Green Room

Video: The libertarian view of why Romney lost

posted at 10:10 pm on November 7, 2012 by

Three suggestions from Nick Gillespie. The GOP’s newfound alarm about losing Latinos and young voters should lead to some movement on his first two, but I don’t know about the third. Social conservatives will be on high alert for signs that the party is tacking towards the center on their core issues.

Speaking of which, read Fr. Robert Sirico’s take on why “one election cannot fix what ails us.”

Recently in the Green Room:

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

it’s got to start at the grass-roots level, in your communities and your neighborhoods, and not be forced upon everybody by overly restrictive laws, such as those banning things completely from adults.

TMOverbeck on November 8, 2012 at 10:09 AM

I absolutely agree with you.. The problem- the other side keeps pushing things by federal judicial fiat and therein lies the problem. I am more of a small l, but can’t bring myself to be a big L because I know that social issues are directly tied to fiscal issues. I have no problem with marriage, abortion, drug, etc being decided on by state by state basis. The problem is that I became a socon because the other side does not respect the electorate. They push by judicial fiat, and so when they continue to do this I will continue to nominate those I feel will nominate conservative, conservative justices.

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Been saying this for 2 failed presidential elections now. The social cons will be the death of the republican party. Why the hell does the GOP pander to a group that has no one else to vote for?

thphilli on November 7, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Riiight. And the fact that the GOP nominated two squishy moderates for those two failed elections had nothing to do with it, right?!

Sterling Holobyte on November 8, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Riiight. And the fact that the GOP nominated two squishy moderates for those two failed elections had nothing to do with it, right?!

Sterling Holobyte on November 8, 2012 at 10:34 AM

wasn’t Bush a “squishy moderate”, “compassionate conservative”, a “neocon” ? he won btw

runner on November 8, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Speaking of which, read Fr. Robert Sirico’s take on why “one election cannot fix what ails us.”

Especially when you lose.

Cindy Munford on November 8, 2012 at 10:49 AM

runner on November 8, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Different times. It’s all well and good to elect a moderate when unemployment is at 5%.

Cindy Munford on November 8, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Look, if you want to be a liberal with a budget, please – by all means do so. I’m sure the Democrats would love to have you.

psrch on November 8, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Ha ha ha… Oh, socons… You really won’t rest until the GOP goes back to being a permanent minority party, will you?

Inkblots on November 8, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Ha ha ha… Oh, socons… You really won’t rest until the GOP goes back to being a permanent minority party, will you?

Inkblots on November 8, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Ha, Ha, Ha, you sound like Beavis and Butthead. The last two GOP nominees were moderates and we lost.. How much more moderate does everyone want to get..? Apparently a Democrat.

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Ha, Ha, Ha, you sound like Beavis and Butthead. The last two GOP nominees were moderates and we lost.. How much more moderate does everyone want to get..? Apparently a Democrat.

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Or maybe a genuine constitutionalist who focuses on limiting the power and scope of the Federal government, rather than using it to try and shape society to match your personal morality.

The only consolation is, voters of your sort of over either way. Either the party moves past you and becomes the party of genuinely limited government, or the party sticks with you and never wins another national election. So, there’s that.

Inkblots on November 8, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Different times. It’s all well and good to elect a moderate when unemployment is at 5%.

Cindy Munford on November 8, 2012 at 10:51 AM

That only means that Bush’s campaign knew how to tailor strategy and message to the times; Gore should have won in ’00 since he was part of admin that created surpluses, however, Bush people read the cards and population right and tailored accordingly. Again, ’00 was different than ’04 and he ran with a different message, keeping country safe, etc., dems tried to respond with a “war hero” and still lost.

runner on November 8, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Or maybe a genuine constitutionalist who focuses on limiting the power and scope of the Federal government, rather than using it to try and shape society to match your personal morality.

The only consolation is, voters of your sort of over either way. Either the party moves past you and becomes the party of genuinely limited government, or the party sticks with you and never wins another national election. So, there’s that.

Inkblots on November 8, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Oh stuff it. YOU know nothing about my positions. I suggest you read my posts lest you think I like using the government to shape morality..

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Y’all keep saying this but the last two elections were lost running moderates on social issues and evangelicals still voted for them so I am not sure what y’all are crying about. One of two things happened to YOUR candidates: either they couldn’t articulate that they were moderate or it had nothing to do with social issues and everything to do with the electorate changing to more “give, give, give me what can the government do for me mentality.” Either case YOUR candidates will continue to lose as well … MEh!

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Neither McCain nor Romney were “my” candidates, nice try. I’ll grant you that both were not the best spokesmen for their parties, although Romney certainly ran a better campaign than I expected. Yet saying that social issues weren’t part of their campaigns is willfully ignorant. They both cow-towed to soc-con groups in their positions on these issues, and it didn’t escape anyone’s attention their grovelling to AFA, FRC, NOM, etc. So yes, neither McCain nor Romney were bonafide soc-cons but they didn’t have to be. Everyone knew that they would have been beholden to the soc-cons and would gladly have given them most of what they wanted.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 11:25 AM

<blockquoteThere are untapped fiscal cons, classical liberal people that are in the Democrat Party waiting to be woo’ed. But they are driven away by the religious right.

I think this is it in a nutshell. Until the R’s leave the bedroom while trying to be the party of small government they will continue to lose.

tammyloc on November 8, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Crap! How DO you use those quote thingys!!! Sorry!

tammyloc on November 8, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Everyone knew that they would have been beholden to the soc-cons and would gladly have given them most of what they wanted.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Really Bush was President for 8 years what exactly did he give socons. Did abortion suddenly become illegal and I didn’t know it? Did gay marriage become a Constitutional ban? Tell me how ANY candidate has given anything to socons?

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 11:27 AM

The 48% model didn’t depend on us “putting up soc-con heroes like Santorum or Huckabee.” Those two lost in the primaries because we were told they “weren’t electable.” We put up Romney instead, precisely because we were told that “he’s the only one who can beat Obama.” And guess what? He didn’t. Period. End-of-story. So do you think that Romney is even remotely comparable to Santorum or Huckabee in his morals, let alone his “conservatism?” Bwahahahaha!

gryphon202 on November 8, 2012 at 9:58 AM

And yet they still lost in the primaries. They couldn’t even win the nomination with an active soc-con base of their party. Romney won because he attracted more votes and had more money. If you think a soc-con champion can do better, than by all means nominate one. The electoral defeat he would face would be far larger than what either McCain or Romney met at the polls. As for Romney’s personal morality, or that of Santorum and Huckabee, I haven’t a clue since I don’t know any of them. By all reports I’ve heard the three of them are decent men personally, which doesn’t necessarily make them good politicians or leaders. I do know, however, that 3 would have given soc-cons just about everything they wanted if they had won the White House. Claiming that Romney or McCain wouldn’t have simply isn’t credible.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 11:31 AM

TMOverbeck on November 8, 2012 at 10:09 AM

I like the distinction you make, I use soc-cons more in the general parlance. To me it boils down to this in reply to soc-cons, or “nanny-state conservatives” as you put it: You can believe that those of us who do not share your views are immoral and are going to hell. We don’t agree nor do we care. Heck, you and I and everyone else on this planet are slated for eternal damnation according to the tenets of one religion or another. That’s something all of us, including soc-cons/“nanny-state conservatives”, have learned to accept and dismiss. It’s when they push their religious views on those you deem hell-bound through force of law that problems arise – which is something that they themselves as supposed “limited government” types should appreciate. If someone claims to be for limited government while rightfully criticizing the nanny-state attitude on the Left, then they should quit acting like hypocrites in pushing Big Brother as the Left does on their pet issues. Sorry to break the news to them but “GOP” does NOT stand for “God’s Own Party” and Jesus isn’t the head of the party. If they want to change the culture to fit their ideals, fine. I have no problem with that and such is part of what the First Amendment is supposed to guarantee us all. Yet work outside of the political system to change the hearts and minds of people instead of using government to force their views on others. I don’t like it when a liberal does this so why the heck do they think I would suddenly like it when a conservative does the exact same thing?

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 11:41 AM

So, socons will find a way to hold everyone back. As usual.

It’s not 1950 anymore, folks. The rest of us are moving on.

Socons are the best pal liberals ever had.

Moesart on November 8, 2012 at 11:42 AM

The Supreme Court is gone and Roe is gone. Forever.

But, some still bitterly cling to this idea that they are going to ban abortion. And hold an entire party down in the process. Time to cut these people loose and move on. The moderates you will pick up will more than make up for losing them.

Let them go start their own party.

If the Republicans don’t adopt a more Libertarian approach pronto, they are just going to be a regional party in this country.

Moesart on November 8, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Glaring error in Nick’s otherwise good video. He says Gary Johnson got the best vote for the Libertarian Party “since 1980.”

Wrong.

Ed Clark/David Koch 1980 – 922,000 votes

Gary Johnson/Jim Gray 2012 – 1,139,000 votes

That’s quite a substantial jump. How could he have missed this?

It’s the best showing for the Libertarian Party in the Party’s 45 year history.

ericdondero on November 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Really Bush was President for 8 years what exactly did he give socons. Did abortion suddenly become illegal and I didn’t know it? Did gay marriage become a Constitutional ban? Tell me how ANY candidate has given anything to socons?

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Did he not reinstate the Mexico City policy? Support efforts to give public funding to abstinence-only programs? Run on passing FMA as well as the Human Life Amendment? Block efforts to enact ENDA, repeal DOMA or DADT? And more? Why yes, he did. Take gay marriage, for example. Thanks to Bush running against it in 2004 the Republicans were able to parlay that into winning multiple state referendums. Bush did about as much as a president can do on their own. The rest comes from Congress as well as the courts. To expect that any one person, even the president, could do everything on their own is simply not realistic. In the end Bush gave the soc-cons just about everything they wanted that he could give them.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 11:51 AM

I love all this bitching about socons on these boards. It wasn’t socons that had a third party candidate that actively bled votes away from Romney.

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Why yes, he did. Take gay marriage, for example. Thanks to Bush running against it in 2004 the Republicans were able to parlay that into winning multiple state referendums

So, he did it by VOTE referendum state by state like it is suppose to be done Constitutionally. Not by judicial fiat or passing it in the night by legislature. Furthermore, if you think those referendums passed only on the socon vote then you are overestimating the socon vote and if it is that large you should be pandering to it. Furthermore, the small government position on gay marriage is NOT to have more government bennies and to get government more involved in private relationships.

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Moesart on November 8, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Seriously, you are demented. No one thought Romney or any Republicans were going to work on Roe, even Obama. They just like to use it as a threat. You seem like the type that will buy anything, especially if a Lefty is selling.

Cindy Munford on November 8, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Did he not reinstate the Mexico City policy

How is not reinstating this a fiscal policy hmmm? Why should I pay for other’s bad choices. See you aren’t really a fiscal liberal, you are just a liberal period!

Support efforts to give public funding to abstinence-only programs?

Again state’s could choose to adopt the program, but they had to add it to their program. I don’t agree with ANY sexual program other than basic biology being taught in schools.

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Seriously, you are demented. No one thought Romney or any Republicans were going to work on Roe, even Obama. They just like to use it as a threat. You seem like the type that will buy anything, especially if a Lefty is selling.

Cindy Munford on November 8, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Thank you Cindy. They are truly as bad as lefties. The whole war on women apparently was sold within our party as well.

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I think this is it in a nutshell. Until the R’s leave the bedroom while trying to be the party of small government they will continue to lose.

tammyloc on November 8, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Not the “republicans are telling people what they can and can’t do in their bedroom” lie again. Name one thing.

DethMetalCookieMonst on November 8, 2012 at 11:59 AM

So, he did it by VOTE referendum state by state like it is suppose to be done Constitutionally. Not by judicial fiat or passing it in the night by legislature. Furthermore, if you think those referendums passed only on the socon vote then you are overestimating the socon vote and if it is that large you should be pandering to it. Furthermore, the small government position on gay marriage is NOT to have more government bennies and to get government more involved in private relationships.

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 11:55 AM

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that limits legislative action to daylight hours, nor are such manuevers used exclusively by Democrats. The courts have ruled on this issue based upon claims of constitutional rights being violated, which is their proper role. Some courts have given rulings you consider to be favorable, others have not. The only reason this is a problem for you is because you believe it isn’t a violation of civil rights to ban same-sex marriage. Too bad. Not everyone agrees with you.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Not the “republicans are telling people what they can and can’t do in their bedroom” lie again. Name one thing.

DethMetalCookieMonst on November 8, 2012 at 11:59 AM

LOL– I love it when people within our party sound like lefties..

Don’t ya know Deth that we all want to ban contraception, gay sex, anything other than missionary, and tampons. :)

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 12:03 PM

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that limits legislative action to daylight hours, nor are such manuevers used exclusively by Democrats. The courts have ruled on this issue based upon claims of constitutional rights being violated, which is their proper role. Some courts have given rulings you consider to be favorable, others have not. The only reason this is a problem for you is because you believe it isn’t a violation of civil rights to ban same-sex marriage. Too bad. Not everyone agrees with you.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 12:03 PM

THe courts have not ruled that gay marriage is a civil right. See Baker v. Nelson see. the tiers of the equal protections. Furthermore, sexuality is not a protected minority and when you start protecting EVERYTHING that differs us from everyone else.. Goodluck with that. YOU my dear are NOT libertarian.

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 12:05 PM

How is not reinstating this a fiscal policy hmmm? Why should I pay for other’s bad choices. See you aren’t really a fiscal liberal, you are just a liberal period!

Actually, I don’t have a problem with the policy largely for the same reason you give here. yet you approach this from a moral stance, one I happen to hold myself personally, while I do so from what the proper role of government should be.

Again state’s could choose to adopt the program, but they had to add it to their program. I don’t agree with ANY sexual program other than basic biology being taught in schools.

Then work to have them banned in your state but don’t claim that believe in federalism when you try and do so on the national level, or show favoritism with Federal tax dollars like this. The fact remains that the Feds shouldn’t be handing out money to any of the states for educational programs, regardless whether they are “abstinence-only” or not. I’m enough of a realist to know that a complete cut-off isn’t possible right now so for the present I’ll settle for trimming those dollars spent for religious reasons. The rest we’ll work on little by little as the culture changes and real federalist thinking becomes the norm.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 12:10 PM

THe courts have not ruled that gay marriage is a civil right. See Baker v. Nelson see. the tiers of the equal protections. Furthermore, sexuality is not a protected minority and when you start protecting EVERYTHING that differs us from everyone else.. Goodluck with that. YOU my dear are NOT libertarian.

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 12:05 PM

See Bowers and then Lawrence. Baker is an outdated ruling that SCOTUS will undoubtedly be addressing in mash of appeals they have from the 1st, 6th & 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 12:12 PM

See Bowers and then Lawrence. Baker is an outdated ruling that SCOTUS will undoubtedly be addressing in mash of appeals they have from the 1st, 6th & 9th Circuit Courts of Appeal.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Those had to do with privacy and not government licensure. You do realize that don’t you? See the New York case which specifically said that gay marriage was not an off shoot of Loving but a redefinition. And if marriage is a Constitutional right and states no longer have the right to restrict then so is incestuos marriage and polygamy. Anyone will be able to sign on as a “partner” and if you don’t think that suddenly new Constiutional right will result in fiscal policies then you aren’t looking far enough down the road.

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 12:16 PM

See the New York case which specifically said that gay marriage was not an off shoot of Loving but a redefinition.
melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 12:16 PM

As I said, there are some court rulings on this matter that you find to be favorable. There are also many which you undoubtedly object to. The point of raising Bowers & Lawrence, in response to you citing Baker, wasn’t exactly the specifics of those rulings, but how SCOTUS itself has changed its opinion over time. Giving me a ruling from the early 1970s ignores the significant cultural and judicial changes since that time. There are several rulings right now at SCOTUS’s proverbial desk that may either weaken Baker or completely overturn that previous ruling depending upon what the Justices decide next year. So telling me that Loving does not apply here in this instance is irrelevant since SCOTUS very well could find otherwise. Just like how SCOTUS once didn’t find a 14th Amendment application in Baker but did in Lawrence when it came to sodomy laws.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 12:33 PM

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Yeah you can spout precedent until you are blue in the face, but remember precedent made Obamacare legal. Just because it is legal doesn’t necessarily mean it should be “Constitutional.” And you are talking to someone who thinks that all partnerships should be civil with no bennies attached and thus no fiscal attachment. I don’t want the government anywhere near my relationship, but what do I know I am a religious extreme socon..

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Yeah you can spout precedent until you are blue in the face, but remember precedent made Obamacare legal. Just because it is legal doesn’t necessarily mean it should be “Constitutional.” And you are talking to someone who thinks that all partnerships should be civil with no bennies attached and thus no fiscal attachment. I don’t want the government anywhere near my relationship, but what do I know I am a religious extreme socon..

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Of course not. Remember disastrous rulings by SCOTUS like Plessy v. Ferguson. It’s also a truism that just because something is legal doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s moral.

As for cutting off all financial “bennies” to civil marriages, that’s something I’m certainly willing to consider.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Romney didn’t lose. Republicans did. People who accept the gross caricatures of Republicans spread by those that young people and other low-info voters look to for guidance (media, educators, entertainers, peers, etc.) don’t actually examine the specific candidates or their particular positions. Instead they look at these blinders full of women left barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and black children sent to the fields. You don’t have to have any examples/evidence to persuade people to believe what they “feel” is true because it conforms to their own bigotry. Same thing happens with the people here and their assumptions about others. You don’t let facts or actual individuals get in the way of your opinions, either.

Y’all can argue all you want about whether Romney was too moderate or not enough, but I don’t believe that matters at all. You guys are what matters, and you don’t do nearly enough to dispel the stereotypes that Dems are happy to keep slapping on you.

VerbumSap on November 8, 2012 at 12:49 PM

A society that thinks we NEED abortion just in case someone acts irresponsible with their sex life will probably thinks there is nothing wrong with irresponsible spending.

terryannonline on November 7, 2012 at 11:00 PM

Threadwinner.

thirteen28 on November 8, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Y’all can argue all you want about whether Romney was too moderate or not enough, but I don’t believe that matters at all. You guys are what matters, and you don’t do nearly enough to dispel the stereotypes that Dems are happy to keep slapping on you.

VerbumSap on November 8, 2012 at 12:49 PM

This A millions times!

melle1228 on November 8, 2012 at 12:51 PM

VerbumSap on November 8, 2012 at 12:49 PM

I’d largely agree with you, although I don’t think that stereotyping from the Dems was all that went wrong for the GOP in this election.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Social conservatives will be on high alert for signs that the party is tacking towards the center on their core issues.

As long as Republicans waste time pacifying socons, Republicans will lose POTUS elections now. The ship has sailed.

And Republicans didn’t work hard enough on this election to define what-for. Not Obama isn’t much of anything to vote for.

Moesart on November 8, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I don’t believe our cultural decline coinciding with our economic decline is a coincidence. And yes we are in a cultural decline. Drug use is rampant. Sexual mores are dispicable. Do really think people who have absolute no disciple when it comes to staying away from drugs and sleeping around can be disciplined with their pocketbooks? I don’t think so.

terryannonline on November 8, 2012 at 1:21 PM

As long as Republicans waste time pacifying socons, Republicans will lose POTUS elections now. The ship has sailed.

And Republicans didn’t work hard enough on this election to define what-for. Not Obama isn’t much of anything to vote for.

Moesart on November 8, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I hate to break it to you but the day the Republican Party stops listening to social conservatives is the day the party no longer exists. There are not enough libertarians to replace the tens of millions of social conservatives. Also before you try saying that expelling socons will attract more independents, a number of independents, for example Hispanics, are socially conservative but liberal when it comes to the government’s role, so you aren’t going to draw them into the party by expelling social conservatives.

By the way, anyone who claims the Republican Party pacified social conservatives this election clearly wasn’t paying attention. Mitt Romney avoided social issues like the plague. It was well known that he has flip-flopped on abortion in the past. Even despite that, social conservatives showed up and voted for Romney because he was better than the alternative. If you want to blame someone for this loss, look at the libertarians. It was the “strict Constitutionalists” that either voted for Gary Johnson or didn’t show up at all. I hope all those libertarians enjoy all the new federal regulations and executive orders coming down the pike.

Finally for the record, George W. Bush was a social conservative who won twice. He was on the record as being pro-life and against gay marriage, but he won, something you are claiming is impossible. His problem was he was a moderate/liberal when it came to federal spending.

Dano48 on November 8, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Dano48 on November 8, 2012 at 1:48 PM

And yet, as we correctly reminded Obama supporters during the campaign, Bush hasn’t been president for 4 years now. This isn’t 2000, when he barely won by electoral votes only, or 2004. Soc-con influence in getting Republicans elected to the presidency has diminished as the culture has changed and the GOP brand is seen as toxic to a growing number of the electorate. On social issues like gay marriage, if the party does not make some kind of peace with this soon it will suffer the consequences as the Left continues to settle the matter for them and solidify their image, rightly or wrongly, as the party that protects civil rights. But go ahead, keep living like it’s 2004 and make yourselves more and more irrelevant if you like.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Oh, and as for Hispanic voters if this post from Ace of Spades is correct than soc-cons as well as fiscal cons and libertarians ALL have a problem: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334774.php

They’re not quite the potential soc-con supporters you may think they are.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 2:26 PM

oc-con influence in getting Republicans elected to the presidency has diminished as the culture has changed and the GOP brand is seen as toxic to a growing number of the electorate.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 2:19 PM

I still cannot believe that conservatives aren’t getting that the demographic change is the biggest reason they lost. Our very CULTURE is changing underneath the Goofy Old Pinheads’ feet and they refuse to acknowledge it, consequently leaving us non-liberals up a creek.

If this isn’t already the ‘tipping point’ that’s been correctly predicted as coming for the last few years, 2016 will definitely be.

MelonCollie on November 8, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Oh, and as for Hispanic voters if this post from Ace of Spades is correct than soc-cons as well as fiscal cons and libertarians ALL have a problem: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334774.php

They’re not quite the potential soc-con supporters you may think they are.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 2:26 PM

If Hispanic voters are SoCon votes then my name is George Washington.

Their social voting extends to keeping the majority of them from being deported as illegal aliens and getting welfare money.

MelonCollie on November 8, 2012 at 2:28 PM

The 48% model didn’t depend on us “putting up soc-con heroes like Santorum or Huckabee.” Those two lost in the primaries because we were told they “weren’t electable.” We put up Romney instead, precisely because we were told that “he’s the only one who can beat Obama.” And guess what? He didn’t. Period. End-of-story. So do you think that Romney is even remotely comparable to Santorum or Huckabee in his morals, let alone his “conservatism?” Bwahahahaha!

gryphon202 on November 8, 2012 at 9:58 AM

I like Santorum. He’s a good and smart man. However, he would have Akin-ed himself into oblivion. You saw a “war on women”. Could you just *imagine* what the media would have done.

Until we neuter the media they will control us. We can discuss “true conservatives”, etc, etc, etc, but nothing changes until the media changes.

If they can cover up Benghazi, then they can certainly control the narrative on a candidate.

kim roy on November 8, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Gary Johnson won a million votes. Wow. Out of 120 million. That’s impressive. How many states did he win?

InterestedObserver on November 8, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Gary Johnson won a million votes. Wow. Out of 120 million. That’s impressive. How many states did he win?

InterestedObserver on November 8, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Johnson did better than any other Libertarian candidate for president has done I think in the past 40 years. The real question you should be asking is how many states did the Republicans lose by failing to attract enough of his voters? Ditto for some Democrat and other Independent voters.

JohnAGJ on November 8, 2012 at 6:29 PM

wasn’t Bush a “squishy moderate”, “compassionate conservative”, a “neocon” ? he won btw

runner on November 8, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Bush had two nailbiters because the GOP base will not come out for a RINO.

Rush had quite a lot on this today. 3 million conservatives refused to vote for Romney. Probably more. They are angry. They voted for Bush and he turned out to be too liberal and MacCain paid for that and his own liberal views.

These folks see Romney and Obama as clones or close enough to it in terms of POLICY.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/11/08/why_did_three_million_republicans_stay_home

The caller sounds like a couple people that post here.

dogsoldier on November 8, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3