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.
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.