New reason for Romney loss: Obama gifts to Minorities

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by dime21

This article hits the nail on the head.

An opinion piece by Andrew Napolitano from Fox News, this should be a fair analytic piece.

...Were any of you awake for all those Obama TV and radio commercials? It seems not. Each one had a highly targeted message, promising some federal benefit to a specific group, whether it was young women, hispanics, whoever. And it worked...

Source? Also, don't you think that Republicans did the same thing?

...Romney's message was about improving the nation as a whole, looking at the big picture of how to improve life for all Americans.

Right. Except for those scalawags who don't pay taxes.

.."Only in America can a president who inherits a deep recession and whose policies have actually made the effects of that recession worse get re-elected.

Debatable.

...Only in America can a president who wants the bureaucrats who can’t run the Post Office to micromanage the administration of every American’s health care get re-elected.

I'd assume that A) the people running the USPS are probably too busy running that agency into the ground to mess with healthcare; B) the USPS is actually highly efficient, especially considering the political constraints placed on it; C) the states can run their own health exchanges and the insurance is private, there's actually very little federal control; D) it was a highly-regarded Republican idea.

...Only in America can a president who kills Americans overseas who have never been charged or convicted of a crime get re-elected.

You mean the policy that Romney raced to agree with? I'm sure that Napolitano voted for Gary Johnson.

...And only in America can a president who borrowed and spent more than $5 trillion in fewer than four years, plans to repay none of it and promises to borrow another $5 trillion in his second term get re-elected.

No President has ever borrowed money during a recession and expanded the debt. Oh wait.

...What’s going on here?

I'm not sure, but I have my theories.

[Peace]

Let me just quote Bobby Jindal. I'm sure people know who he is.


" We need to stop being the stupid party".

Now if anyone has a problem with that please contact the republican governor of Louisiana .

[thekev]

Originally Posted by dime21

This article hits the nail on the head. Were any of you awake for all those Obama TV and radio commercials? It seems not. Each one had a highly targeted message, promising some federal benefit to a specific group, whether it was young women, hispanics, whoever. And it worked. As the saying goes, the stupid man's vote is worth exactly the same amount as the smart man's -- but the stupid man's vote is a lot easier to get.

Romney's message was about improving the nation as a whole, looking at the big picture of how to improve life for all Americans.

Here, this describes the 2012 election perfectly:

You generalize way too much. Many of Romney's promises were not backed by fiscally sound fundamentals. It isn't somehow a party of responsibility simply because they wish to identify themselves as one. You're simply denying the possibility that you're being manipulated. The "everyone is a sheep but me" mentality. I don't know how you can't recognize this, but we should be past such stupid quotes. They only stifle real discussion.

[Queen of Spades]

Originally Posted by Peace

Let me just quote Bobby Jindal. I'm sure people know who he is.

"We need to stop being the stupid party".

Now if anyone has a problem with that please contact the republican governor of Louisiana .

If the Republicans are smart and actually want to win the presidency at some point in the near future, they will listen more to this guy and less to morons like Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Paul Ryan, and the rest of the crazy cabal.

[NT1440]

The GOP has been running a modified Southern Strategy for decades. Time is against them in this regard and this election may have been the one that flips the script and lets the sane members take the lead.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by quagmire

Sanity only shows after a party loses an election. Where was this during the campaign when Romney mentioned the 47% thing? I heard excuses for it. Didn't hear any prominent GOP member speak out about it. They all towed the line.

Jindal has touched on strategies in the past and he's criticized people on all sides. As far as Romney making stupid remarks, it would not make sense for anyone to criticize him right before the election who was (presumably) on his side...that isn't a republican thing, that is a strategic thing. It's no different than Obama (or Bush, or Clinton) saving more controversial measures until their second term...

----------

Originally Posted by thekev

Many of Romney's promises were not backed by fiscally sound fundamentals.

And neither are Obama's. Neither party can claim any degree of fiscal responsibility.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

[Anuba]

Originally Posted by zioxide

Excuse a foreigner, Fox Business, but isn't it "least educated"?

Anyway, love seeing that single Obama head in the "worst..." column, since Nevada is the home of Sheldon Adelson who blew $53M on the Romney campaign... mmm, humiliation bonus.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by NickZac

And neither are Obama's. Neither party can claim any degree of fiscal responsibility.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

I never claimed it was. They're both annoying, but the tax cut claims were silly, and he droned on (okay, maybe that was a tasteless joke) about the size of our military. Defense spending is unsustainable, much like other areas. Anyway my real issue was the attitude of his post. He used an opinion peace to call everyone stupid under the mod radar, and that really doesn't invite discussion.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by NickZac

And neither are Obama's. Neither party can claim any degree of fiscal responsibility.

I have to disagree with this.

"Any degree"?

None at all?

... using inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase [in federal spending] -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

Bottom line: The Facebook post’s claim that government spending under Obama is "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years" is very close to accurate.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

[iJohnHenry]

Originally Posted by Idefix

you'd think he'd have learned to hold his tongue, wouldn't you??

doesn't display much wisdom, period.

He's smarting, and can't find the Mercurochrome.

[Thomas Veil]

Originally Posted by dime21

This article hits the nail on the head. Were any of you awake for all those Obama TV and radio commercials? It seems not. Each one had a highly targeted message, promising some federal benefit to a specific group, whether it was young women, hispanics, whoever. And it worked.

You mean like all those corporate TV and radio commercials that have highly targeted messages, promising that if you use this toothpaste or drink that beer you're gonna get laid?

This kind of targeting has been going on for decades. Obama was simply better at it than Romney's people.

Originally Posted by dime21

As the saying goes, the stupid man's vote is worth exactly the same amount as the smart man's -- but the stupid man's vote is a lot easier to get.

Well, since the Republican party has always relied on stupid voters, that explains why they're in so much trouble.

Originally Posted by dime21

Romney's message was about improving the nation as a whole, looking at the big picture of how to improve life for all Americans.

I don't think the 47% felt that way. And I don't see how increasing the wealth of Romney and his buddies improves my life, or anyone else's but theirs.

Originally Posted by dime21

Only in America can a president who inherits a deep recession and whose policies have actually made the effects of that recession worse get re-elected. Only in America can a president who wants the bureaucrats who can’t run the Post Office to micromanage the administration of every American’s health care get re-elected. Only in America can a president who kills Americans overseas who have never been charged or convicted of a crime get re-elected. And only in America can a president who borrowed and spent more than $5 trillion in fewer than four years, plans to repay none of it and promises to borrow another $5 trillion in his second term get re-elected.

Wow, that's pretty f-ed up. Do you really believe that? I'd like to hear more about all these horrible things.

Originally Posted by Queen of Spades

If the Republicans are smart

Don't hold your breath. They already seem to be in denial mode and looking to move even further to the right.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I have to disagree with this.

"Any degree"?

None at all?

No, none. The 2013 budget is a trillion dollars in the hole. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan (yes, especially him)...all big spenders on small budgets. Whether is be unsustainable military spending or social entitlement programs that we cannot afford or Medicare fraud...both parties have spent more than they have taken in. That isn't fiscally responsible...if anything, it's reckless and it is the reason that both China and Japan own more American debt than Americans do.

[balamw]

Originally Posted by NickZac

both China and Japan own more American debt than Americans do.

Really? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...it-isnt-china/

Fully two-thirds of the national debt is owed to the U.S. government, American investors and future retirees, through the Social Security Trust Fund and pension plans for civil service workers and military personnel. China, it turns out, holds less than 8 percent of the money our government has borrowed over the years.

“It is true that China is the largest foreign owner of our debt,” said Josh Gordon, policy director of the Concord Coalition, a Virginia-based nonprofit that advocates getting the nation’s debt under control. “But the vast majority of our debt is held by us.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2CM4SUNzC

B

[Rodimus Prime]

Originally Posted by balamw

Really? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...it-isnt-china/



B

double ouch. Proven wrong by foxnews.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by balamw

Really? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...it-isnt-china/



B

About $11 trillion of out debt is held by the public. My reference was not regarding intragovernmental debt. My apologies for not being more specific. In the sense you point out, yes, Americans own more debt, but indirectly.

Our internal borrowing on the Social Security Trust Fund and methods of financing wars are a completely different topic that has little to do with the current subject matter. Sorry for going so off topic.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by dime21

the stupid man's vote is worth exactly the same amount as the smart man's -- but the stupid man's vote is a lot easier to get.

Who am I to argue?

[balamw]

Originally Posted by NickZac

In the sense you point out, yes, Americans own more debt, but indirectly.

It's tangential to the thread, but I'm sorry, but I don't understand the distinction here. Are you suggesting that Chinese individuals hold their US debt directly, and that it's not their government that holds it for them?

On top of the $11T already discussed, private US citizens directly own about $1T of the debt, more if you also include what is held by mutual funds and insurance policies they hold. While the Chinese government (including Hong Kong) holds $1.16T and falling. This is quite a different picture than your talking point would indicate.

B

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by balamw

It's tangential to the thread, but I'm sorry, but I don't understand the distinction here. Are you suggesting that Chinese individuals hold their US debt directly, and that it's not their government that holds it for them?

On top of the $11T already discussed, private US citizens directly own about $1T of the debt, more if you also include what is held by mutual funds and insurance policies they hold. While the Chinese government (including Hong Kong) holds $1.16T and falling. This is quite a different picture than your talking point would indicate.

B

The $11 billion of intragovernmental debt is different from other external debts such as T bills (which China has recently stopped holding almost completely). The debt China and Japan hold are tangible, formal debts. Things such as money borrowed against the Social Security Trust Fund internally are a different thing. Some argue it as "money which doesn't exist", but I disagree. (see http://www.minyanville.com/businessm...7444?page=full ). Some suggest this isn't actually debt at all...I don't know if I agree with that or not as the article touches on this.

The $1 trillion in private US held debt was what I referring to for a comparison. China and Japan each hold slightly over $1 trillion. Comparison-wise it was to tangible debt. Again, I apologize for not being clearer or if I was inaccurate and the complexity of the way the internal debt works has partially confused me.

[LizKat]

Yet another high-profile Republican disavows Romney's "gifts" remarks.

Tim Pawlenty was interviewed by C-SPAN for Newsmakers show on Sunday, here's a link with a video clip and short piece:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83983.html

A couple of quotes by Pawlenty that were presented in the Politico piece:

“I think President Obama, first of all, just tactically did a better job getting out the vote in his campaign. But No. 2, he, at least at the margins, was better able to connect with people in this campaign,”

“But I don’t think it’s a matter of people looking at the election and saying, ‘I’m going to vote because of gifts,’” he added. “I think they looked at it and said which one of these candidates would they prefer because of leadership considerations and also can understand their needs the best.”

[NickZac]

^ IMO that is a great criticism. I mean, essentially Romney is complaining because Obama convinced people to vote for him where as Romney tried to do the same but didn't do it as well...uhhhh, I thought getting people to vote for you was the point of politics???

[Coleman2010]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Romney's idiotic "gifts" comment is one of the stupidest statements I have ever heard in my life. But here is some further literature to help paint a bigger picture. Republican Governor Bobby Jindal, one of most well liked Governors in the country [based on approval ratings], has no issues with criticizing stupidity regardless of partisan lines. In this case, he called Mitt Romney out and for good reason.


(excerpt)


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2CJveELgu



(excerpt)


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/b...-election.html

Don't give Bobby Jindal too much credit. He is stupid in his own way. He signed legislation to teach creationism in schools.

----------

Originally Posted by Moyank24

All Americans?? Really? Do you truly believe that?

The fact is, he wanted to improve life for some Americans and that is why he lost.

And I think I'll skip over the fox news opinion piece. The problem with the GOP is that they still can't recognize why they lost. And making excuses and ignoring reality isn't going to help them do what they need to do to even have a chance in 4 years.

What he means is "real" Americans. You know... the hard working rich or White ones. The rest of us don't count.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Coleman2010

Don't give Bobby Jindal too much credit. He is stupid in his own way. He signed legislation to teach creationism in schools.

He signed legislation to make it an option. I personally thought it was pretty stupid but if everyone there is religious enough to want to teach it, then that's their prerogative. Frustrating, but not outwardly racist like Romney's comments and I have him props for being willing to criticize someone in his own party...we don't see that much.