A few thoughts on the end of the campaign — and the beginning of a big challenge

posted at 8:01 am on November 7, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In the final couple of weeks of the presidential campaign, we had a big debate over the nature of the American electorate, played out through polling criticism on both sides of the political divide. This came down to fundamental assumptions about which election cycle proved to be a realignment, and which turned out to be the anomaly.  Many conservatives — myself among them, to be sure — operated on the assumption that the 2008 election had been the anomaly, driven by the fiscal crisis, and corrected in the 2010 midterm elections.  The Left assumed that the fiscal crisis in 2008 had realigned the electorate toward greater government interventionism, and that the 2010 cycle was the anomaly, driven by a partisan fight over health care and the lack of a presidential contender at the top of the ticket.

Clearly, conservatives lost that argument last night, at least in large part, as John Ziegler wrote in the immediate aftermath.  That was borne out by the final calculation in the exit polling as well as the vote itself.  The partisan split in the electorate was 38/32/29, nearly identical to 2008.  We argued that Barack Obama and Democrats couldn’t win a base turnout election again, but they did, as evidenced by Mitt Romney’s five-point win among independents, 50/45.  Romney even lowered the gender gap from an Obama +14 in 2008 to Obama +4 in 2012, but that clearly wasn’t enough to overcome what now looks to be a significant realignment four years ago towards Democrats and not an anomaly.

This time, Republicans can’t blame the candidate, or at least they shouldn’t.  Mitt Romney ran one of the most well-organized national campaigns in recent memory within the GOP.  He raised prodigious amounts of cash, keeping pace with Obama.  The RNC followed suit, building a massive and impressive GOTV effort that really did produce a big increase in turnout — but not enough to match what Democrats did in this cycle.  Republicans blamed John McCain in 2008 and even George Bush for the bailouts, but those fig leaves are gone, and the realignment is too apparent to ignore.

That reality presents a challenge to the GOP and to conservatives.  We do not need to change our values, but we do need to find ways to communicate them in an engaging and welcoming manner.  We need to think creatively about big issues, philosophy, and how we can relate conservative values to the needs of a wider range of voters.  Conservatism cannot become constrictionism, or the realignment will continue, and it will become ever more difficult to win national elections.

This will require a new set of national leaders for the Republican Party and conservatism.  We need men and women who can think creatively, produce a positive agenda that isn’t defined by an oppositional nature, and who can eloquently communicate that agenda and the values that drive it.  That should be our focus over the next two years before we start thinking about who to nominate as the party’s presidential nominee — and if done properly, that process will naturally produce the right leader for conservatism.  And if that is done properly, too, perhaps we’ll be in position for another realignment four years from now.

Update: Some readers feel I owe them an apology for “misleading” them about polling over the last few months.  I kind of assumed that this post served as a mea culpa for getting it wrong by explaining why it happened.  Very obviously, I misread the shift in the electorate.  I wasn’t the only one who did so, but I did, and I do apologize for getting it wrong.  However, I didn’t set out to mislead anyone.  What I wrote was my honest opinion about how the polls were based on assumptions of the electorate with which I disagreed — and I’ll note that I linked to the source data every time, and that readers were certainly free to draw their own conclusions.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11 12

We are done, cooked, it’s over. There is no comeback from a guy who will continue to raise our national debt to buy off more scum sucking ilk that will vote for the Democrat in 2016. But it makes NO difference who wins in 2016, America (the one we know and loved) is dead.

As the “rich” refuse to fork over their wealth to the pond scum, this new America becomes a third world nation with a “president” who will do as he wishes with executive order. He got enough of a “mandate” (by his way of thinking) last night to sell out America with executive orders or by simply continuing to ignore the Constitution.

Stick a fork in America.

katablog.com on November 7, 2012 at 10:43 AM

I have to agree with this. We’re deeply screwed.

dogsoldier on November 7, 2012 at 3:49 PM

There are many people, such as my husband, who gets a government check and he is not a looter (he is military).

tammyloc on November 7, 2012 at 11:16 AM

So people’s wealth is seized by the government and handed over to your husband, who has no rightful claim to another’s property. Not exactly a provider or earner.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM

LOL OMG and you cannot understand why you cannot garner more than 1% of the vote for your retarded ideas!

LOL OMG, I think you just jumped a volcano.

LOL OMG what a freak!

you seriously are here trying to win hearts and minds eh? I think i read that a few pages back. LOL OMG. Winning hearts and minds! LOL

astonerii on November 7, 2012 at 3:56 PM

There are many people, such as my husband, who gets a government check and he is not a looter (he is military).

tammyloc on November 7, 2012 at 11:16 AM

So people’s wealth is seized by the government and handed over to your husband, who has no rightful claim to another’s property. Not exactly a provider or earner.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM

LOL OMG and you cannot understand why you cannot garner more than 1% of the vote for your retarded ideas!

LOL OMG, I think you just jumped a volcano.

LOL OMG what a freak!

you seriously are here trying to win hearts and minds eh? I think i read that a few pages back. LOL OMG. Winning hearts and minds! LOL

astonerii on November 7, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Thanks Dante, I needed a real laugh today. That did it. I think the week is looking up.

LOL WHAT A FREAK LOL…

astonerii on November 7, 2012 at 3:58 PM

EVIL?!!! EVIL?!!! you seriously want to call me evil because i refuse to kill babies in the womb and argue for fiscal sanity? i think you may have your priorities a bit skewed there. i do not believe in abortion , i do not want to pay for someone else to have an abortion . i have 6 children and i love every single one of them and would be the first one to say take my life if it would save my sons. that makes me evil? then so be it , and when i am standing in front of my God at the pearly gates and admitted to heaven i will know that i lived my life as purely as i possibly good and that i did not murder a child granted to me for convenience. i have not once EVER said that others could not have an abortion if they needed one. i just personally do not think i should have to violate my FAITH for someone else . you should be ashamed of yourself for calling me evil just because you think you deserve my money more than i do!

katee bayer on November 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM

No one is asking you to kill babies or forcing you to kill babies. If you are referring to your dollars being seized through taxation to pay for abortions, then how do you feel about your tax dollars being seized to murder children on the other side of the world?

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 3:59 PM

My day today is off to a fine start. Thought I’d share with other disgruntled folk here. Maybe it’ll help lift some spirits:

Stayed home from the office. The employees will need to work a little harder today without an extra pair of hands. They’re happy about the election, so they have all the energy they need.

Cancelled my involvement in a charity fundraiser. I know how that may sound, but screw it. No one’s going to die as a result. And as they can just vote themselves a larger slice of tax dollar pie next election, I see no need to voluntarily assist anyone anymore.

Cancelled my involvement in an industry event. I don’t feel the need to support the 99% of liberals there either monetarily or by my presence.

Needed to hire a temporary worker for a small job. Started to contact one, then noticed the content of his social media posting about the election. Moved on and called someone else with the good sense to at least keep his trap shut.

Going out for dinner tonight. Will not tip. The server can vote herself an even larger slice of the pie next time.

Petty? Maybe. Feels good?

You bet.

The Resolute Desk on November 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM

It’s too bad this thread is getting hijacked. I had hoped that we could get some heads together around the central question of Why there weren’t about 3-5 million more Republican votes out there. I’ll just lay out some possibilities and call it a day.

From likely/registered Republican voter totals, take away

1. Fundamentalists who won’t vote for a Mormon: ?
2. Libertarians voting Johnson/Paul: ?
3. Jerks jumping on the entitlement gravy train: ?
4. Fraud switching R to D on touch screens in key areas: ?
5. ??

spiritof61 on November 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Update: Some readers feel I owe them an apology for “misleading” them about polling over the last few months. I kind of assumed that this post served as a mea culpa for getting it wrong by explaining why it happened. Very obviously, I misread the shift in the electorate. I wasn’t the only one who did so, but I did, and I do apologize for getting it wrong. However, I didn’t set out to mislead anyone. What I wrote was my honest opinion about how the polls were based on assumptions of the electorate with which I disagreed — and I’ll note that I linked to the source data every time, and that readers were certainly free to draw their own conclusions.

And some of us readers posted all cranky about the polls also. I certainly did and I wrote many times that I thought there had been a big shift in the demographic, since Dems got one ass whupping after another. I still believe that.

Something else happened yesterday. Or rather a couple of things happened. Parts of the Republican base did not come out for Romney, for a variety of reasons and ALL of the socialist’s base did come out.

Romney failed in several ways. Yes, I will blame him, because in the end it was up to him to make the case to replace Obama and he just couldn’t do it.

dogsoldier on November 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM

I’m incredulous that some here suggest that Obama won due to a ‘weak RINO’ candidate, and Obama would have been defeated if only a hard-core conservative had been running against the ‘O’.

Exit polls asked “Do you approve of the president’s handling of hurricane Sandy?” and 64%the respondents said “yes”… All that Barry did was a 2-hr visit and a huggy photo op with Christie and quickly left town!!

When the electorate is (currently) that mis-educated and gullible, how do you expect them to embrace “first principles” from a tea party darling?

We have a long, difficult road ahead to educate people to the fact that voting for Santa Claus or the Candyman isn’t really a good idea.

E-R

electric-rascal on November 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM

All spin. The first debate was 9/10 Reagan. He even went after PBS.

Does this sound like Reagan?:

“Regulation is essential,” he said emphatically. “You can’t have a free market work if you don’t have regulation. As a businessperson, I had to have — I needed to know — the regulations. I needed them there. You couldn’t have people opening banks in their garage and making loans. I mean you have to have regulations so that you can have an economy work. Every free economy has good regulation.”

Only then did Mr. Romney add, “At the same time, regulation can become excessive” — not “is” excessive, as conservatives might prefer.

Even when Mr. Lehrer, seemingly intrigued, followed up by asking, “Is it excessive now, do you think?” Mr. Romney vacillated: “In some places, yes; in other places, no.”

OK, it’s from “one of the few libs”, but it’s hard to think that would be Reagan’s response.

Look, maybe it was just a brilliant performance by Romney, aided by a sleep-at-the-wheel Obama.

bobs1196 on November 7, 2012 at 4:02 PM

It’s too bad this thread is getting hijacked. I had hoped that we could get some heads together around the central question of Why there weren’t about 3-5 million more Republican votes out there. I’ll just lay out some possibilities and call it a day.

From likely/registered Republican voter totals, take away

1. Fundamentalists who won’t vote for a Mormon: ?
2. Libertarians voting Johnson/Paul: ?
3. Jerks jumping on the entitlement gravy train: ?
4. Fraud switching R to D on touch screens in key areas: ?
5. ??

spiritof61 on November 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM

We need fewer Republicans and more republicans.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 4:05 PM

1. Fundamentalists who won’t vote for a Mormon: ?

I think that was a factor. I saw in the exit polls that evangelicals went 30% for Obama this time vs. 27% last time. Given Obama’s leftward drift on gay marriage, etc., how could that number increase but for anti-Mormon feeling?

bobs1196 on November 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM

It’s too bad this thread is getting hijacked. I had hoped that we could get some heads together around the central question of Why there weren’t about 3-5 million more Republican votes out there. I’ll just lay out some possibilities and call it a day.

From likely/registered Republican voter totals, take away

1. Fundamentalists who won’t vote for a Mormon: ?
2. Libertarians voting Johnson/Paul: ?
3. Jerks jumping on the entitlement gravy train: ?
4. Fraud switching R to D on touch screens in key areas: ?
5. ??

spiritof61 on November 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Sorry about that.

1) I doubt that was more than a couple thousand total votes lost. The president is a social leader, not a spiritual one. I think most conservatives know that.
2) Libertarians are progressive liberals who imagine a society of total decadence reigned in by fiscal discipline, we can never win them over to our side, they are not a natural ally of ours.
3) I am seriously thinking about using those specific words written in a government document that would get me a permanent 100% disability and moving to my wife’s home nation until this nation turns a corner or fails.
4) I think this is the most likely scenario for quite a bit of the loss. Although my office mates make it hard to square, since 4 out of 5 did not vote who were conservative. Same story from all of them, not enough difference to care who was president.
5) How about we nominate someone we like from the beginning, someone that will get massive support rather than sloppy seconds from fear mongering. I think a solid conservative would have had such a huge turn out advantage this go around that no amount of number 4 could change the outcome.
6) We will never be in a better position than today in the future. Social Security and Medicare and other welfare are destroying the family unit faster every year, and will do so to a much larger degree as the economy remains stagnant, as it is already expensive with the massive level of taxes to support those programs taking money from your wallet before you ever get to see it.

astonerii on November 7, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Does this sound like Reagan?:

“Regulation is essential,” he said emphatically. “You can’t have a free market work if you don’t have regulation. As a businessperson, I had to have — I needed to know — the regulations. I needed them there. You couldn’t have people opening banks in their garage and making loans. I mean you have to have regulations so that you can have an economy work. Every free economy has good regulation.”

bobs1196 on November 7, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Why, as a matter of fact, it does sound like Reagan.

Deregulation. Another crucial aspect of freeing the market and getting government off our backs is deregulation, and the administration and its Reaganomists have been very proud of its deregulation record. However, a look at the record reveals a very different picture. In the first place, the most conspicuous examples of deregulation; the ending of oil and gasoline price controls and rationing, the deregulation of trucks and airlines, were all launched by the Carter administration, and completed just in time for the Reagan administration to claim the credit. Meanwhile, there were other promised deregulations that never took place; for example, abolition of natural gas controls and of the Department of Energy.

Overall, in fact, there has probably been not deregulation, but an increase in regulation. Thus, Christopher De Muth, head of the American Enterprise Institute and a former top official of Reagan’s Office of Management and the Budget, concludes that “the President has not mounted a broad offensive against regulation. There hasn’t been much total change since 1981. There has been more balanced administration of regulatory agencies than we had become used to in the 1970s, but many regulatory rules have been strengthened.”

In particular, there has been a fervent drive, especially in the past year; to intensify regulation of Wall Street. A savage and almost hysterical attack was launched late last year by the Securities and Exchange Commission and by the Department of Justice on the high crime of “insider trading.” Distinguished investment bankers were literally hauled out of their offices in manacles, and the most conspicuous inside trader received as a punishment (1) a fine of $100 million; (2) a lifetime ban on any further security trading, and (3) a jail term of one year, suspended for community service. And this is the light sentence, in return for allowing himself to be wired and turn informer on his insider trading colleagues. [Editor's note: Ivan Boesky was sentenced to three years in prison.]

All this was part of a drive by the administration to protect inefficient corporate managers from the dread threat of takeover bids, by which means stockholders are able to dispose easily of ineffective management and turn to new managers. Can we really say that this frenzied assault on Wall Street by the Reagan administration had no impact on the stock market crash [October 1987]?

And yet the Reagan administration has reacted to the crash not by letting up, but by intensifying, regulation of the stock market. The head of the SEC strongly considered closing down the market on October 19, and some markets were temporarily shut down—a case, once again, of solving problems by shooting the market—the messenger of bad news. October 20, the Reagan administration collaborated in announcing early closing of the market for the next several days. The SEC has already moved, in conjunction with the New York Stock Exchange, to close down computer program trading on the market, a trade related to stock index futures. But blaming computer program trading for the crash is a Luddite reaction; trying to solve problems by taking a crowbar and wrecking machines. There were no computers, after all, in 1929. Once again, the instincts of the administration, particularly in relation to Wall Street, is to regulate. Regulate, and inflate, seem to be the Reaganite answers to our economic ills.

Agricultural policy, for its part, has been a total disaster. Instead of ending farm price supports and controls and returning to a free market in agriculture, the administration has greatly increased price supports, controls and subsidies. Furthermore, it has brought a calamitous innovation to the farm program; the PIK program ["Payments In Kind"] in which the government gets the farmers to agree to drastic cuts in acreage, in return for which the government pays back the wheat or cotton surpluses previously held off the market. The result of all this has been to push farm prices far higher than the world market, depress farm exports, and throw many farmers into bankruptcy. All the administration can offer, however, is more of the same disastrous policy.

Link

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 4:12 PM

It’s too bad this thread is getting hijacked. I had hoped that we could get some heads together around the central question of Why there weren’t about 3-5 million more Republican votes out there. I’ll just lay out some possibilities and call it a day.

From likely/registered Republican voter totals, take away

1. Fundamentalists who won’t vote for a Mormon: ?
2. Libertarians voting Johnson/Paul: ?
3. Jerks jumping on the entitlement gravy train: ?
4. Fraud switching R to D on touch screens in key areas: ?
5. ??

spiritof61 on November 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM

I think most of those could be correct. Like I said earlier, I think Obama and his surrogates were effective in shining the light on these social issues and painting Republicans as “extremist” with some independent segments and possibly even some R segments of society. It’s unfortunate, but I think that whole “war on women” mantra may have paid off for them.

RobbBond on November 7, 2012 at 4:12 PM

katee bayer on November 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM
No one is asking you to kill babies or forcing you to kill babies. If you are referring to your dollars being seized through taxation to pay for abortions, then how do you feel about your tax dollars being seized to murder children on the other side of the world?

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 3:59 PM

not asking me to kill babies? you just called me evil because i wont vote for someone who BELIEVES it is ok to do so. or do you want me to ignore the fact that Obama voted to deny medical or comfort care to babies born from botched abortions? and yes i am referring to my tax dollars in part and NO i dont agree with war in general , i do however recognize that at times it can be a necessary evil. stop trying to paint complex ideas with a simple stroke of a brush. your attempting to deflect from yourself after making a broad sweeping stgatement calling all republicans evil just because we dont agree with you. especially when you are not me you do not know me and you have absolutely no idea what i think or feel. i am a republican for 2 reasons and 2 reasons alone , i believe in the constitution and i believe in LIMITED government. why do i believe in those things? because the constitution guarantees me my right to follow my faith as i see fit without be persecuted by fools like you who think i am evil because i dont agree with abortion and 2 because wether you like it or not the democrats have no business putting their hands on or near my lady parts. they are none of the governments business. the party of vote with your lady parts has become in recent years the most pro abortion ( which in my faith is WRONG) pro redistribution party in the history of the nation. and if i worked hard for the moeny i EARNED why do you think you get to dictate how much of it i get to keep ? why do you think you have the right to force me to violate my conscience when the constitution says you cant?

katee bayer on November 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM

spiritof61 on November 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM

An unbeatable triad:

1) Progressive candidate (corrupt)
+
2) Duplicitious media (corrupt)
+
3) Un-educated/Mis-educated populace = Political Win (and subsequent loss of our nation)

Seeds of all 3 began to be sown in earnest 60 years ago by the commies; key to Mis-educated/Un-education was eradication of FAITH in our daily lives, which removed personal accountability and responsibility… when we don’t expect that in ourselves or practice them, neither do we in others.

E-R

electric-rascal on November 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Screw the fringe nuts. There are fewer of them than traditional values voters anyway, and they have proven time and time again they are NOT dependable allies. They do not want a seat at the table, they want to control the debate and when they are out-voted, they leave in a huff.

They always talk about a new party. Good, let them form one and never again waste the time of the Republicans. Good riddance. And take Rand Paul and his Daddy with you.

Adjoran on November 7, 2012 at 4:19 PM

OK, it’s from “one of the few libs”, but it’s hard to think that would be Reagan’s response.

Look, maybe it was just a brilliant performance by Romney, aided by a sleep-at-the-wheel Obama.

bobs1196 on November 7, 2012 at 4:02 PM

He went after dodd frank. THat might have been about that.

Conservatives believe the market needs to be regulated. Fraud needs to be illegal and prosecuted. Contracts need legal guidelines. Arsenic can’t be added to your big mac…. Romney was not a moderate here. He was defending the conservative views of markets from a false libel.

BoxHead1 on November 7, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Luntz on 2nd hour of Hannity radio show right now… thought provoking analysis & info Luntz has gathered from focus group post-election.

Try to snag copy of show if possible.

E-R

electric-rascal on November 7, 2012 at 4:21 PM

not asking me to kill babies? you just called me evil because i wont vote for someone who BELIEVES it is ok to do so. or do you want me to ignore the fact that Obama voted to deny medical or comfort care to babies born from botched abortions? and yes i am referring to my tax dollars in part and NO i dont agree with war in general , i do however recognize that at times it can be a necessary evil. stop trying to paint complex ideas with a simple stroke of a brush. your attempting to deflect from yourself after making a broad sweeping stgatement calling all republicans evil just because we dont agree with you. especially when you are not me you do not know me and you have absolutely no idea what i think or feel. i am a republican for 2 reasons and 2 reasons alone , i believe in the constitution and i believe in LIMITED government. why do i believe in those things? because the constitution guarantees me my right to follow my faith as i see fit without be persecuted by fools like you who think i am evil because i dont agree with abortion and 2 because wether you like it or not the democrats have no business putting their hands on or near my lady parts. they are none of the governments business. the party of vote with your lady parts has become in recent years the most pro abortion ( which in my faith is WRONG) pro redistribution party in the history of the nation. and if i worked hard for the moeny i EARNED why do you think you get to dictate how much of it i get to keep ? why do you think you have the right to force me to violate my conscience when the constitution says you cant?

katee bayer on November 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM

You just quoted my only post to you in its entirety. I didn’t call you evil at all. In fact, I never used the word evil. You have me confused for someone else. I didn’t ask if you agreed with war in general, I asked if you have a problem with your money being seized through taxation to murder children on the other side of the world. I don’t view drone strikes that murder civilians, including children, to be necessary at all. It is telling, though, that you believe evil is necessary and you support it.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Gist: “Conservatism isn’t cool/hip/trendy”.

E-R

electric-rascal on November 7, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Why, as a matter of fact, it does sound like Reagan.

That may be a good description of the actual impact of the Reagan Presidency on deregulation; but here’s what Reagan sounded like:

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

bobs1196 on November 7, 2012 at 4:24 PM

You just quoted my only post to you in its entirety. I didn’t call you evil at all. In fact, I never used the word evil. You have me confused for someone else. I didn’t ask if you agreed with war in general, I asked if you have a problem with your money being seized through taxation to murder children on the other side of the world. I don’t view drone strikes that murder civilians, including children, to be necessary at all. It is telling, though, that you believe evil is necessary and you support it.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 4:23 PM

sorry hun i got you confused for a moment with steve angell. my bad i completely and totally apologize to you. in my defense though it isnt much of one its been a really long day on very little sleep and i have already taken pain meds so i am not tracking all that well. but i do sincerely apologize for the mix up.

katee bayer on November 7, 2012 at 4:28 PM

It is telling, though, that you believe evil is necessary and you support it.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 4:23 PM

i do not support evil . however i will say that in the case of war i do not EVER support starting one. that being said i do believe that if someone attacks my country we should by all means have the right to defend ourselves. i have never said i agree with the wars we are in at the moment but i also believe in supporting our troops because wether or not i agree with the reasons they were sent there , they signed up to serve our country and protect and defend all of us and they do not have a choice where they are sent . please dont attempt to twist my words or imply such nonsense in reference to me supporting evil. i am a good christian woman who has lived her entire life without ever breaking the law no matter how small it is or without ever deliberately harming another person. i live my life with the realization that my actions affect many other people often without my even realizing it and because of that i go out of my way to always be kind and to do what i can for others. but i dont think it is reasonable to allow a group of nut jobs or another nation to blithely walk into our country and murder our citizens and not respond to it. so dont twist my damn words

katee bayer on November 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM

astonerii on November 7, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Thanks for your response. These are all guesses on my part.

1) I would concur that the number of Fundamentalists (hard-core, not just Evangelicals) who stayed home to not vote for a Mormon was not too large, but it must be factored in. I reckoned on at least a .5 million hit when arguing the Romney candidacy during the primaries but that may be overstating it. Then again, LDS are the spawn of Satan for some and they could not pull the lever for a Mormon even against Obama.

2) A lot of libertarians surely voted for McCain in 08, realizing the futility of protest voting. Larger defections to Johnson now of the Dante ilk but they can’t be more than .25 million. There just aren’t that many libertarian former McCain voters.

3) Who knows? How many completely selfish and utterly stupid Republicans out there? Your guess is as good as mine, but there is a point where they would have started packing the Democrat rolls and pre-election polls would have picked up on it. And it just doesn’t square with the massive fall-off in genuine D votes. Say .5 million to be generous.

4) Fraud. The joker in the deck. If there was widespread and well-coordinated voting machine fraud we may never know until some enterprising Breitbart picks up the trail. Then there will be the devil to pay. Number unknown.

5) It should have been Palin. She was the one the Dems feared, and with good reason. She would have humiliated Obama and won in a landslide. (I personally believe she bailed after credible assassination threats to her kids.) With a true conservative fighter and leader, this election would have been won in a tsunami against such a feeble incumbent. As it was, everyone (including the Dems) expected a Republican victory yesterday. Hence this discussion.

6) Yep. Bad defeat and things will now commence to be a lot worse.

Remember Churchill’s dicta.

In War: Resolution
In Defeat: Defiance
In Victory: Magnanimity
In Peace: Goodwill

spiritof61 on November 7, 2012 at 4:36 PM

And one other thing. If you are living in Tel Aviv or have relatives there, please relocate. Just to be on the safe side. Our President will be Barack Obama for the next four years. You can work out the rest.

Good night.

spiritof61 on November 7, 2012 at 4:41 PM

5) It should have been Palin. She was the one the Dems feared, and with good reason. She would have humiliated Obama and won in a landslide.

I would normally agree, but not in today’s enamored-with-pop-culture, Jon Stuart / Stephen Colbert as their only political source, sound bite prevailng mentality. (sorry for sloppy sentence; using a smartphone instead of a real keyboard).

E-R

electric-rascal on November 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Screw the fringe nuts. There are fewer of them than traditional values voters anyway, and they have proven time and time again they are NOT dependable allies. They do not want a seat at the table, they want to control the debate and when they are out-voted, they leave in a huff.

They always talk about a new party. Good, let them form one and never again waste the time of the Republicans. Good riddance. And take Rand Paul and his Daddy with you.

Adjoran on November 7, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Listen, this is really part of why your party is losing. You’d do well to re-examine your thoughts on this matter. You do realize that Johnson pulled over 1 million votes despite not having a table at the debates and having a fraction of the money that Romney/Obama had? Who knows how many write-in votes Paul acquired. If you’re concerned about your loss, you should be looking at ways of expanding your party instead of contracting it. Perhaps disparaging potential allies isn’t the best tactic to use? But, if you think you can win without them, then by all means continue doing what you’re doing. The only person you’re hurting is yourself.

RobbBond on November 7, 2012 at 5:07 PM

It’s too bad this thread is getting hijacked. I had hoped that we could get some heads together around the central question of Why there weren’t about 3-5 million more Republican votes out there. I’ll just lay out some possibilities and call it a day.

From likely/registered Republican voter totals, take away

1. Fundamentalists who won’t vote for a Mormon: ?
2. Libertarians voting Johnson/Paul: ?
3. Jerks jumping on the entitlement gravy train: ?
4. Fraud switching R to D on touch screens in key areas: ?
5. ??

spiritof61 on November 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM

The biggest one is that Romney did not inspire people to vote for him in non-battleground states. A super-rich financier who pays a lower tax rate then middle-class Americans and calls 47% of the electorate moochers. Swiss bank accounts, Cayman Island bank accounts, and 100 million dollar IRAs and 100 million dollar trust funds. Romney was not “human” and not likable and people did not go out of their way to vote for him. Old salesmen slogan: people will not buy something from somebody they do not like. Bush was likable..incompetent.. but likable.

ZippyZ on November 7, 2012 at 5:28 PM

i do not support evil . however i will say that in the case of war i do not EVER support starting one. that being said i do believe that if someone attacks my country we should by all means have the right to defend ourselves. i have never said i agree with the wars we are in at the moment but i also believe in supporting our troops because wether or not i agree with the reasons they were sent there , they signed up to serve our country and protect and defend all of us and they do not have a choice where they are sent . please dont attempt to twist my words or imply such nonsense in reference to me supporting evil. i am a good christian woman who has lived her entire life without ever breaking the law no matter how small it is or without ever deliberately harming another person. i live my life with the realization that my actions affect many other people often without my even realizing it and because of that i go out of my way to always be kind and to do what i can for others. but i dont think it is reasonable to allow a group of nut jobs or another nation to blithely walk into our country and murder our citizens and not respond to it. so dont twist my damn words

katee bayer on November 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I didn’t twist your words. You called war a necessary evil. You didn’t say anything about self defense, as you are doing now. There is nothing necessary about murdering people on the other side of the world; it is evil.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Screw the fringe nuts. There are fewer of them than traditional values voters anyway, and they have proven time and time again they are NOT dependable allies. They do not want a seat at the table, they want to control the debate and when they are out-voted, they leave in a huff.

They always talk about a new party. Good, let them form one and never again waste the time of the Republicans. Good riddance. And take Rand Paul and his Daddy with you.

Adjoran on November 7, 2012 at 4:19 PM

You have it backwards.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 5:43 PM

I didn’t twist your words. You called war a necessary evil. You didn’t say anything about self defense, as you are doing now. There is nothing necessary about murdering people on the other side of the world; it is evil.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM

LOL, OMG you still jumping the volcano!!!?!!! LOL

NUT!

There are many people, such as my husband, who gets a government check and he is not a looter (he is military).

tammyloc on November 7, 2012 at 11:16 AM

So people’s wealth is seized by the government and handed over to your husband, who has no rightful claim to another’s property. Not exactly a provider or earner.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 3:48 PM

LOL, LOL HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH

Winning hearts and minds to the libertarian/anarchist side!

LOL, LOL HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH

The indian tribes did not have government either, Right Dante!?! Right?

astonerii on November 7, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Take heart and an hour and a half to listen to Bill Whittle’s response to the disappointing election.

It’s time for a new beginning, and Bill Whittle expands on his ideas of how to flourish in the upcoming maelstrom. His ideas are positive and legal.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/26770607

onlineanalyst on November 7, 2012 at 5:49 PM

It’s too bad this thread is getting hijacked. I had hoped that we could get some heads together around the central question of Why there weren’t about 3-5 million more Republican votes out there. I’ll just lay out some possibilities and call it a day.

From likely/registered Republican voter totals, take away

1. Fundamentalists who won’t vote for a Mormon: ?
2. Libertarians voting Johnson/Paul: ?
3. Jerks jumping on the entitlement gravy train: ?
4. Fraud switching R to D on touch screens in key areas: ?
5. ??

spiritof61 on November 7, 2012 at 4:00 PM

I’ll try to put this thread to bed and answer that.
2. Yes, there were a lot of Paul supporters who either voted for Johnson but mostly didn’t vote at all. I know because many have told be just that.

4. I believe there was some fraud but it happens every election so I think it may be a wash.

3. I think this goes to Romney’s big gaffe, the 47% comment. It was a huge mistake and the Dems and the media ran with it. Many who are not moochers but do get some entitlements..unemployment, food stamps, Social Security, or are simply former Obama supporters who may have switched, took that comment the way the media interpreted it and it hurt Romney. Not saying they were right and he was wrong, just it was what it was.

I left the first one to last because it’s something nobody wants to discuss. When I saw the numbers of Evangelicals that voted for Obama this came back to me. I have heard many people talk about the Mormons as a cult. They know very little about it and are easily swayed. I heard Seniors who referred to it as his “strange beliefs that you can’t trust.” I have seen posts on many sites from people who seem rational about politics but go off the deep end over his faith. The Dems and Obama never really made it an issue, but they never discouraged criticism of it either. I believe this is one of the hidden reasons, one most people loathe to admit. Perhaps this accounts for the poll differences, I don’t know. But I know it exists, I even heard it while I waited in line to vote. A shame and embarrassment, I remember the same type of thing with JFK. But it was more open and he was able to respond to it.

Well just my 2 cents.

Deanna on November 7, 2012 at 5:54 PM

From likely/registered Republican voter totals, take away

1. Fundamentalists who won’t vote for a Mormon: ?

If this turns out to be true, then there will be hell to pay. The political stupidity that would indicate is beyond belief. If they would rather retain an abortion-loving president than give the nod to a Mormon, maybe we need to form new coalitions without them.

writeblock on November 7, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Hi Ed,

Don’t be too hard on yourself. A lot of us feared that something like this would happen, but only as a result of major voter fraud. None of us could imagine that there would be enough legitimate votes (if indeed there were) to re-elect Obama.

Everyone is scrambling to explain how this could happen and what conservatives need to do in the future to win back America (if there will be any recognizable America left four years from now, and if there will even be an election in four years – don’t pay any attention to my doom and gloom,it will eventually pass, I think, or maybe not).

We’re all reeling from the shock. The real evaluation can’t begin until we’ve all had time to recover from the shock.

For those with faith, there is always hope, though it may not be the hope that we had hoped for.

Ordinary American on November 7, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Scroomed. The New Republic of Texas!, come join us !

Who is John Galt on November 7, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Who is John Galt on November 7, 2012 at 6:56 PM

That reality presents a challenge to the GOP and to conservatives. We do not need to change our values, but we do need to find ways to communicate them in an engaging and welcoming manner. We need to think creatively about big issues, philosophy, and how we can relate conservative values to the needs of a wider range of voters. Conservatism cannot become constrictionism, or the realignment will continue, and it will become ever more difficult to win national elections.

No, we need to fight fire with hotter fire, and make every effort to expose the MSM for what they are. They were the difference-makers, and until we successfully confront THAT fact, we’ll always be also-ran party.

Sack up, folks.

hillbillyjim on November 7, 2012 at 7:06 PM

not asking me to kill babies? you just called me evil because i wont vote for someone who BELIEVES it is ok to do so. or do you want me to ignore the fact that Obama voted to deny medical or comfort care to babies born from botched abortions? and yes i am referring to my tax dollars in part and NO i dont agree with war in general , i do however recognize that at times it can be a necessary evil. stop trying to paint complex ideas with a simple stroke of a brush. your attempting to deflect from yourself after making a broad sweeping stgatement calling all republicans evil just because we dont agree with you. especially when you are not me you do not know me and you have absolutely no idea what i think or feel. i am a republican for 2 reasons and 2 reasons alone , i believe in the constitution and i believe in LIMITED government. why do i believe in those things? because the constitution guarantees me my right to follow my faith as i see fit without be persecuted by fools like you who think i am evil because i dont agree with abortion and 2 because wether you like it or not the democrats have no business putting their hands on or near my lady parts. they are none of the governments business. the party of vote with your lady parts has become in recent years the most pro abortion ( which in my faith is WRONG) pro redistribution party in the history of the nation. and if i worked hard for the moeny i EARNED why do you think you get to dictate how much of it i get to keep ? why do you think you have the right to force me to violate my conscience when the constitution says you cant?

katee bayer on November 7, 2012 at 4:16 PM

This is not to pass judgement on you as I don’t know you. But I am curious why can you believe in a reason where it may be necessary to burn, maim, and kill innocent civilians, including children and babies, but can’t believe in a necessary reason in regards to the act of abortion? When is the death of a single innocent child’s life okay with you?

Magnus on November 7, 2012 at 7:09 PM

No one is asking you to kill babies or forcing you to kill babies. If you are referring to your dollars being seized through taxation to pay for abortions, then how do you feel about your tax dollars being seized to murder children on the other side of the world?

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 3:59 PM

I guess you ignored the couple that murdered their 15 yr. old daughter that made the horrible mistake of looking at a young man passing by on a motorcycle. It was in Pakistan and the parents claim it was an honor killing by pouring acid on the young girl. What a horrible way to die.

mixplix on November 7, 2012 at 7:10 PM

America is going to be okay.

Did you gun rights get taken away the last 4 years? No.

Did you get put in FEMA re-education camps? No

Did black people enslave white people? No (Though I bet right now a lot of you wish we never had gotten the right to vote.)

Did any of the hysterical nonsense you guys were spewing the last time he won happen, No.

Magnus on November 7, 2012 at 7:13 PM

The messaging doesn’t amount to a fiddler’s fxxx as long as the messages get filtered and delivered by the same usual suspects. It is a fact that we need to focus on remedying pronto, or we’ll be left of Western Europe before another decade is done.

hillbillyjim on November 7, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I guess you ignored the couple that murdered their 15 yr. old daughter that made the horrible mistake of looking at a young man passing by on a motorcycle. It was in Pakistan and the parents claim it was an honor killing by pouring acid on the young girl. What a horrible way to die.

mixplix on November 7, 2012 at 7:10 PM

What does his question have anything to do with some degenerate Pakistani’s practicing honor killings?

The question is when is it okay to kill an innocent child funded, regardless of the reasons or context, fueled by government tax monies.

Magnus on November 7, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Did any of the hysterical nonsense you guys were spewing the last time he won happen, No.

Magnus on November 7, 2012 at 7:13 PM

That would be incorrect. Look at the deficit and look at our total debt. Look at all of the wonderful things we got for all of that stimulus loot. Look at the division that has been purposefully exacerbated. Look at the jobless numbers (the real ones). Look at all of the unemployed graduates, and the ones so underemployed as to be insulting. Look at the Middle East and the wondrous wonders of the “Arab Spring.” Look at our President promising Putin and Co. his future “flexibility.” Look at the respect that we’ve lost amongst our long-time allies.

I could go on, but this should suffice for starters.

hillbillyjim on November 7, 2012 at 7:18 PM

What does his question have anything to do with some degenerate Pakistani’s practicing honor killings?

The question is when is it okay to kill an innocent child funded, regardless of the reasons or context, fueled by government tax monies.

Magnus on November 7, 2012 at 7:15 PM

When it is a deliberate targeting of that specific child. Casualties of war occur. Your argument is that we should surrender all freedom to those who have ill will towards our freedom because if we fight them, innocents may die. Good luck winning with that as your core argument.

astonerii on November 7, 2012 at 7:19 PM

This time, Republicans can’t blame the candidate, or at least they shouldn’t. Mitt Romney ran one of the most well-organized national campaigns in recent memory within the GOP. He raised prodigious amounts of cash, keeping pace with Obama. The RNC followed suit, building a massive and impressive GOTV effort that really did produce a big increase in turnout — but not enough to match what Democrats did in this cycle. Republicans blamed John McCain in 2008 and even George Bush for the bailouts, but those fig leaves are gone, and the realignment is too apparent to ignore.

Ed, I’m sorry, but when you’re wrong, you’re wrong. Romney lost his bid in the primary for 2008, and learned two lessons from John McCain, both wrong.

The first lesson was to be more like John McCain in running as a moderate who could “work with both sides of the aisle.”

The second lesson was in how to be less like John McCain by running a more competent campaign. Since competence is something Romney is good at, this looked like a no-brainer.

The worst thing to do is to assume that the country is just plain more liberal and therefore, we need a more moderate candidate. You can’t out liberal a liberal, and you can’t out-demagogue a Democrat.

People may say that the Reagan approach would never work again, because the country has changed. The truth is, it’s the only approach that can work. Any attempt to be a slightly more conservative Democrat will not give people a reason to vote for a Republican.

The media is already going to shamelessly promote the Democrat every time. We saw it in the handling of Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the deficit, the debt, the tax rate discussion, the unemployment rate, and on and on. How many people are even aware that the U.S. credit rating got downgraded again a few months back? Most of us here knew, but the public at large?

The only way a Republican can win is to draw a contrast between himself and the Democrat over and over again. Romney did a good job at this in the first debate on the economy, but that was about it.

Real lessons to learn:
1) Don’t run as Democrat-lite. I guarantee there are a lot of people in the Republican party right now that will try to do exactly that.
2) Don’t hang your hat on competence. Dukakis tried to beat George Bush 41 as being “more competent.” It went nowhere. Kerry tried to beat Bush 43 on competence. No one cared. Romney tried to be a more competent campaigner. Competence is important, but it won’t win elections.
3) Similarly, never hang your hopes on being better able to fix the economy. Yes, it’s vitally important. Even so, it’s not enough to win the election. No matter how much you can point to a Democratic president failing on the economy, he will demagogue on class warfare while a sycophant media covers up his failures.
4) Don’t ever even hope for a fair shake from the media. Start with the knowledge they hate you, and work around them at every opportunity.
5) Distinguish yourself from your opponent. The media will do it for you, but you won’t like the results. Probably one of the things that most cost Romney the election was the third debate on foreign policy, when the most common phrase out of his mouth was, “I agree with the president.” With that one repeated phrase, he soothed people’s doubts about an Obama foreign policy and took away any reason to vote for him based on foreign policy
6) For this entire campaign, we’ve been told to steer clear of social issues and stick to the economy. All that really amounted to was allowing Obama to run on the social issues he wanted to focus on while avoiding the ones he didn’t want to discuss. Handing your opponent a howitzer while you stand back is not a winning campaign strategy. But it’s not just social issues per se. Why didn’t Romney ever criticize Obama for apologizing about a video critical of Islam? Is our freedom of speech limited by people in foreign countries who get offended? Why not criticize the president on saying, “the future of the world must not belong to those who criticize Mohammed?” Over and over, Romney muted his criticism so he could focus on the economy. Why not do both?
7) One of the biggest issues in this campaign was Obamacare. It might not have been such a good idea to nominate the guy who proposed its precursor at the state level. Just sayin’

tom on November 7, 2012 at 7:20 PM

America is going to be okay.

Did you gun rights get taken away the last 4 years? No.

Did you get put in FEMA re-education camps? No

Did black people enslave white people? No (Though I bet right now a lot of you wish we never had gotten the right to vote.)

Did any of the hysterical nonsense you guys were spewing the last time he won happen, No.

Magnus on November 7, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Not sure about that. While none of the things you’ve mentioned have materialized, we now have an executive branch which feels it has the right to unilaterally assassinate US citizens without anything resembling a trial. That’s pretty terrifying. What’s your view on Obama’s kill lists? Furthermore, why is Guantanamo still open? Your leader promised he’d close it down? Let me guess – those obstructionist Republicans?

Not sure why you Leftists seem so consumed with race. Race, race, race. Everything is about race with you guys. Why can’t you accept people for who they are as opposed to always judging them based on the color of their skin?

In terms of the economic situation in this country, it’s precarious at best. $16 trillion in debt and that shows no sign of letting up. Indications that trouble is on the horizon in the financial sector. More quantitative easing and monetizing our debt. We’ve got a leader who thinks we can hike taxes and it will pay for this debt, when any statistician will show you the obvious fallacy in that argument. We had an economic collapse once in the last century. We are not immune to it now.

You’d be wise not to put all of your faith in government.

RobbBond on November 7, 2012 at 7:25 PM

From likely/registered Republican voter totals, take away

1. Fundamentalists who won’t vote for a Mormon: ?

If this turns out to be true, then there will be hell to pay. The political stupidity that would indicate is beyond belief. If they would rather retain an abortion-loving president than give the nod to a Mormon, maybe we need to form new coalitions without them.

writeblock on November 7, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I’ve seen no evidence that evangelicals refused to vote for Romnmey because he was a Mormon. But it seems likely that more than a few Democrats refused to switch their vote from Obama because they didn’t want to vote for a Mormon. At least, indications have always been that Mormonism is more of a negative for the left than for the right.

Still, I don’t think we’ll ever know, and highly doubt it’s productive to ask.

tom on November 7, 2012 at 7:28 PM

You’d be wise not to put all of your faith in government.

RobbBond on November 7, 2012 at 7:25 PM

I faith in God and this country, and rational thinking that doesn’t lend me to the that “the sky is falling and the world is ending” chicken little crap that seems to afflict people when their candidate doesn’t win. Happens every election cycle.

Magnus on November 7, 2012 at 7:33 PM

The question is when is it okay to kill an innocent child funded, regardless of the reasons or context, fueled by government tax monies.

When it is a deliberate targeting of that specific child. Casualties of war occur. Your argument is that we should surrender all freedom to those who have ill will towards our freedom because if we fight them, innocents may die. Good luck winning with that as your core argument.

astonerii on November 7, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Wow.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 7:35 PM

I guess you ignored the couple that murdered their 15 yr. old daughter that made the horrible mistake of looking at a young man passing by on a motorcycle. It was in Pakistan and the parents claim it was an honor killing by pouring acid on the young girl. What a horrible way to die.

mixplix on November 7, 2012 at 7:10 PM

You may as well have responded about the sex life of plankton, since that has just as much to do with my post as your response does.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 7:36 PM

I didn’t twist your words. You called war a necessary evil. You didn’t say anything about self defense, as you are doing now. There is nothing necessary about murdering people on the other side of the world; it is evil.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM

War === murdering people on the other side of the world?

You’re dismissed. But thank you for putting your brainless notions on display for the rest of us to marvel at first.

tom on November 7, 2012 at 7:37 PM

No, we need to fight fire with hotter fire, and make every effort to expose the MSM for what they are. They were the difference-makers, and until we successfully confront THAT fact, we’ll always be also-ran party.

Sack up, folks.

hillbillyjim on November 7, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Absolutely! And, be prepared to be branded as “arsonists” by them.

E-R

electric-rascal on November 7, 2012 at 7:38 PM

I was actually hoping for the House to go to the Democrats as well. When the whole ship sinks, might as well let people see that ALL the blame goes SQUARELY on the Democrats. I hope the crash comes soon. The sooner people wake the hell up and realize that they can’t get “free” stuff forever, then we can pick up the pieces, get a strong Conservative in office and educate people on Constitutional government.

Decoski on November 7, 2012 at 7:38 PM

When it is a deliberate targeting of that specific child. Casualties of war occur. Your argument is that we should surrender all freedom to those who have ill will towards our freedom because if we fight them, innocents may die. Good luck winning with that as your core argument.

astonerii on November 7, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Why can’t the child be a casualty of a violent act upon a woman, a casualty of poor economic situation, a casualty of a poor social situation.

Why is your freedom or my freedom more important than another child’s ability to be safe and live out their life, regardless if they were specifically targeted or not?

Magnus on November 7, 2012 at 7:38 PM

When it is a deliberate targeting of that specific child. Casualties of war occur. Your argument is that we should surrender all freedom to those who have ill will towards our freedom because if we fight them, innocents may die. Good luck winning with that as your core argument.

astonerii on November 7, 2012 at 7:19 PM

I think that might have some legitimacy if we actually were fighting for our homeland and had a legitimate threat to our freedom. But tell me, as bad as Qaddafi was, how exactly was he a threat to our freedom? We bombed Libya for months. I’m sure there was collateral damage and civilians killed. Was that legitimate in your eyes because you felt the Libyan regime and it’s antiquated military was a threat to our freedom?

RobbBond on November 7, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Folks, we need to start a movement for Conservatives to move to the swing states. Just a thought…

Decoski on November 7, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Wow.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 7:35 PM

You seem to be a moron. You seem to have ate something that destroyed a few too many brain cells.

It seems that if anyone attacks you and your family, if your defense may potentially injure a child, you will cave in and surrender. Pretty sick morals you have.

astonerii on November 7, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Why can’t the child be a casualty of a violent act upon a woman, a casualty of poor economic situation, a casualty of a poor social situation.

Why is your freedom or my freedom more important than another child’s ability to be safe and live out their life, regardless if they were specifically targeted or not?

Magnus on November 7, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Oh Magnus please, you support a president who believes he has the authority to unilaterally assassinate US citizens without trial and maintains a kill list. You’ve got no room to preach to anybody about America’s proper role in these matters.

RobbBond on November 7, 2012 at 7:43 PM

then how do you feel about your tax dollars being seized to murder children on the other side of the world?

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Oh, cry me a river, clown.

You don’t care any more about foreign “babies” than you do about American babies.

You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on November 7, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Oh Magnus please, you support a president who believes he has the authority to unilaterally assassinate US citizens without trial and maintains a kill list. You’ve got no room to preach to anybody about America’s proper role in these matters.

RobbBond on November 7, 2012 at 7:43 PM

When did I present to you my person of choice Presidential support?

I’m going to scroll back and look, maybe I did *shrugs* But please point it out.

Otherwise you are being deceptive.

Magnus on November 7, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Oh, cry me a river, clown.

You don’t care any more about foreign “babies” than you do about American babies.

You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on November 7, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Do YOU care about foreign babies?

Magnus on November 7, 2012 at 7:47 PM

When did I present to you my person of choice Presidential support?

I’m going to scroll back and look, maybe I did *shrugs* But please point it out.

Otherwise you are being deceptive.

Magnus on November 7, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Oh, I just assumed you did when you presented the usual Left-wing tripe about whites wanting to deprive blacks of the right to vote, gun rights being under no threat, blah blah blah

RobbBond on November 7, 2012 at 7:49 PM

It strikes me that we’re uncomfortably close as a nation to becoming like the state where I currently live, California: debt-ridden, confiscatory, dysfunctional, everybody complains … then keeps electing Democrats.

FishingwFredo on November 7, 2012 at 7:57 PM

War === murdering people on the other side of the world?

You’re dismissed. But thank you for putting your brainless notions on display for the rest of us to marvel at first.

tom on November 7, 2012 at 7:37 PM

We’re murdering civlians with our drone strikes, and a man sitting in the White House is doing it without the authorization of Congress and Americans. We aren’t fighting a war.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 7:58 PM

When it is a deliberate targeting of that specific child. Casualties of war occur. Your argument is that we should surrender all freedom to those who have ill will towards our freedom because if we fight them, innocents may die. Good luck winning with that as your core argument.

astonerii on November 7, 2012 at 7:19 PM

I think that might have some legitimacy if we actually were fighting for our homeland and had a legitimate threat to our freedom. But tell me, as bad as Qaddafi was, how exactly was he a threat to our freedom? We bombed Libya for months. I’m sure there was collateral damage and civilians killed. Was that legitimate in your eyes because you felt the Libyan regime and it’s antiquated military was a threat to our freedom?

RobbBond on November 7, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Libya is a very bad example. They were no real threat to us. They had been causing trouble in the past, but Kaddhafy finally made nice and knuckled under to the U.S. Then when he’s no longer an enemy — though hardly a friend, and not really an ally — we help overthrow him?

Do we really want to broadcast to the entire world that it’s safer to be an enemy of the U.S. than at peace with us? Not a very bright move for the lightbringer.

tom on November 7, 2012 at 7:59 PM

RobbBond on November 7, 2012 at 7:39 PM

I concur with you that Libya was no threat. In fact, taking out qaddafi empowered those who are a threat to us.

My argument is still valid in that killing a child in the womb is a deliberate act against an innocent. Collateral unintended deaths due to war actives are not the same. Equating the two is an invalid argument.

I would kill an entire family if they were driving their suicide vehicle towards my home, and while I would regret my having to kill them, I would not feel as if I did an evil act. It would not matter if the children in that vehicle were innocent or not as my children also are innocent, and as they are mine, it is my responsibility to defend them, even if it means others die.

Just as it is the responsibility of the military personnel to on occasion make hard calls in the use of lethal force in defending their homeland, to which they have a vested interest in defending.

astonerii on November 7, 2012 at 8:09 PM

You seem to be a moron. You seem to have ate something that destroyed a few too many brain cells.

It seems that if anyone attacks you and your family, if your defense may potentially injure a child, you will cave in and surrender. Pretty sick morals you have.

astonerii on November 7, 2012 at 7:41 PM

As usual, you’re intellectually bankrupt. This is why you use straw men and argue up is down and slavery is freedom.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 8:14 PM

My argument is still valid in that killing a child in the womb is a deliberate act against an innocent. Collateral unintended deaths due to war actives are not the same. Equating the two is an invalid argument.

I would kill an entire family if they were driving their suicide vehicle towards my home, and while I would regret my having to kill them, I would not feel as if I did an evil act. It would not matter if the children in that vehicle were innocent or not as my children also are innocent, and as they are mine, it is my responsibility to defend them, even if it means others die.

Just as it is the responsibility of the military personnel to on occasion make hard calls in the use of lethal force in defending their homeland, to which they have a vested interest in defending.

astonerii on November 7, 2012 at 8:09 PM

The argument isn’t about collateral deaths, even though you desperately want it to be so. You are an uninformed person. And in case you weren’t aware, our military is not defending “their homeland”.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Evangelicals stayed home or voted for Obama. I cannot wrap my mind around that. I simply…cannot. We have now lost on abortion for at least the next fifty years.

Libertarians stayed home. Again, I cannot wrap my mind around that. We have now lost any way to check the fiscal collapse, much less fix it. Our civil liberties are being eroded at every turn. Maybe for them it was all about legalized pot?

Pacifists voted for Obama, who is sending drones across the world, and they don’t blink an eye, yet Bush was evil for taking out Saddam’s regime and smacking down the Taliban in Afghanistan.

High unemployment for 4 straight years, high gas prices, the ME in chaos, a POTUS who is incompetent but who looks cool in a bomber jacket. Coal jobs whistling past the graveyard. And millions of R’s stayed home.

I simply cannot process this. I cannot. No sense makes sense. Didn’t Charles Manson say that?

Unless conservatives find a way to do what the left has done, and corral its fringes, present a clear, coherent message, we will split apart. It may not matter, however, since fiscal collapse is all but assured. The insane are in charge of the asylum.

idalily on November 7, 2012 at 8:17 PM

As usual, you’re intellectually bankrupt. This is why you use straw men and argue up is down and slavery is freedom.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Just like you argue that government is not government. Pretty pathetic.

You will not argue your real argument. That self defense is nullified by forming groups. Much like Obama says you do not have free speech if you are part of a company. Well, unless your speech backs him.

Come on government free person. Explain to me how America could be as great as it is today without a government that fielded a military to prevent the looters from forming their militaries to come on over and take our wealth… Then explain how you would never in a million years retaliate on them in their home countries if they sent suicide bombers over rather than uniformed military personnel. GOD you must admire Al Qaeda, all that they accomplish outside the government. Are they your real heroes?

astonerii on November 7, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Libertarians stayed home. Again, I cannot wrap my mind around that. We have now lost any way to check the fiscal collapse, much less fix it. Our civil liberties are being eroded at every turn. Maybe for them it was all about legalized pot?

idalily on November 7, 2012 at 8:17 PM

No they didn’t. They voted. They just voted for the Libertarian candidate.

But you go right on scratching your head about your candidates while pretending it’s all about legalized pot.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 8:22 PM

No they didn’t. They voted. They just voted for the Libertarian candidate.

But you go right on scratching your head about your candidates while pretending it’s all about legalized pot.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Not true. If that were the case then there aren’t very many Libertarians in this country. I know for a fact that many stayed home because I know many true Libertarians. Take that as you will.

Deanna on November 7, 2012 at 9:20 PM

The electorate just yawned at and voted for trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

There really isn’t much that can be done to fix an electorate so stupid and ignorant it can’t understand basic arithmetic.

The dimwit electorate will probably have to learn the hard way.

Those of us who see the coming disaster will be much better prepared for it than those who live in a fantasy world where voting for the left wing socialist flim-flam men will magically fix it all some how some way.

farsighted on November 7, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Not true. If that were the case then there aren’t very many Libertarians in this country. I know for a fact that many stayed home because I know many true Libertarians. Take that as you will.

Deanna on November 7, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Could be, but they tallied over a million votes, and that’s they’re greatest total since 1980.

RobbBond on November 7, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Face it, we now live in a Keeping up with the Kardashian’s and dancing with the stars America. Democrats have successfully harvested a large pool of low information voters with short attention spans and very limited grasps of issues or events with a politician who passes for a rock star. I’ve heard it said we could survive Barack Obama, but not an electorate that would reelect him, and I agree.

TonyR on November 7, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Hey Ed, right-of-center punditry and talk radio carries a lot of responsibility for this loss. Why? B/c they’re so terribly disconnected. They apply pressure where none is needed and relieve pressure where it is desperately needed. Through the entire process. A worthless bunch with very little impact. DD

Darvin Dowdy on November 7, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Folks, we need to start a movement for Conservatives to move to the swing states. Just a thought…

Decoski on November 7, 2012 at 7:39 PM

You first! I’m not leaving Texas.

jazzuscounty on November 7, 2012 at 10:59 PM

If you’ve got 2.5 minutes, libertarian-based Reason.com’s Nick Gillespie explains it all for you . . . seriously, he really does.

3 Reasons Mitt Romney and Republicans Lost Big in Election 2012

RomanticIdeal on November 7, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Well, Mitt would have made a lousy Preezy of the United Steezy anyway. Not hip enough. Would look silly trying to slow jam the news, and none of the Pretty People would have come to his parties. Guess that’s pretty much what matters. That, and lots of free stuff…

bofh on November 7, 2012 at 11:12 PM

…Oh, and also, look at the ballot issues that passed all over the place: abortions, gay marriage, and marijuana. Sex and drugs, dude, that’s what the sheeple want.

As Rush often asks: how do you compromise with evil?

bofh on November 7, 2012 at 11:17 PM

If you’ve got 2.5 minutes, libertarian-based Reason.com’s Nick Gillespie explains it all for you . . . seriously, he really does.

3 Reasons Mitt Romney and Republicans Lost Big in Election 2012

1 and 2 I might agree with, but #3….the government does need to stay out of the bedroom, but for the religious who actually follow the tenants of their faith in supporting traditional marriage and saving the life of an unborn…they need to freaking not seem like a bumbling fool when defending their position.

There’s a way to defend life, and then there’s Akin’s way (I didn’t think Mourdock was too much of a flock, but following Akin……..).

We need to select candidates who can actually defend their position without seeming like an idiot. Yes, the media is out to get us, all the more reason to select somebody who can actually articulate and explain it in a way that the media can’t twist it out of control.

daoster on November 8, 2012 at 4:16 AM

That reality presents a challenge to the GOP and to conservatives. We do not need to change our values, but we do need to find ways to communicate them in an engaging and welcoming manner. We need to think creatively about big issues, philosophy, and how we can relate conservative values to the needs of a wider range of voters.

Any concrete ideas, EM? This sounds like some BS to me.

Sherman1864 on November 8, 2012 at 4:43 AM

What the country needs is REAL conservative leadership by TRUE Americans, and when Allen West gets back to D.C. he will be the lone beacon of shining light on the hill and lead our great party and country out of the Obama nightmare.
Wait….what?
Well, at least the gay marriage initiatives got trounced!

greataunty on November 8, 2012 at 6:33 AM

What is obvious from this election is that liberal control of schools and the media have dumbed people down to the point that a majority of people do not have the ability to think logically.

Obama won the moron vote. Plain and simple.

Sporty1946 on November 8, 2012 at 7:53 AM

Not true. If that were the case then there aren’t very many Libertarians in this country. I know for a fact that many stayed home because I know many true Libertarians. Take that as you will.

Deanna on November 7, 2012 at 9:20 PM

It is true. You are also confusing Libertarian, a political party, with libertarian, a philosophy.

Dante on November 8, 2012 at 7:56 AM

If you’ve got 2.5 minutes, libertarian-based Reason.com’s Nick Gillespie explains it all for you . . . seriously, he really does.

3 Reasons Mitt Romney and Republicans Lost Big in Election 2012

RomanticIdeal on November 7, 2012 at 11:11 PM

It boiled down to social issues which this country is so obsessed with at the present it can’t see how devastatingly poor our country is becoming. Who cares about debt when we got gov’t handouts and gay marriage and abortion to worry about? People want their stuff now!

And (illegal) immigration? Really? Let’s not worry about what is causing our dept, let’s continue to pander to those who commit crimes and steal money.

Disgusting

RDE2010 on November 8, 2012 at 9:13 AM

America is going to be okay.

Did you gun rights get taken away the last 4 years? No.

Did you get put in FEMA re-education camps? No

Did black people enslave white people? No (Though I bet right now a lot of you wish we never had gotten the right to vote.)

Did any of the hysterical nonsense you guys were spewing the last time he won happen, No.

Magnus on November 7, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Actually everything I feared and predicted turned out to be worse. I thought the media would keep the excesses in check. They don’t even report them. I thought the courts would keep the excesses in check. Not a chance.

I have no idea about FEMA re-education camps. I do know that there’s a farmer who’s facing fines and jail for digging holes to catch rain water. I know there’s a man in California rousted out of bed at 1:00 am by armed men and now sitting in jail for violating Obama’s speech laws. I know a terrorist attack on our soil is being called “workplace violence; I know a Commander in Chief who refused to lift a finger to save men who were sent by him to do our work and then he lied, and continues, to lie about it.

I know that the mad spending to reward political cronies has speeded us forward to the fiscal cliff. It will happen.

You know the next huge bailout? California. The total corruption of California’s government has caught up with them and those of us who didn’t do this purposeful dead? We will pay for it.

The rubicon has been passed. Obamacare. There is no hope whatsoever of avoiding the disaster which looms…unless the 12th Imam gets his bombs here first.

Portia46 on November 8, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Did black people enslave white people? No (Though I bet right now a lot of you wish we never had gotten the right to vote.)

Did any of the hysterical nonsense you guys were spewing the last time he won happen, No.

Magnus on November 7, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I never thought that or predicted it, but interestingly, the threats by blacks towards whites have increased exponetially on the internet. The death threats against Romney and his supporters continue a-pace. There’s one of you who yesterday, here, on another thread told anyone living in the midwest or the south that Obamacare was designed to kill them, which was, he said, a great thing.

Oh, and BTW, there are places in my state where white people have been targeted by gangs of young black men. One white person attacked by only black people. They are beaten and left for dead…and there’s no robbery.

Portia46 on November 8, 2012 at 9:34 AM

You may as well have responded about the sex life of plankton, since that has just as much to do with my post as your response does.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Without plankton and their prodigious production of O2 for us to breathe not many of us would be here, it nearly dwarfs the O2 output of worldwide vegetation.

As usual, you’re intellectually bankrupt. This is why you use straw men and argue up is down and slavery is freedom.

Dante on November 7, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Go look in the mirror for one who is bereft of understanding.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on November 8, 2012 at 10:13 AM

If the congress does not authorize and allocate funds there will be no money to spend. However, if they do, Obama will do whatever he damn well pleases with the funds He has no regard for he law and the Antideficiency Act is no deterrent. . Stop the flow of money and you’ll stop Obama. It will be painful but we’re ready to endure the hardship. If you’re not ready to sacrifice, then stop complaining about Obama.

rplat on November 8, 2012 at 10:24 AM

What if I told you… (insert Morpheus pic here) … that you can encourage and profligate socially conservative values without supporting restrictive laws (i.e. banning gay marriage or similar benefits, keeping pot illegal)?

TMOverbeck on November 8, 2012 at 10:28 AM

If any of the posturing and pontificating by the blowhards is to believed, Repubs are now in the minority and need to reinvent themselves to appeal to the great unwashed.

So what do they do? The same thing Democrats have… whine, b!tch and moan until you get your own way, effectively turning their own game against them .

EnglishRogue on November 8, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11 12