Posted on 11/27/2013 6:10:40 AM PST by Moseley
Some people just can’t bring themselves put the blame on a conservative.
They have to blame someone else, the media, the party establishment, voter fraud (for Sharon Angle in Nevada were Reid ended up winning by almost 6 points, not even close).
I think this is very dangerous and conducive to defeat. I respectfully disagree with the several well reasoned posts on this thread from the other side. Akin would not have won if only “the GOP didn’t stab him the back”, he was toast.
McCain stupidly left voters hanging when he temporarily suspended his campaign to go to DC--as Wall Street collapsed.
THEN THE SOUND OF SILENCE zilch, zero, nada......nothing of consequence happened.
=======================================================
Romney has not spoken to this day (about the voter fraud).
Romney's internals showed him on a strong course to winning----especially after Obama's flopola debate performance. But the internals could not factor in Dims' massive voter fraud taking place in the crucial swing states.
I recall David ("I'm Harmless") Axelrod taking CBS-TV on a tour of Obama's putative campaign hdq----but nothing was happening there---it was all show.
The O Team didn't need a campaign operation---they were stealing the election right out from under our noses.
That's the Chicago Way; criminal politics at its best.
“Romney’s internals showed him on a strong course to winning”
That’s because Romney fell for the whole “unskewed polls” nonsense. No objective analysis in the last month showed anything other than an O re-election, but Romney only listened to what he wanted to hear. Not interested in the truth, just his chorus of yes-men.
So Romney bought the big lie, and took his foot off the gas. He was so confident in his cooked numbers that he barely bothered with a GOTV effort, leaving his volunteers high and dry on Election Day and not even seriously challenging for the White House.
That’s why this increasingly insular conversation is so dangerous. We convince ourselves over and over without bothering to reach out to the electorate at large. And when that bites us we retreat into convenient, safe excuses that make us feel better but don’t actually require us to improve our efforts.
I want us to take an honest look at the country, and start working on getting our message out where it is needed. Pretending they we’re doing everything right is a path to continued failure.
You hit the nail on the head there! There is only one way to account for the discrepancy between "Romney's internals" (and quite a number of other polls, even those by left-leaning organizations) and the reported vote results was fraud and cheating by the 'Rats, specifically targeted to the swing states. Amazing that reports of complete shutouts in numerous voting precincts in Philadelphia and Cleveland - a statistical impossibility - didn't cause Romney, or anyone I've heard of in the Republican establishment, to raise hell about the 'Rat tactics.
Probabilistically, Romney had an expected value of 266.9 Electoral Votes (P10 is 238, P90 is 292), and a 45.4% chance of winning. The actual result will be 306-206 for Obama. Romney performed at the P01 point on the curve. The P05 point was 231 EV.The swing states that Rasmussen's polls missed are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Virginia.
In Colorado, Rasmussen polled at 50%-47% for Romney. The odds of the trailing candidate winning is 19.5%. The actual result was 51%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Florida, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The odds of the trailing candidate winning is 28.1%. The actual result was 50%-49% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Iowa, Rasmussen polled at 49%-48% for Romney. The odds of the trailing candidate winning is 38.3%. The actual result was 52%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll, doubled.
In New Hampshire, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The odds of the trailing candidate winning is 30.3%. The actual result was 52%-47% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
In Virginia, Rasmussen polled at 50%-48% for Romney. The odds of the trailing candidate winning is 28.1%. The actual result was 50%-48% for Obama, the reverse of Rasmussen's poll.
Prior to 2012, Rasmussen was considered to be a very accurate polling group. Since the 2012 election, Scott Rasmussen was ousted and he sold his polling company. He also seems to have gone silently into the night, his reputation shattered by the Obama election.
-PJ
“Prior to 2012, Rasmussen was considered to be a very accurate polling group.”
Not actually true - they’ve had a very rough couple years. They badly blew the 2010 election. Their final 2008 number was close, but they got many of the state races wrong. 2012 was just the latest in a string of inaccurate results.
Thanks justiceseeker93.
Billionaire currency-trader George Soros is investing an additional $2.5 million in a plan to help Democrats win the 2014 elections despite a Republican political tide
Uggh, did you have to show us one of Michael Moore’s descendants?
Amen.
many of these D.C. GOP campaign staffers, I’ve met and observed, have a genuine contempt for the grassroots folks and the idea of grassroots organizing.
Hence, the disinterest in the grassroots in GOP campaigns. The Romney people are the worst I have ever seen.
I don't know if I have it in me to vote Republican again for the sake of their being no Dem.
What is the difference if the Republican is weak and doesn't have principles?
When I was working with the Key House Races people in 2010, although the Republicans swept the Democrats out in a wave, there were many state House races where Rasmussen had opposite results from the final vote. I did a private post-mortem for that one that I never posted back to FreeRepublic.
-PJ
Maybe so, but to know you've been cheated and defrauded out of the White House should at least not pass without some comments from them to that effect.
“Romney never looked more stupid than when he conceded —— uttering not a word about the voter fraud meat grinder he had been put through.
That was noticeable. So were the complete “shutouts” in Philadelphia and Cleveland. Wonder why he hasn’t even brought up the subject to this day.”
Wanted to be as classy as Nixon was in 1960, and not as crass as Gore was in 2000. Big whoop. The historians ignore both of them, as they will Romney.
Ignore him as they should, since he lost the election fair and square. We don’t have to like it, but we have to accept it. Romney was a loser not because of some vast conspiracy, but because he failed to make the case to the American public, and then failed again to get the voters he had to the polls.
Again, the longer we persist with these bizarre conspiracy theories the longer we put off the difficult evaluation we must make.
Why did we lose the popular vote in 2008 and 2012 (and we did)? Why did we lose the total popular vote for Congress in 2012? The longer we avoid these difficult questions, the harder our road ahead.
Let’s leave whining and excuse-making to the Dems. Conservatives are clear-eyed and grown-up, willing to face difficult truths and deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it were.
Yes, I can agree that Romney was too much of a RINO for many. But to say "he lost the election fair and square" neglects the whole issue of Democrat fraud and cheating at the polls and whether or not that was the decisive factor. In other words, despite his weaknesses as a candidate, he still very possibly would have won had not the 'Rats perpetrated an unprecedented amount of cheating and fraud, targeted to the swing states.
Any American who believes in free and fair elections should be mad as hell that the presidency could very well have been stolen by the multiple types of illegal election activity perpetrated by 'Rats in the swing states, regardless of what he or she thinks about Romney's campaign performance. These are two separate matters.
I once wrote, early on, that it was Romney's upgringing. He was the frog to Obama's scorpion.
It's not that Romney doesn't have ideas. I think it's because Romney's faith is preventing him from running the kind of campaign that is needed against Obama. Where McCain was soft because he was afraid, Romney is soft because it's his upbringing.Romney is running a "Donny and Marie" campaign, while Obama is running a "Gangsta Rap" campaign.
If you View Replies on my post, you will see that the responses weren't kind. I agree with the first comment that asked where did Romney's attack dog come from when it was other Republicans as the targets.
I think the same trait has held Romney back from complaining about the anomolies in Romney's votes. Romney would rather let it go than become the center of an attack on the credibility of half the people in the country.
As oppposed to Al Gore, who was willing to (and in hindsight succeeded in) tearing this country in half.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.