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?
Look at the comment, two below yours.
“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.
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.
If that is the case then Scott Brown would have won reelection in a landslide!