2012 National and State “Party ID”

The Winston Group is updating the early results from this past election for party ID nationally and at the state level:

We’ve updated our charts of national and state Party ID and Ideology breakdowns to include 2012 numbers, and is presidential-level data. There are two items to note: 1) states with a (P) label means the data from that still is still preliminary and is subject to change and 2) not every state has exit polls, so some states’ charts only go up to 2008.

Access the updated .pdf here: National Exit Polls: Party Identification and Ideology Breakdowns


  1. wholefoodsrepublican
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

    keith — i’d like to propose that you sponsor a selective invitation phone conference to discuss what we can do to improve election outcomes.. the key is to develop a professional, metric-driven, creative group… you have my private email address…

  2. Prescient11
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Permalink | Reply

    wholefoods, the first and utmost thing we must do is a proper GOTV organization. It is beyond me why that has not been a focus yet.

    Plus we need social media outreach, once a week or month to our people.

    • wholefoodsrepublican
      Posted November 13, 2012 at 4:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

      i think the model might be moveon.org a group with like minded people who will supplement the traditional party’s efforts to do gotv.

      i have come to the conclusion that we cannot rely on the grand old party.

      if they didn’t build it, we will!

      • Kevin
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

        The Establishment Republicans, or the GOP Good Ole’ Boy Systems has cost us two Presidential elections. It’s time to weed out the old way of thinking, and bring in a new generation of Conservatives. People like Allen West, who was railroaded by the Florida Republican Establishment when they drew his district out of extension. Mia Love, who led her race by 12 points with four days left, and magically lost her race. Ted Cruz who just won his Senate race in Texas, and many up coming young Conservatives at the State levels that won’t sell out their principals to win an election, or pander to a certain demographic.

    • Prescient11
      Posted November 13, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Permalink | Reply


      that is awesome!!! Yeah, fuck the GOP, we need to start this ourselves and build upon it… It can be the people’s. Since the GOP is fucking incapable of keeping it going.

    • Dabrisha
      Posted November 14, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Permalink | Reply

      The first step is to set up 100 Hispanic focus groups of between 6-8 people per group all across Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and a few more in Virginia, NC, and Ohio. Our values are similar enough with the Hispanic community that the 70/30 voting spread should be in our favor. We need to figure this out.

      The second thing is for the RNC to keep the ground game alive and kicking throughout the next few years in ALL battle ground states.

      Third, and sorry Kevin, we need to stop nominating unelectable morons like Akin and Murdoch.

  3. MikeN
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Any comments on my idea of spending $20 million in off year elections to support candidates in the 50 weakest districts? The idea is it builds up vote share among minorities for the upcoming elections. Small candidates can do something with a few hundred thousand dollars seed money.

    • Kevin Paradine
      Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

      When you’re done with that, the deck chairs need adjusting. Wait…what’s that up ahead in the fog?

      • MikeN
        Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:19 am | Permalink

        So you DON”T want to try to win minority votes?

      • Kevin Paradine
        Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:28 am | Permalink

        Of course. The problem is that the effort is a nonstarter if the platform doesn’t change sufficiently to not completely turn off those minorities. In addition, depending on who we are talking about, historical issues will have to be addressed in clear and convincing ways.

  4. Kevin Paradine
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Permalink | Reply


    But yeah, Gingrich is a retard. To paraphrase Farragut – Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead with the S.S. Social Issues!

  5. wholefoodsrepublican
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 4:20 pm | Permalink | Reply

    what happened to the tea party????????


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

      The help elect Ted Cruz, and they did it by not abandoning the social issues.

      • wholefoodsrepublican
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

        how much of his victory was due to tea party?
        how much did the tea party really contribute to his primary/runoff win?
        but what is their batting average — they blew it in delaware and nevada.
        they blew it also in Indiana this cycle

      • Kevin
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

        They didn’t blow it in Indiana, Murdock did since he was incapable of answering a simple question to a simple answer.
        Delaware will vote in a Conservative Senator the day the State of New York does.
        Sharon Angle didn’t run the best of campaigns, but Nevada is going to be a tough nut to crack since SEIU has the contract to operate the voting machines in Nevada.
        Cruz was running in the Primary against the Establishment candidate who was supported by Rick Perry, and Carl Rove. Cruz was outspent at every turn of the corner yet he still won.

      • Dave
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

        LOL. He got elected in Texas as a Senator. Get him into the Governor’s seat and then perhaps.

        So here’s Sen Cruz’s statement on abortion (the social issue):


        His highlights:

        -defneding partial birth ban on abortion
        -defended parental consent laws
        -and defended government funding of abortions

        Says nothing about stem cell research or expanding abortion bans. So basically with the exception of government spending for abortions, he’s defended the status quo.

        And you say he got elected by not abandoing the core’s social principals…

        LOL. Yeah, right. If he was anymore moderate on abortion issues, he’d be a democrat. LOL.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:19 am | Permalink

        Ted Cruz ran behind ROmney in Texas.

      • Japes
        Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

        Dont forget Ken Buck in Colorado and Joe Miller…I understand Joe Miller lost to the crybaby Murkowski but he didn’t help himself at all during his campaign. A tea partier in Alaska should be a slam dunk even if she’s was a write in.

  6. Posted November 13, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

    If the base did not fully show up, you can blame the establishment’s token tribute to the social issues. You don’t have to make the mistakes of Mourdoch and Akin in order to make these issues evident and attractive to your base supporters and other reasonable voters. A clear majority of voters do not approve of abortion-on-demand. Most want exceptions to a pro-life position only in the three so-called “hard cases.” The real extremists are the Democrats, who support abortion at every stage and, in the case of Obama, even after live birth! So, too, with SCOTUS. How can you lose by supporting nominees who follow original intent, as opposed to liberal party hacks who rewrite the Constitution at every turn? Reagan did not shrink from the social issues. But he articulated his positions with eloquence and intelligence. If you need the base to win, this is the only rational and principled course to follow.

    • FabianNightmare
      Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:01 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I agree…………Let’s agree that Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney probably won’t fire up the base. These types of candidates may make tingly legs for RINO’s but not the social and fiscal small government conservatives.

      • Kevin
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

        All of those that you listed are Democrat Light Candidates, or as I call them 70’s Republicans. Going back to the 70’s model has lost the last two Presidential elections.

        Conservatism has won whenever its been successfully explained. Either we can appeal to people emotions or appeal to their brains.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:20 am | Permalink

        Romney did better than almost all of the Republicans, except the left-wingers in blue states.

    • Kevin
      Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:19 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “Reagan did not shrink from the social issues. But he articulated his positions with eloquence and intelligence. If you need the base to win, this is the only rational and principled course to follow.”

      100% accurate,and he talked over to the media that hated him, and straight to the American people. He appealed to their brains, not to their emotions.

      • Kevin Paradine
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

        100% inaccurate


        He even phoned in support to pro-life organizations to avoid being shown on TV at their events. It was a political calculation. He did nothing to further the pro-life agenda as President – even his S.C appointments were a mixed bag. He even apparently intended this, wanting a less politicized court.

        Same deal with religion. Reagan wasn’t religious, as in being a consistent adherent and attendee of a church. Period. He rarely attended services as President, and didn’t even join the church that he infrequently attended in CA from 1963 until after he left office.

        http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1984/102684a.htm on his views of church/state collision. Doesn’t sound very Christian Conservative, does it? That’s because Reagan was secular in his views, which is why he won huge landslides.

        People can try to recharacterize Reagan. Sure, he appointed Ed Meese, who was everything you are trying to impute to Reagan and more. That was a sop to the Christian conservatives who assisted in his victories. Reagan himself wasn’t one of you, and you can’t revise history now to make him so.

      • Posted November 14, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

        thank you…Right wingers of our party have somehow recast Ronald Reagan as this bomb throwing, rightwing, religious idealouge that gave firery speeches about abortion, God, etc.

        Reagan was none of these things. These people play off the fact most in the voting public do not remember Reagan. So they portray him incorrectly to try and sway people

        Yes Reagan gave in on taxes because it was the right thing to do. He also stood up to hijacking unions and fired the air traffic controlers.

        Reagan was a classic conservative not a right winger. He had morals, a message, a vision, and he could above all articulate it to EVERY AMERICAN.

        I’m sorry but if right wing radio and Fox thinks that for any second a nutball right winger like Santorum or Bachman, etc would EVERY win the POTUS they are on crack.

        We need a RATIONAL, LOGICAL, COMMON SENSE conservative who cares about all of America and whose entire platform isnt about BANNIN GAY, BANNING ABORTION and FORCING GOD on everyone.

    • Dave
      Posted November 13, 2012 at 9:17 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “Either we can appeal to people emotions or appeal to their brains.”

      That’s funny…real conservatives like the one you descibe can’t even make it past the republican primaries. LOL. The only way Romney got enough votes to make it even close was by appealing to the middle. And because he had to run so far right to get the nomination, he was lambasted a liar in the general. Was Bush a real conservative? The guy that spent all that cash and ran up the debt? Some fiscal conservative he turned out to be. But I’d be willing to see a true fiscal conservative run in the primaries. One that has his act together. One who is charismatic, not a dinosuar and comes across as articulate. Jeb Bush might be close to that. But George pretty much did the family name in or do you think there would be huge evangelical uprising the likes this country has never seen to get him past all of the entitlement lovers?

    • Dave
      Posted November 13, 2012 at 10:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “who support abortion at every stage and, in the case of Obama, even after live birth!”

      Is there a disconnect between the hard right and reality? Is there not already ban on late term abortions? And since when does Obama want to allow “abortion” even after the birth? Where are you getting that or are you just another extremist troll? I will tell you something that nature is pro choice on such matters…after birth abortions as you call them. All of God’s creatures big or small can just let their offspring shrivel on the vine so to speak if they chose. How compassionate is that. Gods creates can let their offspring die? What that says..is that nature favors the life of the mother over the life of the offspring. Just for your info, there is nothing here that says Obama favors post birth abortions.


      I’m really trying to understand the positions of the far right but the digger I deep the more I realize it’s all about control for them.

      “Gov. Romney: On the idea of multiple-choice I have to respond. I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative, that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that, or being multiple-choice, thank you very much.””

      And here’s the part that probably kept the Envangelicals at home. They here words like this and they know he’s not one of them:

      “I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people.”

      God, I love this guy. 🙂

      • MikeN
        Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:22 am | Permalink

        Dave, Obama spoke against a bill as state senator in Illinois to protect babies that survived abortions. Routine policy is to throw away the baby as it is unwanted.

      • Dave
        Posted November 14, 2012 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

        Late term abortions (6-9 months) are outlawed currently, are they not? There is no way a fetus 0-6 months could live outside the womb in any kind of natural state, abortion or not, so how could that happen?

  7. Tony
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:49 pm | Permalink | Reply

    With people like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and others still pushing the hard right agenda…it’s only a matter of time b4 Republican only occupy Oklahoma, Nebraska, Idaho, Utah, Alabama, Ms, Georgia, La, SC, Indiana and Ky. Everyone else will just laugh at the party.

    I wanted Romney to win, but it is astonishing to hear and read Conservatives wishing for fiscal calamity. It’s really sad.

    • C'ville
      Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Sounds like those would have the makings of a nice new country honestly. I’d have to move though.

      • C'ville
        Posted November 13, 2012 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

        And let’s keep eye on the ball, Romney won every economic category 50,000 dollars and over, independents and every category of whites, men, women (yes), “youths”(yes) etc. We lost because of huge support and turnout for Barry by low income minorities. There’s a few ways to approach that problem, not all of which require getting support of low income minorities.

    • Dave
      Posted November 13, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “read Conservatives wishing for fiscal calamity”

      Democrats are saying the same thing. Sen Patty Murray is on of them.

  8. Dave
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I would dispute that GOP lost because the evangelicals stayed home or if they did stay home it was because of the moderate pro-life stance. Murdoch and Akin campainging in states that are about as right-winged they come, both got their clocks cleaned and sent home. If the evangelicals cared so much about the abortion issue how come they didn’t come clamoring out of the woodowork for these guys?

  9. Prescient11
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink | Reply

    The key is to have a candidate that can fucking speak without a crazy annoying accent. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth.

    Out of the field, Romney was the only one that could speak decently. Michele Bachman, I like her but you have to be f’ing kidding me. Same with Palin, I like her as well but can’t stand listening to her talk.

    Get this through your heads, we cannot have goofy sounding candidates.

    • Dave
      Posted November 13, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “fucking speak without a crazy annoying accent”

      LOL. What about Bush…oh yeah, when everyone’s trying to make sense of your last sentence, no one pays attention to your accent..LOL.

    • Dave
      Posted November 13, 2012 at 10:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

      What’d I’d do is run every primary candidate wanna be through a series of screen tests with potential voters and then run the top 2 that people respond to the best. The GOP keeps letting any wacko that wants to spout all kinds of extremist views in the REPUBLICAN primary and the press has a FIELD DAY with it. Those people damage the republican brand FAR more than you realize. And then there are the backgrounds of people. No one’s perfect, I understand that, but before the GOP lets ANYONE get up on that stage as a candidate as representative of their party, they should at least have been vetted by the national party. Checkn for things like sex scandels, companies they run that try to convert gays to straight (lol, that was hilarious), and the like. The meat-loving press has a taste for extremist nut-whacks in the republican party and they spare NO EXPENSE.

      Republcains like any well company need to control their mesage and their brand. They do that by vetting every candidate and putting the 2 best in front of the public. The more people that are up there the more the press has an opportunity to whack them and they will and the more of a chance stupid things get said. If you want one that represents far right views and one that represents middle of the road views thats fine but control the image by limiting the number of candidates and presenting quality individuals as representative of the republican party…then and maybe just then the party will get the respect it wants. Respect is earned not forced, much to the dismay of the evangelical right.

  10. M.White
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Look, not all is lost, Republicans now have over 30 governorships and state legislatures and some are in solid blue states. So, to say that people are rejecting Republicans is not the case. In many states that were once controlled by Democrats, people have shown them the door, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and so on.
    Here are some up and coming Republicans that will lead the party with conservatism in a sensible, appealing way…Marco Rubio (FL), Bobby Jindal (LA), Nikki Haley (SC), Susanna Martinez (NM), Brian Sandavol (NV), Mitch Daniels (IN), Jeb Bush (FL), Ted Cruz (TX), Mary Fallon (OK), Rand Paul (KY) and many more. To me the best candidate at this time is Marco Rubio; he speaks in a true, convincing, compassionate way, using conservative principles. He will appeal too many, maybe like Reagan did. He could choose one of the women I listed for his running mate, Nikki Haley would be perfect. We can get this country back but it will take extremely hard work and I think we need to start planning for 2016 now…because I can already tell you the Democrats are with Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Mario Cuomo, and Julian Castro and so on. Our major problems are the ground game, we need to learn quickly how to operate this thing, then we need to start outreach to minority communities, not by abandoning our beliefs and values but encouraging people to learn about them, bring them into the fold, we don’t need to win a majority of minorities, but we need to peal enough off to win. We need to get at least 40% of the Hispanic vote (GWB got 44%), then we need to get at least 15% of the black vote and win back Asian Americans and other minorities. Most minorities are traditional and have strong morals.
    We have to look at historical facts: The first black Congressional members in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s were Republicans because they offered them an equal seat at the table, most blacks were Republican until the 1960’s when Civil Rights were debated and Republicans supported it more than Democrats but at the time Democrats controlled the Presidency, Congress and the Senate, but they followed the Republicans but because Republicans were the minority in the government the Democrats got the credit. Then of course Democrats saw blacks as votes in their pocket by offering them a welfare state. Blacks don’t realize or fail to admit that they are more enslaved today on the Democrat plantation more than ever before. And I will tell you that most blacks and Hispanics are afraid to vote Republican or support them for fear of pressure from the left. Blacks and Hispanics that are Republicans are raked over the coals by the media and the leftist liberals. We have to stop this and now! Republicans fought for the freedom and liberty of blacks, and by the way, something you won’t hear in the media or history books, Martin Luther King was a conservative Republican. The KKK was nothing but Dixiecrat Democrats that hung, tortured and enslaved Democrats. We need to remind blacks of their great grandparent’s heritage which was Republican. We need to break this bondage for Blacks! And if you don’t believe me here is the proof: http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/ We need to endorse these people and build on it!
    Here is my next critique…we need to form our platform in a different way, get rid of the old-fashioned establishment and start a grassroots effort to form a broad platform from a vast group of Republicans…for starters the platform needs to state that we want to protect life and we are pro-life, but we accept that if women chose an abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the mother’s life that we won’t oppose it, and that we seek to make abortion rare and only for purposes stated above and stop this rape non-sense talk…rape is rape and we should stand by women no matter what their decision, men can’t speak of this in terms other than what I stated above. They need to stop making insensitive comments, even though I understand what they are saying most people don’t and they get crucified in the media and by the left. Being pro-life in not extreme, abortion on demand is the extreme and we need to take a stand on that. We need to go around the media on some of these issues. I personally am opposed to all abortions but sometimes for the good of the party and for the country we need to have a more reasonable and compassionate platform on very sensitive issues. I know that at this point in time of our history abortion is not going to be overturned, but we can work to make it rare and educate young people and minorities on how bad the practice is. We need our messaging on these issues to be more compassionate and sensitive. Most people are not for abortion on demand but for those in the middle it does sound extreme to be discussing legitimate rape and no exceptions. We also need to work in the Christian community to understand this. We can be pro-life but be more sensitive and understanding, after all, if I am not the one having the abortion then I don’t have to personally give an account to God for it. (One other note on this: blacks are enslaved by abortion; more black babies have been aborted than any other race in this country. Liberals know this and are basically wiping out the black race with abortion, we need to change this and speak about it with outreach to the black community.)
    On the gay marriage issue, we don’t have to endorse gay marriage or civil unions but we can place in our platform that we support equal rights for them as far as understanding they want to be able to will their estates to their partners, make life decisions for their partners and so on. We need to stand by traditional marriage but we have to be sensitive on issues. You can stand by your morals and values without being so bigoted. Again, if I am not the homosexual, then I don’t have to give an account for their bedroom decisions. WE have to remember that God forgives all that repent and it’s not our place to judge. My point is…we can be inclusive without giving up our values, morals and principles. It’s all about the messaging. Now everything I’m saying is coming from a very conservative, Bible believing woman, but I also know that we are not to judge people that is for God to do. We need to be compassionate and in doing so it shows the love of Jesus and you never know, it could change people in the process, but that’s my heart talking.
    The platform needs to be formed before the off-year elections such as before 2014 and keep it for 2016. This will throw the media off, and will take away one of their talking points during the convention process. Remember this past convention, the media screamed and ranted about the abortion platform coming out of the RNC because they left out most exceptions but you barely heard about the fiasco at the DNC where they wanted to leave God and Israel out of their platform. We need to fix our problems early and get it out of the way.
    My last thought is this…we need to get behind our candidate early…we don’t need another bruising primary debacle. It really hurts the eventual nominee. Once we have the candidate we want, we need to push them through the primary, support them, protect them and help them. We need a jumpstart so we aren’t trying to defend every issue coming from the left. We need to be grassroots about this, we need to overcome the media by protecting our candidate and try to shut up Republicans that seek to hurt our nominee for their own selfish political purposes. We need to have our nominee picked before the Democrats have theirs because they will have a bruising primary in 2016, so we need to get out in front of them on this.
    We have to get our outreach and ground game going yesterday! I mean we need to get this started and one last thing, we need to make sure we accomplish the GOTV the way we want to do it, not try some crazy scheme 3 months before the election that failed on Election Day. We need to have our ground game in place for 2014 so we can test it out before 2016. With the right ground game, the right messaging, the right candidate and grassroots efforts in minority and Christian communities, we can win and take back our country! Let’s do this thing! I can’t stand the thoughts of another socialist, Marxist in 2016; the next 4 years will be bad enough. WE have to consolidate our base early and now!
    The one voting block I am concerned with is Libertarians, they want a very passive foreign policy, which in some ways I agree with, but we need to find a way to reach out to them for the good of the country! We may need a candidate like Marco Rubio who wasn’t in the Senate at the time of the last 2 wars so he didn’t vote on them which will help him. We could also look to Rand Paul for some platform considerations on foreign policy, maybe a mix of Paul and Rubio forming the foreign policy platform. We have to be careful because I see Rand Paul wanting to take over the Republican Party with his own brand of Libertarianism which is not a bad thing but not all goo either. He also said he supported Romney and went out and campaigned for him but right after Romney gave his foreign policy speech, two weeks before the election Rand Paul wrote an opinion article for CNN really going against Romney, so he has to be watched carefully. And we need to watch Christie carefully, too. He really hurt Romney!

    • FabianNightmare
      Posted November 14, 2012 at 8:39 am | Permalink | Reply

      Thank you M.White for your comments, and I agree with most of your statement.

      I would add four points:
      1) Our party needs to make it a priority to break the federal employee unions as far as collective bargaining and dues collection. Wisconsin on a federal level.
      2) Stop with the “special” classes of citizens. Homosexuals should have the same rights afforded every citizen by the constitution, no more no less. Defend DOMA and do away with “hate crime” legislation. All crime is hate. No more “special” citizens.
      3) Voter ID requirements, NOW.
      4) Suspend all immigration until a top down review is completed. Currently 15% ($100 bln) of means tested welfare goes to low skilled immigrants with a high school education or less. Why on G-D’s green earth are we granting legal status to people who can’t make it without public assistance. Also, our immigration policy should be one of reciprocity, if an American christian, jew, buddhist, aethiest, etc., can not immigrate to nation xyz and worship openly, then no immigration from that nation.

      • M.White
        Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:20 am | Permalink


  11. M.White
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 11:47 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Keith, we need to get in touch on some serious things concerning 2014 and 2016 and a message starting now for the party. Send me an email at: mwhite129@charter.net.
    Anyone else interested, email me.

  12. M.White
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 11:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Also, has anyone been in contact with RNC about our ideas and thoughts on this site? We need to get started immediately and victory offices and Republican offices need to be kept open and operational from now until 2016, really for the foreseeable future. That’s a huge reason Obama won in battleground states because they never left in 2008, they kept the effort going, registering voters, keeping their offices open. We need to do the same this time. It will not only help in 2016 but also in 2014. We have to take the Senate back. I was looking at the Senate seats up in 2014 and most of the Republican seats are in fairly safe states but we need make sure of that, make sure we have excellent candidates to oppose the Democrat seats.

  13. M.White
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:01 am | Permalink | Reply

    Oh, we do need immigration reform but in a responsible manner. We should NOT reward illegal behavior but we should reward legal behavior.

  14. PeterJ
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 8:47 am | Permalink | Reply


    Why don’t you get your own blog and direct your stream of consciousness ramblings to it.

    • M.White
      Posted November 14, 2012 at 10:23 am | Permalink | Reply

      Or maybe you could leave this site! What is your problem? Get over yourself. If you don’t like the ideas from people on this site then find somewhere else to go.

  15. MikeN
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:23 am | Permalink | Reply

    So apparently, the Republicans in order to win elections in the future, must support acid, amnesty, and abortion.

    • Kevin Paradine
      Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:51 am | Permalink | Reply

      Well, try running as Richard Nixon in 2016 and see how you do. Good luck.

  16. Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:24 am | Permalink | Reply

    It appears that my post #6 above set off a bit of a firestorm! Sensitivities are high regarding the non-economic issues — understandably. But the fact remains that these issues were largely absent the campaign this time. We need the Christian base to this party, even if “moderates” think not. Obama ran to the extreme left and won. If we try to emulate his stance to some extent by going “moderate,” the Democrats will “meet and top” our bets every time — as Rush has pointed out.

    Social issue conservativism is a winning issue in this land — IF you use it rightly, as did Reagan. Some have alleged above that Reagan was not all that pro-life. Well, I recall seeing him on TV arguing that any doubt about the human life of the unborn ought to be resolved in favor of the child, not by taking the risk of killing an unborn human being. He did not say this, but it is much like a hunter shooting into a thicket when he is not sure if a deer or a man is inside. You cannot pull the trigger when in any doubt at all. If we think human life is so sacred in this country, why are we dodging this issue regarding the unborn. No woman has a right to privacy unless she first has a right to life. So, if the right to life does not take precedence, then neither is there any “right to choose.”

    But we need to argue with force, intelligence, and prudence. It is not necessary to grant any moral value to the claim that the three “hard cases” ought be enshrined in law. I said above (#) that most people favor exceptions for those hard cases (incest, life of mother, rape). I did not say this is ethically good or correct. But what any candidate can say, and the platform can say, is that the present structure of the electorate is such that these “hard cases” are not presently at issue. What is at issue is the other 95% of cases, and even those are largely before SCOTUS, not our candidates directly. But it is a fact that in the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama voted four times in favor of allowing the killing of children already born in a botched abortion. Three of his votes might be somehow explained, but the fourth one was not. If this is not extremism in the pursuit of abortion, what is?

    On this and other social issues, we need to develop rational principled positions that are intelligently expressed and defended. Only then will we get the full support of the conservative base in this land so needed to push our nominees over the finish line.

    • Kevin Paradine
      Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:30 am | Permalink | Reply

      Reagan said what he had to say in the context of the times. Today, the issue is no longer a winner, so nothing should be said about it. Reagan didn’t make the politics of the time what they were. He simply adapted well to the circumstances of his moment.

      • Billy Butch
        Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:42 am | Permalink

        Social issue conservatism is not a winning issue. In every debate we’ve seen candidates get tripped up by the media and then painted as nutjobs. You’ll never have a rationale debate on the topic.

    • Fred S
      Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:59 am | Permalink | Reply

      I think that the horrors of the next 4 years of the Obama presidency, inability to obtain healthcare, inflation, increasing unemployment, etc. will be a wake up call for the entire country.

  17. Billy Butch
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:30 am | Permalink | Reply

    “All this is plainly in Mr Obama’s interest—and that of his country, too. But what about the Republicans? Their script is depressingly easy to write. The party’s leaders will once again conclude that they lost because their candidate was not a genuine conservative, and vow to find the real thing next time. Possible future leaders like Paul Ryan, this year’s vice-presidential candidate, will head to the right in preparation for the 2016 primaries. Compromise with Mr Obama will be treason.

    If the Republicans do that they will be abandoning all electoral sense. They managed to lose an election again in a country where conservatives still handily outnumber liberals by lumbering Mr Romney with extremist positions, such as rejecting any budget deal involving tax rises even if spending cuts were ten times greater. Their obsession with abortion and gay marriage seems ever more out of touch with women and young people. And their harshness towards illegal immigrants cost them the growing Latino vote, 71% of which went to Mr Obama. Plenty of independent voters, and this newspaper, yearn for a more pragmatic Republican Party. Doing a deal on the deficit with Mr Obama would signal its rebirth.

    Above all, though, a bipartisan deal over the budget would be good for America—and the world. It would encourage business to invest, thus strengthening America’s economy and raising the country’s standing, and indeed the standing of market capitalism. Enemies like Iran and North Korea would once again respect and fear American power. A budget deal would act as a reminder that democracy works, especially at a time when China is changing its leadership in a more dictatorial way. The alternative, of four more years of angry stasis, would do America, and the world, huge damage.”


    • Billy Butch
      Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:38 am | Permalink | Reply

      1) Do we need a “Christian” element? Yes, but do we need to hang it like an albatross around our necks every election? No.
      2) We need to moderate social issues or remove them from the official platform. What YOU believe shouldn’t necessarily be foisted on the electorate.
      3) As the Economist notes and Keith validated in his latest post is that MOST Americans are center-to-right in their views, but it doesn’t mean we should be pontificating moral standards. Instead we should be focused on the core message of the party: pragmatic fiscal responsibility through an effective and efficient government that protects you but doesn’t stomp all over your liberties.

      Guess what guys, we need to compromise tactically to ensure the strategic. We don’t move the line a bit the media is going to hang us (right or wrong) for any economic fallout. W won in 2000 despite running against the Veep of a popular POTUS. We can only be so lucky if Batsh*t Joe decided to run.

  18. Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:41 am | Permalink | Reply

    There are many polls showing that the majority of Americans still do not approve of abortion in most cases. As to the frequent agrument that we cannot impose our morality on others, (1) every law does precisely that, e.g., laws against murder reflect one of the Ten Commandments, for Pete’s sake!, and (2) liberals, through Obamacare, are clearly imposing there lack of morality on the whole society, to wit, see the wanton repression of conscience rights regarding contraception and abortion by ObamaCare on Catholic hospitals and other institutions, even all other religious ones.

    You can always say that every politician is merely adapting to the needs of the moment. The plain fact is that some people actually develop a better understanding of morality over time and change their views to reflect that. It is not always like a Muslim becoming a putative Christian because his wife thinks it will sell better politically.

    • Billy Butch
      Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink | Reply

      They don’t approve individually; however, the same polls show us that they don’t think it show be abolished either. That’s electorate schizophrenia and as such we need to remove these types of emotional, loaded issues from our platform.

    • Kevin Paradine
      Posted November 14, 2012 at 11:53 am | Permalink | Reply

      As I said above: run as Reagan, with a suitable Ed Meese in tow in 2016 and see how you do. I wish you luck. I won’t be contributing: I don’t back lost causes.

      Times changed. Refighting lost social battles is self-defeating. No one wants to back a loser.

  19. Posted November 14, 2012 at 12:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Times have changed, indeed. But societal ethics have not. Truth remains truth. It is not a choice between principles and politics. Run a Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz and watch them appeal to the family values of Latinos with sufficient success to crack that critical demographic group — and win.

    • Kevin Paradine
      Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Permalink | Reply

      You guys can keep repeating yourselves all you want. I’m pulling out – and i’m late to the party, people like me have been pulling out for decades now because the current course is unsustainable. You can look at it this our way: we’re not going to win by ourselves. Not enough people who believe in fiscal sanity to prevail on that alone. The amount of time we’ve stayed on board for this social issue insanity was conditioned by two things: our ability to support a worldview we don’t agree with voluntarily and our belief that we could win. I am personally not offended by people’s religion, even expressed publically. That’s why I am here at the end. Most people like me are long lost to the Republican party. I’m leaving because I think this is a losing battle and I think the Republicans need to either alter message radically or cease to exist. Those are literally the two choices. If the message is appropriately altered, i’ll be back. But not before that. I’m not going to try to convince a family (and state) that are 90%+ pro-choice, ambivalent towards gays and nonreligious to support candidates from a party which is christian, anti-gay and pro-life. *shrug* it’s that simple.

      That’s where the missing white voters in Ohio are, by the way. At home, and not supporting the GOP any longer.

      • Kevin Paradine
        Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

        I’m a former Republican pragmatist, not a Democrat. You’ll find that out in 2016 if you don’t wise up.

      • Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

        Let me see if I understand you correctly. You would support the Republican cause essentially because of the need for fiscal sanity. We concur. But you tolerate the Christian, pro-life, pro-marriage aspects only as long as you think we can win — and you do not think we can win on those issues. But you rightly cannot expect the Republicans to abandon all those other issues, even if, supposedly, we could win on the economy alone. Basically, that is what we just tried — and failed to do.

        I would gently note that this country remains about 80-85% Christian. It is mostly pro-life if you absent the three “hard cases” (hopefully, in the principled manned I described above), and I admit the homosexual “marriage” issue is problematic, primarily because the young have been brainwashed by secularists in our schools to think of it only in viewpoint of being “anti-gay descrimination.” But the fact remains that society, as a whole, is presently pretty well split down the middle on this one (amazingly). And the key remains to be one of defending the traditional definition of marriage. The fact is that homosexuals already have the exact same rights as heterosexuals in society, namely, the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Their problem is that they want to redefine marriage as a new and distinct right: the “right” to “marry” a person of the same sex. No one has ever had that “right” before, and society has an obligation to go slowly about inventing new “rights” that can impact the family itself , which is the basic building block of the nation.

        I hope you will be around in 2016 to witness the election of a conservative, fiscally sound, pro-family, pro-God, pro-country nominee. Three tries with failed moderates is enough. Time to return to the genuine Reagan formula which can work, even though it needs to be “tweaked” to fit the present demographics a bit.

      • Kevin Paradine
        Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

        80-85% Christian in name only. Those surveys would capture me as a Catholic. I haven’t been in a church willingly in 30 years and I do not believe in a deity. The churches in my area are ghost towns and the pastors are whoring themselves out – doing gay marriages, toning down the official catechism – to survive. So, please, don’t suggest that there’s a secret groundswell of religiosity in the American character. It’s about where you live, not about the reality in the blue side of the tracks where religion is dead and they keep hitting it with the paddles, with no result. Time of death…

      • Posted November 14, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

        I am thinking of the some 85% a few years ago who said they believed Christ rose from the dead. It appears that survey would not include you, since you believe in no deity. I know a huge number of nominal Christians do not practice their faith today. But that does not mean that they are all inimical to its basic tenets, since the polls still indicate the moral sentiments I cited earlier.

      • FabianNightmare
        Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

        I appreciate your passion, Kevin, but your positions sound more like what was called a “blue dog” democrat, a fiscal conservative democrat…………the problem is they have all been run out of the democrat party by the hard left and socialists. So where else can a conservative democrat go ??

    • Barf
      Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:15 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I agree, Rubio will be the nominee in 2016 and he is pro-life. He will win as most Hispanics are pro-life, traditionalists and devout Catholic.

  20. Barf
    Posted November 14, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Kevin must live in Massachusetts

    • Posted November 14, 2012 at 7:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Incidentally, when asked why SCOTUS did not take up the natural born citizen challenge to Obama, Justice Thomas pointed out that it takes four votes to get a case heard. At the time, many people wondered which of the four “conservative” justices dropped the ball. After the ObamaCare debacle, it appears no longer to be such a mystery.

      • Posted November 14, 2012 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

        Oops. That belongs under #21.

  21. Posted November 14, 2012 at 7:18 pm | Permalink | Reply

    I would love to see Rubio run. The irony is that he is not a “natural born citizen” for the same reason Obama is not. It is not a matter of not being born on US soil. That is “native born.” “Natural born citizen” means that, not only were you born on US soil, but also that both your parents were legal citizens at the time of your birth. Neither Obama nor Rubio nor Jindel meet that test. Still, since Obama got away with it, the precedent is set. The Constitution has been overruled by public and judicial apathy.

    • FabianNightmare
      Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Exactly, I made the same point earlier. Rubio does not meet the “natural born” clause. This issue needs to be addressed prior to 2016 by the House.

    • C'ville
      Posted November 14, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Permalink | Reply

      People, I see both sides of this social issue debate but in reality this was the most non social issue election I recall. It was all economics and was the “moderate social, fiscally conservative” candidate people always wanted to run so this “we lost on social issues” isn’t based in reality. Romney did as well as Reagan with whites, all whites – old, young, male, female, working class and independents. We lost tactically with Axelrod turning out low income minorities. Bush was more of a mix between social and fiscal – and won. Just sayin’.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: