Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Biggest Lesson the GOP Should Learn from the Election
PJ Media ^ | 12-1-2012 | Frank J. Fleming

Posted on 12/01/2012 12:07:46 PM PST by smoothsailing

December 1, 2012

The Biggest Lesson the GOP Should Learn from the Election

Frank Fleming

So what lessons should Republicans learn from the 2012 election? I don’t think anyone other than me has thought to ask this question, as Republicans tend not to be very analytical. But I think the answer is pretty obvious when you look at the failure of their presidential candidate this year and the one in 2008: Republicans need to stop nominating right-wing extremists like John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Obviously, the two most recent Republican presidential candidates were far too extreme to the right to be elected by the American public. They were constantly seen in the company of numerous Republicans and conservatives (one was even seen hanging around Sarah Palin) and often praised them instead of denouncing them. Also, they reveled in the racism of the Republican Party (especially in their racist stance on taxes) and sometimes said positive things about Republicans’ stances on social issues. And worst of all, they were actually opposed to the election and reelection of the first black president and occasionally even criticized him.

So it’s no wonder that so much of the country was absolutely repulsed by these people. By reading any news source like the New York Times, you could see how terrified the average person was of having those extremists elected. If the Republican Party doesn’t want to continue being hated, it needs to finally give up on its right-wing radicalism exemplified by McCain and Romney and plan to have in 2016 a perfect candidate who will not be so offensive to Democrats.

I speak, of course, of the legendary Super Squish. The one the Republican elite speak of in hushed whispers as the prophesied one to lead the party away from extremism. This is the ultimate candidate the Republicans need for 2016.

So what is he like? First off, the Super Squish will not spend a lot of time criticizing Democrats, as he should be far too busy disparaging his own party. I mean, lately, the party has been filled with white people critical of a black man, and this ultimate candidate needs to take on that racism in his own party to show he’s not a part of it. His first campaign speech should be something like, “Shame! Shame on all of you! I am disgusted to be a Republican because radicals have taken over the party and constantly attack the president! Can’t we get over race?” Some tears would be nice, too. And in the rest of his speech he should studiously avoid all the codewords Republicans use for “I hate black people”, such as “cut taxes”, “reduce spending”, and “USA! USA!”

And the Super Squish is someone who doesn’t just automatically reject every idea because it comes from a Democrat. In fact, to show he’s open-minded, he might even embrace some of his opponents’ proposals. Better yet, he might even be a vocal advocate for some of their ideas… or even like them more than Democrats do. If he could get Democrats to say things like, “I do like raising taxes on the rich, but that Republican candidate wants to go too far with it,” that would be perfect.

Furthermore, the Super Squish is someone who won’t lose votes on social issues. He’ll never bring them up, and if Democrats bring them up, he’ll immediately capitulate to what they want to keep those issues from being problems. And maybe he can support them on some things to show he doesn’t agree with those scary religious Republicans. Ideally, he himself will be an abortionist. This would certainly keep women voters from being frightened of the Republican candidate; they love abortions.

Also, the Super Squish will not be another one of those Republicans who mindlessly invoke Ronald Reagan and instead will really chastise the Republican Party’s love for him. He’ll tell Republicans, “Reagan would be ashamed of the Party as it is today. Also, I’m ashamed of Reagan, because he’s not as great as everyone pretends and was actually quite divisive. Yes, everyone likes him now, but they shouldn’t. So let’s never mention him again except to say how ashamed he would be of today’s GOP.”

Similarly, the Super Squish will take on the religious wing of the party that pushes it to extremism. “The only things I believe without question are things that people in white lab coats say,” he’ll lecture the religious nuts. “If Jesus didn’t warn us about climate change, then maybe He wasn’t that great a messiah. So let’s never mention Him again except to say how ashamed He would be of today’s GOP.”

