WHERE DID ROMNEY SCREW UP?

"No doubt with each idiotic comment posted you leaned back in your chair with a smug sense of satisfaction. "

once again you are projecting, finny...

I love it when you say "no doubt". the next sentence is most always a strawman whopper doozy.

"The downside of the internet and a forum like this is that any stunted fool can play what he thinks is the role of bad-ass. "

this is you in a nutshell...

So, if this is true of Finn, is he all that unique? Surely this description is true of the majority of people who post in online forums. (Not necessarily you, Rockhead. I like you. You're funny. )

At least Finn has not shown extreme cruelty.

If a member had just lost her sister (who had literally died in her arms) and was reacting irrationally, as grief stricken individuals often do (trying2learn), Finn would not fail to extend condolences to her and certainly would not verbally abuse her in a vicious manner typical of an arrogant, insecure bully.

If a member who had just survived a near fatal (brain?) disease and was still in the process of regaining his mental capacities (Sturgis) simply addressed Finn as "sport," he wouldn't become unglued and tell him to "go ahead and die."

I mean, really.

I can agree with your assessment of Finn, but from my vantage point, he's been 180 degrees off on the last election, and I didn't see anything to "apologize" or say he was wrong.

I think Finn is above average in intelligence, and his communication skills are better than most who post on able2know.

I disagree with Finn's ideas often, but enjoy reading his posts for his ability to communicate well.

The OP asks where did Romney screw up? That might be the subject of study in many political science classes for a while, But it also seems to me that he must have done something right to have done as well as he has with the handicap of being a Mormon. And, of course, Obama has done extremely well winning twice as a Black American (and with Hussein for a middle name).

From my observation of Romney, he destroyed himself. He "pushed" people to vote for Obama, and he won!

if you are trying to get me to defend setanta, it ain't gonna happen...

I stand by my assessment of finn the internet warrior.

I don't believe that blacks have issues separate from the rest of the country, so when I see them voting to that drastic a degree - over 90 percent - it's wrong to me.

How about Latinos? They have issues separate from the rest of the country?
Women?
LGBT?

Defending Sloan's comments? Why am I not surprised?

His are very similar to yours: Zero contribution to the subject at hand and entirely limited to an attack on someone who is contributing.

You operate in the margins Rockie.

No doubt some folks find you amusing and since this is all you seem to care about, it must be good enough.

I was wrong about the election but not so much as you think. I never bought into the notion that Romney would win by a landslide, but I promoted the idea in this forum because it seemed to irritate so many Obama supporters.

I freely admit that I truly believed he would win by a narrow margin and I was, obviously, wrong.

I am amazed and sadly impressed by the turnout the Democrats were able to muster.

I badly underestimated the Obama campaign.

It was hard to believe that Axelrod and Plough actually had any real talent, but I suspect you felt the same about Karl Rove.

It wasn't a case of one campaign fighting dirty and the other attempting to win cleanly. If the Romney campaign held back on mud-slinging, it wasn't due to any sense of ethics, it was a miscalculation concerning the voters reaction to negativity.

If they knew in advance that the idea of a backlash to negative campaigning was entirely theoretical and entirely false, they would have emptied both barrels on Obama.

I know you think they were as negative as any campaign could be, but they simply were not.

If they had the same strategy as the Obama campaign (Kill The Opponent) they may have won. Instead they decided to have the worst of both worlds. They didn't give 100% to negative campaigning and they were woefully ineffective in terms of positive campaigning.

They tried to ride a real but inadequate surge from Debate #1 to the finish line.

Prevent defenses don't work in sports and they don't work in politics.

The teams that rely on a defensive shell rarely win, but they also rarely get creamed. Romney didn't get creamed, but he didn't win and that's all that matters.

Personally I think that overall Romney is a decent man, and hardly the cruel hearted bastard so many on the Left tried to cast him as, but he was never my top choice. None of my prefered candidates even tried to obtain the nomination.

Of those that did run, Romney was the best, with the best chance of winning. If any of the other candidates had won the nomination it would have been a landslide Obama victory.

Obviously there is no shortage of people who still believe that Obama is God's gift to the USA. Anyone who believes this about any politician is a fool. I don't think anyone believed this of Romney.

The battle is to get someone in power who at least ostensibly represents your personal views. Whomever they are they will almost assuredly disappoint once in office, but not as much as the other guy.

You,

There weren't too many who knew about the groundswell of work being done by the Obama campaign. Don't feel too bad about that one. I thought it was going to be a lot closer!

You miss one very important point about the Romney campaign; they offended women, gays and lesbians, Hispanics, blacks, and the 47%. That kind of campaigning for presidency will always assure a loss.

Maybe they did and maybe they didn't but the Obama campaign was very effective in convincing these groups that they did.

I don't think that older white men have issues separate from the rest of the country, but they went for Romney by a 20 point margin.

Maybe if the Republican party didn't have such a regressive platform, they might be able to attract young people, women, and minorities.

But suppose a regressive platform represents the policies needed in the situation and radical progressive ones lead to disaster.

Don't you need to consider the policies rather than the label?

Spendius says:


The policies on their regressive platform are not needed. Those they put into practice didn't work. Recycling them won't work any better. And a number of them go against what a majority of Americans consider their rights and the right and proper thing to do. And the progressive platforms in fact are more in tune with American mores and have worked better economically. Your suppositions are counterfactual, spendius.

Your suppositions are assertion based. You're asserting that your policies are needed in the situation and are the correct ones. You're fortune telling.

I was trying to be disinterested.

No. Mine are fact-based. Gods only know what yours are.

I'd like to clarify that I'm not a Republican, though I've voted for that ticket in the past more often than Democrats based some general mix of the general platform at the time and what I think of the guy at the top of the ticket.

Regarding your comment, it's hard to believe that you are actually comparing 20 and over 90 percent.

I agree about the regressive platform. I couldn't stomach a vote for them this time.

Also agree here. I was limiting my agreement with the descriptor regressive only thinking of social mores. I'm more conservative about fiscal and defense issues than the average Democrat.

Absolutely, but you are presenting an objective argument to a highly subjective audience.

There is a very cave-man like nature to what masquerades as current American political theory: Progressive is good; Regressive is bad!

We live in a time when Progress is seen as holy and progression as infallible.

Therefore, Regression is seen as retardation, and decay.

Your argument is too subtle for Progressives.

We can easily progress to a dictatorship wherein regression to a democracy would be for the best of us, but it might not be all the rave.

Progress means to move forward in time. In and of itself, it carries no value judgment, but at some point in our history it was anointed as holy.

The irony that abounds in this sphere is likely to turn one's thoughts into knots as we have Progressives who want to regress to a life-style that isn't dependent upon fossil fuels, and a total earth population of a thousand years ago.

But, if you get to label your regressive positions as Progressive, all is good.