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.
You left out domestic evils such as relativism and progressivism.
@ monostor:
You remind me of Mortimer Adler’s position that it is the government’s responsibility to take care of basic human needs. He had to rethink when a woman at an Aspen seminar asked, “Is sex a basic human need?”
@ Bernard Rosso be smarter:
@ steven l:
Not to mention the similarities with the middle.
Beware the extremism of the cowardly center:
— moderate in all things
except moderation.
It is incorrect that the swing vote decided the election. It was Obama’s base of single women, youth, labor, and non-Jewish minorities, according to statistical post-election analysis.@ Bernard Ross:
@ steven l:
What is TRULY extreme is allowing a woman to put out a hit contract on her own flesh & blood in the FIRST place.
— Or do you believe that your OWN mother should’ve HAD that option?
They (The Blue East) have Finance but the Center (Red States) have the oil and food. Can’t quite figure out what to do about the West Coast 🙂
The republicans will not win if they adopt extremist positions (i.e, imposing sonogram on women before an abortion)!
There are plenty of extremists in the Republican party and a lot of morons.
There is as much hypocrisy on the right as on the left.
So as many people have claimed, there are many similarities between the 2 sides!!!!
@ Meira:
First I don’t belong to left or the right, I don’t even like the monikers. Second, the demographics if they really change than that it’s done under the radar: amnesty for illegals, in many places illegals have two or even three different false identities and were not always asked for photo ID’s. Why do you think the DOJ was so against states that legalized photo ID’s for voting? Obama himself had to vote with photo ID although everyone knows who he is. The last census(2010) states clearly that there are 75% Whites that include 10% Hispanics considered Whites. They probably took that figure out now to be able to report lower number of Whites and it makes perfect sense:59% of those voted for Romney. We’ll never know the real extent of the fraud at the polls. Believe you me there was plenty. I am in no denial, I am not even a full blown American yet. Romney didn’t get in because I couldn’t vote.
Romney should’ve won the elections by any measure. All along the campaign he turned out much larger crowds than Obama. The Obama campaign had to explain many times why they are going this year for smaller events. One may speculate: either were not enough interested to listen, or the campaign was too sure of the preordained outcome.The DNC could not fill a stadium with 74000 sits for his acceptance speech. In Cincinnati a few days ago he drew 15000 and Romney 30000.
Think of the fact that those who prop him could not afford the luxury of having him at the steering wheel for four years only. To much had been invested in this enterprise not enough return on investment. They have big plans for the country.
Well, I for one, believe that the USA is going to hell in a handbasket! Obama is the leader for that, that’s for sure! The past four years have been a waste and the next four will be a travesty!
@ monostor:
It’s not a myth,
Yamit has been warning of the Hispanic demographics, it’s here sooner than even he predicted.
You’re in denial, that’s the problem with the american right, live in a dream world. Even a nutter couldv’e told you, Romney has ZERO chance of winning a general election. Nobody in the GOP was winnable. The big problem is they just don’t see it that way, and live in a fairy tale world.
@ Bernard Rosso be smarter:
You don’t convince me, not at all. I still say that the government has no business to run the economy only to safeguard people’s liberties so they are able to pursue their initiatives. Keep regulations to an optimal minimum that you don’t need to go through 65 days of bureaucracy to put up a lemonade stand. There is no need for the education department, that should be a state and local function. There is no need for EPA the way it stays on the way of energy development. There is no need for the federal government to bail out industries, that’s a code word for nationalization. There is an express need to revisit FreddyMac and FannyMae, the government programs started by FDR, Carter afterwords and Clinton who topped with an other shovelful, there is no need to bail out banks and than bring in Dodd-Frank regulation to keep them out of business. There is time to revisit the defense industry funding to modernize the army and as that one that you don’t like, Reagan said, to be able to show our strength. No need to go to war if one doesn’t mean to win it, also from Reagan. There is no need to close down coal mines and coal operated power stations, the price of electricity nearly doubled in one year. There is no need for government run healthcare system when that program puts in the hands of the federal government an other 16% of the economy. Reform the existing healthcare, Let insurance companies allow people to keep insurance across state lines, made them more user friendly, bring in tort reform. Curtail the influence and the power of various unions especially those operating in the public sector. Reform the education system, get rid of the deeply entrenched left-wing indoctrination.
I don’t remember Paul Ryan ever saying that SS and Medicare should be dismantled. Reformed, yes. Obama appointed a commission to recommend tax reforms and threw its recommendations in the dustbin. Romney-Ryan wanted urgent tax reforms. I can go on but I don’t want to bore the rest of the readers. I agree that I suffer of conservative indoctrination. It suits my character.
BTW, I spent half of my lifetime under a nice communist dictatorship, I know first hand how well those state managed economies run. I also worked in a country that had a healthy free market economy so I know that difference too.
Last but not least how will the state run economy get rid of high unemployment when with one hand stops any attempt to create jobs, and with the other hand hands out printed money without real value to keep its voting base ready like before “the first time”? “Nuf said. I am going to work, I have to feed my family.
@ Meira:
I don’t buy into the myth of changed demographics. They couldn’t have changed so dramatically in four years. moreover that we had a census in 2010 results of which are in the public domain. What I think really happened is that different segments of population showed up for voting or chose to stay home than in 2008. There were many who preferred not to vote for Obama and could not get themselves to vote for Romney either. Most of those were Whites I think.
@ Bernard Ross:
The two candidates positions were and are polar opposites. In a country were people have been indoctrinated with all the socialist and other ism-s garbage for at least four decades, certain messages cannot be decoded. The only big mistake Romney made was to not capitalize more on Obama’s foreign policy blunders to put it mildly. The Benghazi-gate was an excellent opportunity that the administration served Romney on silver plate and he didn’t take it. The president should have been forced to resign following 9/11/12 not allowed to be reelected with fanfare. The only such a move would’ve been brought upon us was an interim Biden presidency that would’ve been the laugh of the century.
@ Bernard Ross:
You don’t see it right at all, not for me anyway. The American conservatism was meant to bring back onto the forefront the founding principles and the respect for the constitution. I am not going to detail those principles for you for I suppose that you learned them in school. The problem is the import of ideologies like fascism/nazism/statism that started here a hundred years ago because the powers that be at the time were feeling deprived of power and could not live anymore with the horizontally balanced system of governance that the Founding Fathers envisaged for the republic. They wanted more power for themselves and less liberties for the vassals. In addition to that erosion of principles the left managed to highjack the educational system to the extent that we have more than two generations of indoctrinated people who are mute and deaf when faced with the founding principles. They don’t get it. They don’t know american history and they don’t know world history. They live on principles borrowed from somewhere else and if you ask them about all you get is sighs.
This election result also proves how stupid some of the commenters here are. There is someone called ‘Vinnie’ who all througout last year was voving that Obama would lose, despite the clear warnings that the demographics have changed, and Conservatism is done in the USA.
Conservative policies are the domain of the Evangelical right wing only. They never ever were popular and even when the did have some power albeit numerically only for George Bush, even he shunted them aside after he got their vote.
Vinnie? Why did Obama win?
@ monostor: my reply to this comment went into moderation and now appears to have disappeared.
Michael Chenkin Said:
I agree(although coasting goes a little far) I think if Romney had not chosen ryan and stressed his record as governor(if it is any good) especially his implementation of the Mass. universal health plan he could have won. Many of Romneys votes were got not on his value but on fear of Obama( a rightful fear). It is quite amazing that a governor with experience of business and executive abilities did not win. Anyone with his qualifications who was one inch to the right of Obama would have won. The conservatives are poor strategists and are more interested in proselytizing than winning. This can work in a parliamentary system where a fringe party can influence through a coalition after the vote. However, in America it is all or nothing and apparently the conservative religion provoked more fear than the communist religion. Most americans do not want to dismantle SS or medicare and bringing up that possibility was the dumbest strategy I can imagine. In fact, one has to wonder how smart Romney is if he thought that approach could win the election when it would have been in the bag.
