93 total posts
(Page 1 of 4)
The only morons are the ones.....
.....who think that someone would put himself and his family through the hell that is a national political campaign in order to become president of a country he hates.
Since that comment about crowds seems aimed at me, I'll just tell you that I wasn't "searching" when I watched those speeches. It was hard not to notice, and the Republicans' inability to connect with people who aren't white Christians goes back long before Obama.
A question for you or anyone here
Do you think that, if another man put forth the same programs and proposals to the same people he did during the campaign but was happened to be white, he would collect about the same votes from African Americans that Obama collected? I'd say...No, he would not. "Connecting" isn't just about ideology. This contest was close enough that any number of small factors could have put a different person in office. If Obama was white, he'd probably not be elected. If Romney was black or Hispanic, he just might.
There were so many dumb and nasty remarks and insinuations about both of these men but, IMO, Romney got the worst of it. You mentioned that only a moron would think that anyone would put themselves and their family through hell to be president of a country they hate. Wasn't Romney accused of wanting to be president so he could further enrich his already wealthy cronies?...that he wanted to give them tax breaks and raise taxes on everyone else? Do you think anyone would seek the presidency for that purpose and would put their families through hell to do so? Truly, that was one perception created by the Obama people that Romney could not shake and it was purely without logic just as was your suggestion about hating the country.
Let's assume all those things about Romney were true....
.....and personal greed was the reason he wanted to be president. That doesn't make him someone who hates America. It just makes him very selfish, and willing to seek public office for personal gain. In other words, no different than a lot of crooked/sleazy politicians who think "land of opportunity" means something other than what it does.
And sure, there were people who voted for Obama just because he's black. I don't know how you'd measure that against the birthers and other bigots who voted against him just because he's black.
All you need to look at is the percent of
white voters who went for Obama versus black voters who went for Romney. If the same percent went for a person of their race in either case, Romney would have won in a landslide. I do see where Obama offered tangible benefits to Hispanics but not to African Americans. They have become more impoverished under him than before him. A few turned him aside this time but not many. You won't see a large percent of whites voting against Obama because he's black but you will see the opposite in the case of Romney.
Now Trump has proof!
OK, so it isn't THAT Barack Obama.......
I hope The Donald or his Private Dorks don't visit SE
If they do, they'll learn that it's better
to not reply.
That's a start...Now If I can get people to stop complaining
You can't stop it but you can lessen it by...
...No. I won't say it.
I am tired of constantly being insulted by members
I am tired of constantly being insulted by members here in SE who don't agree with me. I'm not taking it anymore and if you don't like it, too bad.
That's not what I was thinking
That won't stop the complaining. Changes in how one deals with others here might lessen it but I won't suggest that directly. Everyone needs a hobby.
RE: Everyone needs a hobby.
You're lucky we both have the same hobby.
RE: That won't stop the complaining.
THAT won't stop until Obama is out of office.
Let's entertain your bigotted questions long enough
to ask you, do you think more people voted FOR Obama because he is black, or more voted AGAINST (aka voting FOR Romney) Obama because he is black?
Oh come on....
with Romney's money He doesn't need the pay! It's pocket change! Greed? For what?
How about changing the tax codes.....
......to make himself and his buddies even richer?
Greed is greed, and it's rarely, if ever, reasonable.
Steven, I think if you review the percentage of blacks who
voted for Bill Clinton you will find that he came very close to the same percentage as Barack Obama.
It seems sensible to me that the second black candidate for President, and the first with a solid chance and the Democratic Party behind him, and the first Black President standing for re-election, he would garner a ton of black votes. This is an historic step, of course they supported him, though Black Republicans didn't reverse themselves and vote Obama.
I don't have the same confidence that you do in a black or Hispanic candidate holding the same views as Romney, with the same wavering I'm in favour of, no wait a minute I'm opposed to ... history of changing positions would be electable. In fact I'd suggest that a simple reversal of race in this election would have resulted in something approximating a landslide for the Democratic candidate. Race was a factor and a hurdle Obama had to overcome in both elections.
As for Romney, I think he wanted to be President because he wanted it, because he thought he was entitled to it, and that he "misunderestimated" his opponent, feeling that the soft economy offered him the opportunity. If he'd shown clear consistent leadership, and a sensible economic package, he might have pulled it off. He didn't do either of those things, and he chose a VP with almost as many drawbacks as Sarah Palin, meaning unpopular beliefs that were at least perceived as part of the Republican platform. Notice how quickly after the debates the Republicans threw a sheet over him and said "Ignore the man behind the curtain."
For Romney the Presidency would have been a way of topping his Father, which I think was part of his motivation as well.
