jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (6 posts)

Is it really all over for Romney?

  1. Anishpat profile image80
    Anishpatposted 5 years ago

    Is it really all over for Romney?

    After the "47%" video?


  2. dashingscorpio profile image87
    dashingscorpioposted 5 years ago

    Honestly he never stood a chance. Republicans have never been happy with him. The only reason he won the nomination was because he raised more money to run a more affective primary campaign. When a candidate's own party is not "in love" with him or her they don't stand a chance to win the general election.
    Anyone who has studied the "electorial map" knows there are only about 8 states up for grabs. The majority of those states are dealing with high (blue collar) unemployment people who have a difficult time believing Romney has their interest at heart.
    His recent video statement was based in truth. (People vote for the candidate whom they feel will serve their "personal" interest). It has always been that way! If you have a governement job are you going to vote for someone who promises to slash government jobs? If you are on unemployment, receiving food stamps, or other types of assistance... Are you going to vote for someone who wants to slash "entitlement programs"? Not likely!
    Clearly the biggest mistake the Republicans made was believing that simply being "Anti- Obama" was going to be enough to win an election. Another mistake was letting the "Tea Party" dictate their platform in such a way it would be difficult for a (moderate Republican) to support their own candidate.
    In a "class war" the poor outnumber the rich. Ronald Reagan would never have written off 47% of the population. He would have found a way to sell his ideas to people of all walks of life. You can't win by giving up!

    1. junkseller profile image86
      junksellerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      And therein is the real problem with Romney's comment. If he really believed in the Republican agenda he should have something that is sellable to the 47 percent. An actual concrete jobs plan, for instance,  would be of interest to many of them.

  3. AJReissig profile image76
    AJReissigposted 5 years ago

    I disagree. The 47%  was not a mistake.  This is something his campaign can expand on...it can be turned into an opportunity. Now that that statement has been made he can make the point how he doesn't want the government taking care of people,  that he wants them to take care of themselves.  He is not here to give government handouts, he is here to get the government out of the way so businesses can get people to works. Point out that Obama believes in cradle to grave socialism, where the best one can hope for is mediocrity. Tell people flat out that if you want the government to take care of you,I am not your candidate. If you want someone who will get the government out of yr way so you can succeed, I'm your guy.

    1. Mazzy Bolero profile image79
      Mazzy Boleroposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately, it is public knowledge that as a businessman he outsourced work to other countries laying off many Americans. That doesn't sit well with the idea that he wants businesses to get people into work.  People in India and China, maybe?

  4. junkseller profile image86
    junksellerposted 5 years ago

    You know you are in trouble when your own party starts jumping overboard. Bill Kristol said that Mitt Romney “seems to have contempt not just for the Democrats who oppose him, but for tens of millions who intend to vote for him.”

    David Brooks called his view of the country a "country-club" fantasy.

    A number of other noted Republicans have made similar comments. The reality is that when you insult half of the potential voters in a popularity contest, you make winning a virtual impossibility.