And I guess the Super Squish can support some conservative idea to shore up the base a little… like what’s a really harmless right-wing idea? Balance the budget? No… that implies some severe spending cuts. Anyway, this perfect candidate will have some sort of conservative idea he’ll favor… but he’ll only mention it if a reporter really presses him on why exactly he is a Republican at all. And he’ll be profusely apologetic about it, knowing that mentioning it might hurt the feelings of people who disagree with him.

Finally, this Super Squish will not be a minority or a woman, as it’s highly offensive to them to imply that one of them would actually be a Republican.

So who is this Super Squish? We don’t know yet, but we’d better start looking now. Start with any Republican allowed to speak on MSNBC. And we must have him ready for 2016 before the wingnuts start to rally around another far-right disaster like McCain or Romney. If the Republicans have finally learned their lesson, they’ll embrace the Super Squish, and the Super Squish will in turn keep them at arm’s length so as not to appear too Republicany. And while the Super Squish won’t win the presidency (beating a Democrat is racially insensitive to their numerous coalitions), he’ll run a campaign so inoffensive to the left that they’ll pat us on the back and say, “You ran an honorable campaign, predominantly white people.”

Ah, it will be nice to hold our heads up high again.


TOPICS: Editorial; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-102 next last
Hey Republicans, I'm Your Guy!!!


1 posted on 12/01/2012 12:07:51 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Sounds like the old Governor Romney would be perfect.

lol.


2 posted on 12/01/2012 12:14:51 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

LOL! I like this guy. He uses the very effective Rush technique of illustrating absurdity by being absurd to the extreme.


3 posted on 12/01/2012 12:17:08 PM PST by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

I sense .. a bit of sarcasm...


4 posted on 12/01/2012 12:17:29 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

LOL! I like this guy. He uses the very effective Rush technique of illustrating absurdity by being absurd to the extreme.


5 posted on 12/01/2012 12:17:29 PM PST by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Nah, it doesn’t have to be that stupid. All the GOP has to do in bring back the middle class jobs that they exported. Then a prosperous middle class will be working again, paying taxes and buying things and voting for the GOP again like they did for Reagan and the two Bushs.

The GOP has to get successful the old-fashioned way - they got to earn it. Running under the banner ‘I know how to create jobs’ is woefully inadequate. Just do it.


6 posted on 12/01/2012 12:27:28 PM PST by ex-snook (without forgiveness there is no Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

And the super squish should thoroughly diss all of Ron Paul’s ideas as well as the TEA party, not just throw them under the bus at the convention. Yea that’ll do it.


7 posted on 12/01/2012 12:28:03 PM PST by MulberryDraw (That which cannot be paid, won't be paid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

The lesson learned is;...... VOTING DIED NOV. 6TH..

Voting for anybody for anything is a ruse if you are republican..
Voting just became “bait and switch”... and/or “the Glad Game”...


8 posted on 12/01/2012 12:28:03 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

I kind of like Palin/West in 2016.


9 posted on 12/01/2012 12:33:13 PM PST by mosaicwolf (Strength and Honor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Biggest lesson is that if you don’t cheat more than the democrats you will lose!


10 posted on 12/01/2012 12:39:39 PM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

“The Biggest Lesson the GOP Should Learn from the Election”

Making rigged elections an art form?


11 posted on 12/01/2012 12:43:07 PM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Say what you will, Romney turned out the base - big time. He got a record number of evangelical votes, 26.0M. That's more than McCain's 25.3M and Bush's 21.9M.

We were 4.5M votes short this year. How do we get the 5M+ we're going to need in 2016?

12 posted on 12/01/2012 12:55:16 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Nah, it doesn’t have to be that stupid. All the GOP has to do in bring back the middle class jobs that they exported. Then a prosperous middle class will be working again, paying taxes and buying things and voting for the GOP again like they did for Reagan and the two Bushs.

The GOP has to get successful the old-fashioned way - they got to earn it. Running under the banner ‘I know how to create jobs’ is woefully inadequate. Just do it.


