Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Romney Didn't Get Enough Votes to Win
Israel National News ^ | Nov 13, 2012 | Steven Pruzansky

Posted on 11/14/2012 2:41:57 PM PST by fso301

It is a different world, and a different America. Obama is part of that different America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.

the most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo – for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted.

But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

Romney lost because he didn’t get enough votes to win.

That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate. The notion of the “Reagan Democrat” is one cliché that should be permanently retired.

Ronald Reagan himself could not win an election in today’s America.

(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: election; failure; israel; loser; notmyfault; romney
As the author said, Ronald Reagan could not have won.
1 posted on 11/14/2012 2:42:02 PM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fso301

I disagree strongly with the idea that Reagan could not have won. This is a Romney talking point from the primaries with no merit. Reagan appealed to people as people first. Mostly, Reagan was genuine in what he expressed, and people understood that. Reagan did not come across as a used car salesman, slick and contradicting what he told the last customer.


2 posted on 11/14/2012 2:52:37 PM PST by Ingtar (Everyone complains about the weather, but only Liberals try to legislate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fso301

Reagan could have won. The problem the only people who actually believed Romney presented a REAL difference were liberal who thought he was an arch conservative. The rest of the world saw it as Romneycare vs Obamacare and then their level of participation in the election was governed by how much they hated Obama, even the hardcores didn’t actually expect Romney to do much of anything, maybe a couple of tweaks to Obamacare to make it slightly less odious. Slightly less odious doesn’t tend to win elections.


3 posted on 11/14/2012 2:57:16 PM PST by discostu (Not a part of anyone's well oiled machine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fso301

The country has changed since Reagan. Not as many people have the values that elected Reagan. We now have at least 47% dependent on the government - contributing nothing and faithfully voting democrat.


4 posted on 11/14/2012 3:14:24 PM PST by I want the USA back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar; discostu
I disagree strongly with the idea that Reagan could not have won.

Granted, Reagan did connect better with people but the nation has changed so much in the past 30 years that I don't know...

5 posted on 11/14/2012 3:15:45 PM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fso301

I disagree vehemently. Reagan was a brilliant communicator and would have pulled people into his world view. Romney, despite doing a lot of things quite well, did not do that. He essentially closed the ABO crowd, and no more. Reagan would definitely not get the landslides of the 1980s in today’s world, but he could certainly win. Does anyone not think, he could have persuaded 10,000 people in Florida to vote for prosperity? Would not 300,000 people in the five key swing states consider changing course?

I agree, the author says the traditional values of work ethic and aspirations are different today, but there are many people who stayed home or voted for Obama that would have considered another option.


6 posted on 11/14/2012 3:17:24 PM PST by ilgipper (Obama supporters are comprised of the uninformed & the ill-informed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fso301
As the author said, Ronald Reagan could not have won.

Self-serving Team Mittens bullcrap.

"Once upon a time, a pet food company created a new variety of dog food, and rolled out a massive marketing campaign to introduce the product.

"Despite hiring a first-rate advertising agency, initial sales were very, very disappointing. The agency was fired, and a new agency (with an expensive new campaign) was launched. Sales, however, stubbornly continued to crater. (If anything, in fact, they fell even further than they had before.)

"In desperation, the CEO called in all of his top executives for a brainstorming session to analyze what had gone wrong with the two campaigns, and how a new campaign might revive sales.

"The meeting went on for hours. Sophisticated statistical analysis was brought to bear on the problem. One VP argued that the mix of TV and print ads had been hopelessly bollixed. Another argued that the previous campaigns had been too subtle, and had failed to feature the product with sufficient prominence. Still another argued that the TV ad campaign had focused too much on spots during sporting events, and not enough on regular programming with a broader demographic. And yet another argued the exact opposite: not enough sports programming had been targeted!

"After the debate had raged for hour after fruitless hour, the CEO felt they had accomplished damned little. He asked if anyone else had any theories -- any at all -- that might conceivably explain the failure of their new product. Finally, one newly hired employee raised her hand and was recognized.

"'Maybe the dogs simply don’t like it,' she offered."

*****************

The GOP-e could stand to actually learn something from the humble makers of dog food, evidently.

7 posted on 11/14/2012 3:19:28 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper
I disagree vehemently.

And you may be correct but there was no candidate in the same league as Reagan this time around so, we'll never know.

8 posted on 11/14/2012 3:20:21 PM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fso301

Romney certainly had a lot of problems.

But the demographics look bad to me long term.

Non-whites (blacks, hispanics, and Asians) are increasingly voting Democrat AND becoming a larger percentage of the electorate.

With the Death Panels hastening the demise of baby boomer Republicans, I’m concerned about the future.


9 posted on 11/14/2012 3:25:22 PM PST by nascarnation (Baraq's bankruptcy: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fso301

Good find...

They left out the bit about screwing over the Ron Paul delegates - they could have gotten some of those votes instead of disenfranchising them - not a time to make the tent smaller.


10 posted on 11/14/2012 3:32:24 PM PST by paulk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

Which is why I’m pro-choice...abort as many Dems as possible.


11 posted on 11/14/2012 3:34:11 PM PST by Fledermaus (The Republic is Dead: Collapse the system. Let the Dems destroy the economy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation
But the demographics look bad to me long term.

The traditional conservative message should be independent of demographic. What is wrong demographically is that the melting pot is no longer being used. There is no reason why a minority should not aspire to have a stable job, stable household, safe neighborhood and hope for an even better future for their children.

I think conservatives are going to have to adopt messages that recognize a large part of the nation has not experienced the melting pot and that a helping hand is needed to help draw people from non-traditional backgrounds toward a more traditional conservative lifestyle and way of thinking.

12 posted on 11/14/2012 3:46:29 PM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fso301

Any decent candidate would have beaten Jimmy Carter II.

Romney has been a failure as a candidate his entire 20 years of running for office, he has always broken spending records, has injected 55 million dollars of his own money at crucial points during his campaigns, and he won a single election for governor, he was rejected for reelection and left that office with 34% approval, Romney then lost to the non-funded Huckabee and old man McCain in 2008, before Carter 2 thumped him in 2012.


13 posted on 11/14/2012 3:48:14 PM PST by ansel12 (Todd Akin was NOT the tea party candidate, Sarah Steelman was, Brunner had tea party support also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Any decent candidate would have beaten Jimmy Carter II.

Then there must not have been one. Unfortunately, I don't see the situation improving significantly for 2016.

14 posted on 11/14/2012 3:49:36 PM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fso301

Baloney.

Reagan won because people knew he meant what he said.

Everyone with half a brain knew Romney was a liar who would say anything to get elected -— just as he did in MA and just as he slandered good men running for the Republican nomination.


15 posted on 11/14/2012 3:50:32 PM PST by TheThirdRuffian (I will never vote for Romney. Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fso301
Granted, Reagan did connect better with people but the nation has changed so much in the past 30 years that I don't know...

Seems like it.

16 posted on 11/14/2012 3:52:57 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fso301
Good thoughts.

I knew the minority population was increasing quickly as a percentage of the US.

What I didn't realize:


17 posted on 11/14/2012 3:53:33 PM PST by nascarnation (Baraq's bankruptcy: 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fso301

Of course there wasn’t one, that is the topic. Romney was terrible, he and the gope manipulated GOP politics since at least 2006 to get the white, mirror image of Obama as the nominee.

Romney shaped the pool in 2006 by hitting with massive, big donor fund raisers, and telling any potential republicans that he was prepared to devote his personal fortune to the primary, after he failed in spite of all that in 2008 (although he did keep his challengers to minor, unfunded players), all potential 2012 challengers knew that he was still going to dominate 2012, so they sat it out.


18 posted on 11/14/2012 4:04:06 PM PST by ansel12 (Todd Akin was NOT the tea party candidate, Sarah Steelman was, Brunner had tea party support also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fso301

I think Romney got enough votes to win. Anywhere they don’t have voter ID “they” say he lost. And don’t get me started on electronic voter machines.


19 posted on 11/14/2012 4:04:06 PM PST by bigheadfred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar; discostu
Both Reagan and Romney won the white vote by more than 20%. The problem is that the electorate of 1980 is not the same as that of 2012. Our demographics have changed dramatically. The welfare state has expanded significantly since 1980.

The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 90 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born.

In 1980, the US was a nation of 227 million compared to 315 million today. We had 14.1 million foreign born in 1980 compared to 40 million today. In 1980 the foreign born made up 6.2% of the population compared to 12.9% today.

During the decade ending in 1980 we had 4.5 million immigrants entering the US compared to 13.9 million during the decade ending in 2010, which happened to be the highest number in our nation's history.

In 1980 non-Hispanic whites made up 85.9% of the population compared to 66% today. Blacks were 11.8% of the population compared to 13.1% today. In 1980 other races made up 2.3%. Today Asians alone make up 5% of the population.

In 1980 there were 22.5 million on food stamps, today there are 47 million. In 1980 there were 19.6 million people on Medicaid with a total expenditure of 25.2 billion (state and Federal) compared to 54.8 million people in 2012 with a total expenditure of 456 billion. This doesn't include the CHIPS program. Today there are 70 million people on Medicaid (including CHIPS) and Obamacare will add 18 million more.

Today essentially two-thirds of the federal budget is on automatic pilot and consists of the entitlement programs, other mandatories, and debt servicing. We have culture of dependency.

I don't think Reagan could have won today. We simply are not the same country demographically or culturally.

20 posted on 11/14/2012 4:09:32 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fso301

If people were in those in those good paying jobs promised by free trade, they would have voted Republican. They would not have to rely on Obama to survive.


21 posted on 11/14/2012 4:12:34 PM PST by ex-snook (without forgiveness there is no Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
If people were in those in those good paying jobs promised by free trade, they would have voted Republican.

Good paying jobs via free trade is a different topic but not one Republicans are completely at fault for. Clinton is afterall the one who opened the floodgates to China.

22 posted on 11/14/2012 4:21:22 PM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
"'Maybe the dogs simply don’t like it,' she offered."

*****************

The GOP-e could stand to actually learn something from the humble makers of dog food, evidently.

"GOP-e"? There were enough voters out there who didn't like any kind of Republican to lose us the election.

Possibly there were enough voters who didn't go to the polls for Romney but would have voted for a Reagan to turn things around, but there wasn't any Reagan running this year.

If you think Romney or McCain or Dole was a weak candidate -- and I don't disagree about any of them -- but you can't find a candidate who could beat them, maybe it's as much your problem (or our problem) as theirs.

Sure a great conservative candidate could beat a mediocre RINO, but if all the candidates are mediocre, saying that some excellent, nonexistent candidate could win isn't saying much.

23 posted on 11/14/2012 4:23:39 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fso301

Assuming that, as the author says, conservative values are dead in America, then what’s the point?


24 posted on 11/14/2012 4:26:48 PM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paulk
They left out the bit about screwing over the Ron Paul delegates - they could have gotten some of those votes instead of disenfranchising them - not a time to make the tent smaller.

Of course they left that out. That would be admitting the bleeding obvious...that the GOP being the party of small, much less-intrusive government is a lie. Has been a lie since 1995. Probably longer than that.

It would also force the party base and rank and file to admit that the country isn't changing...it's already changed and praying to the ghost of Reagan isn't going to change it back. But worst of all for those still in denial it would mean realizing that in order to to take on and beat the Free Sh*t Army, you're going to have to form a real coalition with the libertarians. Don't look for the libertarian wing of the GOP because it's not there anymore. The RNC and it's Bruce Campbell impersonator saw to that at the convention.

It's going to mean girding yourselves, biting down on a strong stick and getting past the convulsions associated with getting rid of some victimless crimes and not forcing people to live how you want them to. You all held your nose to vote for the liberal, big government, anti-gun, pro-abortion architect of obamacare last week. This should be easy by comparison.

Say what you will about Ron Paul, but he doubled his supporters since 2008. How well did the GOP do in increasing their numbers during that time? It sure wasn't his charismatic oratory that did that. The message of freedom is very popular. Kinda sells itself.

25 posted on 11/14/2012 4:28:02 PM PST by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: x
There were enough voters out there who didn't like any kind of Republican to lose us the election.

Hence, precisely the need to go back to what has been demonstrably proven to actually, you know, WORK (2010 Tea Party-driven election, rebuilding the CINO-abused Reagan Coalition of the '80s, etc.); and not continue to follow the GOP-e's suicidal piss-on-the-base-while-energetically-fellating-disaffected-democrats electoral Bataan Death March, yes. My point, exactly. ;)

26 posted on 11/14/2012 4:31:51 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly
Assuming that, as the author says, conservative values are dead in America, then what’s the point?

For too many, the traditional conservative message is alien to them. Nothing in their life experience enables them to relate to it. They aren't necessarily hostile to it, they just can't relate to it.

Missionaries understand this and conservatives need to adopt a more missionary style of going into areas where the people have no experience with conservatism and begin helping lead them out of a life of dependency.

27 posted on 11/14/2012 4:55:27 PM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
The electorate is different in midterms from in presidential election years. A lot of people who habitually skip off-year elections turned out this time to vote (or so we're told). Different strategies may be necessary when the pool of people voting differs.

Any presidential candidate is going to try to woo independent or swing voters. Maybe one candidate would be able to bring out more "base" voters than another, but that's usually not enough to win presidential elections.

I'm not sure what your getting at towards the end, but the "abused Reagan Coalition of the '80s" was built by -- I'll just skip your obscenities and say "wooing" here -- "disaffected-democrats." That's why there was so much talk of "Reagan Democrats" back then.

The problem is that Democrats who might be disaffected have changed and winning them over isn't as easy as it once was. A lot of the old Republican base is gone as well.

28 posted on 11/14/2012 5:01:46 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: I want the USA back

The country has changed since Reagan. Not as many people have the values that elected Reagan.
______________________________________

Youre right about that ..

the baby killing same sex marriage Liberal Willard would not have got as far as he did in Reagans day...

He would never have got to be the GOPe nominee...

the Conservatives in Reagans day would have shut out the son of George Romney, the arch enemy of Ronald Reagan...


29 posted on 11/14/2012 5:27:57 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
The GOP-e could stand to actually learn something from the humble makers of dog food, evidently.

True but I don't see any viable alternative to Romney. Using your pet food analogy, pets accustomed to say canned food will resist dry food... until they get hungry enough at which point they will eat it.

This past election is similar in that we may have wanted a better candidate but there really wasn't one. Unlike the dog staring at a dish of dry food he really doesn't want but will never-the-less eventually eat, some voters looked at the candidates, didn't want either and stayed at home.

30 posted on 11/14/2012 5:29:34 PM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fso301

That’s for damn sure.


31 posted on 11/14/2012 6:20:25 PM PST by ilgipper (Obama supporters are comprised of the uninformed & the ill-informed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fso301

What most refuse to acknowledge is that it was unlikely that ANYBODY could have beaten the voter fraud planned and perpetrated by the Obama machine. They seem to prefer pointing fingers, blaming Romney and blathering on about Patraeus' sex life.



Col Allen West; "I don't want to see America become like Zimbabwe where people don’t trust their electoral process. If we cannot trust the integrity of the voting system then we are no longer a free republic".

Col West has opened the door.

We must fight election fraud.

It falls on ‘We the People’.

Silence is consent

There’s overwhelming evidence of fraud.- Here


_________________________________________________

SARAH PALIN speaks out on Twitter about massive Obama machine voter fraud:

>Sarah Palin News ‏@SarahPalinLinks Between suppression of the military vote and voter fraud, Obama stole another election. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/46302 …DEMAND A RECOUNT! #VoterFraud

>Sarah Palin News ‏@SarahPalinLinks People need to stop pointing fingers within the GOP and investigate the Dems' massive voter fraud and suppression of the military vote.

MITT ROMNEY TWEETS ABOUT ELECTION FRAUD:

>MITT ROMNEY in 2012! ‏@PlanetRomney #tcot The Competent Conservative: Elections Have Not Yet Been Certified, Here’s What You Can Do:

>> These electi... http://bit.ly/Zzam8Y

Here

Excerpt from Mitt Romney's reference:

These elections are NOT certified yet. The only way to get this investigated, much less recounted or overturned, is through the Secretary of State of each of the five key states: Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. EVEN IF YOU ARE IN ANOTHER STATE you can help. But it won’t do any good to dilute our effort to challenge California or Michigan or other states. Until a major group gets involved to do more, here is the plan: Contact the Secretary of State of the state in question. See contact information below...

Read the rest- Here

___________________________________________________



The website,'Barack Obama Vote Fraud 2012' is keeping a running account of cases of voter fraud and what to do about it:

(Astonishing!) > Visit the site- Here
Sign this petition- Here

Another website:

Is There Enough Evidence of Voter Fraud To Merit a Recount? If you wish to add your voice, click here and sign the petition for a recount Here-

< Hannity and Col Allan West slam voter fraud Nov 12- Here

Photo of SOMALIANS brought to Ohio voting stations by the busload, 95% of whom did not speak English, and told to vote for Obama, straight Dem ticket- Here

Must watch videos!

VIDEO-- Programmer Testifies About Rigging Elections With Vote Counting- Here

VIDEO- Illegal Aliens Caught Voting and Stealing Elections In Florida In Vast Numbers- Here

VIDEO- MICHAEL SAVAGE: How Obama fixed the 2012 election- Here

VIDEO- Massive voter fraud discovered in April- Here

VIDEO- Whistle blower speaks out about voter fraud- Here

___________________________________________________


We can not wait for 2014 and 2016 to regroup and figure out new strategies. By then it will be too late. The Marxist/Muslim usurper will have completed his planned distruction of America. That's what people fail to understand.

We must act NOW.

Start with the election. If we let the Rats get away with this massive voter fraud, we're no better than a bananna republic.

We must keep digging and pounding him every day, in every way we can- phony birth certificate, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, his hidden life, records....

We are FReepers. We must fight!

Those who shrug and accept this atrocity without a fight are not worthy to be called Freepers!

Join us!! See thread, 'BARACK OBAMA FRAUD 2012- (MUST READ- MUST GO VIRAL!)' thread- Here




32 posted on 11/14/2012 8:28:41 PM PST by patriot08 (Native Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fso301

Granted the GOP is shrinking at the moment, but Romney did not help things by making it all about him.

That said, now we need to pay attention.

Bigtime. The GOP has been selling out. To every foreign country, and every foreign leader.

It is time for the GOP to get more patriotic, and more American than anyone else.

Obama will be a good competition for this, because the GOP can win this...

Will take an adjustment though.

How about it? :)


33 posted on 11/14/2012 8:32:50 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: fso301

Well, when the fraud flips a Romney vote to an Obamanoid vote, it is not hard to see why Mitt Romney didn’t get enough votes to win. Obama didn’t get enough actual honest votes to win. But his team cheats professionally. Have to with an affirmative action hire who has shown he is not capable of doing the job. It’s the classic free ride/ignore the obvious to avoid admission of managerial failure in promoting on race or sexual orientation instead of merit syndrome writ large.


34 posted on 11/14/2012 8:40:54 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fso301

This is the best piece I have seen written about the election. It mirrors what I have written here at FR and conversations I have had with friends and family. The deluded and the eternal optimists will disagree with certain of his points but I think his analysis is absolutely correct.

He is also a very good writer conveying his thoughts in a more cogent manner than most while not mincing words at all.

Impressive.


35 posted on 11/14/2012 8:49:00 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fso301
Well, you've absolutely convinced me.

Seriously. I mean it. Solemn pinky swear.

It's simply a straightforward, logistical matter of making those stinking, worthless dogs eat the @#$%ing dog food we deign to jam down their ungrateful neck holes, is all.

I'll just sit here, in this nice shady spot, and watch. You've obviously got this whole thing covered.

I see no possible way this cunning master plan can conceivably go wrong, a third consecutive time. Truly.

36 posted on 11/14/2012 8:58:20 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: x
"Obscenities." *snort*

Baseline: a genuine conservative -- gifted with the incredible bounty of a six-year head start, campaign-wise, AND several hundred million or so in loose sofa change -- might conceivably accept some meager portion of the blame unto himself, for being wholly incapable of closing the sale against a sitting president responsible for real unemployment whipsawing somewhere between 18% and 22%, depending...

... and then, of course, there's Mitt Romney. And his apologists.

Doubtless a third consecutive four-year span wandering about the political wilderness will be necessary, before the simplest of all lessons (i.e., Stop Hitting Yourself) is adequately received and internalized. Carry on, then.

37 posted on 11/14/2012 9:16:13 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fso301; All

Note to Romney/Ryan: Here are a small sampling of the REAL reasons that y’all lost:

Never questioned Obama’s place of birth;
Never questioned Obama’s reasons for sealing his personal documents and school records;
Never Campaigned from the end of the Primary until people started early voting;
Never allowed The Father of the Tea Party to be involved in y’alls GOP-Elite Campaign;
Y’all listened to y’alls sorry Harvard top campaign advisers;
Ignored Moderator Bob Scheiffer when he delivered the election to Romney on a silver platter with his question to him about Benghazi as the first question in the third debate;
Romney, as the Father of Socialist Romney’care’ ran against the Father of Communist Obama’care.’
Y’all NEVER ONCE went for the coup de gra’ce;
Every time that y’all got ahead, y’all relaxed and changed course;
Y’all kept y’alls advisors that had done a perfect job of designing a campaign to “LOSE AT ALL COSTS.”

Y’all are just another pair of loser RINOs.
Don’t run in 2016 unless you understand all of the above, as we damn sure won’t forget ANY of y’alls RINO blunders!

DUH! I’m surprised that y’all received as many votes as y’all did.

BTW, the only good thing that came out of y’alls Primary and General Campaigns was HOW NOT TO RUN A CAMPAIGN!


38 posted on 11/14/2012 9:22:21 PM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

Shhhhhhhhhh. You’ll wake them. ;)


39 posted on 11/14/2012 9:24:49 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: fso301

Romney lacked “fire in the belly.” I seriously doubt that he wanted to be President.

Tone of voice, pretty-boy smile, body language, choice of softball words, lack of follow-through on key issues such as the Benghazi Murders, etc., all indicated to me that he had better things to do with HIS precious time than to spend it running for President of the United States of America.

It is time for us to shun the typical RINO/GOP-Elite Campaigns Method of LOSE AT ALL COSTS.

“Whisper softly and then sit down” should be the motto of the Dole-McCain-Romney ‘Choose to lose’ Campaigns.


40 posted on 11/15/2012 6:09:04 AM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Reagan knew how to energize the base AND lure cross over voters. Romney annoyed the base AND presented no appeal to cross over. That’s why Reagan would have won again Obama and Romney would have lost to Carter.


41 posted on 11/15/2012 7:09:47 AM PST by discostu (Not a part of anyone's well oiled machine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: discostu

We will never know. The fact is that we have a far different electorate demographically. Do you think Reagan could be elected governor of CA today?


42 posted on 11/15/2012 7:17:45 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Probably. Arnold pulled it off. The whole “demographic change” argument is silly. The political reality of America remains the same, basically we’re divided into thirds, one third of us break fairly conservative, one third liberal, the final is the mushy middle. To win an election you need to energize your third and win over a chunk of the mushy middle. If you don’t energize your third you lose, if you can’t draw a healthy percentage of the mushy middle you lose. Romney did neither, he lost. The fact that he didn’t get WHIPPED shows how beatable Obama was.

In both 1998 and 2002 election results made people think there was a long term demographic change, 1998 supposedly gave the liberals control for the next 20 years, 2002 the conservatives. We see how both of those predictions turned out. And that’s a big reason why I don’t believe in the whole “demographic change” argument. The only thing that really changes is the candidates, and 2 elections in a row the entire GOP field sucked rotten eggs, and the eventual deeply flawed nominee that annoyed the base and had no cross over appeal lost. Next time around we’ve got an election where the mushy middle will be pre-disposed to like us (historically the longer one side is in charge the less the middle likes them, which is why sitting VPs almost never win). Now we can screw this up again if we put forth another crop of pathetic candidates, or we can win it in a walk with a decent conservative that knows how to talk to people. The choice is ours.


43 posted on 11/15/2012 7:30:11 AM PST by discostu (Not a part of anyone's well oiled machine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Probably. Arnold pulled it off.

LOL Arnold was a real RINO. His positions on the issues were liberal. Comparing him to Reagan is laughable. This isn't about whether a RINO could be elected in CA, it is about whether a real conservative could be elected statewide.

The whole “demographic change” argument is silly.

It is only silly to delusional Reps who still believe that they can somehow convince minorities to accept the GOP message.

If you accept the exit polls, Obama won the age groups 18-29 (60% to 37%) and 30-44 (52%-45%). They totaled 46% of the electorate. Romney won the age groups 45-64 (51%-47%) and the 65+ (56%-44%). They totaled 54% of the electorate.

Drilling down further, according to the CNN exit polls, whites 18-29 voted for Romney 51%-44%. Latinos of the same age group voted 74% to 23% for Obama. And Blacks voted 91%-8% for Obama.

It is obvious that the Reps are losing the lower age groups. Why? First, these groups are increasing their minority percentages due to immigration and higher birth rates among minorities compared to non-Hipanic whites. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities as defined by the USG. Hence, each year that goes by adds to the Dem electorate and subtracts from the Rep electorate as non-Hispanic whites die and are not replaced in their ranks at the lower age groups.

Immigrants and minorities grow old as well, but their percentage of the total population is constantly increasing. By 2042 half of the country will be minorities as defined by the USG. We are also an aging population. By 2030 one in five residents of this country will be 65 or older--twice what it is now. Whether immigrants and minorities will become more Rep as they grow older is problematic since one's political affiliation is more akin to religion than anything else. You are literally born into it.

The U.S. adds one international migrant (net) every 36 seconds. Immigrants account for one in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in more than 90 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13. In a decade, it will be one in 7, the highest it has been in our history. And by 2050, one in 5 residents of the U.S. will be foreign-born. It is not a stretch to say that these immigrants, once they become citizens, will vote Dem 2 to 1.

Since the Immigration Act of 1965, the Democrats view U.S. immigration policies as a vehicle to accrete political power and promote their agenda. The ultimate objective is to make them the permanent majority, free to impose their worldview on the American people using our existing democratic institutions and the ballot box. They are willing to sacrifice the long term national interests of this nation to gain political advantage.

87 percent of the 1.2 million legal immigrants entering annually are minorities as defined by the U.S. Government and almost all of the illegal aliens are minorities. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under in the U.S. will be classified as minorities and by 2042, half of the residents of this country will be minorities. Generally, immigrants and minorities vote predominantly for the Democrat Party. Hence, Democrats view immigration as a never-ending source of voters that will make them the permanent majority party.

We do not have an Hispanic problem. We have an immigrant, minority, and younger voter problem. The changing demographics of this country have electoral consequences and have for decades except the Rep political elites and pundits have failed to recognize it. Some of it has to do with the huge influence the Chamber of Commerce has over the GOP. They have been pushing more guest workers, more immigrants, and amnesty to keep the flow of cheap exportable labor coming into this country to reduce wages and increase profits. In the process they have privatized the benefits and socialized the costs, which are killing our schools, healthcare, and law enforcement.

I believe we have reached a tipping point. We can see the impact demographics has on states like Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and Virginia. They are turning purple and will be eventually blue as immigration and minority birthrates change the composition of the electorate.

We may be on our way to creating a white identity, not a good thing but understandable as this society becomes more polarized along racial, ethnic, and cultural lines. This romanticized idea of a melting pot may be crumbling as the demographic mix changes. The US is not immune to the same kinds of forces that affect many other societies. In many cases, it is just a function of numbers that can set off the dynamic of political tribalism.

44 posted on 11/15/2012 7:59:04 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kabar

The problem with the stats you’re waving around is they ignore the people that opted out. Yes young people tend to break liberal, and grow conservative as the get older.

The part that matters is the part I stated and you studiously ignored, I bet you’ll ignore it again, we’re in 3rd, have been for a long time, will continue to be. A candidate needs to energize his base AND grab from the mushy middle. Romney did neither, and lost, but he lost in a squeaker. The small number of votes Romney lost by shows there isn’t a massive demographic change.

Again I point you to 1998, people on both sides of the aisle were pointing to all the same stuff you are as indication that the dems would have a majority for 20 years. They lost the presidency 2 years later, and lost both chambers 2 years after that, we STILL have the House majority that was built in those years immediately after the dems supposedly got a permanent majority. The empirical evidence says you’re just as wrong now as the doom criers 14 years ago, and the rejoicers 10 years ago. There are no permanent majorities in a country divided in thirds.


45 posted on 11/15/2012 8:18:32 AM PST by discostu (Not a part of anyone's well oiled machine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Baseline: a genuine conservative -- gifted with the incredible bounty of a six-year head start, campaign-wise, AND several hundred million or so in loose sofa change -- might conceivably accept some meager portion of the blame unto himself, for being wholly incapable of closing the sale against a sitting president responsible for real unemployment whipsawing somewhere between 18% and 22%, depending...

You make it sound easy. Actually it's not at all easy to unseat a president. Most of those who've been defeated lost after their party had held the White House for eight or twelve or more years. That's enough time for voters to be really sick of the party in power and forget any grievances against the opposition party. Four years usually isn't enough to turn voters against a President who won a majority of the vote only four years before.

Of course, Jimmy Carter is the great exception in modern times. He had no foreign policy successes and some embarrassing failures. We saw high unemployment and double digit inflation in the Carter years. Carter faced a strong challenge in his own party's primaries and a third party candidate. He was weak both with his party's base (Northern liberals) and his own base (White Southerners). He faced a strong Republican opponent as well.

Carter was pretty clearly an exception to what usually happens in politics. There's no point in taking what happened to his reelection campaign as the norm and thinking that unseating even an unpopular or incompetent chief executive after his party has held the White House for only four years is going to be easy.

46 posted on 11/15/2012 2:03:36 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson