2012 Election - Postmortem; GOP Autopsy
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
Romney: Obama won with 'gifts' to certain voters
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is telling top donors that <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">President Barack Obama won re-election because of the "gifts" he had already provided to blacks, Hispanics and young voters</SPAN> and because of the president's effort to paint Romney as anti-immigrant.
"The president's campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift," Romney said in a call to donors on Wednesday. "He made a big effort on small things."
Romney said his campaign, in contrast, had been about "big issues for the whole country." He said he faced problems as a candidate because he was "getting beat up" by the Obama campaign and that the debates allowed him to come back.
Obama won the popular vote by about 3.5 million votes, or 3 percent, and won the Electoral College by a wide margin, 332-206 electoral votes. Exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks showed that Obama led Romney by 11 percentage points among women and won better than 7 of 10 Hispanic voters and more than 9 of 10 black voters.
Romney called his loss to Obama a disappointing result that he and his team had not expected, but he said he believed his team had run a superb campaign. He said he was trying to turn his thoughts to the future, "but, frankly, we're still so troubled by the past, it's hard to put together our plans for the future."
THE GIFTS
Among the "gifts" Romney cited were free health care "in perpetuity," which he said was highly motivational to black and Hispanic voters as well as for voters making $25,000 to $35,000 a year.
Romney also said the administration's promise to offer what he called "amnesty" to the children of illegal immigrants — what he termed "the so-called DREAM Act kids" — helped send Hispanics to the polls for Obama.
Young voters, Romney said, were motivated by the administration's plan for partial forgiveness of college loan interest and being able to remain on their parents' health insurance plans. Young women had an additional incentive to vote for Obama because of free contraception coverage under the president's health care plan, he said.
"I'm very sorry that we didn't win," he told donors. "I know that you expected to win. We expected to win. We were disappointed; we hadn't anticipated it."
Romney said he and his team were discussing how his donor group could remain connected and have an influence on the direction of the Republican Party and even the selection of a future nominee — "which, by the way, will not be me."
"The president's campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift," Romney said in a call to donors on Wednesday. "He made a big effort on small things."
Romney said his campaign, in contrast, had been about "big issues for the whole country." He said he faced problems as a candidate because he was "getting beat up" by the Obama campaign and that the debates allowed him to come back.
In the call, Romney didn't acknowledge any major missteps, such as his "47 percent" remarks widely viewed as denigrating nearly half of Americans, his lack of support for the auto bailout, his call for illegal immigrants to "self-deport," or his change in position on abortion, gun control and other issues. He also didn't address the success or failure of the campaign's strategy of focusing on the economy in the face of some improvement in employment and economic growth during the months leading up to Election Day.
Obama won the popular vote by about 3.5 million votes, or 3 percent, and won the Electoral College by a wide margin, 332-206 electoral votes. Exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks showed that Obama led Romney by 11 percentage points among women and won better than 7 of 10 Hispanic voters and more than 9 of 10 black voters.
Romney called his loss to Obama a disappointing result that he and his team had not expected, but he said he believed his team had run a superb campaign. He said he was trying to turn his thoughts to the future, "but, frankly, we're still so troubled by the past, it's hard to put together our plans for the future."
THE GIFTS
Among the "gifts" Romney cited were free health care "in perpetuity," which he said was highly motivational to black and Hispanic voters as well as for voters making $25,000 to $35,000 a year.
Romney also said the administration's promise to offer what he called "amnesty" to the children of illegal immigrants — what he termed "the so-called DREAM Act kids" — helped send Hispanics to the polls for Obama.
Young voters, Romney said, were motivated by the administration's plan for partial forgiveness of college loan interest and being able to remain on their parents' health insurance plans. Young women had an additional incentive to vote for Obama because of free contraception coverage under the president's health care plan, he said.
"I'm very sorry that we didn't win," he told donors. "I know that you expected to win. We expected to win. We were disappointed; we hadn't anticipated it."
Romney said he and his team were discussing how his donor group could remain connected and have an influence on the direction of the Republican Party and even the selection of a future nominee — "which, by the way, will not be me."
SOURCE: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ama-won-with-gifts-to-certain-voters/1706223/
___
Jindal says Romney 'gifts' argument 'absolutely wrong'
Asked about Romney's remarks, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a potential contender for the GOP nomination in 2016, strongly condemned those in the GOP who classify voters based on income, race or age and said the party cannot concede wide swaths of voters and expect to win elections.
"We have got to stop dividing the American voters," Jindal told reporters in Las Vegas, where the Republican Governors Association was meeting. "We need to go after 100 percent of the vote, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote."
Asked about the failed GOP nominee’s reported comments on a conference call with donors earlier Wednesday, the incoming chairman of the Republican Governors Association became visibly agitated.
“No, I think that’s absolutely wrong,” he said at a press conference that opened the RGA’s post-election meeting here.
"We have got to stop dividing the American voters," Jindal told reporters in Las Vegas, where the Republican Governors Association was meeting. "We need to go after 100 percent of the vote, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote."
Asked about the failed GOP nominee’s reported comments on a conference call with donors earlier Wednesday, the incoming chairman of the Republican Governors Association became visibly agitated.
“No, I think that’s absolutely wrong,” he said at a press conference that opened the RGA’s post-election meeting here.
Romney and Rove remind me of the rich brothers in Trading Places. They are so detached from reality and so elitist that they will never understand the reality that exists outside their bubble. that Romney response to his loss was the most racist and dismissive bs I have ever read from a public figure. I have seen no republican denounce his racist claims accept this dude. This -ish is ridiculous.
Electorally, Obama could have lost Florida, Ohio, Colorado, and Iowa and still won the election. It was a landslide even though he lost states he won in 2008 like Virginia and Indiana, so all that fearmongering about how it's so fucking important to vote for the lesser of two evils was bullshit. Just like it always is.
If anyone learns anything from this election, it should be that it's always the right time to vote your conscience.
If anyone learns anything from this election, it should be that it's always the right time to vote your conscience.
It's fine to vote Democratic/Republican if that's where your values are, as in you're voting for someone and not just against someone else. Lesser of two evils is bullshit and has only led to the current state of the country.
There were more than two candidates for president. Find someone to vote FOR.
There were more than two candidates for president. Find someone to vote FOR.
Haley Barbour:
Out-Of-Touch GOP Needs Proctology Exam
Republican leaders from coast-to-coast are scrambling as they try to figure out how the GOP, comprised mostly of older white men, can adapt to the nation's rapidly changing demographics. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">The simple answer is to stop alienating growing populations, like black, Latino and LGBT Americans</span>.
But Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, however, is suggesting something a bit more complicated: a proctology exam.
Trying to make light of what could be a devastating scenario for his ideological peers, Barbour, speaking before the Republican Governors Association in Las Vegas, said, "The ground game is really important, and we have to be, I mean we've got to give our political organizational activity a very serious.... Proctology exam. We need to look everywhere."
Yes, perhaps a political reality that has been staring you in the face for at least 8 years is where the sun don't shine, rather than on Main Street America.
Barbour went on, according to CNN, "We can catch up in four years doing this. This isn't rocket science, but it is hard work that we can't wait and start in 2016."
The first step, as Barbour recently pointed out on MSNBC, is don't have "sh***y" candidates.
Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2012/11/ha...-gop-needs-proctology-exam.html#ixzz2CJ3uRmPK
Thats the same as saying, the river is rushing; I don't swim and if I don't get help, I could drown. Now, there's one boat I could get on that I might be able to save my life - but I hate the values of the S.O.B.'s on that boat; then there's another boat I could get on, but I hate those S.O.B.'s values as well, but less so; and there's a third choice, a toothpick floating along, I could grab on to it as well -- its value-less and suits my ideology -- but there is no way in hell it has a chance of saving my life.
But, you omitted the 3rd option: having a nuclear bomb placed up your ass. People have survived being shot and stabbed -- but point to ONE (1) that has survived a nuclear bomb up the ass . . .
I don't get it. The third option to voting Democrat/Republican is to save yourself if you value your own life.
What/who does the bomb represents?
Greed, have you ever attend your local, third party of your choice meeting? All you and Lamarr do is bitch. What are you doing to affect the anti republican/democratic party political choices at your grass root level since you claim you have no choice between them.
