GOP turnout: myths and reality

posted at 11:16 am on November 23, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In the immediate aftermath of the election, Republicans slammed Mitt Romney for not being able to match the popular vote totals of John McCain, but many forgot that the full totals in the popular vote take a few weeks to finalize.  This past week, Romney’s totals surpassed McCain’s in an election that had a smaller overall turnout, Kimberly Strassel reports for the Wall Street Journal — and Romney did significantly better in swing states than the GOP did in 2008 as well (via Scott Johnson at Power Line):

Mr. Romney beat Mr. McCain’s numbers in every single battleground, save Ohio. In some cases, his improvement was significant. In Virginia, 65,000 more votes than in 2008. In Florida, 117,000 more votes. In Colorado, 52,000. In Wisconsin, 146,000. Moreover, in key states like Florida, North Carolina, Colorado and Virginia, Mr. Romney turned out even more voters than George W. Bush did in his successful re-election in 2004.

By contrast, Mr. Obama’s turnout was down from 2008 in nearly every battleground. He lost 54,000 votes in Virginia, 46,000 votes in Florida, 50,000 votes in Colorado, 63,000 votes in Wisconsin. Ditto Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio. The only state where Mr. Obama increased his votes (by 36,000) was North Carolina, and he was still beaten by a Romney campaign that raised its own turnout by a whopping 147,000.

The notion of an enthusiasm gap among Republicans compared to 2008 is therefore a myth, one suggested by incomplete data the day after the election.  So what happened?  Did Romney just run out of time, or was Obama’s downturn just short of bad enough to lose?  Not exactly, Strassel argues.  The demographic data shows that Democrats boosted voter turnout where it counted, and where Republicans didn’t bother to seriously compete:

Because what ought to scare the GOP is this: Even with higher GOP turnout in key states, even with Mr. Obama shedding voters, Democrats still won. Mr. Obama accomplished this by tapping new minority voters in numbers that beat even Mr. Romney’s better turnout.

In Florida, 238,000 more Hispanics voted than in 2008, and Mr. Obama got 60% of Hispanic voters. His total margin of victory in Florida was 78,000 votes, so that demographic alone won it for him. Or consider Ohio, where Mr. Romney won independents by 10 points. The lead mattered little, though, given that black turnout increased by 178,000 votes, and the president won 96% of the black vote. Mr. Obama’s margin of victory there was 103,000. …

Republicans right now are fretting about Mr. Romney’s failures and the party’s immigration platform—that’s fair enough. But equally important has been the party’s mind-boggling failure to institute a competitive Hispanic ground game. The GOP doesn’t campaign in those communities, doesn’t register voters there, doesn’t knock on doors. So while pre-election polling showed that Hispanics were worried about Obama policies, in the end the only campaign that these voters heard from—by email, at their door, on the phone—was the president’s.

In order to win national elections, Republicans have to compete in all communities. That doesn’t mean pandering, but it does mean putting free-market, small-government philosophies and slogans into concrete policy proposals that will improve the lives of voters.  It’s not enough to talk about empowering investors to take risk in the American economy; we need to talk about how we can encourage that investment to go into urban centers to revitalize neighborhoods and create jobs.  We need to commit to school choice and educational reform, in combination with a shift in control away from federal mandates (and the costly administration they require) to the local school boards and parents.  We have to have specific policy proposals on the table and the commitment to follow through on them.

Until we remember what Jack Kemp figured out two decades ago, we will never compete for those votes, and end up with a massive handicap in national elections.

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 3

libfreeordie on November 23, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts..

melle1228 on November 23, 2012 at 1:03 PM

So this is the test for the GOP. How can they approach black and Latino/a voters like humans, rather than stereotypes, while keeping someone like cozmo’s vote? Its gonna be an interesting couple of years on the right.

libfreeordie on November 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM

YOU are the only one stereotyping. When I think about moochers, black does not come to mind. It takes all races to not pay taxes. YOU are the one that automatically assumes that moochers mean black or hispanic. And please tell me what Obama has done for the black community -oh wise one other than increase their unemployment. Hispanic community-NOTHING.

melle1228 on November 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM

How many of those Hispanic votes were from Illegals Lots I am thinking

Bullhead on November 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM

The first thing they should do? DON’T RUN DOLE/KEMP 3.0.

Rocks on November 23, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Especially the “Dole” part…

cs89 on November 23, 2012 at 1:07 PM

YOU are the only one stereotyping. When I think about moochers, black does not come to mind. It takes all races to not pay taxes. YOU are the one that automatically assumes that moochers mean black or hispanic.

melle1228 on November 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Yup.

But that’s because libfreeordie is a moocher who steals from others and lies to get food stamps and Obamaphones so it doesn’t have to pay its bills.

The reason Obama puppets like libfreeordie shriek and scream about voter ID is because they cheat. They are liars who think they can vote twice. They already cheat on their taxes, and as we see, their leaders openly support and encourage black people to commit welfare fraud.

One has to remember that. Charlie Rangel is a hero of the Obama Party. Charlie Rangel is the ideal model of behavior for Obama voters. They openly and directly support, endorse, and elect people who cheat on their taxes and commit welfare fraud.

Libfreeordie won’t ever answer that. It knows it’s a racist cheat and welfare fraud.

northdallasthirty on November 23, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Republicans have to compete in all communities.

You seem to forget, McCain did that. he had his “Forgotten America” tour where he went to places like Harlem and the 9th ward. No one cared.

Zaggs on November 23, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Oh, I would. Condi Rice may be better than Susan Rice, but Condi is no conservative.

Right Mover on November 23, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Not to mention she’s had 2 political jobs, national security advisor and secretary of state and she didn’t do a particularly good job at either.

Outlander on November 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM

While true I do think republicans could do more. Spend time in inner cities, point out how conservative ideas help them, don’t treat them like the worthless 47% that as president a republican has no need to worry about. I recall there was a lot of conservative outrage when Christie spent his first days as governor elect in New Jersey’s decrepit inner cities since they didn’t vote for him. If blacks are ever to vote more republican that kind of attitude has to stop.

That being said, my fiance worked at a black church a few months back. It was amazing, the church’s members were almost entirely old but they included a county judge, a couple councilmen, the head of the county NAACP, business owners, doctors, lawyers, the very people who have zero reason being democrat. Yet democrat they all were. She read several articles in the church magazine and they all read like a conservative screed about the importance of faith, family, hard work, self reliance, yadda yadda and then at the end about how they must vote democrat in the crucial upcoming elections.

It reminded me of the economics professors I’ve had who sound like conservative maniacs from the Heritage foundation when teaching economics, but then when discussing politics were madly infatuated with Obama and thought the democrats were the answer.

jarodea on November 23, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Jack Kemp is a loser just like McCain and Romney.

The fact is Romney should have beaten Obama by a couple million votes.

Obama outspent McCain somethime 5-1 in battleground states. The republicans had about 300 million in 2008.

Obama had about 1 billion in 2008.

Obama had 1 billion or more in 2012

Romney and the republicans had about billin in 2012.

THe bottom line is Romney is a one billion dollar loser.

How pathetic is that?

oldyeller on November 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Where was all of this advice before the election?

Don’t mean crap to me.

Sherman1864 on November 23, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Mitt and his team of MA RINO consultants were planning their campaign Of:

“referendum on the economy”;

“let’s humanize Mitt”;

“our polling shows that a prevent defense will win this thing, don’t answer the Dems negative ads, the media won’t like that approach”;

“remember to say nothing at the convention”;

“always remember to say that BHO is a great guy with a few misguided policies”;

“it’s a turnout election, but don’t worry about our base, we have great software”.

wraithby on November 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I think that was a huge part of it. Also, Obama was the celebrity candidate, firmly inserted into our pop culture, and you have an American Idol electorate (that made up a large portion of his coalition) that values magazine covers and late night appearances over things like, you know, the unemployment rate. It was cool over competence. You also had the media doing their level best to make sure it was a referendum on the former, as well.

I’d have no problem with Condi Rice as the nominee, but I don’t know that she’d do well in the primary (especially since she’s never run for office before), and I doubt it would change that minority barrier much. She’d no doubt be seen as inauthentic or a “slave” to the GOP if she ran.

changer1701 on November 23, 2012 at 12:56 PM

I don’t see Condi Rice as a celebrity candidate. Yes, her speech is amazing at the convention and she has an interesting backstory about growing up in Birmingham, Alabama. Her autobiography was one of my favorite books of all time. I do think that the celebrity, American Idol culture is a good argument in favor of Marco Rubio as a candidate, who I have huge hesitations about. He has an ex-cheerleader wife and is as good as Obama at doing fluff interviews about rap music, etc. Rubio is probably a better natural speaker than Obama because he does it sans teleprompter. However, there are a few huge caveats – I personally like candidates who have accomplishments and have done stuff which Rubio hasn’t, the MSM cheerleaders aren’t going to give Rubio a pass on his lack of specifics like Obama, and the country might be tired of the whole Obama schtick by 2016 and looking for something different.

I do think that Condi might end up as a VP especially if Rubio or Ryan ends up as the nominee. The argument for her would be foreign policy acumen to balance out the ticket. Condi did submit paperwork to Romney and while a pretty grueling three months, it’s less grueling than an overall two+ year presidential campaign. Condi isn’t a natural politician, but she is someone who clearly enjoys public policy. Since neither Rubio or Ryan are foreign policy experts, she’d have a Dicky Cheney sort of role in the administration.

Illinidiva on November 23, 2012 at 1:30 PM

While true I do think republicans could do more. Spend time in inner cities, point out how conservative ideas help them, don’t treat them like the worthless 47% that as president a republican has no need to worry about.
jarodea on November 23, 2012 at 1:17 PM

How do you reach people who don’t want to be reached? Most of these people are so concerned with losing the crumbs that they get from the taxpayers table that they don’t want to risk losing them.

bandutski on November 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

It’s amazing how many people cling to comforting ideas, regardless how much towering the evidence against it. I mean, Ed Morrissey here just shot down the idea that Romney was weaker than McCain, and immediately people jump to a different rational for their conclusions altogether.

For example, I’ve seen a few people state that Romney not only should have gotten more votes than McCain, but should have gotten a lot more votes than McCain. In other words, Romney didn’t inspire, and if Republicans had gotten out he would’ve won.

The flaw with this reasoning, is that as a whole not only did Romney do better than McCain, he did better than Bush in 2004 in most states. Among battleground states, Romney outperformed Bush in every state, save Ohio. Additionally, Romney outperformed Bush’s 2004 vote totals in Red States as well. The only area Romney did not outperform Bush, was in blue states.

So, why didn’t Romney perform better in blue states? Well, most blue states have far fewer registered Republicans to start with. In these states, for Republicans to win they have to carry Independent Voters by fairly large amounts in order to have a shot. Thing is, this year, Republicans came out in large numbers, Democrats came out in large numbers, but large amounts of Independents stayed home.

Independents, account for the vast majority of lower turnout. This was, however, widely accepted as inevitable ahead of the election. Independent voters are slightly less motivated to vote as a general rule, and therefore only turn out in full force during high interest historical elections. 2008 was a very high interest election, which accounts for Independents making up over 30% of the vote, this year they accounted for about 25% of the vote. Given that Romney won independents, had they come out in full force, he may have won.

What this election does do however, is clarify the relative sizes of each parties base. Each candidate did an excellent job getting out their base, which was largely expected, and Romney won Independents by a healthy margin, which was also not expected. What Republican strategists did not expect, was that the electorate would be D+6, after so many years of economic stagnation.

What this indicates, is not only are demographics working against the traditional coalitions that support the Republican Party, but that the coalitions that make up the democrats are so entrenched that they’ll turn out even under horrible economic conditions.

In no way is this the fault of Romney. Even if he had gotten every single libertarian vote, he would have lost every state he lost, save perhaps “maybe,” Florida. The ONLY way he could have won with a D+6 electorate would have been to turn out Independents at 2008 levels or better.

Simply put, if Republicans and libertarians together would not have had the votes necessary to win, its unlikely the votes existed at all. So until we even up the size of our base, a base turnout strategy simply cannot work, period.

WolvenOne on November 23, 2012 at 1:33 PM

… and the country might be tired of the whole Obama schtick by 2016 and looking for something different.

Illinidiva on November 23, 2012 at 1:30 PM

It does seem that the Stupid Party tends to fight the last battle or war rather than move on to the new one on a fairly regular basis however. So, I could see them pushing Rubio in the next election even if the American people have “moved on”.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Thanx Ed for mentioning the uptick in the Romney totals. Most people are probably still stuck on the 3 million less that Romney had on election night and all the laughing that he couldn’t even equal McShame.

I agree with you that the GOP has to appeal to all communities, so what about the 6 million less that Obamuh got? Why is no one taking a look at them instead of being distracted by all the hispanic vote hysterics?

And then, even bigger, what about the (my) estimated 70+ million or more of the electorate who don’t vote? Now we’re talking all communities. Who are those people and how do you get them, or even a good percentage of them, to turn out to vote?

stukinIL4now on November 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

stukinIL4now on November 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Too bad the voting age population grew by about 10 million. That Republican registration increased significantly. And Romney won a higher percentage of the independent vote this go around. And still will only barely beat McCain’s numbers. McCain, the man who said you have nothing to fear from an Obama Presidency. The man who suspended his campaign like Ross Perot weeks before the election.

Even winning a hundred grand more voters is a poor performance under all that circumstance.

astonerii on November 23, 2012 at 1:40 PM

J.S.K. on November 23, 2012 at 12:06 PM

What the Dems will have in 2016, though, is Hillary. Bill has already started her rehabilitation over Benghazi, and it’ll be the same old trap the GOP will fall into and the mantra will be: “A person can’t vote against the first potential woman president.”

PatriotGal2257 on November 23, 2012 at 1:41 PM

That doesn’t mean pandering, but it does mean putting free-market, small-government philosophies and slogans into concrete policy proposals that will improve the lives of voters.

Sure. So two cycles in a row toss out a RINO who can’t articulate conservatism.

That will work. Oh wait! It didn’t.

I supported Romney wholeheartedly, but was under no illusion that he was a conservative or was going to be any great shakes. However, he is and was infinitely better than Obama.

Since we’ve lost twice with the GOP’s version of “conservative”, how about they try running an actual conservative.

kim roy on November 23, 2012 at 1:44 PM

How do you reach people who don’t want to be reached? Most of these people are so concerned with losing the crumbs that they get from the taxpayers table that they don’t want to risk losing them.

bandutski on November 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

That is the question, as my following paragraph noted. Admittedly some of the problems are double wedge issues, blacks do love vouchers and charter schools while white suburban mothers are terrified of them bringing inner city blacks into their kids schools. Also, teachers are the most respected job in the country despite for the most part not deserving it. Another is homosexuality which blacks have an incredibly low opinion of, but no way in hell a republican could tap into that without the media raising a stinkstorm and scaring off far more molly mushy moderate white voters.

Unless our goal is to wait for another Lincoln or Goldwater to completely reorient how blacks vote, the only option is to start at square one and spend time and effort in black communities. Having grown up in ghettos I have some ideas but ultimately it is nebulou. The best start is just spend time and focus on education I suppose.

jarodea on November 23, 2012 at 1:45 PM

That being said, my fiance worked at a black church a few months back. It was amazing, the church’s members were almost entirely old but they included a county judge, a couple councilmen, the head of the county NAACP, business owners, doctors, lawyers, the very people who have zero reason being democrat. Yet democrat they all were. She read several articles in the church magazine and they all read like a conservative screed about the importance of faith, family, hard work, self reliance, yadda yadda and then at the end about how they must vote democrat in the crucial upcoming elections.

I think that the African American community has more faith in the federal government than the regular population. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a great good that the federal government did. It would be a start to acknowledge that this is one area where the government is useful. Outside someone like Ron Paul, I think that Rs acknowledge that this is a good thing; however, they should let it be known.

Illinidiva on November 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM

stukinIL4now on November 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Obama’s dramatic drop in vote totals is very bad news for the Dramatic party. They were able to win by turning out their base, which as it turns out is larger than ours. However, the drop in his totals shows that indeed Obama and the democratic brand, has taken large amounts of damage in the past four years. Millions of voters have become disaffected with the Obama and democratic brand, Republicans have simply, not been able to fully capitalize on that damage.

As for the seventy million non voters, yes, they represent a potential opportunity, if we can reach them. However, I agree with Morrissey, we need to go after every demographic in every area, including nonvoters, Hispanics, African Americans, etc etc.

For the past ten years, we’ve been aiming for victory through a relatively narrow electoral path. As states like Ohio have just demonstrated to us, if even one state goes blue in that narrow pathway to victory, the whole thing is over. That makes us fragile in national campaigns, regardless of whom we run.

So, we NEED to be competitive in groups we don’t regularly compete in. We need to be able to go into states like California and actually make it a battleground. Until we do this, we’ll always be playing handicapped.

WolvenOne on November 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM

So this is the test for the GOP. How can they approach black and Latino/a voters like humans, rather than stereotypes, while keeping someone like cozmo’s vote? Its gonna be an interesting couple of years on the right.
libfreeordie on November 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Ha ha ha. The left specializes in treating minorities as stereotypes. They treat all people a stereotypes – it’s fundamental to identify politics and collectivist policies and ideologies.

gwelf on November 23, 2012 at 1:50 PM

So tell us libfreeordie – how do conservtives reach out and gain a bigger share of the “black” vote?

gwelf on November 23, 2012 at 1:51 PM

I think that the African American community has more faith in the federal government than the regular population. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a great good that the federal government did. It would be a start to acknowledge that this is one area where the government is useful. Outside someone like Ron Paul, I think that Rs acknowledge that this is a good thing; however, they should let it be known.

Illinidiva on November 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM

That’s a good point, if you look at the history of blacks in this country it is mostly the federal government who protected them. It’s not just Ron Paul but also his new hearthrob to the right son who said the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional (or pointless, something to that effect). That get’s into what I mean about spending time and not acting like all blacks are worthless welfare queens. Sure, as Rand Paul and libertarians will argue until they’re blue in the face, giving up philosophy for electoral victory is a terrible choice. I say, paraphrasing Churchill, choosing philosophy over electoral victory and getting neither is a worse choice.

jarodea on November 23, 2012 at 1:56 PM

No one will adulate a tyrant more than the fools he’ll enslave.

“Gratitude is a fruit of great cultivation; you do not find it among gross people.” That was the acute observation of Dr. Johnson, to Boswell

Alas

Schadenfreude on November 23, 2012 at 1:58 PM

jarodea on November 23, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Sad but true. What frustrates me is that a lot of minorities can’t see the shackles that government hand outs put them in. It is one thing to be forced in to slavery and quite another to go willingly.

bandutski on November 23, 2012 at 1:59 PM

WolvenOne on November 23, 2012 at 1:33 PM

+1

Very well reasoned post. The open questions are:

How does the GOP expand its base? How do we get our message noticed by Hispanics and single women and younger voters, etc? Sadly, good economic sense is not sufficient to appeal to these groups even though they are the ones hurt most by the miserable economy. How do we get them to understand that giving them free stuff only prolongs their pain and expands their dependence on programs that cannot go on much longer, let alone forever?

MJBrutus on November 23, 2012 at 2:06 PM

libfreeordie on November 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM

….says… the biggest stereotypical bigot!

KOOLAID2 on November 23, 2012 at 2:07 PM

It does seem that the Stupid Party tends to fight the last battle or war rather than move on to the new one on a fairly regular basis however. So, I could see them pushing Rubio in the next election even if the American people have “moved on”.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Dubya in 2000 was different. His whole appeal was that he was more interesting than Gore and could do self-deprecating, but was still sort of boring. People wanted the guy who they knew was only sleeping with his wife rather than having to deal with more of another Clinton. He also had a compelling message about a kinder, gentler GOP. The reason why it was so close was because the economy was still roaring in 2000 and the Bush team made some mishaps – i.e. not getting in front of the DUI story, not getting their base out in FL, etc. I think that Obama fatigue might be why Ryan or Jindal wins the nomination.. Ryan is probably more likely than Jindal, but he has the fiscal cliff issue to maneuver and the whole loser edit from this election. Both will be in their mid-40s; however, both also have substantive accomplishments. If I were advising Rubio, I’d point out that he should actually create an substantive policy agenda and be known for doing stuff.

Illinidiva on November 23, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Jesse Jackson Jr got himself reelected from the nuthouse at which he resides. What further evidence is needed to prove that the voters of this nation are crazier than the politicians they elect?

MJBrutus on November 23, 2012 at 2:13 PM

As of the latest data I have, Romney is ahead of McCain’s 2008 total by 119,587 votes and the tally is still not complete. Obama is DOWN about 5.3 million from his 2008 tally.

What the article seems to say was that had Romney been running against a white guy, he would have won.

But I can’t help but wonder if Orca might have made up a good amount of the difference in many areas had it been working.

crosspatch on November 23, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Sad but true. What frustrates me is that a lot of minorities can’t see the shackles that government hand outs put them in. It is one thing to be forced in to slavery and quite another to go willingly.

bandutski on November 23, 2012 at 1:59 PM

It is difficult as most blacks get out of government slavery, as some would say, through federal programs. So why should they oppose federal programs when they are what got them out of poverty? It’s not like capitalist businesses are looking to hire them, train them, and advance them out of poverty afterall.

jarodea on November 23, 2012 at 2:26 PM

In order to win national elections, Republicans have to compete in all communities.

That was one thing that DID bug me about the final days of the Romney campaign. He was still campaigning in rural cities like Asheville, NC. He needed to start getting into the suburbs of the major cities. He did make an appearance in Bucks County, PA but not in Delaware County, not in Scranton. He didn’t appear in the suburbs of Cleveland or in Akron that I am aware of.

The campaign emphasis was too much on taxes and not so much on giving people a path out of the situation they are in. Showing how Democrats keep people trapped in their situation across the generations and how Republicans what to clear a path out of that cycle would have helped.

Romney was relying too heavily on a “economic growth through lower taxes and less regulation” message. He didn’t have a message for the 47% and that video that was taken in one of his campaign fundraisers showed that. THAT is what he was lacking.

crosspatch on November 23, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Pointing out that “more money for education” for the Democrats means simply giving more money in the teachers’ pockets and pension funds and no improvement in the actual quality of education would help, too. Showing that as education spending has increased in most urban areas, school performance has been flat or down. Show evidence like improvement in elementary school scores and high school graduation rates in places like Louisiana after Republicans took over the government of the state.

We have to show people how Democrats simply perpetuate their misery across the generations.

crosspatch on November 23, 2012 at 2:41 PM

That was one thing that DID bug me about the final days of the Romney campaign. He was still campaigning in rural cities like Asheville, NC. He needed to start getting into the suburbs of the major cities. He did make an appearance in Bucks County, PA but not in Delaware County, not in Scranton. He didn’t appear in the suburbs of Cleveland or in Akron that I am aware of.

crosspatch on November 23, 2012 at 2:34 PM

What bugs me is that the GOP should have been campaigning on all of those issues from election day 2008 until election day 2012. They have not been doing so; instead, it was the Tea Party that carried Republicans to victory in 2010 despite the GOP’s attempts to suppress them.

We have three very serious problems to overcome to save our liberties and freedoms in the coming years:
1) The MSM. It is no nothing more than the propaganda arm of the democrat party
2) The public education establishment. Take a look at your kids’ textbooks, it’s not just what the teachers are saying, look at how politics and liberalism is woven into all of the curriculum
3) The establishment GOP: It is as big a problem as anything else. They are so tied into the D.C. mindset that the idea of smaller, Constitutional government scares them.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 2:42 PM

That should have been, “1) The MSM. It is now nothing more …

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 2:43 PM

I like many people assumed that rational people would vote for the long term financial health of the nation. With the comments from the administration desiring to remove the debt limit it is apparent that the election was in fact purchased with “free stuff”. Cut off the money and see how fast Conservatives are created.

Until the spending is stopped this will go on.

BullShooterAsInElk on November 23, 2012 at 2:51 PM

What bugs me is that the GOP should have been campaigning on all of those issues from election day 2008 until election day 2012. They have not been doing so; instead, it was the Tea Party that carried Republicans to victory in 2010 despite the GOP’s attempts to suppress them.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Exactly. The Tea Party had momentum and the GOPe acted like a parking brake.

SparkPlug on November 23, 2012 at 2:51 PM

instead, it was the Tea Party that carried Republicans to victory in 2010 despite the GOP’s attempts to suppress them.

I disagree. We saw the victory in 2010 because Obama wasn’t at the top of the ticket pulling in those minority voters. Look at minority turnout in 2008 and 2012 vs 2010. While turnout is always lower in mid-term elections, the difference in the minority voters should be greater without Obama’s campaign machine.

That said, if we actually get involved and LOCALLY turn out the vote for 2014, I think we can make considerable progress. Look at the seats that are up in 2014. There are a lot of “gettable” states there. We need to run GOOD candidates against incumbents, though. No Angles or O’Donnells or Aikens or Mourdocks.

crosspatch on November 23, 2012 at 3:11 PM

One thing I learned last night was that my local county GOP committee gets ZERO funding from the national party. All of their money comes from local donors and businesses within the county. I also found out that WAY less than 1% of the people who are registered Republican in my county have joined or are active in the local county committee at all. So you have a bunch of people who seem to be willing to get active with “tea party” movements and tax payers associations and property rights groups who have never in their life been active with their local county GOP committee. They register Republican and then sit on the couch complaining about “the GOP” as if they are just expecting things to happen by magic. If these people were to get involved with their local committee, join up and become a paying member ($35 a year in my local county), a lot more could possibly be done within the GOP, particularly at the local level.

You county committee helps candidates for your county supervisors, city councils, mayor, school boards, planning commissions, and judge seats. The local county committees are separate from the national committee and need your support. If you want to change things from the bottom up, I would suggest you find your local county GOP committee and get involved at the local level.

crosspatch on November 23, 2012 at 3:19 PM

It is difficult as most blacks get out of government slavery, as some would say, through federal programs. So why should they oppose federal programs when they are what got them out of poverty? It’s not like capitalist businesses are looking to hire them, train them, and advance them out of poverty afterall.

jarodea on November 23, 2012 at 2:26 PM

It is not even “social programs” that I was talking of. The Civil Rights Act basically was a reenforcement of the 14th Amendment. Ron Paul and Rand Paul have questioned the Constitutionality of the Act. Not something that the Rs should be playing with or want to be associated with. They should acknowledge that the Federal Government does have a leading role in something like that.

Illinidiva on November 23, 2012 at 3:23 PM

kim roy: “Since we’ve lost twice with the GOP’s version of “conservative”, how about they try running an actual conservative”.

Agree, Kim….did you have anyone in mind? The only true conservative I can think of, that wouldn’t make gaffs like Akin & has political savvy is Jim DeMint. How about Allen West for V.P.?
In my dreams….

Belle on November 23, 2012 at 3:26 PM

We need to run GOOD candidates against incumbents, though. No Angles or O’Donnells or Aikens or Mourdocks.

crosspatch on November 23, 2012 at 3:11 PM

If the GOP establishment would put up GOOD candidates to go against the incumbents, then those kinds of things wouldn’t happen. When they put up a candidate who is as liberal as the democrat like they did with Castle in the O’Donnell primary, then, yeah, expect to get smoked by Tea Party candidates. You will also note that Ted Cruze beat the establishment Republican in Texas and also went on to win the general.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Dan Bongino, Republican candidate for Senate in MD, went to the inner city and had a message of government accountability and responsibility. He was not bashful about stating what must be done to save our economy, Dan having an economic degree plus law enforcement and SS experience. He was a realist, but it didn’t matter. The MD people voted for the Leftist policies of Senator Cardin. People wanting free stuff won over doing what is good for our state and county. In the end they would be helping themselves; but they wouldn’t listen. Disgusting!

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the
University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the
Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: “A democracy is always
temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent
form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous
gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority
always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from
the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally
collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a
dictatorship.”

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the
beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200
years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence; US in 2012
From dependence back into bondage.”

amr on November 23, 2012 at 3:36 PM

I wish the next GOP candidate would run a whole country campaign instead of focusing on the battleground states almost exclusively (except for donors visits). You need to show up in every state to show your commitment to the country. God knows, Ohioans won’t miss that 23rd visit or 800th commercial.

can_con on November 23, 2012 at 3:39 PM

The Civil Rights Act basically was a reenforcement of the 14th Amendment. Ron Paul and Rand Paul have questioned the Constitutionality of the Act. Not something that the Rs should be playing with or want to be associated with. They should acknowledge that the Federal Government does have a leading role in something like that.

Illinidiva on November 23, 2012 at 3:23 PM

The only reason why the ’64 Act made sense was that the racist cultural norms in the country acted to prevent companies from acting in their economic best interest. If a store hired a black employee because that employee was better than white candidates, ordinarily that store would do better. But because of cultural racism, reinforced by Jim Crow laws, the store would be put out of business. Thus you needed a strong federal law to break the logjam.

But do you really want Republican candidates to go out and relitigate the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Isn’t that one step above sending Christine O’Donnell out there to declare that she is not a witch?

Outlander on November 23, 2012 at 3:39 PM

If the GOP establishment would put up GOOD candidates to go against the incumbents, then those kinds of things wouldn’t happen. When they put up a candidate who is as liberal as the democrat like they did with Castle in the O’Donnell primary, then, yeah, expect to get smoked by Tea Party candidates. You will also note that Ted Cruze beat the establishment Republican in Texas and also went on to win the general.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 3:35 PM

The problem here is that the Tea Party is a group completely outside of GOP politics and who competes with the “establishment” to run candidates on the GOP ticket. The Tea Party groups don’t know all the players and don’t have the experience running campaigns to know, for example, how to spot the O’Donnell or Mourdock crazy… (Akin was NOT a Tea Party candidate. He was funded in the primary by Claire McCaskill supporters to knock off the much stronger Tea Party candidate). The GOP establishment in Delaware could have told you in 5 seconds that O’Donnell was an unfit candidate. However, the establishment had so little credibility with conservatives and Tea Party groups that their advice was ignored.

Outlander on November 23, 2012 at 3:43 PM

It is not even “social programs” that I was talking of. The Civil Rights Act basically was a reenforcement of the 14th Amendment. Ron Paul and Rand Paul have questioned the Constitutionality of the Act. Not something that the Rs should be playing with or want to be associated with. They should acknowledge that the Federal Government does have a leading role in something like that.

Illinidiva on November 23, 2012 at 3:23 PM

I know, I expanded it with social programs which I think most blacks would think of as part of the mold. I already said that I think being attached to the Pauls and their libertarian worshipers is a loss for republicans, for that reason.

But do you really want Republican candidates to go out and relitigate the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Isn’t that one step above sending Christine O’Donnell out there to declare that she is not a witch?

Outlander on November 23, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Yes it is, which is why it should just be accepted as fact and not relitigated by the Pauls and, well as I also noted, their worshippers.

Also as a side note, not more O’Donnells, Angles, Akins. Democrats can get away with them, we can’t. We either deal with it or see Democrats elected instead.

jarodea on November 23, 2012 at 3:56 PM

The only reason why the ’64 Act made sense was that the racist cultural norms in the country acted to prevent companies from acting in their economic best interest. If a store hired a black employee because that employee was better than white candidates, ordinarily that store would do better. But because of cultural racism, reinforced by Jim Crow laws, the store would be put out of business. Thus you needed a strong federal law to break the logjam.

But do you really want Republican candidates to go out and relitigate the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Isn’t that one step above sending Christine O’Donnell out there to declare that she is not a witch?

Outlander on November 23, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Umm…Rand Paul wants to relitigate the Civil Rights Act. Questioning its legality was one of the moronic things he did while running for Senator in Kentucky.

What I was pointing out is that the Republicans and the African American community are at odds on the role of government. When generic Republican candidate says grumble, grumble government is evil, the African American community says that well, we don’t think that this is the case because of laws like the Civil Rights Act. The African American community tends to think that their white neighbors are inherently racist and will use any points of incompetence against them. This is why they voted on mass for Barack Obama again. It wouldn’t do for the first black President to end up a failure because whites would assume that all African Americans are failures. The R party has to acknowledge that this is the mindset in the community due to past wrongs and it’s going to take more than fifty years to erase that. Probably centuries.

Illinidiva on November 23, 2012 at 3:59 PM

The problem here is that the Tea Party is a group completely outside of GOP politics and who competes with the “establishment” to run candidates on the GOP ticket. The Tea Party groups don’t know all the players and don’t have the experience running campaigns to know, for example, how to spot the O’Donnell or Mourdock crazy… …

Outlander on November 23, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Would disagree with you on that. In a number of cases, Tea Party members are disaffected members of the GOP who have tired of the weak candidates the establishment has been foisting upon us for years. In many places, the GOP establishment is truly a very small clique that works harder to maintain their place and power than in actually getting candidates elected.

A party that has put up such candidates as John McCain, Mike Castle, George Allen, and Charlie Crist are hardly in a position to be lecturing on what constitutes “crazy”

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Not only did Romney soundly beat McCain/Palin. He crushed 2010 GOP numbers. Some sore primary losers are pathetic.

If we nominated a candidate with women issues annd a history of sticking their foots in their mouth like Cain, Newt or Santorum, they would have done to the whole country what Akin and Mourdock did to MO and IN.

swamp_yankee on November 23, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Not only did Romney soundly beat McCain/Palin. He crushed 2010 GOP numbers. Some sore primary losers are pathetic.

swamp_yankee on November 23, 2012 at 4:03 PM

As far as 2010 numbers, that is to be expected. Mid-term elections do not get the same turnout as Presidential election years.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 4:09 PM

For example just look at Florida. Romney pulverized Rubio vote totals.

Romney FL 2012: 4,162,081
Rubio FL 2010: 2,645,743

People need to stop waxing poetic over the 2010 success. We won because the other side didnt show up. Not because we were louder or angrier. Or we did something specials. Minorities simply didnt show up to vote.

swamp_yankee on November 23, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Not only did Romney soundly beat McCain/Palin.

swamp_yankee on November 23, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Not exactly. He just eked by the McCain/Palin number. He did much better in the battleground states, but overall was not much higher than McCain/Palin. So far, I have found no reference to a number larger than 59,142,475 while McCain Palin got 59,948,323 in the references I found on line. The 59,142,475 number is dated 11/21/12, so it is not old.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 4:24 PM

A social “safety net” is necessary in any civilized society. The government in a society as large as ours has a role to play in funding and managing that safety net.

People who fall into the safety net are not “moochers.” (Well, some are, but there are folks who basically steal their paychecks in almost every corporation, too.)

I’ve voted for every Republican presidential candidate since Nixon in ’72 and worked in my precinct as part of the infamous “ORCA” operation. But I cannot understand why conservatives give credence to these false stereotypes.

jdp629 on November 23, 2012 at 4:25 PM

No that number is very old. Follow the Wasserman tables. Romney is well over 60 million.

swamp_yankee on November 23, 2012 at 4:26 PM

For example just look at Florida. Romney pulverized Rubio vote totals.

Romney FL 2012: 4,162,081
Rubio FL 2010: 2,645,743

People need to stop waxing poetic over the 2010 success. We won because the other side didnt show up. Not because we were louder or angrier. Or we did something specials. Minorities simply didnt show up to vote.

swamp_yankee on November 23, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. Non-presidential election years typically bring in 40% or so of eligible voters. Presidential election years bring out 60% or so. Take a look at statistics for 2000 vs. 2002, 2004 vs 2006, 2008 vs. 2010. Very consistent. People don’t turn out as highly during mid-term elections. Romney did not do a great job getting the vote out. Period. Obama lost voters and Romney still managed to lose.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 4:27 PM

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AjYj9mXElO_QdHpla01oWE1jOFZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE&toomany=true

Romney now over 60,250,000 and climbing

swamp_yankee on November 23, 2012 at 4:28 PM

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 4:27 PM

No kidding. So people shold stop comparing Romney efforts to the 2010 campagin. Its dumb for people to talk about the succcess of the Tea Party in 2010 when the only reason they won is because minorities didnt show up.

swamp_yankee on November 23, 2012 at 4:30 PM

No that number is very old. Follow the Wasserman tables. Romney is well over 60 million.

swamp_yankee on November 23, 2012 at 4:26 PM

So give me a link to the tables. When I look up Wasserman, all I get is links to Debbie Dippity-Doo.

So, let’s take your number, whatever “well over 60 million” means. Say it’s 60.1 million, compared to 59.9 million, that’s hardly “soundly beat” McCain/Palin. That’s 200K difference or less than 0.3%

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 4:32 PM

No kidding. So people shold stop comparing Romney efforts to the 2010 campagin. Its dumb for people to talk about the succcess of the Tea Party in 2010 when the only reason they won is because minorities didnt show up.

swamp_yankee on November 23, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I have no idea where you are trying to go with this. OK, less people showed up in 2010 of ALL voters and the Tea Party crushed the democrats. You make the argument that minorities didn’t show up so that’s why the Tea Party won. When the GOP establishment was in charge, can you explain why the democrats crushed the Republican candidates (mostly incumbents) in the 2006 mid-term elections? It sure wasn’t because “the minorities didn’t show up”.

It is your attempt to tie a comparison to the 2010 vote totals that is silly, not the fact that the 2010 elections were about the Tea Party and Americans being angry over the passing of ObamaCareTax. Had the GOP establishment not been so combative in 2010 and embraced Tea Party candidates rather than try to defeat them and install RINOs like Castle and his equivalent in Nevada instead, the Republicans may have actually taken the Senate as well as the House.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 4:37 PM

A social “safety net” is necessary in any civilized society. The government in a society as large as ours has a role to play in funding and managing that safety net.
jdp629 on November 23, 2012 at 4:25 PM

No, actually there no need for a FEDERAL safety net program.
The further away from the person paying for something and the person consuming that something the less accountability there is for that spending.

It destroys the society by destroying the community. You are by definition a progressive by your beliefs in the role of government. You might want to rethink either your beliefs, or your professed party affiliation.

First, Social Security begins by destroying the family unit by separating security from family. Now everyone else’ child is there to support you, so you have none or fewer children than you other wise would have. Since you do not have to count on your own children to care for you in your old age, you do not make certain they are as well educated and well adjusted as they should be.

Then the welfare state destroys families by subsidizing single parenthood. Then it replaces friends, community and charity. Separating everyone further and further. The producers have to work harder to to support moochers, the moochers do not have to associate with anyone to get their money. The distance between producer and moocher gets wider and wider. The distance between individuals in the community gets further and further.

The only safety nets the Federal Government owes us is protection from enemy states hostile to our civilians, protection from fraud and protection from government from infringing on our God Given Rights.

astonerii on November 23, 2012 at 4:38 PM

The fact that republicans don’t campaign to the black community is just amazingly stupid.

The Democratic policies are litterally killing the black community (see Chicago).

We have to do better about explaining the alternative.

Deafdog on November 23, 2012 at 12:52 PM

As I recall, Romney campaigned in inner city Philly. He was made to feel very unwelcome there, and that is putting it kindly.

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2012 at 4:43 PM

The fact that republicans don’t campaign to the black community is just amazingly stupid.

The Democratic policies are litterally killing the black community (see Chicago).

We have to do better about explaining the alternative.

Deafdog on November 23, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Why aren’t the living conditions enough of a campaign??
These people..of all ethnicity..are either:

A. Too gullible to tell the difference between reality and a con job.

B. Have grown to appreciate taking handouts for lifes necessities and hustling cash for lifes pleasures.

Either way, one can kick back while others go to work.

Mimzey on November 23, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Actually, I said the government has a role to play in providing and managing a social safety net. I said nothing about the federal government and I said nothing about social security or welfare under current laws. That someone would leap to the conclusions that I did speaks to the state of the conservative movement, IMhO.

jdp629 on November 23, 2012 at 4:59 PM

White House rethinking that corporate-funding ban for Obama’s inauguration

Of course it is. Now the message is, “If you want your business to survive the next four years, you are going to be nice to me and this is a good way to start. Names will be taken”.

It was a toss-up between communism and fascism; looks like fascism is going to win. Makes sense, that’s the easiest way to subvert a capitalist society.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 5:00 PM

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Whoops, wrong thread. Sorry ’bout that.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Actually, I said the government has a role to play in providing and managing a social safety net. I said nothing about the federal government and I said nothing about social security or welfare under current laws. That someone would leap to the conclusions that I did speaks to the state of the conservative movement, IMhO.

jdp629 on November 23, 2012 at 4:59 PM

The government’s role for providing a safety net is to create a level playing field and protect people from immoral actions by others that infringe upon their liberty. The safety net is Family, Friends as well as Local Community and charities. Beyond that, local government should provide clean water/sewage, safe road ways, fire and police protection.

The problem with government providing these is that it requires the government to use the force of the gun to obtain the money. It creates resentment, separates the people from each other, and allows degenerates to continue to live degenerate lives at the expense of those who work, with those providing those good no power to exert shame and force changes in those people’s lives to get the benefits.

Like I said, if you think government, AT ANY LEVEL, should be taking money from a productive person and hand that money over to another person is a legitimate activity of the government, then you are probably in the wrong party. No form of government wealth transfer is legitimate without service. The person in Uniform, Police, Fire fighters, Military are legitimate. The welfare queen, the unemployed chump, the disabled person, the social security recipient, they are all illegitimate concerns for the government. They can and should all be cared for by Family and Friends as well as Community and Charities.

astonerii on November 23, 2012 at 5:16 PM

AZfederalist

AZ Won this thread.

SparkPlug on November 23, 2012 at 5:23 PM

For example just look at Florida. Romney pulverized Rubio vote totals.

Romney FL 2012: 4,162,081
Rubio FL 2010: 2,645,743

People need to stop waxing poetic over the 2010 success. We won because the other side didnt show up. Not because we were louder or angrier. Or we did something specials. Minorities simply didnt show up to vote.

swamp_yankee on November 23, 2012 at 4:21 PM

You can’t compare midterms with presidential year elections. Turnout is always MUCH smaller in mid term elections.

Here’s the real comparison:

Romney FL 2012: 4,162,081
McCain FL 2008: 4,045,624

Meanwhile, Obama got 4.28 & 4.24 million votes in both cycles.

Given Obama’s approval rating in FL, the economy and money spent by the Romney campaign versus what McCain had to face in 2008, Romney’s performance is clearly not very impressive. In fact, it is abysmal.

Norwegian on November 23, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Romney’s performance is clearly not very impressive. In fact, it is abysmal.

Norwegian on November 23, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Romney’s entire life’s accomplishments amounted to throwing money at problems to make them better.

Bain, buy a company cheap, hock it into debt past the rafters, take a large portion of the borrowed money as fees (more than he paid for the company to begin with). Use the rest of the borrowed money to make it look better than it really was, offload to some sucker. Rinse and repeat.

Olympics, record payments from tax payers.

Massachusetts, Medicaid dollars propped up his Romneycare.

Election, $100 million in primary funds spent to win the nomination, then no money left over to work with until the general.

Election, nearly a trillion dollar war chest, paid 4 times the going rate for ads. Spent boat loads of money on new tech called ORCA that failed miserably to get out the vote.

astonerii on November 23, 2012 at 6:01 PM

What the GOP needs is a conservative populist, who knows how to stand on conviction rather than try to pander, understands the issues of middle- & working- class voters, and can communicate effectively to this massive swath of the electorate precisely how conservative principles & policies will make their everyday lives better & more prosperous than the disastrous policies of the progressive leftists currently running the show. Could we get a candidate like that next time around, please?

(steps off soapbox…)

cs89 on November 23, 2012 at 11:40 AM

No, not if the GOPe and the punditocracy have their way. Such a candidate would be hooted off the stage as polarizing, unelectable, divisive and…unelectable. It’s how we got Mitt Romney as the nominee. The only way you get a nominee such as you describe is a grassroots takeover of the GOP.

ddrintn on November 23, 2012 at 6:05 PM

We have a problem and the problem is that the uneducated Democrat base does not understand how tax cuts help the economy. They hear ” Tax Cuts for the Rich” only. The immigration issue is not the problem. Look at the Cuban vote in Florida which went to Obama. Cuban Americans have no immigration problems since they are granted legal status as long as they reach our shores. Hispanics are voting welfare

Dennis D on November 23, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Not only did Romney soundly beat McCain/Palin. He crushed 2010 GOP numbers. Some sore primary losers are pathetic.

“If Romney couldn’t win, nobody could’ve won!!!!” One of the most frequent excuses heard every time a squish predictable loses.

McCain/Palin were running against Chicago Jesus who had no record and no economic stewardship to attack; there was the economic “collapse” in September and McCain’s woeful mishandling of same. Romney had been touted for years as The Only Adult In The Room and the only hyper-electable Republican out there. And he was running against a president who had presided over the passage of the “stimulus”, the still-unpopular ObamaCare, and who had given us 4 years of zero economic growth, double-digit real unemployment and rising prices. Given the advantages he had, Romney should’ve cruised the way his ‘bot squads told us he would.

If we nominated a candidate with women issues annd a history of sticking their foots in their mouth like Cain, Newt or Santorum, they would have done to the whole country what Akin and Mourdock did to MO and IN.

swamp_yankee on November 23, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Sure, we could get out-of-touch patricians calling 47% of the electorate parasites.

ddrintn on November 23, 2012 at 6:14 PM

* predictably

ddrintn on November 23, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Like I said, if you think government, AT ANY LEVEL, should be taking money from a productive person and hand that money over to another person is a legitimate activity of the government, then you are probably in the wrong party. No form of government wealth transfer is legitimate without service. The person in Uniform, Police, Fire fighters, Military are legitimate. The welfare queen, the unemployed chump, the disabled person, the social security recipient, they are all illegitimate concerns for the government. They can and should all be cared for by Family and Friends as well as Community and Charities.

That well exemplifies what I believe is part of the problem. First every person on welfare is a “welfare queen.” Even Ronald Reagan wouldn’t agree with that. Second, anyone who is unemployed is a “chump.” Good to know that’s never happened to you or anyone you love. Third disabled persons are illegitimate concerns for the government (whether they even have family/friends and whether or not “the community” takes care of them). Fourth, 70 year-old people who scrape by on a $2,000 per month social security check that they worked decades planning around are cheating the hardworking citizens of the nation and should have their checks stopped immediately. The mind boggles. But the really disturbing part is that this isn’t just a disagreement we can discuss like gentlemen; Unless I agree with you on all of the above I should just go vote for the Democrats (although I haven’t done that since I’ve been able to vote – more than 40 years now).

That’s a way to build the party!

jdp629 on November 23, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Oh, I should add: Didn’t the social security recipient and the disabled person perform a public service by contributing part of his/her paycheck to the social security/disability fund the government was using to pay other people? Are all the retired policemen, firemen and military personnel stealing from the government because they are receiving checks from unfunded government pensions?

jdp629 on November 23, 2012 at 6:39 PM

You can’t compare midterms with presidential year elections. Turnout is always MUCH smaller in mid term elections.

Here’s the real comparison:

Romney FL 2012: 4,162,081
McCain FL 2008: 4,045,624

Meanwhile, Obama got 4.28 & 4.24 million votes in both cycles.

Given Obama’s approval rating in FL, the economy and money spent by the Romney campaign versus what McCain had to face in 2008, Romney’s performance is clearly not very impressive. In fact, it is abysmal.

Norwegian on November 23, 2012 at 5:53 PM

You are correct.

SparkPlug on November 23, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Mitt Romney wasn’t running against John McCain ca. 2008. He was running against Barack Obama. And he lost. Decisively. All the turd shining in the world isn’t going to change the fact that it’s still a turd, people.

In order to solve the problem, one must first correctly diagnose it, which very few people seem able, let alone willing, to do.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 6:56 PM

jdp629 on November 23, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Did not say they all were Welfare Queens. But without welfare there are no welfare queens. Then when someone comes to your door asking you for 5 dollars to get a ride downtown to pick up a check, you feel a little better knowing the likelihood of that check being a pay check instead of a welfare check. Maybe if I become worse off a year down the road, I can stop by her house and ask for 3 dollars to buy some rice to feed my family. Thereby building a community of people who help one another out. Instead I get people coming to my door saying they need 5 dollars for a bus ride downtown to get their welfare check, their food stamp allotment and so forth. Sorry, not so willing to help them out. I stopped keeping cash in the house, f&ck the moochers.

Again, not all unemployed are chumps, but many of them are. You got the seasonal worker who works exactly enough time to get unemployment benefits for the time between. Reporting exactly the right amount of income in that time to get top payout, and keeping the rest tax free. Plenty of those guys out there. I keep savings on the side to take care of my time off. It is not that hard to do, even when you are making 8 bucks an hour. Grow up and have some personal responsibility.

Disabled are illegitimate concerns for the government, outside of protecting their rights, the government has no business at all taking money from some people to care for them. If they have no family, then it is community and charity. The churches have long taken care of the disabled and the orphaned, this stuff is not new to the world, it is as old as written records and even thousands of years at least beyond that.

70 year old people who planned to live off the wealth of other people’s children, rather than their own savings and children are not exactly exemplars of conservatism. I call it slavery, that is what it is. They demand that other people pay them for no benefit. Sure, it is not the same slavery as say the 1800s United States of America sort, but it was the same slavery of biblical times Rome (egyptian slavery was closer to USA slavery though) where people and their productivity could be owned by another.

By the way, it would be better to have you voting for the Democrats. It is people like you, BUSH and Romney that muddies the waters and leaves tens of millions of voters convinced there is barely a dimes worth of difference between the parties.

By the way, if it was politically possible for Reagan to have gotten rid of the entirety of the welfare states, I think he would have done it. He knew how dependence poisoned the community. He did what he could with what he had. Newt did what he could with what he had. Bush threw it all away and went full bore progressive and destroyed the Republican brand name.

I am willing to take time getting rid of these items that poison the well. But to argue that they are legitimate concerns for government means you have no desire to have a conservative constitutional government ever, and actually are promoting the degeneration of the people of this nation. The degeneration by the way that allowed Obama to be President.

All these programs have been poisoning the well for generations for conservative ideals. They will continue to do so until they are eventually eliminated. They will be eliminated one way or another. Either an orderly education of the people about what they truly are with an orderly wind down. Or, more likely, the real fiscal cliff that is certain to come about in the next decade, I am thinking around early 2020 it will all end.

astonerii on November 23, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Oh, I should add: Didn’t the social security recipient and the disabled person perform a public service by contributing part of his/her paycheck to the social security/disability fund the government was using to pay other people? Are all the retired policemen, firemen and military personnel stealing from the government because they are receiving checks from unfunded government pensions?

jdp629 on November 23, 2012 at 6:39 PM

They paid a tax. Big deal, everyone does. They perpetuated and kept going an evil called slavery. They deserve the payment for that activity. Eternal damnation. I also rarely ever consider greed to be a public service. They all were assured that in the end they would be getting more back than they paid in. So they voted against anyone who ever said anything bad about the programs. Just rewards when the fiscal cliff, the real one hits and they are left destitute.

astonerii on November 23, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Note to Ed:

In this article you note you had to reverse course already once on explaining the results of 2012 and pltiing what to do in 2016.

This should make something clear. STOP TRYING TO WIN THE 2016 election RIGHT NOW!

Folks the elction was painful but I will qoute the much maligned Karl Rove.

“Several geological ages will occur before the election”

Hurricane Sandy and the First debate should wanr people that trying to see the battle field from 4 years off is a fool’s errand. Do I think it is wrong to discuss what to do? Of course not but the advice that we need more Latino votes wasn’t less true before the election as it is now. YOU ALWAYS NEED NEW VOTERS.

Conan on November 23, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Here’s my idea of social justice, libs:

You keep what you earn, and I keep what I earn. The only people that help either of us out are the ones that want to (i.e. work for private charities/churches).

Now, if you think this is incorrect, explain to me how much of what I earn you believe you are entitled to, and why.

h/t Walter E. Williams

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Romney though he was ahead in Florida and pretty much pulled out of the state, at least that’s what I read, probably here.
Swamp Yankee thank you for the link to the votes.

carolt2 on November 23, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Mitt Romney wasn’t running against John McCain ca. 2008. He was running against Barack Obama. And he lost. Decisively. All the turd shining in the world isn’t going to change the fact that it’s still a turd, people.

In order to solve the problem, one must first correctly diagnose it, which very few people seem able, let alone willing, to do.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 6:56 PM

SparkPlug on November 23, 2012 at 7:14 PM

More BS from the losers who want the reason for failure to be anything but the candidate and the campaign. No sale. You can do a all the demographic interpretive dancing you like. We will remember the screw-ups and who is responsible. Don’t bring those losers around again.

SurferDoc on November 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

More BS from the losers who want the reason for failure to be anything but the candidate and the campaign. No sale. You can do a all the demographic interpretive dancing you like. We will remember the screw-ups and who is responsible. Don’t bring those losers around again.

SurferDoc on November 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

We know that Romney lost. But the answer is, why? I mean, he ran on the same platform that Reagan ran on. So what’s the difference between Reagan and Romney?

HINT: It’s not a trick question. It has a real and logical answer.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Romney would have won in a landslide with 1980 demographics. This is what many people expected (ditto), but yeah, I think the changing demographics needs an actual message. I think a lot of immigrants actually are conservative, but end up voting Democrat. Why? Because Republicans don’t reach out to them. Don’t have a message put out there and don’t properly oppose the liberal hate machine.

MrX on November 23, 2012 at 7:32 PM

SparkPlug on November 23, 2012 at 7:14 PM

This reminds of liberal thinking. Discuss a platitude and leave it hanging. If you want to post some idea do so. Posting “we need to do better” is just useless venting or maybe gutless.

Conan on November 23, 2012 at 7:33 PM

This reminds of liberal thinking. Discuss a platitude and leave it hanging. If you want to post some idea do so. Posting “we need to do better” is just useless venting or maybe gutless.

Conan on November 23, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Considering that every time I try to bring something new to the table, I am mocked and chided here, I’m trying to stimulate thought in an artful and tactful manner. Folks here don’t seem too interested, I guess.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Romney would have won in a landslide with 1980 demographics. This is what many people expected (ditto), but yeah, I think the changing demographics needs an actual message. I think a lot of immigrants actually are conservative, but end up voting Democrat. Why? Because Republicans don’t reach out to them. Don’t have a message put out there and don’t properly oppose the liberal hate machine.

MrX on November 23, 2012 at 7:32 PM

How about this, Butch?

Find a Republican who believes in republican government and the rest of his party’s platform?

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

This is what’s so frustrating about being part of the conservative remnant these days. Most people that call themselves “conservative” nowadays are too smart by half.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 7:37 PM

MrX on November 23, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Let’s have an honest discussion about Demographics and the Obama campaign.

Obama has been campaigning and building this minority coalition for the last 4 years. There are many stories how on Univision and through direct contact the Obama campaign convinced minorities that the Republicans hate them. Obama’s numbers don’t AUTOMATICALLY represent our failures they represent his successes. What would we expect if we dumped 100′s of millions on white voters? That we could drive his numbers to record lows?

People you are way too deep looking in the mirror and not understanding that you just saw one of the better RUN campaigns and GOTV’s by an INCUMBANT who had 4 years to organize it which is all he and his buddies are good at.

This self-flagellation need to stop.

Conan on November 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

People you are way too deep looking in the mirror and not understanding that you just saw one of the better RUN campaigns and GOTV’s by an INCUMBANT who had 4 years to organize it which is all he and his buddies are good at.

This self-flagellation need to stop.

Conan on November 23, 2012 at 7:39 PM

How about Romney? Do you think he just stopped after losing the nomination in 2008? You talk like 2012 is when he popped his presidential campaign cherry or something.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 7:41 PM

The immigration issue is not the problem. Look at the Cuban vote in Florida which went to Obama. Cuban Americans have no immigration problems since they are granted legal status as long as they reach our shores. Hispanics are voting welfare

Dennis D on November 23, 2012 at 6:05 PM

According to WSJ MarketWatch

Romney won [Florida's] overall Cuban-American vote, 52-48.

Still, if the next Democratic candidate for president can continue that momentum, it would represent a demographic shift of the highest order. Republicans have won the hearts of Florida Cuban-Americans since the Fidel Castro regime took power in Cuba in 1959. Older Cuban-Americans have through the years identified with the GOP’s tough stance on Communism. It’s estimated that in some elections, nearly three-fourths of Miami-Dade County Cuban Americans have voted Republican.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 23, 2012 at 7:45 PM

blockquote>
Considering that every time I try to bring something new to the table, I am mocked and chided here, I’m trying to stimulate thought in an artful and tactful manner. Folks here don’t seem too interested, I guess.
gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 7:36 PM

I consider an idea I can’t defend one that I need to reconsider. If you are getting chewed then maybe you should too. Many including myself if you read my other posts are sick of trying to defend conservatism as the problem.

I would suggest that the EGOS on our side can’t admit that Obama ran a 4 YEAR targeted campaign where he knew he could run on the issues of the day which have been against him since Obamacare. He WON an election he didn’t deserve to win by accountability standards and that our side can’t stand and has it reeling for solutions.

All of this ASSUMES that future election will be like this one where a cult figure of minority status can’t just push the race and wedge issue button and overcome the misery of the economy and unemployment. I would suggest we don’t know that.

I think we might be looking at a non-cult figure (Yes, even Hillary) trying to defend 8 years of failed liberalism with free birth control and not having the Obama cult minority following and see that even if we did nothing the vote suddenly went back to 51%+ in our favor without changing anything.

The assumption here is the success of the Obama campaign and its turnout is permanent. That is usually a bad assumption in politics.

Conan on November 23, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Excellent writeup, Mr. Morrissey.

tommy71 on November 23, 2012 at 7:51 PM

We know that Romney lost. But the answer is, why? I mean, he ran on the same platform that Reagan ran on. So what’s the difference between Reagan and Romney?

HINT: It’s not a trick question. It has a real and logical answer.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 7:23 PM

His party had the same platform, or close to what the party had when Reagan ran. However, he did not run on that platform.

Reagan would not have said about ObamaCare that it had elements that he liked and would keep.

Reagan did not run away from the successful or try to come across as democrat lite.

Reagan had the ability to articulate conservative values to the common voter. Palin has the same gift; that’s why she’s been demonized by both the MSM and the GOP establishment. The GOP establishment did not like the fact that Reagan won either.

Further:
Reagan did not say his opponent was a “nice guy who just had some bad ideas”

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 7:52 PM

How about Romney? Do you think he just stopped after losing the nomination in 2008? You talk like 2012 is when he popped his presidential campaign cherry or something.
gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 7:41 PM

I don’t know if you kept track but Obama NEVER held a Townhall or speech in anything but a swing state.

He had the Stimulus flown to Denver so he could sign it there.

It was apparent if you were watching was that he was into re-elect mode in 2009.

Romney had to fight a primary until late summer. Are you really serious with comparing the bully pulpit for 4 years to the fact Romney knew he was running again in 2008?

Conan on November 23, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3