Why Were Romney Supporters So Sure He Was Going To Win?

1. 67

   vveaseyposted 12 years ago

   Why Were Romney Supporters So Sure He Was Going To Win?
   
   And Now seem so Angry, Paranoid and Hateful That He Lost?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 67

   LandmarkWealthposted 12 years ago

   Romeny lost because the conservative wing of the republican party stayed home.  Nearly three million voters, mostly in the swing states opted not to vote at all, even though they voted for Mccain.  Those votes along with the loss of nearly 8 million voted Obama suffered produced a different results.  You may remember that the Conservatives got shut out of the convention, and were not happy about it.  If Romeny won't represent them, then they'd rather see Obama win than support another moderate Republican.  I happen to disagree with them.  But that was enough to cost him the election.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      vveaseyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Good point too

      replyreport
   2. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately, their stubborn attitude toward Romney moves us one step closer to a European style Socialist State of fiscal insolvency.

      replyreport
   3. 82

      junksellerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Romney received more votes than McCain in all of the swing states except for Ohio. One million of those fewer votes were in California and a half million in NY. Neither of which matters electorally. Also, votes aren't final yet.

      replyreport
   4. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Many were the 8 million that Obama Lost from the last election.  But there were nearly 3 million people who are registed republicans that did not show up at all, yet did vote in 2008

      replyreport
3. 36

   ChristinSposted 12 years ago

   The far right has hijacked the republican party trying to veer hard to the right - rather than allow more moderate, reasonable voices to come through.  Romney, when he served in his own state, was very much a moderate republican.  When he ran this race, he pandered to the lowest common denominator within this party - the angry, paranoid, backwards thinking part - and did not renounce absurdity at any point.  When you try to pander to everyone and don't stick to your principles you get exactly what Romney got.  Moderates, independents, liberals showed up for Obama because they feared what an unstable Romney would be apt to do.  He is obviously beholden to whoever and has no principles to stand on.  Between that and his previous occupation as a corporate raider who killed businesses he never stood a chance with rational individuals.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      vveaseyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      good analysis

      replyreport
   2. 70

      dashingscorpioposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The "Tea Party" killed off the "Moderate Republican". The hardline right will never appeal to women, youth, Latinos, or Independent voters. You can't win a general election in this era by acting as though it's 1950.

      replyreport
4. 70

   dashingscorpioposted 12 years ago

   I think human nature to sometimes be so wrapped up in (your team or cause) that you don't bother to consider the possibility that you could lose. It's total blind loyalty that keeps a person from listening to what is being said outside of their tent.  Just as the Democrats blamed the voting process when George W. Bush won in 2000 so now are some Republicans blaming the process for Romney's defeat. To grasp reality and get the real pulse you have to listen to both sides.
   Another problem was there were too many people paying attention to "individual polls" instead of the (electorial college map). "Blue  and red states" seldom change unless there was something major that effected the state. I've always said if you can't win your own state you're in trouble. If Al Gore had won TN he would have won or if George W. Bush had lost TX he would have lost. Case in point California which is considered a "blue state" became a "red state" in 1980 when their former Gov. Ronald Reagan ran for president.
   Romney never really had the support of many Republicans in his (own) party. The primaries went to him only because he had the most money and best run organization. The "Tea Party" pushed to get rid of "Moderate Republicans" which led to Romney taking a harder line on "social issues" (pro-life, against the Dream Act, against the Lilly ledbetter fair pay act, change student loan program, change social security...etc) and was against the auto bail out. Each of those stances touched upon different demographics (women, latinos, youth, seniors, and manufacture workers.) According to reports Romney lost in all of of those demographics and got 2 million less votes than John McCain did in 2008!
   Women voters outnumber men and recent studies indicate 50,000 latinos turn 18  each month making them eligible to vote. Obama got 71% of the Latino vote! Is it any wonder that Sean Hainity has now stated his thoughts on immigration has "evolved". Standing on the wrong side of women and the latino vote will not get any candidate elected president in this era.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      vveaseyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Excellently stated and said!

      replyreport
5. 82

   junksellerposted 12 years ago

   Romney was losing on the first day, the last day, and every single day in between. Even when the overall percentages where tight, the electoral map wasn't even close. The conservative universe, and apparently the Romney campaign, chose to believe that every single available data point was a liberally corrupted lie, except for the ones that showed he was winning, which somehow managed to be a beacon of truth in the grand morass. These are probably the same people who believe that Obama will take their guns, that half the country is moochers, that global warming is a global scientific conspiracy, that Butterball turkeys are coming for our souls...
   
   If people choose to live with blinders on, I have little sympathy for them. They get what they deserve. This election was NEVER close. It only seemed that way because of the enormous effort exuded by the media to tell people fairytales. Romney was beaten pretty easily and soundly. I doubt Obama broke a sweat.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      vveaseyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hahahaha
      funny
      but I think you're right. Fox so called news and othere thought that if you repeat that Romney is wining long enough it would somehow make it come true...but what a reality check

      replyreport
   2. 78

      daskittlez69posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      As usual Junkseller I appreciate your honesty!

      replyreport
6. 60

   Josakposted 12 years ago

   Because they only watch and read conservative news sources an are convinced everything else is biased against them, so even when the polls made it clear that Romney was going to lose they just went ahead and believed it was because of the non existent "liberal bias" as it turned out the polls actually favored Romney slightly and now conservatives are confronted with facts that they cannot ignore any further at which point we get shock, disbelief and in the instance of sore losers and bitter men we get conspiracy theories of a stolen election.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I don't claim to know who will or won't win elections.  But to say the media is not liberally biased is a Joke. Media surveys by Pew Research show they support and vote democrat by a 3 to 1 margin.  Washington reporters were a 12-1 margin.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I thought you understood economics, the personal opinions of reporters are irrelevant (the separation in numbers is mainly attributable to education) media companies are aiming for market share, conservatives has half the market share=no bias.

      replyreport
   3. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It is of great consequence when the swing vote tunes in just before the election when the WS is over and never heard of Benghazi.  If that had been Bush they'd have plastered on every channel. They don't impact you or I.  They can affect the Swing

      replyreport
   4. 60

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Market share, media companies have target groups to make profit, conservatives are a large part of the market share thus the free market itself dictates the bias is imaginary.

      replyreport
   5. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I don't disagree with the marketshare. But swing voters are not cable news junkies.  They watch the nightly news.  Since there is not one prominent conservative voice on any channel outside of Fox, they often hear one message, the liberal one.

      replyreport
   6. 60

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      And what channel has by far the highest market share in the country? FOX does also CNN is largely unbiased despite the cries to the contrary. Fox basically stole the viewers of any other conservative network but the share ends up the same.

      replyreport
   7. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, but Swing voters don't watch cable news. That is for the full/part time political junky. Swing Voters are generally not watching Fox or MSNBC.  The watch ABC/NBC/CBS in between their sitcoms and reality shows.

      replyreport
7. 62

   Lisa HWposted 12 years ago

   Romney supporters (like Obama supporters and anyone else from any number of other groups that get lumped under one "category") don't "all thik alike" because they are individuals.  Some are far right (just as some on the other side are far left).  Some only supporter parts of the Republican agenda.  Some only voted for Romney because he was, in their eyes, the "lesser of two evils".
   
   Based only on a handful of conversations that I've had with both kinds of supporters, but also based on what's been out there in the media; I'd say that the biggest reaction of a lot of people who care about the country (and not just themselves and their own little "circles") were sobered to see the extent to which the country is divided.   That, in itself, is sobering (at least to anyone mature enough to see some of the potential consequences of such a state).
   
   The voices that get heard (from ANY side) are most often those of the angriest people, and lots of times the angriest of people are among the least reasonable and least able/willing to understand some of valid concerns of the opposite side.   The loudest, most hateful, and seemingly "paranoid" of either side never represent the majority of that group.
   
   Personally, knowing that about half of the population supported Romney, and knowing, too, that x percent of those who voted for Obama are non-extremeist/closer-to-the-middle Democrats; I don't necessarily find the "divide" as sobering as a lot of people may.  I suppose I see it as "a wake-up call".  A Romney-supporting friend, however, made a state a couple of days after the election.  He said, "Gone are the days of 'Ask not what your country can do for you.'" ("..but what you can do for your country".)  The idea that my friend's statement may be true can be sobering.  Then again, however, I don't think Obama's less-than-landslide win particularly indicates that the divide (and "obliviousness" to the concept of "ask not what your country can do for you...." is as bad as it seems to some.
   
   I'm more concerned about a political process (and those who thrive in it, earn a living from it) that encourages such a divide; rather than promoting better understanding between the two sides.  "Angry, hateful, paranoid"?  Hardly the mainstream majority, I'm guessing.   (It's never good when people imagine how other people must feel based on what they've heard, what they think someone "seems like", or how they imagine they would feel in the same situation.)

   replyreport
   1. 67

      vveaseyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting
      the angry, hateful, paranoid may not be the majority,  I don't know that and I don't think you do either.
      But there seem to be lots of them. Now you have at 25000 people from 50 states, who want their state to secede from the Union.

      replyreport
8. 60

   noenhulkposted 12 years ago

   In my opinion, there are reasons why Romney supporters are sure he is going to win and this is my comment.
   
   They are Obama haters.
   They think Obama has already lost his popularity.
   
   They are angry, paranoid and hateful because there are only few who really fight hard for Romney so he lost.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      vveaseyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You're probably right

      replyreport