@ monostor:I read it and, although there are some good points, I find it to be indicative of the same self delusion that repubs and conservs are under as to why the election was lost. Conservatives present themselves to the voting public as an ideology, a religion. That means that there is no a la carte menu of individual platforms, take the whole shebang or leave it. This is not an election winning strategy. Note that the left is a religion and ideology but is not presenting itself as such. Most voters are less interested in ideologies and more interested in results and specific programs and policies that they can evaluate. Trust and confidence is a big part of a voters decision as so much else is difficult to ascertain(especially in a propaganda media environment). It is strange that Romney did not run on his record more than on conservative attractiveness. The conservatives blew the election for the the republicans because they are not tactically smart and are more interested in people believing their religion than getting the power to implement it. My suggestion is that conservatives drop the ideology and concentrate on specific solutions to specific problems. Learn more about what the majority, and minorities, of voters are concerned about and offer solutions to those concerns. Presenting yourself as a system of ideological beliefs will not work. If conservatives cant solve the real problems of most of the electorate then it is bye bye love.
monostor Said:
The govt is meant to represent the interests of the citizenty. If the private sector fails to meet the needs of the citizenry the govt will meet those needs. The citizenry has been clamoring for improved health care system for decades and the private sector has stalled any solution. Hence govt steps in, even if a poor solution. By the way the medicare system is not in business: it contracts private contractors to supply the members needs. The govt buys chairs for its offices does that mean its in business.
monostor Said:
Perhaps I missed something: the failing banks are the precipitating cause of the current financial meltdown.
monostor Said:
This is one of the problems with the way the republicans and conservatives are perceived by the voting public: They are against things and want to rely on the free market without any concern for what damage might be done to those less fortunate. did you live under reagan, when his deregulation of the S&L’s caused a mafia feeding frenzy and a decade of looting of banks. I am being literal about hte word mafia as I have exact experience of that. The resolution trust corp was created and connected parties and those with cash bought up the properties of the foreclosed. It was a 20% + interest rate environment. Reagans economic environment was pure BS and only benefitted the few. Remember that this article is about why Romney lost not whether his platform was good.
monostor Said:
Many bottlenecks, redundancies and beaurocracies are created by distributing federal programs through state and county agencies. But this is not the point. The repubs quote ideologies in place of solutions: send things back to the states. That is a generic statement of little value and voters dont want generic anachronistic statements in a bad time. They want specific solutions which do not conflict with past performance.
monostor Said:
You just dont get it. You are campaigning for Ryan and he is a legend in your mind. Any accountant can tell you when the govt will run out. It is irrelevant. It was a strategic and tactical blunder by the conservatives and repubs. The choice of Ryan signaled to the public that Romney might move to dismantle medicare and SS: the dumbest move for someone wishing to win an election in the US. Romney should have done the opposite if he wanted to WIN THE ELECTION! If he had stressed his Mass universal health plan it would have assuaged the fears of the UNDECiDED SWING VOTERS who decided the election.
monostor Said:
He might have done better if he stressed his governor record(although I dont know it)rather than try to prove to conservatives that he is a conservative. Every undecided voter who voted for Obama instead of Romney was a double loss, conservatives who did not vote for Romney did not vote for Obama. This is not a parliamentary system where you can form coalitions. It is all or nothing. Just do the common sense math.
monostor Said:
This is your greatest failing. If the quoted fact means nothing to you then you do not realize that that fact will bury free enterprise in the US. IN time, if that continues, voters will not distinguish between corrupt business and free enterprise. They will only be aware of their own suffering. In an economic system which distributes the gains to the top class the only logical conslusion is that when everything is automated and no human labor is needed then society will consist of rich rulers, robots, and poverty stricken slaves. If technological advances are not distrubed equitably then free enterprise will meet the guillotine. You need to look further ahead than todays business and profit.
I gave the reason s why I thought the voters did not choose Romney(actually I think he did best to be expected. You did not speak to the reason I gave.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/a_few_things_i_never_want_to_hear_again.html
Please read the article above. It is the best sum up so far of what happened on November 6.
@ Michael Ejercito:
Some of them do but on an overall analysis he was regarded as a kook. He had a few good ideas such as revisiting the Fed.
Having journeyed hours from my home to spend the day freezing outside a polling station in a Jewish area in a swing state handing out Israel oriented and therefore pro-Romney material, it is possible my brains have yet to thaw out. So please forgive me for somehow thinking that rubber meets the road experience actually is more valuable than pontificating.
J.S.’s point on the Democratic turn out effort is very important. They were very well organized and highly energetic. Half an hour after we showed up the opposition, with extensive material, came to oppose us.
Given how appalling Obama’s record is, Romney should have coasted to a victory. As a narrow technical point Obama won because of super-storm Sandy. Living in the NYC area I haven’t the faintest idea what Obama actually accomplished on behalf of the storm victims, and this should be a major take home point – after four years of failure, the debates, and billions in advertising, 10% of the voters were highly influenced by a meaningless photo op.
Bernard Ross is 100% correct and normally intelligent commentators such as Laura entirely miss his point. He is explaining why Romney lost, not the entirely different point that America would be much better off if Romney would have won.
The critical point of this election is that being right doesn’t get you elected. Listening to people talking both on election day and in the months before, Romney’s problem was that because his position wandered from liberal Republican to Tea Party Republican to centrist Republican, people felt they didn’t know him and therefore couldn’t trust him and therefore were willing to believe the Democratic rich white guy who doesn’t care about you narrative.
I believe that conservatives have badly overestimated the extent to which the middle is conservative. The middle is not believing conservative, it is have your cake and eat it conservative. They are personally opposed to abortion, but not to the point that they would protect the unborn by denying a woman who wants an abortion the right to do so. They are concerned about the deficit, but are opposed to cutting social programs.
The biggest error people who concur with Greenfield are making, is that right or wrong, the Tea Party is toxic. It’s unfortunate but that’s the way people are. People want certainty far more than they want to think things through. The case against Obama is extensive, particularly on Israel, but did it matter? They want angels and devils. I spent a day freezing outside a polling station personally encountering this phenomenon.
monostor Said:
I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. The Tea Party types love him.
@ Bernard Rosso be smarter
Laura is absolutely right.
You say you worked for yourself then you must know something about markets and their dynamics. In a free market economy companies come and go according to what the market dictates. A free market enterprise produces what can sell, what the customers market niche within which operates require. The government “invests” in policies and politics with no relation to market requirements and tries to sell, at a price well bellow the cost price of the product. See Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker and others. Romney says just like anyone who understands economy , that the government has no business to be in any business. Romney was against the bailouts.
Those examples of big company blunders that you talk about are very few compared to the overall size of the American economy. In any activity performed by humans there always gonna be some bad apples, a few who may try their luck more than it’s necessary.
Romney wanted to get rid of a whole series of government regulations imposed on businesses during the last four years.
Romney championed reduction in the size of the federal government by getting rid of unnecessary offices and by transferring certain functions activities back to the states where they belong.
Romney wanted to try to get rid of Obamacare that will create an economic bottleneck, a huge bureaucracy, a whole army of civil policemen to manage our lives from what we eat, what we smoke, what we drink, what we do in bed, in order to save on healthcare costs.
One of the most brilliant moves Romney made was exactly what you object against, the choice of Paul Ryan for veep. It would have created the most dynamic presidential duo in the history of the country. Paul Ryan is a brilliant economist, a clairvoyant, he knows exactly when the government’s coffer is going to run out of money. His ideas how to reform the entitlement programs is still the best that had been presented so far.
Romney knows how to work with the opposition, he proved it in Massachusetts.
That CIA book of facts is not really saying nothing. The truth is that the top 5% of taxpayers pay 40% of overall taxes, and the bottom 47% (the proverbial 47%) does pay zilch. Romney planned to have a serious revision of the current tax laws. Obam will revise the tax law too, he will milk the top 1% and will have revenue enough for 8 days of a fiscal year.
Romney does not have a plan? he recited so many times his plan that I became nauseated just listening to it. His website had also a detailed economic, social, political plan, it only needed to be read.
His position on the relationship of the US government with Israel is the polar opposite to the position that the Obama administration advocates.
I must admit that at the beginning of the campaigning season I was not too fund of Romney. The GOP establishment was really pushing him down our throats. But as the time went by and he disclosed more and more his record of achievements I learned to respect him and support him. His only shortfalls are that he is not conservative enough, he did not cosy up to the Tea Party that would’ve been more than happy to rally up his base for him and I am nearly certain that he also belongs to the bipartisan crowd of American politicians who “see no islam”.
Perhaps a distinction needs to be made between big business (IBM, Microsoft, Apple, etc, etc) and small business (local entrepreneurs who employ a dozen or so employees). Steve Jobs (when he was alive, refused to re-locate his manufacturing plants to the U.S. I think everyone understands why — it’s the cost factor.) Large multi-national corporations are not constrained by patriotic feelings. (Local small-business people don’t typically outsource to China — and they are the primary employer — yet they’re being buried under govt regulations. CNN a while back featured a Californian small business owner who tried to operate an automobile painting/detail garage — the sheer number of regulations (some contradictory) were preventing him from actually working — he spent his time filling out (state and federal) govt forms. Then he would be fined for some ludicrous bureaucratic infraction. (Also, the greatess disparity between rich and poor exists — not surprisingly — in China. The super wealthy Chinese are corrupt, crony capitalists, feeding off state run, owned enterprises. )
@ Bernard Rosso be smarter:
I will after I serve dinner to my folks.?msiley/
Laura Said:
……
Bernard Ross Said:
…
was that marxist propoganda, did those events occur, who was responsible?
Laura Said:
The article was elucidating the reaosns for the loss. I diagreed with those reasons and with the lack of understanding of why people voted as they did. You are still campaigning for Romney rather than understanding why he lost. As for demonizing busiess: I have not been a salaried employee since 1975 because I did not want to work for anyone. I have owned a number of small business over the years, employing more than 50 people, in different countries including the US. I am very aware of the problems and value of small business. I am very aware of marxist propaganda having already been its victim and lost businesses and properties. I am a champion of free enterprise and its creativity. However, that does not excuse the robbery and rape of the american population by corrupt profiteers over 4 decades. Any demonizing I do is from my own experience not from others propaganda. The crooks ruin it for those engaged in real free enterprise. They put their money elsewhere butthe real small businessmen has to stay. If you feel you must defend thieves because you value business then you are wrong. Big business ran the economy and big business without regulation drove it into the ground and looted US wealth, transferring it to their own account in Asia. The taxpayer had to pay for this theft. Now Romney says to give them another shot, where were the jobs they were responsible for creating over the last 30 years? Do you think its ok that the richest 20%, who have been entrusted to run the economy for the last 4 decades, have sequestered 80% of income gains? This during a time of great technological advancement, where income asset inequity could be addressed through more equitable distribution of gains. I wouldn’t trust these thieves as far as I could throw them. Watch and see what they do to the economy now that their “offer” has been rejected.
Some historical perspective.
Nevada was the home of Richard J. Bryan, former governor and senator who served for over two decades in the ’80’s and ’90’s.
Colorado is the home of Richard Lamm and Gary Hart.
(Might also add, btw, that while Obama was demonizing the American coal industry, his administration was sending American tax dollars to improve China’s coal industry. Now that’s Obama.)
@ Bernard Ross:
“On the contrary, Romney through Bain dismantled companies and sent the assets to China: why would someone think he would create jobs(because he said he would?)”
…………………………………………………………………………..
Bain saved far more companies. Most of what you wrote is marxist propaganda. That even you fell for this gross misinformation is illustrative of why Obama won again.
So what that the Republicans are associated with business. There is nothing wrong with that. Being pro-business is a good thing. Without businesses there is no economy and jobs. That you have been brainwashed to demonize business and free enterprise is again illustrative of why Obama won.
monostor Said:
How about picking the biggest misconception I have and specifically discussing that. I live in different places, currently in states. My views are based on my own experiences and do not follow party lines.
@ James B – Montreal:
There is nothing wrong with being a rich white guy. He need not apologize for that.
@ Bernard Ross:
I don’t know if you live here in the States or elsewhere because some of your talking points seem to be taken directly from the MSM. There are some misconceptions in your analysis. It’s a heck of a mission to “dissect” your comment so I stop right here./smiley/
@ J.S.:there’s no doubt that the dems were much more organized and knowlegeable about the tactics and strategies of winning an election. Obamas team focused on Ohio which was the major swing state: Obama maintained the suot industries there and Romney said they should go bankrupt. Not an election winning strategy in the biggest swing state. I have seen this before in other countries. The left is decidedly better at organization of election campaigns, party organization and grass roots mobilization. The left is traditionally based in the party being the govt. therefore party organization is more than for elections..
I heard a commentator (phd in statistics) say that it wasn’t so much that the GOP lost, so much as it was an Obama win. The stats guy argued that Team Obama used every resource available to get out the vote (there was no decline in the youth vote, 2008 vs 2012); they had computer models pinpointing precisely those areas where the votes were needed; they used social media (twitter, Facebook, etc) to maximum advantage. Never before were so many tweets registered, phone calls made — they were out there getting the votes. The same can’t be said of the GOP.
Usually I agree with much of what Greenfield says but this article, in my view, is indicative of the self-delusion and myopia that is inflicting many Republicans and conservatives. This assessment is so far off mark as to remind me of an ostrich with his head in the sand. The fact that Obama is so bad and still won has not registered on the coalition of Republicans, conservatives and rightist. Obama did not win, the right lost. Obama did not win the Democrats won. Obama is presenting the most left-wing program, and incompetent execution, to America and the right-wing is unable to convince more than 1/2 the US voters that they are better. That’s pretty pathetic. This points to a whopping errors of major judgment, strategy, tactics, relevance and just plain self-delusion. Nothing is worse than when people start to believe their own BS.
“Romney very successfully made the case that he would be a more credible steward of the economy.” On the contrary, Romney through Bain dismantled companies and sent the assets to China: why would someone think he would create jobs(because he said he would?) The Republicans are identified with business and in the past they were able to convince voters that they are good stewards. However, here is businesses record since 1975:
1- from CIA factbook: 80% of income gains since 1975 went to top 20% of households. nearly a 40 year period of raping the american citizenry.(would you trust a manager who was entrusted with your business who gave you these returns?). This is factual evidence of the results of giving unregulated free rein to the rich and big business.
2-Since at least 1980 there has been an ongoing export of jobs, capital and production from the US to Asia by US business which has resulted in massive import increases, massive loss of export markets, massive loss of Jobs. US corporations encourage govt support of WTO and tariff reduction using the excuse of strengthening US exports. The experts lied or were incompetent. There is no way I would re-employ an incompetent or lying manager to run my business after such a performance.
3-In the last 30+ years there have been a number of massive bubble bursts involving corruption at the top of big business which often was the result of lack of regulation starting with the S&L in the 80’s under Reagan right up to recently. The republican mantra is to de-regulate business to allow them room to breathe: are they being disingenuous or do they think the population can’t see who committed the crime.
4-Banks and corporations who received govt help and then returned a profit did not re invest in america and create more jobs. The republican mantra is the trickle down reagan economics which was a disaster to those who lived it: cut taxes for the rich and hope they will create jobs. On the contrary they will take the profit and invest in Asia..
“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. ” Winning an election usually means getting more than 1/2 the voters to vote for you. This also usually means that they must perceive that you will represent their, not your, intersests: what the voter wants. Its not a beauty pageant. The republicans failed as follows:
1- Nail in the coffin- a massive tactical error if one wanted to win an election. Choosing Paul Ryan as VP
. The swing voter decides the elction and he is usually in the middle trying to make up his mind as to who is better and who is worse. Romney should have picked a veep further to his left as he did not have to worry about those to his right casting their votes for obama. He made the worst choice as he immediately frightened those on medicare, etc. For those voters he could have capitalized on his Mass. Health program but to placate the conservatives he chose Ryan. Nothing could have been dumber at that time.
2-Running as being the best economically without a plan offered to the public. Trickle down economics, big business will give you jobs if I give them money instead of you directly, or trust me: Im a businessman. This is not a plan. Deregulate big business and give more money to the rich??????Please that was the problem in the first place. Everyone knew that Obama did not cause the problem even if he wan’t solving it.
