What will be the most popular excuse if Romney loses?

• isadore

  gosh a ruddies the protection of republican racism and greed continues here.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I'm waiting on the voter fraud argument.
  
  
  But, really I still think it will be they were not conservative enough.
• 0311sdp

  se-alum;1313645 wrote:Not an excuse, but Obama has done a good job of building an ever permanent underclass. If Obama wins, it will be nearly impossible for a Republican to win another Presidential election.

  This is actually correct, when the "47%" Romney spoke of becomes 50+% the most liberal candidate will always win.
• BoatShoes

  0311sdp;1314906 wrote:This is actually correct, when the "47%" Romney spoke of becomes 50+% the most liberal candidate will always win.

  :laugh: so much nonsense. It is no wonder the candidates that reflect this type of belief Imourdock...Romney pretedending to at least...)are repudiated
• Footwedge

  se-alum;1313652 wrote:You would think, but when you have such a large population that is dependent on the government teet, things don't work the way you think they should.

  Well when the collusionists destroy the entire economy with fraudulent banking practices in 2006, 2007 and 2008...without penalty I must add, a high unemployment rate will always be the result. Sucking on the gobblement teet is a direct function of the well orchestrated and choreographed plan of running the American worker out of business. Mission accomplished.
• Footwedge

  gut;1313682 wrote:Unfortunately this is true. The margin (that doesn't vote ideologically) seems pretty slim at this point. 4 more years and I'm afraid we are on an irreversible course toward a European model. Viewed in that light, what we've seen the last four years from Obama would be the norm. Fact.

  The European model that you bitch about is a direct reflection on how losing your working force to unfair foreign competitors. A subject that you and others can't seem to grasp nor understand.
  
  We've outsourced our wealth, anf you people wonder why we are turing more socialistic. Astounding.
• gut

  Footwedge;1314932 wrote:The European model that you bitch about is a direct reflection on how losing your working force to unfair foreign competitors. A subject that you and others can't seem to grasp nor understand.
  
  We've outsourced our wealth, anf you people wonder why we are turing more socialistic. Astounding.

  LMAO. No it isn't. What are you smoking? Europe was barreling down the path of socialism long before "outsourcing".
  
  Nevermind foreign investment in the US has been greater than outsourcing. It's doesn't fit your preconceived narrative so you reject the idea and/or fail to understand it.
• said_aouita

  

  His hair. His first name. His shady VP running mate choice.
• rmolin73

  

  According to gut it was the media. Next he'll be saying that Kate Upton isn't hot. Oh wait
  .........
• gut

  rmolin73;1315200 wrote:According to gut it was the media. Next he'll be saying that Kate Upton isn't hot. Oh wait
  .........

  If the liberal media had been half as critical of Obama as they were of Bush he loses in a landslide. That's just truth.
• Footwedge

  gut;1315213 wrote:If the liberal media had been half as critical of Obama as they were of Bush he loses in a landslide. That's just truth.

  The liberal media hugged Bush's nuts for 6 stinkin years. The POS should have been charged with war crimes. Only in America can you carry out a perpetual lie lasting for years regarding war and walk away with complete impunity.
  
  Bush lost in a landslide because he deserved to lose in a landslide. Why he was re-elected in 2004 was due to a well crafted national denial fest by the corporate owned, neoconservative media.
• like_that

  

  Footwedge;1315659 wrote:The liberal media hugged Bush's nuts for 6 stinkin years. The POS should have been charged with war crimes. Only in America can you carry out a perpetual lie lasting for years regarding war and walk away with complete impunity.
  
  Bush lost in a landslide because he deserved to lose in a landslide. Why he was re-elected in 2004 was due to a well crafted national denial fest by the corporate owned, neoconservative media.

  
  1. LMFAO at the LIBERAL media hugging Bush's nuts. How anyone can take your post seriously after reading the first sentence is beyond me.
  
  2. Bush didn't lose in a landslide...
• BoatShoes

  gut;1315213 wrote:If the liberal media had been half as critical of Obama as they were of Bush he loses in a landslide. That's just truth.

  As I think has been made clear in the last few days, it appears you have a tenuous grasp of the "truth" so I'm not sure you're the expert you think you are. :thumbup:
• BoatShoes

  So far it seems the most used excuse is some variation of "buying votes" with the various "all teh dependent blood sucking moochers put him over the top", etc. posts. Are you getting this 2kool4skool?
• Footwedge

  like_that;1315687 wrote:1. LMFAO at the LIBERAL media hugging Bush's nuts. How anyone can take your post seriously after reading the first sentence is beyond me.
  
  2. Bush didn't lose in a landslide...

  1. Yes...the liberal media hugged Bush's nuts for the first 6 years in office. The War Street Journal loved the lie factory. If you don't believe that, than you should reconsider ever posting on a poly board.
  
  2. What I meant to say is that Bush would have been absolutely annihilated if he were running in 08..instead of McCain. My bad.
  
  Go back to the Browns thread...you seem to have a comfort level over there. You are out of your league over here.
• like_that

  

  Footwedge;1315726 wrote:1. Yes...the liberal media hugged Bush's nuts for the first 6 years in office. The War Street Journal loved the lie factory. If you don't believe that, than you should reconsider ever posting on a poly board.
  
  2. What I meant to say is that Bush would have been absolutely annihilated if he were running in 08..instead of McCain. My bad.
  
  Go back to the Browns thread...you seem to have a comfort level over there. You are out of your league over here.

  
  You're out of your league on this whole site, because you can't hide to anyone how much of a dumb fuck you are.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1315700 wrote:As I think has been made clear in the last few days, it appears you have a tenuous grasp of the "truth" so I'm not sure you're the expert you think you are. :thumbup:

  When you have the wrong facts, as you typically do, you are incapable of recognizing the facts, as you have proven.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1315840 wrote:When you have the wrong facts, as you typically do, you are incapable of recognizing the facts, as you have proven.

  LOL. Just like the polls had the wrong facts I'm sure. Garbage in/Garbage out. LOL.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1315701 wrote:So far it seems the most used excuse is some variation of "buying votes" with the various "all teh dependent blood sucking moochers put him over the top", etc. posts. Are you getting this 2kool4skool?

  It's mostly true, though. You can look over at Europe and see what happens when you start talking about giving less to the takers. Riots in Greece and Italy, and France's solution to its debt problem was to elect a socialist.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1315842 wrote:LOL. Just like the polls had the wrong facts I'm sure. Garbage in/Garbage out. LOL.

  I explained it - many polls had Romney doing 6-8pts or more better with independents than he did. The baselines were wrong. Yep, pretty much the definition of garbage. The polls ended-up right for the wrong reasons, though for someone like yourself who only pretends to understand statistics you can't grasp that basic concept.
• fish82

  

  gut;1315848 wrote:I explained it - many polls had Romney doing 6-8pts or more better with independents than he did. The baselines were wrong. Yep, pretty much the definition of garbage. The polls ended-up right for the wrong reasons, though for someone like yourself who only pretends to understand statistics you can't grasp that basic concept.

  It was clearly a case of two wrongs making a right.
  
  Although I noted today that the national exit poll did show D+6 turnout. While not as ridiculously high as most polls, it's still way higher than anyone expected, and is cause for concern. If that number is the "new normal," the Pubs will be starting from a pretty big hole going forward.
• gut

  fish82;1315875 wrote:It was clearly a case of two wrongs making a right.
  
  Although I noted today that the national exit poll did show D+6 turnout. While not as ridiculously high as most polls, it's still way higher than anyone expected, and is cause for concern. If that number is the "new normal," the Pubs will be starting from a pretty big hole going forward.

  OK, I saw D+3. Looks like both R & D lost people to independents, which still looked good for Romney based on how he was polling with independents, but that was significantly overstated. Obama got however many fewer votes. The '08 margin was, in fact, erased. But Romney getting less votes than McCain was shocking and unexpected.
  
  Just a lot of bizarre things from those exit polls.
• jhay78

  

  "It's hard to beat Santa Claus"
• BoatShoes

  gut;1315882 wrote:OK, I saw D+3. Looks like both R & D lost people to independents, which still looked good for Romney based on how he was polling with independents, but that was significantly overstated. Obama got however many fewer votes. The '08 margin was, in fact, erased. But Romney getting less votes than McCain was shocking and unexpected.
  
  Just a lot of bizarre things from those exit polls.

  LOL. The final electoral college tally essentially matches the RCP no-toss up result based on poll aggregation with no lame analysis from your own biased gut feelings like you did. The lame winger pundits who made the same claims you did...dick morris etc. are admitting their fail. Own the fail. LOL.
  
  Hopefully you didn't put any money on your own intuition :laugh::laugh::laugh:
• BoatShoes

  jhay78;1315897 wrote:"It's hard to beat Santa Claus"

  :laugh::laugh::laugh: