His reason was that too many House districts have produced GOP members of Congress who don’t need to appeal to swing voters and don’t even care about the political views of independents and ticket-splitters. His party, he argued, would be better off with more members of Congress who understood the need to appeal to a broad array of constituents.

Who is this guy, who considers himself of the non partisan party, he sounds awfully anti conservative – the point is these people represent thier demographic group? They are not senators representing their state “in general,” they are local reps. I like them. They should NOT be non partisan, they should bring their various views to the House.

Last year, of course, the president beat Mitt Romney 60 percent to 37 percent among voters 18-29 years of age, a much better showing than Obama’s 4-point win in the final popular vote (though not as good as his 66 percent showing among younger voters in 2008)….Romney, on the other hand, easily beat Obama among voters 45 and older, many of whom came of age politically during the Reagan years or whose views were formed by the Gipper’s brand of conservatism.Romney did carry white voters in the 18-29 age group last year, but by only 51 percent to 44 percent. In contrast, he won whites 65 years and older by 61 percent to 39 percent and whites 45-64 by 61 percent to 38 percent.

People who were not voting an Identity Vote, voted for Romney. Romney Beat McCain’s turnout after all the votes were counted. I am getting tired of hearing that Romney didn’t bring out the base, when a lot of people worked hard to bank those votes ahead of time. I know…other’s who didn’t lift a finger like to criticize.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/03/romney-beats-mccain

The white youth voted overwhelmingly for Romney… even though Obama won the white youth vote in 2008. It was the biggest swing in any demographic from 2008 to 2012.

There is no “youth vote”… there is just an ethnic vote that is growing.

ninjapirate on February 7, 2013 at 5:53 PM

This is true. Even white women under 30 went for Romney by a very small margin.

Mark1971 on February 7, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Both go unreported in the MSM and for good reason. Romney even edged out Barry with college-educated voters.

1992: Brown/Clinton
1996: Clinton/Clinton
2000: Gore/Gore
2004: Dean/Kerry
2008: Romney/McCain
2012: Santorum/Romney
(2016: Rubio/Rubio…(?)

Funny how the realities of life bring politics into focus. Usually, it’s in this direction… Comparatively few people go the other way.

This explains why I still robotically vote Democratic in every election forty years later.

Oh, wait…

Republicans have looked divided, extreme and inept, and the “anti-establishment” wing of the party has often seemed more interested in defeating establishment Republicans in primaries than in defeating Democrats in the fall.

As opposed to what, exactly? What the establishment Republicans are doing?

Establishment Republicans are even worse than the anti-establishment types in this regard, because by nature, the establishment types are “established” and feel that the seats they are entitled to are in Jeopardy. The have something to lose, unlike grassroots and Tea Party candidates, and so they hiss, growl, and spray like cornered animals.

Republican successes will depend primarily on Democratic failures

That presupposes that Democrat successes have not depended primarily on Republican failures (which have been bountiful).

Republican successes will depend primarily on Democratic failures

Duh.