Romney played the campaign very badly. He got saddled with the perception that he was one of the 1% and was intending to govern for them by his demeanor, his wardrobe, his condescesion, his air of entitlement, and his opinions voiced before the election and during it. There is a peculiar inclination among Republicans to actually believe as true that old joke which I used to see photocopied and stuck up everywhere, entitled Who Works, the punchline of which is that only the guy making the joke thinks he works, out of all the millions in America, and he's trying to shame his co-worker into working harder. That is at the root of that blatant falsehood of "the 47%", against which there are statistics easily available from non-partisan sources from a multitude of sources to disprove it. I actually wrote a post on that subject disproving the whole thing.
Barack Obama, in his off-the-rack looking sober suits looked Presidential. Mitt Romney, so often in a Blue Blazer and light coloured slacks looked like a trust fund baby from the Country Club who'd wandered in to the contest.
That is how I saw it from up here, those are the perceptions I had looking at each candidate. In my opinion, Mitt Romney didn't look like a serious candidate. Now the same could be said about George W. Bush, but he had a contrived (again IMO) folksiness about him which mitigated a lot of the other insulated, "living in the 1% Bubble" detachment from regular folks.
Unverified data (by myself, anyway)
Clinton's black vote was historically low
I don't agree with your assessment as to why Romney wanted to be president. I did see a huge difference in campaign strategy as far as character assassination. The Obama people went right for Romney's throat and painted him as a bad man due to being wealthy and successful. No one gets to be that way without being avaricious and uncaring, right? Romney's people didn't do that to Obama. They painted his policies and promised achievements as having failed. They were, IMO, painted with brighter colors than were real but they didn't go after Obama's character the way PAC money went after it during his first attempt. Remember that, and not McCain himself, tried to show Obama as un-American. Romney did no such thing. He was, IMO, the most polite and respectful challenger that's come along in a long time.
A fact that Rob, JP, and Josh et al
completely but deliberately overlook........The Primary debates had barely started, yet in February BO and his superpacs had already started campaigning against Romney and nobody else with the "Kill Romney" theme. They knew ahead of time who would wind up being the target and attacked and pounced long before the debates were over and the nominee was picked. Romney couldn't even start campaigning until August. That's a long time for BO and the Superpacs (which BO condemned and then used extensively) to have a head start on the smear campaign they had planned out.
This is why I want the Primaries to be started early and ended quickly especially when there is an incumbent. The advantage goes to the incumbent every time unless the rules get changed to where nobody on either side can campaign in any fashion until the Conventions end.
Are you suggesting that ...
it's allowed for the newcomer (I doubt if it's the right word, but I couldn't find a better) to campaign against the sitting president, and not allowed for the sitting president to campaign against the newcomer? That's not a level playing field, I'd say.
In fact, the newcomer has the advantage, because he knows from the start who the opponent to attack will be, while the campaign team of the sitting president is unsure about the outcome of the primaries for a few months.
That's not the point
The incumbent gets a significant head start. Potential challengers need to squabble amongst themselves to shake out winner. That process benefits the incumbent in several way. It allows the sitting president's people to gather data and analyze his challengers. They get to look into their history for possible Achilles heels. The potential challengers must open open their mouths a lot. As you know, what you say can and will be held against you. This allows the incumbent's team plenty of time to listen and prepare to use his/her eventual challenger's words as weapons. Not until this process ends at consensus/convention level, can the challenger go to work against the incumbent as his/her money won't come in until that race is finished. Obama's teams had several times the amount of time that Romney had to launch his campaign. He couldn't get started in earnest until September and had just over 2 months to get out his message. Obama had the better part of a year or more. For a newly elected president, it's probable that some reelection activity begins the day of or even before he takes office.
With most of Romney's challengers exiting the field early, Romney was able to collect money and organize the beginnings of his campaign sometime in late Spring. The major thrust still came after the convention was over.
RE: They get to look into their history
They get to look into their history for possible Achilles heels.
And the other side can't look for the incumbent's Achilles heels, even before they become the Potential challenger?
When you have a number of
challengers who have barely begun getting funding to run since they don't know if they'll win the nomination, there isn't a lot of money that can be used legally to do that research until after the Convention. It's a catch 22 for challengers.
You have to know that Obama isn't running again=NO incumbent
The Achilles heels would be for determining
whether or not a person was fit for office in the first term. Once elected, that qualifier is closed. The incumbent now runs on his record. His challengers would focus on that and not whether or not the person was fit for office. Obama's weakness, IMO, was his record but that wasn't enough. We already know what he's said about how to campaign when one has no record to run on. It was to paint your opponent with the ugliest colors imaginable. He did a masterful job using the ugly brush on Romney which distracted people from looking at the painter.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 4)