Conquer Club

Bloomberg summarises:

On the tape, Romney explains that his electoral strategy involves writing off nearly half the country as unmoveable Obama voters. As Romney explains, 47 percent of Americans "believe that they are victims." He laments: "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

So what's the upshot? "My job is not to worry about those people," he says. He also notes, describing President Obama's base, "These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax."

This is an utter disaster for Romney.

Reactions:

Daily Telegraph wrote:When was the last time a president fighting for re-election was handed such a gift? Remind me, someone: how did the GOP end up with this idiot as their candidate?

From Andrew Sullivan:

Did Romney Just Lose the election?



The Guardian is going with:

Mitt Romney stands by gaffe but says case not 'elegantly stated'

NYTimes:

Romney Calls 47% of Voters Dependent in Leaked Video

Haaretz is going with:

Romney in leaked video: Obama supporters feel entitled to gov't support

In clip showing Republican candidate addressing wealthy donors, Romney says 47% of Americans pay no income tax, believe 'they are victims.'

Republican nominee Mitt Romney confronted a new headache Monday after a video surfaced showing him telling wealthy donors that almost half of Americans “believe they are victims” entitled to extensive government support. He said that as a candidate for the White House, “my job is not to worry about those people.”

At a hastily called news conference late in the day, Romney offered no apologies for his remarks and when asked if he was concerned he had offended anyone, he conceded the comments weren’t “elegantly stated” and they were spoken “off the cuff.”

Fox News has this:

The Obama campaign on Monday criticized Mitt Romney for saying in a video clip that almost half of U.S. voters "believe that they are victims."
“It’s hard to serve as president for all Americans when you've disdainfully written off half the nation," said Jim Messina, campaign manager for Obama for America.

The Washington Post notes:

In the video, Romney is seen speaking at a May 17 fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla., at the home of Marc Leder, a private equity manager, according to the Mother Jones article.

“There are 47 percent who are with him,” Romney said of Obama, “who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. These are people who pay no income tax.”

He said that his job “is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Le Monde is running his response on their front page:

Sur des vidéos diffusées lundi, le candidat républicain qualifie la moitié des Américains d'"assistés".

He just keeps fucking up, doesn't he?

Sure, there is some truth to what he says. A lot of people will vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, a lot of people will vote for Republican candidates no matter what. A lot of people live in districts that lean strongly towards the democratic or strongly towards the republican party, if one lives in such a district and disagrees with the majority of voters in that district there's not much incentive to vote. The people who need to be convinced are the ones who live in places that don't lean strongly towards either major party and might go either way.

A republican presidential candidate saying that people who vote democratic are dependent on the state, don't pay income tax, and don't take responsibility for their own lives is a great way to rally the democratic voter base and raise turnout in swing districts. It really is amazing how Romney manages to nail that coffin shut while being inside of it.
Maybe he's a plant. The democratic party infiltrated the republican party and placed Romney there so he would purposely lose to Obama.

MeDeFe wrote:He just keeps fucking up, doesn't he?

Sure, there is some truth to what he says. A lot of people will vote for Democratic candidates no matter what, a lot of people will vote for Republican candidates no matter what. A lot of people live in districts that lean strongly towards the democratic or strongly towards the republican party, if one lives in such a district and disagrees with the majority of voters in that district there's not much incentive to vote. The people who need to be convinced are the ones who live in places that don't lean strongly towards either major party and might go either way.

A republican presidential candidate saying that people who vote democratic are dependent on the state, don't pay income tax, and don't take responsibility for their own lives is a great way to rally the democratic voter base and raise turnout in swing districts. It really is amazing how Romney manages to nail that coffin shut while being inside of it.
Maybe he's a plant. The democratic party infiltrated the republican party and placed Romney there so he would purposely lose to Obama.

Fair point, MeDeFe, although I think generosity only goes so far. It looks like there is worse to come on this from Romney.

Romney has been vigorously denying President Obama's claims that his tax plan would raise taxes on the middle class. Now, he's been caught on video suggesting that low- and middle-income Americans are undertaxed. (That one is especially problematic given the speculation about what's on Mitt's unreleased pre-2010 tax returns.)

Corn tells us there are more embarrassing moments on segments of the video he hasn't released yet.

Romney jokes that he'd be more likely to win the election if he were Hispanic. He makes some awkward comments about whether he was born with a "silver spoon" in his mouth.But those are survivable. The really disastrous thing is the clip about "victims," and the combination of contempt and pity that Romney shows for anyone who isn't going to vote for him.

Romney is the most opaque presidential nominee since Nixon, and people have been reduced to guessing what his true feelings are. This video provides an answer: He feels that you're a loser. It's not an answer that wins elections.

From the Boomberg article: Today, Mitt Romney Lost the Election by Josh Barro.

... I do not understand how this can be construed as a failure. He is absolutely right.

...

Nobunaga wrote:... I do not understand how this can be construed as a failure. He is absolutely right.

...

Given the fact that he just said 148 million Americans are welfare losers, when there are at best about 35 million Americans collecting some form of welfare, I'll hazard a guess that there are roughly 113 million reasons why he's not "absolutely" right.

If I was one of those people who works dawn to dusk, juggling three different minimum wage jobs because companies owned by playboy millionaires are structured so as to maximize the number of part-time employees while minimizing the number of full-time employees, and now one of those millionaire playboys tried to paint me as some kind of parasite, I wager I'd be annoyed.

Dukasaur wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... I do not understand how this can be construed as a failure. He is absolutely right.

...

Given the fact that he just said 148 million Americans are welfare losers, when there are at best about 35 million Americans collecting some form of welfare, I'll hazard a guess that there are roughly 113 million reasons why he's not "absolutely" right.

If I was one of those people who works dawn to dusk, juggling three different minimum wage jobs because companies owned by playboy millionaires are structured so as to maximize the number of part-time employees while minimizing the number of full-time employees, and now one of those millionaire playboys tried to paint me as some kind of parasite, I wager I'd be annoyed.

Actually, depending on how you define welfare, a lot of Romney supporters are also on government welfare.

In any event, I largely agree with MeDeFe. I think Democratic voters will be emboldened to vote (that might not be the right phrase) because of these statements. I also think it's true that 47% of the people in the country would not have voted for Mittens had he not made this statement. I also think more moderates will vote for Obama, although probably not many more than would have voted for him prior to this statement (if that makes sense).

So basically, I think there are two consequences of the release of this video:

(1) More Democrats go out to vote. I think this will have the biggest impact.
(2) More moderators will vote for Obama. I do not think this will have a great impact.

I'm not sure it's an "utter disaster." But I probably don't think that partially because I think the president (Obama) was going to win before this video was released.

Also, fun times reading the different takes in the articles.

Nobunaga wrote:... I do not understand how this can be construed as a failure. He is absolutely right.

...

No he's not. I am part of that 47% that pay no (federal) income tax. I assume he only meant federal, not state.

I pay state income tax (at the effective rate of 3.38% for 2011)
I pay state and local tax (8 to 8.5%) on everything I buy. Alabama has almost no exemptions, including food and clothing. The only thing I know that is not taxed is prescription medicine.
I pay property tax on my house and vehicles.

I receive no government assistance in the form of food, housing, or health care.

Just because I pay no income tax doesn't mean I am dependent on the government for anything.

[quote="Symmetry"



[/quote]

What's sad is that most of the bible belt will vote for Romney (because he is white and Republican). He can say anything and it won't matter, he's not Satan (unlike Obama).

Ace Rimmer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

What's sad is that most of the bible belt will vote for Romney (because he is white and Republican). He can say anything and it won't matter, he's not Satan (unlike Obama).

I don't understand how this map provides any conclusions as to who is voting for whom.

