Why Governor Romney lost the election: a poll

[makattak]

The social conservatives will ensure that obamas keep getting elected. They will eat any good candidate that is not conservative enough. I really did not like McCain, ambivalent about Romney, but to claim that either is "just like obama" is patently false. One hates America, one appears not too, close enough for me.

Ummm... in what universe is McCain someone who is "conservative enough" to "social conservatives?"

[French G.]

I did not say that. They crushed McCain for being not of them.

I, on a personal level, despise abortion, but, lacking a uterus, I keep my piehole shut. (Not a suitable APS or national political topic though). I could give a flip less about teh gheys marrying as long as they can get divorced so we all get lulz. The war on drugs screwed our country. But we roll out these social conservative litmus tests, blow up a bunch of viable candidates that don't pass them and then elect Obama by default. Yay. If Romney loses by 2% in key states and 2% of the ultra right sat it out, congratulations, they elected Obama. I know this a tangent, but I'm sick of the doesn't matter who you vote for they're all the same crap. I "coyote voted" for McCain. Don't tell me that someone who was tortured for 7 years and remained faithful to his country is the same as someone who spent his young life also is SE Asia but while learning to bow correctly to the same class of trash that imprisoned McCain. Show me where Romney has been post-American or anti-American? Christ, my biggest gripe so far is that when the assault weapons question hit the debate his first line wasn't "Well as you may know a great patriot and Mormon named John Moses Browning greatly advanced the science of modern weapons and I think that's cool..."

[Perd Hapley]

I guess when the Ron Paul supporters and the Fed-haters and the Libertarians and people like myself who won't vote for the author of Romneycare "elect" Obama, then yeah, it would make sense to blame social conservatives. 

I guess McCain lost, not because he ran a lackluster campaign against a smooth-talking, messianic demagogue, but because he wasn't socially conservative enough.

[Perd Hapley]

Wants the government to enforce Biblical morality, etc.

You don't want government to enforce this? 

...if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread.
-- II Thessalonians 3.10-12, NASB

[French G.]

Is that in the Constitution? In fairness, neither is public assistance. Common to my view of abortion I agree with the sentiment of the bible verse but loathe the idea of the federal government shoving it down my throat. Want laws that say that, find a state whose Constitution gives you wiggle room and muck that up into a theocracy. Then the freedom from religion crowd can royally screw up a state in a likewise yet opposite direction. Oh wait, you're behind, they already got Cali. So, I too am not in favor of the federal government enforcing biblical morality. See "which is what happens when you call the feds.")

Yeah, I think social conservatism helped spawn McCain and Romney. They kill everything in the primaries and the last man standing is the one who didn't get caught screwing the maid and/or has the biggest organization. The social conservative types are justifiably pissed and sit out, the candidate has as his base the squishy center and gets blasted from every side trying to be moderate to appease the middle of the road, trying to throw some bread to the social conservative set, ends up looking flip-floppy to everyone, the everyone who on both sides groans that they're all the same but actively tried to make them that way. We hammer down the nails that stick up, right and left. I don't see a solution. Everyone screams multi-party which works so spiffy for Greece, Germany, and Israel where there is just constant political BS to form weak coalitions.

[Regolith]

You don't want government to enforce this? 

Not particularly. Note that "not enforce" is not the same as "promote". If government were to enforce that particular passage, it could reasonably be said to "outlaw" trust fund kids, people living off investments, old money, etc. You know, the class of people liberals love to hate.

[Perd Hapley]

Not particularly. Note that "not enforce" is not the same as "promote". If government were to enforce that particular passage, it could reasonably be said to "outlaw" trust fund kids, people living off investments, old money, etc. You know, the class of people liberals love to hate.

I know, I was just having some fun. People think that "enforce Biblical morality" means that government is going to be all up in their bedrooms. But since the Bible doesn't say that our governments should be regulating our private lives, then how could enforcing Biblical morality lead to that?

Besides, if you read the passage closely, it doesn't really seem to be saying that we should take food away from people who don't work. It is talking about a certain kind of idle trouble-makers. Presumably, they were also abusing the church's food pantry.

[Perd Hapley]

Is that in the Constitution? In fairness, neither is public assistance. Common to my view of abortion I agree with the sentiment of the bible verse but loathe the idea of the federal government shoving it down my throat. Want laws that say that, find a state whose Constitution gives you wiggle room and muck that up into a theocracy. Then the freedom from religion crowd can royally screw up a state in a likewise yet opposite direction. Oh wait, you're behind, they already got Cali. So, I too am not in favor of the federal government enforcing biblical morality. See "which is what happens when you call the feds.")

If the state says that human life begins at conception, and you think that amounts to theocracy, then you are bound to see a lot of theocrats where there are none. Because there's nothing particularly religious about setting the beginning of human life at, well, the beginning of human life. There's nothing particularly secular or rational about setting the beginning of human life at some later, fuzzier date.

Yeah, I think social conservatism helped spawn McCain and Romney. They kill everything in the primaries and the last man standing is the one who didn't get caught screwing the maid and/or has the biggest organization.

   Can you provide a few examples from those two primaries? I don't remember it happening that way. I could be wrong.

[AZRedhawk44]

So, what are you guys going to do if Obama wins? Are you going to storm DC with your Bushmasters?

No matter which of these two 'tards wins, I'm buying as much stuff as I can used rather than new.  I'm buying as much stuff as I can via micro-vendor/agorist means rather than Safeway, Walmart and Best Buy.  I'm keeping very little of my property in electronic format.  I'm striving to make myself independent of the teat of government.

Independent of the teat of government?  Me?  I make nearly 100k.  I shouldn't use anything from the government, right?

Except the electrical infrastructure. 
And the farm subsidies that make groceries cheap.
And the airports.
And the Interstate highway system.

I choose to operate under the assumption that if they (as in "they" of "they, them, those") want to control all of these things and they feel they earn claim over my life in a busybody manner as Fisty described above, intruding in my daily life in every way possible, I won't accept the purchase price.

Those 4 little things above?  They empower the goverment to:
1. Inspect your house for code violations, and monitor your electrical use remotely for trends, and drive manufacturers of home appliances to have back door hacks that the power company or government can send coded signals through the power grid to turn off your TV, or your fridge, or your AC, or whatever they feel is wasteful and you shouldn't be using right now.
2. Dictate that home gardens negatively affect Interstate Commerce, and prohibit them, or prohibit consumption of perfectly natural unpasturized whole milk.
3. Fondle your junk when you fly.
4. Start fondling your junk when you drive.

I want this emaciated crack whore called "government" to leave me the hell alone.  Period.

Storming DC with my rifle, even if I had a perfect run of 546 headshots, wouldn't do the job.  We'd just get more of they-them-those, being cultivated in the training camps of governorships, state legislatures, and circuit courts.

They-them-those need to be expunged.  The only way to do that is to make government non-profitable.  So, I'm going to starve the bitch.

[MillCreek]

^^^ A true Rugged Individualist makes his own energy, grows his own food, builds and flies his own aircraft and travels cross country over rugged terrain, rather than give in to the Statists, I tell you what.  This also gives more time to work on the manifesto. 

[MicroBalrog]

To be consumed on November 7th, 2012, in the event of a Romney loss:

The reason governor Romney lost was because he was not conservative enough - not in the sense of specific proposals which may or may not have been on his platform, because in terms of the tax rates suggested, the platform represents an improvement on any US President in the past 70 years, including Ronald Reagan - but in terms of his philosophy.

Romney is neither a social conservative, a small-government conservative, or any kind of conservative, other than a North-Eastern Rockefeller Republican, hatched and bred in the setting of Lovecraft stories (literally).

He does not genuinely believe that the government's role in the life of citizens, nor in their economic transaction, has some moral or ideological limit to it. In this sense he is inferior to Newt, or even Perry, or Bachmann, Paul, or practically any other competitors (the only candidate I thought was worse than Romney was Santorum).

This is not, you understand, some kind of disagreement - even Romney's backers and supporters, such as Charles Krauthammer, backed him because they viewed him as a 'moderate', a man not given to what they think are 'ideological blinders' and thus more 'electable' or acceptable to the public. Now these people themselves criticize Romney for being unable to enunciate the ideological differences between himself and Barack Obama.

Barack Obama has not - by any stretch of the imagination - been a successful President. Unemployment is clearly very high, in the foreign policy scene America is dealing with major problems, there's also the Euro crisis to contend with. A decent candidate would have had a field day - but Romney was not that candidate.

Yes, from a conservative or libertarian perspective Romney's positions on the issues are somewhat better than Obama's, and if I was an American citizen of the appropriate age I would probably vote for him - but being slightly better than the other candidate is not enough to win an election against an incumbent President. It's likely that this election will rest on turnout, voter enthusiasm, and such things - and Romney, even at his level best, cannot arouse enthusiasm. To even use 'enthusiasm' and 'Mitt Romney' in the same sentence is laughable.

Romney was promoted, cheered upon, and endorsed because people were afraid - afraid that if they put forth a more conservative candidate they will risk losing. Fear doesn't work.

[MicroBalrog]

You don't want government to enforce this? 

No, I disagree with the notion that people who do not work should not eat.

[Perd Hapley]

No, I disagree with the notion that people who do not work should not eat.

Then you are an awful statist and want to steal my money and give it to the poor. 

[zxcvbob]

Then you are an awful statist and want to steal my money and give it to the poor. 

a statist or a communist?  It gets so confusing sometimes...

[longeyes]

To be consumed on November 7th, 2012, in the event of a Romney loss:

The reason governor Romney lost was because he was not conservative enough - not in the sense of specific proposals which may or may not have been on his platform, because in terms of the tax rates suggested, the platform represents an improvement on any US President in the past 70 years, including Ronald Reagan - but in terms of his philosophy.

Romney is neither a social conservative, a small-government conservative, or any kind of conservative, other than a North-Eastern Rockefeller Republican, hatched and bred in the setting of Lovecraft stories (literally).

He does not genuinely believe that the government's role in the life of citizens, nor in their economic transaction, has some moral or ideological limit to it. In this sense he is inferior to Newt, or even Perry, or Bachmann, Paul, or practically any other competitors (the only candidate I thought was worse than Romney was Santorum).

This is not, you understand, some kind of disagreement - even Romney's backers and supporters, such as Charles Krauthammer, backed him because they viewed him as a 'moderate', a man not given to what they think are 'ideological blinders' and thus more 'electable' or acceptable to the public. Now these people themselves criticize Romney for being unable to enunciate the ideological differences between himself and Barack Obama.

Barack Obama has not - by any stretch of the imagination - been a successful President. Unemployment is clearly very high, in the foreign policy scene America is dealing with major problems, there's also the Euro crisis to contend with. A decent candidate would have had a field day - but Romney was not that candidate.

Yes, from a conservative or libertarian perspective Romney's positions on the issues are somewhat better than Obama's, and if I was an American citizen of the appropriate age I would probably vote for him - but being slightly better than the other candidate is not enough to win an election against an incumbent President. It's likely that this election will rest on turnout, voter enthusiasm, and such things - and Romney, even at his level best, cannot arouse enthusiasm. To even use 'enthusiasm' and 'Mitt Romney' in the same sentence is laughable.

Romney was promoted, cheered upon, and endorsed because people were afraid - afraid that if they put forth a more conservative candidate they will risk losing. Fear doesn't work.

Romney is not just "slightly better" than Obama.  Let's say he is a Neo-Con.  Better that than a Neo-Comm.

[AZRedhawk44]

No, I disagree with the notion that people who do not work should not eat.

Please clarify:

Do you agree with the notion that government should hire mercenaries to point guns at people that don't want to feed complete strangers that don't feed themselves, in order to obtain funds to feed those people?

Or do you believe that people who do not work should be fed by voluntary charity?

[slingshot]

If he looses, it will be because the people want their checks, and they are happy with the growth rate and status quo. 

[MicroBalrog]

Please clarify:

Do you agree with the notion that government should hire mercenaries to point guns at people that don't want to feed complete strangers that don't feed themselves, in order to obtain funds to feed those people?

Or do you believe that people who do not work should be fed by voluntary charity?

I believe in three distinct things:

1. I think a limited form of state support for some people who are unable completely to feed themselves (say, the mentally incompetent, those who literally possess no arms or legs, and so forth), when carried out locally and under Constitutional confines, may be tolerable. Further I think that people who have been injured in military action, either as soldiers, or as civilian victims of a terrorist or a military attack, should receive some kind of support or renumeration from the government

2. I do not think it is a person's moral duty to work, hold a job, and so forth. Obviously stealing and fraud are morally wrong, but if you can obtain sustenance through other means - by charity or by persuading someone to give you money, this is between you and whoever pays you. It is not within the confines of a state as I see it to encourage people to get or not get jobs. If you are a healthy person and can support yourself, the state should not support you - but therein your relationship ends.

3. If you genuinely qualify, under current law, for government money - rather than cheating the system in some way - in my view you should go and claim this money.

[birdman]

Where's the "massive voter fraud" option? Because that's the only way Romney is losing this election.

Agreed.  With the exception of Reagan, at this point Romney has a polling lead that is -significant-.

[MechAg94]

I believe in three distinct things:

1. I think a limited form of state support for some people who are unable completely to feed themselves (say, the mentally incompetent, those who literally possess no arms or legs, and so forth), when carried out locally and under Constitutional confines, may be tolerable. Further I think that people who have been injured in military action, either as soldiers, or as civilian victims of a terrorist or a military attack, should receive some kind of support or renumeration from the government

2. I do not think it is a person's moral duty to work, hold a job, and so forth. Obviously stealing and fraud are morally wrong, but if you can obtain sustenance through other means - by charity or by persuading someone to give you money, this is between you and whoever pays you. It is not within the confines of a state as I see it to encourage people to get or not get jobs. If you are a healthy person and can support yourself, the state should not support you - but therein your relationship ends.

3. If you genuinely qualify, under current law, for government money - rather than cheating the system in some way - in my view you should go and claim this money.

1.  Constitutional confines to me means that the federal govt takes no part in in.  It should fall to the 50 states to establish their own system.  I think pushing this sort of system further toward the local end of things would provide better enforcement or at least limit the funding.
2.  I disgree in part at least.  I think it is a person's moral duty to provide for themselves and their family through legal/moral means.  (no stealing).  I think it is a persons moral duty to do this before giving any money to charity.
3.  See #1.

[lee n. field]

http://www.cafepress.com/mf/71994228/its-party-time-chumps_bumper-sticker

[RevDisk]

^^^ A true Rugged Individualist makes his own energy, grows his own food, builds and flies his own aircraft and travels cross country over rugged terrain, rather than give in to the Statists, I tell you what.  This also gives more time to work on the manifesto.  

Most of my roads, infrastructure, etc is maintained by local or state government. For a fraction of the taxes I pay to the federal government. And I have a shot at correcting wrongs committed by either.

Libertarian != anarchist


Why am I likely not voting for Romney?  He has not earned my vote, and he is not entitled to it.

[DittoHead]

at this point Romney has a polling lead that is -significant-.

Not in the places he needs it. My prediction is that he'll win the popular vote but lose the election.

[birdman]

Not in the places he needs it. My prediction is that he'll win the popular vote but lose the election.

With the exemption of the 1980 election, and a few random states in 2008, if an incumbent isn't leading by more than 2-3% at this point in a sate, they are going to lose that state.

Right now on the real clear map, if you look at the toss ups, Romney needs FL, VA, OH (where Obama is less than 1.9% ahead) and NH (Obama ahead by less than 1.5%)..and that's it.

[makattak]

Not in the places he needs it. My prediction is that he'll win the popular vote but lose the election.

And you bought into the liberal media wishcasting.

I live in VA. It's not close. It HASN'T been close. Romney wins by a minimum of 5 points in this state and nationally.