BTW, the choice is not simply between Democrat and Republican. The choice is between any candidate, from which ever party or no party at all, with a realistic chance of winning that, unfortunately, is easier to accept -- given the choices.
A process is supposed to lead to an end-result.
I think voting is supposed to result in your expression of what you want in your government. I think politics and compromise should be left to the politicians and kept out of the ballot box.
I think that the average person compromises their values before the politician is even sworn in, and that politician will compromise further. The result is a society without principle.
I think voting is supposed to result in your expression of what you want in your government. I think politics and compromise should be left to the politicians and kept out of the ballot box.
I think that the average person compromises their values before the politician is even sworn in, and that politician will compromise further. The result is a society without principle.
Are you contending that a "reasoned process" does not lead to an end result
Voting could "result in your expression of what you want in government" -- just as it could result in whether you get concrete or asphalt (whichever is used to surface streets in one's locale) cover over a muddy trail. I don't know precisely what you mean by "what you want in government" -- but to the extent that it means your vote going towards electing someone who you deem more likely than not to deliver on those things you hold important, then it does result in what you want in government, so long, however, as one realizes that there is no such thing as the perfect government (because people are not perfect and government is people, and not some inanimate object).
Why would you think such a thing? Do people not make compromises all the time -- as part of their daily existence? - Or do people get exactly what they want each and every time they make a selection ???
Again, I'm not certain of what you mean by "Compromised Values". You seem to be using that term/phrase to mean one having certain core beliefs -- that one betrays (your definition would be appreciated) when one doesn't cast a vote for someone exactly matching one's core beliefs ??? Is that what you're saying
I'm saying it does and I'm questioning the results.Are you contending that a "reasoned process" does not lead to an end result
I think attack ads exist because people are just as prone to prioritize voting against someone as much as they would vote for someone. I think our politics is completely dominated with the "vote against" variety. That's a choice the society has made, and I think the end result of that has been terrible for the country.
In general, a vote against B does not equal A. If A gets into office, it should be the result of people wanting A and not from fear-mongering about B.
Your wording makes a difference. People make choices not compromises. In people's daily lives they are making economic choices and not political compromise. Economics allows people to have the least popular choice while another person enjoys they most popular choice. That's how the disgusting Dr. Pepper can live side-by-side with delicious Pepsi.
Political compromise is either-or. The majority decides the choice. There is no President Romney for the people that voted for him, President Johnson for the people that voted for him, or President Stein for the people that voted for her. There's President Obama.
This isn't a judgement, but we should acknowledge the differences in nature for politics and economics. Politicians see no difference.
In regards to my statement, a voter shouldn't compromise with himself. Vote for your choice. If you give up on being an accurate representation of your principles before you vote, then what kind of politician will vote for? Definitely not a principled one.
There will be enough compromise and disappointment to go around, just leave it to the politicians.
No, you got it exactly.Again, I'm not certain of what you mean by "Compromised Values". You seem to be using that term/phrase to mean one having certain core beliefs -- that one betrays (your definition would be appreciated) when one doesn't cast a vote for someone exactly matching one's core beliefs ??? Is that what you're saying
I'm an individualist. You have an obligation to yourself, first and foremost, to not betray your own values. Don't have a set of principles then vote against that set of principles using the logic that you'll vote against the guy who's against them more. That's acting in the negative in the sense they're trying to stop something rather than accomplish something. I don't view those as equals. I'd rather society take action in the positive. The lesser of two evils approach also acts in the negative. You only give legitimacy to that lesser evil.
Are Romney and the Republicans in denial?
<EMBED height=240 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=320 src=http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl55.swf flashvars="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg3?id=201201100017" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>
<EMBED height=240 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=320 src=http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl55.swf flashvars="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg3?id=201201100017" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></EMBED>
Are you contending that a "reasoned process" does not lead to an end result
You question the result when a voter, based on the facts available to that voter, decides that A may do less harm than B and, therefore, votes for A -- instead of simply not voting at all because there isn't a candidate "C" that espouses ALL of the things on the voter's wish list ???
The result is the valueless society we have now. Voting against B doesn't assert a value.
