Romney lost because...

[nehalem256]

As long as people of your mindset are in the Republican party there will never again be a Republican President!!

It`s nice to have a living and breathing example of what is wrong with the Republican party!

So as long as Republican's favor treating men and women as equals single women will never vote for them🙄

What does that say about women?

 

[DominionSeraph]

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?

Themselves.

"You can safely say that you have made God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."

 

[cwjerome]

Romney Lost Because:
1) Immigration. Moderate-on-immigration Bush fought the GOP and lost, Romney swung right in primaries to appease this element and couldn't recover. This is one of the biggest long term issues that Reps will need to address to be viable on a national level in the future.
2) Stimulus/bailouts: Effectively vote programs
3) The feeling that Obama "cares about me"
4) Hurricane Sandy. Obama was presidential, bi-partisan (Christie, etc) and people rally around the incumbent
5) Some Reps saying some really dumb shit that last few weeks before election day

There it is.

 

[Farang]

Romney had his issues, but I think he was a pretty strong candidate and could have won in other years. People underestimate the strong connection Obama has with his base.. for all the people who hate him, his approval rating has had a floor not like those of other Presidents.

I would argue that the strength of his bond with a certain segment of the population is stronger and wider than many modern Presidents.. I'd compare it with any actually. The country went through some very difficult things under his watch--the recession, ending the Iraq war which had really inflamed a lot of passions, killing Osama which again just healed an old wound for a lot of folks.

I'm not saying you have to love the guy.. I think you have to recognize that other people do, and for a combination of reasons that is justifiable with someone of a given experience (let's call you the anti-war mother of an injured iraq war vet who was about to lose his job at GM and also can't get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions.. you'll probably LOVE Obama, for reasons having nothing to do with him 'giving you stuff')

I'm also not saying he has been the most popular President. I just think his base has been larger and more durable.

Combine that with his extremely well run campaign and he was unbeatable. His main campaign team were 3 of the most talented politicians in the country (Obama, Clinton, and you're a fool if you don't think Biden can work a crowd). His campaign staff have been called the greatest ever and highly innovative (Messina, Plouffe, Axelrod)

 

[Incorruptible]

romney lost because he is the same as obama, both serve special interests. Too many idiots voted for obama and deserve to suffer the consequences of the economy, I would have no problem with welfare leeches having it taken away since there is no money.

The main reason he lost was because there was no fiscal Conservatism and the religious nutbars who scared away voters

 

[randomrogue]

http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/americas/five-reasons-why-romney-lostMendacity:

Romney’s campaign team – when confronted with a number of errors in statements and speeches – famously explained that: "We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers". Or in other words: "We shall say what we want to win and we don’t care if you say if it’s true or not". He accused Barack Obama of going on a foreign tour and "apologising for America". He didn’t. He criticised the president for breaking a promise to keep unemployment under 8 per cent. He never said such a thing. He insisted his economic policies would create 12 million new jobs in four years, but the figures his campaign supplied simply didn’t add up. Those are just three examples from a candidate described by one critic as being engaged in "foundational lying". In the last week of the contest, campaigning in Ohio, the Republican hopeful suggested a local car maker was planning to shift production to China. The company boss, in a fairly unusual intervention in a presidential election, said the claim was false. In the final few days of the election, the row badly damaged a candidate who desperately needed success in Ohio.

 

[sigurros81]

romney lost because he is the same as obama, both serve special interests. Too many idiots voted for obama and deserve to suffer the consequences of the economy, I would have no problem with welfare leeches having it taken away since there is no money.

The main reason he lost was because there was no fiscal Conservatism and the religious nutbars who scared away voters

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...y-counties-eat-up-most-food-stamp-growth.html

That is the new excuse consevatards are using now as an excuse for losing? Romney lost because he was too much like Obama? Haha. The stupid is strong with this one. What do you have to say scrub?

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Romney lost because...

1) He seems out of touch with most people (the empathy factor) and seemed to have contempt for those less successful/fortunate than him (the 47% speech).

2) He kept on repeating huge untruths such as offshoring of auto jobs even after it was pointed out it was a lie.

3) Policy-wise, he was evasive and refused to provide specifics....it wasn't hard for Democrats to paint him as favoring the rich + military. Plus the math doesn't add up on balancing the budget.

4) similar to #3, how is austerity going to lead to growth when most of Europe is doing exactly what the Right envisioned but is doing worse than the US?