Right. The GOP needs to dump the Free Trade Communist Globalism nonsense. You cannot create job in the United States of America by shipping American jobs to Communist China. All the cute economic theory cannot over-ride this Economic Fact

Free Trade Communist Globalism does not work.

Unfortnately, Liberals have figured this out...and why you see Obama in this country use Welfare and Socialism to offset Free Trade.

You cannot beat a Socialist like Obama with Free Trade Communism. You need ideas and efforts that actually create jobs other than fast-food jobs


13 posted on 12/01/2012 1:09:00 PM PST by SeminoleCounty (Illegal Aliens do not pay Social Security...Employers do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

We also need to nominate candidates that can keep their mouths closed and not blurt out dumb comments. We know from Allen in 2006, Atkin and Mourdock in 2012 that the MSM will make mountains out of mold hills.
And as many people on this site have said-Democrats play to win, we play to be nice. Absolutely do not trust the MSM.
And read “Rules for Radicals.” The Rats have and it is part of their playbook. It needs to be part of ours.
If not it will be the Social Democrats going up against the Bolsheviks in 1917 and 1918.


14 posted on 12/01/2012 1:19:55 PM PST by Maine Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maine Mariner
We also need to nominate candidates that can keep their mouths closed and not blurt out dumb comments. We know from Allen in 2006, Atkin and Mourdock in 2012 that the MSM will make mountains out of mold hills.

Don't forget Christine O'Donnell in DE back in '08. There was some kind of stupid comment about being a witch or witchcraft and she spent the rest of the campaign fending off the media and the 'Rats about that. What kind of dope allows themselves to get put off-message with that kind of crap? I know O'Donnell is a Tea Party darling, but, I'm sorry, stupid is stupid. Our candidates are right on the issues, but if they say STUPID things in the middle of a campaign and hand their opponents a sword to be run through with, well, it isn't very smart from a political tactics viewpoint.

15 posted on 12/01/2012 1:27:24 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: chimera

Yes, you said it better that I did.

STAY ON MESSAGE!! But also don’t be afraid to fight back.


16 posted on 12/01/2012 1:29:30 PM PST by Maine Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Given population growth, he actually ensured evangelical share declined...

Romney was a terrible candidate, but true to form, we have people defending this article.


17 posted on 12/01/2012 1:32:18 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (They may take our lives... but they'll never take our FREEDOM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Maine Mariner

We also need republicans who actually believe that prolife does not equal dumb. Sorta like not you. :)


18 posted on 12/01/2012 1:33:37 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (They may take our lives... but they'll never take our FREEDOM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: chimera

BTW - Christine did better than any Republican candidate in DE since Roth.

We need more candidates like Christine - passionate, prolife and conservative. We also need the party to actually support them and stand up for them rather then abandon them to the wolves like the GOP did with Christine, like they did with Palin, etc.


19 posted on 12/01/2012 1:36:11 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (They may take our lives... but they'll never take our FREEDOM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Given population growth, he actually ensured evangelical share declined...

I don't understand. Evangelicals are not increasing their share of potential voters compared to other groups. Yet they managed to be 26% of the electorate in 2012 vs 23% in 2004. They supported Romney at 78%, equaling Bush's level.

Explain your point.

20 posted on 12/01/2012 1:40:50 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Next time, In a nod to bipartisanship, Republicans should reach across the aisle and nominate a Democrat. We couldn’t be worse off.


21 posted on 12/01/2012 1:49:09 PM PST by AZLiberty (No tag today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

After being on this site for some years, I have become prolife. Maybe not quite the conversion of Saul into Paul on the road to Damascus, but close.

I support pro-life candidates in Maine all the time!
All I am saying is that we need candidates that can stay on message-when we get off message the Rats and the MSM make the candidate the issue.
Do you think it was helpful to bring the issue of witchcraft into the Senate race in 2010? I don’t.