If 39% of the people in Florida don't pay income taxes, and 52% of Floridians vote for Romney, how does that mean the people who don't pay income taxes are voting for Romney? If 100% of Floridians voted and 100% of Floridians voted for Romney, you could say that 39% of the people in Florida voted for a guy that just insulted them. But the data doesn't show that.

Whatever do you mean, TGD?

Based on the following map, Mittens will take the Median Voter by storm!

Only in the Obama-mania media is the opponent telling the truth a scandal. The important thing about those comments was that Romney decided to focus his campaign on winning independents (the only "important" segment in the 2008 election) instead of Obama voters. And his comments about tax cuts are absolutely true: the message of cutting taxes will not resonate with most of the 47% who don't pay any federal income taxes. Why should he waste campaign time and money on a segment of the population where the vast majority will not vote for him? If Obama had said he wasn't going to spend his campaign time on pro-life, white men, it would have been the exact same type of statement (except for the race card thrown in). And we know the media wouldn't have turned that into a scandal.

I don't think these statement really change much of anything. Scandal? Hardly, I think whatever side you were voting for you had a feeling this is how Romney feels.
I think those that are already voting for Romney feel the same way that he does. The only question is: Do those who are in the middle side with this statement?

Nobunaga wrote:... I do not understand how this can be construed as a failure. He is absolutely right.

I'm hoping Mitt is absolutely right. If it's accurate that 47% of American's are pro-Obama by default, then a mere 7% of taxpayers must side with the president in order to give him a nation-wide majority. I'm one of the 53-percenters and I'll be voting to re-elect the president. I'm quite certain far more than 7% of taxpayers would agree.

MudPuppy wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:... I do not understand how this can be construed as a failure. He is absolutely right.

I'm hoping Mitt is absolutely right. If it's accurate that 47% of American's are pro-Obama by default, then a mere 7% of taxpayers must side with the president in order to give him a nation-wide majority. I'm one of the 53-percenters and I'll be voting to re-elect the president. I'm quite certain far more than 7% of taxpayers would agree.

And why will you be voting for Obama?

Night Strike wrote:And why will you be voting for Obama?

Many reasons. In general, I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. President Obama wins hands down on the first point. Republicans, once upon a time, used to win the second point. Now they just seem greedy... wanting to keep all they can while they abandon the government and make no attempts to pay down the deficit. I'd at least have some respect for them if they wanted to trim the government in order to pay down our debt... but they are no longer fiscally responsible... they're just looking to slash government in order to pocket money at a time when they need to make sacrifices for the betterment of the country.

MudPuppy wrote:

Night Strike wrote:And why will you be voting for Obama?

Many reasons. In general, I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. President Obama wins hands down on the first point. Republicans, once upon a time, used to win the second point. Now they just seem greedy... wanting to keep all they can while they abandon the government and make no attempts to pay down the deficit. I'd at least have some respect for them if they wanted to trim the government in order to pay down our debt... but they are no longer fiscally responsible... they're just looking to slash government in order to pocket money at a time when they need to make sacrifices for the betterment of the country.

Two questions:

(1) Why does President Obama win on the socially liberal front? Has he done something in his first administration that leads you to believe he is socially liberal?
(2) Have you considered voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson? If not, why not?

thegreekdog wrote:Two questions:

(1) Why does President Obama win on the socially liberal front? Has he done something in his first administration that leads you to believe he is socially liberal?
(2) Have you considered voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson? If not, why not?

1) Are you suggesting that Mitt Romney is more of a social liberal than the president??? I view Obama as supportive of social programs like healthcare/Medicare, Social Security, and education (student loans) while Mitt Romney prefers to cut spending on these programs in order to accomodate lower taxes. I also view the president as more supportive of women's right to choose and more tolerant toward non-traditional marriage. It's clear that social program reforms are needed and tough decisions must be made about which specific benefits we can afford to keep, etc. but I have little trust that Romney will attempt meaningful reform and will instead just raid the coffer.

2) While the little I know about them intrigues me, I honestly haven't put in the time to research their platforms in depth because we are unfortunately stuck in a two-party system for the time being and they are both unelectable. I truly hope that changes one day. I did vote for the guy with the ears back in the day in hopes we could get some independent/third pary action going in this country but right now it's a two horse race and I can't afford to place my bet on a nag (no offense, Jill).

Night Strike wrote:Only in the Obama-mania media is the opponent telling the truth a scandal.

Except he didn't. You seem to have overlooked that minor detail.

MudPuppy wrote:2) While the little I know about them intrigues me, I honestly haven't put in the time to research their platforms in depth because we are unfortunately stuck in a two-party system for the time being and they are both unelectable. I truly hope that changes one day. I did vote for the guy with the ears back in the day in hopes we could get some independent/third pary action going in this country but right now it's a two horse race and I can't afford to place my bet on a nag (no offense, Jill).

You say that you'd like this country to get out of the two-party system, yet you don't want to take the sort of action that could lead to such an occurrence. I would suggest that you wouldn't "like the country to get out of the two-party system" very much.

Getting 5% of the vote to either Stein or Johnson (or heaven help me, both!) would be a big step forward.

Woodruff wrote:You say that you'd like this country to get out of the two-party system, yet you don't want to take the sort of action that could lead to such an occurrence. I would suggest that you wouldn't "like the country to get out of the two-party system" very much.

Getting 5% of the vote to either Stein or Johnson (or heaven help me, both!) would be a big step forward.

I would like to get out of it... hence my vote for the guy with the ears. However, I can't afford to "waste" a vote on either Stein or Johnson in this particular election since that would effectively do little besides open the door ever so wider for Mitt to walk through. I'm supportive of their efforts... I'm just choosing what I perceive as the greater of two goods this time around.

MudPuppy wrote:1) Are you suggesting that Mitt Romney is more of a social liberal than the president??? I view Obama as supportive of social programs like healthcare/Medicare, Social Security, and education (student loans) while Mitt Romney prefers to cut spending on these programs in order to accomodate lower taxes. I also view the president as more supportive of women's right to choose and more tolerant toward non-traditional marriage. It's clear that social program reforms are needed and tough decisions must be made about which specific benefits we can afford to keep, etc. but I have little trust that Romney will attempt meaningful reform and will instead just raid the coffer.

I'm certainly not suggesting that Romney is more of a social liberal than the president. With respect to abortion and gay marriage, Romney's views are certainly opposite (at least right now) than the president's views (at least right now). But one has to consider whether either president will attempt to change the law on abortion or gay marriage. I tend to think no, but that's just my opinion. On other social issues, for example rights to privacy, Romney and Obama are, frankly, the same. Both presidential candidates appear to have no problems with violating rights to privacy with respect to domestic citizens.

I've never considered healthcare, social security, and education to be social issues. I see these more as fiscal issues. If they are fiscal issues, then we come back to your stance as a fiscal conservative and whether you are actually a fiscal conservative. It appears, at least from this post, that you are not a fiscal conservative. In that instance, you should probably vote for President Obama, although I do not think Romney is fiscally conservative either, so it's probably a wash.

MudPuppy wrote:2) While the little I know about them intrigues me, I honestly haven't put in the time to research their platforms in depth because we are unfortunately stuck in a two-party system for the time being and they are both unelectable. I truly hope that changes one day. I did vote for the guy with the ears back in the day in hopes we could get some independent/third pary action going in this country but right now it's a two horse race and I can't afford to place my bet on a nag (no offense, Jill).

I admittedly don't know all the details, but if any third party gets a certain percentage of the popular vote, that party begins to receive additional funds that can be used to support the party in future elections.

In any event, if one takes the position that his or her vote "doesn't count," at least in the sense that it won't swing the vote in their particular state one way or the other (I take that position), one should conclude either (a) I shouldn't vote or (b) I should vote the way I want to vote. I choose (b) and I will be voting for Gary Johnson. A vote for the president won't win him any more electoral votes in New Jersey. A vote for Mitt Romney won't win him New Jersey. So, I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson in the hope that the Libertarian Party will begin to be able to compete financially with the Republicans and Democrats. If I was a socialist, I would vote for Jill Stein for the same reason. I suppose it depends upon what state you are voting in.

This is probably callous, but - realistically - the 47% he's talking about will, generally, not have changed the channel from American Idol long enough to even know it was said so they can feel insulted.

According to 2010 exit polls - plus this poll that shows people who are unlikely to vote, support Obama in a landslide - Democrats tend to attract support from functional idiots and people with Ph.D.s, while Republicans tend to attract support from everyone in-between those two extremes. There aren't enough people with Ph.D.s for this news to matter one way or the other, functional idiots don't vote and the intermediate educational classes will generally believe he considers them part of the 53%.

MudPuppy wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Two questions:

(1) Why does President Obama win on the socially liberal front? Has he done something in his first administration that leads you to believe he is socially liberal?
(2) Have you considered voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson? If not, why not?

1) Are you suggesting that Mitt Romney is more of a social liberal than the president??? I view Obama as supportive of social programs like healthcare/Medicare, Social Security, and education (student loans) while Mitt Romney prefers to cut spending on these programs in order to accomodate lower taxes. I also view the president as more supportive of women's right to choose and more tolerant toward non-traditional marriage. It's clear that social program reforms are needed and tough decisions must be made about which specific benefits we can afford to keep, etc. but I have little trust that Romney will attempt meaningful reform and will instead just raid the coffer.

2) While the little I know about them intrigues me, I honestly haven't put in the time to research their platforms in depth because we are unfortunately stuck in a two-party system for the time being and they are both unelectable. I truly hope that changes one day. I did vote for the guy with the ears back in the day in hopes we could get some independent/third pary action going in this country but right now it's a two horse race and I can't afford to place my bet on a nag (no offense, Jill).

Just to chime in, if your profile is correct that you live and vote in Georgia, a state which like mine is something of a one-party state, you're not even really dealing with a two-horse race. It's like Secretariat running against a healthy Clydesdale and a bunch of drunk puppies (I couldn't think of a slow horse). It's not like the Clydesdale's got a shot at winning Georgia, why not vote for one of the puppies?

thegreekdog wrote:I've never considered healthcare, social security, and education to be social issues. I see these more as fiscal issues. If they are fiscal issues, then we come back to your stance as a fiscal conservative and whether you are actually a fiscal conservative.

Well, yeah they are most certainly fiscal issues... but with a social theme of taking care of your fellow countrymen when they need it: unemployed, retired on a fixed income, trying to finance their education. Just because I feel these are important social programs that should be kept going doesn't mean I can't support doing so in a fiscally conservative manner. There's more to fiscal conservatism than just slashing government spending.

thegreekdog wrote:In any event, if one takes the position that his or her vote "doesn't count," at least in the sense that it won't swing the vote in their particular state one way or the other (I take that position), one should conclude either (a) I shouldn't vote or (b) I should vote the way I want to vote. I choose (b) and I will be voting for Gary Johnson. A vote for the president won't win him any more electoral votes in New Jersey. A vote for Mitt Romney won't win him New Jersey. So, I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson in the hope that the Libertarian Party will begin to be able to compete financially with the Republicans and Democrats. If I was a socialist, I would vote for Jill Stein for the same reason. I suppose it depends upon what state you are voting in.

You make an excellent point and I've voted that way in elections where I was disgruntled with both main parties and felt like my vote was better directed to a third party. I think the difference in this election is that I am not quite as disgruntled with the president. I still have issues with the Democratic party but I do feel like Obama is the best candidate for the job... I suppose there's a chance that would change if I looked into Jill Stein more but my hunch is I would still prefer Obama.