Why O won and R lost?

[catherine]

I usually deplore the comments made on news articles, but this one, after a webpage cover story by CNN on an analysis of what went wrong for the Republicans, gave me a chuckle. Maybe this is stereotyping, but .. funny. BTW, CNN postulates that it's Republican ideology that must take the fall for this defeat

Inside the Mind of the New Republican.
CNN= Liberal Media
Reuters=Liberal Media
NY Times= Liberal Media
FOX= Good Journalism
CBC=Liberal Media
BBC=Liberal Media
MSNBC=Liberal Media
Seperation of Church and State=Christian Haters
Gay=Predator
Equal Rights for Women=Bible says no
G.W. Bush=Don't Remember.
Science=Liberal Satanic Lies
Bush's Mess=Obamas Fault
Protect Workers=Socialist
Muslim=Terrorist
Agnostic=Atheist
Not Republican=Libturd
Not my flavor of Christianity=Cult
Broken Economy= can be fixed in a day.
Millions of tax payer money to the rich =responsible.
Food for the poor =irresponsible
Change=Communism

[puglogic]

I think the Romney campaign will be required reading for every campaign manager for many years to come. The assumptions that their strategy was based on were obviously flawed. How they got there is, or at least could be, a valuable lesson for future candidates.

This statement, Gregg, seems to imply that Mr. Romney did not become president because there was something wrong with his marketing. It assumes that the majority of Americans would've voted for him if his handlers had just done X, Y, or Z.

I'm fascinated by the need to spin this. Everyone (on both sides) seems to be doing this.

I might be extremely naive, mind you, but it appears to me that the reason he did not become president is because a majority of Americans looked at the platforms & positions of both candidates, and chose the one they thought would best represent their own interests in Washington. The same reason George W. Bush won two elections, even though he has the IQ of a bucket of hair....people wanted desperately to believe his message, and trusted him more than the other side. I'm an English major, but I can do arithmetic.

Romney definitely would've won if he wasn't a product of the current incarnation of the Republican party, whose positions on social issues are simply frightening to many people, and whose contempt for all those who are different (poor, non-white, etc.) is so painfully obvious. All Romney did was tell his truth, and his truth (about social issues) is scary for many people.

Will the grand old party swing back into sanity some day? As a fiscal conservative but a social progressive, I'd love to see it happen.

[try2bfrugal]

I think in the analysis of what went wrong for Romney the journalists and political strategists are being rather closed minded and just looking at the traditional news outlets and advertising forms like radio ads and commercials. They aren't mentioning all of the relentless skewering on Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, The Onion, Steven Colbert, Reddit, the Mr. Burns for Romney commercial, Reddit posts, online forum discussions, etc. The Obama campaign staff had him go on Reddit. The older political strategists for either candidate didn't know what that was.

Our kids probably go for weeks without even seeing a TV commercial or seeing a Network news show but they are on Reddit every day. It is the top 134th of site on the Internet! That is a huge audience and it doesn't cost anything to post there.

The Huffington Post had a really funny article on who said it Romney or Mr. Burns. Then of course there were all of the videos of stuff Romney said himself, the 47% comment, some of my friends own Nascar teams, making life so miserable here for illegals they will just self deport. With the Internet, the days of just being able to "etch a sketch" away stuff like that, as one Romney adviser put it, are over and they are never coming back.

[ApatheticNoMore]

He barely won the popular vote. Now I think it is true if the east coast had not been halfway down and out, he would have gotten more popular vote, but as it stands he barely won the popular vote. So much to do about nothing and the R's ran a WEAK candidate I think.

The only thing I support about Sam's club/Walmart/etc. is the striking workers

Reddit posts, online forum discussions, etc. The Obama campaign staff had him go on Reddit. The older political strategists for either candidate didn't know what that was.

yea I'm not sure that demographic makes sense for Obama though, seem way too civil libertarian if you ask me.

Inside my Mind:
CNN= brainwashing because it omits the whole truth to serve it's corporate masters (it is possible there is government involvement to suppress things like NDAA as well when I say this, but it's harder to prove)
Reuters=I don't know
NY Times= is decent
FOX= nakedly biased
CBC=brainwashing because it omits the whole truth to serve it's corporate masters
BBC= ok
MSNBC=brainwashing because it omits the whole truth to serve it's corporate masters
Wikileaks: now that's what I call news!
G.W. Bush= Obama's first 2 terms
Muslim= inside the Obama mind: must be droned!
Not my flavor of Christianity=Cult (if Republicans believed that they wouldn't have voted Romney, think about that one)
Broken Economy= how do we build a sustainable economy if the economic system requires endless growth?
Change=business as usual

Will the grand old party swing back into sanity some day? As a fiscal conservative but a social progressive, I'd love to see it happen.

I'd like to see them swing back into sanity because while two party government is quite abhorently aweful, one party government is worse. But I really don't see the need to discribe myself as fiscally conservative and socially progressive. I'm perfectly comfortable being somewhat fiscally liberal.

[SteveinMN]

Steve, I think Pawlenty was using the Sam's Club line to illustrate the common, middle-class guy spending money on bulk purchases to economize as opposed to the elite with tens of thousands to spend on country club memberships. Again--just a metaphor for class distinctions--not to be taken literally to promote the store itself.

catherine, I know Pawlenty was not advertising for Sam's Club. It's just that what Sam's Club represents doesn't sit well with me.

There is plenty to be had at Sam's Club for low low low prices, but the packaging and sheer volume support an unhealthy "some is good/more is better/too much is enough" mentality. The prices have been driven down in part by the warehouse surroundings, but largely by pushing suppliers to lower margins, to find low-cost labor in countries which generally have abysmal records for human rights and the environment, and to take quality out of the product so it can be sold at Sam's Club's price.

Purchasing without regard to the long-term costs of the product in environmental and human terms is, to my mind, unethical. But Sam's Club supports it in spades. And much of that attitude seems reflected in the thinking of the Republican Party leadership -- the race to the bottom in most people's wages, the big guy crowding out the little guy because customers don't know (or think about) the true cost of what they're buying ("Who cares? We're saving money!!" "Whaddaya mean, you lost your job at the plant?"), and the belief that nothing humans can do has any effect at all on the earth. Ick.

[The Storyteller]

I love Sams. It isn't Walmart, where cheap prices are achieved through inferior products.

But that is just a bit off topic, I think.

[redfox]

Some online stories from a political hack friend:

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...?smid=tw-share

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...-of-romneyland

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/45630

http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/09/c...ltant-con-job/

[Zoebird]

I think that this link explains things nicely: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/

[The Storyteller]

President Obama's very moving victory speech...

[try2bfrugal]

[QUOTE=The Storyteller;111731]President Obama's very moving victory speech...

That was funny. Thanks for the link.