Free Markets, Free People

GOP: Figure it out or go the way of the Whigs

Charlie Cook, who is very astute politically, made this observation about the election that I think is pretty spot on, and it reinforces what we’ve been talking about here for the last few days:

Watching politics for 40 years now, I have seen the two major parties tend to leapfrog each other in terms of political sophistication. This state of the political art, when one party is firing on all eight (or, these days, six or even four) cylinders, seems to happen when the other party is in desperate need of a tune-up.

Democrats had a lousy economy, made some rather dubious policy choices in the past four years, and had an incumbent who chose to skip the first debate. But when it came to just about everything else, they handled things expertly, or developments went their way. Republicans had a bright candidate, but one who lacked the dexterity to handle a very challenging set of circumstances, and a party that was well out of touch with the demographic, generational, and ideological changes quietly transforming the electorate.

The emphasized lines make the bottom line point, in my opinion.  “Tune it up” or continue to push the same tired line to an electorate that is transforming and you’ll see similar results the next time too.  Deny it all you wish, “them’s the facts”.

What was it that Einstein said we should call trying the same thing over and over again while expecting different results?


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

71 Responses to GOP: Figure it out or go the way of the Whigs

  • …a party that was well out of touch with the demographic, generational, and ideological changes quietly transforming the electorate.

    Well, PARTLY true.  Across all ages, Romney won the with Anglos.  He won with men, if the early numbers I saw were right.
    What he did not win were “victim classes” the Collective has cut out of the American people, including a new one: “Julia”.
    I take exception with your title, McQ.  It breaks rationally with the content.
    Being a minority party…and the conservative coalition is NOT…is not the same as going out of existence, is it?  The nation has moved away from conservative ideology before, and been brought back.  I’m not convinced that it has moved away in our time, and the election results don’t support a vast shift outside of California and New York.  Recent history, in fact, shows the opposite.
    Both you and Cook make a raft of assumptions about “being out of touch” that I still think the information does not support.
    Bill Whittle pointed out something in a recent FireWall that I’d never heard before, and certainly bears investigating; among conservatives who are NOT REGISTERED to vote, the primary reason they give is avoiding jury duty.  That is astounding.
    Winning elections is important.  But what you will DO with the power of an office is a LOT more important, and I am by no means convinced we need a radical retooling of what we believe.  Especially on BAD information…while harboring a rout mentality.
    What part of limited government and individual liberty do you propose to drop for popularity?

    • “and I am by no means convinced we need a radical retooling of what we believe.”
      Herein lies the problem – if we were standing next to Tonto at this point in the joke he’d be saying “what do you mean ‘we’ paleface”.
      We can comfort ourselves thinking those who believe roughly what we believe just couldn’t be motivated to vote, or we can acknowledge that perhaps the Erbs and their ilk have taken a better control than we give them credit for.  I’m your cockeyed optimist and I believe it CAN come back our way, but the voting public apparently decided for the moment to buy the quack medicine that the Democrats believe will make us all better.

      • Something I find interesting…
        The Deemocrats won an election.  They lied, cheated, and divided.  Yaaa, them.  Their appeal to Snookie worked.
        But WE are doing all the navel-gazing and talking about changing our root values.
        I find that screwy.

    • … but God help Julia if with her ObamaCare contraceptive coverage she should decide to become a “military groupie” because the FBI will be coming around to determine the appropriateness of her life style.

      Leave it to a bunch of Democrats to create a “target rich” sexual environment then bring in the “modesty police.”

    • If the GOP actually believed in and tried to sell limited government and individual liberty they would have probably won. But they instead push war making and the social issues much much more than they do fiscal matters. Remember that they spit on libertarians with the way they treated Ron Paul. I really don’t see any hope that they will ever change.

      • “But they instead push war making and the social issues much much more than they do fiscal matters.”
        Actually they didn’t push either one. The Democrats claimed they did, and too many idiots believed the,

        • them.

        • I would agree that the GOP didn’t emphasize social issues like it did in say the 2004 campaign, to make the claim that they didn’t engage in them is just silly.  Did you miss their platform, which social con groups like AFA, FRC, etc. hand a large hand in helping to write?  Did you not notice the usual obsequiousness of the Republicans at CPAC and the Values Voter Summit?  How could you be unaware of Romney’s signed pledge to NOM, meetings with social con groups, etc.?  Not hear Romney tickle social con ears in interviews and debates when questions were asked of him on these matters?  You may think that the GOP ignored social issues but to those of us who’ve seen them trot out these wedge issues time and time again it was clear as day.  Romney himself was a dubious social con IMO but if he had won would certainly have been beholden to them and would have had no problems paying that debt.

        • Yes they did, very much. Don’t know which convention you saw.

  • And four years ago, we said we lost because the Republicans were practicing “Me Too” politics. 

    What changed?

    I’m sorry, but the possible answer, there is no answer.  Sometimes you have to let children burn their fingers in candles so they don’t play with matches in the garage next to the gas used for the lawn mower. 

  • “What was it that Einstein said we should call trying the same thing over and over again while expecting different results?”
    Heh, are we talking about American Republicans trying to get into office, or the way Obama is going to try and run the country for the next 4 years?
    The beauty of government, being in charge doesn’t mean you’re making the right decisions.  The French thought the Committees of General and Public Safety were just swell when they were formed to help protect the new Republic.

    • You have to present a viable and acceptable alternative looker. No one is saying that you have to become a light version of what is in power, but you darn sure can’t remain the same after two failed election attempts and expect the future to be different.

    • Geeze, I wish I HAD one.  I honestly don’t know what they can offer, because what we NEED is a hard decision to make and no one who wields any significant power wants to make it.  The public doesn’t want the pain, even if some do acknowledge there has to be some, and the Republicans aren’t the party to do it.
      We’re comfortable we know what the viable alternatives are, but they aren’t acceptable.  People want their free stuff, they’ve been educated to believe they’re entitled to it.  We’re looking at 40 years of the take over by the guys who burned their draft cards.   IMO we’re looking at the product of 20 solid years of Soviet subversion in country.  Their country may have ceased to exist, but their training of our social elite was successful.  Course, ha ha, we know that was just one of those right wing scare stories, ha ha.
      I fear it’s going to take disaster to bring us around to our senses.

      • Twenty years?
        Ha! Give Paul Kengor’s book “Dupes” a read, then realize it’s going on 100 years, and that on top of Hegel taking over the Ivy League schools “Liberal Arts” departments since the 1880s.

        • I was working on the crafty Soviet corruption from within plan they were running.  I can’t blame Soviet Russia for that in 1880.

        • …and I figured the Soviets stopped trying to subvert us when they stopped being officially ‘the soviets’ – so…the last 20 years is pure momentum for assholes like Bill Ayers and his protege.

          • Its a lot like these people are acting on the last instructions that came accross the teletype from the Kremlin. 

            A lot of this surge is an alignment of generations.  The Hippy-commies are the age of COE’s and other leadership positions.  Their children are in the prime age for the people who execute things.  Like 30’s and 40’s.    Basically we’re hosed for another 10 years at least, and we’ll have a tiny window of the Reagan generation. 

  • Randy Barnett recently said, “Libertarian activists need to set aside their decades-old knee-jerk reactions to the two major parties, roll up their sleeves, and make the Republican and Democratic parties more libertarian. When it comes to voting, libertarians need to get serious about liberty and give up on the Libertarian Party. Nov. 6 would be a good day to start.”
    From a libertarian point of view what is the point of winning elections for the DNC or the GOP if they are not going to become more liberal (in the classical sense)?  A while ago, back when Bush Jr. was president, I read a good article about why the libertarians and the GOP should part ways.  I wish I could find it.  Needless to say, I think Randy Barnett is wrong.  Libertarians have about as much of a chance of convincing the DNC and GOP to be more liberal as they do at currently winning a presidential election.
    I not sure what to do.  I sat out this last election (again) because the choices were too awful to hold my nose and vote for.  The lackluster alternative that I’m taking is to sit on the sidelines and watch the slow motion train wreck speed up.  In the end I don’t think it will matter.  The GOP is in decline and the DNC is taking a turn for unapologetic authoritarianism.  It is lose-lose to get in bed with either of them and the big L libertarians aren’t going to win.  So basically we’re screwed.
    If someone has a viable idea on how to stop this train wreck I’d love to hear it.

    • Remember George Bush was a right wing extremist. 

      You’ll never beat the media playing in reality when they own the virtual reality most people listen see. 

      • Oh, but you CAN so easily take the whole “fairness” trope from them…  Right…???  (I mean, seriously, what a[nother] idiot suggestion!)

  • I think the Republicans will try to change the Party just enough to become some what relevant again.  But, the question is:  Are the going to be real and sincere changes—which I think Bill Kristol is suggesting—or just cosmetic—like Marc Rubio, for example.

  • I’m not convinced the GOP needs to actually make major changes in what they believe. They need to select better candidates and do better GOTV. PERIOD.
    But at the end of the day, there’s very little they can do to fight the “free sh*t” coalition in terms of presenting an alternative. Dude, that’s EXACTLY what this election was. Jobs, jobs, jobs vs “It’s not my fault” and “take from the rich”. The takers intend to keep taking until there’s nothing left. “Medicine” usually loses to “candy” among children… least until the little buggers get sick enough to give it a try. If blacks are happy with a 14+ percent unemployment in their community, then who am I to complain about it? I hope they get it up to 20. If women want paid birth control, let them have it. We can distribute it to them while they’re standing on the welfare lines.  If the people aren’t sick of things after 8 years of Obamarxism, there’s no real help for them…..or us.

    • A big part of it is the left’s control of the media, schools, entertainment, etc. One result is that scandals like fast and furious that would have ended a Republican’s career hardly impact Obama.

  • Two little pieces of advice.
    I don’t think y’all need to change your policies as much as changing your tone. The constant red-meat attack mode makes all those who are not with you be really against you. You don’t make progress persuading people until they reach a point, on their own, of seeing their old point of view being wrong, or out of date. At that point they become open to persuasion. If you have already established yourself in their minds as nasty, unfair ranters, they will pay you no mind at that moment when they are reachable.
    The other point relates to that. Work within both of the parties, even though you don’t see them as being interested at all in what you offer. When their next moment of existential crisis comes (and it is here for the GOP right now), then they will listen to other ideas – and if you are known and trusted at that point, then you may well get some traction.

    • Well, I’m not sure they WILL listen to other ideas if this blog’s comment section is any example.

      A number of libertarians have been committed for some time to work within the two parties to attempt to move them each toward a more liberty based ideology. I’m not sure what “red meat” we’re throwing out there except to point out that liberty requires freedom and freedom requires choice, etc. That and pounding the economic side of things and pointing out where each party encroaches on liberty with their fiscal policies (and in reality, in the case of fiscal policies, the left is far worse than the right).

      • If the American people wanted Libertarians, they would vote for them.

        The problem is that our nation in many respects is becoming inclined towards less freedom. A good example is the hispcanics who are flooding here. You live in San Diego county, right? Listen to the Mexican government propaganda on the radio, and understand: it is aimed at people with a worldview that doesn’t include liberty.

        In a way what we have seen this country went through before, during the Depression and the rise of FDR. Back then we were still a solid Anglo Saxon nation and we had no looming entitlement crisis, but the country spent decades wandering the socalist desert.

        • That cut and dried, huh Don. Gee, given that, if Americans wanted a Republican president, Romney’d be the president elect, wouldn’t he?

          • That’s a correct statement you just made McQ. The voters weren’t hoodwinked like in 2008. They went into this election knowing who stood where. And they made their choice. They wanted free stuff. Maybe in 4 years with a better candidate and better GOTV things will be different

          • The problem is that our nation in many respects is becoming inclined towards less freedom.

            You aren’t even reading the comments before you pop off, are you, McQ?
            Take a breath, cat!

  • Protip: See how Stephen Harper, Texan-style conservative, got RE-elected in the Socialist Hellhole of Canuckistan.

  • This is a point beyond which a transforming population can’t be saved.

  • “continue to push the same tired line”
    I don’t think it is all tired. Small government and fiscal responsibility, for instance, will always be relevant. Of course practicing what you preach would help.  A large problem is that the Reps. don’t really ‘push’ much of anything, except maybe the ever popular  cutting of the taxes, and I think everyone is getting a little tired of that mantra.  They suggest things, but when opposition appears, they backtrack and equivocate.
    It would also help if those pushing the lines would actually understand the material. I realize good politicians are good actors, but they really should be required to be able to do something other than memorize their lines.

    • Except, as I see it, the election didn’t hinge on “small government and fiscal responsibility”. It was about lady parts, abortion, you name it … anything but small government and fiscal responsibility.

      • My sister is getting an advanced degree in some kind of science. She votes only on social issues and admits to not even understanding budgets, etc. I suspect even a fully pro-life Republican would not get her vote, because they aren’t “cool.” Nothing you can do immediately will fix that sentiment.

        • Hopefully her failure to find a job, or her onerous tax bill will do it. Otherwise nothing will.

          • She moved from SF because she could not afford it. Now she wants to move back, “except for those crazy prices.”
            I am not sure even looking for a job will change that mindset.
            Besides grad school can be stretched to a decade somehow.

        • By the time most of this up-and-coming generation “gets it”, there won’t be anything left to loot.

      • Yet perhaps in a way “lady parts”, abortion, gay marriage and the rest of them were related in that the electorate heard the claim that the GOP was for “small government” – with quite a few asterisks attached that turned it into a mockery.  If the GOP is going to claim the mantle of being for “smaller government” or “limited government” it really should drop the hypocrisy.

          • Bullshit.  But, hey, let’s not reality enter into this, shall we?
            Like the reality of a “war on women”.  Or who is BIG GOVERNMENT and who is small government.  Who is PRO market economics v. fascist economics.  Even who is REALLY even now waging the war on drugs.
            Is the assault on marriage being waged using government?  Why, YES, I do believe it is!  So, while many of you do not value the concept, OTHERS DO, and we have to fight the fight where it has been taken.
            Or EVEN the reality that keeping the Obami in office means ObamaCare (the ultimate American exercise in “social issues”) will be cemented.
            IF you want to influence Conservatives, you’d best find a way to do it that respects considered, reasoned positions.  Calling people “hypocrites” because they are not Libertarians is pretty stupid.

          • You might want to take your own advice, Rags, because calling those who support SSM all kinds of names and implying that not only are they essentially doing the Devil’s work but also trying to do a two’fer by doing their darndest to destroy marriage as well as bringing about the end of civilization.  And just for clarification purposes I’m not accusing you personally of saying these things, for I haven’t followed your posts here, but the general message coming from anti-SSM crowd.  Of course, your calling this an “assault on marriage being waged using government” rings a familiar tone.  Finally, I hate to burst your bubble – well, okay actually I might a little here – but contrary to what you may think support for SSM doesn’t mean one doesn’t also value the concept of marriage.  In the end it really doesn’t matter what you or I think about the disagreement over this, because increasingly more and more people, as well as a new generation of voters, are souring upon the message and tactics of those pushing these SSM bans.  A party dedicating itself to anti-SSM activists is bound to feel some blowback as a result.  They also do see the GOP as being hypocritical here given their claim of being for “limited government” no matter how absurd you believe that to be.
            One final thing, just because the Democrats excel at playing Big Brother doesn’t exempt the Republicans from criticism when they tinker with the role as well.

          • Answer:
            1. thirty years ago, what was the norm as to marriage?
            2. who are the “activists”?
            3. who is trying to use government to force a change?
            4. why is that necessary?
            5. in state after state…including California…voters have turned the activists BACK.  Why?
            6. should I worry about what is right, or “blow-back”?
            7. why is civil union not enough?

          • 1.  Why the arbitrary time period of thirty years?  Much has changed even in that short period – and not just for gays.
            2.  AFA, FRC, NOM, etc.
            3.  I’m not seeing pro-SSM folks out there attempting to use the government to ban “traditional marriages”, certain rhetoric notwithstanding.
            4.  Why is what necessary?
            5.  Name for me any social change in our history that instantaneously had majority popular support or won legislative/judicial struggles without some setbacks.  Keep an eye of California, btw.  If Prop 8 isn’t overturned by SCOTUS, expect to see it fail at the ballot box real soon.
            6.  Ever hear of the saying, “just because it is legal doesn’t make it right”?  There is much that we may personally disagree with but tolerate and refrain from using the force of law to ban in order to live in a free society.
            7.  Putting aside the fact that I believe constitutional rights are being violated, I’ll put it bluntly:  I don’t trust or believe you, or rather those pushing for these bans.  I’ve seen their groups lie, distort, and do all sorts of things which they justify in the name of God.  I personally would have been satisfied with civil unions a few years ago, until I saw what the other side was doing.  You do realize that most of the amendments and legislation banning SSM does likewise for civil unions or other arrangements as well?  Even in states like Minnesota where the anti-SSM groups swore it wouldn’t, they immediately sued after winning at the polls to strip same-sex couples of the paltry legal recognition and benefits they had.  Ditto for Arizona and a number of other states as well.  It’s only when SSM is winning now that all of sudden civil unions are being pushed in a desperate attempt to stop the tide.  Forget it.  That ship has sailed.

          • You do realize that most of the amendments and legislation banning SSM does likewise for civil unions or other arrangements as well?

            No.  I sure don’t.  In fact, I call bullshit.  Put up your support.  Because, with contract, durable powers of attorney, will, etc., I can provide those, and NOBODY takes them away or dilutes them anywhere in the US I know of.  So, put up.

          • Do you not have Google?  Access to Wikipedia?  It doesn’t take but a few seconds to look it up and see that 19 states explicitly ban SSM and civil unions/DPs; 12 states ban SSM and don’t perform or recognize civil unions/DPs; 9 states ban SSM but allow civil unions/DPs or something else; 9 states allow SSM; New Mexico is the oddball in not officially prohibiting or recognizing SSM, civil unions/DPs or anything else which in practice has become a ban on all of them for the present.  Want to take a guess which activist groups and major political party were behind these amendments and legislative acts?  Go ahead, I’ll give you a few moments.
            In the meantime, a correction from my previous:  anti-SSM lied about Michigan’s (not Minnesota) amendment in 2004 not prohibiting some same-sex arrangements, but then turned around and successfully sued to strip such couples of these benefits after winning at the polls.  As for using private contracts alone, I have to wonder why you don’t propose the same for opposite sex couples.  Could it be that you want the imprimatur of government approval or is it that you know very well how inadequate these arrangements are compared to legal marriage – as this article makes clear?  Why are you demanding that same-sex couples, including those with children, live with such insufficient arrangements that you wouldn’t dream of doing likewise for opposite sex couples?

          • I guess you don’t see the irony of your position WRT actual marriage.  OK.
            Gay people can…and do…have the same rights under law as civilly married couples, if they bother.  The only real exception being income tax policy, which should be burned down to the ground.
            Again, I support civil unions.  I don’t support YOUR drive to use government to force a change in a cultural, biological, and historic norm.  YOU are the BIG GOVERNMENT activist here.

          • I’m not at all using “big government” to do anything of the sort. I said leave it up to the states. The federal government has no business being involved. And I also said, as you pointed to slavery and women’s suffrage, etc. that those were issues that involved equal rights or their denial. You are on the denial side.

          • McQ, my comment was not directed to you.
            And…like Roe…I DO want to deny a totally unheard-of “Constitutional right” that is being militated for.  Yes, I DO.
            It seems plain enough that the same predicates used to justify “Gay marriage” would be applied, as I’ve noted, to make “incestuous marriage” and polygamy a “civil right”.

          • I believe I saw somewhere that you said you had helped some gay couples obtain certain legal documents to protect them.  Perhaps you should speak to them about this, save for the token “gay friend” of course, and see what they have to say about how great those documents are compared to the protections marriage offers.  With regards to your other comments, I’ll simply state that I do not agree at all and like it or not this will continue until we have full marriage rights in all 50 states.

          • …how great those documents are compared to the protections marriage offers.

            Stick you condescension up your ass WRT your “gay friend” bullshit.
            And, as to the merits of the legal abilities conferred in a civil context, they are the same.  I read your lil’ law review thing, and, NO, a civil union does not confer the same status as would a marriage, nor should it.  The same is true of couples who choose to live together without formalizing their relationship via marriage.  Or should we simply warp the meaning of the term so as to include them, too?
            As to your prediction, you could well be right, given the cultural decay we see in this nation.  Some of us will resist, for the reasons I’ve articulated.

          • I see.  Well then I suppose I can only advise you to take your own advice where to stick your BS.  The days of socons like you using the law to uphold your own version of public morality are very quickly coming to an end, as they damn well should.  Ya’ll have zero credibility now in claiming to want to cut a deal for something less on this matter and a whole helluva lot more on social issues after the crap you’ve put everyone through all these years to even reach where we are now.  Far better to even the playing field as a course of law and get the government out of the rest of it as much as possible.

          • And yet, it is YOU who is militating for a FORCED change in LAW to effect YOUR agenda.  As I’ve noted before.
            You take umbrage when you get push-back via the ballot box when people recognize what you are trying to do in the name of “civil rights”.  You imply I am dishonest.  That is simply projection.
            Poor baby.

          • Forced law? Sorry, not computing. And I don’t imply anything of the sort. You’re just wrong.

          • You are confused, McQ.  I address my posts to you clearly.  It is you who is wrong, even as to whom I’m responding.

        • “it really should drop the hypocrisy”
          Which is another reason the GOP lost. After a couple of decades of “Read my lips…”, they have no more credibility. I am sure Romney is a nice guy and means well, but even I don’t believe at least half of what he said.

          • Yes, that would be another reason why I think the GOP is a big joke.  It’s not just Romney, there aren’t many in that party that I can believe to keep their word.  At least the Democrats usually let you know one way or the other that they are going to screw you over.  Well, most of the time.  They like to be sneaky about it too at times and IMO are generally more loathsome anyways.

  • Notice how the Tea Party basically got branded by the media as the GOP, but with more racists!
    I am not confident re-branding will work.
    If I were to do it, I would come up with non-Democrat ideas, like immigration reform that increase immigration from all over the world, and only has minor components for “amnesty.” This way you differentiate, rebrand, but don’t come out as for amnesty.
    Instead of amnesty, I would set up fast track visa offices in Mexico for “illegals” who could easily qualify for a green card to get their paperwork done without fear of being denied re-entry, i.e. pre-authorize them here, but make them go back for the visa. This is how many countries work.
    Don’t try to be cute and offer 25 year visas without voting rights.
    I would leave pro-life issues alone, i.e. not demand the party is pro-life or pro-choice.
    Gay marriage, I am for that, and see no problem making it legal. I’d take the state out of the marriage racket altogether.
    If the GOP wants immigrants to be Repubicans, I’d tell the so-cons to get their churches overseas missions to sponsor people.
    Stay small government, but do not oppose taxation for its own sake: we will need more revenue, and some taxes are actually good, like removing the tax-free status of muni bonds, hollywood tax cuts etc.
    And the local GOP should start scouting minorities to run for office. Sikh liquor store owners, Mexican-American small businesses, etc. Especially the people who pay the taxes…they know this stuff sucks.
    If you talk to people, you’d be surprised how open-minded they are. If you shun them, well…
    ps. I have to tell this story. I went into a Sikh run liquor store and Clinton was on TV giving a speech. Somehow, the owner expressed his disgust at Clinton and I asked why he didn’t like him. “He let’s too many foreigners into the country.”
    I was stunned. I think the guy was serious, too.

    • I agree with all that.

    • 1. what happened to the reality that taxes hurt the economy?
      2. most legal immigrants WANT our borders secured.
      3. conservatives have always (in my experience) been inclusive.  I don’t (never did) give a flying fluck about anything but how a person thinks (and always rejected the idea that different races think differently).

  • I’m sometimes appalled at the shallowness of some of you erstwhile “deep thinkers”.
    Slavery, woman’s’ suffrage, civil rights, etc. were ALLLLL “social issues”.
    My opposition to abortion is founded in natural rights, just as is my support of gun rights (another “social issue” of which YOU approve).
    School choice?  Social issue.  Affirmative action?  Social issue.  Taxing the rich?  Social issue as much as an economic one.
    AND, speaking of a viable conservative coalition (which a lot of you left off speaking about some time back on this thread) Evangelicals were STRONG in that coalition this year.
    Some of you need to take a breath and think.  Get out of the rout mindset, because this was not a rout, and some of your “thinking” of the last few days is more harmful than good.

    • All social issues that denied what … equal rights. See gay marriage.

      • Weak.  Which is typical of you lately.  Who here of the conservatives has opposed civil unions?  I’ve been providing the legal rights of marriage to gay clients for years, McQ, all but the tax elements.
        But see polygamy.  See also incest.  The same predicates used to argue gay marriage apply.  So, civil right to marry your sister…????

  • Why is it that no one is holding the voters responsible for this fiasco?  Why is it that the blame is always about the GOP message, social issues, or GOTV?  Supposedly, Republican voters are adults. THEY decided that “sending a message” to the GOP was more important than the possibility of having this lying, corrupt, incompetent President be re-elected.  THEY did this.  They decided, like children, that they weren’t “inspired” or that Romney “wasn’t conservative enough.”  10-12 million Republican voters did not vote for the Republican candidate. They wanted to be coaxed or dragged to the polls.
    Well, if you know of a Republican that decided to sit this out…congratulate him/her.  Their candidate won.  And they deserve to get what they wanted good and hard.

    • From the 12th…

      Remember I was talking about being a deliberative thinker, and waiting for more/better info…?

      For starters, if the Washington Post is to be believed, Mitt Romney received 1.3 million fewer votes than John McCain did in 2008, not 3 million.  For the record, Obama received 7.5 million fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008.
      More than 1.1 million of the Republican votes were “lost” in California. It is not that California Republicans turned against Romney.  His percentage of the vote was higher than McCain’s in 2008.  It is just they know their votes were in vain in that increasingly absurd state. The same is likely true in New York State where Romney fell more than a half-million votes short of McCain’s totals. Excluding these two states, Romney received 300,000 more votes than McCain.
      That much said, the results in several states do raise eyebrows, most notably Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Romney received nearly 100,000 fewer votes than McCain in the former and 35,000 fewer votes in the latter.  In all the other battleground states, Romney improved both on McCain’s raw numbers and his percentage of the vote. This includes Florida despite the fact that every vote south of Palm Bay down Florida’s I-95 corridor is suspect.
      Hmmm…  That makes some sense, especially as to CA and NY.

  • This will boggle your mind. Barack Obama lost independent voters to Mitt Romney in every swing state except North Carolina and still won reelection.

    President Barack Obama won a second term by taking the majority of swing states. But a closer look at exit polling data shows Obama lost the independent vote in most of those states over the last four years. Independents, who do not align with one political party or another, make up a fast-growing and coveted voting bloc.