DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... CNN poll: Americans wish they had elected Romney over Obama (49%-45%)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/07/27/cnn.orc.poll.pdf

I wish that the Republicans had run a candidate who understood common sense, and what not to say with a camera and/or recorder on.

While I wasn't a huge Romney fan, he should have run away with the election ..... but he sabotaged himself with stupidity far too often.

You're right. He alienated the people who can't afford to buy politicians.... Which is almost of all us.

I wish the GOP would nominate a TRUE conservative. The problem is, there are none in politics right now, or ATLEAST any that will get the blessing from the republicans. The dems as of now are gonna have a dynasty on the White House unless the GOP can actually become who they use to be, and actually follow their basic principles.

His comment about people on government assistance was just idiotic, and probably did more to cost him the election than anything else. It made him look insensitive and elitist all at the same time. In a way, it was mainly true ...... because people on welfare weren't going to vote for Romney. However, the way he said it, he managed to lump in Social Security recipients along with welfare recipients, and made them all seem like leeches. Not the way to win votes and elections.

Too true, there aren't any Reaganesque conservatives out there anymore. Unfortunately, Romney was a gaff machine not unlike Biden. Regardless, he would've been a better president than what we have now.

Except we don't know that. We don't know if Romney would've been better. Hell, he quite possibly and realistically would've been worse for all we know.

People need to take every poll they look at with a grain of salt. It's easy to say Romney would've been better, he's not in the position right now. It's the same concept as everybody rooting for the back up QB.

Romney had a proven successful business track record. We do know that. Obama hasn't ever run a business, and he's not running the business of America well at all.

Wow, you are worse than my mom, you are on a crusade. Poor guy, don't worry, if I had to bet a Republican president gets elected next.

If that doesn't happen, oh boy

But he cut taxes for the job creators to employee everyone to reach multi-millionaire status! Then HW and Clinton came along and ruined the Reagan gospel...

Quote:

---

And Ytown, his comments about those on Public assistence were taken totally wrong but he did that to himself.

---

I agree. That's what I said. He was stupid in making those comments, because he included those on Social Security the way he phrased it. (which is always a loser all the way through and through)

If he had even said that he had no chance at getting the votes of those who have made welfare a way of life .... that would also have been accurate, and probably wouldn't have hurt him. (and might even have helped him in some ways) However, he lumped people legitimately collecting their Social Security benefits with those who could be taking advantage of the system.

Quote:

---

CNN poll: Americans wish they had elected Romney over Obama (49%-45%)

---

And if they had they'd be saying the same thing today wishing they'd elected Obama.

It's just the way of we freaking, fickle human beans.

But are you a GMO corn?

Just checking. I won't be inviting you over for dinner then. Hehe

IMHO, Mr. Romney (with his 47% comment) fell victim to a new-ish phenomenon of modern-day politics: the 'surreptitious recording' effect.

Dude truly thought he was "preaching to the choir" in a closed setting...

... but NO setting is 'closed' any more... and all politicians need to keep that in mind whenever they leave their houses. Even better: they should probably electronically screen their own homes once per week, if they're on the campaign trail.

In this regard the Dem candidate was far ahead of the Rep, just in terms of experience alone. Before his 2008 candidacy ever got off the ground, the buzz-phrase around O-Town was "No Drama Obama." From his top-level operatives to his ground forces in the neighborhoods, that rule was absolute, inviolable LAW... and it worked to very good effect.

So much of modern-day politics is optics that it's become almost impossible to separate sight from substance... and while leaks were dripping from the McCain/Palin camp about philosophical/policy disagreements, 'Team O' kept a clamped-down lid on any such internal strife. As a result, the Blue Team seemed more polished, prepared, and competent during the last 2-3 months leading up to the 2008 general election.

The images may or may not have been accurate, but they stuck... and I believe that a good number of 'undecideds' swung their votes behind the Dem candidate because of the appearances of competence/incompetence. Ms. Palin's interview gaffes didn't help her running mate's chances either... and I really do believe that many voters shied away from the idea that McCain's Veep choice was "a heartbeat away from the Presidency."

Fast-forward 4 years... and the next Republican candidate was on record talking about Michigan's trees being "just the right height," His wife's 'second car' being a Cadillac, and then, there's this one:

"Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less."

That didn't help him win over "Middle America" at all, with so many of the 'undecideds' who were earning 50- 75K (with overtime)


Like I said: "perception is reality."

_____________


Now, I understand that many of these 'gaffes' were expertly-edited "gotcha" opportunities for the opposing side, but let's be honest: The Republican campaign throughout the primaries and during Mr. Romney's campaign provided a wealth of embarrassing soundbytes from which to pick.... and many of those soundbytes came from stump speeches aimed at the far-right base- a demographic which has very little in common with the voters who actually tilt national elections.

I voted for Obama twice. I'm not ashamed to admit it up-front... because I can say this with all honesty:

1. I thought John McCain was yet another Bush 43... and I didn't like what Bush allowed folks like Cheney to do on his watch. I didn't trust McCain to do/be any different. I actually thought that his folks would be a continuation of the past 8 years of movers & shakers... and I HATED much of what they did with their time in power.

"Hope & Change?" Please... don't even TRY to go there with me.

