Yeah, that'll show 'em.
Posted on 11/08/2012 5:43:21 AM PST by NKP_Vet
Wait until next year -- 2016, that is.
That’s what disappointed Republican spinners kept saying Tuesday night as they watched Mitt Romney’s hopes crash and burn in swing state after swing state.
How many times did I hear a Republican talk about how their party’s deep bench of future all-stars will return it to power in Washington in four years?
But all the Ryans, Rubios, Bushes, Haleys and Christies in America can’t put the GOP -- or the country -- back together again.
The GOP is a wreck -- and not just in California, where the party’s registration is now below 30 percent.
Look how easily the Republican Party managed to turn what should have been a sure victory over an incompetent and dangerous incumbent into an embarrassing defeat.
First they tore each other to shreds in a bitter primary, smearing their eventual nominee in debates as a rich, uncaring profiteer who put working people out on the street and shipped their jobs overseas.
Then, while Obama’s ads in the battleground states reinforced the Republican-made caricature of Mitt, the Romney campaign did just about everything wrong
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
The primaries were horrible.
Americans agree with us on fiscal issues. Social conservatives make it tough to pivot to the general election. Single women bought the lady parts bs and philosophizing about rape didn’t help.
I guess the predictable answer by the GOP-e is to become even MORE like radical leftist Demonicrats.
Watch and see.
Agreed. This is an issue that has to get resolved before the next elections. How can this be reconciled? I don't think it is resolvable. A 3rd party option would only split the vote and end up in Dem victories. I don't know the answer to this, but until the party figures it out, we are doomed to losing. I don't believe we can continue to think of evangelicals as our base.
Selecting Romney in the primaries was assited by the Demodummies when they too were allowed to vote for a REPUB candidate.
Herman Cain has the right idea..”Time for a new party”.
Well Herman, I’m all in.
Selecting Romney in the primaries was assited by the Demodummies when they too were allowed to vote for a REPUB candidate.
Herman Cain has the right idea..”Time for a new party”.
Well Herman, I’m all in.
“Single women bought the lady parts bs and philosophizing about rape didn’t help”
I want to see this number broken down by party affiliation, which it NEVER IS. No way in hell do I believe that a republican voting woman voted for the communist for president. They think with head brain, not with their sexual parts.
Demography is destiny. Reagan’s America now exists only in history books.
After the coming amnesty adds another ten million welfare Rats, the Rat lock on elections will be even stronger.
This is not a swing of a political pendulum, but demography in action.
Romney couldn't handle the level of dishonesty by Obama.
Obama was so vulnerable to having his credibility destroyed. Romney was too nice to do it.
Look at the numbers: Obama dropped from 69 million votes to 60 million votes. McCain had 59 million votes in 2008. With Romney being a more attractive candidate, much better financed, good in the debates, supposedly popular with independents and running against an incumbent who had screwed up the economy and made a number of foreign policy errors, it should have been very easy for Romney to garner an additional million votes to put him over the top. So why did he come in 2 million votes below what the pathetic McCain was able to garner in 2008?
This was the poll number that most of us - and pundits like Rush and Dick Morris - couldn’t understand: why were polls showing a significant advantage for the Dems over Republicans in the polling samples? How was it possible that the Republicans would still have a significant turnout disparity over the poor results of 2008? Simple. Romney turned off the base of the Republican Party. I firmly believe that most conservative political activists showed up to vote for Romney, even if they had to hold their collective noses, because they wanted to defeat Obama. Unfortunately. the same cannot be said of the average conservative voter who showed up in droves in 2010 to “throw the bums out”.
I firmly believe that there were several millions of usually apathetic voters who were energized by the Tea Party in 2010 to get off the couch and vote, but who stayed home in 2012. Not because the Tea Party sat on its hands, but because they did not believe that Romney would do anything to reverse Obama on Obamacare or spending. Romney didn’t connect with these marginal conservative voters, even though the core of Tea Party activists ended up actively supporting Romney in the campaign. And I suspect a certain segment of Ron Paul’s libertarian support also stayed home.
Obama had a massive drop in turnout and support from his base. All Romney had to do was keep McCain support and grow that support by about 3% and he would have won. The fact that he was unable to do that with all of his resources shows just how much he failed to connect with many of the average voters who showed up to the polls in a rage in 2010. Still think that marginalizing the Tea Party was a great idea?
of the commercials I saw for Romney :
none of them showed videos of Obama saying “if the economy doesn’t turn around in 3 years – it’s a one term proposition”
none of them showed Obama saying to Mevedev on missle defense “ This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”
why was this not pushed? (or was it as I only saw national feed commercials for president as I live in a solid blue state)
Anyone who thought the GOP was headed for a sure victory was suffering from severe head in the sand (or another place) disease. What changed for the Kenyan?
Nothing will change.
The GOP trolls-in-charge will give us another RINOmney.
Don’t get me wrong, I like him, but he is a vapid RINO.
And we’ll still get more.
Nothing will happen until the purge.
In retrospect Newt Gingrich was the only republican running for president that stood a chance against Obama.”
...Newt was my pick too but he would’nt of won. He came across as an old, fat, angry white guy. Similar to McCain. No one under 40 would vote for him. Romney was well spoken and good looking. I agree with everything else. Fighting back, Benghazi etc. Plus Newt would have destroyed BO in the debates.
I think a lot of weight has to be given to incumbency.
Incumbent politicians have wet dreams about opportunities to look like leaders during a natural disaster. Romney had no choice but to stand down while Obama role-played himself as commander-in-chief in New Jersey.. a moment that shoved the gathering scandal of Benghazi off the front pages just as it was beginning to inflict damage. Many FReepers argued with me on this point, but it proved out... Many Americans — especially on-the-fencers — respond positively to images of presidents appearing to take charge, regardless of who’s in the White House. And photo ops like these are exponentially more powerful and valuable than any images a campaign can buy.
We were dealt a bad hand here... the timing of that storm was.. .well, a “perfect storm” of opportunity for Obama. Romney still had momentum up until that moment. I was hoping and praying Sandy would drift off into the Atlantic, but she landed at the most inopportune time for us. And that helped Obama immensely.
It’s hard to believe that any republican could exist that would purposefully stay home on election day and not do their part to get rid of the imcompetent communist in chief.
Screw the GOP!
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.