Exactly. That there is a large segment of committed Democratic voters, a nearly equal segment of committed Republican voters, and the 5% or so of swing voters that Romney referred to, is a common calculation of the political pros. But Romney basically called the Democratic group lazy, irresponsible victims-by-choice, in whom he has no interest.Anonymous wrote:...
So again, while the 47% statement is accurate, what was said after that is where the fuck up happened. Folks want to dance around that in attempts to defend romney and while they are crying about putting the statements in context, they are the ones slicing and dicing the statement to fit their own narrative
Anonymous wrote:This is an edited tape put out by Mother Jones (as far left as anyone is going to get).
The Obama people were whining about the ACORN tape being edited, so let's see them take responsibility for jumping down the Romney campaign's collective throat by going on and on about THIS edited tape.
Waiting.
Waiting.
Crickets.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What exactly are folks arguing about?
Romney made the statements and his "stast" were accurate.
The problem isnt the stat he laid out or how he's choosing to "ignore" a demographic. Its the fact that he spoke so negatively about them.
For example, Romney could have said that he's not going to win the black vote because they historically go to Dems and he's leaving that alone and stop there. No problem. hes being accurate in that assessment. Nothing to see here.
Now if Romney adds, that blacks will go for Obama/dems because the party promises them a bunch of things that the GOP wont, because they dont think for themselves etc etc, then its bad.
So again, while the 47% statement is accurate, what was said after that is where the fuck up happened. Folks want to dance around that in attempts to defend romney and while they are crying about putting the statements in context, they are the ones slicing and dicing the statement to fit their own narrative
Actually it's not accurate. When he talks about 47% of Americans he is referring to those who do not pay income tax. He says that those same people all vote for Obama. Which is NOT accurate. Democrats and Republicans share the moocher class. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/18/mitt-romney-will-probably-get-95-electoral-votes-from-moocher-states-obama-will-probably-get-5/
Just as each party has loyal voters in the other economic classes as well. As Santorum said, you will never have the smart/elite on your side: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/freedom-from-facts/#postComment
Anonymous wrote:What exactly are folks arguing about?
Romney made the statements and his "stast" were accurate.
The problem isnt the stat he laid out or how he's choosing to "ignore" a demographic. Its the fact that he spoke so negatively about them.
For example, Romney could have said that he's not going to win the black vote because they historically go to Dems and he's leaving that alone and stop there. No problem. hes being accurate in that assessment. Nothing to see here.
Now if Romney adds, that blacks will go for Obama/dems because the party promises them a bunch of things that the GOP wont, because they dont think for themselves etc etc, then its bad.
So again, while the 47% statement is accurate, what was said after that is where the fuck up happened. Folks want to dance around that in attempts to defend romney and while they are crying about putting the statements in context, they are the ones slicing and dicing the statement to fit their own narrative
Anonymous wrote:What exactly are folks arguing about?
Romney made the statements and his "stast" were accurate.
The problem isnt the stat he laid out or how he's choosing to "ignore" a demographic. Its the fact that he spoke so negatively about them.
For example, Romney could have said that he's not going to win the black vote because they historically go to Dems and he's leaving that alone and stop there. No problem. hes being accurate in that assessment. Nothing to see here.
Now if Romney adds, that blacks will go for Obama/dems because the party promises them a bunch of things that the GOP wont, because they dont think for themselves etc etc, then its bad.
So again, while the 47% statement is accurate, what was said after that is where the fuck up happened. Folks want to dance around that in attempts to defend romney and while they are crying about putting the statements in context, they are the ones slicing and dicing the statement to fit their own narrative
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Once again, I go back to my conspiracy theory - someone is trying very, very hard to make sure Romney loses this election. It's simply not possible that the person the Repubs put up for President is this stupid. Plus the pick of Ryan alienates that critical percent of undecided people, people who voted for BO last time. I am telling you this campaign is a sham. They are putting on a show for the base even as they throw this election.
Finally, someone on this thread who get the real issue here. This leak was clearly an inside job - someone in the inner circle wants to see this man go down. Question is why???? I would not be shocked if the next thing to leak are the tax returns.
Anonymous wrote:The country as a whole suffers when people lack basic things like food, shelter, access to a decent education. It's a fantasy to think you can live in a bubble shut off from people in your community, and that their lack of basic necessities doesn't affect you.
Anonymous wrote:Once again, I go back to my conspiracy theory - someone is trying very, very hard to make sure Romney loses this election. It's simply not possible that the person the Repubs put up for President is this stupid. Plus the pick of Ryan alienates that critical percent of undecided people, people who voted for BO last time. I am telling you this campaign is a sham. They are putting on a show for the base even as they throw this election.
Anonymous wrote:Romney's math doesnt add up.
If almost 50% of people will automatically vote for obama (ignoring the fact that this is just people not registered voters), obama just has to get 1 person from the other 50% to vote for him to win.
Seeing that Obama has fundraisers with many rich people who pay taxes and are not part of the first 50%, I dont think that its that hard.
Thats just purely speaking on the math aspect of it all.
Well, except we elect the president with electoral votes, not a popular vote, which would make a difference in the math, right? (not being snarky)
Anonymous wrote:You do realize though that Mitt himself doesn't dispute the contents of the tape or his statements, right?
He simply said something along the lines that it could have been more eloquent.