Free Markets, Free People

Election summary – time to move on

OK, look, I’m done with the election.  It’s over.  Romney lost.  Time to move on.

Most of us who follow politics understand the reasons and have a pretty good idea of why he’s going home and the Obama’s are staying in the White House.  Short version: They let the left define the election issues.  It was a masterful job of distraction aided and abetted by  a complicit media (hey, “60 Minutes”, you have NO credibility anymore). Period.

Guess what those issues weren’t?  The winning issues: Jobs.  Economy.  Debt. Deficit.  ObamaCare.  Benghazi. Fast and Furious.

Result?  Lost.

Lesson:  Don’t let your opposition define the issues.  A lesson as old as politics.  Romney’s campaign blew it.  It allowed the left to make it about “lady parts”, abortion, contraception, Bain Capital, class warfare and racism. They made being successful something of which to be ashamed.  And, of course, a couple of idiot GOP candidates at state level who came off like jackasses talking about “legitimate rape”, etc.  who made it even worse (because the complicit media made their stupidity national stories — unlike jobs, the economy, debt, ObamaCare, Benghazi and Fast and Furious.).

And that scared the usual suspects enough to turn out and vote (ye olde and reliable low information voters in swing states who scare easily) and dampened GOP turnout (didn’t even get the number out that McCain got for heaven sake).

That’s the election in a nutshell.


So, now we put that behind us and deal with the inevitable aftermath.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

39 Responses to Election summary – time to move on

  • Lesson:  Don’t let your opposition define the issues.

    Wow.  I am frankly disgusted, McQ.  What a sophomoric statement of the obvious.  And how misleading and untrue!
    Nobody “LET” the Collective and their propaganda machine define the issues.  They were being fought at every turn with everything we had…and I mean all across the non-Collective.
    What a superficial pile!  Have you looked at exit polling questions?

    • Yup … and what were the questions, Rags? And why were those questions even included? Ah … because the left via the media defined them and pushed them enough that those topics became “issues”…. which, of course, is the point.

      • Somewhere I heard that 64% of those polled (whatever that means) thought that Barrackah had done wonderfully on Sandy.
        How did anybody LET that impression form?  What do you suggest we could do to counter it?
        Saying we LET Obama shape the issues is like saying the defenders of the Philippines LET the Japs take the ground.

        • Early on, Bain Capital did as much damage as Sandy. And the Romney campaign never answered the mail on that one. So yes, LET.

          • Do you have any metrics on that, McQ?  Because I’ve seen polling for months that shows that Bain was a big fat zero for Zero…and that it actually hurt him.
            I think Letterman and his ilk was actually a much more significant influence on the election.
            Consider that we had a President who scrupulously avoided the press for months before an election, and they let him do it.

          • Read the link, Rags … the Romney campaign is saying they should have spent more time on the real issues (they cite specifically Benghazi and ObamaCare) and not let the Obama campaign introduce distractions. The Bain stuff was run early on in the campaign in swing states and it essentially successfully labeled him as a “plutocrat” and “out of touch” with the common people. The Romney campaign tried a few half hearted attempts to counter it but essentially decided to ignore it.

          • So you have apocryphal, anecdotal navel gazing by staffers as your authority for LET.  I don’t see your metrics, McQ.
            Romney was NOT the only player here.  You seem to forget that LOTS of people were producing commercials to frame issues, and they DID frame them.
            You go back to this “and not let the Obama campaign introduce distractions” nonsense.  HTF do you propose they be stopped????

          • No, I have a campaign that’s saying it, any number of analysts that have pointed it out (to include those on Fox News the night of the election that were pouring through the exit polls), etc.

            How are they stopped? By not being timid but instead pulling a Reagan and going around the press. There was plenty of money available to do that. They never tried. They essentially went along with the tide. Why in the world would didn’t he buy some time and address all these distraction and kill them? How hard would it have been to point out that the spot memorialized in Chicago as the spot Obama first kissed Michelle was a Baskin Robbins that Bain Capital saved? How powerful would that have been?

            Romney was too cautious and his campaign thought, at the end of the day, that the issues would win out … by themselves one supposes. Well they didn’t, did they?

          • Cripes, McQ, you are getting weaker!
            “Campaigns” don’t talk.  One thing you can take to the bank is that you’ll have staffers doing ass-coverage…no matter how specious…after a losing effort.
            Also, you are too rational.  Your “Baskin-Robins” spot would work on you and me.  Snookie, not so much.
            I’m still looking for metrics, McQ.  I’ve seen some that say the Bain attack was a net loss for Barrackah.
            What do the metrics say about the Dirty Filthy Harry Reid attacks?  How would you have shut him down?

          • Ah, rational. So Bain wouldn’t work on us but would likely work on Snookie, but you continue to deny it worked? Really?

          • What happened? A political narcissistic sociopath leveraged fear and ignorance with a campaign marked by mendacity and malice rather than a mandate for resurgence and reform. Instead of using his high office to articulate a vision for our future, Obama used it as a vehicle for character assassination, replete with unrelenting and destructive distortion, derision, and division.—Mary Matlin

            No, Bruce.  Don’t play cheap.  You can see my point.  And it isn’t ABOUT Bain.  It is about an appeal to reason made to people who don’t reason.

          • Bain was part of it and denying it is just playing the proverbial ostrich:

            “Last week’s Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found a third of those polled in battleground states said they think more negatively about Romney as a result of hearing about his business experience. Those saying the opposite were outnumbered nearly 2-1, despite the fact that his time at Bain is perhaps his most salient selling point to voters.”


          • So, that is your metric?  An ABC story from July?
            And that you use to support the idea that Bain was more (or even AS) salient than Sandy on election day?
            By that time, Obama had dropped to the lie that Romney would have liquidated the auto-makers.

          • “What happened? A political narcissistic sociopath leveraged fear and ignorance with a campaign marked by mendacity and malice ………. used it as a vehicle for character assassination, replete with unrelenting and destructive distortion, derision, and division.—Mary Matlin”

            And yet she married a man who not only supports Obama (and Clinton), but also exhibits some of the same behaviors. I guess it must be true, love is blind. Still, not much of an advertisement for her good judgement.

          • I expect MUCH better from you than rank ad homina.
            What…if ANYTHING…did you find to disagree with Matlin about ON SUBSTANCE/

          • You talking about “rank ad homina”? Now there’s irony.

          • I shall assume I am the rank ad hominist.
            You don’t consider Ms. Matalin’s remarks to be ad hominem? You don’t think Mr. Carville also fits that description? You don’t think someone who misses that has lousy perception and/or judgement?
            My remarks were indeed directed at her character and/or  judgement. Am I not entitled to do the same thing she did? If you disagree, just say so, rather than direct an ad hominem remark to me (Of course that would break the chain, and dire consequences would follow).
            I know absolutely nothing about any of her positions on any matter of ‘substance’. I do not need to, and I do not care to. To be once more rankly ad hominem, she is just another has-been political hack. Were she not married to Mr. Carville, and thus half of the political odd couple, she would have sunk into well deserved obscurity long ago.

          • Her statement is not ad hominem.  She makes an argument on her perceptions of facts.
            What about what she says do you find to disagree with?  We see you can call her names and you don’t like her.

          • I’m talking about the irony of you even mentioning ad hominem and criticizing someone else.

    • The lock the Dems have on the media is the same as it’s always been, it’s just more blatant.  We’ve known for 4 years the press was going to go all in for Obama, we’ve known for 4 years they’d divert the discussions to topics that would either make Obama look good, or would be most likely to harm his opponents.   They were NOT going to suddenly take up the scandals and hammer him with them, he’s their golden child.  We HOPED that new media was going to help turn the tide and force them to face the REAL issues, but we were wrong.  There’s not enough traction, not enough of them are reading the internet, they’re getting their news from the same old sources, which they allegedly don’t trust.
      The country, gentlemen, is f*ing stupid and the media knows it, and likes it that way.

      The Republicans are NEVER going to have the backing of the media unless they BUY IT.  They are NEVER going to be allowed to set the topic for discussion.  If Obama sacrificed a child on the steps of the capital, it either wouldn’t be covered, or the press would patiently explain to us in a 2 minute segment, why it was regrettable, but necessary, 8 months after happened, and after the story from the administration had changed 40 times.

    • I’m with McQ on this. In fact, he doesn’t go far enough. Not only does the opposition define the issues, they define GOP positions on the issues.
      On the way to work this morning I was listening to the Dianne Riehm show on NPR. There were four Rep. consultants/activists/etc. as guests. Ms. Riehm stated that Romney had said he would cut the FEMA budget by 40%. Not one of those Rep. notables took issue with that statement which, on its face, is ridiculous.
      This is but the latest of many such incidents I have seen and heard. You can’t win if you don’t fight.

  • The RNC did us a  great favor by approving the debate moderators. 

  • I think its a little unfair to put this all on Romney.  The Left has the megaphone with the Swing Voters via the MSM.  They picked what issues to discuss. 

    • I’m not putting it all on Romney. That’s what Romney faced. There was, as stated in the post, a complicit media. They helped define and spread the non-issues. It is the Romney campaign that is saying this stuff as well. Read the link.

      • “They helped define and spread the non-issues.”
        The media gets considerable help from compliant Rep./conservative spokespeople(?). As I mentioned above, the media folk make statements and make assumptions which are not denied by the Reps./conservatives. Silence is consent. (Isn’t that a legal principle?).

      • I think its unrealistic to think a compaign can be 100% bullet proof to all complaints.  I mean they probed for weakness and plunged in where they had traction. 

        Just think how easy it would have been to bloody Obama with any serious press from the media.  In comparison would Romney’s campaign really look that bad? 

        Could they have done better, yes, but then they would have just moved on to something else. 

        If you just run defense, someone will figure a way through eventually.  The answer to being probed for weakness indefinitely is to go on the offense.  The question is whether they were in a position to mount an offense?  Benghazi should have happened on its own and it didn’t.  Its it possible to bypass the MSM to reach swing voters?   Especially with ‘campaign finance reform’.  

  • How do you like your Chris Christie now? I’m becoming a fan myself :^)
    Since you chose the Ostrich approach, I leave you with an image of 2016:
    Bill, Barack and Hillary on a stage together…

    • You’ll feast on his flesh the minute he puts his hat in for the Republican Presidential bid. 

      And you can enjoy your all you can eat buffet without my interference, I can promise you this. 

    • I leave you with three images –  the devastation of a container nuke detonated in Haifa harbor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad waving and smiling as Iran announces it’s first successful nuclear test and Barack Obama, looking very serious, explaining how the US will seek UN investigation and condemnation for the incident.

  • I get it but…..if people couldn’t just look around and see what the issues were, there was zero the GOP could’ve done. Even with the most corrupt media help I’ve ever seen. Maybe after the next 4 years the veil will drop.

    I recommend that piece to everyone.  It has a lot more merit, I think.

  • A couple of thoughts to digest:
    1) The Romney vote total will surpass that of McCain once all of the votes are tallied. In 2008, several million votes were added to both sides almost 2 weeks after the election. The bigger question of why the right did not “significantly” increase their turnout still persists.
    2) Any suggestion of turning the Republican Party into “Democrat Lite” is BS! Don’t sell out fiscal conservatism. That is not to say we should ignor the social lessons of this election. Same sex marriage, abortion, immigration are all issues the right needs to come to grips with and face as a Party – not to adopt the Left’s position but to find positions amenable to the public that does not violate our fiscal responsbilities – and communicate them more effectively.
    3) Conservatives and the Republican Party have to counter the “Axis of Evil” tag the left has put on them. And that is how we are perceived. We as a Party have never planned to do any of the things I have heard people claim we would do – ban abortion, take away food stamps, start another war, take away Medicare from the elderly, cut social security immediately, force cats & dogs to live together – all of the things Conservatives have been accused of endorsing. But that is the perceived mindset of the general populace and I have heard it from the mouths of many who I know to have some modicum of intelligence. We are as we are perceived and we have to destroy that perception.
    4) Next, we need to be far more selective in the candidates we put forward to the public and we need to provide them with communication training and skills to avoid another Akin brain fart.
    5) Lastly, we need to develop communication strategies that overcome media bias. I don’t know what all of these could be but I do know so long as we allow the MSM to set the tone and agenda for any future political campaigns we will be down as much as 15% before the first vote is even counted.

    • “Lastly, we need to develop communication strategies that overcome media bias.”
      They’ve gotten so good at “have you stopped beating your wife?” type questions.

  • You forgot to mention a presidential candidate, Romney, that couldn’t keep it straight what he stood for.

  • The libs not only control the media, they control the election process and will continue to do so until the conservatives take a page from history or two.  One look at the American revolution, two, the Civil War-sessesion is the only way to save a part of what the founders gave us, time to make the USMA, united states of middle america(look at the electoral map) and allow nothing to flow from the east coast to the west coast, no rail, trucks or airspace, starve the lefties out, no fuel no food and it wont take long before they beg the USMA for help.  And if you dont like that option, time to fight dirty, got libs working for you, find a way to fire them for cause, don patronize a lib owned business, do not allow your kids to play with libs kids, dont play sports with libs, dont join clubs, churhes etc with libs.  Its a War, and sometimes you have to have collateral damage.

  • I think we should repeal the 19 Amendment!