You Can’t Win If You Can’t Get Your People to Vote

That had been the Democrats problem for decades.  It changed in 2008 and repeated itself in 2012.

The limits to running such an insular campaign out of Boston, Massachusetts reared its head at the worst possible moment for Mitt Romney.  The more numbers that come out the more it shows the GOTV effort was an epic failure that likely cost him the election. It sure seems like they etch-a-sketched enough conservatives out of the fold to prevent Romney from overcoming Obama’s greatly reduced vote from 2008.

Like I wrote on election night when I was still optimistic:

I’m watching the turnout % in Dem precincts.  We know Republicans will show up, the question is how many Dems are still left out there and will they show up.  Anecdotal things look really good right now but I know how the #s ebb and flow and then suddenly in a deep urban precinct 120% of votes come in and everything you were modeling goes out the window.  The only states I’m watching are Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin — the acknowledge Obama firewall.

The fatal flaw is obvious now.  I’m incredulous.

This captures my attitude today every time I look at the data:


  1. tz
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Can you write a post on how romney got less votes than mccain? Is this just sandy and ny/nj? Or is evangelicals? You had mentioned that in 2008, there were 1.5 Million missing white voters…how did that number go up in 2012!

    • Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:32 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It will take some time before the final numbers are in so I’m holding off for now. But instead of going out and persuading people to vote for Romney, the non-voters had increased company this time. Incredible.

      • Pa John
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

        Keith…thanks for putting up the blog. Learned alot from you and some of the great people who have posted. And thanks for letting me vent.

      • Charlie
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:48 am | Permalink

        Mega Dittos! Keith I too want to thank you for your excellent Blog. I wish we could have celebrated a better outcome.

        I live in California so I take odd solace in knowing that even if RR had won & the GOP got 51 votes in the Senate -I’d still be screwed. 🙂

        On Tuesday my fellow Californians:
        1. Had a US House race with 2 Democrats (no Republican) since General Elections is my state are now a run-off between the top 2 Primary vote-getters regardless of Party -40 year incumbent (and jackass) Pete Stark lost to a 33 year old candidate (no doubt starting his 60 year career of Public Service) -the only silver lining Tuesday
        2. Voted to weaken the 3 strikes law
        3. Voted against a Wisconsin style Proposition that would have eliminated automatic union paycheck deductions -I wanted to ask the union households with “no on 32” signs if they even knew what their monthly union dues were or what the unions were doing with their forced contributions (hint -see next item)…
        4. Voted to “temporarily” increase the top state income tax for 7 years and and increase the sales tax 1/4 cent for 4 years to raise an extra $6 BN in revenue annually -no plans to reform pensions or reign-in spending (still fast tracking a Bullet train for 2020ish)
        5. And maybe my favorite of all -Voted to raise $1 BN annually in taxes on “multi-state” corporations (one foot out the door already) to pay for “job-creating energy efficiency projects at schools and for deficit reduction” So,,, Suppose you have a widget company in CA, AZ, and TX -what do you do? I know! layoff the Californians and complete your exodus!

        Hope this post made you smile…From the state that brought you Ronald Reagan…


    • Posted November 8, 2012 at 7:13 am | Permalink | Reply

      I think I have figured out these numbers. You say to yourself how there was no enthusiasm for Obama this year. You are correct, and that was the plan from day one. The plan for this election was to keep the battlefield small. Instead of winning a little of a lot, the Obama campaign won by getting a lot of little. You suppress your opponents base by giving the impression that there is no battle. I still cannot explain some these poll numbers in FL and VA giving Romney the lead. There was actually a report in FL from a GOP official complaining about the lack of GOP turnout. I wonder if some of the pollsters were actually involved with this.

  2. Barf
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:16 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Who came out to the huge rallies? Liberals? I guess in the end, Mitt did not excite the base. I am dumbfounded.

    • easternimm
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:16 am | Permalink | Reply

      he ralies poved that the republican base was fired up. the only thing is that they are not enough of us anymore. Probably we got a milion or so more vtes ) mostly from indies. Obama got 5-6 milion votes less too but he had a 10 million vote advantage in 2008. the Republican paty has a lot of thinking to do. I think the key t success will be in 2016 latinos – we need Rubio and Jeb to get that problem fixed. I am less worried about the young vote, as they mature most of them will become conservatives as we always have – the old adagio stands true – “if your are not left leaning when you are young you are heartless, and if you are not conservative when you ae mature you are mindless. the American society is changing – we will not be able to win with dumb candidates like Mourdouck and Aiken. apart from RR’s underperformance we screwed up so many senate races this year. The Dems overreached in 2009-2010 and were punished. Many Reps reached after the 2010 election and they were punished and the Dems have now defended their positions. Obamacare will become the law of the land ( we can only hope to change some parts of it at some point). And the welfare state is here to stay with its higher taxes. screwed up elections do have consequences after all.

  3. Ed
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Project ORCA, which was supposed to overtake Obama’s ground game fell apart. None of us could log in to the smart phone app to report who had voted and I’m guessing from that they had no way of making good quick decisions on where turnout was or how bad the GOP turnout would be.

    • MikeN
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

      So why did it fall apart? Lousy software, or a dirty trick? What phone were you using?

      • Ed
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

        Lousy software. Software crashed repeatedly. Back-up plan was to call in the data. Then that failed too from too much volume.

  4. thgroff
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

    the biggest flaw is that S. Palin was ignored by Romney, Benghazi was ignored by Romney and he paid the price for being too many morals in a dirty game. You need a big bat to take the hood. MR never truly manned up or fought dirty enough to beat Soros or Axelrod. Mitt created a great base but excluded too many truly right republicans.

    • JohnGalt
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I agree. Romney should have delivered the knockout punches in Debates 2 and 3. Esp 3. When you fight thugs, you must be merciless. If your candidate won’t take on the difficult topics like Bengahzi and WIN, why they heck should those of us that think we’re fundamentally being lied to get up off the couch to vote. It’s demoralizing.

    • Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:58 am | Permalink | Reply

      I’m coming around to this conclusion. I don’t know why the Romney camapign kept her at arms length. When Sandy pushed him off the news one sure way to get back into the news would have been to have Palin at a relief event/rally. Romney was having problems with white working class women in key states, they love this women, Boston should have sucked up its pride and begged her to appear on stage with Romney. Did she even endorse Romney?

  5. zang
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:29 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Obama won Ohio with fewer votes than John McCain received in 2008. What more need be said?

    • WillBest
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:25 pm | Permalink | Reply

      those numbers are still trending upwards

  6. zang
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Republicans need to get up to speed on the early voting game too. For all the talk of cannibalization, walking Ito Election Day with certain votes in the bank is not a bad thing.

  7. WillBest
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Romney did better in every swing state than McCain save Ohio. Obama did worse in every swing state except North Carolina. It just wasn’t enough. At present Romney is 2.2 million votes below where McCain 08. Of those 2.2 million 1.4 million are from CA, and more than the rest are from other non competitive states.

    The people that were sitting on our bench were almost exclusively in states that didn’t matter. Republicans just don’t have the numbers they need to compete state wide during presidential election years. We have to do some serious outreach conversion. Perhaps the Millennials are soured due to the Recessions which tentpoled Bush’s presidency and they remember back to their youth when Clinton times were good in their house. Maybe they will come to realize after next year’s recession that democrats don’t produce good policy either and that its better to stick with the people that are more likely to leave you alone.

    • Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Will, that completely misleads on the real story of the 2012 turnout. If you told me before the election Romney would for the most part tie McCain in the Battlegrounds and get fewer votes in Ohio I would have said this is going to be blowout city. Obama lost ~10 million votes from 2008. The number of people who switched from Obama in 08 to Romney in 12 probably outnumber the reverse by 10:1. Romney swung Independents by ~9-10 points versus 2008. Despite all of these gains he did no better than essentially tie McCain in CO, VA, FL and had fewer votes in OH (that’s the entire election by the way). You can’t gain in all those areas and fail to outperform McCain without something seriously going wrong. This means hundreds of thousands of McCain 2008 voters did not show up in 2012.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

        You also have to account for some number of McCain voters dying. At 1% per year you are looking at 2.4 million.

      • Yong
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:43 am | Permalink

        Also, people do move over the 4 years.

    • Ron
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The final vote is still out. It always takes several weeks for the dust to settle. Both sides could be up several millions of votes yet. So it’s not clear what happened. Exit polls shows the youth vote was up for O. Nothing is clear yet. But we did not get out the vote. I don’t fault Romney. Obama had 4yrs to create a system. Romney used that time to fight in primaries. The miracle was he almost succeeded. So far Reagan’s the sole exception to the rule that incumbents always win–at least in modern times.

      • easternimm
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:24 am | Permalink

        we should not wait for teh winner in primaries ti have a ground game in place. that should be in for the winner to use when election time comses. the first test will be 2014 when we need to get a few more senators elected. senate is critical too.

  8. HarvardLaw for Romney
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

    What and where is the data you are looking at for this?

  9. HarvardLaw for Romney
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Keith, what and where is the data you are looking at for this?

    • Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:05 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I use a lot of Secretary of State sites or county sites for the granular data. Here is a way to compare 2008 and 2012 at the state level:

      • easternimm
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:37 am | Permalink

        botttom line Obama got 9 mil less votes than in 2008, RR got 1 mil less votes than McCain. wtf?!!! so the fact that Obama magic has faded a lot does stand true. should RR could have gotten the 62 mil voted GWB got in 2004 this would have been a victory. maybe indeed the Evangelicals did show up as enthusiastically as in 2004 in the battleground states. And of course the electorate did change since then. there are less whites showing up and we lose the share of Latino, Asian and Black vote ( the last understandably so given that the race war has not faded for blacks, even though the whites are now more colorblind than they used to). for 2016 we should aim to get at least 40% of the Hispanic vote 45-50% of the Asian vote and maybe we can get 7-10% of the black vote as well.

  10. Pa John
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Democrats showed up for the following reasons. 1. Free health care 2.Unlimited welfare with no work requirements. 3. Free Obama phones. 4.Free birth control 5 Free abortions. 6 Free housing…..could go on forever but you get the point.

    No soul searching or excuse making. We had no chance and will have none in the future.

    • Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:17 am | Permalink | Reply

      You could not be more wrong. I work at Microsoft, I’ve got a net worth in 7 figures, and I work with lots of people that come to work every day because they want to, having long ago cashed out enough stock options to retire at age 40. 95% of us voted for Obama. We were celebrating in the halls today.

      The two richest people in the United States, Bill Gates and Warrent Buffett, have both gone to Congress to urge them to raise taxes on the very wealthy.

      You’re entitled to whatever ideology or philosophy that you want, but when you assume that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot or is acting out of selfishness, you’re unlikely to make decisions or take actions that are actually going to advance your cause. In this particular case, you are clearly, unambiguously wrong about (2), (3), (4), and (5). All the people in the entire country that voted for Obama for those reasons wouldn’t have filled a stadium, particularly because they’re all false– provably false, easily provably false.

      You’re right, you do have no chance in the future if you go on believing everything you hear on Fox and holding people who disagree with you in contempt.

      • spottedreptile
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:16 am | Permalink

        so if I may ask, why did you vote for Obama? I’m interested in your opinion.

      • easternimm
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:19 am | Permalink

        RR did get the above 100k/year vote ( by 5-10% margin); the below 50K year did vote 2/1 for Obama. there is some truth to the fact the a lot of people vote against their economic interest. I do appreciate that. However the welfare state approach in my view in does dumb down the work ethic. people that make more than 500k/year may work for less economic gain. the problem is that people who are on the lower rungs of work market are less motivated to make the effort to train, take a job. also people who put very little work expect better pay and benefits for little productivity. Europe is in crisis because of this entitlement mentality where anybody can get benefits without doing anything ( or not doing enough) other than being alive. the socialism works as long as you have at least some incentive for work. conservatives believe in limited government and redistribution and in self reliance more than solidarity through forced redistribution. irrespective of the political game, here or elsewhere, this will remain a strong argument. whatever form of welfare state you have one has to make the pie before he or somebody else slices it for everybody.

      • FabianNightmare
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:11 am | Permalink

        “…..All the people in the entire country that voted for Obama for those reasons wouldn’t have filled a stadium, particularly because they’re all false– provably false, easily provably false…….”

        Really??? I think you are dead wrong on your statement.

      • Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

        “so if I may ask, why did you vote for Obama? I’m interested in your opinion”

        Difficult for me to be concise. I’ll try.

        First, the Republican candidate really didn’t matter, because the current Republican party scares the crap out of me. And I’m not the only one: I have a lifetime Republican friend, grew up in small town in Ohio, family still lives on a farm. He believes in the 2nd amendment and small government so strongly that he has voted Republican in every election up until now, despite the fact that he’s gay– talk about voting against your own self interest in favor of your country. He voted Democrat not because of Obama, not because of Romney, not because of the Democrats– he voted against the Republicans, because they’ve gone so far off the rails. They’re not a conservative party, or at least they don’t come off that way to anyone that’s anywhere close to the center. They’re enmeshment with Christian Evangelicals, and they’re willingness to bring even more mainstream religious politics, is really troubliing to many of us. They’re mouthpieces– Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Fox News– have at best an uneasy relationship with the truth; when Romney’s campaign said “we won’t be dictated to by fact checkers”, that was an extremely frightening moment to many of us, confirming our belief that the current Republican party is run by zealots who cannot be reasoned with. The party’s continual deniall of global warming– even the fact that they were successful in intentionally getting it referred to as “climate change” to make it less scary– is the stuff of nightmares; it’s not a stretch to say that a vote for a Republican is a vote to literallyl wreck the planet. So some of us are simply frightened out of our wits by the current positions the Republicans take, mostly positions that IMHO have nothing whatsoever to do with being conservative.

        Second, I fundamentally disagree with Romney’s position on taxation. I believe this is an important issue, and I believe his beliefs would be disasterous for the country. There is copious evidence that raising taxes on the upper income brackets is not related in any way to decliniing prosperity. In our own country, we have experience long stretches of growth and prosoperity during which time the upper tax bracket has paid well over 50%; the notion that a move from 32% to 34% or 35% would somehow destroy jobs is simply laughable, and not born out by any empirical data. What’s more, it’s illogical in the first place. If you give an extra $200,000/year to someone making $10,000,000 per year, there is no reason to believe that money will create a siingle job. It’s most likely going into stocks or bonds, or sitting in a checking account. The odds that the $200,000 makes the difference between buying a new car or eating at a nice restaurant or whatever is very small. The odds that the person is suddenly going to decide to open a new small business with that money is almost non-existent. There is no reasonable scenario in which it “trickles down”. In contrast, if you spread that $200,000 out among 100 middle and lower income families, every dime of it is going to be spent growing the economy. It does make the difference between getting a new car this your or next year. It does make the difference between going out to dinner or not. It is used at Walmart to buy an extra shirt for you child. It is used to allow my friend who worked at Amaon but started a small side business making candles to actually hire a part time employee, or open a small stand in a mall. Every dollar is used to grow GDP. Both empirically and logically, requiring the wealthy to chip in more so that we can let the middle and lower class chip in less (or at least not increase) makes perfect sense, economically. . So Romney’s (and the Republicans) insistence on not raising taxes for anyone, and for inacting tax cuts for the wealthy, in my view has a negative impact on the economy and just gets us into more and more debt.

        Third, I morally object to what I see as a “punish the poor” mentality, expressed on forums like these and throughout Mr. Romney’s proposed agenda. I object to someone’s fate being so tightly bound to an accident of birth. I believe that opportunity– real opportunity– requires people who have the misfortune to be born into poor or uneducated households to recieve a boost, to enter the workforce having had the chance to receive a good education, to have socialized with children whose parents do have good jobs and see successful behavior modeled for them. I believe that every American has certain inalienable rights, and that one of those rights is to have the opportunity to succeed and live a fruitful llfe, even if they have a chronic disease or suffer a catastrophic accident, regardless of whether they are rich or poor. I don’t believe that the majority of people who receive public assistance are lazy; I believe they have deficits like poor education, lack of role models, broken homes, and other problems that are the result of having been dealt a bad hand, and it sickens me to see so many Republicans (such as those posting on this website) say that they’re leeches, parasites, people who whose circumstances are the result of moral failings such as being lazy or greedy. With all his talk of being the land of opportunity, Mr. Romney gave me the distinct impression that what he meant was the land of opportunity for people more or less just like him.

        Fourth, I was continually put off by Mr. Romney’s lack of specifics in his budget proposals Contrary to assertations to the contrary, President Obama has been consistent in his recipe: cut military spending, raise taxes in a fair manner, invest in infrastructure, stimulate the economy through quantitative easing, etc. I may not agree with all of these measures (QE in particular really bothers me), but I know what he wants to do. Mr. Romney failed, over and over and over again, how his plan was going to work. “Eliminate loopholes”– which loopholes? Loopholes just on the rich, such as the one he uses to pay 15% taxes? Loopholes that will impact the middle class, such as child tax credits, education credits, mortage credits, etc.? It doesn’t seem like that should be a hard question to answer. He was clear on not raising taxes, and on slashing spending by eliminating “entitlements”, but which entitlements? I’ve paid into Social Security my whole life, that’s *my* money, I’m not freeloading– is he going to take any of that away when he “allows” me to invest it? And where is it coming from in the first place– much of Social Security is in the form of IOUs the government has given Social Security so they can spend it on the general budget– they literally can’t afford to pay out even a fraction of it to all at once to the people it’s owed. What, specifically would that look like? What about healthcare? My wife has a chronic auto-immune disease, which will most likely mean I’ll need to work into my 70s even with my house completely paid off and a 401K and Microsoft Stock and two seperate investment accounts; what is her healthcare going to look like when we retire? If I die or we get a divorce, what kind of healthcare will she receive? There were simply no specifics given on matters that are really important to me.

        Fifth, I have no idea what Mr. Romney actually believes. The healthcare plan he implemented in Mass. is very successful, most people in the state love it, costs are down, coverage is wider, preventative medical practices are saving money, etc. Then when it was used as the model for a national plan, suddenly he’s against it. First he’s pro-choice, then he’s pro-life. First he’s running as a self-professed ultra-conservative, then he’s claiming to be moderate. I’m left with the strong impression that what he really believes is that he wants to be president

        Sixth, I’m one of those people that still thinks we’re cleaning up from the Bush mess, and President Obama deserves another 4 years to sort it out. I’ll refrain from going into details, I’m sure you know the argument.

        Hope that helps.

    • Billy Butch
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:44 am | Permalink | Reply

      This morning I woke up struggling with the message coming out of our circles that people want “stuff” and that the people who want stuff outnumber the people who pay for “stuff”. I don’t think that that is accurate. People are scared and when push came to shove those who were scared let that trump logic. This is why the exit data is so skewed. Issue #1: Economy. Better equipped to fix it? Romney going away. But when the soft and fuzzy question regarding “who understands me (and my pain)” was asked, it was a avalanche to Obama. In 2004, people were scared of the terrorist threat and thus unwilling to hand the reins to an “unknown”. In 2012, people were scared of the economy and its fragility and thus unwilling to put their faith in someone new. Sometimes it is a case of sticking with the devil you know.

      While I am tweaked that my guy didn’t win and annoyed with the Democrats “winning poorly”, I also know nothing is forever; buyer’s remorse will set in for a lot of folks; and there’s key lessons to be learned here that we can use in 2014 and again in 2016. Democrats learned a lot from the tactics used by Rove (“Swift Boat”) and there’s a lot we can use in turn. Stay tuned people. Stay tuned.

    • Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “Really??? I think you are dead wrong on your statement.”

      (2) Romney claimed that Obama’s plan dropped the requirement to work, but this is simply false. He allowed states to change (even raise or drop) the requirements; you should be pleased, it was an example of state’s rights. Benefits are not extended beyond the alloted time, period; the time was not extended. It is true that a particular state could eliminate the job requirement; even in that case, the person would just receive benefits for as long as they used to had they met the requirement.

      (3) Free phones for certain eligible groups were not in any way, shape, or form related to anything Obama or anyone in his administration did. The relevent law was in acted in 1996, and a more restrictive version has in place since the 1980s. Furthermore, while the plan is administered by the FCC, the government has no other involvement; the carriers charge a surcharge to customers in order to fund it, as dictated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Even were this not to be so,the utter contempt that you must hold for the poor to believe that they would vote for the president of the United States based on a phone is truly mind-boggling.

      (4) Under Obamacare, birth control is not free. It’s simply covered by insurance; you still need to pay for the insurance, and you still need to make your co-pay. It’s just covered– like, you know, viagra is.

      (5) Abortions are not free under Obamacare; in fact, to the contrary, there is an entirely additional coverage that a woman must pay for in order to have insurance pay towards an abortion. There are other details, all of which are contradictory to the claim that abortions are free, but it gets a bit technical and involves interactions between the federal government, state government, private insurers, and medicaid.

      But even had you been correct about (4) and (5), again you reveal contempt for large blocks of the electorate. Women are not motivated to vote for the President of the United States because of how much they need to pay for The Pill each month; they’re outraged that this is yet another example of a bunch of old white men legislating against women based on their own pesonal religious beliefs. The “free” part of it, even were it to be true, is not the relevent factor.

      • FabianNightmare
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

        Andrew, I thank you for the time you took to respond, and appreciate your honesty with regards to items #4 and #5. You have slanted the argument according to your political bias, and I would do the same to counter your argument. I respectfully agree to disagree with you.

        Regarding your statement “……you reveal contempt for large blocks of the electorate…..”, I know it is difficult to “hear” a written comment, but I really do not have contempt for anyone, my faith compels me otherwise.

      • Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

        Fair enough. I come off like a jerk on the internet a depressingly higher percentage of the time than I do in real life.

        The only reason I read websites like this is because I have seen all too well the dangers of living in a “bubble”– on both sides of the political spectrum. So I go out of my way to spend some time on websites that present alternative views. This one has some good analysis and reasonable people, so I’ve lurked on it for a few weeks. The danger with this approach is that I often get enraged. 🙂

  11. Derclaw86
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

    As I have written earlier, we don’t have a base anymore. Evangelical church attendance has been in decline over the last fifteen years as younger people have abandoned the church, especially those that go to college once they turn eighteen. That is why young people vote overwhelmingly Democratic, there are no more young evangelicals to offset them. Marriage rates have been in steep decline, especially in recent years. When that happens, more and more women are in the strongly Dem. “single women” group instead of the swing voting “married women” group. Even among men, there is a growing marriage gap. Since our core voters tend to be older now, mortality is also taking a toll on us. Much has been written about our problems with blacks, Hispanics, women, etc. This need to be addressed. However, we need to deal with our growing problems with reaching and including singles in our movement, especially in our increasingly secular society. Finally, in terms of this election, the upheaval of the housing meltdown and the fact that our supporters are spread throughout a given state (instead of concentrated in a few urban counties like Dems) has made our organizational efforts extraordinarily difficult. I believe that people being displaced has really hurt our efforts to organize and GOTV. I believe Reince Priebus vastly improved our efforts and did the best he could. He just had way too many obstacles in his face this time.

    • WillBest
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Singles need to not be single. It is one of the leading causes of poverty

    • Derclaw86
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

      But more people ARE single, whether they like it or not. We, as a movement, need to be able to deal with them as singles. If we do not, the Dems will be more than happy to pander to them.

      • WolvenOne
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:52 am | Permalink

        There’s a simple solution to this. Change tax laws to reward marriage among low income voters. As is, tax wise its more advantageous to be single and have children than to be married. If so, this needs to be changed, and hopefully when people get married they will indeed begin trending towards being more conservative.

    • Billy Butch
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:46 am | Permalink | Reply

      Defeatist thinking. We have a base and as soon as we can admit we should and can expand that base, the better off we’ll be. And “forced” marriage isn’t the answer…

  12. live_free290248
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

    America rejected Romney, plain and simple. His foreign policies were based on the 1980s, his social policies, based on the 1950s, and economic polices based on the 1920’s. America is moving forward. Join us.

    • Pa John
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

      To bankruptcy and dependency? Should change your handle to live for free off others.

      • live_free290248
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

        This is the kind of sentiment Americans rejected yesterday. You keep it going.

      • JohnGalt
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

        we will live for free off others. we will.

      • Evan3457
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:57 am | Permalink

        And we’re still going bankrupt under Obama’s policies. So you keep going forward to that.

    • Dave
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Yup, free money and gifts always wins over personal responsiblity. You nailed it and you’re a good example. As one latino voter put it to Obama today, “you owe us”. I couldn’t have characterized the Obama voter better myself. Move forward..what a crock…lol

    • WillBest
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

      by all accounts America didn’t bother to show up. Fewer votes cast than in 2004. The argument could be made that they didn’t reject Romney so much as not see a difference.

    • Ron
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

      This is silly. Half the country voted for him. The difference was razor-thin with Obama having the advantage of incumbency. People voted for the status quo. That won’t be an issue in 2014 or 2016. As for racial disparities–we do, indeed, need to expand the party. We’ll do that with fresh blood–Rubio, Martinez, etc.

    • tz
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

      luckily all of Obama’s policies are from one decade…the 70s

    • easternimm
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:37 am | Permalink | Reply

      welfare state is 1870’s policy. go back to Bismark. look into the communist experiment where maximum redistribution has been forced upon billions. tens of millions have been murdered in the name of “equality” and “fairness”. billions have been kept in poverty. this is part of the left legacy as well ( not lastly because the Western left has cheered the likes of Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Min). most of Westerners were born in a society that was build on conservative values: work ethic, thrift, family values, self reliance. They had grown in prosperity and freedom. they did not go through the Gulags…once the West got rich enough it started getting stupid and get attracted to socialism. On its own the socialism is marching the society on the road to serfdom. of course a rich society needs some degree of redistribution and it does need a safety net. conservatism is watching that the socialists are not getting out of hand and offering the alternative that has stood true to the mankind since its inception. we do need compassion and solidarity but not being forced by the government and the politicians. market better allocates resources than big government. market better incentives people to work, innovate and contribute to society.

      • FabianNightmare
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:23 am | Permalink

        Well stated, +1

    • Billy Butch
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:52 am | Permalink | Reply

      Have to disagree there. Americans voted out of fear not because of some shining path to prosperity. The magnificent coalition cobbled together by the administration was driven by scare tactics.

      Key issue for the country? Economy. Democrats counter? Don’t let Republicans take your contraception and abortions ladies (as if that will/would ever happen); Latinos don’t let Republicans deport you; Asians…crap I don’t even know what they scared the Asians with; Blacks were told they’d be disenfranchised and forced back into some kind of slavery; Gays would be trucked off to reprogramming camps; and Unions don’t let the Republicans dismantle your only protection in securing the American dream.

      Let’s see how that plays out…

  13. JohnGalt
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

    GOTV effort in VA 2004. HUGE centralized office in Arlington, with HUGE phone banking facility, people all over the place working working working. It was ALWAYS abuzz with activity. RNC 72 hour pre election MASSIVE OPERATION, with paid volunteers canvassing all key battleground municipalities. I was sent to Manitowac, WI. 2012? non connected small dingy spread out offices with not much activity going on. no spark of energy AT ALL. 72 hour push? spread out discordant, non connected, nation-wide organizing NON-EXISTANT. I thought it wasn’t going to matter. I love Romney. It mattered.

    • zang
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

      What’s amazing is the 2004 Bush campaign had far far far less money than Romney did. Seems like the good businessman squandered his bank load.

      • JohnGalt
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

        He should have asked dubbya for advice.

    • xclouseaux
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

      And from what I’ve read, it was 400,000 votes across OH, VA, FL and CO that cost the election. After all the talk about Republican enthusiasm, Romney loses because voters don’t come out. Pathetic.

      • WillBest
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

        He lost the popular vote by 2.5 million. You can talk about only needing 400k votes, but the PV / EV doesn’t break unless the margin is tiny. 2.5 million isn’t tiny.

    • Ron
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

      This is always the case with incumbents. By 2004 Bush had refined his operation–same as Obama who made countless preemptive trips to OH during his presidency. People got used to him as a presence.

  14. JohnGalt
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I really do love Romney. Don’t kill me here. OK I’m down in a crouched position covering my head. I think he should try again in 2016???????

    • Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm | Permalink | Reply

      He was my favorite Republican candidate in years. Even more than the Obama victory, what breaks my heart is that we’ll never know what a Romney presidency would have brought. I was genuinely optimistic about what Mitt Romney would have done for the country and the Republican brand.

      Obama will get credit when U3 dips down. The Republican House will take heat for brinksmanship when U3 spikes up. Unless things absolutely go to hell, which I wouldn’t wish upon folks regardless of the political capital to be gained, I don’t see how the (R) brand improves in the next four years. Party identification will be in political stasis.

      Good for America, good for the party, and Republicans didn’t turn out.


      • WillBest
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

        Its a 50/50 shot at recession next year and pretty much a stagnant economy for the next couple years. China and EU are a mess and that is going to continue to drag on the US economy. The only way we dent U3 is to continue having people leave the labor force. Which incidentally isn’t all that unlikely. Of the 3 million jobs Obama “created” since the recession 4 million have gone to people over the age of 55, and mostly part time work at that. Wait… yes I did say 4 million. People under the age of 55 have last 1 million jobs during the Obama recovery.

    • Kevin Paradine
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Zero chance. He wont’ even try. He had his one opportunity and he blew it.

    • Aaron S.
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      He would be the same age as Reagan was when he first took office. Not a crazy idea, except he has personally ruled out running again, so I doubt it.

      • JohnGalt
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

        Clean living. He’s in great health. But I guess Ann is not…

      • Yong
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:50 am | Permalink

        Maybe, especially, if the economy goes worse like jobs, gas, debt, etc. Maybe Ann change her mind and persuade him again.Guess, who it depends who else wants the job.

    • MikeN
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I can’t imagine who would vote for Romney in a primary again.

      • JohnGalt
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Permalink


      • JohnGalt
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

        It’s the American way. In the aftermath of defeat, with everyone saying no way jose, dust yourself off and go at it again! Easier said than done, I’m sure, but hey. I think Mitt and his family are great.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:03 am | Permalink

        Romney ran a campaign around one issue, while millions stayed away because he was rich. He knocked millions off Obama’s totals, but the rich attacks took hold. You really want to go through that again?

    • Utah Libertarian
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

      He has ruled it out, and I think the only way he would even maybe change his mind is if the Republicans said they wouldn’t have any primaries, he would just get the nomination and start the general election campaign. And then I give it 100-to-1 odds.

    • Ron
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I agree–and I’m a guy. I loved his dignity, his cool strength, his intelligence, his kindness, the way he had with his family. I will miss him. I believed he had the right combination of talents for this country. But I don’t think he will ever run again. It was hard on his family. He took a beating in the ads–and then worked his heart out for a thankless finish. But he did it for the country’s sake. I do think the crowds pouring out their love must have somewhat compensated. I hope so.

      • JohnGalt
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

        Me too Ron. Me too.

    • easternimm
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:46 am | Permalink | Reply

      the real Romney is indeed a decent man. the electorate saw too little of him. his image was damaged by the primaries, he had to flip-flop too much> He did recover some with the first debate but then he played it too safe. however in a society dominate by media and real shows a leader needs also a degree of showmanship. Obama is a weak dealer maker, is aloof and arrogant but he knows how to put up a show and he is a quick learner. I think the next republican candidate should be either a Hispanic or a woman ( no, not Palin) – Rubio and Condi Rice are the only names I could come up right now. the age of white men is maybe over…

  15. TTK
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

    We’re not the only ones losing this election. Israel also lost, and I feel for her.

    • FabianNightmare
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:27 am | Permalink | Reply

      I fear for Israel also, luckily, there is One who stands for her and will not abandon her.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:04 am | Permalink

        Israel has nuclear weapons. It’s the Iranian people who lost this election.

      • FabianNightmare
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:35 am | Permalink

        “…Israel has nuclear weapons. It’s the Iranian people who lost this election…..”

        Well MikeN, if Israel was publicly making statements that Iran and the Persian people were vermin and would be wiped from the map , you might have a point.

  16. Barf
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I am not buying the talk that the GOP base is broken. It just needs to expand to Latinos. Rubio should be the pick if we even have a next time.

    • Derclaw86
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm | Permalink | Reply

      No, our base is definitely broken for the reasons I stated above, However, empowering Rubio would be a great start towards repairing it and creating a new coalition.

      • JohnGalt
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

        I hate to break it to you guys. My workgroup is high concentration of latinos. they hate rubio. just like blacks hate Cain Steele and all other black repubs. we have a good message. stick with it. don’t back down in the face of defeat. learn lessons. ground game is important. period.

      • Ron
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

        They may hate Rubio–but all we need is to make headway and gain at least Bush’s share of that vote. We don’t have to aim for the whole enchilada. And then there’s Jeb Bush. Yeah, the Bush brand is poison to Democrats–but so is anybody else we field. Jeb’s connection with Hispanics is exceptional. And, like Rubio, he hails from the single most important swing state.

      • Mass liberty
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:33 am | Permalink

        Rubio is a slick sleazy politician. You want a Hispanic, it’s Susana Martinez.

    • William Jefferson Jr.
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

      If the GOP base is broken, the Dem base is dispirited and uninterested in politics. And that’s with an incumbent who was a celebrity only four years ago. Think Hillary or Cuomo is going to bring all those people back out?

      Political parties are composed of various interest groups, which are combustible. Remember back to the end of the Clinton presidency: the hard left grew disenchanted with him and began to demand more left-wing policies. That’s when Arianna took off, remember? Nader entered as a spoiler and that’s how Bush got through in 2000. The Dems will have problems keeping everyone in their tent, they usually do. An opportunity might arise.

      • Bob San Diego
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

        Hillary would be a very tough candidate for the republicans.

        She would get more votes than Obama – no doubt, because she would get the same black vote as obama and a ton more women voters.

      • Ron
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

        This is why I think a nationally recognized hero–as Rudy was right after 9/11–would have been the perfect candidate in ’08. Only he wasn’t pure enough for so-cons. Yet he had strong Reaganite credentials and had performed and economic miracle in a city bigger than most states both in budget and population. He had universal name recognition and was hugely popular in the NE. He beat Obama in the head-to-heads by double digits continually in PA and NJ. He would have activated the Reagan Democrats and won handily. But, as with Romney, it was not to be. The man and the hour never met. We got Obama instead–twice.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:05 am | Permalink

        Rudy had his chance, and sadly it’s the one time Biden has been right. “Every sentence he says is a noun, a verb, and 9/11”

        Rudy just expected to win off national security, and didn’t even try to sell his conservative credentials. A bit like Jon Huntsman there.

  17. JohnGalt
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Is it possible that after the nasty primary season, there just wasnt time to get it together correctly? 24 hours later and my fog of depression is lifting a bit. Picture this. 10% unemployment. 15% inflation. Gas lines and gas rationing. Iran with bomb and terrorist disaster.

    2014-we get senate
    2016-we’re back

    • WillBest
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Considering we are now averaging just throwing away 3 Senate seats an election now that is unlikely even with a favorable Senate map. 2016 is a presidential year and unless the electorate changes again we are probably looking at another bloodbath in statewide offices. Earliest we get the Senate is 2018.

      Fortunately it doesn’t look like we will lose the House before 2022

    • Ron
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Of course. It’s hard to unseat an incumbent who has had four years to engage the best talents and set up the best operation, handing goodies out to key states, flying around the country to deliver “important” speeches to key constituents. Meanwhile last-minute nominees from the opposing party have to scrounge for money and at the same time plaster together an operation after a bruising primary season. Not easy. The miracle is that Romney came so close.

  18. JohnGalt
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:08 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Tell fab4gal to come back

    • live_free290248
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:20 pm | Permalink | Reply

      She won’t come back. She’s afraid I will call her out on her fantasies about Colorado. 🙂

      • Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

        play nice everyone. From what I can tell it has remained mostly civil despite the high and low emotions of election nights. Let’s keep it that way

    • Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

      If she’s anything like me, facing the world today was impossible. Even talking with you guys here is tough. When I got to work, I could barely look my best friend in the eye. I felt like I was going to cry the whole day. And folks, I’m not the emotional kind of guy.

      I know most of us were leery of Obama in 2008, but we figured that if he didn’t do a good job, we’d swap presidents after a term, and that’d be that. Every since that big wave of 2009-2010 legislation, followed by the midterms, we had a concrete victory to look forward to. This time, we have a firm date for Obama’s departure, but for some reason 2016 feels so nebulous and inconsequential.

      I can’t wait for the weekend. I think I need a few days away from other life forms to digest what happened.

      This got off topic, but TL;DR I just want to withdraw for a while. Maybe fab4gal’s feeling the same way.

      • live_free290248
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

        Things are not so doom and gloom. This is what I see the problem to be. Too many people are afraid of what he might do, though he has not actually done any of those things. Remember that Congress is still divided. We don’t have a theocracy form of government.

      • Ron
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

        I felt the same way. Because the truth is maybe more revealing than we can stand at this point. We’re in danger as a party. We’ve got the House–but we’ve been careless with the opportunities in the Senate. We are on a new demographic terrain and we need to figure out how to navigate a path to the future. My feeling is that we should aspire to regain the Senate in 2014. That, at least, is doable if we put up the right talents. Only Congress can act as a countervailing force to Obama in the next term. Till then the House will have to act as a means of controlling his worst instincts.

      • Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

        For me, this election was about the past four years as much as the next four. You can probably infer how I feel about the legislation that’s already been passed. I had high hopes that we’d be able to walk some of it back.

        “If we put up the right talents” indeed. But I get the creeping feeling that Republicans don’t always learn from their mistakes.

  19. GV
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I can’t believe I’m gonna quote Rush Limbaugh but he really did nail it with this, “In a nation of children, Santa Claus wins”

    • WillBest
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

      That is cute

    • Ron
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:21 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It’s also true. How we deal with this is the problem we face.

  20. Eric
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

    It wasn’t Romney’s GOTV operation that was the problem. 10 million fewer people voted in 2012 than 2008. A lot of people are just angry at the whole system. They don’t believe that either party has a solution so why bother voting? Obama lost a ton of voters from 2008. 10 MILLION voters.

    Republicans have a brand problem. They need to go into minority communities and reach out to them. Listen to them. Organize them for school choice. Become the party of the little guy. Reject Wall Street. People hate Wall Street. Become the party of reform.

    It’ll be obvious in 4 years when the economy is still tanking that the Democrats are not the answer. But Republicans will lose again if they don’t convince all these non-voters that they have a credible alternative and a plan.

    Obama only got barely more votes than John Kerry in 2004. They just turned out the Democratic base. That’s all. Part of the Republican base left the party around 2006-2008. They haven’t come back. That’s why we have a smaller base. Independents actually went to Romney. We need to be the party of ideas to win back those who left the party, and we need to work on fracturing the Democratic coalition. They have so many groups who disagree on fundamental issues. What unites them is a hatred of Republicans. Find what motivates Hispanics and go in their communities and advocate for them. Same with black communities.

    And do not nominate a white male for president in 2016. Every nominee in the history of the party (actually both parties until Obama) has been a white male. People see Republicans as too old-fashioned. Try having a woman at the top of the ticket.

    • PeterJ
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Amen on reject Wall Street. Amen and Amen. That alone might make the difference. Wall Street is the reason democrats successfully paint the party as the party of the rich, when actually very few are rich. Wall Street brought us the 2008 debacle. Of course to rein in Wall Street it takes regulations since the market does not work in doing so because institutional investors who are only percentagers in any one company do not care enough to wage proxy fights about excesses of compensation tied to short term illusory stock prices and sales.

      • JohnGalt
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

        It was Wall Street AND Washington. Mortgages were flying off the presses because of policies of cheap money and no data, dont ask don’t tell mortgages. the bubble expanded. “smart” people refinanced and renovated their kitchens, put in pools, and bought cars. Woo hoo! Wall Street just saw a way to make money off the frenzy. Pop! This easy money and borrowing will pop too.

      • easternimm
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 7:22 am | Permalink

        wall street is not all bad. the crony wall street is bad. the same as with capitalism. we do need clear and clean rules on wall street but we also need small government. the more money goes to the government to dole out the more crony capitalism we will have.

    • HarvardLaw for Romney
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The 2010 exit polls show the same split on race as last nights exit polls: 72% white. I dont think it’s a brand problem. I think Obama is a cultural hero to them. They arent going to vote against him. Let’s face it, the man is an historical figure already. Many stayed home because they dont want to vote against the first Black President, a celebrity.

    • William Jefferson Jr.
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “What unites them is a hatred of Republicans.”

      Totally agree. Their greatest turnouts were 2004 and 2008; Bush and Palin were the hated figures, which allowed their coalition to stay united. The hatred of Bush in 2008 allowed their primary to not get too divisive. In 2016 there’s no unpopular Republican for the left to coalesce in their hatred of, at least not until the Republicans actually get a nominee. I think we will see some splintering of their base. We forget that most of the money and internet presence for the left is much more “progressive” than where Obama and the Clintons are.

      • Ron
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

        We’re in the same situation the left faced in 2004. They had invested their all in Kerry. It was devastating to get Bush for 4 more years. They were well prepared for the new round in 2008. We’ll do the same. Right now I’d like to see us plan to retake the Senate in two years. We can focus on that. If we succeed and then win the presidency we can try to repair some of the damage.

    • Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

      This. You have to work to earn the trust and respect of the growing minority communities. Finding an issue is where you start. For black communities, school choice is a very real one.

      Striking a populist tone against the big banks and Wall Street traders is also not a bad place to go. Obama could have been painted as the champion of the big banks, the signer of Dodd-Frank. Going in and campaigning to break up the big banks can help you win elections, though it will not increase your campaign haul. So don’t just be the champion of the little guy, be the little guy.

    • Widcat
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:45 am | Permalink | Reply

      Other words take up the mantle of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson

  21. PeterJ
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Here is a link to a map on wiki showing which states are right-to-work states. For the most part if mirrors the election results map. The union law ballot measure loss in Michigan was huge and needs to be replicated. Peeling off just a couple of the democrat party’s patronage constituencies can make all the difference. And like in Wisconsin, it has to be done at the state level.

  22. zang
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I think Brian Sandoval would be a better pick than Rubio.

  23. PeterJ
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:25 pm | Permalink | Reply


    I would like to make a comment about this blog going forward if you intend to keep it up. And that is besides a blog you institute a discussion forum with various and many sub-forums. Unless you only post one blog post a week it becomes too unwieldy to discuss issues in depth and to separate issues. Not a criticism at all but just a practical suggestion. Thanks for having this blog and all your work in the past few months.

  24. Dave
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

    If you want the tea party enthusiasm you have to find a way to blend their message with a message enough voters in the somewhat democrat and swing states find appealing too. Unfotunately that will take compramise and that is what the tea party cannot do. There’s a reason the party is mostly limited to the midwest and south and rural areas.

    Next election some good (intelligent, charasmatic) republicans should be running. Bush fatigue will be more worn off. Maybe there will be some Obama fatigue and there will be an 8 year track record. Biden has indicated he wants a shot…

    • PeterJ
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

      When things get bad enough, if we really do run off a financial cliff, then the first demagogue of the right or left who preaches “jubilee”, i.e. total default on all levels of sovereign and maybe personal debt other than mortgages, is going to have a smooth ride to the White House.

      • Dave
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

        We won’t run off a financial cliff. They’ll just keep kicking the can down the road.

      • PeterJ
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

        It can only get kicked so far down the road. Quantitative easing is nothing other than debasing our currency and thus a slow motion default. When no one outside the US will buy our debt the game of musical chairs will come to an end.

      • Ron
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

        Then maybe we’ll start drilling to revive the economy. We’re not Greece. Alaska alone could save us. We’re rich in natural resources.

    • Aaron S.
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’m not saying Romney should run again, but if Biden does, why shouldn’t Romney?

      Biden is 69 now, he’ll be 73 by the next election.

      Romney is 65 now, he’d be 69 by the next election.

      • PeterJ
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

        A loser is a loser in the public mind, and they rejected him for various reasons whether rational or not. Losing as the actual candidate is far different than losing a primary and coming back again the next primary.

      • Dave
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

        Romney wouldn’t do any better and his wife has allbut said that was their last campaign. I think Nixon was the last president to lose and then run again and win. Usually the more you try the lower your numbers go each time.

      • Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

        If the Democrats go old (Hillary and Biden) then I think it wise for us to go young. Rubio can be a problem is some ways, especially his lack of executive experience – though he is excellent at communicating American ideals. Christie is a bulldog who, though unpopular now, may recover in four years and be at the end of a second term in Jersey. He can be someone who is believed when it comes to reform.

        I’d also keep an eye on Susanna Martinez. I think she’s got a lot of what it takes and she understands the appeal of the Democrats to minorities because she’s been there.

        We have to break out of the concept that the GOP is the party of rich white people. This drive minorities away and was not the case when Bush was elected. He did well wish Hispanics and pretty well as a Republican with blacks. Jeb Bush was the same here in FL.

        I also would not rule out the possibility of Jeb Bush running in four years. He is someone to work with at least when it comes to latino and black outreach.

      • Ron
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

        Nixon lost a close one with Kennedy. But he made a comeback. I doubt he wants it, though. Running is brutal on the family.

    • zang
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Nothing like the tincture of time. People forget that Cinton was seen as an albatross across the Gore campaign. By 2000, people were tired of the Clinton scandals and drama.

      Harry Truman is now remembered with fondness, but he left office with.a 20% approval rating, and it wasn’t until the 60s that he came out of more or less seclusion.

      Perspectives about Bush may also change with time.

    • Eric
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It’s a mistake to think that Bush fatigue will wear off by 2016. History should guide us on this one. Hoover was blamed for the Great Depression for years. Republicans didn’t win ANYTHING for 14 years until the 1946 midterms. Most people blame Bush for all of this. If it gets worse, they’ll keep blaming Bush. They’ll probably also conclude that the Democrats don’t have any better solutions either, so they won’t vote. That’s how we got 10 million fewer voters in 2012.

      The Democratic base will turn out again in 2016. Look at who voted in 2012. Obama got barely more votes than Kerry did, despite there being a larger population now than in 2004.

      Republicans have to actively advocate policies that are the opposite of the Bush administration. A popular one (that the base would like too) is NO BAILOUTS EVER! Republicans also need to have a more modest foreign policy. Romney went this direction and that was the right approach. People don’t want wars. I would suggest going door to door in black communities. Organize them. Meet with them. Get them protesting in the streets for school reform. Demonstrate to them that you care and aren’t out to get them. I go door to door in the city of Detroit. Most are glad just to have someone visit them that cares about them. The Democrats take them for granted and do nothing for them until it’s time for an election. There are a lot of conservatives in the black community. The black community in Detroit shares a cultural heritage with white Southerners. I’m a white Southerner from Texas living in Detroit, and I have more in common with the black people in Detroit than I do with suburbanites around Detroit. They can be won over gradually, but an intense effort needs to be made.

      • PeterJ
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

        No bailouts actually covers a wide ground. Besides explicit ones like in 2009, there is corporate welfare and federal grants to “green” and other technologies that never will be economically feasible unless you artificially raise the price of gas as is being done. So it covers agro subsidies and anything that favors one business model over another.

      • Ron
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

        I disagree. They only partially blame Bush. Obama gets his fair share of blame. The public hated the bailouts, the stimulus, the health care bill. He owns those issues. If he attacks energy production, that too will be remembered. Bush will have his day in the history books.

  25. Dave
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

    “Then no one on our side showed up.”

    What states didn’t they show up in? Seems to me Romney carried many of the states a tea party republican might carry and a few more. You can’t fight bailouts and freebies and special treatment to key voting blocks you just can’t.

  26. Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Jeez what a bunch of whiners! So you lost, big deal. Chances are you will win in 2016, Americans get tired of the same party in power after a while.

    And stop being such drama queens. No, the economy is not great but it is improving. Slowly. Obama was no disaster and Obamacare is what Romney himself legislated in MA.

    The world goes on.

    • zang
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      You want drama queens? Dems were literally in tears after Kerry lost.

      • Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

        yes, and two years later they took Congress. Nothing is permanent.

    • Dave
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Leave it to a dem to gloss over the details and muddle differences. Everything is a homogenous blob to you? There are no differences it’s just all about next time? There are no guarantees. Instead of just trash talk and throwing around fancy catch phrases like “Central Limit Theorem” how about some real discussion? I’m sure you’ve got a lot to offer.

    • PeterJ
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:45 pm | Permalink | Reply


      There will be no place for you in the new order.

      • Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

        Why can’t I be GoodPeter? Or BestPeter?

    • William Jefferson Jr.
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Why are you here?

    • Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Yes dave, there are differences between Obama and Romney and they may even be great differences depending on what your preferences are. But talk that the US is about to become a disaster zone under Obama, or that Obama is a socialist or some other such nonsense only means you guys continue to create an alternative reality.

      In some ways the country is clearly becoming more liberal, gay marriage probably the best example of that. In other ways not so much. It’s all a balance.

      • Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

        I would say the nation is more libertarian on social issues, not more liberal. People do not embrace gay marriage, but they don’t see a reason to be opposed to it since it doesn’t affect them. So you don’t see the bans, but people still talk bad about gays when they’re not around. I hear it a lot of gay marriage supporters. The lifestyle is still looked on as abnormal by most, but people can still like people that are in it and they see no reason to block them doing what they want.

        But don’t count on people being much more liberal when it comes to the size and scope of government. If you speak with most you’ll find they favor decentralization and more local control. An angle the GOP has never taken is to pin the money issues in politics squarely on the power concentrated in Washington. My simple argument is this: Is it hard to bribe 537 elected members of the Federal Gov’t in one place (DC) or over 7700 elected officials across 50 states and their capitals? More power to the states means less money in national politics and less power for lobbyists. The concentration of power leads to the concentration of money. It’s why Wall Street exerts so much influence. This is the winning argument for shrinking the Federal Gov’t and then encouraging states to decentralize and put more authority locally.

        Targeting crony capitalism is also popular and something Democrats have yet to do. Green energy is a fine example. Obamacare is another with Obama making a deal with Big Pharma to get it done. But Obama has been an active participant in cronyism.

        Problem is that people see Democrats and Republicans as not being too different. You have to change that and paint the Democrats as the party of cronyism, of big money, and of a broken system. The GOP must restyle itself as the party of the people, bringing more power to individuals and communities – less power to bureaucrats in Washington. But the GOP has to actually reform and do it successfully. They also have to reach ascendant demographics with this message.

        BTW, blacks and latinos are far less socially progressive. Those gay marriage states have very large white populations. Blacks were a major factor in Prop8 passing in Cali. With Obama gone, there is more of a possibility of trimming the Democratic power in these communities. 14% black unemployment under Obama. We never stressed that enough.

      • Eric
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

        Concur 100% Jeff. Democrats need to be the party of big business and big government. Republicans already win the middle class and are the party of the middle class. We just need to win a higher % of the poor. Those in the Hispanic and black communities are ripe for the picking because they already agree with us on the issues even though they don’t know it. We need to target policies for those demographics.

        On the social issues (and I’m as socially conservative as they get), we need to take a neutral position on gay marriage saying that we don’t support gay marriage at the federal level but each state should decide for themselves. On abortion, maybe 20-25% of the country supports the current policy of unrestricted on-demand abortion. 15-20% supports bans on all abortions for any reason (including me in that group). Adopt a platform of exceptions for rape, etc so that we can’t be labeled as extremists. It’ll have no effect whatsoever on policy because a platform is meaningless, but it’ll help with some women voters (particularly single women). Let the Democrats defend their extreme position.

      • Shane kovac
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

        The country is not more liberal… What did exits say 13‰ self described liberal.

        I support gsy marriage but check the stats these were the first three gay marriage victories out of God knows how many.

        Jeff is dead on socially the country is conservative in ideal they are pro gun, pro individual freedom, anti abortion but libertarian in Acton. Meaning I hate abortion but I’m not for banning it in anyway. I’m pro gay rights but don’t think the government should be involved.

        Problem is the country can’t find the happy medium between the lefts abortion on every corner and gay marriage at the Vatican vs the rights arrest those who have abortions and send all gays to gay island

        America is in flux we are like an awkward teenager in puberty.

        The cure Get religion out of politics

      • Ron
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

        This is why the recent decision by the SC on Medicare is crucial. It recognized the perversity of federal clout vis a vis the states–the attitude of do-this-or-else. That frees up the states to go their own way. But it’s a struggle that’s just beginning. I’m all for a constitutional convention to shore up the 10th amendment.

      • Ron
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:51 pm | Permalink

        I meant Medicaid.

      • Dave
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

        “nation is more libertarian on social issues”

        As in most things in life there are shades of grey to this. Let’s take size and scope of government. On some issue that may be preferred on others not as much. Social issues such as abortion or gay marrige can be left to the states. But issues like environment should not be because of the far reaching effects of policy (i.e. downstream to your neighbor) and because local control does not represent my interests in the land. And as a tax payer and user of that land I should have a say.

        Sure everybody loves a land grab and more land under theoir jurisdiction. Local politicians can fill campaign coffers jettisoning tracts of land for exploitation/jobs and not give 2 cents about the long term effects. And campaign contributors know its FAR FAR easier to bribe a local elected official or even the electorate (i.e. oil in Alaska), and to sway public opinion locally than nationally. That’s why western state legislators want the government to give them land so they can divy it up for their own benefit and benefit of their campaign contributors.

        Alaska and Pebble Mine right now is a perfect example of that. Just because a few hundred thousand people decided to live there (hide out there) doesn’t give them the right to do whatever they like or free regin over all of that land. I enjoy going there to hunt and fish and recreate just as much as a local does. Most land should belong to everybody, not just locals (all though locals can use it for their benefit and jobs with government oversight). That’s why I want the national government involved with that. Becuase they’re representing my interests in that area.

        So local control make sense for some things but not for others.

      • Nkracher
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:06 am | Permalink

        I personally vote republican but if the democrats were socially liberal but fiscally conservative i would always vote Dem… Maybe if the repubs tried that they could steal the social vote and the fiscal conservative vote

  27. JohnGalt
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

    We are the party of “It’s not the color of your skin that matters, it’s the content of your character.” Nominating someone based on skin color or gender is wrong and taking a play from their playbook. White men are great. I love them. (im a female) stay strong. hold onto what is important. I can’t stand the politics of race gender sexual identity. It’s demeaning.

    • Dave
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Race and heritage has never been a bigger issue than this election. The medias obsession with it has created racial divisions amoing the electorate. It’s bred racism. Instead of being one people we’re looked at as white, hispanic, black, etc. And when Obama elevates one voting block and race over others, he’s promoting racism, intentionally or not. A world truly blind to racism doesn’t recognize people by skin color. But the reason why politicians do it is probably cultural based. White people as a % of the population, are far more tolerant and likely to vote for minorities than certain minorities are for whites. How come you never hear about the Asian vote? Probably because culturally, those people are probably less inclined to vote based on skin color, and so it’s not expedient for campaigns to reach out to Asians (or fill the country with them). Obviously, two other voting blocks do appear to vote according to race. I think we know who they are and that’s why politicians pay so much attention to them.

    • Ron
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I disagree. Politics has always been about identity. There’s always been jockeying for slots based on ethnicity and religion and regional affinities. Now women and race are part of the same mosaic. Same difference. That said, quality of character still counts.

      • Dave
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:04 am | Permalink

        Identity may have always played a roll but how much of role and to what extent people prioritized their identify with other issues is not clear. For most identity may play a role but how important that role is seems to break down differently between the races in the last couple of elections and with the media focusing so much on race, it only exacerbates tendency to emphasize race over issues. White men founded the country on an ideal that all men are creatd equal (and went to war to uphold that ideal) but when Obama starts pandering to one particular race, that violates the spirit of the ideal. Whites as a population seem to want to belive in this more than others as evidenced by the % of whites voting for Obama. Just listen to Chris Mathews. I’m not so sure latinos and blacks as a group belive this. They seem more concerned with maintaining racial identity in their leaders as a way to garner more favors. The way Jay-Z put it he feels they “have more of a voice” (influence, etc.) and as one latino women put it succinctly about Obama: “he owes us now”

  28. zang
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

    So what role should the Congressional Republicans play? I think there is a good argument that the House GOP has just as much of a mandate as Obama does. Would it be a good idea for Boehner to step up a more active opposition role like Gingrich during Cinton or Pelosi during Bush? Seems he prefers to play behind the scenes.

    • PeterJ
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

      He is in a bad spot since Obama and Reid’s game is to let the House pass a financial bill and then Reid refuses to let it come to the floor for discussion and amendments and Obama threatens to veto it anyway. So they “no that won’t do, come back again”. Any negotiator who allows the other party to keep saying no without putting a concrete counter-proposal on the table and be seen doing so, cannot win. Boehner has to avoid playing that game while at the same time dodging blame for being obstructionist.

      • zang
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

        Not sure Reid will be able to hold his caucus together if he continues with the obstructionism.

      • John
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

        Reid will have 20 of his Dem senators up for re-election in 2014 with many in Red states. They will need to get something done this year or the Republicanscan run exclusively on obstructionist platform and win easily.

      • JohnGalt
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

        You got it John. I love smart men that say smart things. zang too, but not sure if he’s a man. Stand strong people. Don’t lose hope.

      • William Jefferson Jr.
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:10 am | Permalink

        Wow, that 2014 Senate map looks awesome. Over a dozen seats could fall our way in red states, maybe even more. Let’s hope we don’t bungle it.

    • William Jefferson Jr.
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I think they have to pass a deficit deal, for the good of the country. But the House GOP need to raise their profile in the process and draw sharp lines and distinctions from the Democrats. Reid is a good foil for Boehner b/c Harry is so sleazy. I’m not sure we need to personalize attacks against Obama the way the Dems personalized attacks against Bush; Reid can be the foil. The GOP should simply act as if Obama is a figurehead/empty suit.

      • Loach
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:34 am | Permalink

        “The GOP should simply act as if Obama is a figurehead/empty suit.”

        Which should not be difficult, because that is exactly what he is. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were co-presidents from 2009-2010.

    • Jake
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

      To quote A Song of Ice and Fire, “The North Remembers”. Or rather, “The R’s Remember”.

      Boehner has a fine line to walk. He cannot simply sit back and allow the media to portray the GOP majority as a do-nothing Congress. The committees must draft legislation, the House must bring it to a vote, Boehner explain why they drew it up and why they passed it, and explain why it is in the country’s best interests. Reid won’t give it any consideration, but that doesn’t matter. When the media starts agitating that they must reach across to the Dems, go directly to the people and explain what is really happening, and ask for the Dems to reach across. The Left will do their damnedest to portray “bipartisanship” as being Republicans compromising with the President. Remind them that it also means the President compromising with Republicans, as he himself has proved unwilling to do.

      And when Obama tries to circumvent the Constitution with executive fiat, challenge him every step of the way – use the Supreme Court while we still can.

      It will be an uphill battle, yes. The fact that the GOP got the “Party of No” brush while Turbo Tax Timmy is saying “We don’t have a plan, we just know we don’t like yours” is absurd, but that’s the way it is.

    • Ron
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:04 am | Permalink | Reply

      When democrats controlled the House they never stopped passing far left legislation. I see no reason we need to defer to the left while in power. All fiscal matters must originate in the House–and that gives it great power. Obama can propose all he wants–but he can be ignored for four years with impunity I think if he aims to push us over the cliff with ridiculous spending plans. I know people complain about Boehner–but he’s far more skilled as a negotiator than Obama or anybody else on the scene. Right now I don’t think Obama gives a hoot about the economy–unless it’s to wreck it further.

  29. Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:50 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I’m from Ohio and actively involved volunteering for the GOP. I expected a close race and the last “internal” shared with me by a county chairman was that we went from +4 to +2. Thought we could hold, but didn’t like the trend. In retrospect, the only way we would have prevailed was if the democrats didn’t show up. Everyone expected a dropoff from 08, but turnout in 12 was much larger than any of the polling experts anticipated.

    I initially concerned myself with what happened in Ohio, but later realized it wasn’t isolated to us. Republicans couldn’t manage Virginia, Florida along with any one other state that was needed to win the electoral college either. My initial thought is that we turned out out the true republican votes. I had read somewhere that the Romney team was focusing on gtetting low propensity voters to vote early. . Really?? It appeared to me that they were trying to get as many republican early votes as they could ..period. Which, to some degree i agree with in that it helps free up voting space on election day.

    I think what the democrats were able to do is make personal contacts, way in advance, with voters that matched their criteria for likely Obama voters and made sure they voted. I received at least a dozen phone calls, mostly automated, urging me to vote, which I had already done through early voting. It appears to me that alot of the money spent by Romney and the GOP was used to bombard the voting rolls of past or high target voters. I think we got the base out, but missed the independent and low propensity voters because an automated call and advertising is not enough to move them to vote. if we are to compete in the future we need to develop a more person contact system where we can make our case and get these voters motivated

    • trux
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The dropoff from 2008 was massive.

    • Ron
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:10 am | Permalink | Reply

      Interesting take. The thing about Bush was that he had a person-to-person system in place, especially among church-going evangelicals. Churches provided linkages and personal contacts. He had a long four years to develop this operation. Romney had only months. It’s why incumbents usually win.

  30. Matt
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Can’t believe the Romney bashing by some here and elsewhere. He was an exceptional candidate, the likes of which we have not seen in a long time. 10 times the candidate McCain was. I am still in shock. I thought the base was fired up but obviously turnout was suppressed in some areas. I will reserve to cast blame till we get a better idea of what happened.

    • PeterJ
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Leaving it to the first debate to really get the campaign going was just too late. He failed to counter the negative advertising onslaught of the summer.

      • JohnGalt
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

        And you are so right. The silence from Romney during the summer onslaught was deafening. I was wishing Newt would have stuck up for him like a big brother and give them a tongue lashing that they deserved. Or someone. But no one did. Not even Romney himself.

      • trux
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

        He didn’t have the money to counter it in the summer. He wasn’t sitting on his hands because for his health, but because he could not, by law, use general election funds until after the convention.

      • JohnGalt
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

        good info trux. But next time, how would it be perhaps, after a nasty primary that knocked our guys down, that our guys get back up and collectively counter the attacks. How would it have looked to have Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Cain, Ron Paul (FOR SURE RON PAUL) Bauchmann make an ad collectively standing up to Obama machine. Kind of like, we can criticize our own, but YOU, you are wrong and you can not. I know I am now in fantasy land playing monday morning quarterback. would have been nice though.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:14 am | Permalink

        Romney could have spent his personal wealth on his campaign during the primary. He could have donated his personal wealth to help with the hurricane. I would have preferred Romney spend tens of millions in California, New York, and Illinois. That is a quarter of the population, and since he would be unopposed, he would be able to move things as much as 15 pts in his direction. That would be 4 points in national polls, and suddenly Obama is floundering, with only Nate Silver to hang on to.

    • JohnGalt
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:10 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The primary slog set us back as we knew it would. Mitt is superhuman, but he is not God. Lord knows he tried his best. Bush should have been whispering in his ear, holding his hand with constructive campaign advice. REally. From my teensy bit of work in 2004 compared with 2012, this GOTV effort was literally horrible. I never knew how important these sort of operations were. But they are. They really are.

      • JohnGalt
        Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

        Bush wouldn’t have won 2004 without his GOTV efforts. Remember Romney is the FIRST non Washington candidate we have had in a long time. He didn’t know. Kerry’s ground game matched Bushes precinct to precinct. I was daily passing the Kerry people in the streets of Manitowoc, WI. I wonder if the dems didn’t do the 72 hour push this year too and we didn’t.

  31. WolvenOne
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

    This analysis is sadly, flawed. I will cite as exhibit A, an article on HotAir.

    Romney likely increased the number of white voters over McCain, and increased the margins in the demographics McCain won in 2008. The problem is, there was only so much improvement that could be done. The demographic that turned out most heavily for Romney was elderly voters, and while there were far more elderly voters in 2004, a chunk of them died off between now and 2012. That, kinda limits how quickly you can grow that demographic as a chunk of the electorate.

    Meanwhile, more Hispanics showed up, African Americans showed up, and more young voters showed up. Simply put, they for their base out better than ours.

    I blame early voting. Here’s the thing, while we improved our numbers across the board when you compare Republicans and Democrats, my suspicion is that Independents that voted before election day, were probably predominately voting for Obama. Obviously Romney ultimately overcame that and won the independent demographic, but, it probably made the head to head comparisons a little misleading.

    • HarvardLaw for Romney
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

      2010 exit polls showed the same racial splits as this race. (72% white). The issue isn’t the parties per se as much as it is Obama’s advantage with those groups.

  32. billyboy
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Well although I didnt post much, I continued to say that Virginia was in jeopardy. I did thoroughly enjoy the information, conversation and opinions on this site. Keith, you are a good man

  33. Dave
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:24 pm | Permalink | Reply

    “become a disaster zone under Obama, or that Obama is a socialist or some other such nonsense only means you guys continue to create an alternative reality. ”

    Now we’re talking. A lot can happen in 4 years and things can happen that set the course of a nation and the people for a long time. My feeling is you’re downplaying the potential significance of it. When people use the word socialist to describe Obama their point of reference is probably differenet than yours so he seems more socialist. Obviously, in a pure sense, that’s not the case but to a partisan it is more like a socialist. And the right isn’t alone. The left used some pretty extreme characterizations to descibe Bush such as fascist, dictator and so forth. It’s what partisans do. And then there’s the slippery slope. For example, if FDR hand’t gotten elected would we have social secuirty? And what president was in office when Medicaid was created? Those are entrenched entitlements that are big campaign issues that dems use to great affect to scare people. If the presidents that championed that legislation had not been elected, the country might be significantly different.

    • MikeN
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:40 am | Permalink | Reply

      Here’s the thing. Obama as a state legislator in the mid 90s, just 8 years before being elected Senator, joined the Socialist New Party.

  34. Shane kovac
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Evangelicals, conservatives, tea partiers, Ron Paul voters seemed to have stayed home.

    I don’t get this 100‰ my way or I keep my ball at home friggin mentality.

    OK so Romney wasn’t a bomb throwing right wing religious nut. He wasn’t a pro-weed pacifist wanting to cut the military… But Obama was 180 degrees opposite of everything these voters believe in. So instead of getting 50+‰ of what you want you sit out and get -100‰ of what you believe it makes no sense.

    Saw an anti akin ad here. Woman claims she’s lifelong Republican super pro life ever turned down Morning after pill after rape never voted democrat but akin said stupid shit so I’m selling out my life long principles to vote for McCaskill…. Seriously WTF

    are right wingers really just a bunch of third graders?

    • Dave
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:06 am | Permalink | Reply

      That’s what extremists do. They have litrtle sense of compramise or reason, perfectly willing to bite off their nose to spite their face. They see at as standing for their principals. You and I see it as an inability to relate to the real world. Life is about give and take and compramise in family and relationships. For some reason there’s a dsiconnect with these people in their between politics and real life. In the end they were all too bitter after the primaries to bury the hatchet and work for the greater purpose.

  35. MD
    Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

    RUBIO 2016! (NO CHRISTIE – EVER!!!!)

    Republican party is going nowhere….After NObama, Dems have nobody that popular…..

    • Shane kovac
      Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I’m looking at McConnell, and jindal and Martinez.

      I want a SITTING GOVERNOR not a senator. Rubio to me is still green.

      Haley is always a possibility.

      But to me our first Investment as a party is a four year ground game and GOTV system/program… Then we plug a candidate in

      • WolvenOne
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:10 am | Permalink

        Maybe Rubio, if he runs we’ll see how well he performs in the primary.

        As for the four year GOTV System/Program, I agree totally. For starters, somebody in the GOP needs to take the whole Orca thing and, you know, actually make it work. Then we’ve got to sign up as many new Republicans as possible, starting NOW, and improve our early vote game to be on par with the democrats.

      • Ron
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:16 am | Permalink

        Jeb Bush.

  36. Posted November 7, 2012 at 11:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I think Romney is a great man and alot of us came to love the guy because of his moral values, because we wanted to beat Obama so bad we rallied behind him and I think a core (not all obviously) base of the party all got behind him 100%. The clear truth is though, there are a lot of conservatives and independent moderate types who didn’t get fired up for him or they would have turned out.

    The way Ron Paul supporters were treated may have hurt more than we know, I hate to even admit that might be true. Paulbots drive me nuts. I don’t know how many there really are but we certainly ended up needing them. I know alot didn’t vote, some even were saying they were voting for Obama to bring the crash in quicker…..ugh

    Sarah Palin, I like her message, just can’t stand her delivery but cutting her out was probably a big mistake in hindsight. She has a lot of supporters and that can’t be disputed, I will give her props for not making a big deal out of it, but she was treated poorly. Likewise the tea party was not given much of a voice or acknowledges a whole lot in this campaign. Especially once Romney felt like he had conservatives then at the end he veered middle.

    Paul Ryan is a great guy and I like him a lot but he’s not really a tea party conservative like the Romney campaign wanted to act like. He fired up the base but I don’t think the tea party totally got behind him.

    When Krauthammer came out and immediately said our candidate wasn’t conservative enough, I ignored him. The more I think about it, he’s right. Mitt is a great man, but he’s not a conservative, he’s a moderate. The whole reason for the giant movement that is/was the tea party was to purge RINOs (moderates). Who did we nominate? A Moderate. Personally I think Romney is a more of a states rights guy but did a terrible job communicating that message. If he had he probably would have won.

    I really thought Romney had a great chance as a moderate b/c he’d pull independents. I didn’t like him in the primaries but always thought he had the best chance, so I held my nose and then grew to really like him. I think reality is too many people we needed didn’t hold their nose out of the primaries and never got too fired up about him and probably said I don’t see that much difference in him and Obama. All of us that did were so fired up and intense, couldn’t see the forest (or lack thereof) for the trees. As much as we don’t want to admit it.

    The sky isn’t falling. At some point we will learn we have to quit nominating moderates. Conservatives want the real deal. Just my two cents.

    • Dave
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:12 am | Permalink | Reply

      “quit nominating moderates.”

      And therein lies the problem for reps…far right reps can’t win without moderates and moderates cant win without some support from the far right. No moderate is going to vote for a ultra conservative candidate. They’ll vote dem. Theres a reason ultra conservatives occupy only a small segment of the political landscape. Those views don’t play well nationally.

      • Ron
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:27 am | Permalink

        I agree with this. Northeastern “moderates” like Romney and Rudy and Christie are not weak let’s-all-get-along types. They know they can’t survive in the NE without some level of compromise. Red staters misunderstand this. It’s not that NE “moderates” don’t understand conservative principles, it’s that compromise is what they do to nudge their constituents a little more to the right. That, btw, was Reagan’s way as well. Check it out. There are not that many social conservatives around these days outside states with heavy evangelical populations.

      • C-Bus GOP
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:38 am | Permalink

        Here is the essence of the argument going on right now:

        Tea party, social conservatives: “Romney lost because he wasn’t a true conservative, he was a moderate”
        RINOs/moderate repubs: “True conservative – you mean like Akin and Mourdock? Yeah that would have gone over well”
        Tea party/social conservatives: “we won’t support a moderate”
        RINOs “We need the independents and the hispanics”

        I wish I knew how this all might pan out, but I don’t

    • WolvenOne
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:18 am | Permalink | Reply

      Just for context. Been looking at exit poll tidbits, and it looks like Sandy cost Romney the election. Election day voters, 3% of the electorate, broke to Obama by 10%, they normally break to the challenger by 80%. Those that decided in the final week, minus election day, also broke to Obama by a similar margin, this was another 5% of the vote and once again this group usually breaks to the challenger by 80%

      In other words, Romney probably would’ve won by 2-3%, had Sandy not hit and had Christie not given Obama that blasted PR boost.

      • Dave
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:24 am | Permalink

        For the 11th time, the irony of a global warming event helping to defeat an anti-global warming party is just beyond ironic, beyond any sense of fair poetic justice. The timing of those hurricanes (the ones at the convention that made reps look like floundering fish and Sandy) was UNREAL.

      • WolvenOne
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:42 am | Permalink

        I know.

        Though I wouldn’t call Romney anti-environment or anything like that. Problem is that so called, “green energy solutions,” aren’t ready for prime time yet. Forcing their implementation raises energy costs at a time when consumers are already at a tipping point, Being aware of this reality, and acknowledging that we cannot solve the issue of air pollution right this moment, doesn’t make you anti environment, it just makes you a realist.

      • Dave
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:27 am | Permalink

        “that so called, “green energy solutions,” aren’t ready for prime time yet.”

        I would dispute that ALL green energy solutions aren’t ready for prime time. There are some. The only way to get to the prime time stage is to keep bringing inventions to market. It’s the process of refining, trial and error, that perfects a market ready product. Keeping it locked away in a research labratory is good business for the status quo but not good for nurturing along an indsutry and for us as a society that want cleaner air and healthy world. Imagine if we had had that mentality when exploring space. We’d still be perfecting the rocket booster.

      • Dave
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:30 am | Permalink

        I should have been clearer. I thought Romney was right center on environment which I was willing to accept. But the republican party, the Party of Bohener, Bush, et. al. are and seemed to be veryh much anti-global warming. I felt they were this way to protect the interets of the status quo industries they represented.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:45 am | Permalink

        One extra argument, is that Romney was too nice. Stuck to only one theme. I would have liked to see him run on

      • MikeN
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:46 am | Permalink

        Except Romney won independents, so I wouldn’t read too much into that. It’s probably more like the Obama ground game managed to turn out some of their voters in the last few days.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 9:48 am | Permalink

        Hurricane was not a global warming event, if anything it’s damage was reduced by global warming.

      • Dave
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

        LOL. Right. And NY has routinely been inudated with similar storms for centuries. Anybody can say anything on the web but this was predicted decades ago in the 80s when enviros started complianing about it and what the effects should be.

    • Dave
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:20 am | Permalink | Reply

      I wouldn’t be surprised to see Christie turn dem at some point. God knows he seemed really comfortable in that roll.

    • Jake
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:44 am | Permalink | Reply

      Ryan’s not a Tea Party Conservative to the degree that somebody like, say, Rand or Bachmann is, I agree, But I do think he’s popular with that faction. Certainly we fell in love with him for (mostly) being a straight shooter on the entitlement talk and utterly dismantling Obamacare in six minutes.

      HotAir has an article on exit poll data. It makes no goddamn sense, but here you go.

      Turns out Sandy really did play a very large role in the turnaround. Unbelievable. And it’s looking like the evangelicals did turn out.

      My only conclusion is this. In 1860, Lincoln was elected President essentially because the North outvoted the South. Last night, Obama was elected President because his meticulously microtargeted dysfunctional coalition of single-issue voters outvoted everybody else. And I officially hate all the idiots in my age group that vote social issues over economic ones.

      I do think putting a sensible Tea Partier at the top of the ticket is going to be the key next time around. Perhaps one that -is- socially conservative, but articulate and intelligent about it.

  37. bks
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:13 am | Permalink | Reply

    Romney should have closed his Swiss bank account in 2010 and he should have released tax returns the moment it became an issue. Sure he has a right to privacy , but if you want to be President you have to be up front with the American public. He wasn’t going to lose any votes just because he was rich, but when he became secretive, Team Obama nailed him to the wall. With respect to the deficit, I don’t remember Romney telling us one thing he was going to cut other than Big Bird. He was going to *increase* medicare spending and *increase* defense spending, but he refused to discuss where that revenue was going to be made up. No one believed that canard.


    • JP
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:18 am | Permalink | Reply

      Yes the Big Bird thing, that was what did it.

      • bks
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:48 am | Permalink

        CPB/PBS Funding is less than 1/100th of 1% of the federal budget. Cut it to zero and it would make not one iota of difference.


    • Dave
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:19 am | Permalink | Reply

      Why is how much money the guy makes important?

      • bks
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:53 am | Permalink

        Romney did not want to talk about his time as Governor (Romneycare) so he made his business experience the focus. His tax returns would have been a window into his time at Bain. Remember that it was Newt Gingrich who forced him to reveal one year of returns. Then Romney nuked Gingrich in Florida. That’s what got the ball rolling, and Romney never got control again.


      • Dave
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 1:09 am | Permalink

        I think it’s a lot simpler than that. He simply wanted to downplay his wealth. Being rich and uber successful never plays well in the public arena and the less he had to talk about his wealth the better. Most people like to see others suffer the way they feel they are suffering –esp when it comes to money esp during hard economic times. Releasing his tax returns added nothing to the debate other than give his opponents a wedge issue reminder to the electorate of how rich he was and how out of touch (in theory) he was to their needs.

    • Ron
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:31 am | Permalink | Reply

      Nope. Releasing the tax info would just entangle him in more bad news cycles. The purpose was never to prove he was not a tax cheat, it was to find something–anything–they could hang a negative news story on. It’s why the dog on the roof and the haircut business became a big deal. The guy was too squeaky clean so they had to destroy his candidacy with any little crumb they could find. I’m glad he denied them that satisfaction.

      • bks
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:53 am | Permalink

        News cycles in the Spring. Then it would have been over and he would have had all summer to focus on whatever he wanted.


  38. Tony
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:31 am | Permalink | Reply

    Mitt’s op-ed “Let Detroit go Bankrupt”, Rick Santorum, Todd Akin and Rick Mourdock scaring women, the Romney campaign going silent over the summer months, Paul Ryan being absolutely no help at all and boring on the stump, Romney going on cruise control after the 1st debate and lard-ass bj to Obama did Romney in….that’s all.

    PS. Bottom-line, a mormon Mr. Nice Guy and a Wisconsin nice guy, have no chance against a thug from Chicago and an East Coast lunatic.

    • JohnGalt
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:15 am | Permalink | Reply

      I love it Tony. You’re funny. Mitt should have put him away in debate 2 and 3. He should have ripped off his smug little head and s$&@ down his throat.

  39. JP
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:33 am | Permalink | Reply

    It was an odd election, a low enthusiasm contest with two machines facing off against each other and one had the ground game to eek out a 2% win. I think Americans are waitng for the other shoe to drop politically. Bush-era culture wars conservatism doesn’t drum up the support it once did but neither does the boilerplate Alinsky liberalism of the 90s (the biggest political event at UC Berkeley this year was the Ron Paul rally). May you live in interesting times Mr. Obama.

  40. zang
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 2:05 am | Permalink | Reply

    Blast from the not so distant past:

    Kerry advisers fully expected to win the election, based on their final polls, their analysis of Bush’s weaknesses, their belief that the country hungered for change and their confidence that they would do a better job than the Republicans of getting their supporters to vote. Instead, they were swamped by a huge outpouring of votes in Republican-leaning areas of battleground states, particularly rural and small-town counties in Florida and the Midwest.

    “We had [vote] goals that we set out that we thought were very realistic, that we thought could achieve victory,” Devine said. “But a lot of people in rural areas participated in this process at levels that we have not seen before.”

    Another Kerry strategist said the campaign may have miscalculated the power of incumbency, especially during a time of heightened concern about terrorism. “It’s easy to underestimate the reluctance in general that the American public would have in throwing out an incumbent president,” the strategist said. “It’s even more of a challenge when the country’s perceived to be in some level of a war. That was an overriding backdrop that some of us tended to underestimate.”

  41. Yong
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 3:03 am | Permalink | Reply

    Democracy has failed us this time. I don’t understand why we re-hire a man who is so incompetent! He has not led, but he is a serial liar. He told McCain that he would be bipartisan and meet him. They did. Later, he told McCain that he won and basically, shutup. Now, he said that he will meet Mitt and see what both can do for this country. We allow folks who don’t pay attention to current events and vote. Cool and we will get what this country deserves!! Private sector does better than public sector for the very reason that professionals hire professionals not idiot hiring idiot. So, when the national debt gets to 20 trillion dollars and unemployement reaches 20 percent, there will be riots in the streets and home brew terrorism will rise. Chaos, basically. We need to fire Harry Reid in 2014!!!! I hope Nancy Pelosi will be ousted in House. DEMOCRACY HAS FAILED THIS YEAR FOR SURE.

  42. Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:13 am | Permalink | Reply

    Here’s my post-mortem. We don’t need to burn down the barn or reinvent the party wholly out of cloth. That never works. I know from having put in 25 years in the magazine business. Every failing magazine that attempted to totally rebrand itself ended up going belly-up, with the notable exception of Cosmo under Helen Gurley Brown. The floundering publications that managed to right the ship were those that took the essence of what they had, and then massaged the margins, plugging gaps here and there, and spiffing up their appearance or their content.

    How might that apply for Republicans? Simple. Do we need to mount a better outreach to minority populations? Yes. But does that mean repudiating what we stand for, and engaging in shameless pandering and goodie-dangling like the Democrats? No. Of the four largest minority groups — Asians, Hispanics, African Americans and Native Americans — we fare the best with Asians, who split their vote about 60D-40R. They are actually the fast-growing minority population, and we should focus a lot of attention toward them. Many are involved in business enterprises, a high value is placed on education and family, and so they ought to be quite comfortable and fit organically within a larger GOP tent.

    Now how about Hispanics? That’s actually a misnomer. Few folks identify themselves as Hispanics. There are Cuban-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans and Hispanics from the Southwest who have been here since the days of Cortez. Of these groups, many Cuban-Americans already are part of the Republican fold, and we must ensure they remain so. Of the other Hispanic groups, all of whom are not generally Republican, I would argue we’re best off focusing our recruitment efforts on those Hispanics with long roots in the country. Many have businesses, many are church-goers, they have families and traditions that they value and want to uphold. In other words, they are Republicans, even if they don’t know it yet. Susana Martinez, the governor of New Mexico, spoke eloquently of her decision to become a Republican during the RNC convention. Anyone serious about outreach should listen intently to her speech and its calls of action. Now what about other Hispanics, the recent immigrants going 80-90 percent for the Democrats? Should we neglect them, no. But should we prioritize them? I wouldn’t. Reaching them would be a much more intensive and long-range project, so doesn’t fit the idea of massaging the margins.

    Which brings us to African Americans and Native Americans. These are populations voting 90 percent plus for Democrats. We’re not going to change that overnight, and shouldn’t fret a lot about doing so. Instead, we should microtarget specific populations that would be the most receptive to our message. Take Native Americans. There are more than 550 distinct tribes all across the country, from ones numbering a few hundred to the sprawling Navajo Nation with more than 200,000 members living across four states. We don’t have to convert all Native Americans across the country into card-carrying Republicans. But it would be smart to approach specific tribes and chapter houses, starting one by one, face to face, with those who have tilted more our way.I do believe a small, but personal and honest, customized approach would yield dividends. Same with African Africans, starting with those who are church-goers, or live in the suburbs or exurbs, or have businesses, or otherwise might be Republicans if given the incentives to do so in the face of longstanding cultural or political barriers.

    I’m not going to bore you by running through every last “identity” group claimed by Democrats — singles, seculars, women, gays or other demographic — but the same principles should apply. We don’t need to convert everyone — we just need to peel off a few more percentage points, by correctly identifying who ought to naturally be a Republican, and extending them a warm and hearty welcome to join our cause.

    Should we jettison any groups that are now Republican? No. We shouldn’t abandon Wall Street, or libertarians, or social conservatives, or fiscal conservatives, or small-business owners, or hunters, or, for that matter, RINOs or Tea Partiers, or anyone else. All these different factions need to learn how to coalesce, to compromise, to play nice with each other, and build a coalition that’s stronger than any the Leftists Democrats throw at us. Conservatives represent 37 percent of the population, liberals only 25 percent, so we should whip them handily every outing and, if we don’t, it’s our own fault.

    A few observations about the Romney campaign. By and large, he shouldn’t hang his head in shame. Class act, good operation, they gave it their all and it just wasn’t enough to put him over the top. He came much closer than McCain did to defeating Obama, and that’s a sign of improvement. He didn’t get into the gutter with the Chicago gang and long-term, that’s smart. Average folks hate dirty, lying politics and politicians. Sometimes you lose some skirmishes taking the high road, being classier and more bipartisan, but I’m convinced it’s healthier.

    A few campaign tweaks would have been smart, though. Romney didn’t need to go into the lion’s den and grant interviews and access with the lickstrap jackal Leftist media outlets like the NY Times or CNN or such (that was sure a waste of McCain’s energy and time), but he should have scheduled time for Fox News, for talk radio shows, for the rightwing blogosphere. That kind of home-court advantage coverage is worth its weight in gold, 10 to 100 times more important and credible and more capable of changing minds than just relying on campaign ads. Also, Mitt or Paul Ryan could have done a few more barnstorming bus tours, as opposed to one-shot gigs. Folks dig that stuff, it adds drama, seems populist, helps to create momentum. After all the Obama attack ads trying to pigeonhole Mitt as a plutocrat, it would have been great visuals for him to appear Trumanesque. Not sure why his handlers didn’t grasp that, but they didn’t, and it was a missed opportunity.

    I could go on and on, but this is enuf. Didn’t mean to write a book — just to spur some positive and constructive conversation. Take care, one and all. We’ll be back, and stronger out of defeat. The media painting us as dinosaurs are the true dinosaurs — their outlets are failing, their narratives are false, and we know dang well they aren’t friends, so either attack ’em or forget ’em, but don’t at all embrace their phony critiques..

    • PeterJ
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:23 am | Permalink | Reply

      You said:

      “Should we jettison any groups that are now Republican? No. We shouldn’t abandon Wall Street, or libertarians, or social conservatives, or fiscal conservatives, or small-business owners, or hunters, or, for that matter, RINOs or Tea Partiers, or anyone else.”

      The problem is that we cannot embrace the total agenda of each of those groups, and in fact their agendas are often at odds, especially social conservatives and libertarians. Re Wall Street, that is not an actual group that has many voters, only money to donate to PACs.

      We don’t need to help big banks, big corporations looking for either government handouts or regulations to harm other business models, or financial concerns that gave us derivatives including sub-prime mortgages. We need to DUMP that big corporate constituency, small as it is, and concentrate on smaller businesses and larger ones that actually support a level playing field for all market participants. Support megacorp and get branded as party of the rich, it’s just that simple.

      • Prescient11
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:58 am | Permalink

        I think that narrative needs to be destroyed PeterJ.

        Social conservatives and libertarians should be TIED TOGETHER AT THE HIP.

        Here’s the deal, personal belief needs to be separated from government policy. WE NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT BIG GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.

        I may be antiabortion, but my answer to that question is that my personal feelings have no bearing on public policy. The states should decide that question not the federal government.

        Easy answers and all socons will believe in getting the fedsw out of these questions.

      • Posted November 8, 2012 at 11:31 am | Permalink

        I disagree about dumping Wall Street or that it’s a small constituency. The last time Gallup surveyed the question, 54 percent of Americans own stocks. In other words, a majority of Americans have skin in the game. If Wall Street does poorly, so does over half the population.

        Your point on socons vs. Libertarians being at odds is true and more problematic. Gary Johnson got about 1 million votes this election cycle or twice what the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr pulled in 2008. But a study of those voters will likely show that the 500,000 increase cost the Republicans and Democrats about equally. Johnson’s stances for legalizing pot, same-sex marriage, etc., drew young and LBGT votes to him that would have otherwise gone to Obama.True, he also grabbed some Paulite votes that should have been Republican. But I think many other Paulites stayed home. As a group, they have strong convictions to which they are dedicated, and that’s commendable. But they also tend to be unwilling to compromise, even on small points, and so pursuing them is not so easy.

        Getting back to the question you raised — how to reconcile the differences between Libertarians and socons? There is no easy answer, no silver bullet. The solution, though, lies in massaging the margins and finding areas of agreement and places where reasonable compromise is possible and acceptable to both camps. That’s how politics works. Few voters ever fully embrace a party or an individual candidate on every single position. The key to success is fielding candidates whose positions are attractive to the largest majority of the “gettable” pool open to hearing and embracing a Republican message.

  43. mdc
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:22 am | Permalink | Reply

    This is what is so discouraging for me—that Republicans did not come out and vote….

    Another is the blatant manipulation of the news from the MSM for their candidate…
    I know that their bias has always been there but these past two presidential elections have been more blatant..
    Do you think that this is because they feel the 2000 and 2004 were “stolen” from them and this is justification?
    I thought that Republicans would come out and vote and blunt this bias…

    Another thought…do you think that if Obama had lost there would be alot of “lawyering” going on?

    • Kevin Paradine
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:27 am | Permalink | Reply

      The fact that the base was upset that Romney was nominated in the first place should have been the tipoff that this wasn’t going to be a good year.

  44. Mass liberty
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 5:44 am | Permalink | Reply

    Quite frankly, we should do an Atlas Shrugged. But without the disappearing.

    Rubber stamp everything Obama wants. Don’t give him a chance to shift blame. And let the people truly see the horrid consequences of his beliefs.

    • JohnGalt
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:07 am | Permalink | Reply

      How do we do it Mass Liberty? I’ll do it! We should start a brainstorming web page with concrete ways we can silently make our voices heard, and withhold our support of this president and his horrible policies.

      • Kevin Paradine
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:30 am | Permalink

        I have put off buying a car for nearly 3 years now. My reasoning is – why would I want to improve the economy if Obama will derive benefit? Every large purchase I think of, I apply a strict need test to. If need cannot be demonstrated, I don’t spend the money. You end up with more savings that way, too.

  45. JohnGalt
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:00 am | Permalink | Reply

    Good morning everyone. Loved Tony’s comment! Loved Stormy’s comment too. A lot.

    I woke up thinking that maybe I know who didn’t vote. White males. Demoralized white males. If we start pandering to ethnic groups, we are no better than the democrats, and we’re trying to take pages from their play book. That will never work because that is not who we are. And our white males will retreat further.

    It’s not the color of your skin it’s the content of your character. That’s who we are.

    Who is on the blog? My guess is white males. I’m a female and I’m here to say, WE NEED YOU!!!

    All over the place white males are denigrated as awkward stupid insensitive. It’s not true. Gay men are setting the agenda in women’s minds with wildly popular ” sex in the city” yes. Head writer was NY city gay man.

    Our normal average hard working white male is dropping out, maybe? I wouldn’t blame him.

    Also GOTV efforts with Romney were horrible. I’m not blaming him. He did not have 4 years to build a machine. But there were big failures.

    Does anyone here know about the 100% failure of Romneys election day software that was supposed to automatically quickly identify republicans that hadn’t shown up by 3:00, then 4:00, then 5:00? When I was in manitowac WI with Bush GOTV efforts in 2004, I was sent to a teeny tiny rural area to poll watch. I had my list, and I had to mark off who had voted. At 3:00 I called in with names that hadn’t shown up. Someone at local main office called them. Same at 4, same at 5.

    Romney paid for fancy software that was supposed to do this automatically. There was a 100% failure nation-wide.

  46. PeterJ
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:17 am | Permalink | Reply

    Sean Trende has an article on the RCP site: The case of the missing white voters:

    He has done some nice interim analysis with a special analysis of Ohio by county.

    Echoing other comments, robocalls don’t cut it. And I suspect that is especially true since they likely don’t reach a high percentage of cell phone only voters.

    • JohnGalt
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:34 am | Permalink | Reply

      GREAT ARTICLE PETER. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

  47. FabianNightmare
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:33 am | Permalink | Reply

    This “war” is not going to be about garnering more blacks or latinos or asians or finding the missing white vote. If we go down that path we will end up looking in the mirror and not recognizing who we are. It is about the idea, tradition and meaning of small government conservatism. The message of freedom, self reliance, equal economic playing field for all.

    If the precept cant attract the votes, then we are screwed as a political ideology. I think the precept has been lost in the machine of the republican party.

    • JohnGalt
      Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:36 am | Permalink | Reply

      Lets not let them set our agenda. We have our own and it’s a good one

      • FabianNightmare
        Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:43 am | Permalink

        I’m sorry JohnGalt, I did not notice your post at #45. You articulated in a much better way what I was trying to state in my post.

  48. JohnGalt
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 8:39 am | Permalink | Reply

    You’re right though, if our precept can’t attract votes, were screwed. Rich vs poor has become a powerful mantra that our country seems to be grabbing onto. It’s a failing mentality. It never brings prosperity to anyone.

  49. Fred S
    Posted November 8, 2012 at 10:04 am | Permalink | Reply

    Another point is the influence of the MSM on the election. The completely biased coverage certainly played a roll in the outcome. The polls show that 43% of LV strongly diapprove of the job Obama is doing. There should be some effort to mobilize this group to force the MSM to be more fair and moderate of their coverage of politics. Perhaps we should use a liberal tactic – boycott advertisers on programming that promotes this biased coverage. Al Sharpton used it to get Don Imus fired from his radio show. Imus made a dumb comment, which was truly made to be funny, and he got fired. His personal life is one of charity to one and all, yet that was ignored. I think if 20 – 25% of those who strongly dissaprove of Obama were to boycott advertisers on Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews or even Brian Williams would really hurt. (Chris Matthews just said Sandy was a good thing (because it helped Obama) – where is the outrage for that?) Of course, not watching the shows helps, but most in this group don’t watch anyway.
    The most effective way to promote change is to hurt the economic viability of this programming.

    • Posted November 8, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Excellent points! Republicans don’t do as well with boycotts as the Leftists. We are, after all, more individualistic in our thinking and so we’re not as inclined to take collective action. But what might be effective would be an organized, grassroots effort to hit Comcast in the pocketbook. Comcast is the parent company of MSNBC, and thus shoulders responsibility for truly offensive remarks by commentators like Matthews and Schultz. Anyone with a Comcast cable subscription might want to consider the alternative cable/satellite TV providers. Just a thought.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: