Politico: The GOP’s suffering from “Pauline Kaelism”

posted at 8:40 pm on November 12, 2012 by Allahpundit

My favorite thing about this story, a solemn warning about the perils of cocooning yourself in hyperpartisan media, is that they’re rolling it out 24 hours after the NYT’s splashy piece about the rise of MSNBC. “Many progressives (and conservatives) now view the channel as a megaphone for liberal politicians, ideas and attacks against those who disagree,” notes the Times. According to a recent Pew study, MSNBC’s coverage of Romney this fall was significantly more negative than Fox’s coverage of Obama (which was highly negative in its own right). If you find yourself being lectured this week about Fox News and the ills of epistemic closure, make sure your lecturer wasn’t part of the audience that helped a liberal propaganda outfit win the demo three nights in a row last week for the first time since 2001.

Anyway. It’s a weird news cycle when this is the topic du jour today while the topic du jour yesterday was a conservative pundit calling for tax hikes on the rich on Fox News and the topic du jour a few days before that was Sean Hannity “evolving” on comprehensive immigration reform. But okay. Meme on:

GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.

The party is suffering from Pauline Kaelism.

Kael was The New Yorker movie critic who famously said in the wake of Richard M. Nixon’s 49-state landslide in 1972 that she knew only one person who voted for Nixon.

Now, many young Republicans worry, they are the ones in the hermetically sealed bubble — except it’s not confined to geography but rather a self-selected media universe in which only their own views are reinforced and an alternate reality is reflected…

In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.

Is it true? Are Republicans subsisting exclusively on a diet of Rush, Hannity, and Fox? Well, we do okay traffic-wise and a quick check of our own Headlines section as I’m writing this reveals links to righties like Legal Insurrection, The Right Scoop, and Michael Medved, but also to the Times, Thomas Ricks, lefty political journalist Thomas Edsall and, yes, Politico. Regular readers know that sample isn’t unrepresentative; it’s not unusual to see stuff there from HuffPo, Reason, or TNR either. But forget the anecdotal evidence. What about studies of news consumers? Via Legal Insurrection and our former Greenroom contributor Karl, here’s one:

[T]he core finding is that most Internet users do not stay within their communities. Most people spend a lot of time on a few giant sites with politically integrated audiences, like Yahoo News.

But even when they leave these integrated sites, they often go into areas where most visitors are not like themselves. People who spend a lot of time on Glenn Beck’s Web site are more likely to visit The New York Times’s Web site than average Internet users. People who spend time on the most liberal sites are more likely to go to foxnews.com than average Internet users. Even white supremacists and neo-Nazis travel far and wide across the Web…

This study suggests that Internet users are a bunch of ideological Jack Kerouacs. They’re not burrowing down into comforting nests. They’re cruising far and wide looking for adventure, information, combat and arousal.

Want more? Go look at the graph political scientist John Sides posted on his blog The Monkey Cage back in April. The quick and dirty result:

To summarize, most individuals do not refuse to hear the other side. In fact, most people consume predominately non-partisan local TV newscasts, while tuning out news from partisan sources altogether. Of those who do turn to partisan sources, most Republicans and Democrats have virtually indistinguishable news diets. Contrary to recent claims, there is little evidence that the electorate is self-sorting into “ideologically like-minded information cocoons” at the level being described by scholars and political commentators.

On the graph’s Republican line, you’ll notice a mini-spike on the right side indicating that some subsection of the GOP does consume a lot of conservative media each day. There’s no similar mini-spike on the left for Democrats but bear in mind that the data was compiled in 2006, just as Olbermann was starting to push MSNBC onto the media map. I’d like to see what that graph looks like today. The larger point, though, is that most Republican news consumption is well balanced, not partisan, which is what you’d expect across a huge population like the GOP electorate. Most people don’t follow politics closely day to day; Rush may have an audience of 20 million but McCain got 60 million votes in ’08 and Romney will approach that number this year. That’s how we ended up with the two of them as nominees despite opposition to both from conservative talk radio and grassroots righties. So on the one hand, the prevalence of Republican “cocooning” is overstated. On the other hand, there’s a chicken-and-egg problem. Are people in the mini-spike group cocooned — if they’re cocooned — because they refuse to consume media that exposes them to contrary arguments or is it that they’re ideologues of their own making, with many counterparts on the left, who are supremely confident in their political beliefs and who enjoy media that articulates those beliefs consistently? In other words, is MSNBC turning casual progressives hyper-liberal or do hyper-liberals simply enjoy watching MSNBC because Lawrence O’Donnell can make the case better than they can? It’s not an either/or proposition, but in my experience the passage from the Brooks op-ed quoted above is correct — it’s not that ideologues from either side can’t bear listening to contrary arguments, it’s that they think they’ve found the answer and that their chosen belief system can (more or less) answer every potential policy problem. My odds of convincing a liberal person of faith that he/she should become either conservative or atheist are roughly equal, I’d bet. He/she will happily hear me out, but I’ll get nowhere. That’s just how it is with someone who’s very committed to their ideology.

But anyway. Yes, cocooning is bad; that’s why Thomas Edsall and HuffPo are in Headlines. (In fact, the latest item up there at the moment is a piece from David Frum (gasp!).) Even if a few of our more ideological readers rule them out as not worth engaging, most won’t. That’s what Sides’s graph is all about. Two things, though, to wrap up this topic. One: The basic hook for Politico’s piece, I take it, is the fact that so many conservatives discounted the state polling in October and assumed Romney would win. But … Romney thought he would win too, not because he was listening to talk radio but because his internal pollsters were using a faulty model of the electorate to gauge expected turnout. He had a data problem and an ORCA problem, not a “Rush Limbaugh problem.” There’s no one I can recall offhand arguing that Romney would win simply because the alternative was too terrible to contemplate. The argument was that enthusiasm for Obama had faded too far from 2008 levels to replicate D+7 turnout, and that appeared to be supported by both Gallup’s and Rasmussen’s national polling. They both had Romney ahead by a point on the eve of election. I missed Gallup’s initiation into the vast right-wing cocooning conspiracy. Two: Since we’re talking cocooning, which lefty blogs/news sites routinely feature right-wing op-eds or analyses the way, say, we feature liberal or centrist ones in Headlines? Virtually every critique I read of Democratic pols from grassroots Dems online is from the left. Which liberals are complementing their demand for tax hikes on the rich by pounding the table for deficit reduction and entitlement reform before the cherished welfare state collapses on itself? Does either of these pieces qualify as cocooning or, as usual, is it only a Republican vice? What sort of smart, sober, reality-based analysis on the subject of fiscal reform do you expect from MSNBC over the next four years?

Via Mediaite, the latest from Fox News.


Related Posts:

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 2

Liberals are basically vicious I am sorry. The right doesn’t swing in and try and destroy the left after they lose. 2010 was only 2 years ago and I don’t remember any taunting then about them going conservative or else. The “crime” of us Republicans is that we couldn’t believe that the 2010 anger had subsided so much as to put the electorate back where it was at D+6 which DIDN’T make sense and Monday morning crowing by the Democrats that they knew it the whole time is just their own bias being accidentally right.

Conan on November 12, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Romney fans could be pretty vicious as well. You could look it up somewhere here, but I predicted a turnout advantage for Dems of about 6 to 8 points. But whenever I would say that, and give reasons for my believing that, it was always “Concern from butthurt Palinista concern troll OWS O-bot duly noted…” “When have you ever been right about anything????” Blahblahblah…

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 10:30 PM

I think that a lot of people have become apathetic because they just hate and distrust politicians and politics, in general. It probably happened years ago. I’m haven’t been here long enough nor am I old enough to when it happened, but I would surmise the 1960s/Watergate, etc, probably had something to do with Americans clicking off. To me, as an observer, I find that most Americans don’t care about politics and government. They know more about Snooki than their own governor, mayor, representative, president, etc, except that they know “they’re all corrupt.”

Resist We Much on November 12, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Yep, you’re right about most Americans not knowing much about their elected representatives, or even the people on their city councils or mayors. Another thing to consider is that the whole campaign process, even locally, can be very intimidating for some people. Back in the 90s, my hubby ran for a local office in our town. He’s very astute when it comes to politics, but to say he ran his campaign on a shoestring was an extreme understatement. I designed some brochures for him and I and some close friends and relatives went door-to-door, and he came in second place (out of three candidates) to the guy who won. What the winner had was established family name recognition and a very small-scale machine operation that was itself a leftover of the Mafia running the town for decades. The whole experience was a real eye-opener for me, never having been involved in any kind of political campaign. I understand completely that someone who wants to contribute by running for office might think that it is too enormous of a task to undertake — money must be raised, appearances must be lined up, and so on — and might finally be dissuaded from trying. If there’s such a thing as a farm system for entry-level aspiring politicians, and I’m sure there is, it might help.

PatriotGal2257 on November 12, 2012 at 10:33 PM

That’s the most troubling thing of all. When you look at the current economic conditions; it just didn’t make sense. The only historical precedent for this is the FDR regime that managed to win four elections despite keeping the US in a depression for 10 solid years. … and confiscating all privately held gold … and initiating socialist policies like WPA … and starting the first socialist entitlement program: Social Security

Never underestimate the stupidity of your fellow citizens.

On the bright side, it was only 2.8% more stupid Americans than intelligent ones so we do still have a chance.

AZfederalist on November 12, 2012 at 10:28 PM

It’s not stupidity, it’s not that the country is socialist or any of that other crap. A majority STILL disapproves of ObamaCare. At one time, 70% of those polled were AGAINST raising the debt ceiling. The stupidity came from the Republican Party.

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 10:33 PM

budfox on November 12, 2012 at 10:24 PM

I am of the same perspective. This is just a really the extension of the poll game. Why did Axelrod care if Gallup had him ahead in the polls> Because a BIG part of the left’s game plan is to depress conservatives with stories of their own demise. I would submit that what Halperin, etc are doing now isn’t any different. The thing they are attempting now id to tell us we are doomed unless we join the Borg. Resistance is futile. It should make all of us scared to become part of the collective. It won’t matter to me to see the Republicans win elections if they are part of the collective. Only a Republican who is trying to preserve constitutional, free-market, individualism is a “win” anything else is just pulling into the socialist trough.

On a lighter note my prediction is since the conditions are identical to 2009 with the economy and Obama the reaction will be the same. Tea Party starts rolling enraged we are losing the country and going bankrupt and the moochers go away and leave their masters to answer at townhalls like before. By 2014 the whole think could look like 2010 politically.

Conan on November 12, 2012 at 10:35 PM

On a lighter note my prediction is since the conditions are identical to 2009 with the economy and Obama the reaction will be the same. Tea Party starts rolling enraged we are losing the country and going bankrupt and the moochers go away and leave their masters to answer at townhalls like before. By 2014 the whole think could look like 2010 politically.

Conan on November 12, 2012 at 10:35 PM

The TP may fire up again in some form, but my prediction is that this time they’ll be gunning for the GOP.

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 10:37 PM

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 10:30 PM

I could have been one of the ones telling you were wrong but that aside. Do you seriously think I could go over to Huff PO (because I do have an account there) and give accurate predictions about the a$$ Kicking they were going to get in 2010 without getting poo-poo’ed?

The difference between me and you is I understand I can’t get on the other side’s website and get the kids glove treatment. You on the other hand seemed to have the “disease” of thinking one side can do one thing and the other side needs to be “civil”. Here’s some civil. Get the F** off the site we don’t need you here!!

Conan on November 12, 2012 at 10:40 PM

and of course, no lefty blog has right-leaning troublemakers who are as smart and insightful as the lefties on HA!

sesquipedalian on November 12, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Of course not, if a conservative comments at one of those sites, particularly Kos, they are summarily banned. On HA, we put up with fools such as yourself. Well, at least we point and laugh at the idiocy. Liberal idiots don’t get banned at Hot Air. Conservative commenters do get banned at liberal sites simply for expressing their opinions, not for being abusive. OK, to a liberal, disagreeing with the liberal orthodoxy is considered abusive.

This is why that story is so much bunk. Did the democrats get together and decide how to move to the right and “compromise” when they lost in 1994? No, they deployed their operatives and began planning how to destroy Gingrich. Remember the sweet old grandparents driving around in Florida in their Cadillac with the cell phone receiver and tape recorder (guess that was an option on 1994 Caddies)? Did the democrats decide to move to the right and compromise with Bush when he won in 2000? That would be a “no”, instead Daschle and crew did what they could with filibusters and then co-opted ol’ what’s his name to switch sides so Daschle could control the Senate. You see, it’s only Republicans who, after a loss, try to decide how democrat they should become in the future.

This is starting to look like the time for a new party. Start at the congressional district level and start nominating real conservatives in a Tea Party, Constitutional Party or whatever it needs to be named.

The GOP elite will not learn from this election. They will continue to point to 1964 and say that because Goldwater lost, no conservative can ever win despite the fact that Reagan won two landslides as a conservative. The GOP leaders feel more threatened by members of the Tea Party than they feel threatened by members of the democrat party. Think about that for a while.

AZfederalist on November 12, 2012 at 10:41 PM

That’s the most troubling thing of all. When you look at the current economic conditions; it just didn’t make sense. The only historical precedent for this is the FDR regime that managed to win four elections despite keeping the US in a depression for 10 solid years. … and confiscating all privately held gold … and initiating socialist policies like WPA … and starting the first socialist entitlement program: Social Security

[. . .]

AZfederalist on November 12, 2012 at 10:28 PM

That observation is what’s bothering me about Resist’s point of view, which I held five minutes ago and can’t get comfortable with at the moment:

[. . .] To me, as an observer, I find that most Americans don’t care about politics and government. They know more about Snooki than their own governor, mayor, representative, president, etc, except that they know “they’re all corrupt.”

Deep-down, I believe that Americans know that something is deathly wrong, but just like the Greeks and Spaniards did, they are hoping that everything will just somehow work out. It won’t and when that day arrives, Washington DC will look like Athens and Madrid.

Resist We Much on November 12, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Her second paragraph. I am not sure it applies to as many people as I used to think. Her first should expect her second, but I’m wondering lately if an uncomfortably large number of Obama supporters (and arm-chair voters) are actually vacuous and blithe. They don’t seem to know anything deep-down at all.

Axe on November 12, 2012 at 10:42 PM

The difference between me and you is I understand I can’t get on the other side’s website and get the kids glove treatment. You on the other hand seemed to have the “disease” of thinking one side can do one thing and the other side needs to be “civil”. Here’s some civil. Get the F** off the site we don’t need you here!!

Conan on November 12, 2012 at 10:40 PM

I’m not a liberal, and this place calls itself “conservative”. What you’re saying in essence is that it was OK for Romney fans and Red Team cheerleaders to fling poo and insults in the same fashion as Kos Kiddies. Uhhhh, OK. I always try to look at things realistically and honestly.

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 10:47 PM

If Bush lost ( MILLION votes in his re-election you wuld see our side being humble and saying “Boy, we really need to ask ourselves what we are doing wrong to lose 9 million voters”

Is that what the left does?

Hell, no!! You would think it was WORSE and they are MORE popular than 2008. You would never guess they trended down SIGNIFICANTLY fom 2008. You would never guess from their double down they were going to do anything differently that has them losing 9 million votes. Cann they lose another 9 million votes and win? NO THEY CAN’T. But don’t tell them that and they are going to arrogantly keep going in the same direction. Could I be wrong and there are hat many losers in their base. Sure but I also could be seeing an America that didn’t have the guts to fire the first black president and once he aint running anymore they can’t buttf*ck the 2016 nominee with a clear concious and send a message that our lives come before the Dmeocrat party and small issues like birth control pills.

Conan on November 12, 2012 at 10:48 PM

It’s not stupidity, it’s not that the country is socialist or any of that other crap. A majority STILL disapproves of ObamaCare. At one time, 70% of those polled were AGAINST raising the debt ceiling. The stupidity came from the Republican Party.

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 10:33 PM

There was plenty of stupidity from the GOP leaders. However, if the American people voted for the communist who has pushed this country to the fiscal cliff, doubling the worst deficits that the previous administration ever had, who had no clear explanation of what he would do differently, has bungled foreign policy, and has forced the most invasive entitlement program on the US, then there is no other explanation except that they are stupid.

If the majority of Americans disapprove of ObamaCare and yet re-elected the b@$tards that forced it down our throats to both Senate and Presidency, there is no other thing they can be but stupid.

AZfederalist on November 12, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Oh, by the way:

Get the F** off the site we don’t need you here!!

Conan on November 12, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Of course you don’t need me here. What you need is a little more delusion like “Mitt’s going to win in a landslide!!! Rasmussen is the only poll you can believe!!! We was robbed!!!! Mitt didn’t really lose!!!! The people are stupid!!!!” That kind of thing.

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 10:50 PM

I would submit that what Halperin, etc are doing now isn’t any different. The thing they are attempting now id to tell us we are doomed unless we join the Borg. Resistance is futile.

Conan on November 12, 2012 at 10:35 PM

You’re right about that. The post-election analysis of the GOP by the left, while it does have a ring of truth to some of it, (for example my points earlier in the thread that the GOP media has built a cocoon around themselves to shut out Ron Paul and his supporters), for the most part the analysis is deeply flawed and meant to benefit the left by compromising/weakening the base of the Republican Party. The propaganda on both sides during the election painted fictitious narratives based on lies and spin meant to benefit the left and the corrupt statist GOP establishment, and the post-election analysis is the same way. While it has a spark of truth, most of it is misleading BS also for the benefit of the left and the GOP establishment against the GOP base.

FloatingRock on November 12, 2012 at 10:51 PM

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Your obviously a troublemaker and the site would be better without you. Don’t bother replying and quit harrasing the others “conservative”

Conan on November 12, 2012 at 10:51 PM

If the majority of Americans disapprove of ObamaCare and yet re-elected the b@$tards that forced it down our throats to both Senate and Presidency, there is no other thing they can be but stupid.

AZfederalist on November 12, 2012 at 10:49 PM

If they disapprove of ObamaCare, why would they suddenly approve of RomneyCare?

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Hell, no!! You would think it was WORSE and they are MORE popular than 2008. You would never guess they trended down SIGNIFICANTLY fom 2008.

Conan on November 12, 2012 at 10:48 PM

And Romney still lost.

There was plenty of stupidity from the GOP leaders. However, if the American people voted for the communist who has pushed this country to the fiscal cliff, doubling the worst deficits that the previous administration ever had, who had no clear explanation of what he would do differently, has bungled foreign policy, and has forced the most invasive entitlement program on the US, then there is no other explanation except that they are stupid.

AZfederalist on November 12, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Hmmm. What was offered as an alternative? A wealthy guy who signed into law the dry-run for ObamaCare, who 10 years ago described himself as a progressive and who resisted most association with conservatives, representing a party that in large measure disdained the Tea Party types that helped that party regain control of the House. It’s amazing how some people are surprised by the result we saw.

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 10:55 PM

If they disapprove of ObamaCare, why would they suddenly approve of RomneyCare?

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Given that Romney had promised to repeal Obamacare? Yeah, even a brain-dead voter should have thought that going with the 50% chance was better than the 0% chance. YMMV

Yes, I know that he started waffling with the repeal and replace or fix the bad parts as the campaign went on. But even if you were a low information voter, wouldn’t that be better than knowing that Obama was going to continue to ramrod that ugly mother right down our throats with no changes? That’s the part that just doesn’t make sense.

AZfederalist on November 12, 2012 at 10:58 PM

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Your obviously a troublemaker and the site would be better without you. Don’t bother replying and quit harrasing the others “conservative”

Conan on November 12, 2012 at 10:51 PM

How long have you been commenting here? Since the last open registration when all the Romney ops swarmed in? I’ve been commenting here for the past 4 years, and I’ve been pretty consistent in my opinions. I’m a “troublemaker” in that I’m telling the truth, and the truth hurts.

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Given that Romney had promised to repeal Obamacare? Yeah, even a brain-dead voter should have thought that going with the 50% chance was better than the 0% chance. YMMV

Yes, I know that he started waffling with the repeal and replace or fix the bad parts as the campaign went on. …

AZfederalist on November 12, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Good grief. Come on. Let’s say Romney had been elected. What are the odds that ObamaCare would EVER have been repealed?

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Good grief. Come on. Let’s say Romney had been elected. What are the odds that ObamaCare would EVER have been repealed?

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Good grief. Come on. Given that Obama has been re-elected. What are the odds that Obamacare will ever be repealed?

That was our choice in this election 0% (which we got) or some number greater than 0%. As I said, I generally go with the number greater than 0%, but then, YMMV.

AZfederalist on November 12, 2012 at 11:04 PM

That was our choice in this election 0% (which we got) or some number greater than 0%. As I said, I generally go with the number greater than 0%, but then, YMMV.

AZfederalist on November 12, 2012 at 11:04 PM

LOL. “Well I know it’s 0% with this guy, who I know…and it may be 0% or o.o1% or 10% with this guy who I don’t know..”

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Yes, I know that he started waffling with the repeal and replace or fix the bad parts as the campaign went on. But even if you were a low information voter, wouldn’t that be better than knowing that Obama was going to continue to ramrod that ugly mother right down our throats with no changes? That’s the part that just doesn’t make sense.

AZfederalist on November 12, 2012 at 10:58 PM

A politicians promise…is that really worth caring about, or should his long history of liberalism speak louder?

He was all over the place about repeal, repeal and replace, use EO to nullify, etc.

What doesn’t make sense is believing someone who has lied and flip-flopped time and time again.

Romney: Well, of course not. I say we’re going to replace Obamacare. And I’m replacing it with my own plan. And, you know, even in Massachusetts where I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people. Everybody…

Interviewer: So you’d keep that part of the federal plan?

Romney: Well, I’m not getting rid of all of healthcare reform. Of course, there are a number of things that I like in healthcare reform that I’m going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 11:07 PM

What doesn’t make sense is believing someone who has lied and flip-flopped time and time again.

Romney: Well, of course not. I say we’re going to replace Obamacare. And I’m replacing it with my own plan. And, you know, even in Massachusetts where I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people. Everybody…

Interviewer: So you’d keep that part of the federal plan?

Romney: Well, I’m not getting rid of all of healthcare reform. Of course, there are a number of things that I like in healthcare reform that I’m going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 11:07 PM

LOL…reading that you get the feeling that just a little while longer and Romney would’ve started sounding like Linda Douglass.

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 11:09 PM

LOL…reading that you get the feeling that just a little while longer and Romney would’ve started sounding like Linda Douglass.

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Romney was just putting out enough ‘conservative sounding’ rhetoric to fool people into thinking he meant what he clearly didn’t.

The only thing that was going to happen to ObamaCare was a switch on the name-tag to RomneyCare.

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 11:14 PM

So what’s Politico suffering from?

Oh, yeah, the same thing 90% of media is afflicted with, cranialfeceites.

Speakup on November 12, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Conan on November 12, 2012 at 10:48 PM

If you are saying that the corrupt, statist GOP establishment is the problem and not the base of the party then you may have a strong argument depending on your definition of “base”. If, on the other hand, you are saying that the GOP establishment is just fine and that you did everything right and only lost because of some freak of fate and that Jeb Bush or Rubio will win for sure in ’16, you are woefully mistaken.

Before the Tea Party betrayed its principles and joined the very same GOP establishment that it was originally supposed to replace, it stood for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Tea Party used to stand for freedom and liberty and against crony-bailouts and crony insurance mandates. The tea party stood for cutting spending, balancing the budget and Taxed Enough Already.

Then it joined the establishment, kicked out the incorruptible Ron Paul supporters, cheated during the primaries, probably stealing the nomination, (else why did they cheat?), and then lost the 2012 election to the worst President in the history of America.

FloatingRock on November 12, 2012 at 11:26 PM

…I didn’t mean to imply the Tea Party was responsible for all the cheating, but their GOP allies did while the Tea Party remained silent and thus complicit.

FloatingRock on November 12, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Romney sounded so good in the first debate, and every time he attacked Obama on the economy, that people forgot what a loser he was politically. This is a man who won exactly one election IN HIS LIFE, who moved way to the left when trying to win in Massachusetts, then way to the right in 2008, then basically remolded himself into McCain the 2nd — but with better competence! — in 2012.

In 2010, the Tea Party rose up and took control of the House and most state legislatures. in 2012, Romney kept the Tea Party and everyone associated at a distance. He had nothing to do with Sarah Palin, and Romney followers dismissed her as poison, and tried to blame her for McCain’s loss. Then proceeded to faceplant and do much worse than the “incompetent” McCain and “Caribou Barbie” in 2008.

For what it’s worth, I — and many others — tried to tell you that Romney was a huge mistake. You don’t beat an ideologue pretending to be a centrist pragmatist by pretending to be just barely to the right of him.

I can now say, “I told you so” over and over again for the next four years. I hope the damage is not too extensive by that time. But I am losing hope that the GOP can learn that Democrat-lite just gets out-pandered every time. I have a sinking feeling that after two disastrous terms of Obama, the GOP will decide the Only Way to Win is to run another RINO that doesn’t sound too conservative.

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 13, 2012 at 2:50 AM

Then it joined the establishment, kicked out the incorruptible Ron Paul supporters, [ ??? ] cheated during the primaries, probably stealing the nomination, (else why did they cheat?), and then lost the 2012 election to the worst President in the history of America.

FloatingRock on November 12, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Ron Paul criticized every other candidate except ueber-RINO Romney, to the point that people began suspecting there was some kind of deal between them. Ron Paul is someone who runs for President over and over again even though he never comes close to winning. If he were really working to help this country, he would have given up on his impossible bid for the presidency and supported someone who stood a snowball’s chance in Hell in a heat wave of winning.

There is only one bright spot in the 2012 election, and that is the promise that Ron Paul won’t run again. We’ll see if he keeps that promise, but somehow I doubt it.

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 13, 2012 at 2:58 AM

LOL…reading that you get the feeling that just a little while longer and Romney would’ve started sounding like Linda Douglass.

ddrintn on November 12, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Romney was just putting out enough ‘conservative sounding’ rhetoric to fool people into thinking he meant what he clearly didn’t.

The only thing that was going to happen to ObamaCare was a switch on the name-tag to RomneyCare.

sharrukin on November 12, 2012 at 11:14 PM

The biggest threat with Romney is that he would have revamped Obamacare, removed a few gimmicks, and put it on a firm financial footing.

I suspect Obamacare is in more danger of collapsing from Democrat mismanagement than it ever was of getting repealed by Romney.

Of course, Romney might at least have taken steps to improve the economy, and I don’t think he would have been as dangerously incompetent in his foreign policy. So there were certainly reasons to prefer Romney. But Romney didn’t really see anything wrong with Obamacare, so any “repeals” would inevitably have been watered down to “reforms.”

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 13, 2012 at 3:04 AM

The biggest threat with Romney is that he would have revamped Obamacare, removed a few gimmicks, and put it on a firm financial footing.

With $84 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities it would be quite a trick for Romney to put it on a firm financial footing.

Where was he going to get the cash?

Of course, Romney might at least have taken steps to improve the economy, and I don’t think he would have been as dangerously incompetent in his foreign policy. So there were certainly reasons to prefer Romney.

But Romney didn’t really see anything wrong with Obamacare, so any “repeals” would inevitably have been watered down to “reforms.”

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 13, 2012 at 3:04 AM

As I mentioned above $84 trillion dollars and Romney didn’t see anything wrong. He didn’t see anything wrong with RomneyCare either which is on its way to bankrupting Massachusetts.

Making the welfare state more efficient just wasn’t a priority with a lot of people.

sharrukin on November 13, 2012 at 3:25 AM

I notice nothing was stated about substance. My pageview is my interwebz commerce (incidentally it has equal true-value as a Federal Reserve Note, but I digress). I stopped going to Politico before 2010 Midterms simply because I realized the bias and tunnel-vision writing they produced, i.e. Conservative women candidates. The proof was plentiful. I stopped visiting other sites as well as they would normally be superficial.

The difference between “right-wing” and “left-wing” sites is usually the information and reasoning. It’s similar to calling someone a “socialist” or a “racist”; one affects everyone and every thing, while the other may not affect any thing. Substance and conviction verses emotional raging and logical fallacies (I wrote something similar on WUWT just the other day).

John Kettlewell on November 13, 2012 at 4:45 AM

I have a sinking feeling that after two disastrous terms of Obama, the GOP will decide the Only Way to Win is to run another RINO that doesn’t sound too conservative.

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 13, 2012 at 2:50 AM

There’s no question that the establishment candidate will win the nomination in ’16, no matter how crappy. The rule changes that the GOP establishment passed at the RNC with rigged votes lets the establishment change the rules whenever they want most especially in the middle of the primaries. It’s an oligarchy now, if they don’t like a candidate then they’ll just lie and change the rules like they did this time through cheating. Next time their cheating will be officially legit. It is impossible for the grass roots to save the Republican Party now unless they can undo that rule change, but I don’t think it’s possible, if somebody figures out a way then the oligarchy will just change the rules.

So yes, count on another election between the lesser of two evils in ’16, because the crooks at the top have it good and they’re not giving it up without a fight. It’s unfortunately that so many Republicans that used to claim to stand for small government don’t seem to have any fight in them anymore.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2012 at 4:52 AM

…On further thought, the GOP oligarchy will probably just change the rules so that their candidate wins rather than change them so that another candidate loses.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2012 at 5:02 AM

The GOP should probably dispense with the pretense in ’16 and just appoint their nominee. That’s what they do anyway.

FloatingRock on November 13, 2012 at 5:07 AM

Of course it’s true. Heck, the “which polls should we publish here” thread was shocking. People who were surprised Romney lost should look in the mirror. I was dumbfounded that there was actually a thread about not posting bad news polls and an attack on ED/Allah for posting reality. The bigger issue is the trustworthiness of those inside the bubble for honest information. They have got so used to lying, it’s the default response. As an example, within 48 hours of the election Karl Rove put out his voter suppression excuse and folks actually believed him, amazing! Truth is turnout was up in 7 of 10 swing states, flat in one and down in two. Truth is the states with the biggest decline in votes CA, NY and NJ were not going to help Romney. Truth is, there are still lots of votes to count in very blue states. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/. How many times can people like Rove lie to you before you learn?

NextGen on November 13, 2012 at 8:03 AM

Serious question, of all the “vote is down” articles you’ve seen in the last few days, how many mention that the vote was up in 8/10 battleground states (where the election was waged) and that the largest number of missing votes are from NY, NJ, CA? Why would they create this false meme, purposely to mislead you. That they would do it now, in light of the larger conversation reeks of lack of respect for their readers.

NextGen on November 13, 2012 at 8:15 AM

All the news that fits our narrative!!

And that sums up this story.

tom on November 13, 2012 at 10:59 AM

The biggest threat with Romney is that he would have revamped Obamacare, removed a few gimmicks, and put it on a firm financial footing.

With $84 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities it would be quite a trick for Romney to put it on a firm financial footing.

Where was he going to get the cash?

Well, you know, a few billion here, a few billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money…..

Of course, Romney might at least have taken steps to improve the economy, and I don’t think he would have been as dangerously incompetent in his foreign policy. So there were certainly reasons to prefer Romney.

But Romney didn’t really see anything wrong with Obamacare, so any “repeals” would inevitably have been watered down to “reforms.”

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 13, 2012 at 3:04 AM

As I mentioned above $84 trillion dollars and Romney didn’t see anything wrong. He didn’t see anything wrong with RomneyCare either which is on its way to bankrupting Massachusetts.

Making the welfare state more efficient just wasn’t a priority with a lot of people.

sharrukin on November 13, 2012 at 3:25 AM

That’s why we’re in the fix we’re in. It’s not just because the Democrats have been reckless with spending, though they have.

If that were the problem then the Republican presidents and Republican Congresses would have fixed it by being more responsible about their spending.

Instead, it keeps spiraling out of control.

And the root of the problem is what they spend money on. If Republicans spend money on the same crap that Democrats spend money, then the fact of being more “responsible” and “better managers” only puts us on a controlled spiral into the ditch rather than a crash.

The only way to control spending is to stop spending on the things that government can no longer afford.

Even the ridiculously liberal movie, “The American President,” had the ridiculously liberal president saying, “America can no longer afford to pretend we live in a Great Society.” It was that obvious.

Of course, then they ended the movie by pretending the government had no limits anyway. But they’re liberal, so what do you expect?

tom on November 13, 2012 at 11:08 AM

” … the NYT’s splashy piece about the rise of MSNBC.”

What a hoot! Thanks for the *chuckle*.
The equivalent of “Radio Free Russia” is somehow “significant”?
LMAO
Slow News Day?
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on November 13, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2