4-Selecting Ryan also highlighted the republican/conservative association with being against things rather than for things. Ryan symbolized the dismantling of SS and medicare. This highlighted the fact that the Republicans never contribute anything to the ongoing good of the US community. SS and medicare are programs that the democrats introduced and the conservatives always want to dismantled.
basically the republicans/conservatives are remote from the majority of the american people and the only reason they got so many votes was because Obama is so bad. If the repubs and conservs follow greenfield the democrats can run an amardillo in the next election and win by a landslide. Time to have a sincere analysis. If repubs and conservs want to win they need to inform themselves more abut the citizenry.
Shy Guy Said:
And so it begins
@ monostor:
Or… morphs to survive and whores itself in order to do just that. Watch this space.
@ Shy Guy:
Sorry, I meant to say that either the GOP turns conservative (American conservative) or disappears.
monostor Said:
I was referring to the Republican Party. Or are you equating the party with conservatives?
@ Shy Guy:
No, no the American conservatives are nothing like the Likud. They never were. The circumstances are also different you know that. Apples and oranges.
Yep… (i am conflicted about that impending fiscal cliff America faces. It could spell a horrific world-wide recession–on the other hand, it could also, one can hope, put a severe damper on any nefarious Obama plans–such as his continued financial support for the Muslim Brotherhood, etc)
@ J.S.:
My parents would never go for McCain nor Romney because they see them as the old guard white guys which is racism too.
Sick that Obama is still there in power supported by the North East American financial fiat currency empire that will fall.
monostor Said:
Or follow the Likud’s path of going left of center, while claiming to still be right of center. Sort of just moving the goal posts.
To hell with country and principles! It’s the party that counts!
I haven’t lived in the States for many years now — from a more distant perspective, I think James B. is on to something — I can’t help feeling that this may be a “generational” problem. (?) Many younger, current Americans don’t act like Americans of old… It’s a different generation. (America is being transformed into a post-American nation–much more European. And I wonder if a Republican had gone full bore Tea Party, if that wouldn’t have met with an even more resounding defeat (also given the power of the lying MSM to use the “racism” card).
Sir,
It is my view from lefty Canada that Mitt lost for several reasons:
1) Too many see him as another George Bush; another rich white guy who cannot empathize with the American middle class.
I reject this assessment because I see no capacity to empathize coming from career politicos such as John Kerry, Joe Biden, Mondale, Pelosi, ,,,
2) Demographics; states that were once “red” states are now blue or purple states. Leftists immigrate like locusts into VT, NH, CO and NV who change the
demographics
I never go to VT anymore with my family. Pretty but very lefty and expensive to eat in any restaurant. No bargains. Lots of guys holding hands and necking. I have seen this once too often. They really get in your face.
3) Blacks, Jews, Latinos and Muslims. Muslims and the Latinos are the strange ones. They are against this gay and abortion stuff.
Conservatives have their work cut out for them. The Jews are nuts. Waste of time to reach to them. Besides they are concentrated in the same states, in general.
The Jews are a hopeless waste of time.
4) For too many, they want a celebrity. Maybe Romney should have appeared on Dancing with the Stars! No joke, he would have earned more votes than going to Israel.
I cannot see any change from the Jewish, Black nor Muslim community.
The Republican establishment intentionally got it wrong on strategy. Romney could have attacked Obama on many issues in the debates.
America should split into 2 countries; along the borders of the blue and red states. I do not see any way to bridge this divide. Nothing is for free and a large group of America just wants stuff for nothing. It all comes down to stuff and the politics of fear.
Dick Morris says to make outreach to latinos
@ monostor:
I take no issue with your comment.
@ Ted Belman:
No, I don’t agree with that assessment. The author of the article summed it up perfectly. It is the dynosaur GOP that lost the election once again. The party will have to do some soul searching and either transform itself into a commonsense constitutional conservative establishment or disappear for ever. Romney’s fault apart from what the author points out was exactly the fact that he is not a real conservative.
Yes Mitt Romney was the reason Mitt Romney was defeated.