What more does a candidate need to do to lose a Presidential election? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 08, 2024, 09:54:36 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  What more does a candidate need to do to lose a Presidential election? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What more does a candidate need to do to lose a Presidential election?  (Read 4298 times)
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,236
United States


« on: October 03, 2012, 06:40:49 AM »
« edited: October 03, 2012, 06:58:07 AM by Reaganfan »

From the other end of the political spectrum from your state of Ohio, I too ask the same question, but I ask it of President Obama, not Governor Romney.

From his bitter campaign with Hillary Clinton which he promptly began losing even though he had all but achieved the nomination already, he has had nothing but negatives. Think of every single thing this President has done that has made even his fan base scratch their heads.

Saying that the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" and his ridiculous "Beer Summit" outraged many in law enforcement that their own President would be first to criticize the Police without knowing all the facts.

The Fort Hood Terrorist Attack, when the President was speaking at the Tribal Nations Conference and was criticized by the media for being "insensitive", as he addressed the shooting only three minutes into his prepared speech, and then for not according it sufficient gravitas.

He seems to almost want to distance himself so much from his far more consequential predecessor that he dismisses the "war on terror" as a slogan, and treats Fort Hood as a single incident of a disturbed individual and the 9/11/12 attack in Egypt as an incident because of an offensive movie. I have never heard Obama utter the words "war on terror", "Islamic fundamentalists" or anything that suggests he is in touch with reality. It's almost as if he tries to imagine that it's all a big misunderstanding.

Think of the many attempts to fix the economy from two stimulus bills, Cash for Clunkers, and numerous other projects that have had nearly no effect on the stagnant economy. All they did was increase the debt and cost the taxpayer.

Think of all the Americans, even Democrats, who shook their heads when he martyred Treyvon Martin, even before any shred of facts were placed before the public, or when he came out (no pun intended) in favor of gay marriage the day after North Carolina banned it overwhelmingly.

Think of a President who almost apologized in a speech to Japan about the U.S. dropping nuclear bombs on Japanese Cities to end World War II. Can you imagine? Even his advisers warned him against it, but just the fact that he even considered doing so is so contemptible, so ignominious, so dastardly and cowardly, that Harry Truman, one of my favorite Presidents, a Democrat to boot, is likely looking down with disdain. How can the Democrats consider themselves a party of Truman when they nominate a man who would apologize for ending the deadliest conflict in human history?

But he smiles and acts cool. He says things that are anti-Capitalistic but makes them sound logical. Blacks will vote for him no matter what because of "sentimental values".

I stand with Romney because I believe this President is so far disattached with reality that I'd take a rich businessman with Swiss bank accounts over this President any day.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.016 seconds with 11 queries.