22 posted on 12/01/2012 2:06:46 PM PST by Maine Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks smoothsailing.
Republicans need to stop nominating right-wing extremists like John McCain and Mitt Romney. Obviously, the two most recent Republican presidential candidates were far too extreme to the right to be elected by the American public.
This is pretty funny, and looks ridiculous, but no moreso as when people (including FReepers) say the opposite.


23 posted on 12/01/2012 2:14:31 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
THE MEDIA SITS ON HIS SCANDALS

TARGET THE MEDIA..TARGET THE MEDIA


24 posted on 12/01/2012 2:17:49 PM PST by timestax (Why not drug tests for the President AND all White Hut staff ? ? ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chimera
Don't forget Christine O'Donnell in DE back in '08.

It was 2010, in 2012, Santorum ran for president although he had lost his Senate seat by a bigger margin than O'Donnell's embarrassing loss.

Santorum lost by 17.4% to O'Donnell's 16.7%, yet he was the incumbent Senator.

25 posted on 12/01/2012 2:25:21 PM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer's successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Maine Mariner

As I recall, O’Donnell’s told a light-hearted funny story when she was a young woman, on a TV show (Bill Maher I think) about 20 years before she was involved in politics. It was anecdote about some silly thing she had done as a teenager, having a picnic in graveyard or something like that. Bill Mahar then dredged up that 20-year-old old video when she was running for the senate.


26 posted on 12/01/2012 3:04:12 PM PST by erkelly (Never underestimate the stupidity of the stupid party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

27 posted on 12/01/2012 3:11:29 PM PST by Antoninus (Sorry, gone rogue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
True that (based on your numbers) Santorum got clobbered by a larger percentage margin, but I don't recall any major blunders by Santorum. O'Donnell just said something stupid (like Allen and Akin and Mourdock) that gave fodder to the 'Rats and the media, and was taken way off message by having to deal with it. Santorum lost in a tough year for 'Pubs against an opponent whose had a popular, well-known name, and in a state where the electorate was shifting quite strongly in favor of the 'Rats.

Look, I'm not saying any of these candidates were wrong on the issues. They are correct on the pro-life, limited government, reduced spending and deficit positions. They just made stupid blunders, they said stupid things that the media killed them with. The 'Rats say stupid things all the time (example: Biden) and have the wrong positions on the issues, but it doesn't hurt them because the media gives them cover, and they promise largess to the sheeple, and that trumps any stupid gaffes the 'Rats make.

28 posted on 12/01/2012 3:38:37 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook

Bingo.

Unless the GOP gets off this “export every job” nonsense, the GOP will cease to exist.

STOP EXPORTING AMERICAN JOBS.


29 posted on 12/01/2012 3:41:40 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: erkelly; Maine Mariner
Thank you erkelly for your reply here. Christine O'Donnell did NOT bring up the witch thing, but spent too much time defending it.

She also was right in a local debate with Combs about the constitution but the media (wrongly, of course) ridiculed her and the sheeple were not familiar enough with the constitution to see that she was correct and their golden boy was wrong.

30 posted on 12/01/2012 3:44:19 PM PST by Abby4116
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: erkelly

Exactly my point, even seemingly harmless remarks can be taken out of context and blown out of proportion when a conservative runs for office. Mahar dredged up the video, G.W. Bush’s DWI made public the weekend before the election
and so forth and so on.


31 posted on 12/01/2012 4:00:31 PM PST by Maine Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Maine Mariner

Were you aware that the Republican state organization for Delaware actually refused to support Christine?

She did not bring up the witchcraft quote - that was brought up by the MSM. She was asked the question and she responded honestly. She lost because DE stabbed her in the back. :)


32 posted on 12/01/2012 4:15:21 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (They may take our lives... but they'll never take our FREEDOM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

I was and thanks for reminding all of us of the lack of support she received. I will never forget the attacks on Christine O’Donnell by Rove et. al. That is a big difference between Democrats and Republicans. The Rats want to win and even if a candidate was flawed would say noting. Pubs on the other hand, well you are spot on with your observatons.


33 posted on 12/01/2012 4:27:14 PM PST by Maine Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: chimera

Santorum was a sitting Senator who got humiliated in a voter rejection debacle that made the history books.

Christine was a never elected candidate, who didn’t win after her party had campaigned against her, for instance Rove, who went on TV the night of her primary win and dumped all over her, Rove got in front of the cameras for that entire week, to dampen any effect or momentum she should have had coming from her primary victory.

Santorum made election history as a Senator, Christine has never held office.


34 posted on 12/01/2012 5:02:43 PM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer's successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Maine Mariner; JCBreckenridge
cod


35 posted on 12/01/2012 5:20:52 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: chimera

“O’Donnell just said something stupid (like Allen and Akin and Mourdock) that gave fodder to the ‘Rats and the media, and was taken way off message by having to deal with it.”

Sure, 20 years prior to running and the media savaged her for it.


36 posted on 12/01/2012 6:12:18 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (They may take our lives... but they'll never take our FREEDOM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I'm not challenging the assertion that Santorum got clobbered. For that reason I think he would be a poor choice for national office. Not that he holds the wrong position on the issues. But that he likely would not be successful in gathering a large percentage of the vote. His record as a vote-getter in his home state is not good. Generally that bodes poorly for ones chances in a national contest. But he did not make any major blunders, he just got beat badly by a combination of the things I noted. He didn't get sidetracked by issues of witchcraft like O'Donnell allowed herself to do. That is a stupid thing to do from a political tactics viewpoint. It's the last thing you want to have happen in a campaign. Likewise the candidacies of Akin and Mourdock this year. They got trapped up in their own rhetoric and the press and the ‘Rats made mincemeat of them. George Allen let slip one uncouth word and it has basically destroyed his political career. Our candidates need to be smarter than this. They need to state their positions clearly but in a way that doesn't allow the media and the ‘Rats to paint a portrait of them that is nothing more than a caricature.
37 posted on 12/01/2012 6:21:16 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

It’s not enough to merely earn more votes than previous. You have to hit a moving target. Population growth has increased in the last four years.


38 posted on 12/01/2012 6:24:56 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (They may take our lives... but they'll never take our FREEDOM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: chimera

Santorum brings exactly what Romney brought to the table. 11 states. He had blowouts in Oklahoma and in Missouri.

We spend all our time talking about his electoral failures and none about his electoral successes.


39 posted on 12/01/2012 6:30:06 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (They may take our lives... but they'll never take our FREEDOM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: chimera

No one is the gaffe machine that Mitt Romney is, and it helped cost him the presidency, Akin won in a close to equal, three way split in the primary, and evidently can’t handle discussing his own favorite issues, I guess the same can be said for Mourdock, Mourdock by the way, was the only senate candidate that Romney endorsed and campaigned for, Akin had the GOP campaigning against him, like some GOP candidates did in 2010.

Santorum though, is in his own category, he didn’t lose his senate seat by 2 or 6 points, it was by a history making 17.4%, it was a colossal wipe out, epic, he must have said something wrong to get driven from office and become the laughing stock of the nation.


40 posted on 12/01/2012 6:31:43 PM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer's successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I can't recall any major gaffes by Santorum. All I'm saying is look at the dynamics of that race. Santorum was running against an opponent who carried the name of his very popular late father, who died too young. That means a sympathy vote and an advantage in name recognition. If he were a relatively unknown candidate he would not have that factor in his favor. But because he was Robert Casey Jr., it blunted any advantage in name recognition Santorum may have had from being the incumbent. 2006 was a brutal year for Republicans nationally. It was a ‘Rat tsunami on a national scale that wiped out many ‘Pubs. Finally, PA has been trending ‘Rat for a generation. It had not voted for a ‘Pub presidential candidate since 1988. Frankly I'm surprised Santorum survived as long as he did in that state, which has been (and will be) conquered territory for a long time. Too much union influence, too much fraud.
41 posted on 12/01/2012 6:47:37 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: chimera

You already said that and it explained nothing, after 12 years in the senate, Senator Santorum was wiped out, destroyed, humiliated, tarred and feathered, he made it into the books, he wasn’t part of a wave, he was hit by a personal tsunami aimed at him.

