Why did Romney lose?

[Links2k]

[quote name='TripleDigitRide' timestamp='1352605803' post='843557']


Anyone who believes anything other than what this man said has their head buried in the sand. Times are changing, like it or not. Only if they'd change enough to give 3rd part candidates a fighting chance. Or better yet, do away with party affiliation altogether.
[/quote]

I agree, but Didn't you get the memo? That would turn the GOP into the democrat party. The GOP has to stick to its guns and have a even more far right conservative nominee the next time around.

[RobertNashville]

Look guys; this thread it a wast of time...if you want to know why Romney lost all you have to do is turn on any of the Sunday talk shows...all those liberals are more than happy to tell the Republican party what is has to do to win elections.

It's very thoughtful of them actually.

[Links2k]

[quote name='TripleDigitRide' timestamp='1352609143' post='843588']


Yeah, because a vast majority of politicians aren't white.
[/quote]

Or Voting Americans

[TripleDigitRide]

[quote name='sigbrown1297' timestamp='1352644748' post='843692']

Ya, but what percent of population are politicians. I just think that he didn't appeal to the minority and younger group like Obama did. The voting population has changed and more hispanic and younger generations are voting. I wonder what would have happened if Romney was black.

[url="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/11/mitt_romney_white_voters_the_gop_candidate_s_race_based_monochromatic_campaign.html"]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/11/mitt_romney_white_voters_the_gop_candidate_s_race_based_monochromatic_campaign.html[/url][/quote]

He would have lost. His political stance on many issues is what caused him to lose. The old, white hardcore bible thumpers have seen their better days. Like it or not, society in general is becoming more liberal on many issues.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='LINKS2K' timestamp='1352671005' post='843905']
I agree, but Didn't you get the memo? That would turn the GOP into the democrat party. The GOP has to stick to its guns and have a even more far right conservative nominee the next time around.
[/quote]
For months I've had Paulbots and Johnsonbots and whateverbots tell me they were going to vote for someone other than Romney because Romney wasn't this or wasn't that and that they weren't going to abandon their principles...now it seems as if some folks here want conservatives and people of faith to abandon THEIR principles just so the Republicans can win an election.

Somebody please explain to me why I'm supposed to abandon what I believe in and were I to do so, what kind of man would I be???

[mikegideon]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1352670505' post='843901']
Yep. Obama and the leftest Dems all wanted single payer. They got it, will just take some time for it to inevitably become thus.

- OS
[/quote]

... if Obmacare doesn't get amended a bunch of times.

[Links2k]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352671511' post='843913']

For months I've had Paulbots and Johnsonbots and whateverbots tell me they were going to vote for someone other than Romney because Romney wasn't this or wasn't that and that they weren't going to abandon their principles...now it seems as if some folks here want conservatives and people of faith to abandon THEIR principles just so the Republicans can win an election.

Somebody please explain to me why I'm supposed to abandon what I believe in and were I to do so, what kind of man would I be???
[/quote]

I wouldn't want you to abandon your principles. However, like those of us who wish for third party recognition you must be willing to be rejected for standing by your principles.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='LINKS2K' timestamp='1352671996' post='843918']
I wouldn't want you to abandon your principles. However, like those of us who wish for third party recognition you must be willing to be rejected for standing by your principles.
[/quote]But, apparently, the hope is that enough Republican voters who espouse the same principles as I do [i][b]will[/b][/i] be willing to abandon their's and keep voting anyway. Edited November 11, 2012 by RobertNashville

[mikegideon]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352671511' post='843913']
For months I've had Paulbots and Johnsonbots and whateverbots tell me they were going to vote for someone other than Romney because Romney wasn't this or wasn't that and that they weren't going to abandon their principles...now it seems as if some folks here want conservatives and people of faith to abandon THEIR principles just so the Republicans can win an election.

Somebody please explain to me why I'm supposed to abandon what I believe in and were I to do so, what kind of man would I be???
[/quote]

Not winning elections is kinda like not eating. You can't hope that hard cultural changes are going to reverse themselves. You don't even have to agree. Just don't attack.

[Links2k]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352672138' post='843919']
But, apparently, the hope is that enough Republican voters who espouse the same principles as I do [i][b]will[/b][/i] be willing to abandon their's and keep voting anyway.
[/quote]

It depends upon how much they value the party over their principles.

[TripleDigitRide]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352671511' post='843913']
For months I've had Paulbots and Johnsonbots and whateverbots tell me they were going to vote for someone other than Romney because Romney wasn't this or wasn't that and that they weren't going to abandon their principles...now it seems as if some folks here want conservatives and people of faith to abandon THEIR principles just so the Republicans can win an election.

Somebody please explain to me why I'm supposed to abandon what I believe in and were I to do so, what kind of man would I be???[/quote]

I'm not sure anyone is expecting you to abandon your beliefs, but don't be surprised if you keep getting the same results. If you're not in the minority already, you soon may be. At that point, you'll be so outnumbered that you and your beliefs will mean little to the big picture.

We all have opinions and beliefs. I'm able to disagree and respect all at the same time.

[RobertNashville]

If the question is between "party" and "principles" then my choice will always be principles; it's not even a real choice for me. However, if I am to abandon my principles then it only makes sense to abandon them all and simply become a taker rather than a producer; vote for the Democrats and take whatever crumbs they'll give me for my vote while I sit at home and relax...non of that 50 or 60 hour work week anymore.

If I'm in the minority then apparently everyone who believes in the principles of freedom and independence are as well; or so it would appear based on the last two elections.

[mcurrier]

[img]http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server3200/90c91/products/2018/images/4191/LIBERALISM_SHIRT_FRONT__59757.1344516977.1280.1280.jpg[/img]

[mcurrier]

[img]http://cdn.conservativebyte.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Stupid.jpg[/img]

[img]http://politichicks.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/myans-300x300.jpg[/img]

[QuietDan]

There's always some voter fraud in an election, but seldom are their allegations of industrial-strength "Chicago Style" voter fraud corruption on such a massive scale:

[size=6][b]Was the 2012 Election Stolen?[/b]

[b]By[/b] [url="http://www.americanthinker.com/selwyn_duke/"][b]Selwyn Duke[/b][/url][/size]


[size=5][font=times new roman,times]As the 2012 election approached, conservative enthusiasm grew. Mitt Romney was drawing huge crowds while Barack Obama spoke in half-filled stadiums. All the passion lay on the right while the left was discouraged with a promised messiah who proved merely a politician. And the prediction was that, in contrast to 2008, Republican turnout would dwarf the tuned-out and carry the day. Hence the shock November 6 eve. How could Romney lose, especially by such a wide electoral margin?[/font]

[font=times new roman,times]Maybe he didn't[/font]

[font=times new roman,times]At least not legitimately.[/font]

[font=times new roman,times]When I [/font][url="http://selwynduke.typepad.com/selwyndukecom/2012/10/will-vote-fraud-win-the-election-for-obama.html"][font=times new roman,times]predicted Obama's re-election[/font][/url][font=times new roman,times], I stated that, despite our country's inexorable leftist slide, Romney would still win on Election Day were it not for vote fraud. I explained that the Democrats could steal more than enough votes in crucial swing states to turn the election. And I still believe what I did then: electoral criminality put Obama over the top.[/font]

[font=times new roman,times]At the time, we heard stories about [/font][url="http://myfox8.com/2012/10/23/guilford-county-voters-say-they-voted-for-the-wrong-candidate/"][font=times new roman,times]electronic-machine "glitches"[/font][/url][font=times new roman,times] switching Romney votes to Obama ones. And Patrick Moran, son of Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), was [/font][url="http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/video-captures-dem-campaign-chief-plotting-vote-fraud/"][font=times new roman,times]caught on tape[/font][/url][font=times new roman,times] facilitating vote fraud while Bridgeport, CT mayor Bill Finch essentially [/font][url="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/connecticut-dem-jokes-about-corruption_654445.html"][font=times new roman,times]promised[/font][/url][font=times new roman,times] to commit same for a political partner in crime. [/font]

[font=times new roman,times]Since then, the indications of electoral criminality have been overwhelming. First there are the anecdotes, such as the court-appointed Republican poll watchers illegally expelled from 13 Philadelphia polling places in wards that, in most cases, went 99 percent for Obama; the poll observers who noted what they considered vote fraud but were powerless to stop; and the Democrats who actually [/font][url="http://www.examiner.com/article/fraud-some-told-they-already-voted-others-brag-about-voting-multiple-times"][font=times new roman,times]bragged about[/font][/url][font=times new roman,times] voting more than once.[/font]

[font=times new roman,times]Then there are the statistics, such as [/font][url="http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20121112_In_59_Philadelphia_voting_wards__Mitt_Romney_got_zero_votes.html"][font=times new roman,times]this[/font][/url][font=times new roman,times] staggering fact: in 59 Philadelphia districts, Romney failed to get [i]even one vote[/i]. Final Obama-Romney tally: 19,605 to 0.[/font]

[font=times new roman,times]Huh? Not even one person voted GOP accidentally? I mean, there even was a Washington, D.C. councilman who inadvertently voted to approve faux marriage, [/font][url="http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Confused-Barry-Asks-for-Same-Sex-Marriage-Vote-Back.html"][font=times new roman,times]saying[/font][/url][font=times new roman,times] that he didn't know what he was voting for (that would be Marion Barry).[/font]

[font=times new roman,times]Next, consider [/font][url="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/09/16/voter-rolls-in-ohio-are-bloated-experts-say.html"][font=times new roman,times]this report[/font][/url][font=times new roman,times] from [i]The Columbus Dispatch[/i]: [/font][/size]
[indent=1]
[size=5][font=times new roman,times]More than one out of every five registered Ohio voters is probably ineligible to vote.[/font]
[font=times new roman,times]In two counties, the number of registered voters actually exceeds the voting-age population: Northwestern Ohio's Wood County shows 109 registered voters for every 100 eligible, while in Lawrence County along the Ohio River it's a mere 104 registered per 100 eligible.[/font][/size][/indent]
[indent=1]
[size=5][font=times new roman,times]Another 31 counties show registrations at more than 90 percent of those eligible, a rate regarded as unrealistic by most voting experts. The national average is a little more than 70 percent.[/font][/size][/indent]
[indent=1]
[size=5][font=times new roman,times][...]Of the Buckeye State's 7.8 million registered voters, nearly 1.6 million are regarded as "inactive."[/font][/size][/indent]

[size=5][font=times new roman,times]Understand the significance. Years ago I was [/font][url="http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/democrats_and_deep_vote_fraud.html"][font=times new roman,times]contacted[/font][/url][font=times new roman,times] by a Washington, D.C. community leader (who'll remain anonymous) who told me that he had "done some computer work for several candidates over the years in DC" and had conducted his own study of urban vote fraud. He said that inner cities' great transiency ensures that any given large metropolis will have a great number of voters who no longer live in their precinct of registration. These areas also have Democrat operatives known by the get-out-the-vote term "block captains" or "apartment captains," people who know the lay of the land and thus what registered voters have left town. So all they need do then is vote for these people or have others do so. This is very easy, too, with few voter-ID laws. And this is why Democrats oppose these laws so vehemently.[/font]

[font=times new roman,times]Now consider that Obama "won" Ohio by 100,000 votes. This means that to flip the state, Democrat surrogates had to illegally "activate" only [i]6.25 percent[/i] of its 1.6 million inactive voters.[/font]

[font=times new roman,times]Note also that Ohio secretary of state Jon Husted did ask Eric Holder's DOJ for help negotiating conflicting federal laws pertaining to the purging ineligible voters from the rolls. The DOJ's ultimate response? "No comment."[/font][/size]

[size=5][font=times new roman,times]Yet a voter doesn't even have to be inactive, just disengaged. For example, when the aforementioned Patrick Moran offered advice on surrogate voting, he told an undercover reporter to masquerade as a pollster and call a targeted individual to make sure he wasn't planning to vote. And this is nothing new. In fact, liberal leg-thriller Chris Matthews himself [/font][url="http://spectator.org/blog/2012/06/27/did-chris-matthews-participate"][font=times new roman,times]admitted[/font][/url][font=times new roman,times] that it has been going on for years.[/font]

[font=times new roman,times]Then there is the case of the missing military ballots. As Rachel Alexander at [i]Town Hall [/i][/font][url="http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2012/11/11/obama_likely_won_reelection_through_election_fraud/page/2"][font=times new roman,times]reported[/font][/url][font=times new roman,times]:[/font][/size]

[indent=1]
[size=5][font=times new roman,times]The conservative-leaning military vote has [/font][url="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/01/military-ballot-requests-down-in-key-battleground-states/"][font=times new roman,times]decreased[/font][/url][font=times new roman,times] drastically since 2010 due to the so-called Military Voter Protection Act that was enacted into law the year before. It has made it so difficult for overseas military personnel to obtain absentee ballots that in Virginia and Ohio there has been a 70% decrease in requests for ballots since 2008. In Virginia, almost 30,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots than in 2008. In Ohio, more than 20,000 fewer overseas military voters requested ballots. This is significant considering Obama won in both states by a little over 100,000 votes.[/font][/size][/indent]

[size=5][font=times new roman,times]Frankly, it is inconceivable that military interest in voting could've dropped so drastically given conservatives' passion this election season. The damning conclusion? The Obama machine wants our soldiers to shed blood while it sheds their votes.[/font]

[font=times new roman,times]Striking as all this is, however, it's likely just a partial picture. As with all crime, it's a given that the discovered vote fraudsters represent only a tiny percentage of the total. And what about vote-fraud methods we haven't even thought of yet? Remember, the Democrats have been honing this act for many, many years.[/font]

[font=times new roman,times]And vote fraud is Democrat domain. Liberals are the situational-values set, people who for years insisted that right and wrong is relative and that if it feels good, do it. And what feels good to them at election time is stealing votes to win - and they do it. They relish it, in fact. Like the liberal who addressed Bill Clinton's it-depends-on-what-is-is infidelity and adamantly told me, "He did the [i]right[/i] thing," leftists love the con. To pull a fast one like private eye Jim Rockford, fool everyone, and get away with it is like winning the Nobel Prize in Prevarication in their world. Thus, it's assured that there's no small number of liberals who are currently brimming with pride at having negated the votes of countless knuckle-dragging conservatives. [/font]

[font=times new roman,times]Having said this, we can't be sure about the exact magnitude of the vote fraud. But my judgment is this:[/font][/size]

[size=5][font=times new roman,times]The election was likely stolen. [/font]

[font=times new roman,times]And whatever Barack Obama is presently, I don't believe he will be a legitimate president come January 20.[/font][/size]

[size=5][font=times new roman,times]This is why Congressman Allen West was right not to concede his Florida race. And, frankly, if Romney believes that the election may have been stolen nationally, he should withdraw his concession.[/font]

[font=times new roman,times]Radical?[/font]

[font=times new roman,times]Unprecedented?[/font]

[font=times new roman,times]Yes, but so is vote fraud on the scale perpetrated by Obama's minions. And people needn't fear creating a national crisis - [i]we are already in a national crisis[/i]. The only question is whether good Americans will stand and be counted or allow 2012 to mark our official descent into banana-republic status.[/font][/size]

Read more: [url="http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/was_the_2012_election_stolen.html#ixzz2C7ai2lA3"]http://www.americant...l#ixzz2C7ai2lA3[/url] Edited November 13, 2012 by QuietDan

[Guest HvyMtl]

Voting machine Fraud? Unlikely. Several of the voting machine companies, like the ones in Ohio, were supposedly big GOP donators. Unless it is all a conspiracy, give the GOP donations, so we can lull them into not watching us, so we can then swap votes to Dems...

Nice post of a conspiracy theory.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1352912440' post='845516']
Voting machine Fraud? Unlikely. Several of the voting machine companies, like the ones in Ohio, were supposedly big GOP donators. Unless it is all a conspiracy, give the GOP donations, so we can lull them into not watching us, so we can then swap votes to Dems...

Nice post of a conspiracy theory.[/quote]
If someone does something to my computer to cause a problem, is it the computer manufacturer's fault or the fault of the person who did the act?

If a voting machine is hacked/tampered with in some way, does it matter who the manufacturer of the machine was?

There IS voter fraud, I think a lot of it and no one, especially the Democratic power structures and their ilk (the ACLU, etc) want to do anything about it. That means, unfortunately, that the ONLY way around it is for the election to not be so close that the fraud can push the election in the direction it wants.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1352912440' post='845516']
Voting machine Fraud? Unlikely. Several of the voting machine companies, like the ones in Ohio, were supposedly big GOP donators. Unless it is all a conspiracy, give the GOP donations, so we can lull them into not watching us, so we can then swap votes to Dems...

Nice post of a conspiracy theory.
[/quote]Where did you hear that? All I've ever known about those companys that work the voting crowd was one story
saying George Soros owned one of them that controlled twenty to thirty states tallies.
Also, an interesting article:[url="http://newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd559.htm"]http://newswithviews...vvy/kidd559.htm[/url]

I just love it when someone throws out that "tin foil" crap to end an argument. It is most intellectually
disingenuous. Disprove it, don't act childish. There are respected models that add to the argument.

The link above by that woman in Texas, I think, summed it up quite well. Edited November 14, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[QuietDan]

Regarding voter fraud:

MANY articles now online. For starters:

[url="http://www.floridapoliticalpress.com/2012/11/10/ohio-vote-totals-for-obama-a-statistical-miracle/"]http://www.floridapo...stical-miracle/[/url]

[url="http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2012/11/11/obama_likely_won_reelection_through_election_fraud"]http://townhall.com/..._election_fraud[/url]

[url="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/odd-romney-got-zero-votes-in-59-precincts-in-philly-9-in-ohio/"]http://www.theblaze....illy-9-in-ohio/[/url]


Even if these articles and the facts therein don't line up with your world view, they don't go away when you ignore them.

Face the facts, challenge the facts, question the facts, but don't shoot the messenger and don't shoot the source.

*****************************************************************************************
[size=4][font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. Yet in their hearts there is unspoken - unspeakable! - fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts! Words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home, all the more powerful because they are forbidden. These terrify them. A little mouse - a little tiny mouse! -of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic.
[b]Winston Churchill[/b][/font][/size]

***************************************************************************************** Edited November 14, 2012 by QuietDan

[Guest 6.8 AR]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352914055' post='845541']
If someone does something to my computer to cause a problem, is it the computer manufacturer's fault or the fault of the person who did the act?

If a voting machine is hacked/tampered with in some way, does it matter who the manufacturer of the machine was?

There IS voter fraud, I think a lot of it and no one, especially the Democratic power structures and their ilk (the ACLU, etc) want to do anything about it. That means, unfortunately, that the ONLY way around it is for the election to not be so close that the fraud can push the election in the direction it wants.
[/quote]If the counters make it so insurmountable, even when you know it couldn't be so close, the problem lies when
people don't stand up to the counters and take the counting away from them. Something is certainly wrong and I think
it has to do with the counters, especially in this election. Some very accurate models were shown to be wrong, this time.
That one in Colorado is the one I remember that showed this election to go the other way and it was one that had a
batting average of a 1000 since 1980.
Bothersome.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Dan, I liked that Florida link that showed that there 108,000 voters where 98,000 were eligible. The Cuyahoga County
total of 21 precincts voted 100% for Obama. I see that as inconceivable as it can get. That's outright corruption. These
are things this damned country needs to wake up to, instead of saying "oh well", like a bunch on this forum think.

Yes, Obama stole this election. It's just like I said earlier. They will cheat so obviously and look you in the eye telling you
there's nothing you can do about it. The Hell with that and anyone who subscribes to that! Arrogance. It will get someone
hurt, eventually.

[QuietDan]

Short of violence, short of expecting our corrupt Attorney General to evenhandedly enforce the law, I'm not exactly sure what legal options are open to us regarding an uncorrupted, legitimate election. I'd be willing to get heavily involved personally and even financially in a route that would tend to correct the problem, short of violence, on a national level.

I'm not even sure if there is any longer a reputable voter registration program. My understanding is even the once-neutral(?) League of Women Voters has been co-opted and corrupted. I'm thinking if one party distributes and collects voter registration materials, they throw out voter registrations that come back with the other party marked.

I'm not quite ready to take a rifle up in the hills ala Red Dawn, but I'm getting kind of concerned about locking onto alternative means to start correcting the problem that is short of physical. It seems that if one side is going to push and shove and get confrontational, you know, descending to mob behavior, that one of the few routes left is to get just as physical and confrontational back.

I'd sure like to get Voter ID tightened up, but I'm thinking that even that route will be very confrontational. I think confrontation is a last resort. You know work inside the system and all that. Tennessee's system could be better but other states are downright pitiful and corrupt beyond measure. If you have a voting system that's corrupt, who's going to trust it, who's going to abide by the results? It'll start to mean less and less, and people won't let it solve things because it's corrupt. There are still folks that pretend there isn't a problem because they know their side gets an advantage and they refuse to have an honest opinion about it.

To what end? When does the talk come to an end and the shoving back begin? I'm thinking we're getting closer and closer.

I've still got quite a bit of shove left in me, but I hate to let it out, it's so hard to put it back in the box. You really don't want to see me angry, it sends the children scurrying, makes my wife cry, and the neighbors get wide-eyed before they shut and lock the door.

[Guest RevScottie]

It seems funny with all of this in depth political analysis on abortion, religion, gay marriage, war mongering, blue laws, etc, where everyone is supposed to realize the Republican party is going to have to compromise no one feels that way about gun rights. Much of the country see's no need for high capacity magazines and assault rifles yet that is political suicide for a Republican to accept compromise there. What we are saying is its OK for compromise on anything that really isn't important to me.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1353015334' post='846176']
...Much of the country see's no need for high capacity magazines and assault rifles yet that is political suicide for a Republican to accept compromise there. What we are saying is its OK for compromise on anything that really isn't important to me.[/quote]

Yep. That's what everyone says, from individual voters all the way to the parties themselves.

And yep, I'd opine that a national referendum would find that 70% of the nation would be fine with banning "assault" rifles, +10 round mags, all kinds of stuff. Handgun carry would be in the minority, too.

- OS

[TrickyNicky]

[quote name='RevScottie' timestamp='1353015334' post='846176']
It seems funny with all of this in depth political analysis on abortion, religion, gay marriage, war mongering, blue laws, etc, where everyone is supposed to realize the Republican party is going to have to compromise no one feels that way about gun rights. Much of the country see's no need for high capacity magazines and assault rifles yet that is political suicide for a Republican to accept compromise there. What we are saying is its OK for compromise on anything that really isn't important to me.
[/quote]

The big difference IMO is that firearms are specifically protected but the US constitution while the others mentioned are not even mentioned. Firearms shouldn't be a political issue one way or the other. Actually neither should abortion, gay marriage, or religion, those are issues of morality which the government has no business dictating one way or the next.