And that 47% comment didn't help him either!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Did Obama win because Romney is Mormon?
- Thread starter SolaSaint
- Start date
And that 47% comment didn't help him either!
I doubt I can think of all the reasons, but here are a few I have thought about ...............
- Paying attention to only polls they paid for. They said they did look at the media's biased polls. This is a very dangerous attitude ... one I have noted some on the BB have.
- Waging war on women, hispanics and just about everyone except the rich.
- Believing the white vote would win it for them.
- The fear of many that Romney would be Bush lite.
- Misuse or not understanding the power available through technology in analyzing voters.
- Lack of a concerted voter registration.
- Ignoring young people. They don't vote you know.
- Romney never making it clear what he really believed ... flip-flopping.
- I do believe being Mormon cost him votes. I am not sure how many.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is true, that as the GOP candidates were being sifted through and narrowed down, that Romney was at one point criticized as being "the most like the Democrats" of the bunch.
Of course, this is similar to what people (including just about everyone here) was saying about Bush. I can still never forget the '04 election, when people here were saying Bush was no better than the liberals, and were pushing for Peroutka, and those who opposed the latter only did so on the grounds that they knew he wasn't going to win and the votes would go to the Democrats.
(I still wonder why he and his CP gave up. They did seem to have a lot of momentum that year).
So if Romney got in, people would be happy Obama was gone, but after that euphoria wore off, and the nation likely continued on the same path, then, everyone would be disappointed, and saying he's no better, and that he was "Bush lite" (if not worse).
Of course, this is similar to what people (including just about everyone here) was saying about Bush. I can still never forget the '04 election, when people here were saying Bush was no better than the liberals, and were pushing for Peroutka, and those who opposed the latter only did so on the grounds that they knew he wasn't going to win and the votes would go to the Democrats.
(I still wonder why he and his CP gave up. They did seem to have a lot of momentum that year).
So if Romney got in, people would be happy Obama was gone, but after that euphoria wore off, and the nation likely continued on the same path, then, everyone would be disappointed, and saying he's no better, and that he was "Bush lite" (if not worse).
convicted1
Guest
One needs to be very careful what they say at a public event. Nowadays, with cellphones that catch any and everything said and done, no one is exempt from this. I think this exposed Romney for who he really is, one who supports big business, and not the ones who make the big businesses big.
This is an excellent list. Good job.
I would add that Romney did not have an effective ground game in swing states like Ohio and Florida. Just didn't have the volunteers to go door to door or make phone calls compared to Obama's campaign.
As to the OP: I think that Romney's Mormonism was a factor but I would put it low on the list, just as CTB has it.
poncho
Well-Known Member
I say Obama "won" because he had the most money to spend.
All else is of little real impact and is put out there only to keep us divided and looking for answers in the wrong places.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is nothing intrinsically irrational about "believing in" Jesus who lived 2000 years ago or "believing in" Mohammad who lived 1200 (?) years ago.
It is irrational to "believe in" Joseph Smith whose criminal record is only 150 years old or to "believe in" L. Ron Hubbard who invented Scientology on a dare made at a cocktail party 50 years ago. It is irrational to vote for a presidential candidate who "believes in" either of these recent liars. I would rather vote for a candidate who "believed in" The Great Pumpkin.
It is irrational to "believe in" Joseph Smith whose criminal record is only 150 years old or to "believe in" L. Ron Hubbard who invented Scientology on a dare made at a cocktail party 50 years ago. It is irrational to vote for a presidential candidate who "believes in" either of these recent liars. I would rather vote for a candidate who "believed in" The Great Pumpkin.
So you believe Romney waged a war on women?
poncho
Well-Known Member
Belief in the "Great Pumpkin" is rather occultist don't you think?
poncho
Well-Known Member
I dunno, stand on our heads and spit wooden nickels?
I'm okay with having your attention but what do you mean by "what does one do now?"
SolaSaint
Well-Known Member
SolaSaint
Well-Known Member
Ok, I still say the Republican party is too fragmented. I say again the Dems seem to be able to rally to their candidate very well. The GOP doesn't. We always have fractions that must have a Christian as a candidate or 100% pro-life, or must be pro marriage. I know several democrats who are pro-life but will vote for the Democratic candidate anyway. Seems to me the libs are willing to win the vote at all costs, they abandon their personal preferences for the good of their party. The GOP doesn't, we all have our own personal litmus test for our candidates and will not abandon that for the good of the party. I'm not saying we should, I cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate(at all)--I'm guilty.
So if I'm right, and you know I am, what do we do? Is there a super candidate out their that will get us all on board? If so we can smash the liberals in 2014 and 2016. What say you?
So if I'm right, and you know I am, what do we do? Is there a super candidate out their that will get us all on board? If so we can smash the liberals in 2014 and 2016. What say you?
Not Exactly...
....Romney lost because Obama won the love and favor of gays, single woman [wanting the right to kill unborn babies], the entitled [fearing they may have to return to work and earn a living], those who want free/low cost medical care, Hispanics, and loyal blacks, who love him regardless of how poorly he performs.
The Mormon thing probably played some role, but not as much as the minoroty groups that Obama has beeen able to win over to his side. :type:
....Romney lost because Obama won the love and favor of gays, single woman [wanting the right to kill unborn babies], the entitled [fearing they may have to return to work and earn a living], those who want free/low cost medical care, Hispanics, and loyal blacks, who love him regardless of how poorly he performs.
The Mormon thing probably played some role, but not as much as the minoroty groups that Obama has beeen able to win over to his side. :type:
Obama and Biden Also said Absurd things into an Open Mic
I remember reading about both Obama and Biden dropping the proverbial "f..." bomb behind an open, live mic. And then Obama was caught telling Vald [Russian President] he would have more latitude to discuss the issues after the elections.
As for Romney's comment about the 47%, I saw it as being realistic. He knew that regardless of what he did or said, there were at least 47% of the folks who loved Obama and would never be convinced to change their loyalty.
Some wise person once said, When you win an election, you can count on the percent of voters who didn't vote for you to be instantaneously against you. And after a few months in office, another 50% of the people who voted for you, would turn against you too. Leaving only a small percentage of the public to support you at all costs. :smilewinkgrin:
This was reality, not an oral mistake. People wanted Romeny to be real, and I think he showed realism with that statement, regardless of how the 47% took it to mean; they still voted against him, making his comment rather prophetic when you look back at it!
I remember reading about both Obama and Biden dropping the proverbial "f..." bomb behind an open, live mic. And then Obama was caught telling Vald [Russian President] he would have more latitude to discuss the issues after the elections.
As for Romney's comment about the 47%, I saw it as being realistic. He knew that regardless of what he did or said, there were at least 47% of the folks who loved Obama and would never be convinced to change their loyalty.
Some wise person once said, When you win an election, you can count on the percent of voters who didn't vote for you to be instantaneously against you. And after a few months in office, another 50% of the people who voted for you, would turn against you too. Leaving only a small percentage of the public to support you at all costs. :smilewinkgrin:
This was reality, not an oral mistake. People wanted Romeny to be real, and I think he showed realism with that statement, regardless of how the 47% took it to mean; they still voted against him, making his comment rather prophetic when you look back at it!
poncho
Well-Known Member
It's possible but I doubt he'd turn down that invitation. Being just a multi millionaire probably hurt his chances to join the Bilderbergs though.
You're identifying problems. What does one do to remedy them?