Posted on 11/07/2012 8:52:40 AM PST by Feynman
Here is my take on why we are losing. I didn’t say “why we lost” because it is an ongoing, systemic problem and not indicative of one political season.
All the pundits are talking about campaign tactics, the Mormon factor, Bush blaming, women’s issues, etc. But I think those are all minor compared to one overriding thing – we have, as a nation, bought in to the idea that the State can and should take care of us.
Gallup had a poll a week or so that said that 40% of Americans thought that government should do more. That is a really tough head start. Add in the single issue voters for social issues, the environment, unions, etc. and we are toast. And that doesn’t even count the people that say they are for limited government, but are afraid to act on it because they have been sold on the idea that that thinking is “radical”.
And how did that happen? There are really just two reasons for the state we are in. First, our schools have indoctrinated the last few generations with liberalism. We have thoughtful, caring, intelligent young people who truly believe that the State can is the source of all things good.
And secondly, the liberal media controls the message to the point that they are a virtual mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. Pat Caddell, who is a democrat, recently blasted the mainstream media at an event as an “enemy of the people”. This is not hyperbole.
So where do we go from here? I don’t know. We had our best spokesperson for limited government in Paul Ryan, and when Romney picked him I was totally jazzed up. As you know I’ve been a fan of Ryan for a long time. But his selection was pushing all the chips to the center of the table. Put out your best argument and see where you wind up. Now we know.
I honestly do not believe that we have any hope to reverse this trend. The left will be in control when the crash comes, and it will come, and that is their real hope.
You’re completely ignorant. If you think Romney would have downsized the government in any significant.... Romney is absolutely from the big government wing of the party.
6 million difference fro Bush 2004 and yesterday!!! That is a loss Zero vote count was down 9 million!!!
No, Romney wouldn't have ended free stuff. What it would have done is hopefully to put us on a path that would have slowed the growth of the size of government, and had a more pro-business, free market approach. Obama will choke off the wealth-creation engine, and be happy to do so under the guise of "fairness".
Tell you want... let me get a time machine running, and you can go back to one day after election day in 2010 and explain why we were losing so badly then.
Oh, wait... no... because we weren’t losing then. We were winning. And on a message of cutting back government and increasing self-reliance.
So maybe, just maybe, the problem isn’t the message but the messenger.
Not even close. Obama is -10M total votes from 2008. Now, by the time everything, including absentees are added up, that'll be more like -6M, but that's still about 10% of his 2008 total he lost.
If Romney gets every vote McCain (MCCAIN!) got, he wins last night. But he didn't.
If Romney gets every vote McCain (MCCAIN!) got, he wins last night. But he didn’t.
I know but why? We lost in states where we had the governor and both houses. Was there that much voter fraud?? We should have won Virgina, Ohio, Iowa, and Florida but we didn’t!!!
The theory goes like this: GOP turnout was actually fine, up from 2008 (which was indicated by the early exit polling, though to a lesser degree than I would have expected, but exit polls tend to overweight Democrats anyway). My hunch is that independents failed to show up.
See, you get them on the phone, and you ask them questions, and they say they prefer Romney to Obama. But maybe not by much -- not enough to get out and vote. So while both parties turn out their base, the "mushy middle" is just mush, and decides in the end that they don't feel strongly enough to vote after all.
That would explain a large part of the over 10 million vote drop overall from 2008, and Romney's lower share of the vote than projected, because his lead among independents wound up not mattering if independents failed to turn out significantly enough compared to the party bases.
Again, this is strictly a theory off the top of my head, with no data behind it yet. But if true, it shows the folly of chasing the mushy middle.
Slowing the growth is still moving in the wrong direction, and will only increase the size of the left’s electorate and put off fiscal disaster for a few years.
You are the one who is totally ignorant my friend. Totally.
God you would think that the last four years would have spurred people to get off of their fat duffs and voted... This is going to be a disaster in the making!!!
Agreed. The Paul Ryan plan is a generational approach that grows our way out of the mess we are in. No fix will instantly halt deficit spending. Even that will be a stretch, but we have to start somewhere. The thing is, either we do it or the math will do it for us, i.e. Greece and Spain. The left has NO plan, except "make the rich pay just a little bit more". Which is no plan at all, just class warfare.
I suspect we are in agreement about many things. Although I did not support Romney in the primaries I would have voted ffor him yesterday (I am Canadian). I am very tired of trying to out left the left.
We agree to disagree. Good luck with Jeb Bush or Rubio or whoever your next lamb will be.
All the pundits are talking about campaign tactics, the Mormon factor, Bush blaming, women's issues, etc. But I think those are all minor compared to one overriding thing -- we have, as a nation, bought in to the idea that the State can and should take care of us.And that's nothing compared with the steady anti-Republican, anti-conservative, anti-Tea Party, and anti-American drumbeat in the courts, the media, unions, and schools.
Social Security was originally designed by Roosevelt and company for the political purpose of getting the elderly to vote for the 'Rats in perpetuity. It didn't quite work out that way, as seniors now are just as likely or more so to vote for Republicans as younger folks. They tend to have the most financial assets to protect from government intrusion, and Republicans are more likely to agree ideologically with those interests.
Medicare was not a New Deal entitlement; it was part of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society."
Furthermore, not everyone is "roped in" to either program, since participation is still voluntary (unlike ObamaCare's health insurance mandate).
Exactly...generations systematically turned into a leftist collective, while being disguised as just..."entertainment".
Alinsky would be so proud(so would Goebbels)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.