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.
It TELLS me that the Tea Party will have to take over the GOP
— and the sooner, the better.
<blockquote>“Abortions are notmurder.”</blockquote>The only reason you say this, Yamit, is that either A. you once PROCURED an abortion for somebody; ORB. you are (or once were) CLOSE to somebody who’s had one.Elective abortion deliberately takes the life of a living human being who is not even ACCUSED (let alone, convicted) of a capital crime — and whose continued existence poses no direct & imminent threat — intentional, inadvertent or collateral — to anybody else’s physical life.That makes it murder — any way you slice it (no pun intended).
<blockquote>“Majority of Americans don’t think so…”</blockquote>Not so. Flat-out wrong. (And even if they DIDN’T think so, which they DO; but even if they didn’t — it is God, not man, who decides what is & isn’t murder, and He is clear enough about it.)Fact: Majority of Americans plainly reject the majority of REASONS for which the practice occurs. Overwhelming numbers accept it to save the life of the mother. (The numbers of these abortions are tiny; less than half-a-percent, if that.)When OTHER reasons are offered, however, the numbers of supporters drop off sharply — and the drop-off gets sharper as the reason get more selfish.”Life of the mother,” “fetal deformity,” “incest,” “assault rape,” etc: — all taken together, these reasons account for less than five [5] percent of all abortions.Thus, ninety-five [percent] of all abortions are performed for OTHER reasons— and the USA public is not at all happy with that. What’s more, the numbers of opponents have been steadily growing.When somebody switches positions from one side to the other, the direction is quite consistently from pro-abort to anti. — The exceptions are as common as newspaper headlines that read “Man bites dog!”<blockquote>“The courts which you so respect andadore…”</blockquote>This is what’s known in the study of rhetoric as “begging the question”; viz., assuming
facts not in evidence.I DON’T ‘respect’ OR ‘adore’ the courts; nor have I
ever said — or suggested — that I did.What I DO respect and adore is the
principle of Law. The courts, however, are NOT lawful but corrupt.There is a reason why Simchat Torah has that name. The Law was God’s gift — was God’s blessing — to his human creation. There is great comfort to be taken from the security of a structured universe — which is the essence of Law’s meaning.
<blockquote>"Are you the secret Abortion clinicbomber?”</blockquote>Moi? — mais non.OTOH, if somebody else
chooses to bomb the abortuaries, who am I to deny HER/HIS right to do so?Surely that’s their “CHOICE,” right?
Of course not, Bernard. Because it wasn’t integral (or even central) to this campaign
— any more than the wrongness of Drunk Driving was integral to this campaign.
But that has no bearing on whether the position itself is or isn't 'extreme.'FYI, Bernard: http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/did-voter-fraud-swing-election/
Seems editing tools still disfunctional 🙁
<a href=”#comment-225850? title=”Go to comment
of this author”>Bernard Ross</a> Said:<blockquote>@
YamitThe quoting tools are not working. I watched your link and agree
100% with what celente said and send you an earlier link of his(before
election “results”) wherein his analysis of the difference between
Romney and Obama will be that Romney will steal more money and Obama
will steal your constitutional rights. I think this is a good point.
My experience with elected leftist govts is exactly that, (but they will
also steal the money).http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=XsSCNEwPLOQ&feature=endscreenRe
the subject under discussion; I agreed with most of what you were
saying except in the detai</blockquote>l. @ <a
href=”#comment-225850? title=”Go to comment of this author”>Bernard
Ross</a>:I have been thinking. I just realized that Ron Paul has
disappeared and nobody is connecting his non support for Romney and his
supporters. Paul did not endorse Romney was cut out of the Republican
convention and the establishment Radar much like they did with Palin. I
wonder how many Paul and Palin supporters punished Romney and the
Republicans either by not voting or even in the extreme voting for
Obama?When I say Romney was flawed, I meant flawed in the sense that he
was the guy up to beating a popular Obama.In this case like trumped
issues and people voted their personal interests and perceived interests
and rejected Romney as a better option than the one the had and the one
they liked. The electorate as a whole did not emotionally attach
themselves to Romney as many had with Obama. In America today it seems
that for now that’s what matters.From the day I saw the lineup of the
Republicans I was doubtful the Republicans would win. When they picked
Romney I was sure the Republicans would lose. Right after Tarp, I
predicted that much or most of that money would go to buy key elements
of the electorate and it did. I maintained that the Tea Party would
insure the Republicans would Lose, as their positions fr most Americans
are too radical in so far as if implemented too many Americas would be
hurt. They got nominated some real weirdos and even got some elected.
Yes they helped increase the Republican house majority which would have
been a majority with or without the Tea Party but were twice responsible
for losing the Senate. Which allowed Obamacare to be
passed.<blockquote>Obama’s side made the correct tactical
decisions by
early on concentrating on the swing states but also seeking to assuage
the fears of the undecided: eg arguing to jews that Obama was good for
Israel(as one example). Other ways the repubs might have won would be
their lack of pursuit of Obamas transparency re his history, lack of
pursuit of the voter id swindle,.</blockquote>The mistake was
nominating a candidate with zero Charisma and the antithesis of the type
of candidate needed to unseat a pop star idol-like President.
Everything else is not relevant.
<a href=”#comment-225850″ title=”Go to comment of this author”>Bernard Ross</a> Said:<blockquote>@ YamitThe quoting tools are not working. I watched your link and agree 100% with what celente said and send you an earlier link of his(before election “results”) wherein his analysis of the difference between Romney and Obama will be that Romney will steal more money and Obama will steal your constitutional rights. I think this is a good point. My experience with elected leftist govts is exactly that, (but they will also steal the money).http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=XsSCNEwPLOQ&feature=endscreenRe the subject under discussion; I agreed with most of what you were saying except in the detai</blockquote>l. @ <a href=”#comment-225850″ title=”Go to comment of this author”>Bernard Ross</a>:I have been thinking. I just realized that Ron Paul has disappeared and nobody is connecting his non support for Romney and his supporters. Paul did not endorse Romney was cut out of the Republican convention and the establishment Radar much like they did with Palin. I wonder how many Paul and Palin supporters punished Romney and the Republicans either by not voting or even in the extreme voting for Obama?When I say Romney was flawed, I meant flawed in the sense that he was the guy up to beating a popular Obama.In this case like trumped issues and people voted their personal interests and perceived interests and rejected Romney as a better option than the one the had and the one they liked. The electorate as a whole did not emotionally attach themselves to Romney as many had with Obama. In America today it seems that for now that’s what matters.From the day I saw the lineup of the Republicans I was doubtful the Republicans would win. When they picked Romney I was sure the Republicans would lose. Right after Tarp, I predicted that much or most of that money would go to buy key elements of the electorate and it did. I maintained that the Tea Party would insure the Republicans would Lose, as their positions fr most Americans are too radical in so far as if implemented too many Americas would be hurt. They got nominated some real weirdos and even got some elected. Yes they helped increase the Republican house majority which would have been a majority with or without the Tea Party but were twice responsible for losing the Senate. Which allowed Obamacare to be passed.<blockquote>Obama’s side made the correct tactical decisions by
early on concentrating on the swing states but also seeking to assuage
the fears of the undecided: eg arguing to jews that Obama was good for
Israel(as one example). Other ways the repubs might have won would be
their lack of pursuit of Obamas transparency re his history, lack of
pursuit of the voter id swindle,.</blockquote>The mistake was nominating a candidate with zero Charisma and the antithesis of the type of candidate needed to unseat a pop star idol-like President. Everything else is not relevant.
my replies to yamit and dweller diappeared—
@ DwellerSorry but the system tools not working. I wanted to respond in more details but I cant make quotes so I will just speak to one thought.
..<blockquote cite=””>Absolutely, that’s PRECISELY what I am saying.<cite>…
…<blockquote cite=””>What “conservative party” are you talking about? There is no such thing <cite> …This is exactly my point: there is no conservative party candidate on the national ticket. What does this tell you? Conservatives must ride on the backs of the republicans to gain any influence. They are too small a bloc. Similarly with the socialist/communist/leftists but they are wise enough to keep a low profile on their religion and present themselves as more “moderate”, non dogmatic and less ideological(which is of course a lie). Had the conservatives not pushed for Ryan they may have been able to get Romney in and make their influence felt through the repub admin. The conservatives would serve themselves more effectively if they realized that not all of their platforms are palatable to the bulk of the voters. I doubt that the opportunity will arise again as leftist parties are very good at getting more support as an economy gets worse.
@ YamitThe quoting tools are not working. I watched your link and agree 100% with what celente said and send you an earlier link of his(before election “results”) wherein his analysis of the difference between Romney and Obama will be that Romney will steal more money and Obama will steal your constitutional rights. I think this is a good point. My experience with elected leftist govts is exactly that, (but they will also steal the money).http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=XsSCNEwPLOQ&feature=endscreenRe the subject under discussion; I agreed with most of what you were saying except in the detail. You said Romney lost because he had too many flaws. I agree he had those flaws but that Obama also had many flaws which could have resulted in his loss. I am looking at how Romney could have won after both sides natural base cast their usual votes and the balance was left to the undecided swing voters(who I believe could have swung the election either way). The undecided swing voter was neither a conservative nor a socialist and could have voted either way. With this in mind neither side, tactically speaking, should have made any moves which would make those undecided bolt to the other side and should assuage the undecided’s fears that “extremist” accusations are unfounded. Simply put, were I a repub or conserv at that point, I would not have selected Ryan for veep because its traditional symbolic affect is to signal potential directions. Ryans selection signaled a potential move of Romney away from his own record with Mass. universal health plan and towards the conserv position (which could have been PERCEIVED to dismantle medicare and SS). If he had made a different choice of Veep and stressed his own health care record he would have got more votes from the undecided who did not want medicare or SS dismantled. Once he got the primary selection it became tactically necessary to determine how to get those undecided swing voters in swing states who were potential voters for either side. The conservative and socialist voters were already decided and would not change their vote. Obama’s side made the correct tactical decisions by early on concentrating on the swing states but also seeking to assuage the fears of the undecided: eg arguing to jews that Obama was good for Israel(as one example). Other ways the repubs might have won would be their lack of pursuit of Obamas transparency re his history, lack of pursuit of the voter id swindle,. There was more support of Obama among the repubs, in that regard, than criticism in the 4 years of his term.All of this may be moot if the real situation is that the “election” is just a fraudulent entertainment event costing billions(like the superbowl) and if the results are all just manufactured by a gaming casino software(as some maintain). The fact that elections are called by media and votes not counted shows how dumb the electorate is. Romney’s concession to an unfinished count is in itself troubling. I see no reason for there to be any concessions by anyone: there should be a complete count after all the votes are in and only then should there be any announcement.
dweller Said:
please pardon my english I should have wrote” are you saying that this issue, if it had been promoted to the electorate by the repubs, would have won them more votes?
@ David Sternlight:
David Sternlight Said:
What was offensive and to whom?
@ dweller:
Abortions are not murder.
Majority of Americans don’t think so,
the courts which you so respect and adore don’t think so
but in your cultist beliefs you do, it’s your problem.
This is one issue where American Jews will never vote for Republicans as long as those like you are.
Are you the secret Abortion clinic bomber?
@ Bernard Ross:
Bernard Ross Said:
The last polls before the election had Obama leading or tied in every relevant category over Romney. In Key elements he got to the elusive 50% level. Early voting is a political scam and in my opinion undemocratic. I can’t believe the political mafias don’t know the results of early voting before the elections. Knowing those results allows them to tweak their efforts towards the end.
We all know that electronic voting is the most vulnerable mode of voting where schools kid hackers can hack in and change results and if that’s the case what could professionals do. I posted previously that a Spanish company were contracted to operate and tally the electronic votes.
That said how many dead people showed up to vote? Every mode of voting is vulnerable to cheating and manipulation. There should be a singular mode of voting in every state.
Bernard Ross Said:
Romney lost because he was a flawed Candidate. Too Rich, No Charisma, not articulate, no politically resonating message that differentiated himself from Obama sufficiently. He picked a VP candidate that was so bad that at the least added nothing to compensate for Romneys own deficiencies. Ryan’s political, social and economic views places him solidly as a member of the John Birch Society. Romney being a Mormon must have turned off a significant number of conservative religious Christians.
Running an Eastern Moderate is not enough contrast to Obama. 4 years ago I wrote that Obama would use much of the TARP money to buy voters and their loyalty. He did do, just that. Romney destroyed the myth that whoever raised and spends the most money wins the election by losing.
No issue was relevant in this election except likeability. Over 40% of Obama voters still blamed Bush for the economy that is telling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1i7Rypdy7M
@ Bernard Ross:
He didn’t lose because of any ‘extremist’ positions. That’s simply a crock. This is an entirely bogus issue.
It WASN’T “promoted to the electorate by the repubs.”
So far as I’m aware, it was never ADDRESSED except in answer to specific questions — just as availability of contraceptives as an issue were not addressed except in RESPONSE to a question that Stephanopoulos put to Romney in January during the GOP primary campaign.
The MSM is always in the tank for the Demos. Stephanopoulos, you’ll recall, was Bill Clinton’s hatchet man in the 1992 campaign.
@ yamit82:
How so?
I endorse fair play.
But I’ve no problem with tacos as such.
If you do, then YOU’re the schmuck.
@ David Sternlight:
Some of those companies needed capital for expansion, others had potential for a turnaround with necessary cash infusion and change of management.
I am talking about Bane stripping cash assets from sound companies forcing them to go into debt to stay afloat. The vurden of subsequent debt bankrupted otherwise fairly sound companies. Romney, Bane and the investors they represented took handsome profits up front and the company stockholders and workers-got the shaft losing pension and many rendered unemployable.
Now Bane and Romney had it both ways if they were successful in in making a given Business succeed they took big profits and when they failed they took big profits sometimes mking more on their failures than their successes. At least the American Robber Barons created and built something, Bane?
The American steel Industry was creamed by foreign (Japanese) steel dumped at below market prices and The government refused to protect her own domestic indutries.
@ Bernard Ross:
It was Sultan Knish — Greenfield — who wrote the above statement; if you look above, you’ll see it’s from his article.
I am certain, however, of its correctness. That was why I cited it & added my own previous remark to it right afterward.
If 71 percent of the populace didn’t want it imposed on them, what DIFFERENCE would it make whether it was crammed down their throat by a perceived ‘conservative’ or shoved up their keister by a quasi ‘communist’?
Untrue, and based on a misreading of conservatism as focused thru the lens of the lamestream media.
The conservative position has ALWAYS been that, unlike the liberal opposition, it WORKS: it takes into consideration, among other things, the persistence of human nature, which liberalism doesn’t.
Nonsense. Choosing Ryan demonstrated that Romney, whatever his shortcomings might be, was SERIOUS about dealing with economy. It energized the GOP base as nothing else had until then. (Regrettably, however, he did LITTLE ELSE to energize the base, and that was a major mistake.)
As to the actual undecideds, there were never that many of them — and most of them eventually broke for Romney, not Obama.
Absolutely, that’s PRECISELY what I am saying. Historically this has been the case.
— Recall that the watchword in the 1980 GOP campaign was “Let Reagan BE Reagan.”
What “conservative party” are you talking about? There is no such thing (unless you mean the Conservative Party of NY State).
I heartily disagree. He SHOULD’ve worried plenty about them. It is one’s base which provides the energy that wins or loses a campaign.
Three million Repubs stayed home on Election Day. That would’ve been enough, at the very least, to reverse the popular vote.
As I’ve said earlier, I seriously doubt that the GOP elites were as interested in winning the election as in REMAINING the party elite
— and the sooner the Tea Party puts them out to pasture, the sooner the country will start to breathe again.
@ David Sternlight:
My reason was that I hated S Ca and especially the freaks who inhabit it so much that at the first opportunity I had to escape, I ran. I had to stay up to the last min. because I was on an athletic scholarship.
@ dweller:
Schmuck
@ yamit82:
No reason I would WANT to stem the Taco Tide, as long as they come here LEGALLY.
@ Bernard Ross:
2nd guessing is easy.
Romney incorrectly believed that by choosing Ryan the Repub will support him. Had he selected Rubio would have made no difference.
Romney is a true Republican gentleman and not a true conservative Republican.
It may also be that Evangelical prefer socialists and communists to Mormons.
My point is that the argument that it is the government’s responsibility to take care of basic human needs requires further distinction, including willingness to work, ability to work, willingness to be ( re) trained, other resources such as NGOs, etc.
@ Bernard Ross:
It proves nothing about your country of education that you asked your Alma Mater to send your degree. I had the London School of Economics do the same with my PhD because of the timing of my return to the US for a job.
@ yamit82:
As an economist it is my view that there is no such thing as a sound, but cash strapped company, considering the availability and cost of working capital and the economy’s current risk premium, partly driven by the outlook. Those factors are part of judging soundness by the capital markets.
@ yamit82:
Good points.
@ Bernard Ross:
Your post is offensive, although in character.
@ yamit82:
Gerrymandering CA won’t work. Orange County is too small. The rest are.mostly overwhelmingly either liberal, Hispanic, or both.
@ yamit82:
yamit82 Said:
I think past evidence proves you right.
As i know you are open to odd sources here is a very weird, difficult to read blog with curious ideas,.It had an interesting view of election software, benghazigate and deals/plays behind the scenes, but extremely difficult to read and glean.
http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/
Does Israel have any plans for how it will deal with possible UN sanctions, no Obama veto at UNSC, possible obstruction of Israeli attack on Iran,perhaps a total Obama turn on Israel etc. I am very interested in a realistic view of what is going on there re these issues. I see no Israeli discussion as to what options are available that will succeed. Is it all left up to BB?
@ Laura:
Laura Said:
Of course there is nothing wrong with being rich, and even being white. The criticism is in how they became super wealthy. I made a sudy of Bane and how Romney became wealthy. What Romney was about is not capitalism, not free enterprise nor did he himself crate a business nor save a business. He invested other peoples money in certain enterprises picking winners and losers. In many cases he created the losers by both ies in debt pulling the plug after stripping sound but cash strapped industries of sale-able assets the placing same companies in deep dent. Since romney and company take their commissions up front before any others he never lost a cent on any venture that tanked,similar to a trader in the equities and commodities markets. He leveraged influence with governments like Italy to get fire sale government properties and within six months to a year sold at enormous profits to his investors and his company and himself like over $100 million for jusst himself. How much he kicked back to the Italians one can only speculate. He did similar things with American government.
His bottom line was only to investors and himself never the companies he dealt with and nobody says that he was not successful at it but please do not hold him up as a Paragon of capitalism. He created nothing and certainly no wealth or jobs. Staples ( one of his successes) put tens of thousands of small stationary stores out of business and loss of more tens of thousands of jobs along with them. 90% of Staples jobs are min. wage jobs with no possibility of real advancement for most. Most of their work force is considered part time to avoid paying mandated benefits.
Some of Banes companies were also bailed out with management taking full commissions and salaries on the America taxpayers account.
The concept and myth of the wealthy creating jobs is mostly a myth. of course they oppose paying higher taxes and reduction of wealth. They are money junkies and don’t care if the rest of the population is reduced to serfdom as long as they get to keep and increase their own personal wealth.
What you call crony capitalism is by definition FASCISM!
dweller Said:
Dweller, I agree with you. There are big questions surrounding voter id issues. I have no doubt, from past experience, that this could be another intentional strategy and tactic of a such a well organized party. Means justifying ends. To go further, there are also questions regarding electronic voting machine manipulation.
David Sternlight Said:
How very clever! And your point is? Are you inferring that I believe that govt should take care of basic human desires such as sex? Judging from your prior posts I will wager that if there is a Latin name for this fallacious argument then you will be aware of it. There is no constructive reason to make this inference, within the context of the forum, except to obscure the issue. I am not campaigning for either of the cults/tribes/ religions espoused by the parties who ran for election. I have no intention of being a useful idiot, cultist, clone of either of the leadership cadres of those special interests. I do not subscribe to either of the religions presented to the voters.
David Sternlight Said:
The base you describe was already in Obamas pocket before the election. Hence the long discussion regarding swing states and voters. Had a majority of swing voters in the swing states opted towards Romney instead of Obama the Romney would have won. Not all of Obamas base were in his pocket: Hence the drop in electoral votes for Obama. The dems were very aware of this and concentrated much greater efforts than the repubs in those states. Ohio was known to be a major swing state and Obama maintained their auto industry and had a huge grass-roots organization there. The organizational, strategic and tactical ability and judgment was much greater on the dem side. By choosing Ryan as veep Romney drove away undecided swing voters who were in the middle. A tactical and strategic blunder for winning an election. My experience is that leftist parties globally demonstrate greater organizational ability, strategically and tactically. The goal is that the party is the govt, hence the continuing maintenance and growth of the party organization.
dweller Said:
I think yo are missing his point. The forum is about why Romney lost. Are you saying that this issue, promoted to the electorate by the repubs, would have won them more votes? I dont think so, TACTICALLY speaking, seeking common ground with the undecided swing voters would have been the smart tactic.
dweller Said:
Based upon my interpretation of this forum: basically why Mitt lost and Obama won, I would have to diasgree with you. The conservatives present themselves more as an ideology rather than the bearer of individual, practical, pragmatic solutions. The political base of the 2 competing ideologies were already established. The electon was going to be decided by the swing states and swing voters. Choosing Paul Ryan frightened undecided swing voters who feared a dismantling of medicare and SS. This was an uneccessary strategic mistake if the goal was to wing the election for president.
dweller Said:
I have the opposite opinion. Romney was the ONE repub candidate that could have assuaged the undecied swing voters in the middle who did not want to vote for the conservative or the socialist religion but who did want a universal health care solution. Romney was perceived as a conservative candidate who would could deliver on a universal health care solution without having to go communist. Romney wrecked this when he chose Paul Ryan who was percived to seek the destruction of medicare and ss.
It appears to me that what you are saying is that voters who cast their vote for Obama/Dems would have instead voted for the Romney/Repubs if only the repubs were more conservative. If this were true I would expect that the conservative party would show an increase in its vote tally at the loss of the Repubs. Personally, I dont think Romney neeeded to worry about the conservative vote at election time as that would either be in the bag or not voting at all. The undecided voter is who he should have targeted and especially not driven away. A conservative voter is unlikely to cast a vote instead for Obama but an undecided voter who does not vote for Romney may cast for Obama. The democrats demonstrated a much more sophisticated knowledge of how to win an election. They targeted the undecided and swing voters/states. Ohio was known to be a large swing state that could be decisive: Obama a nd the dems focused on this state successfully. It has been my experience that parties representing the left are generally well organized at winning elections pragmatically. They are able to divorce their religion from their strategies. Furthermore, they have a long tradition of international association and share their strategies that win. They generally feel that their religion should govern and the ends will justify the means. If one wants to win an election in the US system, which does not allow post election coalitions, one needs to become pragmatic. The left will increase its majority through governance because even in a decreasing economic environment they make sure that they increase their voting base through patronage. Their opposition, these days, appears disorganized. Romneys biggest tactical mistake was choosing Paul Ryan as veep.
@ dweller:
Conspiracy theory, dweller? Works for both sides if true. There is no way to stem the Taco Tide in 20 years Spanish will be the primary language in at least half the States. My niece a teacher and Librarian in Tx had to learn Spanish to get any advancement.
Press 1 for Spanish and 2 for English. 🙂
@ David Sternlight:
I have a friend who is a well known shrink near you and highly recommenced him if you are currently not as over 50% of Southern Californians, being treated by a shrink, His address is 550 S Vermont Av Los Angeles. He himself is a Cornell Grad and specializes in Ivy League Nuts.
When he was in Med School I couldn’t understand why he wanted to practice in S Cal. He replied “because that’s where the Nuts are ($$$$)!!”
Having graduation from a S Ca. University I couldn’t wait to get out of the S Ca Asylum and left before graduation day. Told them to mail my diploma. I think California should be Gerrymandered into 2 or 3 separate states. Or at the least return So Ca back to Mexico. They will get it eventually in any case.
@ David Sternlight:
It’s called HELL. 😛
Right; I should have looked out my window. We also have four seasons: fire, flood, riot, and earthquake.
@ dweller:
@ David Sternlight:
That’s easy.
Out here on the West Coast, we’ve got the granola:
— fruits, nuts & flakes.
Very interesting.
@ dweller:
@ David Sternlight:
There COULD be a little MORE to that story than that: