Why did Romney lose?

[Guest ThePunisher]

Republicans that compromise the 2nd Amendment will not last long. The 2nd Amendment cannot be compromised and there still be a strong deterrent against government tyranny. If any democrat or republican that compromise the 2nd Aendment then they compromise liberty and freedom for everyone.
Please correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it the democrats that keep bringing up the issues of AWB and that they are agreeable with the UN Small Arms treaty. Didn't the last AWB occur under the democrat President Clinton. Hasn't the long term Kali democrat Senator Diane Fiennstein fought for thirty years to ban AR rifles and high capacity mags as well as other gun rights guaranteed by the 2nd A. Isn't it in the strong democrat states like Kali and Illinois and some other democrat states that have the strictest gun laws for gun onwrrship. I'm sure there are some republicans that are anti-gun rights, but it is not the republicans that keep proposing and bringing up these anti-gun issues.
I may be wrong, but I'm thinking that it's the democratic party that is the biggest threat to our 2nd Amendment rights.

[mikegideon]

There are pro 2A democrats and anti 2A republicans. BUT, the Democratic party is anti 2A. As a party, it's their goal to destroy it. It's the Republican party's goal to preserve it. It shouldn't be a surprise that folks on a gun board would bash the hell out of the one group that's trying to destroy something that's very important to all of us.

The more they set out to attack us, the more of a right winger I become. I just don't see how anybody with a serious passion for firearms could defend the Democratic party. Gun owners are the ones that were attacked and put on the defense. If somebody steals from me, they're not allowed in my house.

I have a LOT of liberal friends. They're not out to take away my guns, and I'm not out to take away whatever they like. With that said, as long as the Democratic party is coming after me, they are my enemy. Please forgive me for my intolerance.

BTW... Romney lost for a number of reasons. The party chased off women and hispanics. And, maybe the most important element... BHO may be a crappy president, but his marketing/campaign folks are the best. Their strategy was pretty flawless, again. Edited November 9, 2012 by mikegideon

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The neocons or new Rockefeller crowd has been on a death wish for a while. There is very little conservatism. I
agreed with Paul on most of his issues. He was trying to turn a ship without a rudder, though. The Tea Party
crowd is the only bunch left for them to coalesce with. Maybe it will form something that is viable. Neocons just
committed suicide, as far as I am concerned.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='LINKS2K' timestamp='1352488719' post='842594']
You left out blacks. ..[/quote]

Yes, I should have lumped the larger percentage of blacks into the same traditional Christian/family value/work ethic description of Hispanics. The difference though, is that a high majority of blacks would vote for Barack no matter what. And yes, that's more "racist" on their part than on mine for positing it methinks.

But I also left out one of, and probably [i]the[/i] major factor, at least in that particular post.

I've said over and over pre-election, "Mitt can't beat the media".

BHO and liberal PACs may have spent 3- 4 billion, but the constant overall media barrage was worth three times that. Had the preponderance of that (really 6 year long) type fawning coverage been anti-Barack instead, I have little doubt that Romney would have carried it.

- OS Edited November 10, 2012 by OhShoot

[Worriedman]

[quote name='mikegideon' timestamp='1352492546' post='842623']
There are pro 2A democrats and anti 2A republicans. BUT, the Democratic party is anti 2A. As a party, it's their goal to destroy it. It's the Republican party's goal to preserve it. It shouldn't be a surprise that folks on a gun board would bash the hell out of the one group that's trying to destroy something that's very important to all of us.
[/quote]

I guess I should have made sure I was referencing Tennessee Republicans. Haslam was a member of Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and only left to soft pedal his aversion to firearms, just prior to his election. Alexander is proven to be as anti gun as any poll in America, with Corker not far behind. Harwell, no discussion needed, she has repeatedly voted against every single loosening of firearms issues. Lets see where we are at the end of 2013?

[mikegideon]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1352497656' post='842687']
I guess I should have made sure I was referencing Tennessee Republicans. Haslam was a member of Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and only left to soft pedal his aversion to firearms, just prior to his election. Alexander is proven to be as anti gun as any poll in America, with Corker not far behind. Harwell, no discussion needed, she has repeatedly voted against every single loosening of firearms issues. Lets see where we are at the end of 2013?
[/quote]

I was talking more about national politics. I assume we have a lot of state level folks that are members of the party because it's a bright red state. Even though they're not our best friends, I don't think we can expect and true gun grabber crap from them.

[TrickyNicky]

Hmm I could have sworn Romney lost because of the 1% of the population that held to their principals unlike myself sadly, and voted third party.

The fact of the matter is:
1. Like it or not GWB left a bad taste in the mouths of the populace that will take time and honest effort for the Rebublican party to wash out.

2. While Obamas team was out setting up base camps in the major city's of the country to communicate with the everyday people on a day to day base. Romneys did not.

3. While he handled himself brilliantly on the first debate he shot himself in the foot making stupid statements about the 47% he wasn't even going to bother with because he saw a lost cause. Nobody likes being considered a lost cause.

4. The liberal media. Nuff said.

There are plenty more reasons but those alone would effectively spell the end for just about any candidate.
If we're going to wrestle the White House away from the Democrats the Republican Party needs to not only come up with better candidates they need to leave personal interests out of the picture and forget about gay marriage and what women do with their lady parts for a while. Do a little research on the face of modern America and reform to gain the highest possible demographic while remaining true to important issues like foreign policy and fiscal responsibility while butti g out of people's home lives.

IMHO of course.

[S&WForty]

I know Bush wasn't perfect, but a lot of the "populace" is stupid. Tuesday's results prove that.

My question us, how much does #4 contribute to #1 in the above post?

Take away the influence of #4 and #1 likely isn't an issue with the general populace.

Also, Bush had 8 years, but those last two with a Democrat Congress was the worst. Had we not had the housing crisis with bogus mortgages going into foreclosure, how bad would the economy have gotten. It was Frank-Dodd that gave us that mess.

Again, Bush wasn't great, but he gets way more than his share of the blame. And as one person here in another thread called him a hermit (implying he's hiding in shame), no, he has class. Had Clinton's two terms ended the same as Bush's, he would have gone on a faux campaign trail to rebuild his reputation/ego.

[TrickyNicky]

The populace may be stupid but they still vote.

As far as the relationship between the media and the general displeasure with Bush its really a moot point, it is what it is and that's all that it is. The reasoning is immaterial and I'm not trying to get into wether Bush was a good president or not but simply stating that he has made people a bit weary of the GOP which in turn is going to hinder the likelyhood of having a Republican president.

[Guest wallyiv]

To everyone whining about people talking partisan politics on a gun forum... You do realize this is a political thread right? All you like to do is try be a big voice and sound wise. Adjust your perception.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hey there! welcome!

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1352495464' post='842650']
The neocons or new Rockefeller crowd has been on a death wish for a while. There is very little conservatism. I
agreed with Paul on most of his issues. He was trying to turn a ship without a rudder, though. The Tea Party
crowd is the only bunch left for them to coalesce with. Maybe it will form something that is viable. Neocons just
committed suicide, as far as I am concerned.
[/quote]If there is any real hope left to save the country's principles it rests within the Tea Party and not surprising, the power-players and pundits in both the Republican AND the Democratic party blame "Tea Party" radical politics for the Republican being unable to bring home a win.

I guess that's why I have very little hope left and at this point, just want to survive as comfortably as I can until I find out if the God I believe in truly exists or not.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The way the GOP is talking, they're adopting a strategy to get immigration reform to get the hispanic vote.
Blaming it on old white guys is a poor excuse for getting a good candidate in the field. I think it has just been
reduced to third party status, anyway. I heard someone else blame it on the candidates who ran and lost. If
that was the case, they are over because the bulk of the candidates were moderate who lost, with the
exception of Akin and Mourdock. They just got caught saying stupid things and it cost them.

It's the same factor with them as Ron Paul. Get your message tuned up and make sure you stay on message.
I don't think they will and I can't see them getting it, either.

[mikegideon]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1352561574' post='843070']
The way the GOP is talking, they're adopting a strategy to get immigration reform to get the hispanic vote.
Blaming it on old white guys is a poor excuse for getting a good candidate in the field. I think it has just been
reduced to third party status, anyway. I heard someone else blame it on the candidates who ran and lost. If
that was the case, they are over because the bulk of the candidates were moderate who lost, with the
exception of Akin and Mourdock. They just got caught saying stupid things and it cost them.

It's the same factor with them as Ron Paul. Get your message tuned up and make sure you stay on message.
I don't think they will and I can't see them getting it, either.
[/quote]

Don't forget that 3 million registered Republicans stayed home on election day, probably because Romney wasn't "insert whiney BS here" enough. We have a commie president because a lot of Republicans CHOSE him with their inaction.

Probably wasn't all of it. The two drunk uncles helped a lot too. Edited November 10, 2012 by mikegideon

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1352561574' post='843070']The way the GOP is talking, they're adopting a strategy to get immigration reform to get the hispanic vote.[/quote]

Somebody, I don't remember who, noted, that most [i][b]legal[/b][/i] Hispanic voters, you know, the ones who actually followed the rules to get here and/or have been here for generations, tend to be conservative in their politics and that, for example, in states with large legal Hispanic populations, Republicans do well...meaning that it's the criminals (otherwise known as illegal aliens) who can't legally vote but do anyway, that are the primary voting block for Democrats.

The conclusion is then, that the Republican party wants to go after the votes of illegals who can't legally vote in the first place.

I'm I the only one whose head it about to explode?

[JPR1959]

During the debates before the Iowa caucus, most Republicans would have said Gingrich or Santorum were the leaders. It was funny how the attack ads threw both of these conservative candidates on their rears, and Romney was pushed to the front. They never recovered once these ads started. I find it hard to believe this was all on Romney.

Romney's own words defeated him, and he was probably too moderate for most Republicans. I'm still in shock that our country could vote for Obama a second time. It's the fool me once proposition. Oh well, I'll try and expect the best, but prepare for the worst.

[Glenn]

As long as the Government tits keep giving, it will be impossible to get much change. Romney didn't promise enough "free" stuff.
What worries me is when the economy crashes, there will be a "savior" who will promise to fix everything if we will just ignore the way he plans to do it. Think Germany 1930's

[Guest HvyMtl]

Ok, I am going to do a bigger analysis of this, later.

Several things, Mitt even stated these issues.

Lets start with "voting blocks." This term is used to describe certain voters with similar aspects, such as race, creed, sex, income, or age. Several of these blocks, the Young vote, the African American vote, the Hispanic vote, and Women voters are the crucial ones which voted for Obama, and against Romney.

The GOP's stance on several points harmed the party with these voting blocks.

Young vote: Gay marriage, stance on marijauna, Religious Right. War mongering.
In the eyes of the younger generation, they see sexual issues very differently than those 35+. In my experience, coming "out of the closet," or even professing the want to get a sex change, would have led to major conflicts, and rage, when I was young. Not so with them. They actively support those who come out with these sexual issues. They act as if it is no big deal. The blocking of marriage rights for gays, and their right to fight for this nation, harmed the GOP here.
Marijauna and other "recreational" drugs have a different view in this generation, than with the older ones. We had been told these things are extremely bad, and dangerous, and, particularly the case with marijuana, recreational drugs were "gateway" drugs to worse things. Yet, the younger generation has grown up with these recreational drugs done by their parents, and friends. They do not see the point on being hard against these drugs, and favor making them legal. This is something the present GOP opposes.
Religous Right: Most young are not as "up tight" or stress over religous differences. They are more tolerant (and in many cases, IMHO, for the betterment of Christianity) than the older generations, and they do not see the need to push for things like prayer in schools. They see the Religious Right as a negative. And the GOP? Yes, they cater to the Religious Right.
War mongering: Correct perception or not, GOP candidates are seen as war hawks by the younger population. The younger population sees little benefit coming from wars, as they have seen the ample coverage of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts. They look at these conflicts as absurd at best, but basically huge waste of lives. And they remember, it was a GOP President pushing for these wars.

The African American vote (IMHO, a misnomer, should be American of African desent, as the culture is not African.) This vote, in the hugest form of irony, has been lost by the GOP, the party of Abe Lincoln. How did this happen? The Dems figured out, during the 1960's, the freedom movement would benefit them in the future. The GOP did not respond to the movement as well. And now, in the eyes of this community, the GOP are for the Whites only. A good piece of work by the Dems to go from the anti-rights party to the defender of the African Americans. True, this is not the biggest of the voting blocks, but 12-14% helps in tight elections.

Hispanic vote: Hispanics, by most aspects, Deeply religious, supportive of the sanctity of marriage, etc., smacks of a voting block primed for the GOP. But, the GOP has stumbled by always looking like the Anti- Hispanic immigration party. This, plus the viewpoint the GOP, thru the blocking of the Dream Act, and supporting the aspects of "papers please" laws, alienated the Hispanic vote. Again, the GOP reinforced the viewpoint they are the "Whites Only" party.
Mitt pointed this out on several occasions, claiming if the GOP loses the Hispanic voting block, they have lost the future elections. Considering the size of, and the speed of which this size is growing, the Hispanic voting block will be crucial in future elections.

Women voters: This block is still growing in impact as more women see elections impacting their health, well being, and their family's health and well being.
For a politcal party claiming to be for less government intervention, it is surprising how much more governing the GOP wants over women's vaginas. Here, the pandering to the Religous Right has pushed women voters towards the Dems.
In addition, the lack of support for the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and equal pay for equal work, damaged the GOP further. This reinforced the view the GOP is for not only Whites, but only White males.
Attempting to remove the Planned Parenthood funding also damaged the GOP here. 98%+ of the Planned Parenthood funds have ZERO to do with abortions. Of the less than 2% dealing with the topic, the majority, 75%+, goes to counciling, which typically [i]prevents[/i] the abortion. The 98% goes towards women's health, such as cancer screenings, medical treatments, and other health programs to the benefit of women. And ZERO of the federal funding goes to anything abortion related. In the eyes of many female voters, this action, plus additional laws cutting health care for women, is dangerous. Going after Planned Parenthood is a bad politcal move for the GOP.
Arguably, going after Big Bird, and NPT, fits here, as it is a family issue, and parents rely on these educational services for their children, an anti-family stance which may have hurt the GOP with women.

If you look at the perceptions of the GOP, from the views of these voter blocks, it is no wonder Mitt lost.

Add the fact Mitt alienated the likes of Ron Paul supporters (who are a block of active voters, too) in his own party, and yes, Mitt lost. Edited November 10, 2012 by HvyMtl

[Tennjed]

[quote name='ThePunisher' timestamp='1352488259' post='842591']Pro-2nd Amendment democrat! Now that's an novel concept; why would you be a democrat since it's the democrats that want to take away your guns and gun rights?[/quote]

This is exactly what is wrong with our country. Blindly following a party and thinking it is as simple as all or none. I am not a Obama fan by any means, but please tell me how your "great" Romney's actual record is on gun rights?

Blindly following a party and thinking the country can be divided into 2 groups where everyone shares the same ideas is destroying the country. Both Sides Edited November 10, 2012 by Tennjed

[personDJ]

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1352567795' post='843125']
Ok, I am going to do a bigger analysis of this, later.

Several things, Mitt even stated these issues.

Lets start with "voting blocks." This term is used to describe certain voters with similar aspects, such as race, creed, sex, income, or age. Several of these blocks, the Young vote, the African American vote, the Hispanic vote, and Women voters are the crucial ones which voted for Obama, and against Romney.

The GOP's stance on several points harmed the party with these voting blocks.

Young vote: Gay marriage, stance on marijauna, Religious Right. War mongering.
In the eyes of the younger generation, they see sexual issues very differently than those 35+. In my experience, coming "out of the closet," or even professing the want to get a sex change, would have led to major conflicts, and rage, when I was young. Not so with them. They actively support those who come out with these sexual issues. They act as if it is no big deal. The blocking of marriage rights for gays, and their right to fight for this nation, harmed the GOP here.
Marijauna and other "recreational" drugs have a different view in this generation, than with the older ones. We had been told these things are extremely bad, and dangerous, and, particularly the case with marijuana, recreational drugs were "gateway" drugs to worse things. Yet, the younger generation has grown up with these recreational drugs done by their parents, and friends. They do not see the point on being hard against these drugs, and favor making them legal. This is something the present GOP opposes.
Religous Right: Most young are not as "up tight" or stress over religous differences. They are more tolerant (and in many cases, IMHO, for the betterment of Christianity) than the older generations, and they do not see the need to push for things like prayer in schools. They see the Religious Right as a negative. And the GOP? Yes, they cater to the Religious Right.
War mongering: Correct perception or not, GOP candidates are seen as war hawks by the younger population. The younger population sees little benefit coming from wars, as they have seen the ample coverage of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts. They look at these conflicts as absurd at best, but basically huge waste of lives. And they remember, it was a GOP President pushing for these wars.

The African American vote (IMHO, a misnomer, should be American of African desent, as the culture is not African.) This vote, in the hugest form of irony, has been lost by the GOP, the party of Abe Lincoln. How did this happen? The Dems figured out, during the 1960's, the freedom movement would benefit them in the future. The GOP did not respond to the movement as well. And now, in the eyes of this community, the GOP are for the Whites only. A good piece of work by the Dems to go from the anti-rights party to the defender of the African Americans. True, this is not the biggest of the voting blocks, but 12-14% helps in tight elections.

Hispanic vote: Hispanics, by most aspects, Deeply religious, supportive of the sanctity of marriage, etc., smacks of a voting block primed for the GOP. But, the GOP has stumbled by always looking like the Anti- Hispanic immigration party. This, plus the viewpoint the GOP, thru the blocking of the Dream Act, and supporting the aspects of "papers please" laws, alienated the Hispanic vote. Again, the GOP reinforced the viewpoint they are the "Whites Only" party.
Mitt pointed this out on several occasions, claiming if the GOP loses the Hispanic voting block, they have lost the future elections. Considering the size of, and the speed of which this size is growing, the Hispanic voting block will be crucial in future elections.

Women voters: This block is still growing in impact as more women see elections impacting their health, well being, and their family's health and well being.
For a politcal party claiming to be for less government invervention, it is surprising how much more governing the GOP wants over women's vaginas. Here, the pandering to the Religous Right has pushed women voters towards the Dems.
In addition, the lack of support for the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and equal pay for equal work, damaged the GOP further. This reinforced the view the GOP is for not only Whites, but only White males.
Attempting to remove the Planned Parenthood funding also damaged the GOP here. 98%+ of the Planned Parenthood funds have ZERO to do with abortions. Of the less than 2% dealing with the topic, the majority, 75%+, goes to counciling, which typically [i]prevents[/i] the abortion. The 98% goes towards women's health, such as cancer screenings, medical treatments, and other health programs to the benefit of women. And ZERO of the federal funding goes to anything abortion related. In the eyes of many female voters, this action, plus additional laws cutting health care for women, is dangerous. Going after Planned Parenthood is a bad politcal move for the GOP.
Arguably, going after Big Bird, and NPT, fits here, as it is a family issue, and parents rely on these educational services for their children, an anti-family stance which may have hurt the GOP with women.

If you look at the perceptions of the GOP, from the views of these voter blocks, it is no wonder Mitt lost.

Add the fact Mitt alienated the likes of Ron Paul supporters (who are a block of active voters, too) in his own party, and yes, Mitt lost.
[/quote]
well put

[mikegideon]

The African American vote went to Obama because of one main reason. You don't get into the high 90's with a group because you're making them all happy.

[Currently]

@HVYMTL

Quite the synopsis and assessment. The GOP needs to totally eliminate the culture of elitism that permeates every one of their functions.

Speaker of the House shocked me with his speech after the election.

He nailed it, now if only the rest of the party can fall in step. Edited November 10, 2012 by Currently

[Guest HvyMtl]

[quote name='mikegideon' timestamp='1352569031' post='843142']
The African American vote went to Obama because of one main reason. You don't get into the high 90's with a group because you're making them all happy.
[/quote]
Racism? Yes. It did play a part. (Racism is prefering your race over other races. African Americans, Hispanics, Whites, Asians, etc. all exhibit racist views, but this is a separate topic.) Several did vote for Obama, due to his skin color. Racism also worked the other way, as seen by acts of people voting for Mitt, with slogans like "Put the "white" back into the White House," and other, less civilized, slogans tossed about.
In addition, Trump, and other GOP talking heads, and even Mitt, catered to the Birthers, a percieved racist group proclaiming Obama was born in Kenya, even though the evidence shows otherwise (and since he was born 2 years before Kenya existed... um. Yeah.)
This perception negatively impacted the GOP, too, as having these slogans on the back of t-shirts, on signs, banners, etc., at several GOP politcal rallies, pushed the perception the GOP was for "whites only."

@Currently: I missed the speech. Do you have a link? I would like to hear what he said.

Edited November 10, 2012 by HvyMtl

[mikegideon]

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1352569736' post='843149']
Racism? Yes. It did play a part. (Racism is prefering your race over other races. African Americans, Hispanics, Whites, Asians, etc. all exhibit racist views, but this is a separate topic.) Several did vote for Obama, due to his skin color. Racism also worked the other way, as seen by acts of people voting for Mitt, with slogans like "Put the "white" back into the White House," and other, less civilized, slogans tossed about.
In addition, Trump, and other GOP talking heads, and even Mitt, catered to the Birthers, a percieved racist group proclaiming Obama was born in Kenya, even though the evidence shows otherwise (and since he was born 2 years before Kenya existed... um. Yeah.)
This perception negatively impacted the GOP, too, as having these slogans on the back of t-shirts, on signs, banners, etc., at several GOP politcal rallies, pushed the perception the GOP was for "whites only."

@Currently: I missed the speech. Do you have a link? I would like to hear what he said.
[/quote]

And BTW, I'm not sure that I blame them. Just calling it for what it is. Fact is, the Republicans probably would have won if they hadn't alienated women. Fiscal conservatism isn't going anywhere. Legislating "morality" will fade away when they lose enough elections.

[Guest HvyMtl]

@MikeGideon,

Yes, I understood you were calling it what it is. I just didn't point to it in my original post, and it did impact the election, in multiple ways.

Fiscal Conservatism, if done correctly, could work. I do not think the modern GOP (read: Post Geo. Bush, Sr.) knows how. I hope you are right with the legislating morality.