No, it will done on nothing, like last time:
Posted on 01/19/2013 8:53:03 AM PST by Kaslin
The best thing about math is that it’s a constant. The numbers are what they are. That’s why I’m a data guy, because as a person that believes in absolute truth I have a tendency to like things cut and dried.
Leading up to the 2012 election several lies and clever myths were postulated by the ruling class know-it-alls and the charlatans who act on their behalf, and you can bet they will continue peddling their wares this year in light of the results. But the beauty of real numbers is they cut through all the horse puckey right to the real truth. To prepare you for the onslaught of misinformation between now and 2016 from both the mainstream media and the Republican Party establishment, I have prepared a handy guide of real information to arm you with the truth.
Lie and clever myth #1: Republicans lose elections because they’re too conservative so independents side with Democrats.
TRUTH: Romney won independent voters in the crucial battleground states of Virginia and Ohio, two of the three states he had to win to win the presidency. In Florida, the other battleground state Romney had to have, he actually did 8 points better among independents than McCain did in 2008. In Colorado, Romney won independents by four points, which was 14 points better than McCain performed there four years ago.
Lie and clever myth #2: Romney lost because of the GOP’s alleged “war on women” so that means Republicans can’t be pro-life anymore.
TRUTH: What the GOP really has is a diversity problem. White voters in every demographic – including women and young voters – voted for Romney. Let me repeat that: a majority of white voters regardless of age and gender voted for Romney. For example, Romney won white women by 14 points. A massive turnout of racial and ethnic minorities – black turnout was equal to 2008 and the Hispanic turnout was a little higher – determined the election and gave Obama the support he needed to win.
Lie and clever myth #3: The Republicans energized their base, but it’s just shrinking so the party has to move left.
TRUTH: Remember the promises of 17 million evangelicals going to the polls that didn’t in 2008? Or perhaps you were sold on that Catholic voter backlash to Obamacare and its threat to religious freedom turning out values voters in a way Romney was incapable? Well, it turns out that neither happened.
The reality is 2.5 million fewer Evangelicals voted in 2012 than 2008. Fewer Catholics voted in 2012 than 2008 as well, despite the presence of two Catholic vice presidential candidates. 6.4 million Evangelicals actually voted for Obama. In the crucial battleground state of Ohio, Obama actually improved his white Evangelical turnout by 8% compared to four years ago. That’s probably because of the automobile bailout, but also pro-choice television ads Romney was running in Ohio that angered some pro-lifers. Romney also ran those pro-choice television ads in Virginia, and CNN’s exit polls found the Evangelical turnout declined by 7% compared to 2008.
Yes, Romney did get the same hefty percentage of Evangelical voters that George W. Bush got in his victorious 2004 campaign, but the turnout wasn’t as large.
Efforts to make Romney’s liberal record on social issues seem palatable in contrast to President Obama’s leftist social policies didn’t pan out, as yet again the social conservative base of the Republican Party proved it doesn’t turn out in full force unless it sees stark differences between the two candidates themselves—regardless of what a candidate’s proxies say. Apparently when Romney told the Chick-fil-a crowd last August you’re “not a part of my campaign” they got the message.
But Christians weren’t the only social conservatives Romney failed to successfully turn out. Get this: Romney even did worse among his fellow Mormons than George W. Bush did in 2004 if you can believe that.
Conclusion
Romney lost the election in the end because his base wasn’t as energized as Obama’s was. All the so-called “skewed” polling that pointed to an Obama turnout of Democrats similar to 2008 turned out to be correct.
If you count the 2.5 million fewer Evangelicals that voted compared to 2008, and the 6.4 million Evangelicals that voted for Obama, a future Republican nominee has almost 9 million potential new voters in 2016 if he actually reaches out to them credibly and consistently.
Adding a majority of those 9 million voters to Romney’s 2012 coalition would make the Republican nominee virtually unbeatable in 2016. But to accomplish that feat he or she will have to make them feel welcome in the party, and assure them that he or she shares their courage of conviction.
These patriots want something to vote for and not just against.
Persistent future attempts to sell them on milquetoast while scaring them into voting against dastardly Democrats may profit those doing the selling, but will likely result in even more of them staying home four years from now—and thus the GOP losing the popular vote for the sixth time in the last seven presidential elections.
The real numbers show patriots are growing increasingly tired of being asked to cast votes they know they won’t be proud of later. Modernization of the Republican Party is one thing, but moderation is another.
The GOP leadership now has a choice: stand for something and win, or stand for nothing and lose. It appears its base won’t move left with it, so if the party moves left it will need a new base.
AMEN!
Your paranoia is misdirected. Firstly private searing ins are mot uncommon. More importantly, what is your point? Let’s say he believes in Islam or Maoism more than the Bible. That would mean he’s taking his oath seriously. And what is that oath? To execute his duties faithfully, blah, blah, blah, and to uphold the Constitution. But of all things he’s not gonna do that!
So why would he want to take the oath on something meaningful to him? If he does it on the Bible and the Bible is just another book, then the oath doesn’t mean as much, which is what he wants.
No, it will done on nothing, like last time:
Would Romney have called for an ''assault'' weapons ban and then use federal agencies to enforce his will while breaking the law? I doubt it.
He signed such a bill in MA. He would not need to use Executive Orders, as he would get all the Dems and enough Republicans to vote it through the normal way.
Would Romney have called for and gotten tax-hikes and $43 of new spending for every $1 in tax-cuts? I doubt it.
He raised various taxes and fees in MA, in addition to cutting spending. Would the ratio be $43 for $1? Maybe not, but he's not much of a small government guy, so on the whole he'd be a tax collector for the welfare state.
Would Romney have allowed Obamacare to stand? I doubt it.
For the most part yes, I think he would let it stand. He might tinker with it just enough for it to be renamed RomneyCare, but there's not much in it that is different from the Romney plan in MA.
The problem isn't that Romney is personally worse than Obama, but that he's a compromiser and this is exactly the wrong place and time to be compromising. With only the house in Republican hands, if Romney wanted to get things done, he would have to compromise with the Dems. It'd be easier for him to get enough R's on board a Dem-driven agenda than it is for Obama.
It'd be a lot easier for Romney to pass anti-gun bills or to make ObamaCare unrepealable, repeal DOMA, etc. And there is little reason to think he would not do so. Just as in MA, when he claimed he did liberal things because it was a liberal state, he would do liberal things in DC because it's really a liberal country (since the Dems hold a lock on the Senate).
Well, just take a look at WHERE those precincts are. If they're deep in Philly or Chicago, there's no question but that they're accurate. Not many folks in urban areas with large minority populations were interested in Romney, so seeing those percentages doesn't surprise me in the least.
As the article says, we need to concentrate on a good candidate next time, not just the 'next in line'.
Succinct and to the point.
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.