Posted on 12/01/2012 6:40:57 AM PST by dirtboy
It may take election experts years to unravel the mystery of why Mitt Romney was convinced he had won the 2012 presidential election, as a new report shows some skewed internal poll numbers, and explains Romney’s two trips to Pennsylvania.
But at the same time, the article from The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber shows inconsistencies with reports from November 5 and November 6 about the numbers that might have convinced Romney and his team that he had a good chance of beating President Obama in Ohio.
Obama’s resounding win is starting to take on more of a resemblance to Harry Truman’s “upset” in 1948, with Romney playing the role of Thomas Dewey.
From the News Desk Latest Videos
Latest News Stories Liberals rallying to pressure 4 local congressmen 500 evacuated Friday night after hazmat spill in Paulsboro As critics scoff, Camden moves ahead on police overhaul She watched bridge collapse, tanker cars fall World AIDS Day highlights challenges of facing the disease More News » News Blogs FLOWERS SHOW: From the (Pea)Nut Gallery 11/30/2012 PHILLYCLOUT: Clarke tweaks zoning proposal related to parking requirements 11/30/2012 Stay Connected Get the latest news and events delivered to your email. Sign up now!
Obama wound up with 332 electoral votes, taking every swing state except North Carolina. Somehow, the Romney campaign was seemingly convinced that he would win one of the final three swing states, or make a strong showing in Pennsylvania.
[snip]
The conclusion is that Romney, based on his internal polls, thought he had at least 267 out of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the election, and the election would be decided in four states: Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Nevada
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
yes, itz called massive voter fraud...why dont these egg-head elitest morons ever settle down and do a report on that???
Well the scum cheated again. Nothing to see here. Move along
Ps. Time to form that new party we’ve been hankerin’ for. One with a pair big enough to confront the thieves.
To report election fraud would require them to admit it. Besides the end justifies the means in the dem/lib world.
It doesn’t take massive voter fraud, when combined with “our” 3 million fools who didn’t vote or voted for some fantasy 3rd party protest.
You think Birthers got a bad name? Imagine the hue and cry from the Leftists if there were calls of voter fraud made by the media. You'd have blacks rioting saying that pollsters are racists.
Agreed. And I held my nose with the rest who really didn't want Romney but gagged at the thought of 4 more years of the Kenyan Marxist.
But why did we get saddled with Romney. It obviously was crammed down our throats by the country club republicans, the MSM and the Dhimmicrats. It's time now to break from the Republican Party. It is broken beyond repair.
We will never see an honest election as long as the left is allowed to get away with using the “voter suppression” card.
Election fraud was largely immaterial to this election. It’s a non-issue from a practical standpoint, though not from a moral, legal or governmental standpoint.
What lost the election for Romney was the fact that conservatives just did not show up to vote for the liberal former-governor of Massachusetts. Voter turnouts were amazingly low among conservatives.
Frankly, Romney’s showing in this election was VERY similar to the response he got back in the last primaries - in the end we nominated the man who couldn’t beat McCain, and surprise, he couldn’t even match the votes that the liberal, leftist old hack McCain received in the national election.
Back in the primaries quite a lot of us predicted that this is just what would happen. A lot of us stridently argued against the irrational and fallacious belief that “you have to nominate a moderate if you want to win! Conservatives aren’t going to get votes!”.
At the end of the day, this just proves that no matter how awful the incumbent liberal democrat is, you’re not going to win the election by giving your conservative voter base a great, big middle-finger and telling them to suck-it-up and vote for the slightly less liberal candidate with a meaningless (R) by his or her name.
Per other ‘insider’ threads, the Romney campaign was in disarray in the final days.
Also, he won the first debate. Thereafter, and especially after Crowley’s overt defense of Obama in the 2nd debate, Romney coasted.
Obama was accused of phoning in the first debate. Romney could be said to have phoned in the third debate.
The Obama-Christie lovefest didn’t help the GOP either.
It will probably take a decade of analysing before there is a definitive story of why Romney appeared to be winning and then lost by such a significant amount.
“yes, itz called massive voter fraud”
You better believe it! Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2LwnmbdiTg&feature=em-share_video_user
“Obama’s resounding win...”
That phrase in the article really bugged me. Obama did not win by a huge margin, as the left would have everyone believe. If there is one thing in the article that I would begin refuting, it would be that statement.
That website has a banner that calls for using the popular vote in the future. It vanishes, however, so I guess you have to catch it.
It seems like we now live in a time where the way to get what you want is to riot, loot, burn, or in other cultures, to cut off heads, crucify, car bomb. Then people will not make fun of you, will bow to your demands, will not challenge you because you might get upset. If one looks around, this is the lesson.Voting is apparently for suckers now. Options are to call them out and prosecute, or cheat back, or slavishly pretend to see nothing and let them take it all, or.... (see above).
“It doesn’t take massive voter fraud, when combined with “our” 3 million fools who didn’t vote or voted for some fantasy 3rd party protest”
Those fools as you call them did vote...The REAL fools are the ones including Romney who do not have the courage to call the election what it was....MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD all over the country.....It’s not circumstantial evidence either....Watch this video at the Pittsburg airport just before the election, the base was motivated, and they did vote Romney.....Obama had to truck in people to fill up 2,000 anywhere.....To pontificate about any other reason this election was lost does not make sense....The fat elephant in the room nobody in the spineless Republican party will look at......
Obama’s resounding win is starting to take on more of a resemblance to Harry Truman’s “upset” in 1948, with Romney playing the role of Thomas Dewey... The conclusion is that Romney, based on his internal polls, thought he had at least 267 out of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the election, and the election would be decided in four states: Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and NevadaYeah, that's what happened all right.
The real problem in Virginia (as elsewhere) is that conservatives who should have been motivated to vote against Obama did no bother to votet. In many cases they were not even registered (which is completely trivial to do in Virginia).
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.