Kevin Graham wrote:
Here is a crazy idea, maybe it is because they agree with his stances, not necessarily because they directly benefit from them???
I mean isn't that just possible?
Of course and perhaps and I thought I implied that as well but perhaps not. I would hope that anyone who voted for President agreed. And no doubt some of those agreed because they saw it benefiting them. What's wrong with admitting that? Humans are after all often motivated by self interest. And no doubt there were some who may not have benefited as much or maybe not at all by some of the President's policy plans who still voted for him.
It is true President Obama has talked about forgiving college debt over a certain amount, pushed for more free access to contraceptives (ACA requires that does it not even for institutions opposed to contraceptives), pushed through a massive health care bill that will tax higher income people in order to provide tax credits to lower income people so that they can buy health insurance and so on.
You don't think this influenced peoples votes?
Obama has the student vote anyway,
Perhaps. Perhaps not as much. Certainly a young person with crushing college debt could be influenced with the idea of an easier way out of their debt.
and Democrats generally do well with lower income folks because the Republicans care nothing about them.
And you criticize me for generalizations. How rich.
So saying these people suddenly voted for Obama based on new promises, makes little sense.
Who said they were new promises? And it certainly makes sense, as much as someone voting for Romney because he wanted to cut taxes.
Romney just wanted to cut taxes for the wealthy while increasing taxes on everyone else.
It is funny that you are so quick to accuse Romney an the republicans are lying when you repeat the lies of the left. Romney said he wanted to cut taxes by 20% and reduce deductions. Sure, if Romney limited lower income people's deductions they would have perhaps paid more tax, or maybe not depending on the rate cut. So would the rich have paid more depending on the cuts and what deductions were limited.
And this is the same as saying the Bush tax cuts only benefited the wealthy which certainly is another lie often spoken by the left. The Bush tax cuts were across the board and also included tax credits that only lower income people could use.
So it could be argued just as well that people voted against Romney more than they were voting for Obama.
No question about it. One of my partners main voting issue is/was taxes and he supported Romney for that reason first.
Romney also wanted to make sure his primary constituents got what they were paying him for. Remember, the bulk of his campaign contributions came from large donors whereas Obama's mostly came from small donors of $200 or less. Obama had the working class behind him from the start and Romney always had the corporations backing him.
And this had relevance how? Many Romney voters voted for him because they liked his policies and clearly some thought they would benefit from those polices. Same is true for Obama. He focused on middle and lower income, convinced them he would benefit them more than his opponent and he won. So many voted for him because they figured they would benefit more from his policies. I am not sure why this seems to bother you? I see no problem with that on either side.
And by the way Obama got plenty of large big money donations as well.
In the end we're just guessing about motivations of other voters, and our guesses reveal what kind of people we really are. Romney's idiotic excuses reveal just what kind of despicable person he really is. Blaming his loss on Obama bribing voters is pretty dumb given the way so many Romney supporters were looking forward to those huge tax cuts he was promising them.
It may be dumb of Romney to whine about it at this point. But it is true that people make decisions often out of self interest. It is in our nature. And politicians know this.
