when is the first statement by arguably the most important person to the Republican Congress not news worthy?

We're days away from a fiscal cliff. The main issue of which is to increase taxes on the wealthiest or not.

Norgquist is the promoter of the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", which was signed by 95% of all Republican Congressmen and all but one of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates,[5] to oppose increases in marginal income tax rates for individuals and businesses, as well as net reductions or eliminations of deductions and credits without a matching reduced tax rate

What this guy has to say is big, big news. The fact he is doubling down and looks like he won't release any of his 95 percent of signees from the pledge is the kind of news that affects stock markets and potentates.

Norquist + Rove are claiming negativity and suppression won the election for Obama. I'll that I am saying is that for their statements to be true, Obama would have few votes. You can't have significantly suppressed votes and massive votes at the same time. Obama won due to lots of votes, not due to negativity. Unless you ate arguing that Romney's negativity got Obama more votes.

If it is news, put it in one of your other threads of the same topic. Plus none of what you just posted was in your OP.

 

[blackangst1]

Your numbers are wrong. Bush in 2004: 62,040.610. Obama in 2012: 62,151,820 and still counting.

Ah ok. When I Googled I guess it was from a few days ago. I dont really care, because popular vote doesnt really matter Obama won by a large margin for electoral.

 

[hal2kilo]

There aren't many people I hate more than Karl Rove and Grover Norquist. Their tears of sorrow bring me tears of joy.

If those two think they have it all figured out then why don't they run for president/vice president. That would probably be the biggest democrat landslide in history.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: