The stay at home conservatives believe that by not participating in this elections it would make a statement that the Republicans were not conservative enough and make the Republicans more conservative. Of course the opposite is and true it makes them want to become more progressive and liberal and compete for the voters that cast votes.
The “Stay at Home” voters, “NO VOTE” voters and the Turd Party” voters may have squandered our last chance to stop the socialist.
What chance do we have of penacting any law that would eliminate ELECTION and VOTER FRAUD with an obama Justice Department??
Romney lost the Conservative Christian vote because he is a Mormon.
Southern Baptists have been trying to convert Mormons to Christianity for decades and they decided to stay home rather than vote for wither candidate.
To some Christians, Mormons are worse than Muslims because the LDS church has “stolen” the name of Jesus Christ to cover-up their true faith. Muslims simply discount Jesus as the Son of God and focus on Mohammad.
During the primaries, I said that Romney would never win because he was a Mormon and he needed the Bible Belt to win.
Turns out to be true.
Great article.
The GOPe is predictable in its propensity for drawing the one hundred and eighty degree wrong conclusions from the results of any election. This has been obvious for quite some time. We’ve had a few days since this one, and it is clear that this time is no exception.
But there are always a few like McCarthy who get it.
Translating that understanding into practical politics is quite another matter, of course. It will be some time before we know how many have learned the appropriate lessons from the this recently-completed farce of a fake election.
1. Some no doubt show up to vote for the O-Hole in protest to get the revolution started, which is laughable go on the internet to claim such ... this has to be disinformation or real stupid posters.
2. Some showed and never got counted [more likely]
Forget what we do NEXT time, it’s time to hold our pussy leadership soft and perfumed feet to the fire, starting with “that crybaby”
[Gov. Romney appealed to middle-class Christian families who live in either rural or suburban areas.]
Not mine he didn’t.
The baby butchering, homosexualist pandering, RINO Bishop from Deseret’s state-established religion is what he is.
NO SALE.
As the Nazi death camps were liberated, their occupants sat looking at the open gates. You would think that they would have been crowding to get out. They didn’t. Were they too weak to move? No. They could still walk. Then why didn’t they run out the open gates? Because THEY WERE AFRAID. They were afraid that freedom might be worse than what they had grown accustomed to in the death camps. They had become used to the beatings and the standing naked and the gas chambers and the crematoriums. But freedom, ohhhhh....that was scary. Fear is a tremendous motivator. It can make people stay in a death camp. Fear can also be used to motivate people to vote Democrat. The inmates were eventually convinced to leave the death camps. We must convince the fearful Democrat voters to leave the Democrat party.
“Know yourself and know your opponent, and in one hundred battles, you will always be victorious.”
It may be a factor, but coupled with this, and we are no longer in Kansas Toto : /
deo might explain a lot of what goes on with both the Republicrat and Demican big box establishment parties:
“Hacking Democracy”
(free at http://www.hulu.com/watch/192687).
Also on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVTXbARGXso.
After you watch this you might wonder what this lady is doing still alive.
I do.
But even if we can prove that our country and states have been stolen from us, what are we going to DO about it?
What CAN we do about it?
I am sick to death of people on ur side saying we did not turn out
Hell in St Lucie county the turnout was 140% for hte Dems, col Allen West is doing his recount there
When ARE WE GOING TO STOP SAYING THIS AND POSTING CRAP AND NOT DEAL WITH THE RIGGED ELECTION?
No, actually millions of older, white Republlican voters died and the democrats added those names to their voter turnout.
It is disappointing to see this thread degenerate into a fight over a conservative voter choosing not to vote for Romney. Here are some thoughts:
Since McGovern, the Democrats have consistently nominated candidates who appeal to their leftist base. Whether we like it or not these candidates are true believers in liberal social values and socialist economics. They have abandoned the moderate “blue dog” party members to be ideologically pure in their collectivist philosophy. With Obama they’ve reached the point where they don’t even pretend to run to the middle. Witness the 2012 campaign where Obama remained very open about his core principles (redistribution, high taxes, high spending, fiscal irresponsibility, free abortion, green energy, etc) and openly tried to exacerbate class, racial and gender divisions.
In contrast the Republican establishment refuses to fully embrace conservative principles. They continue to play the Democrat and media game of appealing to interest groups by moderating principles. Instead of ideological true believers most recent Republican candidates (Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Dole, the two Bushes, McCain, and Romney) have been pragmatic poll driven politicians who seek to espouse positions that will appeal to various voter groups, without completely alienating the base. The public knows they are not true believers and they will shift positions as the wind blows to get elected.
The exceptions have been Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Goldwater was destroyed by the media, plus was unfortunate in timing to be running against the successor to a dead President and one of the most clever politicians in US history. Reagan stayed true to his principles throughout the 1980 campaign and offered the people a clear choice to the inept incumbent Jimmy Carter. Although he trailed the race in the polls almost to election day, when people went into the voting booth the majority of the voters realized the country needed a change and Reagan was bedrock solid in his core principles. Rightly or wrongly, they knew he would not waver in the face of adversity or setbacks so the direction he set would hold. The country craved strong leadership and one of the characteristics of a strong leaders is having and sustaining core principles.
in 2012 the electorate was dealing with another failed leader. Instead of offering the people a principled leader with unwavering values, the GOP presented a left of center moderate who pragmatically espoused conservative principles during the primaries to seize the party’s nomination. This “flip flopping” from previous positions on abortion, health care, and social spending was used by the opposition to define Romney as untrustworthy and unprincipled. While his business credentials indicated he had demonstrated leadership potential in the private sector, they did not prove to the voters he could lead the nation. The great political leaders in history have all possessed steadfast core guiding principles that enable them to guide and lead the nation through the toughest times. In the campaign Romney failed to show the nation he had the backbone and conviction in his core values, to lead the nation. He could not make this case because in his political life he had a history of shifting positions to meet the needs of the time and place.
To win Romney had to do some combination of the following:
1) Suppress the Obama vote significantly
2) Persuade Obama voters to switch
3) Increase the turnout of Republican voters to a much higher participation rate than historical
If you look at the execution of his campaign he spent no time and effort on #1. He was lucky the Obama turnout was less than 2008, but it wasn’t due to his efforts. There is evidence to suggest he put resources against #3 but failed. With respect to #2 the economic conditions for moving the electorate to vote against the President were there. However, there is inertia in the electorate and even in bad times (witness Roosevelt in the 1936 and 1940) voters are reluctant to throw out incumbents unless they are absolutely convinced the alternative (Reagan in 1980 and Clinton in 1992) offers a real change. While Romney may have made the case he was a successful business leader, he failed to convince enough people he was a strong enough political leader to make people switch. Citizens who voted for Obama in 2008 knew who Obama was by 2012 and the Obama of 2012 was the same leftist Obama they voted for in 2008. Remember, the Obama of 2008 had the most leftist voting record in the Senate — he did not change. He also was very emphatic in the 2012 campaign in stating would not change his policies. As a leader he was clear he was sticking with his principles. As a political leader in 2012, Romney was shown to be shifting dramatically to the right from principles he had espoused as a Senate candidate in the 1990’s and as governor of Massachusetts early in this decade.
Romney and his Republican establishment backers thought they could present Romney as a strong business leader and convince the 2008 Obama voters a successful business technocrat would be a better leader of the nation because he could “manage” the economy better. Those voters needed convincing he was a multidimensional leaders with core principles that would guide him and the nation through other issues that might arise during his time in office. Unlike Reagan he never demonstrated what guided his heart and soul. Obama did and was the known quantity. Given the absence of a clear choice, 2008 Obama voters stayed with the choice they made in 2008 instead of choosing the unknown.
In the business world one truism in sales is you have to convince the customer to buy the product. The customer does not owe anything to you and will not buy just because you show up at the door. You have to convince the customer your product is a better value that what he/she is using today. Another truism in sales is that if you allow your competition to define your brand you will not earn the sale. Let me emphasize the word “earn”.
If Romney was truly a great businessman he would have understood he needed to define the Romney brand clearly, early in the campaign, and sell it as a different product than the Obama brand. He failed. He allowed Obama to define the Romney brand prior to the debate. He failed to demonstrate he had unwavering core principles (likely because he didn’t).
Romney lost because he positioned himself as a moderate in a country where the electorate is sharply divided between left and right. When a nation is polarized on an ideological basis, there is no middle ground. One side must prevail by seizing power and destroying the opponent (the current Democrat strategy) or by convincing the opposing side there is a better path (the Reagan strategy). In a polarized society the politics of appeasement and compromise are the losing strategy.
The conservative dilemma remains. Stick with the Republican moderate party as the less offensive choice or strike out and form a ideologically pure party espousing individual liberty and limited government to offer a clear choice versus the collectivist democrats. If we choose the former, unless we gain control of the party leadership, we will continue to be supporting the candidates of compromise and appeasement.
My last comment. No voter owes any candidate a vote just as no store is owed a sale from a customer in the private economy. It is the candidate’s job to earn the vote just like it is the salesman’s job in the private sector to earn the sale. When a candidate fails to win, he/she has failed to make the sale.
I figure it was the Ron Paul people sitting on their hands. With a sofa-assist from disgruntled Gingrich and Santorum voters.
But, hey, we get the government we vote for.....Obama is in total control now. T-o-t-a-l
Fox put out 2 polls this morning, and if I could figure out how to find anything on their site I would post them. The gist was what voters thought republicans cared about more.
The first was a list of issues. The rich and big business had over 50%. Taxpayers and middle class took less than 25%. The poor only got 3%. There were a couple more issues included but I can’t remember what they were. These were the numbers that really stood out for me.
The second poll was basically the same, but focused on not cutting taxes and cutting spending. They got 65% and 35% respectively.
Apparently, republicans and conservatives have a huge problem. Romney did talk a lot about not raising taxes on the rich. He talked very little about what he would do to help the poor. And although he did talk about the middle class, his message wasn’t clear enough. And his talk on cutting spending was boiled down to firing Big Bird.
Second. The right’s message was so distored and filtered through the media that voters had no clear picture of what Romney stood for, and the message they did get was not good. Unless the right can get ahold of the media, this is going to continue and we’ll never win another election. It’s not good enough to nominate strictly conservative candidates if their message doesn’t get out or gets distorted.
Really sorry I couldn’t post exact numbers.
I’m sorry, there is no way in hell anyone can convince me that more Republicans stayed home this time vs. McCain. I believe fewer Republican votes were counted, don’t believe fewer Republicans stayed home though.
Can we come up with a new term for the “I’ll stay home unless the candidate is perfect” types so that it’s easier to write ?
We have RINOs on one extreme how about:
RUINERs — Repulican Unless I’m Exactly Represented.
bump
In practice -- in an imperfect world -- can we really expect anything else?
It sounds like Andrew McCarthy thinks the non-voters were Tea Party conservatives.
Maybe some were, but I suspect most were the perennial disaffected people who just don't trust politicians of any ideological stripe.
People are still trying to nit pick and analyze this election when all it amounts to is a MASSIVE FRAUD.
The GOP establishment went through this in ‘96. They couldn't admit that they rammed a doddering, old clown onto the ticket. Instead, we were told that Clinton was invincible!
If there had been a Republican running, they might have won.
The idiots who stayed home because “both parties are the same” are uninformed idiots. Perhaps they would have been correct, if it was a Chelsea Clinton running against Mitt Romney. But we had a card carrying marxist running, and the idiots remained willfully uninformed.