Skip to comments.Why Mitt Lost and it Wasn’t Very Close
Posted on 11/08/2012 6:30:05 AM PST by Kaslin
Memorandum to the GOP: When running an election campaign it is often valuable to select a nominee who represents the rank and file of the Party. This is how other Parties do it. Perhaps you might get on board.
Well lets start with who not to select.
There was George H.W. Bush, who, while a nice, honorable public servant, won primarily because of the record Reagan established. He lost because the rest of us thought that when he mouthed the words Read my lips, go to Texas, he meant Read my lips, no new taxes.
There was Bob Dole, a very honorable man too, but not exactly full of policies ideas. Or convictions. Hes the guy who thrilled us with the ringing cry: Ive never read the Republican platform.
Then there was the other George Bush, W.
He also is a nice man; a man full of character, but he led the largest expansion of government power since Jimmy Carter and took us into a war that he stubbornly refused to win until he was all out of options. And while there remain good reasons to fight in Iraq, he also refused to tell the rest of the Party what they were. .
W squeaked out the election in 2000, with a Supreme Court ruling necessary to finally seal the deal. Then in 2004, he fought tooth and nail in a close election contest that in some respects the Party still pays for.
That brings us to McCain, who was decidedly not a nice guy. He was really grumpy. He was grumpy to everyone except his opponent. He was very grumpy to his VP choice, Sarah Palin. And did I tell you that he was really nice to his opponent? Because he was. Maybe thats because many of his policy ideas fit better in the Democrat Party, than they did in the GOP.
Of course he went down to Barack Obama in 2008.
Which bring us to the next next-guy-in-line, Mitt Romney.
Mitt too represented the far left of the GOP. But at least he returned us to the tradition of making sure our guy was considered a nice guy.
In any election campaign, if you want to avoid it becoming just a popularity contest based simply on personality- note to Mitt, you wanted to avoid that- its very important to bring some real policy contrast to your campaign. For every Obama policy that was an equal or worse Romney policy. The animatronics that make up the Mitt Romney mechanism are good, but they arent gonna win too many popularity contests or act as a substitute for real conservative ideals.
Change needs to start happening at the state and local level where top-down party central committees have refused to create coalitions at the grass roots level.
Hence, in the ground game too the GOP is kind of old fashioned, missing critical components that allow the Party to drive the must win contests, like Allen Wests.
Its great to the ride wave years, but you have to be able to win the close elections. The Democrats arent beating Republicans by virtue of ideology so much as mechanics and logistics.
There is a trend at the grassroots level with get-out-the-vote that demonstrates the Democrats ability to precisely micro target an additional 4-to-6 percent of the vote, some of which escapes the polling until late in the race.
Simply put, the models that the GOP relies upon, including those relied upon by myself, have failed to adequately account for this. Again, it makes no difference in a wave election, but we pay dearly for it in close contests.
The grassroots on the other side has spent ten years in community organizing, going door-to-door, creating coalitions of issues-driven, ideologically-funded third party groups that can do a lot of heavily lifting for GOTV. The GOP on the other hand has eschewed groups like the tea parties, seeing the grass roots as a hindrance to our chances at being the cool kids at school.
You saw it the results on Tuesday.
The progressive activists worked for it, while GOP worked their top-down magic and expected to ride the wave.
The results in too many cases have been disappointing.
As my friend Greg Graves once explained to me You gotta win the ones you are supposed to win, and you have to pick off a few you werent supposed to.
The GOP, as usual, picked off the one we were supposed to win.
IMO it is simple...
Their editing by omission, holding stories. unfavorable audio/pics.
They can bend public opinion any way they want. And they’re on a mission to do just that.
Probably not the first, but ‘early’
GOP (R) E = Elites........RINO
I think....<: <:
The “E” stands for “Establishment.”
Romney, a liberal, was doomed from the beginning. Unfortunately, he got enough votes that the elites in the GOP will be encouraged to nominate another liberal in 2016.
