Why Republicans should have won the election (and why they didn’t)

The Washington Post ^ | November 27, 2012 | Chris Cillizza

[MinorityRepublican]

Going into election day 2012, Republicans were very confident that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney had a 50-50 chance of winning the presidency. It didn’t turn out that way.

Answering the “why” posed by that discrepancy is of critical import for Republicans as they move forward to 2014 and 2016. And, a new piece by Glen Bolger, a GOP pollster and partner at Public Opinion Strategies, explains both why Republicans should have won — and why they didn’t — as succinctly as anything we have read since the election.

Here’s Bolger’s argument in a nutshell (and here’s Austin Powers in a nutshell): If the electorate had looked like 2004, Romney would have won — and perhaps won easily. But, it didn’t. And, it won’t in the future.

To wit:

* Romney won self-described independent voters by 5 points — 50 percent to 45 percent (George W. Bush lost independents to John Kerry by 1 point in 2004.)

* Romney won voters earning between $50,000 and $100,0000 by 52 percent to 46 percent. That’s less than what Bush got in 2004 (he won that group by 12) but they were 28 percent of the electorate in 2012 and just 18 percent electorate in 2004.

* Romney won white voters by 20 points, the largest margin ever for a Republican candidate.

[Jack Black]

Latinos are natural Democrats. They come from socialist countries. Not one in one hundred could tell you anything about free market economics. 65% of immigrants are on the dole.

The answer is to get them out of our country, not turn iut b over to them.

[Jack Black]

Latinos are natural Democrats. They come from socialist countries. Not one in one hundred could tell you anything about free market economics. 65% of immigrants are on the dole.

The answer is to get them out of our country, not turn iut b over to them.

[Theodore R.]

Massachusetts liberals should never have taken over the GOP

Yea, that even failed 52 years ago with "Cabot" Lodge, but our little Republican primary voters are too uninformed to make a selection.

[AnonymousConservative]

“When one group regularly gets way with murder and the other doesn’t, isn’t it most logical to look over the enforcers?”

It’s a good argument, but I don’t believe so. You have to have a long history of dealing with grossly defective psychologies to see this.

When I look at the relationship between ideologues, I see the relationship between a normal (naïve to defective psychologies) psychology, and a Narcissist. The Narcissist does insane evil. The normal psychology says something about it, the Narcissist freaks out beyond all measure, and the normal psychology (who is assuming the Narcissist is normal) backs down, and seeks to defuse what appears on the surface to be an uncontrollably escalating situation. This is how those relationships work, because the normal assumes the Narcissist wouldn’t freak out like that unless he was willing to escalate even further. In truth the Narcissist is freaking so much, so early in the interaction, because he is terrified of seeing it come to an escalated conclusion. The freak out is panic at the thought of the conclusion, not an aggressive willingness to embrace such a conclusion.

Then another time, the normal psychology does something normal, without expressly seeking to serve the interests of the Narcissist, the Narcissist freaks out, and again, the normal placates him, to avoid what seems to be an out-of control situation. Even worse, the normal comes to think that if he allowed the melee to erupt, it would be wrong of him, because he could see it coming, so it was up to him to avoid it.

Over time, this all results in a relationship where the normal thinks it is right to serve the Narcissist, to keep the peace, and avoid what the normal thinks would be an out of control melee if he just acted normal.

If you understand the Narcissist (and Liberal), and just how their brain works, you know that freak out is occurring as a defensive mechanism, seeking to try and shield them from a panic and suffering in the face of criticism that normals can barely imagine. If you press on, in the face of the freak out, you can inflict unimaginable suffering on the Narcissist, and lead them to not screw with you in the future. I crossed that barrier, and saw the collapse, and I have no doubt the Liberal is exactly the same. Press on, in the face of a freak-out, and you will rapidly see Liberalism collapse in shame.

The problem is not that the media freaks out when Republicans criticize Dems. The problem is that Republicans don’t circle the wagons when faced with a freak-out, dig in their heels, and calmly and rationally explain, again and again, why they are right about what selfish, stupid creatures Democrats are, and the damage they are doing.Over time, and with repetition, that will permeate the consciousness of the populace, and poison people against Liberalism. That is where the real battle is fought and won, but we never get there, because the Establishment Rino’s jump in immediately, and support the Libs, and placate them.

They move to placate at the first hint of conflict, which only produces a worse problem in the future. It is as if you have a prisoner strapped down to a table, you break out the electrodes to torture some piece of info out of him, but when he screams, you immediately apologize, unstrap him, and beg his forgiveness. That scream wasn’t a bad thing you needed to rectify with kindness, it was the first sign your strategy was working, and it should have led you to press on. Even worse, the next time you strap the prisoner down, what do you think he will do? Are you going to get your info?

The media has always been a bunch of pathetic progressive shills. Patton’s first sentence in his famous speech to his troops was something like, “Men, I want you to know, all this noise the media is spewing about Americans wanting to run away from this war, and not wanting to fight, is a load of Bullshit!” FDR was portrayed as an Olympic-level athlete. They propped him up on his ass, against a box on a dock, with his legs flopped in front of him, wearing a swim suit, so people would think he spent the day swimming and diving.

Reagan knew this, and went on the attack, relentlessly. What Reagan did was humiliate and ridicule them, and when they screamed in agony, he laughed, and did it again, even better. He treated the media as unimportant, and turned the word Liberal into an epithet.

Liberals are like dogs. When they whine, you can reward them for whining, by retracting your attacks and apologizing. If you do, they will whine even louder and faster the next time, and expect you to back down.

Alternatively, when they whine, you can humiliate them again, make them scream in the agony of being humiliated by what they are yet again, and train them with more Aversive Stimulus, to immediately back down when you criticize them, lest they get it worse next time.

The reason we are losing this nation is because our leaders are weak, afraid of making contact with the enemy, and afraid of striking rhetorically at them with aggression. If we began an aggressive campaign of negativism towards every facet of Liberalism, and demonized Liberals, ignoring their whining, we would poison a significant part of the populace against them and that would have profound effects on the next election. This is basic neurobiology (amygdala, aversive stimulus, etc).

But we should start now. This type of neurological conditioning takes time and repetition.

[AnonymousConservative]

“However, it’s NOT going to happen through rhetoric and policies that make the average FR posters orgasmic with joy, and people have to grow up and accept that.”

You sound like the type of guy who denies dogs can be trained - there are just good ones and bad ones, so don’t bother trying to mold their minds or behavior. Even worse you want to appeal to the bad ones, and reward them.

A non-conservative is just a member of the base, who is uninformed, and hasn’t been turned into a Republican voter through the proper application of neurological conditioning. It can be done, and it isn’t done through the pansy RINO path, which just leads the whole country farther left, and destroys the right (by trying to eliminate all conflict and aversive stimulus, when that is exactly what is needed).

You’ve run these moderate, feel-good pansies in how many non-negative elections now, and lost everytime. Why not reevaluate your own grasp on reality?

Oh, that’s right, you can’t be wrong, so let’s nominate another “moderate,” because this one is just a sure thing. You say so. You know so, this time.

Which makes me wonder, why not question yourself, and where you are leading the party? I mean, you’ve blown how many elections now with your nice-guy moderate tools? You don’t seem to think Conservatism is right enough to win in a logical argument. You view the stalwarts of the idoelogy as obstacles to overcome.

So my big question is, why are you even in the movement? Do you like Conservatism, or do you just want to tell other people what to do, so you can acquire power, and the movement is just a tool to that end?

If you want to win in 2016, the answer is simple. Start running negative ads now, demonizing Liberals and Liberalism. Hide behind whatever entity you want, but start putting the seed in people’s heads that Liberals are disloyal, corrupt, cowardly, pathetic, weak, dishonest, untrustworthy, opposed to our nation winning, opposed to American greatness and power, opposed to the small businessmen who create jobs, etc. Link them to the economic collapse through Dodd and Frank. Link them to the dead Ambassador. Do what Liberals did to Bush and Katrina.

Out-group the Liberal, in the minds of the voters. Make them the enemy of real Americans in every ad. Highlight an aspect of a K-selected psychology, and show how the Liberal is opposed to it, and wants to violate it. Ridicule them and their positions.

The first week it would have no effect. A month, almost nothing. A year - and you’d start to see something. Over a full four years - as Liberals screamed, and the ads kept coming, you’d be amazed at how many Americans would see Liberalism associated with Aversive Stimulus in their amygdalae. These people would avoid associating with Liberalism, which is the first step to opening their mind to Conservatism. It would work.

Or Republicans can just wait for four years with their thumbs stuck up their asses, and then try to out-liberal the Liberal at the last minute, but really, that is the dumbest thing I can imagine.

There was a reason people hailed Lee Atwater as the greatest of all time. Fighting works, and negative advertising works, if you’ve got the stones for it. Unfortunately, the GOPe seems to not have the stones, of late.

[AnonymousConservative]

Exactly. If we don’t fight, the public assumes it is because we are wrong. If we fight, we win.

[AnonymousConservative]

You should start the RINO PAC. Amass a war chest, and then have everyone vote on who the biggest RINO is (or the biggest three, or five, etc.). Whoever wins, that war-chest goes to unseating them in the general.

Give the GOP the option of getting that person(s) out in the primary. If they do, then the plan could involve offering the Party the money, or offer it to some other Conservative cause.

There is no cost to stabbing the party or the movement in the back now. It’s seen as a freebie, which just get’s more independent voters to vote for you. Make every Rino worry about whether they will be the one to have $10 mil in negative advertising unleashed on them in the general - by their own side.

[stickywillie]

we can fight it on the streets, but the GOP-e won’t back up our efforts by standing behind us, and making the evidence photographic. and, it bothers me that the so-called Conservatives won’t jump on things such as the birth certificate with upteen layers, as published in the Whitehouse webpage, or the felonious socials security #’s. No one has our backs, but the democrats fall over themselves circling the wagons for their corrupt own.

[spetznaz]

The Republicans actually DID win - it is just the >>VOTE FRAUD<< that makes it look like they didn’t. If you don’t SEE THE VOTE FRAUD - you ARE NOT LOOKING ! ( and people have spelled out how and where the VOTE FRAUD - lots of links —— it is there for the seeing. Soros calculated just how many and where was needed - picking the right swing states, the right districts like crooked black philadelphia etc etc

Not trying to start an argument (Patriot08 and PraisetheLord), but I have to ask - if there was such massive (and documented) fraud, then why didn't Romney say a word about it? What about the rest of the GOP - why did they also keep quiet? What about the few remaining conservative Supreme Court Justices? That silence makes the fraud argument seem Truther-esque.

As I said on another thread yesterday, I would fight in court for a parking ticket that was given to me unfairly. A parking ticket.

Yet I am to believe the most powerful country in the world just experienced massive poll rigging, and the only people who know about it are a few on internet fora and some radio shows? That the Dems steamrolled the electoral process, and the whole GOP couldn't find ONE person of national note to say something - anything? (Even Col. West would only say “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.")

I am sorry Patriot08, but it doesn't look like Romney lost because there was fraud (not that fraud didn't exist, but that it was not the main, or even a major, reason why he lost). However, let's assume for a moment you are right. That the reason Romney lost was not because he ran a poor campaign, or the failures of his ORCA GOTV system, or the fact that he could not tap into part of the conservative base, or that he couldn't sway independents, or couldn't sway the minority vote that really came out in this election, or he couldn't sway the youth vote that went heavily into the Dem camp, or that he couldn't sway the unmarried female vote at all. Or, how he run as a moderate when that was read as being Obama-lite; or how the media hammered him; or how the Republican Primaries had all these GOP contestants hammering each other to death and doing Obama's work for him months before the elections; or how he refused to hammer Obama in the same manner he hammered Gingrich/Perry/etc (Romney really let some good opportunities to draw blood disappear, eg Benghazi).

Let's assume those real reasons are hogwash, and the only reason he lost is because there was massive rigging. Better yet, let's even go a step further and say that Romney did not even lose ...he won, and it is the Dems that 'made it look like he did not.'

Alright - then how come the GOP/Romney/Gingrich/Perry/Supreme Court (at least the portion that is conservative)/etc are not saying a thing? If I would fight tooth and nail over a parking ticket why are they keeping quiet over the loss of a free republic? Yes, I've read about that supposedly 'secret agreement' between the Dems and the GOP to 'never contest a stolen election,' but that's tripe!

If (and it is a mighty big if) you are correct, and the reason Romney lost was not due to his failures in strategy (which were a number) and solely due to massive rigging, then it really doesn't matter! Why? Because, if the whole Republican Party is willing to look the other way while the election is stolen, and once it is stolen say nothing, then it is too late and the republic has been usurped. It's that simple! If you are correct, then that makes the Democrat party vote riggers, and it makes the Republican party spineless traitors. The Republican party would be worse than the Democrats, in the same way an armed police man standing next to a criminal raping a young girl, and doing nothing, would be worse than the criminal. Yes, the perp is committing the actual offense, but the cop is not only allowing it to happen (compliance with the act), but he is also abandoning his duties and obligations.

I believe there was voting fraud, but that it was not the reason Romney lost. Even without fraud he would still have lost. However, if there was fraud to the level you claim, and if it is what cost Romney the election, then my question is simple. Why did the GOP decide to keep quiet?

Without a good answer to that the fraud theory simply looks like one of those alien abduction/radio-controlled-WTC-planes/blurred-bigfoot-picture stories.

Why did the GOP keep quiet? Because of some secret boys-club-in-a-tree-house agreement? I am not trying to mock anyone, but as long as people focus on fairy-tale stories why Romney lost (and he did lose) then they will do nothing to ensure that in 2016 the Conservatives have taken a strong role in the Republican party (step 1), and (step 2) that the Republican party nominee is a Conservative. The last several election cycles have not had a real Conservative - one would probably need to go back to Reagan to find a conservative (i.e. both FISCAL and social). The Conservatives have to take over (or at least take a strong role) within the GOP, and then they have to ensure that they run a person who has conservative principles and who is able to COMMUNICATE to the people.

Or we can simply say 'The Republicans actually DID win - it is just the >>VOTE FRAUD<< that makes it look like they didn’t.' In which case we should probably steer clear of Area 51 since I hear there are flying pyramids or something of the sort there, with lil' green men that have a penchant for probing areas that really don't need any probing!

[Aurorales]

There was massive voter fraud.

How the hell do we know why Romney didn’t fight it. Maybe he is too nice a guy. Maybe he has no spine.. who knows.

And please don’t lump us into a wacko group like “truthers”.

The fraud was obvious. I’m not going to redocument it here for you. It is out there for anyone who cares.

The sad fact is we are now exactly like those pathetic countries who hold mock elections.

West out in Florida didn’t go on with his fight because he simply didn’t have the money to take it to the courts. And of course the GOP wasn’t going to pony up the money.

We live in a time where our so-called elected officials have no back bones. They are high on the power and money and don’t give a rats ass about our Constitution.

But of course it is much easier to believe we lost because our candidate wasn’t perfect. Or we didn’t pander to the correct demographic in the right way.

It is my opinion the Republicans could have ran Ronald Reagan himself and we still would have lost.

No.. Voter fraud. Plain and simple.

[Yosemitest]

"I believe there was voting fraud,
but that it was not the reason Romney lost.
Even without fraud he would still have lost. "

I don't completely agree.
I believe there WAS ENOUGH Voter Fraud to throw the 80 Electoral College Votes from Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida.
I also believe that had Romney SAVAGED Obama, like he SAVAGED the Conservatives that ran against him in the Primary, Romney would have gotten more votes in the General election.
So yes, it's Romney's fault, but there WAS ENOUGH VOTER FRAUD to steal the election for Obama.

URGENT: ELECTION FRAUD VOLUNTEERS NEEDED IN WI, OH, PA, VA, FL

Maker of Unskewed Polls Creates ‘Obama Voter Fraud’ Map — See Which States He Thinks Should’ve Been Romney’s

Why There Won’t Be a Presidential Recount

None Dare Call it Stolen Ohio, the election, and America’s servile press

www.unskewedpolls.com

Black States = States Obama won by Voter Fraud. Click the state for more information.

Voter Turnout figures for 2012 indicate possible voter suppression and fraud

Vote Scamming in Philadelphia

Vote Scamming in Cleveland

Was Virginia won by vote fraud?

Vote Scamming in Florida

Question: Should President Romney Pardon Treasonist Barack Hussein Obama II, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro ?

Romney might have won, but with Obama's Criminals running the "Justice Department", they'll never admit Romney won.

Black States = States Obama won by Voter Fraud. Click the state for more information.

Photo Credit: Barackofraudo.com

http://www.barackofraudo.com/

[thecodont]

Agree with this.

[spetznaz]

Aurorales - I did not mean the comparison to the Truthers in bad light, but I still have to ask. Why is the GOP silent? Yes, one might say Romney wants to be a nice guy (true), or he is spineless (also true), but he is not the entire GOP. What about Gingrich? What about Sarah Palin? What about the entire GOP? The few supreme court Justices who can actually say anything and get away with it? Is there no one in the entire Republican/Conservative milieu who would stand up and be counted? No one willing to be a patriot?

And if there is no one then that is a far worse picture than vote rigging (basically the analogy I gave of the armed police man standing next to a perp assaulting a child).

If, as you say, 'we live in a time where our so-called elected officials have no back bones. They are high on the power and money and don’t give a rats ass about our Constitution', then I'd say that the points I gave in the tail-end of my post apply even more than ever. The two-point plan about ensuring Conservatives have a strong voice in the GOP, and that the presidential candidate next time is a conservative (who can communicate - and by communicate I mean able to format a proper narrative that espouses conservative precepts and doesn't let the media define him/her). If the Republicans are so bad that they would let someone steal an election because all they care about is power and money, then that would mean the problem is far worse than stolen votes. Again, the analogy of the cop and the perp.

[Aurorales]

The elected repubs have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the election fraud. In the same way they have turned away from investigating Barry’s fraudulent past.

Do I know why ? No. I actually at this point don’t care.

This incredible situation we are living in right now is unfathomable for most to comprehend.
I am deeply saddened that now I see it for what it is.

I have no idea how to fix it. But I do know that the communists who have taken over our government want us to continue to talk about running a better candidate, how to pander to women and minorities, and who to blame for the loss. Anything but the massive neon colored elephant in the room. Stolen elections and the complicit complacent politicians who keep the charade going.

[a fool in paradise]

Nixon knew there was vote fraud in 1960 but he didn’t want to put the country through was Al Gore Junior put this nation through in 2000 and Kerry tried to pull in 2004.

Al Franken stole a seat in the Senate after such hassle (and he was one of the 60 that pushed Obamacare through).

[a fool in paradise]

Maybe it’s just a “fluke” to have 104-140% voter turnout in some precincts. But it stinks and would appear to highlight some level of ballot stuffing.

The dimpled chads in 2000 were also mass produced ballots.

[MinorityRepublican]

The Republicans has to give up on the Black Vote, period. Let’s focus on Hispanics. Notice that Dubya pulled 44% of their vote. That’s why Jeb would make a fantastic candidate for 2016.

[okie01]

That’s why Jeb would make a fantastic candidate for 2016.

Jeb? Jeb Bush?

He who favors unqualified amnesty and refers to those of us who disagree as "racists" and "bigots"?

That Jeb Bush?

[GeronL]

bump

[bmwcyle]

We live in the age of the death of fair play. Morality is gone and Satan grows stronger.