5) Other things mattered, such as the demographics (ie Hispanics & Latinos, especially in certain battleground states), Obama's ad spending + strategy despite being outspent, and the differing Hurricane Sandy responses by the presidential candidates.

 

[JEDIYoda]

So as long as Republican's favor treating men and women as equals single women will never vote for them🙄

What does that say about women?

Thats not the issue at all.....but that is a good example of turning an issue around to suit your needs...

The bottom line is the Republican party lost because women know they would not have anything close to be equal to men........
There is no way on earth that as a man you can or should be able to deny a womans right to do as she sees fit with her body.......to claim that a raped woman should not abort that baby because it was God`s will that she be raped is just plain not right and smacks of a severe psychological problem.

Then we have the Gay issue....regardless of what the talking points are for or against the gay issue there are enough gay people to upset the apple cart and sway an election...legalize it and move on....

 

[nehalem256]

Thnats not the issue at all.....but that is a good example of turning an issue around to suit your needs...

The bottom line is the Republican party lost because women know they would not have anything close to be equal to men........
There is no way on earth that as a man you can or should be able to deny a womans right to do as she sees fit with her body.......to claim that a raped woman should not abort that baby because it was God`s will that she be raped is just plain not right and smacks of a severe psychological problem.

Then we have the Gay issue....regardless of what the talking points are for or against the gay issue there are enough gay people to upset the apple cart and sway an election...legalize it and move on....

We were discussing Planned parenthood which has nothing to do with rape or gay marriage. Although ironically given that you seem to think women need men to take care of them you have provided an excellent reason for why straight marriage exists.

Bolded:
(1) Women seem to want to be allowed to do as they see fit with their body. But they don't seem to want to take responsibility for that choice.

(2) No one seems to have any problem telling men what to do.

(3) Just say abortion

 

[dawheat]

(1) Liberals are the ones who have been saying men and women are the same for decades. In fact see comparisons of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage for the latest exampel

(2) Both men and women need health care. So on the question of health care it is irrelevant.

(3) And why do women need special programs to meet their needs, but men do not?

"Liberals" (lol) do believe men and women should have the same rights as human beings.

You then take a huge leap to equate that to equal needs. Why would equal rights be dependent on equal needs? Should the elderly be considered inferior? Children? Those with health issues?

Women, b/c of their ability to bear children, will have unique health care needs that don't apply to men. Simply b/c this extra need exists, you try to equate that to inferiority.

This is where I believe we will always disagree.

 

[dawheat]

Actually I didn't really like my original response.

Basically I see women as like any other constituency with a specific interest.

By and large they believe any woman should have the right to choose (whether it be contraception or abortion). To that end, they have voted in leaders who support that POV and have provided funding to make it cheaper and easier.

Removing that funding would make it more expensive and harder to get - and there are clear signs that this would not be the end as it's clearly not a fiscal issue to some in the Republican party as a social issue. So while PP would be a start, eventually the goal would be to make it impossible, even if the women was willing to pay out of pocket.

Regardless of the above, why wouldn't women voters be able to get funding for their interests? And if they get funding, why would that have any impact on their rights?

Farmers in the midwest vote for and get federal subsidies for farms. Should they no longer have the right to run their business? Surely federal funding means they don't get to choose anymore?

There are thousands of federal subsidies - all pushed by different groups that have specific interests and exercising their influence within our political system. If you disagree with a subsidy (like I do for oil companies), then your outlet is through your vote. Just don't be surprised when a much larger constituency (women in this case) disagree with you and don't vote for candidates that support your opposing POV.

 

[Pneumothorax]

"Liberals" (lol) do believe men and women should have the same rights as human beings.

You then take a huge leap to equate that to equal needs. Why would equal rights be dependent on equal needs? Should the elderly be considered inferior? Children? Those with health issues?

Women, b/c of their ability to bear children, will have unique health care needs that don't apply to men. Simply b/c this extra need exists, you try to equate that to inferiority.

This is where I believe we will always disagree.

Not trying to be sexist, but as a small business owner, I loathe to hire a woman in childbearing age as this basically guarantees I will have a less productive worker than an equivalent man. While on maternity leave I will continue paying her wages while I double pay by keeping a temp to cover for her.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Not trying to be sexist, but as a small business owner, I loathe to hire a woman in childbearing age as this basically guarantees I will have a less productive worker than an equivalent man. While on maternity leave I will continue paying her wages while I double pay by keeping a temp to cover for her.

That is just fine. I cannot remember what state I worked in that when you were hired if you were a female you were asked if you were pregnant. If you were hired and found to be pregnant after the fact you could be fired for lying during the interview and that company did not have to assist you in anyway...so i totally sympathize with you being an employer....

 

[trenchfoot]

I bet Romney is at this very moment wondering why he lost given that he told everybody who cared to listen everything they wanted to hear. Never mind how often he had to contradict himself to do it.

It's like he thought by compartmentalizing his audiences, he could tell them what they wanted to hear and not suffer from the blatant flip-flop contradict-a-minute style of play he is now infamous for.

 

[randomrogue]

Not trying to be sexist, but as a small business owner, I loathe to hire a woman in childbearing age as this basically guarantees I will have a less productive worker than an equivalent man. While on maternity leave I will continue paying her wages while I double pay by keeping a temp to cover for her.

I know this is only anecdotal but at one of my first jobs the owner hired a women in her late 20's who turned out to be pregnant almost immediately after starting. She says she didn't know and who knows if that's true but the owner accommodated her. It's how I got the job since I came in to cover for her while she was out on maternity leave.

Either way she was incredibly loyal. She still works for him, had a second kid, and it's been 20 something years.

 

[Meghan54]

Not trying to be sexist, but as a small business owner, I loathe to hire a woman in childbearing age as this basically guarantees I will have a less productive worker than an equivalent man. While on maternity leave I will continue paying her wages while I double pay by keeping a temp to cover for her.

What state do you work in that requires employees on maternity leave to be paid for the entire leave period? From what I've read, it's true an employee on maternity leave gets paid until such time that sick leave, vacation days, etc., are exhausted and then the employee changes over to unpaid leave time.

Have yet to see a single state require the employer to pay for anyone's maternity leave above and beyond that person's amount of sick leave, etc., that's accumulated prior to the maternity leave.

 

[Doppel]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...identally-releases-victory-website--LOST.html

Oops! Team Romney accidentally releases their victory website... after he lost

haha

 

[nehalem256]

"Liberals" (lol) do believe men and women should have the same rights as human beings.

You then take a huge leap to equate that to equal needs. Why would equal rights be dependent on equal needs? Should the elderly be considered inferior? Children? Those with health issues?

Women, b/c of their ability to bear children, will have unique health care needs that don't apply to men. Simply b/c this extra need exists, you try to equate that to inferiority.

This is where I believe we will always disagree.

The problem is you seem to be pretending men do not have their own unique needs as well. For example last time I check women do not have testicles or a prostate. Men by virtue of being bigger to protect women from sabertooth tigers also require more food, but you do not see any special programs to help me with their increased food needs.

Extra(really different) needs is not what women are inferior. It is the fact that liberals seem to think women need men to provide for those needs.

No last time I checked children are not considered equal to adults. This is why their rights are restricted. This is why their parents make health care decisions for them :sneaky:. Are you sure you want to say women are like children?

 

[DrPizza]

I'm not sure if you're still discussing the current topic or not, and haven't read through the thread. But, if you're looking for reasons Romney lost, there are a couple of good articles on Aljazeera.

 

[nehalem256]

Regardless of the above, why wouldn't women voters be able to get funding for their interests? And if they get funding, why would that have any impact on their rights?
.

Women are allowed to vote selfishly. Calling them on their selfishness is not a "war on women" though.

The reason it should impact their rights. Is that their interests are based on them not be able to, or not wanting to, take responsibility for themselves.

If someone is unable to, or unwilling to, take care of themselves why should they be given freedom?

 

[shortylickens]

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.

Its not just religion, its the most hateful element of religion. The one that screams constantly for a return to fundamentalism.
There are currently no successful countries in the entire world with that mindset. We would be sharing company with places like the middle-east (the bad part) and some gimpy african nations if we did that.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Not trying to be sexist, but as a small business owner, I loathe to hire a woman in childbearing age as this basically guarantees I will have a less productive worker than an equivalent man. While on maternity leave I will continue paying her wages while I double pay by keeping a temp to cover for her.

I guess you can't hire males either since fathers are entitled to leave for up to 12 weeks also under the FMLA.

 

[nehalem256]

I guess you can't hire males either since fathers are entitled to leave for up to 12 weeks also under the FMLA.

Only if you are one of those people that believe that an up to 90% off sale means everything is 90% off.

 

[ch33zw1z]

nehalem256 at it again. Hates women, because he longs to be one...or inside one...either way no play makes jack an angry male.