Posted on 11/06/2012 10:15:36 PM PST by Perdogg
I'm not sure I agree with you there. I haven't seen the turnout numbers, but it is hard for me to imagine an improved ground game squeezing out more votes for Romney.
He should have hired Rove
The liberals would have had a field day with that. A direct link back to W.
I saw Romney repeatedly slandered in social media and there was no response. If I tried to point out how the post was untrue, I would be viciously attacked. Facts don't matter.
Image does.
I'm not sure I agree with you there. I haven't seen the turnout numbers, but it is hard for me to imagine an improved ground game squeezing out more votes for Romney.
He should have hired Rove
The liberals would have had a field day with that. A direct link back to W.
I saw Romney repeatedly slandered in social media and there was no response. If I tried to point out how the post was untrue, I would be viciously attacked. Facts don't matter.
Image does.
I'm not sure I agree with you there. I haven't seen the turnout numbers, but it is hard for me to imagine an improved ground game squeezing out more votes for Romney.
He should have hired Rove
The liberals would have had a field day with that. A direct link back to W.
I saw Romney repeatedly slandered in social media and there was no response. If I tried to point out how the post was untrue, I would be viciously attacked. Facts don't matter.
Image does.
I live in an area of Phoenix with a changing demographic that is becoming more Hispanic and younger, but I have the same old white dude who only comes around once every two years to give me a party handout telling me how I should vote. If the party was smart, they would find a younger, more energetic, true believer who can articulate a conservative message and would be willing to go door to door and meet folks and talk with them about issues that affect them. They should be out there looking for new families that move into the neighborhood and preaching them the gospel of fiscal and social conservatism an how it can benefit their families.
I'm gonna have to agree. If the GOP doesn't get a grassroots organization together real quick, it is going to lose the next generation of voters. It's expensive to do, but then again, so are drive-by ad blitzes during election season. I still can't believe Obama matched Romney on campaign spending. Where are the wealthy plutocrats who supposedly fund the GOP? Why are they such cheapskates?
Sorry about the triple post. I’m not sure what happened there. I swear I hit the post button only once! :)
Ronald Reagan could not win today. Being conservative has nothing to do with this. If issues had anything to do with this Obama would be going to his mansion in Hawaii instead this screwed up country want to give this worst president in US history four more years to do more damage.
Gremlins, I'm sure.
One other freeper mentioned Democratic party-building efforts as a factor in 2012:
Carl Rove was “working” for the Romnay campaign through his American Crossroads super PAC. The problem is all of these third party organizations are great at ramping up voter turnout in the final push toward the election, but they are no substitute for firmly entrenched party organizations who employee people to go out an meet local constituents and build a base within a precinct.I live in an area of Phoenix with a changing demographic that is becoming more Hispanic and younger, but I have the same old white dude who only comes around once every two years to give me a party handout telling me how I should vote. If the party was smart, they would find a younger, more energetic, true believer who can articulate a conservative message and would be willing to go door to door and meet folks and talk with them about issues that affect them. They should be out there looking for new families that move into the neighborhood and preaching them the gospel of fiscal and social conservatism an how it can benefit their families.
My response:
I'm gonna have to agree. If the GOP doesn't get a grassroots organization together real quick, it is going to lose the next generation of voters. It's expensive to do, but then again, so are drive-by ad blitzes during election season. I still can't believe Obama matched Romney on campaign spending. Where are the wealthy plutocrats who supposedly fund the GOP? Why are they such cheapskates?
I’ll just point out that Romney was so contemptuous of ordinary voters that he didn’t even bother to organize a ‘boots on the ground’ operation in Iowa and let Ron Paulestinians take over the Iowa GOP.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Romney simply does not understand retail politics. And that is why he lost in 2012.
That and his message of ‘socialism lite’ did him in.
Once it’s established that it’s good for people to get stuff they haven’t earned, why would anyone ever vote to get less ‘free’ stuff?
And the switch of Catholics from majority Democrat to majority Republican didn’t happen either.
You are right, they are going to go vote Democrat instead. You can still fight against several subject(late term abortion, no fed $$ for abortions, religous freedom, etc...), but the rest you leave up to states rights and fight it there.
The right always claims to be for state’s rights, well Maryland said it plain and clear, they want gay marriage. Stick with the part as it stands now, and we lose maryland and many other states in perpetuity.
But he won the red states. Why would socialism-lite hurt him in the swing states, where conservatives are way sparser? Would conservatives reject him there and vote for Obama or not vote because they think they can do better? I guess my question would be why conservatives in swing states would stand on principle when they're used to settling for crumbs or getting nothing at all when conservatives in red states routinely vote for RINOs at the national level. Something doesn't compute with this line of reasoning.
Demographics is destiny.
You are beginning to see nationally what happened to California over recent decades, as it was transformed from an American state that elected Ronald Reagan to a state that is the capital of the Third World and Obamunism.
When you replace the native American stock, the unmentionable white population, with imports from all over the Third World then elections shift to the left. They see Obama as one of their own and Romney as an alien.
It’s not poor immigrants, it’s not about money at all. It is simply Third World tribalism. They aren’t shy about talking about it, it’s just that conservatives and the GOP aren’t paying attention or refuse to acknowledge what doesn’t fit their idea of how the world should be versus how it actually is.
Get used to it. Obama is just the first of what is to come. The GOP will be doing the same thing, in its usual Democrat-lite version.
Obama got over 9 million FEWER votes this time than in 2008. Romney got 2 million FEWER votes than McCain!
Is it your opinion that two million McCain voters vanished because Romney is too conservative?
The problem with State’s Rights (and I am a fan of that doctrine), is that the courts and the Federal Government have interpreted the “equal protection” clause in the U.S. Constitution in such a way that... gay “couples” in Maryland get “married” there... they then move to a state that doesn’t currently recognize such unholy unions... they then file a federal lawsuit claiming violation of their civil rights (under “Equal Protection). Rapidly, Gay “Marriage” becomes the law of the land in spite of a state’s desires.
Further - My faith says that such “unions” are absolutely wrong. Yet my tax dollars will go to support that lifestyle choice through spousal benefits.
Which brings up the other back-door way of spreading gay unions - Federal workers -
I stand corrected. I now am reading how turnout was down compared to 2008—and may even be down compared to 2004. Shows what I know. It seemed like it was way up from my personal experience, but the numbers tell a different story.
However, in 2010, Dan Coats the RINO beat his opponent by 250K votes. Mourdock the conservative lost this year by 100K votes. So there is such a thing as being more conservative than your electorate.
Turnout for both Obama and Romney was lower this year than in 2008 because there was less of a sense of crisis this year. On election day in 2008, Lehman, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had gone under and the Dow had fallen 5000 points from its peak earlier that year. Romney's mistake was in having no ground game. I suspect the neck-and-neck polls probably led to a sense of complacency. Ultimately, Romney needed paid professionals to micromanage GOP turnout, and he fell down big time on that score. I mean - he was so confident he would win that he hadn't prepped a concession speech.
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.