November 07, 2012
— Ace I'm going to ignore obvious ones like "the media," with one exception. I'll stick to things we had control of, and one big thing no one had control of.
1. Benghazi/Candy Crowely. "Act of terror." The line Obama had prepped for, and probably tipped Candy Crowely off about in advance.
Romney's mistake here was looking as precisely what he wasn't -- unprepared. Romney is a very prepared guy, and it's generally shown throughout his campaign.
In this case, though, I think the guy tasked with prepping him for Benghazi-- and briefing him on it-- overlooked two vague mentions of "acts of terror" by Obama.
Romney got stung -- and it's based on this one exchange, and then his off-his-game-performance for the next ten minutes of the second debate -- that caused his loss in the debate. Had he watched his words more carefully, had he been prepped to say "I know, Mr. President, you're going to claim you made a vague allusion to 'act of terror'"... he would have cleanly won the second debate, too.
Further, it's my theory that Romney laid off Benghazi at this point due to this error. I think he lost confidence in the guy tasked to this issue -- embarrass me in public and I don't want to hear from you for a while -- and also figured that to continue attempting relitigating it would just keep Candy Crowley's ignorant slapdown in the public consciousness. I think he choose, wrongly, to just ignore it from this point out.
And because he was no longer pushing it as an issue, the media decided they had the pretext necessary to drop it entirely as an issue, too.
Think how differently the whole second debate would have gone -- and the third debate, too, as that began with a Benghazi question -- had the ordinarily well-prepped Romney simply known Obama made a vague reference to "act of terror." 2. Hurricane Sandy. For some reason, Hillbuzz seems to think I pulled an "Oh noez! The Hurricane will make us lose!" trip. In fact, I never mentioned the hurricane, except to note the damage it wrought several days later.
At the time, I figured it might help Obama, but I hoped it would not, so I simply refused to address a natural calamity as a "political issue." I saw Politico and all the rest doing so; I didn't.
But Sandy did let Obama look Presidential in his spiffy (brand new, not a crease in it) Air Force One bomber jacket. And Chris Christie essentially endorsed him, vouching for his prowess as a Strong and Decisive Leader of Men.
From this point, Romney swung in the polls from a +1 RCP average to being down about one, and Obama's leadership rating rose.
A Black Swan. No one predicted it. It wasn't on the schedule. But yes, I do think it moved 2% to Obama. Without Sandy, we have another week of Benghazi. We can discuss more fully the unemployment rate rising to 7.9%. No spiffy new bomber jacket.
3. Failing to Accuse Obama of Planning to Raise Taxes on the Middle Class. This one hurt. Because Obama's is running huge deficits and must do something to address this, and because he refuses to give up any socialist spending, and because his tax hikes on the rich raise only $80 billion per year, Obama must tax the middle class to fuel his lavish, gold-plated progressive vision.
But Romney didn't say so. And then Obama accused Romney of wanting to raise taxes on the middle class.
This accomplished two things: 1, now people really think Romney is going to raise their taxes to give the rich a tax cut, and 2, it insulates Obama from the truth of his own plan to raise taxes on the middle class.
And now Romney can't make the charge. He'd just sound like a copycat.
Inexcusable. This was a bad one, man.
And this gets to...
4. Not Rebutting Clinton's Outstanding, Dishonest Convention Speech. I first noticed the "Romney wants to raise taxes on the middle class" charge when it was leveled by Clinton in his soaringly false convention speech.
Romney let the charge go unrebutted. And several other crucial points as well:
1) That the economy is about to take off into a golden age, just like it did in 1996, under Clinton.
2) That Obama didn't cut Medicare; why, he actually strengthened the program!
I hate to pat myself on the back but that speech was devastating. I said Romney had to rebut it vigorously. He didn't. Obama soared after the convention, and certainly not due to his own weak, stuttering effort. It was because of Clinton's pitch.
5. Because Romney's Rich. One of my biggest problems with candidate Romney -- before I got on board -- is that I didn't trust the American people to judge a rich, successful Winner on his merits.
That they would naturally fall to the normal human state of envy.
They did.
I'm not sure what Romney could have done to avoid this. Perhaps pushed those soft-focus Story of Mitt commercials very early.
6. Going to Perry's Right on Immigration. When Perry threatened to upset Romney's applecart, Romney shook the etch-a-sketch, and committed himself to a fairly strong-form anti-accomodation policy on illegal immigrants.
"Self deportation" was the plan for the nation's illegals.
Now, understand this: I'm not against that at all. I do not want more illegal immigrants coming here and becoming citizens, not because I'm anti-brown, but because I'm anti-red. Illegal immigrants from socialist countries tend to be poor and desiring of socialist cures for their relative poverty. The other thing they seem to want is more immigrants from poor socialist Latin America countries coming here to be citizens.
This creates an impossible situation: To attract them as voters, we have to agree to permit widescale immigration from Latin America into the country. And when they become citizens, they will vote against us, because they want socialism and we despise it. The more we chase them, the further we fall behind from our actual goal of restoring a limited-government capitalist-oriented Constitutional Republic.
I don't know what can be done about this. This strikes me as the most impossible hurdle for us, and I don't mean in this election; I mean in every election to come, and each four years the problem becomes worse for us.
One tactical error Romney made, however, was committing himself so strongly to a position without any wiggle room.
In fact, Mark Krikorian, a fairly hardline guy on illegal immigration, thought that Romney could propose a "mini-DREAM act" with E-Verify and other immigration-enforcement measures which would "make sense."
But Romney never really mentioned that. He never really offered any sort of fudge or sop to Hispanics on the issue.
Hispanics made up 10% of the electorate, according to exit polls (which maybe be skewed, but it's a rough estimate). They voted against Romney 70-30; they voted against McCain 60-40. 10% of 10% is of course 1%, so it is possible that if Romney had felt more room to make a pitch for some kind of compromise, he would have added 1% to his vote tally. Which just might have won things for him.
Now, that would have brought him problems-- he might have lost some white voters over this.
But he also did not then punish Obama with white voters for talking up amnesty.
In effect, Romney was in a No Man's Land, stuck with a position that Hispanics didn't like, but also not being willing to hit Obama on his position and thus turn white voters off to him.
He may have flinched from making the sort of tough, but fair, attack on Obama needed to win, as Obama's opponents tend to do.
After all, the media will call you racist.
7. Romney Refrained From Other Tough Attacks, Too. Romney was a little too gentlemanly to make several tough attacks that Lee Atwater, for example, would have insisted on.
For example:
He never called Obama a liberal. Ever. This is a bread-and-butter Republican attack, framing an opponent, defining him. It works especially well when your opponent is, in fact, a hard-left liberal.
Never mind calling him a socialist. How about a liberal?
He also never asked Obama, even in a commercial, if he vowed he would never send the Blind Sheikh back to Egypt.
There are rumors the Administration has been in "talks" about this -- and a State Department spokesman offered a non-denial (stating we had no "plans" to do so-- plans change).
He also never pressed Obama on closing Guantanamo, and his likely plan to relocate terrorists to a state prison facility in Illinois the federal government is purchasing.
He also stopped making an issue out of Obama's gutting of the work-for-welfare requirement, even though he was 100% correct.
Liberals would call these cheap attacks. I don't, and why do liberals get to make the rules? I thought the cancer attacks were cheap. What's wrong with these?
8. Rape Abortion. It was one thing for One Lone Nut to say he'd pass a law forbidding a raped woman from taking Plan B immediately after an attack (which is a standard current treatment). It was another thing when Richard Mourdock turned this from One Guy Popping Off to a Widely Held Republican Position.
Obama had already prepared a War on Women narrative, and now we've got Senate candidates saying that God planned for women to get raped?
Let me offer this observation: If there's something you believe, but have no chance whatsoever of passing into actual law, then it's really not a political belief. Politics is not philosophy. It's about passing (or repealing) actual laws with actual real-world coercive effect.
Since not even babies which are one hour from birth are currently protected from the abortionist -- the easiest case of all to make with the public -- why the focus on the toughest of all cases? One that horrifies women -- and men, to boot?
The hardest case for pro-choicers to defend is a baby just hours away from natural birth.
The hardest case for pro-lifers to defend is the administration of Plan B to a woman who was just raped hours ago, who, if pregnant at all, is pregnant with a single-celled embryo.
Since we have not prevailed on the easy case yet, why this suicidal determination to talk about the hardest case?
Not only is unlikely abortion will be outlawed at all (especially now, with the President and Senate in Democratic hands, and new liberal justices coming in the next four years to add to the 5-vote Roe majority), but it almost unfathomable that if it gets banned 15 years from now that there will not be an exception for emergency contraception immediately following a rape.
Since there is practically no chance whatsoever of this particular policy prevailing -- probably ever -- what is the point of injecting it into politics?
Why not just say you'd support such an exception? Since you would, given that no conceivable law would fail to contain it, so it would be that way or the highway?
Again, I think there is some confusion about the need to state one's personal governing philosophy -- which has no chance of becoming actual policy -- as if it's your policy.
It may be your preferred policy; but you have no hope of obtaining it -- it's far too unpopular -- so what is the point of saying so?
Every Republican presidential candidate has allowed the three exceptions. George W. Bush -- widely thought to be a good social conservative -- actually fudged on abortion entirely, stating he was pro-life himself, but understood the nation wasn't there yet and not ready for a ban of abortion until we embraced a "culture of life."
Indiana is a bright red state. It went easily for Romney.
Missouri is now a dark red state. It also went easily for Romney.
Mourdock and Akin both lost in these layup-win states.
I hope people in the insurgent wing of the party begin to understand the difference between policy -- which the public needs to be concerned with, as it's your actual intention to pass into positive law -- and personal belief -- which the public doesn't need to care about, as you don't anticipate making it into public law.
People might think this is about the Overton Window. Weill, that sound was the Overton Window slamming hard on Akin's and Mourdock's fingers.
Leaders lead when they are just far enough in front of public opinion that the public can and will follow them.
When they are too far ahead of public opinion, so far off the public cannot even see them any longer, the public wanders off and follows someone else. At that point, he's not the leader he intended, but the aimless lone wanderer in the wilderness.
Overall, I think this Republican Own Goal cost Romney-Ryan 1% or more. Maybe as much as 3%.
The first step to reducing abortion is stopping the easier cases-- the late-term abortions. Only when the public is comfortable with that will they even consider the harder cases.
Pushing the most difficult case of all -- no abortion even in the case of forcible rape! -- pretty much guarantees abortion will be the law of the land, forever.
It's like asking for anal before a girl has even agreed to date you. Good luck getting that date.
I'm pro-choice. I've said that. So you can take this advice as advice from an "enemy" (and generally, I concede you should ignore advice from an enemy).
But I'm telling you, honestly, I cannot conceive of a political strategy better guaranteed to keep abortion on demand legal for perpetuity than spokesmen for the pro-life cause talking up forbidding even the morning-after pill immediately after a rape. Rather than talking up the easier case to make, they go right for the most difficult imaginable one.
And scare the shit out of any woman who doesn't fancy the idea of carrying a rapist's baby to term, coerced by the power of the state.
This is one of those cases where people will talk about "Principle." Principle is a personal thing. And it's intangible. It's about one's self conception and self regard. It affects nothing in the real world.
Action does. Actual tangible legislative directives.
If only principle is sought, then I suppose this is the right approach.
But in that case, pro-lifers should probably then get used to the idea of the action of keeping abortion legal in all circumstances.
9. Romney Grew Immeasurably as a Candidate. And that's a problem, in this way: By the end of the campaign, he sounded and looked like a president. He even had some charisma and some real human warmth to him.
But he didn't start that way. For most of the campaign, he was a so-so candidate with little human warmth. He often seemed like he was calculating his responses based on what he thought was in his best interests to say (probably because he probably was calculating his responses based on what he thought was in his best interests to say).
Had October's Romney been on the trail in January, we might have seen an entirely different race.
On that point, Romney made a great case against Obama -- but was only tentatively grasping at a strong positive case for conservatism. At the end of his campaign, he was groping at linking aspirations and freedom to conservative principle.
He was just getting there. He was beginning to do it.
Only near the end did he begin linking up the deadening of the spirit and the crushing of ambition inevitable in an all-powerful Father State. Only near the end did he begin to link striving to wealth, and freedom to succeed with freedom to fail.
This was always the knock on Romney -- he had a good sense of the practical, and his instincts were usually conservative, but had not yet formed a larger ideological theory to explain his beliefs.
There was a knock on John McCain -- there is no such thing as "McCainism," except for McCain's belief in his own integrity and rightness for rule. There was, then, no Idea behind McCain; just the idea that McCain, the person, was the best man for the job. (Just ask John McCain -- he'll tell you.)
Romney was similar in that "Romneyism" was really some underwarmed conservative impulses mixed with the idea that Romney is a very smart, very capable man and would be personally able to run things better. But not really a greater idea -- a capital I-Idea like Reaganism was -- beyond Romney's personal capabilities.
"Competency" has usually failed as a rationale for a would-be president. Michael Dukakis ran on it, and failed, badly. In almost all winning campaigns, there is something beyond the person to recommend him.
Romney, for all his personal attributes (which are many), really did not offer anything beyond his person. I think he's one of the most truly competent guys to run on the Competency platform. But it rarely works.
At the end of the day, the Presidency isn't just a job, and isn't just an office. It's bigger than that. It's bigger than a man. It's an idea, and it exists partly in the imagination. The imagination has to fill the gap between the man and what the office demands. Romney really didn't offer anything like that.
10. Romney Never Linked Obama To The Financial Crisis. This is also unforgivable.
Obama kept claiming, over and over, that Romney would take us back to the policies that caused this depression.
In fact, what caused the depression was the federal government pressuring banks to give loans to lightly qualified borrowers. Which inflated a bubble, and then blew up the economy.
And one of the motivators behind this policy was Barack H. Obama, both as a community organizer and then as a US Senator.
As with the middle class taxes issue, this is a double fault: Not only do you not get the advantage of the attack -- blaming your opponent for the depression -- but then he blames you instead.
This would have been a complicated case to make. But it would have been so, so helpful.
Why didn't Romney make it? I don't know.
I think there were a lot of attacks Romney avoided because he wanted to avoid scorn and derision by the press. He wanted to be gentelmanly.
He walked into the same trap McCain did, and suffered the same result.
Posted by: Ace at
08:25 AM
| Comments (825)
Post contains 3118 words, total size 18 kb.
Posted by: H.L. Mencken's Ghost at November 07, 2012 08:27 AM (zTndu)
Posted by: Witchfinder at November 07, 2012 08:28 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: kawfytawk at November 07, 2012 08:29 AM (JWLqy)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at November 07, 2012 08:29 AM (UOM48)
NBC'c campaign commercial for Obama - Andrea Mitchell's lie about something or other that played constantly.
Posted by: lorien1973 at November 07, 2012 08:30 AM (mcWHD)
Something doesn't smell right about these elections. Wasn't Mia Love up 16% in the polls on Monday? And she loses? WTF?
Posted by: RushBabe at November 07, 2012 08:30 AM (tQHzJ)
Posted by: Red Shirt at November 07, 2012 08:30 AM (FIDMq)
Posted by: Spike at November 07, 2012 08:30 AM (wtnmC)
Posted by: kawfytawk at November 07, 2012 12:29 PM (JWLqy)
I'm with you. Ace makes a lot of good points, but this was just not in the cards... Too many takers...
Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna not greg/gerg at November 07, 2012 08:30 AM (9+ccr)
Posted by: Pastorius at November 07, 2012 08:30 AM (gMAUH)
Posted by: The Pitt at November 07, 2012 08:31 AM (9bWs4)
Posted by: Roy - I am John Galt at November 07, 2012 08:31 AM (VndSC)
Posted by: NewBrunswicker at November 07, 2012 08:31 AM (XBxRP)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 07, 2012 08:31 AM (QXlbZ)
Posted by: Morbius at November 07, 2012 08:31 AM (1aenQ)
The rest of this is fluff.
Posted by: Vic at November 07, 2012 08:31 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Zac at November 07, 2012 08:32 AM (F6KtL)
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 07, 2012 12:31 PM (RsSRf)
Sequels usually do
Posted by: Red Shirt at November 07, 2012 08:32 AM (FIDMq)
Posted by: Pastorius at November 07, 2012 08:32 AM (gMAUH)
Posted by: t-bird at November 07, 2012 08:32 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: The Dude at November 07, 2012 08:32 AM (tw6Ar)
In general, liberals are people who cannot fathom economics.
Much of the American public is the same.
Both are about to get an education.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 07, 2012 08:32 AM (sbV1u)
Isnt there a debt ceiling showdown coming up again?...I dont see how we avoid a credit downgrade, NOTHING has been done to show signs of pulling out of the 80 degree lawn dart.
There will be no debt ceiling showdown. Crybaby Boehner & MushMouth McConnell will give the JEF anything he wants.
In the spririt of bipartisanship of course.
And in the effort to keep their cushy jobs.
Posted by: Marybeth at November 07, 2012 08:32 AM (Ks0w4)
Posted by: Nighthawk at November 07, 2012 08:33 AM (n1x7a)
Posted by: Spike at November 07, 2012 08:33 AM (wtnmC)
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 07, 2012 08:33 AM (NzBQO)
Posted by: Crashpanic at November 07, 2012 12:27 PM (zU+ii)
This. Hell, I suspect Reagan would have lost last night. The problem isn't what Romney did or didn't do.....THE ELECTORATE IS A BUNCH OF FUCKIN' IDIOTS WHO WANT FREE SHIT!
Oh and.....ABORTION, ABORTION, ABORTION!
Posted by: Tami at November 07, 2012 08:33 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: BNJ at November 07, 2012 08:33 AM (YCwn0)
Posted by: Pastorius at November 07, 2012 08:33 AM (gMAUH)
Posted by: The Peasants at November 07, 2012 08:33 AM (ZY1gN)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at November 07, 2012 08:33 AM (jucos)
Posted by: pat at November 07, 2012 08:33 AM (vY2MW)
The problem was not Romney! The problem is the electorate. I posted this on the earlier thread, so my apologies for the lengthy repeat, but I don't feel like summarizing or shortening.
Romney lost because we've become a nation of leeches. Somewhere along the way, we've decided that it's okay to take what's not ours. Maybe it's a byproduct of teaching children for 30+ years that there are no losers and that everyone gets a trophy. Maybe when people are more concerned about reality TV than reality, we blindly follow whoever is promising to give us the most stuff. We spend more $ per capita on education than almost any other nation, yet produce innumerable dummies. What is the last history or economics book that the average voter read?
I read a quote this past weekend by an Israeli academic that said something like, "Free countries that strive for liberty, achieve equality. Free countries that strive for equality, achieve neither." I believe this to be the difference between the American and French Revolutions, and the main difference between conservatism and liberalism.
The concept of America is done. It was a good run I guess. 236 years but it's now over. We've traded our freedom and liberty for what? Promises? I suggested to my girlfriend that we move to another country and she is all for it. This country left me. I feel anger and rage right now. Disappointment is too mild. I should feel terrible thinking this but I want America's inevitable destruction to be quick so the 50% that voted for him can see the consequence of their actions. Not that they would take responsibility.
Of everyone that was invited to our house for thanksgiving this year, only those that voted for Romney are now welcome. I will explain to everyone else that they've taken enough from me and that I have to draw the line somewhere. If that means just my girlfriend and I, I say good. I'd rather they starve to death than take a morsel of food out of my garbage.I can no longer be friends with liberals. I can not associate with people who believe it's ok to continue taking from me. In <30 years we've gone from Reaganism to collectivism. We failed because selfishness is no longer a vice.
Posted by: Trojan at November 07, 2012 08:34 AM (MNVwR)
Posted by: Ken Royall at November 07, 2012 08:34 AM (x0g8a)
Posted by: Pastorius at November 07, 2012 08:34 AM (gMAUH)
Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna not greg/gerg at November 07, 2012 08:34 AM (9+ccr)
Romney ran a bad campaign and is a terrible campaigner. Rubio is the answer.
Ace, you also forget to add that Ryan added absolutely nothing to the ticket
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at November 07, 2012 08:34 AM (g5liS)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at November 07, 2012 08:34 AM (6zgse)
Posted by: Butters at November 07, 2012 08:34 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Pastorius at November 07, 2012 08:34 AM (gMAUH)
Ryan was mister invisible, for the most part. Which was odd.
Posted by: lorien1973 at November 07, 2012 08:35 AM (mcWHD)
>>>Let's give 'em Obama.
Right. Like in - tax the rich. In fact, go all France on them and make it 75%. That's his big excuse anyway.
Posted by: Roy - I am John Galt at November 07, 2012 08:35 AM (VndSC)
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 07, 2012 08:35 AM (RsSRf)
Posted by: Jess1 at November 07, 2012 08:35 AM (LwGY+)
Posted by: jwillmoney at November 07, 2012 08:35 AM (zU03n)
Posted by: Scratch One Republic at November 07, 2012 08:35 AM (9ghZ6)
They are the party of stupid.
Posted by: Vic at November 07, 2012 08:36 AM (YdQQY)
Nope.
Only one reason Romney lost.
De Tocqueville was right.
Takers outnumber the makers. Its.as.simple.as.that.
Posted by: fixerupper at November 07, 2012 08:36 AM (yzX2R)
Posted by: El Kabong at November 07, 2012 08:36 AM (JycCV)
Posted by: hauntedman at November 07, 2012 08:36 AM (448H4)
Posted by: pat
As stupid as half of the electorate.
Posted by: Roy - I am John Galt at November 07, 2012 08:36 AM (VndSC)
Posted by: jeanne, in full escapist mode at November 07, 2012 08:36 AM (GdalM)
Posted by: Pastorius at November 07, 2012 08:36 AM (gMAUH)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at November 07, 2012 08:36 AM (g5liS)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 07, 2012 08:37 AM (HKONC)
I think Ryan was a really good candidate.
The problem is, 1/2 of America sticks their fingers in their ears and says "La La La, I can't hear you" when he's talking about the debt.
They'd rather watch American Idol and Honey Boo Boo
Posted by: Marybeth at November 07, 2012 08:37 AM (Ks0w4)
Posted by: Butters at November 07, 2012 08:37 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at November 07, 2012 08:37 AM (RuUvx)
Posted by: The Pitt at November 07, 2012 08:37 AM (9bWs4)
Posted by: occam's brassiere at November 07, 2012 08:37 AM (N9z1W)
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 08:37 AM (r2PLg)
There were a lot of decisions dependent on the outcome of this election, from countries, major corporations to small businesses, to individuals. This election makes it clear to everyone all over the world that the USA is not serious about avoiding DOOM and people will act accordingly.
This is going to unravel in short order.
Posted by: runninrebel at November 07, 2012 08:37 AM (J4gw3)
Posted by: Roy - I am John Galt at November 07, 2012 12:35 PM (VndSC)
The French president also wants the raise the national sales tax to help pay for all that free shit.
Posted by: YIKES! at November 07, 2012 08:37 AM (1PE/J)
Posted by: mig0 at November 07, 2012 08:37 AM (WQ0ni)
Posted by: SFGoth at November 07, 2012 08:38 AM (dZ756)
Ok. I agree with everything up there. But I would add, where the fuck where the 5 million republicans that voted for McCain that didn't vote for Romney? That makes absolutely no sense at all. None.
So I guess yesterdays record turnout wasn't?
Posted by: JollyRoger at November 07, 2012 08:38 AM (t06LC)
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 07, 2012 08:38 AM (bonPh)
Posted by: The Dude at November 07, 2012 08:38 AM (tw6Ar)
You missed one.
There are certain things that every professional campaign manager must learn to tell their candidate from now on. And that Romney's campaign professionals should have taught him, but did not.
We are now in a new and frightening world of radical transparency, as least as it applies to rightist candidates.
What Romney did was get up in front of a large gathering of people, not all of whom were known and trusted people, and run his mouth extemporaneously, and among the things that came out (most of which was anodyne) was one remark, about "the 47%", which Romney's adversaries were able to use against him very productively.
Here's the lesson. The concept of talking in private DOESN'T EXIST ANY MORE. Except perhaps when a candidate is alone in bed with their own spouse, and perhaps not even then.
Romney's campaign staff let him talk "off the record" with these wealthy donors, while the room was filled with service staff. In other words, not off the record at all. It's pretty clear that his comments were blown by one of those staffers.
Every single thing a candidate says, even behind supposedly closed doors, can and will get out into the infosphere, in an age of ubiquitous smartphones. Campaigns must be aware of this and must insist that candidates act accordingly.
I hate this. It's reality. Reality doesn't care if you hate it or not.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 07, 2012 08:38 AM (ymG7s)
Romney lost because Republicans didn't turn out, not because he didn't cater to Democrats on immigration, taxes, vaginas.
The question is why didn't Republicans turn out? The only reasonable explanation I see is that Romney sucked as a candidate/campaign organizer.
Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 07, 2012 08:38 AM (Rwrs+)
Posted by: Zac at November 07, 2012 08:38 AM (F6KtL)
Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at November 07, 2012 08:38 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 07, 2012 08:38 AM (2rMmy)
Posted by: Francis at November 07, 2012 08:38 AM (7/lMx)
Wait til those Bush tax cuts expire. Everybody thinks only the rich are going to be affected.
Posted by: Wi Lurker at November 07, 2012 08:39 AM (9pqWr)
Posted by: FPW at November 07, 2012 08:39 AM (BDNF5)
People only think of income taxes, but the middle class is going to be hit with massive "living expense taxes" as I like to call them. Sin taxes, gas taxes, carbon taxes, The Evil VAT, and the ultimate but hidden tax of inflation.
Good analysis Ace.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 07, 2012 08:39 AM (PHb2k)
Posted by: fritzworth at November 07, 2012 08:39 AM (7svyX)
Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at November 07, 2012 08:39 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: beerologist at November 07, 2012 08:39 AM (CdhVC)
Posted by: pat at November 07, 2012 08:39 AM (vY2MW)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at November 07, 2012 08:39 AM (RuUvx)
Romney was mormon, this turned off a lot of evangelicals and hispanics. My grandparents in CO who are hispanic didnt vote for him cause he is a mormon
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at November 07, 2012 08:40 AM (g5liS)
Posted by: hindmost at November 07, 2012 08:40 AM (t6Jvs)
Posted by: fritzworth at November 07, 2012 12:39 PM (7svyX)
Agreed...
Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna not greg/gerg at November 07, 2012 08:40 AM (9+ccr)
Posted by: NCKate at November 07, 2012 08:40 AM (MsQkt)
Posted by: Mr pink at November 07, 2012 08:40 AM (ty0pA)
"One has to wonder how stupid a candidate has to be that can be caught unprepared for a MSM rape/planned parenthood/ birth control/woman's wages word trap.
Posted by: pat
As stupid as half of the GOP leadership"
.
. FIFY
Posted by: Jess1 at November 07, 2012 08:40 AM (LwGY+)
You Republicans are in self-denial. The USA is no longer made up of just a lot of white men in power. The demographics have changed and until you wake up and deal with it, you will continue to gain an increasing share of a declining market - which is the surest way to bankruptcy and liquidation. The last buggy whip company undoubtedly made the best buggy whip ever, but no one was buying it because nobody needed buggy whips anymore.
Welcome to the 21st century.
Posted by: carlito at November 07, 2012 08:40 AM (WFKaI)
Posted by: The Pitt at November 07, 2012 08:40 AM (9bWs4)
I agree with most of these points, but they're retrospective. Nobody runs the table and plays every issue 100% correctly. Would Romney have done better had he done things differently? I think so. Is it reasonable to expect any candidate to play every card and every hand perfectly? No, probably not.
You could just as easily look at Obama's campaign and pick out ten things he did wrong that cost him votes too (eg showing up to the first debate clueless, wasting money and effort in NC, etc).
Romney was a strong candidate, I think the best one the GOP had from the field this cycle. But Obama had a ridiculously, and perhaps unprecedented media compliance, and he had a literal "act of god" on his side in the last week.
Posted by: Looking closely at November 07, 2012 08:40 AM (PwGfd)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 07, 2012 08:40 AM (2rMmy)
The "Romneybot" thing? It was a meme for a reason. Nearly all presidential candidates are rich, but if they can come across as "one of us", it's no big shakes.
While Mitt did improve greatly in the charisma department (especially compared to 200
, it wasn't enough. Even voters who didn't agree with GWB voted for him anyways because he had a down home, folksy, "says what he means, means what he says" aura about him.Romney didn't. He came across as very "presidential", but insufficient when it came to someone the average voter could relate to.
Benghazi-gate? The debt? Mere trifling details. Swing voters vote for the man and their own vague feelings. They're not policy wonks.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 07, 2012 08:41 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at November 07, 2012 08:41 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Dante at November 07, 2012 08:41 AM (NWLVJ)
The problem is, 1/2 of America sticks their fingers in their ears and says "La La La, I can't hear you" when he's talking about the debt.
=====
Or. "he's lying, it's all lies, he just stood there and lied for 90 minutes" (I actually heard this.)
Posted by: Scratch One Republic at November 07, 2012 08:41 AM (9ghZ6)
Romney ran a fine campaign, and actually outperformed many GOP Senators in deep red states.
If these Senate seats had gone GOP but Romney had lost, I think you could make the case of "Romney should have done this or that" but the GOP loss was across the board in traditional red states.
Posted by: McAdams at November 07, 2012 08:41 AM (ZI/Cb)
Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at November 07, 2012 08:41 AM (QxSug)
Obama dropped 10M votes from 2008 and still won. Why? Because the Repub also dropped about 2M votes.
The 64K question is "who sat at home?" because a lot of Repubs sat at home for McCain and even more did for Romney.
We will have to wait and see what the exit polls and the swing State totals are.
Posted by: Vic at November 07, 2012 08:42 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Butters at November 07, 2012 08:42 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 07, 2012 08:42 AM (HKONC)
Color me curious on this, however: Why the low turnout, I mean ten million or so? Less than McCain? GTFOOH.
The saddest part is that Romney is a really good man as well as the right numbers guy for the times. I was so jazzed with the numbers and people like Barone opining a mandate for good change. I am so devastated and saddened for this great country.
Off to work now. Say your prayers morons. And thanks Ace and all for your efforts.
Posted by: eureka! at November 07, 2012 08:42 AM (UL+ny)
'Romney was mormon, this turned off a lot of evangelicals and hispanics. My grandparents in CO who are hispanic didnt vote for him cause he is a mormon'
Not shocked. My buddy is really conservative and said he wasn't voting for Romney because he was Mormon. Apparently, believing a different sect is a major fucking problem for those social cons, but thinking government should be your nanny?? No fucking problem with that!
Posted by: Zac at November 07, 2012 08:42 AM (F6KtL)
Are you saying that freedom is obsolete?
Thanks, O'Brien.
Posted by: fluffy at November 07, 2012 08:42 AM (z9HTb)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 07, 2012 08:43 AM (2rMmy)
Posted by: 80sBaby at November 07, 2012 08:43 AM (YjDyJ)
Bush got more than 40% latinos. 2008 was a wave election so McCain's positions didnt matter and Romney sucked at campaigning and put himself in a box in the primaries
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at November 07, 2012 08:43 AM (g5liS)
Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at November 07, 2012 08:43 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Motorhead at November 07, 2012 08:43 AM (qAMin)
Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Leon Panetta, David Petraeus, Tom Donlin, John Brennan, James Clapper, Tim Geithner...ok tokens Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder.
White men are doing just fine, powerful as ever, in 21st century America.
Posted by: occam's brassiere at November 07, 2012 08:43 AM (N9z1W)
@100
I was thinking that.
Fuck, I would have spot on agreed with everything here save for the fact that 04 looks like our high water mark now, and that was a very social issue race. If yesterday taught me one thing, its libertarianism is dead. It relies on responsibility.
Posted by: JollyRoger at November 07, 2012 08:43 AM (t06LC)
Ace,
You're advice from the enemy on abortion is understandable, but ultimately useless, precisely because of what abortion represents.
I've written you extensively. You know my position. You know that I think Akin's biggest problem there was that he thought he was entitled to facts that simply are not true (Plan B as an abortifacient, "Shutting it down." etc.)
HOWEVER, having said that. For those of us who are pro-life it's not as simple as discerning the cases into "easiest" and "hardest." It's life, there are no easy cases, only hard ones. So to be philosophically consistant we have to believe that abortion even in the case of forcible rape is tantamount to murder. Life the mother exceptions as typically interpreted (and realize I'm coming from a Catholic Perspective here.) are usually made in a "Double Effect" style of thinking (i.e. it's a forseen but not intended effect that is unavoidable.) Very rarely you'll see some proportinalist thinking, but mostly it's straight up double effect.
This is percisely why we can't seperate out the "politics" from the "personal belief." It'd be comprable to saying "well, I'm opposed to the Muslims murding people, but I can't get a coaltion to stop it, so whatever." (That's not even really an exaggeration.)
But we're losing on Euthanasia too, so I'm thinking the "culture of life" thing is a lost battle. (It might be easier to concede that one I suppose. Because it's less philosophicaly inconsistant and more "you're all just corrupt.")
Posted by: tsrblke at November 07, 2012 08:43 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 08:44 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Mr pink at November 07, 2012 08:44 AM (ty0pA)
Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at November 07, 2012 12:41 PM (QxSug)
He's a fucking commie with a media cheering section
Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 07, 2012 08:44 AM (1Jaio)
Ignore that and you're ignoring the only one that counts. If the media gave Obama one-tenth the scrutiny and venom it gave Romney, Obama loses. Period.
Posted by: Who cares at November 07, 2012 08:44 AM (Xv7f/)
Surely we can all agree on this.
Posted by: Jeff B. at November 07, 2012 08:44 AM (GzATR)
Posted by: Darzi the Elder at November 07, 2012 08:44 AM (EJG9c)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 08:44 AM (LCRYB)
the #1 reason Romney failed
the thing thats wrong with this country is the electorate and that can't be fixed at the ballot box
Posted by: kj at November 07, 2012 08:44 AM (AW9md)
I'm talking serious anti-fraud measures, including microscopic level examination of absentee and early balloting.
I don't know how much fraud was a factor here, but it could conceivably have been enough to tip both FL and OH, and it most definitely wasn't acting in the GOP favor.
Posted by: Looking closely at November 07, 2012 08:44 AM (PwGfd)
I can't wait to see the reactions of the free lunch crowd when they find out they MUST purchase insurance under the law
"But... but ... it's supposed to be FREE! I blame Republicans and evil insurance companies!"
Posted by: kbdabear at November 07, 2012 08:44 AM (wwsoB)
You Republicans are in self-denial. The USA is no longer made up of just a lot of white men in power. The demographics have changed and until you wake up and deal with it, you will continue to gain an increasing share of a declining market - which is the surest way to bankruptcy and liquidation. The last buggy whip company undoubtedly made the best buggy whip ever, but no one was buying it because nobody needed buggy whips anymore.
Welcome to the 21st century.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. He doesn't even get to the third sentence without making it about race. I blame not this guy, but the Republican party in general for not seeing this ten or fifteen years ago.
Posted by: Zac at November 07, 2012 08:44 AM (F6KtL)
Because he would have had to distance himself from Bush, both in terms of policy and in explicit detail.
Bush was a part of the Federal clusterfuck that lead to the 2008 credit crunch. I know we feel the need to protect Bush in this but he was at the helm, he held interest rates down for 7 years, the 'ownershit' society was his baby, and compassionate conservatism had a goddamn price tag.
Romney avoided a single fucking mention of any of this.
We shouldn't be surprised that voters accepted Obama's conflation of the two men.
Posted by: burned cut-loop [/i] [/b] at November 07, 2012 08:45 AM (jo069)
Posted by: rib at November 07, 2012 08:45 AM (PwPRT)
Posted by: occam's brassiere at November 07, 2012 08:45 AM (N9z1W)
Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at November 07, 2012 08:45 AM (QxSug)
"Looking seriously at an exit strategy. Trouble is where."
I honestly think it's time for someone to start talking about a trial seperation /divorce/pilot program/ whatever you want to call it within the CONUS. Just some form of autonomy free of the US FedGov where people can voluntarily go live their lives as free men.
If it isn't offered peacably, it'll eventually be demanded under great strain and cost of blood. It's gonna get bad.
Posted by: Jaws at November 07, 2012 08:45 AM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: Albie Damned at November 07, 2012 08:46 AM (biwMC)
Posted by: coldwarrior at November 07, 2012 08:46 AM (fpL1+)
They have shown a preference to slavery over freedom. Slavery to big government, slavery to debt, slavery to pleasure over responsibility, slavery to tribal identity.
The have chosen a preference for rulers who can tell them how much soda they are allowed to drink, and how much salt they can put on their food. They are choosing to be slaves. It requires less energy and it reaps financial rewards.
It's too hard to be free. It's too hard to live up to America.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 07, 2012 08:46 AM (P6QsQ)
How about "!0 reasons I shit my pants" instead?
Naturally, you ignore the Mormon elephant in the room.
Posted by: Gerry at November 07, 2012 08:46 AM (jQm+J)
Posted by: taylork at November 07, 2012 08:46 AM (ppNDn)
Posted by: Dante at November 07, 2012 08:46 AM (NWLVJ)
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 08:47 AM (r2PLg)
Bottom line is the politics of envy, class warfare, and petty, childish attacks worked. Celebrity trumped competence. People wanted to vote for Mr. Cool, instead of Mr. Fix It, because they've been led to believe things aren't as bad as they are. Romney did all he could to tell them otherwise.
Posted by: Not Greg at November 07, 2012 08:47 AM (gI9Bk)
We greatly underestimated the size of The Free Shit Army.
This will not end well.
********************
Henceforth, I propose we refer to the Free Shit Army as the "FSA". I have a feeling we will be referring to it a lot.
Posted by: Jim Sonweed at November 07, 2012 08:47 AM (2c1Cq)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 07, 2012 08:47 AM (/eBe8)
Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at November 07, 2012 08:47 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 07, 2012 08:47 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: Ernst Blofeld at November 07, 2012 08:47 AM (XZWie)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 07, 2012 08:47 AM (2rMmy)
Welcome to the 21st century.
Posted by: carlito at November 07, 2012 12:40 PM (WFKaI)
------
Actually.... you are right.... but not in the way you think you are.
Republicans as Republicans can no longer win.... we cant even really tinker at the edges. We are
the party of "eat your peas and clean your room." The electorate has
moved on to "here's your free shit and you can stay up til 2:00am on a
school night'.
But reality hasnt changed. There are consequences.
The ONLY way Republicans get to change this paradigm is to stop being the Dutch boy
with the finger in the dam..... we walk away...... hasten the consequences
of bad decisions.
You won. Fine. You own it. You get everything you want, including the goddamned consequences.Give Obama what he wants, give it all.
Tax increases? Check.
Card check? Check.
20 trillion in debt? Check.
Open Borders??? Check
Gutted military. Check
Gun control. Check.
Abortion on Demand.... pass that sucker thru.
Posted by: fixerupper at November 07, 2012 08:47 AM (yzX2R)
Posted by: rockmom at November 07, 2012 08:47 AM (qe2/V)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at November 07, 2012 08:47 AM (+lsX1)
Posted by: jjshaka at November 07, 2012 08:47 AM (zyMGp)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 08:47 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: chique d'afrique (the artist formerly known as african chick) at November 07, 2012 08:48 AM (6zgse)
Posted by: SoCon vs. FisCon 90 Bajillion: The Reckoning!!!! at November 07, 2012 08:48 AM (S/ps/)
All we had to do was get the same vote total as McCain/Palin.
Simple, get out the vote mechanics. We had all the money in the world to work with.
Just. Can't. Understand. What. Happened.
Posted by: jwest at November 07, 2012 08:48 AM (ZDsRL)
Posted by: Butters at November 07, 2012 08:48 AM (NIZHJ)
If we're talking about anything else (philosophically) we're losing. As long as that continues, the side that offers more free crap will win.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at November 07, 2012 08:48 AM (/eBe8)
Posted by: Witchfinder at November 07, 2012 08:48 AM (pLTLS)
Posted by: Dave S. at November 07, 2012 08:48 AM (UvR6d)
Posted by: RKK at November 07, 2012 08:48 AM (DchlQ)
Posted by: the day after at November 07, 2012 08:48 AM (LpQbZ)
@124
Totally agree, but then how do we make in-roads? By running a black female and then getting in the face of liberals who are against and saying 'RACIST!' WOMAN-HATER!' As childish as that sounds, that's what needs to be done.
Posted by: Zac at November 07, 2012 08:48 AM (F6KtL)
Posted by: Arbalest at November 07, 2012 08:48 AM (rlWf0)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 07, 2012 08:49 AM (2rMmy)
Posted by: Jahson at November 07, 2012 08:49 AM (70WAZ)
The reason Romney lost is that for some inexplicable reason, Republicans and right-leaning Independents DID NOT VOTE.
Conspiracy? Hell yes. Something very evil happened here.
Think about it:
1) Republican enthusiasm at all time highs.
2) Republican EV up 15% from 2008.
3) Independents going to Republicans in record numbers.
4) Best GOTV program ever.
5) Most money spent on ads and GOTV ever.
6) Massive ED turnout.
and yet, we have 3.5 million fewer votes than McCain got?
Yes folks, something stinks here.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 07, 2012 08:49 AM (hlUJY)
Posted by: Tami at November 07, 2012 08:49 AM (X6akg)
180Romney didn't make the complicated arguments because a growing % of the country has an IQ south of 90. They wouldn't be able to understand his arguments let alone be swayed by them. Mainly they would think he was just doing faggy white guy talk.
This is true. Especially the IQ part
Posted by: betsy at November 07, 2012 08:49 AM (/4XJH)
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 08:49 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Butters at November 07, 2012 08:49 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at November 07, 2012 08:49 AM (QxSug)
Republicans have lost across the board....not just Romney. He's not the problem. It's the people. You have to appeal to this group here, and then go and appeal to this group here. Appeal to Latinos in Florida over immigration, then go and appeal to social conservative populists up north, appeal to auto-bailout people, appeal to people in Colorado that want pot. It's a tall order. So the Democrats did it right--- focus on war, women's parts, and throwing granny off a cliff. Works everytime.
Conseratives have taken lots of blows this year with Obamacare, not being able to retain the Senate, and not firing Obama.
Posted by: Mo the Girl at November 07, 2012 08:49 AM (1pGns)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 08:50 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Daybrother at November 07, 2012 08:50 AM (+paCV)
"I'd add a solid 5% of votes to #8. Heck, even more than 5%
That's ludicrous."
Maybe, but after talking w/a number of family members (big extended family here) I could give you a list of six women who claim to have voted for Palin who sat this one out.
Small data set, I admit, but...
Posted by: Jess1 at November 07, 2012 08:50 AM (LwGY+)
Compare Romney's Mormonism to Obama's Jeremiah Wrightism/Islamism, and why is this an issue at all?
I'm not willing to attribute low turnout to this factor, absent some fairly convincing evidence to the contrary.
I think when the final analysis is done, we'll see that evangelicals didn't say home for Romney any more they did for McCain, and in fact, I bet the converse is true.
Posted by: Looking closely at November 07, 2012 08:50 AM (6Q9g2)
Americans are just fine with rich, successful Winners.
As long as those Winners are from the sports or entertainment business.
Other businesses are viewed as evil and exploitative.
I wish this weren't true, but it is.
However, it's always possible to make a bad situation worse.
Something I heard quite a lot about from persuadable swing voters was about Romney's car elevator. They can grasp the idea of buying a big house on the beach. Many of them own houses, so the concept scales up. They've flown in jets as airline passengers, so a private jet is again just a conceptual extension.
But a car elevator, for whatever reason, blew their minds. Most people have never seen one or even imagined that such a thing existed. It was so far outside their ordinary experience as to be somewhat exotic and shocking.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 07, 2012 08:50 AM (ymG7s)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 07, 2012 12:41 PM (SY2Kh)
I agree.
Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 07, 2012 08:50 AM (Rwrs+)
dude, there were a lot of whities voting blindly for O. Lena Dunham is the left's poster child. White stupid and expecting free shit.
========
Don't deny that for a minute. I know stupid mislead GWPs who don't expect free shit who stood in line for that piece of sit. But we are getting outnumbered, and that block is not moving our way.
Yeah and the media.
Posted by: Scratch One Republic at November 07, 2012 08:50 AM (9ghZ6)
Doesn't even work on a local level. Easily dismissed with epithets, "not a woman, not really black, house N...., whore" etc.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at November 07, 2012 08:50 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: ToursLepantoVienna at November 07, 2012 08:50 AM (CrJzY)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at November 07, 2012 08:50 AM (g5liS)
Ergo: solution is to get turnout up next time (in "our" favor, of course).
SINCE I complained about the sheer volume of phone calls (and Ace subsequently suggested I don't love my country):
If
(a) you're being inundated (as in 20 calls per day, average), predominantly by the Republican candidate, and
(b) you're actually not all that committed to participate to begin with,
then what path do you choose:
(1) vote the way the 20 calls per day want you to,
(2) vote the other way just to spite the annoying bastards,
or
(3) take a fuckitall tablet and don't do a damn thing?
My guess is an awful lot of (3) happened.
Posted by: jwb7605 at November 07, 2012 08:50 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: Darzi the Elder at November 07, 2012 08:50 AM (EJG9c)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 07, 2012 08:50 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 07, 2012 08:51 AM (Rwrs+)
Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at November 07, 2012 08:51 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: LC LaWedgie at November 07, 2012 08:51 AM (rzTDZ)
Posted by: America Fuck Yeah! at November 07, 2012 08:51 AM (v/itI)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at November 07, 2012 08:51 AM (ZDP2l)
Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at November 07, 2012 08:51 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Thorvald at November 07, 2012 08:52 AM (1V6Pv)
Lord know what it does but I can guess. It undercounts Republican votes.
You don't like my conspiracy? Then fuck you, I don't care. There has to be some reason for massive lines everywhere on ED and then getting the lowest % turnout of the electorate in 2 decades.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 07, 2012 08:52 AM (hlUJY)
Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna not greg/gerg at November 07, 2012 08:52 AM (9+ccr)
Posted by: rickb223 (I am John Galt) at November 07, 2012 08:52 AM (GFM2b)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 07, 2012 08:52 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: ray robison at November 07, 2012 08:52 AM (c7Pp2)
@150
The GOP did know this 10 years ago. Thats all Rove talked about for awhile. Bush won 40% of hispanics. 40% = 4% of the overall vote.
IIRC some of us here were pretty harsh on Perry for his softer immigration talk. We can't give in completely, ace is right, but we do need to change the tone and appeal to that population.
Posted by: JollyRoger at November 07, 2012 08:52 AM (t06LC)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 08:52 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at November 07, 2012 12:34 PM (g5liS)
I'm not sure what you want from Ryan because I thought it was unanimous that he was a good choice at the time of the selection. I'm sure he did exactly what the campaign staff told him to do otherwise you'd have heard sniping about him like was done to Palin four years ago.
Posted by: Captain Hate (more dagny and less curious) at November 07, 2012 08:52 AM (sw/4Y)
Posted by: GaryL at November 07, 2012 08:53 AM (IAv8z)
Posted by: t-bird at November 07, 2012 08:53 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: kawfytawk at November 07, 2012 08:53 AM (JWLqy)
Posted by: The Pitt at November 07, 2012 08:53 AM (9bWs4)
The fact tha some are t D'ohbama's pals are nutty clergymen has ABSOLUTELY NOTHNG to with the anti-Mormon bigotry that - although no survey would show - surely cost the Republican ticket hundreds of thousands of votes.
Posted by: Gerry at November 07, 2012 08:53 AM (jQm+J)
Posted by: OCBill at November 07, 2012 08:53 AM (YJvVE)
Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at November 07, 2012 08:53 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 07, 2012 08:53 AM (bonPh)
Forgot two reasons: Obama is black. Had he been white, he would have lost.
Second: Our nation has reached the irrevocable tipping point of more pigs at the trough than farmers to feed them.
We are now officially past the point of no return. Obama will spend the next four years upping that percentage of takers (amnesty for illegals is right around the corner and the Pubbies will run to it like manna from heaven thinking it will get them votes - and it will not).
We didn't just lose the battle. We lost the war.
Posted by: Natasha at November 07, 2012 08:53 AM (jU5uf)
Posted by: rockmom at November 07, 2012 08:53 AM (qe2/V)
Posted by: Roald Dahl Paul at November 07, 2012 08:53 AM (Kd6lF)
During the run up to the election, the media polls were saying that Obama was going to increase his base. We all said that no way, he wasn't going to get more votes than he did in 2008.
We were right. Obama got 10 million less votes.
Also, everyone agreed that no matter what, Romney would do better than McCain.
That didn't happen.
Posted by: jwest at November 07, 2012 08:53 AM (ZDsRL)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 08:54 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: les9506 at November 07, 2012 08:54 AM (wrkMs)
Posted by: kbdabear at November 07, 2012 08:54 AM (wwsoB)
My small business is probably laying people off next month.
Those that remain are going to have to start paying 50% of their health insurance costs going forward.
I feel particularly bad about this, because I'm in a red state, and I know most of them didn't vote for Obama, but they're screwed anyway.
Posted by: Looking closely at November 07, 2012 08:54 AM (6Q9g2)
Posted by: Immigrant in CA at November 07, 2012 08:54 AM (89P1m)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 07, 2012 08:54 AM (2rMmy)
Posted by: Ed Gibbon at November 07, 2012 08:54 AM (4eNxd)
Posted by: AD at November 07, 2012 08:54 AM (prJbE)
2008 Presidential election
Obama 69,498,215 (52.93%) McCain 59,948,240 (45.66)
2012 election
Obama 59,633,456 (50.33%) Romney 57,003,614 (48.11%)
Note; not all votes counted yet.
Note that the Dem turnout was much lower as expected, but Republican turnout is also much lower which was NOT expected.
Posted by: Vic at November 07, 2012 08:54 AM (YdQQY)
'Doesn't even work on a local level. Easily dismissed with epithets, "not a woman, not really black, house N...., whore" etc.'
Exactly. You make the media say this. You confront them about 'WHY YOU RACIST??' 'WHY YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE??'
Posted by: Zac at November 07, 2012 08:54 AM (F6KtL)
The fact that we had to play a perfect game to unseat the most incompetent President in modern times is testament to a much grimmer reality that wouldn't have been assuaged, at most delayed, by Romney victory.
While I appreciate post analysis and I think analyzing your mistakes is important, I think looking to the future is more important. We will not face Obama again. The next election will have new faces and challenges, situations and national backdrop.
What we need to address, I think, is the electorate. This has gone from a 4 year project to highlight to America what kind of mistake they made in 2008, to a multi decade project of changing the US' electoral makeup. My gut tells me that grimmer reality I spoke of above will have to happen for many to question progressivism and critically examine the course it has the country on. But I am all for finding other ways as well.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 07, 2012 08:54 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: 11/6 - USA goes full retard at November 07, 2012 08:54 AM (/kBoL)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 07, 2012 08:54 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: GaryL at November 07, 2012 08:54 AM (IAv8z)
And that was just a warm up.
Wait until 2016 when it's Hillary's turn. I can already hear it. "Oh noes, you can't say that about a womyn."
Posted by: How about? at November 07, 2012 08:54 AM (Xv7f/)
Posted by: El Kabong at November 07, 2012 08:55 AM (JycCV)
Race. Anti-Americanism.
I'm using these as shorthand for "fetishizing The Other" but that's the whole concept of multiculturalism...Mormonism is "weird" but it's practiced in America, so it's bad. Thugocracy and Islamism are practiced in third-world shit-holes, so they're good.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at November 07, 2012 08:55 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: t-bird at November 07, 2012 08:55 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 07, 2012 08:55 AM (ZZPs4)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 08:56 AM (LCRYB)
Sure you can...Obama already said it.
Won't be Hillary, though. Will be DWS, or Fauxcahontas.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at November 07, 2012 08:56 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 08:56 AM (r2PLg)
And he won.
He's a classless, big mouth, no-account, lying cretin. He's never accomplished shit. And he beat the smart, good looking family man who has an impressive list of credentials and proven success.
What's that say about America?
I can't believe this is who we are, but there you have it.
Posted by: Warden at November 07, 2012 08:56 AM (0DlnM)
Of everyone that was invited to our house for thanksgiving this year, only those that voted for Romney are now welcome. I will explain to everyone else that they've taken enough from me and that I have to draw the line somewhere. I'd rather they starve to death than take a morsel of food out of my garbage.I can no longer be friends with liberals. I can not associate with people who believe it's ok to continue taking from me.
Good idea.I agree and it's not just Thanksgiving, it will be Christmas and where I spend my money. We were going to take a 3 week vacation to see the Northeast next Fall - Not anymore. I printed out a US map of which states went for Obama and they will not get my money, not on tourism, not on buying anything (as best as I can help). I will also do the county map and any blue county, I will not spend a penny in them.
Posted by: FL Conservative at November 07, 2012 08:56 AM (hQDLJ)
@AllenG,
I wish it were as easy as #math. But sadly it's not. Most of the takers believe there's enough maker money to fund this levathian and still leave the makers rich. Obviously this isn't true, but it's believed.
As long as that's the case they'll keep voting for More free crap. It has a name. It's "Bread and Circuses" and it was the downfall of the Roman Republic. It's coming for us. Unless the correction hits and hits hard (a la Greece style.) But our response would have to be different than Greece's obviously. We'd need at least 50% to rise up and say "Austerity will work!" (oh and that same 50% to keep the rioters down.) I just don't see that happening.
Posted by: tsrblke at November 07, 2012 08:56 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: Thorvald at November 07, 2012 08:56 AM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: Tammy al-Thor at November 07, 2012 08:57 AM (2rMmy)
Posted by: joeindc44 will start talking like biden. like. biden. at November 07, 2012 08:57 AM (QxSug)
The Media must be destroyed.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at November 07, 2012 08:57 AM (P7hip)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 08:57 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 07, 2012 08:57 AM (HKONC)
It's possible that Guatemalans and Hondurans who want free shit in Iowa don't give a shit about dead Mexicans in Mexico.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at November 07, 2012 08:57 AM (/kI1Q)
1) We have a shitload of Governors. They can stop a lot of Obama's BS.
2) We have a bigger and likely pissed off House Majority. Next time Obama tries going around them they can go scorched Earth on him.
3) Obama has a legacy to think about.
America didn't say, "We want Obama!", they just didn't have their voices counted.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 07, 2012 08:58 AM (hlUJY)
just talked to the guy who owns the printing company we use on the phone, he says he plans to layoff twenty five percent of his work force this year.He is South African been here for thirty five years says he's done he plans to retire in South Africa which is booming.
Posted by: kj at November 07, 2012 08:58 AM (AW9md)
Posted by: Redman Bluestate at November 07, 2012 08:58 AM (sRIFP)
Posted by: The Pitt at November 07, 2012 08:58 AM (9bWs4)
Posted by: rockmom at November 07, 2012 12:53 PM (qe2/V)
No, Romney just sucked.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at November 07, 2012 08:58 AM (g5liS)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 08:58 AM (QxSug)
I've tried. But "fucking commies" isn't doing it.
Posted by: rickb223 (I am John Galt) at November 07, 2012 12:52 PM (GFM2b)
I NEVER refer to leftists as "liberal". And I certainly never use "progressive", that's just fucking ridiculous.
Posted by: yinzer at November 07, 2012 08:58 AM (/Mla1)
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 08:58 AM (r2PLg)
-----------------
It's a tall order because we don't have an American identity anymore. We have diversity. We have hyphenated Americans. We are descending into tribalism.
We used to have a common idea of what it meant to be American. We had common principles. This has been bred out of us in large part to the communist influences in the public school system. I do not use that word lightly. It is there stated aim and has been for decades. I'm looking at you, Bill Ayers.
We used to reward hard work and personal responsibility. We used to reward good citizenship. We used to teach the Constitution. Now we teach diversity, multi-culturalism and America-is-at-fault. We are teaching our children to shame the very things we once used to prize. We are calling good, evil and we are calling evil, good.
You can't get a responsible electorate out of that no matter how great your GOTV is.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 07, 2012 08:58 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Dante at November 07, 2012 08:58 AM (NWLVJ)
Posted by: Wall_E at November 07, 2012 08:59 AM (48wze)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 07, 2012 08:59 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: John Bissell at November 07, 2012 08:59 AM (tjem6)
"I've been saying this for years now. The GOP has to do a better job at getting the urban vote."
The "Urban Vote" is the backbone of the Free Shit Army. They are not interested in the principles of hard work, responsibility, and small government. They're interested in the dole and to a mildly lesser extent whether the candidate has similar melanin content. How do you reach that kind of person without, well, handing out even more free shit?
That Team D carries 95% of a certain demographic year in and year out should not be viewed as a triumph of Team D's strategery. It is an indictment of that demographics overall character. Not everyone, but most.
PC be damned. The truth is a racist, stereotyping bitch. But damn if it ain't pretty accurate.
Posted by: Jaws at November 07, 2012 08:59 AM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: wooga at November 07, 2012 08:59 AM (vjyZP)
Posted by: Derpman at November 07, 2012 08:59 AM (Ydhde)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 07, 2012 08:59 AM (HKONC)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 07, 2012 08:59 AM (ZrUUM)
Gun rights -- the Second Amendment is holy ground for many, and the Dems wisely choose to not fight about it. Yeah, they want to nick it here and there but no full blown assault is proposed even in their platform.
Abortion rights -- And with Roe vs. Wade, it is a right, where the SoCons demand a plank in the platform that says they want to outlaw it. They want to take away an existing right. That pushes 40% of possible voters out of the running from the get go.
And there you have it. The Dems are just plain ass smarter.
Last year here in MS, there was an amendment on the ballot to define life as beginning at conception. Now, MS is a very religious state and basically has such tough abortion rules that the only clinic in the state is about to close. But that amendment? It failed, and it failed BIG.
Food for thought.
Posted by: GnuBreed at November 07, 2012 08:59 AM (ccXZP)
Posted by: Newsweak at November 07, 2012 08:59 AM (NIZHJ)
He's half black, but I guess that distinction isn't really important.
As an inexperienced first term Senator with no record of public accomplishment to speak of, if he were all white, he'd never have won the Democrat primary in 2008 to begin with.
Posted by: Looking closely at November 07, 2012 08:59 AM (PwGfd)
The off year elections are going to be better for us since it appears that in those elections the Dems draw about 50% of their vote while we draw about 66% of our vote. With that, we continue to build on our statehouse successes.
Posted by: MrCaniac at November 07, 2012 08:59 AM (Zd/NW)
We ran a Presidential Campaign, they ran an American Idol campaign.
Correct, and way more succinct than my 5000 word comment.
It wasn't just the campaign though. Mitt may have hit the notes perfectly, but just wasn't entertaining enough as a personality.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 07, 2012 09:00 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 09:00 AM (r2PLg)
"We're the better Democrat Party!" Nope, sorry, you lose me at that point.
LOL. The Republican party just got wiped out. It needs a new direction.
Posted by: Zac at November 07, 2012 09:00 AM (F6KtL)
One thing to remember as we drive towards the cliff in the coming months. The Pro Lifers can look back at yesterday and mark it as the day abortion became the law of the land for good. You can thank Akin and Mourdock for that.
We are going to have a very liberal supreme court after this Obama term, very liberal. A contsitutional amendment by be fun to talk about but will never happen. So there you have it. Abortion is here for good, not even a topic of discussion in politics anymore.
Posted by: robtr at November 07, 2012 09:00 AM (rTgOf)
This is where I start seriously thinking about finding a high bridge to dive from out of sheer despair at elementary Republican stupidity.
Akin was one thing. Akin was containable. Akin could perhaps even have been made into a plus.
If I had been running the Romney campaign, I would have put him on a jet to Missouri for a tarmac press conference without hours of Akin popping off.
I would have had Romney make it absolutely crystal clear that Akin's comments were completely unacceptable, and right there and then specifically call for Akin to leave the race. Distancing. Distancing.
Then later that night I would have worked the phones with every other GOP campaign manager in the country and told them to have their candidates memorize, word for word and letter for letter, a simple response to questions about abortion which began with the words, "Before I discuss my own views, I want to make it clear that I don't share those of Mr. Akin," or words to that effect.
Because it was clear that shit was coming. Damn near all GOP candidates other than Akin ended up getting rape-incest abortion questions deliberately dumped in their laps. And the vast majority of them handled it okay.
But it only took one, Mourdock, to give a bungled answer and to thus prove that Akinesque sentiments were "widespread" and "accepted" in the party.
Goddamned socons.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 07, 2012 09:00 AM (ymG7s)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 09:00 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: rickb223 (I am John Galt) at November 07, 2012 09:00 AM (GFM2b)
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 07, 2012 09:00 AM (UypUQ)
VA has been trending blue as DC explodes with new federal workers. Turn DC around and VA goes back red. The problem is you have to win some elections to do that. Its catch 22.
FL is turning blue because South FL is being overrun with people from PR instead of communist hating Cubans.
OH has too many urban areas and the auto bailout won it for Obama there.
In short, not only are conservatives doomed, but it appears Republicans are too if they can't beat a failure like Obama with 15% unemployment and 1% gdp.
Posted by: Vic at November 07, 2012 09:00 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Big T Party at November 07, 2012 09:00 AM (oDtMj)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 07, 2012 09:00 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: wooga at November 07, 2012 09:00 AM (vjyZP)
Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna not greg/gerg at November 07, 2012 12:52 PM (9+ccr)
It's the media and the education indoctrination system. Guy at work said his nephew in grammar school said that people should vote for Barry because, Barry wants to take money from the rich and help the poor and Romney wants to take money from poor people and give it to his rich friends. Where did he hear that? His teachers. Take that and the media constantly reinforcing that message. Unless kids get deprogrammed by their parents the future generations will have no clue about the country is really about. They will be drones
Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 07, 2012 09:01 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 09:01 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 09:01 AM (QxSug)
They were shocked.
One simple software patch to tabulating machines could have changed the entire outcome of the election and in this case, probably did.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 07, 2012 09:01 AM (hlUJY)
Did someone promise free college education, or Federal repayment of student loans while I wasn't watching?
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at November 07, 2012 09:01 AM (feFL6)
Posted by: 11/6/12 - USA goes full retard at November 07, 2012 09:02 AM (/kBoL)
Posted by: wooga at November 07, 2012 12:59 PM (vjyZP)
Specifically, I think it was the total number of voters demographic.
All the "inside baseball" stuff tracked reasonably well.
He lost the apathetic ones.
See my #213.
Posted by: jwb7605 at November 07, 2012 09:02 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: rockmom at November 07, 2012 12:53 PM (qe2/V)
------
I agree with this rockmom. The question is who didn't come out for Romney/Ryan but came out for Palin?
I think it was the Evangelicals.
Posted by: WisRich at November 07, 2012 09:02 AM (hdpay)
This is the Big One.
Romney never fully explained what was coming down the pike in 2013 for ALL Americans.
Were in for a very bad year. And 2014 will be even worse. After that, who knows.
The failure was in the lack of advertising regarding the subject (5-10 ads, maybe?) and in not mentioning it as much as he should during the debates. But he did make a point of addressing it on the campaign trail and Ryan frequently mentioned it.
Posted by: 80sBaby at November 07, 2012 09:02 AM (YjDyJ)
Posted by: Baldy at November 07, 2012 09:02 AM (opS9C)
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at November 07, 2012 09:03 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 07, 2012 09:03 AM (hlUJY)
Benghazi? Overwith.
Fast &Furious? Never heard of it.
Solendra and the other fake stimulus money? Gone.
GOP? whatever.
Posted by: Talibill at November 07, 2012 09:03 AM (tdZGt)
Posted by: Roald Dahl Paul at November 07, 2012 09:03 AM (Kd6lF)
Posted by: America Fuck Yeah! at November 07, 2012 09:03 AM (v/itI)
Posted by: supercore23 at November 07, 2012 09:03 AM (bwV72)
Posted by: macintx at November 07, 2012 09:03 AM (/p4zq)
And what was that "message", exactly?
By his own campaign's admission, his strategy was "Kill Romney", not "Convince the public".
I won't deny that empirically Obama had the better campaign (since it won for him), but there was no overarching message there.
It was typical Democrat/Chicago "bribe the various factions" politicking, combined with all sorts of negative campaigning (Romney kills cancer patients), etc.
Posted by: Looking closely at November 07, 2012 09:03 AM (PwGfd)
"Investments in education"
Why didn't Romney hit him on "we already have millions of college grads with no jobs" ?
Not that it would have moved Generation Juicebox
Posted by: kbdabear at November 07, 2012 09:03 AM (wwsoB)
Good analysis but you can pick apart every campaign, and none are perfect. Obama made mistakes too.
Reiterating in part what I've already offered. The reasons he lost:
1. Hurricane Sandy/Christie's public endorsement (Romney would have won had the election occurred right before Sandy). Event too close to the election, changed the entire conversation, blunted Romney's momentum and he didn't have enough time to re-gain it. Christie sealed the effect.
2. Unprecedented degree of "media" assist for a candidate.
3. Fraud (I just don't believe the reported low turnout numbers)
4. Friday jobs report -- although UE number went up, so did the number of reported jobs and we know which one the "Yahoo News" types highlighted.
Also, I don't buy all the Monday-morning quarterbacking that there's been an irreversible demographic shift and only Dems can win now. Again, I think Romney would have won absent the above factors. However, I do think the EC needs to be reformed so that urban centers (where most of the fraud occurs, by the way) should not determine all of a state's EVs.
Posted by: TD at November 07, 2012 09:03 AM (DQMcq)
Posted by: the day after at November 07, 2012 09:03 AM (LpQbZ)
I say call them out and make them own it. You Chardonnay Socialists want to raise taxes? Ok. We'll see your tax hike and raise you eliminating ALL deductions. If you can buy it or sell it or hold it in your hand or your head, then tax it. Mr. Springsteen, YOU can pay your new 90% rate on the 1040 EZ-form. And we'll tax the horse your daughter rode in on while we're at it.
Movie tickets, Political biographies. Tax 'em at least a 100%.
Let's tax wealth. Federal tax on real estate and copyrights.
I'm full Michael Moore. Burn the fucker down.
Posted by: Mikey Moore at November 07, 2012 09:03 AM (Xv7f/)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 07, 2012 09:03 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: Thorvald at November 07, 2012 09:03 AM (1V6Pv)
I was going to say, "Who cares?" but The Terror will behead the serfs who work for a living instead of the aristocrats who live large off their labor (handing out the occasional crumb to the Free Shit Army (I love that phrase!)), because they're that fucking ignorant.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at November 07, 2012 09:03 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: Big T Party at November 07, 2012 09:03 AM (oDtMj)
Posted by: Nighthawk at November 07, 2012 09:04 AM (n1x7a)
Posted by: Jose/ningrim at November 07, 2012 09:04 AM (srIqv)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 09:04 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Baldy at November 07, 2012 09:04 AM (opS9C)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at November 07, 2012 12:57 PM (/kI1Q)
That's actually more true than you realize.
Posted by: YIKES! at November 07, 2012 09:04 AM (1PE/J)
Posted by: Spike at November 07, 2012 09:04 AM (wtnmC)
Posted by: madamex at November 07, 2012 09:04 AM (+kvQd)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 09:05 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: osu at November 07, 2012 09:05 AM (G4dDt)
Posted by: Hopeless at November 07, 2012 09:05 AM (KZ5KD)
Posted by: Newsweak at November 07, 2012 09:05 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 07, 2012 09:05 AM (jUytm)
Thoughtful analysis.
Note: Cold but sunny day in Michigan. Feels kind of fitting for what has happened
Posted by: Mikey NTH - counting the days at November 07, 2012 09:05 AM (hLRSq)
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 07, 2012 01:03 PM
They fell for the "clean coal" lie that TFG talked about whenever he was in PA or OH
And their union bosses told them they knew who they voted for and where they lived
Posted by: kbdabear at November 07, 2012 09:05 AM (wwsoB)
Posted by: t-bird at November 07, 2012 09:05 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Mob at November 07, 2012 09:05 AM (lVDhv)
I think 20/20 hindsight can be a good exercise. That being the case, I would rather have Mitt and all the other candidates do nothing but the old "they are huge tax and spenders", just make shit up because the dems have all come up with a tax plan on just about everything.
Doesn't matter what the question is, "that guy is going to tax you" is the answer. Its an American Idol country and you have to keep things very very simple.
Abortion - that guy is gonna tax you. Spending - that guy is gonna tax you. Military - that guy is gonna tax you. Marriage - that guy is gonna tax you. Inflation - that guy is gonna tax you. Foot sores - that guy is gonna tax you, twice, once for each foot.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 07, 2012 09:05 AM (PHb2k)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 09:06 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 07, 2012 12:59 PM (ZrUUM)
Winter is here.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 07, 2012 09:06 AM (da5Wo)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 09:06 AM (ZPrif)
Somehow along the way he got bewitched by the idea he'd run this high-toned, high-brow campaign.
Except he really didn't do that, either. A campaign doesn't allow you to make long, detailed arguments. It's all soundbites.
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 01:00 PM (LCRYB)
I think this error can be attributed to those focus group studies the GOP made finding that undecideds would be spooked by tough talk about Obama... and instead should be gently urged that "Its Ok." *pat on head* messaging to vote against Obama.
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 07, 2012 09:06 AM (UypUQ)
Because he never intended, we're stuck with that sucker, all we can hope for will be common sense revisions.
Posted by: Shirley at November 07, 2012 09:06 AM (U4ceb)
Posted by: 80sBaby at November 07, 2012 01:02 PM (YjDyJ)
Mentioning it on the campaign trail makes no difference because the media doesn't have to report it. But put an ad on tv in front of 10 million viewers will make a difference.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 07, 2012 09:06 AM (NzBQO)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 07, 2012 09:06 AM (HKONC)
----
ha
Ha Ha
BWAHAHAHAHAHHA........ you guys aint making it to Christmas.
Posted by: Mayan Calendar at November 07, 2012 09:06 AM (yzX2R)
Posted by: Big T Party at November 07, 2012 01:03 PM (oDtMj)
I don't think that's a reach.
I base my opinion on comments from a couple of overly zealous "real Christian" sisters-in-law.
Posted by: jwb7605 at November 07, 2012 09:06 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 07, 2012 09:07 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 07, 2012 09:07 AM (jUytm)
i live in southern california and i can tell you liberals here don't vote because they love their ideals they will actually vote against their own self interest because the liberals here hate republicans with every fiber of their being and they would rather see the country burn than a republican in office.thats the difference between us and them and thats why until we start thinking more like them they'll always turnout it greater numbers than us
Posted by: kj at November 07, 2012 09:07 AM (AW9md)
Posted by: the day after at November 07, 2012 09:07 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: thunderb. at November 07, 2012 09:07 AM (+tOaC)
I can't take 8 years of no justice, no integrity, and no morals.
Posted by: Iblis at November 07, 2012 09:07 AM (9221z)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 09:07 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Zac at November 07, 2012 09:07 AM (F6KtL)
Posted by: Big T Party at November 07, 2012 09:08 AM (oDtMj)
They're obsessed with sex.
My young cow-orkers are giddy this morning...free birth control! Free abortion! Gay marriage! Their unemployed friends are gonna stay that way, but they can still fuck indiscriminantly and with abandon since Romney won't be taking sex away, and the government will fund any consequence.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at November 07, 2012 09:08 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: Thorvald at November 07, 2012 09:08 AM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: Newsweak at November 07, 2012 09:08 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 09:08 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 09:08 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Jose/ningrim at November 07, 2012 09:08 AM (srIqv)
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 09:08 AM (r2PLg)
When they complain they have no jobs, everything costs too much, and they're deep in debt, it'll take all the restraint I have to keep from saying to them "go get yourself an abortion to cheer yourself up, honey"
Posted by: kbdabear at November 07, 2012 09:08 AM (wwsoB)
Europe is Socialist. Who do you think European immigrants would vote for? They would vote for the Dems.
Stop referring to Hispanics as Brown. According to the census, most identify as White. The GOP needs to stop viewing Hispanics as a racial group and more like a cultural group. Acknowledging the true nature of the Hispanic community would be a good start.
Posted by: Mega at November 07, 2012 09:09 AM (idyso)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 09:09 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Roman Polanski at November 07, 2012 09:09 AM (IlZPo)
Posted by: Mister Christopher at November 07, 2012 09:09 AM (DQhAB)
Posted by: RWC at November 07, 2012 09:09 AM (fWAjv)
The attack portion of Mitt's campaign worked great. It doesn't matter how much he did or didn't talk about Fast and Furious, Bengazi or anything else, Obama got 10 million fewer votes.
We have to figure out why fewer republicans voted this time.
Posted by: jwest at November 07, 2012 09:09 AM (ZDsRL)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 07, 2012 09:09 AM (HKONC)
Posted by: America Fuck Yeah! at November 07, 2012 09:09 AM (OL96w)
Posted by: Chairman LMAO at November 07, 2012 09:09 AM (9eDbm)
1) We have a shitload of Governors. They can stop a lot of Obama's BS.
>Half of us live in Blue states, so no hope for us there.
2) We have a bigger and likely pissed off House Majority. Next time Obama tries going around them they can go scorched Earth on him.
>Boehner has already shown his belly. Once again it will be the Democrats and Republican leadership joining forces to roll over the House conservatives because "sequestration oh noes!".
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 07, 2012 09:09 AM (kdS6q)
We're out of the charity business. Ask the government.
Posted by: H Badger at November 07, 2012 09:09 AM (n/0Nw)
Posted by: the day after at November 07, 2012 09:09 AM (LpQbZ)
>>>Obama ran a better campaign, with a superior message that resonated with the electorate.
Really? That's what you think? Obama's awesome campaign was "Romney Sux!!!!!!!1111"
Once again if that's all it takes to hold onto your job at 7.9% unemployment, running guns into Mexico, getting Ambassadors killed, forcing through legislation the majority of the country doesn't like and doesn't want, we really lost this election a long long time ago see my comment at 252.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 07, 2012 09:09 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Warden at November 07, 2012 09:09 AM (0DlnM)
Posted by: Talibill at November 07, 2012 09:09 AM (tdZGt)
I could go on, but I'd want to shoot myself again.
They ran a poor campaign. Where the FUCK was Reince Priebus? They took ALL that donation money and fucked us with it. Yes....they did. They did NOTHING to assist the election campaign.
Why are Republicans SUCH PUSSIES!?!?!?!?
How was this much different from the failed McCain campaign?
Republicans learn NOTHING from the past and FAIL because of it.
Democrats learn NOTHING from the past because they keep getting REWARDED for doing the same thing over and over.
America, God rest your soul.
Posted by: © Sponge at November 07, 2012 09:09 AM (UK9cE)
The only people who mentioned abortion this cycle were the gyno-fascist wing of the Free Shit Army, and the SWPL jerks getting the vapors over the horrible brute who wouldn't say babies with felon fathers deserve to be destroyed.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at November 07, 2012 09:10 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at November 07, 2012 01:05 PM (vbh31)
Thats not up for a vote. The Republican Party cannot win without SoCons. Thats just reality and trying to appease the cool kids and stay off defending social conservative positions with confidence doesnt work.
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 07, 2012 09:10 AM (bonPh)
Posted by: soothsayer at November 07, 2012 09:10 AM (jUytm)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 09:10 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Baldy at November 07, 2012 09:10 AM (opS9C)
Posted by: runner at November 07, 2012 09:10 AM (WR5xI)
Posted by: Big T Party at November 07, 2012 09:10 AM (oDtMj)
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at November 07, 2012 09:11 AM (X3lox)
If you have resources buy hard assets, which will hold their value through any period of inflation or economic downturn.
If not, you're boned.
Posted by: Looking closely at November 07, 2012 09:11 AM (PwGfd)
Obama ran a better campaign, with a superior message that resonated with the electorate.
You're delusional.
Obama's entire campaign "message" consisted of "Sure, I kinda sucked. But the other guy sucks a lot more. You voted for me once already, so just fall back on that."
He did meet his goal of getting voters so disenchanted with the election and politics that they didn't bother to vote though. So you do have that going for you.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 07, 2012 09:11 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Dante at November 07, 2012 09:11 AM (NWLVJ)
Posted by: the day after at November 07, 2012 09:11 AM (LpQbZ)
***
Riot.
Posted by: Obla di at November 07, 2012 09:11 AM (Xv7f/)
Posted by: liontooth at November 07, 2012 09:11 AM (xk0Xg)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 07, 2012 09:11 AM (ZrUUM)
Posted by: BuddyPC at November 07, 2012 09:11 AM (jfUIE)
Posted by: Dave S. at November 07, 2012 09:11 AM (UvR6d)
Ace, I agree with most of your points... But I'll make the some comment I made last night...
Romney, the man, is a competant manager and by all accounts a likable guy. But he is not conservative. He's poll-driven, and as polls change his views change (although in this cycle, he knew that was his reputation, and ended up standing by some STUPID positions, like Romneycare). He is not an ideologue... And we need someone who can speak over the media and make a case for conservativism. To most of the liberals and the low information idiots, conservatives are anti-fun, anti-poor, anti-whatever. Most of them can't say anything that conservatives are pro- except guns and religion (thus obamas bitter clinger comment).
Yes, this is the medias fault. But our choices are to sell conservativism as an idea or just give up on it, and join the enemy and enjoy our last few years/decades as a superpower before it all collapses.
That's it. Bob Dole, George Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney... these men could not sit at a table with you and explain conservatism and why they believe in it.
We vote for elected officials to represent us because we think they'll vote how we would. If we don't know their core beliefs and why they feel that way... well... fuck it.
Posted by: Timin203 at November 07, 2012 09:11 AM (5WxMt)
Posted by: Chairman LMAO at November 07, 2012 01:09 PM (9eDbm)
If that turns out to be true ... well fuck'em. I'll be flying my rainbow flag here on out.
Posted by: Long Island at November 07, 2012 09:11 AM (EsJl1)
Posted by: Timwi at November 07, 2012 09:11 AM (pdhxN)
Posted by: Warden at November 07, 2012 01:09 PM (0DlnM)
Once again, I refer you to my #213.
It really was that bad.
Especially if you remember how much we all wanted to vote for McCain.
Posted by: jwb7605 at November 07, 2012 09:11 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at November 07, 2012 09:11 AM (ZDP2l)
Prop 30: raises taxes on the rich and raises sales tax "temporarily" passed(52.5%/47.5%)
Prop 38: raises taxes on the rich also raises income taxes on everyone else Failed(27.5%/72.5%) "
And you could have voted yes on both.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 07, 2012 09:11 AM (NzBQO)
Posted by: t-bird at November 07, 2012 09:12 AM (FcR7P)
249I've said before I'm amazed that before Fox News, talk radio, and the Internet, Republicans ever won a single Presidential election. I remain amazed.
Back then, Democrats were still loyal Americans, not Reds. Read JFK's speeches; he'd be denounced as a raving right-winger today. (I once burned a liberal online with a quote that I attributed to Rush. Liberal rants about how nuts and stupid Rush is, only to learn the quote was from JFK. Boy, was he pissed!).
In addition to JFK, remember that LBJ, while a terrible President who gave stuff to the "free pho'" set, also contrived to get us into Vietnam because he thought it was the only way to prevent a Communist takeover. Leading Dems, such as Scoop Jackson, were strongly pro-American, and interventionist in foreign policy (much more so than Republicans, who had a little isolationist streak).
So back then, the media were not the problem they are now. We now appreciate that the media are Communist-infested, and to some extent always have been (Hi Walter! Hi Whitaker!), but both parties were anti-Communist. Europeans used to say Americans really had no choice in their elections.
Now, however, one party is Communist (or social democratic, which is the same thing), and one isn't, so there's a point to the Red media coming down heavily on one side. That, plus decades of subtle indoctrination in schools and entertainment, have gotten us to where we are today.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at November 07, 2012 09:12 AM (4u2LN)
Can you parlay a disaster caused by idiots you know and live around, and turn it to your benefit? Probably not, if you want to keep your dignity.
Posted by: model_1066 at November 07, 2012 09:12 AM (nuLjn)
You can parse this shit until the cows come home. I shall stick to Occam's razor: Stupid people. They are everywhere, but mostly in the northeast and west coast.
Secession
Posted by: maddogg at November 07, 2012 09:12 AM (OlN4e)
'The only people who mentioned abortion this cycle were the gyno-fascist wing of the Free Shit Army, and the SWPL jerks getting the vapors over the horrible brute who wouldn't say babies with felon fathers deserve to be destroyed.'
Explain Akin/Murdock then. Romney wins those states by wide margins, yet we lose two important Senate seats. Why?
Posted by: Zac at November 07, 2012 09:12 AM (F6KtL)
That's like saying some children don't like brussels sprouts. It's an oddity you find one that does.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 07, 2012 09:12 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 09:12 AM (oDtYC)
Posted by: Dr Spank at November 07, 2012 09:12 AM (4cRnj)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at November 07, 2012 09:12 AM (xAtAj)
We have to figure out why fewer republicans voted this time.
They died. The GOP is too geared towards older voters. Their ranks are not being replenished.
Posted by: Mega at November 07, 2012 09:12 AM (idyso)
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 09:12 AM (r2PLg)
I'll agree to "resonated with the electorate" anyway.
We wanted to believe people wanted opportunities more than they wanted free shit/fashionability, and we were wrong.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at November 07, 2012 09:12 AM (/kI1Q)
People see what they believe and they believe what they need. The Obama voters don't want to believe that they were idiots for electing Obama so they created one that does not exist and voted for him.
BTW where can I buy some gold?
Posted by: Bob from Virginia at November 07, 2012 09:13 AM (SBjsJ)
Posted by: Uncle Milty at November 07, 2012 09:13 AM (8J5Ck)
Posted by: Warden at November 07, 2012 09:13 AM (0DlnM)
There should be no more talk of banning abortion without exceptions until the pro-lifers have a solid majority in favor of banning abortion with exceptions, as evidenced by the repeal of Roe v. Wade.
I won't hold my breath. Roe v. Wade will never be repealed. Its a hopelessly lost cause.
Posted by: cool breeze at November 07, 2012 09:13 AM (hx/td)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 09:13 AM (LCRYB)
My gut tells me a lot of evangelicals didn't vote for R/R.
Posted by: Chairman LMAO
First cut analysis of the exit polling doesn't show that:
Mr. Romney won the support of nearly 6 in 10 whites. In urban areas, white voters were split over the two candidates, but about 6 in 10 white voters in the suburbs went for Mr. Romney, as did nearly two-thirds in rural areas.
NYT
It appears the evangelical heavy areas and states went Red, while once again the Blue state moderate Republicans stayed home or went all hope and change.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 07, 2012 09:13 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at November 07, 2012 09:14 AM (X3lox)
Romney won the white vote by
59%
Won white women by 56%
Won the white youth vote by 51%
Won the Independent vote by a 5% margin.
It looks like the Evangelical vote was not there.
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 12:58 PM (r2PLg)
-------------
Romney won White Evangelicals 78% to 21% over Obama.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 07, 2012 09:14 AM (P6QsQ)
Why have we not seen an apology for the pathetic aoshqdd.com performance last night?
Posted by: Gerry at November 07, 2012 09:14 AM (jQm+J)
I'll repeat, it was FL, VA, and OH. Those are not "evangelical" States. We lost because those States are turning more blue.
The Republican Party needs to do several things:
1. Major reform of the primary rules
2. Stay away from the MFM debates. Hold your own debates.
3. Learn how to answer reporters from the MFM. Newt was good at that.
4. Learn how to get the message out WITHOUT the MFM. This is one of the areas Romney failed at bad.
Posted by: Vic at November 07, 2012 09:14 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Nighthawk at November 07, 2012 09:14 AM (n1x7a)
I think you're right about that.
I'll wait for the numbers, but I suspect Romney turned out proportionately MORE evangelicals than McCain.
Posted by: Looking closely at November 07, 2012 09:14 AM (PwGfd)
Posted by: El Kabong at November 07, 2012 09:14 AM (JycCV)
For that to happen, squishy Republicans would have to exist in the House and Senate.
Posted by: jwb7605 at November 07, 2012 09:14 AM (Qxe/p)
I'm not convinced. Yes all those things are valid points, but 50% of the people voted for Obama. I'm not sure anything on your list changes that except for Sandy. These idiots knew the economic situation of the country. They hate the white rich guy and they want free stuff. They dont give a shit about BenGhazi unless he is the newest gangster rapper.
But, since the final polls are acurate, can we now assume that Romney really did have a lead before Sandy? Sandy took all the momentum that Mitt had going and swept it away. Gave O a chance to look good, brought global warming nonsense back as an issue even though it wasnt mentioned in a debate, and it took the focus off BenGhazi.
And really if the hurricane saved Obama, I'm not going to question the good lord as to why in the fuck he did that.
Posted by: California Red at November 07, 2012 09:14 AM (Ho3p+)
Posted by: Y-not hunting and pecking on the phone at November 07, 2012 09:14 AM (Bfbpz)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 07, 2012 09:14 AM (HKONC)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 09:14 AM (ZPrif)
....
Posted by: Spike at November 07, 2012 01:04 PM
Well, were not sure they are even "R"s are we? In the sense of registered voter Rs. They could be R-leaning independents who aren't plugged into politics and got turned off by the very negative tone of the 2012 election. There was talk that Team O knew they would likely go down in another high turnout election, so deliberately made it nasty (Say hi, Joe Soptic!) to turn these right leaning folks off from participating.
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 07, 2012 09:14 AM (UypUQ)
Posted by: Thorvald at November 07, 2012 09:15 AM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 09:15 AM (oDtYC)
Because that mirrors my own view, that there were multiple factors in play that did not go the way of the GOP. When you hear people talking about ***THE REASON*** for the loss, it's an indication of an oversimplified analysis. There was not one single reason. There was a confluence.
Some of it was beyond our control, like the timing of Sandy's landfall. Some of it was self-inflicted stupidity like Akin and Mourdock. At least we can try to learn from the latter and up our game.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 07, 2012 09:15 AM (ymG7s)
"4. Learn how to get the message out WITHOUT the MFM. This is one of the areas Romney failed at bad."
Except for Debate 1.
Posted by: California Red at November 07, 2012 09:15 AM (Ho3p+)
If abortion ads worked, then why did women vote for Romney slightly higher than McCain? Why did many demoralized Dems stay home?
Romney lost because he did not have a ground game and did not get out the vote.
Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 07, 2012 09:15 AM (MNWe/)
Posted by: Chalky at November 07, 2012 09:16 AM (nm4/M)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 09:16 AM (LCRYB)
Ponder that for a bit.
Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 07, 2012 09:16 AM (Nfpnr)
Posted by: deadrody at November 07, 2012 09:16 AM (N+5Kx)
Akin's a shitstain, go ask the Missouri primary voters why they picked him instead of Steeleman.
Mourdock got bludgeoned by a malicious media misrepresentation that you all believe is God's Honest Truth...and the anti-tea-party wing of the GOP shit all over him. Lugar threw a whiny tantrum. He was beating that before the last debate, though.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at November 07, 2012 09:16 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: Warden at November 07, 2012 01:13 PM (0DlnM)
--------------------
Catholics as a whole were pretty evenly split, while those that attend Mass regularly went 57% Romney over 42% Obama.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 07, 2012 09:16 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: kbdabear at November 07, 2012 01:08 PM (wwsoB)
Don't restrain yourself....I'm not going to. They'll get what they asked for and I hope I am there to remind them every chance I get.
Posted by: Tami at November 07, 2012 09:16 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Spike at November 07, 2012 09:16 AM (wtnmC)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 09:16 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Ed Snyder at November 07, 2012 09:17 AM (GDS6f)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 09:17 AM (ZPrif)
Why is our message overwhelmed, misunderstood, distorted?
You know that's the thing that gets me the most. When I talk to "liberals" they really have this conception that Republicans are knuckle-dragging misogynist KKK/Nazi/Fundi clones. You explain what conservatism is, and they say "Oh that's what I think. That's why I vote for Cuomo"
Why is it so hard to get the message out?
Is free stuff so attractive? Is sticking it to the rich so attractive?
Don't people know how things are made? How the world works? It seems not.
Posted by: Iblis at November 07, 2012 09:17 AM (9221z)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 09:17 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Palandine at November 07, 2012 09:17 AM (g7D8V)
Posted by: kj at November 07, 2012 09:17 AM (AW9md)
Against crusader for amnesty Obama gets 67% of Latino vote. Against self-deportation advocate he gets 69%. Difference not that impresive.
Posted by: Jon (not the troll) at November 07, 2012 09:18 AM (2ihLK)
Posted by: Jheri Carl at November 07, 2012 09:18 AM (//cIL)
Agreed, but I think the Moron asking about getting anal on the first date will have a better chance of success...
Especially if your 'first date' is with Sandy Fluke or Wonkette.
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at November 07, 2012 09:18 AM (zF6Iw)
Posted by: KC at November 07, 2012 09:18 AM (i7KmQ)
Posted by: Gary Pureheart Johnson at November 07, 2012 09:18 AM (+VMZ0)
Posted by: Ian S. at November 07, 2012 09:18 AM (B/VB5)
Posted by: t-bird at November 07, 2012 09:19 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Muss the Brentburger at November 07, 2012 09:19 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Chalky at November 07, 2012 01:16 PM (nm4/M)
------------
That would be my schizo state that loves Gov Walker and just elected the most leftist new Senator that has ever been sent to Washington, that anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, anti-military, pro-Iranian Tammy Baldwin. Who brags that she want a complete government take-over of healthcare and proudly supports OWS.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 07, 2012 09:19 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 09:19 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 09:19 AM (oDtYC)
A nerve. It got touched. He knows now he f*cked up.
I'll never give him an ounce of support. With how I'm gonna get screwed in ObamaComesForMyWallet™ I won't have any money to spend in Jersey either.
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at November 07, 2012 09:19 AM (feFL6)
And they say, "Lol! I don't pay no taxes! And I ain't takin' no job, I'll lose my benfits!"
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at November 07, 2012 09:19 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: Long Island at November 07, 2012 09:20 AM (EsJl1)
Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna not greg/gerg at November 07, 2012 09:20 AM (9+ccr)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 09:20 AM (ZPrif)
"We have to figure out why fewer republicans voted this time.
They died. The GOP is too geared towards older voters. Their ranks are not being replenished."
Posted by: Mega at November 07, 2012 01:12 PM (idyso)
Actually, the baby boomer segment should be getting proportionately larger and benefit the GOP.
Posted by: jwest at November 07, 2012 09:20 AM (ZDsRL)
Especially #10. He didn't call the lying ass.ole a lying ass.ole. He let the Lyin kING define himself to the useless idiots that only watch entertainment shows and play with each other while waiting for their next handout for doing nothing of value.
Now because of this, the useless air circulators and professional baby makers will go from 47 to 55% in a second term and the country will of necessity crash before the Repunk cowards get another chance at power.
Our Republic is over unless the five most conservative supremes hang on for at least four more. No way to put a smiley face on this screw up.
For two cycles we have tried a moderate nice guy and gotten our asses handed to us, maybe one day we could try a more conservative fighter ala Newt who calls a presstitute a presstitute and a liar a liar.
Posted by: concealedkerry or Submitt at November 07, 2012 09:20 AM (vXqv3)
Posted by: Palandine at November 07, 2012 01:17 PM (g7D8V)
It's been happening in Chicago for years done by "youths' who have no descriptions whatsoever
Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 07, 2012 09:20 AM (1Jaio)
Fuck it all, man. The Republican party is a goddam limp dick party right now. It's shameful that this punk got another term. Just shameful.
Posted by: Pipe Holder at November 07, 2012 09:20 AM (VTeUD)
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at November 07, 2012 09:20 AM (xAtAj)
Behind curtain number one is a life where you are accountable for your decisions. Prosperity is possible, but not guaranteed. And you will be judged by the content of your character.
Behind curtain number two is a life where you will never achieve your full potential, but your basic needs for food, clothing and shelter will be met. Your life will have little risk, but also little reward. And.....you get a free Bamaphone!
When Snookie and Honey Boo Boo are considered media stars, ask yourself how the average person is gonna choose.
Spin it all you want, but we as a nation have come to prefer free stuff to liberty.
Yeah us!
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at November 07, 2012 09:20 AM (BPyqV)
Posted by: Baldy at November 07, 2012 09:20 AM (opS9C)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 09:21 AM (LCRYB)
And there you have it. We Republicans ran a serious ticket, betting that Americans would remember what made this Republic great, and endorse it over the failed policies of Socialists in democrats' clothing. We lost, since the margin wasn't enough to prevent voter fraud which will never be exposed or reported on now, since Romney is a gentleman who doesn't want to put the nation through the electoral circus that Gore's crowd insisted on in 2000. And now the country is committed to going off the cliff. Well, fine. It can go off the cliff, it's what the electorate wanted. Nothing we can do except wait for them to hit bottom, and then pick up the pieces.
Posted by: exdem13 at November 07, 2012 09:21 AM (1GunI)
Has anyone told Ahmadinejad she's a homosexual?
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at November 07, 2012 09:21 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: 80sBaby at November 07, 2012 09:21 AM (YjDyJ)
Posted by: Daybrother at November 07, 2012 09:21 AM (+paCV)
Posted by: Hopeless at November 07, 2012 09:21 AM (XrMeG)
Posted by: Big T Party at November 07, 2012 09:21 AM (oDtMj)
Posted by: Wi Lurker at November 07, 2012 09:21 AM (9pqWr)
My young cow-orkers are giddy this morning...free birth control! Free abortion! Gay marriage! Their unemployed friends are gonna stay that way, but they can still fuck indiscriminantly and with abandon since Romney won't be taking sex away, and the government will fund any consequence.
Yeah see this is what's got me worried. We're decending into Hedonism as a culture. Science has provided a solution to most of the ills that excess creates, so there's no love of virtue anymore, even just for virtue's sake.
Without an ordering principle, we're boned. The end is near.
Oh and HeatherRadish, many of us MO voters (who lived in District 2 even) didn't expect the multi-term congressman to blow it that badly. Steelman is a POS, she may look good on paper, but she'll suck Union cock at the first sign of politcal support for herself. Can't speak to Brunner, probably should of voted for him, he was just a bit of an unknown.
Posted by: tsrblke at November 07, 2012 09:21 AM (GaqMa)
Overconfidence. Simple arrogant overconfidence.
A frequently expressed sentiment here was, "Relax. Chill. We got this."
I said, "Eminently loseable election. Razor close nailbiter at best. Don't let up."
How many people who were sick of Barky figured that "we got this" and that it was just impossible for him to be re-elected given his crummy record, and couldn't be arsed to go vote?
Not enough to make an overall difference, I don't think. But certainly there must have been some. Time for many on the right to get this tattooed on the inside of their eyelids in fluorescent ink: RELAX AFTER THE DAMN ELECTION IS OVER.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 07, 2012 09:22 AM (ymG7s)
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 09:22 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 09:22 AM (ZPrif)
Here's the problem; the US electorate just asked to be fucked on the first date. Anally.
Why would you jump in there and insist that they don't want that to happen?
The only way we ever get out of this mess is give them the full measure of their order.
The GOP should abstain every vote for the next 4 years.
Posted by: burned cut-loop [/i] [/b] at November 07, 2012 09:22 AM (jo069)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at November 07, 2012 09:22 AM (YgF3N)
Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 09:22 AM (oDtYC)
I never said anything about "honest" you lying sack of smegma.
Damn shame your mother chose wrong.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at November 07, 2012 09:22 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: Thorvald at November 07, 2012 09:22 AM (1V6Pv)
They take your money and fuck you with it.
Straight up. What a waste of money THAT campaign was. SOOOOOOOOO much ammunition against this blithering idiot and his sidekick over the last 4 years and NONE OF IT WAS USED.
Fuck you, Republican party. You're TOO STUPID for my time.
Has Boehner cried yet?
Posted by: © Sponge at November 07, 2012 09:22 AM (UK9cE)
Posted by: DCPensFan at November 07, 2012 09:22 AM (ma/2m)
Posted by: Community Organizers for PR Statehood at November 07, 2012 09:22 AM (NWLVJ)
"Rubio will not draw any Latinos that wouldn't have been Conservative to start with. Susan Martinez might draw a few women, and maybe a tad more Latinos because she's Mexican, but a Cuban ain't moving the Hispanic vote to the Right."
Very true, hispanics have their own tribal wars.
Posted by: Auntie Doodles at November 07, 2012 09:23 AM (JcN7j)
ace, can you do something about this? TB or something.....
Posted by: Tami at November 07, 2012 09:23 AM (X6akg)
But, I can't take this. I just can't.
Maybe I will come back one day.
But right now, I'm just fighting back the tears.
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way. The time is gone, the song is over, Thought I'd something more to say.
Posted by: RoyalOil at November 07, 2012 09:23 AM (imtbm)
Posted by: Al From Bay Shore at November 07, 2012 09:23 AM (H7qBA)
When 51% of the country are net tax receivers instead of net tax payers, it then becomes an election of social issues and pandering.
The good news/bad news is that is going to end and those poor motherf'ers are about to find out what hit them.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 07, 2012 09:23 AM (PHb2k)
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 09:23 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 01:07 PM
You could ask them "has a loser ever given you a job", but I doubt that would sink in
Posted by: kbdabear at November 07, 2012 09:23 AM (wwsoB)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 09:23 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 07, 2012 09:23 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: BuddyPC at November 07, 2012 09:23 AM (jfUIE)
Posted by: Chris at November 07, 2012 09:24 AM (KvU/Q)
Posted by: Jaimo at November 07, 2012 09:24 AM (9U1OG)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 09:24 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 07, 2012 09:25 AM (HKONC)
Look, women generally should have gone big for Romney, and white women should have been higher than 60%.
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 01:17 PM (LCRYB)
No, I mean women. Women backed Romney 2 points higher than McCain. There were no rape ads against McCain. Therefore, rape ads made no difference.
Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 07, 2012 09:25 AM (MNWe/)
The problem is that no one is willing to make the case for social conservatism, which is that it is a necessary part of liberty in general. A hedonistic society will happily abandon their liberty to anyone who will promise to keep them fat and happy. Traditions, rituals, and values are a way for society to counteract the more destructive elements of human nature.
What we need to do is start developing conservative alternatives to the entertainment media. With $10,000 you can get the equipment to produce a web series and distribute it. We need to get conservatives in Hollywood and conservatives with the money to support such efforts. For every modern family magically perfect gay couple, we need to counter it by showing the hedonism and infidelity that is more realistic of the gay community. For every SITC slut that gets celebrated, we need to show that the end result is loneliness and disease.
Posted by: Alex at November 07, 2012 09:25 AM (HwgHt)
"@487 Can't trust this, as I was getting into my cups, but I'm pretty sure I heard on Fox last night that there are now more unmarried women than married women by relevant age group in the U.S. of A. for the first time ever. The female vote breaks on single vs. married, mainly.
You want to talk demographics, let's talk fecundity. The fecund female votes R, the barren vote D. Period."
Partly true - 40% of childen are born to single mothers. Think they vote R?
Posted by: Auntie Doodles at November 07, 2012 09:25 AM (JcN7j)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 07, 2012 09:25 AM (8JpQH)
Posted by: docweasel at November 07, 2012 09:25 AM (h0KX8)
IMO -- and I've said this before during the campaign and was slammed for it -- we have a major problem in that we get all reticent, procedural and Poppin' Fresh-like every time we see the Democrats pulling some of the questionable/illegal shit.
If some precinct worker wore a Romney baseball cap, the Democrats would have been spreadin' the news far and wide. Ditto for a giant picture of Teh Mutt on the wall of a voting place.
If they suspected we were tampering with ballots and/or counts, they would be screaming to Brian Williams and his worthless cohorts to put it on teevee NOW!!11!! They wouldn't wait until the Proper Authorities deliberated and issued toothless "rulings."
If someone had Herman Cained Choom Boy and accused him of gettin' some from an employee, the charges of RAAAACISM!!11!! and worse would have been instant.
In short, the Republicans have no balls. Because they are Nice Guys, they automatically assume the Democrats are Nice Guys too. Because they can't believe the liberals would cheat (or "bring a gun to a knife fight," if you wish) they dismiss any indications of abhorrent behavior.
It will take the transformation of certain conservative leaders into street-fighters to ever correct this. Otherwrise, the fraud, lies and anti-American behavior will continue unabated.
Posted by: MrScribbler, banned at TepidAir at November 07, 2012 09:25 AM (yKUrR)
And Zero's campaign people, in 2008 and now, knew this and used it.
Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius at November 07, 2012 09:25 AM (BDU/a)
Just read that the FEMA relief center is shutting down due to another storm coming to NY & NJ.
Fat boy probably believes that the SCOAMF actually gives a shit and wasn't using him as a campaign tool. LOL!!
What is the chance that the SCOAMF visits NY or NJ now bitchezzz.
Posted by: Cheri at November 07, 2012 09:25 AM (G+Wff)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 09:25 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Dante at November 07, 2012 01:11 PM (NWLVJ)
What can men do in the face of such evil?
http://tinyurl.com/a2nwkh5
Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 07, 2012 09:25 AM (da5Wo)
Another reason Romney didn't have to improve during the primaries; all he had to do was stay out of the way while the fruitcakes and TrueCon Avengers punched themselves out.
Once the serious, viable contenders like Pawlenty and Perry were knocked out by the Purity Brigade, all Romney had to do was sit back and do nothing.
I don't think there were any other viable contenders. Perry shot himself in the foot multiple times, Pawlenty killed himself in the debate when he refused to confront Romney, and all the rest were mere pretenders. Were there any other viable options out there? I don't know, but what I do know is that the money and influence lined up for Romney four years ago.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at November 07, 2012 09:26 AM (JxMoP)
-- The big problem, then, seems in getting them to show up.
Posted by: Matt S. at November 07, 2012 09:26 AM (moRRg)
Posted by: Muss the Brentburger at November 07, 2012 09:26 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 01:19 PM (LCRYB)
What social issues, ace? All Repubs did this year was running away from a debate about social issues. If you go into a fight with a defeatist attitude, its not exactly a miracle when you lose.
Posted by: Elize Nayden at November 07, 2012 09:26 AM (Rn7r2)
--------------
Never one to go where I am not wanted.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 07, 2012 09:26 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: kbdabear at November 07, 2012 09:26 AM (wwsoB)
Yes, his name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Posted by: kbdabear at November 07, 2012 09:26 AM (wwsoB)
A comparison of total voters vs the presidential vote count would be interesting. I don't know what percentage of voters are Catholic, but I've heard they got 'told' that they couldn't vote for a candidate who supports abortion -- so they skipped the first column on the ballot but voted down-ticket.
It's an interesting theory. Seems a little tin-foilish but straws, that's all I got right now.
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at November 07, 2012 09:26 AM (feFL6)
about this because the way to attract someone who's not making his own
way in life is to offer some Government Assistance, which is precisely
the wrong thing.
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 01:07 PM
You could ask them "has a loser ever given you a job", but I doubt that would sink in
Posted by: kbdabear at November 07, 2012 01:23 PM (wwsoB)
I don't think that logic and reason appeals to many people any more. It's becoming more like Idiocracy.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 07, 2012 09:27 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: Gary Pureheart Johnson at November 07, 2012 09:27 AM (+VMZ0)
Turns out the social issues didn't hurt us, and Romney wasn't conservative enough.
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 01:19 PM (LCRYB)
I think the social issues hurt us because we're too afraid to talk frankly about them. Study after study has shown that the path to personal success, and a health society starts with a two parent "traditional" family (and no having 2 dads or 2 moms doesn't help). But that requires that people engage in self-discipline, and that's never a popular message. I think the baby-boomers really fucked us over when they promoted the responsibility-free society we "enjoy" today.
Posted by: Iblis at November 07, 2012 09:27 AM (9221z)
Hey Ace, thanks for the very well-reasoned, insightful post about why Romney lost.
Now how about an equally well-reasoned, insightful post about why you, all but one of the cob-loggers, and almost all conservative talking heads were totally fucking WRONG about how well things were going? I mean, if you're wise enough to see all these problems with Romney (albeit in hindsight), where was all that wisdom, say, a day and a half ago?
We've we been fed months of bullshit about weighting and crosstabs and oversampling and "preference cascade" and anecdatal counts of fucking YARD SIGNS.
Either we're in a cocoony echo chamber and you didn't know how far into Spinland you'd gotten... or, perhaps more likely, you were just flat-out LYING. Lying to keep up morale, avoid dispiriting the troops, avoid being called an eeyore RINO.... still lying, dude.
Posted by: d at November 07, 2012 09:27 AM (n0Yvg)
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 09:27 AM (r2PLg)
The GOP really needs to get off this new tic of giving deference to Clinton and his "boom times". I don't see dems returning the favor about the Reagan Era.
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 07, 2012 09:27 AM (UypUQ)
Posted by: Muss the Brentburger at November 07, 2012 09:27 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: rockmom at November 07, 2012 09:27 AM (qe2/V)
Posted by: Big T Party at November 07, 2012 09:27 AM (oDtMj)
The takers know that they will always be taken care of. There is no fear anymore that they need to provide for themselves. They will not be left in the gutter hungry in the USA. The is no fiscal cliff in their minds.
Posted by: KC at November 07, 2012 09:28 AM (i7KmQ)
Posted by: Ian S. at November 07, 2012 09:28 AM (B/VB5)
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land
I beg to differ.
Posted by: Elizabeth Warren at November 07, 2012 09:28 AM (hx/td)
Ace, will you please get your formatting fixed.
Women voted Romney 2 points higher than McCain. McCain did not have rape ads tied around his neck. The Democrat base certainly didn't turn out in heavier numbers because of the rape ads. Do you think rape ads caused low Republican turnout?
Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 07, 2012 09:28 AM (MNWe/)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 09:28 AM (ZPrif)
There was no defined and outlined plan to get us out of Obama's mess. No clearly defined pathway such as Newt's "Contract with America" that anyone could understand and get behind.
There was - in fact - no clearly defined candidate. Romney changed his positions to accommodate whatever political wind was blowing, and was therefore offered up as the guy we had to elect in order to get rid of the other guy. That kind of candidacy NEVER works! Reagan didn't run on a policy of getting rid of Carter; he had his own clearly defined ideas; "I'm the better candidate." Most of Mitt's campaign was based on "vote for me because that guy sucks."
At this point, I'm sure that names would be demanded, and I have one or two, but it doesn't matter. No Conservative/Republican candidate will ever win again. The days of a Conservative in the White House are over.
Posted by: Sgt. York at November 07, 2012 09:28 AM (fGatA)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 09:28 AM (QxSug)
But Rape Abortion? This is not "done the right way." This is embracing the truly, toe-curlingly horrifying position.
THIS -- not abortion generally -- is the killer, and the loser.
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 01:24 PM (LCRYB)
The Catch 22 of course is that they'll never be able to escape it. As long as there are actual pro-life politicians left (and I mean real ones not the Joe Biden "my personal position" type) the media will hammer the question home. I'm not sure we need to abandon our position, just get better at defending it. Point out that it's unlikely to become law, but then focus the question on care for Rape victims in general, early reporting and fast treatment/counseling. (We do need to purge the people so over the top that they think everything given after a rape including a glass of water is tantamount to an abortion. Science, how does it work?)
Posted by: tsrblke at November 07, 2012 09:29 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 07, 2012 09:29 AM (HKONC)
-- This is an easy answer, even I can do.
Everyone knew Obama was losing a host of votes this round. He did.
No one knew the bubbling enthusiasm people were expressing for Romney would not translate to votes. Romney lost because his base didn't show up and Obama's did. That's why everyone in the conservative sphere was so far off; they accounted for a depressed D- turnout, but never thought the same would happen to Republicans (a thing I'm guilty of.) I didn't think people would follow through on threats to not vote Romney or to go for Johnson. I was wrong.
Posted by: Matt S. at November 07, 2012 09:29 AM (moRRg)
Posted by: Al From Bay Shore at November 07, 2012 09:30 AM (H7qBA)
Posted by: Iblis at November 07, 2012 09:30 AM (9221z)
Posted by: El Kabong at November 07, 2012 09:30 AM (JycCV)
People who need someone else to find them a way to get to the polls are unlikely to have an informed oppinion on anything.
Posted by: TYPO DYNMOFO at November 07, 2012 09:30 AM (+VMZ0)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 09:30 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Rich at November 07, 2012 09:30 AM (arczc)
>>>But he actually did have to do that.
There in lies the disconnect. We can't move forward with *any* political agenda if we prima facie lose 47% of the vote. This becomes a chicken or the egg problem. We have to do something about the electorate in order to have sufficient support to forward a political agenda, but the principal means of shifting the electorate is forwarding our agenda and making people successful and self sufficient. This is why the financial disaster really has to occur I think. It will be the only way to shift the electorate significantly enough that we can actually get enough of our agenda through to fix a lot of these problems. The good news is, there isn't anyone around left willing and able to prop us up if we have a monetary problem, so this will be much quicker than it is for say Greece or Spain.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 07, 2012 09:30 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Decaf at November 07, 2012 09:31 AM (+Bpfx)
Posted by: Moose4 at November 07, 2012 09:31 AM (W15Fy)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 09:31 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: KC at November 07, 2012 09:31 AM (i7KmQ)
Posted by: t-bird at November 07, 2012 09:31 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: NCKate at November 07, 2012 09:31 AM (MsQkt)
Posted by: mrp at November 07, 2012 09:31 AM (HjPtV)
I think the #1 is a bit naive. You are giving way too much credit to the democrats to think those debates had that much of an impact. Not buying it, and same for a lot of the other arguments.
#2, definite impact. At least outside the affected states. Good photo ops. As close as things were this may have swung it, and if so, well, so what. The fact that the race was so close that this caliber of voter could tilt the scales back is the whole problem to begin with.
#6 - this is a big one, probably the biggest as far as the actual vote demographics go. That is something we could have done better. Romney said some dumb things.
#8 - very weak. I mean come on, really. If that's the case then this battle is already lost anyway. You're talking about symptoms. What that guy said wasn't even a big deal, Romney has said worse. It was a simple gaffe taken out of context. Get over it.
The one think not mentioned though, what a shock, is the whole part about Romney not being all that different from Obama. You seriously don't think that had an impact?
Posted by: Andrew at November 07, 2012 09:32 AM (Egza/)
He never called Obama a liberal. Ever.
__
In his later stump speeches, he did blame the failing economy on preazy implementing his liberal agenda.
Posted by: kallisto at November 07, 2012 09:32 AM (jm/9g)
"Yeah, that was a revenge of Ron Paul. That'll teach GOP. Ron Raul should run in 2016..."
The most self deluded crowd I've ever seen.
Posted by: Comrade J at November 07, 2012 09:32 AM (T7lSs)
Posted by: Iblis at November 07, 2012 09:32 AM (9221z)
Posted by: Big T Party at November 07, 2012 09:32 AM (oDtMj)
Posted by: BuddyPC at November 07, 2012 09:32 AM (jfUIE)
----
I think it will end up being the "meh" right-leaning independents that didn't show up to vote. The Ploufe operation did a masterful job of getting their normally "meh" left-leaning indys "fired-up" to go to the polls while not spuring our "meh"s to do the same.
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 07, 2012 09:32 AM (UypUQ)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 09:32 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Dave S. at November 07, 2012 09:32 AM (6Zy+s)
Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 09:32 AM (oDtYC)
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 09:33 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 09:33 AM (d2QQ4)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 09:33 AM (LCRYB)
Our country has changed culturally in a profound way over the past decade.
Reagan would have lost last night.
The traditional foundation of a healthy society (values,family,faith,character,etc.)means little to the majority of Americans.
Rush is still blabbering how a true conservative would have saved the day. LOL.
Those days are long gone...
Posted by: LloydChristmas at November 07, 2012 09:33 AM (s3eOv)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 09:33 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at November 07, 2012 01:26 PM (feFL6)
Re: Catholics.
Bullshit. Even when they do say that, plenty of Catholics voted for Obama and Biden so Catholics aren't really voting on Abortion hard core TBH. Plus the big thing right now for the bishops is the religious freedom aspect. They couldn't endorse a candidate for the tax reasons, but they might as well have endorsed Romney just as a way of getting rid of Obamcare.
I don't recall even hearing "Abortion" at Sunday Mass these last few weeks. It was all "Liberty" and "get this damned law away from us."
Posted by: tsrblke at November 07, 2012 09:34 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: the day after at November 07, 2012 09:34 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: Greg at November 07, 2012 01:11 PM (nQwR9)
Your prize is a math quiz.
Posted by: YIKES! at November 07, 2012 01:13 PM (1PE/J)
Get off the internet for the day, everybody. YIKES! has won it.
Posted by: fluffy at November 07, 2012 09:34 AM (z9HTb)
dude, if you saw Romney getting lower turnout than McCain good on ya.
Totally surprised the F* out of me.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 07, 2012 09:34 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Crashpanic at November 07, 2012 12:27 PM (zU+ii)
---------------------------------------------
That's my belief also. This nation turned the corner last night.
Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 09:34 AM (EUJBD)
I don't feel any need to protect Bush from anything.
My first Presidential vote was for Reagan.
The Bushes have been absolutely key in ruining the post-Reagan GOP.
I would have been delighted if Romney had run hard against both Bush and Obama and said that he intended a clean break from not the last four years, but from the last twelve.
In particular, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (which I as an an isolationist paleoconservative was not keen on from the start) turn out to have really poisoned the well for the GOP with a bunch of swing voters. People are exhausted and embittered with foreign misadventures.
Romney wasn't in federal service when those decisions were taken. He didn't cast any votes for them. He should have blamed it all on Bush -- which isn't entirely fair or accurate, but when is politics ever that -- and he should have then said that he wouldn't have made Bush's mistake of rushing to war.
Posted by: torquewrench at November 07, 2012 09:34 AM (ymG7s)
Posted by: Butters at November 07, 2012 09:34 AM (NIZHJ)
Posted by: Al From Bay Shore at November 07, 2012 09:34 AM (H7qBA)
Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston at November 07, 2012 09:34 AM (KCvsd)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 09:35 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: NCKate at November 07, 2012 09:35 AM (MsQkt)
Posted by: the day after at November 07, 2012 09:35 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 09:35 AM (LCRYB)
Those days are long gone...
Posted by: LloydChristmas at November 07, 2012 01:33 PM (s3eOv)
-------------------------------------------------
Cut the shit. He's not.
Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 09:36 AM (EUJBD)
Posted by: the day after at November 07, 2012 09:36 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 09:36 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Butters at November 07, 2012 01:34 PM (NIZHJ)
Yes. But it would be doing that from a total turnaround.
Sheesh.
Posted by: jwb7605 at November 07, 2012 09:37 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: California Red at November 07, 2012 09:37 AM (Ho3p+)
Posted by: McNuggets at November 07, 2012 09:37 AM (JItvH)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 09:37 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 07, 2012 01:32 PM (UypUQ)
..further, we practically handed them an easy way to do this with the Akin headache. I believe that "rape and birth-control" nonsense was what made Team O's job easy to stoke up fear and loathing in there normally reasonable democrat-leaners. The birth-control mandate, I suspect, was entirely political trick to stoke a reaction from the right to then be able to use in their campagin to target these voters.
I'd like to see data if or not Team O's "meh" votes were disproportionately female.
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 07, 2012 09:38 AM (UypUQ)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 09:38 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: Ian S. at November 07, 2012 09:38 AM (B/VB5)
The polling data from last week showed Romney winning Independents by a large margin (which that vote did not materialize as projected) but he was losing moderates. Maybe those are the votes he lost. Just a theory.
Posted by: 80sBaby at November 07, 2012 09:38 AM (YjDyJ)
Posted by: Alex at November 07, 2012 09:38 AM (HwgHt)
Posted by: Big T Party at November 07, 2012 09:39 AM (oDtMj)
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 07, 2012 09:39 AM (UypUQ)
Posted by: Evilpens at November 07, 2012 09:39 AM (ck76k)
Posted by: The Dow at November 07, 2012 09:39 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Rich at November 07, 2012 09:39 AM (arczc)
Posted by: rockmom at November 07, 2012 09:39 AM (qe2/V)
Don't get me wrong, I believe that throwing money at the problem as has happened in skyrocketing amounts will not solve the problem; it's a bad idea. Sadly, the GOP doesn't even have a "bad idea". They have "no ideas" on how to address the concerns and needs of 25% of the nation "that votes fervently" other than being perceived as the group that is "against handouts".
The demographics - like it or not - of the US are changing. The GOP has not adjusted to the changes in the land and needs to "embrace" this change - not oppose or tolerate, but embrace. This embracing will be shown when the GOP leads the way in making clearly defined policy initiatives that afford opportunity to the elements of society who have historically been for one reason or another unable to join in the "American Dream". Wouldn't this be better than "throwing money at the problem" that no one likes and that doesn't work. One opportunity is through education. We know that the most significant predictor of prosperity is via education. Many minorities know that NCLB and RTTP do "not" work and are hurting groups which already were at the bottom. Strong work in education policy may be an inroads to this group - but it can't be a one-way street - and would require listening without judgement to the perspectives by the other side.
It's time the party that emancipated slavery in this nation deal with the real fallout that "every society" which has embraced slavery faces from the formerly enslaved. Where are the POLICY models to address this critical issue other than the "perception" that the GOP is made up of people who despise poor minorities. I'm not talking about paying taxes or even giving to charity.
What is needed are governing policies. This is no longer a racially homogenous nation. You may not like what I say, and I won't say I'm happy with it. The country is "not" the same as it was when you were born in fifty years ago. You can bury your head in the sand, which is fine. Just don't be surprised if the "razor thin" wins of 2000 and 2004 in a national campaign are the high water mark of the GOP in the next 25 years.
Posted by: jjdcoach at November 07, 2012 09:39 AM (EC1Pt)
Posted by: trickamsterdam at November 07, 2012 09:40 AM (uTBHY)
Hard to explain the turnout any other way.
McCain, himself, did not get the Bush evangelicals, but Romney got even less. And he lost Catholics too.
Going forward... I would love to see a slow dump of the envangelical bloc. They are unreliable and risky (i.e. rape/abortion, Pat Robertson wacky declarations). They will never vote Dem, so let them stay home.
We can focus on freedom, economic liberty and self-reliance (with some generic family values sprinkled in). Then target Indies, educated single woman, middle class Hispanics, soft Libertarians, etc.
Just my (depressed) opinion.
Posted by: nhwingnut at November 07, 2012 09:40 AM (DhgCF)
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 07, 2012 01:32 PM (UypUQ)
You are probably right. But many will still blame socons because many Republicans just don't like them.
Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 07, 2012 09:40 AM (MNWe/)
Posted by: KC at November 07, 2012 09:40 AM (i7KmQ)
Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 09:40 AM (oDtYC)
Posted by: SMOD Dec. 2012 ? at November 07, 2012 09:40 AM (zk8YS)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 01:33 PM (LCRYB)
I ain't got a better argument than the whole argument approaches the question wrong. Why are we always focused on the pregnancy as if it's entirely unavoidable. If we worked to increase timely reporting and fast medical response, we'd be able to statistically reduce rapes to almost 0. (Well I guess the best argument I got is "Why should an innocent child have to die because somebody else was a horrific person.)
Heck a Squishy pro-lifer would be OK with rolling a D&C into the rapekit which basically would reduce it to 0.
The problem has never been a lack of access to abortion it's been a horrific rape response system. But for some odd reason the people pushing the #waronwomen meme never want to address that.
Everyone always assumes that the whole abortion/rape thing is an abortion right there in the hospital. To be honest if we're talking "abortion" (and not EC or D&C response) it's weeks and/or months post rape at that point. It's not just a singled cell organism then.
Posted by: tsrblke at November 07, 2012 09:40 AM (GaqMa)
Unfortunately, it doesn't mean that the Founders wished to use the Federal government as a morality police.
He and the others were only stating what citizens must bring to the table.
Government enforced morality isn't morality or moral. It's the power to induce evil.
Think of what the Left considers moral. Those things are becoming law.
Happy?
Posted by: burned cut-loop [/i] [/b] at November 07, 2012 09:40 AM (jo069)
A nation that views abortion, gay marriage, free birth control pills and euthanasia as "fundamental human rights" is not long for this earth.
Posted by: McNuggets at November 07, 2012 01:37 PM (JItvH)
I love how the quote doesn't translate into a theocratic state. His point was that SOCIETY had to be moral to survive in a constitutional republic, not govt. That is on it's face true, as we see from the Arab Spring.
And FWIW, only the TruSoCons are the ones saying Ace and other want to get rid of abortion as an issue. It's RapeAbortion, a tiny tiny tiny issue compared to Roe v Wade and our abortion on demand society.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at November 07, 2012 09:41 AM (xAtAj)
I keep hearing:
- We need to be softer on immigration, social issues, abortion "contraception", etc., etc.
Here is the question:
If you are softer on those things, what makes you different from Liberals? Libertarians? Seriously. If you think that you need to do those things to win, why bother? Why not just join the Ron Pauls and Obamas? You would share their ideas, though perhaps leaders that you personally like.
You need to decide who you are and what you stand for... even if the world is going to hell.
Posted by: Comrade J at November 07, 2012 09:42 AM (T7lSs)
Posted by: Rich at November 07, 2012 09:42 AM (arczc)
Posted by: Butters at November 07, 2012 09:42 AM (NIZHJ)
'Viable' in the sense that they had actual records and looked electable. Bachmann? Cain? Gingrich? Santorum? Paul? Sorry, no. Fruitcakes, spotlight seekers, single issue candidates, etc.
Once the contenders were taken out, we switched from one TrueCon hero to the next, once a month, until only Romney was left standing. He didn't have to do a thing.
I guess what I meant was were there any out there who didn't run who actually would have been viable options to Romney. None of the ones who ran could hold a candle to the guy and I am wondering if there were others who could have given him a legitimate run that were perhaps "encouraged" not to run. IMO the fix was in from the beginning and that fat turd Mossbacher admitted it right after Perry declared.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at November 07, 2012 09:42 AM (JxMoP)
Posted by: rockmom at November 07, 2012 09:43 AM (qe2/V)
Posted by: the day after at November 07, 2012 09:43 AM (LpQbZ)
I weep.
I must be one of those crazy Libertarians that just hates babies!
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at November 07, 2012 09:43 AM (xAtAj)
Soona-he still spouting ' conservatism works everytime it's tried'.
That's true if you have an electorate who are actual human beings and not soulless vultures...
Posted by: LloydChristmas at November 07, 2012 09:43 AM (s3eOv)
I'm done.
Many of the posters here want to jettison the social cons despite all of the evidence that socons are the most reliable Republican voters.
Nominate Rudy Giuliani next time. I'm sure that will work out for you.
Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at November 07, 2012 09:43 AM (MNWe/)
I can't fault Mitt as a candidate.
Central casting in Hollywood couldn't find a better player. Rich, good looking, boy scout morals, successful, you just couldn't find someone who should appeal to the broad concensus of the population more than Mitt.
All we had to do was get the same amount of votes as we did with that asshole McCain, and we couldn't pull it off.
I got a number of robocalls at my house, but no real person ever called to encourage me to vote. Why not? Where was the ground game?
It's time for the billionaires who put the serious money into this game to consider some alternative venues for their cash than the traditional DC based consultants. It's time for Ace and I to do a business plan.
Posted by: jwest at November 07, 2012 09:43 AM (ZDsRL)
Posted by: Exasperated Expat at November 07, 2012 09:45 AM (gkfSV)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 09:45 AM (QxSug)
---------------
I am so deeply sorry, Blue Falcon. I know that counts for less than nothing, but still.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 07, 2012 09:45 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Spike at November 07, 2012 09:46 AM (wtnmC)
While it's a good list, the fundamental reason is because the American people acted stupidly yesterday.
Christopher Taylor made a good analogy here a while back. He likened this election to storming a beachhead in a war and trying to get, not only your ass, but your buddy's, across that beach and over the hill without getting blown to pieces. You're trying to run, but your buddy is gazing off into the sky, saying "Oh, look at that bird!" or stopping to pick seashells off the beach. You're trying to drag him and he just won't go.
We can (and will) nitpick this thing to death but fundamentally, I thought Romney was a good candidate. I thought Ryan was terrific. But the nation didn't want to listen to adults. I think Reagan would have lost this year.
Posted by: Donna V. at November 07, 2012 09:46 AM (7OHl8)
That's the difference between us and them, we can see where the future is going. We tried to warn the rest of the country and they don't want to hear it. So fuck 'em, the only thing left for us to do is prepare for the coming disaster because it is coming.
Posted by: DanInMN at November 07, 2012 09:46 AM (khf9A)
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams
VS
"Well, I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative" - Every young 'conservative' alive.
A nation that views abortion, gay marriage, free birth control pills and euthanasia as "fundamental human rights" is not long for this earth.
Posted by: McNuggets at November 07, 2012 01:37 PM (JItvH)
--------------------------------------------
Spot on. This nation was designed around the idea of a power greater than ourselves (God, if you wish). A nation passing policies of the most fiscal policies without moral guardrails will always crumble to where we are now. It's been proven over and over.
Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 09:46 AM (EUJBD)
FWIW Ace,
I'd like a better argument that I need to hold a philosophically inconsistant view merely because it's nuanced.
I'm willing to concede that any law is going to have a "rape and incest" exception from a political standpoint, but when asked the question, why can't conservatives question the fundamental assumption behind it (i.e. that rape response must be poor permitting a large number of pregancies to occur as a result of rape?)
Posted by: tsrblke at November 07, 2012 09:47 AM (GaqMa)
Read them. They aren't shy about cheering for the deaths of their racial enemies.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 07, 2012 01:20 PM (ZPrif)"
I think that eventually, the white percentage support for the GOP will reach levels near to the African-American support for the Democratic party.
Obviously, the issue then will be if there are enough whites and GOP-leaning minorities to make a majority.
Bad times coming, it would seem.
Posted by: BS Inc. at November 07, 2012 09:47 AM (P2Ufm)
For the life of me, I don't get why the GOP didn't fight fire with fire. Nice guys really do finish last.
Posted by: KBDay at November 07, 2012 09:48 AM (u2h3u)
sorry the beast will only grow stonger with another four years .the wife and i will not sit back and watch our retirement dream get gobbled up by freeloaders voting themselves a peice of the pie we've worked so hard for.selling the house cashing out and making plans to by a sweet 46 ft Island Packet sailboat and cruise the South Pacific then make our way to the Grand Cayman and give the vacation charter business a whirl
Posted by: kj at November 07, 2012 09:48 AM (AW9md)
My early guess, evangelicals. Not all or even most, but enough of them. I heard multiple times from ultiple evangelicals that they had problems with Mitt Romney being a Mormon.
Posted by: Rich at November 07, 2012 01:39 PM (arczc)
The answer is simple. These are folks that only vote in positive, big issue elections. Even though they picked McCain as their choice, they were drawn to the polls in the first place by the historic, hopey-change, mood of the 2008 election.
Team O. made 2012 as nasty and small-ball as they cold to keep those folks home... meanwhile microtargeting and scaring the crap out of their own "casual" voters to get to polls ("Rape is on the Ballot!").
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 07, 2012 09:48 AM (UypUQ)
Posted by: Daybrother at November 07, 2012 09:49 AM (+paCV)
Gary Johnson (according to daily caller?) estimated he and his party might have siphoned off 5% of the vote.
Posted by: Comrade J at November 07, 2012 09:49 AM (T7lSs)
Posted by: creeper at November 07, 2012 09:49 AM (p4APm)
Posted by: Spike at November 07, 2012 01:46 PM (wtnmC)
I dunno, anti-Mormon robocalls?
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 07, 2012 09:50 AM (UypUQ)
I agree, Social Cons and Nativists are the reason the GOP lost. It's not Romney's fault.
Posted by: Mega at November 07, 2012 09:50 AM (idyso)
Posted by: Ian S. at November 07, 2012 09:50 AM (B/VB5)
Posted by: @PurpAv at November 07, 2012 09:51 AM (VGO7b)
Posted by: not the mama at November 07, 2012 09:51 AM (kzCIn)
Posted by: Chris at November 07, 2012 09:51 AM (KvU/Q)
Posted by: lions at November 07, 2012 09:51 AM (MTPLw)
Posted by: Iblis at November 07, 2012 09:51 AM (9221z)
Posted by: Juji Pill at November 07, 2012 09:51 AM (EJG9c)
---------------------------
>>>>>" Looks like the evangelicals didn't turn out for Mitt."
-----------
Okay. Wait. Am I supposed to stay home, or am I supposed to turn out in large numbers next time ? These mixed messages are so confusing.
.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 07, 2012 09:51 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 09:52 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: nhwingnut at November 07, 2012 01:40 PM
That's funny.
Posted by: LC LaWedgie at November 07, 2012 09:52 AM (rzTDZ)
"No one knew the bubbling enthusiasm people were expressing for Romney would not translate to votes. Romney lost because his base didn't show up and Obama's did. That's why everyone in the conservative sphere was so far off; they accounted for a depressed D- turnout, but never thought the same would happen to Republicans (a thing I'm guilty of.) I didn't think people would follow through on threats to not vote Romney or to go for Johnson. I was wrong."
I don't believe this. Y'all saw the rallies for R-R vs. the disappointing 0bam rallies. Both were widely publicized on this here blog. For days, all the talk here was about how fired up the base was, how many people would crawl over broken glass to vote out the SCOAMF, how a ham sandwich could run against the JEF and win.
I think Romney got all the true Patriots. All the anti-0bam vote. All the anti-gubmint vote. All the anti-tax vote. There just ain't enough of us anymore. And next cycle, it'll be even less - without ABO fervor, the GOP will need a broader message and a broader coalition than just "Angry White gUYS."
Posted by: d at November 07, 2012 09:52 AM (n0Yvg)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 09:53 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Comrade J at November 07, 2012 09:53 AM (T7lSs)
Posted by: Ian S. at November 07, 2012 09:54 AM (B/VB5)
Sorry, Cochise, but it was the Mormon. Romney won the Independent vote. A once in a generation feat for a Republican. But GOP percentage-wise turnout was far worse last night than when comparised to '04 (when evangelicals voted) and about identical to what it was in '08 (when evangelicals and others stayed home). Last night evangelicals stayed home in droves. Romney lost by the margin of those non-votes. It's really that simple.
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at November 07, 2012 09:54 AM (pmsMR)
Posted by: Spike at November 07, 2012 09:54 AM (wtnmC)
Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 09:55 AM (oDtYC)
Posted by: Daybrother at November 07, 2012 09:55 AM (+paCV)
I thought it might be evangelicals who sat out the election, but in checking the numbers in my county, I found this:
In my own little world, here's the numbers formy small precinct in south central Michigan:
2008 - 52.04% voter participation
2012 - 78.53% (67/31 for Romney)
For a predominantly black area nearby:
2008 - 31.45% voter participation
2012 - 31.91% (86/12 for Obama)
For a bible-thumping evangelical area nearby:
2008 - 48.29% voter participation
2012 - 74.37% (68/30 for Romney)
This evangelical area is a christian university, so apparently, they came out and voted for Mitt.
Posted by: jwest at November 07, 2012 09:55 AM (ZDsRL)
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 07, 2012 09:55 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 07, 2012 09:56 AM (HKONC)
Ace:
Great post and I generally agree with all points. Though I think they are all good tactical points (which in an election this close would of course have made a difference). But we must expand our base. We can't start with losing (a) California, (b) 90% of the black vote, (c) 70% of the Hispanic vote and (d) 70% of the Asian vote.
Now in this election there is not a hell of a lot we could have done about (b), but we have to at least start forcing the Dems to spend resources on California, and we have to get the Republican percentates of the vote up for Hispanic, Asian (and African American vote). Frankly we don't even need to win those demographics -- just cut into the Democrats lead in a meaningful way. I realize that is a nice goal -- and I am not quite sure how to achieve it, but we need to start putting some thought into it.
Posted by: nc at November 07, 2012 09:56 AM (Cxl7g)
Oooo... look TFG is so...... anti-Sandy! "
Nah, Sandy only really affected states that were going blue already. FL? OH? WI? CO? Senate races we should have won that weren't torpedoed by rape abortion? Not buying it.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at November 07, 2012 09:57 AM (8JpQH)
Posted by: The Guy Who Still Has A Roof Over His Head [/i] at November 07, 2012 09:57 AM (feFL6)
In addition, we have to find ways to siphon away votes from Libertarians and recapture Ron Paul types and single-issue social conservatives and any other member of the big tent that is only there when the tent happens to be exactly what they want.
Posted by: Matt S. at November 07, 2012 09:57 AM (moRRg)
If a preganancy threatens the life of the mother, you say you support an exception. Why? Why not leave it in God's hands? Did God not plan this pregnancy?
This is the same crap you say with a rape baby-- "God has a plan for this child."
Oh? God planned for the rape?
How do you know God did not also plan for Plan B, then? Why does God's plan plan for rape, but not for a simple pill taken 24-36 hours after a rape?
So God plans the horrifying sexual violation, but doesn't know about the morning after pill?
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 01:52 PM (LCRYB)
- You can make the argument that when both lives are in danger, you perform triage to save the more viable, the Mother.
- In all fairness, I think Murdock's intention is that all human life, no matter the circumstances, rape, down-syndrome, out-of-wedlock, is sacred and should be protected.
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 07, 2012 09:58 AM (UypUQ)
"The climate of the World has always been changing from the start (long after the dinosaurs had died out the climate of Europe was a tropical rain forest) but to think we don't contribute to it at least one percent is the kind of thing that makes many think we're all anti-scientific sub-intellects.
So does shouting "we have the best healthcare system in the world" when we're essentially paying double or more for treatment when our doctors are no better than Canada's or Germany's or Japan's, etc."
I think there are nuanced analytical arguments for both of these issues, in favor of GOP policies. On climate change, it boils down to costs vs. benefits. To impact that part of climate change we as humans effect, we have to incur too many costs. Want to go back to a world where temperature is 1 degree cooler? OK, it means you have to dismantle every factory in the world. Does that make any fucking sense? Take the chance with the 1 degree. Anyone who isn't the Unabomber will agree. Letting yourself get bogged down into carbon tax negotiations and cap-and-trade bullshit should take a back seat to this more fundamental argument. As should the alternative argument of, "We can't go back to hunter-gatherer days, but, sure, you want to build a sea wall to protect NYC from massive storms that may result from the 1 extra degree? OK, get your environmental lobby to drop the lawfare against any and all big public works projects and get 'er done." Conservatives are NOT against "public goods", but have to be against defining every policy whim of the Left as a "public good".
On the healthcare thing, look at the proportion of those costs which are driven by lifestyle choices (including the "lifestyle choice" of being shot in a drive-by shooting) by the poor, mostly among minorities. What's the diabetes rate among black women, for example? High blood pressure among black men? Once you back out that spending and make a apples-to-apples comparison by socio-economic and demographic status, i.e the Caucasian population of Germany or Canada to our own, our health care IS competitive with any system in the world. The problem, obviously, is that by making that argument, you shift some of the responsibility for costs back on the "protected class" of minorities so beloved by Democrats. Democrats claim to love facts, so drop the facts on their heads like a ton of bricks and make them respond.
Posted by: BS Inc. at November 07, 2012 09:58 AM (P2Ufm)
Okay. Wait. Am I supposed to stay home, or am I supposed to turn out in large numbers next time ? These mixed messages are so confusing.
Mama, get used to it. Both sides are going to be coming after the people who believe in God and in Godly principles. It's the New America now.
Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 10:00 AM (EUJBD)
Posted by: Ian S. at November 07, 2012 10:00 AM (B/VB5)
This was a turnout election.
What happened to the massive GOTV efforts....the Party and all the allied groups including Tea Party groups could not help us get to the level of the 2008 McCain depressed turnout let alone Karl Rove's 2004 72 hour plan.
Everybody thought we had all these people showing up...I'm from Ohio and all the counties that the GOP/conservatives count on to provide a 2-1 margin were mostly 3-2. Even the coal and fracking ares in the eastern part of the state seemed to not reject the threat what Obama is going to continue to do to them.
Posted by: Cassady75 at November 07, 2012 10:00 AM (LjeoB)
Posted by: Victoria at November 07, 2012 10:00 AM (bmHOj)
My post-election thoughts. I didn’t sleep last night, but that isn’t unusual I’m a chronic insomniac but unlike other nights my thoughts were troubled. How the fuck did Obama win, while Republicans maintained the House? It occurred to me that it must be low information voters showing up and voting for Obama at the top of the ticket and ignoring the remainder of the ballot. I spent the day with my girlfriend we had a pretty good time we went to the park and had a good breakfast a local restaurant. My girlfriend is the ultimate low information voter. She only became a citizen a few weeks ago; she gets almost all of her news from people magazine and similar media outlets. She barely has the ability to use a computer and speaks only a minimum of English. She was very excited today to tell me that she voted for Barak Obama. I thought I would test my theory. “So, who else did you vote for?” She looked at me puzzled. “Oh you mean the other candidates?” yeah I not vote for them cause I not able to read ballot.” She replied in broken English. Evidence for my low information voter theory gained some ground. It occurred to me that we won the election among likely voters, what we failed to realize is that the democrats are now able to turn out a shitload of unlikely voters.
Posted by: jones at November 07, 2012 10:02 AM (+MQie)
"The Bushes have been absolutely key in ruining the post-Reagan GOP.
I would have been delighted if Romney had run hard against both Bush and Obama and said that he intended a clean break from not the last four years, but from the last twelve.
In particular, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (which I as an an isolationist paleoconservative was not keen on from the start) turn out to have really poisoned the well for the GOP with a bunch of swing voters. People are exhausted and embittered with foreign misadventures.
Romney wasn't in federal service when those decisions were taken. He didn't cast any votes for them. He should have blamed it all on Bush -- which isn't entirely fair or accurate, but when is politics ever that -- and he should have then said that he wouldn't have made Bush's mistake of rushing to war."
There's a great deal of truth in there. Well said.
Posted by: Jess1 at November 07, 2012 10:03 AM (LwGY+)
Posted by: Chris at November 07, 2012 10:03 AM (KvU/Q)
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at November 07, 2012 10:03 AM (QxSug)
I think people are missing the scariest part of last night,the fucking media got a guy who should have been un-electable re-elected and destroyed the reputation of a good man in the process. they will now feel all powerful and the message will not be lost on future GOP politicians
Posted by: kj at November 07, 2012 10:04 AM (AW9md)
Many Christians are philosophically not in stride with some of the economic policies that are endorsed by the GOP - partly because of their perceptions about the role of society (church and secular) regarding those in need. There is a large and understandable segment of religious folk - who are also White - and are very much in favor of "social justice".
It is true that many Christians view with unhappiness abortion and gay marriage. However, many have an equal level of unhappiness with US military low scale warfare having filled 35 of the last 50 years.
More and more Evangelical and Orthodox Christians are disengaging from the political process. They render to Caesar what he deserves -- nothing other than their taxes.
Posted by: jjdcoach at November 07, 2012 10:04 AM (EC1Pt)
Posted by: Juji Pill at November 07, 2012 10:04 AM (EJG9c)
Posted by: someone (OG) at November 07, 2012 10:06 AM (oDtYC)
If you think GOP needs to be softer on abortion, immigration, etc., etc. What makes you different from Libertarians or even Liberals? Not fully Communist?
That's how the latter started too... going softer.
What is the point of electing a GOP candidate who's indistinguishable from DNC's one? To be able to say we did it?
Decide who you are.
Posted by: Comrade J at November 07, 2012 10:06 AM (T7lSs)
Posted by: cthulhu at November 07, 2012 10:06 AM (kaalw)
Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 02:00 PM (EUJBD)
-------------
I know. Full armour of God. Get one in your size, and put it on.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 07, 2012 10:07 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: W.H. Doubter at November 07, 2012 10:07 AM (QMRMM)
I guess Obama's strategy of depressing the vote worked perfectly. It was their only strategy -- and they executed it. They depressed the Independent vote and maximized their base.
FWIW, I think it will be interesting to see how the Dems do in 2016 with Obama at the top of the ticket. I still think they will get 90% of the African American vote, but I doubt it will turn out in the same numbers. In certain states (Fla., Va., NC) that could have a real impact.
Posted by: nc at November 07, 2012 10:07 AM (Cxl7g)
for Obama at the top of the ticket and ignoring the remainder of the ballot."
That fits with an article Steyn wrote a couple years back about a schoolgirl who wrote a letter to Obama asking him to help her school get some money for a new paintjob.
He said it was reflective of a country where intermediate, local institutions were losing their vigor relative to the centralized state.
I was also thinking that the House staying GOP might be the thing that led to Nate Silver's Obama win prediction wrong. That there was a systematic bias in the state-level polling that was not present in the Congressional district-level polling and that I couldn't imagine someone splitting a ticket and voting GOP for Congress and Obama for President, so that Romney would win. I didn't think that a number of people just would vote Obama for President and not vote for any other races.
Posted by: BS Inc. at November 07, 2012 10:07 AM (P2Ufm)
Posted by: Ian S. at November 07, 2012 02:00 PM (B/VB5)
But... what if in the near future medical technology makes it possible to transfer the fertilized egg out of the mother's body carry it to health and birth outside the womb?
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 07, 2012 10:08 AM (UypUQ)
-- Then we address it then.
Posted by: Matt S. at November 07, 2012 10:09 AM (moRRg)
Ace mentioned this as an Obama strategy and it worked.
Posted by: Dr Spank at November 07, 2012 10:10 AM (4cRnj)
Posted by: msmulan at November 07, 2012 10:10 AM (vSWyU)
@730
no it may have started in 1996 but this election is where it reached its zenith. they cast off all pretense and actively out in the open decided they were going to pick who wins a presidential election
Posted by: kj at November 07, 2012 10:11 AM (AW9md)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 01:52 PM (LCRYB)
FFS ace, are you even reading my posts? At what point in there did I say "no plan B?" Stop putting words in my mouth.
In fact, if you read I'm saying "the way to fix this is to fix the system to encourage reporting so that women can get Plan B in a timely fashion."
Plan B is not an abortifacent. Because of that the longer you wait to take it, the less likely it is to work. If you get the systems in place and properly working, rape reporting and Plan B administration would hopefully take place within hours of the event. Not days (or weeks) as it sometimes is now.
Heck one of the reasons we have this problem is because some people wait to report until they find out their pregnant. Which BTW is a shame on the system more than anything. (We have a miserable rape reporting system quite frankly it encourages silence more than reporting.) SO LET'S FIX THAT.
The left wants to focus on the abortion issue (and for some reason you do to) when the elephant in the room is the criminally bad reporting system, not the abortion laws.
BTW, if (god forbid) my wife ever gets raped, I want to make sure she's in a hospital as soon as it's safe to call an ambulance and get her there. And I want her to have Plan B 15 minutes after that (give them enough time to get a basic medical history first.)
The life of the mother comparision isn't really even accurate frankly. There's tons more nuance than that. You can't just go "Crap, Mother's in danger, have to abort." You have to try to make sure there are absolutely no other options up and to that point (and in Catholic teaching you still can't perform what's called a "direct abortion." which is where the goal is actually an abortion and nothing else.)
Posted by: tsrblke at November 07, 2012 10:11 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: TexasJew at November 07, 2012 10:11 AM (J6QYb)
Posted by: Juji Pill at November 07, 2012 10:12 AM (EJG9c)
The problem with your hypothesis is the same as the GOP's increasing problem with those voters.
In issue polls, the "loser" demographic you're talking about is uniquely libertarian—in the seriously capitalistic, *seriously* anti-government, RON PAUL! sense (except that they don't hate Jews), not in the media-libertarian gay-marriage-and-"medical"-weed-like-the-Neterlands upper-class White People™ sense.
Those "losers" to the GOP and say, "I like the sound of this 'less government' thing. Business regs, drug laws, tax incentives and contracting quotas that favor people who aren't like me, illegal immigration, affirmative action—these things have fucked up my and my peers' life. Literally. Mine, ours. OUR OWN GODDAMN REAL LIVES WE HAVE TO LIVE IN. So yeah, we'd really like if you guys would do some of that 'less government' thing you talk about and—"
The GOP interrupts: "You want the government to bail you out because you're a fucking loser. We don't do the socialism-for-losers thing. That's the Democrats. You belong with them. We're the party of achievement. We get the government off the winners' backs. We need less you, more Mexicans. At least they have a fucking job."
"Yeah so do I but see, the government literally and actively and daily FUCKS UP MY LIFE. It's altered the whole *course* of it, thrown up walls all around me. And Democrats are *for* that—fucking up my life is the basis of their whole coalition—but you guys say you're the party of less—"
"Take a welding class, racist."
So they stay home. And you say they stayed home because Jesus told them to and because they're loser-socialists, so they stay home *harder*.
Romney was exemplary of the way that the GOP is "out of touch" (to speak far too kindly of the you-and-Romney wing's actual attitude) with them, so of course they didn't show up for him. Why should they? He hates them.
The Democrats are the winners' party, and the GOP is the Christian winners' party. You are a *subset* of them—as electoral results increasingly show.
Posted by: oblig. at November 07, 2012 10:13 AM (cePv8)
"You can make the argument that when both lives are in danger, you perform triage to save the more viable, the Mother.- In all fairness, I think Murdock's intention is that all human life, no matter the circumstances, rape, down-syndrome, out-of-wedlock, is sacred and should be protected"
If you believe that, then good on you.
And if you wish to make that intention law, you'll lose. Big time.
Oh wait, already did.
Posted by: Jess1 at November 07, 2012 10:13 AM (LwGY+)
Posted by: McNuggets at November 07, 2012 10:13 AM (JItvH)
Quite frankly I do not understand you. You realize and lament that the loss is the result of the electorate moving left and yet you yourself can be described as left of the right on social issues? (correct me if I am wrong here).
Posted by: Comrade J at November 07, 2012 10:14 AM (T7lSs)
Posted by: Daybrother at November 07, 2012 10:15 AM (+paCV)
Posted by: Y-not hunting and pecking on the phone at November 07, 2012 10:15 AM (F3WsD)
Posted by: chai at November 07, 2012 10:17 AM (+3xW/)
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 07, 2012 10:17 AM (UypUQ)
The actual tea party of 1773 was a bar full of drunken dock workers committing vandalism. The tea party of today is a bunch of old people politely protesting big government. It is the latter gets labeled as extremist. Clearly we are doing something wrong.
Posted by: jones at November 07, 2012 10:18 AM (+MQie)
Posted by: polynikes at November 07, 2012 10:18 AM (m2CN7)
296 Two issues, and the way they were handled by the two sides tell a stark tale.
Gun rights -- the Second Amendment is holy ground for many, and the Dems wisely choose to not fight about it. Yeah, they want to nick it here and there but no full blown assault is proposed even in their platform.
I think you'll find some of your missing voters here. Mitt has a very bad record on the Second Amendment and a number 2A people weren't going to support him despite the NRA's forgiveness.
Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at November 07, 2012 10:19 AM (6BgmB)
Posted by: Stacy B Slay at November 07, 2012 10:20 AM (7qrQU)
I think this is the most important issue going forward. Its time for conservatives to embrace hispanic immigrants and make them theirs. Writing them off as "socialists" is part of the problem. Most of waves of immigrants weren't instant americans guys. You have to teach and inspire them to be americans, who love the constitution and the land. Hispanics are natural conservatives. They tend to be religious, family oriented, and the majority have a strong work ethic and a lot of interest in small business. Its a crime that conservatives haven't capitalized on that and if conservatives can, they can ride rough shod over the democrats in the future.
Posted by: Mast at November 07, 2012 10:20 AM (5q6tE)
possible to transfer the fertilized egg out of the mother's body carry
it to health and birth outside the womb?"
-- Then we address it then.
Posted by: Matt S. at November 07, 2012 02:09 PM (moRRg)
--------------------------------------------
If we keep rolling as we are now.......we won't.
Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 10:21 AM (EUJBD)
As a marketer, it was painful to see Romney sell features and not benefits. Yes, the deficit and the debt and size of government are important, but proposing to lower the size of government doesn't do anything for anybody in its own right. Yes, it helps the economy to have people starting businesses, but he failed to connect the dots to how that would lead to these voters having a better life.
It's ironic that in this hidden camera talk, Romney was right that people who don't pay taxes aren't going to be interested in his proposal to cut taxes... but he failed to give him a reason to vote for him.
Plain and simple, he ran a campaign focused on the issues that matter to people who pay attention. His target doesn't pay attention and thus his message was nothing more than static. If anything it hurt Romney to the extent they figured that if they couldn't figure out what Romney was going to do to help them, they might as well vote for Obama.
Posted by: steve at November 07, 2012 10:24 AM (L9End)
workers committing vandalism. The tea party of today is a bunch of old people
politely protesting big government. It is the latter gets labeled as extremist.
Clearly we are doing something wrong.
Posted by: jones at November 07, 2012 02:18 PM (+MQie)
------------------------------------------
I can get very interested in tactics like that. Except for the drunkeness. That just leads to getting caught.
Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 10:24 AM (EUJBD)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 10:25 AM (LCRYB)
I still can't believe 10,000,000 fewer votes for Obama vs 08.
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at November 07, 2012 10:26 AM (feFL6)
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at November 07, 2012 10:26 AM (NzBQO)
Posted by: Comrade J at November 07, 2012 10:27 AM (T7lSs)
In the past he has worked for conservative candidates in his district of Wisconsin, when not in uniform.
So count one So-Con out of your party. Perhaps that will bring you some joy this fine day.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 07, 2012 10:27 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: steve at November 07, 2012 02:24 PM (L9End)
-------------------------------------------
Low info voters are the ones looking foward to free shit. No one takes the free shit away. The low info voter is now the majority.
Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 10:27 AM (EUJBD)
-----
Which, again, isn't something we can compromise on or change our views on, because there was literally nothing there. They simply lied about our position and the American people bought it. That's just how fucking stupid the American people are.
Posted by: Rich at November 07, 2012 01:42 PM (arczc)
-----
Well, it doesn't help to have the corrupt media parrot that bullshit. For the average person, seeing newspeople on TV repeat the charges is a powerful "Seal of Approval".
Posted by: Serious Cat at November 07, 2012 10:28 AM (UypUQ)
Posted by: Texas Ranger at November 07, 2012 10:29 AM (IvvrO)
Posted by: TexasJew at November 07, 2012 10:29 AM (J6QYb)
If you don't believe the baby in the womb is a person, that argument won't make sense. And unfortunately for so-cons, too many people don't think a baby in the womb is a person until the sonogram shows identifiable features.
That's a cultural issue, and the right has ceded the culture to the left for too long.
Notice how Barry went on all the fluff shows and avoided the "real news" shows. If Romney had done that, and tried to get into the popular culture more, he might have done better and defused some of barry's arguments against him.
Ceding the culture to the left is a problem for all conservatives, not just the so-cons.
Posted by: Iblis at November 07, 2012 10:31 AM (9221z)
Posted by: Jess1 at November 07, 2012 10:31 AM (LwGY+)
Posted by: Y-not hunting and pecking on the phone at November 07, 2012 10:32 AM (ndxIr)
Posted by: perturbed at November 07, 2012 10:34 AM (u6Ueb)
Posted by: Comrade J at November 07, 2012 10:34 AM (T7lSs)
Posted by: TexasJew at November 07, 2012 02:29 PM (J6QYb)
--------------------------------------------------
I agree 100%. Tired of trying to make the perverbial silk purse. The pig has grown to be a hog.
Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 10:35 AM (EUJBD)
Posted by: davidinvirginia at November 07, 2012 10:36 AM (qEkGZ)
Meanwhile, right now, there are snow covered sand dunes in New Jersey -- two freakin weeks before Thanksgiving.
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at November 07, 2012 10:36 AM (feFL6)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 02:25 PM (LCRYB)
Point taken, but what I'm not sure what to do about it.
As a party we can remove it from our platform (easy enough.) As people we really can't. The MSM knows that it's an unpopular postion, but they'll keep asking every Candidate that comes from a religion with that position the question. And that leaves decent party members from those religions who hold those views two options 1) Lie (and be no better than the democrats on that front. 2) Tell the truth and get crushed.
Even if you answer the question with "that's a silly question, such a ban would never become law so my personal beliefs aren't relevant." They'll hang you for it.
At the very least I think we need a decent defennse of our personal beliefs. As it goes, such a defense also has some moral import to it (since, again, we need to be talking about the horrific rape reporting system in this country and have a moral obligation to fix it.)
We're losing on two fronts here, we're getting our ass handed to us on the personal beliefs and we're not picking up anything for the obvious policy issue (i.e. reporting) either.
Posted by: tsrblke at November 07, 2012 10:36 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: Jess1 at November 07, 2012 02:31 PM (LwGY+)
------------
My comment was not directed at Ace. Ace and I have some basic disagreements on some issues, but he has never been anything other than gracious and welcoming IMO. It was other commenters I was responding to, as well as some rather nasty emails I am getting.
Posted by: mama winger, stranger in a strange land at November 07, 2012 10:37 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: KG at November 07, 2012 10:37 AM (p7BzH)
Posted by: TexasJew at November 07, 2012 10:38 AM (J6QYb)
For those wondering where the Republican voters went, they died. According to a Fox News story dated May, 2008, they were dying then at a rate of 1000 per day. I can't imagine that rate hasn't accelerated over the last 4 years.
They've been replaced in the electorate with hipsters, occutards, and other wastes of oxygen.
Back in the day, people grew up at 18 or 22, got a job, got married, had kids, gave a shit about the future.
Now we've got a bunch of overgrown kids, not working, playing Xbox, postponing growing up on student debt and Bank of Mom and Dad I saw every other weekend. I saw a post on yahoo not too long ago where a hispanic commenter remarked: we hispanics have kids. You white people have dogs.
It used to be that reality (and conservatism) hit you in the chops once you got married and had kids and filed that first married, filing jointly tax return. Now that white kids choose not to do any of that, I fear the electorate is lost.
I told my husband his worthless niece and nephew were no longer welcome in home, even if they did vote in Idaho (the niece thought Romney was "sneaky") and Texas (the nephew thought Obama just needed more time) where it didn't matter.
Posted by: the other coyote at November 07, 2012 10:39 AM (yK44T)
You're not linking Obama to this financial crisis. Too many fact check media narratives would kill it.
-Lowest spender since Eisenhower
-Growing economy
-More jobs
-Consumer confidence is up.
-Saved GM
All of these grabbed headlines. All of these took a news cycle for us to put an asterisk on. Remember, all bad news is "unexpectedly"
Posted by: Hawkins at November 07, 2012 10:41 AM (DuTGc)
Posted by: Spike at November 07, 2012 10:41 AM (wtnmC)
Posted by: Motorhead at November 07, 2012 10:41 AM (qAMin)
somehow, someway, the fix was in. that many smart people can't be wrong. that many polls can't be wrong. every poll said we were winning the independents. every poll said repub party affiliation and enthusiasm was up big.
the only answer has to be massive computer hacking. if 10% of repub votes were transferred to obama via recalibrated voting machines or adjusted computer counts, that would answer every question.
there's no way everyone got it wrong. occam's razor.
Posted by: Dogstar at November 07, 2012 10:44 AM (2MnmS)
Mitt Romney for all appearances seems to my view one of the most decent human beings that has been engaged in the political process. A bishop in his church, a many who has worked hard and been successful, a person who possesses a high sense of ethics in his personal life his family and the clearly demonstrated decency and affection they share for each other was imminently apparent to anyone who would care to look. It shone like the sun and allowed people to see their own lives and that of their families - and they saw something quite different. I am sure that 10% to 15% despised what they saw in that family.
And they voted against it.
All of the issues I discussed previously are moral and ethical issues. Taken as a whole many of the people in the United States are neither moral nor ethical, and they didn't want to be reminded of it.
This is not to disparage the President's family. I personally believe they model a success story of a family. However, there wasn't venom put upon that family as was by many towards Gov. Romney's family.
And there was a lot of venom. I know what I saw and I know what I heard.
Posted by: jjdcoach at November 07, 2012 10:44 AM (EC1Pt)
Posted by: Kiana at November 07, 2012 10:47 AM (w41GQ)
School and universities are pumping out mindless sheep. (believe me kids are brainwashed long before they are 18, but 18 is the age when it is noted for voting polling).
Until this problem is solved nothing will change. How do you solve it?
LOCAL ELECTIONS - take over SCHOOL, COLLEGES and UNIVERSITIES boards. That's where the scum who poison your children lurk. Once you do that it will be easier.
Posted by: Comrade J at November 07, 2012 10:47 AM (T7lSs)
Posted by: MrX at November 07, 2012 10:48 AM (PxmNZ)
All of the issues I discussed previously are moral and ethical issues. Taken as a whole many of the people in the United States are neither moral nor ethical, and they didn't want to be reminded of it.
---------------------------------------------------------
And as I and a disappointingly low number of other commenters have pointed out, this is the root of this nations problems.
Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 10:50 AM (EUJBD)
Watch what happens in 2016. If Crowley hasn't somehow bought the farm by then, she'll moderate another presidential election debate, and the Republican Party will spinelessly mount no objection whatsoever.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at November 07, 2012 10:52 AM (vd7A8)
Posted by: Kiana at November 07, 2012 02:47 PM (w41GQ)
--------------------------------------------
Good luck with that.
Posted by: Soona at November 07, 2012 10:52 AM (EUJBD)
RomneyCare. Now that I don't have to soldier for Mitt anymore, I stand on what I said in the primary season. We had to leave half of our domestic policy ammunition unfired because of RomneyCare. Mitt's arcane distinction between state and federal coercive mandates didn't cut it - I understand the wonky side of it (police power, etc), but it still sounds, walks and smells like BS. ObamaCare became a side-issue at best because of Mitt's inability to credibly attack it. A majority of voters support repeal. I'd say +1-3% if we had a candidate who could have made the case against it (by constantly citing it as a tax, perhaps ?)
Mitt couldn't. We nominated him. We narrowly lost.
Can we have a stronger effort from RNC et al to field stronger candidates than this last primary, all of whom looked quite amateurish while standing all alone in the public eye for 6 months plus ? We picked Mitt because he was the only man standing that had a shot. Perry, Cain and Gingrich all would have done worse judging by their primary performances. Mitt was the best of a bad field, but not good enough.
Can we also get a Grover-style "pledge" for candidates to stop discussing God's Will and God's Judgment ? I remember being taught that Christians shouldn't presume to speak for God - good advice to candidates. If God wants to get a message across, he can do so without Santorum, Bachmann, Akin or Murdoch's help.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at November 07, 2012 10:54 AM (WLuv5)
Obama closed down half of the countryÂ’s Chrysler dealerships; we should help him close the other half. The auto industry is the enemy. Any time you purchase a car made by a union worker you put money into the pocket of the democrats. Obama closed down half of the Chrysler dealerships in the country. Al we did was complain that he did so in a political manner. No freakin shit it was political that surprised absolutely no one. We should have cheered actually rather than grumbled. He did half of our work for us.
Posted by: jones at November 07, 2012 10:55 AM (+MQie)
R 8:7. Don't blame them. They can't. For the same reason liberals can't. There is only one solution.
Recall what preceded the Revolution. The great awakening.
Posted by: Comrade J at November 07, 2012 10:56 AM (T7lSs)
Posted by: MrX at November 07, 2012 10:58 AM (PxmNZ)
1) Romney put off voters, mainly minorities, by sounding like he was mainly communicating to business owners and not to the employees.
2) Unlike John War Hero McCain, he didn't seem like he would have interesting stories to tell over a meal and a sports game. McCain, of course, would have some harrowing POW and 'Nam stories to tell.
A Romney presidency was never going to happen as much as even the Democrats believed it should have, if you look at the conspiracy theories that were coming from the liberal side leading up to the election.
Posted by: Admiral Obvious at November 07, 2012 11:00 AM (frs8F)
790 Jay - good luck firing any of those bad indoctinating teachers even if you win every seat on a school board. It will take decades to take back schools, and you'd have to start by radically reforming or outright banning public employee unions.
Until then, we can focus on education efforts of our own, in venues we create or control. School choice is a broad-appeal issue we can make some gains with. "Deprogramming" is a lot harder than indoctrination but it's all we have for the forseeable future.
It's still hard for me to muster any give a shit today or feel it makes a difference, but fortunately my better instincts are still running on autopilot this am.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at November 07, 2012 11:05 AM (WLuv5)
Posted by: trickamsterdam at November 07, 2012 11:08 AM (uTBHY)
Posted by: Comrade J at November 07, 2012 11:09 AM (T7lSs)
Posted by: perturbed at November 07, 2012 11:09 AM (u6Ueb)
Posted by: Matt S. at November 07, 2012 11:10 AM (moRRg)
This is why many theologically Conservative Christians are disengaging somewhat from the political scene.
We look at social problems from a different perspective than just a "liberal/progressive to politically conservative perspective.
In my own life I realized that for my own peace of mind I needed to disengage somewhat from the process. This came after I lost it all in the financial crisis when my wife and I lost our jobs our house etc. I am gainfully working in academe - but at a much reduced rate - but overall we are happy with our life. Why because we realized that our marriage and our grown children are a good basis for happiness. This came about for me when I read the following:
"We learn of the existence of a City of God whose Founder has inspired us with a love and a longing to become its citizens."
St. Augustine
As much as I love some of the ideals of the United States - it pales in comparison.
Posted by: jjdcoach at November 07, 2012 11:11 AM (EC1Pt)
Are we sure there were 3 million (13 million?) fewer voters this election. Ex. 1. On another blog a commenter said that Texas was supposedly down 10% in voters. The commenter said that every polling station in Texas was crammed with voters. Ex. 2. Mia Love, Utah, was up 15% in the polls just before the election and then lost? There seem to be many examples like this. Then there is the accusation of algorithm fudging in voting machines.
Nevertheless, a loss is a loss and I agree with every one of Ace's regrets re Romney. Until a Republican runs a real, honest, and tough campaign, we cannot know that "nothing" would have worked.
Now the real problem is the growth of this particular union-Dem Party-Fed Gov alliance. How to limit its growth until 2014. And stop sneering at "takers" and stop righteously demonizing (strictly controlled and limited) abortion. Or demographics say that Republicans are finished with "moderates" (not independents) and "women". What is the percentage of "white people" you will need in that event?
Posted by: pyromancer76 at November 07, 2012 11:17 AM (i0aYq)
Posted by: the other coyote at November 07, 2012 11:17 AM (yK44T)
Posted by: ace at November 07, 2012 11:19 AM (LCRYB)
I hate to be a bear of bad news. If you are counting on US becoming EU and being simply mediocre you are for disappointment. Neither you, nor ACE nor I nor anyone else will be left alone. You simply will not be able to live as you have. I unfortunately know this as someone who grew up in ex-USSR and knows it's history and methods.
From the Christian prospective, that is also wrong (I am not putting you on the spot, I also used to think the same way as you). What is the Great Commandment? It is not suspended. We have become LUKEWARM and we are about to be spit out of Christ's mouth, unless we do what we are commanded to do. The country may or may not survive, but if it does it will be ONLY because we 'seek the Kingdom of God first and everything else [the moral foundation that is needed here] will be added unto you'.
You and I have only two options here.
Posted by: Comrade J at November 07, 2012 11:25 AM (T7lSs)
Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at November 07, 2012 11:37 AM (21TJo)
Posted by: Motorhead at November 07, 2012 11:40 AM (qAMin)
Question on abortion for you. I kind of I understand your point about knifepoint rape. But not fully, hence the question.
Let's say there are two people handcuffed to each other. One of them, a woman, is raped. So the other is in effect a witness of the whole horror Both of them are left handcuffed for 9 months. Wherever they go, they must go together, with the witness constantly reminding the woman about the horror by simply being with her all the time.
The woman is given a choice:
A. you stay with the witness for 9 months and then can separate.
B. you are given a knife and can kill the witness and you'll be uncuffed.
C. we can kill the witness for you and you'll also be uncuffed.
-What should she do?
-Does the horror perpetrated on her, give her a right to murder the witness of the horror. [thus committing even a greater crime, as I hope you would agree that a murder is worse than a rape].
Posted by: Comrade J at November 07, 2012 11:45 AM (T7lSs)
Posted by: trickamsterdam at November 07, 2012 11:53 AM (uTBHY)
Posted by: Motorhead at November 07, 2012 11:56 AM (qAMin)
Posted by: Robert_Paulson at November 07, 2012 12:04 PM (9gYVE)
at the barest of things, Romney should have pushed back on the self deportation thing... craft a message man! Call out Obama for forcibly detaining immigrants like animals and brutally deporting them just south of the border.... Its.NOT.THAT.HARD...
Posted by: ROIGuy at November 07, 2012 12:07 PM (7YnaR)
Posted by: Gaurav at November 07, 2012 12:08 PM (yHuyz)
Posted by: Robert_Paulson at November 07, 2012 12:08 PM (9gYVE)
Not if people continually fall into the Akin trap and say something patently absurd every opportunity.
Posted by: Matt S. at November 07, 2012 12:10 PM (moRRg)
Posted by: mrks at November 07, 2012 12:10 PM (15/2r)
I hope this doesn't sound disrespectful, but hindsight is 20/20, and if you have 10 reasons for something happening all that shows is that you don't have any idea why it happened.
I'm still very concerned about how we're hearing reports that there was record turnout, while at the same time we lost because of low turnout. It is also extremely suspicious that we lost every single competitive Senate race except one. The odds of that happening without "help" seem to be pretty remote. I don't want to go fishing for conspiracy theories, but there are some things that need to be explained before we start asking ourselves what we did wrong.
Posted by: Optimizer at November 07, 2012 12:47 PM (Mxt9o)
Luck combined with Republicans continuing to think ideas can win it for them.
Posted by: Matt S. at November 07, 2012 12:56 PM (moRRg)
You can't find room in a top ten list for "let Detroit go bankrupt"? It's Number One, with a bullet.
Rape is #2.
Voting demographics AND popular sentiment moving away from the hard core R positions is #3
UBL is on the list
stock market tanked today, but its up 90% in the O first term.
JT
Posted by: upyerstbaggers at November 07, 2012 01:17 PM (P9HMq)
At many voting machines, a vote for Romney was a vote for Obama, and most voters are too dumb or busy to notice, especially having waited in line for hours.
Just saying.
Posted by: Incognito at November 07, 2012 01:18 PM (5Jl+9)
Posted by: Kiana at November 07, 2012 01:27 PM (w41GQ)
Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 01:40 PM (SKX2R)
Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 01:44 PM (SKX2R)
Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 01:48 PM (SKX2R)
Posted by: Samwise Gamgee the 3rd at November 07, 2012 03:38 PM (SKX2R)
Again this site, its "owner" Ace and everyone bloviating on AoSHQ miss the obvious.
Romney lost his election for one, and only one elemental reason:
He refused to steal it.
He failed his backers, his party, every volunteer, us, himself and the country.
Posted by: LiveFromRussianHill at November 07, 2012 05:54 PM (3c1P1)
That's the definition of a bad risk. Crummy upside, not-so-great chance of upside, significant downside. Once the nation decided that the general reference counted, further pursuing the line is just a bad play.
Posted by: Daila at November 07, 2012 06:56 PM (vs1IF)
"That they would naturally fall to the normal human state of envy".
I find that comment offensive, stupid, ignorant and racist. Assuming that poor americans will envy and vote against the rich is like romney trashing the 47%. In fact despite all the stupidities done and said by romney that you just mentioned the presidential race was extremely tight. Do you even know that George Washington, Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James Madinson and kennedy were all multi-millionaires?
Posted by: CHARLES at November 07, 2012 07:26 PM (Al2Qx)
You forgot to mention probably the main reason why romney lost and here it is:
Lack of charisma.
You can compare Bill Clinton and Romney to see the difference between a charismatic leader and a wanna be leader with low self confidence, non-inspirational, poorly articulated, non-supportive and narrow minded like Romney.
Posted by: charles at November 07, 2012 07:55 PM (Al2Qx)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at November 08, 2012 05:22 AM (GHjOO)
Posted by: Chris Balsz at November 08, 2012 05:25 AM (GHjOO)
The two most important reasons Mitt lost:
Mitt Romney, though a decent person, ran a handicapped campaign. He did not rally the TEA party, which is where the Conservative energy is.
Also, I really like Paul Ryan, but as a running mate, he could not deliver a single vote that Romney would not have gotten on his own. Romney needed a Condi Rice, Hermain Cain, Marc Rubio or even Sarah Palin (or, countless others). It was naive (to the point of hubris) to think that America would vote for two econ majors - even if that is what America needed.
Mitt thought he could wage an economic/political battle, but the hearts and minds are won in the cultural trenches. If we are going to cede every cultural battle to the Liberals, then we better get used to losing.
Posted by: Bruce Linder at November 08, 2012 11:58 AM (vGILV)
Posted by: Reuben at November 08, 2012 03:28 PM (6pvJi)
Posted by: Ava at November 08, 2012 07:21 PM (jqUo7)
Posted by: chippy at November 12, 2012 06:40 PM (S8LWE)
Posted by: Nils at December 05, 2012 01:06 PM (jqLx3)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3883 seconds, 953 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Crashpanic at November 07, 2012 08:27 AM (zU+ii)