I live in Indiana, and I watched Mourdock throw away a Senate seat…and even though Pence won, he won by a smaller margin in this state than Romney did. So it is not all about Romney.

Terrye on November 28, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Your logic is unsound. Romney had a better percentage than Pence or Mourdock obviously, but it was the moderates who didn’t vote for the conservatives.

Steve Baldwin (whoever he is) and those who agree with him are the problem. Romney was a terrific candidate. As for those who don’t like Romney, you can’t fix stupid.

Basilsbest on November 28, 2012 at 5:36 PM

I think so too. Backstabbing crybabies…who the hell made these people spokes people for anything?

Terrye on November 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Here are 2 people that constantly told us that Romney was the only electable candidate. We told them that Romney’s vicious campaign against the conservative candidates was going to lose him some votes in the general. They blew us off with their own nastiness. We told them this nastiness is going to lose them votes, they didn’t care. Romney lost, we are to blame in their eyes. Good job moderates.

Because you brilliant squishy arbiters of electability would be b1tching and moaning and trashing and booing and hissing non-stop til that “electable conservative alternative” would have to give way to someone more “acceptable”, someone who will win independents and moderates and disaffected Dems and left-handed lesbian former nuns. Lather, rinse, repeat.

ddrintn on November 28, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Again – why did the more conservative Senate candidates get less votes than Romney?

Gelsomina on November 28, 2012 at 7:22 PM

What voters did Romney target? Independents and non-conservatives.

What Senators do independents and non-conservatives vote for? Non-conservatives.

By the very nature of Romney’s campaign, it was clear that he would have little or no coattails.

That doesn’t really answer your question completely, but only because I don’t believe Romney was effective in reaching the voters he was trying to reach.

The rest of the answer to your question is simple: Obama was the incumbent in a horrible economy. You would expect people to vote against the incumbent in such a case.

I am describing a universe where Reps & Dems were about even in Voter ID, but where more Ds than Rs actually showed up to vote.

And guess what; that is exactly what happened on Election Day.

Everyone had predicted a D+2 or so electorate; and we got a D+6.
Why? Because liberals turned out, while conservatives sat home.

Norwegian on November 28, 2012 at 6:44 PM

You are describing that universe but not proving that is what happened. Lots of people predicted a D+6 electorate. In fact, most predictors predicted exactly that. Remember…thats how Nate Silver was so right.

If conservatives alone can win elections, why can’t they win Republican primaries?

Liberals lose conservatives (or at least liberals that can pretend to be conservative ) win.

So conservatives win everywhere but REpublican primaries….is that really the argument?

Again – why did the more conservative Senate candidates get less votes than Romney?

Gelsomina on November 28, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Because the computer programs were only designed to change Romney votes to Obama.

Because you brilliant squishy arbiters of electability would be b1tching and moaning and trashing and booing and hissing non-stop til that “electable conservative alternative” would have to give way to someone more “acceptable”, someone who will win independents and moderates and disaffected Dems and left-handed lesbian former nuns. Lather, rinse, repeat.

ddrintn on November 28, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Again – why did the more conservative Senate candidates get less votes than Romney?

women did not vote for Romney in some states because of what Senate candidates in other states said?

Joey24007 on November 28, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Yes, because the Democrats convinced the voters that ALL Republicans are like Akin and Mourdock. You remember the dancing vaginas, “vote as if you lady parts depend on it” and headlines like “Todd Akin, Paul Ryan, and Redefining Rape”?

They also got enacted a way to rob the avg citizen of power by limiting the house of rep to 435 people in 1904. Lenin referred to these people as useful idiots and sadly I have to agree with lenin on this one.

unseen on November 28, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Well, they are taking over the Republican party now. I do not see any evidence that once entrenched, the way Romney did it at the convention, these useful idiots can be dislodged.

astonerii on November 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM

They also got enacted a way to rob the avg citizen of power by limiting the house of rep to 435 people in 1904. Lenin referred to these people as useful idiots and sadly I have to agree with lenin on this one.