Romney: 47% of Americans are losers, don't care about 'em

[Barrister]

One wonders though if this statement drives anyone away who wasn't already not going to vote for Romney anyway.

I don't know about the US politics and how much Romney has been hated until now, but I would assume so.

I have to say I had some sympathy for the guy when he was being hounded for his practices at Bain - because, while not very "presentable" to the media largely ignorant of equity markets, I didn't find anything out of ordinary there. So I assume that there might have been moderates/independents there who were considering voting for him.

His taped comments - not just the ones about "losers", but also his implied racism and his disparaging comments about his wife - turned me off completely from him, and I suppose a lot of voters would react like that.

Essentially, from various tidbits we know about him in private (his treatment of the family dog; his hazing/bullying behaviour in the past; his favourite college pasttime of impersonating an officer to intimidate people; and now his comments off the record), there emerges a pretty consistent picture of a rather nasty piece of shit. He is not a charisma-less suit like Kerry - he is much worse than that.

In fact, I imagine that there might be a part of moderate Republican voters who were going to vote for him along party lines, but may decide to stay home now for this very reason.

I'm going to risk engaging Marti in political discussion.  Hold me, I'm afraid.

These comments obviously don't help him win over undecideds and moderates.  No disagreement here.  But if you are a consistent Republican voter, I don't think you get turned off by them.  There is some fundamental truth to what he said.  There is a certain percentage of the population (not 47%, and not everyone who receives government benefits) who aren't going to vote for Romney no matter what.  It's probably closer to 30-40% of the population that will vote Democrat no matter what - and the same thing goes for Republicans.  So Romney was right in saying you target your message not to everyone, but to the people who you might be able to persuade to vote for you.

If you're a committed Republican, you still think Romney "shares your values" more than Obama does, and this isn't going to change it.

And I still think you put too much emphasis on stuff that happened 30-40 years ago.

[CountDeMoney]

If you're a committed Republican, you still think Romney "shares your values" more than Obama does, and this isn't going to change it.

Yeah, the election is so polarized now, and the polls show very few "undecideds" that the needle's not going to move much;  in previous elections, maybe...but, in Romney's favor, there is so, so much vehement disdain and dislike for the President on the right that Romney could assfuck a 7 year old with leukemia live on Nickelodeon to the soundtrack of 300, and they're still going to vote to get the secular socialist Kenyan nigger out.

And I still think you put too much emphasis on stuff that happened 30-40 years ago.

Yeah, all that is swept up under the mantle of "out-of-touch rich guy", and it specifically really doesn't matter. His sheer number of gaffes and missteps, from the primary season to now, it's all been collectively summed up into the singular composite sketch.

[DGuller]

I'm going to risk engaging Marti in political discussion.  Hold me, I'm afraid.

These comments obviously don't help him win over undecideds and moderates.  No disagreement here.  But if you are a consistent Republican voter, I don't think you get turned off by them.  There is some fundamental truth to what he said.  There is a certain percentage of the population (not 47%, and not everyone who receives government benefits) who aren't going to vote for Romney no matter what.  It's probably closer to 30-40% of the population that will vote Democrat no matter what - and the same thing goes for Republicans.  So Romney was right in saying you target your message not to everyone, but to the people who you might be able to persuade to vote for you.

If you're a committed Republican, you still think Romney "shares your values" more than Obama does, and this isn't going to change it.

And I still think you put too much emphasis on stuff that happened 30-40 years ago.

I don't think that Mitt writing off the chances of convincing a certain part of electorate is the issue here.  The issue is him drawing the logical conclusion that those who are solid voters for Obama are that way because they're losers dependent on the government.  Why is this point being consistently overlooked?

[Barrister]

I'm going to risk engaging Marti in political discussion.  Hold me, I'm afraid.

These comments obviously don't help him win over undecideds and moderates.  No disagreement here.  But if you are a consistent Republican voter, I don't think you get turned off by them.  There is some fundamental truth to what he said.  There is a certain percentage of the population (not 47%, and not everyone who receives government benefits) who aren't going to vote for Romney no matter what.  It's probably closer to 30-40% of the population that will vote Democrat no matter what - and the same thing goes for Republicans.  So Romney was right in saying you target your message not to everyone, but to the people who you might be able to persuade to vote for you.

If you're a committed Republican, you still think Romney "shares your values" more than Obama does, and this isn't going to change it.

And I still think you put too much emphasis on stuff that happened 30-40 years ago.

I don't think that Mitt writing off the chances of convincing a certain part of electorate is the issue here.  The issue is him drawing the logical conclusion that those who are solid voters for Obama are that way because they're losers dependent on the government.  Why is this point being consistently overlooked?

Not all Obama voters are "losers dependent on government".  But almost all "losers dependent on government" are in fact Obama voters (if they vote at all).

[CountDeMoney]

But almost all "losers dependent on government" are in fact Obama voters (if they vote at all).

Racist much, assfuck? 

Plenty of southern white trailer trash without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of that receive government benefits consistently vote GOP.

[Barrister]

But almost all "losers dependent on government" are in fact Obama voters (if they vote at all).

Racist much, assfuck? 

Plenty of southern white trailer trash without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of that receive government benefits consistently vote GOP.

Do those "southern white trailer trash without a pot to piss in" who vote GOP also receive welfare / food stamps?

My Canadian experience is that people on significant government assistance (which is a lot less than 47% of the population) do not vote conservative.  Working poor (who still receive significant government benefits) are a different story however.

[Syt]

[DGuller]

Not all Obama voters are "losers dependent on government".  But almost all "losers dependent on government" are in fact Obama voters (if they vote at all).

Well, that's your opinion, and as stupid and offensive as it is in its own right, that's not Romney's opinion.  Romney equated the two 47% groups, so he implied 1-to-1 correlation.  The issue being discussed here is what Romney said, and why it's offensive, insulting, and not even close to being true.

[CountDeMoney]

Do those "southern white trailer trash without a pot to piss in" who vote GOP also receive welfare / food stamps?

Yes.

In December 2009, the New York Times published a series of related articles showing that poor whites across Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta and through the Midwest, Deep South and Texas borderlands were the highest percentage of Americans relying on the SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), or food stamp, program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?_r=0
And guess who consistently carry those states?

Food Stamps--They're Just Not For Niggers Anymore

s Paul Krugman pointed out in his 2007 article "Republicans and Race," Southern whites still voted for the GOP at a ratio of 2 to 1. But for poor whites voting Republican, it's a strategy that only serves to keep them in poverty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/opinion/19krugman.html

My Canadian experience is that people on significant government assistance (which is a lot less than 47% of the population) do not vote conservative.  Working poor (who still receive significant government benefits) are a different story however.

And once again, like so many of your fellow idiotic Languish Canuckistani brethren, you apply your foreign presuppositions to uniquely American situations. 
We may speak the same fucking language on the same fucking continent, but we're on two different planets.  So knock it the fuck off already. 

[Barrister]

Not all Obama voters are "losers dependent on government".  But almost all "losers dependent on government" are in fact Obama voters (if they vote at all).

Well, that's your opinion, and as stupid and offensive as it is in its own right, that's not Romney's opinion.  Romney equated the two 47% groups, so he implied 1-to-1 correlation.  The issue being discussed here is what Romney said, and why it's offensive, insulting, and not even close to being true.

Well my opinion seems to be confirmed by Syt's graph in the post right above yours, so to you.

I agree that what Romney said what not true.  Much has been rightly said about how that 47% includes veterans and seniors, includes people reciving medicare (which he has promised not to touch), and so on.  However I'd like to think even Romney knows that, and that everyone's tongue gets slipped up in rhetoric once in a while.

[derspiess]

But almost all "losers dependent on government" are in fact Obama voters (if they vote at all).

Racist much, assfuck? 

Plenty of southern white trailer trash without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of that receive government benefits consistently vote GOP.

A lot of them don't vote, and of those who do a significant number of them do indeed vote Democrat. 

But yeah, keep throwing the racism accusations around from your glass house.

[CountDeMoney]

But almost all "losers dependent on government" are in fact Obama voters (if they vote at all).

Racist much, assfuck? 

Plenty of southern white trailer trash without a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of that receive government benefits consistently vote GOP.

A lot of them don't vote, and of those who do a significant number of them do indeed vote Democrat. 

But yeah, keep throwing the racism accusations around from your glass house.

Eat me, fetus fucker.  Tired of your shit, too.

[derspiess]

Ooh, a Paul Krugman quote.  CASE CLOSED

[Gups]

Syt's graph looks off to me. Why is the "other/none" column so tiny, when trunout is around 60%

Where's the key - is it talking about household income or individual?

In any event, I wouldn't describe 70% as "almost all", but perhaps that's just me.

[ulmont]

Well my opinion seems to be confirmed by Syt's graph in the post right above yours, so to you.

Not really.  Note that in the second most poor group, 15-30000, you've got over 1/3 Republican votes.