-
Tebows in Paradise
June 11, 2013 | 62 comments
-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
Feature
Picking Up the Pieces
Presumably the Republicans’ next presidential candidate will have less in common with John Kerry.
Barack Obama took the Republicans’ best shot and won a second term. In an even stronger tribute to his campaign team’s skills and get-out-the-vote operation, the president beat Republican challenger Mitt Romney in every meaningful swing state except North Carolina—and even there he came within 100,000 votes.
Nevertheless, some perspective is in order. Much of the post-election commentary suggests we have witnessed a party realignment on par with the Democrats’ New Deal coalition or the Republican majority after the Civil War. At the very least, you would think Obama won a 49-state landslide like re-elected incumbents Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1984.
In fact, after some rounding up, Obama received 51 percent of the popular vote to Romney’s 48 percent. That’s exactly how George W. Bush did against John Kerry in 2004. Remember all the talk of a permanent Republican majority? The reality was Bush barely squeaked back into office, and those Republican majorities didn’t even survive the next election.
The Obama-Romney contest is similar to the 2004 election in many respects. In both cases, the country was less than enthusiastic about the incumbent president and could have been persuaded to part with him. In both cases, swing voters needed only to be convinced that the opposition party had produced a viable alternative. And in both cases, the incumbent relied heavily on an enthusiastic base driven by social issues and cultural affinity.
Just as Bush did to Kerry, Obama went negative against Romney early to try to preemptively disqualify him in the minds of wavering independents. Polls in purple states found that many battleground voters regarded Obama as a failure. But they also came to view Romney as too out of touch to be president.
Which of those two views they ultimately identified with more was a decent predictor of how they would vote for president. Romney, like Kerry before him, bet that he could improve his standing with a bevy of fall ads once the electorate was paying closer attention. His big win in the first debate—which did more to shake up the dynamics of the race than when Bush faltered during his first encounter with Kerry—at first appeared to vindicate this strategy.
Yet ultimately first impressions reasserted themselves. Like Kerry, Romney didn’t end up winning independents by a large margin, and he underperformed among late deciders. A strong showing among both groups was necessary if he was going to to overcome a slight disadvantage in the polls heading into Election Day.
Obama’s re-election looks as impressive as it does because Bush v. Gore is an outlier: More often than not, the Electoral College makes a narrow popular vote winner look better. (It’s a point in favor of the Framers’ system that liberals are just now rediscovering.) But even here, Obama’s numbers aren’t earth-shattering.
The sitting president of the United States got just 50 percent of the vote in Ohio and Florida. He didn’t win any of the major swing states with more than 52 percent of the vote. He received 52 percent in Pennsylvania—not considered a battleground until late—and 53 percent in Wisconsin. Paul Ryan may represent the latter state in Congress, but he was never a statewide winner.
In the electoral college, it makes no difference whether you win a state by one vote or 1 million. Except for Nebraska and Maine, states’ electors are winner-take-all. That Obama registered in the low 50s in Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, and even Minnesota doesn’t much matter for this presidential contest. But it does matter for future races. The Democratic advantage does not look so insurmountable after all, unless one assumes against all available evidence that the Romney campaign represents some kind of high-water mark for Republicans.
Consider that George H.W. Bush carried 40 states for 426 electoral votes in 1988, a better showing than Obama’s this year. But that election was somewhat closer than this tally makes it appear. Bush drew just 53 percent of the popular vote—which, incidentally, was also Obama’s 2008 peak—and his state-by-state margins were generally down from Ronald Reagan’s four years earlier.
In 1992, Bill Clinton targeted the many states where Michael Dukakis won at least 45 percent of the vote. Certainly, much had changed since ’88: the 1990–91 recession, Bush’s incumbency as opposed to Reagan’s, Ross Perot’s independent candidacy, the revitalization of the center in the Democratic Party. But this strategy helped lay the groundwork for a tremendous turnaround, with Clinton carrying 32 states plus the District of Columbia for 370 electoral votes.
It’s also worth noting that most of the post-election bedwetting by the losing parties’ weaker and more opportunistic commentators has recently proved wrong. Clinton moved right on some issues compared to Dukakis (though he was still much closer to Dukakis than Reagan-Bush). George W. Bush was stylistically different from Newt Gingrich in 2000. The Democrats recruited some less liberal candidates in culturally conservative areas in 2006.
But the Democrats didn’t abandon their pro-choice position on abortion or their criticism of the Iraq war, as they were advised to do by even members of their own party after Kerry’s defeat. They won the subsequent elections anyway. If anything, Bush 43 tried to appeal more strongly—if also more subtly—to pro-life evangelicals than his father or Bob Dole. Clinton largely confined his Democratic Leadership Council heresies to the death penalty, welfare, and presidential war powers.
In the coming years, much of the rest of the country will face Wisconsin-like battles between public sector unions and taxpayers. Democrats will be forced to choose higher taxes for the middle class if they truly wish to oppose all entitlement reforms. And the next Democratic presidential candidate may be slightly less popular among blacks and young voters.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (97) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/05/picking-up-the-pieces
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 12.5.12 @ 6:32AM
The answer is of course what all of us who didn't like Romney to begin with kept on telling you and telling you -- and being shrieked at by hysterical people that our only choice was to vote Romney or commit suicide -- NEXT TIME PUT UP A CANDIDATE THAT WE CAN SUPPORT. When people at the senior centres are willing to vote for Ron Paul because they don't like either major candidate, even though they don't know Ron Paul from Rocky the Flying Squirrel, you ought to see the writing on the wall.
What we need is a Standard Bearer. We need somebody who thinks like we do. And in a time when mainstream Christianity is under attack from all directions, we don't need a Mormon. Believe it or not, a very large whack of people remember the big brouhaha in Texas about the Mormons, and to those of us fighting to maintain our Christian values are also old enough to remember how FDR's deal with Stalin worked out. Instead of jeering and mocking the people in "Flyover Country", next time try allying yourselves with us and listening to the voices of the people who are not East Coast Millionaires, i.e. most of the country. Mitt Romney is no more like us than John Kerry (or Ben Stein). The answer to the hand-wringing crybabies is the same as it was four years ago: give us a candidate we can support.
I rest my case.
spike59| 12.5.12 @ 6:43AM
the problem, it seems to me, was that there wasn't a single candidate in the race that 'fit the bill'; Romney turned out to be the 'best' of a truly mediocre field. support for each of the rest of the candidates was a mile deep and an inch wide; and in the case of RonPaul (RIP) it was two miles deep and several millimeters wide
the fact that, rather than each candidate making a case for himself, they ALL elected to 'go nuke' on each other, did nothing to help unseat ObaMao; on the contrary, his team was handed MOST of their 'talking points' by the other GOP also-rans
gracielamiramontes| 12.5.12 @ 9:43AM
upto I saw the check saying $4722, I have faith that my brother really bringing in money part-time from there new laptop.. there uncle haz done this 4 less than 7 months and by now took care of the dept on there mini mansion and bourt a brand new Porsche 911. go to..WWW.youtube.qr.net/jOUs/watch?v=9xOf6Pe0ETk
Jack in Wi| 12.7.12 @ 7:04AM
Romney lost because he refused to reach out to Ron Paul and his young supporters. he could of done that easily by letting Ron address the convention, letting them let off some steam at the convention, and not treating them like dirt. It would have cost him nothing to take up some of their popular positions like Ending the Afganistan war now, coming out for a full audit of the Federal Reserve, and promising some specific cuts. He also dissed Sarah Palin and the pro-life community. He ran a bad campaign and should have won by 10 points in this economy. He is a plutocrat and ran like he was lord of the manner. He thought just promisng jobs was going to get thejob ddone. I said many times on this site that no pro-war Republican could win. By allowing the Neocons to run his foreign policy team Romney threw away the votes of the young, women, libertarians and a lot of independents. Romney let Obama paint him as a warmonger. It cost him a close election.
TLP| 12.5.12 @ 8:45AM
Why couldn't you support Romney?
At my Sister's Wedding, I was talking Politics with a guy from Virginia, and he asked me who I would run against Obama. I pointed to my Plastic Cup full of Wine (Very Classy) and told him that I would run my Plastic Cup.
I told him that my Plastic Cup had never raised anybody's Taxes. Never ran up a Trillion $ Deficit, let alone 4 of them. Never added $6 Trillion to our National Debt, and had never had 20 Year Relationships with Communists, Marxists, Domestic Terrorists, Louis Farrakhan, The Black Panthers, Khalid Rashidi, or a Black Racist, Anti-Semitic, America Hating Pastor. Let alone, ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE.
I told him that my Plastic Cup loved this Country, loved our Men and Women that serve in the Military, and would never turn NASA in to a Plastic Cup Outreach Program.
My Plastic Cup was gonna open up everywhere for Drilling. He would put the EPA back in its box, and get rid of the NLRB altogether. He would promise Every Kid an opportunity for a Good Education via Private School Vouchers, so that Poor Kids can go to Private School, just like Public School Teacher's kids do.
In America, that shoulda been a Can't Lose Proposition. But then, this is AMERIKA, now. And every day is Opposite Day.
So, why don't you get offa Romney's Ass, ya dumb Canuck?
I already told ya - We coulda run JESUS CHRIST, and he woulda lost.
Goldwater Girl| 12.5.12 @ 10:22AM
Aahh, Tim. A man after my heart, drinking wine from a plastic cup!
Al Adab| 12.5.12 @ 10:54AM
We have seen, and will see, the utter failure of redistributionist policies of jealousy, greed and covetousness which the Dem party is so adept at promulgating. Whether there will rermain any prospect of putting the pieces back together is another matter.
History teaches that the likely result of such failures and economic collapses as this will bring is a turn toward totalitarian systems rather than toward free markets and liberal (classical sense) ones. There is the great danger. This road we are on is the one which leads to Ceasar or Bonaparte.
BTW, TLP: you asked the other day, "Do I know you?" Do I?
TLP| 12.5.12 @ 3:45PM
Obviously, you don't.
Al Adab| 12.5.12 @ 5:53PM
OK
Dai Alanye | 12.5.12 @ 11:28AM
TLP's comment strikes me as ignorant and insulting defeatism. Blaming the American voters, as he essentially is doing, is like blaming the weather and referees for a losing game.
What lost this election, other than nominating a mediocre campaigner, was allowing (and assisting) the Dems to blame the bad economy on Dubya rather than pinning it on the Dem Congress and Obama. The housing debacle was based on Dem programs, and the collapse occured after the Dems captured Congress in 2006.
Without the excuse of "Bush did it!" Obama would have been on the defensive, and the outcome would have been quite different.
The Canuck is correct about Romney, of course--a stronger candidate would have turned things around. But we could still have won it with Mitt had we fought off the anti-Dubya propaganda.
Stkman| 12.5.12 @ 12:17PM
While the Canuck may be correct that Romney was a weak candidate he is wrong when it comes to why Romey lost.
When faced with pure evil and faced with a Christian, whether he be Mormon, Catholic, Baptist or whatever, common sense says vote for the one that isn't evil.
I yself railed right here on tis very site that I didn't want Romney, that he was weak and just onther RINO, and he is all of that. Still though, he isn't evil. In that regard Tim is right. Do you know Tim, how can you not know him?
What Appleby and those that voted for Paul failed to realize is that we weren't just trying to defeat Obama. This is a longer broader fight played out in stages.
First we elect the one that isn't evil, Romeny, so we can get Obama out.
Second, in the next election, we elect someone that is for the middle class and no one else.
Now, because the Paul voters had no faith in their fellow Americans and no patience to play this out we may well have blood in the streets. We may now be forced to do what we all hoped we could avoid. Fighting with our fellow Americans in the streets rather than the ballot box.
TLP| 12.5.12 @ 3:48PM
Fianaly.
Someone who GETS IT.
TLP| 12.5.12 @ 3:49PM
Finally.
DAMN IT!
mike 3/505| 12.5.12 @ 4:12PM
+1
TLP| 12.5.12 @ 5:11PM
You crack me up.
Andrew P111| 12.5.12 @ 9:46PM
Romney lost because he couldn't muster the turnout. Why? (1) RomneyCare was the model for Obamacare. There were plenty of people who simply could not trust Romney because of his record, and thus were not willing to wait in long lines to vote for him. (2) Romney's turnout machine was a total failure. This was to be expected. Romney's record in the primaries was of a guy who made mistakes, rapidly lost ground, and then learned from his mistakes and spent boatloads of cash to right the ship in the next round. In a General Election there is no next round. You have to get it right the first time, and Romney couldn't get it done.
I think Santorum would have done better, winning FL and OH, but still would not have won because of he would not have won Virginia. Obama's turnout machine in VA was utterly amazing, and it will make next year's governor's race a real fight.
Jacob McCandles| 12.5.12 @ 1:26PM
Why not blame the voters? This whole thing is absurd! "Voters couldn't identify with Mitt Romney.. "
Whether we like it or not, over half of our citizens are ignorant of even the most basic facts about our government in 2012. The election provided such a clear, distinct choice that only a fool would have failed to see the enormous differences.
Well, maybe the voters will also have trouble "identifying" with hyperinflation, a second recession, and the gradual erosion of our freedoms, standard of living, and way of life. When all of these things finally happen, I wonder if these jackasses will still feel bummed that Mr. Romney wasn't the type of guy they would like to have a beer with. Idiots.
mike 3/505| 12.5.12 @ 4:15PM
I get sick and tired of hearing voters couldn't "identify" with Romney. I never wanted my General Officers to "identify" with me. I wanted them to be smart and dedicated enough to properly lead me and my troops to victory with the fewest possible casualties. I'm not voting for a President based on whether or not I'd like to have a beer with him (I have Pennell for that). I'm voting for somebody who has the smarts, the philosophy and WILL, to do the job.
TLP| 12.5.12 @ 5:14PM
Colonel. Send me your Email Address.
I wanna send you some stuff that I made.
You won't be sorry.
tpennell4@comcast.net
Occam's Tool| 12.5.12 @ 12:48PM
Romney would have been infinitely preferrable to Obama as Romney is a mature ,well educated, successful adult.
But he doesn't move in primary loud colors, and we need someone who does,
Vic| 12.5.12 @ 4:49PM
Romney was never going to win. Even Anne Coulter said as much, and way before the elections! We could have run a Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich and still lost, maybe, but we could have won too. And if we did, it would have been so much fun to live under a President Santorum or Gingrich. Much better than the bland, uncharismatic, pseudo conservative, deadpan Romney!
Andrew P111| 12.5.12 @ 9:52PM
Romney was never going to win, but the conservative media (Drudge, Fox, etc..) were in the tank for Romney in the primaries because Romney has boatloads of money to spend on ads, and that money gets spent with those very same media.
Drunken Sailor| 12.5.12 @ 2:01PM
Was it a red solo cup?
DrFriedman| 12.5.12 @ 6:10PM
That's hilarious!
KennesawJack| 12.5.12 @ 7:09PM
Was it a red Solo cup?
KennesawJack| 12.5.12 @ 7:10PM
Sorry, Sailor. Didn't see you beat me to it.
Occam's Tool| 12.5.12 @ 12:44PM
We need a man with titanium testicles. We need Allen West. Screw "appealing to moderates." Reagan didn't "appeal to moderates"---he won moderates because he was a MAN.
LONE STAR| 12.5.12 @ 6:33AM
First we need to look to 2014 & try to re-take the Senate and keep the House....That is historically an opportune time for the opposition party....Don't look too far ahead...Obama hasn't even started his second term yet...The House needs to stand up and fight him every step of the way & quit being such weenies...They have the power of the purse...a huge advantage if they have the courage to use it...
aware| 12.5.12 @ 6:02PM
Now, if we only HAD an opposition party!
Joellen| 12.5.12 @ 7:13AM
Right Lone Star, and let's stop trying to appease the hispanic base on illegal terms. If the Hispanics want to belong to the democrat party, it's not just about immagration, so let's stop pretending that's what its all about. How many black people actually realize that it was the Republican party (Abe Lincoln) who fought for their freedom? How many knew that during the civil rights era it was the Democrats who fought against their equality? Yet the Black population clings to the dems who have in reality set about to destroy them - just look back from the Great Society, implemented by Dem Johnson. You dont need no father - you've got the government!
If the Republican Party would actually stand firm on fiscal conservatism, (which in itself is morally right), and just once and for all stop capitulating to the dem's, they will start seeing good and lasting results. I still believe that most people want to work - if the dem's get their way and we go off the cliff - the people will need to really have a choice next election - and there will be a need to have a party that is fundamentaly different from the dems, to choose from. So lets' get started and start implementing and articulating our differences right now. NO COMPROMISES with the Obama agenda - not now not ever.
TLP| 12.5.12 @ 8:53AM
Will somebody Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease ask one of these "Hispanic Leaders" why their people should get a Pass, while everyone else in the World has to go through all of the Proper Procedures?
And I hope all of you Libs live long enough to see all of your Neighborhoods, and your Grandchildren's Neighborhoods turned into South Central L.A.
Cause, it's coming, and Sooner than you think.
SUBVET| 12.5.12 @ 10:52AM
Ted Cruze........said he supported closing the borders and incourge legal immagration.
Who Knows?| 12.5.12 @ 11:30AM
It's Ted Cruz, not Cruze
TLP| 12.5.12 @ 5:16PM
Hey!
Don't Fck with my buddy!
Occam's Tool| 12.5.12 @ 12:52PM
My kids are both Guatemalans, one Mestizo, one Mayan. Both are here legally, having gone through proper channels. Both are now US citizens.
Further, as an American citizen, I paid out of state tuition for my Medical School tuition in Texas (and paid off ALL of my student loans in the 1st 18 months of practice, all roughly 80 K, by working super hard in a rural area).
I agree, as usual, with my compadre Tim. I have a lot of problems with their solution to the illegal Hispanic alien situation. And I don't believe that non-citizens should be paying in-state tuition, because I spent EIGHT YEARS in Texas and never got that privilege, as an American Citizen. Screw them.
South Central LA sucks where it does not blow.
JmsA| 12.5.12 @ 1:34PM
Dont' forget East L.A.
MelvinNC| 12.5.12 @ 7:37AM
The Republicans will lose big in 2014. Now that the Democrat Bolshevik Party hasn't the National election to worry about, it can concentrate on picking off Republican incumbents in the States House and Senate races.
I don't mean to be a naysayer, but we must look at what the Republican Party stands for.............I'm sorry nothing really comes to mind. The similarities with the Democrat Bolsheviks are just to many.
Yesterday, the tanned one, John Boehner began a purge of Committee Chairmanships, chaired by Conservative Congressmen.
The Speaker of the House, at least in my opinion is the "Judas" of Conservatism. Unfortunately, my personal opinions of this Bolshevik Oligarch is unfit for this public forum.
Von Mises Jr| 12.5.12 @ 8:21AM
The GOP Establishment does not believe in conservative philosophy. That is why any honest pragmatist realizes that the answer is not in the DC Establishment.
The problem that is not discussed in this article is voter fraud. Emails circulating after the election claim that the Republicans agreed a few decades ago not to contest elections on voter fraud. If all these swing states were won by 1-3%, was the voter fraud more or less?
The GOP picked Boehner for similar reasons Obama sent Rice out to lie about Benghazi. After "Mumbles" Boehner gets finished garbling his words and bursting into tears, nobody knows what the hell he said.
Obama just lies telling some it was a protest got out of hand and others that it was terror figuring nobody will explain it to the "Stupid" people. Apparently nobody did.
With Boehner and the GOP, nobody even knows what they said.
Perhaps the only thing that can save the country now is turmoil and misery. Events always inject them into the mix. Spiraling inflation, market crash, job losses on exponential scale or a well placed terrorist attack can wake people up, even "Stupid" Obama voters.
Benghazi meant nothing to them. But perhaps another 911 in their backyards will get their attention?
You have to figure the terrorist got to be jazzed after getting away with murdering our Ambassador and buzzing our drone without a response. Hell, they got kudos in Benghazi and apologies across the world.
Pecos Pete| 12.5.12 @ 8:30AM
Von: I'm gradually arriving at an opinion that it would be foolish for anyone to attack the USA as that would firm up some backbones. My point is: Why attack when the decline of the USA is now guaranteed?
TLP| 12.5.12 @ 9:04AM
If I'm Israel?
I'm loading all of the Targeting Information into my Nukes, now.
"Never Again" means Never Again.
Or, at least it had better.
Al Adab| 12.5.12 @ 10:59AM
Israel has on its target lists Damascus, Cairo, Teheran and Baghdad probably among others. During the 1973 Yom Kippur war, the Jerico missles were prepared for launch with those targets in mind. Should Israel find itself defeated, the intent is to take others along with them.
What the United States government might chose to do were this country to suffer a nuclear detonation by some trans-national group is a decision which needs to be made, publicly, before such an event occurs.
Bob K| 12.5.12 @ 11:13AM
The military will take over the country almost instantly should this happen. Count on it.
Mike W| 12.5.12 @ 1:39PM
If the military uses a terrorist attack to take over then there would be a civil war. Don't think for a moment that a military leadership would some aw shucks "we are doing what's best for the country".
defenz_engr| 12.5.12 @ 7:00PM
'The military will take over the country...'. Well, they may try and we do have a magnificent military with advanced technology and the ability to kick third world butt in an open battle. But...we've got 150 million armed citizens who are not third world retards, but first world Americans, many of who have been trained by the best and have combat experience. The military may try to 'take over the country', but they will soon discover that they have encountered their toughest adversary...the American Patriot. It will be ugly but we will prevail...espeically if they use the COIN methodology. But of course they won't. Against conservatives they'll go nuclear.
defenz_engr| 12.5.12 @ 7:06PM
ah, sorry...many of 'whom' have been trained....etc
Von Mises Jr| 12.5.12 @ 9:27AM
Islamists are not as bright as Sun Tzu or Machiavelli. Generally the strategy is get out of the way when your enemy is committing suicide.
But Islamists do not act strategically. They are tactical terrorist.
Andrew P111| 12.5.12 @ 9:59PM
Don't underestimate the enemy so much. If given the right opportunities, the Islamists WILL act strategically. And I am not so sure they haven't been strategic. Islamism is gaining ground around the world despite major tactical reverses such as Bin Laden's death. The enemy is playing a much longer game than us in the West usually contemplate.
GobBluthe| 12.5.12 @ 9:05AM
How many GOP incumbents lost in 2012???? The GOP did poorly mostly because their candidates who were challengers or in open seats were bad candidates. The GOP ran retreads and crazies in the senate races.
Al Adab| 12.5.12 @ 11:01AM
So how is it that the Dems succeed with Al Sharpton, Barbara Boxer, Debbie and so on? Is there a double standard which demands that GOP candidates be only the most acceptable while Dem ones can be the most irrational?
GobBluthe| 12.5.12 @ 12:20PM
First Al Sharpton has never been elected to anything. Also CA is a one party state, any DEM can win there. Debbie comes from a Gerrymandered congressional district.
Al Adab| 12.5.12 @ 2:50PM
OK: Barney Frank? There is a whole list of them.
The Big E| 12.5.12 @ 8:58AM
I think it was Vince Lombardi who once said, "Football is blocking and tackling. Everything else is mythology."
Blocking and tackling - the fundamentals.
Elections are the same way - the fundamentals count - everything else is mythology. And in elections, the fundamentals is turnout.
Candidates who focus on energizing their base and maximizing the turnout of their loyalists BEFORE attempting to win over those on the fence win elections - regardless of party. Those who first try to appeal to the fence-sitters see their base lose energy, the turnout of their loyalists drop, and lose. It's that simple.
That formula worked for Obama in 2008 and 2012. It worked for Bush 43 in 2000 and 2004. It worked for Clinton twice, for Bush 41 in 1988, for Reagan twice, and for Carter in 1976.
If you want to win an election, you must make sure that the people who are inclined to vote for you show up to vote - and that MUST be your first priority. That priority was nowhere near the top of the Romney campaign's priorities.
Anyone with half-a-brain could see after Iowa that Mitt Romney COULD NOT beat Barack Obama because he COULD NOT energize the conservative base. In 2012, Obama did not care about winning over undecided voters. He did not care about offending independents. He cared about one thing, and one thing only - MAKING SURE HIS SUPPORTERS WERE ENERGIZED TO VOTE!!!!!!
Mitt Romney took his base for granted, refused to give them the red meat they wanted, and thus lost.
TLP| 12.5.12 @ 9:16AM
Does anyone know how to play this game?
He didn't energize the Base?
Are you saying that 4 Years of National Suicide, under President Self Immolation wasn't enough "Motivation"?
What about 4 Years of National Suicide, under President Strangelove, and the prospect of 4 More, so "We can Finish what we Started"?
Nobody should need to be Dragged over the Finish Line, with the Stakes being what they were. NOBODY.
Stop Blaming Romney for the STUPIDITY of the People. Like the 3,000,000 who Sat on their Asses and ALLOWED this to happen, because they didn't get their way.
To hear this CRAP all the time means that The New England Patriots might have Won the Super Bowl, if only they had been Motivated more.
Enough with the Bullsh*t, already.
The Big E| 12.5.12 @ 2:08PM
"Are you saying that 4 Years of National Suicide, under President Self Immolation wasn't enough "Motivation"? What about 4 Years of National Suicide, under President Strangelove, and the prospect of 4 More, so "We can Finish what we Started"?"
I think the answers to your questions are self-evident - no, it wasn't enough.
Does that mean the voters were idiots? Absolutely.
But the idiots' votes still count, and if they don't vote, we can't count them. Regardless of how ignorant the voters are - and it is obvious from this election that it is not just the liberals who are ignorant - they are still the voters, and if we want to win an election, we still have to get them to vote. That's reality whether you like it or not.
Does this mean it's all Romney's fault? No. Romney simply ran as who he was. He got enough votes in the primaries to get the nomination. I think it would be interesting to know what percentage of his primary votes came from registered Republicans, if I recall, in 2008, McCain won on the basis of votes cast by non-Republicans in open primaries. Regardless, though, he won the nomination. I don't blame him for that.
But I do blame him for refusing to get tough with Obama in the general election. People run negative campaigns for a reason - they work. But this, "Obama's a nice guy over his head" crap if for the birds. He's not a nice guy, he's a Chicago thug, and the whole Republican party should man-up and call him that.
TLP| 12.5.12 @ 3:53PM
You are my New Best Friend.
I couldn'ta said it any better, myself.
Andrew P111| 12.5.12 @ 10:04PM
Romney ran with a couple of huge handicaps - Romneycare was the model for Obamacare, and Romney is a plutocrat through and through. Weak Romney supporters were simply not willing to take time out to wait in long lines to vote for him. Weak Obama supporters were actively rounded up by the turnout machine and driven to the polls.
JimH| 12.5.12 @ 9:58AM
Another appropriate Lombardi quote: “what the hell is going on out there’. While everyone is casting about for the new Reagan to lead the GOP from the current wilderness, it would be of more value if we could get a new Lee Atwater. He has a political operative smart enough to bring a gun to a knife fight. Something the party is woefully in need of.
SUBVET| 12.5.12 @ 10:57AM
Romney didn't read Vinces book he should have been on "Lombardi Time".
GobBluthe| 12.5.12 @ 9:21AM
GW Bush got 51% with 3.5% GDP growth and 5% unemployment. Obama got 51% with 1% GDP growth and 8% unemployment.
If Obama had enjoyed Bush's numbers he would have won in a landslide. If Bush had Obama's numbers, he would have lost in a landslide.
The Permanent Democrat Majority is here
Tommy Frisco| 12.5.12 @ 9:57AM
The Permanent Democrat Majority is here.
Very True. Unlike the GOP, the Dems actually TRY to win elections. The only exception for the Dems was in Boner's district in Ohio. They didn't even put up a candidate to run against him. Hmmm.
W. James Antle III | 12.5.12 @ 11:18AM
Bush would likely have won in a landslide if he had gone into Afghanistan but not Iraq. The Iraq war was already a huge drag in 2004.
RCV| 12.5.12 @ 11:42AM
True.
GobBluthe| 12.5.12 @ 12:21PM
I agree with that assessment
mike 3/505| 12.5.12 @ 4:23PM
Mr A,
Speaking as a card carrying professional Military Strategy Dude, Bush would have had no issues in either Afghanistan or Iraq, if we had gone in there, done our regime change and left immediately with a warning to the new regime..."Don't make us come back here." Also, we should have made the price of supporting the new regime(s), extremely preferable pricing on minerals...again with the threat of military force to ensure compliance. A Marshall Plan was never gonna work in AF or IZ.
Regards,
Mike
CJW| 12.5.12 @ 5:27PM
Agree with Colonel Mike. We should have left before 2004.
Dodd2| 12.5.12 @ 9:52AM
"The GOP has been struggling for years to communicate how its economic policies would benefit people who don’t own small businesses or have income subject to the top marginal tax rate. "
Well, maybe the parasite class needs some tough love. They need to be told that if they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs that sustain them, they will suffer the most. That's reality.
But what am I saying? Another aspect of reality is that parasites have no self-restraint.
scumby| 12.5.12 @ 3:24PM
you can't communicate it. That has to be lived. Reagan's landslide in 1984 and Bush's coattail win in 1988 were because people were living Reagan's conservative economic policy.
squalis| 12.5.12 @ 10:02AM
Two articles today, this and "Planting the Seeds of His Own Demise" suggest that in 4 more years the voters will come to understand the destructive ideals of this President and the Democrat party and will choose a Republican (or was it Conservative?) President and Congress.
BULLCRAP!
That should have been easy to see after the past 4 years. If it didn't happen in 2012, what reason is there to think it will happen in 2016?
W. James Antle III | 12.5.12 @ 11:14AM
You could have made the same argument after Bill Clinton was reelected in 1996, yet he was succeeded by a two-term Republican president.
The 2016 election will simply be a different election with different candidates under different circumstances.
This has been the norm of American politics since the end of World War II. It will take more than one incumbent getting reelected with less than 51 percent of the vote to convince me that this has changed.
squalis| 12.5.12 @ 12:32PM
Perhaps, but I'm not certain the situations are comparable. After the R's made huge Congressional gains in 1994, Clinton was willing, to an extent, to work with Congress and politically moved towards the left center and stayed there. After the initial shock of 2010 when O agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for 2 more years, O again moved hard left and has stayed there. He also has a more blatantly corrupt MSM behind him. This, after Obamacare SCOTUS decision and all the populist garbage demogogue rhetoric with respect to class warfare, war on women, war on energy, war on immigration, an atrocious economy, high unemployment, multiple municipality and impending State bankruptcies, etc, etc, etc, he still won!
W. James Antle III | 12.5.12 @ 4:02PM
Clinton had been the governor of Arkansas, a Democratic but relatively conservative state. He had been rebuked by the voters once before, in 1980, for moving too far left. He knew how to react to 1994-like conditions.
Obama is a product of Chicago. He was elected in a blue state and seldom had to appeal to conservatives. He ran through offices quickly en route to the presidency. All this has allowed him to get away with being more ideological than Clinton.
But Clinton still ran for reelection as a liberal demagogue on Medicare, Social Security, education spending, and the environment. And Obama still tried to pretend to be less liberal than he really is (though he was pretty brazen on social issues).
Yes, the objective conditions of the country were bad. But a lot of people blamed Bush or didn't want to face it.
Andrew P111| 12.5.12 @ 10:08PM
Depressions inherently favor Democrats because they are the Socialist party, and when people are scared they want a big daddy to take care of them.
scumby| 12.5.12 @ 3:28PM
people are so soft and politically correct they couldn't bear to blame the black guy. Obama got a free pass.
PolishKnight| 12.5.12 @ 10:41AM
Perhaps the left is right: The right are a bunch of clueless reactionaries. Just wait until 2016 (and 2 more years) and the American public will wise up and you can squeak out perhaps another 4 percent of votes in the hopes of getting that limited government agenda passed, build an altar to the Constitution, and outlaw abortion. Smoking crack might actually make you smarter.
In the next 2 years alone, there will be anchor babies of illegal aliens coming of age and getting citizenship and Obama probably will have fast tracked their parents as well and passed some form of the dream act. They are guaranteed race and/or gender benefits for voting.
And ponder this folks: White males in Ohio and Pennsylvania which has been living with failed Democrat policies since FDR, that's right, FDR! now is almost as purple as New Jersey! But yeah, you're going to bring them over to your side as soon as they see the horrors of high tax rates on the rich.
aware| 12.5.12 @ 6:18PM
Yes, the proper amount of sarcasm, sneering contempt of "conventional wisdom", and ridicule of over thinking a simple problem. All with a firm grasp of reality.
All and all, a top shelf post.
W. James Antle III | 12.5.12 @ 11:22AM
Who said anything about the country moving dramatically to the right in the next four years?
All I'm saying is that it wouldn't take a large shift to have a different election outcome, even with demographic changes.
Then again, the liberals have their base, which wants to win, while many self-defeating conservatives would rather luxuriate in their own marginalization.
Andrew P111| 12.5.12 @ 10:11PM
A lot depends on who the candidates are in the next rounds.
Who Knows?| 12.5.12 @ 11:28AM
“But he outperformed many Republican Senate candidates, including not just losers like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and Tommy Thompson, but also winners like Jeff Flake, Deb Fischer, and Ted Cruz.”
How did Romney “outperform” the winners?
Doesn’t make sense.
W. James Antle III | 12.5.12 @ 3:33PM
Romney got more votes than they did in their states.
aware| 12.5.12 @ 6:19PM
Still doesn't make sense.
W. James Antle III | 12.5.12 @ 6:50PM
What doesn't make sense? He ran ahead of all the GOP Senate candidates I mentioned. Not sure what's so complicated about this.
aware| 12.5.12 @ 7:34PM
I still don't get it. Not the numbers, your point.
Andrew P111| 12.5.12 @ 10:14PM
I assume >90% of voters voted a straight party ticket, so this is telling us something. There must be a group of people who voted against Obama, but still voted for D Senate candidates.
Who Knows?| 12.5.12 @ 11:43AM
Ah, how time doth bury truth.
The essential reason we ended up with a Clinton in the White House was Ross Perot.
There’s no doubt that if he had not run, enough of the people who voted for him would have supported Bush over Clinton, so we’d NOW be writing about a likely Bush landslide, and analyzing the piss out of THAT election, saying “this” meant “that”, and “that” meant “this”, like we’re now doing re the recent election.
Perot will go down in history as a simple-minded fool, almost as infamous as real traitors, like Benedict Arnold.
Just imagine how different history would have been WITHOUT 8 long years of Clinton, which begat Hillary. And, we’d never have had to put up with Carville, Begala, Blumenthal, and all the other criminals in the Clinton mafiosa.
I’ll continue to point out the obvious---Narcissus rules this realm.
Perot was ego above country, and he was just one of the most prominent examples of this oh-so-human trait.
Me, me, me, I’m in love with me.
I’m all I can be!
Who Knows?| 12.5.12 @ 11:44AM
Events, or the totality of actions by humans, necessarily bring about other events. And, despite—or, maybe in concert with---all the words flying around places like this website and other places, as the author explains, it looks like the future has been chosen.
And, it won’t be fun for most people, that’s for sure.
But, you DO know, don’t you, that in order for real change to happen, there must be a crisis. I believe there used to be a phrase, “scared straight”, that fits America’s future.
Here’s the Dali Lama, on karma---
“if a campfire is left in a forest and catches onto some dry twigs, leading to a forest fire, the fact that once the trees are aflame they burn, becoming charcoal and smoke, is simply the operation of the natural law of causality, given the nature of fire and the materials that are burning. There is no karma involved in this sequence of events. But a sentient being choosing to light a campfire and forgetting to put it out—which began the chain of events—here karmic causation is involved.” “The Universe In A Single Atom-The Convergence of Science and Spirituality”, page 90, 2005
Enjoy the coming bonfire of our politician’s vanities. And keep aware that Obama is just the “match” chosen by the “people”.
See, he IS the Chosen One.
Mike W| 12.5.12 @ 1:41PM
All you need to know about Bush can be found today in the NY Times. He gave a major policy speech advocating for open borders and endless immigration. Republicans have to turn their backs on him, Jeb and George P. They were, are and will be an even bigger disaster for the country and the party.
NVCardsFan| 12.5.12 @ 2:57PM
Well genius, who do you suggest that the Republicans chose as a candidate? You have criticized Moderates, Conservatives, Tea Party candidates and on and on. What is your "expert" plan to put a Republican back in the White House? You're clueless and do not know wtf you are taking about and this publication pays you for your moronic opinion? Pathetic.
W. James Antle III | 12.5.12 @ 4:16PM
I've criticized liberals and anonymous Internet commenters too.
Thanks!
scumby| 12.5.12 @ 3:19PM
1) Don't blame Romney
2) The bulk of the media is now a proactive arm of the Democratic party putting propoganda and lies ahead of truth.
3) The entitlement generation of people under 35 will have to suffer before they grow up and vote like responsible adults.
scumby| 12.5.12 @ 3:21PM
4) It is clear there was andis growing massive unchecked voter fraud especially and foremost in black precincts.
scumby| 12.5.12 @ 3:26PM
The Democratic candidate in 2016 will shoulder the blame for Obama's world record malaise. Obama will never ever get the credit he deserves.
Joe D.| 12.5.12 @ 5:42PM
He took best of what the republ establisement and a moderate had to offer. And is fraud, suppress of military vote helped him win.
Nightwinger| 12.6.12 @ 4:09AM
Why would Romney dominate the military vote?
Neither Willard, his father George nor any of hive five sons has ever worn the uniform. And Romney's convention acceptance speech was the first time in modern history that the military or veterans didn't receive a single word of honor.
Not one.
On the contrary, it is Obama who is ending these stupid neocon wars in Iraq and Afganistan and bringing the troops home.
RJ| 12.5.12 @ 7:35PM
Obama's 3 point margin of victory is not the significant factor. What is significant is that he won at all given his record and his policies. He was the candidate who promoted the socialist idea of spreading the wealth around and said, "the private sector is doing fine" and "If you have a company, you didn't build it, someone else did." He was the candidate who ran a divisive, condescending campaign.
In the past, a candidate of Obama's views would not have even been nominated. This year, with no doubt in voters minds where he stood he won. And the GOP had the worst year in US Senate races since 1964. There is no silver-lining in this defeat.
Andrew P111| 12.5.12 @ 10:20PM
As I said earlier, Depressions inherently favor Democrats, because people are scared for their survival and want big mommy/daddy government to support them. We are currently in a contained depression, that would have been the "Greatest Depression" if it had not been so heroically contained. It will persist for decades. The voters know this, at least at a subconscious level.
charles hoffman| 12.5.12 @ 7:57PM
Quite bizarre; like virtually every other Republican apologist, half the article was that "it really wasn't such a big win".
Compared to what the Republican expectation was - whether Dick Morris' blowout or Karl Rove's solid win - Obama's winning over 330 electoral votes and having the race called when Cali was still at the polls was huge - huge!!
As long as Reps keep minimizing their loss, they'll continue to do the same dumb things again; and they'll further marginalize themselves everywhere except in the heavily gerrymandered House.
Any therapist will tell you that before you can change you have to acknowledge that change is needed
Nightwinger| 12.6.12 @ 1:40PM
George Will said it best:
"If you lose because the voters didn't like you, that's one thing. But if you lose because YOU didn't like the voters, that's worse."
Realistically, you can't insult half the country and still expect their votes.