I don't know how to start a thread that includes a poll - or if polls are something that only mods can do. If a thread which incorporates a poll can only be created by a mod, then hopefully one of you great mods will consider modifying this post to include the key question in the form of a poll - and get rid of the first four paragraphs of this in the process ...

I have watched and listened to numerous "2012 Election Analysis" programs on C-SPAN. Most of these programs have been hosted by resident scholars hanging out at places like the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Brookings Institution, and various & sundry "special interest groups" such as Emily's List (that primarily supports progressive women candidates seeking office) and groups like La Rasa that represent the interests of Hispanics and Latinos. (There have also been some discussions where primarily conservative groups have vented their spleen over what they think went wrong.) If you're the kind of hard core political junkie who really goes in for this type of post election "analysis," you can find most of these archived programs on C-SPAN's web site.

I have listened to a multitude of reasons (from both sides of the political spectrum) for why Mitt Romney lost. The reasons and the explanations are all over the place. One of the reasons, which seems not to be discussed at all, was Mitt Romney's infamous "47 Percent" speech in which he was surreptitiously caught "in flagrante dilecto" explaining why he believes nearly half the country is predisposed to vote for the Democratic candidate. That speech was (obviously) very damaging to Mitt Romney, yet it is hardly mentioned in any of the post election discussions. In fact, in listening to most of these discussions, one can be forgiven for not knowing that Mitt ever spoke such politically toxic words.

I suppose it's possible that Mitt Romney was destined to lose regardless - that Obama ran such a strong campaign that Romney was doomed from the start. However, going by the popular vote, this was a pretty close election. Considering how close some of the key states were - such as Florida and a handful of others - one wonders how this election might have turned out if Mitt's remarks to those rich donors had never been recorded and had never been splashed all over television? I think it's very possible that without the millstone of those 47 percent remarks hanging around his neck, Mitt Romney could very well have won. Especially in states like Florida, where people stood in line anywhere from five to eight hours to vote, Mitt's comments about the 47 percent must surely have been a factor.

So I suppose my poll question would be something along the lines of: "Do you believe Mitt Romney's 47 percent comments were the deciding factor in his loss to Barack Obama? To what extent do you believe the '47 percent' remarks decided this election?" Poll respondents could choose from among the following responses.

o Yes I agree, Mitt Romney's 47 percent remarks doomed him. Those comments drove a strong Democratic voter turnout in key states like Florida and Ohio which cumulatively proved fatal to Mitt Romney.

o Yes, Mitt's comments were a decisive factor. If he had not said them or they had not been broadcast nationwide, I believe we would be referring to Mr. Romney as "President-Elect Romney" right now and Republicans would be rejoicing.

o No, Mitt's 47 percent remarks didn't make that much of a difference either way. The only people who heard them or paid attention to them were the small minority of "political junkies" (and liberal zealots) who watch MSNBC and CNN.

o Voters were focused on "other issues" such as immigration, women's reproductive health, lesbian and gay rights, unemployment, taxes and economic issues. Voters focused on those issues and didn't care that much concerning what Mitt either said (or thought) about the 47 percent. Compared to these "other issues," the 47 percent remarks were a non issue.

o The 47 percent remarks had little if any effect. Mitt lost because too many white people stayed home and didn't bother to vote.

o The 47 percent comments didn't matter. Romney lost because President Obama had a superior ground game and managed to conduct a devastatingly effective Get-Out-The-Vote campaign. In short, Obama beat the pants off Mitt Romney.

o Not sure.

I know how I would vote in such a poll, but I would certainly be curious as to how everybody else votes. Perhaps one of the mods can dress this up and repost it in the form of a poll?

Poll dessert.

The non poll is the worst poll ever. You give 2 "yes it was really important" answers and 4 "no it didn't make a difference" answers. And in all of your 7 options the "correct" one doesn't appear: it played a roll and certainly damaged him, but he was losing either way, for a large range of reasons, and not just any particular one in your list of 4.

So no, mods, please don't actually make this a poll.

tldr

odds that OP was one of the guys posting the JESUSLAND map back in 2004?

I vote for pie.

Yes, pie is awesome ()

uke_master:

I don't think it's a given - in any way, shape, or form - that Mitt Romney was doomed to lose. Despite all his gaffes and unforced errors, he came close - closer than John McCain came in 2008. He lost several of the key states by close margins. (I'm not sure about Florida, but it took several days before he conceded the state, so Florida was probably within one to one-and-a-half percentage points.) If those 47 percent comments had never gotten out of that room, I think there's a real chance Romney could have won the entire shooting match. (I doubt if Democratic turnout would have been as high in the absence of Romney's remarks about the 47 percent. With a lower Democratic turnout, Romney [probably] wins.) In fact, those 47 percent remarks "leaking" to the press was probably the greatest gift Barack Obama received during the campaign.

pvn:

I have no idea what this JESUSLAND map is, but if it was being posted here on 2+2 back in 2004, then the odds of me being one of the guys who posted it are about 7 billion to 1 against - or whatever the world's population was back in 2004. (I wasn't posting here on 2+2 until sometime in 2006 according to my avatar.)

Oh my god, I couldn't make it past here. tl;dr

Just for future reference.

Now he's going to make polls in this forum. Way to go.

Great, more "I hate mittens and here's another thing he did" threads in our future.

Slightly better than non-poll polls.

Edit: Yeah, a few more threads you don't need to open. My heart bleeds for you man.

a paragraph for each option is .............. ridiculous Alan. polls require bevety to actually get anyone to want to respond.

That was actually a brief Alan post.

Don't encourage him.

I've stepped into some bad politard threads before but this is pretty ridic.

most people dont even know about those comments. and of the people that did hear romney's comments, i imagine a lot of people agree with them, so in conclusion, it had no real effect.

Lock it up.

Alan v. Sklansky thread starting prop bet in progress?

Mitt Romney lost because of his attitudes that led him to sincerely make his 47% remarks.

tldr

Actually I'm very jealous of DS. His "P***y" Is The GOAL" thread is so epic that I thought I should have started it!

Well, let's see here ... I'm driving half of you crazy and the other half are cheering me on. I must be doing something right!

Thank you O wise and observant sage!