How consultants lost the election as soon as it began
Here’s a terrifying idea for Republican politicians, pollsters, pundits and voters to think about: The 2012 presidential election was effectively over as quickly as it began because the Republican consulting class’ reasoning — and, thereby, entire strategy — was based on denying that 2008 ever happened.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the ethnic makeup of this land is changing, and will continue to change, just as it has since before the United States was founded. Simply put, Spanish-language ads and Facebook updates are helpful, but Republicans have a choice to either make a genuine, long-term, and concerted effort to reach out to minority voters, or to follow the consultants’ lead and find shelter in demographic delusions.
Which pill the GOP will swallow likely depends on who is put in charge of explaining to the donors and politicians the cold blast of reality on Nov. 6, 2012. If it is the folks who rely on data, the GOP may have a future in this country. But if the same folks who ran the 2012 campaigns are in charge of explaining what went wrong — as they would surely like to be — the GOP’s flag is headed for the ash heap of history, and conservatives and libertarians will have to find another banner.
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
Who cares?
davidk on December 8, 2012 at 2:18 PM
Monday Morning Quarterbacking time is over.
ProfShadow on December 8, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Elections are a time for consultants to enjoy the financial rewards of having well meaning voters make donations to a particular candidate, who, then, passes on a large percentage of those donations to consultants as fees. Harvest time comes every four years. I remind y’all that Karl Rove and Dick Morris were consultants at one time.
a capella on December 8, 2012 at 2:26 PM
You can’t fight Santa Claus until he runs out of other people’s money.
Galt2009 on December 8, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Obama had consultants, too, who apparentty thought that even if 2008 was an outlier, as compared to the past, there was no reason why additional effrot, such as the data mining, couldn’t make it a trend for the Dems, or at least a repeat. There was too much, “what worked before will work again” with the GOP.
Wethal on December 8, 2012 at 2:38 PM
It was also based on the premise that a billion dollars worth of propaganda could erase the truth about Romney’s past.
BZZZZZZZZT!!! WRONG!
FloatingRock on December 8, 2012 at 2:58 PM
There’s a strong argument to be made for GOP consultants’ incompetence, but this editorial isn’t it.
Look, Romney could have spent his entire campaign treasury on persuading black voters and it wouldn’t have gained him a single additional vote. The enmity — whatever its grounding in reality and whatever its sources — is just too deep, and it will require at least a generation to rectify.
Romney could, maybe, have done better with hispanics with more strategic effort, I’m not convinced he could have done better enough to make a difference in the outcome of this election.
The key to this election was white working class voters in the industrial midwest. Every major swing in political power between the parties, for the last 30 years, has been because of that block of voters. If the GOP learns how to talk to them again, it can win again in 2016.
Robert_Paulson on December 8, 2012 at 3:06 PM
One has to understand that CULTURE is pretty important in local elections. For example, places with large ethnic populations also tend to be vary liberal culturally. A GOP candidate in California can not act like a “true” Oklahoma “conservative”. He’ll never get elected. There have to be certain issues that transcend culture that Republican candidates can agree on no matter what the culture of their local electorate and focus the campaign accordingly.
For example, the GOP should adopt a clear message of growth over taxation. There are two ways to grow revenue, you can grow the tax base with the same percentage of tax or even a reduces percentage or you can increase the tax rate. Republicans need to run on being responsible with the taxpayers’ money. Successful Republican candidates in traditionally “blue” areas should network with candidates in culturally similar areas to share what works, what hasn’t worked, etc.
An example might be Mayor Berry in Albuquerque, NM. He’s a Republican mayor in a “blue” state that enjoys over an 80% approval rate among his constituents. He was handed a fiscal mess in 2009 and seems to have made great strides in turning the city budget around without raising taxes and without laying people off. Yet I hear some people complain that he isn’t enough of a “true conservative”. Well, the simple fact is that someone who meets that person’s definition of “true conservative” is probably not going to get elected there because their constituents are not “true conservatives”. But, Mayor Berry’s experience might be a great thing for someone in a culturally and ethnically similar area to look into and learn from. New Mexico is a “blue” state that now has a Republican governor and its largest city has a Republican mayor.
The bottom line seems to me that Republicans need to focus more on LOCAL offices. These offices are much closer to the people themselves and do a lot to form opinions of people on what the party is about. Rather than abandoning the cities and counties to the Democrats in “blue” areas, we need to actually get in there. We need to run for city council and county supervisor. We need to identify successful candidates at the local level and encourage them to move up into more regional or state wide offices.
If people in the cities of this country had more positive experience with Republican candidates in lower offices, they are more likely to consider a GOP candidate. Also, people in very conservative cultural regions need to stop expecting candidates from more liberal cultural regions (say, Massachusetts) to act as if they are from Oklahoma or Kansas when they run for national office. We need a set of common values that span all of these areas but we also need to get away from expecting a GOP candidate to turn the entire country into Arkansas.
crosspatch on December 8, 2012 at 3:17 PM
Romney lost because the simple truth about Romney’s record defeated a billion dollars spent on Romney’s lies. Romney lost because he cheated Ron Paul’s young, racially diverse supporters, (who are not looking for free handouts or amnesty). Romney lost because he cheated in the Iowa primary, not only against Ron Paul but I think the other was Santorum. Romney lost because he’s a crony capitalist scoundrel d-bag who invented the crony-capitalist Romneycare/Obamacare mandate.
Romney lost because the truth defeated his lies.
FloatingRock on December 8, 2012 at 3:22 PM
Romney defeated himself when he passed Romneycare and the assault weapons ban yet still thought he could pull a fast one over on Republicans and ran as a Republican instead of challenging Obama in the D primaries.
FloatingRock on December 8, 2012 at 3:24 PM
Ditto crosspatch.
To blame it on race only shows the disconnect between the pundits/consultants and the actual voters.
I live in a rural are and Republicans carried the Hispanic vote by at least 60%.
Its rural verses urban and Republicans can’t win urban.
MHatch on December 8, 2012 at 3:26 PM
The consultants told Romney not to respond to the Summer of Smears (Romney could have used his own personal millions for this response, even if his primary funds were gone), but just wait for the wonderful convention Stu Stevens had planned that would “introduce” Romney to the voters.
Wethal on December 8, 2012 at 3:31 PM
Next In Line just means Four Years for The Democrats To Prepare. When a whole lot of things happened: like Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, 0bamacare, and the like, the consultants had all been so committed to Romney that they saw these as obstacles to overcome for Romney’s sake. They should have been opportunities for messaging from whoever emerged from a much fairer 2012 nomination fight.
Without the commitment to Romney, maybe more and better candidates would have run, and the conservative media would have been referee instead of cheerleader.
Sekhmet on December 8, 2012 at 3:42 PM
There are, and Ron Paul has already discovered them. Freedom and liberty is popular regardless of skin color.
FloatingRock on December 8, 2012 at 3:43 PM
In 2016, the Democrat bench is powerfully short of minorities. That dude in San Antonio, we need to take him out—fortunately, he’s a Texan. Any Chicagoan, Hawaiian, New Yorker, or Californian who ratted on 0bama before 2008 would have found a bullet on his bedside table. A Texan who rats on Julian Castro would be in far less trouble. Identify and try to implicate in scandals any minority who would possibly be able to take down Hillary.
As for Hillary—I think it will have been a mistake for her to leave State. She will be nominated in absentia for every foreign policy screwup these next four years—and as liberals are so dogmatic about the methods of foreign policy, there will be screwups a-plenty.
Sekhmet on December 8, 2012 at 3:51 PM
Romney’s problem was that he came in talking and acting like a business consultant who was going to financially turn the country around but had no rousing overall American message. I have been doing some analysis of some data since last night and I see some things that would tend to belie some of the “conventional wisdom”.
For example, Philadelphia County, PA.
2004 Election:
Kerry 542,205 votes
Bush 130,099 votes
Kerry gets 80.6% of the vote, Bush 19.4% of the 672,394 votes for the two candidates.
In 2008 we see:
Obama 571,133
McC 113,315
Obama gets 83.4% of the vote, McCain gets 16.6% of the 684,448 votes for the two.
In 2012 we see:
Obama 559,180
Romney 91,953
Obama gets 85.2%, Romney gets 14.8% of the 651,133 votes.
What is interesting here is that Obama’s total number of votes goes DOWN in 2012 in Philadelphia but his overall share of votes goes UP. Romney lost 21,362 votes from McCain’s 2008 total in Philadelphia County even though Romney’s national vote count is about 800,000 votes more than McCain’s 2008 total. The ethnicity of Philadelphia County has not changed that much between 2004 and 2012.
In 2000 Philadelphia county was 44.2% black, in 2012 it was 44.3% black.
In 2000 Philadelphia county was 39.0% white, in 2012 it was 37.0% white.
In 2000 Philadelphia county was 5.4% asian, in 2012 it as 6.6% asian.
In 2000 Philadelphia county was 12.5% hispanic, in 2012 it was 12.6
Changes in ethnicity do not account for a 5 point swing from 2004 to 2012. Changes in ethnicity do not account for the drop in number of Obama voters in 2012 yet a 2 point increase in the number of votes for the Democrat from 2008.
What we are seeing here is a disconnect between the GOP and urban voters. Quite frankly, the cultural difference between GOP candidates and the nature of their campaigns and the inhabitants of urban areas is widening. The GOP has apparently abandoned urban American and that has got to be reversed. That starts by running candidates for local offices in these areas. It starts by “community organizing” by individual Republicans in these areas. Join your local COUNTY GOP committee. Your county committee is separate from the national RNC. It reflects the culture of your local area. We need to reach out to individuals who are influential in the community such as business owners who have been in local communities for years, people who have possibly been involved in community sports and youth activities for maybe a generation or two that people know and trust and who have some leadership skills.
This isn’t a result of “ethnic” change. This is a result of a GOP that has been ignoring metropolitan politics at the grass roots level. That needs to change.
crosspatch on December 8, 2012 at 3:54 PM
” drop in number of Obama voters in 2012 yet a 2 point increase in the number of votes for the Democrat from 2008.”
Should be ” drop in number of Obama voters in 2012 yet a 2 point increase in the percentage of votes for the Democrat from 2008.”
crosspatch on December 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM
On a few issues, yes. On several other issues, no. Ron Paul and his worshipers were a significant part of the problem in 2012. Ron Paul hindered more than helped the GOP. His organization was also, I believe, heavily infiltrated in many regions by “occupy” types attempting to disrupt the GOP process and by stealth Democrats attempting to fracture the GOP. Paul’s refusal to back a candidate, like FreedomWorks did, helped elect Obama. They cut off their noses to spite their faces. The entire movement acts like a bunch of 14 yo kids. Ron Paul is NOT the answer.
crosspatch on December 8, 2012 at 4:00 PM
Good riddance to you and the GOP, then.
FloatingRock on December 8, 2012 at 4:05 PM
Here is the basic disconnect and FloatingRock actually illustrates it. What plays very well in one region may not be best for the entire nation. There are areas with a very libertarian culture. New Hampshire might be one of them. But that culture does NOT span the nation to the same degree in all places. A person must be able to accept that their personally preferred candidate and their personally preferred set of positions on issues that is popular in their local region may not sell well nationally. At that point they need to look at the candidates that actually DO stand a chance of getting elected and select the one that is CLOSER to their position on the greatest number of issues and back that candidate with vigor. This attitude of wanting exact lock step on all issues or nothing is, in the political vernacular, “stupid”.
Who is the larger threat to libertarian values, Obama or Romney? I say it is Obama. But the libertarians actively helped elect Obama by making the direct decision of not supporting Romney. So as far as I am concerned, if they didn’t vote or if they wasted their vote on a vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, then they actively voted for Obama and need to simmer down and suffer the consequences of their action. They basically voted for this so they have no right to complain. If you didn’t vote for Romney, then you voted for Obama so stop complaining.
crosspatch on December 8, 2012 at 4:07 PM
Thanks for the lecture but in fact I’m one of the few people here at HotAir that has consistently argued to let each state and locality govern themselves without being dominated by authoritarian Democrats and Republican collectivist thugs in Washington DC, so you can take your high horse and shove it.
FloatingRock on December 8, 2012 at 4:12 PM
By arguing for the lesser of two evils you have made yourself an agent of evil. It’s thanks to people like you, Bush and Boehner that Obama inherited such a mess. And it’s thanks to people like you that he has another four years to make it even worse.
FloatingRock on December 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM
If the Ron Paul movement wasn’t engineered as a disruption, how come there were not concerted efforts at selecting libertarian-minded House, Senate, state house, and gubernatorial candidates? It was all, “We’ll rules-raep our guy into the GOP Presidential nomination, and it will be kittens and rainbows from here on out!”
And this was two election cycles running. What is Floating Rock going to do if Ron Paul doesn’t run in 2016, as he is likely not to do?
Sekhmet on December 8, 2012 at 4:18 PM
We have a successful and very popular mayor of Albuquerque but on the national scale the “true conservatives” would probably find much to criticize. We have a successful GOP Governor of Nevada that “true conservatives” would probably not like either. What I think we need to do is agree on role of government and economic issues at the national politics level and leave the culture wars to the local level.
crosspatch on December 8, 2012 at 4:22 PM
You guys tried to win without my help in ’08 and ’12, and how did that work out for you?
In ’10 you had my support and others like myself and how did that work? We won in a landslide!
Together we stand, divided we fall.
But if you and crosspatch prefer to keep losing then by all means just keep following Boehner and Romney to your doom.
FloatingRock on December 8, 2012 at 4:34 PM
If 2008 was such an outlier, what does Bedford consider — and how does he explain — the 2010 election?
Also, where’s the data on voter fraud and why isn’t that being considered in his analysis?
ShainS on December 8, 2012 at 4:36 PM
You guys lost in ’06 without my help too, BTW. If you want to win you have to include people like me or else you have to out Democrat the Democrats. Your choice.
But if you guys are going to out Democrat the Democrats then you have to make way for a prominent third party or else it’s war as far as I’m concerned, because I’ll be damned if I have to live my entire life in this country never once having true representation in Congress or the White House.
FloatingRock on December 8, 2012 at 4:41 PM
Here’s the thing, the Republicans Party is run by a bunch of effing lying crooks, and people like crosspatch pretends like I’m the problem.
FloatingRock on December 8, 2012 at 4:54 PM
One reason the 2012 vote for Obam was so high in 2012 was unprecedented voter fraud. The GOP poll watchers were kicked out of dozens of polling places with fake challenges to their credentials.
The poll watchers had to go to a judge for a hearing to get admitted. This took several hours. (Credentials were ok all along). In the meantime, the Dems had “voted” for everyone on the list who was dead, moved, or had told them they weren’t coming. (The Dems actually call ahead to every Dem voter in the precinct to find this out.)
The Dems wanted to make sure the Dem vote in Philly was so high that the “swing suburbs” could not swing it to Romney.
This happens every time. The GOP poll watchers are challenged despite getting proper credentials ahead of time. In 2012 one GOP poll watcher was physically thrown out a polling place by a Dem thug.
Wethal on December 8, 2012 at 4:54 PM
Even if that’s true it only serves the GOP right for all the cheating they perpetrated against Ron Paul and his supporters during the GOP presidential primaries. If you guys are going to fight like pigs then don’t complain when you get covered in pig $#!t.
FloatingRock on December 8, 2012 at 5:02 PM
Based on their cheating in the primaries I have little doubt that the GOP also tried their best to cheat during the general election. Both sides are probably guilty. It’s a sign of the times, America is an immoral, decaying, bankrupt nation hell bent on it’s own destruction, thanks to people on both sides who have forgotten the principles that made America great.
FloatingRock on December 8, 2012 at 5:04 PM
But what about the drop in GOP support from 2010?
I haven’t seen anything on that.
MHatch on December 8, 2012 at 6:07 PM