Author Topic: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.  (Read 1863 times)

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50255
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/return_on_investment/

AMERICAN CROSSROADS
1.29%
Total spent campaign 2012: $104,710,427

1.29% of $103,559,672 spent in the general election and ending in the desired result.
Supported 0 winning candidates ; 0.00% of money went to supporting winning candidates.
Opposed 2 losing candidates; 1.29% of money went to opposing losing candidates.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2012, 03:32:56 PM »
And they are supposed to be the party of smart business people who know the value of a dollar, how to create jobs, etc..

I wonder what kind fo salary Rove pays himself and if he gave himself a bonus

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7365
  • TND
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2012, 03:36:37 PM »
That's because the GOP leadership is comprised of a bunch of corrupt, incompetent, inept morons who are too stupid to be politically savy and too gutless to stand on principle. Karl Rove is a fat disgrace who should be catapulted into the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Thanks to his brilliant leadership we were given two terms of GW Bush and two terms of Barak Osama.

The refusal to back conservatives and anti establishment types in favor of "bipartisan" moderates who are virtually indistinguishable from the left  has become the undoing of the party. The GOP is going to splinter off into libertarians and conservatives. The RINO's still hanging around will end up as Democrats.

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50255
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2012, 03:38:36 PM »
That's because the GOP leadership is comprised of a bunch of corrupt, incompetent, inept morons who are too stupid to be politically savy and too gutless to stand on principle. Karl Rove is a fat disgrace who should be catapulted into the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Thanks to his brilliant leadership we were given two terms of GW Bush and two terms of Barak Osama.

The refusal to back conservatives and anti establishment types in favor of "bipartisan" moderates who are virtually indistinguishable from the left  has become the undoing of the party. The GOP is going to splinter off into libertarians and conservatives. The RINO's still hanging around will end up as Democrats.
???
Are you saying that Ronald Reagan should be pushed out of the party if he were alive today?  :o

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2012, 03:51:40 PM »
???
Are you saying that Ronald Reagan should be pushed out of the party if he were alive today?  :o

he would get eaten alive in the primaries

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2012, 03:54:26 PM »
reagan would have signed numerous pledges and extreme promises, and been ousted by this guy-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Fernandez

Carter would have won another term ;)

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19256
  • Getbig!
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2012, 04:00:06 PM »
That's because the GOP leadership is comprised of a bunch of corrupt, incompetent, inept morons who are too stupid to be politically savy and too gutless to stand on principle. Karl Rove is a fat disgrace who should be catapulted into the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Thanks to his brilliant leadership we were given two terms of GW Bush and two terms of Barak Osama.

The refusal to back conservatives and anti establishment types in favor of "bipartisan" moderates who are virtually indistinguishable from the left  has become the undoing of the party. The GOP is going to splinter off into libertarians and conservatives. The RINO's still hanging around will end up as Democrats.

Levin made that point yesterday. For all the talk about how Republicans need to be more moderate, nearly all of the moderate candidates got beat.

And you're right. Every time one of them loses in a primary to a Tea Party guy, he has a temper tantrum and all but joins the Dems in bashing that candidate.

Dick Lugar didn't lift a finger to help Richard Mourodock. And, two years ago, Charlie Crist practically joined the Democrat party, after Marco Rubio pounded him in the GOP primaries.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2012, 04:06:58 PM »
Levin made that point yesterday. For all the talk about how Republicans need to be more moderate, nearly all of the moderate candidates got beat.

And you're right. Every time one of them loses in a primary to a Tea Party guy, he has a temper tantrum and all but joins the Dems in bashing that candidate.

Dick Lugar didn't lift a finger to help Richard Mourodock. And, two years ago, Charlie Crist practically joined the Democrat party, after Marco Rubio pounded him in the GOP primaries.


Mourdock and Akin are moderates?

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19256
  • Getbig!
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2012, 04:28:17 PM »
Mourdock and Akin are moderates?

Mourdock isn't. But, most of the GOP candidates who lost their Senate bids were moderates.

The fact that Lugar didn't have the decency to back Mourdock in his bid show what sore losers some of these folks can be.


Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2012, 04:54:41 PM »
Mourdock isn't. But, most of the GOP candidates who lost their Senate bids were moderates.
The fact that Lugar didn't have the decency to back Mourdock in his bid show what sore losers some of these folks can be.

you think Akin is a moderate ?

You really really think that an electorate who put Obama back in office and rejected a self describe "severe conservative" in Romney and a truly severe conservate in Ryan would have voted for a severe conservative Senate candidate if only they had been offered one ?

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7365
  • TND
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2012, 05:48:30 PM »
Axe Gary Johnson and Romney wins the popular vote.

Institute Voter ID laws ( which were already declared Constitutional) and Romney makes the race much closer-- even possibly wins.

Put forth a Conservative candidate that stands on principle and articulates conservative values ( The constitution, individual liberty, economic freedom, lower taxes, smaller government) without being a spineless pussy who panders to every special interest group= Landslide Victory for GOP.

It disheartens the silent majority ( who, despite what you're hearing on television and reading in print is still comprised of working class whites) to see the GOP force-feed another "moderate", "bipartisan", "compassionate" RINO to the national stage. As this candidate bends to the will of the leftist press, cowers in the face of difficult decisions through capitulation to the special interest group most calculated to win over the imaginary 5% of independents who allegedly decide the outcome of every election (nonsense) and parrot the same talking points with the same false narratives on the same fraudulent terms as the leftist animals seeking to destroy the American way of life-- one thing becomes abundantly clear.

The GOP has been campaigning not to lose instead of campaigning to win since Reagan left office. Bush 41 beat Dukakis because Dukakis was and is an utterly unlikable and unimpressive politician  with nothing of style or substance to convince mainstream America that it was headed in the wrong direction.  Bush 41 then went on to bend, break and whimper to the Democratic party during his only term and make an ass out of himself in the process. Dole was a great american, but a pathetic presidential candidate and Perot largely sunk the GOP during the election that brought us Clinton 1.  Al Gore was an absolute joke--which doesn't discount the fact he almost beat GW. GW won his second term because the only human being less likable than GW is  John Kerry. McCain ran an awful campaign, refused to challenge Obama on any of the tough issues and was way too accommodating so as to appear "attractive" to independents.  ::) Is it any wonder that all the losers from McCains campaign also worked for Romney?

What do the Bush's, Dole, McCain and Romney have in common= They all wanted to cross party lines and pander. They wanted to be all things to all people. They refused to attack the Democrats with any real ferocity. Clearly, the Democrats wanted it more each and every time. While the Democrats played to win, the GOP walked on egg shells not to offend. While the Democrats distracted the country with dung about Big Bird, Binders and birth control, the GOP found itself dancing to the tune of the MSM. Explaining why, demonstrating why, trying to appear measured. Compassionate conservatism, refusing to attack Obamas character while Obamas entire campaign was spent making up lies about Romney. As usual, the GOP spent the overwhelming majority of the campaign playing defense. When you play not to lose-- you always lose.

This campaign was lost on three big lies that were repeated often enough to fool stupid, misinformed and brainwashed people into voting for Obama; (1) GM is alive and Romney wanted to destroy it.
(2) Bin Laden is dead and therefore America has nothing to fear because Obama has a great foreign policy.
(3) Romney hates women, immigrants, minorities, gays and the middle class.

All of the above lies are easily disproved by anyone with the intellectual capacity of a 6 year old and a slight bit of curiosity. But instead of going on the attack and flipping everything around, Romney explained... explained... explained... and explained....

Notice how the economy isn't included on that list. No need to lie about that; everyone is too busy being distracted by abject stupidity. Gay marriage, contraception, big bird and binders. The essence of the American electorate.

Changing demographics? I don't buy it. The people who make this country function did not turn out to the polls. While the "givers and producers" were given a contrast between two drastically different visions of America, the candidates representing the respective visions were all too similar.  In many respects Obama and Romney seemed virtually indistinguishable; It is demoralizing to choose between a proven failure and a wimp who bends over backwards to sound like the proven failure because it will make him more "likable". Might as well stay home.


 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2012, 05:53:43 PM »
Axe Gary Johnson and Romney wins the popular vote.

holy crap, i had no idea GJ received that many votes.   Wow, imagine if he played spoiler.

War-Horse

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6490
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #12 on: November 08, 2012, 06:11:00 PM »
That money couldve gone to habitat for humanity and built thousands of homes for hard working americans.  Make the world a better place...but Nooo.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19256
  • Getbig!
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #13 on: November 08, 2012, 09:30:23 PM »
you think Akin is a moderate ?

You really really think that an electorate who put Obama back in office and rejected a self describe "severe conservative" in Romney and a truly severe conservate in Ryan would have voted for a severe conservative Senate candidate if only they had been offered one ?

Akin wasn't the Tea Party's pick. Heck, the McCaskill campaign was rooting for Akin to be her opponent.

You're focusing on TWO GUYS, forgetting about all other Senate candidates, mostly "moderates" who lost.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19256
  • Getbig!
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #14 on: November 08, 2012, 09:38:54 PM »
Axe Gary Johnson and Romney wins the popular vote.

Institute Voter ID laws ( which were already declared Constitutional) and Romney makes the race much closer-- even possibly wins.

Put forth a Conservative candidate that stands on principle and articulates conservative values ( The constitution, individual liberty, economic freedom, lower taxes, smaller government) without being a spineless pussy who panders to every special interest group= Landslide Victory for GOP.

It disheartens the silent majority ( who, despite what you're hearing on television and reading in print is still comprised of working class whites) to see the GOP force-feed another "moderate", "bipartisan", "compassionate" RINO to the national stage. As this candidate bends to the will of the leftist press, cowers in the face of difficult decisions through capitulation to the special interest group most calculated to win over the imaginary 5% of independents who allegedly decide the outcome of every election (nonsense) and parrot the same talking points with the same false narratives on the same fraudulent terms as the leftist animals seeking to destroy the American way of life-- one thing becomes abundantly clear.

The GOP has been campaigning not to lose instead of campaigning to win since Reagan left office. Bush 41 beat Dukakis because Dukakis was and is an utterly unlikable and unimpressive politician  with nothing of style or substance to convince mainstream America that it was headed in the wrong direction.  Bush 41 then went on to bend, break and whimper to the Democratic party during his only term and make an ass out of himself in the process. Dole was a great american, but a pathetic presidential candidate and Perot largely sunk the GOP during the election that brought us Clinton 1.  Al Gore was an absolute joke--which doesn't discount the fact he almost beat GW. GW won his second term because the only human being less likable than GW is  John Kerry. McCain ran an awful campaign, refused to challenge Obama on any of the tough issues and was way too accommodating so as to appear "attractive" to independents.  ::) Is it any wonder that all the losers from McCains campaign also worked for Romney?

What do the Bush's, Dole, McCain and Romney have in common= They all wanted to cross party lines and pander. They wanted to be all things to all people. They refused to attack the Democrats with any real ferocity. Clearly, the Democrats wanted it more each and every time. While the Democrats played to win, the GOP walked on egg shells not to offend. While the Democrats distracted the country with dung about Big Bird, Binders and birth control, the GOP found itself dancing to the tune of the MSM. Explaining why, demonstrating why, trying to appear measured. Compassionate conservatism, refusing to attack Obamas character while Obamas entire campaign was spent making up lies about Romney. As usual, the GOP spent the overwhelming majority of the campaign playing defense. When you play not to lose-- you always lose.

This campaign was lost on three big lies that were repeated often enough to fool stupid, misinformed and brainwashed people into voting for Obama; (1) GM is alive and Romney wanted to destroy it.
(2) Bin Laden is dead and therefore America has nothing to fear because Obama has a great foreign policy.
(3) Romney hates women, immigrants, minorities, gays and the middle class.

All of the above lies are easily disproved by anyone with the intellectual capacity of a 6 year old and a slight bit of curiosity. But instead of going on the attack and flipping everything around, Romney explained... explained... explained... and explained....

Notice how the economy isn't included on that list. No need to lie about that; everyone is too busy being distracted by abject stupidity. Gay marriage, contraception, big bird and binders. The essence of the American electorate.

Changing demographics? I don't buy it. The people who make this country function did not turn out to the polls. While the "givers and producers" were given a contrast between two drastically different visions of America, the candidates representing the respective visions were all too similar.  In many respects Obama and Romney seemed virtually indistinguishable; It is demoralizing to choose between a proven failure and a wimp who bends over backwards to sound like the proven failure because it will make him more "likable". Might as well stay home.


 

There's one problem with that paragraph: Unlike Romney, Dole, and McCain, Bush 41 and Bush 43 actually WON elections.


Romney listened to the establishment and stayed away, for the most part, from the social and religious issues. If you want to make inroads to non-whites, the bridge is the church. How do you think Bush got 40% of Latinos and 11% of black voters in 2004, which lead to his re-election?

Obama's flip-flop on gay "marriage" was ripe for the pickings. Black preachers nationwide were ripping into Obama for that. You get to black people with that issue. Follow up with school choice to help black children get better educations.

All the flap about the GOP being too old and too white was said back then. Yet, the libs were in utter SHOCK when Bush made the gains he did.

The more I think about it, the more this past election is a near mirror image of 2004.

We thought there was no way Romney would lose (even though he wasn't the conservative favorite by any means) to Obama, based on the economy, unemployment, ObamaCare and Benghazi.

The Dems thought there was no way Kerry (who wasn't the liberal favorite by any means) would lose to Bush, based on Iraq, Afghanistan, lack of WMDs and Gore's being "robbed" of the presidency in 2000.

3 million Republicans stayed at home. How many of them were evangelicals? I'd say quite a bit.

Romney won the male vote, the working white-class vote, he won with independents and married women. All he had to do was at least MATCH, not exceed, but MATCH McCain's numbers and he wins this thing.

The evangelical vote appears to be the missing link.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #15 on: November 08, 2012, 09:43:35 PM »

Akin wasn't the Tea Party's pick. Heck, the McCaskill campaign was rooting for Akin to be her opponent.

You're focusing on TWO GUYS, forgetting about all other Senate candidates, mostly "moderates" who lost.

that makes him a moderate?

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19256
  • Getbig!
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #16 on: November 08, 2012, 09:57:30 PM »
that makes him a moderate?

WHAT IS IT with you and Akin? There were GOP senators that lost across the board, most of the moderates.

Yet, you keep yapping as if Akin and Mourdock were the only two who ran for the Senate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/11/07/mark_levin_gives_unvarnished_truth_on_romney_loss.html

"Scott Brown LOST.....LIBERAL!
Linda McMahon LOST....LIBERAL!
Tommy Thompson LOST....MODERATE......
(Rick) Berg in North Dakota
(Linda) Lingle in Hawaii

And I can go down the list!!"

Coach is Back!

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 59684
  • It’s All Bullshit
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #17 on: November 08, 2012, 10:03:25 PM »
That's because the GOP leadership is comprised of a bunch of corrupt, incompetent, inept morons who are too stupid to be politically savy and too gutless to stand on principle. Karl Rove is a fat disgrace who should be catapulted into the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Thanks to his brilliant leadership we were given two terms of GW Bush and two terms of Barak Osama.

The refusal to back conservatives and anti establishment types in favor of "bipartisan" moderates who are virtually indistinguishable from the left  has become the undoing of the party. The GOP is going to splinter off into libertarians and conservatives. The RINO's still hanging around will end up as Democrats.

Haha, really. You want to challenge that?

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #18 on: November 08, 2012, 10:11:47 PM »
Akin wasn't the Tea Party's pick. Heck, the McCaskill campaign was rooting for Akin to be her opponent.

You're focusing on TWO GUYS, forgetting about all other Senate candidates, mostly "moderates" who lost.

I think the moderate senate candidates were painted with the same "I will destroy planned parenthood" brush.

They all smelled like the tea party.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19256
  • Getbig!
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #19 on: November 08, 2012, 10:31:01 PM »
I think the moderate senate candidates were painted with the same "I will destroy planned parenthood" brush.

They all smelled like the tea party.

No, they didn't.

The moderate presidential candidate got beat up; the moderate Senate candidates that fell were 2-1 over the Tea Party guys.

Fiscal conservatism and social conservatism have to be used for the GOP to win. One, without the other, won't get it done.


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #20 on: November 08, 2012, 10:33:35 PM »
No, they didn't.

The moderate presidential candidate got beat up; the moderate Senate candidates that fell were 2-1 over the Tea Party guys.

Fiscal conservatism and social conservatism have to be used for the GOP to win. One, without the other, won't get it done.

I dunno... if people are going to the polls thinking "Some of these repubs are really extreme", then some middle of road repubs will lose votes too.

I dunno that social conservatism needs to be as extreme... that 'war on women', which I thought was just a media invention, was real.  Very real.  I didn't know until this week.  Every female I spoke too saw Romney as anti-women.  I had no clue.

Primemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40788
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #21 on: November 08, 2012, 11:00:43 PM »
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/return_on_investment/

AMERICAN CROSSROADS
1.29%
Total spent campaign 2012: $104,710,427

1.29% of $103,559,672 spent in the general election and ending in the desired result.
Supported 0 winning candidates ; 0.00% of money went to supporting winning candidates.
Opposed 2 losing candidates; 1.29% of money went to opposing losing candidates.

Just goes to show that money can only buy you so much. Huge numbers of Democrats hit the ground, knocking on doors and phone banking for their candidates. Personal contact is worth a lot more than "Super PAC" $$$$.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19256
  • Getbig!
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #22 on: November 08, 2012, 11:41:14 PM »
I dunno... if people are going to the polls thinking "Some of these repubs are really extreme", then some middle of road repubs will lose votes too.

I dunno that social conservatism needs to be as extreme... that 'war on women', which I thought was just a media invention, was real.  Very real.  I didn't know until this week.  Every female I spoke too saw Romney as anti-women.  I had no clue.

The way you counter that is speaking on social issues. Remember Romney beat Obama with married women. Obama, however, trounced Romney with single women. And, in my view, the issue isn't so much abortion. No conservative is going to win over the in-utero-baby-hacking-anytime-anywhere-any-reason crew, no matter what.

It's single women WITH children. That's where the GOP can win.

When you talk about smaller/limited government, married women are can be cool with that, because they see it as less taxes out of their purses and out of their husbands' wallets. So, they can feed the kids and get them educated. That's fine.

Single women with kids, on the other hand, is another kettle of fish. Far more of them are more likely to live in poverty. For them, in all practicality, the government is their husband.

When you talk smaller/limited government to them, they don't see it as freedom. They see it as taking food stamps from them, taking WIC from them. You're yanking food out of their kids' mouths (and out of their mouths). NOT COOL!!

Social programs can help single women with kids, as well. Remember Bush's faith-based organization push? That is a major way to reach out to women and minorities.

As much as many don't like Bush (even some Republicans), you have to give him his due. He's the last GOP guy to get elected to the Oval Office. He made inroads with the very minorities that everyone is saying the GOP must reach.

If you'd told anyone that Bush would get more black votes in 2004 than he got in 2000, people would want to have you drug-tested.

But, he did it. And he did it, so to speak, via the church. Same goes with Latinos.

Michelle Bachmann said it best: Social issues ARE economic issues. Republicans must use the two in order to be successful.

Dollars to donuts, the bulk of the 3 million Republicans that stayed home were evangelicals, dismayed that Romney didn't really hit the social issues as well as the economic issues and saw little difference between him and Obama.

If they'd showed up and voting, Romney would be #45, instead of a zero.





George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7365
  • TND
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #23 on: November 09, 2012, 03:51:56 AM »
There's one problem with that paragraph: Unlike Romney, Dole, and McCain, Bush 41 and Bush 43 actually WON elections.


Romney listened to the establishment and stayed away, for the most part, from the social and religious issues. If you want to make inroads to non-whites, the bridge is the church. How do you think Bush got 40% of Latinos and 11% of black voters in 2004, which lead to his re-election?

Obama's flip-flop on gay "marriage" was ripe for the pickings. Black preachers nationwide were ripping into Obama for that. You get to black people with that issue. Follow up with school choice to help black children get better educations.

All the flap about the GOP being too old and too white was said back then. Yet, the libs were in utter SHOCK when Bush made the gains he did.

The more I think about it, the more this past election is a near mirror image of 2004.

We thought there was no way Romney would lose (even though he wasn't the conservative favorite by any means) to Obama, based on the economy, unemployment, ObamaCare and Benghazi.

The Dems thought there was no way Kerry (who wasn't the liberal favorite by any means) would lose to Bush, based on Iraq, Afghanistan, lack of WMDs and Gore's being "robbed" of the presidency in 2000.

3 million Republicans stayed at home. How many of them were evangelicals? I'd say quite a bit.

Romney won the male vote, the working white-class vote, he won with independents and married women. All he had to do was at least MATCH, not exceed, but MATCH McCain's numbers and he wins this thing.

The evangelical vote appears to be the missing link.

The Bush's won because they beat extremely weak challengers.

The Bush's are the biggest culprits in the destruction of the GOP and have irreversibly moved this country toward a big government freakshow.

Neither man was a conservative. Both advocated the compassionate conservative farce through the astronomical growth of government.

As to your point on black preachers-- The gay issue was never a serious election issue ( outside of NC).

George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7365
  • TND
Re: Karl Rove SuperPAC spent 99 Percent of its money on losing Candidates.
« Reply #24 on: November 09, 2012, 04:09:50 AM »
Haha, really. You want to challenge that?

Challenge what?

Bohener is a complete pussy with the intelligence of a recycling bin.

McConnell is also a complete pussy who talks a big game in front of the camera and then cowers to Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

The other powers that be lost the last two elections, refuse to back Conservative candidates in other races and insist on doing the same things over and over and over again despite the results.

The only reason the GOP has Congress and a strong minority in the Senate is because of the Conservative movement. Without the tea party, there would be no more GOP. And yet, the GOP leadership hates the tea party as much as the liberals.

Mark my words-- the GOP will not survive as a party unless the leadership is replaced.