0.3% is the Difference Between President Romey and President Obama

A strategic shift in 0.3% of the vote changes the President of the United States. Of course it matters greatly where those 0.3% are located as Team Obama knew from Day 1 while Team Romney keeps smacking their forehead saying “Now they tell us!” Jim Geraghty keeps up with the turnout math:

[H]ere is an updated set of numbers, according to the results this morning on the New York Timesresults map:

Florida: 73,858

Ohio: 103,481

Virginia: 115,910

Colorado: 113,099

Those four states, with a collective margin of, 406,348 for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.

Obama’s margin in some other key states:

Nevada: 66,379

Iowa: 88,501

New Hampshire: 40,659

At this hour, 120,556, 279 votes for Obama and Romney have been counted nationwide.

112 Comments

  1. exe
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Permalink | Reply

    This is not a mandate.

    • Posted November 12, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Ha! Obama had bigger wins than Bush did, yet he has no mandate? I guess W didn’t have a mandate for war and tax cuts either?

      • exe
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

        No, he didn’t – but he did have congressional approval.

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

        2% is bigger than Bush? President Asshat has 50.4% of the vote. No mandate.

      • Posted November 12, 2012 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

        John, it’s like you guys enjoy denying reality. Yes, Obama got more EC votes, more popular votes, and with a larger % difference than Bush in 2004. You need to stop relying on Rush for your information.

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

        “Blame it on Bush” is cheap and stupid, but it seems to be an unassailable fact in the public mind. In 2002 58% of Senate Democrats and 39% of House Democrats voted for the “Use of Force Against Iraq” resolution (data from the Washington Post, not Rush). Among the YES votes were Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, and , oh yes, soon to be Secretary of State John Kerry. Obama was neither a congressman nor senator at the time. I’m old and Vietnam was my generation’s tragedy; brought to you beginning in the Kennedy administration by the “best and brightest” of Harvard. Then escalated by LBJ to the breaking point of the country and his presidency (“I shall not seek, nor will I accept the nomination of my party …”). Yeah, I’m old enough to remember seeing that on TV, lucky enough not to have died in that mess, and thoughtful enough to know many years later an ignorant, partisan and devisive slogan when I hear one. Give it a rest. The next time you’re engaged in a debate, perhaps the first club out of the bag shouldn’t be ” but, Bush…..”

  2. allthingsgeography1
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Overall this election had underwhelming turnout it appears. But in this case, underwhelming turnout favored the incumbent who is a known quantity. Obama supporters are happy and Romney supporters are unhappy that everything essentially stayed the same (Dem Senate, Rep House, each with little change in margins, same President).

    • Prescient11
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Hey allthings, just wanted to say that you must be a happy Dem. But it is refreshing to see somebody on here from a lib perspective that is able to think logically and just go with the facts. Did enjoy reading your comments.

      Ok people, next time we want to sell no tax cuts to the American people, can we do it with a candidate that does not have an elevator FOR HIS CARS!!!!????

      I mean how in the fuck do we continue to run candidates that a from incredible wealth/stature.

      Do you see a pattern here. G HW Bush got relected to continue Reagan’s third term. We need individuals that have become the American dream to defend our ideas. Otherwise people just see it as the ‘rich’ people defending their own.

      We need war heros or those that came from nothing to make something to defend the American dream. Plain and simple. I thought Mitt would have been brilliant to handle the fiscal issues and would have compromised a lot with democrats to get things done. I am most sad about that.

      I also view the current administration as completely incompetent and dangerous in foreign policy and overall antiamerican.

      • Prescient11
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

        I forgot to say, that is why Reagan was such a fantastic candidate. Former dem, former union leader, from a small town that made it big. And he believed in ideas. BIG IDEAS.

        Small government, individual freedom, and gettting the fed boot off of our necks.

        Such a simple, straightforward message. That goes to the core of what makes this country great. A better messenger would do us a ton of good.

      • C'ville
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

        Romney made his money by starting his own business. His dad wasn’t wealthy. So we need career politicians or mediocre businessmen? That’ll work.

  3. Jeni
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I wonder what would have happened had Ron Paul endorsed Romney. And now he’s saying the results of the election show the country is “far gone”. Shame on him.

    • Posted November 12, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I was against Ron Paul, I thought he was a kook. but he has a strong following like the tea party. It was, in hindsight, a mistake to disregard them, lock them out of the convention and change rules to prevent them from having power. Romney should have embraced them.

      We need the support of Paulites going forward because they are small government, limited scope believers. They have not been taken over by the hardcore religious right like the tea party. WE NEED to divorce that section of the tea party and bring them on board for the next go round.

      If I was a potential candidate for 2016…my first stop would be a private then public meeting with Ron Paul to see what his advice for the future is. Win his endorsement. Lose the religious right. Embrace the original tea party and away we go

      • Kevin Paradine
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

        Paul’s supporters won’t fight social wars with you, won’t support the war on drugs and are bearish on defense. If you tailored the platform to appeal to them, you’d have solved most of the Republican problems even if not a single one of them voted Republican.

      • SpiritOF1776
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

        HAHA, yea, that’s right “Right” idea. Listen, the Tea Party is a social and fiscal conservative movement. Face it, Mitt Romney was a flip flopper. He was a BAD candidate. The GOP will never win with Dole, McCain, and Romney type candidates. They DO NOT excite the base. You will never win without the Christian Right. We are 26 or more of the GOP base. Reagan brought us aboard and i was a little boy back then. Go ahead, keep blaming Christians. The problems in the country are spiritual anyway but i would never expect you to know that. I don’t get your hatred for Christians and traditionalist. You sound like nasty liberals.

      • Dave
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

        “The problems in the country are spiritual anyway ”

        Tha’ts the problem with the militant christian right. They can’t seperate their ambitions for social change from anything else. They really believe all problems in the country are realted to God or lack thereof. How is it that “the problems in this country” are spiritual when the government is getting bigger and bigger and entitlements are being given away as fast as they can, money is being spent as fast as it can. How in the world is that a social issue or relate to pet “christian” peeves like abortion in any way? If anything they emphasize humble christian qualities of compassion and giving. I’m trying real hard to find even a tangential relationship between higher taxes, bigger government and the christian right’s social agenda. Maybe you can enliighten us. Please. Perhaps its that if people abstained the way the far right advocates (TOTALLY unrealistic) then the birth rate would drop and there wouldn’t be as much of a need for entitlements.

        “I don’t get your hatred for Christians and traditionalist. You sound like nasty liberals.”

        I can tell just by the choiuce of words these are extremist views. Words like “hatred” and “nasty” and assumptions such as those about people’s intentons without proof show a level of indifference to reality that perpetuates this mindset. I actually agree with the original post. And the reason why is not because I have a hatred for “christians” and I have deep respect for people that are truly christian — kind, compassionate and unassuming, and can prioritize reality, it’s the militant christians I have a problem with. Militant christians are totally devoid of any sense of coming together. They act like they’re the only ones that live in the country and their religious views are the only ones that exist and matter. It’s their way or the highway. The militant right already has a partial ban on abortion but is that good enough, no. They need a effin constitutional admenment. They need to ban federal funding of stem cell research that actually helps people. If there is an equally effective way to develop these technologies without fedral aid I’m eager to hear them. Eliminating federal support for birth control and abortions can be seen as another stupid entitlement but it can also be seen as a way to stop unwanted pregnancies. Life is life and people are not going to abstain so advocating for support of prevention can be seen as a recogniztiion of that reality rather than some pie in the sky dream that perpetuates denial. Might I add that abstinance IS NOT the way to bring more voters into your tent.

        The unborn and the newborn at complete mecy of the mother in every animal on this planet. All of “God’s” creatures have the right to just walk away from any unwated child they want to without any consequences whatsoever, except that it probably saves the life of the mother.

        If the militant christians would actually show some sensibility and drop the my way or the highway attitude, the country would be far better off and the ambitions of so many republicans of smaller, more effective goernment would probably be a far more attainable political goal.

      • C'ville
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

        If they raise the debt ceiling again, kiss the tea party goodbye forever. Last time was supposed to be “the last time”.

  4. SK
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink | Reply

    GOP needs to focus only on these votes to establish voter fraud

  5. Posted November 12, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink | Reply

    “Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.”

    And if 204,000 people in those four states had changed their minds on their ways to their respective polling places Romney today would be president-elect.

    But if I had wheels and handlebars I’d be a bicycle, not a person.

  6. Posted November 12, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The larger issue is the non-voting Republican demographic. No matter how you slice or analyze it millions upon millions of Republicans from ’04 did not vote in ’12. Despite four years of Obama and the prospect of four more years of Obama they nevertheless stayed home and didn’t participate. That’s not a messaging problem. That’s not a packaging problem. That’s not an ORCA problem, although obviously that horrible fiasco didn’t exactly help matters. It’s a people problem. Republicans are not supposed to be like Democrat riff raff. We’re not supposed to need the GOP/RNC to pick us up, hold our hands, and drive us to the ballot booths. This bodes very ill for the country and for our respective futures.

    • Prescient11
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Tsar,

      Agreed to an extent. But we need to roll up our sleeves and fix the problem.

      Small government is the ANSWER. Individual rights is the FOUNDATION of everything.

      Democrats are the party of the ghetto. NOT food stamps, not even welfare.

      THE GHETTO. How have things improved for blak people under obama. NOT AT ALL. We need to drive this home hard.

  7. Derclaw86
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

    If we are going to travel down this particular “what if” road, we must also be willing to consider that we were 120,000 Ohio votes away from President Kerry in 2004, or 600 Florida votes away from President Gore in 2000.

  8. Bryan
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I’ll bet that the Dems had more than .3% in each of these states just in fraud & illegal votes.

  9. stuckinmass
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Do we really want an electoral win with a popular vote loss? That only further divides the country

    • Prescient11
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

      But that is all skewed. Crap tons of NY and CA pubs don’t vote because they are captive to their demorat masters. Plain and simple. You always need to add those in.

    • Bryan
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 6:05 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Yes. Yes we do.

  10. abe
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Hi,
    First of all thanks for your great work as a political junkie I loved your site . I keep on analyzing the numbers and u know what Romney actually beat McCain and bush 00 and 04 in Florida Virginia Colorado Nevada and was basically even in New Hampshire , also Romney beat McCain by 90k votes in Ohio. so popular vote differences is due to states that didnt matter, in New york for instance Bush 04 got 600k more votes than Romney, so these other states bring the popular vote total up.

  11. wholefoodsrepublican
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 1:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

    A silver lining if and if only we get in the faces of the leftwing media and cultural elite and if and only if we get out the vote. Some thoughts

    I got texted and emailed and called by the other side multiple times to vote, to call others to vote, and to get out their vote. I never contributed a penny to them. All I did was to sign up for team obama in 2008.

    I gave $ to Romney, and all I got was phone calls to donate more.

    1. A multivariate analysis of group voting should indicate which factors are significant. USA today had interesting data based on income. The poor elected Obama. While we will never win over the poor who live by govt handout, we can make inroads into the middle and upper class Hispanics. The Asians went bigtime for Obama – which Asians? Chinese? Vietnamese? Indians? Filipinos? Muslims? I’d like to see more data. Again, the Asians I know who sacrifice to put their kids inthe best schools and become professionals — they’re not socialists, they’re republicans.

    2. We need to make inroads among the young. They get brainwashed by their teachers in high school.

    3.We can do the class warfare thing too. It’s not the 1%, it’s the 0.1% — and they’re all Democats like Google, Yahoo, Apple, Soros, Weinstein, Spielberg, Buffet. We republicans need to make this our theme.

    4. We need to institutionalize a GOTV machine and keep improving on it. Not re-invent the wheel every 4 years. We need to do this now so it can be tested in 2014.

    5. There needs to be an operations group to sift through every receipt, statement, and appearance of all the potential Democrat candidates. Then unleash it at the right time.

    6. Republican operative who fail to win elections should be fired, they go back to the minor leagues.

    7. The media needs to be infiltrated and the political biases destroyed from within. Why debate with moderators who are left wing. Direct conflict-of-interest. IF Feinstein can get away without debating, well so should we.

    8. As I type this, I am overhearing two of my colleagues, professors in medical school” at lunch. “What do you think of the election” “Relieved” “Say the least” “Obama said it clearly: the voters have spoken.:” Yeah – right it was the difference of about 400,000 voters.

    I was at a banquet last week and one Greek (yes, Greek) physician who asked “How could all these Americans vote for Romney?” And an NIH
    physician responded, “Head trauma”. The cultural elite must be knocked down. The best way: to win election after election. Marginalize them and their influence over the young, the stupid, and the impressionable.

    9. Keith — you have created a space here…We need to use this space, prune out the trolls, and organize. Sadly, we need to convince the Republican party apparatchiks to grow some cojones, be professional and aggressive in taking. I fear that we need a deus ex cathedra to do it. A great candidate. Or someone like a Soros with $$$$$$$$$ who gets it and wants to advance the cause of individual liberty, responsibility, and US exceptionalism.

    • Prescient11
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

      wholefoods, I am thinking hard on the GOTV thing. I could not agree more.

      There are more of us than there are of them. It’s just easier for them because the ghettos are concentrated.

      • Kevin
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

        Field Offices for Obama, 786.
        Field Offices for Romney, 284.

        http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/11/06/mapping-romney-and-obama-field-offices/

        Obama kept his 2008 Field Offices open, and kept them active throughout the four years.

        They had their act together, Romney and the GOP didn’t.

        The GOP has to put much, much more effort in Field Offices, and Data Mining. Most of all, the GOP must be very active in identifying, persuading, registering, and mobilizing voters at the grassroots level.

        The Republicans have to close that gap on Field Offices, and get out of the line of thinking that running countless campaign ads is the answer. That’s part of the answer, but the Field Offices and the Get Out The Votes is critical to moving towards winning.

      • wholefoodsrepublican
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

        this is what i got from MoveOn. i know Peter Palco is still trolling here…

        Dear MoveOn Member

        You made Tuesday night’s victory possible—by hosting call parties, making calls, knocking on doors, and so much more. We proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that people power can beat big money.

        Now it’s up to us to write the story of what happens next and turn these hard earned victories into long-lasting progressive change.

        That’s exactly what MoveOn Councils are built to do. Councils are local organizing teams—from Honolulu to Des Moines to Atlanta and everywhere in between—that organize locally for real progressive change. We’re the heart of our people-powered campaigns. In just the last two years, Councils helped win Obamacare, fought Wall Street in Washington, and held our elected officials accountable to the 99%.

        It’s MoveOn members like you who drive the Council network. Can you join a Council in your community?

        Yes! I want to join or start a MoveOn Council.

        Thanks for all you do.
        –X, Y, Z, and the rest of the team

        Want to support our work? We’re entirely funded by our 7 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

    • jmar
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Excellent perspective, wholefoods…I especially like the .01% nugget!

    • Dave
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 11:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I gave $$$ to Romney and got nice thank you letters (asking for more too but who cares. they were thank yous). The guys not that insensitive. And ultimately the general thank you letter did come out. Give the guys a break. Aspects of their campaign may have been crappy but it wasn’t all bad.

  12. Fred S
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

    A little Monday morning quarterbacking regarding Ohio —
    The thought going in was that the EV resulted in a swing of about 250k from D to R, wiping out O’s 2008 margin of victory. Since McCain won the the ED vote, that would be our margin of victory.
    Does anyone have any thoughts on where this analysis went wrong?

    • Prescient11
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Yes, what is the answer to this question exactly…

      My thoughts as well.

  13. Posted November 12, 2012 at 2:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

    There are a bunch of ways to look at the results but one that struck was the age gap. Obama lost the 30+ vote by close to 2 million votes, yet won the 30 and under by about 5 million. It can’t be the economy, unemployment among the young is higher than in the general population. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that it is social issues that are impacting the GOP.

    • Kevin Paradine
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink | Reply

      They don’t want to hear it. I know it’s true. You know it’s true. People aren’t going to pull the lever for …I hate to say this, but for Satan…just because he offers a better economic package. Not when they are young, at least, and probably not when they are old, either. Once they get into the habit of demonizing Repubicans, that is.

      • ET4
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

        I am a 24 year old, socially liberal, UCLA graduate Republican living in California. Perhaps my perspective will add a little to your discussion. I would like to see the Republican party ease up on social issues a bit for the sake of freedom, but I vote Republican regardless because economic and fiscal issues are more important to me.

        But Kevin and others, if you think that simply adopting more liberal stances is going to sway young voters en masse to join the Republicans, you’ve got another thing coming. The 18-30 age group of college students and recent college grads who voted for Obama are not middle-of-the-road types who just simply can’t vote Republican because of social issues. I wish it’s that easy, but it’s not. Their beliefs more closely resemble the Occupy Wall Street crowd than the centrists you think they are. These are the people who think Obamacare didn’t go far enough. These are the people who are berating business owners and CEOs on twitter right now because they have stated that Obamacare will cause them to cut labor. They don’t care about economic facts. They favor more government intervention and statism than Obama can ever dream of. They have no faith in the free market. They will laugh at you if, for example, you argue that government doesn’t need to regulate product safety between a company and a customer because the company has a vested interest in delivering a good product. They don’t just go so far as to express skepticism in this idea, they will laugh at you in your face for even considering such a foolish notion.

        I suspect there are two reasons for the situation of young people as we see it today. The first is that academia is an extremely left-leaning institution. I know this has been the case for a while, but the level of leftist ideology students receive from people they view as authority figures is astounding to me. I’ve had to fight the influence my entire adult life through my own auxiliary learning, but this is obviously not realistic. We shouldn’t expect college students to have 2 educations: one from their professors and one on their own to balance the bias. Even so, I’ve found myself falling into the trap of being swayed by the constant barrage of influence we receive, and it’s much easier for me to see the Huffington Post as “good” and Breitbart.com as “evil.” Professors don’t realize or don’t care of the disservice they are doing their students. Here are some examples I encountered:

        – The only professor I ever saw on the schedule for the Poli Sci class on Marxism is, well, a Marxist and a socialist. This is not some crazy right-wing label. This is what he calls himself. That would be fine if he could present a balanced approach to this tricky subject. He couldn’t/wouldn’t.

        – At the beginning of my last quarter, a professor in a Poli Sci class on foreign relations of the Middle East said he “hates” Republicans for their various beliefs. At the next class, a girl challenged him on this assertion. He went into a diatribe about how Republicans were lost and had beliefs that scared him, as manifested in people like Rick Santorum. When the girl pointed that Romney had just received the nomination (this was during the time), so he was attacking a straw man, he said he would love to learn more about Romney if he had actually released any of his ideas. The whole class of 200 erupted into laughter and applause. The few Republicans in the room sank in their chairs.

        – The Poli Sci theory classes are notorious for leftist ideology:

        1) You can’t sit through a political theory class without hearing the words “empower,” “oppressed,” “bourgeois capitalists,” “dependency theory,” “labor enslavement,” etc.

        2) One political theory professor brought in a guest speaker to lecture us on the evilness and unfairness of capitalism. He argued that workers should have ownership stake (co-ops) at whatever company they work in, and this should be mandated by law. No speaker of the opposing view ever came.

        3) Another openly socialist political theory professor told us a story about in his younger years, he and some other PhD students went to visit Herbert Marcuse (an influential German socialist) for a night of intellectual banter. When they got to his house, they noted how affluently Marcuse lived. When they remarked on this, Marcuse responded: “I am but a member of the German bourgeoisie, I am attached to my affluence.” Apparently they all burst out in laughter. The professor then recanted how they basically spent the rest of the night drinking champagne, eating caviar, and lamenting the plight of the poor. I kid you not.

        – In my entire academic career, I only had one openly conservative professor whose views influenced his lecture. No student took him seriously. About 80% of the other professors I had had, at best, progressive views, and, at worst, openly socialist views that influenced their teachings. The rest of the professors I had were truly neutral and honorable in their methods.

        There are hundreds of more experiences similar to these.

        The second reason for the loss of young people for the right is pop culture. Movies, TV, music are all inundated with liberal actors/musicians, and most of the programs espouse liberal ideology and culture. They become acclimated to the liberal way of life and thus by the time they grow older they are not willing to even consider the other side. They grow to internally identify and admire these artists, and then these artists come out and tell them in ads to vote for Obama. Here is an article I’m sure many of you have read from liberal Johnathon Chait who captures this phenomenon very adeptly:

        http://nymag.com/news/features/chait-liberal-movies-tv-2012-8/

        When both the people you think of as “cool” and the people you think of as authority bombard you with the same messages, young people have no chance. To be sure, not all college students/grads are like this (Ron Paulites are really a cryptic anomaly; they really resemble a cult at times), but the majority of the ones who voted for Obama are, at least based off of my experiences. You may be able to sway a very small minority of young people who are as you describe; but I know this group is so insignificantly small that any gains we make will be offset by the loss of those who are put off by the party becoming less socially conservative (evangelicals, etc.) I wish I was wrong.

        Well that’s my perspective. Hope you got through the long post. Based on what I’ve seen, the youth vote is lost until we tackle those 2 issues. We Republicans need to start pushing our influence at these early levels. Our job is made more difficult by the nature of our economic beliefs: our supply-side model seems, at first, superficial glance, to favor businesses and the wealthy as compared to the Democrats’. Obviously, we believe our model is best for the entire country. But the Democrats have a much easier sell because their model directly transfers money into the people’s pockets. I believe this is a giant hurdle to overcome, as simplistic as it is, because most of the electorate only goes so far as that first, superficial glance. They don’t try to reason the unintended consequences of the increasing welfare state and government intervention. We have to fight this with our own messages. I suggest we look to Milton Friedman and his arguments, because they are what personally set off the spark in me.

      • trux
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

        Very important to remember that Romney won white voters 18-29 by 7 points.

      • Kevin Paradine
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 11:09 am | Permalink

        But he lost the youth vote by 60-39.

        Winning majorities of white people is fine, but it doesn’t win the election anymore.

      • FabianNightmare
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

        ET4, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on the younger voters……….

      • Posted November 12, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

        ” They will laugh at you if, for example, you argue that government doesn’t need to regulate product safety between a company and a customer because the company has a vested interest in delivering a good product.”

        Er, I would laugh as well. This idea has been pretty much demolished. Sure, there may be some products where if you have enough repeat customers you might have an incentive to always keep top notch standards but all you need to do is look at China for an example of what happens when you don’t have strong safety regulations.

      • ET4
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

        Right, poor product quality from China is the result of a lack of stipulated regulations from its forward-thinking, competent and wise government, not a function of its developing status compared to the West. I guess if tomorrow the Chinese government enacted similar regulations that we have, shortly thereafter Chinese product quality would match that of the U.S.

        All companies have a vested interest in creating a quality product, whether they rely on repeat business or not, especially in the information-driven age of today in which corporate missteps are publicized to every home television. That’s not good for repeat or new customers. As long as the proper avenues of legal recourse exist to litigate companies who misrepresent and cause damage, it will be in the interest of companies to control for quality.

        On the other hand, regulations can stifle competition, create costs that are passed onto consumers, cause laxity in public awareness of brand efficacy and safety, and grant legal escape routes to companies that cause harm while following regulations.

        You ought to be laughing, because it is pretty laugh-worthy if someone can say with a straight face that a key tenet of the free-market system, which we encounter everyday and which entire economies rely on, has been “demolished.”

    • Kevin
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Permalink | Reply

      If the Republicans adopt a pro gay, and pro abortion platform, a bunch of pro gay, and pro abortion Democrat supporters aren’t going to drop out of the Democrat party and run to the Republican party, that’s unrealistic. When there are people who believe campaign ads, and distortions that Romney was going to take away abortion rights, then that’s the fault of the uninformed, not the Republican platform.

      Also, 34 states have said no to gay marriage, only four have said yes to it.

      • Kevin
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

        Excuse me, 41 states have preserved marriage between a man and a woman. Ten states have legalized same sex marriage, four through the ballot box, five through Legislation action, and in Iowa, through the Courts. Ironically, the people of Iowa fired all of those Judges that ruled for same sex marriage.

        Even California votes against same sex marriage, only to have a rouge Judge toss out everyone’s votes since he didn’t like the outcome. Somehow he found their conclusions to be unlawful. Oh yeah, he just happened to be gay. Thank God there was no conflict of interest in that case.

      • Kevin Paradine
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

        It is as if you do not see the freight train oncoming. We lost the Supreme Court last Tuesday…you get that, right? It’ll take a year or two to actually happen, but the court is lost for another generation.

        Do you think the attempt to alter our societal values will abate now that he has a second term? Hah. Your eyes are still fixed on 2004. There was a reason D turnout was so high in 2004 – they were enraged. It’s over. We lost! There is no turning the clock back. Look to save what can be saved, but expect no expansion any longer. A string of losses will continue. Expect the soon to be liberal dominated Roberts court to strike down restrictions on gay marriage and abortion wherever they exist. State constitutions will be declared incompatible with the federal Constitution if need be.

        Once these matters are considered to be settled law, there’s nothing that will turn the clock back All the social issue politics will be complete losers in the future, as they were in 2012. Even in the reddest of red states.

        It’s time to open our eyes and see what happened. The great social battle was lost on November 6th. There is no point in refighting it. No one wants to join the conservative side of these lost issues. I understand this took you by surprise, but evaluating the result of a loss in 2012, one could come to no other conclusion. These will be the worst 4 years that the conservative side has ever seen.

    • Jeni
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I believe it’s largely about social media. We’ve become a sound bite nation (particularly the younger voters), Obama had better sound bites and the media has completely covered for him and allowed him to maintain his “rock star’ image.

    • Dave
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 7:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “Obama lost the 30+ vote by close to 2 million votes, yet won the 30 and under by about 5 million”

      That can be explained.

      “These are the people who think Obamacare didn’t go far enough. These are the people who are berating business owners and CEOs on twitter right now because they have stated that Obamacare will cause them to cut labor. They don’t care about economic facts. ”

      That probably is the major you’re in. I can’t imagine business majors and MBA majors with that attitude. But that makes a small percentage of majors so the rest of them who will go to work for MBA and business grads probably do have similar attitudes. But 18-30 year olds have always had a distrust of coporations. What was Woodstock all about? Where that comes from may be the leftist-education system in this country but if that’s true then it’s been entrenched for a very long time.

      18-30 year olds that are still in school have no perception of economic reality. They don’t care about economic reality. They care about social issues. They care about changing the world in a way they enjoy doing. If they’re over 22 then that’s why most there are still in school. Their values by and large are about social issues. If they’re under 22 they have no idea about the economic realities of life and could care less. They’re still in mom and dad’s dream world. They’re still living the life of an insulted dorm-room college student who thinks Disney films reflect reality and Jersy Shore characters should be emulated. The realities of life and making ends meet haven’t hit them yet.

      You want to talk about the left leaning education system, how about the left leaning media. Even Fox. Fox news sells to people with a cetain right-leaning point of view yet then the station turns around and promotes behaviors and attitudes in their TV shows that are hugely values of the left.

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

      young people love killing babys on demand..that is the bottom line..

      • Dave
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

        Yeah, that must be, for sure, most definitely, without qustion, THE reason!

    • Dave
      Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:44 am | Permalink | Reply

      ” They will laugh at you if, for example, you argue that government doesn’t need to regulate product safety between a company and a customer because the company has a vested interest in delivering a good product.”

      Er, I would laugh as well. This idea has been pretty much demolished. Sure, there may be some products where if you have enough repeat customers you might have an incentive to always keep top notch standards but all you need to do is look at China for an example of what happens when you don’t have strong safety regulations.”

      Sadly I would laugh too. It wouThe notion that product safety and quality between corpoations and consumers doesn’t need government regulation doesn’t take into account this reality and pressure on companies nor does it take into account the greed factor in human nature.If you don’t think that the food you put in your body is the most importatnt decision you make each day and has the most direct impact on your happyness and well being as you age, you are sadly mistaken. Unfortunately, most companies (probably damn near all) are not motivated to serve your best interest. They are motiviated to make the most money. That means maintain the appearance of taste while cutting costs as much as possible. In fact the competition that capitalism breeds almost demands this to stay in business. Maximize efficiency and cut costs. Thus your interests and well being come second. The notion that product safety and quality between corpoations and consumers doesn’t need government regulation doesn’t take into account this reality and pressure on companies nor does it take into account the greed factor in human nature.

      Comlpanies are motivated to use the cheapest, least expensive ingredients they can even if that means fabricating some of them. What effect those ingredients have on your immidiate and long term health is not even a fleeting concern. So long as it tastes good in the moment and you want to keep buying it. That’s all they care about. Some companies will use quaity ingredients but they are marketed as such and carry a higher price tag and even then you have to watch it. Generally in life you can get what you pay for, you can get a lot less than what you pay for but you will rarely if ever get more than what you pay for. Hence the popularity of stores like Whole Foods that sell foods that emphasize quality ingredients. They sell trust but even that’s called into question with the rising populatiry of organic foods.

      If there was no regulation of food quality in this country, you would either have to grow everything yourself or find a trusted source of food (a local farmer, etc.) You wouldn’t want to eat the food some salesman was selling you.

  14. TeaPartyPaul
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 3:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

    450,000 Votes…

    25,000 volunteers pull 18 people to the polls…

    President Romney…

    Go read how many poll watchers, GOTV people had orca failures so on…unbelievable.

    • Prescient11
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Indeed. Now imagine 2000 volunteers/employees pulling 50 voters to the polls for a month before the election. Imagine it occurring in Ohio. And there you see my focus/determination….

  15. Posted November 12, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

    This math doesn’t seem at all relevent. The % of the nation-wide popular vote that would need to change doesn’t matter, because there are so many extra Republican votes in the South. Those people aren’t moving to Ohio just to help Jeb Bush get elected.

    The real math is the % that would need to change in the swing states out of the people that voted in those states. Most of the swing states were so far in Obama’s favor (4-6%) that they shouldn’t be included in the “we were so close” discussion. (For example, you include Iowa, but it was a 5.5% margin.)

    That leaves Ohio, Florida, and Virginia. Obama winning any one of those would have been sufficient.

    Florida was less than 1%. Moving forward, Hispanics are growing really fast there and the elderly are dying so it’s getting more difficult, but for this election it was razor thin.
    Ohio was 2%.
    Virgina was 3%.

    All of those would have been quite achievable, but certainly not anything like .3%.

    (North Carolina should also be considered. It went Obama in ’08 and was only a 2% victory for Romney in ’12, with Obama basically conceding the state more than a month before the election in terms of money and time spent. It wouldn’t be a big surprise if a white candidate who invested there was able to pull it out.)

    • FabianNightmare
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

      You are correct

  16. zang
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 3:11 pm | Permalink | Reply

    David Frum:

    http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/elections/why-the-gop-lost-the-youth-vote/

    A generation ago, Republicans owned the youth vote.

    In 1984 and 1988, first Ronald Reagan and then George H. W. Bush won first-time voters and under-29 voters by big margins: 20 points in 1984. The twentysomethings of the 1980s remain the most Republican cohort in the electorate to this day.

    But since 1990, the GOP has lost its connection to the young, and the problem gets worse with every passing election. Today’s twentysomethings are the most anti-Republican age group in the electorate.

    • wholefoodsrepublican
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Everything in life is dynamic. Until the Democrats buy everyone’s vote, there will be campaigns to be won. Remember – this country is at stake.

      Defeat is not an option

    • Jeni
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 9:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

      We could use a man like Alex P. Keaton again!

  17. zang
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The thing that may have really hurt Romney is that he asked the nation to sacrifice — there would be budget cuts, even to sacred cows like PBS. Entitlement programs would have to be revamped, tax loopholes would be closed.

    Obama has promised to impose absolutely no austerity – the government printing presses will keep rolling, punishing only the savers (who do not support him anyway), entitlement programs will either not be touched, or they will be expanded. Programs important for our future (like the space program) will also be slashed in order that there be money to pay for those entitlement programs which are politically popular in the present.

    Despite his slogan, there is no “forward” thinking. Everything is about the present.

    Obama also promised to finance his lavish spending on the backs of the wealthy. Again, he has not asked for sacrifice for the overwhelming numbers of voters.

    People are by and large extremely selfish, and this election proved it. Romney’s mistake may have been attempting to appeal to an altruistic spirit (“Ask not what your country can do for you…”) which no longer exists.

    • Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink | Reply

      44% of the people making $100,000 a year or more voted for Obama. The two most wealthy men in America, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, openly supported Obama.

      I think your assumptions about who voted for Obama are deeply and fundamentally flawed.

      • zang
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

        But those are wealthy people who use every tax dodge imaginable. They want to maintain a system of high marginal rates coupled with tax loopholes and tax breaks. If we keep rates low, but cut out deductions and loopholes, how else will the Dems reward their liberal plutocrat contributors?

      • Posted November 12, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

        That makes zero sense.

        Either the current taxation system benefits the rich or it doesn’t. If it does, then almost half the rich people voted to tax themselves more. If it doesn’t, then a bit more than half the people voted to tax themselves more.

        Also, I think you’re really confused about who uses “tax dodges”. People making $100,000 or $200,000 really don’t have any “loopholes” available to them than do people that are making $50,000. There’s not some magic get out of jail free card you get when you go to the accountant. I make comfortably over 100k, I’ve owned rental property, I’ve got 401k and stock and stock options, I’ve got a dependent wife, etc. I pay a very good accountant a good chunk of change to do my taxes every year, and let me assure you, even with all of those investments, there isn’t any super-special configuration of assets that lets me get out of paying taxes. In order to use those dodges, you need to be able to do the sorts of things that Romney did to only pay 15%: set up charitable trusts, transfer assets offshore through shell companies, earn tax credits by purchasing and depreciating property, etc. etc.

        Despite dozens of requests to provide examples of which loopholes they would close, neither Romney or Ryan provided even a single example. We have no idea whether those loopholes would have affected the rich or the middle class. Given that “closing loopholes” was supposed to be the center piece of the revenue increases, they should have been able to name at least a few of them; they named zero. Nada. Zilch. You have no idea what effect they would have, how much revenue they would generate, and who they would impact; Romney never told you.

      • FabianNightmare
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

        Andrew, two points if I may (one serious and one flippant):

        1) You have mentioned Gates and Buffet a couple of times as an example for the uber-wealthy bemoaning their low tax rate (write a check guys) on behalf of Obama, I would assume that they also seek advantage, and I would go a step further and hypothesize that if Romney had won, their names(and similar high net worth names) would also show up on the WH visitor logs. Wealth almost always seeks accommodation.

        2) Regarding the 15% net tax rate that Romney enjoyed, it is possible to pay at that rate if one is a profitable futures trader 🙂

      • Dave
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

        It’s not quite zero sense. The Bill Gates and Warren Buffets are so far beyond the threshold where taxes matter it’s laughable. Those two men live in a world surrounded by endless cash. Of course they can afford to support higher taxes for those making over 250K, it doesn’t impact them personally one bit one way or the other. They are a bad example because they can afford a different set of priorities. Plus they’re both older and far beyond working class status. Might I also point out that they have headquarters in states that have very small (NE), or zero (WA) personal income tax and have built their fortunes in those low state income states and by using federal tax loopholes through their company to dodge paying taxes and they have gotten special treatment from local tax payers. Those guys don’t get paid the way everyone else does. They get paid through price appreciation of their stock and so their “dodging” is done at the corporate level. That’s why they openly joke about paying themselves $1 in wages.

        As far as tax loopholes go, one can never be sure why he wasn’t specific enough. You’re argument implies it was intentional to pull a fast one over on people. Another argument could claim that it would be hard if not impossible to be specific given he’s on the outside looking in and why make promises the otherside wants you to make. He mentioned capping deductions at 25K. That automatically closes a lot of loopholes. Did you miss that?

      • Derclaw86
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

        The limousine liberals of the world have all kinds of tax dodges. One of them is using stock options. Instead of getting a big salary, CEO’s like Gates and Buffet give themselves lucrative stock options. They buy huge blocks of shares in the companies they run for next to nothing. The company prints these shares, diluting existing shareholders. Then, at an opportune time, they sell these shares on the open market, netting hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. When its time to pay taxes, its at the 15% capital gains rate. ( No social security, no medicare, and if they live in the right state, no state income taxes). Whoever, says that Gates, Buffet, and their rich CEO buddies don’t have any loopholes is really missing it.

      • Posted November 12, 2012 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

        Dave,

        The capped deductions (he mentioned 17k, 25k, and 50k at various points, never giving any concrete proposal) doesn’t close many loopholes. Loopholes are almost by definition tricks you use to not have the income show up on your tax return in the first place. By the time it’s a line-item, there’s not a lot you can do.

        The capped deductions are an interesting idea, and in theory quite progressive; they are certainly a way to increase revenue. However, keep in mind that this was accompanied by his plan to lower the top tax bracket from 35% to 20%-25%. It’s not clear what the net effect would be on the various income levels. But certainly I will acknowledge that, although vague, this was a genuine method of raising revenue, and I give him credit for it.

        What I find ironic is that this thread (and similar threads) start with the premise that Democrats want entitlements ande are unwilling to make sacrafices; yet, when presented with compelling evidence to the contrary (i.e. voluntarily voting increased taxes for ourselves), many of you seem completely unable to comprehend the idea that someone could do that for anything other than selfish motives. My wife and I don’t have kids and never will; yet we vote for every school levy, we don’t even bother to read the details, if it says “school” we vote to raise our own property taxes. We’re not unusual; we’re very typical of the college-educated liberals so many of you seem to despise. I would willingly die for my country, and willingly vote for people and policies that I believe will help the country as a whole, even when the hurt me personally. I put my money where my mouth is, and the fact that so many of you seem unable to believe that makes me question just how willing you would be to “sacrafice” yourselves.

      • SR
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:15 am | Permalink

        You dont have kids…that explains it all. If and when you do, things like taxes, charter schools vs public schools etc will start mattering. I know, because like you, I was a flaming liberal myself (Phd sociology, Brown U). I used to look down on conservatives, deride them as yahoos as you implicitly do, making fun of typos (like you do), just to feel superior.
        Then, I got married, had kids. Really shifted my perspective once I had to start fighting with my school to transfer a horrendous teacher. I started reading blogs and made a genuine effort to learn the “other argument”. I am also an immigrant from India, and have seen the drastic effects of identity politics and over-regulation in my former country (India was a semi-closed economy till the 90s). If India is an emerging power now, it is ONLY because she embraced full-fledged capitalism and drew herself from the brink in the 90s. The corporate tax rate is lower that that in the US.
        I live in CA. You may have voted to raise taxes on yourself, but most of us Indian Americans, who voted for Obama, also voted AGAINST a prop measure that would have raised taxes. Everyone votes in their self-interest. If the ones making more than 100k voted for Obama, it may be because of social concerns. I dont think they have any idea about tax increases about to come.

      • Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:18 am | Permalink

        SR,

        Making fun of typos? Do you have me confused with someone else?

        Before Obama was elected the first time, Republicans universally railed against the coming tax increases. You couldn’t find a Republican anywhere in the world that wasn’t 100% confident that Obama would raise taxes during his term. The tax increases were going to be of Apocolyptic proportions. Go do a google search, read what they were writing.

        Taxes didn’t get raised a penny.

        Now it’s the same thing all over again. Obama has no proposal on the table that would raise taxes on anyone making less than $200k, and I guarantee you that figure will be raised by the time it get’s hammered out with Boehner. Yet it’s doom and gloom again, he’s going to kill us all with taxes, we’ll all be sorry we voted for him when we start paying, yada yada yada. Four years from now, are you going to be claiming that the next Democratic candidate is going to raise taxes on the middle class when another 4 years go by without it happening?

        And no, contrary to you assertation, NOT everyone votes in their self-interest. Apparently, conservatives do; us liberals, we often actually vote against our narrow self interest for the broader good– I guess it’s one of the things that makes us liberals.

      • SR
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:10 am | Permalink

        lol. Obama didnt raise taxes but he tried. This was one of the “compromises” he had to make to get the debt ceiling raised (to keep the bush tax cuts).
        “us liberals, we often actually vote against our narrow self interest for the broader good– I guess it’s one of the things that makes us liberals.”
        Gee, didnt realize libs are like the yahoos in Kansas or the bitter clingers in Penn who dont seem to know what’s good for them. I suppose those min wage jokers laid off from the Applebees and Mcdonald jobs — thanks to Obamacare–had the broader good in mind as well. good for them. let them enjoy their newly found leisure time.

      • SR
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:31 am | Permalink

        BTW,just as an aside…a recent Pew study found that its republicans who donate more to charity than libs. granted it may be because the former are more religious and contribute to church charitable activities, but shouldnt matter, right. charity is charity. Anyhow, guess the underclass will now have to compete with spotted owls for libs’ charitable giving, eh?

      • FabianNightmare
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 10:25 am | Permalink

        Andrew, I would submit that Obama has instituted the largest tax increase in history, Obamacare. John Roberts has confirmed this.
        Also, many of the Obama administration regulations are a defacto “tax” increase, such as regulating coal fired generating plants out of existence, thus raising utility rates.

      • wholefoodsrepublican
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

        bill gates, warren buffet, george soros, steven spielberg, that yahoo CEO, harvey weinstein, jay-z, bill maher, barbara streisand, oprah winfrey — they’re all part of 0.1% —
        tax the crap out of them ! but they’re biggest hypocrites around — sheltering their money and skipping their fair share of taxes.

    • zang
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 6:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The issue is “income.” That is the big dodge. You will often see Hollywood liberals produce a movie that makes hundreds of millions of dollars, but then use accounting gimmicks to claim they actually lost money, in order to cheat screenwriters out of royalties and probably for tax purposes as well.

      Professionals who “work for a living” – and receive a W2 or K-1 – have no way of escaping income, and are hit the hardest with marginal rate tax hikes. No one even talks about the AMT, which I am personally hit with year after year, and no.. I’m hardly rolling in dough.

    • wholefoodsrepublican
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 6:30 pm | Permalink | Reply

      what happened to the democrat party of – “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”????????

      let’s rub the democrats with that from JFK

  18. Dan Frahm
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Like Prescient, I have some very specific concerns about the failure of the GOTV effort this cycle. Figuring out what to do at the grassroots level is difficult and may take some time, but I am a small business owner in CA interested in trying to make something happen. Before we all fade away from this blog, if you are seriously interested in improving the GOTV in 2014, please feel free to contact me at danfrahm@gmail.com. If nothing else, before we all drift away, I will organize a list and be happy to let everyone know of anything I happen to learn as I look further for real opportunities to contribute to better organizing efforts in 2014.

  19. Loach
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 3:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Not sure if this has been posted in a previous thread but I thought it offered some good food for thought:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-shake-it-conservatives_662109.html

    • jmar
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Thanks, Loach!

  20. Prescient11
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 5:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

    BOTTOM LINE,

    Tax the everloving shit out of Hollywood. Right after WWII, there was an excise tax at 20% on Hollywood. Jack it to 40%.

    Further on the home interest deduction, cap it big time, so all these fucking millionaire liberals in their big ass houses get jammed.

    Also, get rid of the deduction for state taxes. F these liberals in blue states, pay up their fair share. You want the whirlwind you rich lefities, I say bring it as hard as we can while trying to do our best to protect small business.

  21. wholefoodsrepublican
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

    perhaps — we need to run a tea party conservative against Boehner.
    we need people with cajones, not wimps.
    the only place is the House where there is a check on the abuse of Obama and the socialist democrats.

    i have a colleague — he is from another country (one that is being bailed out right now by Germany). he says he is a socialist. he has several NIH grants — I ask him to redistribute his wealth to me. he says f— no!

    if we start to label the Democrat Party as socialists, anyone who works for a living should be opposed to them. if we start taxing the 0.1% and their industries. hey let’s tax Weinstein, Jay-Z, Eva Longoria – that should be McConnell/B oehner’s compromise tax the 0.1%

    this is just the beginning.

    but just like the one Chinese man who stood up to the tank in Tiananmen Square,
    just like the young Germans breaking down the Berlin Wall
    just like the Czechs in Wenceslas Square, we can stand up to big government

    • Prescient11
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Agreed, tax tax tax the .1%. Go for the real wealth, foundations, etc.

      They voted for it, fuck them, go get it then….

    • jmar
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 6:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

      True, wholefoods. The 0.1% compromise is intriguing. They could look at it as expanding the middle class! Now is definitely not the time for wimps or defeatist rhetoric. We should take a page from the Liberals’ handbook. They never gave up or compromised their morals during the Reagan and Bush years. Now they are reaping the benefits.

    • FabianNightmare
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 8:29 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I agree that we should start calling the “democrats” what they are, socialists and communists. Their infiltration of the democrat party has been a very long march. When I enlisted during the Viet Nam war, we had to swear an oath that we had no affiliation with the communist party…….how far we have fallen.

  22. Dave
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 6:28 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I guess you guys have seen this…

    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mitt+Romney+transition+website+election+victory+appears+online/7514970/story.html

  23. wholefoodsrepublican
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 6:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

    ET4 – you’re great! great analysis!

    • jmar
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Second. More posts ET4!

      • C'ville
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

        To put in perspective, not even a week after election, in City of Philadelphia the Planned Parenthood folks were out on street with clipboards already starting their GOTV drive for 2014/2016. It’s a machine creating votes. This past election there was 60 percent turnout, need to up our side to 65. Then try to get a third of Asians and Latinos.

    • ET4
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 11:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Glad you guys enjoyed my post. The anecdotes of demographic defying Republican living in Southern California could really make a good sitcom one day. But unfortunately it is reality for the time being.

      By the way, wholefoodsrepublican is a great name.

  24. Kyle
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 9:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I am very depressed because I see no hope for the Republican Party. Already the establishment seems to be shunning the Evangelicals and throwing their arms around Hispanics.

    As for changing direction, If we shun the Evangelicals, we reduce our base by tens of millions of votes. I heard Hannity capitulate and reverse his immigration stance today. This approach isn’t going to work. It might seem like a good idea to embrace Hispanics, but I think it’s much too late for that. If they’re given a choice between the party that has always supported them vs. the party that has always opposed them, and is obviously only pandering to them for votes, they won’t vote for the Republicans. It would be necessary to start an entirely new party without the history of the Republican Party. So, what do we do? Do we split the party? That won’t work either. That will only make it easier for the Democrats to win by diluting our base. The Democrats will get 49% of the vote and our two parties will get 15% and 34% respectively. The entire country will go blue for the first time in history.

    • PeterJ
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Here are some truths about a lot, but not all, Evangelicals:

      1) supporting over nanny-stating just like the far left;
      2) refusing to vote republican no matter who gets nominated, i.e. staying home in protest;
      3) are not really committed to fiscal and foreign policy/defense conservatism as long as they get their way with social issues.

      #1: Abortion (and euthanasia) is a vastly different social issue, because it involves a 3rd person’s rights and life and death. And while it is true, contrary to what the left believes, that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, it is also true that regulating the behavior of other citizens in activities that do not harm other persons, or might harm themselves despite reasonable safeguards and warnings, is not Biblically mandated, nor the business of outside parties. This means whether other people should drink, gamble, have sex however they want, etc. is NOT their business to try to legislate. And reasonable restrictions does not equal perfect outcomes. Nanny-stating whether based on religious values or sectarian do-gooder ones is still nanny-stating.

      #2: Every political party is a coalition of disparate interests to some degree. It necessarily a conflict driven and messy process, and if you want to influence it you have to do so at all levels of government and put up good primary candidates. And just because your man or woman did not win the primary does not mean you should not support the party. If you are not going to support the party, don’t expect the party to support you.

      #3: Many evangelicals actually support the welfare state, or are ambivalent to it, and the same with foreign/defense policy, so long social issues take prominence. Just like pro-life labor union democrats who don’t like many democratic platforms but consider unionism the primary value. So evangelicals are not some unified group likely to always vote in a block if they actually show up. Which means it should not come as a surprise if other groups in the republican party are not willing to show them more love.

      If evangelicals want more of a voice in the party, then they should show respect for individual liberties that they might disagree with, and field primary candidates who are solid on small government fiscal conservatism values. And as well those candidates should take pains to be well informed about foreign policy, national defense and economic issues that comes from regular reading of a major daily newspaper and weekly newsmagazine, instead of the almost purposeful ignorance of people like Huckabee, Palin, Bachman and Perry.

      • Kyle
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

        I agree. I’m sickened that the Evangelicals didn’t show up to unseat Obama. They are extremely harmful and there is no pleasing them. The Evangelicals are to our party as PETA is to the Democrats. However, you can get the Democratic Party nomination without gaining the PETA lunatic vote. As for the Republicans? It’s a bit more difficult to move aside our unattractive elements as they are far more numerous. As I mentioned before, I’m quite depressed. I just can’t see a solution. The Evangelicals make up a very significant portion of our base. If they didn’t show up in 2012, imagine how they would pout about an anti-abortion candidate.

  25. PeterJ
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I would like to make a point about the platform of the republican party and how it is written. As in every 4 years at the same convention that chooses the presidential candidate, and shortly before same election. This is a bad process in my opinion timing-wise. Instead I believe there should be another platform setting mini-convention every two years, off-year to congressional elections. This separates setting the platform from specific candidates and elections, and makes it clear that in the next election all primary candidates should be supporting the platform in large measure. This could easily be done online instead of in person, and over like a month’s time for adequate discussion, regardless of how delegates are chosen. People want input into the platform itself and for it not to be set just by party officials who are not responsible to them.

    Besides allowing for greater party member support and engagement, it would also avoid contentious debates having negative effects during a campaign for particular offices. And it would allow for ongoing monitoring of GOTV efforts that should be long-term projects and not hasty election year endeavors.

    • PeterJ
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Keith,

      In line with what I just said above, and also earlier regarding your possibly putting up an actual forum instead of blog (though it could be done in blog format with less frequent posts, as in weekly or something), I would like to propose that a niche for this site going forward is to discuss, one at a time and in detail, various issues and what consensus the commenters here could come up with on same. There seems to be a diversity of views here representing most core party groups like social values, fiscal prudence/small government, defense/foreign policy, and libertarian. So the question is, can such groups actually come together with a reasonable consensus on each issue that all groups would support, even if they viewed same as not ideal from their perspective.

  26. M.White
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 10:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Here is an interesting article for thought…

    Putting Humpty-Dumpty Together Again »

    The GOP Has Figured Out the Problem: You

    This entry was posted on Monday, November 12th, 2012 at 12:36 and is filed under Conservatism, Featured, GOP Establishment, Media, News, Politics.

    Can it recover?

    It shouldn’t be possible that we have people who invested in the neighborhood of one billion dollars for a return on their investment that amounts to exactly nothing. These were the so-called “wizards of smart,” who knew how to guide Mitt Romney and the slate of down-ballot candidates to victory. They’re the number-crunchers, the poll-takers, the marketeers and strategists who represent the consultancy who ran the electoral efforts of the GOP and associated groups. All of it was allegedly aimed at getting Mitt Romney into the White House, and spend like mad though they did, the failures were massive by any measure. What makes the whole thing more preposterous still is that five days after the electoral failure they helped to build, they’ve all figured out what the problem is, and they’re unanimous: It wasn’t them, their strategies, their marketing, or their polling models, but instead a single problem that none of them anticipated: You.

    It was the fault of the Tea Party, says Rove. It was the fault of social conservatives says Erickson. It was the fault of conservatives’ insistence on closing the border down and dealing with the illegal immigration problem before we commence any sort of immigration reform. It was the fault of xenophobic conservatives who just don’t want to reach out to Hispanics, they said. It couldn’t have been their messages, their advertising, their notions of the electorate, or even their candidates. It was you. Now that we’ve moved from a President who has spent four years blaming George Bush for his own failures, we will now spend the next two years at least with the Republican establishment’s intelligentsia telling us how the problem had been we conservatives, of varying descriptions. It’s worse than preposterous. It’s maniacal.

    We now know we have at least one Republican Congresswomen addressing the Spanish-speaking press, telling them that the problem with the Republican Party had been the Tea Party and Rush Limbaugh. Jeb Bush, says she, is a conservative. If Jeb Bush is a conservative, I’m Adam Smith. Actually, I’m a good deal closer to Adam Smith. The point is that the party is trying to repackage what it means to be a conservative, and along the way, there are several issues they’d like to dump:
    Traditional marriage
    Pro-Life Stance on Abortion
    Illegal Immigration
    Obama-care

    Since they’ve yielded over the years on nearly everything else, what this suggests is that they wish to dump all associations with conservatism. Sure, they’re still in favor of free markets and property rights in principle, but they can be flexible on those too. American sovereignty isn’t an issue for them either, since they don’t think it ought to exist. States’ rights and the 10th Amendment are fine insofar as it goes, and with this crowd, you can bet it won’t be far. No, there isn’t a principle in existence they won’t spit on or tweak if they believe they can somehow capture the middle but still scare you into showing up. The problem, their wizards of smart assure them is that they’re not liberal enough.

    Most conservatives I know are livid over this election, in part because of what it will mean for the country, but also in part because so many of them warned against nominating a moderate Republican of the establishment wing. To know that Karl Rove’s view is essentially “you win some, you lose some – oh well, we’ll get ‘em next time,” is enough to make most conservatives begin to experience dry heaves.

    Like so many of you, I had wondered what could possibly account for this crushing defeat, but while we tend to focus on the Obama vs. Romney campaign, I think we ought to spend some time looking at what happened in the down-ballot races. The more I look, the more I become convinced that this election presented an opportunity for a purge of conservatives, and the GOP establishment capitalized on that opportunity. I wonder how many members of the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives never saw it coming. Remember, the roots of the Tea Party go back to 2006, when there was widespread dissatisfaction with Congressional support of Bush policies and spending priorities, and the sense of general uncertainty about the growth of the deficit.

    The one discernible constant has been that conservatives are to blame. Idiots on the left blame conservatism for moderates’ bad policies, policies on which they would double or triple-down. Consider the whole sorry spectacle of Obama campaigning on the “unpatriotic” nature of the Bush deficits. He’s quadrupled them. Bush was widely criticized by conservatives for the prescription drug plan for Medicare, but he was widely criticized on the left also. The difference is that those on the left would have spent more, much more, and all to purchase votes. We conservatives get the blame for everything the moderates in the GOP establishment enact, but we generally oppose these things also.

    In one sense, we deserve some of the blame since we helped elect these guys often knowing they were mush. The problem is that as the GOP establishment views it, this is a good opportunity to rid themselves of conservatives. They will use this opportunity to push conservatives to join them, and in desperation, some will. I think conservatives should think carefully about the notion of blaming one another. Evangelicals are not the problem. Tea Party and constitutional conservatives are not the problem. Social conservatives are not the problem. The problem is the GOP establishment, and it always has been. It’s when we let them set the agenda and the direction that Republicans lose or having won, blow the opportunity. If we’re ever going to save the country, I don’t think we have any choice but to walk away from the GOP. The Republican establishment will always displace blame and it will always land on us by association. It’s time for conservatives to get out of the box.

  27. M.White
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 11:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Here is another one…

    The Republican establishment has done all it could to fragment and divide the Republican Party. Divide and conquer is part of their strategy. In each election, they are willing to let Republicans lose who do not fit the mold of their moderate visions. Conservatives are told to go along, and to shut up besides. Worst of all, different factions within conservatism are beginning to follow the cues of the GOP establishment. Conservatives of various descriptions should understand that we mustn’t permit the establishment to blame conservatism, whether they point their finger at economic conservatives, Tea Party constitutionalists, social conservatives, evangelicals, or any other element within the broader description of conservatism. This is part of their strategy to divide us. Please don’t fall for it. Instead, I’d like you to look at the GOP establishment, where the blame really rests, and consider what it has meant to all of conservatism to be led by a pack of moderates who behave as a fifth column for the left. We may never put Humpty-Dumpty together again, but I ‘m not certain we should try. Instead, I want all of the subsets of the greater universe that is conservatism to examine how the Republican establishment has betrayed all of us, and we can’t win with their divisive approach.

    Let’s examine this thesis a little more closely. I’d like to see if I can demonstrate my point to the broader audience that is conservatism. Let’s identify some sub-groups, and how their most important issues are being thrown overboard by the GOP establishment:
    Fiscal conservatives are being told that “we can raise taxes a little on the upper brackets.”
    Conservatives in general are being told that “we must be open to comprehensive immigration reform.”
    Social conservatives are being told that “we must be more open to the gay rights agenda.”
    Evangelicals are being told that “abortion, contraception, and related life issues are killing us.”
    Liberty-minded conservatives are being told that “we may have to make some compromises on gun control.”
    All conservatives are now being told that “Obama-care is the law of the land [and we’re going along.]“
    All conservatives are being told that “we need to become more inclusive”[while they ditch and fail to support Love and West.]

    Which division or subset of the conservative base of the party has not been betrayed by the GOP establishment?

    During the primary season, we were told that Mitt Romney was inclusive, Mitt Romney could appeal to independents, he would do well among Hispanics and the LGBT community, and that incredibly, he would do well among minorities in general. We were assured repeatedly that this sort of moderate candidate could reach all of these independents, but the results of the election tell a completely different story. We did not make even a slight dent in the so-called “gender gap,” the minority gap, the gay rights gap, or any other discernible subset of so-called “moderates” or “independents.” Why did that fail? Why was Romney’s alleged draw insufficient? The answer is rather simple, and I’ve said it before, but it’s worth repeating: You cannot win by trying to out-liberal the liberals. They will beat you because this is their game, and they are professionals at winning it, but more importantly, they will rush to point out how you’re effectively endorsing their positions anyway. Biden did this during the debate with Ryan, and sadly, Ryan had no effective answer.

    What you might conclude from this is that the Republican party is hopelessly lost, and I would agree inasmuch as under the current direction and “leadership” offered by the establishment, there is no way to repair the fault-lines splitting the party apart. Let’s be honest about it: Conservative positions on a per-issue basis are winners across a broad spectrum of the electorate. I think we need to engage the various subsets of conservatism and ask the simple question: What one issue is the absolute deal-breaker for you? Are there more than one? I suspect there may be, but let’s be honest with ourselves and one another about what that list of issues looks like.

    I don’t like the fact that evangelicals have decided (broadly)to take a powder. I don’t like the fact that social conservatives are splintering away. I detest the fact that the Tea Party wing of conservatism has felt rejected and put-upon. In fact, as I go through the list, the thing all of the subsets of conservatism have in common is this: The GOP establishment is out to mute them. Some may put a priority on one issue over another, but in a broad and general sense, most of these subgroups within conservatism agree. The problem may be that we’ve been too willing to cast a subgroup of which we are not constituents overboard. “Throw the evangelicals overboard.” “Ditch the Tea Party.” “Get rid of the social conservatives.” No, if we fall for this ploy, we’re trapped like suckers in a game we cannot win.

    In order to obtain electoral victory, we will need to define ourselves rather than letting the media or the establishment define us. We’re going to need to find away to create a working coalition that is large enough to capture the White House. We will either do this or die as an electoral force. We can’t deny that the one thing the Democrats and their cohort groups never do is permit themselves to be split. The GOP establishment’s tendency to compartmentalize conservatism so as to better control us means we’re going to need to defeat and discharge them from leadership, or abandon the Republican Party altogether. We have four years to have our act together, but truly a good deal less, and it’s time to acknowledge that the leadership of the Republican party on the national level is ineffective, disingenuous, and in all too many instances, the largest part of the problem. The work begins now. Let’s get going!

  28. M.White
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 11:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Putting to Rest Some Dire Misconceptions About This Disastrous Election

    This entry was posted on Sunday, November 11th, 2012 at 08:00 and is filed under Conservatism, Culture, Election 2012, Featured, Mitt Romney, News, Politics, Religion.

    So it is said in politics…

    I received an email from a reader who was thoroughly angry with me. I asked for permission to use the text in a blog post, but I’ve not received further communications, so I will paraphrase the writer’s complaints, since I think there may be more than a few who feel this way. The complaint boiled down to this: Contrary to what I asserted in my post on the Reasons Romney Lost, Romney didn’t lose because he didn’t talk about important social issues enough, because said this e-mailer, Romney did indeed talk about these issues important to Christians. If he did, many of my evangelical Christian friends didn’t hear it. These issues were largely avoided in the debates, as well as in the stumps speeches late in the race. The perception among many Christians, at least here in the middle of the Bible Belt, was that Romney was uninterested or evasive on issues important to Christians. You can argue that he did in fact talk about all of these topics at some point during the cycle, but the perception among evangelicals in my vicinity was that he avoided talk of religion whenever possible. Again, it matters not whether he actually discussed it, but instead whether he appeared willing to broach these subjects, and in what frequency. The problems in the Republican party are much deeper than I once thought. It’s not only the establishment that doesn’t understand the grass roots, but also that different segments of the base fundamentally misunderstand one another.

    To conservatives concerned primarily with freedom issues, they really don’t “get” the evangelical voters. To many evangelicals who comprise a broad portion of the conservative base, faith isn’t supposed to be something you talk about once a week. It’s something they believe ought to inform the way a person lives, the decisions one makes, and the way one conducts himself toward others. Evangelicals will be the first to tell you that they aren’t infallible, but the people who comprise this segment tend to try in earnest to live out their faith in daily life. They put their faith ahead of family, ahead of friends and community, and certainly ahead of politics. They’re not generally interested in “going along to get along” because that’s not what their faith dictates. Therefore, when they see candidates who seem less than fully concerned about faith, at least in their perceptions, they tend to be less than concerned about supporting those candidates. Period. You can accuse them of being too rigid in their beliefs if you like, but you see, they take that as a compliment. They intend to be rigidly faithful to their beliefs. They are accustomed to the left and to moderates who mock them, most frequently comparing them to some sort of westernized Taliban, and it merely steels their resolve. Contrary to the propaganda against them, however, they’re not looking for a preacher in the presidency. They simply want a person of deep and abiding faith and understanding who isn’t afraid to take a few jeers and lumps from the left on this basis. They perceived widely that Romney didn’t fulfill that requirement.

    Some will immediately say in response that “well, at least Romney is better than Obama, and worth getting him out of there.” True enough, but please remember: Evangelical Christians will tend to view politics as a thing of this Earth, but they’re less concerned ultimately with Earth than with their salvation. Some of them genuinely wonder at the consequences of selling out their souls on issues important to their faith for the sake of transitory political expedience. Once viewed in this light, it is easy to understand how evangelicals would view elections as less important, and with no candidate appearing to fulfill their requirements for support, many were certain to simply walk away. You may not like that, and you may not agree with that view, but if you want to understand what has happened, this is a part of the formula you ignore at your own peril.

    I will also tell you quite plainly that if you believe Romney’s religion had nothing to do with it, you’re making the mistake of projection. You’re projecting your sense of religious tolerance onto people who widely view Mormonism as a cult. Of course, I realize this fully because as my wife points out, in her homeland(Germany,) there are widely thought to be two “legitimate” religions, being Catholicism and the Lutherans, and the Catholics aren’t entirely convinced about the latter. As children, they learn about their faith, and in much the same way as evangelicals here in the US view Mormons as part of a cult, German Catholics and Lutherans tend to view any church newer than theirs in much the same light. My point to you is this: There was always going to be a percentage of evangelical Christians who would never support Mitt Romney, and that was one of the risks implicit in nominating him. Even though Romney won Texas, it wasn’t by nearly so much as one might expect. I think if candidates like Ted Cruz hadn’t been on the ballot, Romney might have been in some danger here.

    Of course, the misunderstanding isn’t all one-way. They don’t understand why others in the GOP don’t try to live out their faith as a priority in daily life. They may admire the wisdom and common sense of free market ideals, economic liberty, and all sorts of issues that are mainstays of the conservative sphere, but they don’t really fully understand why anybody would support a candidate who isn’t strong in his or her faith, and willing to testify to that faith in public. As I said, the misunderstandings run in all directions, between all factions, but in politics, perceptions become realities, whether or not we think that’s right. I’m not suggesting that conservatives ought to yield to false perceptions, but that instead they should challenge them instead of leaving them without refutation.

    You see, it doesn’t matter whether Mitt Romney mentioned the issues of abortion and traditional marriage a few times along the campaign trail. It matters that he didn’t exhibit his beliefs through his actions when he was pro-choice until a few years ago, or amenable to gay marriage while Governor of Massachusetts. Those things stick. You will not know this, but early in the primary season, I had to ban some posters for what I viewed as over-the-top assaults on Romney’s faith. Some were quite lengthy, but I wasn’t about to permit that sort of bashing. It was real, however, and in retrospect, I’m afraid that in so doing, I may have done a disservice because it stifled those who feel as they do on these matters. You didn’t get to see some of these comments, and maybe if you had, you might have understood why getting the full body of the evangelical Christian segment of conservatism to the polls for Mitt Romney was going to be a chore in any case. That’s the truth of it. What you do with the information is up to you, but if you’re ever to see the sort of full support from evangelicals any national conservative victory will require, you’re going to need to find candidates who satisfy their minimum requirements. In too many ways, Mitt Romney didn’t.

    • Kyle
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 11:12 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Here we go..

      1. When you oppose gay marriage, you lose the young vote.
      2. When you oppose abortion, you lose the woman vote (which is more important than the man vote, they are more likely to vote)
      3. Refusing to vote for a Mormon is no better than voting for Obama because he is not white.

      All of this stuff just reaffirms that Evangelicals are the problem. As I mentioned before, there is no pleasing them. Their views are based on feeling good rather than facts. They’re Republican hippies.

      • Big Mac
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:40 am | Permalink

        You want to toss Christians to the lions? Evangelicals DO NOT need the GOP, the GOP needs Evangelicals. This is crazy talk. It just affirms to me that there really is not much difference between mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans.

      • Big Mac
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:42 am | Permalink

        Here we go…

        The problem is libertarians. The Ron Paul crowd are the biggest whiners. They think they know everything and have it all right. Ron Paul is a sore loser.

      • FabianNightmare
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 10:18 am | Permalink

        I think Big Mac has it right, christians do not need the GOP. The GOP would be fighting the Green Party for votes without the christian and social conservative voters.

  29. M.White
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 11:05 pm | Permalink | Reply

    http://patriotpost.us/perspective/15428

    Great electoral break-down!

    See more articles at Patriot Post

    • PeterJ
      Posted November 12, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Please STOP dumping articles here. Share links or your own thoughts. In fact I hope Keith deletes those article dumps.

      • Kyle
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

        seconded

      • M.White
        Posted November 12, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

        Well, I thought they were interesting since the discussion was about the election. Didn’t mean to make anyone mad. Maybe this is why we have problems…being rude to someone who cares and just wanted to share these articles. I sure won’t do it again and may not come back to this site. I thought this was a site where we could discuss issues and share things that may help figure out what happened. And by the way, I have been a conservative Republican woman all my life, registered to vote when I was 18 and have voted for every Republican candidate and I am happily married, anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-gay marriage, anti big government, and I support liberty, freedom and individual rights. So don’t lump all Christians into one group. I support Republicans because they represent most of the principles I stand for, not all candidates and nominees are my first choice and I don’t always like them very much and wish they were more conservative but I vote for them faithfully. So, don’t blame me, not sure about other Christians, but if you shut people like me out, then Republicans will never win elections again. Christians have been supporting the Republican party based on moral values, so don’t be so quick to leave us behind.

    • Spiritof1776
      Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:51 am | Permalink | Reply

      M.White,

      I believe very much like you. It’s amazing the vitrol spewed at Christians. Obama is part of God’s plan for America. So be it, I am at peace with God so I will let them stew and be mad, I will live with the joy of the Lord. Blessings.

      • jmar
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

        Yes. M.White, thanks for your contributions is posts 26-29. I enjoyed them very much! Had I not been interested in them, I would simply have clicked back to Keith’s blog and continued reading. I am a Latino, Christian Conservative. I understand that no political party that encapsulates everything that I believe in will ever exist. I support a big-tent Republican party with big ideas. I fully support PeterJ’s request to Keith for an organized, open, and respectful dialogue about a more effective and inclusive party platform on his blog. The idea that the Republican party should “cut off one if its legs” and try to stumble across the finish line ahead of the Democrats is preposterous! The formula for winning a greater share of the electorate wouldn’t logically include removing millions of voters (of ANY description) from your ranks. IMO, it’s not effective to trash a person’s religous beliefs just because you don’t agree with or understand them. Tolerance cuts both ways. A better strategy would be to work with them to devise a message that you both could support. I was personally disappointed that Ron Paul supporters did not support the Republican candidate, but I don’t blame THEM. The fact is that their vote belongs to them. It is not some entitlement of the Republican party to use at their discretion to elect their preferred candidate. Candidates have to earn votes. Many Ron Paul supporters feel Mitt Romney didn’t earn theirs. We should work towards coaxing them back into our tent, not personally attack them.

        Much of what is being said just isn’t supported by the data either. A May 29th Gallup study show that the nation is pro-life 50-41%. Non-whites are MORE pro-life than whites (51-37 non-whites, 49-42 whites)! 18-34 yr olds are pro-choice by just 2%(46-44). Clearly the Akin/Murdock message was a miserable failure, but dismissing the Republican pro-life stance on that basis is counter productive. A pro-life stance shouldn’t be “losing the woman vote” as women were more pro-life (46-44) in the Gallup study. We might be losing the pro-choice women’s vote, but they’re outnumbered by the pro-life women. Let’s talk more about how we can get more pro-life women to pull the R lever at the polls. ET4 has an excellent analysis of the voting behavior of younger Americans. But, trux points out that Romney won 18-29 yr olds by 7 points. In every direction you look there is opportunity to stop the exodus of some from the Republican partyand grow our ranks. But we must have an inclusive approach that we all work on together. The demostration by some Republicans that they are ready to “eat their young” the day after we lose an election is an indication that we aren’t there yet.

  30. Dave
    Posted November 12, 2012 at 11:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Andrew,

    I don’t think it was realistic of Romnry to give concrete poposals. Have made overarching promises to lower taxes for everyone and solve the debt problem. How he does it I don’t care. Some of the information he needs can’t be known and it would be a mistake to go making specific promises he can’t keep. Of course the left doesn’t like lower taxes because that threatens their entitlements and their base of power. Of course they’re going to make issues abvout the lack of extreme specifics. Hell, Obama has been president for 4 years and he wasn’t specific. So theyv made an issue of it calling for specifics. If he had given specifics as dems demanded it would have been more fodder for them to brand him a liar and someone you couldn’t trust, etc. etc. I didn’t buy that you couldn’t trust him line from dems. In the end, it boils down to who you want to trust and who you don’t. We can find arguments pro and con. My sense is that he would have tried to do with reducing debt, lowering taxes and smaller government. Of course the left doesn’t like that either because it threatens their power base.

    What I find dissapointing is that the left cannot admit the failures of “progressive” policies. It’s out there for EVERYONE to see. CA is a perfect example of what happens to government that promotes tax and spend policies. They end up going broke ultimately and in the end go back to ask for more taxes. It’s a vicious cycle that takes maybe a decade or two to cycle back around but in the end it’s always the same…we don’t have enough money so we are asking you for more money. And it’s ALWAYS the same argument. Schools. Childeren and schools are ALWAYS their whipping boy because the politicians have done their homework and know what tugs on people’s heart strings. They know the late night infomercials asking for $$$ to help some lost child overseas sucks in hunderds of millions, perhaps billions a year. So they use the same ploy. Some they don’t even read the fine print when the tax initiative mentions schools. They LOVE people like that. If voters would read the fine print even further they would see that there is likely a clause in the legislation that allows the politicians to spend money they’re advertising would benefit schools, for other purposes. That’s the way prop 30 was written in CA. You can only imagine what that money is going for — political paybacks, freebies for key voting blocks, etc. They want your cash and they want ZERO accountability. They LOVE people that just blindly say yes.

    It’s funny how their begging never stops. The lottery was supposed to fund schools. Even though the popularity of the lottery has grown to historic size, schools don’t have enough. Even though there are always bond measures for schools on every ballot they never have enough. And no matter how many tax hikes they propose there’s never enough. There is no evidence historicaly that any government that relies on taxing and spending can sustain itself. It lasts for awhile then they need more. Paychecks don’t keep up with the demand. As a responsible citizen you have to draw the line somewhere just as you would with your own finacnes. People who do anything less are just being played for suckers. TOTALLY ignoring that reality of human nature.

    “I don’t have kids and never will; yet we vote for every school levy, we don’t even bother to read the details, if it says “school” we vote to raise our own property taxes”
    “I would willingly die for my country, and willingly vote for people and policies that I believe will help the country as a whole, even when the hurt me personally. ”
    And therein lies the essential difference. The view of human nature. For people with this view, I’m sure I would feel totally comfortable leaving my kids at their house for the weekend. I’m sure they’re upstanding members of the community, their humble and altrustic tendencies speak well of them. Their faith in people to always do the right thing is admirable and their level of trust they put in people says all I need to know about them. People who trust can generally be trusted. However, the reality is that when it comes to money and politics people can’t be trusted especially career politicians. Money corrupts and less accountability there is the more money and power will be abused. That’s the reality of human nature. Power and greed may blind but so does blind compassion. There countless examples down through history to support this view. CA, Greece, Italy, Spain…they’re all modern examples. I sacrafice myself in the taxes I currently pay and the organizations I VOLUNTARILY donate to and the time I VOLUNTARILY give without being forced. And I’m sure that’s the way many on this board approach giving. The definition of sacrafice proposed by liberals is both blind in ambition and unsustainable given human nature. It breeds a spiraling dependency on government and in turn promotes a cynical and corrupt political culture. It’s ironic that the people that are supported by the mis-intentioned but probably well-meaning liberals would ever agree to such ideas as two years of service before voting. The dems would hate that not because it’s an impractical fit in the lives of most people in this day in age but simply because that would threaten their source of votes, money and ultimately power and in the end that’s what tax and spend is all about whether they tell you that or not. Altruism is a nice notion but to think that democrat politicians (or politicians in general) are acting out of a sense of altruism with your tax dollars is a fantasy best left for the Disney channel. You’re better off voting to limit the flow.

  31. Big Mac
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:47 am | Permalink | Reply

    This is simple:

    Mitt Romney lost because he was a liberal. He was a flip flopper and many conservatives, traditionalist and evangelicals stayed home. Being a Mormon surely hurt him as well. You people going after Christians should be ashamed of yourselves. Do you pass judgment on black Christians that voted overwhelmingly for Obama? No, you blast the white Christian. Unbelievable. It’s time to get rid of the libertarians, the Karl Rove’s, Rence Prebius’s and let the people decide who THEY want as their nominee. Romney was sold as the only viable candidate and in truth he was bad. He was damaged goods. Rick Perry was the only one who probably could have beaten Obama. To bad he was not recovered from his back surgery and it really hurt it plus jumping into the race to late. You’ll never win another national election without the Tea Party and Christians. They are joined at the hip.

    • Dave
      Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:33 am | Permalink | Reply

      “Rick Perry was the only one who probably”

      That’s rich. Anybody can say anything on the web, but nowhere is there ANY evidence any statement here is true. Nada, zip, zilch. If republicans want to continue to delude themselves then just keep espousing this kind of nonsense. Oh and by the way

      http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/nancy-pelosi-democratic-caucus-most-diverse-history-civilized-210111204–election.html

      “Standing directly behind Pelosi was Patrick Murphy of Florida, who won a surprise victory over tea party favorite Republican Rep. Allen West. At 29, Murphy is the youngest member of his new class, and Pelosi chose him to represent the group.

      “I just defeated somebody you all may know,” Murphy said to applause from his fellow freshmen when he reached the microphone. “A guy named Allen West, you may have heard of him.”

      A 29 year old beat a tea party incumbent. Yeah the tea party is on the upswing for sure.

  32. mediabias2012
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Interesting interactive map from the New York Times and the 2012 Presidential Election. The Republican Party isn’t broken, that’s just more hype from the Nations News Machine. Look at the map “size of lead” to look at the percentage of vote. Some quick math. California Vote for Obama along with Cook County Illinois represent nearly 3 Million of President Obama’s 3.2 Million Vote Lead. Los Angeles County was around 1 Million of California’s nearly 2 Million vote lead. Without the Blue vote totals for California and just Cook County Illinois Blue loses 3 Million votes, leaving about 225,000 winning votes spread across the Country as a winning total. The total votes out of California and Cook County total around 10 Million Votes, leaving somewhere around 110 Million votes from the rest of the Country and a 225,000 vote win for Mr. Obama, or roughly 2/10th of 1%. Nice website by the way. You did a great job. http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president

One Trackback

  1. […] and that President Obama appears to NOT have quite the mandate he thinks he has.  (Hat tip to Battleground Watch for the […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: