Posted on 01/14/2012 2:37:06 PM PST by xzins
Out of the thousands of "experts" out there, this article is the absolute, defining opinion on Romney's electibility? I'm impressed......
Imagine a campaign with Obama having a billion of his own money, not counting super-PAC money or free airtime by the media in myriad kinds of ways.
Now imagine those above 7 points in their hands.
Yes, it is defining.
Ad-MITT Romney will lose!
Sorry it’s completely true. Fraud is always a factor (it was why Reid “beat” Ensign in 1998) but if it was the be all end all then Republicans would never win. The race didn’t even end up that close, almost a 6 point loss. And notice how Reid’s bouncing baby boy was crushed in the gubernatorial election despite being on the same ballot, Reid Jr. even lost Clark county.
Angle is a flake and poor campaigner, witness her behavior in 2006 after losing a US House primary (most freepers myself included backed her in that election), she demanded a revote, not a recount, a revote.
And then in 2008 she was unable to defeat a despicable RINO State Senator.
Come 2010 she won the primary by crowning herself Queen of the Tea Party.
I maintain, Sue Lowden or Danny Tarkanian would have beaten Reid.
Hawkins was also a vocal and written supporter of Duncan Hunter and we all know how well that went.........
He's just another "expert" in the long line of experts being paid to give their opinions and I don't give credence to any of them.
The public will decide this spring and whoever they decide on will likely defeat Obama............
That's just my unpaid opinion since I'm not a paid expert......
As a side note, I'm not trashing any of them since whoever is elected is going to get my vote in November......
I don’t think the expert status impressed me with Hawkins. If he support Hunter, then more power to him. Duncan is a real conservative in my book.
However, that is irrelevant in terms of the article.
Hawkins points out 7 weaknesses of Romney. They are real. They will be used against him.
As for me, I am a conservative and not a Republican. Romney is not a conservative. I will oppose him in both primary and general. I will do my darnest to turn my precinct (at least) here in Ohio against him and Obama both.
He’s just another liberal.
Since Ohio is a “swing state” maybe my precinct is important. Who knows?
Fraud is a very big factor.
I’ve met Angle, she makes you look like Forrest Gump.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
“There were several Mormon freepers purged from FR, but they were outspoken Romneybots and FR has made it clear that people who constantly pimp Romney are not welcome here. Their faith has nothing to do with it.”
I stopped reading your post at that point because what you said there is NOT TRUE. There were Mormon FReepers who were banned simply because they were Mormons, with Jim Robinson’s blessing. Mormons are trashed every day on this site. It’s sad but true. Had to point out your mistake.
I agree with most everything you wrote in your post, but must disagree about the 1928 elections. Sure, Hoover would have won easily even had the Democrats had nominated a Protestant, but Smith being Catholic was a great boon to Hoover in most states. For example, not only did Hoover carry TX, FL and NC (which cannot be explained merely by pointing out that the economy had been good over the prior 8 years), but he got 48% in über-Democrat Alabama.
But if it was the be all end all then Republicans would never win any election.
A 6 point margin can’t be blamed on just fraud. Nope. How did Feingold lose? Fraud is just as big in Wisconsin as it is in Nevada. How did Rory Reid get slaughtered and democrat congresswoman Dina Titus lose on the same ballot as Harry Reid?
Sorry editor-surveyor to diss your apparent home girl but 100% of election watching freepers I know agree that Angle was bad candidate and blew it. That you met her and were impressed is immaterial, I’m sure Christine O’Donnell impressed a few people too.
No, that is Republican echo-chamber delusional talk.
Sharon Angle was a severely flawed candidate who lost an un-loseable race
She said on camera something like: “The unemployed are soft on unemployment comp and not taking the available jobs”. In the state that had the highest unemployment in the nation you don't tell voters that you need support from that they are lazy.
A few days before the election Angle was in a public school on camera and some Hispanic kid asked her a question about her immigration proposals and Hispanics and she replied : “I didn't think you were hispanic, I thought you were Asians”
My sister and her husband live in NV and they hate Reid and liberals but they told me they were too ashamed to tell anyone there they voted for Angle. The talk around town was that she was a complete nutbag.
As Impy said: Sue Lowden would have beaten Reid and been a fine Senator..If the Angles are the best we have to offer we might as well quit politics now and just form a cult.
Well Sanudra, you’re still here and everyone knows you’re a Mormon. You make no attempt to hide it and are open about your faith. Why did FR choose to ban other people “simply for being Mormon” but not you?
The Dems post-civil war iron grip on the south was loosening by the 1920s and the GOP had made inroads in the south before. For example, Warren Harding carried Missouri, Tennessee, and Oklahoma -- all traditionally southern Democrat states -- in 1920. Clear they weren't voting against Democrat Cox in that election due to "anti-Catholic bigotry". He was a protestant RAT.
>> but he got 48% in über-Democrat Alabama. <<
Barry Goldwater could make an even better claim than that. He got an astonishing 69% of the vote in "über-Democrat Alabama", and in 1964 it was still indeed a one party Democrat state in virutally all local, state, and federal elections. And his opponent was a southern Democrat. Yet the southern Dems in that state voted GOP. I doubt it because of religious bigotry against LBJ, a good protestant RAT.
Also, Alabama is nearly 30% black and blacks were almost 100% Republican in the pre-FDR era. It's not hard to figure where most of Hoover's voters were coming from in 1928 Alabama and they weren't from anti-Catholic bigots. Coalition of black voters and sane white southerners who didn't care about the civil war. By contrast, the KKK, like most the bigoted WASPs in the state, was solidly RAT and would simply vote for another RAT (preferably "uncommitted" or a local segregationist RAT favorite) if they REALLY couldn't stand the RAT the party put up nationally (hence "unpledged Democrat electors" beat pro-civil rights New England Catholic JFK in Mississippi in 1960, with Nixon only getting 24%) . Under no circumstances would be they be willing to pull the level for a Republican. Moderate southerners might occassionally be convinced to vote GOP, the hard-core bigots and segregationists certainly wouldn't. The claim that all the WASP bigots "switched sides" and joined the GOP is one of the media's biggest lies. Aside from Strom Thurmond, most of them remained yellow dog Dem to their dying days.
I'm a Catholic and I'm simply not going to buy the media spin that the RATs got "merely" 70% of the votes down there than their usual 80% because of "anti-Catholic bigotry". If so many southerners were vehemently anti-Catholic, the election results would have been reversed and Protestant Hoover would have swept the bible belt states with only a few southern states have more mixed religious demographics -- like Texas and Florida -- voting for the Catholic Cox.
Bottom line is voters nationwide were enormously happy with the Republicans in power and even a few moderate southern Dems wanted to maintain that because money in their pocketbooks was the biggest issue, so they were persuaded to vote GOP. As a result, the GOP did SLIGHTLY better in the "solid south" than usual, and even won a southern state or too, as Harding had been in the aftermath of Woodrow Wilson and WWI in 1920 when southern voters were also leery of RATs. There's nothing insidious about it. Even quite a few Catholics were holding elective office in the "anti-Catholic" south back then.
KY, TN and MO (and to a lesser extent, OK and NC) had deep pockets of pro-Union Republicanism that made them competitive in presidential elections until 1932. AL did not, apart from Winston County, and it voted heavily Democrat in every presidential election after the end of Reconstruction until 1960 (when most of its Democrat presidential electors selected by voters in the Democrat primary were unpledged, and lTer voted for segregationist Harry Byrd over JFK; and in 1964. LBJ’s support for the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act convinced nearly allwhite Alabamians to vote for Goldwater (which eventually led to the state becoming rock-ribbed Republican in presidential elections).
In the three presidential elections prior to 1928, the GOP candidate got 21.92%, 31.37% and 27.01%, the latter two in the midst of national landslides for Harding and Hoover. In FDR’s first three elections, the GOP candidate got below 15% each time. You may think it’s a coincidence that Hoover got 48.49% in AL in 1928, a huge increase from prior GOP efforts in the state, when the Democrats happened to elect a Catholic, but it seems odd that Alabamians suddenly became Republicans and promptly forgot about it and went back to being Democrats unless there was something particularly objectionable in their eyes about Al Smith.
I would be willing to wager two things about the 1928 elections in AL: that blacks comprised less than the 30% of votes that you claim, and that Hoover did far worse in heavily Catholic Mobile than in the Protestant rest of the state.
>> “ I’m sure Christine O’Donnell impressed a few people too.” <<
.
You’ve shown yourself for what you are with that comment, about three notches below Karl Rove.
While I agree that, in retrospect, Lowden would have been a better bet, we should not deny that the unions were an important factor. I even read posts by some NRA freepers defending Reid.
Angle might have survived the "I thought you were asians" remark, (although it was a dumb thing for a politician to say), but insulting the unemployed made her the GOP's Martha Coakley (Rick Perry also comes to mind) WRT foot-in-mouth remarks. I rather have Perry replacing Obama and Angle replacing Reid, but they would have to be elected to do that, and we should expect the media to pounce on GOP gaffes.
>>>You, too, better do some praying.<<<
Normally I’d end my post with the words, “God help us.” It’s all I’ve got here.
Yes, I simplified it a bit with a couple examples of Angles difficult to defend on camera behavior.
You are right, the unions came out in full force to get out the Hispanic vote for Reid. Hispanics were not happy with Reid given their unemployment of about 50% in NV, but three things worked out for Reid:
1) Angles immigration video included 2 or 3 actors posing as illegals(young Hispanics), Democrats played that up as an attack on all Hispanics.
2) Some organization ran commercials attacking Reid from the left. That might have worked but they made the mistake of specifically telling hispanics to not vote in protest.(they should have left that conclusion implied.) Democrats raised a stink about that.
3) In response to #1 Angle told the Hispanic child “I thought you were Asians” shooting her campaign in the foot, much like Newt did with the press on AF1 in late 1995 complaining about the bad seat, That was the final kiss of death,
In a state like NV Republicans need an effective strategy to make it hard for Democrats to rally Hispanics against them, again Reid was not popular there. But the Angle campaign seemed completely unprepared.
Bingo, you see...
It's NOT always this simple as the following, but many times I watch MSNBC and watch Democrats plotting their attacks there then I see Republicans just walk into the traps as if they are blind. It's like being a little kid watching a scary movie yelling “Get out of there... cant you see ?...Go...” except I am thinking of counter arguments that Republicans never think of using that Democrats won't expect, But No! Republicans will continue to repeat failed over-used lines.
A year ago Obama and Dems really stepped up the Demands for taxes on the rich and that combined with proposed cuts by Republicans Dems were able to put them on the defensive. So I kept telling Republicans to throw it in Democrats faces that Obama and Democrats refused to raise taxes when they had complete power 2009 to 2010, then after losing the House Dems demand that Republicans do what they refused to do when they were in power. If tax increase ‘the rich’ is such a good idea, keep asking them why Obama didn't do it. They cannot answer. But Republicans are programed for failure.
I actually try these arguments (in the form of questions) on Democrats here when they repeat the standard points to me and they are stopped in their tracks. They don't expect it.
If I said "Low taxes on the rich help us all" they would give me 100 arguments why they think that has been disproved.
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.