Skip to comments.Turn Out Proves Mitt Really DID Scorch the Earth (FEB ARTICLE ON $$$)
Posted on 11/09/2012 7:04:01 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
.....No, the real story is that three states held votes and nobody came. Almost nobody, that is. Consider that the total turnout for Missouri, Colorado, and Minnesota combined was barely over half of the turnout of South Carolina alone and -- worse yet -- barely over half the turnout for the same three states in 2008. Thus, after South Carolina's record-setting primary turnout, the Republican Party has now seen a total of five events in a row where turnout was down compared to 2008. This includes the three events from this week along with Nevada and Florida. Yes, something has made Republicans less excited about beating Barack Obama than they were about John McCain maybe replacing George W. Bush. Who knew that was even possible? What gives? The answer is fairly clear. The candidates have forgotten about Obama. What has turned folks off is Mitt Romney's scorched-earth campaign, which has managed to unfortunately suck all the rest of the candidates into a circular firing squad of a childish food-fight that is of zero interest to the Republican base voter.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The GOP-E ignored the base. The base made clear that they didn’t really want Romney, but the GOP-E completely ignored them and instead engaged in character assassination against Romney’s primary opponents.
The GOP-E believes it can act like it is ashamed of its base and still win elections. The last two elections proved them wrong, but I don’t suspect they will learn their lesson.
Or they did come but the votes for Romney were converted to votes for Obammie the Commie.
So what? Dims were going to steal it if it didn’t go their way—and they may have. Please—no lectures on ‘fair and square’ bs.
When a party is stupid enough to let Democrats vote in their primaries, what can they expect but a weak candidate to emerge? The states with the highest percentage of GOP voters should have the first primaries, the rest in descending order till you hit less than 30%. If your state polled less than 30% for this presidential election, you should not be allowed to have a primary at all, because the chances of these states helping to elect a GOP president are slim to none.
It’s way past time for some tough rules requiring the northeast to eat the ****
sandwich they’ve cooked up.
“something has made Republicans less excited about beating Barack Obama than they were about John McCain”
uh....well....um....did you keep reading? That was precisely my point, along with the focus on each other and NOT the problem...and the problem in Jan, Feb, Nov and for the next four years? OBAMA!!
No American was in trouble because Mitt gave Mass what their voters wanted or because Perry gave Tex voters what they wanted or because Fannie gave Newt a contract or because Mitt was rich from Bain. Americans were in trouble in Feb for the same reason they are now; too damned much liberalism for decades and Obama ism for four years. Period.
When they all lost focus on that, thanks primarily to Mitt, Ron Paul, and Michelle (the 3 who first abandoned running against Obama and ran against Newt) - the goose was cooked I think.
Recall, the 2010 GOP landslide was a referendum on Obamacare for a whole lot of economic, freedom, and health care reasons. Romneycare was the blueprint for Obamacare so 2010’s momentum was undermined by the GOP establishment the minute they locked onto Romney.
I think the Romney Care Obama Care distinction could have been overcome. What could not be over come is the fact that R/R let the assumption that Bush was to blame for the economy stand. They let Obama’s part in bin Laden stand. They got to the energy issue way too late. And they called Obama a “nice guy.”
All of this after calling Newt the devil.
We need to keep this conversation going, and I’m not sure we have the answer yet, though we are asking all the right questions.
I have this one, for now.
Why didn’t FL GOP primary voters punish Romney in the primary for his negative attack?
I suppose the answer is that the way GOP voters punish the negativity is by staying home. Which makes no sense at all to me, but that may be the reality of the situation.
We also have to contend with some strange data points. Two Tea Party idiots lost Senate races that they should have won. And Romney won those states, right? So it’s not as simple that we have to double down on Tea Party approach. I’m glad Lugar was ousted, but Mourdock gave away that Senate seat. And that was AFTER Akin! Morons, the both of them.
Then, on the other hand, we have Cruz. No Senator is more conservative than Cruz. He ran a Reaganesque campaign, and brought together ALL aspects of the GOP and independent coalition. He ran 18,000 votes ahead of Romney in Harris County (Houston area). Romney actually LOST that County (by a few hundred). Cruz romped to victory. We have to have an explanation for that. Perhaps the answer is “Intelligent and Optimistic Tea Party Conservatism.” Which is to say, Reaganism.
I do know that we can’t be drawn into trying to beat the Democrats by offering Democrat lite. I know that we can’t pursue the Hispanic vote by being soft on the border. Hispanics, like the rest of America, want entitlements, and they want an open border. They might be pro life, but how are we supposed to reach those that are strongly pro life, when we don’t put life front and center out of deference to the suburban mommies? The GOP is clueless and self-contradictory when it comes to their strategies of how to “get the Hispanic vote”.