I also didn't stress a specific wish list. I'm talking about voting for politicians that shares a voter's principles. People should realize that C exist. Multiple people are on a presidential ballot.
Republicans and Democrats have created this marketing of shame associated with voting for someone other than them or its the typical fear mongering about how this election is too important to vote for a third party. The perversion is they call a third party vote a "protest vote" when their whole political model is "vote against the other guy."
One of the things we have to try to do, at least, is to use the same language, i.e., don't use terms of art without saying so, otherwise, we're likely to waste time talking about different things -- because we're not using the same definitions. I know, we're all guilty of it a times, but it doesn't make for clear conversation.
Nevertheless, if Voter opting to vote for B, because of his analysis, is NOT a value judgment, then perhaps, you're right. But to me, thats exactly what Voter is doing we he runs the facts through his mind and choses to act one way or another. If, for example, Voter is anti-abortion, absolutely; Candidate A is choice, absolutely; and Candidate B is anti-abortion, except under certain circumstances -- I think when Voter chooses B, his anti-abortion value is advanced, though incompletely, but advanced, nevertheless.
I suppose under your individualist approach, Absolute-Voter should abstain from voting because C, the absolute anti-abortion candidate, is not on the ballot. If that makes sense to the Absolutist-Voter, I can't argue with him, but its occurs to me that AV will be in constant conflict with the world around him and, perhaps, with himself, for the simple reason that W = the "World" is simply not Yes or No, Black or White, etc.
Your approach does make for an interesting question: Where would Black people be in America today, had we rejected progress, -- instead of all or nothing -- when all or nothing doesn't appear to have been viable alternatives.
Nevertheless, if Voter opting to vote for B, because of his analysis, is NOT a value judgment, then perhaps, you're right. But to me, thats exactly what Voter is doing we he runs the facts through his mind and choses to act one way or another. If, for example, Voter is anti-abortion, absolutely; Candidate A is choice, absolutely; and Candidate B is anti-abortion, except under certain circumstances -- I think when Voter chooses B, his anti-abortion value is advanced, though incompletely, but advanced, nevertheless.
I suppose under your individualist approach, Absolute-Voter should abstain from voting because C, the absolute anti-abortion candidate, is not on the ballot. If that makes sense to the Absolutist-Voter, I can't argue with him, but its occurs to me that AV will be in constant conflict with the world around him and, perhaps, with himself, for the simple reason that W = the "World" is simply not Yes or No, Black or White, etc.
Your approach does make for an interesting question: Where would Black people be in America today, had we rejected progress, -- instead of all or nothing -- when all or nothing doesn't appear to have been viable alternatives.
I didn't think there was a problem after the whole diminishing marginal return debacle. Are you saying I'm getting too technical?
The problem I have with this example is you've given identity to Candidate A.
In your example, you've given A positions that match the voter's values. I would say the voter is voting for A if abortion is an issue to hold in high regards, and Candidate A matches the voter's want.
Absent you defining A, voting against B doesn't speak to what position A holds. Not B does not equal A. For the abortion example, A could be pro-choice, just a little less anti-choice than B, or anything else.
My impression of politics is the most successful politician is the one that is all things to all people while committed to no position at all. That kind of politician can win by telling you the opponent is against all your beliefs while effectively avoiding a stance himself.
I think you're absolutely correct. A voter that adopted my logic would be in constant conflict with the world. Someone looking for principles in a world without principles would find it hard to vote for a politician if limited to the Democratic and Republican parties. Luckily there are multiple choices, and they owe it to themselves to vote for the person that matches their principles.
Its the least you can do for yourself.
I'll state an objection to your assertion that an adoption of my logic is "rejecting progress", but I don't know what the black community would look like today. Its hard for me to think in a mentality 50 years ago to appreciate the consequences of doing things differently, but its an interesting question.
I say that in the context of being a person unsatisfied with the Civil Rights movement in hindsight, and unsatisfied with the state of the black community now.
Interesting viewpoint on the issue of voting and the status of the Civil Rights movement...I'm pretty much on the same boat
The thing about the aftermath of the Civil Rights movement is that it could be said that to a point the black community accepted what was given at the time...therefore its results bring the current state of affairs. How does that fit within your beliefs?
Similar threads
