Skip to main content

View Diary: The sheer inhumanity of Mitt Romney (174 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  knwo what else is ridiculous? (10+ / 0-)
    Confident statements of inevitable victory are ridiculous at this point in the election,
    That people keep saying "we have to fight, we have to fight, we have to fight" on a fucking blog of activists.

    Duh.

    Really, I can laugh at the ridiculousness of all that is Mitt Romney and still not lose sight of the fact that we'll have to work our asses off. What is so hard about understanding that?

    Further I take issue with this statement:

    2010 election happened because of miserable performance by Democrats in Obama's first two years in office.
    Wrong. I walked the same canvasses in 2010 as I did in 2008. You know why we lost? It wasn't because people didn't Obama was doing a good job. In fact people OFTEN said, "the GOP is a bunch of assholes who want him to fail". We lost because many of those new and first time voters didn't recognize the importance of voting in an "off-year" election. They had NO IDEA about it or why it needs to be done. Activists and long-time democrats showed up. Newbies and those who only vote every four years (and then only ticking the top of the ticket) did not show up. And that's why we lost. PERIOD.

    And lastly, this:

    because in the end, if Americans voted on the basis of character, Washington would not be the place it is today.
    Americans (and in fact human being in general) vote based on emotion. In fact every decision you've ever made started with emotion. this is a proven psychologicaL fact. Then we go back to fill in our conclusions with logical reasons to justify our decisions. It's how we're made and nobody can undo it. Much of it is subconscious. We make snap judgements about people based on a variety of verbal and non-verbal cues. Romney's problem is that he ticks all the wrong places in many people's "snap judgement decision making centers". he can't help it and it's why 70% of his own party don't like him and why his favorables are the lowest of any major presidential candidate in history. Bush was more likable than Gore. Period. And Kerry for that matter. Nobody was more likable than Bill Clinton, even with his flaws. People don't make choices based on character, but that's only ONE of Mitt Romney's most fatal flaws. He's unlikable on a deeply instinctual level. The MANY OBVIOUS character flaws are the logic the majority of people will use to explain and justify why they just don't like the guy.
    •  Well said Mdmslle, you are spot on (5+ / 0-)

      Absolutely.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Sun Apr 01, 2012 at 07:49:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This........................... (5+ / 0-)
      We lost because many of those new and first time voters didn't recognize the importance of voting in an "off-year" election. They had NO IDEA about it or why it needs to be done. Activists and long-time democrats showed up. Newbies and those who only vote every four years (and then only ticking the top of the ticket) did not show up. And that's why we lost. PERIOD.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Sun Apr 01, 2012 at 07:50:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We lost because we didn't address the problems of (0+ / 0-)

      the people in a smart and active way. We lost because we demonstrated to the people that as a party, we valued the status quo over their needs. We lost because people on our side did not see the value of voting for "change" when their lives were not changed significantly enough to support Democrats. We lost because of the "emotional" decision making process that inevitably proceeeds from over building expectations and then not delivering on the most important promise made, that economically and socially Democrats would make changes that the American people wanted to see happen.

      We lost because we didn't take a historic opportunity to punish wrong doing in the financial markets and come to the assistance of the American people in the way they needed us to assist them.

      Blaming the voters because they didn't vote in the numbers or in the way we wanted them to vote is inane. People may decide their vote emotionally, but we have the ability by communicating, focusing and performing to effect that emotional bias, we didn't do it. Blamimg the voters for their reaction to the effects on their lives of  governance is the best way to lose. It's time we took some responsibility for our losses and start delivering real, effective political change, or we will go the way of the Whigs.

      "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

      by KJG52 on Sun Apr 01, 2012 at 07:52:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ok you keep thinking that. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cali Scribe, askew, Only Needs a Beat

        I;m not suggesting that the democrats couldve done more and been better in those two years.

        But I am telling you that THAT IS NOT WHY WE LOST IN 2010.

        You do realize that there are people who only vote in presidential elections, right. I know. I was one of them well into adulthood.

        Many new voters didn't see "obama" on the ticket and didn't vote. I know this because I WAS THE ONE KNOCKING ON DOORS AND TALKING TO PEOPLE ABOUT VOTING. I can tell you many didn;t realize there was an election. Many more didn't see the connection between voting in an "off year" election and Obama's success. and I am TELLING YOU that in fact, many of the people I canvassed were HAPPY with Obama and felt he was being treated poorly by the GOP.

        But you keep on with you theories. I'm giving you a report from the ground, from the front lines. And you don't believe it. That's a sack full of stupid, there.

        •  I too was working in the campaigns of 2010 and (0+ / 0-)

          the only sack full of stupid is believing that people will be motivated to vote when they don't have work, economic security, and their mortgages are upside down. When they are promised the government will act in their best interests and it doesn't. Everyone in politics knows about campaign cycles, therefore, they have to prepare their ground game and messaging to maintain enthusiasm and publicly GET THEIR MESSAGE OUT so that people will know what has been done for them. The national Democrats messaging and ground game was terrible in 2010, and the economy was not recovering as fast as Mr. Recovery Summer- Tim Geithner trumpeted it to be. You can't blame the people for the nonperformance of the government, that's just a path to electoral oblivion.

          Democrats had a chance, a once in a lifetime chance, to crush the Republicans politically in 2009, we didn't take it, we let them up off the mat and they kicked our asses. This is no hypothesis, this is a fact, we will be facing more money in this race, more organizations working against us and possible econmic stagnation and foreign policy developments that could easily turn this election on its head, to believe that Mitt Romney's personal deficits will turn the race into a definite win for Obama is just wishful thinking. An unknown Arkansas Governor beat a sitting President in 1992, a President whose popularity and approval ratings in March of that year were over 60%, a number Obama will not achieve in this election cycle. It was the economy that did in GHW Bush and if the economy stagnates for any reason between now and November, Mitt Romney could very well be the next President.

          "Intelligence is quickness in seeing things as they are..." George Santayana

          by KJG52 on Sun Apr 01, 2012 at 09:02:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site