The people that lost us this election were the libertarian and third party voters, and I doubt that they were Hispanics.
If we had had a stronger approach, I think we would have attracted more Hispanics, who, like anybody else, appreciate somebody who is confident in their message. The GOP barely even had a message, since Romney’s advisors had decided that he should present himself as just a better dressed, more polite and more successful version of Obama.
But the people who lost it for us in Florida and Ohio were the (mostly middle-aged white male) libertarians who voted for one or another of their flaky candidates because they were too pure to vote GOP. They forgot that the candidate is only a part of it, and that what they would have gotten would have been an entire change at the top that might actually have brought in some people who sympathized with them. But if you want to look at a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot group, look at the third party voters and not the unconvinced and unwooed Hispanic voters.
First off, let me just say that I am a knuckle-dragging extremist who's no libertarian, although I recognize that they have a place in the party. However, I think it was two factors, neither of which has to do with libertarians, that caused Romney's defeat:
(1) We held on to most of our GOP Congressional seats. The losers lost because they were too conservative for their districts. A UPI poll indicated that 10% of evangelicals said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon. That took him out in FL where he lost by tens of thousands of votes.
(2) Romney's editorial about opposing the auto bailout took him out in the Rust Belt states. That was why Bush supported the bailout - a lifetime in politics taught him elementary electoral math that Romney never had the chance to learn - one of the Rust Belt states (Ohio) provided his margin of victory in both 2000 and 2004.
An author of a recent book about independents was on PBS' NewsHour tonight. She said their turnout was down to 24 %, but they make up 40 % of registered voters. That makes sense with the reduced overall voter turnout.
That's a ridiculous argument. The people "that lost us this election" were (a) the people who voted for Democrats, and (b)the candidates and party leaders who couldn't convince enough citizens to vote for them. If a candidate and their party can't convince enough people to vote for them then they lose. Mitt Romney failed to attract enough voters, period.
Needless to say the MSM sure helped, as did more than a billion dollars spent mostly in attack ads against him and fellow Republicans. How many ads did you see Libertarians running against Mitt Romney and other Republicans? I think the answer is none. How many attack ads paid for by unions, Planned Parenthood, Emily's List, the DNC, etc. did you see?
A few Republican candidates with ill thought out comments on social issues led to the loss of many less informed young voters. It was incredibly foolish for the Republicans to let themselves be led into the whole "war on women" meme set up by the left. Needless to say the libertarians voters had nothing to do with that bungle.
“The people that lost us this election were the libertarian and third party voters...”
Mathematically false. There weren’t enough third-party votes to make a difference in any state. Also half the Libertarian and almost all of the Green Party vote comes from would-be Democratic voters.
It was the Ricans in Central Flórida that gave Obama the election. A race of people who’s first words are “aybaytay” (EBT).