In 2016, the Republicans cannot allow the Democratic party to get away with this tactic again. It must nominate a candidate who resonates, on an essential level, with the values and identity of the heartland.

People voted for Reagan because they liked Reagan. It wasn’t because of conservatism or anything else. The history revisionism on Reagan is constantly hilarious. Reagan’s electoral success is very simple.

GWB was too nice, McCain was too nice, and Romney was too nice.

If you are going to go down in defeat at least do it using the same weapons, tactics, and strategies as the enemy.

This is true. Go for the jugular and tear them apart piece by piece. Obama didn’t hold back one bit.

UnSkewedPolls.com is just one web site and one project I did, and depending on your point of view it was proven wrong, it has run its course or it will fade away.

- Dean Chambers, GOP Hero, Hotair Polling Deity and the Uncoverer of Grandest Conspiracies, Nov 7, 2012

Yes, it was your point of view that makes him look wrong, not that he was all wrong.

Exactly. But we also have to listen to Jay and understand that America has for the most part a hard time identifying with well-heeled New England patricians.

George H.W. Bush, John Forbes Kerry, and now Willard Mitt Romney.

Punchenko on November 8, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Well Jay makes a good case. Does that mean that Huckabee would’ve won? Perry? Portman? Kasich? I mean I agree with his point I just think it’s more complicated. He has to be mid-western but ALSO be a great candidate and we haven’t had any candidate that everyone wants to rally around since…..Reagan? (and he was from CA).

Does jay not know that mitt grew up in Michigan? What a joke. I think we should unskew this column and basically do the opposite of everything it suggests.

red_herring on November 8, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Romney ran as the former Governor of Massachusetts. And Obama further obliged him with ads tying him to Bain Capital of Boston and off-shore bank accounts. Romney was effectively severed from his midwestern roots by the Obama campaign, and Romney himself did little to endear himself to the conservative heartland.

Romney was a decent, honorable man– also probably the best-qualified man actually to be a Chief Executive since Coolidge– and he ran a decent and honorable campaign. (I voted for him.) But Cost’s whole point is that Romney, and the campaign, lacked heart… whatever it is that previous GOP candidates with ties to the heartland possess and which wins elections, which was desperately needed to appeal to the white voters who didn’t show this time.

Cost’s article is worth considering.

This means we will probably be back to a slender divide between the two parties, narrowed even more by greater Republican loyalty. In all likelihood, white Democrats from the Ohio River Valley to the Gulf of Mexico will defect from their own party’s ticket in droves. These children and grand children of FDR’s core backers will support Mitt Romney overwhelmingly, so a nominal 3 to 4 point Democratic identification edge over the GOP will shrink to 1 or 2 points, meaning that independents will determine the outcome, just as they have basically for the last 32 years.

Again, this is a different approach than the poll mavens will offer. They are taking data at face value, running simulations off it, and generating probability estimates. That is not what this is, and it should not be interpreted as such. I am not willing to take polls at face value anymore. I am more interested in connecting the polls to history and the long-run structure of American politics, and when I do that I see a Romney victory.

Jay Cost, Nov 2, 2012

Yeah, F those math geeks taking data as data. Gut is all that matters!

It hasn’t been 48 hours and all the exact same crew who misled and lied and should be looking for jobs by all “standards” of conservative meritocracy (yes, an oxymoron right there) are back, featured on the frontpage.

I have an idea Hotair: After knowingly posting falsehoods about Nate Silver propagated by the likes of Jay Cost for weeks, how about posting Nate’s articles for once?!!

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/as-nation-and-parties-change-republicans-are-at-an-electoral-college-disadvantage/

Scratch that. Give us some more Dick JayCost Morris. The echo chamber shall not be disturbed.

I’ve been making this point over and over. There are no issues with GOP policy. It’s all marketing. We lost Ohio because of Obama’s barrage of negative ads.

We need to apply that method on a national scale and start calling the liberal what they are: The Food Police, The Fitness Police, The Totalitarians, The Thought Police.

Their agenda is toxic to a free society and we must sully the Democrat brand as ruthlessly and tirelessly as the celebrities and politicians have sullied the GOP.

hisfrogness on November 8, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Exactly. But we also have to listen to Jay and understand that America has for the most part a hard time identifying with well-heeled New England patricians.

George H.W. Bush, John Forbes Kerry, and now Willard Mitt Romney.

Obama said identity doesn’t matter. So, retract what you said about identity politics. Or are we to understand Obama says stuff he doesn’t mean? Doesn’t believe? Doesn’t practice? That he’s a liar?

Words. Just words.

I watch what a person DOES vs what they SAY.

It would be great if every single member of the Republican party switched and became a Democrat, including the politicians.

You can’t wage an identity war when we’re all the same identity. Man that would be awesome! Now you’re going to have to argue your policies on the merits of your policy not the registration of your political party.

the triumph of identity politics

Translation: The triumph of deliberate economic, cultural, sexual, and racial division.

The problem with Republicans is they are too nice and not as nasty as the socialists, pinkos, and closet commies.

GWB was too nice, McCain was too nice, and Romney was too nice.

If you are going to go down in defeat at least do it using the same weapons, tactics, and strategies as the enemy.

Jay Cost
Barack Obama and the triumph of identity politics

Excuse me, but in his victory speech Tuesday night, Obama said:

It doesn’t matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, abled, disabled, gay or straight. (Cheers, applause.) You can make it here in America if you’re willing to try.

Obama said identity doesn’t matter. So, retract what you said about identity politics. Or are we to understand Obama says stuff he doesn’t mean? Doesn’t believe? Doesn’t practice? That he’s a liar?