|
Celtics4ever
|
 |
« Reply #150 on: November 09, 2012, 12:56:17 PM » |
|
I think the GOP does need to change to broaden the party. In that sense, they are in trouble and in denial. Blaming this election on a storm makes no sense. If that were the case the storm was an act of God and he wanted Obama elected with that logic. I don't think many would endorse that thought with that in mind. GOP lost because they alienated a lot of people in their primary process and some of their candidates declared a war on woman with stupid comments on rape.
However, it is a pattern of US history that once a party gets in power that they overstep that power and pay the next cycle. Nancy Pelosi was really guilty of this prior to the 2010 election and it cost them the house.
Their are some people clearly in denial over this election. It wasn't a crushing victory in terms of popular vote but electorally it certainly was a big win. The House was safe from the beginning but ask Michelle Bachmann if she now feels safe, she won but only barely with a heavily gerrymandered district. The Senate was up for grabs but some nutjobs with medieval views on rape killed any chances of that happening. Now we have people stating that Obama suppressed the vote with negative adds. Both sides did that as I see it and they did it to Kerry in 2004. They also blame this on an act of God.
I think Karl Rove is going nuts because he depends on big donors and he didn't get results. He took their money, lied saying he could deliver the goods and didn't. He was guilty of lot of attack adds and poll manipulation. He really had a meltdown. Is it just me or does he look like Porky Pig...
|
|
|
|
|
 Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
BballTim
|
|
« Reply #151 on: November 09, 2012, 02:42:45 PM » |
|
The democrats are obviously no different when they lose. I still remember Lloyd Bentson saying that they still had a chance in Texas (a state they lost by double digits) because the polls were still open in the western edge of the state.
I guess that word means different things to different people. It's much less defensible to be so wrong these days, when it's so easy to be right because of the accuracy of the available data. While Rove was foaming at the mouth, I remember Chuck Todd very patiently explaining why NBC called Ohio when they did.
Rove wasn't foaming at the mouth. All he was saying was that, while he didn't have access to the amount of data that the guys making the call had, he thought that it was still possible for Romney to win. |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
Cman
|
|
« Reply #152 on: November 09, 2012, 02:57:46 PM » |
|
The democrats are obviously no different when they lose. I still remember Lloyd Bentson saying that they still had a chance in Texas (a state they lost by double digits) because the polls were still open in the western edge of the state.
I guess that word means different things to different people. It's much less defensible to be so wrong these days, when it's so easy to be right because of the accuracy of the available data. While Rove was foaming at the mouth, I remember Chuck Todd very patiently explaining why NBC called Ohio when they did.
Rove wasn't foaming at the mouth. All he was saying was that, while he didn't have access to the amount of data that the guys making the call had, he thought that it was still possible for Romney to win.
I agree, he didn't have quite the meltdown that people are making it out to be. But Fox gave him too much airtime to spin, spin, spin. What they should have done was what NBC did -- explain why they were making the call (which they eventually did). |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
Celtics fan for life.
|
|
|
|
Cman
|
|
« Reply #153 on: November 09, 2012, 03:01:46 PM » |
|
While we're on Karl Rove, let's hear from the realDonaldTrump:
Congrats to @KarlRove on blowing $400 million this cycle. Every race @CrossroadsGPS ran ads in, the Republicans lost. What a waste of money. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266283107014025216 |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
Celtics fan for life.
|
|
|
|
fairweatherfan
|
|
« Reply #154 on: November 09, 2012, 03:04:30 PM » |
|
The democrats are obviously no different when they lose. I still remember Lloyd Bentson saying that they still had a chance in Texas (a state they lost by double digits) because the polls were still open in the western edge of the state.
I guess that word means different things to different people. It's much less defensible to be so wrong these days, when it's so easy to be right because of the accuracy of the available data. While Rove was foaming at the mouth, I remember Chuck Todd very patiently explaining why NBC called Ohio when they did.
Rove wasn't foaming at the mouth. All he was saying was that, while he didn't have access to the amount of data that the guys making the call had, he thought that it was still possible for Romney to win.
I agree, he didn't have quite the meltdown that people are making it out to be.
But Fox gave him too much airtime to spin, spin, spin. What they should have done was what NBC did -- explain why they were making the call (which they eventually did).
Yeah, I didn't get that either. Rove was in full "campaign manager" mode, and probably sweating quite a bit over the failures of his SuperPAC, but the gist of his argument was "it doesn't seem impossible for Romney to win, so it's too soon to call". His point wasn't very strong since several states had already been called for the candidate who was actually behind in the certified votes, but it wasn't some ludicrous unhinged rant or anything. I think a lot of people just wanted to laugh at him so it's been made into something it wasn't. |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
Donoghus
|
|
« Reply #155 on: November 09, 2012, 03:09:00 PM » |
|
The democrats are obviously no different when they lose. I still remember Lloyd Bentson saying that they still had a chance in Texas (a state they lost by double digits) because the polls were still open in the western edge of the state.
I guess that word means different things to different people. It's much less defensible to be so wrong these days, when it's so easy to be right because of the accuracy of the available data. While Rove was foaming at the mouth, I remember Chuck Todd very patiently explaining why NBC called Ohio when they did.
Rove wasn't foaming at the mouth. All he was saying was that, while he didn't have access to the amount of data that the guys making the call had, he thought that it was still possible for Romney to win.
I agree, he didn't have quite the meltdown that people are making it out to be.
But Fox gave him too much airtime to spin, spin, spin. What they should have done was what NBC did -- explain why they were making the call (which they eventually did).
Yeah, I didn't get that either. Rove was in full "campaign manager" mode, and probably sweating quite a bit over the failures of his SuperPAC, but the gist of his argument was "it doesn't seem impossible for Romney to win, so it's too soon to call".
His point wasn't very strong since several states had already been called for the candidate who was actually behind in the certified votes, but it wasn't some ludicrous unhinged rant or anything. I think a lot of people just wanted to laugh at him so it's been made into something it wasn't.
It was more due to FOX exploiting the situation and attempt to create some compelling television by creating the drama there. It really wasn't a meltdown by Rove but still some great television to watch. Sucked me in. |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
 '13 CB Historical Draft Milwaukee Bucks PG- Norm Nixon SG- David Thompson SF- James Worthy PF- Terry Cummings, Rick Mahorn C- Moses Malone Bench- Coach- |
|
|
|
nickagneta
|
|
« Reply #156 on: November 09, 2012, 03:12:01 PM » |
|
The democrats are obviously no different when they lose. I still remember Lloyd Bentson saying that they still had a chance in Texas (a state they lost by double digits) because the polls were still open in the western edge of the state.
I guess that word means different things to different people. It's much less defensible to be so wrong these days, when it's so easy to be right because of the accuracy of the available data. While Rove was foaming at the mouth, I remember Chuck Todd very patiently explaining why NBC called Ohio when they did.
Rove wasn't foaming at the mouth. All he was saying was that, while he didn't have access to the amount of data that the guys making the call had, he thought that it was still possible for Romney to win.
I agree, he didn't have quite the meltdown that people are making it out to be.
But Fox gave him too much airtime to spin, spin, spin. What they should have done was what NBC did -- explain why they were making the call (which they eventually did).
Yeah, I didn't get that either. Rove was in full "campaign manager" mode, and probably sweating quite a bit over the failures of his SuperPAC, but the gist of his argument was "it doesn't seem impossible for Romney to win, so it's too soon to call".
His point wasn't very strong since several states had already been called for the candidate who was actually behind in the certified votes, but it wasn't some ludicrous unhinged rant or anything. I think a lot of people just wanted to laugh at him so it's been made into something it wasn't.
Jon Stewart was sill able to twist it into one of the more hilarious Daily Shows in a long time without to much help though. The mathematics that Republicans do to make themselves feel better line was priceless. Yeah, but I agree, he didn't blow a gasket. But he wasn't being a good, dignified loser either. |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
Interceptor
Paul Pierce 
Tommy Points: 190
 OfflinePosts: 1604
|
|
« Reply #157 on: November 09, 2012, 03:13:23 PM » |
|
Rove wasn't foaming at the mouth. All he was saying was that, while he didn't have access to the amount of data that the guys making the call had, he thought that it was still possible for Romney to win.
That was overstating it a bit, but the man was still flustered, and he was fighting against better analysis by the seat of his pants. He seemed to have plenty of data. It's less defensible these days than it used to be. |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
Cman
|
|
« Reply #158 on: November 09, 2012, 03:19:17 PM » |
|
Rove wasn't foaming at the mouth. All he was saying was that, while he didn't have access to the amount of data that the guys making the call had, he thought that it was still possible for Romney to win.
That was overstating it a bit, but the man was still flustered, and he was fighting against better analysis by the seat of his pants. He seemed to have plenty of data. It's less defensible these days than it used to be.
I guess the lesson is, it is tough when your data is telling you that you just wasted $400M... |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
Celtics fan for life.
|
|
|
|
fairweatherfan
|
|
« Reply #159 on: November 09, 2012, 03:21:01 PM » |
|
Yeah, I didn't get that either. Rove was in full "campaign manager" mode, and probably sweating quite a bit over the failures of his SuperPAC, but the gist of his argument was "it doesn't seem impossible for Romney to win, so it's too soon to call".
His point wasn't very strong since several states had already been called for the candidate who was actually behind in the certified votes, but it wasn't some ludicrous unhinged rant or anything. I think a lot of people just wanted to laugh at him so it's been made into something it wasn't.
It was more due to FOX exploiting the situation and attempt to create some compelling television by creating the drama there. It really wasn't a meltdown by Rove but still some great television to watch. Sucked me in.
Full disclosure: I was watching it live as it happened (blame schadenfreunde and alcohol) with a voting returns map of Ohio on my iPad. Even I could quickly check his county-by-county numbers and see they didn't add up - way too many Cuyahoga votes outstanding. He was grasping at straws more than coming unglued, but it certainly gave them something to talk about for awhile. |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
Brendan
|
|
« Reply #160 on: November 09, 2012, 08:30:25 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LB3533
|
|
« Reply #162 on: November 10, 2012, 11:34:31 AM » |
|
We need a brand new federal govn't. The only way to do this is to not vote ever again.
Abolish all the branches of the federal gov't....it's the only way.
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
InfiniteMH
Jeff Green
Tommy Points: 17
OfflinePosts: 127
|
|
« Reply #163 on: November 10, 2012, 11:39:24 AM » |
|
We need a brand new federal govn't. The only way to do this is to not vote ever again.
Abolish all the branches of the federal gov't....it's the only way.
 |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
IndeedProceed
|
|
« Reply #164 on: November 10, 2012, 10:14:57 PM » |
|
Tweeter isn't gonna touch that with a 10 ft pole.
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here
|
|
|
|
|
Other Discussions
