Posted on 11/09/2012 7:18:04 AM PST by Former Fetus
If Election Day is about picking winners, the morning after is for post-mortems. That's when we slice open the losing campaigns, set aside the hundreds of millions of dollars that gush out, and pick apart the cause of death.
Why did the Romney campaign fail? Maybe the country is now GOP-proof. That is, maybe a Constitution-guided, free-market, limited-government candidate no longer can "appeal" to the majority of the electorate. It could be that the death knell rang early this year once 67.3 million of us, or one in five Americans, had come to depend on federal assistance, formerly known as "the dole."
This nearly takes us back to the level we hit in 1994 (23.1 percent), before President Bill Clinton and the GOP-led Congress "ended" welfare as we knew it. After a noticeable decline, the percentage skyrocketed during President Obama's first term. So, too, did the percentage of Americans who pay zero federal taxes, now a shocking 49.5 percent. Right off the bat, half the country listens to Mitt Romney promise to relieve taxpayers of the onerous burdens imposed by the federal government and either fears for its livelihood or hears static.
It was exactly such an economic message that formed not just the core of Romney's campaign, but all of it. On one level, this exclusive focus on economic issues to the point of tunnel vision marked a campaign determined to play it safe. On another level, it was a huge gamble, a roll of the dice on which Romney staked everything.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Many of us here have long raised the issue of being nice and civil to democrats only results in more severe beatings.
Straight out of the Juan McLame playbook for losers, with similar results.
Maybe the “Jewish World Review” should focus first on the 70% of American Jews who voted for President Obama before lecturing the GOP about how to conduct its campaign.
Today’s generation of American Jews would vote for Hitler based solely on his party affiliation and social policies.
I really wanted him to take BO’s mantra of “if you work hard and play by the rules then you should have a fair chance” -or whatever he says, and turn it on him using the taking of hundreds of millions of hard earned taxpayer dollars to reward his bundlers at Solyndra and the list of other bankrupt green companies that BO gave money to for nothing. Romney should have hammered that that’s not fair and is in fact actually corrupt to the core and should have asked who’s rules are BO playing by and is that fair. Should have hammered how utterly corrupt BO is-but was scared to do it.
“That is, maybe a Constitution-guided, free-market, limited-government candidate no longer can “appeal” to the majority of the electorate.”
I wonder...
Maybe “next time” we should try nominating one and see?
Yeah Romney was a coward and failed to provide any real solutions but mainly Romney was easily depicted as another Corporatist Crony, the same type of politico that outsourced millions of manufacturing blue collar jobs. The white blue collar workers in PA, MI, OH, IL, WI, MN. Don’t listen to the idiocy from the Republican fools that claims that Romney lost because of lousy Hispandering!
TV ads are useless. They only enrich the media enemies and should be abandoned.
Saving those millions of dollars would enable the GOP to send checks directly to the welfare class with the instructions that they will not be honored unless the Republican candidate wins. That’s how to win the Free Stuff vote, which is now the majority.
Really? You blame the Christians who couldn’t vote for more abortion and gay marriage for the fact that we chose a candidate who proudly stood for more abortion and gay marriage...
Nice logic there FRiend.
My posts immediately after Odipsh*t’s election were to take off the gloves and do EVERYTHING to counter his and the democrat’s actions. The candy-a$$ed RINOs didn’t. The cumulative result of trying to pander to the freeloaders is losing another election.
Lots of reasons that Romney didn’t win, but in the end, the fact that he was too close to being a liberal hurt him with many people. I voted for him for the same reason that I voted for Bush, McCain, and Dole - he was the candidate with fewer negatives. In the end, the negatives weren’t “fewer” enough.
Way too many freepers didn’t want to rock the boat last time, and it’s already looking like too many want to “get along” again this time. I’m more in favor of burning down this house as opposed to sharing it with my enemies. And make no mistake - the democRATS, by and large, are my enemies.
It’s a good article, but Diana West misses an important point.
Mitt could have won solely on his “tunnel vision” of the economy . . . except for the fact that he really had NO vision at all, except to run on his reputation as a successful businessman.
His economic vision, if I remember correctly, was his “Five Point Plan” which included things like “Across the board tax cuts.” All right, that sounds fine. But we’re all knowledgeable enough to know by now that tax cuts without simultaneous spending cuts are no tax cuts at all: the difference between what government receives as tax revenue and what it spends will be made up by 1) borrowing the money, which is simply a promise to collect more in taxes in the future, or 2) printing money, which reduces the value of each dollar (manifested as a general increase in prices), and which is really a de facto tax on those whose incomes are fixed, i.e., the poor.
We also know that to talk about spending cuts is politically risky, but Mitt should at least have laid out a few basic principles of how he would go about accomplishing it.
He also said things like “I champion small business.” That’s also nice, but as someone trying to position himself as the “anti-Obama”, he should not be championing any one group — a position that implies the kind of cronyism we see today among government, big bailed-out businesses and banks, and unions. He should’ve said “I champion the free, competitive marketplace, which is the most innovative social institution ever devised, and which provides the most choices for everyone.”
I don’t think that’s a negative message at all, and would have provided a clear contrast between himself and the current administration.
I do think that our candidates need to get serious and attack the opposition. I also know that one of the reasons our candidates have been so careful about not attacking is that the demographic group of (mis)Educated White Women tends to cite “divisiveness” as one of the big reasons not to vote for a candidate.
I do think that our candidates need to get serious and attack the opposition. I also know that one of the reasons our candidates have been so careful about not attacking is that the demographic group of (mis)Educated White Women tends to cite “divisiveness” as one of the big reasons not to vote for a candidate.
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......
GREAT IDEA,!!!!
I wonder how much of the population growth were immigrants, legal and illegal?
While i think this is a good analysis of the problem's with Romney's campaign, I want to warn against making an implicit assumption here. The assumption being: any candidate can be victorious if we just craft the right campaign.
I think the problem extends beyond just the campaign to the discord that existed between what Romney was saying and what he had done. As the election approached it was hard not to notice that Romney was indeed speaking more and more like a conservative. In my mind though there was always the ghost of what he had said and done in the past coupled with a advisers comments about an etch-a-sketch. Those kind of doubts can destroy the credibility of even the best campaigns.
Also I think there has been for some time a problem with the focus of the message of the republican party, there are a few crucial words missing. Campaigning logically about the economy, unemployment, and the like is important but it also a mostly logic based argument. People are more than logical being, conservatives continually abandon any argument they think is emotionally leaving it to the liberals. Or worse they become compassionate conservatives and go liberal.
Read the writings of our founders particularly Patrick Henry, John Jay, Thomas Payne, even Daniel Webster. You will find that beyond their logical arguments there is a strong emotional argument that appeals to man's desire for liberty, and freedom. Conservatives very often campaign as if these things don't matter to people.
We get vague references to the constitution and rebuilding America, but why do we not bring the true essence of America to the fore front. Why don't we talk about it in the terms of Liberty vs. Tyranny. Why is this so radical? What sells better Liberty or Tyranny lite?
Obama won because he campaigned on the ideal of Hope. Why don't conservatives campaign on the ideal of Liberty and Freedom?
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.