The Goat Pen

At what point did it ever matter?

There are some Democrats who have integrity, too...You just have to wait until they get out of office.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/0 ... f=politics

Professor Tiger wrote:At this point, what does it matter?

It makes no difference that you botch that quote every time.

Filled up the tank at Krogers this a.m. - $2.97/gallon. thanks be to His Excellency, BHO

Later went to the polls and voted for establishment repubs over the taliban/tea party challengers.

The hammer came down on West Virginia's Freedom Industries last month, the folks who contaminated the drinking water of 300,000 local residents last January. OSHA dealt out two fines to the company...one for $7000, the other for $4000.

that'll teach'em

Shouldn't DHS be handling that instead of OSHA?

Reports coming in today that Ukraine has managed to completely surround Donetsk. Cut off the last road between it and Luhansk yesterday

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/09 ... d-donetsk/

Tsar Putin will not let his puppets be killed or captured.

bluetick wrote:Later went to the polls and voted for establishment repubs over the taliban/tea party challengers.

I don't think a single tea party candidate has beaten an establishment candidate in recent round of primaries. So please explain again how the tea party owns the GOP?

Professor Tiger wrote:Tsar Putin will not let his puppets be killed or captured.

From reports it sounds like the Russians who've been leading this "spontaneous, indigenous revolt" are getting out of Dodge while the getting's good. Tsar Putin is going to leave the East Ukrainians out to dry.

Now that they're surrounded, the rebels say that hey, uh, we're open to the idea of a ceasefire guys. The Russians have volunteered to drive much needed "humanitarian relief" to us, so uh, let them through, okay?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... r-24912736

Professor Tiger wrote:

bluetick wrote:Later went to the polls and voted for establishment repubs over the taliban/tea party challengers.

I don't think a single tea party candidate has beaten an establishment candidate in recent round of primaries. So please explain again how the tea party owns the GOP?

Basically, what it boils down to is IF the GOP establishment candidate has no problem with needless spending or IF the GOP establishment candidate has no problem with Comprehensive Immigration Reform (like Eric Cantor) then he or she LOSES their primary race with the Tea Party. Otherwise, the Tea Party loses.

I think the Establishment candidate wins the primary 90% of the time. The Establishment is where the money is, and the money usually wins. If the Country Clubber ever gets in serious trouble, the floodgate of Establishment cash is released, turns into negative campaign ads against the Tea Partier who can't compete, those ads usually work, and the game is over. That's the Romney primary campaign in a nutshell.

Country Clubber? Railing against folks with money?

Getting tired of the tea baggers promoting class warfare

The Establishment is where the money is, and the money usually wins. If the Country Clubber ever gets in serious trouble, the floodgate of Establishment cash is released, turns into negative campaign ads against the Tea Partier who can't compete, those ads usually work, and the game is over. That's the Romney primary campaign in a nutshell.

Tiger you don't know what the hell you are talking about...

Romney WON the GOP nomination in 2012 and he put a serious challenge to the "establishment candidate" in 2008. Romney got more electoral votes in the general election than ANY GOP candidate would have gotten. He only lost the election because of Demographics, the same Demographics that says ANY candidate the GOP runs in 2012 loses, the same Demographics that guarantees that Hillary wins in 2016.

We are already f-cked. Its over. The only way Hillary loses is rightfully denying women (well, deny all people who are NOT property owners) the right to vote. Revoke that right, make it a privlege for only those who are home owners. Those who live in the safety net of the welfare state, they shouldn't be allowed anywhere NEAR the polls as they will ONLY vote for their own continued subsidy at the expense of those who pay the taxes.

If you kill yourself, I will cheerfully subsidize your funeral...

Romney was the quintessential country clubber. His sudden embrace of conservatism just in time to run for president convinced no one. Every time he was seriously challenged in a primary by a plausible (i.e. real) conservative (i.e. Newt, Cain), he used his huge cash advantage to destroy them on the airwaves. That's a fair and square part of the process, but that's what happened.

And the reason Romney lost in the general is few conservatives believed he was one of them, so the GOP base did not turn out to vote for him. He got less votes than did W and McCain, who faced nearly the same demographic landscape. That is the consensus of nearly every serious conservative-leaning analysis. E.g:

http://www.redstate.com/diary/griffinel ... ng-voters/

http://spectator.org/articles/34451/mccain-beats-romney

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013 ... omney-lost

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 106-2.html

etc, etc, etc.

The lesson to be learned should be, if you give voters the choice between a liberal and a liberal-lite (Romney, McCain, Dole), they will vote for the liberal every time.

Romney couldn't get past the Polo Shirt group. He never had a chance.

Professor Tiger wrote:Romney was the quintessential country clubber. His sudden embrace of conservatism just in time to run for president convinced no one. Every time he was seriously challenged in a primary by a plausible (i.e. real) conservative (i.e. Newt, Cain), he used his huge cash advantage to destroy them on the airwaves. That's a fair and square part of the process, but that's what happened.

And the reason Romney lost in the general is few conservatives believed he was one of them, so the GOP base did not turn out to vote for him. He got less votes than did W and McCain, who faced nearly the same demographic landscape. That is the consensus of nearly every serious conservative-leaning analysis. E.g:

http://www.redstate.com/diary/griffinel ... ng-voters/

http://spectator.org/articles/34451/mccain-beats-romney

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013 ... omney-lost

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 106-2.html

etc, etc, etc.

The lesson to be learned should be, if you give voters the choice between a liberal and a liberal-lite (Romney, McCain, Dole), they will vote for the liberal every time.

I read all four of those articles. I somehow wish I hadn't (since none of them addressed the point I addressed with you and will address again) but I read them. Let me repeat what I said earlier...

me wrote:Romney got more electoral votes in the general election than ANY GOP candidate would have gotten. He only lost the election because of Demographics, the same Demographics that says ANY candidate the GOP runs in 2012 loses....

That is it. That is all it is Tiger, no BS. Those articles showed nice math and numbers but not ONE OF THEM explained how ANY of the OTHER GOP candidates (running against Romney in 2012) beats President Obama. None of them. And that is the whole point...

...the same point you keep missing. NONE OF THEM beat Obama, Romney got closer than any of them.

Forget Bush 43 and McCain and their numbers. Forget them. Those data points mean absolutely NOTHING with regards to the 2012 election. You know why you must forget them...?

Because neither Bush 43 nor John McCain ran campaigns against a sitting Democrat President. The only one to ever do that (and win) was Reagan. The only GOP candidate that ever got as close as Reagan (in electoral votes) against a sitting Democrat President, was Romney.

Unless you want to give me the name of ONE GOP CANDIDATE (in 2012) that beats Obama (and why) and you are able to show me the math that can prove it, F everything else you have to say. And before you fly off the handle with your stupid reply (and REFUSE to answer any of my questions.... again... because you KNOW that my point is unassailable) I'd like to direct you to the one post on the Brietbart link that pretty much sums up my frustration with people like you....

Republicans and conservatives have themselves to blame for their own stupidity. Democrats support their candidates no matter how bad they are, as you've seen during the impeachment of Clinton. I am sure if he was a Republican president, Conservatives would have crucified him. Fact is Conservatives don't support their candidates! They destroyed every chance Republican had by refusing to support Romney up to the last few months. They refused to vote for Romney who is far better than Obama, then blamed him for betraying them? How stupid is that? This is the most ridiculous analysis I've seen in years!

all the people that didn't turn out to vote, its just PRIDE on their part. They weren't going to vote for ANY of these GOP guys, none of them. Don't blame Romney.

Jungle Rat wrote:Romney couldn't get past the Polo Shirt group. He never had a chance.

It may be true that he never had a chance. But that has nothing to do with the point I made, the point Tiger refuses to address. He just keeps reframing the argument.

I'm not surprised since he has to reframe God's will and God's Law to accomidate feminism. I guess that is what they do in the Orthodox church.

Unless you want to give me the name of ONE GOP CANDIDATE (in 2012) that beats Obama (and why) and you are able to show me the math that can prove it, F everything else you have to say. And before you fly off the handle with your stupid reply (and REFUSE to answer any of my questions.... again... because you KNOW that my point is unassailable)

Your point is easily assailable, and with the math you requested. ANY GOP candidate that was convincingly conservative (which Romney wasn't), and would have therefore turned out the conservative base (which Romney failed to do) would have won 2012.

Here are facts and some numbers from the aforementioned articles:

In 2012, Obama got 60 million votes. Romney got about 57 million votes. If Romney got 3 million more votes (and in the right electoral college places), he would have won.

In 2008, McCain got about 59 million votes, while Obama got about 69 million votes - 9 million MORE than in 2012.

The math says that, if everyone who had voted for McCain had also voted for Romney, Romney would have come a LOT closer to beating Obama in the popular vote. Might have even beaten him in the Electoral College a la Bush vs. Gore. But Romney was unable to convince 2.5 McCain voters to vote for him. That should have been very easy for him to do, and it was a huge failure on Romney's part that he didn't. To be charitable, Romney did the best he could trying to woo conservatives with such a wildly liberal governing record. Any convincing GOP candidate, like Newt or Cain, not saddled with such a liberal governing record and dubious conversion testimonies, would have attracted the millions of base voters that Romney could not.

As to your argument that "Nobody" can beat a sitting president, I point out that Obama got 9 million FEWER votes in 2012 than in 2008. The math you asked for says that incumbancy made Obama 9 million votes weaker, not stronger. He was much easier pickings for a GOP challenger in 2012 than he was in 2008. But Romney unable to take advantage of a severely weakened incumbent.

To your argument that a Romney victory was impossible given the demographics, I point out that the demographic landscape Romney faced in 2012 was only microscopically different than the one faced by the previous RINO loser McCain. The percentage of young, black, female, gay and Latino voters did not skyrocket, and the number of old white Southern male voters did not plummet, in 4 short years since 2008. The GOP's demographic problem is very real and may someday be fatal, but it is also slow. Romney was not crushed by a fast-moving deadly glacier that ran him down from behind any more than McCain was.

Consider your arguments logically assailed and mathematically nuked.