What more does a candidate need to do to lose a Presidential election?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I ask this question sincerely, because I'm baffled that Romney still has any chance at winning this election and I feel like I'll go crazy if I don't get this off my chest. This isn't even a political thing, it's all about how Romney's been running his campaign and the sheer amount of missteps his campaign has been making for the last three months.

Throughout the primary, Romney made a series of stupid remarks in the debates that displayed poorly on his character, but even setting aside the primary, his general election campaign has been a series of campaign "reboots" and stupid decisions. Spending very little time campaigning versus fundraising, his ground game (in terms of GOTV effort and field offices) are dwarfed by the Obama campaign. He has had perhaps more gaffes than any major American Presidential candidate in recent political history. His campaign has dodged specificity on virtually every single issue to the point that even Fox News has been calling him out on it. (This is especially mind blowing to me, Romney has absolutely no specific policies he's been running on whatsoever, aside from wanting to cut all tax rates by 20%, but there's no explanation of how it's paid for beyond telling everyone that it's paid for.)

His response to the embassy crises was self-evidently craven and opportunistic; but even setting aside all of that he had nothing of substance to contribute to the issue even if you agree with Romney politically. His choice of Ryan for a running made was utterly terrible politics, as it gives a ton of ammunition to Democrats on sensitive policy issues and Ryan has been completely muzzled while being just as vague about his policy goals as Romney and establishing himself as a serial liar. The Republican convention was a mismanaged and sad state of affairs that did basically nothing to improve the standing of Republican candidates and was immediately forgotten. Romney is one of the most negatively personally viewed Presidential candidates since polling began on the subject. And on top of all of that and more, Romney literally insulted half of the American population by calling them lazy freeloaders in a video that was not only insane to say when you're running for office, but also factually wrong.

This has nothing to do with my own personal views of Romney or the Republican Party more broadly. This isn't a political attack informed by my own ideological opposition to him. It doesn't even have to do with the fact that Romney has been running what is perhaps the most cynical campaign ever, just openly saying different things to different people in the hope that he can fool moderate voters watching more mainstream news outlets, preparing "zingers" for the debates because he seems to acknowledge even to himself that he couldn't win a debate on his own terms or on the basis of his policies and wants to trick the media by falling for it's tendency to obsessively play one-liners on a loop, or far more of his ads (such as the semi-racist "taking work out of welfare" commercial) haven't just been misleading, they've been completely fictitious and the reaction to that fact from the campaign was just "yeah, we basically don't care if what we say is true or not." This is about his campaign being filled with insane and insulting missteps that, were they all done by Obama, he'd been running in the low 40s in national polls right now.

I get that the economy isn't perfect and that it's not raining twenty-dollar bills and the rivers haven't turned into milk chocolate. I get that Obama is an incumbent President so there's naturally more settled opposition to him. I get that he's a black. But more and more I cannot understand why this man still remains competitive in most polls. A piece of cardboard with Romney's name on it would have as much or more policy specificity than Romney's entire campaign all without bluntly insulting half of the electorate.

So I ask this question and I ask it seriously: What more does a candidate have to do to lose an election? Short of looking straight into the camera at the debate tonight and saying "I hate all of you. Seriously, f**k off." I seriously cannot think of anything more that would ordinarily lose an election just on their own. It's as if the American public has become impervious to being negatively affected by Republican stupidity.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's without doubt, the WORST campaign since McGovern... even McCain/Palin was more coherent and stable than this... if the economy was good, Obama would be 10% ahead at least...

However, the combination of the wonky economy and you know... the black thing, means his ceiling is about what he got in 2008... unless Romney literally has a meltdown on live TV.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I feel your frustration. Without regard for ideology, this election should be the Republicans', hands down. Obama has not been a successful President by most measues AND the economy is doing rather poorly. But Romney's stumbling, staggering campaign is by turns infuriating and pathetic. I look at it, think of his once-trumpeted 'executive experience' and can't help but wonder if his entire adult life is not simply a product of wealth, connections, and some slick talk. God knows, Romney certainly appears to think that he's going to become President simply because he's entitled to.

[Sbane]

Economy is doing rather poorly, and has stagnated from where it was about 6 months back. I think in a normal scenario, we would see the race being neck and neck. Obama is ahead because of these missteps. Also the country is polarized, so each side is basically guaranteed about 46% of the vote.

[Reaganfan]

From the other end of the political spectrum from your state of Ohio, I too ask the same question, but I ask it of President Obama, not Governor Romney.

From his bitter campaign with Hillary Clinton which he promptly began losing even though he had all but achieved the nomination already, he has had nothing but negatives. Think of every single thing this President has done that has made even his fan base scratch their heads.

Saying that the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" and his ridiculous "Beer Summit" outraged many in law enforcement that their own President would be first to criticize the Police without knowing all the facts.

The Fort Hood Terrorist Attack, when the President was speaking at the Tribal Nations Conference and was criticized by the media for being "insensitive", as he addressed the shooting only three minutes into his prepared speech, and then for not according it sufficient gravitas.

He seems to almost want to distance himself so much from his far more consequential predecessor that he dismisses the "war on terror" as a slogan, and treats Fort Hood as a single incident of a disturbed individual and the 9/11/12 attack in Egypt as an incident because of an offensive movie. I have never heard Obama utter the words "war on terror", "Islamic fundamentalists" or anything that suggests he is in touch with reality. It's almost as if he tries to imagine that it's all a big misunderstanding.

Think of the many attempts to fix the economy from two stimulus bills, Cash for Clunkers, and numerous other projects that have had nearly no effect on the stagnant economy. All they did was increase the debt and cost the taxpayer.

Think of all the Americans, even Democrats, who shook their heads when he martyred Treyvon Martin, even before any shred of facts were placed before the public, or when he came out (no pun intended) in favor of gay marriage the day after North Carolina banned it overwhelmingly.

Think of a President who almost apologized in a speech to Japan about the U.S. dropping nuclear bombs on Japanese Cities to end World War II. Can you imagine? Even his advisers warned him against it, but just the fact that he even considered doing so is so contemptible, so ignominious, so dastardly and cowardly, that Harry Truman, one of my favorite Presidents, a Democrat to boot, is likely looking down with disdain. How can the Democrats consider themselves a party of Truman when they nominate a man who would apologize for ending the deadliest conflict in human history?

But he smiles and acts cool. He says things that are anti-Capitalistic but makes them sound logical. Blacks will vote for him no matter what because of "sentimental values".

I stand with Romney because I believe this President is so far disattached with reality that I'd take a rich businessman with Swiss bank accounts over this President any day.

[Kalimantan]

I think he has done enough to lose it. And he will.

[BlueSwan]

The campaign itself has been badly run, but not as terribly as the McCain/Palin campaign.

Romney has the following things going for him:

1) He's obviously very intelligent, unlike the last GOP president.

2) He looks like a stereotypical US president. This gives him a subliminal cognitive advantage.

3) He's got business credentials. Not bad in an economic crisis.

4) The economy is bad. Bad news for any incumbent.

5) The electorate is incredibly divided. 2008 was in effect a landslide election, yet Obama still only won by 7 points. We are unlikely to see anybody win by larger margins than that in this political climate. The GOP could run a reincarnation of Adolph Hitler and he would probably still crack at least 43% just because he isn't a "liberal, socialist, muslim".

So unless Romney tonight reveals that his fiscal plan is to sell America to China for 18 trillion dollars (he gets to keep 10%), then he won't lose by more than 7 points tops and he'll keep all the states McCain won as well as Indiana.

[m4567]

The campaign itself has been badly run, but not as terribly as the McCain/Palin campaign.

Romney has the following things going for him:

1) He's obviously very intelligent, unlike the last GOP president.

2) He looks like a stereotypical US president. This gives him a subliminal cognitive advantage.

3) He's got business credentials. Not bad in an economic crisis.

4) The economy is bad. Bad news for any incumbent.

5) The electorate is incredibly divided. 2008 was in effect a landslide election, yet Obama still only won by 7 points. We are unlikely to see anybody win by larger margins than that in this political climate. The GOP could run a reincarnation of Adolph Hitler and he would probably still crack at least 43% just because he isn't a "liberal, socialist, muslim".

So unless Romney tonight reveals that his fiscal plan is to sell America to China for 18 trillion dollars (he gets to keep 10%), then he won't lose by more than 7 points tops and he'll keep all the states McCain won as well as Indiana.

I agree with some of that. Romney looks presidential, but isn't charismatic/exciting. He doesn't have a clear message, either.

The economy is a lot better than it was. Usually in elections, it's more about the trend.

[Politico]

The campaign itself has been badly run, but not as terribly as the McCain/Palin campaign.

Romney has the following things going for him:

1) He's obviously very intelligent, unlike the last GOP president.

2) He looks like a stereotypical US president. This gives him a subliminal cognitive advantage.

3) He's got business credentials. Not bad in an economic crisis.

4) The economy is bad. Bad news for any incumbent.

5) The electorate is incredibly divided. 2008 was in effect a landslide election, yet Obama still only won by 7 points. We are unlikely to see anybody win by larger margins than that in this political climate. The GOP could run a reincarnation of Adolph Hitler and he would probably still crack at least 43% just because he isn't a "liberal, socialist, muslim".

So unless Romney tonight reveals that his fiscal plan is to sell America to China for 18 trillion dollars (he gets to keep 10%), then he won't lose by more than 7 points tops and he'll keep all the states McCain won as well as Indiana.

This is a good post. There is no way Romney will not secure all of the McCain states along with Indiana. Add FL, NC, VA, OH and NH to the list, and Romney is president-elect.

Team Romney has a secret plan to win the election. Hint: It involved being beyond underwhelming in September.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Add FL, NC, VA, OH and NH to the list, and Romney is president-elect.

Easier said than done.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The campaign itself has been badly run, but not as terribly as the McCain/Palin campaign.

Romney has the following things going for him:

1) He's obviously very intelligent, unlike the last GOP president.

2) He looks like a stereotypical US president. This gives him a subliminal cognitive advantage.

3) He's got business credentials. Not bad in an economic crisis.

4) The economy is bad. Bad news for any incumbent.

5) The electorate is incredibly divided. 2008 was in effect a landslide election, yet Obama still only won by 7 points. We are unlikely to see anybody win by larger margins than that in this political climate. The GOP could run a reincarnation of Adolph Hitler and he would probably still crack at least 43% just because he isn't a "liberal, socialist, muslim".

So unless Romney tonight reveals that his fiscal plan is to sell America to China for 18 trillion dollars (he gets to keep 10%), then he won't lose by more than 7 points tops and he'll keep all the states McCain won as well as Indiana.

This is a good post. There is no way Romney will not secure all of the McCain states along with Indiana. Add FL, NC, VA, OH and NH to the list, and Romney is president-elect.

Team Romney has a secret plan to win the election. Hint: It involved being beyond underwhelming in September.

You have gone off the deep-end of delusion if you think being the worst campaign in 40 years is some sort of strategic genius...

[Politico]

Add FL, NC, VA, OH and NH to the list, and Romney is president-elect.

Easier said than done.

Half a decade ago, almost nobody foresaw NC/VA going Democratic. Kerry probably won NH because of the neighborhood effect. OH went to Bush twice. FL was close in 2000/2004.

You guys are acting like Romney has to summon God to win. Getting to 270 is tough, but extremely doable. Only a handful of states, and we can lose NH if we win CO or WI or NV or IA. It certainly will not take an act of God to win.

[GMantis]

From his bitter campaign with Hillary Clinton which he promptly began losing even though he had all but achieved the nomination already, he has had nothing but negatives. Think of every single thing this President has done that has made even his fan base scratch their heads.

Obama was losing the primary? Are you sure you're talking about 2008?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His first statement was rather foolish, of course, but the "Beer Summit" managed to smooth things over nicely, so it was far from ridiculous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What exactly is sufficient gravitas in this context?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"War on Terror" is indeed a stupid slogan, as you can't be in war with a tactic, especially one you're using yourself (see drone bombings and Libya). And I'm certain that all the Muslims (fundamentalist or not) he's killed with these drones were happy that he's no longer referring to Islamic fundamentalists...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That presumes that the economy wouldn't have gotten worse without the stimulus, which is a rather dubious assumption.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand your partisan attitude to this, but you're greatly overestimating their effect on the voting public. Regarding gay marriage, he has the same position as the majority of Americans. As for Treyvon Martin, it's true that non-blacks were dubious that his death was murder, but then again blacks, which were far more interested in the case were certain. He doesn't gain about 100% of the black vote (and more importantly, high turnout) just by being black.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Almost is the key word here - he didn't, so a non-issue again. And I don't how it's contemptible, ignominious or dastardly to feel regret at such terrible and unnecessary mass murder (and it's not cowardly either, considering what the popular opinion of this is in the US). Also, since under no interpretation of Christian Theology could Truman be anywhere but in Hell, it should be "looking up with disdain"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To describe Obama as anti-Capitalist would be to stretch this word to breaking point, as this would make the US an non-Capitalist country throughout the Cold War

[Politico]

From his bitter campaign with Hillary Clinton which he promptly began losing even though he had all but achieved the nomination already, he has had nothing but negatives. Think of every single thing this President has done that has made even his fan base scratch their heads.

Obama was losing the primary? Are you sure you're talking about 2008?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His first statement was rather foolish, of course, but the "Beer Summit" managed to smooth things over nicely, so it was far from ridiculous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What exactly is sufficient gravitas in this context?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"War on Terror" is indeed a stupid slogan, as you can't be in war with a tactic, especially one you're using yourself (see drone bombings and Libya). And I'm certain that all the Muslims (fundamentalist or not) he's killed with these drones were happy that he's no longer referring to Islamic fundamentalists...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That presumes that the economy wouldn't have gotten worse without the stimulus, which is a rather dubious assumption.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand your partisan attitude to this, but you're greatly overestimating their effect on the voting public. Regarding gay marriage, he has the same position as the majority of Americans. As for Treyvon Martin, it's true that non-blacks were dubious that his death was murder, but then again blacks, which were far more interested in the case were certain. He doesn't gain about 100% of the black vote (and more importantly, high turnout) just by being black.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Almost is the key word here - he didn't, so a non-issue again. And I don't how it's contemptible, ignominious or dastardly to feel regret at such terrible and unnecessary mass murder (and it's not cowardly either, considering what the popular opinion of this is in the US). Also, since under no interpretation of Christian Theology could Truman be anywhere but in Hell, it should be "looking up with disdain"

The projections showed that it would take 1,000,000 casualties for us to defeat Japan using a traditional approach (e.g., similar to D-Day and so on). Undoubtedly, a few of us would have never existed had the nation gone in that direction (since one or more of our ancestors would have died on the beaches of Japan). Obviously Japan would have never surrendered any other way. Maybe Truman should not have dropped the second bomb on a populated area, but he had to drop it on at least one big city to get the message across. A second bomb on an isolated island may have showed we had more than one bomb. That said, he could have chose Tokyo, but he allowed the Japanese to "save face" to some degree.

I can assure you that Germany/Japan would have dropped atomic bombs on New York and Washington had they developed the weapon first. Hell, probably the only reason that humanity still exists today is because we developed the first atomic bomb.

[GMantis]

The projections showed that it would take 1,000,000 casualties for us to defeat Japan using a traditional approach (e.g., similar to D-Day and so on). Undoubtedly, a few of us would have never existed had we gone in that direction. Obviously Japan would have never surrendered any other way. Maybe Truman should not have dropped the second bomb on a populated area, but he had to drop it on at least one big city to get the message across. A second bomb on an isolated island may have showed we had more than one bomb. That said, he could have chose Tokyo, but he allowed the Japanese to "save face" to some degree.

Ignoring whether Japan would have surrendered anyway, you haven't explained why the bomb could not have first used in a demonstration attack, for example on a military base. Of course, dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a convenient way to see the effect of the bombing on cities and was a more effective warning to the Soviets, but that's probably not an argument supporters of the bombings would really like...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly they would have, that's not the point here (though both had no chance in reality to develop the bombs during WWII). And this is a rather poor argument, as the main point of the American narrative of the war has always been that the were better than the Axis, not just equal to them in evilness.

[Politico]

The projections showed that it would take 1,000,000 casualties for us to defeat Japan using a traditional approach (e.g., similar to D-Day and so on). Undoubtedly, a few of us would have never existed had we gone in that direction. Obviously Japan would have never surrendered any other way. Maybe Truman should not have dropped the second bomb on a populated area, but he had to drop it on at least one big city to get the message across. A second bomb on an isolated island may have showed we had more than one bomb. That said, he could have chose Tokyo, but he allowed the Japanese to "save face" to some degree.

Ignoring whether Japan would have surrendered anyway, you haven't explained why the bomb could not have first used in a demonstration attack, for example on a military base. Of course, dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a convenient way to see the effect of the bombing on cities and was a more effective warning to the Soviets, but that's probably not an argument supporters of the bombings would really like...

You're not informed about the Imperial Japanese military if you think they would have surrendered. These people were brainwashed into believing their emperor was God. The only way they could be shown otherwise, and the only way the emperor would give in, was with a bomb dropped on a major city, and all that entails. And they didn't even surrender after Hiroshima. It was only after Nagasaki that they relented, and even that took almost another week after the fact. We had to start talking about dropping the next one on Tokyo in order to get them to finally surrender. Would you have preferred sending 1,000,000 Americans to their graves? Because that was the next best alternative to ending the war.

I do disagree with dropping the second bomb on a major city. Then again, it would not have happened had Japan surrendered right after Hiroshima (or, for that matter, if they had never attacked Pearl Harbor).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Germany could have had they played their cards right and/or we played ours badly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, we were better than the Axis. Much better. Even if the Soviet Union had developed the bomb first, I am not sure mankind would still exist (if the world were still around, it would probably resemble Orwell's 1984 by now).

Sometimes you need to do bad things to prevent bad people from doing worse things. We did what needed to be done to end the war; no more or less. It's not like we leveled the whole country with nuclear bombs, or forced reparation payments that crippled their national economy (which is what created the monster that was Nazi Germany following WW I). No, we accepted their apology, and helped them rebuild their economy.

The only reason the world exists today is because of great Americans like Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan.

[dspNY]

Looking at the national polls, Romney's ceiling in this election is ironically 47 percent. If you look at RCP, Romney hasn't exceeded that number (and he needs 48% to even have a chance) in any snapshot poll since the conventions. His range in the national polling since the conventions is between 44-46%, with a couple of numbers at 47. The last time Romney hit 48% was in a WaPo poll almost a month ago (Obama 49, Romney 48).

There's no way that every single one of those polls is wrong, and Romney is somehow winning. If you look at Obama's range, the worst number we see is 47%, and his range is between 48-51%.

Since the conventions, RCP has 32 national polling data points...Obama leads in 30, Romney in 1, and one tie. That's a small, but solid Obama lead that won't move because this electorate is locked in.

As for the state polling, Romney has no chance unless Ohio turns for him quickly...Virginia will trend very closely with Ohio

[Politico]

Looking at the national polls, Romney's ceiling in this election is ironically 47 percent. If you look at RCP, Romney hasn't exceeded that number (and he needs 48% to even have a chance) in any snapshot poll since the conventions

Yeah, kind of like Reagan's "ceiling" of 45-47%, right?

[Lief 🗽]

lol, still using Gallup and ignoring all the other polls in 1980 I see.

[dspNY]

Looking at the national polls, Romney's ceiling in this election is ironically 47 percent. If you look at RCP, Romney hasn't exceeded that number (and he needs 48% to even have a chance) in any snapshot poll since the conventions

Yeah, kind of like Reagan's "ceiling" of 45-47%, right?

Typical Republicans, turning back to the past for false hope...Reagan was a superior candidate with natural charisma and was EXTREMELY popular with his base; Romney is the worst GOP candidate to lead his party since at least Dole, and maybe Goldwater

Romney isn't a pimple on Reagan's ass as a candidate

[GMantis]

You're not informed about the Imperial Japanese military if you think they would have surrendered. These people were brainwashed into believing their emperor was God. The only way they could be shown otherwise, and the only way the emperor would give in, was with a bomb dropped on a major city, and all that entails. And they didn't even surrender after Hiroshima. It was only after Nagasaki that they relented, and even that took almost another week after the fact. We had to start talking about dropping the next one on Tokyo in order to get them to finally surrender. Would you have preferred sending 1,000,000 Americans to their graves? Because that was the next best alternative to ending the war.

I doubt the allies knew any of this, so that is still not an excuse for the nuclear bombings. Of course, the delay entailed in attempting first to demonstrate the nuclear weapons probably would have permitted the Soviet Union to expand its position, so it's not surprising that the US government hurried with the bombs (the invasion was not planned to begin until October, incidentally, so there was plenty of time try other ways to make Japan surrender).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They had hardly any time to react before the second bomb was dropped. Of course, since the purpose of that was to test out a different type of weapon, that hardly mattered.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really, even the principle they used was wrong, not to mention their inability to manufacture the required enriched Uranium.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why are you using such a poor argument, which only makes you out as bad as the Axis?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really likely, when considering how the Soviet Union's nuclear weapon project was based on the US one. And you fail to realize that nuclear weapons are the very reason that the World came under such peril. And as the nuclear deterrent of the Soviet Union made a nuclear far less likely, you should be thanking those who created it for saving the world

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be rather difficult to level the country with nuclear weapons, as it had already been leveled with conventional ones.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a ridiculous exaggeration. Kennedy and Reagan did their best to bring the world as close as possible to the brink to nuclear war. Eisenhower is possible if you assume that by reducing tension with the Soviet Union the likelihood of nuclear war decreased. Similarly Truman helped save the world by preventing a nuclear escalation during the Korean war. And if you think that Roosevelt is responsible for saving the world by helping win WWII, then you need to add Stalin to this list, as it was actually his forces which were the main factor in the defeat of Germany

[Politico]

Looking at the national polls, Romney's ceiling in this election is ironically 47 percent. If you look at RCP, Romney hasn't exceeded that number (and he needs 48% to even have a chance) in any snapshot poll since the conventions

Yeah, kind of like Reagan's "ceiling" of 45-47%, right?

Typical Republicans, turning back to the past for false hope...Reagan was a superior candidate with natural charisma and was EXTREMELY popular with his base; Romney is the worst GOP candidate to lead his party since at least Dole, and maybe Goldwater

Romney isn't a pimple on Reagan's ass as a candidate

Obviously things seem different nowadays, but Reagan was considered a "risky" "also-ran" at this point in 1980. He had run for the nomination twice previously, losing both times. Carter was successfully painting a picture of Reagan as this sort of "risky" candidate who was unfit to be in charge of our nuclear arsenal. These attacks largely worked until the debate with Anderson and, of course, the following debate with Carter. Hindsight is 20/20, and future successes can muddle memories of what things were like before the successes (e.g., Reagan did not become immensely popular until after the attempt on his life).

[dspNY]

You sidestepped my point...Reagan was still a superior candidate with great charisma and was very popular with his base; Romney has none of those qualities. Republicans were proud to vote for Reagan. The vibe I get from most Republicans now is that they're voting against Obama and not for their guy...that is a losing strategy

[dspNY]

Also, Reagan's top-notch political chops were already established by the time 1980 came around. Remember, he almost unseated a sitting President (Gerald Ford) in the 1976 Republican primary, a feat considered virtually impossible at the time.

In terms of political skills, Reagan was an A or A+ and Romney is at best a C-, maybe a D. There is no possible 1980 comparison between the two because one man was a terrific political animal (Reagan) and the other is an average at best politician (Romney)

[Politico]

You're not informed about the Imperial Japanese military if you think they would have surrendered. These people were brainwashed into believing their emperor was God. The only way they could be shown otherwise, and the only way the emperor would give in, was with a bomb dropped on a major city, and all that entails. And they didn't even surrender after Hiroshima. It was only after Nagasaki that they relented, and even that took almost another week after the fact. We had to start talking about dropping the next one on Tokyo in order to get them to finally surrender. Would you have preferred sending 1,000,000 Americans to their graves? Because that was the next best alternative to ending the war.

I doubt the allies knew any of this, so that is still not an excuse for the nuclear bombings.

Uh...ever hear of the term "Kamikaze"?

The American military was well aware of what Japan was willing to do to march "forward."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And would you have preferred if the Soviets had ended up with more control over Europe?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They had well over 48 hours. Unlike their attack on Pearl Harbor, we warned them that we had another bomb. Apparently they did not believe us.

The only thing that got them to surrender was threatening to drop a third bomb on Tokyo. It says a lot about Truman that he did not just drop the first bomb on Tokyo. Japan/Germany would not have hesitated to use such a weapon on Washington without warning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All it would have taken was better spying and better science on their part, and worse spying and worse science on our part.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe you should go visit a nearby Holocaust museum and ask this question again? You're out of line, buddy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was only a matter of time before somebody invented them. Better us than anybody else. The world would likely not exist had things turned out differently.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess they should not have attacked Pearl Harbor, huh? And I guess, when you get down to it, WW II altogether would not have happened if certain people in Europe had not forced crippling reparation payments upon Germany following WW I.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fixed. It is a good thing we wound up with men of courage and conviction in the White House rather than cowards like Adlai Stevenson.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, because nobody supplied the Soviets with necessary capital. Are you going to celebrate the Great Purge next? Stalin was arguably a worse monster than Hitler. Probably the two worst individuals of the 20th Century.