GameOver22 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
GameOver22 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
ECM said:
Soleron said:
Can someone who voted Romney in the poll seriously explain why they did so? |
Yes, in very simple terms: nobody would re-hire someone for a contract job that didn't actually manage to fulfill the terms of his contract.*
And no, I don't care about the excuses just like i wouldn't care about them from someone I paid to do my roof--you either get the job done, or you don't. If you don't, don't expect me to hire you for more work.
The end.
P.S. If I have to explain it any better than that, you're not listening or, more likely, don't want to listen.
*Except those blinded by ideology.
|
Obama was never qualified for the job. I don't even understand what gave him the idea he could actually win before he made the decision to do so... but he did through abiguity and charisma which should have never been enough. In your terms voting for Obama was like hiring an nieghboorhood handyman to redo your roof.
|
That's an incredibly oversimplistic reason for why Obama won. Yeah, his charisma helped, but it doesn't change the fact that both 2006 and 2008 were poor years to run as a Republican because of negative evaluation of the Republican party and Bush administration (primarily on the Iraq War and economy). This is why you saw McCain trying to distance himself from Bush, as well as from the Republicans (think about the "maverick" line).
If you want to criticize ambiguity, Republican candidates are almost always more ambiguous. They tend to run on more abstract/general ideas (smaller government) while Democrats tend to run on more specific policies (reforming healthcare). Just as a note, this isn't because one party is objectively better than another, it has to do with how the public understands liberalism and conservatism. You've probably heard the line that people want to decrease spending/taxes, but they also consistently support more government spending on specific programs. Dems and Reps. just empasize different aspects of this paradox.
|
You seem to have added a qualification in my post that wasn't there... You speak about Obama vs McCain but in order for that to have been a possibility certain events had to happen before... ones that have no involvement of the Republican party
|
Huh? I think your reading too much into my post. I was just arguing that Obama did not win solely because of his charisma and ambiguity. There are much more prominent things at work when looking at election results, whether at the primary or general election level.
|
But you isolated the presidential election. I was talking about the whole process for Obama. Including being named the Democratic nominee. You say there were more prominent things at work but only list the republican party's image... How did he win the nomination? None of those people were republicans. What made him stand out from the rest was his charisma
