Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP Solution: Stick to Values, Pick Better Candidates
Townhall.com ^ | November 9, 2012 | Mark Davis

Posted on 11/09/2012 3:59:11 AM PST by Kaslin

These are days of hindsight and second-guessing for Republicans, which is human nature after a trauma like this election loss.

There are million “why” theories out there, from the Hurricane Sandy effect to pernicious media bias. Wringing our hands over those factors gets us nowhere.

We can’t stop hurricanes, and media bias is always there. Reagan and Bush 43 won twice against waves of poisonous bias, so that is not an insurmountable obstacle.

What Republicans need is a slate of candidates that can energize the base while expanding the appeal of a conservative message.

Easy to say, hard to do.

Like many of you, I spent Election Day in the warm glow of anticipation. I was going to see Barack Obama returned to private life-- “the end of an error,” as my favorite bumper stickers said. I could taste it. It was going to happen.

Except it didn’t.

Fueled by respected names in the pundit class, we allowed ourselves to invest emotionally in the Romney win before it happened. How could all of us have been so wrong?

It is not, as the left suggests, because we were rotting in a right-wing echo chamber, shielding ourselves from contrarian views. I considered thoughtfully the notion that Obama might well win, because we usually don’t kick incumbents out, and because the Democrats would surely have a well-honed ground game.

But I saw no way Obama would pull anywhere near the almost 70 million votes he received in 2008. Everywhere I turned were voters who were with him then and are no longer. Not that they were necessarily turned into Romney voters; many were turned back into what they had been before-- non-voters.

So that analysis was correct. Obama received 9 million fewer votes than in 2008.

But the companion expectation-- that surely Romney would pull more strongly than a 2008 McCain campaign widely viewed as tepid-- was far off the mark.

This was our undoing.

In Mitt Romney, we had a good man who was a good candidate. And for those of us willing to crawl on broken glass to make Obama a one-term President, it was easy to conclude that we had enough company to snare just a few million more than four years ago, when we pretty well knew we were about to get our lunch eaten.

But for all of its appeal-- a worthy candidate, a solid debate performance, a strong finish-- the Romney/Ryan ticket did not attract enough excitement to win a thoroughly winnable election.

We should not blame our nominee. The things he could control, he managed well. But the factors that hurt him were immutable.

We could not go back and make him consistently pro-life throughout his adulthood.

We could not go back and make him think better of Romneycare.

And we could not make him upper middle class.

Fairly or unfairly, these were voter suppressants.

Even if a small percentage of conservatives were wary of his late-life conversion to valuing the unborn, that made winning harder.

Romneycare was a bigger problem. Rival Rick Santorum wisely told us that we dared not offer up a candidate whose own policies while Governor undercut his ability to criticize Obamacare.

For what it’s worth, I thoroughly believed Gov. Romney when he said he would not attempt nationally what he enacted at the state level. One is constitutional, one is not.

But when you have enacted compulsory health insurance purchases in your state, you are a flawed messenger in an election that requires a voice professing lifelong opposition to such government overreach.

Romney’s wealth takes us into trickier territory, into the landscape of things that should not be held against any candidate.

It is sad that actual success in business sets up a candidate to be bashed as an uncaring, detached plutocrat. This is particularly wrong in the case of Romney, a glowing example of generosity in a lifetime of service to others.

But sometimes you have to play the field the way it is striped. So if our goal is to excite the conservative base while having some hope of expanding it, here is a to-do list that we can work on as the days unfold.

First, we reject the notion that we must somehow soften our views or cave on core beliefs. Any vote we would attract from the middle would be outweighed by votes we would deserve to lose on the right.

But we do have the choice on what to emphasize and what to phrase differently.

If social conservatism freaks some people out, make it clear that our candidates will stand for the unborn and man/woman marriage, but that ultimately those decisions are best left to the states. People who want fiscal sanity and strong defense can vote for us, and save their energies on abortion, contraception and gay rights for their state legislatures.

If we need to appeal to the nurturing instinct of women, we should describe how government is the worst purveyor of real care-- health or otherwise-- that truly helps people. Then we describe the protective value of fighting terrorism.

If we need to attract people of color, we hold events where they are-- lots of them. Goodwill breeds goodwill, even if it takes a long time. And remember, for 2016 “goodwill” might be defined as simply as 15 percent of the black vote and 40 percent of Hispanics.

Regarding Latinos, I refuse to believe they are unanimously desirous of soft borders and amnesty. I know many proud Hispanics who are consistently chafed at waves of people seeking illegal access to a country they entered legally-- and many of them are Democrats.

The GOP challenge with Hispanics is the same as the challenge with blacks, which is the same challenge we face with single women: we need to skillfully, caringly, compellingly persuade them that the expansionist welfare state they seek is not good for them or the country.

This takes time, and it takes talent.

So as we look toward to voting at last for Obama’s successor-- and make no mistake, campaigns on both sides will fire up right after the midterms in 2014-- we need to get very picky.

No more flights of fancy with candidates with interesting life stories but no elected experience.

No flirtations with candidates who can pump up a Tea Party rally but repel potential crossover votes with needlessly incendiary rhetorical excess.

And no more experiments with people of admittedly good heart and solid values who are simply not good at debating and answering challenging questions on the fly.

As a final filter, like it or not, we probably rule out anyone with a net worth greater than eight figures.

Even after that process, when we are left with a field of worthy prospects, we may need some sacrificial behavior from within that number.

I already hear the mumurings of fear that four or five true conservatives will enter the race, all attracting their 12 percent of the primary vote while a moderate more palatable to party power brokers and the Georgetown cocktail community shoots through that crowd to the nomination.

I don’t care where they meet in the Summer of 2014, but if we are blessed with the ambitions of Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Susanna Martinez, Bobby Jindal, Mitch Daniels, Nikki Haley and a few others I could mention, they need to meet somewhere over a weekend.

I don’t care if they draw straws, play rock/paper/scissors or draw up a checkers tournament. All but two need to sit it out.

We simply cannot have the internecine primary carnage that leaves us with another nominee that is the second or third choice of most Republicans.

I’d love to think that as a party we could craft that winnowing process ourselves in the primaries. We can’t. We’ve proven it. When we get passionate about someone, even someone who has zero chance of winning, we just don’t let go. Give us a half dozen people who are actually electable, and our heads may explode.

So let’s gear up for that mid-second-term off-year election that tends to be brutal for incumbent presidents, and get the Senate back, surrounding Barack Obama with two houses of Congress holding up shields against every bad idea he may float.

Then let’s field a candidate in 2016 who can win. Not by moving to the middle, but by bringing the middle toward us, through smarts, likability and life story. If this is the skill set of our 2016 messenger, there will be no need to water down the conservatism we know is right.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 11/09/2012 3:59:15 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I'm not a huge fan of Mark Davis, but I think he is spot-on with his assessment here.

Rule #1 for the GOP should be the following: Don't ever nominate a presidential candidate whose odds of carrying his own state are small. This is where the GOP got into a ton of trouble, folks. If Romney had been governor of Texas, Ohio or Florida, he would have won this election in a landslide -- because he wouldn't have appeared so transparently unprincipled on a key campaign issue like Obamacare and a key "values voter" issue like gay marriage.

2 posted on 11/09/2012 4:05:22 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Thanks, Kaslin, for posting this excellent article! IMO, Mark Davis is exactly right in his analysis. The problem will be getting the GOPe to believe it!
3 posted on 11/09/2012 4:09:24 AM PST by srmorton (Deut. 30 19: "..I have set before you life and death,....therefore, choose life..")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
GOP Solution: Stick to Values, Pick Better Candidates

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I'm sorry, but I've been watching the inept and spineless GOP bumble around for over 4 decades now, and they ALWAYS say the same thing "We'll do better next time".

Sorry boys, but as far as I'm concerned, you won't GET a 'next time'.

4 posted on 11/09/2012 4:10:18 AM PST by MamaTexan (In Propria Persona)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I thought and still do that we had a great candidate in Sarah Palin - but she scared some of the GOP old timers, so she was thrown under the bus. I’m tired of the go along to get along mentality of the old guard - we need someone like Palin to tell it like it is. I’m a 74 yr old white woman - a minority!! and I’d support her or someone like her in a heartbeat.


5 posted on 11/09/2012 4:11:13 AM PST by Elkiejg (Democrats/Liberals/progressives are EVIL!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I think Romney has values but like us, perhaps, he compromised them in the name of politics.

A bad story about him was that he counseled some women not to have an abortion, but for politics he compromised his values.

Maybe he is more like us than we realize.

As much as I hate socialized medicine, a state has a right to decide on that and vote it in. The majority of his state obviously wanted that. They got it.

The truth of it all, I guess we will never know.


6 posted on 11/09/2012 4:12:11 AM PST by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheel barrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

AMEN! The comments I have heard from Republicans since Tuesday simply amaze me. The RINO didn’t work, so let’s go even further to the left, we have to be more “inclusive”, we have to go after the women, the blacks, the hispanics, etc. etc. etc. I am hearing these comments not only on Yahoo and blogs but also right here on Free Republic. So it seems like we should now be pro-abortion, pro-women’s “rights”, pro-obmamaphones, pro-amnesty and much more. Boy, that will REALLY show those liberals a thing or two, won’t it. We have to consider what true conservatives are going to do if the GOP continues this push to the left. Do we wait until the next election and vote for Christie because he is “better than the alternative”? Or do we just say the the hell with the GOP and start work NOW to form a CONSERVATIVE party? I can hear the bitching and moaning now- “but we’ll lose the next election”, blah, blah, blah. Well guess what? We’ll lose it anyway. How long do we wait to do something? How many more times do we have to settle for the best alternative, and not even get that? Is ANYONE out there going to wake up?


7 posted on 11/09/2012 4:12:52 AM PST by conservaterian (NOW can we have a conservative candidate?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I'm sorry, but I've been watching the inept and spineless GOP bumble around for over 4 decades now, and they ALWAYS say the same thing "We'll do better next time".

Sorry boys, but as far as I'm concerned, you won't GET a 'next time'.

Hear! Hear! Notice how the GOP is now saying "Wait until 2014! It's coming!"

What, I am going to let Lucy hold the football for me one more time.?

Nuts to that.....

8 posted on 11/09/2012 4:12:58 AM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I am of the opinion that the party chooses candidates based on the people who show up to vote, not on wooing those who did not vote. Who hears the silent voice? I look to a future where we are going to have more moderate candidates because it seems where conservates are too fractured to even field a candidate we can all, or mostly all agree on. If people are not going to show up to vote to somehow teach the country a lesson, who is going to listen?


9 posted on 11/09/2012 4:16:11 AM PST by myrabach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

We lost to a very popular incumbent, who had an almost six-month lead time of saturating battleground states with ads and speeches against Romney before he even had a chance to respond.

The Republican debate candidates were carpet bombed and criticized by Team Obama and and the MSM and had little ability to respond. Then, our guys attacked each other to get to the top of the heap, making ridiculous accusations to play “gotcha”. Again, Obama and his team are blaring their simple and direct message to voters, over and over and over while saving sound bites to use for later.

Our core message of liberty and freedom is fine, but we need to show how that benefits people other than married/white/religious. Why are our excellent minority candidates ignored? They were on prominent display at the convention and yet they seem “one and done” with respect to TV time.

Get them out front and into the streets and neighborhoods and *demonstrate* how the conservative message and ideologies can work for the average Black, Hispanic, Asian, Unmarried Woman, etc.


10 posted on 11/09/2012 4:18:54 AM PST by opticks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I knew there was trouble when Romney couldn’t pull out a clear primary win in Michigan. In 08 he flogged John McCain here by nearly 10 points. In 2010 it came down to an electoral tie with Santorum winning 58 of our 83 counties and the congressional districts split evenly. That ended with a late night rule change that gave Romney one more delegate.

Romney used a liberal campaign strategy to pick up wins by winning urban areas that weren’t going to vote for him in the general election. Once he won the nomination he had to rely on the people he had passed over during the primary.

It was bad news and a lot of FReepers knew it but once Romney became the nominee, speaking that truth became blaspheme. The moral of that story is that shouting people down or diving them away doesn’t make a winner, it makes a surprised loser.


11 posted on 11/09/2012 4:38:27 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
GOP Solution: Stick to Values, Pick Better Candidates
If George Washington were alive today, he would have nothing to do with politics.The type of person who does well in today's politics is the worst possible person to actually represent us.
12 posted on 11/09/2012 4:41:38 AM PST by jmcenanly ("The more corrupt the state, the more laws." Tacitus, Publius Cornelius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: opticks

Popular incumbent? He was at 45 approval two months ago and that was after a year of rehabilitation. He worked his way up to 50 percent approval in the final month and half because we allowed him to redefine the economy as ‘improving’ and never challenged him effectively, outside of debates .The ads needed to go up in June. Obama was running ads with the job growth early in 2012. There is no reason we can’t have some organization challenging that with counter ads along the way. Our side has always played the game by focusing on the final few weeks. We are ceding too much ground in public opinion in the 12 previous months. We have to take our argument to the people daily. We don’t have the media, so we have to use other methods.

Frankly, we lost because not enough people in the middle class were convinced Obama policies made things worse, combined with the much bigger problem that the left has built a permanent highly targeted get out the vote machine that will be used every cycle going forward. We needed to convert more suburban middle class voters, especially women, that they are voting against their own interests with bigger fatter government. It is the only way we are not outnumbered by dependency voters.


13 posted on 11/09/2012 4:47:13 AM PST by ilgipper (Obama supporters are comprised of the uninformed & the ill-informed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
We simply cannot have the internecine primary carnage that leaves us with another nominee that is the second or third choice of most Republicans.

The author understates that part of the problem with candidate Romney. For many, even here, Romney was not the "second or third choice" for many he was absolutely the last choice and for many more, he was not a choice at all.

It was not that he was "moderate", it was that his life time record was that of a liberal. There are members of congress, democrats, with more conservative records than Romney.

The problem is still out there, if nothing changes, we will have a half dozen more conservative candidates in the 2016 primary running against a liberal, the liberal will win again and lose the general.

Romney personally is not the enemy, his liberalism is.

14 posted on 11/09/2012 4:49:43 AM PST by Graybeard58 (What G.O.P.e. candidate is in store for us in 2016?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irenic
a state has a right to decide on that and vote it in.

Umm...actually, no they don't.

Purchasing health insurance is a matter of PRIVATE contract, and no public entity called a 'State' or any of its legal or political subdivisions has any authority o force a private person into a public contract.

Trying to blend the People with he government IS the Constitutional definition of treason.

-----

Since the union of the sovereignty with the government, constitutes a state of absolute power, or tyranny, over the people, every attempt to effect such an union is treason against the sovereignty, in the actors; and every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation in the government, of that sovereignty, which the people have reserved to themselves.
Preliminary Remarks, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution

15 posted on 11/09/2012 4:52:52 AM PST by MamaTexan (In Propria Persona)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

You guys still don’t get it. The America that we once knew is dead. The moochers, looters and inner city tribal parasites outnumber the producers. You cannot beat Santa Claus.


16 posted on 11/09/2012 4:58:24 AM PST by SVTCobra03 (You can never have enough friends, horsepower or ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservaterian
Tuesday simply amaze me. The RINO didn’t work, so let’s go even further to the left, we have to be more “inclusive”, we have to go after the women, the blacks, the hispanics

Look at the comment, two below yours.

17 posted on 11/09/2012 4:58:39 AM PST by Graybeard58 (What G.O.P.e. candidate is in store for us in 2016?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Okay.


18 posted on 11/09/2012 5:00:51 AM PST by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheel barrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

GOPe and RNC can go to hell as far as I am concerned.


19 posted on 11/09/2012 5:02:49 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmcenanly

We were warned again in March.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2853480/posts


20 posted on 11/09/2012 5:06:21 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper

By popular, I mean popular in the personal, high school prom king sense; everybody knows him, what he’s for, and he has lots of cheerleaders shouting his message.


21 posted on 11/09/2012 5:13:14 AM PST by opticks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: opticks

I remember all the Freepers here who thought that Alan Keyes would win all the black vote, too.


22 posted on 11/09/2012 5:14:53 AM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

What we need is more states...or more countries.
This election demonstrates very clearly that the major metro areas of the country absolutely control the politics. And, as long as the progressives and entitlement class remain cloistered in those areas, the libtard message will be supported.
Case in point...Ohio. Look at the major metro areas to see how the state EV went. Cleveland (vote fraud central in the Buckeye state), Columbus, and Cincinnati control the vote for the entire state. The state then casts all 18 EV for the popular vote ‘winner’.
Now, break the state along an East/West line that roughly runs along I-70, creating two states out of one. At that point, you have two more Senatorial seats, and split the EV 10 and 10 (roughly), as the increase in Senators should lead to an increase in Electoral votes.
This model looks even better if Ohio is split into three states...four more Senators, and the EV is now three groups of seven rather than one big pot of 18.
Do the same in those states that are characterized by controlling Metro areas; Colorado (2 states), New York (2), Maine (2), Florida (3), California (4), Washington (2), Illinois (2, maybe 3), Wisconsin (2), etc. Maine may be not so much an issue as the state apportions the EV based on the popular vote.
Other States would benefit by the same process, which would go far toward leveling the playing field for the voice of the people to be heard more clearly.
An added benefit? If we have a much larger Senate, and (perhaps) House, then maybe we can begin to chip away at the regal elitism that has accrued to those offices over the last hundred years or so.

Energize the base? Great!
Punch up the message? Great!
Charismatic candidates? Great!

Level the playing field? Priceless!


23 posted on 11/09/2012 5:25:02 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

All this mind numbing analysis and GOP navel gazing is getting old fast. No. It got old fast. I am still waiting for the pundit or Freeper to say “See, I told you we should have nominated X.”, and then explain how candidate X would have done better than Romney. Identifying problems without offering solutions is so simple anyone can do it. Blaming the candidate without offering an alternative is equally simple, and equally pointless.


24 posted on 11/09/2012 5:25:48 AM PST by csmusaret (I will give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret

“All this mind numbing analysis and GOP navel gazing is getting old fast”. What YOU called “mind numbing analysis and GOP navel gazing” is what in MY military we call “Lessons Learned” and “a Post Action Hot Wash-up”.
Ok you want solutions here are a few:
1. Quit Nominating RICH NorthEasterners who CANNOT connect with average Americans.
2. RID the RNC of ALL Karl Rove and Steve Schmidt “type” “Consultants”.
3. PURGE ALL 50 State GOP Chairs and their staffs, IMMEDIATLY install CLOSED Primaries.
4. PURGE THE ENTIRE RNC.
5. Educate ALL Republicans NATIONWIDE as to WHAT the GOP Is and WHAT is STANDS for. If ALL Republicans NATIONWIDE don’t abide by this then We NEED to FORCEFULLY Expel them from the Party. NO MORE BIG TENT!
Then MAYBE we can start Re-Building, MAYBE!


25 posted on 11/09/2012 5:55:08 AM PST by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“GOP Solution: Stick to Values, Pick Better Candidates”

No, disband the GOP, all of us become Democrats, no more undecided/independents and we assume cover as loyal dems while working to put in more and more conservatives. Pretend to be part of the group, go along to get along, but lead a secret life of counterops. No longer will they be able to blame the republicans for their problems, cuz we’ll all be democrats.

Then, someday, an independently wealthy hollywood-type actor/producer will make a movie about it and it will be considered so very cool. Cough, cough...


26 posted on 11/09/2012 5:57:45 AM PST by sassy steel magnolia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

We as a party must NEVER compromise our values so as to achieve political expediency. If the party starts to look any more like the RATS party, they will NOT gain membership, they will lose members to what will become the NATIONAL CONSERVATIVE PARTY.


27 posted on 11/09/2012 5:59:55 AM PST by Mr. Wright (NAACP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

In my book the gop is finished


28 posted on 11/09/2012 6:11:55 AM PST by ronnie raygun (bb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

courting blacks and hispanics with republican conservative blax and hispanix wont do a damn thing, because they will preach self reliance, personal responsibility, adherence to the rule of law, work for God, country, family, and these groups SIMPLY DONT WANT THAT...

they want the FREEBIES OVER FREEDOM.


29 posted on 11/09/2012 6:17:35 AM PST by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: conservaterian

“The RINO didn’t work, so let’s go even further to the left, we have to be more “inclusive”, we have to go after the women, the blacks, the hispanics, etc. etc. etc.”

You are correct on several points, especially regarding the Repub party leader’s analysis and response to loss at the Presidential level. In my business, we start with data gathering and analysis. In this situation, a lot of surveying of actual voters who voted for the opposing side. I wouldn’t be much interested in the opinions of those who voted for my side or in what influenced people “not to vote” because the former would simply identify actions that already work and the later would be unreliable. The Repub party leadership appears to have a very flawed decision making process. Immediately after the election, the party is talking about taking action on immigration and compromising without presenting any data analysis. How does anyone even know whether such actions would be beneficial without data?

Here are some evidence-based points:

Repubs repeatedly nominate president-level candidates that perform poorly against opposition candidates who have extensive flaws and weaknesses. For me, this election was notable for the most extreme difference in successful track records and abilities of the two presidential candidates of perhaps any election in history. It should have been a blow-out. I am going to step over the line a bit here and state that the extreme and extensive volume of propaganda that exists is one important factor in the election results.
Turnout for Repubs was weaker than anticipated.

Polls were inaccurate, predicting a near even vote split, despite the current advanced technological and methodological state of polling. Those who analyze election results must be cautious not to use the same inaccurate methods. Time must be devoted to improved methods of data collection and analysis.

The Repubs received a healthy number of votes that, considering the Repubs were challenging an incumbent, suggest a broad and strong base of, if not support, then opposition to the incumbent. These people didn’t evaporate on Nov 7.

My conversation with a top Repub party official confirmed that decision making weakness exists at the top of the Repub party. Those decision makers persist in their approach and they continue to perform poorly against a very flawed opposition party.

Disrespect for Tea Party-type voters, such as the pre-election statement by Richard Hanna of NY, did not translate into a victory nationally. The dem party does not insult their supporters but influential Repub party members show disdain for the most motivated of their own supporters.

Leftist Repub candidates did not make impressive showings in the election even against some very flawed opposition candidates like E Warren in Mass. Given the current model of an ideal candidate as presented by the Repub party, why didn’t Brown win? The answer to this question should be considered in terms of the party platform as well as advertising.

The Dem party strongly supports the more extreme elements in an already extreme party. They do not weaken and ignore the activist/passionate segment of their party.

The Dem party does not compromise or “extend their hand across the aisle” in either victory or defeat. They are unwaveringly partisan and long-term, they get what they want.

Data is a starting point for refining a political party’s strategy. Without data-based analysis, any policy actions by party members are foolish.


30 posted on 11/09/2012 6:41:38 AM PST by iacovatx (Conservatism is the political center--it is not "right" of center)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PubliusMM

“What we need is more states...or more countries.”

You have hit on a proposal that I have argued for some time but that is largely unknown. In the early days of this country, a congressional representative represented a fairly small number of people. Today, that number is many fold what it once was. This greatly weakens the voice and representation of the individual voter. An increase in the number of representatives and in the number of senators would make the importance of individual voters greater to those politicians they represent. The potential for more numerous coalitions in Congress would result as would the weakening of power for many individual politicians. I tend to support reducing the concentration of power in individual politicians. Does anyone else think this could improve the representation of Americans?


31 posted on 11/09/2012 6:57:17 AM PST by iacovatx (Conservatism is the political center--it is not "right" of center)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

So, at what point does someone suggest changes in the political system that tie people’s votes more closely to the consequences. Our present system operates to allow one group of people to vote to force other groups of people to do things like give up earnings, give up freedoms, violate beliefs, etc. Perhaps allow the urban areas to create their own autonomous political environments with their own tax and budget systems while letting the rest of America live the way they want to live.


32 posted on 11/09/2012 7:03:35 AM PST by iacovatx (Conservatism is the political center--it is not "right" of center)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raygunfan

The Repub party has been “inclusive” and even boasts of the most accomplished minority and women members in the history of the world. “Becoming more inclusive” is a silly statement and an obvious misunderstanding of the problem. The problem is not lack of inclusiveness—the problem must be redefined or no solution will be found.


33 posted on 11/09/2012 7:09:10 AM PST by iacovatx (Conservatism is the political center--it is not "right" of center)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: raygunfan

The Repub party has been “inclusive” and even boasts of the most accomplished minority and women members in the history of the world. “Becoming more inclusive” is a silly statement and an obvious misunderstanding of the problem. The problem is not lack of inclusiveness—the problem must be redefined or no solution will be found.


34 posted on 11/09/2012 7:09:10 AM PST by iacovatx (Conservatism is the political center--it is not "right" of center)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I don’t care where they meet in the Summer of 2014, but if we are blessed with the ambitions of Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Susanna Martinez, Bobby Jindal, Mitch Daniels, Nikki Haley and a few others I could mention, they need to meet somewhere over a weekend.

Heck, conservatives can take care of part of that list in just a few moments. But otherwise, the author is correct. Conservatives need to deal just like the elites do. Early blue states and crossover voters already do enough damage in the primary process.

There needs to be a small group, with an agreement that the ones who lose out after Iowa and New Hampshire drops out. We can't take a chance on another Moderate Mitt.

35 posted on 11/09/2012 7:14:56 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("Don't be afraid to see what you see." -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

When you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always rely on Paul’s vote. I am still waiting for the name of a candidate who could have beaten Obama given that we have become a nation of Pauls.

But as to your reply:

1. Quit Nominating RICH NorthEasterners who CANNOT connect with average Americans.
That isn’t up to you or me. Despite what the conspiracy
theorists believe, the nominee is determined by voters.
2. RID the RNC of ALL Karl Rove and Steve Schmidt “type” “Consultants”.
That’s alright with me, but I don’t remember having any say in who campaigns and candidates hire. I kind of thought that was up to them.
3. PURGE ALL 50 State GOP Chairs and their staffs, IMMEDIATLY install CLOSED Primaries.
I am all for closed primaries. Choosing GOP candidates should be up to registered GOP voters. Purging ALL state chairs and staffs is probably a little extreme. Again though, you and I don’t put those people in office. How about we campaign for the replacement of those who don’t measure up to conservative princilpes and support those who do?
4. PURGE THE ENTIRE RNC.
How?
5. Educate ALL Republicans NATIONWIDE as to WHAT the GOP Is and WHAT is STANDS for. If ALL Republicans NATIONWIDE don’t abide by this then We NEED to FORCEFULLY Expel them from the Party. NO MORE BIG TENT
How about we educate all Americans as to what Conservatism is? And how do you and I go about expelling anyone from the party?

Bottom line.. No candidate and no Party is perfect. Can we do better? Yes, but who would have done better this time? Our problems right now lie more with the electorate than with Romney or party leadership.

And the navel gazing is getting old because it is absolutely not about lessons learned. It is about crying over spilt milk and won’t do one damn thing to change the results. All the complaints I have heard since this election are the exact same ones I have been hearing since 2008, and repeating them over and over is pointless and dumb. It may feel good to vent, but it doesn’t accomplish anything. It is time to quit pissing and moaning, swallow the bitter pill, and get to work on 2014 and 2016. Identify and recruit candidates, educate the public, and work for the changes we each want. You don’t win football games by moaning about the last play; you win by digging in and executing the next one.


36 posted on 11/09/2012 7:41:04 AM PST by csmusaret (I will give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Irenic

I find the more that titans of business compromise themselves to get ahead, the more they not only go for the usual major donations in order to buy the offsetting title of ‘humanitarian’, but also the more they go out of their way helping individuals from among ‘the little people’ along their path. (Not business suppliers or rivals, mind you.)

IMO this reassures them that they aren’t bad guys because of the professional hardball they play to get ahead. My guess is that Romney is of this ilk. Remember, it was his political team that jumped to the McCain camp and immediately started torpedoing Palin from within. It was Romney’s dirty work done by his minions, but it ended up keeping Palin out of his way in 2012.


37 posted on 11/09/2012 7:41:21 AM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: conservaterian

We’ve met the enemy and it is us. Expecting Republicans to ever form a consensus on anything is an unrealistic expectation. Herding Republicans is like herding cats. We’re not very good at compromising.


38 posted on 11/09/2012 7:50:17 AM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Romney couldn’t beat Obama?

Romney didn’t beat McCain.

Disgraceful. A billion dollar campaign? What did Republicans get for their money?

McCain, 2008 popular vote: 58,319,442

Romney, 2012 popular vote: 58,163,978

That is the biggest fact of this election and no one is talking about it.


39 posted on 11/09/2012 8:14:43 AM PST by gandalftb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: conservaterian
AMEN! The comments I have heard from Republicans since Tuesday simply amaze me. The RINO didn’t work, so let’s go even further to the left, we have to be more “inclusive”, we have to go after the women, the blacks, the hispanics, etc. etc. etc.

If that is the case then Scott Brown would have won reelection in a landslide!

40 posted on 11/09/2012 10:05:09 AM PST by painter (Obamahood,"Steal from the working people and give to the worthless.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Yep....”It’s the candidates, stupid!”


41 posted on 11/09/2012 10:06:13 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Look to the Indianapolis Colts for inspiration.......the GOP right now is where the Colts were at the end of last year. But what did they do, they overhauled the team, kicked out the old deadwood and brought in youth, and now look where they are.....the GOP needs to take the same approach, we need to get young....and we need leadership that is willing to get out of the traditional GOP comfort zone and go into places where the old guard feared to tread....and it can be done without abandoning our core principles. The vast majority of the electorate don’t want a one-party state, they want a real choice, and right now the GOP isn’t giving it to them because of the lousy product they’re putting out there in terms of their candidates.


42 posted on 11/09/2012 10:17:59 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker; Irenic

“Remember, it was his political team that jumped to the McCain camp and immediately started torpedoing Palin from within. It was Romney’s dirty work done by his minions, but it ended up keeping Palin out of his way in 2012.”

Actually, I thought that the main culprit was that turd Steve Schmidt, and he never worked from Romney.


43 posted on 11/09/2012 10:55:11 AM PST by Jacob Kell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Jacob Kell

There were multiple culprits with multiple agendas, but Romney guys were clearly fingered at the time.


44 posted on 11/09/2012 10:57:23 AM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Do we know that Romney himself told them to stab Sarah in the back? I have suspected that their move to McCain was genuine because they were opportunists, and John was the winner of the primary. They then backstabbed Sarah because they felt they were going to lose, and they wanted to cover their sorry a$$es. At least that’s my theory on the matter.


45 posted on 11/09/2012 11:21:36 AM PST by Jacob Kell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Jacob Kell

The Romney guys who moved to McCain were going to get paid at most for a couple of months by McCain, whereas Romney was their big, continuing gravy train for the next four years.

We had multiple contemporaneous press reports that badmouthing to the press was coming from Romney guys, though clearly there were also some non-Romney guys with their own separate agendas.


46 posted on 11/09/2012 12:01:15 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
That and making it harder to cheat.

But in the face of government schools indoctrinating kids to be socialists, the best candidates won't matter, and running on values that the young voters have been indoctrinated to reject won't work.

If we are worried about elections, we are at the wrong end of the flood, worrying about what to do after the dam has burst.

The left is replacing the electorate with indoctrinated kids and imported welfare recipients and socialists. Who we run or how we campaign will make little difference shortly.

47 posted on 11/09/2012 1:55:30 PM PST by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iacovatx

Exactly, iacovatx. Narrowing the representation would make the representative much more beholden to the individual electors.
How do we do this? Not sure. Still studying the notion.


48 posted on 11/12/2012 6:00:37 PM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson