Green Room

How many tea-party supporters voted for Obama?

posted at 1:05 pm on November 10, 2012 by

A footnote from the national exit poll that I missed earlier this week. Note to the 11 percent: You’re doing it wrong.

Reuters/Ipsos conducted its own exit poll, based on a massive sample of 40,000 people, and got basically the same result — 12 percent of those who “identify strongly” with the tea party pulled the lever for four more years.

One other detail from the Reuters poll, possibly related, possibly not:

Voters who switched from Republican John McCain in 2008 to Obama in 2012 said their choice was based on which candidate “cares about people like me.” That suggests the Obama campaign may have been successful in painting Romney, a wealthy businessman, as out of touch with average voters, particularly after his leaked remarks about the “47 percent” he said he would not “worry about.”

That squares with Sean Trende’s theory that lots of working-class white voters who were otherwise gettable ended up staying home due to alienation from Romney. A few of them may have been so alienated that they turned out but voted for O. Could help explain the wayward tea partiers here.

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

Could help explain the wayward tea partiers here.

Steveangell, Floating Rock, Pragmatic… various others…

Thanks, assholes.

You didn’t “destroy the country to save it”. You destroyed the country to destroy it.

Alberta_Patriot on November 10, 2012 at 1:20 PM

…how can you forget the lowlife Dante ?…should have been the first name mentioned!
.
.
.

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 3:17 PM

…yep!
.
.
.

I see some feces in the green room…do you think we can at least just keep letting them defecate all over the main threads…and T R O L L C O T T… them in here???

KOOLAID2 on November 10, 2012 at 3:44 PM

…honest to gawd!…the TROLLCOTT statement for the GREEN ROOM… got mediated?…what was wrong with that?

KOOLAID2 on November 10, 2012 at 4:12 PM

The only way this makes sense is if the tea party people cared more about social, rather than fiscal issues. But even then, they clearly missed the whole point of the tea party. This is like self indentifying Christians deciding to pull the lever for the mark of the beast or early republicans voting for slavery.

Esthier on November 10, 2012 at 4:48 PM

KOOLAID2 on November 10, 2012 at 3:44 PM

KOOLAID2 on November 10, 2012 at 4:12 PM

…wow!…that’s different!…a looooooooong 30 seconds!

KOOLAID2 on November 10, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Can we at least nominate a candidate who is ure to win his home state (native or adopted)?
Has there ever been an instance when both nominee and VP lost their home states and won the Election? I am no historian but I doubt it.
Electing people that cannot win their home state is a losing proposition. Al Gore would have beaten G W Bush has he just won Tennessee!

The FIRST requirement of a presidential candidate should be his /her ability to win his/her home state…That goes for the VP.

jules on November 10, 2012 at 5:37 PM

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM

I absolutely agree with everything you said here. I might add that extreme media training is essential for candidates to deal with the ‘gotcha’ questions and stick to policy. I think high school football stars get more media training than politicians.

We also need more aggressive surrogates. Newt and Sununu were amazing every time they were on tv. Say what you will about Cutter, Axelrod and company, they went for the jugular without fail.

Mitsouko on November 10, 2012 at 5:38 PM

KOOLAID2 on November 10, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Must have had a magic word or two in there.

We fielded the weakest possible candidate who was the best possible foil to Obama’s class warfare rhetoric. We shouldn’t be surprised he made inroads.

novaculus on November 10, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Reuters/Ipsos conducted its own exit poll, based on a massive sample of 40,000 people, and got basically the same result — 12 percent of those who “identify strongly” with the tea party pulled the lever for four more years.

That’s some “weak tea” there.

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Anyone who bought that whole line of bullsh!t and switched their vote because of it, is a certified, card-carrying imbecile who deserves what they get.

Dopenstrange on November 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Well, one thing is for sure: we’re going to go over the cliff together.

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 6:02 PM

The sooner you all stop being Party Bitches like the brain dead liberals consistently do, the better.

jwally on November 10, 2012 at 1:34 PM

I’m not a Party Bitch. I’m an American. Anybody who pulled the lever for Barack Hussein Obama, voted for the America’s decline.

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Voters who switched from Republican John McCain in 2008 to Obama in 2012 said their choice was based on which candidate “cares about people like me.” That suggests the Obama campaign may have been successful in painting Romney, a wealthy businessman, as out of touch with average voters, particularly after his leaked remarks about the “47 percent” he said he would not “worry about.”

Which “candidate cares about me?” I frankly don’t give a flying fig about whether a candidate cares about me on a personal level. I know they don’t; they don’t even know me — they see me as a vote for or against and that’s all. That catchphrase is part and parcel of things all politicians say and have said forever and it really kills me that some take it so seriously in Obama’s case. That only means to me that they will have that much further to fall and be disappointed when, like all politicians before and after him, he doesn’t keep his “promises” to them. And he won’t.

PatriotGal2257 on November 10, 2012 at 6:12 PM

It is not You’re doing it wrong. It is that the Media has distorted the national face of the Tea party before it waved a flag. Those 11% believed the spin that Mitt and the GOP was not friendly to the tea party not that Obama and the Democrats are openly hostile to tea party.

Oh and those 11% are most likely fall in to the People who see no difference between Obama and Romney.

tjexcite on November 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM

The media and the Democrat Party feared the Tea Party from the beginning – and worked hard to demonize us and distort our views. Look at the difference in the coverage of the Tea Party and OWS. All those huge Tea Party rallies – hundreds of thousands – and never one single arrest. OWS – thousands of arrests, rapes, murders, etc. But according to the media, it was the Tea Party who were dangerous extremists.

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 6:16 PM

The debates probably helped Romney greatly, and after the first debate he probably was ahead. I actually think Romney won the second and third debates as well, but by much lower margins. His performance in each seemed to give him a bounce, but the following debates didn’t give him enough of a bounce to last him till election day. Had election day been held a week earlier, we’d probably be hearing about President Romneys transition team right about now.

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM

After a great first debate performance, I thought Mitt got two passive in the second and third debates and tried to run the clock out. His failure to go after Obama on Benghazi was a crucial error, I think.

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 6:22 PM

The primary was devastating, for numerous reasons. The biggest reasons were probably, Santorum and his repeated insistence on wading into social issues. This is what really got the War on Women meme started, and what ultimately plagued the campaign right up to election day. There were other errors as well, ranging from Romney being forced to go to the right of Perry on immigration, to Cain’s alleged affairs, to Gingrich’s Bain capital attacks.

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Santorum wasn’t bringing up social issues. The media kept asking him about them, because they knew he wasn’t shy about discussing them, and of course they wanted to paint him (and all Republicans) as extremists on social issues.

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 6:28 PM

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM

National exit polls showed there is still room out there for a conservative message:

1. By double digits, voters were against raising taxes to reduce the deficit.
2. By double digits, voters said they preferred a smaller government.
3. By a slim margin, voters said they still wanted to repeal Obamacare.

There was a lot of cognitive dissonance to the election results. How could the country have re-elected the community organizer from the Southside of Chicago?

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Thurston Howell the III doesn’t have a lot of appeal to blue collar workers?

“I like to fire people”

“My job is not to worry about those people,” Mitt Romney said. “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

“I like those fancy raincoats you bought. Really sprung for the big bucks.”

“Rick, I’ll– I’ll tell you what. (CHUCKLE) 10,000 bucks. $10,000 bet?”

“One of most humorous I think relates to my father. You may remember my father, George Romney, was president of an automobile company called American Motors … They had a factory in Michigan, and they had a factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and another one in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,” said Romney. “And as the president of the company he decided to close the factory in Michigan and move all the production to Wisconsin. Now later he decided to run for governor of Michigan and so you can imagine that having closed the factory and moved all the production to Wisconsin was a very sensitive issue to him, for his campaign.”

The reporter goes on to describe how Romney was “laughing” while telling the story.

Thousands of workers out of a job…yeah, that’s a real knee-slapper.

sharrukin on November 10, 2012 at 6:34 PM

WolvenOne, you are right about Akin and the bruising primary…and don’t discount the ORCA failure. If the 37,000 fired up volunteers in the battleground states had actually gotten 37 more votes each, the election would have been a tie, 50 votes and we would have won. But it started with Akin, and remember how we all knew it at the time? I remember the moment, I live in St. Louis, it was everywhere. Akin helped launched the war on women by giving them a target to demonize, isolate, and keep attacking, then his refusal to bow out kept the theme alive, and ORCA was the final nail in the coffin. Infightng campaign managers caused a loss of focus. Your insights are good, I wish HA had a chat room. I have an idea to start up something that I would like to recruit other like-minded people to do it with me…

JustTruth101 on November 10, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Let’s face it, the Republican Party, among it’s many, many faults, lost the initiative under Bush. Bush could have tackled health care reform, but didn’t. Instead he made a massive crony payoff to BigPharma. He could have tackled immigration reform, and secured what Charles K. rightly calls a natural conservative constituency. Instead, he did nothing.

The Republicans didn’t deserve to be voted for. Period.

jwally on November 10, 2012 at 1:31 PM

What is your obsession with health care reform? When the Democrats started to tackle it in 2009, polls said that 85% of Americans were satisfied with their current plan. They just wanted to see costs brought under control. This is why Obama constantly repeated the lie: “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Most electable “my views are progressive” candidate available.

Thanks for going nuclear on everyone that opposed him in the primary. You just had to have 4 more years of socialism, so you picked the socialist to go up against the Marxist. Brilliant strategy.

astonerii on November 10, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Voters who switched from Republican John McCain in 2008 to Obama in 2012 said their choice was based on which candidate “cares about people like me.” That suggests the Obama campaign may have been successful in painting Romney, a wealthy businessman, as out of touch with average voters, particularly after his leaked remarks about the “47 percent” he said he would not “worry about.”</

And how does an arrogant narcissistic ivory tower snot "care about people like me"?

So these people, theoretically who actually cared to participate in a movement to try to slow down out-of-control government spending and fix the debt, either stayed home or voted for the communist moron who added ~ 6-trillion $$$ to the federal debt – to ensure this country becomes like Greece in another 4 years… Because they either didn't like Romney's comment or believed the communist pathological liar???

Idiots.

Danny on November 10, 2012 at 6:55 PM

So, in other words they were just more idiots falling for Obama’s Romney is a evil rich meany propaganda.

I wouldn’t tell anybody. Really.

Moesart on November 10, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Well, I’m getting really tired of all this “soul searching” and “navel gazing” being done by Republicans after this election. The media loves to talk about it. When the Democrats lose, they never do any soul searching. The media just says the votes threw a temper tantrum.

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Romney wasn’t the Conservative favorite candidate…but he was better choice (in the long run) than Obama.

To the wanna-be Libertarians…thanks, you foisted your irrelevant status on the rest of us, and as such gave us another 4 years of crap we don’t have to eat.

I won’t even give you the excuse of saying “you didn’t know better”…the heck you didn’t. So you would have had to work harder to get Romney to tack harder to the Right to make sure we can get some fiscal housecleaning done?

How well you think that’s gonna work with THIS gang in office till 2016?

Especially to those dolts that want the system to crash because their of the “perceived” slight by the GOP to their beloved Premier Paul…eff you too. Paul had his day and chance and he couldn’t make it stick..Johnson’s crowd of diaper-sniffers aren’t any better, but they’re 3 times as crazy.

The Libertarian Party needs to excommunicate these dim bulbs ASAP. They have a chance of being a decent 3rd party choice in 2016 and 2020 IF they give a damn decent slate of candidates, and not this North Korean style of Cult of Personality of the last 30 years.

Until then, I’ll keep working in the GOP wings…it’s dirtier work, but a lot more honest and clean than dealing with the one that had a REAL chance to stop some of the damn hemorrhaging.

BlaxPac on November 10, 2012 at 7:20 PM

tend to buy the theory that most of these are Ron Paul supporters. I cannot see many outside that camp voting for Obama out of disgust, at worst I’d expect them to stay home.

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM

I’m kind of on the same page. My neighbor is very conservative but was a Ron Paul guy through and through. He’s not a tea partier, per se, but doesn’t vote Dem. He only voted down ballot because in his eyes, there wasn’t much difference between Romney and Obama. He said after McCain, he just wasn’t going to hold his nose again. He also didn’t appreciate what Romney did to the Paul delegates at the convention, which I didn’t like either. I tried to dissuade him, but he wasn’t budging. I had to nag my brother into voting for Romney because he didn’t like how he switched from “extreme conservative” to milquetoast. But tea partiers actually pulling the lever for Obama, I can’t buy that one.

TxAnn56 on November 10, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Romney didn’t inspire. I know most of us tried our best to believe and to spread the word, but it was too much an election of voting against the other guy. And despite liberal euphoria, far fewer people were voting ‘for’ Obama.

In 2008, people voted for (1) the personage of Obama, not the policies of liberalism and (2) against (Bush) Republicans. In 2012, people (though fewer) voted for the personage of Obama, however diminished and (2) didn’t see an inspiring reason to change.

On policy, I think we win. We need to have a better ground game and make our policy prescriptions appeal to those groups we keep losing. We’ve become too complacent. We need a strong candidate on policy.

Romney was a strong political candidate but I don’t think very many of us believed he was going to be our conservative president. If we can win on policy and politics (Rubio?) then we will win. And I think it will be a more enduring legacy than the liberal cult of personality built on a foundation of tribalism.

Crispian on November 10, 2012 at 7:44 PM

TarheelBen on November 10

Yes you’re right in that it was the media that brought up the social issues, but Santorum was a fool for repeatedly dancing into the bear trap. The problem this created for Romney, was that this primary was the most heavily watched Republican primary in history, so anybody that watched it and saw how heavily supported Santorum was could easily conclude that the whole party was extreme on social issues.

That wouldn’t have been a problem, if the entire party kept quiet on these issues after the primary. Instead, numerous people jumped back into the bear trap, and whenever they did it drug the whole Republican party off message and alienated female voters.

As somebody else pointed out, our candidates need to realize that the media is hostile towards out positions, and train themselves on how to answer these questions in a manner that won’t drag us off message. Basically, they need to be at least as smooth as Huckabee, I don’t even LIKE Huckabee, but even I admit that he wouldn’t drag our party off message so badly with these issues.

Again, this wasn’t our sole problem this election cycle, but it should be the problem that we can most easily address. It’s not that we drop social issues from the platform, but until our country is out of imminent mortal danger they are side issues.

Besides that, I suspect the various religious institutions out there need to market their beliefs to people directly for awhile. Electing socially conservative politicians won’t do a thing to save the moral fiber of our country, if the voters don’t BELIEVE in morality.

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Alternately, if our country firmly believes in morality, than our leaders don’t matter. Immoral leaders simply wouldn’t last in public office.

A lot of social conservatives seem to think that electing socially conservative politicians will immediately make the country a more socially conservative place. At the end of the day though, the politicians are a symptom of an illness, not the root cause.

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Alternately, if our country firmly believes in morality, than our leaders don’t matter. Immoral leaders simply wouldn’t last in public office.

A lot of social conservatives seem to think that electing socially conservative politicians will immediately make the country a more socially conservative place. At the end of the day though, the politicians are a symptom of an illness, not the root cause.

WolvenOne on November 10, 2012 at 8:30 PM

The politicians created the root cause.
Social Security and Medicare and now Part D along with food stamps and general welfare paid for by Federal Tax Dollars and Future Tax Payers.

Electing conservatives is going to cut the speed at which these root causes degrade the electorate. Electing Romney would have done absolutely nothing to slow the the decay down.

I do not see any quick fixes for the electorate’s health, since even the “conservatives” know they are OWED the future earnings of other people’s children. I am not sure it is worth supporting this nation any more. I certainly do not feel as though it has any values left that I find worth protecting.

astonerii on November 10, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Shades of Distoievsky’s The Brothers Karamazov.” A father is murdered and one of his sons did it. It was the half-wit, Smerdyakov. But it was the intellectual brother, Ivan, who put him up to it.

Amazing. And who whipped these people into a frenzy against Mitt? It wasn’t the Democrats. It was Rush Limbaugh, Jim Robinson, Erick Erickson. Romney wasn’t pure enough. So we get Obama for four more.

I admire the Tea Party movement–but it’s full of ordinary people who don’t know diddley-squat about politics. The Dems use this against us by praying we nominate idiots like Akin. We’re killing our own chances.

writeblock on November 10, 2012 at 8:56 PM

writeblock on November 10, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Like it really matters. Make a simple change to the story that the father was terminally ill and was going to die a day later without the murder.
Romney was never going to win. Erick Erickson supported Romney you retard! Erick Erickson worked overtime in January to make sure Romney became the final nominee.
Even if Romney did win, the best it bought us would have been a short bit of time, as every aspect of the government incentivized decay of our electorate would have been left fully in place and better yet, made more solvent! Woohoo.
You were told last year Romney was not going to get the conservative vote. The reason is plain and simple. LOOK AT HIS RECORD AND NOT HIS WORDS. That is what conservatives DO and do not just talk about doing. But we could even look at his words and come to the same conclusion. “Severely Conservative”, “My views are progressive”, “I was an independent during reaganbush, I do not want to go back to reaganbush.”, “that plant kills people”.
Funny you now act like you are surprised by the outcome. I suppose you are surprised, like all slave owners, you thought you owned the vote of your slave, just like you own the future earnings of my daughter. The slaves all called in sick this time.

astonerii on November 10, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Listen up people! Obummer has said all along that NOT all the tea Party are bad guys.

Herb on November 10, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Listen up people! Obummer has said all along that NOT all the tea Party are bad guys.

Herb on November 10, 2012 at 9:20 PM

When the Tea Party went full blown fiscal conservative only, I left it. It is not worth it if the only thing you are going to do is make sure we can keep paying for the welfare state. The Tea party became what Republicans in the 80s said they did not want to become, the tax collectors of the welfare state. Romney pretty much promised just that. Instead of cutting the welfare state, he planned to cut everything else except the military and fund it with more work by the American slaves.

astonerii on November 10, 2012 at 9:26 PM

astonerii on November 10, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Thus the problem is that we promised too much…but that we promised too much.

Crispian on November 10, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Insult and alienate Ronulans and libertarians.
Nominate Mitt “Obama-lite” Romney.
Then turn around and be shocked, shocked I tell you, when the Ronnies/libbies don’t show up.
Then freak out and hand shamnesty over to the illegals. That’ll show em.
Then turn around and be shocked, shocked I tell you, when the Hispanics still vote Democrat.

The “G” in GOP does not stand for “genius”.

smiley on November 10, 2012 at 10:00 PM

I’d like to suggest you take these poll claims from the same leftist media that lies to us at every turn, with a grain of salt. Their main intent now is to divide us. Have you seek Kathleen Parker, the RINO her latest at the Washington Post, now saying Romney was too good for us. I think she’s hoping conservatives will start bashing Romney in response. They need us at each others throats and we, for the most part haven’t complied.

Ceolas on November 10, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Here in Colorado, 17 Counties had from 104% to 140% of their entire populations (men, women, and children) casting Ballots in the 2012 Presidential Election (!). Excuses by County Clerks have been: “Well, we have a lot of hunters who come to our county to hunt, so they just voted here.” (Uh. . . .as a former Election Deputy, need I remind you that there are “residency restrictions” when it comes to voting in Colorado???) Another County Clerk stated: “We have tourists coming here all the time, so they probably just voted here.” (Again. . . .need I remind you of Colorado’s “residency restrictions” concerning voting in Colorado???) YOU CANNOT LIVE IN ONE COUNTY AND GO VOTE IN ANY OTHER COUNTY THAT YOU WANT!!!

(Franklin Center)

DixT on November 10, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Well, I’m getting really tired of all this “soul searching” and “navel gazing” being done by Republicans after this election. The media loves to talk about it. When the Democrats lose, they never do any soul searching. The media just says the votes threw a temper tantrum.

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 7:10 PM

This.

Also, the commies threw a temper tantrum. Four more years of irreversible decline…. FORWARD! On to the brave new SCOAMF critical race theory experimental societal adjustment (may God have mercy).

the botnet on November 10, 2012 at 11:42 PM

I don’t blame anyone but the American people who voted for Obama. If they weren’t so lazy, they’d get off their butts and follow politics closely, keeping themselves informed on every issue like a responsible citizen. But the majority of Americans are NOT responsible citizens. Are there things that could have gone better or been done better? Sure. Is the media horribly slanted and in the tank for Obama? Sure. But what it ultimately comes down to is how much work the American people want to do to keep themselves informed on every issue and to keep the media honest.

This has not happened in a long, long time. America owns this president, and they deserve him. My only wish is that those of us who DO keep informed on what’s good and right for the country didn’t have to pay the price as well.

Othniel on November 10, 2012 at 11:51 PM

That squares with Sean Trende’s theory that lots of working-class white voters who were otherwise gettable ended up staying home due to alienation from Romney. A few of them may have been so alienated that they turned out but voted for O. Could help explain the wayward tea partiers here.

maybe if Mitt and team uttered the words Tea party at the national convention. Acknowledged the massive landslide the tea party brought to the GOP in 2010 and promised to fullfill at least some of the TEa party’s wants at the national level as well as giving a couple tea party leaders a speaking slot at the convention more tea party people would have gone to the polls and voted for Mitt. Or maybe if instead of Mitt and the GOPe attackign the TEa party accusing it of mass murder in 2011 and calling them hobbits and sucvh then maybe those people would have felt i don’t know like Mitt might have wanted their vote.

Mitt and his team did everything short of saying out loud that they wanted no part of the tea party and then are shocked tha tthe tea party wanted no part of Mitt. amazing i know..

unseen on November 11, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Mitt and his team did everything short of saying out loud that they wanted no part of the tea party and then are shocked tha tthe tea party wanted no part of Mitt. amazing i know..

unseen on November 11, 2012 at 12:13 AM

You’re going to hear me say this a lot over the next four years:

Fool me once (McCain), shame on you.
Fool me twice (Romney), shame on me.
Fool me…You can’t get fooled again (Bush, Jeb).

Odysseus on November 11, 2012 at 7:01 AM

Fool me once (W Bush),
Fool me once (W bush),
Fool me once (McCain), shame on you.
Fool me once (Romney), shame on me.
Fool me…You can’t get fooled again (Bush, Jeb).

hmmmmm why isn’t this working?

FIFY

I don’t know if I buy the premise of the article. People lie to pollsters for a lot of reasons.

dogsoldier on November 11, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Mitt and his team did everything short of saying out loud that they wanted no part of the tea party and then are shocked tha tthe tea party wanted no part of Mitt. amazing i know..

unseen on November 11, 2012 at 12:13 AM

They shot themselves in the foot a lot of times and with a hostile press that added up. Romney what a crap candidate to start with. He had too much baggage.

I’m not going to mince words. He considered becoming a democrat. People remember. He created Romneycare and signed it with a gloating socialist Kennedy leering over his shoulder. People remember. In a debate he said he loved mandates. People remember.

He stupidly said 47% of the populace don’t matter and did a whole list of other things. People remember all the things he did that illustrated and PROVED his extremely liberal beliefs.

and conservatives refused to vote for him. Wow, I’m shocked.

dogsoldier on November 11, 2012 at 9:07 AM

I suggest that anyone who supports smaller government yet voted for Obama may well be trying to accelerate the inevitable civil war.

Or, they’re insane.

disa on November 11, 2012 at 9:11 AM

There was a lot of cognitive dissonance to the election results. How could the country have re-elected the community organizer from the Southside of Chicago?

TarheelBen on November 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Because he won the election the community organizer way — send out a bunch of campaign workers to personally mislead uninformed non-voters into voting for him. The country didn’t want Obama, but Obama picked the electorate. Call it “free-form Gerrymandering”.

Count to 10 on November 11, 2012 at 9:23 AM

I suggest that anyone who supports smaller government yet voted for Obama may well be trying to accelerate the inevitable civil war.

Or, they’re insane.

disa on November 11, 2012 at 9:11 AM

The one implies the other.

Count to 10 on November 11, 2012 at 9:24 AM

The social cons cost us (Republicans) the election. They ran BEHIND Romney in every statewide race. They made “Republican” an increasingly unelectable brand on a statewide and national basis…while still viable within the gerrymandered district setups (for the moment). Anyone to the right of Mitt would have been killed by a significantly greater margin.
Yet, I know we cannot win without socon support and enthusiasm.
Alienating socons…will not bring in enough of those with fiscal conservative views and moderate/libertarian/liberal social views to offset the loss.
So we have the dilemma for the party. Can’t win with them…can’t win without them.
No…I don’t have the answer…and the large socon contingent here probably will continue to blame “moderate Mitt” for the loss…denying the sea change in both demographics and BELIEFS that are evident from the re-election of the most un-American and incompetent Prez in our history.

Unless we figure this out…(and NO…I’m not suggesting anyone change their beliefs)…we’re doomed at least until the crash exposes the soft underbelly of the Santa Claus state and IMPACTS the clueless when that bag turns up empty.

camaraderie on November 11, 2012 at 9:26 AM

This was the last time that I will ever vote for the GOP candidate again. Voted for McCain last year and swore I’d never vote for another liberal GOP candidate. GOP put up a liberal again this year and I fell for the same GOP lines. BTW, what is the difference between a liberal and a socialist? Answer: Absolutely no difference.

The country has elected the communist candidate TWICE within four years…enough said.

Karmi on November 11, 2012 at 9:38 AM

No…I don’t have the answer…and the large socon contingent here probably will continue to blame “moderate Mitt” for the loss…denying the sea change in both demographics and BELIEFS that are evident from the re-election of the most un-American and incompetent Prez in our history.

I blame him for this: He was and is neither fiscally or socially conservative in his views. He is a liberal, not a moderate. He considered becoming a dem. He spent more time reaching out to the radical left offering to work across the aisle than he did reaching out to the conservative base of his own party.

The republican party leadership decided some time ago they have to act like socialist “lite,” and a lot of conservatives are saying “hell no!”

Why do you think the TEA party got started in the first place? The extreme left took over the dem party, meanwhile the GOP crew doesn’t have a ball or spine among them.

dogsoldier on November 11, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Again, people, stop it with the “it was the socon’s fault / it was the RINOs fault” crap. Republicans won on ideology all around — it was the “ground game” that saved Obama’s (and the rest of the Democrats) buts. This election hinged on people that are immune to debates and TV ads, because they vote for whoever drives them to the polls tells them to vote for.
Next time, Republicans need to send campaign workers into the cities to go door to door all talk people into voting Republican in person.

Count to 10 on November 11, 2012 at 10:04 AM

We can’t leave out the dem’s fraud and corruption. How many counties voted 99%+ (sometimes 100%+) for President Choom? Until we can clean up the election process, don’t ever count on winning elections again.

RoadRunner on November 11, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3