Posted on 11/07/2012 5:32:07 AM PST by SJackson
In this election the Republican Party ran two wholly inoffensive blue state Republicans on a platform of jobs at a time when the economy was everyone’s chief concern and the incumbent had absolutely failed to fix the economy. And they lost.
The Monday — or Wednesday — morning quarterbacks will have a fine time debating what Mitt Romney should have done differently. The red Republicans will say that he should have been more aggressive and should have hit Obama on Benghazi. The blue Republicans will blame a lack of outreach to Latinos. Some will blame Sandy, others will blame Christie and many will point to voter fraud. And they will all have a point, but the makings of this defeat did not happen in the last two weeks; they happened in the last two years.
Mitt Romney won the primaries because he was electable. But, as it turned out, he really wasn’t electable after all. Not when the chief criteria of electability is having no opinion, no point of view and no reason to run for office except to win. Not when the chief criteria of being a Republican presidential nominee is being able to convince people that you’re hardly a Republican at all.
Romney was a star political athlete who had an excellent training regimen and coaching staff. But to win elections, you have to change people’s minds. It’s not enough to try hard or to fight hard; you have to fight for something besides the chance to round the bases. You have to wake people up to a cause.
The Republican comeback did not begin with innocuous candidates; it began with angry protesters in costumes and Gadsden flags marching outside ObamaCare town halls. The 2010 midterm election triumphs were not the work of a timorous establishment, but of a vigorous grassroots opposition. And once the Tea Party movement started the fire, the Republican establishment acted like the Tea Party had sabotaged their comeback and cut the ties with their own grassroots movement. Separated, the Republican grassroots and the Republican Party both withered on the vine.
The stunning 2010 midterm election victories happened because a conservative opposition loudly and vociferously convinced a majority of Americans that ObamaCare would be harmful to them. And then that fantastic engine of change was packed away and replaced with political consultants who were all focused on seizing the center and offending as few people as possible. But you don’t win political battles by being inoffensive. And you don’t win elections by avoiding conflict.
Is it any wonder that the 2012 election played out the way it did?
The Democrats in the Bush years were about as unlikable a party as could ever be conceived of. They were hostile, hateful and obstructionist. They spewed conspiracy theories at the drop of a hat and behaved in a way that would have convinced any reasonable person not to entrust them with a lawnmower, let alone political power. And not only were they rewarded for that by winning Congress, but they also went on to win the White House.
Why? Because dissatisfied people gravitate to an opposition. They don’t gravitate to a loyal opposition. They aren’t inspired by mild-mannered rhetoric, but by those who appear to channel their anger.
When the Republican Party sold out the Tea Party, it sold out its soul, and the only driving energy that it had. And there was nothing to replace it with. The Republican Party stopped being the opposition and became a position that it was willing to reposition to get closer to the center. Mitt Romney embodied that willingness to say anything to win and it is exactly that willingness to say anything to win that the public distrusts.
The elevation of Mitt Romney was the triumph of inoffensiveness. Romney ran an aggressive campaign, but it was a mechanical exercise, a smooth assault by trained professionals paid to spin talking points in dangerous directions. But, what if the voters really wanted a certain amount of offensiveness?
What if they wanted someone who mirrored their anger at being out of work, at having to look at stacks of unpaid bills and at not knowing where their next paycheck was coming from? What if they wanted someone whose anger and distrust of the government echoed their own?
Romney very successfully made the case that he would be a more credible steward of the economy. It was enough to turn out a sizable portion of the electorate, but not enough of it. He tried to be Reagan confronting Carter, but what was remarkable about Reagan, is that he had moments of anger and passion; electric flashes of feeling that stirred his audience and made them believe that he understood their frustrations. That was the source of Reagan’s moral authority and it was entirely lacking in Romney. And without that anger, there is no compelling reason to vote for an opposition party.
The establishment had its chance with Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor was everything that they could possibly want. Moderate, bipartisan and fairly liberal. With his business background, he could make a perfect case for being able to turn the economy around. They had their perfect candidate and their perfect storm and they blew it.
The Republican Party is not going to win elections by being inoffensive. It is not going to win elections by going so far to the center that it no longer stands for anything. It is not going to win elections by throwing away all the reasons that people might have to vote for it. It is not going to win elections by constantly trying to accommodate what it thinks independent voters want, instead of cultivating and growing its base, and using them as the nucleus for an opposition that will change the minds of those independent voters.
The Republican Party has tried playing Mr. Nice Guy. It may be time to get back to being an opposition movement. And the way to do that is by relearning the lessons of the Tea Party movement. The Democratic Party began winning when it embraced the left, instead of running away from it. If the Republican Party wants to win, then it has to embrace the right and learn to get angry again.
Exactly right. I know dozens, maybe hundreds of women who voted for Romney. I know very few who voted for 0bama. That’s because I don’t know a lot of welfare mothers.
The vote didn’t go wrong. The COUNT (or discarding of Romney votes) went wrong. As for electronic voting machines, they can be hacked and altered and probably were.
West is as conservative as they get. Romney is a RINO but ran as a conservative. Idealogy alone doesn't win or lose elections. It is important but just one dimension.
Image and persuasiveness win elections. Romney's image lost the election. He could have run as whatever and it simply would not have mattered. We need a conservative that can effectively persuade the masses like Reagan could AND is young and hip and doesn't look like a fuddy-duddy with a cadillac in the garage.
Sure, he's not an idiot, though I presume on Medicare, he doesn't want to pay the taxes to support it. Though I disagree politically, I wish Jobs had lived a long life, he was a asset to the nation (ours and China), but his salary was $1. He paid 12.5 cents for medicare, Apple matched it. For all his whining about taxes, perhaps Warren would like to pay capital gains taxed on his deductabile donations to his foundation. Don't know the numbers, but simplisticly if Warren donates $1 million, and deducts $1 million, which cost him $1,000, why not pay on the capital gains? Liberals know not just which side their bread is buttered on, but how to butter it.
I doubt it because many women especially needed to see fire and instead got mister nice guy with Romney.
I doubt it because many women especially needed to see fire and instead got mister nice guy with Romney.
IMO there were some message issues, but as I noted Romney got 2.3 million fewer votes than McCain, not as severe a drop as Obama. But Tea Party rallies with buses standing by to take folk for early voting, I guess that's logistics. Effective, maybe, maybe those folk voted anyway. But if the McCain voters had all showed up it would have been close, include non-McCain Tea Partiers, a win.
His concept was that all your money went into an investment account, and would only be taxed when you wrote a check to spend it. LOL just what you would expect from the head of an investment company.
But when Pubbies go on the news programs, they don't reveal this info. They just say well we should not tax the job producers, and people are skeptical of that.
I'm not sure you're correct about 60 million, if you are, you're correct in both parts. Honest discussion is difficult, at least in the public sphere. I don't encouter that other than occasionally on a personal basis. The public sphere, millions, being the more significant. As to the 12 million fewer voters, I've asked a few times on the thread about the 2.3 million McCain voters absent. Less concerned about the missing Obama voters.
Nice try. The voting machines in Virginia worked just fine. There was high turnout overall with 100% of the black vote and much of the suburban Xanax vote for Obama. In my rural area it was about 60-40 Romney with a large portion of the 40 being either liberal or morons or black.
I first voted in 1972 for a guy who had already been my CIC. Go figure. I agree with all your points, 1 to 6, but not your contention that the internet was a terrible communication media. Unless your meaning was the Romney campaigns performance in that media, in which case you’re correct. In retrospect Romney needed to confront the distortions. I’m not sure his biggest mistake wasn’t failure to advocate his positions in a compact, easily communicated fashion. I’ve read his position papers, but the appeal of 9-9-9 sticks in my mind. Not the postition, it’s conveyance. Candidates have to successfully convey their positions in the context of the media/channels available to them.
I voted 3rd Party for President; the anointing of Romney by the GOP, from long before the primaries, indicated to me that they were all about talk and not about action. Consider Romney's past: he's really liberal -- how can you get socialism out of the office by electing a socialist?
Obviously the GOP wasn't interested in my vote. Indeed, they weren't interested in any conservative or constitutionalist's vote.
Perhaps just me, but the Tea Party is more of a mindset that a brand. Could have been the latter had the GOP embraced the bulk of it, but they know better. I hope you’re wrong about freeloaders vs liberty, I think lots, probably most, of those “freeloaders” would rather earn their own way. I hope I’m right.
The Tea Party thing was overblown, they took credit for 2010, when in fact it was the normal mid-term result for the President’s Party, I assure you we will see the exact same thing in 2014, Tea Party or no Tea Party.
Retire the GOP and have the Tea Party replace it.
Passion was missing, as was anger on Romney’s side.
The ones who stayed home, I equate the "base" and the "Tea Party" with the more informed, should be hit in the head with a sledgehammer for staying home.
Non-sense! Allen West was a victim of redistricting.
"After two years of opposing tax increases, fighting to control spending and investigating waste, corruption and incompetence, House Republicans were rewarded with re-election. That is a real achievement."
“And not only were they rewarded for that by winning Congress,
but they also went on to win the White House.”
Conveniently forgetting the economic collapse on Dumbo Dubya’s watch and all the fun filled TARP spending which came soon after. Keep avoiding the elephant in the room - keep losing elections.
No, it was far from normal, it was a once, maybe twice a century turnover. The organized party which would most benefit, simply didn't embrace the movement. Which dissolved, by name, not necessarily emotion. I doubt you'll see a big a swing in 2014, though I don't want to underestimate Obama's ability to act contrary to the interests of most Americans.
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.