Mitt Romney calls half of America freeloaders

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

rupert-

i don't doubt that people will often (not always) vote their pocketbook. however, the example of 8 of the 10 wealthies counties in the nation voting for a candidate that made increasing their taxes a part of his platform would be a counter example to your point.

i think anyone that focuses on a single issue (whether it's republicans on "free stuff" or democrats on "racism") as the motivating factor for their opponents voters has just used the filter of their own pre-existing beliefs to color reality. and they aren't going to learn anything from the loss.

the difference is i don't see any serious discussions in democratic circles about how romney was only close because of all the racist white votes he got. while the equally ridiculous "we only lost because the nation is now all freeloaders" proposition is getting serious traction.

i'm perfectly okay if republican's want to believe that is what just happened. the same way i'm happy to let a poker opponent think he's just unlucky when he keeps losing money missing draws to an inside straight. it's their money. it's your electorate.

democrats ran candidates that were out of touch with the electorate and appealed primarily to their leftist base and lost 5 of 6 presidential elections from 1968-1988. they kept telling themselves that they were smarter than the voters who voted against them and so kept running the same campaigns. the voters would figure it out.

bill clinton changed the dynamics by running and governing as a moderate. it's now the republicans that have lost 5 of 6 popular votes (including bush's 2000 electoral college victory) while appealing to their most right wing base.

if republican's want to continue this as a serious discussion, i guess i won't complain. but if they actually want to win the presidency again they better figure out how they're going to get their message out in a way that doesn't write off the fastest growing part of the electorate as too stupid to vote for them.

I agree with you. There are several reasons why he lost. I don't think he can point to that one issue as the only reason. I do think that one issue is one of the reasons he lost, but certainly not the only reason.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

How true..

Saw this on the welfare crowd..Huh!

% us population on welfare....4.1. 4.3 million people


Recipients who are white...38.8%
". Who are black.....39.8%

much like when romney failed to pay attention to what the polls were all saying:

Analysts who have studied the vote, for example, have given credit to Obama's massive get-out-the-vote effort, which dwarfed its Republican counterpart.

Polls and interviews also suggested that, in part, those voters were driven to Obama by the Republican's conservative positions on issues like immigration, abortion and the role of government.

that's from the la times article...i just don't get why romney can't actually take a good, hard, long look at the facts. why does he have to find excuses and play games about gifts, and why people didn't vote for him? i know why i didn't vote for him, and it had nothing to do with freebies.


edit-just finished the new yorker article, like the end:


There are, of course, other, larger problems for the Republican Party to grapple with over the next few years. But they’ll have trouble solving many of them if they can’t get past this and realize that Democrats don’t have to bribe voters—not when their opponents are so interested in insulting them.Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...#ixzz2CKwqAXnM

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know if I'd call it a myth. It's not a controversial statement to say that some people will vote with their pocketbooks. If one candidate is promising things that will benefit one group and the other candidate is promising things that will benefit another group, who do you think most people will vote for? I think most people will vote for the candidate that they think will help them, not the candidate that is going to help other people.

I think there was certainly some truth to Romney's statement, but I don't think it was a smart thing for him to say publicly.

i am so glad it came out in public, which isn't what he intended.

as for how people vote, i look at the whole picture, or try to. of course that's not how everyone does it. but to assert that romney lost because of 'freebies' is both ignoring romney's stance on issues, and is an over-simplification. when you look at the demographics of the vote, you'll see that obama got support from pretty much every category of voter. romney did not.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by bigrun

How true..

Saw this on the welfare crowd..Huh!

% us population on welfare....4.1. 4.3 million people


Recipients who are white...38.8%
". Who are black.....39.8%

These stats are incorrect- or at the least, misleading. The percentages above are for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which was a specific program. It mostly aided single women with kids. Total welfare programs by race is about 61 percent white and 33 percent black.

And if you're talking Social Security, it's 88 percent white and just under 10 percent black.

In the interest of full disclosure, it's worth noting that the stats are from 1990, which is the most recent year available, and the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program doesn't actually exist anymore, having been replaced in 1996 with TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families).

I think Genuine Crazy Lady is Dahla's stashed name.



Exalting American Negro QB's is next.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Danzig

much like when romney failed to pay attention to what the polls were all saying:

Analysts who have studied the vote, for example, have given credit to Obama's massive get-out-the-vote effort, which dwarfed its Republican counterpart.

Polls and interviews also suggested that, in part, those voters were driven to Obama by the Republican's conservative positions on issues like immigration, abortion and the role of government.

that's from the la times article...i just don't get why romney can't actually take a good, hard, long look at the facts. why does he have to find excuses and play games about gifts, and why people didn't vote for him? i know why i didn't vote for him, and it had nothing to do with freebies.

ditto. and it's perplexing how otherwise smart people are so completely tone deaf about how this argument comes across to voters they need to persuade next time.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

ditto. and it's perplexing how otherwise smart people are so completely tone deaf about how this argument comes across to voters they need to persuade next time.

common sense just isn't that common i guess. he, and the party, have pretty much gone out of their way to piss off most of the country in some form or fashion. you'd think they'd learn.


saw this earlier on slate:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...ce_former.html


Romney's Campaign Surrogates Are Done Defending HimBy Josh Voorhees
|
Posted Thursday, Nov. 15, 2012, at 10:02 AM ET