yeahhhhh...yeahhhhhh...yeahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

[Assasin]

Ohio will always be close. Remember you have the industrial side and the country parts West Virginia, you part next to Kentucky and Pensylvannia bush. Put it this way it is a unique place and that is why it is always close.

[Paul Marin]

For a "poor candidate", he didn't do too shabby!

He was actually not a poor candidate as he did pretty well in the face of overwhelming internal pressure from his own party. He was very limited in his options because his "base" as too far to the right. He couldn't say anything about immigration (hispanic vote), nothing on abortion (women's vote), nothing on gay rights (LBG and liberal vote) and nothing on entitlements (blacks and other minority vote). All he had left to fight with was the economy, which by itself was not enough as trends were in the President's favor. What the Republicans need to realize is that this is not Reagan's America anymore. Every month 50,000 hispanics turn 18 years old...dem betta start hug dat up or "adios!"

[HL]

I posted on my FB page (maybe 33%) of the voters i saw were 1st time voters and also young. Young voters made a very big difference.

[Islandman]

Spot on...the problem was not the candidate it is the party base.

[Assasin]

did you count all the errors he made leading up to election? From Isreal, Olympics, 47% etc. At least Bush reached out to Hispanic, Romney didn't even try. His VP choice was like McCain's. It added no value.

He wasn't a strong candidate. The republican base, like the democratic base can be stubborn at times but it takes a leader to make them follow along and reach others. Mitt wasn't that man.

[Paul Marin]

did you count all the errors he made leading up to election? From Isreal, Olympics, 47% etc. At least Bush reached out to Hispanic, Romney didn't even try. His VP choice was like McCain's. It added no value.

He wasn't a strong candidate. The republican base, like the democratic base can be stubborn at times but it takes a leader to make them follow along and reach others. Mitt wasn't that man.

Sass - I agree that Ryan was the wrong choice. He needed someone who could have delivered a swing state, e.g. Ohio or Florida. Marco Rubio - though young - may just have been the right man; actually, any hispanic would have been better than Ryan. The Ryan pick was probably decided based on him trying to appease donors who more than anything appeared to want a fiscal platform.

That said, I don't agree that the errors he made were big blunders. His biggest hindrance was his own party. Personally, I think he is a decent bloke whose record shows that he knows how to turn things around both in government and in business, and he certainly (no matter what you think of the mormon church) showed social responsibility in being both a pastor and sunday school teacher in his Church.

Either way, it is clear that America's demographics have changed sufficiently to warrant a major overhaul of the republican party. Maybe they will split into two parties or implode. We can always hope. Still, the democrats should be careful not to gloat or think that they are a shoe in for the next midterms.

[Willi]

Bachmann get weh by the skin of har feet!
I get at Murdouk get lick!

[Willi]

The man was a vulture capitalist that robbed up peoples pension.Not a decnt man by any stretch of the imagination. 47% proved that

[Hortical]

The race/ethnicity that the republicans lost on were hispanics. They voted for Bush and won California for Reagan and Bush I. The republicans have alienated them with their stupid immigration policies and rhetoric.

Hispanics broke for Obama in significant numbers & also the black turnout exceeded the rate in the 2008 election which put him over the top in Ohio & Penn.

The effect was at least as dramatic in swing states, most notably in Colorado, which Obama won on Tuesday. There Latinos went for the president by an astounding 87-10 margin, an edge not far from the near-monolithic support he received from African American voters. In Ohio, with a smaller but still significant Latino population, Obama won by an 82-17 margin.

[Assasin]

maybe good at business but not politics. He hasn't developed a slogan that sticks.

His convention was like a business meeting with no bite. First convention I saw and no bump.

Choose a VP that wouldn't help him.

He had nothing inspiring or no Zing about him.

Just like John Kerry, can't remember one positive thing about their campaign.
His platform was too self centered, not really reaching out to people.

[Islandman]

Here is the thing though, the other republican candidates were worse and would have lost worse.

Can you imagine Rick Santorium telling grown people that birth control is immoral? Or Herman Cain saying to shoot people when they try to cross the border? Thisis what they have come to as a party.

[Assasin]

yeah they went too right. Rick Perry had a glorious chance and he was such an idiot.

[Paul Marin]

The man was a vulture capitalist that robbed up peoples pension.Not a decnt man by any stretch of the imagination. 47% proved that

Willi, sorry, but this is nonsense. The Gov't bailout of GM and Chrysler resulted in a reduction of the GM workforce from 252,000 workers in 2008 to 207,000, with 131,000 of them working offshore. Does that make Obama "not a decent man"? Bain Capital under Romney arguably create more jobs than were lost over the long run.

Secondly, picking on him for the 47% comment is just as ludicrous as the right wing picking on Obama 4 years ago for the "clinging to their guns and bibles" comment. Both statements were wildly taken out of context by their opponents.

Part of the problem with the way in which democracies work is that people vote (which is their right) for the issues that they believe affect them most. But just because the candidate person "A" votes for is not the candidae that person "B" votes for doesn't mean that either candidate should be demonized.

[Assasin]

"Secondly, picking on him for the 47% comment is just as ludicrous as the right wing picking on Obama 4 years ago for the "clinging to their guns and bibles" comment. Both statements were wildly taken out of context by their opponents."

Paul sorry to let you know but the 47% went a big way of framing Romney by Democrats. I think it did cause him some damage. Election are not jus won on policies but the impression the candidate or the opposition create goes some way to been elected. Just like the "tug boat" with John Kerry.

As for Bain capital, I think Romney should have responded early and went on the attack about it.

[Paul Marin]

"Secondly, picking on him for the 47% comment is just as ludicrous as the right wing picking on Obama 4 years ago for the "clinging to their guns and bibles" comment. Both statements were wildly taken out of context by their opponents."

Paul sorry to let you know but the 47% went a big way of framing Romney by Democrats. I think it did cause him some damage. Election are not jus won on policies but the impression the candidate or the opposition create goes some way to been elected. Just like the "tug boat" with John Kerry.

As for Bain capital, I think Romney should have responded early and went on the attack about it.

Sass, I agree the 47% remark hurt him. What I'm saying to educated peeps on the forum like you and Willi is that it was unfair. All of us knew it was unfair when the republicans kept harping on Obama's "guns and bibles" remark, so I am just suggesting we don't stoop to their nether levels. And you are spot on that elections are won on impressions (feelings) rather facts (thinking). There is no question about that, but thinking people like us have to rise above the lowest common denominator practices that politicians use to demonize their oponnents. We also agree on Bain Capital as well. However, Obama's campaign (unlike 2008) went negative hard and early - even before Romney was nominated they were running negative ads about him in Ohio. They were masterful at painting a picture of Romney that alienated him from the electorate. Not my way of fighting, but very effective campaign tactic by the Obama camp.