Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
< Prev.  Page of 2  

Re: Well the American people have spoken

Posted: 11/7/2012 5:36 PM

Re: Well the American people have spoken 


But that is exactly what got BO re-elected, simple answers and talking points.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 5:50 PM

Re: Well the American people have spoken 



ChiDore wrote: Ann Romney - sort of a rambling housewife, who even if she was articulate, could never hope to connect with the average American woman

Susana Martinez - a moderate Democrat who switched to the GOP for the same reason hot women get into sports reporting: there aren't many of her ilk there, and she saw a faster road to the top

Condi Rice - totally useless on any issue that affects people within the US borders

Nikki Haley - loved by the national right, HATED by people of both parties in her own state

The problem is you don't have much to offer.
dores2010 wrote:
doreking wrote: They don't ignore women.   The demoncrats are able to manufacture a bogus war on women, which is actually highly insulting to women with a brain.  And when the media is in your pocket, you can control the terms of debate and the election.


The demoncrats was actually an inadvertent typo, but in the spirit of bhoyal i decided to keep it.
The GOP allowed the Democrats to wage that war. The GOP allowed people like Akin and Mourdock to run and stay in the race when they made idiotic comments so democrats could paint republicans as the same way. Romney allowed himself to be defined as the guy who will make you turn to having a back alley abortion if you get pregnant instead of redefining himself and his stance. In my opinion Ann Romney, and important GOP women like Susana Martinez, Condi Rice, Nikki Haley were not vocal enough. Romney and the GOP never intelligently discussed issues such as abortion, birth control, and equal pay. These issues were brushed aside and it was a strategic error.
Chidore, your response ignores most of my comment and my general argument. Fact is, women (and racial minorities) need to become more visible and vocal in the GOP. My list included some of the most influential republican women in our country. Ann Romney is extremely articulate and has a touching story about her battle with MS that resonated with many. As the would be first lady, it was incredibly important to have her in the spotlight as Americans were in essence also voting for her. In addition, she could have continued to push that a Democratic strategist stated she never worked a day in her life (a narrative you obviously agree with based on your divisive and ignorant "rambling housewife" comment). That story would have spoken to the millions of stay at home moms in the US. Martinez, Haley, Rice despite your misgivings are major players in the GOP who have different appeals, Haley as the youngest sitting governor with a husband going to Afghanistan, Martinez as the first latina governor who couldve focused on immigration issues, and Rice as a foreign policy specialist. All three were legitimate VP candidates.

Again when we have candidates talking about legitimate rape and binders of women, there are problems. These women needed to be the face of the GOP in womens issues, not Akin, et al.

Last edited 11/7/2012 5:54 PM by dores2010

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/7/2012 6:20 PM

Re: Well the American people have spoken 


I didn't ignore your comment.  I discredited your assertion that these were viable women who could deliver a message that everyday American women could identify with.

Many stay at home moms are doing a a great thing devoting full time to their kids, but they are doing so at an economic cost.  Ann Romney can't identify with those women.  Her tuna fish on an ironing board comment was pandering and disingenuous.

Condi can ONLY talk about foreign policy, but Romney built his whole strategy around telling people that it didn't matter.  Regardless, could Condi talk about foreign policy from a human perspective?  Could she talk about human rights abuses and how the Taliban and islamists want to enslave women?   She's a wonk.  She can't tell that story.

Nicki Haley - hate to tell you, but she's a bad governor.  Susana Martinez, as I said, is an opportunist, and her transparency is apparent.

The problem with the GOP is that they think "if we can just put a conservative woman or a candidate of colour out there, than suddenly people will identify with us"  The problem isn't how the candidates look, and whether they have breasts or extra melatonin.  People just don't like what they're saying.

C6H0

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/7/2012 6:33 PM

RE: Well the American people have spoken 


They were so poor - how poor were they? So poor they ate fish off an ironing board.

But now they are so wealthy - how wealthy are they? So wealthy they hired 3 extra housekeepers just to launder their money.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/7/2012 6:40 PM

Re: Well the American people have spoken 



ChiDore wrote: I didn't ignore your comment.  I discredited your assertion that these were viable women who could deliver a message that everyday American women could identify with.

Many stay at home moms are doing a a great thing devoting full time to their kids, but they are doing so at an economic cost.  Ann Romney can't identify with those women.  Her tuna fish on an ironing board comment was pandering and disingenuous.

Condi can ONLY talk about foreign policy, but Romney built his whole strategy around telling people that it didn't matter.  Regardless, could Condi talk about foreign policy from a human perspective?  Could she talk about human rights abuses and how the Taliban and islamists want to enslave women?   She's a wonk.  She can't tell that story.

Nicki Haley - hate to tell you, but she's a bad governor.  Susana Martinez, as I said, is an opportunist, and her transparency is apparent.

The problem with the GOP is that they think "if we can just put a conservative woman or a candidate of colour out there, than suddenly people will identify with us"  The problem isn't how the candidates look, and whether they have breasts or extra melatonin.  People just don't like what they're saying.
This is some serious partisan BS.    I'd like to see what you think democratic women are doing that makes them so viable. 

Your comment that women children at "economic cost" is insulting and ridiculous.   You don't think raising children is important to society?   I would argue not raising children well involves a greater economic cost.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/7/2012 6:42 PM

Re: Well the American people have spoken 



ChiDore wrote:
The problem with the GOP is that they think "if we can just put a conservative woman or a candidate of colour out there, than suddenly people will identify with us"  The problem isn't how the candidates look, and whether they have breasts or extra melatonin.  People just don't like what they're saying.
Yeah, they had two bad candidates, a bad strategy, they belittled entire sections of the population, had the albatross of "W" around their necks, said stupid things, and still got 49% of the vote. People must have freaking LOVED the other guys.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/7/2012 6:56 PM

Re: Well the American people have spoken 



ChiDore wrote: I didn't ignore your comment.  I discredited your assertion that these were viable women who could deliver a message that everyday American women could identify with.

Many stay at home moms are doing a a great thing devoting full time to their kids, but they are doing so at an economic cost.  Ann Romney can't identify with those women.  Her tuna fish on an ironing board comment was pandering and disingenuous.

Condi can ONLY talk about foreign policy, but Romney built his whole strategy around telling people that it didn't matter.  Regardless, could Condi talk about foreign policy from a human perspective?  Could she talk about human rights abuses and how the Taliban and islamists want to enslave women?   She's a wonk.  She can't tell that story.

Nicki Haley - hate to tell you, but she's a bad governor.  Susana Martinez, as I said, is an opportunist, and her transparency is apparent.

The problem with the GOP is that they think "if we can just put a conservative woman or a candidate of colour out there, than suddenly people will identify with us"  The problem isn't how the candidates look, and whether they have breasts or extra melatonin.  People just don't like what they're saying.
You actually did ignore most of what I said and chose to focus on the GOP women I thought needed to be more vocal. I did not say they were great and perfect people. I said part of the GOP strategy should've had them in the spotlight more.
That said, I don't think the Romneys having money disqualifies Ann Romney from being able to connect as a mom. The vast majority of politicians have money and not all that much in common with me. I'm not saying she should've been out there making major policy speeches, but that doesn't mean you can't put out a message that women could identify with. Additionally, she was an important figure in humanizing Mitt and also telling her story about her battle with MS and breast cancer. Rice, Haley, and Martinez are again important GOP figures whether you think that is bad or not (of course a liberal would). Are they the best the GOP can do? Maybe, maybe not. All I am saying is that it was important to have them visibly campaigning and defining the GOP stance for conservative women, a stance that was defined by people like Todd Akin.

Last edited 11/7/2012 7:02 PM by dores2010

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/8/2012 4:18 AM

Re: Well the American people have spoken 


People may not have LOVED the other guys, Weezy,  I mean Geezy, but the 49& crowd (actually 48%):

1) Didn't get the 53% Romney said he was supposed to get
2) Has fallen short of 300 electoral votes in every election since 1988; and
3) Has come in second in the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections.

(2) and (3) should be keeping me up nights if I'm on your side.

So yeah, take solace in your 49%.  The rest of the voters may not have LOVED the other guys, but they sure didn't like yours.
geeznotagain wrote:
Yeah, they had two bad candidates, a bad strategy, they belittled entire sections of the population, had the albatross of "W" around their necks, said stupid things, and still got 49% of the vote. People must have freaking LOVED the other guys.

C6H0

Last edited 11/8/2012 6:11 AM by ChiDore

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/8/2012 4:43 AM

RE: Well the American people have spoken 


Reagan only got 50.7% of the popular vote in 1980 ...similar to what Obama just got. If RWNJs try to act as if Obama's win in 2012 was somehow "not legit" because he got barely over 50% or the popular vote - they need reminded about their precious little ronnie reagan in 1980.

Last edited 11/8/2012 4:43 AM by bhoyal

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/8/2012 4:57 AM

RE: Well the American people have spoken 


The RWNJs are gonna spin and spin and spin and spin and spin.  They've encased themselves in a world well where they somehow manage to function, have jobs and operate in society while having no interaction with contrary world views. 

bhoyal wrote: Reagan only got 50.7% of the popular vote in 1980 ...similar to what Obama just got. If RWNJs try to act as if Obama's win in 2012 was somehow "not legit" because he got barely over 50% or the popular vote - they need reminded about their precious little ronnie reagan in 1980.

C6H0

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/8/2012 7:16 AM

RE: Well the American people have spoken 



ChiDore wrote: The RWNJs are gonna spin and spin and spin and spin and spin.  They've encased themselves in a world well where they somehow manage to function, have jobs and operate in society while having no interaction with contrary world views. 

bhoyal wrote: Reagan only got 50.7% of the popular vote in 1980 ...similar to what Obama just got. If RWNJs try to act as if Obama's win in 2012 was somehow "not legit" because he got barely over 50% or the popular vote - they need reminded about their precious little ronnie reagan in 1980.
More people went for Obama. More states went for Obama. 
The electoral college is a landslide.  

This is a mandate by the American people by any measure. 

What repubs are glossing over is that amid the worst recession in nearly a century, they ran on tax cuts and LOST!  Open your freakin' ears. The American people are telling you quite loudly, they'll never buy into your tea party horsesh!#

If the roles were reversed and Obama was the challenger, Romney the incumbent trying to explain that America's on the mend while surrounding himself with mom-killing, homophobic, poor-bashing christian extremists, Obama wins by an historic margin.

Republicans are still the party of "NO". They offer nothing.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/8/2012 7:42 AM

Re: Well the American people have spoken 



ChiDore wrote:

(2) and (3) should be keeping me up nights if I'm on your side.

So yeah, take solace in your 49%.  The rest of the voters may not have LOVED the other guys, but they sure didn't like yours.
 
I voted for the Libertarian candidate; last total I saw "my side" only had 1.1M votes. So that's where "my side" stands. I just think it shows a lack of class to continue to denigrate the other side/candidate as many are doing here. The Dems won. Congratulations. Now let's stop fighting each other and doing endzone dances and talking about how scuzzy the other side was and try to get the country out of the ditch. I don't think I've said anything negative about Obama post-election. I've just responded to posts that attacked Romney and his supporters and his strategy and his party. My primary point, again, is if the Republican candidate and his strategy and his policies are as awful as many here portray them to be, what does it say about your team? It's like talking about how crappy Presbyterian's football coach, offense, and defense are and then having your football team beat them 50-49 (or 48, whatever). And then talking some more about how crappy the opponent is. Alright already!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/8/2012 8:49 AM

Re: Well the American people have spoken 


Victory dances?  You must be reading another board.

You'll recall that this thread began with a damning, rather sore loser statement about the majority of the electorate.
geeznotagain wrote:
ChiDore wrote:

(2) and (3) should be keeping me up nights if I'm on your side.

So yeah, take solace in your 49%.  The rest of the voters may not have LOVED the other guys, but they sure didn't like yours.
 
I voted for the Libertarian candidate; last total I saw "my side" only had 1.1M votes. So that's where "my side" stands. I just think it shows a lack of class to continue to denigrate the other side/candidate as many are doing here. The Dems won. Congratulations. Now let's stop fighting each other and doing endzone dances and talking about how scuzzy the other side was and try to get the country out of the ditch. I don't think I've said anything negative about Obama post-election. I've just responded to posts that attacked Romney and his supporters and his strategy and his party. My primary point, again, is if the Republican candidate and his strategy and his policies are as awful as many here portray them to be, what does it say about your team? It's like talking about how crappy Presbyterian's football coach, offense, and defense are and then having your football team beat them 50-49 (or 48, whatever). And then talking some more about how crappy the opponent is. Alright already!

C6H0

Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/8/2012 9:42 AM

Re: Well the American people have spoken 



geeznotagain wrote:
Yeah, they had two bad candidates, a bad strategy, they belittled entire sections of the population, had the albatross of "W" around their necks, said stupid things, and still got 49% of the vote. People must have freaking LOVED the other guys.

Clearly the country is very politically divided at this time.  I will maintain that Tea Party lost the election for Romney.  It lost him the election because he had to campaign for the nomination as more conservative than he really was, making it seem like he flip-flopped from his governor days and then flip-flopped again going into the national election.  It lost him the election because people like Akin and Mourdock painted the entire GOP in a bad light with their comments.  It lost him the election because more and more people are associating GOP with Tea Party, and the ultra conservative ideals on gay marriage, abortion, taxes, medicare cuts, immigration, etc. simply aren't winning over independent voters.

And then I read in the newspaper this morning an article quoting some tea party heads that claim they lost the election because Romney wasn't conservative enough.  Do they really think in Romney was an ultra-conservative they would have gained more votes from 3rd party candidates than they would have lost to Obama from the independents that would have found the ultra-conservative candidate too extreme?  If they do, I think they really have lost touch with reality. 

A "Mass. Governor Romney" would have won this election for the GOP ... but that version of Romney never would have gotten the nomination.  The Tea Party is not helping it's own cause.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/8/2012 9:47 AM

Re: Well the American people have spoken 



doreking wrote:
Your comment that women children at "economic cost" is insulting and ridiculous.   You don't think raising children is important to society?   I would argue not raising children well involves a greater economic cost.

I think you may have misinterpreted the quote.  There is, without a doubt, economic cost to many families of having a stay-at-home parent.  They lose that parent's salary and benefits.  It makes it harder to make ends meet.  Some families really don't even have a choice in the matter because of the economic cost.  Parents that stay home with their kids often do so because they feel it is worth losing that income to be home with the children ... but that doesn't change the fact that they are losing that income.

I think the point was only that the "economic cost" didn't matter to the Romney's because of their wealth, but for most American families, they need to not only decide if they want to stay home full time, but how much that will effect their earning power, and whether or not it is even a viable option if they want to keep their house.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/8/2012 9:51 AM

Re: Well the American people have spoken 



mathknapp wrote:
geeznotagain wrote:
Yeah, they had two bad candidates, a bad strategy, they belittled entire sections of the population, had the albatross of "W" around their necks, said stupid things, and still got 49% of the vote. People must have freaking LOVED the other guys.

Clearly the country is very politically divided at this time.  I will maintain that Tea Party lost the election for Romney.  It lost him the election because he had to campaign for the nomination as more conservative than he really was, making it seem like he flip-flopped from his governor days and then flip-flopped again going into the national election.  It lost him the election because people like Akin and Mourdock painted the entire GOP in a bad light with their comments.  It lost him the election because more and more people are associating GOP with Tea Party, and the ultra conservative ideals on gay marriage, abortion, taxes, medicare cuts, immigration, etc. simply aren't winning over independent voters.

And then I read in the newspaper this morning an article quoting some tea party heads that claim they lost the election because Romney wasn't conservative enough.  Do they really think in Romney was an ultra-conservative they would have gained more votes from 3rd party candidates than they would have lost to Obama from the independents that would have found the ultra-conservative candidate too extreme?  If they do, I think they really have lost touch with reality. 

A "Mass. Governor Romney" would have won this election for the GOP ... but that version of Romney never would have gotten the nomination.  The Tea Party is not helping it's own cause.
No, they think they would have gotten more votes from people who opted not to vote because Romney was not a true conservative.  It ultimately comes down to whether you can bring in more voters from the sidelines or the other team.  The Republicans actually find support for the "expand the conservative base" argument from Obama.  Obama largely won because he was able to bring new voters - younger voters and minorities - to the polls in 2008 and 2012.  Many think the GOP can do the same thing with conservative voters.  

Personally, I think the problem with the GOP theory is that it likely would not help in the states where they lost.  Sure, they might win by a wider margin in the south or plains states, but it's not going to help them elsewhere.  Accordingly, I agree that they need to broaden their platform to appeal to moderates; however, I see the logic behind the other argument too.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
< Prev.  Page of 2