Posted on 11/10/2012 6:53:22 AM PST by BobL
Yes, it's bad, but no the country has not (yet) completely rejected us or what we stand for.
So let me start by saying the next 4 years will be terrible (if I don't say all this, I will just be attacked as a nutcase). We'll likely end up with a hard-left Supreme Court (although the current court may give us a few good rulings first). The lower federal courts will all be hard-left too. Foreign and military policy will stink - but if we're lucky, nothing fatal or permanent will happen there, and we can hopefully build out of it. Other areas will be terrible too.
Rush says we were outnumbered and it cannot get better. I don't believe that was the case, at least not in this election. Yes, we were defeated, but NO it was far from inevitable. And yes, demographics are moving away from us, but no, demographics move very slow and there are at least a few more presidential elections before it becomes very difficult to win, but there are steps that can even delay that (although it's looking unlikely that we'll get enough of them).
So, the relatively optimistic vanity - simply because this election was not won by Obama, but rather it was lost by Romney and the Republican Party, and then only at the end - the last month. We had a candidate that ran a cool, disciplined, campaign - and then BLEW IT at the very end. They had a candidate that also ran a very disciplined campaign, but did not blow it at the end.
So here are my 10 reasons that we lost. If each of them could be worth a point for Romney, he would have won in a landslide.
1) ORCA - the Republican Get Out the Vote effort TOTALLY crashed on election day. Not surprising - Romney used computer programmers that drove junkers with Obama bumper stickers (just guessing here). Maybe that was all he could get, but he still should have had both independent electronic backup and hand backup at the same time. He didn't - he figured that since his laptop always worked, ORCA would always work. He was an IDIOT. Obama's people had their version of ORCA, but the guy working there likely drove the same car, with the same Obama bumper sticker - and Obama's people would have been a bit suspicious if they saw a well-dressed programmer with a Romney bumper sticker and no facial hair. The Romney people were IDIOTS here for putting all of their cards in one place.
2) Hurricane Sandy - took the spotlight off of the campaign, which didn't help things. It was a once-in-lifetime storm, and it was timed as the perfect October surprise. It gave the president a chance to get people's minds off the economy.
3) Governor Christie - he had NO REASON to invite Obama to NJ. This alone likely cost Romney the majority vote in the election. Bloomberg, who had political reasons to help Obama, told Obama to keep out and gave GREAT political cover to Christie. There was nothing stopping Christie from inviting Obama over on Nov. 7th (after the election). Romney's people did try to stop this sabotage, but could not. (p.s., I count these as different topics, because there was no reason for the second one).
4) Not believing the Polls - They figured that the polls were off by at least 5%. It never occurred to them that that's never happened before. They (and nearly all of us) were convinced of the same. So they figured they had it in the bag at the end. This leads into a number of other points.
5) Romney was winning - Given that the polls were right, after all, then Romney was actually winning after the first debate. If demographics were so bad, then how was it that Romney EVER had any lead - as Obama would have owned his 51% right through? Obviously this election was winnable for Romney - had it been held a week after the first debate. People were ready to support Romney and reject Obama.
6) Playing a pre-vent defense at the end. Going into the first debate, Romney was in huge trouble and was further down than he ultimately lost by. So Romney was aggressive (just like when he was on the ropes during the primaries) and picked up something like 10 points in that debate, and made Obama look like a fool. But then they had Ryan back off, and then Romney gave Obama a pass, especially on foreign policy. Dems will always screw up foreign policy, but Republicans have this thing about not using it against them. STUPID. You have to win, first. This was their biggest strategic mistake - Reagan would have also lost in 1980 if he had backed off of Carter and played defense (and he nearly lost in 1984 doing the same in the first debate). Pre-vent defenses ALWAYS fail, unless you're up by 30 points at the two-minute warning, which was never the case for Romney.
7) Rush falling into the Women trap. Rush had Obama's re-election plan called down to the tee, probably for over a year. Obama needed to get people's minds off of the economy, and the big group for that was single women. So what did Rush do (and sorry Rush, but this didn't help, at all) - he called Fluck (or whatever her name is) a slut. It was somewhat funny, but face it, most of his listeners cringed and the Dems had a field day making her into a victim (which she, of course, was not). Rush stuck with it and seemed more interested in showing that he could ultimately win-out over them (which he did), but the damage was done outside of his show - and the Dems thought Christmas came early.
8) Two IDIOT Senate Candidates. Again, the women trap. Is there ANYONE in the Republican Party that can train these types of candidates on how to handle questions on abortion and other sensitive social issues, or does the party just ignore them and hope they go away? Or maybe if The Establishment would support Tea Party candidates once in while at the start, they party might be able to train them a bit. A campaign is a pressure-cooker, especially for Republicans - the candidates have to be ready. A very easy answer to the abortion question regarding forcible rape is to simply say something like "It's not the baby's fault, and that's just how I feel - next question". If Akin had simply said that, him and 10 others would be taking over the Senate. But the damage, obviously, spilled over to Romney, as it got women thinking about something other than the economy.
9) The House stayed Republican. Again, if we're outnumbered, why isn't Pelosi the next Speaker?
10) Fraud and Voter ID. This is likely worth a million (or more) votes just on its own. Not easy to fix, but Voter ID would likely go most of the way. From what I could see in Texas, where we had the infrastructure in place, but was not allowed to use it - it can be very effective. Voters here had to show an approved ID (had it been in place, but we showed the ID anyway to speed things up), and then it was electronically entered. If it was a driver license or state ID, it was checked against state records and your name was checked off. If something else, not sure what happened - but passports are expensive to produce and there won't be many fake passports for one vote each.
It seems to me that the most vocal conservatives around here prefer to lose elections so that they can P&M about how unfair the world is to them. That rank narcissism is not attractive. It is driving people away from their supposed cause.
There won't be any U.N. gun ban. Unlike pro-lifers, pro 2nd Amendment types actually make up a majority of voters. This explains why it has been nearly two decades since we've seen any significant gun-control legislation enacted.
How many votes could a properly functioning ORCA produce?
The trouble with the ones you mentioned, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry et al., is that they didn't get enough votes in the primary to win the nomination. That's how politics works. They lost. Conservatives have to learn something fundamental that liberals understand. To win you have to be united. As long as there are bruising and damaging primary fights among conservatives and then no unity afterward, the losses will continue.
Even that isn't saying anything hopeful, it's the equivalent of "we aren't losing ground" it certainly doesn't mean we're gaining ground.
If the even half of the electorate were pro 2nd amendment, why haven't there been even talks about repeal of GCA or NFA?
Because many gun owners just don't see these two acts as a threat to their 2nd Amendment freedoms, unlike the AWB that cost the Democrats congress. And gun owners have gained ground. The AWB was allowed to expire. CCW laws are passing in state after state. SCOTUS codified individual gun owner rights in Heller and President Obama himself loosened a ban on guns in national parks (granted it was quid pro quo). And the democrats have remained so chagrined by their '94 losses that except for a small handful of rabid liberals, most don't want their names attached to anything that looks remotely like gun control legislation.
I didn’t say that was what I PAID for. Fact is we paid it off in 15 years. Still, I couldn’t get near what the tax man claims.
Really! Like I said Tues. night. At least we didn’t have to wait long to be disappointed.
There won’t be any U.N. gun ban. Unlike pro-lifers, pro 2nd Amendment types actually make up a majority of voters. This explains why it has been nearly two decades since we’ve seen any significant gun-control legislation enacted.
Voters have defeated every “Gay Marriage” initiative when it hit the ballots. Unelected (appointed) judges forced the same initiatives into law. Judges have also allowed the theft of private property through eminent domain for the purposes of development based on higher expected tax revenue.
Do you really think they’ll let you vote on keeping your gun rights? Like I said before, they rammed through Obama Care.
“I didn’t say that was what I PAID for. Fact is we paid it off in 15 years. Still, I couldn’t get near what the tax man claims.”
LOL. I thought about that, but figured I’d roll the dice and guess that you overpaid. Oh well, at least you’re not upside down. Nice job.
My point was that the Fed is robbing us blind here and 4 more years of it will leave us on empty.
When the voting population wants it to change I will represent their desire.
And this is the best answer.
I’ve noticed that the liberal media rarely ask Democrat candidates to articulate their position on gun control. They understand that a truthful answer will only hurt these candidates so they give the issue a pass. Pro-life Republicans need to learn how to play this game as well and answering as above will help take the issue off the table and not drive away voters.
Thanks.
Line is mine. Simple and defendable.
Had media traing in the past and key point is say what you want to say, and keep on your point.
Dont let them lead you into their agenda.
If a bunch of people sitting around their keyboards understand that, why don’t Pubbie candidates?
Succinct, and about as accurate as one can get.
Understood to the nth degree by the libs who currently own the senate and the presidency.
Understood by virtually every single politician who is currently holding office.
The flip side is what is used on the losers, by every winner, each and every time.
The entire purpose of each and every commercial, campaign stop, debate, or utterance is to separate the opponent from his voters.
The libs have it down to a science. They play that tune on a grand piano, every time, while conservatives argue about platforms, right up to the election, not realizing that THAT is exactly the sheet music the libs are playing from.
Want to argue about platform? Fine. Do so while picking candidates, stressing the positives of each. After the candidate is selected, by getting the mostest of the votes, then unite behind that candidate, or prepare to lose, one more time.
Regards candidates utterances, practice, practice and practice. If you cannot join words into a coherent sentence without stepping on your richard, then STFU.
A candidate must know, absolutely, that whatever comes out of their mouths is going to be twisted by the media to suit their goal (getting dems elected).
The media? The media is the actual democratic/liberal party. The liberal politicians are merely an extension of the media, the actual pawns, that get their hands dirty, for the masters.
Expecting any type of fairness or positive exposure from the media is same as grabbing a viper by the tail, then being surprised when it bites you. It is what they do>
Anything they say, write, publish, ask of you, or state, has but one purpose, to elect libs into office. Therefore, just like the admonition given by police, anything you say, anything, can and will be used against you in the court of public discourse, during the campaign and election.
Their MO for winning is to cause division, as they themselves have nothing to run on, as exemplified by this election. Yet, they won, again not because their guy was stellar (choke), but because our guy had the base divided into multiple fragments, by none other than the media. We lapped it up like a starving rescue kitten drinks a saucer of milk.
Not united, and at a loss, every time.
WOW!! I’ve missed your posts up until now. I agree with every word you say. Too bad, but these are the facts and our side can accept this or continue to lose elections. Frankly, I fear it is too late and we may never have a fair presidential election—ever, by peaceful means. Too many on our side surrendered too soon.
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.