Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Karl Rove
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=74669
Page 1 of 3

Author:  Douchebag [ Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Karl Rove

His meltdown last night was quite humorous. I'm not sure what he was trying to do except maybe create some sort of grand conspiracy and say that the media was calling the election too soon. It was obvious to everyone that it was over, and this guy was digging through tiny counties in Ohio and claiming the election wasn't over even when statisticians employed by Fox were telling him it was over. What a chode.

Author:  good dolphin [ Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

They should have a an election tonight for the least relevant former political strategist between Rove and Brazille.

Author:  Don Tiny [ Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

Nomination denied .... there's no way anyone can honestly tell me that, roles reversed, some schmuck on MSNBC wouldn't have done something quite similar in some vain attempt to keep an audience or otherwise piss and moan like spoiled little kids.

Not to say I'm defending his actions; just saying it isn't like he owns this sort of behavior.

Author:  Don Tiny [ Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

good dolphin wrote:
They should have a an election tonight for the least relevant former political strategist between Rove and Brazille.


There's also that Republican tit on CNN who did everything short of having a Corso moment by putting on a big Eyore head.

Author:  Hatchetman [ Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

Don Tiny wrote:
There's also that Republican tit on CNN who did everything short of having a Corso moment by putting on a big Eyore head.


Oh that old dude who actually had a grip on reality.

Author:  Brian's Mojito [ Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

Don Tiny wrote:
Nomination denied .... there's no way anyone can honestly tell me that, roles reversed, some schmuck on MSNBC wouldn't have done something quite similar in some vain attempt to keep an audience or otherwise piss and moan like spoiled little kids.

Not to say I'm defending his actions; just saying it isn't like he owns this sort of behavior.


That's the rub Headly, this move was pretty unprecedented. Also, the guy was financially invested in the outcome, so his questioning of the numbers rings pretty hollow. It's almost like he thought it was 2000 again and he could circumvent the process. At the time of his claims, Romney was also LOSING Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Nevada (I think). The best part is that nobody else on the set joined with him -- it seemed like a pretty awkward moment for everyone else on the set.

Author:  City of Fools [ Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

he's now off muttering to himself, why was I not in charge this time?

Author:  Telegram Sam [ Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

I wouldn't DB a guy necessarily for grasping at straws when he and the donors to his PAC are heavily invested in a victory. But has FOX given up all pretense of being a news outlet? He is, not only ideologically, but financially invested in the results? That's like hiring the Oxy Clean guy (the British one, not the dead one) as an objective expert on stain removal.

Author:  Don Tiny [ Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

Brian's Mojito wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
Nomination denied .... there's no way anyone can honestly tell me that, roles reversed, some schmuck on MSNBC wouldn't have done something quite similar in some vain attempt to keep an audience or otherwise piss and moan like spoiled little kids.

Not to say I'm defending his actions; just saying it isn't like he owns this sort of behavior.


That's the rub Headly, this move was pretty unprecedented. Also, the guy was financially invested in the outcome, so his questioning of the numbers rings pretty hollow. It's almost like he thought it was 2000 again and he could circumvent the process. At the time of his claims, Romney was also LOSING Virginia, Florida, Colorado and Nevada (I think). The best part is that nobody else on the set joined with him -- it seemed like a pretty awkward moment for everyone else on the set.


I can't argue with that obviously ... but once the waiting game was over I felt like seeing what the folks on Fox were doing (I had limited my viewing to CNN & WGN), and I tuned in just before the moments in question, and honestly I didn't get the feeling that even Karl had any belief in what he was doing, he was just huckstering, albeit in a half-assed fashion.

That is to say, I thought it was pretty clear that nobody around him was interested in what he was selling, and even he didn't really give a damn if he made a sale, so to speak. He was just doing it essentially for the sake of doing it .... kinda like honking your horn when you go through a tunnel ... it's not anything exciting, just something you get used to doing for no good reason.

Author:  Regular Reader [ Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

The odd part is that Megyn Kelly mentioned that they'd already set up for filming her walk to the pollsters' room. And knew about the dead spots along the route?!?

Did they expect that kind of meltdown from Rove? Is that kind of lapse from sanity a routine thing for the odd little rotund guy? Why were the pollsters so ready to refute Rove's claims? Where was that clown Rasmussen with his (fair and balanced :lol: ) rock solid polling info? Inquiring minds want to know!

Author:  sinicalypse [ Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

Image

Author:  24_Guy [ Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

Image

Author:  Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

Douchebag wrote:
His meltdown last night was quite humorous. I'm not sure what he was trying to do except maybe create some sort of grand conspiracy and say that the media was calling the election too soon. It was obvious to everyone that it was over, and this guy was digging through tiny counties in Ohio and claiming the election wasn't over even when statisticians employed by Fox were telling him it was over. What a chode.
Still not as embarrassing as this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYZre8kEsuw

Author:  Makaveli [ Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

When you have so much invested on the election you would react the same way. He had donors give him $200M and he didn't deliver. They didn't win the White House and have fewer seats in the House and Senate. All of this in a year where the economy is still fairly bad. He's getting death threats today.

Author:  RFDC [ Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

Has Rove said anything today? I have not seen him on any of the news shows or anything.

Dick Morris is a douche but at least he was out and about today owning up to his loss

Author:  Makaveli [ Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

RFDC wrote:
Has Rove said anything today? I have not seen him on any of the news shows or anything.

Dick Morris is a douche but at least he was out and about today owning up to his loss


Morris said his math was off but I didn't see Rove. Morris was still looking forward to 2014.

Author:  24_Guy [ Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

I am still floored that Romney got even fewer votes than McCain did in 2008. How is that even possible.

I can guarantee there are people who didn't vote McCain, but voted Romney. There are even people that voted Obama that now voted Romney.

So, who are the millions of people that voted McCain, that didn't vote Romney? Could it really be, that all those votes in 2008 were actually votes for Palin? Really?

Or, to be a bit morbid, how much of the older Republican demographic died off in the last 4 years... :shock:


But really, what is the psychology of a right-leaning person for voting McCain but not Romney?

Author:  Brick [ Thu Nov 08, 2012 7:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

24_Guy wrote:
I am still floored that Romney got even fewer votes than McCain did in 2008. How is that even possible.

I can guarantee there are people who didn't vote McCain, but voted Romney. There are even people that voted Obama that now voted Romney.

So, who are the millions of people that voted McCain, that didn't vote Romney? Could it really be, that all those votes in 2008 were actually votes for Palin? Really?

Or, to be a bit morbid, how much of the older Republican demographic died off in the last 4 years... :shock:


But really, what is the psychology of a right-leaning person for voting McCain but not Romney?
Romney was a terrible candidate.

If in 2008, I said that in order to beat Obama in 2012, we need a rich older white man who runs a capital firm that specialized in creating profit by strangling companies and is from a religion that only really helps in one state you'd have laughed at me.

I had to do a ton of convincing to myself that Romney was better than Obama.

Also, incumbents have a huge advantage. If they were running the same election today, I think McCain would have had a good chance of winning. George Washington wouldn't have beaten Obama in 2008.

Author:  good dolphin [ Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

Romney was Kerry. It seemed pretty obvious to me from the beginning. Just like Kerry, even the people who backed him didn't have their hearts into it.

Author:  RFDC [ Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

I didn't think Romney was a terrible candidate, I thought he was a better candidate than McCain.

IMO if the GOP has any hope of winning in 2016 they better find a way to rally around Rubio. He seems to be the only person right now that would have a shot of winning. I think Romney very well may have won had he picked Rubio. I thought Christie could be that guy as well, but I have a feeling that the whole Sandy/Obama deal may hurt him too much for that.

Author:  Don Tiny [ Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

Christie/Rubio in 2016.

(I do not have the names in the wrong order)

Author:  RFDC [ Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

Don Tiny wrote:
Christie/Rubio in 2016.

(I do not have the names in the wrong order)


I would be very happy with that, but you don't think the whole Sandy deal is going to hurt him?

Author:  pittmike [ Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

Don Tiny wrote:
Christie/Rubio in 2016.

(I do not have the names in the wrong order)


(I think you do) lol

Author:  Hatchetman [ Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

Repubs are so thin skinned, Christie has no chance going forward.

BTW Rove shows up in a WSJ op-ed today. Essentially claiming Obama ran a dirty race with his "Chicago Way."

Author:  good dolphin [ Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

RFDC wrote:
I didn't think Romney was a terrible candidate, I thought he was a better candidate than McCain.

IMO if the GOP has any hope of winning in 2016 they better find a way to rally around Rubio. He seems to be the only person right now that would have a shot of winning. I think Romney very well may have won had he picked Rubio. I thought Christie could be that guy as well, but I have a feeling that the whole Sandy/Obama deal may hurt him too much for that.


I heard an interesting tidbit that I believe I am relaying correctly: 11 out of the last 17 VP candidates (on both sides) have failed to carry their home states.

for Paul Ryan optimists, only two losing VP candidates have ultimately been elected president

Author:  Chus [ Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

Karl Rove is the love child of Rush Limbaugh and Monty Burns.

Author:  good dolphin [ Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

Hatchetman wrote:
BTW Rove shows up in a WSJ op-ed today. Essentially claiming Obama ran a dirty race with his "Chicago Way."


honestly, motherfuck that guy. His strategy for success was to get gay marriage referenda on ballots in states where it had no chance to pass in order to get those voters who would not ordinarily be all that interested in voting for a president to come to the polls to vote against gays and punch a republican ticket while they were there. His actions are far more reprehensible than "chicago way" (whatever that means) politics. His actions went beyond ethically repugnant into something morally repugnant and since he is representing the god fearing party, he will have to answer to that god for it some day.

Author:  Makaveli [ Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

Boilermaker Rick wrote:
24_Guy wrote:
I am still floored that Romney got even fewer votes than McCain did in 2008. How is that even possible.

I can guarantee there are people who didn't vote McCain, but voted Romney. There are even people that voted Obama that now voted Romney.

So, who are the millions of people that voted McCain, that didn't vote Romney? Could it really be, that all those votes in 2008 were actually votes for Palin? Really?

Or, to be a bit morbid, how much of the older Republican demographic died off in the last 4 years... :shock:


But really, what is the psychology of a right-leaning person for voting McCain but not Romney?
Romney was a terrible candidate.

If in 2008, I said that in order to beat Obama in 2012, we need a rich older white man who runs a capital firm that specialized in creating profit by strangling companies and is from a religion that only really helps in one state you'd have laughed at me.

I had to do a ton of convincing to myself that Romney was better than Obama.

Also, incumbents have a huge advantage. If they were running the same election today, I think McCain would have had a good chance of winning. George Washington wouldn't have beaten Obama in 2008.


I agree. IMO it came down to likability and trust. If you were on the fence because you weren't happy with the Obama administration Romney never made you feel comfortable about him. You were probably looking for a reason to get back on the Obama wagon because he is a likeable guy. Romney was an awful politician and his life experiences likely made it tough for him to connect. McCain would have won in 2012. Likeability and trust were never an issue for him before 2008.

Author:  Makaveli [ Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

RFDC wrote:
I didn't think Romney was a terrible candidate, I thought he was a better candidate than McCain.

IMO if the GOP has any hope of winning in 2016 they better find a way to rally around Rubio. He seems to be the only person right now that would have a shot of winning. I think Romney very well may have won had he picked Rubio. I thought Christie could be that guy as well, but I have a feeling that the whole Sandy/Obama deal may hurt him too much for that.


Christie wouldn't have helped. Chris Christie likes to sell his ideas just like Paul Ryan. Neither of them could do that because the guy at the top of the ticket sucks at retail politics. The funny thing is he nearly won the election without saying anything. When you have the wrong guy at the top of the ticket it really doesn't matter who the VP is.

Author:  Makaveli [ Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Karl Rove

RFDC wrote:
Don Tiny wrote:
Christie/Rubio in 2016.

(I do not have the names in the wrong order)


I would be very happy with that, but you don't think the whole Sandy deal is going to hurt him?


Being pro choice will hurt him more because he has to make it out of the republican primary. Same with Rubio. IMO I doubt the far right will be ready for a minority candidate. Rubio would have to be the VP pick.

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/