|
Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 7:11 AM
Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-25...hocked-by-loss/Mitt Romney was literally shellshocked as election results he and many of us thought were going to favor the GOP. Toss the victory speech, pull out the concession speech. The one you never wanted to use. You know, looking back, we should have known better.Those of us on the right anyway. The United States has changed so dramatically over say the last decade or so, the country now has a different set of values from years gone by. The republicans, including me, should not have been so naive to think that things like unemployment, national security, or Obamacare would sway this bunch, the American electorite that is. We now have issues that would have been laughed at, you would not even bring up stuff like this out of fear of losing. Things like, free contraceptives, homosexual marraige. Taking God out of a party platform. (Wonder how Harry Truman would have responded to that one?) Jobs? Who needs one, if the government will take care of you? Security? Huh, that's a laugh when al Qaeda doesn't even exist anymore. Right? Obama wins! Only problem is now what? Business's are shedding jobs. The Stock Market is shaking in it's boots. And I would think our so-called friends in the Middle East are making plans. But look at the bright side. Anyone can get an abortion and contraceptives free, even grade school kids, (hey, the parents don't even need to know about this one!) and the government will continue to expand an already over stuffed goody bag for all those fine American's (here legally or not!) and the rest of us who provide jobs or those who still can find a job, will be taxed and regulated to death. Yakov Smirnoff, the famous Russian funny bone, came here to America to escape the communist boot on his neck. He likes to say "America! what a country!" Well Yakov, it sure isn't the same country you or our Forefathers had plans for.
" If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth" Ronald Reagan
Last edited 11/10/2012 7:14 AM by DukeWayne
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 10:04 AM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
On top of the takers.....consumer confidence was rising rapidly in the weeks before the election........also the stock market near all-time highs......and the media playing up a small rise in home prices as evidence of a long term pickup in housing.
That kind of pre election phenomena is hard to beat an incumbent with.
Once a coach, always a coach ------ and sometimes serving as "the devils advocate" ! |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 11:06 AM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
gr8one1 wrote: On top of the takers.....consumer confidence was rising rapidly in the weeks before the election........also the stock market near all-time highs......and the media playing up a small rise in home prices as evidence of a long term pickup in housing.
That kind of pre election phenomena is hard to beat an incumbent with. Amazing what some people think of as progress. What do you think GWB's chances for re-election would have been with umemployment at 8% for over 40 months (In reality it's higher than that.) Four American's murdered in Libya, while the president and his henchmen watched, and did nothing. How many Czar's did this goof appoint? Imagine Bush dreaming about something that radical? We could go on and on. What difference does it make anyways? It's all on them now. http://articles.philly.com/201...bama-gop-votersIn case anyone is interested some 13 wards in Philadelphia voted for Obama at 99%. To tell the truth, I would have thought it would be higher than that! " If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth" Ronald Reagan
Last edited 11/10/2012 11:11 AM by DukeWayne
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 11:11 AM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
The fact that he was shellshocked adds more evidence to how poorly run his campaign was. The data that he was in trouble was well publicized for the week before the election. Apparently their campaign didn't get the memo. They didn't even test their software for keeping track of voters.
Instead of pointing fingers at American voters, why not look at Romney. By his own insiders he had no idea how to organize and run a campaign. He should have won, based on all economic principles, but he couldn't put together a cogent campaign platform and maintain consistency in principles from the primaries until election day.
Frankly, if he can't manage to run a campaign efficiently how in the world was he going to run the country. As I've said before, Obama may not be a good choice, but Romney would have been a disaster.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 11:13 AM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
MUfanPhD wrote: The fact that he was shellshocked adds more evidence to how poorly run his campaign was. The data that he was in trouble was well publicized for the week before the election. Apparently their campaign didn't get the memo. They didn't even test their software for keeping track of voters.
Instead of pointing fingers at American voters, why not look at Romney. By his own insiders he had no idea how to organize and run a campaign. He should have won, based on all economic principles, but he couldn't put together a cogent campaign platform and maintain consistency in principles from the primaries until election day.
Frankly, if he can't manage to run a campaign efficiently how in the world was he going to run the country. As I've said before, Obama may not be a good choice, but Romney would have been a disaster. We will see how right you are in the coming months. It shouldn't take all that long to find out. " If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth" Ronald Reagan
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 2:10 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
MUfanPhD wrote: The fact that he was shellshocked adds more evidence to how poorly run his campaign was. The data that he was in trouble was well publicized for the week before the election. Apparently their campaign didn't get the memo. They didn't even test their software for keeping track of voters.
Instead of pointing fingers at American voters, why not look at Romney. By his own insiders he had no idea how to organize and run a campaign. He should have won, based on all economic principles, but he couldn't put together a cogent campaign platform and maintain consistency in principles from the primaries until election day.
Frankly, if he can't manage to run a campaign efficiently how in the world was he going to run the country. As I've said before, Obama may not be a good choice, but Romney would have been a disaster. I'm shocked considering that for months our right wing friends kept telling us what a great leader, CEO, astute businessman, and all around terrific problem solver Mitt was. I guess running a presidential campaign is a little bit tougher than the Salt lake City winter Olympics. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 2:47 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
Mutaman wrote:
MUfanPhD wrote: The fact that he was shellshocked adds more evidence to how poorly run his campaign was. The data that he was in trouble was well publicized for the week before the election. Apparently their campaign didn't get the memo. They didn't even test their software for keeping track of voters.
Instead of pointing fingers at American voters, why not look at Romney. By his own insiders he had no idea how to organize and run a campaign. He should have won, based on all economic principles, but he couldn't put together a cogent campaign platform and maintain consistency in principles from the primaries until election day.
Frankly, if he can't manage to run a campaign efficiently how in the world was he going to run the country. As I've said before, Obama may not be a good choice, but Romney would have been a disaster. I'm shocked considering that for months our right wing friends kept telling us what a great leader, CEO, astute businessman, and all around terrific problem solver Mitt was. I guess running a presidential campaign is a little bit tougher than the Salt lake City winter Olympics. Skippy. Had Dick Morris have been the candidate for republican president, do you think he would have won? " If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth" Ronald Reagan
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 2:50 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
Since when does a candidate run his own Presidential campaign? He hires a guy to run it----and from that point on has to live with that guys decisions. The only part of the campaign that fell apart was the softwareat the very end.
Like I say not easy to beat a generally likeable incumbant who gives a good speech when the electorates consumer confidence is rising strongly, stock market near all time highs, and the housing market appearing to turn the corner.
Even at all that, if Sandy happened and Christie stabbing Romney in the back------Romney would have won !
Once a coach, always a coach ------ and sometimes serving as "the devils advocate" ! |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 3:39 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
gr8one1 wrote: Since when does a candidate run his own Presidential campaign? He hires a guy to run it----and from that point on has to live with that guys decisions. That's like saying the Katrina fiasco wasn't W. Bush's fault, it was Brownies. Or the Iraq fiasco wasn't W. Bush's fault, it was Rumsfeld's. Part of being a good leader or boss is to make good hiring decisions. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 3:45 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
gr8one1 wrote: Since when does a candidate run his own Presidential campaign? He hires a guy to run it----and from that point on has to live with that guys decisions. The only part of the campaign that fell apart was the softwareat the very end.
Like I say not easy to beat a generally likeable incumbant who gives a good speech when the electorates consumer confidence is rising strongly, stock market near all time highs, and the housing market appearing to turn the corner.
Even at all that, if Sandy happened and Christie stabbing Romney in the back------Romney would have won ! I'm going to call BS on this one. You are all over Obama for not being a good leader, because the republican house won't work with him. But Romney can screw his campaign by hiring a guy that was incompetent and that he couldn't get to do things correctly. So in other words. A CEO is not responsible for finances of a company at all because he hires a CFO. As for not making mistakes besides the computer software. Aides and strategists from inside the Romney campaign were reporting that the campaign was disorganized, dysfunctional and out of control because of the actions of Stuart Stevens, who Romney appointed. His convention was a near disaster.
One of Romney's closes friends said, "The campaign has utterly failed to switch from a primary mind-set to a general-election mind-set, and did not come up with a compelling, policy-backed argument for credible change."
Last edited 11/10/2012 3:45 PM by MUfanPhD
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 4:06 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
Apples and oranges...... one can't compare being the boss as president and being in the same position as a candidate........Romney didn't run his campaign anymore than Obama ran his.....Axelrod ran the Obama campaign and Obama danced to his tune.
Once a coach, always a coach ------ and sometimes serving as "the devils advocate" ! |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 4:14 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
gr8one1 wrote: Apples and oranges...... one can't compare being the boss as president and being in the same position as a candidate........Romney didn't run his campaign anymore than Obama ran his.....Axelrod ran the Obama campaign and Obama danced to his tune. But you guys spent months telling us that being able to organize the bobsled run at the winter games was comparable to being leader of the free world. Now its "apples and oranges". Obama was astute enough to hire a guy like Axelrod, Romney wasn't. Moreover, the idea that Obama has no control over how his campaign was run..... let's get serious. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 4:21 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
Mutaman wrote:
gr8one1 wrote: Apples and oranges...... one can't compare being the boss as president and being in the same position as a candidate........Romney didn't run his campaign anymore than Obama ran his.....Axelrod ran the Obama campaign and Obama danced to his tune. But you guys spent months telling us that being able to organize the bobsled run at the winter games was comparable to being leader of the free world. Now its "apples and oranges".
Obama was astute enough to hire a guy like Axelrod, Romney wasn't. Moreover, the idea that Obama has no control over how his campaign was run..... let's get serious. Maybe it was Dick Morris' fault? Or maybe Stevie Wonder? " If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth" Ronald Reagan
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 4:22 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
Mutaman wrote:
gr8one1 wrote: Since when does a candidate run his own Presidential campaign? He hires a guy to run it----and from that point on has to live with that guys decisions. That's like saying the Katrina fiasco wasn't W. Bush's fault, it was Brownies. Or the Iraq fiasco wasn't W. Bush's fault, it was Rumsfeld's. Part of being a good leader or boss is to make good hiring decisions. That's why hiring Dick Morris would be a good idea. Don't you think? Skippy! " If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth" Ronald Reagan
Last edited 11/10/2012 4:23 PM by DukeWayne
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 4:36 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
Candidates have limited day to day input ........their focus is on executing their part of the gameplan. Too busy to get involved in the details of day to day planning......but probably kept up
to speed on developments and planning.
No way Obama has the same control over White House events while on the campaign trail the past year, as he is supposed to have when there......impossible!
Once a coach, always a coach ------ and sometimes serving as "the devils advocate" ! |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 4:42 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
gr8one1 wrote:
Even at all that, if Sandy happened and Christie stabbing Romney in the back------Romney would have won ! You just keep believing that if it makes you feel better. Just like you believed that Gallup and Rasmussen were the most accurate pollsters. Because Nate Silver had the election pegged at the end, maybe you should also believe that he had it pegged when he said before Sandy even appeared on the radar that Romney's brief momentum had stalled and that Obama was a solid favorite to win. If the Republican leadership believes that Sandy is to blame for their loss, instead of their miscalculation of the electorate, they are probably doomed to more losses in the future. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 5:18 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
gr8one1 wrote:
No way Obama has the same control over White House events while on the campaign trail the past year, as he is supposed to have when there......impossible! Ok. But what does this have to do with the issue we are discussing- whether a quality leader or boss or candidate is responsible for the staff that he hires and whether a talented leader hires talented people? You kept telling us that Romney is a great executive, but now you're saying that Romney shouldn't be held responsible for the weak people he hired and delegated decisions to. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 5:20 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
wisblue wrote:
gr8one1 wrote:
Even at all that, if Sandy happened and Christie stabbing Romney in the back------Romney would have won ! You just keep believing that if it makes you feel better.
Just like you believed that Gallup and Rasmussen were the most accurate pollsters.
Because Nate Silver had the election pegged at the end, maybe you should also believe that he had it pegged when he said before Sandy even appeared on the radar that Romney's brief momentum had stalled and that Obama was a solid favorite to win.
If the Republican leadership believes that Sandy is to blame for their loss, instead of their miscalculation of the electorate, they are probably doomed to more losses in the future. BINGO! |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 5:38 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
Ultimately Romney is responsible even though he didn't directly make
certain key decisions.
Romney is a great executive.......everything he touched during his career turned to gold.
Once a coach, always a coach ------ and sometimes serving as "the devils advocate" ! |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 5:50 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
:Silver of no silver........take a look at the polls prior to Sandy........Romney up by 5 nationwide (gallup & Rasmussen).......a few days later up by only 1 point.......then loses by 2. If Sandy hadn't happened......odds are Romney keeps his 5 point plurallity
by the resulting/remaining 2 points.......battle states with a 2 point lead nationally fall into line for Romney.
Follow the math above!
Clearly Sandy broke Romney's momentum.......then Benedict Christie sealed the deal.
Once a coach, always a coach ------ and sometimes serving as "the devils advocate" ! |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 5:54 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
gr8one1 wrote: Ultimately Romney is responsible even though he didn't directly make
certain key decisions.
Romney is a great executive.......everything he touched during his career turned to gold. Except for running a campaign that was a disaster. The single most important decision, deciding who to hire to run strategize, was a failure. The single most important thing as president is to hire people to be advisors and cabinet members. If he couldn't do that successfully as a candidate what makes you think he would succeed as a president. Obama, managed to hire an excellent strategist, that won him the election even with dismal numbers. But you are right it is apples and oranges. Running the campaign is like deciding what to have for dinner compared to running the country. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 6:03 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
gr8one1 wrote: :Silver of no silver........take a look at the polls prior to Sandy........Romney up by 5 nationwide (gallup & Rasmussen).......a few days later up by only 1 point.......then loses by 2. If Sandy hadn't happened......odds are Romney keeps his 5 point plurallity
by the resulting/remaining 2 points.......battle states with a 2 point lead nationally fall into line for Romney.
Follow the math above!
Clearly Sandy broke Romney's momentum.......then Benedict Christie sealed the deal. Your math is fine, but it's your reliance on Rasmussen and Gallup that is misplaced. How can you cite Rasmussen as accurate when the election results showed how off he was, just like he was in the 2010 Senate races and the battleground states in 2008, even in polls he took after Sandy? Here is Silver's discussion about momentum from October 24, long before Sandy hit. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n...o-have-stopped/Which states do you think would have swung 5 points in Romney's direction if Sandy hadn't occurred? Obama won states with 272 electoral votes even without Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, and the closest of those states was Colorado, which Obama won by 4.7 points, even though Rasmussen's final poll of the state showed Romney leading 50-47.
Last edited 11/10/2012 10:44 PM by wisblue
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 7:21 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
gr8one1 wrote:
Romney is a great executive.......everything he touched during his career turned to gold. “It’s no trick to make an awful lot of money if all you want is to make a lot of money.”
Bernstein
Citizen Kane
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 7:28 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
Well I didn't hear one piece of criticism a fter the first debate about Romney not having qualified people running his campaign until the day after the election .......sour grapes.
Did you know that Romney held an incumbent president a lower
margin of victory in the second election as opposed to his first election since 1828? Its tough running against an incumbant.......only once in the last 100 years hasan incumbant president lost an election when he wasn't challenged by a member of his own party in a previous primary election.
Once a coach, always a coach ------ and sometimes serving as "the devils advocate" ! |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 7:40 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
Romney was up 50-46 prior to Sandy in the swing states, according to Rasmussen. Lost by a hair in Florida....slightly larger in Ohio and Virginia.....would have been a hose race.
Christie killed Romney ( a jilted suitor).....without Sandy and Christie Romney's momentum would likely have continued to even a bigger plurality.
BTW.....Rasmmusen was right on the bottom in 2004, 2008, and very close in the 2010 house race.
Once a coach, always a coach ------ and sometimes serving as "the devils advocate" ! |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 7:43 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
gr8one1 wrote: Well I didn't hear one piece of criticism a fter the first debate about Romney not having qualified people running his campaign until the day after the election .......sour grapes.
Did you know that Romney held an incumbent president a lower
margin of victory in the second election as opposed to his first election since 1828? Its tough running against an incumbant.......only once in the last 100 years hasan incumbant president lost an election when he wasn't challenged by a member of his own party in a previous primary election. The quote I provided above is from before the first debate. The debate saved his A$$, and helped him do ok in spite of a horrible campaign. Even then, it was more of a matter of Obama doing so bad than Romney doing so well. Did you know that Romney is the first person to ever lose to an incumbent president with as bad of an economy as this one. In that regard he was the worst ever, not the best ever. He should have won easily. As for the 100 years. No one challenges incumbents anymore in primaries. The last time was in 1992.
Last edited 11/10/2012 7:45 PM by MUfanPhD
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 7:44 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
Mutaman wrote:
wisblue wrote:
gr8one1 wrote:
Even at all that, if Sandy happened and Christie stabbing Romney in the back------Romney would have won ! You just keep believing that if it makes you feel better.
Just like you believed that Gallup and Rasmussen were the most accurate pollsters.
Because Nate Silver had the election pegged at the end, maybe you should also believe that he had it pegged when he said before Sandy even appeared on the radar that Romney's brief momentum had stalled and that Obama was a solid favorite to win.
If the Republican leadership believes that Sandy is to blame for their loss, instead of their miscalculation of the electorate, they are probably doomed to more losses in the future. BINGO! How did you know that's the name of Dick Morris' dog? Skippy, you really do love the Dick Meister! Cool! " If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth" Ronald Reagan
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 7:45 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
Mutaman wrote:
gr8one1 wrote:
Romney is a great executive.......everything he touched during his career turned to gold. “It’s no trick to make an awful lot of money if all you want is to make a lot of money.”
Bernstein
Citizen Kane
Dick Morris " If we lose freedom here there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth" Ronald Reagan
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2012 10:43 PM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
gr8one1 wrote: Romney was up 50-46 prior to Sandy in the swing states, according to Rasmussen. Lost by a hair in Florida....slightly larger in Ohio and Virginia.....would have been a hose race.
Christie killed Romney ( a jilted suitor).....without Sandy and Christie Romney's momentum would likely have continued to even a bigger plurality.
BTW.....Rasmmusen was right on the bottom in 2004, 2008, and very close in the 2010 house race. There's your fatal flaw. When you rely on a pollster who has a proven and consistent bias in favor of Republican candidates, you are going to be disappointed in the results. Now you're saying that Romney was ahead by 4 points prior to the hurricane and would have won by even more than that if it hadn't happened? Romney lost the 11 states Rasmussen called swing states by an aggregate of 51.3% to 48.7% (counting only the votes Romney and Obama received). So, you think the hurricane made a difference of more than 7 points? Dream on. Remember when I pointed out how absurd it was for Rasmussen to have Romney ahead by 4 points in the swing states (down from 6) two weeks before the election when he didn't have Romney ahead by that much in any one state? Rasmussen's numbers didn't make sense then and they look even more foolish now. Throughout the campaign, you thought Rasmussen and Gallup were right because they were the only ones who didn't overweight Democratic turnout. Rasmussen said 2 days before the election (after the hurricane) that he projected the turnout at +2 Democratic and he presumably weighted his poll results accordingly. That proved to be a mistake. I think I saw Gallup say that their poll was based on a projected turnout of +1 Republican, which would explain why they were so far off. As for Rasmussen being "right on the bottom" (sic) in 2008 and 2010, I have pointed out before how he overweighted the Republican candidate in EVERY SINGLE battleground state in 2008 and closely contested Senate race in 2010. Like I said at the start, if thinking that Sandy cost Romney the election makes you feel better, go right ahead. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2012 6:13 AM
Re: Romney "Shellshocked" by loss
You have to admit that Sandy/Christie helped Ob and hurt Romney......we can argue about the extent of that eternally and not reach a consensus.....the news media played this up as finally getting some bipartisanship and that Ob had done a GREAT job in the cleanup (when fact he did nothing)....this was food for thought for soft Ob potential voters and took Romney completely out of the picture for 3 days as the media gushed over Ob/Christie.
IMO this was huge.......like in BB when a team throws a full court press in the last two minutes against a team which is unable to properly respond because they lost their PG.
Once a coach, always a coach ------ and sometimes serving as "the devils advocate" !
Last edited 11/11/2012 6:24 AM by gr8one1
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
