• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Looks Like Romney Really Meant the 47% Remark

Doug Mataconis note the following from Romney yesterday in an explanation of why he lost:

In a conference call on Wednesday afternoon with his national finance committee, Mr. Romney said that the president had followed the “old playbook” of wooing specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people,” Mr. Romney explained — with targeted gifts and initiatives.

“In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said.

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,” he said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.” (Source)

This sounds a great deal like the infamous “47%” remark (also given to a bunch of donors):

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

As such, I guess Romney was spinning (to be kind) or prevaricating (to be accurate) when he told Sean Hannity the following regarding the 47% comment:

“Clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you’re going to say something that doesn’t come out right. In this case, I said something that’s just completely wrong.”

The best possible interpretation of these remarks is that Romney does not believe this thesis, but even in defeat, has to lie to the money men. The more likely interpretation is that this is exactly what he believes.  And based on post-election commentary (and the reactions of many people I know), this is a popular notion amongst many on the Republican side of the ledger.

Here’s the empirical problem:  if our parties were truly cleaved along class lines, then we would see voting patterns based almost exclusively, if not exclusively, along wealth lines.  While we see some divisions along these lines, we do not have class-based voting (i.e., the Dems are not the party solely of the poor nor are the Reps the party exclusively of the rich).  There are a lot of lower income whites (in particular) who vote Republican and there are a substantial number of middle and upper class persons who vote Democratic.

For example, Gallup polled registered voters in September based on income and found the following:

Voting preferences by annual household income.gif

While we see some clear class-based divisions, they are hardly as pronounced as Romney, et al., is making it out to be.  Not only are there clearly substantial number of poor persons voting Romney, there is a sizeable percentage of the wealthy voting Obama.

Quite frankly, if the Democrats were, in fact, exclusively the party of the poor, we would see different policy proposals from them.

At a minimum:  Romney (or any Republican for that matter) needs a substantial percentage of the 47%ers to win the presidency.  As a Reuters story noted at the time of the 47% remark:

The “47 percent” aren’t just low-income city dwellers who rely on food stamps, housing support and other programs that traditionally have been championed by Democrats.

Many are retirees and working-class white voters who are wary of government’s role in their lives and who have tended to vote for Republicans in recent years, even as they take advantage of tax credits and government assistance.

Indeed, not understanding this fact is a sign of a resounding level of innumeracy on the part of Romney and his supporters (as well as a lack of understanding of any number of policies in the US).

I would note, in conclusion, that a lot of the division in the electorate is not about voting for freebies, it is often about voting for which set of policy theories and priorities one buys into.   Just like some social conservatives in the lower class might well vote against their economic interests because they have staunch views on abortion or gay marriage, many who might face tax increases under Obama’s policy proposals find they believe those outcomes are preferable for the country, even if it means a bit of personal hit in the pocketbook.  As I keep stressing:  policy matters.  And, further, the Republicans need to stop telling themselves simplistic tales about the way politics works, or they will continue to have trouble at the ballot box.

More importantly, however, if we want to generate a deeper understanding of the dynamics in question, is the fact that we have to acknowledge that a pure “maker” class and a pure “taker” class does not exist (or, if one prefers, one cannot pretend that 47% are on the dole and 53% produce everything).  We all receive benefits from government in one form or another and we all pay in to one degree or another.  Pretending otherwise is to play a child’s game instead of engaging in reality.

(This all relates to the whole “you did not build that” brouhaha).

More past writings on this subject:

Makers and Takers?

More Maker/Taker Musings

POL 101: To Govern is to Redistribute

And, as I often tempted to do in such discussion, here’s a link to the Life of Brian.

Related Posts:

About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is Professor and Chair of Political Science at Troy University. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. He is the author of Voting Amid Violence: Electoral Democracy in Colombia and is currently working on a comparative study of the US to 29 other democracies. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging at PoliBlog since 2003. Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. Geek, Esq. says:

    The bottom line is that Romney thinks the plutocrat class are the rightful owners of society, and that the peasants who want such luxuries as medical care and an education are a bunch of leeches.

    Especially if they have dark skin.

    Worst human being to seek the Presidency since Nixon.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 0

  2. Al says:

    I didn’t believe him when he tried to walk it back. It was very nice of him to prove me right.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0

  3. mantis says:

    Looks Like Romney Really Meant the 47% Remark

    Of course he did. It’s the Republicans’ core message, and has been since before Reagan and “welfare queens.” It’s always been, “Your problems are caused by freeloaders you’ve never met but are everywhere (and usually have brown skin).”

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 0

  4. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    More importantly, however, if we want to generate a deeper understanding of the dynamics in question, is the fact that we have to acknowledge that a pure “maker” class and a pure “taker” class does not exist. …

    Indeed. But the facts you cite have been out in the open for a long time for everyone to see. For Team Right, though, this isn’t about facts and evidence; it’s about emotion and tribalism. Remember, this is the same party that, for example, in large part denies climate science and supports the idea that humans rode on dinosaurs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0

  5. Romney, et al, just can’t understand why some of us might want to live in a society where our fellow citizens have access to health care and a good education, and so on. It isn’t just about what we can get for ourselves, but also the kind of country we want to live in.

    There is even a selfish motive here, namely that I don’t particularly want to have to live behind 12 foot fences with razor wire (as you see in much of the developing world) to protect myself and my family from the immiserated poor.

    I know the counter-argument. If you just make the poor suffer more, they’ll work harder. Maybe, maybe not. Some people are born into bad circumstances, other have bad luck. But for Romney, anyone who needs a hand is lazy and morally bankrupt. And yeah, some are just “takers,” though they seem like a small minority of those in need.

    I don’t know what to say except that maybe Romney needs to get out more.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 0

  6. john personna says:

    @Eric the OTB Lurker:

    I think the GOP has lost a lot of plausible deniability, along with the election.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  7. @Bernard Finel: Indeed all the way around.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0

  8. Rob in CT says:

    As I said when the Romney tape came out: this is dogma on the Right at this point. I’ve heard it so many times, so earnestly.

    My parents absolutely believe it. And no matter how many times I point out things like “income taxes are only part of the revenue equation” or “the vast majority of people who don’t owe income taxes make squat, which is why they don’t owe” it just bounces right off. It’s a grievance, and they’re sticking to it.

    You know why? It’s self-serving. It casts them as the put-upon hard workers who pay SO MUCH in taxes to pay for lazy people (even though they’ve had their taxes cut repeatedly, at least the taxes relevant to the 47% discussion).

    It’s bullshit, but it sells because a significant chunk of people really want to cast themselves in that quasi-martyr role. Instead of, you know, recognizing that they’re well-off and live in one of the best if not the best countries in the world to be well-off, all things (including tax burden) considered.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0

  9. gVOR08 says:

    All very true, Steven, but not one word new or surprising. Has it not been obvious for a long time that the Republican Party is controlled by and for the .01%? .01% is a good deal smaller than 50% plus one. So the elite of the party have to draw in a much larger group of voters. The traditional tools: lying, money, and xenophobia still work well. Of course they have to throw them a few sops now and again, and there’s always the risk of the inmates taking over the asylum. But so far they’re managing fairly well. They bought nominations for McCain and for Romney; and they can buy one for Rubio or Christie or Jeb Bush next time.

    As to Romney himself, someone born on third base has two choices. He can decide he was really lucky in the birth lottery, thank FSM, and do his best to deserve it. Or he can decide his wealth and success are solely due to his personal virtue and general awesomeness. Which do you think most choose? The Koch bros are understandably disdainful of anyone who did not have the smarts, skill, and drive to inherit an oil refining business like they did.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

  10. MBunge says:

    The problem isn’t that Romney and his ilk see Obama and the Democrats as giving out “gifts” in order to win votes. It’s that they do the exact same thing but are in total denial about it.

    Mike

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0

  11. Gustopher says:

    I never quite understood why people didn’t immediately see Mitt Romney for what he is — a horrible human being given every advantage in life, who believes he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps and is just plain disgusted that everyone else hasn’t done the same.

    In 2008, I was glad Obama won.

    In 2012, I was glad Romney lost. I ate brownies and ice cream and laughed and pointed out the crying people in the audience during his concession speech.

    It’s not just politics, it’s that Romney is a bad person.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  12. michael reynolds says:

    For the GOP writ large this is all intimately wound-up with racism. For Romney in specific, I suspect it’s equally about Mormonism. Mormons are quite good at taking care of their own, they have a sort of stern, paternalistic, faith-based welfare state. No doubt in Mr. Romney’s mind the problems we have stem from our refusal to adopt his religion — remember, this is a missionary faith. Mr. Romney spent part of his youth trying to convert Parisians, of all people.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  13. john personna says:

    @Gustopher:

    Obama is giving out brownies and ice cream now!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  14. Rob in CT says:

    someone born on third base has two choices. He can decide he was really lucky in the birth lottery, thank FSM, and do his best to deserve it. Or he can decide his wealth and success are solely due to his personal virtue and general awesomeness. Which do you think most choose? The Koch bros are understandably disdainful of anyone who did not have the smarts, skill, and drive to inherit an oil refining business like they did.

    Well, what are you going to do? Keep that awful Death Tax? You terrible person you.

    ;)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  15. Peacewood says:

    And this is surprising, how?

    Even on this board, is there a single Romney supporter or Republican who doesn’t believe in the makers-takers worldview?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  16. Eric the OTB Lurker says:

    By the way, has anyone seen Jan, Drew, or Smooth Jazz? Maybe they’re taking some time out for introspection, and to reflect on their positions, and really seriously analyze what they believe and why.



    OK. I don’t really believe that myself. But, for a moment, just a tiny moment, it seemed possible.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  17. john personna says:

    @Peacewood:

    And that any tax increase on the rich is “class warfare” by that underclass?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  18. john personna says:

    @Eric the OTB Lurker:

    I’m sure they went Galt and are happy in their mountain retreat.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  19. @Eric the OTB Lurker:

    I have seen Jan.

    I am not sure if Drew has been back or not.

    I have definitely not seen Smooth Jazz.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  20. Rob in CT says:

    Jan showed up briefly and immediately confirmed that she’d learned nothing about her sources.

    Drew largely flounced well before the election, making only very intermittant appearances to sneer at the dumb libs.

    Smooth Jazz vanished entirely.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  21. mantis says:

    I suspect Jan and Jazz will be back under new aliases (or maybe they already are). Drew will surely swing by occasionally to gloat about his riches.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  22. Tsar Nicholas says:

    There always have been makers and takers. The prospective deleterious effects to a democracy for centuries have been well known. Read Alexis de Tocqueville’s works. Alexander Hamilton also was quite skeptical of giving power to the people, largely for this precise reason. Ben Franklin too. None of this is or should be surprising. Misery loves company.

    As far as voting by income ranges is concerned, that’s a square peg for a round hole. Romney wasn’t saying that poor people automatically would vote for Obama or that rich people automatically would vote for him. Obviously on both fronts there is substantial overlap.

    Romney was saying that people who are dependent upon the government, or who wish to be dependent upon the government, or who view the nanny state as a plus rather than a minus, or who don’t have any financial skin in the game, overwhelmingly would vote for Obama and that when you add those folks up it’s right around half the of the electorate, which also coincides with the percentage of the populace that doesn’t pay any net federal income taxes. These points are axiomatic. That they strike painful nerves with the left-wing chattering classes is besides the point.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 16

  23. Fiona says:

    When the 47 percent statement came out, it showed the real Romney. The same guy showed up at the debates and looked down his nose at not only the moderators, but also the President, whom he clearly thought was beneath him. Now, he’s doubling down on his 47 percent statements by saying single women, young people, and minorities only voted for Obama because he promised them free stuff (as opposed to promising them massive tax cuts). No big surprise.

    Romney is expressing the angry rich white guy resentment that has driven so many in his party for the lat two or three decades, which is ironic given how well rich whites guys have made out like bandits during this time while almost everyone else has seen their share of the wealth decline. I’d like to make Ann and Mitt trade spaces with a poor black inner-city family for a year and see how well they cut it. The guy is blind to any situation outside his own.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  24. C. Clavin says:

    The most important thing to note is that none of his excuses involve pointing the finger at himself. He didn’t lose because the team he built couldn’t read polls, or because his message was flip- flawed. He lost because half the country is made up of freeloaders.

    Having said that:
    You have to feel a little bad for Romney.
    Here’s a guy that wasn’t born on third base…he was born strolling across home plate while the other kids were still fishing the ball out of the stream on the other side of the right field fence…and it was Romney’s ball.
    But he lost a Senate race against Kennedy who was at his weakest point.
    He managed to buy the Governors race…but knew damn well he would never win a second term.
    He lost a Presidential Primary to a guy who then got clocked by Obama.
    The he got clocked by Obama…and yes, 8 out of 9 swing states and 3M+/- popular votes is a clocking.

    Most of us are well accustomed to trials and setbacks in our lives.
    I think Romney is still struggling with the reality of them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  25. john personna says:

    @Tsar Nicholas:

    That’s the kind of thing where I read carefully, for content, and come up empty.

    What pattern goes back centuries? If your “takers” are churches and armies, maybe. Who are the big takers now? Indicted leaders of mega-churches? A military-industrial complex?

    Do you count working families who also take benefits as net-net takers? Or do you have some number for the idle and slothful?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  26. C. Clavin says:

    Tsar…

    “…people who are dependent upon the government, or who wish to be dependent upon the government, or who view the nanny state as a plus rather than a minus…”

    Once again your comment confuses me…
    Are you talking about farmers, and fossil fuel producers, and companies that suck up corporate welfare…like Bain?
    Or are you talking about the sick and elderly on Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and Veterans?
    Because I know who I would cut off tomorrow if I had a choice.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  27. Scott says:

    There always have been makers and takers.

    There are no pure makers and very few pure takers. These are categories without meaning. We live in a society organized for mutual benefit. This is called government. I know the right likes to believe that government is some other creatures unrelatedly and unhelpful to themselves but that is utterly false. Engaging in a conversation using these terms is not helpful to moving forward.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  28. mantis says:

    @Tsar Nicholas:

    Romney was saying that people who are dependent upon the government, or who wish to be dependent upon the government, or who view the nanny state as a plus rather than a minus, or who don’t have any financial skin in the game, overwhelmingly would vote for Obama and that when you add those folks up it’s right around half the of the electorate, which also coincides with the percentage of the populace that doesn’t pay any net federal income taxes.

    He is wrong in every respect. None of those things describe me, and I voted for Obama. Ditto my wife and many friends.

    These points are axiomatic.

    Axiomatic is not a synonym for bullshit. You and Romney are wrong, and exactly what is wrong with this country.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  29. Scott says:

    At what point is this country going to have a conversation on a right to medical care. I would like to hear from the folks who believe that there is no basic right to some basic care and how they would accept the consequences of that belief. Right now we ration medical care based on the ability to pay. There is, at a fundamental level, something immoral about that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  30. stonetools says:

    The 47 per cent speech made clear what was implicit, which was that the Republican Party is now a party organized by and for affluent, conservative whites. If you don’t fit within that category, they’ll tolerate you so long as you advocate for the interests of affluent, conservative whites. This is why there is a place for the Jindals, Rubios, and Arthur Davises.

    From the POV of Democrats, the good thing is that they don’t realize that they have to change policies . They just think they have to change the rhetoric and the spokespersons. The bad thing is that this just might work, unless the Democrats are careful.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  31. Seattle Solicitor says:

    As everyone likes to jump on a losing candidate, and as Mitt has a knack for tone-deaf statements, I get that everyone wants to criticize the “gifts” remarks and focus on the monetary aspects of the comment because it fits with the “47%” meme.

    However, I think his underlying point is much better made in this Economist analysis ( http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21565995-niche-campaigning-negativity-and-nitty-gritty-organisation-put-barack-obama-back?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fwl%2Fpe%2Fremakingthepresident ) and has been echoed by Obama’s team. The president targeted specific agenda items throughout the term at the groups that formed his coalition. There were a lot of reasons for Romney’s failure (many also touched upon here), but this targeting definitely helped Obama keep and motivate his 2008 coalition.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  32. ptfe says:

    A relevant additional table:

    U.S. household income: upper limit of each fifth
    Lowest…………Second…………Third…………Fourth
    $20,262………$38,520………$62,434………$101,582
    Lower limit of top 5 percent: $186,000

    The bracket that Obama dominated: the lowest 40% of household incomes. The bracket that Romney dominated: the top 10%. Some math is hard. This isn’t. When you want to win 51% of the vote, you don’t crap on 40% of the electorate by telling them they’re a bunch of worthless takers. But people like @Tsar Nicholas show that, for some people, it’s so ingrained to crap on “those people” that they don’t even want to understand who this 40% of the electorate is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  33. Jen says:

    @Seattle Solicitor: I think there’s an enormous difference between saying that the Obama campaign had a winning strategy in identifying and appealing to those who would likely vote for him, and then effectively turning those voters out, compared to Mitt Romney’s “he gave them free stuff.”

    The “free stuff” meme has been played out this cycle. It’s simply not correct. By saying this, Mitt Romney is telling me not only that he didn’t want my vote, but if anyone on the right lines up behind this silliness, they are telling me they no longer want my vote either. I didn’t vote for Obama because I’m getting anything for “free”–not one of the categories listed by Tsar applies to me. If it makes Mitt feel better to think this way, more power to him, I guess. It happens to be wrong.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  34. Graham says:

    If Romney et al really believed that low taxes were a path to prosperity for all, you’d think they’d consider 47% of the population paying none at all a pretty good start.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  35. grumpy realist says:

    Like the Bourbons, Romney has forgotten nothing and learned nothing. I’m a single female, and I certainly did not vote for Obama because of “free birth control” (getting more and more unnecessary in my case, anyway.) I voted for Obama because I think he’s done a good job so far, especially with all the roadblocks the Republicans have thrown in his way. I voted for Obama because he supports R&D, provides funding for basic science projects, and seems to have a handle on reality. Romney? I detested the man, not just for his continuous contempt for Americans who haven’t been born with a silver spoon in their mouths, but his contempt for any of us who didn’t fit in with his upper-crust white 1950s image of the world. (And don’t get me started on his wife. A clueless little wanna-be Marie Antoinette who was taken care of by her daddy when she was growing up and then passed off to be taken care of by Mitt. Never has had to act like an independent adult a day in her life and thinks she has the authority to proclaim how women should live their lives. Ugh.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  36. mattb says:

    @mantis:

    I suspect Jan and Jazz will be back under new aliases (or maybe they already are).

    Actually, I don’t think Jan will take up a new alias. As for her general absence, she’s always been a bit of an erratic commenter and her level of participation here at OTB often corresponds to whether Republicans/Conservatives fortunes are waxing or waning.

    As for Jazz, it’s probably going to be months before he comments. But then, generally speaking, he’s never been a “regular.”

    As far as MIA folks, has anyone seen Boyd in weeks? Hope everything is ok with him.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  37. rodney dill says:

    @john personna:

    I’m sure they went Galt and are happy in their mountain retreat

    It’s plush.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  38. Janis Gore says:

    @grumpy realist: For that comment, you get Koko Taylor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  39. JohnMcC says:

    Seems to have been forgotten that the Repubs have shown astonishing incompetence in actually dealing with elections this entire season. Do we recall the hilarity of the Iowa primary in which no one could actually count the votes? How this established a pattern that lasted for months up until Maine and Nevada? How ‘winners’ would be announced and then corrected sometimes multiple times?

    It was pointed out that Ryan spent considerable time campaigning the in non-battleground states of Alabama and Texas. For much of the race, Romney would have only one event daily.

    The Romney team had no plan for the earliest part of the campaign; they report being broke and unable to reply to the Democrat’s Bain Ads and Where’s-the’Tax-Return? Ads.

    They had virtually no presence in local GOTV efforts, leaving this up to local Republica offices who usually have local races to fight in. The “ORCA” catastrophe is well documented.

    And they have the utter, blasphemous GALL to blame the American electorate for their loss?!

    They virtually threw this race. It is hard to take them seriously as a political party. Except for their Conservative Entertainment Complex, they have nothing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  40. JohnMcC says:

    @JohnMcC: And they apparently could not conduct accurate polling….. Such a target rich environment!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  41. Drew 2 says:

    When you make the kind of bank I do, you can afford to be wrong. Now if everyone will admit they are jealous of me we can move on.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  42. Barry says:

    @Tsar Nicholas: “The prospective deleterious effects to a democracy for centuries have been well known.”

    You know, I don’t believe this. Anybody who thinks something like ‘a democracy only lasts until the majority realizes that they can vote themselves money from the minority’, or something like that, probably thinks that that’s the way the Roman Republic fell.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  43. Barry says:

    @JohnMcC: “Seems to have been forgotten that the Repubs have shown astonishing incompetence in actually dealing with elections this entire season. Do we recall the hilarity of the Iowa primary in which no one could actually count the votes? How this established a pattern that lasted for months up until Maine and Nevada? How ‘winners’ would be announced and then corrected sometimes multiple times? ”

    Given the GOP’s ideas on voter/vote suppression, there were probably a number of vicious fights over throwing out votes for the ‘wrong’ guy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0