Twelve year incumbents don’t get wiped out like that without having blown it badly.


42 posted on 12/01/2012 6:55:00 PM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer's successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
So what did he say exactly to blow it? Did he talk about witches or witchcraft? Did he say anything about "legitimate rape" or some kind of magic uterus that would prevent pregnancy in the event of rape? Did he say anything that would allow a dishonest media to conflate rape and "God's Will"? Did he call anyone a macaca? Did he go overseas and talk about how a friendly nation was unprepared to host an Olympic Games, or about half the country being dependent on government aid?

Actually, what I said explained a lot. It outlined the historical context of the Senate race in PA that year and the kinds of factors that were in play in the overall dynamic. You can blow those off if you want, but you do so at your political peril. One of the biggest mistakes you can make in politics is to ignore the larger picture. Santorum was not running that race in isolation. There were many a good 'Pub candidate that got wiped out in the wave of anti-Republican sentiment whipped up by the media and the 'Rats that year.

43 posted on 12/01/2012 7:09:10 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

“We were 4.5M votes short this year. How do we get the 5M+ we’re going to need in 2016??

Maybe talk about “legitimate rape” some more? That is a big winner with women. Not.

The truth is the opponent nationalized the election, using some remarkably stupid phrases to define the entire party’s slate.


44 posted on 12/01/2012 7:20:07 PM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
It’s not enough to merely earn more votes than previous. You have to hit a moving target. Population growth has increased in the last four years.

But evangelicals are not increasing as fast as other voting groups. They may actually be declining in absolute numbers due to attrition. For them to vote in record numbers for Mitt Romney is remarkable. Ralph Reed called it 'astonishing'.

Romney’s 78 percent showing among white evangelicals was 10 points higher than Arizona Sen. John McCain’s in 2008. “Evangelicals turned out in record numbers and voted as heavily for Mitt Romney yesterday as they did for George W. Bush in 2004,” said Ralph Reed, chairman of TK-based Faith and Freedom Coalition. “That is an astonishing outcome that few would have predicted even a few months ago.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/romney-evangelical-vote-obama/2012/11/07/id/463268

____________________________________________________________

Romney turned out the base - big time. Analyses of this election that do not recognize this fact are flawed.

45 posted on 12/01/2012 7:20:29 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: chimera

Geez, he was disgraced, he didn’t just lose, he was humiliated, the man was a disaster.

Nobody voted for him, not whites, not men, he had burned everyone, he had burned conservatives, everyone, the people came to despise him, distrust him, dislike him, and they showed it by not voting for him.

You can’t explain away a massive defeat like that without admitting that the candidate had destroyed himself during his 12 years in the office.

The only person that Santorum has never betrayed, or never been disloyal to is Arlen Specter, who he supported in 2004, and AGAIN in 2010, until Specter finally joined the democrats. Santorum was dead set against ever allowing Toomey into the Senate.


46 posted on 12/01/2012 7:27:48 PM PST by ansel12 (The only Senate seat GOP pick up was the Palin endorsed Deb Fischer's successful run in Nebraska)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

“The Biggest Lesson the GOP Should Learn from the Election”

There may be not be any useful “lessons” the GOP can or should learn from the last election.

The country is changing, has changed. It’s not the same as it was even ten years ago. We won’t be going back — at least not any time soon, if ever.

The country is also “dividing” into at least two separate “camps” — the red and the blue. Reconciliation and reunification are all-but impossible, as the two sides are diametrically opposed and either side sees little or nothing in common with the other.

Just as there was an “Era of Good Feeling” in the early nineteenth century, we are now in an “Era of Uncertainty”, where we face a future in which past “solutions” can no longer be applied to new situations. The old, tried-and-true don’t work no’ mo’.

Rough road ahead...


47 posted on 12/01/2012 7:34:46 PM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Who, and specifically how, did Santorum "burn" anyone? What exactly does "burn" mean, anyway? How specifically did he "destroy" himself in office? Did he sponsor any unpopular or harmful legislation? Did he support any President who caused harm to the country? Did he fail to support a President in time of national emergency or during wartime, as perhaps during the Iraq war, or after 9/11? Where specifically were the major gaffes in the 2006 campaign? What specifically did he say to get off-message or insult any protected or minority group? Did he make statements about his pro-life position that allowed his words to be twisted into a caricature of their actual meaning, and then spend the rest of the campaign fending off attacks based on that?

The truth is that he got wiped out in a national tidal wave of discontent with almost anyone with an "R" after their name. Look at the history. Santorum won office in '94 in a close race against Harris Wofford, who was basically a dull and vapid candidate. He won in 2000 by a better margin against Ron Klink, but Klink turned a lot of voters off with his abrasive personality. PA was trending 'Rat during this time so it is actually a mild surprise that Santorum was able to shake out these wins. When he came up against a very popular opponent in a tough year in a state whose political leanings had gone against him, he was facing a perfect storm of an election. I'm pretty surprised it wasn't a wider margin. There were many races in 2006 that showed a lot worse blowout than Santorum. One was right here in my state, which is not trending 'Rat as strongly as PA, and in '06 our candidate for Governor got blown out by almost 24 percentage points. Our candidate for Senate got clobbered by 13 points, not as bad as Santorum, but the 'Rat candidate who won was extremely liberal and definitely far to the left of mainstream political opinion in the state. They didn't "burn" anybody, they didn't "betray" anybody, they just got wiped out by the hate-Bush, hate-Republicans, hate-conservatives sentiment whipped up that year.

48 posted on 12/01/2012 8:00:59 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Who, and specifically how, did Santorum "burn" anyone? What exactly does "burn" mean, anyway? How specifically did he "destroy" himself in office? Did he sponsor any unpopular or harmful legislation? Did he support any President who caused harm to the country? Did he fail to support a President in time of national emergency or during wartime, as perhaps during the Iraq war, or after 9/11? Where specifically were the major gaffes in the 2006 campaign? What specifically did he say to get off-message or insult any protected or minority group? Did he make statements about his pro-life position that allowed his words to be twisted into a caricature of their actual meaning, and then spend the rest of the campaign fending off attacks based on that?

The truth is that he got wiped out in a national tidal wave of discontent with almost anyone with an "R" after their name. Look at the history. Santorum won office in '94 in a close race against Harris Wofford, who was basically a dull and vapid candidate. He won in 2000 by a better margin against Ron Klink, but Klink turned a lot of voters off with his abrasive personality. PA was trending 'Rat during this time so it is actually a mild surprise that Santorum was able to shake out these wins. When he came up against a very popular opponent in a tough year in a state whose political leanings had gone against him, he was facing a perfect storm of an election. I'm pretty surprised it wasn't a wider margin. There were many races in 2006 that showed a lot worse blowout than Santorum. One was right here in my state, which is not trending 'Rat as strongly as PA, and in '06 our candidate for Governor got blown out by almost 24 percentage points. Our candidate for Senate got clobbered by 13 points, not as bad as Santorum, but the 'Rat candidate who won was extremely liberal and definitely far to the left of mainstream political opinion in the state. They didn't "burn" anybody, they didn't "betray" anybody, they just got wiped out by the hate-Bush, hate-Republicans, hate-conservatives sentiment whipped up that year.

49 posted on 12/01/2012 8:03:00 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: chimera

Sorry for the double post. The website is acting very hinky again.


50 posted on 12/01/2012 8:04:23 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-102 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson