Why Romney lost

I've noticed that you don't think much of Jamie either. You aren't actually a moron, but you then again haven't got a Ph.D.

Jim Thompson is the one who goes around eagerly anticipating the revolution when he will get the chance to shoot his neighbours. It might make more sense for one of his neighbours to get in a preemptive strike.

Not that I'd recommend such a course of action. Jim is a human being - more or less - and shooting other people creates a lot of consternation and distress.

in

Phil's nowhere near that crazy. And it's libellous to suggest that he might be.

Codoleeza was completely incompetent. I like that the GOP keeps parading her around, but her record is s*it. Nor is the GOP ready to vote for, shall we say, a single woman. [Hint: Rice and Beans.}

Sydney is a sheep-free area - unless it supports some very specialised brothels.

life

he

he

and

I've certainly got a lot of ignorance to look at here. You aren't the only source by any means, but you do offer particularly pure examples.

Found any facts I've got wrong yet?

The education system shares that responsibility. And effective welfare services can undo some of the damage caused by a bad choice of father. They can't do anything about the dubious genes, but at least they can help the mother to feed the kid properly.

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson does it again. Kangaroos have big claws on their hind legs, and they don't waste their time kicking their opponents - disemboweling is faster and more effective.

I am sure you're an expert of that fact by now.

Jamie

I watched the returns on the FNC internet stream. It was fun watching the wingnuts freak out in their twitter stream, and the Karl Rove meltdown was epic.

Rachel Maddow did a run down on how the GOP superpacs bought nothing with their investment, and then contrasted it with this superpac:

The American Bridge does opposition research like it was never done before. Nitpicking, anal retentive attention to detail. This PAC, unlike Rove's failed effort, didn't buy TV time. In fact, buying spots with obvious lies didn't help Romeny, plus a PAC has to pay the full retail cost of the spot. Politicians get the lowest buy rate.

In the final analysis, the Democrats were simply more efficient in spending their money. The GOP simply threw a plate of spaghetti at the wall and hoped something would stick.

We now have two elections where the Democrats grew their electorate, and the demographics of this base is young. In advertising, you establish your brand with the young and they will buy your product when they are older. This bodes well for the Democrats, while it hints at extinction for the GOP.

Note in California, where the population skews younger than other states, the Democrats have supermajorities in both houses, plus has the governorship. The Republicans might as well stay home.

If the GOP does one more election cycle with abortion as the theme, they will become irrelevant nationwide.

You know, it seems like the right-whiners are doing most of the knee-jerk dismissal of the entire content of reasonable and polite posts if they contain anything they disagree with, or even if they have just identified the poster as a "liberal" and thus incapable of making any statement of truth. In the last days of his failed campaign, I heard Romney whine about the Democrats' "campaign of hate", while he (and even more so, some of his more radical supporter), seemed to dish it out in industrial quantities.

If you study philosophy, or even care to think freely and logically, facts are really only strongly held beliefs, although some are supported more solidly than others. Ultimately, facts are grown from beliefs and theories on the basis of experimental evidence and statistical determination, and

there is always a certain amount of doubt and openness to conflicting opinion, among those who accept a scientific viewpoint with an open, but

critical, mind.

When people expose their obvious inner frustrations and hatred for ideas and opinions, and even fairly well-established facts, it shows their mental rigor mortis and defective powers of reason. When "inconvenient truths" threaten their comfortable way of life and established belief system, they react in a self-inflicted blind rage in an attempt to shield themselves from new information. If they must concede one millimeter and reduce their perceived comfort level, often based on greedy and materialistic measures, to give advantage to a larger segment of the population that may have been denied a fair shake because of their actions, they whine and show bitter

contempt and a childish display of temper. See Donald Trump's juvenile barrage of tweets during his temper tantrum after his beloved candidate reaped the just rewards of his ambivalence and folly.

Yet, as an engineer, I find it fascinating and amusing to push the sensitive buttons of the conservatives who seem to lack the perception and mental facility that they show in their engineering professions, when it comes to economics, sociology, government, and communication. It also appears lacking in scientific concepts such as global warming and the reality of diminishing natural resources which will necessitate a recalibration of our expectations and definition of wealth, prosperity, and happiness. It surely will NOT be the accumulation of more material possessions and money before we die.

Paul

I know many engineers... you're NO engineer. ...Jim Thompson

Jim quits.

He's in the right city. but seems to spoend most of his time here poting stuff that's on topic.

And from women. Now that was a surprise!

Too right! All the crap he had to subscribe to (pretending? who knows, I doubt that even Romney knows) in order to win the primary stuck to him like a pile of dogshit that he'd stepped in. He was unlucky of course, that his "47%" speech was released to the public. I'm sure that motivated quite a few voters to stay in the line for 4, 5,..8 hours or however long it took.

But let's not forget, it might have been Cain, or Bachmann, or Perry, or Santorum, or Gingrich (shudder).

Too right! All the crap he had to subscribe to (pretending? who knows, I doubt that even Romney knows) in order to win the primary stuck to him like a pile of dogshit that he'd stepped in. He was unlucky of course, that his "47%" speech was released to the public. I'm sure that motivated quite a few voters to stay in the line for 4, 5,..8 hours or however long it took.

But let's not forget, it might have been Cain, or Bachmann, or Perry, or Santorum, or Gingrich (shudder).

yourself.

You may be half-joking, but I suspect there's a lot of truth in that statement.

Noise over signal. There are techniques to counter that--repeating a slogan narrows the bandwidth and helps punch through noise--but Romney didn't do that.

Obama won on FUD, not substance. His substance is intolerance, division, financial repression, massive unemployment, cronyism.

James Arthur

Martin Luther King was a Republican.

Despite continuous b.s. to the contrary, that's the Democrats' emphasis, and that's what Obama's done the past four years. The current U-3 unemployment rate for black Americans is over 14%. Thanks Obama.

There you go again, with the idea that the road to prosperity lies in your neighbor's pocket rather than your own achievement. That's zero- sum thinking--if a fat man's fat, that's your proof that he stole a skinny man's food.

The real road up and out of poverty lies in finding a niche, producing for it, and reaping the reward. Obama's blocking that, in a huge way.

But, we're about to try your theory on yet a grander scale. It might even work for a decade or two of declining growth, climbing debt, and economic stagnation. Then we can all blame each other for not doing our fair share, Obama-style.

That's the falsehood the Democrats' leaders capitalize on. It's just another false narrative. Where Republicans err is in assuming such an outrageous accusation is so transparently stupid that it needs no response. They underestimate how a lie, repeated, becomes the truth.

James Arthur