• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Why Romney Lost

A.Nonymous said:
Maybe. Can you really hold Romney responsible for that though?

Edit: Just looked it up just for grins and giggles. The Super PACs definitely spent way more on anti-Obama ads than they did on anti-Romney ads. The official Obama campaign out spent Romney by about $100 mil though.
Click to expand...
I can't blame anybody for raising money. It's what they do. It's not like either side can unilaterally disarm. The laws should never have been changed to allow the unlimited, unaccountable money to come in in the first place.
 
Gmash said:
I can't blame anybody for raising money. It's what they do. It's not like either side can unilaterally disarm. The laws should never have been changed to allow the unlimited, unaccountable money to come in in the first place.
Click to expand...

exactly. You'll get big huge lobbying corperations that's goal is to, for instance ban farmers out of there Alost dominant control. Maybe like att and they want to buy sprint and T-Mobile.... the President would be able to help and well no competition. That would mean high prices and more greed
 
zuben el genub said:
Internal polling reveals why Romney believed he would win | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

AFAIK, there's no law saying you have to even TALK to a pollster. Or tell them the truth.
Results will eventually get skewed if everyone doesn't participate. If we don't, that might put paid to the pollster pests.
Click to expand...

Yes, he sure did think he cinched this election. Election day started out like the 1st debate. Then imagine the jaw-dropping when things kicked in resulting just like the second debate: without a doubt and not even a "close" call at all.

Whats this all aboutwith Romney visiting the Whitehouse? Im sorry, no matter how much Romney makes a "presence" as if hes suddenly someone to be trusted and a "friend" of the dems. No, Dont be fooled, hes trying to "build" a new personality so to run again next election. Once a Romney, always a Romney.
 
Gmash said:
I can't blame anybody for raising money. It's what they do. It's not like either side can unilaterally disarm. The laws should never have been changed to allow the unlimited, unaccountable money to come in in the first place.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I have mixed feelings to be honest. A lot of complaining about the changes came from the Dems. They were the party that profited the least so a lot of it came off as sour grapes tbh. And, for all the spending, the Dems won anyway so I don't know how much it hurt them really.
 
Getting back to tech - whether you like Obama or not, he is more with the generation of people on this forum. He does understand Twitter and social media. Romney and his ilk understand how to make money from social media, but are too used to cutting deals in private and not communicating to the masses. Those who are used to dealing behind closed doors will either push for more control over what's posted, or lose transparency totally.

Look for more marketing and professional posters on social sites. This might eventually kill the sites we know and start up new ones so people can just have fun.

When JFK ran, the was a whole big stink about the Pope being involved in US politics. (JFK was catholic) Geraldine Ferraro got dissed due to sex, and even Joe Lieberman got dissed since he's Jewish. Romney got it for being a Mormon. The sexism might go, but I think most Americans would prefer to keep religion out of politics. We've had almost all religions hit with some kind of scandal and sensationalism draws attention.

Over the issue of political nonsense, no reporter ever asked Michelle Bachman about her comment of being "submissive" to her husband. Did that mean that if she was elected, her husband would be running the country?

We had that before with Edith Bolling Wilson.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Only problem with that is the 1st amendment. Sadly it's not illegal to call your opponent a filthy lying scuzzbucket even if you are one yourself.
Click to expand...

Is that a problem though? I guess how it is interpreted changes things, but free speech and democracy are intertwined, yet in most democracies such campaigns would not be allowed.
 
I dont know, religion can be an issue. I am more comfortable with politicians who dont ardently support backwards religions (ie no to Evangelicals, Mormons, strong Muslims/Catholics/Jews etc). If they are a Protestant or Catholic/Jew lite or properly secular then its fine, mostly anyway
 
ElasticNinja said:
Is that a problem though? I guess how it is interpreted changes things, but free speech and democracy are intertwined, yet in most democracies such campaigns would not be allowed.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a problem at all. In the age we live in you can find the truth about a candidate pretty easily and as a general rule of thumb it's usually somewhere between what the candidate is saying about himself and what the candidates opponent is saying about it. I am trying to wrap my mind around a democracy that claims to have free speech then controls what lies politicians can tell about themselves and their opponents. Seems weird to me.
 
A.Nonymous said:
I don't think it's a problem at all. In the age we live in you can find the truth about a candidate pretty easily and as a general rule of thumb it's usually somewhere between what the candidate is saying about himself and what the candidates opponent is saying about it. I am trying to wrap my mind around a democracy that claims to have free speech then controls what lies politicians can tell about themselves and their opponents. Seems weird to me.
Click to expand...

Personally I think its a problem if political ads hijack TV, and they are almost all attack ads, and often with little truth to back them up.
 
It isn't so much the politicians - it's PACS and action groups.

If someone was totally outraged about a Mormon running for office, we had that case a couple of years ago about Warren Jeffs and plural marriage. There is nothing to stop some action group from hammering on that - it isn't libel since they are not associating it with a candidate, it was a real case, but it makes people associate this nonsense with all Mormons by inference. The same goes for other religions.
 
ElasticNinja said:
Personally I think its a problem if political ads hijack TV, and they are almost all attack ads, and often with little truth to back them up.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of that. I rarely get anything worthwhile in the mail. So I skim through it as it comes in, let it pile up and then, once a month, I'll go through it and toss it out after making sure I didn't miss anything important. Going through my mail from November I found at least a dozen mailers from both the Democrats and the Republicans telling me that the other candidate (choose one) hated children, tortured cats, had sold their soul to Satan, supported Obama. It was ridiculous. Such ads aren't going to persuade a single rational person in the world. The only point they serve is to inflame the base. Still, they're perfectly legal under the First Amendment.
 
zuben el genub said:
It isn't so much the politicians - it's PACS and action groups.

If someone was totally outraged about a Mormon running for office, we had that case a couple of years ago about Warren Jeffs and plural marriage. There is nothing to stop some action group from hammering on that - it isn't libel since they are not associating it with a candidate, it was a real case, but it makes people associate this nonsense with all Mormons by inference. The same goes for other religions.
Click to expand...

We didnt see much of this type of "additional ads" way back. But you are right, more action-groups are funding ads of their own to bash a component. Thats why we started hearing such announcement like "This is .......and I approve this message" so to distinguish their own campaign-funded ad.

But you can BET most of the extra ads this election, espexially in the last two days were Dum Trump-funded. His birth certificate rants didnt work last term and didnt stop a second term. By now, Trumpage is probably a messy ball of sinus and salivage...
.....so angry he tossed his wig!...
Cry%2520baby%25201.gif
 
We are still getting the crap here. Colorado was a swing state to begin with, so we got hammered. Now there's a few other issues that are still being pushed. Thanks be for mute buttons on remotes.

I do happen to have a very good memory. That's why some of the ads bothered me. They ran counter to all the news, info, and analysis from a couple of years ago just like the problems didn't occur then, but NOW.

BTW - we've had really divisive politics before. Riots in the 60s, and some people never referred to FDR by name. They called him "That Man" Some of the problems then weren't all that different than today. I think I've seen some very insulting political cartoons from the time of Lincoln! We just didn't have the ads, instant communication, and people were a tad more civil.
 
Politics is always a divisive issue for whatever reason. Not just here, but worldwide. Look at South America where they have riots every time there's an election. Sometimes they have riots in the governing chambers.
 
There's this, too:

Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low - Business Insider

SOSDD.

With news like this getting out, that was the other strike against Romney. Bain Capital.

Everyone thinks they have to make their pile immediately and to hell with everyone else, including the country and the economy. I have no objections for those striving for wealth if they do it with some consideration, careful investing and planning. I don't envy their wealth. I do get pissed at the idea that they are better than everyone else just because they have money.

There are people that have given ideas away just to make things better for others. Go look up John Dobson. Maybe a niche, but he could have made a fortune with a patent.
 
And guess whose got "swiss bank accounts" where they ship off their bonuses avoiding taxes...
and whose fighting a fair ratio of taxes?

Despite his political party, I used to really respect this guy. After watching the evning news today and his expectations that only the low and mid class deserve a tax hike and are tbe ones to deal with inflation......

picsay-1354492291.jpg

​
 
zuben el genub said:
There's this, too:

Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low - Business Insider

SOSDD.

With news like this getting out, that was the other strike against Romney. Bain Capital.

Everyone thinks they have to make their pile immediately and to hell with everyone else, including the country and the economy. I have no objections for those striving for wealth if they do it with some consideration, careful investing and planning. I don't envy their wealth. I do get pissed at the idea that they are better than everyone else just because they have money.

There are people that have given ideas away just to make things better for others. Go look up John Dobson. Maybe a niche, but he could have made a fortune with a patent.
Click to expand...

Greed is nothing new. Doesn't just affect the wealthy either. Sadly, I don't think it's going away any time soon.
 
The challenger is always going to be more negative though. The incumbent has a track record. All he has to do is tout his track record and tell everyone how awesome he is whether it's true or not. The challenger has to come out and say that the incumbent sucks and he can do a better job. That's a negative campaign right from the start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom