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

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

As the supposed permanency of conservatism was a bad idea to assume after Reagan. That much, I agree with.

I can defend my ideas just fine as long as others are interested in engaging and rationally debating them. I should probably know better than to seek that kind of intellect in a blog’s comment section, but oh well.

My biggest problem with this kind of debate in the first place is that it assumes that the ascendancy of liberalism is just another bump in the road, that this is no different than all the other times government has gained power (which, by the by, it never seems to have to relinquish — EVER). I reject that notion completely. What we are dealing with here is an existential question: Does America still exist as our founding fathers envisioned it? If so, on what basis do we make that assertion? If not, is there anything of their vision left worth preserving? Why or why not?

For thinking like this, I’m often called a drama queen by people that think “the fiscal cliff” is the most important cliff we face. It’s not.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 7:56 PM

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

Yeah, as a matter of fact I am. Every last idea that Obama floated — without fail — was a destructive piece of anti-Americana. I think Obama should get credit for running an adequate campaign, but again, this does not address specifically why Romney lost. At least not what I think is the most important reason.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 7:58 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

You just about nailed it. The only thing I would add to what you said is that Reagan believed in the party’s platform. Romney didn’t. Of all the factors in Romney’s loss to Obama, I think that is the most important one.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM

GOP turnout: Mitt and Reality

tommy71 on November 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 7:52 PM

One of the points where Santorum jumped up in the polls is that if we run Romney we will have to give up the debate on Obamacare which was the lynchpin of 2010.

He was right.

Obama DID NOT pay for Obamacare and we now have a public totally ignorant of it’s effects.

The flip side of that which our panicky brothers don’t realize is that Obamacare will slap people in the face much before 2016 and become a DOMINANT issue once they see their helath care f**ked up and they might not have to be convinced to join the party that is against it WITHOUT pandering. I don’t even see the conditions of the country as different than 2009 when the whole tea party thing got started and end in a 2014 drubbing. By 2016 you could have a seriously pi$$ed off electorate ala Bush in 2008 that voted for him in 2004.

Conan on November 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM

One of the points where Santorum jumped up in the polls is that if we run Romney we will have to give up the debate on Obamacare which was the lynchpin of 2010.

He was right.

Obama DID NOT pay for Obamacare and we now have a public totally ignorant of it’s effects.

The flip side of that which our panicky brothers don’t realize is that Obamacare will slap people in the face much before 2016 and become a DOMINANT issue once they see their helath care f**ked up and they might not have to be convinced to join the party that is against it WITHOUT pandering. I don’t even see the conditions of the country as different than 2009 when the whole tea party thing got started and end in a 2014 drubbing. By 2016 you could have a seriously pi$$ed off electorate ala Bush in 2008 that voted for him in 2004.

Conan on November 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Assuming your theory is correct, why didn’t the acceleration of health care costs under Medicare some 35+ years ago cause that program’s death? We got Medicare on steroids and called it “Obamacare.” Couldn’t even elect a president who ran on repealing it.

We’re going to get hosed in 2016 just like we did in 2012, just like we did in 2008. Conservatives are learning all the wrong lessons here, particularly since the lessons learned are not grounded in truth.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 8:05 PM

The fraudulent election claimed by a programmer of the voting machines before Congress on a sworn statement and there’s nothing in the media about it. It was on the You-Tube. Why should we believe anything coming from the media? Their newspapers are drying up along with their news magazines, gee I wonder why.

mixplix on November 23, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Assuming your theory is correct, why didn’t the acceleration of health care costs under Medicare some 35+ years ago cause that program’s death? We got Medicare on steroids and called it “Obamacare.” Couldn’t even elect a president who ran on repealing it.

We’re going to get hosed in 2016 just like we did in 2012, just like we did in 2008. Conservatives are learning all the wrong lessons here, particularly since the lessons learned are not grounded in truth.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Because people did not look in the right direction for the reason for the increased cost. Cause and Effect were not looked at and was actively subverted by the government, even the Republicans were in on it.

astonerii on November 23, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Because people did not look in the right direction for the reason for the increased cost. Cause and Effect were not looked at and was actively subverted by the government, even the Republicans were in on it.

astonerii on November 23, 2012 at 8:08 PM

And we’re not looking at true cause-and-effect for our loss of the election either. Scores upon scores of posts from commenters here, along with the election from the professional bloggers here, are proof enough of that for me.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 8:10 PM

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

If collecting this strong support was a skill idiosyncratic to President Obama, you are right.

Have you considered the nature of political machines?

In Chicago, the process seems to have the life expectancy of a healthy sequoia. Think of what engendered the machines in the last two centuries. A weak economy and immigrant population were fertile soil.

Now the fact that this is such an alien concept for analysis shows the power of our media to keep the soil off certain beloved leaders. Slate magazine featured articles on the subject in 2006 and 2012 with the last one largely debunking Republican claims that the Democratic national ticket had adopted the methods, if not the details.

For good or ill, he has the local support. He has the formula and organization. He needs a successor. He is now working on just that. A yes person may be the first considered..one who would go on talk shows and follow his orders…

IlikedAUH2O on November 23, 2012 at 8:11 PM

For the 1000th time, Obama made Romney out to be the evil rich guy and jealous types voted for Obama. Add to that the millions of voters that voted for Obama just because of his skin color.

The end. Ask anyone you know what they voted Obama. Go ahead.

Why do so many try to make it complicated? It isn’t at all.

I know that liberals/media/panicky Repub blogs really want to believe some major demographics shift has taken place. But that is crap for the results of this election.

Moesart on November 23, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Moesart on November 23, 2012 at 8:24 PM

I agree. Romney was the probably the fourth worst choice we had this primary. In order of worst to best.

Cain, Ron Paul, Huntsman, Romney, Pawlenty, Santorum, Bachmann, Newt, Perry.

I supported Newt.

astonerii on November 23, 2012 at 8:33 PM

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Yes, you and AZFed are correct,

SparkPlug on November 23, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Moesart, Romney won the pubs and was up among indies. But Obama still won with D+6. Yep, no demographic shift at all. How many Presidential elections would you like to lose before facing the facts?

tommy71 on November 23, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Moesart, Romney won the pubs and was up among indies. But Obama still won with D+6. Yep, no demographic shift at all. How many Presidential elections would you like to lose before facing the facts?

tommy71 on November 23, 2012 at 8:51 PM

D+6 is not a demographic.

astonerii on November 23, 2012 at 8:54 PM

But Obama still won with D+6. Yep, no demographic shift at all.

tommy71 on November 23, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Romney lost because too many on the right saw no reason to turn out and that is why he could barely manage to reach John McCain numbers. John McCain also couldn’t get enough on the right to turn out.

Give people something to vote for!

It’s a radical concept I know, but I think it might work.

sharrukin on November 23, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Give people something to vote for!

It’s a radical concept I know, but I think it might work.

sharrukin on November 23, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Your hypothesis seems to be supported by two Reagan landslides and the huge outpouring of support for Sarah Palin before the McCain campaign hobbled her.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Your hypothesis seems to be supported by two Reagan landslides and the huge outpouring of support for Sarah Palin before the McCain campaign hobbled her.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 9:10 PM

So why does the GOP run screaming into the night when such a thing is even mentioned?

sharrukin on November 23, 2012 at 9:13 PM

So why does the GOP run screaming into the night when such a thing is even mentioned?

sharrukin on November 23, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Because the GOP establishment does not really want smaller government. It just wants to control the government strings. It wants the committee memberships and control of the budget. That was what was happening prior to the 2006 election; many in the GOP had become democrat lite. Unfortunately, that led to real democrat control of both houses of congress and was a contributing factor to the mess in which we now find ourselves.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Because the GOP establishment does not really want smaller government. It just wants to control the government strings. It wants the committee memberships and control of the budget. That was what was happening prior to the 2006 election; many in the GOP had become democrat lite. Unfortunately, that led to real democrat control of both houses of congress and was a contributing factor to the mess in which we now find ourselves.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Thats my conclusion as well. It’s a scam from the getgo.

sharrukin on November 23, 2012 at 9:24 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 the Wall Street Journal and ABC News:

Romney edged out a win over Obama among Florida Cuban-American voters, 52-48 percent.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on November 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Romney had to fight a primary until late summer.

Conan on November 23, 2012 at 7:52 PM

He did no such thing. He had trouble putting away a succession of GOP third-stringers up until about March.

ddrintn on November 23, 2012 at 9:30 PM

The only thing the numbers show is that more than ever, Voter ID is needed.

Patton531 on November 23, 2012 at 11:29 PM

I think a lot of immigrants actually are conservative, but end up voting Democrat.

Actually, that’s a myth. The most recent polls have Hispanics wanting more govt vs less govt, supporting gay marriage, and also being pro-abortion.

It may just be the cycle that American politics is in or the demographic changes, but there is no way a Republican can win a Presidential election again for a generation.

If the Dems are smart, they will nominate a black guy for Pres or VP and lock up that block of votes every four years. If they turn out, he/she can’t be beat.

gumbyandpokey on November 24, 2012 at 12:04 AM

The only thing the numbers show is that more than ever, Voter ID is needed.

Patton531 on November 23, 2012 at 11:29 PM

Amen to that!

Christian Conservative on November 24, 2012 at 12:25 AM

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.

Amen!!! If you don´t compete, you cannot change minds.

The idea that certain minorities are “liberal anyway” simply shows that too many in the GOP believe what liberals say about them. They have themselves bought into the myth that conservative ideas are bad for minorities or “the little guy”. These small-spectrum conservatives are our biggest problem. They are the reason why the GOP is too lethargic (or angsty) to hit back against accusations of racism.

The GOP has ceded too much ground on bread-and-butter issues where conservative solutions are proven to work better. And ceding ground is un-American.

Note I´m not talking about pandering and certainly not about more immigration. I´m talking about changing the economic message into terms everyone can understand. The same policies that would help a white working class blue collar guy can also help any other person who works for a living.

el gordo on November 24, 2012 at 4:08 AM

2 words
VOTER FRAUD!

flytier on November 24, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Honestly, I respect the dead but have lost respect for Jack Kemp.

I remember shortly before he died, he mustered the strength to go on Hannity and was just ripping into Hannity about how great that first emergency stimulus thingy was going to be. Back in the last days of Bush. You know, that emergency stimulus thingy that they said was needed to save the economy and must be passed within 24 hours or something or we’d all die… but 3 weeks later when it was finally passed nothing seemed any different than when McCain suspended his campaign. Kemp was practically mocking Hannity as a fool for not realizing how they had to save the banks “Now Now Now!”

Our side gets played the fool so many times. Either that, or we’re played the fool actually believing people like Kemp were and are on our side.

JellyToast on November 24, 2012 at 9:25 AM

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.

If that was true then the election results would’ve been much different. Bottom line is that we ARE talking about pandering, and even more disgustingly, pandering along RACIAL lines. I want no part of any party that would emulate the scummy tactics of Democrats. And I have no interest whatsoever in a Balkanized America.

What you appear to be saying is that we simply don’t explain the message well enough. But how can that be when we’ve been explaining it for decades? Limited government, free markets… those aren’t things no one has heard of.

It’s not “the message”. There’s a fairly ugly, politically incorrect, and thus assiduously avoided underbelly to this beast… and that is the REAL racism going on in this country. The GOP is associated with whites, painted as the party of white privilege by Democrats for as long as I can remember. And while we’re busy teaching our kids “the content of character”, people like Jeremiah Wright are teaching whole communities hatred on the basis of skin.

I was shocked four years ago when everywhere I looked I found people nonplussed by his behavior, saying “that’s just how black churches are”. Well, that was news to me. I thought they were just having more fun in church than we typically do. But no, church is racial and political and that’s apparently the norm.

I’ve had hispanics in my home as guests, who I’ve later overheard engaging in anti-white rhetoric. So, it’s not limited to blacks by a long shot. We teach our kids love; they teach theirs hate. How is this different than how Palestinians raise their kids to hate Jews? Democrats cultivate those divisions, feed on them. And we’re supposed to join in on the game of Identity Politics? THAT’s what it takes to win?

If so, count me out. What made this country great, “exceptional” even, was that so many people of disparate backgrounds could come together and become as one. It was the “melting pot”, not the “salad bowl”. If we have to go around addressing one another’s race as a priority, we might as well join the Democrats and stop bothering ourselves to oppose them.

Murf76 on November 24, 2012 at 12:48 PM

If so, count me out. What made this country great, “exceptional” even, was that so many people of disparate backgrounds could come together and become as one. It was the “melting pot”, not the “salad bowl”. If we have to go around addressing one another’s race as a priority, we might as well join the Democrats and stop bothering ourselves to oppose them.

Murf76 on November 24, 2012 at 12:48 PM

The Europeans melted in the pot. The Asians and Africans effectively separated out. Now the Euro descended South Americans are separating out as well.
Asians do not assimilate because they are not Christian.
Blacks because they were enslaved and still have a large amount of animus. Of course, that was 140 years past they were freed, so it is now a false resentment.
Hispanics on the other hand have come here in such large numbers in such a short period, they actually think they own the United States and people on the left do every bit they can to convince them they do.

So, the melting pot you adore was always a dream really. People of similar enough back grounds came together and shared the best parts of their cultures.

astonerii on November 24, 2012 at 1:00 PM

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

…or do better in the groups they have now. The proof is in, that Romney won voters who make more than 50K. Ask yourself if there is anything you can do in your business to favor merit based rewards at your company, get a few GOOD employees promoted…invested in success…and when a minimum wage increase is foist on you, don’t take it away from the merit/responsibility employees, let one of the minimum wage workers go.

Evil, I know, but if everyone did this again, like it used to be, small business, at least, could have somewhat “loyal” employees, with a stake in the company. Private companies, private wealth, and you don’t have to put up with what the public companies have to put up with, you don’t have to “publish” everything.

Fleuries on November 24, 2012 at 2:14 PM

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.

Hardly.

There’s two factors you’re neglecting, Ed:

1.)Expanded Population – with identical enthusiasm, an expanded voting-age population should mean that Romney’s percentage of the vote should have increased proportionally along with the population

2.)Obama-to-Romney converts – given the 13 point swing in independents, as well as supposed converts of Democrats who decided to instead vote for Romney this time around, Romney should have picked up millions more votes than he actually got.

Barely edging out McCain’s vote tally does not change this. In other words, yes, you have a base turnout problem.

Stoic Patriot on November 24, 2012 at 2:33 PM

The jobs issue was not resolved by Romney

Obama promised he could grow jobs by spending money. He promised to buy jobs by taking money from rich people. To prove his sincerity, he bought everyone a phone

Except, Obama only bought his low income base phones. He didn’t really prove to the middle that he could grow jobs, because the middle came up short on jobs

On the other hand, Romney didn’t prove to the satisfaction of the middle that he could squirt out jobs either.

Obama had to get out his regulars, and he used the Treasury to do it
Romney got his regulars courtesy of Obama’s rotten presidency

School vouchers wouldn’t have helped. Romney promised school choice. He needed less promises and more proof. Many of his surrogates were stuck on promises too.

Romney couldn’t just say ‘trust me’ because he had no real relationship with the public. That was proven by his rapid increase in polls after the debates, when people got to see him, basically for the first time.

But the debates were spent more shutting down Obama. Obama’s attack barrage was to protect himself from his own web of lies. However, it helped keep Romney from proving his own ideas

Somewhere else, even if it was better ads, Romney needed to sell the idea, and not the promise. His ad campaign was promise based.

I don’t blame Romney. They had him making speeches to the converted, and tv covered crowd scenes, not what he said. Get out the vote was not tight. Ads were promise based.

Rush always says we win on ideas. Look up famous Reagan quotes. They are ideas, an entire philosophy

entagor on November 24, 2012 at 10:10 PM

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

I thought Dems were the only ones who believed in unrealistic, utopian dreams. “Could’ve, Should’ve, Would’ve” versus what family and friends will actually do and give to each other can be worlds apart. Most of us don’t even get decent Christmas presents.

Anyway, the kids are voting for Obama. They voted to pay into social security. Let them. Some of their money is going to needy elders – but they also need to learn that much of the money is going to the same 1% they protest against and the program will be bankrupt when the young and dumb become old.

The difficulty with these programs is not that they help needy elders who cannot or do not have family and friends to help them. The problem is some of social security is being spent to buy an extra luxury condo in a Florida gated community. The young need to take off the blinders of the Guy Fawkes mask and have an adult conversation about reform.

HellCat on November 24, 2012 at 11:51 PM

The battle has been lost in the schools. K-12 we are completely not in play. Freedom is in trouble. Big trouble.

RutRoh on November 25, 2012 at 3:49 AM

You just about nailed it. The only thing I would add to what you said is that Reagan believed in the party’s platform. Romney didn’t. Of all the factors in Romney’s loss to Obama, I think that is the most important one.

gryphon202 on November 23, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Which explains why conservatives stayed home and Romney lost. GOP GOTV was left to chance. The results speak for themselves.

DevilsPrinciple on November 25, 2012 at 4:44 AM

What said it all for me was visiting here in California and the gardener’s van pulled out outside the neighbor’s house, with dudes who look illegal, or one step removed, and speaking Spanish (yeah, I know I just started a flame war) – and it’s plastered with 0bama/Biden stickers.

To me it’s looking like a straight takeover of the nation by folks who vote skin color/ anti-white.

Considering that Mexico and most African nations are not successful, this experiment in thro whitey out the driver’s seat will be interesting.

Another controversial wording, I know. But it’s supposedly a free country, and I’m using the 1st Amendment and don’t mean anything bad – just discussing the huge race-based vote that seems to have put 0bama in office – that is, unless the election was electronically stolen, which I cannot rule out, given the utter corruption of the Democrats.

cane_loader on November 25, 2012 at 5:55 AM

We can talk about why Romney lost until we die. But, stating that one thing was the tipping point is ludicrous. His loss was like a dominoes falling in both directions, only before they finish a bratty kid comes along and kicks them. That bratty kid was the misinformed voter who went to the booth and said, “gee I just don’t know … I’m staying with Obama.”
In uncertain times the majority of the people fear change. That’s the reason why a stupid slogan of Hope & Change was changed to Forward. It lured in the dumb masses.

“Far away across the field
The tolling of the iron bell
draws the faithful to their knees
with a softly spoken magic spell.” Waters

kregg on November 25, 2012 at 8:27 AM

My take.

kingsjester on November 25, 2012 at 9:20 AM

In other words, there are enough takers/moochers now to ensure that the Dems will stay in power from here on out. Conservatism/Libertarianism is dying, the GOP is dead and the next major opposition party in the US will be to the left of the Dems. Obama has succeeded; we are moving towards 3rd world status. Anyone who stays here instead of seeking higher ground is just being stubborn.

Kakalak Pundit on November 25, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Minorities aren’t liberal, they Hague been told since birth that their existence entitles them to free scraps, and that if they ever try to earn their own fresh pieces they are sellouts. And they will soon needed the majority. This country is dying.

Kakalak Pundit on November 25, 2012 at 9:48 AM

HellCat on November 24, 2012 at 11:51 PM

They may not ALL do what is right. Then the burden shifts to community and charity. Those children who do not do what they should do can be easily identified by the community and ostracized for their failure, and shamed. The kind that has consequences. Nice job you HAD there, but we really no longer have need of services of a dead beat…

The way it was for tens of thousands of years.

astonerii on November 25, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Give people something to vote for!

It’s a radical concept I know, but I think it might work.

sharrukin on November 23, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Your hypothesis seems to be supported by two Reagan landslides and the huge outpouring of support for Sarah Palin before the McCain campaign hobbled her.

AZfederalist on November 23, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Yes indeed,

SparkPlug on November 25, 2012 at 12:32 PM

KJ,

Read your take. You rock.

SparkPlug on November 25, 2012 at 12:34 PM

what’s the game plan when the democrats run a black on every presidential ticket from now onto the end?

what’s the game plan for winning over the young, the asians, and the latinos??

what are each one of you doing besides whining on hot air?

hot air doesn’t win elections, getting out the vote does!

wholefoodsrepublican on November 25, 2012 at 1:13 PM

wholefoodsrepublican on November 25, 2012 at 1:13 PM

I am not a Republican. I do not care about the outcome of the Republican party. I am a conservative. Since the Republican party turned its back on my ideology, they have nothing to compel me to help them. I gave them one last hurrah by voting against Obama and his 1.6 billion rounds of ammo DHS which I think is lined up for use against planned rioting.

Hot Air used to be a movement conservative web site. It is not here to push Republican ideas, but conservative ones.

astonerii on November 25, 2012 at 2:20 PM

In other words, there are enough takers/moochers now to ensure that the Dems will stay in power from here on out. Conservatism/Libertarianism is dying, the GOP is dead and the next major opposition party in the US will be to the left of the Dems. Obama has succeeded; we are moving towards 3rd world status. Anyone who stays here instead of seeking higher ground is just being stubborn.

Kakalak Pundit on November 25, 2012 at 9:42 AM

With a very deep sigh, I agree with you. Can you point me to this higher ground that you speak of?

UpTheCreek on November 25, 2012 at 4:16 PM

KJ,

Read your take. You rock.

SparkPlug on November 25, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Thankyaverymuch! Please share.

kingsjester on November 25, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Mitt, was my man and I think he would have made a great president.

But he lost. It’s over for him.

time to go on to other candidates for next election.

gerrym51 on November 25, 2012 at 10:09 PM

1.)Expanded Population – with identical enthusiasm, an expanded voting-age population should mean that Romney’s percentage of the vote should have increased proportionally along with the population

expanded voting age population had more potential Obama voters than Romney voters.

hispanics have the highest birth rates.Its a fact-don’t blame me.

gerrym51 on November 25, 2012 at 10:12 PM

expanded voting age population had more potential Obama voters than Romney voters.

hispanics have the highest birth rates.Its a fact-don’t blame me.

gerrym51 on November 25, 2012 at 10:12 PM

And Democrat-loyal blacks are probably right after.

Demographic shift, people.

MelonCollie on November 25, 2012 at 11:02 PM

hispanics have the highest birth rates.Its a fact-don’t blame me.

gerrym51 on November 25, 2012 at 10:12 PM
And Democrat-loyal blacks are probably right after.

Demographic shift, people.

MelonCollie on November 25, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Not at all. The black population in this country has been stagnant for years, and the hispanic population is growing much more slowly than predicted. The future of America belongs to those of Asian heritage, hispanics only if they continue to immigrate in large numbers.

alwaysfiredup on November 26, 2012 at 3:15 AM

Does America still exist as our founding fathers envisioned it?

No. The process that ended that started with the election of 1860 and ended at Appomattox Courthouse in 1865. Until the GOP admits that it is at primary fault for the FedGov being the centralized, out of control mess it is, nothing will be solved. Frankly, I think it is far too late save the country.

Quartermaster on November 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM

We can sit there and brain storm all day long about why the Republicans lost, whether they didn’t get in to Latino areas and what not (as if that mattered, statistically they voted the same as they’ve done since Reagan and he did the first amnesty). The problem was simply this: Romney. He governed as a liberal – just look at his stances on guns, abortion, gays and gay propaganda in grade schools, health care, etc, etc, etc.

Some people have principles and believe that actions speak louder than words. If the RNC would have supported a good candidate (instead of a RINO) Republicans and conservatives would have turned out.

John_G on November 26, 2012 at 10:21 AM

“…That doesn’t mean pandering, but…” – Ed M.

That’s exactly what you mean – pandering.

I’m trying to think of a noteworthy Republican pundit and/or Politician who hasn’t now screached “abandon all principles so we can win elections!”

RNC 2016 election slogan “We’re Socialists too!”

My advice to the RNC to get higher Republican turnout: Quit running RINOs.

John_G on November 26, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Obama got his Dem. base to the polls. Romney did not.
He was never gonna get the Black vote. Period. Christian blacks have a hard time with Mormonism.
Ditto Christian Hispanics. True, they have not been properly courted by Repubs. but, C’mon man! their turnout should not have been as vital as many have said.
Finally, as I keep saying, there was a decided lack of enthusiasm for our candidate among the majority Caucasian constituency. He did just a little bit better than McCain?? Now there’s a distinction without distinction. Especially given 4 years of a “Progressive” Presidency.
I don’t like it. You don’t like it. But there continues to be a prejudice against Mormons in this country, especially if they can be vilified as “rich” Mormons.
I’m going to continue to look for evidence contrary to my thesis, but when the conservative libertarian center-right of this country fails to elect a good man and politician in the face of creeping socialism, I smell a dead rat somewhere behind a wall.
I said last tear America wouldn’t elect a Mormon as President, and they didn’t.

Randy

williars on November 27, 2012 at 6:25 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3