• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Romney lost because...

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
techs said:
Romney lost because...he was too liberal!
We need a true conservative to run in 2016.
Click to expand...

The republicans will never have a chance at winning until they boot out all christian zealots, and stop catering to christian lobbyists.
Fundamentalists are NOT the majority anymore. They dont need to be pandered to. I would argue they probably never needed to be pandered to.
 
shortylickens said:
The republicans will never have a chance at winning until they boot out all christian zealots, and stop catering to christian lobbyists.
Fundamentalists are NOT the majority anymore. They dont need to be pandered to. I would argue they probably never needed to be pandered to.
Click to expand...

here here!
 
Romney lost because he brought nothing to the table.

He could have saved himself a lot of trouble by asking John Kerry how the whole "Hey, at Least I'm Not *That* Guy" platform worked out...

He lost me personally at the "Corporations are people too, my friend" line.

The slicked back, fake grin, Gordon Gecko look didn't do anything for him either...he gave off a very "What do I need to do to get you into this vehicle today?" vibe.

His concession speech was the most *human* I've ever seen him.
 
halik said:
LOL if they keep that up, there will be a dem president for the next couple of decades.
Click to expand...

That might be the best for Republicans. It actually would've been better to have the Dems control both branches of the legislature too so they would have no one to blame but themselves as they run up the national debt to double of GDP in the next decade. That will ensure the future ruin of the dem party.
 
jackstar7 said:
Wasn't Bush2 the one that sent out checks? Pretty sure that's what happened...
Click to expand...

I used my $300 Bush check to stock up on Pampers. Now, I think it's time I mail them out to all the old fogies I saw ra ra-ing at the RNC this year.

I mean, that's what we "liberals" do, right? re-distribute wealth to the needy?
 
Pneumothorax said:
That might be the best for Republicans. It actually would've been better to have the Dems control both branches of the legislature too so they would have no one to blame but themselves as they run up the national debt to double of GDP in the next decade. That will ensure the future ruin of the dem party.
Click to expand...

i'm genuinely curious. in the name of austerity... what in your life would you be willing to give up for say... 4 years to help pay off the debt?


this isn't a trap or trick or some sort of set up. i'm genuinely curious.
 
shortylickens said:
The republicans will never have a chance at winning until they boot out all christian zealots, and stop catering to christian lobbyists.
Fundamentalists are NOT the majority anymore. They dont need to be pandered to. I would argue they probably never needed to be pandered to.
Click to expand...

agreed.

thing is--they never were the majority. It was simply a vote-grabbing strategy to energize these people who were simply defined as an "ignored interest group" in the early days of Barry Goldwater.

sort of like what happened to the re-imagining of the NRA and the creation of the "2nd amendment is under attack" thought process as a useful wedge issue that simply never existed prior to ~1974. That is going to stay, of course, but I think most see the death knell of the fundy stranglehold on the party.

I wonder what this means for teabaggers, though.
 
shortylickens said:
The republicans will never have a chance at winning until they boot out all christian zealots, and stop catering to christian lobbyists.
Fundamentalists are NOT the majority anymore. They dont need to be pandered to. I would argue they probably never needed to be pandered to.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right. I'm not an atheist by any means, but I have a problem with people basing their policy-making decisions on religion(s), which is what Conservatism seems to be all about these days.
 
nehalem256 said:
Treating men and women as equals is not sexist by any rational (ie non-liberal) definition.
Click to expand...

That's not what you want to do. I understand your perspective is different on that point, but you actively ignore other perspectives in favor of continued talking points.
 
Binarycow said:
I voted for Obama not because I thought Romney would not be able to lead the country better than Obama but rather because of the kind of voters that supported Romney. The crazies on the far right scared me so much that if Jesus came alive again to run as their candidate I would have to vote against him too.
Click to expand...
I could not have said this better!
 
As long as the Republicans keep mouthing pregnancy from rape is a god's blessing, they're doomed to fail. What kind of a god do these people worship?
 
jackstar7 said:
That's not what you want to do. I understand your perspective is different on that point, but you actively ignore other perspectives in favor of continued talking points.
Click to expand...

Believing that not giving women special programs is sexist is not a "perspective" it is a blatant falsehood.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
If the election had been run based on straight popular vote, Obama would have won by a lot more.

You're sour graping. It's transparent.
Click to expand...

CharlesKozierok said:
There's no way to know for sure what would have happened in a straight EV vote.
Click to expand...

All BS aside, our elections are decided by a handfull of people in Florida and Ohio. Obama won fair and square but Bush didn't in 2000 and with the country as evenly divided as it is we are sure to have more elections like that. The people spoke and the electoral college told the people they didn't know what they were talking about.
 
Matt1970 said:
All BS aside, our elections are decided by a handfull of people in Florida and Ohio.
Click to expand...

The election was over before FL and OH were finalized. Obama won without them.

Matt1970 said:
Obama won fair and square but Bush didn't in 2000 and with the country as evenly divided as it is we are sure to have more elections like that.
Click to expand...

Well, that depends. If the GOP continues as it has for the last few years, there may not be close elections for a while.

Matt1970 said:
The people spoke and the electoral college told the people they didn't know what they were talking about.
Click to expand...

Ignorant nonsense. "The people" were the ones who voted in all of the states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top