I want to maintain a lot of skepticism, because I don’t want to be wrong.
But I’m not convinced that a full-throated, conservative/libertarian alliance that is intelligent, optimistic, rooted in small business [rather than Wall Street capitalism...which Reagan picked up, but only after taking Main Street], which is unapologetically pro life and socially conservative is not the answer. I think it might well be the answer.
Heaven knows, from a policy perspective, we are Greece unless we deal with the fiscal and debt crisis and the only way to do that is 1) economic growth, 2) sane entitlement reform, and 3) cutting discretionary spending [least important, and least essential...but still helpful].
I also know that across the board, we can’t win with the Akins of the world, or the Pat Buchanans. But we DEFINITELY can’t with the BushDoleMcCainRomney losers express either.
We know how to lose.
Will we figure out how to win?
Those people made a pledge, there and then, no more! And, they upheld their pledge on Tuesday.
Also, the GOP had no Plan B - increase seats in the House and gain control of the Senate.
Fully expect GOP leadership to cave on everything.
the 3 who first abandoned running against Obama and ran against Newt”
THIS point is spot on. Newt didn’t run against the other Republicans. He ran against obama. And that was the right approach.
I don’t know if Newt would have won the general. But we know NOW, that he couldn’t have done worse. Hell, we should have gone with McCain and hoped that everyone who voted for him in 08 just showed up. Do that, we win. We didn’t even do that.
I think we all warned against Mitt back then. Sadly folks missed out on the opportunity to run Santorum. Had Michigan, and Ohio gone to Santorum, we’d be talking about president Santorum today.
You were doing great till the end. Cut it at helpful, and you nailed it out of the park.
It did not help for conservatives to state before the primaries “We don’t want Mitt, but we will vote for the candidate”
That reminded me of those same commentators criticizing Boehner for saying “we will hold to our principles but we will not allow a government shutdown”
Taking options off the table always leads to getting what you do not want. The GOPe thought the base would follow. Why wouldn’t they when “CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS” were going to push and support their candidate. It appears quite a few voters did not follow the plan.
Perhaps we lose because republicans like you are clueless. My hispanic neighbor, a first generation legal American from Mexico, doesn't want his taxes paying entitlements, and if anything, he hates illegal immigration more than most here on FR.
Your fundamental assumptions may be incorrect.
Could you elaborate? What is wrong with what follows “helpful”?
(sincere here...I am really working to try to figure this out, as are lots of people).
You asked on great question? Why did two tea party candidates lose states Mitt won? Because they were awful candidates. The TP, and I am part of that group, needs to stay with guys like Ron Johnson and Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Rand Paul - and away from foolish amateurs.
Look, I cannot stand the insider crowd, but that doesn’t mean simply being from the “outside” makes you competent. It does not. Angle, O Donnell, Akin and Mourdock are incompetent dolts. The TP did a great job in winning, but they rode the wrong horse in all of those races.
It is not enough to simply be an outsider. There is more to this business than that.
Your fundamental assumptions may be incorrect.”
That may well be.
How could we go about answering that question with a little certainty?
Here’s a thought: maybe the concept “Hispanic” is largely irrelevant. Perhaps what is more important is, what state/region are the people we are talking about from? How vibrant is the faith? And so on.
No doubt the picture is very nuanced. There is a path forward here, but it is likely complex ...and we can’t please everyone.
All that said, I fear that the entitlement mentality is very much alive among Hispanics, just as it is alive and growing among whites. Wherever you find a large percentage of unwed mothers, you are going to find entitlement mentality.
Appreciate your input here.
Yes - most certainly the Scorched Earth Romney policy in the Primaries did alienate many Conservatives and they were not able to overcome it. But there were other reasons ... that are somewhat associated ... In the Romney Campaign Republicans did not make much effort other than cursory at teaching the benefits of Liberty and Freedom because these ideals are Conservative Ideals. Establishment GOP/RNC Elites who run (and ruin) the Republican Party REFUSE to embrace seriously anything that is considered Conservative. The RINOs of the GOP/RNC elite want middle ground, liberal lite, embrace diversity - (even when the diverse do not embrace them) Such folly - this has been tried twice now - 2008 and now 2012 and has utterly FAILED. In 2010 when a big Tea Party effort pushed Conservative values such as smaller government - liberty and freedom - we won 63 seats in the U.S. House. But heaven forbid that the GOP/RNC liberal elites do that - what shame that would be.
Also - On November 6th. we had (as usual) in this nation 50 Million people who could have registered to vote and vote - BUT DID NOT... It seems the Romney Campaign could not convince even 10% of those 50 million to even vote and hopefully vote Republican... They were too busy kissing the butts of Hispanic and Black communities in the idiotic and vain hope that millions Blacks and Hispanics would go Republican ... such stupid thinking...
Let me give you some inside info that will probably make you sick. I was in the Super PAC that bought that stupid Bain film and started running against Mitt. I argued, bitched, cussed, and called the folks writing my checks crazy and out of touch for doing that attack.
I told them to just keep running against Obama, and we’ll peel off the soft (at the time) Santorum support, the Cain and Palin folks who have not landed, and the undecideds craving an attack on liberals. I begged, cajoled, reasoned, and told them that running Bain would bring down a hell storm of derision from Rush, Levin, Hannity, etc.
And it did. Newt got back on track in SC, and routed everyone. Went to Florida, and listened to his stupid consultants again. Before the Florida debates, out of SC, I thought we were looking at America’s Churchill: fat, frumpy, pompous, brilliant, but perfect for the times. It was over 10 minutes into the Monday Florida debate, and Mitt was nominee at that time in effect.
I so so so wish Newt had kept doing what he did in Iowa early and then in SC. He did not.
“I think the Romney Care Obama Care distinction could have been overcome.”
I intently tried to differentiate the two. Every attempt at an explanation by Romney or one of his supporters fell flat to me. The state vs federal is BS. It is big intrusive socialist government at any level regardless of whether the founding documents of the implementing entity allows it or not.
It is not enough to simply be an outsider. There is more to this business than that.”
Yes. Well said.
On the Ron Johnson point, has anyone, by chance, heard him speak in person? Holy smokes, that guy is very impressive. Seriously.
As is Cruz, Mike Lee, Rubio and Rand Paul.
Intelligent Tea Party Conservatism.....I HOPE (I do not yet believe....that is what we are trying to figure out) that that combination will pick up the Republican/Perot/Paul/Reagan Democrat vote which is a winning (indeed, utterly overwhelming) combination.
It is intrusive, and it is a bad approach, but if the state versus federal does not make any difference to you, then you have a huge blind spot on the wisdom of the Founders and the entire concept of states rights and the 10th Amendment.
That concept was indeed founded on the principle of multiple state “laboratories” where concepts could be tried in a confined area. That very process dictates that there will be some failures and some bad ideas in those laboratories. But remember my friend, that was known ahead of time, which is why they were forming a “more perfect union” and not trying to form a “perfect” union.
Think about it. HUGE difference between perfect and more perfect, and between state and federal.
Akin said the right thing the wrong way. He’s a solid prolife, pro traditional marriage conservative. That last point detracts from your overall case.
I so so so wish Newt had kept doing what he did in Iowa early and then in SC. He did not.”
In retrospect, politically speaking, the day after the SC primary was the best day of the year. When Newt smacked down those CNN idiots, that was true greatness.
Back to Reagan. In reading Craig Shirley’s books, it seems to me that Reagan’s campaign was always his. Yes, he used consultants. But they followed the big picture lead that he gave; they were on the same page as him. And it showed, and they (and we) won.
I got really disgusted with folks jumping to support Todd Akin simply because he was an outsider. Jeez folks - there are a lot of outsiders who are “effn” idiots, and Akin was one. There were two other dynamite candidates in that race, and Claire’s voters crossed over and picked the idiot they wanted to run against.
Now, I have noticed that Akins’ trolls have not raised a peep since it became obvious that he ran the absolute worst campaign in the entire country. I know the idiot who ran it too, and I’m not surprised. Yes, he was one of the geniuses who thought Newt’s Super PAC should run the Bain ads. He also thinks Joe Scarborough and Shep Smith are friends of Republicans.
yes, he’s that foolish. He sank Newt and then he sank Akin, which might have taken Mitt down too. Who knows how many walking vagina’s in Florida, Va, Ohio, were turned off by Akin’s comments gone viral.
Its way past time for some tough rules requiring the northeast to eat the **** sandwich theyve cooked up.
More or less. First stop: kick Iowa to the curb in regards to having the first caucus. Perhaps it made sense in 1956, but it has LONG been a negative for everyone. The state simply has too many cattle, be they four- or two-legged (both irrespective of party affiliation).
Newt had no base outside of GA and SC, home territory. If he had withdrawn after Missouri and Santorum’s sweep - Santorum could have taken down Mitt in Ohio (lost by a percent), and in Michigan (same).
That changes the whole tenure of the race.
Iowa voted for the best conservative option on the ballot last time around - Santorum.
The problem wasn’t Iowa - the problem was Florida.
Hindsight is 20/20. Akin was leading McCaskill before Romney backstabbed him.
Where were you when Akin was leading? Hmm?
Akin said the right thing the wrong way. Hes a solid prolife, pro traditional marriage conservative. That last point detracts from your overall case.”
There is no doubt that Akin is “one of us”. No doubt about it. The point is not whether he is a good, God-fearing, conservative man. He is.
But he has been around a long time. He should have known that he was being set up by the demonic media. He has ZERO responsibility to them, to answer their questions. He should have just stayed with his own talking points, ignoring the media, using them as a conduit for his own points. But he fell for it.
And...as a result, we gave away a US Senate seat. Worse, we gave it away to a very immoral, very corrupt liberal who could have been EASILY defeated.
Akin should be a Congressman and a Sunday school teacher. His point should be made in private, to those who are already pro life and trying to understand the issue thoroughly. But to cast that pearl before teh swine that is the media, he quite literally gave away a Senate seat. And the country really didn’t need that right now.
That’s the way I see it. (I contributed financially, by the way, to Akin after the fact with the hopes that he would pull it out....if he had, he would have been truly liberated, which would have been great...but he didn’t. Alas. So we have to try to learn from his very big mistake).
McCain, 2008 popular vote: 58,319,442
Romney, 2012 popular vote: 58,163,978
4 years of population growth and Romney didn’t draw what McCain did......
Because you think social issues are the only way to determine conservatism, a breath taking view of ignorance -and because you ignored how totally liberal Santorum ran his Pennsylvania campaigns - and because I am done with sweater vest geeks - I am done with you.
You don’t understand math, logic, or history - and how they all intersect. The Iowa caucus is a perverted ridiculous exercise involving a tiny group of people that will never ever win the state for the GOP. The state of SC, which is not that big, still cast more votes for Newt than the entire caucus population of Iowa cast for all candidates combined.
The problem was both Iowa and Florida, and the negative ads in both states. SC was the ONLY — ONLY state where the candidates all ran against Obama. Case closed. Bye.
Akin lost because Romney did the unforgiveable - backstabbed his own team.
You do not do that in the middle of the war. Sure, Akin could have phrased it better - but Romney dropping him hurt everyone else.
I know other conservatives and when they saw Romney taking money away from conservative candidates, we saw what we had feared, Romney backstabbing us in the middle of the election.
A true leader would have stood behind Akin and made it clear that he stood behind the prolife, pro traditional marriage folks - even when they screw up!
It’s easy to support someone when they do their job perfectly. The true test of character is what do you do when they screw up? Do you stand by them or do you hang them out to dry.
Guess what Romney chose?
Newt finished no better than third in every state that did not border GA.
I too hoped that Akin would win - I mean, really really really hoped he would. I hope Duke wins football games too, but you have to man up and admit when your team sucks! Akin sucks, and he’s not that much of an outsider to begin with.
I am amazed at how many freepers will fall for any 23 IQ idiot simply because they are pro life and an outside. Dangit, we can find brilliant people who are both. There were 2 candidates in Missouri who were both. Claire’s voters voted Akin in the primary because of that. And we lost a seat to an ignorant, arrogant, dolt.
You might have missed what I said. I am quite clear on states rights. That does not make caving to the leftists to develop a big intrusive government program at the state or local level any different than developing it at the federal level. He may feel there is a “right” to do it but it is still big intrusive government.
Romney established himself as a big intrusive government liberal by developing a big intrusive government program.
You count states as equal entities, showing your total ignorance of the difference in primary and caucus, difference in contested states and beauty contests. Yes, Santorum and his followers “counted states” as if 3000 voters in Nevada or Iowa equals 600 thousand in South Carolina. Again, math and logic are related, and you can’t understand either.
And it’s obvious to me that you hate social conservatives moreso than Obama. But then we already knew that.
I did not miss what you said at all. You clearly missed what I said, and you clearly missed the Founders’ concepts of the Tenth Amendment. Have a nice day.
How did that strategy of attacking Santorum work out for you?
You’re an idiot. I am a social conservative. I also understand the times, and this was not an election about those issues.
Moreover, I hate ignorance, and it comes from Obama and his followers all of the time - and sadly from social conservatives some of the time. Hello sometime.
Wow, Breckenridge is really a blithering collossal idiot. I’m turning him over to you. You obviously can keep your cool with him better than I.
That may be so, but it is something important for the GOP to look into if they ever want to win another election. GOP vote totals are diminishing, even in the face of a candidate that openly stands for everything that diminishes this country. Since even THAT wasn't a motivator, the GOP has to figure out what will be a motivator. A Left-leaning candidate didn't take ANY votes away from the Dems, even in Mitt's home state.