Lessons from 2012

Karl Rove breaks down the lessons from the 2012 election defeat. In short, don’t believe the hype:

The media’s postelection narrative is that Democrats won because of a demographic shift. There is some truth to that, but a more accurate description is that Democrats won in a smaller turnout by getting out more of their vote. Turnout dropped by 7.9 million voters, falling to 123.6 million this year from 131.5 million in 2008. This is the first decline in a presidential election in 16 years. Only 51.3% of the voting-age population went to the polls. While the Democratic “ground game” was effective, President Barack Obama received 90.1% of his 2008 total while Gov. Mitt Romney received 98.6% of Sen. John McCain’s vote. Neither party generated a higher turnout nationally.

Who didn’t show up:

According to exit polls, turnout dropped among white and black Americans (by 8.3 million and 1 million, respectively) but rose among Hispanics. They added 850,000 votes to Mr. Obama’s total compared with 2008. Millennials (those aged 18-29) were a larger share of the turnout than in 2008, but 176,000 fewer in number. They cast 1.5 million fewer votes for Mr. Obama than last time and 1.1 million more votes for Mr. Romney than they did for Mr. McCain. To win, the GOP must do better—much better—with Hispanics and millennials, and also with women voters.

How to fix it:

Tactically, Republicans must rigorously re-examine their “72-hour” ground game and reverse-engineer the Democratic get-out-the-vote effort in order to copy what works. For example, a postelection survey shows that the Democratic campaign ground game was more effective in communicating negative information. It would be good to know why—and how to counter such tactics in the future. Republicans should also emulate the Democratic “50-state” strategy by strengthening the ground game everywhere, not just in swing states. It will be important for the GOP to erase the data advantage Democrats may have in their targeting of potential supporters for their candidates. And local GOP organizations must persistently focus on adding to the voter rolls the millions of people likely to vote Republicans if they were registered. Strategically, Republicans will need to frame economic issues to better resonate with middle-class families. Mr. Romney had solid views on jobs, spending, deficits, health care and energy. But even among the 59% of voters for whom the economy was their top concern, he prevailed by only four points (51% to 47%).


  1. David
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink | Reply

    In short, a campaign is always won by organizational strength and effective outreach to key voting blocs. For example: Romney campaign ads were invisible on Spanish language TV. While immigration is an important issue for them, it is not an overriding issue – economic issues and upward mobility are important to them. When no effort is made to campaign for their vote, do not expect to receive their vote. They’ll vote for the other guy because they see their ads and direct mail.

  2. Prescient11
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 11:52 am | Permalink | Reply

    I was wondering that exact same thing. Did RR put out ads on Spanish tv.


    • David
      Posted November 15, 2012 at 12:34 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Though I don’t watch Spanish language TV, my understanding is that RR didn’t run too many ads and send direct mail.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

        He did, but his message was off. He ran anti Obamacare ads to Hispanics, while ignoring the subject for English speakers.

      • Prescient11
        Posted November 16, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

        Mike, that I cannot believe. just wow…

    • David
      Posted November 15, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Permalink | Reply

      One more thing, McCain won 38% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, Romney 23%. If memory serves correctly, I believe Bush may have won around 48% in 2004 (increasing his share over 2000). Bush ran plenty of ads on Spanish TV combined with direct mail both times.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

        Your memory does not serve you. Some exit polling said Bush won 44% in 04, but a look at results suggests the number is closer to 35-38%. McCain won about 31%. I think Romney’s number is higher as well. Bush won his campaign while McCain and Romney lost, so much of the difference is explained right there.

      • Prescient11
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

        Yeah, I want to say that it is pretty well accepted that GWB got lower 40s on a percentage wide basis for hispanics.

        But DIG DEEPER into the data.

        Where we get absolutely slaughtered is with minority WOMEN….

        Only 87% of black men voted for obama. I want to say it was around 60% of hispanic men did.

        With the women we get killed!

        We need to work on this outreach.

      • Dave
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

        Yeah, well, it starts in the primaries and the how relatable the party is to women. Not just the candidate but the party. Suffice to say putting the likes of Gingrich, Bachman, Herman-what’s-his-name, Santorum, et. al. all on one stage all trying to out pander the other for the social conservative vote, really really turns the women you talk about here off. Really. Most women, the kind being lemanetd over for their lost vote, are middle of the road types. They are not about to risk the freedom to manage their bodies or have religious moral values imposed on them by voting for a party that puts people up on stage that eposue extreme social agendas. And guess what. Women stick together. It’s a trait ingrained in them from way back. That is you can have a women who is married who wouldn’t be directly affected by conservative social agenda but perhaps has a daughter or a friend or a girlfriends friend who they know would suffer at the hands of draconian republican social policies, and they’ll vote against repubs just for that. And then there’s nothing the candidate can do to win them back or they have to work twice as hard. The party needs to put on a more moderate face and recognize that religious moral values aside from one kingdom under God, is not a tolerable political position. I hope the new house leader is a step in that direction.

      • David
        Posted November 17, 2012 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

        Sorry, I was referring to Colorado Hispanic vote totals which ran fairly close to the Texas level.

    • PeterJ
      Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:36 pm | Permalink | Reply


      Do you like get paid a dollar or something every time you use the word “fuck” in a post. Just curious.

  3. MikeN
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Permalink | Reply

    In other words, do the opposite of what I did in this election.

  4. No Tribe
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Pollster Neil Newhouse told donors on the call: “The way we figured it out is 900,000 fewer white men voted in our target states than in 2008, and 607,000 more African-Americans and Hispanics voted.”

    • Wholefoodsrepublican
      Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

      It’s not enought to fix the errors of 2012 but also to Anticipate new factors. Demographics is dynamic.,. But one factor is Hispanic vote is increasing… Univision telemundo cable tells us so. Hispanics are not as monolithic
      Also I’d like to see data about Asians…
      We need to have redundancy in gotv. Not just rely on Republican Party. Not just rely on the candidate.
      Redundancy in gotv!

  5. PeterJ
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Rove is a like a losing football coach, not really the best qualified to analyze his own failures of advice and views in the 2012 campaign. Just because the democratic spin narrative is not totally correct, that does not mean it only comes down to tactics apart from message. And re message I mean true small government fiscal conservatism which was not practiced by Bush2 whom he advised. Even re tactics alone, why didn’t Rove discern all this from the 2008 Obama ground game in time to be of use to us in 2012? Obviously because he is too slow on the uptake and cannot now be considered a legitimate adviser to the party.

  6. PeterJ
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Note to Keith:

    Rather than my continuing to snipe at those others here who refuse to take a hint and be civil enough to stop dumping entire articles and very longish religious emotion-laden screeds here, I would just like to suggest that you explicitly tell us that we should avoid doing that. In respect to entire articles, merely including the copyright notice with same is NOT sufficient to claim fair use. You will end up getting DMCA takedown notices if it continues, as I have seen this play out in other venues online. Instead, just as you do, absent permission from the author and publisher to publish an article article in the comments here, comments should merely include a couple succinct salient quotes with a link to the entire article where it was published. That is both fair use and a civil treatment of fellow blog commenters.

    Also it should be noted that although the republican party includes several legitimate interest groups with somewhat differing views on many issues, venues like this on the net often attract very fringe elements desperate for any place to expound their views and will taint otherwise legitimate venues with their nut-jobbery. From truther and birther wingnuts (even if true can’t be proven) to thinly disguised white power racist nuts, to religious zealots who make zero adjustment for pragmatic realities (and I consider myself a religious conservative and don’t believe abortion justified under any circumstances) and want to give sermons here, there is a plethora of fringe elements who will quickly tarnish this site and any prospect it has to have relevant reason-based discussions of the issues that concern us, if they are given the smallest latitude. They glom onto any site that will have them since they have so little success propagating their views in their own venues. Which will only drive away those here who would like to have sensible discussions. So my respectful advice is to not let them do that.


    • Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink | Reply

      I thank PeterJ for drawing further attention to this. Post a link, maybe include an important paragraph at most but no more. This shouldn’t need to be stated but apparently people are taking great liberties. Play civil and within the rather loose rules of the Internet.

    • M.White
      Posted November 15, 2012 at 4:16 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Just for the record I am not racist, or a birther wingnut, or a religious zealot. Please reframe from calling people this. I will not post articles anymore, only a link but you don’t have to be so rude to people. I am very concerned about the party and the country as a whole and only want to help. I am not crazy or a right wing nut case. Just remember that you turn people off by making stupid assumptions.

      • PeterJ
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

        M. White,

        My post was meant to cover the broad spectrum of current and possible future posters here and I did not mean to imply you were necessarily any of those other things. You have however posted a couple sermon-like posts mentioning Jesus and salvation and God, which is not the beginning point of this blog, despite my own religious beliefs being closer to yours than probably most others here. Even if the starting point for many of our views are religious based, it is pointless to make those arguments to those who do not believe the same.

        And advocating only putting a compassionate face on social issues without being willing for pragmatic reasons to at least tweak them to some degree is fruitless and will not fly. While obviously we religious believers cannot compromise totally on every social issue and have any integrity, we also have to realize that to have any chance of mitigating contrary positions we have to bend in practice in some ways. This does not mean however giving up on all social issue concerns as advocated by some here, since in that case we may as well just be fiscal conservative democrats.

      • M.White
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

        I understand what you are saying Peter…Sorry for the confusion.

    • Posted November 16, 2012 at 10:47 am | Permalink | Reply

      I could pretty much take your feelings and attach my username to it. Couldn’t agree more. Completely dumping social issues is not going to solve anything as the MSM and Dems are going to bring them up anyway (ie, GOP doesn’t have abortion in the platform the MSM asks next GOP nominee “Didn’t you drop that from your platform just for political expediency and you really still believe in denying a woman her access to abortion?”). I too am a strong Christian conservative and believe (just my opinion) GOP campaigns should have some undercurrent of that. However political campaigns should not be religious crusades or platforms for such efforts.

      • Kevin Paradine
        Posted November 16, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

        The cancer must be completely cut out before it stops hurting you. It may take multiple election cycles, but the religion just has to go. If it is really gone from the party platform and candidates, then, eventually, the press attacks will stop having bite, the same way attacks of ‘racism’ have little bite nowadays.

        That said, religion will serve as a glass ceiling to the Republican party forevermore until it goes.

        Ask those minority women why they hate Republicans. Seriously.

  7. Derclaw86
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Holding an earlier convention is a good idea, I think it makes sense. It gives us more time to pull our party together to get ready for the fall campaign. I also believe in abolishing single state primaries in favor of a regional or national system. I agree that GOP debate moderators should be carefully chosen and limited. Participation in debates should be limited to candidates that can meet a certain NATIONAL polling threshhold. All of these changes would only allow candidates that can form a broad, national coalitions, instead of fringe crackpots. The debates and primaries would be showcases where candidates are forced to build and defend their ideas, not simply try to “make some noise”. This would eliminate Rick Santorum and other crackpots from being able to excite a few hundred evangelicals in western Iowa, say goofy and divisive things, and be allowed to stay in a nomination race they would otherwise have no business being in.

    • MikeN
      Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Permalink | Reply

      So the guy who won 11 primaries, and probably 20 if he doesn’t drop out, is a crackpot who has no business being allowed on stage. All of the candidates were valid. The mistake was in leaving out Gary Johnson, who then ran off to the libertarians.
      Your filter would guarantee more Romneys.
      The candidates who ran were: former Speaker of the House, former 2 term governor of small state, former 2-term Senator, sitting 4 term governor of large state, 3 term Congressman who is member of the Intelligence Committee and founder of the Tea Party Caucus, 5 term congressman who is cofounder of the Sovereignty Caucus,successful businessman and radio host who at one point was leading in primary polls, former one-term governor of medium sized state who turned around many businesses, former 2 term governor of medium sized state.

      • Derclaw86
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

        I felt Rick Perry had a legitimate candidacy since he was a big state governor, had both resources and a heavy following, especially in the south. Perry’s problem was that he was inexperienced on the national stage and performed poorly, but I felt he belonged on the stage. Newt Gingrich is a has-been. He has very little political capital beyond Georgia. Also his campaign was almost entirely supported by a single donor, Sheldon Adelson. Michelle Bachmann was someone that made a lot of noise, but not generate appeal beyond her narrow, ideological base. Tim Pawlenty, on the other hand, was a very successful governor with a solid record of accomplishment in his home state of Minnesota. He just had the misfortune of being from the same state as Michele Bachmann and got crowded off the stage because he wasn’t ideological enough. Finally, Rick Santorum was never a viable candidate, had no national following, and could never appeal to anyone beyond his narrow ideological stripe. In fact, he couldn’t even hold his own Senate seat. He only won Iowa by living in the state for two years, personally pandering to every evangelical he could find, and watch the other candidates split the rest of the vote. He was only able to stay in the race through evangelical pandering and Foster Friess’s checkbook. However, he never had any appeal beyond this group. In essence, there were only three or legitimate candidates in the 2012 primary.

    • Dave
      Posted November 15, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Permalink | Reply

      And what in the world were republicans thinking holding their convention the last week of summer and the week before labor day vacation? Everybody is away, focused on wringing the last of summer out the season. NO wonder the dems got a bigger bounce out of their convention. People were home and paying attention. That was strategically a very stupid and costly mistake. And then mother nature wanted her say in it too but that’s another unbelievable story.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

        The convention was all about building the Republican brand as a bunch of moderate nice people. It failed.

      • Dave
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

        If that was the goal they did a piss poor job. Also, there was the hurricane that made everyone look like a bunch of floundering fish and then there was the timing. Saying that it was supposed to make the party look moderate I’d dispute. Do you really believe putting a bunch of overzealous relgious leaders, angry white men, and overtyl anti-gay women up on the podium would have made things worse. Hardly. What this statement lacks is an objective measure. Failed compared to what? The best alternate candidate was Santorum. I doubt Santorum could have fared 1/2 as well as Romney. Again, the damage was done in the primary and in the press before the convention. You’re ignoring this.

      • Dave
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Permalink


        If that was the goal they did a piss poor job. Also, there was the hurricane that made everyone look like a bunch of floundering fish and then there was the timing into labor day. No one gave a flying f… about it. Saying that it was supposed to make the party look moderate I’d dispute. Do you really believe putting a bunch of overzealous relgious leaders, angry white men, and overtyl anti-gay women up on the podium would have made things better. Hardly. What this statement lacks is an objective measure. Failed compared to what? I dounbt any other candidate would have fared as well. The best alternate candidate was Santorum. I doubt Santorum could have fared 1/2 as well as Romney and if he did it was becusae he appeased the middle. Again, the damage was done in the primary and in the press before the convention. You’re ignoring this.

      • wholefoodsrepublican
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

        the mainstream media would not allow the republicans to brand themselves as moderate and diverse.
        until the mainstream media is marginalized and devalued, they will be a major force for the democrats. responsible for 2-3% of the vote…which just happens to be the margin. had the media focused on benghazi, fast and furious, the true unemployment, the cronyism and bankruptcies… instead of stupid stuff like ann romney’s horseback riding…

        topple the cultural elite! and GOTV

      • Dave
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

        “mainstream [liberal] media is marginalized and devalued”

        Can’t argue with that but does that include Fox news too? Just trying to look at it from both sides.

  8. Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:55 pm | Permalink | Reply

    All this is well and good, but the bottom line — of which Rove somehow apparently is insouciant — is that Republicans in droves stayed home and didn’t vote. If four years of Obama and the prospect of four more years of Obama could not self-motivate the same number of Republicans who voted in ’04 to show up this year to vote against Obama then we’re heading for very dark political days.

    That all said, the next GOP prez nominee needs to have a Bush ’04-style ground game, to not wait until after the conventions to commence their TV ad blitzes in earnest, to not tap a mere representative from a gravy state when there are statewide office holders available from the likes of Fl, OH and VA, to stay on the attack during the entire post-convention cycle, and most importantly not to chase rainbows or to tilt at windmills. Stop falling for the PA tease. No more myopic vanity projects on WI. The Romney states from ’12 are a given. FL, OH and VA require virtually every ounce of muscle that can be mustered. Then you need one more state, CO, NH or IA. And if the Dems make it a knife fight then you have to make a sewer fight.

    • Prescient11
      Posted November 15, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Permalink | Reply

      Tsar and wholefoodsrepublican,


      Rove almost lost Florida and had Bush campaigning in Cali of all places. Genius my ass.

      Anyway, Dan Frahm and I have been pounding the table on GOTV.

      I intend to set one up. Please check this site periodically. My email is prescient11@yahoo.com.

      This should not be terribly hard to accomplish, especially given the money that is being thrown around out there.

    • MikeN
      Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Permalink | Reply

      So you are going to concede to the Democrats 253 electoral votes without a fight, and then hope that in a battle of equal money of hundreds of millions of dollars spent, you can defeat them 78-16? No thanks. I’ll take the opposite strategy, don’t just drop into states where the polls tighten a bit. Campaign there from the beginning and the polls will move in your favor. Obama beat ROmney head to head in every swing state. He did worse in states where there was no campaign. Romney should have been in Pennsylvania early, as well as Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, and even California and Illinois. If Romney wanted it so bad, he should have spent his personal fortune to expand the playing field prior to the convention, and see if Obama is willing to fight in 20 states rather than 8.

      • M.White
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

        I agree with you!

      • Dave
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

        What I don’t understand is why the party doesn’t have a PERMANENT presence in people’s lives. TV is a fantastic medium for coloring views. Republicans should be running party ads during off-elections years that lead up to candidate ads in election years. Start running the party like a company selling a product.

      • Prescient11
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

        Dave, I could not agree more. And how about sending everyone holiday cards and birthday cards. How much fucking money could that take compared to what is wasted.

      • PeterJ
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

        A permanent presence would need to be 2-way with us having input into the platform which is decided well in advance of the next election. But that would mean that the current party mandarins would have to cede some power.

      • Dave
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

        “sending everyone holiday cards and birthday cards”

        yes, and run some ads saying the same thing on billboards, radio, etc. target swing vote areas, etc. prioritize areas by vote pattern and target the message. of course, you know some dem group is watching this board saying hmmm, not a bad idea. Soros could finance that alone and more (let alone buffet and gates, shheese).

    • Dave
      Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:14 pm | Permalink | Reply

      “is that Republicans in droves stayed home and didn’t vote”

      Hmmm. Perhaps. There’s been a lot of speculation about that here. I would like to see comparison of numbers between those who voted in the primaries and those who voted in the general. Surely (don’t call me that!), if there’s a way to track specifically who voted in the primaries and for who, and who voted in the general and who, I’d like to see that as well. This would answer questions like how many non-romney voters in the parimaries voted for R in the general. If this number is low then that statement here has merit. If high, then probably not so much. Then I’d go about contacting voters in those districts specifically to find out why. If those numbers aren’t available, then I’d also like to see what % of registered rep voters voted in the primaires and what % of reg voters voted in the general for each district. And then I’d want some insight into why R didn’t get more of the indie vote and find out from those people what specifically motivated them to vote for O. My guess is one or more of these items were the competing factor

      1. We like Obamacare
      2. The stock market was up and so was my 401K
      3. No way am I voting for a party with crazy social views
      4. Life is better under Obama than it was when he took office
      5. The Dream Act is really a dream come true for me and my parents and friends.
      6. Sandy was a tragedy and O did a great job handling that. In times of crises Americans need to stick together.
      7. I really have no idea why except Obama seems pretty cool and presidential. So what the hell, why not?

      The bottom line is the party needs a kinder gentler face and still maintain their message of fiscal dicipline (and whatever else you need to throw in to attract votes that DOESN’T turn non-idealogues, aka moderates, off).

      • MikeN
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

        Looking at the Ohio map, it is clear that the answer is more:I hate Obama and I hate Romney too.

      • PeterJ
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

        8. I am a union worker in the auto industry.
        9. I am a union worker member of SEIU in a service industry where I will never make more than 1/4 the wage/benefits of an auto worker, and even though only they got bailed out and small businesses that employ us get the shaft under O, I hate millionaires.

      • Dave
        Posted November 15, 2012 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

        Obama won ohio because of the auto bailout. Romney was right. It’s hard to compete against the other guy when he has something everybody wants (fed cash) and he gives it away.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 16, 2012 at 11:05 am | Permalink

        If he won because of the auto bailout, then why was Ohio close? Romney did better in Ohio than he did nationally. For that matter, Michigan improved more from 2008 than the nation, with Romney losing by just 9.5.

      • MikeN
        Posted November 17, 2012 at 11:38 am | Permalink

        Also, auto industry areas were the same for Romney as the rest of the state. The weakness was in white, poor, Southeast.
        For people looking at Hispanics as the problem, you have to explain why Iowa and New Hampshire were lost. Romney got every major newspaper endorsement in Iowa.

  9. PeterJ
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:00 pm | Permalink | Reply

    While most of us are probably loathe to concede any possible constitutional advantage that accrues via the electoral college, especially since eliminating it will also likely cause dems to seek to change the senate which we absolutely cannot do, at this point maybe it is just an illusory advantage. One thing is for sure – eliminating the electoral college makes it a 50 state game and probably no more swing state prima donnas. I am sure we are all sick of it coming down to those states every cycle and having to cater to ballot splitters.

    The question regarding choosing the president via popular vote though is one of unintended and unforseeable consequences. Likely it would cause an uptick, perhaps huge, in registrations for the non-dominant party in both deep blue and deep red states, which could greatly affect the down-ballot races for congress.

    So . . . should we repubs be the first to float an amendment balloon limited solely to eliminating the electoral college?

  10. Prescient11
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:35 pm | Permalink | Reply

    An interesting metric in Ohio.

    In 2011, the anti-collective bargaining measures were defeated by I think around 54% of the voters.

    But the anti-Obama care law passed with north of 60% of the vote!!!

    Something very f’d up happened this election. The best mistake obama can make is thinking he has a mandate.

    The wheel turns…

    • PeterJ
      Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:38 pm | Permalink | Reply

      In OH in the anti-collective bargaining measure for public unions, they refused to exempt police/fire like in WI. Have to be realistic and whittle away slowly.

    • Prescient11
      Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:43 pm | Permalink | Reply


      Agreed 100%. That was a dumb move.

  11. wholefoodsrepublican
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 8:22 pm | Permalink | Reply

    lie to the 47%…

  12. Dave
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:23 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Here’s an interesting article on project orca. They’re blaming the servers and data connection at the garden. Also, they’re blaming Comcast (who surprise surprise, owns NBC — the most POS liberal propoaganda channel on TV) for “inadvertantly” shutting down their intenet connection to recieve data. I as I said a couple nights ago, the guy who thought the republicans could get away with running their briantrust election night in the center of dem central, Boston, MA, was a completel IDIOT! You don’t opreate your headquarters for war on the other guy’s home turf. Duh.

  13. M.White
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 11:03 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Not going to post any articles but here is a link to a great website to explore. The articles are right on…
    *Barack Obama’s America: Most Divided In 70 Years
    *Business As Usual For The Regime: More Layoffs, Drilling Bans, Regulations And Revelations
    *Obama Holds First Post-Election Fiscal Cliff Meeting – With Union Thugs

  14. ShockandAwe
    Posted November 19, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Permalink | Reply

    Rather than digging for votes with groups that may not support a Republican message, why not look at why in Blue Collar and Rural places like Washington County Ohio (County Seat Marietta, OH) there is a 50% drop in Republican Votes from McCain to Romney? If Paul Ryan, or Marco Rubio is the next nominee is that dynamic going to change? Republicans are so worried about producing a gaffe free “no embarrassment” candidate that they end up with someone too polished and unable to get voters that will vote Republican or not vote at all.

  15. JusttheTruth
    Posted January 20, 2013 at 11:34 am | Permalink | Reply

    Rove’s early analysis doesn’t bear up totally after the final tallies came in over the course of November and into December. For example, it isn’t “7.9 million fewer people that voted in 2012 over 2008” — it’s actually 2.3 million. Romney actually did end up with more votes than McCain did (albeit marginally) and Obama did lose 1.8% of his vote from 2008, which is far less a gap than the common narrative in the early post-election days. And the turnout overall wasn’t 51% but 58%, much much larger. Finally, while Obama is the first in many years to have fewer votes in his re-election, he’s also the first Democrat (since FDR) to have more than 50% voting support in 2 consecutive presidential elections. Nothing to sneeze at.

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: