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.
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.
I remember all the Freepers here who thought that Alan Keyes would win all the black vote, too.
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!
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.
“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!
“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...
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.
In my book the gop is finished
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.
“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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If that is the case then Scott Brown would have won reelection in a landslide!
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.