The poster shares an email he got from a Republican friend living in Germany. The friend relates how dems got US citizens living in Germany to participate in the elections and what he found out about about their operations in the states, eg,
"1.That the Democrats clearly have a more effective team operating in the field. For example, my debate opponent from Democrats Abroad had been to many, many Democrat Party training events in DC and had a direct line to vast numbers of not only politicians but also access to an entire administrative support network at party headquarters. All during the night, he knew in real time from party HQ specific exit poll data for strategic zip codes and indicated that the local leaders were reacting in real time to rush in any potential reserves of voters who may not have already voted in those precincts. In other words, they have "troops" in the voting field with multiple levels of leaders and a powerful admin support. If need be, these "troops" will hand carry a voter in to secure the vote.All very relevant observations about how the other side gets the job done (and get a load of that point number 4!)
2) They have an incredible amount of specific data about not only their own constituents but about the demographics of their voters, potential voters, where they live, their occupations (note I didn't say work) , their affiliations (ie churches, unions, social clubs)---and how to get them to actually commit the act of voting. All of this on a house to house basis for strategic precincts. Here I don't mean general data like X% are in the union but specifics like which specific churches in Cleveland will help organize car pools to get voters in specific neighborhoods into the voting booth. Or making sure that specific local union offices are coordinating their efforts with other union halls, social clubs and church groups in specific areas to achieve a huge turnout in their precincts. Or what powerful local community leaders can be counted on to bring their flock into the voting booth. And all of it is gamed out well in advance of the election. In their world, they are very, very, very close to their voters and handle them directly just like their vision of the Nanny State handling citizens. The data is provided by their field operations and continually updated at all times---not only at election times. And furthermore, they seem to have a surprising amount of specific demographic data about Republican voters--or at least about strategic concentrations of them. On one level, this capability could be comparable to the depth of market data that a route salesman would be expected to know about his territory and customers. On another level, this deep capability covers at least all strategically important geographic areas and is strategically managed with the professionalism of military intelligence resources.
3) They have a very effective communications system which coordinates efforts of Nr 1 and Nr2 from the head of the snake all the way down to street level "troops". It works reliably and their team knows how to use it
4) SInce the 2000 election, I have been aware that their team routinely takes advantage of vast pro democrat sentiments overseas to gain a) fundraising from abroad through donations to groups like Democrats Abroad , b) foreign citizens who volunteer to operate programs like phone banks, websites, social media, mailings which can be managed from Europe for example but used to back up the election effort stateside, and c) large armies of energetic Europeans (ie students but also sometimes retirees) who take "vacations" to the USA during vote season and "volunteer" as free manpower to help field operations of democrats.
Our side needs to realize that the American electorate does NOT just automatically lean conservative anymore, and won't as matter of sheer habit go to the polls and vote republican. We can laugh at the deadbeats and druggies in the ghettos all we want, but it seems the other side figured out a way to get them to the polls and vote. And they did it, for the most part, legally. The lethargy and lack of imagination on our side is just as dangerous as Obama's radicalism.
From this day forward, I will vote for the Independent or the Libertarian candidate. I'm done with this "2 party system". There is no "2 party" system. Flame away, but obammy got reelected. That's all I need to know.
I need something new, and it's not the same bullshit that is going on.
The E stands for Establishment.
I had said ‘elite’ BUT I can buy ‘establishment’.....<:
Why buy American? Does it make America stronger?
Blue Eagle didn’t work out in the 30s for America why do you think it would work now? Why do you want to limit the freedom of Americans to buy what they want?
translation: Put your resources into a street-level retail ground game, and not $300 million consulting fees to Karl Rove.
Although I said I hadn’t a clue about the “e” my guess was either elite or establishment. But those were just guesses.
E = Elites = Establishment
(ellites/establishment really the same know-it-alls what's best for us)
Please provide counts, not just margins. I smell a rat.
Who should the GOP-E have picked?
The next candidate will be further left than Mitt, and support abortion and gay marriage openly.
The next candidate will be further left than Mitt, and support abortion and gay marriage openly.
We got out micro targeted.
As we said here in Texas, working on the Cruz Crew, #Grassroots Matter