WaPo
GOP begins election review to find out what went wrong
The review is a recognition that party leaders were confounded by the electorate that showed up on Tuesday. Republican officials said that they met all of their turnout goals but that they underestimated who would turn out for the other side.
Party officials said the review is aimed at studying their tactics and message, not at changing the philosophical underpinnings of the party.
“This is no different than a patient going to see a doctor,” said Sean Spicer, the Republican National Committee’s spokesman. “Your number one thing is to say, ‘I’m not feeling well. Tell me what the problem is. Run some tests on me.’ ”
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
“When you stand for nothing…you will fall for everything.”
RIP, GOP
trs on November 9, 2012 at 8:03 AM
… and promptly comes to the wrong conclusion … as usual.
Lost in Jersey on November 9, 2012 at 8:08 AM
We lost.
When do I get paid?
Gatsu on November 9, 2012 at 8:12 AM
The Obama Dashboard app + datamining was much more effective in helping to find potential voters than anyone is acknowledging.
Hot Gas on November 9, 2012 at 8:15 AM
You mean they still don’t know they lost? That’s what went wrong. A better question is why it went wrong.
Flange on November 9, 2012 at 8:16 AM
If Romney had 10 votes for every excuse and explanation I’ve heard since Tuesday night, he’d have won.
forest on November 9, 2012 at 8:17 AM
Better communication, some reach out to minorities (i.e Have Rubio introduce his GOP Dream act), better GOTV.
Zaggs on November 9, 2012 at 8:20 AM
Relook at the 47% video. In it Romney talks about not worrying about trying to convince them. All he needed to do was convince 50.5%. When I heard that I knew there was trouble in RiverCity. You have to aim to convince at least 60% to win a majority. He aimed too low and thought a bad Obama record would be enough. It wasn’t.
txmomof6 on November 9, 2012 at 8:24 AM
GOP leaders, Zo would like a word with you:
One Of The Main Reasons Why Republicans Lost The Presidency
Please don’t dig up Bob Keeshan for 2016.
Fallon on November 9, 2012 at 8:25 AM
More like going to the coroner for an autopsy.
tru2tx on November 9, 2012 at 8:25 AM
I believe they’ve found the problem … not enough bush
Lost in Jersey on November 9, 2012 at 8:30 AM
Start with the media.
hawkdriver on November 9, 2012 at 8:30 AM
Idiocy.
To talk about this to WaPo, is idiocy in and of itself.
Polling and research firmsare the problem.
You can’t tweak the message, cave on policy and everything’s kewl.
Not how it works.
Alternate Headline:
RNC infrastructure works on ways to stay in power. Disaster Looms.
budfox on November 9, 2012 at 8:32 AM
For anyone who doesn’t know.
Everything since 2007′s amnesty run has been geared towards this guy.
Ev-rey-thing.
budfox on November 9, 2012 at 8:33 AM
May the Lord have mercy on our souls.
Lost in Jersey on November 9, 2012 at 8:35 AM
You got cash to reach out with, Zaggs? I know I don’t.
Punchenko on November 9, 2012 at 8:35 AM
Gary Johnson is the answer!
/S
donkichi on November 9, 2012 at 8:37 AM
we need a more leftist candidate. Romney was far to conservative.
portlandon on November 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM
His dim nephew, George P. Bush, filed papers to run for office in Texas. You know, our lives and our country — which they ruined — comes second before the Bush family’s grip on power and their “legacy”. It’s all about keeping them in office forever so they can play monarchy and whatnot.
Punchenko on November 9, 2012 at 8:42 AM
I haven’t been keeping up with commentary for the past 48 hours. No one thinks there was any fraud or rigging of the election?
To me, the intuitive feeling that the thing was stolen is very strong. Is is consistent with everything we have seen from these people. And widespread rigged polls to prepare people to mentally accept rigged results.
Dextrous on November 9, 2012 at 8:51 AM
I agree with Zo, Herman Cain is the only one who could have beaten Obama. yup
Dollayo on November 9, 2012 at 8:52 AM
Yes and no. The truth is that Obama’s campaigns were decentralized and empowered local volunteers to get out the vote, register people, and so forth. Dashboard and related tools supported that mission.
Romney did none of those things. He employed a centrally planned campaign where Boston bureaucrats managed everything. Their paid staffers were usually from out of state and didn’t really connect with the base of Republican volunteers in any locality. In Ohio, for example, the campaign claims to have knocked on the doors of 2.9 million people, but none of the local party activists know who any of these people are or which doors they knocked.
In other words, yes, Obama had better software. But more importantly, he had a better campaign.
Outlander on November 9, 2012 at 8:59 AM
So what if there was? In fact, I am certain there was, and it may have been massive. The GOP isn’t going to do anything about it, so what difference does it make?
sharrukin on November 9, 2012 at 9:00 AM
I agree with Zo, Herman Cain is the only one who could have beaten Obama. yup
Dollayo on November 9, 2012 at 8:52 AM
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic but he said more than that.
Here’s a little help from Mark Steyn:
Fallon on November 9, 2012 at 9:03 AM
the difference is too large. there might have been fraud, but its incredibly hard to make such an heavy fraud without the other party noticing.
nathor on November 9, 2012 at 9:04 AM
The difference it makes is that it answers the central question of this thread, which is “what went wrong?” It is pointless to analyze the minutiae of the campaign if the machines were rigged to switch Republican votes to Democratic votes.
Dextrous on November 9, 2012 at 9:05 AM
McCain did the same thing as Romney, though not as well. Outsiders sent to “manage” instead of training and trusting locals.
Fallon on November 9, 2012 at 9:06 AM
People have noticed. The votes of a few million likely voters didn’t show up.
Dextrous on November 9, 2012 at 9:08 AM
Dextrous,
Romney lost Ohio by over 100,000 votes, largely because his people did not coe out to vote. (He got less votes than McCain). Ohio uses bubble sheet ballots, so no counting hanky-panky. And while fraud does occur, it is unbelievably hard to steal 100,000 votes. The typical “margin of fraud” is 25-30,000 votes.
Outlander on November 9, 2012 at 9:08 AM
here are some philosophical changes:
WE ARE NOT THE PARTY OF NO EXCEPTIONS PRO LIFE POSITIONS! and more, we are not the party of jesus!
nathor on November 9, 2012 at 9:08 AM
Its not just one thing though is it? Romney was a terrible candidate, the GOP has become alienated from its base, the country is sliding into socialist dependency, and rampant fraud is an accepted part of elections.
sharrukin on November 9, 2012 at 9:09 AM
what it means,ppl were intimidated to vote? you cannot intimidate 100.000 voters and have very little reporting or social media references on it.
nathor on November 9, 2012 at 9:12 AM
there is an important conclusion, the GOP base is MINORITY! the mushy middle does not follow GOP base, they actually strongly reject some of the GOP base philosophy!
nathor on November 9, 2012 at 9:18 AM
Thanks for the concrete response. I’m not sure why everyone is so confident that “it is hard” to steal 100,000 votes. These things can be planned over many months and then executed, the same way the election campaign is planned and executed. I want to hear reassurance from multiple people who actually worked at polling stations.
(And I am also aware that the mainstream media wouldn’t touch this story. They ignored the Nevada story.)
Dextrous on November 9, 2012 at 9:23 AM
Main thing: Mitt was MUSH.
Noble he was, and he talked a lot of the founding principles, but avoided 2 key issues that would have won the election for us. Making a big deal about the immigration threat would have ratcheted up the white vote, and any resultant minimal decline in the already rock bottom Hispanic vote would not have hurt. Further, making an issue out of gay marriage would have lost us few votes but won us a large number of white Dem leaning swing voters that otherwise weren’t convinced that it was all about the economy or that Mitt was the panacea for that. Different voters are affected by different things, and look at a basket of issues in making their choice, but Mitt thought he could just make it about jobs. Jobs? Jobs will come around, the people knew that, so they voted for Obama. And Obamacare, Mitt didn’t make a big enough issue out of that, and sadly now it looks like we will be saddled with the horrendous Obamacare.
And Mitt didn’t quite lie but he prevaricated and double-talked, and that was OBVIOUS, and it was a huge negative. It was obvious on gay marriage. And immigration. And abortion. He seemed calculating, a man without his own character beyond his calculating intellect and syrupy “decency.” People didn’t like his “decency,” surprise.
We lost across the board because Mitt was a horrible candidate. (On abortion: that’s one issue that hurts us. I hope evangelicals can figure out how to jettison that issue and concentrate instead on the larger fight on whether we are to become a communist minority run country [which would still have abortion, so give it up for the larger fight!].)
anotherJoe on November 9, 2012 at 9:38 AM
Stuck on stupid.
We need a true conservative to lead the party. Palin 2016
http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/11/obama-won-now-what-devito.html
ChuckTX on November 9, 2012 at 10:06 AM
On abortion again, it’s not about “speaking delicately.” Voters aren’t idiots, and they know your position. Somewhat less than half of women may be pro-life, but they are all Republicans already, mostly. Independents are going to be pro-choice, and we are being killed and losing election because of abortion. Krauthammer needs to quit with the polictically correct dance around the issue talk, call a spade a spade.
Yes, we may not need 2 pro-choice candidates. But we need to make abortion a non-issue. Anything less, and we’re headed toward redistributive socialism because we are not going to be able to win critical elections. We will be greatly handicapped, anyway.
anotherJoe on November 9, 2012 at 10:21 AM
What went wrong? The establishment GOP doesn’t stand for liberty. You could start adding voters and supporters if you’d just embrace liberty – no one says you have to agree with what others do – but you should at least agree that they have the right to live their lives as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else.
-Acknowledge that issues such as gay marriage and mot legalization is a states right issue.
-Take back the fight for constitutional rights by targeting horrible legislation such as the NDAA, TSA attack on the 4th and 5th Amendments, SOPA/PIPA.
-Support the ultimate minority – the individual
-Stop supporting endless foreign interventions, maybe ask South Korea to guard its own borders, maybe ask the EU to develop and deploy its own missile defense system.
-Stop foreign aid
-Stop with corporate welfare and agricultural welfare.
MoreLiberty on November 9, 2012 at 11:12 AM
I can speak best to Ohio’s election process, since I’m most familiar with it. There are basically two major ways you can steal elections–voter fraud (unauthorized people voting) and counting fraud (stuffing ballot boxes, manipulating the vote counting methods).
Our state’s election process is hardened against counting fraud, which is why you never hear stories about boxes of ballots turning up in some guy’s car 3 days after the election. One R and one D must accompany every ballot bag from the polling place to the board of elections, and there are chain of custody forms that must be completed before the ballots are counted to ensure their integrity. And, the ballots are electronically counted at the polling place and submitted via memory card at the same time as the physical ballots. That’s a really hard process to defeat.
That leaves the other way–identity theft and having dead people vote and more traditional forms of voter fraud. That’s a much harder thing to do on a large scale because of the sheer number of people that have to be involved. It is a general rule of thumb that the larger a conspiracy grows, the more likely it is that the conspiracy is detected. Having 500 people conspire to steal 10,000 votes is one thing. Having 5,000 people conspire to steal 100,000 votes is another.
Outlander on November 9, 2012 at 11:12 AM