Archive

Why Did Romney and the GOP Lose this Election?

  • ernest_t_bass
    rmolin73;1315430 wrote:95% of blacks voted for Gore and 93% voted for Kerry. That's what tipped the election in Obama's favor smh:rolleyes:

    Wonder what numbers were like for the caramels?
  • rmolin73
    Raw Dawgin' it;1315026 wrote:96% of blacks voted for Obama.
    That would be wrong. According to exit polls it was only 93% down from 95% in 2008. Sorry
    wes_mantooth;1315420 wrote:This.
    Wrong see above.
    like_that;1315556 wrote:MUCH higher turnout.
    95% is greater than 93% isn't it? Or maybe that's more of the Republican math:D
    wes_mantooth;1315557 wrote:Exactly
    No not exactly but good job trying to back RDI.
    ernest_t_bass;1315677 wrote:Wonder what numbers were like for the caramels?
    Lol ernest what caramels do you speak of?

    73% of Asians voted for Obama
    71% of Hispanics voted for Obama up from 67%
    93% of Blacks voted for Obama down from 95% (not the 96% RDI threw out and mantooth ran with)
    39% of Whites voted for Obama
    55% of Women voted for Obama (more women than men voted in this election)
    60% of age group 18-29 voted for Obama
    45% of Men voted for Obama
    48% of Democrats came out to vote where as 32% of Republicans did

    Also very interesting when the "collective" talked about how those that voted for Obama are the lazy, dumb freeloaders.

    Of the 10 wealthiest counties in America Obama won 8.

    The dumb college kids who are looking for their student loans to be paid off by the government favored Romney by 51%. While those that have done graduate work favored Obama 55%.
  • ernest_t_bass
    rmolin73;1315680 wrote:Lol ernest what caramels do you speak of?

    Oh you
  • like_that
    rmolin73;1315680 wrote:

    95% is greater than 93% isn't it? Or maybe that's more of the Republican math
    The percentage you are using is coming from the sample of black people who actually went out to vote.

    My point is the sample size is MUCH larger than it was during the 2000 and 2004 elections. Thus citing gore/Kerry's percentage of the black vote is not even close to being comparable to the numbers Obama received.

    Must be that caramel math??
  • rmolin73
    like_that;1315684 wrote:The percentage you are using is coming from the sample of black people who actually went out to vote.

    My point is the sample size is MUCH larger than it was during the 2000 and 2004 elections. Thus citing gore/Kerry's percentage of the black vote is not even close to being comparable to the numbers Obama received.

    Must be that caramel math??
    Nope that's FOX news math. But please inform me of where it is showing that 96% of blacks voted for Obama in 2012.
  • like_that
    rmolin73;1315686 wrote:Nope that's FOX news math.

    So you actually believe Kerry/Gore received practically the same amount of black votes as Obama?
  • like_that
    rmolin73;1315686 wrote:Nope that's FOX news math. But please inform me of where it is showing that 96% of blacks voted for Obama in 2012.

    I never said 96%. I was letting you know gore and Kerry's numbers are not comparable to Obamas.
  • rmolin73
    like_that;1315688 wrote:So you actually believe Kerry/Gore received practically the same amount of black votes as Obama?
    My post was to refute what RDI and Mantooth posted about 96% of blacks voting for Obama? I'll have to research the Gore and Kerry numbers.
  • like_that
    rmolin73;1315690 wrote:Once again where is it showing that 96% of blacks voted for Obama in 2012?

    Once again I never said 96%...
  • like_that
    rmolin73;1315690 wrote:My post was to refute what RDI and Mantooth posted about 96% of blacks voting for Obama? I'll have to research the Gore and Kerry numbers.

    My post was discussing the TURNOUT of black voters.
  • rmolin73
    like_that;1315692 wrote:My post was discussing the TURNOUT of black voters.
    That's my bad. But you are correct the turnout of black voters has increased since 2004 with rises in 2008 and 2012.
  • Cat Food Flambe'
    BoatShoes;1315620 wrote:Social Issue hardcore wingers definitely cost the Pubs the Senate again lol. But we should also come to terms with the fact that Obama ran transparently on a campaign to tax higher incomes and Obamacare remaining the law of the land whereas Romney transparently ran on reducing marginal rates...there's no good reason to think that right wing's economic ideas weren't similarly rejected.

    Stop blaming it on bible thumpers...the whole GOP is repudiated and this was their last hurrah...they're never going to acquiesce to teh illegals charging across the border in the dark of night, etc.
    BoatShoe - on the other hand, my thought is that the Republican Party was doomed to a slow and lingering fade from power when the Religious Right decided to become more politically active and adopted the Republican Party as their vehicle in the 80's (at the time the South rapidly shifted from the "Yellow Dog Democrat" voting block to the GOP). While not yet a majority, they're prominent in the party's public image. Unfortunately, this image dissuades many of the younger voters from considering the GOP - they're not making as many Republicans as they used to. As as the social conservatives gain numbers within the party, the process is only going to feed on itself.

    I honestly think that we may see a genuine shift to a three-party system in the next couple of decades - about a 40/20/40 split between the Progressives, Independents/Moderates of both parties, and the Tea Party.
  • BoatShoes
    majorspark;1315670 wrote:Iggypride made a good point on this on another thread. 2yrs ago the tea party supposedly ushered in a host of elected representatives for the GOP at the state and local level. State legislatures were turned to favor the GOP in a census year which allowed them to gerrymander congressional districts in their favor that will span at least a decade.
    That is why we can't look at the retention of the House with anything but disdain. Obama wins easily and Sherrod Brown trounces Mandel (who surprisingly didn't wear a flack jacket during his concession speech :laugh:) and the Democrats only send Four representatives to the House. The districts in Ohio are a disgrace and Issue 2 should've passed. It may not have been perfect but you know the AFL-CIO is going to get another, similar proposal on the ballot in a non presidential year and they're going to get it passed. There is no excuse for either democrats or republicans to draw such ridiculous districts.
  • BoatShoes
    Cat Food Flambe';1315694 wrote:BoatShoe - on the other hand, my thought is that the Republican Party was doomed to a slow and lingering fade from power when the Religious Right decided to become more politically active and adopted the Republican Party as their vehicle in the 80's (at the time the South rapidly shifted from the "Yellow Dog Democrat" voting block to the GOP). While not yet a majority, they're prominent in the party's public image. Unfortunately, this image dissuades many of the younger voters from considering the GOP - they're not making as many Republicans as they used to. As as the social conservatives gain numbers within the party, the process is only going to feed on itself.

    I honestly think that we may see a genuine shift to a three-party system in the next couple of decades - about a 40/20/40 split between the Progressives, Independents/Moderates of both parties, and the Tea Party.
    Maybe so but young people become more conservative as they grow up generally any ways. I think it's more about the latino vote and things to do with immigration policy. Conservatives opposed civil rights and they've never recovered. They're going to oppose any kind of reasonable immigration policy because...let's face it...think about some of the things that have been written here about "illegals" etc. and they are the core base of the conservative Republican party and they're only going to double down blaming this loss on Mitt being a moderate while they're calling Marco Rubio an anchor baby :laugh:.

    The GOP is acting like they're going to come up with something new but they will trot out the same shit they've trotted out since 1980.

    Low taxes, smaller government, less regulation secure the borders, keep the family together, etc. It will be the same old story.
  • QuakerOats
    BoatShoes;1315620 wrote:Stop blaming it on bible thumpers...the whole GOP is repudiated and this was their last hurrah...they're never going to acquiesce to teh illegals charging across the border in the dark of night, etc.
    Hilarious. The trend over the last 4 years is in our favor, obama just lost 10 million votes, and he received fewer votes in 46 out of 50 states. Most people understand the simple fact that we cannot spend more than we take in; the party is over.

    The trend is our friend, not that of socialists/marxists here or worldwide.
  • rmolin73
    QuakerOats;1315772 wrote:Hilarious. The trend over the last 4 years is in our favor, obama just lost 10 million votes, and he received fewer votes in 46 out of 50 states. Most people understand the simple fact that we cannot spend more than we take in; the party is over.

    The trend is our friend, not that of socialists/marxists here or worldwide.
    The GOP is what is over. Only 32% of ya came out to vote. Pitiful!
  • fish82
    Neither side is "over." Hyperbole gettin' a little deep in here.
  • QuakerOats
    rmolin73;1315775 wrote:The GOP is what is over. Only 32% of ya came out to vote. Pitiful!
    Better try that again ................ or is your comprehension really that shallow?
  • BoatShoes
    QuakerOats;1315772 wrote:Hilarious. The trend over the last 4 years is in our favor, obama just lost 10 million votes, and he received fewer votes in 46 out of 50 states. Most people understand the simple fact that we cannot spend more than we take in; the party is over.

    The trend is our friend, not that of socialists/marxists here or worldwide.
    And yet your party ran Ron Paul out of the primaries and nominated a ticket that was full in behind a budget that wouldn't be in balance for half a century. You're F.O.S. as is your party and people were onto it despite not being very happy with a pretty weak president in BHO. You were wrong about everything because you're either delusional or totally mendacious and it will bring me great joy for about a week :laugh:.


    Romney.....Big.... :laugh:
  • ts1227
    Sure, people agree with a lot of the GOP on a basic, moderate level.

    However, the GOP is no longer a basic, moderate party
  • BoatShoes
    "I don't it before. I'll do it again" ~Mitt Romney

    by "it" I mean lose an election.

    LOL.
  • QuakerOats
    ts1227;1315831 wrote:Sure, people agree with a lot of the GOP on a basic, moderate level.

    However, the GOP is no longer a basic, moderate party
    I know, defending individual liberty and advocating for fiscal sanity are soooo extreme.
  • QuakerOats
    BoatShoes;1315829 wrote:And yet your party ran Ron Paul out of the primaries and nominated a ticket that was full in behind a budget that wouldn't be in balance for half a century. You're F.O.S. as is your party and people were onto it despite not being very happy with a pretty weak president in BHO. You were wrong about everything because you're either delusional or totally mendacious and it will bring me great joy for about a week :laugh:.


    Romney.....Big.... :laugh:


    Obviously a slow week, no ambulances to chase?
  • rmolin73
    QuakerOats;1315863 wrote:Obviously a slow week, no ambulances to chase?
    Awwww you mad bro?
  • BoatShoes
    QuakerOats;1315863 wrote:Obviously a slow week, no ambulances to chase?
    Private Property is being abolished as we speak! Why Work? LOL!!!