John Simkin Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Can Mitt Romney win after the publication of this video? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/18/romney-secret-video-government-dependent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Why not? For the most part it is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-17/today-mitt-romney-lost-the-election.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Why not? For the most part it is true. The cliche that 'its not what you say but how you say it' applies in this case, While it's true almost half of American households don't pay taxes Romney portrayed them as freeloaders waiting for a handout and indicated he did not care about them. He conflated those who don't pay income tax with those who receive benefits when in fact many people do neither. Though he classified them all as Obama voters presumably some were planning on voting for him (Romney), in light of his comments that might well change. Am I correct in assuming you are a Romney voter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 http://www.bloomberg...e-election.html Though I'd like that to be the case I'm not so sure, some candidates have been sunk by stupid remarks others survived them. Obama for instance got elected despite insinuating Hilary voters were red necks, a good number of them must have voted for him or McCain would have been elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted September 19, 2012 Author Share Posted September 19, 2012 Why not? For the most part it is true. It might be different in the US but in the UK you could never win an election after slagging off 47% of the voters. It is probably true that about 30% of the electorate would never vote for your party, but never 47%. If that was the case, it would not be worth standing. One of the things we know about elections in recent years is the importance of the "floating voter" that is often close to 40% of the electorate. It is actually 46% of the US population that do not pay income-tax. However, that includes a large number of retirees, students and members of the military not paying income-tax. Is he really not interested in these people like he said in the video? ("My job is not to worry about these people.") Yet, he did not correct these comments following the release of the video. As Obama pointed out yesterday, he was "the president of all the people, not just those who voted for him". His comments about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is factually incorrect and will make it impossible to be a peace-broker in the region. That probably makes no difference to most of the US electorate but it does mean a lot to the international community. It would seem that Romney is no better informed about foreign policy than Bush. It reminds me of an incident that took place many years ago. I found an article written by Keith Joseph, a Conservative politician, in his youth, saying the the role of the party was to help the rich to stay rich. He was a government minister at the time. When he asked for questions I read out part of the article and asked him if he still believed this. He looked around him to see if the press was present than said: "yes, everyword of it". Of course, this was a time before the video phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Why not? For the most part it is true. It might be different in the US but in the UK you could never win an election after slagging off 47% of the voters. It is probably true that about 30% of the electorate would never vote for your party, but never 47%. If that was the case, it would not be worth standing. One of the things we know about elections in recent years is the importance of the "floating voter" that is often close to 40% of the electorate. It is actually 46% of the US population that do not pay income-tax. However, that includes a large number of retirees, students and members of the military not paying income-tax. Is he really not interested in these people like he said in the video? ("My job is not to worry about these people.") Yet, he did not correct these comments following the release of the video. As Obama pointed out yesterday, he was "the president of all the people, not just those who voted for him". His comments about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is factually incorrect and will make it impossible to be a peace-broker in the region. That probably makes no difference to most of the US electorate but it does mean a lot to the international community. It would seem that Romney is no better informed about foreign policy than Bush. It reminds me of an incident that took place many years ago. I found an article written by Keith Joseph, a Conservative politician, in his youth, saying the the role of the party was to help the rich to stay rich. He was a government minister at the time. When he asked for questions I read out part of the article and asked him if he still believed this. He looked around him to see if the press was present than said: "yes, everyword of it". Of course, this was a time before the video phone. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of that 47% don't pay attention to politics or news and most of them won't vote anyway. Turnout even for presidential elections is usually depressingly low. Edited September 19, 2012 by Matthew Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now