I'm too old to fall for campaign slogans. I was already OK with just the "change" part- and I was (and still am) convinced that I wouldn't even get that, if Mr. McCain was elected. I still don't regret my decision- especially as I've listened to 6 more years of what John McCain has been saying. I'm convinced that America made the right choice by keeping him out- even if it meant allowing Barack Obama in.

2. I never got a clear picture of who Mitt Romney ever was. He's a "severe conservative." He's for the Middle Class. He's a member of the "one Percent." He's a Hawk. He's a Dove. After following (and seriously considering) him into October, he still had a chance with me... until he stood in front of a crowd in my back yard (Defiance, Ohio), and told the crowd that Jeep was outsourcing its jobs/work to China.... just 3 weeks after I watched a local newscast report that told me Jeep was adding 30K square yards of local production space, and 11K local jobs.... right here in NW Ohio. Dude actually tried to spin a line of BS to people who already knew better- while standing in their own back yards.

At that point, I knew I'd heard enough. I became willing to cast my lot with the incumbent, even though less than half of his 2008 campaign promises were still unfulfilled. My wife & I stood on-line (on a damp, drizzly, 42-degree early-November day) for almost 4 hours to cast our ballots, and we did it within the newly restricted 'early-voter' time frames recently enacted by new Ohio law.


________________


IMHO, every candidate must know his/her stuff on a much deeper level than ever before, if (s)he is to win the general electorate. They must be up on the current issues, run a smart campaign, and demonstrate a knowledge of general issues much deeper than the folks who vote for them. On top of that, they must understand that they are always on a 'hot mic' until they are at home, asleep in their beds.

Democratic candidates would be well-advised to follow this set of rules too- because we're much more 'plugged-in' as a voting bloc now.

Politicos must understand and embrace the 'instant info' age.

______________

Mssrs McCain and Romney got 'cyber-slammed.' They both failed to understand how the new world works... and they got taken to the woodshed because of it.

For better or worse, the nature of the game has changed- and the Republican party is still scrambling to catch up. And that's a shame, because in a 2-party system, The People need BOTH to be considered viable options for our process to work.

In many ways, I feel badly for the Republicans on the national scene. They have been very slow to tailor their message in palatable ways, and have stumbled over their own feet while trying to get their message out. It's been painful to watch their tortured, halting steps into the new millennium. If they are to have any chance in the immediate future, they simply must use different make-up on the face they present to America. If they don't, they'll keep on losing General Elections for at least a generation... and that's long enough to consign them to the same fate as the Whig Party.

A tragic loss for America, IMHO.... because "Democrats run wild" is a scenario that spells tragedy for Our Nation, as well.

____________


Let's face it: perception is reality, nowadays... and if the Republicans want to capture the White House and a plurality of the Congress, they have no choice but to become current....

...because today, "currency = relevance."


Gaffes are bigger now than they once were. It's a fact of modern life.


"Take back our country" simply won't work in the 21st century... because "We" have been an ever-evolving populace since 1776....

....and "Now" is no longer "then."



.02

jc

Who are poor people going to vote for? The guy they think will pay their benefits.

It might be a looong time before you see another republican president.


What I find funny is how many of you link the president to the deficit. I mean you do realize the president has almost ZERO power over the budget right? It is the US congress that makes and determines the budget of the US. We haven't had a balanced budget since Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House and shut government down till they got their act together.

At least blame the right people when it comes to the deficit.

Quote:

---

"Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less."

---

Obama defined middle income in the same range. I guess it's ok for Obama to say it, but not Romney.

But he sure was a leader.

Reagan was conservative in the sense that he kept his old liberalism. He admired Franklin Roosevelt and wanted the government to provide relief to people who truly needed help. He was in favor of jobs programs. As he put it, he did not leave the Democratic Party-- they left him. BY the time he became President his philosophy of government was conservative. However, he was pragmatic with his conservatism and willing to compromise when needed. He was more conservative before he became President. As president, I would call him a pragmatist . He was willing to make concessions to get legislation passed and his "Reaganomics" economic theory was not at all conservative.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_Ronald_Reagan_liberal_or_conservative

And Ronald Reagan, no matter what you think of his policies and processes, would never be elected today. He was far too liberal to make it through the Republican primary and far too conservative for the Democratic primary. Additionally, in today's media world, he would be crucified for "caving" in and "negotiating with the enemy".

The problem in the GOP is that the candidates they've put up the last 2 elections were based purely upon "it's my turn". A lot of Republicans voters felt like they didn't even have a choice. It started with McCain's nomination which is why I think they felt it necessary to bring Palin on board. Despite what you think of her, she could certainly get people to turn out.

But I also do think that McCain basically threw the election once they realized that Obama had beaten out Clinton for the simple fact that he didn't want to be known in history for keeping the first black man from becoming elected President.

As for Romney, the feeling that Repubs had no choice over who their candidate was became even stronger. Yeah, Romney had some gaffs, but the would have been overcome if Repubs felt stronger about him. I always thought that he would have strengthened his nomination if he simply would have come out and acknowledged that frustration and humbled himself by saying how honored he was to be the nominee and promised to earn it. But he never did. I really do think something like that would have helped him tremendously because by all other accounts, Romney is a pretty good guy.

Or maybe we're just overlooking something else: considering the guy who did get elected and his "qualifications"... maybe people just recognized that Romney was over qualified for the job?

AMEN BROTHER AMEN