Are Republicans Learning the Wrong Lessons?

As hard as it is to believe, it’s been only a little over three weeks since Election Day. But there are already plenty of signs that Republicans are learning many of the wrong lessons from that debacle. For starters, there’s been a lot of excessive emphasis on racial demographics, which actually changed very little from 2008. According to exit polling, the portion of Hispanic voters went up just 1 percentage point, the portion of Asian voters went up just 1 point, and the portion of black voters stayed the same. Meanwhile, the portion of white voters fell 2 points — largely because, as Sean Trende notes, Mitt Romney failed to turn out several million such voters.

Now Senator John McCain says that, when it comes to the life-or-death matter of abortion, Republicans should “leave the issue alone.” Well, it would be hard to have left the issue any more alone than Romney did, and what did it get him? On an issue on which Americans are typically split pretty much right down the middle, exit polling showed that voters favored the legality (59 percent), rather than illegality (36 percent), of abortion in “most” or “all” cases. This suggests that Romney’s silence in the face of Obama’s pro-abortion rhetoric caused some swing voters to shift their position leftward (as people are inclined to do when they hear only one side of an issue advanced) — while millions of pro-life voters apparently sat this one out.

In truth, the Romney strategy on essentially every issue — and especially on Obamacare — could aptly be summarized as “leave the issue alone.” Even on the economy, the one issue on which the Romney camp generally seemed eager to engage, the campaign left alone the question of how we got into this mess in the first place. Relatedly, it left alone the crucially important claim that Bill Clinton made at the Democratic convention: “Listen to me now. No president, no president — not me, not any of my predecessors — no one could have fully repaired all the damage that [Obama] found in just four years.” This, of course, was ridiculous. FDR had inherited the Great Depression, and yet, in the year that he first sought reelection, real economic growth was over 13 percent — more than six times what it’s been this year under Obama. But Romney characteristically left that one alone, and — more than three years into the Obama “recovery” — exit polling indicated that voters still blamed George W. Bush (53 percent), not Obama (38 percent), for the stagnant economy.

As a result of Romney’s failure to make the case on essentially any issue — either against Obama’s abysmal record or on behalf of his own proposals — we ended up with this very strange result: In an election pitting perhaps the most liberal president in American history against a moderate Republican who was never fully trusted by the conservative wing of his own party, likely voters polled by Pew Research less than two weeks before the election said that Obama (50 percent), not Romney (38 percent), takes the “more moderate positions.” And in an election pitting a Democratic president who rammed Obamacare through on a straight party-line vote and then spent the next two years demagoguing Republicans, versus the former Republican governor of heavily Democratic Massachusetts, likely voters in that same poll said that Obama (47 percent), not Romney (41 percent), was more “willing to work with leaders from the other party.”

As such polling suggests, Republicans didn’t lose this election because of demographics, and they didn’t lose it because of the positions they took on the issues. They lost it because they failed to make the case against Obama or on behalf of their own ideas and principles. As a result, they failed to rally independents to their side to the extent that they should have, and they failed to turn out their own base. Far from leaving key issues alone in the future, Republicans need to engage the American public on matters of importance and make their case in persuasive language.

More than anything, the debacle of 2012 should show the GOP that it can’t run a Seinfeldian campaign — a campaign about nothing. Chris Caldwell summed it up nicely in these pages: “Where two candidates argue over values, the public may prefer one to the other. But where only one candidate has values, he wins, whatever those values happen to be.”

This is about the a candidate who could not win because he was the weirdest man to ever run for president, and he was not even a republican, except that technically he rejoined the party for political reasons in October 1993.

He managed to lose an election which couldn’t be lost.

People wanted Obama out, but they needed someone to inspire them, to offer an alternative choice, heck they were too similar to each other, even on Romney/Obama care, homosexualizing the military, not being Christians, both of them are kind of like aliens, except that Obama seems more natural.

Romney didn’t jazz up anyone, or make any real pitches, Romney had no real agenda or beliefs, or identity, he was merely a name different than Obama, that is why he could only attract the dutiful republican voters, and not win over anyone new.

Actually Reagan is a great man, but he would have not won in 2012. He probably would have been primaried out as some "religious kook", like Santorum. Too conservative, they would say.

I think Reagan today would have done pretty well, though. He knew when to stick it to the press, like Gingrich, but with his charm and wit. Not with the adversarial style of Gingrich.

A "Reagan" for 2016 will have to know how to deal with a 100% negative press. How to think on his feet and not give assinine answers like Akin and Mourdock, (and Rubio) and have a vicious, take no prisoners style of attack like Lee Atwater.

Let 2016's republican nominee be a man of great charm, humor, wit and common sense. And let his team be the "mean guys" who beat up the democratic nominee, severely.

No more Mr. Nice Guy politics.

The democrats are slimy little pieces of $hit.

Put together a team that will play for keeps and take no prisoners.

perogie forgot there was no middle if he did that ~ Goldwater discovered that fact; LBJ beat him like a cheap rug using it.

There are two great coalition parties each striving to get 50%+1 vote! Nothing more than that.

Within the parties are factions that make up the coalition. These factions represent political, social, economic, national, geographic, industrial and agricultural interests of all kinds.

perogie wasn't appealing to a real middle ~ he was appealing to factions in whole or in part already well ensconsed inside the Democrat and Republican parties.

He touched some nerves and got some votes. The electoral vote system more or less ignored him and turned Billzo into a president with access to more women than he'd ever imagined in his life.

FOR THE LOVE OF PETE...

Can either of you at least address the fraud!

It’s starting to feel like you two are liberal plants.

Not addressing the big fat neon elephant in the room but repeating the same mindless crap.
YES, ROMNEY SUCKS.
We get it. But for both of you to not even acknowledge the fraud is making me sick.

Done and done.

The fraud occurred in the primaries when Democrats were allowed to vote in Republican primaries. They gave us candidates they could beat.

Fix that part first.

Screwing around beating up voting in 100% black precincts in Philadelphia is a losers game ~ the results this year were no different than in prior years. We have won Pennsylvania before even though we didn't win Philadelphia.

We've won Ohio before even though a greater percentage there voted for Commies than there were those who voted for Obamugabe this year.

Did you know the Cleveland crowd actually does run commie candidates ~ and sometimes they win ~ you beat them if and only if you can get normal people out to vote Republican in sufficient numbers to beat them.

None of this is new. A lot of the items people have advanced as serious fraud actually involve situations were no one could have made a difference, or they just don't understand why.

I've seen Freepers expressing surprise that there'd be so many Democrats in Cleveland!

Really, that is such a complex issue I"m not sure FR has the bandwidth to handle it.

perogie wasn't appealing to a real middle ~ he was appealing to factions in whole or in part already well ensconsed inside the Democrat and Republican parties.

He touched some nerves and got some votes. The electoral vote system more or less ignored him...

Okay. You've got political experience that I lack, and your take does ring true. Coalition-building, pasting together several factions, is where it's at.

It just occurred to me: if I were Liberal Larry, and I liked what I saw in Perot, I'd see his protectionism as a new and better way to punish big corporations with higher taxes. (A tariff is a tax.)

Needless to say, Liberal Larry's moral universe begins and ends with supporting those deemed "disadvantaged" or "victims." Any other appeal to morals browns Larry right off.

Why don't you read the article and learn something.

"As such polling suggests, Republicans didn’t lose this election because of demographics, and they didn’t lose it because of the positions they took on the issues. They lost it because they failed to make the case against Obama or on behalf of their own ideas and principles. As a result, they failed to rally independents to their side to the extent that they should have, and they failed to turn out their own base. Far from leaving key issues alone in the future, Republicans need to engage the American public on matters of importance and make their case in persuasive language.

Every President since 1870 has either been a Rat or a Republican.Given that the Rat Party is *entirely* behind their Communist "manifesto" the prospect of the Republican Party splitting suggests that the next 50 years will feature nothing but *Rat* presidents.And Rat Congresses as well.All that for the sake of "purity".

Sorry, GOP stooge, your moronic post entirely misses the point. The GOP was formed in 1854. Their first president was elected in 1861. (7 years)
The Whig Party was formed in 1833. First President was elected in 1840 (7 years)
The Democratic-Republican Party was formed in 1791, first President elected in 1800 (9 years)
The Federalist Party was formed in 1794, first President elected in 1796 (2 years)

The point is that new major Parties form, and it is AT MOST 2 cycles before they get a candidate elected... and when the GOP implodes (as it clearly is), it will crumble quickly. It's replacement, whatever the name, is very likely to form a coalition of limited government, social conservatives, and millions of those who are desperate to find ANY fiscal responsibility as Obama spends us into the edge of oblivion. It won't be 50 years... or even 9 years... before the new party gets a President elected.

........I will take this belief to my grave. This election was stolen. Which then of course makes me take a second look at 2008. McCain threw that election......

You've stated my beliefs exactly, and those of a lot of people I know.

So did the poster who pointed out "That [Evangelicals] would overwhelmingly vote for a Mormon for President shows how disturbed or even fearful they are for the existence of the United States as a free country..." I, and the rest of the membership, of my independent fundamental Baptist church had no problem voting for a Mormon BECAUSE of the alternative. So believe me; if that wasn't a problem for us, it wasn't a problem for anybody.

Yes, I watched McCain throw that election with my own eyes. But I watched Romney, who was no better ideologically, who I didn't even like, do his best to save my country.

For that I thank him.

Governor Reagan would have easily won in 2012, the primary and the election.

Romney has only won a single election in his life, and he did that with less than 50%, was rejected for reelection, left that office a failure with 34% approval, he then ran in the primary and broke spending records, including 45 million of his own dollars, had a huge staff and machine, and was defeated by a couple of guys with no money, and no staff, Huckabee and McCain.

In 2012 the 6 year old, non-stop, Romney machine, still breaking spending records, had their head handed to them by Jimmy Carter II.

We still don’t know what Romney’s politics are, or why he was obsessed with being president, he remains an empty suit not only to America, but to the republican voters.

Who was this guy, and what did he want?

Thanks neverdem, but no thanks:

...likely voters polled by Pew Research less than two weeks before the election said that Obama (50 percent), not Romney (38 percent), takes the “more moderate positions.”

And that's exactly correct -- the Pubbie platform opposed abortion and gay marriage, and that's what was hammered into people's heads.

Between those who sat out the election because they were perfectly OK with another four years of Zero, and Zero's guaranteed racist voters, and the ballot fakery and voter intimidation systematically carried out everywhere, there wasn't any way to win. And remember, the meme from the Demagogic Party, including showbiz shills like Bruce Slingsh!t, was that voter intimidation and so-called disenfranchisement were being carried out not by themselves, but by Republicans and "Tea Baggers" and "right-wingers" and "Nazis" and "fascists".

on the other hand liberal larry’s ne’r do well brother in law would see in perogie a guy who created jobs and is concerned ~ so even though the two agree on everything, the BIL would vote or perogie and liberal larry might vote for Bush ~ imagining Clinton to be a clown.

Again, good point - but Liberal Larry would have to put aside the complaints of his fellow liberals about Bush's "Willie Horton" ad. Although his moral universe is limited, Liberal Larry has one very predictable aversion: he doesn't want to be on the side of the "oppressor."

As for Larry's BIL, he's not a bad stand-in for Moderate Moe: the real prize.

Good grief, you wanted to be “jazzed up”? You wanted to be inspired?You wanted a nice pitch? Isn’t that just what everyone wanted, who thought they were voting for American Idol in 2008 and 2012? What is with people like you? This is not TV entertainment, this is not a reality show, this is LIFE and LIBERTY.

If you aren’t a total idiot, then look at my seven posts on this thread.

How you can read those and confuse political analysis, with me personally being one of the indifferent, non-political people out there, escapes me. You ever hear of how elections are won? It’s called winning voters, and motivating them to show up, Romney managed to do the opposite, people wanted Obama gone, but Romney merely led them to sit it out and not participate.

You sound like the TV watching type to me, the way you miss the point of Romney’s shortcomings in the campaign where he just lost an election that couldn’t be lost.

I don’t believe it was an “election” in any sense of the word, i.e. where voters go to the polls to find a candidate about whom they have made a considered decision based on their understanding of issues, even if it’s just “D” or “R.” It was a round up; voters who didn’t know anything about either side’s position were herded to the polls by community organizers who had been assigned quotas for each precinct, and told “just get it done.” This is why Nate Silver knew how many were going to turn out. The Obama campaign shared the quotas with him and he knew they’d be met, no matter what fraudulent means it took. So , if it looks funny that a precinct has a 10,000- 0 result, well that’s just factored in. However , the traditional campaign failed to ignite a real response, so Obama fell 4 m short of his 2008 total and election turn out , based on voting age population, will drop at least 5%. Leave alone why Romney didn’t do better; the reality is that this is the best the Democrats could do with their high tech, ground game skulduggery against a surprisingly unsavvy and disengaged Republican party ( the long ,expensive primary campaign is probably the main impediment.) Republicans have no reason to be quaking in their boots. The line has to be that Obama is the first President elected to a second term with fewer votes than to his first term in over 150 years.

What I had posted here 11 days ago:

If Obama had used Nate Silver’s voting algorithms, he could have used very little in fraud effort. (Nate Silver of the NYTs).

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.